You can do the same thing re: reach with a high MP full frame body and cropping while also having way more flexibility than that single use case at the same time. Even cost isn't a good argument when you can buy a 5DsR for $1499 brand new or a 5Ds refurb for $1050I would certainly be interested in a crop R series camera. In the past year I've started doing Birds and BIF and tried a number of camera lens combinations. The main locations where I have been able to shoot keep me a fair distance from the birds, so I ultimately chose the Olympus 100-400mm lens to use on my E-m1 II, giving me the equivalent 200-800mm reach. The Canon 100-400 paired with an R6 I was able to use did not give me enough reach. The new RF 100-500 was a very impressive lens but beyond my budget (especially as I would need a new R series camera to go with it.) Tried an M6 II, but way too small for my taste when paired with any non-M lens.
I know lots of folks on forums don't get the appeal of an APS-C R camera. It's about reach. You don't need special "crop R" lenses. It's about reach.
I know nothing about product development or product strategy but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.
No idea if that's how it commonly plays out, but it is definitely how it played out for me, and I within my ultra tiny sample set, I can say that most of the full frame users I know ended up upgrading from an APS-C body to full frame within the same manufacturer in order to maintain access to a lens that also worked for full frame. Looking over other manufacturers ranges and outside of RF specifically, I think there are a few good candidates for lenses people may buy while owning an APS-C camera and wanting to keep as they go into full frame. For instance, the Sigma/Tamron super zooms are pretty reasonable and not uncommon to see on a crop body, and similarly with Nikon's 200-500. Replicating that relationship on RF may hold some potential for encouraging buyers to stay within the ecosystem.I assume the strategy you describe is what canon is banking on, but I wonder if that’s how it commonly plays out. If I was a GM in canon I would question throwing out the investment made in developing EOS M, in the hope of developing upgraders path. That definitely worked for EF-S to EF but will it still play in today’s market?
You have an RF 70-200 2.8 and you need more reach - one solution is a tele converter, the over one is to use a camera with a smaller sensor. I think this is one reason to do that.
Agreed. Expecially since the RF 70-200 doesn't accept extenders. I have an R5, 5D IV and 7D II, which is aging. Granted, it will be a long time before I replace my fullish EF lens kitty, but eventually, maybe. It would be nice to not have to use the EF-R adaptor, and simplify things. But the $ involved? A lot! I did splurge and got the above lens and 24-105 f/4 when I got the R5, my first ever mirrorless. It ain't perfect, but it's danged good. still learning it!! (Both those RF lenses duplicated my 2 EF's.. though my 24-70 f/2.8 Tammy G2 is faster and has less zoom range, and is big..but danged good! )
Agreed, Adrian.... if they do replace it, hoping it has two card slots. But, come to think of it, I only use one... as I am usually not on any kind of shoot where I would be badly upset if I lost any images.Canon have let the amateur nature photographers badly. The 7Dii has never been replaced. They now have an opportunity - to stick a crop sensor like the one in the M6ii in an R6, concentrate on stills and lower the movie spec.
Yes, but those options would require lenses that aren't in a person's quiver, unless he shoots either already....APS-C RF mount is 100% upsell marketing strategy and makes zero practical sense. It's the hope they they will sell someone a cheap RF mount aps-c and that person will invest in expensive RF lenses - then eventually an expensive full frame RF body. Trying to recreate their EF-S marketing upsell strategy in other words
The main difference and problem is EF-M and options from other brands are a much smarter small sensor choice than RF APS-C if you know what you are doing
But there isn't any advantage to APS-C for an existing RF owner, so no reason to buy. R6 owner better off selling their R6 for an R5 rather than adding apsc - and R5 owners can crop and get the same effect while also being able to not crop for other purposes which obv apsc can't doYes, but those options would require lenses that aren't in a person's quiver, unless he shoots either already....
I also have no idea why the heck a person would want a Canon aps-c when the RP is $999. Do people really want to save some cash so bad they downgrade to a massively inferior sensor? I am on a fixed income of $600 a month, and I won't touch an aps-c; I will buy a used full frame before I buy a brand new aps-c. I guess people who have never shot with full frame and always owned rebels are ok with the inferioprity not knowing better, but I think it is still madness for Canon to make one. A $700 aps-c RF REBEL vs. a $999 RP full frame, with the RP still having more features? GTFO, I will pay the extra $300 every time so I have a "big boy camera." I stopped using point-n-shoots and aps-c when I decided that my images matter.I know nothing about product development or product strategy but I don’t get an rf aps-c strategy.
They have a perfectly good aps-c system, just make more lenses for that, because you are hardly going to sell 85mm f1.2 lenses to an aps-c buyer….
If down the track said buyer upgrades to full frame they are going to buy new lenses anyway so changing mount won’t really hurt them.
Deleting the video features would not reduce the cost of making the camera as these are just software programs so it would still be an expensive camera sadly . Personally video is of little interest to me though.they should re-release R6 for 1000$ less with only photography features ( no 4k 60 , no10bit and with only 1080p 60 fps at 8bit )