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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,296
1,955
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.

I don't think anyone is saying ALL 7D Mark II users will buy an R7. But the type of shooters who found a use for the 7D Mark II are the same type of shooters who would be interested in an R7.

No one is saying all 7D Mark II users are birders, either, particularly not me since I rarely shoot birds/wildlife.

What I am saying is that, in my experience, almost every 7D Mark II user I know also uses FF cameras already. I already owned a 5D Mark II before I bought my first 7D. I didn't stop using the 5D Mark II. I started using both of them.

I regularly use a 5D Mark IV, a 7D Mark II, and a 5D Mark III. I rarely shoot three bodies at once. Which one or two I use for a given shooting scenario all depends on the circumstances of that assignment. For most scenarios other than field sports I use only FF cameras. Most days I don't use the 7D Mark II. But when I do use it, it is for a specific purpose when it best meets my needs: More reach with a 70-200/2.8 shooting things that require high frame rates and very large numbers of images over the course of the shooting session. Even though I only use the APS-C camera on about 25% of the sessions I shoot per year, 75% of the frames I shoot each year are on that body. It saves my more expensive FF bodies for where they are most useful.

It's not an either/or decision between APS-C or FF. For most of us who use higher end APS-C bodies it is a decision between another extra FF body or one less FF body and a lower cost, faster APS-C body that also tends to last longer on which to do our "high mileage" telephoto work, be that birds, night sports, or whatever.

"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."

Dude, if Canon had offered a 32MP 7D Mark III in the last three years or so, many 7D Mark II users would already be using that camera instead. The only reason most of us passed on the 90D was because of the less durable shutter rating and the downgraded AF system compared to the 7D Mark II. Those of us still using our 7D Mark II bodies would be more than happy with the 90D/M6 Mark II sensor in an R5/R6 body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,296
1,955
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.

They didn't put the same AA filter in front of the 7D Mark II sensor which had the same pixel density and technology as the 5Ds R. They didn't even use the same AA filter for the 5Ds as they did for the 5Ds R! That was the only difference between the two models! Both cameras had identical sensors, but different AA filter assemblies in front of them.

What makes you think they would have to put the same AA filter in front of a 32MP version of an 82MP FF sensor with the same underlying sensel size and technology?
 

padam

EOS R
Aug 26, 2015
1,121
750
They didn't put the same AA filter in front of the 7D Mark II sensor which had the same pixel density and technology as the 5Ds R. They didn't even use the same AA filter for the 5Ds as they did for the 5Ds R! That was the only difference between the two models! Both cameras had identical sensors, but different AA filter assemblies in front of them.

What makes you think they would have to put the same AA filter in front of a 32MP version of an 82MP FF sensor with the same underlying sensel size and technology?
Once again, it is already written in the previous comments: video features. The 5Ds series almost completely ignored them and the R5s won't focus on it either. And the AA filter on new cameras is quite weak anyway.
And at this point there is no indication if these newest FF and APS-C sensors will be closely related or not.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,296
1,955
Once again, it is already written in the previous comments: video features. The 5Ds series almost completely ignored them and the R5s won't focus on it either. And the AA filter on new cameras is quite weak anyway.
And at this point there is no indication if these newest FF and APS-C sensors will be closely related or not.

Your argument ignores the fact that the 5Ds/5Ds R and the 7D Mark II shared differently scaled version of the same sensor. One had lots of video features (for the time at which it was released), one did not.

You're saying something that has already been done is not possible. Whether they will or not in the future remains to be seen, but they've certainly done so in the past.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
357
320
@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?
All I can say is your birds must have a more predictable flight path than my birds. :).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucas Tingley

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,296
1,955
All I can say is your birds must have a more predictable flight path than my birds. :).

I don't shoot many birds. I shoot sports with my 7D Mark II.

Knowing when to be where with the correct focal length before the action happens is the name of the game with both, though. So is the experience and skill to be able to track an erratically moving subject mostly filling your frame while keeping all of it within the frame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdcmdcmdc

Tronhard

Tronhard
Jan 7, 2021
5
11
68
Auckland, New Zealand
Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.
Certainly for me, as a predominantly long lens shooter the main benefit is that the narrower FoV means that the cropped image has a higher pixel density than doing a crop after shooting with a FF sensor: a benefit especially true with the R6's 20MP sensor. If they could make a 34MP sensor equivalent to what the 90D had but tweaked for the mirroless environment, I can see that being very tempting for me.
 

Rumourhasit

Eos R5
CR Pro
Sep 28, 2018
8
2
When you say: “get the most out of”, then you’re saying the body with the highest IQ. Do you think that will be an APS-C body?

traditionally, APS-C has NEVER been at the high end, once FF came out. It’s a compromise product category, which as I said earlier, is why you don’t find high end lenses specifically made for it by the major camera manufacturers.
Someone has never heard of the Fuji XT4
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,619
7,959
Someone has never heard of the Fuji XT4
Good body but lacks the telephotos that the 7DII crowd/birders want. The Fuji 100-400mm is pretty good at 100-300mm but gets softer at 400mm where we want sharpness - see https://www.lenstip.com/475.4-Lens_...0_mm_f_4.5-5.6_R_LM_OIS_Image_resolution.html and https://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-xf-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-r-lm-ois-wr-review-29005
I once looked at it as the local dealer had one and was selling it cheap.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,555
1,534
Technical matters are not the final say. If people are willing to plunk down $2700 for a R7, Canon will make them. However, Canon and Nikon both removed that segment for a reason. I'd bet it was sales volume.
 
<-- start Taboola -->