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

[zim]

Oh, I think it far more likely that they would want to continue using their current 100-400mm, 70-200mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and so on, with the EF - R converter.

Good point, true. I was thinking of me!

 

[zim]

Apparently Canon are touting the R5 as capable of equalling the resolving power (if not the resolution) of the 5DsR, in which case it has the 'reach' of the 7D2, and it has a high fps, so that could be your best bet for now?

That's the big question for me. Hopefully the trusted real world testers will answer. I'm really looking forward to those reviews. That extra 100 on the 100 to 500 is there for a reason though, Canon ain't stupid. Can't wait for the reviews on that lens too!

 

[jolyonralph]

Oh, I think it far more likely that they would want to continue using their current 100-400mm, 70-200mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and so on, with the EF - R converter.

In which case it makes no real difference if the 7D replacement uses EF-M or RF mount, as both can adapt those lenses without any problems (although we'd need a new weather-sealed EF-M -> EF adaptor)

 

[Maru]

Only mirrorless 7dmkii can be like R5- video and related 8k feature...but then also price looks like 3000...which is impractical

 

[Keith_Reeder]

In which case it makes no real difference if the 7D replacement uses EF-M or RF mount, as both can adapt those lenses without any problems (although we'd need a new weather-sealed EF-M -> EF adaptor)

The appeal of the RF mount in this context is in the size of the body - more real estate for buttons, knobs, multi-controllers, the things that make quick setting changes possible.

The EF - M mount adaptor does indeed work very well (I use my 100-400mm on my M6 Mk II whenever I want to travel light or am shooting in predictable situations where quick on-the-fly setting adjustments are less likely to be needed) but unless a new M body replacement for the 7D Mk II is physically a lot bigger than Ms tend to be (Canon markets them as "Big on quality, small in size"), that problem will remain.

Simply put, more external controls means more body needed to put them on, and an R body provides more opportunities in this regard

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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.

But the 7D2 was launched at almost half the launch price of the 5D4 and 5D3 - $1799 vs $3499.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

In which case it makes no real difference if the 7D replacement uses EF-M or RF mount, as both can adapt those lenses without any problems (although we'd need a new weather-sealed EF-M -> EF adaptor)

It makes a big difference to me - I want access to RF lenses (which can't be adapted to the M mount) and I couldn't care less about EF-M lenses.

 

[unfocused]

It makes a big difference to me - I want access to RF lenses (which can't be adapted to the M mount) and I couldn't care less about EF-M lenses.

In which case, you may have to accept that you aren't representative of the market.

 

[slclick]

My experience has been that many 5D series users have also been 7D owners and the two make for a great 2 body combo when you are not a portrait/wedding shooter. Layout, size, weight, it's all the same for the most part. Give us a new 7D in either ml or dslr with a noise ceiling far above 6400 iso and you will have a winner. THIS would port me over to the RF world, not video specs.

 

[Michael Clark]

Of course it all depends. The R5 has a buffer of 180 RAW images, so I don’t think it will be a problem.

I guess what I needed to make clearer is that if Canon wants to be forward looking, they'll go ahead and use CFExpress in one slot, rather than build a camera for higher end UHS-II cards that cost almost as much but aren't nearly as fast as CFExpress. CFExpress prices should begin to drop as it is more widely adopted.

As far as buffer size goes, don't forget that the 7D initially had a fairly limited buffer. Remember in 2012 when the 7D Mark II got delayed for whatever reason? Canon issued a firmware update that miraculously practically doubled the size of the 7D buffer! They claimed it was due to being able to reduce the number of lines of code in the onboard JPEG processing engine. No one believed it for a minute.

 

[Michael Clark]

I bet it was also sold in much larger quantities then Canon would expect to sell a "high-end crop RF body" now.

For most potential R7 buyers, the question would be: why buy R6+R7 if you can just buy a R5.

So, the economies of scale should make the R7 more expensive.

For the same reasons many 7DII owners also own a 5DIII/IV. Beyond the obvious "different tools for different jobs", sometimes you want/need two bodies at the same time.

 

[Michael Clark]

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

A little bit of both yes and no. The sensor height is obviously smaller, so shutter curtains travelling the same speed, in terms of mm/sec can transit the sensor faster. But the G-force loads at "start" and "stop" are the same, and that is what ultimately limits design of shutter mechanisms to a particular price point and durability level..

 

[Michael Clark]

You may be right, but when I owned the 7D II, I never owned or shot any EF-S glass. I only used EF telephoto glass for wildlife (primarily birds). That’s because there was no pro level, telephoto APS-c glass available. It was that extra reach of APS-c that I coveted. If there had been an APS-c telephoto lens available with good IQ and fast focus (in 400 - 600mm range), I would have considered getting it just for use on this camera. Seeing that fast autofocus is now possible at f~8 with R series cameras, I’m seeing some real opportunities for new pro level wildlife lenses. The new RF 100-500mm may be just the beginning.

I don't think an EF-S (or third party APS-C only) lens has ever been mounted on my 7D Mark II. Ever.

I do recall having used my older 7D a few times to test APS-C only lenses for proper operation on occasion, usually after opening them up for cleaning internal lens elements before returning them to their owners, but I never actually went out and shot anything with an APS-C lens on my 7D.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

No, they already had lenses in the catalog that were designed for EF mount and EF-S mount cameras than can be adapted to an M-series camera.

But they haven't made any larger diameter lenses for the M-series cameras.

 

[Michael Clark]

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

Canon also made the 6D Mark II with well beyond what the 6D offered, especially in terms of AF.

The 6D Mark II was every bit the equal of the just replaced 5D Mark III in terms of photographic capabilities except for a few minor differences. (1/8000 vs. 1/4000, 1/180 vs, 1/200 x-Sync, etc).

The R5 and R6 maintain the difference in build quality and screen resolution that differentiated the 6D Mark II from the 5D Mark III/IV.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

Again, compare the $1,799 7D Mark II (2014) with magnesium alloy body, world class AF system, 200,000 shutter rating, etc. to the $2,099 6D (2012) with polycarbonate body, entry level Rebel AF system, 100,000 shutter rating, etc. This at a time when the comparable build quality, AF system, and inferior shutter in the 5D Mark III (2012) and 5D Mark IV (2016) were introduced at $3,499.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

The $1,799 7D Mark II in 2014 was only $50 more than half the price of the $3,499 5D Mark III in 2012 and the $3,499 5D Mark IV in 2016.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

But then you lose a stop of light, not to mention optical image quality and usually AF speed, with every lens you put on it. That's the reason a 70-200/2.8 + 1.4X on a FF camera doesn't work nearly as well as a 70-200/2.8 on a 1.6X crop body does for anyone shooting sports/action under artificial lighting.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

On the other hand, it would be very confusing and make no sense to suddenly start making larger bodies and lenses more than 61mm in diameter for a system that has been around for over eight years and is all about and only about compact bodies and lenses that are all 61mm in diameter.

Maybe the division between EF-M and RF was never APS-C and FF, maybe it was about two totally different camera systems for two totally different types of buyers/users?

 

[Michael Clark]

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

There would not be as much benefit as you seem to think there might be.

The way CMOS sensors work, the entire width of the lines in the crop area would have to be read out and the ends could only be discarded in the digital processing stage.

So to get a 1.6X crop that gives 1/2.55 as many pixels, you still have to read and do ADC on 1/1.6X as many lines. That only yields a 37% lower readout time for 61% reduction in image size.