# There is still discussion internally at Canon about an APS-C EOS R camera



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 20, 2021)

> There have been countless rumors and opinions of whether or not Canon will be bringing an APS-C camera with an RF mount to market to take the place of the Canon EOS 7D series of DSLRs. Most of the information has been quite vague through the years.
> I have been told that Canon has actively been doing market research with select pros and others to see if there is a real demand for such a camera.  The EOS M line of Canon cameras is in a state of unknown, though I have reported a few times that the EOS M lineup will ride off into the sunset in its current form in favor of the RF mount.
> There are zero plans for Canon to make RF-S lenses, and I think this makes a ton of sense.
> I still think we’re going to see one someday, but I don’t know what sort of timeline we’re looking at. Canon still needs to work on the full-frame lineup, especially when it comes to new and “affordable” camera bodies to replace the EOS R and EOS RP.
> I have more information on this topic that I’m going to keep...



Continue reading...


----------



## Rumourhasit (Jul 20, 2021)

The Un corrected vignette on the RF24-240 looks suspiciously like a lens that would work better on aps -c


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 20, 2021)

I like EF-M. I wouldn't mind retiring the mount if they come out with an RF-M system. Agree RF-S doesn't make sense.


----------



## Philrp (Jul 20, 2021)

For the market research team: I want a fast responsive camera with pro features in a body I can afford, and I'm ready to compromise on the sensor for it.

My 7D and 7DII attest to that....


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 20, 2021)

Canon can't cede the APS market to Fuji or now Nikon and maintain its revenue stream. Polling professionals is like asking someone who just bought a Porsche if he'd be happy with a Volkswagen. The Rebel line is important to bring in new customers, keep a high percentage of current users and to fend off other industry players. A low function, low price full frame camera still needs (so far) expensive lenses and may not be the best marketing strategy.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 20, 2021)

Simplifying mounts is not a bad idea. It's amazing how many people still don't know which lens fits which camera.
Facebook photography groups are full of questions like: I just purchased a Rebel X, will this or that lens fit on it?


----------



## H. Jones (Jul 20, 2021)

I can already picture a "Rebel" branded APS-C mirrorless camera. Eventually as technology moves on, whether that's 5 years from now or 15 years from now, it's not going to make sense for Canon to continue producing mirror-slapper tech and EF lenses just for their low end options.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 20, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I can already picture a "Rebel" branded APS-C mirrorless camera.


In Japan, that has already happened. There, the M50 is called the Kiss M. Kiss is also the branding of their low-end DSLRs.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 20, 2021)

Rumourhasit said:


> The Un corrected vignette on the RF24-240 looks suspiciously like a lens that would work better on aps -c



Indeed.

I decided to compare it to my 18-200 EF-M Tamron, and it looks like, _within the cropped area_ they are about the same (and it's minimal)--I refer here to the barrel/fisheye distortion. I'm just eyeballing it but that's what I got.


----------



## AJ (Jul 20, 2021)

I think that an ASPC R-mount camera makes a lot of sense, and if so, it should be supported by a few RF-S lenses. You can them mount RF and RF-S lenses without an adapter, similar to mounting EF and EF-S on a crop DSLR. The difference would be that you could also mount an RF-S lens on a full-frame camera, which would then switch into crop mode. This wasn't possible with DSLRs due to mirror clearance issues.

Such a system would provide a clear upgrade path, unlike moving from M to R.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jul 20, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Simplifying mounts is not a bad idea. It's amazing how many people still don't know which lens fits which camera.
> Facebook photography groups are full of questions like: I just purchased a Rebel X, will this or that lens fit on it?


So true. I find negative Amazon reviews on lenses where people hammer the product for not fitting on their camera. That’s not a bad product. That’s a bad customer.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Jul 20, 2021)

canon please dont waste R&D/Production and factory resources (their a waste) "I know the birders and etc will come at me full force with there anger" but APSC is just a waste in my opinion 
on this camera its not needed lets improve on already stellar R5 & R6 cameras and R3/R1 cameras


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Jul 20, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> So true. I find negative Amazon reviews on lenses where people hammer the product for not fitting on their camera. That’s not a bad product. That’s a bad customer.


lmao bka folks who just buy cameras too look cool and waste their money


----------



## fastprime (Jul 20, 2021)

Unless Canon can produce a ~$750 full frame R camera, then they'll need a crop body with an RF mount to attract the entry level market. The M line is good, but it's a locked-in system without the ability to mount/upgrade to Canon's amazing new RF lenses.

I think the M line was a massive misstep.


----------



## SteB1 (Jul 20, 2021)

Every time this comes up, self-styled experts will opine that there is no longer any market for APS-C. I cannot say for other niches, but those who express these opinions completely fail to understand the nature photography niche and understand how big it is. We're not necessarily talking about pro nature shooters here, but general bird and macro photographers. The niche is massive. Who do you think buys all those high end binoculars and scopes. The simply fact is if you use FF, you inevitably end up cropping it to less than APS-C size - I mean nearly every photo. I shoot FF as well. I am speaking from experience.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 20, 2021)

fastprime said:


> Unless Canon can produce a ~$750 full frame R camera, then they'll need a crop body with an RF mount to attract the entry level market. The M line is good, but it's a locked-in system without the ability to mount/upgrade to Canon's amazing new RF lenses.
> 
> I think the M line was a massive misstep.


No need for a "Canon" lens on a M-50 or M6. There are Sigma lenses which work wonderfully


----------



## jam05 (Jul 20, 2021)

Much bla bla about nothing. CR has been on this same rumor for years. Canon's M50 and M6 sell very well. Despite the cry over APSC. People just don't care. Sigma lenses work perfectly well. The M50 or M6 isn't the answer for apsc lens sales. No need to try an fix what isnt broken.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jul 20, 2021)

fastprime said:


> Unless Canon can produce a ~$750 full frame R camera, then they'll need a crop body with an RF mount to attract the entry level market. The M line is good, but it's a locked-in system without the ability to mount/upgrade to Canon's amazing new RF lenses.
> 
> I think the M line was a massive misstep.


A lot of camera manufacturers wish they could, “misstep” into Canons sales figures on the ‘M’. “Whoopsie! We’re selling more cameras than anybody!”


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jul 20, 2021)

Dear internal Canon discussion team: you can count at least both on PhilRP and me for a fast, responsive ML 7D II successor with decent low light performance . And I am pretty sure there are more future users you can make happy. If this world really deserves something, then it is a bit more happiness . Plus, "7" stands for luck at least in Western mythology and fairy tales.


----------



## gatabo (Jul 20, 2021)

The EOS C70 has a crop factor that "varies" (4096 or 3840 4K pixels) if you measure the diagonal or the width, between the size of an APS-H 1,37x to APS-C 1.5x sensor, that's bigger than the "past" cameras from Canon, 1.6x crop EF-S lenses (and EF-M), APS-H never had a dedicated lens mount, it just used FF lenses (if we exclude Cine lenses).

Canon already makes an EOS R 0.71X speed booster for FF EF lenses that is roughly equivalent to 1.4X crop factor (similar to the APS-H from the past), the de facto Super 35mm film from the cinema industry, this could be an hint, Canon should stick with this "useful" crop factor also for the future EOS R7, as someone already said in this thread, some Canon RF lenses like the 24-240mm or the 24-105mm F4-7.1 have a reduced image circle that could fit well with a crop sensor and 1.4x seems more appropriate than the "old" 1.6x crop.

Canon RF extenders aren't anymore as versatile as the EF extenders, no more 70-200mm compatibility and even with the new 100-500mm it's less practical than it was with the 100-400mm, but if the future R7 is just a mini R5 (or R3) some photographers could like to use a digital extender instead than an optical extender (even if it's much more expensive), in the past birders and any photographer searching the extra reach used the 7D and similar cameras just for this (and macro), obviously to make this trick work the future EOS R crop cameras should have a pixel number that is similar to the FF equivalent model, the future R7 to be considered a mini R5 needs to have roughly 45MP, otherwise the crop "advantage" is useless (the 7D was considered a mini 1Dx an both had the same amount of pixels).

If Canon don't want to make RF-S lenses (it makes sense) an APS-H 1.4x crop sensor is the way to go, the EOS R to EF 0.71X adapter already exist, Canon could make an RF to RF version too.

An R7 with 45MP sensor like a mini R5, but at a price point that is lower than the R6 could be a massive success, many photographer just want a pro body without the need of a FF sensor, I think many 7D and 7DII photographers, but also 40D 50D 60D 70D 80D and 90D shooters looking for an "upgrade" to mirrorless will love to buy such a camera, it could be the first step to RF mount before eventually upgrade to FF.


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 20, 2021)

I wonder whether phone cameras have killed the chance for big volume on crop sensors like it seems to have killed the pocket P&S cameras, making it more profitable to sell a slightly more expensive FF sensor to the interchangable lense newcomers on a tight budget. $599 full frame to start? Maybe wiuthout EVF? Better than developing a whole product line and range of lenses for a dwindling market?


----------



## InchMetric (Jul 20, 2021)

I hope we see a high end RF crop sensor. Not for me, but just to shut up the usual suspects...


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 20, 2021)

So frustrating to hear that Canon is still discussing RF APS-C, and once again stated that they don't plan to make any crop lenses for RF mount. That tells me that Canon only considers an "R7" as something people have as supplement to a fullframe camera, and not something being the primarily/only camera.
I mean, I partly have my 7DII for the (price &) extra reach of my [wildlife] tele-lenses - or to put it another way, the smaller price & size/weight of same reach, but just as much I have it because of my cheaper and light weight 385g EF-S 10-22mm (equals fullframe 16-35mm) and my 575g EF-S 15-85mm (equals fullframe 24-135mm).


----------



## wyotex43n (Jul 20, 2021)

A line up of RF-S, lenses makes no sense to me. Inexpensive non L glass makes business sense but not another mount to confuse people. 
As a person who likes to shoot birds I would like to see something that is above 10 frames a second that would get more pixels on the bird than my R5 while having similar AF capabilities.


----------



## HAWKS61 (Jul 20, 2021)

jam05 said:


> No need for a "Canon" lens on a M-50 or M6. There are Sigma lenses which work wonderfully


It’s ok to say there are a few sigma lenses for the M system but unless they open the Mount up fully to third party manufacturers the system is restricted to a couple of ok zoom lenses that just don’t handle the full resolution or the M6 mark 2. It’s a terrific APS-c camera with really good autofocus and features that with the right lenses could be a nice small sports and wildlife option. The M6 mk2 with most current lenses is like putting a formula one motor in a VW beetle.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 20, 2021)

fastprime said:


> I think the M line was a massive misstep.


That's because you're an enthusiast who prefers high-end, full-frame gear. The M system wasn't meant for you.

Here's another perspective: Canon was playing catch-up in mirrorless after being caught flat-footed by the success of Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic, in the shrinking DSLR market. The M series was a low-risk way for Canon to test the waters and learn about mirrorless camera considerations, before bringing the technology to their flagship EOS series. Without the lessons Canon learned from the M, the R series might very well have stumbled right out of the gate.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 20, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Dear internal Canon discussion team: you can count at least both on PhilRP and me for a fast, responsive ML 7D II successor with decent low light performance . And I am pretty sure there are more future users you can make happy. If this world really deserves something, then it is a bit more happiness . Plus, "7" stands for luck at least in Western mythology and fairy tales.


Dear internal Canon discussion team: I have used exclusively Canon ILCs for 40 years, starting with an AV-1 when I was in high school and later moving to the EOS system with a succession of film and digital EOS bodies, culminating with a 7D Mark II. Earlier this year, I purchased my first ever non-Canon ILC, a Sony a6400. To your credit, it took Sony and Fuji five years to catch up to the 7D Mark II, but catch up they did. I am getting great results with the a6400, and my EF lenses work perfectly with the adapter. So my wish list for you is simple: Give us an APS-C R body that will make me WANT to come back to Canon!


----------



## tataylino (Jul 20, 2021)

I think a $800 fullframe EOS R will sell more. Especially for small time vloggers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2021)

SteB1 said:


> Every time this comes up, self-styled experts will opine that there is no longer any market for APS-C. I cannot say for other niches, but those who express these opinions completely fail to understand the nature photography niche and understand how big it is. We're not necessarily talking about pro nature shooters here, but general bird and macro photographers. The niche is massive. Who do you think buys all those high end binoculars and scopes. The simply fact is if you use FF, you inevitably end up cropping it to less than APS-C size - I mean nearly every photo. I shoot FF as well. I am speaking from experience.



Sorry, but I had to LOL at that. The bird and macro niche is ‘massive’?!? I think it is you who acompletely fail to understand the nature of the ILC market.

You’re quite correct that the suggestion that there is no longer any market for APS-C is ludicrous. The market for APS-C is massive compared to FF, which is in turn massive compared to MF (a few years ago, Leica stated the MF market —the whole market, not their portion of it— comprised 6,000-7,000 MF bodies sold per year). But what drives APS-C sales isn’t bird or macro photographers, it’s the simple fact that APS-C ILCs are cheaper.

Incidentally, that’s also likely the reason that most bird/macro photographers buy APS-C bodies.


----------



## dilbert (Jul 20, 2021)

The problem for Canon is that RF-S can't be EF-M. EF-M lenses are smaller because the mount is smaller. That also means lighter.

If Canon don't replace EF-M when it is discontinued then they leave that segment of the market to the other vendors.

There are size and weight advantages with EF-M for consumers that can't be delivered with RF.


----------



## mccasi (Jul 20, 2021)

People buy aps-c for 3 reasons:
- price
- portability
- specialty applications which require high pixel density

Price conscious buyers can be swayed by cheap FF body, cheap FF kit lens. In fact canon would prefer selling a 800 usd kit FF kit over their M50 kit which is their top seller. Not sure how Sony and Fuji are actually doing with this segment.

portability conscious buyers, like I was when I bought the EOS M, then m3, less so the m5, they just need a single small body and a pancake lens. Now the 50mm 1.8 on an RP would have likely been enough for me back then. The extreme of this would be the Sony a7c, no compromises on performance, if you want small and have small hands; canon will monitor their sales well. No one would take a eos m with 22/2 over a RPii with 35/2.8 if they cost the same and weight the same and are within a CM of each other.
… also, I was increasingly buying lenses for my EOS M and portability was getting worse and worse, yet performance, esp autofocus and image quality was only meh, even on the M5. So a good customer for canon, will get more unhappy sticking with eos M.

niche applications are just that, niche and low volume. And… Cheap birders are not getting Fuji’s. They’re getting a cheap FF body and a 600/11.. or buying a power zoom with a 1 inch sensor. High end birders can just get either a r5s or a teleconverter, Both are giving the photog more flexibility in their kit. Also, Aps-c birders were using FF lenses as there aren’t any good aps-c long lenses.
Case and point, if this niche was big enough, Olympus would be alive right now, they tried and even got the super long lens for it.

don’t tell me that people love aps-c without telling me what the need is that FF cannot do equal or better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2021)

fastprime said:


> Unless Canon can produce a ~$750 full frame R camera, then they'll need a crop body with an RF mount to attract the entry level market. The M line is good, but it's a locked-in system without the ability to mount/upgrade to Canon's amazing new RF lenses.
> 
> I think the M line was a massive misstep.


Let me introduce you to reality. Seems you’re not acquainted.

Keep in mind that:
1) the M line is a global best-seller, and consistently a best-seller domestically for Canon. 
2) Canon wants you to buy more – cameras and lenses. So you have an M and want FF? You buy an R and lenses, too. Canon wins.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 20, 2021)

AJ said:


> I think that an ASPC R-mount camera makes a lot of sense, and if so, it should be supported by a few RF-S lenses. You can them mount RF and RF-S lenses without an adapter, similar to mounting EF and EF-S on a crop DSLR. The difference would be that you could also mount an RF-S lens on a full-frame camera, which would then switch into crop mode. This wasn't possible with DSLRs due to mirror clearance issues.
> 
> Such a system would provide a clear upgrade path, unlike moving from M to R.


Canon can't afford to support a 5th lens mount with RF-s lenses. If they did then only wide angle RF-s lenses would be needed as the range of RF glass or adapted EF glass is excellent!

If Canon brings out a higher level (not Rebel level) APS-C R body (R6 + M6ii sensor/internals?) then those users could user adapted EF-s lenses for wide angle. Some are quite good. M series is a good mirrorless fit for the comparable Rebel (xxD/xxxD/xxxxD) kits. I am not convinced that many Rebel buyers migrated to full frame over time. I started from 7D + EF24-105/4 for instance.

I believe that the existing birding etc community already have their EF telephoto lenses and would adapt them onto the R7. There would be a few upgrades to RF100-500mm and new RF600/800mm but I can't see the rest of the RF lenses being important to that market segment.


----------



## AJ (Jul 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but I had to LOL at that. The bird and macro niche is ‘massive’?!? I think it is you who acompletely fail to understand the nature of the ILC market.
> 
> You’re quite correct that the suggestion that there is no longer any market for APS-C is ludicrous. The market for APS-C is massive compared to FF, which is in turn massive compared to MF (a few years ago, Leica stated the MF market —the whole market, not their portion of it— comprised 6,000-7,000 MF bodies sold per year). But what drives APS-C sales isn’t bird or macro photographers, it’s the simple fact that APS-C ILCs are cheaper.
> 
> Incidentally, that’s also likely the reason that most bird/macro photographers buy APS-C bodies.


I think you're quoting SteB1, not me. But I agree with you. The APSC market is massive. With APSC DSLRs and EF-S sailing off into the sunset, the question is whether APSC is going to the M mount (which has been neglected lately) or to R, or both. I don't think APSC is going away completely. The demise of APSC has been predicted again and again, but the format seems to hang on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2021)

AJ said:


> I think you're quoting SteB1, not me.


Apologies, not sure how that happened.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 21, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> So frustrating to hear that Canon is still discussing RF APS-C, and once again stated that they don't plan to make any crop lenses for RF mount. That tells me that Canon only considers an "R7" as something people have as supplement to a fullframe camera, and not something being the primarily/only camera.
> I mean, I parly have my 7DII for the extra reach of my [wildlife] tele-lenses (or to put it another way, the smaller size/weight of same reach), but just as much I have it because of my 385g EF-S 10-22mm (equals fullframe 16-35mm) and my 575g EF-S 15-85mm (equals fullframe 24-135mm).


The EF-M 11-17 is an all around better lens than the EF-s 10-22 and it has IS and is also cheaper. The M line badly needs an equivalent to the EF-s 15-85 which is a very fine piece of glass, but the vast majority are happy with the 18-150, so it may be a while. Making an R body just for APS-c is silly. If you want the portability of your 10-22 and your 15-85, just slap them on your R5 and it will automatically switch to APS-c with proper APS-c RAW files and image quality and resolution better than your 7d II (yes, only 17MP, but the new AA filter makes a big difference).


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 21, 2021)

mccasi said:


> People buy aps-c for 3 reasons:
> - price
> - portability
> - specialty applications which require high pixel density
> ...


Agreed on all accounts. The only thing I'd add is that the portability of M series to me is mostly because of the lenses. A tiny full frame RF body will never match the portability of an EF-M system. RF 50 and 35 f1.8 are small but will never be as small as EF-M. Canon might have limited themselves in lens design by standing fast by their rule to not exceed a certain diameter, but it sure does keep the system tiny. Shrinking the bodies without getting smaller lenses actually doesn't make sense to me either. That just makes for a more unbalanced, less ergonomic camera.

I also agree that those f11 lenses was Canon's way of appeasing the birders. They may not like it, but I think it's a more economical solution than developing an APS-C Pro body that only has a niche market.

The price aspect is interesting because there are varying factors. On one end, I feel like they do need to eventually come out with a $500 camera body. Whether that's APS-C or Full frame, I don't know. It's just something baked into the psyche of a first time buyer who wants to get a "nice" camera and in their mind, a budget of $500 almost always is the magic number. I just suspect that the cost difference between full frame and crop is growing more negligible, and the streamlining of the lens system makes more business sense. The other end of the discussion is the improvement of Phone cameras shrinking the market. If they are targeting first time buyers and beginners, they have to offer some way of being superior. That is becoming increasingly harder as AI is automatically applying filters, balancing HDR scenes, compensating in lowlight, all instantaneously, and some have multiple lenses (wide, standard, telephoto) built in. 

Lastly, I think having a transitional lens system ala EF-S is not as important as some make it out to be. Canon, would rather you just buy more lenses if you decide to upgrade anyway. Actually thinking about it, it's actually backward. Why would you buy a crop lens with the intent of going to fullframe if it wouldn't even be compatible on the mount? Okay maybe RF would be different since you can put the body in crop mode, but that makes my previous point of unnecessarily complicating the lens lineup. This is why I agree with you that it's easier to just have one full frame system, and make different lenses for different applications and budgets.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 21, 2021)

gatabo said:


> The EOS C70 has a crop factor that "varies" (4096 or 3840 4K pixels) if you measure the diagonal or the width, between the size of an APS-H 1,37x to APS-C 1.5x sensor, that's bigger than the "past" cameras from Canon, 1.6x crop EF-S lenses (and EF-M), APS-H never had a dedicated lens mount, it just used FF lenses (if we exclude Cine lenses).
> 
> Canon already makes an EOS R 0.71X speed booster for FF EF lenses that is roughly equivalent to 1.4X crop factor (similar to the APS-H from the past), the de facto Super 35mm film from the cinema industry, this could be an hint, Canon should stick with this "useful" crop factor also for the future EOS R7, as someone already said in this thread, some Canon RF lenses like the 24-240mm or the 24-105mm F4-7.1 have a reduced image circle that could fit well with a crop sensor and 1.4x seems more appropriate than the "old" 1.6x crop.
> 
> ...


To your comment re the C70, Canon has stuck with super-35 sensors in pro Cine cameras because pro cinematographers are accustomed to working with the DOF that size imager produces and that group doesn't switch gears easily. The .71 adapter/focal reducer simply makes EF lenses (including EF cinema lenses) one stop faster and better suited to the C70. 

AFAIK, the .71 adapter will also work with an R5 and the R5 APS-c cropped video is very good, so once again, the adapter makes sense for video. Other than a few Cinema lenses and FF lenses attached to that .71 adapter, there are almost no available crop lenses that will cover a 1.4 crop, so I think your 1.4 proposal is pretty much a dead end.

The 90D sensor has the same pixel pitch as an 83 MP FF sensor and the list of lenses that will do that sensor justice is very short (I know, I have one). A 45 MP APS-c sensor has the same pixel spacing as a 115 MP FF sensor. That lens list would be even shorter and with the MTF drop at that pixel pitch, such a camera would lose at least two and likely 3 stops of detail sensitivity vs a 45MP ff camera. That makes a a $7500 500mm f/4 on your ideal crop camera about equivalent to the $900 800mm f/11 on a FF body for detail capture. Given how good the EF 500 is, it might buy one stop, but no more than that. Not a very attractive tradeoff when you look at size, weight, and cost. An R5 with the cheapie 800 starts to look very nice, and that is probably the reason why Canon went down that road. The rumor that has been floating around about 800mm and 1200mm AF/IS mirror lenses further supports the FF approach.

The bottom line is that shrinking pixels on a crop camera was a handy trick when FF cameras were 20 MP, but as you approach the diffraction limit, the advantage of that trick is not linear and the return becomes much less attractive. It is useful to remember that Canon really does employ many of the best optical engineers in the world and they do think these things through quite well.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 21, 2021)

Dragon said:


> The EF-M 11-17 is an all around better lens than the EF-s 10-22 and it has IS and is also cheaper. The M line badly needs an equivalent to the EF-s 15-85 which is a very fine piece of glass, but the vast majority are happy with the 18-150, so it may be a while. *Making an R body just for APS-c is silly*. If you want the portability of your 10-22 and your 15-85, just slap them on your R5 and it will automatically switch to APS-c with proper APS-c RAW files and image quality and resolution better than your 7d II (yes, only 17MP, but the new AA filter makes a big difference).


"Making a R body just for APS-C is silly" is not true. There are many reasons to make one... it just depends on whether there is sufficient demand, sufficient profitability and sufficient product capacity to make it.

Affording a R5 is not always possible and 17mp crop is not the current 20mp of the 7Dii or the 32mp of the M6ii.

A R7 (R6 body with M6ii sensor/internals) would be relatively cheap by raiding the spare parts bin similar to 6Dii/RP and 5Div/R bodies. I think that the birders etc would buy it if ~R6 price. They would prefer a new high density sensor with bird eye-AF etc of course. The only way I could see that happening is if Canon can leverage a R5s sensor with a high density cropped version for R7


----------



## BBarn (Jul 21, 2021)

The biggest selling point for APS-C cameras is lower cost and smaller size/weight. Since RF-s lenses are off the table, most of the APS-C benefits would be absent as well. An APS-C RF mount body with big and heavy FF lenses would be out of place in the world of trim Sony and Fuji APS-C cameras. Nikon had the sense to make a couple small and light lenses for their DX Z50. 

That leaves the very small birders market for an APS-C body with FF lenses. Maybe some day, well into the future.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 21, 2021)

I hope they move to 1.5x crop sensor if they go to APS-C on RF mount. EF-S was always silly how they limited it's use unlike other makers with their DX lenses.

Not sure why they think there wouldn't be a market for vastly more affordable APS-C cameras. EF-M is a sad joke and should be killed off ASAP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> EF-M is a sad joke and should be killed off ASAP.


Just like the Toyota Camry.


----------



## lo lite (Jul 21, 2021)

I really like my tiny M6mkI for street photography because it is so tiny and unobtrusive. This leads to the fact that people do not take you seriously and so behave more naturally. If I would run around with a EOS1 size body, people would shrug and ask: what are those pictures for?


----------



## Dragon (Jul 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Just like the Toyota Camry.


Bullseye!!!


----------



## Rocky (Jul 21, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> EF-M is a sad joke and should be killed off ASAP.


What is wrong with the M??


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2021)

My parsing of the @Canon Rumors Guy post:


Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There have been countless rumors and opinions of whether or not Canon will be bringing an APS-C camera with an RF mount to market to take the place of the Canon EOS 7D series of DSLRs. Most of the information has been quite vague through the years.



This is a rumor about an RF mount APS-C camera to "take the place of the Canon EOS 7D." It's not about other possible APS-C bodies in the RF mount. So, there is really no point in discussing other options in this thread.



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I have been told that Canon has actively been doing market research with select pros and others to see if there is a real demand for such a camera.



Wow! Canon conducts actual market research instead of listening to forum experts who confidently predict that the market is (take your choice) a) huge or b) non-existent.

If true, this probably means we are quite a ways out from seeing an actual product, even if they decide to proceed. Makes sense, as Canon already has enough bodies in the pipeline for 1-2 years anyway (R3, Entry level R, R cinema, R5 s, R1). The good news then is that forum experts will be able to opine on this topic at least through 2022 and maybe even through 2023. Yay!



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The EOS M line of Canon cameras is in a state of unknown, though I have reported a few times that the EOS M lineup will ride off into the sunset in its current form in favor of the RF mount.



If correct, this means that Canon has not yet decided what they want to do with the EOS M line. "Unknown" for those who are definition deficient, means a state of uncertainty. As in, no decision has yet been made. 



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> There are zero plans for Canon to make RF-S lenses, and I think this makes a ton of sense.



I don't see this as a significant revelation. Of course there is no need for a specialized RF-S mount. RF bodies automatically adapt to the image circle of the lens. EF-S lenses were needed because you could not physically fit a Canon crop sensor lens on a full frame body without hitting the mirror. (You could, however, fit some third party lenses if you didn't mind the vignetting.) If Canon wanted to make lenses for crop sensors, they would not need to change anything, as the lenses would simply crop on a full frame body, just as adapted EF-S lenses currently do. So, I see this as simply stating the obvious. 

Depending on what Canon ultimately decides to do with crop sensor bodies in general for the RF mount, I don't see them releasing a body without at least a couple of crop lenses. 

My added two cents: 

I think time is the enemy of an R7. The 45mp of the R5 already yields a very adequate 1.6 crop. The 100-500 (if Canon ever delivers them) along with the 600 and 800 f11 lenses already cuts into the "reach challenged" market. The release of an R5s would cut into the R7 market even more.

Then there is the pricing. I must assume that part of Canon's research is to determine a price point for an R7. What's the most they can charge for an R7 and still get people to buy one. My guess is that it has to come in under $3,000, but that's just my guess. I can already hear people whining that it should cost $2,000. Dream on. If Canon's research shows they can only get $2,000 for the body, it don't think it will get developed.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2021)

AJ said:


> I think that an ASPC R-mount camera makes a lot of sense, and if so, it should be supported by a few RF-S lenses. You can them mount RF and RF-S lenses without an adapter, similar to mounting EF and EF-S on a crop DSLR. The difference would be that you could also mount an RF-S lens on a full-frame camera, which would then switch into crop mode. This wasn't possible with DSLRs due to mirror clearance issues.
> 
> Such a system would provide a clear upgrade path, unlike moving from M to R.


I think the fact that the crop system would need supporting lenses is the fatal flaw of the concept.

Maybe in five or ten years when the current R system is filled out and all production issues overcome then they can diversify the RF system more. At that point the EF-s system will be practically dead anyway so there would be nothing to lose.


----------



## jam05 (Jul 21, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> Canon should have released the RF mount on the M body. Granted it'd make the M bodies a little taller, but they could then reorganize the internals a bit to be a little shallower or narrower. The bigger mount would force a greater height but no greater volume for the body.
> 
> The EF-M lenses would instead be RF mount in this case. They could have the same narrow barrel size with a slight flare at the base to fit the bigger mount. Some clown on this forum I'm now blocking claims such a flare would kill sales for the lens line but I can't see how. Lenses have always sold fine getting big towards the front so I don't see why the reverse would be the case. Just like the camera, the lenses wouldn't increase in volume, and I don't think people care about the diameter of lenses in their backpack or lens shelf at home, but rather the volume.
> 
> ...


Total BS. The sector and user group of the M50 and M6 are NOT professional, wedding, or the traditional users of apsc cameras. People need to get over the sensor and mount trip. The belief that every consumer purchases a camera device based on the mount or sensor is a falacy.


----------



## -pekr- (Jul 21, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Canon can't afford to support a 5th lens mount with RF-s lenses. If they did then only wide angle RF-s lenses would be needed as the range of RF glass or adapted EF glass is excellent!


I'll fix it for you - the 5 lens mounts of Canon is just a myth of few ppl here. EF is a dead end - no new lenses will ever be developed. EF-S is a complete dead end. EF-M is a well isolated niche, which you can't adapt and use anywhere else. The only future proof and relevant thing is RF then, so better just remember those two letters


----------



## jam05 (Jul 21, 2021)

An apsc R mount camera won't have anything to do with the M50 or M6. Different user group. Its the body ergonomics and size NOT the sensor inside.


----------



## Skux (Jul 21, 2021)

Canon A-2.

It's time for Canon to jump into the retro-style market with a Canon A-1-inspired mirrorless camera. Full frame, APS-C, who cares as long as it looks cool.

They'll never do it, and I'll never stop asking for it


----------



## tomsop (Jul 21, 2021)

Wouldn't it be cool if a Canon representative made himself available for questions - like Tim Cook sitting down for an interview. All we do is waste energy, speculate and surmise because Canon refuses to have direct conversations with their customers.


----------



## sanj (Jul 21, 2021)

I wish and hope Canon updates it's crop cameras and launches new lenses with it. Without compact, lighter lenses that go with the camera, I would not be interested in the crop camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2021)

sanj said:


> I wish and hope Canon updates it's crop cameras and launches new lenses with it. Without compact, lighter lenses that go with the camera, I would not be interested in the crop camera.


Even those that think there is a case for an R7 can’t justify a market for lenses to go with it.

There is one ‘serious photographers’ APS game in town, Fuji, and they make their camera sales profit on instant film cameras not APS digital cameras and niche lenses, nice though they are. I don’t understand why anybody think Canon have an interest in moving into that market space when the only serious manufacturer in it doesn’t even make much money.


----------



## peconicgp (Jul 21, 2021)

Who knows maybe Canon tries to keep pace and converts the M line into a retro-styled apsc line of cameras? Fuji does and now Nikon has developed a retro-style camera....


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 21, 2021)

-pekr- said:


> I'll fix it for you - the 5 lens mounts of Canon is just a myth of few ppl here. EF is a dead end - no new lenses will ever be developed. EF-S is a complete dead end. EF-M is a well isolated niche, which you can't adapt and use anywhere else. The only future proof and relevant thing is RF then, so better just remember those two letters


I'm not sure that anything is "fixed". Canon is supporting 4 different lens systems now. That can't be disputed. 

RF lenses are the future for Canon. Canon has needed to flesh out their RF lens system as a priority to suit the new bodies so it is not surprising to anyone that no other lenses have been released since 2018.

New EF lenses may not be released but it certainly isn't dead by any means and will be available for sale and supported for at least a decade to come. Some EF and EF-s lenses will be discontinued over that period though but RF lenses all bring some additional features to the table over any roughly similar EF counterparts... even for RF400/2.8 and RF600/4. Canon will be happy to take your money for either EF or RF lenses.

5 lens mounts are needed if canon emulated Nikon's Z crop sensor system if you want to develop a mid cost solution. I am putting M series in the low cost segment but it will never have EF-m telephotes when adapted EF lenses can be used. I can see the argument for a higher end crop sensor but don't think that RF-s lenses will be required as reach is everything. EF-s wide angle lenses can be used if those users want wide angle. My money is that the EF-s 10-22mm will be the last EF-s lens available for sale.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 21, 2021)

sanj said:


> I wish and hope Canon updates it's crop cameras and launches new lenses with it. Without compact, lighter lenses that go with the camera, I would not be interested in the crop camera.


Cheaper/lighter RF lenses will come with time. A classic RF ~40mm/2.8 pancake is an obvious one as the EF version + adapter doubles the cost and size. 

A low end APS-C R mount system would be hard to justify with between M at the very small/light crop market and rumoured $800 full frame body (like Sigma fp) if cheap/small RF lenses are released.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2021)

SteB1 said:


> Every time this comes up, self-styled experts will opine that there is no longer any market for APS-C. I cannot say for other niches, but those who express these opinions completely fail to understand the nature photography niche and understand how big it is. We're not necessarily talking about pro nature shooters here, but general bird and macro photographers. The niche is massive. Who do you think buys all those high end binoculars and scopes. The simply fact is if you use FF, you inevitably end up cropping it to less than APS-C size - I mean nearly every photo. I shoot FF as well. I am speaking from experience.


Why do you think macro photography is better when using a smaller sensor?


----------



## sanj (Jul 21, 2021)

Dont crop cameras make up bulk of camera sales? Then why say that Canon would not be interested?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 21, 2021)

Dragon said:


> The EF-M 11-17 is an all around better lens than the EF-s 10-22 and it has IS and is also cheaper. The M line badly needs an equivalent to the EF-s 15-85 which is a very fine piece of glass, but the vast majority are happy with the 18-150, so it may be a while. Making an R body just for APS-c is silly. If you want the portability of your 10-22 and your 15-85, just slap them on your R5 and it will automatically switch to APS-c with proper APS-c RAW files and image quality and resolution better than your 7d II (yes, only 17MP, but the new AA filter makes a big difference).


It never fails. Every time I post about crop RF somebody want to sell me the EF-M system.

But EF-M has never had anything that looked better for me, than what I already have. Neither when it comes to cameras (there's nothing like high-end enthusiast 7D series), nor when it comes to lenses. As for the mentioned lenses, a wideangle going down to 10mm (or lower) is very important for me. I think 75% of my photos shot with the 10-22mm are shot at 10mm. And similar for my standard-zoom, a very high rate of my photos are shot at 15mm. So practical to have 15mm in my standard-lens, so I never gonna have another "kit-lens" that doesn't go down to the 15mm (equal to 24mm fullframe).

Also I will never buy a $4000 camera (R5). And definitely not a $4000 fullframe camera only to use it in 17MP crop-mode with a max burst rate at 6 fps when shooting full bit depth RAWs with mechanical shutter.

But most importantly, when I choose a mirrorless system I want to choose a system (with high-end cameras and lenses) I see live and _grow big_ in the next 25-30 years to come.


----------



## sanj (Jul 21, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> It never fails. Every time I post about crop RF somebody want to sell me the EF-M system.
> 
> But EF-M has never had anything that looked better for me, than what I already have. Neither when it comes to cameras (there's nothing like high-end enthusiast 7D series), nor when it comes to lenses. As for the mentioned lenses, a wideangle going down to 10mm (or lower) is very important for me. I think 75% of my photos shot with the 10-22mm are shot at 10mm. And similar for my standard-zoom, a very high rate of my photos are shot at 15mm. So practical to have 15mm in my standard-lens, so I never gonna have another "kit-lens" that doesn't go down to the 15mm (equal to 24mm fullframe).
> 
> ...


Well said, sir! And the post mentions that Canon is discussing this. They would not discuss it unless they saw potential in it. Time will show. I hope they introduce it.


----------



## Chig (Jul 21, 2021)

SteB1 said:


> Every time this comes up, self-styled experts will opine that there is no longer any market for APS-C. I cannot say for other niches, but those who express these opinions completely fail to understand the nature photography niche and understand how big it is. We're not necessarily talking about pro nature shooters here, but general bird and macro photographers. The niche is massive. Who do you think buys all those high end binoculars and scopes. The simply fact is if you use FF, you inevitably end up cropping it to less than APS-C size - I mean nearly every photo. I shoot FF as well. I am speaking from experience.


Yep , and surely Canon and other companies must think Bird photography is a worthwhile segment when they put so much money into developing specific autofocus algorithms for birds.
Also bird photography pushes the limits of cameras and lenses more than any other segment with shooters pushing :

sharpness / detail
reach
low light
high speed / erratic movement
The camera company that makes the best gear for this has pushed the boundaries and can show off their technology to the world

Imagine an APS-C version of the R3 : this would be the best possible camera for birding and of course would be priced similarly to the full frame version but sell quite well and create a Halo effect for other more affordable cameras like an APS-C version of the R6

I would buy the aps-c R6 straight away and then save up for the aps-c R3


----------



## LRPP (Jul 21, 2021)

While market research team discussing, 7D2 upset owners make their google research and start and find REAL alternative very attractive.








Sony A6400 vs Canon 7D MII Detailed Comparison


Read our detailed comparison of the Sony Alpha a6400 vs Canon EOS 7D Mark II to find out their strengths and weaknesses, and decide which one to choose.



cameradecision.com


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Just like the Toyota Camry.


That would be nice, they are in plague proportions in Australia. The weapon of choice for those that can't drive it would seem.


----------



## David_D (Jul 21, 2021)

As a 7D MkII shooter I thought I would move to mirrorless when an R7 was announced. Having watched the development of the R ecosystem, I am getting more convinced that will not happen for some time, if ever.

As people keep saying there are 3 drivers for crop cameras: size/weight, cost & reach.
*Size/Weight*: Canon are still focussing most if not all their R&D effort into expanding the line-up of RF lenses and bodies. Clearly focussing on the items with the highest demand (and they hope profit). In time, once this line-up is near completion, they might start looking at something like RF-S. Until then, they will keep the M series ticking over for this segment.
*Cost*: Where will this cost saving come from? Smaller mirror (oh, no it is mirrorless)? Smaller pentaprism (oh no it has EVF)? That leaves a smaller mechanical shutter and sensor. Fast APS-C shutters are cheaper than a FF one with the same FPS (less material to move at speed), but with very high speed electronic shutters, this cost advantage diminishes. That just leaves the reduced cost of the sensor. Anyone have any evidence that an APS-C sensor is $1,000s cheaper than FF, rather than $100s or even $10s? The only way to make substantial cost savings is to drop or reduce features. Do you need an EVF? Do you need a rear screen? Do you need a mechanical shutter? Do you need AI AF? Do you need high FPS? Do you need a high res, high refresh EVF? Do you need high MP?
*Reach*: I love the 7D for the extra reach (which was much cheaper and lighter than a 600mm/F4 lens). But Canon have now given us an R5 with 1.5x reach of an 7dMkII. They have given us a 100-500mm RF that has 1.25x reach of a 100-400mm EF. R bodies focus with smaller apertures than the 7D, so a 1.4x or 2x TC works better on them. They have given us a cheap 800mm lens. Is that not enough reach?

I would still love a unicorn, a small, cheap, long reach R7, but I don't see it happening for a long time, if ever. Unless, of course, the marker research reveals there is sufficient demand for a full featured $4-5K (or reduced feature $2K) crop body, with no extra supporting lenses, which would the appear ~2023/4 after sufficient R&D time. More likely is in 5 years, once the R series is fully established, however by then the market may have changed. Or, Canon may have added some other new feature to their FF cameras, meaning the demand for crop is even less.


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 21, 2021)

Finally Canon keeps me waiting and enjoying what I have.
I only use two non EF(-S) lenses on a regular basis: RF 35 1.8 and EF-M 32 1.4 because of their extraordinary combination of specs and very good IQ.
Two EF-M zooms are in the drawer maybe to sell my two EOS M bodies (at the moment used for special time lapse effects) WITH lens and the EF-M 22 is only in my set for ultra compactness.

The rest is EF and EF-S to be compatible with ALL OF my EOS and RF bodies. And future proof when an RF-S body comes into play.

Last acquisitions: EF-S 55-250 STM (140 €) and EF-S 15-85 IS USM (200 €) which are great for general photography and video (very silent AF, surprisingly including the USM driven 15-85).


----------



## gatabo (Jul 21, 2021)

Dragon said:


> To your comment re the C70, Canon has stuck with super-35 sensors in pro Cine cameras because pro cinematographers are accustomed to working with the DOF that size imager produces and that group doesn't switch gears easily. The .71 adapter/focal reducer simply makes EF lenses (including EF cinema lenses) one stop faster and better suited to the C70.


The one stop gain through the speed booster could be achieved even with an hypothetical R7, but it's mostly important that with a 1.4x crop sensor there will be the same FOV of a FF camera, something 1.6x crop lenses can't currently achieve.



Dragon said:


> AFAIK, the .71 adapter will also work with an R5 and the R5 APS-c cropped video is very good, so once again, the adapter makes sense for video.


If it works for video it will work for photos, as the resolution difference between video and photography isn't relevant anymore (R5 45MP 3:2 sensor = 8k video) 



Dragon said:


> Other than a few Cinema lenses and FF lenses attached to that .71 adapter, there are almost no available crop lenses that will cover a 1.4 crop, so I think your 1.4 proposal is pretty much a dead end.


All EF lenses ever made for photo or cinema already work with the 0.71 adapter, Canon is a adding FW updates for optimum performance, no doubt the most useful lenses will be supported if a R7 camera emerges.



Dragon said:


> The 90D sensor has the same pixel pitch as an 83 MP FF sensor and the list of lenses that will do that sensor justice is very short (I know, I have one). A 45 MP APS-c sensor has the same pixel spacing as a 115 MP FF sensor.


I proposed 45Mp APS-H 1.4x sensor (34MP once converted in 1.6x crop), that's "only" 88MP FF equivalent (the future R1 will be probably be 100+MP) , almost identical to the pixel density of the 90D, if you add that this sensor could use the improved low pass filter and the new Canon BSI/stacked tech, it's clear that it's still a very manageable resolution, it's obvious Canon will eventually have to make Super 35mm sensors that support 8K, the R7 is the perfect camera to have this in a photo camera, the R5 8k was available ahead of Canon Cinema cameras, the R7 could do the same for the RF mount crop cameras.



Dragon said:


> That lens list would be even shorter and with the MTF drop at that pixel pitch, such a camera would lose at least two and likely 3 stops of detail sensitivity vs a 45MP ff camera.


1.4x is exactly 1 stop difference and 1.4x linear resolution is not an enormous jump, it's less than the 1.5x linear resolution difference that you can see between the R6 and the R5 and even with the cheapest lenses we can still see the R5 has a resolution advantage over the R6.



Dragon said:


> That makes a a $7500 500mm f/4 on your ideal crop camera about equivalent to the $900 800mm f/11 on a FF body for detail capture. Given how good the EF 500 is, it might buy one stop, but no more than that. Not a very attractive tradeoff when you look at size, weight, and cost. An R5 with the cheapie 800 starts to look very nice, and that is probably the reason why Canon went down that road. The rumor that has been floating around about 800mm and 1200mm AF/IS mirror lenses further supports the FF approach.


Your math logic is broken, the 500mm F4 is equivalent to 700mm F5.6, if you use a 1.4x extender or an high density 1.4x crop camera (the R7?) so 700mm F5.6 is still far more interesting than the F11 800mm lens, this kind of lenses are very welcome (and a genius move from Canon), but far from a substitute for a good L lens with an extender or a very dense pixel digital crop.



Dragon said:


> The bottom line is that shrinking pixels on a crop camera was a handy trick when FF cameras were 20 MP, but as you approach the diffraction limit, the advantage of that trick is not linear and the return becomes much less attractive.


Yepp, but we are still far away from reaching that limit, unless your benchmarks are only very cheap lenses.



Dragon said:


> It is useful to remember that Canon really does employ many of the best optical engineers in the world and they do think these things through quite well.


... and also great SW engineers, diffraction can be algorithmic-ally "corrected" to some extent especially if you know the optical formula of the lens used 
hint: Canon's Diffraction Correction is already available in all current (and past) cameras, once we have very dense pixel cameras this trick will be much more useful


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 21, 2021)

Why don't you, the "_R7 wannabuys_", create a shared bank account, locate there $100 bonds (say) and let Canon know how large the *Legion R7* is?

PS
I believe the @Canon Rumors Guy could be a reliable and trusty treasurer of such a fund...


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2021)

gatabo said:


> ... and also great SW engineers, diffraction can be algorithmic-ally "corrected" to some extent especially if you know the optical formula of the lens used
> hint: Canon's Diffraction Correction is already available in all current (and past) cameras, once we have very dense pixel cameras this trick will be much more useful


In theory, you can correct for diffraction if you know the point spread function, and there are algorithms such as the Richardson-Lucy for doing this. Do you know how the Canon and other camera companies supposedly correct for diffraction when they claim so to do? Are they really using these iterative algorithms or are they merely doing some extra conventional sharpening?


----------



## Chig (Jul 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> My parsing of the @Canon Rumors Guy post:
> 
> 
> This is a rumor about an RF mount APS-C camera to "take the place of the Canon EOS 7D." It's not about other possible APS-C bodies in the RF mount. So, there is really no point in discussing other options in this thread.
> ...


If Canon puts an aps-c sensor in an otherwise unchanged R6 and sells it for a similar price I'll buy and so will many others but I won't buy an R5 because it's too expensive and the pixel density is too low . Overall the R5 would be better than my 7Dii but not enough for me to pay that sort of money.
If Canon made a really high end aps-c version of the R3 say and priced it about $4-5000 quite a few people would buy it because it would so vastly better than anything else for birding and I'd eventually save up and buy one.


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 21, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> I hope they move to 1.5x crop sensor if they go to APS-C on RF mount. EF-S was always silly how they limited it's use unlike other makers with their DX lenses.
> 
> Not sure why they think there wouldn't be a market for vastly more affordable APS-C cameras. EF-M is a sad joke and should be killed off ASAP.


Canon M50 being the best selling mirrorless camera was just a joke? That's funny! 

Why are people so upset with the M series? No one is forcing anyone to buy it.

M is not dying. 
Rumors that it will die have been going on for years. 
Canon made announcements that they are not going to be developing any new EF lenses. They announced certain EF lenses are discontinued. Have they made any announcements about M products being discontinued? or not going to be developed? No. In fact, a recent interview with Canon at DPR stated: 'We will continue to promote the EOS M-series cameras as a means of meeting diverse needs." - Yes I know this is vague, but it is not an indicator that M is dying.
Canon is concentrating on the R series, the newer line, but that doesn't mean they are killing off M.


----------



## MoonMadness (Jul 21, 2021)

Rocky said:


> What is wrong with the M??


What's wrong with it is that is not targeted for that majority of people who regularly visit CR and DPR. 

But if you search on YT, you'll see a ton of people, even now, salivating over the M50m2 as well as the m1. I read comments there even now how people are "saving up....probably in 4 months I'll have enough to buy it..." and people responding with "...you could get it sooner and save money if you buy it used...". I'm willing to bet the majority of CR people if they wanted to, they could purchase it today with no dent in their finances.

Nah, I'm kidding. Sorry, this was just a "sad joke" *sarcasm*


----------



## Traveler (Jul 21, 2021)

I wish Canon decides to make slow cheap lens lineup rather than the APSC/FF mess again. However I understand that it is easier to sell
APSC 10-18 mm *f/4.5-5.6* than Full Frame 16-30 mm *f/7.2-9*
even though they provide the same results. f/9 looks too dark whereas 5.6 looks acceptable. I also understand that it is difficult to make an entry level FF body with good specs but without canibalizing their pro lineup. It's much easier to sell top-spec APSC.
And even get extra revenue from all those people migrating from APSC to FF.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2021)

gatabo said:


> ... and also great SW engineers, diffraction can be algorithmic-ally "corrected" to some extent especially if you know the optical formula of the lens used
> hint: Canon's Diffraction Correction is already available in all current (and past) cameras, once we have very dense pixel cameras this trick will be much more useful


Further to my questions about how Canon implements diffraction correction, I went back to some of my charts for measuring resolution of the 800mm f/11 with the RF 1.4x TC at 1120mm f/16, which is well in the diffraction limited region on the R5. I found that Canon DPP with either diffraction correction or DLO does not giver discernibly better resolution than standard and gives slightly poorer resolution than DxO PL4 that doesn't use diffraction correction.


----------



## Martin K (Jul 21, 2021)

This is almost all nonsense. We have the M series for APS-C. What we need for the R is APS-H. Until that day I am keeping my 1D4.

I say 'almost' as I have seen one recent mention of APS-H.


----------



## gsmcl (Jul 21, 2021)

I have the original 7D, which I would like to upgrade. However, not knowing if I should wait for a new R-series 7D or go with something else is the reason I have spent no money on a new camera. Canon, if you would like my upgrade money, then please tell me what you are doing, or not doing with APS-C.


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 21, 2021)

I could see a few good options for Canon.

Option 1: They make a rebel style APSC RF camera with 2 kit style RF lenses (18-135mm and 55-250mm) then an 7D RF camera which is more to be used with FF glass only.

Option 2: They make an R7 style body only which is used purely with FF lenses then keep the EF-M line as their rebel style cameras.

I’m personally a huge fan of the EF-M mount so I’d love for it to stick around.


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 21, 2021)

A really nice and state of the art BSI sensor with 20-24MP would be perfect and could have nice iso quality and DR!

12-20 fps,
flipping screen,
nice and robust housing,
fast evf,
maybe dual cars slot and
ibis!

ah would buy this for 1500€ maybe! 

But we need small go to lenses like the Nikkor 500 5.6


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2021)

sanj said:


> Dont crop cameras make up bulk of camera sales? Then why say that Canon would not be interested?


The Rebel/entry level cameras make up the bulk of sales, and for years there was a lot of money to be made selling $599 kits. But that market has been decimated by the shift in buying patterns so it isn’t the cash cow it was and it is a rapidly shrinking sector.

All the camera manufacturers have said the way they see market sustainability in the longer term is selling much fewer but more expensive bodies and lenses.

As I keep asking the people who say Canon have to make a crop RF, how does producing yet another lower cost ‘system within a system’ fit into their stated aims? Especially when you take into account their current lineup, they already sell millions of M cameras that need little R&D and those are effectively replacing the Rebel line anyway.

The vast majority of Rebel purchasers never buy another lens or body, they don’t want or need a system, they are price driven and all the manufacturers have said they don’t see the sustainability in that sector. To me it makes no sense for Canon to stretch their R&D and manufacturing even more to appeal to the bottom/entry level of the market when the various reasoning for that entry level no longer make sense.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> A really nice and state of the art BSI sensor with 20-24MP would be perfect and could have nice iso quality and DR!
> 
> 12-20 fps,
> flipping screen,
> ...


If I was in the marketing department of Canon I’d say you get more than you want in the R6 II and 800 f11. The R6 II is bound to have a BSI sensor.

The Nikon lens is a $3,600 lens, plus your imaginary $1,500 (which is a crazy pipe dream anyway because the 7D II is $1,799) for a total of just over $5,000 or €. The R6 is $2,499 and the RF 800 is $899, for a total of $3,398. The lens is two stops slower but you get more than one stop of sensitivity back because of the sensor size increase and the f5.6 on a crop is equivalent to an f8 on a ff camera anyway.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Then there is the pricing. I must assume that part of Canon's research is to determine a price point for an R7. What's the most they can charge for an R7 and still get people to buy one. My guess is that it has to come in under $3,000, but that's just my guess. I can already hear people whining that it should cost $2,000. Dream on. If Canon's research shows they can only get $2,000 for the body, it don't think it will get developed.


And there you hit the nail directly on the head. Most of the R7 wannabuys are looking for another bargain like 7D II. In a much shrunken market, that is very unlikely. The flexibility to shoot in crop mode in the R5 (and potentially the R5s) is a great feature, but a crop only camera without a line of lenses to support it would get more derision for the lack of lenses than it got praise for its "reach". We will see where Nikon goes with this, but so far the crop lens offering makes their cropped Z's far less interesting than the M system, particularly for those seeking portability.


----------



## jvillain (Jul 21, 2021)

So walking back all the previous rumors about a crop body APS-C camera. 

The problem with Canon focusing on a $800 FF camera with every single feature stripped out of it and a 12 year old sensor is that it there will be no compelling reason to buy it when you have a cell phone. Or when a point and shoot gives you a far better experience for a fraction of the money. I know the accountants are dreaming people will buy a $800 camera that won't do bracketing. won't do long exposure, doesn't have a hot shoe, doesn't have an OVF, has only auto mode,has 6 stops of dynamic range 4MP and more noise than twitter etc but will then run right out and buy a $4000 RF lens because .. full frame. But it just isn't going to happen.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 21, 2021)

Skux said:


> Canon A-2.
> 
> It's time for Canon to jump into the retro-style market with a Canon A-1-inspired mirrorless camera. Full frame, APS-C, who cares as long as it looks cool.
> 
> They'll never do it, and I'll never stop asking for it


They already did an A2, back in 1992. The “e” version was called EOS 5 outside of the US. First Canon body with eye-controlled focus.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jul 21, 2021)

I love my R5....I took it birding a few times, using it as an alternative to my 7Dii, figuring I'd go back to the 7Dii after those day trips. The results were so stunning, and I can get nearly the same pixels on bird with the R5, that I have barely used the 7Dii since. If there was an R7 that offered the added reach, and was even 90% similar in terms of IQ that'd be a grand slam in my opinion.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 21, 2021)

David_D said:


> As a 7D MkII shooter I thought I would move to mirrorless when an R7 was announced. Having watched the development of the R ecosystem, I am getting more convinced that will not happen for some time, if ever.
> 
> As people keep saying there are 3 drivers for crop cameras: size/weight, cost & reach.
> *Size/Weight*: Canon are still focussing most if not all their R&D effort into expanding the line-up of RF lenses and bodies. Clearly focussing on the items with the highest demand (and they hope profit). In time, once this line-up is near completion, they might start looking at something like RF-S. Until then, they will keep the M series ticking over for this segment.
> ...


I’ve also given up hope on an R7, but I think your cost analysis is looking at it backwards.

It’s not that APS-C cameras are inherently cheaper to manufacture, it’s that companies like Canon know they can charge a lot more for full frame.

I am not aware of any high end APS-C cameras currently on the market with a base price greater than $2000. These are the high end prices I see:

Fuji X-Pro3: $1800
Fuji X-T4: $1700
Sony a6600: $1400

These cameras are all comparable in specs and construction to the 7Dii, AND they have 4K video and IBIS.

if Canon comes out with an R7 at $2500 or more, it will be a clear message that they are doing it only to satisfy existing Canon 7Dii customers, not to compete seriously in the high-end APS-C market.


----------



## mchris (Jul 21, 2021)

APS-C cheap cameras are essential for any company in order to attract new customers, some of them will eventually move to FF. There are two options here: 1) Extend the M line and make it somehow compatible with the RF lenses, or start to produce APS-C RF cheap bodies (not the 7D equivalent) and APS-C cheap lenses. And the third option is to get rid of almost all new users. The first option, harder to implement has the benefit of even smaller/cheaper bodies and lenses. In any case a small amount of new lenses must be produced. I don't think that the M system lacks lenses. It is designed for amateur use and has the essential lenses an amateur could need.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> As I keep asking the people who say Canon have to make a crop RF, how does producing yet another lower cost ‘system within a system’ fit into their stated aims? Especially when you take into account their current lineup, they already sell millions of M cameras that need little R&D and those are effectively replacing the Rebel line anyway.


It 'fits in' because They Wants It, Precious. The people on CR forums posting about a market for an APS-C EOS R camera are mainly the DSLR 7-series owners, many of whom seem to believe they comprise a large market segment ('massive' one poster called it). 

Creating an EOS R system analogous to the Canon DSLR system, with lenses for full frame as well as APS-C image circles, would require a large user base. Historically, APS-C sensors were used first in DSLRs because they were cheaper. Even after the advent of FF DSLR, APS-C remained more popular because they are cheaper, and that applies to MILCs as well – the EOS M lines far outsell the EOS R lines. Canon (and other companies) pushed APS-C DSLRs up to higher model levels, e.g. the 7-series, built on the base of the cheaper DSLRs.

The people wanting a mirrorless 7-series seem to be ignoring the fact that there is no large base of cheap RF-mount bodies to build on. Given that, the market for a mirrorless 7-series is really just those 7D/7DII owners wanting to move to mirrorless. Is that market large enough to develop such a camera? Well, people who want the camera seem to think so, with no real evidence to support that belief. Conversely, Canon knows the size of that market quite well based on their sales data, and they have not yet released a mirrorless 7-series.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It 'fits in' because They Wants It, Precious. The people on CR forums posting about a market for an APS-C EOS R camera are mainly the DSLR 7-series owners, many of whom seem to believe they comprise a large market segment ('massive' one poster called it).
> 
> Creating an EOS R system analogous to the Canon DSLR system, with lenses for full frame as well as APS-C image circles, would require a large user base. Historically, APS-C sensors were used first in DSLRs because they were cheaper. Even after the advent of FF DSLR, APS-C remained more popular because they are cheaper, and that applies to MILCs as well – the EOS M lines far outsell the EOS R lines. Canon (and other companies) pushed APS-C DSLRs up to higher model levels, e.g. the 7-series, built on the base of the cheaper DSLRs.
> 
> The people wanting a mirrorless 7-series seem to be ignoring the fact that there is no large base of cheap RF-mount bodies to build on. Given that, the market for a mirrorless 7-series is really just those 7D/7DII owners wanting to move to mirrorless. Is that market large enough to develop such a camera? Well, people who want the camera seem to think so, with no real evidence to support that belief. Conversely, Canon knows the size of that market quite well based on their sales data, and they have not yet released a mirrorless 7-series.


Indeed, and as I keep pointing out those crop sensor 'birding' shooters do have R options already. Even if people ignore my comments it gets more difficult to ignore people like AlanF who has (or had) the PF500, the EF400 DO, the EF100-400 and the various RF lenses like the 100-500 and 800 along with the TC combinations and does meticulous testing and analyzing of the results, and then goes to the trouble of posting those results.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2021)

mchris said:


> APS-C cheap cameras are essential for any company in order to attract new customers, some of them will eventually move to FF. There are two options here: 1) Extend the M line and make it somehow compatible with the RF lenses, or start to produce APS-C RF cheap bodies (not the 7D equivalent) and APS-C cheap lenses. And the third option is to get rid of almost all new users. The first option, harder to implement has the benefit of even smaller/cheaper bodies and lenses. In any case a small amount of new lenses must be produced. I don't think that the M system lacks lenses. It is designed for amateur use and has the essential lenses an amateur could need.


This type of statement is made frequently, and ignores the elephant under the rug.

Clearly your 3rd option is ridiculous, posted for effect, so let's just ignore that.

Option 1: make the M line compatible with RF lenses. Difficult, because of physics.
Option 2: make cheap RF-mount APS-C bodies. Why? The EOS M line is a global best-seller already.

You and similar posters are making a big assumption, that people who upgrade from APS-C cameras to FF cameras do so in large part because their lenses are compatible. However, in the Canon DSLR world, that only applies to those people who bought EF lenses to use on their APS-C bodies (bi-directional lens compatibility exists in the Nikon DSLR world, and Canon sold rings around them). 

Given the ratio of 1:1.4 bodies to lenses, and the fact that two-lens kits are very popular, it's likely that the segment of users who bought EF lenses to use on their APS-C bodies is pretty small. I am guessing about that, but Canon has ample data to size that market with good accuracy. Canon designed the EF-M mount, then designed the RF mount in a way that made it incompatible with the M bodies. They have tons of historical data on APS-C users and FF users and which bodies and lenses they bought, in which order...and they made the MILC mounts incompatible. That suggests two possibilities: 1) Canon does not believe an 'upgrade path' from APS-C to FF MILCs _via compatible lenses _is needed, or 2) Canon is stupid. Since #2 makes about as much sense as your option 3 to pass on new users, we can ignore that option.

The reality is that brand loyalty exists. A Canon APS-C user who is happy with their kit but wants a FF body is most likely going to buy a Canon FF body (and minimally a new standard zoom to go with it). That's true regardless of whether or not their existing lenses work on their new body. So an EOS M owner is likely to buy an EOS R, regardless of lens compatibility. That's the 'upgrade path'.


----------



## David_D (Jul 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> that only applies to those people who bought EF lenses to use on their APS-C bodies


That's me! I have 4 EF lenses (3 Ls) and only 1 EF-S (10-22mm as an EF ultra-wide was too expensive) that I bought with or later added to my 40D, as I planned to upgrade to FF for my next camera. Unfortunately, Canon ruined that plan by bringing out the 7D (and then 7D MkII). So, thanks to Canon I wasted all that money on FF glass  (Actually, I can still use it when I move to a R body, and most of my lenses don't have an equivalent EF-S.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2021)

David_D said:


> That's me! I have 4 EF lenses (3 Ls) and only 1 EF-S (10-22mm as an EF ultra-wide was too expensive) that I bought with or later added to my 40D, as I planned to upgrade to FF for my next camera. Unfortunately, Canon ruined that plan by bringing out the 7D (and then 7D MkII). So, thanks to Canon I wasted all that money on FF glass  (Actually, I can still use it when I move to a R body, and most of my lenses don't have an equivalent EF-S.)


That was me, too. I started with a T1i/500D, then upgraded to a 7D, and before I bought my first FF body (a 5DII), I had purchased an EF 24-105L, 70-200/2.8L, 100L macro, 85/1.2L II, and a 100-400L (also a used 300/4L that I sold for the 100-400). I never bought an APS-C 'kit lens', even with the T1i I bought just the body and an EF-S 17-55/2.8 to go with it.

But, I am fully aware that I am not the typical Canon customer. That does not seem to be the case for some of the posters here.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 21, 2021)

MoonMadness said:


> Why are people so upset with the M series? No one is forcing anyone to buy it.


Not a lot of people, just one chronic sorehead who seems to feel personally threatened by it.


----------



## fastprime (Jul 21, 2021)

David_D said:


> That's me! I have 4 EF lenses (3 Ls) and only 1 EF-S (10-22mm as an EF ultra-wide was too expensive) that I bought with or later added to my 40D, as I planned to upgrade to FF for my next camera. Unfortunately, Canon ruined that plan by bringing out the 7D (and then 7D MkII). So, thanks to Canon I wasted all that money on FF glass  (Actually, I can still use it when I move to a R body, and most of my lenses don't have an equivalent EF-S.)


Same here. I still have EF lenses that I use on my R6 that I originally bought to use on my old Rebel. It was nice choosing what to upgrade without needing to upgrade everything at once.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> This type of statement is made frequently, and ignores the elephant under the rug.
> 
> Clearly your 3rd option is ridiculous, posted for effect, so let's just ignore that.
> 
> ...


As someone who has owned Canon APS-C, FF and M cameras an lenses, I couldn't agree more. Starting with APS-C, I was actually one of those users who bought EF lenses. I had the one EF-S kit lens that I almost never used in favor of the much better (and old) EF 28-70 non-L. I know forum users will immediately say that this lens on a crop body would not be nearly wide enough and unusable, but for my purposes it was on the camera 80% of the time. When I bought a 6D to replace it, I also bought new lenses as the 28-70 was not nearly as good on the FF body and had no lens profile due to its age. My other lens (the EF 75-300) was also replaced by an EF 70-300. So lens compatibility was a complete non-issue. While I owned the 6D, I bought an M5. I did not use any of my EF lenses on the M5 as the whole purpose of the M system is being very small and light. At some point I sold the 6D and then ultimately bought the R. Again, never thought about lens compatibility as the systems I had (M and R) served two distinct purposes, at least to me. Ultimately, could not really afford two Canon systems and sold the M5 and lenses, but that is neither here nor there.

As you mention - and what CR and other forum users can't seem to accept, is that - Canon has the sales data. All the users who claim to know or think they know, don't know at all. If Canon sees that the sales of the 7 series crop cameras is high enough, they will probably come out with an R7 camera. Clearly the numbers are not high enough that they put a priority on it, but the lineup is obviously not filled out yet, and may not be for years (Still awaiting the flagship, the high MP body, the even less expensive RP replacement and the R replacement that will fall in-between the cheapest and the R6, if rumors and speculation are correct).

But it seems quite likely that in the mirrorless realm, Canon will have M for crop and R for FF. And if they continue to sell well, there will be no reason to change.


----------



## reefroamer (Jul 21, 2021)

Look, I love my 7D2, especially coupled to the 110-400II. But I think there were never really enough of us to reach critical mass for Canon. It's very possible in fact that the original 7D never met it’s sales targets and the 7D2 was its second chance. Had the 7D models been really successful, Canon probably would have given it more attention. Instead, the 7D line got merged into the XXD line and we got the 90D.

I love my new R6 and would probably buy an APSC R7, but I really just don’t believe Canon sees the numbers there to make it work. Which also tells me that’s probably not going to be a lucrative market for Canon competitors. Not to say it isn’t profitable, but that Canon sees better opportunities for applying its resources. For starters, they can fill the many back orders for the $2,800 RF 100-500, other RF lenses and RF bodies. At some point in the fairly far-off future, when all the most-profitable fruit is picked, we might get an APSC RF body. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2021)

Chig said:


> Yep , and surely Canon and other companies must think Bird photography is a worthwhile segment when they put so much money into developing specific autofocus algorithms for birds.


So I’ll ask again – how much money did Canon spend on AF algorithms for birds? How much for cars and motorcycles? It could be a couple of days of one software engineer’s time. It could be a year of work by a team of 20. Do you know? As someone who’s worked with developers writing image analysis algorithms (including feature-based AF algorithms for microscopy), I suspect the former is closer to the truth…yes, it took longer than two person-days, but they did not spend ‘millions of dollars’ doing it.

Trying to support your argument with a claim not backed by evidence is like putting your expensive camera rig on a tripod missing a leg – it falls flat.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 21, 2021)

jvillain said:


> So walking back all the previous rumors about a crop body APS-C camera.
> 
> The problem with Canon focusing on a $800 FF camera with every single feature stripped out of it and a 12 year old sensor is that it there will be no compelling reason to buy it when you have a cell phone. Or when a point and shoot gives you a far better experience for a fraction of the money. I know the accountants are dreaming people will buy a $800 camera that won't do bracketing. won't do long exposure, doesn't have a hot shoe, doesn't have an OVF, has only auto mode,has 6 stops of dynamic range 4MP and more noise than twitter etc but will then run right out and buy a $4000 RF lens because .. full frame. But it just isn't going to happen.



That depends. Some people may desire the simplicity of a cheap FF camera. Let's see what the camera actually has to offer before passing judgement.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 21, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Why do you think macro photography is better when using a smaller sensor?


I was wondering this too.


----------



## Madbox (Jul 22, 2021)

Canon EOS M5 Mark II

I don't want an APS-C RF mount with its heavy and expensive lenses. I'll get a real RF mount camera for my weight lifting regime.


----------



## miketcool (Jul 22, 2021)

The RF mount is too big for APS-C. If they want a pro APS-C body, they should update an M body and make specific lenses for it. I don’t see market research showing their best selling mirrorless as one that would benefit from getting bigger or more expensive.


----------



## PerKr (Jul 22, 2021)

EF-S never made sense either. Sure, the 17-50/2.8 made a lot of sense but both Tamron and Sigma did that without the mirror-fouling of the EF-S lenses. Was mirror-fouling the only standout feature of EF-S? While EF-S was nonsensical, a fast standard zoom for APS-C wasn't and neither was a kit zoom. And a speedy camera body that didn't cost an arm, a leg and a kidney was a nice idea, wasn't it?
Thinking about it, maybe the golden days of photography just passed. Sure, cameras get better with every new generation but the value proposition...


----------



## dilbert (Jul 22, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> But it seems quite likely that in the mirrorless realm, Canon will have M for crop and R for FF. And if they continue to sell well, there will be no reason to change.



There's a formfactor associated with M that the RF can't address. M isn't as small as the 4/3rds cameras but it has been more affordable. Canon fixed M being too affordable when they took the M6 up market with the M6 Mark II. Popular segment so try and extract more money from it? Find out where the price point really is for people spending on cameras in that market segment?

As an indication of just how small the M6 is, the M6 is 339cm3 & M6-II is 412cm3. The RP is 791cm3 & R6 is 1190cm3. What that means is that the RP is twice the volume of the M6 & R6 is 3 times the volume of an M6.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Given the ratio of 1:1.4 bodies to lenses, and the fact that two-lens kits are very popular, it's likely that the segment of users who bought EF lenses to use on their APS-C bodies is pretty small. I am guessing about that, but Canon has ample data to size that market with good accuracy..... They have tons of historical data on APS-C users and FF users and which bodies and lenses they bought, in which order...


7D buyers may have only bought EF lenses but xxD/xxxD/xxxxD buyers probably not. I am not necessarily typical but started with 7D + EF24-105mm. Second lens was EF-s 10-22mm which I used extensively. 3rd lens was EF70-200mm/2.8ii as I was sold on the idea that buy the best glass and not need to replace it. A little GAS since then 

For data, Canon would know sales volume per item per sales region (except grey markets/unbundling kits) but I am not as convinced that they know what bodies those EF lenses were used on. CPS users would give some idea but Canon applies CPS in different ways in different countries. You need a business registration and derive most of your revenue from photography before paying for CPS in Australia for instance. Enthusiast buyers in Australia are excluded even if they meet the minimum body/lens ownership requirements.
Resellers may know what you have bought in the past but that doesn't cover purchases from different resellers or buy/sell on second hand markets. Resellers may not provide that level of detailed customer data to Canon either.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 22, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Why do you think macro photography is better when using a smaller sensor?


The only reason I can think of is working distance with nervous subjects. EF100mm macro becomes a 160mm macro with APS-C and probably better than the EF180mm which is the only other choice.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 22, 2021)

dilbert said:


> There's a formfactor associated with M that the RF can't address. M isn't as small as the 4/3rds cameras but it has been more affordable. Canon fixed M being too affordable when they took the M6 up market with the M6 Mark II. Popular segment so try and extract more money from it? Find out where the price point really is for people spending on cameras in that market segment?
> 
> As an indication of just how small the M6 is, the M6 is 339cm3 & M6-II is 412cm3. The RP is 791cm3 & R6 is 1190cm3. What that means is that the RP is twice the volume of the M6 & R6 is 3 times the volume of an M6.


The M mount is narrower than the RF mount but otherwise I don't see an issue with body size. The Sigma fp is an excellent example of full frame but very compact body at only 357cm3 (112.6 x 69.9 x 45.3 mm) ie smaller than M6ii and basically comparable to M6.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 22, 2021)

miketcool said:


> The RF mount is too big for APS-C. If they want a pro APS-C body, they should update an M body and make specific lenses for it. I don’t see market research showing their best selling mirrorless as one that would benefit from getting bigger or more expensive.


Why is RF mount too big? Having a smaller sensor within a larger mount is no impediment. Canon has no need to replicate EF lenses into a native M mount.

The M6ii is [email protected] and you can adapt EF lenses on it. What else do you need (not want)?

You are correct that none of us "see market research"! We can only apply reasonable logic based on our knowledge and experiences. 

Those arguing that a new APS-C sensor/body doesn't make sense is based on options that currently exist either in M or R mount + RF lenses or + EF lenses. Those saying that R6/R5 + RF800mm is not enough reach are only really limited by the minimum focus distance but then don't want to buy the RF100-500mm lens or reuse their adapted EF100-400 that they already have.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 22, 2021)

Me too, I bought my 20D with 17-40 L and 28-135 (used) and hope to up grade to FF later. After lugging both lenses with a 20D and a 40D body in the bag with with a big Canon flash etc to all contenents. I had it with the weight of the bag, So I have never upgraded to FF duer to extra weight. Then The M comes along, I switched to the M M2, and M50. Now my bag is about less than half of what it used to be. I have never look bck to the APSC DSLR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The only reason I can think of is working distance with nervous subjects. EF100mm macro becomes a 160mm macro with APS-C and probably better than the EF180mm which is the only other choice.


But that thinking is flawed.

First, macro imaging is often done by magnification ratio, a crop sensor can’t cover the subject size at the same reproduction ratio.

Second, as my testing illustrated, on a crop camera at macro distances a 100 macro doesn’t become close to a 160 or give you the working distance close to 1.6 times the working distance of a ff, nor does it provide that mythical 1.6 times depth of field. Besides that still negates the magnification ratio! https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...amera-next-year-cr2.40261/page-21#post-888260


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> For data, Canon would know sales volume per item per sales region (except grey markets/unbundling kits) but I am not as convinced that they know what bodies those EF lenses were used on.


Perhaps you have never registered a Canon product, but a reasonable fraction of buyers probably do – enough that I'd be shocked if it wasn't a statistically robust sampling of their user base. 

Some time back, every time you registered a product online there was a form that included tick boxes for the number and types of bodies and lenses you owned, and the number and types you planned to purchase in the next year. More recently, to register a product they require you to set up an account, and all your registered products are listed and tracked. Even if you send in the paper card that comes in the box, they can database that information and track who buys what and when.

So I'd say they have _copious and excellent_ data on who owns what, what lenses are used on what bodies, etc.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps you have never registered a Canon product, but a reasonable fraction of buyers probably do – enough that I'd be shocked if it wasn't a statistically robust sampling of their user base.
> 
> Some time back, every time you registered a product online there was a form that included tick boxes for the number and types of bodies and lenses you owned, and the number and types you planned to purchase in the next year. More recently, to register a product they require you to set up an account, and all your registered products are listed and tracked. Even if you send in the paper card that comes in the box, they can database that information and track who buys what and when.
> 
> So I'd say they have _copious and excellent_ data on who owns what, what lenses are used on what bodies, etc.


I had forgotten about "registration cards". I throw them all out as shameless personal data collection with no benefit to the consumer 

Registration card completion rates may depend on markets where the warranty is dependent on registration or not.
"Australian Consumer Law provides automatic guarantees to consumers that apply regardless of the warranties you give or sell to consumers.
A business’ warranty can’t override the consumer guarantees. For example, if a product suffers a failure outside a warranty period, it may still be covered by consumer guarantees.
If you’re a supplier or manufacturer and provide such a warranty, under the ACL you must comply with that warranty. If you fail to comply with a warranty, consumers have rights against you under the consumer guarantees"
https://business.gov.au/products-and-services/fair-trading/australian-consumer-law

Registration card completion have no impact as long as you have the proof of purchase. You have the right to claim warranty from the point of sale where you bought it or direct to the OEM at your choice. Even Apple had to change to 2 year warranty in Australia as the majority of telco iPhone contracts were for 2 years.

What we don't have are "anti-lemon refunds" laws unfortunately or receipts that use fade resistant ink!


----------



## Chig (Jul 22, 2021)

I suggest to Canon that they develop a new cropped BSI stacked sensor of about 30-40mp and use it for 3 cameras :

An all out pro level crop camera based closely on the R3 which would be the ultimate birding / wildlife camera and price it about the same as the normal R3
A more affordable camera based closely on the R6 which would be extremely capable for birding etc. and price it about the same as the normal R6
A compact flagship M mount camera based on the M6 mark ii but updated to be similar to the R6 in features .
I would definitely buy the crop version of the R6 but would save up to buy the crop R3 eventually.

I suspect the R6 based camera would sell very well and the R3 based one would be reasonably popular and a showcase for what Canon can do.

The M mount camera would be very popular with those who love the tiny form factor of these bodies but would like the latest tech.


----------



## Nick L (Jul 22, 2021)

Nothing against APC sensors or Cameras (I have had a few), but originally they existed as full frame sensors were expensive and hard to make, but having a full frame sensor and a crop mode fixes most of the worries for me. In the next few years will Canon still want to support a lot of different product lines when the trend of sales is downward, maybe a cheaper fullframe with a crop mode will be the way?


----------



## -pekr- (Jul 22, 2021)

Chig said:


> I suggest to Canon that they develop a new cropped BSI stacked sensor of about 30-40mp and use it for 3 cameras :
> 
> An all out pro level crop camera based closely on the R3 which would be the ultimate birding / wildlife camera and price it about the same as the normal R3
> A more affordable camera based closely on the R6 which would be extremely capable for birding etc. and price it about the same as the normal R6
> ...



I would probably never buy a higher end M camera, without the possibility to eventually use it with our RF lens. We got rid of all of our EF lens lately, so for us, the option to invest into an EF lens again (if there would be some practical need for that), is mostly non existent.

I am a big fan of M6II format. If Canon brings in something like that in the EOS-R form (as small as possible), I would buy one. Something like a Nikon Z fc.


----------



## dilbert (Jul 22, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Why is RF mount too big? Having a smaller sensor within a larger mount is no impediment. Canon has no need to replicate EF lenses into a native M mount.



Might I suggest that until you've got personal experience with owning a M-series camera with some of the smaller lenses (such as the 11-22 or 15-45), alongside a FF camera with 16-35/24-70, that you just stop asking questions like this?

And rather than tell people about larger mounts, maybe listen to them why they prefer the smaller form factors.

For those that own the M series, the benefits of the M are abuntantly clear. Everything about the camera system is smaller and in a good way. Maybe that's not for everyone but for a large number of people, it works.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 22, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The only reason I can think of is working distance with nervous subjects. EF100mm macro becomes a 160mm macro with APS-C and probably better than the EF180mm which is the only other choice.


The purple coneflowers in my garden have come out and are attracting butterflies, bumblebees, honey bees and damselflies use them as a perch. For some butterflies I can get close enough that their wings start tapping the lens hood, the working distance of the RF100mm at 1.4x is like an inch from the lens hood. But most of the time can't get close enough and switch to the 180L, which has really slow AF and no IS. In the afternoon when all the bugs have warmed up are get really skittish I use the RF100-500. It's only 0.33x, but the AF and IS are great.

Last year I would've used the M6II + EF100mm or Sigma 150mm for that situation where I need more 'reach' than the 100mm on FF, but also need AF, IS and better than 0.33x magnification.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 22, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The purple coneflowers in my garden have come out and are attracting butterflies, bumblebees, honey bees and damselflies use them as a perch. For some butterflies I can get close enough that their wings start tapping the lens hood, the working distance of the RF100mm at 1.4x is like an inch from the lens hood. But most of the time can't get close enough and switch to the 180L, which has really slow AF and no IS. In the afternoon when all the bugs have warmed up are get really skittish I use the RF100-500. It's only 0.33x, but the AF and IS are great.
> 
> Last year I would've used the M6II + EF100mm or Sigma 150mm for that situation where I need more 'reach' than the 100mm on FF, but also need AF, IS and better than 0.33x magnification.


Slap the RF 2x on the 100-500mm and get 0.66x, which as you know I like doing. However, in terms of additional detail at the finest level, it's roughly only 50% more because of diffraction.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 22, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Might I suggest that until you've got personal experience with owning a M-series camera with some of the smaller lenses (such as the 11-22 or 15-45), alongside a FF camera with 16-35/24-70, that you just stop asking questions like this?
> 
> And rather than tell people about larger mounts, maybe listen to them why they prefer the smaller form factors.
> 
> For those that own the M series, the benefits of the M are abuntantly clear. Everything about the camera system is smaller and in a good way. Maybe that's not for everyone but for a large number of people, it works.


I have no issue with the M system or form factor and believe that is perfect for the low cost/small market segment. Some users seem to want higher end bodies though and better quality lenses which seems to be against the M philosophy.

How small a RF mount body can be is an interesting question and the Sigma fp shows how it could be done and perhaps meet the $800 RF body rumour.
Clearly there are no small/cheap RF lenses at the moment but they will need to be released at some time. They will be always be bigger than EF-m lenses though irrespective for the same focal length.

The question of how or if an APS-C sensor is deployed within RF mount is the question that is being debated.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 22, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Slap the RF 2x on the 100-500mm and get 0.66x, which as you know I like doing. However, in terms of additional detail at the finest level, it's roughly only 50% more because of diffraction.


The budget for the RF 2x went to snapping up the RF100mm when store.canon.nl showed it to be in stock  Your experiences with it had me very close to ordering it after my pre-order for the RF100 fell through.

I might rent the RF 2x for a few days during my time off this summer, together with the Laowa probe lens. I'm looking forward to posting underwater shots of dragons and damsels!


----------



## AlanF (Jul 22, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The budget for the RF 2x went to snapping up the RF100mm when store.canon.nl showed it to be in stock  Your experiences with it had me very close to ordering it after my pre-order for the RF100 fell through.
> 
> I might rent the RF 2x for a few days during my time off this summer, together with the Laowa probe lens. I'm looking forward to posting underwater shots of dragons and damsels!


Unusually for me, I bought the RF 2x on the gray market as it's so expensive for what it is, has no moving parts to go wrong and there should be little copy variation. Looking forward to your underwater shots!


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 22, 2021)

miketcool said:


> The RF mount is too big for APS-C. If they want a pro APS-C body, they should update an M body and make specific lenses for it. I don’t see market research showing their best selling mirrorless as one that would benefit from getting bigger or more expensive.


What kind of market research do you see? Are you a photography industry analyst? (I’d be looking for a new sector if I were you!) Or do you work in strategic marketing for one of the camera companies?


----------



## vangelismm (Jul 22, 2021)

The are asking to Pro photographers.
So it is "expensive" aps-c body, same price range as the original R.

Looking at this forum we know people want aps-c RF but will never buy it for the same price as a FF camera.

This is not a cheap Rebel RF for people stuck in the delusional upgrade path.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> I had forgotten about "registration cards". I throw them all out as shameless personal data collection with no benefit to the consumer
> 
> Registration card completion have no impact as long as you have the proof of purchase.


In the US, submitting a registration card is neither necessary nor sufficient (you need proof of purchase for warranty coverage, if you have submitted a registration card but don’t have proof of purchase the manufacturer can deny service).

Regardless of whether they are required in a particular geography, my point was that many people submit them anyway. There’s a card in the box, you fill it out and send it, or you register online.

Incidentally, I just looked at one of mine and there is a spot where they ask what you own and what you want to buy.

Certainly they don’t need data from everyone, just a fraction of users and as I said, I’d be shocked if they aren’t getting that. There’s a small but measurable cost associated with printing and including the cards, as you say they’re of no benefit to the consumer, and if they weren’t a benefit to Canon, they wouldn’t include them.

Point being, as I said…they have ample data on users, including specifics on which lenses are used with which bodies, upgrade paths from APS-C to FF, etc., to support their decisions.


----------



## David_D (Jul 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Point being, as I said…they have ample data on users, including specifics on which lenses are used with which bodies, upgrade paths from APS-C to FF, etc., to support their decisions.


I wonder if they also harvest Flickr etc for images without metadata stripped to get extra info about camera/lens combos actually used?


----------



## reefroamer (Jul 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> In the US, submitting a registration card is neither necessary nor sufficient (do you need proof of purchase for warranty coverage, if you have submitted a registration card but don’t have proof of purchase the manufacturer can deny service).
> 
> Regardless of whether they are required in a particular geography, my point was that many people submit them anyway. There’s a card in the box, you fill it out and send it, or you register online.
> 
> ...


If memory serves, once you’ve registered a body or lens, there’s an optional part of the process — at least online — that asks about preferences and priorities for your purchases, like IQ, ergo and controls, battery life, viewfinder, etc. I always fill this stuff out because I view it as my chance to tell Canon what’s important to me.


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 22, 2021)

Since it's still in the discussion phase, if approved, the actual release won't be any time soon - 2023?


----------



## jvillain (Jul 22, 2021)

scyrene said:


> I was wondering this too.


I wasn't the one that posted it but the big challenge in macro photography is often about getting as much of the subject in focus as possible. That means stopping down as far as you can or backing up the camera. The combination of the percipience increase in the fcal length as well as the increase in the f stop combine to make macro photography much easier with a crop lens. The down side is getting enough light. If your lens closes down to F24 and you multiply that by 1.6 your at F38.4. I shoot those lit with my AD600 at full power and it is just barley enough. I also shoot video like that and I need every video light I have in order to get enough light. 

Just as important though is with the increase of the magnification you can move the camera back a bit which radically changes the ratio between the distance from the camera to the plain of focus and the back of the subject.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2021)

Chig said:


> I would definitely buy the crop version of the R6 but would save up to buy the crop R3 eventually.
> 
> I suspect the R6 based camera would sell very well and the R3 based one would be reasonably popular and a showcase for what Canon can do.
> 
> The M mount camera would be very popular with those who love the tiny form factor of these bodies but would like the latest tech.


I don’t think you represent Canon’s market.

Where was the APS-C version of the 1-series – 1.6x, max AF capability, integrated grip? It was never made, most likely because Canon did not see a market for it. So why would there be one for a MILC, if there wasn’t for a DSLR? (Yes, the 1D was 1.3x APS-H, but that was for technical reasons, the largest sensor that could be generated with a single lithography pass, FF needed three, and Canon said they’re done with APS-H.) 

Where was the 7D MkIII? It was never made. Canon gave us the 90D as the successor to the 7DII (the 7-series had a longer refresh cycle than even the normally slowest 1-series).

It seems like the best reason you can come up with for Canon to make these cameras is that _you_ want one of them.


----------



## SilverBox (Jul 22, 2021)

I mean, they *could* make an R7 with the RF mount and not make any RFs lenses. It would satisfy the people who seem to think that shooting crop on an R5 is a bridge too far, could make a slightly smaller body, and not have to worry about making another lens mount.

As said, the 24-240 is basically already a crop lens, and they have ultrawides in the pipeline as well. They dont need a new mount to make a crop body.


----------



## Martin K (Jul 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t think you represent Canon’s market.
> 
> Where was the APS-C version of the 1-series – 1.6x, max AF capability, integrated grip? It was never made, most likely because Canon did not see a market for it. So why would there be one for a MILC, if there wasn’t for a DSLR? (Yes, the 1D was 1.3x APS-H, but that was for technical reasons, the largest sensor that could be generated with a single lithography pass, FF needed three, and Canon said they’re done with APS-H.)
> 
> ...


I am sorry that nobody picked up on my earlier comment on APS-H. For me, and I hoped for others, the 1.3 crop, as on the 1D series up to 1D4, is the ideal compromise and must remain cheaper than full frame. Canon never said they were done with APS-H. I remember well that they said that they did not rule it out for the future. APS-H supporters, now is your moment! Come out of hiding!


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 22, 2021)

Martin K said:


> I am sorry that nobody picked up on my earlier comment on APS-H. For me, and I hoped for others, the 1.3 crop, as on the 1D series up to 1D4, is the ideal compromise and must remain cheaper than full frame. Canon never said they were done with APS-H. I remember well that they said that they did not rule it out for the future. APS-H supporters, now is your moment! Come out of hiding!


Some of Canon's industrial sensors are APS-H, so the company still makes them.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 22, 2021)

I keep hearing people say that there's no reason why an APS-C camera should be significantly less expensive than an equivalent full frame. Let's assume for a moment that's true.

In this post, I highlighted three high-end APS-C mirrorless cameras that are equivalent to the R6 (see note* below) but cost $1800 or less. Let's also assume that Fuji and Sony are NOT selling these at a loss (and since these are the high end of their respective lines, they're probably making a decent profit as a matter of fact!).

If it's true that there's no reason for APS-C cameras to be significantly less expensive than equivalent FF, then clearly Canon is fleecing its FF customers.

If I were Canon, I wouldn't want to make a high-end APS-C R body either. Why give up the 50% premium that people are willing to pay for the R6? That's pure profit!

*By "equivalent to the R6" I mean: 20+ MP; a fast, action-oriented AF system; eye AF; animal eye AF; 4K video; ~10 FPS or more mechanical shutter; mechanical shutter rated for >200K clicks; magnesium alloy construction; dust/weather sealing; IBIS; and two SD card slots (OK, the Sony a6600 only has one, but it's the cheapest of the bunch at only $1400).


----------



## rizkypratama24 (Jul 22, 2021)

What matters today is full-frame. The rest is all about lenses. Small sensor in the large RF mount is pointless, wasteful, and confusing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2021)

Martin K said:


> I am sorry that nobody picked up on my earlier comment on APS-H. For me, and I hoped for others, the 1.3 crop, as on the 1D series up to 1D4, is the ideal compromise and must remain cheaper than full frame. Canon never said they were done with APS-H. I remember well that they said that they did not rule it out for the future. APS-H supporters, now is your moment! Come out of hiding!


Live the dream!

APS-H was an awkward compromise that did not work well for standard zoom lenses. Who wants a 31-90mm? Not wide enough. A 21-45mm isn’t long enough. Awkward.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Jul 22, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> EF-M is a sad joke and should be killed off ASAP.


You've clearly never used a later model EF-M camera. Yes, the original EOS M stumbled out of the gate, and the product line was readjusted when the EOS M3 was launched. The M50, M5, and M6 Mark II are very capable cameras for what they were designed for, and lenses like the 22mm F/2, 32mm F/1.4, 28mm Macro, and 11-22mm are incredibly sharp for their price points. Heck, even the beginner M200 camera with kit lens can be had for around $500 on sale, which is a great deal for an ILC APS-C camera. Sadly, the system is lacking dedicated high quality zoom lenses and what was at one point a rumored M5 Mark II with IBIS. Still, the system currently sits in limbo while Canon decides what path to take with mirrorless APS-C. Hopefully Canon still sees the value of the EF-M system and continuers to grow it throughout the next few years.


----------



## Martin K (Jul 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Live the dream!
> 
> APS-H was an awkward compromise that did not work well for standard zoom lenses. Who wants a 31-90mm? Not wide enough. A 21-45mm isn’t long enough. Awkward.


I do. Moderate wide angle to portrait. Perfect for me. Paired with a 16-35 on a 6D2, or a 55-200 on an M series, as and when needed, that gives me pretty good choices for all kinds of general photography. We each have our own likes.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but I had to LOL at that. The bird and macro niche is ‘massive’?!? I think it is you who acompletely fail to understand the nature of the ILC market.
> 
> You’re quite correct that the suggestion that there is no longer any market for APS-C is ludicrous. The market for APS-C is massive compared to FF, which is in turn massive compared to MF (a few years ago, Leica stated the MF market —the whole market, not their portion of it— comprised 6,000-7,000 MF bodies sold per year). But what drives APS-C sales isn’t bird or macro photographers, it’s the simple fact that APS-C ILCs are cheaper.
> 
> Incidentally, that’s also likely the reason that most bird/macro photographers buy APS-C bodies.


I was guessing that especially with the release of the Fuji GFX100S, that is just a bit over only $6K, that the MF camera class would be selling a larger number maybe?

I don't know much about Leica...I didn't realize they had a MF camera. I have a M10M, but that's about all I Know except their M film cameras I'm kinda looking into.

Do they have many crop sensor cameras in their line up?

C


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 23, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> *By "equivalent to the R6" I mean: 20+ MP; a fast, action-oriented AF system; eye AF; animal eye AF; 4K video; ~10 FPS or more mechanical shutter; mechanical shutter rated for >200K clicks; magnesium alloy construction; dust/weather sealing; IBIS; and two SD card slots (OK, the Sony a6600 only has one, but it's the cheapest of the bunch at only $1400).



Have I understood you correctly that you want Canon to sell a body that is the same as the R6 (USD2500) for at least USD700 less (to match the Fuji X-Pro3 pricing) with a new high density APS-C sensor. The R6 already has ~10fps (@12fps) and >200k clicks (@300k clicks).

You would additionally be willing to give up a card slot for an additional USD400 price reduction.

And you want Canon to do this so that it has a competitive APS-C offering for those Canon shooters where the existing options listed previously are not sufficient but there is a pent up demand for this body to sell successfully.

I am not trying to say that the R6 is cheap but it is clearly selling well. Would this new body cannibalise R6 sales meaning less profit for Canon?


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 23, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Have I understood you correctly that you want Canon to sell a body that is the same as the R6 (USD2500) for at least USD700 less (to match the Fuji X-Pro3 pricing) with a new high density APS-C sensor. The R6 already has ~10fps (@12fps) and >200k clicks (@300k clicks).
> 
> You would additionally be willing to give up a card slot for an additional USD400 price reduction.
> 
> ...


I’m not saying I “want” anything.

Others have said that the difference in price between an FF sensor and an APS-C sensor is minimal, with one person in a different thread characterizing it as “tens of dollars.” As a result, they conclude, an APS-C R body with features similar to the R6 will also have to cost close to $2500.

The examples I gave are APS-C bodies with all of those features, but they cost significantly less than that.

If the only difference between those and the R6 is the size of the sensor, and you accept the assertion that the cost difference between the APS-C and FF sensors is minimal, then the R6 is overpriced at $2500 because other manufacturers can sell an equivalent package for $1800 or less.

I’m not knocking the R6. It’s a great camera, and I agree with you that it’s selling well, so Canon can get away with charging a premium for it. That’s the free market, and people who buy R6’s see value at that price. That’s their decision.

But—and this is my point—it doesn’t mean that feature set must intrinsically cost $2500, as Fuji and Sony have shown.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jul 23, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> But—and this is my point—it doesn’t mean that feature set must intrinsically cost $2500, as Fuji and Sony have shown.


Clearly the "Canon" label is worth the premium over the competition


----------



## Dragon (Jul 23, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Have I understood you correctly that you want Canon to sell a body that is the same as the R6 (USD2500) for at least USD700 less (to match the Fuji X-Pro3 pricing) with a new high density APS-C sensor. The R6 already has ~10fps (@12fps) and >200k clicks (@300k clicks).
> 
> You would additionally be willing to give up a card slot for an additional USD400 price reduction.
> 
> ...


Your irony will be lost on that one.


----------



## Bahrd (Jul 23, 2021)

Martin K said:


> I do. Moderate wide angle to portrait. Perfect for me. Paired with a 16-35 on a 6D2, or a 55-200 on an M series, as and when needed, that gives me pretty good choices for all kinds of general photography. We each have our own likes.


Still have (and sporadically use) the 1D Mk III. With an L-variety of lenses (from 8mm to 17, 85, 100, to 200mm). Never had an issue with weird focal lengths either... 
But - as much as I like the idea of the APS-H sensor cameras - I don't believe Canon will reincarnate them. I suppose the nominal customers of the M series won't appreciate larger sensor if it comes at the expense of larger lenses...


----------



## dilbert (Jul 23, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> If it's true that there's no reason for APS-C cameras to be significantly less expensive than equivalent FF, then clearly Canon is fleecing its FF customers.



Judging by some of the "white-box" prices that used to be seen, the answer to that is "Yes, Canon is fleecing its FF customers."

Premium product, premium price.

If APS-C gets killed by Canon then what justification is there for FF having a premium price?

Back to original topic ...
... if Canon goes RF-M for APS-C then Canon needs to develop more lenses because it won't be able to make an adapter for RF-M to RF (or users just forgo using RF lenses) but just how many is a good question. that is unless Canon wanted to allow EF-M or RF on RF-M with an adapter, the thickness of the RF-M body would need to be thinner than that of the already thin EF-M/RF bodies (at least where the lens mount is)
... if Canon goes RF on APS-C then customers will need to deal with larger/heavier lenses which will negate one of the primary reasons for using APS-C on mirrorless to deliver smaller camera/lens combinations and possibly drive those customers to other brands


----------



## John Wilde (Jul 23, 2021)

dilbert said:


> If APS-C gets killed by Canon then what justification is there for FF having a premium price?


The same justification as the price difference between the RP and R5?


----------



## FabFR (Jul 23, 2021)

Hope the M line will always stay, the bodies and lenses are so compact! I think it would be difficult to have an APSC R body as small as an M body, and even harder to have those nice and small EF-M optics at the same size and weigh ! See the difference between an EF-S 10-22 and an EF-M 11-22! The latter is so good, small and light !

But there's a clue about a possible APSC R camera : the existence of a RF 18-45 ! This lens would be very unusual for 24x36 sensors only ! What do you think ?


----------



## David_D (Jul 23, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> The same justification as the price difference between the RP and R5?


I have read/watched various reviews of the R5 from professional photographers who say it enables them to get shots they would never of been able to capture with any other camera. For that Canon charge a premium which it appears people are willing to pay.


----------



## reefroamer (Jul 23, 2021)

FabFR said:


> Hope the M line will always stay, the bodies and lenses are so compact! I think it would be difficult to have an APSC R body as small as an M body, and even harder to have those nice and small EF-M optics at the same size and weigh ! See the difference between an EF-S 10-22 and an EF-M 11-22! The latter is so good, small and light !
> 
> But there's a clue about a possible APSC R camera : the existence of a RF 18-45 ! This lens would be very unusual for 24x36 sensors only ! What do you think ?


An RF 18-45 lens does not actually exist at this point, nor has one been announced by Canon. There are rumors that Canon will announce this lens, and they may well be correct. Such a lens might also be kitted with a rumored $799 full frame R body to offer a sub-$1,000 entry-level package. All speculation for now


----------



## FabFR (Jul 23, 2021)

reefroamer said:


> An RF 18-45 lens does not actually exist at this point, nor has one been announced by Canon. There are rumors that Canon will announce this lens, and they may well be correct. Such a lens might also be kitted with a rumored $799 full frame R body to offer a sub-$1,000 entry-level package. All speculation for now


The screen capture (supposed from Canon), showing this RF 18-45 to be postponed to end of 2021. It seems that it's not really a rumor.


----------



## Chig (Jul 23, 2021)

LRPP said:


> While market research team discussing, 7D2 upset owners make their google research and start and find REAL alternative very attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I much prefer my old 7Dii to Sony's dinky little toy camera thanks , I'm still hoping Canon brings out an R7 but eventually I'll probably buy an R5 which is an improvement over my 7Dii but not as much as an aps-c version of the R6 would be and a bit overpriced especially here in New Zealand where it sells for NZD$6,500 whereas I'd expect the R7 to be about NZD$4,000 which is much more reasonable


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 23, 2021)

dilbert said:


> Premium product, premium price.


In the eyes of some, certainly. I do regret my choice of the word "fleecing" because it's judgmental and that wasn't my intent. The R6 is a premium product. Is it worth the premium? That's a choice each of us has to make for ourselves.

Six months ago, I would have gladly paid well north of US$2000 for an R7. But once I came to believe that there won't be an R7 any time soon, I looked around and found other ways to meet the needs I was looking for in a hypothetical R7. Could an R6 or R5 have filled those needs, as others have suggested? Probably in a lot of ways. But I made my choice and I'm happy with it.



dilbert said:


> If APS-C gets killed by Canon then what justification is there for FF having a premium price?


----------



## Chig (Jul 24, 2021)

vangelismm said:


> The are asking to Pro photographers.
> So it is "expensive" aps-c body, same price range as the original R.
> 
> Looking at this forum we know people want aps-c RF but will never buy it for the same price as a FF camera.
> ...


I'm not expecting to pay less than full frame for an R7 , if it's based closely on an R6 I would be happy to pay similar or higher price than the R6 as it would be better for my bird photography than the R6 or even the R5.

If Canon decide to make an all out pro aps-c R body similar to the R3 I'd be prepared to pay the same as the R3 price too as this would be the best camera in the world by far for what I do.

I think it's unlikely Canon will make this pro body though.

I don't want to buy a full frame camera if I can get an aps-c version instead but only because the full frame wouldn't be as good for what I do.
I don't expect a bargain but will only consider a full frame if no R7 is produced as it's the reach advantage I want.

The reason I'd prefer aps-c is that with this I can use lenses like my EF100-400ii rather than a EF600 f/4 which is ridiculously expensive at $18,000 NZD and far too heavy to handhold and isn't nearly as versatile as my zoom.

The R5 is the best camera Canon make for wildlife but I don't really want to pay so much if I can get an R7 for an R6 level price which would perform much better than the R5 for my bird photography


----------



## Dragon (Jul 24, 2021)

FabFR said:


> Hope the M line will always stay, the bodies and lenses are so compact! I think it would be difficult to have an APSC R body as small as an M body, and even harder to have those nice and small EF-M optics at the same size and weigh ! See the difference between an EF-S 10-22 and an EF-M 11-22! The latter is so good, small and light !
> 
> But there's a clue about a possible APSC R camera : the existence of a RF 18-45 ! This lens would be very unusual for 24x36 sensors only ! What do you think ?


The 18-45 makes perfect sense as a compact low-cost replacement for the 17-40. Holding the short end to 18 rather than 16 or 17 would keep the size, weight, and cost down. Every millimeter at the short end add size, weight, and $. Look at the current WA R lenses for reference. Neither are even close to being "kit lenses".

Actually, 18-45 is a pretty interesting range for a walk-around FF lens. I can see a lot of folks liking it a lot.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> The R5 is the best camera Canon make for wildlife but I don't really want to pay so much if I can get an R7 for an R6 level price which would perform much better than the R5 for my bird photography


It would be nice if you posted some of your bird photos, especially birds in flight, in our two birds threads as images there are much appreciated.


----------



## tron (Jul 24, 2021)

Not practical. To have a crop UWA combo for example all we have to do is get a Rebel with a 10-18 or a M with 11-22.

These are cheap combos. How Canon will replace these if they make a crop RF-S camera with no crop lenses? How much an equivalent combo will cost?


----------



## Chig (Jul 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> It would be nice if you posted some of your bird photos, especially birds in flight, in our two birds threads as images there are much appreciated.


Thanks Alan , I had now idea there were threads for that here and I've just posted one now


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 24, 2021)

Rumourhasit said:


> The Un corrected vignette on the RF24-240 looks suspiciously like a lens that would work better on aps -c


On crop it is a 38-380mm field of view. So, no. Not wide enough for a one lens solution. And still distorted if you don't understand that it has auto in-camera or in-software correction.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 24, 2021)

Dragon said:


> The 18-45 makes perfect sense as a compact low-cost replacement for the 17-40. Holding the short end to 18 rather than 16 or 17 would keep the size, weight, and cost down. Every millimeter at the short end add size, weight, and $. Look at the current WA R lenses for reference. Neither are even close to being "kit lenses".
> 
> Actually, 18-45 is a pretty interesting range for a walk-around FF lens. I can see a lot of folks liking it a lot.


Which is why- if Canon does make crop R series cameras - they don't need RF-S crop lenses. The 18-45 will work as a wide angle on FF and a standard zoom kit lens for crop. They could also go ultra-wide for FF and wide for crop with the same lens. All other focal lengths can work for both as well and telephotos that will obviously work for both FF and crop will be the major lenses that many crop users will be looking at.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 24, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Which is why- if Canon does make crop R series cameras - they don't need RF-S crop lenses. The 18-45 will work as a wide angle on FF and a standard zoom kit lens for crop. They could also go ultra-wide for FF and wide for crop with the same lens. All other focal lengths can work for both as well and telephotos that will obviously work for both FF and crop will be the major lenses that many crop users will be looking at.


And if they do make the cropped R, there will be thousands of folks in forums denigrating them for not making dedicated small crop lenses. Frankly, I think they will be better off building an R5s for those looking for more reach and enhancing the M line for the vast majority of APS-c users. I find it hard to believe that there are a lot of people who own an EF 500mm f/4L who can't afford to choke up for a high res FF.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> I'm not expecting to pay less than full frame for an R7 , if it's based closely on an R6 I would be happy to pay similar or higher price than the R6 as it would be better for my bird photography than the R6 or even the R5.
> 
> If Canon decide to make an all out pro aps-c R body similar to the R3 I'd be prepared to pay the same as the R3 price too as this would be the best camera in the world by far for what I do.
> 
> ...


Wait for the R5s and dig a little deeper into your pocket. The added FOV combined with high res gives you the best of both worlds, wide FOV so you can keep the bird in the frame and high res so you can ruthlessly crop the image. Then again, the R3 just could be that high res camera .


----------



## Chig (Jul 24, 2021)

Dragon said:


> And if they do make the cropped R, there will be thousands of folks in forums denigrating them for not making dedicated small crop lenses. Frankly, I think they will be better off building an R5s for those looking for more reach and enhancing the M line for the vast majority of APS-c users. I find it hard to believe that there are a lot of people who own an EF 500mm f/4L who can't afford to choke up for a high res FF.


Well , many people don't have , want or can afford the very expensive and heavy EF 500mm f/4 or other Great whites but would like a cropped version of the R6 so they can use smaller , more affordable telephotos like the EF100-400ii and still get decent reach. I'm one and I don't want or expect RF-s lenses.

I can afford an R7 that's priced about the same as the R6 but the R5 would be a real struggle and would still have lower pixel density than my 7Dii.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 24, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Which is why- if Canon does make crop R series cameras - they don't need RF-S crop lenses. The 18-45 will work as a wide angle on FF and a standard zoom kit lens for crop. They could also go ultra-wide for FF and wide for crop with the same lens. All other focal lengths can work for both as well and telephotos that will obviously work for both FF and crop will be the major lenses that many crop users will be looking at.


I'm sure price and crop lenses are all part of the "discussion internally" that Canon is allegedly having.

To me, the main advantage of APS-C is that it provides higher pixel density for users of long lenses, e.g., birds/wildlife and sports/action photographers. I've read statements by others in these forums that longer lenses don't benefit as much from being tuned for a smaller sensor, since the image circle and back-focus distance isn't a limiting factor. I'm not a lens designer, but the fact that there are no EF-S or EF-M lenses longer than 250 mm tends to support this statement.

Assuming the majority of R7 advocates primarily use longer lenses, I don't believe Canon has to come out with an entire range of cropped RF lenses like they had in the heyday of EF-S or even the current EF-M lineup.

One possibility is to make RF versions of the EF-M 11-22, 15-45, and 18-150 lenses. The optical formulae might need to be tweaked a little bit due to the longer flange distance of the R, but it's only 2 mm so they might be able to accommodate it with lens element placement (again, I'm not a lens designer). With just those three existing optical designs, they'll have a good, basic lens range covered as kit lenses that will satisfy many users. People who want more than that in terms of range or aperture can use the full frame lenses. It's no different than what they've done for years with xxD bodies and EF-S lenses.

Another possibility is to keep the EF-S 10-18, 18-55, and (maybe) 55-250 lenses in production and tell people who want those focal lengths on a crop R body to use an adapter. Personally, I don't see that as being quite as likely. It will send the message that the R7 is just a one-off to keep the 7D Mark II crowd in the Canon ecosystem (which it might be, but I don't think Canon will be that "in your face" about it).


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 24, 2021)

Dragon said:


> And if they do make the cropped R, there will be thousands of folks in forums denigrating them for not making dedicated small crop lenses. Frankly, I think they will be better off building an R5s for those looking for more reach and enhancing the M line for the vast majority of APS-c users. I find it hard to believe that there are a lot of people who own an EF 500mm f/4L who can't afford to choke up for a high res FF.


You do know there's a middle ground between the cheap kit lenses and the $9000 super telephotos, right? Ask around, you might find one or two people around here who use the $2500 100-400L with a 7D Mark II and want to go mirrorless at a reasonable price without losing pixel density.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 24, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> You do know there's a middle ground between the cheap kit lenses and the $9000 super telephotos, right? Ask around, you might find one or two people around here who use the $2500 100-400L with a 7D Mark II and want to go mirrorless at a reasonable price without losing pixel density.


Yes, I understand your point, but satisfying your desire creates the first problem I pointed out. For every one like you who is satisfied, there will 100 others who are livid that there is not a full line of APS-c lenses to go with the camera. That is clearly the conundrum that Canon faces. My bet is that they will stick with FF in the R line.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 24, 2021)

Chig said:


> Well , many people don't have , want or can afford the very expensive and heavy EF 500mm f/4 or other Great whites but would like an cropped version of the R6 so they can use smaller , more affordable telephotos like the EF100-400ii and still get decent reach. I'm one and I don't want or expect RF-s lenses.
> 
> I can afford an R7 that's priced about the same as the R6 but the R5 would be a real struggle and would still have lower pixel density than my 7Dii.


As I said to another: Yes, I understand your point, but satisfying your desire creates the first problem I pointed out. For every one like you who is satisfied, there will 100 others who are livid that there is not a full line of APS-c lenses to go with the camera. That is clearly the conundrum that Canon faces. My bet is that they will stick with FF in the R line.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 25, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Yes, I understand your point, but satisfying your desire creates the first problem I pointed out. For every one like you who is satisfied, there will 100 others who are livid that there is not a full line of APS-c lenses to go with the camera. That is clearly the conundrum that Canon faces. My bet is that they will stick with FF in the R line.


I agree with you that Canon isn't going to make an APS-C R body, at least not in the foreseeable future. I would love to see one, but I gave up waiting for it about six months ago and moved on.

However, I don't believe an APS-C R body will require an extensive line of crop-only lenses. As I said in post #162, all I believe Canon has to do is make RF versions of the existing EF-M 11-22, 15-45, and 18-150 mm lens designs, and they've got a good basic range of APS-C kit lenses covered. They can use the same IS system, the same electronics, and *probably* the same optics (the flange distance difference is only 2 mm).

Somebody wants an f/1.4 prime or f/2.8 zoom for their APS-C RF body? They can buy the full frame RF lens. It's no different than the situation today with EF-S lenses.

There's also no need to get all hung up over branding with "RF" or "RF-S". Stick one of these crop lenses on a full frame R body and it automatically switches to crop mode, but it still works. Canon will probably want to designate these lenses differently somehow, so buyers know they have a smaller image circle. But they don't have to make these lenses physically incompatible with the FF bodies like they did with EF-S.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 25, 2021)

The flange distance for the EOS-M cameras is only 18mm and the ROS-R is 20mm leaving only 2mm for the adapter. Structurally that’s going to be pretty flimsy. I’m not even sure you would fit the two bayonet mounts in that space. 

Second the barrel size increase is going to start hitting up against the flash bulge on the M5, M50 etc. It’s also going to massively impinge on the hand grip and lens release button on all other M bodies.

Moving the lens further away and relying on the full frame image circle to still cover the APS-C sensor will, perhaps, be slightly possible. However, doing this would cause havoc to the focal plane, as these lenses are designed to produce their image at 20mm. Lenses could be added to the adapter to offset this but only with loss of image quality.

Finally the most significant issue comes to mind. EOS-M bodies have only 9 electrical connections, EF / EF-S have only 8, however RF lenses require 12. We’ve also been told that these operate at a higher speed than prior EOS systems. Making it pretty much impossible for the M bodies to produce the required inputs to allow the lens to function correctly.

You can’t just make a dumb adapter with manual focus, aperture etc as most of these lenses are focus by wire, even in manual mode. The same goes for aperture, that’s been electronic since the first EF lenses came out. 

I very much doubt you will ever see an RF to EF-M adapter.

That’s not an argument against APS-C sensors, just the thought that you can somehow mount RF glass on M bodies.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jul 25, 2021)

Ian K said:


> The flange distance for the EOS-M cameras is only 18mm and the ROS-R is 20mm leaving only 2mm for the adapter. Structurally that’s going to be pretty flimsy. I’m not even sure you would fit the two bayonet mounts in that space.
> 
> Second the barrel size increase is going to start hitting up against the flash bulge on the M5, M50 etc. It’s also going to massively impinge on the hand grip and lens release button on all other M bodies.
> 
> ...


I’m not sure if this is a response to my post #166 or not.

if it is, reread what I wrote. I never said anything about an adapter.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 25, 2021)

I fully understand the desire for a APS-C serious camera. I used to own the 7D and after that the 7D Mark II. At one point I had the EF 200-400 1.4 extender on it. I was on safari with a 35mm equivalent of 320-640mm and 448-896mm at the flick of a switch.

I gave up on the APS-C when the R5 came out. With the 7D mark II being 20.2 megapixel and the R5 being 45 megapixel and being able to switch on a 1.6 crop mode you end up with a 17 megapixel picture with all the advantages of the R5. Including the fantastic animal Eye-AF feature.

In the end I haven’t been anywhere that I felt it was worth turning the crop mode on for. I suppose birding will be that case. 1.6x crop vs 1.4x extender. I’ll have to see.


----------



## Ian K (Jul 25, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I’m not sure if this is a response to my post #166 or not.
> 
> if it is, reread what I wrote. I never said anything about an adapter.


No it’s not. I would have quoted you if it was. Early on people where talking adapters. I think the forum software gets confused sometimes.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jul 25, 2021)

Ian K said:


> I fully understand the desire for a APS-C serious camera. I used to own the 7D and after that the 7D Mark II. At one point I had the EF 200-400 1.4 extender on it. I was on safari with a 35mm equivalent of 320-640mm and 448-896mm at the flick of a switch.
> 
> I gave up on the APS-C when the R5 came out. With the 7D mark II being 20.2 megapixel and the R5 being 45 megapixel and being able to switch on a 1.6 crop mode you end up with a 17 megapixel picture with all the advantages of the R5. Including the fantastic animal Eye-AF feature.
> 
> In the end I haven’t been anywhere that I felt it was worth turning the crop mode on for. I suppose birding will be that case. 1.6x crop vs 1.4x extender. I’ll have to see.



For birding I use the R5 at FF. I have the 7Dii as well, and figured I'd use the R5 a few times just to try it out birding, and haven't gone back. I'm using a 600 for a lens, and that with the R5 provides more than enough reach; the 7Dii & 600 obviously provides more but is it _needed? _I found that it was not. I'll use it for super distant stuff out on the ocean or something, but by and large the R5 is superb, plus the eye tracking allows for tracking swallows or other birds in flight with extreme ease. 

Now an R7 that offered these features AND the reach? That'd be amazing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

Dragon said:


> The EF-M 11-17 is an all around better lens than the EF-s 10-22 and it has IS and is also cheaper. The M line badly needs an equivalent to the EF-s 15-85 which is a very fine piece of glass, but the vast majority are happy with the 18-150, so it may be a while. Making an R body just for APS-c is silly. If you want the portability of your 10-22 and your 15-85, just slap them on your R5 and it will automatically switch to APS-c with proper APS-c RAW files and image quality and resolution better than your 7d II (yes, only 17MP, but the new AA filter makes a big difference).



But is the resolution better than the 90D or M6 Mark II? 32 MP is the current standard for APS-C sensors, even if those bodies don't have some of the other things many found valuable in the 7D Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

BakaBokeh said:


> Agreed on all accounts. The only thing I'd add is that the portability of M series to me is mostly because of the lenses. A tiny full frame RF body will never match the portability of an EF-M system. RF 50 and 35 f1.8 are small but will never be as small as EF-M. Canon might have limited themselves in lens design by standing fast by their rule to not exceed a certain diameter, but it sure does keep the system tiny. Shrinking the bodies without getting smaller lenses actually doesn't make sense to me either. That just makes for a more unbalanced, less ergonomic camera.
> 
> I also agree that those f11 lenses was Canon's way of appeasing the birders. They may not like it, but I think it's a more economical solution than developing an APS-C Pro body that only has a niche market.
> 
> ...



With the constantly fluctuating value of the dollar against the yen, how many of Canon's top executives actually understand that $500 or €500 psychological price line, though?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

BBarn said:


> The biggest selling point for APS-C cameras is lower cost and smaller size/weight. Since RF-s lenses are off the table, most of the APS-C benefits would be absent as well. An APS-C RF mount body with big and heavy FF lenses would be out of place in the world of trim Sony and Fuji APS-C cameras. Nikon had the sense to make a couple small and light lenses for their DX Z50.
> 
> That leaves the very small birders market for an APS-C body with FF lenses. Maybe some day, well into the future.



There are other use cases for an R7 with FF lenses such as a 70-200/2.8 that gives just enough reach to avoid the cost of a 300/2.8 plus another body to use with a 70-200/2.8 when the 300 prime is too long less than a second after 300mm was useful.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

tomsop said:


> Wouldn't it be cool if a Canon representative made himself available for questions - like Tim Cook sitting down for an interview. All we do is waste energy, speculate and surmise because Canon refuses to have direct conversations with their customers.



Chuck Westfall, may he RIP, was really good about sitting down for an interview and depending on exactly how he said "I can not speculate on future products Canon may or may not bring to market" you could kind of read the tea leaves and know what he was telling you without actually saying it.

Since cancer got Chuck a few years ago, Canon has not had a spokesperson who effectively communicates to the customers that they understand what the users of Canon products want, and why they might want them.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

LRPP said:


> While market research team discussing, 7D2 upset owners make their google research and start and find REAL alternative very attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lack of flicker reduction is a deal killer for me. The difference between having it and not having it for high school and youth night field sports is almost as big as the difference between night and day.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Further to my questions about how Canon implements diffraction correction, I went back to some of my charts for measuring resolution of the 800mm f/11 with the RF 1.4x TC at 1120mm f/16, which is well in the diffraction limited region on the R5. I found that Canon DPP with either diffraction correction or DLO does not giver discernibly better resolution than standard and gives slightly poorer resolution than DxO PL4 that doesn't use diffraction correction.



Were your samples taken using a solid, unmoving camera mount with no possibility of external vibration? To get the benefit of DLO or diffraction correction, there can be absolutely no camera movement whatsoever. Otherwise the blur from movement/vibration masks the blur due to diffraction.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> The Rebel/entry level cameras make up the bulk of sales, and for years there was a lot of money to be made selling $599 kits. But that market has been decimated by the shift in buying patterns so it isn’t the cash cow it was and it is a rapidly shrinking sector.
> 
> All the camera manufacturers have said the way they see market sustainability in the longer term is selling much fewer but more expensive bodies and lenses.
> 
> ...



I think you are mostly right here, but it does seem to me that Canon seem to be jumping the gun a bit here if they are making marketing decisions for near term products based on what the market will look like five years from now. Part of that is Canon's traditional longer development times to make sure products are solid before releasing them as opposed to other manufacturers' practice of new products being released as "beta" versions that then need to be patched.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> If I was in the marketing department of Canon I’d say you get more than you want in the R6 II and 800 f11. The R6 II is bound to have a BSI sensor.
> 
> The Nikon lens is a $3,600 lens, plus your imaginary $1,500 (which is a crazy pipe dream anyway because the 7D II is $1,799) for a total of just over $5,000 or €. The R6 is $2,499 and the RF 800 is $899, for a total of $3,398. The lens is two stops slower but you get more than one stop of sensitivity back because of the sensor size increase and the f5.6 on a crop is equivalent to an f8 on a ff camera anyway.



F/5.6 on a crop is "equivalent" to f/8 on a FF in terms of depth of field, but not in terms of exposure.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 9, 2021)

Dragon said:


> And there you hit the nail directly on the head. Most of the R7 wannabuys are looking for another bargain like 7D II. In a much shrunken market, that is very unlikely. The flexibility to shoot in crop mode in the R5 (and potentially the R5s) is a great feature, but a crop only camera without a line of lenses to support it would get more derision for the lack of lenses than it got praise for its "reach". We will see where Nikon goes with this, but so far the crop lens offering makes their cropped Z's far less interesting than the M system, particularly for those seeking portability.



Canon seems to be able to handle just fine the derision they get regarding the M series as they keep selling more of them than any other mirrorless camera system on the planet.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> F/5.6 on a crop is "equivalent" to f/8 on a FF in terms of depth of field, but not in terms of exposure.


Yes it is, equivalence, taken to mean practically identical image characteristics, includes iso. A ff sensor has a 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage over a Canon APS-C sensor.

So 1/500 sec, f5.6, iso 800 on a Canon crop camera has a ff equivalent of 1/500 sec, f9.0, iso 2,000. At those settings you get essentially identical image characteristic, subject movement, depth of field and noise, and the EV is identical.


----------



## BBarn (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> There are other use cases for an R7 with FF lenses such as a 70-200/2.8 that gives just enough reach to avoid the cost of a 300/2.8 plus another body to use with a 70-200/2.8 when the 300 prime is too long less than a second after 300mm was useful.



OK, but still a rather small market.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes it is, equivalence, taken to mean practically identical image characteristics, includes iso. A ff sensor has a 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage over a Canon APS-C sensor.
> 
> So 1/500 sec, f5.6, iso 800 on a Canon crop camera has a ff equivalent of 1/500 sec, f9.0, iso 2,000. At those settings you get essentially identical image characteristic, subject movement, depth of field and noise, and the EV is identical.


You are invariably right on equivalence. It's worth adding the caveat to avoid some confusion that it is for having the Canon crop camera 1.6x further away from the subject to give the same field of view of as full frame, and the images are viewed at the same size. I like to think of the noise as resulting from "photons per duck", by analogy with "pixels per duck". The FF has the duck 1.6x1.6 larger in area on the sensor but the illuminance is lower by (9/5.6)x(9/5.60) = 1.6x1.6 because of the f-numbers, and so the same number of photons fall on the duck in both cases.


----------



## Dragon (Aug 9, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> But is the resolution better than the 90D or M6 Mark II? 32 MP is the current standard for APS-C sensors, even if those bodies don't have some of the other things many found valuable in the 7D Mark II.


If you have the right glass, the 90D will definitely give you more detail, but the lens list is pretty short and mostly L. As an example, I have an 800L, a 90D, and an R5. If I shoot without a TC, the 90D has more "reach". Add a 1.4 TC and the R5 wins by a nose over the 90D without the TC and adding the TC doesn't do much for 90D other than limit the field of view. For most scenes, the R5 will focus at least as well with the TC as the 90D without it, so in the end, it gets down to subtleties like cross AF points for scenes that have little or no vertical detail, but that is more of an implementation issue than an argument for an APS-c sensor. Certainly at least a few QPAF points on the sensor would be helpful. In most situations, I will choose the R5 because of its better tracking and higher frame rates.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You are invariably right on equivalence. It's worth adding the caveat to avoid some confusion that it is for having the Canon crop camera 1.6x further away from the subject to give the same field of view of as full frame, and the images are viewed at the same size. I like to think of the noise as resulting from "photons per duck", by analogy with "pixels per duck". The FF has the duck 1.6x1.6 larger in area on the sensor but the illuminance is lower by (9/5.6)x(9/5.60) = 1.6x1.6 because of the f-numbers, and so the same number of photons fall on the duck in both cases.


Or, change the focal length to 1.6 times, that is always my assumption and I should have made it clear. If you use the same lens and move back you have changed perspective so the images are not identical.

So given Michael’s scenario where he uses a a crop camera and 200mm @ f2.8, 1/500 sec, iso 800, he would get essentially the same image from the same place with a ff camera and a 300mm at f4, 1/500 sec and iso 2,000.

Now I am not trying to convince anybody to do anything, I am happy to point out options people have that they might not have thought of, but I never know peoples individual situations. All I would say is anybody shooting with a 200 f2.8 and a 7D II has a very real upgrade path in the R6 and 300mm f4, they give equivalent (as in same image characteristics and EV value from the same place) images and the R6 is a vastly better tool than the 7D II. Of course not all lens options are available as equivalents, and I do not believe ff is the answer to every question, but the R6 and equivalence does make a compelling upgrade solution for many 7D II shooters.

Ultimately if you have to crop your images significantly there is, obviously, no advantage to a bigger sensor, if I was shooting a 7D II with an 800mm lens and still cropping I’d be looking to get a 4/3 camera anyway. But if the focal length options are there people who have lived in the crop camera space don’t need to wait for a possible R crop camera, they have a real upgrade path already they just need to fully appreciate the differences between a crop sensor image and a different sized sensor image characteristic, they include perspective, subject motion, depth of field, exposure value, and noise.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 9, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Or, change the focal length to 1.6 times, that is always my assumption and I should have made it clear. If you use the same lens and move back you have changed perspective so the images are not identical.
> 
> So given Michael’s scenario where he uses a a crop camera and 200mm @ f2.8, 1/500 sec, iso 800, he would get essentially the same image from the same place with a ff camera and a 300mm at f4, 1/500 sec and iso 2,000.
> 
> ...


That's right. I learned a lot about equivalence from you. If you are going to crop a lot, a 1" sensor is the one to use, and it's a shame Nikon screwed up on their 1 series. What I like most about FF is the extra image space it gives me for action shots. Many of my BIF and DIF shots have the bird or dragonfly at the edge of the FF sensor as I am fighting to track them, and I would have lost or clipped them on APS-C. It's like having, for example, a 500mm prime on FF that gives the equivalent of having a 312-500mm prime 1.6x zoom on an APS-C.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes it is, equivalence, taken to mean practically identical image characteristics, includes iso. A ff sensor has a 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage over a Canon APS-C sensor.
> 
> So 1/500 sec, f5.6, iso 800 on a Canon crop camera has a ff equivalent of 1/500 sec, f9.0, iso 2,000. At those settings you get essentially identical image characteristic, subject movement, depth of field and noise, and the EV is identical.



You do need to take into account that for well over a decade beginning around 2007 many Canon cameras only changed actual analog amplification in whole stops. The +1/3 and -1/3 stop settings were instructions to push or pull by 1/3 stop in development after ADC. Depending on shooting conditions, ISO 125 (effectively shooting 1/3 stop to the left with the sensor set at ISO 100 and then both signal and noise pushed in development) could test as noisier than ISO 1250 (effectively shooting 1/3 stop to the right with the sensor amplified at ISO 1600)!

Going straight to JPEG in camera, ISO 2000 is noisier than ISO 3200 on everything I shoot (5D Mark IV being my most current sensor). I've seen some indications that Canon might have stopped this practice around 2019 with the 90D and newer sensors (1D X Mark III/R6, and R5).


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Or, change the focal length to 1.6 times, that is always my assumption and I should have made it clear. If you use the same lens and move back you have changed perspective so the images are not identical.
> 
> So given Michael’s scenario where he uses a a crop camera and 200mm @ f2.8, 1/500 sec, iso 800, he would get essentially the same image from the same place with a ff camera and a 300mm at f4, 1/500 sec and iso 2,000.
> 
> ...



I've tried the EF 300mm f/4L. With either the 7D Mark II or the 5D Mark III (it was before I had a 5D Mark IV), I could get better results cropping the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II to the same angle of view. Maybe I've got the sharpest EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II around, or maybe that was a "bad" EF 300mm f/4L, but that was my experience.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 12, 2021)

PerKr said:


> EF-S never made sense either. Sure, the 17-50/2.8 made a lot of sense but both Tamron and Sigma did that without the mirror-fouling of the EF-S lenses. Was mirror-fouling the only standout feature of EF-S? While EF-S was nonsensical, a fast standard zoom for APS-C wasn't and neither was a kit zoom. And a speedy camera body that didn't cost an arm, a leg and a kidney was a nice idea, wasn't it?
> Thinking about it, maybe the golden days of photography just passed. Sure, cameras get better with every new generation but the value proposition...



There were only a handful of EF-S lenses that actually exploited the increased mirror clearance to place rear elements behind the flange at specific zoom and focus distances. Most Canon EF-S lenses did not.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 12, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> 7D buyers may have only bought EF lenses but xxD/xxxD/xxxxD buyers probably not. I am not necessarily typical but started with 7D + EF24-105mm. Second lens was EF-s 10-22mm which I used extensively. 3rd lens was EF70-200mm/2.8ii as I was sold on the idea that buy the best glass and not need to replace it. A little GAS since then
> 
> For data, Canon would know sales volume per item per sales region (except grey markets/unbundling kits) but I am not as convinced that they know what bodies those EF lenses were used on. CPS users would give some idea but Canon applies CPS in different ways in different countries. You need a business registration and derive most of your revenue from photography before paying for CPS in Australia for instance. Enthusiast buyers in Australia are excluded even if they meet the minimum body/lens ownership requirements.
> Resellers may know what you have bought in the past but that doesn't cover purchases from different resellers or buy/sell on second hand markets. Resellers may not provide that level of detailed customer data to Canon either.



If someone registers the warranty with Canon on purchases of new bodies and lenses, Canon knows exactly what bodies and what lenses a specific customer has, even if they never attempt to join CPS. 

There's also an option for those who use _DPP_ (admittedly not a huge percentage of Canon owners with multiple bodies/lenses) to allow aggregate data regarding lens body combinations, ISO, Tv, and Av settings, etc. to be sent to Canon.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 12, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> The M6ii is [email protected] and you can adapt EF lenses on it. What else do you need (not want)?



A built-in EVF that won't get ripped from the hot shoe the first time it gets bumped and that also leaves the hot shoe available to control off camera flash? With no PC port one can't even have an eye level viewfinder and use external flash in any practical way with the EOS M6 Mark II. 

I don't think that is unreasonable. 

Those who hoped to see an M5 Mark II with the same sensor and a built-in eye level EVF have been bitterly disappointed. As long as it has been since the 90D/M6II were rolled out, it's becoming pretty obvious that an M5 Mark II is never going to happen.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 12, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> The budget for the RF 2x went to snapping up the RF100mm when store.canon.nl showed it to be in stock  Your experiences with it had me very close to ordering it after my pre-order for the RF100 fell through.
> 
> I might rent the RF 2x for a few days during my time off this summer, together with the Laowa probe lens. I'm looking forward to posting underwater shots of dragons and damsels!



Where do you find an underwater housing that can fit the Laowa probe lens?


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 12, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Where do you find an underwater housing that can fit the Laowa probe lens?


The camera would be above water, only the front end of probe lens would be submerged. It should be more than long enough for the shallow end of the pools where I’ve seen the larvae climb up vegetation and turn into damselflies.

For fully underwater housings, I’ve seen a few dive fora that reference a place that has built such housings. One of those ‘contact us for pricing’ things


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2021)

Dragon said:


> And if they do make the cropped R, there will be thousands of folks in forums denigrating them for not making dedicated small crop lenses. Frankly, I think they will be better off building an R5s for those looking for more reach and enhancing the M line for the vast majority of APS-c users. I find it hard to believe that there are a lot of people who own an EF 500mm f/4L who can't afford to choke up for a high res FF.



Many who want an R7 already have a "high res" FF. But the 45MP R5, when cropped to APS-C angle of view, is only 17MP at a time when Canon offers a pretty good 32MP APS-C sensor in bodies that don't quite cut the mustard for typical 7D/potential R7 buyers.

Just because one has a FF body (or multiple FF bodies) does not mean that one can't also have use cases where a higher density APS-C camera is a better tool for that specific use case, particularly if the use case calls for multiple bodies sporting both "long" and "short" lenses to be used at the same time.

The other thing you don't seem to be able to see is that even for those who have FF bodies and an EF 500mm f/4L, to get the same pixel density on subjects with a 45MP FF camera that they would get with a 32MP APS-C + 500mm they would need a 940mm lens. The 500/4 might be expensive, but have you priced an 800mm or 1200mm lens recently?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Wait for the R5s and dig a little deeper into your pocket. The added FOV combined with high res gives you the best of both worlds, wide FOV so you can keep the bird in the frame and high res so you can ruthlessly crop the image. Then again, the R3 just could be that high res camera .



You're making a pretty bold assumption that a very high res R5s will not be limited at all compared to the R5 or a potential R7 by the larger file sizes and as a result have slower maximum fps and a shallower buffer in terms of the number of images the buffer can hold before the camera bogs down.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Yes, I understand your point, but satisfying your desire creates the first problem I pointed out. For every one like you who is satisfied, there will 100 others who are livid that there is not a full line of APS-c lenses to go with the camera. That is clearly the conundrum that Canon faces. My bet is that they will stick with FF in the R line.





Dragon said:


> As I said to another: Yes, I understand your point, but satisfying your desire creates the first problem I pointed out. For every one like you who is satisfied, there will 100 others who are livid that there is not a full line of APS-c lenses to go with the camera. That is clearly the conundrum that Canon faces. My bet is that they will stick with FF in the R line.



For any product Canon releases there always seem to be more who are "livid" Canon did not make what they wanted than there are those who are happy Canon released the camera they did.

You ratio is entirely exaggerated, too. Maybe if Canon released a low cost APS-C RF body, like an R800, there would be more of that, though still not 100:1. But with a higher end APS-C R7 the naysayers would never get beyond complaining about the high cost of the body to get to complaining about lack of cheap RF-S lenses to go with a non-existent cheap APS-C R body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2021)

Ian K said:


> The flange distance for the EOS-M cameras is only 18mm and the ROS-R is 20mm leaving only 2mm for the adapter. Structurally that’s going to be pretty flimsy. I’m not even sure you would fit the two bayonet mounts in that space.
> 
> Second the barrel size increase is going to start hitting up against the flash bulge on the M5, M50 etc. It’s also going to massively impinge on the hand grip and lens release button on all other M bodies.
> 
> ...



It wouldn't just be flimsy, it would need to have negative thickness.

The RF mount is larger in diameter than the EF-M mount, yet the lugs on the RF bayonet extend more than 2mm behind the flange ring. The back of the lugs on an RF mount lens would need to be behind the smaller flange ring of the EOS M body for the lens to be the proper registration distance from the sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2021)

BBarn said:


> OK, but still a rather small market.



Don't mistake someone's desire for a product that would make sense for them as a claim that it would make enough sense for Canon to produce such a product.


----------



## BBarn (Aug 13, 2021)

Sorry, I didn't realize you were directing so much energy toward something you don't believe makes sense as a production camera.


----------



## Dragon (Aug 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> For any product Canon releases there always seem to be more who are "livid" Canon did not make what they wanted than there are those who are happy Canon released the camera they did.
> 
> You ratio is entirely exaggerated, too. Maybe if Canon released a low cost APS-C RF body, like an R800, there would be more of that, though still not 100:1. But with a higher end APS-C R7 the naysayers would never get beyond complaining about the high cost of the body to get to complaining about lack of cheap RF-S lenses to go with a non-existent cheap APS-C R body.


Yes, I threw in a little hyperbole for drama, but my ratio would be pretty close for the review community, which is one of the larger concerns for any manufacturer. I agree that the 7d II users would not particularly miss the equivalent of EF-s lenses, but they would scream bloody murder about $3,000 for an "R5-c" and they would also whine about lack of features on an "R6-c" and the "R6-c" would dramatically increase the number of reviewers who would howl about the lack of APS-c specific lenses. The average EOS-M customer wouldn't even notice either introduction. So if you put yourself in Canon's shoes and ask "is it worth the pain?", you have a tough decision to make, even if you would like to convince the 7D-II crowd to migrate to R. On that last note, the trigger for such a migration would be a proper successor to the EF 500mm F/4 L II and that isn't baked yet, so best to not get the cart before the horse.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> …if you would like to convince the 7D-II crowd to migrate to R. On that last note, the trigger for such a migration would be a proper successor to the EF 500mm F/4 L II and that isn't baked yet


I think your suggestion that most 7DII owners also own a 500/4 is half-baked.


----------



## Dragon (Aug 14, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Many who want an R7 already have a "high res" FF. But the 45MP R5, when cropped to APS-C angle of view, is only 17MP at a time when Canon offers a pretty good 32MP APS-C sensor in bodies that don't quite cut the mustard for typical 7D/potential R7 buyers.
> 
> Just because one has a FF body (or multiple FF bodies) does not mean that one can't also have use cases where a higher density APS-C camera is a better tool for that specific use case, particularly if the use case calls for multiple bodies sporting both "long" and "short" lenses to be used at the same time.
> 
> The other thing you don't seem to be able to see is that even for those who have FF bodies and an EF 500mm f/4L, to get the same pixel density on subjects with a 45MP FF camera that they would get with a 32MP APS-C + 500mm they would need a 940mm lens. The 500/4 might be expensive, but have you priced an 800mm or 1200mm lens recently?


Yes, I have an 800L that I use with both an R5 and a 90D, so I understand the tradeoffs. I think there is something wrong with your math. The R5 has at tad over 17MP in the APS-c area and the 90D just over 32MP in the same area. Those are effectively area numbers, whereas lens reach is a linear number, so you have to compare as follows: Sqrt(32/17)= 1.37 equivalent zoom or 500mm*1.37=685mm equivalent focal length. I have found that the R5 with a 1.4 TC on the 800mm will out-resolve, out-track, and out-focus the 90D without a TC on the same lens and adding the TC to 90D doesn't help that much because the pixel density is pushing the limits of the lens combo. I suspect the 500L II, being arguably the sharpest big white ever made, might be a bit better with the TC, but not enough to make a dramatic difference. Also note that the much better AA filter on the R5 puts the effective APS-c resolution closer to 20MP equivalent from a relative sharpness perspective. In the end, an 80+ MP FF R5s will end all arguments other than price and I suspect that will happen before Canon seriously looks at an "R5c" (and I am not referring to "Cinema").


----------



## Dragon (Aug 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think your suggestion that most 7DII owners also own a 500/4 is half-baked.


I pointed to that lens, because it is literally the ONLY long lens that is sharp enough to make a difference (I.e. the sharpest big white ever made). On the EF100-400 L II, the R5 with a 1.4 TC is as good or better in every respect when compared to a 90D without the TC and when you add the TC with the 90D, the lens doesn't hold up the resolution of the camera, so there is not enough gain to make a difference. The situation is similar with the 80mmL. I have and use all of the above and the R5 is at this point my camera of choice. The 500 L II is good enough with the 1.4 TC that the 90D might show some advantage, but then there is always the 2x TC. In the end, getting rid of the f/5.6 AF limit imposed by SLRs changed the game. You really have to spend some quality time with an R5 to understand how things have changed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> I pointed to that lens, because it is literally the ONLY long lens that is sharp enough to make a difference (I.e. the sharpest big white ever made).


Actually, the 600/4 II is a bit sharper.




But what you stated was that an RF 500/4 would be the trigger for migration of 7DII owners to the EOS R system, and honestly, that's ridiculous. To extend your cart before the horse analogy, your statement is that the tail will wag the dog.


----------



## Dragon (Aug 14, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, the 600/4 II is a bit sharper.
> 
> View attachment 199580
> 
> ...


Pick your data source, but the 600 doesn't hold up to TCs as well as the 500. It really falls apart relatively with the 2x.








Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Pick your data source, but the 600 doesn't hold up to TCs as well as the 500. It really falls apart relatively with the 2x.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, ok then. But the 300/2.8 II holds up better when you stack the 1.4x and 2x TCs, so actually it's the sharpest big white ever made.

Also, kudos on ignoring the main point. What happened, couldn't find a way to move the goalposts on that one?


----------



## stevelee (Aug 15, 2021)

PerKr said:


> EF-S never made sense either. Sure, the 17-50/2.8 made a lot of sense but both Tamron and Sigma did that without the mirror-fouling of the EF-S lenses. Was mirror-fouling the only standout feature of EF-S? While EF-S was nonsensical, a fast standard zoom for APS-C wasn't and neither was a kit zoom. And a speedy camera body that didn't cost an arm, a leg and a kidney was a nice idea, wasn't it?
> Thinking about it, maybe the golden days of photography just passed. Sure, cameras get better with every new generation but the value proposition...


My one EF-S lens other than the kit lens is the 10-22mm zoom. It made a lot of sense when I was shooting the Rebel and gave excellent results. I shot home interiors for a realtor and got excellent results for that purpose.

Now that I am shooting FF, I have the 16-35mm lens, which is equivalent in terms of view angle. It is excellent, but of course much bigger, heavier, and more expensive. After I bought the 10-22, they came out with a 10-18mm, I think it is. It is a little slower, smaller, and cheaper, but it tests well. I might have bought it instead had it been out. But for longer lenses, I don’t see a lot of point for EF-S. I got a couple EF lenses when I still used the Rebel.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 15, 2021)

Personally, I think the idea that Canon needs to make any lens - be it a telephoto RF lens or specific RF-S lenses - to sell a crop R series camera is totally off base. 7D series users already have the lenses the want. Even those like me who are not 7D series owners, have lenses that are just waiting for a crop camera with a big enough grip to comfortably use them. My old EF 85-200 f/2.8 and my newer Sigma 100-400mm contemporary are just waiting for an R crop camera. Until then they will be used reasonably comfortably on a Nikon Z50 with adapter. If Canon had a crop R camera, I would gladly sell the Nikon z50 (not a bad camera at all, by the way, but no IBIS and no sensor cleaning make it replaceable if Canon were to come up with a better replacement).


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 15, 2021)

stevelee said:


> My one EF-S lens other than the kit lens is the 10-22mm zoom. It made a lot of sense when I was shooting the Rebel and gave excellent results. I shot home interiors for a realtor and got excellent results for that purpose.
> 
> Now that I am shooting FF, I have the 16-35mm lens, which is equivalent in terms of view angle. It is excellent, but of course much bigger, heavier, and more expensive. After I bought the 10-22, they came out with a 10-18mm, I think it is. It is a little slower, smaller, and cheaper, but it tests well. I might have bought it instead had it been out. But for longer lenses, I don’t see a lot of point for EF-S. I got a couple EF lenses when I still used the Rebel.


The only lens that would be needed for crop R cameras would be a crop wide angle, something like a 10-22mm. All other lenses Canon can make for the R series cameras can serve both FF and crop users. A wide angle zoom for FF is a standard zoom on crop. Everything longer will work equally well on both.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 15, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> The only lens that would be needed for crop R cameras would be a crop wide angle, something like a 10-22mm. All other lenses Canon can make for the R series cameras can serve both FF and crop users. A wide angle zoom for FF is a standard zoom on crop. Everything longer will work equally well on both.


Actually, a 15-85 R lens would be important. Don't underestimate the need for a good quality walk-around lens. There is no full frame lens that covers that range. They are either too short at the long end or not wide enough at the wide end. A 15-85, an ultra wide and maybe a 17-55 2.8 is all Canon ever really offered 7D users, so it should be sufficient for a crop R body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> In the end, an 80+ MP FF R5s will end all arguments other than price and I suspect that will happen before Canon seriously looks at an "R5c" (and I am not referring to "Cinema").



Yeah, I'm sure all of the birders will be happy with half the frame rate and buffer depth of the R5 in exchange for that higher pixel density with an R5s.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

BBarn said:


> Sorry, I didn't realize you were directing so much energy toward something you don't believe makes sense as a production camera.



Probably about as much as I can't figure out why complete strangers feel the constant and continuous need to convince me I wouldn't find such a thing useful, just because they wouldn't find such a thing useful when they don't shoot the same use cases I shoot.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Yes, I threw in a little hyperbole for drama, but my ratio would be pretty close for the review community, which is one of the larger concerns for any manufacturer. I agree that the 7d II users would not particularly miss the equivalent of EF-s lenses, but they would scream bloody murder about $3,000 for an "R5-c" and they would also whine about lack of features on an "R6-c" and the "R6-c" would dramatically increase the number of reviewers who would howl about the lack of APS-c specific lenses. The average EOS-M customer wouldn't even notice either introduction. So if you put yourself in Canon's shoes and ask "is it worth the pain?", you have a tough decision to make, even if you would like to convince the 7D-II crowd to migrate to R. On that last note, the trigger for such a migration would be a proper successor to the EF 500mm F/4 L II and that isn't baked yet, so best to not get the cart before the horse.



Canon hasn't seemed too concerned about the massive criticism the review community constantly heaps upon the EOS M system.

Canon just keeps selling the most popular mirrorless interchangeable lens camera system in the world, anyway.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

Dragon said:


> In the end, getting rid of the f/5.6 AF limit imposed by SLRs changed the game.




Maybe unless one is shooting sports under lights not up to major college/pro sports standards and needs f/2.8 (or at the very least f/4) no matter how well the camera can focus at apertures narrower than f/5.6


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, the 600/4 II is a bit sharper.
> 
> View attachment 199580
> 
> ...



Meh. The difference between the two is less than what the variation can be from two different copies of the same model lens on the same test bench (as opposed to on different copies of the same model camera body, which could be even greater variation depending on how well the flange ring and sensor are aligned).

There's no real practical difference.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> The only lens that would be needed for crop R cameras would be a crop wide angle, something like a 10-22mm. All other lenses Canon can make for the R series cameras can serve both FF and crop users. A wide angle zoom for FF is a standard zoom on crop. Everything longer will work equally well on both.





unfocused said:


> Actually, a 15-85 R lens would be important. Don't underestimate the need for a good quality walk-around lens. There is no full frame lens that covers that range. They are either too short at the long end or not wide enough at the wide end. A 15-85, an ultra wide and maybe a 17-55 2.8 is all Canon ever really offered 7D users, so it should be sufficient for a crop R body.



You both assume most users interested in a higher end APS-C camera in the RF mount wouldn't also have FF cameras for most use cases. The high end APS-C R, if it ever sees the light of day, will be a specialized tool used mostly for narrow angle of view use cases by those who also use FF cameras for wide angle work.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You both assume most users interested in a higher end APS-C camera in the RF mount wouldn't also have FF cameras for most use cases. The high end APS-C R, if it ever sees the light of day, will be a specialized tool used mostly for narrow angle of view use cases by those who also use FF cameras for wide angle work.


So it’s your contention that most 7D/7DII owners also owned a FF DSLR? I highly doubt that.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So it’s your contention that most 7D/7DII owners also owned a FF DSLR? I highly doubt that.



Doubt all you want. Pretty much everyone I know that have/had one also used FF cameras, other than one PJ at a really small weekly county newspaper that was issued one by his paper. That's admittedly a small, anecdotal sample, but probably no smaller than what a wealthy enthusiast with all kinds of Super Telephotos in their collection has encountered.


----------



## Czardoom (Aug 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> You both assume most users interested in a higher end APS-C camera in the RF mount wouldn't also have FF cameras for most use cases. The high end APS-C R, if it ever sees the light of day, will be a specialized tool used mostly for narrow angle of view use cases by those who also use FF cameras for wide angle work.


I make no such assumption. All I said was that Canon can make lenses that will work for both FF and crop cameras. Not sure what you were reading into my post. I believe something like an 18-45mm lens has been rumored. That would work as a standard kit zoom for crop and a moderate wide angle for FF. In other words, no need for a line of "crop" lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 15, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I make no such assumption. All I said was that Canon can make lenses that will work for both FF and crop cameras. Not sure what you were reading into my post. I believe something like an 18-45mm lens has been rumored. That would work as a standard kit zoom for crop and a moderate wide angle for FF. In other words, no need for a line of "crop" lenses.



From your post to which I was responding:

"The only lens that would be needed for crop R cameras would be a *crop* wide angle, something like a 10-22mm."


----------



## tron (Aug 15, 2021)

Usually when we use big whites we are FL limited. So in these cases 600mm always trumps 500mm with or without TCs (we almost always crop). And I say this having the 500mm...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2021)

tron said:


> Usually when we use big whites we are FL limited. So in these cases 600mm always trumps 500mm with or without TCs (we almost always crop). And I say this having the 500mm...


That’s why I bought the 600/4 II. I considered the 800/5.6, but the 600 II + 1.4x III was better (longer FL, smaller lens, better IQ).


----------



## Dragon (Aug 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Maybe unless one is shooting sports under lights not up to major college/pro sports standards and needs f/2.8 (or at the very least f/4) no matter how well the camera can focus at apertures narrower than f/5.6


The precise situation that doesn't justify the price of the f/2.8 lens .


----------



## Dragon (Aug 15, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Yeah, I'm sure all of the birders will be happy with half the frame rate and buffer depth of the R5 in exchange for that higher pixel density with an R5s.


Not necessarily. I haven't tested the R5 in APS-c vs FF to see if there is any speed difference in stills, but it does shoot downsampled 4k/60P in crop mode and not in FF, so the potential for a fast readout APS-c mode is there and also, the hi res version just could be a stacked sensor and thus pretty fast in FF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Not necessarily. I haven't tested the R5 in APS-c vs FF to see if there is any speed difference in stills, but it does shoot downsampled 4k/60P in crop mode and not in FF, so the potential for a fast readout APS-c mode is there and also, the hi res version just could be a stacked sensor and thus pretty fast in FF.



Many others have already tested it.

There's no speed difference in cropped mode. Zero. Nada. Zilch.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 16, 2021)

Dragon said:


> The precise situation that doesn't justify the price of the f/2.8 lens .



Please explain how crappy, dim, less than full spectrum, flickering light at a sports venue is a situation where one doesn't benefit from having an f/2.8 lens versus an F/11, or even f/5.6 or f/7.1 lens?


----------



## Dragon (Aug 17, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Please explain how crappy, dim, less than full spectrum, flickering light at a sports venue is a situation where one doesn't benefit from having an f/2.8 lens versus an F/11, or even f/5.6 or f/7.1 lens?


Picture quality will absolutely benefit, but I was speaking from a potential revenue perspective. There is little to no money to be made shooting such events and thus the better lens can't be justified financially (unless, of course it is your kid on the field and you can afford the lens ).


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 17, 2021)

Dragon said:


> Picture quality will absolutely benefit, but I was speaking from a potential revenue perspective. There is little to no money to be made shooting such events and thus the better lens can't be justified financially (unless, of course it is your kid on the field and you can afford the lens ).



There's also the fact that anything that goes "out there" in public view with one's name on it reflects the overall quality of work one does. That can impact potential customers who might consider hiring one for other types of projects that are more profitable such as senior portraits, engagement shoots, piano or violin recitals, etc. This would be especially the case when one's pool of potential customers is mostly clustered around a specific school's culture as well as the greater community of which that school is a central part.


----------

