After the EOS R3, Canon will introduce new “affordable” RF mount cameras [CR1]

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
413
494
Orewa , New Zealand
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 $1050
5 fps is the maximum frame rate with the 5DsR and not very good autofocus compared with my 7Dii and 50mp cropped is only 20mp.
Personally for shooting birds in flight my 7Dii is much better and what I'd like to see is a R7 based on the R3 integrated vertical grip body with a cropped stacked sensor of between 30 and 35mp and I'd be happy to pay similar price to the R6 for one or even more if it's really good and I suspect many other wildlife and sports shooters would too.
 

Madbox

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
12
25
Portland, OR
Nope. I can't imagine anything truly affordable about a RF mount camera. You might get a cheap body, but then you have to buy lenses, and those certainly aren't cheap in the RF mount by Canon. Release the damned EOS M5 Mark II so we don't have to lug around heavy RF mount glass bricks. If that can't happen then be done with it and let Fuji eat your lunch.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
413
494
Orewa , New Zealand
I have the sneaking suspicion that most of those who criticize the M format at APS-C sensors etc etc etc...have never used the EOS M6 Mark II.

It is a wonderful camera.

Especially for street photography...when mated to either the 22mm or 11-22mm IS lenses...the size and volume and weight and picture quality offered by either of these combinations is, IMHO, 'tied for first' at least...with any other system.

The ignorance on display in some of the posts here is at times startling...I sincerely hope it is not willful ignorance.
I agree that the M6 ii is great for street / travel photography but it's not well suited to what I do which is bird photography and I'm hoping for an R7 camera very similar to the R3 with a cropped stacked sensor of about 30-35mp , no ibis , no AA filter and a similar price to the R6
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stig Nygaard

Madbox

I'm New Here
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
12
25
Portland, OR
The fact that the M6II with the 18-150 that my wife has provides essentially the same field of view as my RP and 24-240 is pretty impressive as a small kit with a lot of range and image quality.

That said, I think based on the target market (as I perceive it), the M’s really don’t need a ton of lenses. I’d like something that extends to at least 300 that breaks the supposed barrel diameter rule, and maybe a 60mm macro. But beyond that, I’m not sure how many more lenses that group needs. I’m guessing most M owners are two or three lens people anyway. Most M owners don’t post on forums like these.
I think I'm at 6 M mount lenses, a converted EF, and a couple converted Pentax. I get some damned good quality pictures, and I don't have to haul much heavier glass up a mountain. Using an RF mount camera doesn't make anyone a rockstar professional photographer who requires assistants and a van to haul their toys around. Using an M mount camera doesn't make you dull as a stump.
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
297
662
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 $1050
Why do you think a FF camera has more flexibility than a crop camera? My main camera is a M4/3rds camera. The only time I shoot with my FF is for low light situations. My crop camera is better for wildlife and close up /macro. For most landscapes, the greater DOF with crop is also an advantage for me. Both formats work equally well for all daylight shooting. So each has some advantages and disadvantages, but I wouldn't consider FF to be more flexible or a crop camera to be "single use". Presumably a new Canon R crop camera would use their 32 MP sensor. There is no Canon FF camera that comes close to this pixel density (82 MP in FF terms). So, no, you can not do the same thing with any Canon high MP FF body.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
501
488
they should re-release R6 for 1000$ less with only photography features ( no 4k 60 , no10bit and with only 1080p 60 fps at 8bit )
But that would only make about a $100 difference in the price, not $1000. Once you have a camera that shoots at high frame rates, adding video is almost totally a firmware addition. You may need a bit more processing power and maybe a bigger FPGA, but $100 is an outside number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,438
5,657
Why do you think a FF camera has more flexibility than a crop camera? My main camera is a M4/3rds camera. The only time I shoot with my FF is for low light situations. My crop camera is better for wildlife and close up /macro. For most landscapes, the greater DOF with crop is also an advantage for me. Both formats work equally well for all daylight shooting. So each has some advantages and disadvantages, but I wouldn't consider FF to be more flexible or a crop camera to be "single use". Presumably a new Canon R crop camera would use their 32 MP sensor. There is no Canon FF camera that comes close to this pixel density (82 MP in FF terms). So, no, you can not do the same thing with any Canon high MP FF body.
For most people and uses you can do anything with a FF camera you can with a crop camera, the opposite is not true.

Now as always there are caveats, the main one raised in this forum is the reach limited scenario where you don’t have a long enough lens and are cropping a crop camera image so the pixel density isn’t there in a cropped ff image. The counter to that is if you want narrow apertures and shallow dof then finding them in crop lens options is harder and in some cases not possible.

As for more dof with a crop camera, that is fallacious, crop the ff image with the same aperture to the same fov and the dof is the same, or use a deeper aperture and a higher iso for the same dof and noise levels.

Smaller size and weight, and lower cost are other advantages of a crop camera, but the only photographic technicality they have is pixel density and then only if you are ’reach limited’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
297
662
For most people and uses you can do anything with a FF camera you can with a crop camera, the opposite is not true.

Now as always there are caveats, the main one raised in this forum is the reach limited scenario where you don’t have a long enough lens and are cropping a crop camera image so the pixel density isn’t there in a cropped ff image. The counter to that is if you want narrow apertures and shallow dof then finding them in crop lens options is harder and in some cases not possible.

As for more dof with a crop camera, that is fallacious, crop the ff image with the same aperture to the same fov and the dof is the same, or use a deeper aperture and a higher iso for the same dof and noise levels.

Smaller size and weight, and lower cost are other advantages of a crop camera, but the only photographic technicality they have is pixel density and then only if you are ’reach limited’.
Well, after taking many close up photos of flowers for over 30 years, I would say that you can not get many of the same photos with a FF camera that you get with a crop camera. Yes, your statement is correct, that if you crop the FF image to the same FOV the DOF is the same. Of course, what you fail to mention is that with a crop camera and an FF camera, you are usually not (if ever) standing in the same place, with the same distance to the subject and the same proportionate distances between subject and background. In many cases, yes I can get enough DOF to capture let's say 2 or 3 flowers at slightly different distances in focus with an FF camera if I go to f/18 or f/22, but then I can not get an adequate shutter speed. Similarly with a landscape, where you want the most DOF to get, let's say some flowers in the foreground around 30-32 inches from your camera, as well as your subject let's say 20 feet away, both in focus. With my Olympus crop I can get the shot at f/10 with my 12mm lens. My FF camera with my equivalent 24mm lens needs f/20 to get the shot. No tripod, probably no shot.

I would not say that these are some sort of extreme examples. Nor is the need for more reach. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems in my opinion. I see nothing outrageous in that opinion.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
991
787
For me an affordable full frame camera with IBIS would be interesting. I do not care about a high frame rate at all. Three frames per second are okay for me. If there was such a camera for $1000, I would buy it and also buy the 800mm f/11 lens. Even APS-C combined with 800mm would be interesting. Imagine how much reach it will give you. Having IBIS and the option for a cheap 800mm lens are the only advantage I see in the mirrorless system. It would only be my second body though.
I do not expect IBIS in any entry-level Canon camera.
For full-frame $2,000 might be that line but that also depends on the competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
991
787
I agree that the M6 ii is great for street / travel photography but it's not well suited to what I do which is bird photography and I'm hoping for an R7 camera very similar to the R3 with a cropped stacked sensor of about 30-35mp , no ibis , no AA filter and a similar price to the R6
The combination of no IBIS and no AA filter will probably not happen since Canon has a patent to perform AA using IBIS like Pentax currently does.
You can turn them both off when you do not need them which seems like the best of both worlds.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
991
787
Why do you think a FF camera has more flexibility than a crop camera?
I think it is the opposite.
We can always add a focal reducer to a crop camera and turn it into a full-frame one.
The major trade-off is the switch from RF to EF lenses in full-frame mode but I will take that over cropped RF lenses.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
991
787
they should re-release R6 for 1000$ less with only photography features ( no 4k 60 , no10bit and with only 1080p 60 fps at 8bit )
I am not sure why people think 1080p would make everything so much cheaper with the high MP count of the sensor that we have today.
Getting 1080p out of a 30MP sensor is no easy task.
The bigger problem is that people whine so much about cropping.
 

Ruined

EOS R
Aug 22, 2013
930
59
Why do you think a FF camera has more flexibility than a crop camera? My main camera is a M4/3rds camera. The only time I shoot with my FF is for low light situations. My crop camera is better for wildlife and close up /macro. For most landscapes, the greater DOF with crop is also an advantage for me. Both formats work equally well for all daylight shooting. So each has some advantages and disadvantages, but I wouldn't consider FF to be more flexible or a crop camera to be "single use". Presumably a new Canon R crop camera would use their 32 MP sensor. There is no Canon FF camera that comes close to this pixel density (82 MP in FF terms). So, no, you can not do the same thing with any Canon high MP FF body.
It's not crop having no advantages over FF, its that RF APS-C having no advantages over either A) RF FF, or B) APS-C / m43 camera mount designed around its sensor size instead of FF sensor size

If you are already invested in RF with an R5/R6, the 45mp R5 can be cropped to APS-C size with no quality loss, and it also has the flexibility to be used at the FF sensor size. If you have the R6, you are better off trading it in for an R5 than buying a crop camera in addition to the R6.

If you don't have a camera yet and want crop, you are better off buying an APS-C or M4/3 camera whose lens mount does not have wasted space around the sensor like RF mount APS-C will, as that wasted space makes the lenses and camera unnecessarily larger.

Take a look at this RF mount R6 vs the Fuji APS-C . The APS-C RF is gonna have a ton of wasted space in comparison to camera mounts designed around a smaller sensor like the Fuji - because APS-C RF mount needs to be compatible with RF full frame lenses and will thus be about the same size as the R6's RF mount in this image in order to preserve that compatibility.
 

Attachments

  • r6fuj.png
    r6fuj.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 59
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,438
5,657
Well, after taking many close up photos of flowers for over 30 years, I would say that you can not get many of the same photos with a FF camera that you get with a crop camera. Yes, your statement is correct, that if you crop the FF image to the same FOV the DOF is the same. Of course, what you fail to mention is that with a crop camera and an FF camera, you are usually not (if ever) standing in the same place, with the same distance to the subject and the same proportionate distances between subject and background. In many cases, yes I can get enough DOF to capture let's say 2 or 3 flowers at slightly different distances in focus with an FF camera if I go to f/18 or f/22, but then I can not get an adequate shutter speed. Similarly with a landscape, where you want the most DOF to get, let's say some flowers in the foreground around 30-32 inches from your camera, as well as your subject let's say 20 feet away, both in focus. With my Olympus crop I can get the shot at f/10 with my 12mm lens. My FF camera with my equivalent 24mm lens needs f/20 to get the shot. No tripod, probably no shot.

I would not say that these are some sort of extreme examples. Nor is the need for more reach. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems in my opinion. I see nothing outrageous in that opinion.
But as so often happens you are not fully adjusting for equivalence which does account for your examples and does take into account perspective (your position relative to the subject and background).

" In many cases, yes I can get enough DOF to capture let's say 2 or 3 flowers at slightly different distances in focus with an FF camera if I go to f/18 or f/22, but then I can not get an adequate shutter speed."
In that instance you raise the iso to get the same shutter speed, the increased sensor size means your noise characteristics are the same in both crop and FF shots and because you use the same shutter speed for the same exposure but enlarge the image less with the FF image you actually have less camera shake in the FF image.

Your second example is the same, just raise the iso to use the same shutter speed, the images are identical.

There is nothing you can do with a crop camera you can't replicate with equivalence with a FF camera, except the focal length limited pixel density.

I never said there wasn't value to smaller sensored systems, indeed I listed several advantage you didn't, but image flexibility is not one of them and that was the point I was replying to.
 
Last edited:

Ruined

EOS R
Aug 22, 2013
930
59
5 fps is the maximum frame rate with the 5DsR and not very good autofocus compared with my 7Dii and 50mp cropped is only 20mp.
Personally for shooting birds in flight my 7Dii is much better and what I'd like to see is a R7 based on the R3 integrated vertical grip body with a cropped stacked sensor of between 30 and 35mp and I'd be happy to pay similar price to the R6 for one or even more if it's really good and I suspect many other wildlife and sports shooters would too.
sure, more fps is more better, just like more resolution is more better. 51mp 1.6x cropped is "only" 20mp, yes, which is the same resolution as the 7D2 and hence the point.

i have had no issues with 5fps and birds though. I had a 7d2 and never felt i needed its 10fps even though it sounded cool. But there is a problem with your argument, 'cause the R5 already got 12fps. And then what happens when the 200mp R5s comes out? Even cropped to 1.6x this would obliterate a 35mp crop sensor. APS-C RF mount just seems the wrong direction (other than to upsell people), high MP FF makes a lot more sense if you want "reach" with RF lenses. APS-C should be reserved for smaller lenses, with a smaller mount that doesn't have to support full frame diameter lenses - basically like Fuji does. And the APS-C-tailored smaller mount that Fuji uses does not prevent them from also have long telephotos i.e. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1388817-REG/fujifilm_xf_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6_r.html

The 7d2 AF is great, but the 5dsr is no slouch since it uses 5d3 base AF with some added AF tweaks from the 1DX.

I decided against rebuying the 7d2 when I was getting back into long telephoto photography because i need an extra 5fps a whole lot less than the versatility of a full frame sensor. I could see 10fps being useful for a pro sports photographer who needs that single frame where the runner is crossing the tape. Otherwise, I just found a ton of near duplicate images to sift through.

Back on topic, APS-C RF mount seemless pointless other than an upsell tactic - and I guess for people who have an aversion to high MP FF cameras for some odd reason. Canon should come out with something to compete with smaller APS-C-tailored mount cameras that would be more useful, but they probably don't want to spend the money maintaining both RF and a complete mirrorless APS-C lens set in addition to the EF stragglers like myself.

Can you guess which camera is using a full frame mount and which one is using a APS-C reduced diameter mount? Before you cry foul that the R6 is FF, the 7D2 wasnt significantly different in size from its FF counterparts.
 

Attachments

  • tele.png
    tele.png
    664.4 KB · Views: 65
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,415
2,278
I have the sneaking suspicion that most of those who criticize the M format at APS-C sensors etc etc etc...have never used the EOS M6 Mark II.

It is a wonderful camera.

Especially for street photography...when mated to either the 22mm or 11-22mm IS lenses...the size and volume and weight and picture quality offered by either of these combinations is, IMHO, 'tied for first' at least...with any other system.

The ignorance on display in some of the posts here is at times startling...I sincerely hope it is not willful ignorance.
I own an R5 and an M6-II.

I actually use the M6-II more often.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS R
Sep 20, 2020
991
787
The APS-C RF is gonna have a ton of wasted space in comparison to camera mounts designed around a smaller sensor like the Fuji
What you call wasted space I call room for more IBIS.
The R5 IBIS is next level in APS-C crop mode but that comes at the expense of a lot lower resolution than a native APS-C sensor would have.
The R5 and R6 probably have the best IBIS on any full-frame camera but APS-C mode is something else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark