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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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?

That's a false duality. The only choice isn't between an R5 or an R7. There's also the possibility of an R5 and an R7.

The vast majority of 7D Mark II users also own a 5-series, or even a 1-series, body. Different tools for different use cases.

I shoot a lot of high school sports at night under lights. I have three 5-Series bodies (a II, III, and IV). I also have a 7D Mark II (and before that, a 7D which I donated to a high school art department after I got the 7DII).

I typically have a 70-200/2.8 on the 7DII and a 24-105/4 (it takes a licking and keeps on ticking like no other lens I've ever owned) or 24-70/2.8 (if the stadium lights are really dim and it's not raining) on the FF body.

Not only is using the 70-200/2.8 on an APS-C body a lot cheaper (and lighter!) than using a 300/2.8 on a FF body, but it makes a lot more sense to me to put all of the "high mileage" frames shot with the "long" body on a $1,700 7D Mark II and save my $3,500 FF bodies for other uses where they are better tools than the 7DII. On a typical Friday pep rally in the gym and football game under the lights I'll shoot around 2,000 frames with the 7DII + 70-200/2.8 and maybe 200-400 frames with the FF body, depending on whether I shoot the bands at halftime or not.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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.

It's all fun and games with the M6 Mark II until you want an eye level viewfinder and flash control at the same time.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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.

A 32MP 1.6X APS-C sensor scaled up to FF is 82MP.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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.

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.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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.

The 5D Mark III cropped to 1.6X APS-C dimensions was only 8.7MP, too. That's quite a bit less than the 7D Mark II's 20MP.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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").

Ian

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)."

How about the Fuji XT-10/20/30 series?

Or the Sony α6x00 series?
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,117
1,996
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)."

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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.

The R5 doesn't have the reach, either. At APS-C sized crop it's only 17MP, which is a lot less than the current 32MP sensor on the M6 Mark II/90D.

Most of the folks interested in an R7 either already have an R5 or R6 or plan to get one of them soon. Just like most 7D Mark II users also have FF cameras.

It doesn't have to be an either this or that question, it can also be a both this and that for different use cases situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63 and LRPP

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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.

Yeah, it seems to me most of "why would anyone ever be interested in an APS-C RF mount camera" folks can't comprehend that some folks own more than one camera body at the same time, much less that some of us use more than one camera body at the same shooting event.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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..

There was the 6D that was more expensive than the 7D Mark II in 2014... The price of the 6D only fell below the 7D Mark II later on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert63

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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.

A Nikon official did go on record in an interview that there were no plans to replace the D500 with another DSLR. Seems like it was back in 2018 or so. What he did not say was anything either way regarding plans to make a mirrorless APS-C body that would be similar in function. YMMV.
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,143
761
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.
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.
 

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
415
442
USA
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?).
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.

-Brian
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
366
321
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC and zim

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
540
881
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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dragon

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
621
521
www.flickr.com
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.
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.
The R5 has the best AF/fps/weather sealing that you want on a R7. Saying that 17mp equivalent reach on the R5 is not sufficient as the D90 etc has 30mp doesn't make sense as the 7Dii only has 20mp. 17mp vs 20mp is not a large difference in linear resolution. If pixels on subject is mandatory then use D90/M5ii.
I contend that the 7D/7Dii were marketing unicorns ie best AF/weather sealing/fps in a relatively inexpensive body doesn't make sense in Canon's market segmentation today and unlikely to continue in the future. 5 year refresh from 7D to 7Dii and now 7 years with no refresh supports my argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dragon

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
@Dragon

"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'm not missing your point at all. I simply disagree with it.

When the subject doesn't even fill an APS-C sized portion of a FF sensor, the extra real estate is just excess data that needs to be processed. Do you seriously think the R5s will have the same top frame rate as an R7? Compare the 5Ds to the 7D Mark II, both of which had almost the exact same pixel density. The 5Ds tops out at 5 fps for 14 raw files or 510 JPEGs. The 7D Mark II tops out at 10 fps for 31 raw files or as many JPEGS as the memory cards can hold and the batteries can power. Now what was that about getting more good shots?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig and mdcmdcmdc

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,394
1,988
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.

Fair enough. If one can/is willing to spend the cost of an R1 + R5 then more power to you. Shooting high school sports doesn't generate enough to cover that kind of cost and leave anything for the photog to count as profit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig
<-- start Taboola -->