# There may be as many as three RF mount APS-C cameras on the horizon [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 15, 2021)

> I have discussed an RF mount camera with an APS-C sensor many times in the past. I haven’t received any information that I would call definitive about such a camera, but more and more information from unknown sources has been coming in over the last little while.
> I have been told by an anonymous source that there will be three APS-C equipped RF mount cameras coming in the future. If this is true, this should be the death knell for the EOS M system.
> The first APS-C RF mount camera that is rumoured to be announced is the *EOS R7*.  I am told that the announcement for this camera could come as soon as Q4 this year, or Q1 in 2022.
> The second APS-C RF mount camera will be the *EOS R8*, this camera will be designed for vloggers and other types of social media creators.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## padam (Jun 15, 2021)

Makes sense, Nikon also seems to be expanding it's APS-C range in their Z-mount system and they face similar problems regarding lens selection, but it will be filled up eventually.


----------



## Diltiazem (Jun 15, 2021)

R7 with R3 technology will make a lot of people happy.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 15, 2021)

This is very interesting, hypothetically there will be multiple entry level lenses to go with these cameras. although naming doesnt make sense.


----------



## jam05 (Jun 15, 2021)

Like saying keeping the EOS Rebel with the other APSC DSLR cameras didnt make sense. Of course it did. Canon's bread and butter defied economic sense to the casual observer. Its the ergonomics and price point NOT the senser under the hood. The M50 and M6mk2 Didnt garner sales merely because of their sensor size. The flip screen, accurate touch screen AF as well as full touch screen camera function is primary the class leading elements that enticed purchasers along with the ability to pair favorite Sigma lenses.


----------



## amorse (Jun 15, 2021)

That definitely sounds like the death of EF-S, but EF-M I do wonder about. I guess if it is the end of EF-M, we'll see how small an RF mount body can get.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Jun 15, 2021)

The EF-M has a good 11-22mm and 22mm pancake. The 55-200 zoom is good for the price as well. Other than that nothing too steller. I love the form factor of the original M.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jun 15, 2021)

As much as I like it to be true that Canon puts focus on APS-C RF cameras, and especially an "R7", the naming R7, R8, R9 for an APS-C trio are rather surprising to my ear if true. Are those are just made-up "placeholder names", or does the sources expect them to be called like that?
Somehow I would expect Rn naming to be reserved rather high-end cameras. Lower end camera like RP could use the Ra naming scheme.

But of course, how can I believe to understand Canon's naming-logic with the limited number of RF cameras released


----------



## Midnightcamera (Jun 15, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


A R7 would be good...


----------



## 1D4 (Jun 15, 2021)

Diltiazem said:


> R7 with R3 technology will make a lot of people happy.



I'd be happy if my Mazda had Bugatti technology, but it isn't going to happen


----------



## slclick (Jun 15, 2021)

"One Mount" (In a Bob Marley way, not in a Sauron way)


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 15, 2021)

If they can make an RF mount body the size of some of the M camera’s, and RF-S(?) lenses that small as well, I could see it working longer term. But the appeal of the M, for us, is just how compact the system is. Totally unobtrusive, hardly noticeable when out hiking or whatever.

If they make an RF-S 18-150 the size of the EF-M 18-150, a trade might merit exploration just to share glass. I’d be interested to see my RF-85 f/2 0.5 macro do some focus stacking on the M6 MK II’s 32 megapixel sensor.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jun 15, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Sounds like RF versions of the 7D, 80D, and Rebel lines. Kind of makes sense that Canon would stick with something they know, and is somewhat familiar to entry level consumers. The M line was a bit all over the place. Loved my M5 though before it was stolen. I have six EF-M lenses just sitting around right now. I do hope they come out with that rumored OSMO looking thing with an EF-M mount. That would be really awesome.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 15, 2021)

I think EOS M system will live another 10 or 15 years but ... only on the lower end of the camera scale. M50 is a well designed camera with a little less direct control (wheels) but very usable for what it is. After leaving full manual mode 5 years ago I am impressed how well all these automatisms work now including the face tracking AF!

Those who are in the need for speed or more direct controls will be led to the RF system which is fine. I have my 50mm equivalent bought with the RP, the RF 35mm which is an excellent lens (size, weight, great IQ, good max reprod ratio, image stabilizer + bright aperture as a combination). Hopefully adapters for my EF(-S) lens collection will be available at reasonable prices.

I just will miss the EF-M 32 for these RF bodies but ... now I have two M50 and two old EOS M bodies so I have a quadruple redundancy to use the EF-M 32!


----------



## Bahrd (Jun 15, 2021)

They need a trident to kill M. Just a spear is not enough?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 15, 2021)

eosuser1234 said:


> The EF-M has a good 11-22mm and 22mm pancake. The 55-200 zoom is good for the price as well. Other than that nothing too steller. I love the form factor of the original M.



The 32mm 1.4 is one of the sharpest Canon lenses, not just EF-M


----------



## John Wilde (Jun 15, 2021)

In both the USA and Japan the M50 is Canon's best selling mirrorless camera, so that line isn't going anywhere any time soon. In the DSLR Era, people who bought Rebels couldn't use EF-S lenses on Canon FF cameras. Now, people who buy M cameras can't use EF-M lenses on Canon FF cameras. No biggie.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 15, 2021)

John Wilde said:


> In both the USA and Japan the M50 is Canon's best selling mirrorless camera, so that line isn't going anywhere any time soon. In the DSLR Era, people who bought Rebels couldn't use EF-S lenses on Canon FF cameras. Now, people who buy M cameras can't use EF-M lenses on Canon FF cameras. It's nothing different, and there is no lens compatibility crisis.



But you could use EF lenses on crop sensor cameras without an adapter. Since Canon doesn’t make anything longer than 250 for APS-C, there is an appeal to sharing a mount.


----------



## sfericean (Jun 15, 2021)

Really excited to see how this all plays out. R7, 8, & 9 all seem like viable options for every kind of camera need. Good stuff.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 15, 2021)

I would not be surprised if the R7 came with a crop mode to bring the aspect ratio in line with 4/3 cameras.


----------



## PerKr (Jun 15, 2021)

sustaining two very incompatible mounts doesn't make any sense. I've said this many times. RF mount with just a few "RF-S" lenses (one cheap kit lens, one upscale kit lens and one consumer tele zoom) puts canon and their customers where they were with the EF/EF-S mount. Which is a very sensible place.

Sorry, but consumers have clearly shown they don't care enough about size to warrant a separate mount for the sake of gaining a few millimeters.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jun 15, 2021)

PerKr said:


> sustaining two very incompatible mounts doesn't make any sense. I've said this many times. RF mount with just a few "RF-S" lenses (one cheap kit lens, one upscale kit lens and one consumer tele zoom) puts canon and their customers where they were with the EF/EF-S mount. Which is a very sensible place.
> 
> Sorry, but consumers have clearly shown they don't care enough about size to warrant a separate mount for the sake of gaining a few millimeters.


Wrong.

No snark intended.

Just wrong.


----------



## Stuart (Jun 15, 2021)

Stig Nygaard said:


> As much as I like it to be true that Canon puts focus on APS-C RF cameras, and especially an "R7", the naming R7, R8, R9 for an APS-C trio are rather surprising to my ear if true. Are those are just made-up "placeholder names", or does the sources expect them to be called like that?
> Somehow I would expect Rn naming to be reserved rather high-end cameras. Lower end camera like RP could use the Ra naming scheme.
> 
> But of course, how can I believe to understand Canon's naming-logic with the limited number of RF cameras released


So the MK2, MK3 generations would be used instead.

Make me wonder what an R2 or and R4 might offer too?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 15, 2021)

I don't see Canon killing EOS-M, unless it first sold crop RF cameras side by side and the later won the market over.

Canon is smart enough not to kill a profitable product or <censored> off a large portion of its customers, current and potential. I know people who got so <censored> Apple killed the IIGS in favor of the Mac, they haven't bought an Apple product since.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 15, 2021)

Yeah, if the R7 comes with decent spec, I am in - for birding I want and need a good crop camera replacement for my ageing 7D2. I do not want to buy a 50+ MP FF camera to crop after shooting, that's just a waste of pixels and a waste of data throughput in and outside the camera.


----------



## hyt (Jun 15, 2021)

Without bringing out a range of RF lenses for the crop sensor or making M lenses compatible, I can't see many people or existing M users flocking to the APS-C RF for some time...


----------



## Kit. (Jun 15, 2021)

The names make no sense given the existing lineup and the need to add at least one FF body at below R6 level.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 15, 2021)

It seems they are using all digits. So I would also expect an R2 and an R4 sooner or later.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 15, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> I don't see Canon killing EOS-M, unless it first sold crop RF cameras side by side and the later won the market over.
> [..]


I would have expected that APS-C RF cameras would make developing M cameras cheaper, the sensor and software are already done. But I kind of expect CanonRumoursGuy to spell EOS-M doom for every development. "Canon announces LP-E21 battery" "EOS-M IS ENDED BY THIS BATTERY!!!"


----------



## Famateur (Jun 15, 2021)

For those speculating about "RF-S" lenses, what's the rationale? The distinction between EF and EF-S was incompatibility of the latter in a full frame body because of the size of the mirror. In the RF world, there is no mirror, so what's the distinction? Is it about making smaller lenses where the compact size comes at the cost of an imagining circle that's too small for full frame?

If that's the idea, and "RF-S" lenses could be made as small (or nearly as small) as EOS-M lenses, then I could see it replacing the M line. Hard to see the M line going away, otherwise.


----------



## jvillain (Jun 15, 2021)

Bring it!!!



hyt said:


> Without bringing out a range of RF lenses for the crop sensor or making M lenses compatible, I can't see many people or existing M users flocking to the APS-C RF for some time...











Canon Patent For Zoom Lenses For The RF Mount And APS-C Sensor


The Canon patent application seems to discuss optical formulas for various zoom lenses for the RF mount, and for APS-C sensors.




www.canonwatch.com


----------



## unfocused (Jun 15, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Yeah, if the R7 comes with decent spec, I am in - for birding I want and need a good crop camera replacement for my ageing 7D2. I do not want to buy a 50+ MP FF camera to crop after shooting, that's just a waste of pixels and a waste of data throughput in and outside the camera.


You can select the 1.6 crop in camera -- no waste of pixels or data throughput. Then you have the flexibility of a full frame camera for every day shooting. Two cameras in one.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 15, 2021)

There is little doubt in my mind that a Aps-c RF mount would be virtually the same size as a M body. Two things must be dealt with, the slightly larger lens opening and the 2mm increased flange distance. That could just result in a 2mm deeper mount on a M body. 

Other factors that could make a R7 larger would be IBIS and a dual card slot. Throw in a larger battery and it would be a larger body but not as large as a RP.


----------



## Truffaut (Jun 15, 2021)

eosuser1234 said:


> The EF-M has a good 11-22mm and 22mm pancake. The 55-200 zoom is good for the price as well. Other than that nothing too steller. I love the form factor of the original M.


In my opinion the EF-M 32mm 1.4 is a stellar lens!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 15, 2021)

Wenn APS-C was introduced many years ago, the given reason was that it was very hard to produce digital full frame sensors. So it was born out of necessity and not as a feature to have a tighter crop for bird photpgraphy and stuff like that. So I thought that it would die sooner or later. Today full frame sensors can be mass produced much cheaper. So the reason for Canon still produces APS-C cameras might be some artificial crippling of the expensive full frame cameras. Those cheap cameras could easily be full frame, but then they might cannibalize the expensive cameras. 

I do not think Canon will create any "RF-S" lenses. 

I wonder which of the APS-C cameras will have IBIS. I think only the R7.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 15, 2021)

Imho, I just can't believe this rumor for several reasons. 
1. the name scheme... R7 makes sense, but R8 and R9 should be reserved for the successors of the R and the RP. If the proposed name schemes was indeed true, Canon would have no numbers left for their "full-frame entry camera" models because R2 & R4 would be extremely misleading... And an R6RP or R6R or whatever is just weird...

2. Nikon came out with the Z50 a year after the Z system came alive. And they're still figuring out how to place a second APS-C body (maybe Z30?) in the Z-line-up. The retro-style doesn't really fit in their scheme and according to rumors it's basically an Z50 in a retro body

3. APS-C sales have gone down tremendously... 

And now Canon, after three years of hesitation (concerning an RF APS-C equipped body) and with a well-selling M-line (in some part of the world) jumps ahead with three APS-C cameras? Which by the way will take all their flexibility with their newly introduced naming scheme? No way, not buying it (literally).

4. Due to COVID Canon has so many limitations in its production (where the hell is my 100-500mm????) and development (where are the 2021 roadmap lenses...the year is half over...) that they'd never spent so much man-power developing THREE APS-C cameras... no way, even if they all use the same sensor.

5. Full-frame cameras have a bigger margin, why offer three APS-C? 

I think Canon will produce a maximum of two APS-C cameras: 
A "professional" R7 and a cheap R10 (in 2022/ 2023) to test the market whether they should keep the M-line or expand the RF. Further APS-C camera would surely have to wait...


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 15, 2021)

A crop high performance body at 30+MP for birding would be awesome, as we could leverage higher pixel density. For now, shooting the R5 in crop mode works pretty well. 
But, these new rumors make me a bit worried that the previous rumor "Canon will announce more lenses at one time than ever before in the 2nd half of 2021 [CR2]" might include a mix of full-frame and APSC lenses, which would be less exciting. There are still many RF lenses that I would like to see released soon for wildlife photography, like the potential 300mm zoom, compact 500mm, 400mm DO replacement, more macro options, etc. 
Very excited to see what Canon will be announcing this year!


----------



## adrian_bacon (Jun 15, 2021)

Even though Canon has historically never shared a mount between APS-C and full frame (EF-s, EF-m). It would behoove them to do so. With mirrorless (heck even with DSLR), it was never a big deal to just shoot crop mode if you had a lens that didn't cover the full size. Maybe EF proper didn't have a way to detect such lenses, but RF apparently does as you put an EF-s lens on an RF body, it automatically crops.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see Canon never really release crop only RF lenses, but instead, have less expensive RF lenses that do cover full frame, but aren't really that great in the corners, but are really good in the corners for APS-C. We kind of see that with the RF 50STM.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 15, 2021)

Just thinking of lenses, how many RF-s lenses might Canon release? I am thinking ~4. A kit general purpose zoom (18-55 f/3.5-5.6), a higher end general purpose zoom (~17-55 f/2.8), a nice UWA lens (10-22 f/4-5.6), and then an extreme range zoom (18-135 or 18-200 f/3.5-5.6). After that, it will depend on sales, but I can see Canon encouraging standard RF lenses.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 15, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Imho, I just can't believe this rumor for several reasons.
> 1. the name scheme... R7 makes sense, but R8 and R9 should be reserved for the successors of the R and the RP. If the proposed name schemes was indeed true, Canon would have no numbers left for their "full-frame entry camera" models because R2 & R4 would be extremely misleading... And an R6RP or R6R or whatever is just weird...


What? why?
And i say, there will be never a R or RP replacements... R5 mark ii or R6 mark ii or so...


----------



## slclick (Jun 15, 2021)

Looks like you'll finally be getting your M5 mk2 (R7?) ...M5 being the Best M body imho


----------



## LensFungus (Jun 15, 2021)

EF-M mount:


----------



## Adrianf (Jun 15, 2021)

If the flange distance is similar between R and M then an M size body with an R lens is possible, surely. I spend my days hunting butterflies with my M6ii with a 55-250mm EFS. Great image quality and no weight. There's nothing Canon that can compare.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Jun 15, 2021)

Adrianf said:


> If the flange distance is similar between R and M then an M size body with an R lens is possible, surely. I spend my days hunting butterflies with my M6ii with a 55-250mm EFS. Great image quality and no weight. There's nothing Canon that can compare.


This.

And others like it.

Size. Mass. Volume. Picture quality.

And the mass (or lack thereof) is very important: for example...the tripod necessary to 'hold' the M6 Mark2/11-22mm IS lens combo is oh-so-light itself.

The M system is amazing.

To quote: "There is nothing Canon that can compare."

Furthermore, the primary APSC competition (Fuji)...check out those prices (including lenses)...easy to do with the recent dpreview article on various APSC cameras.









DPReview TV: High-end APS-C mirrorless camera comparison


This week, Chris and Jordan compare four flagship APS-C mirrorless cameras: the Sony a6600, Fujifilm X-T4, Canon M6 Mark II and Nikon Z50. See how these great models stack up against each other.




m.dpreview.com





Thanks for reading!


----------



## GMAX (Jun 15, 2021)

eosuser1234 said:


> The EF-M has a good 11-22mm and 22mm pancake. The 55-200 zoom is good for the price as well. Other than that nothing too steller. I love the form factor of the original M.


Mainly agree. But miss the 32 1.4, even it is a little bit pricy. It's a great lens and works very well (for me) in combination with my M6 II. If this lens would work on an EOS R - APS-C... Would be great value for size and money.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 15, 2021)

amorse said:


> That definitely sounds like the death of EF-S, but EF-M I do wonder about. I guess if it is the end of EF-M, we'll see how small an RF mount body can get.


Well, Canon could have a R9 crop sensor camera come out without an EVF, solely using the back LCD. They could make that pretty small & light if they wanted to. But they better have some small & light cropped zooms to go with it at a low price point.


----------



## dick ranez (Jun 15, 2021)

If that's "the plan" then Canon had better make some affordable R mount lenses available. The current 10-18 and 55-250 are both excellent lenses for the price. Given that nobody "needs" a mirrorless camera other than marketing hype, Canon has it's work cut out for it.


----------



## juststeve (Jun 15, 2021)

Seems to me Canon could quite easily rebarrel the optics of some, even all, of the M series lenses to work with an APS-C R camera. The M sensor is only a couple of millimeters closer than the R spec and the wider diameter of the R mount is enough larger to allow for a bit extra metal or plastic to scoot the M type optics the necessary 2 millimeters closer to the sensor.

If completely new designs, optical, mechanical, electrical, are not needed for lenses for an APS R camera that may make introducing a APS sensor R series more practical from a resource allocation perspective. Of course, some extra special new lens designs for APS R cameras would be nice, too.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 15, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> What? why?


Look at the Canon DSLR line-up. There is a clearly differentiated naming scheme and throughout the entire scheme Canon has held several spots open, just in case they needed them (e.g. 2d/ 3d/ 4d/ 8d/ 9d). 
Furtermore, the R7 is the only APS-C camera that had a single number camera model. There is/ was a reason for that. Since Canon is now using their old DSLR naming scheme since the introduction of the R5/R6, they are very likely to expand that to the APS-C models...



> And i say, there will be never a R or RP replacements... R5 mark ii or R6 mark ii or so...


That must be irony?!? I can't seriously believe you'd think that...
- One (or two) full-frame entry level cameras are much more important for the R System than three APS-C cameras...
- Furthermore, there are quite a few good cheap lenses to pair them with such as the 35mm, 24-240mm and the 24-105mm F4-7.1 and the 18-45mm. & 100-400mm to come. For APS-C there are zero lenses...
- Canon has stated several times to bring cheap(er) cameras. Even a cheaper one than the RP... 
- the R6 costs 3.000 $ in Germany...thats not entry level. Canon wants a sub 1k full-frame camera and there is a clear need for a camera slated between 1.500 -2.000 $...
- Canon started the "cheap-full-frame" camera deal with great success, Sony and Nikon follow suit. There's just no way Canon is going to quit releasing cheap full-frame cameras...

The RP and R successors will be fit into the naming scheme, therefore no R8 APS-C or R9 APS-C


----------



## eat-sleep-code (Jun 15, 2021)

I sort of get the R7 being a spiritual 7D successor, but what would the model number be for the full-frame Canon RP replacement?


----------



## slclick (Jun 15, 2021)

eat-sleep-code said:


> I sort of get the R7 being a spiritual 7D successor, but what would the model number be for the full-frame Canon RP replacement?


R 8/9 just as was summed up early on here. Caveat, no one knows what they are talking about here. But that's what makes it occasionally fun, right?


----------



## criscokkat (Jun 15, 2021)

When the EF-M series cameras came out, they did not stop making ef-s cameras. There is no reason why an RF APS-C camera couldn't co-exist, at least for a while. 

For the naming, I'm not sold on them using r7/r8/r9. Maybe if they add a letter designation , like r7c. They could even come out with a r8 and r8c at different price points but using the same body. But it's perplexing and doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Everyone wants 'R7' because of the 7d. Maybe that's it, maybe they use 7R / 8R instead to designate APS-C. They could then introduce a R8 that is a full frame R or RP replacement. 

That's also the reason why I'm not sure that they will make an RF-S lens. The only way that makes sense is if they try to make it as small as possible, but they really can't go smaller than the RF mount size itself. I think it's more likely just to make a common lens as cheap as possible so it will work for both an R8c and R8. 

One thing that might be driving this is the issues with producing silicon, not the cost of it. With the limited constraint in the market supposed to last for another few years, they can get 4-5 more APS-C chips per 35mm chip. In a normal timeline I almost wonder if they expected to drift the MSRP for the R6 down to the 1700 level and the r5 down to the 2900 level so they could introduce the r3 at a 4500 level. But with the constraints and demand they've been able to keep the same price point so are now looking at other ways to get to those levels.


----------



## BBarn (Jun 15, 2021)

A successful mirrorless APS-C line will require a line of lenses smaller and lighter than most of the current RF products. Otherwise, there is little advantage for most people to go with APS-C instead of full frame. The rumored 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM might be such a lens, and the current 50mm 1.8 is probably fine as well. But the other zooms and even the 35mm 1.8 seem large for APS-C.

Doing a nice APS-C line anytime soon seems unlikely given the inability to meet demand for the current FF R mount products.


----------



## dolina (Jun 15, 2021)

Is there enough demand for these many bodies? Or will the margins of these cameras be larger than before?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 15, 2021)

padam said:


> Makes sense, Nikon also seems to be expanding it's APS-C range in their Z-mount system and they face similar problems regarding lens selection, but it will be filled up eventually.


Looking good for Canon and for Nikon to expand its Z ML (FF) system more into APS-C; opening up range of affordable cameras and cropped lenses to get into the system and for the punter to add more better APS-C gear and FF gear as time goes by.

We likely see closure of Canon's EOS M system but it has done well - good range of cameras & lenses; certainly a path that Nikon should have done instead of their less than ideal first forray into Mirrorless - heavily cropped Nikon 1".


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jun 15, 2021)

amorse said:


> That definitely sounds like the death of EF-S, but EF-M I do wonder about. I guess if it is the end of EF-M, we'll see how small an RF mount body can get.


That’s a pretty easy one - imagine an M50 or M6 with a larger lens mount… in much the same way that the Rebel SL series cameras were smaller in form factor than the 80D etc. The only potential obstacle to that plan is hand grip.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 15, 2021)

Give all those APS-C cameras a two digit number (in the teens, I mean, like 15 and 16, not 50 and 60) and watch heads explode.


----------



## Tremotino (Jun 15, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It seems they are using all digits. So I would also expect an R2 and an R4 sooner or later.


The high megapixel R camera and the video oriented R camera is still missing in the line up..


----------



## MartinVLC (Jun 15, 2021)

I agree, R7 for a 7D succesor makes sense, but for the rest of the naming R8 and R9 would make a lot more sense for succesors of the EOS R and RP and a R10 and R100 would make more sense for succesors of the 90D and 800D/850D or whatever these are called in the Rebel world ;-).


----------



## Traveler (Jun 15, 2021)

I don’t get the idea that the M system doesn’t make economical sense. There is a complete lineup of lenses (three or four primes and three or four zooms) – canon apparently doesn’t think that M customers need anything more than that. And then they just release and sell a new body every few years.
If there are apsc RF mount cameras I’ll see them as apsc DSLR replacements, not necessarily the M series replacement. 
canon will sell M-mount as long as people buy it. And the M50 is canons best selling camera (I know, not the most profitable though)


----------



## dwarven (Jun 15, 2021)

Coming this Summer *guitar solo starts* Canon and Mountain Dew are teaming up for a completely out of this world camera. The Flaming Hot Doritos Code Red EOS R420. With 5 radical colors, a shutter that sounds like a laser blaster, and an EVF that gives you a view like the Terminator, you'll really stand out. Tired of looking like a creep with telephoto lens? Now you can get the universal lens foregrip and tactical memory card/battery bandolier as optional accessories. _You're fired. _Tired of your subject always moving? Get the optional net launcher that mounts to Canon's brand new tactical rail system. _Stick around. _Tired of your wife or husband always complaining about your camera purchases? Get the brand new Canon/Mountain Dew gym membership led by Calum Von Moger, an optional addon with every purchase. No one will ever $#@! with you again. *Lifts 1200mm 5.6 with one hand* _Because I'm going to say *please*._

But yeah, doesn't really matter to me what they call it. Gimme more cameras.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 15, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> If they can make an RF mount body the size of some of the M camera’s, and RF-S(?) lenses that small as well, I could see it working longer term. But the appeal of the M, for us, is just how compact the system is. Totally unobtrusive, hardly noticeable when out hiking or whatever.
> 
> If they make an RF-S 18-150 the size of the EF-M 18-150, a trade might merit exploration just to share glass. I’d be interested to see my RF-85 f/2 0.5 macro do some focus stacking on the M6 MK II’s 32 megapixel sensor.


I don't think they can get that small because of the difference in mount size. It's a bummer that the ILC market has collapsed because otherwise Canon might make R APS-C bodies but still keep a couple EF-M bodies and compact primes/zooms for the market segment which prefers a smaller size.

OTOH, the M6 mark II exists, and I don't think one could ask for much more in what is effectively a P&S replacement (based on size) but with some of the best IQ and camera capabilities in the history of photography.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 16, 2021)

Having 3 ASP-C models certainly makes more sense than just 1 model eg a 7D replacement (equivalent body) and an entry level.... but
"If this is true, this should be the death knell for the EOS M system."
is not so clear.

Clearly, Canon has left the M system in stasis but it achieves small and cheap. Canon's R mount eco system is neither of these.
Canon would need to release both small and cheap RF lenses before such a claim could be made. A quality wide RF lens for APS-C would also be needed.
Adapting existing EF-s lenses is an option but they would still be much larger than the equivalent M lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 16, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Having 3 ASP-C models certainly makes more sense than just 1 model.... but
> "If this is true, this should be the death knell for the EOS M system."
> is not so clear.
> 
> ...


Why EOS-M and EF-s did double duty sharing sensors with little practical crossover? The sensor is a small part of the system and the EOS-M is a very popular solution for those that have no interest in bigger more expensive cameras but do want better image quality than their phone.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 16, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Today full frame sensors can be mass produced much cheaper. So the reason for Canon still produces APS-C cameras might be some artificial crippling of the expensive full frame cameras. Those cheap cameras could easily be full frame, but then they might cannibalize the expensive cameras.



It's still cheaper to produce a smaller sensor, even if overall costs have fallen. Your supposition is ill conceived.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jun 16, 2021)

R7.....JUST HOOK IT TO MY VEINNNNS


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 16, 2021)

docsmith said:


> Just thinking of lenses, how many RF-s lenses might Canon release? I am thinking ~4. A kit general purpose zoom (18-55 f/3.5-5.6), a higher end general purpose zoom (~17-55 f/2.8), a nice UWA lens (10-22 f/4-5.6), and then an extreme range zoom (18-135 or 18-200 f/3.5-5.6). After that, it will depend on sales, but I can see Canon encouraging standard RF lenses.


I agree with a kit RF-s lens, a general purpose zoom and a good quality UWA lens but not convinced about the tele zoom lens. For reach, the existing EF or RF lenses will provide that focal length and still be relatively small eg the RF70-200/4 or RF24-240mm rather than a RF-s 55-250
One additional useful lens would be a pancake street lens eg RFs24/2.8


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 16, 2021)

dtaylor said:


> I don't think they can get that small because of the difference in mount size. It's a bummer that the ILC market has collapsed because otherwise Canon might make R APS-C bodies but still keep a couple EF-M bodies and compact primes/zooms for the market segment which prefers a smaller size.
> 
> OTOH, the M6 mark II exists, and I don't think one could ask for much more in what is effectively a P&S replacement (based on size) but with some of the best IQ and camera capabilities in the history of photography.


If you look at the Sigma fp or even the M200, you can see how small the body can be relative to the mount if you lose the multiple controllers. 

People used to phone touch screens for controls could step up to a ILC system using a similar control system without the confusing multiple dials that a beginner would intimidated by. Given the camera phone "quality" snaps - especially with computational HDR, the images from the RFs system would need to have as good SOOC jpgs otherwise they will stick to their phones.
Phone cameras have 2 limitations: bokeh and reach. The former is simulated by "portrait" mode but the latter is harder to achieve without a bigger lens.


----------



## vignes (Jun 16, 2021)

Diltiazem said:


> R7 with R3 technology will make a lot of people happy.


With Stacked sensor tech... not going to happen if they want to kept the price down.


----------



## juststeve (Jun 16, 2021)

To point to the viability of porting over current EF-M lenses to RF, the outside diameter of EF-M mount is 61 mm. The outside diameter of the RF mount, as measured by my digital caliper of my R5's mount, is 67 mm. Six millimeters, or roughly a quarter of an inch greater in diameter is not going to make for huge lenses if the design goal is compactness.


----------



## vignes (Jun 16, 2021)

Looks like RIP M-mount system. Canon might release another M model just to kept the Japanese market happy. This is a rumour now but anyone seeing this would be thinking should they buy into this system?
Not sure the R mount APSC bodies would be as compact as the M ones. Canon should continue with the M mount as a compact line, maybe release one or two more lens or work with Sigma and release more lens. Otherwise Fuji would benefit from this. Can't see R mount based system being smaller as the M mount ones.
Canon used to run 3 lines EF, EFS, EFM... why not run RF, EFM since the EF mount would eventually be phased out.
Come out with some exotic designs i.e. small silver retro design M bodies....like Olympus


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 16, 2021)

I thought the last APS-C rumour was a 7DII successor or performance model at CR2. Can't beleive CAnon is taking so long, EF-M is not an alternative I would ever consider with it's tragic lens line up.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2021)

I have to admit I have zero idea where Canon is going. I used to think Canon was fairly predictable. One flagship APS-C, one serious hobbyist APS-C, one tiny DSLR and lots and lots of Rebels at every conceivable price point; One flagship Full Frame, one wedding photographer and serious photographer full frame and one entry-level full frame. Throw in a specialty camera like the 5Ds duo to capture a niche and call it good. 

Now, it seems impossible to predict where Canon is heading. Have they decided to go all in on R mount mirrorless or are they just building out their mirrorless line before effing with us by introducing some new DSLRs in two or three years to scoop up the remaining buyers who don't want mirrorless? (better not sell all those EF lenses) https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/future-of-dslrs/

Have they decided to port everything over to the R mount? I imagine most M buyers, like most Rebel buyers only ever buy a kit lens and maybe one other lens in a bundle. They may have research that shows these buyers get an M before a big vacation, hold on to the cameras for 3-5 years and then ditch them for whatever new model is out before the next big trip. In which case, those M buyers can be converted to the low cost R mount version next time around.

Will the R7 be a true 7DII replacement, or will it be more of a 90D-type model? It seems unlikely to me that they will release an R7 that is basically an R3 with an APS-C sensor at less than half the cost of the R3. 

What exactly can they put into an R1 other than two CF Express slots that would warrant an additional $1,000 or so? Would they play it conservative with an R1 leaving out some of the gee-whiz technology like eye-control focus in favor of a solid but conservative workhorse in the tradition of the 1D series? 

About those other APS-C bodies, could one be an SL-type super small mirrorless? Seems very possible to me.

And, don't forget that any APS-C lens would also work on a full frame R body, just like EF-S lenses do, so you could well see a full frame high resolution R body that seamlessly crops to 1:6 with the same resolution as an R-7. And, as I mentioned earlier, it's quite possible that the R-7 would include an 4/3 killer crop mode at 1:2. 

All I know is that whatever happens, it will be fun to watch and even more fun to read the outrage here when people don't get the unicorns they think they will.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> I thought the last APS-C rumour was a 7DII successor or performance model at CR2. Can't beleive CAnon is taking so long, EF-M is not an alternative I would ever consider with it's tragic lens line up.


Perhaps Canon doesn't care about your timetable.


----------



## sanj (Jun 16, 2021)

I am interested if they are light and small with lenses to match in weight and size.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 16, 2021)

unfocused said:


> What exactly can they put into an R1 other than two CF Express slots that would warrant an additional $1,000 or so? Would they play it conservative with an R1 leaving out some of the gee-whiz technology like eye-control focus in favor of a solid but conservative workhorse in the tradition of the 1D series?


For me just making the R3 body much bigger and heavier to match the 1D X Mark III size would already we worth $500 to $1000. It could also have an upgrade to a sensor with larger pixels. It should have a secondary back display. 

I remember when the 1D X and the 5D Mark III came out with roughly the same sensor and the same autofocus capabilities. One was about twice as expensive than the other for a larger body, more fps and a higher shutter lifetime rating. 

At the top end you always pay a lot more for tiny improvements. For example a lot of money for some more memory in an iPhone.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> ...I remember when the 1D X and the 5D Mark III came out with roughly the same sensor and the same autofocus capabilities. One was about twice as expensive than the other for a larger body, more fps and a higher shutter lifetime rating...


I think a lot of people would disagree with equating the 5D and 1D series in that way.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 16, 2021)

I'm surprised to hear that there could be 3 APS-C crop bodies, I thought there would only be 1 or 2. I'm thinking the R9 would be at the M50 level, but I'm concerned about the R8 which is designed for vloggers, it sounds like the 90D level may be a thing of the past unless if they have all 90D features plus all of the vlogging features, and of course there is the R7 which is the 7DII replacement.

I wouldn't get my hopes up for EF-M lenses and RF APS-C compatibility. 

I am also wondering what they will name future models, I think this would make sence and ease confusion: R9 mkII, R8 mkII, R7 mkII, RP mkII, R6 mkII, R5 mkII, R3 mkII, R1 mkII.


----------



## Diltiazem (Jun 16, 2021)

vignes said:


> With Stacked sensor tech... not going to happen if they want to kept the price down.


If a stacked sensor is too expensive R5/6 tech would be fine too for a 7D replacement. They can use the 90D sensor. But if they can keep the price around 2500 USD with a stacked sensor, most people will be generally fine with it.


----------



## Jethro (Jun 16, 2021)

Diltiazem said:


> If a stacked sensor is too expensive R5/6 tech would be fine too for a 7D replacement. They can use the 90D sensor. But if they can keep the price around 2500 USD with a stacked sensor, most people will be generally fine with it.


I'd expect that new bodies will feature new sensors (not recycled DSLR sensors) and that would include any new APS-C bodies. More likely, they would be based on 'scaled-down' versions of the new FF RF mount sensors, which is why it will be fascinating to see what the sensor in the R3 looks like (and whether there are enough MP to utilise in this way). Otherwise, potentially based on the R5 sensor?


----------



## navastronia (Jun 16, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> R7.....JUST HOOK IT TO MY VEINNNNS



. . . It's impossible to simultaneously read CR and also gauge how much the real world wants an R7. Just mentioning it leaves forumers drooling (let's be honest, it's a meme at this point), but will it excite all the other camera buyers?


----------



## riker (Jun 16, 2021)

Oh no, I hate APS-C, RF should be FF and M should be APS-C, end of story.
RP proved already that FF can be small+cheap (if many years of even smaller Sony wasn't enough). And R5 already proved that FF+high resolution can provide high FPS.
All that's needed is to better these technologies and make them cheaper.
7Dmk2 is [email protected] and everybody was happy with it. EOS R is [email protected] A new Rmk2 could easily be [email protected] and still be small/cheap especially given the R5 which is [email protected]
I really don't this APS-C is that much needed anymore for technological and economical reasons, gone are the 2000s. It's just marketing/sales strategy


----------



## Chig (Jun 16, 2021)

vignes said:


> With Stacked sensor tech... not going to happen if they want to kept the price down.


I don't mind a high price , if it's like the R3 with a cropped stacked 30-35mp sensor I'd be okay with R5 level price as it would be better for bird photography than any full frame camera.


----------



## schaudi (Jun 16, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Wenn APS-C was introduced many years ago, the given reason was that it was very hard to produce digital full frame sensors. So it was born out of necessity and not as a feature to have a tighter crop for bird photpgraphy and stuff like that. So I thought that it would die sooner or later. Today full frame sensors can be mass produced much cheaper. So the reason for Canon still produces APS-C cameras might be some artificial crippling of the expensive full frame cameras. Those cheap cameras could easily be full frame, but then they might cannibalize the expensive cameras.
> 
> I do not think Canon will create any "RF-S" lenses.
> 
> I wonder which of the APS-C cameras will have IBIS. I think only the R7.


Oi....that could fit on r/ConfidentlyIncorrect....
*"Advanced Photo System* (*APS*) is a discontinued film format for still photography first produced in 1996." *Wikipedia
It was the last new film format before digital became a common thing. Reason were in fact the ability to build smaller and cheaper cameras with smaller lenses. 

If they'll do produce APS-C R cameras, APS-C Lenses would make a lot of sense for both advanced and budget users. 
Budget users can get affordable and compact lenses at all, while birders (or who whatever) can get cheaper, lighter or longer telephoto lenses (choose 2),
just imagine super tele RF-S *L* lenses. maybe a RF-S 600mm f/4 L which is way lighter and not as expensive as its RF counterpart. or one with an bigger aperture while maintaining the same weight and price.....just imagine...
I mean - I am not into that super telephoto range, but if I were and I buy an professional APS-C camera to get more reach, I would too be very happy about lenses, especially for that. I mean with FF lenses on APS-C - you waste a lot of money and you carry a lot of weight for an image circle, you are actually not using at all.

And I don't see any typical rebel user jumping from rebel and efs to r9 or r8 with those very expensive RF lenses. They also need totally different focal lengths for standards - now there is only 2 24-105s (not enough wide angle) or the very very expensive 15-35L (not enough tele). For the start you can continue to use the EFs lenses, but they won't be available new for long.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 16, 2021)

But how much cheaper will those lenses be? Will people risk that they can't use those lenses anymore, once they upgrade to fullframe. And of course a full frame lens on an APS-C camera has the advantage that it uses the sharpest areas of the lens. When I had the 17-40 f/4 on an APS-H camera, I was glad that the corners were cropped out, because they were not really sharp. Of course newer lenses might be sharper though.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 16, 2021)

People lament the limited number of EF-M lenses, but seem to forget that after nearly 20 years, there are only 17 EF-S lenses. Of which 7 are either v2 or at least nearly duplicate coverage of other EF-S lenses. There are no ‘L’ EF-S lenses. Focal length also tops out at 250mm. I wouldn’t expect a ton of affordable RF-S lenses either if Canon went that route. 

The lenses M is missing vs EF-S are a fast short zoom, like the 17-55 f2.8, a zoom to 250mm, and a 60mm macro. 

The only meaningful plus over M mount would be to use RF full frame glass without an adapter. Other positives, like IBIS, could be added to v2 versions of M bodies.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 16, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Phone cameras have 2 limitations: bokeh and reach.



Off topic but to that I'd add: anything approaching macro capability, and ability to focus on small subjects which aren't people when there's a fair separation from the background (e.g. flowers - it's nigh on impossible to get a phone to focus on that, rather than what's behind it; tapping to select a focus 'point' is very hit and miss even on the best modern phones, and manual focus is essentially absent).


----------



## scyrene (Jun 16, 2021)

schaudi said:


> just imagine super tele RF-S *L* lenses. maybe a RF-S 600mm f/4 L which is way lighter and not as expensive as its RF counterpart. or one with an bigger aperture while maintaining the same weight and price.....just imagine...
> I mean - I am not into that super telephoto range, but if I were and I buy an professional APS-C camera to get more reach, I would too be very happy about lenses, especially for that. I mean with FF lenses on APS-C - you waste a lot of money and you carry a lot of weight for an image circle, you are actually not using at all.



What are you on about? There have never been Canon super telephoto lenses for APS-C. As has been stated here and elsewhere for many years, long lenses don't really benefit from being able to be designed for a smaller format. Probably also, the market was deemed too small to be worthwhile. A 600mm f/4 is going to be the size of a 600mm f/4 regardless of what sensor it's mounted in front of. Weight savings have been made over the past few generations of lenses by using lighter materials, removing/rearranging some of the glass, and you can get shorter lenses by using diffractive optics, but none of this has anything to do with APS-C versus full frame.

Canon have released their cheap and light superteles for RF - the 600mm f/11 and the 800mm f/11. If they release APS-C RF bodies (and I still don't really believe it), those would be the birders' immediate budget choices.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 16, 2021)

riker said:


> Oh no, I hate APS-C, RF should be FF and M should be APS-C, end of story.
> RP proved already that FF can be small+cheap (if many years of even smaller Sony wasn't enough). And R5 already proved that FF+high resolution can provide high FPS.
> All that's needed is to better these technologies and make them cheaper.
> 7Dmk2 is [email protected] and everybody was happy with it. EOS R is [email protected] A new Rmk2 could easily be [email protected] and still be small/cheap especially given the R5 which is [email protected]
> I really don't this APS-C is that much needed anymore for technological and economical reasons, gone are the 2000s. It's just marketing/sales strategy



"EOS R is [email protected]" - You mean 3 fps with tracking priority. Yeah, that's super fast.

"R5 already proved that FF+high resolution can provide high FPS." - Yes, for $4K.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 16, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> People lament the limited number of EF-M lenses, but seem to forget that after nearly 20 years, there are only 17 EF-S lenses. Of which 7 are either v2 or at least nearly duplicate coverage of other EF-S lenses. There are no ‘L’ EF-S lenses. Focal length also tops out at 250mm. I wouldn’t expect a ton of affordable RF-S lenses either if Canon went that route.
> 
> The lenses M is missing vs EF-S are a fast short zoom, like the 17-55 f2.8, a zoom to 250mm, and a 60mm macro.
> 
> The only meaningful plus over M mount would be to use RF full frame glass without an adapter. Other positives, like IBIS, could be added to v2 versions of M bodies.



But at least you could mount the EF 100-400 on a 7D like many people did.


----------



## pererik_2000 (Jun 16, 2021)

R7, R10 (Rx0) and R100 (Rx00 in the US I think they are called Rebel) would be my suggested variants instead. R7 is obviously the 7D+ and the R10 would be the 90D+ (with EVF and IBIS) which I am waiting for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> EF-mount cameras, even the best-seller, was discontinued.


Of all ILCs sold in the first 4 months of 2021, 56% were MILCs, and 44% were DSLRs. For all of 2020, those were 55% and 45%, respectively 

I must’ve missed Canon‘s announcement they discontinued their camera lines that comprise nearly half of the current ILC market.

I know that you believe Canon makes stupid decisions, and that you seem to think you’re really good with the facts and the numbers and such, so forgive me for being just a teensy weensy bit skeptical.

But I’m sure you’ll have no trouble providing a link to a Canon press release or a news article from a reputable source to substantiate your claim. Or if not, I’m sure you’ll admit that you’re wrong again because you’re just making up facts as usual. Lol, no, I’m pretty sure neither of those will happen.


----------



## David_D (Jun 16, 2021)

Oh no, I hate APS-C, RF should be FF and M should be APS-C, end of story.


riker said:


> RP proved already that FF can be small+cheap (if many years of even smaller Sony wasn't enough). And R5 already proved that FF+high resolution can provide high FPS.
> All that's needed is to better these technologies and make them cheaper.
> 7Dmk2 is [email protected] and everybody was happy with it. EOS R is [email protected] A new Rmk2 could easily be [email protected] and still be small/cheap especially given the R5 which is [email protected]
> I really don't this APS-C is that much needed anymore for technological and economical reasons, gone are the 2000s. It's just marketing/sales strategy


I think you are ignoring reach and pixel density. When reach limited the advantage of a 7Dmk2 with _only_ 20MP is that you would need a FF camera with at least 50MP to have 20MP on the subject. That is why many people are happy with the 45MP of the R5 (taking into account the 1.6 crop that equates to @17.5MP, so just a bit smaller than the 7Dmk2).


scyrene said:


> A 600mm f/4 is going to be the size of a 600mm f/4 regardless of what sensor it's mounted in front of.


Agree 99%! To clarify, the maximum aperture, which is approximately the diameter of the front element, is given by f/4, where f=focal length. For a 600mm lens that means a 150mm diameter front element. (The max diameter of a EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM lens is 168mm.) With standard optics (i.e. not DO) the length is fairly fixed as well. The 1% disagreement is that the difference an APS-C mount/sensor might make is the rear elements could be a little smaller (because of the smaller image circle) but in comparison with the fixed very large front elements it is negligible.


----------



## John Wilde (Jun 16, 2021)

The bestselling M50 is currently priced at $650, including lens. Get back to me when there is an APS-C RF camera that's priced the same.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 16, 2021)

32mm f/1.4 
Samyand 12mm f/2
there are others too


----------



## Bonich (Jun 16, 2021)

1D4 said:


> I'd be happy if my Mazda had Bugatti technology, but it isn't going to happen


Mazda prefers Ferrari technology ;-)


----------



## sanj (Jun 16, 2021)

riker said:


> Oh no, I hate APS-C, RF should be FF and M should be APS-C, end of story.
> RP proved already that FF can be small+cheap (if many years of even smaller Sony wasn't enough). And R5 already proved that FF+high resolution can provide high FPS.
> All that's needed is to better these technologies and make them cheaper.
> 7Dmk2 is [email protected] and everybody was happy with it. EOS R is [email protected] A new Rmk2 could easily be [email protected] and still be small/cheap especially given the R5 which is [email protected]
> I really don't this APS-C is that much needed anymore for technological and economical reasons, gone are the 2000s. It's just marketing/sales strategy


There are many who want APSC. Canon knows that.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jun 16, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It seems they are using all digits. So I would also expect an R2 and an R4 sooner or later.


I bet they have an entire marketing team working to figure out what comes after 9.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jun 16, 2021)

These rumors are very encouraging, IF they're true. I'm still skeptical.

- These are just rumors, and they are are CR1. It's been a long time since Canon has shown any real interest in moving any of their APS-C product lines forward in a meaningful way.

- I've said it before, either in these forums or in POTN, that if Canon truly has a bright RF APS-C future planned, I don't see any harm in issuing a development announcement. You can't seriously tell me they're worried about cannibalizing 7D Mark II or 90D sales, and APS-C shooters are generally looking for different things than the R5 and R6 offer. Such an announcement could also help Canon tactically by denying a few sales to Sony or Fuji from faithful Canon users who want a high performing APS-C mirrorless body.

- If the R7 does come true in Q4 2021 or Q1 2022, I hope it has some amazing new features and is not just a 90D sensor with the R6 AF system in an R6 body. Don't get me wrong, such a camera would be fantastic. But Canon could have released that six months ago. Don't make me wait until 2022 for repackaged 2019/2020 technology!


----------



## padam (Jun 16, 2021)

Next lens coming RF 14-35mm f/4L, Nokishita confirmed (does not say IS but it may still have it)

I guess that leaked RF roadmap starts to make more and more sense.


----------



## dtaylor (Jun 17, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> If you look at the Sigma fp or even the M200, you can see how small the body can be relative to the mount if you lose the multiple controllers.


Hopefully you're right and we see an R body that small. The M bodies plus the 22mm pancake...or even the kit zooms...are really perfect for those times when you want great photos but don't want to carry a full kit.


----------



## Skux (Jun 17, 2021)

None of this makes any sense without an "RF-S" lens roadmap. No one is buying a hypothetical R7 just to pay through the nose for a big heavy 24-70mm and only use the middle of the glass. Unless they're birders who are putting on a 100-500mm.

If it's going to succeed EF-M, where is the light compact kit zoom? The 16mm vlogging lens? The 24mm street pancake?


----------



## slclick (Jun 17, 2021)

AccipiterQ said:


> R7.....JUST HOOK IT TO MY VEINNNNS


Thank you, seriously...thank you. I know it's open mic right now but I think Craig can book you a regular slot.


----------



## slclick (Jun 17, 2021)

I see all of this CR1 as just "ok", as in Pete Davidson "Okay". Acceptance. I think Canon knows which way the wind blows and the finest optical M formulas (22mm I'm looking at you especially) will be ported over. Salvaging and repurposing assemblage saves hundreds of millions in a hundred part body. I bet there will be a couple unique bodies and a couple that look familiar (M5?). Look at Canon now...making FF mainstream.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 17, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Perhaps Canon doesn't care about your timetable.


Maybe they should be worried about the competition Einstein.


----------



## HMC11 (Jun 17, 2021)

padam said:


> Next lens coming RF 14-35mm f/4L, Nokishita confirmed (does not say IS but it may still have it)
> 
> I guess that leaked RF roadmap starts to make more and more sense.


That's good news! I hope that the IQ and pricing compared to the RF 15-35 F2.8L are similar to that between 70-200 F4 and 70-200 F2.8L. If so, it will be on my 'to purchase' list.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 17, 2021)

APS-C R mount body + RF-S lenses = No upgrade path. Totally stuck with APS-C R-mount.
APS-C R mouint body + RF lenses = Big, Heavy and Expensive.
RP FF body + Cheap and slow RF lenses =Cheap and light weight to get into FF


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

unfocused said:


> You can select the 1.6 crop in camera -- no waste of pixels or data throughput. Then you have the flexibility of a full frame camera for every day shooting. Two cameras in one.



Unless you also want to hang a wider lens on your FF body at the same time you're using a telephoto in crop mode.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

davidcl0nel said:


> What? why?
> And i say, there will be never a R or RP replacements... R5 mark ii or R6 mark ii or so...



There was a rumor posted the other day that Canon will introduce another FF model to fill the gap between the sub-$1000 RP replacement (R9?) and the $2600 R6. That will effectively be the EOS R replacement, but it won't be named EOS R Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Look at the Canon DSLR line-up. There is a clearly differentiated naming scheme and throughout the entire scheme Canon has held several spots open, just in case they needed them (e.g. 2d/ 3d/ 4d/ 8d/ 9d).
> Furtermore, the R7 is the only APS-C camera that had a single number camera model. There is/ was a reason for that. Since Canon is now using their old DSLR naming scheme since the introduction of the R5/R6, they are very likely to expand that to the APS-C models...
> 
> 
> ...



There will never be an R4. The number "4" is considered more unlucky in Japanese culture than the number "13" is in Western European culture.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

dwarven said:


> Coming this Summer *guitar solo starts* Canon and Mountain Dew are teaming up for a completely out of this world camera. The Flaming Hot Doritos Code Red EOS R420. With 5 radical colors, a shutter that sounds like a laser blaster, and an EVF that gives you a view like the Terminator, you'll really stand out. Tired of looking like a creep with telephoto lens? Now you can get the universal lens foregrip and tactical memory card/battery bandolier as optional accessories. _You're fired. _Tired of your subject always moving? Get the optional net launcher that mounts to Canon's brand new tactical rail system. _Stick around. _Tired of your wife or husband always complaining about your camera purchases? Get the brand new Canon/Mountain Dew gym membership led by Calum Von Moger, an optional addon with every purchase. No one will ever $#@! with you again. *Lifts 1200mm 5.6 with one hand* _Because I'm going to say *please*._
> 
> But yeah, doesn't really matter to me what they call it. Gimme more cameras.



I doubt any Canon model number will ever contain the number "4". It's considered unlucky in Japanese culture. It's kind of like how many buildings in Anglicized cultures do not have a 13th floor because "13" is an unlucky number in Anglo culture.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Will the R7 be a true 7DII replacement, or will it be more of a 90D-type model? It seems unlikely to me that they will release an R7 that is basically an R3 with an APS-C sensor at less than half the cost of the R3.
> 
> All I know is that whatever happens, it will be fun to watch and even more fun to read the outrage here when people don't get the unicorns they think they will.



I think the longer it takes to release, the less likely it is that the R7 will be a true 7D Mark II "replacement".

At this point I'm expecting an R6 type body and an R6 (introductory) type price _if_ we see an R7 by the end of this year. 

If it takes another year, then I expect it to be more of a 90D type body with even less build quality/durability/AF capability than the R6, but will also be priced lower than the R6, though perhaps not by much.

I don't think anyone is expecting to get an APS-C R3 for a 7D Mark II price. I'm not even expecting to get a 90D type R7 for a 7D Mark II price.

You folks are the ones who keep projecting on those of us who found the 7D Mark II useful and would find a similar R7 useful that we also expect it to be just as cheap. I think most of us know better than that. A 7D Mark II level camera will be in the high $2K range _if_ it ever sees the light of day at all.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> For me just making the R3 body much bigger and heavier to match the 1D X Mark III size would already we worth $500 to $1000. It could also have an upgrade to a sensor with larger pixels. It should have a secondary back display.
> 
> I remember when the 1D X and the 5D Mark III came out with roughly the same sensor and the same autofocus capabilities. One was about twice as expensive than the other for a larger body, more fps and a higher shutter lifetime rating.
> 
> At the top end you always pay a lot more for tiny improvements. For example a lot of money for some more memory in an iPhone.



The 1D X was 18 MP, up from the APS-H 16 MP 1D Mark IV, but down from the 21 MP FF 1Ds Mark III.

The 5D Mark III was 22 MP and released at the same time as the 18 MP 1D X. That's a 22% difference in resolution, or roughly the same as the 1D Mark IV vs. the 1Ds Mark III. The same percentage comparison today would be a 37 MP integrally gripped body (R3?) compared to the 45 MP R5.

In 2012 when the 1D X and 5D Mark III were both rolled out, a lot of shooters who had been using the 1Ds Mark III for weddings, studio, and fashion moved to the the 5-Series when they replaced their 1Ds-Series bodies.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the R1 is the spiritual successor to the 1Ds, putting a higher MP FF sensor in a 1-Series body for professional studio, wedding, and fashion work. The R3 is certainly looking more and more like the spiritual successor to the 1D-Series (not 1Ds-Series nor 1D X-Series, but the original 1D-Series with lower resolution and faster handling built for sports/reportage).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

Jethro said:


> I'd expect that new bodies will feature new sensors (not recycled DSLR sensors) and that would include any new APS-C bodies. More likely, they would be based on 'scaled-down' versions of the new FF RF mount sensors, which is why it will be fascinating to see what the sensor in the R3 looks like (and whether there are enough MP to utilise in this way). Otherwise, potentially based on the R5 sensor?



The 2014 7D Mark II (20 MP) sensor was a scaled down version of the 2015 5Ds/5Ds R (50 MP) sensor, not a scaled down version of the 2012 5D Mark III (22MP), or even 2016 5D Mark IV (30 MP) sensors. Or to be more precise, based on their introductory dates, the 5Ds/5Ds R sensor was a scaled up version of the 7D Mark II sensor. Both sensors had identical pixel dimensions.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

riker said:


> Oh no, I hate APS-C, RF should be FF and M should be APS-C, end of story.
> RP proved already that FF can be small+cheap (if many years of even smaller Sony wasn't enough). And R5 already proved that FF+high resolution can provide high FPS.
> All that's needed is to better these technologies and make them cheaper.
> 7Dmk2 is [email protected] and everybody was happy with it in 2014, when the 5D Mark III was only 22 MP (which would scale down to an 8.6 MP APS-C sensor). EOS R is [email protected] A new Rmk2 could easily be [email protected] and still be small/cheap especially given the R5 which is [email protected]
> I really don't this APS-C is that much needed anymore for technological and economical reasons, gone are the 2000s. It's just marketing/sales strategy



There, I fixed that for you.

So just because you personally have no use for APS-C for anything you shoot, that means Canon should not produce a camera that others might find useful?

I suppose you could buy all of the stock in Canon Corporation and then tell them to do what you want. You could gain unfettered control by purchasing 51% of their total equity, which would only cost you around $15,000,000,000 ($15 Billion) USD.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

schaudi said:


> Oi....that could fit on r/ConfidentlyIncorrect....
> *"Advanced Photo System* (*APS*) is a discontinued film format for still photography first produced in 1996." *Wikipedia
> It was the last new film format before digital became a common thing. Reason were in fact the ability to build smaller and cheaper cameras with smaller lenses.
> 
> ...




One of the reasons the 7D Mark II was as cheap as it was (it should have probably been priced in the low $2K range) was to entice the niche users who bought it to buy $$$ FF EF telephoto lenses. 

Just like Remington practically gave away the handle to get you to buy their (uniquely sized) $$ razor blades. Just like everyone practically gave away cheap printers to get you to buy expensive ink.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> These rumors are very encouraging, IF they're true. I'm still skeptical.
> 
> - If the R7 does come true in Q4 2021 or Q1 2022, I hope it has some amazing new features and is not just a 90D sensor with the R6 AF system in an R6 body. Don't get me wrong, such a camera would be fantastic. But Canon could have released that six months ago. Don't make me wait until 2022 for repackaged 2019/2020 technology!



Canon's design and engineering departments could have delivered such a camera six months ago, but Canon's supply chain could not even deliver the R5, R6, RF 100-500mm, etc. in the numbers the market demands throughout all of 2020.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

Skux said:


> None of this makes any sense without an "RF-S" lens roadmap. No one is buying a hypothetical R7 just to pay through the nose for a big heavy 24-70mm and only use the middle of the glass. Unless they're birders who are putting on a 100-500mm.
> 
> If it's going to succeed EF-M, where is the light compact kit zoom? The 16mm vlogging lens? The 24mm street pancake?



No one (okay, maybe one or two total outliers somewhere) ever hung a 24-70 on the 7D Mark II. They used their FF bodies for that. They used the 7D Mark II for telephoto lenses.


----------



## Chig (Jun 17, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But at least you could mount the EF 100-400 on a 7D like many people did.


Well you can mount this lens on all M mount cameras too


----------



## Chig (Jun 17, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> One of the reasons the 7D Mark II was as cheap as it was (it should have probably been priced in the low $2K range) was to entice the niche users who bought it to buy $$$ FF EF telephoto lenses.
> 
> Just like Remington practically gave away the handle to get you to buy their (uniquely sized) $$ razor blades. Just like everyone practically gave away cheap printers to get you to buy expensive ink.


It'd be great if Canon decided to do that with the R7 but I don't mind paying quite a lot if it's a really good camera.
If it's basically an R6 with a new aps-c sensor I'd expect the pricing to be similar to the R6 or maybe a bit cheaper.
I'd much prefer it to be a much more serious R3 style camera though and I'd be prepared to pay a lot more as it would be better than any other camera for birding.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 17, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> There will never be an R4. The number "4" is considered more unlucky in Japanese culture than the number "13" is in Western European culture.


Tetraphobia is much wider than just for Japan as Greater China and countries with a significant diaspora of ethnic Chinese eg south east Asia countries. Korea also tends to avoid the number 4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 17, 2021)

Chig said:


> Well you can mount this lens on all M mount cameras too


That was the reasoning I used for preferring the 100-400 over the 100-500, but I quickly got annoyed with how the M6II + smallrig L-bracket + 100-400 handled. I also didn't like how the IS of the 100L behaved on the R5, so I decided to get the 100-500.

The pictures taken with the M6II + 100-400 are great, the copies I rented didn't have any trouble with the 32MP sensor and when shooting it side-by-side with an RP, the extra "reach" is great. Many dragonflies didn't notice being photographed


----------



## VOTOXY (Jun 17, 2021)

I do love my EOS M6 Mark II as my secondary body in my backpack. I use it also as my main body when out with friends, on week-ends etc.. I truly love this tiny form factor with high performances.
I hope at least one of the rumored APS-C RF Camera will have a tiny body, with lenses as tiny as the EOS-M systems.

This "feature" will determine if I'm a buyer or not.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

Chig said:


> It'd be great if Canon decided to do that with the R7 but I don't mind paying quite a lot if it's a really good camera.
> If it's basically an R6 with a new aps-c sensor I'd expect the pricing to be similar to the R6 or maybe a bit cheaper.
> I'd much prefer it to be a much more serious R3 style camera though and I'd be prepared to pay a lot more as it would be better than any other camera for birding.



I'd be very happy with an R6 type of camera using a 30ish MP sensor that has the same generation of technology as the R5 and R6 sensors do. I'd pay an R6 level price for it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 17, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Tetraphobia is much wider than just for Japan as Greater China and countries with a significant diaspora of ethnic Chinese eg south east Asia countries. Korea also tends to avoid the number 4
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia



I don't doubt that at all. Most of my contact with Asian culture has been with Japanese culture. There is a Japanese owned company (not an auto manufacturer with a North American HQ, but an actual Japanese company) who has a major industrial facility in the town where I live and they are very involved in the local community and supporting the arts organizations and festivals for which I shoot.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 17, 2021)

criscokkat said:


> When the EF-M series cameras came out, they did not stop making ef-s cameras. There is no reason why an RF APS-C camera couldn't co-exist, at least for a while.
> 
> For the naming, I'm not sold on them using r7/r8/r9. Maybe if they add a letter designation , like r7c.


Or RFx0, RF xx0, RF xx00.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 17, 2021)

Chig said:


> Welll you can mount this lens on all M mount cameras too


No M camera can do what a 7D can. And i am mainly thinking about ergonomics, build quality and viewfinder. The Ms are toys next to a 7D


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 17, 2021)

unfocused said:


> You can select the 1.6 crop in camera -- no waste of pixels or data throughput. Then you have the flexibility of a full frame camera for every day shooting. Two cameras in one.


Good point - serious question: does the R5 offer a crop mode? Didn't know that. My 5D4 doesn't have this option, only the aspect ration can be changed, 1:1 is the smallest image you can pre-select. Anyway, I guess an R7 as a real 7D successor should be a fast camera settled below half the prize of an R5 and - hopefully - offer everything I need for birding. For FF, I still am happy with my 5D4.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 17, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> No M camera can do what a 7D can. And i am mainly thinking about ergonomics, build quality and viewfinder. The Ms are toys next to a 7D


M cameras are nice for smaller lenses, but for bigger lenses one really needs a much better grip and overall better ergonomics, like the 7D offers.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 17, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Good point - serious question: does the R5 offer a crop mode? [..]


It does, it will save 17-ish MP files, not the full 45MP a suggestion to the editor to crop it.. The view in the EVF is also adjusted, so it takes a while to notice when you have it enabled by accident


----------



## Bahrd (Jun 17, 2021)

VOTOXY said:


> I hope at least one of the rumored APS-C RF Camera will have a tiny body, with lenses as tiny as the EOS-M systems.


The rumor can be correct for yet another reason: Canon want to finally unify the software in their mirrorless cameras.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 17, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Good point - serious question: does the R5 offer a crop mode?


Not only does it offer such a mode, it is automatically selected for you should you use an (adapted) EF-S lens on the camera. (Not necessarily true for Tamron lenses, those will give you a "tunnel vision" effect.) This is in addition to what Koenkooi stated, which is totally correct.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I imagine…


Yes, your imagination does seem to be the source for most of your ‘factual’ information.

In April of this year (the most recent month for which data are available), Japanese camera companies produced (not shipped or sold, produced) 252K MILCs and 223K DSLRs, a ratio that’s pretty much aligned with the global ILC market for the past 18 months.

No doubt you can convince yourself that despite Canon being the global ILC market leader, all 223K DSLRs produced in April were made by someone other than Canon. Or maybe Canon abruptly and secretly stopped making DSLRs in May. Whatever.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jun 18, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> It does, it will save 17-ish MP files, not the full 45MP a suggestion to the editor to crop it.. The view in the EVF is also adjusted, so it takes a while to notice when you have it enabled by accident


Does crop mode work with raw or just jpegs?


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 18, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Does crop mode work with raw or just jpegs?


RAW, C-RAW, HEIF and JPEG all work. Since it's just cropping, not downsizing, you can get RAW. Using C-RAW with e-shutter at 20fps is a great way to save on disk and card space while holding down the shutter


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jun 18, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> RAW, C-RAW, HEIF and JPEG all work. Since it's just cropping, not downsizing, you can get RAW. Using C-RAW with e-shutter at 20fps is a great way to save on disk and card space while holding down the shutter


Good to know. Thanks!


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 18, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Not only does it offer such a mode, it is automatically selected for you should you use an (adapted) EF-S lens on the camera. (Not necessarily true for Tamron lenses, those will give you a "tunnel vision" effect.) This is in addition to what Koenkooi stated, which is totally correct.


Thx a lot, Steve! For me, the option to select crop with an EF lens attached would be most important. I use an EF 500mm prime + 1.4x TC quite frequently (mostly hand-held), sometimes also with a 2.0x TC, if the atmosphere is clear and enough light available. So if I could switch then to a 1.6x crop mode that would be an acceptable solution for me. 45MP in FF would give me then 17,5 MP, which is in fact close to the old 7D Mk I, with a more than a decade better tech, first of all a much improved noise floor. Good enough for nicely detailed images if I do not need to crop further, although I'd prefer 24 MP for APS-C as a sweet spot with current tech. 

I already decided to wait what Canon will really do with its rumored APS-C-cameras for RF mount. But that brings the R5 definitely back again on my list, if Canon doesn't come up with a decent R7 in 2021-22. My old 7D2 still works w/o any flaws, but I am not happy with its AF performance in action settings, only with a lot of light and contrast it is quite reliable.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 18, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of all ILCs sold in the first 4 months of 2021, 56% were MILCs, and 44% were DSLRs. For all of 2020, those were 55% and 45%, respectively
> 
> I must’ve missed Canon‘s announcement they discontinued their camera lines that comprise nearly half of the current ILC market.
> 
> I know that you believe Canon makes stupid decisions, and that you seem to think you’re really good with the facts and the numbers and such, so forgive me for being just a teensy weensy bit skeptical.


Oh no, Canon's management definitely isn't stupid, since this company still is the biggest camera manufacturer, even in these tough times. But, looking back in Canon's history, they sometimes proved to be capable of quite radical, disruptive decisions after they waited a while and observed the markets. In particular, they did it with the change from the old FD to the EF mount. Many Canon users were upset back then because of the incompatibility of both mounts. But in the long run it was a much wiser decision than Nikon's strategy to keep compatibility alive by ignoring the problems coming with a more and more error susceptible complexity. By contrast, the EF mount was a new clean design and allowed for fast USM AF drives, which made a lot of pros to switch from Nikon to Canon in the 90s. I know from own experience with our Nikon gear e.g. this "F22" error , when the lens once again stops to communicate with the camera - favorably in critical action settings when you want your gear to work, not to quirk...

So, lets see what happens to Canon's DSLR products in future. I personally wouldn't be surprised if they slowly phased out this tech now, by cutting back the number of different models offered.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 18, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> It does, it will save 17-ish MP files, not the full 45MP a suggestion to the editor to crop it.. The view in the EVF is also adjusted, so it takes a while to notice when you have it enabled by accident


Thx, keonkooi


----------



## tomsop (Jun 18, 2021)

I am now considering my next move since there is very little news on the M. Canon has to realize people are already leaving Canon because of their lack of customer support in helping consumers decide to stick with M or not. As I look at other brands they seem to be more transparent about future plans. I stopped buying lenses about a year ago and I see people doing incredible thinks with the EOS-M with black magic software getting 4K video with the original EOS-M camera. Many people will be glued into place not wanting to abandon the M so Canon is killing demand for their own products. If they could just slap a viewfinder of the M6 Mkii - give it some IBIS - it would be a hit and breathe probably another 4 years of life into the M system. I know it would probably clash with their R-APS-C plans so it is not going to happen. I may make the switch to full frame and see if the new Canon entry level they are supposed to deliver sometime this year or next is competitive with the Nikon Z6 for features/price.


----------



## John Wilde (Jun 18, 2021)

tomsop said:


> I am now considering my next move since there is very little news on the M. Canon has to realize people are already leaving Canon because of their lack of customer support in helping consumers decide to stick with M or not. As I look at other brands they seem to be more transparent about future plans.



Nikon's transparency is a lens roadmap that only shows one additional Z-DX lens, for a grand total of three Z-DX lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2021)

tomsop said:


> Canon has to realize people are already leaving Canon because of their lack of customer support in helping consumers decide to stick with M or not.


Or what? Lol.

The M remains a best-selling line. Of course some people leave Canon for other systems. Just as people leave other systems and switch to Canon. What matters is the net movement.

For a decade on this forum, people have been saying, “Canon must ______!,” and filling in the blank with their own favorite fantasy. Somehow, Canon has weathered the implications of doom and remained the market leader this whole time. It’s possible, just may be ever so slightly a teensy weensy bit probable, that Canon knows more about the market than any one individual such as yourself.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 19, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Good point - serious question: does the R5 offer a crop mode? Didn't know that. My 5D4 doesn't have this option, only the aspect ration can be changed, 1:1 is the smallest image you can pre-select. Anyway, I guess an R7 as a real 7D successor should be a fast camera settled below half the prize of an R5 and - hopefully - offer everything I need for birding. For FF, I still am happy with my 5D4.


Both the R and the R5 offer the option to crop to 1:1.6. I assume the other R series do as well.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 19, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Unless you also want to hang a wider lens on your FF body at the same time you're using a telephoto in crop mode.


How would that work? As far as I know, you can only mount one lens on a camera body at a time. I have the aspect ratio on my custom menus, so it's very simple to switch from full frame to crop and back to full frame.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 19, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Thx a lot, Steve! For me, the option to select crop with an EF lens attached would be most important. I use an EF 500mm prime + 1.4x TC quite frequently (mostly hand-held), sometimes also with a 2.0x TC, if the atmosphere is clear and enough light available. So if I could switch then to a 1.6x crop mode that would be an acceptable solution for me. 45MP in FF would give me then 17,5 MP, which is in fact close to the old 7D Mk I, with a more than a decade better tech, first of all a much improved noise floor. Good enough for nicely detailed images if I do not need to crop further, although I'd prefer 24 MP for APS-C as a sweet spot with current tech.



Lately I've been using the crop mode a lot when trying to shoot song birds. Since I usually have to crop the photo anyway, might as well get a head start by shooting in 1.6 mode, it definitely helps with autofocus accuracy, although all the autofocus points become larger.


----------



## Chig (Jun 19, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Both the R and the R5 offer the option to crop to 1:1.6. I assume the other R series do as well.


Crop mode is really a mirrorless feature as I can't see how it would work with an optical viewfinder on a DSLR


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 19, 2021)

Chig said:


> Crop mode is really a mirrorless feature as I can't see how it would work with an optical viewfinder on a DSLR


Nikon's D700 already had a DX crop mode implemented, and I always was a bit jealous that Canon didn't offer this option for many years. With the 12MP D700 of course it didn't deliver good resolution, but with the introduction of the 36 MP D800 this feature started to become useful (I think the D800 offered also a 1.2x crop mode), it also made the camera's performance a bit more speedy.

Crop modes can be indicated with lines in an OVF, basically that's btw an old idea. Rangefinder cameras offered already many decades ago different frames for different lenses. My vintage Canon 7 rangefinder has a little wheel to select the indicated frame manually for the lens attached, Leica's M3 came up already in 1954 with an automatic system that used a mechanical contact to tell the camera which lens was attached. My New Mamiya 6 medium format rangefinder has this feature, too, but based on electronics. So, that's easy.

The image within the crop frame is smaller, that's a fundamental disadvantage which cannot be improved. An EVF is here more flexible, of course.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 19, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Lately I've been using the crop mode a lot when trying to shoot song birds. Since I usually have to crop the photo anyway, might as well get a head start by shooting in 1.6 mode, it definitely helps with autofocus accuracy, although all the autofocus points become larger.


Thank you, so the crop mode is really useful for birding. Very interesting for me, indeed.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 19, 2021)

tomsop said:


> I may make the switch to full frame and see if the new Canon entry level they are supposed to deliver sometime this year or next is competitive with the Nikon Z6 for features/price.


An RP II may be a nice entry level option. I played a little bit with the original RP in our local shop, overall I liked it's handling and small size, good for compact, light lenses. I didn't give it a go, since I always would prefer my 5D4, but for that price, I guess latest an RP II with some decent 4k video features would a really attractive option to upgrade from the M series.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 20, 2021)

SwissFrank said:


> I haven't seen any mention that they're still making them. Do you have such info? If not, I imagine they're just burning through whatever stock they have left.



Very few cameras are in constant production. They make a batch to stockpile a supply that should last a few months, then convert the line over to making a batch of another model, then use the same line to make a batch of a third model, and so on. With lenses sometimes a single run will last for several years before another run is needed. There are notable gaps in the date codes of some EF lens models that were not mainstream lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2021)

tomsop said:


> I am now considering my next move since there is very little news on the M. Canon has to realize people are already leaving Canon because of their lack of customer support in helping consumers decide to stick with M or not. As I look at other brands they seem to be more transparent about future plans. I stopped buying lenses about a year ago and I see people doing incredible thinks with the EOS-M with black magic software getting 4K video with the original EOS-M camera. Many people will be glued into place not wanting to abandon the M so Canon is killing demand for their own products. If they could just slap a viewfinder of the M6 Mkii - give it some IBIS - it would be a hit and breathe probably another 4 years of life into the M system. I know it would probably clash with their R-APS-C plans so it is not going to happen. I may make the switch to full frame and see if the new Canon entry level they are supposed to deliver sometime this year or next is competitive with the Nikon Z6 for features/price.



You're not the type of customer to whom Canon aims the entire EOS M series of cameras. You're not the type of customer to whom Canon sells most of the EOS M cameras and lenses they sell. You're not the type of customer for whom Canon plans their EOS M strategy, either.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> How would that work? As far as I know, you can only mount one lens on a camera body at a time. I have the aspect ratio on my custom menus, so it's very simple to switch from full frame to crop and back to full frame.



Exactly. For an R5 to do double duty (with something like a 24-70 as well as a telephoto zoom) at the same time you'd need two of them. So why pay for a second R5 @ $3,800 when an APS-C body for, say, $2,600 might do the job just as well (or even better if it has, say, a 32 MP APS-C sensor with the same pixel density as an 82 MP FF sensor)?


----------



## Skux (Jun 21, 2021)

Rocky said:


> APS-C R mount body + RF-S lenses = No upgrade path. Totally stuck with APS-C R-mount.
> APS-C R mouint body + RF lenses = Big, Heavy and Expensive.
> RP FF body + Cheap and slow RF lenses =Cheap and light weight to get into FF


The latter is what I'm hoping for. Now that they've got all their big flagship lenses out of the way I'm hoping they can start introducing lenses for the rest of us. Not every lens has to be an f1.4 behemoth.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 21, 2021)

Michael Clark said:


> Exactly. For an R5 to do double duty (with something like a 24-70 as well as a telephoto zoom) at the same time you'd need two of them. So why pay for a second R5 @ $3,800 when an APS-C body for, say, $2,600 might do the job just as well (or even better if it has, say, a 32 MP APS-C sensor with the same pixel density as an 82 MP FF sensor)?


And, how do you propose to mount two lenses on an APS-C body at the same time?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> And, how do you propose to mount two lenses on an APS-C body at the same time?


I propose that you re-read @Michael Clark’s post, but more carefully this time.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> And, how do you propose to mount two lenses on an APS-C body at the same time?



I don't, nor have I ever, proposed such. What I proposed is:

Scenario 1: R5 #1 with 24-70 being used exclusively in FF mode, R5 *#2* with telephoto lens being used exclusively in crop mode.

Scenario 2: R5 with 24-70 being used exclusively in FF mode, R7 (with higher pixel density sensor than a *second* R5) being used with telephoto lens exclusively in crop mode (because that's the only way it can be used).

It gets even more obvious if one realizes one needs something like a 120-300mm f/2.8 with the *second* R5 not in crop mode to match the angles of view one can get with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and an R7. If one is going to use the *second* R5 in crop mode all of the time with the 70-200/2.8 it makes absolutely no sense to pay for a *second* R5 instead of paying less for an R7 with higher pixel density.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I propose you read my post, which simply stated:


Fair point, apologies – I didn't read back far enough. Still, I'm sure you're aware that this question:



unfocused said:


> And, how do you propose to mount two lenses on an APS-C body at the same time?


...was disingenuous at best.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 21, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fair point, apologies – I didn't read back far enough. Still, I'm sure you're aware that this question:
> 
> 
> ...was disingenuous at best.


True, mine was a disingenuous response to a disingenuous response to my original post.


----------



## Chig (Jun 22, 2021)

schaudi said:


> Oi....that could fit on r/ConfidentlyIncorrect....
> *"Advanced Photo System* (*APS*) is a discontinued film format for still photography first produced in 1996." *Wikipedia
> It was the last new film format before digital became a common thing. Reason were in fact the ability to build smaller and cheaper cameras with smaller lenses.
> 
> ...


An RF-s 600mm f/4 wouldn't be any smaller as the front element would still have to be 150mm to get f/4 : that's what f/4 means f= 600mm / 4 = 150mm .
The only part that could be made smaller are the rear elements which would make very little difference .
A freznell element DO version would be a lot shorter and a bit lighter but the front element would still be the same size and that would be much the same crop or full frame.
A bigger aperture 600mm such as f/2.8 would be colossal as 600 / 2.8 = 214mm and insanely expensive and ridiculously heavy whether it was crop or full frame.


----------



## schaudi (Jun 22, 2021)

Chig said:


> An RF-s 600mm f/4 wouldn't be any smaller as the front element would still have to be 150mm to get f/4 : that's what f/4 means f= 600mm / 4 = 150mm .
> The only part that could be made smaller are the rear elements which would make very little difference .
> A freznell element DO version would be a lot shorter and a bit lighter but the front element would still be the same size and that would be much the same crop or full frame.
> A bigger aperture 600mm such as f/2.8 would be colossal as 600 / 2.8 = 214mm and insanely expensive and ridiculously heavy whether it was crop or full frame.


naaa if u want to be really picky - "f/4" doesn't refer to the size of the front element. The F Number refers to the entrance pupil (_effective aperture_) which is >not< the front element (but could be extremely close in a lot of cases, especially on tele lenses). Just take a look at the Ef 35 f/2 for example - the front element is way bigger than 17.5mm. 
Sorry if there was some misunderstanding - of course the difference wouldn't be enormous but still - there would be some. Just compare entry level (no heavy metal L of course) ef lenses with nearly identical ef-s lenses.


----------



## Chig (Jun 23, 2021)

schaudi said:


> naaa if u want to be really picky - "f/4" doesn't refer to the size of the front element. The F Number refers to the entrance pupil (_effective aperture_) which is >not< the front element (but could be extremely close in a lot of cases, especially on tele lenses). Just take a look at the Ef 35 f/2 for example - the front element is way bigger than 17.5mm.
> Sorry if there was some misunderstanding - of course the difference wouldn't be enormous but still - there would be some. Just compare entry level (no heavy metal L of course) ef lenses with nearly identical ef-s lenses.


Ok but the front element is always the same or bigger than the entrance pupil so any weight or size savings would be modest and probably not worth making separate RF-s super telephotos.
I think some RF-s wide angles would be worthwhile though for example 28mm f/2.8 pancake lens


----------



## riker (Jun 25, 2021)

sanj said:


> There are many who want APSC. Canon knows that.


I don't think so. People are given the choice backed up by serious marketing and they take it.
My personal bet for going with APS-C RF would something like attracting more amatures with low price pays off on the long run coz they will end up buying RF lenses, upgrade to FF bodies, etc.
Btw my experience shows that many total beginners, buying their first camera want a dsrl-like body coz it's more "serious", more authentic in being a "real" camera and they think that will help them produce better images. I have no idea even about the concept of changing lenses, but they want a real body. They will never buy an M and if Canon doesn't offer something priced very entry level, they will just choose another brand. It's pure marketing/financial math and has nothing to do with photography technicality (reach or whatever ppl like to say).
Btw there's a reason why 1.3x 1D became FF and there's no 7D since 2014.

APS-C never had anything to do with photography, it was an economical decision (workaround) when FF sensors were still impossible (or at least very expensive) to produce and has all kind of disadvantages from a photography point of view, reach being the only single advantage. That advantage has already degraded considerably due to technological evolution and the introduction of high resolution and high frame rate FF bodies while also cheap FF bodies have arrived.

Canon might decide to squeez in an R7 but it's far from need or wanted.

(Samsung has like ~40 phone models every year while Apple had 1, now 4 or whatever. Samsung probably knows ppl want 40 models while Apple does not know  )


----------



## schaudi (Jun 25, 2021)

riker said:


> I don't think so. People are given the choice backed up by serious marketing and they take it.
> My personal bet for going with APS-C RF would something like attracting more amatures with low price pays off on the long run coz they will end up buying RF lenses, upgrade to FF bodies, etc.
> Btw my experience shows that many total beginners, buying their first camera want a dsrl-like body coz it's more "serious", more authentic in being a "real" camera and they think that will help them produce better images. I have no idea even about the concept of changing lenses, but they want a real body. They will never buy an M and if Canon doesn't offer something priced very entry level, they will just choose another brand. It's pure marketing/financial math and has nothing to do with photography technicality (reach or whatever ppl like to say).
> Btw there's a reason why 1.3x 1D became FF and there's no 7D since 2014.
> ...


And you really thing, people (like birders) who really need that extra reach all the time, will be happy to pay for a R5 or a possibly upcoming R1, which (probably) are the only canons with enough resolution left in cropped mode? R, RP, R6 and probably the R3 (if the rumors are somewhere correct) don't offer much resolution in crop mode. APS-C offers them much more resolution on that smaller image plane and an APS-C Sensor is STILL much cheaper than an FF sensor, so an APS-C Body would be much cheaper as a FF Body with the same functionality. Not only beginners are looking on a price tag - pros do to. 
--> Or short: just because YOU don't see an use in Pro APS-C body, doesn't mean nobody does. 

BTW.: The lifespan of the 7DI was around 5 Years. In 2019, when the 7DII was 5 years old, they already started the R Line. There is no new 5D too since 2016 ... mhm maybe nobody needs a camera like the 5D? Or maybe .... a yes - the R5 was released ....


----------



## riker (Jun 26, 2021)

schaudi said:


> And you really thing, people (like birders) who really need that extra reach all the time, will be happy to pay for a R5 or a possibly upcoming R1, which (probably) are the only canons with enough resolution left in cropped mode? R, RP, R6 and probably the R3 (if the rumors are somewhere correct) don't offer much resolution in crop mode. APS-C offers them much more resolution on that smaller image plane and an APS-C Sensor is STILL much cheaper than an FF sensor, so an APS-C Body would be much cheaper as a FF Body with the same functionality. Not only beginners are looking on a price tag - pros do to.
> --> Or short: just because YOU don't see an use in Pro APS-C body, doesn't mean nobody does.
> 
> BTW.: The lifespan of the 7DI was around 5 Years. In 2019, when the 7DII was 5 years old, they already started the R Line. There is no new 5D too since 2016 ... mhm maybe nobody needs a camera like the 5D? Or maybe .... a yes - the R5 was released ....


Birders, birders, birders. Always the birders. Since there's not a single other application that is worth mentioning. And even that is not correct, maybe the term "amature birders" would do. I do nature photography (birds included) for 20 years now and know quite some professionals, even a world famous one, who has always been specailzed on birds. None of them are using APS-C bodies. They do not need the extra reach since they are sitting in some kind of hideout and attracting birds (water, feeding, etc). They are typically using 70-200 and 200-400 on FF bodies and enjoying better AF, larger viewfinder, sharper image, better DR, lower noise, etc.

Maybe you need to consider how many ppl you are talking about when saying extra reach is needed all the time. My take is that it's a very niche market, probably mostly amature birders who are shooting while walking in the park.
Or short: just because you can find a bunch of ppl who share your attitude of "reach/resolution is never enough", it doesn't necessarily mean justification for global demand.

BTW: Actually the R was pretty much a 5d4 in RF body. Maybe not real upgrade but definitely a body for ppl needing that class. So the 5 series is 2008-2012-2016-(2018)-2020, while 7 is 2009-2014-_nothing_ - that precisely shows the difference in global demand.


----------



## riker (Jun 26, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Imho, I just can't believe this rumor for several reasons.
> 1. the name scheme... R7 makes sense, but R8 and R9 should be reserved for the successors of the R and the RP. If the proposed name schemes was indeed true, Canon would have no numbers left for their "full-frame entry camera" models because R2 & R4 would be extremely misleading... And an R6RP or R6R or whatever is just weird...



I don't think R is going to have a successor. It was an introductory camera to the RF system, wasn't meant to be part of any line that's why it's just an R, no number. Why the RP is not called R10 is beyond me. The ways of the Japanese are just unpredictable. 

I definitely don't want Canon to waste devel resources on RF-S lenses. The world would be so clean and nice with EF-M being APS-C and RF being FF  Plus I would really love to see an ultra-compact yet professional M system which by the way I think is the only chance for compact cameras to survive and not get eaten by phones.


----------



## Chig (Jun 26, 2021)

riker said:


> Birders, birders, birders. Always the birders. Since there's not a single other application that is worth mentioning. And even that is not correct, maybe the term "amature birders" would do. I do nature photography (birds included) for 20 years now and know quite some professionals, even a world famous one, who has always been specailzed on birds. None of them are using APS-C bodies. They do not need the extra reach since they are sitting in some kind of hideout and attracting birds (water, feeding, etc). They are typically using 70-200 and 200-400 on FF bodies and enjoying better AF, larger viewfinder, sharper image, better DR, lower noise, etc.
> 
> Maybe you need to consider how many ppl you are talking about when saying extra reach is needed all the time. My take is that it's a very niche market, probably mostly amature birders who are shooting while walking in the park.
> Or short: just because you can find a bunch of ppl who share your attitude of "reach/resolution is never enough", it doesn't necessarily mean justification for global demand.
> ...


I find it bizarre how upset some people get about the idea of any crop sensor R bodies as if it's in some way going to affect them ? If you prefer full frame great and there are plenty of models available so why get your ''knickers in a twist" ?

There are large numbers of amateur bird shooters and many professionals who do this for a hobby (as it's very difficult to earn a living from this).
Many of us don't like using hides or feeding wild birds and the extra reach is always welcome especially if you want to use lenses that are light enough to handhold like my EF100-400ii rather than ridiculously heavy and expensive super telephotos such as the 600mm f/4
The extra reach isn't just about the bird being far away but also about them being extremely small and it's also great for semi macro for bugs , etc : my 7Dii can get amazing magnification with the EF100-400ii and the working distance is much better than any dedicated macro lens.

All digital cameras other than smartphones are a niche market but companies like Canon , Sony , Nikon , Fujifilm etc seem to think it's still worthwhile to develop new cameras.

If Canon brings out an R7 crop sensor camera I guess you can just _not buy it_ and don't get upset that many others such as myself will buy it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

Chig said:


> I find it bizarre how upset some people get about the idea of any crop sensor R bodies as if it's in some way going to affect them ? If you prefer full frame great and there are plenty of models available so why get your ''knickers in a twist" ?


I find it equally bizarre that people seem to think Canon must provide an ‘upgrade path’ from APS-C to FF that enables APS-C users to buy at least some lenses for their cameras then have them work on FF, or have the ability to use their APS-C image circle lenses on FF.



Chig said:


> There are large numbers of amateur bird shooters and many professionals who do this for a hobby (as it's very difficult to earn a living from this).


Are there, though? Everyone seems to think they are part of the majority. Totally anecdotal, but I only know a handful of bird photographers. I know many birders, but they use binoculars and spotting scopes, not cameras (and look askance at my Canon IS binoculars because they’re not Swarovski or at least Zeiss).

However, history and market share data show that Canon knows their market. They had a semi-upgrade path with EF lenses on APS-C DSLRs and abandoned it with APS-C-to-FF MILCs.

Since the high-end APS-C 7D came out, Canon has released 8 FF DSLRs, 4 mid range (xxD) APS-C DSLRs, and 16 <$1000 APS-C DSLRs. And they’ve released one other high-end APS-C DSLR, the 7DII. What does that say about the relative importance of the high-end APS-C market to Canon?

But there’s hope – there have been 4 high-end FF MILCs and 11 <$1000 APS-C MILCs so far (with a 5th high-end FF MILC about to launch). So based on an approximation from the DSLR releases, perhaps we’re due for a high-end APS-C MILC.

But you should also consider that prior to last year, the longest ‘affordable’ DSLR lens combo with AF support (in recent bodies) was 560mm (100-400 + 1.4x TC), giving a FFeq FoV of 900mm. With the RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses, Canon has provided a way (even cheaper) to get well beyond 900mm on FF 600/800 + 1.4x/2x) with full AF capability.

I’m sure your mind immediately jumps to the idea of a high-end APS-C camera and a 1600mm lens or to a 1.6x crop sensor needing a 1.4x instead of a 2x TC. But Canon’s goal is to maximize profit, and if their data suggest these non-L supertele lenses plus FF MILCs will do that better than a high-end APS-C MILC, then you won’t be seeing the latter any time soon.


----------



## Chig (Jun 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I find it equally bizarre that people seem to think Canon must provide an ‘upgrade path’ from APS-C to FF that enables APS-C users to buy at least some lenses for their cameras then have them work on FF, or have the ability to use their APS-C image circle lenses on FF.
> 
> 
> Are there, though? Everyone seems to think they are part of the majority. Totally anecdotal, but I only know a handful of bird photographers. I know many birders, but they use binoculars and spotting scopes, not cameras (and look askance at my Canon IS binoculars because they’re not Swarovski or at least Zeiss).
> ...


The RF 600 f/11 & 800 f/11 are plastic low end lenses with a minimum focal length of 6m and are not very affordable here in New Zealand at over NZD 2000 for the 800 .
I bought my 100-400ii 2nd hand for $2500 and it's an amazing lens which works well with all EF and RF bodies

The M mount cameras are nice cameras but don't appeal compared to my 7Dii for telephoto use.

The 90D has a much improved sensor compared to the 7Dii but the autofocus is much worse and the build quality is low end.

I was a bit tempted by the R5 as it is probably Canon's best wildlife body but it costs $NZ7000 here and has lower pixel density to my 7Dii so whilst being a better camera the improvements are fairly modest compared with a crop sensor R body

The entire world market for non smartphone cameras is fairly small but a worthwhile percentage of this is birding enthusiasts who spend quite a lot on lenses which have much higher profit margins than cameras.

If Canon choose to put the 90D's sensor into an R6 which would cost very little in terms of R&D and priced it at the same or slightly lower cost it would sell pretty well I think and I would buy one as it would be far superior to any other camera for birding ,etc.

I do hope though that Canon makes a high end crop camera based on the R3 and I'll certainly buy one even though it'll cost at least as much as the R5 . This probably wouldn't sell in huge numbers but neither will the R3 or the R1 however it would be the best camera in the world for wildlife especially small fast moving birds.

Another advantage to a crop sensor R body would be that you could use metabones EF-RF speed booster to use full frame EF lenses with only a slight crop for when you want wide angle and more light gathering.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

Chig said:


> The entire world market for non smartphone cameras is fairly small but a worthwhile percentage of this is birding enthusiasts who spend quite a lot on lenses which have much higher profit margins than cameras.


Do you have the data on the birding enthusiast market size and spending patterns, or a source for them?

It’s funny – I see many people make claims about the size and/or spending patterns of a particular market segment, and somehow those ‘numbers’ always seem to support the idea that Canon should make the product the poster wants. But then, no one can actually produce those data.

Please note, I’m not disputing that birding enthusiasts are a market segment – that would be foolish, as I consider myself to be one. But I have no idea how many buyers comprise it. However, I’m certain Canon has those data. Consider what they ask in a product registration – what you shoot, what other gear you own, what gear you plan to buy, your income and other demographic information. A ton of data for them to leverage when making development decisions.

So we know that Canon has those data, and we know that they’ve launched only two high-end APS-C cameras, ever. That suggests that either it’s not a very important market segment for Canon, or that the 7-series DSLRs are still selling so well there’s no need for an update or a conversion to MILC (and of course Canon knows exactly how many 7D and 7DII units have sold). 

I get the appeal of the 7-series – I used to shoot with a 7D. Then I got a 5DII for better IQ, but continued using the 7D for birds because of the AF and ‘reach’. Then I bought a 1D X, sold the 5DII, but kept the 7D for birds. But comparing the two, the 1D X gave consistently better images, even cropped to match the APS-C framing they were better. I sold the 7D.

Have you used a high-end FF (5DIII or IV or R5, ie a FF body with sufficiently good AF for flying birds)? Personally, I won’t go back to APS-C for anything except casual shooting or a trip where I’m limited to minimal space for gear (for that, I have the EOS M6 and a full set of EF-M lenses from which to choose).


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 27, 2021)

riker said:


> I don't think so. People are given the choice backed up by serious marketing and they take it.
> My personal bet for going with APS-C RF would something like attracting more amatures with low price pays off on the long run coz they will end up buying RF lenses, upgrade to FF bodies, etc.
> Btw my experience shows that many total beginners, buying their first camera want a dsrl-like body coz it's more "serious", more authentic in being a "real" camera and they think that will help them produce better images. I have no idea even about the concept of changing lenses, but they want a real body. They will never buy an M and if Canon doesn't offer something priced very entry level, they will just choose another brand. It's pure marketing/financial math and has nothing to do with photography technicality (reach or whatever ppl like to say).
> Btw there's a reason why 1.3x 1D became FF and there's no 7D since 2014.
> ...


As has been often mentioned, Canon knows the popularity of the higher-end 7D series and since there has been no successor (either DSLR or mirrorless) we can assume the market is not that large. Of course, the market for a 1 series camera is reportedly not that large either, so it may still happen - certainly niche cameras are being made and sold. What I do know is that after 40 years as an enthusiast (and making an occasional sale) I use my crop cameras far more than my FF one. If I see an animal nearby, I reach for my crop camera, not my FF. If I take pictures of flowers (one of my main subjects) I use my M4/3rds or my new Nikon Z50 (yes, I switched while waiting for Canon to make a APS-C R camera) almost all the time. So reach is not just for birds. It's for flowers, dogs, rabbits, etc. as well. (Go take your FF camera into your neighbors flower garden and then ask yourself it might not be better to get a camera with more reach).

Yes, camera companies started with crop cameras when they went to digital due to the high cost and difficulties making larger sensors. But to say that APS-C never had anything to do with photography is silly. Reach can be a major aspect of someone's photography (as well as the greater DOF). And it is still is an economical decision - for the buyers of cameras. Every time I have looked of late, the best selling cameras on Amazon are almost all crop (last time I checked there were 16 crop cameras (including duplicates in various kits) and 3 FF cameras in the top 50 digital cameras (only 1 FF in the top 10). My guess is that the vast majority of camera sales are still crop. If I'm a colllege student interested in my first real camera - or a parent looking for a real camera to get pics of my kid playing sports, I'm choosing the $400-$600 camera not the $1200 (or much more) camera.

Just to summarize, why an APS-C (or even M4/3rds) camera?

1) More reach for nearly all everyday subjects as well as birds and wildlife. Yes, I could get a high MP FF camera, but...
2) Crop cameras can be had for much cheaper, especially if I want a comparable number of pixels on target.
3) I don't have to crop all the pics that I would have to crop on a FF camera.
4) Since I don't have to crop (as much) I am much more likely to get the composition I want, as I can see my exact composition in the viewfinder and don't have to "estimate" the composition based on the post processing crop. 

As someone who has used various camera systems over the years, I have no problem understanding the advantages of FF. So, it seems strange to me that so many FF users can't seem to understand the advantages of a crop camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Crop cameras can be had for much cheaper,


You had the key reason for the popularity of APS-C right there. All that stuff about reach is lipstick on a pig.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> [..]Just to summarize, why an APS-C (or even M4/3rds) camera?
> 
> 1) More reach for nearly all everyday subjects as well as birds and wildlife. Yes, I could get a high MP FF camera, but...
> 2) Crop cameras can be had for much cheaper, especially if I want a comparable number of pixels on target.
> ...


I agree with your points, but I have to point out that the crop mode in the R5 is an in-camera crop: the EVF shows the resulting crop and a 17MP picture is saved to the card. So 3. and 4. are already handled. It doesn't address the other points, the €4500 R5 has less pixels in crop mode than my €1300 7D. But much better pixels, ISO6400 in the R5 is more useable than ISO400 on the 7D


----------



## riker (Jun 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> As has been often mentioned, Canon knows the popularity of the higher-end 7D series and since there has been no successor (either DSLR or mirrorless) we can assume the market is not that large. Of course, the market for a 1 series camera is reportedly not that large either, so it may still happen - certainly niche cameras are being made and sold. What I do know is that after 40 years as an enthusiast (and making an occasional sale) I use my crop cameras far more than my FF one. If I see an animal nearby, I reach for my crop camera, not my FF. If I take pictures of flowers (one of my main subjects) I use my M4/3rds or my new Nikon Z50 (yes, I switched while waiting for Canon to make a APS-C R camera) almost all the time. So reach is not just for birds. It's for flowers, dogs, rabbits, etc. as well. (Go take your FF camera into your neighbors flower garden and then ask yourself it might not be better to get a camera with more reach).
> 
> Yes, camera companies started with crop cameras when they went to digital due to the high cost and difficulties making larger sensors. But to say that APS-C never had anything to do with photography is silly. Reach can be a major aspect of someone's photography (as well as the greater DOF). And it is still is an economical decision - for the buyers of cameras. Every time I have looked of late, the best selling cameras on Amazon are almost all crop (last time I checked there were 16 crop cameras (including duplicates in various kits) and 3 FF cameras in the top 50 digital cameras (only 1 FF in the top 10). My guess is that the vast majority of camera sales are still crop. If I'm a colllege student interested in my first real camera - or a parent looking for a real camera to get pics of my kid playing sports, I'm choosing the $400-$600 camera not the $1200 (or much more) camera.
> 
> ...


Well...what can I say...I disagree with almost every sentence but all I could do is repeat myself.
The introduction of crop sensors was purely economical decision to overcome production challenges 20+ years ago and had nothing to do with photography itself, meaning it was not developed to gain advantage (reach being the only single one) in making pictures. Period. I'm not saying you are silly, just not knowing historical facts (which have been mentioned by other forum members as well).
Saying that greater DOF is an advantage though is pretty silly. It's one of the greatest disadvantages in most cases.
Btw macro photography was exactly one of the fields where I felt a huge positive change when I switched from crop to FF and I was using all kinds of lenses for macro - MP-E65, 100/2.8, 180/3.5, 300/2.8+1.4X.


----------



## riker (Jun 27, 2021)

Chig said:


> I find it bizarre how upset some people get about the idea of any crop sensor R bodies as if it's in some way going to affect them ? If you prefer full frame great and there are plenty of models available so why get your ''knickers in a twist" ?
> 
> There are large numbers of amateur bird shooters and many professionals who do this for a hobby (as it's very difficult to earn a living from this).
> Many of us don't like using hides or feeding wild birds and the extra reach is always welcome especially if you want to use lenses that are light enough to handhold like my EF100-400ii rather than ridiculously heavy and expensive super telephotos such as the 600mm f/4
> ...





Chig said:


> I find it bizarre how upset some people get about the idea of any crop sensor R bodies as if it's in some way going to affect them ? If you prefer full frame great and there are plenty of models available so why get your ''knickers in a twist" ?
> 
> There are large numbers of amateur bird shooters and many professionals who do this for a hobby (as it's very difficult to earn a living from this).
> Many of us don't like using hides or feeding wild birds and the extra reach is always welcome especially if you want to use lenses that are light enough to handhold like my EF100-400ii rather than ridiculously heavy and expensive super telephotos such as the 600mm f/4
> ...


Why is it so hard to see that Canon's vision for the future, their direction in development, creation of product lines, etc affects everyone?

Btw macro photography was exactly one of the fields where I felt a huge positive change when I switched from crop to FF and I was using all kinds of lenses for macro - MP-E65, 100/2.8, 180/3.5, 300/2.8+1.4X. Plus the above positive experience accounts to the new 100-400ii which has great closest focusing distance. You could have not done it with the first generation. In the meantime for nice macro, shallow DoF is can be very important which is much harder to achieve on APS-C.

Sidenote, I missed to mention something very important regarding APS-C - as a system it is pretty crippled since it was created. There's no proper lens selection until today. Of course 100-400ii is heavy and expensive, it was never developed for APS-C. You are carrying a lens which creates FF images, and then you take a cropped body and capture only half of the light, the rest just falls off. Not an ideal investment. To me, the concept of paying for low aperture L lenses (or actually any kind of FF lenses) and then using them on crop bodies (which I did for years) is very frustrating.


----------



## Chig (Jun 27, 2021)

riker said:


> Why is it so hard to see that Canon's vision for the future, their direction in development, creation of product lines, etc affects everyone?
> 
> Btw macro photography was exactly one of the fields where I felt a huge positive change when I switched from crop to FF and I was using all kinds of lenses for macro - MP-E65, 100/2.8, 180/3.5, 300/2.8+1.4X. Plus the above positive experience accounts to the new 100-400ii which has great closest focusing distance. You could have not done it with the first generation. In the meantime for nice macro, shallow DoF is can be very important which is much harder to achieve on APS-C.
> 
> Sidenote, I missed to mention something very important regarding APS-C - as a system it is pretty crippled since it was created. There's no proper lens selection until today. Of course 100-400ii is heavy and expensive, it was never developed for APS-C. You are carrying a lens which creates FF images, and then you take a cropped body and capture only half of the light, the rest just falls off. Not an ideal investment. To me, the concept of paying for low aperture L lenses (or actually any kind of FF lenses) and then using them on crop bodies (which I did for years) is very frustrating.


Well for macro shallow depth of field is one of the biggest problems so crop cameras are an advantage with this.

If you use a FF camera with a telephoto lens and crop it to match the crop factor of an APS-C then what is the advantage ?

If Canon made an aps-c version of say a EF 600 f/4 the size of the lens would be almost identical as the front element would still have to be at least 150mm for f/4 and only the elements at the camera end would be very slightly smaller so you might shave 5-10% off the weight if you're lucky.

My 100-400 ii is plenty light enough for me to handhold for hours and if I was using it with a 5D mark iv camera for example (which is 2 years more recent) I would have to crop the image heavily to wind up with a much lower resolution image and that camera's af system and fps is not as good as my 7Dii
Overall I'm really happy with my EF100-400ii and also my old EF300 f/2.8 and they work really well with my 7Dii

I could spend NZD 7000 on a R5 and it would be an improvement on my old 7Dii but I'd much rather buy a new crop sensor R7 based on the R6 for example and get a much bigger improvement in performance for a lot less money.


----------



## Chig (Jun 27, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I agree with your points, but I have to point out that the crop mode in the R5 is an in-camera crop: the EVF shows the resulting crop and a 17MP picture is saved to the card. So 3. and 4. are already handled. It doesn't address the other points, the €4500 R5 has less pixels in crop mode than my €1300 7D. But much better pixels, ISO6400 in the R5 is more useable than ISO400 on the 7D


The R5 would be an improvement over my 7Dii but a crop sensor version of the R6 with say the 90D's 32.5 mp sensor would be a much bigger improvement at a much lower price point.

A crop sensor version of the R3 would be the best birding camera ever made and even if it cost the same as the R3 I'd buy it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

Chig said:


> Well for macro shallow depth of field is one of the biggest problems so crop cameras are an advantage with this.


A sadly common misconception. DoF is determined by primarily by aperture and subject distance. The DoF is deeper with a smaller sensor only if to match framing you move the camera further away. The lens MFD determines maximum magnification, so 1:1 is the same subject distance regardless of the sensor size.

If you are shooting APS-C vs FF at the same subject distance (e.g. 1:1 with both cameras) the DoF is actually very slightly _shallower_ with the smaller sensor (that’s because of the smaller sensor has a smaller circle of confusion, but if you don’t understand that the main factors affecting DoF are aperture and subject distance, let’s not confuse the issue with the CoC).

The bottom line is that your stated ‘advantage’ of deeper DoF for macro only applies if you’re comparing a FF image with an APS-C image shot at lower magnification. If your goal is maximum magnification, crop cameras offer no advantage in terms of DoF (they just frame a smaller area at that magnification).

Like @riker, I find FF to be much better for macro than APS-C. I asked earlier if you’d used a FF camera for birds, you didn’t answer. Have you used one for macro? Or just regular photography? I’m not saying this is true for you, but I have found that many of those touting particular advantages for APS-C sensors have never actually used a FF camera and compared them. In practice, I find APS-C offers only two advantages. Those advantages are lower cost and a smaller system size. Both are real, meaningful advantages, but they have nothing directly to do with the images they produce. If image quality is your goal, FF wins (and MF wins even more).


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> [..]
> 
> Like @riker, I find FF to be much better for macro than APS-C. I asked earlier if you’d used a FF camera for birds, you didn’t answer. Have you used one for macro? Or just regular photography? I’m not saying this is true for you, but I have found that many of those touting particular advantages for APS-C sensors have never actually used a FF camera and compared them. In practice, I find APS-C offers only two advantages. Those advantages are lower cost and a smaller system size. Both are real, meaningful advantages, but they have nothing directly to do with the images they produce. If image quality is your goal, FF wins (and MF wins even more).


For ‘true’ macro I experienced the same thing, but for full body dragon and damselfly shot I find myself wanting more pixels, 32MP APS-C would be great for that specific use case. 
For 1:1 or better, using the RP with the MP-E was a revelation, I could suddenly fit a full paper wasp in the frame! The images also felt sharper and more detailed, but that might be placebo effect.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> You had the key reason for the popularity of APS-C right there. All that stuff about reach is lipstick on a pig.


Maybe lipstick on a pig for you. Maybe true for all the folks here who say things like, "Just buy an R5 with it's 45 MP. Cropping gives you 17 MP and that's about the same as a crop camera." Well, I don't have an R5 nor can I afford one. For the cameras and lenses I have, the crop camera gives me better results. Not saying that has to be your experience. But just wondering 3why FF camera users are so arrogant that they believe their experience and their equipment are available and affordable to everyone. I have gone birding with my Olympus E-m1 II and their 100-400 lens. I also have gone birding with an R6 and Canon's EF 100-400. I have twice the reach with my Olympus and had far more keepers. That was my experience, why is that not acceptable to FF users?

Can it be that FF users get annoyed when someone comes along as says they get better results with a camera they bought for $800 when they spent nearly $4000? Naw, that can't be it!


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 27, 2021)

riker said:


> Well...what can I say...I disagree with almost every sentence but all I could do is repeat myself.
> The introduction of crop sensors was purely economical decision to overcome production challenges 20+ years ago and had nothing to do with photography itself, meaning it was not developed to gain advantage (reach being the only single one) in making pictures. Period. I'm not saying you are silly, just not knowing historical facts (which have been mentioned by other forum members as well).
> Saying that greater DOF is an advantage though is pretty silly. It's one of the greatest disadvantages in most cases.
> Btw macro photography was exactly one of the fields where I felt a huge positive change when I switched from crop to FF and I was using all kinds of lenses for macro - MP-E65, 100/2.8, 180/3.5, 300/2.8+1.4X.


I know the historical facts quite well. You taught me nothing I did not know.

Greater DOF can be either an advantage or a disadvantage. I don't do portaits or have much need for shallow DOF. I do a lot of landscapes and flowers, and in actual use (not theory) I need more DOF and crop is an advantage. Sorry that my experience does not match yours. Clearly, we do not use our camera for the same types of photography. Why do you not accept that?


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> A sadly common misconception. DoF is determined by primarily by aperture and subject distance. The DoF is deeper with a smaller sensor only if to match framing you move the camera further away. The lens MFD determines maximum magnification, so 1:1 is the same subject distance regardless of the sensor size.
> 
> If you are shooting APS-C vs FF at the same subject distance (e.g. 1:1 with both cameras) the DoF is actually very slightly _shallower_ with the smaller sensor (that’s because of the smaller sensor has a smaller circle of confusion, but if you don’t understand that the main factors affecting DoF are aperture and subject distance, let’s not confuse the issue with the CoC).
> 
> ...


The advantage with crop over FF is that you don't have to shoot at the same distance - you can shoot from farther away. So, yes, same distance FF adavantage. Need more distance, crop advantage. Yes, I have shot both.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 27, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I agree with your points, but I have to point out that the crop mode in the R5 is an in-camera crop: the EVF shows the resulting crop and a 17MP picture is saved to the card. So 3. and 4. are already handled. It doesn't address the other points, the €4500 R5 has less pixels in crop mode than my €1300 7D. But much better pixels, ISO6400 in the R5 is more useable than ISO400 on the 7D


Yes, the crop mode in an FF camera takes care of some of the points. The main point is that many foolks - perhaps most - cannot afford a high MP ff camera like the R5. My crop cameras cost me between $600 and $800 US used. Let me know when the R5 costs the same!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> Maybe lipstick on a pig for you. Maybe true for all the folks here who say things like, "Just buy an R5 with it's 45 MP. Cropping gives you 17 MP and that's about the same as a crop camera." Well, I don't have an R5 nor can I afford one. For the cameras and lenses I have, the crop camera gives me better results. Not saying that has to be your experience. But just wondering 3why FF camera users are so arrogant that they believe their experience and their equipment are available and affordable to everyone. I have gone birding with my Olympus E-m1 II and their 100-400 lens. I also have gone birding with an R6 and Canon's EF 100-400. I have twice the reach with my Olympus and had far more keepers. That was my experience, why is that not acceptable to FF users?


Thanks for supporting my point that cost is one of the two APS-C advantages. As I said, it’s a real and meaningful advantage. The APS-C camera you can afford will yield infinitely better images than the FF camera you cannot afford.

I have shot with the 7D with a 100-400, and with the 1D X with a 600/4 II. The latter produces far superior results, but it costs and weighs far more. If I couldn’t afford or carry the FF + supertele, the APS-C + telezoom would be a better choice.



Czardoom said:


> Can it be that FF users get annoyed when someone comes along as says I get better results with a camera they bought for $600 when they spent nearly $4000? Naw, that can't be it!


Can it be that those who have a $600 camera and cannot afford to buy a camera for nearly $4000 are a wee bit jealous of those who can? Naw, that can't be it!




Czardoom said:


> The main point is that many foolks - perhaps most - cannot afford a high MP ff camera like the R5. My crop camera cost me $600 US.


Gee, perhaps that could be it, after all!

But seriously, stepping back a bit… As far as ‘better’ pictures go, that’s really in the hands and eye of the photographer. Empirically, a FF camera will yield technically better results, albeit at higher cost. Likewise, when ‘more reach’ is needed a supertele lens paired with a FF camera will deliver technically superior results compared to a consumer or L-type telezoom paired with a crop sensor. That’s just physics, and no matter how hard you argue against physics, physics is going to win, every single time. 

However, superior from a technical standpoint doesn’t mean a ‘better picture’. There are photographers that can use an iPhone 4 to take better pictures than either of us. From that perspective, crop vs. FF and 100-400 vs 600/4 are all just lipstick on pigs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> The advantage with crop over FF is that you don't have to shoot at the same distance - you can shoot from farther away. So, yes, same distance FF adavantage. Need more distance, crop advantage. Yes, I have shot both.


Then you can just as easily move the FF camera further away to get more DoF. Plus, you can stop the lens down further on the FF sensor to match the DoF of crop without losing as much sharpness to diffraction, and raise the ISO to maintain shutter speed if needed, without additional noise.

Basically, a FF sensor can do what a crop sensor can do, and more.

If you want to make a valid argument here, you should point out that currently available crop sensors have higher pixel density that currently available FF sensors. So if you’re taking a picture of something so small that you cannot achieve sufficient optical magnification, that could be an advantage. Of course, I’d then simply argue that you need more optical magnification and that plus FF would give better results. If 1x with a standard macro isn’t enough, there’s the MP-E 65 that goes to 5x (or 10x with a 2x TC). Personally, if that’s not enough magnification then I attach my FF camera to my Zeiss Stemi DV-4 stereomicroscope, which gives me 20x up to 80x magnification.

So we’re back to system cost and system size as the only _real_ APS-C advantages. Physics!


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So we’re back to system cost and system size as the only _real_ APS-C advantages. Physics!


I would also add file storage size and image post-processing time.
I love my R5. It's a joy to use and produces beautiful results. I primarily focus on small wildlife and I shoot in many reach-limited situations because I do most of my shooting while on long walks, and carrying anything heavier would be too much.
There are many times where I would have liked to see 30MP on my subject instead of 17MP.
In a day of shooting I often take hundreds or thousands of photos. If my only option to do get 30MP on a subject is to buy an 80-100MP camera and crop it down, then I will wind up with thousands of enormous files that my computer takes ages to display and process. Culling would be a never-ending nightmare! I would prefer personally to have a high quality 30+MP APS-C sensor with R5 or R3 specs to use as a second body. This has nothing to do with cost or size, but would work best for how I shoot, what I shoot, and the time that I spend post-processing those photos.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I would also add file storage size and image post-processing time.
> I love my R5. It's a joy to use and produces beautiful results. I primarily focus on small wildlife and I shoot in many reach-limited situations because I do most of my shooting while on long walks, and carrying anything heavier would be too much.
> There are many times where I would have liked to see 30MP on my subject instead of 17MP.
> In a day of shooting I often take hundreds or thousands of photos. If my only option to do get 30MP on a subject is to buy an 80-100MP camera and crop it down, then I will wind up with thousands of enormous files that my computer takes ages to display and process. Culling would be a never-ending nightmare! I would prefer personally to have a high quality 30+MP APS-C sensor with R5 or R3 specs to use as a second body. This has nothing to do with cost or size, but would work best for how I shoot, what I shoot, and the time that I spend post-processing those photos.


I disagree, those are specious advantages. If you routinely need to crop, then you need a longer lens. Granted, not everyone can afford and/or carry an expensive, heavy supertele lens. Cost and size.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 28, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> If my only option to do get 30MP on a subject is to buy an 80-100MP camera and crop it down, then I will wind up with thousands of enormous files that my computer takes ages to display and process. Culling would be a never-ending nightmare! I would prefer personally to have a high quality 30+MP APS-C sensor with R5 or R3 specs to use as a second body. This has nothing to do with cost or size, but would work best for how I shoot, what I shoot, and the time that I spend post-processing those photos.



You forget that such a camera might do an in-camera crop just like the R5 does in crop mode, saving you from the monster files.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 28, 2021)

SteveC said:


> You forget that such a camera might do an in-camera crop just like the R5 does in crop mode, saving you from the monster files.


No, I don't! I would not buy a 100MP camera and _only_ use it in crop mode.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I disagree, those are specious advantages. If you routinely need to crop, then you need a longer lens. Granted, not everyone can afford and/or carry an expensive, heavy supertele lens. Cost and size.


Reach limitations can be solved by a different body or a different lens. At just under 10lbs, my current birding lens+body+grip combo is at the upper limit of what I feel comfortable hiking with. _For me_, improving reach with a different body is more practical than improving reach with a longer lens, until Canon starts making lighter weight ones. I do not _need_ a longer lens. In fact, a longer lens would prevent me from doing the photography that I enjoy. 
Since I would prefer a high-spec APSC camera, I would not be asking for a body with lower cost or smaller size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Reach limitations can be solved by a different body or a different lens. At just under 10lbs, my current birding lens+body+grip combo is at the upper limit of what I feel comfortable hiking with. _For me_, improving reach with a different body is more practical than improving reach with a longer lens, until Canon starts making lighter weight ones. I do not _need_ a longer lens. In fact, a longer lens would prevent me from doing the photography that I enjoy.
> Since I would prefer a high-spec APSC camera, I would not be asking for a body with lower cost or smaller size.


Exactly. Your smaller sensor enables you to bring a smaller/lighter lens. Still about size (as I said – system size, i.e., camera plus lens(es), not just camera size). 

You’re trading image quality for size. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s why I have and use cameras and lenses from the EOS M line.

What I take issue with is the claim that the smaller sensor is producing the same or better image quality in an absolute sense.

There’s always a compromise, there is no free lunch.


----------



## Chig (Jun 28, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do you have the data on the birding enthusiast market size and spending patterns, or a source for them?
> 
> It’s funny – I see many people make claims about the size and/or spending patterns of a particular market segment, and somehow those ‘numbers’ always seem to support the idea that Canon should make the product the poster wants. But then, no one can actually produce those data.
> 
> ...


Canon went to a lot of effort and expense to develop _eye autofocus for birds_ which perhaps means they think there are a lot of bird photographers .
It's easy to see why they developed eye AF for people and cats and dogs but why birds unless they think a lot of people want this ?
If so they may well be planning an R mount 7Dii replacement.


----------



## Chig (Jun 28, 2021)

riker said:


> Birders, birders, birders. Always the birders. Since there's not a single other application that is worth mentioning. And even that is not correct, maybe the term "amature birders" would do. I do nature photography (birds included) for 20 years now and know quite some professionals, even a world famous one, who has always been specailzed on birds. None of them are using APS-C bodies. They do not need the extra reach since they are sitting in some kind of hideout and attracting birds (water, feeding, etc). They are typically using 70-200 and 200-400 on FF bodies and enjoying better AF, larger viewfinder, sharper image, better DR, lower noise, etc.
> 
> Maybe you need to consider how many ppl you are talking about when saying extra reach is needed all the time. My take is that it's a very niche market, probably mostly amature birders who are shooting while walking in the park.
> Or short: just because you can find a bunch of ppl who share your attitude of "reach/resolution is never enough", it doesn't necessarily mean justification for global demand.
> ...


Canon went to a lot of effort and expense to develop _eye autofocus for birds_ which perhaps means they think there are a lot of bird photographers .
It's easy to see why they developed eye AF for people and cats and dogs but why birds unless they think a lot of people want this ?
If so they may well be planning an R mount 7Dii replacement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2021)

Chig said:


> Canon went to a lot of effort and expense to develop _eye autofocus for birds_ which perhaps means they think there are a lot of bird photographers .
> It's easy to see why they developed eye AF for people and cats and dogs but why birds unless they think a lot of people want this ?
> If so they may well be planning an R mount 7Dii replacement.


Good point. Apparently there are skis a lot of car and motorcycle racing photographers. Who knew??


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 28, 2021)

I was at the pond at slightly the wrong time: not much flying dragons around, but also no resting ones. I did find a dragonfly exuvium, the first one this season. Lots of damselfly exuvia, but very few dragonfly husks.




The wind blew it away while I was attaching a 1:1 macro lens, so a phone picture will have to do


----------



## SteveC (Jun 28, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> No, I don't! I would not buy a 100MP camera and _only_ use it in crop mode.


Um, you were just complaining that you didn't want to buy such a camera and crop because the files would be too large. Well, they wouldn't be, if you used it in crop mode, so that complaint is off-base.

Now your real complaint is if you had it, you'd not use it in crop mode anyway? SMH


----------



## SteveC (Jul 19, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> I'm not sure about the other two bodies that are rumoured, but an R7 would be consistent with the numbering for Canon's pro-level APS-C flagship models -7D MkI and II.
> 
> I would have thought something like an R70 and an R700 for the consumer units would make sense to those of us around the parts of the world where Canon used a number system of : xxxxD units for the lowest end, xxxxD for consumer units (equivalent to the Rebel series in the US), XXD for enthusiast units and XD for prosumer and professional units.



I assume you meant xxxD for consumer units (three Xs). 

Rebels actually can be either three or four digit models, generally a plain Rebel (like my old Rebel T3, stolen 3 years ago by thieves who ignored the 100mm macro lens worth at least three times as much--I hope they enjoyed the 18-55mm kit lens) was a four digit model, but if it has the "i" at the end (like my current Rebel T6i, now dedicated to the copy stand), it's a three digit model.



Tronhard said:


> What might be better than that legacy numbering system would be using the MkI, MkII etc progression instead of going up in numbers, as they did with the 400D ... 900D consumer units and then ran out of numbers, as the 1000 numbers had already been allocated to other model series. The same thing happened to the enthusiast body numbers EOS 10D... 90D could not use the 100D ID because that was already taken!


I don't disagree. Maybe they finally went totally mirrorless when they ran out of two digit numbers.

Alternatively they could use the second digit for small improvements (e.g., go from 40 to 41), and only advance the first digit if they really think that qualitatively it's a new model.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> They are the cheapest of the line. I absolutely agree that the numbering of the EOS M series, for example, appeared totally random. It would be helpful if they had a global numbering system that was not limited to specific digital ranges but used numbers for units with variations of MkI etc.


The high-end models use one nomenclature. There’s only one 5D Mark IV, only one 90D. Lower end models are marketed to a mass audience, I don’t see Kiss selling well as a moniker in the US, or Rebel selling well in Japan.

As for where you go after the 90D, well how about 95D then 100D? But wait, you say, there’s already a 100D. That’s what I said when I wondered what new model would replace my S95.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 20, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> Canon have marketed the lower end models with a number of region-specific names, which I (and many others who are not specific to one region) find unnecessarily confusing. In the US there is the Rebel (number T (confusing suffix), which is given a Kiss designation in Japan and some other Asian countries, while for the rest of the world it is ether a XXXXD or XXXD name. I accept the Rebel name has a historical association of marketing with Agassi, but since we have moved on from that it, in a global market it would make sense to have one naming convention for the R range. Using a XRMk?? seems to be the most logical to me.


Emphatically agree, for your reasons as well as the fact that sometimes we here in the States (where it's Rebel T_n_+possible suffix) sometimes see documentation that proudly proclaims the three digit model number and have no idea that's for our camera. Or that it's NOT for our camera, since they sometimes put pages that say things like "EOS-760D only" in our manuals. It turns out the 760D is the Rebel T6s (higher end rebel with a top LCD of all things), and 750D is the Rebel T6i (midgrade but vastly superior to (and higher resolution than) the T6), but you have to go to the internet to find that out. At least the 1200 (T6--I think that's the right number) didn't end up in that manual as well.

The 4000 you mention appears to be distinct from the low end Rebels' equivalent numbering scheme, which is four digits but two significant figures.

Recalling the international audience here I try to remember to put 750D in parentheses when I mention my T6i.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Emphatically agree, for your reasons as well as the fact that sometimes we here in the States (where it's Rebel T_n_+possible suffix) sometimes see documentation that proudly proclaims the three digit model number and have no idea that's for our camera. Or that it's NOT for our camera, since they sometimes put pages that say things like "EOS-760D only" in our manuals. It turns out the 760D is the Rebel T6s (higher end rebel with a top LCD of all things), and 750D is the Rebel T6i (midgrade but vastly superior to (and higher resolution than) the T6), but you have to go to the internet to find that out. At least the 1200 (T6--I think that's the right number) didn't end up in that manual as well.
> 
> The 4000 you mention appears to be distinct from the low end Rebels' equivalent numbering scheme, which is four digits but two significant figures.
> 
> Recalling the international audience here I try to remember to put 750D in parentheses when I mention my T6i.


Me, too. For example, my first DSLR was a T1i/500D (and the latter is the name of a close-up lens). I recall that the Rebel XS / 1000D was a contemporary of the XSi / 450D, and those came after the XT / 350D. XT before the XS? Illogical, IMO. 

At the time, I suspect most people were buying at a camera shop (where they’d likely find the XSi) or Costco/Target (where they’d likely find the XS), so the confusion is probably less than it appears through the lens of history.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 20, 2021)

Might be easier if they just said: $450 model, $500 model, $550 model, $600 model etc., as that is how most people decide to buy them anyway.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 20, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> I must say that even without the complications of the EF-M mount list, it looks incredibly over-complicated...


 Well the M series is totally and completely separate (and also confusing just on its own terms). The M numbering might as well be a different brand for all the relationship it has to the EF (not M) series.


----------



## neonlight (Dec 21, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I would not be surprised if the R7 came with a crop mode to bring the aspect ratio in line with 4/3 cameras.


I would. I'm pretty sure they'd keep the 1.5:1 aspect ratio. Why would an APS-C shooter want 4/3 aspect ratio?


----------



## neonlight (Dec 21, 2021)

I hope the R7 will be the R version of the non-existent 7DIII. 
While I have no idea how Canon choose their designations I'd have expected the 90D to become an R10 and the XXX range an R100 so that gives a similar upgrade path to the EF ranges.
However, wanting to move to FF (I was all ready to get a 5DIV) the R6/R5 route seems possible.
But with an R6 I would need a new UWA lens as the crop mode is lo res , and probably the longer lenses too as the pixels are larger. Maybe stretch to a 100-500.
With an R5 I might just be able to keep the 10-22 in crop mode and save a bit initially. But still need the 100-500. 
So an R7 would be ideal starter for me if it had, say, 24MP BIS for low noise. Oh, and eye focus selection as a BIF unit.


----------



## steen-ag (Dec 22, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> Good point - serious question: does the R5 offer a crop mode? Didn't know that. My 5D4 doesn't have this option, only the aspect ration can be changed, 1:1 is the smallest image you can pre-select. Anyway, I guess an R7 as a real 7D successor should be a fast camera settled below half the prize of an R5 and - hopefully - offer everything I need for birding. For FF, I still am happy with my 5D4.


The R5 with an EFs lens you have 18Mp and 20 pic/sec


----------

