Thoughts on the Canon EOS R roadmap

wockawocka

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 13, 2011
718
62
I've given this some more thought and I think it's very possible we'll see the budget body alongside the higher mp body (but with dual cards and a stick).

I'd be fine with that if I could pixel bin. I made do with the 5Dsr for a couple of years while the 5D4 was being readied for release.
 
Last edited:

Equinox

I'm New Here
Jun 29, 2017
17
28
In all honesty I would love Canon to out out a high MP (50-80)EOS R as soon as possible so that I could jump from my 5D4, although I don't think a Canon should do that. They need to wait, develop their tech further so that when they release their first pro mirrorlesss body it's a knockout. They've needed a product like this since 5Dmk2, not saying their high end products since then have been bad just that they haven't revolutionised. Currently Canon has best ergonomics (apart from the R) , menus, colour (if you shoot jpeg only) and best lenses compared to the competition, they need to up their game in all other respects. If they don't up their ga,e severely with first pro mirrorless body they will continue to slide down the scale to a camera manufacturer of good quality mid range cameras and not the top of the line Luxurious camera manufacturer that I assume majority of us once believed they were.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
294
I don't know how difficult it is for Canon but it has alot of cheaper full frame lens that could be repeated for an APS-C R . Like a kit 18-55mm (Cheap version) , 70-300mm 5.6 to 6.3, 50 1.8, etc
I don't think Canon has ever made an 18-55mm full frame lens.

Lack of IBIS limits it for me
That, plus either your inability or unwillingness to stabilize the camera properly.


Just give me the ability to backup RAW files using Bluetooth, while still writing to the card on my EOS R. That’s all I ask.

I’m not here to argue about the EOS R being a pro camera - I Pay my bills with it. My 5Div collects dust now and is ‘just’ a backup body. I’ll happily wait a year or so for the ‘Pro R’, if I get RAW file redundancy.

Please Canon, give me wireless RAW backup!
So you're saying you don't mind if it takes 20 minutes per photo (due to the bandwidth limits of Bluetooth) and you have to change camera batteries every 3-5 frames?


IMHO, Canon wouldn't do it as...

1. It doesn't provide an easy upgrade path from crop to FF - M lenses aren't mountable on R bodies.

2. Pro crop body, like the 7D, which give an extra reach with superteles. That is, unless you think the 1D X, 7D, and superteles will be EOS forever.
R bodies and lenses are EOS, they're just not EF mount.


Let me fix one thing for you. EOS-M really feels like an afterthought nowadays.

But - nowadays and with an advent of RF lens, EF feels a little bit like a dead end - would you buy it, for the money given, if you knew, that there is an RF equivalent? Would you buy it for its advantage of possible attachability to an EOS-M body? As for me - no. That makes EOS-M less attractive in my eyes and pushes it into just PS level of camera - small, nice, still useful pocket camera with an interchangable lenses and excellent APS-C image quality as an advantage.

But - if Canon releases APS-C based R body with an RF mount, it will push EOS-M into the corner even more, imo, because there's basically no upgrade path left. If you accept those aspects, then you are of course good to go, and EOS-M is still your good travel/street combo.
EOS-M are the best selling system cameras in Japan. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.


I just think that it'll take wayyy too long to wait for canon to come out with a 5D line equivalent mirrorless and even then, they may disappoint. Besides, who here will miss the sound of the shutter?? :cool: kind of kidding but it's so satisfying at times for me photographing.
I think you mean the sound of the mirror? Most mirrorless cameras, including the EOS R, still have a shutter.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,486
1,087
Irving, Texas
yeah, it wouldn't really save much, and you'd take away the upgrade the body at anytime argument. That's why I think just using consumer grade full frame is more likely, even if they use a sensor between 1.2 and 1.4 reduction and call it aps-h.
But then it wouldn't be FF.
None of it would save $.
 

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
206
183
Madison, WI
But then it wouldn't be FF.
None of it would save $.
The sensor is the most expensive part of a camera. One standard 8 inch wafer yields at most 20 full frame sensors, assuming there is not a flaw (which there almost always is). An APS-H sized sensor could have between 50-100 sensors, depending on the exact size they choose (I think the number was 67 if the same as what used to be in the 1d). The same wafer can hold over 400 aps-c sized ones. A flaw that affects a small percentage of the wafer might kill several sensors on the full frame platter, but might only effect 1-10 out of 400+ aps-c sized ones because a flaw anywhere will invalidate the whole sensor. So the yields are better the smaller that you get. These numbers *come directly from a canon whitepaper*, it's simple math to compute the maximum amount of rectangular shapes that can fit on the 8 inch platter everyone from Intel on down use to make any type of computer chip, which is what a sensor is. Smaller = more.

So yes, a smaller sensor would be less expensive to produce. The less expensive something is, the greater chance of selling more, so the volume production makes it cheaper still.

Just because the mount can handle up to a full frame doesn't mean it has to be full frame sensor. Just because the lens is full frame doesn't mean it can't be used by a sensor smaller than full frame.
 

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
206
183
Madison, WI
Just give me the ability to backup RAW files using Bluetooth, while still writing to the card on my EOS R. That’s all I ask.

I’m not here to argue about the EOS R being a pro camera - I Pay my bills with it. My 5Div collects dust now and is ‘just’ a backup body. I’ll happily wait a year or so for the ‘Pro R’, if I get RAW file redundancy.

Please Canon, give me wireless RAW backup!
So you're saying you don't mind if it takes 20 minutes per photo (due to the bandwidth limits of Bluetooth) and you have to change camera batteries every 3-5 frames?
I'd love to see a "Enhanced Vertical Grip" that had contacts for data transfer as well as battery. You could elect to have a second card that is copied to with every shot, and it would be an optional add on for prosumer or consumer level cameras. If you need it to work on both at the same time, have a pro level camera.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,486
1,087
Irving, Texas
The sensor is the most expensive part of a camera. One standard 8 inch wafer yields at most 20 full frame sensors, assuming there is not a flaw (which there almost always is). An APS-H sized sensor could have between 50-100 sensors, depending on the exact size they choose (I think the number was 67 if the same as what used to be in the 1d). The same wafer can hold over 400 aps-c sized ones. A flaw that affects a small percentage of the wafer might kill several sensors on the full frame platter, but might only effect 1-10 out of 400+ aps-c sized ones because a flaw anywhere will invalidate the whole sensor. So the yields are better the smaller that you get. These numbers *come directly from a canon whitepaper*, it's simple math to compute the maximum amount of rectangular shapes that can fit on the 8 inch platter everyone from Intel on down use to make any type of computer chip, which is what a sensor is. Smaller = more.

So yes, a smaller sensor would be less expensive to produce. The less expensive something is, the greater chance of selling more, so the volume production makes it cheaper still.

Just because the mount can handle up to a full frame doesn't mean it has to be full frame sensor. Just because the lens is full frame doesn't mean it can't be used by a sensor smaller than full frame.
1. Your assertion was that making lenses for an APS-H sensor would be less expensive than making lenses for a FF camera. Not true.
2. "The wafer would yield more sensors" is your other assertion. Are all uncut sheets the same size to begin with? Highly doubtful in my mind, but I have no idea. I would assume it would be optimized for size / yield and less scrap anyway.
3. Then you don't mention other costs to Canon to bring yet another line to market: R&D, manufacturing, warehousing, shipping, labor force size, employee benefits, marketing, packaging, additional mfg. capacity, etc.

"The less expensive something is, the greater chance of selling more." You assume the market exists and that there is a viable market for an APS-H sized sensor and (specifically) lenses manufactured especially for APS-H sensors. Um, why APS-H would require it's own lens line to begin with is bewildering to me. Seems it would use the same mount (RF) and just be a matter of the sensor being smaller and the image circle covering more, or the whole sensor... exactly what APS-C does now with EF lenses.
 
Last edited:

wockawocka

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 13, 2011
718
62
I'd love to see a "Enhanced Vertical Grip" that had contacts for data transfer as well as battery. You could elect to have a second card that is copied to with every shot, and it would be an optional add on for prosumer or consumer level cameras. If you need it to work on both at the same time, have a pro level camera.
Nice idea.
 

c.d.embrey

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 21, 2010
648
4
Maybe you should have read the comment he/she was answering to?


I bet he is also a bit older.
.
He's not a child anymore. And he has put away childish things ;) People worth impressing are not impressed with cameras :sleep:
 

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
206
183
Madison, WI
1. Your assertion was that making lenses for an APS-H sensor would be less expensive than making lenses for a FF camera. Not true.
2. "The wafer would yield more sensors" is your other assertion. Are all uncut sheets the same size to begin with? Highly doubtful in my mind, but I have no idea. I would assume it would be optimized for size / yield and less scrap anyway.
3. Then you don't mention other costs to Canon to bring yet another line to market: R&D, manufacturing, warehousing, shipping, labor force size, employee benefits, marketing, packaging, additional mfg. capacity, etc.

"The less expensive something is, the greater chance of selling more." You assume the market exists and that there is a viable market for an APS-H sized sensor and (specifically) lenses manufactured especially for APS-H sensors. Um, why APS-H would require it's own lens line to begin with is bewildering to me. Seems it would use the same mount (RF) and just be a matter of the sensor being smaller and the image circle covering more, or the whole sensor... exactly what APS-C does now with EF lenses.
Did you even read my post? While they could, I argued that they would not make a APS-H lens. They would/could make consumer grade lens like the patents we saw posted today, but have a sensor that is cheaper because of size/yield.

The wafer sizes are industry standards. At the time this canon white paper came out (http://www.robgalbraith.com/images/canon_full-frame_cmos_white_paper.pdf) the standard was 200mm wafers, or roughly 8 inches. The industry has upgraded to 300 mm wafers for many computer chips but there are issues scaling up to 450mm with lithography taking too long to be economical. There are different layers added on for image sensing chips so I’m not sure if they have upgraded to those larger processes. The nature of making silicon wafers involves spinning the wafers to ensure a molecule level even surface so they are always circular . I was off in my number for how many aps-c chips fit, canons number was 200. If they made a aps-h sensor the same size as the one in the 1d, they could fit 46 (ie half the cost, other than dev time). If they made them at a 1.4 crop aps-h, it would be up around 80.

Presumably any sensor made for this market would be massed produced the same way as the current dslr aps-c cameras are, from higher end 7d all the way down to the cheapest rebels. Building out consumer grade lenses that are R mount full frame allows a user to upgrade to larger sensor R mount camera at some point in the future. Canon has always tried to artificially segment their markets. Even if they only kept aps-c and full frame they still are going to create r mount versions at lower price points. Even if very very few of their users ever get anything more than the kit lenses, the fact that they could put better lenses on is a big motivating factor in purchases.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,486
1,087
Irving, Texas
My suspicion is that this is exactly what they will do. Bring back an APS-H sized sensor so they can get more than double the yield per silicon wafer. Not only would the sensors be smaller and thus more numerous, any flaws would affect less sensors on that wafer so the yields should be higher. Plus digic chips don't need to be quite as beefy.

And while making the lens cheaper by making it only cover a aps-h area, I've been thinking why not just make full sized ones? Make an 18-135 f3.5-5.6 and a 70-300, or equivalent lenses to the 18-55 + 55-250. Make them full frame so that they work fine on a bigger body so if someone wants to upgrade they can. This establishes a firm middle ground.

Another possibility is canon could also bundle the control ring adapter and have it come with the efs lenses - t
Did you even read my post? While they could, I argued that they would not make a APS-H lens. They would/could make consumer grade lens like the patents we saw posted today, but have a sensor that is cheaper because of size/yield.

The wafer sizes are industry standards. At the time this canon white paper came out (http://www.robgalbraith.com/images/canon_full-frame_cmos_white_paper.pdf) the standard was 200mm wafers, or roughly 8 inches. The industry has upgraded to 300 mm wafers for many computer chips but there are issues scaling up to 450mm with lithography taking too long to be economical. There are different layers added on for image sensing chips so I’m not sure if they have upgraded to those larger processes. The nature of making silicon wafers involves spinning the wafers to ensure a molecule level even surface so they are always circular . I was off in my number for how many aps-c chips fit, canons number was 200. If they made a aps-h sensor the same size as the one in the 1d, they could fit 46 (ie half the cost, other than dev time). If they made them at a 1.4 crop aps-h, it would be up around 80.

Presumably any sensor made for this market would be massed produced the same way as the current dslr aps-c cameras are, from higher end 7d all the way down to the cheapest rebels. Building out consumer grade lenses that are R mount full frame allows a user to upgrade to larger sensor R mount camera at some point in the future. Canon has always tried to artificially segment their markets. Even if they only kept aps-c and full frame they still are going to create r mount versions at lower price points. Even if very very few of their users ever get anything more than the kit lenses, the fact that they could put better lenses on is a big motivating factor in purchases.
Yeah, I read your post. Did you?

My suspicion is that this is exactly what they will do. Bring back an APS-H sized sensor so they can get more than double the yield per silicon wafer. Not only would the sensors be smaller and thus more numerous, any flaws would affect less sensors on that wafer so the yields should be higher. Plus digic chips don't need to be quite as beefy.

And while making the lens cheaper by making it only cover a aps-h area, I've been thinking why not just make full sized ones? Make an 18-135 f3.5-5.6 and a 70-300, or equivalent lenses to the 18-55 + 55-250. Make them full frame so that they work fine on a bigger body so if someone wants to upgrade they can. This establishes a firm middle ground.
You actually argued that Canon *would* bring back APS-H... to include lenses just for APS-H. Then you say, "Why not just make them full size (lenses)?" So that people could upgrade. Isn't that what you said?

You said bringing back APS-H would save $. To which I :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:. Then you said it wouldn't save much. So yeah, I read it.

There is more to fabricating a camera than cutting out the sensor from the wafer. BTW: What does that cost? Per sensor, I mean.

First there has to be a market for it to make it viable no matter what the cost. Is there? You and I have no idea.
 
Last edited:

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,035
372
I'd love to see a "Enhanced Vertical Grip" that had contacts for data transfer as well as battery. You could elect to have a second card that is copied to with every shot, and it would be an optional add on for prosumer or consumer level cameras. If you need it to work on both at the same time, have a pro level camera.

If they build a board and software for multiple card slots, i would personally rather they actually populate that card slot in the body rather route traces to pads in the the battery compartment and make you buy a grip to use them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

SereneSpeed

EOS T7i
Feb 1, 2016
78
22
Just give me the ability to backup RAW files using Bluetooth, while still writing to the card on my EOS R. That’s all I ask.

I’m not here to argue about the EOS R being a pro camera - I Pay my bills with it. My 5Div collects dust now and is ‘just’ a backup body. I’ll happily wait a year or so for the ‘Pro R’, if I get RAW file redundancy.

Please Canon, give me wireless RAW backup!

(I can wish, right?)

:)
So you're saying you don't mind if it takes 20 minutes per photo (due to the bandwidth limits of Bluetooth) and you have to change camera batteries every 3-5 frames?

It takes 4 seconds to transfer a RAW file over bluetooth.

I've shot entire sessions and then used the same battery to transfer the files into CaptureOne using Camera Connect. Hundreds of images.

Do I think Canon will implement the change I want? No. No chance. But it's not because image transfer is limited to 900 images an hour, or 400+ RAW image transfers per battery charge cycle (using Camera Connect).
 
Last edited:

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,099
519
If they build a board and software for multiple card slots, i would personally rather they actually populate that card slot in the body rather route traces to pads in the the battery compartment and make you buy a grip to use them.
They could have a Thunderbolt connection to the Enhanced Grip and put a M.2 slot into the grip, as well as an additional DSP to speed up AI autofocus.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,099
519
The sensor is the most expensive part of a camera. One standard 8 inch wafer yields at most 20 full frame sensors, assuming there is not a flaw (which there almost always is).
At which cost per wafer? Around $3k? Less?

A FF senor is not particularly cheap, but is unlikely the most expensive part of a camera. The most expensive part of a camera is likely R&D amortization.
 

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
206
183
Madison, WI
At which cost per wafer? Around $3k? Less?

A FF senor is not particularly cheap, but is unlikely the most expensive part of a camera. The most expensive part of a camera is likely R&D amortization.
The most expensive part in Material costs, yes. I'd agree that on paper R&D is a larger part of it for sure. That's actually why I'm 100% positive we will see rebel priced R mount models sooner rather than later, to spread the cost of R&D for the mount an new technologies. And as more of those mainstream cheaper models are sold in much larger quantities the cost comes down significantly. If the developed a new sensor between the Full Frame and 1.6 crop APS-C, I'd imagine it would be around 1.4 or 1.3, and would be used in *everything*. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't do it though. However I think that developing a 1.3 sensor would be the way to get a mostly 1dx speed camera out the door a little sooner, for many of the same reasons why it was easier to do so years ago when they first introduced it. It's all about how fast they can get the data off the chip and process it. having the same basic sensor in much slower, cheaper, mass market devices is just a way to pay off all the R&D for the bleeding edge.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
294
At which cost per wafer? Around $3k? Less?

A FF senor is not particularly cheap, but is unlikely the most expensive part of a camera. The most expensive part of a camera is likely R&D amortization.
One might argue that R&D amortization is not a "part", in the sense that you can't order a replacement R&D amortization if the one inside your camera breaks, but rather a portion of the expense of producing a camera.