Canon aiming for a $799 full-frame camera? [CR2]

[amorse]

I can't wait to hear all the people whine about how a $799 full-frame camera is crippled.

I'm sure there will be plenty of that. I'm more wondering if this gets the M6II treatment and comes without an EVF or some other piece of hardware that adds cost.

 

[mangobutter]

As I've been saying for years, I would absolutely love a full frame version of the inexpensive Canon M6. No need for a 1960s EVF--no real person needs that in 2021, providing a decent screen is available. This would easily cut costs down. Canon PLEASE make this as TINY as possible. If you can make it the size of an M6, double bravo. If it's super slightly bigger than an M6, then single bravo.

I will purchase for $799 or less. Do it!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I know there are a small handful of users that will still argue the benefit of a crop sensor, but if you have a full frame camera coming in at under $1000, I think those hoping for an RF mount APS-C camera are SOL.

1) The cheapest APS-C Canon is $399
2) The people who want a high-end RF mount APS-C camera want a higher cropped resolution at a lower price.
Whether or not Canon thinks it would be profitable to build such cameras has very little to do with the existence of the camera.
It is not like it is going to be a $700 R5.

 

[mangobutter]

I'm sure there will be plenty of that. I'm more wondering if this gets the M6II treatment and comes without an EVF or some other piece of hardware that adds cost.

Easily and fully without EVF. I've been hammering that for years. This is what I want and need to bring me back to RF. I like the size of the RP but I still think it's unnecessarily big, particularly due to the EVF which I rarely used. Why use a .75" screen when you can use a 3.5"+ screen? EVFs are throwbacks to the 1950s to make old school photographers comfortable enough to swtich to mirrorless. If mankind forgot what cameras were and had to design them from scratch today, we'd have no need for EVFs. Sure they can be helpful in bright sun, but that's usually cause our screens suck. Make better screens, iPhone grade.

 

[neuroanatomist]

1) The cheapest APS-C Canon is $399
2) The people who want a high-end RF mount APS-C camera want a higher cropped resolution at a lower price.
Whether or not Canon thinks it would be profitable to build such cameras has very little to do with the existence of the camera.
It is not like it is going to be a $700 R5.

1) there are 'cheap' DSLRs and 'cheap' EOS Ms. A <$1000 FF would be cheap for FF. There certainly doesn't need to be a 'cheap' RF APS-C if there's a <$1000 RF FF.
2) those people would need to constitute a reasonable market for Canon, and their treatment of the 7-series line suggests that's not the case.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

1) there are 'cheap' DSLRs and 'cheap' EOS Ms. A <$1000 FF would be cheap for FF. There certainly doesn't need to be a 'cheap' RF APS-C if there's a <$1000 RF FF.
2) those people would need to constitute a reasonable market for Canon, and their treatment of the 7-series line suggests that's not the case.

There are people where $500 is a lot of money.
Especially, around the world.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Easily and fully without EVF. I've been hammering that for years. This is what I want and need to bring me back to RF. I like the size of the RP but I still think it's unnecessarily big, particularly due to the EVF which I rarely used. Why use a .75" screen when you can use a 3.5"+ screen? EVFs are throwbacks to the 1950s to make old school photographers comfortable enough to swtich to mirrorless. If mankind forgot what cameras were and had to design them from scratch today, we'd have no need for EVFs. Sure they can be helpful in bright sun, but that's usually cause our screens suck. Make better screens, iPhone grade.

I bright sunlight a viewfinder works much better than a screen. Taking photos via viewfinder also is much more stable.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

There are people where $500 is a lot of money.
Especially, around the world.

Yes, I sometimes wonder how it must feel for somebody in a poor country to watch a video about a new lens that costs "only" $1000 or so, while he only earns $200 per month.

 

[Sharlin]

I kind of like the 'dumbed down' feature set you get with cheaper cameras. Maybe that's because I come from an age where the most expensive cameras had few features anyway. But at the end of the day I want reliable AF, consistent AE, independent control over shutter speed, aperture, and iso, and the ability to capture RAW. Anything else I really don't care too much about.

I was thinking about things like reasonable burst rate (<7fps doesn't do it, 10fps is all right), fast and reliable AF (but I guess that one's become a non-issue, as even the M50mk2 appears to have really good AF), a good enough EVF (probably the most expensive component after the sensor and one of the first things to compromise), image quality on par with Canon's recent tech (no more recycled 6D-era sensors) – to be fair, this may also become a non-issue going forward as tech trickles down. Also, crop shutter niceties like 1/8000s max shutter speed and 1/250s flash sync speed are almost certainly not going to happen in a budget FF body.

 

[AJ]

The big problem is the lack of affordable/light-weight/good image quality* kit lenses

This isn't the age of your father's EF 28-85 lens - lenses good enough for FF sensors these days are HARD to do properly.

I look forward to Canon proving me wrong on this though.


*as the saying goes, choose any two.

I agree. Let's see what the 70-400/5.6-7.1 will bring to the table, from a cost, weight, and performance perspective. Maybe it'll be the new 55-250, i.e. small, light, inexpensive, and sharp?

 

[neuroanatomist]

There are people where $500 is a lot of money.
Especially, around the world.

Obviously. That’s why I demarcated ‘cheap’. How is that relevant to my original point that a sub-$1000 EOS R means an APS-C EOS R is very unlikely?

 

[KeithBreazeal]

It's always nice to carry a backup body on trips, so this might be a candidate. I always pack at least one extra body for important shoots. Nothing sucks more than spending a lot of hard earned money & travel time only to have Murphy ruin the day.

 

[snapshot]

I bright sunlight a viewfinder works much better than a screen. Taking photos via viewfinder also is much more stable.

I also like the diopter adjustment which allows me to focus on the OVF/EVF. I have to remove my glasses or hold the camera at arms length to see the display.

 

[entoman]

Interesting, but an alternative and possibly wiser move might be to introduce a camera *above* the RP (with IBIS), and to lower the price of the existing RP.

Either way, as owner of an R5, I'd certainly consider it worth buying a cheap, lightweight body as an emergency back-up, or as an option for times when I don't want to carry the R5 (to save weight, or for security reasons).

 

[TracerHD]

To Topic: this would be maybe great if the spes are not 2002.

More important: does anyone have issues with this Coockie Part too? I can click accept but nothing happen, so the windows does not disappear (with various browsers) and I can't click anything (Firefox (Q) Element workaround). the window appear every new page.
Sourcecode:
"
<div height="605" class="qc-cmp-cleanslate css-fit90t"><div id="qc-cmp2-ui" role="dialog" aria-label="qc-cmp2-ui" aria-modal="true" tabindex="0" class="css-17ovhjm"><div class="qc-cmp2-summary-section"><div class="qc-cmp2-consent-info"><div class="qc-cmp2-publisher-logo-container"><figure><h2>We value your privacy</h2></figure><div class="qc-cmp2-summary-info "><p>We and our <button mode="link" class="qc-cmp2-link-inline css-pq0k6d" tabindex="0" type="button" size="large">partners</button> store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.</p><p>With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation data and identification through device scanning. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Alternatively you may click to refuse to consent or access more detailed information and change your preferences before consenting. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing. Your preferences will apply to this website only. You can change your preferences at any time by returning to this site or visit our privacy policy.</p></div></div></div></div><div class="qc-cmp2-footer qc-cmp2-footer-overlay qc-cmp2-footer-scrolled"><div class="qc-cmp2-summary-buttons"><button mode="secondary" aria-label="DISAGREE" aria-pressed="false" tabindex="0" type="button" size="large" class=" css-1hy2vtq">DISAGREE</button><button mode="secondary" aria-label="MORE OPTIONS" aria-pressed="false" tabindex="0" type="button" size="large" class=" css-1hy2vtq">MORE OPTIONS</button><button aria-label="AGREE" aria-pressed="false" tabindex="0" type="button" mode="primary" size="large" class=" css-47sehv">AGREE</button></div></div></div></div>
"

 

[Exploreshootshare]

And a huge hole too. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

oooppps sorry for that mistake, how embarrassing :/

 

[dwarven]

I know there are a small handful of users that will still argue the benefit of a crop sensor, but if you have a full frame camera coming in at under $1000, I think those hoping for an RF mount APS-C camera are SOL.

The problem with an $800 full frame camera is that you lose a lot features for a bigger sensor in an era where image quality is pretty great across the board. For example, I'd use a Nikon D7500 or my EM5 III over an EOS RP for wildlife every single time. I can take my EM5 out in the pouring rain without a second thought. The "full frame is best" mantra is so nearsighted it makes me wonder if those who espouse it even do photography at all.

 

[entoman]

As I've been saying for years, I would absolutely love a full frame version of the inexpensive Canon M6. No need for a 1960s EVF--no real person needs that in 2021, providing a decent screen is available. This would easily cut costs down. Canon PLEASE make this as TINY as possible. If you can make it the size of an M6, double bravo. If it's super slightly bigger than an M6, then single bravo.

I will purchase for $799 or less. Do it!

Hmmm.. that might tend to make the M series redundant. Who would buy an M, if an M-sized FF with RF mount were available as an alternative?

If they do bring out a tiny FF model in RF mount, they'd also need to bring out at least a couple of very small lenses e.g. a pancake wideangle and a retractable kit-zoom.

I don't like the idea of a camera without an EVF and there's no way I'd buy one - rear screens are completely useless in bright sunshine, and hugely inferior when composing and studying the details of a scene - but there are plenty who feel otherwise, so a screen-only model would probably sell to the smartphone crowd.

 

[josephandrews222]

Hmmm.. that might tend to make the M series redundant. Who would buy an M, if an M-sized FF with RF mount were available as an alternative?

If they do bring out a tiny FF model in RF mount, they'd also need to bring out at least a couple of very small lenses e.g. a pancake wideangle and a retractable kit-zoom.

I don't like the idea of a camera without an EVF and there's no way I'd buy one - rear screens are completely useless in bright sunshine, and hugely inferior when composing and studying the details of a scene - but there are plenty who feel otherwise, so a screen-only model would probably sell to the smartphone crowd.

I had to look at your equipment list to verify what I sort of knew to be true before I looked: you are not an M user.

That's OK. No snark intended.

I use my 5D Mark III at least thrice weekly.

I also use my M6 Mark II regularly...but especially while traveling.

I get so darned weary of people who don't use the M talking smack about the format.

There are times and places were size matters (insert joke here).

Canon would be foolish to cede the small body market to other camera manufacturers.

Foolish.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The problem with an $800 full frame camera is that you lose a lot features for a bigger sensor in an era where image quality is pretty great across the board. For example, I'd use a Nikon D7500 or my EM5 III over an EOS RP for wildlife every single time. I can take my EM5 out in the pouring rain without a second thought. The "full frame is best" mantra is so nearsighted it makes me wonder if those who espouse it even do photography at all.

Full frame *is* better than APS-C in almost any situation, objectively. APS-C’s advantages are lower system cost and smaller size.

For wildlife, I’d choose a 1-series body and 600/4 lens over any APS-C or m4/3 every single time. But I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford a >$20K wildlife photography setup and have the strength and stamina to use it in the field.

Regardless, the ‘FF is better’ mantra is well-accepted. By releasing a sub-$1K FF body, Canon likely expects to drive RF lens sales strongly, and they’re likely correct about that.