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

[Michael Clark]

Even older generation EVF’s are much better than Rebel style pentamirrors. Rebel’s, whilst not being listed as ‘weatherproof’, which is a made up bullshi! term anyway, are very robust and easily up to most users need for durability.

It's not that hard to take some gaffer tape and put a clear plastic bag around any Rebel sized camera when the going gets tough. Roger Cicala does that with all of his cameras when shooting in bad weather or blowing sand.

 

[Michael Clark]

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

Don't forget about the Sony fanboys bragging about how Sony's latest $6K α1 version wipes the floor with the $700 Canon.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

You folks keep ignoring those of us who wouldn't have a problem paying $2,500+ for an APS-C version of the R6 (build quality, etc.) with a 32MP or so APS-C sensor. That's over twice the price that the 90D (lower build quality and lesser AF system) and the M6 Mark II (much lower build quality and no eye lever viewfinder that won't get ripped from the hot shoe the first time a linebacker plows into in on the sideline) with a very good 32 MP APS-C sensor were introduced.

We'd use such a body along with our FF cameras when it's the most logical tool for a specific use case. It doesn't have to be Rebel cheap. Neither the 7D (which was a disappointment in my book) or the 7D Mark II (which is what the 7D should have been) ever listed for less than $1,700, and was never advertised below around $1,500 from authorized dealers even with factory rebates.

 

[Michael Clark]

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?

Canon has made it VERY clear that they have no intention of ever developing APS-C only lenses in the RF mount.

That being the case, the chances of a "cheap" APS-C EOS R has always been pretty much nil. I've been saying that for years.

If an APS-C EOS R body ever comes to fruition, it will not be a "cheap" body, it will be a mid to higher end fast handling and durable body with a high density APS-C sensor. Something like an R6 with 32MP APS-C sensor. And it will cost about the same as an R6.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

It's getting to be two arms length for my aging eyes with presbyopia.

 

[Michael Clark]

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?

The same people that buy most of the EOS M series cameras now. They want a camera and a lens or two that is compact, lightweight, and affordable that they can use for the next few years.

They have zero interest in collecting lenses and bodies every time a new one comes out. In other words, they aren't us.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yes, last year DSLRs comprised 46% of ILC sales, and so far this year they only comprise 45%.

Next time I’m in Manhattan, I’ll be sure to look for you standing outside B&H wearing your ‘The End (of the DSLR) Is Nigh’ sandwich board.

Well, the end is nearer now than it was in 2012 or so when it was first hip to proclaim that "... the DSLR is DEAD!"

 

[Michael Clark]

The real question is, for how many others. You don’t know. I don’t know. Canon does know. The update frequency of the 7-series is probably a fair indication of how important that market segment is to Canon…not very.

Why can’t they just use the possible entry level ff RF and crop when they need the reach?

But how many 7D owners would be happy with an entry level camera body anyway? I doubt many would.

I don’t care if RF crop bodies make sense for me or not, that isn’t the point, the point is does it make sense for Canon? I don’t see the reasoning where it does make sense for Canon. I think most people here vastly overestimate the income the 7 series generated, it was a niche within a niche that in 12 years was updated once. If it was a high earner it would have been updated every other year.

The main reason for crop cameras in the first place was the cost of sensors, that cost has now come down dramatically so isn’t the barrier it used to be. Further, all the camera manufacturers have stated they need to raise the unit price of all their cameras in a shrinking market to maintain profit levels. To do that they need image differentiation, phones will never have ff sensors and they are a way of creating that difference between the images taken by a phone and a ‘real camera’

Which pushes me back to my earlier post and points.

Again, you assume Canon stopped updating the 7-series because it wasn't selling enough units. But there are more than a few who think Canon more or less abandoned it because they felt it was cannibalizing too many sales of FF cameras and high end fast telephotos with higher profit margins.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not sure why you are asking me this. They can use whatever they want to.


I didn't say anything about entry level. Just about people wanting an RF crop in general. I didn't notice that the post you wrote that I replied to mentioned anything about it being entry. Sorry if I missed that.


A company should find ways to make money, not lose it. I don't know if making an RF crop would or wouldn't. I don't know how much income it directly generated. I was just writing that there are people who would want a crop over a FF body. In particular, I was addressing your opening statement in that post: "The only really compelling reasons I have seen for the APS-C format are overall camera size, cost, and focal length limitations." Also, maybe indirectly, there are a good number of crop users that use it in sports where there is a large number of audience members (in person or on TV) and that is free advertisement, not necessarily for the crop models, but for Canon in general.


Maybe it was the main reason in the 1st place, but later evolved to be another more important reason than the older 1st reason? You mention they need to raise prices. So why can't they raise prices of a crop body too? I doubt they would ever make 2 bodies with the same specs and features (maybe they already did, I don't know). But if they did, Canon could do marketing research or something to figure out how much less it should cost. I bet there are some people who would pay just as much for the crop (I might) or even more for the crop.

ZWO, a very popular telescope camera company, makes cameras with various size sensors. They make some cameras that have smaller sensors than others, but cost more. The smaller sensor makes sense for imaging smaller objects like planets and galaxies. Larger sensors for nebulas and the few larger galaxies. Telescope size and speed makes a difference in which camera to get too.

I'd certainly rather have an R5 and an R7 in my bag than an R5 and an R6, even if the cost was the same for the R7 or the R6.

 

[Michael Clark]

People who seek a crop sensor do so not just for the body but for a system. A lighter body with lighter (cheaper) lenses is what they seek.

Not all of them. In fact, not many of them when you're talking about a 7D Mark II replacement in the R mount.

We want a fast handling, durable APS-C body with a high density sensor to use alongside our R5 or R6 bodies, just like we used our 7D Mark II bodies alongside our 5D Mark N bodies when it was the most logical tool for the job.

I guess if you mean we could use an R7 with our 70-200/2.8 lenses that are lighter/cheaper as well as more flexible, than a 300/2.8 with an R5, while using our R5 with a wider angle second lens, then you're getting closer.

 

[Michael Clark]

I laid out logical scenarios of and answers to the most often stated reasons why Canon should make an RF crop camera.

1/ Size, weight and cost. The M addresses all of them, that is why it is the best selling MILC system on the planet.

Agreed

2/ Focal length limited shooting because of financial or size limitations. The RF 800mm f11 addresses that.

Except it doesn't for all use cases

What camera buying situation is there for a crop RF camera that isn’t satisfied by the M and RF 800?

There's still a big gap between 70-200/2.8 and 600/11 that many of us use our ancient 7D Mark II bodies to fill.

Even an affordable and lightweight 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 doesn't work as well as a 70-200/2.8 with APS-C for shooting night/gym sports. With a 300 or 400 prime on a FF body you still need another FF body with a 70-200/2.8 for when the action gets close. And then another body with a wide lens for when the action is right on top of you.



Sigma does have an excellent 120-300/2.8 that is only about $3,600, but that's still a lot more than a 70-200/2.8 with a crop body, even if an APS-C R7 were to cost the same or a tad more than an R6.

 

[Michael Clark]

I agree with your premise but you can't use the RF800 with the M series. If you mean M series for cheap/small (or M + EF white lenses for reach) OR any of the R bodies + RF800mm then I concur.

Cheap reach is the reason that 7D users will claim with pixel density being the primary one. 7D users will complain that the M6ii/90D with adapted long white lenses is not useful because it doesn't have dual card/weather sealed but it does achieve the required reach parameter.

Using 7Dii + medium whites (70-200/2.8, 300/4, 400/5.6 etc) with TCs gives dual card/AF/fps with pixel density to avoid paying huge sums for big whites.

R5 price is too much for a 7Dii replacement with the 17mp crop being "vastly" insufficient cf 20mp in 7Dii and we can't use TCs with RF70-200mm/2.8 or limited range with RF100-500mm.
They yearn for the 90D/M6ii sensor but in a R mount body at a R6 price (or lower). The unanswerable question is how big is the market for Canon?

I used to have a 7D but I am happy to be corrected by the 7Dii user base for their needs

The 7D was a big disappointment for me. IQ was not as good as the 50D it replaced. AF consistency in burst drive mode with AI Servo AF was no better than the 50D, even if the 7D had more AF points and was more configurable. It's only redeeming feature over the 50D was handling speed. Once I got a 5D Mark III, I started using it with the 70-200/2.8 for low light action and only used the 7D for daylight action shooting.

The 7D Mark II was a whole other level of camera. AF was much more consistent from shot-to-shot and only marginally below the 5D Mark III (2012) and 5D Mark IV (2016) bodies that bookended the release date of the 7D Mark II (2014). Flicker reduction and an RGB+IR light meter, which up to that point only the 1D X had, were the coups de gras that made the 7D Mark II a better body, other than the 1D X, for night/indoor sports under flickering lighting than anything else in Canon's catalog in 2014. I still use it with the 70-200/2.8 for all field sports, day or night, even though I've had a 5D Mark IV for several years now.

My biggest gripe with the 90D is that the AF system is not as good as the 7D Mark II, and the shutter life rating is a dismal 120,000 actuations, compared to the 7D Mark II's 200,000 and the R6's 300,000. There's also the shallower buffer that only goes to 58 JPEGs or 25 raw files, compared to the 7D II's unlimited JPEGs or 31 raw files.

The M6 Mark II has no integrated eye level viewfinder. The hot shoe add-on would not last very long on the sidelines of the sports I shoot where changing bodies quickly mid-play is often required when the action comes right at you..

 

[Michael Clark]

Here is the obvious solution to the 7D problem. Wait until 2024 and the R6 will drop to $1700. Now you have an affordable camera with 12fps mechanical with a 1DX III sensor with 2 card slots. Buy that and a RF 800 f11.

Yeah, that'd work real well shooting night sports at ISO 51,200 to get 1/800 at f/11... not to mention that even 600mm is too long for that. Even with a 300mm prime one would need another body on which to hang a 70-200/2.8 for when the 300 is too long.

Not to mention that the R6 only has 7.8 MP in the APS-C area of the center of the sensor. The 1D X Mark II/III sensor only makes sense if one can justify the cost and weight of a 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 plus another body for a 70-200/2.8.

Even the 45MP R5 only has 17MP in the APS-C footprint. If the R5 had a crop mode where the full area of the EVF only showed the APS-C output from the sensor, it might be satisfactory once the R5 drops to the current R6 price...

 

[Michael Clark]

Exactly what I’ve been saying. That’s why there’s the EOS M, which has been and likely still is the globally best-selling MILC line. Not sure why some people believe Canon will replace the M line with APS-C RF mount cameras, other than those people have the delusion that they represent a large market segment for Canon.

Again, you're putting words in the mouths of those of us who would like for Canon to make an R7. Most of us realize it looks less and less likely to ever happen, but the reasons that those of use who would use it as a supplemental tool to our FF cameras are still valid in terms of wanting one, even if we aren't expecting it.

 

[Michael Clark]

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!

Except that isn't all the things all of us say we want.

I've never owned a 100-400mm because they're way too slow for what I do. For me the choice is between a FF + 300/2.8 and another FF + 70-200/2.8 for when the 300 is too long OR an APS-C and a 70-200/2.8. (In either case I'll have another FF body with a 24-70 or 24-105 on it, but it will be the same either way.)

That's two R5s, a 300/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8

OR

one R7 and a 70-200/2.8.

Assuming the RF 300/2.8 is going to be at least $7K (I'm guessing more like $8K) and an R7 would be around $2,800, that's $16,900 vs. $4,900.

 

[Michael Clark]

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 night/gym high school and youth sports shooters that are trying to make more than they spend on gear selling images to an ever shrinking pool of parents willing to pay anything for photos.

The 600mm and 800mm RF lenses are even more useless for that use case than the 100-400mm EF lenses were. Ditto for the RF 100-500mm.

It takes f/2.8 to get 1/800-1/1000 at ISO 3200 in "good" high school stadiums and gyms. The cost of prime 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 glass plus another FF body for a 70-200/2.8 for when the action gets closer is prohibitive in that market. An APS-C body plus high quality 70-200/2.8 can do the job of both a FF body + 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 and another FF body + 70-200/2.8.

 

[Michael Clark]

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)?

Some of us want access to affordable f/2.8 RF lenses, not just the sssslllloooowww long telephotos.

 

[Michael Clark]

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?

The 7D Mark III rumors were in 2016 and very early 2017. By late Spring of 2017 Canon had effectively let everyone know via leaks that there would be no 7D Mark III.

 

[Del Paso]

Except that isn't all the things all of us say we want.

I've never owned a 100-400mm because they're way too slow for what I do. For me the choice is between a FF + 300/2.8 and another FF + 70-200/2.8 for when the 300 is too long OR an APS-C and a 70-200/2.8. (In either case I'll have another FF body with a 24-70 or 24-105 on it, but it will be the same either way.)

That's two R5s, a 300/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8

OR

one R7 and a 70-200/2.8.

Assuming the RF 300/2.8 is going to be at least $7K (I'm guessing more like $8K) and an R7 would be around $2,800, that's $16,900 vs. $4,900.

Convincing !

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

The difference between using an R7 with an RF 70-200/2.8

OR

an R5 with a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 AND another R5 with an RF 70-200/2.8 to shoot wider than the prime can do when the action moves closer.