# An APS-C sensor equipped EOS R camera mentioned again [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 15, 2019)

> In a couple of weeks, we’ll see the Canon EOS 90D released, a camera that has been rumored for quite some time to be a replacement for both the EOS 80D and EOS 7D Mark II. If the EOS 90D is more 80D than EOS 7D Mark II, then there could be a perceived hole in Canon’s lineup without an APS-C wildlife/sports camera.
> Over the last couple of weeks, we have received some more mentions of an EOS R series camera with an APS-C sensor still being “considered” by Canon and that testing for such a camera has taken place.
> The same source did mention that there are no plans for any sort of RF-S lenses, which would make a lot of sense as the development of the EF-S lineup seems to be have been abandoned beyond updated kit lenses.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 15, 2019)

With the high MP sensors why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
FF sensors seem to be coming down in price as well.
Thus a 7D MIII performance when the new high MP FF is in crop mode for people who get off on birds and you also have the WA ability of a FF camera and the shallower depth of field some really like with the FF.
Best of both worlds.
Ooops, then you would not have to buy 2 cameras, how stupid of me.


----------



## peters (Aug 15, 2019)

Hm, sounds somehow not logical, if they dont bring RF-S lenses... 
But for wildlife this may still be an interesting camera.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 15, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> With the high MP sensors why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
> FF sensors seem to be coming down in price as well.
> [..]



For the same sized wafer you can get about 2.25 more APS-C sensors than FF sensors. So the component price for a FF sensor will be at least 2.25 times that of an APS-C sensor. That doesn't stop Canon from making savings in other places to offset that, but on a component level it will be more expensive.


----------



## kiwiengr (Aug 15, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> With the high MP sensors why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
> FF sensors seem to be coming down in price as well.
> Thus a 7D MIII performance when the new high MP FF is in crop mode for people who get off on birds and you also have the WA ability of a FF camera and the shallower depth of field some really like with the FF.
> Best of both worlds.
> Ooops, then you would not have to buy 2 cameras, how stupid of me.



Why crop in camera when it is easy to crop in whatever software is used in computer. I would suggest the later cropping is done is better....


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 15, 2019)

kiwiengr said:


> Why crop in camera when it is easy to crop in whatever software is used in computer. I would suggest the later cropping is done is better....



I assume that using an in-camera crop would yield more FPS, so you can choose between 4fps FF or 10fps c with rop. In that case I'd pick in-camera crop for some situations. But in general I agree, the later the crop, the better.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 15, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> For the same sized wafer you can get about 2.25 more APS-C sensors than FF sensors. So the component price for a FF sensor will be at least 2.25 times that of an APS-C sensor. That doesn't stop Canon from making savings in other places to offset that, but on a component level it will be more expensive.


The FF is 2.6 times larger than Canon's APS-C, and there are greater losses in FF sensor production due to the difficulty in producing good quality throughout that large of a sensor area. So my guess is that the cost is likely 3 - 5 times higher for FF vs APS-C sensors.


----------



## BillB (Aug 15, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> With the high MP sensors why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
> FF sensors seem to be coming down in price as well.
> Thus a 7D MIII performance when the new high MP FF is in crop mode for people who get off on birds and you also have the WA ability of a FF camera and the shallower depth of field some really like with the FF.
> Best of both worlds.
> Ooops, then you would not have to buy 2 cameras, how stupid of me.


One advantage of a crop sensor could be on the AF side of the equation. For a given data rate, a crop camera would have higher fps than a FF frame camera. Also, a crop camera could serve as the testbed for an advanced AF system for a high end FF camera.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 15, 2019)

Etienne said:


> The FF is 2.6 times larger than Canon's APS-C, and there are greater losses in FF sensor production due to the difficulty in producing good quality throughout that large of a sensor area. So my guess is that the cost is likely 3 - 5 times higher for FF vs APS-C sensors.



Thanks for the correction! I did 1.5 * 1.5 in my head, forgetting that it's actually a 1.6x crop


----------



## rotte (Aug 15, 2019)

Would it be technical possible to make en EF-M adapter for RF mount?
Canons EF-M wide angle zooms and primes could make sense on such a camera


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 15, 2019)

rotte said:


> Would it be technical possible to make en EF-M adapter for RF mount?
> Canons EF-M wide angle zooms and primes could make sense on such a camera



If you allow for optics inside, yes. A hollow tube like the EF-M-EF or RF-EF adaptor is not possible.


----------



## codynpatterson (Aug 15, 2019)

Just announce this already. We don't need 3 different mount systems. We certainly don't need EOS M in a future where RF exists.


----------



## Tom W (Aug 15, 2019)

Size matters - look at the size of lenses for the M mount compared to the RF mount. What advantage, other than the price of the body, would an APS-C RF camera offer?


----------



## codynpatterson (Aug 15, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Size matters - look at the size of lenses for the M mount compared to the RF mount. What advantage, other than the price of the body, would an APS-C RF camera offer?



We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore. Look at the Panasonic S1. People are choosing it because it's full sized like a 5div instead of too small for people like an a7iii. The extra space allows for extra technology. Reality is APSC doesn't exist right now because if size difference, it's a different style of camera. Canon doesn't seem to be giving up on APSC, but I doubt they will Co tinue to support 3 different mounts for long.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Aug 15, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.


As far as I know the R and RP cameras already has crop-modes if you attach an EF-S lens to an R-EF adaptor?
But still, I expect an APS-C sensor to be cheaper, and even though we don't need room for a mirror (which would require less space for APS-C than fullframe), I still expect a crop-R could be made a bit more compact than a fullframe-R.
But still, it only fully makes sense for me if we also as minimum get a compact crop standard-zoom and a compact crop wideangle-zoom lens.


----------



## Trey T (Aug 15, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> Just announce this already. We don't need 3 different mount systems. We certainly don't need EOS M in a future where RF exists.


The EOS M is designed for different purpose, primarily for hobbyist. The biggest difference in the mirrorless platform between EOS M and R is that one do not have mechanical shutter. Unless you believe that the mechanical shutter is insignificant to the conceptual design and its purpose, it should be critical to separate the camera segments.

At one point, I own 5DII, 7D, and EOS M at the same time and the M is crippled in many practical ways.


----------



## wyotex43n (Aug 15, 2019)

I don't really care how they do it or what mount as long as they quickly come up with an upgraded
replacement for my damaged 7d MK II.


----------



## Trey T (Aug 15, 2019)

rotte said:


> Would it be technical possible to make en EF-M adapter for RF mount?
> Canons EF-M wide angle zooms and primes could make sense on such a camera


I think I undertand what you're asking...

If the flange-to-film plane distance of M is longer than the R, then yes. You can do a research to quantify it but from an observation it's not going to work, simply the "distance" is the other way around (bc there's a shutter in R that pushes the flange out further).


----------



## Ian K (Aug 15, 2019)

First off crop mode on the EOS-R yields approximately 12MP, which is not great. A true APS-C sensor would have all of the 30MP (or what ever it was built with) available to use. Part of the reason the 7D-II is great for wildlife is that you get the full resolution with an effective 1.6x more reach on your lenses. So your 100-400mm lens becomes a 160-640, and the 800mm becomes 1280mm with no loss of quality, fast focusing and everything you get from an unadapted lens. It's the primary reason I carry two camera.

Secondly, the frame rate on the 7DIII is a 25% higher frame rate than the EOS-R, which can help.


----------



## BillB (Aug 15, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore. Look at the Panasonic S1. People are choosing it because it's full sized like a 5div instead of too small for people like an a7iii. The extra space allows for extra technology. Reality is APSC doesn't exist right now because if size difference, it's a different style of camera. Canon doesn't seem to be giving up on APSC, but I doubt they will Co tinue to support 3 different mounts for long.


Why not? If the are are all selling well enough to cover production costs, where is the downside to Canon?


----------



## amorse (Aug 15, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore. Look at the Panasonic S1. People are choosing it because it's full sized like a 5div instead of too small for people like an a7iii. The extra space allows for extra technology. Reality is APSC doesn't exist right now because if size difference, it's a different style of camera. Canon doesn't seem to be giving up on APSC, but I doubt they will Co tinue to support 3 different mounts for long.


I think there are a lot of driving factors for purchasing cameras because many photographers have different needs. I'd argue that size is definitely one of the considerations for some photographers, but certainly not the be all and end all of needs. I do agree that not all APS-C cameras are built to keep size down, but the EF-M line does seem to be built with that in mind. I'm not really sure about where the EF-M series goes from here either, but for the time being it certainly has it's niche: the M50 seems to have sold very well and creates a good option for someone who wants a better than cellphone camera which is still reasonably small. I think there is definitely a niche for small cameras in people who travel quite a bit with photography as more of a hobby than a job, and for people who are just unable to carry a bulky or heavy camera for long periods.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 15, 2019)

Trey T said:


> The EOS M is designed for different purpose, primarily for hobbyist. The biggest difference in the mirrorless platform between EOS M and R is that one do not have mechanical shutter. Unless you believe that the mechanical shutter is insignificant to the conceptual design and its purpose, it should be critical to separate the camera segments.
> 
> At one point, I own 5DII, 7D, and EOS M at the same time and the M is crippled in many practical ways.



I just checked my EOS M and it has a mechanical shutter, from images of the EOS R I know that it has a mechanical shutter too so I am a little bit confused.
Or do you mean "shutter closed while OFF"? That is a differentiator between EOS R and (EOS RF plus the rest).


----------



## Proscribo (Aug 15, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> For the same sized wafer you can get about 2.25 more APS-C sensors than FF sensors. So the component price for a FF sensor will be at least 2.25 times that of an APS-C sensor. That doesn't stop Canon from making savings in other places to offset that, but on a component level it will be more expensive.


I'll correct a bit: for 300mm wafer you'll get around 170 canon aps-c sensors and 60 ff sensors. Then some parts of that wafer will be faulty and the difference becomes greater, for example 10 faulty dies for both (larger dies make it more likely for the faults to be within single die so maybe it'd be like 10 vs 8). So that makes ff sensor over 3 times as expensive.


----------



## Stuart (Aug 15, 2019)

An APSC body would have a lower market place price reach a wider paying audience - whether new customers or just those looking to upgrade to a newer model.
Also i'd then expect an RF nifty fifty F1.8 in time to start the lower cost lens sales, though i'd really love something like a 22mm F1.8 on an APS'c for street shots.

Of course a new new RF APS-c does not need a 1.6 crop factor - maybe it would have a 1.3 or perhaps a 1.8 ? - what Crop might canon go for?


----------



## melgross (Aug 15, 2019)

Etienne said:


> The FF is 2.6 times larger than Canon's APS-C, and there are greater losses in FF sensor production due to the difficulty in producing good quality throughout that large of a sensor area. So my guess is that the cost is likely 3 - 5 times higher for FF vs APS-C sensors.


The cost relationship isn’t that direct. It somewhat follows number of chips per wafer, and the number of good chips per wafer, but manufacturing is more complex that just that, with more variables. But, sure, ff sensors cost a fair amount more than APS-C sensors.


----------



## melgross (Aug 15, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> Just announce this already. We don't need 3 different mount systems. We certainly don't need EOS M in a future where RF exists.


Well, maybe for you. But, as people here keep forgetting, the M series is very popular, and growing sales. If that continues in light of the RF, then there would be no need to discontinue them. If Canon did come out with an RF APS-C, it would have to be bigger because of the bigger mount. Some would care, but possibly, some wouldn’t.

at this stage, I think that keeping the line is a good idea until Canon sees how it’s shaking out. It’s always possible, though some disagree, such as Thom Hogan, that Canon shouldn’t have a separate APS-C camera mount. He’s been wrong before. It’s possible that an RF APS-C might not sell. You never know.


----------



## melgross (Aug 15, 2019)

Ian K said:


> First off crop mode on the EOS-R yields approximately 12MP, which is not great. A true APS-C sensor would have all of the 30MP (or what ever it was built with) available to use. Part of the reason the 7D-II is great for wildlife is that you get the full resolution with an effective 1.6x more reach on your lenses. So your 100-400mm lens becomes a 160-640, and the 800mm becomes 1280mm with no loss of quality, fast focusing and everything you get from an unadapted lens. It's the primary reason I carry two camera.
> 
> Secondly, the frame rate on the 7DIII is a 25% higher frame rate than the EOS-R, which can help.


There is loss of quality. While possibly the lens is better for the APS-C crop, the sensor is then worse. That’s why we have ff in the first place, remember? And, yes, I get that you would need a longer lens, which is then heavier and more expensive. But that’s all a compromise which some are more willing to make than others.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 15, 2019)

That would be interesting. Also it could spell doom for Ef-M mount.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 15, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore. Look at the Panasonic S1. People are choosing it because it's full sized like a 5div instead of too small for people like an a7iii. The extra space allows for extra technology. Reality is APSC doesn't exist right now because if size difference, it's a different style of camera. Canon doesn't seem to be giving up on APSC, but I doubt they will Co tinue to support 3 different mounts for long.


 And also people want something like an M100 which can almost fit in your pocket. Me included. For situations where traveling light is a priority.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 15, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> That would be interesting. Also it could spell doom for Ef-M mount.


actually, it wouldn't since even with RF-S lenses, the lenses and cameras for the EF-M mount would still end up being smaller and more suited for crop than the RF-S APS-C cameras. EOS-M was never seriously a professional lens mount ecosystem.



codynpatterson said:


> We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore. Look at the Panasonic S1. People are choosing it because it's full sized like a 5div instead of too small for people like an a7iii. The extra space allows for extra technology. Reality is APSC doesn't exist right now because if size difference, it's a different style of camera. Canon doesn't seem to be giving up on APSC, but I doubt they will Co tinue to support 3 different mounts for long.



there's also the strong possibility that large camera systems only account for a portion of the market, which is highly lucrative but not the market as a whole.

For instance, the M50 continues to be one of Canon's top selling cameras, and the rebels still outsell just about everything.

Size, weight, and cost all factor into this.


----------



## criscokkat (Aug 15, 2019)

I don't see what the big deal is with a high end prosumer aps-c with an R mount. They really haven't developed new EF-S lenses in years other than the kit lenses. This has been true for a very long time, long before they started focusing on the R mount lenses. I suspect what Canon has learned is that what lenses did sell jut cut into full frame versions of the same lenses. Most people who bought the 55-250 without it being part of a kit would have spent just a bit more on the 75-300 if they had to. It looks like the development over the next few years will include R mount kit lenses and other non-l R mount lenses. If they make a few models wider than normal they will work just fine on APS-C as well (i.e. 18 - xx vs 24-xx). With the shorter registration distance going wider is much cheaper and less bulky than it was on EF. I am also 100% positive that lower priced R mount 'rebel' level cameras will follow.

So leverage what you have now, just using ef-s on an adapter. I would certainly consider a 90d r mount since I can upgrade to a full frame later if I wish. Plus it would give me more confidence for future proofing my purchases, as I'd rather buy a RF 100-400 lens than the ef version.


----------



## springle (Aug 15, 2019)

Rather than consider what "you" want, consider what the future landscape will likely be. Smartphone cameras are rapidly improving and for most (perhaps 95%) of the people, they will suffice. I suspect that ultimately that leaves medium-format style DSLRs and wildlife/sports cameras. The middle will be gone. Canon is making a mistake by not considering APS-C models in their marketing plans. The future will also be mirrorless. (For outings in areas with dense foliage, I use my Sony RX10 IV, which has the 35mm-equivalent of a 600mm F4.0 lens. The silent shutter is often very helpful when photographing birds.) The idea that there is a tradeoff between reach and sensor size is mostly naive. I never have enough reach. If I ever purchase a Canon 600mm F4.0, I shall mostly use it with a 1.4 converter, if not a 2X converter. Only when photographing in places with heat and humidity, is my desire for reach limited. In such places, heat waves in the atmosphere render the magnification useless.

Upon the release of the Sony AR7-IV, I was considering a wholesale changeover. If cropped to Canon's APS-C sensor size, it would be equivalent to about 24 MP, a 20% increase from the 7D II (which I use now) plus better follow focusing and improved noise reduction - and silent shutter. The lens selection may suck, though.

So I shall wait for the 90D and see what its specs are. And I doubt I shall ever purchase a 600mm F4.0 EF lens as I expect the future will be 600mm F4.0 RF lenses.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Aug 15, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Size matters - look at the size of lenses for the M mount compared to the RF mount. What advantage, other than the price of the body, would an APS-C RF camera offer?



The 1.6 crop factor would be very attractive for shooting wildlife, etc. where the additional magnification afforded by a crop sensor camera is an advantage. In most of those type of daylight shooting situations, the image quality doesn’t really lag against what a full frame sensor will provide.

If there is a single reason to get involved in the R mirrorless system at this point, it’s for the lenses. And right now, there’s no way to leverage that with a crop-sensor camera. A crop-sensor R makes very good sense if Canon plans to promote the RF mount lenses as anything more than a specialized novelty.


----------



## hazydave (Aug 15, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> Just announce this already. We don't need 3 different mount systems. We certainly don't need EOS M in a future where RF exists.



I'm not sure who "we" is.. but Canon may need EOS M, at least for the time being. They're selling far more EOS M gear -- yes, mostly in Asia -- than EOS R at present. I do agree that would leave them in kind of a weird situation, two different mounts for the same sensor size. And additionally, the EOS M might deliver better results, since a lower end lens designed for APS-C actually can outperform a higher-end FF lens used on an APS-C model.

And Canon actually has four lens mounts, since EF-S lenses don't mount on EF bodies. I do wonder if Canon has formulated an internal policy on this. Typically, a system is known to be dead -- like Sony A-Mount, Pentax Q, or Nikon 1, long before it's officially killed off (Nikon 1 was only officialy killed off a year ago). If they go 2-3 years without releasing a new EOS M product, expect it to be killed. When EOS M is the only top selling Canon in Japan, probably not anytime soon.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 15, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> For the same sized wafer you can get about 2.25 more APS-C sensors than FF sensors. So the component price for a FF sensor will be at least 2.25 times that of an APS-C sensor. That doesn't stop Canon from making savings in other places to offset that, but on a component level it will be more expensive.



How much does that piece of wafer cost though? You cannot include anything put onto it just the wafer.
Then addig the pixels etc. again how much does that really cost as a percentage of the camera.
I would guess it is not very significant at all. FF gets a premium price for status more than anything.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 15, 2019)

kiwiengr said:


> Why crop in camera when it is easy to crop in whatever software is used in computer. I would suggest the later cropping is done is better....



Ease of seeing and speeding up operation of the camera itself as less data has to flow that is why.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 15, 2019)

Stig Nygaard said:


> As far as I know the R and RP cameras already has crop-modes if you attach an EF-S lens to an R-EF adaptor?
> But still, I expect an APS-C sensor to be cheaper, and even though we don't need room for a mirror (which would require less space for APS-C than fullframe), I still expect a crop-R could be made a bit more compact than a fullframe-R.
> But still, it only fully makes sense for me if we also as minimum get a compact crop standard-zoom and a compact crop wideangle-zoom lens.



Then you are into crop sensor lenses again.
If you want small and light ILC there is a thing called the M series.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 15, 2019)

Ian K said:


> First off crop mode on the EOS-R yields approximately 12MP, which is not great.



Can only be used to print A4, maybe even A3. Completely unusable.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 15, 2019)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> The 1.6 crop factor would be very attractive for shooting wildlife, etc. where the additional magnification afforded by a crop sensor camera


this really isn't true anymore. It's the pixel pitch of the sensor really.

For instance, a 61MP full-frame camera manually cropped down to 1.6 would give you the same amount of pixels as that 24MP APS-C camera.

Sony releasing a A7RIV that does 10fps at full resolution kind of defeats the need of APS-C for sports and wildlife.

What the APS-C camera offers is perhaps a cheaper way to achieve 10 fps at 24MP or so on target. The sensor is smaller and the shutter assembly is also smaller. An APS-C based camera with 24MP on target may cost you around 1.5 to 2K, where a full frame that achieves the same pixels on target (around 60-65MP) would cost around 3K.


----------



## stevewhitemd (Aug 15, 2019)

I don't see Canon doing an EOS 'RS' camera in which they fit an APS-C sensor into a full-size body. The savings on sensor manufacturing, compared to all the other costs of building, shipping and marketing such a camera, are modest -- you might be able to to an RS for $100 cheaper than an RP. Is that worth it? For $100, most folks would go FF and the RP.

Seriously: an RP is $1300 today. What is the maximum price at which you can sell an RS? What exactly do you 'save' in buying an RS with a smaller sensor? Further, what features do you remove to ensure that the RS doesn't stamp all over the RP? That's a favored Canon strategy, remember. I can hear people now complaining that the RS "doesn't do real 4K!!!!!" Cue the garment-rending.

To this idea work Canon would also need to offer a whole series of cheaper RF lenses, whereas we know right now that Canon is working (mostly) on super RF lenses that will be L-series and priced accordingly. Perhaps CanonRumors knows of a bevy of such inexpensive lenses coming?

Marketing an RS also dilutes the marketing message Canon is trying to convey, and it's always bad to confuse your customers.

The R is Canon's vision (so they say) of the future of FF for the serious hobbyist, semi-pro and (eventually) pro photographer. In the not-too-distant future we'll see R equivalents of the 1D and 5D series to complement the R and RP. These are the $1000 and up cameras for serious people.

In contrast, the M series will be for the casual hobbyist and the folks with want something 'better' than their smartphone for the family pics. The M5, M50, M6 and M100 give Camera an entire market segment; Canon could even use the 'Rebel' and 'Kiss' names on these to point consumers to them. Sell a couple of modestly priced, good performing primes along with the current zooms. Each camera sells at a price point that defines this market segment. A top-line M5 might evolve features that rival what the 7Dm3 (or 90Dm2) would have been and would be priced accordingly. Add an EF-EFM adapter to that and there's your L glass on a high-end M camera.

The cheaper PowerShot series lives under the M series for even simpler needs and more price-conscious and tech-phobe consumers. As Canon does now, you have several cameras with price points that hit where consumers are.

What Canon loses with a R/M/Powershot market definition is the ability to sell up-scale lenses to the Rebel-M users the way they sold EF lenses to Rebel EF-S camera users. Only Canon knows how big an issue that is.

Canon might toy with the idea of an RS, but I think (IMHO of course) that it's a bad idea.


----------



## LensFungus (Aug 15, 2019)

The classic situation: Just wait for Nikon. If Nikon does it, Canon will do it, too.


----------



## Stuart (Aug 15, 2019)

Why should an RF APS-c be a 1.6 Crop factor?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Aug 15, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Then you are into crop sensor lenses again.
> If you want small and light ILC there is a thing called the M series.



Yes I'm into crop sensor lenses again. And yes I can get a more compact camera in the M series. But I still want to be able to use R series lenses, including the fullframe lenses, equivalent to how I currently do with my 7DII. The R-mount has no bigger diameter than the EF/EF-S mount.

Also for an APS-C camera there's a need for a zoom with a "natural standard zoom range" for APS-C users., Like f.ex. an 15-85mm for R-mount. You COULD make it for fullframe, but if you gonna make it, it feels more natural to make it an APS-C one. In my opinion...


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 15, 2019)

I always (well, nearly always!) enjoy perusing the posts on CRumors.

These are no exception.

For many years now, I've detected a real bias against Canon's M series of cameras and lenses...and in my view some of that bias results from ignorance--while resistance to change fits here as well.

This bias/ignorance was in evidence when many folks thought (hoped!?) that Canon's full-size mirrorless efforts would incorporate the EF mount.

Sadly for them...the R and its new mount was announced.

I'll re-state here again:

Canon's future, in the area of what we now call DSLRs/MILCs and their associated lenses...will be focused on two letters: R and M.

What many on this forum are calling for when they call for an 'APS-C' R...is, in my mind, a truly full-featured, tricked-out M body...that is nearly double the volume-and-weight of, say, the M5.

I completely understand the necessity of a physically larger body when attaching the big whites to it--Canon's 100-400 II (in my hands, well actually, NOT in my hands!), when mated to the necessary adapter/M6 duo...more or less requires a tripod (or at least a monopod).

That same lens, on a 5D MkIII, is a dream to hand-hold (and use, thanks to a wonderful implementation of image stabilization).

But other than these ergonomic reasons (and, perhaps, bandwidth-associated FPS etc. reasons), I don't understand the fascination with a crop sensor inside of a large mirrorless body. Surely folks aren't looking to extend the life of their EF-S 17-55 2.8IS, are they?! (Full disclosure: I still own this lens...and with an adapter...it works well for stills on the M6!)

As far as prices and economics are concerned...I believe that there's an R-based full-size sensor body in development that will sell for even less than the RP...with R-mount kit lenses to match.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Dragon (Aug 15, 2019)

Trey T said:


> The EOS M is designed for different purpose, primarily for hobbyist. The biggest difference in the mirrorless platform between EOS M and R is that one do not have mechanical shutter. Unless you believe that the mechanical shutter is insignificant to the conceptual design and its purpose, it should be critical to separate the camera segments.
> 
> At one point, I own 5DII, 7D, and EOS M at the same time and the M is crippled in many practical ways.


My M5 has a mechanical shutter, so not sure where got the idea that M cameras don't have one. EOS M cameras are aimed a portability and they succeed very well in that goal. Also, the M lenses, while most are not fast, are very sharp. In general, the M lenses are noticeably sharper than equivalent EF-s lenses, so calling the M series "crippled" is a bit over the top. Are they 7D II style sports cameras, no, but for their intended purpose, they are very capable. If you owned an original M, maybe you should try and M5 or wait a couple of weeks and try and M5 II. I have a feeling the next generation will be much more capable.


----------



## BillB (Aug 15, 2019)

Stuart said:


> Why should an RF APS-c be a 1.6 Crop factor?


Economies of scale if the same sensor is used as the one used for EF-S and EF-M cameras.


----------



## caffetin (Aug 15, 2019)

it is comming for shure 7d3


----------



## masterpix (Aug 15, 2019)

And I ask again, WHY? the 7D series was as good as the 1Dx for those who could nto afford having the 1Dx. So why not make a 1Dx R camera? if one is made, than why anyone will settele for APCS one? Canon has the M seried for the APCS size sensor already. S


Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


And I ask once again, WHY?, the M series is a mirroeless APSC, the R is FF.Why make APSC R?


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 15, 2019)

definitely something I don't want to see..


----------



## canonnews (Aug 15, 2019)

masterpix said:


> And I ask again, WHY? the 7D series was as good as the 1Dx for those who could nto afford having the 1Dx. So why not make a 1Dx R camera? if one is made, than why anyone will settele for APCS one? Canon has the M seried for the APCS size sensor already. S
> 
> And I ask once again, WHY?, the M series is a mirroeless APSC, the R is FF.Why make APSC R?



the ONLY reason that a crop R would be beneficial is the following.

it's the cheapest way of going a high-density amount of pixels on a target for telephoto use cases shooting at comparable fps, and to use Canon RF lenses.

in other words. a 24MP or a 32MP APS-C crop will give you more density of pixels for a much cheaper cost than the equivalent pixel density on a full frame camera.

a 32MP APS-C camera may cost you 2K. a 82MP full frame camera that can do a 1.6x crop factor via software will give you the same APS-C 32MP crop factor, but cost considerably more - probably closer to 4K. Assuming it has a high speed crop or dual digics to handle the same fps.


----------



## flip314 (Aug 15, 2019)

I love how angry people always get at the thought of an APS-C R camera. For some reason it _deeply _offends certain people.


----------



## tron (Aug 15, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I assume that using an in-camera crop would yield more FPS, so you can choose between 4fps FF or 10fps c with rop. In that case I'd pick in-camera crop for some situations. But in general I agree, the later the crop, the better.


eeee hmmm Nikon D850 has 9fps capability at FF (45Mpixel)

Just saying...


----------



## BillB (Aug 15, 2019)

tron said:


> eeee hmmm Nikon D850 has 9fps capability at FF (45Mpixel)
> 
> Just saying...


Well, 9fps at 45Mpixel would scale to 5fps at 81Mpixel, but it would be over 12fps on a 32 Mpixel aps-c sensor.


----------



## addola (Aug 15, 2019)

BillB said:


> Economies of scale if the same sensor is used as the one used for EF-S and EF-M cameras.



That makes sense, but Canon has also used APS-H sensors before in some cameras (1.3x crop factor), and I believe they were not compatible with APS-C lenses.


----------



## Philrp (Aug 15, 2019)

The reasons I want An APS-C sensor equipped EOS R camera and why I've owned 7D's

1- Save money on the sensor, plus i like the crop factor for what I shoot.
2- I want a capable feature rich body. 7D was a crop 1DX IMHO, or close enough.
3- I do not want to buy inferior M lenses. I have L's on my crop body. Glass first!

Crossing my fingers.


----------



## tron (Aug 15, 2019)

BillB said:


> Well, 9fps at 45Mpixel would scale to 5fps at 81Mpixel, but it would be over 12fps on a 32 Mpixel aps-c sensor.


5fps at 81mp is more than very decent but that would be 8fos at 51mp for a fast EOS5DsRII. Of course I will not get that...


----------



## unfocused (Aug 15, 2019)

My 2-cents worth:

If such a camera materializes, I don't expect to see it until well after the mythical "R x" camera is released. Canon will want to have a sports oriented full frame camera on the market first because there 1) may be more demand for such a camera and 2) providing the professional market with a flagship EOS R has a lot of marketing benefits for Canon.

I'm just not sure if Canon will really want to muddy the waters with a single EOS R model that uses an APS-C sensor. Maybe they will, but to me it seems like it could cause a lot of confusion in the lines.

On the plus side, I don't think cost is the only consideration. Yes, you can always crop a high megapixel full frame image down when you are distance limited, but the other consideration when you are distance limited is the challenge of obtaining accurate focus. If you start with a 1.6 crop, the image in the viewfinder will be 1.6x larger and it's easier to focus accurately if you start with a higher magnification. 

Also, on the plus side, as others have said, are the processing benefits of starting with a smaller sensor -- easier to obtain fast frame rates, faster processing and less pressure on the buffer. 

More plus side: Since the R mount adapter accepts EF-S lenses, such a camera would be as versatile as the current 7DII, in that it could access wide angle and normal EF-S lenses. 

As I write this, I am thinking that we may be wrong in thinking of this as a 7D successor. It might be more accurate to think of it as an APS-C mirrorless successor to the Canon 1D IV. Perhaps Canon goes with a relatively conservative 28 mp sensor that allows for decent low light performance, makes it virtually identical in features to the "R x" but priced in the $2,500 range and markets it to both professional photographers seeking more reach for sports and high disposable income enthusiasts wanting the greatest reach possible for birds and wildlife.


----------



## jvillain (Aug 15, 2019)

I wish I knew why some people find it to be their mission in life to shite on people that use APS-C every time their is an APS-C story. I have APS-C and FF because I have different needs and my dick didn't get any bigger when I bought the FF like so may here seem to think happened to them. If Canon makes an APS-C camera with an R mount it won't mean the end of FF cameras. Seriously just get over yourselves already.


----------



## BillB (Aug 15, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> With the high MP sensors why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
> FF sensors seem to be coming down in price as well.
> Thus a 7D MIII performance when the new high MP FF is in crop mode for people who get off on birds and you also have the WA ability of a FF camera and the shallower depth of field some really like with the FF.
> Best of both worlds.
> Ooops, then you would not have to buy 2 cameras, how stupid of me.


Engineering an high fps crop mode into their next high megapixel camera may be more than Canon wants to deal with this time around. Canon may have decided that it would be simpler and faster to bring out an aps-c camera to get the high fps.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2019)

Got a crop camera and a FF camera.

The FF is better in poor light.
the crop has better AF
The FF has a better user interface
the crop is faster and tougher
The crop puts more pixels on distant objects
The FF is better for wide angles.
The crop is less expensive. 

The M? The ergonomics are terrible, but the price and size are fantastic!

I find the idea that one particular camera will be the best for everyone to be laughable. We all have different needs that depend on what we happen to be doing at the moment, and what we can afford. Just because someone else makes a different decision does not make them wrong, it just means that they have different criteria


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 15, 2019)

kiwiengr said:


> Why crop in camera when it is easy to crop in whatever software is used in computer. I would suggest the later cropping is done is better....



It depends on how it is done. I recall reading that (some? all?) Sony cameras offering APS-C output sample only the APS-C image area which, because of the smaller data output enables greater frame rate, whereas where Canon does this the whole sensor is used for the image and the image is cropped in the processor and as a result the frame rate cannot increase because the same amount of data is leaving the sensor. So you are correct in as much Canon makes no difference if you do it during capture or post capture, but the Sony implementation offers advantages.
HOWEVER, if Canon can follow Sony's lead they will have the same advantages as Sony.


----------



## BillB (Aug 15, 2019)

unfocused said:


> As I write this, I am thinking that we may be wrong in thinking of this as a 7D successor. It might be more accurate to think of it as an APS-C mirrorless successor to the Canon 1D IV. Perhaps Canon goes with a relatively conservative 28 mp sensor that allows for decent low light performance, makes it virtually identical in features to the "R x" but priced in the $2,500 range and markets it to both professional photographers seeking more reach for sports and high disposable income enthusiasts wanting the greatest reach possible for birds and wildlife.


My guess is that RF mount aps-c camera might well use the AF and processor technologies being developed for "Rx" model. If the rumors are correct though, Canon is about to role out a 32 Mpixel aps-c sensor that will be scaled up to the next FF high Mpixel sensor. This seems to me to be the most likely sensor for an RF mount aps-c camera. Canon might have decided to work with the Rx AF/processor technologies and the high megapixel densities at the aps-c level in a single camera before scaling them up to 2 separate FF cameras. Or maybe not. We could find out soon.


----------



## overniven (Aug 15, 2019)

I own two mirrorless cameras, the EOS RP and the EOS M5. I think it would be a real shame if the M system goes away. If Canon gets off their butts and puts out some cheaper/smaller glass for R, I won't care as much. 

I really like the size of the M5 and M6 kits with the 22mm and the 32mm, and so for the time being, I will find a use for the EOS M system until Canon Produces some smaller fun to use primes.


----------



## maves (Aug 16, 2019)

An APS-C RF camera makes about as much sense as a Sony a6000 series camera. It will sell heaps. They can throw out some variable aperture zooms, maybe a prime and those who use it will love it, and people can use the fancy new RF glass on it. 

People who make arguments like "a D850 or A7Riv can shoot crop at 24ish MP make a 7D equivalent R redundant" need to check their privilege. I would love either of those cameras but they are expensive pieces of kit for the few. If they work for you then all good, but many of us mere mortals will never own a new camera of that expense.

The 7D series is, and I expect it to continue to be an incredibly successful camera, on RF or EF mount. As many users here can attest, they work fantastically in unison with FF or as a budget friendly alternative to a high speed 1D series bodies.

The M mount is its own ecosystem, the fact that it can use EF lenses is a plus, but the majority of users buy it for its compact nature. It wasn't about mirrorlesss vs DSLR, it was about size. Think of it as a high end Powershot with the feature of some extra lenses (and I don't mean that as a slur). That being said, looking to the future, serious photographers who use EF-m for size and portability will probably be better catered for in the RF mount.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 16, 2019)

Amazing. This was bound to happen for the birders/wildlife aficionados. I can still remember the stomping of feet and holding of breath when everyone thought APS-C cameras were going to be gone (except for the M) and people would be forced to buy full frame... thus losing their "reach" of their telephoto lenses. Then a monster of an ASP-C camera was rumored to replace the 7D Mark II and 80D (merging the two lines) ... that we'd have a crappy 90D with a crappy plastic body. It was never going to be a 90D. Only in the forums was it called that. There were crazy good specs rumored and nobody could wrap their heads around it. It still remains to be seen what the final specs will be... but then the "Canon has to protect the IDX Mark II and would never let that happen" crowd will be sniping until then... as though the two cameras can't co-exist for two vastly different market segments.

Good on Canon for this.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 16, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> I just checked my EOS M and it has a mechanical shutter, from images of the EOS R I know that it has a mechanical shutter too so I am a little bit confused.
> Or do you mean "shutter closed while OFF"? That is a differentiator between EOS R and (EOS RF plus the rest).


The EOS R has both an actual mechanical shutter and also electronic shutter for different use cases.





Silent Shutter with the Canon EOS R Camera | Canon U.S.A., Inc.


Silent shutter with the Canon EOS R camera. Dive into the world of photography and explore Canon's collection of educational articles to inspire your creativity.




www.usa.canon.com


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 16, 2019)

stevewhitemd said:


> I don't see Canon doing an EOS 'RS' camera in which they fit an APS-C sensor into a full-size body. The savings on sensor manufacturing, compared to all the other costs of building, shipping and marketing such a camera, are modest -- you might be able to to an RS for $100 cheaper than an RP. Is that worth it? For $100, most folks would go FF and the RP.
> 
> Seriously: an RP is $1300 today. What is the maximum price at which you can sell an RS? What exactly do you 'save' in buying an RS with a smaller sensor? Further, what features do you remove to ensure that the RS doesn't stamp all over the RP? That's a favored Canon strategy, remember. I can hear people now complaining that the RS "doesn't do real 4K!!!!!" Cue the garment-rending.



Except that the birder wildlife folks want an actual high mega pixel camera that doesn't become a 12mp sensor when attaching an EF-S lens to an adapter on a FF RP. The APSC fans also prefer the ability to use the less expensive EF line for their tele lenses. I would imagine that RF equivalents will be monstrously more expensive. Two different markets, my friend. People buy what suits their needs. Many people prefer an APSC sensor for their use and would scoff at using a FF for their needs. Besides, an RP won't scream speed performance like this rumored APSC camera. The RP is very slow. The price of the two cameras _*could*_ be exactly the same price and they would each still have a market pool of buyers who have completely different needs... fast vs slow. Wildlife vs Portrait. The rumored camera will be an APSC speed demon for the crowd that wants and needs that and could never afford a 1DX Mark II or don't want FF no matter what. The RP would not be even on the checklist for those folks. This will keep the EF lens line alive and the system affordable.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 16, 2019)

I think one of the traditional arguments against there being an APSC EOS R was the assumption that there would have to be a native RF-S mount introduced for it (and it is genuinely hard to imagine that happening). But if they stick with RF (and the adaptor for EF and EF-S which would fit the crop), why is it unthinkable? Assuming there is new sensor tech coming (and I think most of us assume that and are waiting eagerly for the 90D specs), then why couldn't the APSC version of that sensor find its way into mirrorless RF mount cameras?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 16, 2019)

jvillain said:


> I wish I knew why some people find it to be their mission in life to shite on people that use APS-C every time their is an APS-C story. I have APS-C and FF because I have different needs and my dick didn't get any bigger when I bought the FF like so may here seem to think happened to them. If Canon makes an APS-C camera with an R mount it won't mean the end of FF cameras. Seriously just get over yourselves already.


I wish I knew why every time there is a crop vs ff thread both sides get so ridiculously defensive. 

I don't need to defend my equipment choices I buy them for what they do for me, nobody else needs to defend their choices either just don't try and pretend the differences aren't there. There are very good reasons to buy either or both, some shooting scenarios are better achieved with crop some with FF, but denying the differences is, by definition, living in denial...


----------



## unfocused (Aug 16, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ...The APSC fans also prefer the ability to use the less expensive EF line for their tele lenses. I would imagine that RF equivalents will be monstrously more expensive...



Why do you say that? The 24-105 is essentially the same price in EF as in RF. If they duplicate EF lenses, they will likely price them very similarly. I don't see 7D users being all that price sensitive when it comes to lenses. The 100-400 is probably the most popular lens on a 7DII and while it's not in the same category as the Big White Primes, it's not a cheap date for most people. 



CanonFanBoy said:


> ...The price of the two cameras _*could*_ be exactly the same price and they would each still have a market pool of buyers who have completely different needs... fast vs slow. Wildlife vs Portrait. The rumored camera will be an APSC speed demon for the crowd that wants and needs that and could never afford a 1DX Mark II or don't want FF no matter what. The RP would not be even on the checklist for those folks. This will keep the EF lens line alive and the system affordable.



If you are suggesting that a 7DII mirrorless would be similarly priced to the RP, I doubt it. It would definitely come in above the 90D, which probably means a minimum of $1,800. In fact, I would expect it to enter the market closer in price to the R at introduction. The target market for this body has a lot of disposable income. I would actually prefer that Canon give it the features that would justify a $2,000 to $2,500 initial price.

Of course, let's remember that at this stage we are talking about a unicorn.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 16, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> If you allow for optics inside, yes. A hollow tube like the EF-M-EF or RF-EF adaptor is not possible.


I am not sure how many M lenses have been sold or how many customers would make the migration to an RF mount. Canon might have a hard time justifying the R&d / manufacturing / support cost of adapting M lenses to the R depending on how many were sold and if it would make a difference in overall R adoption. They might be better served by providing some type of trade in program for M users. I really like the M5 as a form factor, but it needs a serious upgrade in processing speed and performance across the board - AF, buffer, throughput, etc. I have only one M lens (18 - 150) and use my EF lenses with adaptors. The 40mm pancake & 70-200 f4 L IS II are really nice on the camera. The 2.8 lenses are too heavy and bulky. I would love the M5 as a wildlife back if they could pack all the good stuff in such a small body. Wouldn't take up that much room in the bag beside my 1dx II.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 16, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Why do you say that? The 24-105 is essentially the same price in EF as in RF. If they duplicate EF lenses, they will likely price them very similarly. I don't see 7D users being all that price sensitive when it comes to lenses. The 100-400 is probably the most popular lens on a 7DII and while it's not in the same category as the Big White Primes, it's not a cheap date for most people.
> 
> If you are suggesting that a 7DII mirrorless would be similarly priced to the RP, I doubt it. It would definitely come in above the 90D, which probably means a minimum of $1,800. In fact, I would expect it to enter the market closer in price to the R at introduction. The target market for this body has a lot of disposable income. I would actually prefer that Canon give it the features that would justify a $2,000 to $2,500 initial price.
> 
> Of course, let's remember that at this stage we are talking about a unicorn.


Price is anyone's guess and what I wrote was a response to someone else who was saying, essentially, that the price had to be lower than the RP to be competitive with the RP. That is what the discussion is about. He couldn't understand how Canon could price it higher than the RP or what the point of an APSC beast. would be. It was he that suggested that the price would have to be lower than the RP. I was trying to explain to him that that may not be true because the market for the two cameras is completely different. My point was that even if the two cameras were priced exactly the same it wouldn't matter because the potential customers for those two cameras have completely different needs. In other words, market segmentation based on two completely different types of customers.

There won't be a 7D Mark III or 90 D. Those two lines are being merged. What is coming will be better than both.  

An RF 28-70mm f/2 is vastly more expensive than an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. But if that isn't a good enough comparison... just look at the difference in price between the still available EF 85 and RF 85.

As stated in the rumor, the new APSC camera will be EF mount. You mention the 24-105 (EF and RF) Both f/4. Neither are popular with the birding crowd like a 70-200 or what ever Canon produces for RF with a lower F/stop than f/2.8L.

So no. That is not even remotely what I was suggesting. You did see the specs a couple of weeks ago about what CR called a 90D, didn't you?

But ahhh... I got confused, I was thinking about this M beast. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...anon-eos-m6-mark-ii-specifications-cr1.37384/

Whose price will likely be lower than the RP.


----------



## PerKr (Aug 16, 2019)

tron said:


> eeee hmmm Nikon D850 has 9fps capability at FF (45Mpixel)
> 
> Just saying...



Meanwhile my A77 does 8fps (12fps in silly-feature-stripped-and-weirdly-limited-mode) and cost less than a third of the D850. Actually, I could buy a replacement for my A77ii and still have spent less on bodies than if I was to buy a D850, which I wouldn't buy anyway because it's just too much money, just like the A99ii.

There's good reason the 7D, 7Dmk2 and other high performance APS-C models existed. I fail to understand how people can fail to understand this.


----------



## dave61 (Aug 16, 2019)

codynpatterson said:


> We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore.


Do we? 

I have an EOS-R (replacing a 7D) for occasions/trips where I can take a full size camera and lenses. I also have an M (with lenses, etc) that fits into a pouch less than 4" x 3" x 2"; which is small enough to go in my briefcase on business trips to somewhere worth taking photos of.


----------



## tron (Aug 16, 2019)

PerKr said:


> Meanwhile my A77 does 8fps (12fps in silly-feature-stripped-and-weirdly-limited-mode) and cost less than a third of the D850. Actually, I could buy a replacement for my A77ii and still have spent less on bodies than if I was to buy a D850, which I wouldn't buy anyway because it's just too much money, just like the A99ii.
> 
> There's good reason the 7D, 7Dmk2 and other high performance APS-C models existed. I fail to understand how people can fail to understand this.


What gives you the idea that people fail to understand it? My 7DII is just fine (and I would like a 7DIII). But we should have the option to get an opton with more fps in FF just like Nikon D850. My 5DsR is mostly used at 3fps so as to take advantage of the silent mode shutter but I would welcome a 5DsR II with a big buffer and 8fps option.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 16, 2019)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Canon doesn't need to launch RF-S lenses, but they can launch a range of cheaper RF lenses tailored for RF-S usage such that, for example, an RF 18-55 would perform very well as an APS-C standard lens, but on a full-frame body would work as an average at best wide angle zoom. They could make a cheaper lens that mostly covers the FF sensor and rely on digital corrections to compensate for many of the optical shortcomings of the lens (as they're doing in the RF 24-240 by all accounts).

Full frame lenses CAN be made small and compact if you're willing to compromise. Look at all the old EF kit lenses for the 35mm film cameras, things like the EF 28-80. Not much bigger than the EF-S 18-55. 

This way all RF lenses will work with all RF bodies.


----------



## motofotog (Aug 16, 2019)

Why not Canon use APS-H sensor in the mirrorless camera?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2019)

dave61 said:


> I have an EOS-R (replacing a 7D) for occasions/trips where I can take a full size camera and lenses. I also have an M (with lenses, etc) that fits into a pouch less than 4" x 3" x 2"; which is small enough to go in my briefcase on business trips to somewhere worth taking photos of.


Agreed! My 1D X remains my go-to body for local use, but I have the EOS R for travel and the M6 when space is at a premium, e.g. an overnight trip to London where I took just the M, M11-22 and a Gorillapod:


----------



## BillB (Aug 16, 2019)

If Canon does roll out a crop camera with an RF mount, what RF lenses would they need to make for it?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 16, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> With the high MP sensors why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
> FF sensors seem to be coming down in price as well.
> Thus a 7D MIII performance when the new high MP FF is in crop mode for people who get off on birds and you also have the WA ability of a FF camera and the shallower depth of field some really like with the FF.
> Best of both worlds.
> Ooops, then you would not have to buy 2 cameras, how stupid of me.



Easy, cost. Not every one can spend $3K+ on a 50MP+ FF camera. It's why we have APS-C.


----------



## ThomsA (Aug 16, 2019)

BillB said:


> If Canon does roll out a crop camera with an RF mount, what RF lenses would they need to make for it?



Good question. Maybe none for the next two years - I could imagine a lot of of people would happily use the EF (and EF-S) lenses they already possess.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 16, 2019)

I had expected an EOS-R APS-C.
I think its a good model to sell alot of 70-200 and 100-400 RF Lens (When they are available)
High frame rate (>10 FPS) should be achievable with such a camera.
I'd prefer a high frame rate Full Frame with cropping capability so that you could see what you are getting through the eyepiece. I would have thought it was one of the advantages mirrorless would bring.
I would have originally thought the EOS M would disappear into obscurity but it seems very popular and Canon still seem to be developing it.
I wouldn't invest in EOS M at this stage as I have too many mounts already..
I think all future lens investments I make will be in EOS R lens as soon as a EOS R camera that suits me comes out.
I'd love to see Canon Lens sales figures and whether there is a slowdown in sales of L lens and R lens combined due to people like me who are waiting for the new EOS R cameras to see if they move to EOS R or persist with EF.
I'd certainly consider an EOS-R APS-C if its a step improvement on my aging 7DII.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 16, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Easy, cost. Not every one can spend $3K+ on a 50MP+ FF camera. It's why we have APS-C.



The 50mp is not the driving cost.
It is the status symbol which is not status anymore as it is becoming the norm than the cutting edge.
Again, if Canon wanted to crank out $800.00 FF 50 mp cameras they could and still make an excellent profit.
How much of features seem to be software related vs hardware anymore?


----------



## photonius (Aug 16, 2019)

kiwiengr said:


> Why crop in camera when it is easy to crop in whatever software is used in computer. I would suggest the later cropping is done is better....



The lenses mainly, not the body. Compare size/weight APS-C lenses with corresponding FF lenses. (e.g. EF-S 10-24 versus EF 16-35)
But in principle you are right. One still could use the FF camera body, as long as one has small lightweight lenses, even if they don't cover the FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> The 50mp is not the driving cost.
> It is the status symbol which is not status anymore as it is *becoming the norm* than the cutting edge.


Given that APS-C sales vastly outnumber FF sales, I’m not sure how you conclude that FF is ‘becoming the norm’. Likewise for 50+ MP, of which there are just three such ILCs on the market (not counting medium format).


----------



## slclick (Aug 16, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I wish I knew why every time there is a crop vs ff thread both sides get so ridiculously defensive.
> 
> I don't need to defend my equipment choices I buy them for what they do for me, nobody else needs to defend their choices either just don't try and pretend the differences aren't there. There are very good reasons to buy either or both, some shooting scenarios are better achieved with crop some with FF, but denying the differences is, by definition, living in denial...


It most def brings up a 'Why can't we all just get along' thing for me. Some folks here act like it's a cyclist vs driver forum.


----------



## slclick (Aug 16, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> The 50mp is not the driving cost.
> It is the status symbol which is not status anymore as it is becoming the norm than the cutting edge.
> Again, if Canon wanted to crank out $800.00 FF 50 mp cameras they could and still make an excellent profit.
> How much of features seem to be software related vs hardware anymore?


You have got to look beyond your circle for perspective. We need a new acronym for how forumites are a tiny % of camera sales and gear usage.

I read things here like "I went on a walk in a touristy area and saw 7 FF cameras 2 crop and 3 M43, it must mean that most people are now shooting with FF, I am writing Canon for them to end the EF-M production since no one is buying them any longer."


----------



## sanj (Aug 16, 2019)

Nice. If they come out with cheaper, lighter lenses for this camera. Superb.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 16, 2019)

slclick said:


> It most def brings up a 'Why can't we all just get along' thing for me. Some folks here act like it's a cyclist vs driver forum.


Its hilarious and such a wide ranging phenomena, I just bought a tractor and was looking for reviews and forums that could offer user insight into something I just don't know anything about, holly cow, don't ask about a Kubota in a John Deere forum, or visa versa. 

Tribalism seems to be the new lifestyle and it trumps (small T, not a political comment) functionality or capability of the product or user, now we have more information than ever it seems to have less value as people just can't get over that tribalism...


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 16, 2019)

I think the sweet thing with an RF mount crop sensor with no RF-S lenses is that Canon may be incentivized to make more full-frame wide angle lenses to sell to the people with crop sensors. Note that the 15-35mm f/2.8L IS is a 24-56mm f/2.8L IS on a crop sensor, which is a pretty sweet high quality lens with IS and equivalent to almost a 24-70 IS for a crop. I would have definitely preferred that to the 17-55mm F/2.8 IS I had back in my crop sensor days.

I could also see Canon making something like a cheap RF 15-45mm F/5.6-6.3 IS with full frame coverage that could serve as a cheap kit lens for crop cameras as well as a cheap, compact wide angle option for full-frame cameras.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 16, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Its hilarious and such a wide ranging phenomena, I just bought a tractor and was looking for reviews and forums that could offer user insight into something I just don't know anything about, holly cow, don't ask about a Kubota in a John Deere forum, or visa versa.
> 
> Tribalism seems to be the new lifestyle and it trumps (small T, not a political comment) functionality or capability of the product or user, now we have more information than ever it seems to have less value as people just can't get over that tribalism...



John Deere is the extreme example. If there was a picture by "brand loyalty" in the dictionary it would be a JD tractor. It was that way a long time before the internet was invented. Nikon vs Canon is a mild debate compared to tractors.

FYI when buying a tractor you are making a long term investment. Tractors are pretty much equal, JD's advantage is resale in the long term.


----------



## serhatakbal (Aug 16, 2019)

what makes me curious, 1dx mk3 how to prepare for this pixel and sensor war


----------



## Philrp (Aug 16, 2019)

My hope is that the August announcements will be 3 APS-C cameras

- 90D or whatever they call it, the 80d 7d merge
- EOS M6 or M5
- EOS R camera with APS-C

These all can be the same camera in difference boxes with a marketing angle for each.

From there, Canon can judge which way consumers are leaning through the holiday season.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 16, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> I think the sweet thing with an RF mount crop sensor with no RF-S lenses is that Canon may be incentivized to make more full-frame wide angle lenses to sell to the people with crop sensors. Note that the 15-35mm f/2.8L IS is a 24-56mm f/2.8L IS on a crop sensor, which is a pretty sweet high quality lens with IS and equivalent to almost a 24-70 IS for a crop. I would have definitely preferred that to the 17-55mm F/2.8 IS I had back in my crop sensor days.


You'd rather be forced into buying a $3K 15-35 2.8L for a "normal" lens that will take larger filters, be heavier, and large, versus a 900-$1200 normal lens that was designed for the crop factor?


----------



## canonnews (Aug 16, 2019)

Philrp said:


> My hope is that the August announcements will be 3 APS-C cameras
> 
> - 90D or whatever they call it, the 80d 7d merge
> - EOS M6 or M5
> ...



These august announcements are a bit odd.

- M6 II instead of an M5 II.
- 90D which could never be a merge of the 7D and 80D without making someone very unhappy, so it will be some Frankensteinian combination of the two cameras.

It's a bit of curiosity to see what Canon has in mind for the 90D especially with the sensor. However, the real fun will be next February. 

Also, this CR1 rumor is that Canon is _considering it._ Not that they are actively developing it. Don't get your hopes up.


----------



## snoke (Aug 16, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> FYI when buying a tractor you are making a long term investment. Tractors are pretty much equal, JD's advantage is resale in the long term.



FYI when buying a camera you are making a long term investment. Cameras are pretty much equal, Canon's advantage is resale in the long term.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 16, 2019)

snoke said:


> FYI when buying a camera you are making a long term investment. Cameras are pretty much equal, Canon's advantage is resale in the long term.



That is laughable. Price the John Deere tractors from the 70's. A tractor that old in good shape is still functional and relevant for its use. My 2008 JD I can sell for 80% of what I paid. 

Camera bodies are technology items. The 5D II I paid $2500 for 10 years ago I can get around $500 for. Maybe you meant glass is an long term investment but who here is using 45 year old Canon glass.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 16, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> John Deere is the extreme example. If there was a picture by "brand loyalty" in the dictionary it would be a JD tractor. It was that way a long time before the internet was invented. Nikon vs Canon is a mild debate compared to tractors.
> 
> FYI when buying a tractor you are making a long term investment. Tractors are pretty much equal, JD's advantage is resale in the long term.


I ended up with a 1025R TLB with drive over deck mower, I only have 5 acres but maintain an additional few thousand feet of horse paths as well. I got a very good deal on a 2016 trade in with 300 hours and am very happy with it. The features people point out as class leading really are, the almost hands free implement attach/detach is easy enough that my wife is happy to do it.

I actually got it from a dealer who has John Deere and Kubotas and Massey, Mahindra and Ford's they took as PX's for you to try and actually compare yourself. They don't care which you buy they just want you to be a long term customer, the B&H of tractor dealers!

Ok back to Canon/Sony wars


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 16, 2019)

slclick said:


> You have got to look beyond your circle for perspective. We need a new acronym for how forumites are a tiny % of camera sales and gear usage.
> 
> I read things here like "I went on a walk in a touristy area and saw 7 FF cameras 2 crop and 3 M43, it must mean that most people are now shooting with FF, I am writing Canon for them to end the EF-M production since no one is buying them any longer."



That is what the APSC M is for. Small and easy to carry. Performance can be excellent for the M cameras.
The R is NOT small though and will carry huge heavy lenses.
Once M has IBIS I am getting it.
Both R and M need IBIS then I will upgrade to one of each.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 16, 2019)

takesome1 said:


> That is laughable. Price the John Deere tractors from the 70's. A tractor that old in good shape is still functional and relevant for its use. My 2008 JD I can sell for 80% of what I paid.
> 
> Camera bodies are technology items. The 5D II I paid $2500 for 10 years ago I can get around $500 for. Maybe you meant glass is an long term investment but who here is using 45 year old Canon glass.



I am. I have Canon lenses dating to 1959. And they are still being used.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 16, 2019)

A RP is 3,888 x 2,592 pixels in crop mode, which is 10.08 megapixels. Slightly smaller than the 10.1 megapixels of my 40D. I could use my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, with the EF-RF adapter, on a FF RP. But I preffer a crop camera. If Canon made an RP-Crop, I'd be first in line to order one. If not a referbished 80D will be just fine.


----------



## SaP34US (Aug 16, 2019)

If they do eventually make crop RF camera it probably won't be until at least 2021. Since they have to bring the pro Rx cameras and maybe another RP.


----------



## FredEOS (Aug 16, 2019)

Philrp said:


> My hope is that the August announcements will be 3 APS-C cameras
> 
> - 90D or whatever they call it, the 80d 7d merge
> - EOS M6 or M5
> ...


I don't think Canon will ever release 3 (identical) cameras at the same time! Rumors are for sure converging to one APS-C mirrorless camera for hobbyists to replace 80D/M5/7D, and if you look at Canon's actual lineup and recent releases, it is clear to me that we are talking about a R (with RF mount) or a M model.
Also all the announced lenses are R and M.
I would be very surprised to see any new xD or xxD model in the future.


----------



## masterpix (Aug 16, 2019)

canonnews said:


> the ONLY reason that a crop R would be beneficial is the following.
> 
> it's the cheapest way of going a high-density amount of pixels on a target for telephoto use cases shooting at comparable fps, and to use Canon RF lenses.
> 
> ...



When I take a picture I place the object in the way that the object fills a certain area in the frame, it can be a crop sensor or a FF sensor, the onject will fill the SAME area of the frame. It can be crop 30MP or FF 30MP image, the size or pixel density of the sensor is irrelevant to the picture I am taking. Crop sensors, for having higher pixel density, lack the dynamic range available by FF lowerr density (and larger pixel size on the sensor). Other benefits you mentioned. 

If you look at the price of the RF camera, the price of FF sensors are not as high as they used to be. And to be honest, my 7D has 18MP sensor, I make 100*150cm size enlargments without any problems. The only reason to replace it with a newer model is to have DPAF, GPS and the possibility for on sensor multiple exposures.


----------



## Tangent (Aug 16, 2019)

FredEOS said:


> I don't think Canon will ever release 3 (identical) cameras at the same time! Rumors are for sure converging to one APS-C mirrorless camera for hobbyists to replace 80D/M5/7D, and if you look at Canon's actual lineup and recent releases, it is clear to me that we are talking about a R (with RF mount) or a M model.
> Also all the announced lenses are R and M.
> I would be very surprised to see any new xD or xxD model in the future.


----------



## Tangent (Aug 16, 2019)

One camera for the M5, 80D, and 7DmkII replacements?

Okay, I'll offer up a wild theory just for grins: a dual-mount mirrorless body. The base model has an M-mount -- but it is removable; the body will accept a R-mount flange assembly as well. With the R-mount platform in place you can use the R / EF adapter. So this one camera -- with two interchangeable mount flange platforms -- will accept any lens in the EF / RF / EF-S / M universe.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Aug 16, 2019)

Tangent said:


> One camera for the M5, 80D, and 7DmkII replacements?
> 
> Okay, I'll offer up a wild theory just for grins: a dual-mount mirrorless body. The base model has an M-mount -- but it is removable; the body will accept a R-mount flange assembly as well. With the R-mount platform in place you can use the R / EF adapter. So this one camera -- with two interchangeable mount flange platforms -- will accept any lens in the EF / RF / EF-S / M universe.



That would add too many complications and tolerances to worry about. The M is a consumer line, Canon would not add such a complexity


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed! My 1D X remains my go-to body for local use, but I have the EOS R for travel and the M6 when space is at a premium, e.g. an overnight trip to London where I took just the M, M11-22 and a Gorillapod:


Beautiful photo Neuro. Surely not an M. Must be a Sony.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 16, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> The 50mp is not the driving cost.
> It is the status symbol which is not status anymore as it is becoming the norm than the cutting edge.
> Again, if Canon wanted to crank out $800.00 FF 50 mp cameras they could and still make an excellent profit.
> How much of features seem to be software related vs hardware anymore?


And you know they'd make a profit on that how? Nobody outside Canon knows the profit margins.


----------



## canonnews (Aug 16, 2019)

masterpix said:


> When I take a picture I place the object in the way that the object fills a certain area in the frame, it can be a crop sensor or a FF sensor, the onject will fill the SAME area of the frame.


the only way what you describe would happen is if your full-frame camera has an actual focal length of 1.6x that of the crop camera which isn't a real comparison, especially when you get up to telephotos where the difference between a 300mm telephoto and a 500mm telephoto is a significant cost.
or even using a 100-400mm in a crop, versus being forced to either take a IQ hit using a teleconvertor, or lay out the big bucks for a 600mm.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 16, 2019)

masterpix said:


> When I take a picture I place the object in the way that the object fills a certain area in the frame, it can be a crop sensor or a FF sensor, the onject will fill the SAME area of the frame. It can be crop 30MP or FF 30MP image, the size or pixel density of the sensor is irrelevant to the picture I am taking.


That is simply not true unless you stand in the same place and use a lens 1.6 times the focal length of the crop camera on the ff camera and the crop camera has an aperture 1.6 times faster than the ff camera, which often isn't a combination actually made.

The pixel density might be irrelevant to the picture you are taking but if you want two pictures to look identical from two different sensor sized cameras then you have to do all kinds of mathematics to achieve it.

I did this illustration years ago for another thread... The pixel density is irrelevant, the lens, aperture, iso and sensor size are not.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> That is simply not true unless you stand in the same place and use a lens 1.6 times the focal length of the crop camera on the ff camera and the crop camera has an aperture 1.6 times faster than the ff camera, which often isn't a combination actually made.
> 
> The pixel density might be irrelevant to the picture you are taking but if you want two pictures to look identical from two different sensor sized cameras then you have to do all kinds of mathematics to achieve it.
> 
> ...


I always learn a little from you, sir. Enjoy your educational posts.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 17, 2019)

masterpix said:


> When I take a picture I place the object in the way that the object fills a certain area in the frame, it can be a crop sensor or a FF sensor, the onject will fill the SAME area of the frame.



For me, the problem is distance to the subject. Wildlife runs or flies away when you get too close (usually), and for many subjects it is hard to get closer. With grizzly bears I don’t want to get closer! 

I just shot some pictures of the moon and climbing onto the roof of my house does not get me significantly closer. Tomorrow morning I am shooting a race, and they really frown upon you setting up in the middle of the race course.

Personally, I would love to see a 40 of 50 megapixel crop sensor. A lower pixel count FF and a high pixel count crop camera would make a great combo for me.


----------



## masterpix (Aug 17, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> For me, the problem is distance to the subject. Wildlife runs or flies away when you get too close (usually), and for many subjects it is hard to get closer. With grizzly bears I don’t want to get closer!
> 
> I just shot some pictures of the moon and climbing onto the roof of my house does not get me significantly closer. Tomorrow morning I am shooting a race, and they really frown upon you setting up in the middle of the race course.
> 
> Personally, I would love to see a 40 of 50 megapixel crop sensor. A lower pixel count FF and a high pixel count crop camera would make a great combo for me.


So, taking the 7DII and the 5Ds(r), they have the same pixel density, and to be true, if I could buy the 5Ds I would go for it for another reason (if wild life was my main concern) cause now the object has more "room" to move int eh frame wihtough loosing the "crop sized) frame that the object is in. right now one can get the 50MP 5Ds/r for about the price of the 7DII (or a bit more)


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 17, 2019)

masterpix said:


> So, taking the 7DII and the 5Ds(r), they have the same pixel density, and to be true, if I could buy the 5Ds I would go for it for another reason (if wild life was my main concern) cause now the object has more "room" to move int eh frame wihtough loosing the "crop sized) frame that the object is in. right now one can get the 50MP 5Ds/r for about the price of the 7DII (or a bit more)


Quite true! That camera is a fantastic deal now.

When the price dropped like that, my first thought was that there must be a new camera coming with a monstrous pixel count, at least 75 megapixels


----------



## tron (Aug 17, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Quite true! That camera is a fantastic deal now.
> 
> When the price dropped like that, my first thought was that there must be a new camera coming with a monstrous pixel count, at least 75 megapixels


I got a 5DsR to keep company to my older ... 5DsR due to the good price. It seems that the new camera will be a mirrorless one which doesn't suit me for birding. In the improbable case that they will introduce a 5DsRII I will try to sell one of the two...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 17, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Got a crop camera and a FF camera.
> 
> The FF is better in poor light.
> the crop has better AF
> ...


I have a crop camera and a ff camera.

The FF is better in poor light.
The FF has better AF
The FF has a better user interface
The FF is faster and tougher
The FF is better for wide angles
The FF gives me more depth of field control
The FF battery life is vasty better
I can reproduce the FF image much larger (or crop into it, which is the same thing)
The crop is less expensive
The crop is considerably less conspicuous
The crop is a pleasure to take when photography is not the raison d'être of whatever I am doing
The crop is much easier to output wirelessly to printers, phones, iPads and the like
The crop puts more pixels on distant objects but I'd never use it in a focal length limited situation because it wouldn't balance as nicely with the longer lenses I have and the AF is nowhere near as good

The M? The ergonomics the price and size are fantastic!

I find the idea that one particular camera will be the best for everyone to be laughable. We all have different needs that depends on what we happen to be doing at the moment, and what we can afford. Just because someone else makes a different decision does not make them wrong, it just means that they have different criteria.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And you know they'd make a profit on that how? Nobody outside Canon knows the profit margins.



Just as well as the naysayers make all kinds of pronouncements. Look at the cost of the FF RP. Is that a loss leader? 5DSR is now selling for $2,000 less than it was.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 17, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Just as well as the naysayers make all kinds of pronouncements. Look at the cost of the FF RP. Is that a loss leader? 5DSR is now selling for $2,000 less than it was.


Um, 5DSR is on the way out and getting ready to be replaced... kinda like last year's model car being replaced with this year's. Overhead costs money.

Is the RP a loss leader? You tell me. What is the profit margin? Is there a profit margin? Or will the money be made on lenses? Kinda like printers. The fact is you made an uneducated statement that has no supporting data that you have any personal knowledge of. None.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 17, 2019)

masterpix said:


> right now one can get the 50MP 5Ds/r for about the price of the 7DII (or a bit more)



The current price on the 5Ds/5DsR blows my mind. The IQ is phenomenal yet the 5Ds is often on sale (gray market) on eBay for the price of upper tier crop cameras. If your goal is ultimate stills IQ in 35mm format there are only a handful of models to choose from, and the 5Ds is half or less of the price of the competition.

Ken Rockwell mentioned them recently on his site because someone asked if they were still relevant. He says so many things moment-to-moment it's hard to be sure what he does, but he claimed that he grabs his 5DsR for any personal work because of the IQ.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 18, 2019)

Great.

I just switched from full-frame (5D) to crop (7D Mark II), sold all but one of my full-frame lenses (Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye, 24-105/4L, 35/1.4L, 85/1.8, 17-40L, kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II) and bought 3 EF-s lenses (10-18STM, 18-135nano-USM, 55-250STM), one Sigma crop lens (18-35/1.8) and a bunch of different full-frame lenses targeted at my crop camera (8-15/4L fisheye, 50/1.8STM, Sigma 150-600C) and I've never been happier.

Now, EF-s has been abandoned, the 7D line looks to have been abandoned, and mirrorless cameras (which absolutely suck, in my opinion, due to the EVFs) are sucking up all the development money.

All I want is an updated 7D with more pixels (I'm often focal-length-limited even with the 150-600), a better sensor, better video (I'm especially interested in low-resolution high frame-rate, windowed zooming and electronic stabilization in video modes) and some more AF upgrades. And it looks like that's never going to happen.

I guess all I can hope for is that EVFs suddenly become tolerable and my EF-s lenses will work on one of them with a high pixel density (even 61MP full-frame is the same as the 80D as far as pixel density goes).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I have a crop camera and a ff camera.
> 
> The FF is better in poor light.
> The FF has better AF
> ...



This is probably relevant to your particular camera models, but only a couple of points I highlighted in bold are relevant to the actual "FF vs crop" difference.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 18, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> I just switched from full-frame (5D) to crop (7D Mark II), sold all but one of my full-frame lenses (Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye, 24-105/4L, 35/1.4L, 85/1.8, 17-40L, kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II) and bought 3 EF-s lenses (10-18STM, 18-135nano-USM, 55-250STM), one Sigma crop lens (18-35/1.8) and a bunch of different full-frame lenses targeted at my crop camera (8-15/4L fisheye, 50/1.8STM, Sigma 150-600C) and I've never been happier.
> 
> Now, EF-s has been abandoned, the 7D line looks to have been abandoned, and mirrorless cameras (which absolutely suck, in my opinion, due to the EVFs) are sucking up all the development money.



So the lesson is, never downgrade to an abandoned tech? I think you'll still be able to use your EFS lenses on an RF body with an adapter in crop mode, but that's not ideal. That is when your current 7D is completely worn off and you're forced to upgrade the body.

I got rid of all my EF-S lenses a while ago, now I'm not so sure even about my EF lenses. But current Canon FF mirrorless offerings aren't tempting at all. The best strategy for me is to not buy anything at the moment and wait.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> So the lesson is, never downgrade to an abandoned tech?



I didn't downgrade, I upgraded.

The new system, which I bought in March of 2015, is better in every way than the old system.



> I think you'll still be able to use your EFS lenses on an RF body with an adapter in crop mode, but that's not ideal. That is when your current 7D is completely worn off and you're forced to upgrade the body.



At the moment, I can't imagine a mirrorless camera ever being an "upgrade" over an SLR. Not with the current state of EVFs.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 18, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> I didn't downgrade, I upgraded.
> 
> The new system, which I bought in March of 2015, is better in every way than the old system.



With the body, if you changed an original 5D to 7D, it was an upgrade. But I'm not so sure about the lenses. From your list, "10-18STM, 18-135nano-USM, 55-250STM" are not adequate replacements for the EF ones you sold. You had EF L lenses and changed them to lower-end EFS ones. 

I worked with EFS 10-18, 18-135, 18-200, 17-55. Only the famous EFS 17-55 was comparable to good EF L lenses. It's not on your list though.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> This is probably relevant to your particular camera models, but only a couple of points I highlighted in bold are relevant to the actual "FF vs crop" difference.


You can’t argue FF image quality isn’t better in low light, nor that I can reproduce the FF image much larger (or crop into it, which is the same thing), they are both intrinsic characteristics of larger sensors of the same generation.

My post was in reply to Don’s post with a similar list, the point was we choose the cameras that have the features we need them to have, for some that is a 7D MkII and a 5D MkI, for others it is a 1DX MkII and an M5, or a 5DSr and an 80D, it doesn’t matter, we aren’t ‘wrong’ for choosing the feature set that suits us even if others may not agree with that choice for themselves.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> You can’t argue FF image quality isn’t better in low light, nor that I can reproduce the FF image much larger (or crop into it, which is the same thing), they are both intrinsic characteristics of larger sensors.



The size of the sensor has nothing to do with the low light performance. The pixel size has and more technical stuff like analog noise, well capacity etc.
The room for cropping is also a characteristic of the resolution, not the sensor size. Images from Canon 80D have more room for cropping than 5DMkI. Also it has a better low light performance.

Given the very same pixel size and pixel density, yes, FF sensor is better than a crop sensor.



privatebydesign said:


> My post was in reply to Don’s post with a similar list, the point was we choose the cameras that have the features we need them to have, for some that is a 7D MkII and a 5D MkI, for others it is a 1DX MkII and an M5, or a 5DSr and an 80D, it doesn’t matter, we aren’t ‘wrong’ for choosing the feature set that suits us even if others may not agree with that choice for themselves.



That's absolutely right, just don't use wrong criteria for choosing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The size of the sensor has nothing to do with the low light performance. The pixel size has and more technical stuff like analog noise, well capacity etc.
> The room for cropping is also a characteristic of the resolution, not the sensor size. Images from Canon 80D have more room for cropping than 5DMkI. Also it has a better low light performance.
> 
> Given the very same pixel size and pixel density, yes, FF sensor is better than a crop sensor.



Whilst on a technical level you might have a point the truth is on same generation sensors the technology in the cameras we are actually talking about is close enough to the same so the bigger sensor wins every time. So to your first point that is not what is seen in practice, FF sensors are better than same generation crop sensors irrespective of pixel density in low light. Just look through the studio comparisons at DPR to prove that.

To your second point, you are 100% wrong, pixel numbers do not factor into enlargement/reproduction ratio calculations. Comparing a 7D MkII and 5D is fallacious, compare the cropping capability of the 5D with that of the contemporary 20D and you are looking at a fair and relevant comparison. Ever wonder why circle of confusion figures and depth of field calculations don’t take the pixel density into account? It’s because pixel density is irrelevant in magnification within the practical numbers of MP we now get in cameras.

To your third point, again you are wrong, given the same pixel density and size a crop camera is at no disadvantage to the FF sensor and has specific benefits in practical shooting applications over the FF sensor in focal length limited scenarios.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The size of the sensor has nothing to do with the low light performance.



It is the dominant factor in low light performance. So much so that FF from a generation or two prior will still typically match or out perform the latest crop sensors. Pixel density...at the densities we've seen this decade in ILC cameras...has virtually nothing to do with low light performance. (This isn't even surprising. It's what you would expect when it comes to low light.)



> The room for cropping is also a characteristic of the resolution, not the sensor size. Images from Canon 80D have more room for cropping than 5DMkI. Also it has a better low light performance.



Given identical sensor resolution, a larger sensor will handle cropping slightly better due to the sharpness advantage. But for all practical purposes I would agree that resolution is the dominant factor in cropping and a higher resolution APS-C sensor can handle more cropping than a lower resolution FF.

But have to disagree on low light. The 80D may match or beat a 5D in low light, but it's worse than a 5D mark II (see sample RAWs at DPReview). Again, sensor size is dominant in low light.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Given identical sensor resolution, a larger sensor will handle cropping slightly better due to the sharpness advantage. But for all practical purposes I would agree that resolution is the dominant factor in cropping and a higher resolution APS-C sensor can handle more cropping than a lower resolution FF.



That doesn’t make sense. If a FF camera sensor is 2.6 times the area of a crop camera sensor I can crop the FF camera that much and it be essentially the same as the crop camera image, ergo I can crop the FF camera much more, or more relevantly to my original point, I can enlarge the FF image much more than the crop camera.

I did extensive testing, that I posted here back in the day, with the 7D and 1DS MkIII and found pixel density to be so small an advantage that it needed absolutely perfect conditions for it to be even visible under extreme magnifications and the only situation where that possible advantage could be realized in a cropping scenario is if you are focal length limited. Certainly in situations where you are not focal length limited it is indisputable that you can crop a FF sensor more or print it much bigger.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> That doesn’t make sense. If a FF camera sensor is 2.6 times the area of a crop camera sensor I can crop the FF camera that much and it be essentially the same as the crop camera image,



It's not the same unless the pixel density is the same. Remember that the image projected onto the sensor is ultimately sampled to a digital file. If the total sensor resolution is the same (lower pixel density on the FF) then when you crop you will end up with a lower resolution file.



> ergo I can crop the FF camera much more, or more relevantly to my original point, I can enlarge the FF image much more than the crop camera.



Resolution (sensor sampling frequency) is dominant in enlargements. A 24mp APS-C sensor will print larger than a 12mp FF. Given identical sensor resolution the FF will enlarge slightly better (sharpness advantage), but after post processing this typically isn't visible at low ISO. Given identical pixel density (FF at higher total resolution) FF can certainly print larger.



> I did extensive testing, that I posted here back in the day, with the 7D and 1DS MkIII and found pixel density to be so small an advantage that it needed absolutely perfect conditions for it to be even visible under extreme magnifications and the only situation where that possible advantage could be realized in a cropping scenario is if you are focal length limited.



My experience back then was that you could crop FF to match a further-cropped APS-C file off a 7D and have comparable IQ...right up until the moment you couldn't. There was a point where the FF file just became too small, with too low of a ppi on the print, to keep up and the 7D's pixel density absolutely was an advantage.



> Certainly in situations where you are not focal length limited it is indisputable that you can crop a FF sensor more or print it much bigger.



Many people would dispute that if you're talking about identical _total sensor resolution_. Now if _pixel density_ is the same resulting in FF having a higher resolution, then yes, you can enlarge the FF file more. And crop more if you're starting with the full file from both cameras, as opposed to starting with the APS-C center of the FF camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2019)

I disagree and have posted many examples to support this. I have printed hundreds of prints for dozens of photographers and in my experience sensor size is more important than pixel numbers when printing big, which is basically the same as cropping. Certainly any advantage that might be found in perfect conditions specifically in focal length limited situations pales to insignificance for most users most of the time,.

On a very practical level an 80D will not print as large as a 1DX MkII, well not to my or the photographers I print for eyes.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Whilst on a technical level you might have a point the truth is on same generation sensors the technology in the cameras we are actually talking about is close enough to the same so the bigger sensor wins every time. So to your first point that is not what is seen in practice, FF sensors are better than same generation crop sensors irrespective of pixel density in low light. Just look through the studio comparisons at DPR to prove that.



That's what I acknowledged from the beginning. For the sensors with the same pixel size, a FF sensor is definitely better than a crop one. But in general your statement was incorrect. Simply being an FF doesn't make the sensor better.



privatebydesign said:


> To your second point, you are 100% wrong, pixel numbers do not factor into enlargement/reproduction ratio calculations.



Errm how is it so? The final image resolution is what matters for the postproduction cropping. Again, 80D's resolution is better for cropping than 5D, 5DII and even 5DIII's, that's simply a mathematical truth.



privatebydesign said:


> Comparing a 7D MkII and 5D is fallacious, compare the cropping capability of the 5D with that of the contemporary 20D and you are looking at a fair and relevant comparison.



It's not fallacious for the purposes of this argument. Your statement was that FF sensors are better, but in general this statement is wrong, there's so many examples of crop sensors being better than FF - better in terms of low light, resolution, dynamic range etc.



privatebydesign said:


> Ever wonder why circle of confusion figures and depth of field calculations don’t take the pixel density into account? It’s because pixel density is irrelevant in magnification within the practical numbers of MP we now get in cameras.



Given the same pixel density, the circle of confusion will affect the very same amount of pixels on FF and crop sensors. With the same pixel density, the only advantage FF has is the higher resolution, but the sharpness will be exactly the same, if the same lens is used. 



privatebydesign said:


> To your third point, again you are wrong, given the same pixel density and size a crop camera is at no disadvantage to the FF sensor and has specific benefits in practical shooting applications over the FF sensor in focal length limited scenarios.



Given the same pixel density and same tech, just different sensor size, FF is definitely better. More expensive, yes, but better in all regards. I'm not sure what you mean by 'focal length limiting scenarios'. If you put the very same say 200mm lens on a crop sensor and compare it to an FF sensor with the same pixel density, you don't get any advantages. Maybe some indirect advantages like smaller file sizes, but no advantages in terms of image quality and room for postproduction.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I have printed hundreds of prints for dozens of photographers and in my experience sensor size is more important than pixel numbers when printing big,



Here's a 12mp 5D FF vs a 24mp 80D crop. There's zero question as to which enlarges better or which could handle more cropping, and it isn't the 5D.




Now here's a 22mp 5D3 FF vs a 24mp 80D crop. About the same despite the sensor size difference (or the slight MP difference).







> On a very practical level an 80D will not print as large as a 1DX MkII, well not to my or the photographers I print for eyes.



Of course it will at low ISO. In my experience when post processing crop needs a little more sharpening than FF, but that barely shows here:




Now if all your tests were done at high ISO that would explain it. At high ISO FF is cleaner and retains more sharpness and fine detail.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I disagree and have posted many examples to support this. I have printed hundreds of prints for dozens of photographers and in my experience sensor size is more important than pixel numbers when printing big, which is basically the same as cropping. Certainly any advantage that might be found in perfect conditions specifically in focal length limited situations pales to insignificance for most users most of the time,.
> 
> On a very practical level an 80D will not print as large as a 1DX MkII, well not to my or the photographers I print for eyes.



Those two cameras have different pixel sizes. Much larger in 1DX MkII.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Aug 18, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> It depends on how it is done. I recall reading that (some? all?) Sony cameras offering APS-C output sample only the APS-C image area which, because of the smaller data output enables greater frame rate, whereas where Canon does this the whole sensor is used for the image and the image is cropped in the processor and as a result the frame rate cannot increase because the same amount of data is leaving the sensor. So you are correct in as much Canon makes no difference if you do it during capture or post capture, but the Sony implementation offers advantages.
> HOWEVER, if Canon can follow Sony's lead they will have the same advantages as Sony.


looks like Sony's implementation is much better. Canon likely doesn't trust your decision to go aps-c and want to guard you against such foolishness by doing the whole picture against your will.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> With the body, if you changed an original 5D to 7D, it was an upgrade. But I'm not so sure about the lenses. From your list, "10-18STM, 18-135nano-USM, 55-250STM" are not adequate replacements for the EF ones you sold. You had EF L lenses and changed them to lower-end EFS ones.
> 
> I worked with EFS 10-18, 18-135, 18-200, 17-55. Only the famous EFS 17-55 was comparable to good EF L lenses. It's not on your list though.



The 10-18 is better than the 17-40L - sharper, wider and with IS.
The 18-135 is a better walk-around than the 24-105 because it has twice the range. It's also a good video lens.
The 55-250 is a better light-weight telephoto than what I used to carry in the 400mm zoom range, the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC. It's also good for video.
The 8-15/4L zoom fisheye is better than the Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye because it's wider, longer and just as good optically.
The Sigma 18-35/1.8 is better than the 35/1.4L because I'm not always cropping because of the lack of focal length range.
The 50/1.8STM is as good as the 85/1.8 but only cost $85 and works well as a video lens between the 18-35 and 70-200.
The Sigma 150-600C is a better long-tele than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC.
And I still have the 70-200/2.8L IS II.
The only area where I don't feel I got an upgrade was when attached to my telescope. Even with a wide-adapter, the moon doesn't fit in the frame on my 7DII while it did on the 5D. So I'm shooting panoramas now to get moon shots or breaking out the 5D for that.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 18, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Um, 5DSR is on the way out and getting ready to be replaced... kinda like last year's model car being replaced with this year's. Overhead costs money.
> 
> Is the RP a loss leader? You tell me. What is the profit margin? Is there a profit margin? Or will the money be made on lenses? Kinda like printers. The fact is you made an uneducated statement that has no supporting data that you have any personal knowledge of. None.



Who pissed in your self righteous coffee?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 18, 2019)

Lee Jay said:


> The 10-18 is better than the 17-40L - sharper, wider and with IS.
> The 18-135 is a better walk-around than the 24-105 because it has twice the range. It's also a good video lens.
> The 55-250 is a better light-weight telephoto than what I used to carry in the 400mm zoom range, the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC. It's also good for video.
> The 8-15/4L zoom fisheye is better than the Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye because it's wider, longer and just as good optically.
> ...



You made educated choices based on your needs. Nothing wrong with that. 

I wouldn't anguish too much over the future of the 7D line. The 7DII is still a great camera and will continue to be a great camera regardless of what else is introduced. I also would not get too worked up until we see the 90D. The rumors indicate it will be a significant upgrade over the 80D, so lets just wait and see what it looks like.

Even if the 90D isn't quite as good as the 7DII, you still have the 7D and future generations of the XXD line (or whatever they call it after the 90D) will be better than the previous generation. If you ultimately decide to switch to mirrorless, you have the knowledge that all your EF-S lenses will work with future EOS R cameras, regardless of their sensor size.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Those two cameras have different pixel sizes. Much larger in 1DX MkII.


But your previous comments were predicated on the point that the crop camera had more pixels. So which is it, bigger pixels or more of them, you can't have it both ways. 

A clue: the correct answer is neither, the correct answer is sensing area.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Here's a 12mp 5D FF vs a 24mp 80D crop. There's zero question as to which enlarges better or which could handle more cropping, and it isn't the 5D.
> 
> View attachment 186027
> 
> ...


Jesus Daniel, how many times in each post do I have to say the only fair/relevant/meaningful comparison is with same generation sensors? It seems like people want to actively misinterpret posts when it is perfectly clear what I was saying and even your linked samples support what I am saying. Technology has moved on, sensor tech is way better now than it was on the first affordable FF sensor, do I really need to point that out?

As for high and low iso, in my experience that is just another function of enlargement. If the ff camera is better at 3200iso (for example) then it will also be better at 100iso but the differences so small as to be irrelevant at a particular size of enlargement, enlarge bigger still and the ff camera will do it 'better'. It's 2.6 times the area so it is being enlarged 2.6 times less, how is this not obvious?

We are not addressing the 'it's good enough' position here, we are addressing the irrefutable fact that for same generation sensors sensor size is king when talking IQ. You yourself have argued many times that pixel size is a fallacious argument when equal enlargement is the comparison.

So let me reframe my point. If I wanted to buy a FF and crop camera with the intention of them complimenting each others capabilities a 7D MkII and a 1DX MkII would make poor stablemates, a 6D MkII and 7D MkII would make good stable mates. If I wanted to make big prints I'd use the 6D MkII, if I wanted to shoot action or was focal length limited I'd use the 7D MkII. A 5D and an 80D would be as foolish as holding them up as a 'comparison'.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 18, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Who pissed in your self righteous coffee?


Nobody. Your conviction that Canon could output 50 megapixel FF cameras for $800 and still make a profit means you are smoking some great stuff. Pissing and self righteousness has nothing to do with it.    Now, Canon "could" put out such a camera, but that ain't happening because there would be no profit. In the same way, you "could" custom design a building for me at $800, but that would be the end of your business should you decide to make that your business model for the mass market. Understand yet?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Jesus Daniel, how many times in each post do I have to say the only fair/relevant/meaningful comparison is with same generation sensors?



It doesn't matter how many times you say it because it is wrong. Fab a 12mp FF sensor with the latest circuitry available today and it will not be able to resolve any more detail than a 5D. Nor will it be able to handle enlargements or cropping to the level of a 24mp sensor whether that sensor is m43, APS-C, or FF. This is governed by the Nyquist theorem and no technological advance could ever enable a single pixel to record the same detail as 2 or more pixels.



> It seems like people want to actively misinterpret posts when it is perfectly clear what I was saying and even your linked samples support what I am saying. Technology has moved on, sensor tech is way better now than it was on the first affordable FF sensor, do I really need to point that out?



The 12mp Sony A7s II FF sensor is both newer and more technologically advanced than the 20mp Canon 7D II APS-C sensor. And at low ISO there is no question which can handle greater enlargement and greater cropping, and it's not the A7s II. This should quite frankly end the discussion.






> It's 2.6 times the area so it is being enlarged 2.6 times less, how is this not obvious?



It's obvious. It just doesn't mean what you think it means. You're treating sensors as if they were film and proclaiming larger formats enlarge better. That's true if the film is identical. But Velvia 100 in 35mm would enlarge better than the worst ISO 100 print films in 645.

Pixels on target determine the detail resolved and that is one of the most important limiting factors in enlargement. If the smaller format is recording more pixels then it's going to enlarge better at low ISO where noise is not a factor.



> ...we are addressing the irrefutable fact that for same generation sensors sensor size is king when talking IQ.



Sensor size is dominant when it comes to high ISO noise. Total sensor resolution is dominant when it comes to low ISO enlargements. Pixel density is dominant when cropping to the same physical area regardless of format (i.e. when focal length limited).


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2019)

I have printed from 80D files and 1DX MkII files, the 1DX MkII files print big better at any ISO when you use . You can tell me I am mistaken as much as you like, I'm not interested in pissing contests anymore because we both end up looking like idiots.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I have printed from 80D files and 1DX MkII files, the 1DX MkII files print big better at any ISO when you use . You can tell me I am mistaken as much as you like, I'm not interested in pissing contests anymore because we both end up looking like idiots.



Out of curiosity, do they enlarge proportionally as well as each other (i.e., not to the same final format, but to the same final percentage increase over sensor area)?


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I have printed from 80D files and 1DX MkII files, the 1DX MkII files print big better at any ISO when you use . You can tell me I am mistaken as much as you like,



You are demonstrably mistaken in your claim that sensor size is more important than total sensor resolution. That's been put to rest. However, if sensor resolution is the same or similar, as it is between a 1DX II and 80D, then the larger format will be sharper ooc than the smaller. In a resolution test the 80D will resolve more detail, but the difference is small and sharpness impresses viewers more than very small differences in fine detail. (I doubt you could even detect the difference in resolving power outside a lab test in this case. MP differences start to become apparent in print when the jump is 50% or more between sensors.)

The sharpness difference itself is not very large and disappears if you adjust sharpening in post accordingly, and in some cases if you just use a sharper lens on the smaller format. But if you process the files the same then yes, the 1DX2 file is going to look better at large print sizes.

A couple other factors which can impact performance between formats are shutter speed (due to motion across a higher pixel density sensor) and aperture. Diffraction doesn't impact any format more than another for the same FoV and DoF, but the same FoV and DoF mean different focal lengths and apertures.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2019)

There is no easy answer.

You can find specific cases where a 20Mpixel crop will outperform a 20M FF camera, cases where the opposite is true, and cases where it really doesn’t matter.

What you have is a trade-off between total light gathering ability and sampling density. The thing about the 5Ds is that it maintains the total light gathering ability, yet also has the same sampling density of a 7D2.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Out of curiosity, do they enlarge proportionally as well as each other (i.e., not to the same final format, but to the same final percentage increase over sensor area)?


Now that is an interesting question that I don't have an answer to immediately. I'd guess that the 80D performs proportionally better, these things are all subjective and I haven't done big prints from the same scenes from both, but I am generally happy with the print quality of 20" x 30" prints from 135 format sensors and generally not happy with 24" x 36" prints from 135 format. I am pretty much always happy with 14" x 20" prints from a crop camera and often happy with 20" x 30" from the same, and I have some very high quality prints from m4/3 at 12" x 16". All these big prints have been sub 800iso initial captures.

So I would guess if I were to do my own tests I'd expect the sensor size to be a diminishing return with regards large prints.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 19, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> But your previous comments were predicated on the point that the crop camera had more pixels. So which is it, bigger pixels or more of them, you can't have it both ways.
> 
> A clue: the correct answer is neither, the correct answer is sensing area.



Sensing area is just one of the factors to the image quality. Pixel count/pixel density, DR and high ISO/low light performance are among other factors. Basically the sensing area is derived from pixel count and pixel density. area = count / density

Also tbh I'm not convinced 1DxII produces better prints than 80D in *all* conditions, despite your experience. I agree it may be sharper on average given people don't usually put mediocre lenses on 1DxII and there's a higher chance of having a not very sharp lens on 80D.

In a blind test at low ISO, good light and sharp enough lenses I doubt there will be any significant difference





__





Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com





Push ISO to 800 and 80D starts lagging behind, obviously





__





Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 19, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nobody. Your conviction that Canon could output 50 megapixel FF cameras for $800 and still make a profit means you are smoking some great stuff. Pissing and self righteousness has nothing to do with it.    Now, Canon "could" put out such a camera, but that ain't happening because there would be no profit. In the same way, you "could" custom design a building for me at $800, but that would be the end of your business should you decide to make that your business model for the mass market. Understand yet?



     I guess someone did more than piss in your coffee.
No one really knows anything about anything sensors or whatever.
Only canon really knows, but we can speculate. Having lived long enough to have a world view that what people really think they know is generally quite the opposite.
So I will stand by my speculation as much as you stand by your WAG.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 19, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Nobody. Your conviction that Canon could output 50 megapixel FF cameras for $800 and still make a profit means you are smoking some great stuff. Pissing and self righteousness has nothing to do with it.    Now, Canon "could" put out such a camera, but that ain't happening because there would be no profit. In the same way, you "could" custom design a building for me at $800, but that would be the end of your business should you decide to make that your business model for the mass market. Understand yet?


They could do it.... All they have to do put the 50Mpixel sensor in a really crappy body and then convince the retail stores to not make any margin on it. Oh yes, batteries not included


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> No one really knows anything about anything sensors or whatever.
> Only canon really knows,



Canon isn’t the only sensor game in town. Here’s one data point for 50MP machine vision full frame sensors at over $5,000 each.





__





CMV50000-1E3C1PA QA ams | Sensors, Transducers | DigiKey


Order today, ships today. CMV50000-1E3C1PA QA – CMOS Image Sensor 7920H x 6004V 4.6µm x 4.6µm 141-PGA (52.5x40) from ams. Pricing and Availability on millions of electronic components from Digi-Key Electronics.




www.digikey.com


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 19, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Canon isn’t the only sensor game in town. Here’s one data point for 50MP machine vision full frame sensors at over $5,000 each.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The reference is people on this site have no idea about costs of Canon or marketing.
There are many sensor makers and we all know that.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 19, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Canon isn’t the only sensor game in town. Here’s one data point for 50MP machine vision full frame sensors at over $5,000 each.



Yeah. But I don't need a sensor alone. I need a good camera. Full package. Preferably with a good sensor inside.


----------



## Philrp (Aug 19, 2019)

All this aside, the 7D II is now going to be 5 years old, the same age the original 7D was when it was replaced.

if Canon feels the 7D fills a hole in their market, then it's time they provide a real replacement for it. Waiting until next year would make that replacement cycle truly very long.


----------



## AJ (Aug 19, 2019)

An R-mount APSC camera. Smart move on behalf of Canon.
The EF (or EF-S) -mount offers a clear upgrade path. You can buy a drebel, buy a few EF lenses, and then eventually upgrade the body to a 6D or something like that.
An R-mount rebel will offer a similar upgrade path. I imagine an R-mount drebel packaged with kit lens, all for a low price, will sell really well.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> The reference is people on this site have no idea about costs of Canon or marketing.
> There are many sensor makers and we all know that.


Of course, this was just an indication of how much sensors can cost. Internal processes, yield, scale, external politics, etc all affect things. That being said, a 900 camera with a brand new full frame sensor sounds unrealistic.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 19, 2019)

AJ said:


> An R-mount APSC camera. Smart move on behalf of Canon.
> The EF (or EF-S) -mount offers a clear upgrade path. You can buy a drebel, buy a few EF lenses, and then eventually upgrade the body to a 6D or something like that.
> An R-mount rebel will offer a similar upgrade path. I imagine an R-mount drebel packaged with kit lens, all for a low price, will sell really well.



Exactly!

Canon can make EF mount cameras with both FF and crop sensors. Canon can make RR mount cameras with both FF and crop sensors. Same thing!


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 19, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> I guess someone did more than piss in your coffee.
> No one really knows anything about anything sensors or whatever.
> Only canon really knows, but we can speculate. Having lived long enough to have a world view that what people really think they know is generally quite the opposite.
> So I will stand by my speculation as much as you stand by your WAG.


Speculate all you want, my friend... just don't pretend that speculation is fact. That's called delusional.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 19, 2019)

AJ said:


> An R-mount APSC camera. Smart move on behalf of Canon.
> The EF (or EF-S) -mount offers a clear upgrade path. You can buy a drebel, buy a few EF lenses, and then eventually upgrade the body to a 6D or something like that.
> An R-mount rebel will offer a similar upgrade path. I imagine an R-mount drebel packaged with kit lens, all for a low price, will sell really well.


I dreble all the time. That's what the diapers are for, but I'd never buy a dreble.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 19, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Of course, this was just an indication of how much sensors can cost. Internal processes, yield, scale, external politics, etc all affect things. That being said, a 900 camera with a brand new full frame sensor sounds unrealistic.



We shall see.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 19, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> We shall see.


I bet we won’t


----------



## Dalantech (Aug 20, 2019)

I'm a macro photographer that appreciates shooting with a crop factor camera cause it allows me to fill the frame with the subject at lower magnifications (lower mag equals more depth of field), so an R series camera with an APS-C sensor sounds really good! I'd go with a current R series full frame, but after cropping in post I wouldn't like the pixel count (curently I do not crop my images). The M series is out of the question -too small when I'd be adding over a killo to it with a lens and a flash (I shoot hand held). The 90D is only an option if the sensor has at least one more stop of dynamic range over the 80D (my current camera). So I think I'm in a holding pattern unless I want to go full frame with an R or RP...


----------



## neonlight (Aug 20, 2019)

Ian K said:


> Part of the reason the 7D-II is great for wildlife is that you get the full resolution with an effective 1.6x more reach on your lenses. So your 100-400mm lens becomes a 160-640,


Still peddling the 1.6x more reach myth, Ian? Nothing changes the focal length of your lens between a FF and APS-C body. On APS-C you get a narrower field of view (as though it were a longer lens on a FF body, but it's only an illusion). Whether this gives you better effective resolution then depends on the pixel size, coupled with the diffraction limit of the lens, and whether there is an AA filter. Compared with a 5DIV the 7DII does have a pixel size advantage (about 1.3x "reach" if you must) but nothing compared with the 5Ds and then if you compare the 5Dsr without the AA filter it is sharper than the 7DII.
I was hoping Canon would offer an AA filter-less 7DII replacement in a 7DIII (or options like the 5Ds/r) to compete with Nikon D7200 etc. 
I suspect the 30MP 90D will have an AA filter but compete with a 20 MP sensor without.


----------



## Ian K (Aug 22, 2019)

melgross said:


> There is loss of quality. While possibly the lens is better for the APS-C crop, the sensor is then worse. That’s why we have ff in the first place, remember? And, yes, I get that you would need a longer lens, which is then heavier and more expensive. But that’s all a compromise which some are more willing to make than others.


Actually, the 7D Mark II has the same size pixels as the 5Ds/5DsR so full frame isn't always better than crop.


----------



## Ian K (Aug 22, 2019)

Stuart said:


> Why should an RF APS-c be a 1.6 Crop factor?


Because APS-C means that the crop would be 1.6, sure they could produce an APS-H or other crop but if it's APS-C then it's 1.6 by definition. It's defined by the size of the sensor.


----------



## Ian K (Aug 22, 2019)

neonlight said:


> Still peddling the 1.6x more reach myth, Ian? Nothing changes the focal length of your lens between a FF and APS-C body. On APS-C you get a narrower field of view (as though it were a longer lens on a FF body, but it's only an illusion). Whether this gives you better effective resolution then depends on the pixel size, coupled with the diffraction limit of the lens, and whether there is an AA filter. Compared with a 5DIV the 7DII does have a pixel size advantage (about 1.3x "reach" if you must) but nothing compared with the 5Ds and then if you compare the 5Dsr without the AA filter it is sharper than the 7DII.
> I was hoping Canon would offer an AA filter-less 7DII replacement in a 7DIII (or options like the 5Ds/r) to compete with Nikon D7200 etc.
> I suspect the 30MP 90D will have an AA filter but compete with a 20 MP sensor without.


It's not a myth, if you look at the output from each body you would need a 1.6x longer focal length to obtain the same picture from a full frame camera, at the same resolution. I'll grant you you will likely end up with more noise on a APS-C but you certainly do get more reach from the same lens. My 100-400F II produces stunning results on my 7D Mark II. Granted I got better shots with it when I had the 200-400 F4 1.4x but that's almost a whole order of magnitude more expensive and a lot heavier. In day time conditions the 7DII and 100-400 II produce perfectly adequate results.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2019)

Ian K said:


> It's not a myth, if you look at the output from each body you would need a 1.6x longer focal length to obtain the same picture from a full frame camera, at the same resolution.


Please explain how that is true if the APS-C camera is a 7DII and the full frame camera is a 5DsR.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Please explain how that is true if the APS-C camera is a 7DII and the full frame camera is a 5DsR.


Do you not agree that - OOC, distance to subject being equal for both cameras - the subject will be bigger in the frame in the image from the 7D Mk II?

Ian's right. _Which _FF and crop camera is involved in the test is utterly irrelevant.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 22, 2019)

neonlight said:


> Still peddling the 1.6x more reach myth, Ian?


Jeez.

It is a _fact _that the subject will be bigger in the frame (distance to subject being constant for the crop and FF cameras) in the image from the crop camera.

There's just _no debate _about this, and that's your "crop advantage" right there. It's not an "illusion", it's an observable _fact._

Turn it on its head: do you agree that FF cameras are "wider" for a given distance to subject?

_It's the same effect._


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 22, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Do you not agree that - OOC, distance to subject being equal for both cameras - the subject will be bigger in the frame in the image from the 7D Mk II?
> 
> Ian's right. _Which _FF and crop camera is involved in the test is utterly irrelevant.



You're neglecting the fact that Ian talks about _resolution_. With a 7DII and a 5DsR shooting the same subject with the same lens at the same distance will result in 2 pictures with the same amount of pixels on target. To put it differently: cropping the 5DsR picture to match the framing of the 7D2 picture will result in a picture with the same resolution as the 7DII one.

So for this comparison there's only a reach advantage if you are fundamentally opposed to cropping a picture in post. If the cameras don't have a 2.56x or more difference in megapixels there is a reach advantage.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 22, 2019)

Ian said:



> Part of the reason the 7D-II is great for wildlife is that you get the full resolution with an effective 1.6x more reach on your lenses. So your 100-400mm lens becomes a 160-640,



He clearly means the full resolution of the 7D Mk II, _uncropped._

That's why he's right, and why I made a specific point of images straight out of the camera, where it is indisputable that crop gives you a bigger subject in the frame.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Do you not agree that - OOC, distance to subject being equal for both cameras - the subject will be bigger in the frame in the image from the 7D Mk II?
> 
> Ian's right. _Which _FF and crop camera is involved in the test is utterly irrelevant.


Sorry, but you and Ian are wrong.

With the distance to the subject being equal and the same focal length used on both cameras, the subject will fill a larger _proportion_ of the frame on the 7DII than on the 5DsR...a larger proportion of a smaller frame. If you then crop the 5DsR image down to APS-C size, the resulting image will be identical to that from the 7DII, i.e. a 20 MP image with the subject filling the exact same proportion of the frame (except the 5DsR image will be a bit sharper due to the lack of an AA filter).

Broadly speaking, the concept that appears to be eluding you is ‘pixels on duck’. Comparing the output from a 7DII to my 1DX, the crop camera puts more pixels on a subject of a given size. But comparing the output from a 7DII to the output of a 5DsR, the number of pixels on a same-sized subject are identical, meaning the output can be made identical by simply cropping the full frame image.

Certainly the subject will appear larger in the viewfinder of the 7DII, which has implications for composing and focusing. However, Ian specifically mentioned output.

I honestly thought you understood these concepts better. I guess it goes to show that no matter how skilled a photographer, technical understanding does not always match.


----------



## Stuart (Aug 22, 2019)

Ian K said:


> Because APS-C means that the crop would be 1.6, sure they could produce an APS-H or other crop but if it's APS-C then it's 1.6 by definition. It's defined by the size of the sensor.


Hi Ian, Welcome to CR. The question i'm asking is why would a new RF mount smaller (e.g APS-c) sensor need to be a 1.6 crop factor. Nikon do 1.5 PAS-c. It could be 1.3 or 1.7 or anything. The only answer i've heard is that using EOS-m sensors in APS-C style bodies would allow a particular sensor to be used in two or more bodies.

The extra reach that the 7D gave bird spotters was often touted as a major part of why it was chosen, so i was wondering whether they might further push that advantage with perhaps a number larger than 1.6?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2019)

Stuart said:


> Hi Ian, Welcome to CR. The question i'm asking is why would a new RF mount smaller (e.g APS-c) sensor need to be a 1.6 crop factor. Nikon do 1.5 PAS-c. It could be 1.3 or 1.7 or anything. The only answer i've heard is that using EOS-m sensors in APS-C style bodies would allow a particular sensor to be used in two or more bodies.
> 
> The extra reach that the 7D gave bird spotters was often touted as a major part of why it was chosen, so i was wondering whether they might further push that advantage with perhaps a number larger than 1.6?


The trade off with a smaller sensor is image quality. That is a main raison d’être of full frame sensors. An iPhone sized sensor would provide lots of ‘extra reach’ but result in a huge sacrifice of image quality. 

I think an APS-C version of the EOS R is unlikely, and I’m certain a m4/3 or smaller version will never happen.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> He clearly means the full resolution of the 7D Mk II, _uncropped._
> 
> That's why he's right, and why I made a specific point of images straight out of the camera, where it is indisputable that crop gives you a bigger subject in the frame.


Since he’s talking about output, that is completely irrelevant. See my response above.

The full resolution of 7D Mk II, _uncropped _is identical to the resolution of the 5DsR when cropped to APS-C size.

Incidentally, since you seem to be making a point (albeit an irrelevant one) about ‘images straight out of the camera’, just set the 5DsR to 1.6x crop mode. Then the images straight out of the 5DsR will be identical to images out of the 7DII (except that as mentioned, the former images will be sharper).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 22, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> it is indisputable that crop gives you a bigger subject in the frame.



Well, no, not really. It gives you a bigger subject *relative to the frame*. The absolute size of the subject doesn’t change given the parameters above.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Well, no, not really. It gives you a bigger subject *relative to the frame*. The absolute size of the subject doesn’t change given the parameters above.


Exactly. Focal length is an intrinsic property of a lens, and focal length determines the size at which the subject is projected onto the image plane. The sensor at that image plane has nothing to do with the size at which the subject is projected onto it.

A crop sensor merely samples a smaller portion of the image circle than a FF sensor, such that the subject fills more of the crop frame even though the subject is the same size.

When considering output, sensor matters in that it determines the pixel resolution of the image. In most cases, a crop sensor puts more pixels on the subject, meaning the crop sensor delivers better resolution. An obvious example in my case was when I had a 7D and a 1D X, both 18 MP sensors and when focal length-limited the 7D delivered more pixels per duck. But if the pixel pitch is the same, as it is when comparing the 7DII to the 5DsR, given that the lens projects the subject at the same size regardless of sensor, the output resolution is the same for those cameras. Worth noting in that context that if one compared the 5DsR to the original 7D, the FF sensor would deliver more pixels per duck, i.e. a larger subject when viewed 1:1.

In the terms of the original discussion, the FF camera would then have 'more reach'. If Canon comes out with a high-MP EOS R (>50 MP), that camera will have a 'reach advantage' over the 7DII.

@3kramd5, I know you know this stuff. I thought @Keith_Reeder did, too.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2019)

Ian K said:


> It's not a myth, if you look at the output from each body you would need a 1.6x longer focal length to obtain the same picture from a full frame camera, at the same resolution. I'll grant you you will likely end up with more noise on a APS-C but you certainly do get more reach from the same lens. My 100-400F II produces stunning results on my 7D Mark II. Granted I got better shots with it when I had the 200-400 F4 1.4x but that's almost a whole order of magnitude more expensive and a lot heavier. In day time conditions the 7DII and 100-400 II produce perfectly adequate results.



You are getting confused between field of view and image size. 
You put a 400mm lens on micro fourthirds, on APS-C and on FF and take a picture of a bird. The image projected on the sensor will be the same size on every sensor - high school physics will tell you this.The only difference between each format is how much stuff round the bird you will see in the viewfinder.
'Reach' comes from the number of pixels that cover the bird.


----------



## Zarkon (Aug 29, 2019)

My use case for a "Pro APS-C" is photographing high school football games. These are predominantly night games with challenging lighting and occasionally challenging weather. 

I am looking for high-performing auto-focus, frame-rate of 10+ fps, decent high ISO, and weather sealing. The crop factor on the APS-C works well with a 70-200 f/2.8 (1.4x TC helps if there's enough light). The 7D Mark II has been a great camera in addressing these requirements. The specs on the 90D appears to fall short on auto-focus and probably weather resistance. 

I'd absolutely be interested in an APS-C in a mirrorless RF mount body, but not holding my breath. In the meantime, I'll be sticking with the 7D Mk II for football and R for most everything else.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2019)

Mikehit said:


> You are getting confused between field of view and image size.
> You put a 400mm lens on micro fourthirds, on APS-C and on FF and take a picture of a bird. The image projected on the sensor will be the same size on every sensor - high school physics will tell you this.The only difference between each format is how much stuff round the bird you will see in the viewfinder.
> 'Reach' comes from the number of pixels that cover the bird.


Exactly!

Take a 7D2 (crop) camera and a 5DS (FF) camera and put a 400mm lens on each. Go take a picture of a Chickadee that is 50 feet away. If the bird is 3000 pixels wide on the crop camera, it will be 3000 pixels wide on the FF camera because both cameras sample the image at the same density. The 5DS just samples more from the sides of the image. 

Take a 90D and a 1DX2 and try the same. The framing will be the same as the above cameras, but the number of pixels on target will be different. With it's lower sampling density, the 1DX2 will have an 1875 pixel wide bird, while the higher sampling density 90D will have a 3815 pixel wide bird.

In general, crop gives you more pixels on target, but FF gives you better quality pixels on target. Your lighting conditions and lens quality will dictate which is better.


----------

