# There may be a higher-end APS-C mirrorless announced in late 2020, early 2021 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 16, 2020)

> I have been told that Canon has plans to announce a “high-end” APS-C camera in late 2020 or early 2021. Product launches are obviously affected by the current global landscape.
> What I cannot figure out from the bits of information that I have received is whether or not this camera has an EF-M mount or an RF mount.
> One source claims the new APS-C camera will basically be an “EOS R6 with a small sensor”, but the source hasn’t responded for clarification about what mount the camera would be equipped with.
> Canon will also likely release an RF 18-45mm IS STM lens in the first half of 2021, which hasn’t historically been a focal range for a full-frame camera. I am not suggesting that there will be an RF-S mount, but something relatively inexpensive to stick to the front of an APS-C equipped EOS R camera makes some sense, but I’m just hypothesizing here.
> One thing multiple sources seem to agree with is...



Continue reading...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 16, 2020)

If they are doing this, why not give it the R5 body and weather sealing. Forgive me is I am mistaken, but a high end APS-C body would mostly be for wildlife guys with a 100-500mm lens permanently attached and having a wee wade through a humid environment or even a swamp. 

I would be happy taking a 7dII or 1D body into the wild, but one with (in Canon's words suggesting inferior) 6 series weather/environmental sealing.


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 16, 2020)

How much MP can we expect? A new 24MP would be sweet! But maybe they will use the 30MP of the 90D/6MII? 

Lets hope for a really nice and not overpriced 7D-like camera!!


----------



## HenryL (Jul 16, 2020)

Wasn't there a rumor a while back about a new M-series camera placed above the M6II? Maybe this is it. Honestly the M6II is great in actual use. Two things missing that make it lackluster and unsuitable as a replacement for the 7DII - not the most robust build (don't mean size), and more importantly the lack of tracking options/cases to make it suitable for tough situations like BIF.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Jul 16, 2020)

Might As well put my kidney on the market now. I only need one anyway


----------



## LRPP (Jul 16, 2020)

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## janhalasa (Jul 16, 2020)

I was hoping for a higher end EOS-M camera, but I think it will not come - for pricing reasons. It would probably cost around $1500 witch is already a fullframe territory. It would also require better lenses. Canon prioritizes RF mount, so I think it makes more sense to spend that money on an RF camera.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 16, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> How much MP can we expect? A new 24MP would be sweet! But maybe they will use the 30MP of the 90D/6MII?
> 
> Lets hope for a really nice and not overpriced 7D-like camera!!



28MP would be in line with the R5's sensor.


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 16, 2020)

So maybe Canon is listening and will issue an R67. I have trouble believing there will be more than one or two telephoto zooms made for R mount APS-C size, but that would satisfy the small sensor bif crowd.


----------



## Marius Schamschula (Jul 16, 2020)

Well, maybe this will save me from choosing between the R5 (a bit too expensive) and R6 (too small pixel density for wildlife and aviation, inferior weather sealing) as a replacement to my 7D. I was looking for a 7D mkIII, but a R7 looks to be a better choice.


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 16, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> How much MP can we expect? A new 24MP would be sweet! But maybe they will use the 30MP of the 90D/6MII?



The 32MP is an excellent sensor, gives a nice amount of croppability, and Canon's new tech should be plenty fast enough for wildlife/sports—after all, the M6II already shoots at 14fps with the mechanical shutter, handily beating the 7D2!


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 16, 2020)

Behold!  A lot of people will be happy about this. It looks like the chances of a 7D Mark III just got dimmer though. Bet this thing will be an aspc monster.


----------



## BroderLund (Jul 16, 2020)

Seams weird to do a high end APS-C camera as an M camera as the native lens options are limited. M line up is saved by the Sigma primes.
RF mount sounds more likely given the lens selection. Yes, I know you can adapt on the EF-M mount, but still.


----------



## Whowe (Jul 16, 2020)

I'm cancelling my pre-order. I can wait another year with my existing 7Dii to get a camera that better meets my needs. R5 sounds great, but really a lot for what I need. 

I could see an APS-C R7 style costing well over $2,000, but that is better than $3,900 for R5.


----------



## Whowe (Jul 16, 2020)

BroderLund said:


> Seams weird to do a high end APS-C camera as an M camera as the native lens options are limited. M line up is saved by the Sigma primes.
> RF mount sounds more likely given the lens selection. Yes, I know you can adapt on the EF-M mount, but still.


I agree. For what they would want to charge for it and the size to make it weather sealed, rugged, etc., it really doesn't "fit" the M Series line very well. I can see it as an R series and few or NO APS-C lenses in RF mount ever made for it. Just assume owners will use full frame RF mount lenses or adapt older APS-c lenses. 

Many of the lenses I use on my 7Dii (and all of the better glass such as 100-400L, 70-200L, 300L) are full frame.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 16, 2020)

The $64,000 question: will they follow suit with Nikon and Sony and make smaller/lighter/cheaper APS-C sized RF lenses to go with it? 

If they don't, it's Canon's way of saying 'FINE. Here's your damn 7D3, you guys never stop asking for it!' but birders/wildlifers lose their mirrors. 

If they do, yowza -- it would mark the beginning of the end for both EF-M *and EF-S* mount bodies. 

- A


----------



## Marximusprime (Jul 16, 2020)

Whowe said:


> I'm cancelling my pre-order. I can wait another year with my existing 7Dii to get a camera that better meets my needs. R5 sounds great, but really a lot for what I need.
> 
> I could see an APS-C R7 style costing well over $2,000, but that is better than $3,900 for R5.



I've got a 7D II also, and I didn't place any preorders. I'd thought about the R6, but I need more pixels.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 16, 2020)

They should do what Nikon did. Have a high performance APS-C body with RF mount and 2 or 3 basic lenses. And keep the M mount for the compactness, just add 1-2 lenses per year. 
That should be enough for 90% of the customers.


----------



## Groundhog (Jul 16, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> So maybe Canon is listening and will issue an R67.



I just imagined an EOS R with 6x7 sensor


----------



## amorse (Jul 16, 2020)

I kind of wonder what this means for EF APS-C. I figured Canon would continue that because it draws a lot of customers, but if APS-C on RF mount or in R body style becomes a thing, maybe Canon is considering a larger pivot to mirrorless. The EF-M transition pathway to RF is obviously much more clunky than EF-S to EF was, so there is reason to consider that path.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 16, 2020)

amorse said:


> I kind of wonder what this means for EF APS-C.



I'm sure they'll carry on production of the current EF APS-C DSLRs for as long as there is demand for them, but new APS-C DSLRs? Doesn't look likely.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 16, 2020)

There's no need for a new mount, but an RF to M adapter would be cool. 
Is there any reason that a RF lens couldn't work on an M body if there was an appropriate adapter?


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 16, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> The $64,000 question: will they follow suit with Nikon and Sony and make smaller/lighter/cheaper APS-C sized RF lenses to go with it?
> 
> If they don't, it's Canon's way of saying 'FINE. Here's your damn 7D3, you guys never stop asking for it!' but birders/wildlifers lose their mirrors.
> 
> ...


But, it would be epic to offer say a 200-600 zoom in a lightweight RF/APS-C size with L-quality build, and say f~8 largest aperture. I’m not sure if the market for such a lens is large enough for the investment, but imagine.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> They should do what Nikon did. Have a high performance APS-C body with RF mount and 2 or 3 basic lenses. And keep the M mount for the compactness, just add 1-2 lenses per year.
> That should be enough for 90% of the customers.




...and it's a means to downsize/obsolete EF-S and EF-M someday if Canon should ever want to. Then everyone would be under one roof in RF -- without the painful 'migrating to FF means you can't use your crop lenses anymore' problem.

- A


----------



## SV (Jul 16, 2020)

An EOS R7 seems to be a logical extension


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> How much MP can we expect? A new 24MP would be sweet! But maybe they will use the 30MP of the 90D/6MII?


45mp+ would be a a lot sweeter...


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 16, 2020)

amorse said:


> I kind of wonder what this means for EF APS-C. I figured Canon would continue that because it draws a lot of customers, but if APS-C on RF mount or in R body style becomes a thing, maybe Canon is considering a larger pivot to mirrorless. The EF-M transition pathway to RF is obviously much more clunky than EF-S to EF was, so there is reason to consider that path.




I think Canon may take a page from Nikon's book on crop and just make an RF mount crop platform -- lenses and APS-C R mount bodies -- to (eventually) get out of EF-S.

The low end of that line would need to be really cheap to replace what the entry Rebel line does for the business financially.

- A


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

HenryL said:


> Wasn't there a rumor a while back about a new M-series camera placed above the M6II? Maybe this is it. Honestly the M6II is great in actual use. Two things missing that make it lackluster and unsuitable as a replacement for the 7DII - not the most robust build (don't mean size), and more importantly the lack of tracking options/cases to make it suitable for tough situations like BIF.


Naaah, the biggest problem with the M6 Mk II is that it's relatively slow and kludgy to adjust settings on the fly.

The main problem with BIFs is the EVF - it's not responsive enough. But the AF actually tracks pretty well, otherwise.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 16, 2020)

Canon painted themselves into a corner with the R mount and its lack of interchangeability with other mounts/formats. It will be interesting to see if and how they address this going forward. It seems like no matter what path they take, it carries a lot of risk at a time when a shrinking market is unforgiving.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jul 16, 2020)

I guess there could be an APS-C R7 in the pipeline and may be even R 10D 20D etc plus some new RF-S lenses.

I am looking forward to some new EOS M bodies too, that would give us lots to chat about on here but if all this is to come I think that might be the final nail in the coffin for the EOS DSLR line-up though, which some people might miss.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 16, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> They should do what Nikon did. Have a high performance APS-C body with RF mount and 2 or 3 basic lenses. And keep the M mount for the compactness, just add 1-2 lenses per year.
> That should be enough for 90% of the customers.



The problem Canon have is that they have two incompatible lens mounts, EF-M for APS-S and R for Full-frame. Sony use a single mount for both as do Nikon now.


EF-M is a big seller for Canon, so no chance they'll abandon it now. 


I don't think the 7D crowd will be happy with an EF-M mount camera now, they will want the new RF long lenses. 


I can't see Canon releasing any APS-C only R lenses though. The 18-45 lens will probably be FF capable, but just with reduced quality towards the (FF) edges.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 16, 2020)

With the AF, IBIS, and 12/20 fps in the R6 I'm not sure what Canon could offer in an APS-C, R-mount camera. I guess pixel density (32mp sensor) and a top plate display.

Personally I would rather see the 83mp FF body become reality.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I don't think the 7D crowd will be happy with an EF-M mount camera now, _they will want the new RF long lenses_.


Wouldn't bet on it. We've generally got lots of big expensive "legacy mount" lenses that we want to keep using. My 500mm f/4 Mk II didn't stop working when the RF mount came out...


----------



## 1D4 (Jul 16, 2020)

If this ends up being an RF-mount R7, I'll be pre-ordering it the minute it goes up. Exactly what I was looking for in a second body to go with the R5.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 16, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Wouldn't bet on it. We've generally got lots of big expensive "legacy mount" lenses that we want to keep using. My 500mm f/4 Mk II didn't stop working when the RF mount came out...



I'm not counting EF lenses because they work on both EF-M and R mounts. But if you had to choose between available lens options for the EF-M mount and the RF mount, the RF mount has the new lightweight long lenses.


Having said that, the EF-M mount has lightweight and high quality primes such as the 22mm, 28mm macro and 35mm along with the super 11-22mm ultrawide, so if Canon were to produce an upmarket EF-M body and perhaps the new 100-400 f/5.5-7.1 as an EF-M lens for those wanting lighter zooms.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 16, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Having said that, the EF-M mount has lightweight and high quality primes such as the 22mm, 28mm macro and 35mm along with the super 11-22mm ultrawide, so if Canon were to produce an upmarket EF-M body and perhaps the new 100-400 f/5.5-7.1 as an EF-M lens for those wanting lighter zooms.



Forgot to add that if Canon were to do a 'serious' EF-M mount camera they'd also need a new EF-M->EF adaptor with weather sealing.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 16, 2020)

Groundhog said:


> I just imagined an EOS R with 6x7 sensor


Centimetres or inches?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 16, 2020)

Ah! Smaller sensor is to avoid overheating. We get it.


----------



## derpderp (Jul 16, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> If they are doing this, why not give it the R5 body and weather sealing. Forgive me is I am mistaken, but a high end APS-C body would mostly be for wildlife guys with a 100-500mm lens permanently attached and having a wee wade through a humid environment or even a swamp.
> 
> I would be happy taking a 7dII or 1D body into the wild, but one with (in Canon's words suggesting inferior) 6 series weather/environmental sealing.



lmao anything with r5 body and weather sealing would be r5 priced.


----------



## bbb34 (Jul 16, 2020)

Etienne said:


> There's no need for a new mount, but an RF to M adapter would be cool.
> Is there any reason that a RF lens couldn't work on an M body if there was an appropriate adapter?



A simple adapter without glass is hardly possible. The difference of the flange distances is only 2 mm. I think the bajonette part of the RF lens would conflict with the more narrow opening of the M body.


----------



## BillB (Jul 16, 2020)

It seems to me that a new aps-c camera could be either a top of the line EF-M mount camera or a sort of 7DIIIish RF mount camera. Snomennew lenses would seem to be implied. 
The camera would likely have the sensor in the M6II or 90D, or possibly something better. My guess is that it will be something along the lines of an M5 II, with the DIGIC X and firmware from the R5 and R6.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

“EOS R6 with a small sensor”

Smaller than what? Smaller than the R6?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 16, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> I guess there could be an APS-C R7 in the pipeline _and may be even R 10D 20D etc plus some new RF-S lenses_.




The blue part above is the slippery slope. If R7 is a mirrorless 7D3 and that is all they offer with R mount + APS-C, they can (as others have said here) get away with just 2-3 crop RF lenses -- an ultrawide zoom a la EF-M 11-22, standard zoom a la EF-M 15-45 or 18-55, etc.

But they minute they cross over into the bigger / wider use-case / more varied userbases of general crop shooters (even at the 90D price point), there will be pressure to offer a proper line of crop-only RF glass -- they'll want small telephoto zooms, 60mm 1:1 macro, pancakes, etc. That's tantamount to double/triple dipping on EF-S and EF-M, and I think Canon would only go there if they intended to get rid of EF-S altogether. They will certainly eventually get to that point, but it may not be that soon. Crop SLRs still make Canon a ton of money, don't they?

- A


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 16, 2020)

Oh man. Crossing my fingers for an "R7".
I hope for something in the 20-25megapixels range. I don't care much about video, but a 6K optimized 25megapixels camera would probably be good for marketing 
Tried the 90D with the 32megapixels and didn't like the results. Found the high iso photos of 90D difficult to get satisfying result with (even when downscaled to 7DII equialent 20mp).
But please please please. I hope for at least something, even if 90D's sensor


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> but birders/wildlifers lose their mirrors.



I mostly lost my mirror with the EOS-R, and will almost certainly retire it when my R5 gets here.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> 45mp+ would be a a lot sweeter...




R5 enters the chat....


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Might As well put my kidney on the market now. I only need one anyway




I can vouch for this.

Transplanted in 2010 - have three but only one works.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 16, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> The blue part above is the slippery slope. If R7 is a mirrorless 7D3 and that is all they offer with R mount + APS-C, they can (as others have said here) get away with just 2-3 crop RF lenses -- an ultrawide zoom a la EF-M 11-22, standard zoom a la EF-M 15-45 or 18-55, etc.
> 
> But they minute they cross over into the bigger / wider use-case / more varied userbases of general crop shooters (even at the 90D price point), there will be pressure to offer a proper line of crop-only RF glass -- they'll want small telephoto zooms, 60mm 1:1 macro, pancakes, etc. That's tantamount to double/triple dipping on EF-S and EF-M, and I think Canon would only go there if they intended to get rid of EF-S altogether. They will certainly eventually get to that point, but it may not be that soon. Crop SLRs still make Canon a ton of money, don't they?
> 
> - A


For offering cheap "RF-S" lenses they always have the option of simply using existing formulas for EF-S and EF-M but fit the lenses with an RF mount. That should keep development costs quite low.


----------



## Boblblawslawblg (Jul 16, 2020)

If they don’t add that flagship M series camera and do this new high end crop sensor as an R-Mount they mind as well end the M series. M6ii is a great little guy, but if that’s were we cap out I’d be a little upset.
Not all of us have the money for R series camera lenses. 
I swear every time I choose a technology they end up scrapping it right after the investment.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 16, 2020)

Etienne said:


> There's no need for a new mount, but an RF to M adapter would be cool.
> Is there any reason that a RF lens couldn't work on an M body if there was an appropriate adapter?



Not possible, both because of the flange distance and the different protocols for RF and M lenses. 

Theoretically possible to build something where the whole mount assembly can be replaced with either an RF or M version, but I'd be concerned what tolerances would be needed to make it work (perhaps not so much if the sensor has IBIS) and how it would be strong enough to support the lens weight and the weather sealing.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 16, 2020)

and please also put gps in it ;-)


----------



## davidhfe (Jul 16, 2020)

I don't see how Canon can replace all those Rebels they sell at Costco without RF-S bodies. I suppose they could greatly expand the M line, but that doesn't offer much of an upgrade path to RF, which seems like it'd be a critical goal. The nice thing here is that RF-S bodies in this case would pair well with the higher res R bodies going forward since they'd actually be able to mount -S lenses, unlike with EF-S


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> But, it would be epic to offer say a 200-600 zoom in a lightweight RF/APS-C size with L-quality build, and say f~8 largest aperture. I’m not sure if the market for such a lens is large enough for the investment, but imagine.




They just passed the perfect opportunity to do this if they were going to but they gave us the 100-500L instead.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> but birders/wildlifers lose their mirrors




On second thought - some would say we already have so to speak.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Smaller than what? Smaller than the R6?



Should be smaller, otherwise it won't fit into the R6...


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 16, 2020)

Personally, I think this will be an RF mount camera. Since it will be “high end” there will be no need or demand for cheap RF-s lenses. This is for the birders. I assume they will use their EF super-tele lenses and future RF super-tele lenses.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Wouldn't bet on it. We've generally got lots of big expensive "legacy mount" lenses that we want to keep using. My 500mm f/4 Mk II didn't stop working when the RF mount came out...



Exactly this - not to mention the large majority of people who want to use the new long RF lenses won't get far past wanting - those damn things are expensive now and will be even more expensive when they tack RF on the front.

I, for one, am waiting on samples of the 100-500L and the new 1.4X to see what's what.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 16, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> 28MP would be in line with the R5's sensor.



No, the difference is the crop factor _squared_. So a 45MP FF sensor like the R5's gives a ~17.6MP APS-C equivalent. The 7D2's pixel density is about the same as the 50MP 5DR/s.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

1D4 said:


> If this ends up being an RF-mount R7, I'll be pre-ordering it the minute it goes up. Exactly what I was looking for in a second body to go with the R5.




If I keep upgrading, my 'second body' collection is going to make my wife beat me to death with a monopod out of my 'collection' of those...

I had Rebel XT and bought a 40D. The Rebel XT became my second body.

Then along comes the 7D2. The 40D becomes my second body.

Then along comes the 5D4. The 7D2 becomes the second body but doesn't get used much because OMG the 5D4 and FF OMGWTFBBQ.

The along comes the EOS-R. 5D4 says 'oh hell no' and the tussle ensues. The battle for primary body continues to this day.

Now R5 is on its way and the EOS-R and 5D4 are staring at each other and foot tapping..


----------



## Red Dog (Jul 16, 2020)

Time for a high end mirrorless sports camera to equate with 1dx mkiii. Drop the video nonsense - never use it and have no need for it. If I want something to burst into flames I'll use a match and some firelighters like everyone else.


----------



## 1D4 (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> If I keep upgrading, my 'second body' collection is going to make my wife beat me to death with a monopod out of my 'collection' of those...
> 
> I had Rebel XT and bought a 40D. The Rebel XT became my second body.
> 
> ...



Sell the wife, buy the mythical R7...problem solved


----------



## docsmith (Jul 16, 2020)

Whether it is called a M5 II or M1 does not really matter to me, but I would love an M-mount 7D I/II replacement. I really enjoy the M6 II. You can keep the sensor and a number of other features, but add improved weather sealing, IBIS (my M camera is what I use for video), a bit better AF (speed/tracking/etc), a few higher end EF-m lenses and I will gladly upgrade.

Personally, an M5 II with built in EVF but the same general size as the M5/6 and an M1 that is a bit larger in the hands would be great, if anyone where to ask me....which they don't...ever.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> R5 enters the chat....


I actually want 45mp on a crop camera.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 16, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Canon painted themselves into a corner with the R mount and its lack of interchangeability with other mounts/formats. It will be interesting to see if and how they address this going forward. It seems like no matter what path they take, it carries a lot of risk at a time when a shrinking market is unforgiving.





jolyonralph said:


> The problem Canon have is that they have two incompatible lens mounts, EF-M for APS-S and R for Full-frame. Sony use a single mount for both as do Nikon now.



It's surely logical to presume they knew what they were doing. A lot has been made on these forums about the 'lack of an upgrade path' from M to R, but Canon knew that limitation would exist, and it seems they decided it wasn't as important as other factors.

My take has always been, APS-C means M, FF now means RF. Canon seems to think the former is mostly about small size. Maybe it'll change a bit as DSLR sales decline relative to MILC, but I'd still be surprised by an APS-C RF body. The new superteles seem to point to their strategy for budget-minded birders.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

1D4 said:


> Sell the wife, buy the mythical R7...problem solved




Nah.. Love her too much. Been together since we were 15 or so - almost 41 years.


----------



## HenryL (Jul 16, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Naaah, the biggest problem with the M6 Mk II is that it's relatively slow and kludgy to adjust settings on the fly.
> 
> The main problem with BIFs is the EVF - it's not responsive enough. But the AF actually tracks pretty well, otherwise.


Well, in fairness all fairness yes - if you can keep a focus point on the bird, AND provided it doesn't fly behind a tree or other obstacle, it can do an ok job. As soon as either one of those things happens, focus is gone and the lens racks out and the opportunity is gone. I have tried and tried over these last few months with the M6II and 100-400II and it's just not viable for this. The 7DII outperforms it many times over.

Don't get me wrong, I do thoroughly enjoy the camera, I have no problem with the EVF, and for bird on a branch, tracking grandkids on a bike, etc, it's awesome. I find the PQ to be superior to the 7DII overall, and I also find the files easier to work with compared to the older camera. When it's crunch time, though, I'm reaching for the 7DII every time. It just works.


----------



## bbasiaga (Jul 16, 2020)

I'm struggling with the idea of an RF-S lens. The distance to the sensor from the bayonet would still have to be the same as the RF lens, since the mount/sensor relationship is the same as you'd need in order to maintain compatibility with the full frame lenses. I suppose the rear glass could still come in to the body farther on account of needing a smaller image circle. It would even still mount on a FF variant although it wouldn't cover the whole sensor. I guess you'd be somewhat limited in the size savings as the RF mount is bigger than the EF mount, so the smallest RF lens will still be bigger. But maybe it could work as an ecosystem. Will be exciting to see.


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> They just passed the perfect opportunity to do this if they were going to but they gave us the 100-500L instead.


Yeah, but an R/APS-C sensor body was not on the horizon when it was released. I guess it could have been used in crop mode on theR5, but underwhelming in pixel density. It could still happen, but agree low probability.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

HenryL said:


> Well, in fairness all fairness yes - if you can keep a focus point on the bird, AND provided it doesn't fly behind a tree or other obstacle, it can do an ok job. As soon as either one of those things happens, focus is gone and the lens racks out and the opportunity is gone. I have tried and tried over these last few months with the M6II and 100-400II and it's just not viable for this. The 7DII outperforms it many times over.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I do thoroughly enjoy the camera, I have no problem with the EVF, and for bird on a branch, tracking grandkids on a bike, etc, it's awesome. I find the PQ to be superior to the 7DII overall, and I also find the files easier to work with compared to the older camera. When it's crunch time, though, I'm reaching for the 7DII every time. It just works.




I had good results with my 7D2 as well. Then I got my 5D4 and my keeper rate went through the roof. I felt like I was cheating.


----------



## Joules (Jul 16, 2020)

I don't feel like trying to tie everything into the old DSLR lineup is that much good.

The R5 and R6 have similarities to the 5D and 6D series, but the are also very much different.

To me it seems many people are looking for a 7D II upgrade for completely different reasons. Somehow I don't feel like all of them will get what they want.

A release of an APS-C RF camera would certainly send quite a weird message, unless they also expand the EF-M lineup at the same time.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

HenryL said:


> Well, in fairness all fairness yes - if you can keep a focus point on the bird, AND provided it doesn't fly behind a tree or other obstacle, it can do an ok job. As soon as either one of those things happens, focus is gone and the lens racks out and the opportunity is gone. I have tried and tried over these last few months with the M6II and 100-400II and it's just not viable for this. The 7DII outperforms it many times over.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I do thoroughly enjoy the camera, I have no problem with the EVF, and for bird on a branch, tracking grandkids on a bike, etc, it's awesome. I find the PQ to be superior to the 7DII overall, and I also find the files easier to work with compared to the older camera. When it's crunch time, though, I'm reaching for the 7DII every time. It just works.


We're on the same page, I think - I have had some excellent days with the M6 Mk II - I did a whole day shoot of rutting deer in the UK last year with it and the 100-400mm, and it performed beyond my expectations. But I still find the inability to quickly and _intuitively_ change settings I can literally change with my eyes shut on my DSLRs, a downside.

Aside from that, it's just a matter of having realistic expectations, I think - I didn't expect it to out-perform my 1-Dx (and I wasn't disappointed on that score!  ) - and you make a valid point about the lens racking out and not recovering focus in anything like a useful amount of time. I put that down to the small battery, which I was asking a lot of to drive the 100-400mm as well as my DSLRs do.

I also agree that the quality of the files off the camera is very impressive.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 16, 2020)

Joules said:


> The R5 and R6 have similarities to the 5D and 6D series, but the are also very much different.



The R6 seems to have went up market a little bit but then they also decided to give it a lesser body just to make the R5 better rather than let the sensors separate them. I don't know if a R7 APS-C body fits anymore with there being a strong suggestion of a full FF lineup and even a sub $1000 FF body.


----------



## NotSure700 (Jul 16, 2020)

A Canon R7 is exactly what i was hoping for. I love the 1120mm field of view i'm getting with mit 7D2+1.4TCIII+500mmF4II and an upgrade to full frame would be much more expensive than a R7.

Canon doesn't even have to build RF-S lenses. They could just build small and affordable lenses which are slightly to small for full frame sensors but ideal for APS-C like the 24-105 F4-7.1. Even a switch to a 1.5 crop factor would be possible.

People looking for even smaller cameras and lenses can still buy the EF-M system which is very popular and not going anywhere.


----------



## HenryL (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I had good results with my 7D2 as well. Then I got my 5D4 and my keeper rate went through the roof. I felt like I was cheating.


What a great way to describe it! My experience was similar to yours - but I sold the 5D4 a few months back so brought out the 7D2. They were a great pair, so very similar in control and layout that switching between the two in the field was a breeze. 

I am really hoping the R5 will make me miss it just a little less. To be honest, Canon set the bar high with the 5D4 but I'm cautiously optimistic that the new camera won't disappoint.


----------



## nchoh (Jul 16, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Canon painted themselves into a corner with the R mount and its lack of interchangeability with other mounts/formats. It will be interesting to see if and how they address this going forward. It seems like no matter what path they take, it carries a lot of risk at a time when a shrinking market is unforgiving.



I don't see how Canon painted themselves into a corner. It's only a problem if the existence of the multiple lens mounts result in un-competitiveness or un-sustainability. To me it seems like the EOS M system has it's own following thus resulting in Canon have a larger market than it would have otherwise.


----------



## dtaylor (Jul 16, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Ah! Smaller sensor is to avoid overheating. We get it.



I was planning a deep space mission to Venus but Canon can't tell me if this new pro APS-C can do 4k 60p at 900F for two hours without overheating. We know the R5 can't handle that. Really Canon...very unprofessional of you. Looks like I'm going to Sony!


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

dtaylor said:


> I was planning a deep space mission to Venus but Canon can't tell me if this new pro APS-C can do 4k 60p at 900F for two hours without overheating. We know the R5 can't handle that. Really Canon...very unprofessional of you. Looks like I'm going to Sony!


But it's very cold in space, so it might be OK as long as you only use it outside, and before you land...


----------



## davidhfe (Jul 16, 2020)

nchoh said:


> I don't see how Canon painted themselves into a corner. It's only a problem if the existence of the multiple lens mounts result in un-competitiveness or un-sustainability. To me it seems like the EOS M system has it's own following thus resulting in Canon have a larger market than it would have otherwise.



The nice thing about both EF-M and EF-S is they provided an upgrade path to better lenses. I had the terrible kit 18-55 I on my 20D. A while after I got a 60D, and ended up putting a 28-70L on it, knowing I was probably going to move to full frame. And now, I'll probably just stick with an adaptor on a mirrorless body. It's really nice that literally every lens in my bag can be mounted on a R/5/6.

The "problem" with RF on a small body is it's a huge mount. Even RF-S lenses would likely be super chunky at the back. You're just not gonna get something like the EF-M 22 on RF. There'll be a size difference.

EF-M messes with that. So either Canon:
- Has research showing that crop buyers don't move to full frame as often as we all think and will just keep 2 systems
- Plans to consolidate the two somehow
- Hasn't figured out their long term plan yet?


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 16, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> as the RF mount is bigger than the EF mount



EF and RF mount has the exact same diameter.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

HenryL said:


> What a great way to describe it! My experience was similar to yours - but I sold the 5D4 a few months back so brought out the 7D2. They were a great pair, so very similar in control and layout that switching between the two in the field was a breeze.
> 
> I am really hoping the R5 will make me miss it just a little less. To be honest, Canon set the bar high with the 5D4 but I'm cautiously optimistic that the new camera won't disappoint.



Did you sell it to finance the R5? It's such a great camera. I had it out in the yard day before yesterday on my new econo-gimbal birding.

I think you'll be thrilled with the R5. I went from the 5D4 to the EOS-R and had about a three second adjustment period to learn to love the EVF, but the transition in that regard was painless. Some of the other features - like 'touch and drag' auto-focus and edge to edge focus area will win you over before you take the first picture.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I actually want 45mp on a crop camera.




Why? The 'extra reach' of the crop?


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 16, 2020)

Hopefully it uses the current EF-M mount. these are great little cameras and that lens mount helps keep the total system small, especially with longer focal length lenses. A nice compliment to the larger R cameras. Hopefully it will have the IBIS system like the R5. I'll wait for some specs to come in before asking if it has any missing features, because I do have one hot burning spec questions.


----------



## nchoh (Jul 16, 2020)

Looking at the M design language, it would seem to me that if Canon came out with a higher end EOS M camera, it would likely be with IBIS rather than weather sealing. Of course Canon could also come out with an aps-c R camera to replace the 7D as a bird shooter. But with the introduction of the R5 and R6 together with the 600 and 800 and extenders, is an R aps-c camera needed to assume the role of a 7D?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 16, 2020)

You all might be missing the real opportunity here: 800mm f/11 + RF-S speed booster on an RF-S body. Ratchet that image circle down to 1.6 crop, and you now have an effective 1120mm f/8. In fact, that might be the primary reason those f/11 lenses exist.


----------



## nchoh (Jul 16, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> I don't see how Canon can replace all those Rebels they sell at Costco without RF-S bodies. I suppose they could greatly expand the M line, but that doesn't offer much of an upgrade path to RF, which seems like it'd be a critical goal. The nice thing here is that RF-S bodies in this case would pair well with the higher res R bodies going forward since they'd actually be able to mount -S lenses, unlike with EF-S



Great point, Canon will definitely be looking at how to address the N American market which by and large ignores the M cameras. I think they'll just minimally update the Rebel models (at least for the next 2 years perhaps?).


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Looking at the M design language, it would seem to me that if Canon came out with a higher end EOS M camera, it would likely be with IBIS rather than weather sealing. Of course Canon could also come out with an aps-c R camera to replace the 7D as a bird shooter. But with the introduction of the R5 and R6 together with the 600 and 800 and extenders, is an R aps-c camera needed to assume the role of a 7D?




I only speak for me obviously but as a former 7D2 shooter I don't understand why people dwell on the crop bodies for wildlife. Aside from the extra reach (which I overcame using the 1.4X) I don't see the attraction. When I head out the door birding (which is almost what I do exclusively) I'm carrying the 5D4 or EOS-R.

They are superior than the 7D2 in every single way except FPS. 

YMMV..


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 16, 2020)

It's not a given that I would fully switch to mirrorless, but if I did then an R7 next spring/summer to pair with the planned R5 could be very sweet. Basically an R5 body and exactly the same controls for muscle memory; 30-35 MP like the 90D; 12/20 fps. Uncropped oversampled 4K _and _crop 4K. Two card slots - maybe somebody smarter than me could work out whether CFexpress would be needed? Price hopefully a bit less than the R6.

And Canon, give us a fully L-class weatherproof 15-XXX f/4 standard zoom for RF crop!! - like you never did for EF-S.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Price hopefully a bit less than the R6.



With those specs? That would be a surprise.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Why? The 'extra reach' of the crop?


Yep, that. I love my 10Dx, but I really miss the "croppability" of higher density sensors.

I'm a paid-up subscriber to the benefits of maximal _Pixels Per Duck_...

(And to head it off, I'm not up for discussing my "error" here - I know what I've seen in years of Real World shooting...)


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> With those specs? That would be a surprise.


Not really, given that it's an R6 with a crop sensor but a bit more processing power needed due to the higher res. One should trade off against the other. And look how cheap the 32.5 MP 10 fps 90D is in comparison.


----------



## Karlbug (Jul 16, 2020)

Apart from birders I don't truly understand who would benefit from an APS-C R camera. (Disclaimer: I own both R and M bodies and lenses.)

APS-C can have advantage of cost, size and reach. Cost can be covered by cheap FF R bodies, size advantage would be only with RF-S lenses and reach, well, if we ignore extenders then R7 can make sense here.

I doubt Canon would make a fully featured set of RF-S lenses. Just look at EF-S lineup or Nikon's Z crop lineup, they are pathetic, you're supposed to use bigger and costlier FF lenses. Even standalone EF-M lineup is not full after all those years. Sony's E lenses lineup is also somehow neglected. You'd be left waiting years for any new offerings.

It would inevitably mean using fullframe lenses on your crop R camera. That means M vs crop R:

EF-M 32mm f/1.4 vs RF 35mm f/1.8, first much smaller with 2/3 EV faster aperture.
EF-M 22mm f/2 vs rumored RF 24mm f/2.8, first amazingly compact and cheap, second probably heavier (due IS and Macro), with 1 EV slower aperture
EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 vs rumored RF 18-45, first compact and cheap, the second probably bigger, not that wide and who knows with latest Canon trends, maybe even f/7.1 aperture.
EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 vs... what? Canon could release something like RF 10-18mm f/5.6-7.1 with soft fullframe corners to shave some weight. Otherwise you're left with massive EF 11-24 f/4L, RF widest luxurious RF 15-35mm, or adapting EF-S 10-18.
EF-M 18-150mm vs... what? I doubt there would be fullframe RF 18-150 lens, so adapt EF-S lens and hope for RF-S.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 16, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> The nice thing about both EF-M and EF-S is they provided an upgrade path to better lenses. I had the terrible kit 18-55 I on my 20D. A while after I got a 60D, and ended up putting a 28-70L on it, knowing I was probably going to move to full frame. And now, I'll probably just stick with an adaptor on a mirrorless body. It's really nice that literally every lens in my bag can be mounted on a R/5/6.
> 
> The "problem" with RF on a small body is it's a huge mount. Even RF-S lenses would likely be super chunky at the back. You're just not gonna get something like the EF-M 22 on RF. There'll be a size difference.
> 
> ...


You've articulated the problem nicely. It almost feels like Canon rushed the M system into production so they'd have something in the mirrorless realm, figuring that mirrorless would be dominated by small cameras and small sensors. Then, decided there was a market for full frame mirrorless and decided to jump into that in a big way, but realized that to fully take advantage of mirrorless they'd need an entirely new full frame mount since the M mount was unsuitable for full frame, so had to roll the dice on yet another mount. 

Maybe that's not how it happened, but it sure feels like it.

I respect their courage in deciding to create a new RF mount, despite the risks, but I don't think anyone can deny that it has created some real challenges for them in compatibility. 

Nowhere is that more evident than in the enthusiast/professional APS-C realm. Things were quite simple with the 7D series. Canon produced a handful of APS-C lenses that were suitable at the wide/normal range (one ultra-wide and two standard zooms) and that was all they needed, as the 7D market ended up being dominated by those wanting the extra reach that APS-C offers on longer lenses and for that the EF lenses were perfect.

But, with mirrorless there is dilemma. Do they use the M mount, where they don't have either a 15-85 mm general purpose lens or a standard zoom with fast constant aperture? Or do they do a one-off with the R system and, as they did with APS-H, never bothering to offer lenses in the wide-to-standard range? 

Hence, my reference to them painting themselves into a corner.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 16, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Wouldn't bet on it. We've generally got lots of big expensive "legacy mount" lenses that we want to keep using. My 500mm f/4 Mk II didn't stop working when the RF mount came out...



And it would work on an M body just as well.


----------



## HenryL (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Did you sell it to finance the R5? It's such a great camera. I had it out in the yard day before yesterday on my new econo-gimbal birding.
> 
> I think you'll be thrilled with the R5. I went from the 5D4 to the EOS-R and had about a three second adjustment period to learn to love the EVF, but the transition in that regard was painless. Some of the other features - like 'touch and drag' auto-focus and edge to edge focus area will win you over before you take the first picture.



Yes and no...I had budgeted for a 5D4 replacement this year anyway, whether DSLR or mirrorless. Since right now and for the immediate future, with the covid situation being what it is, I'm really only doing wildlife and nature stuff not getting back to portraits as I had hoped. 7D2 can covers those needs easily, so between the two cameras, the 5D4 was going to net more $$$ so I got rid of it. Plus, my son is eying my 7D2, and he may luck out if the R5 is all it's cracked up to be. 

I picked up the M6II on a whim...something to play with and see if I could get used to an EVF. Turns out it's not horrible, go figure.  I struggle with touch & drag. it sounds good, but I'm a left eye shooter and struggle getting my thumb on the screen to move without taking my eye away from the viewfinder. I keep trying, and I hope the larger R5 makes it easier to move. If not I get my joystick controller back and I'm perfectly fine with that. The edge to edge is nice for sure.

I really do hope now that a 5DV doesn't materialize...because I don't know if I'd be able to resist even if I have an R5 already.


----------



## davidhfe (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I only speak for me obviously but as a former 7D2 shooter I don't understand why people dwell on the crop bodies for wildlife. Aside from the extra reach (which I overcame using the 1.4X) I don't see the attraction. When I head out the door birding (which is almost what I do exclusively) I'm carrying the 5D4 or EOS-R.
> 
> They are superior than the 7D2 in every single way except FPS.
> 
> YMMV..



Reach, FPS (and cost!) are significant advantages though! I'm not a birder, but for sports I found a significant difference when shooting at 10 fps vs the 7 of my 5D4. Very excited to move to a 12/20fps body.


----------



## HenryL (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I only speak for me obviously but as a former 7D2 shooter I don't understand why people dwell on the crop bodies for wildlife. Aside from the extra reach (which I overcame using the 1.4X) I don't see the attraction. When I head out the door birding (which is almost what I do exclusively) I'm carrying the 5D4 or EOS-R.
> 
> They are superior than the 7D2 in every single way except FPS.
> 
> YMMV..


I can't speak to the R, but the 5D4 relegated my 7D2 to backup (closet) status as well while I had both. AF and tracking are both superior (by a lot) on the 5D4, and even though it netted fewer "pixels on target" than the crop, the final output was better IMHO. Damn, y'all makin' me get all misty over selling my baby.... Did you hear that Canon and B&H? Save me save me get my R5 out the door.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 16, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> Very excited to move to a 12/20fps body.



You and me both!!


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And it would work on an M body just as well.


Been there, done that - I've had great fun with my 100-400mm mounted to my M6 Mk II.


----------



## This_That (Jul 16, 2020)

But can it do 16k video AND cook breakfast?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Aside from the extra reach (which I overcame using the 1.4X) I don't see the attraction.


I sometimes run out of reach with a 500mm f/4 Mk II mounted to my 7D Mk II via my 2x converter - 1600mm of effective reach _before_ taking cropping/Pixels Per Duck into account.

There's no such thing as too much reach, and anything which helps obviate being focal length challenged is welcome to me.


----------



## Traveler (Jul 16, 2020)

I’ve wished they’d skip apsc and focus only on FF. They can make even a cheaper body than the RP for beginners, they can make cheap lenses for FF too. It would be easier for beginners to transition from entry-level to professional.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I sometimes run out of reach with a 500mm f/4 Mk II mounted to my 7D Mk II via my 2x converter - 1600mm of effective reach _before_ taking cropping/Pixels Per Duck into account.
> 
> There's no such thing as too much reach, and anything which helps obviate being focal length challenged is welcome to me.



Is your work posted some where? I'd love to see images taken with that combination.. I want that lens and it is one of the few I've seen that can produce decent images with the 2X.


----------



## PureClassA (Jul 16, 2020)

I kept saying a full sized (not full frame) RF mount APS-C camera was inevitable... Canon is diving way too deep into making RF glass for them not to. The M series will stick around I suppose for the foreseeable future, but no reason not to add APS-C RF models as well. The desire for those WILL be there for the guys looking for a legit 7D line RF replacement


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 16, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> You and me both!!




Make it a third.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 16, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> You all might be missing the real opportunity here: 800mm f/11 + RF-S speed booster on an RF-S body. Ratchet that image circle down to 1.6 crop, and you now have an effective 1120mm f/8. In fact, that might be the primary reason those f/11 lenses exist.


I don't see how one is able to get a lens with a 140mm entrance pupil from a lens with a 73mm entrance pupil


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 16, 2020)

Kit. said:


> I don't see how one is able to get a lens with a 140mm entrance pupil from a lens with a 73mm entrance pupil



With the mythical "RF-S speed booster" mentioned in the post.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Jul 16, 2020)

This rumor contradicts a previous rumor on this site from a few weeks ago of two upcoming M cameras (rumored M50 Mark II and M5 Mark II). And today's further rumor of the M50 Mark II means this "high level" APS-C mirrorless camera is more then likely the M5 Mark II, and not an RF based APS-C camera. An M5 Mark II with IBIS, weather sealing, and at least M6 Mark II performance can easily be the successor to the 7D Mark II. Or, will Canon simply make an M5 Mark II and an RF based APS-C camera to satisfy everyone?


----------



## Boblblawslawblg (Jul 16, 2020)

Sibir Lupus said:


> This rumor contradicts a previous rumor on this site from a few weeks ago of two upcoming M cameras (rumored M50 Mark II and M5 Mark II). And today's further rumor of the M50 Mark II means this "high level" APS-C mirrorless camera is more then likely the M5 Mark II, and not an RF based APS-C camera. An M5 Mark II with IBIS, weather sealing, and at least M6 Mark II performance can easily be the successor to the 7D Mark II. Or, will Canon simply make an M5 Mark II and an RF based APS-C camera to satisfy everyone?


All I want is that M5ii to match with my M6ii and M100. I have the glass, Sigma Primes, Laowa Macro, Canon 22, Tamron 18-200 - now I just need that M5ii so I can have a flash and EVF.


----------



## AEWest (Jul 16, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I'm struggling with the idea of an RF-S lens. The distance to the sensor from the bayonet would still have to be the same as the RF lens, since the mount/sensor relationship is the same as you'd need in order to maintain compatibility with the full frame lenses. I suppose the rear glass could still come in to the body farther on account of needing a smaller image circle. It would even still mount on a FF variant although it wouldn't cover the whole sensor. I guess you'd be somewhat limited in the size savings as the RF mount is bigger than the EF mount, so the smallest RF lens will still be bigger. But maybe it could work as an ecosystem. Will be exciting to see.


I seriously doubt there will be RF-S lenses developed. How many lens mounts could Canon have in the current marketplace? Now there are EF, EF-s, M, and R. Now adding another one? They want to reduce the number of mounts, not increase.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 16, 2020)

Boblblawslawblg said:


> All I want is that M5ii to match with my M6ii and M100. I have the glass, Sigma Primes, Laowa Macro, Canon 22, Tamron 18-200 - now I just need that M5ii so I can have a flash and EVF.



I'm waiting for everything to trickle down into the M300/M400, 32MP, Digic 8 or X and maybe IBIS. I enjoy the M6II, but often it's just slightly to bulky to take with me. Good eye-AF and HEIF would cover most of my use cases for it.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 16, 2020)

Groundhog said:


> I just imagined an EOS R with 6x7 sensor



Now THAT.....I'd be in the market for!!!!!


Maybe let's shoot for the mood and ask for 6x9 or 6x12?



C


----------



## zim (Jul 16, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> If they are doing this, why not give it the R5 body and weather sealing. Forgive me is I am mistaken, but a high end APS-C body would mostly be for wildlife guys with a 100-500mm lens permanently attached and having a wee wade through a humid environment or even a swamp.
> 
> I would be happy taking a 7dII or 1D body into the wild, but one with (in Canon's words suggesting inferior) 6 series weather/environmental sealing.


I liked this just for the 'wee wade' comment


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Jul 16, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I'm waiting for everything to trickle down into the M300/M400, 32MP, Digic 8 or X and maybe IBIS. I enjoy the M6II, but often it's just slightly to bulky to take with me. Good eye-AF and HEIF would cover most of my use cases for it.



As great as that would be, I don't see Canon putting all of that into an entry level MX00 camera for a LOOOONG time. The M300 may get the 32MP sensor, but that depends on which sensor the rumored M50 Mark II gets.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 16, 2020)

Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....

But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?

Seems that would be the route to go....give you everything you'd want in one body?

C


----------



## sanj (Jul 16, 2020)

APS-R system with better everything than current APS cameras and lenses. I feel that is the future. It is fantastic. Compact camera's with compact lenses that work better than current cameras.


----------



## sanj (Jul 16, 2020)

1D4 said:


> If this ends up being an RF-mount R7, I'll be pre-ordering it the minute it goes up. Exactly what I was looking for in a second body to go with the R5.


Yep


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 16, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> The "problem" with RF on a small body is it's a huge mount.


I don’t see why an aspc RF body means the body has to be smaller than the R series bodies already are.


----------



## Fast351 (Jul 16, 2020)

I think the R7 (R5/6 sized body with an APS-C sensor) makes the most sense. It's for the 7D2 crowd only. They already use EF lenses, so using RF lenses on a crop sensor shouldn't really be a stretch. 

RF-S lenses I don't see the market. EF-M has that covered. I think the EF-M platform is going to gain in popularity eventually replacing the "Costco crop DSLR" crowd. Those are people jumping from phones to ILC cameras to get better quality images, but without having to lug a 20# backpack around with them for lenses. 

Yeah, there's no upgrade path from EF-M to RF, unless you count people using EF lenses with their EF-M cameras, in which case they're an RF-EF adapter away from moving over. And people already owning EF lenses are really the only ones that are going to jump to full frame to advance their hobby. I don't think people who replaced their phone with an ILC EF-M camera are going to jump to FF just because.


----------



## sanj (Jul 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....
> 
> But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?
> 
> ...


I prefer dedicated crop sensor as I feel the camera and lenses can be lighter and cheaper.


----------



## JayLT (Jul 16, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> 45mp+ would be a a lot sweeter...



Sure, as long as you don't mind your DLA running around f/2.8 (I didn't do the actual calculation to get the DLA of a 45MP APS-C sensor, but considering the 90D 32MP sensor has a DLA of f/5.x I can only imagine what the DLA would be with a pixel size a 45+MP APS-C sensor would have!)


----------



## IVS (Jul 16, 2020)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Might As well put my kidney on the market now. I only need one anyway


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....
> 
> But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?
> 
> ...


The R, RP and reportadly R5 and R6 all have 1.6X crop modes built in. The 5Ds has both 1.6X and 1.3X crop modes. When cropped, the 20MP R6 sensor has about 7.8MP, which arguably isn't "enough" while the 45MP R5 has about 17.6MP which is about what the 7D had and less than the 7D2. There is also the question of whether having everything in one body is a good idea or having two more specialized bodies for about the same amount of money or maybe slightly more is preferable.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 16, 2020)

AEWest said:


> I seriously doubt there will be RF-S lenses developed. How many lens mounts could Canon have in the current marketplace? Now there are EF, EF-s, M, and R. Now adding another one? They want to reduce the number of mounts, not increase.


except that RF-S lenses would not introduce another mount, but fit the RF mount and could also be used on any FF R body in crop mode.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 16, 2020)

sanj said:


> cayenne said:
> Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....
> 
> But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?
> ...



Well, there seems from reading here, a consensus that this new R7 would share the same "large" body of the R5/R6, with same large R mount...so, I"m guessing maybe this new camera wouldn't be any smaller....

So, again, if this is the case, why not just enable a "crop mode" on the R5 and then have the best of all worlds...FF and crop?

Just curious.

C


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

JayLT said:


> Sure, as long as you don't mind your DLA running around f/2.8 (I didn't do the actual calculation to get the DLA of a 45MP APS-C sensor, but considering the 90D 32MP sensor has a DLA of f/5.x I can only imagine what the DLA would be with a pixel size a 45+MP APS-C sensor would have!)


I've yet to meet anyone who has had meaningful R_eal World _issues with diffraction limits. I've got an M6 Mk II (same sensor as the 90D) and I can say with absolute confidence that DLA is irrelevant to my use and appreciation of its pixel pitch and density. 

I don't expect to be meaningfully hurt by a 45mp sensor, and its advantages would outweigh its disadvantages for me.


----------



## cornieleous (Jul 16, 2020)

Unless it can shoot 10K for 12 hours, it is a failure! What a piece of junk!

Speaking seriously, I am encouraged to see Canon gradually offering MILC versions and blends between segments of their EF FF and APS-C lines. This means there is going to be a camera at every price point and allow customers to choose to very gradually shift to RF and MILC bodies. 

I don't think DSLRs will totally go away for a long time even if their market shrinks down really small over the next few years. Kind of like reading a real book, there is something nice about not looking at a screen for a viewfinder, even one with crazy resolution. I'm happy to shoot my DSLR alongside my new R5 until I feel like switching out my lenses and second and third DSLR bodies.


----------



## zim (Jul 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....
> 
> But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?
> 
> ...


Price aside that's the direction I thought Canon were going especially with the introduction of the 100-500 which has finally sold me on RF so I'm finding this rumour rather confusing


----------



## unfocused (Jul 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Well, there seems from reading here, a consensus that this new R7 would share the same "large" body of the R5/R6, with same large R mount...so, I"m guessing maybe this new camera wouldn't be any smaller....
> 
> So, again, if this is the case, why not just enable a "crop mode" on the R5 and then have the best of all worlds...FF and crop?
> 
> ...


The R5 already has a crop mode. 17 mpx I think.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Well, there seems from reading here, a consensus that this new R7 would share the same "large" body of the R5/R6, with same large R mount...so, I"m guessing maybe this new camera wouldn't be any smaller....
> 
> So, again, if this is the case, why not just enable a "crop mode" on the R5 and then have the best of all worlds...FF and crop?
> 
> ...


The crop mode on the R5 (which it will feature anyway) does not make the camera cheaper, and the 17 MP on the R5 in crop apparently are not enough for some. So some people would prefer a R7 with 45 MP on crop at less than $2000


----------



## tarek (Jul 16, 2020)

I hope to god it's not an RF mount camera, keep the Full Frame and Crop systems separate. Canons lens, sensor and mount lineup is already complicated enough with ef, ef-s, ef-m, rf, the last thing we need is to add something like "RF-S" lenses, praying it'll be an EF-M mount camera


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

yeahright said:


> The crop mode on the R5 (which it will feature anyway) does not make the camera cheaper, and the 17 MP on the R5 in crop apparently are not enough for some. So some people would prefer a R7 with 45 MP on crop at less than $2000


Personally I'm happy to pay way north of $2k for a camera like that, but a good summation otherwise.


----------



## AEWest (Jul 16, 2020)

yeahright said:


> except that RF-S lenses would not introduce another mount, but fit the RF mount and could also be used on any FF R body in crop mode.


But that still doesn't solve the issue of having a whole new line of lenses in a rapidly shrinking market. I think the best solution is to strengthen the EF-M lens line up then consolidate around the EF-M and RF lines in the long term.


----------



## Twinix (Jul 16, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Two card slots - maybe somebody smarter than me could work out whether CFexpress would be needed?


With the R6 RAW buffer of 240 images, I dont think you really need CFexpress.. Same goes with 4K ALL-I recording.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Well, there seems from reading here, a consensus that this new R7 would share the same "large" body of the R5/R6, with same large R mount...so, I"m guessing maybe this new camera wouldn't be any smaller....
> 
> So, again, if this is the case, why not just enable a "crop mode" on the R5 and then have the best of all worlds...FF and crop?
> 
> ...


See also my previous post. Also, the 32MP sensor in the M6-2, when expanded to FF yields about 82MP. There is room in the world for a FF sensor with that many pixels but large pixel vs small pixel is another discussion.


----------



## yeahright (Jul 16, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Personally I'm happy to pay way north of $2k for a camera like that, but a good summation otherwise.


btw I second Bert63s question about seeing some of the maximum-pixels-per-duck images


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 16, 2020)

Twinix said:


> With the R6 RAW buffer of 240 images, I dont think you really need CFexpress.. Same goes with 4K ALL-I recording.


Are there minimum write speed requirements for the cards, or does the camera throttle back write speed to match the card inserted?


----------



## Whowe (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> “EOS R6 with a small sensor”
> 
> Smaller than what? Smaller than the R6?


Smaller in physical size (i.e. APS-C), not smaller in Megapixels...


----------



## Kit. (Jul 16, 2020)

sanj said:


> APS-R system with better everything than current APS cameras and lenses.


Larger, heavier and more expensive, with the same sensor size.


----------



## JayLT (Jul 16, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I've yet to meet anyone who has had meaningful R_eal World _issues with diffraction limits. I've got an M6 Mk II (same sensor as the 90D) and I can say with absolute confidence that DLA is irrelevant to my use and appreciation of its pixel pitch and density.
> 
> I don't expect to be meaningfully hurt by a 45mp sensor, and its advantages would outweigh its disadvantages for me.



I won't disagree (that's why the winky face thingy at the end). I shoot a ton of macro with the 90D and an constantly at f/16 with zero issues


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 16, 2020)

scyrene said:


> It's surely logical to presume they knew what they were doing. A lot has been made on these forums about the 'lack of an upgrade path' from M to R, but Canon knew that limitation would exist, and it seems they decided it wasn't as important as other factors.
> 
> My take has always been, APS-C means M, FF now means RF. Canon seems to think the former is mostly about small size. Maybe it'll change a bit as DSLR sales decline relative to MILC, but I'd still be surprised by an APS-C RF body. The new superteles seem to point to their strategy for budget-minded birders.



I think I'm leaning to your way of thinking. I did do the whole upgrade path myself, but being able to use full frame lenses on my crop body was more a nice to have. It wasn't a huge deciding factor in making the transition to full frame. At least for me, the psychology was, I wanted to use better gear, so I moved up. If I entered photography now and entered the EF-M system, I think I would eventually jump to the RF line anyway. It's just as a hobbyist starts to become more of an enthusiast and maybe even a pro, they'll naturally upgrade. They don't need lens compatibility between the systems, or at least I don't think it would be a huge road block.

100% agree that the Canon is likely segmenting the two mirrorless lines by Small & Light vs Pro/Enthusiast grade. They are such fundamentally different principles that it makes lens compatibility almost impossible between the two. The small and light EF-M lenses could not properly cover the sensor on an RF camera, and an RF to EF-M adapter would need to be much more sophisticated to account for the physics limitations. I suspect, this might be why the EF-M lens lineup might be limited. They may be perfectly happy selling tons of M50's with a few good lenses, instead of developing a full gamut of great EF-M lenses because they would rather consumers just upgrade to the RF system. I hope this isn't the case because EF-M has so much potential based on how great the EF-M 22 f2 & EF-M 32 f1.4 are, so surely they have the capability of developing more. I'd throw my money at them if they did.

That leaves the one niche area that APS-C occupied. The 7D. And I agree Canon has showed how they plan to address this with the release of the RF 600 & RF 800 + teleconverters. Plus the bodies will have a crop mode. I know that the birders don't like this answer, but think about it. They created a new lens segment, that was not previously available for full frame. Supertele's that are sub-$1000. It was previously the APS-C crop that enabled the low cost extra reach. Now, they are providing low cost lenses for that reach.

I also suspect that the cost of an APS-C size sensor versus a Full Frame sensor doesn't have the cost premium it once had. I mean, the EOS RP is evidence that a full frame sensor camera can be made cheap. So with the shrinking market, it makes sense to streamline the Mirrorless lines, instead of creating a third mount. It would be easier to make a full frame R7 that shares the R6 specs but with more Megapixels, than to make a Crop Sensor R and then have to develop RF-S lenses. In the contracting camera market, I could understand why Canon would not go that route.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

yeahright said:


> btw I second Bert63s question about seeing some of the maximum-pixels-per-duck images


I don't have many - it's not a common occurrence to need to be out at that FL, and atmospheric conditions usually become a limiting feature - but, I've certainly needed to go there enough times to see a benefit, so I'll see if I can dig some out.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2020)

JayLT said:


> I won't disagree (that's why the winky face thingy at the end). I shoot a ton of macro with the 90D and an constantly at f/16 with zero issues


Oh, I know - but I always _also_ think about people who might read friendly banter, and piggy-back their BS onto it...


----------



## JBSF (Jul 16, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The R, RP and reportadly R5 and R6 all have 1.6X crop modes built in. The 5Ds has both 1.6X and 1.3X crop modes. When cropped, the 20MP R6 sensor has about 7.8MP, which arguably isn't "enough" while the 45MP R5 has about 17.6MP which is about what the 7D had and less than the 7D2. There is also the question of whether having everything in one body is a good idea or having two more specialized bodies for about the same amount of money or maybe slightly more is preferable.



Agreed. I use 7D2 for birds, but for several years have used it more for insects, especially with the close-focusing 100-400 mark II. I always crop. I have held off on the buying a 90D, because I want to be rid of AFMA. If Canon makes an R-series version of the 7D with appropriate build quality and weatherproofing, even with the 32 mpix sensor of the 90D, I would probably buy it. I would like to see features of the R series added to it, especially IBIS and focus stacking. The sales potential for Canon is huge. I see far more people in the field using a 7D2 with the 100-400 than any other body/lens combination.


----------



## Tangent (Jul 16, 2020)

Put all this together and... the M50 mkII is coming for the M series small camera use case. The "R7 " will be aps-c but will of course accept RF lenses without an adapter. The 18-45 IS STM makes most sense as an "RF-S" lens. The "RF-S" lenses will also mount on the FF RF camera bodies -- likely such lenses will be interpreted as ef-s lenses by the camera body and use the existing crop mode software. No more adapters.

... Then the digital mirrorless rebels will start coming. The 18-45 "RF-S" kit lens will be accompanied by a few more -- maybe a pancake like the 24 2.8 ef-s, a WA crop zoom, and a compact tele such as the 55-250. Of course the digital mirrorless Rebels will also take RF lenses without an adapter. No more adapters.

But the ef-m will be on its own island going forward. The M series will live on if sales are good; I hope so, 'cos it's so darn handy to have the option to shoot small.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 16, 2020)

Detailed R5 and R6 specifications are up at Canon USA. Apparently the R5 has a 1.6X crop but the R6 does not. Look under "Recording System" for both cameras.






Canon Support | User Manual Library | Canon U.S.A., Inc.


Need help with your Canon product? Find support & more information regarding User Manual Library only at Canon U.S.A., Inc.




www.usa.canon.com


----------



## yeahright (Jul 16, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Detailed R5 and R6 specifications are up at Canon USA. Apparently the R5 has a 1.6X crop but the R6 does not. Look under "Recording System" for both cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


maybe they feel that in 2020 an 8 MP image from a $2500 camera does not shine a good light on it


----------



## bbasiaga (Jul 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....
> 
> But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?
> 
> ...



The way this actually works is - a lens of a given focal length and design makes an image circle of a certain size. So when you put a FF lens on an APSc camera, only the portion of that image circle is used - the rest falls outside the smaller sensor. This 'crop factor' means you only get the field of view of a lens that is equivalently longer. 1.6x is the factor IIRC. So your 100mm lens on APSc shows only the same field of view a 160mm lens would if it were on FF. If you put that 160mm lens on APSc, it would show the same FOV on the sensor as a 250mm lens on FF. Note though that the magnification of the image at the image plane is not any larger! Its only field of view that is condensed. 

If your APSc sensor has the same number of pixels as your FF sensor, then you have more pixels in a given area of the sensor (the pixels are smaller than FF pixels in this case, because the same number fit in a smaller area). Therefore you have 'more pixels per duck'. in your 100mm APSc image than you would in your 100mm FF image. Since targets like ducks are small and far away, many bird shooters like this feature of APSc cameras. 

Crop mode on a FF sensor doesn't achieve the objective of more pixels per duck, as stated above. It would just mean less pixels from the image sensor are used. In the example above that means a lower megapixel image when cropped to the same FOV as APSc. The two ways to solve that are 1) increase the pixel density of the FF sensor to match that of the APSc sensor you are comparing it to. Now you can crop the same FOV and have the same number of pixels. or 2) Buy a longer lens so the duck fills more of the image, such that there are an equivalent number of pixels per duck as the APSc example above. 

1) is up to Canon to produce something with equivalent density (I think the R5 is getting close). Once they match pixel density of the 7DII, the APSc advantage goes away, (except maybe on cost!) 2) is costly and heavy!

Dedicated crop cameras were not really about this pixel advantage, though it was a niche realized as the technology developed. It was more about technology and cost at first. The bodies were not necessarily smaller, as the EF mount and flange to sensor distance was the same for crop and FF sensors. Though the mirror was smaller so there was some advantage there, and the lenses needed to produce a smaller image circle so they could be smaller as well. 

-Brian


----------



## slclick (Jul 16, 2020)

unfocused said:


> The R5 already has a crop mode. 17 mpx I think.


Interested in seeing noise samples etc etc from that mode, esp comparing it to the 18MP sensor from Canon so many of us are familiar with. Pixel density is different, Digic X etc . Might be something.


----------



## Tangent (Jul 16, 2020)

Not in the rumor mill, pure speculation: I wouldn't surprised at all to see a digital mirorless Rebel kitted with the 18-45 IS STM "RF-S" lens announced alongside the "R7." Because, after all, what use is a 18-45 kit lens to the 7D mkII crowd?


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 16, 2020)

Tangent said:


> Not in the rumor mill, pure speculation: I wouldn't surprised at all to see a digital mirorless Rebel kitted with the 18-45 IS STM "RF-S" lens announced alongside the "R7." Because, after all, what use is a 18-45 kit lens to the 7D mkII crowd?


I guess it’s in the rumor/speculation mill now.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 16, 2020)

cayenne said:


> So, again, if this is the case, why not just enable a "crop mode" on the R5 and then have the best of all worlds...FF and crop?



Price? If I can get an R5 for $1300-1500, then I might be okay using it in crop-mode despite the slight drop in resolution compared to my 7DII.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 16, 2020)

Tangent said:


> Put all this together and... the M50 mkII is coming for the M series small camera use case. The "R7 " will be aps-c but will of course accept RF lenses without an adapter. The 18-45 IS STM makes most sense as an "RF-S" lens. The "RF-S" lenses will also mount on the FF RF camera bodies -- likely such lenses will be interpreted as ef-s lenses by the camera body and use the existing crop mode software. No more adapters.



Why would Canon do this? They already have a successful line of mirrorless APS-C cameras, and a new successful line of full-frame mirrorless. I can see the benefits in having a high-end APS-C camera, but I can't see them replacing the Rebels with anything other than the EOS M line - which is already happening.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 16, 2020)

So. Another thing about an APS-C EOS R model. How much do you think it's going to cost?

If what you want is essentially a 32mpx APS-C sensor in the same body as the R5 - same weather sealing, same IBIS, same dual slots (maybe you'll accept dual SD), maybe only 4K video but possibly 6K RAW. 

Essentially, it's more or less the same as an R5 but with a smaller sensor. How much is the cost of the sensor vs the overall camera cost? It's no doubt the most expensive component but it's certainly not half of the cost.

With the R5 at $3899 how much do you think they'd have to charge for an APS-C R right now? It probably wouldn't be any much less than $2800 

Now, the 7D was based significantly on the 5D II body, but it took a whole year for that to come out after the 5D II - after which they were able to write off a lot of the R&D costs with 5D II sales. 7D II was 2 years after the 5D III (although the 7DII was obviously at least partially developed in parallel with the 5DS/SR with which it shares similar sensor tech albeit at a different size)

They aren't there yet on the R5, so I would guess if you're waiting for an R7 it's going to be a year out. Also, with the R5 and R6 selling so well, they really don't want to disrupt production by adding a third product right now.

Now, if you take the R6 body and throw in an APS-C sensor I think something could come out a lot sooner and a lot cheaper than with an R5 based one. But that won't be exactly a 7D class camera.


----------



## konsolas_captures (Jul 16, 2020)

I have a Canon Eos M5 and I am really happy with this camera. I really hope and believe that this new camera is an M camera. Supposed that this camera is a 7D replacement for bird photography and stuff like that, how many of the 7D users have moved to Full Frame? Probably none because they want APS-C sensor. So there is no need to be a path from a APS-C to FF, at least for those users. The second reason I think this would be a M camera is the price. If this is going to be the best M mount camera then a price of 1.500 € is quite reasonable but if it’s an RF mount camera then I don’t think it’s logical to be more expensive than a camera in the same mount category which has better sensor (RP). It makes more sense to compare cameras with the same sensor size or in the same mount than to compare different mounts. Third and last reason is Canon’s reliability. If this is an RF mount camera it sends a message that the M mount is dead and although it is not one of the best mount it is one of the most popular and most profitable Mount. If you can’t trust Canon to keep developing a system that popular you can’t trust the RF mount either. Camera market is in danger and although RF mount is great and professional is not by itself a sustainable for the company mount.
Just my opinion


----------



## dwarven (Jul 16, 2020)

Nice, I hope it's an RF body. I love APS-C cameras in general for their value and performance.



jolyonralph said:


> So. Another thing about an APS-C EOS R model. How much do you think it's going to cost?



Probably $1200 or less.


----------



## Whowe (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Nah.. Love her too much. Been together since we were 15 or so - almost 41 years.


Does she read these forums....

Seriously, that's awesome!


----------



## Twinix (Jul 16, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Are there minimum write speed requirements for the cards, or does the camera throttle back write speed to match the card inserted?


If you have a card that writes at the same speed as the images are beeing captured (12 fps, lets say each is 20MB, 12x20=240MB/S, so if you have a card like the Sandisk Extreme Pro that writes 260MB/S) you should be able to take photos for quite a while. But no one takes photos continuously for minutes, so with small breaks the cheaper Sandisk Extreme (70MB/S write) should be enough. So when the buffer gets full, the fps slows down, but I don’t think you will ever get to that point.. 
With video, the R5 shoots 4K 50p ALL-I at 1000mpbs, 1000/8=125MB/S, and thats how fast card you need for video. With the R6 that only shoots IPB the Sandisk Extreme would be fast enough. Its also fast enough for ALL-I 4K 25p.


----------



## Skux (Jul 16, 2020)

I just can't see them doing an APS-C EOS R camera. The mount is huge and they would have to make dedicated crop lenses, when they already exist for the M mount.

I own the M6ii and it's great. If they made the viewfinder built-in, gave it IBIS, maybe a bigger battery, and gave it true native or downsampled 4k it'd be incredible.

What they need is some quality M zooms. Like an 18-55 f2.8, or an 18-105 f4, and then a 400+.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Jul 16, 2020)

As soon as Canon unveiled the R5/R6 names it was fairly obvious a R7 was on the cards. 

And it's been obvious for a while that yes the M6 II is a great camera, that sensor really deserved to be used in a better body with better tracking and case controls.

R7 witht he 32MP sensor, dual SD card slots, DIGIC X, IBIS, far better weather sealed body...... yeah that'll will get my money.


----------



## Tangent (Jul 16, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Why would Canon do this? They already have a successful line of mirrorless APS-C cameras, and a new successful line of full-frame mirrorless. I can see the benefits in having a high-end APS-C camera, but I can't see them replacing the Rebels with anything other than the EOS M line - which is already happening.



Could be -- you raise good points. Western customers have a track record of preferring larger cameras; some current Rebel users might see the M series as too small in the hand for their needs -- they would want to moving forward with a camera having the form factor they are used to. And they would be interested in a camera having a future in the R world.

So I think Canon would want to offer a budget entry-level camera for the R ecosystem. From Canon's POV, the M series offers some opportunities for additional add-on purchases, but the larger profit potential is in introducing aspirational photographers to the world of FF RF midsumer and RF L lenses. M shooters are shut out from these RF lenses. I believe Canon would definitely see the need for an entry-level inexpensive, hence APS-C, RF compatible mirrorless digital camera that would open the door to more profitable downstream sales -- that approach has been their game plan since film days , after all.

If the "R7" is indeed APSc then that would open the door to more such cameras. And an inexpensive R APS-c entry level would make a lot of sense from a marketing standpoint.

So, just my guess, I think that we will see a mirrorless RF/"RF-S" APS-C digital Rebel... I would guess before year-end 2021. Otoh, the FF RP with its kit was selling for $1k recently, but still, that's not entry-level for a lot of folks. You need something cheaper to get 'em hooked.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> 28MP would be in line with the R5's sensor.



An APS-C sized crop of the R5's 45MP sensor yields 17.6MP. 

Megapixels are areal, not linear.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

amorse said:


> I kind of wonder what this means for EF APS-C. I figured Canon would continue that because it draws a lot of customers, but if APS-C on RF mount or in R body style becomes a thing, maybe Canon is considering a larger pivot to mirrorless. The EF-M transition pathway to RF is obviously much more clunky than EF-S to EF was, so there is reason to consider that path.



As the number of ILC units sold continues to decline, most of the erosion is in the entry level APS-C camera space. *Most of the folks that buy those have no ambitions to ever transition into any other "upgrade path".* In Asia, many of those folks have already moved from EF-S to EF-M products. In the West, those are also the folks who are, more and more, happy to stick with their ever improving phones as their only camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

Etienne said:


> There's no need for a new mount, but an RF to M adapter would be cool.
> Is there any reason that a RF lens couldn't work on an M body if there was an appropriate adapter?



The lugs on RF lenses are more than 2mm thick. Since the throat diameter of the EF-M mount is smaller than the throat diameter of the RF mount, it's physically impossible to place the flange of an RF lens at 20mm from the sensor of an EF-M camera. Any "adapter" would also need to include optics to allow infinity focus. Such optics would also make it a teleconverter with the accompanying narrowing of field of view, loss of image quality, and reduction of maximum f-number.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> ...and it's a means to downsize/obsolete EF-S and EF-M someday if Canon should ever want to. Then everyone would be under one roof in RF -- without the painful 'migrating to FF means you can't use your crop lenses anymore' problem.
> 
> - A



I don't think Canon is worried about providing anyone a path for "migrating" from APS-C to FF any more. 

Instead, they seem to be headed towards making FF cheap enough to begin with that those seriously interested in using their cameras for anything more than casual snapshots or as a very compact travel option can start with FF in the RF mount.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 16, 2020)

Someone posted a video on one of the R5/R6 threads of an interview and there was the implication that the R6 was actually a replacement(mirrorless version might be a better description) of both the 6d2 AND the 7d2


----------



## Kit. (Jul 16, 2020)

dwarven said:


> Probably $1200 or less.


If it's going to replace the 7DII (which means it needs to have a more weather-sealed body than the R6), it's not going to cost less than $2199.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I think Canon may take a page from Nikon's book on crop and just make an RF mount crop platform -- lenses and APS-C R mount bodies -- to (eventually) get out of EF-S.
> 
> The low end of that line would need to be really cheap to replace what the entry Rebel line does for the business financially.
> 
> - A



Entry level Rebel did a lot for Canon when people were buying ILCs like crazy. But as total ILC numbers continue to drop, the lion's share of the erosion is in the entry level APS-C product space. Canon can no longer rely on those buyers to keep them profitable, because those buyers are becoming fewer and fewer each year.

Those buyers who bought Rebels by the truckloads between 2003-2012 are the people who have been, gradually over the last few years, no longer seeing a need for any camera beyond the ones inside their smartphones which are getting better with each new product cycle, particularly in the way they computationally handle static low light scenarios. They're the same folks who decided they no longer needed cable television if they have decent Broadband, because streaming is good enough for them. They're the same folks who, before that, decided they no longer needed a landline telephone once they all had cell phones with reliable coverage where they live.


----------



## Dragon (Jul 16, 2020)

I would like a nice full featured M5 mark II, thank you. OTOH, the clever solution would be a body with very short flange distance that could support an adapter to either M or R. That way you get a choice between lens performance and portability. Canon went out of the box for the R5, so anything is possible.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 16, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> The $64,000 question: will they follow suit with Nikon and Sony and make smaller/lighter/cheaper APS-C sized RF lenses to go with it?
> 
> If they don't, it's Canon's way of saying 'FINE. Here's your damn 7D3, you guys never stop asking for it!' but birders/wildlifers lose their mirrors.
> 
> ...



I hope they don't make RF-S lenses. Let's move forward with just a single line of lens in the RF mount, compatible with everything.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

derpderp said:


> lmao anything with r5 body and weather sealing would be r5 priced.






Kit. said:


> If it's going to replace the 7DII (which means it needs to have a more weather-sealed body than the R6), it's not going to cost less than $2199.



The $1,799 7D Mark II had more weather sealing and a higher shutter durability rating when it was introduced in 2014 than the the current 5-series camera at the time, the 5D Mark III introduced at $3,499 in 2012. The much less durable FF 6D was introduced at $2,099 in 2012.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> I guess there could be an APS-C R7 in the pipeline and may be even R 10D 20D etc plus some new RF-S lenses.
> 
> I am looking forward to some new EOS M bodies too, that would give us lots to chat about on here but if all this is to come I think that might be the final nail in the coffin for the EOS DSLR line-up though, which some people might miss.



Not the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, but it does mean the fat lady is warming up her voice with two outs in the bottom of the ninth.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 16, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Entry level Rebel did a lot for Canon when people were buying ILCs like crazy. But as total ILC numbers continue to drop, the lion's share of the erosion is in the entry level APS-C product space. Canon can no longer rely on those buyers to keep them profitable, because those buyers are becoming fewer and fewer each year.
> 
> Those buyers who bought Rebels by the truckloads between 2003-2012 are the people who have been, gradually over the last few years, no longer seeing a need for any camera beyond the one inside their smartphones. They're the same folks who decided they no longer needed cable television if they have decent Broadband, because streaming is good enough for them. They're the same folks who, before that, decided they no longer needed a landline telephone once they all had cell phones.



I don't think this is all true. The APS-C rebels also served as a ladder for many of us to get into full-frame cameras. In fact, I don't know _any_ photographers who went whole-ham and purchased a 5D as their first digital camera (though I suppose I don't know many wealthy people, either. Maybe this is more common than I know).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Crop SLRs still make Canon a ton of money, don't they?
> 
> - A



Less and less every year. That's the segment that has been hemorrhaging sales the most as ILC camera sales numbers plummet.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> R5 enters the chat....



APS-C at 45MP translates to the same pixel density as 115MP FF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Not possible, both because of the flange distance and the different protocols for RF and M lenses.
> 
> Theoretically possible to build something where the whole mount assembly can be replaced with either an RF or M version, but I'd be concerned what tolerances would be needed to make it work (perhaps not so much if the sensor has IBIS) and how it would be strong enough to support the lens weight and the weather sealing.



There's no issue at all with the lens protocols. Canon has all of the code, and both the EF-M and RF protocols are expanded versions of the EF protocols.

The issue is physical: comparative throat diameters and only 2mm difference in registration distance doesn't leave room for the RF bayonet lugs behind the RF flange 20mm from the sensor.


----------



## sanj (Jul 16, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I don't think Canon is worried about providing anyone a path for "migrating" from APS-C to FF any more.
> 
> Instead, they seem to be headed towards making FF cheap enough to begin with that those seriously interested in using their cameras for anything more than casual snapshots or as a very compact travel option can start with FF in the RF mount.


I would welcome an option of lighter, cheaper APSC cameras/lenses. Just like we used to have earlier with EF lenses and cameras.


----------



## sanj (Jul 16, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Less and less every year. That's the segment that has been hemorrhaging sales the most as ILC camera sales number plummet.


Could you please educate me on this with relevant figures? Thank you.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> I don't see how Canon can replace all those Rebels they sell at Costco without RF-S bodies. I suppose they could greatly expand the M line, but that doesn't offer much of an upgrade path to RF, which seems like it'd be a critical goal. The nice thing here is that RF-S bodies in this case would pair well with the higher res R bodies going forward since they'd actually be able to mount -S lenses, unlike with EF-S



How many of those dwindling numbers of Rebels sold at Costco are bought by customers who ever intend to upgrade to anything other than a newer Rebel in the future?

Very few.

Canon isn't even worried about people who might enter on the ground floor of RF with APS-C and then "upgrade" to FF.

They're intent on making FF affordable enough that anyone who wants to do more than what they can do with their smartphone or a compact EF-M camera can get into RF on the ground floor with FF.

*The R7 will NOT be the cheapest, entry level RF body. There's no way it will be cheaper than an RP or whatever eventually replaces the RP. *

If an R7 happens, it will be a specialist body for sports/action/wildlife photographers just like the 7D series was. The target buyer will not be someone buying their first "real" camera. The target buyer will be someone who is already in the RF system (or is in the EF system and currently using the 7D Mark II) and has a specific need for a durable, fast, and affordable camera with pixel density that gives them "reach" at a fraction of the price of a FF camera with the same pixel density, speed, and durability.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Personally, I think this will be an RF mount camera. Since it will be “high end” there will be no need or demand for cheap RF-s lenses. This is for the birders. I assume they will use their EF super-tele lenses and future RF super-tele lenses.



Along with the youth/high school/small college sports shooters on a tight budget who can use a much more affordable 70-200/2.8 to shoot field sports under lights with an APS-C body rather than using a FF body and needing a much more expensive 300/2.8 lens.


----------



## dwarven (Jul 16, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> So. Another thing about an APS-C EOS R model. How much do you think it's going to cost?





Kit. said:


> If it's going to replace the 7DII (which means it needs to have a more weather-sealed body than the R6), it's not going to cost less than $2199.



I highly doubt it. $2199 would be very ambitious in a market where full frame is considered the best, and the end game for photography. And you can get a good full frame body for a few hundred less than that.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I'm struggling with the idea of an RF-S lens. The distance to the sensor from the bayonet would still have to be the same as the RF lens, since the mount/sensor relationship is the same as you'd need in order to maintain compatibility with the full frame lenses. I suppose the rear glass could still come in to the body farther on account of needing a smaller image circle. It would even still mount on a FF variant although it wouldn't cover the whole sensor. I guess you'd be somewhat limited in the size savings as the RF mount is bigger than the EF mount, so the smallest RF lens will still be bigger. But maybe it could work as an ecosystem. Will be exciting to see.



RF and EF have the exact same 54mm throat diameter. EF-M is smaller at 47mm.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 16, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I had good results with my 7D2 as well. Then I got my 5D4 and my keeper rate went through the roof. I felt like I was cheating.



I think that is mostly attributable to the wider baseline for the 5D Mark IV PDAF sensor array, due to the wider mirror and the wider portion of that mirror that is semi-translucent, than for the 7D Mark II PDAF sensor array. That might not be an issue with a mirrorless camera, which does not use microlenses to aim light from opposite edges of the lens to line sensors in a PDAF array in the same way.


----------



## MMikeHH (Jul 16, 2020)

My wish is for a successor to the M50, a camera that I own and love. I definitely want the M mount, 50-100% more pixel count for my pixel-peeping, 60 fps 4k video, night and astrophotography mode(s), a smattering of AI and computational software in line with what the high-end smartphones can do. A dumbed down R5 or R6 is not what I would want. Of course, if this has been in the pipeline for months now, my wishlist applies to the successor of the successor of the next mirrorless APS-C.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The R6 seems to have went up market a little bit but then they also decided to give it a lesser body just to make the R5 better rather than let the sensors separate them. I don't know if a R7 APS-C body fits anymore with there being a strong suggestion of a full FF lineup and even a sub $1000 FF body.



The 6D and 6D Mark II both have "lesser" body materials than the contemporary 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV bodies. 5-series have always been magnesium alloy. 6-series have always been polycarbonate. Contemporary 5-series bodies always had higher resolution rear LCDs than 6-series bodies.

*If an R7 APS-C body happens, it will NOT be the cheapest, entry level RF body.* It will be a specialist camera like the 7D Mark II that was aimed squarely at advanced shooters already in the EF system that needed a fast, tough, and affordable body with high pixel density.

The 6D Mark II was also more "upmarket" than the 6D. All one needs to do is compare the 11 pt. entry level lower end Rebel level AF system to the 45 pt. upscaled 80D AF system in the 6D Mark II. Except for a few minor differences (1/8000 vs 1/4000, x-sync 1/180 vs. 1/200, etc., _slightly_ downgraded AF, lesser body material) the 6D Mark II in 2017 was pretty much the equal of the 5D Mark III from 2012.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> You all might be missing the real opportunity here: 800mm f/11 + RF-S speed booster on an RF-S body. Ratchet that image circle down to 1.6 crop, and you now have an effective 1120mm f/8. In fact, that might be the primary reason those f/11 lenses exist.



Except those f/11 super teles are already 20mm registration RF mount. Where is the space between lens and camera to fit the speedbooster?


----------



## wyotex43n (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> How many of those dwindling numbers of Rebels sold at Costco are bought by customers who ever intend to upgrade to anything other than a newer Rebel in the future?
> 
> Very few.
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I only speak for me obviously but as a former 7D2 shooter I don't understand why people dwell on the crop bodies for wildlife. Aside from the extra reach (which I overcame using the 1.4X) I don't see the attraction. When I head out the door birding (which is almost what I do exclusively) I'm carrying the 5D4 or EOS-R.
> 
> They are superior than the 7D2 in every single way except FPS.
> 
> YMMV..



I think the vast majority of 7D buyers, particularly of the Mark II, are youth/high school/small college sports shooters on a tight budget who found they could use a 70-200/2.8 for field sports under lights instead of needing a much more expensive 300/2.8 when shooting FF. That's certainly the place where I see almost all 7D bodies out in the wild. (Or more accurately, _saw_, since the SARS-CoV-2 virus.)

The combination of speed, toughness, pixel density, and affordability made the 7D Mark II perfect for that role at a far lower price than, say, a 1D X Mark II + EF 300mm f/2.8 plus the cost of a second body with 70-200 for when the action gets too close for the 300mm prime.

Using a 1.4X with FF works fine at brighter venues, but many youth/high school/small college fields do not have the light. Often the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 at ISO 3200 is the difference between 1/500 and 1/1000, which is often the difference between motion blur and frozen at those levels of competition.


----------



## Chris Charles (Jul 17, 2020)

Maybe it will follow the old 7DII - 5DsR script: New high pixel density APS-C sensor sorted then followed by FF sensor with same pixel pitch. 28 Mp APS-C to 72 Mp FF would be nice.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jul 17, 2020)

If this rumor is going to be true, I guess this camera will have the same 32MP sensor from the 90D and M62. I know in the past Canon have made dedicated sensor for 7D2 but with a shrinking camera market I doubt if Canon will do that plus the 90D sensor seems to be very good. M62 already does 14 fps so that is not an issue. However I kind of have a mixed feeling about the RF mount for the APS-C camera. Sure there is excellent RF glass at the moment like the RF100-500 and the RF600 and RF800 plus people can use all the EF glass but will Canon release APS-C lenses for the RF mount? If so will they continue with EF-M and RF APS-C lenses? I don't know. I think Nikon did a better job when it comes to that. Given Canon's history I will not be surprised if Canon completely ditches the EF-M mount. They can sell more RF glass. We will have to wait and see. At this point EF-S mount is pretty much dead I guess.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> With those specs? That would be a surprise.



Compare the $2,099 6D in 2012 to the $1,799 7D Mark II in 2014.

The 7DII was faster, tougher, cheaper, had higher pixel density, a 200,000 shutter life rating, a much larger and brighter VF, and a near 1D X/5D III level AF system.

The 6D was slower, polycarbonate, lower resolution, a 100,000 shutter life rating, and a lower-tier Rebel level AF system.


----------



## wyotex43n (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> How many of those dwindling numbers of Rebels sold at Costco are bought by customers who ever intend to upgrade to anything other than a newer Rebel in the future?
> 
> Very few.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with you. The 7d mk2 is the in between camera that probably caused a lot of discussion at Canon. Its APC but with the speed and build quality of of the higher end FF Canon's. Most users put higher end telephotos on them. In effect a budget 1D minus the high iso performance. I think Canon sees two markets. FF with high quality expensive lenses and profit margin. M series for small light relatively inexpensive but prone to erosion due to smart phones. 
The new 600/800mm seem like gateway products to entice users to the RF side.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Traveler said:


> I’ve wished they’d skip apsc and focus only on FF. They can make even a cheaper body than the RP for beginners, they can make cheap lenses for FF too. It would be easier for beginners to transition from entry-level to professional.



If an APS-C R7 happens, it will not the cheapest, entry level R body. It won't be a "Rebel", it will be like a 7D Mark II that for most of its history has sold for 2-3X what the entry level Rebels cost.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Kit. said:


> I don't see how one is able to get a lens with a 140mm entrance pupil from a lens with a 73mm entrance pupil



You don't. (Get a lens with a 140mm ep from a lens with a 73mm ep.)

800mm/11 = 73mm

With the 0.625X speedbooster the real focal length of the combination is reduced to 500mm.

500mm/73mm = 6.8 (f/6.8)

Then you put it on a 1.6X crop sensor and you get an "effective" 800mm f/6.8, not an "effective" 1280mm f/8.

But that doesn't even consider that the 800mm f/11 is already an RF lens with no extra room to place a speed booster between the lens flange and the body flange of an RF mount camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> With the mythical "RF-S speed booster" mentioned in the post.



You know, the one with zero thickness so that it can be placed between an RF lens and RF body!


----------



## Traveler (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> If an APS-C R7 happens, it will not the cheapest, entry level R body. It won't be a "Rebel", it will be like a 7D Mark II that for most of its history has sold for 2-3X what the entry level Rebels cost.


But why is an R7 needed? I guess it was for high speed back in the days. But now you can shoot 12/20fps with a FF


----------



## 1D4 (Jul 17, 2020)

I'll call my shot...R7 announcing in January, priced at $1899 US, somewhere in the 20-24MP range.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 17, 2020)

Whowe said:


> Does she read these forums....
> 
> Seriously, that's awesome!



Naw - she's more "what are you talking about now?" interested...

She's awesome.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....
> 
> But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?
> 
> ...



Except lower cost and higher pixel density. (And the needed second body for low light sports shooters, many of whom usually carry both a "long" and "wide" body with lenses mounted on both for fast swapping when the action moves closer.)

7D Mark II - $1,799 in 2014 with pixel density equal to 50MP $3,699 5Ds, much higher than 24MP $3,499 5D Mark III.
7D Mark II - $1,799 in 2014 with 10 fps (faster than 6 fps $3,499 5D Mark III and 5 fps $3,699 5Ds, almost as fast as $6,499 12 fps 1D X)

The obvious target for pixel density in 2020-21 would be the APS-C version of the R5s sensor, rumored to be in the 80MP range. That would give an APS-C sensor with 31MP. The obvious fps target would be 12/20 (R5, R6) or even 14/30 (M6 Mark II).

It could be basically an M6 Mark II/90D resolution sensor in an R5 type body, though I see Canon likely going to a polycarbonate body if this happens. The 5D Mark III/IV and 7D Mark II bodies were nearly identical in size, shape, and button layout.

It would also probably have an M6 Mark II type shutter, rather than a scaled down version of the R5 shutter rated at 500,000 cycles. For context, the 2014 7D Mark II has a 200,000 shutter rating. This was between the 150,000 rating for the 2012 5D Mark III/2016 Mark IV and the 400,000 rating for the 2012 1D X and 2016 1D X Mark II. Both the R5 and 1D X Mark III have a 500,000 shutter durability rating, the R6 has a 300,000 shutter rating. The 30D-80D had 100,000 shutter life ratings, the 90D ups that to 120,000. None of the EOS M series have published shutter durability ratings.


----------



## AEWest (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Entry level Rebel did a lot for Canon when people were buying ILCs like crazy. But as total ILC numbers continue to drop, the lion's share of the erosion is in the entry level APS-C product space. Canon can no longer rely on those buyers to keep them profitable, because those buyers are becoming fewer and fewer each year.
> 
> Those buyers who bought Rebels by the truckloads between 2003-2012 are the people who have been, gradually over the last few years, no longer seeing a need for any camera beyond the one inside their smartphones. They're the same folks who decided they no longer needed cable television if they have decent Broadband, because streaming is good enough for them. They're the same folks who, before that, decided they no longer needed a landline telephone once they all had cell phones.


As an example, my daughter graduated high school this year. There was a limited ceremony due to covid. I took along my 6D and flash for some family photos. 

I was the only one there with a dedicated camera of any kind - no compact cameras there let alone FF DSLRs. Some people stared at me like I had two heads! Nothing but smartphones for family photos. People came up to me ask about the camera. A few years ago there would have been at least compact cameras.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 17, 2020)

BroderLund said:


> Seams weird to do a high end APS-C camera as an M camera as the native lens options are limited. M line up is saved by the Sigma primes.
> RF mount sounds more likely given the lens selection. Yes, I know you can adapt on the EF-M mount, but still.



Indeed, if if weren;t for Sigma the lens lineup for EOS-M would be embarassing after so many years. I may have bought something along the lines of an M5II in RF mount, but hopefully we get to see a 7DII successor in RF mount long before Nikon makes a D500 successor. If the AF is basically R5 level in a crop sensor of 24-30MP, I may grab that over the R5, would be happy with just 4K60p, 4K30p and FHD180p


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The R, RP and reportadly R5 and R6 all have 1.6X crop modes built in. The 5Ds has both 1.6X and 1.3X crop modes. When cropped, the 20MP R6 sensor has about 7.8MP, which arguably isn't "enough" while the 45MP R5 has about 17.6MP which is about what the 7D had and less than the 7D2. There is also the question of whether having everything in one body is a good idea or having two more specialized bodies for about the same amount of money or maybe slightly more is preferable.






cayenne said:


> Well, there seems from reading here, a consensus that this new R7 would share the same "large" body of the R5/R6, with same large R mount...so, I"m guessing maybe this new camera wouldn't be any smaller....
> 
> So, again, if this is the case, why not just enable a "crop mode" on the R5 and then have the best of all worlds...FF and crop?
> 
> ...



Most 7D Mark II owners I know also have a FF body or a second APS-C body. They use both, often at the same time. The 7D Mark II is used mostly as a "long" sports body so that they can use a 70-200/2.8 to get the same reach as a much more expensive 300/2.8 under artificial lighting. They'll often use the FF or other APS-C body at the same time with a "short" or "wide" lens on it for when the action moves closer. The "long" body gets the lion's share of the work and takes the lion's share of the wear and tear. On Friday nights I tend to shoot a couple of thousand frames with my "long" body and maybe a couple of hundred with the "wide" body, and half of those or more are probably of the band at halftime or from in the middle of the band in the stands.

The 80D, for example, was a much better "general purpose" camera than the 7D Mark II is. But the 7D Mark II was a better "sports" body. I know guys who used both. When shooting sports they used the 7DII as their "long" body and their 80D as their "wide" body. It was fast enough for the occasional close action sideline shots and wider angle non-action shots of other things going on in the venue. Apart from sports they used the 80D for their portrait, landscape, etc. type of work.

One FF body + one 7D Mark II and a 70-200/2.8 is a lot cheaper than two FF bodies plus a $6,000 lens one doesn't need if the APS-C body has high enough pixel density.

For wildlife shooters it's all about speed and pixels on subject, as well as durability. Cost, not so much since they're already going well past the 70-200/2.8 price threshold that jumps rapidly to $6,000+ for lenses longer than 300mm with fast apertures. But any body that meets the needs of the budget sports/action shooter also meets the needs of the "need more reach" crowd if the pixel density is also there.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 17, 2020)

Here's what I would do if I were Canon:

* The new 1.6x crop sensor body talked about would use the existing *R mount* and for sake of argument let's assume it could be called a *RM* type of body. I assume they would make these as small as the R mount and good ergonomics would allow.

* Various EF-to-R adapters for EF FF and EF-S 1.6x crop image circles already exist.
* A EF-M-to-R adapter for 1.6x(or somewhat different) image circles could be made *IF* the adapter can extend the focus distance by 2mm + depth of adapter. I hope it can be made - they *are* Canon after all!

Now, R and RM bodies could both use: RF, EF, EF-S, and (hopefully)EF-M lenses. So, *"Everybody: y'all bring your existing lenses and join the new R party!"* 

OK - If I made some glaring mistake, please let me know. I'm not a Canon expert, and am trying to "think outside the box", and I suppose it's possible I'm so far outside it that I "fell off the table!"


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 17, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> If they are doing this, why not give it the R5 body and weather sealing. Forgive me is I am mistaken, but a high end APS-C body would mostly be for wildlife guys with a 100-500mm lens permanently attached and having a wee wade through a humid environment or even a swamp.
> 
> I would be happy taking a 7dII or 1D body into the wild, but one with (in Canon's words suggesting inferior) 6 series weather/environmental sealing.



I''ve never shot BIF or wildlife. And have absolutely no interest in ever doing so. My longest lens is an EF 85mm f/1.8. My most used lens is an EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5.

I'd be more interested in an RP APS-C than either an R5 or R6 APS-C.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I don't think this is all true. The APS-C rebels also served as a ladder for many of us to get into full-frame cameras. In fact, I don't know _any_ photographers who went whole-ham and purchased a 5D as their first digital camera (though I suppose I don't know many wealthy people, either. Maybe this is more common than I know).



Many current FF photographers started out in APS-C when the cheapest FF cameras were $3,000 or more. That much is true.

But the $3,000 threshold is no longer the case. The EOS RP is currently at $899 brand new in the U.S. from authorized sellers!

But not everyone who started with APS-C when most of us did would go on to become FF photographers. In fact, the vast majority of them DID NOT. They're still using APS-C cameras or they're using their phones while their APS-C cameras gather dust in a closet.

The number of folks entering the ILC market at all has been shrinking for years. Most of the reduction in numbers of ILC units sold over the last eight years has been in the entry level smaller-than-FF market space. Most people that once thought they needed a Rebel a decade ago now think their smartphone is good enough (because with the advances in computational photography being leveraged by smartphones, it is)!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

AEWest said:


> But that still doesn't solve the issue of having a whole new line of lenses in a rapidly shrinking market. I think the best solution is to strengthen the EF-M lens line up then consolidate around the EF-M and RF lines in the long term.



What if the EF-M line isn't about "all APS-C cameras and lenses" but is rather about a small system of compact, affordable mirrorless cameras for the non-professional, non-enthusiast who wants a camera that is convenient to carry when their phone just isn't quite enough for trips, family gatherings, etc? What if Canon has never planned to grow the EF-M lens line to include lenses that can't be made having the same 61mm diameter as Every.Single.EF-M.Lens.In.Existence?

What if the R line is not about "all FF cameras" but is rather about a more well rounded system of larger bodies and lenses for professionals and enthusiasts? What if such a system might include an APS-C body that is NOT a cheap, entry level model like a Rebel used to entice new buyers into the RF system, but rather a specialized tool for specific use cases by those already in the professional or enthusiast ranks and already using RF gear?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Twinix said:


> With the R6 RAW buffer of 240 images, I dont think you really need CFexpress.. Same goes with 4K ALL-I recording.



That depends upon whether it only has 20 MP like the R6 or has much higher resolution. UHS-II would probably be more than enough. But for similar capacity, the fastest UHS-II cards aren't much cheaper than CFExpress cards, and even the slowest CFExpress cards are faster than the fastest UHS-II cards.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jul 17, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> The R, RP and reportadly R5 and R6 all have 1.6X crop modes built in. The 5Ds has both 1.6X and 1.3X crop modes. When cropped, the 20MP R6 sensor has about 7.8MP, which arguably isn't "enough" while the 45MP R5 has about 17.6MP which is about what the 7D had and less than the 7D2. There is also the question of whether having everything in one body is a good idea or having two more specialized bodies for about the same amount of money or maybe slightly more is preferable.



8 megapixels is enough for a billboard or a double-truck in a print magazine. Also a 12x18 silver gelatin print could be made from files of a 2004 Canon 20D (8.2 megapixel) at your local big-box store.


----------



## slclick (Jul 17, 2020)

Hate shooting people, bring on the crop RF


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

BakaBokeh said:


> I think I'm leaning to your way of thinking. I did do the whole upgrade path myself, but being able to use full frame lenses on my crop body was more a nice to have. It wasn't a huge deciding factor in making the transition to full frame. At least for me, the psychology was, I wanted to use better gear, so I moved up. If I entered photography now and entered the EF-M system, I think I would eventually jump to the RF line anyway. It's just as a hobbyist starts to become more of an enthusiast and maybe even a pro, they'll naturally upgrade. They don't need lens compatibility between the systems, or at least I don't think it would be a huge road block.
> 
> 100% agree that the Canon is likely segmenting the two mirrorless lines by Small & Light vs Pro/Enthusiast grade. They are such fundamentally different principles that it makes lens compatibility almost impossible between the two. The small and light EF-M lenses could not properly cover the sensor on an RF camera, and an RF to EF-M adapter would need to be much more sophisticated to account for the physics limitations. I suspect, this might be why the EF-M lens lineup might be limited. They may be perfectly happy selling tons of M50's with a few good lenses, instead of developing a full gamut of great EF-M lenses because they would rather consumers just upgrade to the RF system. I hope this isn't the case because EF-M has so much potential based on how great the EF-M 22 f2 & EF-M 32 f1.4 are, so surely they have the capability of developing more. I'd throw my money at them if they did.
> 
> ...



A lot of what you say is true, but you don't seem to understand how most 7-series bodies, particularly the 7D Mark II that has been around since 2014, are used by those that own them.

Yes, the f/11 FF lenses are a new possibility for the daylight crowd, particularly "backyard" birders and daylight only youth sports shooters. But Most of the 7D bodies I've seen in use were in sports/action scenarios where wide apertures are needed to maintain high Tv in poor artificial lighting. Those shooters don't tend to spend much time in forums. They're too busy cropping/straightening/color correcting thousands of action shots and marketing them. At least they were until SARS-CoV-2 hit and shut down youth/high school/college sports.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 17, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> ...A RF (FF) body could use any EF-S lens in crop mode with new adapter...



One correction. R bodies can already use EF-S lenses. They just crop the image.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Tangent said:


> Put all this together and... the M50 mkII is coming for the M series small camera use case. The "R7 " will be aps-c but will of course accept RF lenses without an adapter. The 18-45 IS STM makes most sense as an "RF-S" lens. The "RF-S" lenses will also mount on the FF RF camera bodies -- likely such lenses will be interpreted as ef-s lenses by the camera body and use the existing crop mode software. No more adapters.
> 
> ... Then the digital mirrorless rebels will start coming. The 18-45 "RF-S" kit lens will be accompanied by a few more -- maybe a pancake like the 24 2.8 ef-s, a WA crop zoom, and a compact tele such as the 55-250. Of course the digital mirrorless Rebels will also take RF lenses without an adapter. No more adapters.
> 
> But the ef-m will be on its own island going forward. The M series will live on if sales are good; I hope so, 'cos it's so darn handy to have the option to shoot small.



Except the Rebel buyers are disappearing in droves into the mist of computational photography using their smartphones. That is what is causing the slide in overall ILC sales. The EF-M series already *is* the upper half of the Rebel series for all of the world except North America and Western Europe. Even in N.A. and W.Eur., the vast majority of Rebel buyers never go on to the upgrade paths people at this forum have followed.

It seems to me Canon's strategy is to make FF cheap enough of an entry point that there will be no need for any low-end APS-C R-series cameras. 

If FF had been cheap enough when most of us here had started, we would not have even considering starting with a Rebel or x0D. I know I would not have. I shot 135 format film for 20+ years before going digital. The only reason I entered the digital ILC space with an APS-C camera is because at the time Nikon didn't even offer a FF camera at any price and the cheapest one Canon sold was $3,299+tax.

If an APS-C R7 happens, it will not be a Rebel kind of entry level camera cheaper than the RP. It will be a specialty body for the sports/action/wildlife/birder crowd, just as the 7-series is in the EF ecosystem. There are FF EF cameras (6D Mark II) that now retail new from authorized Canon dealers for the same as a new 7D Mark II costs. The EOS RP is even several hundred dollars cheaper than the 90D. With the latest affordable RF lenses coming down the pike, I think Canon has made it clear that entry level RF cameras will be FF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

JBSF said:


> Agreed. I use 7D2 for birds, but for several years have used it more for insects, especially with the close-focusing 100-400 mark II. I always crop. I have held off on the buying a 90D, because I want to be rid of AFMA. If Canon makes an R-series version of the 7D with appropriate build quality and weatherproofing, even with the 32 mpix sensor of the 90D, I would probably buy it. I would like to see features of the R series added to it, especially IBIS and focus stacking. The sales potential for Canon is huge. I see far more people in the field using a 7D2 with the 100-400 than any other body/lens combination.



Fair enough for the birders. In the youth/highschool/small college sports community, I see the 7D Mark II with a 70-200/2.8 more than any other lens.


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 17, 2020)

c.d.embrey said:


> 8 megapixels is enough for a billboard or a double-truck in a print magazine. Also a 12x18 silver gelatin print could be made from files of a 2004 Canon 20D (8.2 megapixel) at your local big-box store.


Could be made? Sure, and if the image is sufficiently compelling it cold be printed large. However, a file 2, 3, or 4 times larger would look significantly better.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 17, 2020)

c.d.embrey said:


> 8 megapixels is enough for a billboard or a double-truck in a print magazine. Also a 12x18 silver gelatin print could be made from files of a 2004 Canon 20D (8.2 megapixel) at your local big-box store.


This has been raised many times before and those who say this don't understand bird photography. The thing is, if you are shooting almost any kind of songbird you aren't going to get an uncropped image to use. 

Try getting close to an Indigo Bunting. They don't stand still and pose when you walk up to them. That eight megapixels that you think is enough for a billboard can be down to 1 mp or less by the time you crop in on the bird, and that's at 896 mm (400 x 1.4 x 1.6). 

Plus, detail is everything in bird photography. It's not enough for the general outline of the bird to be sharp. Nobody cares if you can pick out every pore on some model's skin. But, you need sharp feathers and a sharp eye and that requires megapixels.

A billboard that you are viewing from 50-100 feet away has no relevance. The 32 mp 90D has been a godsend to my wife (who is a better bird photographer than I am). It's noticeably more useful than the 24 mp of the 80D or the 20 mp of my 7DII. She'd laugh at 8 mp.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Many current FF photographers started out in APS-C when the cheapest FF cameras were $3,000 or more. That much is true.
> 
> But the $3,000 threshold is no longer the case. The EOS RP is currently at $899 brand new in the U.S. from authorized sellers!
> 
> ...



Yeah, but you weren't talking about the the EOS RP (2019-present), you were talking about APS-C cameras from "2003-2012." During those years, many photographers would begin on affordable 20D/Rebel bodies and work their way up to full-frame Canons like the 5D series.

I never said "everyone who shot on APS-C cameras went out to shoot full-frame." I only claimed that _some_ people did, and APS-C cameras became the ladder into full-frame.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> So. Another thing about an APS-C EOS R model. How much do you think it's going to cost?
> 
> If what you want is essentially a 32mpx APS-C sensor in the same body as the R5 - same weather sealing, same IBIS, same dual slots (maybe you'll accept dual SD), maybe only 4K video but possibly 6K RAW.
> 
> ...



It seems to me the original 7D was more the direct continuation of the 40D/50D than it was based on the 5D mark II. The 60D was the first x0D without a magnesium alloy body, and also didn't include AFMA that the 50D had offered. They did move the buttons from the bottom of the 50D to the left side of the 7D like the 5D Mark II. The 7D introduced the "Q" button that the 5D Mark II did not have.

I shot with both the 7D and 5D Mark II at the same time from early 2012 when I replaced my (by then backup body) 50D with a 7D until late 2014, when a 5D Mark III superseded the 5D Mark II. A 7D Mark II replaced the 7D in mid-2015. They were two very different cameras. The 7D had a larger, brighter OVF, highly configurable 19 pt. AF system, and was very fast shooting and responsive while the 5D Mark II had a smaller, dimmer OVF, primitive 9 pt. AF system, and was nowhere near as fast handling. If anything, the design of the 7D was looking ahead to the design of the 5D Mark III more than back to the 5D Mark II. The 5D Mark III is where the two series really converged in terms of size, shape, menus, AF system, etc. The 7D Mark II then moved up to the 5DIII/1D X level AF system.

But even if the 7D was based on the 5D Mark II: 

The 5D Mark II cost $2,699 when introduced in 2008. That was considerably cheaper than the 5D had debuted at $3,299. 
The 7D cost $1,699 at introduction in 2009. 

The 5D Mark III came in at $3,499 in 2012.
The 7D Mark II was priced at $1,799 in 2014.

The 7D was less than 2/3 the price of the 5D Mark II.
The 7D Mark II was barely more than half the price of the 5D Mark III.

I do not think it unrealistic to expect a possible APS-C R7 to be priced around $2000-$2200 USD in 2021.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> It seems to me the original 7D was more the direct continuation of the 40D/50D than it was based on the 5D mark II. The 60D was the first x0D without a magnesium alloy body, and also didn't include AFMA that the 50D had offered. They did move the buttons from the bottom of the 50D to the left side of the 7D like the 5D Mark II. The 7D introduced the "Q" button that the 5D Mark II did not have.
> 
> I shot with both the 7D and 5D Mark II at the same time from early 2012 when I replaced my (by then backup body) 50D with a 7D until late 2014, when a 5D Mark III superseded the 5D Mark II. A 7D Mark II replaced the 7D in mid-2015. They were two very different cameras. The 7D had a larger, brighter OVF, highly configurable 19 pt. AF system, and was very fast shooting and responsive while the 5D Mark II had a smaller, dimmer OVF, primitive 9 pt. AF system, and was nowhere near as fast handling. If anything, the design of the 7D was looking ahead to the design of the 5D Mark III more than back to the 5D Mark II. The 5D Mark III is where the two series really converged in terms of size, shape, menus, AF system, etc. The 7D Mark II then moved up to the 5DIII/1D X level AF system.
> 
> ...



Well-argued, I agree, that pricing seems right.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

konsolas_captures said:


> I have a Canon Eos M5 and I am really happy with this camera. I really hope and believe that this new camera is an M camera. Supposed that this camera is a 7D replacement for bird photography and stuff like that, how many of the 7D users have moved to Full Frame? Probably none because they want APS-C sensor. So there is no need to be a path from a APS-C to FF, at least for those users. The second reason I think this would be a M camera is the price. If this is going to be the best M mount camera then a price of 1.500 € is quite reasonable but if it’s an RF mount camera then I don’t think it’s logical to be more expensive than a camera in the same mount category which has better sensor (RP). It makes more sense to compare cameras with the same sensor size or in the same mount than to compare different mounts. Third and last reason is Canon’s reliability. If this is an RF mount camera it sends a message that the M mount is dead and although it is not one of the best mount it is one of the most popular and most profitable Mount. If you can’t trust Canon to keep developing a system that popular you can’t trust the RF mount either. Camera market is in danger and although RF mount is great and professional is not by itself a sustainable for the company mount.
> Just my opinion



"Supposed that this camera is a 7D replacement for bird photography and stuff like that, how many of the 7D users have moved to Full Frame? Probably none because they want APS-C sensor."

Most 7-series camera owners I know also own FF cameras. I owned my first 5-series camera before my first 7-series camera. Both were available when I got the 5D Mark II in 2011.

"The second reason I think this would be a M camera is the price. If this is going to be the best M mount camera then a price of 1.500 € is quite reasonable but if it’s an RF mount camera then I don’t think it’s logical to be more expensive than a camera in the same mount category which has better sensor (RP)."

Based on comparative pricing of the 7-series and 5-series (please see my most recent previous post above), it's not unrealistic to expect a 7D-like R7 to come in at around $2,000 USD. It will not be an entry level camera designed to give new buyers a cheaper option than the RP. A FF camera like the RP didn't really exist in the EF line. The price of the RP and the dwindling price of the R is more a reaction to Sony and Nikon competition, not a duplication of the 6D-series pricing practices. Canon seems to have determined that the entry level R cameras will be FF.

"It makes more sense to compare cameras with the same sensor size or in the same mount than to compare different mounts."

Except that almost all users of 7D and 7D Mark II bodies tend to use EF (full frame) telephoto lenses on them, rather than cheaper, smaller EF-S lenses in the wide angle and normal focal length ranges. The EF-S lens users stuck with the 70D/80D/90D.

"Third and last reason is Canon’s reliability. If this is an RF mount camera it sends a message that the M mount is dead and although it is not one of the best mount it is one of the most popular and most profitable Mount."

It does no such thing. The M-series cameras are the new affordable and compact cameras for non-professionals and non-enthusiasts, much like the Rebels once were. Every EF-M lens Canon has released is the same diameter. Canon has never indicated they plan to ever make the M-series anything other than a small, affordable camera that is convenient to take along when a smartphone camera is not enough. Canon has never even hinted that any lenses larger than the existing EF-M lineup will ever be introduced.

An APS-C R7 will be no more like an M-series camera than the 7D Mark II was like a Rebel/xx0D. They're aimed at totally different potential buyers.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 17, 2020)

Whowe said:


> Does she read these forums....
> 
> Seriously, that's awesome!





Michael Clark said:


> You know, the one with zero thickness so that it can be placed between an RF lens and RF body!


Honestly, atmospheric disrotion would play a huge role in really long equivalent focal lengths. These guys talking about how they will get 1,200 or 1,600 mm equivalents out of these lenses... I don't think they have thought about that much.


----------



## jvillain (Jul 17, 2020)

BMD has a 96MP S35 sensor sans bayer filter. I would be OK if they used that and stuck it in an R body.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jul 17, 2020)

Whowe said:


> I agree. For what they would want to charge for it and the size to make it weather sealed, rugged, etc., it really doesn't "fit" the M Series line very well. I can see it as an R series and few or NO APS-C lenses in RF mount ever made for it. Just assume owners will use full frame RF mount lenses or adapt older APS-c lenses.
> 
> Many of the lenses I use on my 7Dii (and all of the better glass such as 100-400L, 70-200L, 300L) are full frame.


I think this is the most likely approach for Canon. I don’t think they would do more than 24-26mpx in order to better control high ISO. I never liked the ISO of 7d/7dII and I owned both cameras. The build and functions were great, but I never liked the high ISO performance.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Skux said:


> I just can't see them doing an APS-C EOS R camera. The mount is huge and they would have to make dedicated crop lenses, when they already exist for the M mount.
> 
> I own the M6ii and it's great. If they made the viewfinder built-in, gave it IBIS, maybe a bigger battery, and gave it true native or downsampled 4k it'd be incredible.
> 
> What they need is some quality M zooms. Like an 18-55 f2.8, or an 18-105 f4, and then a 400+.



I can't see Canon ever making EF-M lenses larger than the same diameter that every single EF-M lens they make currently is. It's been eight years. If they were going to make a lens more than 61mm in diameter, they'd have done it by now.

I can't see them making any EOS-M bodies that are larger than the M5.

I see Canon as building the entire M-series ecosystem around the idea of a small, affordable camera with compact lenses for non-professionals/non-enthusiast buyers who want a camera that is easy to take with them when they want more than what their smartphones can do.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 17, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Here's what I would do if I were Canon:
> 
> * The new 1.6x crop sensor body uses the existing *R mount* and for sake of argument let's assume it will be called a *RS* camera.
> * It can use any RF (FF) lens, using the 1.6x crop of the image circle.
> ...


I see no point in RF-s lenses for a "high end" apsc body. I started out with EF-s bodies and lenses. When I was starting out, I mistakenly believed that an Ef-s lens at 50mm focal length was exactly the same framing as using a 50mm EF lens on a ff. It isn't. It's just a cheaper lens, but not always. They both frame the same on a crop sensor body. Once I figured that out, I only bought EF lenses. It isn't as though Canon is going to make super-tele lenses specifically for a crop sensor body. Never have. The new "cheap" f/11 super-tele lenses are squarely in the FF camp. An APS-C body makes sense for people who want the high density sensor for their birding or sports, or whatever.. APS-C lenses do not make any sense at all. Just my opinion. APS-C lenses offer no path at all to a FF upgrade. They are a dead end.On the other hand, a crop sensor R body makes complete sense.


----------



## Danglin52 (Jul 17, 2020)

Whowe said:


> I agree. For what they would want to charge for it and the size to make it weather sealed, rugged, etc., it really doesn't "fit" the M Series line very well. I can see it as an R series and few or NO APS-C lenses in RF mount ever made for it. Just assume owners will use full frame RF mount lenses or adapt older APS-c lenses.
> 
> Many of the lenses I use on my 7Dii (and all of the better glass such as 100-400L, 70-200L, 300L) are full frame.


I think this is the most likely approach for Canon. I don’t believe they would do more than 24-26mpx in order to control high ISO. I never liked the ISO of 7d/7dII and owned both Cameras. I never used EF-S lenses and don’t remember seeing them on 7d’s in the field.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Someone posted a video on one of the R5/R6 threads of an interview and there was the implication that the R6 was actually a replacement(mirrorless version might be a better description) of both the 6d2 AND the 7d2



Except the R6 is nowhere near an equivalent for the 7D Mark II the way that most 7D Mark II owners used them.

It doesn't have the pixel density that 7D Mark II users want/need.

It doesn't have the top grade magnesium alloy body and highest level weather sealing that the 7D Mark II has.

It does might have fast handling capability, depending upon how well the lower than top grade EVF can handle sports/action/birds.

It does have a 300,000 shutter durability rating that 7D Mark II users will value.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 17, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> I think this is the most likely approach for Canon. I don’t believe they would do more than 24-26mpx in order to control high ISO. I never liked the ISO of 7d/7dII and owned both Cameras. I never used EF-S lenses and don’t remember seeing them on 7d’s in the field.


Agreed, though I think the sensor will be higher than 26mpx.

I started out with EF-s lenses. I was a little pissed off when I figured out that they frame the same as an EF lens on the same crop sensor camera. Expensive learning experience for me.  After that, I never understood the point of those lenses other than maybe the cost.


----------



## researcher (Jul 17, 2020)

This would be great - I've been half-joking that an R7 was surely in the pipe on this forum for awhile. All those Canon Rebel owners - the majority of Canon DSLR buyers - should have a path to the mirrorless R-series, which, face it, is the mainline upgrade path to follow - M is pretty much an off-shoot path. 

I know I'm not a pro shooter and have no aspirations to be one. APSC is good enough for me, so I'd like the chance to keep my existing EF-S lenses and benefit from the innovations in the R-series, like IBIS, 4K, connectivity, advanced dual pixel focusing and all those goodies. 

I think an R7 type camera will have much more appeal than people here might believe (in the sense that people here are not as average shooters as the great masses). Personally, I don't care much for megapixels - I'd like to see something affordable, with low light capability, and I think a smaller APSC sensor might be a great place to introduce a global shutter feature, if the processing capacity can handle/be adapted to it. Lets see what comes out - they dazzled with the R5 and R6, so hopefully an R7 will do the same.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 17, 2020)

researcher said:


> This would be great - I've been half-joking that an R7 was surely in the pipe on this forum for awhile. All those Canon Rebel owners - the majority of Canon DSLR buyers - should have a path to the mirrorless R-series, which, face it, is the mainline upgrade path to follow - M is pretty much an off-shoot path.
> 
> I know I'm not a pro shooter and have no aspirations to be one. APSC is good enough for me, so I'd like the chance to keep my existing EF-S lenses and benefit from the innovations in the R-series, like IBIS, 4K, connectivity, advanced dual pixel focusing and all those goodies.
> 
> I think an R7 type camera will have much more appeal than people here might believe (in the sense that people here are not as average shooters as the great masses). Personally, I don't care much for megapixels - I'd like to see something affordable, with low light capability, and I think a smaller APSC sensor might be a great place to introduce a global shutter feature, if the processing capacity can handle/be adapted to it. Lets see what comes out - they dazzled with the R5 and R6, so hopefully an R7 will do the same.


Depending on what your definition of affordable is, I don't think this camera is it. The rumor specifically states "high end". I am guessing at least $2k. The 7D Mark II is not a Rebel.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

wyotex43n said:


> I agree with you. The 7d mk2 is the in between camera that probably caused a lot of discussion at Canon. Its APC but with the speed and build quality of of the higher end FF Canon's. Most users put higher end telephotos on them. In effect a budget 1D minus the high iso performance. I think Canon sees two markets. FF with high quality expensive lenses and profit margin. M series for small light relatively inexpensive but prone to erosion due to smart phones.
> The new 600/800mm seem like gateway products to entice users to the RF side.



I think the RF 600/800 f/11 lenses are meant to entice and will entice more EF-S shooters (and Micro Four-Thirds) to RF than any EF-M shooters.

The EOS M series has been around for eight years. Canon seems pretty clear that they see it is a one-trick pony: small, affordable cameras with compact lenses for someone who wants a camera easy to carry around when their smartphone isn't quite enough. It's not aimed at anyone that wants a 400mm lens, much less an 800mm lens. It's not aimed at anyone who might have aspirations of eventually moving to full frame or owning a backpack full of lenses. It's not intended for any use that requires a lens larger in diameter than every single EF-M lens ever made: 61mm.

If Canon ever intended to make an EF-M lens larger in diameter than 61mm, they would have done it by now.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 17, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Been there, done that - I've had great fun with my 100-400mm mounted to my M6 Mk II.



As have I. In fact, I've yet to use that lens (or any lens) on a full frame, though that could change as early as July 30.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Traveler said:


> But why is an R7 needed? I guess it was for high speed back in the days. But now you can shoot 12/20fps with a FF



It was more than just high speed.

It was also top build quality and weather resistance on the same level as the 1-series.
It was also an AF system designed at the same level as the 1D X/5D Mark III (though the narrower baseline of an APS-C mirror limited its performance relative to the FF systems).
It was also a shutter durability rating that exceeded the 5-series by a factor of 1.33X.
It was also high pixel density on the same level as the 5Ds.

All for a price lower than a slower polycarbonate FF body with much lower pixel density and a basic Rebel-level AF system.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

1D4 said:


> I'll call my shot...R7 announcing in January, priced at $1899 US, somewhere in the 20-24MP range.



I think Canon will hold off on this one a bit longer until sports at the local level are back in full swing with full capacity crowds allowed to attend. I don't see that happening by the beginning of 2021. Maybe by the end of 2021.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Indeed, if if weren;t for Sigma the lens lineup for EOS-M would be embarassing after so many years. I may have bought something along the lines of an M5II in RF mount, but hopefully we get to see a 7DII successor in RF mount long before Nikon makes a D500 successor. If the AF is basically R5 level in a crop sensor of 24-30MP, I may grab that over the R5, would be happy with just 4K60p, 4K30p and FHD180p



I don't think Canon ever intended nor currently intends to release an EF-M lens that is not 61mm in diameter, give or take 0.2mm.

After eight years it ought to be obvious what role Canon sees the M-series filling: Compact cameras and lenses that are affordable and can meet the needs of buyers who are not photo professionals nor photo enthusiasts.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Yeah, but you weren't talking about the the EOS RP (2019-present), you were talking about APS-C cameras from "2003-2012." During those years, many photographers would begin on affordable 20D/Rebel bodies and work their way up to full-frame Canons like the 5D series.
> 
> I never said "everyone who shot on APS-C cameras went out to shoot full-frame." I only claimed that _some_ people did, and APS-C cameras became the ladder into full-frame.



The elephant in the room you are ignoring is that back then, with the lone exception of the $2,699 5D Mark II in 2008, every full frame camera during that entire era was priced at over $3,400. That is no longer the case now. One no longer has to start with APS-C body to get an affordable camera. By affordable I mean for those folks who eventually moved up the ladder to full frame, not those who can't afford any entry level interchangeable lens camera that costs $500 or more.

The 20D, at $1,499 when released, was considerably more expensive in 2004 dollars than the RP costs in 2020. That $1.5K in 2004 bought what $2,047 buys in 2020. Adjusted for inflation, the full frame RP in 2020 costs half what the 20D cost in 2004!

Give it time for their initial owners to upgrade and used RP bodies will be available for far less than what used 20D bodies went for in the late 2000s.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 17, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Here's what I would do if I were Canon:
> 
> * The new 1.6x crop sensor body uses the existing *R mount* and for sake of argument let's assume it will be called a *RS* camera.
> * It can use any RF (FF) lens, using the 1.6x crop of the image circle.
> ...



RS is probably not a good choice.

"S" in Canon nomenclature of camera bodies for the past two decades has indicated higher resolution variants of different models.

The 1Ds series was the FF, higher resolution counterpart to the APS-H 1D series.
The 5Ds and 5Ds R were the 50MP counterparts to the 22 MP 5D Mark III.

It'd be like calling an APS-C version of a Sony α7 series an α7R.

Also, most of those EF→RF adapters you theorize about already exist and are capable of handling EF-S lenses.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 17, 2020)

Whatever they do, I wouldn't want the M line to get cancelled. 

M is great for keeping the body and the lenses small.
Great for travel.

If Canon does make a high end APS-C, I think business wise they should do that with and RF mount, not EF-M. And I would be fine with that.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The elephant in the room you are ignoring is that back then, with the lone exception of the $2,699 5D Mark II in 2008, every full frame camera during that entire era was priced at over $3,400. That is no longer the case now. One no longer has to start with APS-C body to get an affordable camera. By affordable I mean for those folks who eventually moved up the ladder to full frame, not those who can't afford any entry level interchangeable lens camera that costs $500 or more.
> 
> The 20D, at $1,499 when released, was considerably more expensive in 2004 dollars than the RP costs in 2020. That $1.5K in 2004 bought what $2,047 buys in 2020. Adjusted for inflation, the full frame RP in 2020 costs half what the 20D cost in 2004!
> 
> Give it time for their initial owners to upgrade and used RP bodies will be available for far less than what used 20D bodies went for in the late 2000s.



I'm not ignoring anything, but it's obvious the conversation has somehow shifted from talking about the past to talking about the present.

We're in perfect agreement that the ILC market, and the cameras available on it, is different in 2020 than it was in 2005.


----------



## Twinix (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> That depends upon whether it only has 20 MP like the R6 or has much higher resolution. UHS-II would probably be more than enough. But for similar capacity, the fastest UHS-II cards aren't much cheaper than CFExpress cards, and even the slowest CFExpress cards are faster than the fastest UHS-II cards.


Of course it all depends. The R5 has a buffer of 180 RAW images, so I don’t think it will be a problem.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 17, 2020)

1D4 said:


> I'll call my shot...R7 announcing in January, priced at $1899 US, somewhere in the 20-24MP range.



I'm ready 
Though I hope they make it a bit cheaper. I don't need the full-proff 1Dx roughness of the 7D series. I rather have the an articulated LCD and a body build something like in the R6 to R5 ballgame.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> A lot of what you say is true, but you don't seem to understand how most 7-series bodies, particularly the 7D Mark II that has been around since 2014, are used by those that own them.



True:




__





Flickr: Camera Finder: Canon


The safest and most inclusive global community of photography enthusiasts. The best place for inspiration, connection, and sharing!




www.flickr.com


----------



## Pape (Jul 17, 2020)

I think if they make R7 it will be like 6k $ camera .
No need sell it with minimal profit anymore when there are options like 800mm f11 and R6 for low budget bird shooters.
Will be more mini 1 camera than never before.
Maybe they name it R1s


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Except the R6 is nowhere near an equivalent for the 7D Mark II the way that most 7D Mark II owners used them.
> 
> It doesn't have the pixel density that 7D Mark II users want/need.
> 
> ...


Oh I agree. The resolution is no match for a 7d2 but the video hinted at it being considered as such. So while i would love to see an R7 so to speak i am thinking it wont happen. I certainly hope i am wrong though.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 17, 2020)

Tangent said:


> So, just my guess, I think that we will see a mirrorless RF/"RF-S" APS-C digital Rebel... I would guess before year-end 2021. Otoh, the FF RP with its kit was selling for $1k recently, but still, that's not entry-level for a lot of folks. You need something cheaper to get 'em hooked.



The body cost is not the factor here. The cost of the lenses is. RF lenses are not affordable options for APS-C shooters right now (except for the long lenses) - would Canon be willing to invest in yet another lineup of APS-C lenses for such a camera? I really doubt it.

By far the easiest option for them to reach the "chunky hands crowd" (which I really don't think exists, by the way. We're just used to larger cameras and we find smaller cameras uncomfortable. Those who are new to it adapt much more quickly to smaller cameras than us 'old hands') is either to sell them the RP equivalent and get them onto the low-end of full frame, or to produce a slightly meatier EOS M body.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> There's no issue at all with the lens protocols. Canon has all of the code, and both the EF-M and RF protocols are expanded versions of the EF protocols.
> 
> The issue is physical: comparative throat diameters and only 2mm difference in registration distance doesn't leave room for the RF bayonet lugs behind the RF flange 20mm from the sensor.



Canon never produce anything tor any mount which isn't backwards compatible with the oldest models, and older EF-M bodies won't be able to deal with RF protocols because of hardware limitations, not just firmware. 

But yes, the physical constraints are the biggest issue.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 17, 2020)

dwarven said:


> I highly doubt it. $2199 would be very ambitious in a market where full frame is considered the best, and the end game for photography. And you can get a good full frame body for a few hundred less than that.



Which means we've pretty much all accepted that it can't happen because the margins aren't in it for Canon. At least not yet.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The 5D Mark III came in at $3,499 in 2012.
> The 7D Mark II was priced at $1,799 in 2014.
> 
> The 7D was less than 2/3 the price of the 5D Mark II.
> ...



Agree with pretty much everything you say - the key thing here is the time factor. The rumors now are that we might hear at least an announcement of an APS-C camera this year, but I find that highly unlikely, I really suspect we'll hear about such a camera this time next year at the earliest and then your pricing starts to be possible. 

I don't think the R7 would be cheaper than the R6. It will have a higher quality body, a higher pixel count sensor and the benefits of another year of design & technology. I'd wager at the lowest it'll be exactly the same price the R6 is selling for in a years time, and possibly a little more.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The $1,799 7D Mark II had more weather sealing and a higher shutter durability rating when it was introduced in 2014 than the the current 5-series camera at the time, the 5D Mark III introduced at $3,499 in 2012. The much less durable FF 6D was introduced at $2,099 in 2012.


I bet it was also sold in much larger quantities then Canon would expect to sell a "high-end crop RF body" now.

For most potential R7 buyers, the question would be: why buy R6+R7 if you can just buy a R5.

So, the economies of scale should make the R7 more expensive.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I started out with EF-s lenses. I was a little pissed off when I figured out that they frame the same as an EF lens on the same crop sensor camera. Expensive learning experience for me.  After that, I never understood the point of those lenses other than maybe the cost.


Unfortunately, there is no EF 15-85 lens.


----------



## Kane Clements (Jul 17, 2020)

I've trawled through several pages of posts and can't be bothered to get to the end. In all the posts I've read the following has not been mentioned.

1. The EF to R mount adaptor gives full functionality to EF lenses. EF-S lenses do work but the useful MPs are severely reduced.

2. There is a ton of EF-S glass out there. These lenses are native to crop sensor cameras.

3. Canon still sells lots of EF-S glass. The lenses are cash cows for them. Development cost are long since covered, less expensive to produce, good profits.

4. By introducing a Crop Sensor R range body, Canon can open up the joys of a larger body mirrorless camera to EF-S lens owners with a simple adaptor, maybe current EF to R would work allowing use of EF glass as well.

5. That move would drive body sales and keep current users tied in.

6. Canon would avoid in the short term the need to develop an RF-S lens range.

I know everyone likes to speculate about the up and coming bodies. However my take is the move is driven by cold hard commercial realism. If people can use their EF-S glasswork they are more likely to stick with Canon.

And customers benefit as well.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I see no point in RF-s lenses for a "high end" apsc body. I started out with EF-s bodies and lenses. When I was starting out, I mistakenly believed that an Ef-s lens at 50mm focal length was exactly the same framing as using a 50mm EF lens on a ff. It isn't. It's just a cheaper lens, but not always. They both frame the same on a crop sensor body. Once I figured that out, I only bought EF lenses. It isn't as though Canon is going to make super-tele lenses specifically for a crop sensor body. Never have. The new "cheap" f/11 super-tele lenses are squarely in the FF camp. An APS-C body makes sense for people who want the high density sensor for their birding or sports, or whatever.. APS-C lenses do not make any sense at all. Just my opinion. APS-C lenses offer no path at all to a FF upgrade. They are a dead end.On the other hand, a crop sensor R body makes complete sense.


Well, thinking a compact R crop sensor body making sense is a good start, especially if they can make the EF-M-to-R adapter as I talked about. If they do invest to make the R crop body, then I think it'd be a good idea to make at least 1 or 2 compact R crop lenses to really show it off. They could offer a real discount for buying the body and lens at the same time or as a kit.

You know, all this is just thinking what might be good for Canon, but I'm only interested in their FF anyway.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> RS is probably not a good choice.
> 
> "S" in Canon nomenclature of camera bodies for the past two decades has indicated higher resolution variants of different models.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I agree. I've corrected my initial post. It was a work in progress. I think it's much reduced in size and clarified. I thought RM might be a better name for a R crop body or lens since EF-M was for the crop mirrorless EF version. Who knows? The name could be anything.

The funny thing is, as a new Canon person I'm only interested in Canon FF so the whole idea was just for Canon's sake, not mine.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 17, 2020)

zim said:


> Price aside that's the direction I thought Canon were going especially with the introduction of the 100-500 which has finally sold me on RF so I'm finding this rumour rather confusing


theoretically, a smaller sensor may allow for a faster mechanical shutter FPS, X-Sync...


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 17, 2020)

Skux said:


> I own the M6ii and it's great. If they made the viewfinder built-in, gave it IBIS, maybe a bigger battery, and gave it true native or downsampled 4k it'd be incredible.


You have to bear in mind that we're talking about a 7D-class body, so it needs the ergonomics to suit. Also, use with bigger lenses is really important. Both of these things point to a larger body, which in turn removes any objection to an RF mount.



Skux said:


> What they need is some quality M zooms. Like an 18-55 f2.8, or an 18-105 f4, and then a 400+.


The fact that these don't exist after eight years of EF-M lenses should tell us that Canon is not pursuing that route. They didn't with EF-S either of course, with the exception of the 17-55/2.8 which has seen no updates in 14 years, and even that has no weatherproofing so it's not a good partner to the 7D/7D2.


----------



## SteB1 (Jul 17, 2020)

It would certainly make sense to produce an RF mount 7D mkII type upgrade (he says hopefully). Just slap the M6 mkII gubbins in one of the new R type bodies with IBIS, bigger buffer, and they've probably been developing that anyway, and you've probably got quite a good 7D upgrade without any major R&D. Not sure what the technical limitations of the 32mp sensor will be as regards frame rates, video (obviously not 8K as that would require a 45mp sensor). It's all a matter of whether Canon will do it.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 17, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> 28MP would be in line with the R5's sensor.


28Mpx crop = 72 Mpx FF. R5 sensor is equivalent to ~18 Mpx crop. Apologies to others who have mentioned it. I don't particularly want the 32 Mpx sensor from the M6II/90D. As soon as the iso gets above a couple of 100, I get better files from my 5DSR (cropped to APS-C) or another APS-C that has a 20 Mpx sensor without an AA-filter than from my 90D with no worse resolution.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 17, 2020)

sanj said:


> I prefer dedicated crop sensor as I feel the camera and lenses can be lighter and cheaper.


Less difference in weight than you might think. The Nikon D850 FF is only a few gram heavier than the D500 crop, and can be used in crop mode with the ~same resolution. I would use the R5 in both FF and crop. When using telephoto primes, the FF mode is really useful and adds an extra 1.6x field of view, the crop mode saves file space. I wouldn't consider a new Canon APS-C if it didn't take RF lenses.


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 17, 2020)

Kane Clements said:


> I've trawled through several pages of posts and can't be bothered to get to the end. In all the posts I've read the following has not been mentioned.
> 
> 1. The EF to R mount adaptor gives full functionality to EF lenses. EF-S lenses do work but the useful MPs are severely reduced.
> 
> ...


You may be right, but when I owned the 7D II, I never owned or shot any EF-S glass. I only used EF telephoto glass for wildlife (primarily birds). That’s because there was no pro level, telephoto APS-c glass available. It was that extra reach of APS-c that I coveted. If there had been an APS-c telephoto lens available with good IQ and fast focus (in 400 - 600mm range), I would have considered getting it just for use on this camera. Seeing that fast autofocus is now possible at f~8 with R series cameras, I’m seeing some real opportunities for new pro level wildlife lenses. The new RF 100-500mm may be just the beginning.


----------



## Kane Clements (Jul 17, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> You may be right, but when I owned the 7D II, I never owned or shot any EF-S glass. I only used EF telephoto glass for wildlife (primarily birds). That’s because there was no pro level, telephoto APS-c glass available. It was that extra reach of APS-c that I coveted. If there had been an APS-c telephoto lens available with good IQ and fast focus (in 400 - 600mm range), I would have considered getting it just for use on this camera. Seeing that fast autofocus is now possible at f~8 with R series cameras, I’m seeing some real opportunities for new pro level wildlife lenses. The new RF 100-500mm may be just the beginning.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 17, 2020)

A mirrorless 7d mk 2 replacement would certainly be appreciated.


----------



## Kane Clements (Jul 17, 2020)

You make a very valid point. The mirror less 7D III would be the flagship and then as is is generally the case the tech will be passed down a new range of cameras designed to fit other market segments. Those are the cameras / users who will tend towards EF-S glass.


----------



## degos (Jul 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Honestly, atmospheric disrotion would play a huge role in really long equivalent focal lengths. These guys talking about how they will get 1,200 or 1,600 mm equivalents out of these lenses... I don't think they have thought about that much.



600mm with 2x TC IS fairly common at airshows.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 17, 2020)

Pretty excited about this, just hope they don’t cram too many MPs in it like the 90D. Low light performance is way more important than an extra 8MP. 

Also, those f11 lenses would be shit on an crop sensor.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I can't see Canon ever making EF-M lenses larger than the same diameter that every single EF-M lens they make currently is. It's been eight years. If they were going to make a lens more than 61mm in diameter, they'd have done it by now.
> 
> I can't see them making any EOS-M bodies that are larger than the M5.
> 
> I see Canon as building the entire M-series ecosystem around the idea of a small, affordable camera with compact lenses for non-professionals/non-enthusiast buyers who want a camera that is easy to take with them when they want more than what their smartphones can do.


They already make larger diameter lenses that fit the M mount...with an adapter. I have used my M5 with the Canon 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2 and 70-200 f/4 L IS lenses. All work well and aren't absurdly large on the M5. On the wide end, it's a different story. I own the 24 and 35 f/1.4 L lenses and those are too large. I bought the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and 30 f/1.4 lenses and highly recommend them on the M5. I'll probably never buy the 56 f/1.4 Sigma because the Canon 50 works so well.


----------



## zim (Jul 17, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> theoretically, a smaller sensor may allow for a faster mechanical shutter FPS, X-Sync...


Indeed if that and the sensor has higher mpix that would be interesting. Actually the FPS is fine as it stands for me so reducing the size to increase the pixel count would also work (same-ish throughput). Assuming the pixel count would be noticeably more than the R5 in crop mode though otherwise I don't really see the point.


----------



## zim (Jul 17, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Also, those f11 lenses would be shit on an crop sensor.


I wondered about that if true then two more reasons to doubt this rumour


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> *The R7 will NOT be the cheapest, entry level RF body. There's no way it will be cheaper than an RP or whatever eventually replaces the RP. *
> 
> If an R7 happens, it will be a specialist body for sports/action/wildlife photographers just like the 7D series was. The target buyer will not be someone buying their first "real" camera. The target buyer will be someone who is already in the RF system (or is in the EF system and currently using the 7D Mark II) and has a specific need for a durable, fast, and affordable camera with pixel density that gives them "reach" at a fraction of the price of a FF camera with the same pixel density, speed, and durability.




I think our thoughts of segmentation and product tier-ing may be off a bit now that we've seen the R5 and R6.

'The R5 is effectively the mirrorless 5D5.' I'd peg this as just about right. 

'The R6 is the effectively the mirrorless 6D3.' Now that we know what that camera was given, that statement seems a bit of a reach -- that camera got hooked up with just about everything from the R5 other than the sensor. And Canon has somewhat fragmented the lower end of the FF market with the R and RP -- both of which may or may not get sequeled (my money is now on R = RIP, RP may live on). 

So 'The R7 is effectively the mirrorless 7D3' -- while surely possible -- does not fill my heart with confidence. Perhaps Canon is simply imagining a completely FF future, and they are trying to diversify that platform's appeal to different budgets and userbases.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> a durable, fast, and affordable camera with pixel density that gives them "reach" at a fraction of the price of a FF camera with the same pixel density, speed, and durability.



This is the problem. People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much.

Now, one thing I've thought about, and I have no idea if it's even possible to make, is whether they can produced a hybrid FF sensor where the dot pitch of the APS-C section is higher than the dot-pitch of the full frame area outside. It would produce confusing raw files that would take Adobe an age to decode, but could potentially allow lower-resolution FF shots or higher resolution APS-C shots. I've no idea if this would even have any price advantage over simply making the entire sensor the higher resolution - just thinking random thoughts.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> These guys talking about how they will get 1,200 or 1,600 mm equivalents out of these lenses... I don't think they have thought about that much.


Tsk, tsk. Not only "thought about" but "used in anger, very successfuly, _in the right circumstances_".

I actually addressed your very point here:


> it's not a common occurrence to need to be out at that FL, *and atmospheric conditions usually become a limiting feature* - but I've certainly needed to go there enough times to see a benefit, so I'll see if I can dig some out.



See? Thought about..!


----------



## unfocused (Jul 17, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> This is the problem. People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much...



And yet the 7DII was less than half the cost of the 1Dx. Granted, there were more differences than just the sensor, but the feature set of the 7DII sat well above the then current and more expensive 5DIII and was much closer to the 1Dx. Suggesting that Canon price points and profit margins are something that none of us can really speak to with any authority.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 17, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I don't think this is all true. The APS-C rebels also served as a ladder for many of us to get into full-frame cameras. In fact, I don't know _any_ photographers who went whole-ham and purchased a 5D as their first digital camera (though I suppose I don't know many wealthy people, either. Maybe this is more common than I know).




I did.
My first DSLR was the Canon 5D3 about 6 months after it was released.
I actually bought it primarily out of interest of exploring shooting really good video footage with great lenses.

It has only been in the last few years actually that I really have gotten into stills shooting which I really, really enjoy.

Not wealthy by any means, but when the 5D3 came out I happened to hit upon a decently lucrative contract job on the side and that paid for the camera with kit lens and also enough for 70-200mm 2.8 II, and an 85mm, I think was the 1.4 or 1.8?

Anyway....kinda fell into it, but that was my first DSLR.

I'd not really shot anything since 35mm film days as a teen with a Nikon FA.

I also don't tend to buy lots of little crap during the year, I prefer to save my pennies and buy 1 or two major things a year....

C


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jul 17, 2020)

If they make an R7 what would I have left to whine about? Why even get up in the morning. 

Seriously, as far as telephoto lens options go, just use the RF-EF converter, slap the 600 F4L iii or 500 F4L ii on and go to town. I'm sure Canon will make native super-zooms to the RF mount at some point too. 


If they somehow got an 800 F5 or something I think I'd just forget about ever buying a house and just get that.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jul 17, 2020)

zim said:


> I wondered about that if true then two more reasons to doubt this rumour



they can make new RF super-zoom glass. Or an official EF-RF adapter


----------



## researcher (Jul 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Depending on what your definition of affordable is, I don't think this camera is it. The rumor specifically states "high end". I am guessing at least $2k. The 7D Mark II is not a Rebel.


Fair point. That said, I'm still curious what they will come out with - as long as it has the same base features (IBIS, eye-focus, mount etc.) and is priced below an R6, I'm willing to take a serious look. And who knows, if enough people want one, maybe they will make a Rebel-ized version that will move in volume. Even in the era crazy smart phones, there are enough weirdos who want a baby-step-up to better image quality and creative flexibility. Lets see what emerges.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Jul 17, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> This is the problem. People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much.
> 
> Now, one thing I've thought about, and I have no idea if it's even possible to make, is whether they can produced a hybrid FF sensor where the dot pitch of the APS-C section is higher than the dot-pitch of the full frame area outside. It would produce confusing raw files that would take Adobe an age to decode, but could potentially allow lower-resolution FF shots or higher resolution APS-C shots. I've no idea if this would even have any price advantage over simply making the entire sensor the higher resolution - just thinking random thoughts.


lol. I was just thinking of a possible solution for the pixel density/reach problem and in a half awake state, my engineering brain thought of the same solution. Pixels in the APS-C region are of a higher resolution... and when shooting full frame, those pixels get binned to match the larger pixels sizes outside the full frame. I would probably make the camera do that instead of creating weird hybrid files.

The other idea I had is a combining of segments. Crop mode is a feature for R cameras going forward, so a super high resolution camera could address the pixel density problem. I'm thinking the R5s or R3 with with 80 MP would give you ~30MP in crop mode. The idea though, is where the processing power gets shifted. In High Resolution mode, you'd have a slower shooting speed... maybe around the ballpark of an EOS R. In crop mode, the lower resolution will allow processing resources to shift to accommodate faster shooting speeds... most like matching the R5/R6 12/20 FPS. High Resolution to make the 5Ds users happy, and High Speed Crop/Pixel Density to make the 7DII users happy. And this is an 'easy' camera that Canon can develop which would streamline the model lines in this contracting camera market, so they're happy. Although... wallets might not be happy.


----------



## dwarven (Jul 17, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Which means we've pretty much all accepted that it can't happen because the margins aren't in it for Canon. At least not yet.











There may be a higher-end APS-C mirrorless announced in late 2020, early 2021 [CR2]


I have been told that Canon has plans to announce a "high-end" APS-C camera in late 2020 or early 2021. Product launches are obviously affected by the current



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## anth455 (Jul 17, 2020)

I posted this in another thread. A 1.3 crop mode on the R5 would still be 26mp. 500mm x 1.3 is 650 and the file sizes would be similar to 6d ii or around 35mb.
Its the same field of view as the 7d ii with 400mm lens. But with 26mp. I think that would be ok for the sort of stuff I do. I think the 1.6 crop mode only has a bit less than 18mp.


----------



## wyotex43n (Jul 17, 2020)

wyotex43n said:


> I agree with you. The 7d mk2 is the in between camera that probably caused a lot of discussion at Canon. Its APC but with the speed and build quality of of the higher end FF Canon's. Most users put higher end telephotos on them. In effect a budget 1D minus the high iso performance. I think Canon sees two markets. FF with high quality expensive lenses and profit margin. M series for small light relatively inexpensive but prone to erosion due to smart phones.
> The new 600/800mm seem like gateway products to entice users to the RF side.


 One last comment: Of course Canon may be thinking an R6 at 20mp with a 1.4 extender is how the satisfy/pacify those of us that want a 7Dmk2 replacement.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 17, 2020)

The more I think about this the more I believe that an M7 is the more likely possibility. An APS-C R body would create tremendous market confusion and splitting APS-C bodies into three different lines (DSLR, M and R) seems unlikely. If Canon truly intends to phase out DSLRs (I don't believe they do, but I'm willing to accept the possibility) then I can't imagine them mucking up the R and M lines with a mixture of sensor sizes. 

It makes much more sense and far less confusing to consumers to have a single full frame line and single crop sensor line.

Canon could create a very compelling M7 to sit at the top of the line using the 90D sensor and carrying over many of the R5 features. There is nothing that the R body provides that could not be built into an M7. In fact, like the 7D, it could be essentially the same size as the R5. 

They've designed the R series to offer the option of a 1.6 crop, so why put a 1.6 crop sensor in R bodies? If they proceed with a high megapixel R body, there is even less of a reason to offer a crop sensor camera. Put a 90 mp full frame sensor in and you'd got the equivalent of the 90D sensor in a full frame body, while offering all the advantages of full frame. 

When Canon created the R mount they made a huge deal out of how they could now design lenses specifically for the R mount, offering things they couldn't offer in EF. Why mess with that by throwing in RF crop sensor lenses? Plus, most RF lenses would be ridiculous overkill for a crop sensor and you'd still have the confusing 1.6 factor for focal lengths. 

Adding an additional body at the top end of the M line would help sell EF-M lenses and the cost of new lenses would be spread out over more bodies, including a body that appeals to the highly lucrative enthusiast market. 

All EF lenses work fine with the existing adapter, just as they do with the RF adapter. So, consumers who want to use both formats would still be able to do so using EF lenses. 

The only question would be whether or not they create a handful of long zooms or primes that are custom tuned to the M mount.

Canon's new RF lenses show they can create low-cost telephotos, so they could certainly build a handful of telephotos specifically for the M line. In fact, I would bet Canon engineers would be energized by the prospect of designing lenses designed specifically for the M mount and the APS-C image circle. 

For Canon, the prospect of a mirrorless future with a clear cut division between APS-C and Full Frame has got to be compelling.


----------



## zim (Jul 17, 2020)

Can I ask, would a graduated (incremental) crop on FF be possible entirely through software? I wish the FPS was like that


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 17, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Canon could create a very compelling M7 to sit at the top of the line using the 90D sensor and carrying over many of the R5 features. There is nothing that the R body provides that could not be built into an M7. In fact, like the 7D, it could be essentially the same size as the R5.


Providing that Canon made quick on-the-fly setting adjustments as easy and intuitive to achieve as they are on their more "serious" DSLRs, I for one would be happy to see that.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 17, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Providing that Canon made quick on-the-fly setting adjustments as easy and intuitive to achieve as they are on their more "serious" DSLRs, I for one would be happy to see that.


Agreed. When the 7DII was introduced, it was billed as a "mini 1Dx." An M7 would need to be a "mini R5" or maybe a "mini R1."


----------



## zim (Jul 17, 2020)

degos said:


> 600mm with 2x TC IS fairly common at airshows.


Really? that would be awfully long for any airshows I've ever attended


----------



## Act444 (Jul 17, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I only speak for me obviously but as a former 7D2 shooter I don't understand why people dwell on the crop bodies for wildlife. Aside from the extra reach (which I overcame using the 1.4X) I don't see the attraction. When I head out the door birding (which is almost what I do exclusively) I'm carrying the 5D4 or EOS-R.
> 
> They are superior than the 7D2 in every single way except FPS.
> 
> YMMV..



I had the same mindset as well, sticking with the 7D (and later 7D2) for action and wildlife even when I used 5D3 bodies for virtually all my other photography. Then eventually, I realized how much better the IQ was when using the 5D3, particularly at poorly lit ice shows. Once the 5D4 hit the streets, I gave up the 7D2 (and the 5D3 as well) and didn't look back. The 5D4 has proven to be an great all-purpose camera for me, with its extra pixels over the 5D3 making up somewhat for the loss of reach by giving up the 7D2. 

If my 7D2 had more reliable AF, who knows - I might have kept it a little longer. Generally speaking, I have to admit that that camera for me was a bit of a disappointment...not much improvement over its predecessor in this regard...


----------



## slclick (Jul 18, 2020)

It wouldn't be a 7D series in mirrorless form unless it was built like a tank, had dual slots with great sealing. It will cost more than the R6 without a doubt, if it doesn't it won't have all the aforementioned specs and will not be a 7D2 successor in ML form. So basically it should be the R5 sans video tech and other whatnots....needs 1DX3 AF. $2799, minimum.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 18, 2020)

Act444 said:


> I had the same mindset as well, sticking with the 7D (and later 7D2) for action and wildlife even when I used 5D3 bodies for virtually all my other photography. Then eventually, I realized how much better the IQ was when using the 5D3, particularly at poorly lit ice shows. Once the 5D4 hit the streets, I gave up the 7D2 (and the 5D3 as well) and didn't look back. The 5D4 has proven to be an great all-purpose camera for me, with its extra pixels over the 5D3 making up somewhat for the loss of reach by giving up the 7D2.
> 
> If my 7D2 had more reliable AF, who knows - I might have kept it a little longer. Generally speaking, I have to admit that that camera for me was a bit of a disappointment...not much improvement over its predecessor in this regard...



Absolutely agree on the 7D2 - a fast camera that for me was often too fast for the auto-focus system.


----------



## lyleschmitz (Jul 18, 2020)

I'd be happy either way - but I do really hope they give it an M-mount. Either way you look at it, there isn't a ton of affordable APS-C glass for either mount, but I feel like the M has the better chance to have that library extended. We DO already have amazing 22mm and 32mm primes, a couple more primes and a couple more solid zooms for that mount make more sense to me than building an APS-C lineup from the ground up, or forcing people to buy expensive full frame lenses when they won't be used as such for at least a couple years until they MAYBE upgrade to a FF option.

Frankly, all I need in an updated M camera would be an M6ii with a viewfinder, IBIS, and the 10-bit C-Log from the R6, which I think is very reasonable to ask for. There's plenty of things I think they could add to sweeten the deal, but that would make me plenty happy.

The appeal to the M series to me is its versatility. I can throw my 22mm on and have a jacket-pocketable point and shoot, or I can adapt my EF-S stuff to it and get some really solid professional work done. If I had full frame glass, they even make speedboosters I could use with it. So I'd love to hold onto the M system to keep that versatility. Throw in a battery grip and MOVE THE HDMI PORT OFF THE GRIP and I'd be over the moon.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Jul 18, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Can one predict the name to be say.. R7 ???? Or will there be some distancering for another higher quality APS.C to carry that name and will i his one become an R10?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jul 18, 2020)

ALl i wished for was a new 17-55 to use on my cinema cameras.


----------



## masterpix (Jul 18, 2020)

I wished to be informed that Canon is working on 5D mark5 that will be similar in everything but the EVF/OVF and that it will have about 10FPS mechanical/20FPS silent/electronic mode.


----------



## bbb34 (Jul 18, 2020)

Memirsbrunnr said:


> Can one predict the name to be say.. R7 ????



No.

It is just a useful placeholder name until Canon releases better information.


----------



## Bundu (Jul 18, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> You don't. (Get a lens with a 140mm ep from a lens with a 73mm ep.)
> 
> 800mm/11 = 73mm
> 
> ...


A bit ignorant here, but wont the speedbooster correct the light path for the correct flange distance? Or is it physically impossible?


----------



## Maru (Jul 18, 2020)

I don't think a new mount make sense... and FF is also cheap now..another APS-C mirrorless is not required if its a different mount..if its same mount then also its hard to beat different zones of RP R R6 R5..where is the sweet spot for a 7dIII...it can be a mirrorless for 90D may be.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2020)

yeahright said:


> except that RF-S lenses would not introduce another mount, but fit the RF mount and could also be used on any FF R body in crop mode.


To what benefit? You already have bargain ff 600 and 800mm lenses, you already have crop camera pixel density in full frame and fast AF and fps. What would a crop sensor and lens setup in RF give you and Canon?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 18, 2020)

yeahright said:


> except that RF-S lenses would not introduce another mount, but fit the RF mount and could also be used on any FF R body in crop mode.



Not going to happen. Canon already have two different lines of APS-C lenses, there's no way they'd confuse the market with a third range. 

APS-C lenses are going to be EF-M mount in future, Full frame lenses RF mount.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 18, 2020)

konsolas_captures said:


> how many of the 7D users have moved to Full Frame? Probably none because they want APS-C sensor. So there is no need to be a path from a APS-C to FF, at least for those users.



This is actually a good point I hadn't thought of before - a lot of 7D fans talk about an upgrade path from APS-C to FF, yet they also want a new 7D, for themselves. So they didn't 'upgrade' to FF? Because if they had, they wouldn't much care if the 7D got a direct replacement.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 18, 2020)

Tangent said:


> So I think Canon would want to offer a budget entry-level camera for the R ecosystem.



Isn't that the RP? I can't imagine a new body would cost less than that, whatever sensor they use. And since an "R7" implies higher-end features (like AF, weathersealing/build quality) then it won't be a budget model.


----------



## zim (Jul 18, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Not going to happen. Canon already have two different lines of APS-C lenses, there's no way they'd confuse the market with a third range.
> 
> APS-C lenses are going to be EF-M mount in future, Full frame lenses RF mount.


Absolutely, new mount, not going to happen even if they do introduce an aps-c sensor to the R range which I seriously doubt but am intrigued by. 7d users would use RF glass rebel users will go M. Don't think it's any more complicated than that.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 18, 2020)

scyrene said:


> This is actually a good point I hadn't thought of before - a lot of 7D fans talk about an upgrade path from APS-C to FF, yet they also want a new 7D, for themselves. So they didn't 'upgrade' to FF? Because if they had, they wouldn't much care if the 7D got a direct replacement.


I "upgraded" to FF - long-term (and very happy) 7D Mk II user, I decided to treat myself to a 1-Dx.

And much as I appreciate the 1-Dx (especially in low light - the extra stop or so over the 10,000 ISO practical upper limit for me with the 7D Mk II, has proven very useful) I really miss the resolution and effective reach of the 7D Mk II, so I still want a high pixel density crop-sensor upgrade too.

_But... _

If an FF camera was introduced that had a high enough pixel density to equate to a pixel density upgrade on a crop (without compromising on frame rate etc), that would do for me. But I'm in a position where I'm not overly constrained financially, so this might be a non-starter for others, because it would not be a cheap camera.

The point being that for me and people like me (I won't be alone in my preferences) there still isn't a crop-to-FF upgrade path that would satisfy what I want from such an upgrade.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 18, 2020)

zim said:


> 7d users would use RF glass


Oh, I think it far more likely that they would want to continue using their current 100-400mm, 70-200mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and so on, with the EF - R converter.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 18, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I "upgraded" to FF - long-term (and very happy) 7D Mk II user, I decided to treat myself to a 1-Dx.
> 
> And much as I appreciate the 1-Dx (especially in low light - the extra stop or so over the 10,000 ISO practical upper limit for me with the 7D Mk II, has proven very useful) I really miss the resolution and effective reach of the 7D Mk II, so I still want a high pixel density crop-sensor upgrade too.
> 
> ...



Apparently Canon are touting the R5 as capable of equalling the resolving power (if not the resolution) of the 5DsR, in which case it has the 'reach' of the 7D2, and it has a high fps, so that could be your best bet for now?


----------



## zim (Jul 18, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Oh, I think it far more likely that they would want to continue using their current 100-400mm, 70-200mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and so on, with the EF - R converter.


Good point, true. I was thinking of me!


----------



## zim (Jul 18, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Apparently Canon are touting the R5 as capable of equalling the resolving power (if not the resolution) of the 5DsR, in which case it has the 'reach' of the 7D2, and it has a high fps, so that could be your best bet for now?


That's the big question for me. Hopefully the trusted real world testers will answer. I'm really looking forward to those reviews. That extra 100 on the 100 to 500 is there for a reason though, Canon ain't stupid. Can't wait for the reviews on that lens too!


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 18, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Oh, I think it far more likely that they would want to continue using their current 100-400mm, 70-200mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and so on, with the EF - R converter.



In which case it makes no real difference if the 7D replacement uses EF-M or RF mount, as both can adapt those lenses without any problems (although we'd need a new weather-sealed EF-M -> EF adaptor)


----------



## Maru (Jul 18, 2020)

Only mirrorless 7dmkii can be like R5- video and related 8k feature...but then also price looks like 3000...which is impractical


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 18, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> In which case it makes no real difference if the 7D replacement uses EF-M or RF mount, as both can adapt those lenses without any problems (although we'd need a new weather-sealed EF-M -> EF adaptor)


The appeal of the RF mount _in this context _is in the size of the body - more real estate for buttons, knobs, multi-controllers, the things that make quick setting changes possible.

The EF - M mount adaptor does indeed work very well (I use my 100-400mm on my M6 Mk II whenever I want to travel light or am shooting in predictable situations where quick on-the-fly setting adjustments are less likely to be needed) but unless a new M body replacement for the 7D Mk II is physically a lot bigger than Ms tend to be (Canon markets them as "Big on quality, small in size"), that problem will remain. 

Simply put, more external controls means more body needed to put them on, and an R body provides more opportunities in this regard


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 18, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> This is the problem. People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much.


But the 7D2 was launched at almost half the launch price of the 5D4 and 5D3 - $1799 vs $3499.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 18, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> In which case it makes no real difference if the 7D replacement uses EF-M or RF mount, as both can adapt those lenses without any problems (although we'd need a new weather-sealed EF-M -> EF adaptor)


It makes a big difference to me - I want access to RF lenses (which can't be adapted to the M mount) and I couldn't care less about EF-M lenses.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 18, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> It makes a big difference to me - I want access to RF lenses (which can't be adapted to the M mount) and I couldn't care less about EF-M lenses.


In which case, you may have to accept that you aren't representative of the market.


----------



## slclick (Jul 19, 2020)

My experience has been that many 5D series users have also been 7D owners and the two make for a great 2 body combo when you are not a portrait/wedding shooter. Layout, size, weight, it's all the same for the most part. Give us a new 7D in either ml or dslr with a noise ceiling far above 6400 iso and you will have a winner. THIS would port me over to the RF world, not video specs.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

Twinix said:


> Of course it all depends. The R5 has a buffer of 180 RAW images, so I don’t think it will be a problem.



I guess what I needed to make clearer is that if Canon wants to be forward looking, they'll go ahead and use CFExpress in one slot, rather than build a camera for higher end UHS-II cards that cost almost as much but aren't nearly as fast as CFExpress. CFExpress prices should begin to drop as it is more widely adopted.

As far as buffer size goes, don't forget that the 7D initially had a fairly limited buffer. Remember in 2012 when the 7D Mark II got delayed for whatever reason? Canon issued a firmware update that miraculously practically doubled the size of the 7D buffer! They claimed it was due to being able to reduce the number of lines of code in the onboard JPEG processing engine. No one believed it for a minute.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

Kit. said:


> I bet it was also sold in much larger quantities then Canon would expect to sell a "high-end crop RF body" now.
> 
> For most potential R7 buyers, the question would be: why buy R6+R7 if you can just buy a R5.
> 
> So, the economies of scale should make the R7 more expensive.



For the same reasons many 7DII owners also own a 5DIII/IV. Beyond the obvious "different tools for different jobs", sometimes you want/need two bodies at the same time.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> theoretically, a smaller sensor may allow for a faster mechanical shutter FPS, X-Sync...



A little bit of both yes and no. The sensor height is obviously smaller, so shutter curtains travelling the same speed, in terms of mm/sec can transit the sensor faster. But the G-force loads at "start" and "stop" are the same, and that is what ultimately limits design of shutter mechanisms to a particular price point and durability level..


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> You may be right, but when I owned the 7D II, I never owned or shot any EF-S glass. I only used EF telephoto glass for wildlife (primarily birds). That’s because there was no pro level, telephoto APS-c glass available. It was that extra reach of APS-c that I coveted. If there had been an APS-c telephoto lens available with good IQ and fast focus (in 400 - 600mm range), I would have considered getting it just for use on this camera. Seeing that fast autofocus is now possible at f~8 with R series cameras, I’m seeing some real opportunities for new pro level wildlife lenses. The new RF 100-500mm may be just the beginning.



I don't think an EF-S (or third party APS-C only) lens has ever been mounted on my 7D Mark II. Ever. 

I do recall having used my older 7D a few times to test APS-C only lenses for proper operation on occasion, usually after opening them up for cleaning internal lens elements before returning them to their owners, but I never actually went out and shot anything with an APS-C lens on my 7D.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> They already make larger diameter lenses that fit the M mount...with an adapter. I have used my M5 with the Canon 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2 and 70-200 f/4 L IS lenses. All work well and aren't absurdly large on the M5. On the wide end, it's a different story. I own the 24 and 35 f/1.4 L lenses and those are too large. I bought the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and 30 f/1.4 lenses and highly recommend them on the M5. I'll probably never buy the 56 f/1.4 Sigma because the Canon 50 works so well.



No, they already had lenses in the catalog that were designed for EF mount and EF-S mount cameras than can be adapted to an M-series camera. 

But they haven't made any larger diameter lenses _for_ the M-series cameras.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I think our thoughts of segmentation and product tier-ing may be off a bit now that we've seen the R5 and R6.
> 
> 'The R5 is effectively the mirrorless 5D5.' I'd peg this as just about right.
> 
> ...



Canon also made the 6D Mark II with well beyond what the 6D offered, especially in terms of AF. 

The 6D Mark II was every bit the equal of the just replaced 5D Mark III in terms of photographic capabilities except for a few minor differences. (1/8000 vs. 1/4000, 1/180 vs, 1/200 x-Sync, etc). 

The R5 and R6 maintain the difference in build quality and screen resolution that differentiated the 6D Mark II from the 5D Mark III/IV.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> This is the problem. People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much.
> 
> Now, one thing I've thought about, and I have no idea if it's even possible to make, is whether they can produced a hybrid FF sensor where the dot pitch of the APS-C section is higher than the dot-pitch of the full frame area outside. It would produce confusing raw files that would take Adobe an age to decode, but could potentially allow lower-resolution FF shots or higher resolution APS-C shots. I've no idea if this would even have any price advantage over simply making the entire sensor the higher resolution - just thinking random thoughts.



Again, compare the $1,799 7D Mark II (2014) with magnesium alloy body, world class AF system, 200,000 shutter rating, etc. to the $2,099 6D (2012) with polycarbonate body, entry level Rebel AF system, 100,000 shutter rating, etc. This at a time when the comparable build quality, AF system, and inferior shutter in the 5D Mark III (2012) and 5D Mark IV (2016) were introduced at $3,499.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

unfocused said:


> And yet the 7DII was less than half the cost of the 1Dx. Granted, there were more differences than just the sensor, but the feature set of the 7DII sat well above the then current and more expensive 5DIII and was much closer to the 1Dx. Suggesting that Canon price points and profit margins are something that none of us can really speak to with any authority.



The $1,799 7D Mark II in 2014 was only $50 more than half the price of the $3,499 5D Mark III in 2012 and the $3,499 5D Mark IV in 2016.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

wyotex43n said:


> One last comment: Of course Canon may be thinking an R6 at 20mp with a 1.4 extender is how the satisfy/pacify those of us that want a 7Dmk2 replacement.



But then you lose a stop of light, not to mention optical image quality and usually AF speed, with every lens you put on it. That's the reason a 70-200/2.8 + 1.4X on a FF camera doesn't work nearly as well as a 70-200/2.8 on a 1.6X crop body does for anyone shooting sports/action under artificial lighting.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

unfocused said:


> The more I think about this the more I believe that an M7 is the more likely possibility. An APS-C R body would create tremendous market confusion and splitting APS-C bodies into three different lines (DSLR, M and R) seems unlikely. If Canon truly intends to phase out DSLRs (I don't believe they do, but I'm willing to accept the possibility) then I can't imagine them mucking up the R and M lines with a mixture of sensor sizes.
> 
> It makes much more sense and far less confusing to consumers to have a single full frame line and single crop sensor line.
> 
> ...



On the other hand, it would be very confusing and make no sense to suddenly start making larger bodies and lenses more than 61mm in diameter for a system that has been around for over eight years and is all about and only about compact bodies and lenses that are all 61mm in diameter.

Maybe the division between EF-M and RF was never APS-C and FF, maybe it was about two totally different camera systems for two totally different types of buyers/users?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

zim said:


> Can I ask, would a graduated (incremental) crop on FF be possible entirely through software? I wish the FPS was like that




There would not be as much benefit as you seem to think there might be.

The way CMOS sensors work, the entire width of the lines in the crop area would have to be read out and the ends could only be discarded in the digital processing stage. 

So to get a 1.6X crop that gives 1/2.55 as many pixels, you still have to read and do ADC on 1/1.6X as many lines. That only yields a 37% lower readout time for 61% reduction in image size.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

zim said:


> Really? that would be awfully long for any airshows I've ever attended



By "fairly common" he means there are the same handful of guys in the exclusive high dollar photo-VIP ticket section standing next to the air-boss with that kind of setup at multiple air shows in the same general region.

For the rest of us in steerage, not so much.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

slclick said:


> It wouldn't be a 7D series in mirrorless form unless it was built like a tank, had dual slots with great sealing. It will cost more than the R6 without a doubt, if it doesn't it won't have all the aforementioned specs and will not be a 7D2 successor in ML form. So basically it should be the R5 sans video tech and other whatnots....needs 1DX3 AF. $2799, minimum.



History argues against that.

2012 - $2,099 FF 6D has a polycarbonate body, bare basic entry level Rebel AF system, 100,000 cycle shutter durability rating, low pixel density 20MP FF, etc.
2012 - $3,499 FF 5D Mark III has magnesium alloy body, 1-series class AF system, 150,000 cycle shutter rating, low pixel density 23 MP FF, etc.

2014 - $1,799 APS-C 7D Mark II has better build quality than $3,499 5D Mark III and is almost the equal of the 1D X in build quality, has a 65-point all cross-type AF system very similar to the 61-point (41 cross-type) AF system of the 1D X and 5D Mark III, a 200,000 cycle shutter (compared to the 1D X 400,000 and 5D Mark III/IV 150,000), high pixel density 20MP APS-C (50MP FF pixel density), etc.

2016- $3,499 FF 5D Mark IV has equal build quality to 7D Mark II, 61-point (41 cross type) world class AF system, 150,000 cycle shutter, mid-density 30MP FF sensor.
2017 - $1,999 FF 6D Mark II has polycarbonate body, 45-point 80D class AF system, 100,000 cycle shutter, mid-density 26MP sensor ,etc.

It's entirely reasonable to expect an APS-C R7 to have magnesium alloy body, top-class AF system, long-life shutter, and high pixel density APS-C sensor for less than the R6.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

Act444 said:


> I had the same mindset as well, sticking with the 7D (and later 7D2) for action and wildlife even when I used 5D3 bodies for virtually all my other photography. Then eventually, I realized how much better the IQ was when using the 5D3, particularly at poorly lit ice shows. Once the 5D4 hit the streets, I gave up the 7D2 (and the 5D3 as well) and didn't look back. The 5D4 has proven to be an great all-purpose camera for me, with its extra pixels over the 5D3 making up somewhat for the loss of reach by giving up the 7D2.
> 
> If my 7D2 had more reliable AF, who knows - I might have kept it a little longer. Generally speaking, I have to admit that that camera for me was a bit of a disappointment...not much improvement over its predecessor in this regard...



Just my own personal experience: My 7D Mark II was much better than my 7D with regard to AF consistency from frame to frame in burst mode, and also had significantly better high ISO image quality. Still not quite as good in terms of AF consistency as my 5D Mark IV has proved to be. By the time the images from the 5D IV are cropped in reach-limited situations to match less severe crops with the 7D II to get to the same framing, the IQ wasn't much different.

By far the biggest differentiator for me between the 7D and 7D Mark II was flicker reduction. That was totally revolutionary when shooting sports under flickering artificial lighting. There was nothing more frustrating that nailing both the timing and AF of a sports instant and seeing one side of the frame bright and blue with the other side of the frame dark and brown! Of course the 5-series finally got flicker reduction two years later in 2016 with the 5D Mark IV, but I didn't get a 5D IV until 2019.

The RGB+IR metering of the 7D II was also superior to the two-layer metering of the 5D Mark III in difficult lighting scenarios, to the point I would sometimes meter with the 7D II, then manually set the 5D III to match it.

By the time the light is too poor to use the 7D Mark II as my "long" body, such as for poorly lit stages in bars, I'm using fast primes with the 5D Mark IV and 5D Mark III.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

Bundu said:


> A bit ignorant here, but wont the speedbooster correct the light path for the correct flange distance? Or is it physically impossible?



All speedboosters currently on the market adapt lenses for longer registration distances to cameras with shorter registration distances, as well as reducing focal length to narrow the image circle size. As far as I can tell, they all seem to be the same thickness, from flange to flange, as the difference in registration distances between the two mounts in question.

All adapters that can't squeeze into the difference between the lens' and camera's registration distance must use _magnifying_ optics to allow infinity focus. Thus the focal length reducer to shrink the image circle and the magnification needed to provide infinity focus at a too-far distance from the sensor would work against one another.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

scyrene said:


> This is actually a good point I hadn't thought of before - a lot of 7D fans talk about an upgrade path from APS-C to FF, yet they also want a new 7D, for themselves. So they didn't 'upgrade' to FF? Because if they had, they wouldn't much care if the 7D got a direct replacement.



Almost every 7D Mark II owner I know also has a FF camera. Different tools for different jobs. Complementary tools when more than one body is required at the same time.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> In which case it makes no real difference if the 7D replacement uses EF-M or RF mount, as both can adapt those lenses without any problems (although we'd need a new weather-sealed EF-M -> EF adaptor)



Except the 7D type of body is more like the R series in terms of size, weight, buttons, etc, than it is to the compact M-series with fewer buttons.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 19, 2020)

unfocused said:


> In which case, you may have to accept that you aren't representative of the market.



I'd put money on it that there are far more 7D Mark II shooters who would rather have an R7 than an M7. With at least a 3:1 ratio.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I'd put money on it that there are far more 7D Mark II shooters who would rather have an R7 than an M7. With at least a 3:1 ratio.


There may be. But on the other hand, how many of those 7D II shooters would *not* buy an M7, if it ticks off the right boxes? My guess is that despite some grumbling, almost all would take an M series if that's what Canon offers.


----------



## slclick (Jul 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> History argues against that.
> 
> 2012 - $2,099 FF 6D has a polycarbonate body, bare basic entry level Rebel AF system, 100,000 cycle shutter durability rating, low pixel density 20MP FF, etc.
> 2012 - $3,499 FF 5D Mark III has magnesium alloy body, 1-series class AF system, 150,000 cycle shutter rating, low pixel density 23 MP FF, etc.
> ...


How long did that take you? Ugh. It's all meaningless when EVF vs OVF is the One Thing.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> On the other hand, it would be very confusing and make no sense to suddenly start making larger bodies and lenses more than 61mm in diameter for a system that has been around for over eight years and is all about and only about compact bodies and lenses that are all 61mm in diameter.
> 
> Maybe the division between EF-M and RF was never APS-C and FF, maybe it was about two totally different camera systems for two totally different types of buyers/users?



I don't know. The 7D series is seriously larger than most of the Rebels, but that didn't stop Canon. I guess it comes down to which would be more confusing, having a larger bodied M or having just one R body with an APS-C sensor, no lenses that match the sensor and a whole lineup of APS-C lenses that can't be used on the most expensive APS-C body. 

I'm leaning toward the larger body M as the most likely solution. Others will disagree, but mostly that's just because they are lusting after the R series and want it all. But for them, Canon might offer a 90 mpx full frame body and just expect people to pay more.

Obviously the easiest solution for Canon would just be to release a 7DIII and I'm not totally counting that out either.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 19, 2020)

unfocused said:


> In which case, you may have to accept that you aren't representative of the market.


I'm not representative of the M-mount market, but that's a truism. I can assure you I am highly representative of the high-end sports and wildlife enthusiast market.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 19, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I don't know. The 7D series is seriously larger than most of the Rebels, but that didn't stop Canon. I guess it comes down to which would be more confusing, having a larger bodied M or having just one R body with an APS-C sensor, no lenses that match the sensor and a whole lineup of APS-C lenses that can't be used on the most expensive APS-C body.
> 
> I'm leaning toward the larger body M as the most likely solution. Others will disagree, but mostly that's just because they are lusting after the R series and want it all. But for them, Canon might offer a 90 mpx full frame body and just expect people to pay more.
> 
> Obviously the easiest solution for Canon would just be to release a 7DIII and I'm not totally counting that out either.



I keep envisioning the M equivalent of the Olympus E-M1X. But in my mind that would need equivalent lenses as well as well, like the Olympus 300/4, so maybe an EF-M 300/5.6 to adjust for the larger sensor while keeping the size/weight the same.
I really like the 'reach' and performance the M6II gives me over the RP, but lenses like the 180mmL and 100-400L really need a larger grip to be comfortable to use.
I tried the 180mm on my 1D last week and that's a joy to use, but the 4MP is a bit small nowadays


----------



## scyrene (Jul 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Almost every 7D Mark II owner I know also has a FF camera. Different tools for different jobs. Complementary tools when more than one body is required at the same time.



Sure (although I'd caution against using your anecdotal experience as evidence, I've met fewer 7D users than you no doubt, but none of them had a FF camera as well). But that's rather beside the point - it's not an _upgrade path_ as is commonly meant here. Cross-compatibility of lenses makes it easier to use APS-C and FF bodies at the same time, but the people who've criticised Canon (or at least been confused by the current approach) were framing it is bad because they claimed the progression _from APS-C to FF_ was no longer there (because M lenses can't be mounted on RF bodies). I expect the number of people using both is even smaller than the number who went from exclusively one to the other, and both numbers are dwarfed by the cohort who never 'progressed' at all, hence Canon's decision to make the systems incompatible in that regard.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jul 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> No, they already had lenses in the catalog that were designed for EF mount and EF-S mount cameras than can be adapted to an M-series camera.
> 
> But they haven't made any larger diameter lenses _for_ the M-series cameras.


And Canon may see that as a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Bundu (Jul 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> All speedboosters currently on the market adapt lenses for longer registration distances to cameras with shorter registration distances, as well as reducing focal length to narrow the image circle size. As far as I can tell, they all seem to be the same thickness, from flange to flange, as the difference in registration distances between the two mounts in question.
> 
> All adapters that can't squeeze into the difference between the lens' and camera's registration distance must use _magnifying_ optics to allow infinity focus. Thus the focal length reducer to shrink the image circle and the magnification needed to provide infinity focus at a too-far distance from the sensor would work against one another.


Thank you, makes more sense now.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 19, 2020)

unfocused said:


> There may be. But on the other hand, how many of those 7D II shooters would *not* buy an M7, if it ticks off the right boxes? My guess is that despite some grumbling, almost all would take an M series if that's what Canon offers.


I imagine we'll take anything that ticks the boxes, wherever in the alphabet Canon chooses to place the model name.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Except the 7D type of body is more like the R series in terms of size, weight, buttons, etc, than it is to the compact M-series with fewer buttons.



The mount has nothing to do with the size and the number of buttons! There's no reason they couldn't put the M mount on a body even bigger and chunkier than the 7D.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Maybe the division between EF-M and RF was never APS-C and FF, maybe it was about two totally different camera systems for two totally different types of buyers/users?



What if Canon didn't launch an APS-C RF mount camera? What would people do? Probably buy an R5 instead I'd imagine, especially in a year or so when the price comes down - which I'm sure it will the day after Sony announces the A7RV. 

I'm not really a birder so I can't really say what birders want out of a camera, but I would think that a full-frame camera is going to be a better option even if you're intending to crop in to the image because you've got more sensor space for the camera to track the bird while it's flying even if you're only intending to crop in to the center part of the image.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 19, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> It makes a big difference to me - I want access to RF lenses (which can't be adapted to the M mount) and I couldn't care less about EF-M lenses.


RF lenses are heavy and expensive - why use them on a crop camera?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 19, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> But the 7D2 was launched at almost half the launch price of the 5D4 and 5D3 - $1799 vs $3499.


AS I said, give it another year or two and you might see an APS-C R5 variant at a lower price. The 7D2 was launched 2 and a half years after the 5D III.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 19, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> The appeal of the RF mount _in this context _is in the size of the body - more real estate for buttons, knobs, multi-controllers, the things that make quick setting changes possible.



Again, you can put the EF-M mount on any size body. Just because existing EF-M mount bodies are compact doesn't mean you can't do something much bigger with the same mount.


----------



## zim (Jul 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> There would not be as much benefit as you seem to think there might be.
> 
> The way CMOS sensors work, the entire width of the lines in the crop area would have to be read out and the ends could only be discarded in the digital processing stage.
> 
> So to get a 1.6X crop that gives 1/2.55 as many pixels, you still have to read and do ADC on 1/1.6X as many lines. That only yields a 37% lower readout time for 61% reduction in image size.



Soooo.... Your telling me there's a chance?

Hope you don't mind the wee joke. Thanks for the info, does sound pretty pointless


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 19, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Again, you can put the EF-M mount on any size body. Just because existing EF-M mount bodies are compact doesn't mean you can't do something much bigger with the same mount.


I say much the same elsewhere myself.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 19, 2020)

I think forum users - who seem to need to very specifically define things - have decided that the R series is FF and the M series is APS-C. I'm not sure Canon has made that specific a distinction. Perhaps they are looking at it as the R series is for enthusiasts and pros looking for larger cameras and the M series is more for consumers looking for the most compact cameras. Having a crop sensor R series camera makes sense to me for those wanting something in the 7D line. 7D users are already used to using FF EF lenses - and there is no reason that Canon can't come out with RF lenses that will serve as wide angle on FF and standard on crop. No need for another line of lenses because that would be confusing.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 19, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> I think forum users - who seem to need to very specifically define things - have decided that the R series is FF and the M series is APS-C. I'm not sure Canon has made that specific a distinction. Perhaps they are looking at it as the R series is for enthusiasts and pros looking for larger cameras and the M series is more for consumers looking for the most compact cameras.


Canon refers to the M Line as being (my emphasis):


> Big on quality, *small in size*


So it's probably a reasonable assumption.





Mirrorless Cameras - Compact System Cameras - Canon UK


Explore our full range of mirrorless and compact system cameras. The perfect choice for high performance photos, like a pro.




www.canon.co.uk


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 20, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> AS I said, give it another year or two and you might see an APS-C R5 variant at a lower price. The 7D2 was launched 2 and a half years after the 5D III.


No, what you actually said was "People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much." Please don't try to rewrite history.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jul 20, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> RF lenses are heavy and expensive - why use them on a crop camera?


When I have an R5 and an "R7", plus RF lenses and legacy EF lenses, I will have one fully compatible and very versatile system. The moment you introduce EF-M into the equation it all falls apart.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 20, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> RF lenses are heavy and expensive - why use them on a crop camera?


Well, current 7D owners use EF lenses that are heavy and expensive. Which is why, it seems to me, that a R series crop camera makes much more sense than an M series successor to the 7D. And, in case you hadn't noticed, Canon just announced a few telephoto lenses that are lighter and/or less expensive.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 20, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> When I have an R5 and an "R7", plus RF lenses and legacy EF lenses, I will have one fully compatible and very versatile system. The moment you introduce EF-M into the equation it all falls apart.



I get this, but with respect this is only one part of the 7D market. Exactly how much of the market I can't be sure, but when I had my 7D mark 1 I was using EF-S lenses more often than EF lenses, even though I had a good select of EF lenses at the time. How much of the 7D market use the 7D as their *second* camera and keep a FF camera as well?

Only Canon will know whether it's commercially viable now to build an APS-C RF camera. Maybe they'll rely on people using EF-S lenses with it. They used to bundle the EOS-RP with an EF 24-105 lens before the cheap RF 24-105 was available, maybe they'll keep EF-S lenses around for this too.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 20, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> No, what you actually said was "People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much." Please don't try to rewrite history.



Well, I stand by that statement. There's no way that the FF sensor is 50% of the cost of the camera in 2020.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 20, 2020)

IMHO, lenses aren't going to be an issue.

On the long side, Canon doesn't offer any EF-S lenses longer than 250mm, and I doubt the EF-S 55-250mm was made with 7D owners in mind. On the wide side, the EF-S 10-18/22mm is a wee wider than the EF 11-24mm. Canon never made any fisheye lenses in EF-S and presented the EF 8-15mm as a fiseye lens for all its sensor sizes. So I wouldn't be surprised if Canon made a crop RF camera to replace the 7D, without any crop RF lenses for it.


----------



## slclick (Jul 20, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I get this, but with respect this is only one part of the 7D market. Exactly how much of the market I can't be sure, but when I had my 7D mark 1 I was using EF-S lenses more often than EF lenses, even though I had a good select of EF lenses at the time. How much of the 7D market use the 7D as their *second* camera and keep a FF camera as well?
> 
> Only Canon will know whether it's commercially viable now to build an APS-C RF camera. Maybe they'll rely on people using EF-S lenses with it. They used to bundle the EOS-RP with an EF 24-105 lens before the cheap RF 24-105 was available, maybe they'll keep EF-S lenses around for this too.


It's the larger part, the part with people who spend more money.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 20, 2020)

slclick said:


> It's the larger part, the part with people who spend more money.



If that's true (and it may well be, I simply don't know!) then the chances of an APS-C mount R are much higher. 

I wonder if there's any point in Canon going back to APS-H instead of APS-C?


----------



## wyotex43n (Jul 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> But then you lose a stop of light, not to mention optical image quality and usually AF speed, with every lens you put on it. That's the reason a 70-200/2.8 + 1.4X on a FF camera doesn't work nearly as well as a 70-200/2.8 on a 1.6X crop body does for anyone shooting sports/action under artificial lighting.


I agree with you, I am just trying to guess at what Canon is thinking and or planning to do. I hope they build a killer sensor for the M series and stick it in a very tough R body.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 20, 2020)

What might just work would be an M6-II / 90D sensor in a rugged, larger-than-hitherto M body. Yeah, you'll need an adapter but you can carry your EF lenses (big whites, etc) over.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2020)

Of course, no one knows what Canon's strategy or plans may be. I'm still leaning toward an M7 rather than an R7. I get that people want to use some RF glass on a crop sensor camera, but I don't see that as sufficient reason for Canon to muck up the clear segmentation of APS-C and Full Frame in their mirrorless lineup. I'm guessing they'd like to get out of the mixing and matching sensor size business and have a clear differentiation between full frame and APS-C. 

As Nikon demonstrated with the D500, you only need one lens to sell a high end APS-C body. Canon could easily make a long zoom in the M mount, a 100-500 or maybe even something odd, like a 150-550 f6.3. They already have M mount lenses available for shorter focal lengths, so no pressure to add anything new at that end.

If Canon goes ahead with a higher megapixel R body, then there is even less reason to put an APS-C sensor in an R body -- not when cropping in-camera is so easy. 

Time will tell, but my money is on an M7 that sits at the top of the lineup.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

unfocused said:


> There may be. But on the other hand, how many of those 7D II shooters would *not* buy an M7, if it ticks off the right boxes? My guess is that despite some grumbling, almost all would take an M series if that's what Canon offers.



If it is as small as the largest previous M-series body, with the resulting lack of space for enough direct control buttons, that would be enough to eliminate many of them.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

slclick said:


> How long did that take you? Ugh. It's all meaningless when EVF vs OVF is the One Thing.



Nothing like using the old _ad hominem _when you have nothing else with which to respond to actual facts, huh?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I don't know. _*The 7D series is seriously larger than most of the Rebels,*_ but that didn't stop Canon. I guess it comes down to which would be more confusing, having a larger bodied M or having just one R body with an APS-C sensor, no lenses that match the sensor and a whole lineup of APS-C lenses (small, limited lineup of 61mm in diameter APS-C lenses aimed at a specific market sector) that can't be used on the most expensive APS-C body.
> 
> I'm leaning toward the larger body M as the most likely solution. Others will disagree, but mostly that's just because they are lusting after the R series and want it all. But for them, Canon might offer a 90 mpx full frame body and just expect people to pay more.
> 
> Obviously the easiest solution for Canon would just be to release a 7DIII and I'm not totally counting that out either.



That's the whole point! M-series bodies and their *limited* number of lenses, all with the same 61mm diameter, are aimed at a specific market that was typically occupied by Rebels in the past. The 7D series has never been aimed at those buyers!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I keep envisioning the M equivalent of the Olympus E-M1X. But in my mind that would need equivalent lenses as well as well, like the Olympus 300/4, so maybe an EF-M 300/5.6 to adjust for the larger sensor while keeping the size/weight the same.
> I really like the 'reach' and performance the M6II gives me over the RP, but lenses like the 180mmL and 100-400L really need a larger grip to be comfortable to use.
> I tried the 180mm on my 1D last week and that's a joy to use, but the 4MP is a bit small nowadays



How well did the E-M1X go over as the body that was going to rescue Olympus?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Sure (although I'd caution against using your anecdotal experience as evidence, I've met fewer 7D users than you no doubt, but none of them had a FF camera as well). But that's rather beside the point - it's not an _upgrade path_ as is commonly meant here. Cross-compatibility of lenses makes it easier to use APS-C and FF bodies at the same time, but the people who've criticised Canon (or at least been confused by the current approach) were framing it is bad because they claimed the progression _from APS-C to FF_ was no longer there (because M lenses can't be mounted on RF bodies). I expect the number of people using both is even smaller than the number who went from exclusively one to the other, and both numbers are dwarfed by the cohort who never 'progressed' at all, hence Canon's decision to make the systems incompatible in that regard.



As I've stated several times already, I doesn't seem to me that Canon is at all concerned about providing an upgrade path from EOS M to EOS R! Not at all!

They're determined that the new entry level for all serious photographers will be a full frame R body that is as cheap as APS-C x0D bodies were 15 years ago. *Already the RP is one-half the price of what a 20D cost, when adjusted for inflation, when it was introduced in 2004!*

The M series of cameras and lenses has always been about non-enthusiasts who want an affordable camera and a couple of lenses that are compact and easy to carry with them when a phone is not enough for the photos they wish to take of social events or travel/holidays/vacations in their lives. The M series has never been about self-described "photographers", it has always been about "the masses" who have made it the top selling mirrorless system in the world.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> And Canon may see that as a distinction without a difference.



The fact that *every.single.lens.Canon.has.ever.made.in.the.EF-M.mount* is 61mm in diameter and relatively small and light, which matches the small and light bodies of *every.single.EF-M.camera.Canon.has.ever.made* argues against your proposition.

They_ *most definitely*_ see a distinction between the niche the EOS M series of bodies and lenses occupy that meets the desires of most "non-photographer" people and the far broader range of the EF lens system with something for all of the various specialists among the enthusiast and professional "photographer" ranks.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> The mount has nothing to do with the size and the number of buttons! There's no reason they couldn't put the M mount on a body even bigger and chunkier than the 7D.




The EOS-M system has existed for over eight years.

How many bodies and lenses have been released in the EOS-M system over that eight years that _are_ compact and lightweight?

*Every.Single.One.*

How many bodies and lenses have been released in the EOS-M system over that eight years that _are not_ compact and lightweight?

*Not.A.Single.One.*

Canon's vision for the place the EOS M system occupies in their catalog does not seem to include larger bodies and lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> What if Canon didn't launch an APS-C RF mount camera? What would people do? Probably buy an R5 instead I'd imagine, especially in a year or so when the price comes down - which I'm sure it will the day after Sony announces the A7RV.
> 
> 
> I'm not really a birder so I can't really say what birders want out of a camera, but I would think that a full-frame camera is going to be a better option even if you're intending to crop in to the image because you've got more sensor space for the camera to track the bird while it's flying even if you're only intending to crop in to the center part of the image.



You're obviously not really a birder.

Even when using an APS-C body there's usually plenty of room to crop. That's why pixel density is so paramount to them!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> RF lenses are heavy and expensive - why use them on a crop camera?



For all of the reasons Steve and I have been endlessly repeating here about why the vast majority of 7D-series users used EF lenses, rather than EF-S lenses, on 7D-Series cameras. 

Yet folks who apparently have never even shot a single frame with a 7-series body, nor for the most part shot the types of things most 7-series body owners shoot, keep telling us about why we wouldn't need to use an APS-C body in the exact way almost all 7-series bodies have been used in the past.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> AS I said, give it another year or two and you might see an APS-C R5 variant at a lower price. The 7D2 was launched 2 and a half years after the 5D III.




The 5D Mark IV launched in early 2016, eighteen months after the 7D Mark II was launched in late 2014, was identically priced to the 5D Mark III launched in 2012.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Again, you can put the EF-M mount on any size body. Just because existing EF-M mount bodies are compact doesn't mean you can't do something much bigger with the same mount.



You can. 

But Canon apparently isn't going to do so. 

They've explained more than once why the R mount has a 54mm throat and a 20mm registration distance. It's designed to allow maximum performance. The EOS M mount, on the other hand, was designed for compactness.

Just because Canon has been extremely consistent with the compact size and styling of *EVERY.SINGLE.EOS M.BODY.AND.EVERY.SINGLE.EF-M.LENS* for the over eight years that the EOS M system has existed is absolutely no reason at all to conclude that Canon sees the EOS M system as a what it has been from the beginning until the present? Just because the EOS M system is currently the best selling mirrorless system on the planet is no reason for Canon not to completely change the direction they take for the EOS M system, is it?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

zim said:


> Soooo.... Your telling me there's a chance?
> 
> Hope you don't mind the wee joke. Thanks for the info, does sound pretty pointless


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Well, I stand by that statement. There's no way that the FF sensor is 50% of the cost of the camera in 2020.



There's no way anywhere near 50% of the cost of an R5 is related to the cost of actually building the thing, either. It's all about what the camera can do at that price point compared to what other cameras can do at other price points. Canon's prices have always been market driven, rather than cost driven. Always.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 21, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> How well did the E-M1X go over as the body that was going to rescue Olympus?



Well, if Canon can give us that body for a 7D price point it should do better than the R5-like price point of the Olympus body. I realize that would make it a mini-1Dx for a third of the price.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Of course, no one knows what Canon's strategy or plans may be. I'm still leaning toward an M7 rather than an R7. I get that people want to use some RF glass on a crop sensor camera, but I don't see that as sufficient reason for Canon to muck up the clear segmentation of APS-C and Full Frame in their mirrorless lineup. I'm guessing they'd like to get out of the mixing and matching sensor size business and have a clear differentiation between full frame and APS-C.



I don't see that as sufficient reason for Canon to muck up the clear segmentation of the entire EOS M system, currently the best selling mirrorless system in the world*, as a targeted, niche segment aimed at the non-enthusiast, non-"photographer" masses who want a small, affordable (comparable to the Sony α6x00 series or the µ4/3 system), compact ILC.

Building a large, 7-series type body for the EOS M line makes about as much sense as the Olympus OM-D EM-1X. How'd that go for Olympus?

* at least until Q3 2020 numbers are released...




unfocused said:


> As Nikon demonstrated with the D500, you only need one lens to sell a high end APS-C body. Canon could easily make a long zoom in the M mount, a 100-500 or maybe even something odd, like a 150-550 f6.3. They already have M mount lenses available for shorter focal lengths, so no pressure to add anything new at that end.



Is the AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E VR a DX or FX lens? (hint: it's not an APS-C only lens)

That could just as easily be applied to a single APS-C body in the RF system created to sell a specific RF lens or specific series of RF lenses that can be used on either FF or APS-C cameras.



unfocused said:


> If Canon goes ahead with a higher megapixel R body, then there is even less reason to put an APS-C sensor in an R body -- not when cropping in-camera is so easy.



Except for cost and frame rate. I would not expect an 80MP+ R5s to have the same frame rates as the R5 and R6. I would expect an R7 to have a slightly faster frame rate than the R5 in the same way that the $1,799 7D Mark II (2014) has a faster frame rate than the $3,499 5D Mark IV (2016).



unfocused said:


> Time will tell, but my money is on an M7 that sits at the top of the lineup.



May the odds be ever in your favor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Well, if Canon can give us that body for a 7D price point it should do better than the R5-like price point of the Olympus body. I realize that would make it a mini-1Dx for a third of the price.



EOS 7D Mark II (2014): $1,799 (described by many as a "mini 1D X")

EOS 1D X (2012): $6,499
EOS 1D X Mark II (2014): $5,999
EOS 1D X Mark III (2020): $6,499

The 7D Mark II was only marginally more than one-fourth the price of the 1DX introduced in 2012 and was less than one-third the price of the 1D X Mark II introduced in 2016. (27% and 30%, respectively)

The reduced introductory price of the 1D X Mark II in 2016 was interpreted by many as a concession to the contemporary Nikon D5 AF system that many thought beat Canon's 1-Series AF system for the first time ever. With the Nikon D6 not up to the same level as the 1D X Mark III in 2020, the introductory price for the 1D X Mark III returned to the same as the 1D X.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Sure (although I'd caution against using your anecdotal experience as evidence, I've met fewer 7D users than you no doubt, but none of them had a FF camera as well). But that's rather beside the point - it's not an _upgrade path_ as is commonly meant here. Cross-compatibility of lenses makes it easier to use APS-C and FF bodies at the same time, but the people who've criticised Canon (or at least been confused by the current approach) were framing it is bad because they claimed the progression _from APS-C to FF_ was no longer there (because M lenses can't be mounted on RF bodies). I expect the number of people using both is even smaller than the number who went from exclusively one to the other, and both numbers are dwarfed by the cohort who never 'progressed' at all, hence Canon's decision to make the systems incompatible in that regard.



Which argues an R7 would be more likely than an M7. Now there _*would*_ be an upgrade path from the R7 to the R5/R6 without having to change out one's entire EF-M lens inventory as would be the case from an M7 to an R5/R6.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 21, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> There's no way anywhere near 50% of the cost of an R5 is related to the cost of actually building the thing, either. It's all about what the camera can do at that price point compared to what other cameras can do at other price points. Canon's prices have always been market driven, rather than cost driven. Always.



True. But we're also in a more challenging time for cameras than we've ever been in before. I'm not convinced the demand for a pro APS-C camera is anywhere near the demand for the R5 - so why would Canon sacrifice profit instead of just waiting for the inevitable drift from these people moving over to FF full-time?

Remember, you can shoot APS-C crop on a FF mirrorless with full viewfinder coverage of the APS-C area expanded, something that was never possible on FF DSLRs.

I'm probably wrong on this - and maybe Canon will release an affordable R7 in no time at all. But I still can't see how it can be cheaper than the R6 if it's going to have R5 build as it WILL be a more premium product than the R6 (with a higher resolution, too) - it would be identically priced to the R6 at time of launch.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 21, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> You can.
> 
> But Canon apparently isn't going to do so.
> 
> ...



Don't forget the EF-M mount was designed so that it *could* work with full-frame sensors (it's virtually identical to the FE mount on Sony which can still work with absolutely ANY design capable of working on the EF mount for full-frame). It was only later that Canon decided NOT to use this mount for full frame.

What this means is that for APS-C, the EF-M mount is similarly capable of maximum performance over older mounts for the smaller APS-C sensor as the RFmount is for full frame. 

We've seen a slight increase in size on the EF-M mount since the first EOS-M through to the EOS M5. It wouldn't take much imagination to see Canon producing a more upmarket M body somewhere in size between the M5 and a 90D. We've already seen plans for a possible EF-M mount APS-C 100-400 5.0-7.1 lens which would fit nicely with this too. 

It *could* happen, so could an EOS R7. I have no idea which will come.

As you've seen with the R5 and the new 600/800 lenses, Canon are anything but predictable!


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 21, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The EOS-M system has existed for over eight years.
> 
> How many bodies and lenses have been released in the EOS-M system over that eight years that _are_ compact and lightweight?
> 
> ...



How many EOS R bodies have been full frame

*Every.Single.One*

How many bodies and lenses have been released in the EOS R system that are not full-frame?

*Not.A.Single.One*


Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. Either Canon have to produce a chunkier EF-M body or they will release an APS-C R body. In both cases they're going to be doing something new for the mount. The other option is do nothing, and that's something only Canon's beancounters will know is in their interests or not.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> True. But we're also in a more challenging time for cameras than we've ever been in before. I'm not convinced the demand for a pro APS-C camera is anywhere near the demand for the R5 - so why would Canon sacrifice profit instead of just waiting for the inevitable drift from these people moving over to FF full-time?
> 
> Remember, you can shoot APS-C crop on a FF mirrorless with full viewfinder coverage of the APS-C area expanded, something that was never possible on FF DSLRs.
> 
> I'm probably wrong on this - and maybe Canon will release an affordable R7 in no time at all. But I still can't see how it can be cheaper than the R6 if it's going to have R5 build as it WILL be a more premium product than the R6 (with a higher resolution, too) - it would be identically priced to the R6 at time of launch.



Do you acknowledge that the 7D Mark II at launch was cheaper and had better build quality than the 5D Mark III? Not to mention the inferior 6D (in all but sensor size) was more than the 7D Mark II as well? An R7 for slightly less than the R6 would not be historically unprecedented compared to the history of the 7D series and the 6D series.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Don't forget the EF-M mount was designed so that it *could* work with full-frame sensors (it's virtually identical to the FE mount on Sony which can still work with absolutely ANY design capable of working on the EF mount for full-frame). It was only later that Canon decided NOT to use this mount for full frame.
> 
> What this means is that for APS-C, the EF-M mount is similarly capable of maximum performance over older mounts for the smaller APS-C sensor as the RFmount is for full frame.
> 
> ...



Actually, Sony can not make FF f/1.2 lenses to compete with Canon's due to the limitations of the E-mount throat diameter. Not all current EF lens designs can be done with the smaller throat diameter.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> How many EOS R bodies have been full frame
> 
> *Every.Single.One*
> 
> ...



The EOS R system is still less than two years out of the gate. They probably haven't revealed the complete model line yet.

The EOS M system is over eight years old with at least one "Mark II" design already on the market.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 21, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Actually, Sony can not make FF f/1.2 lenses to compete with Canon's due to the limitations of the E-mount throat diameter. Not all current EF lens designs can be done with the smaller throat diameter.



*That's simply not true. * Sony have *chosen* not to make FF 1.2 lenses, but the FE mount is perfectly capable of 1.2 designs. I use the EF 50mm f/1.2L and 85mm f/1.2L with great success on the Sony A7RII.









Sony: We Could Make f/1.0 Lenses, But Photographers Don't Want That


Compared to companies like Canon and Nikon, which produce f/1.2 and even f/1.0 full-frame camera lenses, Sony's E-mount lenses max out at f/1.4. But it's




petapixel.com





_“Yes we could, but there is no market demand,” Tanaka says. “Maybe some demand exists for an f/1.2, but an f/1.0? Technically we could produce an f/1.0, but it would not make business sense.”_

You can't make a 1.2 lens as compact as you can with the RF or Z mount on the FE mount, but it's totally possible. It's only the Nikon F mount for DSLRs that precludes 1.2 design due to the flange distance & throat diameter combination.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 21, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Do you acknowledge that the 7D Mark II at launch was cheaper and had better build quality than the 5D Mark III? Not to mention the inferior 6D (in all but sensor size) was more than the 7D Mark II as well? An R7 for slightly less than the R6 would not be historically unprecedented compared to the history of the 7D series and the 6D series.



Never owned a 7D II (only mark 1) so I can't speak for the build quality, but we are in different times now and expectations are different. The 7D II came out much later than the 5D III so it's not entirely surprising that the build quality is better. 

I'd be very happy to see an R7 class camera come in at a lower price point than the R6. Of course it's possible, and we mustn't forget that the EOS R and RP are still being sold presumably at a profit at a lower price point.

Following on from this I wonder

What compromises would be acceptable to the 7D market in order to get the price of the R7 lower?

I'm assuming that essential features would include the best weather-sealing, magnesium body, high-quality EVF, two card slots and it would certainly make sense to share the R6/R7 body shape and grip.

Would the R5 top screen be required or would the R6 dials be acceptable?

Would CFExpress be needed, or dual UHS-II?


I certainly could imagine a hybrid of R5 and R6 features with an APS-C sensor as a way of getting something at a lower price point than the R6 - but not a straight R5 with an APS-C sensor.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 21, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Don't forget the EF-M mount was designed so that it *could* work with full-frame sensors (it's virtually identical to the FE mount on Sony which can still work with absolutely ANY design capable of working on the EF mount for full-frame). It was only later that Canon decided NOT to use this mount for full frame.
> 
> What this means is that for APS-C, the EF-M mount is similarly capable of maximum performance over older mounts for the smaller APS-C sensor as the RFmount is for full frame.
> 
> ...



Either move, an R7 or an M7, would break a Canon paradigm; full frame [and full size] vs. compact [and crop]. People favoring one alternative will point to the paradigm that the OTHER alternative would break, and say "Canon will never break that" while ignoring the equal unlikelihood of them breaking the paradigm that's blocking their alternative. 

If Canon will not break a paradigm, there will never be a full size crop, and that applies to both an R7 and an M7. The arguments one camp is using apply against them as well, which is why this discussion has been fruitless.

As Michael Clark pointed out over and over and over again yesterday (to the point where I nearly lost patience with the repetition of the same rant), Canon has never produced a lens for the M that wasn't a
single particular outside diameter; to make the hypothetical M7 useful for the current 7D crowd, they'd have to break with this (and I wish they would, for other reasons). [Or that crowd would have to buckle down and (*gasp*!!!) use a fragging adapter, but they would be "stuck" with EF lenses that way. The horror!] The logical fallacy here is that Canon is incapable of changing its mind or, perhaps, coming out with another "line" of cameras that use the M mount. That way they could keep their single diameter fetish for the "entry level" line but create another line that isn't bound by those rules, and the lenses would likely be completely interchangeable between the two lines (and why not, the line would be a marketing distinction, not an engineering one). So I could see a semi-pro EF-M mount camera coming out, though the model number might not start with a single "M", maybe PM or MP or something like that. This would let them keep their paradigm largely intact, by supplying a loophole to it. Rather than the EF-M _mount_ being restricted to compact cameras, it would be the M _line_ of cameras and lenses, which _just so happens_ to use the EF-M mount, being restricted to compact cameras, leaving cameras outside that line free to use the EF-M mount as well.

The R mount, on the other hand, seems explicitly intended for Full Frame, Full Stop. They could do something similar here, creating a new line for the crop sensor camera, I'll call it the RC line for convenience. Though I hope that if they do they don't come out with RF-S lenses, or if they do, they don't create/restrict them to a variant of the RF mount.

So you'd have two present, and two potential, marketing lines of lenses.

R cameras and R lenses, using the RF mount, with a full frame sensor.

RC cameras and RC lenses, using the RF mount and a crop sensor. The RC lenses, though only imaging enough to cover a crop sensor, would be interchangeable with the R lenses, with R cameras going into crop mode if an RC lens is attached; there is no special RF-S mount that MUST be used with an RC lens.

MP cameras and MP lenses, using the EF-M mount and (of course) a crop sensor. These could have all the weather sealing, ergos, and build quality of the current 7D, though I can imagine a lesser model roughly corresponding to 90D, that doesn't, being sold alongside the MP7. There'd be no restriction on the sizes of these, and big telephotos and/or superzooms would abound here. Lenses would be fully interchangeable with the M line of cameras.

M cameras and M lenses, using the EF-M mount as well; this is the current bunch of cameras whose name starts with M. The lenses could (and often would) be used on the MP cameras, but nothing that cannot be done in a 61 mm diameter would be sold as an M lens. (Hmm, how close can they get to F/1 on a 61mm focal length? Obviously they can't get all the way there because the lens must have a wall of finite thickness.)

Thus you could have FOUR distinct lines while still having only two mounts, and it's reasonably "tidy." There's no necessity for building redundant lenses just to put a different name on them. Now I expect Canon would chose RC or MP but not both; but nothing precludes them going back a few years later and saying "yeah we should do the MP" (or "yeah we should do the RC") if they see a potential market for it.

Love that MP 100-400 lens but all you have is an M200? No problem, put it on, and ignore anyone who snickers at how the camera looks because they can't snicker at your pictures.
Need an 800mm lens for your R, and all you can afford is an RC800mm? Well, if your R has high resolution, get the RC 800mm and get cropped photos, or for the framing an R 800mm would give you, buy the RC 500mm.


----------



## lyleschmitz (Jul 22, 2020)

It seems like a lot of the debate here is around the " One thing multiple sources seem to agree with is that we are going to get some kind of EOS 7D Mark II replacement in mirrorless camera form" but that seems to be a footnote at the end of the article, which otherwise describes something that DOES NOT sound like a 7D replacement. Can it not be possible that maybe everyone is right? Maybe we're getting a significantly upgraded M body AND an APS-C R body. It would explain why there's apparently rumors for both options. Mind you there was a CR2 rumor about a month ago about a "Higher end than M5" M body supposedly coming out within a year. Now we're hearing about a 7D replacement that's "Basically an R6 with a smaller sensor." 

Based on the sheer amount of advocates on both sides, it seems like there is easily a market for both options.


----------



## lyleschmitz (Jul 22, 2020)

I'll also say I think it's pretty obvious that the M line's primary competitor is the A6000 line from Sony - and they just had a pretty huge upset with the A6600. I'm not saying it necessarily sold the best out of any APS-C body. but they made it bigger, added a new battery, gave it a headphone jack, and people seemed to like it. I think a slightly larger, more-buttons and more-ports M body would follow pretty logically with that line of thinking. Also, we do already have a whole selection of M lenses - is it great? No. But there's more options for that than there are for an APS-C R camera.

Michael's mentioned that the M lineup has existed for eight years and obviously that's true. But I'd argue they've only been taking it seriously since the launch of the M50 - the first M camera to seriously compete with the DLSR lineup and the predecessor to the M6ii, which is the first to surpass the DSLR lineup. That was only a couple months before the R line was released. I believe there's an equal amount for upset within either line.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 22, 2020)

lyleschmitz said:


> I'll also say I think it's pretty obvious that the M line's primary competitor is the A6000 line from Sony - and they just had a pretty huge upset with the A6600. I'm not saying it necessarily sold the best out of any APS-C body. but they made it bigger, added a new battery, gave it a headphone jack, and people seemed to like it. I think a slightly larger, more-buttons and more-ports M body would follow pretty logically with that line of thinking. Also, we do already have a whole selection of M lenses - is it great? No. But there's more options for that than there are for an APS-C R camera.



Not if you include the RF lenses for full frame, which would work perfectly well on an R-APSC camera, They wouldn't _have_ to make a special line of lenses for this camera; in fact its likely market will probably want to use the full frame glass. In fact, the people who _insist_ that we need an APS-C R do so because they want to get their cropped mitts on RF glass.



lyleschmitz said:


> Michael's mentioned that the M lineup has existed for eight years and obviously that's true. But I'd argue they've only been taking it seriously since the launch of the M50 - the first M camera to seriously compete with the DLSR lineup and the predecessor to the M6ii, which is the first to surpass the DSLR lineup.



This seems very likely, but it's not _certain._ I would love to see some sign they're starting to think outside that particular box; fortunately third parties are doing so, including Tamron and Sigma. One thing that I believe is certain is that Canon takes the M cameras more seriously than the posters here who think Canon just ought to dump them. (Riiiiiiight, dump the biggest selling series of cameras on Earth that doesn't place phone calls!)


----------



## lyleschmitz (Jul 22, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Not if you include the RF lenses for full frame, which would work perfectly well on an R-APSC camera, They wouldn't _have_ to make a special line of lenses for this camera; in fact its likely market will probably want to use the full frame glass. In fact, the people who _insist_ that we need an APS-C R do so because they want to get their cropped mitts on RF glass.
> 
> This seems very likely, but it's not _certain._ I would love to see some sign they're starting to think outside that particular box; fortunately third parties are doing so, including Tamron and Sigma. One thing that I believe is certain is that Canon takes the M cameras more seriously than the posters here who think Canon just ought to dump them. (Riiiiiiight, dump the biggest selling series of cameras on Earth that doesn't place phone calls!)



1. It's true that a lot of people who chose the 7D specifically to shoot professional nature and action photography would likely want to use FF glass since the additional crop is the main draw. But I still know plenty of people who gravitated to the 7D simply because it was less expensive and there was cheaper, smaller glass for it (think Sigma 18-35 or EF-S 17-55 for a cheaper standard zoom). I don't think Canon is going to bank the entire market for a high-end APS-C camera on people who could just as easily crop into an R5 image, but I could be wrong. As one of the people that prefers the cost savings of APS-C, I'd hope they'd put out at least SOME solid APS-C glass.

2. And that's ultimately why I think, or at least hope, that we get a high-spec M camera. Even if they have to size it up a bit, I think that it makes more sense to round out their most successful line with one slightly larger camera that can compete directly with the A6600. Bigger battery, bigger grip, better I/O, and some of the new features from the R line would absolutely smash Sony.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 22, 2020)

lyleschmitz said:


> 1. It's true that a lot of people who chose the 7D specifically to shoot professional nature and action photography would likely want to use FF glass since the additional crop is the main draw. But I still know plenty of people who gravitated to the 7D simply because it was less expensive and there was cheaper, smaller glass for it (think Sigma 18-35 or EF-S 17-55 for a cheaper standard zoom). I don't think Canon is going to bank the entire market for a high-end APS-C camera on people who could just as easily crop into an R5 image, but I could be wrong. As one of the people that prefers the cost savings of APS-C, I'd hope they'd put out at least SOME solid APS-C glass.



I based my statement on what I've seen here since I joined--a lot of people who want to put RF glass on a crop camera. Fewer in your situation. Of course, your situation actually means you could be satisfied with an M-series, as you said in your next paragraph.



lyleschmitz said:


> 2. And that's ultimately why I think, or at least hope, that we get a high-spec M camera. Even if they have to size it up a bit, I think that it makes more sense to round out their most successful line with one slightly larger camera that can compete directly with the A6600. Bigger battery, bigger grip, better I/O, and some of the new features from the R line would absolutely smash Sony.



This makes more sense to me than bastardizing the RF mount with a crop sensor model, but it would disappoint the people who want to put fancy RF glass in front of a crop sensor. I even suggested (somewhere) that Canon could "invent" the MP line of cameras, that happens to use the EF-M mount, but isn't as compact as the M series. (It would be a distinction in name, not in engineering); then they could put some fat lenses out there without breaking their precious "M is compact" paradigm.

The funny thing is, in many cases when you suggest that they could buy an R5 and use it in crop mode with the fancy RF glass...THEN they complain about the price--even though they're talking about using the expensive RF glass!! (OK, there are other reasons people might want a crop RF, and only a crop RF, but I maintain most of those issues could conceivably be addressed with an M mount--IF Canon is willing to break their paradigm (or use the loophole I suggested).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 22, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> *That's simply not true. * Sony have *chosen* not to make FF 1.2 lenses, but the FE mount is perfectly capable of 1.2 designs. I use the EF 50mm f/1.2L and 85mm f/1.2L with great success on the Sony A7RII.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And part of the edges of the image circle are "cut off" by the throat of the mount, similar to how a T-adapter can "choke" the image projected by a telescope, when you do, so you're not getting the full benefit of the larger aperture. Compare, for example, vignetting of the same 50/1.2 when used on an EF mount body vs. when used on an E-mount body vs. when used on an F-mount body. It gets progressively worse.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 22, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Never owned a 7D II (only mark 1) so I can't speak for the build quality, but we are in different times now and expectations are different. The 7D II came out much later than the 5D III so it's not entirely surprising that the build quality is better.
> 
> I'd be very happy to see an R7 class camera come in at a lower price point than the R6. Of course it's possible, and we mustn't forget that the EOS R and RP are still being sold presumably at a profit at a lower price point.
> 
> ...



2012 to 2014 is not "much later". Please.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 22, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Never owned a 7D II (only mark 1) so I can't speak for the build quality, but we are in different times now and expectations are different. The 7D II came out much later than the 5D III so it's not entirely surprising that the build quality is better.
> 
> I'd be very happy to see an R7 class camera come in at a lower price point than the R6. Of course it's possible, and we mustn't forget that the EOS R and RP are still being sold presumably at a profit at a lower price point.
> 
> ...



The build quality of the 7D was around the same as the 40D and 50D.

The build quality of the 7D Mark II was, according to Roger Cicala shortly after the 7D Mark II was out in the wild and he found an excuse to tear one down:



> "For those who want to take my word for it and skip on to some other blog, the Canon 7D Mk II may be the best weather-sealed camera I’ve run across."



This in the next paragraph after he had opened the blog entry by expressing his skepticism when camera companies claim "better weather sealing" and his belief that:



> "... weather sealing still means, “the warranty doesn’t cover water damage.”
> 
> "However, when I read that Canon claimed the 7D II has “4 times better weather sealing than the original 7D” I went mildly nuts. Most of you know I hate marketing drivel. HATE IT. Most of you know I’m generally not impressed with weather sealing claims. Unless something has changed in the last 30 seconds, weather sealing still means, “the warranty doesn’t cover water damage.”
> 
> "So when I read the claim “4 times more weather sealing” my inner cynic just thought 4 times zero equals zero. But I wanted to be fair so I decided I’d open up the 7D II before I wrote a scathing article about making ridiculous weather sealing claims. Which results in me once again writing an article where I have to admit my assumptions were wrong less correct than I would have liked. (Sorry, I forgot for a moment this was the internet where no one ever says “I was wrong.”)"



In his conclusion to the same blog entry he said:



> "This is, by dissection at least, the most thoroughly weather-sealed camera I’ve ever run across. (I would point out that I don’t take apart every camera so please don’t change my wording to say it’s the most weather sealed camera. I don’t know that.) But this isn’t just market-speak weather sealing. It’s a thorough and complete attempt to seal every possible crack and crevice the camera has."



Again, there wasn't anything in the 7D Mark II that was reduced to the level of the 6D vs. the 5D series, yet it sold for less than the 6D before it and the 6D Mark II after it. The 7D Mark II was comparable (or superior) to both the 5D Mark III before it and the 5D Mark IV after it in every way except sensor/mirror size and the resulting performance impacts of the smaller sensor and mirror. 

Both the 5D Mark III and the 5D Mark IV sold at just under twice the price of the 7D Mark II. Half of $3,499 is $1,749. The 7D Mark II came in at $1,799.

Canon might or might not price an R7 similarly, but there's certainly precedent for it that you continue to refuse to fully acknowledge.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 22, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> ...Both the 5D Mark III and the 5D Mark IV sold at just under twice the price of the 7D Mark II. Half of $3,499 is $1,749. The 7D Mark II came in at $1,799.
> 
> Canon might or might not price an R7 similarly, but there's certainly precedent for it that you continue to refuse to fully acknowledge.



On the other hand, we don't know if that bargain price for a mini-1Dx (as it was often called) is one reason why Canon apparently isn't making a 7DIII.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 22, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> And part of the edges of the image circle are "cut off" by the throat of the mount, similar to how a T-adapter can "choke" the image projected by a telescope, when you do, so you're not getting the full benefit of the larger aperture. Compare, for example, vignetting of the same 50/1.2 when used on an EF mount body vs. when used on an E-mount body vs. when used on an F-mount body. It gets progressively worse.



Have you actually tried this? I own the EF 50/1.2L and use it frequently with the A7RII and vignetting at 1.2 is no worse than on my Canon bodies. Anyway, you said it was not possible, but it clearly is. We all agree than the wider throat of the RF mount is better, so remind me what you're arguing about?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 22, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> 2012 to 2014 is not "much later". Please.



2 years is much later when we're talking about a possible R7 announcement within a few months of the R5 release. Thank you.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 22, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Both the 5D Mark III and the 5D Mark IV sold at just under twice the price of the 7D Mark II. Half of $3,499 is $1,749. The 7D Mark II came in at $1,799.
> 
> Canon might or might not price an R7 similarly, but there's certainly precedent for it that you continue to refuse to fully acknowledge.



Don't get me wrong, Canon could certainly produce an R7 as you'd suggest at 1/2 the price of the R5. I just don't think they will.

An R7 wouldn't sell anywhere close to how well the 7D II sold. The general downturn in the economy, the reluctance of many to switch to mirrorless, and because finally you don't have to compromise on frame rate by switching to a full-frame sensor as you did before.

The biggest threat to the R7 is the success of the R5. If it's as good as it looks by all accounts for wildlife photography I can imagine a lot of people won't wait for the R7.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 23, 2020)

unfocused said:


> On the other hand, we don't know if that bargain price for a mini-1Dx (as it was often called) is one reason why Canon apparently isn't making a 7DIII.



That may well be. But Nikon must have seen the 7D Mark II as some sort of success for Canon or they probably would not have created the D500 after leaving the D300 twisting in the wind for six years.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 23, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Have you actually tried this? I own the EF 50/1.2L and use it frequently with the A7RII and vignetting at 1.2 is no worse than on my Canon bodies. Anyway, you said it was not possible, but it clearly is. We all agree than the wider throat of the RF mount is better, so remind me what you're arguing about?



What I initially said was: "Actually, Sony can not make FF f/1.2 lenses _to compete with Canon's_ due to the limitations of the E-mount throat diameter." I didn't say they couldn't make any f/1.2 lenses, I said they couldn't use the same optical designs to get the same performance with the E-mount that Canon can get with the EF mount.

If there is a 47mm throat at 16mm in front of the sensor one of two design compromises, or a combination of both, must be made:

- Allow more extreme angles from the full surface of the rear element to the edges/corner of the sensors due to a smaller rear element able to fit inside 47mm being so close to the sensor. More extreme angles for the rays coming from each point in the exit pupil results in lower light density at the edges/corners because light spread out over an oval is weaker that the same amount of light spread over a circle with the same diameter as the minor chord of the oval.
- Place the rear elements as far forward as with designs created for the 44mm registration distance and 54mm throat of the EF mount and live with the cutoff/diffraction that results from light striking the edges/corners interacting with the edge of the lens flangering. (This is what happens when you use a Canon f/1.2 EF lens with an E-mount Sony)
- Place the rear element somewhere between the first two options and live with a bit of both.

Admittedly, Canon does not leverage the full possibility of the 54mm throat with the EF 50mm f/1.2 and RF 50mm f/1.2 in terms of the rear element diameter the way they do with the 85mm f/1.2 and the RF 85mm f/1.2 lenses. But they certainly could have if they had wanted to. Sony does not have that option with the 47mm throat of E-mount. Perhaps the geometry only makes a real difference as the focal lengths get longer.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 23, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> 2 years is much later when we're talking about a possible R7 announcement within a few months of the R5 release. Thank you.



A possible development announcement that the rumor says could be anytime from late 2020 until early 2021?

A possible official product announcement introducing a camera that will be available in a few weeks after a late 2020 or early 2021 announcement?

This rumor is not at all clear about when we can expect any kind of official product introduction and release. It could well be into 2021 before a "development' announcement" might be made. There had been "serious" rumors regarding the 7D Mark II swirling around since at least 2012 before finally ti finally showed up on the market in late 2014. Remember when a lot of folks were mad because they weren't getting a 7D Mark II in early 2012 when Canon announced a replacement for the 7D... (wait for it)... firmware ... which would be released in mid-summer 2012?

The more I go back and read the initial rumor, though, the less I'm convinced whatever this might turn out to be will be a bona fide 7D Mark II type of camera if it is based on the R6 rather than the R5.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 23, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> What I initially said was: "Actually, Sony can not make FF f/1.2 lenses _to compete with Canon's_ due to the limitations of the E-mount throat diameter." I didn't say they couldn't make any f/1.2 lenses, I said they couldn't use the same optical designs to get the same performance with the E-mount that Canon can get with the EF mount.



I agree with this now that you have explained things better. Canon and Nikon have an obvious advantage over Sony when it comes to lens design - however this hasn't managed to stop Sony having the widest range of FF lenses for mirrorless - including some extremely well-regarded lenses. Some of these, such as the Sony Zeiss 55mm FE 1.8 are tiny, lightweight and optically magnificent. WIth the Sony 35mm f/2.8 I can keep a full frame camera with lens IN MY COAT POCKET. The RP with the 35mm RF is close, but not quite as compact.

So while Canon and Nikon pushed the boundaries to bring in exceptional high-end lenses, Sony decided to go for a compromise mount that allowed them to keep compatibility with their existing lens and body line, and to keep cameras and lenses compact (which I agree is certainly not what everyone wants). But it was a strategy that's worked for them - and there are plenty of photographers very happy with their investment into the Sony system - myself included.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 23, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The more I go back and read the initial rumor, though, the less I'm convinced whatever this might turn out to be will be a bona fide 7D Mark II type of camera if it is based on the R6 rather than the R5.



I think this is more likely - essentially an R6 body with a 32-mpx APS-C sensor, improved weather sealing . But this assumes DPAF II can be fitted into the denser sensor - because we all agree there's no point having an R7 without the new animal eye AF etc functionality. Perhaps a more conservative 24mpx sensor would be better.

In all cases, I think the best you'll get for video will be pixel binned or cropped 4K30. I don't think Canon would release it without some kind of 4K support.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 23, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I think this is more likely - essentially an R6 body with a 32-mpx APS-C sensor, improved weather sealing . But this assumes DPAF II can be fitted into the denser sensor - because we all agree there's no point having an R7 without the new animal eye AF etc functionality. Perhaps a more conservative 24mpx sensor would be better.
> [..]



I wonder how much of 'DPAF II' is sensor and how much is Digic X. Suppose we hook the 32MP M6II sensor up to a Digic X, will that be 'DPAF II'?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 23, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> That may well be. But Nikon must have seen the 7D Mark II as some sort of success for Canon or they probably would not have created the D500 after leaving the D300 twisting in the wind for six years.


True, but they've abandoned the line as well now.


----------



## flip314 (Jul 24, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> You all might be missing the real opportunity here: 800mm f/11 + RF-S speed booster on an RF-S body. Ratchet that image circle down to 1.6 crop, and you now have an effective 1120mm f/8. In fact, that might be the primary reason those f/11 lenses exist.



No, the speedbooster works like a reversed teleconverter so the effective focal length doesn't much change from the original lens. The 800mm f/11 would be closer to 800mm f/8.

The only way you get the extra stop is by focusing extra light onto the APS-C sensor (shrinking the image circle), while the reason you see a crop otherwise is that the image circle is larger than the sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

unfocused said:


> True, but they've abandoned the line as well now.



Z50?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

flip314 said:


> No, the speedbooster works like a reversed teleconverter so the effective focal length doesn't much change from the original lens. The 800mm f/11 would be closer to 800mm f/8.
> 
> The only way you get the extra stop is by focusing extra light onto the APS-C sensor (shrinking the image circle), while the reason you see a crop otherwise is that the image circle is larger than the sensor.



It actually works in the opposite direction from tiggy's calculation.

A 1.6X speedbooster on an 800mm lens gives the lens+speedbooster combination an *actual* focal length of 500mm. Then you apply the 1.6X "crop factor" and you're right back at an "effective" 800mm field of view.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Z50?


Does Nikon have a separate APS-C line and mount for mirrorless? I know they had a small sensor mirrorless for awhile, but it wasn't APS-C. I can't find anything on their site about a line of mirrorless bodies specifically for APS-C similar to Canon's M mount.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Does Nikon have a separate APS-C line and mount for mirrorless? I know they had a small sensor mirrorless for awhile, but it wasn't APS-C. I can't find anything on their site about a line of mirrorless bodies specifically for APS-C similar to Canon's M mount.



The Z50 is a new Z-mount APS-C camera. The Nikon Z50 has been called a "mirrorless D500" by some.

It's kind of like a potential R7, which is being touted as a "mirrorless 7D".


----------



## unfocused (Jul 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The Z50 is a new Z-mount APS-C camera. The Nikon Z50 has been called a "mirrorless D500" by some.
> 
> It's kind of like a potential R7, which is being touted as a "mirrorless 7D".


So Nikon, unlike Canon, doesn't have an APS-C specific line, correct?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 25, 2020)

unfocused said:


> True, but they've abandoned the line as well now.





unfocused said:


> So Nikon, unlike Canon, doesn't have an APS-C specific line, correct?



So, Nikon has introduced a camera many consider the successor to the D500, correct?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 25, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> So, Nikon has introduced a camera many consider the successor to the D500, correct?


Interesting. Are you sure you are talking about the right camera?

DPReview on the Z50:



> The company says the camera is designed to attract a generation of users who don't consider themselves to be photographers... In keeping with its Instagram-friendly intent, the Z50 can shoot images with a series of significant processing effects applied...the way the AF system is implemented is clumsy and a little slower to operate than most of its rivals... The thing we like most about the Canon EOS M6 II is something it has in common with the Z50: comfortable, straightforward ergonomics and a generally well-sorted user interface. The Canon's AF features are better integrated but there's not much of a performance gap....there are more lenses that match the M6 II, which gives it the edge, for now.


----------



## Chig (Jul 26, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I’m really keen to get a replacement for my 7D mark ii
I like the R6 with the animal autofocus, powerful Digic X processor and great low light performance but not keen on losing the extra reach of the crop factor and the RF lenses like the RF 100-500 are ridiculously expensive compared with the EF 100-400 or my old EF 400 f/5.6 and the RF extenders are overpriced and can’t be stacked together 
My dream camera would use the R6 with a downsized version of it’s 20 mp sensor with same pixel density to make a sensor of approximately 8 mp which would be like a crop of it’s full frame sensor so you get the low light performance with a file size of only 40% of the R6
People will moan that 8 mp is too little but that’s bullshit : 8 million pixels is massive on a crop sensor !
If you crop a full frame 20 mp image from a 1 DX iii or an R6 down to aps-c crop it will still look great if the image was good quality to start with 
I’d much rather have fewer high quality large pixels that absorb lots of light than lots of tiny ones which can’t capture much light
The 7D2‘s worst weak point is it’s low light performance compared to full frame because it has too many tiny pixels crammed onto it’s little sensor 
thanks


----------



## SteveC (Jul 26, 2020)

Chig said:


> I’m really keen to get a replacement for my 7D mark ii
> I like the R6 with the animal autofocus, powerful Digic X processor and great low light performance but not keen on losing the extra reach of the crop factor and the RF lenses like the RF 100-500 are ridiculously expensive compared with the EF 100-400 or my old EF 400 f/5.6 and the RF extenders are overpriced and can’t be stacked together
> My dream camera would use the R6 with a downsized version of it’s 20 mp sensor with same pixel density to make a sensor of approximately 8 mp which would be like a crop of it’s full frame sensor so you get the low light performance with a file size of only 40% of the R6
> People will moan that 8 mp is too little but that’s bullshit : 8 million pixels is massive on a crop sensor !
> ...



If 8MP is adequate in your hands and for your purposes they won't look better on a camera that has them in crop versus 20 MP in non-crop. 

(From what you wrote I got the impression you may be laboring under the mistaken belief that it would, but I wasn't sure of that. So I decided to clarify that point just in case.)


----------



## Chig (Jul 26, 2020)

SteveC said:


> If 8MP is adequate in your hands and for your purposes they won't look better on a camera that has them in crop versus 20 MP in non-crop.
> 
> (From what you wrote I got the impression you may be laboring under the mistaken belief that it would, but I wasn't sure of that. So I decided to clarify that point just in case.)


Well with the crop sensor we will have a compromise of some sort so perhaps a downsized R5 sensor would work better which would be about 17 mp ?


----------



## SteveC (Jul 27, 2020)

Chig said:


> Well with the crop sensor we will have a compromise of some sort so perhaps a downsized R5 sensor would work better which would be about 17 mp ?



Who knows? Actually, my _guess_ is that I would expect the 90D/M6-II sensor (already developed, very fast performer, _but_ 32 MP), long before I'd expect them to actually create a totally new 17 or 8 MP sensor for this camera. (And that's true whether it ends up behind an EF-M mount or an RF mount.) But then again, if they perceive that the market for this camera _wants_ lower resolution, I could end up being mildly surprised.

If the sole issue you have with whatever they do is: too high a resolution, you can partially mitigate it by simply having the camera take lower-res pictures. That would certainly solve any file size issues. To be sure it would have to do some conversions, but you'd get some noise reduction from that. (I'm already looking forward to dealing with 45 MP starting Thursday/Friday!)


----------



## masterpix (Jul 29, 2020)

And again one might ask the question, if I have the R5 with 45MP sensor, crop it to 2/3 size means that any sensor below 20MP is not going to be any APS-C advantage over the R5. So they will ahve to get at least something like the D90 sensor into the R5 body to get anything close to 7D replacement. just think of the 800mm lens on 2/3 crop sensor... 1300mm? that will be a monster.


----------



## Chig (Aug 1, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> 28MP would be in line with the R5's sensor.


17mp is what the R5 sensor crops down to not 28


----------



## Chig (Aug 2, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> The blue part above is the slippery slope. If R7 is a mirrorless 7D3 and that is all they offer with R mount + APS-C, they can (as others have said here) get away with just 2-3 crop RF lenses -- an ultrawide zoom a la EF-M 11-22, standard zoom a la EF-M 15-45 or 18-55, etc.
> 
> But they minute they cross over into the bigger / wider use-case / more varied userbases of general crop shooters (even at the 90D price point), there will be pressure to offer a proper line of crop-only RF glass -- they'll want small telephoto zooms, 60mm 1:1 macro, pancakes, etc. That's tantamount to double/triple dipping on EF-S and EF-M, and I think Canon would only go there if they intended to get rid of EF-S altogether. They will certainly eventually get to that point, but it may not be that soon. Crop SLRs still make Canon a ton of money, don't they?
> 
> - A


People buy 7Ds for using with big telephoto lens not wide angle but could use a speed booster adapter to use existing wide angle EF lens


----------

