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.
Who says the RF APS-C body doesn’t have to get smaller?
Upvote
0
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.
People who would want a cheaper camera and people who would want the 'reach' of a crop sensor. Who do not like the idea of cropping in post.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?
People who would want a cheaper camera and people who would want the 'reach' of a crop sensor. Who do not like the idea of cropping in post.
Sure. But there is a lot of debate on if cropping hurts the image more than a crop sensor. I personally do not have much clarity on this.like me
no cropping
Wait and watch situation. I feel Canon will provide appropriate lenses in time.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.
Agree. M7 will keep the M series battery and R7 will have the LP-E6NH. Just another option for either small with M lenses or R7 for big whites. If you want to use EF big whites on a M series then there is nothing to stop youI agree with your conclusion on all but one point. You really don't want the M7 to grow enough to fit an LP-E6 battery and you really do want that battery in the R7. The M7 will likely use the LP-E17 and be power reduced enough for that to be adequate. The M7 also wouldn't typically have to run the AF and IS in big heavy lenses that chew up a lot of power, whereas that is the express purpose of the R7 if you read all the comments.
Pixel density. In crop mode, R5 has ~17mp whereas M6ii has 32mp in APS-C format. The rumours for the R5s would roughly the same density of ~30mp in APS-C. REusing the existing M6ii's sensor could be another way to save money. I think that the current 7Dii users would be happy with a density increase from 20->32mp.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?
I disagree with the dual card as it would be another way to differentiate from the R6. CFe cards are not needed except for 5.5k/8k raw. UHS-II is plenty fast enough for the R5's 45mp shots at 12fps.A real R7 is a R5 body with an aps-c sensor. The 7DII has been an aps-c equivalent of the 5D-series (form and weather resistance) with 1DX series features (mostly speed). This has always been a popular wildlife and sports camera.
Most birders I know have the 7D2 with 100-400 II. This setup is so popular. I can imagine an R version of this (R7 and RF 100-500) will be very popular.
To be a real R7 it should be something like this:
-32mp aps-c sensor
-Autofocus comparable to the R5
-12fps mechanical and 20fps electronic.
-Dual card: 1 CFExpress and 1 SD (like R5)
-R5 body with top lcd and weather sealing.
-IBIS
-€2000-€2300 price tag
However I expect R6 specs with the 32mp sensor to maintain a €1300-€1800 price tag.
Updated my postI don't own an R6, but all the photos and reviews seem to indicate that the R6 does have a joystick.
Not necessarily true , as for wildlife and sports many people such as my self only want more reach and not small size .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.
personally rather not have ibisThere is no way it won't have IBIS. Image sensors are still the most expensive part of the camera, and the cost difference between APS-C and Full-frame is more significant than people realize. This camera will have a good margin for Canon, but it won't be an "entry-level" product. Maybe down the road we'll see a Rebel like RF mount camera.
I disagree as the main expense for wildlife especially birds is lenses so if you use crop sensor you get more reach so can use more affordable lenses like my EF100-400 ii rather than eye wateringly expensive EF 600 f/4 which is why I use a 7D mark ii and would love to buy an R7 replacement and not any FF bodyWell, I guess there is a call for this, but with full frame RF mount body prices falling such as the original R, RP and rumoured RP II I think they will have limited appeal.
There will be customers who want RF size bodies starting at 300 bucks right up to users who seek a high spec APS-C 7D replacement.
However, with cheaper RF lenses on there way some of this market might just feel to up their budget slightly and buy full frame camera.
Sometimes on this forum, I really have to wonder if people are being intentionally stupid. How can you be into photography and spend any time on forums and not understand why an APS-C camera might be preferred by photographers as opposed to a FF camera?
MORE REACH, LESS COST.
MORE REACH, LESS COST.
MORE REACH, LESS COST.
Glad I could help.
Not everyone wants smaller and lighter, especially when it comes to a camera body. No one would want to shoot an EOS M6 with a 600 f/4 if they can help it.
If Canon is making an RF mount EOS 7D as the R7 suggests, then that's a camera for people that use bigger lenses... and bigger lenses are usually more comfortable with bigger bodies.
I disagree as the main expense for wildlife especially birds is lenses so if you use crop sensor you get more reach so can use more affordable lenses like my EF100-400 ii rather eye wateringly expensive EF 600 f/4 which is why I use a 7D mark ii and would love to buy an R7 replacement and not any FF body
No , not for me personally ; I want to use my EF100-400 ii plus T.Cs with a decent chunky R6 style body not a crappy plastically RF800 f/11and a dinky little camerawould you approve of a super light setup of an R7 and the 800mm f11 which would equate to around 1300mm