Rumors point to imminent Canon full-frame mirrorless system launch

@entoman

You need to strike Minolta off the list - they didn't leave it too late, they were bankrupted by costly litigation.

Before they bowed out they gave us the paradigm of the modern SLR - the first camera with built in AF, motorised advance and rewind and 4 AE modes.

They also gave us the first DSLR with IBIS, fourteen years ago...

It's not on just one blog. The source "nokishita camera" has been reliable, and there's also been a full spec sheet leaked, along with pictures of the lenses.

It's pretty close to confirmed at the moment.

@saaaaaaad, they just watch patents go though and kinda figure out that this is this and that is that, from years of reading patent from camera places, you kinda have a good guess on what's coming.

Its 100% real. 4 more hours until official announcement.

Not this fast. For anyone besides Canon it takes weeks, not a couple days.

More people are attracted by Canon. They are the big dog.

so-what-17 - Yes, I expect almost all of us have had a Sony product fail at some stage. I certainly have, and I know of several people who have abandoned Sony in disgust when their cameras have failed.

But let's face it, all brands have problems from time to time. I had 2 different Canon 6D bodies fail because they were poorly sealed against humidity. I've had AF and (mechanical) aperture linkage failures on Nikons. I know people who have sent back Olympus bodies that have failed for various reasons. I know of several Panasonics that have given up the ghost. No brand is immune.

Neen there and 43 sensor size wasn’t my cup of tea. Expensive lenses and small apertures lenses were not that attractive.

There is no fee lunch.
I use M4/3 and full frame together and both have a right to coexist.

Yes of course, that's why I only ever see wildlife photographers with m43 and 300mm f4s. You're talking rubbish, but then again, this is a dpreview forum lol.

Everything has its place, bear that in mind.

Yeah at base ISO... at every other ISO you get something like this:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=olympus_em1ii&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=canon_eos6dmkii&attr13_3=nikon_d750&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr126_0=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.10651381540270428&y=0.820839537531751

There's this question of usability - I can not have a camera where you need to remove tripod plate every time you need to swap a card, which is the case with all Olys except E-1 and E-5, I believe. I looked at those and tried to like them, but they need a grip for me to be able to hold them, and frankly I hated the multitude of dials. I can not go into a $2000 body, thinking "I may get used to it".

Of course they can coexist, never said otherwise....it the strange attraction to the marketing and non intellectual perspective of why one chooses a full frame that perplexes me, but each to their own. I have used all the formats, Nikon d750, d2x, d7000,7200 and briefly the 7500 with the 16-80 2.8-4. If I were shooting professional sports, dark arenas, war etc, then I would be using a D5 or 1dx. Want to know the scoop on shadow recovery, I’ve been there and I can tell you from experience, the OMD EM 1mark ii is built like a tank, rain proof, includes some of the very best glass available and has very good shadow recovery, but more so, the highlight recovery is better again. The IBIS is extraordinary and can’t be matched, turned off in an instant with a switch on the lens 12-100....In bright contrasty light there is still no practical real world difference worth mentioning. The menu is very easy to figure out, and I’m comimg from using the Nikon menues for years.

Yeah, at base ISO in good light those would be decent cameras for hobbyists or when need some small toy which can take pictures on holidays.

The Olympus 300mm F4 does not fit into a jacket pocket by any stretch, its size and weight is the same as of a 100-400mm FF lens.

The problem is that no one is making fast lenses for m43. With zooms 1/2.8f aka 1/5.6f in FF terms is the best m43 has to offer, in primes it’s mostly 1/1.4f aka 1/2.8f in FF terms. That’s “meh” at its best.

The fact is that m43 is a dying format and the trends are against it. Camera market is shrinking, people are buying ever better cameras and the low-end is getting replaced by smartphones. m43’s size advantage is not that big, especially if you want proper ergonomics. And there is no way m43 can compete in the high-end.

You’re not a critical thinker haha

EF-M is an APSC sensor format. It would be vignetted on a full frame. I guess if you want that vintage skateboard video look that might be a cool thing?

Also, and this is highly subjective, but the EF-M lenses are some of the ugliest lenses Canon has manufactured. And I am including the silver EOS rebel kit lenses in that assertion.

@Calaverasgrande - Other systems with APS-C lenses and FF bodies (Nikon, Canon, Pentax) allow you to use APS-C lenses on their FF bodies with a crop mode. This makes it easier for an APS-C user to move up into a FF body. It makes for an easier transition because they can still use their APS-C lenses. For whatever reason, Canon has eliminated that transition option.

@Critical Thinker - "Who is going to use an ef-m lens on this? And jow many Eos M users are going to want to buy these new lenses?"

Pentax, Nikon, and Sony allow their APS-C lens users to use those lenses on their FF bodies with a crop mode. In fact, the EOS R does have a 1.6x crop mode.

The bigger issue is that RF lenses can't be used on EOS M bodies. That is equivalent to EF lenses not working on Rebel bodies, or 80D's, or 7D MKII's. You might ask, "Why would a Canon Rebel owner ever want to buy an EF full frame lens?" Well, they do. And some of those people might use those EF lenses to some day move up to a FF DSLR. But that's not possible for EOS M users. They can't opt to use any future RF lenses that Canon might release. This decision will definitely make some people think twice before investing in EOS M. Plus, there's always the possibility that Canon will put an APS-C sensor into an EOS R body. Make it a compact Rebel R. That further diminishes the need for EOS M.

@T3
You keep spouting this drivel - isn’t it time for bed yet.....

@anti and terminal
This is fake outrage from people with nothing better to do. Currently if I own an Canon asp-c dslr plus lens then I can use neither in a full frame dslr system. To quote your words - you have to start again - with a ff dslr and new lens. Same with Canon MILC going forward. Now I actually have an M50 and I'm not outraged. You have absolutely zero M stuff - exactly why are you so upset??? Fake emotions from fake people.....

I think this is a manufactured controversy. If Canon thought there was a significant number of people on EOS-M cameras that would go to the new FF body, they would have made accommodations. But as has been pointed out elsewhere, it would take a fair amount of genius to make a mount that could work with full frame lenses and adapt EOS-M APSC lenses. Essentially there is more than enough width, but the depth or flange distance there is no room.
Personally I think that they made a reasonable choice. In many cases, a solution which satisfies everyone is a compromise which will not excel at any one.

@Kandid

"To quote your words - you have to start again - with a ff dslr and new lens."

No you don't. A lot of APS-C DSLR users only have a limited number of APS-C lenses.The rest are FF lenses. I am a Canon DSLR user. The only EF-S lens I own is the 10-22mm EF-S. Then it's just a matter of moving up to a FF DSLR. The same would be true of a lot of APS-C EOS R users. But if you are an EOS M user, you would *really* have to start all over.

I don’t agree with your premise that people moving up through a system will typically start with or have expensive ff lenses with their inexpensive asp-c cameras. Most will move to a ff camera and then invest in better lenses when it makes sense. Btw do you currently own an M series camera that has ignited your outrage????

@termo
Why do you keep quoting what people have just said? Its right there in the thread. My eyes are open - look - 👀 - and I can read - I just don't agree with your premise - no point in endlessly repeating it......

@T3
People are using crop lenses on FF, but they shouldn't. And doing so doesn't "move" you anywhere, or specifically to a FF system. The crop mode is just like using a crop camera, no advantages at all.
10 years from now there might be no APS-C anymore. I hope.
Taking off with a crop in 2018 and planing to upgrade to FF later is rather a stupid idea. I would never suggest something like that to anyone. It is better to begin with an older (used) FF camera and FF lenses from day one.

EF mount is the standard in the Universe - Period!

Red, Arri, Cx00, EOS M/R/FF/Crop, Sony (with Adaptor), all smaller mounts and shorter flange (with adaptor).

All manufactures spend sleepless nights and fortunes to make their system work with EF, because EF is a God sent! There is no other like EF! And all future cameras will work their a$s off to make the EF mount work on it...! Mark my Words!!!!!

@T3, I am purposefully writing that after meeting people like you and similar kind and for you all. It has nothing to do with the rest others.

I’m with you Jack...
btw termo I said ‘typically’ not always - obviously there are some strange people out there (have a look in the mirror)....hahahahahahaha

Yes that would be good. I'm seeing some good news from Nikon and their development in super telephoto lenses especially the NIKKOR 500mm F5.6E PF ED VR lens. That with a new pro Z body not the Z6 or Z7 can change the game for what I like ..wildlife photography. But also Sony and the 400mm f2.8 is a cracking looking lens.

The Sony lens is an over-priced slug, at $14,000.

The Nikon D500 + 500 PF gives you 750mm f/5.6 equivalent focal length, for $6,000 *total* out of pocket (camera + lens) that weighs *half* the Sony option as well. Nikon gives you twice the reach at less than half the total price.

There is NOTHING Canon *or* Sony can produce that can in any way remotely compare to this.

John I do agree it is a very good option, my friend has the D500 it is a fantastic camera compared to my 7Dmk2. I also have the Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 with a Nikon D7100 would gladly swap it it for a D500. Agreed the Sony is expensive but Its less than half the weight of my old Sigma lens at 5.8kg and can still give me 800mm @5.6 with a converter (1200mm with crop factored in).

@ Koerner. We should compare like to like. The new Nikon 500/4 was introduced in 2015 at 10300$ or 12000 Euros. The price usually comes down after that: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4974121664/nikon-unveils-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f4-and-600mm-f4e-full-frame-lenses
https://www.fotokoch.de/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-4-0-500-FL-ED-VR-Nikon-FX_62291.html?redirect=62291&partnerid=10321&utm_source=billiger&utm_medium=referral

Now Sony's 400/2.8 is 12000 Euro, too (https://www.sony.de/electronics/kamera-objektive/sel400f28gm) .

The 500/5.6 PF, you mention, is giving you f8 equivalent DOF on APSC, _not_ comparable. With the Sony, one gets a 600/4 equivalent with 1.4TC at (2.9kg).

Sony sensors do have advantages but difference is not day/night. If Canon just used its own sensors and marketers would come with BS it is made by Sony all internet would be fooled and be saying how great those sensors are. Check 5D4 review and real images on flickr etc. what this camera is capable of. There is no issue with it expect if you need camera to do video as well.

Nikon did very well chosing the Sony for it's sensor. The Nikon D850 absolutely kills the Canon 5Dmk4 in every aspect as does the A73 or A7R3 any reviews and real photo's that I'm seeing. Also take a look at the technical side in Dxomark. Canon won't get away with using that old sensor in its new FF and sit on it for years like they do. Both Sony and Nikon have very short life cycles their old sensors already beat the up coming Canon. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-III-versus-Nikon-D850-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV___1187_1177_1106

@Necip-
Correction, Nikon actually chose TowerJazz for its sensor manufacturer, and Sony wound up buying that company.

Realize also that Nikon DESIGNS ITS OWN SENSORS ... the now-Sony-owned company just manufactures the **Nikon-speced** sensors:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/07/17/pixels-for-geeks-a-peek-inside-nikons-super-secret-sensor-design-lab

Click the link, read, and be informed ...

@Koerner: MTFs are _not_ comparable across brands, since they are not measured, merely computed. So that already makes your claim irrelevant. They are completely different lenses, a 400/2.8 is in a different league to a500 f5.6 . Your cherry picked example of a shot doesn't change the fact that you don't understand equivalence. The D500 + 300/4 + TC2 gives you f11 equivalent focussing. Perfect in a stadium or sports center, perfect at dawn or in the dusk when using high shutter speeds to freeze motion and perfectly usable with all focus points with no degradation in optical performance, right?
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-tc-20e-iii :
"Even though the lab tests show that the sharpness is relatively good with slower f/4 lenses, I personally would not recommend using the TC-20E III with any of those, unless you will be heavily stopping down and focusing manually on a tripod."

... continued:
"As lighting conditions worsen, the autofocus performance gets less accurate and lenses might start “hunting” – that’s when the lens goes from infinity to close focus, unable to stop at a particular focus mark. When the TC-20E III is used with slow f/4 aperture lenses, autofocus stops working completely or becomes extremely unreliable."

Richard from DPR also posted an interesting post regarding the D850 https://www.dpreview.com/news/1234108119/nikon-d850-sensor-confirmed-as-sony-made

John those pics are excellent. Fantastic lens, my friend has it with his D500 its super light and small.

Thanks, Necip. I actually owned the 300mm f/2.8G VR II, for 2 years, before "downgrading" to the 300mm f/4E PF.

I was really worried I would lose image quality and feared I would have "seller's remorse" after selling the f/2.8G for the lighter f/4E.

Now that I have had the chance to use the 300 f/4E for several months, I am absolutely thrilled I dumped the f/2.8G for the much lighter f/4E.

Hiking is fun again :D

Even better, 95% of the time, there is no discernible difference in image quality. I would make the trade again, all-day, every day :)

@ Koerner: There are many forum discussions (of experienced BIF shooters) agreeing with Mansurov's tests (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr). Performance degrades with TC-20 and AF is mediocre at best in dim light usable mostly in the central region only. Even _if_ I had no experience, this alone would make me trust these users and reviewers I know over you.
And again: You talk about a totally different market than that of users buying a 400/2.8 (which is the lightest 400/2.8 by a mile). Your comparison is flawed, because you all of a sudden only look at focal length and compare it to cheap options with TC on APSC. You neglect the change in DOF and light gathering by doing so or by adding a TC (which is _the reason_ it is cheaper and possibly lighter). You neglect that there is a TC for Sony, too, that one can attach it to a A6700 or use a 100-400GM instead of the 400/2.8, intended for pro use.

John and HFLM both of you guys make valid and valueable points. For BIF the 300PF with a 1.4x and the D500 would work well I've seen it in action even without a converter 300mm on a D500 is excellent for BIF. A Sony 400mm f2.8 would be amazing even with a 2x also hand holdable. The total weight is equivalent to what I had been doing handheld for years.. a canon 300mm f2.8LIS and a 1dmk3 with a 2x so 600mm f5.6 (similar total weight). What you get with a Sony 400mm f2.8 I can only imagine is amazing magic if its like the Canon 400mm f2.8LIS.

LOL @ what Necip said. I had the same relationship ... left Canon for Nikon, because they satisfied me where it counts, rather than leave me "wanting" every time ;)

I think in reality that differences in specification between different brands are so minimal as to be negligible. Forget the paper specifications, I'll bet you could *never* tell the difference between a shot taken on a a7Riii, 5DSR, D850 etc with similar pixel counts and the same print size.

You may get more "user satisfaction" by switching to a "superior" model, but you won't be able to distinguish the results unless you move to a bigger sensor or one with a significantly higher pixel count.

@a_G: it comes with age. There are a lot of tech “photographers” here (at the first glance 60% never owned a complete system), and very few humanist ones. In real life most of the discussion on this comments section is just bla bla - the time to tell which print was made with which camera is still far away. But this is not what concerns me most. The essence of photography is under fire by the tech madness. To say that a Canon is better than a Nikon, or vice versa, is like saying that Ferrari is better than Lamborghini. Seriously? Is this for real? You cannot experience the photography trill with either brand?

Necip - I've worked my way up the Canon system over the years! When I upgraded to FF I got a couple of 6Ds but they both suffered malfunctions due to high humidity in the tropics, so I switched to 5DMkiii. That was much more durable, but as soon as the 5DS was launched I snapped one up. At that time I had a 7DMkii as a backup body, but when the 5D4 came out I sold the 7DMkii and got the 5D4 to accompany the 5DS.

The purpose of getting the 5D4 was to get more DR and ability to shoot at lower light levels, but to be honest at anything below 1600 ISO, I can't tell the difference between 5D4 and 5DS. Burst speed is better with 5D4, but I consider the 5DS to be a much better camera bacause of the extra cropping ability as a result of more pixels.

The 5DS is a stunningly good camera. It's had many knocks and been dropped a couple of times and has done over 100,000 exposures without any problems. It's my primary camera. I only use the 5D4 if the light is poor or I need a faster burst speed.

Necip (continued) - I shoot wildlife, landscape, botanical, macro and occasionally motorsports.

For mammals and birds I use the 100-400mm Mkii. For insects, plants and other close-up shots I use 100mm macro, which also doubles as an extremely good landscape lens. I also have a Sigma 150mm macro as a backup. For wildlife in poor light I use the 300mm F4 because I can't afford the cost of a 300mm F2.8 and it would be too heavy for me to lug around.

For landscapes I also have 16-35mm and 24-105mm. I love the dramatic immersive shots that result from the 16-35mm but the 24-105mm is more versatile as a walkabout lens.

Necip (continued) - The reasons why I'm considering adding a mirrorless are:

Silent shutter (very useful for wildlife photography)
Faster burst speed (ditto)
Improved sensor (ability to shoot with minimal noise at high ISO)
Lighter weight (my rucksack is heavy for a 68 year old to carry)
Depth of field preview with maximum screen brightness.

@entoman: then you should wait. The first salvo (just “R”) is a (market) test. I (strongly) believe that a 1R and 5R are around the corner. Now, in terms of gear weight: I’m not 68 yet, but not far away, and I believe the difference will not be that substantial - especially if you plan to add something longer than the 100-400 II. My Canon bag No. 1 (FF) has: 5D IV, 11-24, 24-70 II, 35 f/1.4 II, 85 f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8 II, the 600 RT, (+cards, 1-3 other accesories). Some of these are switchable with the 100 L macro, or the MP-E 65 + the MT24 EX. I have sold some Nikon bodies, but I remember that overall the Nikon bag No. 1 (FF) had more or less the same weight. Unless you use a tiny ML body with a kit lens, a serious ML bag with pro lenses will still be heavy...

Silver Nemesis - I'm very happy with my DSLRs, but my list of mirrorless advantages tempts me to buy. However, you're absolutely right - it would be wiser to wait for a "5R".

If it wasn't for the dreadful (to me) Sony ergonomics I'd be very tempted to get a Sony a7Riii body and metabones adaptor. Switching to Nikon would make no sense economically, and the Sony is I think a better machine than the Z. The Canon R has little appeal due to the weird control layout and lack of dual slots.

I understand that Canon want to "beta test" their FF mirrorless with a prosumer camera before releasing "the real thing", but impatience is getting the better of me... I must resist!

Necip - Unfortunately the 300mm F2.8 is just too much for me to carry around. I know it's a great lens, but I rarely have the need to shoot at F2.8 and the F4 version is excellent optically, much lighter and a great deal cheaper. Its only real "fault" is that the IS is a bit noisy and clunky, although pretty effective.

The 7DMkii was a good camera despite the tunnel-vision viewfinder, and in some ways I regret selling it. I also sold my 180mm macro because it didn't have image stabilisation, and that was another mistake. A third mistake was to replace it with the Sigma 150mm macro, which is crude and noisy compared to Canon products. Unfortunately I have a habit of giving in to temptation and buying new gear quite regularly!

There are quite a few things that I'd never sell - including my 5DS, 16-35mm, 100mm macro and 100-400mm, but I wouldn't be overly concerned about parting with the 5D4 in favour of a pro-orientated "5R".

Incidentally I peeked at your website - nice images!

To have a good fight, people do not need Canon, or Nikon, or Sony... or anything at all, for that matter:

https://i1.wp.com/www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/argue.jpg

@crazyryoga: I think Sony just gave Canon/Nikon fanboys a common enemy. That and people are just a lot more vocal about things on the internet nowadays, specially when there are so many reviews and opinion pieces on youtube available to people.

I think previously, people were quite content not knowing the specs of a competing camera system at all.

keeponkeepingon - It's absolutely guaranteed that Canon have more models up their sleeve. It's been known for a while that Canon had at least 2 or 3 prototypes "in the wild" being tested by professionals.

I'd expect Canon to launch their prosumer model first, to act as a beta for the system, and to capture newcomers to the system.

A serious camera (equivalent or superior to an a7Riii but in a bulletproof pro-orientated body), will follow within a few months.

Finally, to coincide with the 2020 Olympics, they'll launch a true pro model as an alternative to the 1Dxii.

By that time there will be a big enough system of RF lenses to satisfy most users, and the system will be proven enough to make pros consider switching from 1Dxiii to RF pro.

AF point comparison is so old school. Today, it's all about battery life, and number of card slots!

How old are you?

How old are you?

@David Bo You mean me? Probably old enough not to play kid's games, like, our car is faster than your car... Ha ha ha. The 5div already had more AF points in its DPAF implementation (the new system will only be slightly more sensitive than that of the 5div, about .5ev, as Canon is "misleading" users by measuring its sensitivity at f1.2 not at f2, like all other companies). I used the 5div for quite some time along the Sonys. The R needs to really improve a lot to make DPAF competitive for tracking AF (I don't talk about video, not interested in that). Given the initial specs (if true) of the limited fps with AE and CAF, I can't see that. But who knows, time will tell.

I wonder why Sony fanboys are so desperate? Be happy with your Sony, i.e., if you have actually bought one already, else, stop complaining, let others decide for themselves!

Sony controls the faucet for sensor development and production. It can afford sitting tight.

Such intense trolling.
Sony cameras on constant backorder.
Major sensor and EVF maker.

Nikon and Canon will pack their bags long before Sony.
With such lousy releases just made they will be packing soon enough.

Noise of heads rolling as we speak.

W

Wouldn't count on it. Sony has a lot of money and they've been there since the 90s although they've never had that big success like lately. Also competition is good for the customer (finally we get a capable semi-pro Canon fullframe, that is not crippled and you don't have to sell a kidney to buy it).

I don't know how long, but seeing as how they have sold the most full frame camera of any company in the US this year, they make the most camera sensors of any company, recent a7 camera series sales are often ahead of the new Nikon Z series sales on Amazon, the Canon R has no IBIS and one card slot, and Ricoh/Pentax hasn't given up even though their market share is small, I'd say Sony will be around for quite a while.

@Charrik1: I think he is just trolling.

@ojos
ALL Sony’s fab dab cameras are available for your order immediately at major retailers - apart from the A73. So your comment about Sony cams on constant back order is as wrong as most of your other posts. Happy to be of service 😊

Yes.
Apart from the top selling A7iii.

Not only top selling but also alone in the $2000 segment as top selling.

Next $2000 behind is another Sony.

@Ojos...Top selling? That "old" 6D Mk II alone sells more than entire A9, A7R III and A7III combined.

@jack Joan

"@Ojos...Top selling? That "old" 6D Mk II alone sells more than entire A9, A7R III and A7III co"

No. No it doesn't. Nothing like. A little while back the manager of one of the largest stores in London told me they had sold more than 50 A7IIIs in the previous month and just two 6DIIs.

He also told me that the 5D4 didn't sell well and neither did the A9. The other big sellers were the A7rIII and the D850.

All cameras were in stock.

Sony are profitable Nikon isn't and Sony is a diversified business group not a one product company.

@ Kandid: Are there any sales numbers available backing up the claim of a good selling 6dii? Canons financial reports just mention solid sales numbers for the 6d, with a clear sales decrease due to a contracting market overall. Given their enthusiasm regarding previous years statements, that doesn't sound good. I would be interested in that, since that would give one an idea of the demand in the entry level FF market.

First, Sony has to school Canon on how to do IBIS, and teach both Canon and Nikon how to provide dual card slots in a FF mirrorless camera.

What if Canon put 6Dii's sensor into this camera? Does it really not mattet that DR of a FF is worse than 1 inch ones?

I know, I just wanted to make my point without mentioning his name or his youtube handle.

Even if it's cropped, it's still the standard Super 35 format , which all major Cinema cameras from Black Magic to Red, Arri etc adopts. So, it's nothing to sweat about. As long as they give 1:1 pixel readout with 480Mbps bitrate, it's still very good, which is great for post production as compared to highly compressed codecs.

If that "Manual focus guide" is not for Canon MLC buyers, then all those other inferior video AF camera out there, that too without a tilty selfie touchscreen, is not for anyone.

EOS M is a dead end. There's no upgrade path from EOS M to EOS R. They are two different systems. RF lenses won't work on EOS M bodies. That's like if Nikon FX lenses didn't work on DX bodies. Crazy.

In the long run, RF mount is the future for Canon mirrorless. EOS R will eventually get APS-C sensors. There will be an APS-C version of EOS R bodies. And they'll get RF-S lenses (mirrorless equivalent of Canon EF-S lenses). By doing so, the Canon mirrorless system will mirror (no pun intended) what Canon has in their DSLR system:

>EF and EF-S lenses for DSLR, where all EF lenses work on all Canon DSLRs
>RF and RF-S lenses for mirrorless, where all RF lenses work on all Canon mirrorless bodies
>no more need for EOS M and EF-M lenses

continued...

And they'll be able to make APS-C EOS R bodies quite small. Compare the size of a Rebel SL1 to an EOS M50.

https://camerasize.com/compare/#448,776

Rebel SL1 has same mount size as RF, except with a longer flange distance. So a Rebel R mirrorless would basically be an SL1 with a 20mm flange distance (instead of 44mm) compared to the M50's 18mm flange distance. It'd basically be the same size as an EOS M50. They could also make the lenses small too, with a bit of a step-down from the 54mm mount diameter if they wanted to. Ultimately, an APS-C EOS R could be made so close in size to EOS M that it diminishes the need for EOS M at all. And more importantly, it unifies Canon's APS-C and FF mirrorless under one common lens mount: RF.

Canon will probably keep EOS M around until the come out with an APS-C EOS R body and lenses. Then they'll start to phase out EOS M. Maybe they'll keep one or two bodies around, like the M100.

@T3, your comments are so funny, narrow and are prejudiced (is it the correct vocabulary?).

Read the points I mentioned above, 1, 2, 3 and 5 and the following. You'll know what's practical out in the world verses what typical forum basher/dweller thinks.

And regarding your SL1 concept, it's clearly defined in point 4 combined with 1.

@Jack Jian - Many of your points are about adapting EF lenses. Most people DON'T want to adapt DSLR lenses! They want native mirrorless lenses! Besides, EOS R bodies can adapt EF lenses too! So there's no point in EOS M.

Also consider that EOS R bodies can adapt all Canon lens types (EF, EF-S, RF) *except* EF-M! That tells you a little about how Canon sees the future of EF-M. They are basically shutting it out.

RF as the unifying Canon mirrorless mount is definitely the way to go. It's just a matter of putting an APS-C sensor inside an EOS R body. That will give Canon's APS-C mirrorless users an upgrade path to Canon FF mirrorless, which doesn't exist with their current mirrorless situation. It also creates less confusion among consumers to have one unifying mirrorless mount and one unifying mirrorless system rather than two different incompatible mirrorless mounts (RF and EF-M) in two different mirrorless systems (EOS R and EOS M).

Dear T3, I have clearly mentioned about the "...Most people DON'T want to adapt DSLR lenses!..." in my last second paragraph, please read it again. Those number of people don't contribute much to any of the manufactures and are also countable by fingers.

Also, no actual buyers are confused. That's why the MILC sales figure of Canon is doing very well, I think better then the rest combined.

Don't worry, EOS M has a stay of execution for at least a couple more years until Canon brings out an EOS R body with an APS-C sensor in it. And even after that, they may keep one or two EOS M bodies around, such as the EOS M100, for those who want something super small.

@Jack Jian, your comments are absolutely right. Only the poor fools and idiots will continue to argue with that.

"Also, no actual buyers are confused. That's why the MILC sales figure of Canon is doing very well."

That was BEFORE Canon introduced a second, incompatible mirrorless system and mount! LOL.

No, Canon will definitely want to unify their mirrorless system so that it is like their DSLR system.

>EF and EF-S for DSLR
>RF and RF-S for mirrorless

It also simplifies mirrorless lens production. For example, if Canon wanted to make an 85/1.8 for mirrorless, they'd just need to make one RF version that could be used by both their APS-C and FF mirrorless users...just like it is with their APS-C and FF DSLR users (the EF 85/1.8 USM). But with two different systems (EOS R and EOS M), they'd have to make two versions: one for RF mount and one for EF-M mount! Financially, that is definitely not good. It's better to have one lens that has wide usership and sales potential across a single system, rather than two different lenses for two different systems.

I don't think Canon would have any hesitancy to kill off the EOS M system when the time came to do so (ie, when they put an APS-C sensor in an EOS R body). They killed off their entire FD system when the EF system was introduced. Nikon recently killed of their entire Nikon 1 system. It's just business.

@T3, don't be so desperate, I am laughing out loud. :D

@Jack Jian - There are some details and parallels that hint at what Canon is doing. For example, look at the mount names and diameters:

EF mount, 54mm diameter
RF mount, 54mm diameter

Similar naming style, exact same diameter. Eventually when Canon puts an APS-C sensor in an EOS R body, they'll make APS-C lenses for RF mount. And they'll likely call them RF-S. So:

EF, EF-S, 54mm diameter
RF, RF-S, 54mm diameter

It's a perfect parallel with what Canon has already done successfully in their DSLR system. So why wouldn't they want to replicated it with their mirrorless system?

EOS R bodies also accept every Canon lens mount (EF, EF-S, RF, eventually RF-S) *except* EF-M. Canon is essentially excluding EF-M! It's as if they are saying that EF-M isn't *really* part of the true Canon system! It's not part of the Canon canon, lol.

EOS M was a temporary detour for Canon, much like Nikon 1 was a temporary detour for Nikon. But both these detours lead to dead ends.

@T3 - It must be so cool running Canon! Thank you for sharing its plans with us and giving us our opinions while you’re at it!

Seriously though, give your doom and gloom “the M is dying” speech a rest. It’s getting old at this point. Do you think posting it over and over makes you right? A fortune teller? Nostradamus even?

By the way, you do realize that making an 85 mm for two systems isn’t quite the same, right? I mean, that 85 isn’t quite an 85 once on that smaller sensor, now is it? An APS-C user in need of an 85 mm focal length couldn’t and wouldn’t even consider that 136 mm equivalent. Oh, and Canon makes 3 of that focal length by the way, so they apparently DON’T mind making several copies. They make what sells, not what you think.

While I understand the advantage of lens compatibility, how many people actually make decisions based on this? The M system has limited lens choices anyway. No one is that heavily invested in that. Whether Canon continues development the M system (I think they should, because of the size and quality of the lenses), it is not really going to be such a significant decision that will make or break Canon's fortune.

Going Sony?

I have a 200GB Sandisk microSDXC card in my LG V20 and it's rated for up to 2TB microSDXC cards.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1879/43739115314_4e2f9e58c4_b.jpg

Dual UHS-II slots on my GH5 :
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1845/43488263534_a6d4e4cf5c_b.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIN7VOgMy2w

Thematic,
LOL, that would actually be too much progress. Japanese camera manufacturers are very backwards. They still insist in using stupid accessory cards but none of the computer are equipped with readers anymore, then we all have to sit here and listen to dpr commenters about how the so-called 'pros' need dual cards. LOL
None of the pros I know ever remove the card(s) from their cameras.

photomedium - I guess it depends on how much memory you need and on how often you download. Personally I record JPEGs to a high capacity CF card which stays in the camera, and record RAWs to 32GB SD in the other slot. I change the SD card daily when I'm on a (typically) 2 week shoot, as I don't like putting all my eggs in one basket.

Within the limits of current of technology it would be sheer stupidity for camera manufacturers to only fit internal memory. If a removable card corrupts you can just replace it with another card, but if internal memory goes down you are completely stuffed and without a camera until you can get it repaired. Also internal memory would add hugely to the cost of cameras, and they are pretty damned expensive already!

entoman,
would 256GB do it? Single storage with cloud and daily backups is how computers have operated for quite a while now, and has been working out so far. Same deal for cellphones.
Granted cameras are more exposed to elements but there has to be a better way than cards to go about it.

@Shiranai,
why? Because they have no idea how.
DPAF is a kludge.

As of this time, simulated computational bokeh is just like Optical Zoom vs Digital zoom. I [neither serious people in business] will ever go for it, at least as of this time.

digital bokeh still doesn't look authentic. and Canon isn't Google. does not have the computer engineers to pull it off well. Also with this, it will eat up battery life.

Buy Sony APS-C, Fuji APS-C or Canon APS-C mirrorless. Vote with your wallet.

APS-C is so 90s. People are sick of circumcised sensors in order to save cost.

I don't think that it is going to be abandoned. Fuji does well with its APS-C cameras. As well as Canon has various mirrorless APSC-C. Simply media pay more attention to a FF mirrorless because a few time ago it was produced by only one company, And entering this market by Nikon (and possibly by Canon) was a sensation.

I too have a soft spot for the m4/3 format. It really is a nice balance between size and performance, as it allows not just for smaller bodies but for smaller lenses.

Without smartphones, I think m4/3 would have had a great place in the market. But smartphones are gobbling up the market from the bottom up, and thus the only place to really play in the future is the high end. And high end users want larger sensors. Most of the users who would value m4/3 are just sticking with smartphones, as they get better and better.

It's going to be a casualty of the market, but it was very clever.

M43 is now more than 2 stops behind best ff. There are no miracles. M43 is lagging behind with little investment - no fast readout, no on sensor memory.. sony ff and 1'' use newest tech, m43 not so much.

Thoughts R Us - As you say, M43 is a great balance between size/weight and performance, although far inferior to FF. Many people are getting fed up with big heavy DSLRs and want something smaller and lighter. FF mirrorless isn't really the answer because using a full-sized long tele on them makes them front heavy and uncomfortable to manoeuvre. So M43 will be around for a while yet.

I normally use Canon DSLRs but I've used OMD EM1Mkii and it fits my hands perfectly, and the lenses are so small and light. The issues I have are that such a small camera inevitably has small fiddly controls, and the menu layout is probably the worst of any current camera. The M43 Panasonics are better operationally IMHO.

APS-C won't die until FF becomes cheaper. And by cheaper, I mean 80D-cheaper.