# Canon aiming for a $799 full-frame camera? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 14, 2021)

> A pretty solid source with a decent track record has told me that Canon is aiming to release a full-frame RF mount camera for under $800 USD in 2022. The Canon EOS RP launched at $1299 USD, so this would be quite the accomplishment if it comes to fruition. Even launching a new full-frame camera at $999 would be quite welcomed. That said, if Canon could get the camera and a kit lens for under $1000USD, they’d have themselves a winner.
> There are obviously no specifications for a camera that is likely at least a year away, but I do believe there is something to this just by what I have been shown.
> Let’s see what comes of this information.



Continue reading...


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 14, 2021)

So this is clearly the price of the R3, right guys? Maybe if we all collectively believe it, then it will just have to be true


----------



## drhuffman87 (Jul 14, 2021)

Nikon, will release the Z-9 tomorrow for $900! Quick Canon, you better undercut it with the R3 NOW or you'll regret it!!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2021)

I know there are a small handful of users that will still argue the benefit of a crop sensor, but if you have a full frame camera coming in at under $1000, I think those hoping for an RF mount APS-C camera are SOL.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 14, 2021)

In part because of improved wafer yields, the cost difference between crop and ff sensors has become a matter of tens of dollars. I don't know if this ceases to be true in more complex, modern sensors, but this was true in the waning days of the DSLR. So offering crop is more a way to differentiate product lines and "nerf" things than it is a cost savings. BUT doing so practically requires having a secondary line of lenses, and THAT'S costly.

On the other hand, a cynic could say that going into the crop market could be useful if you wanted to drive a stake through the heart of Fuji once and for all. But you'd have to offer a better value proposition to really kill them; and that would imply high quality glass, rather than kit quality glass.

This is a long way of saying that Neuro is likely right.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know there are a small handful of users that will still argue the benefit of a crop sensor, but if you have a full frame camera coming in at under $1000, I think those hoping for an RF mount APS-C camera are SOL.


The only really compelling reasons I have seen for the APS-C format are overall camera size, cost, and focal length limitations.

Canon address the size with the M system, which even though it doesn't have some specific lenses people want it does have the lenses most people need and actually buy.

The cost is dealt with two fold, the M series for people that want smaller and cheaper, and if this new body comes out then with that. The new body would suit almost everybody that is looking for a 'real camera' but was pushed into the Rebel market because of price.

The focal length 'limitation' is somewhat addressed by the RF 600 and RF 800 f11's. And anybody that has seen AlanF's pixel level comparisons of those lenses and much more expensive lenses along with TC convertor use would be foolish to dismiss the f11 aspect because the high iso capabilities of the R5 and R6 are pretty outstanding.

Taken as a whole, and given the 7D market was never regularly replaced which implies the sales were not particularly high, I don't really see the advantage for Canon, or users, who think about an RF crop camera.


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know there are a small handful of users that will still argue the benefit of a crop sensor, but if you have a full frame camera coming in at under $1000, I think those hoping for an RF mount APS-C camera are SOL.



Not sure about a benefit, but at least to me a crop body with a good, 90D/7D2/M62 level feature set is much more attractive a value proposition than a FF one that otherwise piles compromises on top of compromises à la the RP.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 14, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> Not sure about a benefit, but at least to me a crop body with a good, 90D/7D2/M62 level feature set is much more attractiveve a value proposition than a FF one that otherwise piles compromises on top of compromises à la the RP.


I kind of like the 'dumbed down' feature set you get with cheaper cameras. Maybe that's because I come from an age where the most expensive cameras had few features anyway. But at the end of the day I want reliable AF, consistent AE, independent control over shutter speed, aperture, and iso, and the ability to capture RAW. Anything else I really don't care too much about.


----------



## amorse (Jul 14, 2021)

That's a crazy price point. I can't help but wonder what build/feature compromises would need to be made to get the price that far down. Regardless, I'm sure they'd sell loads of them.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 14, 2021)

While a 800 $ sounds great for entry level, I'm more concerned about how Canon will fill the gap between entry level and R6. If the R doesn't get a successor, there'd be a huge whole.

R? entry level 800 $ 
RP entry level 1.000 $ (eventual successor at 1.200 $)
R6 semi-pro 2.500 $ 


I´d actually see at least one opening for an R successor, maybe even too if they'd find a way to differentiate the cameras enough. Kind a like Sonys lineup in this point.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know there are a small handful of users that will still argue the benefit of a crop sensor, but if you have a full frame camera coming in at under $1000, I think those hoping for an RF mount APS-C camera are SOL.


The big problem is the lack of affordable/light-weight/good image quality* kit lenses

This isn't the age of your father's EF 28-85 lens - lenses good enough for FF sensors these days are HARD to do properly.

I look forward to Canon proving me wrong on this though.


*as the saying goes, choose any two.


----------



## IBIS M5 (Jul 14, 2021)

it's still not going to be a good value compared to the z5. Canon's cheap full frame mirrorless will definitely (continue to) have a mediocre viewfinder, no ibis and no weather sealing.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 14, 2021)

Given that the pre-pandemic street price for the RP was around $900, an $800 entry-level camera doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me once we emerge from these crazy times.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2021)

IBIS M5 said:


> it's still not going to be a good value compared to the z5. Canon's cheap full frame mirrorless will definitely (continue to) have a mediocre viewfinder, no ibis and no weather sealing.


Isn't it amazing that despite all their disadvantages compared to the competition, Canon manages to sell more ILCs than those competitors and has done so every year for nearly two decades? Why is that, do you think?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 14, 2021)

$799 full frame? What will be the downsides?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 14, 2021)

IBIS M5 said:


> it's still not going to be a good value compared to the z5. Canon's cheap full frame mirrorless will definitely (continue to) have a mediocre viewfinder, no ibis and no weather sealing.


Even older generation EVF’s are much better than Rebel style pentamirrors. Rebel’s, whilst not being listed as ‘weatherproof’, which is a made up bullshi! term anyway, are very robust and easily up to most users need for durability.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 14, 2021)

The RP dropped down to $899 during the holidays.
It would make more sense to me to make a new model in the RP body for $1K and drop the price of the RP.
I guess they could make an entry-level camera in the R body.
The price of the R will not drop to $799 for a while.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 14, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> While a 800 $ sounds great for entry level, I'm more concerned about how Canon will fill the gap between entry level and R6. If the R doesn't get a successor, there'd be a huge whole...



And a huge hole too.  Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Of course they could fill it by just keeping the R in the lineup, as it's still a great camera. I do agree that eventually they may slot something between the entry level body/bodies and the R6, but I don't see them in any hurry as the current R fills the need pretty well. The problem, as I see it, is that the R is equal to or better than the R6 in some respects (most notably the 30mp sensor) and the features that would need to be shed for a replacement to fit in under the R6 are already not on the R (IBIS and dual card slot) so I'm not sure what a new model would have/not have that isn't already met by the R.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 14, 2021)

amorse said:


> That's a crazy price point. I can't help but wonder what build/feature compromises would need to be made to get the price that far down. Regardless, I'm sure they'd sell loads of them.


I can't wait to hear all the people whine about how a $799 full-frame camera is crippled.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know there are a small handful of users that will still argue the benefit of a crop sensor, but if you have a full frame camera coming in at under $1000, I think those hoping for an RF mount APS-C camera are SOL.


Yeah! Let's get this fight started!


----------



## amorse (Jul 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I can't wait to hear all the people whine about how a $799 full-frame camera is crippled.


I'm sure there will be plenty of that. I'm more wondering if this gets the M6II treatment and comes without an EVF or some other piece of hardware that adds cost.


----------



## mangobutter (Jul 14, 2021)

As I've been saying for years, I would absolutely love a full frame version of the inexpensive Canon M6. No need for a 1960s EVF--no real person needs that in 2021, providing a decent screen is available. This would easily cut costs down. Canon PLEASE make this as TINY as possible. If you can make it the size of an M6, double bravo. If it's super slightly bigger than an M6, then single bravo. 

I will purchase for $799 or less. Do it!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know there are a small handful of users that will still argue the benefit of a crop sensor, but if you have a full frame camera coming in at under $1000, I think those hoping for an RF mount APS-C camera are SOL.


1) The cheapest APS-C Canon is $399
2) The people who want a high-end RF mount APS-C camera want a higher cropped resolution at a lower price.
Whether or not Canon thinks it would be profitable to build such cameras has very little to do with the existence of the camera.
It is not like it is going to be a $700 R5.


----------



## mangobutter (Jul 14, 2021)

amorse said:


> I'm sure there will be plenty of that. I'm more wondering if this gets the M6II treatment and comes without an EVF or some other piece of hardware that adds cost.


Easily and fully without EVF. I've been hammering that for years. This is what I want and need to bring me back to RF. I like the size of the RP but I still think it's unnecessarily big, particularly due to the EVF which I rarely used. Why use a .75" screen when you can use a 3.5"+ screen? EVFs are throwbacks to the 1950s to make old school photographers comfortable enough to swtich to mirrorless. If mankind forgot what cameras were and had to design them from scratch today, we'd have no need for EVFs. Sure they can be helpful in bright sun, but that's usually cause our screens suck. Make better screens, iPhone grade.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 1) The cheapest APS-C Canon is $399
> 2) The people who want a high-end RF mount APS-C camera want a higher cropped resolution at a lower price.
> Whether or not Canon thinks it would be profitable to build such cameras has very little to do with the existence of the camera.
> It is not like it is going to be a $700 R5.


1) there are 'cheap' DSLRs and 'cheap' EOS Ms. A <$1000 FF would be cheap for FF. There certainly doesn't need to be a 'cheap' RF APS-C if there's a <$1000 RF FF.
2) those people would need to constitute a reasonable market for Canon, and their treatment of the 7-series line suggests that's not the case.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 1) there are 'cheap' DSLRs and 'cheap' EOS Ms. A <$1000 FF would be cheap for FF. There certainly doesn't need to be a 'cheap' RF APS-C if there's a <$1000 RF FF.
> 2) those people would need to constitute a reasonable market for Canon, and their treatment of the 7-series line suggests that's not the case.


There are people where $500 is a lot of money.
Especially, around the world.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 14, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> Easily and fully without EVF. I've been hammering that for years. This is what I want and need to bring me back to RF. I like the size of the RP but I still think it's unnecessarily big, particularly due to the EVF which I rarely used. Why use a .75" screen when you can use a 3.5"+ screen? EVFs are throwbacks to the 1950s to make old school photographers comfortable enough to swtich to mirrorless. If mankind forgot what cameras were and had to design them from scratch today, we'd have no need for EVFs. Sure they can be helpful in bright sun, but that's usually cause our screens suck. Make better screens, iPhone grade.


I bright sunlight a viewfinder works much better than a screen. Taking photos via viewfinder also is much more stable.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> There are people where $500 is a lot of money.
> Especially, around the world.


Yes, I sometimes wonder how it must feel for somebody in a poor country to watch a video about a new lens that costs "only" $1000 or so, while he only earns $200 per month.


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 14, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I kind of like the 'dumbed down' feature set you get with cheaper cameras. Maybe that's because I come from an age where the most expensive cameras had few features anyway. But at the end of the day I want reliable AF, consistent AE, independent control over shutter speed, aperture, and iso, and the ability to capture RAW. Anything else I really don't care too much about.



I was thinking about things like reasonable burst rate (<7fps doesn't do it, 10fps is all right), fast and reliable AF (but I guess that one's become a non-issue, as even the M50mk2 appears to have really good AF), a good enough EVF (probably the most expensive component after the sensor and one of the first things to compromise), image quality on par with Canon's recent tech (no more recycled 6D-era sensors) – to be fair, this _may_ also become a non-issue going forward as tech trickles down. Also, crop shutter niceties like 1/8000s max shutter speed and 1/250s flash sync speed are almost certainly not going to happen in a budget FF body.


----------



## AJ (Jul 14, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> The big problem is the lack of affordable/light-weight/good image quality* kit lenses
> 
> This isn't the age of your father's EF 28-85 lens - lenses good enough for FF sensors these days are HARD to do properly.
> 
> ...



I agree. Let's see what the 70-400/5.6-7.1 will bring to the table, from a cost, weight, and performance perspective. Maybe it'll be the new 55-250, i.e. small, light, inexpensive, and sharp?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> There are people where $500 is a lot of money.
> Especially, around the world.


Obviously. That’s why I demarcated ‘cheap’. How is that relevant to my original point that a sub-$1000 EOS R means an APS-C EOS R is very unlikely?


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 14, 2021)

It's always nice to carry a backup body on trips, so this might be a candidate. I always pack at least one extra body for important shoots. Nothing sucks more than spending a lot of hard earned money & travel time only to have Murphy ruin the day.


----------



## snapshot (Jul 14, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I bright sunlight a viewfinder works much better than a screen. Taking photos via viewfinder also is much more stable.


I also like the diopter adjustment which allows me to focus on the OVF/EVF. I have to remove my glasses or hold the camera at arms length to see the display.


----------



## entoman (Jul 14, 2021)

Interesting, but an alternative and possibly wiser move might be to introduce a camera *above* the RP (with IBIS), and to lower the price of the existing RP.

Either way, as owner of an R5, I'd certainly consider it worth buying a cheap, lightweight body as an emergency back-up, or as an option for times when I don't want to carry the R5 (to save weight, or for security reasons).


----------



## TracerHD (Jul 14, 2021)

To Topic: this would be maybe great if the spes are not 2002. 

More important: does anyone have issues with this Coockie Part too? I can click accept but nothing happen, so the windows does not disappear (with various browsers) and I can't click anything (Firefox (Q) Element workaround). the window appear every new page.
Sourcecode:
"
<div height="605" class="qc-cmp-cleanslate css-fit90t"><div id="qc-cmp2-ui" role="dialog" aria-label="qc-cmp2-ui" aria-modal="true" tabindex="0" class="css-17ovhjm"><div class="qc-cmp2-summary-section"><div class="qc-cmp2-consent-info"><div class="qc-cmp2-publisher-logo-container"><figure><h2>We value your privacy</h2></figure><div class="qc-cmp2-summary-info "><p>We and our <button mode="link" class="qc-cmp2-link-inline css-pq0k6d" tabindex="0" type="button" size="large">partners</button> store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.</p><p>With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation data and identification through device scanning. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Alternatively you may click to refuse to consent or access more detailed information and change your preferences before consenting. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing. Your preferences will apply to this website only. You can change your preferences at any time by returning to this site or visit our privacy policy.</p></div></div></div></div><div class="qc-cmp2-footer qc-cmp2-footer-overlay qc-cmp2-footer-scrolled"><div class="qc-cmp2-summary-buttons"><button mode="secondary" aria-label="DISAGREE" aria-pressed="false" tabindex="0" type="button" size="large" class=" css-1hy2vtq">DISAGREE</button><button mode="secondary" aria-label="MORE OPTIONS" aria-pressed="false" tabindex="0" type="button" size="large" class=" css-1hy2vtq">MORE OPTIONS</button><button aria-label="AGREE" aria-pressed="false" tabindex="0" type="button" mode="primary" size="large" class=" css-47sehv">AGREE</button></div></div></div></div>
"


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 14, 2021)

unfocused said:


> And a huge hole too.  Sorry, couldn't help myself.


oooppps sorry for that mistake, how embarrassing :/


----------



## dwarven (Jul 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know there are a small handful of users that will still argue the benefit of a crop sensor, but if you have a full frame camera coming in at under $1000, I think those hoping for an RF mount APS-C camera are SOL.



The problem with an $800 full frame camera is that you lose a lot features for a bigger sensor in an era where image quality is pretty great across the board. For example, I'd use a Nikon D7500 or my EM5 III over an EOS RP for wildlife every single time. I can take my EM5 out in the pouring rain without a second thought. The "full frame is best" mantra is so nearsighted it makes me wonder if those who espouse it even do photography at all.


----------



## entoman (Jul 14, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> As I've been saying for years, I would absolutely love a full frame version of the inexpensive Canon M6. No need for a 1960s EVF--no real person needs that in 2021, providing a decent screen is available. This would easily cut costs down. Canon PLEASE make this as TINY as possible. If you can make it the size of an M6, double bravo. If it's super slightly bigger than an M6, then single bravo.
> 
> I will purchase for $799 or less. Do it!


Hmmm.. that might tend to make the M series redundant. Who would buy an M, if an M-sized FF with RF mount were available as an alternative?

If they do bring out a tiny FF model in RF mount, they'd also need to bring out at least a couple of very small lenses e.g. a pancake wideangle and a retractable kit-zoom.

I don't like the idea of a camera without an EVF and there's no way I'd buy one - rear screens are completely useless in bright sunshine, and hugely inferior when composing and studying the details of a scene - but there are plenty who feel otherwise, so a screen-only model would probably sell to the smartphone crowd.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jul 14, 2021)

entoman said:


> Hmmm.. that might tend to make the M series redundant. Who would buy an M, if an M-sized FF with RF mount were available as an alternative?
> 
> If they do bring out a tiny FF model in RF mount, they'd also need to bring out at least a couple of very small lenses e.g. a pancake wideangle and a retractable kit-zoom.
> 
> I don't like the idea of a camera without an EVF and there's no way I'd buy one - rear screens are completely useless in bright sunshine, and hugely inferior when composing and studying the details of a scene - but there are plenty who feel otherwise, so a screen-only model would probably sell to the smartphone crowd.


 I had to look at your equipment list to verify what I sort of knew to be true before I looked: you are not an M user.

That's OK. No snark intended.

I use my 5D Mark III at least thrice weekly.

I also use my M6 Mark II regularly...but especially while traveling.

I get so darned weary of people who don't use the M talking smack about the format.

There are times and places were size matters (insert joke here).

Canon would be foolish to cede the small body market to other camera manufacturers.

Foolish.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2021)

dwarven said:


> The problem with an $800 full frame camera is that you lose a lot features for a bigger sensor in an era where image quality is pretty great across the board. For example, I'd use a Nikon D7500 or my EM5 III over an EOS RP for wildlife every single time. I can take my EM5 out in the pouring rain without a second thought. The "full frame is best" mantra is so nearsighted it makes me wonder if those who espouse it even do photography at all.


Full frame *is* better than APS-C in almost any situation, objectively. APS-C’s advantages are lower system cost and smaller size.

For wildlife, I’d choose a 1-series body and 600/4 lens over any APS-C or m4/3 every single time. But I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford a >$20K wildlife photography setup and have the strength and stamina to use it in the field.

Regardless, the ‘FF is better’ mantra is well-accepted. By releasing a sub-$1K FF body, Canon likely expects to drive RF lens sales strongly, and they’re likely correct about that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2021)

entoman said:


> Hmmm.. that might tend to make the M series redundant. Who would buy an M, if an M-sized FF with RF mount were available as an alternative?
> 
> If they do bring out a tiny FF model in RF mount, they'd also need to bring out at least a couple of very small lenses e.g. a pancake wideangle and a retractable kit-zoom.


A RF-mount camera will never be as ‘tiny’ as the M-series, because physics.



entoman said:


> I don't like the idea of a camera without an EVF and there's no way I'd buy one - rear screens are completely useless in bright sunshine, and hugely inferior when composing and studying the details of a scene - but there are plenty who feel otherwise, so a screen-only model would probably sell to the smartphone crowd.


I guess you would never take a picture with a smartphone, then.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jul 14, 2021)

With the end upon Canon for the new sales of DSLR’s, mirrorless is the new norm.

The RP is a little cracker but starting to show its age now and no longer looks value for money as it once was. So might an RP II be with us soon given a minor revamp / upgrade (hopefully not just firmware lol) Canon might want to try and top the entry level full frame market with an RP II.

I have a couple of compact RF non-L lenses the 35mm and 50mm so I might be tempted to go for an entry full frame body like that as a backup and holiday camera in place of my M-Series.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2021)

Andy Westwood said:


> With the end upon Canon for the new sales of DSLR’s, mirrorless is the new norm.


Yes, last year DSLRs comprised 46% of ILC sales, and so far this year they only comprise 45%.

Next time I’m in Manhattan, I’ll be sure to look for you standing outside B&H wearing your ‘The End (of the DSLR) Is Nigh’ sandwich board.


----------



## entoman (Jul 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> A RF-mount camera will never be as ‘tiny’ as the M-series, because physics.
> 
> 
> I guess you would never take a picture with a smartphone, then.


1) The full frame Sigma fp L body measures 113 x 70 x 54. The Canon M6 measures 120 x 70 x 49. It would be easy for Canon to make a full frame model the same size or even smaller than the Sigma, and if they chose to do so, they could even make it compatible with the hotshoe-mounted EVF.

2) The screen area of a smartphone is typically about 4x the area of the screen on a MILC, so indoors or in overcast lighting conditions a smartphone screen is usable for composition. But completely useless in bright sunshine.

3) I use a camera to take Photographs. I don't take selfies. I would use my smartphone if I needed e.g. to urgently transmit a documentary image e.g. to quickly send a copy of a birth certificate or passport, or if I needed an image after a road accident for insurance purposes.


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 14, 2021)

It truly makes me laugh to read that viewfinder are "1950s technology"

Try holding a 1d with a 400mm f/2.8 in front of your face to stare at the back LCD for even 5 minutes handheld  Three points of contact is far more stable(two hands, forehead), and takes some of the strain off your arms having to be so far out in front of you to focus on a back LCD.

I'm not saying that all cameras need a viewfinder, but it is truly hysterical that someone would think that viewfinder are useless. If your sole goal for hours is taking stable photographs and tracking action, you're going to want a viewfinder to keep against your face as a third point of stability. It's also far easier to move your body and view in line with action with a camera to your face.

I expect the $800 camera will lack a viewfinder, and that's fine for what it is and doesn't bother me, same with the M6 which is a perfectly fine camera. But it's incredible the way that people grandstand on websites about what they don't need on a camera because they must be the only photographers on the planet. Viewfinders aren't going anywhere anytime soon.


----------



## addola (Jul 14, 2021)

At $799, I would be tempted. I wouldn't ask for too much in terms of image quality, but I do hope that they don't re-use the RP's sensor (which was on the 6D Mark II). Giving it the R6's sensor (which is the same as 1D-X Mark III) or the EOS R (which is the same as 5D Mark IV) would be great and "too good" for a camera at this price point.

The only other thing that I would love to see is bigger battery than the EOS RP. Mirrorless cameras use more juice than DSLRs with optical viewfinder. I know you can buy multiple batteries, specially cheaper 3rd party batteries, but I'd rather have more power per-battery than less.


----------



## entoman (Jul 14, 2021)

josephandrews222 said:


> I had to look at your equipment list to verify what I sort of knew to be true before I looked: you are not an M user.
> 
> That's OK. No snark intended.
> 
> ...


Buddy you are far too touchy. Lighten up. Why do you incorrectly assume that I'm snubbing M series? They are excellent cameras and I've nothing whatsover against them. Of course size matters - which is why the subject of a "tiny" FF camera was mentioned by mangobutter. And the fact that my current gear list comprises full frame cameras is irrelevant - I've owned Canon and Sony APS-C cameras, and I'd have no hesitation in using a little Olympus if it could match the image quality and resolution of an R5.

But how long can the M series and a "tiny" FF camera could co-exist in Canon's line up? Canon currently serve 3 (arguably 4) different mounts - EF-S, EF, M and RF. Sooner or later they'll rationalise and consolidate by reducing the number of mounts. And if they decide to produce a "tiny" RF mount camera, it might well prove more popular than the M series.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2021)

entoman said:


> 1) The full frame Sigma fp L body measures 113 x 70 x 54. The Canon M6 measures 120 x 70 x 49. It would be easy for Canon to make a full frame model the same size or even smaller than the Sigma, and if they chose to do so, they could even make it compatible with the hotshoe-mounted EVF.


You complain about lack of utility for a camera without an EVF, then offer up a size comparison with a FF camera that lacks an (in-built) EVF?

There are words to describe people who contravene their own statements to make a point. Hypocrite is among the more polite of them.


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 14, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> Easily and fully without EVF. I've been hammering that for years. This is what I want and need to bring me back to RF. I like the size of the RP but I still think it's unnecessarily big, particularly due to the EVF which I rarely used. Why use a .75" screen when you can use a 3.5"+ screen? EVFs are throwbacks to the 1950s to make old school photographers comfortable enough to swtich to mirrorless. If mankind forgot what cameras were and had to design them from scratch today, we'd have no need for EVFs. Sure they can be helpful in bright sun, but that's usually cause our screens suck. Make better screens, iPhone grade.


Older people have a hard time seeing close up. The screen may be hard to see with sharp focus and to see if the object they are focusing on is indeed in focus or not. EVFs on the other hand, with the help of the diopter, fixes this problem. I would never purchase any camera without an VF. There are other reasons for using it, such as making the camera more steady by bracing my eye to the VF vs not using the VF (in most cases, if all else is equal and I do not have anything to keep it steady, such as a tripod, gimbal, the ground...). Not everyone needs or wants a VF, but I do and I am sure many others do too.


----------



## entoman (Jul 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You complain about lack of utility for a camera without an EVF, then offer up a size comparison with a FF camera that lacks an (in-built) EVF?
> 
> There are words to describe people who contravene their own statements to make a point. Hypocrite is among the more polite of them.


You are the one making inaccurate statements about what and what can't be done.
You needed to be corrected, so that's what I did.
Too bad that it hurts your ego...

BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, neither the M6 or the fp L have an EVF, although both will accept an accessory EVF, so it's an absolutely valid comparison, and there is no hypocrisy. I personally wouldn't buy a camera that didn't have an EVF (either integral or as an accessory).


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 14, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The only really compelling reasons I have seen for the APS-C format are overall camera size, cost, and focal length limitations.
> 
> Canon address the size with the M system, which even though it doesn't have some specific lenses people want it does have the lenses most people need and actually buy.
> 
> ...


Let's say a user has a 7D and a 70-200 f2.8 lens and that is all the reach they need. And now they are ready to enter the mirrorless market. Without an crop RF body, they would have to also spend $$, again, to get a new lens to get the equivalent reach. There are many that do not want f11 and rather have some more like the 2.8 (yes it is FF 2.8, but not as dim as when using the f11 crop lens). If RF has full frames cameras that work great with high ISO, then why not have all their FF lenses at F11? Answer is the same reason that the APS-C users want more than F11. 

I believe you, that RF crop may not for you. But for many others, it is.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jul 14, 2021)

entoman said:


> Buddy you are far too touchy. Lighten up. Why do you incorrectly assume that I'm snubbing M series? They are excellent cameras and I've nothing whatsover against them. Of course size matters - which is why the subject of a "tiny" FF camera was mentioned by mangobutter. And the fact that my current gear list comprises full frame cameras is irrelevant - I've owned Canon and Sony APS-C cameras, and I'd have no hesitation in using a little Olympus if it could match the image quality and resolution of an R5.
> 
> But how long can the M series and a "tiny" FF camera could co-exist in Canon's line up? Canon currently serve 3 (arguably 4) different mounts - EF-S, EF, M and RF. Sooner or later they'll rationalise and consolidate by reducing the number of mounts. And if they decide to produce a "tiny" RF mount camera, it might well prove more popular than the M series.


This is my last post in this thread.

You are wronger than wrongie wrongerson...I don't need to lighten up...except when I'm traveling and shooting images for friends and family.

Then I need to lighten up!

I could go on and on but I won't...except to say that someone who says they've shot APS-C format cameras (but not the M)...while trashing the M and its inherent strengths (the EF-M bodies and lenses were designed with photo quality as well as lens and body size, weight and volume in mind)...well you make my point for me...better than I ever could.

The sensor in the M6 MkII is identical to the sensor in the 90D.

When linked to any of the EF-M lenses...my goodness what a small and light package capable of tremendous photos!

And much much smaller than a 90D with EF or EF-S lenses attached.

This is a bad as politics...example example example.

Out.


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 14, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 1) The cheapest APS-C Canon is $399
> 2) The people who want a high-end RF mount APS-C camera want a higher cropped resolution at a lower price.
> Whether or not Canon thinks it would be profitable to build such cameras has very little to do with the existence of the camera.
> It is not like it is going to be a $700 R5.


Doesn't everyone want to spend less money?

But that does not mean they are not realistic with expectations of what the price should be. I think they are just expecting price to be a little lower on a crop frame as long as all else is equal. Seems some people think that: people are expecting an RF-crop body to be less expensive than the least expensive FF body. I believe this expectation is not the case at all, for the majority of people.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2021)

entoman said:


> You are the one making inaccurate statements about what and what can't be done.
> You needed to be corrected, so that's what I did.
> Too bad that it hurts your ego...
> 
> BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, neither the M6 or the fp L have an EVF, although both will accept an accessory EVF, so it's an absolutely valid comparison, and there is no hypocrisy. I personally wouldn't buy a camera that didn't have an EVF (either integral or as an accessory).


Fair point, I didn’t think Canon would do a FF MILC sans EVF, but it’s possible. Still going to be bigger than the Sigma, because the RF mount is bigger than Leica L.

I’ve had no significant problems using my M, M2 or M6 in full sun, though.

As for the M series and a ‘tiny FF’ coexisting in the lineup, the M50 II with kit lens can be bought for less than $700, and until there’s a FF camera + lens selling for around that, there’s ample room for coexistence. When do you think we’ll see a tiny FF w/ lens kit for under $800? I would guess, not anytime soon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 14, 2021)

MoonMadness said:


> I believe you, that RF crop may not for you. But for many others, it is.


The real question is, for _how_ many others. You don’t know. I don’t know. Canon does know. The update frequency of the 7-series is probably a fair indication of how important that market segment is to Canon…not very.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 14, 2021)

MoonMadness said:


> Let's say a user has a 7D and a 70-200 f2.8 lens and that is all the reach they need. And now they are ready to enter the mirrorless market. Without an crop RF body, they would have to also spend $$, again, to get a new lens to get the equivalent reach. There are many that do not want f11 and rather have some more like the 2.8 (yes it is FF 2.8, but not as dim as when using the f11 crop lens). If RF has full frames cameras that work great with high ISO, then why not have all their FF lenses at F11? Answer is the same reason that the APS-C users want more than F11.
> 
> I believe you, that RF crop may not for you. But for many others, it is.


Why can’t they just use the possible entry level ff RF and crop when they need the reach?

But how many 7D owners would be happy with an entry level camera body anyway? I doubt many would.

I don’t care if RF crop bodies make sense for me or not, that isn’t the point, the point is does it make sense for Canon? I don’t see the reasoning where it does make sense for Canon. I think most people here vastly overestimate the income the 7 series generated, it was a niche within a niche that in 12 years was updated once. If it was a high earner it would have been updated every other year.

The main reason for crop cameras in the first place was the cost of sensors, that cost has now come down dramatically so isn’t the barrier it used to be. Further, all the camera manufacturers have stated they need to raise the unit price of all their cameras in a shrinking market to maintain profit levels. To do that they need image differentiation, phones will never have ff sensors and they are a way of creating that difference between the images taken by a phone and a ‘real camera’

Which pushes me back to my earlier post and points.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 15, 2021)

Ah, another thread with the usual suspects seemingly bewildered about why anyone would want a crop body rather than FF. To summerize their arguments:

"Just get an FF camera and crop when you want the reach." I have a sneaking suspicion that this new $799 FF camera will not be a high MP camera. It might be 26 MPs like the RP, which would give it 10 MP in crop. Not quite the 32 MP that Canon has in their 90D and M6 II - and presumably in a new RF crop camera. So far less pixels on target in your "superior" FF camera, but I guess that doesn't matter when you are just arguing on the internet.

"Just wait until the high 80 MP (or more) FF camera and crop." A better argument except there still is no such camera. And when that camera does appear, how much do you think it will cost? I would guess at least as much as the R5. So, beyond affordable for many folks. Yes, if you were to give me the new 80 MP FF camera, I would take it instead of a 32 MP crop that costs 1/2 as much (or less for a 90D level RF crop camera). But if I have to pay for it myself, then the crop camera will almost certainly be the better option.

"Just crop..." Another thing that people who say this don't seem to understand, is that it is not always easy to get your composition correct when you have to judge where your "crop lines" will be. And composition is arguably the most important factor in what constitutes a good photo (In the art world, "Design" or "Composition" are usually atop every poll on the subject of what is the most important aspect of a painting). If you can compose your shot using the entire viewfinder it will always, without exception, make it easier to get your composition the way you want it.

I won't even get into DOF, because whenever I mention that some people want more DOF, and it is easier (again due to cropping and composition) to get your shot with more DOF with a crop camera, it seems to go completely over the head of the "FF is always better" crowd.


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Why can’t they just use the possible entry level ff RF and crop when they need the reach?


Not sure why you are asking me this. They can use whatever they want to.



privatebydesign said:


> But how many 7D owners would be happy with an entry level camera body anyway? I doubt many would.


I didn't say anything about entry level. Just about people wanting an RF crop in general. I didn't notice that the post you wrote that I replied to mentioned anything about it being entry. Sorry if I missed that.


privatebydesign said:


> I don’t care if RF crop bodies make sense for me or not, that isn’t the point, the point is does it make sense for Canon? I don’t see the reasoning where it does make sense for Canon. I think most people here vastly overestimate the income the 7 series generated, it was a niche within a niche that in 12 years was updated once. If it was a high earner it would have been updated every other year.



A company should find ways to make money, not lose it. I don't know if making an RF crop would or wouldn't. I don't know how much income it directly generated. I was just writing that there are people who would want a crop over a FF body. In particular, I was addressing your opening statement in that post: "The only really compelling reasons I have seen for the APS-C format are overall camera size, cost, and focal length limitations." Also, maybe indirectly, there are a good number of crop users that use it in sports where there is a large number of audience members (in person or on TV) and that is free advertisement, not necessarily for the crop models, but for Canon in general. 



privatebydesign said:


> The main reason for crop cameras in the first place was the cost of sensors, that cost has now come down dramatically so isn’t the barrier it used to be. Further, all the camera manufacturers have stated they need to raise the unit price of all their cameras in a shrinking market to maintain profit levels. To do that they need image differentiation, phones will never have ff sensors and they are a way of creating that difference between the images taken by a phone and a ‘real camera’


Maybe it was the main reason in the 1st place, but later evolved to be another more important reason than the older 1st reason? You mention they need to raise prices. So why can't they raise prices of a crop body too? I doubt they would ever make 2 bodies with the same specs and features (maybe they already did, I don't know). But if they did, Canon could do marketing research or something to figure out how much less it should cost. I bet there are some people who would pay just as much for the crop (I might) or even more for the crop. 

ZWO, a very popular telescope camera company, makes cameras with various size sensors. They make some cameras that have smaller sensors than others, but cost more. The smaller sensor makes sense for imaging smaller objects like planets and galaxies. Larger sensors for nebulas and the few larger galaxies. Telescope size and speed makes a difference in which camera to get too.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 15, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> $799 full frame? What will be the downsides?


Permanently stuck in crop mode?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Ah, another thread with the usual suspects seemingly bewildered about why anyone would want a crop body rather than FF. To summerize their arguments:
> 
> "Just get an FF camera and crop when you want the reach." I have a sneaking suspicion that this new $799 FF camera will not be a high MP camera. It might be 26 MPs like the RP, which would give it 10 MP in crop. Not quite the 32 MP that Canon has in their 90D and M6 II - and presumably in a new RF crop camera. So far less pixels on target in your "superior" FF camera, but I guess that doesn't matter when you are just arguing on the internet.
> 
> ...


I understand why a very few people might want one, I don‘t understand why those people think it makes economic sense for Canon to make one.

For those users I’d be happy if Canon did make the camera for them, I just have yet to see a good economic reason why they would.

I have ready listed the core reasons and users of crop cameras and how the older reasoning just doesn’t seem to fit in this new generation. Maybe I am wrong, but so far nobody has offered anything more than ‘I want one’.

As for your DOF comment, it is entirely fallacious, incorrect, and not based in reality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Ah, another thread with the usual suspects seemingly bewildered about why anyone would want a crop body rather than FF. To summerize their arguments:


Ah, another thread with the usual suspects believing that their personal wants are representative of a market segment that is of high importance to Canon. The fact that the xxD series, 5-series and even the 1D X were updated more frequently than the 7-series doesn’t seem to impinge on their consciousness. They wants it, Precious, and they must haves it, Gollum, Gollum.



Czardoom said:


> I won't even get into DOF, because whenever I mention that some people want more DOF, and it is easier (again due to cropping and composition) to get your shot with more DOF with a crop camera, it seems to go completely over the head of the "FF is always better" crowd.


Best to not get into it, given that your understanding of the concepts is evidently flawed.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 15, 2021)

amorse said:


> I'm sure there will be plenty of that. I'm more wondering if this gets the M6II treatment and comes without an EVF or some other piece of hardware that adds cost.


Yes, an option could be a full frame version of the M200 for instance. Would definitely be the lightest and smallest FF body on the market then and perhaps be a introduction into the R mount ecosystem from camera phone users... but the jpeg/HEIF engine would need to match what current iPhone/Andriod phones can produce (in auto mode). Users can use other modes when they understand the differences to auto.
Canon would then have an upgrade path within the R mount ecosystem which the current M series isn't

Just need appropriately size/cost lenses to suit


----------



## bergstrom (Jul 15, 2021)

For under 1000 its the missiing specs we'll be focusing on.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 15, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> As I've been saying for years, I would absolutely love a full frame version of the inexpensive Canon M6. No need for a 1960s EVF--no real person needs that in 2021, providing a decent screen is available. This would easily cut costs down. Canon PLEASE make this as TINY as possible. If you can make it the size of an M6, double bravo. If it's super slightly bigger than an M6, then single bravo.
> 
> I will purchase for $799 or less. Do it!


Sigma has the tiny full frame I would like to see alongside my R5 or its gripped successor.

I note that all those who buy an $800 loss leader are good candidates to buy $1600+ L lenses like the 70-200 f4 and many others. Start with the kit lens and many will add high profit lenses. Without having to switch from crop to FF.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> The full frame Sigma fp L body measures 113 x 70 x 54. The Canon M6 measures 120 x 70 x 49. It would be easy for Canon to make a full frame model the same size or even smaller than the Sigma, and if they chose to do so, they could even make it compatible with the hotshoe-mounted EVF.








Compare camera dimensions side by side







camerasize.com


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> When do you think we’ll see a tiny FF w/ lens kit for under $800? I would guess, not anytime soon.


My guess is that they would come out at the exact same time.
I have no idea if that time is very soon, far out, or never.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 15, 2021)

There seems to be 2 camps for the APS-C market segments:
1. Rebel (xxD) style for cost/size
2. 7D with dual slots, weather sealing, AF and fps with pricing between 6D/5D with "reach"

For #1, the M series already fits this end of the market well but isn't a market entry in the R mount ecosystem. A full frame R mount entry body could co-exist with the M series as a more expensive option with larger lenses but I can't see it replacing the M series. This would be supporting 5 different lens mounts though with a minimum wide angle ASP-C R mount lens.

For #2, it is all about pixel density. Yes, the R5 is expensive and a crop has less mp than the current 7Dii. A 80mp R5s will be more expensive then R5 but with the same crop density as 90D/M6ii but out of alignment with the 7D pricing. The R6 meets the 7D parameters except for pixel density.

Perhaps dropping in a model slightly under the R6 with a APS-C sensor similar in pixel density would appeal to the 7Dii replacement market. Would 7D users be happy if Canon reused the 90D/M6ii sensor into a R6 body (dual slots/weather sealing) with the same specs with sub-R6 cost. I guess it would be similar to 5Div/R body comparisons. A wide angle APS-C lens would not be required with this option

Then again, Canon may consider that the 7D replacement market is too small to warrant a new sensor. Only they would know. That said, Canon have no issue with astro versions eg Ra. From an engineering perspective that is only removing the filter rather than developing a new sensor though


----------



## HMC11 (Jul 15, 2021)

unfocused said:


> And a huge hole too.  Sorry, couldn't help myself.
> 
> Of course they could fill it by just keeping the R in the lineup, as it's still a great camera. I do agree that eventually they may slot something between the entry level body/bodies and the R6, but I don't see them in any hurry as the current R fills the need pretty well. The problem, as I see it, is that the R is equal to or better than the R6 in some respects (most notably the 30mp sensor) and the features that would need to be shed for a replacement to fit in under the R6 are already not on the R (IBIS and dual card slot) so I'm not sure what a new model would have/not have that isn't already met by the R.


If I recall correctly, Canon seemed to have indicated that there were to be 2 bodies below the R6. Given that this $799 would be one, then the other would be a sort of R replacement. My speculation would be that this would have the R5/6 AF system, kept at 30mp, and priced around $1700-1800. When this is introduced, it will leave some time for the remaining stock of R6 to be cleared off before a R6 Mark II (stacked sensor? higher fps? more video features? 30-36mp?) surfaces. If this becomes a reality, then the line-up of RF cameras would achieve better coherence in terms of their relative positionings, resolving buying conflicts/considerations between the current R & R6.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 15, 2021)

That will go well paired with the bargain basement RF glass on offer.

As for a cheap FF rendering APS-C redundant, in your dreams. You honestly think someone that would buy say a high perforamnce APS-C camera like a 7DII would accept a lowly crippled FF as their new mirrorless replacement tool for action. I guess they just need to pony up huge dollars for R3 and R1.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> My guess is that they would come out at the exact same time.
> I have no idea if that time is very soon, far out, or never.


Sorry if I was unclear. This rumor is an $800 FF MILC. The implied claim was that this camera and the M line could not coexist for long.

I am suggesting that until aFF MILC and a FF kit lens (variable/slow 28-85, 24-105, etc.) included with it _together_ cost around $800, it’s not a replacement for the M line (and even then, it’s going to be a physically bigger system so still not a replacement).

I don’t believe an $800 FF camera will come with a free lens (not sure that’s what your suggesting).


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know there are a small handful of users that will still argue the benefit of a crop sensor, but if you have a full frame camera coming in at under $1000, I think those hoping for an RF mount APS-C camera are SOL.


People who seek a crop sensor do so not just for the body but for a system. A lighter body with lighter (cheaper) lenses is what they seek.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> People who seek a crop sensor do so not just for the body but for a system. A lighter body with lighter (cheaper) lenses is what they seek.


And what doesn’t the M system already do for those people?

Nobody answers the logical questions, they just say the same things over and over.


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And what doesn’t the M system already do for those people?
> 
> Nobody answers the logical questions, they just say the same things over and over.


I do not know about the M system at all Private. In anycase, my comment stays logical. My statement is a broad one. Btw if the M system exists, does that mean the crop crowd does not deserve a new system?


----------



## Skux (Jul 15, 2021)

- Canon A-2
- Full frame mirrorless retro-styled camera inspired by the Canon A and F series film SLRs
- Entry level EOS RP specs but with a higher resolution viewfinder and better dynamic range
- Manual top deck dials for shutter speed, ISO and exposure compensation
- Launching with a trio of affordable retro styled prime lenses with manual aperture rings and full-time manual focus: 50mm f1.8, 28mm f2.8, 100mm f2.8
- Available in piano black or chrome with multiple leatherette colour options
- Launching at $800 for the body or $1000 with 50mm

One can dream!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> I do not know about the M system at all Private. In anycase, my comment stays logical. My statement is a broad one. Btw if the M system exists, does that mean the crop crowd does not deserve a new system?


And that is a large part of the problem with threads here, why anthropomorphize corporate decision making, what does ‘deserve’ have to do with anything?

I laid out logical scenarios of and answers to the most often stated reasons why Canon should make an RF crop camera.

1/ Size, weight and cost. The M addresses all of them, that is why it is the best selling MILC system on the planet.
2/ Focal length limited shooting because of financial or size limitations. The RF 800mm f11 addresses that.

Given those basic facts I don’t see why people think it makes sense for Canon to make yet another model of camera for the very small number of people that think an R7 crop camera would replace their ancient 7D II’s.

I don’t care if they do or don’t, I’d just like somebody to present a logical reason why Canon would. What camera buying situation is there for a crop RF camera that isn’t satisfied by the M and RF 800?


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 15, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> Easily and fully without EVF. I've been hammering that for years. This is what I want and need to bring me back to RF. I like the size of the RP but I still think it's unnecessarily big, particularly due to the EVF which I rarely used. Why use a .75" screen when you can use a 3.5"+ screen? EVFs are throwbacks to the 1950s to make old school photographers comfortable enough to swtich to mirrorless. If mankind forgot what cameras were and had to design them from scratch today, we'd have no need for EVFs. Sure they can be helpful in bright sun, but that's usually cause our screens suck. Make better screens, iPhone grade.


Obviously you don’t try to follow moving subjects with long telephotos.

But since you don’t have a need for it, then the entire industry can get rid of it.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 15, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> That will go well paired with the bargain basement RF glass on offer.
> 
> As for a cheap FF rendering APS-C redundant, in your dreams. You honestly think someone that would buy say a high perforamnce APS-C camera like a 7DII would accept a lowly crippled FF as their new mirrorless replacement tool for action. I guess they just need to pony up huge dollars for R3 and R1.


2 different camps for APS-C and I think that you are mixing them up. Rebel style APS-C (cheap/small) and 7Dii (much more expensive, dual card, AF, fps). These marketing segments are completely separated by Canon already (see my post above yours). It seems like you want a R6 body with higher pixel density like reusing the 90D/M6ii sensor. Don't expect a new sensor though with R6 AF/fps performance though. You would be a small subset of potential R6 buyers.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Given those basic facts I don’t see why people think it makes sense for Canon to make yet another model of camera for the very small number of people that think an R7 crop camera would replace their ancient 7D II’s.
> 
> I don’t care if they do or don’t, I’d just like somebody to present a logical reason why Canon would. What camera buying situation is there for a crop RF camera that isn’t satisfied by the M and RF 800?


I agree with your premise but you can't use the RF800 with the M series. If you mean M series for cheap/small (or M + EF white lenses for reach) OR any of the R bodies + RF800mm then I concur.

Cheap reach is the reason that 7D users will claim with pixel density being the primary one. 7D users will complain that the M6ii/90D with adapted long white lenses is not useful because it doesn't have dual card/weather sealed but it does achieve the required reach parameter.

Using 7Dii + medium whites (70-200/2.8, 300/4, 400/5.6 etc) with TCs gives dual card/AF/fps with pixel density to avoid paying huge sums for big whites.

R5 price is too much for a 7Dii replacement with the 17mp crop being "vastly" insufficient cf 20mp in 7Dii and we can't use TCs with RF70-200mm/2.8 or limited range with RF100-500mm.
They yearn for the 90D/M6ii sensor but in a R mount body at a R6 price (or lower). The unanswerable question is how big is the market for Canon?

I used to have a 7D but I am happy to be corrected by the 7Dii user base for their needs


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The real question is, for _how_ many others. You don’t know. I don’t know. Canon does know. The update frequency of the 7-series is probably a fair indication of how important that market segment is to Canon…not very.


Agree completely. That’s free market economics. While a market space (or “niche”) like APS-C might be too small for a big player like Canon, other companies like Sony and Fuji might find it worth their investment.

I’m one of those people who prefer APS-C, and I came to the conclusion stated in your last sentence about six months ago. After owning exclusively Canon SLRs for 40 years, I’m enjoying my new a6400 tremendously. And the adapted EF lenses work great.


----------



## drhuffman87 (Jul 15, 2021)

Here is the obvious solution to the 7D problem. Wait until 2024 and the R6 will drop to $1700. Now you have an affordable camera with 12fps mechanical with a 1DX III sensor with 2 card slots. Buy that and a RF 800 f11.


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And that is a large part of the problem with threads here, why anthropomorphize corporate decision making, what does ‘deserve’ have to do with anything?
> 
> I laid out logical scenarios of and answers to the most often stated reasons why Canon should make an RF crop camera.
> 
> ...


I will study the M system. I need a light camera with light lenses for non-professional work. I did not look into them so far as I kept hearing it will be discontinued and is 'ageing'. Since I am not in desperate rush for such a system (iPhone!), I wait for a new crop light camera with lenses to match. There are brilliant options in Fuji and Sony but I would like to stay with Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> People who seek a crop sensor do so not just for the body but for a system. A lighter body with lighter (cheaper) lenses is what they seek.


Exactly what I’ve been saying. That’s why there’s the EOS M, which has been and likely still is the globally best-selling MILC line. Not sure why some people believe Canon will replace the M line with APS-C RF mount cameras, other than those people have the delusion that they represent a large market segment for Canon.


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

I do not get the resistance to Canon launching a new crop mirrorless system. What exactly is the problem?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> I will study the M system. I need a light camera with light lenses for non-professional work. I did not look into them so far as I kept hearing it will be discontinued and is 'ageing'. Since I am not in desperate rush for such a system (iPhone!), I wait for a new crop light camera with lenses to match. There are brilliant options in Fuji and Sony but I would like to stay with Canon.


Personally, I have two M bodies and all the EF-M lenses. It’s a great, portable, relatively inexpensive system (especially compared to my FF gear), and delivers very good image quality.

For the lenses, check out the TDP reviews.








Canon EF-M Lens Reviews


The-Digital-Picture.com is your source for clear, concise and complete Canon EF-M Lens Reviews




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I have two M bodies and all the EF-M lenses. It’s a great, portable, relatively inexpensive system (especially compared to my FF gear), and delivers very good image quality.
> 
> For the lenses, I wrote most of the TDP reviews.
> 
> ...


Wow.


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

I checked the M5 for the very first time. Superb. Except it is 6 years old. If they update it, it will be my crop camera for non pro work. 
But I can see how the "7" crowd want/need a new crop camera.


----------



## solovetski (Jul 15, 2021)

For that price it will crippled as hell!


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

I explored more. I think a Canon S120 (is that the latest in the series?) may work perfectly for my needs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> I do not get the resistance to Canon launching a new crop mirrorless system. What exactly is the problem?


I’m not resistant to it, I just think it’s very unlikely. Canon is a business, they’ll do what makes fiscal sense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> I explored more. I think a Canon S120 (is that the latest in the series?) may work perfectly for my needs.


I have an S120 as well, decent but not great. Check out the G series.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

I


David - Sydney said:


> I agree with your premise but you can't use the RF800 with the M series. If you mean M series for cheap/small (or M + EF white lenses for reach) OR any of the R bodies + RF800mm then I concur.
> 
> Cheap reach is the reason that 7D users will claim with pixel density being the primary one. 7D users will complain that the M6ii/90D with adapted long white lenses is not useful because it doesn't have dual card/weather sealed but it does achieve the required reach parameter.
> 
> ...


I mean the people that want a small and cheap ‘real camera’ are not the same people that want a reach limit busting 7D replacement.

The first group have the M system. It is small and comparatively cheap, it has the lenses most users will actually use on it too. It is very feature rich with excellent AF and fps.

The people that are after a 7D replacement because of the reach limit argument have the RF800. They used to use a 7D II and a 100-400 4.5-5.6 II, so 20mp at an effective 160-640 focal length, with an effective f5.6-8 dof. With an R5 and RF800 they get 45mp with an 800mm lens at f11 dof. So one stop less dof. As for the light gathering argument, the ff sensor is over twice the area of the APS-C sensor so gains over a stop of iso performance and the R5 is considerably better than a stop of iso performance better anyway!

The 7D II cost $1,799 and the 100-400II $2,399, total $4,198. An R5 costs $3,899 the RF800 $899, total $4,798. Thats $600 more six years later with longer reach, more than twice the mp and fps, and MUCH better AF, all things reach limited shooters say they want. Downside is one stop of dof.

So why don’t those mythical R7 supposed buyers put their brains in gear and realize they already have it!


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not resistant to it, I just think it’s very unlikely. Canon is a business, they’ll do what makes fiscal sense.


Of course yes. Let's wait and see. I would suspect there is enough demand.


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have an S120 as well, decent but not great. Check out the G series.


Thank you for this.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The 7D II cost $1,799 and the 100-400II $2,399, total $4,198. An R5 costs $3,899 the RF800 $899, total $4,798. Thats $600 more six years later with longer reach, more than twice the mp and fps, and MUCH better AF, all things reach limited shooters say they want. Downside is one stop of dof.
> 
> So why don’t those mythical R7 supposed buyers put their brains in gear and realize they already have it!


but they miss out on 3mp (20mp 7Dii vs 17mp R5 cropped)


----------



## AEWest (Jul 15, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> $799 full frame? What will be the downsides?


Likely no IBIS. Older sensor. Basic control dial. Few buttons, menu driven settings.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> I will study the M system. I need a light camera with light lenses for non-professional work. I did not look into them so far as I kept hearing it will be discontinued and is 'ageing'. Since I am not in desperate rush for such a system (iPhone!), I wait for a new crop light camera with lenses to match. There are brilliant options in Fuji and Sony but I would like to stay with Canon.


The Canon M system will never compete for ‘real’ photographers to the Fuji system, it will never get the lens options or investment Fuji have put into the X series. Don’t forget Fuji don’t make ff cameras so 90% of their R&D goes into their crop sensor cameras and lenses.

The M system and X system are aimed at very different users, I’d very strongly put you in the X system market.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> but they miss out on 3mp (20mp 7Dii vs 17mp R5 cropped)


You are missing the point. Equivalence.

*They don’t need to crop*.

They get 45mp not 20, they get a true 800mm rather than an effective 640mm, they get 20fps rather than 10fps, they get over 1,000 focus points covering the entire frame rather than 65 clustered in the center. The list goes on and on....


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> You are missing the point.
> 
> They don’t need to crop.
> 
> They get 45mp not 20, they get a true 800mm rather than an effective 640mm, they get 20fps rather than 10fps, they get over 1,000 focus points covering the entire frame rather than 65 clustered in the center. The list goes on and on....


I see what you mean. the only downside is the prime 800mm. The EF100-400mm (with or without TCs) seems to be the standard lens used. To get some flexibility with focal length would mean the RF100-500mm which is an entirely different price point. Even adding the RF600 would make it more expensive and heavier in total. I guess a RF600 + 1.4TC is another option but you lose another stop


----------



## dcm (Jul 15, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> but they miss out on 3mp (20mp 7Dii vs 17mp R5 cropped)


Or they could get the R6, RF800, RF 1.4x for around $3897 and get 20mp without cropping at 800mm and 1120mm. And they can still throw their EF 100-400 on it for closer stuff.


----------



## Chig (Jul 15, 2021)

dwarven said:


> The problem with an $800 full frame camera is that you lose a lot features for a bigger sensor in an era where image quality is pretty great across the board. For example, I'd use a Nikon D7500 or my EM5 III over an EOS RP for wildlife every single time. I can take my EM5 out in the pouring rain without a second thought. The "full frame is best" mantra is so nearsighted it makes me wonder if those who espouse it even do photography at all.


Yep , and I'd just keep using my 7Dii as it would still be vastly superior to a low budget RF full frame especially for bird photography.
It amuses me that the people who obsessively think full frame is the only acceptable format think that the 7D style semi pro camera segment is insignificant and bird photography is very tiny ignore the fact that Canon (and other companies) have spent millions of dollars developing very sophisticated and capable autofocus algorithms specifically for birds . Why would they do this unless they thought the market for bird photography is large enough to warrant it ?


----------



## Chig (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Full frame *is* better than APS-C in almost any situation, objectively. APS-C’s advantages are lower system cost and smaller size.
> 
> For wildlife, I’d choose a 1-series body and 600/4 lens over any APS-C or m4/3 every single time. But I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford a >$20K wildlife photography setup and have the strength and stamina to use it in the field.
> 
> Regardless, the ‘FF is better’ mantra is well-accepted. By releasing a sub-$1K FF body, Canon likely expects to drive RF lens sales strongly, and they’re likely correct about that.


Yep , you're very lucky to be able to afford a 600mm f/4 lens but very few people can and personally I wouldn't want one even if I could afford one because they're far too heavy to hand hold .
If I could afford one I'd choose the EF400 DO ii as it's light enough to hand hold and works great with T.Cs 
I'd always choose a crop sensor given the choice.
People say you can just crop the image of a full frame sensor anyway but why use the full frame if you need to crop every time ? Just have a cropped sensor.


----------



## dcm (Jul 15, 2021)

Here’s a little comparison of the M6II and M5 APS-C bodies with the RP and SL3 bodies with similar lenses. The M5 and M6 are similar size other than the EVF hump. I think the RP body is about the smallest RF form factor they can go other than removing the hump. Similarly, the SL3 appears to be the smallest EF form factor.

I eyeballed the RF 24-240 on my M5 and M6II. The limiting factor is the lens barrel outer diameter (not the mount diameter) to make room for your fingers between the lens and grip. With the 60mm OD for both the mount and the lenses on the EF-M series they can bring the grip in. But many RF lenses have barrels larger than the mount, like the 80mm OD for my RF 24-240 versus the 70mm OD RF mount The mirror box on the SL3 alleviates this a bit by pushing the lens forward so the lens barrel interferes less with the grip.

I doubt we will see M size bodies with RF mounts. The RP is about as small as they can go, unless you want to remove or reinvent the grip as well…..






Compact Camera Meter


Compare unlimited number of cameras with lenses, see how compact or bulky a camera is and sort by height, width, depth and weight.



camerasize.com


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

Chig said:


> Yep , you're very lucky to be able to afford a 600mm f/4 lens but very few people can and personally I wouldn't want one even if I could afford one because they're far too heavy to hand hold .
> If I could afford one I'd choose the EF400 DO ii as it's light enough to hand hold and works great with T.Cs
> I'd always choose a crop sensor given the choice.
> People say you can just crop the image of a full frame sensor anyway but why use the full frame if you need to crop every time ? Just have a cropped sensor.


"but why use the full frame if you need to crop every time ? Just have a cropped sensor." THIS!


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have an S120 as well, decent but not great. Check out the G series.


I went through the S90/100/120 with underwater housings and then RX100iii before I realised that it was just going to be better to get a housing for my 5Div at the time. The price difference betwen compact camera + housing was about the same as for my main camera on land with much better AF/fps/high ISO and better raw processing ability. I didn't think that you could still buy the S series given the state of the camera phone market


----------



## OneSnark (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> <<snip>>
> 
> I mean the people that want a small and cheap ‘real camera’ are not the same people that want a reach limit busting 7D replacement.
> 
> ...



The M6 MkII is a full featured "M" series crop body. I would buy the system in an instant, except that the associated glass is a bit slow for my tastes. And it seems to me that they release 3 bodies for every lens they release. . . .which tells me (a lens snob of the 1st order) that I should look else where.

The "RF" system issue. . . in my mind. . . . .is that the the lenses are flat out too expensive. It "seems" to me that the the 100-400/EF which I could get pre-covid for $1800 was replaced by the 100-500. . .which at $2700 you can't even buy (well, maybe with a wait list). There are no "good buys" in the RF world 

(to be fair. . . . over the last 10 years canon was introducing new EF versions of old EF lenses with major price markup every few years. . . so I just view the RF pricing as part of that trend).




neuroanatomist said:


> I have an S120 as well, decent but not great. Check out the G series.



The canon S120 was a GREAT camera. . . a good P&S companion for a dSLR. . . .and a good camera that you could "risk" in public places and whatnot (in terms of simply losing or breaking it).

The "S" series is no longer sold. There are a few "G"s that can replace it. I had a G7 II; great little camera. . . .barely pocketable but really nice images. Current version is the Mk III. I replaced the G7 mk II (due to GAS) with a G5 mk II. . . . .an even better camera; but just on the wrong side of "pocketable". I still take the G5Xii everywhere. . .


----------



## Chig (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> Of course yes. Let's wait and see. I would suspect there is enough demand.


Yep , I suspect that Canon thinks that bird photography (which is what a lot us 7D crowd like ) is a worthwhile segment otherwise why did they spend millions developing af algorithms for birds ?


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 15, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> a FF one that otherwise piles compromises on top of compromises à la the RP.


How on earth can you claim the RP piles compromises on top of compromises ? Outside of really niche, specialist areas there’s pretty well nothing that camera can’t do. Even the build is good for the price. Having used an RP along side my 5DS cameras for a while I’m not surprised Canon is able to come out with a cheaper, lower cost model.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Jul 15, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> Not sure about a benefit, but at least to me a crop body with a good, 90D/7D2/M62 level feature set is much more attractive a value proposition than a FF one that otherwise piles compromises on top of compromises à la the RP.


I have the RP. With the RF 50 STM or the RF 35 Macro, that thing is already a wonderfully small and light camera. As an every day walk around 'point and shoot' type camera, it's actually quite performant and the simplified feature set is perfect for that type of shooting. If I'm looking to get serious, then I'll pull out my R5 or R6, depending on what I'm looking to do. It's literally gotten to the point where I haven't taken my little M5 out at all since I've had the RP. Yeah, the RP is bigger than the M5, but in all honesty, not by much.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 15, 2021)

adrian_bacon said:


> I have the RP. With the RF 50 STM or the RF 35 Macro, that thing is already a wonderfully small and light camera. As an every day walk around 'point and shoot' type camera, it's actually quite performant and the simplified feature set is perfect for that type of shooting. If I'm looking to get serious, then I'll pull out my R5 or R6, depending on what I'm looking to do. It's literally gotten to the point where I haven't taken my little M5 out at all since I've had the RP. Yeah, the RP is bigger than the M5, but in all honesty, not by much.


I sold my RP to get the R5 and I'm while I love the better ergonomics with large lenses, I miss having a really small FF camera. While the M6II had a better AF system than the RP, the lenses couldn't keep up; the focus motor in the EF-M32mm is very slow. 
So a small, cheap RF mount camera would be great when coupled with the RF50 f/1.8. I would prefer that eye-AF-in-servo trickles down from the M6II to an M300, but I'm not sure that's going to happen soon.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Jul 15, 2021)

addola said:


> The only other thing that I would love to see is bigger battery than the EOS RP.


The RPs battery actually lasts quite a while. I wouldn't turn the camera on and just leave it on and expect the battery to last all day, but it's certainly not turn it on and ~30 minutes later you're done. I've been using my RP to shoot some videos and shockingly, I can record quite a lot of video before the battery even becomes remotely close to getting empty. Same for photos. As long as you don't just leave it on, you can shoot way more than you'd think you could before the battery dies. It's been a pleasant surprise for me. I thought for sure I'd be super unhappy with the RPs battery and would want a camera with at least the standard LP-E6, but I've been pleasantly pleased with its performance.


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

Chig said:


> Yep , I suspect that Canon thinks that bird photography (which is what a lot us 7D crowd like ) is a worthwhile segment otherwise why did they spend millions developing af algorithms for birds ?


There are others, besides bird photographers, that want a crop camera with lenses to go along.


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

Just because RF800 is a light lens does not mean that there should not be a crop camera! The RF800 equivalant for the crop camera will be yet lighter and probably cheaper.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Jul 15, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> So a small, cheap RF mount camera would be great when coupled with the RF50 f/1.8.


I'd really love for Canon to come out with a little pancake RF 40 at either f/2.8 or f/2. That would get the RP down to almost pocketable.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And what doesn’t the M system already do for those people?
> 
> Nobody answers the logical questions, they just say the same things over and over.


1) They want access to RF lenses.
2) They want a higher-end APS-C camera than it would make sense for Canon to bring to the M system. (A mirrorless 7D)


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The Canon M system will never compete for ‘real’ photographers to the Fuji system, it will never get the lens options or investment Fuji have put into the X series. Don’t forget Fuji don’t make ff cameras so 90% of their R&D goes into their crop sensor cameras and lenses.


Am I not understanding correctly or didn't you answer your own question of what people want from the M system that it does not provide?


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 15, 2021)

Pro’s pay 6000 for the new R3.
Amateurs pay 999 for the new RP.
Canon, you’ve lost me there... 

STOP OVERPRICING PRO GEAR NOW!!!


----------



## Hobby (Jul 15, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I sold my RP to get the R5 and I'm while I love the better ergonomics with large lenses, I miss having a really small FF camera. While the M6II had a better AF system than the RP, the lenses couldn't keep up; the focus motor in the EF-M32mm is very slow.
> So a small, cheap RF mount camera would be great when coupled with the RF50 f/1.8. I would prefer that eye-AF-in-servo trickles down from the M6II to an M300, but I'm not sure that's going to happen soon.


Exactly. I like my little RP for the size and IQ but have no RF lenses... It is big with my adapted EF 24-70 f/2.8.  I have an M100 with Sigma 30/56 f/1.4 EF-m. And for that eye-AF that you mention, I am now considering that M50 Mark ii. Perhaps M50ii also for you? (I cannot see my M100 screen in sun, and miss an EVF, so M100 is not good with my eyes/glasses and I will skip that "M300"...) (and slightly Off-topic: my G5Xii with EVF delivers really very nice photo's)


----------



## Chig (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> Just because RF800 is a light lens does not mean that there should not be a crop camera! The RF800 equivalant for the crop camera will be yet lighter and probably cheaper.


I doubt an RF-s version of the RF800mm f/11 could be smaller or cheaper as the entrance pupil would be exactly the same minimum diameter of 73mm (because 800 / 11 = 73mm) only the small elements at the camera lens could be a bit smaller which wouldn't make a significant difference.
A lot of people assume a crop version of a big telephoto such as the 600mm f/4 would be smaller but in reality they'd be virtually identical .
To get f/4 aperture the entrance pupil of any 600mm lens must be 150mm so the the front element has to be at least this size.
For different sensor size the small elements at the camera end vary to suit but they're tiny anyway so the overall size of the lens stays roughly the same.
The RF800mm f/11 is tiny because it has a very small maximum aperture and it's fairly short because of Canon using fresnel DO lens elements.
It's also very low grade unsealed plastic construction too and not suited to wildlife / sports in adverse weather.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> There are others, besides bird photographers, that want a crop camera with lenses to go along.


Can you elaborate? 
I get the small/cheap (rebel) segment and the "reach" segment which birders have been associated with. The M series with EF-m/EF-s/EF lenses meets the first category and PBD makes a good point for R5+RF800mm (or R6+RF100-500mm) for cost/reach/Dof vs 7Dii+EF100-400mm


----------



## Navyo Eller (Jul 15, 2021)

Surely the M system has it's vantages, it's small first of all. That is compelling vantage over all other Canon offerings. It can produce high quality images, ok video specs. I guess that covers a lot of people.The R system is quite expensive for the average amateur, good lenses cost there price too.

Coming from semi-pro to relaxed enthusiast I enjoy highly the M system, specially M50 and M6 Mark II. With the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS , EF-M 20/2 EF-M 32/1.4 , EF-M 11-22/3.5-5.6 I have now a package a third of the previous weight and maybe half of size with whom I can shoot very nice pictures/videos.

I am fully aware of the R series "FF" and it's advantages, but if I am not rich or live from my photo/video production, the M series is way more than needed for the vast majority of amateur or enthusiast photographer in my view. The R system is the way to go for serious pro work (with R5/R6) and semi-pro (RP/R) and people without budget problems.

My hope is for a slightly better weather sealing , maybe IBIS or stacked sensor in a M6 m III or M 50 m III, then the M series will make a very nice package. For me not even need new lenses, with the adapter, a huge selection of professional grade lenses are there.

The M system is already best selling for Canon worldwide and has indeed a future. With little upgrades for more rough use, and as others mentioned, it already best selling for Canon worldwide, it could for quite long time ahead also lure many 7D users.

The R system is for the semi-pro and pro and that's a great system and offering from Canon. There is for me no competition and Canon will spend it's budget where it makes profit, not on my preferences or anyone else.

That's my 2cent. 
For the rest, let us take pictures and enjoy photo- and videography.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 15, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 1) They want access to RF lenses.
> 2) They want a higher-end APS-C camera than it would make sense for Canon to bring to the M system. (A mirrorless 7D)


Just trying to understand/clarify.... a R6+RF100-500mm (same 20mp as 7Dii) or R5+RF800mm (45mp) are close in cost to 7Dii + EF100-400 but losing a stop. Wouldn't those 2 options meet your points (dual cards/AF/fps/weather sealing)?


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 15, 2021)

Navyo Eller said:


> The R system is for the semi-pro and pro and that's a great system and offering from Canon.


I think that you are missing the enthusiast buyer market which is becoming more important for Canon. I certainly couldn't make money from photography to come close to my paying job but I love going places (above and below water) to shoot lots of genres and are happy to spend my money on quality gear. I could probably do it with cheaper gear but thankfully my budget can cover my hobby. I have felt that I have outgrown some aspects of previous gear eg high ISO performance and AF/fps rather than pure GAS.


----------



## dwarven (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Full frame *is* better than APS-C in almost any situation, objectively. APS-C’s advantages are lower system cost and smaller size.
> 
> For wildlife, I’d choose a 1-series body and 600/4 lens over any APS-C or m4/3 every single time. But I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford a >$20K wildlife photography setup and have the strength and stamina to use it in the field.
> 
> Regardless, the ‘FF is better’ mantra is well-accepted. By releasing a sub-$1K FF body, Canon likely expects to drive RF lens sales strongly, and they’re likely correct about that.



I'm always so disappointed reading posts like this. Photography isn't a technical endeavor. It's an artform. But, so many people treat it as the former. Some of my favorite images ever taken are by Jeff Bridges, who uses a Widelux from the 1950s. I'm pretty sure he can afford any gear he wants, too. Anyway, I know this is a gear forum, and we'll all bicker over what's better until the sun dies, but in the end it hardly matters. Use whatever you want. But, saying a certain piece of gear is "objectively" anything, in an artistic field, just shows lack of experience.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 15, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Can you elaborate?
> I get the small/cheap (rebel) segment and the "reach" segment which birders have been associated with. The M series with EF-m/EF-s/EF lenses meets the first category and PBD makes a good point for R5+RF800mm (or R6+RF100-500mm) for cost/reach/Dof vs 7Dii+EF100-400mm


The @Michael Clark use-case: college sport venues. A 7DII + 70-200mm f/2.8 can do the job of a 1DXII + 300mm f/2.8 at a fraction of the price.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 15, 2021)

Hobby said:


> Exactly. I like my little RP for the size and IQ but have no RF lenses... It is big with my adapted EF 24-70 f/2.8.  I have an M100 with Sigma 30/56 f/1.4 EF-m. And for that eye-AF that you mention, I am now considering that M50 Mark ii. Perhaps M50ii also for you? (I cannot see my M100 screen in sun, and miss an EVF, so M100 is not good with my eyes/glasses and I will skip that "M300"...) (and slightly Off-topic: my G5Xii with EVF delivers really very nice photo's)


I had a M50 and I loathed the EVF on that. It made the whole camera too bulky and when viewing it slightly off-axis it looked like a fisheye picture. The RP has the same EVF but much better optics in front of it.

I still have the original M and I prefer that formfactor and size, the M6II is already close to being "too big" for my taste. The M50 feels like cheap toy compared to both the M and M6II and lacks dials.
I do have the EVF add-on for the M6II and that gets used from time to time when I need the extra shading it provides or use a comically large lens on it.


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

dwarven said:


> I'm always so disappointed reading posts like this. Photography isn't a technical endeavor. It's an artform. But, so many people treat it as the former. Some of my favorite images ever taken are by Jeff Bridges, who uses a Widelux from the 1950s. I'm pretty sure he can afford any gear he wants, too. Anyway, I know this is a gear forum, and we'll all bicker over what's better until the sun dies, but in the end it hardly matters. Use whatever you want. But, saying a certain piece of gear is "objectively" anything, in an artistic field, just shows lack of experience.


We (I can speak for most on this forum), want to get better equipment and improve our technical skills to service the artist in us. You make it seem like it is just technical. I assure you it is not. And we want to pick the correct gear for the correct job. Try taking a photo of a cheetah chase on the likes of a 'Widelux'.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I know there are a small handful of users that will still argue the benefit of a crop sensor, but if you have a full frame camera coming in at under $1000, I think those hoping for an RF mount APS-C camera are SOL.


FPS, autofocus ability, buffer size, crop factor. For birders there many reasons why an APSC body makes scenes.


----------



## kaihp (Jul 15, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> In part because of improved wafer yields, the cost difference between crop and ff sensors has become a matter of tens of dollars.


You can put ~60 FF sensors on a single 300mm wafer*, but 170 APS-C sensors. With a cost delta of, say, USD30, the APS-C would cost $16.36, the FF be $46.46 and the wafer cost at $2782.

However, that is before yield loss. Plugging in a 24x36 die with a defect density of 0.1** gives you a yield of 45% (27/59). For a 22.3x14.9 APS-C sensor, you get 72% yield (128/176). I have no idea if those densities are reasonable, but it means that with yield loss, you'd need to have a raw wafer cost of $1026, an APS-C sensor cost of $8 and $38 for the FF sensor. That doesn't seem to add up to me.

As I recall, $25-2700/wafer was not an unreasonable cost for a 0.13um digital logic process wafer cost when I worked with it 10 years ago.


*) http://silicon-edge.co.uk/j/index.php/resources/die-per-wafer
**) http://www.isine.com/resources/die-yield-calculator


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> Of course yes. Let's wait and see. I would suspect there is enough demand.


I’d love to believe that, but I can’t anymore. The 7D Mark II came out in late 2014, nearly 7 years ago. In 2017-2018 there were rumors of a 7D Mark III, but nothing came of them. Now there’s a mention of a possible R7 about once every six months, but nothing specific. Meanwhile this rumored $800 FF body will be the seventh FF R body (R, RP, R5, R6, R3, R1, and this). How much longer do we have to wait?


----------



## jeanluc (Jul 15, 2021)

MoonMadness said:


> Older people have a hard time seeing close up. The screen may be hard to see with sharp focus and to see if the object they are focusing on is indeed in focus or not. EVFs on the other hand, with the help of the diopter, fixes this problem. I would never purchase any camera without an VF. There are other reasons for using it, such as making the camera more steady by bracing my eye to the VF vs not using the VF (in most cases, if all else is equal and I do not have anything to keep it steady, such as a tripod, gimbal, the ground...). Not everyone needs or wants a VF, but I do and I am sure many others do too.


I am shockingly getting closer to being one of those "older" people....and you are right, the screen can sometimes be harder to see despite corrective lenses. I don't do too much bird photography, but I'd hate to do any without an EVF. Not that I'd recommend an RP-like camera for that anyway, but any low cost camera will be bought by many people who will have ONE camera only and use it for everything.


----------



## HMC11 (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> We (I can speak for most on this forum), want to get better equipment and improve our technical skills to service the artist in us. You make it seem like it is just technical. I assure you it is not. And we want to pick the correct gear for the correct job. Try taking a photo of a cheetah chase on the likes of a 'Widelux'.


If I understand dwarven's point correctly, he is actually saying that is it not just technical, which aligns to your view. I share a similar sentiment that there are good use case examples for both FF and APS-C. However, most manufacturer tend to incorporate greater capabilities in FF compared to APS-C, presumably to differentiate them and push for adoption of FF as I suspect the profit margins are higher. As such, an average APS-C camera would likely not compare well with and average FF in terms of features and sensor performance. This might create the feeling that FF is always better than APS-C. Also, if sensor size is the determining factor, then wouldn't a medium format be always better than FF, or perhaps a large format sensor (assuming they use this in a digital camera)? I reckon different people have different valid reasons to choose one over the other. As long as they are clear that those reasons matter most to them, then I would respect their decision.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 15, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Obviously you don’t try to follow moving subjects with long telephotos.
> 
> But since you don’t have a need for it, then the entire industry can get rid of it.


I don’t want the industry to get rid of EVFs. I don’t think anyone actually suggested that.

I want Canon to offer one FF RF model without an EVF.


----------



## zonoskar (Jul 15, 2021)

So how is Canon going to hit that pricepoint? I assume no EVF, no hotshoe, small rear LCD, no IBIS, and no external ports for video/audio (basically an M200 with FF sensor). Could they use the R6 sensor+digic and dumb it down to 3 fps, but keep the AF fairly the same (maybe loose animal and sports AF)? Or could they re-use the RP sensor and just put it in an M200 body? The latter would disappoint me, the former would surprise me.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jul 15, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> If I recall correctly, Canon seemed to have indicated that there were to be 2 bodies below the R6. Given that this $799 would be one, then the other would be a sort of R replacement. My speculation would be that this would have the R5/6 AF system, kept at 30mp, and priced around $1700-1800.


That's what I remember as well, but I think they also wanted a direct RP successor, which I don't think the 799 $ Level is. Therefore, I'm concerned about an R successor... 

If the R6 Mk II has 36 mp, then a R successor (named R8 or whatsever) could be kept atÖ 

- 30 mp 
- 10 FPS (silent shutter) 
- slightly better ergonomics 
- 4 K 60 fps

To really differentiate those cameras Canon might spare the IBIS unit


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 15, 2021)

Why should an R6 II be so much worse than the R6?

I am quite shocked that the repair of my 1D X will cost at least 637 Euro. That is about $752 and almost as much as this camera.


----------



## tigers media (Jul 15, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Seems strange Canon would have APSC R mount coming but somehow have to get under that price ? would anyone be silly enough to prefer apsc over full frame ? im not so sure they would. Really need to simplify the whole range just go full frame and have budget lens range would be better use of their resources i think..


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I
> 
> I mean the people that want a small and cheap ‘real camera’ are not the same people that want a reach limit busting 7D replacement.
> 
> ...


Of course. If Canon doesn’t make a high-end APS-C R body, then your natural alternative is the R5. ROTFL!

Embrace the free market, comrades! If you want high-end APS-C mirrorless and Canon doesn’t make it, give your money to somebody who does.

Here are some other options. All of these have magnesium alloy construction, some degree of weather sealing, a mechanical shutter rated for at least 200K clicks, a fast, action/sports capable AF system, and eye AF:

- Sony a6400 - $900

Need IBIS?
- Fuji X-S30 - $1000
- Sony a6600 - $1400

Need IBIS and two card slots?
- Fuji X-T4 - $1700

Add an adapter costing between $200-400 and your existing EF lenses may workon these bodies. Admittedly, performance of adapted lenses can vary so check specific lens/adapter compatibility beforehand.

Sony and Fuji also have their own lines of dedicated lenses, including serious APS-C offerings.

There is a whole world out there beyond Canon!


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

tigers media said:


> Seems strange Canon would have APSC R mount coming but somehow have to get under that price ? would anyone be silly enough to prefer apsc over full frame ? im not so sure they would. Really need to simplify the whole range just go full frame and have budget lens range would be better use of their resources i think..


Silly?


----------



## sanj (Jul 15, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> If I understand dwarven's point correctly, he is actually saying that is it not just technical, which aligns to your view. I share a similar sentiment that there are good use case examples for both FF and APS-C. However, most manufacturer tend to incorporate greater capabilities in FF compared to APS-C, presumably to differentiate them and push for adoption of FF as I suspect the profit margins are higher. As such, an average APS-C camera would likely not compare well with and average FF in terms of features and sensor performance. This might create the feeling that FF is always better than APS-C. Also, if sensor size is the determining factor, then wouldn't a medium format be always better than FF, or perhaps a large format sensor (assuming they use this in a digital camera)? I reckon different people have different valid reasons to choose one over the other. As long as they are clear that those reasons matter most to them, then I would respect their decision.


Drarven is not talking about crop or full frame.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 1) They want access to RF lenses.
> 2) They want a higher-end APS-C camera than it would make sense for Canon to bring to the M system. (A mirrorless 7D)


1) How does having access to RF lenses satisfy a desire for small and cheap?

2) Again the reasoning isn’t logical, it gives a photographic advantage, it is just, “because they want it”. Why do they want it? What specific advantage is there to having a high end APS-C camera? I listed them and showed those people already have options.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Am I not understanding correctly or didn't you answer your own question of what people want from the M system that it does not provide?


The M system and X system are marketed to slightly different people. Canon are aiming the M at the volume market, such that it is, that want a real camera and value size and weight and cost above specialized lenses and fast apertures, but the system does not have lenses some photographers might want. The X system is aimed at keen photographers who know and want to pay for the difference between an f2 lens and an f1.4 lens.

My contention is that given the very small number of people that the X system is targeted to Canon don’t see the value in the niche that is the X market. Canon don’t make medium format digital either, then again Fuji don’t make ff sensor cameras or cameras with specialized Astro sensors. No one company makes a camera to suit every single individual.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> 1) How does having access to RF lenses satisfy a desire for small and cheap?
> 
> 2) Again the reasoning isn’t logical, it gives a photographic advantage, it is just, “because they want it”. Why do they want it? What specific advantage is there to having a high end APS-C camera? I listed them and showed those people already have options.


I would argue that purchasing decisions, in particular when it comes to relatively 'luxurious' items such as high-end photography gear, are rarely reasonable, but governed mostly by emotion. Being able to afford something that can be considered 'top of the line' in any respect (such as the 7D series was in Canon world for APS-C) may be frequently much more important than the actual functionality.


----------



## David_D (Jul 15, 2021)

As a member of the 7D crowd (with a 100-400mm, used for bird photography), I can confirm one data point. If Canon made an R7, I would [probably -see below] buy it in an instant. If it was a baby R3, with the 90D sensor (or even higher pixel density) even better.

But, I don’t see Canon doing that any time soon (if ever). As others have explained an R6 or R5 (or R3) with 800mm/F11 or 100-500mm (+ 1.4TC) cover my market segment. The sensor improvements are supposed to give 3 stops better ISO performance, more than compensating for the smaller apertures. That is the decision I am currently deliberating, mainly which body. I will get an R body paired with 800mm (for smaller/distant subjects) and keep the 7D and 100-400mm (for larger/closer). When money permits, I will upgrade to the 100-500mm. Maybe if I take too long I will be proved wrong and an R7 will appear for ~$800! Of course, in an ideal world where money is not a consideration, I would love a 600mm/f4 + gym subscription to be able to wield it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Of course. If Canon doesn’t make a high-end APS-C R body, then your natural alternative is the R5. ROTFL!
> 
> Embrace the free market, comrades! If you want high-end APS-C mirrorless and Canon doesn’t make it, give your money to somebody who does.
> 
> ...


I don’t care what anybody buys, I was just laying out the options Canon already provide for the specific user groups that made up the APS-C market. I pointed out they don’t suit everybody but they do suit most of those potential APS buyers.

If you offered a 7D II owner more than double the pixels, fps, focus points, focus area and 160mm of reach and said it was a $600 firmware upgrade everybody would be saying it was amazing value.

Who else makes an 800mm prime lens, or equivalent, for $1,200?

I really like the Fuji cameras, the X100 series is something I have seriously considered since it’s first iteration, but the Canon M5 with 22mm f2 (that I own) has more flexibility, works with thousands of dollars worth of accessories and lenses I already own etc etc..


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

yeahright said:


> I would argue that purchasing decisions*,forum posts*, in particular when it comes to relatively 'luxurious' items such as high-end photography gear, are rarely reasonable, but governed mostly by emotion. Being able to afford something that can be considered 'top of the line' in any respect (such as the 7D series was in Canon world for APS-C) may be frequently much more important than the actual functionality.


I ‘fixed’ that for you 

But I agree with your point, shame really that when it comes to a logical discussion people can’t present logic based points.


----------



## Dinesh262 (Jul 15, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> $799 full frame? What will be the downsides?


I too wants to know.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 15, 2021)

I would love to see light versions of the R6, R5 and R1 in the same bodies, but without video, burst and eye autofocus for half the price. I feel those cameras could be much cheaper if Canon would not have to fear that they cannibalize its video cameras. 

As somebody who only takes photos of buildings, even the most basic autofocus would work for me. I feel modern cameras have a lot of features I do not need.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

Chig said:


> It amuses me that the people who obsessively think full frame is the only acceptable format


Who is saying FF is the only acceptable format? Saying FF is better is objectively true, but that doesn’t mean APS-C is not acceptable. That would be rather hypocritical for anyone who shoots FF to claim, since medium format is objectively better than FF.

Personally, I routinely use cameras with different sensor sizes, FF when feasible and APS-C or an iPhone when portability and convenience are more important. Compromise isn’t a bad thing.



Chig said:


> Yep , you're very lucky to be able to afford a 600mm f/4 lens but very few people can and personally I wouldn't want one even if I could afford one because they're far too heavy to hand hold.
> If I could afford one I'd choose the EF400 DO ii as it's light enough to hand hold and works great with T.Cs
> I'd always choose a crop sensor given the choice.
> People say you can just crop the image of a full frame sensor anyway but why use the full frame if you need to crop every time ? Just have a cropped sensor.


That’s your chosen compromise, and good for you. But it's sad that people can't acknowledge they are compromising, and feel the need to claim that their choice is objectively best (a claim which may not be true, and is often easily disproven), instead of simply claiming that their choice is the best _for them personally_, which is certainly true and really impossible to argue with. 



Chig said:


> Yep , I suspect that Canon thinks that bird photography (which is what a lot us 7D crowd like ) is a worthwhile segment otherwise why did they spend millions developing af algorithms for birds ?


How do you know what they spent? They already had AF tracking and eye AF algorithms. Adapting them to birds would not be that difficult (based on my experience working with teams of software engineers developing code for automated image analysis). Do you believe that the car and motorcycle photography segment also justified spending millions of dollars on tracking algorithms and that's why Canon is adding that to the R3? Far more likely that these algorithmic tweaks aren't terribly difficult or costly. Sort of like the astrophotography versions of cameras – developed at minimal effort as a minor modification to an existing technology, which makes a lot of sense for a small market segment. 

Consider the update frequency for the 7-series, and compare that to the update frequency for the xxD series and Canon's FF body lines. What does that say about the relative importance of the market _to Canon_?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> Just because RF800 is a light lens does not mean that there should not be a crop camera! The RF800 equivalant for the crop camera will be yet lighter and probably cheaper.


No it won't, because physics. Why is there no EF-S lens longer than 250mm? Physics. With long lenses, the image circle is not a limiting factor, so making a long lens with a smaller image circle doesn't change the size of the optic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I would love to see light versions of the R6, R5 and R1 in the same bodies, but without video, burst and eye autofocus for half the price. I feel those cameras could be much cheaper if Canon would not have to fear that they cannibalize its video cameras.
> 
> As somebody who only takes photos of buildings, even the most basic autofocus would work for me. I feel modern cameras have a lot of features I do not need.


It's possible that if you paid Canon a few million dollars, they'd develop a camera just for you. If you want a camera without video, get the Nikon Df. There's even a gold-plated version:









LUX NIKON KIT FINISHED IN 24K YELLOW GOLD


Brikk designs and manufactures couture products and accessories such as platinum diamond gold iPhone for the technology, lifestyle, and fashion industries.



www.brikk.com





But seriously, what you want is never going to happen.


----------



## BBarn (Jul 15, 2021)

I really like my RP. I found it interesting when I read that Canon was looking at two new FF R series bodies, one lower in cost than the RP, and one between that lower cost model and the R6. And seemingly phasing out the R and RP in the process. 

For whatever reason, Canon is apparently choosing to introduce a new model rather than simply lowering the cost of the RP another 20% ($200). I suspect they feel a replacement will better fit the intended market and offer a better ROI than simply lowering the cost of the RP. It will be interesting to see what is different about this lower cost model versus the RP. I suspect at least one major difference will be related to the EVF and/or the articulating LCD. To achieve an even lower cost of entry into Canon FF Mirrorless ILC, a new lens would be beneficial, perhaps a 28-70. Especially if it could be produced at a significantly lower cost than the 24-105 STM.

As a current owner and proponent of the RP, I'm more interested in the other rumored R body that will sit above this new model and below the R6. I'm looking for something I can move up to, rather than something to back up the RP. The R6 is fine, but also really like the smaller size of the RP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

dwarven said:


> I'm always so disappointed reading posts like this. Photography isn't a technical endeavor. It's an artform. But, so many people treat it as the former. Some of my favorite images ever taken are by Jeff Bridges, who uses a Widelux from the 1950s. I'm pretty sure he can afford any gear he wants, too. Anyway, I know this is a gear forum, and we'll all bicker over what's better until the sun dies, but in the end it hardly matters. Use whatever you want. But, saying a certain piece of gear is "objectively" anything, in an artistic field, just shows lack of experience.


I'm always so disappointed when people make assumptions based on their biases or a chip on their shoulder. Where did I mention images, or claim FF is needed for better pictures? (Hint: I didn't.)

A 2019 MacBook Pro with an Intel Core i9 processor is a better computer than a 2006 MacBook Pro with an Intel Core Duo processor. That's an objective fact. I've owned both, and I can promise you that there are a myriad of people out there who can write better prose with a pencil and paper than I can on either of those computers. However, modern AI-driven noise reduction algorithms will simply not run on that 2006 MBP, and those algorithms enable significantly better output for images shot at high ISO.

Photography is both artistic and technical in nature. Gear is required. Better gear has _the potential_ to yield better results, or results that are not possible with inferior gear. Saying that the quality and capabilities of the equipment used to make images doesn't matter, just shows complete naiveté.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 15, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Yes, I sometimes wonder how it must feel for somebody in a poor country to watch a video about a new lens that costs "only" $1000 or so, while he only earns $200 per month.


Well, guessing that person is NOT a Canon customer....
I mean with that low of an income, I doubt they are looking to spend disposable cash on ANY camera out there.

Heck for that level, I'm doubtful of them having a mechanism to connect to the internet and watch videos.

You gotta take care of basic living requirements first before you think about 'toys'.


----------



## snapshot (Jul 15, 2021)

OneSnark said:


> The M6 MkII is a full featured "M" series crop body. I would buy the system in an instant, except that the associated glass is a bit slow for my tastes. And it seems to me that they release 3 bodies for every lens they release. . . .which tells me (a lens snob of the 1st order) that I should look else where.
> 
> The "RF" system issue. . . in my mind. . . . .is that the the lenses are flat out too expensive. It "seems" to me that the the 100-400/EF which I could get pre-covid for $1800 was replaced by the 100-500. . .which at $2700 you can't even buy (well, maybe with a wait list). There are no "good buys" in the RF world
> 
> ...


The canon refurbished powershot page has Refurbished PowerShot SX740 HS Black in stock. i have had several of cameras from canon like this. prety descent, cheaper than panasonic zs100 which i also quite like.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> I will study the M system. I need a light camera with light lenses for non-professional work. I did not look into them so far as I kept hearing it will be discontinued and is 'ageing'. Since I am not in desperate rush for such a system (iPhone!), I wait for a new crop light camera with lenses to match. There are brilliant options in Fuji and Sony but I would like to stay with Canon.


Well, maybe look at a Leica, that definitely fits the bill for you.
Or, if. you want to go crop....look into the solid Fuji X line of cameras...small, good glass, crop mode.

Why limit yourself?

I have multiple brands of cameras....best tool for the job, no?


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 15, 2021)

They probably have a few 6D Mark 1 sensors left over to use in this mirrorless. Combine with 3FPS and HD video I'm sure they will get it below $799.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 15, 2021)

I still shoot primarily 1080p video.
I think one of these, even without a EVF would be a great 2nd or third camera set up fixed on a tripod would be tempting at only $799.

Or, something good for streaming video, if you did such on YouTube, etc....

I could see uses for it, especially at this low price point.

cayenne


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 15, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> How on earth can you claim the RP piles compromises on top of compromises ? Outside of really niche, specialist areas there’s pretty well nothing that camera can’t do. Even the build is good for the price. Having used an RP along side my 5DS cameras for a while I’m not surprised Canon is able to come out with a cheaper, lower cost model



It can't do better low-ISO DR than a 750D/T6i, for one. It also can't do better burst rate than a 750D. Both of which are nowhere near "really niche, specialist areas". Neither are 1/8000s shutter speed or 1/250s flash sync, which the x0D models do have thanks to the smaller shutter.



adrian_bacon said:


> If I'm looking to get serious, then I'll pull out my R5 or R6, depending on what I'm looking to do. It's literally gotten to the point where I haven't taken my little M5 out at all since I've had the RP. Yeah, the RP is bigger than the M5, but in all honesty, not by much.


That's just… hilarious and incredibly out of touch with the reality of normal people. Most of us here on _actual Earth_ have money to spend on a _single_ body, and that body is not going to be an R6 or R5 or anything else that costs several thousand eurodollars. You sound like that one guy here who thought that being able to afford a couple of Big Whites per year is totally normal.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 15, 2021)

What can be removed from the RP to make it even cheaper? Viewfinder is the only thing I can think of. 
I expect a $799 full frame RF camera to have a 1.8x 4K crop with no usable AF.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 15, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> Easily and fully without EVF. I've been hammering that for years. This is what I want and need to bring me back to RF. I like the size of the RP but I still think it's unnecessarily big, particularly due to the EVF which I rarely used. Why use a .75" screen when you can use a 3.5"+ screen? EVFs are throwbacks to the 1950s to make old school photographers comfortable enough to swtich to mirrorless. If mankind forgot what cameras were and had to design them from scratch today, we'd have no need for EVFs. Sure they can be helpful in bright sun, but that's usually cause our screens suck. Make better screens, iPhone grade.



Shooting with a 100-500 or 800 F11 type of lens at arm's length, like a phone? Not so sure about that. A viewfinder has many advantages. 
Otherwise, I would love an M6 sized FF camera, even tho RF lenses will never be that small. Just compare the RF 35mm to the 22mm F2. It's like 3 times the size and weight.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 15, 2021)

entoman said:


> Hmmm.. that might tend to make the M series redundant. Who would buy an M, if an M-sized FF with RF mount were available as an alternative?
> 
> If they do bring out a tiny FF model in RF mount, they'd also need to bring out at least a couple of very small lenses e.g. a pancake wideangle and a retractable kit-zoom.
> 
> I don't like the idea of a camera without an EVF and there's no way I'd buy one - rear screens are completely useless in bright sunshine, and hugely inferior when composing and studying the details of a scene - but there are plenty who feel otherwise, so a screen-only model would probably sell to the smartphone crowd.



Still huge size difference and mostly because of the lens!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 15, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Just trying to understand/clarify.... a R6+RF100-500mm (same 20mp as 7Dii) or R5+RF800mm (45mp) are close in cost to 7Dii + EF100-400 but losing a stop. Wouldn't those 2 options meet your points (dual cards/AF/fps/weather sealing)?


No, but I do see your point.
The R6 is only 20MP or else that would be on the right track.
The R5 suggestion is not even in the same ballpark.
Other than that, some people just prefer APS-C and they will either buy from Canon or someone else.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 15, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> What can be removed from the RP to make it even cheaper? Viewfinder is the only thing I can think of.
> I expect a $799 full frame RF camera to have a 1.8x 4K crop with no usable AF.


Canon is selling M50II for $600. the additional $200 should be good enough for the FF sensor , larger shutter and larger body. That will be the FF R body at $800 with the EVF.


----------



## dwarven (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Saying that the quality and capabilities of the equipment used to make images doesn't matter, just shows complete naiveté.



It matters *far less* than you seem to think. The more you progress in photography the more you'll come to realize this.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 15, 2021)

dwarven said:


> It matters *far less* than you seem to think. The more you progress in photography the more you'll come to realize this.



I agree. It matters, more so in some fields like wildlife photography but often the very best photographs are not the sharpest or have the best corner sharpness or noise. 
Many times the pictures winning awards are just mediocre technically, taken with 10+ year old equipment but amazing to look at.


----------



## dcm (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> "but why use the full frame if you need to crop every time ? Just have a cropped sensor." THIS!


If only they designed pin compatible sensors and all of the rest of the camera to automatically adjust to the different sensors…. You could put an APS-C sensor in an R5 or R6 body, maybe even an RP. /s  

This is really what some of you seem to be asking for to get the same AF, etc. in the APS-C R. The sensor costs are not as different these days so you might save a small amount, but it would be in the low $100s, not $1000s.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 15, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Canon, you’ve lost me there...


Sonyx, it's clear that Canon never had you.

As we are on to you here, suggest you troll elsewhere.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 15, 2021)

Rocky said:


> Canon is selling M50II for $600. the additional $200 should be good enough for the FF sensor , larger shutter and larger body. That will be the FF R body at $800 with the EVF.



But an M50 with a FF sensor is pretty much what the RP is.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

sanj said:


> I do not get the resistance to Canon launching a new crop mirrorless system. What exactly is the problem?


No problem at all, I’m simply asking people to look at it from the perspective of Canon and say why would they?

So far the only group of people who are not currently served by Canon are ‘serious’ photographers who want more lenses than the M system has. All I am saying is given that information and the relatively small size of that group I don’t see that it makes financial sense for Canon to release bodies and dedicated lenses to compete in that space. 

The other main user groups of crop cameras have Canon options already.

No resistance from me, just a question of projecting logic. Why would Canon invest precious time and resources and manufacturing capacity into yet another line of bodies and lenses when the target market is so small and they can’t keep up with production of the items they already have and are known to be in development.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Pro’s pay 6000 for the new R3.
> Amateurs pay 999 for the new RP.
> Canon, you’ve lost me there...
> 
> STOP OVERPRICING PRO GEAR NOW!!!


Pro bodies aren’t overpriced, f2.8 zoom lenses are.


----------



## bergstrom (Jul 15, 2021)

I don't want a crap FF camera from canon for $799. I'd rather pay $1000 for a little brother of the R5 or R3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2021)

dwarven said:


> It matters *far less* than you seem to think. The more you progress in photography the more you'll come to realize this.


In that case, I look forward to you sharing all of the amazing images of subjects the size of a grain of rice, that you’ve taken without a macro lens. Or how about some stellar, close-up images of distant birds in flight that Henri Cartier-Bresson shot with his 50 mm lens. Or the stunning landscapes you’ve captured with your Fuji Instax. Or the studio portraiture you’ve done with a camera’s pop up flash for lighting. Hey, software corrects red-eye, right?

Personally, I know that I will get better results in those respective use cases with my EOS R and MP-E 65, my 1D X and 600/4, EOS R and one of my TS-E or UWA zoom lenses, or my EOS R and 70-200/2.8 with a few strobes in softboxes. 

But from your statement, I guess you’ve progressed so immensely far in photography that you’ve come to realize any gear could easily be used to take such images. Can’t wait for you to share the results of your profound progress in photography. Or perhaps it is only your immense ego that has led to a profound attitude of superiority…and you’ve already shared that with us.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 15, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No problem at all, I’m simply asking people to look at it from the perspective of Canon and say why would they?


How is Canon supposed to gauge demand if nobody asks for what they want?
It is up to Canon whether to make it or not.
People here seem to understand that.


----------



## IBIS M5 (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Isn't it amazing that despite all their disadvantages compared to the competition, Canon manages to sell more ILCs than those competitors and has done so every year for nearly two decades? Why is that, do you think?


Currently and for the past 5 or 10 years people who buy/bought pentamirror cameras and bad evf cameras are people that don't know what they're missing or don't use the viewfinder, so almost the entire population of earth, maybe even most people on this forum.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 15, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But an M50 with a FF sensor is pretty much what the RP is.


The selling price = manufacturing cost+ R &D + over head +profit.
The R's has been out for the while. and a old sensor is used. The R&D cost can be dropped drastically, If Profit is trimmed, then $800 FF R is possible with the feature of M50


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 15, 2021)

Rocky said:


> The selling price = manufacturing cost+ R &D + over head +profit.
> The R's has been out for the while. and a old sensor is used. The R&D cost can be dropped drastically, If Profit is trimmed, then $800 FF R is possible with the feature of M50



But what I meant is that an M50 with a FF sensor would be not much different from an RP. So it either needs to have fewer features or the RP will be discontinued.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 15, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> It can't do better low-ISO DR than a 750D/T6i, for one. It also can't do better burst rate than a 750D. Both of which are nowhere near "really niche, specialist areas". Neither are 1/8000s shutter speed or 1/250s flash sync, which the x0D models do have thanks to the smaller shutter.


Low ISO DR is irrelevant as it has more than enough for the target audience +70%. Same with burst rate. 1/8000th shutter speed is niche and the difference between 1/250 flash sync and 1/180 is not only anal but irrelevant given HSS. Ironically, given your post, the actual control of flash and flash EC on the RP is excellent. I'm not defending Canon for using the 6DII sensor, I'd have preferred an on chip ADC version, but the fact is it gets the job done 95% of the time and no doubt 100% for the target audience. It is quite a nicely made product, and I could see a cheaper made and simpler product being produced in the future as a 'cheap' entry level FF, as per this thread.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have an S120 as well, decent but not great. Check out the G series.


I used the S120 for my travel camera for years. I had the S95 (or was it 90?) before that. I bought the G7X II when it came out and was really pleased with it. In 2019 I replaced it with the G5X II, and have appreciated its advancements. At that time I considered the M50, but decided that for my purposes, a camera that fit in my pocket was more than adequate. I use my DSLR and collection of lenses around home and when traveling by car, and the G cameras for travel.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 15, 2021)

OneSnark said:


> The canon S120 was a GREAT camera. . . a good P&S companion for a dSLR. . . .and a good camera that you could "risk" in public places and whatnot (in terms of simply losing or breaking it).
> 
> The "S" series is no longer sold. There are a few "G"s that can replace it. I had a G7 II; great little camera. . . .barely pocketable but really nice images. Current version is the Mk III. I replaced the G7 mk II (due to GAS) with a G5 mk II. . . . .an even better camera; but just on the wrong side of "pocketable". I still take the G5Xii everywhere. . .


The S120 fit my shirt pocket. The G7 II and the G5X II still fit in my pants pocket or jacket pocket. I keep the EVF down until use. I don’t use it much, but I am glad to have it out in bright sunlight when I can’t see the screen well enough to compose the shot.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 15, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I'm not defending Canon for using the 6DII sensor, I'd have preferred an on chip ADC version, but the fact is it gets the job done 95% of the time and no doubt 100% for the target audience. It is quite a nicely made product, and I could see a cheaper made and simpler product being produced in the future as a 'cheap' entry level FF, as per this thread.


I have yet to perceive any issue with the 6D2. I have used it since about the time it came out. I read that people who underexpose by four stops don’t care for it, but I don’t do that.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 15, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The @Michael Clark use-case: college sport venues. A 7DII + 70-200mm f/2.8 can do the job of a 1DXII + 300mm f/2.8 at a fraction of the price.


The equivalence is not quite the same. It would be 280mm f4 for a 7Dii + 70-200/2.8. 
Comparing the quality of the EF300/2.8 with the 70-200/2.8 is a little ambitious. 
Are you saying that the sensor in the 1DXii is the same as the 7Dii (besides mp)?

You have mentioned the 300/2.8 so I assume you are only talking about reach....
The 7D II (USD1,799) and the EF70-200mm/2.8iii (USD2,099) costs USD3,898. 
The R6 (USD2,499) plus EF300/4 (USD1,349) plus R mount adapter (USD99) costs USD3,947 ie 
- same price, resolution and dual card mp 
but....
- much better high ISO (very important for indoor shooting), AF, fps using the same sensor as 1DXiii
The battery life will not be the same but the other mirrorless features should make up the difference and worth carrying a spare battery.

If you needed the focal length flexibility then there isn't a direct R mount option. The RF70-200/4 is USD1,599 and can't be used with a TC unfortunately


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 16, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> FPS, autofocus ability, buffer size, crop factor. For birders there many reasons why an APSC body makes scenes.


I'm still trying to understand your point given the option of R6 + RF800mm. See PBD's comment for the comparison


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 16, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The R6 is only 20MP or else that would be on the right track.


But the 7Dii is also 20mp so same pixel density.


EOS 4 Life said:


> The R5 suggestion is not even in the same ballpark.


If you want greater pixel density then
From PBD's comment...
"The 7D II cost $1,799 and the 100-400II $2,399, total $4,198. An R5 costs $3,899 the RF800 $899, total $4,798. Thats $600 more six years later with longer reach, more than twice the mp and fps, and MUCH better AF, all things reach limited shooters say they want. Downside is one stop of dof."

so in the same ballpark ie ~13% in cost but dramatically better features.


EOS 4 Life said:


> Other than that, some people just prefer APS-C and they will either buy from Canon or someone else.


You are absolutely correct! I am just intrigued to see if there are genuine reasons why Canon can't provide an alternative.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 16, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I would love to see light versions of the R6, R5 and R1 in the same bodies, but without video, burst and eye autofocus for half the price. I feel those cameras could be much cheaper if Canon would not have to fear that they cannibalize its video cameras.
> 
> As somebody who only takes photos of buildings, even the most basic autofocus would work for me. I feel modern cameras have a lot of features I do not need.


All mirrorless cameras (and DLSRs in liveview) are essentially video cameras. What you do with the video feed is a different story but the weight would be similar except potentially for internal heatsinks.

Eye-AF/tracking is intense video processing and digic X / bus speed/ high speed cards are needed for that. Using older Digic processors could be a possibility to remove some higher end video features but it wouldn't reduce the cost by half. Even medium format and Leica etc have video specs now.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I don't want a crap FF camera from canon for $799. I'd rather pay $1000 for a little brother of the R5 or R3.


Six years ago the 7D II was $1,799, good luck expecting ”_ a little brother of the R5 or R3”_ for $1,000!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The @Michael Clark use-case: college sport venues. A 7DII + 70-200mm f/2.8 can do the job of a 1DXII + 300mm f/2.8 at a fraction of the price.


By that logic, for birds a 7D + 100-400 can do the job of my 1D X + 600/4 for a fraction of the price. Except that I’ve shot both combos extensively, and the latter delivers _much_ better results.

Can a Mazda Miata do the job of an Audi R8? Sure…they both have four wheels and two seats, right?


----------



## SnowMiku (Jul 16, 2021)

The R5 and the RF 800mm F/11 sounds like a good alternative to the 7D II and 100-400L, but a few things missing is the flexibility of the zoom and the weather sealing in the lens, I'm sure the L would be better quality as well. But I do agree it's a good alternative.

If Canon were to release an R7 or a cheaper crop with the 90D sensor, that RF 800mm F/11 would be equivalent to 1280mm. With the R5 you can crop to equivalent 1280mm at about 17MP but with an RF APS-C with the 90D sensor you can have equivalent 1280mm at 32.5MP.

With a APS-C RF you could even save some weight, size and money and get the RF 600mm and get equivalent 960mm.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 16, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Well, guessing that person is NOT a Canon customer....
> I mean with that low of an income, I doubt they are looking to spend disposable cash on ANY camera out there.
> 
> Heck for that level, I'm doubtful of them having a mechanism to connect to the internet and watch videos.
> ...


I agree but mobile phones are becoming a more essential item in lower income demographics around the world. Banking, messaging/communication etc all using pre-paid SIMs. Watching video ie higher speed/mobile data limits would not generally be part of their subscription. 
And.... the phones happen to have a camera on them in almost every model so they all become new photographers. Once you get the photography bug, there is no turning back!


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 16, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> If Canon were to release an R7 or a cheaper crop with the 90D sensor, that RF 800mm F/11 would be equivalent to 1280mm. With the R5 you can crop to equivalent 1280mm at about 17MP but with an RF APS-C with the 90D sensor you can have equivalent 1280mm at 32.5MP.
> 
> With a APS-C RF you could even save some weight, size and money and get the RF 600mm and get equivalent 960mm.


It seems to me that the 90D/M6ii's sensor and burst fps is the source of all angst for the crop sensor community. Yearning for the same sensor in a weather sealed/dual card body is the holy grail  

In terms of spare parts bin, it makes some financial sense to add a RF body similar to R6 with the M6ii sensor/processing pipeline. Dual cards would be the main difference. The RP/R bodies essentially did the same thing with 6Dii/5Div. Sales volume is the key issue. Canon might not have any RF-s lenses ie not support another lens mount and effectively restrict the wide angle lens options to adapted EF-s lenses. 

Developing a new high pixel density APS-C sensor for R mount with Digic X processing capability is a vastly different financial and supply chain scenario.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 16, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Yeah! Let's get this fight started!



Well, you guys haven't disappointed me. 

My two cents:

@Canon Rumors Guy has previously posted that an APS-C R body is coming from Canon. He's either right or wrong, but all the arguments one way or the other won't change anything.

Question is, if he is right, what form might that body take? I think logic would dictate a 7D or 90D successor. I don't see any point whatsoever in a low-cost crop sensor R. And by not seeing any point, I mean any point for Canon, which already offers the M line to fill that niche. Maybe if they completely abandoned the M line, but that would be a big leap off the cliff with no parachute.

The logic on this forum dictates that it would be a higher end crop body. I could see Canon offering a crop sensor R7 at about the price of the R6 or slightly above, which would be consistent with the historical placement of the 7D. That's going to disappoint the people who think they will get an R7 at 2014 prices. Don't see that happening.

We can (and apparently will) debate the viability of such a body until the cows come home. I can only relate my own perspective.

If Canon had offered a 7DIII with the 90D sensor, multiple f8 autofocus points and updated autofocus, I would have bought two (one for me and one for my wife). Instead I bought two R5s. I also bought her the 800 f11 and have two 100-500s on order (going on four months now) So, Canon not offering a 7DIII or R7 paid off for them in my case. 

If the R7 ever materializes, I'm not sure what it would take for me to consider buying one. I'm perfectly happy with the R5 sensor and use it in crop mode consistently for songbirds with no problem. While I'm an extreme example, the point is that I suspect there are a lot of potential 7D III/R7 buyers who have moved on, meaning an even smaller niche for the body. A high megapixel R5s might shrink that potential market even more. if it means a crop mode of 25-35 mp.

Now, Canon's resources are not unlimited. They are having a hard time delivering on already introduced products, and I see a new post that says they are delaying future lens releases, so presumably, they are taking a close look at how best to allocate those resources once they meet current demand. We know the R3 is next in line. Beyond that, the more solid rumors are for a budget R, a high megapixel R, a cinema R and a flagship R (I may be missing other bodies). So, even at the most optimistic, it seems like an R7 would be unlikely to appear until 2023 at the earliest. That means it might be arriving about the time an R5II, which will likely have an even higher mp count, is being teased. Point being, with each new release, I suspect the pool of R7 users is going to shrink a bit. 

Will it happen. I don't know, but I know it's damn fun reading all the arguments pro and con.


----------



## sanj (Jul 16, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> No it won't, because physics. Why is there no EF-S lens longer than 250mm? Physics. With long lenses, the image circle is not a limiting factor, so making a long lens with a smaller image circle doesn't change the size of the optic.


Thx. I did not know. Now do!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 16, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> But the 7Dii is also 20mp so same pixel density.
> 
> If you want greater pixel density then
> From PBD's comment...
> ...


People want the next 7D which is sure to be more than 20 MP


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2021)

unfocused said:


> If Canon had offered a 7DIII with the 90D sensor, multiple f8 autofocus points and updated autofocus, I would have bought two (one for me and one for my wife). *Instead I bought two R5s. I also bought her the 800 f11 and have two 100-500s on order* (going on four months now) So, Canon not offering a 7DIII or R7 paid off for them in my case.


So, logic won...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> People want the next 7D which is sure to be more than 20 MP


And an R5 with the 800 gives them a lot more for not much more money.


----------



## Talys (Jul 16, 2021)

With the DSLR, using APSC had the advantage of further reach in viewfinder framing. Given the same piece of glass, the subject would appear more magnified on the OVF, which is very useful for little critters.

One of the great advantages of mirrorless is that you can toggle that in the evf, giving the same while also being able to go wider by using all of the available pixels. 

The main advantage I see in APSC for mirrorless is simply cost. A smaller sensor that needs to be able transfer less information per second must surely cost less, plus it gives Canon the ability to stratify prices, something we all know Canon is super duper at doing.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 16, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So, logic won...


Or maybe impatience.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2021)

Talys said:


> With the DSLR, using APSC had the advantage of further reach in viewfinder framing. Given the same piece of glass, the subject would appear more magnified on the OVF, which is very useful for little critters.
> 
> One of the great advantages of mirrorless is that you can toggle that in the evf, giving the same while also being able to go wider by using all of the available pixels.
> 
> The main advantage I see in APSC for mirrorless is simply cost. A smaller sensor that needs to be able transfer less information per second must surely cost less, plus it gives Canon the ability to stratify prices, something we all know Canon is super duper at doing.


Not as much as before. Sensor yields have vastly improved and the wafers, discs, they cut them from have gotten bigger.

The difference between a ff and APS-c sensor used to be in the $100’s, now it is probably in the $10’s.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jul 16, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And an R5 with the 800 gives them a lot more for not much more money.


I could not disagree more


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I could not disagree more


What, specifically, do you disagree with?

What from this isn’t more?
45mp vs 20mp
20fps vs 10fps
1,000+ focus point vs 65 focus points
Animal and eye AF vs servo AF
Full frame AF coverage vs center grouped AF
Real 800mm vs an effective 640mm

Or the fact that $600 6 years later isn’t a lot more money on a $4-5,000 purchase.


----------



## Chig (Jul 16, 2021)

dcm said:


> If only they designed pin compatible sensors and all of the rest of the camera to automatically adjust to the different sensors…. You could put an APS-C sensor in an R5 or R6 body, maybe even an RP. /s
> 
> This is really what some of you seem to be asking for to get the same AF, etc. in the APS-C R. The sensor costs are not as different these days so you might save a small amount, but it would be in the low $100s, not $1000s.


I don't mind paying a similar price to the R6 for an aps-c version of this camera as it would be vastly better for my bird photography than an R5 or R6 and a huge improvement over my 7Dii and still much cheaper than an R5.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 16, 2021)

Talys said:


> The main advantage I see in APSC for mirrorless is simply cost. A smaller sensor that needs to be able transfer less information per second must surely cost less, plus it gives Canon the ability to stratify prices, something we all know Canon is super duper at doing.


But 7D users want a higher pixel density eg 32mp so the bus speed is the same as for a 32mp full frame sensor. I get the impression that providing 20mp in a APS-C sensor would be underwhelming for the potential buyers. There would be a reduced cost for wafer space but estimating the $$ difference would be hard and even harder to estimate how that would compare to retail pricing.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 16, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm still trying to understand your point given the option of R6 + RF800mm. See PBD's comment for the comparison


I see that is a tempting combo but there’s no way I’m shooting at f11 all the time. Far too few pixels in the R6 too.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 16, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I have yet to perceive any issue with the 6D2. I have used it since about the time it came out. I read that people who underexpose by four stops don’t care for it, but I don’t do that.


Indeed, and as long as it is not unnecessarily underexposed at all it is capable of contemporary high quality, and in the case of the RP benefits from the up to date Canon colour science.


----------



## Talys (Jul 16, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Not as much as before. Sensor yields have vastly improved and the wafers, discs, they cut them from have gotten bigger.
> 
> The difference between a ff and APS-c sensor used to be in the $100’s, now it is probably in the $10’s.


Generally speaking, I totally agree with you. However, not everyone can afford a 5-series camera, and one way to lower the price while keeping the features could be to make an APSC version that kept most of the features, but swapped a FF for an APSC sensor. If the pixel density were the same (making it a lower megapixel camera, but "effectively" the same, if you were going to crop a bird from the center anyhow), it could be cheaper. Some of that cost reduction could be actual manufacturing costs, and some of it might just be because maximizing what you can squeeze out of someone's camera budget, and who knows, they can always upgrade next year when they're convinced that a 5 series or 3 series will give them magnificently better photos


----------



## Talys (Jul 16, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> But 7D users want a higher pixel density eg 32mp so the bus speed is the same as for a 32mp full frame sensor. I get the impression that providing 20mp in a APS-C sensor would be underwhelming for the potential buyers. There would be a reduced cost for wafer space but estimating the $$ difference would be hard and even harder to estimate how that would compare to retail pricing.



So, I'm not sure what the actual cost (manufacturing) difference between a 6D2 and 90D are when it comes to sensor and processor. I suspect that like you say, it's probably not a lot. However, I think it's valuable for Canon to stratify the product offering to the enthusiast market though, as a way of capturing as many sales as possible, and things that cost a little less, but are marked up a lot less in the hopes of being "just the right camera for someone" seems like a smart way to do things.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 16, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I see that is a tempting combo but there’s no way I’m shooting at f11 all the time. Far too few pixels in the R6 too.


I'm not trying to be argumentative but rather trying to understand... A 20mp 7Dii with EF100-400 @400mm is equivalent to a 20mp FF 560mm f8. Given the better quality (AF, fps etc) of the R6 sensor, taking a 1 stop hit should be comparable. using the 100mm end @f4.5 would be equivalent to 140mm ~f7 so slightly more than 1 stop difference.

Asking for higher pixel density is the issue and the only fiscal option I can only see happening is Canon making a R6 body with M6ii sensor/processor in R mount (no RF-s lens). Would such a body fit your requirements?
The alternative is the R5 combo that gives all that and more with a ~$600 premium.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 16, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Sonyx, it's clear that Canon never had you.
> 
> As we are on to you here, suggest you troll elsewhere.


Why is it that everyone with a critical view on Canons pricing is a troll? That says more about you then it does about me bro. I am just a Canon professional user for 2 decades. Still using my 1dx’s. I am happy with the way Canon images look when it comes to color, but sharpness and AF could be better. I am unhappy that it took Canon so long to finally develop a mirrorless pro body. And I am unhappy with the pricetag Canon puts on pro gear. Is that something you can accept, my friend? I couldn’t care less to be honest, but it pretty common here on CR to bash anyone with a different view.


----------



## Chig (Jul 16, 2021)

Talys said:


> Generally speaking, I totally agree with you. However, not everyone can afford a 5-series camera, and one way to lower the price while keeping the features could be to make an APSC version that kept most of the features, but swapped a FF for an APSC sensor. If the pixel density were the same (making it a lower megapixel camera, but "effectively" the same, if you were going to crop a bird from the center anyhow), it could be cheaper. Some of that cost reduction could be actual manufacturing costs, and some of it might just be because maximizing what you can squeeze out of someone's camera budget, and who knows, they can always upgrade next year when they're convinced that a 5 series or 3 series will give them magnificently better photos


I'd be happy to pay the same price as a R6 for the same camera with a crop sensor as the biggest cost in wildlife especially bird photography is the telephoto lenses.
A crop version of the R6 would be a huge improvement over my 7Dii and paired with my EF100-400mm ii lens would give me similar reach to a FF camera paired with a 600mm f/4 which I could never afford and which would be far too heavy for hand holding.
Also a 32mp crop sensor has similar pixel density to an 80mp full frame and if Canon ever makes one it'll be much more expensive than a cropped version of the R6.

However my dream camera (if I ever won the lottery) would be a crop sensor version of the R3 and I'd expect that to be priced similar to the full frame version but whether Canon chooses to make one is anyone's guess and probably not very likely sadly


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2021)

Talys said:


> Generally speaking, I totally agree with you. However, not everyone can afford a 5-series camera, and one way to lower the price while keeping the features could be to make an APSC version that kept most of the features, but swapped a FF for an APSC sensor. If the pixel density were the same (making it a lower megapixel camera, but "effectively" the same, if you were going to crop a bird from the center anyhow), it could be cheaper. Some of that cost reduction could be actual manufacturing costs, and some of it might just be because maximizing what you can squeeze out of someone's camera budget, and who knows, they can always upgrade next year when they're convinced that a 5 series or 3 series will give them magnificently better photos


If an R7 cost Canon $100 less to make than an R5 how would they price it? How much pressure would they then put on themselves to make dedicated lenses for that crop sensor?

I wish people would stop thinking I am ‘anti R7’ or that I think ‘ff is the answer to everything’ and would realize I am only putting forwards what I see as logical reasons why Canon might or might not do something.

So far, from my logic, I see very little reason for Canon to make an R7, but what do I know? I am certainly not a corporate manufacturing guy!


----------



## Chig (Jul 16, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> If an R7 cost Canon $100 less to make than an R5 how would they price it? How much pressure would they then put on themselves to make dedicated lenses for that crop sensor?
> 
> I wish people would stop thinking I am ‘anti R7’ or that I think ‘ff is the answer to everything’ and would realize I am only putting forwards what I see as logical reasons why Canon might or might not do something.
> 
> So far, from my logic, I see very little reason for Canon to make an R7, but what do I know? I am certainly not a corporate manufacturing guy!


If they put the 32mp sensor from the 90D into an otherwise unchanged R6 and called it the R7 and priced it the same as an R6 I'd buy it for sure and it would potentially sell well. The development cost would be minimal too.
I was tempted to buy an R6 and even to save up for an R5 but then I heard about a possible R7 so I held off in the hope that Canon would do as I suggest above.

I see no reason to make dedicated RF-s crop lenses for such a camera when it would be mostly used with long telephotos of 400mm and up where no weight or size savings are possible for crop sensor versions of these lenses .


----------



## sanj (Jul 16, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> No problem at all, I’m simply asking people to look at it from the perspective of Canon and say why would they?
> 
> So far the only group of people who are not currently served by Canon are ‘serious’ photographers who want more lenses than the M system has. All I am saying is given that information and the relatively small size of that group I don’t see that it makes financial sense for Canon to release bodies and dedicated lenses to compete in that space.
> 
> ...


We will know in less than two years.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 16, 2021)

I saw several reviews of the 800mm f/11 and it seems it does not really have the resolution for the R5. At f/11 diffraction also becomes a problem. It combines much better with the R6.


----------



## David_D (Jul 16, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So far, from my logic, I see very little reason for Canon to make an R7, but what do I know? I am certainly not a corporate manufacturing guy!


I agree with you, which is why my next camera is very likely to be FF + 800mm/F11, but a couple of reasons why Canon may release an R7. (One good, one not)

They may come up with some new tech they want to try out in the wild, e.g. a super-high density sensor, that if scaled up to FF the processing would not be able to keep up (yet).
There are enough "nothing but a crop camera is good enough" types that they can sell a high-profit margin (over-priced) model to and cover their costs.


----------



## David_D (Jul 16, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I saw several reviews of the 800mm f/11 and it seems it does not really have the resolution for the R5. At f/11 diffraction also becomes a problem. It combines much better with the R6.


But would an R5 + 800mm/f11 down-sampled to say 25-30mp be better or worse than a 7Dii + 100-400mm? (That would still have the 45mp for larger/closer subjects with a shorter lens.)


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 16, 2021)

David_D said:


> But would an R5 + 800mm/f11 down-sampled to say 25-30mp be better or worse than a 7Dii + 100-400mm? (That would still have the 45mp for larger/closer subjects with a shorter lens.)


The minimum focus distance of the 100-400 is about 1.3m and it has a 0.32x magnification ratio. The MFD of the 800 f/11 is 6m. Would the R5 still win with a dragonfly at MFD being downsampled?


----------



## David_D (Jul 16, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The minimum focus distance of the 100-400 is about 1.3m and it has a 0.32x magnification ratio. The MFD of the 800 f/11 is 6m. Would the R5 still win with a dragonfly at MFD being downsampled?


That is an interesting theoretical question. Personally, I will be keeping my 100-400mm (until I can afford to upgrade to the RF 100-500mm - which will take longer if I go for the R5 over the R6), so would use that for a dragonfly. Actually, I can see advantages of using it in this scenario on the R5 over the 7Dii (apart from the obvious AF improvement), as last time I tried it kept flying closer! I had to keep trying to balance the zoom (to keep the image as large as possible on the sensor) against cutting off bits of wing or body. I probably lost as many shots through this as missed focus. With the R5 I could zoom out slightly more, keep the dragonfly in the frame more often and crop later, plus hopefully get >90% sharp focus. If it was sitting still on a nice perch 6m away, that would be a different matter and I would try both approaches


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 16, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The minimum focus distance of the 100-400 is about 1.3m and it has a 0.32x magnification ratio. The MFD of the 800 f/11 is 6m. Would the R5 still win with a dragonfly at MFD being downsampled?


Probably not. The MFD is a good point. I am guessing that current 7Dii users already have glass eg EF100-400 so reusing it with R6 would alleviate the MFD issue.


----------



## criscokkat (Jul 16, 2021)

MoonMadness said:


> Let's say a user has a 7D and a 70-200 f2.8 lens and that is all the reach they need. And now they are ready to enter the mirrorless market. Without an crop RF body, they would have to also spend $$, again, to get a new lens to get the equivalent reach. There are many that do not want f11 and rather have some more like the 2.8 (yes it is FF 2.8, but not as dim as when using the f11 crop lens). If RF has full frames cameras that work great with high ISO, then why not have all their FF lenses at F11? Answer is the same reason that the APS-C users want more than F11.
> 
> I believe you, that RF crop may not for you. But for many others, it is.


They can right now buy a R5 body with adapter and have a much better wildlife tracking camera that gives them more creativity if they want to crop in post. It's essentially the same number of pixels when cropped, but with more play around it. So it comes down to how much time you are at 200 on your 70-200. I'll wager in sports you are not at 200 more than 50% of the time, otherwise you'd be talking about having a 100-400.

So imagine the players get closer, I know that I have a lot more trouble not being able to shoot the shot when they are too close to me, as I can't get enough of the scene. When they are far away, I can crop a bit and hope the focus is dead on for that to work right. So right there I'm not getting more pixels at a 7d crop distance, but when they are close to me not only am I getting the shot but I have 3-4 times the number of pixels to work with for a richer photo.

Plus I'm also gaining the ability to actually use the 2.8 capability of the lens when it comes to depth of field.

Now, it'd be nice if there was a R6 with a 30 something megapixel aps-c sensor. But technologies change and the niche that 7d filled perfectly is much smaller now thanks to other cameras being able to meet those needs (how many people bought the 7d because it was significantly cheaper than the 1dx line because they needed the FPS?). Personally I suspect that the R6 will be replaced much earlier in it's product cycle with a fast sensor with more megapixels and the R6 will slot into a $1500 price point, but it has been selling at the same more expensive price point because everyone is dead in their tracks with development and production because of Covid.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 16, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Indeed, and as long as it is not unnecessarily underexposed at all it is capable of contemporary high quality, and in the case of the RP benefits from the up to date Canon colour science.


I'm an old guy. I shot color slide film for years and years. So the notion of getting everything right in the first place is not foreign to me.

I also shot black and white film and did my own darkroom work. So the concept of post-processing is not novel, either. I'm glad that with digital cameras and computers I can do both.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 16, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm not trying to be argumentative but rather trying to understand... A 20mp 7Dii with EF100-400 @400mm is equivalent to a 20mp FF 560mm f8. Given the better quality (AF, fps etc) of the R6 sensor, taking a 1 stop hit should be comparable. using the 100mm end @f4.5 would be equivalent to 140mm ~f7 so slightly more than 1 stop difference.
> 
> Asking for higher pixel density is the issue and the only fiscal option I can only see happening is Canon making a R6 body with M6ii sensor/processor in R mount (no RF-s lens). Would such a body fit your requirements?
> The alternative is the R5 combo that gives all that and more with a ~$600 premium.


The 20mp of the 7Dii is outdated now. I’d want something in the region of 28-32mp in a crop sensor. Or if using full frame after cropping in post. To get that many pixels, plus fast frames per second and top notch AF it’ll be very expensive. Well, you’re taping R5 or R3 money.. That was the appeal of the 7D line. Also the backgrounds on the f11 lens are gonna be messy and the minimus focus distance is terrible so I hear. Not great for small birds.


----------



## Swerky (Jul 16, 2021)

Under 800$ ? Will a battery be included? The RP retails for 999$ now. That being a basic camera. So what will this supposedly 799$ at launch camera turn up to be? An RP without an evf? Doesn’t make sense really. An RP with fixed screen, no evf (maybe optional one) but with ibis? Only time will tell.


----------



## dirtyvu (Jul 16, 2021)

If it's like cpus, I can imagine that Canon figures that there are limited sales for dedicated cameras in general. So instead of cutting the wafer into larger sensors for full frame and smaller sensors like apsc, why not just cut large sensors. If the overall market isn't large, there's not much of a cost savings to still making apsc sensors.


----------



## Swerky (Jul 16, 2021)

jolyonralph said:


> The big problem is the lack of affordable/light-weight/good image quality* kit lenses
> 
> This isn't the age of your father's EF 28-85 lens - lenses good enough for FF sensors these days are HARD to do properly.
> 
> ...


The EF 40mm f2.8 is quite a good lens. Canon can easily make an RF version. I own the EF 24-105 stm and it’s quite a decent lens for the amateur photographer who would consider cameras like the RP and that eventual rumoured one. There’s the RF 24-105 stm. It may be slow with plenty of distortion at 24mm, but overall it’s quite good. The RF 35mm 1.8 stm is a fine lens as well. All cheap to affordable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2021)

dirtyvu said:


> If it's like cpus, I can imagine that Canon figures that there are limited sales for dedicated cameras in general. So instead of cutting the wafer into larger sensors for full frame and smaller sensors like apsc, why not just cut large sensors. If the overall market isn't large, there's not much of a cost savings to still making apsc sensors.


The overall market is mostly APS-C – the EOS M and the entry-level DSLRs lines remain Canon’s best-sellers by a wide margin over their FF lines. Canon will be cutting wafers into smaller sensors for a long time to come.


----------



## reefroamer (Jul 16, 2021)

sanj said:


> I do not get the resistance to Canon launching a new crop mirrorless system. What exactly is the problem?


I don’t think anyone is against it, per se. But many believe it’s just not going to happen because Canon apparently does not see a strong enough business case for it. The niche seems pretty small, and is evidenced by the long refresh cycle of the aged 7D. Canon perhaps sees too many other better opportunities at this time. I’m still amazed they are announcing new bodies and lenses, considering all the delays for their existing products.


----------



## reefroamer (Jul 16, 2021)

sanj said:


> "but why use the full frame if you need to crop every time ? Just have a cropped sensor." THIS!





InchMetric said:


> I don’t want the industry to get rid of EVFs. I don’t think anyone actually suggested that.
> 
> I want Canon to offer one FF RF model without an EVF.


I think there’s a better chance of that than seeing a crop R body, at this point. Whether that that one EVF-less body will have the specs you want … another issue.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 16, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Why is it that everyone with a critical view on Canons pricing is a troll? That says more about you then it does about me bro. I am just a Canon professional user for 2 decades. Still using my 1dx’s. I am happy with the way Canon images look when it comes to color, but sharpness and AF could be better. I am unhappy that it took Canon so long to finally develop a mirrorless pro body. And I am unhappy with the pricetag Canon puts on pro gear. Is that something you can accept, my friend? I couldn’t care less to be honest, but it pretty common here on CR to bash anyone with a different view.


Likely it's because every time I see you post, you're telling Canon they're going to lose you. Your phrasing is pretty distinctive, in fact.

That is precisely the behavior of some of the paid S*ny trolls who are trying to generate a bandwagon effect.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 16, 2021)

if you look at canon's lineup today, a consumer has a range of kit options from $5-600 to $5000 with multiple stops in between. The rebel lineup must account for some significant portion of Canon's revenue stream, but an $800 body with a $150+ lens or a $100 ef adapter plus an EF lens just isn't going to cut it. The M range is not a good substitite nor are any of the fixed lens alternatives.


----------



## reefroamer (Jul 16, 2021)

dwarven said:


> It matters *far less* than you seem to think. The more you progress in photography the more you'll come to realize this.





Talys said:


> Generally speaking, I totally agree with you. However, not everyone can afford a 5-series camera, and one way to lower the price while keeping the features could be to make an APSC version that kept most of the features, but swapped a FF for an APSC sensor. If the pixel density were the same (making it a lower megapixel camera, but "effectively" the same, if you were going to crop a bird from the center anyhow), it could be cheaper. Some of that cost reduction could be actual manufacturing costs, and some of it might just be because maximizing what you can squeeze out of someone's camera budget, and who knows, they can always upgrade next year when they're convinced that a 5 series or 3 series will give them magnificently better photos


Makes good sense to probably everyone but Canon.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 16, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Likely it's because every time I see you post, you're telling Canon they're going to lose you. Your phrasing is pretty distinctive, in fact.
> 
> That is precisely the behavior of some of the paid S*ny trolls who are trying to generate a bandwagon effect.


Well, things ain’t always the way you think they are... I am just very disappointed about the way MY preferred brand goes about when it comes to pricing in general, I think Canon is always 15-25% to high on pricing. And in particular I am not happy about the way they are producing mirrorless pro products. To me it seems like Canon has been sleeping, suddenly (yes!) Sony woke them up and now they try to catch up. And they will, I’m sure. But in the meantime I (as a professional press and sports photographer) I still have to select an AF point and try to keep a subject in place. Whilst Sony has tracking for some years now. So: can you blame me? No. Am I a troll now? No. Am I an exeption here because I am a criticaster, Yes. Let’s see what Canon comes up with in the next few weeks. I am just hoping this camera will be affordable, but you know my point of view on this subject. Have a great day Steve.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 16, 2021)

Cyborx said:


> Well, things ain’t always the way you think they are... I am just very disappointed about the way MY preferred brand goes about when it comes to pricing in general, I think Canon is always 15-25% to high on pricing. And in particular I am not happy about the way they are producing mirrorless pro products. To me it seems like Canon has been sleeping, suddenly (yes!) Sony woke them up and now they try to catch up. And they will, I’m sure. But in the meantime I (as a professional press and sports photographer) I still have to select an AF point and try to keep a subject in place. Whilst Sony has tracking for some years now. So: can you blame me? No. Am I a troll now? No. Am I an exeption here because I am a criticaster, Yes. Let’s see what Canon comes up with in the next few weeks. I am just hoping this camera will be affordable, but you know my point of view on this subject. Have a great day Steve.



Fair enough. 

I do agree Canon was showing signs of getting complacent (I came into this toward the end of that period), and it looks like someone finally poked them, hard. Their response on the body side has been spectacular; on the lens side it has been good so far (we're at the end of the beginning [at best] of seeing them create an RF lineup, so it's too early to judge just how wide the variety will end up being, and I mean variety both on the focal length/aperture continuum _and_ the consumer-to-pro-grade spectrum--ideally they will ultimately have a wide variety of lenses of all grades). But yes at the pro end, they're more expensive than the corresponding EF lenses. But from what I can tell (mostly from people who comment here; I own only two RF lenses as yet), they're usually also better.

Many people criticize, few do so formulaically and to the exclusion of having anything else to say.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 16, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm still trying to understand your point given the option of R6 + RF800mm. See PBD's comment for the comparison


To me, this is just another example of people trying so hard to come up with arguments against those who think a crop RF camera would be a good idea. The R6 plus RF 800mm combo might be a good idea for some, but it hardly is a direct comparison to any crop camera teamed with the EF 100-400mm II lens (plus there are cheaper 100-400 alternatives).

The R6 is only 20 MP. People continually compare it to the 7D II which is also 20 MP. I think they are deliberately ignoring the idea that Canon has already produced a 32 MP crop sensor and that any new RF crop camera seems likely to have a 32 MP sensor. So the R6 is not really as good an alternative as a 32 MP crop camera when it comes to pixel density.

The RF 800mm lens is a one purpose lens. For those only doing wildlife, it is definitely a inexpensive option compared to most long lenses. But you just can't compare it to a 100-400 lens or any zoom lens. The minimum focus distance keeps it from being a good alternative for flowers, insects, your kids or pets - pretty much anything but long distance wildlife. You will also need another lens to really compare it to any FF alternative. So that's at least another $500 for a non-L 70-300 for example. Couldn't take either of these shots with an 800mm lens either because of the minimum focal distance (redwing) or the inability to zoom out to approx. 200mm (flying geese). 

In my mind, the R6 plus RF 800mm is not a viable comparison or alternative. You will need at least one more relatively long lens and a camera with higher pixel density.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Many people criticize, few do so formulaically and to the exclusion of having anything else to say.


I don’t miss the DRoners, since Canon’s newer sensors left them insufficient range to lift themselves out of the shadows.


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 17, 2021)

dirtyvu said:


> If it's like cpus, I can imagine that Canon figures that there are limited sales for dedicated cameras in general. So instead of cutting the wafer into larger sensors for full frame and smaller sensors like apsc, why not just cut large sensors. If the overall market isn't large, there's not much of a cost savings to still making apsc sensors.


The market is very good for APS-C M series. Fuji and Sony have pretty good/mostly better APS-C cameras/camera ecosystem than Canon. I think if Canon were to no longer make APS-C cameras, not only would they lose future M (or possible RF crop) sales, but also lose out to other brands where customers may want a crop sensor (for various reasons). It already started happening to me.


----------



## Chig (Jul 17, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The minimum focus distance of the 100-400 is about 1.3m and it has a 0.32x magnification ratio. The MFD of the 800 f/11 is 6m. Would the R5 still win with a dragonfly at MFD being downsampled?


I own a 7Dii and the EF100-400 ii which is one of the most versatile lenses ever made and it's a proper pro quality L lens not a plasticy single purpose tool of very limited use like the RF800 f/11.
The minimum focus distance is just under a meter and with my 500D close up lens I can get a working distance of about 30-40cm and 0.64 x magnification which is far more useful and versatile for real world close up photography of bugs, etc than any dedicated Macro lens


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 17, 2021)

Jasonmc89 said:


> The 20mp of the 7Dii is outdated now. I’d want something in the region of 28-32mp in a crop sensor. Or if using full frame after cropping in post. To get that many pixels, plus fast frames per second and top notch AF it’ll be very expensive. Well, you’re taping R5 or R3 money.. That was the appeal of the 7D line. Also the backgrounds on the f11 lens are gonna be messy and the minimus focus distance is terrible so I hear. Not great for small birds.


The 7Dii sensor is definitely old. Would buy a R6 body with the same 32mp sensor from the M6ii and 14fps with no change in AF capability? Similar in concept/spare parts bin as RP/6Dii and R/5Div.
It won't have the same AF tracking as R5/6 but wouldn't be as expensive as a new sensor. The other possibility is that a APS-C version of the R5s comes out at the same time. Pricing would be high then.

If you already have the EF100-400mm then it is best to reuse it. If you splurge on the RF100-500mm then it improves the MFD by 980mm (.31x) to 900mm (.33x), gives extra reach and collapsed size and reduced weight over the EF100-400mm. The RF800mm is there when you want ultimate reach at a reasonable price or even add TCs as well.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 17, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> To me, this is just another example of people trying so hard to come up with arguments against those who think a crop RF camera would be a good idea. The R6 plus RF 800mm combo might be a good idea for some, but it hardly is a direct comparison to any crop camera teamed with the EF 100-400mm II lens (plus there are cheaper 100-400 alternatives).
> 
> The R6 is only 20 MP. People continually compare it to the 7D II which is also 20 MP. I think they are deliberately ignoring the idea that Canon has already produced a 32 MP crop sensor and that any new RF crop camera seems likely to have a 32 MP sensor. So the R6 is not really as good an alternative as a 32 MP crop camera when it comes to pixel density.
> 
> ...


I have no problems with a APS-C crop camera body. I question why Canon hasn't released a 7Diii or a crop RF body to date. 

I am interested in is why current Canon bodies/lenses can't fill the your need for a crop body.
The 90D or M6ii + EF100-400mm already give you the pixel density and reach with your current EF100-400mm at a very reasonable price. Clearly you want more so what are your minimum requirements?
Would you buy a R6 body with M6ii sensor/AF etc in it? This option seems to be "simple" and comparable to RP/6Dii and R/5Div releases vs a new sensor. 

I agree that MFD and focal flexibility are key differentiators between EF100-400mm and RF800.
I was impressed when I checked the MFD/mag of the EF100-400mm vs RF100-500mm ie 980mm (.31x) to 900mm (.33x) with the latter being @ 500mm. Reduced weight, collapsed size, stability and AF speed are bonuses. Would you upgrade to the RF100-500mm or stick with your EF100-400mm if Canon released a crop RF body?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 17, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The 7Dii sensor is definitely old. Would buy a R6 body with the same 32mp sensor from the M6ii and 14fps with no change in AF capability? Similar in concept/spare parts bin as RP/6Dii and R/5Div.
> It won't have the same AF tracking as R5/6 but wouldn't be as expensive as a new sensor. The other possibility is that a APS-C version of the R5s comes out at the same time. Pricing would be high then.
> 
> If you already have the EF100-400mm then it is best to reuse it. If you splurge on the RF100-500mm then it improves the MFD by 980mm (.31x) to 900mm (.33x), gives extra reach and collapsed size and reduced weight over the EF100-400mm. The RF800mm is there when you want ultimate reach at a reasonable price or even add TCs as well.


I do really like the R6, and I’ve contemplated getting one for macro/frogs/mushrooms kind of work. But the ideal for me would be an R6 type camera with a sensor similar to their apsc 32mp yes. As long as the AF system is good and had the eye tracking! Oh, and IBIS of course!


----------



## dirtyvu (Jul 17, 2021)

MoonMadness said:


> The market is very good for APS-C M series. Fuji and Sony have pretty good/mostly better APS-C cameras/camera ecosystem than Canon. I think if Canon were to no longer make APS-C cameras, not only would they lose future M (or possible RF crop) sales, but also lose out to other brands where customers may want a crop sensor (for various reasons). It already started happening to me.


You can think that but the dedicated camera market is shrinking. Fuji revenue is significantly down with only their new segments (Healthcare & Material Solutions segment) having growth and positive cash flow.

Same for Sony. Sony fans make it out like their dedicated camera lines are juggernauts and top tier in the industry. But they're not. Sony's EP&S (Electronic Products & Solutions segment) is down significantly due to declining digital camera sales. The only reason operating income increased was because they reduced costs in their mobile phone business and TV business although those segments also saw decreased sales. Their Imaging & Sensing Solutions segment was down significantly for FY2020 due to decreased mobile demand. In fact, Sony in their financial statement said, "Due to the uncertain market environment, Sony is carefully reviewing its capital expenditure plans in this segment in relation to projected demand through the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022..."

Digital camera fans live in a bubble because they love their products so much. But the reality is the dedicated camera markets are shrinking and it's all about maximizing revenue from that shrinking market. Going for the sub $1k market is only commoditizing and decreasing value of your products.


----------



## Cyborx (Jul 17, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I do agree Canon was showing signs of getting complacent (I came into this toward the end of that period), and it looks like someone finally poked them, hard. Their response on the body side has been spectacular; on the lens side it has been good so far (we're at the end of the beginning [at best] of seeing them create an RF lineup, so it's too early to judge just how wide the variety will end up being, and I mean variety both on the focal length/aperture continuum _and_ the consumer-to-pro-grade spectrum--ideally they will ultimately have a wide variety of lenses of all grades). But yes at the pro end, they're more expensive than the corresponding EF lenses. But from what I can tell (mostly from people who comment here; I own only two RF lenses as yet), they're usually also better.
> 
> Many people criticize, few do so formulaically and to the exclusion of having anything else to say.


That is a pretty spot on analyses of this case. And I also do agree on Canon making spectacular lenses in the RF range now. I have been working with the R5 for a day, I did a commercial shoot (photo and video) and had 0 (ZERO!) unsharp shots. All sharp, thousands of photo’s. All sharp on the eye on f2.0 even in motion, unbelievable. And I mean crispy-sharp, not fuzzy-sharp like the DSLR’s can be sometimes. So I can’t wait for a water resistent mirrorless pro body with built-in batterygrip. And the R3 seems to be the right choice.

Pretty cool huh, how a disagreement can lead to pretty good analyses of the Canon/Mirrorless case. I do appreciate that. Enjoy the weekend.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 17, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I was impressed when I checked the MFD/mag of the EF100-400mm vs RF100-500mm ie 980mm (.31x) to 900mm (.33x) with the latter being @ 500mm. Reduced weight, collapsed size, stability and AF speed are bonuses. Would you upgrade to the RF100-500mm or stick with your EF100-400mm if Canon released a crop RF body?


Canon has been a little bit naughty about its information about the mfd of the RF 100-500mm. The mfd at 500mm is 1194mm, and 971mm at 100mm, as measured by TDP and which I also find at 500mm. Having written that, I have to say the 100-500mm at 500mm is really good close up, and even better than the 100-400mm II, especially when 2xTCs are used. The RF at 1000mm is superb for close ups of insects.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Jul 17, 2021)

Sharlin said:


> That's just… hilarious and incredibly out of touch with the reality of normal people. Most of us here on _actual Earth_ have money to spend on a _single_ body, and that body is not going to be an R6 or R5 or anything else that costs several thousand eurodollars. You sound like that one guy here who thought that being able to afford a couple of Big Whites per year is totally normal.


I’m a working professional photographer, and yes, I buy big whites and charge my customers appropriately for their use on the job so that they pay for themselves. And, yes, that’s not normal because normal people aren’t working professional photographers, they’re consumers, the vast majority of which think all they need is their iPhones. Those work great for many photos, however, there are use cases for more than an iPhone, and in those use cases, you either rent the appropriate equipment, or if you do that type of thing a lot, you buy it, and still charge your customers the rental fee for every job. At the end of the day, they are tools. It’s hilariously out of touch with reality to see them as anything else.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 17, 2021)

Of course cropping each photo is more work than having a crop camera in the first place, but don't these cameras have a crop mode? I really hope they have one. On a camera with an EVF crops make lot of sense, as the cropped image can be expanded to the whole viewfinder. And why only a specfic crop? I think it should be possible to set the crop factor as a parameter like exposure. Imagine you could use the additional ring at the RF lenses to crop in seemlessly. Imagine the fun in situations where you only need a 2 megapixel anyway and therfore can apply a 4.7 times crop to your image on the R5 and your far away subject will fill your viewfinder. I would use that crop dial very often, as some of my photos are only used for instagram anyway and the macimum resolution there is 1080x1350.


----------



## Chig (Jul 17, 2021)

dirtyvu said:


> You can think that but the dedicated camera market is shrinking. Fuji revenue is significantly down with only their new segments (Healthcare & Material Solutions segment) having growth and positive cash flow.
> 
> Same for Sony. Sony fans make it out like their dedicated camera lines are juggernauts and top tier in the industry. But they're not. Sony's EP&S (Electronic Products & Solutions segment) is down significantly due to declining digital camera sales. The only reason operating income increased was because they reduced costs in their mobile phone business and TV business although those segments also saw decreased sales. Their Imaging & Sensing Solutions segment was down significantly for FY2020 due to decreased mobile demand. In fact, Sony in their financial statement said, "Due to the uncertain market environment, Sony is carefully reviewing its capital expenditure plans in this segment in relation to projected demand through the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022..."
> 
> Digital camera fans live in a bubble because they love their products so much. But the reality is the dedicated camera markets are shrinking and it's all about maximizing revenue from that shrinking market. Going for the sub $1k market is only commoditizing and decreasing value of your products.


Sadly true but the professional and high end enthusiast market is fairly stable so the camera companies will be focusing on this segment as it's still profitable . However only some companies will survive or choose to keep their camera divisions going. 
Canon's imaging division being the biggest player and also using it as a flagship for their company will certainly keep going but which other ones is hard to predict. 
Sony and Nikon are part of very large companies but will they choose to keep their camera divisions going if the profits fall too much , who knows? I hope these 2 survive to give Canon some healthy competition.
Panasonic, Fuji and Pentax are probably too small volume wise to keep developing new products for much longer though.


----------



## pzyber (Jul 17, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> "Just crop..." Another thing that people who say this don't seem to understand, is that it is not always easy to get your composition correct when you have to judge where your "crop lines" will be. And composition is arguably the most important factor in what constitutes a good photo (In the art world, "Design" or "Composition" are usually atop every poll on the subject of what is the most important aspect of a painting). If you can compose your shot using the entire viewfinder it will always, without exception, make it easier to get your composition the way you want it.


Even my 5Ds R from 2015 can show a 1.6x crop in the optical viewfinder. It darkens everything around it so composition isn't much of a problem. I doubt more modern cameras lack this feature. I still get a better experience composing in crop mode with my 5Ds R than I do with my 7D viewfinder. 5Ds R lacks the fps though hence I kept my 7D for those situations where it's needed.

Also the RF system is young. Looking at the switch to EF it took about 10 years to fill most categories of lenses. I'm pretty sure more long lenses will come out eventually. The problem with EF was the 5.6 AF limitation, hence more costly crop cameras could be beneficial since no smaller/longer/affordable lenses could be made. An R6 with 600 or 800/11 or any other future affordable long lenses and cameras will most likely be an better option than crop sensors.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jul 17, 2021)

If you have an EVF, there is no need to darken anything around the cropped area. Instead the cropped area can be expanded to the whole EVF. At least it should work that way.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If you have an EVF, there is no need to darken anything around the cropped area. Instead the cropped area can be expanded to the whole EVF. At least it should work that way.


And that's how it is already working on the R series.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 17, 2021)

There are three reasons that I currently prefer APS-C: Price, Price, and Price.

If Canon can resolve that difference, I will become a fan of FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> There are three reasons that I currently prefer APS-C: Price, Price, and Price.
> 
> If Canon can resolve that difference, I will become a fan of FF.


I’m already a fan of FF, but there are three reasons that I currently use APS-C as well: Size, Portability, and Convenience.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 17, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m already a fan of FF, but there are three reasons that I currently use APS-C as well: Size, Portability, and Convenience.


My T3i can take great pictures. It can use all my lenses. Since I got the 6D2, I have had no occasion to use the Rebel. For “Size, Portability, and Convenience,” I take my G5X II. I don’t gain enough of that from the T3i to bother with it. I am favorably disposed toward the M series, but I have not bought one because I haven’t figured out when I would ever use it.

I can understand why other people have different needs and interests from mine, and why they might choose different compromises and alternatives. That’s just how things work for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2021)

stevelee said:


> I am favorably disposed toward the M series, but I have not bought one because I haven’t figured out when I would ever use it.


I have an M6, an M2 and all of the EF-M lenses. It’s portable enough that I can bring overnight business trips (no carryon luggage), but unlike a P&S it gives me lens options from ultrawide to telephoto. Here’s an 11mm shot from an overnight trip to London:


----------



## stevelee (Jul 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have an M6, an M2 and all of the EF-M lenses. It’s portable enough that I can bring overnight business trips (no carryon luggage), but unlike a P&S it gives me lens options from ultrawide to telephoto. Here’s an 11mm shot from an overnight trip to London:
> View attachment 198995


A lot of my reluctance to carry a range of gear goes back to when I was more serious about photography. I went for years not taking a camera at all on trips so that I would see and do the things I went there for, and not get too caught up into just taking pictures. Then for the last 21 years I trusted myself with more limited cameras. That has worked out pretty well, slipping a little in Prague. In October and November, 2019, I took 3000 pictures with the G5X II in Italy and then on a 14-night Mediterranean cruise. That sounds like a relapse, but I really didn’t get too caught up in photography. I just took a lot of pictures while I saw and did things.

The camera has a 24-120mm equivalent lens. In traveling, I don’t miss having a longer lens. But for scenic vistas and cramped interiors, I could use a wider lens. So I take multiple shots to stitch together back home. Inside the Pantheon I took many pictures of the dome and the resulting composite still has blank corners. With a Rebel or an M I’d use my 10-22mm zoom. The G lens is faster than my EF-S lenses (and my iPhone), so there’s that.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 18, 2021)

If I need to travel light I took my M50 with 15-45. This set up actually survived 3 days of snow, rain and hale in West Lake, China. I dare not to change lens under that kind of condition.


----------



## tomsop (Jul 19, 2021)

I bet the new Mirrorless Full Frame will have cropped 4K video and lack IBIS. What a failure - this is the death of Canon. Saving my money anyway for the next iPhone.


----------



## tomsop (Jul 19, 2021)

On a related note - The camera on my iPhone has now become the main reason I upgrade my iPhone. It has caught up to the Canon M and gives me 4K video unlike my M5. Joe Rogan recently was showing off a picture of the moon he took with his phone (forgot what brand) and that is what I think is the mentality of most people - the iPhone is good enough except special use cases like wedding photographers, video journalists and you tube people. The typical consumer will not be touching a camera ever again in the next few years unless it is attached to their phone. Prices for lens and camera will never get too cheap - the entry level full frame is a gateway drug into a system where the lenses are more costly than the camera. I refuse to take the bait - tired of crippled features like cropped 4K and no IBIS, weak batteries, etc.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 19, 2021)

tomsop said:


> What a failure - this is the death of Canon.


(sarcasm) Yes, Canon is going to immediately die because they might make one product that you don't like.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2021)

tomsop said:


> I bet the new Mirrorless Full Frame will have cropped 4K video and lack IBIS. What a failure - this is the death of Canon. Saving my money anyway for the next iPhone.


Canon has already made your bet a loss with the announced R3 features. Enjoy your iPhone.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 19, 2021)

tomsop said:


> On a related note - The camera on my iPhone has now become the main reason I upgrade my iPhone...that is what I think is the mentality of most people - the iPhone is good enough except special use cases...The typical consumer will not be touching a camera ever again in the next few years unless it is attached to their phone...


If an iPhone suits your needs, then you shouldn't buy a dedicated camera. Also, if an iPhone suits your needs, you shouldn't waste your time posting to this forum. And, yes, I agree that the typical consumer is probably never going to buy a camera unless it can send text messages. It seems like no one under the age of 30 even uses phones for calls these days, mostly texting and sharing pictures on social media.


----------



## Hobby (Jul 19, 2021)

stevelee said:


> A lot of my reluctance to carry a range of gear goes back to when I was more serious about photography. I went for years not taking a camera at all on trips so that I would see and do the things I went there for, and not get too caught up into just taking pictures. Then for the last 21 years I trusted myself with more limited cameras. That has worked out pretty well, slipping a little in Prague. In October and November, 2019, I took 3000 pictures with the G5X II in Italy and then on a 14-night Mediterranean cruise. That sounds like a relapse, but I really didn’t get too caught up in photography. I just took a lot of pictures while I saw and did things.
> 
> The camera has a 24-120mm equivalent lens. In traveling, I don’t miss having a longer lens. But for scenic vistas and cramped interiors, I could use a wider lens. So I take multiple shots to stitch together back home. Inside the Pantheon I took many pictures of the dome and the resulting composite still has blank corners. With a Rebel or an M I’d use my 10-22mm zoom. The G lens is faster than my EF-S lenses (and my iPhone), so there’s that.


I also am always surprised that my G5X ii gives very very good pictures. The lens is wide and long enough, as you mention, and sharp enough. 
It has a good mini-mini-grip, one can hold it forever. It has an EVF if you want one. Focus is good. 
Ergonomics are way better than a phone. I am always hesitating to leave my M100 with adapted Ef-s 10-22mm at home.
One negative: that G5X lens mechanism that drives the lens out when you switch on the camera seems fragile. I wonder how long it will live...
And my 6D or RP are better cameras, I have to admit that.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 19, 2021)

Hobby said:


> I also am always surprised that my G5X ii gives very very good pictures. The lens is wide and long enough, as you mention, and sharp enough.
> It has a good mini-mini-grip, one can hold it forever. It has an EVF if you want one. Focus is good.
> Ergonomics are way better than a phone. I am always hesitating to leave my M100 with adapted Ef-s 10-22mm at home.
> One negative: that G5X lens mechanism that drives the lens out when you switch on the camera seems fragile. I wonder how long it will live...
> And my 6D or RP are better cameras, I have to admit that.


As for fragility, I used S cameras for years and a G7XII for years before I got the 5, and never had a bit of mechanical trouble with them. I doubt they could stand much abuse when opened up, and I wouldn’t bury them in sand. But they do fine in normal use. I carried the 7 as a backup along with the 5 when I toured the Mediterranean in fall, 2019. Both take up inconsequential room in my under the seat bag.

A huge advantage to me over cell phones is their shooting Raw. Lens corrections can be applied and adjusted after the fact, as well as exposure. Even with some cropping 13” x 19” prints look great, as well as stitched panoramas on roll paper.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 19, 2021)

tomsop said:


> On a related note - The camera on my iPhone has now become the main reason I upgrade my iPhone. It has caught up to the Canon M and gives me 4K video unlike my M5.


Yes, for a lot of folks, the camera is the reason to upgrade the phone. No matter what processor they put in the phone, you are not going to talk faster. When I want a better camera, I buy a better camera. When most folks want a better camera, they buy a new phone.

My friend in Oklahoma has taken really nice panoramas with his iPhone. I recently printed out three of them for him on roll paper. Two of them were of sunsets, one of Rome from the Palatine hill, and one including the Alhambra. They presented extra challenges to me because of the differences between light and dark by my not having Raw files to work with. But I think I did rather well editing them for printing.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 19, 2021)

Here is a reduced version of the Roma panorama. It printed out at 22.2" long and 12" wide. The other two were 44" long, the longest my printer will allow.


----------



## tomsop (Jul 19, 2021)

Beautiful


----------



## tomsop (Jul 19, 2021)

unfocused said:


> If an iPhone suits your needs, then you shouldn't buy a dedicated camera. Also, if an iPhone suits your needs, you shouldn't waste your time posting to this forum. And, yes, I agree that the typical consumer is probably never going to buy a camera unless it can send text messages. It seems like no one under the age of 30 even uses phones for calls these days, mostly texting and sharing pictures on social media.


The reason I am on this forum is because I have a lot of M lenses and I am still holding out hope that they come out with a better camera with IBIS and 4K and a viewfinder that will be a step up from the m6 mark ii. I guarantee the IPhone 13 will come out before Canon releases another M - if ever. Not sure what to do - I am open to suggestions as long as it is within reasonable orbit price wise of my investment into the M system. Whatever I have to do I probably have to start all over and not sure where to go.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 20, 2021)

tomsop said:


> The reason I am on this forum is because I have a lot of M lenses and I am still holding out hope that they come out with a better camera with IBIS and 4K and a viewfinder that will be a step up from the m6 mark ii. I guarantee the IPhone 13 will come out before Canon releases another M - if ever. Not sure what to do - I am open to suggestions as long as it is within reasonable orbit price wise of my investment into the M system. Whatever I have to do I probably have to start all over and not sure where to go.


If you don't need/want a new camera now, I would say sit tight. Buying now means paying a pandemic premium. Many on this forum do not see Canon abandoning the M line, as it is still their best selling mirrorless cameras. It may take another year, but sooner or later we'll all have a better idea of where Canon is going and supply will have caught up with demand, so we can make more informed decisions. Right now, everyone who is buying is just blindly gambling (myself included).


----------



## cayenne (Jul 20, 2021)

tomsop said:


> The reason I am on this forum is because I have a lot of M lenses and I am still holding out hope that they come out with a better camera with IBIS and 4K and a viewfinder that will be a step up from the m6 mark ii. I guarantee the IPhone 13 will come out before Canon releases another M - if ever. Not sure what to do - I am open to suggestions as long as it is within reasonable orbit price wise of my investment into the M system. Whatever I have to do I probably have to start all over and not sure where to go.


If you're wanting to go with a smaller camera body and smaller but high quality lenses, I'd seriously recommend the Fuji X line of cameras.

I'm into rangefinder cameras lately and honestly, I may consider adding their Xpro-3 to my stable....just so great for travel, etc.

Leica is $$$$, but if you had the means, their small bodies, with FF sensors and amazing lenses (even 3rd party are great)...that might work for you.

I love my Canon gear and intend to have something Canon over time, but I"m not stuck on one and only one brand...

Heck, I'm not even stuck to digital, I'm really having fun with medium format film, etc....panoramic cameras, etc.

HTH,
C


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 20, 2021)

tomsop said:


> The reason I am on this forum is because I have a lot of M lenses and I am still holding out hope that they come out with a better camera with IBIS and 4K and a viewfinder that will be a step up from the m6 mark ii. I guarantee the IPhone 13 will come out before Canon releases another M - if ever. Not sure what to do - I am open to suggestions as long as it is within reasonable orbit price wise of my investment into the M system. Whatever I have to do I probably have to start all over and not sure where to go.


After reading this, your earlier "death of Canon" post makes more sense.

Personally, I would be very surprised if an $800 full frame Canon body had IBIS. The two most likely kit lenses for it (RF 24-105 STM and RF 24-240 USM) both have IS, and I expect Canon wants to steer folks who use higher-end glass without IS toward the R6.

On the other hand, an $800 FF body with uncropped 4K could be a big hit with the vlogging crowd. But Canon would need to give it enough horsepower to read out the full sensor and bin the pixels in real time at 30 fps (at least). That affects cost, battery life, and heat dissipation.

While I love my M5 and want to see the M series continue to grow, I don't expect to see IBIS in a future M body. All of the EF-M lenses have IS except the 22 and 32 mm primes, and I'm willing to bet that most M users are perfectly happy with the kit zooms.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 20, 2021)

cayenne said:


> If you're wanting to go with a smaller camera body and smaller but high quality lenses, I'd seriously recommend the Fuji X line of cameras.
> 
> I'm into rangefinder cameras lately and honestly, I may consider adding their Xpro-3 to my stable....just so great for travel, etc.
> 
> ...


The Fuji X-S10 is $999 and has IBIS and 4K (not sure if it's cropped or not). But unfortunately, it won't preserve @tomsop 's investment in EF-M lenses.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 23, 2021)

mangobutter said:


> As I've been saying for years, I would absolutely love a full frame version of the inexpensive Canon M6. No need for a 1960s EVF--no real person needs that in 2021, providing a decent screen is available. This would easily cut costs down. Canon PLEASE make this as TINY as possible. If you can make it the size of an M6, double bravo. If it's super slightly bigger than an M6, then single bravo.
> 
> I will purchase for $799 or less. Do it!


So would I... but... man, the lenses would just be so large if wouldn't compete with the M line for tiny pack portability.
When I got the RP+35mm, I stopped using my M & fuji X-E3 cameras as much, But they still had a place when just wanted to slip a better-than-cellphone camera in to a jacket pocket.


----------



## Rick D. (Jul 29, 2021)

Fascinating thread from my perspective. I have two major needs: bird photography and I write and take pics for an online music/festival magazine. After selling my Nikon F's thirty years ago, I only got back into photography when I retired 8 years ago. Although I could afford a lot more, my camera/lens combos have been....shall I say....thrifty. Birding: 7DII and usually a Sigma 150-600 lens, which has worked very well for me. Concerts: even more thrifty, I've shot most concert pics with an M50 with adapted 24-74 2.8, a 70-200 f4 and the occasional slow wide angle M series zoom and the the 18-150, which works great for daytime use but useless at nightime concerts, etc. So now I am considering continuing my thriftiness. My major need right now is a 70-200 2.8 for concert photos, so instead of loading a giant lens on my M50, I'm thinking about an RP with the RF 70-200 2.8. It's small, fast, and exactly what I need for concert photography. I've managed do quite well with the relatively inexpensive gear I've been using, and for my uses, I don't think I'd be willing to get anything larger than the RP (I'll still be using my M50 with 24-70 2.8; I usually carry both cameras at night). I realize the RP has an older sensor, but as I said, I've done just fine with a much older 7Dii sensor. Wonder if anyone has any insight into my plan? I actually am renting an RP/70-200 2.8 next week to try out before I purchase one for three festivals I'm covering in September. Any comments would be helpful.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Jul 29, 2021)

Rick D. said:


> Fascinating thread from my perspective. I have two major needs: bird photography and I write and take pics for an online music/festival magazine. After selling my Nikon F's thirty years ago, I only got back into photography when I retired 8 years ago. Although I could afford a lot more, my camera/lens combos have been....shall I say....thrifty. Birding: 7DII and usually a Sigma 150-600 lens, which has worked very well for me. Concerts: even more thrifty, I've shot most concert pics with an M50 with adapted 24-74 2.8, a 70-200 f4 and the occasional slow wide angle M series zoom and the the 18-150, which works great for daytime use but useless at nightime concerts, etc. So now I am considering continuing my thriftiness. My major need right now is a 70-200 2.8 for concert photos, so instead of loading a giant lens on my M50, I'm thinking about an RP with the RF 70-200 2.8. It's small, fast, and exactly what I need for concert photography. I've managed do quite well with the relatively inexpensive gear I've been using, and for my uses, I don't think I'd be willing to get anything larger than the RP (I'll still be using my M50 with 24-70 2.8; I usually carry both cameras at night). I realize the RP has an older sensor, but as I said, I've done just fine with a much older 7Dii sensor. Wonder if anyone has any insight into my plan? I actually am renting an RP/70-200 2.8 next week to try out before I purchase one for three festivals I'm covering in September. Any comments would be helpful.


I have an RP and the RF 70-200 2.8. For low light, the RP is not class leading, but it is easily as good as if not better than the 7DII, so you'll be fine.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 31, 2021)

Rick D. said:


> I'm thinking about an RP with the RF 70-200 2.8. It's small, fast, and exactly what I need for concert photography. I've managed do quite well with the relatively inexpensive gear I've been using, and for my uses, I don't think I'd be willing to get anything larger than the RP (I'll still be using my M50 with 24-70 2.8; I usually carry both cameras at night). I realize the RP has an older sensor, but as I said, I've done just fine with a much older 7Dii sensor. Wonder if anyone has any insight into my plan? I actually am renting an RP/70-200 2.8 next week to try out before I purchase one for three festivals I'm covering in September. Any comments would be helpful.


You might find adding the small inexpensive grip extension to the RP an advantage if using large lenses on it. I have an RP that I run alongside my 5DS cameras and I’ve found it to be very capable. Just don’t unnecessarily underexpose.


----------



## Rick D. (Jul 31, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> You might find adding the small inexpensive grip extension to the RP an advantage if using large lenses on it. I have an RP that I run alongside my 5DS cameras and I’ve found it to be very capable. Just don’t unnecessarily underexpose.


Thanks for the comments. Has anyone used the aftermarket battery grips for the RP?


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 31, 2021)

Rick D. said:


> Thanks for the comments. Has anyone used the aftermarket battery grips for the RP?


I haven’t as I bought the RP for its small size, but the extension is specifically not a battery grip; it’s just an extension to the bottom of the camera making the body deeper, more like an R. It has a hinged door in it so you can still access the battery and card. Quite neat.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 31, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I haven’t as I bought the RP for its small size, but the extension is specifically not a battery grip; it’s just an extension to the bottom of the camera making the body deeper, more like an R. It has a hinged door in it so you can still access the battery and card. Quite neat.


And it also made me less worried about setting it down on a wet surface.


----------



## Rick D. (Jul 31, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I haven’t as I bought the RP for its small size, but the extension is specifically not a battery grip; it’s just an extension to the bottom of the camera making the body deeper, more like an R. It has a hinged door in it so you can still access the battery and card. Quite neat.


Oh, I know about that extension. But shooting with the M50's tiny batteries in a work situation, changing batteries constantly, drove me nuts. So I'd like to be able to try something like this, but I don't know if anyone here has ever used them. I'm willing to pick up some size and maybe get a better grip and double the battery time. https://www.amazon.com/Mcoplus-MCO-.../B07ZPMJ9SF/ref=psdc_3109896011_t2_B08LW6FCGM


----------



## adrian_bacon (Aug 2, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I haven’t as I bought the RP for its small size, but the extension is specifically not a battery grip; it’s just an extension to the bottom of the camera making the body deeper, more like an R. It has a hinged door in it so you can still access the battery and card. Quite neat.


I have the extension on my RP. I have big hands and it makes handling it much easier for me. It’s amazing how much difference it makes.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The only really compelling reasons I have seen for the APS-C format are overall camera size, cost, and focal length limitations.
> 
> Canon address the size with the M system, which even though it doesn't have some specific lenses people want it does have the lenses most people need and actually buy.
> 
> ...



To shoot night sports at f/11 instead of f/2.8 at 1/800, I'd need to use ISO 51200 instead of ISO 3200. Not that I'd want to use a 600mm or 800mm lens for that. But a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a current technology level high density crop body sensor in the 32MP range would be nice with the same level of weather resistance, longevity, and build quality as the 7D Mark II.

We'll probably never get it, but I'd find it useful if we did.

A fast handling, solidly built APS-C in the $2,500-3,000 range plus 70-200mm f/2.8 in the $2,000 range is more flexible, lighter, and cheaper than a fast handling FF + 300mm f/2.8 prime that still requires another body with a 70-200mm on it for when the action gets close. Just the 300/2.8 lens in Canon's lineup is $6K+ and weighs 5.5 pounds.




privatebydesign said:


> Taken as a whole, and given the 7D market was never regularly replaced which implies the sales were not particularly high, I don't really see the advantage for Canon, or users, who think about an RF crop camera.



Maybe they didn't sell as many as Canon wanted to. Or maybe Canon felt they sold _too many_ that cannibalized 1-series sales?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I kind of like the 'dumbed down' feature set you get with cheaper cameras. Maybe that's because I come from an age where the most expensive cameras had few features anyway. But at the end of the day I want reliable AF, consistent AE, independent control over shutter speed, aperture, and iso, and the ability to capture RAW. Anything else I really don't care too much about.



It's that reliable AF that has always been lacking in Canon's lower tier bodies for the past decade plus. Even the 5D Mark IV, with the same PDAF hardware (The PDAF array is the same part number, for crying out loud), is not as consistent as the 1D Mark II from shot to shot in AI Servo AF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

[email protected] said:


> In part because of improved wafer yields, the cost difference between crop and ff sensors has become a matter of tens of dollars. I don't know if this ceases to be true in more complex, modern sensors, but this was true in the waning days of the DSLR. So offering crop is more a way to differentiate product lines and "nerf" things than it is a cost savings. BUT doing so practically requires having a secondary line of lenses, and THAT'S costly.
> 
> On the other hand, a cynic could say that going into the crop market could be useful if you wanted to drive a stake through the heart of Fuji once and for all. But you'd have to offer a better value proposition to really kill them; and that would imply high quality glass, rather than kit quality glass.
> 
> This is a long way of saying that Neuro is likely right.



The difference has to be more than that. Even if there were zero defects and every chip is used, a FF sensor is 864mm² while a Canon APS-C sensor is 337.5mm², more or less. That means every FF sensor has the same surface area as 2.56 APS-C sensors. Or to put it another way, the same wafer blank can be used to make approximately 2.5X as many APS-C sensors as FF sensors. For the difference to only be tens of dollars per sensor, the wafer could only cost a few hundred dollars, instead of the thousands of dollars for which they sell.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Even older generation EVF’s are much better than Rebel style pentamirrors. Rebel’s, whilst not being listed as ‘weatherproof’, which is a made up bullshi! term anyway, are very robust and easily up to most users need for durability.



It's not that hard to take some gaffer tape and put a clear plastic bag around any Rebel sized camera when the going gets tough. Roger Cicala does that with all of his cameras when shooting in bad weather or blowing sand.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I can't wait to hear all the people whine about how a $799 full-frame camera is crippled.



Don't forget about the Sony fanboys bragging about how Sony's latest $6K α1 version wipes the floor with the $700 Canon.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> 1) The cheapest APS-C Canon is $399
> 2) The people who want a high-end RF mount APS-C camera want a higher cropped resolution at a lower price.
> Whether or not Canon thinks it would be profitable to build such cameras has very little to do with the existence of the camera.
> It is not like it is going to be a $700 R5.



You folks keep ignoring those of us who wouldn't have a problem paying $2,500+ for an APS-C version of the R6 (build quality, etc.) with a 32MP or so APS-C sensor. That's over twice the price that the 90D (lower build quality and lesser AF system) and the M6 Mark II (much lower build quality and no eye lever viewfinder that won't get ripped from the hot shoe the first time a linebacker plows into in on the sideline) with a very good 32 MP APS-C sensor were introduced.

We'd use such a body along with our FF cameras when it's the most logical tool for a specific use case. It doesn't have to be Rebel cheap. Neither the 7D (which was a disappointment in my book) or the 7D Mark II (which is what the 7D should have been) ever listed for less than $1,700, and was never advertised below around $1,500 from authorized dealers even with factory rebates.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Obviously. That’s why I demarcated ‘cheap’. How is that relevant to my original point that a sub-$1000 EOS R means an APS-C EOS R is very unlikely?




Canon has made it VERY clear that they have no intention of ever developing APS-C only lenses in the RF mount.

That being the case, the chances of a "cheap" APS-C EOS R has always been pretty much nil. I've been saying that for years. 

If an APS-C EOS R body ever comes to fruition, it will not be a "cheap" body, it will be a mid to higher end fast handling and durable body with a high density APS-C sensor. Something like an R6 with 32MP APS-C sensor. And it will cost about the same as an R6.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

snapshot said:


> I also like the diopter adjustment which allows me to focus on the OVF/EVF. I have to remove my glasses or hold the camera at arms length to see the display.



It's getting to be two arms length for my aging eyes with presbyopia.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

entoman said:


> Hmmm.. that might tend to make the M series redundant. Who would buy an M, if an M-sized FF with RF mount were available as an alternative?



The same people that buy most of the EOS M series cameras now. They want a camera and a lens or two that is compact, lightweight, and affordable that they can use for the next few years.

They have zero interest in collecting lenses and bodies every time a new one comes out. In other words, they aren't us.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, last year DSLRs comprised 46% of ILC sales, and so far this year they only comprise 45%.
> 
> Next time I’m in Manhattan, I’ll be sure to look for you standing outside B&H wearing your ‘The End (of the DSLR) Is Nigh’ sandwich board.



Well, the end is nearer now than it was in 2012 or so when it was first hip to proclaim that "... the DSLR is DEAD!"


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The real question is, for _how_ many others. You don’t know. I don’t know. Canon does know. The update frequency of the 7-series is probably a fair indication of how important that market segment is to Canon…not very.





privatebydesign said:


> Why can’t they just use the possible entry level ff RF and crop when they need the reach?
> 
> But how many 7D owners would be happy with an entry level camera body anyway? I doubt many would.
> 
> ...



Again, you assume Canon stopped updating the 7-series because it wasn't selling enough units. But there are more than a few who think Canon more or less abandoned it because they felt it was cannibalizing too many sales of FF cameras and high end fast telephotos with higher profit margins.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

MoonMadness said:


> Not sure why you are asking me this. They can use whatever they want to.
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about entry level. Just about people wanting an RF crop in general. I didn't notice that the post you wrote that I replied to mentioned anything about it being entry. Sorry if I missed that.
> ...



I'd certainly rather have an R5 and an R7 in my bag than an R5 and an R6, even if the cost was the same for the R7 or the R6.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

sanj said:


> People who seek a crop sensor do so not just for the body but for a system. A lighter body with lighter (cheaper) lenses is what they seek.



Not all of them. In fact, not many of them when you're talking about a 7D Mark II replacement in the R mount. 

We want a fast handling, durable APS-C body with a high density sensor to use alongside our R5 or R6 bodies, just like we used our 7D Mark II bodies alongside our 5D Mark _N_ bodies when it was the most logical tool for the job.

I guess if you mean we could use an R7 with our 70-200/2.8 lenses that are lighter/cheaper as well as more flexible, than a 300/2.8 with an R5, while using our R5 with a wider angle second lens, then you're getting closer.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I laid out logical scenarios of and answers to the most often stated reasons why Canon should make an RF crop camera.
> 
> 1/ Size, weight and cost. The M addresses all of them, that is why it is the best selling MILC system on the planet.
> 
> ...



There's still a big gap between 70-200/2.8 and 600/11 that many of us use our ancient 7D Mark II bodies to fill. 

Even an affordable and lightweight 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 doesn't work as well as a 70-200/2.8 with APS-C for shooting night/gym sports. With a 300 or 400 prime on a FF body you still need another FF body with a 70-200/2.8 for when the action gets close. And then another body with a wide lens for when the action is right on top of you.




Sigma does have an excellent 120-300/2.8 that is _only_ about $3,600, but that's still a lot more than a 70-200/2.8 with a crop body, even if an APS-C R7 were to cost the same or a tad more than an R6.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I agree with your premise but you can't use the RF800 with the M series. If you mean M series for cheap/small (or M + EF white lenses for reach) OR any of the R bodies + RF800mm then I concur.
> 
> Cheap reach is the reason that 7D users will claim with pixel density being the primary one. 7D users will complain that the M6ii/90D with adapted long white lenses is not useful because it doesn't have dual card/weather sealed but it does achieve the required reach parameter.
> 
> ...



The 7D was a big disappointment for me. IQ was not as good as the 50D it replaced. AF consistency in burst drive mode with AI Servo AF was no better than the 50D, even if the 7D had more AF points and was more configurable. It's only redeeming feature over the 50D was handling speed. Once I got a 5D Mark III, I started using it with the 70-200/2.8 for low light action and only used the 7D for daylight action shooting.

The 7D Mark II was a whole other level of camera. AF was much more consistent from shot-to-shot and only marginally below the 5D Mark III (2012) and 5D Mark IV (2016) bodies that bookended the release date of the 7D Mark II (2014). Flicker reduction and an RGB+IR light meter, which up to that point only the 1D X had, were the coups de gras that made the 7D Mark II a better body, other than the 1D X, for night/indoor sports under flickering lighting than anything else in Canon's catalog in 2014. I still use it with the 70-200/2.8 for all field sports, day or night, even though I've had a 5D Mark IV for several years now.

My biggest gripe with the 90D is that the AF system is not as good as the 7D Mark II, and the shutter life rating is a dismal 120,000 actuations, compared to the 7D Mark II's 200,000 and the R6's 300,000. There's also the shallower buffer that only goes to 58 JPEGs or 25 raw files, compared to the 7D II's unlimited JPEGs or 31 raw files.

The M6 Mark II has no integrated eye level viewfinder. The hot shoe add-on would not last very long on the sidelines of the sports I shoot where changing bodies quickly mid-play is often required when the action comes right at you..


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

drhuffman87 said:


> Here is the obvious solution to the 7D problem. Wait until 2024 and the R6 will drop to $1700. Now you have an affordable camera with 12fps mechanical with a 1DX III sensor with 2 card slots. Buy that and a RF 800 f11.


Yeah, that'd work real well shooting night sports at ISO 51,200 to get 1/800 at f/11... not to mention that even 600mm is too long for that. Even with a 300mm prime one would need another body on which to hang a 70-200/2.8 for when the 300 is too long.

Not to mention that the R6 only has 7.8 MP in the APS-C area of the center of the sensor. The 1D X Mark II/III sensor only makes sense if one can justify the cost and weight of a 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 plus another body for a 70-200/2.8.

Even the 45MP R5 only has 17MP in the APS-C footprint. If the R5 had a crop mode where the full area of the EVF only showed the APS-C output from the sensor, it might be satisfactory once the R5 drops to the current R6 price...


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly what I’ve been saying. That’s why there’s the EOS M, which has been and likely still is the globally best-selling MILC line. Not sure why some people believe Canon will replace the M line with APS-C RF mount cameras, other than those people have the delusion that they represent a large market segment for Canon.



Again, you're putting words in the mouths of those of us who would _like_ for Canon to make an R7. Most of us realize it looks less and less likely to ever happen, but the reasons that those of use who would use it as a supplemental tool to our FF cameras are still valid in terms of _wanting_ one, even if we aren't _expecting_ it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I
> 
> I mean the people that want a small and cheap ‘real camera’ are not the same people that want a reach limit busting 7D replacement.
> 
> ...



Except that isn't all the things all of us say we want.

I've never owned a 100-400mm because they're way too slow for what I do. For me the choice is between a FF + 300/2.8 and another FF + 70-200/2.8 for when the 300 is too long OR an APS-C and a 70-200/2.8. (In either case I'll have another FF body with a 24-70 or 24-105 on it, but it will be the same either way.)

That's two R5s, a 300/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 

OR 

one R7 and a 70-200/2.8. 

Assuming the RF 300/2.8 is going to be at least $7K (I'm guessing more like $8K) and an R7 would be around $2,800, that's $16,900 vs. $4,900.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Can you elaborate?
> I get the small/cheap (rebel) segment and the "reach" segment which birders have been associated with. The M series with EF-m/EF-s/EF lenses meets the first category and PBD makes a good point for R5+RF800mm (or R6+RF100-500mm) for cost/reach/Dof vs 7Dii+EF100-400mm



The night/gym high school and youth sports shooters that are trying to make more than they spend on gear selling images to an ever shrinking pool of parents willing to pay anything for photos.

The 600mm and 800mm RF lenses are even more useless for that use case than the 100-400mm EF lenses were. Ditto for the RF 100-500mm.

It takes f/2.8 to get 1/800-1/1000 at ISO 3200 in "good" high school stadiums and gyms. The cost of prime 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 glass plus another FF body for a 70-200/2.8 for when the action gets closer is prohibitive in that market. An APS-C body plus high quality 70-200/2.8 can do the job of both a FF body + 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 and another FF body + 70-200/2.8.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Just trying to understand/clarify.... a R6+RF100-500mm (same 20mp as 7Dii) or R5+RF800mm (45mp) are close in cost to 7Dii + EF100-400 but losing a stop. Wouldn't those 2 options meet your points (dual cards/AF/fps/weather sealing)?



Some of us want access to affordable f/2.8 RF lenses, not just the sssslllloooowww long telephotos.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I’d love to believe that, but I can’t anymore. The 7D Mark II came out in late 2014, nearly 7 years ago. In 2017-2018 there were rumors of a 7D Mark III, but nothing came of them. Now there’s a mention of a possible R7 about once every six months, but nothing specific.  Meanwhile this rumored $800 FF body will be the seventh FF R body (R, RP, R5, R6, R3, R1, and this). How much longer do we have to wait?



The 7D Mark III rumors were in 2016 and very early 2017. By late Spring of 2017 Canon had effectively let everyone know via leaks that there would be no 7D Mark III.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 8, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Except that isn't all the things all of us say we want.
> 
> I've never owned a 100-400mm because they're way too slow for what I do. For me the choice is between a FF + 300/2.8 and another FF + 70-200/2.8 for when the 300 is too long OR an APS-C and a 70-200/2.8. (In either case I'll have another FF body with a 24-70 or 24-105 on it, but it will be the same either way.)
> 
> ...


Convincing !


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> 1) How does having access to RF lenses satisfy a desire for small and cheap?
> 
> 2) Again the reasoning isn’t logical, it gives a photographic advantage, it is just, “because they want it”. Why do they want it? What specific advantage is there to having a high end APS-C camera? I listed them and showed those people already have options.



The difference between using an R7 with an RF 70-200/2.8 

OR 

an R5 with a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 AND another R5 with an RF 70-200/2.8 to shoot wider than the prime can do when the action moves closer.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The M system and X system are marketed to slightly different people.



I'd say more than just slightly different.

The M system is marketed by Canon for people who want one camera and a lens or two that is better than a smartphone and will last them for several years when taking photos at family events and on vacations/holidays. They're no worried about what the latest photo gear is every week.

The Fuji X system is for photographers who do photography for the sake of photography, not because they are at a family event or on vacation. 

There may be a relative few number of EOS M owners who are more committed photographers than the family/vacationer profile of most M users, but in most cases the M camera is a supplement to their main camera systems. It is not the main system itself. And they are not who Canon is aiming for with the M system.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

yeahright said:


> I would argue that purchasing decisions, in particular when it comes to relatively 'luxurious' items such as high-end photography gear, are rarely reasonable, but governed mostly by emotion. Being able to afford something that can be considered 'top of the line' in any respect (such as the 7D series was in Canon world for APS-C) may be frequently much more important than the actual functionality.



I'd argue that you're incorrect. Pretty much every 7D Mark II owner I know had FF cameras before they had a 7D Mark II. For most 7D Mark II owners it's not their main camera, it's a supplemental tool for a specific use case.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 8, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> [..] Even the 45MP R5 only has 17MP in the APS-C footprint. If the R5 had a crop mode where the full area of the EVF only showed the APS-C output from the sensor, it might be satisfactory once the R5 drops to the current R6 price...


That's exactly how it works on the R5  It makes it hard to keep track of crop-mode, so sometimes I don't realize I'm still in crop mode and take a lot of 17MP pictures. 

For me the give-aways are that framing changes when going to movie mode or when the dragonflies suddenly fill the frame at MFD on the 100-500.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But what I meant is that an M50 with a FF sensor would be not much different from an RP. So it either needs to have fewer features or the RP will be discontinued.



There should be little doubt that this rumored $799 FF body will replace the RP. They may sell remaining RP stocks after the new body comes out, in much the same way they're still selling remaining stocks of 50MP 5Ds bodies after the introduction of the 45MP R5, but it won't be long after the $799 camera is introduced until the RP is gone. By the time the new $799 body is out in 2022, the RP will be three years old. That's an average replacement cycle for Canon's lower end models.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The equivalence is not quite the same. It would be 280mm f4 for a 7Dii + 70-200/2.8.
> Comparing the quality of the EF300/2.8 with the 70-200/2.8 is a little ambitious.
> Are you saying that the sensor in the 1DXii is the same as the 7Dii (besides mp)?
> 
> ...



Anyone who has used both the EF 300mm f/4 and the EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II are laughing right now. You can crop the 70-200/2.8 IS II at 200m to match the frame from a 300/4 taken on the same camera body and the cropped image is still sharper, even with the loss of sensor resolution. Or maybe my 70-200mm is the best one that's ever been made?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> But the 7Dii is also 20mp so same pixel density.



The same number of pixels in 39% of the area is not the same pixel density. It's 2.25X the pixel density of the R6.




David - Sydney said:


> If you want greater pixel density then
> From PBD's comment...
> "The 7D II cost $1,799 and the 100-400II $2,399, total $4,198. An R5 costs $3,899 the RF800 $899, total $4,798. Thats $600 more six years later with longer reach, more than twice the mp and fps, and MUCH better AF, all things reach limited shooters say they want. Downside is one stop of dof."
> 
> so in the same ballpark ie ~13% in cost but dramatically better features.



That's all well and good as long as you don't need to shoot wider than 600mm or faster than f/11...

It does nothing if you need f/2.8 at a FF angle of view of 300-400mm with the ability to zoom out to about 100mm (FF).


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The equivalence is not quite the same. It would be 280mm f4 for a 7Dii + 70-200/2.8.
> Comparing the quality of the EF300/2.8 with the 70-200/2.8 is a little ambitious.
> Are you saying that the sensor in the 1DXii is the same as the 7Dii (besides mp)?
> 
> ...


You are correct that the image quality is not quite the same using a 7D Mark II (2014)+ EF 70-200mm f/2.8 compared to, say a 1D X (2012) or 1D X II (2016). But for typical viewing sizes it's close enough that most customers won't see any difference.



David - Sydney said:


> If you needed the focal length flexibility then there isn't a direct R mount option. The RF70-200/4 is USD1,599 and can't be used with a TC unfortunately



That's were the rubber really hits the road. Without the focal length flexibility you need both a FF body with a 300mm prime AND another FF body with a 70-200 anyway. There goes the cost comparison!


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> It seems to me that the 90D/M6ii's sensor and burst fps is the source of all angst for the crop sensor community. Yearning for the same sensor in a weather sealed/dual card body is the holy grail
> 
> In terms of spare parts bin, it makes some financial sense to add a RF body similar to R6 with the M6ii sensor/processing pipeline. Dual cards would be the main difference. The RP/R bodies essentially did the same thing with 6Dii/5Div. Sales volume is the key issue. Canon might not have any RF-s lenses ie not support another lens mount and effectively restrict the wide angle lens options to adapted EF-s lenses.
> 
> Developing a new high pixel density APS-C sensor for R mount with Digic X processing capability is a vastly different financial and supply chain scenario.



No, it's the fragility of the M6 Mark II with a hot shoe mounted EVF and the steps backwards the 90D takes compared to even the 7D Mark II: noticeably lower performance AF and barely more than half the shutter life rating. If the 90D had the same AF system as the 7D Mark II and the same shutter life rating I'd have bought one as soon as they came out. Two years later, though, it would have to be a mirrorless for me to pull the trigger. An M6 Mark II type camera with a built in EVF would be a consideration if it were cheap enough to account for a shorter expected service life.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Well, you guys haven't disappointed me.
> 
> My two cents:
> 
> ...



I'd be surprised if an R5 Mark II appears any time before mid 2024. That's a four year life cycle, which is what the 5-series has had since 2008.

5D Mark II - 2008
5D Mark III - 2012
5D Mark IV - 2016
R5 - 2020


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> So, logic won...



In his case. The revenue generated shooting high school and youth sports can't cover the cost of that, though. So in my, and I'm sure there are many others, case the cost of two R5s and lack of affordable f/2.8 lenses at 300mm focal lengths mean we're still shooting with our aging 7D Mark II bodies and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II lens we bought in 2010.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And an R5 with the 800 gives them a lot more for not much more money.



It doesn't give anyone anything close to f/2.8 at 120-300mm.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Not as much as before. Sensor yields have vastly improved and the wafers, discs, they cut them from have gotten bigger.
> 
> The difference between a ff and APS-c sensor used to be in the $100’s, now it is probably in the $10’s.




Perhaps in the very high $10s, compared to the low to mid $100s. Nowhere near a factor of 10:1, though. It's not even physics, it's simple geometry. A FF sensor takes up 2.56X the area of a Canon APS-C sensor. A standard size wafer yields about 60 FF sensors or 170 APS-C sensors. That's with zero defects, which is not realistic.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm not trying to be argumentative but rather trying to understand... A 20mp 7Dii with EF100-400 @400mm is equivalent to a 20mp FF 560mm f8. Given the better quality (AF, fps etc) of the R6 sensor, taking a 1 stop hit should be comparable. using the 100mm end @f4.5 would be equivalent to 140mm ~f7 so slightly more than 1 stop difference.
> 
> Asking for higher pixel density is the issue and the only fiscal option I can only see happening is Canon making a R6 body with M6ii sensor/processor in R mount (no RF-s lens). Would such a body fit your requirements?
> The alternative is the R5 combo that gives all that and more with a ~$600 premium.



The 7D Mark II came out with 20MP in 2014 almost seven years ago. In 2021 the standard for APS-C sensors has changed. The 32MP sensor in the 90D and M6 Mark II is superior in pretty much every way to the 20MP sensor in the 7D Mark II, yet both the cameras with the 32MP APS-C sensor are priced much lower than what the 7D Mark II is still priced (or was when everyone started running out of them a few months ago - you might can still find one bundled with a kit lens, which raises the cost even more for someone who will never use a 24-105mm/3.5-5.6 on a 7D Mark II or anything else they own). Even so, many of us have been saying for months that we would be willing to pay an R6 price for an R7 that is basically the same as an R6 with the 32MP APS-C sensor in it. How many times do we have to keep repeating that?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> If an R7 cost Canon $100 less to make than an R5 how would they price it? How much pressure would they then put on themselves to make dedicated lenses for that crop sensor?
> 
> I wish people would stop thinking I am ‘anti R7’ or that I think ‘ff is the answer to everything’ and would realize I am only putting forwards what I see as logical reasons why Canon might or might not do something.
> 
> So far, from my logic, I see very little reason for Canon to make an R7, but what do I know? I am certainly not a corporate manufacturing guy!



How much less does it cost Canon to make an R6 than an R7? I bet the difference is a LOT less than the retail price difference. Why would an R7 with R6 construction but an off-the-shelf 32MP APS-C sensor cost more to make than an R6? If Canon sells the R6 for $1,400 less than the R5, why wouldn't they sell an R7 for around the same price as the R6? They'd make more profit on an R7 than on an R6, unless the 32MP APS-C sensor found in the $850 M6 Mark II and the $1,100 90D is more costly to make than the 20MP FF sensor found in the $2,500 R6.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

David_D said:


> But would an R5 + 800mm/f11 down-sampled to say 25-30mp be better or worse than a 7Dii + 100-400mm? (That would still have the 45mp for larger/closer subjects with a shorter lens.)



But when I'm already using the R5 with a shorter lens at the same time I want to use the R7 with a longer lens (but nowhere near 600-800mm long and I need f/2.8 instead of f/11), what then? 

I'd be fairly certain that the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS on a 32 MP APS-C crop sensor in an R6 body could be cropped to match the angle of view of the 800/11 on an R5 body and would still beat the latter handily. 32MP APS-C is the same pixel density as 82MP on FF. That's just shy of twice the pixel density of the 45 MP R5.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Probably not. The MFD is a good point. I am guessing that current 7Dii users already have glass eg EF100-400 so reusing it with R6 would alleviate the MFD issue.



But now you're only at 400mm and f/6.3 with a sensor that only has 7 MP in the APS-C sized center of the frame.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 8, 2021)

criscokkat said:


> They can right now buy a R5 body with adapter and have a much better wildlife tracking camera that gives them more creativity if they want to crop in post. It's essentially the same number of pixels when cropped, but with more play around it. So it comes down to how much time you are at 200 on your 70-200. I'll wager in sports you are not at 200 more than 50% of the time, otherwise you'd be talking about having a 100-400.


You'd lose that wager. The 100-400 is useless for night and indoor sports. It's too slow. In "good" high school stadiums and gyms I'm at ISO 3200, 1/800 and f/2.8.

I'm usually at 200mm and still need to crop a bit for most of the shots I take when shooting football. But though not the most numerous, some of the best shots are when the play is coming right at you and the ball carrier is running almost directly towards you. It may only happen a handful of times (If you're lucky - if you're not you can shoot all night and it won't happen) during an entire game, but when it _does_ happen that's when you *NEED* to be able to zoom out. If they come all the way to the sideline you're whipping out your "wide" body (FF with 24-70 or 24-105) and shooting it one-handed while jumping out of the way and holding your monopod mounted long lens in your left hand.

This play started at 200mm on the QB, then dropped to 185mm as the back caught the screen and ran towards the camera position. The fourth shot was at 70mm with APS-C, the final frame was at 24mm on FF.
















At APS-C dimensions, the R5 is essentially the same number of pixels as the 7D Mark II that came out in 2014. It's half the number of pixels in the current 32MP APS-C sensor Canon uses in the $1,100 90D and the $850 M6 Mark II. The goal posts have moved in the last seven years.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 8, 2021)

Michael
I'd like a 32Mpx APS-C sensor, and spent a lot of time favourably reviewing the 90D's IQ but not so much its AF a couple of years back https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/eos-90d-hands-on-review.37589/ However, after about iso 1000 or so, I was getting as well-resolved images from the 20 Mpx Nikon sensor in the D500.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You folks keep ignoring those of us who wouldn't have a problem paying $2,500+ for an APS-C version of the R6 (build quality, etc.) with a 32MP or so APS-C sensor.


Those of you who want that are being ignored by Canon, most likely because there aren’t enough of you to justify making it.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 8, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You folks keep ignoring those of us who wouldn't have a problem paying $2,500+ for an APS-C version of the R6 (build quality, etc.) with a 32MP or so APS-C sensor.


I am curious what your Plan B is. We know that there will be no R7 this fall, which means one football season is gone. Given the delays, there is a good chance there won't be one available by fall of 2022. Will you just wait and how long will you wait, or will you consider something else?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 8, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon has made it VERY clear that they have no intention of ever developing APS-C only lenses in the RF mount.


No, they made it clear that there would never be an RF-S mount.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 8, 2021)

stevelee said:


> Yes, for a lot of folks, the camera is the reason to upgrade the phone.


I guess that makes sense from a convenience stand point but an entry level dedicated camera costs less than a smartphone with a very good camera.
I have seen older phones that are cheap and have decent cameras but there are older cameras too.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 8, 2021)

tomsop said:


> The reason I am on this forum is because I have a lot of M lenses and I am still holding out hope that they come out with a better camera with IBIS and 4K and a viewfinder that will be a step up from the m6 mark ii


Canon does have a patent for IBIS in smaller cameras like the M or Rebels but I am not sure that it fits into their pricing strategy. I would hate to see that patent go to waste.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Even so, many of us have been saying for months that we would be willing to pay an R6 price for an R7 that is basically the same as an R6 with the 32MP APS-C sensor in it. How many times do we have to keep repeating that?


You have to keep repeating it until pigs fly, or until enough people are saying if for Canon to listen. The former will probably happen first.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You have to keep repeating it until pigs fly, or until enough people are saying if for Canon to listen. The former will probably happen first.


I am willing to bet the people here who keep asking the same questions over and over do not work for Canon


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I am willing to bet the people here who keep asking the same questions over and over do not work for Canon


Yes, the memo from HQ was very clear that we all must deny being on Canon’s payroll.


----------



## BBarn (Aug 8, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> No, they made it clear that there would never be an RF-S mount.


The statement said "lenses" not "mount". So, if true, that means all RF lenses would have full frame coverage. That may be OK for birders and sports, but overly cumbersome for other markets.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 8, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon has made it VERY clear that they have no intention of ever developing APS-C only lenses in the RF mount.


Source? 

I'm curious because it seems very logical that if Canon really intends to develop a crop sensor body I can't imagine why they would rule out APS-C lenses for that body, especially because the R mount allows for APS-C lenses to easily mount on a full frame or crop sensor body. Existing R bodies can take crop sensor lenses and they just automatically crop the image. If Canon were to make R mount crop sensor lenses, those lenses would simply crop to a 1:1:6 ratio when placed on a full frame body.

Oftentimes people read an interview with a Canon executive and assume that they are making a definitive statement, when, in my experience, most Canon executives are very careful never to make bold, definiitive statements, but instead usually offer qualifiers like "at this time," or "we are not currently planning."


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Aug 8, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The 7D Mark III rumors were in 2016 and very early 2017. By late Spring of 2017 Canon had effectively let everyone know via leaks that there would be no 7D Mark III.


Michael, you made that same statement in April in a different thread, and I showed you ample evidence to the contrary there: 






Canon officially discontinues a lot more EF lenses


I will never sell my EF 135/2 L. It's my "from my cold, dead hands" lens. I foolishly sold one in 2019. Bought it back in 2020. Now it’s being discontinued. I’ll never sell again... unless the coming RF 135L turns out to be better.




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## BBarn (Aug 8, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Source?



The following might be the source:









There is still discussion internally at Canon about an APS-C EOS R camera #EOSR7


There have been countless rumors and opinions of whether or not Canon will be bringing an APS-C camera with an RF mount to market to take the place of the Canon



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## unfocused (Aug 8, 2021)

BBarn said:


> The following might be the source:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, you might be right. If so, this is so typical of this site (really of everything today), where people read something on the internet and assume that it is coming from a reliable source. 

No attribution to Canon. No name attached to it. Just a blanket statement with no supporting facts. Plus, as I said at the time and said above, there is no need for a separate RF-S mount because all R series bodies can accept a crop-sensor lens (they just crop the image). So, saying there are no plans for an RF-S mount simply means that future crop lenses, if released, would use the same RF mount and adjust the image size automatically with a software command. Sheds no light on anything one way or the other. I'm a skeptic about a crop-sensor R body but I'm not going to treat vague statements like this as a "fact" that might support my opinion.


----------



## BBarn (Aug 8, 2021)

EF mount lenses were/are full frame and EF-s lenses were /are crop frame but both shared the same EF mount. So use of the term "RF-s" carries with it the implication of a crop frame lens utilizing the existing RF mount. 

If the rumors of a crop frame R series camera (and lack of crop frame RF lenses) are true, there seemingly wouldn't be any crop frame RF mount lenses. So a crop frame camera would only utilize the portion of the lens image available to the smaller sensor. But that is still different than the current crop frame function of the FF R series cameras. Instead of only utilizing a portion of the FF sensor pixels, a crop frame R series camera would utilize all of it's available pixels to capture the image.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 8, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I guess that makes sense from a convenience stand point but an entry level dedicated camera costs less than a smartphone with a very good camera.
> I have seen older phones that are cheap and have decent cameras but there are older cameras too.


If I want a better camera, I buy a better camera. Not everybody thinks that way, obviously.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Those of you who want that are being ignored by Canon, most likely because there aren’t enough of you to justify making it.



Perhaps, or they think most of us will cave and eventually buy a 1D X Mark III, R3, or a second R5 instead.

But the economics of needing to spend less than the revenue one generates precludes that option for many of us. Just because one can buy a $1,700 7D Mark II and still turn a modest profit doesn't mean one can later justify paying $6,000-6,500 for a 1D X Mark II or III if there is no 7D Mark II replacement.

I still think Canon's perceived loss of 1-Series sales due to the way most 7D Mark II bodies were used is what killed it, not lack of demand. The demise of photojournalism, particularly of print journalism, is what really cut the sales numbers of 1-Series bodies in the mid 2010s.

When most print publications moved from salaried staff photographers with company provided gear to freelancers with photographer provided gear the demand for 1-series bodies each time a new one was released plummeted. Many freelancers are still using the original 2012 1D X.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> No, it's the fragility of the M6 Mark II with a hot shoe mounted EVF and the steps backwards the 90D takes compared to even the 7D Mark II: noticeably lower performance AF and barely more than half the shutter life rating. If the 90D had the same AF system as the 7D Mark II and the same shutter life rating I'd have bought one as soon as they came out. Two years later, though, it would have to be a mirrorless for me to pull the trigger. An M6 Mark II type camera with a built in EVF would be a consideration if it were cheap enough to account for a shorter expected service life.


3 weeks later and Michael is back in the forum!

Rent a M6ii + EVF M/EF adpater and see what you think. A 3rd party battery grip is also available.
100k actuation life span is half the 7Dii but also roughly half the price. 14fps @ 23 raw buffer depth. Single card but you are not shooting weddings.

I have always contended that the 7D series was a marketing unicorn and it looks like you are confirming that with a set of wants (fps, AF, dual card, weather sealing, pixel density etc) at a reasonable price.

I think that it is clear that Canon isn't listening to you and your market niche otherwise a 7Diii using the M6ii's sensor would have already been released.
Do you need 32mp or 20mp or 7mp?? if you are selling to parents? Be realistic with your customer's expectations. Will they print at all? If so, what size are they likely to print at? I would guess that a big print would be unusual but you can upres using PS etc.

We have provided thoughts about options/alternatives which you have been quite happy to refute based on your wants but if Canon doesn't want to release a body that you need then maybe you need to change systems


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Some of us want access to affordable f/2.8 RF lenses, not just the sssslllloooowww long telephotos.


I don't think that Canon has ever had "affordable" >100mm f/2.8 lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I am curious what your Plan B is. We know that there will be no R7 this fall, which means one football season is gone. Given the delays, there is a good chance there won't be one available by fall of 2022. Will you just wait and how long will you wait, or will you consider something else?



I'm still shooting with my 7D Mark II and 70-200/2.8. It's got over 250,000 shutter actuations and counting, though.

I'm considering the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sport. If I could find a used one for a good price I'd probably pull the trigger. But used copies of that lens from reputable sellers are as rare as hens teeth. (Some of the NYC shysters will try to sell you the older non-Global Vision EX series version at a Global Vision series price.) Then I could use it with whatever FF body that makes the most sense. I don't much like the idea of putting the kind of mileage on my FF bodies that whatever body is hanging on my long lens for sports gets, though. 

I should have probably bought another 7D Mark II when the getting was good, but I kept holding out hope that the 90D with a much better sensor would be a bit closer to the 7-series in terms of AF and durability than it turned out to be. Then I was waiting to see if we would get an EOS M5 update with the same sensor as the M6 Mark II but a built in EVF. That's apparently never going to happen, either.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Perhaps, or they think most of us will cave and eventually buy a 1D X Mark III, R3, or a second R5 instead.
> 
> But the economics of needing to spend less than the revenue one generates precludes that option for many of us. Just because one can buy a $1,700 7D Mark II and still turn a modest profit doesn't mean one can later justify paying $6,000-6,500 for a 1D X Mark II or III if there is no 7D Mark II replacement.


The question for Canon is determine is the number of "many of us" and what you represent to Canon overall.

You can't buy a 7Dii for a long time now. Buy a few second hand 7Dii to keep you going. Or maybe a second hand 1Dxii if your budget allows but that negates the whole reach issue that seems to be paramount for you.

Perhaps your market is disappearing and it is time to look at alternatives - which I know is a hard decision to face.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> 3 weeks later and Michael is back in the forum!
> 
> Rent a M6ii + EVF M/EF adpater and see what you think. A 3rd party battery grip is also available.
> 100k actuation life span is half the 7Dii but also roughly half the price. 14fps @ 23 raw buffer depth. Single card but you are not shooting weddings.
> ...



I was actually working being paid to freelance for a weekly newspaper covering an 11 day musical festival with dozens of events per day.

The external EVF adapter is too fragile for my use case, as I explain in another post above. Even if one can avoid occasionally being plowed over by a linebacker, the mechanics of switching bodies during a play in progress is hard on gear and it needs to be built to take that kind of punishment.




David - Sydney said:


> I think that it is clear that Canon isn't listening to you and your market niche otherwise a 7Diii using the M6ii's sensor would have already been released.
> Do you need 32mp or 20mp or 7mp?? if you are selling to parents? Be realistic with your customer's expectations. Will they print at all? If so, what size are they likely to print at? I would guess that a big print would be unusual but you can upres using PS etc.



I don't think that is clear at all. I tend to think it is more the case that Canon is _not_ listening to my market niche and thinks that we can afford R1, R3, an extra R5, or 1D X Mark III bodies and Big Whites if an R7 is not available. But the revenue stream at the high school/youth sports level just isn't there if one needs to be revenue positive.




David - Sydney said:


> We have provided thoughts about options/alternatives which you have been quite happy to refute based on your wants but if Canon doesn't want to release a body that you need then maybe you need to change systems



I don't know why stating the reasons the 7D Mark II made sense for me, as an R7 would also make sense, keeps being interpreted as an argument that Canon *will* release an R7. I've been saying for well over a year that it looks less and less likely. That doesn't negate the legitimate reasons you keep denying for why it would be useful to me.

None of the same alternatives you folks keep suggesting over and over again in post after post are acceptable for shooting night field sports or in mediocrely lit gyms. I've been doing it for years. Yet you folks who apparently have never done it keep telling me that things I know won't work will work.

If Canon doesn't release an R7, then I'll have to do the best I can with whatever is available. 

Changing systems is not really much of an option at this point in terms of cost vs. revenue, which is why many who do the same thing have already gotten out of it altogether and no one is shooting marching band competitions, youth games and even tournaments that used to have multiple freelancers competing for customers. High school sports are being overrun with parents with deep pockets who give everything (most of which looks pretty crappy) away for free.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I don't think that Canon has ever had "affordable" >100mm f/2.8 lenses.



A 70-200mm f/2.8 for $2-2.5K is a lot more affordable than a $6K 300/2.8 or $12K 400/2.8, especially when one considers that with the long primes one still needs the 70-200mm and an additional body for shorter distances in field sports.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> No, they made it clear that there would never be an RF-S mount.



They've also stated publicly there will not be any APS-C only RF lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You have to keep repeating it until pigs fly, or until enough people are saying if for Canon to listen. The former will probably happen first.



No one thinks Canon will actually make anything just because we keep saying it. That's not the reason I keep saying it.

But one would think those who keep characterizing all of those who desire an APS-C RF mount camera as expecting it to be cheaper than the cheapest RF mount FF camera could eventually take the hint and let go of that fallacy?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Michael, you made that same statement in April in a different thread, and I showed you ample evidence to the contrary there:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



None of those cited Canon rumors articles carry much credence as far as I'm concerned. Read the comments I made on those or similar posts at the time. I don't have time to look them up for you.

When everyone else was gushing about how great the 7D Mark III was going to be I was telling them it was already a done deal that it would never happen, at least not as a DSLR.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The question for Canon is determine is the number of "many of us" and what you represent to Canon overall.
> 
> You can't buy a 7Dii for a long time now. Buy a few second hand 7Dii to keep you going. Or maybe a second hand 1Dxii if your budget allows but that negates the whole reach issue that seems to be paramount for you.
> 
> Perhaps your market is disappearing and it is time to look at alternatives - which I know is a hard decision to face.



You can still buy a new 7D Mark II here in the U.S. if you're willing to buy it with a kit with a lens you don't want/need.

Don't forget that Canon changed the stock # of the 7D Mark II several years ago when they started including the WE-1 SD WiFi card with all 7D Mark II bodies. Listings with the old stock number that did not include the WE-1 have been showing "discontinued" for years.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I don't think that Canon has ever had "affordable" >100mm f/2.8 lenses.



Not to mention that the EF135mm f/2 is right around $1K list price and is my "pry it from my cold dead hands" lens.

I got mine from the Canon USA Refurb store for about $720 + tax during a sale a few years ago when they actually had one (it was the only one) in stock. I consider that very affordable for what it gives you.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I am willing to bet the people here who keep asking the same questions over and over do not work for Canon



Do you mean like the ones who keep asking, "Why can't you just use the 800mm f/11 + R5 to shoot night field sports?"

Or the ones who keep asking, "Why do you expect an R7 crop body to cost less than a $799 FF body" when no one who has actually expressed that an R7 might be useful to them has suggested such a thing?


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> I don't know why stating the reasons the 7D Mark II made sense for me, as an R7 would also make sense, keeps being interpreted as an argument that Canon *will* release an R7. I've been saying for well over a year that it looks less and less likely. That doesn't negate the legitimate reasons you keep denying for why it would be useful to me.


I have never negated that a 7Diii would be useful for you. Clearly it would be as you passionately argue against any alternative.



Michael Clark said:


> None of the same alternatives you folks keep suggesting over and over again in post after post are acceptable for shooting night field sports or in mediocrely lit gyms. I've been doing it for years. Yet you folks who apparently have never done it keep telling me that things I know won't work will work.


I have shot sports in poorly lit gyms. Clearly there are challenges. I started with 5Diii then 5Div then R5. I don't have the same reach issues and can crop heavily in the case of the R5 when needed. I use 70-200/2.8 and 24-105mm/4 and shoot f4/5.6 when there are multiple fighters involved and and use ~1/200s or higher. I under expose by a stop and recover shadows in post which is much easier with 5Div/R5 when ISO3200/4000 is used.

I am not saying that the suggested alternatives are better or even equivalent. Just to consider if they could work. You have shot down each suggestion but it seems that you haven't rented to try it out. It may not be better overall but good enough in some areas for what you want.



Michael Clark said:


> Changing systems is not really much of an option at this point in terms of cost vs. revenue, which is why many who do the same thing have already gotten out of it altogether and no one is shooting marching band competitions, youth games and even tournaments that used to have multiple freelancers competing for customers.


Australia doesn't have the same "enthusiasm" for high school or university sports compared to the US so there is no or limited freelancers comparable to the market you work in here.
This is a hard decision to make but hopefully you have alternatives to earn money.


Michael Clark said:


> High school sports are being overrun with parents with deep pockets who give everything (most of which looks pretty crappy) away for free.


I guess that I fall into that category as I shoot many genres as my hobby and couldn't possibly provide the same income that I get from my normal job. I buy good gear and share my action shots with other in my club. Hopefully they don't look crappy. I don't do this to deliberately put people out of work but perhaps more representative of the newer customer of Canon.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You can still buy a new 7D Mark II here in the U.S. if you're willing to buy it with a kit with a lens you don't want/need.
> 
> Don't forget that Canon changed the stock # of the 7D Mark II several years ago when they started including the WE-1 SD WiFi card with all 7D Mark II bodies. Listings with the old stock number that did not include the WE-1 have been showing "discontinued" for years.


I didn't realise that it is still available at all!
B&H have the 7Dii + kit lens for USD1799 so no downside from a cost perspective.
All the others (including W-E1) have been discontinued.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I have shot sports in poorly lit gyms. Clearly there are challenges. I started with 5Diii then 5Div then R5. I don't have the same reach issues and can crop heavily in the case of the R5 when needed. I use 70-200/2.8 and 24-105mm/4 and shoot f4/5.6 when there are multiple fighters involved and and use ~1/200s or higher. I under expose by a stop and recover shadows in post which is much easier with 5Div/R5 when ISO3200/4000 is used.



I've never shot fighters (boxers?). But 1/200 (or even 1/500) is totally inadequate for basketball, much less volleyball. I tried that fairly unsuccessfully back in my Rebel XTi and 55-250/4-5.6 days.

I use primes for volleyball (35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2). Luckily the court for volleyball is smaller than for basketball, so you can pick different spots to shoot and not need the same focal length flexibility that one needs with basketball. Sometimes I don't use the 7D Mark II in the gyms unless it's one that has older lights that still flicker really bad. Instead I'll use the 5D Mark IV for the long body and the 5D Mark III (which does not have flicker reduction) as the wide body. But field sports at night and marching bands (both halftimes at football games and competitions that start during daylight but go into the night, which is when the largest bands perform) is what I do the most.




David - Sydney said:


> Australia doesn't have the same "enthusiasm" for high school or university sports compared to the US so there is no or limited freelancers comparable to the market you work in here.
> This is a hard decision to make but hopefully you have alternatives to earn money.



I'm currently semi-retired so don't need to earn a lot from it, but I can't afford to spend more than I earn doing it, either.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Perhaps, or they think most of us will cave and eventually buy a 1D X Mark III, R3, or a second R5 instead.


I suspect they thought most people looking for an upgrade to the 7DII would purchase a 90D. I realize you don’t think it was an upgrade, but from Canon‘s perspective I suspect it was the replacement.



Michael Clark said:


> I still think Canon's perceived loss of 1-Series sales due to the way most 7D Mark II bodies were used is what killed it, not lack of demand. The demise of photojournalism, particularly of print journalism, is what really cut the sales numbers of 1-Series bodies in the mid 2010s.


What is the basis for your claim of a decline in 1-series sales? Canon certainly doesn’t publish granular details on model sales, and it doesn’t seem like something they’d announce.

They updated the 1-series at a faster pace than the 7-series. There’s a message there.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I don't think that Canon has ever had "affordable" >100mm f/2.8 lenses.


It depends on what you consider affordable, but the now apparently discontinued 200 f2.8 L was reasonably priced and an excellent lens. For shooting sports, where you need high shutter speeds and often shoot a 70-200 zoom extended to 200 99% of the time, the f2.8 200 was an excellent alternative.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> I've never shot fighters (boxers?). But 1/200 (or even 1/500) is totally inadequate for basketball, much less volleyball. I tried that fairly unsuccessfully back in my Rebel XTi and 55-50/4-5.6 days.


@ 1/200s I get slight hair blur or front kick blur which adds an element of speed. 1/320s generally freezes the action sufficiently with kumite sparring. It doesn't have fast ball movement though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect they thought most people looking for an upgrade to the 7DII would purchase a 90D. I realize you don’t think it was an upgrade, but from Canon‘s perspective I suspect it was the replacement.
> 
> 
> What is the basis for your claim of a decline in 1-series sales? Canon certainly doesn’t publish granular details on model sales, and it doesn’t seem like something they’d announce.
> ...



Yes, Canon expected those looking for a 7D Mark II replacement to either be happy with the 90D/M6 Mark II or buy much more expensive FF sports bodies and massively more expensive Big Whites.

My perception of 1-Series sales is certainly limited in scope, but I've seen it over and over among PJs who were once staff photographers with company issued gear who are now freelancers with self-provided gear working for pennies on the dollar compared to a decade or so ago. Most local newspapers used to replaced half their primary bodies each replacement cycle. If those same newspapers that bought multiple 1D X bodies (or Nikon D3s bodies) in 2012 even still exist in 2021, they're not buying any cameras or lenses because they're now contracting out the shoots that demand top level gear. Then they're either issuing old gear to reporters to take their own photos for stories they cover, or asking them to use their smartphones instead.

Canon has traditionally updated the 1-Series every Summer Olympics cycle. The 7D always seemed to have to wait until Canon had time to get around to it. That's nothing new. 

Why do you keep misinterpreting my expression of why I would personally find an R7 useful to be a declaration that Canon agrees that it would be equally useful for them to make it?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

unfocused said:


> It depends on what you consider affordable, but the now apparently discontinued 200 f2.8 L was reasonably priced and an excellent lens. For shooting sports, where you need high shutter speeds and often shoot a 70-200 zoom extended to 200 99% of the time, the f2.8 200 was an excellent alternative.



I find the extra stop of speed the 135/2 gives, as well as the much smoother backgrounds at f/2.8 compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II at 135mm and f/2.8 much more valuable to me than the better bokeh of the 200/2.8 compared to the 70-200/2.8. 

The 70-200/2.8 has too much flexibility to be ignored, and if one already has a 70-200/2.8 then the 200/2.8 isn't nearly as attractive.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> @ 1/200s I get slight hair blur or front kick blur which adds an element of speed. 1/320s generally freezes the action sufficiently with kumite sparring. It doesn't have fast ball movement though.



Yeah, with the visual ensemble (the folks who do not play an instrument but spin and toss flags, rifles, sabres, etc.) I'll often drop down to around 1/250-1/320 to get blur at the ends of the spinning appliance or even a bit of hand movement. But they're trained to hold their faces still and smiling while looking up at the judges box at the same time they're doing all of that movement with the rest of their bodies, so the faces are still sharp. Athletes, not so much, especially when they use head fakes to try and get an advantage over a defender.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 9, 2021)

@Michael Clark I think I get where you are coming from and at least understand some of your frustration with others on the forum.

The 90D is not a reasonable alternative to the 7DII for sports. The autofocus is inferior to the 7D and the buffer would fill up too quickly.

I love the R5, but on a test run last week I realized that it has some real downsides for shooting sports, most notably the small buffer, which means losing access to the camera during critical plays while the buffer clears.

I can't imagine that any of the other cameras people are suggesting would work either.

I'm actually in a very similar situation to yours, with one important difference.

I am very fortunate in that I don't need to rely on my income from the college that I shoot for. They pay me what they can afford, which is way less than what it is worth and would not be a living wage for anyone else. It works for me because I have retirement income and the pay I get feeds my GAS. But, if I had to justify it from a business perspective I could never do that. Photography is my hobby as well as my business and the income it brings in offsets expenses that I would probably be making anyway.

I had a 5DIII and a 7DII when I bought a 1DxII. I bought the 1Dx because neither of the other two cameras were really meeting my needs. I gave up the reach of the 7DII, but gained enough other advantages to make it worthwhile. (I don't generally shoot night sports because the college seldom has night sports. I don't shoot football because like many small colleges, my college can't afford to have a football program) I am planning to go to the R3 because I want to (I want to consolidate mounts and lenses) but from a financial perspective, it's a loser for me.

Point being, from my own experience, I get why you find many of the comments here uninformed. On the other hand, I think there is at least a 50% chance that Canon may not agree that there is a business case to be made for an R7.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> I find the extra stop of speed the 135/2 gives, as well as the much smoother backgrounds at f/2.8 compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II at 135mm and f/2.8 much more valuable to me than the better bokeh of the 200/2.8 compared to the 70-200/2.8.
> 
> The 70-200/2.8 has too much flexibility to be ignored, and if one already has a 70-200/2.8 then the 200/2.8 isn't nearly as attractive.


Don't disagree. I long ago sold my prime for the zoom. I was just pointing out that Canon has indeed offered an affordable telephoto longer than 100mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Why do you keep misinterpreting my expression of why I would personally find an R7 useful to be a declaration that Canon agrees that it would be equally useful for them to make it?


I don’t. Why do you seem to believe your reasons for wanting an R7 are unclear to me?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Don't disagree. I long ago sold my prime for the zoom. I was just pointing out that Canon has indeed offered an affordable telephoto longer than 100mm.



I wasn't disagreeing with you, either, so much as adding to the 200/2.8 example by saying that in my experience, the 135/2 is an even better example. It's the best lens per dollar I've ever bought.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t. Why do you seem to believe your reasons for wanting an R7 are unclear to me?



Maybe because you reply to and reference my posts about why I would find an R7 useful with comments about why it might not make business sense to Canon? They imply that my comments here are an argument for Canon to make an R7 when I'm not arguing any such thing. I'm only arguing why the suggested alternatives do not work and why desiring an R7 is a legitimate position for my use case.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 9, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I love the R5, but on a test run last week I realized that it has some real downsides for shooting sports, most notably the small buffer, which means losing access to the camera during critical plays while the buffer clears.


Small buffer?
Test with and without the SD card. Make sure that SD card is USH-ii and fast ie >250MB/s measured sequential write speed
https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/sd-cards/
Have you tried shooting cRAW instead? The buffer holds 260 shots and will clear in half the time.
If you are not shooting high contrast scenes then HEIF is another option if buffer clearance time is critical.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Maybe because you reply to and reference my posts about why I would find an R7 useful with comments about why it might not make business sense to Canon? They imply that my comments here are an argument for Canon to make an R7 when I'm not arguing any such thing. I'm only arguing why the suggested alternatives do not work and why desiring an R7 is a legitimate position for my use case.


So you are expressing a desire that you don’t want to be satisfied? Then why express it at all…merely to occupy your time?

If you don’t want Canon to make a high-end APS-C MILC, why express your rationale for your use case? If you do want Canon to make one, then the business case against it is a logical and reasonable response.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you are expressing a desire that you don’t want to be satisfied? Then why express it at all…merely to occupy your time?
> 
> If you don’t want Canon to make a high-end APS-C MILC, why express your rationale for your use case? If you do want Canon to make one, then the business case against it is a logical and reasonable response.


 There's a qualitative difference between saying one doesn't _expect_ a desire to be satisfied and saying one doesn't _want_ a desire to be satisfied.

There's also a difference between pointing out use cases that would benefit from a potential product to those here who see no one who could possibly have a need for such a product and saying such a product makes sense for a manufacturer to pursue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> There's a qualitative difference between saying one doesn't _expect_ a desire to be satisfied and saying one doesn't _want_ a desire to be satisfied.
> 
> There's also a difference between pointing out use cases that would benefit from a potential product to those here who see no one who could possibly have a need for such a product and saying such a product makes sense for a manufacturer to pursue.


The distinction is functionally irrelevant in this case. It’s obvious you and others have a valid use case. In fact, there are as many valid use cases for various potential products as there are photographers. None of them matter to Canon, individually. Repeating yours across many posts in many threads is your prerogative, but exercising that prerogative is futile.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 9, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Small buffer?
> Test with and without the SD card. Make sure that SD card is USH-ii and fast ie >250MB/s measured sequential write speed
> https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/sd-cards/
> Have you tried shooting cRAW instead? The buffer holds 260 shots and will clear in half the time.
> If you are not shooting high contrast scenes then HEIF is another option if buffer clearance time is critical.


HEIF requires HDR mode, which disables things like fast EVF refresh and IIRC it also prevents flicker reduction from working. And it locks out electronic shutter mode, which is what I'm using most of the time during dragonfly season.

I would love to enable RAW+HEIF, but the limitations Canon enforces for it make it a bad fit for me.


----------



## adrian_bacon (Aug 10, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Small buffer?
> Test with and without the SD card. Make sure that SD card is USH-ii and fast ie >250MB/s measured sequential write speed
> https://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/reviews/sd-cards/
> Have you tried shooting cRAW instead? The buffer holds 260 shots and will clear in half the time.
> If you are not shooting high contrast scenes then HEIF is another option if buffer clearance time is critical.


This is why a lot of pro sports shooters shoot jpeg. Sure, it's nice to shoot raw, but in reality, even at 12 frames a second, after a game, that's a lot of images and data to go through, especially if you need to get images off to publications ASAP.

All that being said, if you really wanna shoot raw, make sure you're using the biggest fastest cards you can get because your data sizes are going to be at least 2-3 larger than if shooting jpeg, especially the SD card. This is just reality.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2021)

dickgrafixstop said:


> if you look at canon's lineup today, a consumer has a range of kit options from $5-600 to $5000 with multiple stops in between. The rebel lineup must account for some significant portion of Canon's revenue stream, but an $800 body with a $150+ lens or a $100 ef adapter plus an EF lens just isn't going to cut it. The M range is not a good substitite for me nor are any of the fixed lens alternatives.



There, I fixed it for you. As the best selling mirrorless system on the planet, the EOS M system is obviously considered good enough for many people's purposes.


----------



## FrenchFry (Aug 14, 2021)

For anyone who missed it, Jan and Glenn share their thoughts on the R7 here:


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 14, 2021)

Rick D. said:


> Fascinating thread from my perspective. I have two major needs: bird photography and I write and take pics for an online music/festival magazine. After selling my Nikon F's thirty years ago, I only got back into photography when I retired 8 years ago. Although I could afford a lot more, my camera/lens combos have been....shall I say....thrifty. Birding: 7DII and usually a Sigma 150-600 lens, which has worked very well for me. Concerts: even more thrifty, I've shot most concert pics with an M50 with adapted 24-74 2.8, a 70-200 f4 and the occasional slow wide angle M series zoom and the the 18-150, which works great for daytime use but useless at nightime concerts, etc. So now I am considering continuing my thriftiness. My major need right now is a 70-200 2.8 for concert photos, so instead of loading a giant lens on my M50, I'm thinking about an RP with the RF 70-200 2.8. It's small, fast, and exactly what I need for concert photography. I've managed do quite well with the relatively inexpensive gear I've been using, and for my uses, I don't think I'd be willing to get anything larger than the RP (I'll still be using my M50 with 24-70 2.8; I usually carry both cameras at night). I realize the RP has an older sensor, but as I said, I've done just fine with a much older 7Dii sensor. Wonder if anyone has any insight into my plan? I actually am renting an RP/70-200 2.8 next week to try out before I purchase one for three festivals I'm covering in September. Any comments would be helpful.



I've gotten into the habit of shooting night/indoor shows with a 24-70/2.8 and a 135/2, each with it's own FF body, particularly if I know I'll have more freedom to roam that the typical 2-3 songs and done from the pit that a media pass will get you. Sometimes even a 35/2 or 50/1.4 and the 135/2. A lot depends on how much confidence I have in the lighting contractor. If I have shot shows produced by them before and they're usually lit bright enough (and with more or less full spectrum lights) sometimes I'll use a 70-200/2.8, maybe even with my 7D Mark II. But lately I've tended to stay with FF bodies unless it's a daylight show. (As an aside, I've not seen a decently lit small to medium size show when the lighting contractor is based out of Nashville in forever. That market seems to be so oversaturated with new folks willing to slash prices that the best techs have moved to other regions and markets.)

This show was shot in a large hotel ballroom/convention hall but lit by a top-notch local company in the Muscle Shoals, AL area. It was a small enough show (2,000-2,500 seated at banquet tables) that I had total freedom of movement, including back areas, thanks to my working relationships with a couple of the performers. I used a 5D Mark IV (Same sensor as the EOS R) and an EF 135mm f/2L (1990s design with no IS) plus a 5D Mark III with an original EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (2002 design with no IS). There was enough light to use a 70-200/2.8 with the 7D Mark II but when I can get away with the 135/2 I like the look of the images so much better that I left the 7DII + 70-200mm in my car's trunk.

Had I taken this shot with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II at 135mm the background and foreground would be more than a bit 'harsher' or 'busier' than the result I got with the EF 135mm f/2L at f/2.5. Even at f/2.8, the 135/2 is considerably smoother with details in out-of-focus backgrounds than the 70-200/2.8 IS II zoom. The 135mm totally melted the fan's smartphone in the lower part of the frame to the right of center.



Howell Sledge sings with his father Percy's handkerchief in his breast pocket.




Muscle Shoals studio veteran Noble Thurman and Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Member Dewey "Spooner" Oldham still rocking backup vox on "Mustang Sally" 55 years after Spooner played the piano at Wilson Pickett's session not far across the river from the venue.



This frame of "everyone" during one of the closers was an over-the-head "blind" shot at 24mm from behind the many guests who were dancing in front of the stage. The tilt screens on the Canon R-series bodies would certainly come in handy for shots like this if you haven't developed enough muscle memory to pull it off shooting blind. [From left: John Paul White in silhouette, (The Civil Wars), Will McFarlane (toured with Bonnie Raitt, Muscle Shoals session player), Howell Sledge (Percy's son), unknown bass player, Travis Wammack (hit the Billboard chart with instumental 'Scratchy' at age 17, MS session player in 1970s-80s, Little Richard's guitarist and bandleader from 1984-95), Mike Dillon (MS session player and road drummer for various acts), Christine 'The Beehive Queen' Ohlman (Saturday Night Live house vocalist), Jerry Phillips (Sun Records founder Sam's son), Kelvin Holly (Little Richard's bandleader and guitarist 1995-2020), Noble Thurman (MS songwriter and session musician for decades), Dewey 'Spooner" Oldham (R&R HOF songwriter and session musician, worked with Aretha Franklin, Percy Sledge, Wilson Pickett, Bob Dylan, CSN&Y, many others)]


----------



## Ruined (Aug 16, 2021)

Knowing Canon this will be ridiculously crippled in some way, like being 10MP or the shutter button being the only physical button on the camera


----------



## slclick (Jan 22, 2022)

Ruined said:


> Knowing Canon this will be ridiculously crippled in some way, like being 10MP or the shutter button being the only physical button on the camera


Oh, you mean this will be the camera my spouse has been waiting for? One shooters crippled is anothers dream gear.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 23, 2022)

Ruined said:


> Knowing Canon this will be ridiculously crippled in some way, like being 10MP or the shutter button being the only physical button on the camera


Were you naive enough to expect EOS R1 features in a $800 camera?
Knowing Canon, it will be a very usable camera, even if lacking luxury characteristics, fine for drones, as a backup in risky situations, and, of course, for beginners who want a simple, yet reliable tool.
Or do you expect a Michelin 3 star dinner in an inexpensive diner?


----------

