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

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
83
33
riker.hu
I can see the sense in a 7d3 in R body, but other than that I really hope APS-C stays in the M. The days of FF being expensive is over.
We already have RP for being entry level/cheap, RP2 could get even cheaper. xxD line should disappear, replaced by RP.
RX (1 series pro equivalent)
Rs (highres)
R (5D equivalent)
RP (6D and xxD)
RC (7D)
----
M lines

That's all. I hate the tons of lines and all missing something. If it was up to me, I would even merge 5D and 5Ds and create max 4 lines of R body.
Hmmm which reminds me, Sony has 4. :) (A7s, A7, A7R, A9)
 

Philrp

Waiting patiently for my APS-C EOS R
Sep 2, 2018
26
30
The real appeal of the 7D, at least for me, was all the features it offered. It is in essence an 1D camera with a crop sensor.

I use all those features and I'm willing to compromise on the sensor. Plus this setup offers other benefits such as reach and speed, etc.
 

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,878
1,679
The real appeal of the 7D, at least for me, was all the features it offered. It is in essence an 1D camera with a crop sensor.

I use all those features and I'm willing to compromise on the sensor. Plus this setup offers other benefits such as reach and speed, etc.
But it was sold off right and left due to general dissatisfaction over 6400 iso. I know, I lived it. If you could have the 7D line with a sensor that could do 12800 with all the other fantastic aspects of that body it would be a hit, Mirror or not.
 

canonnews

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 27, 2017
543
786
Canada
www.canonnews.com
there definitely would not be “RF-S” lenses

This is really good news.
no it isn't actually.

it's not about the rear element ingress like the EF-S, it's about the image circle size and lenses optimized for both weight, size and cost with the APS-C sized image circle.

an 11-24 for fullf frame will cost over $3k - a 11-24 for APS-C will cost under $1k.

The 11-24 for full frame cant use filters. The 11-24 for APS-C can use filters.

then there's the size:

 
  • Like
Reactions: gruhl28

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,907
1,040
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.
The EOS M series is the best selling mirrorless ILC system on the planet. Canon's not scrapping it anytime soon.
 

Daner

AE-1 Program
+1. All day.

I had an EF 24-70 f/2.8L I and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II on my T1i before I jumped up to my 5D3. I wanted better/faster focusing glass more than I wanted low light performance and more than I wanted to make a one-time $3500 withdrawal from my savings (as the 6D1 hadn't been announced yet).

Also, some folks pack a tiny EOS M in their bags on trips as a backup/second body. And if the trip was a birding trip, safari, etc. there's a good chance a large EF lens is being adapted on it.

I work in a different engineering field, but the adage of 'if you allow Part A to click into Part B -- regardless of how silly it would be to do that -- someone is going to do it' would certainly apply here. I don't think many folks are adapting 600 primes on their M6s, but someone out there has certainly tried to use it that way.

- A
Imagine that you have the opportunity to take a once-in-a-lifetime shot of the rising moon. You have a Canon EF 800mm lens. You also have a choice of any current Canon FF camera or an M6 Mk. II. The tiny camera doesn't seem so silly now, does it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: heart+eyes

Bahrd

Red herrings...
Jun 30, 2013
58
30
Economies of scale, most likely. (To the same point, why doesn't Canon dabble in 6x4.5 or 44x33 medium format?)
[...]
- A
Probably. Nevertheless, I assumed the following scenario:
1. All new non-FF R mirrorless cameras would have got APS-H sensors.
2. Sensor's cost is a smaller factor than it used to be.
3. With the same technology, a DR of Canon sensors will remain a bit inferior (due to doubled number of pixels required by DP AF) and a slightly bigger sensor size could have helped.
 

uri.raz

EOS RP
Jan 5, 2016
213
134
Probably. Nevertheless, I assumed the following scenario:
1. All new non-FF R mirrorless cameras would have got APS-H sensors.
2. Sensor's cost is a smaller factor than it used to be.
3. With the same technology, a DR of Canon sensors will remain a bit inferior (due to doubled number of pixels required by DP AF) and a slightly bigger sensor size could have helped.
Making another sensor means Canon has to stock it to fix discontinue cameras. Stock and distribution have costs.

Canon could make the 1D series without making any special lenses for it because it was sports oriented, so demand for wide lenses was small enough. Unless Canon repeats the trick, it would have to make a fourth line of lenses, which incurs further costs.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,441
701
no it isn't actually.

it's not about the rear element ingress like the EF-S, it's about the image circle size and lenses optimized for both weight, size and cost with the APS-C sized image circle.

an 11-24 for fullf frame will cost over $3k - a 11-24 for APS-C will cost under $1k.

The 11-24 for full frame cant use filters. The 11-24 for APS-C can use filters.

then there's the size:

Comparing apples to oranges? The 11=24 at FF has nothing to do with a crop 10-22.

To achieve the same angles one would use 16-35 at FF. The 11-24 has no crop equivalent. Still bigger and more expensive but not at that scale. It's 1K vs 0.5K. And some of the size and price difference it is due to constant maximum aperture
of 16-35 f/4L vs the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5.

Having said that the real power of the APS-C cameras is in the smaller bodies like 200D and the very small/cheap/decent lenses like 10-18.

canon-size-comparison-2.jpg
 
Last edited:

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,302
539
Comparing apples to oranges? The 11=24 at FF has nothing to do with a crop 10-22.

To achieve the same angles one would use 16-35 at FF. The 11-24 has no crop equivalent. Still bigger and more expensive but not at that scale. It's 1K vs 0.5K. And some of the size and price difference it is due to constant maximum aperture
of 16-35 f/4L vs the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5.
The two lenses are comparable if you are using an ef-s or an ef-m camera (with appropriate adapters). Same field of view, but the ef-s lens is smaller, lighter and less expensive.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,441
701
The two lenses are comparable if you are using an ef-s or an ef-m camera (with appropriate adapters). Same field of view, but the ef-s lens is smaller, lighter and less expensive.
11-24 at a ff camera is not comparable with 10-22 at an aps-c. Of course if you put both at an aps-c camera you are correct. Someone would do that only if they carried a 2nd APS-C camera as a backup to a FF. If someone wants to go to FF and have the field of view of a 10-22 at an apc-c camera they will get a 16-35 f/4 lens and not a 11-24.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
853
688
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Imagine that you have the opportunity to take a once-in-a-lifetime shot of the rising moon. You have a Canon EF 800mm lens. You also have a choice of any current Canon FF camera or an M6 Mk. II. The tiny camera doesn't seem so silly now, does it?
Oh, you've already missed the shot. The moon is rising quickly and it got behind the clouds while you where choosing the camera and mounting the lens.
 

Daner

AE-1 Program
Oh, you've already missed the shot. The moon is rising quickly and it got behind the clouds while you where choosing the camera and mounting the lens.
Or you could be more professional about it, arriving an hour before moonrise and having everything mounted up on a tripod and pointed in exactly the right direction, with settings locked in (based on successful previous moon shots). In that case, the M6 MKII would still be likely to produce a better image than any current FF Canon camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Travel_Photographer

Aaron Lozano

I'm New Here
Nov 12, 2019
23
21
Nobody Thinking APS-h crop? They could really go nuts with a sensor like that. APS-h 20MP sensor with the exact same resolution as the 1DXIII+ same AF but faster frame rate, 4K 60fps video...and way smaller than the 1DXIII. I bet the 7DIII crowd would go absolutely frantic/nuts to get one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bahrd

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
Comparing apples to oranges? The 11=24 at FF has nothing to do with a crop 10-22.

To achieve the same angles one would use 16-35 at FF. The 11-24 has no crop equivalent. Still bigger and more expensive but not at that scale. It's 1K vs 0.5K. And some of the size and price difference it is due to constant maximum aperture
of 16-35 f/4L vs the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5.

Having said that the real power of the APS-C cameras is in the smaller bodies like 200D and the very small/cheap/decent lenses like 10-18.

Wait a minute, I forgot something: EF-S on RF. :unsure:

A future crop sensored RF body could adapt the 11-24L for some really nice UWA zoom shots (17.6mm - 38.4mm FF equiv), or it could just adapt the EF-S 10-18 or 10-22 for something similar FL-wise in a much smaller price and weight.

In other words, if both the bodies below were some crop sensored RF body, the option on the right will (largely) cover the same ground as the option on the left.

Screen Shot 2020-01-26 at 9.03.11 AM.png


The is a non-issue then. UWA 16ish-35-ish FF zoom needs on RF crop have a number of option to generate a 16-35ish FF equivalent field of view.

- A
 
Last edited:

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
552
383
Imagine that you have the opportunity to take a once-in-a-lifetime shot of the rising moon. You have a Canon EF 800mm lens. You also have a choice of any current Canon FF camera or an M6 Mk. II. The tiny camera doesn't seem so silly now, does it?
I actually DID once put a friend's 500mm Sigma on one of my M cameras (I don't recall which one, but the exifs would tell the story if I were anywhere near that system right now).

We were just clowning about, but there's no reason it couldn't have worked in real life, given a tripod. Sure it looks silly (that's why we did it), but really who cares how the camera looks? You're not taking pictures of it, you're taking pictures with it.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
Nobody Thinking APS-h crop? They could really go nuts with a sensor like that. APS-h 20MP sensor with the exact same resolution as the 1DXIII+ same AF but faster frame rate, 4K 60fps video...and way smaller than the 1DXIII. I bet the 7DIII crowd would go absolutely frantic/nuts to get one.

A lot of people would like this, sure. But the thought that Canon would resurrect APS-H and commit the capital investment in sensor fabrication for a niche line of cameras that only gets refreshed every 5-6 years is not going to happen.

- A
 

MartinF.

EOS 6D, 5D and some good EF lenses. DPP4 user
Feb 2, 2016
71
47
Denmark
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.
They do not need to make a specific RF-S (crop) mount. The EF-S was inventet only to take advantage of the smaller mirror, makeing room for the back lens element to protude into the mirrorbox. That is not needed / not an option for the mirrorless RF mount. So what they could do was to make lenses that take specific advantages of the smaller sensor - focallenght wise - but on the other hand - you just need RF 15-35 to be covered with an APS-C sensor on a RF mount body.
And EOS R body and RF mount is ready for an APS-C sensor, with no other changes at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark