Here is what Canon is announcing next, including the EOS R7, EOS R10 and RF-S lenses [CR3]

[neuroanatomist]

Ok, so we are talking about 32MP vs 17MP for the cropped R5. That is a massive difference and no bigger pixels would compensate for that. Then add the (likely) much lower cost of the R7 and it's obvious why is a better choice for many who cannot afford to spend 20K on gear.

I’ve said many times that the main advantages of an APS-C sensor are lower system cost and weight.

Smaller size is possible, but not a given.

A FF sensor and great white lens will deliver better IQ than an APS-C sensor and a shorter lens. Pairing a great white lens with an APS-C sensor might make sense with small and distant subjects, but in most cases atmospheric effects and diffraction diminish the returns substantially.

 

[t.linn]

I'm pretty pleased at the way Canon has prioritized their lens and body releases. I'm not interested in overpriced, recycled super telephoto lenses or APS-C gear but Canon has introduced just about every FF RF lens I would want to buy at this point. The only thing I'm still waiting for is the 20mm F1.8.

 

[sanj]

The M5 has a viewfinder but the M6 doesn't. So will the R10 come with one or not? There's also the possibility of the R10 being a "rangefinder form factor" with that kind of viewfinder.

Possible. But unlikely in my opinion.

 

[John Wilde]

Has that gray haired youtube guy done a LEAKED! video based on this CR post yet?

 

[Otara]

Ok, so we are talking about 32MP vs 17MP for the cropped R5. That is a massive difference and no bigger pixels would compensate for that. Then add the (likely) much lower cost of the R7 and it's obvious why is a better choice for many who cannot afford to spend 20K on gear.

Even if its a wash in practise, its a good deal. But the other features will be pretty important too, ie AF etc.

 

[Czardoom]

The M6 II can already do 14 fps with AF and 30 fps from a slightly cropped region.

Yes, that's my point. The M6 II has similar specs as the 90D. It's not a rebel.

 

[Dragon]

No need for telephoto EF-s lenses as EF lenses cover those focal lengths perfectly (if wider diameter)

But the 70-300 II (the closest match) is twice the price, twice the weight, and not as sharp as the EFS 55-250 STM. I wouldn't call that "covering perfectly". The 70-300 L is a great lens but 2 to 3 times the price of a Rebel. I would say EF-s Rebels are the next to go (and pretty quickly).

 

[unfocused]

Wow! Step away from this site for a day and all hell breaks loose. Two cameras at the end of the month. Sounds like Canon is confident that their supply chain issues are behind them. Can't wait to see the announcements. I think it will tell us a lot about the future path that Canon intends to follow. The two lenses makes me think the R10 will be more entry level than 90D, but who knows? Canon is nothing if not consistent and the fact that it is an RXX numbering scheme would lead one to believe that it is more along the 90D line, but with a lower resolution sensor.

Will they follow up with RXXX bodies?

Can they make these bodies small enough to replace the M series while still using RF lenses? Well, the SLX series was remarkably small for a DSLR, so it's certainly possible.

In at least one way this all makes sense. Have one mount to rule them all, since RF-S lenses will no doubt seamlessly mount on full frame bodies with an automatic crop to 1:6.

 

[GoldWing]

Continue reading...

Only thing I can figure is Canon is stuck with a bunch of low rez dated sensors

 

[unfocused]

...A FF sensor and great white lens will deliver better IQ than an APS-C sensor and a shorter lens. Pairing a great white lens with an APS-C sensor might make sense with small and distant subjects, but in most cases atmospheric effects and diffraction diminish the returns substantially.

Maybe.

My experience with the 1DxIII, R5 and R3 has shown me that in real world use, old assumptions about sensors are just that: "old assumptions."

Old assumption: a high resolution sensor is noisier than a lower resolution sensor at higher ISOs. Real world experience: The high resolution R5 sensor and the sensors in the 1Dx III and R3 show virtually identical levels of noise at higher ISOs. There may be a difference, but when translated to a final product, I have found that the differences are not that significant. It follows that the noise factor in an APS-C sensor, while certainly there, is likely to be much less in real world use than it once was.

So yes, in theory, a FF sensor and great white lens will deliver better IQ than an APS-C sensor and a shorter lens. But in practice I think most people will find that the difference in IQ is less than one might expect. I suspect that the greater difference will lie in the fact that a big white has a wider aperture, which allows for greater separation of subject from background, along with the inherent sharpness of a big white prime that costs upwards of $10,000.

A great white lens with an APS-C sensor does not necessarily mean distant subjects. Most songbirds are not so far away to cause problems with atmospheric effects, rather they are simply small.

Finally, let's be realistic. Not everyone can afford a big white and even those who can afford one may not always finds it practical or desirable to carry one around. Ultimately, it always comes down to the tradeoffs. Canon apparently believes that enough people will find the trade-offs inherent in an R7 are worth the advantages.

I have no doubt that the R7 will be a great camera and that many photographers will produce great photos that will be indistinguishable from photos shot with other combinations.

 

[Skux]

Just some random thoughts.

- It is entirely possible to make a compact camera with the RF mount, I don't see size being an issue if the R10 is the supposed M6II replacement.

- I don't think there's space in the lineup for a midrange, midsize 90D replacement anymore. The M6II and 90D are essentially the same camera and the R10 will replace both of them. If there's an all-rounder planned it will probably be an entry-level R100 or budget FF RP successor.

 

[Bishop80]

Just some random thoughts.

- It is entirely possible to make a compact camera with the RF mount, I don't see size being an issue if the R10 is the supposed M6II replacement.

Yes, they could still make an M6 Mark II style MILC except with RF mount instead of M mount.

 

[David - Sydney]

But the 70-300 II (the closest match) is twice the price, twice the weight, and not as sharp as the EFS 55-250 STM. I wouldn't call that "covering perfectly". The 70-300 L is a great lens but 2 to 3 times the price of a Rebel. I would say EF-s Rebels are the next to go (and pretty quickly).

I didn't say that they were a perfect replacement for size/weight/cost but only for focal length. Clearly they are bigger and more costly than telephoto EF-S lenses.

 

[David - Sydney]

I always like to bring up the Sigma fp/fp l as an example of what is possible for small bodies....
112.6 x 69.9 x 45.3 mm / 4.4 x 2.8 x 1.8 in.
L mount inner diameter of 51.6 mm and a flange depth of 20.0 mm.
R mount inner diameter of 54 mm and a flange depth of 20.0 mm.

So slightly more than 2x width of the mount inner diameter and 1.3x the height and 2.25x the depth!

 

[neuroanatomist]

My experience with the 1DxIII, R5 and R3 has shown me that in real world use, old assumptions about sensors are just that: "old assumptions."

Old assumption: a high resolution sensor is noisier than a lower resolution sensor at higher ISOs. Real world experience: The high resolution R5 sensor and the sensors in the 1Dx III and R3 show virtually identical levels of noise at higher ISOs. There may be a difference, but when translated to a final product, I have found that the differences are not that significant. It follows that the noise factor in an APS-C sensor, while certainly there, is likely to be much less in real world use than it once was.

Pixel size doesn’t really matter. Sensor size does. No assumptions are needed, just knowledge of physics.

For APS-C vs. FF, the noise difference is ~1.3 stops. You likely won’t notice a difference between ISO 200 and 500, for example, but between ISO 6400 and 16000 you likely would.

I suspect that the greater difference will lie in the fact that a big white has a wider aperture, which allows for greater separation of subject from background, along with the inherent sharpness of a big white prime that costs upwards of $10,000.

It’s not just inherent sharpness. An 840/5.6 lens on a 20-50 MP FF camera won’t be visibly affected by diffraction. A 500/7.1 lens on a 32 MP APS-C camera will be softer because of diffraction.

Finally, let's be realistic. Not everyone can afford a big white and even those who can afford one may not always finds it practical or desirable to carry one around. Ultimately, it always comes down to the tradeoffs.

Obviously. That’s why I stated that an APS-C system is cheaper and lighter. It is a tradeoff - image quality for money and weight.

I’m certainly not suggesting that APS-C systems can’t deliver great images, by any means. But FF delivers more exposure options and better IQ. Whether the differences are sufficient to justify the spend and effort to carry the gear is a personal decision.

 

[masterpix]

The M5 has a viewfinder but the M6 doesn't. So will the R10 come with one or not? There's also the possibility of the R10 being a "rangefinder form factor" with that kind of viewfinder.

The R10 is (in my view) the equivalent of the D90, therefore it will have EVF (not as good as the one on the R6), while the R-ebel will probably not have an EVF at all. It is like the Sony cameras where the "lower end" does not have EVF which will make it much cheaper than the next level.

 

[dog8food]

Why are people so excited about an aps-c camera that's gonna be bigger than the M system, both body and lenses? Why not just go full frame? I don't get it.

 

[Otara]

Why are people so excited about an aps-c camera that's gonna be bigger than the M system, both body and lenses? Why not just go full frame? I don't get it.

Lack of infinite money might be one reason.

 

[Jethro]

Why are people so excited about an aps-c camera that's gonna be bigger than the M system, both body and lenses? Why not just go full frame? I don't get it.

Well, that's the thing about rumours - they're a bit exciting, and good to speculate about (and look forward to in some cases) on rumour sites! And it sounds like the R10 might (it's only a rumour) be a similar size to some of the M series bodies.

 

[lustyd]

What is so funny?

The M is not a serious sport or wildlife camera with the tiny batteries, no weather sealing, no viewfinder, no RF compatibility. I like the M system for the size but it's not logical for Canon to keep it.

Look at the Nikon Z50. It's about the same size as the M6/M50 while the Z mount is the same size as the RF. So it's possible to make a small camera.

Your inability to see the use-case and market doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means your world is small. Sport and wildlife aren't the only kinds of photography, and photography isn't the only use for a camera.