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

[David - Sydney]

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.

But 7D users want a higher pixel density eg 32mp so the bus speed is the same as for a 32mp full frame sensor. I get the impression that providing 20mp in a APS-C sensor would be underwhelming for the potential buyers. There would be a reduced cost for wafer space but estimating the $$ difference would be hard and even harder to estimate how that would compare to retail pricing.

 

[Jasonmc89]

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

I see that is a tempting combo but there’s no way I’m shooting at f11 all the time. Far too few pixels in the R6 too.

 

[Sporgon]

I have yet to perceive any issue with the 6D2. I have used it since about the time it came out. I read that people who underexpose by four stops don’t care for it, but I don’t do that.

Indeed, and as long as it is not unnecessarily underexposed at all it is capable of contemporary high quality, and in the case of the RP benefits from the up to date Canon colour science.

 

[Talys]

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.

Generally speaking, I totally agree with you. However, not everyone can afford a 5-series camera, and one way to lower the price while keeping the features could be to make an APSC version that kept most of the features, but swapped a FF for an APSC sensor. If the pixel density were the same (making it a lower megapixel camera, but "effectively" the same, if you were going to crop a bird from the center anyhow), it could be cheaper. Some of that cost reduction could be actual manufacturing costs, and some of it might just be because maximizing what you can squeeze out of someone's camera budget, and who knows, they can always upgrade next year when they're convinced that a 5 series or 3 series will give them magnificently better photos

 

[Talys]

But 7D users want a higher pixel density eg 32mp so the bus speed is the same as for a 32mp full frame sensor. I get the impression that providing 20mp in a APS-C sensor would be underwhelming for the potential buyers. There would be a reduced cost for wafer space but estimating the $$ difference would be hard and even harder to estimate how that would compare to retail pricing.

So, I'm not sure what the actual cost (manufacturing) difference between a 6D2 and 90D are when it comes to sensor and processor. I suspect that like you say, it's probably not a lot. However, I think it's valuable for Canon to stratify the product offering to the enthusiast market though, as a way of capturing as many sales as possible, and things that cost a little less, but are marked up a lot less in the hopes of being "just the right camera for someone" seems like a smart way to do things.

 

[David - Sydney]

I see that is a tempting combo but there’s no way I’m shooting at f11 all the time. Far too few pixels in the R6 too.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but rather trying to understand... A 20mp 7Dii with EF100-400 @400mm is equivalent to a 20mp FF 560mm f8. Given the better quality (AF, fps etc) of the R6 sensor, taking a 1 stop hit should be comparable. using the 100mm end @f4.5 would be equivalent to 140mm ~f7 so slightly more than 1 stop difference.

Asking for higher pixel density is the issue and the only fiscal option I can only see happening is Canon making a R6 body with M6ii sensor/processor in R mount (no RF-s lens). Would such a body fit your requirements?
The alternative is the R5 combo that gives all that and more with a ~$600 premium.

 

[Cyborx]

Sonyx, it's clear that Canon never had you.

As we are on to you here, suggest you troll elsewhere.

Why is it that everyone with a critical view on Canons pricing is a troll? That says more about you then it does about me bro. I am just a Canon professional user for 2 decades. Still using my 1dx’s. I am happy with the way Canon images look when it comes to color, but sharpness and AF could be better. I am unhappy that it took Canon so long to finally develop a mirrorless pro body. And I am unhappy with the pricetag Canon puts on pro gear. Is that something you can accept, my friend? I couldn’t care less to be honest, but it pretty common here on CR to bash anyone with a different view.

 

[Chig]

Generally speaking, I totally agree with you. However, not everyone can afford a 5-series camera, and one way to lower the price while keeping the features could be to make an APSC version that kept most of the features, but swapped a FF for an APSC sensor. If the pixel density were the same (making it a lower megapixel camera, but "effectively" the same, if you were going to crop a bird from the center anyhow), it could be cheaper. Some of that cost reduction could be actual manufacturing costs, and some of it might just be because maximizing what you can squeeze out of someone's camera budget, and who knows, they can always upgrade next year when they're convinced that a 5 series or 3 series will give them magnificently better photos

I'd be happy to pay the same price as a R6 for the same camera with a crop sensor as the biggest cost in wildlife especially bird photography is the telephoto lenses.
A crop version of the R6 would be a huge improvement over my 7Dii and paired with my EF100-400mm ii lens would give me similar reach to a FF camera paired with a 600mm f/4 which I could never afford and which would be far too heavy for hand holding.
Also a 32mp crop sensor has similar pixel density to an 80mp full frame and if Canon ever makes one it'll be much more expensive than a cropped version of the R6.

However my dream camera (if I ever won the lottery) would be a crop sensor version of the R3 and I'd expect that to be priced similar to the full frame version but whether Canon chooses to make one is anyone's guess and probably not very likely sadly

 

[privatebydesign]

Generally speaking, I totally agree with you. However, not everyone can afford a 5-series camera, and one way to lower the price while keeping the features could be to make an APSC version that kept most of the features, but swapped a FF for an APSC sensor. If the pixel density were the same (making it a lower megapixel camera, but "effectively" the same, if you were going to crop a bird from the center anyhow), it could be cheaper. Some of that cost reduction could be actual manufacturing costs, and some of it might just be because maximizing what you can squeeze out of someone's camera budget, and who knows, they can always upgrade next year when they're convinced that a 5 series or 3 series will give them magnificently better photos

If an R7 cost Canon $100 less to make than an R5 how would they price it? How much pressure would they then put on themselves to make dedicated lenses for that crop sensor?

I wish people would stop thinking I am ‘anti R7’ or that I think ‘ff is the answer to everything’ and would realize I am only putting forwards what I see as logical reasons why Canon might or might not do something.

So far, from my logic, I see very little reason for Canon to make an R7, but what do I know? I am certainly not a corporate manufacturing guy!

 

[Chig]

If an R7 cost Canon $100 less to make than an R5 how would they price it? How much pressure would they then put on themselves to make dedicated lenses for that crop sensor?

I wish people would stop thinking I am ‘anti R7’ or that I think ‘ff is the answer to everything’ and would realize I am only putting forwards what I see as logical reasons why Canon might or might not do something.

So far, from my logic, I see very little reason for Canon to make an R7, but what do I know? I am certainly not a corporate manufacturing guy!

If they put the 32mp sensor from the 90D into an otherwise unchanged R6 and called it the R7 and priced it the same as an R6 I'd buy it for sure and it would potentially sell well. The development cost would be minimal too.
I was tempted to buy an R6 and even to save up for an R5 but then I heard about a possible R7 so I held off in the hope that Canon would do as I suggest above.

I see no reason to make dedicated RF-s crop lenses for such a camera when it would be mostly used with long telephotos of 400mm and up where no weight or size savings are possible for crop sensor versions of these lenses .

 

[sanj]

No problem at all, I’m simply asking people to look at it from the perspective of Canon and say why would they?

So far the only group of people who are not currently served by Canon are ‘serious’ photographers who want more lenses than the M system has. All I am saying is given that information and the relatively small size of that group I don’t see that it makes financial sense for Canon to release bodies and dedicated lenses to compete in that space.

The other main user groups of crop cameras have Canon options already.

No resistance from me, just a question of projecting logic. Why would Canon invest precious time and resources and manufacturing capacity into yet another line of bodies and lenses when the target market is so small and they can’t keep up with production of the items they already have and are known to be in development.

We will know in less than two years.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I saw several reviews of the 800mm f/11 and it seems it does not really have the resolution for the R5. At f/11 diffraction also becomes a problem. It combines much better with the R6.

 

[David_D]

So far, from my logic, I see very little reason for Canon to make an R7, but what do I know? I am certainly not a corporate manufacturing guy!

I agree with you, which is why my next camera is very likely to be FF + 800mm/F11, but a couple of reasons why Canon may release an R7. (One good, one not)

1. They may come up with some new tech they want to try out in the wild, e.g. a super-high density sensor, that if scaled up to FF the processing would not be able to keep up (yet).
2. There are enough "nothing but a crop camera is good enough" types that they can sell a high-profit margin (over-priced) model to and cover their costs.

 

[David_D]

I saw several reviews of the 800mm f/11 and it seems it does not really have the resolution for the R5. At f/11 diffraction also becomes a problem. It combines much better with the R6.

But would an R5 + 800mm/f11 down-sampled to say 25-30mp be better or worse than a 7Dii + 100-400mm? (That would still have the 45mp for larger/closer subjects with a shorter lens.)

 

[koenkooi]

But would an R5 + 800mm/f11 down-sampled to say 25-30mp be better or worse than a 7Dii + 100-400mm? (That would still have the 45mp for larger/closer subjects with a shorter lens.)

The minimum focus distance of the 100-400 is about 1.3m and it has a 0.32x magnification ratio. The MFD of the 800 f/11 is 6m. Would the R5 still win with a dragonfly at MFD being downsampled?

 

[David_D]

The minimum focus distance of the 100-400 is about 1.3m and it has a 0.32x magnification ratio. The MFD of the 800 f/11 is 6m. Would the R5 still win with a dragonfly at MFD being downsampled?

That is an interesting theoretical question. Personally, I will be keeping my 100-400mm (until I can afford to upgrade to the RF 100-500mm - which will take longer if I go for the R5 over the R6), so would use that for a dragonfly. Actually, I can see advantages of using it in this scenario on the R5 over the 7Dii (apart from the obvious AF improvement), as last time I tried it kept flying closer! I had to keep trying to balance the zoom (to keep the image as large as possible on the sensor) against cutting off bits of wing or body. I probably lost as many shots through this as missed focus. With the R5 I could zoom out slightly more, keep the dragonfly in the frame more often and crop later, plus hopefully get >90% sharp focus. If it was sitting still on a nice perch 6m away, that would be a different matter and I would try both approaches

 

[David - Sydney]

The minimum focus distance of the 100-400 is about 1.3m and it has a 0.32x magnification ratio. The MFD of the 800 f/11 is 6m. Would the R5 still win with a dragonfly at MFD being downsampled?

Probably not. The MFD is a good point. I am guessing that current 7Dii users already have glass eg EF100-400 so reusing it with R6 would alleviate the MFD issue.

 

[criscokkat]

Let's say a user has a 7D and a 70-200 f2.8 lens and that is all the reach they need. And now they are ready to enter the mirrorless market. Without an crop RF body, they would have to also spend $$, again, to get a new lens to get the equivalent reach. There are many that do not want f11 and rather have some more like the 2.8 (yes it is FF 2.8, but not as dim as when using the f11 crop lens). If RF has full frames cameras that work great with high ISO, then why not have all their FF lenses at F11? Answer is the same reason that the APS-C users want more than F11.

I believe you, that RF crop may not for you. But for many others, it is.

They can right now buy a R5 body with adapter and have a much better wildlife tracking camera that gives them more creativity if they want to crop in post. It's essentially the same number of pixels when cropped, but with more play around it. So it comes down to how much time you are at 200 on your 70-200. I'll wager in sports you are not at 200 more than 50% of the time, otherwise you'd be talking about having a 100-400.

So imagine the players get closer, I know that I have a lot more trouble not being able to shoot the shot when they are too close to me, as I can't get enough of the scene. When they are far away, I can crop a bit and hope the focus is dead on for that to work right. So right there I'm not getting more pixels at a 7d crop distance, but when they are close to me not only am I getting the shot but I have 3-4 times the number of pixels to work with for a richer photo.

Plus I'm also gaining the ability to actually use the 2.8 capability of the lens when it comes to depth of field.

Now, it'd be nice if there was a R6 with a 30 something megapixel aps-c sensor. But technologies change and the niche that 7d filled perfectly is much smaller now thanks to other cameras being able to meet those needs (how many people bought the 7d because it was significantly cheaper than the 1dx line because they needed the FPS?). Personally I suspect that the R6 will be replaced much earlier in it's product cycle with a fast sensor with more megapixels and the R6 will slot into a $1500 price point, but it has been selling at the same more expensive price point because everyone is dead in their tracks with development and production because of Covid.

 

[stevelee]

Indeed, and as long as it is not unnecessarily underexposed at all it is capable of contemporary high quality, and in the case of the RP benefits from the up to date Canon colour science.

I'm an old guy. I shot color slide film for years and years. So the notion of getting everything right in the first place is not foreign to me.

I also shot black and white film and did my own darkroom work. So the concept of post-processing is not novel, either. I'm glad that with digital cameras and computers I can do both.

 

[Jasonmc89]

I'm not trying to be argumentative but rather trying to understand... A 20mp 7Dii with EF100-400 @400mm is equivalent to a 20mp FF 560mm f8. Given the better quality (AF, fps etc) of the R6 sensor, taking a 1 stop hit should be comparable. using the 100mm end @f4.5 would be equivalent to 140mm ~f7 so slightly more than 1 stop difference.

Asking for higher pixel density is the issue and the only fiscal option I can only see happening is Canon making a R6 body with M6ii sensor/processor in R mount (no RF-s lens). Would such a body fit your requirements?
The alternative is the R5 combo that gives all that and more with a ~$600 premium.

The 20mp of the 7Dii is outdated now. I’d want something in the region of 28-32mp in a crop sensor. Or if using full frame after cropping in post. To get that many pixels, plus fast frames per second and top notch AF it’ll be very expensive. Well, you’re taping R5 or R3 money.. That was the appeal of the 7D line. Also the backgrounds on the f11 lens are gonna be messy and the minimus focus distance is terrible so I hear. Not great for small birds.