There is still discussion internally at Canon about an APS-C EOS R camera

[mdcmdcmdc]

And if they do make the cropped R, there will be thousands of folks in forums denigrating them for not making dedicated small crop lenses. Frankly, I think they will be better off building an R5s for those looking for more reach and enhancing the M line for the vast majority of APS-c users. I find it hard to believe that there are a lot of people who own an EF 500mm f/4L who can't afford to choke up for a high res FF.

You do know there's a middle ground between the cheap kit lenses and the $9000 super telephotos, right? Ask around, you might find one or two people around here who use the $2500 100-400L with a 7D Mark II and want to go mirrorless at a reasonable price without losing pixel density.

 

[Dragon]

You do know there's a middle ground between the cheap kit lenses and the $9000 super telephotos, right? Ask around, you might find one or two people around here who use the $2500 100-400L with a 7D Mark II and want to go mirrorless at a reasonable price without losing pixel density.

Yes, I understand your point, but satisfying your desire creates the first problem I pointed out. For every one like you who is satisfied, there will 100 others who are livid that there is not a full line of APS-c lenses to go with the camera. That is clearly the conundrum that Canon faces. My bet is that they will stick with FF in the R line.

 

[Dragon]

Well , many people don't have , want or can afford the very expensive and heavy EF 500mm f/4 or other Great whites but would like an cropped version of the R6 so they can use smaller , more affordable telephotos like the EF100-400ii and still get decent reach. I'm one and I don't want or expect RF-s lenses.

I can afford an R7 that's priced about the same as the R6 but the R5 would be a real struggle and would still have lower pixel density than my 7Dii.

As I said to another: Yes, I understand your point, but satisfying your desire creates the first problem I pointed out. For every one like you who is satisfied, there will 100 others who are livid that there is not a full line of APS-c lenses to go with the camera. That is clearly the conundrum that Canon faces. My bet is that they will stick with FF in the R line.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Yes, I understand your point, but satisfying your desire creates the first problem I pointed out. For every one like you who is satisfied, there will 100 others who are livid that there is not a full line of APS-c lenses to go with the camera. That is clearly the conundrum that Canon faces. My bet is that they will stick with FF in the R line.

I agree with you that Canon isn't going to make an APS-C R body, at least not in the foreseeable future. I would love to see one, but I gave up waiting for it about six months ago and moved on.

However, I don't believe an APS-C R body will require an extensive line of crop-only lenses. As I said in post #162, all I believe Canon has to do is make RF versions of the existing EF-M 11-22, 15-45, and 18-150 mm lens designs, and they've got a good basic range of APS-C kit lenses covered. They can use the same IS system, the same electronics, and *probably* the same optics (the flange distance difference is only 2 mm).

Somebody wants an f/1.4 prime or f/2.8 zoom for their APS-C RF body? They can buy the full frame RF lens. It's no different than the situation today with EF-S lenses.

There's also no need to get all hung up over branding with "RF" or "RF-S". Stick one of these crop lenses on a full frame R body and it automatically switches to crop mode, but it still works. Canon will probably want to designate these lenses differently somehow, so buyers know they have a smaller image circle. But they don't have to make these lenses physically incompatible with the FF bodies like they did with EF-S.

 

[Ian K]

The flange distance for the EOS-M cameras is only 18mm and the ROS-R is 20mm leaving only 2mm for the adapter. Structurally that’s going to be pretty flimsy. I’m not even sure you would fit the two bayonet mounts in that space.

Second the barrel size increase is going to start hitting up against the flash bulge on the M5, M50 etc. It’s also going to massively impinge on the hand grip and lens release button on all other M bodies.

Moving the lens further away and relying on the full frame image circle to still cover the APS-C sensor will, perhaps, be slightly possible. However, doing this would cause havoc to the focal plane, as these lenses are designed to produce their image at 20mm. Lenses could be added to the adapter to offset this but only with loss of image quality.

Finally the most significant issue comes to mind. EOS-M bodies have only 9 electrical connections, EF / EF-S have only 8, however RF lenses require 12. We’ve also been told that these operate at a higher speed than prior EOS systems. Making it pretty much impossible for the M bodies to produce the required inputs to allow the lens to function correctly.

You can’t just make a dumb adapter with manual focus, aperture etc as most of these lenses are focus by wire, even in manual mode. The same goes for aperture, that’s been electronic since the first EF lenses came out.

I very much doubt you will ever see an RF to EF-M adapter.

That’s not an argument against APS-C sensors, just the thought that you can somehow mount RF glass on M bodies.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

The flange distance for the EOS-M cameras is only 18mm and the ROS-R is 20mm leaving only 2mm for the adapter. Structurally that’s going to be pretty flimsy. I’m not even sure you would fit the two bayonet mounts in that space.

Second the barrel size increase is going to start hitting up against the flash bulge on the M5, M50 etc. It’s also going to massively impinge on the hand grip and lens release button on all other M bodies.

Moving the lens further away and relying on the full frame image circle to still cover the APS-C sensor will, perhaps, be slightly possible. However, doing this would cause havoc to the focal plane, as these lenses are designed to produce their image at 20mm. Lenses could be added to the adapter to offset this but only with loss of image quality.

Finally the most significant issue comes to mind. EOS-M bodies have only 9 electrical connections, EF / EF-S have only 8, however RF lenses require 12. We’ve also been told that these operate at a higher speed than prior EOS systems. Making it pretty much impossible for the M bodies to produce the required inputs to allow the lens to function correctly.

You can’t just make a dumb adapter with manual focus, aperture etc as most of these lenses are focus by wire, even in manual mode. The same goes for aperture, that’s been electronic since the first EF lenses came out.

I very much doubt you will ever see an RF to EF-M adapter.

That’s not an argument against APS-C sensors, just the thought that you can somehow mount RF glass on M bodies.

I’m not sure if this is a response to my post #166 or not.

if it is, reread what I wrote. I never said anything about an adapter.

 

[Ian K]

I fully understand the desire for a APS-C serious camera. I used to own the 7D and after that the 7D Mark II. At one point I had the EF 200-400 1.4 extender on it. I was on safari with a 35mm equivalent of 320-640mm and 448-896mm at the flick of a switch.

I gave up on the APS-C when the R5 came out. With the 7D mark II being 20.2 megapixel and the R5 being 45 megapixel and being able to switch on a 1.6 crop mode you end up with a 17 megapixel picture with all the advantages of the R5. Including the fantastic animal Eye-AF feature.

In the end I haven’t been anywhere that I felt it was worth turning the crop mode on for. I suppose birding will be that case. 1.6x crop vs 1.4x extender. I’ll have to see.

 

[Ian K]

I’m not sure if this is a response to my post #166 or not.

if it is, reread what I wrote. I never said anything about an adapter.

No it’s not. I would have quoted you if it was. Early on people where talking adapters. I think the forum software gets confused sometimes.

 

[AccipiterQ]

I fully understand the desire for a APS-C serious camera. I used to own the 7D and after that the 7D Mark II. At one point I had the EF 200-400 1.4 extender on it. I was on safari with a 35mm equivalent of 320-640mm and 448-896mm at the flick of a switch.

I gave up on the APS-C when the R5 came out. With the 7D mark II being 20.2 megapixel and the R5 being 45 megapixel and being able to switch on a 1.6 crop mode you end up with a 17 megapixel picture with all the advantages of the R5. Including the fantastic animal Eye-AF feature.

In the end I haven’t been anywhere that I felt it was worth turning the crop mode on for. I suppose birding will be that case. 1.6x crop vs 1.4x extender. I’ll have to see.

For birding I use the R5 at FF. I have the 7Dii as well, and figured I'd use the R5 a few times just to try it out birding, and haven't gone back. I'm using a 600 for a lens, and that with the R5 provides more than enough reach; the 7Dii & 600 obviously provides more but is it needed? I found that it was not. I'll use it for super distant stuff out on the ocean or something, but by and large the R5 is superb, plus the eye tracking allows for tracking swallows or other birds in flight with extreme ease.

Now an R7 that offered these features AND the reach? That'd be amazing.

 

[Michael Clark]

The EF-M 11-17 is an all around better lens than the EF-s 10-22 and it has IS and is also cheaper. The M line badly needs an equivalent to the EF-s 15-85 which is a very fine piece of glass, but the vast majority are happy with the 18-150, so it may be a while. Making an R body just for APS-c is silly. If you want the portability of your 10-22 and your 15-85, just slap them on your R5 and it will automatically switch to APS-c with proper APS-c RAW files and image quality and resolution better than your 7d II (yes, only 17MP, but the new AA filter makes a big difference).

But is the resolution better than the 90D or M6 Mark II? 32 MP is the current standard for APS-C sensors, even if those bodies don't have some of the other things many found valuable in the 7D Mark II.

 

[Michael Clark]

Agreed on all accounts. The only thing I'd add is that the portability of M series to me is mostly because of the lenses. A tiny full frame RF body will never match the portability of an EF-M system. RF 50 and 35 f1.8 are small but will never be as small as EF-M. Canon might have limited themselves in lens design by standing fast by their rule to not exceed a certain diameter, but it sure does keep the system tiny. Shrinking the bodies without getting smaller lenses actually doesn't make sense to me either. That just makes for a more unbalanced, less ergonomic camera.

I also agree that those f11 lenses was Canon's way of appeasing the birders. They may not like it, but I think it's a more economical solution than developing an APS-C Pro body that only has a niche market.

The price aspect is interesting because there are varying factors. On one end, I feel like they do need to eventually come out with a $500 camera body. Whether that's APS-C or Full frame, I don't know. It's just something baked into the psyche of a first time buyer who wants to get a "nice" camera and in their mind, a budget of $500 almost always is the magic number. I just suspect that the cost difference between full frame and crop is growing more negligible, and the streamlining of the lens system makes more business sense. The other end of the discussion is the improvement of Phone cameras shrinking the market. If they are targeting first time buyers and beginners, they have to offer some way of being superior. That is becoming increasingly harder as AI is automatically applying filters, balancing HDR scenes, compensating in lowlight, all instantaneously, and some have multiple lenses (wide, standard, telephoto) built in.

Lastly, I think having a transitional lens system ala EF-S is not as important as some make it out to be. Canon, would rather you just buy more lenses if you decide to upgrade anyway. Actually thinking about it, it's actually backward. Why would you buy a crop lens with the intent of going to fullframe if it wouldn't even be compatible on the mount? Okay maybe RF would be different since you can put the body in crop mode, but that makes my previous point of unnecessarily complicating the lens lineup. This is why I agree with you that it's easier to just have one full frame system, and make different lenses for different applications and budgets.

With the constantly fluctuating value of the dollar against the yen, how many of Canon's top executives actually understand that $500 or €500 psychological price line, though?

 

[Michael Clark]

The biggest selling point for APS-C cameras is lower cost and smaller size/weight. Since RF-s lenses are off the table, most of the APS-C benefits would be absent as well. An APS-C RF mount body with big and heavy FF lenses would be out of place in the world of trim Sony and Fuji APS-C cameras. Nikon had the sense to make a couple small and light lenses for their DX Z50.

That leaves the very small birders market for an APS-C body with FF lenses. Maybe some day, well into the future.

There are other use cases for an R7 with FF lenses such as a 70-200/2.8 that gives just enough reach to avoid the cost of a 300/2.8 plus another body to use with a 70-200/2.8 when the 300 prime is too long less than a second after 300mm was useful.

 

[Michael Clark]

Wouldn't it be cool if a Canon representative made himself available for questions - like Tim Cook sitting down for an interview. All we do is waste energy, speculate and surmise because Canon refuses to have direct conversations with their customers.

Chuck Westfall, may he RIP, was really good about sitting down for an interview and depending on exactly how he said "I can not speculate on future products Canon may or may not bring to market" you could kind of read the tea leaves and know what he was telling you without actually saying it.

Since cancer got Chuck a few years ago, Canon has not had a spokesperson who effectively communicates to the customers that they understand what the users of Canon products want, and why they might want them.

 

[Michael Clark]

While market research team discussing, 7D2 upset owners make their google research and start and find REAL alternative very attractive.

Sony A6400 vs Canon 7D MII Detailed Comparison

Read our detailed comparison of the Sony Alpha a6400 vs Canon EOS 7D Mark II to find out their strengths and weaknesses, and decide which one to choose.

cameradecision.com

Lack of flicker reduction is a deal killer for me. The difference between having it and not having it for high school and youth night field sports is almost as big as the difference between night and day.

 

[Michael Clark]

Further to my questions about how Canon implements diffraction correction, I went back to some of my charts for measuring resolution of the 800mm f/11 with the RF 1.4x TC at 1120mm f/16, which is well in the diffraction limited region on the R5. I found that Canon DPP with either diffraction correction or DLO does not giver discernibly better resolution than standard and gives slightly poorer resolution than DxO PL4 that doesn't use diffraction correction.

Were your samples taken using a solid, unmoving camera mount with no possibility of external vibration? To get the benefit of DLO or diffraction correction, there can be absolutely no camera movement whatsoever. Otherwise the blur from movement/vibration masks the blur due to diffraction.

 

[Michael Clark]

The Rebel/entry level cameras make up the bulk of sales, and for years there was a lot of money to be made selling $599 kits. But that market has been decimated by the shift in buying patterns so it isn’t the cash cow it was and it is a rapidly shrinking sector.

All the camera manufacturers have said the way they see market sustainability in the longer term is selling much fewer but more expensive bodies and lenses.

As I keep asking the people who say Canon have to make a crop RF, how does producing yet another lower cost ‘system within a system’ fit into their stated aims? Especially when you take into account their current lineup, they already sell millions of M cameras that need little R&D and those are effectively replacing the Rebel line anyway.

The vast majority of Rebel purchasers never buy another lens or body, they don’t want or need a system, they are price driven and all the manufacturers have said they don’t see the sustainability in that sector. To me it makes no sense for Canon to stretch their R&D and manufacturing even more to appeal to the bottom/entry level of the market when the various reasoning for that entry level no longer make sense.

I think you are mostly right here, but it does seem to me that Canon seem to be jumping the gun a bit here if they are making marketing decisions for near term products based on what the market will look like five years from now. Part of that is Canon's traditional longer development times to make sure products are solid before releasing them as opposed to other manufacturers' practice of new products being released as "beta" versions that then need to be patched.

 

[Michael Clark]

If I was in the marketing department of Canon I’d say you get more than you want in the R6 II and 800 f11. The R6 II is bound to have a BSI sensor.

The Nikon lens is a $3,600 lens, plus your imaginary $1,500 (which is a crazy pipe dream anyway because the 7D II is $1,799) for a total of just over $5,000 or €. The R6 is $2,499 and the RF 800 is $899, for a total of $3,398. The lens is two stops slower but you get more than one stop of sensitivity back because of the sensor size increase and the f5.6 on a crop is equivalent to an f8 on a ff camera anyway.

F/5.6 on a crop is "equivalent" to f/8 on a FF in terms of depth of field, but not in terms of exposure.

 

[Michael Clark]

And there you hit the nail directly on the head. Most of the R7 wannabuys are looking for another bargain like 7D II. In a much shrunken market, that is very unlikely. The flexibility to shoot in crop mode in the R5 (and potentially the R5s) is a great feature, but a crop only camera without a line of lenses to support it would get more derision for the lack of lenses than it got praise for its "reach". We will see where Nikon goes with this, but so far the crop lens offering makes their cropped Z's far less interesting than the M system, particularly for those seeking portability.

Canon seems to be able to handle just fine the derision they get regarding the M series as they keep selling more of them than any other mirrorless camera system on the planet.

 

[privatebydesign]

F/5.6 on a crop is "equivalent" to f/8 on a FF in terms of depth of field, but not in terms of exposure.

Yes it is, equivalence, taken to mean practically identical image characteristics, includes iso. A ff sensor has a 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage over a Canon APS-C sensor.

So 1/500 sec, f5.6, iso 800 on a Canon crop camera has a ff equivalent of 1/500 sec, f9.0, iso 2,000. At those settings you get essentially identical image characteristic, subject movement, depth of field and noise, and the EV is identical.

 

[BBarn]

There are other use cases for an R7 with FF lenses such as a 70-200/2.8 that gives just enough reach to avoid the cost of a 300/2.8 plus another body to use with a 70-200/2.8 when the 300 prime is too long less than a second after 300mm was useful.

OK, but still a rather small market.