Canon’s future RF bodies

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
ZX11
ZX11 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,310
Re: Canon’s future RF bodies

David M. Anglin wrote:

ZX11 wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

ZX11 wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

I think that would be a terrible idea. There are so many lenses that can be adapted to RF, and loads of great RF lenses available or coming. There is very little in the M range. It makes far more sense to slap a crop sensor in an RF mount body than to bother with the M line at all. Even more sense as the RF mount can take an adapted EF-S lens too. It certainly makes for a good consolation path for Canon in the future.

Not following your logic. All the lenses that can be adapted to RF can be adapted to M. It makes no sense whatsoever for Canon to force crop shooters through 3 systems. All Canon has to do to make the M mount legit is offer 1 weathersealed prosumer body, 2.8 standard zoom, and heavier duty EF-M adapter. All the other tele glass would be adapted EF stuff... it would make no sense to make an all new set of crop RF glass and bodies.

I am not suggesting there should be new crop lenses, no point. What I am suggesting is the RF mount is capable of taking all of the current and future Canon lenses. So it becomes the perfect migration path to consolidate all lenses to the RF mount. Canon would no longer need to service four current mount systems, just one, but people can still use their old ones.

Making an RF crop is just one body, going M would mean new body, new adapter and new lenses dedicated to that system.

Who is the crop RF body for? Nobody is buying a crop body to buy 4 figure glass wider than 85mm or so. And people who want the reach crop bodies have to offer are probably OK with adapting EF glass. I just don't see the point.

EF glass will not last forever. Canon have made it quite clear RF is their future. There are a lot of reasons why people want crop, more than just the obvious.

Why buy a crop sensor now that full frame cameras are amazingly cheap?

Hard to see a customer looking at a RP for less than $1000 and a small body EOS M on the store shelves and saying no, that they want a large body (and large lenses) small sensor camera instead of either of those.

You want big RF lenses, buy the RP or other cheap FF from Canon which make the most of all that glass area. You want small, buy the EOS M and its small lenses. Don't buy the worst combo of both of those systems. Buying the cons of both worlds.

As I said earlier, it is all about pixels on subject for many. That is why higher density crop sensors have a place. If we can choose between a 45mp FF sensor and a 32mp cropped sensor, the difference in the number of pixels on subject for a given distance with a given lens is huge. The processing overhead for the cropped sensor is lower too. The market is there and it is not an insignificant market at that.

I'd rather put 45mp of FF sensor on the target and adjust my framing appropriately due to the better high ISO in low light and DOF effects of full frame. Though an EOS M on an M mount 100-400mm doesn't sound bad for reach.

The m6 II + 100-400 II creates an interesting combination. I have used it a few times and it actually works very well. While I love my M6 II, the biggest downside is that it is not weather sealed and too fragile for serious field work. My favorite EF combination with the camera is actually the 70-200 f4 L IS II, very comfortable to hold / carry and great IQ.

I am not sure the market for getting crop sensor effects on a full frame lens is there. You are wasting a lot of glass that you pay for and only using the center bit of it. If you want more reach, buy a crop sensor small body camera and a lens built for it. Then have the best of both worlds, reach and small body lens combo.

I see a crop body in my bag as more a backup to my FF gear when I need a little more reach vs a camera that I want to carry / buy a second set of lenses. Fuji is committed to APS-C but if you look at their 100-400 it is 3.03lbs vs. 3.61lb for the Canon EF 100-400 II. Not that big a difference unless you are hiking. I can't speak to the IQ difference.

But if you want a big body and lens combo, then just pick the FF sensor and its FF sensor effects on a full frame lens that uses all the glass you paid for.

Hence, customers buying an RF FF camera or an EOS M instead of a RF body/full frame lenses with a small sensor in it. I think that is Canon's marketing logic and is why they won't make an ASPC version of the RF body.

I will happily take an M series camera IF they give me one that is rugged enough to handle the inclement weather and knocking around in the outdoors.

I assume you had the 70-100 f/4 for other reasons than buying it to attach to a crop sensor camera for reach.  That it gives better results than using EF-M glass gives reason for Canon to make a good lens telephoto zoom for the M6II.

I am surprised they don't make a rugged M body given the popularity of tough small cameras.  Maybe the price would get too expensive and it would run up against the A7mkIII, or the RP, in competition.

I tried for the third time to track a fast running dog moving diagonally at me, and mostly failed.  I think I have the expanded AF point right on the dog but that the dog really isn't where the lagging EVF says it is.  DSLR's are looking good again.

-- hide signature --

"Very funny, Scotty! Now beam me down my clothes."
"He's dead, Jim! You grab his tri-corder. I'll get his wallet."

 ZX11's gear list:ZX11's gear list
Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow