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

[SteveC]

It would mean the vessel needs to display;
(i) two all-round red lights in a vertical line where they can best be seen;
(ii) two balls or similar shapes in a vertical line where they can best be seen;

But since we know M series cameras don't have a lot of waterproofing, it won't matter.

 

[John Wilde]

The R Unicorn, rumored since 2018.

 

[unfocused]

The crop factor of 1.6 takes the lineal relationship between the diagonals on a crop sensor compared to that of a FF unit. When considering pixel density, which it based on AREA, one must consider the SQUARE of the crop factor.
For example: in the EOS R6 manual, Canon refers to this value when advising the number of pixels one can get when using an APS-C lens (via the adaptor) on the R6 body, the same table in the R5 indicates a pixel value of 17.3MP for the R5 sensor cropped to APS-C FoV.
It is given as such:
20MP/(1.6x1.6) = 7.7MP refer P855 of the R6 manual.
45MP/(1.6x1.6) =17.3 MP refer P900 of the R5 manual.

You are beating a dead horse here. @tbgtomcom realized his error pages ago and yet people continue to pile on the corrections.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Is there some way of seeing replies as a set with the original post?

Unfortunately, there is no 'threaded' view on these boards, only the 'flat' view.

 

[AlanF]

Is there some way of seeing replies as a set with the original post? Then I would be aware of this. There are a lot of posts here and having to go through them all to ensure I am not "beating a dead horse" would be helpful to us all. His post is not the only one that has made this error, so hopefully someone else will benefit from the responses.

Certainly, no offense was intended.

You could try reading the thread from the beginning before making multiple posts. It may be an effort but it does show courtesy to those wo have posted.

 

[Tangent]

Obvious & Prob said already -- but that 100-500 7.1 becomes an 800mm 7.1 with the crop factor... (and 1100 f10 with a tc) Hmmm... this could get interesting.

 

[koenkooi]

You could try reading the thread from the beginning before making multiple posts. It may be an effort but it does show courtesy to those wo have posted.

I think the issue here is the reverse: not reading to the end before replying.

 

[AlanF]

Obvious & Prob said already -- but that 100-500 7.1 becomes an 800mm 7.1 with the crop factor... (and 1100 f10 with a tc) Hmmm... this could get interesting.

It has indeed been said many times in this and other threads, it does have a field of view of 160-800mm when on a crop factor. But, when it comes to resolution/reach, the pixel density of the sensor is also crucial - a 50 Mpx 5DSR has the same pixel density as a 20 Mpx 7DII and a 500mm lens will have roughly the same resolution on both. When it comes to depth of field, the crop will be equivalent to f/11, etc etc depending on whether you are comparing the full crop image with the full full-frame or cropped full-frame.

 

[AlanF]

I think the issue here is the reverse: not reading to the end before replying.

It's frequently both. If you do answer prematurely, it does become clear if you have gone back and continued reading from the quoted post.

 

[maulanawale]

It has indeed been said many times in this and other threads, it does have a field of view of 160-800mm when on a crop factor. But, when it comes to resolution/reach, the pixel density of the sensor is also crucial - a 50 Mpx 5DSR has the same pixel density as a 20 Mpx 7DII and a 500mm lens will have roughly the same resolution on both. When it comes to depth of field, the crop will be equivalent to f/11, etc etc depending on whether you are comparing the full crop image with the full full-frame or cropped full-frame.

Good that you bring up the DOF. The infamous "equivalence' you'll see in every M43 forum that is so often missed when talking APS-C. As an Olympus user I can confirm it is a factor to take into account as it makes isolating subjects close to the background harder in some situations. Can also work to your advantage of course. In any case, a detail worth mentioning.

 

[AlanF]

I take your point, and wonder if you (or anyone else for that matter) has ploughed through the whole length of every thread. Reading them all is practical if the thread is a reasonable length, however some of these threads span 20+ pages. That makes responding an extremely long-winded process. If the site wants to make the risk of a duplicate response less, then having a threaded hierarchy would be helpful.

I might add that I addressed the issue and didn't 'pile into' the poster personally. My post was polite and factual. This is all I am going to say on the matter.

There are many regular participants who clearly read read every post as you can tell from their responses, "likes" etc. I do read through every post on threads where I post, and I have learned a lot from the others who have posted.

 

[Dalantech]

APS-H would make more sense (and skip on smaller image circle lenses from scratch on). The slight crop would give a nice little magnification + faster readout speeds + cheaper to build sensors / cameras (just a cheaper high speed lineup of bodies like the 90D etc). At least that would make more sense than introducing APS-C again on RF mount. ^^

I am getting picky, kinda. Cropping creates an enlargement, it does not matter when or how you do it, and it does not change the magnification that an image was taken at. Using a crop factor sensor is functionally the same as shooting full frame and cropping in post -anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell you snake oil. Remember that it is a crop factor, and not a "multiply every aspect of photography factor".

 

[PhilC]

Not a problem. Canon only needs 1-2 lenses for an APS-C body: a standard zoom similar to the 15-85 EF-S and a wide angle similar to the 10-22 EF-S. For everything else, standard RF lens focal lengths are fine or even preferred. With the R system, Canon no longer has to worry about separate mounts as they can easily make those crop lenses automatically crop to 1.6 on any R body just as EF-S lenses do now.

I had a dying Canon 7D replaced by the 80D . On both cameras my go to lens was the 15-85 in 80% of the time next the 10-22 and probably less the 70-300. Unfortunately my 15-85 is showing after 11 years some signs of weakening . I also tend to suffer more often of the weight of all of this on my neck. So thinking of replacing all this by something else. The M series doesn't seem to have a travel lens similar to the 15-85, so looking at the R series with one of the two 24-105 to be determined. But this would no make me gain weight. So my hope is an APS-C which will be lighter yet provide the lenses I need and also possibly reuse some of the other lenses I have. Crossing fingers.

 

[Deleted]

I am getting picky, kinda. Cropping creates an enlargement, it does not matter when or how you do it, and it does not change the magnification that an image was taken at. Using a crop factor sensor is functionally the same as shooting full frame and cropping in post -anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell you snake oil. Remember that it is a crop factor, and not a "multiply every aspect of photography factor".

I agree. The advantage of a crop camera is just about pixels on subject for a given distance and lens, and apparent DOF for a particular field of view.

 

[Billybob]

I am getting picky, kinda. Cropping creates an enlargement, it does not matter when or how you do it, and it does not change the magnification that an image was taken at. Using a crop factor sensor is functionally the same as shooting full frame and cropping in post -anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell you snake oil. Remember that it is a crop factor, and not a "multiply every aspect of photography factor".

Yes, functionally the same as shooting with a 75MP (or whatever the previous posters calculated) full-frame camera and cropping. Since we don't have 75MP full frame cameras (and the 60MP Sony did not provide perceptibly more detail than a 42-45MP camera), a 30MP APS-C could provide a nice boost in resolved detail regardless of whether you call it magnification or reach. Plus, the body will undoubtedly be (substantially) less expensive than what a 75MP full-frame camera is likely to cost.

 

[Czardoom]

I am getting picky, kinda. Cropping creates an enlargement, it does not matter when or how you do it, and it does not change the magnification that an image was taken at. Using a crop factor sensor is functionally the same as shooting full frame and cropping in post -anyone who tells you anything different is trying to sell you snake oil. Remember that it is a crop factor, and not a "multiply every aspect of photography factor".

Not trying to sell you snake oil, but..no...it's not the same. Cropping alters the composition. It is easier to create your composition when you can use the entire sensor and viewfinder compared to anticipating where you will crop for a cropped composition. And since (as others have mentioned) there are no FF cameras with the same pixel density as the highest MP crop sensors, you will have lower pixel density.

Perhaps it is time we stopped calling APS-C sensors "crop" sensors. They are just a different size sensor. Do we call FF sensors crop sensors as if they are cropped from medium format? Or medium format "cropped" since it is smaller than large format? There have always been many sizes for film and now digital sensors. When Kodak introduced the APS film cameras, nobody said, "Oh, that is just a cropped version of 35mm film." So, why is it that we began to call that particular sensor size "crop" in our digital age, when the sensor is the same (or similar) size as APS film? APS was an existing format - not something created when cameras went digital. (As an aside, the actual APS-C size is a cropped image, but not cropped from 35mm, but cropped from 30.2 × 16.7 mm, which was the maximum size of the film negative with an aspect ratio of 16:9).

 

[privatebydesign]

Not trying to sell you snake oil, but..no...it's not the same. Cropping alters the composition. It is easier to create your composition when you can use the entire sensor and viewfinder compared to anticipating where you will crop for a cropped composition. And since (as others have mentioned) there are no FF cameras with the same pixel density as the highest MP crop sensors, you will have lower pixel density.

Perhaps it is time we stopped calling APS-C sensors "crop" sensors. They are just a different size sensor. Do we call FF sensors crop sensors as if they are cropped from medium format? Or medium format "cropped" since it is smaller than large format? There have always been many sizes for film and now digital sensors. When Kodak introduced the APS film cameras, nobody said, "Oh, that is just a cropped version of 35mm film." So, why is it that we began to call that particular sensor size "crop" in our digital age, when the sensor is the same (or similar) size as APS film? APS was an existing format - not something created when cameras went digital. (As an aside, the actual APS-C size is a cropped image, but not cropped from 35mm, but cropped from 30.2 × 16.7 mm, which was the maximum size of the film negative with an aspect ratio of 16:9).

Because crop sensor cameras often use lenses designed for cameras with larger sensors. In Canon's case 'crop' sensors came along well before EF-S lenses.

APS film cameras generally had built in lenses and the image quality was utter crap, which is why they never really caught on.

 

[Chig]

Continue reading...

Certainly hope this is true and that it's a stacked CMOS sensor as well as BSI.

Ideally (bit of personal wish fulfilment here) Canon would make 3 cameras with this sensor:

• a flagship/pro model based on the R3 and priced between the R5 and the R3 (pretty unlikely but would be awesome)
• a 7Dii replacement based on the R6 and priced about the same as the R6 (reasonably likely and should be pretty popular)
• an ultra compact model similar to the M6ii (should be popular with M users and vloggers

Perhaps Canon might use this sensor in a new M mount camera too

Canon might also make a cheaper RF model using the sensor from the M6ii/90D

Be interesting to see what Canon actually decide to produce

 

[Chig]

It may be a "little R3". Same like the 7D was a small 1D. Then the BSI would make sense for super fast read-out

BSI improves light capture (because of the wiring not blocking the light) but not read out speeds , a stacked sensor improves read out speeds.
Lets hope the sensor is both BSI and stacked CMOS

 

[jolyonralph]

Eos - m , finally completely death. ( if they will not come out with competition to DJI pocket )

The 7D market is not the same as the EOS-M market, and there's very little crossover. I don't think this spells death for the EOS-M in particular. Let's wait and see. There's still nothing that can replace the EOS-M in terms of low-cost, compact, mirrorless APS-C lenses.