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

[amorse]

We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore. Look at the Panasonic S1. People are choosing it because it's full sized like a 5div instead of too small for people like an a7iii. The extra space allows for extra technology. Reality is APSC doesn't exist right now because if size difference, it's a different style of camera. Canon doesn't seem to be giving up on APSC, but I doubt they will Co tinue to support 3 different mounts for long.

I think there are a lot of driving factors for purchasing cameras because many photographers have different needs. I'd argue that size is definitely one of the considerations for some photographers, but certainly not the be all and end all of needs. I do agree that not all APS-C cameras are built to keep size down, but the EF-M line does seem to be built with that in mind. I'm not really sure about where the EF-M series goes from here either, but for the time being it certainly has it's niche: the M50 seems to have sold very well and creates a good option for someone who wants a better than cellphone camera which is still reasonably small. I think there is definitely a niche for small cameras in people who travel quite a bit with photography as more of a hobby than a job, and for people who are just unable to carry a bulky or heavy camera for long periods.

 

[mb66energy]

The EOS M is designed for different purpose, primarily for hobbyist. The biggest difference in the mirrorless platform between EOS M and R is that one do not have mechanical shutter. Unless you believe that the mechanical shutter is insignificant to the conceptual design and its purpose, it should be critical to separate the camera segments.

At one point, I own 5DII, 7D, and EOS M at the same time and the M is crippled in many practical ways.

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).

 

[Proscribo]

For the same sized wafer you can get about 2.25 more APS-C sensors than FF sensors. So the component price for a FF sensor will be at least 2.25 times that of an APS-C sensor. That doesn't stop Canon from making savings in other places to offset that, but on a component level it will be more expensive.

I'll correct a bit: for 300mm wafer you'll get around 170 canon aps-c sensors and 60 ff sensors. Then some parts of that wafer will be faulty and the difference becomes greater, for example 10 faulty dies for both (larger dies make it more likely for the faults to be within single die so maybe it'd be like 10 vs 8). So that makes ff sensor over 3 times as expensive.

 

[Stuart]

An APSC body would have a lower market place price reach a wider paying audience - whether new customers or just those looking to upgrade to a newer model.
Also i'd then expect an RF nifty fifty F1.8 in time to start the lower cost lens sales, though i'd really love something like a 22mm F1.8 on an APS'c for street shots.

Of course a new new RF APS-c does not need a 1.6 crop factor - maybe it would have a 1.3 or perhaps a 1.8 ? - what Crop might canon go for?

 

[melgross]

The FF is 2.6 times larger than Canon's APS-C, and there are greater losses in FF sensor production due to the difficulty in producing good quality throughout that large of a sensor area. So my guess is that the cost is likely 3 - 5 times higher for FF vs APS-C sensors.

The cost relationship isn’t that direct. It somewhat follows number of chips per wafer, and the number of good chips per wafer, but manufacturing is more complex that just that, with more variables. But, sure, ff sensors cost a fair amount more than APS-C sensors.

 

[melgross]

Just announce this already. We don't need 3 different mount systems. We certainly don't need EOS M in a future where RF exists.

Well, maybe for you. But, as people here keep forgetting, the M series is very popular, and growing sales. If that continues in light of the RF, then there would be no need to discontinue them. If Canon did come out with an RF APS-C, it would have to be bigger because of the bigger mount. Some would care, but possibly, some wouldn’t.

at this stage, I think that keeping the line is a good idea until Canon sees how it’s shaking out. It’s always possible, though some disagree, such as Thom Hogan, that Canon shouldn’t have a separate APS-C camera mount. He’s been wrong before. It’s possible that an RF APS-C might not sell. You never know.

 

[melgross]

First off crop mode on the EOS-R yields approximately 12MP, which is not great. A true APS-C sensor would have all of the 30MP (or what ever it was built with) available to use. Part of the reason the 7D-II is great for wildlife is that you get the full resolution with an effective 1.6x more reach on your lenses. So your 100-400mm lens becomes a 160-640, and the 800mm becomes 1280mm with no loss of quality, fast focusing and everything you get from an unadapted lens. It's the primary reason I carry two camera.

Secondly, the frame rate on the 7DIII is a 25% higher frame rate than the EOS-R, which can help.

There is loss of quality. While possibly the lens is better for the APS-C crop, the sensor is then worse. That’s why we have ff in the first place, remember? And, yes, I get that you would need a longer lens, which is then heavier and more expensive. But that’s all a compromise which some are more willing to make than others.

 

[Chaitanya]

That would be interesting. Also it could spell doom for Ef-M mount.

 

[blackcoffee17]

We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore. Look at the Panasonic S1. People are choosing it because it's full sized like a 5div instead of too small for people like an a7iii. The extra space allows for extra technology. Reality is APSC doesn't exist right now because if size difference, it's a different style of camera. Canon doesn't seem to be giving up on APSC, but I doubt they will Co tinue to support 3 different mounts for long.

And also people want something like an M100 which can almost fit in your pocket. Me included. For situations where traveling light is a priority.

 

[Richard CR]

That would be interesting. Also it could spell doom for Ef-M mount.

actually, it wouldn't since even with RF-S lenses, the lenses and cameras for the EF-M mount would still end up being smaller and more suited for crop than the RF-S APS-C cameras. EOS-M was never seriously a professional lens mount ecosystem.

We all know size isn't the driving factor anymore. Look at the Panasonic S1. People are choosing it because it's full sized like a 5div instead of too small for people like an a7iii. The extra space allows for extra technology. Reality is APSC doesn't exist right now because if size difference, it's a different style of camera. Canon doesn't seem to be giving up on APSC, but I doubt they will Co tinue to support 3 different mounts for long.

there's also the strong possibility that large camera systems only account for a portion of the market, which is highly lucrative but not the market as a whole.

For instance, the M50 continues to be one of Canon's top selling cameras, and the rebels still outsell just about everything.

Size, weight, and cost all factor into this.

 

[criscokkat]

I don't see what the big deal is with a high end prosumer aps-c with an R mount. They really haven't developed new EF-S lenses in years other than the kit lenses. This has been true for a very long time, long before they started focusing on the R mount lenses. I suspect what Canon has learned is that what lenses did sell jut cut into full frame versions of the same lenses. Most people who bought the 55-250 without it being part of a kit would have spent just a bit more on the 75-300 if they had to. It looks like the development over the next few years will include R mount kit lenses and other non-l R mount lenses. If they make a few models wider than normal they will work just fine on APS-C as well (i.e. 18 - xx vs 24-xx). With the shorter registration distance going wider is much cheaper and less bulky than it was on EF. I am also 100% positive that lower priced R mount 'rebel' level cameras will follow.

So leverage what you have now, just using ef-s on an adapter. I would certainly consider a 90d r mount since I can upgrade to a full frame later if I wish. Plus it would give me more confidence for future proofing my purchases, as I'd rather buy a RF 100-400 lens than the ef version.

 

[springle]

Rather than consider what "you" want, consider what the future landscape will likely be. Smartphone cameras are rapidly improving and for most (perhaps 95%) of the people, they will suffice. I suspect that ultimately that leaves medium-format style DSLRs and wildlife/sports cameras. The middle will be gone. Canon is making a mistake by not considering APS-C models in their marketing plans. The future will also be mirrorless. (For outings in areas with dense foliage, I use my Sony RX10 IV, which has the 35mm-equivalent of a 600mm F4.0 lens. The silent shutter is often very helpful when photographing birds.) The idea that there is a tradeoff between reach and sensor size is mostly naive. I never have enough reach. If I ever purchase a Canon 600mm F4.0, I shall mostly use it with a 1.4 converter, if not a 2X converter. Only when photographing in places with heat and humidity, is my desire for reach limited. In such places, heat waves in the atmosphere render the magnification useless.

Upon the release of the Sony AR7-IV, I was considering a wholesale changeover. If cropped to Canon's APS-C sensor size, it would be equivalent to about 24 MP, a 20% increase from the 7D II (which I use now) plus better follow focusing and improved noise reduction - and silent shutter. The lens selection may suck, though.

So I shall wait for the 90D and see what its specs are. And I doubt I shall ever purchase a 600mm F4.0 EF lens as I expect the future will be 600mm F4.0 RF lenses.

 

[EverydayPhotographer]

Size matters - look at the size of lenses for the M mount compared to the RF mount. What advantage, other than the price of the body, would an APS-C RF camera offer?

The 1.6 crop factor would be very attractive for shooting wildlife, etc. where the additional magnification afforded by a crop sensor camera is an advantage. In most of those type of daylight shooting situations, the image quality doesn’t really lag against what a full frame sensor will provide.

If there is a single reason to get involved in the R mirrorless system at this point, it’s for the lenses. And right now, there’s no way to leverage that with a crop-sensor camera. A crop-sensor R makes very good sense if Canon plans to promote the RF mount lenses as anything more than a specialized novelty.

 

[hazydave]

Just announce this already. We don't need 3 different mount systems. We certainly don't need EOS M in a future where RF exists.

I'm not sure who "we" is.. but Canon may need EOS M, at least for the time being. They're selling far more EOS M gear -- yes, mostly in Asia -- than EOS R at present. I do agree that would leave them in kind of a weird situation, two different mounts for the same sensor size. And additionally, the EOS M might deliver better results, since a lower end lens designed for APS-C actually can outperform a higher-end FF lens used on an APS-C model.

And Canon actually has four lens mounts, since EF-S lenses don't mount on EF bodies. I do wonder if Canon has formulated an internal policy on this. Typically, a system is known to be dead -- like Sony A-Mount, Pentax Q, or Nikon 1, long before it's officially killed off (Nikon 1 was only officialy killed off a year ago). If they go 2-3 years without releasing a new EOS M product, expect it to be killed. When EOS M is the only top selling Canon in Japan, probably not anytime soon.

 

[Architect1776]

For the same sized wafer you can get about 2.25 more APS-C sensors than FF sensors. So the component price for a FF sensor will be at least 2.25 times that of an APS-C sensor. That doesn't stop Canon from making savings in other places to offset that, but on a component level it will be more expensive.

How much does that piece of wafer cost though? You cannot include anything put onto it just the wafer.
Then addig the pixels etc. again how much does that really cost as a percentage of the camera.
I would guess it is not very significant at all. FF gets a premium price for status more than anything.

 

[Architect1776]

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....

Ease of seeing and speeding up operation of the camera itself as less data has to flow that is why.

 

[Architect1776]

As far as I know the R and RP cameras already has crop-modes if you attach an EF-S lens to an R-EF adaptor?
But still, I expect an APS-C sensor to be cheaper, and even though we don't need room for a mirror (which would require less space for APS-C than fullframe), I still expect a crop-R could be made a bit more compact than a fullframe-R.
But still, it only fully makes sense for me if we also as minimum get a compact crop standard-zoom and a compact crop wideangle-zoom lens.

Then you are into crop sensor lenses again.
If you want small and light ILC there is a thing called the M series.

 

[Antono Refa]

First off crop mode on the EOS-R yields approximately 12MP, which is not great.

Can only be used to print A4, maybe even A3. Completely unusable.

 

[Richard CR]

The 1.6 crop factor would be very attractive for shooting wildlife, etc. where the additional magnification afforded by a crop sensor camera

this really isn't true anymore. It's the pixel pitch of the sensor really.

For instance, a 61MP full-frame camera manually cropped down to 1.6 would give you the same amount of pixels as that 24MP APS-C camera.

Sony releasing a A7RIV that does 10fps at full resolution kind of defeats the need of APS-C for sports and wildlife.

What the APS-C camera offers is perhaps a cheaper way to achieve 10 fps at 24MP or so on target. The sensor is smaller and the shutter assembly is also smaller. An APS-C based camera with 24MP on target may cost you around 1.5 to 2K, where a full frame that achieves the same pixels on target (around 60-65MP) would cost around 3K.

 

[stevewhitemd]

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.

To this idea work Canon would also need to offer a whole series of cheaper RF lenses, whereas we know right now that Canon is working (mostly) on super RF lenses that will be L-series and priced accordingly. Perhaps CanonRumors knows of a bevy of such inexpensive lenses coming?

Marketing an RS also dilutes the marketing message Canon is trying to convey, and it's always bad to confuse your customers.

The R is Canon's vision (so they say) of the future of FF for the serious hobbyist, semi-pro and (eventually) pro photographer. In the not-too-distant future we'll see R equivalents of the 1D and 5D series to complement the R and RP. These are the $1000 and up cameras for serious people.

In contrast, the M series will be for the casual hobbyist and the folks with want something 'better' than their smartphone for the family pics. The M5, M50, M6 and M100 give Camera an entire market segment; Canon could even use the 'Rebel' and 'Kiss' names on these to point consumers to them. Sell a couple of modestly priced, good performing primes along with the current zooms. Each camera sells at a price point that defines this market segment. A top-line M5 might evolve features that rival what the 7Dm3 (or 90Dm2) would have been and would be priced accordingly. Add an EF-EFM adapter to that and there's your L glass on a high-end M camera.

The cheaper PowerShot series lives under the M series for even simpler needs and more price-conscious and tech-phobe consumers. As Canon does now, you have several cameras with price points that hit where consumers are.

What Canon loses with a R/M/Powershot market definition is the ability to sell up-scale lenses to the Rebel-M users the way they sold EF lenses to Rebel EF-S camera users. Only Canon knows how big an issue that is.

Canon might toy with the idea of an RS, but I think (IMHO of course) that it's a bad idea.