The classic situation: Just wait for Nikon. If Nikon does it, Canon will do it, too.
Upvote
0
An APS-C sensor equipped EOS R camera mentioned again [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Yes I'm into crop sensor lenses again. And yes I can get a more compact camera in the M series. But I still want to be able to use R series lenses, including the fullframe lenses, equivalent to how I currently do with my 7DII. The R-mount has no bigger diameter than the EF/EF-S mount.
Also for an APS-C camera there's a need for a zoom with a "natural standard zoom range" for APS-C users., Like f.ex. an 15-85mm for R-mount. You COULD make it for fullframe, but if you gonna make it, it feels more natural to make it an APS-C one. In my opinion...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
josephandrews222
I Shot the Sheriff, but I Did Not Shoot the Deputy
I always (well, nearly always!) enjoy perusing the posts on CRumors.
These are no exception.
For many years now, I've detected a real bias against Canon's M series of cameras and lenses...and in my view some of that bias results from ignorance--while resistance to change fits here as well.
This bias/ignorance was in evidence when many folks thought (hoped!?) that Canon's full-size mirrorless efforts would incorporate the EF mount.
Sadly for them...the R and its new mount was announced.
I'll re-state here again:
Canon's future, in the area of what we now call DSLRs/MILCs and their associated lenses...will be focused on two letters: R and M.
What many on this forum are calling for when they call for an 'APS-C' R...is, in my mind, a truly full-featured, tricked-out M body...that is nearly double the volume-and-weight of, say, the M5.
I completely understand the necessity of a physically larger body when attaching the big whites to it--Canon's 100-400 II (in my hands, well actually, NOT in my hands!), when mated to the necessary adapter/M6 duo...more or less requires a tripod (or at least a monopod).
That same lens, on a 5D MkIII, is a dream to hand-hold (and use, thanks to a wonderful implementation of image stabilization).
But other than these ergonomic reasons (and, perhaps, bandwidth-associated FPS etc. reasons), I don't understand the fascination with a crop sensor inside of a large mirrorless body. Surely folks aren't looking to extend the life of their EF-S 17-55 2.8IS, are they?! (Full disclosure: I still own this lens...and with an adapter...it works well for stills on the M6!)
As far as prices and economics are concerned...I believe that there's an R-based full-size sensor body in development that will sell for even less than the RP...with R-mount kit lenses to match.
Thanks for reading.
These are no exception.
For many years now, I've detected a real bias against Canon's M series of cameras and lenses...and in my view some of that bias results from ignorance--while resistance to change fits here as well.
This bias/ignorance was in evidence when many folks thought (hoped!?) that Canon's full-size mirrorless efforts would incorporate the EF mount.
Sadly for them...the R and its new mount was announced.
I'll re-state here again:
Canon's future, in the area of what we now call DSLRs/MILCs and their associated lenses...will be focused on two letters: R and M.
What many on this forum are calling for when they call for an 'APS-C' R...is, in my mind, a truly full-featured, tricked-out M body...that is nearly double the volume-and-weight of, say, the M5.
I completely understand the necessity of a physically larger body when attaching the big whites to it--Canon's 100-400 II (in my hands, well actually, NOT in my hands!), when mated to the necessary adapter/M6 duo...more or less requires a tripod (or at least a monopod).
That same lens, on a 5D MkIII, is a dream to hand-hold (and use, thanks to a wonderful implementation of image stabilization).
But other than these ergonomic reasons (and, perhaps, bandwidth-associated FPS etc. reasons), I don't understand the fascination with a crop sensor inside of a large mirrorless body. Surely folks aren't looking to extend the life of their EF-S 17-55 2.8IS, are they?! (Full disclosure: I still own this lens...and with an adapter...it works well for stills on the M6!)
As far as prices and economics are concerned...I believe that there's an R-based full-size sensor body in development that will sell for even less than the RP...with R-mount kit lenses to match.
Thanks for reading.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
My M5 has a mechanical shutter, so not sure where got the idea that M cameras don't have one. EOS M cameras are aimed a portability and they succeed very well in that goal. Also, the M lenses, while most are not fast, are very sharp. In general, the M lenses are noticeably sharper than equivalent EF-s lenses, so calling the M series "crippled" is a bit over the top. Are they 7D II style sports cameras, no, but for their intended purpose, they are very capable. If you owned an original M, maybe you should try and M5 or wait a couple of weeks and try and M5 II. I have a feeling the next generation will be much more capable.
Upvote
0
And I ask again, WHY? the 7D series was as good as the 1Dx for those who could nto afford having the 1Dx. So why not make a 1Dx R camera? if one is made, than why anyone will settele for APCS one? Canon has the M seried for the APCS size sensor already. S
And I ask once again, WHY?, the M series is a mirroeless APSC, the R is FF.Why make APSC R?
Upvote
0
the ONLY reason that a crop R would be beneficial is the following.
it's the cheapest way of going a high-density amount of pixels on a target for telephoto use cases shooting at comparable fps, and to use Canon RF lenses.
in other words. a 24MP or a 32MP APS-C crop will give you more density of pixels for a much cheaper cost than the equivalent pixel density on a full frame camera.
a 32MP APS-C camera may cost you 2K. a 82MP full frame camera that can do a 1.6x crop factor via software will give you the same APS-C 32MP crop factor, but cost considerably more - probably closer to 4K. Assuming it has a high speed crop or dual digics to handle the same fps.
Upvote
0
That makes sense, but Canon has also used APS-H sensors before in some cameras (1.3x crop factor), and I believe they were not compatible with APS-C lenses.
Upvote
0
The reasons I want An APS-C sensor equipped EOS R camera and why I've owned 7D's
1- Save money on the sensor, plus i like the crop factor for what I shoot.
2- I want a capable feature rich body. 7D was a crop 1DX IMHO, or close enough.
3- I do not want to buy inferior M lenses. I have L's on my crop body. Glass first!
Crossing my fingers.
1- Save money on the sensor, plus i like the crop factor for what I shoot.
2- I want a capable feature rich body. 7D was a crop 1DX IMHO, or close enough.
3- I do not want to buy inferior M lenses. I have L's on my crop body. Glass first!
Crossing my fingers.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
My 2-cents worth:
If such a camera materializes, I don't expect to see it until well after the mythical "R x" camera is released. Canon will want to have a sports oriented full frame camera on the market first because there 1) may be more demand for such a camera and 2) providing the professional market with a flagship EOS R has a lot of marketing benefits for Canon.
I'm just not sure if Canon will really want to muddy the waters with a single EOS R model that uses an APS-C sensor. Maybe they will, but to me it seems like it could cause a lot of confusion in the lines.
On the plus side, I don't think cost is the only consideration. Yes, you can always crop a high megapixel full frame image down when you are distance limited, but the other consideration when you are distance limited is the challenge of obtaining accurate focus. If you start with a 1.6 crop, the image in the viewfinder will be 1.6x larger and it's easier to focus accurately if you start with a higher magnification.
Also, on the plus side, as others have said, are the processing benefits of starting with a smaller sensor -- easier to obtain fast frame rates, faster processing and less pressure on the buffer.
More plus side: Since the R mount adapter accepts EF-S lenses, such a camera would be as versatile as the current 7DII, in that it could access wide angle and normal EF-S lenses.
As I write this, I am thinking that we may be wrong in thinking of this as a 7D successor. It might be more accurate to think of it as an APS-C mirrorless successor to the Canon 1D IV. Perhaps Canon goes with a relatively conservative 28 mp sensor that allows for decent low light performance, makes it virtually identical in features to the "R x" but priced in the $2,500 range and markets it to both professional photographers seeking more reach for sports and high disposable income enthusiasts wanting the greatest reach possible for birds and wildlife.
If such a camera materializes, I don't expect to see it until well after the mythical "R x" camera is released. Canon will want to have a sports oriented full frame camera on the market first because there 1) may be more demand for such a camera and 2) providing the professional market with a flagship EOS R has a lot of marketing benefits for Canon.
I'm just not sure if Canon will really want to muddy the waters with a single EOS R model that uses an APS-C sensor. Maybe they will, but to me it seems like it could cause a lot of confusion in the lines.
On the plus side, I don't think cost is the only consideration. Yes, you can always crop a high megapixel full frame image down when you are distance limited, but the other consideration when you are distance limited is the challenge of obtaining accurate focus. If you start with a 1.6 crop, the image in the viewfinder will be 1.6x larger and it's easier to focus accurately if you start with a higher magnification.
Also, on the plus side, as others have said, are the processing benefits of starting with a smaller sensor -- easier to obtain fast frame rates, faster processing and less pressure on the buffer.
More plus side: Since the R mount adapter accepts EF-S lenses, such a camera would be as versatile as the current 7DII, in that it could access wide angle and normal EF-S lenses.
As I write this, I am thinking that we may be wrong in thinking of this as a 7D successor. It might be more accurate to think of it as an APS-C mirrorless successor to the Canon 1D IV. Perhaps Canon goes with a relatively conservative 28 mp sensor that allows for decent low light performance, makes it virtually identical in features to the "R x" but priced in the $2,500 range and markets it to both professional photographers seeking more reach for sports and high disposable income enthusiasts wanting the greatest reach possible for birds and wildlife.
Upvote
0
I wish I knew why some people find it to be their mission in life to shite on people that use APS-C every time their is an APS-C story. I have APS-C and FF because I have different needs and my dick didn't get any bigger when I bought the FF like so may here seem to think happened to them. If Canon makes an APS-C camera with an R mount it won't mean the end of FF cameras. Seriously just get over yourselves already.
Upvote
0
Engineering an high fps crop mode into their next high megapixel camera may be more than Canon wants to deal with this time around. Canon may have decided that it would be simpler and faster to bring out an aps-c camera to get the high fps.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.
Upvote
0
Got a crop camera and a FF camera.
The FF is better in poor light.
the crop has better AF
The FF has a better user interface
the crop is faster and tougher
The crop puts more pixels on distant objects
The FF is better for wide angles.
The crop is less expensive.
The M? The ergonomics are terrible, but the price and size are fantastic!
I find the idea that one particular camera will be the best for everyone to be laughable. We all have different needs that depend on what we happen to be doing at the moment, and what we can afford. Just because someone else makes a different decision does not make them wrong, it just means that they have different criteria
The FF is better in poor light.
the crop has better AF
The FF has a better user interface
the crop is faster and tougher
The crop puts more pixels on distant objects
The FF is better for wide angles.
The crop is less expensive.
The M? The ergonomics are terrible, but the price and size are fantastic!
I find the idea that one particular camera will be the best for everyone to be laughable. We all have different needs that depend on what we happen to be doing at the moment, and what we can afford. Just because someone else makes a different decision does not make them wrong, it just means that they have different criteria
Upvote
0
