Close Menu

    Opinion: Let’s redo the APS-C lineup in 2025. Please.

    By Updated:129 Comments Canon EOS R 10 Mins Read

    This year from Canon seems to be the year in which almost the entire full-frame lineup is refreshed. We have seen the R5 Mark II, R1, and later this year if rumors hold, the R6 Mark III.  Outside of the R8, which was only released in early 2023, Canon mostly completed an entire system refresh of their full-frame cameras. Notably missing is the APS-C lineup, which is most likely the least competitive of Canon’s RF cameras.  

    We have heard that next year’s focus will be on APS-C, and this opinion is what I’d like to see Canon do in 2025 for us users who do appreciate smaller and high-performance cameras.

    There's the other elephant in the room that Canon simply doesn't have any good APS-C primes and fast zooms, but that is mostly taken care of by Tamron and Sigma. While I hope that Canon decides to re-release the EF-M 32mm F1.4 for the RF-S mount, it's looking like that's a nonstarter for Canon.

    Lessons learned from EOS-M

    The EOS-M system focused on small size and portability – but with the EOS-M system now discontinued, this is a notable gap that Canon’s current lineup doesn't address. 

    Canon always had a global approach to camera marketing. Cameras that may not sell well in North America may have a stronger appeal in Asia and other markets. For the most part, the RF APS-C system has seemed to try to do this – but not with the dominant success they usually have.

    This came up for me as Craig and I were talking about future cameras and what I’d personally like to see and have to use. While I love Canon’s full-frame lenses and system, carrying it around where I usually am traveling – is difficult.  What I want is a small APS-C system that is very travel-friendly.   I quickly realized that I have zero interest in any of Canon’s RF APS-C cameras, and any APS-C camera I get is simply a “make-do” until Canon figures out what they are doing long-term with the lineup.

    This has even caused Craig to consider getting the Fuji system for a travel system. If two serious Canon fanboys (hey, look at the website) are looking away from Canon's RF-S line and looking at other systems, I'd say there's a fundamental problem here.

    Size Does Matter

    Contrary to popular belief, size does matter at least with cameras.  Some markets seem to be more size-orientated than others.

    Consider the Japanese market – even if the cameras are not cheap, if they are small they usually do well, as evidenced by the Sony Z-E10 II, which is coasting alone at #1 spot, beating out far cheaper competitors.

    This is usually a competition that Canon does well in, as they had at one time the EOS-M lineup and also the small DSLR in the SL lineup, but unlike Sony and Nikon, they haven’t approached this with the RF mount yet.   The Nikon Z30 is larger, but you have to take a look at the back and realize that this is more of an R10/R7 control layout versus a consumer small camera.

    Of the above-mentioned cameras, only really Canon has gone full consumer with the control layout.

    While Canon can’t make a camera as small as the ZV-E10 II, simply because the RF mount is larger than the FE mount, they can come close and make a camera that sits in between the Z30 and the ZV-E10 II in terms of portability.

    Even when Canon attempts to create a camera that meets the small and portable criteria, they created such an undesirable camera that it doesn’t even sell well in Asia.

    And I should show, that it still doesn’t meet the same size and weight of the EOS-M model that Canon is attempting to replace.

    Yes, Canon’s EOS R100 has a viewfinder, but I'd argue it's unnecessary for the target market. The M200 shockingly, had a touchscreen. Imagine that.

    The 2025 Lineup

    Don’t get me wrong, I like the rough positioning of the APS-C lineup with the R7 being the prosumer camera body, and the R10 being the more consumer variant, and the lineup makes sense.

    R7 – Prosumer / Professional
    R10 – Prosumer
    R50 – Consumer
    R100 – Novice

    But if we take a look at what these cameras have, they all need modernization and change. I feel the R100 needs the most adjustment – and is the one in which Canon will certainly do something. Canon has a deep aversion to being lower than #1 in the domestic market. They aren't going to take this standing still and the R100 is the obvious choice of camera to focus on.

    So taking that into account, here are my Mark II’s for the entire line.  Keep in mind that this is my opinion, and not based upon any rumors we have heard. Craig gave me full reign to write whatever in terms of opinions, and since this is a subject that he and I have talked about recently – here we are.

    The TL;DR if you don’t want to read any further. Take the guts and move them down one camera, and for the love of God make the R7 Mark II worthy of the 7 moniker.

    R7 Mark II

    Make this a fully functional and ergonomic twin to the R5 Mark II, and give it a new 32.5MP stacked sensor.   There isn’t much more to say, but if they took the R5 Mark II camera body and stuffed into it a much improved (aka stacked) 32MP APS-C sensor, I doubt that many would complain about it. We know from the full frame sensors that we will tend to lose some performance going to stacked and also faster, but the benefits will be a much faster sensor readout and far superior electronic shutter performance.

    I would also go out on a limb and suggest that, unlike the EOS R5 Mark II, that sensor should have cross AF points.  This camera was always thought of as being the “dream” birder camera – so why not give it the best AF you can while you are at it?  You’ll sell far more big whites, assuming they are available and not on perpetual backorder.

    I wouldn’t expect to see things like a DIGIC accelerator, etc. Because Canon needs to keep the price under $2000 – and a sensor isn’t the difference between $2000 and $4000. The days of APS-C versus full-frame sensors being incredibly different in price are long over.  Let’s face it, it’s just the shutter assembly and the sensor as the cost differentiators between APS-C and full frame unless some other aspects such as a DIGIC accelerator are removed.

    Oh, and give it a battery grip. I have no idea why the EOS R7 doesn't have one. That alone should tell you that Canon doesn't consider it a prosumer camera.

    R10 Mark II

    I would like to see the R7 features move down into this camera.  Move the R7’s current 32.5MP sensor and features into a smaller and less professional build quality camera – similar to how the 60-90D was to the 7D line.  Also, make the ergonomics to be more in line with the R6 or the R8 cameras. The R7 32.5MP sensor was arguably slightly improved over its original DPAF sensor design from 5 years ago that showed up in the M6 Mark II, however, as it's not a stacked sensor, the cost isn't going to be significantly higher than the 24MP sensor already in the R50 today. More megapixels don't cost more to fabricate.

    I think IBIS may be the one thing that gets left out -it depends on how much IBIS adds in terms of cost, size, and weight. It could very well be that IBIS simply can’t meet those constraints.

    As well, I believe that this camera should have a battery grip as well – for both longer duration shooting of video and also just portrait orientation. I have no idea who in Canon decided suddenly that cameras don't need them, but they do.

    R50 Mark II

    Of all the cameras, I think this is the one that is probably right where it needs to be.  I’m not even sure it needs a Mark II next year. This is where the 24MP sensor is very suitable, and I could see it in this camera and also the R100. This camera should also have decent video chops to be the low-cost hybrid camera for those just starting.

    I could also see this camera turning into something like the M6 Mark II was – a smaller version of the R10, but sans viewfinder. This rendering is slightly larger than the M6 Mark II because it has to support the RF mount instead of the smaller EF-M mount.

    The ZV-E10 II is selling well in Japan without an EVF viewfinder, and selling well over the price of the R50 camera. Create a hotshoe EVF with a passthrough hotshoe on top of the EVF, and make the camera smaller than the R50 is now. I never minded using the EVF with the M6 Mark II, except for the times in which I wanted to use a flash. Then I was annoyed.

    R200

    Keep nothing from the R100. Drive a truck over it.  Burn the design plans. First of all, make it into an R200 – without a viewfinder but with a decent and responsive touchscreen, bring back the camera tutorials if they are not there on the R100 and let it be Canon’s best live view experience. Any kiosk or photobooth leverage that the R100 had, would still be there on the R200 – because for those applications you don't need a viewfinder. As well as being smaller, Canon can also make it less expensive or have a better margin.

    Have it available in different colors.  Feature-wise it’s supposed to be the entry-level camera, so keep it simple, and small and have it work like people expect from the phones they are transitioning from.  Make it the “better compact camera” and also include in filters / luts for the smartphone/film crowd that is buying up old compact cameras. Canon can do better here.

    Do include BLE and excellent connectivity to their smartphones because making the workflow quicker and more responsive to moving photos to their phones is a good thing.

    Summary

    Thank you for reading all that ;)

    Canon's APS-C lineup was always very rich and full-featured in terms of cameras and allowed for the migration up to the full frame cameras over time – or had enough compelling options to stick with APS-C.

    The APS-C lineup that we are seeing today, seems to have been in response to consumer demand and tossed together quickly. I hope Canon has looked at how the cameras have responded in the camera and adjusted accordingly. Yes, Canon is still #1 in market share, but that still relies on a significant amount of DSLR camera bodies. It's much closer when those are discounted. As the years progress, Canon's competitors will look for chinks in Canon's armor to chip away at that market share.

    Also – as much as I find Fuji's great cameras, I don't want to use them full-time, Canon is forcing me and others to look at their system as the only credible option.

    Image Credit: CameraSize

    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.

    Go to discussion...

    129 comments

    1. So far in 2024, APS-C lens announcements outnumber FF lens announcements. Granted, the two APS-C lenses are niche products. But Canon seems way behind their usual pace for lenses. Unless that pace picks up dramatically in the remaining 1/3 of this year, I’d prefer they concentrate on launching new lenses in 2025. YMMV.
      • 1
    2. So far in 2024, APS-C lens announcements outnumber FF lens announcements. Granted, the two APS-C lenses are niche products. But Canon seems way behind their usual pace for lenses. Unless that pace picks up dramatically in the remaining 1/3 of this year, I’d prefer they concentrate on launching new lenses in 2025. YMMV.

      lenses for sure.

      Sounds like this year is wrapping up the Z line.

      as far as APS-C lenses - they could easily do the EF-M 32mm, 22mm which were very good lenses. the macro 28mm was a good starter lens as well for people to get into the RF-S system.

      none of that is difficult, just takes some will for canon to do it.

      lens and camera body development and release I do believe is handled by different groups within imaging and obviously the fabrication is handled differently as well.
      • 0
    3. Spot on, on your wishes for R7 MK II - an APSC R5 M2. I would pay extra to get those capabilities than the current piece of specimen, which is missing so dearly.

      Price-wise 7D was equivalent to 6D, so keeping those two on par in R system is not an issue while giving R7 better features than R6. It\'s like a fork in the road - you get a BMW M3 or a 550e for almost the same price, you decide what\'s important to you.
      • 0
    4. Having been a 7DII user for years, I bought a 7R. Its just not equivalent. Doesnt focus track as well and ergonomically I get the impression they lost real estate and just shoehorned things in where possible. So you end up accidentally changing settings because you have to put your thumbs somewhere!!! Which in turn leads me to be constantly checking my settings instead of concentrating on my fast moving subjects. Canon. Please give me a proper Mirrorless 7DII equivalent. At the same time can we have a 15-85 lens please.
      • 0
    5. None of the APS-C models have a sensor fast enough for acceptable (to me, at least) electronic shutter usage. The 'fastest' one, the R7 is still more than twice as slow as the R8. If Canon does give us an M200 style RF body, I would like it to have an R8 grade ES.

      Till that happens, my R8 will keep functioning well as my small travel body.
      • 0
    6. Thanks again @Richard CR, for a well written and summed up article.

      ...Keep nothing from the R100. Drive a truck over it. Burn the design plans. ...
      Even though expected, this was the highlight. Esp. the truck part. :ROFLMAO: Special thanks for that.

      R50 Mark II

      Of all the cameras, I think this is the one that is probably right where it needs to be. I’m not even sure it needs a Mark II next year. ...
      Here I've got something to add:
      I was very close to buying a R50 as small travel camera.
      But the purely "new" hotshoe was the killer to me.
      If I wanted to add a compact flash like the Speedlite EL-100 I would need the adapter. DOA design IMO.
      Another deal breaker for a compact double zoom kit was the RF-S 55-210mm f5-7.1 IS STM.
      Compared to the EF-S 55-250mm f4.0-5.6 IS STM I trade off 40 mm at the long end and some aperture from 5.6 to 7.1
      But the size is almost the same (with adapter). Just "Meh!"

      So I kept my money here. And hope - like you - for a camera in rangefinder style.
      • 0
    7. Thanks again @Richard CR, for a well written and summed up article.


      Even though expected, this was the highlight. Esp. the truck part. :ROFLMAO: Special thanks for that.

      I think everyone knew I'd say SOMETHING about the R100 ;)

      Here I've got something to add:
      I was very close to buying a R50 as small travel camera.
      But the purely "new" hotshoe was the killer to me.
      If I wanted to add a compact flash like the Speedlite EL-100 I would need the adapter. DOA design IMO.

      oh i totally forgot about that. thanks for reminding me.

      As far as the lenses - none of the excite me. the UWA is okay but the rest? No thanks.

      If I was getting an APS-C kit it would be either sigma or tamron lenses and no canon.
      • 0
    8. I got tired of waiting for Canon. They decided that they knew better than their consumers and a mirror hump is what everyone wants on their compact camera. Not. Well I simply replaced my M6 mk 2 with a Panasonic S9 and will match my picture styles to LUTs. Every manufacturer except Canon RF devices now have a new humpless compact.
      • 0
    9. I got tired of waiting for Canon. They decided that that they knew better than their consumers and a mirror hump is what everyone wants on their compact camera. Not. Well I simply replaced my M6 mk 2 with a Panasonic S9 and will match my picture styles to LUTs. Every manufacturer except Canon RF devices now have a new humpless compact.

      how do you find the S9?

      I liked that camera from Panasonic. what glass do you use with it?
      • 0
    10. The sky is the limit on what Canon could do with its APS-C lineup. I wonder if their strategy has changed now that producing a full-frame camera like the R8 can be delivered to the market at such a low price point? Perhaps the upper echelon of APS-C cameras hovering around the $1000-1600 mark are "good enough" for Canon right now? I think we can almost all agree that the R100 doesn't even belong in production with its lack of touch screen and incredibly dumbed down feature set. But the R50 could be rehoused into something with a smaller footprint and that may be popular? The R7 Mark II is a camera I'm very eager to get released. If it tries to remain at its launch price point, I fear that we'll see less features that we want. I, like many others, want a 7D Mark II kind of camera. Build and ergonomics similar to the R5II/R6II that can take a grip and give us a true stacked sensor e-shutter that competes with the X-H2S...which is actually not all that fast, but still performs well.

      But it can't end there, we need lenses!! I really want to see a port over of the EF-M 22mm and EF-M 32mm...but PLEASE weather seal them. I'm not sure if allowing Sigma to produce APS-C lenses indicates that it's even more unlikely that we'll see these from Canon...but it would be a shame if those two lens formulas never get used again - they were brilliant!
      • 0
    11. I disagree with the statement in the Op-Ed that the R7 Mark II must be under $2000, at least not if it's a genuine high end APS-C body as the 7D and 7D2 were by the standards of their day. Canon has painted itself into a corner by calling its mirrorless 90D successor the R7 - if it had done the honourable thing and called it the R90 we'd be all set for an "R7" which could sell for as much as £/$2500. The OM-1 Mark II launched at £2,200 so surely £300 more for a much bigger stacked BSI sensor, and the Canon name behind it, would be no problem at all.

      Yes Canon needs a decent APS-C body for under £/$2000. But that doesn't mean there can't also be a 'flagship' APS-C for more.
      • 0
    12. oh i totally forgot about that. thanks for reminding me.
      Yeah, that was bonehead move by Canon, IMO. It’s like they took a page from Nikon’s AF motor body vs. lens compatibility chart. R100 only compatible with old hotshoe, R50 only with new flashes unless you buy the unavailable adapter, but there’s only one new flash so far and it costs almost what the camera does.

      I’m sure there’s a business case, and arguably it isn’t a big issue for Canon since these cameras have a built-in flash and Canon has ample data on flash purchases by entry-level APS-C camera buyers (probably infrequent). But still...
      • 0
    13. I disagree with the statement in the Op-Ed that the R7 Mark II must be under $2000, at least not if it's a genuine high end APS-C body as the 7D and 7D2 were by the standards of their day. Canon has painted itself into a corner by calling its mirrorless 90D successor the R7 - if it had done the honourable thing and called it the R90 we'd be all set for an "R7" which could sell for as much as £/$2500. The OM-1 Mark II launched at £2,200 so surely £300 more for a much bigger stacked BSI sensor, and the Canon name behind it, would be no problem at all.

      Yes Canon needs a decent APS-C body for under £/$2000. But that doesn't mean there can't also be a 'flagship' APS-C for more.

      The 7D was $1600 and the 7D Mark II was $1800. Nikon D500 - $1500

      I personally think keeping it under $2000 is reasonable. but you are right because the point of comparison could easily be the X-H2 - and that's a $2500 camera.

      But I think if it goes over the $2000 then it's got to have the performance in stills and video to match. the problem with a $2500 camera body is that there's no damned APS-C lenses to go on it. I'd suggest that Canon would then need a 15-45mm F2.8-4 (or something similar) kit lens for the camera (variable aperture to keep the size / weight down)

      But at least make it worthy of the 7
      • 0
    14. I assume that Canon has developed APS-C Bodies again, because the customers who don't want to move to Full frame, would use other brands and Sony is a strong competioneer. APS-C is often a just an entry to the brand. They move later to a Fullframe.
      And Canon has licensed APC-S Lenses for RF to Sigma and Tamron. They will close the gap. I can imagine, that Canon don't plan to invest into APS-C lenses more. as it required. The same reason explains why Canon will never license the Fullframe Lense to thirdparties. This business is the one who Canon dig the gold.
      Why you don'rt use the EF-RF Adapter and the chealer EF-Lenses instead? I use my EF-Lenses for an EOS R and R5 quite successfully.
      • 0
    15. The sky is the limit on what Canon could do with its APS-C lineup. I wonder if their strategy has changed now that producing a full-frame camera like the R8 can be delivered to the market at such a low price point? Perhaps the upper echelon of APS-C cameras hovering around the $1000-1600 mark are "good enough" for Canon right now? I think we can almost all agree that the R100 doesn't even belong in production with its lack of touch screen and incredibly dumbed down feature set. But the R50 could be rehoused into something with a smaller footprint and that may be popular? The R7 Mark II is a camera I'm very eager to get released. If it tries to remain at its launch price point, I fear that we'll see less features that we want. I, like many others, want a 7D Mark II kind of camera. Build and ergonomics similar to the R5II/R6II that can take a grip and give us a true stacked sensor e-shutter that competes with the X-H2S...which is actually not all that fast, but still performs well.

      But it can't end there, we need lenses!! I really want to see a port over of the EF-M 22mm and EF-M 32mm...but PLEASE weather seal them. I'm not sure if allowing Sigma to produce APS-C lenses indicates that it's even more unlikely that we'll see these from Canon...but it would be a shame if those two lens formulas never get used again - they were brilliant!

      without a doubt the EF-M 22, 28 and 32 (especially the 32!!!) should be ported over. the 32 was very sharp lens.
      • 0
    16. I assume that Canon has developed APS-C Bodies again, because the customers who don't want to move to Full frame, would use other brands and Sony is a strong competioneer. APS-C is often a just an entry to the brand. They move later to a Fullframe.
      And Canon has licensed APC-S Lenses for RF to Sigma and Tamron. They will close the gap. I can imagine, that Canon don't plan to invest into APS-C lenses more. as it required. The same reason explains why Canon will never license the Fullframe Lense to thirdparties. This business is the one who Canon dig the gold.
      Why you don'rt use the EF-RF Adapter and the chealer EF-Lenses instead? I use my EF-Lenses for an EOS R and R5 quite successfully.

      that's fine using the EF adapter, and you can even get the one with drop in filters to save even more moolah over time.

      but that entirely depends on what you shoot - do you shoot long, or do you shoot wide. Wide (which is my wheelhouse mostly) is mixed bag even with an EF adapter. After you past 50mm or so focal, you probably won't even have much of a difference in terms of lens size. if you use cheaper third party EF adapters, then just simply keep the EF adapter on each lens and voila you are done.

      but the sigma and tamron are fantastic lenses for UWA - so at least we have two credible third party options.
      • 0
    17. Yeah, that was bonehead move by Canon, IMO. It’s like they took a page from Nikon’s AF motor body vs. lens compatibility chart. R100 only compatible with old hotshoe, R50 only with new flashes unless you buy the unavailable adapter, but there’s only one new flash so far and it costs almost what the camera does.

      I’m sure there’s a business case, and arguably it isn’t a big issue for Canon since these cameras have a built-in flash and Canon has ample data on flash purchases by entry-level APS-C camera buyers (probably infrequent). But still...
      Here, Canon should have either moved fully new flash and hotshoe.
      Or - as I would have expected - leave ALL consumer grade (R50/R100, EL-100 and smaller) fully in the old hotshoe world.
      • 0
    18. Yeah, that was bonehead move by Canon, IMO. It’s like they took a page from Nikon’s AF motor body vs. lens compatibility chart. R100 only compatible with old hotshoe, R50 only with new flashes unless you buy the unavailable adapter, but there’s only one new flash so far and it costs almost what the camera does.

      I’m sure there’s a business case, and arguably it isn’t a big issue for Canon since these cameras have a built-in flash and Canon has ample data on flash purchases by entry-level APS-C camera buyers (probably infrequent). But still...

      that and the complete lack of battery grips boggle my mind.
      • 0
    19. I know some will disagree, but if they need to keep the price point down on the r72, they can drop the manual shutter. They would obviously have to increase readout speed, but I only use the noisy machine gun shutter because the rolling shutter in ES is terrible.
      • 0

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment