An APS-C RF mount prototype is currently in the wild [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
My hobby most of the time (aquascaping), events related to that, stores, exhibitions, holidays, sometimes some mushrooms in the forest. Really my 200d does the job already for me for photography. It's the video specs that are lacking IMO. Just want a hybrid body that gives me 4k 60p, ibis, 10 bit and animal eye AF. The R6 is great but all the lenses I need to swap are not so great. Buy a dedicated video camera? Hmm don't like to carry around 2 cameras. The new AF on r5 and r6 looks very useful which I would like to have. Same for ibis that usually isn't in cinema cameras. The R6 but aps c is really a good fit for me.
As a 7d2 shooter the pixel density is the biggest concern I have with the R6 but i opted to go for one anyway. For three reasons. 1. I simply couldn't spring for the 6500 bucks the R5 would have set me back. 2. While there are times when deep cropping is needed for me, the biggest issue I face is that the 7d2 fairs so poorly in lowlight and i often find myself putting the 70-200 2.8 on in place of the 150-600 sigma. This means even more cropping but with the R6 i will be able to use the sigma in the lower light conditions and not have to rely on cropping. 3. I needed a low light beast to shoot aurora and the R6 will be fine and dandy for that.
I am not sure an R6 with a 32mp apsc would actually achieve what I need as it would still fail at those really high ISO levels. I believe any future R7 should have a current gen 24mp sensor. Still plenty of density but better low light performance than the 32mp sensor from the 90d
Last edited:
The current 24 MP (80D, M5, M50,...) sensor does poorly compared to the current 32 MP one (90D, M6 II). If you mean you would like to have a sensor with the R5 tech but 24 rather than more MP, I hope you are in the minority. That would not yield any benefit in terms of image quality, because pixel size does not matter for low light performance. You would just leave reach on the table, reducing the appeal of a crop RF camera.
It's all about the sensor area, which actively impacts how much light you gather. If a 32 MP APS-C can't meet your quality standards, a 24 MP one won't meet them either.
Some more theory and example pictures to illustrate how it applies:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/equivalency-now-with-pictures.39787/post-874838
Yes. I get that but without any extra cropping the 24mp senor will likely have an extra bit of high ISO performance than the 32. The same way the R6 has an edge in high iso over the R5. Once you crop even deeper though I agree that edge is lost
Why would that be?
And where can I see this supposed advantage the R6 has over the R5 in high ISO performance? Both the images and measurements I am aware of show the R5 being superior across all ISOs (less noise = more DR) and offering finer detail (less noise + more MP:
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com
Not referring to DR. Just high iso performance. And everything I have seen shows the R6 having a slight edge(although I had not seen that comparison you just posted which suggests it may not be the case). Probably why canon have given it an extra stop of native ISO to play with(not that you would ever seriously shoot at its highest native range)Why would that be?
And where can I see this supposed advantage the R6 has over the R5 in high ISO performance? Both the images and measurements I am aware of show the R5 being superior across all ISOs (less noise = more DR) and offering finer detail (less noise + more MP:
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
I feel like there's a lot of wishful thinking going on in this thread. No criticism of anyone in particular, but it feels like those people who really want a successor to the 7 series are asking for a unicorn. Even if the 7D was that unicorn at the time, I don't think it'll happen again - though I don't quite know why I feel that way.
What I would ask generally though, is this - we were told a while back that both Canon and Nikon had abandoned this segment - there was to be no 7D3 and no successor to the D500 was planned either. The implication was that the high end crop market was too small, and in the face of rapidly shrinking sales overall, its time was over. I don't know who originated that line of thinking, but I recall official sources being cited. Was it just a lull? Has a change of thinking occurred? Was Canon always preparing to transfer the line over to mirrorless? Or are we wrong on what this new body will be?
It seems that nobody has a firm idea of what to expect - or rather, everyone's idea is wildly different to everyone else's. I personally never saw the logic of a crop sensor R body, but admit that some of its proponents on this thread and others have been enlightening on the subject. Whatever happens, a lot of people will be disappointed (sorry to sound a pessimistic note).
What I would ask generally though, is this - we were told a while back that both Canon and Nikon had abandoned this segment - there was to be no 7D3 and no successor to the D500 was planned either. The implication was that the high end crop market was too small, and in the face of rapidly shrinking sales overall, its time was over. I don't know who originated that line of thinking, but I recall official sources being cited. Was it just a lull? Has a change of thinking occurred? Was Canon always preparing to transfer the line over to mirrorless? Or are we wrong on what this new body will be?
It seems that nobody has a firm idea of what to expect - or rather, everyone's idea is wildly different to everyone else's. I personally never saw the logic of a crop sensor R body, but admit that some of its proponents on this thread and others have been enlightening on the subject. Whatever happens, a lot of people will be disappointed (sorry to sound a pessimistic note).
Actually, what I think is going on is that all the people who just shelled out big bucks for an R5 are terrified that a year from now, Canon is going to come out with a camera that will have a smaller sensor but will otherwise be just as good and will cost half as much.
Why would Canon do that? And why would existing R5 owners care?
Dustin Abbott's review for both caneras agrees with your assessment that the R6 is better at High ISO. He considers it a one stop advantage. Always good when a real photographer takes real pictures. Here's what he writes...
"If I downsample the EOS R5’s image to the resolution of the EOS R6, I can still clearly see that the R6 has an advantage at ISO 51,200. It’s delivering much better contrast and color fidelity, whereas the R5 (a very good performer for a high resolution camera) shows some banding and loss of contrast.
I would easily say that the EOS R6 has a full stop ISO advantage over the R5, which means that it has an advantage over many cameras."
Going by that particular image i would definitely agree that there is not a full stop of difference. I would say the R6 is a very small amount better but certainly not much. But as far as reviews, Dustin abbott is pretty objective and I would generally trust his conclusions.
I trust him, but I also feel he gets wrapped up in his knowledge of the physics of the stuff and as a result confirmation bias sometimes prevails. Most people expect the R6 to be better so that is what they see. Yet genuine comparisons under the same lighting/subject/etc don't really back that up....
I guess the images in question is what he shows in this video around 24:35.
I do agree with his accessment that the R5 lacks contrast, though it just as well may be that is the reason why noise in the shadow area is more apparent, rather than additional noise causing the loss of contrast. Does he go into the details of how he deals with color and which downsampling method he uses somewhere?
I don't distrust him, but I would like to understand what produced the R5 image he shows before concluding that the difference shown is inherent to the camera, rather than a difference in the scene or the editing.
The one thing I would add, you’ll learn more from the Gregory Heisler 50 Portraits book than anything else in the video...
Huh?
I bought the EOS R5 because it's a full frame 45 megapixel monster that shoots full-res 20 FPS silently. Never in a million years would I have bought a crop camera, that's a totally different market than the R5 in every way.
I do, however, love that the EOS R5 is both a 45 megapixel full-frame camera when I need it(all of my paid work) that kicks butt in lowlight, as well as a 17 megapixel crop camera when I'm in a situation like a SWAT incident where I can't get closer, or when I'm off the clock chasing birds as a hobby.
But I easily see the price premium of the EOS R5 as giving you two cameras, an excellent high-res high-speed full frame camera, and a 20 fps crop camera with a similar resolution to the original 1dx. The best part of that, to me, is that you can have both of those cameras in your hand at the tap of a single button. Any crop sensor variant of this camera would throw away the most valuable part of that combination, so who cares if it costs a lot less? I sure don't.
I could be wrong, but I don't recall any official sources cited. As I'm sure you know, Canon and Nikon seldom definitively declare anything dead.
Good arguments can be made both for and against a high-end APS-C mirrorless body. What no one has access to is the market research that shows if it will be profitable or not.
I'm skeptical, but over the years I've learned not to bet against Craig's rumors, even when they are CR2.
I do agree though that many people seem to be asking for a unicorn, in that they want or even expect that an R7 will be bargain priced like the 7DII.
My guess is that an R7, if it appears, will not be cheap. It might not be as expensive as the R5, but I would not be surprised if Canon launches it at a price that is closer to the R5 than the R6. My reasoning reflects your observation that the market has contracted over the last several years, coupled with the knowledge that the target audience is not particularly price-sensitive -- after all, a $3,000 R7 and a $2,500 100-500 f7 lens are still less expensive than a 500mm f4 EF lens.
I agree there will be lots of complaining if one actually does come out -- either from those who are expecting a bargain or from those who are expecting a high-end body. My guess though, is that it will be the bargain hunters who are disappointed.
