A BSI APS-C EOS R camera is coming in the second half of 2022 [CR2]

Juangrande

EOS 90D
Mar 6, 2017
182
236
The advantage could be in higher pixel density. Canon and Nikon made APS-C sensors with higher pixel density than FF sensors for a very long time.
The R5 gas pretty high pixel density too though. Which is why I look forward to the rumored high mp ff body (R5s?), FF and high pixel density for the win! . Saving up for it now.
 

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
128
176
Pixel density is the number of pixels per length, not area: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density; https://www.definitions.net/definition/pixel+density etc etc. A 30 Mpx APS-C sensor has only a 33% greater pixel density than a 17 Mpx sensor. It's not a pedantic distinction, it is crucial for telling you how much longer a telephoto lens you need to get similar reach (resolution). If the pixel density was double, you would need a 600mm lens on the 17 Mpx sensor to give about the same resolution as a 300mm on the 30 Mpx, but with a 33% difference only an approximately 400mm lens on the 17 Mpx is needed.
Density is a vague term that can refer to linear, area, or volume. Volume density isn't really relevant to photographic sensors, but it's the one we experience often in our everyday lives. Remember science class in school: A bowling ball sinks in water because the ball is more dense than the water (which is actually a lazy explanation; the ball sinks because its weight--the influence of gravity on its mass--is greater than that of the water that it displaces. But I digress...)

The crop factor of a sensor is related to its linear dimensions and affects the angle of view. The same lens on a full frame camera will have 1.6x the angle of view as it will on an APS-C camera (that's for Canon. It's 1.5x for Sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc.). Usually this is thought of the opposite way: The same lens on an APS-C camera will give the same FOV as a lens with 1.6x the focal length on a FF camera.

When comparing linear pixel density between sensors, what matters is actually the pixel size, or pitch. The EOS R3 and 80D are both 24 effective MP cameras that produce images 6000 x 4000 pixels. So the pixels on the R3 must be 1.6x wider and 1.6x higher (or 2.65x the area) than pixels on the 80D.

When you use a FF R camera in crop mode, it crops the native images by 1.6x horizontally and by 1.6x vertically. So for the R5, whose maximum image size is 8192x5464, a cropped image is nominally (8192/1.6 = ) 5120 x (5464/1.6 = ) 3415, or approximately 17.48 MP. And the total 45MP of the full-frame R5 has been divided by (1.6)^2, or 2.56.

(I said "nominally" in that previous paragraph because I don't have an R5 and I don't know exactly what size images it produces in crop mode. There may be reasons why it is smaller or larger than this, and I'm confident lots of people will tell me if that's not correct).

The thing about crop factor is that it's solely a property of the sensor. Nothing about the optical properties of the lens changes. A 600mm lens is still a 600mm lens, and it produces the same image regardless of the size of the sensor behind it.

This leads to why many people who photograph small distant objects prefer APS-C. Say you're photographing something small and distant with that 600mm lens I mentioned earlier. And suppose the lens produces an image on the sensor where the small distant object is 1mm wide by 1mm high. That 1mm x 1mm is determined by the object's size, distance, and the 600mm lens. The sensor doesn't change it. What the sensor's "pixel density" affects is how many pixels will be "underneath" the image of that object. If you're shooting with an R3, the image of the object will cover an area of about 167 pixels wide by 167 pixels high on your sensor. If you're instead using the 80D, the smaller pixels (1/1.6x the R3 pixels in both dimensions) mean your 1mm x 1mm object will cover an area of about 1.6x x 1.6x as many pixels, or about 267 wide by 267 high on the APS-C sensor.

I used the R3 and 80D in these examples because they are both 24MP cameras that produce 6000 x 4000 images. The math gets a little more complicated when you compare different size sensors with different MP's. For example, the R5 and the 90D. Then the crop factor still determines the total relative fields of view, but it's less meaningful for determining the number of pixels on your subject because you need to take into account the actual pixel sizes of the two sensors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig and sanj

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
988
829
www.flickr.com
People who buy FF bodies have different needs and want the features of a FF sensor..... That's a market for the low-cost $800 R body, whether that's APS-C or FF.
Traditionally, FF was only for the higher end bodies but with the RP USD200 cheaper than the 90D and only USD100 more than the 80D then you can have full frame within a reasonable price. Full frame is available to almost everyone now. I remember going from a 7D to 5Diii and thinking that it was amazing for low light performance even though the fps was slower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdcmdcmdc

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,416
4,046
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
… I remember going from a 7D to 5Diii and thinking that it was amazing for low light performance…

I agree with the general sentiment of your post, but I would say that the technology has changed a lot since the 5D III. I have found very little difference between the low light performance of the R5 and the 1DxIII and at the same time I have found that the 1Dx III can sustain cropping to a level that comes close to the R5 in all but the most extreme circumstances.

If an R7 materializes many people may have to eat their words when it comes to the relative performance of full frame and crop sensors.
 

petitBogueBogue

I'm New Here
May 13, 2015
16
0
APS-C RF will not kill EF-M. 2 completely different markets for size/price/quality. EF-M will tick along quite nicely for Canon for the foreseeable future without substantial new models.

I don't agree that "a series of RF-S series lenses will certainly be developed"
If the R7 is a high end model then cheap/wide angle lenses aren't essential. The RF lens roadmap shows a RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM which would give ~30mm FF equivalent at the wide end for a crop sensor.

If a low end model R7 is released then there will need to be 1-2 kit/zoom lenses specific for APS-C RF mount eg 10-22mm and maybe a 15-85mm.

There isn't a RF-S mount. It is RF mount with potentially a APS-C sensor in it. There isn't an adapter from EF-M to RF mount due to the flange distance. I can't imagine one for any APS-C lens for RF mount.
Thanks David,
So let's wait and see if an aps-c RF lens series will surface or not.
BTW, what do you think about the possibility of an RF-EOS M mount adapter?
 
Last edited:

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
988
829
www.flickr.com
If an R7 materializes many people may have to eat their words when it comes to the relative performance of full frame and crop sensors.
I think that technology is changing perceptions faster than we think. AI based upscaling being one of those... an extra step but mostly covers any issues with cropped images. The R5/A1 having both speed and high res. The R5's IBIS negating some side effects of high resolution. The video capabilities of the R bodies vs dedicated video rigs.
We can have it all.... at a price :)
Where will the R7 fit into the product portfolio? EF-M, xxD/xxxD will continue to need APS-C sensors just because they are volume sellers although the RP/potential sub USD1k body is encroaching into the xxD space.
If the 7D is replaced and what price Canon would sell it for is the big question for most people in the forum
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused
May 5, 2021
7
21
I love Canon. There's a shortage of chips and parts etc, but they somehow manage to find the raw materials to make a camera no one was looking for, while some of us are waiting for a new budget FF camera that will be everything that the RP wasn't.
Some of us 7D2 users that can't afford big whites for wildlife will whole heartedly embrace an R7 with build construction on par with a 7D2.
 

maulanawale

EOS M6 Mark II
May 25, 2021
77
142
I agree with the general sentiment of your post, but I would say that the technology has changed a lot since the 5D III. I have found very little difference between the low light performance of the R5 and the 1DxIII and at the same time I have found that the 1Dx III can sustain cropping to a level that comes close to the R5 in all but the most extreme circumstances.

If an R7 materializes many people may have to eat their words when it comes to the relative performance of full frame and crop sensors.
Couldn't agree more.

Specially considering most of the images these days are viewed on a screen and rarely make it to paper.

I'd challenge anyone to check the photos I have in my gallery on this very site and guess the camera used. . . .
Granted the images in terms of artistic quality might suck (blame the human, not the gear :LOL::cry:), but I don't think much bad, if anything, can be said in terms of IQ.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
188
115
I am surprised Sony Northrop hasn't pushed out a video about all the things wrong with the new cameras yet.
Since there is no perfect camera for all purposes, marketing departments are known to be fallible, and product design involves many compromises between competing properties, it's no surprise that it's possible for cameras to have faults, include bad compromises, or be less than perfect.

I'm confused, what's wrong with pointing these out to allow buyers to make informed decisions? :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,871
12,159
Since there is no perfect camera for all purposes, marketing departments are known to be fallible, and product design involves many compromises between competing properties, it's no surprise that it's possible for cameras to have faults, include bad compromises, or be less than perfect.

I'm confused, what's wrong with pointing these out to allow buyers to make informed decisions? :rolleyes:
You are truly confused if you think you can make "Informed" decisions on his comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottO

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
188
115
You are truly confused if you think you can make "Informed" decisions on his comments.
Personally, I'd take most YouTube reviews put out before and right on release date with a grain of salt. Only well after release date, when the shackles are off and they can do real testing, do we get any useful information beyond the specs. The independent reviewers are more reliable as they aren't scared of Canon taking their preview toys away for being bad little reviewers, and creating negative publicity if they're honest.

I don't know of any person who is either 100% right or 100% wrong all the time, so I assess each separate review on its own merits. Some reviewers are better than others at their work, but critical thinking is necessary, as is drawing your own conclusions from the information presented. I judge the facts coming from the person, not the person themselves! :)
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,871
12,159
Personally, I'd take most YouTube reviews put out before and right on release date with a grain of salt. Only well after release date, when the shackles are off and they can do real testing, do we get any useful information beyond the specs. The independent reviewers are more reliable as they aren't scared of Canon taking their preview toys away for being bad little reviewers, and creating negative publicity if they're honest.

I don't know of any person who is either 100% right or 100% wrong all the time, so I assess each separate review on its own merits. Some reviewers are better than others at their work, but critical thinking is necessary, as is drawing your own conclusions from the information presented. I judge the facts coming from the person, not the person themselves! :)
I am not addressing this at any particular reviewer or even just reviewers but as a general comment. If you have had experience that the information spread by one person has been reliable in the past and there is accumulated evidence they have the necessary background knowledge and skills, then you take what they say seriously. If your experience is that they are only marginally competent or biased or dishonest, and you think you have sufficient critical ability to try and extract "facts" from what they say, you are welcome so to do. It's your choice. I know what my choice is. I'll post here information that I know from my own direct practical experience or from my knowledge of theory or that I have learned from those who have proved reliable in the past and I respect.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
188
115
I am not addressing this at any particular reviewer or even just reviewers but as a general comment. If you have had experience that the information spread by one person has been reliable in the past and there is accumulated evidence they have the necessary background knowledge and skills, then you take what they say seriously. If your experience is that they are only marginally competent or biased or dishonest, and you think you have sufficient critical ability to try and extract "facts" from what they say, you are welcome so to do. It's your choice. I know what my choice is. I'll post here information that I know from my own direct practical experience or from my knowledge of theory or that I have learned from those who have proved reliable in the past and I respect.
I get what you're saying now. Agreed, good reputation matters, I find Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost to be excellent reviewers, they're very consistent, professional and thorough.

In my experience haven't come across any dishonest reviewers, the marketing departments for the companies do that best, they have no peers! :oops:

Some reviewers can be hit and miss, but even when they get a 'hit', it can still be useful, that's what I was referring to. YouTube reviewers can be a varying mix of information and entertainment, some focus too much on the latter and are 'content-thin', so they might be amusing but not too helpful.

Agreed, the most reliable source of information is shared experience, and that's the whole point of forums when they're functioning in a positive way, people can learn from each other. That's where I've found the most honest opinions and useful information, scouring through forum posts. Once you filter out the background noise of fanboy confirmation bias, there's good information to be had. When forums go toxic, the 'noise' drowns out the 'useful signal' lol! :)
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,919
1,860
I get what you're saying now. Agreed, good reputation matters, I find Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost to be excellent reviewers, they're very consistent, professional and thorough.

In my experience haven't come across any dishonest reviewers, the marketing departments for the companies do that best, they have no peers! :oops:[..]
It doesn't even have to be about honesty, it can be about what they focus on. I'm interested in how well a camera/lens can track dragonflies. I couldn't care less about how it compares to Sony/Nikon/whatever, I don't have the motivation or means to switch systems. A 30 minute limit on video also doesn't bother me, nor does overheating in video modes. Or for lenses, I don't care if the shell is plastic or metal and care even less about "luxery feel". But that's what gets the clicks and keeps ending up in reviews.

So: more dragonflies, less opinionated aestheticism in reviews.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maulanawale

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,078
4,649
It doesn't even have to be about honesty, it can be about what they focus on. I'm interested in how well a camera/lens can track dragonflies. I couldn't care less about how it compares to Sony/Nikon/whatever, I don't have the motivation or means to switch systems. A 30 minute limit on video also doesn't bother me, nor does overheating in video modes. Or for lenses, I don't care if the shell is plastic or metal and care even less about "luxery feel". But that's what gets the clicks and keeps ending up in reviews.

So: more dragonflies, less opinionated aestheticism in reviews.
Wait, you want reviewers to show you how well the camera performs taking pictures of flying dragons?
 

jvillain

EOS RP
Sep 29, 2018
300
240
Since there is no perfect camera for all purposes, marketing departments are known to be fallible, and product design involves many compromises between competing properties, it's no surprise that it's possible for cameras to have faults, include bad compromises, or be less than perfect.

I'm confused, what's wrong with pointing these out to allow buyers to make informed decisions? :rolleyes:
In his video about how he was "REVEALING THE TRUTH" about the R3 his entire review was done with out ever seeing or touching the R3. Including his now confirmed to be BS statement that the R3 didn't shoot at the claimed frame rate. Apparently Canon doesn't send him cameras any more so he just fakes it which is why my tong in cheek comment was about him making a video pointing out the flaws of cameras that don't even exist yet.