Now we see through a glass, darkly...
- Apr 5, 2016
This is not a great argument, either. If you can afford the latest and greatest bodies and lenses, then the extra cost should not be much issue (and this aps-c RF is not going to be cheap if it's any good, by the way)
RF mount stuff is not a good deal right now. I just upgraded to two brand new full warranty 51MP 5DsR bodies for $3000 total, which allows me to buy another EF L-grade lens also and still come in below the R5 for all all that. If you have a price target to hit, this is smarter and functionally easier than buying a crop sensor for one of your two main bodies IMO. Even if another EF lens is never made again, the EF lens selection is still overall better than RF right now and will probably stay that way for at least a few years.
I read somewhere that Canon like to design the breaking point into the accessory to prevent damage to the hot shoe on the camera. My EVF-DC2 feels flimsy enough for me to believe that, but I wouldn't trust in it.[..] The obvious problem with using an M6 Mark II for this use case is the fact that the first time you get clocked on the sidelines (it occasionally happens) that EVF will rip the hot shoe right off the top of the camera.
The fps limit doesn't apply to the 45mp R5 as it is just as fast as the 7D2. So again, a 45mp R5 would be a better choice than a crop RF. Also, if they make an RF version of the 7D2 it is not going to be cheap. The only thing that will be cheap is if they make a RF version of the Rebel/xxD, and if that is the case they will be sure to gimp it some way so that is undesirable to pros.
Re: 5DsR I don't find the fps limiting for my use cases. I had a 7D2 and found while the 10fps was neat 99.9% of the time it just resulted in more duplicates to go through I didn't need. While capability for 10fps is better, 5fps has not created any barrier for me - and that is probably the case for most people TBH. On the other hand, having two identical 51MP bodies makes lens selection and change coordination a lot easier, with the knowledge that either body can be the equivalent of a highly detailed FF or a long reach crop.
I am not sure why you think Canon is going to give you 32MP sensor (APS-C or not) in a mirrorless camera - with pro-level features no less - when the 20MP R6 is $2499 and Canon still has on tap the ability to upsell people on a more expensive R5, future R3, future R5s, or future R1 (all with cropping modes). Canon will always try to lure you to buy the more expensive option by sabotaging some element of the cheaper lines - so I would not be surprised if the first APS-C is more in line with the 7D2's sensor density and 90D's featureset (+mirrorless). You might say "but the 90D is already much higher in density than the 7D2!" Sure, but even the 6D2 is higher in density than the R6, and that didn't stop Canon from putting a lower MP sensor in the R6 years later for product differentiation purposes from the R5.Again, 5 fps is not remotely realistic when shooting sports in 2021.
Again, 50MP cropped to 19.5 MP is not realistic in 2021 when better 32 MP APS-C sensors already exist.
The biggest problem with the 90D is that the OVF AF system is not any better than the 80D was, and significantly worse than the 7D Mark II. The other problem is the slower, less durable shutter rated for only 120,000 actuations (compared to the 7D Mark II's 200,000 shutter rating) packaged in an overall less durable body.
The obvious problem with using an M6 Mark II for this use case is the fact that the first time you get clocked on the sidelines (it occasionally happens) that EVF will rip the hot shoe right off the top of the camera.
There is a very big difference now that makes those 17yr of market data very much less relevant
Namely, most people who bought an APS-C Rebel to begin with (vast majority of APS-C sales) bought it because it was the cheapest camera that offered more "pro" photos than their point and shoot or poor phone camera.
But now people are upgrading from an excellent smartphone camera, not a point and shoot. And, now there are systems that are going to be a lot cheaper than RF while also having much smaller lenses since the RF mount needs to accommodate FF lenses. These smaller systems are more attractive to people used to carrying a tiny phone around as their camera.
If they are educated on the alternatives, most of the people who bought a Rebel will likely *not* elect to buy an RF APS-C as there will be other smaller and cheaper aps-c and m43 options that have that same "pro" upgrade over their smartphone
Small, light, and cheap is what made mirrorless take off in general. The RF mount by being stuck with accommodating full frame lenses will likely always be beat in all three of these categories by competitors, it's simple physics from the larger mount.
I read somewhere that Canon like to design the breaking point into the accessory to prevent damage to the hot shoe on the camera. My EVF-DC2 feels flimsy enough for me to believe that, but I wouldn't trust in it.
So make up your mind. Is it the cheap 5Ds (which are all gone now, and have been for a while, by the way) or the $3,900 R5?
I think you are still thinking that Canon is going to give you a top tier APS-C sensor with top tier featureset in a mirrorless body for similar pricing to the R6. I just don't see that. They would prefer you to spend the extra grand (or more) on the R5 or future R3, R5s, R1. Anything like what you describe likely won't be available until all of the aforementioned sales have been fully milked - I am guessing the first RF mount APS-C will be more like a mirrorless 90D with a 20MP APS-C sensor knowing Canon's typical marketing tradeoffs and timings. Just like the R6 has a lower density sensor than the 5D4 and 6D2, I would expect the same out of the first RF APS-C sensor vs its DSLR counterparts.Either way you're still thinking that because something might be a better choice for you and your use cases that makes it a better choice for everyone. I'm not saying an R7 would be better for you. I'm saying it would be better for me and those who shoot the same things I shoot.
As we've already said, cropping the 45 MP R5 to APS-C only gives 17 MP at a time when a very good 32 MP APS-C sensor already exists in Canon's catalog.
20 MP APS-C was exceptional when the 22 MP 5D Mark III was the highest resolution FF body in the catalog. But it's not 2014 any more.
And for the dozenth or so time, it's not the low cost of the 7D Mark II (which admittedly was very nice) that made it so attractive. It was not having to buy a $6,100 EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II instead of being able to use lenses I already have that makes it such a great solution.
The advantage of an identical body is that you don't have to coordinate lens swaps. Meaning if I have a 35mm lens f/2 on one camera and an 85mm f/1.8 on another camera, in the heat of the moment (like an event, etc) I dont even have to think about "this camera is the FF long camera, this camera is the cropped short camera, etc", I can swap either one and get the same results and can continue to do so unabated. Similarly, identical high MP bodies can function either as a reach or close-up camera, so no worries there either. When the sensors are totally different types that is not the case.As to the "identical body" thing: the 5D Mark III, 5D Mark IV, and 7D Mark II can all be set up to operate identically. Yes, there are some options one offers that the other do not. But the buttons are in the same places and there are enough of the same menu options in each of them to set up a very usable camera with the same options selected for all three. I'd expect that an R7 would be equally similar to the R6 and R5 in that respect.
I am not sure why you think Canon is going to give you 32MP sensor (APS-C or not) in a mirrorless camera - with pro-level features no less - when the 20MP R6 is $2499 and Canon still has on tap the ability to upsell people on a more expensive R5, future R3, future R5s, or future R1 (all with cropping modes). Canon will always try to lure you to buy the more expensive option by sabotaging some element of the cheaper lines - so I would not be surprised if the first APS-C is more in line with the 7D2's sensor density and 90D's featureset (+mirrorless). You might say "but the 90D is already much higher in density than the 7D2!" Sure, but even the 6D2 is higher in density than the R6, and that didn't stop Canon from putting a lower MP sensor in the R6 years later for product differentiation purposes from the R5.
You can still buy a 5DsR brand new from B&H to this day. I just got a 2nd one delievered last week I ordered a couple of weeks ago. Both options are still viable, the 5DsR is not long gone. If you put in a backorder now, you will definitely get it as they are still making them (at a slower rate), it just might take a few weeks: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119027-REG/canon_0582c002_eos_5ds_r_dslr.html
Except for the fact that if my (theoretical at this point) R5or R6 already has an RF 24-70/2.8 hanging on it, which I need at the same time as a camera with a fast telephoto lens on it, I now have to buy another $3,900 R5 and a $6,100 300/2.8 +EF to RF adapter (because there is no RF 300mm f/2.8 yet - when it does come out I'll be surprised if it is less than $8K) or I can buy a less expensive APS-C RF body and use the RF 70-200/2.8 I already use with the R5/R6 for other purposes on the APS-C body while using the 24-70/2.8 on the single R5 or R6.
It's not 2014 any more. Just as the bar has been raised for FF resolution, the bar has been raised for APS-C resolution. The excellent 32 MP APS-C sensor already exists.Either way, both of them are super high resolution sensors that will allow you to crop to the equivalent of a 7D2 - but even better, you also have the ability to crop a much larger area than APS-C, which APS-C cannot do and can never do!
I think you are still thinking that Canon is going to give you a top tier APS-C sensor with top tier featureset in a mirrorless body for similar pricing to the R6. I just don't see that. They would prefer you to spend the extra grand (or more) on the R5 or future R3, R5s, R1. Anything like what you describe likely won't be available until all of the aforementioned sales have been fully milked - I am guessing the first RF mount APS-C will be more like a mirrorless 90D with a 20MP APS-C sensor knowing Canon's typical marketing tradeoffs and timings. Just like the R6 has a lower density sensor than the 5D4 and 6D2, I would expect the same out of the first RF APS-C sensor vs its DSLR counterparts.
The R5s is apparently going to be able to take 200MP photos. Even cropped to APS-C size, it will dwarf the density of a 32MP APS-C sensor using the same lens. I think the MP density from an R5 cropped is probably what the density of the first mirrorless RF APS-C camera will be. It is too soon for Canon to cannibalize the more costly market when they still have yet the R5s, R3, and R1 to sell.
The advantage of an identical body is that you don't have to coordinate lens swaps. Meaning if I have a 35mm lens f/2 on one camera and an 85mm f/1.8 on another camera, in the heat of the moment (like an event, etc) I dont even have to think about "this camera is the FF long camera, this camera is the cropped short camera, etc", I can swap either one and get the same results and can continue to do so unabated. Similarly, identical high MP bodies can function either as a reach or close-up camera, so no worries there either. When the sensors are totally different types that is not the case.
You are doing it wrongHot off the presses less than five minutes ago:
View attachment 198296
View attachment 198297
The 5Ds has been showing "no longer available" for a while. I did consider buying one at $1,199. (But not for use as a 7D Mark II replacement)
The 5Ds R has been showing "request stock alert" each time I've looked lately.
I've been waiting on a "stock alert" for an EF 35mm f/2 IS for at least three months and only keep getting the "we haven't forgotten you" email every 15 days.
Congratulations on getting lucky and catching one in stock.
No, it doesn't. As I stated, Nikon had that migration path. The point is that the vast majority of APS-C DSLR buyers were of the sort who bought a Rebel/xxxD body with a kit lens (or two-lens kit), and that's all they bought unless or until their camera broke, then they replaced it with the current equivalent product. That market segment has shrunk, but those are the people buying an EOS M body with a kit lens and nothing else, and that remains the largest segment of ILC buyers (note that largest segment doesn't necessarily equate with greatest profitability, that is a numbers game involving unit sold and cost of goods).Given the migration path Canon hasn't provided, your argument backs up my suspicion they made the wrong call.
So in your mind, Canon's introduction of autofocus and electronic aperture control in a new mount was a quantum leap, but Nikon's addition of autofocus and electronic aperture control to the existing F-mount was not? Your username may be SwissFrank, but your logic has more holes than a wheel of Emmental.You seem to forget what a quantum leap the all-electronic EF mount was, and may not have been around while Canon shooters were dismayed that their entire outfit was outdated at the stroke of a pen. Even in the mid-90s, 8 years later, I met photogs that said they felt raped by Canon and moved from FD not to EF but to Nikon in response.
Thanks for substantiating my point. Canon made a change to a new mount, incompatible with the previous one, and succeeded. The RF mount is a new FF MILC mount, incompatible with the previous APS-C MILC mount, but you're arguing that's a mistake. More of that Swiss cheese logic.And yet the superiority of the mount made it ultimately worth it, as Canon's share of the pro market went from 25% to 90% if I recall correctly.
The M lenses are a uniform diameter, and the mount is optimized for a small camera/lens combination. As I stated, making it bigger is contrary to Canon's stated design philosophy for the M line – in which small size is a very large part.In contrast there's no corresponding compelling technical reason to move from EF-M to RF mounts, when the EF-M mount could have BEEN the RF mount. And yet we have endless speculation on this very forum of Canon releasing small-sensor RF cameras that would be nothing more than M cameras with an extra couple mm of film-to-flange.
Launching an APS-C EOS R will not prove you right. The R line is targeted at high-end buyers, and some of them may be interested in a 7-series approach to 'more reach' (the fallaciousness of that argument did not stop people here claiming the 7DII has more reach than the 5Ds because the former is APS-C). If they launch an APS-C EOS R, they'll launch an RF-S 17/18-xx kit lens with it, and an RF-S 10/11-xx UWA zoom, too. But unless they're going to sell an APS-C EOS R + lens kit for <$1,000, it is absolutely not a replacement for the EOS M. Only replacing the EOS M line with a similarly inexpensive EOS R APS-C lineup would prove you right. Don't hold your breath.I'm not positive but I think I've seen at least a few Canon patents of lenses with the RF film-to-flange distance but small-sensor image circles.
Time will tell. If Canon introduces a small-sensor RF body, that will prove me right and prove you wrong. Especially if they discontinue the EF-M product line at that time.
So if they'd have gotten the lens sale anyway, why make the mounts compatible? Consider it from the other perspective – Canon sells you a FF body and says you can use your APS-C lenses on it, you do and you aren't happy with the results, so you abandon the system.> People are dying to buy lenses? If so, an incompatible mount means Canon sells one more lens.
No, because even with compatible mounts, they'd sell another lens anyway. So the incompatible mount doesn't give Canon a NET sale, rather only a sale they'd have gotten anyway.
If you increase flange focal distance by 10%, you're going to have a thicker camera. The EF-M mount has a 47mm throat diameter, the RF mount has a 54 mm throat diameter. Look at the M2, where the distance from the edge of the mount to the edge of the camera is ~2mm at the top and <1mm at the bottom, and tell me that increasing the throat diameter by 7mm would not increase the size of the camera. All of the EF-M lenses have a uniform 60.9mm diameter. Making the mount bigger would necessitate bigger lenses. Canon cann'a change the laws of physics. I didn't think spelling out these details was necessary for you to understand that a bigger mount means bigger cameras and lenses, but I was wrong.> Your suggestion that the EF-M mount could have been bigger to match future RF would mean bigger M bodies and bigger M lenses.
Which lens? Which body? How much bigger? At what cost to sales? You may be right, but give me details on this if you're calling me a liar in front of the world.
An RP replacement under $700 would definitely have me buy back into the Canon R system. I sold my entire kit some time ago. I would love a full frame M6 basically. No EVF, bigger battery, smaller than RP.
But if it's RP-sized and has an EVF, I'll still get it. But I think to get the cost down, EVF has to go. i hardly use it anyway. For fun photography, I never had a problem with LCD only. Shot my M6 everywhere like that, not a single issue. EVFs have their use in sunny situations but I feel they're mostly a throwback to the 1950s. If cameras never existed before and humans designed them from scratch, I doubt an EVF would EVFs would be thing. Throw on a good bright screen and there's no need for an EVF. Take a look at our phones.
Sure I guess for shooting in really harsh sun, an EVF can be a nice handy feature but that's really only so you can find someone's eye/face. but if the camera is smart enough, do you need it?
It's not 2014 any more. Just as the bar has been raised for FF resolution, the bar has been raised for APS-C resolution. The excellent 32 MP APS-C sensor already exists.
If so, most of the 7D Mark II crowd will pass on the R7, and I'm pretty sure Canon knows this.
The other option you ignored for potential buyers is to just keep using their 7D Mark II bodies until they break and can't be fixed. Many of us could justify the cost of an R7 if it were offered at $2500-3000, but can't justify an extra R5 body from a cost-benefit ratio. There's not enough money shooting local high school and little league sports to spend that kind of dough on equipment any more.
I think these are high hopes. I fully expect Canon will instead attempt to sell through all of their expensive full frame mirrorless cameras that can be used for sports before offering people a cheaper alternative. That would be the best way to maximize profit and usually how Canon rolls.I'd expect if this camera comes to fruition, it will be in an R6 level body with R6 level features and AF, but with a higher density sensor ala the 32 MP APS-C sensor Canon already has. I'd expect it will sell for marginally more than the R6 (at introduction). I'd also expect it to sell like the R6 and R5 are selling. I think Canon knows this, too.
It's definitely possible physically , it just depends how powerful of a professor they put in it how fast the fps will be.The R5s might be able to take multi-exposure 200MP photos using pixel shift. No one in their right mind expects it to be able to take single frames at 200 MP in high speed burst mode for sports shooting.
And you see no benefit for the 70-200 of having effective 70-320mm range instead of 112-320 without requiring a lens swap? Or that you could be using the 70-200 for portraits and then immediately use it for a reach shot while using the same body? Or the ability for the 70-200 to be both a reach lens and a portrait lens while the other camera can be used with a 16-35? The benefits of high MP is extreme flexibility that APS-C lacks.Why would anyone need to coordinate lens swaps? The longest lens always goes on the APS-C body and the shorter lenses always goes on the FF body in the FF + APS-C shooting scenario. What's to swap?
I NEVER use the 7D Mark II with any lens other than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. Ever.
Okay, I admit I have done AFMA calibration with my longer primes (135/2, 135/2+1.4X III, 100/2) and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 on the 7D Mark II in case of an emergency when I'm somewhere with only one FF body and the 7D II and either the FF body or the 70-200 craps out on me, but I've never actually shot anything other than test charts and other test objects in my yard with the 7D Mark II and any lens other than the 70-200mm. Ever.
Every other lens I have goes on one of my FF bodies. It's really not that hard.
I had a few contretemps with dear Frank, he doesn't like physics or demonstrable facts, so much so that he now blocks me. I suspect you will get some peace and quiet soon as you will be blocked by him too
You are doing it wrong
The 5DS is long gone for a while (other than Canon refurb), but the 5DsR is still being made brand new but in small batches.
See the big blue "ADD TO CART" button for the 5DsR? Press that, put on backorder and you will get it delivered in about a month. You are not going to get a "stock alert" because B&H is taking backorders and just filling them as stock comes in (so no free stock ever shows up).
I backordered one 5DsR body on 4/8/21 and it was shipped on 5/14/21.
I backordered a second 5DsR body on 5/19/21 and it was shipped on 6/9/21.
At no point were these ever shown "in stock" on the B&H website as I had an alert set up and it never triggered.
So if you want one, backorder it and it will come in 3-5 weeks just like the website says.
Yeah granted I used a CC so it didn't get charged until ship date.I'm glad that works for you. I rarely leave that much money in any account attached to a debit card until immediately before I make a purchase. I don't do credit cards at all. Not knowing when they are going to submit the transaction until after the fact means I won't be ordering things that way.