There may be as many as three RF mount APS-C cameras on the horizon [CR1]

[John Wilde]

I am now considering my next move since there is very little news on the M. Canon has to realize people are already leaving Canon because of their lack of customer support in helping consumers decide to stick with M or not. As I look at other brands they seem to be more transparent about future plans.

Nikon's transparency is a lens roadmap that only shows one additional Z-DX lens, for a grand total of three Z-DX lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon has to realize people are already leaving Canon because of their lack of customer support in helping consumers decide to stick with M or not.

Or what? Lol.

The M remains a best-selling line. Of course some people leave Canon for other systems. Just as people leave other systems and switch to Canon. What matters is the net movement.

For a decade on this forum, people have been saying, “Canon must ______!,” and filling in the blank with their own favorite fantasy. Somehow, Canon has weathered the implications of doom and remained the market leader this whole time. It’s possible, just may be ever so slightly a teensy weensy bit probable, that Canon knows more about the market than any one individual such as yourself.

 

[unfocused]

Good point - serious question: does the R5 offer a crop mode? Didn't know that. My 5D4 doesn't have this option, only the aspect ration can be changed, 1:1 is the smallest image you can pre-select. Anyway, I guess an R7 as a real 7D successor should be a fast camera settled below half the prize of an R5 and - hopefully - offer everything I need for birding. For FF, I still am happy with my 5D4.

Both the R and the R5 offer the option to crop to 1:1.6. I assume the other R series do as well.

 

[unfocused]

Unless you also want to hang a wider lens on your FF body at the same time you're using a telephoto in crop mode.

How would that work? As far as I know, you can only mount one lens on a camera body at a time. I have the aspect ratio on my custom menus, so it's very simple to switch from full frame to crop and back to full frame.

 

[unfocused]

Thx a lot, Steve! For me, the option to select crop with an EF lens attached would be most important. I use an EF 500mm prime + 1.4x TC quite frequently (mostly hand-held), sometimes also with a 2.0x TC, if the atmosphere is clear and enough light available. So if I could switch then to a 1.6x crop mode that would be an acceptable solution for me. 45MP in FF would give me then 17,5 MP, which is in fact close to the old 7D Mk I, with a more than a decade better tech, first of all a much improved noise floor. Good enough for nicely detailed images if I do not need to crop further, although I'd prefer 24 MP for APS-C as a sweet spot with current tech.

Lately I've been using the crop mode a lot when trying to shoot song birds. Since I usually have to crop the photo anyway, might as well get a head start by shooting in 1.6 mode, it definitely helps with autofocus accuracy, although all the autofocus points become larger.

 

[Chig]

Both the R and the R5 offer the option to crop to 1:1.6. I assume the other R series do as well.

Crop mode is really a mirrorless feature as I can't see how it would work with an optical viewfinder on a DSLR

 

[justaCanonuser]

Crop mode is really a mirrorless feature as I can't see how it would work with an optical viewfinder on a DSLR

Nikon's D700 already had a DX crop mode implemented, and I always was a bit jealous that Canon didn't offer this option for many years. With the 12MP D700 of course it didn't deliver good resolution, but with the introduction of the 36 MP D800 this feature started to become useful (I think the D800 offered also a 1.2x crop mode), it also made the camera's performance a bit more speedy.

Crop modes can be indicated with lines in an OVF, basically that's btw an old idea. Rangefinder cameras offered already many decades ago different frames for different lenses. My vintage Canon 7 rangefinder has a little wheel to select the indicated frame manually for the lens attached, Leica's M3 came up already in 1954 with an automatic system that used a mechanical contact to tell the camera which lens was attached. My New Mamiya 6 medium format rangefinder has this feature, too, but based on electronics. So, that's easy.

The image within the crop frame is smaller, that's a fundamental disadvantage which cannot be improved. An EVF is here more flexible, of course.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Lately I've been using the crop mode a lot when trying to shoot song birds. Since I usually have to crop the photo anyway, might as well get a head start by shooting in 1.6 mode, it definitely helps with autofocus accuracy, although all the autofocus points become larger.

Thank you, so the crop mode is really useful for birding. Very interesting for me, indeed.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I may make the switch to full frame and see if the new Canon entry level they are supposed to deliver sometime this year or next is competitive with the Nikon Z6 for features/price.

An RP II may be a nice entry level option. I played a little bit with the original RP in our local shop, overall I liked it's handling and small size, good for compact, light lenses. I didn't give it a go, since I always would prefer my 5D4, but for that price, I guess latest an RP II with some decent 4k video features would a really attractive option to upgrade from the M series.

 

[Michael Clark]

I haven't seen any mention that they're still making them. Do you have such info? If not, I imagine they're just burning through whatever stock they have left.

Very few cameras are in constant production. They make a batch to stockpile a supply that should last a few months, then convert the line over to making a batch of another model, then use the same line to make a batch of a third model, and so on. With lenses sometimes a single run will last for several years before another run is needed. There are notable gaps in the date codes of some EF lens models that were not mainstream lenses.

 

[Michael Clark]

I am now considering my next move since there is very little news on the M. Canon has to realize people are already leaving Canon because of their lack of customer support in helping consumers decide to stick with M or not. As I look at other brands they seem to be more transparent about future plans. I stopped buying lenses about a year ago and I see people doing incredible thinks with the EOS-M with black magic software getting 4K video with the original EOS-M camera. Many people will be glued into place not wanting to abandon the M so Canon is killing demand for their own products. If they could just slap a viewfinder of the M6 Mkii - give it some IBIS - it would be a hit and breathe probably another 4 years of life into the M system. I know it would probably clash with their R-APS-C plans so it is not going to happen. I may make the switch to full frame and see if the new Canon entry level they are supposed to deliver sometime this year or next is competitive with the Nikon Z6 for features/price.

You're not the type of customer to whom Canon aims the entire EOS M series of cameras. You're not the type of customer to whom Canon sells most of the EOS M cameras and lenses they sell. You're not the type of customer for whom Canon plans their EOS M strategy, either.

 

[Michael Clark]

How would that work? As far as I know, you can only mount one lens on a camera body at a time. I have the aspect ratio on my custom menus, so it's very simple to switch from full frame to crop and back to full frame.

Exactly. For an R5 to do double duty (with something like a 24-70 as well as a telephoto zoom) at the same time you'd need two of them. So why pay for a second R5 @ $3,800 when an APS-C body for, say, $2,600 might do the job just as well (or even better if it has, say, a 32 MP APS-C sensor with the same pixel density as an 82 MP FF sensor)?

 

[Skux]

APS-C R mount body + RF-S lenses = No upgrade path. Totally stuck with APS-C R-mount.
APS-C R mouint body + RF lenses = Big, Heavy and Expensive.
RP FF body + Cheap and slow RF lenses =Cheap and light weight to get into FF

The latter is what I'm hoping for. Now that they've got all their big flagship lenses out of the way I'm hoping they can start introducing lenses for the rest of us. Not every lens has to be an f1.4 behemoth.

 

[unfocused]

Exactly. For an R5 to do double duty (with something like a 24-70 as well as a telephoto zoom) at the same time you'd need two of them. So why pay for a second R5 @ $3,800 when an APS-C body for, say, $2,600 might do the job just as well (or even better if it has, say, a 32 MP APS-C sensor with the same pixel density as an 82 MP FF sensor)?

And, how do you propose to mount two lenses on an APS-C body at the same time?

 

[neuroanatomist]

And, how do you propose to mount two lenses on an APS-C body at the same time?

I propose that you re-read @Michael Clark’s post, but more carefully this time.

 

[Michael Clark]

And, how do you propose to mount two lenses on an APS-C body at the same time?

I don't, nor have I ever, proposed such. What I proposed is:

Scenario 1: R5 #1 with 24-70 being used exclusively in FF mode, R5 #2 with telephoto lens being used exclusively in crop mode.

Scenario 2: R5 with 24-70 being used exclusively in FF mode, R7 (with higher pixel density sensor than a second R5) being used with telephoto lens exclusively in crop mode (because that's the only way it can be used).

It gets even more obvious if one realizes one needs something like a 120-300mm f/2.8 with the second R5 not in crop mode to match the angles of view one can get with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and an R7. If one is going to use the second R5 in crop mode all of the time with the 70-200/2.8 it makes absolutely no sense to pay for a second R5 instead of paying less for an R7 with higher pixel density.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I propose you read my post, which simply stated:

Fair point, apologies – I didn't read back far enough. Still, I'm sure you're aware that this question:

And, how do you propose to mount two lenses on an APS-C body at the same time?

...was disingenuous at best.

 

[unfocused]

Fair point, apologies – I didn't read back far enough. Still, I'm sure you're aware that this question:


...was disingenuous at best.

True, mine was a disingenuous response to a disingenuous response to my original post.

 

[Chig]

Oi....that could fit on r/ConfidentlyIncorrect....
"Advanced Photo System (APS) is a discontinued film format for still photography first produced in 1996." *Wikipedia
It was the last new film format before digital became a common thing. Reason were in fact the ability to build smaller and cheaper cameras with smaller lenses.

If they'll do produce APS-C R cameras, APS-C Lenses would make a lot of sense for both advanced and budget users.
Budget users can get affordable and compact lenses at all, while birders (or who whatever) can get cheaper, lighter or longer telephoto lenses (choose 2),
just imagine super tele RF-S L lenses. maybe a RF-S 600mm f/4 L which is way lighter and not as expensive as its RF counterpart. or one with an bigger aperture while maintaining the same weight and price.....just imagine...
I mean - I am not into that super telephoto range, but if I were and I buy an professional APS-C camera to get more reach, I would too be very happy about lenses, especially for that. I mean with FF lenses on APS-C - you waste a lot of money and you carry a lot of weight for an image circle, you are actually not using at all.

And I don't see any typical rebel user jumping from rebel and efs to r9 or r8 with those very expensive RF lenses. They also need totally different focal lengths for standards - now there is only 2 24-105s (not enough wide angle) or the very very expensive 15-35L (not enough tele). For the start you can continue to use the EFs lenses, but they won't be available new for long.

An RF-s 600mm f/4 wouldn't be any smaller as the front element would still have to be 150mm to get f/4 : that's what f/4 means f= 600mm / 4 = 150mm .
The only part that could be made smaller are the rear elements which would make very little difference .
A freznell element DO version would be a lot shorter and a bit lighter but the front element would still be the same size and that would be much the same crop or full frame.
A bigger aperture 600mm such as f/2.8 would be colossal as 600 / 2.8 = 214mm and insanely expensive and ridiculously heavy whether it was crop or full frame.

 

[schaudi]

An RF-s 600mm f/4 wouldn't be any smaller as the front element would still have to be 150mm to get f/4 : that's what f/4 means f= 600mm / 4 = 150mm .
The only part that could be made smaller are the rear elements which would make very little difference .
A freznell element DO version would be a lot shorter and a bit lighter but the front element would still be the same size and that would be much the same crop or full frame.
A bigger aperture 600mm such as f/2.8 would be colossal as 600 / 2.8 = 214mm and insanely expensive and ridiculously heavy whether it was crop or full frame.

naaa if u want to be really picky - "f/4" doesn't refer to the size of the front element. The F Number refers to the entrance pupil (effective aperture) which is >not< the front element (but could be extremely close in a lot of cases, especially on tele lenses). Just take a look at the Ef 35 f/2 for example - the front element is way bigger than 17.5mm.
Sorry if there was some misunderstanding - of course the difference wouldn't be enormous but still - there would be some. Just compare entry level (no heavy metal L of course) ef lenses with nearly identical ef-s lenses.