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

[AlanF]

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.

You are invariably right on equivalence. It's worth adding the caveat to avoid some confusion that it is for having the Canon crop camera 1.6x further away from the subject to give the same field of view of as full frame, and the images are viewed at the same size. I like to think of the noise as resulting from "photons per duck", by analogy with "pixels per duck". The FF has the duck 1.6x1.6 larger in area on the sensor but the illuminance is lower by (9/5.6)x(9/5.60) = 1.6x1.6 because of the f-numbers, and so the same number of photons fall on the duck in both cases.

 

[Dragon]

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.

If you have the right glass, the 90D will definitely give you more detail, but the lens list is pretty short and mostly L. As an example, I have an 800L, a 90D, and an R5. If I shoot without a TC, the 90D has more "reach". Add a 1.4 TC and the R5 wins by a nose over the 90D without the TC and adding the TC doesn't do much for 90D other than limit the field of view. For most scenes, the R5 will focus at least as well with the TC as the 90D without it, so in the end, it gets down to subtleties like cross AF points for scenes that have little or no vertical detail, but that is more of an implementation issue than an argument for an APS-c sensor. Certainly at least a few QPAF points on the sensor would be helpful. In most situations, I will choose the R5 because of its better tracking and higher frame rates.

 

[privatebydesign]

You are invariably right on equivalence. It's worth adding the caveat to avoid some confusion that it is for having the Canon crop camera 1.6x further away from the subject to give the same field of view of as full frame, and the images are viewed at the same size. I like to think of the noise as resulting from "photons per duck", by analogy with "pixels per duck". The FF has the duck 1.6x1.6 larger in area on the sensor but the illuminance is lower by (9/5.6)x(9/5.60) = 1.6x1.6 because of the f-numbers, and so the same number of photons fall on the duck in both cases.

Or, change the focal length to 1.6 times, that is always my assumption and I should have made it clear. If you use the same lens and move back you have changed perspective so the images are not identical.

So given Michael’s scenario where he uses a a crop camera and 200mm @ f2.8, 1/500 sec, iso 800, he would get essentially the same image from the same place with a ff camera and a 300mm at f4, 1/500 sec and iso 2,000.

Now I am not trying to convince anybody to do anything, I am happy to point out options people have that they might not have thought of, but I never know peoples individual situations. All I would say is anybody shooting with a 200 f2.8 and a 7D II has a very real upgrade path in the R6 and 300mm f4, they give equivalent (as in same image characteristics and EV value from the same place) images and the R6 is a vastly better tool than the 7D II. Of course not all lens options are available as equivalents, and I do not believe ff is the answer to every question, but the R6 and equivalence does make a compelling upgrade solution for many 7D II shooters.

Ultimately if you have to crop your images significantly there is, obviously, no advantage to a bigger sensor, if I was shooting a 7D II with an 800mm lens and still cropping I’d be looking to get a 4/3 camera anyway. But if the focal length options are there people who have lived in the crop camera space don’t need to wait for a possible R crop camera, they have a real upgrade path already they just need to fully appreciate the differences between a crop sensor image and a different sized sensor image characteristic, they include perspective, subject motion, depth of field, exposure value, and noise.

 

[AlanF]

Or, change the focal length to 1.6 times, that is always my assumption and I should have made it clear. If you use the same lens and move back you have changed perspective so the images are not identical.

So given Michael’s scenario where he uses a a crop camera and 200mm @ f2.8, 1/500 sec, iso 800, he would get essentially the same image from the same place with a ff camera and a 300mm at f4, 1/500 sec and iso 2,000.

Now I am not trying to convince anybody to do anything, I am happy to point out options people have that they might not have thought of, but I never know peoples individual situations. All I would say is anybody shooting with a 200 f2.8 and a 7D II has a very real upgrade path in the R6 and 300mm f4, they give equivalent (as in same image characteristics and EV value from the same place) images and the R6 is a vastly better tool than the 7D II. Of course not all lens options are available as equivalents, and I do not believe ff is the answer to every question, but the R6 and equivalence does make a compelling upgrade solution for many 7D II shooters.

Ultimately if you have to crop your images significantly there is, obviously, no advantage to a bigger sensor, if I was shooting a 7D II with an 800mm lens and still cropping I’d be looking to get a 4/3 camera anyway. But if the focal length options are there people who have lived in the crop camera space don’t need to wait for a possible R crop camera, they have a real upgrade path already they just need to fully appreciate the differences between a crop sensor image and a different sized sensor image characteristic, they include perspective, subject motion, depth of field, exposure value, and noise.

That's right. I learned a lot about equivalence from you. If you are going to crop a lot, a 1" sensor is the one to use, and it's a shame Nikon screwed up on their 1 series. What I like most about FF is the extra image space it gives me for action shots. Many of my BIF and DIF shots have the bird or dragonfly at the edge of the FF sensor as I am fighting to track them, and I would have lost or clipped them on APS-C. It's like having, for example, a 500mm prime on FF that gives the equivalent of having a 312-500mm prime 1.6x zoom on an APS-C.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

You do need to take into account that for well over a decade beginning around 2007 many Canon cameras only changed actual analog amplification in whole stops. The +1/3 and -1/3 stop settings were instructions to push or pull by 1/3 stop in development after ADC. Depending on shooting conditions, ISO 125 (effectively shooting 1/3 stop to the left with the sensor set at ISO 100 and then both signal and noise pushed in development) could test as noisier than ISO 1250 (effectively shooting 1/3 stop to the right with the sensor amplified at ISO 1600)!

Going straight to JPEG in camera, ISO 2000 is noisier than ISO 3200 on everything I shoot (5D Mark IV being my most current sensor). I've seen some indications that Canon might have stopped this practice around 2019 with the 90D and newer sensors (1D X Mark III/R6, and R5).

 

[Michael Clark]

Or, change the focal length to 1.6 times, that is always my assumption and I should have made it clear. If you use the same lens and move back you have changed perspective so the images are not identical.

So given Michael’s scenario where he uses a a crop camera and 200mm @ f2.8, 1/500 sec, iso 800, he would get essentially the same image from the same place with a ff camera and a 300mm at f4, 1/500 sec and iso 2,000.

Now I am not trying to convince anybody to do anything, I am happy to point out options people have that they might not have thought of, but I never know peoples individual situations. All I would say is anybody shooting with a 200 f2.8 and a 7D II has a very real upgrade path in the R6 and 300mm f4, they give equivalent (as in same image characteristics and EV value from the same place) images and the R6 is a vastly better tool than the 7D II. Of course not all lens options are available as equivalents, and I do not believe ff is the answer to every question, but the R6 and equivalence does make a compelling upgrade solution for many 7D II shooters.

Ultimately if you have to crop your images significantly there is, obviously, no advantage to a bigger sensor, if I was shooting a 7D II with an 800mm lens and still cropping I’d be looking to get a 4/3 camera anyway. But if the focal length options are there people who have lived in the crop camera space don’t need to wait for a possible R crop camera, they have a real upgrade path already they just need to fully appreciate the differences between a crop sensor image and a different sized sensor image characteristic, they include perspective, subject motion, depth of field, exposure value, and noise.

I've tried the EF 300mm f/4L. With either the 7D Mark II or the 5D Mark III (it was before I had a 5D Mark IV), I could get better results cropping the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II to the same angle of view. Maybe I've got the sharpest EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II around, or maybe that was a "bad" EF 300mm f/4L, but that was my experience.

 

[Michael Clark]

EF-S never made sense either. Sure, the 17-50/2.8 made a lot of sense but both Tamron and Sigma did that without the mirror-fouling of the EF-S lenses. Was mirror-fouling the only standout feature of EF-S? While EF-S was nonsensical, a fast standard zoom for APS-C wasn't and neither was a kit zoom. And a speedy camera body that didn't cost an arm, a leg and a kidney was a nice idea, wasn't it?
Thinking about it, maybe the golden days of photography just passed. Sure, cameras get better with every new generation but the value proposition...

There were only a handful of EF-S lenses that actually exploited the increased mirror clearance to place rear elements behind the flange at specific zoom and focus distances. Most Canon EF-S lenses did not.

 

[Michael Clark]

7D buyers may have only bought EF lenses but xxD/xxxD/xxxxD buyers probably not. I am not necessarily typical but started with 7D + EF24-105mm. Second lens was EF-s 10-22mm which I used extensively. 3rd lens was EF70-200mm/2.8ii as I was sold on the idea that buy the best glass and not need to replace it. A little GAS since then

For data, Canon would know sales volume per item per sales region (except grey markets/unbundling kits) but I am not as convinced that they know what bodies those EF lenses were used on. CPS users would give some idea but Canon applies CPS in different ways in different countries. You need a business registration and derive most of your revenue from photography before paying for CPS in Australia for instance. Enthusiast buyers in Australia are excluded even if they meet the minimum body/lens ownership requirements.
Resellers may know what you have bought in the past but that doesn't cover purchases from different resellers or buy/sell on second hand markets. Resellers may not provide that level of detailed customer data to Canon either.

If someone registers the warranty with Canon on purchases of new bodies and lenses, Canon knows exactly what bodies and what lenses a specific customer has, even if they never attempt to join CPS.

There's also an option for those who use DPP (admittedly not a huge percentage of Canon owners with multiple bodies/lenses) to allow aggregate data regarding lens body combinations, ISO, Tv, and Av settings, etc. to be sent to Canon.

 

[Michael Clark]

The M6ii is 32mp@14fps and you can adapt EF lenses on it. What else do you need (not want)?

A built-in EVF that won't get ripped from the hot shoe the first time it gets bumped and that also leaves the hot shoe available to control off camera flash? With no PC port one can't even have an eye level viewfinder and use external flash in any practical way with the EOS M6 Mark II.

I don't think that is unreasonable.

Those who hoped to see an M5 Mark II with the same sensor and a built-in eye level EVF have been bitterly disappointed. As long as it has been since the 90D/M6II were rolled out, it's becoming pretty obvious that an M5 Mark II is never going to happen.

 

[Michael Clark]

The budget for the RF 2x went to snapping up the RF100mm when store.canon.nl showed it to be in stock Your experiences with it had me very close to ordering it after my pre-order for the RF100 fell through.

I might rent the RF 2x for a few days during my time off this summer, together with the Laowa probe lens. I'm looking forward to posting underwater shots of dragons and damsels!

Where do you find an underwater housing that can fit the Laowa probe lens?

 

[koenkooi]

Where do you find an underwater housing that can fit the Laowa probe lens?

The camera would be above water, only the front end of probe lens would be submerged. It should be more than long enough for the shallow end of the pools where I’ve seen the larvae climb up vegetation and turn into damselflies.

For fully underwater housings, I’ve seen a few dive fora that reference a place that has built such housings. One of those ‘contact us for pricing’ things

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

Many who want an R7 already have a "high res" FF. But the 45MP R5, when cropped to APS-C angle of view, is only 17MP at a time when Canon offers a pretty good 32MP APS-C sensor in bodies that don't quite cut the mustard for typical 7D/potential R7 buyers.

Just because one has a FF body (or multiple FF bodies) does not mean that one can't also have use cases where a higher density APS-C camera is a better tool for that specific use case, particularly if the use case calls for multiple bodies sporting both "long" and "short" lenses to be used at the same time.

The other thing you don't seem to be able to see is that even for those who have FF bodies and an EF 500mm f/4L, to get the same pixel density on subjects with a 45MP FF camera that they would get with a 32MP APS-C + 500mm they would need a 940mm lens. The 500/4 might be expensive, but have you priced an 800mm or 1200mm lens recently?

 

[Michael Clark]

Wait for the R5s and dig a little deeper into your pocket. The added FOV combined with high res gives you the best of both worlds, wide FOV so you can keep the bird in the frame and high res so you can ruthlessly crop the image. Then again, the R3 just could be that high res camera .

You're making a pretty bold assumption that a very high res R5s will not be limited at all compared to the R5 or a potential R7 by the larger file sizes and as a result have slower maximum fps and a shallower buffer in terms of the number of images the buffer can hold before the camera bogs down.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

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.

For any product Canon releases there always seem to be more who are "livid" Canon did not make what they wanted than there are those who are happy Canon released the camera they did.

You ratio is entirely exaggerated, too. Maybe if Canon released a low cost APS-C RF body, like an R800, there would be more of that, though still not 100:1. But with a higher end APS-C R7 the naysayers would never get beyond complaining about the high cost of the body to get to complaining about lack of cheap RF-S lenses to go with a non-existent cheap APS-C R body.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

It wouldn't just be flimsy, it would need to have negative thickness.

The RF mount is larger in diameter than the EF-M mount, yet the lugs on the RF bayonet extend more than 2mm behind the flange ring. The back of the lugs on an RF mount lens would need to be behind the smaller flange ring of the EOS M body for the lens to be the proper registration distance from the sensor.

 

[Michael Clark]

OK, but still a rather small market.

Don't mistake someone's desire for a product that would make sense for them as a claim that it would make enough sense for Canon to produce such a product.

 

[BBarn]

Sorry, I didn't realize you were directing so much energy toward something you don't believe makes sense as a production camera.

 

[Dragon]

For any product Canon releases there always seem to be more who are "livid" Canon did not make what they wanted than there are those who are happy Canon released the camera they did.

You ratio is entirely exaggerated, too. Maybe if Canon released a low cost APS-C RF body, like an R800, there would be more of that, though still not 100:1. But with a higher end APS-C R7 the naysayers would never get beyond complaining about the high cost of the body to get to complaining about lack of cheap RF-S lenses to go with a non-existent cheap APS-C R body.

Yes, I threw in a little hyperbole for drama, but my ratio would be pretty close for the review community, which is one of the larger concerns for any manufacturer. I agree that the 7d II users would not particularly miss the equivalent of EF-s lenses, but they would scream bloody murder about $3,000 for an "R5-c" and they would also whine about lack of features on an "R6-c" and the "R6-c" would dramatically increase the number of reviewers who would howl about the lack of APS-c specific lenses. The average EOS-M customer wouldn't even notice either introduction. So if you put yourself in Canon's shoes and ask "is it worth the pain?", you have a tough decision to make, even if you would like to convince the 7D-II crowd to migrate to R. On that last note, the trigger for such a migration would be a proper successor to the EF 500mm F/4 L II and that isn't baked yet, so best to not get the cart before the horse.

 

[neuroanatomist]

…if you would like to convince the 7D-II crowd to migrate to R. On that last note, the trigger for such a migration would be a proper successor to the EF 500mm F/4 L II and that isn't baked yet

I think your suggestion that most 7DII owners also own a 500/4 is half-baked.

 

[Dragon]

Many who want an R7 already have a "high res" FF. But the 45MP R5, when cropped to APS-C angle of view, is only 17MP at a time when Canon offers a pretty good 32MP APS-C sensor in bodies that don't quite cut the mustard for typical 7D/potential R7 buyers.

Just because one has a FF body (or multiple FF bodies) does not mean that one can't also have use cases where a higher density APS-C camera is a better tool for that specific use case, particularly if the use case calls for multiple bodies sporting both "long" and "short" lenses to be used at the same time.

The other thing you don't seem to be able to see is that even for those who have FF bodies and an EF 500mm f/4L, to get the same pixel density on subjects with a 45MP FF camera that they would get with a 32MP APS-C + 500mm they would need a 940mm lens. The 500/4 might be expensive, but have you priced an 800mm or 1200mm lens recently?

Yes, I have an 800L that I use with both an R5 and a 90D, so I understand the tradeoffs. I think there is something wrong with your math. The R5 has at tad over 17MP in the APS-c area and the 90D just over 32MP in the same area. Those are effectively area numbers, whereas lens reach is a linear number, so you have to compare as follows: Sqrt(32/17)= 1.37 equivalent zoom or 500mm*1.37=685mm equivalent focal length. I have found that the R5 with a 1.4 TC on the 800mm will out-resolve, out-track, and out-focus the 90D without a TC on the same lens and adding the TC to 90D doesn't help that much because the pixel density is pushing the limits of the lens combo. I suspect the 500L II, being arguably the sharpest big white ever made, might be a bit better with the TC, but not enough to make a dramatic difference. Also note that the much better AA filter on the R5 puts the effective APS-c resolution closer to 20MP equivalent from a relative sharpness perspective. In the end, an 80+ MP FF R5s will end all arguments other than price and I suspect that will happen before Canon seriously looks at an "R5c" (and I am not referring to "Cinema").