# An APS-C RF mount prototype is currently in the wild [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 16, 2020)

> An RF mount camera with an APS-C sensor has been long rumoured since the launch of the EOS R system. Canon themselves will neither confirm nor deny such a camera is coming, which means such a camera is coming.
> I have been told twice recently that an APS-C sensor equipped RF mount camera is in the wild with a select group of photographers. One of the sources claims that the APS-C camera “looks nearly identical to the EOS R6”, which shouldn’t be much of a surprise, I also expect specifications to be nearly identical as well. I get the feeling we’re past the point of test mules being in the wild, so the R6 comparison is probably quite accurate.
> I do think we’ll see an “EOS R7” announced sometime in 2021.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## pererik_2000 (Dec 16, 2020)

Hopefully less expensive than the R6 but still with IBIS


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2020)

pererik_2000 said:


> Hopefully less expensive than the R6 but still with IBIS


If it is less expensive than the R6 it's probably not going to have the features it needs to be a true 7D replacement.


----------



## melgross (Dec 16, 2020)

Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 16, 2020)

pererik_2000 said:


> Hopefully less expensive than the R6 but still with IBIS



There is no way it won't have IBIS. Image sensors are still the most expensive part of the camera, and the cost difference between APS-C and Full-frame is more significant than people realize. This camera will have a good margin for Canon, but it won't be an "entry-level" product. Maybe down the road we'll see a Rebel like RF mount camera.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.



Not everyone wants smaller and lighter, especially when it comes to a camera body. No one would want to shoot an EOS M6 with a 600 f/4 if they can help it.

If Canon is making an RF mount EOS 7D as the R7 suggests, then that's a camera for people that use bigger lenses... and bigger lenses are usually more comfortable with bigger bodies.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 16, 2020)

Hopefully with either 24 or 28MP sensor upgrade as well.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.


No there are two distinct advantages for APS-C for photographers even after ignoring the cost of the sensor; first, small and light with compact but slower lenses for excellent small camera IQ, and second, focal length limited situations where size and weight are practically irrelevant when the lens is considered. 

Canon address the first with the M system, the best selling MILC system on the planet. Maybe they will address the second group with an RF APS-C as the 7 series seems to be in the rear view mirror.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2020)

As far as I'm concerned, anything that throws more light on where Canon is headed is a good thing. I hope the R7, the R5s and the R1 are all announced before the end of 2021 and the sooner the better. It would be nice to know what all the options are.


----------



## cgc (Dec 16, 2020)

It could have a sensor-based shift feature for all lenses, taking advantage of the bigger full frame image circle. For example having +- 4.5mm of vertical displacement (equivalent to a 7.2mm shift in full frame).


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 16, 2020)

How long from an 'in the wild' rumor to announcement was it for the R5/R6? 

-Brian


----------



## Andy Westwood (Dec 16, 2020)

Well, I guess there is a call for this, but with full frame RF mount body prices falling such as the original R, RP and rumoured RP II I think they will have limited appeal.

There will be customers who want RF size bodies starting at 300 bucks right up to users who seek a high spec APS-C 7D replacement.

However, with cheaper RF lenses on there way some of this market might just feel to up their budget slightly and buy full frame camera.


----------



## pererik_2000 (Dec 16, 2020)

unfocused said:


> If it is less expensive than the R6 it's probably not going to have the features it needs to be a true 7D replacement.


For me a 90D replacement is OK, a 7D replacement may be less optimal but OK. 

Cost in Sweden: R6 SEK 31300, 90D SEK 12800 and 7D II around SEK 14000 

I hope for less than SEK 20000 which includes tax, without tax this means SEK 16000 or approx $1800 if my calculus is correct.


----------



## Nigel95 (Dec 16, 2020)

AMAZING NEWS finally! Money is waiting in the bank to pre-order. Would love to have R6 specs but without changing my whole lens kit to expensive FF glass which I don't need.

Or even better would be R5 specs but APS-C sensor. 4k 120p etc... My dream hybrid camera. Willing to pay a good amount of money for that!


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.



I say for many (me included), it is about having a smaller and lighter _system_. That means most of all _smaller lenses_. Most users of 7D/R7 type of camera want the camera-size that works best ergonomically. The size of camera house is not very important to the size/weight of your system or camerabag in the field.

However, saying it "looks like an R6" doesn't necessary means it is similar sized as an R6. But I personally vote against very small body.


----------



## AJ (Dec 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There is no way it won't have IBIS. Image sensors are still the most expensive part of the camera, and the cost difference between APS-C and Full-frame is more significant than people realize. This camera will have a good margin for Canon, but it won't be an "entry-level" product. Maybe down the road we'll see a Rebel like RF mount camera.


Makes sense that the higher-spec-ed camera will come out before an entry-level model.

I wonder if Canon will support R-mount APSC with some lenses. Maybe a revamped 17-55/2.8? It's about time this lens gets an upgrade, and at this point they might as well make it R mount. EF-S is pretty much dead now. R would be looking to the future, EF-S to the past.

If not, I suppose we'll be mounting old EF-S glass with R-EF adapters.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Dec 16, 2020)

I know some think this is silly, but it means a lot to me...

I really really hope it has builtin GPS! 

(No, don't tell me about the "smartphone app solution" - Tried and it was worthless frustrations in practice)


----------



## zim (Dec 16, 2020)

The original rumour had the body smaller than the R6 this makes more sense as the proper 7d replacement


----------



## Nigel95 (Dec 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Not everyone wants smaller and lighter, especially when it comes to a camera body. No one would want to shoot an EOS M6 with a 600 f/4 if they can help it.
> 
> If Canon is making an RF mount EOS 7D as the R7 suggests, then that's a camera for people that use bigger lenses... and bigger lenses are usually more comfortable with bigger bodies.


Indeed I want an APS-C body with a nice set of features and still give me good ergonomics (not something like M line).


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 16, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Hopefully with either 24 or 28MP sensor upgrade as well.



I think at this point it is unlikely to have anything less than the 32MP one which is one of the most advanced APS-C sensors on the planet right now. With Canon's newest DPAF it has great potential to finally be the birders' dream camera that many have been waiting for.


----------



## riker (Dec 16, 2020)

I still hate the idea of APS-C RF.
In my ideal dream world RF is FF, M is APS-C. And M is taken more seriously and of course u can mount RF lenses to M with adapter.
OOOOOOOR APS-C RF becomes the new M, bodies are even smaller and lighter than RP and RF-S lenses are introduced. Now THAT would be nice and actually that is a proper conversion from EF/EF-S. I'm keeping fingers crossed.


----------



## Kellner (Dec 16, 2020)

Wonderful news. I love my R but I still use my 7D mk ii a lot for both the crop (I now have the rf 100-500 so that’s less of a reason now) and especially the autofocus. Having two different buttons for back button focus with different focus modes (spot vs area) allows me to get better shots of stationary subjects that decide to move (birds, kids, sports). I am assuming I can do this with the R5 but that’s out of my range currently. I’m afraid I wouldn’t have enough room to crop so the R6 doesn’t really fit my needs. This mythical R7 doesn’t need to be small or cheap, it needs to be high performance aps-c to fit my usage so that’s what I’m hoping for. I could see them going more cheaper and smaller, and that may fit a lot of people’s needs as well. But just not mine.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.


Because that’s not the point of the 7D line.


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 16, 2020)

AJ said:


> Makes sense that the higher-spec-ed camera will come out before an entry-level model.
> 
> I wonder if Canon will support R-mount APSC with some lenses. Maybe a revamped 17-55/2.8? It's about time this lens gets an upgrade, and at this point they might as well make it R mount. EF-S is pretty much dead now. R would be looking to the future, EF-S to the past.
> 
> If not, I suppose we'll be mounting old EF-S glass with R-EF adapters.


My guess is (hey, its a rumors site isn't it?) that there will be some non-L lenses that straddle the line between APSC and low end FF lenses. Like the 24-240 which isn't really making a FF image circle until about 35mm, and some of the patented lenses that we've seen posted here that appear to do the same. These would easily cover an APSc sensor with room to get a bunch of IS/IBIS performance though, and be smaller and lighter. But still clip on to an R or RP and provide a good image with software correction. 

With no mirror to make smaller and allow a lens to get closer to the sensor, I don't think you'll see any RF-s only lenses. Too confusing, and since the price difference between the APSc and low end FF RF cameras is going to be lower that the EF history has been, I think you'd want your entry level lenses to allow easy upgrades to FF. I could be wrong though. 

-Brian


----------



## melgross (Dec 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Not everyone wants smaller and lighter, especially when it comes to a camera body. No one would want to shoot an EOS M6 with a 600 f/4 if they can help it.
> 
> If Canon is making an RF mount EOS 7D as the R7 suggests, then that's a camera for people that use bigger lenses... and bigger lenses are usually more comfortable with bigger bodies.


But one of the benefits of using APS-C is that you can use shorter lenses to achieve the same magnification. Somehow I doubt that very many people buying long, heavy and fast lenses, which are also quite expensive, are going to be using them on an APS-C body. Yes, I know, a few will. But Canon isn’t making this for a few people like that. If you look at the lens lineups Canon, Nikon, and even Sony have for APS-C, it’s pitiful when compared to their full frame lineups. I’m talking about DSLR’s, because they’ve been out for two decades now.


----------



## grantmasterflash (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.



I agree 100% 

Canon Marketing: We should make an APS-C RF mount camera since we're abandoning our most popular line. 
Canon Accounting: Sounds great but we can't allocate one dollar to it's development so you'll need to take an existing camera and just change the sensor.
Canon Marketing: That's fine but we'll have to disable some things to keep people from buying it or it will hurt the sales of our other cameras.
Canon Executives: That sounds fantastic, let's do it. Looks like I get another bonus.


----------



## Joules (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> But one of the benefits of using APS-C is that you can use shorter lenses to achieve the same magnification. Somehow I doubt that very many people buying long, heavy and fast lenses, which are also quite expensive, are going to be using them on an APS-C body. Yes, I know, a few will. But Canon isn’t making this for a few people like that. If you look at the lens lineups Canon, Nikon, and even Sony have for APS-C, it’s pitiful when compared to their full frame lineups. I’m talking about DSLR’s, because they’ve been out for two decades now.


Well, do you expect everybody who wants to get the most out of their high end tele lens to also buy an R5s (probably more expensive than the R5), and be content with 10-ish FPS, when even the lowly 90D and M6 II can deliver much more than that at the same pixel density (reach) and far, far lower prices?

If there is a place for APS-C in the RF lineup, I think it is in the high end, for folks that really can't have enough reach and speed. A smaller physical shutter simply makes it less difficult to offer 1 series speeds at less than 5 series prices.


----------



## grantmasterflash (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> But one of the benefits of using APS-C is that you can use shorter lenses to achieve the same magnification. Somehow I doubt that very many people buying long, heavy and fast lenses, which are also quite expensive, are going to be using them on an APS-C body. Yes, I know, a few will. But Canon isn’t making this for a few people like that. If you look at the lens lineups Canon, Nikon, and even Sony have for APS-C, it’s pitiful when compared to their full frame lineups. I’m talking about DSLR’s, because they’ve been out for two decades now.




And people act like every single photographer wants to attach a 500mm lens to the front of a camera and there's no reason to use one otherwise. I for one do NOT want that. I wish I had a tiny 300mm on my M6 but I really really don't want a big camera. 99% of the photos I'll ever take in my life is within reach of a 150mm lens. An R6 with an APS-C sensor makes zero sense to me.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 16, 2020)

as long as they dont make a rebel series for the RF mount, ill sleep at night

a 7d mk ii equivalent will be fine


----------



## slclick (Dec 16, 2020)

grantmasterflash said:


> And people act like every single photographer wants to attach a 500mm lens to the front of a camera and there's no reason to use one otherwise. I for one do NOT want that. I wish I had a tiny 300mm on my M6 but I really really don't want a big camera. 99% of the photos I'll ever take in my life is within reach of a 150mm lens. An R6 with an APS-C sensor makes zero sense to me.


But can you fathom it being a godsend for others? It's been on the most wished for list since the R came out. That's all I'll say, don't want to push you, you might be close to the edge.


----------



## another_mikey (Dec 16, 2020)

Personally, I won't buy one, as it isn't my use case. For me, the R5 for scenic, nightscape, and some wildlife is perfect. But I certainly understand why dedicated wildlife shooters who want the most pixels on target and the fastest frame rates would wish to see the 7D style DSLR crop cameras reimagined in the mirrorless space, with all the potential that could bring. It obviously isn't a body meant for everyone - don't buy one if it doesn't suit your needs - but I bet they will sell plenty of them! I for one like to see Canon being more committed to mirrorless and the RF mount as time goes on. An R7 for the APS-C market, with perhaps some high quality EF-s like lenses plus the ability to really perform with longer EF and soon to be RF lenses seems like a win to me. Match that with the R6, R5, R1 (or whatever it is called) and the R5s (or whatever it is called) and you will have a really solid and broad reaching line up. I say good for Canon, bring it on!


----------



## Nigel95 (Dec 16, 2020)

grantmasterflash said:


> And people act like every single photographer wants to attach a 500mm lens to the front of a camera and there's no reason to use one otherwise. I for one do NOT want that. I wish I had a tiny 300mm on my M6 but I really really don't want a big camera. 99% of the photos I'll ever take in my life is within reach of a 150mm lens. An R6 with an APS-C sensor makes zero sense to me.



I am not a wildlife shooter or need more reach but still prefer a high end APS-C R body (R6/R5 specs).

My current Canon 200d with canon 10-18, sigma 18-35 , canon 60mm covers my needs photography wise. But I do like video equally as well and the 200d doensn't deliver over there IMO. Should I buy a dedicated video camera for video work? No I want a nice hybrid camera instead of carrying two cameras around. The R6 is a very nice hybrid body in my opinion and I am willing to pay the price. But my current glass does the job for me. Switching to a R6 means I have to swap all the glass for FF equivalent. Too expensive for my budget as a hobbyist. Right now I just have to jump FF to get certain 'specs'. I favour better ergonomics over the M line as well as this is my main camera. I also prefer more DOF for my shooting style and with a lens like the sigma 18-35 I can still drop it down to 1.8 which will cover my needs if I want a smaller DOF. Since I usually need more DOF with subjects, where I can't easily add more light. I think APS-C has the advantage. Sure FF you can increase the ISO but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) you can't fully compensate to get the same DOF as on an APS-C sensor. Hopefully the wobbles will be less visible as well compared to FF with UWA lenses in video with IBIS on.

With plugins now a days I find you can easily clean up noise both in photo and video pretty nicely. So really I don't need the benefits of FF and it is such a huge price difference if you want a body with 3+ lenses.

No idea if this market is huge but it's definitely my dream camera to have R6 or R5 in APS-C


----------



## JayLT (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> But one of the benefits of using APS-C is that you can use shorter lenses to achieve the same magnification. Somehow I doubt that very many people buying long, heavy and fast lenses, which are also quite expensive, are going to be using them on an APS-C body. Yes, I know, a few will. But Canon isn’t making this for a few people like that. If you look at the lens lineups Canon, Nikon, and even Sony have for APS-C, it’s pitiful when compared to their full frame lineups. I’m talking about DSLR’s, because they’ve been out for two decades now.



If an "R7" comes out I will use my RF 100-500 lens on it almost exclusively compared to my R5. Just as I did when I had my 90D and 5DS, my 100-400L MKII lived on the 90D and was almost never used on the 5DS. I mainly shoot wildlife and airshows, both of which you can never have enough "reach" for


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Dec 16, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> as long as they dont make a rebel series for the RF mount, ill sleep at night



They _should_ make an RF rebel. Rebels are Canon's best selling line and you gotta pay the bills. So many beginners want a "real" camera system for $500; that's always the cut-off. Nobody's forcing anyone to use it, so I don't know why someone would be bothered by a product that you don't use.


----------



## Fischer (Dec 16, 2020)

Another nail in the coffin for a 5DIV replacement. That hope rested on Canon continuing churning out APS-C DSLR's.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2020)

grantmasterflash said:


> And people act like every single photographer wants to attach a 500mm lens to the front of a camera and there's no reason to use one otherwise. I for one do NOT want that. I wish I had a tiny 300mm on my M6 but I really really don't want a big camera. 99% of the photos I'll ever take in my life is within reach of a 150mm lens. An R6 with an APS-C sensor makes zero sense to me.


Which, of course, if why Canon makes other options for people like you.


----------



## Bishop80 (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.


Do you consider the 7D to be a FF-sized body?


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 16, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> They _should_ make an RF rebel. Rebels are Canon's best selling line and you gotta pay the bills. So many beginners want a "real" camera system for $500; that's always the cut-off. Nobody's forcing anyone to use it, so I don't know why someone would be bothered by a product that you don't use.



Its just me that doesent wat to see the 28-70 f2 on an r series equivalent of a t5


----------



## dwarven (Dec 16, 2020)

Why are people upset about Canon releasing systems they'll apparently never use? How does it diminish your own photographic endeavors? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't.


----------



## Fischer (Dec 16, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I know some think this is silly, but it means a lot to me...
> 
> I really really hope it has builtin GPS!
> 
> (No, don't tell me about the "smartphone app solution" - Tried and it was worthless frustrations in practice)


Battery life is already critically short. So don't get your hopes up.


----------



## Joules (Dec 16, 2020)

Bishop80 said:


> Do you consider the 7D to be a FF-sized body?


According to the rumors, the camera in question looks like an R6 though. And I'm fairly confident that is properly classified as an FF-sized body - it's an FF body after all.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 16, 2020)

dwarven said:


> Why are so many people upset about Canon releasing systems they'll apparently never use? How does it diminish your own photographic endeavors? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't.



i might buy a 7d mk ii r series camera


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Another nail in the coffin for a 5DIV replacement. That hope rested on Canon continuing churning out APS-C DSLR's.


I don't think they are related. 

The hope for a 5DV rests on whether or not Canon can convert 80-90% of 5D users to the R5. If they determine they aren't going to be able to do that, they will likely make a 5D or similar style DSLR in the future. 

I don't pretend to know what the tipping point is, but I doubt if Canon is anxious to cede any market share to Nikon or possibly, to just simply lose those customers permanently. If Nikon releases new DSLRs, which they say they are doing, then I suspect Canon will follow suit, although I would not be surprised to see Canon put new DSLRs on hold until mid 2022 or so, to allow them to focus their resources on the R series and to better gauge market adoption of mirrorless.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 16, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I don't think they are related.
> 
> The hope for a 5DV rests on whether or not Canon can convert 80-90% of 5D users to the R5. If they determine they aren't going to be able to do that, they will likely make a 5D or similar style DSLR in the future.
> 
> I don't pretend to know what the tipping point is, but I doubt if Canon is anxious to cede any market share to Nikon or possibly, to just simply lose those customers permanently. If Nikon releases new DSLRs, which they say they are doing, then I suspect Canon will follow suit, although I would not be surprised to see Canon put new DSLRs on hold until mid 2022 or so, to allow them to focus their resources on the R series and to better gauge market adoption of mirrorless.


 i wonder what the spcs would be


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 16, 2020)

pls dont use lp-e17 batteries for this


----------



## noncho (Dec 16, 2020)

If you want a real revive of 7 series Canon... Make it APS-H!


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 16, 2020)

noncho said:


> If you want a real revive of 7 series Canon... Make it APS-H!



YEESS!!!


----------



## SteB1 (Dec 16, 2020)

It's quite clear that a lot of people without any experience of nature photography, still don't understand the demand for crop sensor higher level cameras like the 7D mkII, and are still stuck in the false argument that it is about price i.e. why get a crop sensor camera if you can get a FF camera for just a bit more. Indeed I see a lot of nature photographers with FF cameras like 5D series cameras, who crop nearly every photo they take to less than APS-C size. It really is very simple. In many places, no matter how long your lens is, you will still have to crop. It's not just with telephoto stuff either, but with in the field macro photos. I'm still surprised at how many photographers don't understand that if you crop a photo to APS-C size or smaller, then a FF camera has no advantage whatsoever. You just have big file sizes and have to do a big crop on nearly every photo you take.


----------



## GadgetDave (Dec 16, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There is no way it won't have IBIS. Image sensors are still the most expensive part of the camera, and the cost difference between APS-C and Full-frame is more significant than people realize. This camera will have a good margin for Canon, but it won't be an "entry-level" product. Maybe down the road we'll see a Rebel like RF mount camera.



Agreed. People don't get that the manufacturing of the sensors is not really any different from making CPUs or Memory. The cost is really per "wafer" used to make the sensors. As an example one standard size of manufacture is a 20cm wafer. From that wafer, if you assume no defects, you can get 24 FF sensors with about 35% of the wafer "wasted," or you can get 80 APS-C sensors with about 18% waste. So just looking at that, every FF sensor will cost AT LEAST 330% more (80/24) than every APS-C sensor, and that's not accounting for anything else. Basic economics and manufacturing would say that the difference is more than that, even - You have the same difference in R&D costs to develop the sensor assuming a number of prototyping efforts, etc.


----------



## zim (Dec 16, 2020)

If it has ibis and the sensor is smaller/lighter could that result in ibis being even more efficient than it is on ff?


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 16, 2020)

noncho said:


> If you want a real revive of 7 series Canon... Make it APS-H!


Then EF-S lenses and similar lenses from Sigma, Tamron etc. wouldn't provide enough coverage. In the whole time Canon made EOS-1D bodies, they never made a lens specifically for that format. 

Also, isn't APS-H about the same size as Super 35 video sensors, about as wide and a little taller?

Is it entirely absurd that Canon could make both an R7 and an M7 using the same basic architecture?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 16, 2020)

pererik_2000 said:


> Hopefully less expensive than the R6 but still with IBIS





melgross said:


> But one of the benefits of using APS-C is that you can use shorter lenses to achieve the same magnification. Somehow I doubt that very many people buying long, heavy and fast lenses, which are also quite expensive, are going to be using them on an APS-C body. Yes, I know, a few will. But Canon isn’t making this for a few people like that. If you look at the lens lineups Canon, Nikon, and even Sony have for APS-C, it’s pitiful when compared to their full frame lineups. I’m talking about DSLR’s, because they’ve been out for two decades now.



The APS-C sensor can also be used to get MORE magnification from the same lens (more pixels on subject). So that you can use a 100-400 lens and get 640mm equivalent focal length without having to spend a ton of money on a 50 megapixel FF camera or a 600mm lens. This is the reason the 7D line was so popular. Because you got a rugged and fast pro body for less than $2000.


----------



## bergstrom (Dec 16, 2020)

I'm just waiting for the R3 (The R6 at half the price)


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The APS-C sensor can also be used to get MORE magnification from the same lens (more pixels on subject). So that you can use a 100-400 lens and get 640mm equivalent focal length without having to spend a ton of money on a 50 megapixel FF camera or a 600mm lens. This is the reason the 7D line was so popular. Because you got a rugged and fast pro body for less than $2000.


Two classic combinations observed at Watkins Glen International: (1) 7D or 7D2 and 100-400, as you mentioned, and, less frequently, (2) 7D or 7D2 and with a 300 f/2.8 and TCs instead of a 1D or 1Dx with a 400 f/2.8 and TCs. I started using a Sigma 150-600 Sport lens with my 7D and it works well without having to remove the lens to add or remove TCs. This is especially important when shooting motocross at dusty tracks.

I would probably order an R7 immediately.


----------



## tapanit (Dec 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The APS-C sensor can also be used to get MORE magnification from the same lens (more pixels on subject). So that you can use a 100-400 lens and get 640mm equivalent focal length without having to spend a ton of money on a 50 megapixel FF camera or a 600mm lens. This is the reason the 7D line was so popular. Because you got a rugged and fast pro body for less than $2000.


Yep. If I have a long lens (400mm+) and have to choose between 5DmkIV + 1.4x TC and 7Dmk2, the latter generally wins. And now with R5, I've set one of the custom modes to force crop mode - with long lenses when you know you'll end up cropping the image even more anyway, there's no point in using the entire sensor. If Canon comes up with R7 with APS-C sensor that's otherwise as good as the R5 but cheaper, let alone if it's also faster or has higher pixel density (like the 7D2 as compared to 5D4), it'd be the perfect 2nd body for me.


----------



## Chris_Seattle (Dec 16, 2020)

I would rather see a 83 megapixel sensor in a full sized RF body. Basically keep the same pixel density/tech as the new 32mp sensor but make it full frame. The trick is to have the expanded sensor wiring to have 2 parts. One for the internal 32mp internal “core”, then the rest of the border around it to fill out rest of full frame.

In “crop” mode you only read from the center of the sensor, and get 16fps or so. That is your 7DMARKII replacement. When you go to full mode you may only have 5FPS or so but now you have your 5DS replacement.

accepts all RF glass, EF with adapter, and you have a wildlife and landscape camera in one.


----------



## Psamathe (Dec 16, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> I think at this point it is unlikely to have anything less than the 32MP one which is one of the most advanced APS-C sensors on the planet right now. With Canon's newest DPAF it has great potential to finally be the birders' dream camera that many have been waiting for.


It was the (for me)low pixel count that put me off the R6 so I'm also hoping an APS-C model would have 30+MP. (for cropping flexibility).

Ian


----------



## Juangrande (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.


You beat me too it, I was going make the same comment.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2020)

Chris_Seattle said:


> I would rather see a 83 megapixel sensor in a full sized RF body....


It sounds like Canon is going to make both.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> But one of the benefits of using APS-C is that you can use shorter lenses to achieve the same magnification. Somehow I doubt that very many people buying long, heavy and fast lenses, which are also quite expensive, are going to be using them on an APS-C body. Yes, I know, a few will. But Canon isn’t making this for a few people like that. If you look at the lens lineups Canon, Nikon, and even Sony have for APS-C, it’s pitiful when compared to their full frame lineups. I’m talking about DSLR’s, because they’ve been out for two decades now.


I think many folks are looking forward to APS-C RF cameras, so they can use FF telephoto lenses for the extra reach. I know I am, plus having a camera with wider DOF, which I usually need for taking flower pics. I have no interest in "crop" lenses. If they come out with an APS-C RF camera, I will be getting a used EF 70-300mm to put on it. Hopefully, they will have both the more expensive model for 7D users, and some cheaper models, too.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.



Is that what the point is? Funny, all these years I've been using a 7Dii to get a higher pixel density under a small central subject with a long tele. Silly me.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 16, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> My guess is (hey, its a rumors site isn't it?) that there will be some non-L lenses that straddle the line between APSC and low end FF lenses. Like the 24-240 which isn't really making a FF image circle until about 35mm, and some of the patented lenses that we've seen posted here that appear to do the same. These would easily cover an APSc sensor with room to get a bunch of IS/IBIS performance though, and be smaller and lighter. But still clip on to an R or RP and provide a good image with software correction.
> 
> With no mirror to make smaller and allow a lens to get closer to the sensor, I don't think you'll see any RF-s only lenses. Too confusing, and since the price difference between the APSc and low end FF RF cameras is going to be lower that the EF history has been, I think you'd want your entry level lenses to allow easy upgrades to FF. I could be wrong though.
> 
> -Brian


Even with mirrorless, Canon still can (and should!) come out with some crop RF lenses with smaller image circles and more appropriate focal lengths for an APS-C RF body. Maybe they will call it RF-S so people know what they're buying. Since there's no mirror to worry about, as you say, they don't need to physically prevent these lenses from attaching to a full frame body like they did with EF-S. If I'm not mistaken, all of the full frame R bodies have a 1.6x crop mode anyway, so they can switch to that mode automatically when such a lens is attached.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 16, 2020)

grantmasterflash said:


> And people act like every single photographer wants to attach a 500mm lens to the front of a camera and there's no reason to use one otherwise. I for one do NOT want that. I wish I had a tiny 300mm on my M6 but I really really don't want a big camera. 99% of the photos I'll ever take in my life is within reach of a 150mm lens. An R6 with an APS-C sensor makes zero sense to me.



So you're saying there's no need for an R7 because Canon has the APS-C M family.

Different cameras for different applications. A 1DXiii is not the same as a 6Dii, even though they're both full frame DSLRs.

I have a 7Dii and an M5. When I'm traveling or biking or just want to go small and light, I bring the M5 and 18-150 because it's small, light, and does a great job for most subjects I'm likely to encounter in those situations. When I go to airshows, I bring the 7Dii and 100-400 for the faster AF system. Different cameras for different applications.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 16, 2020)

another_mikey said:


> [...] But I certainly understand why dedicated wildlife shooters who want the most pixels on target and the fastest frame rates would wish to see the 7D style DSLR crop cameras reimagined in the mirrorless space, with all the potential that could bring. It obviously isn't a body meant for everyone - don't buy one if it doesn't suit your needs - but I bet they will sell plenty of them! I for one like to see Canon being more committed to mirrorless and the RF mount as time goes on. An R7 for the APS-C market, with perhaps some high quality EF-s like lenses plus the ability to really perform with longer EF and soon to be RF lenses seems like a win to me. Match that with the R6, R5, R1 (or whatever it is called) and the R5s (or whatever it is called) and you will have a really solid and broad reaching line up. I say good for Canon, bring it on!


What he said!


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The APS-C sensor can also be used to get MORE magnification from the same lens (more pixels on subject). So that you can use a 100-400 lens and get 640mm equivalent focal length without having to spend a ton of money on a 50 megapixel FF camera or a 600mm lens. This is the reason the 7D line was so popular. Because you got a rugged and fast pro body for less than $2000.


The APSc sensor size gives only a 1.6 times crop on the apparent field of view of the lens. The 400mm lens projects the same image circle, including field of view and depth of field, regardless of what sensor is behind it. The FF sensor captures the full image, while the APSc captures only the portion of the image, which is about the same field that a 640mm lens would project on a full frame. 

The magnification you get would be calculated off the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors you are comparing. Magnification in this case being pixels per inch (Or per duck, as birders like to say). Once the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors are the same, the magnification advantage is gone. We're close to that with the R5 vs the 7D. A 90mp full frame would come close to the 27-32mp apsc sensors. The opposite is also true - if you compare a high res APSc to a low res FF, the 'magnification' could be higher. 

Brian


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 16, 2020)

GadgetDave said:


> Agreed. People don't get that the manufacturing of the sensors is not really any different from making CPUs or Memory. The cost is really per "wafer" used to make the sensors. As an example one standard size of manufacture is a 20cm wafer. From that wafer, if you assume no defects, you can get 24 FF sensors with about 35% of the wafer "wasted," or you can get 80 APS-C sensors with about 18% waste. So just looking at that, every FF sensor will cost AT LEAST 330% more (80/24) than every APS-C sensor, and that's not accounting for anything else. Basic economics and manufacturing would say that the difference is more than that, even - You have the same difference in R&D costs to develop the sensor assuming a number of prototyping efforts, etc.


Cost saving from the sensor is probably the only way to reduce the overall cost of the APS-C/R7 cf the R6
A new IBIS unit will need to be designed for the smaller sensor
Main benefit of a crop sensor will be pixels on target. The current M series 32mp crop sensor is much higher than the cropped R5 sensor @ ~17mp. Remember that the 7Dii is still only 20mp so not a huge difference from the cropped R5.
Whether the 32mp sensor will be reused (cheaper) or a resized version of the upcoming R5s sensor is a good question. For cost, the 32mp is fast enough already and amortised the R&D
Reusing the R6 body makes sense but they could save money for losing the joystick for instance as a differentiator. Touch/drag on the rear LCD for moving focus point may be faster and sufficient
Makes sense to use the same focusing system and shutter speed as the R5/6 for consistency/cost but the R7 can't be too good compared to the R6
No RF-S lenses. If you want to go wide then use adapted EF-S lenses. If there is to be a RF-S, expect just a cheap wide angle zoom and stellar wide angle zoom equivalent to their EF-S lens options. For long focal lengths then RF100-500mm or EF100-400mm (or EF/RF primes) together with the expected long RF primes to come.
Weather sealing equivalent to the R6
4k/30 and HD/60 with no overheating cf R6's 4k/60 and HD/120 for video differentiation. The current 32mp sensor can do 10 bit to HDMI so assume that internal 10 bit will be possible. Autofocus with HD/60
Single UHS-II card slot. Fast enough for video and continuous shooting (CFe is not needed). Differentiator to the R6's dual cards and saves money.
Would make sense to release a M7 at the same time as R7 with basically the same specs but different form factor to manage both target segments. Managing heat in the M7 will be interesting. M7 should have a built in EVF
Same battery for M and R6 variants
The unicorn of the 7D's price, focusing system from 1D, fps more than double the 5D, weather sealing from the 5D can't be supported with the current R body marketing.


----------



## AJ (Dec 16, 2020)

It'll be great for shooting video. The camera will last 1.6x1.6 = 2.56 times longer before it shuts down because of overheating


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 16, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> They _should_ make an RF rebel. Rebels are Canon's best selling line and you gotta pay the bills. So many beginners want a "real" camera system for $500; that's always the cut-off. Nobody's forcing anyone to use it, so I don't know why someone would be bothered by a product that you don't use.


I've heard the M was their best selling line. Either way, consumer grade cameras tend to outsell the more enthusiast/pro lines anyway. More potential customers. But technology advances happen first on the more specialized, high end models, and eventually trickle down. The same thing happens with cars. ABS, backup cameras, lane sensors, you name it.

The question in my mind is, with the M series as the consumer line, and the R as the enthusiast/pro line, where does that leave the Rebels? Will there ever be an R Rebel as a low-cost entry point into the higher range? Or will the Rebels get squeezed out of the market between the M and R? I'm sure there have been lots of internal discussions at Canon about that!


----------



## BirdDudeJosh (Dec 16, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> It's quite clear that a lot of people without any experience of nature photography, still don't understand the demand for crop sensor higher level cameras like the 7D mkII, and are still stuck in the false argument that it is about price i.e. why get a crop sensor camera if you can get a FF camera for just a bit more. Indeed I see a lot of nature photographers with FF cameras like 5D series cameras, who crop nearly every photo they take to less than APS-C size. It really is very simple. In many places, no matter how long your lens is, you will still have to crop. It's not just with telephoto stuff either, but with in the field macro photos. I'm still surprised at how many photographers don't understand that if you crop a photo to APS-C size or smaller, then a FF camera has no advantage whatsoever. You just have big file sizes and have to do a big crop on nearly every photo you take.



I do not agree that simply more pixels gives you any advantage for croping when they are crappy pixels like what you have with the old Canon 18 and 20 MP sensors. There is reason no one really shoots the micro 4/3 systems when they have equivalent to 80MP full frame density for years. You do loose more than you gain from tiny sensor. I understand the current 24 and 32 MP sensors are much better but I have never had one to this point. I mostly shoot birds but for me the IQ, sharpness and ISO performance offered by the 5DIV made me stop using the 7DII and eventually trade it away for a Sony camera. Even only having an equivalent of 11Megapixesl in a 1.6x crop those 11 high quality and sharp megapixels with good ISO performance got me better results than trying to crop the 20 soft noisy MP from the 7DII. I did eventually trade the the 5DIV for an Sony a7III to go along side the a7RIII I was shooting at the time. I am not bashing Canon and I am very happy with the R5 even compared to my a9 and a7RIV.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 16, 2020)

Joules said:


> According to the rumors, the camera in question looks like an R6 though. And I'm fairly confident that is properly classified as an FF-sized body - it's an FF body after all.


What is an "FF body", other than housing an FF sensor? The R5 is already significantly smaller than the 5Div.


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Dec 16, 2020)

It seems like the M mount is all but dead. Is that not correct?


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 16, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> It seems like the M mount is all but dead. Is that not correct?



i hope not, not because i want it, but i want the rf lenses to stay for professional cameras


----------



## slclick (Dec 16, 2020)

Bishop80 said:


> Do you consider the 7D to be a FF-sized body?


Whenever I want to read the craziest thing on the internet, I just come here.

Small sensor small body? This is mosdef a most mirrorless type comment. Anyone who ever owned/used and enjoyed the 7D line has to laugh at this one.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 16, 2020)

slclick said:


> Whenever I want to read the craziest thing on the internet, I just come here.
> 
> Small sensor small body? This is mosdef a most mirrorless type comment. Anyone who ever owned/used and enjoyed the 7D line has to laugh at this one.


a bigger body feels better to your hand and makes you look more dignified as a photographer

preferably bigger body for me


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> i hope not, not because i want it, but i want the rf lenses to stay for professional cameras


You are joking right? What difference would it make? Buy the lenses you want. Don't worry about the others.


----------



## Psamathe (Dec 16, 2020)

I do sometimes wonder if secrecy helps or hinders a manufacturer. Let the cat out of the bag too soon and you are tied to a path and people might delay buying and you could kill-off an existing model prematurely. But too much secrecy and people start e.g. "The M Series is dead" and people don't risk it and buy Sony/Nikon/etc. instead.

Ian


----------



## Bishop80 (Dec 16, 2020)

slclick said:


> Whenever I want to read the craziest thing on the internet, I just come here.
> 
> Small sensor small body? This is mosdef a most mirrorless type comment. Anyone who ever owned/used and enjoyed the 7D line has to laugh at this one.



And whenever I want to see people outraged by questions not directed to them, I just come here.

melgross stated:


melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, *I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.*


And I asked:


Bishop80 said:


> Do you consider the 7D to be a FF-sized body?


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 16, 2020)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> What is an "FF body", other than housing an FF sensor? The R5 is already significantly smaller than the 5Div.


The 7D2 is slightly smaller but also slightly heavier than the 5D4. Both of those cameras are much larger and heavier than the Rebel SL2 which is about the same size and weight as the M5 and the RP. Camera size and weight is very much a conscious marketing decision.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Dec 16, 2020)

tapanit said:


> Yep. If I have a long lens (400mm+) and have to choose between 5DmkIV + 1.4x TC and 7Dmk2, the latter generally wins. And now with R5, I've set one of the custom modes to force crop mode - with long lenses when you know you'll end up cropping the image even more anyway, there's no point in using the entire sensor. If Canon comes up with R7 with APS-C sensor that's otherwise as good as the R5 but cheaper, let alone if it's also faster or has higher pixel density (like the 7D2 as compared to 5D4), it'd be the perfect 2nd body for me.





bbasiaga said:


> The APSc sensor size gives only a 1.6 times crop on the apparent field of view of the lens. The 400mm lens projects the same image circle, including field of view and depth of field, regardless of what sensor is behind it. The FF sensor captures the full image, while the APSc captures only the portion of the image, which is about the same field that a 640mm lens would project on a full frame.
> 
> The magnification you get would be calculated off the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors you are comparing. Magnification in this case being pixels per inch (Or per duck, as birders like to say). Once the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors are the same, the magnification advantage is gone. We're close to that with the R5 vs the 7D. A 90mp full frame would come close to the 27-32mp apsc sensors. The opposite is also true - if you compare a high res APSc to a low res FF, the 'magnification' could be higher.
> 
> Brian



Yes, except the only camera with the same pixel density and speed would be the R5 and that's not affordable for many. Until we have a 50MP high speed FF camera under 2000, the R7 has a market


----------



## ronaldzimmerman.nl (Dec 16, 2020)

A real R7 is a R5 body with an aps-c sensor. The 7DII has been an aps-c equivalent of the 5D-series (form and weather resistance) with 1DX series features (mostly speed). This has always been a popular wildlife and sports camera.

Most birders I know have the 7D2 with 100-400 II. This setup is so popular. I can imagine an R version of this (R7 and RF 100-500) will be very popular. 
To be a real R7 it should be something like this:
-32mp aps-c sensor 
-Autofocus comparable to the R5 
-12fps mechanical and 20fps electronic. 
-Dual card: 1 CFExpress and 1 SD (like R5)
-R5 body with top lcd and weather sealing. 
-IBIS
-€2000-€2300 price tag 

However I expect R6 specs with the 32mp sensor to maintain a €1300-€1800 price tag.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 16, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> ...
> Reusing the R6 body makes sense but the 7Dii has a joystick and the R6 doesn't. Touch/drag on the rear LCD for moving focus point may be faster and sufficient


I don't own an R6, but all the photos and reviews seem to indicate that the R6 does have a joystick.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 16, 2020)

Bishop80 said:


> Do you consider the 7D to be a FF-sized body?


It weighs more than a 5D mark II, so yes, it is a FF sized body in just about every respect. The R5 is considerably smaller and I think some would consider it to be a FF camera.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 16, 2020)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> A real R7 is a R5 body with an aps-c sensor. The 7DII has been an aps-c equivalent of the 5D-series (form and weather resistance) with 1DX series features (mostly speed). This has always been a popular wildlife and sports camera.
> 
> Most birders I know have the 7D2 with 100-400 II. This setup is so popular. I can imagine an R version of this (R7 and RF 100-500) will be very popular.
> To be a real R7 it should be something like this:
> ...


I have a couple minor quibbles with your analysis. First, the 7D series was never quite as fast as the 1D or 1Dx, although it is both speedy and rugged. Second, the R5 and R6 have the same focusing system, which is pretty normal. The 5D3 had basically the same focusing system as the 1Dx and the EOS-3 film body had the same focusing system as the EOS-1N sports film camera. What is unusual is that there isn't also an R1 with that same focusing system. 

You seem (repeat, seem) to be expecting two APS-C R bodies, one based on the R5 and one on the R6. I expect only one, based on the R6. Or maybe that's just what I want.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 17, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> It's quite clear that a lot of people without any experience of nature photography, still don't understand the demand for crop sensor higher level cameras like the 7D mkII, and are still stuck in the false argument that it is about price i.e. why get a crop sensor camera if you can get a FF camera for just a bit more. Indeed I see a lot of nature photographers with FF cameras like 5D series cameras, who crop nearly every photo they take to less than APS-C size. It really is very simple. In many places, no matter how long your lens is, you will still have to crop. It's not just with telephoto stuff either, but with in the field macro photos. I'm still surprised at how many photographers don't understand that if you crop a photo to APS-C size or smaller, then a FF camera has no advantage whatsoever. You just have big file sizes and have to do a big crop on nearly every photo you take.


I disagree that there is "no advantage whatsoever" If you have the same pixel density (which the R5s will likely have), then the FF gives you the same number of pixels on the bird, but the wider field of view makes the bird much easier to find and much easier to keep in the frame. So, in the end, it is about price and maybe a little higher frame rate and a much bigger opportunity to get shots of half a bird. If you haven't used an R5 with its wide field AF, you may not understand the ease of tracking.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 17, 2020)

unfocused said:


> You are joking right? What difference would it make? Buy the lenses you want. Don't worry about the others.



ok your right

Im a freshmen i high school what do i know


----------



## Madbox (Dec 17, 2020)

I think if Canon doesn't include everything the EOS M5 Mark II should have, and figure out a way to adapt M mount lenses to this RF mount APS-C Frankenstein horror, I'll be presented an opportunity to re-evaluate which camera brand I'll continue taking on the road with me. Just release the EOS M5 Mark II already, and we can have a nice day with equipment that already works and is widely supported.


----------



## tataylino (Dec 17, 2020)

So maybe the M50 II is the last of its kind?


----------



## Dragon (Dec 17, 2020)

There are two distinct markets discussed here. The M series nicely satisfies the small and light application and the line really needs a contemporary replacement for the M5 as well as couple more primes and a small telephoto that reaches to at least 300mm (even if slow). The 7D mark II replacement NEEDs to be a BIG camera to swing big glass if it is to fit in the same niche. The real question is whether Canon can get away with releasing such a camera with no APS-c lens support other than the historic EF-s lenses. The 7D II crowd would want any APS-c lenses to be high end, which would make them too costly for any kind of R series Rebel and thus condemned to low volume. Cheap lenses would require an R series Rebel which would, at a minimum, make many people belive the M series was dead, even if that was not the intent. A self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak. Given the dramatic drop in the overall market and particularly the casual market, my sense is that if they release an R7, it will come with no APS-c only lenses and will be there simply to satisfy the very loud whine coming from the 7D II crowd (which, by the way, hasn't figured out that a high pixel density FF produces a much higher hit rate for BIF and similar applications just because of the wider field of view). Canon always says they listen to the customer, so it will be interesting to see where this goes.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2020)

Joules said:


> Well, do you expect everybody who wants to get the most out of their high end tele lens to also buy an R5s (probably more expensive than the R5), and be content with 10-ish FPS, when even the lowly 90D and M6 II can deliver much more than that at the same pixel density (reach) and far, far lower prices?
> 
> If there is a place for APS-C in the RF lineup, I think it is in the high end, for folks that really can't have enough reach and speed. A smaller physical shutter simply makes it less difficult to offer 1 series speeds at less than 5 series prices.


When you say: “get the most out of”, then you’re saying the body with the highest IQ. Do you think that will be an APS-C body?

traditionally, APS-C has NEVER been at the high end, once FF came out. It’s a compromise product category, which as I said earlier, is why you don’t find high end lenses specifically made for it by the major camera manufacturers.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2020)

Bishop80 said:


> Do you consider the 7D to be a FF-sized body?


Not quite. But dslrs have that pentaprism to deal with. It’s not just the size, it’s the weight too.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 17, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Cost saving from the sensor is probably the only way to reduce the overall cost of the APS-C/R7 cf the R6
> A new IBIS unit will need to be designed for the smaller sensor
> Main benefit of a crop sensor will be pixels on target. The current M series 32mp crop sensor is much higher than the cropped R5 sensor @ ~17mp. Remember that the 7Dii is still only 20mp so not a huge difference from the cropped R5.
> Whether the 32mp sensor will be reused (cheaper) or a resized version of the upcoming R5s sensor is a good question. For cost, the 32mp is fast enough already and amortised the R&D
> ...


I agree with your conclusion on all but one point. You really don't want the M7 to grow enough to fit an LP-E6 battery and you really do want that battery in the R7. The M7 will likely use the LP-E17 and be power reduced enough for that to be adequate. The M7 also wouldn't typically have to run the AF and IS in big heavy lenses that chew up a lot of power, whereas that is the express purpose of the R7 if you read all the comments.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 17, 2020)

melgross said:


> Not quite. But dslrs have that pentaprism to deal with. It’s not just the size, it’s the weight too.


Uh, the 7DII is heavier than the 5DII.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2020)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Is that what the point is? Funny, all these years I've been using a 7Dii to get a higher pixel density under a small central subject with a long tele. Silly me.


Not silly you, just a small segment of the market you.

i’m not objecting to this. I’m just surprised that if this “rumor” is true, that the first APS-C model Canon comes out with would be big, and likely as heavy as any mirrorless in that size.

you guys have to remember that talk of a Canon mirrorless RF mount camera here, was about a small body, not a large one. All that talk was about how M series users couldn’t directly move to an RF model without dumping their “small and light” lenses. And what is Canon expected to be doing next year? Releasing a number of lower cost lenses. Slower and lighter too. If an APS-C does come out, likely APS-C lenses TIG.

remember that the M series has been very popular—the first or second in every market it’s been in. Small and light. If Canon wants them to come to RF, it won’t be with a FF body and lenses.


----------



## ronaldzimmerman.nl (Dec 17, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I have a couple minor quibbles with your analysis. First, the 7D series was never quite as fast as the 1D or 1Dx, although it is both speedy and rugged. Second, the R5 and R6 have the same focusing system, which is pretty normal. The 5D3 had basically the same focusing system as the 1Dx and the EOS-3 film body had the same focusing system as the EOS-1N sports film camera. What is unusual is that there isn't also an R1 with that same focusing system.
> 
> You seem (repeat, seem) to be expecting two APS-C R bodies, one based on the R5 and one on the R6. I expect only one, based on the R6. Or maybe that's just what I want.


I should have said “1DX like features” indeed. The 10fps with AF was much faster than all other non-1D bodies. The AF-system was based/the same as the 1DX and so was that of the 5D3.
You are right about the AF of the R5 and R6 being similar. I thought only the R5 had dual pixel af II. Seems very likely the R7 will have similar tech.

Not really expecting two bodies in this range.
I expect them to have a similar strategy as with the 90D and merge the x0d with the 7D series. The 90D is somewhere between those series.
A R6 body, with 32mp, IBIS, 12fps mechanical shutter, dual SD, hopefully R5 viewfinder and some extra weather seals would be a worthy R7 in this era (a little less rugged/“pro” than the 7D2). It can’t be too far from the €1500. This is probably the camera you are looking for.

Another aps-c could be placed at the bottom of the current market. In the Sony A5xxx range (€500-€700). So young/starting/student photographers have their first body to buy into the RF ecosystem.The success of Canon was that you could start in the same ecosystem as the professionals. There will be a time that new buyers don’t have an EF collection.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Dec 17, 2020)

pererik_2000 said:


> Hopefully less expensive than the R6 but still with IBIS



Hopefully one of them is a an R7 that is the spiritual successor to the 7DIII, but with far more relaibale AF, and of course much better DR. Given it's APS-C I'd expect 14fps mechanical, and hopefully it allows us to choose the e-shutter shooting speed rather than be locked to a stupid 20fps like the R5/R6. if it's the exact same AF as the R5/R6 as well as digic X or newer, 26-32MP, 5.69MP EVF, dual CFE Type A, 4K60p from 6K as well as from pixel binning, and similar to R6 in everyother way, I'd gladly pay $2200.


----------



## Skux (Dec 17, 2020)

I can see this being great for birders and sports shooters who want the high pixel density of an APS-C sensor.

But Canon really needs to step up their game if they want to get the vlogger/content creator crowd away from Sony and Fuji, and that means releasing high performance APS-C RF mount lenses (or at the very least, an EOS M body with IBIS and oversampled 4k).


----------



## reef58 (Dec 17, 2020)

grantmasterflash said:


> And people act like every single photographer wants to attach a 500mm lens to the front of a camera and there's no reason to use one otherwise. I for one do NOT want that. I wish I had a tiny 300mm on my M6 but I really really don't want a big camera. 99% of the photos I'll ever take in my life is within reach of a 150mm lens. An R6 with an APS-C sensor* makes zero sense to me.*



Yep to you, but to most wildlife photographers in the Canon eco-system it makes plenty of sense.


----------



## tmac25 (Dec 17, 2020)

bergstrom said:


> I'm just waiting for the R3 (The R6 at half the price)



Or would that be an R12?


----------



## reef58 (Dec 17, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Yes, except the only camera with the same pixel density and speed would be the R5 and that's not affordable for many. Until we have a 50MP high speed FF camera under 2000, the R7 has a market



I will say this in yet another thread I guess. A good deal of the market for the r7 is not buying to save money over an r5 or r6. They have $10,000 lenses and they are looking for maximum pixel density, and world class auto focusing. Canon could well exceed the price of the r6 and it would have a market.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Dec 17, 2020)

No snark intended with my question here.

It seems to me that the primary reason folks posting here 'wouldn't put a 600mm lens on an M6 II' is ergonomics.

I get that. Fully. Probably at least as much as anyone--I am fully aware that the M-series of bodies are not appropriate, ergonomically, for big white lenses.

Riddle me this. Who will choose to use an R7, with the big whites...over an R5 (with the same big whites)...and why, *exactly*?


----------



## miketcool (Dec 17, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.



Who says the RF APS-C body doesn’t have to get smaller?


----------



## sanj (Dec 17, 2020)

I wish for smaller, lighter body and lenses. This will be my second system for family/travel etc.


----------



## sanj (Dec 17, 2020)

I know it will be much higher, but I would be happy with 18mp.


----------



## sanj (Dec 17, 2020)

josephandrews222 said:


> No snark intended with my question here.
> 
> It seems to me that the primary reason folks posting here 'wouldn't put a 600mm lens on an M6 II' is ergonomics.
> 
> ...


People who would want a cheaper camera and people who would want the 'reach' of a crop sensor. Who do not like the idea of cropping in post.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 17, 2020)

sanj said:


> People who would want a cheaper camera and people who would want the 'reach' of a crop sensor. Who do not like the idea of cropping in post.



like me

no cropping


----------



## OneSnark (Dec 17, 2020)

Personally. . . . . I don't see the point of a APS-C "R" series camera.

A crop camera mounting $2500+ FF lenses? meh.

A mirrorless crop camera mounting relatively cheap APS-C lenses?
Some one needs to explain how that isn't a M6 MKII. 

Given the generally super slow release rate of "M" lenses. . . and the total lack of fast (not even F4) zoom lenses. . .I don't hold out any hope that an APS-C "R" camera will have anything to offer.


----------



## sanj (Dec 17, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> like me
> 
> no cropping


Sure. But there is a lot of debate on if cropping hurts the image more than a crop sensor. I personally do not have much clarity on this.


----------



## sanj (Dec 17, 2020)

OneSnark said:


> Personally. . . . . I don't see the point of a APS-C "R" series camera.
> 
> A crop camera mounting $2500+ FF lenses? meh.
> 
> ...


Wait and watch situation. I feel Canon will provide appropriate lenses in time.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 17, 2020)

Dragon said:


> I agree with your conclusion on all but one point. You really don't want the M7 to grow enough to fit an LP-E6 battery and you really do want that battery in the R7. The M7 will likely use the LP-E17 and be power reduced enough for that to be adequate. The M7 also wouldn't typically have to run the AF and IS in big heavy lenses that chew up a lot of power, whereas that is the express purpose of the R7 if you read all the comments.


Agree. M7 will keep the M series battery and R7 will have the LP-E6NH. Just another option for either small with M lenses or R7 for big whites. If you want to use EF big whites on a M series then there is nothing to stop you


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 17, 2020)

josephandrews222 said:


> No snark intended with my question here.
> It seems to me that the primary reason folks posting here 'wouldn't put a 600mm lens on an M6 II' is ergonomics.
> I get that. Fully. Probably at least as much as anyone--I am fully aware that the M-series of bodies are not appropriate, ergonomically, for big white lenses.
> Riddle me this. Who will choose to use an R7, with the big whites...over an R5 (with the same big whites)...and why, *exactly*?


Pixel density. In crop mode, R5 has ~17mp whereas M6ii has 32mp in APS-C format. The rumours for the R5s would roughly the same density of ~30mp in APS-C. REusing the existing M6ii's sensor could be another way to save money. I think that the current 7Dii users would be happy with a density increase from 20->32mp.
Cost of a smaller sensor will also be much less than a full frame sensor (based on wafer costs) enabling Canon to target a cheaper segment. It may even replace the R body.

If a R7 has a low pixel density in APS-C format then we are talking about a very different target segment ie Canon may target the ASiii segment with a video focused camera.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 17, 2020)

ronaldzimmerman.nl said:


> A real R7 is a R5 body with an aps-c sensor. The 7DII has been an aps-c equivalent of the 5D-series (form and weather resistance) with 1DX series features (mostly speed). This has always been a popular wildlife and sports camera.
> 
> Most birders I know have the 7D2 with 100-400 II. This setup is so popular. I can imagine an R version of this (R7 and RF 100-500) will be very popular.
> To be a real R7 it should be something like this:
> ...


I disagree with the dual card as it would be another way to differentiate from the R6. CFe cards are not needed except for 5.5k/8k raw. UHS-II is plenty fast enough for the R5's 45mp shots at 12fps.
I rarely use my top LCD on my R5 now. The R6 doesn't have it so a cheaper R7 body is unlikely to have it.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 17, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> I don't own an R6, but all the photos and reviews seem to indicate that the R6 does have a joystick.


Updated my post


----------



## Chig (Dec 17, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.


Not necessarily true , as for wildlife and sports many people such as my self only want more reach and not small size .
I use a 7D mark ii and an R6 body with a crop sensor would be ideal for my hobby of bird photography .
I'd rather have a large body with a big grip to go with my long telephotos like my EF300 f/2.8 and EF100-400 ii


----------



## Chig (Dec 17, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There is no way it won't have IBIS. Image sensors are still the most expensive part of the camera, and the cost difference between APS-C and Full-frame is more significant than people realize. This camera will have a good margin for Canon, but it won't be an "entry-level" product. Maybe down the road we'll see a Rebel like RF mount camera.


personally rather not have ibis


----------



## Chig (Dec 17, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> Well, I guess there is a call for this, but with full frame RF mount body prices falling such as the original R, RP and rumoured RP II I think they will have limited appeal.
> 
> There will be customers who want RF size bodies starting at 300 bucks right up to users who seek a high spec APS-C 7D replacement.
> 
> However, with cheaper RF lenses on there way some of this market might just feel to up their budget slightly and buy full frame camera.


I disagree as the main expense for wildlife especially birds is lenses so if you use crop sensor you get more reach so can use more affordable lenses like my EF100-400 ii rather than eye wateringly expensive EF 600 f/4 which is why I use a 7D mark ii and would love to buy an R7 replacement and not any FF body


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 17, 2020)

Sometimes on this forum, I really have to wonder if people are being intentionally stupid. How can you be into photography and spend any time on forums and not understand why an APS-C camera might be preferred by photographers as opposed to a FF camera?

MORE REACH, LESS COST.
MORE REACH, LESS COST.
MORE REACH, LESS COST. 

Glad I could help.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 17, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Sometimes on this forum, I really have to wonder if people are being intentionally stupid. How can you be into photography and spend any time on forums and not understand why an APS-C camera might be preferred by photographers as opposed to a FF camera?
> 
> MORE REACH, LESS COST.
> MORE REACH, LESS COST.
> ...



would you approve of a super light setup of an R7 and the 800mm f11 which would equate to around 1300mm


----------



## masterpix (Dec 17, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Not everyone wants smaller and lighter, especially when it comes to a camera body. No one would want to shoot an EOS M6 with a 600 f/4 if they can help it.
> 
> If Canon is making an RF mount EOS 7D as the R7 suggests, then that's a camera for people that use bigger lenses... and bigger lenses are usually more comfortable with bigger bodies.



The main point for such APS sensor is that you can put a 45MP sensor which is 2/3 size of the FF one and get higher magnification of the image while having the same features like the R5. This is very apealing to wild-life and action photographers who wants the highest resolutuon you can get (especially in far and relative "small on the frame" objects) and not want to compromize on the other reatures like FPS. The R6 and the R5 can give 20 FPS on the other side. I am not sure that a FF sensor with about 80MP (the equivalnet ot APS sensor - or the R5s/sr) will be able to handle such FPS.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 17, 2020)

Chig said:


> I disagree as the main expense for wildlife especially birds is lenses so if you use crop sensor you get more reach so can use more affordable lenses like my EF100-400 ii rather eye wateringly expensive EF 600 f/4 which is why I use a 7D mark ii and would love to buy an R7 replacement and not any FF body



Exactly. And not just more affordable, but also smaller and lighter. I have been looking for some time for a telephoto lens for my R kit. Anyhting over 300mm is either too expensive or too heavy (or both). And 300mm offers not particular advantage to lenses I have in my M4/3rds system. I have considered various 100-400mm lenses, the new RF 100-500, and some Sigma alternatives. They are all too expensive or too heavy (or both). What I will buy is an EF 70-300mm lens paired with a Crop camera, giving me the more reach then the 400mm lenses in a smaller and less heavy lens.


----------



## Chig (Dec 17, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> would you approve of a super light setup of an R7 and the 800mm f11 which would equate to around 1300mm


No , not for me personally ; I want to use my EF100-400 ii plus T.Cs with a decent chunky R6 style body not a crappy plastically RF800 f/11and a dinky little camera


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 17, 2020)

Chig said:


> No , not for me personally ; I want to use my EF100-400 ii plus T.Cs with a decent chunky R6 style body not a crappy plastically RF800 f/11and a dinky little camera



how 'bout for someone who has very small amounts of money, like me


----------



## Chig (Dec 17, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Exactly. And not just more affordable, but also smaller and lighter. I have been looking for some time for a telephoto lens for my R kit. Anyhting over 300mm is either too expensive or too heavy (or both). And 300mm offers not particular advantage to lenses I have in my M4/3rds system. I have considered various 100-400mm lenses, the new RF 100-500, and some Sigma alternatives. They are all too expensive or too heavy (or both). What I will buy is an EF 70-300mm lens paired with a Crop camera, giving me the more reach then the 400mm lenses in a smaller and less heavy lens.


I have an EF400 f/5.6 which is cheap (especially 2nd hand) and light and a fantastic lens which would work great with an R camera
I prefer my new EF100-400 ii though even though it's a bit heavier as it's so versatile and I can use for macro as well


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 17, 2020)

Chig said:


> I have an EF400 f/5.6 which is cheap (especially 2nd hand) and light and a fantastic lens which would work great with an R camera
> I prefer my new EF100-400 ii though even though it's a bit heavier as it's so versatile and I can use for macro as well


like "i get 100 buck a month because i am a freshmen in high school" cheap


----------



## Chig (Dec 17, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> how 'bout for someone who has very small amounts of money, like me


a second hand EF400 f/5.6 and T.Cs would be much better on a budget than RF800 f/11 and more versatile


----------



## Chig (Dec 17, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> like i get 500 buck a month because i am a freshmen i high school cheap


Buy a 7D ii and EF 400 f/5.6 second hand, cheaper than new R7 body and RF800 . Here’s a shot I took with my 7Dii and EF400 f/5.6


----------



## padam (Dec 17, 2020)

Speaking of the f/11 DO lenses, there is that DPAF area limitation on FF, but it will be much closer to a full coverage on a crop sensor (but it is questionable if these lenses can handle even higher pixel density)

I guess trimming the R5 sensor down to 17.3 megapixels wouldn't be enough, so it will be something different, I guess an updated version of the 32 megapixel sensor with 4k60p capability.


----------



## Joules (Dec 17, 2020)

melgross said:


> When you say: “get the most out of”, then you’re saying the body with the highest IQ. Do you think that will be an APS-C body?
> 
> traditionally, APS-C has NEVER been at the high end, once FF came out. It’s a compromise product category, which as I said earlier, is why you don’t find high end lenses specifically made for it by the major camera manufacturers.


All I'm saying is this: the chance that Canon will offer 90 MP 20 FPS mechanical in the high resolution R (R5s) at a equal or lower price than the R5 is 0 %.

There is however a decent chance that this rumored APS-C RF body is meant to appeal to the 7D market segment by providing the highest available pixel density (90 MP FF, 32 MP APS-C) and mechanical speed (20 FPS, found in the 1DX III). And as APS-C has traditionally been priced below the 5 series, there is also a good chance this would cost less than the R5.

Mind you, we are talking a specialized camera here. No lenses made only for APS-C, no focus on cheap or small and light. Simply make it as optimized for focal length restrained wildlife as possible.


----------



## swkitt (Dec 17, 2020)

padam said:


> I guess trimming the R5 sensor down to 17.3 megapixels wouldn't be enough, so it will be something different, I guess an updated version of the 32 megapixel sensor with 4k60p capability.



I just tried the R5 on 1,6x mode and the results are great, you get the same IQ as the R5 and the longer focals advantage, and you get 17MP files that are enough for most people. They will probably get it up to 20MP just because it's a psychologic number people want, but I'm not afraid of the IQ of such a sensor. Wildlife and sports enthusiasts will buy full cargos of those cameras ! And hopefully it will also increase the volumes and allow Canon to reduce prices on some categories of lenses to match it.


----------



## Chig (Dec 17, 2020)

Joules said:


> All I'm saying is this: the chance that Canon will offer 90 MP 20 FPS mechanical in the high resolution R (R5s) at a equal or lower price than the R5 is 0 %.
> 
> There is however a decent chance that this rumored APS-C RF body is meant to appeal to the 7D market segment by providing the highest available pixel density (90 MP FF, 32 MP APS-C) and mechanical speed (20 FPS, found in the 1DX III). And as APS-C has traditionally been priced below the 5 series, there is also a good chance this would cost less than the R5.
> 
> Mind you, we are talking a specialized camera here. No lenses made only for APS-C, no focus on cheap or small and light. Simply make it as optimized for focal length restrained wildlife as possible.


If Canon just adds the best aps-c sensor they can make to the R6 body and ditches ibis and an AA filter then you have an ideal replacement to the 7Dii with minimal development cost and it’ll sell well.
Hoping it’s a bit cheaper than the R6 but I will buy it anyway if it’s the same price


----------



## rwvaughn (Dec 17, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> as long as they dont make a rebel series for the RF mount, ill sleep at night
> 
> a 7d mk ii equivalent will be fine



After the R7 is released what makes you think the Rebel line won't convert to mirrorless as well?


----------



## Joules (Dec 17, 2020)

rwvaughn said:


> After the R7 is released what makes you think the Rebel line won't convert to mirrorless as well?


Lack of APS-C lenses (slower, cheaper, lighter, less IQ) in the RF mount probably. And the fact that splitting the low to mid end APS-C market between the EF-M and RF mount sounds like a poor choice, given how well the EF-M system does what it does (be small and sell well) and how Canon have positioned RF as all about quality rather than compactness or affordability so far.


----------



## Joules (Dec 17, 2020)

Chig said:


> ... then you have an ideal replacement to the 7Dii with minimal development cost and it’ll sell well.


That's really the interesting bit. Which consumers is this aimed at. An R6 with only a crop sensor sounds more like a successor to the 90D to me (Edit: realize you want to also remove the IBIS, so it wouldn't even be a proper upgrade for the 90D), rather than a true 7 series. But it may be possible that the market that's really looking for the qualities of former 7 series bodies is just to small to support such a product nowdays, and so they'll have to buckle up for a R5s for reach, R1 for speed or R5 for a mix of both.


----------



## Joules (Dec 17, 2020)

sanj said:


> Sure. But there is a lot of debate on if cropping hurts the image more than a crop sensor. I personally do not have much clarity on this.


If you want more clarity, check out my thread about just that topic: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/equivalency-now-with-pictures.39787/
In a nutshell, cropping an FF image to same FoV as a crop sensor, and just taking that image with a crop sensor in the first place is exactly the same thing, provided all other variables (sensor quality, physical distance to subject, lens in use, aperture, ISO, shutter speed, ...) are also exactly the same.

That's not what reach is about though. It is not about people not wanting to crop their images - it is about putting more pixels on the subject and therefore being able to display that subject larger. You can get that by physically enlarging the image more, using a longer lens. But past a certain point, that get's really expensive and heavy. The other way to gain more reach is using a higher pixel density, so pixels per sensor area. The highest Canon offers here currently is the 32.5 MP sensor found in the 90D and M6 II. Scaled up to FF area, that results in about 90 MP. And we have a good rumor indicating that will indeed be the resolution of the R5s (the high res RF body). But if that's the only option to get this kind of reach in the RF realm, it means you essentially have to pay a hefty premium over the other options to get that reach.

Previously there was the 7D II and 5Ds, which both had the same pixel density, with one offering all the advantages that come with FF, but at the cost of speed, and the other offering the same reach, but for a lower cost and with more speed. The camera in this rumor could well be hinting at a similar dynamic existing in the RF ecosystem in the future.


----------



## padam (Dec 17, 2020)

Chig said:


> If Canon just adds the best aps-c sensor they can make to the R6 body and ditches ibis and an AA filter then you have an ideal replacement to the 7Dii with minimal development cost and it’ll sell well.
> Hoping it’s a bit cheaper than the R6 but I will buy it anyway if it’s the same price


They are not going to ditch the AA filter, unless it is specifically made for resolution, like an R5s
It would introduce more problems for video which they can't just ignore, if it stays at 32.5MP then it will remain line-skipped but maybe up to 4k60p.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 17, 2020)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Is that what the point is? Funny, all these years I've been using a 7Dii to get a higher pixel density under a small central subject with a long tele. Silly me.


Not to mention the build quality of a 1d series camera, the AF of a 1 d series camera and the ergonomics ofa 5d series camera all wrapped up in the price of a 6d series camera


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 17, 2020)

swkitt said:


> I just tried the R5 on 1,6x mode and the results are great, you get the same IQ as the R5 and the longer focals advantage, and you get 17MP files that are enough for most people. They will probably get it up to 20MP just because it's a psychologic number people want, but I'm not afraid of the IQ of such a sensor. Wildlife and sports enthusiasts will buy full cargos of those cameras ! And hopefully it will also increase the volumes and allow Canon to reduce prices on some categories of lenses to match it.


I don't think you are getting any 'reach' though. In fact, I'm nearly sure. The lens projects the same image circle, regardless of what mode you are shooting in. Crop mode just takes an APSc sized section out of the middle of it. So you are just getting the same image, at the same apparent magnification, just with the outer 28mp already cropped off for you. 

I don't believe it is resampling the FF image down to a smaller file. Though I could be wrong. The result would be the same as if you had taken the same image in FF mode, and just cropped it yourself. You could test this by setting up on a tripod, and taking the same image twice - once in crop and once in FF mode. Then display those images both at 300ppi. Your subject should be the same size in both images, just with less around it in the crop mode photo.


----------



## flip314 (Dec 17, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> how 'bout for someone who has very small amounts of money, like me



Have you tried just having more money?


----------



## slclick (Dec 17, 2020)

flip314 said:


> Have you tried just having more money?


I come here for the salient life tips


----------



## solovetski (Dec 17, 2020)

As of today there is just one crop RF lens at least (Laowa 9mm T/2.9 Cine). Yes, it's fully manual and covers Super35 sensor. And it was made for new RF-mount cinema cams in the first place. But it's very interesting, what is the chance that R7 will have super35 size sensor?


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 17, 2020)

rwvaughn said:


> After the R7 is released what makes you think the Rebel line won't convert to mirrorless as well?



idk 

Maybe the m mount cameras will be for consumers


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 17, 2020)

Chig said:


> Buy a 7D ii and EF 400 f/5.6 second hand, cheaper than new R7 body and RF800 . Here’s a shot I took with my 7Dii and EF400 f/5.6
> View attachment 194594



I cant exactly spend all my money on a 400mm, because I like other types of photography too. also I meant 100, not 500


----------



## scottw (Dec 17, 2020)

This seems like a weird one. I'm thinking this would have a new sensor if it's going to be a high-speed sports camera. I can't imagine they would use the sensor from the 90D/M6 Mark II. Though, I'd think that they could instead design a large megapixel full-frame sensor that would be able to go into a super high-speed APS-C crop, which would avoid muddying the RF ecosystem. I guess we will see soon enough!


----------



## Dragon (Dec 17, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> Agree. M7 will keep the M series battery and R7 will have the LP-E6NH. Just another option for either small with M lenses or R7 for big whites. If you want to use EF big whites on a M series then there is nothing to stop you


Yes, I often use the M5 on on my 800L. It works just fine with the lens on a sturdy tripod and gimbal.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Uh, the 7DII is heavier than the 5DII.


How about. The 5Dmk III, or IV? Even if that correct, it’s just one body. All the others are smaller and lighter.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2020)

miketcool said:


> Who says the RF APS-C body doesn’t have to get smaller?


Not me. I’m just commenting on, you know, what the article said about the body.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2020)

Chig said:


> Not necessarily true , as for wildlife and sports many people such as my self only want more reach and not small size .
> I use a 7D mark ii and an R6 body with a crop sensor would be ideal for my hobby of bird photography .
> I'd rather have a large body with a big grip to go with my long telephotos like my EF300 f/2.8 and EF100-400 ii


Sigh! Yes, I acknowledged that there are SOME people like you. But as a percentage, it’s small. The reason why most APS-C cameras are smaller, lighter and cheaper, with very few, if any pro lenses (no “L” APS-C lenses! Nikon is the same), and so many different models, is because most people buying that format are often not much more than snap shooters who want a few cheaper lenses.

my question is why Apple would want to cater to higher end APS-C shooters first time around, since they are a small marketshare of overall APS-C buyers. One would think that if they’re now trying to get a good amount of APS-C sales, they would go for the bigger market of APS-C DSLR shooters, again, most of whom buy those smaller, less expensive cameras.

I have nothing against Canon selling a camera aimed towards higher end APS-C users. I just don’t see why they would go after them first.


----------



## Joaquim (Dec 17, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I know some think this is silly, but it means a lot to me...
> 
> I really really hope it has builtin GPS!
> 
> (No, don't tell me about the "smartphone app solution" - Tried and it was worthless frustrations in practice)



I think it certainly will come with one as the 7Dii had it and the 7 series is basically supposed to be a baby 1D series camera.
I just hope they keep both card slots as SD and not what the 7Dii did with the 5Diii style card slots or in this case the R5. But it seems like they will go with the R6 body.


----------



## Joaquim (Dec 17, 2020)

My first camera from my own pocket was a 7Dii and this is the Canon APS-C mirrorless I've been waiting for. Having said that, after being with Fuji for the last 2 years, I'm eager to see what the XH2 will bring to the table. Glad I didn't sell off my DSLR 2.8 lenses. That old sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 APO EX DC OS HSM is pretty much a rare gem now. The resolution, sharpness and Auto Focus on that lens is just amazing on Canon DSLRs and even the M5. Unfortunately, it doesn't work with the Fringer adapters. But seriously a great lens even for video.


----------



## Joules (Dec 17, 2020)

melgross said:


> I have nothing against Canon selling a camera aimed towards higher end APS-C users. I just don’t see why they would go after them first.


They've already got the mirrorless for the masses segment covered with EF-M. There's no 'going after them first' here, they already have that market segment.

Trying to compete with EF-M for customers that want small, light and cheap seems much harder to believe than Canon (no idea why you mention Apple) simply developing a new mechanical shutter and downs a led version of the R5s sensor for use in an existing FF body.


----------



## Wanderingsmog (Dec 17, 2020)

How does physical sensor size impact power consumption, if at all?

Would the APS-C sensor have a significant positive impact on battery life compared to full frame? The lower battery life of mirrorless compared to DSLRs may make this a compelling reason for an APS-C RF mount.

Has anyone ever seen any data published on the power demands of the various components in a digItal camera individually?


----------



## Joules (Dec 17, 2020)

Wanderingsmog said:


> How does physical sensor size impact power consumption, if at all?
> 
> Would the APS-C sensor have a significant positive impact on battery life compared to full frame? The lower battery life of mirrorless compared to DSLRs may make this a compelling reason for an APS-C RF mount.
> 
> Has anyone ever seen any data published on the power demands of the various components in a digItal camera individually?


Moving a larger shutter (and mirror in the case of DSLR) will require slightly more power. But don't expect a big difference.

The CIPA battery ratings for the 5D IV and 80D for example show the 80D being able to take slightly more shots (and I believe that's also using the built in flash for some proportion of the pictures?). So, as they have the same battery and sensor generation, the crop body consumes a little less power.

But the 5D IV also has a slightly more powerful processor, if Canon's naming scheme is indicative of performance. So it is not apples to apples.

Edit: With IBIS being a factor now, that may actually amount to a bigger difference between crop and FF due to the mass differences. But the sensor also can move further within the FF image circle, so that may cancel out if they go for even greater amounts of stability.


----------



## slclick (Dec 17, 2020)

The Canon Rumors Forum, where people without a dog in a fight sure have a lot of emotional connections and opinions on what others (and Canon) are doing wrong. Guess what? A grundle of former and current 7D/7Dii users like what Canon did the first time and cannot wait for the mirrorless iteration. If I'm in a blind or shooting an airshow, I'm not thinking about post production crop and sensor well quadrants.

If we have a rumor that Canon is likely making what many folks have been pining for for years, why must others whose interests lie elsewhere come along and whiz in their Cheerios?


----------



## wyotex43n (Dec 17, 2020)

melgross said:


> Sigh! Yes, I acknowledged that there are SOME people like you. But as a percentage, it’s small. The reason why most APS-C cameras are smaller, lighter and cheaper, with very few, if any pro lenses (no “L” APS-C lenses! Nikon is the same), and so many different models, is because most people buying that format are often not much more than snap shooters who want a few cheaper lenses.
> 
> my question is why Apple would want to cater to higher end APS-C shooters first time around, since they are a small marketshare of overall APS-C buyers. One would think that if they’re now trying to get a good amount of APS-C sales, they would go for the bigger market of APS-C DSLR shooters, again, most of whom buy those smaller, less expensive cameras.
> 
> I have nothing against Canon selling a camera aimed towards higher end APS-C users. I just don’t see why they would go after them first.


I think the profit margin on this type of camera and the market size more than makes it worth Canons effort.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> ok your right
> 
> Im a freshmen i high school what do i know


Probably more than you realize and certainly more than some on this forum.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Dec 18, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> would you approve of a super light setup of an R7 and the 800mm f11 which would equate to around 1300mm


F11 on a crop won’t work.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> F11 on a crop won’t work.


Why not? A lot of people said it wouldn't work on a FF, but it does and it does it rather well.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Dec 18, 2020)

melgross said:


> Sigh! Yes, I acknowledged that there are SOME people like you. But as a percentage, it’s small. The reason why most APS-C cameras are smaller, lighter and cheaper, with very few, if any pro lenses (no “L” APS-C lenses! Nikon is the same), and so many different models, is because most people buying that format are often not much more than snap shooters who want a few cheaper lenses.
> 
> my question is why Apple would want to cater to higher end APS-C shooters first time around, since they are a small marketshare of overall APS-C buyers. One would think that if they’re now trying to get a good amount of APS-C sales, they would go for the bigger market of APS-C DSLR shooters, again, most of whom buy those smaller, less expensive cameras.
> 
> I have nothing against Canon selling a camera aimed towards higher end APS-C users. I just don’t see why they would go after them first.


Because there is MUCH higher demand for an 7D ii replacement than for another cheap entry level model. People who buy them have pleeeenty of choice already and definitely aren’t in a rush to get into the R system. 7D lovers are all waiting for that one camera.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2020)

melgross said:


> Sigh! Yes, I acknowledged that there are SOME people like you. But as a percentage, it’s small. The reason why most APS-C cameras are smaller, lighter and cheaper, with very few, if any pro lenses (no “L” APS-C lenses! Nikon is the same), and so many different models, is because most people buying that format are often not much more than snap shooters who want a few cheaper lenses.



But, the mass market folks already have the M series to choose from if they want a Canon mirrorless.



melgross said:


> my question is why Apple would want to cater to higher end APS-C shooters first time around, since they are a small marketshare of overall APS-C buyers. One would think that if they’re now trying to get a good amount of APS-C sales, they would go for the bigger market of APS-C DSLR shooters, again, most of whom buy those smaller, less expensive cameras.
> 
> I have nothing against Canon selling a camera aimed towards higher end APS-C users. I just don’t see why they would go after them first.



Apple? They sell cameras that come with a free phone. As for Canon, it's not their first time around. Again, the M series is for the market you are describing, the R7 and the more costly RF lenses are for the 7D market -- those who want a high-end camera and are willing to pay for it. If Canon makes an R7 as rumored, then it will be clear that they don't see much if any overlap between the small camera market (traditionally Rebels and now M Series) and the enthusiast/semi-pro/pro market that the R7 would be targeted at. R7 buyers are likely to pair the camera with a long lens 90% of the time, as that market is interested in reach. Canon can produce a 15-85mm APS-C lens and maybe a 10-20mm APS-C and that will be all the shorter focal length lenses they need.

As to whether or not the market is big enough to justify the development and manufacturing costs, apparently it is or Canon wouldn't be making one. These customers are not particularly price sensitive.


----------



## 1D4 (Dec 18, 2020)

melgross said:


> Sigh! Yes, I acknowledged that there are SOME people like you. But as a percentage, it’s small. The reason why most APS-C cameras are smaller, lighter and cheaper, with very few, if any pro lenses (no “L” APS-C lenses! Nikon is the same), and so many different models, is because most people buying that format are often not much more than snap shooters who want a few cheaper lenses.
> 
> my question is why Apple would want to cater to higher end APS-C shooters first time around, since they are a small marketshare of overall APS-C buyers. One would think that if they’re now trying to get a good amount of APS-C sales, they would go for the bigger market of APS-C DSLR shooters, again, most of whom buy those smaller, less expensive cameras.
> 
> I have nothing against Canon selling a camera aimed towards higher end APS-C users. I just don’t see why they would go after them first.



I think you are vastly underestimating the percentage of people who want higher end APS-C cameras and currently use them with expensive lenses. The Nikon D500 is very popular and often paired with the AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm VR ($2300) or the 500mm PF ($3500). The 7D series is very popular and most of my friends who have it pair it with the 100-400 IS II. It's not just SOME people like you continue to state....there is a significant demand for this type of camera and Canon doesn't make money by developing cameras that only a small percentage of people would want. I currently have the R5 and RF100-500, RF70-200 2.8 and RF15-35 2.8, and will be a day 1 purchaser of the R7.


----------



## Bishop80 (Dec 18, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.
> 
> 
> Bishop80 said:
> ...



Thanks, it was a genuine question to see what your perspective was.
The CR2 indicates that it “looks nearly identical to the EOS R6”.
The R6 is smaller in most dimensions than 7D/II, and lighter.
So if this new APS-C R camera is closer to the R6, then would you still consider it as putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body?

Whatever it is, I would use it. And the 5DV, if there will be one. Or whatever else Canon comes up with. Mostly excited about an R1, though, as I'm expecting a few surprises.

The EOS R System is all about the RF mount and lenses, and not mirrorless. The system was created around the new mount architecture. Canon even explained when talking about R that shooting Live View or Movie mode was effectively mirrorless already, and that slapping on an EVF would not have been difficult. But R wasn't about that; the point was development of the RF Lens series. So with APS-C, I am curious if/when we will see RF-S type lenses as the RF camera models expand to all segments.


----------



## melgross (Dec 18, 2020)

Joules said:


> All I'm saying is this: the chance that Canon will offer 90 MP 20 FPS mechanical in the high resolution R (R5s) at a equal or lower price than the R5 is 0 %.
> 
> There is however a decent chance that this rumored APS-C RF body is meant to appeal to the 7D market segment by providing the highest available pixel density (90 MP FF, 32 MP APS-C) and mechanical speed (20 FPS, found in the 1DX III). And as APS-C has traditionally been priced below the 5 series, there is also a good chance this would cost less than the R5.
> 
> Mind you, we are talking a specialized camera here. No lenses made only for APS-C, no focus on cheap or small and light. Simply make it as optimized for focal length restrained wildlife as possible.


I get that. As I just replied elsewhere, I have no problem with Canon pursuing that market.

it seems as though a bunch of people are misconstruing my intentions here. my point, which I suppose wasn’t made clearly enough, was that I don’t see why Canon would come out with this FF size APS-C camera now, that is, first. I understand perfectly that there a some who want that. But it’s a small percentage of APS-C buyers. Canon has a fair number of those small, light and inexpensive APS-C DSLR models, and obviously, they want to convert them to the RF mount. But they won’t do it with a large, fairly expensive (to them) body.

so why this first? It would seem to make sense to try to capture that larger customer base first, and then the smaller one for a larger body.

maybe I’m wrong, but I can’t see why.


----------



## melgross (Dec 18, 2020)

1D4 said:


> I think you are vastly underestimating the percentage of people who want higher end APS-C cameras and currently use them with expensive lenses. The Nikon D500 is very popular and often paired with the AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm VR ($2300) or the 500mm PF ($3500). The 7D series is very popular and most of my friends who have it pair it with the 100-400 IS II. It's not just SOME people like you continue to state....there is a significant demand for this type of camera and Canon doesn't make money by developing cameras that only a small percentage of people would want. I currently have the R5 and RF100-500, RF70-200 2.8 and RF15-35 2.8, and will be a day 1 purchaser of the R7.


Both Canon and Nikon have failed to come out with pro level lenses for APS-C, so those who need them but FF lenses. When you say something is very popular, well, compared to what?


----------



## Chig (Dec 18, 2020)

padam said:


> They are not going to ditch the AA filter, unless it is specifically made for resolution, like an R5s
> It would introduce more problems for video which they can't just ignore, if it stays at 32.5MP then it will remain line-skipped but maybe up to 4k60p.


Most people wanting a 7D ii replacement aren't into video and would rather not have an AA filter at all


----------



## 1D4 (Dec 18, 2020)

melgross said:


> Both Canon and Nikon have failed to come out with pro level lenses for APS-C, so those who need them but FF lenses. When you say something is very popular, well, compared to what?


Why do they need pro-level APS-C lenses when you can use FF lenses perfectly fine with APS-C? It's not like the two systems are completely incompatible. The sales figures of 7Ds and D500s say they are very popular, as does the fact that a high percentage of my photographer friends use them (I too, also owned the 7D (v1) and D500 at one point). When you repeatedly state that only a small percentage of APS-C buyers would want a body in FF size and "most people buying that format are often not much more than snap shooters who want a few cheaper lenses", what are you basing those assertions on? Again, Canon knows their exact sales figures for the 7D line. Do you honestly think they'd spend the money and resources developing a mirrorless equivalent if 7D sales weren't that great?


----------



## Chig (Dec 18, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> I cant exactly spend all my money on a 400mm, because I like other types of photography too. also I meant 100, not 500


Hi Lucas 
You were talking about spending $USD900 on an RF800 lens which is less versatile and more expensive than a good used EF400 f/5.6 , so not sure what you want , also some very affordable zooms available and a nifty/fifty 50mm f/1.8 is very cheap and great for all sorts of photography
Some amazing used gear for sale at very reasonable prices around which would be closer to what you can afford than some future gear like the R7 which will be pretty expensive.
Try buying an old film camera from a charity shop , you'll have lots of fun and learn a lot


----------



## masterpix (Dec 18, 2020)

miketcool said:


> Who says the RF APS-C body doesn’t have to get smaller?


The size and weight of the body relay on how compact you can make the electronics, the battery and the ruggness of the frame of the camera, The sensor is not an issue for the lens mount and the distnace from the rear of the lens dictate the size of the "optical chamber". So FF or APS can't differ in the "optical chamber", the rest is up to the design.


----------



## masterpix (Dec 18, 2020)

Chig said:


> I have an EF400 f/5.6 which is cheap (especially 2nd hand) and light and a fantastic lens which would work great with an R camera
> I prefer my new EF100-400 ii though even though it's a bit heavier as it's so versatile and I can use for macro as well


Same here, my 100-400II is the lens mounted on my 7D as first choice.


----------



## padam (Dec 18, 2020)

Chig said:


> Most people wanting a 7D ii replacement aren't into video and would rather not have an AA filter at all


Well, then there is the R5s model in crop mode. They are not going to do an 's' model with an APS-C sensor and video is important for every new camera in 2021.


----------



## LRPP (Dec 18, 2020)

There are a lot of people talking about market. Can someone please provide me a source of how many camera Canon has produced by model?


----------



## SteB1 (Dec 18, 2020)

Dragon said:


> I disagree that there is "no advantage whatsoever" If you have the same pixel density (which the R5s will likely have), then the FF gives you the same number of pixels on the bird, but the wider field of view makes the bird much easier to find and much easier to keep in the frame. So, in the end, it is about price and maybe a little higher frame rate and a much bigger opportunity to get shots of half a bird. If you haven't used an R5 with its wide field AF, you may not understand the ease of tracking.


It's not about tracking. It's about taking hundreds of 45mp images and cropping every one to 10-12mp or less. In the UK it is very rare that any bird photograph not taken from a hide/blind is not going to be seriously cropped.


----------



## SteB1 (Dec 18, 2020)

josephandrews222 said:


> No snark intended with my question here.
> 
> It seems to me that the primary reason folks posting here 'wouldn't put a 600mm lens on an M6 II' is ergonomics.
> 
> ...


Basically anyone that uses a 7D mkII on a big white lens. Lots of photographer who use 7D mkII's on big white lenses, also have a 1Dx mk whatever, and a 5D series camera. But if you're a bird photographer in many parts of the world, you're going to be cropping every single image, even on a 7D mkII. It means if you use a FF camera, most of your frame is entirely wasted. Even a 7D mkII has a bit more pixel density than an R5, which I believe is only 18mp when cropped to APS-C. Whereas if a new R7 has the 32mp sensor in it, photographers will get far higher resolution images than they would with an R5. The new high resolution R camera may give similar pixel density. But if you fire lots of bursts, even if it has the same frame rates, you are going to be dealing with huge files to cull the images down to keepers. Even modern computers are going to get slowed down by 90mp images.


----------



## Psamathe (Dec 18, 2020)

I think one broader aspect is to get/keep people in "the ecosystem". Once "in" it becomes a lot harder to switch to another brand. I have a low end Canon DLSR but expensive lenses ("big white") and were it not for those lenses I'd have switched to Sony mirrorless a years ago. Canon got me "in their ecosystem" and it's hard to get out. So whilst manufacturing new models of big sellers is important, long term they need a full range to get and keep people.

And people need long term confidence when buying into a system. All the talk of "M-series is dead" don't inspire confidence and not knowing what direction Canon are going does not inspire confidence.

Focusing on a big seller is short term important but to overlook a broad range could cause longer term difficulties.

Ian


----------



## rwvaughn (Dec 18, 2020)

Joules said:


> Lack of APS-C lenses (slower, cheaper, lighter, less IQ) in the RF mount probably. And the fact that splitting the low to mid end APS-C market between the EF-M and RF mount sounds like a poor choice, given how well the EF-M system does what it does (be small and sell well) and how Canon have positioned RF as all about quality rather than compactness or affordability so far.



I don't think I'd count on the M line being developed much further. Yes, I know it's a good selling system for Canon, but looking at the RF lens roadmap one lens pops out at me as a screamer for crop sensor bodies..... 

Canon RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM


----------



## Otara (Dec 18, 2020)

If I was just birding the R7 would be pretty attractive. But being able to get 18MP in crop with the R5 is pretty awesome, and if you get close enough, you get more, not to mention my amazing ability to cut off a tail with crop sensors.

Im sure some people will get the R7 as well as an R5, but the difference is probably less compelling that it used to be other than price, and its more a matter of preference.


----------



## swkitt (Dec 18, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I don't think you are getting any 'reach' though. In fact, I'm nearly sure. The lens projects the same image circle, regardless of what mode you are shooting in. Crop mode just takes an APSc sized section out of the middle of it. So you are just getting the same image, at the same apparent magnification, just with the outer 28mp already cropped off for you.
> 
> I don't believe it is resampling the FF image down to a smaller file. Though I could be wrong. The result would be the same as if you had taken the same image in FF mode, and just cropped it yourself. You could test this by setting up on a tripod, and taking the same image twice - once in crop and once in FF mode. Then display those images both at 300ppi. Your subject should be the same size in both images, just with less around it in the crop mode photo.



Of course it's just a crop, but what you see in the viewfinder is the crop, and thats a great advantage compare to cropping on the computer. Easier to get a good focus too and in the right spot than with a wider image. Imagine shooting a bird on a tree between branches for example. 
I used to carry a 5D and a 7D for having the possibility of different reach (or call it "crop" if you prefer), but now it's not necessary anymore as this function does exactly the same thing as having an APS-C sensor.


----------



## Nigel95 (Dec 18, 2020)

Chig said:


> Most people wanting a 7D ii replacement aren't into video and would rather not have an AA filter at all


Well I really hope this R7 will be my dream hybrid camera. Been waiting a long time for something like that.. Currently there is nothing that ticks the boxes for me personally for a hybrid camera with an APS-C sensor. If it has the speed for photography (R7) it could have the 4k with higher framerates hopefully as well.

I wonder, would the 7d II crowd skip this body if it has an AA filter? Otherwise Canon could reach a larger segment for both the current 7d and hybrid shooters. To have something similar as Fuji XT4


----------



## salzd17 (Dec 18, 2020)

I really don't see the point for putting an APS-C Sensor in a RF-Mount Body. I Can't imagine, that the price benefit is that huge and on the other side why not add a «crop-mode» which allows existing APS-C user to continue using their glass (reach) while still having the option to move to full frame? I think with an EVF it should also be not much of an effort to display the correct FOV directly in the viewfinder.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> I cant exactly spend all my money on a 400mm, because I like other types of photography too. also I meant 100, not 500





Chig said:


> Hi Lucas
> ...Try buying an old film camera from a charity shop , you'll have lots of fun and learn a lot



I think this is well-meaning but not very sound advice. Film cameras come with some very expensive requirements no matter how cheap the original purchase may be. Film is not cheap and you can spend thousands of dollars on film for what you can get for $20 or so on a card. Plus there is the expense of the darkroom or, alternatively, film processing. But sending film off to be processed doesn't help you learn anything and the results you get back are likely to be disappointing. Not to mention the difficulty of even obtaining supplies unless you live in a large city.

Compare that to the $10-$20 a month that a Lightroom or Photoshop subscription costs, not to mention the many advantages of learning to process you own images and the versatility that these programs provide. 

Photography has always been a rich person's hobby. Today you spend a lot of money at the front end, but the ongoing costs are low. In the film days, we were able to get into the hobby at a reasonable cost, but the supplies quickly bled you dry. 

@Lucas Tingley, if you are serious about photography and your parents can't or won't subsidize you, then the best advice is to look for an after-school job as soon as you are old enough.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2020)

salzd17 said:


> I really don't see the point for putting an APS-C Sensor in a RF-Mount Body. I Can't imagine, that the price benefit is that huge and on the other side why not add a «crop-mode» which allows existing APS-C user to continue using their glass (reach) while still having the option to move to full frame? I think with an EVF it should also be not much of an effort to display the correct FOV directly in the viewfinder.


All the R series cameras already do that. The advantage of the crop sensor body is the higher resolution, since the current resolution of the R5 crops down to under 20mp. Not bad, but not necessarily enough when trying to shoot small songbirds, which will likely fill only a small portion of the frame even in crop mode.

I would agree that if the rumored R5s has the same crop resolution as the rumored R7, then the advantages of the R7 will really come down to whether or not it has better features (faster frame rate, more accurate autofocus, etc,) than the R5s. The beauty of the 7DII was that it offered features above the 5DIII and closer to the 1Dx. As for price, I'm not expecting there to be a huge savings for the crop sensor.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2020)

melgross said:


> ...I don’t see why Canon would come out with this FF size APS-C camera now, that is, first. I understand perfectly that there a some who want that. But it’s a small percentage of APS-C buyers. Canon has a fair number of those small, light and inexpensive APS-C DSLR models, and obviously, they want to convert them to the RF mount. But they won’t do it with a large, fairly expensive (to them) body.
> 
> so why this first? It would seem to make sense to try to capture that larger customer base first, and then the smaller one for a larger body.
> 
> maybe I’m wrong, but I can’t see why.



Because it is not their first APS-C mirrorless body. I think a lot of people see the M series as the successor to the Rebel line...small, light and inexpensive. And, Canon has already captured that customer base, as the M series is, I believe, already the top selling mirrorless brand in the world.

The R7 is a specialist camera that offers more perceived reach (pre-cropping might be a better term) for those who consistently can't get close enough to their subjects to fill the frame. Which would be a lot of bird and wildlife and some sports photographers.

I think where you are wrong is in assuming Canon intends to ever offer low cost APS-C bodies in the R mount. Granted, Canon is taking a bit of a risk because there is no longer the seamless upgrade path from entry-level Rebel to full frame DSLR. But, they have the market research and it is quite possible that those following the upgrade path were never that great and that with low cost full frame cameras like the RP, there is less of a need for low cost crop sensor bodies in the R mount.


----------



## melgross (Dec 18, 2020)

unfocused said:


> But, the mass market folks already have the M series to choose from if they want a Canon mirrorless.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You’re making it seem as though I’m saying something I’m not, as some others here are doing.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 18, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> It's not about tracking. It's about taking hundreds of 45mp images and cropping every one to 10-12mp or less. In the UK it is very rare that any bird photograph not taken from a hide/blind is not going to be seriously cropped.


Different strokes for different folks. Some of us take pictures of of birds in the wild in the wild and not from a blind. In that case, tracking IS important.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 18, 2020)

melgross said:


> How about. The 5Dmk III, or IV? Even if that correct, it’s just one body. All the others are smaller and lighter.


Yes, but the discussion is around the 7DII and it is popular with its user base BECAUSE it is the same size a FF, not in spite of.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 19, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> birders' dream camera that many have been waiting for.



R5/R6 covered this well.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 19, 2020)

Low light and less noise are two distinct advantages, and when you aren’t shooting wildlife


sanj said:


> I know it will be much higher, but I would be happy with 18mp.



That’s what I get when I throw my R5 into crop mode, which, with my 100-400L and 1.4 on, puts me at roughly 900mm equivalent @ f8..

No need for a crop body from where I’m sitting.


----------



## Chig (Dec 19, 2020)

salzd17 said:


> I really don't see the point for putting an APS-C Sensor in a RF-Mount Body. I Can't imagine, that the price benefit is that huge and on the other side why not add a «crop-mode» which allows existing APS-C user to continue using their glass (reach) while still having the option to move to full frame? I think with an EVF it should also be not much of an effort to display the correct FOV directly in the viewfinder.


The _point _is that if you use an R5 in crop mode that is only 17mp which is less than than 7D ii‘s 20mp
Just putting the 32mp sensor from the 90D into the R6 gives almost twice the pixel density.
I would hope that Canon uses a new 32mp sensor though.
An R6 with a crop sensor should cost no more (and preferably considerably less) than the R6 which is a _huge price benefit _over the R5 plus it would run better with the smaller files
Building a crop sensor varient of the R6 won’t cost Canon much either and if they ditch the ibis and AA filter will hopefully be priced a bit lower too


----------



## Chig (Dec 19, 2020)

Canon and all the camera companies need to focus on the small but stable market for high end cameras for professionals and keen enthusiasts as the cheap Camera for the mass market Is called a Smartphone.
No new Rebels , etc will be developed.
The R7 will be aimed at enthusiasts who don’t mind paying a substantial price for their hobbie and I think it will just be a modified R6 with a crop sensor . This will be very easy for Canon to do. 
Bird photography hobbiests like me will queue up for it


----------



## Psamathe (Dec 19, 2020)

Chig said:


> Canon and all the camera companies need to focus on the small but stable market for high end cameras for professionals and keen enthusiasts as the cheap Camera for the mass market Is called a Smartphone.
> No new Rebels , etc will be developed.
> .....


For me there is a massive difference between a Smartphone and e.g. a Rebel. No way I can get the range of lenses nor light range, nor control, etc. using my Smartphone (and my Smartphone is a high end one). Travelling over the last few years only time I used my Smartphone was when it was heavy rain as my camera was not waterproof enough, otherwise all camera (and it's not a "high end cameras for professionals")

Ian


----------



## Joules (Dec 19, 2020)

Psamathe said:


> For me there is a massive difference between a Smartphone and e.g. a Rebel. No way I can get the range of lenses nor light range, nor control, etc. using my Smartphone (and my Smartphone is a high end one). Travelling over the last few years only time I used my Smartphone was when it was heavy rain as my camera was not waterproof enough, otherwise all camera (and it's not a "high end cameras for professionals")
> 
> Ian


Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how good or bad a smartphone is compared to even the most entry level DSLR or mirrorless ILC, as long as they aren't the same size.

It is simply true that for a majority of the people, the quality their smartphone delivers satisfies their requirements. And it is a lot more convient to carry than dedicated gear.

Not to mention that you actually have to know what your doing in order to beat a modern smartphone with an entry level Rebel kit (SL3 and 18-55 mm STM for example).

And the difference in ergonomics is really subjective. I always liked to have buttons and dial back when I used a 600D (T3i). But Man, the 9-point, single crosstype viewfinder really sucks and the ergonomics aren't that amazing, really. I mainly upgraded to the 80D for actually getting a proper grip and viewfinder, and of course get rid of that infamous 18 MP sensor.


----------



## Psamathe (Dec 19, 2020)

Joules said:


> Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how good or bad a smartphone is compared to even the most entry level DSLR or mirrorless ILC, as long as they aren't the same size.
> 
> It is simply true that for a majority of the people, the quality their smartphone delivers satisfies their requirements. And it is a lot more convient to carry than dedicated gear.
> 
> ...


I can't afford an R5 (bit of a risk travelling with one anyway). My own opinion is Canon would find a very limited market if they exclusively focused on "_high end cameras for professionals_". I believe there are a load of people taking photos who are medium end (and probably don't worry about discussing potential camera developments online).

I wonder if people can focus on their own needs/desires rather than the broader picture - I'm sure I do, R5 end is beyond my price point, Smartphone totally inadequate for me so will Canon abandon me? (I suspect not as I don't think I am alone in this "bracket").

Ian


----------



## Joules (Dec 19, 2020)

Psamathe said:


> I can't afford an R5 (bit of a risk travelling with one anyway). My own opinion is Canon would find a very limited market if they exclusively focused on "_high end cameras for professionals_". I believe there are a load of people taking photos who are medium end (and probably don't worry about discussing potential camera developments online).
> 
> I wonder if people can focus on their own needs/desires rather than the broader picture - I'm sure I do, R5 end is beyond my price point, Smartphone totally inadequate for me so will Canon abandon me? (I suspect not as I don't think I am alone in this "bracket").
> 
> Ian


My comment was mainly about the Rebel segment of the market. I can't see there being a direct replacement for it. At least in the way I see it, being an entry to the Canon ecosystem. But there no longer is just the one.

The way I see it, the part of the market that always just wanted a decent camera and maybe one or two lenses to go with it is supposed to migrate to EF-M.

And the ones really interested in the ecosystem are supposed to jump right into FF. Canon has already demonstrated that they can make a FF body shockingly cheap with the RP. It is hard to tell what compromises they'll have to make in order to get an even cheaper RF body out - but I believe if going crop was the only way to get there, we would have seen such an offering already. They've done some magic with their most recent shutter mechanisms (R6, R5, 1DX III), making them so fast and _insanely durable. _I could see that being part of what allows FF costs to come down even further.

Anyway, I wasn't making the point that any but the 1000+ $ segments were being abandoned, just that Rebel as we know it probably will be.


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 19, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> R5/R6 covered this well.



The R6 doesn't really have the reach, and the R5 costs _way_ more than a 7D2-replacing R body which would likely (hopefully) be sub-€£$2k MSRP.


----------



## slclick (Dec 19, 2020)

Canon is purportedly going to release more bodies and people are complaining? You guys who think the alleged R7 shouldn't be made need to have your head checked. It's when they are NOT making new things is when you bitch and whine. There, go shoot with your R5 now.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 19, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> The R6 doesn't really have the reach, and the R5 costs _way_ more than a 7D2-replacing R body which would likely (hopefully) be sub-€£$2k MSRP.



I’ve seen the list of features that most people would want in a 7D2 mirrorless replacement. Most fall between the R5 and R6. Why anyone would think you would get all the features of the R5/R6 with a sensor resolution somewhere between the R5/R6 at a price below the R6 is a pipe dream IMO.

I don’t think Canon is going to undercut their flagship with a crop-body that delivers generally the same performance at less than half the cost.

You say the R5 costs “way more” than a 7D2 replacement without knowing what the specs are or the cost is. That’s funny. Likely and hopefully aren’t good management tools.




When people say the R5 is out of their price range I tend to think it’s actually out of their patience range.


----------



## Nigel95 (Dec 19, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> When people say the R5 is out of their price range I tend to think it’s actually out of their patience range.


No there is other things in life beside cameras as well. Right now you need to jump FF to get certain specs. I would buy a R7 at the price of a R6 or maybe pay a little more to get even better specs. I just don't need FF and don't want the transition to those expensive FF glass. A R6 body with 3 nice FF lenses is just too expensive for me as a hobbyist. The R7 if it has specs like the R6 is what I have been waiting for a long time. It covers my needs and is in my situation still doable in terms of costs.


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 19, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I’ve seen the list of features that most people would want in a 7D2 mirrorless replacement. Most fall between the R5 and R6. Why anyone would think you would get all the features of the R5/R6 with a sensor resolution somewhere between the R5/R6 at a price below the R6 is a pipe dream IMO.
> 
> I don’t think Canon is going to undercut their flagship with a crop-body that delivers generally the same performance at less than half the cost.



You mean just like the 7D2 didn't deliver the features of the 5D3 at almost exactly half the MSRP back in 2014? Oh wait, it did exactly that, except it also came with DPAF, 70% faster fps, deeper buffer, and GPS!


----------



## Joules (Dec 19, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> When people say the R5 is out of their price range I tend to think it’s actually out of their patience range.


I take it you are either walking everywhere or already exercised enough patience and are now driving a Bugatti then?


----------



## slclick (Dec 19, 2020)

Joules said:


> I take it you are either walking everywhere or already exercised enough patience and are now driving a Bugatti then?


Thank you. 

Snarky finance comments+ enormous gear signatures = fun at parties /s.


----------



## riker (Dec 19, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.



Yep that's just what I'm saying a bit differently. A solution would be the introduction of RF-S lenses but. Even in this case I'm pessimistic, so many years of EF-S lenses and other than the exception of a few good lenses the selection was never great. Most people ended up using a EF lenses on APS-C bodies which is far from ideal. No fixed/high aperture lenses, no 70-200/4, nothing. Sad story. 

(Although I have to add, a new APS-C RF body will likely be smaller than current FF bodies so it will not be an APS-C sensor in FF body.)


----------



## Psamathe (Dec 19, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> ...
> When people say the R5 is out of their price range I tend to think it’s actually out of their patience range.


The way my local camera store works is when you want a camera, you give them money (the "cost" or "price" and they give you the camera. Not got enough money means it don't work and they don't give you the camera.

I'd assumed most camera stores worked in a similar manner so please do tell me where me giving them money isn't required and I'll be an R5 owner tomorrow.

Ian


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 19, 2020)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.


Well, you assume that is the only point. That would be wrong.


----------



## researcher (Dec 19, 2020)

I hope this new RF body comes with native full HD webcam capacity - one of those features the Pandemic of 2020 reminded many of us we'd like to have. I assume as a crop-sensor body, I will be able to use my EF-S lenses with it. Looking forward to seeing what emerges.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 19, 2020)

Psamathe said:


> The way my local camera store works is when you want a camera, you give them money (the "cost" or "price" and they give you the camera. Not got enough money means it don't work and they don't give you the camera.
> 
> I'd assumed most camera stores worked in a similar manner so please do tell me where me giving them money isn't required and I'll be an R5 owner tomorrow.
> 
> Ian




If someone can save up for XXX (let’s say R6) camera, that also means that if the save longer then they can get XXX (let’s say R5) camera too - the difference is they don’t want to wait the extra time.

When you’re DONE saving you head to the store. The difference is how long you are willing to save.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 19, 2020)

Joules said:


> I take it you are either walking everywhere or already exercised enough patience and are now driving a Bugatti then?



My Bugatti is shaped like a camper and has a Winnebago badge on it.

I’ve done the fast cars thing already. I’m too old.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 19, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> You mean just like the 7D2 didn't deliver the features of the 5D3 at almost exactly half the MSRP back in 2014? Oh wait, it did exactly that, except it also came with DPAF, 70% faster fps, deeper buffer, and GPS!



The HUGE difference being that you already have the R6 sitting practically right there with all the same features as the R5 except for a niggle here or there.

That situation didn’t exist in 2014, did it?

That’s what I mean.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 19, 2020)

Nigel95 said:


> No there is other things in life beside cameras as well. Right now you need to jump FF to get certain specs. I would buy a R7 at the price of a R6 or maybe pay a little more to get even better specs. I just don't need FF and don't want the transition to those expensive FF glass. A R6 body with 3 nice FF lenses is just too expensive for me as a hobbyist. The R7 if it has specs like the R6 is what I have been waiting for a long time. It covers my needs and is in my situation still doable in terms of costs.




I don’t disagree, I just don’t see them undercutting the R6 by a substantial amount if the features people want are included. Time will tell. I hope to be surprised.


----------



## Chig (Dec 20, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I’ve seen the list of features that most people would want in a 7D2 mirrorless replacement. Most fall between the R5 and R6. Why anyone would think you would get all the features of the R5/R6 with a sensor resolution somewhere between the R5/R6 at a price below the R6 is a pipe dream IMO.
> 
> I don’t think Canon is going to undercut their flagship with a crop-body that delivers generally the same performance at less than half the cost.
> 
> ...


If Canon just swapped out the FF sensor for a 32mp crop sensor in an R6 and called it an R7 why would it cost more than the R6 ?
Few other things I'd like to see:
No ibis
No AA filter
Focus stacking in camera (this is just a software change to what's in R5 and R6)

If anything I expect the R7 would be priced slightly cheaper than the R6


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 20, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> R5/R6 covered this well.


R6=not enough pixel density. R5=too much money. An R7 will need the pixel density of at least the R5(preferably more), the AF of the R5 and 6, the ergonomics of an R5/6, build quality of the R6 and all wrapped up in the price of an R6.


----------



## Nigel95 (Dec 20, 2020)

Chig said:


> Few other things I'd like to see:
> No ibis
> No AA filter


I'm not sure with video getting more popular now a days if that is a wise move for Canon. IBIS is also a nice feature to have for static subjects photography. For wildlife photography I understand this options aren't necessary for you. Would you still buy it with this features included? If yes then why would Canon remove this if it can target a bigger audience with this camera.

I would be dissapointed to see no IBIS if it is priced similarly like the R6. Even if it is cheaper I would rather pay more and have this features included.


----------



## Psamathe (Dec 20, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> R6=not enough pixel density. R5=too much money. An R7 will need the pixel density of at least the R5(preferably more), the AF of the R5 and 6, the ergonomics of an R5/6, build quality of the R6 and all wrapped up in the price of an R6.


I agree. R6 would have been a good compromise for me except for the pixels.


----------



## Chig (Dec 20, 2020)

Psamathe said:


> I agree. R6 would have been a good compromise for me except for the pixels.


Well that’s simple for Canon to achieve : just swap the FF sensor for a 32mp crop sensor in the R6 , call it the R7 - same or preferably bit lower price . Job done !
I’ll buy it !


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 20, 2020)

A Crop sensor body with a RF mount does not need to be as large as a FF body. Canon can make the body smaller. The size of the body is greatly influenced by the target market. The "M", according to Canon managers was originally developed to fit the hand of a typical Japanese woman. That's why its that size. Obviously, there are constraints, but many buyers feel more comfortable with a larger body, it all depends on how comfortable it is to hold and what value they place on a small size. Some features like dual card slots physically take more space. Popup flashes take space, EVF's take space, IBIS takes space. A smaller IBIS unit can be designed for crop sensors, I'd expect that a "M" sized camera with the larger RF mount is possible. IBIS might make it deeper.

If designers are given the size of the "M" as a target, they can do it.


----------



## Joules (Dec 20, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A Crop sensor body with a RF mount does not need to be as large as a FF body. Canon can make the body smaller.


Yes. But without small lenses, there is very little point in minimizing the body size.

And if producing lenses as small as possible is the goal, the narrower EF-M mount is a better option for reaching it.

In the RF mount, a crop body makes more sense near the high end, where the greater FPS and pixel density achievable in a smaller sensor format (at a given cost) can be utilized to create a value that is unavailable in FF bodies.

In that second scenario, it is also not required to produce dedicated, small, slow crop lenses because speed and Pixel density are mainly desired by users operating at long focal lengths (which do not benefit from smaller image circles as far as I know).


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 20, 2020)

Chig said:


> If Canon just swapped out the FF sensor for a 32mp crop sensor in an R6 and called it an R7 why would it cost more than the R6 ?
> Few other things I'd like to see:
> No ibis
> No AA filter
> ...




That's the only question I have - they need to be careful with the price. I think it needs to be significantly cheaper than the R6 and that means cutting features. It's a balance.

With the 5D3 and R7 caparison made earlier, there was no R6 sitting in the middle of the stew..


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 20, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> R6=not enough pixel density. R5=too much money. An R7 will need the pixel density of at least the R5(preferably more), the AF of the R5 and 6, the ergonomics of an R5/6, build quality of the R6 and all wrapped up in the price of an R6.



Don't disagree with any of that really - where I differ is what it will cost..

I think there is a spot for this camera (and a need for dedicated crop-body shooters) but with the features everyone wants (like you list, and like I have listed) I'm dubious that this will be a "bargain" like the 7D2 was.

When I moved from my 7D2 to the 5D4 I never looked back at the 7D2 - I never missed it, and not once when I was out birding did I think "boy I wish I had my 7D2..."

In fact, the opposite has been true ever since.

Then again, I consider myself to be an average-to-below-average bird/wildlife shooter so maybe there is something I'm missing. With my 100-400L II and 1.4X I seem to do okay.


----------



## Nigel95 (Dec 20, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> If someone can save up for XXX (let’s say R6) camera, that also means that if the save longer then they can get XXX (let’s say R5) camera too - the difference is they don’t want to wait the extra time.
> 
> When you’re DONE saving you head to the store. The difference is how long you are willing to save.


What if R6 price is already borderline of what is acceptable for someones budget? What if someone has to save for other things as well like buying a house? A car? The R5 seems like a great camera but it's out of my league. I assume for a lot of hobbyists it's out of their league as well. Expensive toys (for a hobbyist) .. Not to mention the accessoires that also add up costs like CFexpress cards + transition to FF glass if you want a R7 actually. You assume one only has to buy cameras and nothing else. What about the diminishing returns? The R7 (if R6 APSC) will do the job for me personally why would I spend so much more money for a R5 if I also have other priorities in life? I doubt my audience will see the difference anyways online. Will I see it? Maybe, do I want to pay 3x + more for that? Nope


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 20, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> If someone can save up for XXX (let’s say R6) camera, that also means that if the save longer then they can get XXX (let’s say R5) camera too - the difference is they don’t want to wait the extra time.
> 
> When you’re DONE saving you head to the store. The difference is how long you are willing to save.



Your assumption that people can save money at a consistent, constant rate is so absurd that it almost needs no comment. I don't think that is the reality for the vast majority of people. I think most folks have no savings to speak of. Glad you have had financial security. Apparently you have no idea what the real world is like for most people.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 20, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Your assumption that people can save money at a consistent, constant rate is so absurd that it almost needs no comment. I don't think that is the reality for the vast majority of people. I think most folks have no savings to speak of. Apparently you have no idea what the real world is like for most people.



Yeah. I have no idea what the real world is like for most people.... 

_'Your assumption that people can save money at a consistent, constant rate is so absurd that it almost needs no comment.'_

Show me the post where I made this assertion or assumption. I'll wait here.

_'I don't think that is the reality for the vast majority of people.'_

Neither do I and never said otherwise.

_'I think most folks have no savings to speak of.'_

Then I would question whether they should be buying a camera at all, much less one like the ones we're discussing in this thread...

_'Glad you have had financial security.'_

Me too. It only took about 50 years constantly saving tiny little bits at a time to get here. It damn sure didn't come overnight and it didn't happen by accident.

Get over yourself.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 20, 2020)

Nigel95 said:


> What if R6 price is already borderline of what is acceptable for someones budget?



I haven't told anyone to buy anything. 

No one is saying you have to buy an R5. No one is saying you have to buy anything. I made a comment in relation to all the people saying:

"I really want an R5 but it's out of my price range" 

since the R6/R5 launched. THEY said they wanted an R5, not me.

In many cases people just don't want to wait the extra time it would take to buy what they really want.

I don't know where you're getting this 3X figure from but okay. Transition to FF glass? From what I'm reading in this thread most people would be looking at this as an upgrade and will likely already have their birding or sports lens in hand. Is there a crop-body birding lens I'm not aware of? What FF glass would they need? I don't see people rushing out to buy a fast crop-body for landscapes or portraits, do you? 

This body likely wouldn't need CFE and if so, a 256GB CFE is chump change when buying a $2500 camera...


----------



## Nigel95 (Dec 20, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I don't know where you're getting this 3X figure from but okay.


R5 will be like twice as expensive or so compared to R7? Idk 

Going for R5 also means I want cf express card so I can use all the features. Have to replace my canon 10-18mm uwa for Canon 16 35 f4, replace my sigma 18 35 1.8 for a 24-70 2.8. This will add up quickly. My canon 60mm could be cheaply replaced for the Canon 100mm macro non L. I like to stay away from this lens transition with a FF body.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 20, 2020)

Nigel95 said:


> R5 will be like twice as expensive or so compared to R7? Idk
> 
> Going for R5 also means I want cf express card so I can use all the features. Have to replace my canon 10-18mm uwa for Canon 16 35 f4, replace my sigma 18 35 1.8 for a 24-70 2.8. This will add up quickly. My canon 60mm could be cheaply replaced for the Canon 100mm macro non L. I like to stay away from this lens transition with a FF body.


What do you shoot now?


----------



## Nigel95 (Dec 20, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> What do you shoot now?


My hobby most of the time (aquascaping), events related to that, stores, exhibitions, holidays, sometimes some mushrooms in the forest. Really my 200d does the job already for me for photography. It's the video specs that are lacking IMO. Just want a hybrid body that gives me 4k 60p, ibis, 10 bit and animal eye AF. The R6 is great but all the lenses I need to swap are not so great. Buy a dedicated video camera? Hmm don't like to carry around 2 cameras. The new AF on r5 and r6 looks very useful which I would like to have. Same for ibis that usually isn't in cinema cameras. The R6 but aps c is really a good fit for me.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 21, 2020)

Nigel95 said:


> My hobby most of the time (aquascaping), events related to that, stores, exhibitions, holidays, sometimes some mushrooms in the forest. Really my 200d does the job already for me for photography. It's the video specs that are lacking IMO. Just want a hybrid body that gives me 4k 60p, ibis, 10 bit and animal eye AF. The R6 is great but all the lenses I need to swap are not so great. Buy a dedicated video camera? Hmm don't like to carry around 2 cameras. The new AF on r5 and r6 looks very useful which I would like to have. Same for ibis that usually isn't in cinema cameras. The R6 but aps c is really a good fit for me.



I think the R7 would be a perfect fit.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 21, 2020)

Psamathe said:


> I agree. R6 would have been a good compromise for me except for the pixels.


As a 7d2 shooter the pixel density is the biggest concern I have with the R6 but i opted to go for one anyway. For three reasons. 1. I simply couldn't spring for the 6500 bucks the R5 would have set me back. 2. While there are times when deep cropping is needed for me, the biggest issue I face is that the 7d2 fairs so poorly in lowlight and i often find myself putting the 70-200 2.8 on in place of the 150-600 sigma. This means even more cropping but with the R6 i will be able to use the sigma in the lower light conditions and not have to rely on cropping. 3. I needed a low light beast to shoot aurora and the R6 will be fine and dandy for that.
I am not sure an R6 with a 32mp apsc would actually achieve what I need as it would still fail at those really high ISO levels. I believe any future R7 should have a current gen 24mp sensor. Still plenty of density but better low light performance than the 32mp sensor from the 90d


----------



## Joules (Dec 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> I am not sure an R6 with a 32mp apsc would actually achieve what I need as it would still fail at those really high ISO levels. I believe any future R7 should have a current gen 24mp sensor. Still plenty of density but better low light performance than the 32mp sensor from the 90d


The current 24 MP (80D, M5, M50,...) sensor does poorly compared to the current 32 MP one (90D, M6 II). If you mean you would like to have a sensor with the R5 tech but 24 rather than more MP, I hope you are in the minority. That would not yield any benefit in terms of image quality, because pixel size does not matter for low light performance. You would just leave reach on the table, reducing the appeal of a crop RF camera.

It's all about the sensor area, which actively impacts how much light you gather. If a 32 MP APS-C can't meet your quality standards, a 24 MP one won't meet them either.

Some more theory and example pictures to illustrate how it applies:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/equivalency-now-with-pictures.39787/post-874838


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 21, 2020)

Joules said:


> The current 24 MP (80D, M5, M50,...) sensor does poorly compared to the current 32 MP one (90D, M6 II). If you mean you would like to have a sensor with the R5 tech but 24 rather than more MP, I hope you are in the minority. That would not yield any benefit in terms of image quality, because pixel size does not matter for low light performance. You would just leave reach on the table, reducing the appeal of a crop RF camera.
> 
> It's all about the sensor area, which actively impacts how much light you gather. If a 32 MP APS-C can't meet your quality standards, a 24 MP one won't meet them either.
> 
> ...


Yes. I get that but without any extra cropping the 24mp senor will likely have an extra bit of high ISO performance than the 32. The same way the R6 has an edge in high iso over the R5. Once you crop even deeper though I agree that edge is lost


----------



## Joules (Dec 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Yes. I get that but without any extra cropping the 24mp senor will likely have an extra bit of high ISO performance than the 32. The same way the R6 has an edge in high iso over the R5. Once you crop even deeper though I agree that edge is lost


Why would that be?

And where can I see this supposed advantage the R6 has over the R5 in high ISO performance? Both the images and measurements I am aware of show the R5 being superior across all ISOs (less noise = more DR) and offering finer detail (less noise + more MP:






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







Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 21, 2020)

Joules said:


> Why would that be?
> 
> And where can I see this supposed advantage the R6 has over the R5 in high ISO performance? Both the images and measurements I am aware of show the R5 being superior across all ISOs (less noise = more DR) and offering finer detail (less noise + more MP:
> 
> ...


Not referring to DR. Just high iso performance. And everything I have seen shows the R6 having a slight edge(although I had not seen that comparison you just posted which suggests it may not be the case). Probably why canon have given it an extra stop of native ISO to play with(not that you would ever seriously shoot at its highest native range)


----------



## scyrene (Dec 21, 2020)

sanj said:


> I wish for smaller, lighter body and lenses. This will be my second system for family/travel etc.



Why not get an M?


----------



## scyrene (Dec 21, 2020)

I feel like there's a lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread. No criticism of anyone in particular, but it feels like those people who really want a successor to the 7 series are asking for a unicorn. Even if the 7D was that unicorn at the time, I don't think it'll happen again - though I don't quite know why I feel that way.

What I would ask generally though, is this - we were told a while back that both Canon and Nikon had abandoned this segment - there was to be no 7D3 and no successor to the D500 was planned either. The implication was that the high end crop market was too small, and in the face of rapidly shrinking sales overall, its time was over. I don't know who originated that line of thinking, but I recall official sources being cited. Was it just a lull? Has a change of thinking occurred? Was Canon always preparing to transfer the line over to mirrorless? Or are we wrong on what this new body will be?

It seems that nobody has a firm idea of what to expect - or rather, everyone's idea is wildly different to everyone else's. I personally never saw the logic of a crop sensor R body, but admit that some of its proponents on this thread and others have been enlightening on the subject. Whatever happens, a lot of people will be disappointed (sorry to sound a pessimistic note).


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 21, 2020)

scyrene said:


> I feel like there's a lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread. No criticism of anyone in particular, but it feels like those people who really want a successor to the 7 series are asking for a unicorn. Even if the 7D was that unicorn at the time, I don't think it'll happen again - though I don't quite know why I feel that way.
> 
> What I would ask generally though, is this - we were told a while back that both Canon and Nikon had abandoned this segment - there was to be no 7D3 and no successor to the D500 was planned either. The implication was that the high end crop market was too small, and in the face of rapidly shrinking sales overall, its time was over. I don't know who originated that line of thinking, but I recall official sources being cited. Was it just a lull? Has a change of thinking occurred? Was Canon always preparing to transfer the line over to mirrorless? Or are we wrong on what this new body will be?
> 
> It seems that nobody has a firm idea of what to expect - or rather, everyone's idea is wildly different to everyone else's. I personally never saw the logic of a crop sensor R body, but admit that some of its proponents on this thread and others have been enlightening on the subject. Whatever happens, a lot of people will be disappointed (sorry to sound a pessimistic note).


Actually, what I think is going on is that all the people who just shelled out big bucks for an R5 are terrified that a year from now, Canon is going to come out with a camera that will have a smaller sensor but will otherwise be just as good and will cost half as much.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 21, 2020)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Actually, what I think is going on is that all the people who just shelled out big bucks for an R5 are terrified that a year from now, Canon is going to come out with a camera that will have a smaller sensor but will otherwise be just as good and will cost half as much.



Why would Canon do that? And why would existing R5 owners care?


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 22, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Not referring to DR. Just high iso performance. And everything I have seen shows the R6 having a slight edge(although I had not seen that comparison you just posted which suggests it may not be the case). Probably why canon have given it an extra stop of native ISO to play with(not that you would ever seriously shoot at its highest native range)



Dustin Abbott's review for both caneras agrees with your assessment that the R6 is better at High ISO. He considers it a one stop advantage. Always good when a real photographer takes real pictures. Here's what he writes...

"If I downsample the EOS R5’s image to the resolution of the EOS R6, I can still clearly see that the R6 has an advantage at ISO 51,200. It’s delivering much better contrast and color fidelity, whereas the R5 (a very good performer for a high resolution camera) shows some banding and loss of contrast.

I would easily say that the EOS R6 has a full stop ISO advantage over the R5, which means that it has an advantage over many cameras."


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 22, 2020)

I fail to see where you guys are seeing a stop of difference at ISO 51,200 between the R5 and R6 when normalized.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 22, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I fail to see where you guys are seeing a stop of difference at ISO 51,200 between the R5 and R6 when normalized.
> 
> View attachment 194716


Going by that particular image i would definitely agree that there is not a full stop of difference. I would say the R6 is a very small amount better but certainly not much. But as far as reviews, Dustin abbott is pretty objective and I would generally trust his conclusions.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 22, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Going by that particular image i would definitely agree that there is not a full stop of difference. I would say the R6 is a very small amount better but certainly not much. But as far as reviews, Dustin abbott is pretty objective and I would generally trust his conclusions.


I trust him, but I also feel he gets wrapped up in his knowledge of the physics of the stuff and as a result confirmation bias sometimes prevails. Most people expect the R6 to be better so that is what they see. Yet genuine comparisons under the same lighting/subject/etc don't really back that up....


----------



## Joules (Dec 22, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> Dustin Abbott's review for both caneras agrees with your assessment that the R6 is better at High ISO. He considers it a one stop advantage. Always good when a real photographer takes real pictures. Here's what he writes...
> 
> "If I downsample the EOS R5’s image to the resolution of the EOS R6, I can still clearly see that the R6 has an advantage at ISO 51,200. It’s delivering much better contrast and color fidelity, whereas the R5 (a very good performer for a high resolution camera) shows some banding and loss of contrast.


I guess the images in question is what he shows in this video around 24:35.

I do agree with his accessment that the R5 lacks contrast, though it just as well may be that is the reason why noise in the shadow area is more apparent, rather than additional noise causing the loss of contrast. Does he go into the details of how he deals with color and which downsampling method he uses somewhere?

I don't distrust him, but I would like to understand what produced the R5 image he shows before concluding that the difference shown is inherent to the camera, rather than a difference in the scene or the editing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 22, 2020)

The one thing I would add, you’ll learn more from the Gregory Heisler 50 Portraits book than anything else in the video...


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 22, 2020)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Actually, what I think is going on is that all the people who just shelled out big bucks for an R5 are terrified that a year from now, Canon is going to come out with a camera that will have a smaller sensor but will otherwise be just as good and will cost half as much.



Huh?

I bought the EOS R5 because it's a full frame 45 megapixel monster that shoots full-res 20 FPS silently. Never in a million years would I have bought a crop camera, that's a totally different market than the R5 in every way.

I do, however, love that the EOS R5 is both a 45 megapixel full-frame camera when I need it(all of my paid work) that kicks butt in lowlight, as well as a 17 megapixel crop camera when I'm in a situation like a SWAT incident where I can't get closer, or when I'm off the clock chasing birds as a hobby.

But I easily see the price premium of the EOS R5 as giving you two cameras, an excellent high-res high-speed full frame camera, and a 20 fps crop camera with a similar resolution to the original 1dx. The best part of that, to me, is that you can have both of those cameras in your hand at the tap of a single button. Any crop sensor variant of this camera would throw away the most valuable part of that combination, so who cares if it costs a lot less? I sure don't.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 22, 2020)

scyrene said:


> I feel like there's a lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread. No criticism of anyone in particular, but it feels like those people who really want a successor to the 7 series are asking for a unicorn. Even if the 7D was that unicorn at the time, I don't think it'll happen again - though I don't quite know why I feel that way.
> 
> What I would ask generally though, is this - we were told a while back that both Canon and Nikon had abandoned this segment - there was to be no 7D3 and no successor to the D500 was planned either. The implication was that the high end crop market was too small, and in the face of rapidly shrinking sales overall, its time was over. I don't know who originated that line of thinking, but I recall official sources being cited. Was it just a lull? Has a change of thinking occurred? Was Canon always preparing to transfer the line over to mirrorless? Or are we wrong on what this new body will be?
> 
> It seems that nobody has a firm idea of what to expect - or rather, everyone's idea is wildly different to everyone else's. I personally never saw the logic of a crop sensor R body, but admit that some of its proponents on this thread and others have been enlightening on the subject. Whatever happens, a lot of people will be disappointed (sorry to sound a pessimistic note).


I could be wrong, but I don't recall any official sources cited. As I'm sure you know, Canon and Nikon seldom definitively declare anything dead.

Good arguments can be made both for and against a high-end APS-C mirrorless body. What no one has access to is the market research that shows if it will be profitable or not. 

I'm skeptical, but over the years I've learned not to bet against Craig's rumors, even when they are CR2.

I do agree though that many people seem to be asking for a unicorn, in that they want or even expect that an R7 will be bargain priced like the 7DII.

My guess is that an R7, if it appears, will not be cheap. It might not be as expensive as the R5, but I would not be surprised if Canon launches it at a price that is closer to the R5 than the R6. My reasoning reflects your observation that the market has contracted over the last several years, coupled with the knowledge that the target audience is not particularly price-sensitive -- after all, a $3,000 R7 and a $2,500 100-500 f7 lens are still less expensive than a 500mm f4 EF lens. 

I agree there will be lots of complaining if one actually does come out -- either from those who are expecting a bargain or from those who are expecting a high-end body. My guess though, is that it will be the bargain hunters who are disappointed.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 22, 2020)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Actually, what I think is going on is that all the people who just shelled out big bucks for an R5 are terrified that a year from now, Canon is going to come out with a camera that will have a smaller sensor but will otherwise be just as good and will cost half as much.


Not sure why that would "terrify" anyone. The 7DII was cheaper than the 5DIII with features that were closer to the 1Dx and no one complained. However, in this case, if an R7 comes out, I doubt it will be "half as much" as the R5. People who are counting on a big bargain in the R7 are likely to be hugely disappointed.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 22, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I could be wrong, but I don't recall any official sources cited. As I'm sure you know, Canon and Nikon seldom definitively declare anything dead.
> 
> Good arguments can be made both for and against a high-end APS-C mirrorless body. What no one has access to is the market research that shows if it will be profitable or not.
> 
> ...


I will be honest. I think that IF and future R7 is not the unicorn then it probably wont succeed. As many have said. Why bother? Just get an R5 or the future R5s. The 7d2(and the d500 for that matter) were insane value cameras that could be paired with a third-party 150-600 and make an awesome wildlife camera for 3k(US DOLLARS). I cant see canon making much profit if it is as expensive as an R5. But maybe they wont make much profit if it is the price of an R6 either


----------



## unfocused (Dec 23, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> I will be honest. I think that IF and future R7 is not the unicorn then it probably wont succeed. As many have said. Why bother? Just get an R5 or the future R5s. The 7d2(and the d500 for that matter) were insane value cameras that could be paired with a third-party 150-600 and make an awesome wildlife camera for 3k(US DOLLARS). I cant see canon making much profit if it is as expensive as an R5. But maybe they wont make much profit if it is the price of an R6 either


I don't really disagree.

I think it will depend on specs and pricing. If the R5s can shoot 12fps, has 82 mp, R5 pricing and R5 autofocus, then the only thing that would make the R7 appealing would be cost. On the other hand, if the R5s shoots at 7 fps, has a buffer that fills up quickly and is priced around $4,000, while the R7 has 14 fps, an unlimited buffer, autofocus that is closer to the coming R1 and comes in at $2,500 it will be appealing to many buyers.

My main point is that I think there are some on the forum who expect the R7 to mirror the 7DII with specs superior to the R5 at a price below $2,000. I just have a feeling that Canon will try to push the upper limits on pricing to see what the market will bear. Always easier to come down in price than to go up.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 23, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I don't really disagree.
> 
> I think it will depend on specs and pricing. If the R5s can shoot 12fps, has 82 mp, R5 pricing and R5 autofocus, then the only thing that would make the R7 appealing would be cost. On the other hand, if the R5s shoots at 7 fps, has a buffer that fills up quickly and is priced around $4,000, while the R7 has 14 fps, an unlimited buffer, autofocus that is closer to the coming R1 and comes in at $2,500 it will be appealing to many buyers.
> 
> My main point is that I think there are some on the forum who expect the R7 to mirror the 7DII with specs superior to the R5 at a price below $2,000. I just have a feeling that Canon will try to push the upper limits on pricing to see what the market will bear. Always easier to come down in price than to go up.


Totally agree. I love my 7d2 and still cant work out how they priced it as they did. And i just dont know if they can do it again.


----------



## researcher (Dec 24, 2020)

With a smaller APSC sensor and existing processing power, is there a better possibility of making a model with a global shutter, even in 1080p 24 mode? Just trying to figure out what a feature hook would be for an R7, other than being able to make use of existing EF-S lenses for the Rebel crowd looking to modernize.


----------



## jonnopi (Dec 24, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


The 7D II was close to DX 1 Mk II in many respects so I would hazard a guess at the R 7 being right up there??


----------



## jonnopi (Dec 24, 2020)

another_mikey said:


> Personally, I won't buy one, as it isn't my use case. For me, the R5 for scenic, nightscape, and some wildlife is perfect. But I certainly understand why dedicated wildlife shooters who want the most pixels on target and the fastest frame rates would wish to see the 7D style DSLR crop cameras reimagined in the mirrorless space, with all the potential that could bring. It obviously isn't a body meant for everyone - don't buy one if it doesn't suit your needs - but I bet they will sell plenty of them! I for one like to see Canon being more committed to mirrorless and the RF mount as time goes on. An R7 for the APS-C market, with perhaps some high quality EF-s like lenses plus the ability to really perform with longer EF and soon to be RF lenses seems like a win to me. Match that with the R6, R5, R1 (or whatever it is called) and the R5s (or whatever it is called) and you will have a really solid and broad reaching line up. I say good for Canon, bring it on!


Amen


----------



## Chig (Dec 27, 2020)

zim said:


> The original rumour had the body smaller than the R6 this makes more sense as the proper 7d replacement


The R6 is smaller than the 7D 2 anyway and personally I'd prefer it to not be too small for ergonomics, I have small hands but find my 7d2 very comfortable to use . I've tried an M mount camera and found it far too small for me.
The R6 as it is with a 32mp 90D sensor (or an updated version) would be ideal for me with my EF100-400 ii plus T.Cs for my bird and Macro photography and I would be happy to pay the same price as an R6 (but even happier if slightly lower price)
Even better for me personally would be these changes from the R6:

no IBIS (the IS in my zoom lenses is all I need but I doubt Canon will leave it out as it's a good marketing gimmic)
no AA filter
pop up high speed flash
tilting evf for macro shots
red dot sight attached to line up with your left eye


----------



## zim (Dec 27, 2020)

Chig said:


> The R6 is smaller than the 7D 2 anyway and personally I'd prefer it to not be too small for ergonomics, I have small hands but find my 7d2 very comfortable to use . I've tried an M mount camera and found it far too small for me.


I wouldn't use any R without a battery grip!
If this new body was smaller than the R6 as per the original rumour that would have taken it into m5 territory and that would make no sense to me. I really liked the idea of the m5 when it came out having tried it i was really disappointed, couldn't use the b****y thing. I fear I'll fall in love with the R1


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 28, 2020)

As I've not moved to Canon Mirrorless yet. Do any of the full frame Canon mirrorless crop in the view finder.
What I mean is through the viewfinder can you zoom in to focus or keep the crop at APS-C or even micro 4/3.
It's something you can't do with a pentaprism.
I know you can do it through the back screen to view but I personally need to be wear glasses now to see it clearly.
It would really help with focusing or confirming something is in focus.
If not yet existing, surely it makes sense to have this in a mirrorless.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 28, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> As I've not moved to Canon Mirrorless yet. Do any of the full frame Canon mirrorless crop in the view finder.
> What I mean is through the viewfinder can you zoom in to focus or keep the crop at APS-C or even micro 4/3.
> It's something you can't do with a pentaprism.
> I know you can do it through the back screen to view but I personally need to be wear glasses now to see it clearly.
> ...


Just checked for you on the R5. Yes, change to crop and the cropped image fills the evf. I have never bothered to use crop as the .CR3 files are not too large.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 29, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Just checked for you on the R5. Yes, change to crop and the cropped image fills the evf. I have never bothered to use crop as the .CR3 files are not too large.


Thanks Alan.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 29, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> As I've not moved to Canon Mirrorless yet. Do any of the full frame Canon mirrorless crop in the view finder.
> What I mean is through the viewfinder can you zoom in to focus or keep the crop at APS-C or even micro 4/3.
> It's something you can't do with a pentaprism.
> I know you can do it through the back screen to view but I personally need to be wear glasses now to see it clearly.
> ...


R6 is the same as the R5 Alan was referring to. You have cropping options in the viewfinder but as a 1.6x crop takes it down to a 7 or 8mp image then i would probably recommend against it.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 29, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> R6 is the same as the R5 Alan was referring to. You have cropping options in the viewfinder but as a 1.6x crop takes it down to a 7 or 8mp image then i would probably recommend against it.


Thanks, it might be interesting with a 90MP sensor. 
With a conventional pentaprism you don't have this ability to increase the size of the image in the viewfinder. It can be difficult to be assured you have say the eye of a bird in focus as you are taking the image.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> The APSc sensor size gives only a 1.6 times crop on the apparent field of view of the lens. The 400mm lens projects the same image circle, including field of view and depth of field, regardless of what sensor is behind it. The FF sensor captures the full image, while the APSc captures only the portion of the image, which is about the same field that a 640mm lens would project on a full frame.
> 
> The magnification you get would be calculated off the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors you are comparing. Magnification in this case being pixels per inch (Or per duck, as birders like to say). Once the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors are the same, the magnification advantage is gone. We're close to that with the R5 vs the 7D. A 90mp full frame would come close to the 27-32mp apsc sensors. The opposite is also true - if you compare a high res APSc to a low res FF, the 'magnification' could be higher.
> 
> Brian



But what you don't seem to get is that many of us who use, for example, the 7D Mark II also have a wider lens mounted to our FF 5D-series camera _at the same time_. So if we accept using an 82MP FF camera in crop mode instead of a 32MP APS-C body, then we need to buy two FF cameras at $8,000+ total ($3,900 + $4,300?) instead of one FF camera and one APS-C camera at about $6,000 total ($3,900 + $2,100?).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Cost saving from the sensor is probably the only way to reduce the overall cost of the APS-C/R7 cf the R6
> A new IBIS unit will need to be designed for the smaller sensor
> Main benefit of a crop sensor will be pixels on target. The current M series 32mp crop sensor is much higher than the cropped R5 sensor @ ~17mp. Remember that the 7Dii is still only 20mp so not a huge difference from the cropped R5.
> Whether the 32mp sensor will be reused (cheaper) or a resized version of the upcoming R5s sensor is a good question. For cost, the 32mp is fast enough already and amortised the R&D
> ...



Take away the higher end AF system, high fps, and durability and the R7 is no longer an attractive option for those looking to replace their worn out 7D Mark II bodies. A "low mileage" used 7DII would be far more attractive to the user and the benefit of that to Canon is near zero.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

melgross said:


> Not silly you, just a small segment of the market you.
> 
> i’m not objecting to this. I’m just surprised that if this “rumor” is true, that the first APS-C model Canon comes out with would be big, and likely as heavy as any mirrorless in that size.
> 
> ...



You grossly underestimate the size of the 7D Mark II user base and the market size that an R7 that is basically a mirrorless 7D Mark III would be.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

Bob Howland said:


> I have a couple minor quibbles with your analysis. First, the 7D series was never quite as fast as the 1D or 1Dx, although it is both speedy and rugged. Second, the R5 and R6 have the same focusing system, which is pretty normal. The 5D3 had basically the same focusing system as the 1Dx and the EOS-3 film body had the same focusing system as the EOS-1N sports film camera. What is unusual is that there isn't also an R1 with that same focusing system.
> 
> You seem (repeat, seem) to be expecting two APS-C R bodies, one based on the R5 and one on the R6. I expect only one, based on the R6. Or maybe that's just what I want.



The 7D Mark II AF system used the same routines as the 1D X and the 5D Mark III, which where the current 1-Series and 5-Series bodies when the 7D Mark II released. It also offers the same options in the AF settings menus. It was the same level AF system. The narrower baseline of the APS-C size mirror does affect the relative accuracy and shot-to-shot consistency when compared to the 5D Mark III and 1D X, but the difference is not that great. The 7D Mark II is much closer to the 1-Series and 5-Series AF systems than to the (crappy) 7D AF system or even the fairly good 80D/90D AF systems.

The 7D Mark II has 65 AF points, all of them "cross-type", while the 1D X and 5D Mark III only had 61 AF points, with 41 of the cross type. All three models had five dual-diagonal cross type AF points in a vertical line at the center that are f/2.8 sensitive on the diagonals.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

Dragon said:


> There are two distinct markets discussed here. The M series nicely satisfies the small and light application and the line really needs a contemporary replacement for the M5 as well as couple more primes and a small telephoto that reaches to at least 300mm (even if slow). The 7D mark II replacement NEEDs to be a BIG camera to swing big glass if it is to fit in the same niche. The real question is whether Canon can get away with releasing such a camera with no APS-c lens support other than the historic EF-s lenses. The 7D II crowd would want any APS-c lenses to be high end, which would make them too costly for any kind of R series Rebel and thus condemned to low volume. Cheap lenses would require an R series Rebel which would, at a minimum, make many people belive the M series was dead, even if that was not the intent. A self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak. Given the dramatic drop in the overall market and particularly the casual market, my sense is that if they release an R7, it will come with no APS-c only lenses and will be there simply to satisfy the very loud whine coming from the 7D II crowd (which, by the way, hasn't figured out that a high pixel density FF produces a much higher hit rate for BIF and similar applications just because of the wider field of view). Canon always says they listen to the customer, so it will be interesting to see where this goes.



By and large, the "7D Mark II crowd" has no use for APS-C lenses of any type. If we want to shoot wide angle, we use wide angle EF lenses on our FF cameras.

What you folks who think you know more about the "7D Mark II crowd" than those of us who actually use them fail to understand is that *the vast majority of us also own FF cameras*. We use the appropriate tool for the appropriate job. Often we use both FF bodies and our 7D Mark II bodies at the same time. We'll have a "short" or "wide" lens on the FF and a "long" lens on the 7D Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

melgross said:


> Not quite. But dslrs have that pentaprism to deal with. It’s not just the size, it’s the weight too.



Blindfolded I couldn't tell the difference between my 7D Mark II and my 5D Mark IV. That's after using the 7D Mark II for almost 200,000 frames and the 5D Mark III/5D Mark IV combined for about 95,000 frames.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

sanj said:


> I wish for smaller, lighter body and lenses. This will be my second system for family/travel etc.



Then grab up some M-series bodies and lenses while the getting is still good!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 10, 2021)

josephandrews222 said:


> No snark intended with my question here.
> 
> It seems to me that the primary reason folks posting here 'wouldn't put a 600mm lens on an M6 II' is ergonomics.
> 
> ...



That's a false duality. The only choice isn't between an R5 _*or*_ an R7. There's also the possibility of an R5 _*and*_ an R7.

The vast majority of 7D Mark II users also own a 5-series, or even a 1-series, body. Different tools for different use cases.

I shoot a lot of high school sports at night under lights. I have three 5-Series bodies (a II, III, and IV). I also have a 7D Mark II (and before that, a 7D which I donated to a high school art department after I got the 7DII).

I typically have a 70-200/2.8 on the 7DII and a 24-105/4 (it takes a licking and keeps on ticking like no other lens I've ever owned) or 24-70/2.8 (if the stadium lights are really dim and it's not raining) on the FF body.

Not only is using the 70-200/2.8 on an APS-C body a lot cheaper (and lighter!) than using a 300/2.8 on a FF body, but it makes a lot more sense to me to put all of the "high mileage" frames shot with the "long" body on a $1,700 7D Mark II and save my $3,500 FF bodies for other uses where they are better tools than the 7DII. On a typical Friday pep rally in the gym and football game under the lights I'll shoot around 2,000 frames with the 7DII + 70-200/2.8 and maybe 200-400 frames with the FF body, depending on whether I shoot the bands at halftime or not.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 11, 2021)

OneSnark said:


> Personally. . . . . I don't see the point of a APS-C "R" series camera.
> 
> A crop camera mounting $2500+ FF lenses? meh.
> 
> ...



It's all fun and games with the M6 Mark II until you want an eye level viewfinder and flash control _at the same time_.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 11, 2021)

Joules said:


> If you want more clarity, check out my thread about just that topic: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/equivalency-now-with-pictures.39787/
> In a nutshell, cropping an FF image to same FoV as a crop sensor, and just taking that image with a crop sensor in the first place is exactly the same thing, provided all other variables (sensor quality, physical distance to subject, lens in use, aperture, ISO, shutter speed, ...) are also exactly the same.
> 
> That's not what reach is about though. It is not about people not wanting to crop their images - it is about putting more pixels on the subject and therefore being able to display that subject larger. You can get that by physically enlarging the image more, using a longer lens. But past a certain point, that get's really expensive and heavy. The other way to gain more reach is using a higher pixel density, so pixels per sensor area. The highest Canon offers here currently is the 32.5 MP sensor found in the 90D and M6 II. Scaled up to FF area, that results in about 90 MP. And we have a good rumor indicating that will indeed be the resolution of the R5s (the high res RF body). But if that's the only option to get this kind of reach in the RF realm, it means you essentially have to pay a hefty premium over the other options to get that reach.
> ...



A 32MP 1.6X APS-C sensor scaled up to FF is 82MP.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 11, 2021)

padam said:


> Well, then there is the R5s model in crop mode. They are not going to do an 's' model with an APS-C sensor and video is important for every new camera in 2021.



The R5 cropped to APS-C dimensions is 17MP. That's less than the current 7D Mark II 20MP sensor, and substantially less than the 32MP M6 Mark II/90D sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 11, 2021)

unfocused said:


> All the R series cameras already do that. The advantage of the crop sensor body is the higher resolution, since the current resolution of the R5 crops down to under 20mp. Not bad, but not necessarily enough when trying to shoot small songbirds, which will likely fill only a small portion of the frame even in crop mode.
> 
> I would agree that if the rumored R5s has the same crop resolution as the rumored R7, then the advantages of the R7 will really come down to whether or not it has better features (faster frame rate, more accurate autofocus, etc,) than the R5s. The beauty of the 7DII was that it offered features above the 5DIII and closer to the 1Dx. As for price, I'm not expecting there to be a huge savings for the crop sensor.



The 5D Mark III cropped to 1.6X APS-C dimensions was only 8.7MP, too. That's quite a bit less than the 7D Mark II's 20MP.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 11, 2021)

Psamathe said:


> I can't afford an R5 (bit of a risk travelling with one anyway). My own opinion is Canon would find a very limited market if they exclusively focused on "_high end cameras for professionals_". I believe there are a load of people taking photos who are medium end (and probably don't worry about discussing potential camera developments online).
> 
> I wonder if people can focus on their own needs/desires rather than the broader picture - I'm sure I do, R5 end is beyond my price point, Smartphone totally inadequate for me so will Canon abandon me? (I suspect not as I don't think I am alone in this "bracket").
> 
> Ian



Have you ever heard of the Canon M-series? That's what Canon offers to the "... load of people taking photos who are medium end (and probably don't worry about discussing potential camera developments online)."

How about the Fuji XT-10/20/30 series?

Or the Sony α6x00 series?


----------



## SteveC (Jan 11, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Have you ever heard of the Canon M-series? That's what Canon offers to the "... load of people taking photos who are medium end (and probably don't worry about discussing potential camera developments online)."



To amplify/reinforce your point: I own an R5. I didn't take it with me on my last trip. Instead I took my two M series cameras.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 11, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> I’ve seen the list of features that most people would want in a 7D2 mirrorless replacement. Most fall between the R5 and R6. Why anyone would think you would get all the features of the R5/R6 with a sensor resolution somewhere between the R5/R6 at a price below the R6 is a pipe dream IMO.
> 
> I don’t think Canon is going to undercut their flagship with a crop-body that delivers generally the same performance at less than half the cost.
> 
> ...



The R5 doesn't have the reach, either. At APS-C sized crop it's only 17MP, which is a lot less than the current 32MP sensor on the M6 Mark II/90D.

Most of the folks interested in an R7 either already have an R5 or R6 or plan to get one of them soon. Just like most 7D Mark II users also have FF cameras.

It doesn't have to be an _either this or that _question, it can also be a _both this and that_ for different use cases situation.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 11, 2021)

SteveC said:


> To amplify/reinforce your point: I own an R5. I didn't take it with me on my last trip. Instead I took my two M series cameras.



Yeah, it seems to me most of "why would anyone ever be interested in an APS-C RF mount camera" folks can't comprehend that some folks own more than one camera body at the same time, much less that some of us use more than one camera body at the same shooting event.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 11, 2021)

Bert63 said:


> That's the only question I have - they need to be careful with the price. I think it needs to be significantly cheaper than the R6 and that means cutting features. It's a balance.
> 
> With the 5D3 and R7 caparison made earlier, there was no R6 sitting in the middle of the stew..



There was the 6D that was more expensive than the 7D Mark II in 2014... The price of the 6D only fell below the 7D Mark II later on.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 11, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> Huh?
> 
> I bought the EOS R5 because it's a full frame 45 megapixel monster that shoots full-res 20 FPS silently. Never in a million years would I have bought a crop camera, that's a totally different market than the R5 in every way.
> 
> ...



But as a PJ, don't you often have two bodies at the same time? One with a "long" lens and one with a "wide" lens? It takes more than a push of a button to go from 70-200 to 16-35, doesn't it?

What if, for not a whole lot more than the cost of one R5, I can get both an R6 and an R7? Now I've got both lenses mounted and ready to use at the same time. The "long" body is the R7, the "wide" body is the R6. For PJ type work, I've found that wide angle stuff can get by with lower resolution (and lower Tv, which allows f/4 instead of f/2.8 lenses in many situations). It's only the range limited stuff (like your SWAT scenario) where resolution really comes into play.

Not only is an R7 + RF 70-200/2.8 cheaper than an R5 + 300/2.8, it's also a hell of a lot lighter to truck around all day. And then it also gives you a zoom range on the APS-C R7 that is equivalent to 110-320mm angle of view on a FF camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 11, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I could be wrong, but I don't recall any official sources cited. As I'm sure you know, Canon and Nikon seldom definitively declare anything dead.
> 
> Good arguments can be made both for and against a high-end APS-C mirrorless body. What no one has access to is the market research that shows if it will be profitable or not.
> 
> ...



A Nikon official did go on record in an interview that there were no plans to replace the D500 with another DSLR. Seems like it was back in 2018 or so. What he did not say was anything either way regarding plans to make a mirrorless APS-C body that would be similar in function. YMMV.


----------



## padam (Jan 11, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The R5 cropped to APS-C dimensions is 17MP. That's less than the current 7D Mark II 20MP sensor, and substantially less than the 32MP M6 Mark II/90D sensor.


Just read what I wrote and what it was responded to, but I am repeating it: I was taking about the upcoming high-resolution R5s having no AA filter and I do not see them doing an APS-C model without an AA filter as they are not going to just ignore video features.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jan 11, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> But what you don't seem to get is that many of us who use, for example, the 7D Mark II also have a wider lens mounted to our FF 5D-series camera _at the same time_. So if we accept using an 82MP FF camera in crop mode instead of a 32MP APS-C body, then we need to buy two FF cameras at $8,000+ total ($3,900 + $4,300?) instead of one FF camera and one APS-C camera at about $6,000 total ($3,900 + $2,100?).


The guy was just asking about magnification, DOF, etc. And I explained it to him. I didn't tell anyone what they had to spend on what or what is better for them. 

-Brian


----------



## Dragon (Jan 11, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> By and large, the "7D Mark II crowd" has no use for APS-C lenses of any type. If we want to shoot wide angle, we use wide angle EF lenses on our FF cameras.
> 
> What you folks who think you know more about the "7D Mark II crowd" than those of us who actually use them fail to understand is that *the vast majority of us also own FF cameras*. We use the appropriate tool for the appropriate job. Often we use both FF bodies and our 7D Mark II bodies at the same time. We'll have a "short" or "wide" lens on the FF and a "long" lens on the 7D Mark II.


I fully understand that you almost exclusively use FF lenses (even though some of your group claim otherwise). You are still missing the point that (all else equal) a FF with the same pixel density as 7D will get more good shots than the small sensor simply because of the wider field of view. I realize that the all else has not been equal in the past and you did get a hell of a bargain on your 7D II cameras (i.e. 1 series AF and speed for way less than a 5 series). The point I have been making is that in an ever shrinking market, there may not be enough demand to justify both a high res FF and a 7D type camera, particularly if the high res FF is fast enough or miracle of miracles shoots in crop frame mode really fast. At the end of the day, the only thing that won't be equal is price and you may have to live with that. At the other end of the spectrum, neither a FF nor a true 7D replacement will fill the space occupied by the very portable M series.


----------



## H. Jones (Jan 11, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> But as a PJ, don't you often have two bodies at the same time? One with a "long" lens and one with a "wide" lens? It takes more than a push of a button to go from 70-200 to 16-35, doesn't it?
> 
> What if, for not a whole lot more than the cost of one R5, I can get both an R6 and an R7? Now I've got both lenses mounted and ready to use at the same time. The "long" body is the R7, the "wide" body is the R6. For PJ type work, I've found that wide angle stuff can get by with lower resolution (and lower Tv, which allows f/4 instead of f/2.8 lenses in many situations). It's only the range limited stuff (like your SWAT scenario) where resolution really comes into play.
> 
> Not only is an R7 + RF 70-200/2.8 cheaper than an R5 + 300/2.8, it's also a hell of a lot lighter to truck around all day. And then it also gives you a zoom range on the APS-C R7 that is equivalent to 110-320mm angle of view on a FF camera.



That's irrelevant to me, my second body is my 1DX Mark II, which will be replaced by a R1 the moment that comes out. Money is not a factor to me as a professional, which is why I've always enjoyed the 1D series, even when you could afford to buy nearly two R5s for the price of a single 1D. 

I agree for the wide angle work that lower res isn't a problem, which is why I have my 1DX2 on my 24-70 and the EOS R5 on my RF 70-200. 

What I'm saying is, the R5 provides me with effectively a 70-320mm angle of view with just the RF 70-200, since I can push a button to swap between 1.6x or 1x. It's far easier to swap crop modes than even the built-in 1.4x on the 200-400. I can't imagine any reason why I would waste my money on a crop sensor camera when my R5 already gives me that capability alongside allows me to primarily use it as a full frame camera the rest of the time.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jan 11, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You grossly underestimate the size of the 7D Mark II user base and the market size that an R7 that is basically a mirrorless 7D Mark III would be.


Only Canon knows the size of the 7Dii user base. It is an assumption that all current 7Dii users will buy a R7. It is also an assumption that all 7Dii users were birders etc requiring the extra reach compared to other systems. It is not clear how many current 7Dii users have moved to 5D or other systems in the last 7 years or even moved to the R6/7. I moved from 7D to 5Diii to 5Div to R5 for instance.
The R5 has the best AF/fps/weather sealing that you want on a R7. Saying that 17mp equivalent reach on the R5 is not sufficient as the D90 etc has 30mp doesn't make sense as the 7Dii only has 20mp. 17mp vs 20mp is not a large difference in linear resolution. If pixels on subject is mandatory then use D90/M5ii. 
I contend that the 7D/7Dii were marketing unicorns ie best AF/weather sealing/fps in a relatively inexpensive body doesn't make sense in Canon's market segmentation today and unlikely to continue in the future. 5 year refresh from 7D to 7Dii and now 7 years with no refresh supports my argument.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 17, 2021)

@Dragon 

"You are still missing the point that (all else equal) a FF with the same pixel density as 7D will get more good shots than the small sensor simply because of the wider field of view. "

I'm not missing your point at all. I simply disagree with it. 

When the subject doesn't even fill an APS-C sized portion of a FF sensor, the extra real estate is just excess data that needs to be processed. Do you seriously think the R5s will have the same top frame rate as an R7? Compare the 5Ds to the 7D Mark II, both of which had almost the exact same pixel density. The 5Ds tops out at 5 fps for 14 raw files or 510 JPEGs. The 7D Mark II tops out at 10 fps for 31 raw files or as many JPEGS as the memory cards can hold and the batteries can power. Now what was that about getting more good shots?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 17, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> That's irrelevant to me, my second body is my 1DX Mark II, which will be replaced by a R1 the moment that comes out. Money is not a factor to me as a professional, which is why I've always enjoyed the 1D series, even when you could afford to buy nearly two R5s for the price of a single 1D.
> 
> I agree for the wide angle work that lower res isn't a problem, which is why I have my 1DX2 on my 24-70 and the EOS R5 on my RF 70-200.
> 
> What I'm saying is, the R5 provides me with effectively a 70-320mm angle of view with just the RF 70-200, since I can push a button to swap between 1.6x or 1x. It's far easier to swap crop modes than even the built-in 1.4x on the 200-400. I can't imagine any reason why I would waste my money on a crop sensor camera when my R5 already gives me that capability alongside allows me to primarily use it as a full frame camera the rest of the time.



Fair enough. If one can/is willing to spend the cost of an R1 + R5 then more power to you. Shooting high school sports doesn't generate enough to cover that kind of cost and leave anything for the photog to count as profit.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 17, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Only Canon knows the size of the 7Dii user base. It is an assumption that all current 7Dii users will buy a R7. It is also an assumption that all 7Dii users were birders etc requiring the extra reach compared to other systems. It is not clear how many current 7Dii users have moved to 5D or other systems in the last 7 years or even moved to the R6/7. I moved from 7D to 5Diii to 5Div to R5 for instance.
> The R5 has the best AF/fps/weather sealing that you want on a R7. Saying that 17mp equivalent reach on the R5 is not sufficient as the D90 etc has 30mp doesn't make sense as the 7Dii only has 20mp. 17mp vs 20mp is not a large difference in linear resolution. If pixels on subject is mandatory then use D90/M5ii.
> I contend that the 7D/7Dii were marketing unicorns ie best AF/weather sealing/fps in a relatively inexpensive body doesn't make sense in Canon's market segmentation today and unlikely to continue in the future. 5 year refresh from 7D to 7Dii and now 7 years with no refresh supports my argument.



I don't think anyone is saying ALL 7D Mark II users will buy an R7. But the type of shooters who found a use for the 7D Mark II are the same type of shooters who would be interested in an R7.

No one is saying all 7D Mark II users are birders, either, particularly not me since I rarely shoot birds/wildlife.

What I am saying is that, in my experience, almost every 7D Mark II user I know also uses FF cameras already. I already owned a 5D Mark II before I bought my first 7D. I didn't stop using the 5D Mark II. I started using both of them.

I regularly use a 5D Mark IV, a 7D Mark II, and a 5D Mark III. I rarely shoot three bodies at once. Which one or two I use for a given shooting scenario all depends on the circumstances of that assignment. For most scenarios other than field sports I use only FF cameras. Most days I don't use the 7D Mark II. But when I do use it, it is for a specific purpose when it best meets my needs: More reach with a 70-200/2.8 shooting things that require high frame rates and very large numbers of images over the course of the shooting session. Even though I only use the APS-C camera on about 25% of the sessions I shoot per year, 75% of the frames I shoot each year are on that body. It saves my more expensive FF bodies for where they are most useful.

It's not an either/or decision between APS-C or FF. For most of us who use higher end APS-C bodies it is a decision between another extra FF body or one less FF body and a lower cost, faster APS-C body that also tends to last longer on which to do our "high mileage" telephoto work, be that birds, night sports, or whatever.

"Saying that 17mp equivalent reach on the R5 is not sufficient as the D90 etc has 30mp doesn't make sense as the 7Dii only has 20mp." 

Dude, if Canon had offered a 32MP 7D Mark III in the last three years or so, many 7D Mark II users would already be using that camera instead. The only reason most of us passed on the 90D was because of the less durable shutter rating and the downgraded AF system compared to the 7D Mark II. Those of us still using our 7D Mark II bodies would be more than happy with the 90D/M6 Mark II sensor in an R5/R6 body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 17, 2021)

padam said:


> Just read what I wrote and what it was responded to, but I am repeating it: I was taking about the upcoming high-resolution R5s having no AA filter and I do not see them doing an APS-C model without an AA filter as they are not going to just ignore video features.



They didn't put the same AA filter in front of the 7D Mark II sensor which had the same pixel density and technology as the 5Ds R. They didn't even use the same AA filter for the 5Ds as they did for the 5Ds R! That was the *only* difference between the two models! Both cameras had identical sensors, but different AA filter assemblies in front of them.

What makes you think they would have to put the same AA filter in front of a 32MP version of an 82MP FF sensor with the same underlying sensel size and technology?


----------



## padam (Jan 17, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> They didn't put the same AA filter in front of the 7D Mark II sensor which had the same pixel density and technology as the 5Ds R. They didn't even use the same AA filter for the 5Ds as they did for the 5Ds R! That was the *only* difference between the two models! Both cameras had identical sensors, but different AA filter assemblies in front of them.
> 
> What makes you think they would have to put the same AA filter in front of a 32MP version of an 82MP FF sensor with the same underlying sensel size and technology?


Once again, it is already written in the previous comments: video features. The 5Ds series almost completely ignored them and the R5s won't focus on it either. And the AA filter on new cameras is quite weak anyway.
And at this point there is no indication if these newest FF and APS-C sensors will be closely related or not.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 17, 2021)

padam said:


> Once again, it is already written in the previous comments: video features. The 5Ds series almost completely ignored them and the R5s won't focus on it either. And the AA filter on new cameras is quite weak anyway.
> And at this point there is no indication if these newest FF and APS-C sensors will be closely related or not.



Your argument ignores the fact that the 5Ds/5Ds R and the 7D Mark II shared differently scaled version of the same sensor. One had lots of video features (for the time at which it was released), one did not.

You're saying something that has already been done is not possible. Whether they will or not in the future remains to be seen, but they've certainly done so in the past.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 18, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> @Dragon
> 
> "You are still missing the point that (all else equal) a FF with the same pixel density as 7D will get more good shots than the small sensor simply because of the wider field of view. "
> 
> ...


All I can say is your birds must have a more predictable flight path than my birds. .


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 21, 2021)

Dragon said:


> All I can say is your birds must have a more predictable flight path than my birds. .



I don't shoot many birds. I shoot sports with my 7D Mark II. 

Knowing when to be where with the correct focal length before the action happens is the name of the game with both, though. So is the experience and skill to be able to track an erratically moving subject mostly filling your frame while keeping all of it within the frame.


----------



## No Longer Active (Jan 27, 2021)

melgross said:


> Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.


Certainly for me, as a predominantly long lens shooter the main benefit is that the narrower FoV means that the image of the cropped sensor has a higher pixel density than doing a crop _after _shooting with a FF sensor: a benefit especially true with the R6's 20MP sensor. If they could make a 34MP sensor equivalent to what the 90D had but tweaked for the mirrorless environment, I can see that being very tempting for me.


----------



## Rumourhasit (Feb 15, 2021)

melgross said:


> When you say: “get the most out of”, then you’re saying the body with the highest IQ. Do you think that will be an APS-C body?
> 
> traditionally, APS-C has NEVER been at the high end, once FF came out. It’s a compromise product category, which as I said earlier, is why you don’t find high end lenses specifically made for it by the major camera manufacturers.


Someone has never heard of the Fuji XT4


----------



## AlanF (Feb 15, 2021)

Oldguyslovetech said:


> Someone has never heard of the Fuji XT4


Good body but lacks the telephotos that the 7DII crowd/birders want. The Fuji 100-400mm is pretty good at 100-300mm but gets softer at 400mm where we want sharpness - see https://www.lenstip.com/475.4-Lens_...0_mm_f_4.5-5.6_R_LM_OIS_Image_resolution.html and https://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-xf-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-r-lm-ois-wr-review-29005
I once looked at it as the local dealer had one and was selling it cheap.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 15, 2021)

Technical matters are not the final say. If people are willing to plunk down $2700 for a R7, Canon will make them. However, Canon and Nikon both removed that segment for a reason. I'd bet it was sales volume.


----------



## No Longer Active (Feb 26, 2021)

We can speculate all we want on what might be coming, but right now it would be nice to get deliveries of the stuff that is actually for sale. I got an RF 24-105L, bundled with the R6 body on sale. That was at the end of December, and Canon tell me that they have absolutely no idea when they will be able to deliver the 24-105. It's not their fault, the global logistics network is completely disrupted by COVID causing closure of ports, disruptions of shipping routes, container cycling etc. Then again, there is the issue of the factories getting all the parts they need from their distributed networks of suppliers.


----------



## slclick (Feb 27, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> We can speculate all we want on what might be coming, but right now it would be nice to get deliveries of the stuff that is actually for sale. I got an RF 24-105L, bundled with the R6 body on sale. That was at the end of December, and Canon tell me that they have absolutely no idea when they will be able to deliver the 24-105. It's not their fault, the global logistics network is completely disrupted by COVID causing closure of ports, disruptions of shipping routes, container cycling etc. Then again, there is the issue of the factories getting all the parts they need from their distributed networks of suppliers.


Your wish is their command.....https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-production-issues-to-be-resolved-by-the-end-of-march/


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> If it is less expensive than the R6 it's probably not going to have the features it needs to be a true 7D replacement.



Why do you say that? The 7D Mark II was introduced at a lower price than the 6D before it and the 6D Mark II after it.


----------



## No Longer Active (Feb 27, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> Your wish is their command.....https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-production-issues-to-be-resolved-by-the-end-of-march/


Thank you for that link, but alas it does little to help us in Oceania, which is very much a side issue, as we are out of the way and our markets are so small. The Canon rep told my retailer that they had hopes _but absolutely no proof_ that Canon _might _get their October 2020 shipment of lenses into NZ in late March - but that was pure speculation and _we should hold out no hopes whatsoever in that respect._ I know that we have major bottlenecks at ports and there will doubtless be a serious backlog of orders to fulfill once more stock does turn up. That said, I am sincerely happy for you folks in Canada, Europe and the United States, with the encouraging news in that front.


----------



## slclick (Feb 27, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> Thank you for that link, but alas it does little to help us in Oceania, which is very much a side issue, as we are out of the way and our markets are so small. The Canon rep told my retailer that they had hopes _but absolutely no proof_ that Canon _might _get their October 2020 shipment of lenses into NZ in late March - but that was pure speculation and _we should hold out no hopes whatsoever in that respect._ I know that we have major bottlenecks at ports and there will doubtless be a serious backlog of orders to fulfill once more stock does turn up. That said, I am sincerely happy for you folks in Canada, Europe and the United States, with the encouraging news in that front.


I'd rather have your PM, covid response and climate than all the camera gear in the world!


----------



## unfocused (Feb 27, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Why do you say that? The 7D Mark II was introduced at a lower price than the 6D before it and the 6D Mark II after it.


Because full frame sensor costs as a share of the total cost of the camera continues to drop. At the time of the original 7D, there was a substantial premium between the cost of full frame sensors and crop sensors. The gap has been narrowing ever since. At the same time, the features that most people want in an R7 do not become less expensive simply because the sensor is smaller. 

When the 7DII was introduced, it would have been unthinkable that a full frame body could be sold for under $1,000. But today the RP sells for $900 street price. For the R7 to come in at under the price of the R6 will either require significantly fewer features than the R5 or a willingness on Canon's part to purposely underprice the R7. I see no reason why Canon would want to underprice the R7.


----------



## No Longer Active (Mar 1, 2021)

bluezurich said:


> I'd rather have your PM, covid response and climate than all the camera gear in the world!


I must agree with you there. Still, we are in lockdown again because a 21y.o. idiot was a close contact of an infected person, got a test and was told to go home and self isolate. What did he do? Go to the gym, a technical institute for in-person lectures and then go to a mall to shop. He WAS infected, so now more than a million people are restricted to their homes and business is hurting again. Not the government's fault, just arrogant people who don't think the rules apply to them... Go figure.


----------



## No Longer Active (Mar 1, 2021)

melgross said:


> When you say: “get the most out of”, then you’re saying the body with the highest IQ. Do you think that will be an APS-C body?
> 
> traditionally, APS-C has NEVER been at the high end, once FF came out. It’s a compromise product category, which as I said earlier, is why you don’t find high end lenses specifically made for it by the major camera manufacturers.


I must respectfully disagree with that statement about bodies with crop sensors being inherently inferior to a FF camera. It was for a reason that Canon put the 7D series in the same league as the 5D etc. with the best tracking system and the same level of weather sealing' and general build quality as the 5 series.

To me, a lot depends on what one is using the camera for. In many cases, the larger sensor will beat the crop sensor for light sensitivity, wide angle use etc. No argument there. However, as one who shoots with super telephotos at long range, the crop factor is an advantage for the pixel density. I might add that my interest does not just lie in birds, but macro predators from which one wants to keep a respectful distance.

If I shoot an image with the FF sensor and crop it to get the same FoV as the APS-C sensor, it will reduce the pixel count by a factor of about 2.5. That is significant if one needs to crop more. So it's about pixel density at long focal lengths where the high-end crop sensor comes into its own. If I have a FF sensor and an APS-C sensor with the same pixel count, I can crop the APS-C sensor much more than the FF sensor and still get a decent number of pixels, and to me that has value.

The 7D series is getting long in the tooth, but even at 20MP, it is the same pixel density as cropping a FF sensor of around 50MP to its FoV.

If they could create an R7 with a sensor similar to that of the 90d, tweaked for mirrorless, and with the same features as the R6 as regards IBIS, AEAF etc, it would give me a big advantage for shooting at the longer range. Absolutely NOT for everyone, but there are a lot of long lens shooters out there, so I think there is a market.

As to the M7... What I want in a camera is a decent size and a battery grip using the standard R-series LP-E6 battery format, to be able to provide some balance for a long lens, portrait controls and good battery life. Then, I want an integrated EVF - I have tried the clip-on ones and they are bulky, fragile and use up the flash mount. Third, I want weather proofing. So for me the M7 fails on all of those elements. Something with the physical, IBIS and focus attributes of the R6, (I don't shoot video) but with a good size (34MP+/-) APS-C sensor and able to take RF lenses would work for me.


----------

