Canon EOS-R and EOS-M Speculations on the way forward. 2 November 2020

EOS-R with EF 70-300mm lens. This is a good combination for static or slowly moving subjects, not so good for anything moving fast

There have been numerous rumors  predicting the demise of Canon’s EOS-M system of interchangeable lens cameras.

There is also a recent rumor that Canon will make an RF mount body with a crop sensor, presumably but not necessarily the same size as the sensors found in current EF-M bodies which have a diagonal of 27mm.

This post summarises my personal speculations about these matters.

I have no inside knowledge of any description and no affiliation with any entity which makes or sells photo gear.

I am just an ordinary retail buyer and enthusiast user  of cameras.

Basically I suspect the rumors are probably true.

So, where do I think Canon is going with it’s interchangeable lens offerings ?

I think  Canon will rationalise it’s current unwieldy catalogue of 4 lens mount/lens types  

( RF/EF/EF-S/EF-M ) down to just one, that being RF.

In the medium to long term this will provide the best outcome for both Canon and its camera users.

It will allow Canon to divest itself of the need to design, make, sell and support multiple systems.

It will greatly clarify options for buyers who currently have to negotiate a maze of interconnected and sometimes incompatible options for body and lens types leading to much confusion. 

Canon’s new product announcements in recent times give support to this view.

The schedule of lens releases in particular is telling, I think.

What is the point of installing a crop sensor in an RF mount body ?

Basically this is for the sport/action/wildlife/bird mob who want speed and reach.

They will get both of these with a crop sensor.  All full frame lenses have an effective focal length 1.5 or 1.6 times that indicated, depending on the actual size of the crop sensor.

If I were in charge I would make all RF lenses able to cover the full frame 43mm diagonal sensor.

Sony and Nikon have gone with a single lens mount but have muddied the waters and confused a lot of  buyers with  two different lens types, one for the full frame 43mm diagonal sensor and another for the 28mm crop sensor.

I hope that Canon’s product development people are on the ball  and that they will avoid this trap.  They can produce a range of lenses which can work equally well for full frame 43mm or 27mm sensors.

Thus an ultrawide lens on 43mm becomes a standard wide on 27/28mm and a moderate tele on 43mm becomes effectively a super-tele on 27/28mm…..you get the idea.

What about the advantages of the EOS-M system ?

The advantages most users cite for the M system are size/weight and cost.

Let’s deal with cost.  As I write this in November 2020 bodies and lenses for the M system are mostly less expensive than the approximate full frame equivalents. But that is partly because they offer a lower level of specifications and performance than most full frame bodies and lenses. 

Consider current deals being offered on the EOS RP with the 24-105mm STM lens. These put this full frame kit right into the upper end of the EOS-M price range.  I have no doubt this trend will continue with more new full frame bodies pitched right down into M series price territory.

Yes, I know the RP is a low performance model, I have owned one. And yes the EOS M6.2 is by comparison a high performance model, I own one of those. Fine, but look at the trend.

Lenses will see the same trend.  Canon Australia was recently giving away free an RF 35mm f1.8 IS macro, which by the way is a really good lens ( I have one) with purchase of an RF mount body.

The RF 24-105mm STM kit lens is often on sale for a lower price than the EF-M 18-150mm. The two are not exactly comparable but my point is that the price of budget style full frame lenses is coming down.

The cost to make most of the components of a camera is about the same be it full frame or crop senor. Body shell, chassis, lens mount, electronics, EVF, monitor, processor, buttons and dials ….most of the bits cost the same.

In the past the big difference was in the cost of the sensor. But with new manufacturing techniques the gap is getting smaller each year.

Now let’s look at size/weight.

We can see that the size of a camera body is mainly determined by the desired dimensions of the monitor, the lens mount, space for a battery, handle configuration, EVF housing,  IBIS if fitted and arrangements for heat dispersal.   Once you lock in those elements the size is set. It will make little difference whether the sensor is 43mm or 27 or 28mm on the diagonal.

The EOS RP is compact and handles well. It could be even smaller if that was thought to be desirable for marketing purposes.

Here is a little chart of sizes for comparison:

You can see there is not much difference between these three bodies. The Sony A7c actually has a smaller box volume (w x h x d ) than the EOS M50.

I am not recommending that anybody buy the Sony because of its poor ergonomic configuration but my point is made, I think, that sensor size is not a primary or even substantial factor in determining body size.

What about the lenses ?

I once thought it was axiomatic that crop sensor lenses would be smaller than equivalent full frame ones.

But then I came to realise that much of the size advantage of crop sensor lenses is due to many of them not being truly equivalent to full frame types.

Let us take a relatively simple example in the form of a comparison between the RF 50mm f1.8 (about to be announced as I write) and the EF-M 32mm f1.4.

The two are approximately equivalent as to field of view.

The RF lens has a greater diameter of course as it fits on a larger mount, but the EF-M lens is longer, heavier, has a smaller equivalent aperture of f2.2 and is much more expensive.

We will have to see about the optical qualities of the new RF nifty fifty, the EF version is woeful at wide apertures where the  EF-M is super sharp.

Another example:

The EF-M 15-45mm kit lens is smaller and less expensive than the RF 24-105mm STM.

But the 15-45 has a full frame equivalent focal length range of 24-72mm and an equivalent aperture range of f5.6-f10.  If an EF-M kit lens was to be truly equivalent to the full frame one it would have to have a focal length range of 15-75mm and an aperture range of f2.5-f4.5 and if it did have those specifications it would be much the same size, mass and price as the full frame one.

We could trawl through the whole catalogue of lenses with similar comparisons but I think my point is well enough made, which is that a full frame lens need not always be significantly larger or more costly than one designed just for the crop sensor provided that all aspects of  equivalence are taken into account.

How will this play out ?

I think the scenario will run along lines already under way.

Canon will develop one or more small RF mount bodies with better image quality and performance than the RP.

They will include a compact RF mount body with a high speed crop sensor for the sports and wildlife shooters.

They will roll out more compact RF zooms and primes which can be used on either RF full frame or RF crop sensor bodies.

They will stop making DSLRs and EF/EFS lenses, as soon as they have a range of  RF bodies and lenses which appeal to  budget conscious enthusiast users. 

The RF models will not be cheapies like the low level Rebels but will gain their appeal by offering more features and capabilities at a higher price point.

They will starve the M system of new product, hoping to gradually wean buyers off their M cameras and into a new generation of compact budget priced full frame models.

And the time line ?

Who knows but Canon will not want to alienate existing Canon users if that can be avoided.

Here’s a wild guess:

DSLRs: No new models after 2021. Production to cease in 2022.

EF/EFS lenses: No new models, Production to cease in 2022.

EF-M: No new bodies or lenses after 2021. Production to cease in 2023.

We shall see.