It’s been a while, but an APS-C equipped EOS R body gets another mention [CR2]

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,694
1,383
I'd be fairly confident that there are far more folks that want low end EF crop bodies than low end R crop bodies due to the availability of many more low end EF lenses...

And yes, you can use cheap EF lenses on an RF body, but most of the folks in the low end APS-C market probably do not realize that.
I don't think those buying the low end even know what RF is yet. Even 'EF'. It's just a camera and "Oh, the lens comes off".
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,716
938
I don't think those buying the low end even know what RF is yet. Even 'EF'. It's just a camera and "Oh, the lens comes off".
Well, if they don't know what RF is yet, then it's absolutely certain there are more that want EF bodies than RF bodies, even if they don't know what to call the EF bodies they want.
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
187
57
Are birders/wildlifers so reach constrained that they'll always want f/8 teleconvertered shooting opportunities?

Or is this more about Canon requiring $9k to leave your pocket if you shoot longer than 400mm?

Would the release of the mythical EF something-600mm f/variable get folks caring less about f/8 AF points? Or is such a reach-obsessed user base that they'll just go teleconverter that, too?

- A
I don't like shooting with any f/8 combo, but just now and again it's useful. Crop body, 100-400L II and a 1.4x in my pocket is a brilliant light weight setup. The same with the 5D4 is superb too, and that already has the f/8 support but I'd love to have it on a 7D3.

I say this as someone who owns a 600/4L IS III so I have no problem with reach, but sometimes it's nice to have the reach without the size of the 600.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahsanford

Daner

EOS T7i
Aug 15, 2017
62
47
Stockholm
Most of the 7D Mark II owners I know use their FF bodies for the wide stuff. It would be interesting to see how many 7D Mark II owners have only the one body. I would think most of the single body owners would have gone for the 80D, which is a better all around general purpose APS-C camera than the 7D Mark II.
My 7D Mark II was purchased used and functioned as an upgrade from my 70D. I was shooting sporting events at the time, so the slower FPS and focus performance of the 80D made it less compelling for me just then.

I am not shooting as much sports since 2018, and I have subsequently upgraded first to a 5D Mk. IV, then sideways to an EOS R. Still only one body at a time, but that might change depending on what Canon brings out during the next few months.
 

reefroamer

EOS M50
Jun 21, 2014
43
39
Most of the 7D Mark II owners I know use their FF bodies for the wide stuff. It would be interesting to see how many 7D Mark II owners have only the one body. I would think most of the single body owners would have gone for the 80D, which is a better all around general purpose APS-C camera than the 7D Mark II.
Exactly. My original 7D was my only body, and I used it everyday with EF-s lenses, particularly with the 10-22 and 18-135. I added the EF 100-400 for a safari one year. With the EF 100 macro, the 7D also went underwater in a housing. When the 6D made full frame affordable to me, the 7D (and subsequently, 7D2) became pretty much used only with the 100-400 for special situations needing the extra reach achieved on the crop bodies. After adding the 6D, I never bought another EF-S lens, and the ones I still have are mostly unused now.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,199
4,058
A big (or at least noisy) question will be whether high end mirrorless AF is going to make the bird in flight people happy. By the posts so far, the 90D (or the M6II) doesn't seem to be there yet. Not sure whether that is going to be really tested until the AF is integrated with a high performance EVF. Even then, it may take a while for the dust to settle.
Not many of the Sony crew are happy with the A7RIV for BIF. It needs the very advanced A9 AF to keep them happy. Canon will have to develop a rival sensor to compete, and no doubt Nikon will buy the Sony in the future.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
I'd be fairly confident that there are far more folks that want low end EF crop bodies than low end R crop bodies due to the availability of many more low end EF lenses...

And yes, you can use cheap EF lenses on an RF body, but most of the folks in the low end APS-C market probably do not realize that.

Sure, but I'm asking if some alternate future of Canon in which...
  • EF-M is slowly put to pasture
  • RF-S (crop image circle) lenses are slowly rolled out
  • Crop SLRs pitch the mirror and migrate to RF mount (i.e. we see RF Rebels happen)
  • Canon becomes a one mount company with RF (i.e. EF lenses still in production, the odd 1DX# gets made every so often, but no new EF glass)
...makes any sense.

The alternative is keeping EF-M plugging away and there is no opportunity to move from EF-M to RF and keep using your EF-M lenses. Nikon and Sony allow you to keep on snapping with your crop glass. Is that a problem?

I recognize EF-M sells well and it is the small and light platform. But Canon could have a small and light platform with RF and eliminate the lens cliff of moving up to FF -- should they pursue that?

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJ and slclick

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
80
13
How will it be impossible to shoot wide angle? Two articles before this one is a patent for an RF 17-70, there's already a 15-35L, there is an RF-EF adapter to allow using the EF-S lenses, and there are already third party options coming out. There's far from zero options. The fact that current RF lens development is for full frame doesn't preclude it from use on an APS-C sensor camera as long as it has the RF mount.

On the other hand, I submit that, without an APS-C option, the RF mount - no matter how spectacular - is a dead-end proposition. Canon will never, and I do mean never, recoup the R&D investment into the R series camera and lenses by just selling cameras to enthusiasts. Compare sales of the Rebel line, for instance, to those of the 5D, and tell me which one is doing a better fiscal job of driving Canon's EF market. At some point, the RF mount is going to have to reach the mass market. And when that inevitably happens, there will be some who want the additional benefit of a crop sensor for telephoto shooting. I am one of those people. A camera is a tool, nothing more. And I would like the right tool for the job.

And right now, my only options are EF glass. The RF glass is pretty darned spectacular, but much like the EF-M lenses for my Canon M50, anything RF that I'd buy is a white elephant that can only be used on an RF mount camera. Which right now means only full frame. That's all fine and dandy, but let's consider that I decided to buy an EOS R or its ilk sometime soon (like I have been thinking about.) I have also been considering a telephoto lens, and have rented Canon's 100-400L II lens with spectacular results. I am enticed by the potential of the expected RF 70-400L. But why would I buy one when I couldn't use it with my APS-C camera? RIght now, buying an RF lens is intentionally limiting the usefulness of that lens. It's not an end of the world problem, but I am a LOT more likely to buy EF lenses that can be mounted on either my M50 or the R that I would buy. And that means that I would be , in effect, carrying elements of three different camera systems - EF-M, RF, and EF - rather than one. An APS-C sensor RF mount camera in my bag makes the decision to spend money on RF glass a lot easier to make.

Just my $0.02, cash value slightly lower.

Jody
Well, a 17 - 70 is only 27.2 equivalent on APS-C, which isn't very wide angle, and even 15-35 only goes to 24 mm equivalent. So perhaps I should have qualified "wide angle" as "super wide angle". Would anyone who only uses APS-C spend the money on these lenses, though? Very few. As I responded to another reply, though, I hadn't thought of using the RF-EF adaptor to mount EF-S lenses.
 

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
80
13
I use my 7D almost exclusively with the 15-85 EF-S, but I got the 7D as the real successor to the 50D, not for action/birding. I haven’t upgraded to the 7D II because it felt like it was targeted too much in that direction, but I’d still like a 50D/7D successor and not the compromised 90D.
I'm curious, if you're not into action/birding, in what way is the 90D compromised in comparison to the 7D? I realize the 60D lost some things that the 50D had, but what does the 7D have that the 70D, 80D, and 90D don't?
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,254
482
Are birders/wildlifers so reach constrained that they'll always want f/8 teleconvertered shooting opportunities?

Or is this more about Canon requiring $9k to leave your pocket if you shoot longer than 400mm?

Would the release of the mythical EF something-600mm f/variable get folks caring less about f/8 AF points? Or is such a reach-obsessed user base that they'll just go teleconverter that, too?

- A
My guess is that Canon decided that the 100-400 zoom with extenders is a marketing sweet spot and that it's strategy for relatively less expensive longer lenses will be in this context.
 

koketso

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
19
4
Johannesburg
I think Canon has to make a crop EOS R mount if they want to be taken seriously and compete. The EOS M mount was great in a vacuum but nobody at Canon dreamed they'd be developing a FF mirrorless mount. Since Canon has like what? 7 lenses max for the EOS M mount, now would be the time to quit that mount despite all that investment (which can't be all that great compared) and gear up towards the R mount going forward. This would obviously allow people to use the fantastic R glass on a crop mount. Plus I think the EF-M mount cameras will always have the stigma of being second-rate and inferior no matter how much they advance. The EF-M mount can be the Nikon V1 for Canon. Time to swallow the pride and go forward.
Not a chance buddy. It does not make business sense to kill the commercial success that is EF-M.

The difference between Nikon-1 and Canon EF-M is that Canon's units have impressive numbers in retail. We'll soon find out how the M200 has been officially killing it in Asia.

You simply aren't the target market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Gloads

EOS M50
Jan 27, 2020
36
16
Why not just cost-reduce the RP and then lower the price on the R, when the R2 comes out?

RP @ $650
R1 @ $1,200
R2 @ $2,500
RS and/or R5 @ $3,500

Thoughts?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,716
938
Sure, but I'm asking if some alternate future of Canon in which...
  • EF-M is slowly put to pasture
  • RF-S (crop image circle) lenses are slowly rolled out
  • Crop SLRs pitch the mirror and migrate to RF mount (i.e. we see RF Rebels happen)
  • Canon becomes a one mount company with RF (i.e. EF lenses still in production, the odd 1DX# gets made every so often, but no new EF glass)
...makes any sense.

The alternative is keeping EF-M plugging away and there is no opportunity to move from EF-M to RF and keep using your EF-M lenses. Nikon and Sony allow you to keep on snapping with your crop glass. Is that a problem?

I recognize EF-M sells well and it is the small and light platform. But Canon could have a small and light platform with RF and eliminate the lens cliff of moving up to FF -- should they pursue that?

- A
What if Canon thinks they're big enough to take on Fuji/Panasonic/Olympus with the EOS M system and simultaneously take on Sony/Nikon/Pentax with the RF system? Perhaps they see those two things as totally different markets with very little overlap in terms of user demographics?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,716
938
I'm curious, if you're not into action/birding, in what way is the 90D compromised in comparison to the 7D? I realize the 60D lost some things that the 50D had, but what does the 7D have that the 70D, 80D, and 90D don't?
I mostly do sports/performance art (drama, theatrically lit concerts indoors or outdoors at night, high school marching/concert bands, bar bands, night parades, etc.). But I'm not a birder/wildlife chaser.

#1 on my list: 200,000 shutter rating vs. 100,000/120,000. My less than 5 years old 7D Mark II is fast approaching 200,000.
#2 on my list: build quality - the 7D mark II is, IMHO (and Uncle Roger's), built better than the 5D Mark III and 1D X. It gives up nothing to the 5D Mark IV and only the issue with flex when using a grip to the 1D X Mark II. It takes a pounding I would not subject to a lesser camera, not even my 5D Mark II/III.
#3 on my list: The 7D Mark II AF system performs at a higher level than the x0D bodies. 70D had the old 7D AF system (that stunk it up compared to the 1/5-series bodies out at the same time - I suffered through that for three years and often used the 5D Mark III even when I had to crop to less than 50% of the frame until upgrading to the 7D Mark II a few months after it was released). 80D/90D are better, but still not as consistent/accurate as the 7D mark II that essentially has a 1D X/5D mark III AF system.

I shoot mostly sports and marching bands with the 7D Mark II. Field sports such as football, baseball, and soccer are my longest focal length requirements. Most of it is under lights at night. Marching competitions start out in daylight but often go well into the night, when the largest bands that are spread out wider over the field (and thus require more reach than the smallest bands that started the thing 6/10/14 hours earlier) perform last. While something like a 120-300mm/2.8 or 300/2.8 would be nice (and I occasionally rent one), I can get by with a 70-200/2.8 on an APS-C body. With FF, 300mm/2.8 would be essential, not optional. Indoors I sometime use the 7D Mark II + 70-200/2.8 for my "long" body and a shorter zoom (or shorter primes - 35/50/85/135) on a 5D Mark IV. Sometimes I use the 5D Mark IV and the 5D Mark III for my two bodies. It depends on the light.

I don't do birds/wildlife unless I'm already in the right place/time for other reasons and see something interesting.

I was on a golf course a few years back (shooting a charity golf tournament), for example, and got some decent shots of a great blue heron that was hanging around in one of the marshy areas surrounded by the course. I've gotten some bird shots that I like at the beach. But I don't go looking for them and sit for hours waiting for a shot. I don't have that much patience (in the same way I'm an enthusiastic target shooter but do not hunt - plus there are too many idiots in the woods unless you have exclusive use to a large enough piece of property that you are the only hunter for a couple of miles in all directions).
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,716
938
I'm curious, if you're not into action/birding, in what way is the 90D compromised in comparison to the 7D? I realize the 60D lost some things that the 50D had, but what does the 7D have that the 70D, 80D, and 90D don't?
Oops! I initially thought that comment was directed at me. IMHO, the 80D/90D are better all around generalist cameras than the 7D Mark II if one doesn't need the extra durability and better AF for sports/action. They have far better IQ at ISO 100 - ISO 400 than the 7D Mark II. At ISO 800 and above there's not much practical difference, though the 7D Mark II does test a bit better in terms of S/N ratio and DR past ISO 1600 than the 80D.