svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDQ2MicgeG1sbnM9J2h0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzIwMDAvc3ZnJz48L3N2Zz4= - An APS-C sensor equipped EOS R camera mentioned again [CR1]

    An APS-C sensor equipped EOS R camera mentioned again [CR1]

    By Updated:180 Comments1 Min Read Canon EOS Rumors

    In a couple of weeks, we'll see the Canon EOS 90D released, a camera that has been rumored for quite some time to be a replacement for both the EOS 80D and EOS 7D Mark II. If the EOS 90D is more 80D than EOS 7D Mark II, then there could be a perceived hole in Canon's lineup without an APS-C wildlife/sports camera.

    Over the last couple of weeks, we have received some more mentions of an EOS R series camera with an APS-C sensor still being “considered” by Canon and that testing for such a camera has taken place.

    The same source did mention that there are no plans for any sort of RF-S lenses, which would make a lot of sense as the development of the EF-S lineup seems to be have been abandoned beyond updated kit lenses.

    More to come…

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    180 comments

    1. With the high MP sensors why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
      FF sensors seem to be coming down in price as well.
      Thus a 7D MIII performance when the new high MP FF is in crop mode for people who get off on birds and you also have the WA ability of a FF camera and the shallower depth of field some really like with the FF.
      Best of both worlds.
      Ooops, then you would not have to buy 2 cameras, how stupid of me. :LOL::ROFLMAO:
    3. With the high MP sensors why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
      FF sensors seem to be coming down in price as well.
      [..]

      For the same sized wafer you can get about 2.25 more APS-C sensors than FF sensors. So the component price for a FF sensor will be at least 2.25 times that of an APS-C sensor. That doesn't stop Canon from making savings in other places to offset that, but on a component level it will be more expensive.
    4. With the high MP sensors why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
      FF sensors seem to be coming down in price as well.
      Thus a 7D MIII performance when the new high MP FF is in crop mode for people who get off on birds and you also have the WA ability of a FF camera and the shallower depth of field some really like with the FF.
      Best of both worlds.
      Ooops, then you would not have to buy 2 cameras, how stupid of me. :LOL::ROFLMAO:

      Why crop in camera when it is easy to crop in whatever software is used in computer. I would suggest the later cropping is done is better....
    5. Why crop in camera when it is easy to crop in whatever software is used in computer. I would suggest the later cropping is done is better....

      I assume that using an in-camera crop would yield more FPS, so you can choose between 4fps FF or 10fps c with rop. In that case I'd pick in-camera crop for some situations. But in general I agree, the later the crop, the better.
    6. For the same sized wafer you can get about 2.25 more APS-C sensors than FF sensors. So the component price for a FF sensor will be at least 2.25 times that of an APS-C sensor. That doesn't stop Canon from making savings in other places to offset that, but on a component level it will be more expensive.
      The FF is 2.6 times larger than Canon's APS-C, and there are greater losses in FF sensor production due to the difficulty in producing good quality throughout that large of a sensor area. So my guess is that the cost is likely 3 - 5 times higher for FF vs APS-C sensors.
    7. With the high MP sensors why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
      FF sensors seem to be coming down in price as well.
      Thus a 7D MIII performance when the new high MP FF is in crop mode for people who get off on birds and you also have the WA ability of a FF camera and the shallower depth of field some really like with the FF.
      Best of both worlds.
      Ooops, then you would not have to buy 2 cameras, how stupid of me. :LOL::ROFLMAO:
      One advantage of a crop sensor could be on the AF side of the equation. For a given data rate, a crop camera would have higher fps than a FF frame camera. Also, a crop camera could serve as the testbed for an advanced AF system for a high end FF camera.
    8. The FF is 2.6 times larger than Canon's APS-C, and there are greater losses in FF sensor production due to the difficulty in producing good quality throughout that large of a sensor area. So my guess is that the cost is likely 3 - 5 times higher for FF vs APS-C sensors.

      Thanks for the correction! I did 1.5 * 1.5 in my head, forgetting that it's actually a 1.6x crop :)
    10. Would it be technical possible to make en EF-M adapter for RF mount?
      Canons EF-M wide angle zooms and primes could make sense on such a camera

      If you allow for optics inside, yes. A hollow tube like the EF-M-EF or RF-EF adaptor is not possible.
    12. Size matters - look at the size of lenses for the M mount compared to the RF mount. What advantage, other than the price of the body, would an APS-C RF camera offer?
    13. Size matters - look at the size of lenses for the M mount compared to the RF mount. What advantage, other than the price of the body, would an APS-C RF camera offer?

      We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore. Look at the Panasonic S1. People are choosing it because it's full sized like a 5div instead of too small for people like an a7iii. The extra space allows for extra technology. Reality is APSC doesn't exist right now because if size difference, it's a different style of camera. Canon doesn't seem to be giving up on APSC, but I doubt they will Co tinue to support 3 different mounts for long.
    14. why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
      As far as I know the R and RP cameras already has crop-modes if you attach an EF-S lens to an R-EF adaptor?
      But still, I expect an APS-C sensor to be cheaper, and even though we don't need room for a mirror (which would require less space for APS-C than fullframe), I still expect a crop-R could be made a bit more compact than a fullframe-R.
      But still, it only fully makes sense for me if we also as minimum get a compact crop standard-zoom and a compact crop wideangle-zoom lens.
    15. Just announce this already. We don't need 3 different mount systems. We certainly don't need EOS M in a future where RF exists.
      The EOS M is designed for different purpose, primarily for hobbyist. The biggest difference in the mirrorless platform between EOS M and R is that one do not have mechanical shutter. Unless you believe that the mechanical shutter is insignificant to the conceptual design and its purpose, it should be critical to separate the camera segments.

      At one point, I own 5DII, 7D, and EOS M at the same time and the M is crippled in many practical ways.
    17. Would it be technical possible to make en EF-M adapter for RF mount?
      Canons EF-M wide angle zooms and primes could make sense on such a camera
      I think I undertand what you're asking...

      If the flange-to-film plane distance of M is longer than the R, then yes. You can do a research to quantify it but from an observation it's not going to work, simply the "distance" is the other way around (bc there's a shutter in R that pushes the flange out further).
    18. First off crop mode on the EOS-R yields approximately 12MP, which is not great. A true APS-C sensor would have all of the 30MP (or what ever it was built with) available to use. Part of the reason the 7D-II is great for wildlife is that you get the full resolution with an effective 1.6x more reach on your lenses. So your 100-400mm lens becomes a 160-640, and the 800mm becomes 1280mm with no loss of quality, fast focusing and everything you get from an unadapted lens. It's the primary reason I carry two camera.

      Secondly, the frame rate on the 7DIII is a 25% higher frame rate than the EOS-R, which can help.
    19. We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore. Look at the Panasonic S1. People are choosing it because it's full sized like a 5div instead of too small for people like an a7iii. The extra space allows for extra technology. Reality is APSC doesn't exist right now because if size difference, it's a different style of camera. Canon doesn't seem to be giving up on APSC, but I doubt they will Co tinue to support 3 different mounts for long.
      Why not? If the are are all selling well enough to cover production costs, where is the downside to Canon?

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment