No snark intended with my question here.
It seems to me that the primary reason folks posting here 'wouldn't put a 600mm lens on an M6 II' is ergonomics.
I get that. Fully. Probably at least as much as anyone--I am fully aware that the M-series of bodies are not appropriate, ergonomically, for big white lenses.
Riddle me this. Who will choose to use an R7, with the big whites...over an R5 (with the same big whites)...and why, exactly?
Personally. . . . . I don't see the point of a APS-C "R" series camera.
A crop camera mounting $2500+ FF lenses? meh.
A mirrorless crop camera mounting relatively cheap APS-C lenses?
Some one needs to explain how that isn't a M6 MKII.
Given the generally super slow release rate of "M" lenses. . . and the total lack of fast (not even F4) zoom lenses. . .I don't hold out any hope that an APS-C "R" camera will have anything to offer.
If you want more clarity, check out my thread about just that topic: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/equivalency-now-with-pictures.39787/
In a nutshell, cropping an FF image to same FoV as a crop sensor, and just taking that image with a crop sensor in the first place is exactly the same thing, provided all other variables (sensor quality, physical distance to subject, lens in use, aperture, ISO, shutter speed, ...) are also exactly the same.
That's not what reach is about though. It is not about people not wanting to crop their images - it is about putting more pixels on the subject and therefore being able to display that subject larger. You can get that by physically enlarging the image more, using a longer lens. But past a certain point, that get's really expensive and heavy. The other way to gain more reach is using a higher pixel density, so pixels per sensor area. The highest Canon offers here currently is the 32.5 MP sensor found in the 90D and M6 II. Scaled up to FF area, that results in about 90 MP. And we have a good rumor indicating that will indeed be the resolution of the R5s (the high res RF body). But if that's the only option to get this kind of reach in the RF realm, it means you essentially have to pay a hefty premium over the other options to get that reach.
Previously there was the 7D II and 5Ds, which both had the same pixel density, with one offering all the advantages that come with FF, but at the cost of speed, and the other offering the same reach, but for a lower cost and with more speed. The camera in this rumor could well be hinting at a similar dynamic existing in the RF ecosystem in the future.
Well, then there is the R5s model in crop mode. They are not going to do an 's' model with an APS-C sensor and video is important for every new camera in 2021.
All the R series cameras already do that. The advantage of the crop sensor body is the higher resolution, since the current resolution of the R5 crops down to under 20mp. Not bad, but not necessarily enough when trying to shoot small songbirds, which will likely fill only a small portion of the frame even in crop mode.
I would agree that if the rumored R5s has the same crop resolution as the rumored R7, then the advantages of the R7 will really come down to whether or not it has better features (faster frame rate, more accurate autofocus, etc,) than the R5s. The beauty of the 7DII was that it offered features above the 5DIII and closer to the 1Dx. As for price, I'm not expecting there to be a huge savings for the crop sensor.
I can't afford an R5 (bit of a risk travelling with one anyway). My own opinion is Canon would find a very limited market if they exclusively focused on "high end cameras for professionals". I believe there are a load of people taking photos who are medium end (and probably don't worry about discussing potential camera developments online).
I wonder if people can focus on their own needs/desires rather than the broader picture - I'm sure I do, R5 end is beyond my price point, Smartphone totally inadequate for me so will Canon abandon me? (I suspect not as I don't think I am alone in this "bracket").
Have you ever heard of the Canon M-series? That's what Canon offers to the "... load of people taking photos who are medium end (and probably don't worry about discussing potential camera developments online)."
I’ve seen the list of features that most people would want in a 7D2 mirrorless replacement. Most fall between the R5 and R6. Why anyone would think you would get all the features of the R5/R6 with a sensor resolution somewhere between the R5/R6 at a price below the R6 is a pipe dream IMO.
I don’t think Canon is going to undercut their flagship with a crop-body that delivers generally the same performance at less than half the cost.
You say the R5 costs “way more” than a 7D2 replacement without knowing what the specs are or the cost is. That’s funny. Likely and hopefully aren’t good management tools.
When people say the R5 is out of their price range I tend to think it’s actually out of their patience range.
To amplify/reinforce your point: I own an R5. I didn't take it with me on my last trip. Instead I took my two M series cameras.
That's the only question I have - they need to be careful with the price. I think it needs to be significantly cheaper than the R6 and that means cutting features. It's a balance.
With the 5D3 and R7 caparison made earlier, there was no R6 sitting in the middle of the stew..
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.
Just read what I wrote and what it was responded to, but I am repeating it: I was taking about the upcoming high-resolution R5s having no AA filter and I do not see them doing an APS-C model without an AA filter as they are not going to just ignore video features.The R5 cropped to APS-C dimensions is 17MP. That's less than the current 7D Mark II 20MP sensor, and substantially less than the 32MP M6 Mark II/90D sensor.
The guy was just asking about magnification, DOF, etc. And I explained it to him. I didn't tell anyone what they had to spend on what or what is better for them.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?).
I fully understand that you almost exclusively use FF lenses (even though some of your group claim otherwise). You are still missing the point that (all else equal) a FF with the same pixel density as 7D will get more good shots than the small sensor simply because of the wider field of view. I realize that the all else has not been equal in the past and you did get a hell of a bargain on your 7D II cameras (i.e. 1 series AF and speed for way less than a 5 series). The point I have been making is that in an ever shrinking market, there may not be enough demand to justify both a high res FF and a 7D type camera, particularly if the high res FF is fast enough or miracle of miracles shoots in crop frame mode really fast. At the end of the day, the only thing that won't be equal is price and you may have to live with that. At the other end of the spectrum, neither a FF nor a true 7D replacement will fill the space occupied by the very portable M series.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.
But as a PJ, don't you often have two bodies at the same time? One with a "long" lens and one with a "wide" lens? It takes more than a push of a button to go from 70-200 to 16-35, doesn't it?
What if, for not a whole lot more than the cost of one R5, I can get both an R6 and an R7? Now I've got both lenses mounted and ready to use at the same time. The "long" body is the R7, the "wide" body is the R6. For PJ type work, I've found that wide angle stuff can get by with lower resolution (and lower Tv, which allows f/4 instead of f/2.8 lenses in many situations). It's only the range limited stuff (like your SWAT scenario) where resolution really comes into play.
Not only is an R7 + RF 70-200/2.8 cheaper than an R5 + 300/2.8, it's also a hell of a lot lighter to truck around all day. And then it also gives you a zoom range on the APS-C R7 that is equivalent to 110-320mm angle of view on a FF camera.
Only Canon knows the size of the 7Dii user base. It is an assumption that all current 7Dii users will buy a R7. It is also an assumption that all 7Dii users were birders etc requiring the extra reach compared to other systems. It is not clear how many current 7Dii users have moved to 5D or other systems in the last 7 years or even moved to the R6/7. I moved from 7D to 5Diii to 5Div to R5 for instance.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.
That's irrelevant to me, my second body is my 1DX Mark II, which will be replaced by a R1 the moment that comes out. Money is not a factor to me as a professional, which is why I've always enjoyed the 1D series, even when you could afford to buy nearly two R5s for the price of a single 1D.
I agree for the wide angle work that lower res isn't a problem, which is why I have my 1DX2 on my 24-70 and the EOS R5 on my RF 70-200.
What I'm saying is, the R5 provides me with effectively a 70-320mm angle of view with just the RF 70-200, since I can push a button to swap between 1.6x or 1x. It's far easier to swap crop modes than even the built-in 1.4x on the 200-400. I can't imagine any reason why I would waste my money on a crop sensor camera when my R5 already gives me that capability alongside allows me to primarily use it as a full frame camera the rest of the time.