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

[c.d.embrey]

A RP is 3,888 x 2,592 pixels in crop mode, which is 10.08 megapixels. Slightly smaller than the 10.1 megapixels of my 40D. I could use my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, with the EF-RF adapter, on a FF RP. But I preffer a crop camera. If Canon made an RP-Crop, I'd be first in line to order one. If not a referbished 80D will be just fine.

 

[SaP34US]

If they do eventually make crop RF camera it probably won't be until at least 2021. Since they have to bring the pro Rx cameras and maybe another RP.

 

[FredEOS]

My hope is that the August announcements will be 3 APS-C cameras

- 90D or whatever they call it, the 80d 7d merge
- EOS M6 or M5
- EOS R camera with APS-C

These all can be the same camera in difference boxes with a marketing angle for each.

From there, Canon can judge which way consumers are leaning through the holiday season.

I don't think Canon will ever release 3 (identical) cameras at the same time! Rumors are for sure converging to one APS-C mirrorless camera for hobbyists to replace 80D/M5/7D, and if you look at Canon's actual lineup and recent releases, it is clear to me that we are talking about a R (with RF mount) or a M model.
Also all the announced lenses are R and M.
I would be very surprised to see any new xD or xxD model in the future.

 

[masterpix]

the ONLY reason that a crop R would be beneficial is the following.

it's the cheapest way of going a high-density amount of pixels on a target for telephoto use cases shooting at comparable fps, and to use Canon RF lenses.

in other words. a 24MP or a 32MP APS-C crop will give you more density of pixels for a much cheaper cost than the equivalent pixel density on a full frame camera.

a 32MP APS-C camera may cost you 2K. a 82MP full frame camera that can do a 1.6x crop factor via software will give you the same APS-C 32MP crop factor, but cost considerably more - probably closer to 4K. Assuming it has a high speed crop or dual digics to handle the same fps.

When I take a picture I place the object in the way that the object fills a certain area in the frame, it can be a crop sensor or a FF sensor, the onject will fill the SAME area of the frame. It can be crop 30MP or FF 30MP image, the size or pixel density of the sensor is irrelevant to the picture I am taking. Crop sensors, for having higher pixel density, lack the dynamic range available by FF lowerr density (and larger pixel size on the sensor). Other benefits you mentioned.

If you look at the price of the RF camera, the price of FF sensors are not as high as they used to be. And to be honest, my 7D has 18MP sensor, I make 100*150cm size enlargments without any problems. The only reason to replace it with a newer model is to have DPAF, GPS and the possibility for on sensor multiple exposures.

 

[Tangent]

I don't think Canon will ever release 3 (identical) cameras at the same time! Rumors are for sure converging to one APS-C mirrorless camera for hobbyists to replace 80D/M5/7D, and if you look at Canon's actual lineup and recent releases, it is clear to me that we are talking about a R (with RF mount) or a M model.
Also all the announced lenses are R and M.
I would be very surprised to see any new xD or xxD model in the future.

 

[Tangent]

One camera for the M5, 80D, and 7DmkII replacements?

Okay, I'll offer up a wild theory just for grins: a dual-mount mirrorless body. The base model has an M-mount -- but it is removable; the body will accept a R-mount flange assembly as well. With the R-mount platform in place you can use the R / EF adapter. So this one camera -- with two interchangeable mount flange platforms -- will accept any lens in the EF / RF / EF-S / M universe.

 

[blackcoffee17]

One camera for the M5, 80D, and 7DmkII replacements?

Okay, I'll offer up a wild theory just for grins: a dual-mount mirrorless body. The base model has an M-mount -- but it is removable; the body will accept a R-mount flange assembly as well. With the R-mount platform in place you can use the R / EF adapter. So this one camera -- with two interchangeable mount flange platforms -- will accept any lens in the EF / RF / EF-S / M universe.

That would add too many complications and tolerances to worry about. The M is a consumer line, Canon would not add such a complexity

 

[Ozarker]

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:

Beautiful photo Neuro. Surely not an M. Must be a Sony.

 

[Ozarker]

The 50mp is not the driving cost.
It is the status symbol which is not status anymore as it is becoming the norm than the cutting edge.
Again, if Canon wanted to crank out $800.00 FF 50 mp cameras they could and still make an excellent profit.
How much of features seem to be software related vs hardware anymore?

And you know they'd make a profit on that how? Nobody outside Canon knows the profit margins.

 

[Richard CR]

When I take a picture I place the object in the way that the object fills a certain area in the frame, it can be a crop sensor or a FF sensor, the onject will fill the SAME area of the frame.

the only way what you describe would happen is if your full-frame camera has an actual focal length of 1.6x that of the crop camera which isn't a real comparison, especially when you get up to telephotos where the difference between a 300mm telephoto and a 500mm telephoto is a significant cost.
or even using a 100-400mm in a crop, versus being forced to either take a IQ hit using a teleconvertor, or lay out the big bucks for a 600mm.

 

[privatebydesign]

When I take a picture I place the object in the way that the object fills a certain area in the frame, it can be a crop sensor or a FF sensor, the onject will fill the SAME area of the frame. It can be crop 30MP or FF 30MP image, the size or pixel density of the sensor is irrelevant to the picture I am taking.

That is simply not true unless you stand in the same place and use a lens 1.6 times the focal length of the crop camera on the ff camera and the crop camera has an aperture 1.6 times faster than the ff camera, which often isn't a combination actually made.

The pixel density might be irrelevant to the picture you are taking but if you want two pictures to look identical from two different sensor sized cameras then you have to do all kinds of mathematics to achieve it.

I did this illustration years ago for another thread... The pixel density is irrelevant, the lens, aperture, iso and sensor size are not.

 

[Ozarker]

That is simply not true unless you stand in the same place and use a lens 1.6 times the focal length of the crop camera on the ff camera and the crop camera has an aperture 1.6 times faster than the ff camera, which often isn't a combination actually made.

The pixel density might be irrelevant to the picture you are taking but if you want two pictures to look identical from two different sensor sized cameras then you have to do all kinds of mathematics to achieve it.

I did this illustration years ago for another thread... The pixel density is irrelevant, the lens, aperture, iso and sensor size are not.


View attachment 186018

I always learn a little from you, sir. Enjoy your educational posts.

 

[Don Haines]

When I take a picture I place the object in the way that the object fills a certain area in the frame, it can be a crop sensor or a FF sensor, the onject will fill the SAME area of the frame.

For me, the problem is distance to the subject. Wildlife runs or flies away when you get too close (usually), and for many subjects it is hard to get closer. With grizzly bears I don’t want to get closer!

I just shot some pictures of the moon and climbing onto the roof of my house does not get me significantly closer. Tomorrow morning I am shooting a race, and they really frown upon you setting up in the middle of the race course.

Personally, I would love to see a 40 of 50 megapixel crop sensor. A lower pixel count FF and a high pixel count crop camera would make a great combo for me.

 

[masterpix]

For me, the problem is distance to the subject. Wildlife runs or flies away when you get too close (usually), and for many subjects it is hard to get closer. With grizzly bears I don’t want to get closer!

I just shot some pictures of the moon and climbing onto the roof of my house does not get me significantly closer. Tomorrow morning I am shooting a race, and they really frown upon you setting up in the middle of the race course.

Personally, I would love to see a 40 of 50 megapixel crop sensor. A lower pixel count FF and a high pixel count crop camera would make a great combo for me.

So, taking the 7DII and the 5Ds(r), they have the same pixel density, and to be true, if I could buy the 5Ds I would go for it for another reason (if wild life was my main concern) cause now the object has more "room" to move int eh frame wihtough loosing the "crop sized) frame that the object is in. right now one can get the 50MP 5Ds/r for about the price of the 7DII (or a bit more)

 

[Don Haines]

So, taking the 7DII and the 5Ds(r), they have the same pixel density, and to be true, if I could buy the 5Ds I would go for it for another reason (if wild life was my main concern) cause now the object has more "room" to move int eh frame wihtough loosing the "crop sized) frame that the object is in. right now one can get the 50MP 5Ds/r for about the price of the 7DII (or a bit more)

Quite true! That camera is a fantastic deal now.

When the price dropped like that, my first thought was that there must be a new camera coming with a monstrous pixel count, at least 75 megapixels

 

[tron]

Quite true! That camera is a fantastic deal now.

When the price dropped like that, my first thought was that there must be a new camera coming with a monstrous pixel count, at least 75 megapixels

I got a 5DsR to keep company to my older ... 5DsR due to the good price. It seems that the new camera will be a mirrorless one which doesn't suit me for birding. In the improbable case that they will introduce a 5DsRII I will try to sell one of the two...

 

[privatebydesign]

Got a crop camera and a FF camera.

The FF is better in poor light.
the crop has better AF
The FF has a better user interface
the crop is faster and tougher
The crop puts more pixels on distant objects
The FF is better for wide angles.
The crop is less expensive.

The M? The ergonomics are terrible, but the price and size are fantastic!

I find the idea that one particular camera will be the best for everyone to be laughable. We all have different needs that depend on what we happen to be doing at the moment, and what we can afford. Just because someone else makes a different decision does not make them wrong, it just means that they have different criteria

I have a crop camera and a ff camera.

The FF is better in poor light.
The FF has better AF
The FF has a better user interface
The FF is faster and tougher
The FF is better for wide angles
The FF gives me more depth of field control
The FF battery life is vasty better
I can reproduce the FF image much larger (or crop into it, which is the same thing)
The crop is less expensive
The crop is considerably less conspicuous
The crop is a pleasure to take when photography is not the raison d'être of whatever I am doing
The crop is much easier to output wirelessly to printers, phones, iPads and the like
The crop puts more pixels on distant objects but I'd never use it in a focal length limited situation because it wouldn't balance as nicely with the longer lenses I have and the AF is nowhere near as good

The M? The ergonomics the price and size are fantastic!

I find the idea that one particular camera will be the best for everyone to be laughable. We all have different needs that depends on what we happen to be doing at the moment, and what we can afford. Just because someone else makes a different decision does not make them wrong, it just means that they have different criteria.

 

[Architect1776]

And you know they'd make a profit on that how? Nobody outside Canon knows the profit margins.

Just as well as the naysayers make all kinds of pronouncements. Look at the cost of the FF RP. Is that a loss leader? 5DSR is now selling for $2,000 less than it was.

 

[Ozarker]

Just as well as the naysayers make all kinds of pronouncements. Look at the cost of the FF RP. Is that a loss leader? 5DSR is now selling for $2,000 less than it was.

Um, 5DSR is on the way out and getting ready to be replaced... kinda like last year's model car being replaced with this year's. Overhead costs money.

Is the RP a loss leader? You tell me. What is the profit margin? Is there a profit margin? Or will the money be made on lenses? Kinda like printers. The fact is you made an uneducated statement that has no supporting data that you have any personal knowledge of. None.

 

[dtaylor]

right now one can get the 50MP 5Ds/r for about the price of the 7DII (or a bit more)

The current price on the 5Ds/5DsR blows my mind. The IQ is phenomenal yet the 5Ds is often on sale (gray market) on eBay for the price of upper tier crop cameras. If your goal is ultimate stills IQ in 35mm format there are only a handful of models to choose from, and the 5Ds is half or less of the price of the competition.

Ken Rockwell mentioned them recently on his site because someone asked if they were still relevant. He says so many things moment-to-moment it's hard to be sure what he does, but he claimed that he grabs his 5DsR for any personal work because of the IQ.