Canon aiming for a $799 full-frame camera? [CR2]

Swerky

G1X Mark III
Sep 3, 2020
28
15
Under 800$ ? Will a battery be included? The RP retails for 999$ now. That being a basic camera. So what will this supposedly 799$ at launch camera turn up to be? An RP without an evf? Doesn’t make sense really. An RP with fixed screen, no evf (maybe optional one) but with ibis? Only time will tell.
 

dirtyvu

EOS 90D
Jan 7, 2019
110
95
If it's like cpus, I can imagine that Canon figures that there are limited sales for dedicated cameras in general. So instead of cutting the wafer into larger sensors for full frame and smaller sensors like apsc, why not just cut large sensors. If the overall market isn't large, there's not much of a cost savings to still making apsc sensors.
 

Swerky

G1X Mark III
Sep 3, 2020
28
15
The big problem is the lack of affordable/light-weight/good image quality* kit lenses

This isn't the age of your father's EF 28-85 lens - lenses good enough for FF sensors these days are HARD to do properly.

I look forward to Canon proving me wrong on this though.


*as the saying goes, choose any two.
The EF 40mm f2.8 is quite a good lens. Canon can easily make an RF version. I own the EF 24-105 stm and it’s quite a decent lens for the amateur photographer who would consider cameras like the RP and that eventual rumoured one. There’s the RF 24-105 stm. It may be slow with plenty of distortion at 24mm, but overall it’s quite good. The RF 35mm 1.8 stm is a fine lens as well. All cheap to affordable.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,058
4,622
If it's like cpus, I can imagine that Canon figures that there are limited sales for dedicated cameras in general. So instead of cutting the wafer into larger sensors for full frame and smaller sensors like apsc, why not just cut large sensors. If the overall market isn't large, there's not much of a cost savings to still making apsc sensors.
The overall market is mostly APS-C – the EOS M and the entry-level DSLRs lines remain Canon’s best-sellers by a wide margin over their FF lines. Canon will be cutting wafers into smaller sensors for a long time to come.
 

reefroamer

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jun 21, 2014
113
137
I do not get the resistance to Canon launching a new crop mirrorless system. What exactly is the problem?
I don’t think anyone is against it, per se. But many believe it’s just not going to happen because Canon apparently does not see a strong enough business case for it. The niche seems pretty small, and is evidenced by the long refresh cycle of the aged 7D. Canon perhaps sees too many other better opportunities at this time. I’m still amazed they are announcing new bodies and lenses, considering all the delays for their existing products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reisi007

reefroamer

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jun 21, 2014
113
137
"but why use the full frame if you need to crop every time ? Just have a cropped sensor." THIS!
I don’t want the industry to get rid of EVFs. I don’t think anyone actually suggested that.

I want Canon to offer one FF RF model without an EVF.
I think there’s a better chance of that than seeing a crop R body, at this point. Whether that that one EVF-less body will have the specs you want … another issue.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,470
2,336
Why is it that everyone with a critical view on Canons pricing is a troll? That says more about you then it does about me bro. I am just a Canon professional user for 2 decades. Still using my 1dx’s. I am happy with the way Canon images look when it comes to color, but sharpness and AF could be better. I am unhappy that it took Canon so long to finally develop a mirrorless pro body. And I am unhappy with the pricetag Canon puts on pro gear. Is that something you can accept, my friend? I couldn’t care less to be honest, but it pretty common here on CR to bash anyone with a different view.
Likely it's because every time I see you post, you're telling Canon they're going to lose you. Your phrasing is pretty distinctive, in fact.

That is precisely the behavior of some of the paid S*ny trolls who are trying to generate a bandwagon effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark
Jul 12, 2011
382
32
if you look at canon's lineup today, a consumer has a range of kit options from $5-600 to $5000 with multiple stops in between. The rebel lineup must account for some significant portion of Canon's revenue stream, but an $800 body with a $150+ lens or a $100 ef adapter plus an EF lens just isn't going to cut it. The M range is not a good substitite nor are any of the fixed lens alternatives.
 

reefroamer

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jun 21, 2014
113
137
It matters far less than you seem to think. The more you progress in photography the more you'll come to realize this.
Generally speaking, I totally agree with you. However, not everyone can afford a 5-series camera, and one way to lower the price while keeping the features could be to make an APSC version that kept most of the features, but swapped a FF for an APSC sensor. If the pixel density were the same (making it a lower megapixel camera, but "effectively" the same, if you were going to crop a bird from the center anyhow), it could be cheaper. Some of that cost reduction could be actual manufacturing costs, and some of it might just be because maximizing what you can squeeze out of someone's camera budget, and who knows, they can always upgrade next year when they're convinced that a 5 series or 3 series will give them magnificently better photos :)
Makes good sense to probably everyone but Canon.
 

Cyborx

EOS 90D
Feb 3, 2019
150
145
Likely it's because every time I see you post, you're telling Canon they're going to lose you. Your phrasing is pretty distinctive, in fact.

That is precisely the behavior of some of the paid S*ny trolls who are trying to generate a bandwagon effect.
Well, things ain’t always the way you think they are... I am just very disappointed about the way MY preferred brand goes about when it comes to pricing in general, I think Canon is always 15-25% to high on pricing. And in particular I am not happy about the way they are producing mirrorless pro products. To me it seems like Canon has been sleeping, suddenly (yes!) Sony woke them up and now they try to catch up. And they will, I’m sure. But in the meantime I (as a professional press and sports photographer) I still have to select an AF point and try to keep a subject in place. Whilst Sony has tracking for some years now. So: can you blame me? No. Am I a troll now? No. Am I an exeption here because I am a criticaster, Yes. Let’s see what Canon comes up with in the next few weeks. I am just hoping this camera will be affordable, but you know my point of view on this subject. Have a great day Steve.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,470
2,336
Well, things ain’t always the way you think they are... I am just very disappointed about the way MY preferred brand goes about when it comes to pricing in general, I think Canon is always 15-25% to high on pricing. And in particular I am not happy about the way they are producing mirrorless pro products. To me it seems like Canon has been sleeping, suddenly (yes!) Sony woke them up and now they try to catch up. And they will, I’m sure. But in the meantime I (as a professional press and sports photographer) I still have to select an AF point and try to keep a subject in place. Whilst Sony has tracking for some years now. So: can you blame me? No. Am I a troll now? No. Am I an exeption here because I am a criticaster, Yes. Let’s see what Canon comes up with in the next few weeks. I am just hoping this camera will be affordable, but you know my point of view on this subject. Have a great day Steve.

Fair enough.

I do agree Canon was showing signs of getting complacent (I came into this toward the end of that period), and it looks like someone finally poked them, hard. Their response on the body side has been spectacular; on the lens side it has been good so far (we're at the end of the beginning [at best] of seeing them create an RF lineup, so it's too early to judge just how wide the variety will end up being, and I mean variety both on the focal length/aperture continuum and the consumer-to-pro-grade spectrum--ideally they will ultimately have a wide variety of lenses of all grades). But yes at the pro end, they're more expensive than the corresponding EF lenses. But from what I can tell (mostly from people who comment here; I own only two RF lenses as yet), they're usually also better.

Many people criticize, few do so formulaically and to the exclusion of having anything else to say.
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
348
736
I'm still trying to understand your point given the option of R6 + RF800mm. See PBD's comment for the comparison
To me, this is just another example of people trying so hard to come up with arguments against those who think a crop RF camera would be a good idea. The R6 plus RF 800mm combo might be a good idea for some, but it hardly is a direct comparison to any crop camera teamed with the EF 100-400mm II lens (plus there are cheaper 100-400 alternatives).

The R6 is only 20 MP. People continually compare it to the 7D II which is also 20 MP. I think they are deliberately ignoring the idea that Canon has already produced a 32 MP crop sensor and that any new RF crop camera seems likely to have a 32 MP sensor. So the R6 is not really as good an alternative as a 32 MP crop camera when it comes to pixel density.

The RF 800mm lens is a one purpose lens. For those only doing wildlife, it is definitely a inexpensive option compared to most long lenses. But you just can't compare it to a 100-400 lens or any zoom lens. The minimum focus distance keeps it from being a good alternative for flowers, insects, your kids or pets - pretty much anything but long distance wildlife. You will also need another lens to really compare it to any FF alternative. So that's at least another $500 for a non-L 70-300 for example. Couldn't take either of these shots with an 800mm lens either because of the minimum focal distance (redwing) or the inability to zoom out to approx. 200mm (flying geese).

In my mind, the R6 plus RF 800mm is not a viable comparison or alternative. You will need at least one more relatively long lens and a camera with higher pixel density.
 

Attachments

  • redwing.jpg
    redwing.jpg
    1,022.9 KB · Views: 62
  • geese.jpg
    geese.jpg
    680.1 KB · Views: 64

MoonMadness

EOS M50
May 24, 2021
34
48
If it's like cpus, I can imagine that Canon figures that there are limited sales for dedicated cameras in general. So instead of cutting the wafer into larger sensors for full frame and smaller sensors like apsc, why not just cut large sensors. If the overall market isn't large, there's not much of a cost savings to still making apsc sensors.
The market is very good for APS-C M series. Fuji and Sony have pretty good/mostly better APS-C cameras/camera ecosystem than Canon. I think if Canon were to no longer make APS-C cameras, not only would they lose future M (or possible RF crop) sales, but also lose out to other brands where customers may want a crop sensor (for various reasons). It already started happening to me.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
428
519
Orewa , New Zealand
The minimum focus distance of the 100-400 is about 1.3m and it has a 0.32x magnification ratio. The MFD of the 800 f/11 is 6m. Would the R5 still win with a dragonfly at MFD being downsampled?
I own a 7Dii and the EF100-400 ii which is one of the most versatile lenses ever made and it's a proper pro quality L lens not a plasticy single purpose tool of very limited use like the RF800 f/11.
The minimum focus distance is just under a meter and with my 500D close up lens I can get a working distance of about 30-40cm and 0.64 x magnification which is far more useful and versatile for real world close up photography of bugs, etc than any dedicated Macro lens
 
Last edited:

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
988
829
www.flickr.com
The 20mp of the 7Dii is outdated now. I’d want something in the region of 28-32mp in a crop sensor. Or if using full frame after cropping in post. To get that many pixels, plus fast frames per second and top notch AF it’ll be very expensive. Well, you’re taping R5 or R3 money.. That was the appeal of the 7D line. Also the backgrounds on the f11 lens are gonna be messy and the minimus focus distance is terrible so I hear. Not great for small birds.
The 7Dii sensor is definitely old. Would buy a R6 body with the same 32mp sensor from the M6ii and 14fps with no change in AF capability? Similar in concept/spare parts bin as RP/6Dii and R/5Div.
It won't have the same AF tracking as R5/6 but wouldn't be as expensive as a new sensor. The other possibility is that a APS-C version of the R5s comes out at the same time. Pricing would be high then.

If you already have the EF100-400mm then it is best to reuse it. If you splurge on the RF100-500mm then it improves the MFD by 980mm (.31x) to 900mm (.33x), gives extra reach and collapsed size and reduced weight over the EF100-400mm. The RF800mm is there when you want ultimate reach at a reasonable price or even add TCs as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jasonmc89

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
988
829
www.flickr.com
To me, this is just another example of people trying so hard to come up with arguments against those who think a crop RF camera would be a good idea. The R6 plus RF 800mm combo might be a good idea for some, but it hardly is a direct comparison to any crop camera teamed with the EF 100-400mm II lens (plus there are cheaper 100-400 alternatives).

The R6 is only 20 MP. People continually compare it to the 7D II which is also 20 MP. I think they are deliberately ignoring the idea that Canon has already produced a 32 MP crop sensor and that any new RF crop camera seems likely to have a 32 MP sensor. So the R6 is not really as good an alternative as a 32 MP crop camera when it comes to pixel density.

The RF 800mm lens is a one purpose lens. For those only doing wildlife, it is definitely a inexpensive option compared to most long lenses. But you just can't compare it to a 100-400 lens or any zoom lens. The minimum focus distance keeps it from being a good alternative for flowers, insects, your kids or pets - pretty much anything but long distance wildlife. You will also need another lens to really compare it to any FF alternative. So that's at least another $500 for a non-L 70-300 for example. Couldn't take either of these shots with an 800mm lens either because of the minimum focal distance (redwing) or the inability to zoom out to approx. 200mm (flying geese).

In my mind, the R6 plus RF 800mm is not a viable comparison or alternative. You will need at least one more relatively long lens and a camera with higher pixel density.
I have no problems with a APS-C crop camera body. I question why Canon hasn't released a 7Diii or a crop RF body to date.

I am interested in is why current Canon bodies/lenses can't fill the your need for a crop body.
The 90D or M6ii + EF100-400mm already give you the pixel density and reach with your current EF100-400mm at a very reasonable price. Clearly you want more so what are your minimum requirements?
Would you buy a R6 body with M6ii sensor/AF etc in it? This option seems to be "simple" and comparable to RP/6Dii and R/5Div releases vs a new sensor.

I agree that MFD and focal flexibility are key differentiators between EF100-400mm and RF800.
I was impressed when I checked the MFD/mag of the EF100-400mm vs RF100-500mm ie 980mm (.31x) to 900mm (.33x) with the latter being @ 500mm. Reduced weight, collapsed size, stability and AF speed are bonuses. Would you upgrade to the RF100-500mm or stick with your EF100-400mm if Canon released a crop RF body?
 

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D
Feb 7, 2019
313
346
UK
The 7Dii sensor is definitely old. Would buy a R6 body with the same 32mp sensor from the M6ii and 14fps with no change in AF capability? Similar in concept/spare parts bin as RP/6Dii and R/5Div.
It won't have the same AF tracking as R5/6 but wouldn't be as expensive as a new sensor. The other possibility is that a APS-C version of the R5s comes out at the same time. Pricing would be high then.

If you already have the EF100-400mm then it is best to reuse it. If you splurge on the RF100-500mm then it improves the MFD by 980mm (.31x) to 900mm (.33x), gives extra reach and collapsed size and reduced weight over the EF100-400mm. The RF800mm is there when you want ultimate reach at a reasonable price or even add TCs as well.
I do really like the R6, and I’ve contemplated getting one for macro/frogs/mushrooms kind of work. But the ideal for me would be an R6 type camera with a sensor similar to their apsc 32mp yes. As long as the AF system is good and had the eye tracking! Oh, and IBIS of course!
 

dirtyvu

EOS 90D
Jan 7, 2019
110
95
The market is very good for APS-C M series. Fuji and Sony have pretty good/mostly better APS-C cameras/camera ecosystem than Canon. I think if Canon were to no longer make APS-C cameras, not only would they lose future M (or possible RF crop) sales, but also lose out to other brands where customers may want a crop sensor (for various reasons). It already started happening to me.
You can think that but the dedicated camera market is shrinking. Fuji revenue is significantly down with only their new segments (Healthcare & Material Solutions segment) having growth and positive cash flow.

Same for Sony. Sony fans make it out like their dedicated camera lines are juggernauts and top tier in the industry. But they're not. Sony's EP&S (Electronic Products & Solutions segment) is down significantly due to declining digital camera sales. The only reason operating income increased was because they reduced costs in their mobile phone business and TV business although those segments also saw decreased sales. Their Imaging & Sensing Solutions segment was down significantly for FY2020 due to decreased mobile demand. In fact, Sony in their financial statement said, "Due to the uncertain market environment, Sony is carefully reviewing its capital expenditure plans in this segment in relation to projected demand through the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022..."

Digital camera fans live in a bubble because they love their products so much. But the reality is the dedicated camera markets are shrinking and it's all about maximizing revenue from that shrinking market. Going for the sub $1k market is only commoditizing and decreasing value of your products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig

Cyborx

EOS 90D
Feb 3, 2019
150
145
Fair enough.

I do agree Canon was showing signs of getting complacent (I came into this toward the end of that period), and it looks like someone finally poked them, hard. Their response on the body side has been spectacular; on the lens side it has been good so far (we're at the end of the beginning [at best] of seeing them create an RF lineup, so it's too early to judge just how wide the variety will end up being, and I mean variety both on the focal length/aperture continuum and the consumer-to-pro-grade spectrum--ideally they will ultimately have a wide variety of lenses of all grades). But yes at the pro end, they're more expensive than the corresponding EF lenses. But from what I can tell (mostly from people who comment here; I own only two RF lenses as yet), they're usually also better.

Many people criticize, few do so formulaically and to the exclusion of having anything else to say.
That is a pretty spot on analyses of this case. And I also do agree on Canon making spectacular lenses in the RF range now. I have been working with the R5 for a day, I did a commercial shoot (photo and video) and had 0 (ZERO!) unsharp shots. All sharp, thousands of photo’s. All sharp on the eye on f2.0 even in motion, unbelievable. And I mean crispy-sharp, not fuzzy-sharp like the DSLR’s can be sometimes. So I can’t wait for a water resistent mirrorless pro body with built-in batterygrip. And the R3 seems to be the right choice.

Pretty cool huh, how a disagreement can lead to pretty good analyses of the Canon/Mirrorless case. I do appreciate that. Enjoy the weekend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC