There may be as many as three RF mount APS-C cameras on the horizon [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
If the flange distance is similar between R and M then an M size body with an R lens is possible, surely. I spend my days hunting butterflies with my M6ii with a 55-250mm EFS. Great image quality and no weight. There's nothing Canon that can compare.
This.
And others like it.
Size. Mass. Volume. Picture quality.
And the mass (or lack thereof) is very important: for example...the tripod necessary to 'hold' the M6 Mark2/11-22mm IS lens combo is oh-so-light itself.
The M system is amazing.
To quote: "There is nothing Canon that can compare."
Furthermore, the primary APSC competition (Fuji)...check out those prices (including lenses)...easy to do with the recent dpreview article on various APSC cameras.
DPReview TV: High-end APS-C mirrorless camera comparison
This week, Chris and Jordan compare four flagship APS-C mirrorless cameras: the Sony a6600, Fujifilm X-T4, Canon M6 Mark II and Nikon Z50. See how these great models stack up against each other.
m.dpreview.com
Thanks for reading!
Mainly agree. But miss the 32 1.4, even it is a little bit pricy. It's a great lens and works very well (for me) in combination with my M6 II. If this lens would work on an EOS R - APS-C... Would be great value for size and money.
Well, Canon could have a R9 crop sensor camera come out without an EVF, solely using the back LCD. They could make that pretty small & light if they wanted to. But they better have some small & light cropped zooms to go with it at a low price point.
If that's "the plan" then Canon had better make some affordable R mount lenses available. The current 10-18 and 55-250 are both excellent lenses for the price. Given that nobody "needs" a mirrorless camera other than marketing hype, Canon has it's work cut out for it.
Seems to me Canon could quite easily rebarrel the optics of some, even all, of the M series lenses to work with an APS-C R camera. The M sensor is only a couple of millimeters closer than the R spec and the wider diameter of the R mount is enough larger to allow for a bit extra metal or plastic to scoot the M type optics the necessary 2 millimeters closer to the sensor.
If completely new designs, optical, mechanical, electrical, are not needed for lenses for an APS R camera that may make introducing a APS sensor R series more practical from a resource allocation perspective. Of course, some extra special new lens designs for APS R cameras would be nice, too.
If completely new designs, optical, mechanical, electrical, are not needed for lenses for an APS R camera that may make introducing a APS sensor R series more practical from a resource allocation perspective. Of course, some extra special new lens designs for APS R cameras would be nice, too.
Look at the Canon DSLR line-up. There is a clearly differentiated naming scheme and throughout the entire scheme Canon has held several spots open, just in case they needed them (e.g. 2d/ 3d/ 4d/ 8d/ 9d).
Furtermore, the R7 is the only APS-C camera that had a single number camera model. There is/ was a reason for that. Since Canon is now using their old DSLR naming scheme since the introduction of the R5/R6, they are very likely to expand that to the APS-C models...
That must be irony?!? I can't seriously believe you'd think that...
- One (or two) full-frame entry level cameras are much more important for the R System than three APS-C cameras...
- Furthermore, there are quite a few good cheap lenses to pair them with such as the 35mm, 24-240mm and the 24-105mm F4-7.1 and the 18-45mm. & 100-400mm to come. For APS-C there are zero lenses...
- Canon has stated several times to bring cheap(er) cameras. Even a cheaper one than the RP...
- the R6 costs 3.000 $ in Germany...thats not entry level. Canon wants a sub 1k full-frame camera and there is a clear need for a camera slated between 1.500 -2.000 $...
- Canon started the "cheap-full-frame" camera deal with great success, Sony and Nikon follow suit. There's just no way Canon is going to quit releasing cheap full-frame cameras...
The RP and R successors will be fit into the naming scheme, therefore no R8 APS-C or R9 APS-C
I sort of get the R7 being a spiritual 7D successor, but what would the model number be for the full-frame Canon RP replacement?
R 8/9 just as was summed up early on here. Caveat, no one knows what they are talking about here. But that's what makes it occasionally fun, right?
When the EF-M series cameras came out, they did not stop making ef-s cameras. There is no reason why an RF APS-C camera couldn't co-exist, at least for a while.
For the naming, I'm not sold on them using r7/r8/r9. Maybe if they add a letter designation , like r7c. They could even come out with a r8 and r8c at different price points but using the same body. But it's perplexing and doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Everyone wants 'R7' because of the 7d. Maybe that's it, maybe they use 7R / 8R instead to designate APS-C. They could then introduce a R8 that is a full frame R or RP replacement.
That's also the reason why I'm not sure that they will make an RF-S lens. The only way that makes sense is if they try to make it as small as possible, but they really can't go smaller than the RF mount size itself. I think it's more likely just to make a common lens as cheap as possible so it will work for both an R8c and R8.
One thing that might be driving this is the issues with producing silicon, not the cost of it. With the limited constraint in the market supposed to last for another few years, they can get 4-5 more APS-C chips per 35mm chip. In a normal timeline I almost wonder if they expected to drift the MSRP for the R6 down to the 1700 level and the r5 down to the 2900 level so they could introduce the r3 at a 4500 level. But with the constraints and demand they've been able to keep the same price point so are now looking at other ways to get to those levels.
For the naming, I'm not sold on them using r7/r8/r9. Maybe if they add a letter designation , like r7c. They could even come out with a r8 and r8c at different price points but using the same body. But it's perplexing and doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Everyone wants 'R7' because of the 7d. Maybe that's it, maybe they use 7R / 8R instead to designate APS-C. They could then introduce a R8 that is a full frame R or RP replacement.
That's also the reason why I'm not sure that they will make an RF-S lens. The only way that makes sense is if they try to make it as small as possible, but they really can't go smaller than the RF mount size itself. I think it's more likely just to make a common lens as cheap as possible so it will work for both an R8c and R8.
One thing that might be driving this is the issues with producing silicon, not the cost of it. With the limited constraint in the market supposed to last for another few years, they can get 4-5 more APS-C chips per 35mm chip. In a normal timeline I almost wonder if they expected to drift the MSRP for the R6 down to the 1700 level and the r5 down to the 2900 level so they could introduce the r3 at a 4500 level. But with the constraints and demand they've been able to keep the same price point so are now looking at other ways to get to those levels.
A successful mirrorless APS-C line will require a line of lenses smaller and lighter than most of the current RF products. Otherwise, there is little advantage for most people to go with APS-C instead of full frame. The rumored 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM might be such a lens, and the current 50mm 1.8 is probably fine as well. But the other zooms and even the 35mm 1.8 seem large for APS-C.
Doing a nice APS-C line anytime soon seems unlikely given the inability to meet demand for the current FF R mount products.
Doing a nice APS-C line anytime soon seems unlikely given the inability to meet demand for the current FF R mount products.
Looking good for Canon and for Nikon to expand its Z ML (FF) system more into APS-C; opening up range of affordable cameras and cropped lenses to get into the system and for the punter to add more better APS-C gear and FF gear as time goes by.
We likely see closure of Canon's EOS M system but it has done well - good range of cameras & lenses; certainly a path that Nikon should have done instead of their less than ideal first forray into Mirrorless - heavily cropped Nikon 1".
That’s a pretty easy one - imagine an M50 or M6 with a larger lens mount… in much the same way that the Rebel SL series cameras were smaller in form factor than the 80D etc. The only potential obstacle to that plan is hand grip.
The high megapixel R camera and the video oriented R camera is still missing in the line up..
I agree, R7 for a 7D succesor makes sense, but for the rest of the naming R8 and R9 would make a lot more sense for succesors of the EOS R and RP and a R10 and R100 would make more sense for succesors of the 90D and 800D/850D or whatever these are called in the Rebel world ;-).
I don’t get the idea that the M system doesn’t make economical sense. There is a complete lineup of lenses (three or four primes and three or four zooms) – canon apparently doesn’t think that M customers need anything more than that. And then they just release and sell a new body every few years.
If there are apsc RF mount cameras I’ll see them as apsc DSLR replacements, not necessarily the M series replacement.
canon will sell M-mount as long as people buy it. And the M50 is canons best selling camera (I know, not the most profitable though)
If there are apsc RF mount cameras I’ll see them as apsc DSLR replacements, not necessarily the M series replacement.
canon will sell M-mount as long as people buy it. And the M50 is canons best selling camera (I know, not the most profitable though)
Similar threads
- Contains 3 staff post(s)
