The Canon RF mount model muddle 7 July 2022 A consumer perspective

 

Australasian Gannet Juv. EOS R5 with RF 100-500mm L

Canon introduced the EF mount and the EOS line of interchangeable lens cameras and lenses in 1987.  The EF electronic  mount represented a complete break from the previous FD mechanical mount. Canon had a clean sheet on which they could design a completely new line of camera bodies and lenses with no legacy features which needed to be carried over.

In the film era this project proceeded in a fairly straightforward fashion at least from the consumer perspective.

But then came the digital era and the product catalogue started to get more complex.

We got EF-S crop sensor bodies and EF-S lenses to match. But EF-S lenses could not be mounted on full frame bodies.

After a while along came mirrorless camera technology.  Canon’s first entry into this realm was the  EF-M system with a different lens mount and a set of EF-M lenses exclusive to EF-M bodies.

A bit later Canon entered the full frame mirrorless market with  another new lens mount and catalogue of bodies and lenses using the RF system.

Not content with that, in 2022  they released yet another line of crop sensor bodies and lenses this time called RF-S. RF and RF-S lenses will fit on and work on any RF mount camera thus far but RF-S lenses will not cover the full frame sensor.

So now, in July 2022 Canon presents the prospective buyer with a confusing  model muddle involving both bodies and lenses.

We have EF full frame bodies and EF lenses, crop sensor EF-S bodies and lenses, EF-M bodies and lenses, RF full frame bodies and lenses and RF-S crop sensor bodies and lenses.

But wait, it gets worse. Not only do prospective Canon buyers have to select between different systems but even within the same system there is a lack of coherence making the experience of selecting and using the equipment un-necessarily complex and confusing.

We can consider the ergonomics and user experience of a single model as a stand-alone and that is a useful exercise.

But my reading of user forums would suggest that plenty of photographers own and use two or more camera bodies and several lenses.  For these people, of whom I am one, it is really essential that one Canon camera have substantially the same controls and user experience as another one on the same tier in the price/capability hierarchy.

This is because we learn to operate a camera using muscle memory, just like driving a car. Imagine the chaos if we had a car with the accelerator and brake pedals transposed.

Camera makers do something similar  with concurrent models leading to un-necessary confusion.

Consider cameras and lenses which use the RF mount which was introduced in 2018.  This was an opportunity to re-set the product catalogue with bodies and lenses having substantially the same controls and user interface design.

But that has not happened. Right from the first RF mount model, the EOS R, we saw designers messing about with the controls for no stated or apparent reason. The EOS R featured a control module never seen before or requested by anybody in the form of the multifunction bar.  Most users were unable to find a use for this thing and disabled it. But why was it there in the first place ?

The next model in the RF catalogue was the EOS RP. This has a different form, different controls doing different things and a different battery.

Then came the EOS R5 and R6 which are very similar but both those models have a control layout which is sufficiently different from the R or RP that switching from R5 or R6 to R or RP  is confusing.

I have an R5 and an RP and find that whenever I switch from one to the other I feel as though I have to learn what to do all over again.

Then along comes the crop sensor R7 with a completely new type of control module never seen before and never requested by anybody, in the form of the concentric Multi-controller/rear control dial unit the clever design of which ensures that the thumb will bear against and often move the control dial when working the multicontroller. In the meantime the place where the rear dial sits on other R series bodies is essentially vacant being host to just an on/still/video switch which could easily have been located beneath and protruding out from the rear dial as in the R10.  What on earth were they thinking ?

Many keen bird/sports/surfing/wildlife photographers will have an R5 or R6 and will want to add the R7 for more effective reach with distant subjects. They will not be well pleased to find they have to re-learn how to use the device when switching from one body to the other.

Neither will they be happy to find that sometimes when moving the AF box they also inadvertently change exposure compensation or aperture or shutter speed depending on what function was allocated to the rear control dial.

It’s a mess which could and should have been avoided simply by making each of these camera bodies the same size and shape with  the same set of controls in the same locations and functioning the same way.

The R7 has a box volume (w x h x d) of 1093 cubic centimeters (cc)which is not significantly smaller than the R5/R6 which has a box volume of 1190cc. So I see no benefit to the user arising from the different shape and controls of the R7 compared to the R5/6.

But if the R5/5/7 each had the same exterior body and controls that would provide a very substantial benefit to users.

What about the new EOS R10 ?

Box volume of the crop sensor R10 is 898cc which is greater than that of the full frame RP which is 791cc. Not only is the RP smaller than the R10 but it is wider which provides greater clearance between the lens barrel and the fingers of the right hand. In early reviews of the R10 several users complained that their fingers pressed uncomfortably against the barrel of some of the larger RF lenses which were used in the test.

I include the RP and the R10 in my proposed level 3 group (see below) of models which would appeal to amateur/enthusiast/upper entry level users. On this basis Canon would make a lot of users happy by giving all models at this level the same body shape, size and control layout and making this as close as possible to bodies in level 2.

What about lenses ?

Unfortunately the same kind of muddle has developed and is getting worse.

Some lenses have an AF/MF switch, others do not. Some bodies have an AF/MF switch, others do not. Which prevails ?  …..The switch on the lens does if there is one. If you have a lens with no AF/MF switch on a body with no AF/MF switch you have to enter a menu to select AF or MF.  What a mess. 

My appeal as a consumer to Canon is….please make up your corporate mind….either fit an AF/MF switch to every lens or none or every body or none. Be consistent across the whole catalogue of bodies and lenses with such a basic and essential function.

Likewise, some lenses have a stabiliser On/Off switch, some do not have the switch although they do have a stabiliser.  Some bodies have a stabiliser, some do not   Again my plea to Canon is please be consistent across the model range. Locate a stabiliser On/Off control module of the same type in the same place no matter what RF mount body or lens is in use.

I guess Canon is unlikely to do this across the whole model range because of unit cost and marketing considerations, but here is a suggestion which I think has merit and which could be implemented:

This comes from a user perspective. I understand that Canon product development execs most likely consider themselves to be fully engaged the enterprise of meeting user expectations but I think they could improve their implementation of the project, on which by the way, the fortunes of the entire corporation rest.

My suggestion has camera bodies allocated to one of 5 levels in the price/capability hierarchy.

All bodies on all levels would have the same major controls. These would include handle, shutter button, front dial, Fn button, rear top dial, multicontroller (joystick), AF On button, lower rear dial.

All bodies at the same level would have exactly the same body size and shape and external control layout. They would use the same battery and the same accessory battery grip in the case of level 2 models.

The body structure might be different, for instance, metal/polycarbonate and the ruggedness might be different, as might be the sensor, EVF, monitor and processor.

This stratification system could work out as follows:

Level 1 Integral vertical grip units

These are the professional, high performance models. In the RF mount catalogue this includes the R3 and as-yet-not-manifest R1.

These cameras come with “the works” as far as controls. A pro photographer switching from an R3 to an R1 will want to find the body and controls identical to ensure continuity of the user experience.

Level 2 Expert/prosumer units without integral grip but able to fit an accessory battery grip. Models in this group have IBIS and a high performance capability.

At the moment in this group we have the R5, R6 and R7.

As discussed above I would like Canon to give all models at this user level the exact same size, shape and control layout. From my perspective as a consumer and frequent user this would be highly desirable.

Why Did Canon give the R7 a different shape and control layout from the R5/6 ?

Of course I don’t know but Canon has a long history of  dividing their product lines into thin market segments so I guess that would be a factor.  One problem with this is that the overall market is now so small that subdivisions which worked well for Canon ten years ago might be just a source of un-necessary and counter-productive diversification today.

Level 3 Units with smaller form factor.   Cameras in this  group will appeal to enthusiast/ amateur/  aspirational yet  budget conscious buyers wanting to step up from  their smart phone and experience the challenge of camera photography.

These cameras do not have IBIS, they use a smaller battery and do not offer an accessory battery grip.

Models in this group presently include the RP and R10. The R sits awkwardly somewhere between levels 2 and 3. If I were in charge of product development at Canon I would not be planning any direct replacement for the R.

RP size/shape models with controls more like those on the R10 would work very well at this level. In my preferred user world there would be no difference between full frame and crop sensor models with respect to exterior size, shape and control layout.

The size of a camera body is determined mainly by the lens mount, flange back distance, handle, EVF, monitor, IBIS if fitted, controls and battery. The size of the sensor has very little to do with it.

Level 4 Entry level models with lowest level of spec and performance, some without EVF.   This the lowest entry level for mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. Models at this level offer a small form, light weight and a limited set of controls.

There are no RF mount models at this level yet but an RF version of something similar to the EOS M50 and M200 could be possible.

I personally think cameras without a built in EVF are an abomination to be avoided like the plague. But some people like them and users coming from the smartphone world could well feel more comfortable with a camera lacking an EVF. Until they want to accurately frame up photos in bright sunlight of course.

With or without a built in EVF I would like to see all models at this level have the same basic body size, handle and controls.

Level 5 Compacts and bridge cameras (fixed lens models).

There appears to have been little or no R&D work on fixed lens models over the last few years. However Canon still offers several compacts each of which has a different shape, size, control layout and operation. If Canon ever does resume development of fixed lens models I hope that consolidation of design features and the user experience is part of the project.