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

[miketcool]

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.

Who says the RF APS-C body doesn’t have to get smaller?

 

[sanj]

I wish for smaller, lighter body and lenses. This will be my second system for family/travel etc.

 

[sanj]

I know it will be much higher, but I would be happy with 18mp.

 

[sanj]

No snark intended with my question here.

It seems to me that the primary reason folks posting here 'wouldn't put a 600mm lens on an M6 II' is ergonomics.

I get that. Fully. Probably at least as much as anyone--I am fully aware that the M-series of bodies are not appropriate, ergonomically, for big white lenses.

Riddle me this. Who will choose to use an R7, with the big whites...over an R5 (with the same big whites)...and why, exactly?

People who would want a cheaper camera and people who would want the 'reach' of a crop sensor. Who do not like the idea of cropping in post.

 

[Lucas Tingley]

People who would want a cheaper camera and people who would want the 'reach' of a crop sensor. Who do not like the idea of cropping in post.

like me

no cropping

 

[OneSnark]

Personally. . . . . I don't see the point of a APS-C "R" series camera.

A crop camera mounting $2500+ FF lenses? meh.

A mirrorless crop camera mounting relatively cheap APS-C lenses?
Some one needs to explain how that isn't a M6 MKII.

Given the generally super slow release rate of "M" lenses. . . and the total lack of fast (not even F4) zoom lenses. . .I don't hold out any hope that an APS-C "R" camera will have anything to offer.

 

[sanj]

like me

no cropping

Sure. But there is a lot of debate on if cropping hurts the image more than a crop sensor. I personally do not have much clarity on this.

 

[sanj]

Personally. . . . . I don't see the point of a APS-C "R" series camera.

A crop camera mounting $2500+ FF lenses? meh.

A mirrorless crop camera mounting relatively cheap APS-C lenses?
Some one needs to explain how that isn't a M6 MKII.

Given the generally super slow release rate of "M" lenses. . . and the total lack of fast (not even F4) zoom lenses. . .I don't hold out any hope that an APS-C "R" camera will have anything to offer.

Wait and watch situation. I feel Canon will provide appropriate lenses in time.

 

[David - Sydney]

I agree with your conclusion on all but one point. You really don't want the M7 to grow enough to fit an LP-E6 battery and you really do want that battery in the R7. The M7 will likely use the LP-E17 and be power reduced enough for that to be adequate. The M7 also wouldn't typically have to run the AF and IS in big heavy lenses that chew up a lot of power, whereas that is the express purpose of the R7 if you read all the comments.

Agree. M7 will keep the M series battery and R7 will have the LP-E6NH. Just another option for either small with M lenses or R7 for big whites. If you want to use EF big whites on a M series then there is nothing to stop you

 

[David - Sydney]

No snark intended with my question here.
It seems to me that the primary reason folks posting here 'wouldn't put a 600mm lens on an M6 II' is ergonomics.
I get that. Fully. Probably at least as much as anyone--I am fully aware that the M-series of bodies are not appropriate, ergonomically, for big white lenses.
Riddle me this. Who will choose to use an R7, with the big whites...over an R5 (with the same big whites)...and why, exactly?

Pixel density. In crop mode, R5 has ~17mp whereas M6ii has 32mp in APS-C format. The rumours for the R5s would roughly the same density of ~30mp in APS-C. REusing the existing M6ii's sensor could be another way to save money. I think that the current 7Dii users would be happy with a density increase from 20->32mp.
Cost of a smaller sensor will also be much less than a full frame sensor (based on wafer costs) enabling Canon to target a cheaper segment. It may even replace the R body.

If a R7 has a low pixel density in APS-C format then we are talking about a very different target segment ie Canon may target the ASiii segment with a video focused camera.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

I disagree with the dual card as it would be another way to differentiate from the R6. CFe cards are not needed except for 5.5k/8k raw. UHS-II is plenty fast enough for the R5's 45mp shots at 12fps.
I rarely use my top LCD on my R5 now. The R6 doesn't have it so a cheaper R7 body is unlikely to have it.

 

[David - Sydney]

I don't own an R6, but all the photos and reviews seem to indicate that the R6 does have a joystick.

Updated my post

 

[Chig]

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.

Not necessarily true , as for wildlife and sports many people such as my self only want more reach and not small size .
I use a 7D mark ii and an R6 body with a crop sensor would be ideal for my hobby of bird photography .
I'd rather have a large body with a big grip to go with my long telephotos like my EF300 f/2.8 and EF100-400 ii

 

[Chig]

There is no way it won't have IBIS. Image sensors are still the most expensive part of the camera, and the cost difference between APS-C and Full-frame is more significant than people realize. This camera will have a good margin for Canon, but it won't be an "entry-level" product. Maybe down the road we'll see a Rebel like RF mount camera.

personally rather not have ibis

 

[Chig]

Well, I guess there is a call for this, but with full frame RF mount body prices falling such as the original R, RP and rumoured RP II I think they will have limited appeal.

There will be customers who want RF size bodies starting at 300 bucks right up to users who seek a high spec APS-C 7D replacement.

However, with cheaper RF lenses on there way some of this market might just feel to up their budget slightly and buy full frame camera.

I disagree as the main expense for wildlife especially birds is lenses so if you use crop sensor you get more reach so can use more affordable lenses like my EF100-400 ii rather than eye wateringly expensive EF 600 f/4 which is why I use a 7D mark ii and would love to buy an R7 replacement and not any FF body

 

[Czardoom]

Sometimes on this forum, I really have to wonder if people are being intentionally stupid. How can you be into photography and spend any time on forums and not understand why an APS-C camera might be preferred by photographers as opposed to a FF camera?

MORE REACH, LESS COST.
MORE REACH, LESS COST.
MORE REACH, LESS COST.

Glad I could help.

 

[Lucas Tingley]

Sometimes on this forum, I really have to wonder if people are being intentionally stupid. How can you be into photography and spend any time on forums and not understand why an APS-C camera might be preferred by photographers as opposed to a FF camera?

MORE REACH, LESS COST.
MORE REACH, LESS COST.
MORE REACH, LESS COST.

Glad I could help.

would you approve of a super light setup of an R7 and the 800mm f11 which would equate to around 1300mm

 

[masterpix]

Not everyone wants smaller and lighter, especially when it comes to a camera body. No one would want to shoot an EOS M6 with a 600 f/4 if they can help it.

If Canon is making an RF mount EOS 7D as the R7 suggests, then that's a camera for people that use bigger lenses... and bigger lenses are usually more comfortable with bigger bodies.

The main point for such APS sensor is that you can put a 45MP sensor which is 2/3 size of the FF one and get higher magnification of the image while having the same features like the R5. This is very apealing to wild-life and action photographers who wants the highest resolutuon you can get (especially in far and relative "small on the frame" objects) and not want to compromize on the other reatures like FPS. The R6 and the R5 can give 20 FPS on the other side. I am not sure that a FF sensor with about 80MP (the equivalnet ot APS sensor - or the R5s/sr) will be able to handle such FPS.

 

[Czardoom]

I disagree as the main expense for wildlife especially birds is lenses so if you use crop sensor you get more reach so can use more affordable lenses like my EF100-400 ii rather eye wateringly expensive EF 600 f/4 which is why I use a 7D mark ii and would love to buy an R7 replacement and not any FF body

Exactly. And not just more affordable, but also smaller and lighter. I have been looking for some time for a telephoto lens for my R kit. Anyhting over 300mm is either too expensive or too heavy (or both). And 300mm offers not particular advantage to lenses I have in my M4/3rds system. I have considered various 100-400mm lenses, the new RF 100-500, and some Sigma alternatives. They are all too expensive or too heavy (or both). What I will buy is an EF 70-300mm lens paired with a Crop camera, giving me the more reach then the 400mm lenses in a smaller and less heavy lens.

 

[Chig]

would you approve of a super light setup of an R7 and the 800mm f11 which would equate to around 1300mm

No , not for me personally ; I want to use my EF100-400 ii plus T.Cs with a decent chunky R6 style body not a crappy plastically RF800 f/11and a dinky little camera