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

[David - Sydney]

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.

The equivalence is not quite the same. It would be 280mm f4 for a 7Dii + 70-200/2.8.
Comparing the quality of the EF300/2.8 with the 70-200/2.8 is a little ambitious.
Are you saying that the sensor in the 1DXii is the same as the 7Dii (besides mp)?

You have mentioned the 300/2.8 so I assume you are only talking about reach....
The 7D II (USD1,799) and the EF70-200mm/2.8iii (USD2,099) costs USD3,898.
The R6 (USD2,499) plus EF300/4 (USD1,349) plus R mount adapter (USD99) costs USD3,947 ie
- same price, resolution and dual card mp
but....
- much better high ISO (very important for indoor shooting), AF, fps using the same sensor as 1DXiii
The battery life will not be the same but the other mirrorless features should make up the difference and worth carrying a spare battery.

If you needed the focal length flexibility then there isn't a direct R mount option. The RF70-200/4 is USD1,599 and can't be used with a TC unfortunately

 

[David - Sydney]

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

I'm still trying to understand your point given the option of R6 + RF800mm. See PBD's comment for the comparison

 

[David - Sydney]

The R6 is only 20MP or else that would be on the right track.

But the 7Dii is also 20mp so same pixel density.

The R5 suggestion is not even in the same ballpark.

If you want greater pixel density then
From PBD's comment...
"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 in the same ballpark ie ~13% in cost but dramatically better features.

Other than that, some people just prefer APS-C and they will either buy from Canon or someone else.

You are absolutely correct! I am just intrigued to see if there are genuine reasons why Canon can't provide an alternative.

 

[David - Sydney]

I would love to see light versions of the R6, R5 and R1 in the same bodies, but without video, burst and eye autofocus for half the price. I feel those cameras could be much cheaper if Canon would not have to fear that they cannibalize its video cameras.

As somebody who only takes photos of buildings, even the most basic autofocus would work for me. I feel modern cameras have a lot of features I do not need.

All mirrorless cameras (and DLSRs in liveview) are essentially video cameras. What you do with the video feed is a different story but the weight would be similar except potentially for internal heatsinks.

Eye-AF/tracking is intense video processing and digic X / bus speed/ high speed cards are needed for that. Using older Digic processors could be a possibility to remove some higher end video features but it wouldn't reduce the cost by half. Even medium format and Leica etc have video specs now.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't want a crap FF camera from canon for $799. I'd rather pay $1000 for a little brother of the R5 or R3.

Six years ago the 7D II was $1,799, good luck expecting ” a little brother of the R5 or R3” for $1,000!

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

By that logic, for birds a 7D + 100-400 can do the job of my 1D X + 600/4 for a fraction of the price. Except that I’ve shot both combos extensively, and the latter delivers much better results.

Can a Mazda Miata do the job of an Audi R8? Sure…they both have four wheels and two seats, right?

 

[SnowMiku]

The R5 and the RF 800mm F/11 sounds like a good alternative to the 7D II and 100-400L, but a few things missing is the flexibility of the zoom and the weather sealing in the lens, I'm sure the L would be better quality as well. But I do agree it's a good alternative.

If Canon were to release an R7 or a cheaper crop with the 90D sensor, that RF 800mm F/11 would be equivalent to 1280mm. With the R5 you can crop to equivalent 1280mm at about 17MP but with an RF APS-C with the 90D sensor you can have equivalent 1280mm at 32.5MP.

With a APS-C RF you could even save some weight, size and money and get the RF 600mm and get equivalent 960mm.

 

[David - Sydney]

Well, guessing that person is NOT a Canon customer....
I mean with that low of an income, I doubt they are looking to spend disposable cash on ANY camera out there.

Heck for that level, I'm doubtful of them having a mechanism to connect to the internet and watch videos.

You gotta take care of basic living requirements first before you think about 'toys'.

I agree but mobile phones are becoming a more essential item in lower income demographics around the world. Banking, messaging/communication etc all using pre-paid SIMs. Watching video ie higher speed/mobile data limits would not generally be part of their subscription.
And.... the phones happen to have a camera on them in almost every model so they all become new photographers. Once you get the photography bug, there is no turning back!

 

[David - Sydney]

If Canon were to release an R7 or a cheaper crop with the 90D sensor, that RF 800mm F/11 would be equivalent to 1280mm. With the R5 you can crop to equivalent 1280mm at about 17MP but with an RF APS-C with the 90D sensor you can have equivalent 1280mm at 32.5MP.

With a APS-C RF you could even save some weight, size and money and get the RF 600mm and get equivalent 960mm.

It seems to me that the 90D/M6ii's sensor and burst fps is the source of all angst for the crop sensor community. Yearning for the same sensor in a weather sealed/dual card body is the holy grail

In terms of spare parts bin, it makes some financial sense to add a RF body similar to R6 with the M6ii sensor/processing pipeline. Dual cards would be the main difference. The RP/R bodies essentially did the same thing with 6Dii/5Div. Sales volume is the key issue. Canon might not have any RF-s lenses ie not support another lens mount and effectively restrict the wide angle lens options to adapted EF-s lenses.

Developing a new high pixel density APS-C sensor for R mount with Digic X processing capability is a vastly different financial and supply chain scenario.

 

[unfocused]

Yeah! Let's get this fight started!

Well, you guys haven't disappointed me.

My two cents:

@Canon Rumors Guy has previously posted that an APS-C R body is coming from Canon. He's either right or wrong, but all the arguments one way or the other won't change anything.

Question is, if he is right, what form might that body take? I think logic would dictate a 7D or 90D successor. I don't see any point whatsoever in a low-cost crop sensor R. And by not seeing any point, I mean any point for Canon, which already offers the M line to fill that niche. Maybe if they completely abandoned the M line, but that would be a big leap off the cliff with no parachute.

The logic on this forum dictates that it would be a higher end crop body. I could see Canon offering a crop sensor R7 at about the price of the R6 or slightly above, which would be consistent with the historical placement of the 7D. That's going to disappoint the people who think they will get an R7 at 2014 prices. Don't see that happening.

We can (and apparently will) debate the viability of such a body until the cows come home. I can only relate my own perspective.

If Canon had offered a 7DIII with the 90D sensor, multiple f8 autofocus points and updated autofocus, I would have bought two (one for me and one for my wife). Instead I bought two R5s. I also bought her the 800 f11 and have two 100-500s on order (going on four months now) So, Canon not offering a 7DIII or R7 paid off for them in my case.

If the R7 ever materializes, I'm not sure what it would take for me to consider buying one. I'm perfectly happy with the R5 sensor and use it in crop mode consistently for songbirds with no problem. While I'm an extreme example, the point is that I suspect there are a lot of potential 7D III/R7 buyers who have moved on, meaning an even smaller niche for the body. A high megapixel R5s might shrink that potential market even more. if it means a crop mode of 25-35 mp.

Now, Canon's resources are not unlimited. They are having a hard time delivering on already introduced products, and I see a new post that says they are delaying future lens releases, so presumably, they are taking a close look at how best to allocate those resources once they meet current demand. We know the R3 is next in line. Beyond that, the more solid rumors are for a budget R, a high megapixel R, a cinema R and a flagship R (I may be missing other bodies). So, even at the most optimistic, it seems like an R7 would be unlikely to appear until 2023 at the earliest. That means it might be arriving about the time an R5II, which will likely have an even higher mp count, is being teased. Point being, with each new release, I suspect the pool of R7 users is going to shrink a bit.

Will it happen. I don't know, but I know it's damn fun reading all the arguments pro and con.

 

[sanj]

No it won't, because physics. Why is there no EF-S lens longer than 250mm? Physics. With long lenses, the image circle is not a limiting factor, so making a long lens with a smaller image circle doesn't change the size of the optic.

Thx. I did not know. Now do!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

But the 7Dii is also 20mp so same pixel density.

If you want greater pixel density then
From PBD's comment...
"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 in the same ballpark ie ~13% in cost but dramatically better features.

You are absolutely correct! I am just intrigued to see if there are genuine reasons why Canon can't provide an alternative.

People want the next 7D which is sure to be more than 20 MP

 

[privatebydesign]

If Canon had offered a 7DIII with the 90D sensor, multiple f8 autofocus points and updated autofocus, I would have bought two (one for me and one for my wife). Instead I bought two R5s. I also bought her the 800 f11 and have two 100-500s on order (going on four months now) So, Canon not offering a 7DIII or R7 paid off for them in my case.

So, logic won...

 

[privatebydesign]

People want the next 7D which is sure to be more than 20 MP

And an R5 with the 800 gives them a lot more for not much more money.

 

[Talys]

With the DSLR, using APSC had the advantage of further reach in viewfinder framing. Given the same piece of glass, the subject would appear more magnified on the OVF, which is very useful for little critters.

One of the great advantages of mirrorless is that you can toggle that in the evf, giving the same while also being able to go wider by using all of the available pixels.

The main advantage I see in APSC for mirrorless is simply cost. A smaller sensor that needs to be able transfer less information per second must surely cost less, plus it gives Canon the ability to stratify prices, something we all know Canon is super duper at doing.

 

[unfocused]

So, logic won...

Or maybe impatience.

 

[privatebydesign]

With the DSLR, using APSC had the advantage of further reach in viewfinder framing. Given the same piece of glass, the subject would appear more magnified on the OVF, which is very useful for little critters.

One of the great advantages of mirrorless is that you can toggle that in the evf, giving the same while also being able to go wider by using all of the available pixels.

The main advantage I see in APSC for mirrorless is simply cost. A smaller sensor that needs to be able transfer less information per second must surely cost less, plus it gives Canon the ability to stratify prices, something we all know Canon is super duper at doing.

Not as much as before. Sensor yields have vastly improved and the wafers, discs, they cut them from have gotten bigger.

The difference between a ff and APS-c sensor used to be in the $100’s, now it is probably in the $10’s.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

And an R5 with the 800 gives them a lot more for not much more money.

I could not disagree more

 

[privatebydesign]

I could not disagree more

What, specifically, do you disagree with?

What from this isn’t more?
45mp vs 20mp
20fps vs 10fps
1,000+ focus point vs 65 focus points
Animal and eye AF vs servo AF
Full frame AF coverage vs center grouped AF
Real 800mm vs an effective 640mm

Or the fact that $600 6 years later isn’t a lot more money on a $4-5,000 purchase.

 

[Chig]

If only they designed pin compatible sensors and all of the rest of the camera to automatically adjust to the different sensors…. You could put an APS-C sensor in an R5 or R6 body, maybe even an RP. /s

This is really what some of you seem to be asking for to get the same AF, etc. in the APS-C R. The sensor costs are not as different these days so you might save a small amount, but it would be in the low $100s, not $1000s.

I don't mind paying a similar price to the R6 for an aps-c version of this camera as it would be vastly better for my bird photography than an R5 or R6 and a huge improvement over my 7Dii and still much cheaper than an R5.