# It’s been a while, but an APS-C equipped EOS R body gets another mention [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 24, 2020)

> Ever since the Canon EOS R was announced, one of the big questions was whether or not we’d see an APS-C equipped EOS R to replace the EOS 7D Mark II, or if that sensor size would be left for the EOS M line.
> A good source tells us that such a camera is in active development at Canon, but likely won’t see the light of day until 2021. More lenses in the RF lineup are a priority over an APS-C body we have been told, but that there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses developed for a smaller sensor EOS R camera body.
> This is the first we’ve heard about such a camera body in a long while, and I do think we’ll eventually see one as a performance model, and not “entry-level”.
> There’s not much new here, but I’m glad it gets another mention.



Continue reading...


----------



## amorse (Jan 24, 2020)

I did not expect that!

Current 7DII users:


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 24, 2020)

amorse said:


> I did not expect that!
> 
> Current 7DII users:



It'll be a rebel/kiss/xxxD


----------



## amorse (Jan 24, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> It'll be a rebel/kiss/xxxD


Do you have a source which suggests it'll be an entry-level body? The rumour suggests it could be a performance model. I'm more inclined to believe it'll be a performance model than bargain basement body - if they're not going to design crop sensor lenses for RF (as the rumour suggests), then nearly any lens you put on this body is going to cost more than the body itself. They may not be able to get the price of this camera/lens down to a palatable point for a rebel/kiss/xxxD series body.


----------



## Josjan (Jan 24, 2020)

Is this the same shit as 7d mark III rumors


----------



## slclick (Jan 24, 2020)

Well, this is a distraction from the card slot and lower than RP body chit chat...


----------



## Philrp (Jan 24, 2020)

I never believed Canon would give up this segment of the market. At least not until technology and pricing make it possible to have a full featured body with a full frame sensor at the 2k'ish price point.

I still want my 1D features at a price I can afford, and the sensor is a comprise i'm willing to make.

IMHO, R will never be entry level. Crop or not.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 24, 2020)

amorse said:


> Do you have a source which suggests it'll be an entry-level body? The rumour suggests it could be a performance model. I'm more inclined to believe it'll be a performance model than bargain basement body - if they're not going to design crop sensor lenses for RF (as the rumour suggests), then nearly any lens you put on this body is going to cost more than the body itself. They may not be able to get the price of this camera/lens down to a palatable point for a rebel/kiss/xxxD series body.



I do not not have a source. I am basing this on the speculation that the entry level bodies sell better and don't need a spectacular AF and viewfinder that a 7d body would need. I think sports people might want a very low latency view finder, the one on the R felt like it was a little behind the subject.


----------



## amorse (Jan 24, 2020)

slclick said:


> Well, this is a distraction from the card slot and lower than RP body chit chat...


I'll take it


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 24, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I do not not have a source. I am basing this on the speculation that the entry level bodies sell better and don't need a spectacular AF and viewfinder that a 7d body would need. I think sports people might want a very low latency view finder, the one on the R felt like it was a little behind the subject.


EVF latency is an implementation issue and not an immutable characteristic of the R mount line of bodies. It would make more sense to me to differentiate the M line from future potential APS-C R bodies by very high frame rates and low latency EVF for fast action like BIF and sports. This group currently feels left out of the R revolution.


----------



## mangobutter (Jan 24, 2020)

I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.


----------



## amorse (Jan 24, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.


I don't know; even knowing the EF-M will never be a pathway to R, I've still be looking at an M6II as a really good potential option for a minimalist camera setup I can keep with me or use on very long hikes. I don't know how small an RF lens can get, so I'm not sure that the RF mount bodies will be able to create as truly small of a camera kit as EF-M. My biggest hesitation, as you mention, has been lens selection - though I'm not convinced that there's no niche there. I don't see the M series ever being considered flagship competitors, but for size conscious users it's still a good option I think.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 24, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.



What are you smoking?!


----------



## diegopisante (Jan 24, 2020)

If we look at it with a wide view, Canon is planning something big, they learn from the past and from rivals, in the past come first 35mm lenses, than when digital comes in with also crop factor new lenses are needed for that purpose because the smaller mirror whan, now they have a RF mount to explore and they will do the opposite of Sony, first flooding the market with RF lenses than bringing new cameras.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 24, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> EVF latency is an implementation issue and not an immutable characteristic of the R mount line of bodies.


If one needs an expensive EVF, they may as well get an expensive sensor too.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 24, 2020)

Really hoping for it to be true along with release of RF 100mm Macro(for start). Also this camera will come with Dual card slots.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

I'm of two minds here.

If they did this, it's not just fan service to the 7D3-wanting crowd that would fuel this. Think about an RF mount crop-sensored mirrorless Rebel in 3-5 years -- I'm serious. Now that we think (or know?) that adapting EF-M to RF will never happen, there isn't the step-up option for EF-M to RF. One solution to that would be to offer a bare bones and small RF mount body with a crop sensor on the cheap. The pros for Canon are pretty clear if they did this:

Only have to keep one type of mount in production
EF-S and EF-M would go away over time and all they'd build down the road would be RF lenses
Customers starting on the low end with some RF Rebel would never have a financial lens mountain to climb to step up to a larger sensor. They'd just keep using their RF kit glass.
The cons are pretty rough, though:

RIP crop OVF. I would presume doing this would herald the end of the 90D and 7D2 type cameras.
It creates a basic lens size/cost problem for Canon where they'd either saddle tight-budget crop folks with the burden of buying unnecessarily large/expensive FF image circle lenses or they'd confound the world with a line of crop-only RF mount lenses (which could be a product purchasing/naming hellscape).
EF-M users who have piled up a few lenses would be hosed as one might conclude that a migration to RF + crop would spell the end of either EF-M body development (maybe) or EF-M lens development (surely).
But to do this just for the 7D crowd is bonkers. If Canon does this, they'd be thinking about much higher units to justify it.

- A


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jan 24, 2020)

I love the smell of 7Diii rumors in the morning.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jan 24, 2020)

Josjan said:


> Is this the same shit as 7d mark III rumors


No. This is an EOS R7 APS-C Pro-Sports/Wildlife Performance-MONSTER, Rumor... ;-)


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.




Whoa there.

EOS M was very profitable for Canon, especially in Japan. In comparison, Nikon 1 was an unmitigated disaster.

I think he question is: does Canon want folks amassing EF-M glass that will never work on an RF body? With SLRs (where EF-S doesn't mount on EF), this never stopped them. But Canon may possess marketing information that shows how much money they are losing by crop users not wanting to move up to FF because of the EF-M glass they've gathered.

So going to crop + RF is a way to eliminate that gap in the future. I'm not saying it's a great idea, but there is _some_ merit to it.

- A


----------



## bdbender4 (Jan 24, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


RIP EOS M


----------



## FramerMCB (Jan 24, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.


I can't imagine anyone using an M-mount camera body wanting to use the RF 28-70mm, 85 1.2, 50 1.2, etc with one of those. Size and $$$... To what purpose would one want to use a large lens on a tiny body?


----------



## IcyBergs (Jan 24, 2020)

"...but that there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses developed for a smaller sensor EOS R camera body."

Why wouldn't they develop lenses tailored to the smaller image circle, which would force an upgrade to RF from RF-S glass? 

Doesn't seem to make business sense, which makes me skeptical of the entire rumor.


----------



## Sharlin (Jan 24, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I do not not have a source. I am basing this on the speculation that the entry level bodies sell better and don't need a spectacular AF and viewfinder that a 7d body would need. I think sports people might want a very low latency view finder, the one on the R felt like it was a little behind the subject.



On the contrary, a body like this could be a proving ground for the sort of EVF tech that will eventually make its way into a 1-series mirrorless camera.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Jan 24, 2020)

amorse said:


> I don't know; even knowing the EF-M will never be a pathway to R, I've still be looking at an M6II as a really good potential option for a minimalist camera setup I can keep with me or use on very long hikes. I don't know how small an RF lens can get, so I'm not sure that the RF mount bodies will be able to create as truly small of a camera kit as EF-M. My biggest hesitation, as you mention, has been lens selection - though I'm not convinced that there's no niche there. I don't see the M series ever being considered flagship competitors, but for size conscious users it's still a good option I think.



Agreed. I have an RP and an M6. They are both excellent cameras, and they complement each other perfectly. While the RP is certainly smaller and lighter than my previous 5D series, it's still not the same as carrying an M6. Like you mention, the M series is perfect for when you want the absolute smallest / lightest camera for long hikes and carrying around all day for hours. I use the RP and M6 pretty equally because they each have great things to offer either in terms of image quality or portability. And don't let anyone tell you the M lenses are garbage. They're great. The zooms may not have the fastest apertures, but for general everyday photography they are excellent and very sharp.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jan 24, 2020)

FramerMCB said:


> I can't imagine anyone using an M-mount camera body wanting to use the RF 28-70mm, 85 1.2, 50 1.2, etc with one of those. Size and $$$... To what purpose would one want to use a large lens on a tiny body?


I should add, use that setup on a regular basis? I know there are many that have bought M5/M6, M50/100 and use EF/EF-S adapted glass in spots as there is not a lot of options for glass in the M-lineup. But that is a consumer/user choice and not why Canon created the M lineup in the first place...


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

FramerMCB said:


> I can't imagine anyone using an M-mount camera body wanting to use the RF 28-70mm, 85 1.2, 50 1.2, etc with one of those. Size and $$$... To what purpose would one want to use a large lens on a tiny body?




1) Canon could make crop-only RF lenses that are smaller/lighter/less expensive.

2) You can't sell a $1k body only RP and expect folks to start buying $2500 lenses for it. Less exotic/expensive RF lenses (by which I mean FF) are surely coming. Consider: I used EF glass on my Rebel all the time before I moved up to my 5D3.

3) If they offered a crop RF body -- and that's a big if -- it would not be to get budget-constrained folks into buying pricey glass. It would be to get everyone into one ecosystem, which has some huge advantages for Canon if they can sell the masses on it.

Again, I'm not sure Canon will do this, but there is a case to be made for one mount to rule them all. You can make a really tiny RF camera with crop. You can make beastly FF RF cameras for sports/wildlife.

- A


----------



## Joules (Jan 24, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.


Swallow pride? Commit suicide you mean. Didn't you read the post about the BCN awards recently? Canon has 31% market share of the Japanese mirrorless camera market currently. The FF market is about 10% of the total market. It is not the RF system that gives Canon those 31 %.

There is a big market for small, light and cheap cameras. The RF mount can't satisfy this market as well as the tiny EF-M system.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> "...but that there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses developed for a smaller sensor EOS R camera body."
> 
> Why wouldn't they develop lenses tailored to the smaller image circle, which would force an upgrade to RF from RF-S glass?
> 
> Doesn't seem to make business sense, which makes me skeptical of the entire rumor.




It only forces an upgrade if you eventually move up to an FF sensor and want to use all of it. Adapting EF-S on RF today automatically just takes a crop image, right? So moving up to a full FF sensor with an 'RF-S' lens would absolutely still work, which is better than EF-S on EF today.

So yes, crop-only lenses on RF could be a problematic move for Canon in some specifics, but they are not impossible.

- A


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 24, 2020)

They could release a crop RF body that had a permanent focal reducer installed. So your RF 28-70 f/1.2 lens would now be an f/0.9. Interested now?? No wasted glass there.

Or, more likely, a 600mm F/4 lens teleconverted to 840mm would still shoot at f/4. Sports shooters would be shooting the 400mm f/2.8 at f/2. They'd pay $3500 for the opportunity to do so, provided it contained pro-level features that Canon hasn't yet produced in an RF body yet.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

Travel_Photographer said:


> Agreed. I have an RP and an M6. They are both excellent cameras, and they complement each other perfectly. While the RP is certainly smaller and lighter than my previous 5D series, it's still not the same as carrying an M6. Like you mention, the M series is perfect for when you want the absolute smallest / lightest camera for long hikes and carrying around all day for hours. I use the RP and M6 pretty equally because they each have great things to offer either in terms of image quality or portability. And don't let anyone tell you the M lenses are garbage. They're great. The zooms may not have the fastest apertures, but for general everyday photography they are excellent and very sharp.




Sure, but EF-M doesn't hold exclusive rights to being small and light. An RF mount camera (crop or FF):

Has a shallow flange to sensor distance
Does not require an FF grip
Does not require an EVF and could be used like an M6 off the LCD
Does not require a massive battery
So I'd imagine you could make a very very small RF body. Like EOS M (1) small, perhaps a hair _taller_ for the RF mount diameter difference. But thickness and width could be EOS M sized if they wanted.





The question is not whether Canon could do it -- the question is would Canon ever commit to the tiny RF camera idea: _would Canon ever make tiny crop-only RF lenses to go with it? _This rumor says no. We'll see.

(Again: I'm not an advocate for this, think it necessarily will happen or hate EOS M -- but there's no reason why RF could not fill the tiny camera niche.)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

FramerMCB said:


> I should add, use that setup on a regular basis? I know there are many that have bought M5/M6, M50/100 and use EF/EF-S adapted glass in spots as there is not a lot of options for glass in the M-lineup. But that is a consumer/user choice and not why Canon created the M lineup in the first place...




+1. All day.

I had an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on my T1i before I jumped up to my 5D3. I wanted better/faster focusing glass more than I wanted low light performance and more than I wanted to make a one-time $3500 withdrawal from my savings (as the 6D1 hadn't been announced yet).

Also, some folks pack a tiny EOS M in their bags on trips as a backup/second body. And if the trip was a birding trip, safari, etc. there's a good chance a large EF lens is being adapted on it.

I work in a different engineering field, but the adage of 'if you allow Part A to click into Part B -- regardless of how silly it would be to do that -- someone is going to do it' would certainly apply here. I don't think many folks are adapting 600 primes on their M6s, but someone out there has certainly tried to use it that way.

- A


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Jan 24, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Sure, but EF-M doesn't hold exclusive rights to being small and light. An RF mount camera (crop or FF):
> 
> Has a shallow flange to sensor distance
> Does not require an FF grip
> ...



Understood. I was primarily responding to the thoughts on potentially picking up an M-series camera as a lightweight addition to your gear. I was just saying, "Go for it!" 

I have no idea what Canon plans for the future. I look at the current offerings and buy what works for me today.


----------



## Yaba (Jan 24, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> But Canon may possess marketing information that shows how much money they are losing by crop users not wanting to move up to FF because of the EF-M glass they've gathered.



Well, if you look at the EF-M palette after a couple of years of existence of this mount that loss cannot be too big. If you look at the available R lenses given for the time frame of its existence and the announcement that Canon focuses on R lenses for the next months or even years (no mention of EF-M at all, but rather a new patent for a new EF lens) it looks like a dead horse to me.

Honestly I think Nikon did it right with the Z50. The crop sensor kit lenses are pretty small, but still you can use the FF lenses like a 35mm prime on the Z50 as well as its full frame sisters. Just one development investment needed for one single prime lens.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Jan 24, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> +1. All day.
> 
> I had an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on my T1i before I jumped up to my 5D3. I wanted better/faster focusing glass more than I wanted low light performance and more than I wanted to make a one-time $3500 withdrawal from my savings (as the 6D1 hadn't been announced yet).
> 
> ...



Absolutely! I use M-glass on my M6 a lot, but my favorite lens on it is actually a 400mm F5.6L. There's a lot of wildlife around where I live, I can walk around holding the lens by the barrel, and the camera just hangs there like a tiny little deck of cards. I love it, and the extra reach of the crop just adds to the appeal.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 24, 2020)

amorse said:


> I did not expect that!
> 
> Current 7DII users:
> View attachment 188328


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 24, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.


Agree


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

Yaba said:


> Honestly I think Nikon did it right with the Z50. The crop sensor kit lenses are pretty small, but still you can use the FF lenses like a 35mm prime on the Z50 as well as its full frame sisters. Just one development investment needed for one single prime lens.




That's the question. Now that Canon sees how thin they could get RF to be, does EF-M necessarily need to be a mount that is allowed to get old and gray?

It's less about Canon following Nikon so much as Canon understanding why Nikon did this. There are upsides to just one mount, even if if means Z DX (i.e. 'RF-S') lenses and Z FX (i.e. RF) lenses from a usage and naming convention.




- A


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jan 24, 2020)

Joules said:


> Swallow pride? Commit suicide you mean. Didn't you read the post about the BCN awards recently? Canon has 31% market share of the Japanese mirrorless camera market currently. The FF market is about 10% of the total market. It is not the RF system that gives Canon those 31 %.
> 
> There is a big market for small, light and cheap cameras. The RF mount can't satisfy this market as well as the tiny EF-M system.


True. I think there’s room for both systems and Canon is certainly big enough to keep them both going for a while. The M series will end when they stop selling.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 24, 2020)

What options does Canon have with the 7D line?

1. Drop the 7D line altogether.

2. Replace it with an EOS-M camera.

3. Replace it with an EOS-R camera.

Considering the 7D's positioning, I think #3 is the most likely, and hence expect Canon to release an EOS-R crop camera.

Then again, the 1DX mk II can sample 4K from the center at 60fps, so a crazy idea might be a 50MP studio camera that can sample the center 20MP at 16fps, and thus double as a crop-sports camera. The image on the EVF is resampled & corrected anyway, e.g. as done for the RF 24-240mm, so it could be filled completely from either resolution.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> What options does Canon have with the 7D line?
> 
> 1. Drop the 7D line altogether.
> 
> ...




I'll go one more:

*4. The 90D (or next XXD if there is one) becomes the de facto 7D3. *

The 90D already has [32.5 x 10] + [on-chip sensor] + [27 f/8 AF points] + [tilty-flippy] right now, and a good deal of the 7D2 masses would give their left nut for just that in a bulletproof 7D body. I know 7D2 folks want higher fps and better low light, but the 90D is no slouch and it (in some ways) feels like a 7D2 upgrade already.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jan 24, 2020)

*4. The 90D (or next XXD if there is one) becomes the de facto 7D3. *

The 90D already has [32.5 x 10] + [on-chip sensor] + [27 f/8 AF points] + [tilty-flippy] right now, and a good deal of the 7D2 masses would give their left nut for just that in a bulletproof 7D body. I know 7D2 folks want higher fps and better low light, but the 90D is no slouch and it (in some ways) feels like a 7D2 upgrade already.

- A
[/QUOTE]
Doesn't the 90D have the same fps as the 7D Mk ii? It really out specs it on all fronts except buffer, build and ergonomics/button layout.

I'd like to hear from shooters who had extensive 7D2 experience and then made a lateral move to the 90D and could tell us about the AF speed and accuracy, the buffer difference and keeper rate.


----------



## IcyBergs (Jan 24, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> It only forces an upgrade if you eventually move up to an FF sensor and want to use all of it. Adapting EF-S on RF today automatically just takes a crop image, right? So moving up to a full FF sensor with an 'RF-S' lens would absolutely still work, which is better than EF-S on EF today.
> 
> So yes, crop-only lenses on RF could be a problematic move for Canon in some specifics, but they are not impossible.
> 
> - A



No disagreement on whether or not it's possible, very much is and would be more seamless for the consumer. To me that's the part that doesn't necessarily make too much sense. Despite the fact that many upgrade their glass prior to moving to a larger format sensor if compatible mount/adapter is available, I just have a very hard time thinking that Canon would not maximize potential profit when a consumer makes the upgrade to FF by necessitating lens upgrades for that transition.


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Jan 24, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



oh boy
Canon needs to help explain where this is all going. All the angst is about their bodies and not their lenses


----------



## gruhl28 (Jan 24, 2020)

The source supposedly said there would be an APS-C equipped R, but there would not be any RF-S lenses. That doesn't seem to make sense, it would mean there would be no ability to take wide angle shots. Unless, as someone suggested, it had a built-in focal reducer, but where would that fit? Not much space in the flange to add a focal reducer. Would people actually buy a camera with which it was impossible to shoot wide angle? I guess the Canon 10D did sell for a while, but times have changed. I guess it might be useful for birders or others needing maximum reach, but I'm skeptical.


----------



## slclick (Jan 24, 2020)

slclick said:


> *4. The 90D (or next XXD if there is one) becomes the de facto 7D3. *
> 
> The 90D already has [32.5 x 10] + [on-chip sensor] + [27 f/8 AF points] + [tilty-flippy] right now, and a good deal of the 7D2 masses would give their left nut for just that in a bulletproof 7D body. I know 7D2 folks want higher fps and better low light, but the 90D is no slouch and it (in some ways) feels like a 7D2 upgrade already.
> 
> - A


Doesn't the 90D have the same fps as the 7D Mk ii? It really out specs it on all fronts except buffer, build and ergonomics/button layout.

I'd like to hear from shooters who had extensive 7D2 experience and then made a lateral move to the 90D and could tell us about the AF speed and accuracy, the buffer difference and keeper rate.
[/QUOTE]


There is this from Glenn...





__





CANON 90D: SETUP, NOISE PERFORMANCE AND REVIEW


Canon 90D Setup Guide



www.glennbartley.com


----------



## bitcars (Jan 24, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Then again, the 1DX mk II can sample 4K from the center at 60fps, so a crazy idea might be a 50MP studio camera that can sample the center 20MP at 16fps, and thus double as a crop-sports camera. The image on the EVF is resampled & corrected anyway, e.g. as done for the RF 24-240mm, so it could be filled completely from either resolution.



I had a thought like this awhile ago. For example the next EOS Rs high res camera could switch into a on-the-fly crop mode that transforms it into a mirrorless 7D III.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

IcyBergs said:


> No disagreement on whether or not it's possible, very much is and would be more seamless for the consumer. To me that's the part that doesn't necessarily make too much sense. Despite the fact that many upgrade their glass prior to moving to a larger format sensor if compatible mount/adapter is available, I just have a very hard time thinking that Canon would not maximize potential profit when a consumer makes the upgrade to FF by necessitating lens upgrades for that transition.




That's the thing. If I very casually define their revenue as:

[Number of folks who bite the bullet and move up from RF Crop to RF FF] X [the number of FF lenses they buy after that]

vs. 

[Number of folks who bite the bullet and move up from EF-M to RF FF*] X [the number of FF lenses they buy after that]
_*If they didn't do this RF Crop idea_

Surely green is bigger than blue and more profit is to be had with lenses if you mandate buying them. But also surely there are more red than purple -- more people will stay in the Canon ecosystem and move up to FF -- because they can keep using their crop lenses.

Only Canon knows for sure what the true best ROI would be.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

Drcampbellicu said:


> oh boy
> Canon needs to help explain where this is all going. All the angst is about their bodies and not their lenses




I just started breathing into a bag after reading that 

​

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

bitcars said:


> I had a thought like this awhile ago. For example the next EOS Rs high res camera could switch into a on-the-fly crop mode that transforms it into a mirrorless 7D III.




That would be a high res FF sensor with a high fps shutter and a ton of data throughput. 

That would not be a 7D-priced $1500ish camera.

So yes, Canon could do it, but it would not be the solution for 7 series users.

- A


----------



## BillB (Jan 24, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> The source supposedly said there would be an APS-C equipped R, but there would not be any RF-S lenses. That doesn't seem to make sense, it would mean there would be no ability to take wide angle shots. Unless, as someone suggested, it had a built-in focal reducer, but where would that fit? Not much space in the flange to add a focal reducer. Would people actually buy a camera with which it was impossible to shoot wide angle? I guess the Canon 10D did sell for a while, but times have changed. I guess it might be useful for birders or others needing maximum reach, but I'm skeptical.


EF-S lenses like the 10-18 or 10-22 could be adapted to RF and get you down to 16mm FF equivalent.


----------



## slclick (Jan 24, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> That would be a high res FF sensor with a high fps shutter and a ton of data throughput.
> 
> That would not be a 7D-priced $1500ish camera.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you mentioned the 7D cost, it's a point which most R7 hopefuls have forgotten. It almost gets to the point where people start shouting crippling and want the 1DX feature in a XXD body price kind of thing. This is 5D level pricing for that kind of tech, folks.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

slclick said:


> I'm glad you mentioned the 7D cost, it's a point which most R7 hopefuls have forgotten. It almost gets to the point where people start shouting crippling and want the 1DX feature in a XXD body price kind of thing. This is 5D level pricing for that kind of tech, folks.




Not only that, but you'd be paying a mint for a big sensor and shutter... and you wouldn't really need it if you were always shooting in crop.

'Please give me the Ferrari but since I'm only using it in first and second gear you will give it to me for $50k'

I hope 7D2 folks get the next camera they want -- I do -- but landgrabbing both the meat and potatoes of high throughput and high FF detail seems a bit unreasonable. 

- A


----------



## tarek (Jan 24, 2020)

I really hope they don't make a crop sensor RF mount camera, the EF-M mount is designed to be small and takes advantage of the benefits of a smaller sensor, the separation between mounts makes sense, having two crop sensor mirrorless systems makes no sense at all, keep RF full frame only


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Jan 24, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'll go one more:
> 
> *4. The 90D (or next XXD if there is one) becomes the de facto 7D3. *
> 
> ...



Current 7D II owner, 90D tried, bought M6 II instead

The guts of a M6 II with improved AF points, AF cases, in a 7D II body and dual card slots. The M6 II does things the 90D cant (30fps burst mode is a good example) so there's your base to work with. Now given the 7D II also had basically 1D style speed and options of AF there's a good argument that a theoretical R7 gets a lot a 1D mk III AF too. I dont know much about video and I dont care so someone else can make up a wish list.

Given the 7D line had users who bought big whites, have a 100-400 RF availible at launch and you got yourself a winner.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jan 24, 2020)

BillB said:


> EF-S lenses like the 10-18 or 10-22 could be adapted to RF and get you down to 16mm FF equivalent.


Good point, I hadn't thought of that. And I guess third parties could make "RF-S" lenses. Still seems a bit odd, though, an R camera that can't do wide angle with native R lenses.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Jan 24, 2020)

tarek said:


> I really hope they don't make a crop sensor RF mount camera, the EF-M mount is designed to be small and takes advantage of the benefits of a smaller sensor, the separation between mounts makes sense, having two crop sensor mirrorless systems makes no sense at all, keep RF full frame only



I generally tend to agree.

Having a:

* EF mount full-frame mirrored line (in at least two segments (1D and 5D, plus the desired 7DIII)
* EF mount APS-C mirrored line (in two segments, 90D and Rebel series)
* R mount full-frame mirrorless line
* R mount APS-C mirrorless line
* EF-M mount APS-C mirrorless line

Well, seems like a lot of lines. I'm all for the more options the better, but at some point, there has to be too much. If they added R-mount APS-C, something else would have to get consolidated.


----------



## BillB (Jan 24, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> Current 7D II owner, 90D tried, bought M6 II instead
> 
> The guts of a M6 II with improved AF points, AF cases, in a 7D II body and dual card slots. The M6 II does things the 90D cant (30fps burst mode is a good example) so there's your base to work with. Now given the 7D II also had basically 1D style speed and options of AF there's a good argument that a theoretical R7 gets a lot a 1D mk III AF too. I dont know much about video and I dont care so someone else can make up a wish list.
> 
> Given the 7D line had users who bought big whites, have a 100-400 RF availible at launch and you got yourself a winner.


An R7 mirrorless won't be able to use the 1D Mark III AF, except maybe for the Liveview part.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 24, 2020)

Kind of interesting reading through all the comments. What most are missing is that there is almost zero overlap between a 7D and an M camera. The M line is small and light with small and light lenses with the consequence that there are no really long M lenses and only a few fast ones (in FLs that can be both small and fast). The 7D on the other hand is a BIG camera. It is big for a reason. EF-s lenses are rarely used on a 7D body. Alternatively, the 7D series tends to be used for sports and wildlife with BIG long lenses or BIG fast lenses. The idea that a tiny R body somehow is a replacement for a 7D overlooks that fact that tiny bodies are not convenient to use with big lenses (try shooting for an afternoon with an M6 with an EF 100-400 attached). The other bit that is overlooked is the basic requirement for a FAST EVF. The cost of a fast EVF is not in the EVF, it is in the sensor. To have a fast EVF, you need a very fast readout sensor. Once you have done that, and then made the camera big enough to balance big lenses, and also made it 7D rugged, the difference in cost between an APS and a FF sensor is mostly irrelevant. With that in mind, I am more inclined to think you will see a fast cropped readout on a FF R than a crop frame R body. The 5DS/r already has this feature and it works just fine, but needs the ability to save a cropped raw file to get the speed up. There is no rocket science in such an approach, just implementation detail. I suspect we will see this feature on the RS when it is released.


----------



## addola (Jan 24, 2020)

What would an RF mount, APS-C camera mean for the future of the EF-M mount given that Canon just recently released the M6 Mark II? We also saw some patents for IBIS in EF-M cameras, which could mean Canon may still have some R&D in the EF-M mount. 

Canon may introduce this for those who want an _extra reach_, or _video shooters_ that could use a speedbooster with EF lenses given that it's expected not to be an entry-level camera, so maybe some good video features & fps buffer?

However, this could mean the end of the EF-M, as it would lose its size advantage. Even if Canon never released smaller APS-C RF-lenses for it, nothing would stop 3rd party manufacturers like Samyang, Sigma or Tamron from making APS-C lenses for the RF-mount. We already have Samyang/Rokinon AF lenses for the RF-mount cameras, so they already have know how to communicate with the RF cameras.


----------



## BillB (Jan 24, 2020)

Travel_Photographer said:


> I generally tend to agree.
> 
> Having a:
> 
> ...


If there is an R mount aps-c camera, it might be a little grandiose to call it a line. I think it would likely be a niche camera mostly to get some more reach on long lenses without spending more for longer lenses and bigger camera sensors and processors.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 24, 2020)

I think there is a market in sport and wildlife for cropped sensor high FPS mirrorless camera. One that trickles down some of the 1DX III mirror up abilities. It would be sub 1DXIII performance but could easily be 12-14 FPS. I’d certainly consider one. My 7DII will break down someday (in fairness it’s a very robust camera, I’ve hammered mine but it keeps going). A robust mirrorless would be a suitable replacement. As big a battery as possible would be good.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Jan 24, 2020)

BillB said:


> If there is an R mount aps-c camera, it might be a little grandiose to call it a line. I think it would likely be a niche camera mostly to get some more reach on long lenses without spending more for longer lenses and bigger camera sensors and processors.



It would be under the assumption they would create "RF-S" lenses for it, that I would call it a line. I guess they could do what you suggest and just expect people to use EF / RF glass at 1.6x crop, or adapted EF-S, but I wasn't thinking they'd go in that direction.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 24, 2020)

Travel_Photographer said:


> It would be under the assumption they would create "RF-S" lenses for it, that I would call it a line. I guess they could do what you suggest and just expect people to use EF / RF glass at 1.6x crop, or adapted EF-S, but I wasn't thinking they'd go in that direction.


No point in created RF-S lenses for a 7D equivalent R camera since EF-s lenses are rarely used on 7D. 7Ds are about speed and reach, neither of which are accommodated by EF-s lenses.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Jan 24, 2020)

Dragon said:


> No point in created RF-S lenses for a 7D equivalent R camera since EF-s lenses are rarely used on 7D. 7Ds are about speed and reach, neither of which are accommodated by EF-s lenses.



Agreed. I wasn't referring to a 7D equivalent, but rather the concept of an APS-C RF mount in general.

If current EVF technology is considered "inadequate" for fast-moving wildlife, sports, BiF, etc., then I would expect this new rumored APS-C RF mount would not be meant as a mirrorless equivalent for the 7D.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Jan 24, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> The source supposedly said there would be an APS-C equipped R, but there would not be any RF-S lenses. That doesn't seem to make sense, it would mean there would be no ability to take wide angle shots. Unless, as someone suggested, it had a built-in focal reducer, but where would that fit? Not much space in the flange to add a focal reducer. Would people actually buy a camera with which it was impossible to shoot wide angle? I guess the Canon 10D did sell for a while, but times have changed. I guess it might be useful for birders or others needing maximum reach, but I'm skeptical.



How will it be impossible to shoot wide angle? Two articles before this one is a patent for an RF 17-70, there's already a 15-35L, there is an RF-EF adapter to allow using the EF-S lenses, and there are already third party options coming out. There's far from zero options. The fact that current RF lens development is for full frame doesn't preclude it from use on an APS-C sensor camera as long as it has the RF mount.

On the other hand, I submit that, without an APS-C option, the RF mount - no matter how spectacular - is a dead-end proposition. Canon will never, and I do mean never, recoup the R&D investment into the R series camera and lenses by just selling cameras to enthusiasts. Compare sales of the Rebel line, for instance, to those of the 5D, and tell me which one is doing a better fiscal job of driving Canon's EF market. At some point, the RF mount is going to have to reach the mass market. And when that inevitably happens, there will be some who want the additional benefit of a crop sensor for telephoto shooting. I am one of those people. A camera is a tool, nothing more. And I would like the right tool for the job. 

And right now, my only options are EF glass. The RF glass is pretty darned spectacular, but much like the EF-M lenses for my Canon M50, anything RF that I'd buy is a white elephant that can only be used on an RF mount camera. Which right now means only full frame. That's all fine and dandy, but let's consider that I decided to buy an EOS R or its ilk sometime soon (like I have been thinking about.) I have also been considering a telephoto lens, and have rented Canon's 100-400L II lens with spectacular results. I am enticed by the potential of the expected RF 70-400L. But why would I buy one when I couldn't use it with my APS-C camera? RIght now, buying an RF lens is intentionally limiting the usefulness of that lens. It's not an end of the world problem, but I am a LOT more likely to buy EF lenses that can be mounted on either my M50 or the R that I would buy. And that means that I would be , in effect, carrying elements of three different camera systems - EF-M, RF, and EF - rather than one. An APS-C sensor RF mount camera in my bag makes the decision to spend money on RF glass a lot easier to make.

Just my $0.02, cash value slightly lower.

Jody


----------



## slclick (Jan 24, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> Good point, I hadn't thought of that. And I guess third parties could make "RF-S" lenses. Still seems a bit odd, though, an R camera that can't do wide angle with native R lenses.


Not sure why unless you don't consider 16mm FF equivalent wide. It's plenty wide for many.


----------



## flip314 (Jan 24, 2020)

Dragon said:


> No point in created RF-S lenses for a 7D equivalent R camera since EF-s lenses are rarely used on 7D. 7Ds are about speed and reach, neither of which are accommodated by EF-s lenses.



I've heard the 17-55 f2.8 EF-s is popular for 7D users... Then again, I guess it's not like anyone else is buying that lens, so maybe it's only relative popularity


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

Travel_Photographer said:


> I generally tend to agree.
> 
> Having a:
> 
> ...




If R-mount APS-C happens and no crop-only lenses are made, one might read that it's a unique olive branch to the 7D crowd. Consolidation may not be as pressing a need -- in effect, the 7D would stay crop but jump over to the RF mount and become mirrorless. It's not really a new line the business will need to make new glass for or update the body design often.

But if RF mount APS-C happens _and they are making new RF crop-only lenses_, EF-M is a dead man walking.

That said, I wouldn't worry too much about consolidation. Mirrorless (in general) will drive that far more than a novel new RF + crop mount.

One would think that in (let's say) 5 years, we will either have:

SLR (of any kind): New offerings in 1-series only
EF-M + Crop Mirrorless
RF + FF Mirrorless
Or:

SLR (of any kind): New offerings in 1-series only
RF + Crop Mirrorless
RF + FF Mirrorless
That's pretty sleek and simple to me.

- A


----------



## Kit. (Jan 24, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> But also surely there are more red than purple -- more people will stay in the Canon ecosystem and move up to FF -- because they can keep using their crop lenses.


Not necessarily. There might be less people into the RF crop to start with.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 24, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Not necessarily. There might be less people into the RF crop to start with.




Depends on the style/type of crop RF camera they offer, sure. If they make it too big, don't offer a Rebel-like price point, sure -- sales could suffer.

I'm presuming that if Canon is going to be this brave and (effectively) kill off EF-M, they will intelligently design/size/spec the first offering.

- A


----------



## Arod820 (Jan 24, 2020)

amorse said:


> I did not expect that!
> 
> Current 7DII users:
> View attachment 188328


This was exactly my face reading this. I have the EOS R but I do still have my 7dmkii because it’s just soooo good and with the Sigma Art zooms it’s a solid workhorse.


----------



## BillB (Jan 24, 2020)

flip314 said:


> I've heard the 17-55 f2.8 EF-s is popular for 7D users... Then again, I guess it's not like anyone else is buying that lens, so maybe it's only relative popularity


The fate of the 17-55 has often seemed to me a pretty good explanation of why we haven't seen a lot of higher end ef-s (and ef-m) glass. I think Canon learned their lesson on that one.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 25, 2020)

BillB said:


> The fate of the 17-55 has often seemed to me a pretty good explanation of why we haven't seen a lot of higher end ef-s (and ef-m) glass. I think Canon learned their lesson on that one.




Premium spec/price/featured glass has been gone from Canon crop for a very long time:
​Number of Canon crop* lenses that launched at $1k or greater = only once (that 17-55 in 2006)​​Last time a Canon crop* lens was launched for more than $750 = 2009 (EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM)​​Last time a Canon crop* lens had legit ring USM AF = 2009 (again, the EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM)​
That's entirely from my EF-S memory, but I don't think including EF-M in that would change any of those figures. All those lenses sit around $499 or less and none have ever had USM.

- A


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 25, 2020)

Or they could just release a 7D Mark III. I don’t know how other people feel about shooting wildlife with an EVF but personally I’d rather have an OVF. The EVF is fatiguing, slow to start up, you can’t see through it when the camera is off, lags in continuous shooting, I could go on and on. My XT-3 is a pretty snappy little mirrorless but a 7D/90D could run rings around when shooting wildlife.


----------



## slclick (Jan 25, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Or they could just release a 7D Mark III. I don’t know how other people feel about shooting wildlife with an EVF but personally I’d rather have an OVF. The EVF is fatiguing, slow to start up, you can’t see through it when the camera is off, lags in continuous shooting, I could go on and on. My XT-3 is a pretty snappy little mirrorless but a 7D/90D could run rings around when shooting wildlife.


I truly wish they would . It would both make a lot of people happy and shut a lot of people up. High FPS and possbly good iso over 6400. (yeah, I owned a 7D once upon a time)


----------



## canonnews (Jan 25, 2020)

Dragon said:


> No point in created RF-S lenses for a 7D equivalent R camera since EF-s lenses are rarely used on 7D. 7Ds are about speed and reach, neither of which are accommodated by EF-s lenses.


I used a 7D camera for years. Because it was the natural continuation of the XXD series camera bodies.

I never used it for reach - but used it for studio and also for landscape, because auto-bracketing at very fast frame rates gives you a higher chance of success.

Some people liked the series because it offered dual card slots, a more compact camera than full frame, a fabulous viewfinder and a very durable camera.

and I really doubt I'm alone here.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Jan 25, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> If R-mount APS-C happens and no crop-only lenses are made, one might read that it's a unique olive branch to the 7D crowd. Consolidation may not be as pressing a need -- in effect, the 7D would stay crop but jump over to the RF mount and become mirrorless. It's not really a new line the business will need to make new glass for or update the body design often.
> 
> But if RF mount APS-C happens _and they are making new RF crop-only lenses_, EF-M is a dead man walking.
> 
> ...



Yep, I agree entirely, and your 5-year-out scenarios are pretty much how I would envision it as well. 

Of the two options, I personally would prefer option #1 (with EF-M representing for APS-C) because I love the tiny lenses, and even with a very small R-body, I don't think you'd be able to get EF-M 55-200mm style-size out of that mount. Again though, just my personal preference.


----------



## felipeolveram (Jan 25, 2020)

THANK YOU CANON HAS FINALLY GOT IT 1 MOUNT TO RULE THEM ALL, (copied from sony) and hopefully same battery type


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 25, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'll go one more:
> 
> *4. The 90D (or next XXD if there is one) becomes the de facto 7D3.*



And what would be the 90D's upgrade?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 25, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> How will it be impossible to shoot wide angle? Two articles before this one is a patent for an RF 17-70, there's already a 15-35L, there is an RF-EF adapter to allow using the EF-S lenses, and there are already third party options coming out. There's far from zero options. The fact that current RF lens development is for full frame doesn't preclude it from use on an APS-C sensor camera as long as it has the RF mount.



Canon makes two EF-S lenses as wide as 10mm, equivalent to 16mm on FF. The RF 15-35mm on crop would be equivalent to 24mm on FF, that's a big difference.

I think the hint is with the new EF 11-24mm. Pretty close to the EF-S 10-22mm's range, and there's no EF-S lens starting @7mm, so maybe Canon plans on telling customers that lens is their new ultra wide zoom. Then again, maybe the market shrank to the point there's no profit in competing with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6mm.


----------



## sulla (Jan 25, 2020)

_there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses _

This is really good news. The EF-S are really strange: you have a smaller APS-C sensor, that means optical aberrations of the lenses are more critical than with FF sensors. Yet, you mount cheaper EF-S lenses that have more aberrations on APS-C sensors when you should mount better lenses really to get comparable image quality. Plus, EF-S lenses prevent you from upgrading to FF cameras. So I think it is a really good decision not to produce any RF-S lenses.

Bottom line: if you save on the sensor, you should invest in lenses, which saves you noting in the end. If you save on the sensor and on the lenses, why not use the M system right away? This way you save on weight and size as well.


----------



## Tom W (Jan 25, 2020)

On the one hand, it seems like it would have to be a little larger than the M series, meaning that the size advantage of the smaller sensor would not be realized. 

On the other hand, it would provide a direct pathway to migrating to full frame bodies, particularly if they make the 17-70 RF IS lens, since it is a full frame lens.

I wonder if they could make a couple of the EF-M lenses in the R mount, such as the 22, 32, and 11-22, all of which are very good lenses.

It wouldn't be all that difficult to make an M6 II in an R-mount body, I don't imagine. It'd just be bigger. Maybe this is where the sports/wildlife crop body may show up. 

Who knows...


----------



## Tom W (Jan 25, 2020)

sulla said:


> _there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses _
> 
> This is really good news. The EF-S are really strange: you have a smaller APS-C sensor, that means optical aberrations of the lenses are more critical than with FF sensors. Yet, you mount cheaper EF-S lenses that have more aberrations on APS-C sensors when you should mount better lenses really to get comparable image quality. Plus, EF-S lenses prevent you from upgrading to FF cameras. So I think it is a really good decision not to produce any RF-S lenses.
> 
> Bottom line: if you save on the sensor, you should invest in lenses, which saves you noting in the end. If you save on the sensor and on the lenses, why not use the M system right away? This way you save on weight and size as well.



The EF-S came about because the need for what constitutes ultra-wide lenses on the full frame EF mount made it difficult to make decent quality optics. The EF-S lens actually protrudes into the mirror box about 4-5 mm, allowing easier optical designs. It was a workaround from day one. And, of course, since the image circle didn't need to be as large, they also made that smaller, meaning not fully compatible with full frame (won't mount properly anyway, and some EF-S lenses would strike the mirror if they did).


----------



## slclick (Jan 25, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> And what would be the 90D's upgrade?


why the 97D of course!


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 25, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I think the hint is with the new EF 11-24mm. Pretty close to the EF-S 10-22mm's range, and there's no EF-S lens starting @7mm, so maybe Canon plans on telling customers that lens is their new ultra wide zoom. Then again, maybe the market shrank to the point there's no profit in competing with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6mm.




Agree on the FLs being similar, but Canon is not going to do this. You can pull that trick with (say) a ~ $500-1000 EF UWA zoom and argue it's a high quality standard zoom for crop. But you can't tell a Rebel or XXD owner that that should bolt a $2700 optical instrument on to their plasticky bodies and tell them that's the only option for shooting the Grand Canyon.

If Canon will put RF and crop together _just_ for the birders / 7D3 devotees in one lower res / high fps model, they will likely not make RF-S crop image circle lenses. Folks will bolt long EF glass on that and snap away. RF + crop would become a once every 5-6 years sort of camera like the 7D line is, like astro cameras are, i.e, they will become niche exceptions to the normal RF and crop pipelines.

But if Canon believes the future of the business is one mount for everyone, a handful of smaller/inexpensive RF-S crop image circle lenses need to happen, and some RF-S instrument like the EF-S 10-18 or EF-M 11-22 would be a certainty.

- A


----------



## Bahrd (Jan 25, 2020)

Why not APS-H?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 25, 2020)

Tom W said:


> It wouldn't be all that difficult to make an M6 II in an R-mount body, I don't imagine. It'd just be bigger. Maybe this is where the sports/wildlife crop body may show up.
> 
> Who knows...




Again, it wouldn't be that much bigger. Thickness and width could be highly similar to the EOS-M, and the height would get a hair taller for the added mount diameter.

I'm not joking when I say Canon could make a roughly EOS M-sized RF mount body... But I see zero point in doing that without RF-S lenses, or whatever bag-footprint size savings they engineer would be obliterated by the size of the full frame RF lenses attached to it.




- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 25, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> Why not APS-H?




Economies of scale, most likely. (To the same point, why doesn't Canon dabble in 6x4.5 or 44x33 medium format?)

They make a ton of crop and a ton of FF. That lets them focus on getting the most out of crop and FF mirrorboxes (for SLRs), crop and FF OVFs (for SLRs) and crop and FF shutters (for all cameras).

Why start making a niche APS-H line that will have very little volume?

I don't know why the old 1D line (with APS-H) died off, but I'd have to guess it's pretty doggone expensive to keep making shutters, mirrorboxes, OVFs just for that size. (Unless they used true FF internals for those 1D cameras, which I do not know.)

- A


----------



## SteveC (Jan 25, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Economies of scale, most likely. (To the same point, why doesn't Canon dabble in 6x4.5 or 44x33 medium format?)
> 
> They make a ton of crop and a ton of FF. That lets them focus on getting the most out of crop and FF mirrorboxes (for SLRs), crop and FF OVFs (for SLRs) and crop and FF shutters (for all cameras).
> 
> ...



And after spending all that money on so few units, they have to raise the price per unit to recoup the fixed costs.

At that point, *I'd* certainly be tempted to say, "let them get their 1.3 crop out of photoshop."


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 25, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Agree on the FLs being similar, but Canon is not going to do this. You can pull that trick with (say) a ~ $500-1000 EF UWA zoom and argue it's a high quality standard zoom for crop. But you can't tell a Rebel or XXD owner that that should bolt a $2700 optical instrument on to their plasticky bodies and tell them that's the only option for shooting the Grand Canyon.



IMHO, the plasticky body would be an EOS-M, and its ultra wide zoom would be the EF-M 11-22mm.



ahsanford said:


> If Canon will put RF and crop together _just_ for the birders / 7D3 devotees in one lower res / high fps model, they will likely not make RF-S crop image circle lenses.



Precisely.


----------



## slclick (Jan 25, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> Why not APS-H?


Sigma tried to bring it back and failed, I'm all for that format, we sure had a jolly time discussing it a couple years ago here!


----------



## Dragon (Jan 25, 2020)

canonnews said:


> I used a 7D camera for years. Because it was the natural continuation of the XXD series camera bodies.
> 
> I never used it for reach - but used it for studio and also for landscape, because auto-bracketing at very fast frame rates gives you a higher chance of success.
> 
> ...


But to my point, how often did you use it with EF-s lenses?


----------



## NetMage (Jan 25, 2020)

I use my 7D almost exclusively with the 15-85 EF-S, but I got the 7D as the real successor to the 50D, not for action/birding. I haven’t upgraded to the 7D II because it felt like it was targeted too much in that direction, but I’d still like a 50D/7D successor and not the compromised 90D.


----------



## slclick (Jan 25, 2020)

Dragon said:


> But to my point, how often did you use it with EF-s lenses?


I used my 7D extensively with EF-S glass. Especially the 10-22 and Sigma 17-70.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 25, 2020)

My standard lens on my 7D was the 100-400L. Oh, I thought this was a survey...


----------



## jedy (Jan 25, 2020)

I think Canon need to concentrate on releasing a high end R and an EOS-RII plus some decent non-L lenses like a set of f1.8 primes. Maybe even a video orientated R. I think until they have a good couple of new cameras and some less expensive glass, Canon shouldn’t be putting out an aps-c R just yet.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 25, 2020)

I would say if canon are not going to produce RFs lenses then it is safe to say the M line is safe and will continue to be produced. They NEED to continue with a line of small cameras as well as a lone of bigger more serious cameras focused on IQ.


----------



## BillB (Jan 26, 2020)

If the RF mount aps-c camera is the followon to the 7DII, then it would need a highend EVF and highend AF. So, maybe the RF mount aps-c would be the testbed for the EVF and AF that will be used in the mirrorless equivalent to the IDXIII..


----------



## Arod820 (Jan 26, 2020)

BillB said:


> The fate of the 17-55 has often seemed to me a pretty good explanation of why we haven't seen a lot of higher end ef-s (and ef-m) glass. I think Canon learned their lesson on that one.


I bought the 17-55 for my C100 and it’s great for video, I’ve used it on my 7dmkii for photo and it’s kind of underwhelming. I’d rather travel with the Sigma Art Zooms.


----------



## riker (Jan 26, 2020)

I can see the sense in a 7d3 in R body, but other than that I really hope APS-C stays in the M. The days of FF being expensive is over.
We already have RP for being entry level/cheap, RP2 could get even cheaper. xxD line should disappear, replaced by RP.
RX (1 series pro equivalent)
Rs (highres)
R (5D equivalent)
RP (6D and xxD)
RC (7D)
----
M lines

That's all. I hate the tons of lines and all missing something. If it was up to me, I would even merge 5D and 5Ds and create max 4 lines of R body.
Hmmm which reminds me, Sony has 4.  (A7s, A7, A7R, A9)


----------



## Philrp (Jan 26, 2020)

The real appeal of the 7D, at least for me, was all the features it offered. It is in essence an 1D camera with a crop sensor.

I use all those features and I'm willing to compromise on the sensor. Plus this setup offers other benefits such as reach and speed, etc.


----------



## slclick (Jan 26, 2020)

Philrp said:


> The real appeal of the 7D, at least for me, was all the features it offered. It is in essence an 1D camera with a crop sensor.
> 
> I use all those features and I'm willing to compromise on the sensor. Plus this setup offers other benefits such as reach and speed, etc.


But it was sold off right and left due to general dissatisfaction over 6400 iso. I know, I lived it. If you could have the 7D line with a sensor that could do 12800 with all the other fantastic aspects of that body it would be a hit, Mirror or not.


----------



## canonnews (Jan 26, 2020)

Dragon said:


> But to my point, how often did you use it with EF-s lenses?


all the time.

you can't get a "normal" with something like a 24-70mm on it. so the 17-55 2.8 gets used as well as the 10-22mm and the 15-85 was pretty good on it too.


----------



## canonnews (Jan 26, 2020)

sulla said:


> _there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses _
> 
> This is really good news.



no it isn't actually.

it's not about the rear element ingress like the EF-S, it's about the image circle size and lenses optimized for both weight, size and cost with the APS-C sized image circle.

an 11-24 for fullf frame will cost over $3k - a 11-24 for APS-C will cost under $1k.

The 11-24 for full frame cant use filters. The 11-24 for APS-C can use filters.

then there's the size:


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 26, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.



The EOS M series is the best selling mirrorless ILC system on the planet. Canon's not scrapping it anytime soon.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 26, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The EOS M series is the best selling mirrorless ILC system on the planet.



Kind of aggravating how often people must be reminded of this, isn't it?


----------



## Daner (Jan 26, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> +1. All day.
> 
> I had an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on my T1i before I jumped up to my 5D3. I wanted better/faster focusing glass more than I wanted low light performance and more than I wanted to make a one-time $3500 withdrawal from my savings (as the 6D1 hadn't been announced yet).
> 
> ...



Imagine that you have the opportunity to take a once-in-a-lifetime shot of the rising moon. You have a Canon EF 800mm lens. You also have a choice of any current Canon FF camera or an M6 Mk. II. The tiny camera doesn't seem so silly now, does it?


----------



## Bahrd (Jan 26, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Economies of scale, most likely. (To the same point, why doesn't Canon dabble in 6x4.5 or 44x33 medium format?)
> [...]
> - A



Probably. Nevertheless, I assumed the following scenario:
1. All new non-FF R mirrorless cameras would have got APS-H sensors.
2. Sensor's cost is a smaller factor than it used to be.
3. With the same technology, a DR of Canon sensors will remain a bit inferior (due to doubled number of pixels required by DP AF) and a slightly bigger sensor size could have helped.


----------



## uri.raz (Jan 26, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> Probably. Nevertheless, I assumed the following scenario:
> 1. All new non-FF R mirrorless cameras would have got APS-H sensors.
> 2. Sensor's cost is a smaller factor than it used to be.
> 3. With the same technology, a DR of Canon sensors will remain a bit inferior (due to doubled number of pixels required by DP AF) and a slightly bigger sensor size could have helped.



Making another sensor means Canon has to stock it to fix discontinue cameras. Stock and distribution have costs.

Canon could make the 1D series without making any special lenses for it because it was sports oriented, so demand for wide lenses was small enough. Unless Canon repeats the trick, it would have to make a fourth line of lenses, which incurs further costs.


----------



## tron (Jan 26, 2020)

canonnews said:


> no it isn't actually.
> 
> it's not about the rear element ingress like the EF-S, it's about the image circle size and lenses optimized for both weight, size and cost with the APS-C sized image circle.
> 
> ...


Comparing apples to oranges? The 11=24 at FF has nothing to do with a crop 10-22.

To achieve the same angles one would use 16-35 at FF. The 11-24 has no crop equivalent. Still bigger and more expensive but not at that scale. It's 1K vs 0.5K. And some of the size and price difference it is due to constant maximum aperture
of 16-35 f/4L vs the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5.

Having said that the real power of the APS-C cameras is in the smaller bodies like 200D and the very small/cheap/decent lenses like 10-18.


----------



## BillB (Jan 26, 2020)

tron said:


> Comparing apples to oranges? The 11=24 at FF has nothing to do with a crop 10-22.
> 
> To achieve the same angles one would use 16-35 at FF. The 11-24 has no crop equivalent. Still bigger and more expensive but not at that scale. It's 1K vs 0.5K. And some of the size and price difference it is due to constant maximum aperture
> of 16-35 f/4L vs the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5.



The two lenses are comparable if you are using an ef-s or an ef-m camera (with appropriate adapters). Same field of view, but the ef-s lens is smaller, lighter and less expensive.


----------



## tron (Jan 26, 2020)

BillB said:


> The two lenses are comparable if you are using an ef-s or an ef-m camera (with appropriate adapters). Same field of view, but the ef-s lens is smaller, lighter and less expensive.


11-24 at a ff camera is not comparable with 10-22 at an aps-c. Of course if you put both at an aps-c camera you are correct. Someone would do that only if they carried a 2nd APS-C camera as a backup to a FF. If someone wants to go to FF and have the field of view of a 10-22 at an apc-c camera they will get a 16-35 f/4 lens and not a 11-24.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jan 26, 2020)

Daner said:


> Imagine that you have the opportunity to take a once-in-a-lifetime shot of the rising moon. You have a Canon EF 800mm lens. You also have a choice of any current Canon FF camera or an M6 Mk. II. The tiny camera doesn't seem so silly now, does it?


Oh, you've already missed the shot. The moon is rising quickly and it got behind the clouds while you where choosing the camera and mounting the lens.


----------



## Daner (Jan 26, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Oh, you've already missed the shot. The moon is rising quickly and it got behind the clouds while you where choosing the camera and mounting the lens.



Or you could be more professional about it, arriving an hour before moonrise and having everything mounted up on a tripod and pointed in exactly the right direction, with settings locked in (based on successful previous moon shots). In that case, the M6 MKII would still be likely to produce a better image than any current FF Canon camera.


----------



## Aaron Lozano (Jan 26, 2020)

Nobody Thinking APS-h crop? They could really go nuts with a sensor like that. APS-h 20MP sensor with the exact same resolution as the 1DXIII+ same AF but faster frame rate, 4K 60fps video...and way smaller than the 1DXIII. I bet the 7DIII crowd would go absolutely frantic/nuts to get one.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2020)

tron said:


> Comparing apples to oranges? The 11=24 at FF has nothing to do with a crop 10-22.
> 
> To achieve the same angles one would use 16-35 at FF. The 11-24 has no crop equivalent. Still bigger and more expensive but not at that scale. It's 1K vs 0.5K. And some of the size and price difference it is due to constant maximum aperture
> of 16-35 f/4L vs the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5.
> ...




Wait a minute, I forgot something: EF-S on RF. 

A future crop sensored RF body could adapt the 11-24L for some really nice UWA zoom shots (17.6mm - 38.4mm FF equiv), or it could just adapt the EF-S 10-18 or 10-22 for something similar FL-wise in a much smaller price and weight.

In other words, if both the bodies below were some crop sensored RF body, the option on the right will (largely) cover the same ground as the option on the left.




The is a non-issue then. UWA 16ish-35-ish FF zoom needs on RF crop have a number of option to generate a 16-35ish FF equivalent field of view.

- A


----------



## SteveC (Jan 26, 2020)

Daner said:


> Imagine that you have the opportunity to take a once-in-a-lifetime shot of the rising moon. You have a Canon EF 800mm lens. You also have a choice of any current Canon FF camera or an M6 Mk. II. The tiny camera doesn't seem so silly now, does it?



I actually DID once put a friend's 500mm Sigma on one of my M cameras (I don't recall which one, but the exifs would tell the story if I were anywhere near that system right now).

We were just clowning about, but there's no reason it couldn't have worked in real life, given a tripod. Sure it looks silly (that's why we did it), but really who cares how the camera looks? You're not taking pictures *of* it, you're taking pictures *with* it.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2020)

Aaron Lozano said:


> Nobody Thinking APS-h crop? They could really go nuts with a sensor like that. APS-h 20MP sensor with the exact same resolution as the 1DXIII+ same AF but faster frame rate, 4K 60fps video...and way smaller than the 1DXIII. I bet the 7DIII crowd would go absolutely frantic/nuts to get one.




A lot of people would like this, sure. But the thought that Canon would resurrect APS-H and commit the capital investment in sensor fabrication for a niche line of cameras that only gets refreshed every 5-6 years is not going to happen.

- A


----------



## MartinF. (Jan 26, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.


They do not need to make a specific RF-S (crop) mount. The EF-S was inventet only to take advantage of the smaller mirror, makeing room for the back lens element to protude into the mirrorbox. That is not needed / not an option for the mirrorless RF mount. So what they could do was to make lenses that take specific advantages of the smaller sensor - focallenght wise - but on the other hand - you just need RF 15-35 to be covered with an APS-C sensor on a RF mount body.
And EOS R body and RF mount is ready for an APS-C sensor, with no other changes at all.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Jan 26, 2020)

Daner said:


> Or you could be more professional about it, arriving an hour before moonrise and having everything mounted up on a tripod and pointed in exactly the right direction, with settings locked in (based on successful previous moon shots). In that case, the M6 MKII would still be likely to produce a better image than any current FF Canon camera.



Moon, handheld with Canon M6, EF 400mm F5.6L at F5.6, 1/1250th, ISO 400.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2020)

MartinF. said:


> And EOS R body and RF mount is ready for an APS-C sensor, with no other changes at all.




Sure, the RF mount is fine exactly as is. But if a crop sensor is sitting behind that RF mount, any lens you put on it will get that 1.6x crop factor.

So no one wants an RF-S mount, but some folks might want RF-S _lenses_ for a crop RF body. They wouldn't protrude into the body like EF-S lenses do. But they would not need to cover an FF image circle, so they could be smaller, lighter and less expensive.

Use Nikon Z as an example: They sell Z lenses for full frame, but 'Z DX' lenses for a crop image circle. They fit on the same Z mount, but Z DX lenses are smaller and more affordable.

- A


----------



## Aaron Lozano (Jan 26, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> A lot of people would like this, sure. But the thought that Canon would resurrect APS-H and commit the capital investment in sensor fabrication for a niche line of cameras that only gets refreshed every 5-6 years is not going to happen.
> 
> - A



The sensor line would not need to be huge investment. If anything, they would get more sensors cut from the same "waffle" as the ones used from the current R. Smaller files, fast readout, more "reach", better ISO than aps-c and same mount as the R while using the best part of the lens. I see a good deal of good deals.


----------



## AJ (Jan 26, 2020)

This would be a very clever move by Canon. A newbie to photography could buy a cheap APSC-R kit, and then invest in a couple of R lenses down the road. This would marry that person to the R line. At some point they may wish to upgrade to FF.
Currently the Rebels are the gateway drug to the 5D/6D line with the EF mount. It'd work the same way.
With the M series, one could easily move to another manufacturer when looking to upgrade (e.g. Sony). There is no upgrade path. With APSC-R there is a clear upgrade path.
I can see APSC-R selling like hotcakes.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 26, 2020)

Aaron Lozano said:


> The sensor line would not need to be huge investment. If anything, they would get more sensors cut from the same "waffle" as the ones used from the current R. Smaller files, fast readout, more "reach", better ISO than aps-c and same mount as the R while using the best part of the lens. I see a good deal of good deals.


It's not merely a different sensor. It's also all of the internal supporting structures as well as software. It would be a sizable investment with a questionable ROI.


----------



## Bahrd (Jan 26, 2020)

brad-man said:


> It's not merely a different sensor. It's also all of the internal supporting structures as well as software. It would be a sizable investment with a questionable ROI.



I am afraid, you are right. But I also think any APS-C equipped EOS R would have also been an almost equally niche product.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 26, 2020)

Daner said:


> Imagine that you have the opportunity to take a once-in-a-lifetime shot of the rising moon. You have a Canon EF 800mm lens. You also have a choice of any current Canon FF camera or an M6 Mk. II. The tiny camera doesn't seem so silly now, does it?


Actually, for big whites that need a tripod and a gimbal, there is no issue using an M body other than that the battery doesn't hold up very long running the IS in those big lenses. Where the tiny body does not work well is with more common telephotos like the 70-200L f/2.8 and the 100-400L. Handheld with an M series body, those are very unwieldy. I have an M3 and an M5 and have used both to good advantage on the 800L, but when the M6 II came out, I opted for the 90D, partly because of the better video in crop mode and partly because of the better handling with everyday telephotos. If Canon makes something resembling an M5 II with at least the video features of the 90D, I will likely add that to the collection because I do like the portability of the M series with native lenses.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 26, 2020)

tron said:


> Comparing apples to oranges? The 11=24 at FF has nothing to do with a crop 10-22.
> 
> To achieve the same angles one would use 16-35 at FF. The 11-24 has no crop equivalent. Still bigger and more expensive but not at that scale. It's 1K vs 0.5K. And some of the size and price difference it is due to constant maximum aperture
> of 16-35 f/4L vs the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5.
> ...


Actually, the Sigma 8-16 is the closest thing to the 11-24 for crop frame and it is a big lens and not constant aperture like the 11-24 and BTW, it doesn't take filters either. When you compare apples to apples, they still look like apples whether they are big apples or small apples .


----------



## Dragon (Jan 26, 2020)

canonnews said:


> all the time.
> 
> you can't get a "normal" with something like a 24-70mm on it. so the 17-55 2.8 gets used as well as the 10-22mm and the 15-85 was pretty good on it too.


Actually, I think the 15-85 is about the best of the EF-s lenses. I use it on the 90D and it doesn't hamper the resolution of the camera. You have to be very lens selective on the 90D to get the most out of the camera. It definitely likes primes and quickly shows the limitations of most zooms.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 26, 2020)

Daner said:


> Imagine that you have the opportunity to take a once-in-a-lifetime shot of the rising moon. You have a Canon EF 800mm lens. You also have a choice of any current Canon FF camera or an M6 Mk. II. The tiny camera doesn't seem so silly now, does it?


The 90D works just as well with the 800 (below), but I think you might get a bit more moon detail with the 5DSR and a 1.4 extender (if the seeing conditions are really good).


----------



## scyrene (Jan 26, 2020)

AJ said:


> This would be a very clever move by Canon. A newbie to photography could buy a cheap APSC-R kit, and then invest in a couple of R lenses down the road. This would marry that person to the R line. At some point they may wish to upgrade to FF.
> Currently the Rebels are the gateway drug to the 5D/6D line with the EF mount. It'd work the same way.
> With the M series, one could easily move to another manufacturer when looking to upgrade (e.g. Sony). There is no upgrade path. With APSC-R there is a clear upgrade path.
> I can see APSC-R selling like hotcakes.



I would think that Canon's decision not to make the M and R lines interoperable demonstrated that 'upgrade paths' are of little commercial relevance. It's talked about a lot on here, but how many extra products are sold on that basis? They must know, but we don't.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 26, 2020)

Daner said:


> Or you could be more professional about it, arriving an hour before moonrise and having everything mounted up on a tripod and pointed in exactly the right direction, with settings locked in (based on successful previous moon shots). In that case, the M6 MKII would still be likely to produce a better image than any current FF Canon camera.


What does make this particular moonshot "once-in-a-lifetime"?


----------



## Franklyok (Jan 26, 2020)

Finally sensor of 90 D or eosm6 mark2 in eosR body... 
32mpx
16 fps
All the other potency of eosm6 mark2


----------



## slclick (Jan 26, 2020)

Kit. said:


> What does make this particular moonshot "once-in-a-lifetime"?


It was a blood autumnal spider wolf moon!


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 26, 2020)

scyrene said:


> I would think that Canon's decision not to make the M and R lines interoperable demonstrated that 'upgrade paths' are of little commercial relevance. It's talked about a lot on here, but how many extra products are sold on that basis? They must know, but we don't.



I bought a 450D, then sold it as used to a local store and bought a 5DmkII. How would Canon know that? Did the shop report the deal to Canon?


----------



## reefroamer (Jan 26, 2020)

AJ said:


> This would be a very clever move by Canon. A newbie to photography could buy a cheap APSC-R kit, and then invest in a couple of R lenses down the road. This would marry that person to the R line. At some point they may wish to upgrade to FF.
> Currently the Rebels are the gateway drug to the 5D/6D line with the EF mount. It'd work the same way.
> With the M series, one could easily move to another manufacturer when looking to upgrade (e.g. Sony). There is no upgrade path. With APSC-R there is a clear upgrade path.
> I can see APSC-R selling like hotcakes.


Would you (or many people) still buy an APS-C RF if you could buy a FF RF body for just a little more? Canon's new gateway drug for the masses. The RP body is under $1,000 now and rumors on this site predict a cheaper FF RF body is coming this year. So all that’s preventing a low-priced full-frame Canon kit is a few (still to come) inexpensive RF Zoom lenses, as exist now for every other Canon body. Thats where I see Canon going at the low end. Simply no need for APS-C or EF-S. Upgrading is a non-issue with the RF adapter for legacy EF and EF-S lenses.


----------



## tron (Jan 26, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Actually, the Sigma 8-16 is the closest thing to the 11-24 for crop frame and it is a big lens and not constant aperture like the 11-24 and BTW, it doesn't take filters either. When you compare apples to apples, they still look like apples whether they are big apples or small apples .


If you had 11-24 in FF and you wanted something similar in APS-C yes you are right. But if you have and use 10-22 in APS-C and want to upgrade to FF the answer is the 16-35. So it depends on the direction.

EDIT: Judging from your moon photo comment on which I agree about the IQ (I do have 5DsR by the way) the most probable course of action is the upgrade not the downgrade which means going from 10-22 APS-C to 16-35 FF.

EDIT2: On some birding excursions where I do not have a car I squeeze a 200D with 10-18 in the bag (which contains 5DsR with 400DII or 500II so no much available room). I guess there is a reason for all formats and we make our choices. And it is good to be able to.


----------



## tron (Jan 26, 2020)

Franklyok said:


> Finally sensor of 90 D or eosm6 mark2 in eosR body...
> 32mpx
> 16 fps
> All the other potency of eosm6 mark2


If it's without AA filter, it drives big whites with RF adaptor fast and it has a super fast EVF maybe. They could also make a battery pack that gives more voltage to the lenses when it has 2 batteries inside. Then maybe...


----------



## brad-man (Jan 26, 2020)

scyrene said:


> I would think that Canon's decision not to make the M and R lines interoperable demonstrated that 'upgrade paths' are of little commercial relevance. It's talked about a lot on here, but how many extra products are sold on that basis? They must know, but we don't.


I would surmise that EF-M was made to be compatible with EF, and RF was made to be compatible with EF, but to make RF compatible with EF-M would not be possible without a compromise in the RF design, and since Canon's apparent future lies in the design of that mount, they felt it would not be worth a compromise. 2 cents.


----------



## slclick (Jan 26, 2020)

It's far easier for me to imagine an APS-C RF body than a line of RF-S lenses.However I would think it is more likely that there will be a FF RF body with a crop mode (since the R already does this) with the other specs we all come to know with the 7D line. 

No new lens line, no RF-s, no APS-H. This body could be one of the 4 coming.


----------



## BillB (Jan 26, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I would surmise that EF-M was made to be compatible with EF, and RF was made to be compatible with EF, but to make RF compatible with EF-M would not be possible without a compromise in the RF design, and since Canon's apparent future lies in the design of that mount, they felt it would not be worth a compromise. 2 cents.


My guess is that Canon realized when it designed the EF-M mount that it it would not be compatible with a full frame mirrorless mount and decided that was the way they wanted to go because they didn't like the compromises required to maintain compatibility.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 26, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> I am afraid, you are right. But I also think any APS-C equipped EOS R would have also been an almost equally niche product.




Only if they just make it just for 7D users. If they offer crop image circle lenses, it won't be niche. It will replace all crop products over time, which is not niche at all.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Jan 26, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I would surmise that EF-M was made to be compatible with EF, and RF was made to be compatible with EF, but to make RF compatible with EF-M would not be possible without a compromise in the RF design, and since Canon's apparent future lies in the design of that mount, they felt it would not be worth a compromise. 2 cents.



Fair point.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 26, 2020)

brad-man said:


> It's not merely a different sensor. It's also all of the internal supporting structures as well as software. It would be a sizable investment with a questionable ROI.



What do you mean by "internal supporting structures"? And why would the difference in software be any greater than the difference between two FF models having, for example, 20MP and 30MP? My guess is that the biggest expense would be in marketing and that should be roughly the same as adding a new FF model.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 26, 2020)

BillB said:


> My guess is that Canon realized when it designed the EF-M mount that it it would not be compatible with a full frame mirrorless mount and decided that was the way they wanted to go because they didn't like the compromises required to maintain compatibility.



I was surprised that the R mount didn't have a larger flange distance, from lens mount to sensor. The M distance is 18mm, the EF distance is 44mm and the R distance is 20mm. Could Canon have made an adapter to use R lenses in an M body by increasing the R distance to (wild guess!!) 24mm?


----------



## slclick (Jan 26, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I was surprised that the R mount didn't have a larger flange distance, from lens mount to sensor. The M distance is 18mm, the EF distance is 44mm and the R distance is 20mm. Could Canon have made an adapter to use R lenses in an M body by increasing the R distance to (wild guess!!) 24mm?


I think the drive to create the highest quality optics was greater than the need to make the two lines compatible.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jan 26, 2020)

THIS---->: "EOS M was very profitable for Canon, especially in Japan. In comparison, Nikon 1 was an unmitigated disaster."


----------



## brad-man (Jan 26, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> What do you mean by "internal supporting structures"? And why would the difference in software be any greater than the difference between two FF models having, for example, 20MP and 30MP? My guess is that the biggest expense would be in marketing and that should be roughly the same as adding a new FF model.


Well, let's start with the redesigned PCB that the sensor is attached to (green thing in image). Then we have the electrical connections to that board. Then we have the shutter and motor, etc. Perhaps the same shutter that is in the R could be used, perhaps not. I don't know, do you? It is not as simple as pulling out the sensor and plugging in another one. As to software, it is true that it would be the same as 2 different models, but another model is not a niche product. It would be a well researched addition to the line up.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 26, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I would surmise that EF-M was made to be compatible with EF, and RF was made to be compatible with EF, but to make RF compatible with EF-M would not be possible without a compromise in the RF design, and since Canon's apparent future lies in the design of that mount, they felt it would not be worth a compromise. 2 cents.


If it is really an issue, there is no technical barrier to making adaptors with glass in them to move the back focus distance and make EF-M lenses fit on R and vice versa. It would likely add a little reach to the lenses, but not that much. I just don't see the point. All the complainers love Fuji with no FF upgrade path and a completely separate MF line, but when Canon makes an APS-c only package (with complete EF/EF-s compatibility BTW) then all the pundits start whining. When you take the lenses in to account, EF-M is the smallest, lightest ILC package available and it is selling quite well (as in better than all the others). Is there a niche for a 7D replacement? absolutely. How big is the market? Only Canon knows. Is there more than one way to skin that cat? As they say in Minnesota - "ubetcha". I still think a FF R with a fast readout of an APSC center area is the best of both worlds. Remember, a 7D replacement needs to be big and rugged enough to swing big whites and that makes it bigger than any R to date, so why would the biggest R be APS-c only?. Think about it. If you can afford big whites, an extra grand for a body isn't going to cause you much pain.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 26, 2020)

tron said:


> If you had 11-24 in FF and you wanted something similar in APS-C yes you are right. But if you have and use 10-22 in APS-C and want to upgrade to FF the answer is the 16-35. So it depends on the direction.
> 
> EDIT: Judging from your moon photo comment on which I agree about the IQ (I do have 5DsR by the way) the most probable course of action is the upgrade not the downgrade which means going from 10-22 APS-C to 16-35 FF.
> 
> EDIT2: On some birding excursions where I do not have a car I squeeze a 200D with 10-18 in the bag (which contains 5DsR with 400DII or 500II so no much available room). I guess there is a reason for all formats and we make our choices. And it is good to be able to.


The 10-18 is decent lens, but the 11-22 M is a LOT better. In fact it is so good that it justifies owning an M body simply for the sake of the 11-22. BTW, an M5 or M6 with the 11-22 is even smaller than a 200D with the 10-18. I know as I have them all. I definitely would like to see an M5 II or something similar, though.


----------



## reefroamer (Jan 27, 2020)

The M line punches above its weight in IQ, especially for the price. It might survive the coming APS-C apocalypse. Otherwise, Canon seems all-in on full frame RF mirrorless for the future. Within a year or so, we could see new, Rebel-priced, full frame RF mirrorless bodies kitted with economy-priced RF zoom lenses and legacy adapters selling at intro for under $1,000 and then dropping. Of course, I could be wrong. It’s happened before


----------



## researcher (Jan 27, 2020)

I think for those of us who don't shoot enough to warrant going to full frame, but who have a couple of EF-S lenses that we like, an APSC RF camera seems like a decent option if its priced right and isn't totally crippled. As I recall, the RF mount can accomodate EF-S lenses, and there is a crop mode on them that allows for the smaller lenses to work on them, no? I think I read something like that in the original specs. I would definitely like to see a 1/8000 shutter, lens micro adjustment, and IBIS on top of all the usual stuff. Lets see what they deliver.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 27, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I actually DID once put a friend's 500mm Sigma on one of my M cameras (I don't recall which one, but the exifs would tell the story if I were anywhere near that system right now).
> 
> We were just clowning about, but there's no reason it couldn't have worked in real life, given a tripod. Sure it looks silly (that's why we did it), but really who cares how the camera looks? You're not taking pictures *of* it, you're taking pictures *with* it.



When I was fooling with the M system, I unintentionally acquired a used M1 in a transaction for a used M5. I used that M1 as the lens cap for a 500mm II.

I did actually wield the 500 with the M5 attached at times. Had the M5 not been laggy, I'd have liked it (and I'd still own it).


----------



## slclick (Jan 27, 2020)

researcher said:


> I think for those of us who don't shoot enough to warrant going to full frame, but who have a couple of EF-S lenses that we like, an APSC RF camera seems like a decent option if its priced right and isn't totally crippled. As I recall, the RF mount can accomodate EF-S lenses, and there is a crop mode on them that allows for the smaller lenses to work on them, no? I think I read something like that in the original specs. I would definitely like to see a 1/8000 shutter, lens micro adjustment, and IBIS on top of all the usual stuff. Lets see what they deliver.


I hate that word. Do you not understand differentiation? I too would like to see what you are asking for (although with mirrorless , AFMA is not required) Anyone who brings up the word crippling immediately makes me think they deserve more camera than they can afford. Just selfish. FF is not about how much you shoot, it's about desiring a certain look and a particular depth of field. It does not need to be seen as an evolutionary step after using crop for a certain time like a sentence served. You can start as a first timer in full frame or never use it. It's choice and furthermore it is finally becoming somewhat affordable for all to work with and that alone is something to applaud.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 27, 2020)

brad-man said:


> Well, let's start with the redesigned PCB that the sensor is attached to (green thing in image). Then we have the electrical connections to that board. Then we have the shutter and motor, etc. Perhaps the same shutter that is in the R could be used, perhaps not. I don't know, do you? It is not as simple as pulling out the sensor and plugging in another one. As to software, it is true that it would be the same as 2 different models, but another model is not a niche product. It would be a well researched addition to the line up.
> View attachment 188349



So, crazy idea, what if the cheaper-than-RP only has an electronic shutter? If it uses the M6II/90D sensor tech with say, 24MP, readout would be fast enough for most situations.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 27, 2020)

Imagine a body which is the M6 mark II internally, which is also M6ii externally but _slightly _larger and with an RF mount. Use the extra space on the back to fit in the AF button from the 1DX3. Set the price at the same level as the 90D (it's hard to see why that wouldn't be possible).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

slclick said:


> Doesn't the 90D have the same fps as the 7D Mk ii? It really out specs it on all fronts except buffer, build and ergonomics/button layout.
> 
> I'd like to hear from shooters who had extensive 7D2 experience and then made a lateral move to the 90D and could tell us about the AF speed and accuracy, the buffer difference and keeper rate.



The 90D AF system is somewhere between the lower grade 80D AF system and the 7D Mark II AF system. But where it really counts - AF accuracy and shot-to-shot consistency - it's much closer to the 80D than the 7D Mark II.

They did add "Single Point Spot AF" and "iTR" to the 90D, but did not give it "Single Point with 4/8 AF Assist points." It has the same 45 AF points as the 80D. Both the 80D and newer 90D have more f/8 sensitive AF points than the 7D Mark II (or 1D X and 5D Mark III, for that matter), but less than half as many f/8 sensitive AF points as the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark IV.

The 7D Mark II has a near 1D X/5D Mark III level AF system that is at a higher level of accuracy and shot-to-shot consistency than the 80D/90D. It's got 65 AF points and all are cross type.

A true 7D Mark III would be expected to have an improved 1D X Mark II/5D Mark IV level AF system with all AF points f/8 sensitive.

For me, the deal breaker is the 90D's 120,000 rated shutter vs. the 7D Mark II's 200,000 rated shutter (which my 4.5 years old 7DII is fast approaching) and the overall build quality of each.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'll go one more:
> 
> *4. The 90D (or next XXD if there is one) becomes the de facto 7D3. *
> 
> ...



I'd settle for the 90D sensor, an AF system upgraded to the 1D X Mark II/5D Mark IV level (the 7D Mark II has essentially a 1D X/5D Mark III level AF system), and the same tank like construction and 200,000+ rated shutter. I'd be willing to pay several hundred dollars more than the intro price of the 7D Mark II for such a camera.


----------



## Bahrd (Jan 27, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> What do you mean by "internal supporting structures"? And why would the difference in software be any greater than the difference between two FF models having, for example, 20MP and 30MP? My guess is that the biggest expense would be in marketing and that should be roughly the same as adding a new FF model.


Also: what is more expensive: a new PCB with a smaller sensor or a new line of lenses (with their own PCBs)? 

PS
Haven't Canon showed off the 120mpx sensor in an APS-H format?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> The source supposedly said there would be an APS-C equipped R, but there would not be any RF-S lenses. That doesn't seem to make sense, it would mean there would be no ability to take wide angle shots. Unless, as someone suggested, it had a built-in focal reducer, but where would that fit? Not much space in the flange to add a focal reducer. Would people actually buy a camera with which it was impossible to shoot wide angle? I guess the Canon 10D did sell for a while, but times have changed. I guess it might be useful for birders or others needing maximum reach, but I'm skeptical.



EF-S lenses already work on the RF bodies with autocrop. So the EF-S 10-22, EF-S 10-18, etc. would instantly give a cropped RF camera the ability to shoot wide.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> Good point, I hadn't thought of that. And I guess third parties could make "RF-S" lenses. Still seems a bit odd, though, an R camera that can't do wide angle with native R lenses.



Not many 7D/7DII users did WA with those cameras. About the only lens I use with my 7D Mark II is a 70-200/2.8. I use my 5D bodies for any wide angle stuff.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

BillB said:


> An R7 mirrorless won't be able to use the 1D Mark III AF, except maybe for the Liveview part.



Have you looked at the 1D X Mark III Live View AF specs? They're pretty impressive and might exceed the OVF AF system. The 90D certainly has better LV AF than OVF AF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

addola said:


> However, this could mean the end of the EF-M, as it would lose its size advantage. Even if Canon never released smaller APS-C RF-lenses for it, nothing would stop 3rd party manufacturers like Samyang, Sigma or Tamron from making APS-C lenses for the RF-mount. We already have Samyang/Rokinon AF lenses for the RF-mount cameras, so they already have know how to communicate with the RF cameras.



Aren't most of those manual focus only lenses?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

reefroamer said:


> Would you (or many people) still buy an APS-C RF if you could buy a FF RF body for just a little more? Canon's new gateway drug for the masses. The RP body is under $1,000 now and rumors on this site predict a cheaper FF RF body is coming this year. So all that’s preventing a low-priced full-frame Canon kit is a few (still to come) inexpensive RF Zoom lenses, as exist now for every other Canon body. Thats where I see Canon going at the low end. Simply no need for APS-C or EF-S. Upgrading is a non-issue with the RF adapter for legacy EF and EF-S lenses.



No one is asking for an APS-C R on the low end. They want an "R7" closer to the higher end with the speed, reach , and toughness of the 7D Mark II. Not many 7D Mark II bodies have ever had EF-S lenses on them. Mine never has had an EF-S lens mounted on it nor anything shorter than a 70-200mm.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

slclick said:


> It's far easier for me to imagine an APS-C RF body than a line of RF-S lenses.However I would think it is more likely that there will be a FF RF body with a crop mode (since the R already does this) with the other specs we all come to know with the 7D line.
> 
> No new lens line, no RF-s, no APS-H. This body could be one of the 4 coming.




Does the R speed up in crop mode? Can it go more fps while tracking AF in between each frame? How much processing power is freed up in crop mode? Or is the entire sensor still being read and then discarded by the DiG!C processor after ADC? 

A crop mode that can still only do 3 fps with AI Servo tracking is totally useless for shooters looking for a replacement for their 7D Mark II.

Even in cropping mode, at the very least all of the lines on the sensor that are used by the height of the crop mode have to be read out from one end to the other to get the information from the middle part of each of those lines. That's how CMOS sensors work.

The entire point of an APS-C sensor in such a camera is to allow speed on the level of the M6 Mark II by reducing the processor load from a FF sensor that is only being half utilized.


----------



## BillB (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Have you looked at the 1D X Mark III Live View AF specs? They're pretty impressive and might exceed the OVF AF system. The 90D certainly has better LV AF than OVF AF.


A big (or at least noisy) question will be whether high end mirrorless AF is going to make the bird in flight people happy. By the posts so far, the 90D (or the M6II) doesn't seem to be there yet. Not sure whether that is going to be really tested until the AF is integrated with a high performance EVF. Even then, it may take a while for the dust to settle.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 27, 2020)

slclick said:


> .
> 
> I'd like to hear from shooters who had extensive 7D2 experience and then made a lateral move to the 90D and could tell us about the AF speed and accuracy, the buffer difference and keeper rate.


I'm 7DII -> 5DSR + 5DIV. And now + D90. The 5DIV has the best AF speed and accuracy, and it extends further over the frame. I found the 5DSR has better consistency than the 7DII and not much difference in speed. I find the 5DSR quite adequate for predictable birds in flight (and have just posted a shot in the BIF thread, where I have many from the 5DSR/100-400mm II). The 90D is similar to the 5DSR, and I find the central 9 point zone in AI Servo good for fast locking on and picking out a BIF from the background. The keeper rate depends on the difficulty of the shot. The D500 kills all of them for speed, consistency and tracking with a very high keeper rate and is what a 7DIII should be.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

BillB said:


> A big (or at least noisy) question will be whether high end mirrorless AF is going to make the bird in flight people happy. By the posts so far, the 90D (or the M6II) doesn't seem to be there yet. Not sure whether that is going to be really tested until the AF is integrated with a high performance EVF. Even then, it may take a while for the dust to settle.



Well, the 90D is being rated for BIF based on the OVF PDAF system.

The M6 Mark II, of course, uses the main imaging sensor based AF system while allowing the user to still use the EVF, rather than being forced to use the rear LCD as is the case with the 90D.

So in that respect, for BIF they're using two totally different AF systems, and the M6 Mark II seems to be better suited for BIF than the 90D when using the OVF.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The 90D AF system is somewhere between the lower grade 80D AF system and the 7D Mark II AF system. But where it really counts - AF accuracy and shot-to-shot consistency - it's much closer to the 80D than the 7D Mark II.


I've had all three (plus the 5D4) and I agree 100%. 



Michael Clark said:


> They did add "Single Point Spot AF" and "iTR" to the 90D, but did not give it "Single Point with 4/8 AF Assist points." It has the same 45 AF points as the 80D. Both the 80D and newer 90D have more f/8 sensitive AF points than the 7D Mark II (or 1D X and 5D Mark III, for that matter), but less than half as many f/8 sensitive AF points as the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark IV.


Yes. It's occasionally frustrating that the 7D2 has such poor f/8 support compared with its cheaper cousins, but the 90D's limitations have more day-to-day impact. I'm hoping for great things from the 7D3+1.4x+100-400, if we ever get it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> I've had all three (plus the 5D4) and I agree 100%.
> 
> 
> Yes. It's occasionally frustrating that the 7D2 has such poor f/8 support compared with its cheaper cousins, but the 90D's limitations have more day-to-day impact. I'm hoping for great things from the 7D3+1.4x+100-400, if we ever get it.



For the type of shooting I do with the 7D Mark II, I almost always start out with the center AF point and rarely if ever use f/8 lens+extender combos. So the f/8 thing is a non-issue for me.


----------



## Stuart (Jan 27, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Whoa there.
> 
> EOS M was very profitable for Canon, especially in Japan. In comparison, Nikon 1 was an unmitigated disaster.
> 
> ...


I like your thinking, but wonder that with the cost of bodies mostly reducing whether the margins on them will be enough. I imagine margins on new lenses are larger.


----------



## slclick (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Does the R speed up in crop mode? Can it go more fps while tracking AF in between each frame? How much processing power is freed up in crop mode? Or is the entire sensor still being read and then discarded by the DiG!C processor after ADC?
> 
> A crop mode that can still only do 3 fps with AI Servo tracking is totally useless for shooters looking for a replacement for their 7D Mark II.
> 
> ...


The point wasn't about what is but about would could be since the tech is currently in use and possibly could be updated to the 7D level in ML people are clamoring for.. But thanks, for the tech info I guess?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

slclick said:


> The point wasn't about what is but about would could be since the tech is currently in use and possibly could be updated to the 7D level in ML people are clamoring for.. But thanks, for the tech info I guess?



The "tech" as is currently in use is still only 3.5 or so frames per second with AF tracking between each frame, even in crop mode using the FF sensor. On the other hand, the APS-C sensor in the M6 Mark II can do 14 fps in Servo AF mode.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2020)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Yes. It's occasionally frustrating that the 7D2 has such poor f/8 support compared with its cheaper cousins, but the 90D's limitations have more day-to-day impact. I'm hoping for great things from the 7D3+1.4x+100-400, if we ever get it.




Are birders/wildlifers so reach constrained that they'll always want f/8 teleconvertered shooting opportunities?

Or is this more about Canon requiring $9k to leave your pocket if you shoot longer than 400mm? 

Would the release of the mythical EF something-600mm f/variable get folks caring less about f/8 AF points? Or is such a reach-obsessed user base that they'll just go teleconverter _*that*_, too?

- A


----------



## Daner (Jan 27, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Actually, for big whites that need a tripod and a gimbal, there is no issue using an M body other than that the battery doesn't hold up very long running the IS in those big lenses. Where the tiny body does not work well is with more common telephotos like the 70-200L f/2.8 and the 100-400L. Handheld with an M series body, those are very unwieldy. I have an M3 and an M5 and have used both to good advantage on the 800L, but when the M6 II came out, I opted for the 90D, partly because of the better video in crop mode and partly because of the better handling with everyday telephotos. If Canon makes something resembling an M5 II with at least the video features of the 90D, I will likely add that to the collection because I do like the portability of the M series with native lenses.



My ideal second camera built with parts from the current Canon parts bin would include the sensor from the M6 MKII (and 90D), the RF mount, the AF Smart Controller and Digic X from the 1 DX MkIII, the LP-E6N battery, and the flippy screen from the EOS R. Of course, I would hope that the EVF would have less blackout than what I see on my EOS R, but if that ended up being the primary gripe, life would be good indeed.


----------



## Daner (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> No one is asking for an APS-C R on the low end. They want an "R7" closer to the higher end with the speed, reach , and toughness of the 7D Mark II. Not many 7D Mark II bodies have ever had EF-S lenses on them. Mine never has had an EF-S lens mounted on it nor anything shorter than a 70-200mm.



My experience differs. I shot a lot with my 10-18, 17-55, and 18-135 (all EF-S lenses). Of course, the L lenses earned their keep on the longer end, but the 18-135 is a lot easier to take on holiday than the 200-400 f4. ;-)


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> No one is asking for an APS-C R on the low end.




No one asks for _anything_ on the low end of crop. That doesn't mean there aren't immense units there.

- A


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

Daner said:


> My experience differs. I shot a lot with my 10-18, 17-55, and 18-135 (all EF-S lenses). Of course, the L lenses earned their keep on the longer end, but the 18-135 is a lot easier to take on holiday than the 200-400 f4. ;-)



Most of the 7D Mark II owners I know use their FF bodies for the wide stuff. It would be interesting to see how many 7D Mark II owners have only the one body. I would think most of the single body owners would have gone for the 80D, which is a better all around general purpose APS-C camera than the 7D Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> No one asks for _anything_ on the low end of crop. That doesn't mean there aren't immense units there.
> 
> - A




I'd be fairly confident that there are far more folks that want low end EF crop bodies than low end R crop bodies due to the availability of many more low end EF lenses...

And yes, you can use cheap EF lenses on an RF body, but most of the folks in the low end APS-C market probably do not realize that.


----------



## slclick (Jan 27, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Are birders/wildlifers so reach constrained that they'll always want f/8 teleconvertered shooting opportunities?
> 
> Or is this more about Canon requiring $9k to leave your pocket if you shoot longer than 400mm?
> 
> ...


Yes, Yes and Yes.


----------



## slclick (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I'd be fairly confident that there are far more folks that want low end EF crop bodies than low end R crop bodies due to the availability of many more low end EF lenses...
> 
> And yes, you can use cheap EF lenses on an RF body, but most of the folks in the low end APS-C market probably do not realize that.


I don't think those buying the low end even know what RF is yet. Even 'EF'. It's just a camera and "Oh, the lens comes off".


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

slclick said:


> Yes, Yes and Yes.



I think you meant, "Yes, Yes, and No/Yes?"

That last line was a two-parter.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

slclick said:


> I don't think those buying the low end even know what RF is yet. Even 'EF'. It's just a camera and "Oh, the lens comes off".



Well, if they don't know what RF is yet, then it's absolutely certain there are more that want EF bodies than RF bodies, even if they don't know what to call the EF bodies they want.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Jan 27, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Are birders/wildlifers so reach constrained that they'll always want f/8 teleconvertered shooting opportunities?
> 
> Or is this more about Canon requiring $9k to leave your pocket if you shoot longer than 400mm?
> 
> ...


I don't like shooting with any f/8 combo, but just now and again it's useful. Crop body, 100-400L II and a 1.4x in my pocket is a brilliant light weight setup. The same with the 5D4 is superb too, and that already has the f/8 support but I'd love to have it on a 7D3.

I say this as someone who owns a 600/4L IS III so I have no problem with reach, but sometimes it's nice to have the reach without the size of the 600.


----------



## Daner (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Most of the 7D Mark II owners I know use their FF bodies for the wide stuff. It would be interesting to see how many 7D Mark II owners have only the one body. I would think most of the single body owners would have gone for the 80D, which is a better all around general purpose APS-C camera than the 7D Mark II.



My 7D Mark II was purchased used and functioned as an upgrade from my 70D. I was shooting sporting events at the time, so the slower FPS and focus performance of the 80D made it less compelling for me just then.

I am not shooting as much sports since 2018, and I have subsequently upgraded first to a 5D Mk. IV, then sideways to an EOS R. Still only one body at a time, but that might change depending on what Canon brings out during the next few months.


----------



## reefroamer (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Most of the 7D Mark II owners I know use their FF bodies for the wide stuff. It would be interesting to see how many 7D Mark II owners have only the one body. I would think most of the single body owners would have gone for the 80D, which is a better all around general purpose APS-C camera than the 7D Mark II.


Exactly. My original 7D was my only body, and I used it everyday with EF-s lenses, particularly with the 10-22 and 18-135. I added the EF 100-400 for a safari one year. With the EF 100 macro, the 7D also went underwater in a housing. When the 6D made full frame affordable to me, the 7D (and subsequently, 7D2) became pretty much used only with the 100-400 for special situations needing the extra reach achieved on the crop bodies. After adding the 6D, I never bought another EF-S lens, and the ones I still have are mostly unused now.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 27, 2020)

BillB said:


> A big (or at least noisy) question will be whether high end mirrorless AF is going to make the bird in flight people happy. By the posts so far, the 90D (or the M6II) doesn't seem to be there yet. Not sure whether that is going to be really tested until the AF is integrated with a high performance EVF. Even then, it may take a while for the dust to settle.


Not many of the Sony crew are happy with the A7RIV for BIF. It needs the very advanced A9 AF to keep them happy. Canon will have to develop a rival sensor to compete, and no doubt Nikon will buy the Sony in the future.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I'd be fairly confident that there are far more folks that want low end EF crop bodies than low end R crop bodies due to the availability of many more low end EF lenses...
> 
> And yes, you can use cheap EF lenses on an RF body, but most of the folks in the low end APS-C market probably do not realize that.




Sure, but I'm asking if some alternate future of Canon in which...

EF-M is slowly put to pasture
RF-S (crop image circle) lenses are slowly rolled out
Crop SLRs pitch the mirror and migrate to RF mount (i.e. we see RF Rebels happen)
Canon becomes a one mount company with RF (i.e. EF lenses still in production, the odd 1DX# gets made every so often, but no new EF glass)
...makes any sense. 

The alternative is keeping EF-M plugging away and there is no opportunity to move from EF-M to RF and keep using your EF-M lenses. Nikon and Sony allow you to keep on snapping with your crop glass. Is that a problem?

I recognize EF-M sells well and it is the small and light platform. But Canon could have a small and light platform with RF and eliminate the lens cliff of moving up to FF -- should they pursue that?

- A


----------



## slclick (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I think you meant, "Yes, Yes, and No/Yes?"
> 
> That last line was a two-parter.


Thank you for your further clarification.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I think you meant, "Yes, Yes, and No/Yes?"
> 
> That last line was a two-parter.




I read that "gimme, gimme, gimme".  

Reach is wanted in all forms -- understood.

- A


----------



## addola (Jan 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Aren't most of those manual focus only lenses?



Yes, indeed. However, Samyang has released one AF lens for RF mount, the 14mm F2.8 RF, so I would expect them to release more AF lenses since they have about 8 AF lenses for the Sony E mount.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jan 27, 2020)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> How will it be impossible to shoot wide angle? Two articles before this one is a patent for an RF 17-70, there's already a 15-35L, there is an RF-EF adapter to allow using the EF-S lenses, and there are already third party options coming out. There's far from zero options. The fact that current RF lens development is for full frame doesn't preclude it from use on an APS-C sensor camera as long as it has the RF mount.
> 
> On the other hand, I submit that, without an APS-C option, the RF mount - no matter how spectacular - is a dead-end proposition. Canon will never, and I do mean never, recoup the R&D investment into the R series camera and lenses by just selling cameras to enthusiasts. Compare sales of the Rebel line, for instance, to those of the 5D, and tell me which one is doing a better fiscal job of driving Canon's EF market. At some point, the RF mount is going to have to reach the mass market. And when that inevitably happens, there will be some who want the additional benefit of a crop sensor for telephoto shooting. I am one of those people. A camera is a tool, nothing more. And I would like the right tool for the job.
> 
> ...


Well, a 17 - 70 is only 27.2 equivalent on APS-C, which isn't very wide angle, and even 15-35 only goes to 24 mm equivalent. So perhaps I should have qualified "wide angle" as "super wide angle". Would anyone who only uses APS-C spend the money on these lenses, though? Very few. As I responded to another reply, though, I hadn't thought of using the RF-EF adaptor to mount EF-S lenses.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jan 27, 2020)

NetMage said:


> I use my 7D almost exclusively with the 15-85 EF-S, but I got the 7D as the real successor to the 50D, not for action/birding. I haven’t upgraded to the 7D II because it felt like it was targeted too much in that direction, but I’d still like a 50D/7D successor and not the compromised 90D.


I'm curious, if you're not into action/birding, in what way is the 90D compromised in comparison to the 7D? I realize the 60D lost some things that the 50D had, but what does the 7D have that the 70D, 80D, and 90D don't?


----------



## BillB (Jan 27, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Are birders/wildlifers so reach constrained that they'll always want f/8 teleconvertered shooting opportunities?
> 
> Or is this more about Canon requiring $9k to leave your pocket if you shoot longer than 400mm?
> 
> ...


My guess is that Canon decided that the 100-400 zoom with extenders is a marketing sweet spot and that it's strategy for relatively less expensive longer lenses will be in this context.


----------



## Gloads (Jan 27, 2020)

Also, APS/C is sooo last decade, lets move on!


----------



## koketso (Jan 27, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.


Not a chance buddy. It does not make business sense to kill the commercial success that is EF-M.

The difference between Nikon-1 and Canon EF-M is that Canon's units have impressive numbers in retail. We'll soon find out how the M200 has been officially killing it in Asia.

You simply aren't the target market.


----------



## Gloads (Jan 27, 2020)

Why not just cost-reduce the RP and then lower the price on the R, when the R2 comes out?

RP @ $650
R1 @ $1,200
R2 @ $2,500
RS and/or R5 @ $3,500

Thoughts?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 27, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Sure, but I'm asking if some alternate future of Canon in which...
> 
> EF-M is slowly put to pasture
> RF-S (crop image circle) lenses are slowly rolled out
> ...



What if Canon thinks they're big enough to take on Fuji/Panasonic/Olympus with the EOS M system and simultaneously take on Sony/Nikon/Pentax with the RF system? Perhaps they see those two things as totally different markets with very little overlap in terms of user demographics?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 28, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> I'm curious, if you're not into action/birding, in what way is the 90D compromised in comparison to the 7D? I realize the 60D lost some things that the 50D had, but what does the 7D have that the 70D, 80D, and 90D don't?



I mostly do sports/performance art (drama, theatrically lit concerts indoors or outdoors at night, high school marching/concert bands, bar bands, night parades, etc.). But I'm not a birder/wildlife chaser.

#1 on my list: 200,000 shutter rating vs. 100,000/120,000. My less than 5 years old 7D Mark II is fast approaching 200,000.
#2 on my list: build quality - the 7D mark II is, IMHO (and Uncle Roger's), built better than the 5D Mark III and 1D X. It gives up nothing to the 5D Mark IV and only the issue with flex when using a grip to the 1D X Mark II. It takes a pounding I would not subject to a lesser camera, not even my 5D Mark II/III.
#3 on my list: The 7D Mark II AF system performs at a higher level than the x0D bodies. 70D had the old 7D AF system (that stunk it up compared to the 1/5-series bodies out at the same time - I suffered through that for three years and often used the 5D Mark III even when I had to crop to less than 50% of the frame until upgrading to the 7D Mark II a few months after it was released). 80D/90D are better, but still not as consistent/accurate as the 7D mark II that essentially has a 1D X/5D mark III AF system.

I shoot mostly sports and marching bands with the 7D Mark II. Field sports such as football, baseball, and soccer are my longest focal length requirements. Most of it is under lights at night. Marching competitions start out in daylight but often go well into the night, when the largest bands that are spread out wider over the field (and thus require more reach than the smallest bands that started the thing 6/10/14 hours earlier) perform last. While something like a 120-300mm/2.8 or 300/2.8 would be nice (and I occasionally rent one), I can get by with a 70-200/2.8 on an APS-C body. With FF, 300mm/2.8 would be essential, not optional. Indoors I sometime use the 7D Mark II + 70-200/2.8 for my "long" body and a shorter zoom (or shorter primes - 35/50/85/135) on a 5D Mark IV. Sometimes I use the 5D Mark IV and the 5D Mark III for my two bodies. It depends on the light.

I don't do birds/wildlife unless I'm already in the right place/time for other reasons and see something interesting.

I was on a golf course a few years back (shooting a charity golf tournament), for example, and got some decent shots of a great blue heron that was hanging around in one of the marshy areas surrounded by the course. I've gotten some bird shots that I like at the beach. But I don't go looking for them and sit for hours waiting for a shot. I don't have that much patience (in the same way I'm an enthusiastic target shooter but do not hunt - plus there are too many idiots in the woods unless you have exclusive use to a large enough piece of property that you are the only hunter for a couple of miles in all directions).


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 28, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> I'm curious, if you're not into action/birding, in what way is the 90D compromised in comparison to the 7D? I realize the 60D lost some things that the 50D had, but what does the 7D have that the 70D, 80D, and 90D don't?



Oops! I initially thought that comment was directed at me. IMHO, the 80D/90D are better all around generalist cameras than the 7D Mark II if one doesn't need the extra durability and better AF for sports/action. They have far better IQ at ISO 100 - ISO 400 than the 7D Mark II. At ISO 800 and above there's not much practical difference, though the 7D Mark II does test a bit better in terms of S/N ratio and DR past ISO 1600 than the 80D.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 28, 2020)

Gloads said:


> Also, APS/C is sooo last decade, lets move on!



APS-C or smaller is still 90% of the mirrorless ILC market.


----------



## tron (Jan 28, 2020)

Enough with this R hype (although as an EOS R owner with 4 RF lenses I am NOT a hater). Give us a 7DIII with no AA filter


----------



## Gloads (Jan 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> APS-C or smaller is still 90% of the mirrorless ILC market.


Fair point, but this is a new system, with new lenses. What problem are they solving by releasing an APS-C body? As I posted later, just cost reduce the RP instead. If the target is a rebel class R camera, cost reduce the RP even more. The dev costs are sunk already, and you will sell more glass, and pull users in if they can get a FF body for $500 (or even a kit).


----------



## gruhl28 (Jan 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Oops! I initially thought that comment was directed at me. IMHO, the 80D/90D are better all around generalist cameras than the 7D Mark II if one doesn't need the extra durability and better AF for sports/action. They have far better IQ at ISO 100 - ISO 400 than the 7D Mark II. At ISO 800 and above there's not much practical difference, though the 7D Mark II does test a bit better in terms of S/N ratio and DR past ISO 1600 than the 80D.


I was actually asking NetMage , who implied that he or she prefers the original 7D over the 90D, and didn't upgrade to the Mark II because it's too targeted to action/birding, but thanks for the detailed info.


----------



## Dexter75 (Jan 29, 2020)

the RP is $999, this thing would be what? $699? Who’s going to buy that when almost every RF lens is over $2200? Canon needs affordable RF lenses, like yesterday


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 29, 2020)

addola said:


> Yes, indeed. However, Samyang has released one AF lens for RF mount, the 14mm F2.8 RF, so I would expect them to release more AF lenses since they have about 8 AF lenses for the Sony E mount.


While every other third party lens manufacturer watching for Canon’s reaction to a potential IP violation by Samy. See what happens. Right?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> I was actually asking NetMage , who implied that he or she prefers the original 7D over the 90D, and didn't upgrade to the Mark II because it's too targeted to action/birding, but thanks for the detailed info.



Even the 80D kicks the original 7D's can all over the field. Easy. 

The 7D Mark II is what the 7D should have been, but was not.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2020)

Gloads said:


> Fair point, but this is a new system, with new lenses. What problem are they solving by releasing an APS-C body? As I posted later, just cost reduce the RP instead. If the target is a rebel class R camera, cost reduce the RP even more. The dev costs are sunk already, and you will sell more glass, and pull users in if they can get a FF body for $500 (or even a kit).



There's a significant difference between "less than the RP" at an introductory price of $1,299 (body only) and "$500 (or even a kit)." 

Just look at recent past history: 

EOS 77D introductory price: $899 (2017-02)
EOS Rebel T7i/800D introductory price: $749 (2017-02)

Only $150 between the top Rebel and the lowest x0D.
The new "budget" EOS R will not be $500, it will be $800-900.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 29, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> the RP is $999, this thing would be what? $699? Who’s going to buy that when almost every RF lens is over $2200? Canon needs affordable RF lenses, like yesterday



I'd guess more like $749-$899 after debuting at $999-$1099. In the sub $1000 price range Canon has tended to have models spaced about every $150-200. And the RP debuted at $1,299, not $999.


----------



## BillB (Jan 29, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> the RP is $999, this thing would be what? $699? Who’s going to buy that when almost every RF lens is over $2200? Canon needs affordable RF lenses, like yesterday


I read that some people are adapting EF lenses for there RF cameras.


----------



## Gloads (Jan 29, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> There's a significant difference between "less than the RP" at an introductory price of $1,299 (body only) and "$500 (or even a kit)."
> 
> Just look at recent past history:
> 
> ...


So the M Series fills that gap, no? It is apparent that they are placing all their bets on R systems, so maybe this is a reason to do an APS-C R. Short of that, if they are truly leaving EF/EF-S behind, they can have the M series be the lower end/bridge mirrorless system to the R.


----------



## Dexter75 (Jan 29, 2020)

BillB said:


> I read that some people are adapting EF lenses for there RF cameras.


Yep, and I just sold my RP because I was tired of using a 27 year old lens designed for a film camera on my brand new mirrorless camera. Absurd


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jan 30, 2020)

Canon can let the M series compete at the APS-C level with the addition of several decent lenses. It has the frame rate capability to replace the 7Dii and a higher end M level body, at a higher price point, should suffice. Otherwise, abandon the APS market to Fuji and concentrate on "affordable" lenses for the R mount. A "nifty fifty" would be nice, a moderately priced mid-range zoom (18-135 like) and one longer telephoto similar to the 70-300 IS f4.0-5.6 would round out a kit. Canon has a window while Nikon is struggling with lens options to forge ahead and catch Sony.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 30, 2020)

dickgrafixstop said:


> Canon can let the M series compete at the APS-C level with the addition of several decent lenses. It has the frame rate capability to replace the 7Dii and a higher end M level body, at a higher price point, should suffice. Otherwise, abandon the APS market to Fuji and concentrate on "affordable" lenses for the R mount. A "nifty fifty" would be nice, a moderately priced mid-range zoom (18-135 like) and one longer telephoto similar to the 70-300 IS f4.0-5.6 would round out a kit. Canon has a window while Nikon is struggling with lens options to forge ahead and catch Sony.



Wait, so you're saying on an EF-M mount camera I can't use all 79 EF zoom lenses, all 61 EF primes lenses, all 8 TS-E lenses, the MP-E 65mm, and all 12 EF-S lenses that Canon has sold since 1987?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 31, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Yep, and I just sold my RP because I was tired of using a 27 year old lens designed for a film camera on my brand new mirrorless camera. Absurd


What camera did you buy instead?


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 1, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> What camera did you buy instead?



Havent decided yet. Either the XT3 or maybe wait for the XT4.


----------



## koketso (Feb 3, 2020)

Gloads said:


> Why not just cost-reduce the RP and then lower the price on the R, when the R2 comes out?
> 
> RP @ $650
> R1 @ $1,200
> ...


RP at $650 would kill the 6DMkII, 90D, M6MkII, and upcoming 850D. Therefore... its not happening. I don't see the EOS RP ever going below $899 in its lifetime (unless on sale of course).


----------



## SteveC (Feb 3, 2020)

koketso said:


> RP at $650 would kill the 6DMkII, 90D, M6MkII, and upcoming 850D. Therefore... its not happening. I don't see the EOS RP ever going below $899 in its lifetime (unless on sale of course).



I don't see it killing the M6mkII or the 90D simply because the sensor has significantly less resolution. I personally wouldn't trade my M6-II straight across for an RP. Sometimes lower resolution can be advantageous, but it's not always so, so the RP is not unambiguously better than the other camera..


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 5, 2020)

koketso said:


> RP at $650 would kill the 6DMkII, 90D, M6MkII, and upcoming 850D. Therefore... its not happening. I don't see the EOS RP ever going below $899 in its lifetime (unless on sale of course).



The RP and the 90D/M6 Mark II are entirely different tools intended for entirely different purposes. 

As far as the 6D Mark II goes, I doubt it is selling in very high numbers now. It's already been on the market for three years. There's not much left to kill from Canon's perspective. That ship sailed the moment the RP was introduced.


----------

