An APS-C RF mount prototype is currently in the wild [CR2]

[unfocused]

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.

Not sure why that would "terrify" anyone. The 7DII was cheaper than the 5DIII with features that were closer to the 1Dx and no one complained. However, in this case, if an R7 comes out, I doubt it will be "half as much" as the R5. People who are counting on a big bargain in the R7 are likely to be hugely disappointed.

 

[Aussie shooter]

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.

I will be honest. I think that IF and future R7 is not the unicorn then it probably wont succeed. As many have said. Why bother? Just get an R5 or the future R5s. The 7d2(and the d500 for that matter) were insane value cameras that could be paired with a third-party 150-600 and make an awesome wildlife camera for 3k(US DOLLARS). I cant see canon making much profit if it is as expensive as an R5. But maybe they wont make much profit if it is the price of an R6 either

 

[unfocused]

I will be honest. I think that IF and future R7 is not the unicorn then it probably wont succeed. As many have said. Why bother? Just get an R5 or the future R5s. The 7d2(and the d500 for that matter) were insane value cameras that could be paired with a third-party 150-600 and make an awesome wildlife camera for 3k(US DOLLARS). I cant see canon making much profit if it is as expensive as an R5. But maybe they wont make much profit if it is the price of an R6 either

I don't really disagree.

I think it will depend on specs and pricing. If the R5s can shoot 12fps, has 82 mp, R5 pricing and R5 autofocus, then the only thing that would make the R7 appealing would be cost. On the other hand, if the R5s shoots at 7 fps, has a buffer that fills up quickly and is priced around $4,000, while the R7 has 14 fps, an unlimited buffer, autofocus that is closer to the coming R1 and comes in at $2,500 it will be appealing to many buyers.

My main point is that I think there are some on the forum who expect the R7 to mirror the 7DII with specs superior to the R5 at a price below $2,000. I just have a feeling that Canon will try to push the upper limits on pricing to see what the market will bear. Always easier to come down in price than to go up.

 

[Aussie shooter]

I don't really disagree.

I think it will depend on specs and pricing. If the R5s can shoot 12fps, has 82 mp, R5 pricing and R5 autofocus, then the only thing that would make the R7 appealing would be cost. On the other hand, if the R5s shoots at 7 fps, has a buffer that fills up quickly and is priced around $4,000, while the R7 has 14 fps, an unlimited buffer, autofocus that is closer to the coming R1 and comes in at $2,500 it will be appealing to many buyers.

My main point is that I think there are some on the forum who expect the R7 to mirror the 7DII with specs superior to the R5 at a price below $2,000. I just have a feeling that Canon will try to push the upper limits on pricing to see what the market will bear. Always easier to come down in price than to go up.

Totally agree. I love my 7d2 and still cant work out how they priced it as they did. And i just dont know if they can do it again.

 

[researcher]

With a smaller APSC sensor and existing processing power, is there a better possibility of making a model with a global shutter, even in 1080p 24 mode? Just trying to figure out what a feature hook would be for an R7, other than being able to make use of existing EF-S lenses for the Rebel crowd looking to modernize.

 

[jonnopi]

Continue reading...

The 7D II was close to DX 1 Mk II in many respects so I would hazard a guess at the R 7 being right up there??

 

[jonnopi]

Personally, I won't buy one, as it isn't my use case. For me, the R5 for scenic, nightscape, and some wildlife is perfect. But I certainly understand why dedicated wildlife shooters who want the most pixels on target and the fastest frame rates would wish to see the 7D style DSLR crop cameras reimagined in the mirrorless space, with all the potential that could bring. It obviously isn't a body meant for everyone - don't buy one if it doesn't suit your needs - but I bet they will sell plenty of them! I for one like to see Canon being more committed to mirrorless and the RF mount as time goes on. An R7 for the APS-C market, with perhaps some high quality EF-s like lenses plus the ability to really perform with longer EF and soon to be RF lenses seems like a win to me. Match that with the R6, R5, R1 (or whatever it is called) and the R5s (or whatever it is called) and you will have a really solid and broad reaching line up. I say good for Canon, bring it on!

Amen

 

[Chig]

The original rumour had the body smaller than the R6 this makes more sense as the proper 7d replacement

The R6 is smaller than the 7D 2 anyway and personally I'd prefer it to not be too small for ergonomics, I have small hands but find my 7d2 very comfortable to use . I've tried an M mount camera and found it far too small for me.
The R6 as it is with a 32mp 90D sensor (or an updated version) would be ideal for me with my EF100-400 ii plus T.Cs for my bird and Macro photography and I would be happy to pay the same price as an R6 (but even happier if slightly lower price)
Even better for me personally would be these changes from the R6:

• no IBIS (the IS in my zoom lenses is all I need but I doubt Canon will leave it out as it's a good marketing gimmic)
• no AA filter
• pop up high speed flash
• tilting evf for macro shots
• red dot sight attached to line up with your left eye

 

[zim]

The R6 is smaller than the 7D 2 anyway and personally I'd prefer it to not be too small for ergonomics, I have small hands but find my 7d2 very comfortable to use . I've tried an M mount camera and found it far too small for me.

I wouldn't use any R without a battery grip!
If this new body was smaller than the R6 as per the original rumour that would have taken it into m5 territory and that would make no sense to me. I really liked the idea of the m5 when it came out having tried it i was really disappointed, couldn't use the b****y thing. I fear I'll fall in love with the R1

 

[Hector1970]

As I've not moved to Canon Mirrorless yet. Do any of the full frame Canon mirrorless crop in the view finder.
What I mean is through the viewfinder can you zoom in to focus or keep the crop at APS-C or even micro 4/3.
It's something you can't do with a pentaprism.
I know you can do it through the back screen to view but I personally need to be wear glasses now to see it clearly.
It would really help with focusing or confirming something is in focus.
If not yet existing, surely it makes sense to have this in a mirrorless.

 

[AlanF]

As I've not moved to Canon Mirrorless yet. Do any of the full frame Canon mirrorless crop in the view finder.
What I mean is through the viewfinder can you zoom in to focus or keep the crop at APS-C or even micro 4/3.
It's something you can't do with a pentaprism.
I know you can do it through the back screen to view but I personally need to be wear glasses now to see it clearly.
It would really help with focusing or confirming something is in focus.
If not yet existing, surely it makes sense to have this in a mirrorless.

Just checked for you on the R5. Yes, change to crop and the cropped image fills the evf. I have never bothered to use crop as the .CR3 files are not too large.

 

[Hector1970]

Just checked for you on the R5. Yes, change to crop and the cropped image fills the evf. I have never bothered to use crop as the .CR3 files are not too large.

Thanks Alan.

 

[Aussie shooter]

As I've not moved to Canon Mirrorless yet. Do any of the full frame Canon mirrorless crop in the view finder.
What I mean is through the viewfinder can you zoom in to focus or keep the crop at APS-C or even micro 4/3.
It's something you can't do with a pentaprism.
I know you can do it through the back screen to view but I personally need to be wear glasses now to see it clearly.
It would really help with focusing or confirming something is in focus.
If not yet existing, surely it makes sense to have this in a mirrorless.

R6 is the same as the R5 Alan was referring to. You have cropping options in the viewfinder but as a 1.6x crop takes it down to a 7 or 8mp image then i would probably recommend against it.

 

[Hector1970]

R6 is the same as the R5 Alan was referring to. You have cropping options in the viewfinder but as a 1.6x crop takes it down to a 7 or 8mp image then i would probably recommend against it.

Thanks, it might be interesting with a 90MP sensor.
With a conventional pentaprism you don't have this ability to increase the size of the image in the viewfinder. It can be difficult to be assured you have say the eye of a bird in focus as you are taking the image.

 

[Michael Clark]

The APSc sensor size gives only a 1.6 times crop on the apparent field of view of the lens. The 400mm lens projects the same image circle, including field of view and depth of field, regardless of what sensor is behind it. The FF sensor captures the full image, while the APSc captures only the portion of the image, which is about the same field that a 640mm lens would project on a full frame.

The magnification you get would be calculated off the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors you are comparing. Magnification in this case being pixels per inch (Or per duck, as birders like to say). Once the pixel density of the FF and APSc sensors are the same, the magnification advantage is gone. We're close to that with the R5 vs the 7D. A 90mp full frame would come close to the 27-32mp apsc sensors. The opposite is also true - if you compare a high res APSc to a low res FF, the 'magnification' could be higher.

Brian

But what you don't seem to get is that many of us who use, for example, the 7D Mark II also have a wider lens mounted to our FF 5D-series camera at the same time. So if we accept using an 82MP FF camera in crop mode instead of a 32MP APS-C body, then we need to buy two FF cameras at $8,000+ total ($3,900 + $4,300?) instead of one FF camera and one APS-C camera at about $6,000 total ($3,900 + $2,100?).

 

[Michael Clark]

Cost saving from the sensor is probably the only way to reduce the overall cost of the APS-C/R7 cf the R6
A new IBIS unit will need to be designed for the smaller sensor
Main benefit of a crop sensor will be pixels on target. The current M series 32mp crop sensor is much higher than the cropped R5 sensor @ ~17mp. Remember that the 7Dii is still only 20mp so not a huge difference from the cropped R5.
Whether the 32mp sensor will be reused (cheaper) or a resized version of the upcoming R5s sensor is a good question. For cost, the 32mp is fast enough already and amortised the R&D
Reusing the R6 body makes sense but they could save money for losing the joystick for instance as a differentiator. Touch/drag on the rear LCD for moving focus point may be faster and sufficient
Makes sense to use the same focusing system and shutter speed as the R5/6 for consistency/cost but the R7 can't be too good compared to the R6
No RF-S lenses. If you want to go wide then use adapted EF-S lenses. If there is to be a RF-S, expect just a cheap wide angle zoom and stellar wide angle zoom equivalent to their EF-S lens options. For long focal lengths then RF100-500mm or EF100-400mm (or EF/RF primes) together with the expected long RF primes to come.
Weather sealing equivalent to the R6
4k/30 and HD/60 with no overheating cf R6's 4k/60 and HD/120 for video differentiation. The current 32mp sensor can do 10 bit to HDMI so assume that internal 10 bit will be possible. Autofocus with HD/60
Single UHS-II card slot. Fast enough for video and continuous shooting (CFe is not needed). Differentiator to the R6's dual cards and saves money.
Would make sense to release a M7 at the same time as R7 with basically the same specs but different form factor to manage both target segments. Managing heat in the M7 will be interesting. M7 should have a built in EVF
Same battery for M and R6 variants
The unicorn of the 7D's price, focusing system from 1D, fps more than double the 5D, weather sealing from the 5D can't be supported with the current R body marketing.

Take away the higher end AF system, high fps, and durability and the R7 is no longer an attractive option for those looking to replace their worn out 7D Mark II bodies. A "low mileage" used 7DII would be far more attractive to the user and the benefit of that to Canon is near zero.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not silly you, just a small segment of the market you.

i’m not objecting to this. I’m just surprised that if this “rumor” is true, that the first APS-C model Canon comes out with would be big, and likely as heavy as any mirrorless in that size.

you guys have to remember that talk of a Canon mirrorless RF mount camera here, was about a small body, not a large one. All that talk was about how M series users couldn’t directly move to an RF model without dumping their “small and light” lenses. And what is Canon expected to be doing next year? Releasing a number of lower cost lenses. Slower and lighter too. If an APS-C does come out, likely APS-C lenses TIG.

remember that the M series has been very popular—the first or second in every market it’s been in. Small and light. If Canon wants them to come to RF, it won’t be with a FF body and lenses.

You grossly underestimate the size of the 7D Mark II user base and the market size that an R7 that is basically a mirrorless 7D Mark III would be.

 

[Michael Clark]

I have a couple minor quibbles with your analysis. First, the 7D series was never quite as fast as the 1D or 1Dx, although it is both speedy and rugged. Second, the R5 and R6 have the same focusing system, which is pretty normal. The 5D3 had basically the same focusing system as the 1Dx and the EOS-3 film body had the same focusing system as the EOS-1N sports film camera. What is unusual is that there isn't also an R1 with that same focusing system.

You seem (repeat, seem) to be expecting two APS-C R bodies, one based on the R5 and one on the R6. I expect only one, based on the R6. Or maybe that's just what I want.

The 7D Mark II AF system used the same routines as the 1D X and the 5D Mark III, which where the current 1-Series and 5-Series bodies when the 7D Mark II released. It also offers the same options in the AF settings menus. It was the same level AF system. The narrower baseline of the APS-C size mirror does affect the relative accuracy and shot-to-shot consistency when compared to the 5D Mark III and 1D X, but the difference is not that great. The 7D Mark II is much closer to the 1-Series and 5-Series AF systems than to the (crappy) 7D AF system or even the fairly good 80D/90D AF systems.

The 7D Mark II has 65 AF points, all of them "cross-type", while the 1D X and 5D Mark III only had 61 AF points, with 41 of the cross type. All three models had five dual-diagonal cross type AF points in a vertical line at the center that are f/2.8 sensitive on the diagonals.

 

[Michael Clark]

There are two distinct markets discussed here. The M series nicely satisfies the small and light application and the line really needs a contemporary replacement for the M5 as well as couple more primes and a small telephoto that reaches to at least 300mm (even if slow). The 7D mark II replacement NEEDs to be a BIG camera to swing big glass if it is to fit in the same niche. The real question is whether Canon can get away with releasing such a camera with no APS-c lens support other than the historic EF-s lenses. The 7D II crowd would want any APS-c lenses to be high end, which would make them too costly for any kind of R series Rebel and thus condemned to low volume. Cheap lenses would require an R series Rebel which would, at a minimum, make many people belive the M series was dead, even if that was not the intent. A self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak. Given the dramatic drop in the overall market and particularly the casual market, my sense is that if they release an R7, it will come with no APS-c only lenses and will be there simply to satisfy the very loud whine coming from the 7D II crowd (which, by the way, hasn't figured out that a high pixel density FF produces a much higher hit rate for BIF and similar applications just because of the wider field of view). Canon always says they listen to the customer, so it will be interesting to see where this goes.

By and large, the "7D Mark II crowd" has no use for APS-C lenses of any type. If we want to shoot wide angle, we use wide angle EF lenses on our FF cameras.

What you folks who think you know more about the "7D Mark II crowd" than those of us who actually use them fail to understand is that the vast majority of us also own FF cameras. We use the appropriate tool for the appropriate job. Often we use both FF bodies and our 7D Mark II bodies at the same time. We'll have a "short" or "wide" lens on the FF and a "long" lens on the 7D Mark II.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not quite. But dslrs have that pentaprism to deal with. It’s not just the size, it’s the weight too.

Blindfolded I couldn't tell the difference between my 7D Mark II and my 5D Mark IV. That's after using the 7D Mark II for almost 200,000 frames and the 5D Mark III/5D Mark IV combined for about 95,000 frames.