There may be as many as three RF mount APS-C cameras on the horizon [CR1]

[padam]

Next lens coming RF 14-35mm f/4L, Nokishita confirmed (does not say IS but it may still have it)

I guess that leaked RF roadmap starts to make more and more sense.

 

[dtaylor]

If you look at the Sigma fp or even the M200, you can see how small the body can be relative to the mount if you lose the multiple controllers.

Hopefully you're right and we see an R body that small. The M bodies plus the 22mm pancake...or even the kit zooms...are really perfect for those times when you want great photos but don't want to carry a full kit.

 

[Skux]

None of this makes any sense without an "RF-S" lens roadmap. No one is buying a hypothetical R7 just to pay through the nose for a big heavy 24-70mm and only use the middle of the glass. Unless they're birders who are putting on a 100-500mm.

If it's going to succeed EF-M, where is the light compact kit zoom? The 16mm vlogging lens? The 24mm street pancake?

 

[slclick]

R7.....JUST HOOK IT TO MY VEINNNNS

Thank you, seriously...thank you. I know it's open mic right now but I think Craig can book you a regular slot.

 

[slclick]

I see all of this CR1 as just "ok", as in Pete Davidson "Okay". Acceptance. I think Canon knows which way the wind blows and the finest optical M formulas (22mm I'm looking at you especially) will be ported over. Salvaging and repurposing assemblage saves hundreds of millions in a hundred part body. I bet there will be a couple unique bodies and a couple that look familiar (M5?). Look at Canon now...making FF mainstream.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Perhaps Canon doesn't care about your timetable.

Maybe they should be worried about the competition Einstein.

 

[HMC11]

Next lens coming RF 14-35mm f/4L, Nokishita confirmed (does not say IS but it may still have it)

I guess that leaked RF roadmap starts to make more and more sense.

That's good news! I hope that the IQ and pricing compared to the RF 15-35 F2.8L are similar to that between 70-200 F4 and 70-200 F2.8L. If so, it will be on my 'to purchase' list.

 

[Rocky]

APS-C R mount body + RF-S lenses = No upgrade path. Totally stuck with APS-C R-mount.
APS-C R mouint body + RF lenses = Big, Heavy and Expensive.
RP FF body + Cheap and slow RF lenses =Cheap and light weight to get into FF

 

[Michael Clark]

You can select the 1.6 crop in camera -- no waste of pixels or data throughput. Then you have the flexibility of a full frame camera for every day shooting. Two cameras in one.

Unless you also want to hang a wider lens on your FF body at the same time you're using a telephoto in crop mode.

 

[Michael Clark]

What? why?
And i say, there will be never a R or RP replacements... R5 mark ii or R6 mark ii or so...

There was a rumor posted the other day that Canon will introduce another FF model to fill the gap between the sub-$1000 RP replacement (R9?) and the $2600 R6. That will effectively be the EOS R replacement, but it won't be named EOS R Mark II.

 

[Michael Clark]

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

There will never be an R4. The number "4" is considered more unlucky in Japanese culture than the number "13" is in Western European culture.

 

[Michael Clark]

Coming this Summer *guitar solo starts* Canon and Mountain Dew are teaming up for a completely out of this world camera. The Flaming Hot Doritos Code Red EOS R420. With 5 radical colors, a shutter that sounds like a laser blaster, and an EVF that gives you a view like the Terminator, you'll really stand out. Tired of looking like a creep with telephoto lens? Now you can get the universal lens foregrip and tactical memory card/battery bandolier as optional accessories. You're fired. Tired of your subject always moving? Get the optional net launcher that mounts to Canon's brand new tactical rail system. Stick around. Tired of your wife or husband always complaining about your camera purchases? Get the brand new Canon/Mountain Dew gym membership led by Calum Von Moger, an optional addon with every purchase. No one will ever $#@! with you again. *Lifts 1200mm 5.6 with one hand* Because I'm going to say please.

But yeah, doesn't really matter to me what they call it. Gimme more cameras.

I doubt any Canon model number will ever contain the number "4". It's considered unlucky in Japanese culture. It's kind of like how many buildings in Anglicized cultures do not have a 13th floor because "13" is an unlucky number in Anglo culture.

 

[Michael Clark]

Will the R7 be a true 7DII replacement, or will it be more of a 90D-type model? It seems unlikely to me that they will release an R7 that is basically an R3 with an APS-C sensor at less than half the cost of the R3.

All I know is that whatever happens, it will be fun to watch and even more fun to read the outrage here when people don't get the unicorns they think they will.

I think the longer it takes to release, the less likely it is that the R7 will be a true 7D Mark II "replacement".

At this point I'm expecting an R6 type body and an R6 (introductory) type price if we see an R7 by the end of this year.

If it takes another year, then I expect it to be more of a 90D type body with even less build quality/durability/AF capability than the R6, but will also be priced lower than the R6, though perhaps not by much.

I don't think anyone is expecting to get an APS-C R3 for a 7D Mark II price. I'm not even expecting to get a 90D type R7 for a 7D Mark II price.

You folks are the ones who keep projecting on those of us who found the 7D Mark II useful and would find a similar R7 useful that we also expect it to be just as cheap. I think most of us know better than that. A 7D Mark II level camera will be in the high $2K range if it ever sees the light of day at all.

 

[Michael Clark]

For me just making the R3 body much bigger and heavier to match the 1D X Mark III size would already we worth $500 to $1000. It could also have an upgrade to a sensor with larger pixels. It should have a secondary back display.

I remember when the 1D X and the 5D Mark III came out with roughly the same sensor and the same autofocus capabilities. One was about twice as expensive than the other for a larger body, more fps and a higher shutter lifetime rating.

At the top end you always pay a lot more for tiny improvements. For example a lot of money for some more memory in an iPhone.

The 1D X was 18 MP, up from the APS-H 16 MP 1D Mark IV, but down from the 21 MP FF 1Ds Mark III.

The 5D Mark III was 22 MP and released at the same time as the 18 MP 1D X. That's a 22% difference in resolution, or roughly the same as the 1D Mark IV vs. the 1Ds Mark III. The same percentage comparison today would be a 37 MP integrally gripped body (R3?) compared to the 45 MP R5.

In 2012 when the 1D X and 5D Mark III were both rolled out, a lot of shooters who had been using the 1Ds Mark III for weddings, studio, and fashion moved to the the 5-Series when they replaced their 1Ds-Series bodies.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the R1 is the spiritual successor to the 1Ds, putting a higher MP FF sensor in a 1-Series body for professional studio, wedding, and fashion work. The R3 is certainly looking more and more like the spiritual successor to the 1D-Series (not 1Ds-Series nor 1D X-Series, but the original 1D-Series with lower resolution and faster handling built for sports/reportage).

 

[Michael Clark]

I'd expect that new bodies will feature new sensors (not recycled DSLR sensors) and that would include any new APS-C bodies. More likely, they would be based on 'scaled-down' versions of the new FF RF mount sensors, which is why it will be fascinating to see what the sensor in the R3 looks like (and whether there are enough MP to utilise in this way). Otherwise, potentially based on the R5 sensor?

The 2014 7D Mark II (20 MP) sensor was a scaled down version of the 2015 5Ds/5Ds R (50 MP) sensor, not a scaled down version of the 2012 5D Mark III (22MP), or even 2016 5D Mark IV (30 MP) sensors. Or to be more precise, based on their introductory dates, the 5Ds/5Ds R sensor was a scaled up version of the 7D Mark II sensor. Both sensors had identical pixel dimensions.

 

[Michael Clark]

Oh no, I hate APS-C, RF should be FF and M should be APS-C, end of story.
RP proved already that FF can be small+cheap (if many years of even smaller Sony wasn't enough). And R5 already proved that FF+high resolution can provide high FPS.
All that's needed is to better these technologies and make them cheaper.
7Dmk2 is 20MP@10FPS and everybody was happy with it in 2014, when the 5D Mark III was only 22 MP (which would scale down to an 8.6 MP APS-C sensor). EOS R is 30MP@8FPS. A new Rmk2 could easily be 30MP@15FPS and still be small/cheap especially given the R5 which is 45MP@20FPS.
I really don't this APS-C is that much needed anymore for technological and economical reasons, gone are the 2000s. It's just marketing/sales strategy

There, I fixed that for you.

So just because you personally have no use for APS-C for anything you shoot, that means Canon should not produce a camera that others might find useful?

I suppose you could buy all of the stock in Canon Corporation and then tell them to do what you want. You could gain unfettered control by purchasing 51% of their total equity, which would only cost you around $15,000,000,000 ($15 Billion) USD.

 

[Michael Clark]

Oi....that could fit on r/ConfidentlyIncorrect....
"Advanced Photo System (APS) is a discontinued film format for still photography first produced in 1996." *Wikipedia
It was the last new film format before digital became a common thing. Reason were in fact the ability to build smaller and cheaper cameras with smaller lenses.

If they'll do produce APS-C R cameras, APS-C Lenses would make a lot of sense for both advanced and budget users.
Budget users can get affordable and compact lenses at all, while birders (or who whatever) can get cheaper, lighter or longer telephoto lenses (choose 2),
just imagine super tele RF-S L lenses. maybe a RF-S 600mm f/4 L which is way lighter and not as expensive as its RF counterpart. or one with an bigger aperture while maintaining the same weight and price.....just imagine...
I mean - I am not into that super telephoto range, but if I were and I buy an professional APS-C camera to get more reach, I would too be very happy about lenses, especially for that. I mean with FF lenses on APS-C - you waste a lot of money and you carry a lot of weight for an image circle, you are actually not using at all.

And I don't see any typical rebel user jumping from rebel and efs to r9 or r8 with those very expensive RF lenses. They also need totally different focal lengths for standards - now there is only 2 24-105s (not enough wide angle) or the very very expensive 15-35L (not enough tele). For the start you can continue to use the EFs lenses, but they won't be available new for long.

One of the reasons the 7D Mark II was as cheap as it was (it should have probably been priced in the low $2K range) was to entice the niche users who bought it to buy $$$ FF EF telephoto lenses.

Just like Remington practically gave away the handle to get you to buy their (uniquely sized) $$ razor blades. Just like everyone practically gave away cheap printers to get you to buy expensive ink.

 

[Michael Clark]

These rumors are very encouraging, IF they're true. I'm still skeptical.

- If the R7 does come true in Q4 2021 or Q1 2022, I hope it has some amazing new features and is not just a 90D sensor with the R6 AF system in an R6 body. Don't get me wrong, such a camera would be fantastic. But Canon could have released that six months ago. Don't make me wait until 2022 for repackaged 2019/2020 technology!

Canon's design and engineering departments could have delivered such a camera six months ago, but Canon's supply chain could not even deliver the R5, R6, RF 100-500mm, etc. in the numbers the market demands throughout all of 2020.

 

[Michael Clark]

None of this makes any sense without an "RF-S" lens roadmap. No one is buying a hypothetical R7 just to pay through the nose for a big heavy 24-70mm and only use the middle of the glass. Unless they're birders who are putting on a 100-500mm.

If it's going to succeed EF-M, where is the light compact kit zoom? The 16mm vlogging lens? The 24mm street pancake?

No one (okay, maybe one or two total outliers somewhere) ever hung a 24-70 on the 7D Mark II. They used their FF bodies for that. They used the 7D Mark II for telephoto lenses.

 

[Chig]

But at least you could mount the EF 100-400 on a 7D like many people did.

Well you can mount this lens on all M mount cameras too