# Will there be an APS-C EOS R-series camera?



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2021)

There has been a rumor and ample forum buzz about a possible EOS R-series camera with an APS-C sensor. Is that likely?

*TL;DR…no.*

There seem to be two camps promoting the idea. One camp is looking for a ‘budget’ option in the EOS R line, an inexpensive body that’s compatible with the RF lens lineup. Personally, I think that would not be an APS-C camera. The main reason is that the EOS M line exists and is a global best-seller, providing entry-level and somewhat more advanced bodies with a lens lineup from 11-200mm, including some high-quality, low-cost lenses.

The other reason is the also-rumored $800 FF EOS R body, which would be a _very_ affordable FF camera. Canon seems to be headed this way with their recent lens releases: there is already the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 at $400 and RF 50/1.8 at $200, and they’ve recently added the RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 at $650 and the RF 16/2.8 at $300. There are also wide and telephoto macro primes at $500 and $600, respectively. These lenses appear geared toward a budget-friendly FF system. All that’s needed is that sub-$1000 FF MILC.

For a budget APS-C R-series camera to be viable, Canon would likely need to develop a set of RF-S (or whatever moniker) lenses in the wide and normal range at least. Not sure they would want to add yet another mount to the mix. The leaked roadmap does have an RF 18-45mm zoom on it, and that is a potential standard zoom for an RF APS-C camera. But it’s also a very viable ultrawide zoom for a FF MILC, and would fill a significant gap in the budget-friendly FF system.

The other camp (which seems more vocal here) is looking for a high pixel density sensor for ‘more reach’. Given that an APS-C crop from the R5 yields a 17 MP image, an APS-C sensor with a higher MP count (like the 32 MP sensor in the 90D and M6 II) would yield significantly more ‘pixels on duck’ for applications where focal length is limiting and for macro shooters wanting more (digital) magnification. These folks are looking for a ‘high end’ APS-C RF-mount camera, the obvious analogy being the EOS 7D and 7DII, leading to speculation about an EOS R7.

Although I can see the utility of such a camera (in general, not for me personally), I think both history and Canon’s current strategy argue against it. On the history side, consider the 7D and 7DII. Every other Canon series, from the xxxD and xxD models below the 7-series to the 5- and 1-series models above it received more frequent updates. In many ways, the 90D was the real successor to the 7DII – although a step down in some ways, it was a step up in others and obviously there has not been a 7DIII. Beyond the 7-series itself, consider also the EF-S lens lineup aimed at APS-C users. The three EF-S lenses considered ‘high end’ and favorites of 7-series users were the 17-55/2.8, the 15-85/3.5-5.6 and the 10-22/3.5-4.5. Of those, the first two were released in 2006 and 2009, respectively, and never updated (though it could be argued that the 15-85 was itself an update to the 17-85). The 10-22 was replaced with the cheaper, slower all-plastic 10-18/4.5-5.6. Meanwhile, the 18-55mm, 18-135mm, and 55-250mm lenses all saw at least three versions, and all were updated in the last decade.

So, history suggests that the ‘high-end’ APS-C body and the best-matched ‘high end’ EF-S lenses were low on Canon’s priority list. To me, that is evidence that the market for those lenses is not very significant as far as Canon is concerned. So, when people claim, “The market wants a high end R7 with an APS-C sensor,” what they really mean is they want one, and maybe a couple other people they know want one, too. It’s important to realize that the microcosm of forums like this one, or the small circle of people someone knows, are not representative of the broader market. Canon has knowledge of the desires of that broader market through a variety of methods.

Alternatively, it is possible that there _was_ a substantial demand for a 7DIII that Canon chose to leave unfulfilled, in an attempt to push those people wanting ‘more’ from their top-shelf APS-C camera into buying a FF camera system. If that’s true, then that logic applies even more to the R-series. The R5 and R6 offer very good performance, and Canon have also provided the RF 600/11 and 800/11 for those wanting ‘more reach’ on a FF camera.

Someone will probably bring up the ‘Nikon just did it so Canon must follow’ rationale, but Nikon doesn’t have anything like the EOS M line. Their initial foray into MILCs, the Nikon 1, was a flop that was last updated in 2015 and formally discontinued in 2018. Nikon’s Z 50 (and the Z fc – did they not learn from the Df?!?) are their late attempt to capture some of the APS-C MILC market that’s dominated by Sony and Canon.

Overall, I think that despite the wishes of some people, we won’t be seeing an APS-C sensor in an RF-mount camera.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> There has been a rumor and ample forum buzz about a possible EOS R-series camera with an APS-C sensor. Is that likely?
> 
> *TL;DR…no.*
> 
> ...


You must be bored. Trying to stir things up a bit aren't we?

I agree with most of what you wrote, except I don't think the EF vs. EF-S concerns are important with the RF mount. If Canon were to make an RF-S lens, it would seamlessly mount on any R body, since the camera could simply crop the image as the R series already does with EF-S lenses. One problem with crop-senor DSLRs was that manufacturers constantly had to educate consumers about which lenses would fit on which bodies. That's not an issue with mirrorless.

The best argument in favor of a low-cost crop sensor R is that it would allow Canon to consolidate everything into one mount. However, I'm not sure the design requirements of the R mount would allow a crop sensor R to ever be as compact as the M series and compact size seems to be the best reason to build a low-cost crop sensor body. Canon is showing they can build a full-frame R that is reasonably compact and reasonably low cost, so I think that argues against dropping the M series for the R mount, unless they totally drop APS-C.

Of course the big issue is the mythical R7 that so many dream of. I'm agnostic on this one, mainly because I don't think we can know enough to make an informed prediction. We don't know what the market size is, we don't know what the minimum cost might be and we don't know what the maximum viable price point might be. I'm inclined to believe it is not viable, but I have to admit part of that is because it's so much fun to see the reaction of forum participants when you suggest they won't get their dream camera.  

More seriously though, I've found that personally I have no problem using the R5 in crop mode when I need more reach. It's virtually indistinguishable from the 7DII when processing images and of course, it is a much better camera. Yes, an R5 is a significant investment over the 7DII, but when you combine the cost of a 5D and a 7D, the R5 becomes much more cost effective, since you are getting two cameras in one. Since many of the high-end 7DII users also own or purchase a full frame body, the out-of-pocket cost remains about the same or less. I can only judge by my own use and in my case, while I would have bought a 7DIII in a second, I find with the R5 that my interest in an R7 is almost non-existent. I wonder how many others feel that way and to what extent that has diminished the possible market for an R7. Add in a rumored high MP full frame R and it might further reduce the potential market for an R7.

Anyway, I enjoy playing this game with you and will wait and see what it stirs up.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 9, 2021)

I can only speak for myself, but I would definitely be interested in an RF mount APS-C camera. Unlike many of the 7D series users, I would much rather see an affordable crop RF camera that doesn't necessarily have all the bells and whistles of a higher end camera, but can still supply the added reach. I disagree that there would be numerous RF-S lenses needed. I think the only one that might be designed for APS-C, would be an ultra-wide. An 18-45 (or better yet 18-55 or 75) would be a standard zoom for APS-C and a nice wide angle for FF. Anything longer would be used for both. For example, I would be very interested in the new RF 100-400mm if I could pair it with a crop camera, but have no interest in it for an FF camera. The argument that one can use a FF camera in crop mode does have merit, but for many users the price point of the R5 is way to high. 

While the M system cameras are something I have owned in the past, they just don't pair well with larger and heavier long lenses, in my opinion. So, for me (and presumably some others) looking for more reach, the M system doesn't cut it ergonomically and the R5 in crop mode doesn't cut it economically.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 9, 2021)

I'll play.

APS-C came about at a point and time that the cost of the APS-C sensor was sufficiently lower than FF to justify the R&D and manufacturing investment for APS-C cameras/lenses. Actually, APS-C predated FF by several years. My thought would be that the current price difference is not great enough to justify that investment in a RF mount APS-C system today. Canon will do their bests to keep costs down and centralized around a singular system. 

As mentioned above, the APS-C mode on the R5 works great. I only use it when I want to save on file size or to save in cropping in post, neither of which are often, but still, it works well.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 9, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> I disagree that there would be numerous RF-S lenses needed...


I agree. 

There were only three EF-S lenses that appealed to serious users, the 15-85, the 17-55 f2.8 and the 10-22. With modern sensor designs, I'm not sure how necessary the 17-55 f2.8 is. In my view, they could get by with a 15-85 and a 10-22. 

Although more expensive, the already existing RF 24-240 is actually a more flexible option than the 55-250 for a travel lens.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 10, 2021)

Likely none of us has access to actual sales statistics nor strategic marketing forecasts so we deal in hypothesis and speculation. I tend to agree with Neuro's analysis. The market for an R series APSC is likely small and mostly derived from current/former 7D series users. The M series is sound and selling well for many use cases - probably mostly serious hobbyists, casual shooters, vloggers and travelers. M series users likely aren't using long teles so lens coverage limited to 200mm is probably sufficient. Still it's possible to go really long with an adapter and EF lenses (however awkward and unbalanced). So the APSC format appears well covered for many (most?) users.

It seems that mostly it would be 7D/7DII shooters who would seek an RF - APSC body. The use cases would center on longer reach telephoto situations, fast focusing, sound weather sealing, high frame rates, i.e. wildlife and some sports. The 90D is actually a decent upgrade from the 7DII except for a few areas like weather sealing and perhaps focusing; but a mirrorless solution could offer lot more advanced technology.

Now, just to stir the pot for you Canon fanboys... when it became clear Canon wouldn't introduce a 7DIII, Olympus saw the opportunity to attract some of those 7D oriented sports and wildlife shooters. One limitation with the 7D series was always Canon's insistence on a fairly strong AA filter. Olympus didn't use an AA filter consequently they could claim 'sharper' images despite a smaller sensor. (When I first bought into the m4/3 system I compared OMD vs. 7D and found the OMD noticeably 'sharper'. YMMV) Olympus frame rate of 60fps (electronic shutter, focus locked) and 15 fps (mechanical w/focus) easily topped any Canon offering other than the 1DX. Canon had a clear edge in tracking (w/1DX series) but Olympus made big strides to fix that soft spot. Olympus brought out wildlife oriented PRO lenses - 300mm f4 prime (FOV equal to 600mm FF), 150-400 mm w/integral 1.25X (FOV =1000mm FF), stackable 1.4X and 2X converters for more fantastic reach, etc. Weather sealing on Olympus cameras equaled or exceeded the 1DXII and was superior to the 7D - Internet clips showed cameras working in the shower. Working pros touted lighter weight gave them more time comfortably in the field. Sophisticated software helped offset the low-light noise issues as did incredible IBIS. Cost was also a factor - $13,000 for a FF 600mm f4 vs. $2,900 for 300mm f4. In fact, some claim the main motivation for Canon to introduce the lower cost 600 & 800 f11 RF lenses was to try to recapture business lost to Olympus from migrating 7D shooters. [Before the howling starts, I fully understand all the arguments around true equivalence, but for long telephoto wildlife shooting shallow DOF is often a non-issue (actually, more DOF is frequently better) and noise gets addressed in post.] 

My point isn't to push a sensor format, it is to point out another indication that Canon has taken a different route to attract 7D class users to the FF world. If you are a serious working wildlife pro who sells enough images to afford the best available FF gear (sports shooters are a different lot since many have gear provided by others) then Canon will fit you up with a 1DXIII or R3/R5 and some $13,000 glass. Those of us on a more limited budget can look forward to the R or RP replacements with f11 glass. The 7DII/90D with a 100-400 L II solution will fade away IMO.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 10, 2021)

For long telephoto wildlife shooting, I also use Olympus. If people actually knew how good the Olympus cameras and lenses are, instead of being inundated with all the internet bullcrap that the m4/3rds system has to endure, Olympus wouldn't have had to sell the camera business. My opinion, of course.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 10, 2021)

old-pr-pix said:


> Likely none of us has access to actual sales statistics nor strategic marketing forecasts so we deal in hypothesis and speculation. I tend to agree with Neuro's analysis. The market for an R series APSC is likely small and mostly derived from current/former 7D series users...
> 
> Now, just to stir the pot for you Canon fanboys... when it became clear Canon wouldn't introduce a 7DIII, Olympus saw the opportunity to attract some of those 7D oriented sports and wildlife shooters...


Very good insights, most of which I agree with completely. However, regarding Olympus, you might be underestimating older photographers' need for lighter gear. I was a member of a camera club, and even middle-aged, I was the youngest regular member by about ten years. We averaged 35 members each monthly meeting, and as they reached 70, they began to look for something smaller than the club favorite, the 7D. The body was not much smaller than a FF body, and the wildlife lens of choice was the 100-400mm. A few did have the better EF-S lenses already mentioned in this thread, but by in large they favored L series lenses. Many had gone to full-frame with the 5D III and 5D IV.

But as legs, hips, shoulders and hands began to succumb to the effects of age, within a two year period almost half the club had traded in their Canon and Nikon gear for Olympus. It really was astounding. And three or four just decided that i-Phone cameras were good enough.

I have no idea how big the enthusiast market is among people over 70 years old, but I can't imagine it is huge. The people in my camera club were rare birds who had disposable income and just could not stop getting out, could not give up photography--but they could not carry a 7D and lenses and a tripod anymore.

Personally, I hope to use full-frame until it is physically impossible for me, and I hope that is a good way off! But young photographers aren't going to save much weight or money with a robust, wildlife type of APS-C 7D body, in my opinion. I don't think Canon would make such a body that is significantly cheaper than, say, the R6. As Docsmith suggests, the production cost of FF over APS-C means Canon could offer everything the 7D had with a FF sensor. Perhaps number of Megapixels will be what distinguishes various lines, as it does with the R5 and R6 now?

But maybe many photographers believe that a smaller sensor gives more bang for the buck when paired with a super-telephoto lens, and Canon sees the continued marketing opportunities--even if the actual price of a mirrorless 7D would be very close to FF bodies. We'll see!


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 10, 2021)

Being one of those 'older photographers' myself I totally concur with the preference for lighter gear. I started with medium and large format, migrated to 35 mm film, next digital and lastly added m43. I have also become somewhat of a 'inadvertant collector' having now Canon FF, Canon APSC, Fuji APSC, Olympus & Panasonic m43 cameras and lenses all at the ready. I don't have justification for all that gear other than much of it is older (like me!) and has modest value (other than the "L" lenses) so I keep it like old friends. The m43 stuff is what I use for almost all jobs (the few there are these days) except wide-angle stuff where the 3:2 aspect ratio of FF and APSC just seems a more natural fit than the near square 4:3 format. Today I shoot mostly for fun, not profit. Hand me any camera and I'll have fun with it! Tell me I have to carry it around all day and I will definitely prefer my Olympus E-M5II or my SL-2 or better yet my G-15. That said, I still dream of going back to medium format and that new Fuji GFX-50S II might settle my GAS, but I sure don't want to carry it around - maybe just studio work?


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 11, 2021)

I would not have the slightest interest in a crop sensor RF mount camera. So clearly there is no market for one.


----------



## JBSF (Sep 11, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> I would not have the slightest interest in a crop sensor RF mount camera. So clearly there is no market for one.



THANK YOU!


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Every other Canon series, from the xxxD and xxD models below the 7-series to the 5- and 1-series models above it received more frequent updates.



I seem to have missed those more frequent updates to the 5Ds and 5Ds R series...


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> More seriously though, I've found that personally I have no problem using the R5 in crop mode when I need more reach.


Please explain how it gives you more reach in crop mode. It says this also on official Canon sites:

*EOS R5: Larger resolution even in 1.6x crop mode*
The 1.6x crop mode on both cameras uses part of the image sensor to achieve 1.6x more reach on any given lens https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/india/article/en/eos-r5-vs-eos-r6-5-key-differences-to-note

and I am confused.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 21, 2021)

My guess is that making a high performance R camera with 20.2MP * 1.6 ^ 2 = 51.7MP full frame sensor would be easier and more profitable than making an R7 & RF-S lenses, all the more so with the market shrinking long term, and short term parts shortage. Apparently the price difference between APS-C & FF sensors isn't that big either nowadays.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> My guess is that making a high performance R camera with 20.2MP * 1.6 ^ 2 = 51.7MP full frame sensor would be easier and more profitable than making an R7 & RF-S lenses, all the more so with the market shrinking long term, and short term parts shortage. Apparently the price difference between APS-C & FF sensors isn't that big either nowadays.


They’d need an 82 MP FF high-performance R-series camera to just match (not exceed) the 90D in terms of pixel density (‘reach’).


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> They’d need an 82 MP FF high-performance R-series camera to just match (not exceed) the 90D in terms of pixel density (‘reach’).


Is the 90D a 7D replacement?

If owners of 1D X mark III can do with 20MP, and R3 owners are expected to do with 24MP, I see no reason why Canon would have to match the 90D's pixel density.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Is the 90D a 7D replacement?
> 
> If owners of 1D X mark III can do with 20MP, and R3 owners are expected to do with 24MP, I see no reason why Canon would have to match the 90D's pixel density.


Since there was no 7DIII, the 90D was the de facto 7DII replacement. 

i’m not one of those clamoring for an APS-C R-series body, both those doing so for ‘more reach’ want the highest pixel density they can get, so I doubt they’d be satisfied with 50 MP.

Consider that the R5 plus the 800/11 puts more ‘pixels on duck’ than the 7DII + 1.4x + 100-400, yet 7DII owners are still asking for an APS-C R. I don’t think they’re going to get one, but they are asking.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Is the 90D a 7D replacement?
> 
> If owners of 1D X mark III can do with 20MP, and R3 owners are expected to do with 24MP, I see no reason why Canon would have to match the 90D's pixel density.


You might not see a reason but you are not speaking for everyone. However, 24 Mpx in an APS-C I can live with, or even 20.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 21, 2021)

AlanF said:


> You might not see a reason but you are not speaking for everyone. However, 24 Mpx in an APS-C I can live with, or even 20.


I never claimed speaking for everyone. Canon doesn't have to match the 90D's density, exactly because there are customers like you who could live with 20MP.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> i’m not one of those clamoring for an APS-C R-series body, both those doing so for ‘more reach’ want the highest pixel density they can get, so I doubt they’d be satisfied with 50 MP.


Canon released a 250MP APS-H sensor a year ago, so why not an 80MP FF sensor now? Could be supply problems, but I doubt its demand.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> I never claimed speaking for everyone. Canon doesn't have to match the 90D's density, exactly because there are customers like you who could live with 20MP.


If Canon did bring out an APS-C, given their past record with the M6II and 90D, I think it is actually quite likely that they would have a 32+ Mpx sensor because they like trumping other companies with higher resolution when they can. They have proved they can get adequately fast data acquisition and transfer with the R5, and the M6II and 90D sensors are pretty good. I am actually doing well enough to my satisfaction with the R5 that has 17 Mpx in crop mode.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 21, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Please explain how it gives you more reach in crop mode. It says this also on official Canon sites:
> 
> *EOS R5: Larger resolution even in 1.6x crop mode*
> The 1.6x crop mode on both cameras uses part of the image sensor to achieve 1.6x more reach on any given lens https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/india/article/en/eos-r5-vs-eos-r6-5-key-differences-to-note
> ...


I'm not sure what there is to be confused about. Canon and I are both saying that if you prefer the perceived reach of an APS-C sensor camera, Canon's R series has a 1.6 crop mode on all models that will give you the same field of view as an APS-C camera. But, your other responses indicate you already know that, so perhaps you are just being pedantic. If you are wanting to start some sort of debate over our use of the term reach, I'll take a hard pass. If it's good enough for Canon it's good enough for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon released a 250MP APS-H sensor a year ago, so why not an 80MP FF sensor now? Could be supply problems, but I doubt its demand.


At 50 MP, 5Ds/R delivered 20 MP at APS-C crop. But at 5 fps, it wasn’t ‘high performance’ enough. The R5 does 20 fps at 45 MP, at 80 MP that would be 11 fps - that’s barely better than the seven year old 7DII. That's one 'why not'.

I do think we'll see an R5s-type camera – high MP, lower fps. I don't think we'll see an 80 MP body with 20-30 fps for a long time.

Incidentally, despite that 250 MP APS-H sensor being announced in 2015, having a prototype shown in 2017 and being ‘released’ in late 2020, nearly a year later it doesn’t seem to be available in any actual products, and if you want more info than the press release you can contact Canon for the “_preliminary_ brochure”. So there’s really no evidence that think is being made, much less ‘at scale’. But then, it may be unlikely we’d see such evidence anyway.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 21, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon released a 250MP APS-H sensor a year ago, so why not an 80MP FF sensor now? Could be supply problems, but I doubt its demand.


If you believe in rumors....and considering which forum we are on, I am going to say you do....a "high MP" camera is expected in early 2022. But, I'd take that with a grain of salt, not because it is a rumor, but because Canon is having supply chain issues that are delaying production of announced products and likely pushing back the announcement of new products.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I'm not sure what there is to be confused about. Canon and I are both saying that if you prefer the perceived reach of an APS-C sensor camera, Canon's R series has a 1.6 crop mode on all models that will give you the same field of view as an APS-C camera. But, your other responses indicate you already know that, so perhaps you are just being pedantic. If you are wanting to start some sort of debate over our use of the term reach, I'll take a hard pass. If it's good enough for Canon it's good enough for me.


Thank you for clarifying. Cropping FF in camera to APS-C gives identical results to cropping FF post capture to APS-C. And a Canon site saying switching to crop increases reach is just marketing BS. It does other worthwhile things, like reducing file size, but increasing reach it doesn't do, and saying that is not being pedantic - it's dispelling another myth that takes in the unwary.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 22, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> My guess is that making a high performance R camera with 20.2MP * 1.6 ^ 2 = 51.7MP full frame sensor would be easier and more profitable than making an R7 & RF-S lenses, all the more so with the market shrinking long term, and short term parts shortage. Apparently the price difference between APS-C & FF sensors isn't that big either nowadays.


Yield might differ for larger sensors of the same density. That might be the biggest factor.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 22, 2021)

I expect that Canon has some designs but is taking a wait and see position. If Nikon sells a ton of APS-C large body cameras, Canon can quickly respond. I expect that as the market shrinks, so will the number of different camera models. Since all the development and tooling for M lenses exists, its profitable to continue that line even as camera sales drop.

A totally new model is extremely expensive to roll out. Not only is there camera tooling, but firmware, and a huge cost to provide spare parts, training, and equipment to repair them. A new series of R lenses just runs up the bill even more. Who's to say what might happen once there are enough RF lens models in production, right now, Canon has said they were borrowing lens designers from other divisions to get as many RF lens models developed as possible.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> At 50 MP, 5Ds/R delivered 20 MP at APS-C crop. But at 5 fps, it wasn’t ‘high performance’ enough. The R5 does 20 fps at 45 MP, at 80 MP that would be 11 fps - that’s barely better than the seven year old 7DII. That's one 'why not'.
> 
> I do think we'll see an R5s-type camera – high MP, lower fps. I don't think we'll see an 80 MP body with 20-30 fps for a long time.
> 
> Incidentally, despite that 250 MP APS-H sensor being announced in 2015, having a prototype shown in 2017 and being ‘released’ in late 2020, nearly a year later it doesn’t seem to be available in any actual products, and if you want more info than the press release you can contact Canon for the “_preliminary_ brochure”. So there’s really no evidence that think is being made, much less ‘at scale’. But then, it may be unlikely we’d see such evidence anyway.



11 fps isn't that far from 12 fps, either. The R3 maxes out at 12 fps with mechanical shutter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> 11 fps isn't that far from 12 fps, either. The R3 maxes out at 12 fps with mechanical shutter.


11 fps as a top-line spec isn’t ‘high performance’ when the R5 does 20 fps and the R3 does 30 fps.

R5s. 80 MP, 10 fps (5 fps mechanical). You heard it here first.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> At 50 MP, 5Ds/R delivered 20 MP at APS-C crop. But at 5 fps, it wasn’t ‘high performance’ enough. The R5 does 20 fps at 45 MP, at 80 MP that would be 11 fps - that’s barely better than the seven year old 7DII. That's one 'why not'.


I think Canon could raise fps if the camera would read just the middle 40% of the sensor.


neuroanatomist said:


> Incidentally, despite that 250 MP APS-H sensor being announced in 2015, having a prototype shown in 2017 and being ‘released’ in late 2020, nearly a year later it doesn’t seem to be available in any actual products


Hence my comment about supply problems, though there might be more than that to the story. IIRC, Canon press releases did not say Canon would use the sensor in any of its cameras, but rather sell it to 3rd party, e.g. some high res telescope. My point is, it seems to me it would be easier for Canon to make an 80MP full frame sensor, and crop 20MP from the center, than make an R camera with APS C sensor and crop RF lenses.


----------



## _AmatuerSnaps_ (Sep 23, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Thank you for clarifying. Cropping FF in camera to APS-C gives identical results to cropping FF post capture to APS-C. And a Canon site saying switching to crop increases reach is just marketing BS. It does other worthwhile things, like reducing file size, but increasing reach it doesn't do, and saying that is not being pedantic - it's dispelling another myth that takes in the unwary.


Not been looking at cameras recently and just looked at someone's link to the Canon "extra reach" literature.

I agree, that is a shocking piece of marketing bs.

Seriously its just pre-cropping your image and does not increase reach.

Surprised they haven't been pulled by relevant advertising boards for that one.


As for Canon producing a cropped R mount camera? I am not certain they see a future in APS-C cameras.
Their incredibly poor and insulting "update" to the m50 and no update to the m6Mkii, plus the (shocking) 1.6 crop mode nonsense, I do wonder if they feel their future is in FF only.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 23, 2021)

Canon did not invent the use of the term "reach" to refer to the cropping of an APS-C sensor. It has been in common use for many, many years and there are probably thousands of references to the reach of an APS-C sensor on this forum alone. Everyone understands what it means. It's handy shorthand and no one should be "shocked" by Canon using the phrase.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Canon did not invent the use of the term "reach" to refer to the cropping of an APS-C sensor. It has been in common use for many, many years and there are probably thousands of references to the reach of an APS-C sensor on this forum alone. Everyone understands what it means. It's handy shorthand and no one should be "shocked" by Canon using the phrase.


Now that's a real sweeping statement: "Everyone understands what it means". There is plenty of confusion in forums about crop factor, field of view and reach, and we should be sorting out that confusion, not spreading it.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 23, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Now that's a real sweeping statement: "Everyone understands what it means". There is plenty of confusion in forums about crop factor, field of view and reach, and we should be sorting out that confusion, not spreading it.


I agree there's a lot of confusion; I don't think there's necessarily a "standard" definition of the term. There's the one AlanF likes, and the one neuroanatomist likes (which may or may not be the same) but is there an "official" definition of the term? Without one, you can argue endlessly about it and it would be totally fruitless because the other guy defines it differently, and he's arguing from his definition, which (there being no official definition) would be every bit as good as yours.

For one thing, is it more "reach" on the part of Picture A, if, when printed on (say) a 6x4 print, it looks closer in than Picture B does printed on the same size page? That could result from one being APS-C and the other not, or one being cropped before printing and the other not. And note THAT criterion doesn't say anything about pixel density either on the sensor or in the print at that size, much less how many pixels are on the duck.

If it's simply a question of "how many pixels end up on the duck" that's yet another possible definition of "reach."


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I agree there's a lot of confusion; I don't think there's necessarily a "standard" definition of the term. There's the one AlanF likes, and the one neuroanatomist likes (which may or may not be the same) but is there an "official" definition of the term? Without one, you can argue endlessly about it and it would be totally fruitless because the other guy defines it differently, and he's arguing from his definition, which (there being no official definition) would be every bit as good as yours.
> 
> For one thing, is it more "reach" on the part of Picture A, if, when printed on (say) a 6x4 print, it looks closer in than Picture B does printed on the same size page? That could result from one being APS-C and the other not, or one being cropped before printing and the other not. And note THAT criterion doesn't say anything about pixel density either on the sensor or in the print at that size, much less how many pixels are on the duck.
> 
> If it's simply a question of "how many pixels end up on the duck" that's yet another possible definition of "reach."


Here's a nice article that refers to "pixels on a duck". https://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/t...echnology-guide-reaching-for-your-goals-85682 (Advanced technology guide: a camera’s ‘reach’ – photographing distant objects). It briefly discusses crucial. factors such as pixel size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2021)

SteveC said:


> If it's simply a question of "how many pixels end up on the duck" that's yet another possible definition of "reach."


Here's how an APS-C crop mode on a FF sensor provides more reach in terms of pixels on duck:





SteveC said:


> For one thing, is it more "reach" on the part of Picture A, if, when printed on (say) a 6x4 print, it looks closer in than Picture B does printed on the same size page? That could result from one being APS-C and the other not, or one being cropped before printing and the other not. And note THAT criterion doesn't say anything about pixel density either on the sensor or in the print at that size, much less how many pixels are on the duck.


Here's how an APS-C crop mode on a FF sensor provides more reach in terms of both being printed on 6x4 paper:


----------



## unfocused (Sep 23, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Now that's a real sweeping statement: "Everyone understands what it means". There is plenty of confusion in forums about crop factor, field of view and reach, and we should be sorting out that confusion, not spreading it.


Is there really confusion? Or is there just a lot of bored people who like to argue incessantly on forums about trivia. I vote for the latter.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 23, 2021)

While those examples are accurate I just don’t see another crop sensor coming from Canon, at least outside an m-type line.
Resolution is so high now that running a full frame in crop mode still gets you a lot of pixels. I have great prints at a large size from a 12mp 5D classic. The crop modes available to me on the R5 are already far more than that.


----------



## Czardoom (Sep 23, 2021)

*A STORY*

A man took his 12 year old daughter out to take some photographs. They had two cameras, one with what is called a Full-Frame sensor, and the other had what is called a Crop sensor. The stood behind a fence, looking at a house in the distance. The man gave his daughter the Full-Frame camera and had her look through the 300mm lens at the house. "It's still kinda small," she said. 

The man put the same lens on the Crop camera. "Here, try this one," he said. 

She looked through the camera and said, "Hey. the house looks bigger with this camera! It's like I'm closer; like my arms were reaching farther out in front of me!" 

"Yes," said the man, "it's like you have greater reach." 

"Oh, I understand," said the 12 year old. 

"That's because you are still too young to be stupid," said the man, grinning. 

THE END


----------



## _AmatuerSnaps_ (Sep 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Canon did not invent the use of the term "reach" to refer to the cropping of an APS-C sensor. It has been in common use for many, many years and there are probably thousands of references to the reach of an APS-C sensor on this forum alone. Everyone understands what it means. It's handy shorthand and no one should be "shocked" by Canon using the phrase.


Must have missed that.

So Canon used to advertise smaller megapixel sized cropped images as extra reach in their previous cameras?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> *A STORY*
> 
> A man took his 12 year old daughter out to take some photographs. They had two cameras, one with what is called a Full-Frame sensor, and the other had what is called a Crop sensor. The stood behind a fence, looking at a house in the distance. The man gave his daughter the Full-Frame camera and had her look through the 300mm lens at the house. "It's still kinda small," she said.
> 
> ...


There's a nice discussion about "reach" 10 years ago on dpr: _"Reach" is a colloquial term for the ability of a lens to "pull in" detail from a distance. It doesn't have an official photographic definition_. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2944342 
Your story illustrates well the confusion between reach and field of view. If the viewfinder of the crop has the same magnification as the FF, then the image will appear larger and closer, which is nice for the 12 year old or someone using the camera as telescope because it is looking at a narrower field of view. But, for the photographer who wants to see the detail in the image, then the resolution of the sensor is crucial. A 20 Mpx 7DII will give a larger image in the viewfinder than for the same lens on a 50 Mpx 5DS, but they give as near as dammit the same detail when you process the image and crop the FF. A 32 Mpx Canon 90D and M6II with its 1.6x crop factor outresolves and gives more reach than a 20 Mpx Olympus micro 4/3 with its 2x crop factor with the same focal length lens. But, the Olympus will have a narrower field of view and bigger image in the evf.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 23, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Is there really confusion? Or is there just a lot of bored people who like to argue incessantly on forums about trivia. I vote for the latter.


It doesn’t take a lot to trigger posting links to 75 pages on “equivalence.”


----------



## stevelee (Sep 23, 2021)

If the crop sensor has greater pixel density, then there is some rationale for “reach.”


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2021)

stevelee said:


> If the crop sensor has greater pixel density, then there is some rationale for “reach.”


Agreed. But Canon’s marketing statement that the R5’s 1.6x crop mode provides more reach is, to put it politely, a steaming pile of bovine scat.

Sure, one could argue that the 1.6x magnified view in the EVF (which I’m assuming happens with crop mode, but I don’t actually know) is a form of ‘more reach’. But if that’s true, that 12 year old girl could push the magnifying glass button and get so much reach she might be injured by bumping up against the wall of that house.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's how an APS-C crop mode on a FF sensor provides more reach in terms of pixels on duck:
> View attachment 200370
> 
> 
> ...



Yep, that's my understanding too. (If you think I'm contradicting myself, there's likely an issue of semantics between us, despite my efforts.)

If all you do is crop [either manually or with a crop mode], no difference in pixels on duck, but you MAY (*if* the print's pixel density _after_ cropping is good enough for the medium you're printing (or displaying) on--which is *not* the situation in your example) believe you have more reach with the crop mode, when really all it did was save you a step in post-processing (and, likely a step in chimping).

Example for illustration: If you're displaying on a 1920x1080 monitor, as long as your crop mode gives you at least that many pixels, it gives you what I'm going to call "media reach" on that monitor. But I put that in quotes there because it's not real reach, it's just "digital zoom" (ugh! I could rant about point and shoot advertising practice!) but not so much as to start looking pixelated.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Yep, that's my understanding too. (If you think I'm contradicting myself, there's likely an issue of semantics between us, despite my efforts.)


Yes, it was clear. I was just riffing on the pixels on duck comment.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2021)

stevelee said:


> If the crop sensor has greater pixel density, then there is some rationale for “reach.”


Pixel density is indeed crucial. Higher pixel density in crop cameras was the reason why many of us reached for our 7D to get more reach. But, cropping a FF to APS-C in our mirrorless in the menu doesn’t change the pixel density. What promoted this discussion were comments, including from Canon, that it increases reach.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Yep, that's my understanding too. (If you think I'm contradicting myself, there's likely an issue of semantics between us, despite my efforts.)
> 
> If all you do is crop [either manually or with a crop mode], no difference in pixels on duck, but you MAY (*if* the print's pixel density _after_ cropping is good enough for the medium you're printing (or displaying) on--which is *not* the situation in your example) believe you have more reach with the crop mode, when really all it did was save you a step in post-processing (and, likely a step in chimping).
> 
> Example for illustration: If you're displaying on a 1920x1080 monitor, as long as your crop mode gives you at least that many pixels, it gives you what I'm going to call "media reach" on that monitor. But I put that in quotes there because it's not real reach, it's just "digital zoom" (ugh! I could rant about point and shoot advertising practice!) but not so much as to start looking pixelated.


It's worthwhile using crop mode on the R5 (or elsewhere) if you are in situations where you would be cropping in post anyway, which is much of the time for me. Saving of RAW file space is certainly helpful, and there are reports that eyeAF on birds works at longer distances in crop mode - extenders certainly increase the range of bird eyeAF. I should really get into the habit of using crop mode more. But, when doing doing BIF and DIF I need the wider field of view as also for close-ups.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 24, 2021)

"AlanF: A 32 Mpx Canon 90D and M6II with its 1.6x crop factor outresolves and gives more reach than a 20 Mpx Olympus micro 4/3 with its 2x crop factor with the same focal length lens."
An interesting comparison but if my math is right these are closer than one might think. The 90D has 21 Mpx within the same sensor area that the Olympus has 20. Since the Olympus lacks an AA filter, it is potentially sharper though.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2021)

old-pr-pix said:


> "AlanF: A 32 Mpx Canon 90D and M6II with its 1.6x crop factor outresolves and gives more reach than a 20.4 Mpx Olympus micro 4/3 with its 2x crop factor with the same focal length lens."
> An interesting comparison but if my math is right these are closer than one might think. The 90D has 21 Mpx within the same sensor area that the Olympus has 20. The tough part is how to deal with the different aspect ratios. If a 4:3 image is what is useful then the 20 Mpx Olympus would have more "useful pixels on duck" than the 90D once the 90D is cropped to 4:3. Obviously the opposite is true if a 3:2 ratio image is most useful. Hence, if printing 6x4 the edge goes to the Canon 90D; however, if printing for a US letter page or 8x10 the edge goes to the Oly. Since the Olympus lacks an AA filter, it is potentially sharper though.


According to the Nyquist theorem, the absolute limiting resolution of a sensor is half the sampling frequency, that is the number of pixels per mm. You don't need the aspect ratios to calculate the resolution, you just need to know the pixel sizes: the Canon 90D has 3.19µ (313.5px/mm) and the Olympus 3.32µ pixels (301.2px/mm). Thus, the absolute Nyquist limit of the Canon sensor is 4.08% higher resolution than the Olympus. Of course, the resolutions will be lowered by Bayer matrix, low pass filters, noise, lens etc etc. But, the important take home message is that just because the M4/3 has a 2x crop factor and the APS-C only 1.6x it doesn't mean the M4/3 outresolves (has greater reach than) the APS-C. Pixel density (pixel size) is a crucial factor in resolution/reach. The relevant Canon and Olympus pixel sizes are close, but I had done these calculations before I made my comment.

Your argument that you can get more "useful pixels on duck" because pixels could be lost on cropping APS-C to a 4/3 ratio is flawed. An Olympus M4/3 sensor is 17.3mmx13mm, and the Canon APS-C 22.3mmx14.9mm. So, the Olympus sensor fits inside the Canon APS-C sensor, whose image can be cropped to the same size as the Olympus without losing any pixels that are in the Olympus. The same focal length lens on the Canon 90D APS-C will always put 1.0408x1.0408 times the number of pixels on the duck than does the Olympus M4/3, 8% more.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> According to the Nyquist theorem, the absolute limiting resolution of a sensor is half the sampling frequency, that is the number of pixels per mm. You don't need the aspect ratios to calculate the resolution, you just need to know the pixel sizes: the Canon 90D has 3.19µ (313.5px/mm) and the Olympus 3.32µ pixels (301.2px/mm). Thus, the absolute Nyquist limit of the Canon sensor is 4.08% higher resolution than the Olympus. Of course, the resolutions will be lowered by Bayer matrix, low pass filters, noise, lens etc etc. But, the important take home message is that just because the M4/3 has a 2x crop factor and the APS-C only 1.6x it doesn't mean the M4/3 outresolves (has greater reach than) the APS-C. Pixel density (pixel size) is a crucial factor in resolution/reach. The relevant Canon and Olympus pixel sizes are close, but I had done these calculations before I made my comment.
> 
> Your argument that you can get more "useful pixels on duck" because pixels could be lost on cropping APS-C to a 4/3 ratio is flawed. An Olympus M4/3 sensor is 17.3mmx13mm, and the Canon APS-C 22.3mmx14.9mm. So, the Olympus sensor fits inside the Canon APS-C sensor, whose image can be cropped to the same size as the Olympus without losing any pixels that are in the Olympus. The same focal length lens on the Canon 90D APS-C will always put 1.0408x1.0408 times the number of pixels on the duck than does the Olympus M4/3, 8% more.


You are right. My math and yours agree, my extrapolation to print size was in error and has been edited out from above comment. Published spec. numbers I used don't have as many significant digits as what you list, nevertheless, I agree the 90D will have slightly more 'pixels on duck' than the Oly (between 5-10% depending on rounding of input numbers). I still think that the Oly without an AA filter may have the edge in apparent sharpness. I don't have a 90D to test however. comparison on https://www.imaging-resource.com seems to support that hypothesis.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2021)

old-pr-pix said:


> I still think that the Oly without an AA filter may have the edge in apparent sharpness.


Since the purpose of an AA filter is to blur an image slightly, it certainly makes a difference. It’s not just presence or absence, they come in different strengths. The R3 has a lower strength AA filter, which is the basis for Canon‘s statement that its 24MP sensor delivers better resolution then the 30 MP sensor in the 5DIV.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 24, 2021)

I'm not really qualified to comment but, not unlike the arguments about extenders, there was one thing that stuck out for me and Alan touched on it. When you can see a distant subject larger you have a better chance of getting a spot AF point where you want it. 

I have no idea what the spot AF areas were for crop cameras so maybe the focus area was simply larger and so there was no advantage. I also have no idea how the spot AF behaves switching to crop mode with the R5 but it seems maybe there is some difference. Nevertheless, seeing a subject better still is somewhat advantageous.

With my 6D and 300 2.8 in the early days I tried shooting the little birdies in the far away trees with just the 1.4X because supposedly the IQ would be better but quickly abandoned that for 2X based on what I could see as I was trying to get AF on subject.

Jack


----------



## SteveC (Sep 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, it was clear. I was just riffing on the pixels on duck comment.


And a good riff it was, even if a tad daffy...


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2021)

old-pr-pix said:


> You are right. My math and yours agree, my extrapolation to print size was in error and has been edited out from above comment. Published spec. numbers I used don't have as many significant digits as what you list, nevertheless, I agree the 90D will have slightly more 'pixels on duck' than the Oly (between 5-10% depending on rounding of input numbers). I still think that the Oly without an AA filter may have the edge in apparent sharpness. I don't have a 90D to test however. comparison on https://www.imaging-resource.com seems to support that hypothesis.


Thanks for concurring with my calculations. You are right that the AA-filter could make a significant difference, which is why I covered myself by writing that the Bayer matrix, low pass filters, noise, lens etc etc will lower resolution, and Olympus is rather good at getting the best out of their sensors. There is one additional factor, you get about 15% more pixels in height and 30% in width with the APS-C over the M4/3, so if you can fill the frame, the APS-C could gain another 15-30%. Look, I am not running down the Olympus, they make great cameras with some really neat features, like having a buffer of shots before you click the shutter, but I am just pushing the analysis that crop factor does not necessarily equate to to reach.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2021)

SteveC said:


> And a good riff it was, even if a tad daffy...


I prefer Bugs Bunny and the way he deals with Elmer J. Fudd.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> ...I am just pushing the analysis that crop factor does not necessarily equate to to reach.


The confound has been that until relatively recently, crop sensors had higher MP counts than FF sensors, and sadly in the minds of many people correlation _does_ mean causation.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Since the purpose of an AA filter is to blur an image slightly, it certainly makes a difference. It’s not just presence or absence, they come in different strengths. The R3 has a lower strength AA filter, which is the basis for Canon‘s statement that its 24MP sensor delivers better resolution then the 30 MP sensor in the 5DIV.


I find slightly better resolution with the 45 Mpx R5, with its novel Canon AA-filter, than the 50 Mpx 5DSR, consistent with Canon's claims and measurements I've seen.


----------



## dcm (Sep 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The confound has been that until relatively recently, crop sensors had higher MP counts than FF sensors, and sadly in the minds of many people correlation _does_ mean causation.



Don’t normally see confound used as a noun. Many dictionaries no longer list that form.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2021)

dcm said:


> Don’t normally see confound used as a noun. Many dictionaries no longer list that form.


It’s a science thing…


----------



## EricN (Sep 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s a science thing…


I'm confounded.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 25, 2021)

stevelee said:


> If the crop sensor has greater pixel density, then there is some rationale for “reach.”


Only if you are a moron and consider all pixels, regardless of size, or AA filter, or processor, equal.


----------



## dcm (Sep 25, 2021)

stevelee said:


> If the crop sensor has greater pixel density, then there is some rationale for “reach.”



Maybe, if you qualified the statement with “all other things being equal”. The problem is that all other things are never equal. Simplifying our statements sometimes turns them into sweeping generalizations that don’t hold. This results in all of the counter examples that appear to refute the original statement.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, one could argue that the 1.6x magnified view in the EVF (which I’m assuming happens with crop mode, but I don’t actually know) is a form of ‘more reach’. But if that’s true, that 12 year old girl could push the magnifying glass button and get so much reach she might be injured by bumping up against the wall of that house.


Well this is the killer argument isn't it - if I go to 10x magnification in the EVF, I suddenly have 10 times the 'reach' of a normal FF sensor? And in terms of 'perceived' reach, yes I do! Pixels be damned. But, in practice, 10x mainly tells me how much I miss not having IBIS yet ...


----------



## stevelee (Sep 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Only if you are a moron and consider all pixels, regardless of size, or AA filter, or processor, equal.





privatebydesign said:


> Only if you are a moron and consider all pixels, regardless of size, or AA filter, or processor, equal.


So the argument against the statement “there is some rationale” needs an insult. I realize it is hard to argue against such a mealy mouthed statement without escalation.

And BTW, I am the moron who hasn’t used my Rebel since I got my FF camera.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 25, 2021)

dcm said:


> Maybe, if you qualified the statement with “all other things being equal”. The problem is that all other things are never equal. Simplifying our statements sometimes turns them into sweeping generalizations that don’t hold. This results in all of the counter examples that appear to refute the original statement.


I agree that all things are never equal. But when I acknowledge that here, I tend to get sent links to scores of pages on “equivalence.”


----------



## john1970 (Sep 25, 2021)

Honestly, I would like to see a 7-series replacement in the EOS R format, but I don't know if this is something Canon would consider.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 25, 2021)

stevelee said:


> It doesn’t take a lot to trigger posting links to 75 pages on “equivalence.”





stevelee said:


> So the argument against the statement “there is some rationale” needs an insult. *I realize it is hard to argue against such a mealy mouthed statement without escalation.*
> 
> And BTW, I am the moron who hasn’t used my Rebel since I got my FF camera.


Hmm, so your mealy mouthed comments are OK but other peoples aren't?

And BTW, I never called you a moron, I said anybody that "considers all pixels are equal, regardless of size, or AA filter, or processor, is a moron."


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 25, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Since the purpose of an AA filter is to blur an image slightly, it certainly makes a difference. It’s not just presence or absence, they come in different strengths. The R3 has a lower strength AA filter, which is the basis for Canon‘s statement that its 24MP sensor delivers better resolution then the 30 MP sensor in the 5DIV.


IMO a lower strength AA filter in the R3 is a move in the right direction for Canon. For some reason, Canon has seemed reluctant to eliminate or reduce the strength of their AA filters. Many people complained that the 7 series suffered from too strong an AA filter which limited apparent sharpness. Some even complained it was 'soft.' Ironically Canon didn't even remove the AA filter in its 5DsR, it just added another filter to undo the AA effect. I have no sales figures, but it seems from comments on this forum and others that the 5DsR is more popular than the 5Ds and I assume that is at least in part because users favor more apparent sharpness over reduced chance of moire even at a higher cost. Other manufacturers have removed AA filters from various models, why is Canon so reluctant to let go? (I know, based on sales success we must conclude they know what they are doing!)


----------



## stevelee (Sep 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Hmm, so your mealy mouthed comments are OK but other peoples aren't?
> 
> And BTW, I never called you a moron, I said anybody that "considers all pixels are equal, regardless of size, or AA filter, or processor, is a moron."


I didn’t mean to imply that you called me personally a moron. But you did use that language as a comeback to a statement that something was arguable. I certainly didn’t take personal offense. After all, I’m not somebody who puts a lot of stock in “reach” by cropping, though I realize that the 7D2 folks had a practical point.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Hmm, so your mealy mouthed comments are OK but other peoples aren't?
> 
> And BTW, I never called you a moron, I said anybody that "considers all pixels are equal, regardless of size, or AA filter, or processor, is a moron."


All pixels are equal but some pigsels are more equal than others. Apologies to George Orwell.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 25, 2021)

old-pr-pix said:


> Other manufacturers have removed AA filters from various models, why is Canon so reluctant to let go? (I know, based on sales success we must conclude they know what they are doing!)


Well if you can achieve 75 pages of posts regarding the subject of eqvivalence you’d probably reach 150 on AA filters. Personally I think Canon have stuck with them because it’s the right thing to do.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 25, 2021)

http://www.amiright.com/parody/misc/deanmartin55.shtml


----------



## unfocused (Sep 26, 2021)

old-pr-pix said:


> ...For some reason, Canon has seemed reluctant to eliminate or reduce the strength of their AA filters...


I have noticed a significant improvement in sharpness and the ability to sustain large crops from the 1Dx II to the 1Dx III. This, I am told, is likely due to changes in the AA filter from one generation to the next.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 26, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Well if you can achieve 75 pages of posts regarding the subject of eqvivalence you’d probably reach 150 on AA filters. Personally I think Canon have stuck with them because it’s the right thing to do.


Sadly, I am afraid we will be in for a year or more of redundant and pointless discussions of equivalence, reach, AA filters and other trivia with forum participants confidently mansplaining how they are right and everyone else, including Canon, is wrong. I think we've reached the end of the road for major new camera and lens announcements that will capture the imaginations and whet the desires of people on this forum for the foreseeable future.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Thank you for clarifying. Cropping FF in camera to APS-C gives identical results to cropping FF post capture to APS-C. And a Canon site saying switching to crop increases reach is just marketing BS. It does other worthwhile things, like reducing file size, but increasing reach it doesn't do, and saying that is not being pedantic - it's dispelling another myth that takes in the unwary.



Hi Alan, I think the Canon site explains it well, with some qualifiers:

_*EOS R5: Larger resolution even in 1.6x crop mode*

The 1.6x crop mode on both cameras uses part of the image sensor to achieve 1.6x more reach on any given lens (*equivalent to the angle of view on an APS-C camera*). The megapixel difference also affects the size of files shot in this mode.
On the EOS R6, these files are around 7.7 megapixels, which is sufficient for A4 printing and online publication.
On the EOS R5, these files are around 17.3 megapixels—still sufficient for an A3 print. _

APSC extended reach is not perceived, and it's not marketing BS either, it's very real, let me explain! 

I shoot a lot of macro and the 'reach' is really obvious when using the same lens at a fixed distance on both a crop and full frame sensor camera body that have similar megapixel counts (24-26 MP respectively). Macro photographers care a lot about real reach because we need to maintain a certain distance from subjects (since most insects scare easily), while needing as many pixels as possible on the subject for maximum detail.

Say I've set up my tripod with crop body and full-frame EF 100mm macro lens, and I'm focussing on a bug that's 23mm long. At the ideal distance, it will totally cover the full width of the APSC sensor which is 23.6 x 15.8mm, and I'll get 24 megapixels on the subject when I take the photo.

Now, leaving the tripod where it is, I swap out the camera body for a full frame, where the sensor is 36 x 23.9mm. With the same lens at the same distance from the subject, nothing changes, it will still produce a 1:1 likeness as project an image of the 23mm bug across 23mm of sensor. The catch is, the 26MP sensor is now 36mm wide, or around 1.5x wider, so were projecting the same identical image onto a much area, covering less pixels on the sensor with the same image. 

A full frame sensor has a surface area of 8.6cm2 vs 3.73cm2 on an APSC sensor.

If I take this photo on the full frame, the bug will be much smaller in the photo because I've just put the same image on a bigger canvas so to speak, I can't just crop it, because if I do that, it will reduce the 26MP photo to around 10MP, which is only 38% of its original size. This is nowhere near the size of the 24MP image taken on the crop body, where the subject fills the width of the sensor.

THE QUALIFIER - it makes sense to say that a crop body gives more reach than a full frame body *when the two sensors have a similar number of megapixels*. On the canon ecosystem, with the same camera position and same lens, a crop body can get 1.6x more pixels covered by the same subject compared to a full frame sensor. Alternatively, a full frame camera will either need a lens with x1.6 focal length, or move much closer to the subject to produce the same image, covering the same amount of pixels.

The problem with Canon's marketing statement, like most marketing statements, is that it was written by someone in a marketing deportment, the source of all half-truths in the world. The concept of reach can't be expressed without context, it needs to be specified in respect to some other comparison, something like this:

_EOS R5: Larger resolution even in 1.6x crop mode (amended, changes in bold)

The 1.6x crop mode on both *the R5 camera* cameras uses part of the image sensor to achieve 1.6x more reach on any given lens (equivalent to the angle of view on an APS-C camera) *relative to the R6*. The megapixel difference also affects the size of files shot in this mode.
On the EOS R6, these files are around 7.7 megapixels, which is sufficient for A4 printing and online publication.
On the EOS R5, these files are around 17.3 megapixels—still sufficient for an A3 print. 
_
There, I fixed it! 

The R6 should not have been included in this, as it only gives more 'reach' in crop mode _*r*_*elative to a 8MP full frame sensor camera*, which would be the *1D Mark II* at 8mp from way back in 2004... That, I would call BS, and agree with you wholeheartedly on that point!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Sadly, I am afraid we will be in for a year or more of redundant and pointless discussions of equivalence, reach, AA filters and other trivia with forum participants confidently mansplaining how they are right and everyone else, including Canon, is wrong. I think we've reached the end of the road for major new camera and lens announcements that will capture the imaginations and whet the desires of people on this forum for the foreseeable future.


Well, that's to be expected when people spend more time fussing over the technical minutiae of their gear rather than going out and using it. The concept of 'adequacy', which refers to how most camera gear in the mid-range level up is more than adequate for most people, is anathema for those who just more features and better specs on their tech gadgets, but hey, that mindset drives the whole Apple market. In a consumerist society, people buy tools they don't need but want, and forums give them a social outlet and an arena to exchange ideas, which is more of an intellectual thing. For me, camera gear is primarily a tool for a task, secondly something that's technically interesting, but for others, it's different, so whatever floats your boat!

From a more positive perspective, the discussions could be worse, think of a forum that begins with DP, you can guess the rest!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Hi Alan, I think the Canon site explains it well, with some qualifiers:
> 
> _*EOS R5: Larger resolution even in 1.6x crop mode*
> 
> ...


While your qualifiers make it clear you understand the issue, I can’t help but think that if smaller sensors have more reach we should all be shooting like this:


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 27, 2021)

Your image isn't showing unfortunately! 

There's a price for more reach, and without going into details, that comes at the expense of image quality! A crop sensor is never going to be the same as a full frame one.

In engineering everything is a compromise, there's always a trade-off, it's really a matter of picking the right tool for the job.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 27, 2021)

Can see your image now, was guessing it was going to be a smartphone.

There are smartphone mounting frames which hold the phone and lens, but also add a bluetooth activated shutter button that's situated on the top right-hand corner, to there's no need for screen touch shutter... 

Be careful, you might upset the iPhone snapshot crowd who are convinced that their smartphones will outdo a DSLR hands-down because of some shoddy YouTube video they watched!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Sep 27, 2021)

Getting back to the original topic - will there be an APS-C EOS R-series camera?

Not sure how constructive speculation is without any supporting data. 

These are some of the possibilities:

Canon might be watching the market to decide which way to go further down the track, or
Canon might have made a decision, but are waiting...
They could be waiting to see how the market responds to new products, such as a budget full-frame, before they:

Cut certain APSC lines - either EF-M of EF
Cease making APSC lines altogether?
Obviously, they wouldn't terminate product lines that sell, and lose sales if they don't have products to replace them.

The other possibility is that they may introduce a R-series body with a crop sensor, to cater to:

The beginner photographer market who buy Rebel series DSLRs, or mirrorless cameras like the M50
The wildlife photographer market who buy the 7D series
That's assuming that the markets are big enough to support such an investment. They might go with any, all or none of these options.

Or they may do nothing in the short term, but buy their time with minimal investment, the way they did with the introduction of the M50 II.

In the absence of any real data, it's just wait and see situation. Wait for more Canon Rumors leaks people!!!




​


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> Refer my response: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...the-second-half-of-2022-cr2.40848/post-912545


It's less about the merits of a crop sensor (personally, I use both FF and APS-C), and more about the market for a 'high-end' APS-C camera. 



Tronhard said:


> A lot of wildlife shooters do not operate that way. Many are not going to utilize the benefits of the fast transmission capability of the R3, but what they want is as much pixel density as possible, thus they will forego speed in that context for resolution so they can crop further. A good balance would be in the area of 35-40MP on a crop sensor, rendering a pixel density equivalent to cropping a FF sensor from 77 to 104MP respectively, but at a much cheaper price point.


Similarly, It's less about how 'a lot of wildlife shooters operate' and more about how many wildlife shooters there really are. I don't know the answer, but I believe that Canon does. The lack of attention to the 7-series DSLRs is evidence that Canon is not especially motivated to keep the high-end APS-C market happy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> I have both the 7DII and 90D and do not consider the latter as a replacement for the former. For one excellent reason - the tracking system on the 7DII is much better than that of the 90D - and that is significant to wildlife shooters. Sure, the 90D has other improvements, but the 7DII in tracking is only bettered IMHO by the R3, 5 and 6 bodies.
> 
> I explained my logic in this post: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...the-second-half-of-2022-cr2.40848/post-912545 as to why I can see an argument for serious wildlife shooters. I have shot macro predators in the wild and I can personally say that not having to approach closer than necessary is a big advantage.


To be clear, I am not disagreeing with your rationale or your statements. I also do not think the 90D was a 7DII replacement, personally. If the 90D is not a 7DII replacement, then Canon simply abandoned the 7-series. Regardless of the logic regarding what serious wildlife shooters want, given the abandonment of the 7-series it seems plausible that Canon does not feel that market segment is adding to its bottom line.

Many people on this forum treat things as personal, but from Canon's perspective it's just business. They don't care what people want or what gives them a big advantage, they care what will garner profit and ROI for them. History supports them having made the right decisions from a business standpoint. 

You can argue logically until your keyboard wears out, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that you're one person. Canon doesn't care about you, or me. They care about aggregate buying habits, and they have ample data on those. 

Bottom line, if Canon releases a high-end, APS-C EOS R body then it will be because there's a market for it. That hasn't happened yet, and I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> Canon went to the effort of upgrading the 7D to the 7DII.


Yes, after 5 years. The longest cycle time of any series. And only one update, compared to ≥2 updates to all the other lines. Sort of seems like a grudging effort, and one not worth repeating.



Tronhard said:


> So, I'm not going to make sweeping statements about what will happen. But I will be quite happy to quote you if the product comes to market!


If it comes to market, I'll be happy too. I won't buy one, but it will be good for those who will.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, after 5 years. The longest cycle time of any series. And only one update, compared to ≥2 updates to all the other lines.


Just curious, wasn't there also a significant mid-cycle firmware update?

So now we have a CR2 rumor there will be two APS-C EOS R series bodies next year. Seems Canon has decided there might be a market after all. My speculation is one mostly plastic body at the low end - to replace the $500-$700 Rebels (SL-3, T7 w/kit lens) and maybe some of the M series. The other body potentially being a high end unit with solid weather sealing, durable chassis and enough resolution to match or exceed similar cropped area on R5. Pricing should be around the R6 or so.

Canon has the market numbers and we don't, but I'm still not convinced. There are other great alternatives in the market already, many from Canon. The question I keep asking myself is why would I buy into a whole new lens system on an APS-C chassis? With EF glass the argument was initial cost and having an upgrade path to FF. That was in an era when technology was improving rapidly and body replacement every couple/few years was expected. Now the cost gap has seemingly narrowed and the body replacement cycle has slowed. (I'm in my mid-70's so for me it's likely down to just replacing what wears out - current models are so excellent already!)


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 30, 2021)

old-pr-pix said:


> Just curious, wasn't there also a significant mid-cycle firmware update?[..]


Yes, the 7D received a firmware update with big improvements, one of them being that the red channel wouldn't clip as easily as it used to do.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, after 5 years. The longest cycle time of any series. And only one update, compared to ≥2 updates to all the other lines. Sort of seems like a grudging effort, and one not worth repeating...


My recollection is a bit different. As @koenkooi pointed out, there was a mid-term update of the original 7D that many reviewers at the time likened to getting a new camera for free. Part of the long-wait between updates could also be ascribed to the fact that Nikon effectively abandoned it's top of the line crop sensor camera during that interim (although they revived it after the 7DII came out) meaning Canon had no competition in that market.

When the 7DII came out it was widely heralded as a mini-1Dx that had most of the top of the line features packed into it at a bargain price. Canon shortly created a special wi-fi card for the 7DII to enable wireless transfers. I wouldn't characterize the 7DII in any way as a grudging effort. 

Whether or not Canon decides it's worth repeating, only time will tell. The market has changed and it may not be needed now, but we shouldn't rewrite history.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2021)

old-pr-pix said:


> So now we have a CR2 rumor there will be two APS-C EOS R series bodies next year. Seems Canon has decided there might be a market after all.


Are you referring to this month's CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2022? Or the 2020 CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2021? Or perhaps the 2018 CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2019? I do believe in unicorns. I do, I do!


----------



## old-pr-pix (Sep 30, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are you referring to this month's CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2022? Or the 2020 CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2021? Or perhaps the 2018 CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2019? I do believe in unicorns. I do, I do!


Good point... note the rest of my comment: "Canon has the market numbers and we don't, but I'm still not convinced."


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 11 fps as a top-line spec isn’t ‘high performance’ when the R5 does 20 fps and the R3 does 30 fps.
> 
> R5s. 80 MP, 10 fps (5 fps mechanical). You heard it here first.



Why only 5 fps with mechanical shutter? The bottleneck with the 5Ds was the data processing power of DiG!C 6, not Canon's ability to make a faster mechanical shutter at reasonable cost. The 30 MP 5D Mark IV can do 7 fps with the DiG!C 6+, also likely limited by data rate.

The R3 only does 12 fps with mechanical shutter. To claim that 11 fps *mechanical shutter* is not _top line_ when the _top line_ R3 only does 12 fps is both comical and disingenuous.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> I think Canon could raise fps if the camera would read just the middle 40% of the sensor.
> 
> Hence my comment about supply problems, though there might be more than that to the story. IIRC, Canon press releases did not say Canon would use the sensor in any of its cameras, but rather sell it to 3rd party, e.g. some high res telescope. My point is, it seems to me it would be easier for Canon to make an 80MP full frame sensor, and crop 20MP from the center, than make an R camera with APS C sensor and crop RF lenses.



The way CMOS sensors are read out, it would need to read the full width of each line that crosses that center 39%, so you'd be back to reading 62.5% of the sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here's how an APS-C crop mode on a FF sensor provides more reach in terms of pixels on duck:
> View attachment 200370
> 
> 
> ...



Except your duck enlarged by 1.6X isn't really that pixelated. It's this (strictly enlarged only, no additional dithering, etc.)


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

old-pr-pix said:


> IMO a lower strength AA filter in the R3 is a move in the right direction for Canon. For some reason, Canon has seemed reluctant to eliminate or reduce the strength of their AA filters. Many people complained that the 7 series suffered from too strong an AA filter which limited apparent sharpness. Some even complained it was 'soft.' Ironically Canon didn't even remove the AA filter in its 5DsR, it just added another filter to undo the AA effect. I have no sales figures, but it seems from comments on this forum and others that the 5DsR is more popular than the 5Ds and I assume that is at least in part because users favor more apparent sharpness over reduced chance of moire even at a higher cost. Other manufacturers have removed AA filters from various models, why is Canon so reluctant to let go? (I know, based on sales success we must conclude they know what they are doing!)



Probably mainly due to the effect it would have on video. For most of the 2010s, almost all of the advances made in the Canon EOS single digit camera lines were in video, not still imaging. Canon, rightly or wrongly (but apparently rightly), reasoned that incrementally improved video performance motivated more potential buyers to upgrade their camera body every renewal cycle than similar levels of improvement in stills resolution would motivate buyers mainly interested in shooting stills.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> To be clear, I am not disagreeing with your rationale or your statements. I also do not think the 90D was a 7DII replacement, personally. If the 90D is not a 7DII replacement, then Canon simply abandoned the 7-series. Regardless of the logic regarding what serious wildlife shooters want, given the abandonment of the 7-series it seems plausible that Canon does not feel that market segment is adding to its bottom line.
> 
> Many people on this forum treat things as personal, but from Canon's perspective it's just business. They don't care what people want or what gives them a big advantage, they care what will garner profit and ROI for them. History supports them having made the right decisions from a business standpoint.
> 
> ...



I think there are other considerations beside just whether there is a large enough market for it or not. 

In the end Canon also considers how much introducing another 7-series camera would cannibalize higher tier products and how that affects net profitability.

If selling 1.0x number of 7-series camera at a profit of 1.0y per camera (including development, R&D, distribution costs, etc. amortized on a per camera basis) means they'll sell 0.3x fewer 1-series cameras at a profit of 4.2y per camera, then it's obvious at the end of the year Canon will sell fewer cameras but make more profit by not offering the 7-series body. On the other hand, if Canon can sell 1.0x number of 7-series cameras at a profit of 1.0y per camera and it only costs them sales of 0.2x 1-series cameras at a profit of only 2.8y per camera, then Canon will generate more total profit by introducing a 7-series body


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

old-pr-pix said:


> Just curious, wasn't there also a significant mid-cycle firmware update?
> 
> So now we have a CR2 rumor there will be two APS-C EOS R series bodies next year. Seems Canon has decided there might be a market after all. My speculation is one mostly plastic body at the low end - to replace the $500-$700 Rebels (SL-3, T7 w/kit lens) and maybe some of the M series. The other body potentially being a high end unit with solid weather sealing, durable chassis and enough resolution to match or exceed similar cropped area on R5. Pricing should be around the R6 or so.
> 
> Canon has the market numbers and we don't, but I'm still not convinced. There are other great alternatives in the market already, many from Canon. The question I keep asking myself is why would I buy into a whole new lens system on an APS-C chassis? With EF glass the argument was initial cost and having an upgrade path to FF. That was in an era when technology was improving rapidly and body replacement every couple/few years was expected. Now the cost gap has seemingly narrowed and the body replacement cycle has slowed. (I'm in my mid-70's so for me it's likely down to just replacing what wears out - current models are so excellent already!)



Yes, the 2012 firmware update for the 7D was more significant in terms of buffer depth and maximum sustained fps over more than about three seconds than the improvements were between the 1D Mark II (2004 Q1) and 1D Mark IIn (2005 Q3).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Why only 5 fps with mechanical shutter? The bottleneck with the 5Ds was the data processing power of DiG!C 6, not Canon's ability to make a faster mechanical shutter at reasonable cost. The 30 MP 5D Mark IV can do 7 fps with the DiG!C 6+, also likely limited by data rate.


5 fps because Canon.



Michael Clark said:


> The R3 only does 12 fps with mechanical shutter. To claim that 11 fps *mechanical shutter* is not _top line_ when the _top line_ R3 only does 12 fps is both comical and disingenuous.


Do you know what a top-line spec is?




The R3 is a 30 fps camera. The R5’s data throughput is 45 MP at 20 fps with electronic shutter, which equates to 80 MP at 11 fps with electronic shutter.

You’re the one who brought the mechanical shutter strawman to the discussion. Knocking down your own strawman is what’s both comical and disingenuous.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 4, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> 5 fps because Canon.
> 
> 
> Do you know what a top-line spec is?
> ...



Again, the R3 is a 30 fps with electronic shutter. (Electronic shutter does still have a few [admittedly minimized compared to previous bodies] downsides. Otherwise Canon could just forgo a mechanical shutter assembly altogether.)

*The R3 is 12 fps with mechanical shutter. No straw man here. That's what the camera can do with the mechanical shutter.*

Further, the R5 only reaches 20 fps at 45 MP by limiting raw files to 12-bit, does it not?

Finally, you're the one who actually brought mechanical shutter into the discussion when you said, "The R5 does 20 fps at 45 MP, at 80 MP that would be 11 fps - that’s barely better than the seven year old 7DII. That's one 'why not'."

Oh, and just one more thing...

... You also make a pretty good argument for why Canon might want to introduce a higher pixel density, fast handling APS-C body to the RF mount lineup. Why would you do that when you constantly refer to such a possibility as "unicorns"?



neuroanatomist said:


> At 50 MP, 5Ds/R delivered 20 MP at APS-C crop. But at 5 fps, it wasn’t ‘high performance’ enough. The R5 does 20 fps at 45 MP, at 80 MP that would be 11 fps - that’s barely better than the seven year old 7DII. That's one 'why not'.
> 
> I do think we'll see an R5s-type camera – high MP, lower fps. I don't think we'll see an 80 MP body with 20-30 fps for a long time.
> 
> Incidentally, despite that 250 MP APS-H sensor being announced in 2015, having a prototype shown in 2017 and being ‘released’ in late 2020, nearly a year later it doesn’t seem to be available in any actual products, and if you want more info than the press release you can contact Canon for the “_preliminary_ brochure”. So there’s really no evidence that think is being made, much less ‘at scale’. But then, it may be unlikely we’d see such evidence anyway.


----------



## mkabi (Nov 30, 2021)

You know what - as much as I would love an R7 with R5 specs but cheaper and with APS-C.... will it happen???

I'm kinda siding with Neuro on this one.... Canon is a very conservative company.... for every reason Neuro gave plus its going to eat into C70 territory. At which point.... you will have to ask... how much of a watered down version can it be and will it be worth the price given that there is a $800 FF version with the same specs.

I would like to add... I could be completely wrong about everything and R7 can meet everyone's expectations and more. Sh!t I aint clairvoyant.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 30, 2021)

Yep. I can see a lot of disappointment sometime in 2022. What everyone wants is a killer R7. I suspect what we will get is an entry level body priced below the RP replacement (taking CR3 at full value here). 

So, we can get a crop sensor camera....just doesn't mean we get the crop sensor camera many on the forum are clamoring for.


----------



## Joules (Dec 1, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> The way CMOS sensors are read out, it would need to read the full width of each line that crosses that center 39%, so you'd be back to reading 62.5% of the sensor.


I wonder if this is necessarily true. The Canon M6 II so far is the only Canon body to feature a crop mode with increased FPS. You can either shoot 14 FPS 32.5 MP or 30 FPS 18 MP cropped to the image center.

Those two modes have basically identical throughput, as the bit depth also drops with the crop mode. The throughput is 60 % of what they R5 archives at 45 MP 20 FPS.

So if they achieve that speedup in the crop mode by actually reading the full width and just skipping some rows at the top and bottom, that implies the M6 II actually manages 91 % of the R5's throughput internally and its uncropped 14 FPS mode could be much faster if Canon allowed it.

(9/16) / (2/3) * (32.5 MP * 30 FPS) / (45 MP * 20 FPS) ~ 0.91

If instead they actually read just the cropped section and therefore reduce the number of required read operations, that at least explains nicely why the uncropped 14 FPS mode and cropped 30 FPS mode line up so nicely in throughput, and why the numbers are what they are.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 5, 2021)

Joules said:


> I wonder if this is necessarily true. The Canon M6 II so far is the only Canon body to feature a crop mode with increased FPS. You can either shoot 14 FPS 32.5 MP or 30 FPS 18 MP cropped to the image center.
> 
> Those two modes have basically identical throughput, as the bit depth also drops with the crop mode. The throughput is 60 % of what they R5 archives at 45 MP 20 FPS.
> 
> ...



Or it could be that readout speed is no longer the bottleneck it once was and some point further down the processing to output chain is... 

Just because the sensor must be read out all the way across each line does not mean all of that data has to be processed all the way to the end of the processing chain before being cropped out. It can be discarded before demosaicing. Maybe immediately after ADC.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 2, 2022)

Sorry to pull on old threads, but this has been a fun one to revisit considering the latest developments. Looks like I missed it the first time around. Nice that this spirited debate finally has a resolution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2022)

Agreed. Im glad I was wrong in that at least some of those wanting a Canon APS-C R body are getting their next camera.


----------

