There is still discussion internally at Canon about an APS-C EOS R camera

Canon Rumors Guy

CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
There have been countless rumors and opinions of whether or not Canon will be bringing an APS-C camera with an RF mount to market to take the place of the Canon EOS 7D series of DSLRs. Most of the information has been quite vague through the years.
I have been told that Canon has actively been doing market research with select pros and others to see if there is a real demand for such a camera.  The EOS M line of Canon cameras is in a state of unknown, though I have reported a few times that the EOS M lineup will ride off into the sunset in its current form in favor of the RF mount.
There are zero plans for Canon to make RF-S lenses, and I think this makes a ton of sense.
I still think we’re going to see one someday, but I don’t know what sort of timeline we’re looking at. Canon still needs to work on the full-frame lineup, especially when it comes to new and “affordable” camera bodies to replace the EOS R and EOS RP.
I have more information on this topic that I’m going to keep...

Continue reading...



from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
Canon should have released the RF mount on the M body. Granted it'd make the M bodies a little taller, but they could then reorganize the internals a bit to be a little shallower or narrower. The bigger mount would force a greater height but no greater volume for the body.

The EF-M lenses would instead be RF mount in this case. They could have the same narrow barrel size with a slight flare at the base to fit the bigger mount. Some clown on this forum I'm now blocking claims such a flare would kill sales for the lens line but I can't see how. Lenses have always sold fine getting big towards the front so I don't see why the reverse would be the case. Just like the camera, the lenses wouldn't increase in volume, and I don't think people care about the diameter of lenses in their backpack or lens shelf at home, but rather the volume.

So among those lenses, some could be small image circle as the EF-M lenses in fact are. But they could also have introduced quite a number of modest primes--which my lens line theory would call consumer or street lenses--with full-sensor image circles, for almost the same cost as small-sensor-image circle. (For instance 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 or 85/2.8), the cost of the optics themselves is tiny; more money is surely going into the lens barrel, IS sensors and motors, and so on.) Since these lenses would be not only for the small-sensor cameras but also preparing the way for a potential full-frame sensor camera, they could afford to introduce a few more of them. Let's say. As to why the small-sensor shooter would want them? They'd only be fractionally heavier or more expensive to buy. However they'd probably have far less vignetting. And this would hold out the promise (to the extent the consumers were even aware they were buying full-frame lenses) that the lenses would continue to have serious value used, and that their system would continue on for decades, in both ways protecting their investment.


OK, at this point, we have an alternate-reality full of RF-mount lenses (some with small image circle) and RF-mount cameras with small sensors. If Canon never introduces the full-frame mirrorless, fair enough, no real harm done. Just keep making these small-sensor RF bodies, at some point forget the big-image-circle lenses, and just support this M-like RF ecosystem for decades.

But in fact, Canon, they DID introduce the R with its full-frame sensor. And given the above strategy, then from the very first day there's be not only several more full-sensor lenses available (lenses the RF lineup is sorely missing today, mind you!) but a bunch of compact small-image-circle that, at a pinch, could be used on full-frame bodies.

And note a special ability such a lens would have: it casts a circular image on the full-frame sensor, but you needn't crop it to a specific rectangle at exposure time. You can save the whole image, and in post processing, take a normal 3:2 cut, or a vertical 2:3. Or a square, or whatever. If the camera wasn't leveled you can rotate the image a few degrees without losing pixels. This would give a benefit to using a full-frame R body with a small-circle lens that you wouldn't have with a small-sensor body. In short this combination would be mid-way between the current R and M lines in power and resolution.

I wish Canon had gone down this road. I wish I could just put the 22/2 or 18-55 zoom on my R body now and then, when I wanted something smaller in my backpack than my 24-120 but didn't want to go buy an entire second M outfit to have more portability and more importantly invest the huge time commiting the new system to muscle memory, establishing the workflow, and so on.
Last edited:
Jul 12, 2011
Canon can't cede the APS market to Fuji or now Nikon and maintain its revenue stream. Polling professionals is like asking someone who just bought a Porsche if he'd be happy with a Volkswagen. The Rebel line is important to bring in new customers, keep a high percentage of current users and to fend off other industry players. A low function, low price full frame camera still needs (so far) expensive lenses and may not be the best marketing strategy.

H. Jones

Aug 1, 2014
I can already picture a "Rebel" branded APS-C mirrorless camera. Eventually as technology moves on, whether that's 5 years from now or 15 years from now, it's not going to make sense for Canon to continue producing mirror-slapper tech and EF lenses just for their low end options.


CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
The Un corrected vignette on the RF24-240 looks suspiciously like a lens that would work better on aps -c


I decided to compare it to my 18-200 EF-M Tamron, and it looks like, within the cropped area they are about the same (and it's minimal)--I refer here to the barrel/fisheye distortion. I'm just eyeballing it but that's what I got.


Sep 11, 2010
I think that an ASPC R-mount camera makes a lot of sense, and if so, it should be supported by a few RF-S lenses. You can them mount RF and RF-S lenses without an adapter, similar to mounting EF and EF-S on a crop DSLR. The difference would be that you could also mount an RF-S lens on a full-frame camera, which would then switch into crop mode. This wasn't possible with DSLRs due to mirror clearance issues.

Such a system would provide a clear upgrade path, unlike moving from M to R.


Feb 5, 2020
Simplifying mounts is not a bad idea. It's amazing how many people still don't know which lens fits which camera.
Facebook photography groups are full of questions like: I just purchased a Rebel X, will this or that lens fit on it?
So true. I find negative Amazon reviews on lenses where people hammer the product for not fitting on their camera. That’s not a bad product. That’s a bad customer.


Feb 10, 2021
Unless Canon can produce a ~$750 full frame R camera, then they'll need a crop body with an RF mount to attract the entry level market. The M line is good, but it's a locked-in system without the ability to mount/upgrade to Canon's amazing new RF lenses.

I think the M line was a massive misstep.


EOS M6 Mark II
Feb 22, 2019
Every time this comes up, self-styled experts will opine that there is no longer any market for APS-C. I cannot say for other niches, but those who express these opinions completely fail to understand the nature photography niche and understand how big it is. We're not necessarily talking about pro nature shooters here, but general bird and macro photographers. The niche is massive. Who do you think buys all those high end binoculars and scopes. The simply fact is if you use FF, you inevitably end up cropping it to less than APS-C size - I mean nearly every photo. I shoot FF as well. I am speaking from experience.


R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
Unless Canon can produce a ~$750 full frame R camera, then they'll need a crop body with an RF mount to attract the entry level market. The M line is good, but it's a locked-in system without the ability to mount/upgrade to Canon's amazing new RF lenses.

I think the M line was a massive misstep.
No need for a "Canon" lens on a M-50 or M6. There are Sigma lenses which work wonderfully


R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
Much bla bla about nothing. CR has been on this same rumor for years. Canon's M50 and M6 sell very well. Despite the cry over APSC. People just don't care. Sigma lenses work perfectly well. The M50 or M6 isn't the answer for apsc lens sales. No need to try an fix what isnt broken.


Feb 5, 2020
Unless Canon can produce a ~$750 full frame R camera, then they'll need a crop body with an RF mount to attract the entry level market. The M line is good, but it's a locked-in system without the ability to mount/upgrade to Canon's amazing new RF lenses.

I think the M line was a massive misstep.
A lot of camera manufacturers wish they could, “misstep” into Canons sales figures on the ‘M’. “Whoopsie! We’re selling more cameras than anybody!”


Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
Frankfurt, Germany
Dear internal Canon discussion team: you can count at least both on PhilRP and me for a fast, responsive ML 7D II successor with decent low light performance :D. And I am pretty sure there are more future users you can make happy. If this world really deserves something, then it is a bit more happiness :giggle:. Plus, "7" stands for luck at least in Western mythology and fairy tales.