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

[Michael Clark]

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.

Which is exactly why a low end APS-C RF mount camera for new photographers makes a lot less sense than a higher end APS-C RF mount camera for those who also own FF EOS Rx cameras and either EF or RF telephoto lenses.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

Hmmm. Maybe. I'm trying to find a picture I have seen of a perfectly good EF 300mm f/2.8 still attached to the mount ring and light box that it pulled completely out the front of a 1D X.

 

[Ruined]

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?

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

Regarding "which one," that is up to the priorities of the user. I was willing to take the 5fps and axe the mirrorless featureset in order to acquire two 51MP bodies and a lens for the price of a single R5. Other people who want the mirrorless featureset, higher FPS, latest and greatest, etc, a single R5 might be a better option.

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!

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

The 6D and 6D Mark II, even with their lower grade body construction and shutters, were still more expensive at introduction than the 7D Mark II at introduction. But I don't think anyone is expecting a well specced R7 to be cheaper than the R6. I think the most likely possibility if we get a "7D replacement" in the RF mount will be a 30-35 MP sensor in an R6 type body for about the same price as the R6. Many of us, you not included, would find that very useful. It's OK if it's not the best solution for you.

How many times do I need to say this? "It's not the price of the R7 itself that makes the idea so attractive, it's not having to buy an RF300mm f/2.8 L IS that makes it so attractive." (Which is one reason I'm not completely convinced that we'll ever get that kind of an R7. But it will be nice for many of us if we do.)

If it's not for you, fine. But why do you keep insisting that what works best for you has to work best for the rest of us? Why do you keep arguing with me that you know better than I do what I want?

Also, any FF camera with the same pixel density as a 32-35 MP APS-C sensor (82-90 MP for FF) will not handle as fast as as a 32-35 MP APS-C camera can handle with the same generation of processing inside.

 

[Michael Clark]

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

Hot off the presses less than five minutes ago:





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.

 

[josephandrews222]

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.

I've found that an(adapted) EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS lens, when mated to the EOS M6 Mark II...yields quite acceptable results--both image quality and 'usability' are sufficient for my needs.

 

[mangobutter]

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?

 

[Michael Clark]

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!

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.

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.

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'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.

If it doesn't come to fruition, then maybe when our 7D Mark II bodies break we'll look at a different maker with a single telephoto lens in that other mount for use as our primary sports/action long body? Since we only use one lens with our 7D Mark II, it wouldn't be the unmitigated disaster you make it out to be to go to another mount for that tool with a singular use. Some folks kept their Canon stuff for everything else but replaced their 7D Mark II bodies with the Nikon D500 and a single Nikon telephoto lens before Nikon announced they were discontinuing the D500.

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 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.

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.

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.

 

[Ruined]

Hot 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.

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Given the migration path Canon hasn't provided, your argument backs up my suspicion they made the wrong call.

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).

Those buyers who want to upgrade to FF will need a different standard lens to go with their better camera, so mount compatibility is not really a big impediment, except for those who really can't afford a FF camera setup...and as I said, those customers are not of high value to Canon.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

How can anyone provide details on lost sales for the path not taken? But as I stated, Canon said small size is a big part of the M design philosophy, and bigger bodies and lenses are counter to that philosophy, which is reason enough to make the choices Canon made. Choices which gave them the #1 APS-C MILC lineup.

@SwissFrank Why is it that you continue ignoring the main point, which is the data-driven counter to your baseless claim that Canon gave no thought to the EF-M vs. RF mount designs? I suppose because you have realized you're wrong but are unable to admit it. Sad.

 

[Michael Clark]

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?

No matter how good IS, IBIS, or IS+IBIS is, one can always shoot static objects in low light with longer Tv using an eye level viewfinder held against the face than when holding the camera out in front of the body. Any technology that makes it easier to get a non-blurry photo holding the camera away from the body can also be used to allow even slower exposure times when holding a camera with more stability against one's face. Only when using a tripod mounted camera does using the rear LCD allow for slower exposure times if a wired or wireless remote shutter release is also used.

 

[Ruined]

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.

Again, the R6 came out with a lower resolution than the 6D2 while costing $1000 more years later. The fact a 32mp APS-C sensor exists doesn't mean it will be used.

If so, most of the 7D Mark II crowd will pass on the R7, and I'm pretty sure Canon knows this.

Based on their treatment of the 7 series as the red headed stepchild of the lineup, this slice of the market seems to be the absolute lowest priority for Canon

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.

The other option is to spend a bit more on an R5, R5s, R3, etc and this is what Canon wants you to do

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.

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.

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.

It's definitely possible physically , it just depends how powerful of a professor they put in it how fast the fps will be.

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.

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

@SwissFrank Why is it that you continue ignoring the main point, which is the data-driven counter to your baseless claim that Canon gave no thought to the EF-M vs. RF mount designs? I suppose because you have realized you're wrong but are unable to admit it. Sad.

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

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

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.

 

[Ruined]

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.

Yeah granted I used a CC so it didn't get charged until ship date.

 

[Maru]

You're ignoring 34 years worth of sales data for the EF mount, and 17 years worth of sale data for the EF-S mount.

For 17 years there has been a clear upgrade path from APS-C to FF EOS DSLRs. Canon knows exactly how much of what they have sold and for the most part knows who bought it.

If all people are dying to buy another lens, why has Canon only sold 1.4 EOS lenses for each EOS body they've sold over the past 34 years?

The vast majority of DSLR/MILC buyers buy one lens with the camera and that's it. Period.

The 0.4 lenses per 1 body have all been bought by a very small number of us that have bought 3-4 lenses (bought new) for each body we've bought new. Used purchases and sales make no difference whatsoever to Canon.

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 agree with your point and I think Canon has changed its policy to focus on people with a> completely pro, who can afford very costly gears or have lot of gears which they cant get rid off or b> who wants to stay with whatever they have till those are gone with aging c> beginner marker ..may be its because of what they want or may be because they started late on mirrorless and still struggling to speedup on middle tier

 

[Michael Clark]

Again, the R6 came out with a lower resolution than the 6D2 while costing $1000 more years later. The fact a 32mp APS-C sensor exists doesn't mean it will be used.

The EOS 6D Mark II debuted in 2017 at $1,900 in the U.S. and stayed at that price for well over one year. The EOS R6 is currently selling for $2,500 in the U.S. well less than one year after it began shipping. That's hardly a $1,000 dollar difference, especially when the value of $1,900 in 2017 equates to the value of $2,086 today.

Based on their treatment of the 7 series as the red headed stepchild of the lineup, this slice of the market seems to be the absolute lowest priority for Canon

I have no disagreement with that.

The other option is to spend a bit more on an R5, R5s, R3, etc and this is what Canon wants you to do

No, the other option is to spend nothing if it's going to cost one more to do something than the revenue that something generates and one isn't willing to do it at a loss.

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.

If that's the case, then we'll probably never see an R7.

It's definitely possible physically , it just depends how powerful of a professor they put in it how fast the fps will be.

Surely you're not suggesting that multiple images of a moving subject exposed in sequence combined into a very high megapixel single image will work for sports? Even if it could be done to image a moving target with several lower resolution exposures combined to produce a single 200MP frame, the processing demands of such a method would certainly prevent high frame rate continuous bursts for more than a handful of frames?

And you see no benefit for the 70-200 of having effective 70-320mm range instead of 112-320 without requiring a lens swap?

Nope. The angle of view at 70mm with an APS-C sensor picks up right were the angle of view from a 24-105mm on a FF ends.

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?

Nope. I don't do those kinds of posed portraits with off camera flashes on the sidelines of sporting events.

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?

I often use a 135mm f/2 for portraits (on FF). That's a narrower AoV than 70mm on APS-C. I don't find it restricting at all.

I rarely shoot portraits with multiple bodies, either. The setup for the lights and modifiers is different for shooting closer with a WA lens than it is for shooting further out with a telephoto. So it's not just a question of grabbing another body with a much wider lens on it. It's also a question of rearranging the lighting.

The benefits of high MP is extreme flexibility that APS-C lacks.

There are also benefits of using APS-C for specific shooting situations that cropping a FF camera lacks. Sometimes flexibility is not needed as much as a specific tool for a specific job is needed. It's the reason most of us prefer prime lenses over 18-400mm superzooms. I've already mentioned several of them more than once, but you refuse to listen when I say that I see them as an advantage for me, so I'll not waste more time here trying again.

 

[Dragon]

Again, almost all 7D Mark II users I know (admittedly a much smaller sample size than the numbers Canon has) also own FF bodies. It's different tools for different jobs.

The difference in cost is not between the FF and APS-C bodies, it is the difference in cost of using a $2K 70-200/2.8 that we already own with a high density APS-C sensor vs. the cost of using a $6K 300/2.8 lens that we don't own with a lower density FF sensor.

At the time the 20 MP 7D Mark II was introduced in 2014 , the 5D Mark III was 22 MP, which crops to only 7.8 MP at APS-C dimensions. Even the 30 MP 5D Mark IV introduced in 2016 only crops to 11.7MP. The 45MP R5 of 2020 crops to 17 MP. That's getting close to the 2014 7D Mark II, but it is a far cry from the 2019 32MP D90/M6 Mark II sensor that has the same density as an 82 MP FF sensor.

When you can use a $2K lens you already own with an APS-C sports body instead of needing a $6K+ lens you don't own, APS-C starts to make a LOT of sense for those shooting sports/action in light limited situations.

I understand your point, but if you look at equivalency, the 300mm F/4 on FF is going to give you just a bit better result than the 70-200 f/2.8 on APS-c body. The 300mm F/4 is less than $1.5k, so not so intimidating. The 300mm f/2.8 is an awesome lens, but in a completely different category. Your analogy holds better for the longer superteles. If you have a 400mm f/2.8 and don't want to choke up for a 600, then the aps-c body makes a lot of sense, but I suspect that is a pretty limited market.

 

[Michael Clark]

I understand your point, but if you look at equivalency, the 300mm F/4 on FF is going to give you just a bit better result than the 70-200 f/2.8 on APS-c body. The 300mm F/4 is less than $1.5k, so not so intimidating. The 300mm f/2.8 is an awesome lens, but in a completely different category. Your analogy holds better for the longer superteles. If you have a 400mm f/2.8 and don't want to choke up for a 600, then the aps-c body makes a lot of sense, but I suspect that is a pretty limited market.

At lower ISO your equivalency argument may be valid. At higher ISO I don't see it. Shooting at ISO 6400 and f/4 on a FF doesn't give me as good of an S/N ratio as shooting at ISO 3200 and f/2.8 on an APS-C camera does.

 

[Dragon]

Camera rotation is a problem mostly for those who hold their left hand over the lens like a local TV news videographer and support most of the weight of the camera with their right hand. Not so much for those who properly support the camera's weight with the left hand firmly underneath the lens and the left elbow tucked against their left rib cage and don't need to use a death grip with their right hand.

Actually, real inflation is considerably higher than officially admitted but until recently electronic toys have managed to buck the trend. That is changing rapidly as fab capacity is not keeping up with demand and fab construction costs are through the roof.