Another interview about the EOS R and talk of an APS-C EOS R Body

[Architect1776]

I wouldn't say it that radically but I agree, the RF mount has a huge potential. On the downside, Canon's flange focal distance is a bit bigger than the competition: 20mm vs 18mm (Sony) vs 16mm of Nikon's new Z mount - which gives a lot of freedom to adapt lenses. In fact, it looks like both the old players in the camera market now got some strong cards in the ML FF game. More competition will drive technology, so all of us customers will profit.

I would guess Canon analized what the optimum distance would be. Just like Sony was trying to make a statement with "Smaller is Better" and painted themselves into a corner with a small diameter mount. Who knows about the Nikon flange distance, Is there any technical advantage to it? Does it make the body too thin? So far I think Canon has shown vision. They got burned really bad with the Canonmatic R cameras and swore never again. They look at what is being done, wait and see how they can do a whole lot better. Look at the EF to RF transition, smokes Nikon completely.

 

[takesome1]

There is still a price issue - FF sensors cost significantly more to produce than APS-C ones. If this were not the case, we would have seen a " cheaper consumer grade" FF DSLR by now.
With all the competition in the camera market right now - no one has managed to do that in DSLR's, so why would mirrorless be any different??

At one time they may have been "significantly more", not as much any more.
The newest, latest and greatest always cost more.
But in today's world, yesterdays technology is cheaper.
Thus the 6D line.
If money is the issue buy the M with the latest and greatest APS-C sensor. Buy an adapter to go with it.
Canon gives you a mirror-less APS-C sensor alternative. There is no need to put it in an R's box.

 

[justaCanonuser]

How is that a downside? Canon can extend the lens past the flange, but Sony and Nikon are restricted by the shorter flange distance.

Okay, you are maybe right, since there is no mirror box in the way. We'll see what Canon and Nikon will throw on the table to compete with Sony. Interesting times...

 

[knight427]

Wouldn't it be cool if instead of launching an R version of the 7D, Canon just implement crop selection on the fly. Maybe through the otherwise unloved M-Fn bar, letting users move from APS, to APS-H to APS-C. There are lots of times I'd give up half my pixels for twice the fps.

 

[Joules]

At one time they may have been "significantly more", not as much any more.

I'm not denying that the difference might have been greater, but comparing prices of an 80D (all around current Canon tech except 4k), 6D (all around old Canon tech) and 6D II (all around current Canon tech except 4k and sensor), it looks to me that APS-C provides some great cost Potential for cost reduction. The 80D ist 900€, the 6D 1000€ and the 6D II is 1750€ on the german Amazon site.

Just because of the size difference, you will always get slightly more than 4 times as many APS-C sensors for the same material and production cost than full frame sensors. And you'll always lose less sensors at once when you have a defect in your wafer, increasing the yield advantage of aps-c further. How could that not affect cost significantly?

Apart from that, the M System is entirely different from the R System regarding its ecosystem. It is clearly all about size in contrast to R which seems to be all about image quality. Having the Option for something in between in the form of an APS-C R (less size thanks to crop, e.g. use a 85mm instead of 135mm and more IQ and ergonomics thanks to big glass and body) would nice in my opinion. If Canon thinks there are enough people that feel alike, we'll see an APS-C R.

 

[JoFT]

I'm not denying that the difference might have been greater, but comparing prices of an 80D (all around current Canon tech except 4k), 6D (all around old Canon tech) and 6D II (all around current Canon tech except 4k and sensor), it looks to me that APS-C provides some great cost Potential for cost reduction. The 80D ist 900€, the 6D 1000€ and the 6D II is 1750€ on the german Amazon site.

Just because of the size difference, you will always get slightly more than 4 times as many APS-C sensors for the same material and production cost than full frame sensors. And you'll always lose less sensors at once when you have a defect in your wafer, increasing the yield advantage of aps-c further. How could that not affect cost significantly?

Apart from that, the M System is entirely different from the R System regarding its ecosystem. It is clearly all about size in contrast to R which seems to be all about image quality. Having the Option for something in between in the form of an APS-C R (less size thanks to crop, e.g. use a 85mm instead of 135mm and more IQ and ergonomics thanks to big glass and body) would nice in my opinion. If Canon thinks there are enough people that feel alike, we'll see an APS-C R.

The only sad thing between R and M is that there is no chance to adapt R on M, Canon meanwhile clearly announced... The M is getting an eco-system on its own. And its a great one. Since a couple of days I use the 32mm F1.4, What a lens!!! The M5 and the M50 are still the best compromise between size and IQ...

Prices are set to market perception... We have to wait how the market will develop - and how Canon sets its Premium...

 

[mirage]

1. Canon can make and sell EOS M50 for about 500 USD/€ retail.

2. Fuji can make and sell its X-T100 also around 500 retail.

3. presumably both companies do so "with sufficient profit, not at or below cost" (otherwise they would not do so, they are not charities).

4. then why should a similarly configured and capable mirrorfree camera with FF-sensor not be possible at twice the price = 999 USD/€ ?

500 more definitely should cover
* cost differential between APS-C and FF sensor (guesstimate: 200 vs. 30),
* "strengthened imaging pipeline" (= different version DIGIC),
* slightly larger camera shell
* R mount instead of EF-M

market is still contracting and competitive pressure getting stronger in FF MILC segment. Canon wants "overwhelming market leadership". A mirrorfree EOS R-ebel "below 1 grand" could kickstart the system, help them to quickly sell large numbers of units and reach "critical mass" of installed bodies, pass Sony, leave Nikon Z in the dust and become "king of the mirrorfree FF hill".

 

[BillB]

1. Canon can make and sell EOS M50 for about 500 USD/€ retail.

2. Fuji can make and sell its X-T100 also around 500 retail.

3. presumably both companies do so "with sufficient profit, not at or below cost" (otherwise they would not do so, they are not charities).

4. then why should a similarly configured and capable mirrorfree camera with FF-sensor not be possible at twice the price = 999 USD/€ ?

500 more definitely should cover
* cost differential between APS-C and FF sensor (guesstimate: 200 vs. 30),
* "strengthened imaging pipeline" (= different version DIGIC),
* slightly larger camera shell
* R mount instead of EF-M

market is still contracting and competitive pressure getting stronger in FF MILC segment. Canon wants "overwhelming market leadership". A mirrorfree EOS R-ebel "below 1 grand" could kickstart the system, help them to quickly sell large numbers of units and reach "critical mass" of installed bodies, pass Sony, leave Nikon Z in the dust and become "king of the mirrorfree FF hill".

Another variable is the volume of sales to spread the costs of development and fixed costs. In addition to the cost of the camera, sales are also going to be affected by the higher costs of EF and RF lenses. Since we are in the realm of imaginary numbers, we can believe whatever we want, but I am not sure that with a 100% price premium to start with, and additional price premiums for the lenses to follow, the volume potential is there for a $1000 R competing with an M50 and a new M5. It might well cut into the sales of every other FF Canon camera though.

 

[mirage]

Of course it will "cut into sales" of more expensive cameras that do not offer a lot of tangible functional benefits.

Price/value ratio of EOS M50 and EF-M lenses are the main reason for "temporarily curtailed shipments due to a pause in entry-class DSLR purchasing" as Canon states in its current Q3 financial report. Except, it is not *temporarily* curtailed, rather it is permanently over. Soccer moms and dads still interested enough in photogrophy to bother buying a dedicated ILC camera have realized that an M50 plus EF-M lens/es offers better functionality (eg Face/Eye-AF) than any Rebel mirrorslapper with EF-S/EF lenses ... in a more compact package and at lower prices.


A 999 "entry level" FF EOS R body akin to EOS M50, combined with a compact, affordable RF 24-105/3.5-5.6 IS [price performance just like the EF Non-L) kit-zoom would likely sell well enough to give Canon unit/market share lead over Sony in FF MILC segment in the first year already. Not a bad thing for them ...

 

[BillB]

Of course it will "cut into sales" of more expensive cameras that do not offer a lot of tangible functional benefits.

Price/value ratio of EOS M50 and EF-M lenses are the main reason for "temporarily curtailed shipments due to a pause in entry-class DSLR purchasing" as Canon states in its current Q3 financial report. Except, it is not *temporarily* curtailed, rather it is permanently over. Soccer moms and dads still interested enough in photogrophy to bother buying a dedicated ILC camera have realized that an M50 plus EF-M lens/es offers better functionality (eg Face/Eye-AF) than any Rebel mirrorslapper with EF-S/EF lenses ... in a more compact package and at lower prices.


A 999 "entry level" FF EOS R body akin to EOS M50, combined with a compact, affordable RF 24-105/3.5-5.6 IS [price performance just like the EF Non-L) kit-zoom would likely sell well enough to give Canon unit/market share lead over Sony in FF MILC segment in the first year already. Not a bad thing for them ...

If rumors are to believed, there will be an RF mount camera that is less expensive than the new R, presumably with somewhat curtailed features. It may well be priced aggressively enough to undersell every FF mirrorless out there. Since we are talking imaginary numbers, we can believe what we want. My guess would be in the 1500-1700 range if Canon goes this route. I think there are a lot of cost issues beyond the marginal costs of camera production and the market demand for $1000 cameras may not be quite as price elastic as one might think

 

[nchoh]

Wouldn't it be cool if instead of launching an R version of the 7D, Canon just implement crop selection on the fly. Maybe through the otherwise unloved M-Fn bar, letting users move from APS, to APS-H to APS-C. There are lots of times I'd give up half my pixels for twice the fps.

That would be an excellent idea. Market forces should make it a more probable.

 

[nchoh]

I'm not denying that the difference might have been greater, but comparing prices of an 80D (all around current Canon tech except 4k), 6D (all around old Canon tech) and 6D II (all around current Canon tech except 4k and sensor), it looks to me that APS-C provides some great cost Potential for cost reduction. The 80D ist 900€, the 6D 1000€ and the 6D II is 1750€ on the german Amazon site.

Just because of the size difference, you will always get slightly more than 4 times as many APS-C sensors for the same material and production cost than full frame sensors. And you'll always lose less sensors at once when you have a defect in your wafer, increasing the yield advantage of aps-c further. How could that not affect cost significantly?

Apart from that, the M System is entirely different from the R System regarding its ecosystem. It is clearly all about size in contrast to R which seems to be all about image quality. Having the Option for something in between in the form of an APS-C R (less size thanks to crop, e.g. use a 85mm instead of 135mm and more IQ and ergonomics thanks to big glass and body) would nice in my opinion. If Canon thinks there are enough people that feel alike, we'll see an APS-C R.

Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 68% of the FF sensor.

TN just put out a video; his argument is that sensor cost are such a small cost of the entire camera that the difference in cost between M43 and FF are insignificant... and M43 is on it's way out. I think his analysis is spot on.

 

[BillB]

Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 68% of the FF sensor.

TN just put out a video; his argument is that sensor cost are such a small cost of the entire camera that the difference in cost between M43 and FF are insignificant... and M43 is on it's way out. I think his analysis is spot on.

Cost is not the only issue with FF, there is also size and weight. Fewer and fewer people are printing photographs, so the image quality advantages of FF may be declining in importance. The sweet spot for IQ, equipment size and cost may or may not be FF.

 

[mirage]

The sweet spot for IQ, equipment size and cost may or may not be FF.

ever since 36x24mm was discovered for stills images it has been the perfect sweet spot in the magic triangle of IQ : SIZE : PRICE. Cameras and lenses.

Anything bigger causes unwieldy, expensive lenses. Anything smaller does not offer significant enough savings in size. Which is also the main reason analog APS-film was DOA and never got off the ground. Digital FF sensors were too expensive for about 15 years, but not any longer. Especially if gear makers would standardize on a few, non-proprietary (!) types and an open-standard, universal lens mount + protocol. Instead of every single player throwing loads of totally proprietary SKUs into the market. We could have cameras as capable as EOS R or Nikon Z6 or Sony A7 III at 999 USD / €. Just saying ...

 

[Juangrande]

"R" could also stand for "Reach" (as in straining to reach for something). I wonder if the actual Japanese is as poetic as these Google translations. "Reborn," "Reactivate." These terms conjure a team that had hit the wall and was desperate for a new beginning. As if they had hit a bottom, or dead-end...Let's hope they Recover and don't have a Relapse!

Let’s hope your next post is not a Redundant Retread of the worn out Rebuke that Canon is yet again doomed.

 

[pj1974]

Wouldn't it be cool if instead of launching an R version of the 7D, Canon just implement crop selection on the fly. Maybe through the otherwise unloved M-Fn bar, letting users move from APS, to APS-H to APS-C. There are lots of times I'd give up half my pixels for twice the fps.

Yes, I previously suggested similar ideas.
I am a photographer who requires both high frames per second (FPS) and high megapixel (MP) outputs.

High FPS (lower MP) examples include BIF, some action / sports.
In these instances 8-12 FPS is ideal and 8-18 MP is usually enough, on a case by case basis.

High MP (lower FPS) e.g. landscape, portrait / people photos.
In these instances 24-50 MP is ideal and 3 FPS is usually enough, on a case by case basis.

For other photographic genres I am interested in (e.g. macro, astrophotography, event) there is less strict requirement on MP & FPS, but a balance of around 20MP and around 5FPS works very well.

For this reason, IF Canon can smoothly implement usability between full sensor usage (higher MP and lower FPS) and a crop of the sensor (higher FPS and lower), that would really provide a very usable product for many photographers like myself, who value that flexibility.

I definitely appreciate the computational power and algorithms to achieve the balance between the two present a number of practical limitations... but I trust it is possible with strong testing, planning and the use of best technological capability.

PJ

 

[YuengLinger]

Let’s hope your next post is not a Redundant Retread of the worn out Rebuke that Canon is yet again doomed.

You have missed the point of Canon referring to full frame mirrorless as a rebirth. If a company realizes it can go no further with a product line, such as the DSLR, if it recognizes the point of diminishing returns, finding a new direction indicates the company is healthy and forward-looking.

 

[dak723]

Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 68% of the FF sensor.

Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 38.5% the area of the FF sensor.
APC-S: 22.3 x 14.9mm = 332.27 sq/mm
FF: 36 x 24mm=864 sq/mm
In other words, the FF sensor is 2.6 times larger than the crop sensor.

 

[justaCanonuser]

yes. but i think most of the recent Sony Alpha girth has to do with freaking 4k video heat issues. just another unwanted side- effect of "video in every camera".

maybe also from listening too much to the small but vocal group of folks with super-size hands using big, long tele-lenses all day long.

Agree. In fact, Steve Huff recently changed from his Sony to a 1DX for video, because sensor heating ruined him a video shooting. I think Sony should implement a coffee cup heater system in the grips of their next generation cameras, so the sensor heat can be transformed into something useful. That's the tragedy of today's silicon technology btw: because sensors and processors etc. are so inefficient, heat treatment and air conditioning e.g. for server farms is a growing issue for this planet. I say this here, because all this empty vlogger blah blah that litters youtube, done in 4K, will pump up the data volume and therefore the CO2 emissions of the internet (like bitcoin mining btw). Seen from this perspective, the 4K crippling strategy of Canon may help to save this planet, despite Canon's intentions completely different - and only if they succeed with this strategy

 

[koenkooi]

Actually the Canon APS-C sensor is 38.5% the area of the FF sensor.
APC-S: 22.3 x 14.9mm = 332.27 sq/mm
FF: 36 x 24mm=864 sq/mm
In other words, the FF sensor is 2.6 times larger than the crop sensor.

In more familiar numbers, the surface difference is the square of the crop factor, 1.6 * 1.6 = 2.56. Rounded to one decimal that's the 2.6 in the post above.

The EOS R manual confirms this by saying the auto-crop mode takes ~11MP stills, which is 30/2.56.