There may be a higher-end APS-C mirrorless announced in late 2020, early 2021 [CR2]

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Sure (although I'd caution against using your anecdotal experience as evidence, I've met fewer 7D users than you no doubt, but none of them had a FF camera as well). But that's rather beside the point - it's not an upgrade path as is commonly meant here. Cross-compatibility of lenses makes it easier to use APS-C and FF bodies at the same time, but the people who've criticised Canon (or at least been confused by the current approach) were framing it is bad because they claimed the progression from APS-C to FF was no longer there (because M lenses can't be mounted on RF bodies). I expect the number of people using both is even smaller than the number who went from exclusively one to the other, and both numbers are dwarfed by the cohort who never 'progressed' at all, hence Canon's decision to make the systems incompatible in that regard.
As I've stated several times already, I doesn't seem to me that Canon is at all concerned about providing an upgrade path from EOS M to EOS R! Not at all!

They're determined that the new entry level for all serious photographers will be a full frame R body that is as cheap as APS-C x0D bodies were 15 years ago. Already the RP is one-half the price of what a 20D cost, when adjusted for inflation, when it was introduced in 2004!

The M series of cameras and lenses has always been about non-enthusiasts who want an affordable camera and a couple of lenses that are compact and easy to carry with them when a phone is not enough for the photos they wish to take of social events or travel/holidays/vacations in their lives. The M series has never been about self-described "photographers", it has always been about "the masses" who have made it the top selling mirrorless system in the world.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
And Canon may see that as a distinction without a difference.
The fact that every.single.lens.Canon.has.ever.made.in.the.EF-M.mount is 61mm in diameter and relatively small and light, which matches the small and light bodies of every.single.EF-M.camera.Canon.has.ever.made argues against your proposition.

They most definitely see a distinction between the niche the EOS M series of bodies and lenses occupy that meets the desires of most "non-photographer" people and the far broader range of the EF lens system with something for all of the various specialists among the enthusiast and professional "photographer" ranks.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
The mount has nothing to do with the size and the number of buttons! There's no reason they couldn't put the M mount on a body even bigger and chunkier than the 7D.

The EOS-M system has existed for over eight years.

How many bodies and lenses have been released in the EOS-M system over that eight years that are compact and lightweight?

Every.Single.One.

How many bodies and lenses have been released in the EOS-M system over that eight years that are not compact and lightweight?

Not.A.Single.One.

Canon's vision for the place the EOS M system occupies in their catalog does not seem to include larger bodies and lenses.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
What if Canon didn't launch an APS-C RF mount camera? What would people do? Probably buy an R5 instead I'd imagine, especially in a year or so when the price comes down - which I'm sure it will the day after Sony announces the A7RV.


I'm not really a birder so I can't really say what birders want out of a camera, but I would think that a full-frame camera is going to be a better option even if you're intending to crop in to the image because you've got more sensor space for the camera to track the bird while it's flying even if you're only intending to crop in to the center part of the image.
You're obviously not really a birder.

Even when using an APS-C body there's usually plenty of room to crop. That's why pixel density is so paramount to them!
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
RF lenses are heavy and expensive - why use them on a crop camera?
For all of the reasons Steve and I have been endlessly repeating here about why the vast majority of 7D-series users used EF lenses, rather than EF-S lenses, on 7D-Series cameras.

Yet folks who apparently have never even shot a single frame with a 7-series body, nor for the most part shot the types of things most 7-series body owners shoot, keep telling us about why we wouldn't need to use an APS-C body in the exact way almost all 7-series bodies have been used in the past.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: digigal

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
AS I said, give it another year or two and you might see an APS-C R5 variant at a lower price. The 7D2 was launched 2 and a half years after the 5D III.

The 5D Mark IV launched in early 2016, eighteen months after the 7D Mark II was launched in late 2014, was identically priced to the 5D Mark III launched in 2012.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Again, you can put the EF-M mount on any size body. Just because existing EF-M mount bodies are compact doesn't mean you can't do something much bigger with the same mount.
You can.

But Canon apparently isn't going to do so.

They've explained more than once why the R mount has a 54mm throat and a 20mm registration distance. It's designed to allow maximum performance. The EOS M mount, on the other hand, was designed for compactness.

Just because Canon has been extremely consistent with the compact size and styling of EVERY.SINGLE.EOS M.BODY.AND.EVERY.SINGLE.EF-M.LENS for the over eight years that the EOS M system has existed is absolutely no reason at all to conclude that Canon sees the EOS M system as a what it has been from the beginning until the present? Just because the EOS M system is currently the best selling mirrorless system on the planet is no reason for Canon not to completely change the direction they take for the EOS M system, is it?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Well, I stand by that statement. There's no way that the FF sensor is 50% of the cost of the camera in 2020.
There's no way anywhere near 50% of the cost of an R5 is related to the cost of actually building the thing, either. It's all about what the camera can do at that price point compared to what other cameras can do at other price points. Canon's prices have always been market driven, rather than cost driven. Always.
 

koenkooi

EOS R
Feb 25, 2015
1,180
968
How well did the E-M1X go over as the body that was going to rescue Olympus?
Well, if Canon can give us that body for a 7D price point it should do better than the R5-like price point of the Olympus body. I realize that would make it a mini-1Dx for a third of the price.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Of course, no one knows what Canon's strategy or plans may be. I'm still leaning toward an M7 rather than an R7. I get that people want to use some RF glass on a crop sensor camera, but I don't see that as sufficient reason for Canon to muck up the clear segmentation of APS-C and Full Frame in their mirrorless lineup. I'm guessing they'd like to get out of the mixing and matching sensor size business and have a clear differentiation between full frame and APS-C.
I don't see that as sufficient reason for Canon to muck up the clear segmentation of the entire EOS M system, currently the best selling mirrorless system in the world*, as a targeted, niche segment aimed at the non-enthusiast, non-"photographer" masses who want a small, affordable (comparable to the Sony α6x00 series or the µ4/3 system), compact ILC.

Building a large, 7-series type body for the EOS M line makes about as much sense as the Olympus OM-D EM-1X. How'd that go for Olympus?

* at least until Q3 2020 numbers are released...


As Nikon demonstrated with the D500, you only need one lens to sell a high end APS-C body. Canon could easily make a long zoom in the M mount, a 100-500 or maybe even something odd, like a 150-550 f6.3. They already have M mount lenses available for shorter focal lengths, so no pressure to add anything new at that end.
Is the AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E VR a DX or FX lens? (hint: it's not an APS-C only lens)

That could just as easily be applied to a single APS-C body in the RF system created to sell a specific RF lens or specific series of RF lenses that can be used on either FF or APS-C cameras.

If Canon goes ahead with a higher megapixel R body, then there is even less reason to put an APS-C sensor in an R body -- not when cropping in-camera is so easy.
Except for cost and frame rate. I would not expect an 80MP+ R5s to have the same frame rates as the R5 and R6. I would expect an R7 to have a slightly faster frame rate than the R5 in the same way that the $1,799 7D Mark II (2014) has a faster frame rate than the $3,499 5D Mark IV (2016).

Time will tell, but my money is on an M7 that sits at the top of the lineup.
May the odds be ever in your favor.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Well, if Canon can give us that body for a 7D price point it should do better than the R5-like price point of the Olympus body. I realize that would make it a mini-1Dx for a third of the price.
EOS 7D Mark II (2014): $1,799 (described by many as a "mini 1D X")

EOS 1D X (2012): $6,499
EOS 1D X Mark II (2014): $5,999
EOS 1D X Mark III (2020): $6,499

The 7D Mark II was only marginally more than one-fourth the price of the 1DX introduced in 2012 and was less than one-third the price of the 1D X Mark II introduced in 2016. (27% and 30%, respectively)

The reduced introductory price of the 1D X Mark II in 2016 was interpreted by many as a concession to the contemporary Nikon D5 AF system that many thought beat Canon's 1-Series AF system for the first time ever. With the Nikon D6 not up to the same level as the 1D X Mark III in 2020, the introductory price for the 1D X Mark III returned to the same as the 1D X.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Sure (although I'd caution against using your anecdotal experience as evidence, I've met fewer 7D users than you no doubt, but none of them had a FF camera as well). But that's rather beside the point - it's not an upgrade path as is commonly meant here. Cross-compatibility of lenses makes it easier to use APS-C and FF bodies at the same time, but the people who've criticised Canon (or at least been confused by the current approach) were framing it is bad because they claimed the progression from APS-C to FF was no longer there (because M lenses can't be mounted on RF bodies). I expect the number of people using both is even smaller than the number who went from exclusively one to the other, and both numbers are dwarfed by the cohort who never 'progressed' at all, hence Canon's decision to make the systems incompatible in that regard.
Which argues an R7 would be more likely than an M7. Now there *would* be an upgrade path from the R7 to the R5/R6 without having to change out one's entire EF-M lens inventory as would be the case from an M7 to an R5/R6.
 
Last edited:

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,310
641
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
There's no way anywhere near 50% of the cost of an R5 is related to the cost of actually building the thing, either. It's all about what the camera can do at that price point compared to what other cameras can do at other price points. Canon's prices have always been market driven, rather than cost driven. Always.
True. But we're also in a more challenging time for cameras than we've ever been in before. I'm not convinced the demand for a pro APS-C camera is anywhere near the demand for the R5 - so why would Canon sacrifice profit instead of just waiting for the inevitable drift from these people moving over to FF full-time?

Remember, you can shoot APS-C crop on a FF mirrorless with full viewfinder coverage of the APS-C area expanded, something that was never possible on FF DSLRs.

I'm probably wrong on this - and maybe Canon will release an affordable R7 in no time at all. But I still can't see how it can be cheaper than the R6 if it's going to have R5 build as it WILL be a more premium product than the R6 (with a higher resolution, too) - it would be identically priced to the R6 at time of launch.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,310
641
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
You can.

But Canon apparently isn't going to do so.

They've explained more than once why the R mount has a 54mm throat and a 20mm registration distance. It's designed to allow maximum performance. The EOS M mount, on the other hand, was designed for compactness.

Just because Canon has been extremely consistent with the compact size and styling of EVERY.SINGLE.EOS M.BODY.AND.EVERY.SINGLE.EF-M.LENS for the over eight years that the EOS M system has existed is absolutely no reason at all to conclude that Canon sees the EOS M system as a what it has been from the beginning until the present? Just because the EOS M system is currently the best selling mirrorless system on the planet is no reason for Canon not to completely change the direction they take for the EOS M system, is it?
Don't forget the EF-M mount was designed so that it *could* work with full-frame sensors (it's virtually identical to the FE mount on Sony which can still work with absolutely ANY design capable of working on the EF mount for full-frame). It was only later that Canon decided NOT to use this mount for full frame.

What this means is that for APS-C, the EF-M mount is similarly capable of maximum performance over older mounts for the smaller APS-C sensor as the RFmount is for full frame.

We've seen a slight increase in size on the EF-M mount since the first EOS-M through to the EOS M5. It wouldn't take much imagination to see Canon producing a more upmarket M body somewhere in size between the M5 and a 90D. We've already seen plans for a possible EF-M mount APS-C 100-400 5.0-7.1 lens which would fit nicely with this too.

It *could* happen, so could an EOS R7. I have no idea which will come.

As you've seen with the R5 and the new 600/800 lenses, Canon are anything but predictable!
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,310
641
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
The EOS-M system has existed for over eight years.

How many bodies and lenses have been released in the EOS-M system over that eight years that are compact and lightweight?

Every.Single.One.

How many bodies and lenses have been released in the EOS-M system over that eight years that are not compact and lightweight?

Not.A.Single.One.

Canon's vision for the place the EOS M system occupies in their catalog does not seem to include larger bodies and lenses.
How many EOS R bodies have been full frame

Every.Single.One

How many bodies and lenses have been released in the EOS R system that are not full-frame?

Not.A.Single.One


Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. Either Canon have to produce a chunkier EF-M body or they will release an APS-C R body. In both cases they're going to be doing something new for the mount. The other option is do nothing, and that's something only Canon's beancounters will know is in their interests or not.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
True. But we're also in a more challenging time for cameras than we've ever been in before. I'm not convinced the demand for a pro APS-C camera is anywhere near the demand for the R5 - so why would Canon sacrifice profit instead of just waiting for the inevitable drift from these people moving over to FF full-time?

Remember, you can shoot APS-C crop on a FF mirrorless with full viewfinder coverage of the APS-C area expanded, something that was never possible on FF DSLRs.

I'm probably wrong on this - and maybe Canon will release an affordable R7 in no time at all. But I still can't see how it can be cheaper than the R6 if it's going to have R5 build as it WILL be a more premium product than the R6 (with a higher resolution, too) - it would be identically priced to the R6 at time of launch.
Do you acknowledge that the 7D Mark II at launch was cheaper and had better build quality than the 5D Mark III? Not to mention the inferior 6D (in all but sensor size) was more than the 7D Mark II as well? An R7 for slightly less than the R6 would not be historically unprecedented compared to the history of the 7D series and the 6D series.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Don't forget the EF-M mount was designed so that it *could* work with full-frame sensors (it's virtually identical to the FE mount on Sony which can still work with absolutely ANY design capable of working on the EF mount for full-frame). It was only later that Canon decided NOT to use this mount for full frame.

What this means is that for APS-C, the EF-M mount is similarly capable of maximum performance over older mounts for the smaller APS-C sensor as the RFmount is for full frame.

We've seen a slight increase in size on the EF-M mount since the first EOS-M through to the EOS M5. It wouldn't take much imagination to see Canon producing a more upmarket M body somewhere in size between the M5 and a 90D. We've already seen plans for a possible EF-M mount APS-C 100-400 5.0-7.1 lens which would fit nicely with this too.

It *could* happen, so could an EOS R7. I have no idea which will come.

As you've seen with the R5 and the new 600/800 lenses, Canon are anything but predictable!
Actually, Sony can not make FF f/1.2 lenses to compete with Canon's due to the limitations of the E-mount throat diameter. Not all current EF lens designs can be done with the smaller throat diameter.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
How many EOS R bodies have been full frame

Every.Single.One

How many bodies and lenses have been released in the EOS R system that are not full-frame?

Not.A.Single.One


Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. Either Canon have to produce a chunkier EF-M body or they will release an APS-C R body. In both cases they're going to be doing something new for the mount. The other option is do nothing, and that's something only Canon's beancounters will know is in their interests or not.
The EOS R system is still less than two years out of the gate. They probably haven't revealed the complete model line yet.

The EOS M system is over eight years old with at least one "Mark II" design already on the market.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,310
641
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Actually, Sony can not make FF f/1.2 lenses to compete with Canon's due to the limitations of the E-mount throat diameter. Not all current EF lens designs can be done with the smaller throat diameter.
That's simply not true. Sony have chosen not to make FF 1.2 lenses, but the FE mount is perfectly capable of 1.2 designs. I use the EF 50mm f/1.2L and 85mm f/1.2L with great success on the Sony A7RII.


“Yes we could, but there is no market demand,” Tanaka says. “Maybe some demand exists for an f/1.2, but an f/1.0? Technically we could produce an f/1.0, but it would not make business sense.”

You can't make a 1.2 lens as compact as you can with the RF or Z mount on the FE mount, but it's totally possible. It's only the Nikon F mount for DSLRs that precludes 1.2 design due to the flange distance & throat diameter combination.