# Another interview about the EOS R and talk of an APS-C EOS R Body



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 29, 2018)

> DCWatch has posted an interview with Canon’s Executive Office for the imaging division at Canon Inc. in Japan. There were a few interesting questions and answers above and beyond what we’ve already heard since the EOS R was launched.
> What does The R in EOS R mean? (Google Translated)
> The development concept word for this new system is “Reimagine optical excellence.” The letter “R” took the first letter of its first word “Reimagine”. However, in the development stage, various words such as “Revert”, “Reborn”, etc. with “R” flickered with the meaning of “redefining” EOS again “to reactivate”. As a result, we have developed the concept of “Reimagine optical excellence.” And decided to use “R” for both product name and system name. I felt that I could put down the feelings of the development team well.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 29, 2018)

"R" could also stand for "Reach" (as in straining to reach for something). I wonder if the actual Japanese is as poetic as these Google translations. "Reborn," "Reactivate." These terms conjure a team that had hit the wall and was desperate for a new beginning. As if they had hit a bottom, or dead-end...Let's hope they Recover and don't have a Relapse!


----------



## Daan Stam (Oct 29, 2018)

I think the future of the R system will be bright and really interesting to watch


----------



## traveller (Oct 29, 2018)

erR?


----------



## padam (Oct 29, 2018)

RF is a universal mount just like EF (EF-S) was, so of course there will be crop bodies.
But it will take a lot of time, it does not really make sense until they have enough lenses and the AF has evolved enough to reach the 7D II level.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 29, 2018)

With the ability of the R to take crop lenses, there is not much reason for a APS-C version of the R. You can get the same view by mounting a EF-S lens and a adapter, or by setting the camera to crop mode.

A 60 MP version may also have the ability to have high FPS while in crop mode, I expect to see something innovative like that for those who want high performance and are willing to accept a crop view to get it.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 30, 2018)

The reason for an APS-C version of the R is the same reason it always has been. To reduce costs and to increase performance. It is inconceivable that the 7 series will be discontinued or be produced as an M camera in its current form. While it certainly is possible that Canon will produce M mount cameras in a significantly larger form factor with various degrees of weather-sealing for the 7, XXD and Rebel series, I think the body/lens size ratio would look rather silly and the marketing division would have none of it. Also, the 7 series needs big whites. Being the happy owner of an M5, I would get giddy as a schoolgirl if Canon made some fast teles in the M mount, but I really doubt that's going to happen. That leaves the R mount...


----------



## Talys (Oct 30, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> With the ability of the R to take crop lenses, there is not much reason for a APS-C version of the R. You can get the same view by mounting a EF-S lens and a adapter, or by setting the camera to crop mode.
> 
> A 60 MP version may also have the ability to have high FPS while in crop mode, I expect to see something innovative like that for those who want high performance and are willing to accept a crop view to get it.



Except for price. If, one day, Canon wants MILC to overtake DSLR, they will need an EOS R that's $400 with a kit lens and that won't be full frame.

One could argue that's where M's headed, but a lot of people still want a bigger camera that can use EF/EFS lenses -- or maybe future RF lenses that are not L and inexpensive.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 30, 2018)

If all the exclusive glass is very expensive, why even go for an even cheaper camera. Just let people have their rebels. I have yet to see one person ask for an aps-c EOS R, most people are asking for a "pro" option. Unless there is a secret place where most people are asking for lower spec cameras. Come on Canon peopel have been asking about an 5DS R II for awhile now. Make that mirrorless, add your version of IBIS and you win.


----------



## vjlex (Oct 30, 2018)

I can't wrap my head around this. I can't see the logic in an EOS R crop body when the EOS-M is a perfectly fine APS-C Canon mirrorless. Who would such a camera be for?

Is it for those who want more reach with their EF lenses? Is this for people who want a 7D mirrorless equivalent? Then why not make a better, more rugged M body and use the adapter. Is it for those who want to use EF-S lenses on a mirrorless? You can already do that on EOS R with an adapter.

There don't seem to be enough RF or EF-S lenses to justify demand for a cropped RF. It still seems like a mistake not to make M lenses adaptable to R. This is doubling down on that decision.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Oct 30, 2018)

the Steve Jobs approach to market research might be best here. Whatever whining is done in these forums is just whistling upstream - Canon will do whatever the R system roadmap is and follow it at a leisurely pace. I would guess the timeframe for a top notch R body is three years and at least three iterations. Lenses are easier, but don't expect Canon to match the pace that Fuji set when they introducted the X system. in the meantime, what you see is what you get.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 30, 2018)

Talys said:


> Except for price. If, one day, Canon wants MILC to overtake DSLR, they will need an EOS R that's $400 with a kit lens and that won't be full frame.
> 
> One could argue that's where M's headed, but a lot of people still want a bigger camera that can use EF/EFS lenses -- or maybe future RF lenses that are not L and inexpensive.


I was responding to the possible need for a 7D MK II mirrorless sucessor. Its not a low end body, and certainly a 60 mp body will be $3800, but it could also be the poor mans 1D and replace the 7D series. Its just another line of thought, maybe unlikely.


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 30, 2018)

Canon would have the exact numbers. It is very likely that most of the 'XXXD' (aka 'Rebel') DSLR owners only used and wanted the more basic lenses, e.g. 18-55, 55-250mm and a prime (e.g. 50mm f/1.8). I see the EOS M line being the MILC equivalent and/or replacement for the majority of those photographers. That is, covering both those new to photography (i.e. first interchangable lens camera purchasers) as well as those who may wish to upgrade / update to mirrorless.

The enthusiast photographers (including the majority of the XXD / 7D owners) have more specialist lenses, e.g. more prosumer zooms, ultra wide angle, more and specialist primes (e.g. macro, ultra bright lenses, etc). And I see these photographers as being in 2 camps - 1) choosing to go to a smaller size (e.g. M5, M6, M50) and 2) somewhat more likely to move to the EOS R mirrorless. Therefore there could potentially be sufficient market for an APS-C mirrorless in EOS R format. These owners are also more likely to have more than 1 camera body.

There is definitely a lot to be said for having the ergonomics of a EOS R when using certain faster / bigger lenses. I did not foresee or expect the RF mount to come with the functionality to accept EF-S lenses, but I see that as a very smart move from Canon. As someone who owns a number of EF-S lenses, as well as L lenses, the EOS R is more attractive than any FF DSLR ever was. For several years, I have been carefully factoring in a planned move to mirrorless.

I own a 80D, 7D and a M5 (amongst other bodies) and over a dozen lenses both primes and zooms - with a mix of EF, EF-S and EF-M, including some L glass. That the EOS R can readily accept all my EF and EF-S lenses makes great sense to me. Due to the ergonomics, I do not ever see me using the M5 (or similar sized body) for action: i.e. for wildlife especially birds, or sports. However a EOS R - particularly one that may have a "crop mode" that enables faster FPS is very attractive to me.

Naturally, one would expect most FF DSLR owners would transition to EOS R / RF mount (in time, or sooner if they do not yet own many EF lenses). That a range of RF mount bodies has been more than hinted at would cover most of these bases, i.e. a more budget as well as a more pro body compared to the first-on-the-scene EOS R as Canon's mirrorless FF body.

In the future I expect would be many users who would have both RF and EF-M mount bodies, one for ultimate usability and quality (RF mount) and the other based more on size (especially for the 'quick throw in a small bag' convenience). I expect some years down the track I will be in this situation... It also allows me to save up $ over time for the RF mount lenses I really want - while still being able to use my EF and EF-S lenses... and, where I want, still using my DSLRs. 

Meanwhile, there will be those who only have the EOS M / EF-M bodies (for whom APS-C sized sensors, and smaller lenses are good enough). And there will be users who just use the EOS R / RF mount environment (and who may resort to using their smart phones to capture 'quick / memory snaps & videos' when they aren't carting their larger photography gear around).

Canon will be making money on all these options. Smart move, Canon.

PJ


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 30, 2018)

shunsai said:


> I can't wrap my head around this. I can't see the logic in an EOS R crop body when the EOS-M is a perfectly fine APS-C Canon mirrorless. Who would such a camera be for?
> 
> Is it for those who want more reach with their EF lenses? Is this for people who want a 7D mirrorless equivalent? Then why not make a better, more rugged M body and use the adapter. Is it for those who want to use EF-S lenses on a mirrorless? You can already do that on EOS R with an adapter.
> 
> There don't seem to be enough RF or EF-S lenses to justify demand for a cropped RF. It still seems like a mistake not to make M lenses adaptable to R. This is doubling down on that decision.



Canon has one rather big problem with their M and R systems not taking the same lenses. The largest part of the market are entry level users. If the M series aim at the entry level users, then, since the M lenses can’t be used on the R, Canon lack an upgrade path to the R series. This stands in contrast to the EFS and EF line. The entry level user who wanted/needed a new lens would often buy an EF lens, which for many would also be the first step into Canon full frame cameras. 

Essentially, Canon lacks an upgrade path from the M to the R, making it easier and more compelling for M users to change brands if they want full frame. 

I really do believe the M series have and will cause some frustration between Canon executives and market planners. This situation may also explain Canons lack of dedication for the M series.


----------



## jvillain (Oct 30, 2018)

shunsai said:


> I can't wrap my head around this. I can't see the logic in an EOS R crop body when the EOS-M is a perfectly fine APS-C Canon mirrorless. Who would such a camera be for?



I have the Canon 10-22, Sigma 18-35 & 50-100, Tamron 100-400. Sure they will all fit on the EOS-R with an adapter. So for twice the price of my 80D I can have 6 fewer megapixals. Can't imagine why I wouldn't want that. The M system will never have glass as good as the 18-35 or the 50-100. And an M hanging off the back of the 50-100 would get lost back there. Canon sold a boatload of xxD and 7D's and all those users have glass. Maybe some of them have say a 50mm EF they love. But that was an 85 equivalent back on APS-C. Use the full frame properly and all your lenses you loved are suddenly different focal lengths. 

Sure Canon can play games and try to muscle people like me into rebuying all my glass as FF. But I think Canon has realized that they can't just take being dominant for granted. People have options and if you push to hard it isn't that hard to swap. Heck the Sigmas can even be mount converted.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 30, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> Canon has one rather big problem with their M and R systems not taking the same lenses. The largest part of the market are entry level users. If the M series aim at the entry level users, then, since the M lenses can’t be used on the R, Canon lack an upgrade path to the R series. This stands in contrast to the EFS and EF line. The entry level user who wanted/needed a new lens would often buy an EF lens, which for many would also be the first step into Canon full frame cameras.
> 
> Essentially, Canon lacks an upgrade path from the M to the R, making it easier and more compelling for M users to change brands if they want full frame.
> 
> I really do believe the M series have and will cause some frustration between Canon executives and market planners. This situation may also explain Canons lack of dedication for the M series.



Playing devils advocate here: Both the M and the R can use EF/EF-S with a native adapter. 

I currently use 2 non-M lenses on my M: the MP-E65 and the 50 1.8 STM. But now that I have the EF-M 32 f1.4 the 50mm won't be used on the M that much anymore


----------



## vjlex (Oct 30, 2018)

jvillain said:


> I have the Canon 10-22, Sigma 18-35 & 50-100, Tamron 100-400. Sure they will all fit on the EOS-R with an adapter. So for twice the price of my 80D I can have 6 fewer megapixals. Can't imagine why I wouldn't want that. The M system will never have glass as good as the 18-35 or the 50-100. And an M hanging off the back of the 50-100 would get lost back there. Canon sold a boatload of xxD and 7D's and all those users have glass. Maybe some of them have say a 50mm EF they love. But that was an 85 equivalent back on APS-C. Use the full frame properly and all your lenses you loved are suddenly different focal lengths.
> 
> Sure Canon can play games and try to muscle people like me into rebuying all my glass as FF. But I think Canon has realized that they can't just take being dominant for granted. People have options and if you push to hard it isn't that hard to swap. Heck the Sigmas can even be mount converted.



I'm really not sure what you're saying. Btw, I think you mean 6 *more* megapixels, right?

The M system _already_ has glass as good as the 18-35 and the 50-100: I'm pretty sure you can use those exact lenses themselves on the M mount with the native adapter. If lens-to-body size ratio is the problem, an M50 or something a bit bigger but with the M mount seems like it would take care of that. You haven't exactly said what benefit there would be to a crop sensored R body. I'm honestly not quite sure if you're for it or against it, but from the context it kind of sounds like you're for a cropped R. What benefit exactly is it that you (or really anyone interested in such a camera) hope to gain?



pj1974 said:


> a EOS R - particularly one that may have a "crop mode" that enables faster FPS is very attractive to me



This I get- a crop mode makes sense for the R. But to me, it seems that if they're going to have 2 incompatible mirrorless mounts going forward, then the 7D, XXD and XXXD lines should just adopt the M-mount. There is no benefit I can imagine to mounting an R lens to a crop sensor body.


----------



## mirage (Oct 30, 2018)

There is no problem at all. Canon has 2 distinct mirrorfree systems for 2 distinct market segments:
* small, light, inexpensive, APS-C = EOS M / EF-M ... with option to use all EF and EF-S lenses
* large, expensive, FF = EOS R / RF ... with option to use all EF and EF-S lenses

In reality there is no "upgrade path" from M to R needed. The habit of buying EF lenses in the past was only because the focal lengths were not available in EF-S mount, because they could not be made any smaller or less expensive for APS-C image circle.

Current owners of Rebels, xxD, 7D/II mirrorslappers plus any assortment of EF/EF-S glass have a whole number of options and "upgrade paths" within Canon EOS ecosystem, depending on their priorities and budgets

1. continue with crop DSLR and EF-S/EF glass for a few more years
a) wait for upcoming 7D III [there will be one; 2019]
b) wait for upcoming 90D [there *might* be one; 2020?]

2. go mirrorfree APS-C with EOS M system; all EF-/EF-S lenses remain fully usable, no need to buy EF-M unless desired
a) "downsize" to EOS M50 [now]
b) wait for upcoming EOS M5 II which *should be* a mirrorfree 90D [2019]

3. go mirrorfree FF with EOS R system, all EF lenses fully usable, EF-S in crop mode; no need to buy RF, unless desired
a) EOS R [now]
b) wait for lower-end, less expensive EOS R FF body [2019]
c) wait for higher-end EOS R bodies - hi rez ["mirrorfree 5DS/R II" [2019]
c) "mirrorfree 1D-X III" [spring 2020]

No problem for Canon or their customers whatsoever. Replace EF/EF-S lenses and buy RF lenses at your own schedule - when desired and available.

Many Canon customers will also keep EOS M/EF-M when they buy into RF - as a smaller, lighter, less conspicuous, less expensive secondary system.

For almost all users, EF-M / RF lenses not being interchangeable is "no real issue in real life".


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 30, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> "R" could also stand for "Reach" (as in straining to reach for something). I wonder if the actual Japanese is as poetic as these Google translations. "Reborn," "Reactivate." These terms conjure a team that had hit the wall and was desperate for a new beginning. As if they had hit a bottom, or dead-end...Let's hope they Recover and don't have a Relapse!



The RF looks like the EF system that ultimately made ALL others look like dinosaurs for 30 years. Sony has such a small form factor and throat that they will be choking going forward. They have good sensors but in real world use there is no demonstrable superiority just lab testing difference and most real photographers do not shoot in a lab. Nikon et. al laughed at the 650 and 620 until the 1 came along and they either died (Minolta) or lost all their pro market share. The R is another 30 year leap with features even Nikon is struggling with out. All EF/EFs lenses work beautifully with the R and Nikon abandoned half their AF lenses etc.


----------



## tapanit (Oct 30, 2018)

shunsai said:


> There is no benefit I can imagine to mounting an R lens to a crop sensor body.



I can. If Canon comes up with a 7D-class R body, priced similarly to 7D2, I'll buy it in a heartbeat. I would not buy a similar M body.

Why? I use both APS-C and full-frame bodies, with mostly same lenses. I expect to upgrade FF ones to R series, and start collecting RF lenses. I want them to work in the crop body, too.

Why do I want a crop body in the first place? To get the speed 7D2 provides at a reasonable price (and without built-in vertical handle 1D series has). Of course if Canon makes a FF R body that's as fast and cheap as 7D2 that'd be even better, but somehow that doesn't seem likely.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 30, 2018)

tapanit said:


> I can. If Canon comes up with a 7D-class R body, priced similarly to 7D2, I'll buy it in a heartbeat. I would not buy a similar M body.
> 
> Why? I use both APS-C and full-frame bodies, with mostly same lenses. I expect to upgrade FF ones to R series, and start collecting RF lenses. I want them to work in the crop body, too.
> 
> Why do I want a crop body in the first place? To get the speed 7D2 provides at a reasonable price (and without built-in vertical handle 1D series has). Of course if Canon makes a FF R body that's as fast and cheap as 7D2 that'd be even better, but somehow that doesn't seem likely.


What kind of Photography do you do with your 7D2?


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> There is no problem at all. Canon has 2 distinct mirrorfree systems for 2 distinct market segments:
> * small, light, inexpensive, APS-C = EOS M / EF-M ... with option to use all EF and EF-S lenses
> * large, expensive, FF = EOS R / RF ... with option to use all EF and EF-S lenses
> 
> ...



Your reasoning does not take into account the future. Remember, cheap entry leven EF-S DSLRs have been an important route for Canon to lead many customers into the Canon system, and upgrade thereafter. The possibility to use already acquired EF lenses on a FF body, has led users to upgrade within the Canon system.

It seems natural that the EF-M series will replace EF-S DSLRs in the not so distant future. If the EF-M series becomes the entry level camera line, then there will be no obvious reasons for entry level EF-M customers to choose Canon over the competition when upgrading to a FF system.


----------



## BillB (Oct 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> There is no problem at all. Canon has 2 distinct mirrorfree systems for 2 distinct market segments:
> * small, light, inexpensive, APS-C = EOS M / EF-M ... with option to use all EF and EF-S lenses
> * large, expensive, FF = EOS R / RF ... with option to use all EF and EF-S lenses
> 
> ...


FWIW the common denominator between the EF-M and the RF mount is an EF lens with an adapter. While the introduction of new EF lens designs may drop off pretty quickly, current EF designs will likely be available for quite a while, and some of them are pretty good.


----------



## criscokkat (Oct 30, 2018)

Who's to say we won't see RF-S lenses in the future? Right now mirrorless systems cost more to produce than the cheap rebel cameras because a mirror (not even a prism) is way cheaper than a digital display. But the cost of the viewfinder display is greatly influenced by the amount of those displays you produce. There might be a market for cheap APS-C RF cameras with RF-S consumer lenses. Certainly a 77D or 80D level one.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 30, 2018)

APS-C had a place for use with FF lenses when price was the issue, and the processing power to handle large sensors was an issue.
I see no legitimate reason for Canon to release an APS-C R body.
A cheaper consumer grade FF version of the R, sure why not.


----------



## jvillain (Oct 30, 2018)

shunsai said:


> I'm really not sure what you're saying. Btw, I think you mean 6 *more* megapixels, right?


No when you use the EOS-R with crop lenses and put it into crop mode it becomes an 18MP camera. Or less than most new Rebels. What I don't get is that people were fine with people using good glass on the xxD and 7D cameras but recoil in horror at the idea of a good chunk of that group wanting the same thing in a MILC.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 30, 2018)

jvillain said:


> No when you use the EOS-R with crop lenses and put it into crop mode it becomes an 18MP camera. Or less than most new Rebels. What I don't get is that people were fine with people using good glass on the xxD and 7D cameras but recoil in horror at the idea of a good chunk of that group wanting the same thing in a MILC.


30.3 MP/1.6/1.6 = 11.8 MP, not 18MP

I currently own a 5D3 and 7D. Before that I owned a 5D and 40D. I used the crop camera exclusively with longer lenses, mostly my 100-400 or 300 f/2.8, to extend the reach of the lens. Also, the crop cameras had higher frame rates. However, because the crop cameras had smaller pixels, the FF cameras routinely give me better image quality especially in low light situations.

In August 2007, Nikon introduced the D3 and D300 simultaneously. The D3 was FF and the D300 was crop, but both had about 12MP. Most professionals used the D3 most of the time unless they absolutely needed the extra reach.


----------



## Talys (Oct 30, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I was responding to the possible need for a 7D MK II mirrorless sucessor. Its not a low end body, and certainly a 60 mp body will be $3800, but it could also be the poor mans 1D and replace the 7D series. Its just another line of thought, maybe unlikely.


Oh, right. I posted to the same effect before, too -- it makes little sense, given the lower entry point of full frame cameras now, that smaller sensors don't help shrink telephoto lenses that are often mounted onto 7D, and that EVFs allow magnification in-viewfinder. Totally with you.


----------



## Treyarnon (Oct 30, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> APS-C had a place for use with FF lenses when price was the issue, and the processing power to handle large sensors was an issue.
> I see no legitimate reason for Canon to release an APS-C R body.
> A cheaper consumer grade FF version of the R, sure why not.



There is still a price issue - FF sensors cost significantly more to produce than APS-C ones. If this were not the case, we would have seen a " cheaper consumer grade" FF DSLR by now.
With all the competition in the camera market right now - no one has managed to do that in DSLR's, so why would mirrorless be any different??


----------



## BrightTiger (Oct 30, 2018)

There are at least two distinct APS-C audiences (we'll keep it at two for purposes of this discussion). 
The enthusiast to semi-pro crowd generally want an M-type system due to, but not exclusively:
- lower entry and long term costs
- portability
- enough differentiation in IQ from smartphones and compacts
The semi-pro to pros simply cannot live with the 42mm throat diameter vs 54mm of the EOS-R. Light availability for pro-environments like sports, B-rolls, and so forth is critical, among other benefits that a larger mount and sensor provides. But that also means larger glass and heavier lenses.
For a car analogy, a Kia Soul is fine to carry home a tool box, but a Ford 150 exists to haul trailers. Their immediate and long term costs are way different. Hence, different models for different folks.


----------



## Tremotino (Oct 30, 2018)

I think, canon can build an M-lookalike camera with the RF system when the right time comes. They will bring out "RF-S lenses, similar to the M Lenses and abandone the m system, or at least address it for the beginners and not for the enthusiasts.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 30, 2018)

jvillain said:


> ... The M system will never have glass as good as the 18-35 or the 50-100. ...



Does any other APS-C system have a native lens that is as good as the Sigma 18-35?


----------



## mirage (Oct 30, 2018)

Tremotino said:


> I think, canon can build an M-lookalike camera with the RF system when the right time comes. They will bring out "RF-S lenses, similar to the M Lenses and abandone the m system, or at least address it for the beginners and not for the enthusiasts.



I don't think there will ever be R-mount APS-C lenses and likely also no APS-C sensor in an R-mount camera. 

Eventually, Canon will not only "abandon" EOS M, but all makers will give up on any "crop" ILC system "some day", when computational photography is as good as or better and comes in a much smaller and/or less expensive package. And further down the road, "FF sensor" ILC systems will give way too. 

But hard to tell, how many years we've got until then.


----------



## digitalride (Oct 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> There is no problem at all. Canon has 2 distinct mirrorfree systems for 2 distinct market segments:



They are not 2 distinct segments. Maybe the overlap is small, but there is a segment between professionals where the cost and space isn't an issue and people just starting out with one or two M lenses. Enthusiasts may want one bigger body and one smaller cheaper body to work with all of their lenses.

In the past if you wanted two bodies one option was to get something like a 7D and an M. Maybe you'd have a native lens or two for the M when you wanted something small, but you could adapt bigger lenses on occasion for special events where you wanted two of your big lenses mounted at the same time, or using the small M as a backup on a trip. I tried to do this with an 80D and the M3 but the ergonomics and focusing of the M3 were a deal breaker. I was still considering an M body until the incompatible R was announced. 

In the future once most lenses are R mounts you will need separate lenses for each system and might as well buy one or the other in a different brand. ( though I suppose the flashes will at least be compatible) . 

Also I think the upgrade path problem is non-negligible. Maybe Canon hopes you will just buy all new bodies and lenses to upgrade as opposed to just adding one body or lens. Personally if there is another system that offers more flexibility I'm going to favor it.


----------



## digitalride (Oct 30, 2018)

mirage said:


> I don't think there will ever be [an] APS-C sensor in an R-mount camera.
> Canon will not only "abandon" EOS M ...



Once Canon shrinks an R mount body down to almost the size of an M body there won't be much point to the M. If someone really cares about size that much they are probably using something even smaller like micro 43rds or a cell phone. As smaller cameras improve and full frame sensor costs come down there is no point to APS-C.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 30, 2018)

^ I wouldn’t say that. For instance, a crop sensor means smaller, lighter lenses at a given focal length compared to FF. I think there will always be a place in the market for APS-C. The bigger question may be how crop fits into Canon’s future specifically...


----------



## digitalride (Oct 30, 2018)

Act444 said:


> a crop sensor means smaller, lighter lenses at a given focal length compared to FF



APS-C telephoto lenses can be made a bit lighter but not smaller due to physics, that's why Canon never bothered with EF-S telephoto lenses. As for APS-C telephoto "reach" , if you keep the pixel pitch the same while scaling up an APS-C sensor to full frame ( as some other brand sensors do) then you can just crop the FF sensor and get the exact same photo and performance as an APS-C sensor. 

Yes APS-C can give you smaller wide angle lenses but I think eventually it will fall into a middle ground with not enough cost savings vs. FF and not enough image quality improvement vs. size compared to even smaller formats.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 30, 2018)

digitalride said:


> Once Canon shrinks an R mount body down to almost the size of an M body there won't be much point to the M. If someone really cares about size that much they are probably using something even smaller like micro 43rds or a cell phone. As smaller cameras improve and full frame sensor costs come down there is no point to APS-C.



If the price of APS-C and Full Frame sensors are almost the same, 

...it would not be logical to create new separate APS-C and FF systems.
...it doesn't necessarily mean that a camera company would find it unprofitable to the point of dropping an existing APS-C line.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 30, 2018)

Act444 said:


> a crop sensor means smaller, lighter lenses at a given focal length compared to FF


That's probably not true. However, you can use a shorter focal length lens with a crop camera than with a FF camera. For example, the Canon 100-400 lens weighs 1.64 kg. On a crop camera, it gives about the same field of view as the Sigma 150-600 sport lens, at 2.86 kg, on a FF camera. Long lens weight is dominated by the size of their front elements. The 100-400 uses 77mm filters while the 150-600 uses 105mm filters.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 30, 2018)

digitalride said:


> Once Canon shrinks an R mount body down to almost the size of an M body there won't be much point to the M.


Just how much can Canon shrink the R mount body? The size of the SL2 is dominated by the size of the lens mount, the SL2 is about the same size as the M5 but the M100 can be shrunk even more.
http://j.mp/2Oiqudr


Canon EOS M100







Canon EOS M5







Canon Rebel SL2


----------



## jvillain (Oct 31, 2018)

Bob Howland said:


> 30.3 MP/1.6/1.6 = 11.8 MP, not 18MP



Doooh!!! Thanks for pointing that out. But that just went from bad to downright depressing. :-(



nchoh said:


> Does any other APS-C system have a native lens that is as good as the Sigma 18-35?



The one that might be able to get in the game is Fujifilm but I am not sure. That 18-35 is a really nice piece of glass. I would prefer to stay with Canon if they give me the option. But if Sigma anounced a mount conversion to Fujifilm I would be at the store this weekend checking out their camera bodies.


----------



## jvillain (Oct 31, 2018)

Bob Howland said:


> That's probably not true. However, you can use a shorter focal length lens with a crop camera than with a FF camera. For example, the Canon 100-400 lens weighs 1.64 kg. On a crop camera, it gives about the same field of view as the Sigma 150-600 sport lens, at 2.86 kg, on a FF camera. Long lens weight is dominated by the size of their front elements. The 100-400 uses 77mm filters while the 150-600 uses 105mm filters.


I have the crop equivalent to (the holy trinity plus a 150-600) but it all fits in a small back pack along with a flash and other gear. And the whole rig cost me about half of what doing it with FF would have. My 80D body is already the lightest thing in my back pack. It's the lenses that need to visit the gym. Personally I like the fact that Canon didn't go for the smallest MILC ever made with the EOS R. I hope if they do come out with a mirrorless equivelent to the 7D or 80D with an R mount that they stay in about the same size package. 

Besides how much would it really cost Canon to develop such a camera? They aleady have have a line of APS-C sensors from the M line. The OS is already written. They can make up the cost by charging double what a M5 goes for. Bringing out such a camera doesn't have to spell the end of any other line.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 31, 2018)

dickgrafixstop said:


> the Steve Jobs approach to market research might be best here. Whatever whining is done in these forums is just whistling upstream - Canon will do whatever the R system roadmap is and follow it at a leisurely pace. I would guess the timeframe for a top notch R body is three years and at least three iterations. Lenses are easier, but don't expect Canon to match the pace that Fuji set when they introducted the X system. in the meantime, what you see is what you get.



This would be an idiotic strategy for them— they have to move fast introducing more R bodies; not necessarily crop, but definitely pro. They’re already behind in MILC and they know it.


----------



## mirage (Oct 31, 2018)

well, mirrorfree digital cameras can be shrunk right down to barely fit the lens mount. 

eg Sony A5100 (= without EVF)






http://j.mp/2SxSe0Y

Canon followed a similar approach with the first, ultra-compact EOS M, M2 models, but went bigger and bigger with later models (currently minimum size is EOS M100). Sony also started small with A7 1st gen and made subsequent generations bigger and bigger, partially to accommodate larger grip and better battery, partially to overcome heat dissipation issues stemming from continuous full-bore 4k video recording for 29 minutes on end. 

a stills-centric mirrorfree digital Canon EOS camera (sans 4k video capture!) could be built extremely compact around R-mount FF-sensor. 

Personally I would live it and be willing to take a few compromises in exchange for most compact size - eg "no 4k video, no prominent grip, no top display, no "record video" button, no ON/OFF dial, no M.-fn slider ... 

But it should still come with integrated (excellent!) EVF and decent battery charge. In other words, an EOS R built to minimum size possible with RF mount and LP-E6N power pack and a pop-up EVF (as on some Sony RX-100 models and RX1R II) ... for maximum portability, plus some very compact, moderately fast, easily affordable RF lenses (in addition to f/2 zooms and f/1.2 behemoths). 

Not sure if Canon will ever do it. I don't sense much ambition yet to serve the "i want full frame goodness in a camera as compact as possible" market segment. IBut I am sure there is drmand and there would be a market for such a camera/ system. 

Actually it would be the very market segment Olympus should have positioned themselves in, rather than going going all-in with soon-dead mFT! Just as they did in the days of film SLRs with their OM series: "fully capable FF cameras, noticeably more compact than equivalents by Canon, Nikon and other brands". it might have saved Oly's *ss, but too late now.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 31, 2018)

I'd prefer if R would stand for "Relax (and go out shooting instead of discussing specs)"


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 31, 2018)

mirage said:


> well, mirrorfree digital cameras can be shrunk right down to barely fit the lens mount.



Not if they have to include IBIS as many people want. You can see what happened with Sony's mirrorless A series, and with more and more technology included I expect Sony to approach a 1DX form factor soon


----------



## mirage (Oct 31, 2018)

jvillain said:


> Besides how much would it really cost Canon to develop such a camera? They aleady have have a line of APS-C sensors from the M line. The OS is already written. They can make up the cost by charging double what a M5 goes for. Bringing out such a camera doesn't have to spell the end of any other li



exactly! EOS R is "size M", which is fine for many users and uses and a good starting point for the new R-mount system.

Canon will expand the system and also offer size "L" "pro" models and hopefully also some in size "S".

i am looking for a very compact, mirrorfree system camera with FF sensor that is not "dumbed down to n00b entry level". Something akin to a BMW Mini Cooper in the world of cars, not a Kia Rio, please.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 31, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> The RF looks like the EF system that ultimately made ALL others look like dinosaurs for 30 years.


I wouldn't say it that radically but I agree, the RF mount has a huge potential. On the downside, Canon's flange focal distance is a bit bigger than the competition: 20mm vs 18mm (Sony) vs 16mm of Nikon's new Z mount - which gives a lot of freedom to adapt lenses. In fact, it looks like both the old players in the camera market now got some strong cards in the ML FF game. More competition will drive technology, so all of us customers will profit.


----------



## mirage (Oct 31, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> Not if they have to include IBIS as many people want. You can see what happened with Sony's mirrorless A series, and with more and more technology included I expect Sony to approach a 1DX form factor soon



yes. but i think most of the recent Sony Alpha girth has to do with freaking 4k video heat issues. just another unwanted side- effect of "video in every camera". 

maybe also from listening too much to the small but vocal group of folks with super-size hands using big, long tele-lenses all day long.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 31, 2018)

mirage said:


> i am looking for a very compact, mirrorfree system camera with FF sensor that is not "dumbed down to n00b entry level". Something akin to a BMW Mini Cooper in the world of cars, not a Kia Rio, please.



No, Canon, please do not design a Mini Cooper like camera for the R series, leave the retro fake design approach for naive hipsters to Fuji. Please, Canon, stick with ergonomically well designed modern tools for photography that do not pretend to be a camera of the 1960s.


----------



## mirage (Oct 31, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> On the downside, Canon's flange focal distance is a bit bigger than the competition: 20mm vs 18mm (Sony) vs 16mm of Nikon's new Z mount



i think Canon chose "really right". Nikon Z mount very short flange distance faces more design challenges with some lens types, eg ultra-wide angle. But we shall see what lenses both companies come up with and how they compare.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 31, 2018)

mirage said:


> i think Canon chose "really right". Nikon Z mount very short flange distance faces more design challenges with some lens types, eg ultra-wide angle. But we shall see what lenses both companies come up with and how they compare.



You're right, but I guess Nikon engineers considered that carefully. Wide-angle lenses were always Nikon's strength, whereas Canon's strength is on the tele side of live


----------



## mirage (Oct 31, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> No, Canon, please do not design a Mini Cooper like camera for the R series, leave the retro fake design approach for naive hipsters to Fuji. Please, Canon, stick with ergonomically well designed modern tools for photography that do not pretend to be a camera of the 1960s.



my BMW Mini Cooper analogy was meant only in terms of "small size, lots of performance", not in terms if styling. i don't care at all for retro design myself. Nor for Fuji cameras, hipsters or 1960s cameras. 

personally i much prefer sleek, clean minimalist lines ... eg the looks of Zeiss ZX1 (not the camera itself though).


----------



## mirage (Oct 31, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> You're right, but I guess Nikon engineers considered that carefully. Wide-angle lenses were always Nikon's strength, whereas Canon's strength is on the tele side of live



agree on Nikon certainly having thought long and hard about Z mount parameters, but it appears top priority was given to "finally being able to create f/0.95 manual focus lenses". 

"canon best in teles, nikon best in wide-angles" is definitely overcome.

Canon 10-24 for example bests Nikon 14-24 and Canon's 35 II, TS 17/4 are unmatched in Nikon land.

otoh Nikon's latest version 70-200/2.8 slightly beats Canon, and there is no canon equivalent to Nikon's 105/1.4. also Nikons' recent diffractive optics teles 300/4 PF and now 500/5.6 PF seem to be somewhat ahead Canon's current best efforts. 

will be interesting to watch as RF and Z lens lineups expand.

even better would be (legally mandatesd) universal open standard lens mounts for (consumer) ILCs - one for APS-C, one for FF image circle.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 31, 2018)

mirage said:


> my BMW Mini Cooper analogy was meant only in terms of "small size, lots of performance", not in terms if styling. i don't care at all for retro design myself. Nor for Fuji cameras, hipsters or 1960s cameras.
> 
> personally i much prefer sleek, clean minimalist lines ... eg the looks of Zeiss ZX1 (not the camera itself though).



I just made a joke, please do not take it personally, I understood correctly what you basically meant. In fact, I love old cameras and classic industrial design in general, but those products were mostly based on the form follows function rule. Retro design is based on fake in it's purest sense, it pretends to be something that it isn't. A Volkswagen New Beetle is a VW Golf with a front motor, but Porsche's classic VW Beetle was specifically designed for a car with a rear motor. It reflected the Zeitgeist and technology of the late 1930s, so it is an organic product. The New Beetle pretends not to be what it is - a Golf. Same with a Fuji X100, the internet is full of comments from people who really believe it is a rangefinder - obviously they never have used a real rangefinder. 

Btw, Canon made one of the most beautiful classic cameras IMO: the "P" rangefinder had such a beautifully clean design. That said, I use one of my Canon 7 rangefinders if I go 35mm analogue, not that beautiful but better rangefinder system


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 31, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> I just made a joke, please do not take it personally, I understood correctly what you basically meant. In fact, I love old cameras and classic industrial design in general, but those products were mostly based on the form follows function rule. Retro design is based on fake in it's purest sense, it pretends to be something that it isn't. A Volkswagen New Beetle is a VW Golf with a front motor, but Porsche's classic VW Beetle was specifically designed for a car with a rear motor. It reflected the Zeitgeist and technology of the late 1930s, so it is an organic product. The New Beetle pretends not to be what it is - a Golf. Same with a Fuji X100, the internet is full of comments from people who really believe it is a rangefinder - obviously they never have used a real rangefinder.
> 
> Btw, Canon made one of the most beautiful classic cameras IMO: the "P" rangefinder had such a beautifully clean design. That said, I use one of my Canon 7 rangefinders if I go 35mm analogue, not that beautiful but better rangefinder system


Thanks for disliking the new beetle and the would- be Leica named Fuji X 100...


----------



## BillB (Oct 31, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> I wouldn't say it that radically but I agree, the RF mount has a huge potential. On the downside, Canon's flange focal distance is a bit bigger than the competition: 20mm vs 18mm (Sony) vs 16mm of Nikon's new Z mount - which gives a lot of freedom to adapt lenses. In fact, it looks like both the old players in the camera market now got some strong cards in the ML FF game. More competition will drive technology, so all of us customers will profit.


The tradeoff in flange distance would seem to be that Canon left itself a couple of extra mm inside the camera to play with, but we shall have to wait to see how much difference that might make, if any.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 31, 2018)

shunsai said:


> I can't wrap my head around this. I can't see the logic in an EOS R crop body when the EOS-M is a perfectly fine APS-C Canon mirrorless. Who would such a camera be for?
> 
> Is it for those who want more reach with their EF lenses? Is this for people who want a 7D mirrorless equivalent? Then why not make a better, more rugged M body and use the adapter. Is it for those who want to use EF-S lenses on a mirrorless? You can already do that on EOS R with an adapter.
> 
> There don't seem to be enough RF or EF-S lenses to justify demand for a cropped RF. It still seems like a mistake not to make M lenses adaptable to R. This is doubling down on that decision.



I’m willing to bet that Canon is seeing the M line not only be successful in its own right, but also eat into the powershot line a lot. Especially the G-series, the HS’, and other higher end powershots. The M5 with the 22mm is smaller than some of them even, and much more capable. I wouldn’t be suprised to the the powershot series camera options thinned out, and a bigger emphasis on the EOS-M as their entry level system. Most people on that level never upgrade to a full frame camera, so they probably won’t go for an R series ever. I think the M series will find itself filling out the bottom to mid level stuff for Canon. So it does make sense that the 7d ish version of mirrorless be in an R body due to the more professional body, lens options (most yet to come), and provide a crop option for those not wanting to take two systems with them, but like having two bodies on their journeys. I took my 7D with my 5D MK 3 more often than not. It will also give a more enticing price point to jump into the R series for newer shooters. I wouldn’t be suprised to see the 80D and below all on the M series, and the 7D and up all on the R.


----------



## criscokkat (Oct 31, 2018)

Has anyone tested the R with EF-S lenses/crop mode to see if there are differences with focus tracking and/or shots per second?

I wonder if it would be possible to achieve 7D like performance by cropping down the sensor so that not as much of the data needs to be read, and less data needed to be processed? That would be an interesting option. Slide the sensor area down, potentially double the shots per second, but still be able to run full frame for static shots.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 31, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> On the downside, Canon's flange focal distance is a bit bigger than the competition: 20mm vs 18mm (Sony) vs 16mm of Nikon's new Z mount - which gives a lot of freedom to adapt lenses.



How is that a downside? Canon can extend the lens past the flange, but Sony and Nikon are restricted by the shorter flange distance.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 31, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> I wouldn't say it that radically but I agree, the RF mount has a huge potential. On the downside, Canon's flange focal distance is a bit bigger than the competition: 20mm vs 18mm (Sony) vs 16mm of Nikon's new Z mount - which gives a lot of freedom to adapt lenses. In fact, it looks like both the old players in the camera market now got some strong cards in the ML FF game. More competition will drive technology, so all of us customers will profit.



I would guess Canon analized what the optimum distance would be. Just like Sony was trying to make a statement with "Smaller is Better" and painted themselves into a corner with a small diameter mount. Who knows about the Nikon flange distance, Is there any technical advantage to it? Does it make the body too thin? So far I think Canon has shown vision. They got burned really bad with the Canonmatic R cameras and swore never again. They look at what is being done, wait and see how they can do a whole lot better. Look at the EF to RF transition, smokes Nikon completely.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 31, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> There is still a price issue - FF sensors cost significantly more to produce than APS-C ones. If this were not the case, we would have seen a " cheaper consumer grade" FF DSLR by now.
> With all the competition in the camera market right now - no one has managed to do that in DSLR's, so why would mirrorless be any different??



At one time they may have been "significantly more", not as much any more. 
The newest, latest and greatest always cost more.
But in today's world, yesterdays technology is cheaper.
Thus the 6D line.
If money is the issue buy the M with the latest and greatest APS-C sensor. Buy an adapter to go with it. 
Canon gives you a mirror-less APS-C sensor alternative. There is no need to put it in an R's box.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 31, 2018)

nchoh said:


> How is that a downside? Canon can extend the lens past the flange, but Sony and Nikon are restricted by the shorter flange distance.



Okay, you are maybe right, since there is no mirror box in the way. We'll see what Canon and Nikon will throw on the table to compete with Sony. Interesting times...


----------



## knight427 (Nov 1, 2018)

Wouldn't it be cool if instead of launching an R version of the 7D, Canon just implement crop selection on the fly. Maybe through the otherwise unloved M-Fn bar, letting users move from APS, to APS-H to APS-C. There are lots of times I'd give up half my pixels for twice the fps.


----------



## Joules (Nov 1, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> At one time they may have been "significantly more", not as much any more.


I'm not denying that the difference might have been greater, but comparing prices of an 80D (all around current Canon tech except 4k), 6D (all around old Canon tech) and 6D II (all around current Canon tech except 4k and sensor), it looks to me that APS-C provides some great cost Potential for cost reduction. The 80D ist 900€, the 6D 1000€ and the 6D II is 1750€ on the german Amazon site.

Just because of the size difference, you will always get slightly more than 4 times as many APS-C sensors for the same material and production cost than full frame sensors. And you'll always lose less sensors at once when you have a defect in your wafer, increasing the yield advantage of aps-c further. How could that not affect cost significantly?

Apart from that, the M System is entirely different from the R System regarding its ecosystem. It is clearly all about size in contrast to R which seems to be all about image quality. Having the Option for something in between in the form of an APS-C R (less size thanks to crop, e.g. use a 85mm instead of 135mm and more IQ and ergonomics thanks to big glass and body) would nice in my opinion. If Canon thinks there are enough people that feel alike, we'll see an APS-C R.


----------



## JoFT (Nov 1, 2018)

Joules said:


> I'm not denying that the difference might have been greater, but comparing prices of an 80D (all around current Canon tech except 4k), 6D (all around old Canon tech) and 6D II (all around current Canon tech except 4k and sensor), it looks to me that APS-C provides some great cost Potential for cost reduction. The 80D ist 900€, the 6D 1000€ and the 6D II is 1750€ on the german Amazon site.
> 
> Just because of the size difference, you will always get slightly more than 4 times as many APS-C sensors for the same material and production cost than full frame sensors. And you'll always lose less sensors at once when you have a defect in your wafer, increasing the yield advantage of aps-c further. How could that not affect cost significantly?
> 
> Apart from that, the M System is entirely different from the R System regarding its ecosystem. It is clearly all about size in contrast to R which seems to be all about image quality. Having the Option for something in between in the form of an APS-C R (less size thanks to crop, e.g. use a 85mm instead of 135mm and more IQ and ergonomics thanks to big glass and body) would nice in my opinion. If Canon thinks there are enough people that feel alike, we'll see an APS-C R.


The only sad thing between R and M is that there is no chance to adapt R on M, Canon meanwhile clearly announced... The M is getting an eco-system on its own. And its a great one. Since a couple of days I use the 32mm F1.4, What a lens!!! The M5 and the M50 are still the best compromise between size and IQ...

Prices are set to market perception... We have to wait how the market will develop - and how Canon sets its Premium...


----------



## mirage (Nov 1, 2018)

1. Canon can make and sell EOS M50 for about 500 USD/€ retail.

2. Fuji can make and sell its X-T100 also around 500 retail.

3. presumably both companies do so "with sufficient profit, not at or below cost" (otherwise they would not do so, they are not charities).

4. then why should a similarly configured and capable mirrorfree camera with FF-sensor not be possible at twice the price = 999 USD/€ ?

500 more definitely should cover
* cost differential between APS-C and FF sensor (guesstimate: 200 vs. 30),
* "strengthened imaging pipeline" (= different version DIGIC),
* slightly larger camera shell
* R mount instead of EF-M

market is still contracting and competitive pressure getting stronger in FF MILC segment. Canon wants "overwhelming market leadership". A mirrorfree EOS R-ebel "below 1 grand" could kickstart the system, help them to quickly sell large numbers of units and reach "critical mass" of installed bodies, pass Sony, leave Nikon Z in the dust and become "king of the mirrorfree FF hill".


----------



## BillB (Nov 1, 2018)

mirage said:


> 1. Canon can make and sell EOS M50 for about 500 USD/€ retail.
> 
> 2. Fuji can make and sell its X-T100 also around 500 retail.
> 
> ...



Another variable is the volume of sales to spread the costs of development and fixed costs. In addition to the cost of the camera, sales are also going to be affected by the higher costs of EF and RF lenses. Since we are in the realm of imaginary numbers, we can believe whatever we want, but I am not sure that with a 100% price premium to start with, and additional price premiums for the lenses to follow, the volume potential is there for a $1000 R competing with an M50 and a new M5. It might well cut into the sales of every other FF Canon camera though.


----------



## mirage (Nov 1, 2018)

Of course it will "cut into sales" of more expensive cameras that do not offer a lot of tangible functional benefits.

Price/value ratio of EOS M50 and EF-M lenses are the main reason for "temporarily curtailed shipments due to a pause in entry-class DSLR purchasing" as Canon states in its current Q3 financial report. Except, it is not *temporarily* curtailed, rather it is permanently over. Soccer moms and dads still interested enough in photogrophy to bother buying a dedicated ILC camera have realized that an M50 plus EF-M lens/es offers better functionality (eg Face/Eye-AF) than any Rebel mirrorslapper with EF-S/EF lenses ... in a more compact package and at lower prices.


A 999 "entry level" FF EOS R body akin to EOS M50, combined with a compact, affordable RF 24-105/3.5-5.6 IS [price performance just like the EF Non-L) kit-zoom would likely sell well enough to give Canon unit/market share lead over Sony in FF MILC segment in the first year already. Not a bad thing for them ...


----------



## BillB (Nov 1, 2018)

mirage said:


> Of course it will "cut into sales" of more expensive cameras that do not offer a lot of tangible functional benefits.
> 
> Price/value ratio of EOS M50 and EF-M lenses are the main reason for "temporarily curtailed shipments due to a pause in entry-class DSLR purchasing" as Canon states in its current Q3 financial report. Except, it is not *temporarily* curtailed, rather it is permanently over. Soccer moms and dads still interested enough in photogrophy to bother buying a dedicated ILC camera have realized that an M50 plus EF-M lens/es offers better functionality (eg Face/Eye-AF) than any Rebel mirrorslapper with EF-S/EF lenses ... in a more compact package and at lower prices.
> 
> ...


If rumors are to believed, there will be an RF mount camera that is less expensive than the new R, presumably with somewhat curtailed features. It may well be priced aggressively enough to undersell every FF mirrorless out there. Since we are talking imaginary numbers, we can believe what we want. My guess would be in the 1500-1700 range if Canon goes this route. I think there are a lot of cost issues beyond the marginal costs of camera production and the market demand for $1000 cameras may not be quite as price elastic as one might think


----------



## nchoh (Nov 1, 2018)

knight427 said:


> Wouldn't it be cool if instead of launching an R version of the 7D, Canon just implement crop selection on the fly. Maybe through the otherwise unloved M-Fn bar, letting users move from APS, to APS-H to APS-C. There are lots of times I'd give up half my pixels for twice the fps.



That would be an excellent idea. Market forces should make it a more probable.


----------



## nchoh (Nov 1, 2018)

Joules said:


> I'm not denying that the difference might have been greater, but comparing prices of an 80D (all around current Canon tech except 4k), 6D (all around old Canon tech) and 6D II (all around current Canon tech except 4k and sensor), it looks to me that APS-C provides some great cost Potential for cost reduction. The 80D ist 900€, the 6D 1000€ and the 6D II is 1750€ on the german Amazon site.
> 
> Just because of the size difference, you will always get slightly more than 4 times as many APS-C sensors for the same material and production cost than full frame sensors. And you'll always lose less sensors at once when you have a defect in your wafer, increasing the yield advantage of aps-c further. How could that not affect cost significantly?
> 
> Apart from that, the M System is entirely different from the R System regarding its ecosystem. It is clearly all about size in contrast to R which seems to be all about image quality. Having the Option for something in between in the form of an APS-C R (less size thanks to crop, e.g. use a 85mm instead of 135mm and more IQ and ergonomics thanks to big glass and body) would nice in my opinion. If Canon thinks there are enough people that feel alike, we'll see an APS-C R.



Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 68% of the FF sensor.

TN just put out a video; his argument is that sensor cost are such a small cost of the entire camera that the difference in cost between M43 and FF are insignificant... and M43 is on it's way out. I think his analysis is spot on.


----------



## BillB (Nov 1, 2018)

nchoh said:


> Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 68% of the FF sensor.
> 
> TN just put out a video; his argument is that sensor cost are such a small cost of the entire camera that the difference in cost between M43 and FF are insignificant... and M43 is on it's way out. I think his analysis is spot on.


Cost is not the only issue with FF, there is also size and weight. Fewer and fewer people are printing photographs, so the image quality advantages of FF may be declining in importance. The sweet spot for IQ, equipment size and cost may or may not be FF.


----------



## mirage (Nov 1, 2018)

BillB said:


> The sweet spot for IQ, equipment size and cost may or may not be FF.



ever since 36x24mm was discovered for stills images it has been the perfect sweet spot in the magic triangle of IQ : SIZE : PRICE. Cameras and lenses.

Anything bigger causes unwieldy, expensive lenses. Anything smaller does not offer significant enough savings in size. Which is also the main reason analog APS-film was DOA and never got off the ground. Digital FF sensors were too expensive for about 15 years, but not any longer. Especially if gear makers would standardize on a few, non-proprietary (!) types and an open-standard, universal lens mount + protocol. Instead of every single player throwing loads of totally proprietary SKUs into the market. We could have cameras as capable as EOS R or Nikon Z6 or Sony A7 III at 999 USD / €. Just saying ...


----------



## Juangrande (Nov 1, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> "R" could also stand for "Reach" (as in straining to reach for something). I wonder if the actual Japanese is as poetic as these Google translations. "Reborn," "Reactivate." These terms conjure a team that had hit the wall and was desperate for a new beginning. As if they had hit a bottom, or dead-end...Let's hope they Recover and don't have a Relapse!


Let’s hope your next post is not a Redundant Retread of the worn out Rebuke that Canon is yet again *******.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 2, 2018)

knight427 said:


> Wouldn't it be cool if instead of launching an R version of the 7D, Canon just implement crop selection on the fly. Maybe through the otherwise unloved M-Fn bar, letting users move from APS, to APS-H to APS-C. There are lots of times I'd give up half my pixels for twice the fps.



Yes, I previously suggested similar ideas.
I am a photographer who requires both high frames per second (FPS) and high megapixel (MP) outputs.

High FPS (lower MP) examples include BIF, some action / sports.
In these instances 8-12 FPS is ideal and 8-18 MP is usually enough, on a case by case basis.

High MP (lower FPS) e.g. landscape, portrait / people photos.
In these instances 24-50 MP is ideal and 3 FPS is usually enough, on a case by case basis.

For other photographic genres I am interested in (e.g. macro, astrophotography, event) there is less strict requirement on MP & FPS, but a balance of around 20MP and around 5FPS works very well.

For this reason, IF Canon can smoothly implement usability between full sensor usage (higher MP and lower FPS) and a crop of the sensor (higher FPS and lower), that would really provide a very usable product for many photographers like myself, who value that flexibility.

I definitely appreciate the computational power and algorithms to achieve the balance between the two present a number of practical limitations... but I trust it is possible with strong testing, planning and the use of best technological capability.

PJ


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 2, 2018)

Juangrande said:


> Let’s hope your next post is not a Redundant Retread of the worn out Rebuke that Canon is yet again *******.


You have missed the point of Canon referring to full frame mirrorless as a rebirth. If a company realizes it can go no further with a product line, such as the DSLR, if it recognizes the point of diminishing returns, finding a new direction indicates the company is healthy and forward-looking.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 2, 2018)

nchoh said:


> Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 68% of the FF sensor.



Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 38.5% the area of the FF sensor.
APC-S: 22.3 x 14.9mm = 332.27 sq/mm
FF: 36 x 24mm=864 sq/mm
In other words, the FF sensor is 2.6 times larger than the crop sensor.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 2, 2018)

mirage said:


> yes. but i think most of the recent Sony Alpha girth has to do with freaking 4k video heat issues. just another unwanted side- effect of "video in every camera".
> 
> maybe also from listening too much to the small but vocal group of folks with super-size hands using big, long tele-lenses all day long.



Agree. In fact, Steve Huff recently changed from his Sony to a 1DX for video, because sensor heating ruined him a video shooting. I think Sony should implement a coffee cup heater system in the grips of their next generation cameras, so the sensor heat can be transformed into something useful. That's the tragedy of today's silicon technology btw: because sensors and processors etc. are so inefficient, heat treatment and air conditioning e.g. for server farms is a growing issue for this planet. I say this here, because all this empty vlogger blah blah that litters youtube, done in 4K, will pump up the data volume and therefore the CO2 emissions of the internet (like bitcoin mining btw). Seen from this perspective, the 4K crippling strategy of Canon may help to save this planet, despite Canon's intentions completely different - and only if they succeed with this strategy


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 2, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 38.5% the area of the FF sensor.
> APC-S: 22.3 x 14.9mm = 332.27 sq/mm
> FF: 36 x 24mm=864 sq/mm
> In other words, the FF sensor is 2.6 times larger than the crop sensor.



In more familiar numbers, the surface difference is the square of the crop factor, 1.6 * 1.6 = 2.56. Rounded to one decimal that's the 2.6 in the post above.

The EOS R manual confirms this by saying the auto-crop mode takes ~11MP stills, which is 30/2.56.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 2, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 38.5% the area of the FF sensor.
> APC-S: 22.3 x 14.9mm = 332.27 sq/mm
> FF: 36 x 24mm=864 sq/mm
> In other words, the FF sensor is 2.6 times larger than the crop sensor.



Yupp, the laws of geometry are old but still quite magical for many people  When I have my Mamiya 6 with me and people ask me why I use this strange camera that looks like a Leica on steroids, they are always stunned when I explain them that the size of its film negatives/positives is about four times as large as a 35mm frame.


----------



## nchoh (Nov 2, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 38.5% the area of the FF sensor.
> APC-S: 22.3 x 14.9mm = 332.27 sq/mm
> FF: 36 x 24mm=864 sq/mm
> In other words, the FF sensor is 2.6 times larger than the crop sensor.


Oops! I took the wrong dimensions.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 2, 2018)

Joules said:


> I'm not denying that the difference might have been greater, but comparing prices of an 80D (all around current Canon tech except 4k), 6D (all around old Canon tech) and 6D II (all around current Canon tech except 4k and sensor), it looks to me that APS-C provides some great cost Potential for cost reduction. The 80D ist 900€, the 6D 1000€ and the 6D II is 1750€ on the german Amazon site.
> 
> Just because of the size difference, you will always get slightly more than 4 times as many APS-C sensors for the same material and production cost than full frame sensors. And you'll always lose less sensors at once when you have a defect in your wafer, increasing the yield advantage of aps-c further. How could that not affect cost significantly?
> 
> Apart from that, the M System is entirely different from the R System regarding its ecosystem. It is clearly all about size in contrast to R which seems to be all about image quality. Having the Option for something in between in the form of an APS-C R (less size thanks to crop, e.g. use a 85mm instead of 135mm and more IQ and ergonomics thanks to big glass and body) would nice in my opinion. If Canon thinks there are enough people that feel alike, we'll see an APS-C R.



APS-C was created, among other reasons, as a way to make DSLR cameras affordable too the masses. The cost argument had much more merit when a FF sensor would cost 5x as much. It allowed SLR users to keep their lenses and move to a digital body.

The gap has closed significantly. 

You are right, Canon will sell a body if enough people want it. Provided they can make money at it.

I just do not see a reason or believe there will be enough demand for APS-C sensor in the R. The M fills the APS-C mirrorless sensor role nicely.

To me older generation FF sensors for cheap bodies and possibly the release of cheap RF lenses would be the direction they take, rather than creating an off shoot APS-C RFS line.


----------



## rocketsurgeon (Nov 3, 2018)

The R stands for Retdown.

that’s Japanese for Letdown.


----------



## Mike Acker (Nov 13, 2018)

the camera business faces a Sea Change driven by the camera phone. The good ol' DSLR faces a challenge on 2 levels: First: Image quality. Here it appears moving the lens closer to the sensor helps in lens design. But second: the tradition DSLR has a beautiful optical viewfinder; the digital ones seem harsh by comparison and a camera-phone has none at all. I'll stick to a 7D or 5D.

where this goes -- time will tell. There will always be artists who will prefer the traditional glass view-finder as one may sense the feeling of an image better in glass than in a harsh-lit digital.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 13, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> APS-C was created, among other reasons, as a way to make DSLR cameras affordable too the masses.



You are not going far enough back. It is true that smaller image sensors cost less per unit area than large sensors. That's due to imperfections on the surface of silicon wafers, the larger the sensor, the more likely it will have imperfections, so more are unusable. Small sensors also fit more efficiently on a circular wafer, so there is less waste.

THE APS (advanced photo system) was first created for film cameras. Film came in APS-H (30.2 X 16.7 mm), APS-C (25.1 X 16.7 mm), and APS-P (30.2 × 9.5 mm). I had a Canon APS film camera that came with a 22-55mm zoom. (It might still be in my box of old cameras). APS (active pixel sensor) has another meaning with regard to sensors, CMOS sensors use APS technology which can confuse the situation.

APS-C size digital sensors used a similar crop factor to APS-C film. The Canon D30 and D60 were Canon's first APS-C DSLRs and not created for the masses, but for prosumers. APS-H DSLRs were the first pro level sensors used in Canon D1 series cameras and also based on APS film.

After the D30 and D60, and 10D, Canon shocked the industry with the Digital Rebel using APS-C sensors and a $1K price tag.


----------

