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

[David - Sydney]

1) They want access to RF lenses.
2) They want a higher-end APS-C camera than it would make sense for Canon to bring to the M system. (A mirrorless 7D)

Just trying to understand/clarify.... a R6+RF100-500mm (same 20mp as 7Dii) or R5+RF800mm (45mp) are close in cost to 7Dii + EF100-400 but losing a stop. Wouldn't those 2 options meet your points (dual cards/AF/fps/weather sealing)?

 

[David - Sydney]

The R system is for the semi-pro and pro and that's a great system and offering from Canon.

I think that you are missing the enthusiast buyer market which is becoming more important for Canon. I certainly couldn't make money from photography to come close to my paying job but I love going places (above and below water) to shoot lots of genres and are happy to spend my money on quality gear. I could probably do it with cheaper gear but thankfully my budget can cover my hobby. I have felt that I have outgrown some aspects of previous gear eg high ISO performance and AF/fps rather than pure GAS.

 

[dwarven]

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.

I'm always so disappointed reading posts like this. Photography isn't a technical endeavor. It's an artform. But, so many people treat it as the former. Some of my favorite images ever taken are by Jeff Bridges, who uses a Widelux from the 1950s. I'm pretty sure he can afford any gear he wants, too. Anyway, I know this is a gear forum, and we'll all bicker over what's better until the sun dies, but in the end it hardly matters. Use whatever you want. But, saying a certain piece of gear is "objectively" anything, in an artistic field, just shows lack of experience.

 

[koenkooi]

Can you elaborate?
I get the small/cheap (rebel) segment and the "reach" segment which birders have been associated with. The M series with EF-m/EF-s/EF lenses meets the first category and PBD makes a good point for R5+RF800mm (or R6+RF100-500mm) for cost/reach/Dof vs 7Dii+EF100-400mm

The @Michael Clark use-case: college sport venues. A 7DII + 70-200mm f/2.8 can do the job of a 1DXII + 300mm f/2.8 at a fraction of the price.

 

[koenkooi]

Exactly. I like my little RP for the size and IQ but have no RF lenses... It is big with my adapted EF 24-70 f/2.8. I have an M100 with Sigma 30/56 f/1.4 EF-m. And for that eye-AF that you mention, I am now considering that M50 Mark ii. Perhaps M50ii also for you? (I cannot see my M100 screen in sun, and miss an EVF, so M100 is not good with my eyes/glasses and I will skip that "M300"...) (and slightly Off-topic: my G5Xii with EVF delivers really very nice photo's)

I had a M50 and I loathed the EVF on that. It made the whole camera too bulky and when viewing it slightly off-axis it looked like a fisheye picture. The RP has the same EVF but much better optics in front of it.

I still have the original M and I prefer that formfactor and size, the M6II is already close to being "too big" for my taste. The M50 feels like cheap toy compared to both the M and M6II and lacks dials.
I do have the EVF add-on for the M6II and that gets used from time to time when I need the extra shading it provides or use a comically large lens on it.

 

[sanj]

I'm always so disappointed reading posts like this. Photography isn't a technical endeavor. It's an artform. But, so many people treat it as the former. Some of my favorite images ever taken are by Jeff Bridges, who uses a Widelux from the 1950s. I'm pretty sure he can afford any gear he wants, too. Anyway, I know this is a gear forum, and we'll all bicker over what's better until the sun dies, but in the end it hardly matters. Use whatever you want. But, saying a certain piece of gear is "objectively" anything, in an artistic field, just shows lack of experience.

We (I can speak for most on this forum), want to get better equipment and improve our technical skills to service the artist in us. You make it seem like it is just technical. I assure you it is not. And we want to pick the correct gear for the correct job. Try taking a photo of a cheetah chase on the likes of a 'Widelux'.

 

[Jasonmc89]

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.

FPS, autofocus ability, buffer size, crop factor. For birders there many reasons why an APSC body makes scenes.

 

[kaihp]

In part because of improved wafer yields, the cost difference between crop and ff sensors has become a matter of tens of dollars.

You can put ~60 FF sensors on a single 300mm wafer*, but 170 APS-C sensors. With a cost delta of, say, USD30, the APS-C would cost $16.36, the FF be $46.46 and the wafer cost at $2782.

However, that is before yield loss. Plugging in a 24x36 die with a defect density of 0.1** gives you a yield of 45% (27/59). For a 22.3x14.9 APS-C sensor, you get 72% yield (128/176). I have no idea if those densities are reasonable, but it means that with yield loss, you'd need to have a raw wafer cost of $1026, an APS-C sensor cost of $8 and $38 for the FF sensor. That doesn't seem to add up to me.

As I recall, $25-2700/wafer was not an unreasonable cost for a 0.13um digital logic process wafer cost when I worked with it 10 years ago.


*) http://silicon-edge.co.uk/j/index.php/resources/die-per-wafer
**) http://www.isine.com/resources/die-yield-calculator

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Of course yes. Let's wait and see. I would suspect there is enough demand.

I’d love to believe that, but I can’t anymore. The 7D Mark II came out in late 2014, nearly 7 years ago. In 2017-2018 there were rumors of a 7D Mark III, but nothing came of them. Now there’s a mention of a possible R7 about once every six months, but nothing specific. Meanwhile this rumored $800 FF body will be the seventh FF R body (R, RP, R5, R6, R3, R1, and this). How much longer do we have to wait?

 

[jeanluc]

Older people have a hard time seeing close up. The screen may be hard to see with sharp focus and to see if the object they are focusing on is indeed in focus or not. EVFs on the other hand, with the help of the diopter, fixes this problem. I would never purchase any camera without an VF. There are other reasons for using it, such as making the camera more steady by bracing my eye to the VF vs not using the VF (in most cases, if all else is equal and I do not have anything to keep it steady, such as a tripod, gimbal, the ground...). Not everyone needs or wants a VF, but I do and I am sure many others do too.

I am shockingly getting closer to being one of those "older" people....and you are right, the screen can sometimes be harder to see despite corrective lenses. I don't do too much bird photography, but I'd hate to do any without an EVF. Not that I'd recommend an RP-like camera for that anyway, but any low cost camera will be bought by many people who will have ONE camera only and use it for everything.

 

[HMC11]

We (I can speak for most on this forum), want to get better equipment and improve our technical skills to service the artist in us. You make it seem like it is just technical. I assure you it is not. And we want to pick the correct gear for the correct job. Try taking a photo of a cheetah chase on the likes of a 'Widelux'.

If I understand dwarven's point correctly, he is actually saying that is it not just technical, which aligns to your view. I share a similar sentiment that there are good use case examples for both FF and APS-C. However, most manufacturer tend to incorporate greater capabilities in FF compared to APS-C, presumably to differentiate them and push for adoption of FF as I suspect the profit margins are higher. As such, an average APS-C camera would likely not compare well with and average FF in terms of features and sensor performance. This might create the feeling that FF is always better than APS-C. Also, if sensor size is the determining factor, then wouldn't a medium format be always better than FF, or perhaps a large format sensor (assuming they use this in a digital camera)? I reckon different people have different valid reasons to choose one over the other. As long as they are clear that those reasons matter most to them, then I would respect their decision.

 

[InchMetric]

Obviously you don’t try to follow moving subjects with long telephotos.

But since you don’t have a need for it, then the entire industry can get rid of it.

I don’t want the industry to get rid of EVFs. I don’t think anyone actually suggested that.

I want Canon to offer one FF RF model without an EVF.

 

[zonoskar]

So how is Canon going to hit that pricepoint? I assume no EVF, no hotshoe, small rear LCD, no IBIS, and no external ports for video/audio (basically an M200 with FF sensor). Could they use the R6 sensor+digic and dumb it down to 3 fps, but keep the AF fairly the same (maybe loose animal and sports AF)? Or could they re-use the RP sensor and just put it in an M200 body? The latter would disappoint me, the former would surprise me.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

If I recall correctly, Canon seemed to have indicated that there were to be 2 bodies below the R6. Given that this $799 would be one, then the other would be a sort of R replacement. My speculation would be that this would have the R5/6 AF system, kept at 30mp, and priced around $1700-1800.

That's what I remember as well, but I think they also wanted a direct RP successor, which I don't think the 799 $ Level is. Therefore, I'm concerned about an R successor...

If the R6 Mk II has 36 mp, then a R successor (named R8 or whatsever) could be kept atÖ

- 30 mp
- 10 FPS (silent shutter)
- slightly better ergonomics
- 4 K 60 fps

To really differentiate those cameras Canon might spare the IBIS unit

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Why should an R6 II be so much worse than the R6?

I am quite shocked that the repair of my 1D X will cost at least 637 Euro. That is about $752 and almost as much as this camera.

 

[tigers media]

Continue reading...

Seems strange Canon would have APSC R mount coming but somehow have to get under that price ? would anyone be silly enough to prefer apsc over full frame ? im not so sure they would. Really need to simplify the whole range just go full frame and have budget lens range would be better use of their resources i think..

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I

I mean the people that want a small and cheap ‘real camera’ are not the same people that want a reach limit busting 7D replacement.

The first group have the M system. It is small and comparatively cheap, it has the lenses most users will actually use on it too. It is very feature rich with excellent AF and fps.

The people that are after a 7D replacement because of the reach limit argument have the RF800. They used to use a 7D II and a 100-400 4.5-5.6 II, so 20mp at an effective 160-640 focal length, with an effective f5.6-8 dof. With an R5 and RF800 they get 45mp with an 800mm lens at f11 dof. So one stop less dof. As for the light gathering argument, the ff sensor is over twice the area of the APS-C sensor so gains over a stop of iso performance and the R5 is considerably better than a stop of iso performance better anyway!

The 7D II cost $1,799 and the 100-400II $2,399, total $4,198. An R5 costs $3,899 the RF800 $899, total $4,798. Thats $600 more six years later with longer reach, more than twice the mp and fps, and MUCH better AF, all things reach limited shooters say they want. Downside is one stop of dof.

So why don’t those mythical R7 supposed buyers put their brains in gear and realize they already have it!

Of course. If Canon doesn’t make a high-end APS-C R body, then your natural alternative is the R5. ROTFL!

Embrace the free market, comrades! If you want high-end APS-C mirrorless and Canon doesn’t make it, give your money to somebody who does.

Here are some other options. All of these have magnesium alloy construction, some degree of weather sealing, a mechanical shutter rated for at least 200K clicks, a fast, action/sports capable AF system, and eye AF:

- Sony a6400 - $900

Need IBIS?
- Fuji X-S30 - $1000
- Sony a6600 - $1400

Need IBIS and two card slots?
- Fuji X-T4 - $1700

Add an adapter costing between $200-400 and your existing EF lenses may workon these bodies. Admittedly, performance of adapted lenses can vary so check specific lens/adapter compatibility beforehand.

Sony and Fuji also have their own lines of dedicated lenses, including serious APS-C offerings.

There is a whole world out there beyond Canon!

 

[sanj]

Seems strange Canon would have APSC R mount coming but somehow have to get under that price ? would anyone be silly enough to prefer apsc over full frame ? im not so sure they would. Really need to simplify the whole range just go full frame and have budget lens range would be better use of their resources i think..

Silly?

 

[sanj]

If I understand dwarven's point correctly, he is actually saying that is it not just technical, which aligns to your view. I share a similar sentiment that there are good use case examples for both FF and APS-C. However, most manufacturer tend to incorporate greater capabilities in FF compared to APS-C, presumably to differentiate them and push for adoption of FF as I suspect the profit margins are higher. As such, an average APS-C camera would likely not compare well with and average FF in terms of features and sensor performance. This might create the feeling that FF is always better than APS-C. Also, if sensor size is the determining factor, then wouldn't a medium format be always better than FF, or perhaps a large format sensor (assuming they use this in a digital camera)? I reckon different people have different valid reasons to choose one over the other. As long as they are clear that those reasons matter most to them, then I would respect their decision.

Drarven is not talking about crop or full frame.

 

[privatebydesign]

1) They want access to RF lenses.
2) They want a higher-end APS-C camera than it would make sense for Canon to bring to the M system. (A mirrorless 7D)

1) How does having access to RF lenses satisfy a desire for small and cheap?

2) Again the reasoning isn’t logical, it gives a photographic advantage, it is just, “because they want it”. Why do they want it? What specific advantage is there to having a high end APS-C camera? I listed them and showed those people already have options.