Will the Fujifilm X-T6 and Canon EOS R7 Mark II face off in the 2026 APS-C Showdown?

[MontereyBay]

Was a Fujifilm shooter for over a decade, however always paired with a 5D. With the exception of the GFX system, the Fujifilm autofocus is horrendous. And the XT cameras are still notorious about false AF focus confirmations. Fujifilm still has not come close to competition with it's autofocus in the XT cameras. Fujifilm users simply tolerate it in their zest for analog nastalgia. I also still shoot 4x5 and 6x7 120 film with Mamiya and Pentax, I'm not enamored with "nastalgia". You'll get a focus confirmation with Fujifilm's XT cameras, and then in post discover that the intended subject is not in focus at all. When on location, with a Fujifilm XT camera, one must always shoot in continuos burst. I shot Fujifilm along with Canon. Only once or twice did I ever work a gig or shoot a portrait session with the XT system alone. Paired with a Canon camera the AF is horrendously poor.

 

[John Wilde]

"Canon has always seemed to be disininterested in the entire “APS-C package”

And Fujifilm is even less interested in full-frame cameras.

 

[ohm]

There is no way in the coldest climes of Hel that the Fujifilm X-T6 will have AF as good as the original R7 let alone its successor. Fujifilm AF is so far behind that its closest rivals are the 5D4 and other dSLRs of the day. The only advantage it holds over them is full sensor AF coverage- a fact which is mitigated by its inability to reliably track even static subjects. I moved from Fujifilm for this reason, despite otherwise loving their system. If they were able to debut a camera that focused similarly to an A73 or R6 or R7 I'd jump back because their lens selection is so good and their bodies can be so much lighter and are built for APS-C, which I find a good compromise.

 

[PerKr]

comparing the range of APS-C lenses between Fujifilm and Canon isn't quite right. With Fujifilm X-mount, APS-C is the only product. Hence all lenses produced by Fujifilm for this mount will be APS-C lenses. There is no reason to have anything else. With Canon (and Sony and Nikon) there is the consideration of so called full frame. Why make an abundance of APS-C lenses when the upper range of cameras are FF? Why would customers want a multitude of APS-C lens options knowing they'd hamper any future FF body? We saw this with DSLR lenses. Only a few APS-C lenses ever made sense once Canon launched the 1Ds and 5D, Most APS-C users bought lenses that weren't APS-C specific.

 

[neonlight]

It is curious that Canon doesn't seem to want to support APS-C much. When they introduced the 7D they brought out a relatively decent pair of lenses - the 10-22 f3.5-4.5 and 17-55 2.8. I'm not convinced about Sigma's near equivalent. But those two seemed to be as a support to pro's rather than prosumers as a bid to sell 7D's. Since then, not much. Sure the 10-18, but having the additional f stop and 4mm makes a difference.
But I agree with Chig that R7 users probably use longer lenses anyway.

 

[P-visie]

It is curious that Canon doesn't seem to want to support APS-C much. When they introduced the 7D they brought out a relatively decent pair of lenses - the 10-22 f3.5-4.5 and 17-55 2.8. I'm not convinced about Sigma's near equivalent. But those two seemed to be as a support to pro's rather than prosumers as a bid to sell 7D's. Since then, not much. Sure the 10-18, but having the additional f stop and 4mm makes a difference.
But I agree with Chig that R7 users probably use longer lenses anyway.

Both the EF-S 10-20mm f3.5-4.5, from 2004, and the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8, from 2006, were introduced years before the EOS 7D was introduced in 2009.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It is curious that Canon doesn't seem to want to support APS-C much.

Canon sells millions of APS-C cameras and lenses every year. Given their market share, it’s clear that Canon knows what buyers want, and APS-C sales are the majority portion of ILC sales meaning Canon knows what APS-C buyers want. Manifestly, Canon supports APS-C.

Probably by ‘support APS-C’ you mean make the bodies and lenses that you personally want. No, they don’t do that, and why should they?

High-end APS-C has never really been Canon’s strategy. The 7-series was late to the party, has the longest release cycle, and moved downmarket with the shift to mirrorless. There has been just one constant aperture zoom from Canon (that I recall, at least…the 17-55/2.8 was the lens I bought with the Rebel T1i/500D that was my first DSLR).

 

[gdanmitchell]

As a long time Canon (2 decades plus) and Fujifilm (a dozen years) photographer, I have some thoughts.

But first, we really should not be putting much stock in the source of the recent Fujifilm XT-6 rumors. Most of them are computer translations of a very strange post on a Vietnamese website, and there is no corroboration at all of the info there, much of which looks like a combination wishful thinking and already-likely updates for the future camera.

Most likely the Fujifilm camera will have an updated (and likely improved) version of the 40MP sensor, improved AF, other updates that would be expected with a new version, and possibly some ergonomic changes. Most people think that it is unlikely to be so different from the current XT-5 that owners of the current camera would be compelled to upgrade.

It is likely that Fujifilm will continue to improve their AF in the new camera. Fujifilm's current AF is fine, though the best from Canon, Nikon, and Sony is somewhat better.

Perhaps Fujifilm's biggest asset is its very large selection of excellent dedicated APS-C lenses No one else, and especially not Canon, has anything like it. Yes, you can put any Canon lens on their APS-C cameras, but still...

The XT line (and virtually Fujifilm lenses) continue to use the so-called "retro" interface with full manual controls including aperture rings, shutter speed, ISO, and EC knobs. If you like that — and as a long time photographer, I do for many purposes — Fujifim is where you find it.

The XT-5 is a very small camera, particularly for one that is so feature rich. It will be a challenge for Canon to compete with that.

Canon has one other small disadvantage with their implementation of APS-C. Cann uses a slightly smaller 1.6x crop factor sensor format, while Fujifilm uses the more standard 1.5x size — a small difference, but still a difference.

For folks who own a Canon full frame system (camera and lenses) it will still make sense to look at the Canon option if they want to augment with an APS-C camera body. It will be larger than the Fujifilm XT-6, but they won't need any (or at least many) new lenses.

One more thing: I'd bet strongly that the XT6 will not be the first 6th generation camera that Fujifilm releases. More likely that the XH3 welcome first, with the XT-6 closely behind it.

 

[AlanF]

Canon has one other small disadvantage with their implementation of APS-C. Cann uses a slightly smaller 1.6x crop factor sensor format, while Fujifilm uses the more standard 1.5x size — a small difference, but still a difference.

You can argue it the other way around that a 40 Mpx 1.6xcrop sensor would give 6.7% more resolution than a 40 Mpx 1.5xcrop sensor and so would be preferred by bird photographers - for them Canon would have a small advantage in reach.

 

[Dragon]

You can argue it the other way around that a 40 Mpx 1.6xcrop sensor would give 6.7% more resolution than a 40 Mpx 1.5xcrop sensor and so would be preferred by bird photographers - for them Canon would have a small advantage in reach.

Amplified by the fact that Canon has a much wider selection of long glass than Fuji.

 

[EthenJ]

Hello, first post.

My bit on this lens variety: I am Fuji's/Canon's target market here, just diving into the aps-c ecosystem "fresh" after being out of photography for ages.

Shopping around, I really liked Fuji, Sony, and Lumix cameras.

But I wanted a supertelephoto for travel/wildlife. Can I get a 600mm on the cheap for Fuji? *Heck no*.

Can I get it for Canon? *Oh* yes; there's the 600MM F/11, with excellent stabilization and portability, for like $500 used. And there's older Sigma/Canon zooms I could get for a bargain, too.

At other focal lengths, it turns out there are a bazillion options choose from, like adapting my ancient 50-250 IS, a whole deluge of >15mm wide angles, Sigmas/Tamrons, and a brand new 1.4 AF Yongnuo prime I just ordered new for $200.

***

So yeah. I've seen "aps-c lens choice" as a common argument for x-mount, but from my perspective/budget (not spending over $1K on a lens), the RF mount is why I just went with Canon aps-c, even though I was leaning away from them.

But that might not be as obvious to more... casual shoppers, I guess. Full-frame Canon RF glass seems a bit pricey to adapt.

 

[neonlight]

Both the EF-S 10-20mm f3.5-4.5, from 2004, and the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8, from 2006, were introduced years before the EOS 7D was introduced in 2009.

Yes, I stand corrected.

 

[neonlight]

Probably by ‘support APS-C’ you mean make the bodies and lenses that you personally want. No, they don’t do that, and why should they?

Don't be presumptive. that's just a strawman argument.
But what does make me wonder is why Canon haven't introduced an updated 10-22 nor a 17-55. Nor for that matter an upgraded EF 400 5.6 for example, which has been left on the shelf for years. They have created an 800 5.6 (out of the RF400 2.8), so that does suggest Canon wanted to make sure their top end FF range had equivalents first.

 

[scyrene]

But what does make me wonder is why Canon haven't introduced an updated 10-22 nor a 17-55. Nor for that matter an upgraded EF 400 5.6 for example, which has been left on the shelf for years.

Isn't the most logical assumption that those lenses didn't sell well enough (by whatever yardstick Canon uses internally), or at a high enough profit (or both)? They can only produce a finite number of lens designs, and that number is likely lower now than when the overall market was larger. So they have to prioritise what makes sense from their perspective.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Don't be presumptive. that's just a strawman argument.
But what does make me wonder is why Canon haven't introduced an updated 10-22 nor a 17-55. Nor for that matter an upgraded EF 400 5.6 for example, which has been left on the shelf for years. They have created an 800 5.6 (out of the RF400 2.8), so that does suggest Canon wanted to make sure their top end FF range had equivalents first.

Likely because their market data say there isn’t sufficient demand. Consider the EF-S 10-22mm (a very nice lens, IMO). Canon ‘updated’ it to the slower EF-S 10-18mm, didn’t update the 17-55/2.8 at all, and for mirrorless kept the UWA zoom as a slow 10-18 and haven’t made a fast RF-S zoom at all.

The 400/5.6 is likely because their sales data showed that people prefer zooms. They updated the EF 100-400L then made it a 100-500L for RF.

The upshot is that Canon has ample data to support their product development decisions, and it’s clear from those decisions that high-end APS-C bodies and lenses are not a segment they are focusing on.

 

[EthenJ]

My impression from YouTube is that customers adore the R10/R7 for wildlife and more, but they just don’t really care about using full frame glass. They buy FF L-series and stick in on. I wouldn’t be surprised if Canon's data shows something like that.

Canon loves that; it drives people to upgrade the body.

I’m not sure I would buy “high end” RF-S Canon glass myself, like a 17-55mm F2.8. Sigma, Tamron, Samyang and now the Chinese are going to undercut Canon’s price, so why would they bother?

 

[justaCanonuser]

When I read your text, Richard (thank you again for feeding us rumor junkies with stuff) it came to my mind, that with quite a surprise I met past year the first photographer using a XT? camera from Fuji attached to a really big tele lens - could have been a big Nikkor, I didn't take a closer look, since I was attracted by a bird That brings me to my impression that on can't really compare Canon's and Fuji's APS-C cameras because many users of these two brands have completely different profiles: Fuji users love this classic - "edgy", like already posted here - retro style look and shoot more in settings in which no big lenses are required, wheras many users of Canon's flagship "7" series APS-C cameras use these for tele photography (birding, wildlife), including me, to get most "reach".

That's why we "Canonist"'s prefer more modern ergonomics with a good, pronounced grip etc., and we do need the best possible AF system available within Canon's "cripple hammer" offerings. Ergonomics is where Canon really failed with the R7: too crammed, too strange arrangement of wheels and buttons for the motor memory of longterm Canon users, too small when attached to a big lens. In particular with the RF 200-800 the room between this lens and the grip gets so tight that you can't really use the grip properly when you shoot with warm gloves in winter (the RF 200-800 has a much bigger diameter close to the mount than even an EF/RF 600mm f/4 lens). So, Canon must return with the R7 II to a beefier body with better ergonomics based on Canon's standard layout. I think, Canon better had called the R7 "R10" and the R10 "R11" or so, to circumvent the misunderstanding that the R7 was not a real successor to the 7D series, to prevent all these disappointments of longterm Canon users. It is a pity, because technically, and despite the shortcomings discussed here several times, the R7 was really a little powerhouse with a surprisingly good IQ when it came out, given its conventional sensor, and also really good video specs.

The natural competitor would be Nikon's Z50 series when it gets to wildlife photography. But even the Z50 II isn't up to the R7, despite its improved AF system, and no real successor to Nikon's D500 DSLR, which was probably the best APS-C camera when it came out. So I fear that this may drive Canon to present an R7 II that isn't as good as it could be, but let's wait and see...

 

[justaCanonuser]

My impression from YouTube is that customers adore the R10/R7 for wildlife and more, but they just don’t really care about using full frame glass. They buy FF L-series and stick in on. I wouldn’t be surprised if Canon's data shows something like that.

You nailed it, and I guess that's why Canon isn't in a hurry with APS-C glass. Fuji is in a different position, being focused both on an APS-C and a (half) middle format system.