An APS-C RF mount prototype is currently in the wild [CR2]

[mdcmdcmdc]

Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.

Is that what the point is? Funny, all these years I've been using a 7Dii to get a higher pixel density under a small central subject with a long tele. Silly me.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

My guess is (hey, its a rumors site isn't it?) that there will be some non-L lenses that straddle the line between APSC and low end FF lenses. Like the 24-240 which isn't really making a FF image circle until about 35mm, and some of the patented lenses that we've seen posted here that appear to do the same. These would easily cover an APSc sensor with room to get a bunch of IS/IBIS performance though, and be smaller and lighter. But still clip on to an R or RP and provide a good image with software correction.

With no mirror to make smaller and allow a lens to get closer to the sensor, I don't think you'll see any RF-s only lenses. Too confusing, and since the price difference between the APSc and low end FF RF cameras is going to be lower that the EF history has been, I think you'd want your entry level lenses to allow easy upgrades to FF. I could be wrong though.

-Brian

Even with mirrorless, Canon still can (and should!) come out with some crop RF lenses with smaller image circles and more appropriate focal lengths for an APS-C RF body. Maybe they will call it RF-S so people know what they're buying. Since there's no mirror to worry about, as you say, they don't need to physically prevent these lenses from attaching to a full frame body like they did with EF-S. If I'm not mistaken, all of the full frame R bodies have a 1.6x crop mode anyway, so they can switch to that mode automatically when such a lens is attached.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

And people act like every single photographer wants to attach a 500mm lens to the front of a camera and there's no reason to use one otherwise. I for one do NOT want that. I wish I had a tiny 300mm on my M6 but I really really don't want a big camera. 99% of the photos I'll ever take in my life is within reach of a 150mm lens. An R6 with an APS-C sensor makes zero sense to me.

So you're saying there's no need for an R7 because Canon has the APS-C M family.

Different cameras for different applications. A 1DXiii is not the same as a 6Dii, even though they're both full frame DSLRs.

I have a 7Dii and an M5. When I'm traveling or biking or just want to go small and light, I bring the M5 and 18-150 because it's small, light, and does a great job for most subjects I'm likely to encounter in those situations. When I go to airshows, I bring the 7Dii and 100-400 for the faster AF system. Different cameras for different applications.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

[...] But I certainly understand why dedicated wildlife shooters who want the most pixels on target and the fastest frame rates would wish to see the 7D style DSLR crop cameras reimagined in the mirrorless space, with all the potential that could bring. It obviously isn't a body meant for everyone - don't buy one if it doesn't suit your needs - but I bet they will sell plenty of them! I for one like to see Canon being more committed to mirrorless and the RF mount as time goes on. An R7 for the APS-C market, with perhaps some high quality EF-s like lenses plus the ability to really perform with longer EF and soon to be RF lenses seems like a win to me. Match that with the R6, R5, R1 (or whatever it is called) and the R5s (or whatever it is called) and you will have a really solid and broad reaching line up. I say good for Canon, bring it on!

What he said!

 

[bbasiaga]

The APS-C sensor can also be used to get MORE magnification from the same lens (more pixels on subject). So that you can use a 100-400 lens and get 640mm equivalent focal length without having to spend a ton of money on a 50 megapixel FF camera or a 600mm lens. This is the reason the 7D line was so popular. Because you got a rugged and fast pro body for less than $2000.

The APSc sensor size gives only a 1.6 times crop on the apparent field of view of the lens. The 400mm lens projects the same image circle, including field of view and depth of field, regardless of what sensor is behind it. The FF sensor captures the full image, while the APSc captures only the portion of the image, which is about the same field that a 640mm lens would project on a full frame.

The magnification you get would be calculated off the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors you are comparing. Magnification in this case being pixels per inch (Or per duck, as birders like to say). Once the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors are the same, the magnification advantage is gone. We're close to that with the R5 vs the 7D. A 90mp full frame would come close to the 27-32mp apsc sensors. The opposite is also true - if you compare a high res APSc to a low res FF, the 'magnification' could be higher.

Brian

 

[David - Sydney]

Agreed. People don't get that the manufacturing of the sensors is not really any different from making CPUs or Memory. The cost is really per "wafer" used to make the sensors. As an example one standard size of manufacture is a 20cm wafer. From that wafer, if you assume no defects, you can get 24 FF sensors with about 35% of the wafer "wasted," or you can get 80 APS-C sensors with about 18% waste. So just looking at that, every FF sensor will cost AT LEAST 330% more (80/24) than every APS-C sensor, and that's not accounting for anything else. Basic economics and manufacturing would say that the difference is more than that, even - You have the same difference in R&D costs to develop the sensor assuming a number of prototyping efforts, etc.

Cost saving from the sensor is probably the only way to reduce the overall cost of the APS-C/R7 cf the R6
A new IBIS unit will need to be designed for the smaller sensor
Main benefit of a crop sensor will be pixels on target. The current M series 32mp crop sensor is much higher than the cropped R5 sensor @ ~17mp. Remember that the 7Dii is still only 20mp so not a huge difference from the cropped R5.
Whether the 32mp sensor will be reused (cheaper) or a resized version of the upcoming R5s sensor is a good question. For cost, the 32mp is fast enough already and amortised the R&D
Reusing the R6 body makes sense but they could save money for losing the joystick for instance as a differentiator. Touch/drag on the rear LCD for moving focus point may be faster and sufficient
Makes sense to use the same focusing system and shutter speed as the R5/6 for consistency/cost but the R7 can't be too good compared to the R6
No RF-S lenses. If you want to go wide then use adapted EF-S lenses. If there is to be a RF-S, expect just a cheap wide angle zoom and stellar wide angle zoom equivalent to their EF-S lens options. For long focal lengths then RF100-500mm or EF100-400mm (or EF/RF primes) together with the expected long RF primes to come.
Weather sealing equivalent to the R6
4k/30 and HD/60 with no overheating cf R6's 4k/60 and HD/120 for video differentiation. The current 32mp sensor can do 10 bit to HDMI so assume that internal 10 bit will be possible. Autofocus with HD/60
Single UHS-II card slot. Fast enough for video and continuous shooting (CFe is not needed). Differentiator to the R6's dual cards and saves money.
Would make sense to release a M7 at the same time as R7 with basically the same specs but different form factor to manage both target segments. Managing heat in the M7 will be interesting. M7 should have a built in EVF
Same battery for M and R6 variants
The unicorn of the 7D's price, focusing system from 1D, fps more than double the 5D, weather sealing from the 5D can't be supported with the current R body marketing.

 

[AJ]

It'll be great for shooting video. The camera will last 1.6x1.6 = 2.56 times longer before it shuts down because of overheating

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

They should make an RF rebel. Rebels are Canon's best selling line and you gotta pay the bills. So many beginners want a "real" camera system for $500; that's always the cut-off. Nobody's forcing anyone to use it, so I don't know why someone would be bothered by a product that you don't use.

I've heard the M was their best selling line. Either way, consumer grade cameras tend to outsell the more enthusiast/pro lines anyway. More potential customers. But technology advances happen first on the more specialized, high end models, and eventually trickle down. The same thing happens with cars. ABS, backup cameras, lane sensors, you name it.

The question in my mind is, with the M series as the consumer line, and the R as the enthusiast/pro line, where does that leave the Rebels? Will there ever be an R Rebel as a low-cost entry point into the higher range? Or will the Rebels get squeezed out of the market between the M and R? I'm sure there have been lots of internal discussions at Canon about that!

 

[BirdDudeJosh]

It's quite clear that a lot of people without any experience of nature photography, still don't understand the demand for crop sensor higher level cameras like the 7D mkII, and are still stuck in the false argument that it is about price i.e. why get a crop sensor camera if you can get a FF camera for just a bit more. Indeed I see a lot of nature photographers with FF cameras like 5D series cameras, who crop nearly every photo they take to less than APS-C size. It really is very simple. In many places, no matter how long your lens is, you will still have to crop. It's not just with telephoto stuff either, but with in the field macro photos. I'm still surprised at how many photographers don't understand that if you crop a photo to APS-C size or smaller, then a FF camera has no advantage whatsoever. You just have big file sizes and have to do a big crop on nearly every photo you take.

I do not agree that simply more pixels gives you any advantage for croping when they are crappy pixels like what you have with the old Canon 18 and 20 MP sensors. There is reason no one really shoots the micro 4/3 systems when they have equivalent to 80MP full frame density for years. You do loose more than you gain from tiny sensor. I understand the current 24 and 32 MP sensors are much better but I have never had one to this point. I mostly shoot birds but for me the IQ, sharpness and ISO performance offered by the 5DIV made me stop using the 7DII and eventually trade it away for a Sony camera. Even only having an equivalent of 11Megapixesl in a 1.6x crop those 11 high quality and sharp megapixels with good ISO performance got me better results than trying to crop the 20 soft noisy MP from the 7DII. I did eventually trade the the 5DIV for an Sony a7III to go along side the a7RIII I was shooting at the time. I am not bashing Canon and I am very happy with the R5 even compared to my a9 and a7RIV.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

According to the rumors, the camera in question looks like an R6 though. And I'm fairly confident that is properly classified as an FF-sized body - it's an FF body after all.

What is an "FF body", other than housing an FF sensor? The R5 is already significantly smaller than the 5Div.

 

[AdmiralFwiffo]

It seems like the M mount is all but dead. Is that not correct?

 

[Lucas Tingley]

It seems like the M mount is all but dead. Is that not correct?

i hope not, not because i want it, but i want the rf lenses to stay for professional cameras

 

[slclick]

Do you consider the 7D to be a FF-sized body?

Whenever I want to read the craziest thing on the internet, I just come here.

Small sensor small body? This is mosdef a most mirrorless type comment. Anyone who ever owned/used and enjoyed the 7D line has to laugh at this one.

 

[Lucas Tingley]

Whenever I want to read the craziest thing on the internet, I just come here.

Small sensor small body? This is mosdef a most mirrorless type comment. Anyone who ever owned/used and enjoyed the 7D line has to laugh at this one.

a bigger body feels better to your hand and makes you look more dignified as a photographer

preferably bigger body for me

 

[unfocused]

i hope not, not because i want it, but i want the rf lenses to stay for professional cameras

You are joking right? What difference would it make? Buy the lenses you want. Don't worry about the others.

 

[Psamathe]

I do sometimes wonder if secrecy helps or hinders a manufacturer. Let the cat out of the bag too soon and you are tied to a path and people might delay buying and you could kill-off an existing model prematurely. But too much secrecy and people start e.g. "The M Series is dead" and people don't risk it and buy Sony/Nikon/etc. instead.

Ian

 

[Bishop80]

Whenever I want to read the craziest thing on the internet, I just come here.

Small sensor small body? This is mosdef a most mirrorless type comment. Anyone who ever owned/used and enjoyed the 7D line has to laugh at this one.

And whenever I want to see people outraged by questions not directed to them, I just come here.

melgross stated:

Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.

And I asked:

Do you consider the 7D to be a FF-sized body?

 

[Bob Howland]

What is an "FF body", other than housing an FF sensor? The R5 is already significantly smaller than the 5Div.

The 7D2 is slightly smaller but also slightly heavier than the 5D4. Both of those cameras are much larger and heavier than the Rebel SL2 which is about the same size and weight as the M5 and the RP. Camera size and weight is very much a conscious marketing decision.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Yep. If I have a long lens (400mm+) and have to choose between 5DmkIV + 1.4x TC and 7Dmk2, the latter generally wins. And now with R5, I've set one of the custom modes to force crop mode - with long lenses when you know you'll end up cropping the image even more anyway, there's no point in using the entire sensor. If Canon comes up with R7 with APS-C sensor that's otherwise as good as the R5 but cheaper, let alone if it's also faster or has higher pixel density (like the 7D2 as compared to 5D4), it'd be the perfect 2nd body for me.

The APSc sensor size gives only a 1.6 times crop on the apparent field of view of the lens. The 400mm lens projects the same image circle, including field of view and depth of field, regardless of what sensor is behind it. The FF sensor captures the full image, while the APSc captures only the portion of the image, which is about the same field that a 640mm lens would project on a full frame.

The magnification you get would be calculated off the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors you are comparing. Magnification in this case being pixels per inch (Or per duck, as birders like to say). Once the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors are the same, the magnification advantage is gone. We're close to that with the R5 vs the 7D. A 90mp full frame would come close to the 27-32mp apsc sensors. The opposite is also true - if you compare a high res APSc to a low res FF, the 'magnification' could be higher.

Brian

Yes, except the only camera with the same pixel density and speed would be the R5 and that's not affordable for many. Until we have a 50MP high speed FF camera under 2000, the R7 has a market

 

[ronaldzimmerman.nl]

A real R7 is a R5 body with an aps-c sensor. The 7DII has been an aps-c equivalent of the 5D-series (form and weather resistance) with 1DX series features (mostly speed). This has always been a popular wildlife and sports camera.

Most birders I know have the 7D2 with 100-400 II. This setup is so popular. I can imagine an R version of this (R7 and RF 100-500) will be very popular.
To be a real R7 it should be something like this:
-32mp aps-c sensor
-Autofocus comparable to the R5
-12fps mechanical and 20fps electronic.
-Dual card: 1 CFExpress and 1 SD (like R5)
-R5 body with top lcd and weather sealing.
-IBIS
-€2000-€2300 price tag

However I expect R6 specs with the 32mp sensor to maintain a €1300-€1800 price tag.