An APS-C sensor equipped EOS R camera mentioned again [CR1]

[Mikehit]

Why crop in camera when it is easy to crop in whatever software is used in computer. I would suggest the later cropping is done is better....

It depends on how it is done. I recall reading that (some? all?) Sony cameras offering APS-C output sample only the APS-C image area which, because of the smaller data output enables greater frame rate, whereas where Canon does this the whole sensor is used for the image and the image is cropped in the processor and as a result the frame rate cannot increase because the same amount of data is leaving the sensor. So you are correct in as much Canon makes no difference if you do it during capture or post capture, but the Sony implementation offers advantages.
HOWEVER, if Canon can follow Sony's lead they will have the same advantages as Sony.

 

[BillB]

As I write this, I am thinking that we may be wrong in thinking of this as a 7D successor. It might be more accurate to think of it as an APS-C mirrorless successor to the Canon 1D IV. Perhaps Canon goes with a relatively conservative 28 mp sensor that allows for decent low light performance, makes it virtually identical in features to the "R x" but priced in the $2,500 range and markets it to both professional photographers seeking more reach for sports and high disposable income enthusiasts wanting the greatest reach possible for birds and wildlife.

My guess is that RF mount aps-c camera might well use the AF and processor technologies being developed for "Rx" model. If the rumors are correct though, Canon is about to role out a 32 Mpixel aps-c sensor that will be scaled up to the next FF high Mpixel sensor. This seems to me to be the most likely sensor for an RF mount aps-c camera. Canon might have decided to work with the Rx AF/processor technologies and the high megapixel densities at the aps-c level in a single camera before scaling them up to 2 separate FF cameras. Or maybe not. We could find out soon.

 

[overniven]

I own two mirrorless cameras, the EOS RP and the EOS M5. I think it would be a real shame if the M system goes away. If Canon gets off their butts and puts out some cheaper/smaller glass for R, I won't care as much.

I really like the size of the M5 and M6 kits with the 22mm and the 32mm, and so for the time being, I will find a use for the EOS M system until Canon Produces some smaller fun to use primes.

 

[maves]

An APS-C RF camera makes about as much sense as a Sony a6000 series camera. It will sell heaps. They can throw out some variable aperture zooms, maybe a prime and those who use it will love it, and people can use the fancy new RF glass on it.

People who make arguments like "a D850 or A7Riv can shoot crop at 24ish MP make a 7D equivalent R redundant" need to check their privilege. I would love either of those cameras but they are expensive pieces of kit for the few. If they work for you then all good, but many of us mere mortals will never own a new camera of that expense.

The 7D series is, and I expect it to continue to be an incredibly successful camera, on RF or EF mount. As many users here can attest, they work fantastically in unison with FF or as a budget friendly alternative to a high speed 1D series bodies.

The M mount is its own ecosystem, the fact that it can use EF lenses is a plus, but the majority of users buy it for its compact nature. It wasn't about mirrorlesss vs DSLR, it was about size. Think of it as a high end Powershot with the feature of some extra lenses (and I don't mean that as a slur). That being said, looking to the future, serious photographers who use EF-m for size and portability will probably be better catered for in the RF mount.

 

[Ozarker]

Amazing. This was bound to happen for the birders/wildlife aficionados. I can still remember the stomping of feet and holding of breath when everyone thought APS-C cameras were going to be gone (except for the M) and people would be forced to buy full frame... thus losing their "reach" of their telephoto lenses. Then a monster of an ASP-C camera was rumored to replace the 7D Mark II and 80D (merging the two lines) ... that we'd have a crappy 90D with a crappy plastic body. It was never going to be a 90D. Only in the forums was it called that. There were crazy good specs rumored and nobody could wrap their heads around it. It still remains to be seen what the final specs will be... but then the "Canon has to protect the IDX Mark II and would never let that happen" crowd will be sniping until then... as though the two cameras can't co-exist for two vastly different market segments.

Good on Canon for this.

 

[Ozarker]

I just checked my EOS M and it has a mechanical shutter, from images of the EOS R I know that it has a mechanical shutter too so I am a little bit confused.
Or do you mean "shutter closed while OFF"? That is a differentiator between EOS R and (EOS RF plus the rest).

The EOS R has both an actual mechanical shutter and also electronic shutter for different use cases.

Silent Shutter with the Canon EOS R Camera | Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Silent shutter with the Canon EOS R camera. Dive into the world of photography and explore Canon's collection of educational articles to inspire your creativity.

www.usa.canon.com

 

[Ozarker]

I don't see Canon doing an EOS 'RS' camera in which they fit an APS-C sensor into a full-size body. The savings on sensor manufacturing, compared to all the other costs of building, shipping and marketing such a camera, are modest -- you might be able to to an RS for $100 cheaper than an RP. Is that worth it? For $100, most folks would go FF and the RP.

Seriously: an RP is $1300 today. What is the maximum price at which you can sell an RS? What exactly do you 'save' in buying an RS with a smaller sensor? Further, what features do you remove to ensure that the RS doesn't stamp all over the RP? That's a favored Canon strategy, remember. I can hear people now complaining that the RS "doesn't do real 4K!!!!!" Cue the garment-rending.

Except that the birder wildlife folks want an actual high mega pixel camera that doesn't become a 12mp sensor when attaching an EF-S lens to an adapter on a FF RP. The APSC fans also prefer the ability to use the less expensive EF line for their tele lenses. I would imagine that RF equivalents will be monstrously more expensive. Two different markets, my friend. People buy what suits their needs. Many people prefer an APSC sensor for their use and would scoff at using a FF for their needs. Besides, an RP won't scream speed performance like this rumored APSC camera. The RP is very slow. The price of the two cameras could be exactly the same price and they would each still have a market pool of buyers who have completely different needs... fast vs slow. Wildlife vs Portrait. The rumored camera will be an APSC speed demon for the crowd that wants and needs that and could never afford a 1DX Mark II or don't want FF no matter what. The RP would not be even on the checklist for those folks. This will keep the EF lens line alive and the system affordable.

 

[Jethro]

I think one of the traditional arguments against there being an APSC EOS R was the assumption that there would have to be a native RF-S mount introduced for it (and it is genuinely hard to imagine that happening). But if they stick with RF (and the adaptor for EF and EF-S which would fit the crop), why is it unthinkable? Assuming there is new sensor tech coming (and I think most of us assume that and are waiting eagerly for the 90D specs), then why couldn't the APSC version of that sensor find its way into mirrorless RF mount cameras?

 

[privatebydesign]

I wish I knew why some people find it to be their mission in life to shite on people that use APS-C every time their is an APS-C story. I have APS-C and FF because I have different needs and my dick didn't get any bigger when I bought the FF like so may here seem to think happened to them. If Canon makes an APS-C camera with an R mount it won't mean the end of FF cameras. Seriously just get over yourselves already.

I wish I knew why every time there is a crop vs ff thread both sides get so ridiculously defensive.

I don't need to defend my equipment choices I buy them for what they do for me, nobody else needs to defend their choices either just don't try and pretend the differences aren't there. There are very good reasons to buy either or both, some shooting scenarios are better achieved with crop some with FF, but denying the differences is, by definition, living in denial...

 

[unfocused]

...The APSC fans also prefer the ability to use the less expensive EF line for their tele lenses. I would imagine that RF equivalents will be monstrously more expensive...

Why do you say that? The 24-105 is essentially the same price in EF as in RF. If they duplicate EF lenses, they will likely price them very similarly. I don't see 7D users being all that price sensitive when it comes to lenses. The 100-400 is probably the most popular lens on a 7DII and while it's not in the same category as the Big White Primes, it's not a cheap date for most people.

...The price of the two cameras could be exactly the same price and they would each still have a market pool of buyers who have completely different needs... fast vs slow. Wildlife vs Portrait. The rumored camera will be an APSC speed demon for the crowd that wants and needs that and could never afford a 1DX Mark II or don't want FF no matter what. The RP would not be even on the checklist for those folks. This will keep the EF lens line alive and the system affordable.

If you are suggesting that a 7DII mirrorless would be similarly priced to the RP, I doubt it. It would definitely come in above the 90D, which probably means a minimum of $1,800. In fact, I would expect it to enter the market closer in price to the R at introduction. The target market for this body has a lot of disposable income. I would actually prefer that Canon give it the features that would justify a $2,000 to $2,500 initial price.

Of course, let's remember that at this stage we are talking about a unicorn.

 

[Danglin52]

If you allow for optics inside, yes. A hollow tube like the EF-M-EF or RF-EF adaptor is not possible.

I am not sure how many M lenses have been sold or how many customers would make the migration to an RF mount. Canon might have a hard time justifying the R&d / manufacturing / support cost of adapting M lenses to the R depending on how many were sold and if it would make a difference in overall R adoption. They might be better served by providing some type of trade in program for M users. I really like the M5 as a form factor, but it needs a serious upgrade in processing speed and performance across the board - AF, buffer, throughput, etc. I have only one M lens (18 - 150) and use my EF lenses with adaptors. The 40mm pancake & 70-200 f4 L IS II are really nice on the camera. The 2.8 lenses are too heavy and bulky. I would love the M5 as a wildlife back if they could pack all the good stuff in such a small body. Wouldn't take up that much room in the bag beside my 1dx II.

 

[Ozarker]

Why do you say that? The 24-105 is essentially the same price in EF as in RF. If they duplicate EF lenses, they will likely price them very similarly. I don't see 7D users being all that price sensitive when it comes to lenses. The 100-400 is probably the most popular lens on a 7DII and while it's not in the same category as the Big White Primes, it's not a cheap date for most people.

If you are suggesting that a 7DII mirrorless would be similarly priced to the RP, I doubt it. It would definitely come in above the 90D, which probably means a minimum of $1,800. In fact, I would expect it to enter the market closer in price to the R at introduction. The target market for this body has a lot of disposable income. I would actually prefer that Canon give it the features that would justify a $2,000 to $2,500 initial price.

Of course, let's remember that at this stage we are talking about a unicorn.

Price is anyone's guess and what I wrote was a response to someone else who was saying, essentially, that the price had to be lower than the RP to be competitive with the RP. That is what the discussion is about. He couldn't understand how Canon could price it higher than the RP or what the point of an APSC beast. would be. It was he that suggested that the price would have to be lower than the RP. I was trying to explain to him that that may not be true because the market for the two cameras is completely different. My point was that even if the two cameras were priced exactly the same it wouldn't matter because the potential customers for those two cameras have completely different needs. In other words, market segmentation based on two completely different types of customers.

There won't be a 7D Mark III or 90 D. Those two lines are being merged. What is coming will be better than both.

An RF 28-70mm f/2 is vastly more expensive than an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. But if that isn't a good enough comparison... just look at the difference in price between the still available EF 85 and RF 85.

As stated in the rumor, the new APSC camera will be EF mount. You mention the 24-105 (EF and RF) Both f/4. Neither are popular with the birding crowd like a 70-200 or what ever Canon produces for RF with a lower F/stop than f/2.8L.

So no. That is not even remotely what I was suggesting. You did see the specs a couple of weeks ago about what CR called a 90D, didn't you?

But ahhh... I got confused, I was thinking about this M beast. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...anon-eos-m6-mark-ii-specifications-cr1.37384/

Whose price will likely be lower than the RP.

 

[PerKr]

eeee hmmm Nikon D850 has 9fps capability at FF (45Mpixel)

Just saying...

Meanwhile my A77 does 8fps (12fps in silly-feature-stripped-and-weirdly-limited-mode) and cost less than a third of the D850. Actually, I could buy a replacement for my A77ii and still have spent less on bodies than if I was to buy a D850, which I wouldn't buy anyway because it's just too much money, just like the A99ii.

There's good reason the 7D, 7Dmk2 and other high performance APS-C models existed. I fail to understand how people can fail to understand this.

 

[dave61]

We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore.

Do we?

I have an EOS-R (replacing a 7D) for occasions/trips where I can take a full size camera and lenses. I also have an M (with lenses, etc) that fits into a pouch less than 4" x 3" x 2"; which is small enough to go in my briefcase on business trips to somewhere worth taking photos of.

 

[tron]

Meanwhile my A77 does 8fps (12fps in silly-feature-stripped-and-weirdly-limited-mode) and cost less than a third of the D850. Actually, I could buy a replacement for my A77ii and still have spent less on bodies than if I was to buy a D850, which I wouldn't buy anyway because it's just too much money, just like the A99ii.

There's good reason the 7D, 7Dmk2 and other high performance APS-C models existed. I fail to understand how people can fail to understand this.

What gives you the idea that people fail to understand it? My 7DII is just fine (and I would like a 7DIII). But we should have the option to get an opton with more fps in FF just like Nikon D850. My 5DsR is mostly used at 3fps so as to take advantage of the silent mode shutter but I would welcome a 5DsR II with a big buffer and 8fps option.

 

[jolyonralph]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Canon doesn't need to launch RF-S lenses, but they can launch a range of cheaper RF lenses tailored for RF-S usage such that, for example, an RF 18-55 would perform very well as an APS-C standard lens, but on a full-frame body would work as an average at best wide angle zoom. They could make a cheaper lens that mostly covers the FF sensor and rely on digital corrections to compensate for many of the optical shortcomings of the lens (as they're doing in the RF 24-240 by all accounts).

Full frame lenses CAN be made small and compact if you're willing to compromise. Look at all the old EF kit lenses for the 35mm film cameras, things like the EF 28-80. Not much bigger than the EF-S 18-55.

This way all RF lenses will work with all RF bodies.

 

[motofotog]

Why not Canon use APS-H sensor in the mirrorless camera?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have an EOS-R (replacing a 7D) for occasions/trips where I can take a full size camera and lenses. I also have an M (with lenses, etc) that fits into a pouch less than 4" x 3" x 2"; which is small enough to go in my briefcase on business trips to somewhere worth taking photos of.

Agreed! My 1D X remains my go-to body for local use, but I have the EOS R for travel and the M6 when space is at a premium, e.g. an overnight trip to London where I took just the M, M11-22 and a Gorillapod:

 

[BillB]

If Canon does roll out a crop camera with an RF mount, what RF lenses would they need to make for it?

 

[Mr Majestyk]

With the high MP sensors why not just an APSC crop mode on a FF camera.
FF sensors seem to be coming down in price as well.
Thus a 7D MIII performance when the new high MP FF is in crop mode for people who get off on birds and you also have the WA ability of a FF camera and the shallower depth of field some really like with the FF.
Best of both worlds.
Ooops, then you would not have to buy 2 cameras, how stupid of me.

Easy, cost. Not every one can spend $3K+ on a 50MP+ FF camera. It's why we have APS-C.