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

[Michael Clark]

Really? that would be awfully long for any airshows I've ever attended

By "fairly common" he means there are the same handful of guys in the exclusive high dollar photo-VIP ticket section standing next to the air-boss with that kind of setup at multiple air shows in the same general region.

For the rest of us in steerage, not so much.

 

[Michael Clark]

It wouldn't be a 7D series in mirrorless form unless it was built like a tank, had dual slots with great sealing. It will cost more than the R6 without a doubt, if it doesn't it won't have all the aforementioned specs and will not be a 7D2 successor in ML form. So basically it should be the R5 sans video tech and other whatnots....needs 1DX3 AF. $2799, minimum.

History argues against that.

2012 - $2,099 FF 6D has a polycarbonate body, bare basic entry level Rebel AF system, 100,000 cycle shutter durability rating, low pixel density 20MP FF, etc.
2012 - $3,499 FF 5D Mark III has magnesium alloy body, 1-series class AF system, 150,000 cycle shutter rating, low pixel density 23 MP FF, etc.

2014 - $1,799 APS-C 7D Mark II has better build quality than $3,499 5D Mark III and is almost the equal of the 1D X in build quality, has a 65-point all cross-type AF system very similar to the 61-point (41 cross-type) AF system of the 1D X and 5D Mark III, a 200,000 cycle shutter (compared to the 1D X 400,000 and 5D Mark III/IV 150,000), high pixel density 20MP APS-C (50MP FF pixel density), etc.

2016- $3,499 FF 5D Mark IV has equal build quality to 7D Mark II, 61-point (41 cross type) world class AF system, 150,000 cycle shutter, mid-density 30MP FF sensor.
2017 - $1,999 FF 6D Mark II has polycarbonate body, 45-point 80D class AF system, 100,000 cycle shutter, mid-density 26MP sensor ,etc.

It's entirely reasonable to expect an APS-C R7 to have magnesium alloy body, top-class AF system, long-life shutter, and high pixel density APS-C sensor for less than the R6.

 

[Michael Clark]

I had the same mindset as well, sticking with the 7D (and later 7D2) for action and wildlife even when I used 5D3 bodies for virtually all my other photography. Then eventually, I realized how much better the IQ was when using the 5D3, particularly at poorly lit ice shows. Once the 5D4 hit the streets, I gave up the 7D2 (and the 5D3 as well) and didn't look back. The 5D4 has proven to be an great all-purpose camera for me, with its extra pixels over the 5D3 making up somewhat for the loss of reach by giving up the 7D2.

If my 7D2 had more reliable AF, who knows - I might have kept it a little longer. Generally speaking, I have to admit that that camera for me was a bit of a disappointment...not much improvement over its predecessor in this regard...

Just my own personal experience: My 7D Mark II was much better than my 7D with regard to AF consistency from frame to frame in burst mode, and also had significantly better high ISO image quality. Still not quite as good in terms of AF consistency as my 5D Mark IV has proved to be. By the time the images from the 5D IV are cropped in reach-limited situations to match less severe crops with the 7D II to get to the same framing, the IQ wasn't much different.

By far the biggest differentiator for me between the 7D and 7D Mark II was flicker reduction. That was totally revolutionary when shooting sports under flickering artificial lighting. There was nothing more frustrating that nailing both the timing and AF of a sports instant and seeing one side of the frame bright and blue with the other side of the frame dark and brown! Of course the 5-series finally got flicker reduction two years later in 2016 with the 5D Mark IV, but I didn't get a 5D IV until 2019.

The RGB+IR metering of the 7D II was also superior to the two-layer metering of the 5D Mark III in difficult lighting scenarios, to the point I would sometimes meter with the 7D II, then manually set the 5D III to match it.

By the time the light is too poor to use the 7D Mark II as my "long" body, such as for poorly lit stages in bars, I'm using fast primes with the 5D Mark IV and 5D Mark III.

 

[Michael Clark]

A bit ignorant here, but wont the speedbooster correct the light path for the correct flange distance? Or is it physically impossible?

All speedboosters currently on the market adapt lenses for longer registration distances to cameras with shorter registration distances, as well as reducing focal length to narrow the image circle size. As far as I can tell, they all seem to be the same thickness, from flange to flange, as the difference in registration distances between the two mounts in question.

All adapters that can't squeeze into the difference between the lens' and camera's registration distance must use magnifying optics to allow infinity focus. Thus the focal length reducer to shrink the image circle and the magnification needed to provide infinity focus at a too-far distance from the sensor would work against one another.

 

[Michael Clark]

This is actually a good point I hadn't thought of before - a lot of 7D fans talk about an upgrade path from APS-C to FF, yet they also want a new 7D, for themselves. So they didn't 'upgrade' to FF? Because if they had, they wouldn't much care if the 7D got a direct replacement.

Almost every 7D Mark II owner I know also has a FF camera. Different tools for different jobs. Complementary tools when more than one body is required at the same time.

 

[Michael Clark]

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)

Except the 7D type of body is more like the R series in terms of size, weight, buttons, etc, than it is to the compact M-series with fewer buttons.

 

[Michael Clark]

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

I'd put money on it that there are far more 7D Mark II shooters who would rather have an R7 than an M7. With at least a 3:1 ratio.

 

[unfocused]

I'd put money on it that there are far more 7D Mark II shooters who would rather have an R7 than an M7. With at least a 3:1 ratio.

There may be. But on the other hand, how many of those 7D II shooters would not buy an M7, if it ticks off the right boxes? My guess is that despite some grumbling, almost all would take an M series if that's what Canon offers.

 

[slclick]

History argues against that.

2012 - $2,099 FF 6D has a polycarbonate body, bare basic entry level Rebel AF system, 100,000 cycle shutter durability rating, low pixel density 20MP FF, etc.
2012 - $3,499 FF 5D Mark III has magnesium alloy body, 1-series class AF system, 150,000 cycle shutter rating, low pixel density 23 MP FF, etc.

2014 - $1,799 APS-C 7D Mark II has better build quality than $3,499 5D Mark III and is almost the equal of the 1D X in build quality, has a 65-point all cross-type AF system very similar to the 61-point (41 cross-type) AF system of the 1D X and 5D Mark III, a 200,000 cycle shutter (compared to the 1D X 400,000 and 5D Mark III/IV 150,000), high pixel density 20MP APS-C (50MP FF pixel density), etc.

2016- $3,499 FF 5D Mark IV has equal build quality to 7D Mark II, 61-point (41 cross type) world class AF system, 150,000 cycle shutter, mid-density 30MP FF sensor.
2017 - $1,999 FF 6D Mark II has polycarbonate body, 45-point 80D class AF system, 100,000 cycle shutter, mid-density 26MP sensor ,etc.

It's entirely reasonable to expect an APS-C R7 to have magnesium alloy body, top-class AF system, long-life shutter, and high pixel density APS-C sensor for less than the R6.

How long did that take you? Ugh. It's all meaningless when EVF vs OVF is the One Thing.

 

[unfocused]

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?

I don't know. The 7D series is seriously larger than most of the Rebels, but that didn't stop Canon. I guess it comes down to which would be more confusing, having a larger bodied M or having just one R body with an APS-C sensor, no lenses that match the sensor and a whole lineup of APS-C lenses that can't be used on the most expensive APS-C body.

I'm leaning toward the larger body M as the most likely solution. Others will disagree, but mostly that's just because they are lusting after the R series and want it all. But for them, Canon might offer a 90 mpx full frame body and just expect people to pay more.

Obviously the easiest solution for Canon would just be to release a 7DIII and I'm not totally counting that out either.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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

I'm not representative of the M-mount market, but that's a truism. I can assure you I am highly representative of the high-end sports and wildlife enthusiast market.

 

[koenkooi]

I don't know. The 7D series is seriously larger than most of the Rebels, but that didn't stop Canon. I guess it comes down to which would be more confusing, having a larger bodied M or having just one R body with an APS-C sensor, no lenses that match the sensor and a whole lineup of APS-C lenses that can't be used on the most expensive APS-C body.

I'm leaning toward the larger body M as the most likely solution. Others will disagree, but mostly that's just because they are lusting after the R series and want it all. But for them, Canon might offer a 90 mpx full frame body and just expect people to pay more.

Obviously the easiest solution for Canon would just be to release a 7DIII and I'm not totally counting that out either.

I keep envisioning the M equivalent of the Olympus E-M1X. But in my mind that would need equivalent lenses as well as well, like the Olympus 300/4, so maybe an EF-M 300/5.6 to adjust for the larger sensor while keeping the size/weight the same.
I really like the 'reach' and performance the M6II gives me over the RP, but lenses like the 180mmL and 100-400L really need a larger grip to be comfortable to use.
I tried the 180mm on my 1D last week and that's a joy to use, but the 4MP is a bit small nowadays

 

[scyrene]

Almost every 7D Mark II owner I know also has a FF camera. Different tools for different jobs. Complementary tools when more than one body is required at the same time.

Sure (although I'd caution against using your anecdotal experience as evidence, I've met fewer 7D users than you no doubt, but none of them had a FF camera as well). But that's rather beside the point - it's not an upgrade path as is commonly meant here. Cross-compatibility of lenses makes it easier to use APS-C and FF bodies at the same time, but the people who've criticised Canon (or at least been confused by the current approach) were framing it is bad because they claimed the progression from APS-C to FF was no longer there (because M lenses can't be mounted on RF bodies). I expect the number of people using both is even smaller than the number who went from exclusively one to the other, and both numbers are dwarfed by the cohort who never 'progressed' at all, hence Canon's decision to make the systems incompatible in that regard.

 

[Bob Howland]

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.

And Canon may see that as a distinction without a difference.

 

[Bundu]

All speedboosters currently on the market adapt lenses for longer registration distances to cameras with shorter registration distances, as well as reducing focal length to narrow the image circle size. As far as I can tell, they all seem to be the same thickness, from flange to flange, as the difference in registration distances between the two mounts in question.

All adapters that can't squeeze into the difference between the lens' and camera's registration distance must use magnifying optics to allow infinity focus. Thus the focal length reducer to shrink the image circle and the magnification needed to provide infinity focus at a too-far distance from the sensor would work against one another.

Thank you, makes more sense now.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

There may be. But on the other hand, how many of those 7D II shooters would not buy an M7, if it ticks off the right boxes? My guess is that despite some grumbling, almost all would take an M series if that's what Canon offers.

I imagine we'll take anything that ticks the boxes, wherever in the alphabet Canon chooses to place the model name.

 

[jolyonralph]

Except the 7D type of body is more like the R series in terms of size, weight, buttons, etc, than it is to the compact M-series with fewer buttons.

The mount has nothing to do with the size and the number of buttons! There's no reason they couldn't put the M mount on a body even bigger and chunkier than the 7D.

 

[jolyonralph]

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?

What if Canon didn't launch an APS-C RF mount camera? What would people do? Probably buy an R5 instead I'd imagine, especially in a year or so when the price comes down - which I'm sure it will the day after Sony announces the A7RV.

I'm not really a birder so I can't really say what birders want out of a camera, but I would think that a full-frame camera is going to be a better option even if you're intending to crop in to the image because you've got more sensor space for the camera to track the bird while it's flying even if you're only intending to crop in to the center part of the image.

 

[jolyonralph]

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.

RF lenses are heavy and expensive - why use them on a crop camera?

 

[jolyonralph]

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

AS I said, give it another year or two and you might see an APS-C R5 variant at a lower price. The 7D2 was launched 2 and a half years after the 5D III.