Canon will release four new full-frame cameras in 2020 [CR2]

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
600
652
www.instagram.com
So you have no information of APS-C in RF mount, huge oversight if that's not released soon.

I agree EOS R was a path of least resistance release, stepchild of a 6DII and 5D4 that got them a product in the portfolio, but was hardly enticing except to diehards. I expect to see massive improvements in the next RF mount cameras and Sony should have something to worry about. They can't afford to screw this round up and even the advancements we've seem with DPAF performance in the M6II, and 1DXIII indicate the next round of FF mirroless will be much more capable in tracking, with good eye-AF.
Honestly, I don't think that's going to be coming any time soon: I haven't seen a lot of rumours that suggest an RF APS-C camera is in the cards. From my perspective, I often felt a lot of Canon's APS-C bodies had a smaller sensor really just to keep costs down: they need the average person to be able to afford a camera, and having the EF-S mount also take EF lenses gave people a transition pathway to more expensive bodies should they want to get more invested in the hobby. With that said, if they plan on making a full frame RF body cheaper than an RP, then they may not need to shrink the sensor to get the price down to an acceptable level and thus there may not be a place for an APS-C RF body. That will suck for current 7DII users, but the market seems to have moved away from ruggedized APS-C sports shooters, well, at least Canon and Nikon seem to be leaving that space for better or worse.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,226
4,108
It all depends on how you look at it.
Essentialy, the quantum efficiency of all the latest cameras is the same within a few percent. The days of big differences between models and manufacturers is over. Everyone is within a half stop.

With the same amount of photons hitting the sensor, pixel size becomes very important. The smaller the pixel, the less light hits it, and the lower the DR you get. As an extreme example, look at a 10Mpixel and a 40Mpixel sensor.... The 10M sensor will have 4 times the light hitting each pixel, and as a result will have 2 stops better DR. HOWEVER, you can take the 40M image and resample it to 10M and end up with the same DR.

More pixels is a tradeoff between resolution and pixel quality, except with the greater resolution you can decide in post production if you want to keep the resolution, resample for quality, or a combination of the two. You have more total information.
The DRs that are published are for output to a particular size of printing and not per pixel. All sensors are scaled to the same output size on tje photons to photos site and elsewhere. And, at higher isos where fluctuations in photon flux is the source of noise, all moderns sensors are indeed very similar per unit area. Where they differ is a low iso where the electronic noise generated by the circuits alter the basal levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtaylor

Stuart

Hi, Welcome from an ePhotozine fan, & 6D user.
Jul 22, 2010
320
76
London & Woking
www.ephotozine.com
Honestly, I don't think that's going to be coming any time soon: I haven't seen a lot of rumours that suggest an RF APS-C camera is in the cards. From my perspective, I often felt a lot of Canon's APS-C bodies had a smaller sensor really just to keep costs down: they need the average person to be able to afford a camera, and having the EF-S mount also take EF lenses gave people a transition pathway to more expensive bodies should they want to get more invested in the hobby. With that said, if they plan on making a full frame RF body cheaper than an RP, then they may not need to shrink the sensor to get the price down to an acceptable level and thus there may not be a place for an APS-C RF body. That will suck for current 7DII users, but the market seems to have moved away from ruggedized APS-C sports shooters, well, at least Canon and Nikon seem to be leaving that space for better or worse.
The attraction of the 7D series was also the extra shooting range for motorsports, sports, airshows, birders etc. Also the high frame rate for capturing action.
With some of the RF rumours promising much longer reach lenses, the need for smaller sensors to get the reach goes away if the lenses are not too expensive.
And keeping the MegaPixels low means todays achievable frame rates can easily rise to capture the action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
600
652
www.instagram.com
The attraction of the 7D series was also the extra shooting range for motorsports, sports, airshows, birders etc. Also the high frame rate for capturing action.
With some of the RF rumours promising much longer reach lenses, the need for smaller sensors to get the reach goes away if the lenses are not too expensive.
And keeping the MegaPixels low means todays achievable frame rates can easily rise to capture the action.
Absolutely agreed. I just wonder if the larger companies are willing to produce a 7d-style body any more. With Canon leaving the 7D series alone and Nikon not continuing the D500 series, I half suspect there was an economic conclusion both companies independently reached which indicated that it wasn't in their interest to offer that type of body any longer. I think it is getting easier to build cameras with crazy frame rates and APS-C image quality is really quite good, so I wonder if a rugged/high-speed APS-C body would just compete too much with full frame equivalents for Canon/Nikon's likings. Maybe, if a very high frame rate won't be uncommon in lower tier bodies, lacking the ruggedization of a 7D-series body will create a clear distinction from the higher end bodies. I mean, the M6II has 14 fps right now and can get all the reach needed via adapted EF glass - so there are high-speed APS-C bodies available, just not rugged ones. I wonder if that will be the new norm, for better or worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stuart

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,226
4,108
The attraction of the 7D series was also the extra shooting range for motorsports, sports, airshows, birders etc. Also the high frame rate for capturing action.
With some of the RF rumours promising much longer reach lenses, the need for smaller sensors to get the reach goes away if the lenses are not too expensive.
And keeping the MegaPixels low means todays achievable frame rates can easily rise to capture the action.
Longer reach lenses on RF FF means more weight. Low Mpx on FF means that longer reach requires even bigger and heavier lenses. One of the great virtues of a smaller sensor is that shorter and lighter lenses give the same reach as longer and heavier on FF in decent light. A 100-400 on a 90D gives the same reach as an 800mm on a ID series (1.6 crop factor x 1.26 Mpx resolution factor = 2x), at a tiny fraction of the price and a fraction of the weight. OK, better IQ, AF, low light performance etc for the FF, but try taking it on a hike or hand holding for BIF even if you can afford it and the lens.
 
Well that's one and counting....seriously though folks, the 5DV would be one amazing camera, possibly with that nifty AF trackball thingy from the 1DX3.

I truly enjoy this site, insightful comments, helpful hints but the overall intelligence level has plummeted as of late with fights over card slots, anything Sony related and saying things such as "Nobody wants________". Pure nonsense. Let's keep it civil please. It's making the Ye Olde 'Canon vs Nikon' arguments of yesteryear seem chivalrous by comparison. Maybe that's the reason we haven't seen Neuro very much?
Definitely not nonsense and if you read that comment in context you should understand that its more of a plea to Canon to get their sh*t together and release a decent mirrorless camera. Perhaps, sometime last year please?! Sony is years ahead in this regard, which is why they are currently gobbling up the lion's share of the full frame market. Most, if not every pro photographer I know and work with will never buy another new DSLR because of the body size and the front/back focusing issues associated with microfocus lens calibration. Sure, a MKV with 15 stops of DR and eye focus would be swell (finally), but it still wouldn't beat the competition.


Well that's one and counting....seriously though folks, the 5DV would be one amazing camera, possibly with that nifty AF trackball thingy from the 1DX3.

I truly enjoy this site, insightful comments, helpful hints but the overall intelligence level has plummeted as of late with fights over card slots, anything Sony related and saying things such as "Nobody wants________". Pure nonsense. Let's keep it civil please. It's making the Ye Olde 'Canon vs Nikon' arguments of yesteryear seem chivalrous by comparison. Maybe that's the reason we haven't seen Neuro very much?
 
Last edited:

djkraq

EOS M50
Aug 13, 2016
26
15
The RF glass I have is better than any EF glass I had in the focal lengths I have experience with. I had the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. It is a great lens. On the other hand, there is just something special about the RF 28-70mm f/2L other than it being faster. I owned the EF 35mm f/1.4L II and it was a fantastic lens. I'll be interested to see whether the RF version of the future can match or top it. It was a special lens in my opinion. The only EF 50mm I ever owned was the EF 50mm f/1.4. It sucked compared to the RF 50mm f/1.2L... and it is not wide angle. Then again, one would expect the L to beat the regular EF non-L. I never owned an EF 85mm so can't speak to that, however, the RF 85mm (a telephoto) is stellar in my opinion.

What I don't understand is why people say that the RF mount may not necessarily be as much benefit to telephoto or super telephoto as to wide angle. Just because that might be the case for Sony (I wouldn't know), doesn't mean that will be the case for Canon which has a larger diameter mount.

"Benefit" can mean a lot of things. It can mean IQ. It can mean size. It can mean other things I am not aware of. Are there EF lenses I miss? Yes, but probably because they are not yet available to me in RF yet. I miss the EF 35mm f/1.4L II. I miss my old 135mm f/2L. I really liked the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but I don't miss it at all. I am happy I never bought an EF 85mm. I still don't miss my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, but it was a great lens.

Since there are no super telephoto lenses available in RF yet we'll just have to wait and see what Canon can do EF vs RF in that dept. I think it is premature to make that call at this time.

I came to the R from the 5D Mark III. The focus accuracy of the R over the 5D Mark III is indisputable. I assume (maybe wrongly) that the R also beats the focus accuracy of the 5D Mark IV (I am talking about static subjects. Portraits, not BIF). AFMA? Never again for me. So it isn't just about the mount. As the Canon mirrorless line matures I think we will see more benefit. Right now, both DSLR and mirrorless have their own advantages and disadvantages depending upon use case.
No it doesn't. I had used both the EOS R and 5D Mark 4 for both photo and video and the EOS R performed almost as good as my 5D Mark IV in AF testing. Don't get me wrong, I love the EOS R and hope to own one soon, but for comparison as you can see, you're comparing Canon lenses of less quality etf to the rf L glass. Compare an ef zeiss or sigma art and it your opinion will change. Canon ef L lenses were designed more with build/weight in mind than IQ. As I said the lenses are different but not necessarily better. I like the 28-70 f2 rf mount. Its very interesting. Ef would be huge! Comparing a $2800 lens (rf 50mm) to a 15+ year ef lens I dont think its fair. Optical coatings and lens material has changed significantly
 
Actually, Ed, if you'd been around for longer than your single post around here you'd know that your "nobody wants" comment is nothing more than silliness and ignorance. Go buy the Sony. All your friends too.
I intend on using whatever tool works best. And for me, that has been Canon since the original 5D was released. But I'm definitely not a brand loyalist and will gladly switch up if I can get more DR and lowlight in another system.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: MadScotsman
The type of photographers that jump ship tend to just do that, its too much hassle for someone that takes pictures and they just accept the short comings as the end pic is acceptable with any modern camera, jumpers tend to be on elastic and careful questioning of their photographic career reveals a history of such and a mantra of gear.
I've been shooting Canon since my dad's AE-1 and digital since the original 5D came out. But I'm not a brand loyalist and will gladly change systems if I can get more DR, lowlight, and focus performance. I think the only thing keeping me (and every other photog I know) around is this 2020 announcement and the hopes of incorporating that baller new RF 50mm. Otherwise, I'll upgrade the tools through another brand if need be.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: MadScotsman

CanonFanBoy

O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,557
2,370
Irving, Texas
No it doesn't. I had used both the EOS R and 5D Mark 4 for both photo and video and the EOS R performed almost as good as my 5D Mark IV in AF testing. Don't get me wrong, I love the EOS R and hope to own one soon, but for comparison as you can see, you're comparing Canon lenses of less quality etf to the rf L glass. Compare an ef zeiss or sigma art and it your opinion will change. Canon ef L lenses were designed more with build/weight in mind than IQ. As I said the lenses are different but not necessarily better. I like the 28-70 f2 rf mount. Its very interesting. Ef would be huge! Comparing a $2800 lens (rf 50mm) to a 15+ year ef lens I dont think its fair. Optical coatings and lens material has changed significantly
Yes is does for me, vs the 5D mark III. For you with the Mark IV maybe so. I used L glass on both of mine. My 5D Mark III consistently hit eyelashes more than Iris too many times. I do have a question though. You say you had used. Which firmware version did the R you used have? That makes a huge difference for tracking and eye-AF.
 
Last edited:

Danglin52

EOS 80D
Aug 8, 2018
124
102
Your experience coincides with what I have found and reported here since last September. We should not expect the AF of a $7000 1D series on a $1000 xxD. The 90D is a great choice for a nature hike or safari attached to a 100-400mm II (or a 400mm DO II) in reasonable light, and I use it for that regularly. It aids very good reach and will give a good keeper rate for predictably moving birds that are not flying too fast. But, its AF is not as fast or as consistent as a 5DIV, which I have tended to for BIF or when faster AF is required. There is currently or maybe even for the long term no one camera or one manufacturer that does everything for all customers. Canon chose not to make an APS-C using the AF module from its upper ranges of bodies. Nikon did so successfully with the D500, but I don't know if it's an economic success. Many here on CR shoot across manufacturers, choosing different makers for their different activities. I wish Canon would have put out a true 7DII replacement. I certainly don't regret buying the 90D but I am one of many who would have paid twice the cost to have its IQ with a top rate AF module rather than the recycled 80D one.
I think the problem is the processor, it just can't keep up once you hit 7-8 frames and it is trying to buffer shots while still tracking. I was not expecting a 1dx II capable camera, but was hoping it would be consistent to spec. Like I said, I really liked the camera and wanted it to perform, but just found it consistently inconsistent when you were trying to track moving subjects. I haven't had the opportunity to test as much with he M6 II, but so far I have not seen this issue. While I don't mind my 70-200 f4 II an issue on the m6II, the 100-400 II starts to get a bit awkward. I am like you and wish they had done a 7dII with the new tech. The only complaint I ever had on the 7d II was IQ at hight ISO. I think APS-C can pretty much match FF up to ISO 3200 or maybe 6400 and would like to have a crop sensor in my bag for a little more "reach". I would be happy using the high MPX and cropping, but it probably won't have a 8-10FPS capability. We will see. BTW - I read several reviews that said AF in high burst was not a problem using the LCD, but I am not going to use the LCD hand held with a heavy 100-400 attached.
 
Feb 27, 2019
61
20
Because they are trying to get some of those 100 million EF users to migrate over. Even on a 24MP sensor, some of them using EF-S lenses would still have more megapixels than their nominal camera - and one could argue that 10MP off a full frame sensor is probably better than what the 18MP asp-c sensors could do anyways.

Also Canon can think ahead to end of this year, and they know what their lenses will be for the next 3-4 years already.

there's only 3-5 really cheap lenses needed;

24-105 3.5-5.6
16-35 3.5-5.6
70-300 4-6.3
50mm F1.8

if canon wants to the next wave would include the trinity of usual primes

24mm F2, 28mm F2.8, 35mm F2.0

after that.. nothing is really necessary.
Kind of thought those 100 million would be EF-S users, not EF..... the vast masses who are shooting crop bodies with kit lenses... yes those lenses do fit on the adapter, and you get basically... a crop camera with full frame potential. So its perhaps an interesting twist, but I'm not totally sold on the likelihood of that scenario
 

jedy

EOS 80D
Feb 14, 2014
117
37
I honestly couldn’t see another high end crop camera. I think fullframe cameras with a crop mode will become the norm. At some point camera companies could (hopefully) even figure out a way to minimise the resolution loss in crop mode with future technology. Imagine a crop mode on a FF sensor that still retains the FF lowlight low noise benefits.
 

jedy

EOS 80D
Feb 14, 2014
117
37
A cropped sensor will always perform worse than a larger one. You can't cheat physics.
Yeah, I edited my comment after reading that back and realising how ridiculous it sounded. I still think a FF with crop mode will be the way forwards, best of both worlds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules