There may be a higher-end APS-C mirrorless announced in late 2020, early 2021 [CR2]

[degos]

Honestly, atmospheric disrotion would play a huge role in really long equivalent focal lengths. These guys talking about how they will get 1,200 or 1,600 mm equivalents out of these lenses... I don't think they have thought about that much.

600mm with 2x TC IS fairly common at airshows.

 

[Jasonmc89]

Pretty excited about this, just hope they don’t cram too many MPs in it like the 90D. Low light performance is way more important than an extra 8MP.

Also, those f11 lenses would be shit on an crop sensor.

 

[Bob Howland]

I can't see Canon ever making EF-M lenses larger than the same diameter that every single EF-M lens they make currently is. It's been eight years. If they were going to make a lens more than 61mm in diameter, they'd have done it by now.

I can't see them making any EOS-M bodies that are larger than the M5.

I see Canon as building the entire M-series ecosystem around the idea of a small, affordable camera with compact lenses for non-professionals/non-enthusiast buyers who want a camera that is easy to take with them when they want more than what their smartphones can do.

They already make larger diameter lenses that fit the M mount...with an adapter. I have used my M5 with the Canon 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2 and 70-200 f/4 L IS lenses. All work well and aren't absurdly large on the M5. On the wide end, it's a different story. I own the 24 and 35 f/1.4 L lenses and those are too large. I bought the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and 30 f/1.4 lenses and highly recommend them on the M5. I'll probably never buy the 56 f/1.4 Sigma because the Canon 50 works so well.

 

[zim]

theoretically, a smaller sensor may allow for a faster mechanical shutter FPS, X-Sync...

Indeed if that and the sensor has higher mpix that would be interesting. Actually the FPS is fine as it stands for me so reducing the size to increase the pixel count would also work (same-ish throughput). Assuming the pixel count would be noticeably more than the R5 in crop mode though otherwise I don't really see the point.

 

[zim]

Also, those f11 lenses would be shit on an crop sensor.

I wondered about that if true then two more reasons to doubt this rumour

 

[ahsanford]

The R7 will NOT be the cheapest, entry level RF body. There's no way it will be cheaper than an RP or whatever eventually replaces the RP.

If an R7 happens, it will be a specialist body for sports/action/wildlife photographers just like the 7D series was. The target buyer will not be someone buying their first "real" camera. The target buyer will be someone who is already in the RF system (or is in the EF system and currently using the 7D Mark II) and has a specific need for a durable, fast, and affordable camera with pixel density that gives them "reach" at a fraction of the price of a FF camera with the same pixel density, speed, and durability.

I think our thoughts of segmentation and product tier-ing may be off a bit now that we've seen the R5 and R6.

'The R5 is effectively the mirrorless 5D5.' I'd peg this as just about right.

'The R6 is the effectively the mirrorless 6D3.' Now that we know what that camera was given, that statement seems a bit of a reach -- that camera got hooked up with just about everything from the R5 other than the sensor. And Canon has somewhat fragmented the lower end of the FF market with the R and RP -- both of which may or may not get sequeled (my money is now on R = RIP, RP may live on).

So 'The R7 is effectively the mirrorless 7D3' -- while surely possible -- does not fill my heart with confidence. Perhaps Canon is simply imagining a completely FF future, and they are trying to diversify that platform's appeal to different budgets and userbases.

- A

 

[jolyonralph]

a durable, fast, and affordable camera with pixel density that gives them "reach" at a fraction of the price of a FF camera with the same pixel density, speed, and durability.

This is the problem. People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much.

Now, one thing I've thought about, and I have no idea if it's even possible to make, is whether they can produced a hybrid FF sensor where the dot pitch of the APS-C section is higher than the dot-pitch of the full frame area outside. It would produce confusing raw files that would take Adobe an age to decode, but could potentially allow lower-resolution FF shots or higher resolution APS-C shots. I've no idea if this would even have any price advantage over simply making the entire sensor the higher resolution - just thinking random thoughts.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

These guys talking about how they will get 1,200 or 1,600 mm equivalents out of these lenses... I don't think they have thought about that much.

Tsk, tsk. Not only "thought about" but "used in anger, very successfuly, in the right circumstances".

I actually addressed your very point here:

it's not a common occurrence to need to be out at that FL, and atmospheric conditions usually become a limiting feature - but I've certainly needed to go there enough times to see a benefit, so I'll see if I can dig some out.

See? Thought about..!

 

[unfocused]

This is the problem. People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much...

And yet the 7DII was less than half the cost of the 1Dx. Granted, there were more differences than just the sensor, but the feature set of the 7DII sat well above the then current and more expensive 5DIII and was much closer to the 1Dx. Suggesting that Canon price points and profit margins are something that none of us can really speak to with any authority.

 

[cayenne]

I don't think this is all true. The APS-C rebels also served as a ladder for many of us to get into full-frame cameras. In fact, I don't know any photographers who went whole-ham and purchased a 5D as their first digital camera (though I suppose I don't know many wealthy people, either. Maybe this is more common than I know).

I did.
My first DSLR was the Canon 5D3 about 6 months after it was released.
I actually bought it primarily out of interest of exploring shooting really good video footage with great lenses.

It has only been in the last few years actually that I really have gotten into stills shooting which I really, really enjoy.

Not wealthy by any means, but when the 5D3 came out I happened to hit upon a decently lucrative contract job on the side and that paid for the camera with kit lens and also enough for 70-200mm 2.8 II, and an 85mm, I think was the 1.4 or 1.8?

Anyway....kinda fell into it, but that was my first DSLR.

I'd not really shot anything since 35mm film days as a teen with a Nikon FA.

I also don't tend to buy lots of little crap during the year, I prefer to save my pennies and buy 1 or two major things a year....

C

 

[AccipiterQ]

If they make an R7 what would I have left to whine about? Why even get up in the morning.

Seriously, as far as telephoto lens options go, just use the RF-EF converter, slap the 600 F4L iii or 500 F4L ii on and go to town. I'm sure Canon will make native super-zooms to the RF mount at some point too.


If they somehow got an 800 F5 or something I think I'd just forget about ever buying a house and just get that.

 

[AccipiterQ]

I wondered about that if true then two more reasons to doubt this rumour

they can make new RF super-zoom glass. Or an official EF-RF adapter

 

[researcher]

Depending on what your definition of affordable is, I don't think this camera is it. The rumor specifically states "high end". I am guessing at least $2k. The 7D Mark II is not a Rebel.

Fair point. That said, I'm still curious what they will come out with - as long as it has the same base features (IBIS, eye-focus, mount etc.) and is priced below an R6, I'm willing to take a serious look. And who knows, if enough people want one, maybe they will make a Rebel-ized version that will move in volume. Even in the era crazy smart phones, there are enough weirdos who want a baby-step-up to better image quality and creative flexibility. Lets see what emerges.

 

[BakaBokeh]

This is the problem. People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much.

Now, one thing I've thought about, and I have no idea if it's even possible to make, is whether they can produced a hybrid FF sensor where the dot pitch of the APS-C section is higher than the dot-pitch of the full frame area outside. It would produce confusing raw files that would take Adobe an age to decode, but could potentially allow lower-resolution FF shots or higher resolution APS-C shots. I've no idea if this would even have any price advantage over simply making the entire sensor the higher resolution - just thinking random thoughts.

lol. I was just thinking of a possible solution for the pixel density/reach problem and in a half awake state, my engineering brain thought of the same solution. Pixels in the APS-C region are of a higher resolution... and when shooting full frame, those pixels get binned to match the larger pixels sizes outside the full frame. I would probably make the camera do that instead of creating weird hybrid files.

The other idea I had is a combining of segments. Crop mode is a feature for R cameras going forward, so a super high resolution camera could address the pixel density problem. I'm thinking the R5s or R3 with with 80 MP would give you ~30MP in crop mode. The idea though, is where the processing power gets shifted. In High Resolution mode, you'd have a slower shooting speed... maybe around the ballpark of an EOS R. In crop mode, the lower resolution will allow processing resources to shift to accommodate faster shooting speeds... most like matching the R5/R6 12/20 FPS. High Resolution to make the 5Ds users happy, and High Speed Crop/Pixel Density to make the 7DII users happy. And this is an 'easy' camera that Canon can develop which would streamline the model lines in this contracting camera market, so they're happy. Although... wallets might not be happy.

 

[dwarven]

Which means we've pretty much all accepted that it can't happen because the margins aren't in it for Canon. At least not yet.

There may be a higher-end APS-C mirrorless announced in late 2020, early 2021 [CR2]

I have been told that Canon has plans to announce a "high-end" APS-C camera in late 2020 or early 2021. Product launches are obviously affected by the current

www.canonrumors.com

 

[anth455]

I posted this in another thread. A 1.3 crop mode on the R5 would still be 26mp. 500mm x 1.3 is 650 and the file sizes would be similar to 6d ii or around 35mb.
Its the same field of view as the 7d ii with 400mm lens. But with 26mp. I think that would be ok for the sort of stuff I do. I think the 1.6 crop mode only has a bit less than 18mp.

 

[wyotex43n]

I agree with you. The 7d mk2 is the in between camera that probably caused a lot of discussion at Canon. Its APC but with the speed and build quality of of the higher end FF Canon's. Most users put higher end telephotos on them. In effect a budget 1D minus the high iso performance. I think Canon sees two markets. FF with high quality expensive lenses and profit margin. M series for small light relatively inexpensive but prone to erosion due to smart phones.
The new 600/800mm seem like gateway products to entice users to the RF side.

One last comment: Of course Canon may be thinking an R6 at 20mp with a 1.4 extender is how the satisfy/pacify those of us that want a 7Dmk2 replacement.

 

[unfocused]

The more I think about this the more I believe that an M7 is the more likely possibility. An APS-C R body would create tremendous market confusion and splitting APS-C bodies into three different lines (DSLR, M and R) seems unlikely. If Canon truly intends to phase out DSLRs (I don't believe they do, but I'm willing to accept the possibility) then I can't imagine them mucking up the R and M lines with a mixture of sensor sizes.

It makes much more sense and far less confusing to consumers to have a single full frame line and single crop sensor line.

Canon could create a very compelling M7 to sit at the top of the line using the 90D sensor and carrying over many of the R5 features. There is nothing that the R body provides that could not be built into an M7. In fact, like the 7D, it could be essentially the same size as the R5.

They've designed the R series to offer the option of a 1.6 crop, so why put a 1.6 crop sensor in R bodies? If they proceed with a high megapixel R body, there is even less of a reason to offer a crop sensor camera. Put a 90 mp full frame sensor in and you'd got the equivalent of the 90D sensor in a full frame body, while offering all the advantages of full frame.

When Canon created the R mount they made a huge deal out of how they could now design lenses specifically for the R mount, offering things they couldn't offer in EF. Why mess with that by throwing in RF crop sensor lenses? Plus, most RF lenses would be ridiculous overkill for a crop sensor and you'd still have the confusing 1.6 factor for focal lengths.

Adding an additional body at the top end of the M line would help sell EF-M lenses and the cost of new lenses would be spread out over more bodies, including a body that appeals to the highly lucrative enthusiast market.

All EF lenses work fine with the existing adapter, just as they do with the RF adapter. So, consumers who want to use both formats would still be able to do so using EF lenses.

The only question would be whether or not they create a handful of long zooms or primes that are custom tuned to the M mount.

Canon's new RF lenses show they can create low-cost telephotos, so they could certainly build a handful of telephotos specifically for the M line. In fact, I would bet Canon engineers would be energized by the prospect of designing lenses designed specifically for the M mount and the APS-C image circle.

For Canon, the prospect of a mirrorless future with a clear cut division between APS-C and Full Frame has got to be compelling.

 

[zim]

Can I ask, would a graduated (incremental) crop on FF be possible entirely through software? I wish the FPS was like that

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Canon could create a very compelling M7 to sit at the top of the line using the 90D sensor and carrying over many of the R5 features. There is nothing that the R body provides that could not be built into an M7. In fact, like the 7D, it could be essentially the same size as the R5.

Providing that Canon made quick on-the-fly setting adjustments as easy and intuitive to achieve as they are on their more "serious" DSLRs, I for one would be happy to see that.