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

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,116
828
Davidson, NC
On a related note - The camera on my iPhone has now become the main reason I upgrade my iPhone. It has caught up to the Canon M and gives me 4K video unlike my M5.
Yes, for a lot of folks, the camera is the reason to upgrade the phone. No matter what processor they put in the phone, you are not going to talk faster. When I want a better camera, I buy a better camera. When most folks want a better camera, they buy a new phone.

My friend in Oklahoma has taken really nice panoramas with his iPhone. I recently printed out three of them for him on roll paper. Two of them were of sunsets, one of Rome from the Palatine hill, and one including the Alhambra. They presented extra challenges to me because of the differences between light and dark by my not having Raw files to work with. But I think I did rather well editing them for printing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,116
828
Davidson, NC
Here is a reduced version of the Roma panorama. It printed out at 22.2" long and 12" wide. The other two were 44" long, the longest my printer will allow.

Torrey-Rome-pan.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: cayenne and Hobby

tomsop

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 23, 2012
80
12
If an iPhone suits your needs, then you shouldn't buy a dedicated camera. Also, if an iPhone suits your needs, you shouldn't waste your time posting to this forum. And, yes, I agree that the typical consumer is probably never going to buy a camera unless it can send text messages. It seems like no one under the age of 30 even uses phones for calls these days, mostly texting and sharing pictures on social media.
The reason I am on this forum is because I have a lot of M lenses and I am still holding out hope that they come out with a better camera with IBIS and 4K and a viewfinder that will be a step up from the m6 mark ii. I guarantee the IPhone 13 will come out before Canon releases another M - if ever. Not sure what to do - I am open to suggestions as long as it is within reasonable orbit price wise of my investment into the M system. Whatever I have to do I probably have to start all over and not sure where to go.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,228
3,646
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
The reason I am on this forum is because I have a lot of M lenses and I am still holding out hope that they come out with a better camera with IBIS and 4K and a viewfinder that will be a step up from the m6 mark ii. I guarantee the IPhone 13 will come out before Canon releases another M - if ever. Not sure what to do - I am open to suggestions as long as it is within reasonable orbit price wise of my investment into the M system. Whatever I have to do I probably have to start all over and not sure where to go.
If you don't need/want a new camera now, I would say sit tight. Buying now means paying a pandemic premium. Many on this forum do not see Canon abandoning the M line, as it is still their best selling mirrorless cameras. It may take another year, but sooner or later we'll all have a better idea of where Canon is going and supply will have caught up with demand, so we can make more informed decisions. Right now, everyone who is buying is just blindly gambling (myself included).
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,626
585
The reason I am on this forum is because I have a lot of M lenses and I am still holding out hope that they come out with a better camera with IBIS and 4K and a viewfinder that will be a step up from the m6 mark ii. I guarantee the IPhone 13 will come out before Canon releases another M - if ever. Not sure what to do - I am open to suggestions as long as it is within reasonable orbit price wise of my investment into the M system. Whatever I have to do I probably have to start all over and not sure where to go.
If you're wanting to go with a smaller camera body and smaller but high quality lenses, I'd seriously recommend the Fuji X line of cameras.

I'm into rangefinder cameras lately and honestly, I may consider adding their Xpro-3 to my stable....just so great for travel, etc.

Leica is $$$$, but if you had the means, their small bodies, with FF sensors and amazing lenses (even 3rd party are great)...that might work for you.

I love my Canon gear and intend to have something Canon over time, but I"m not stuck on one and only one brand...

Heck, I'm not even stuck to digital, I'm really having fun with medium format film, etc....panoramic cameras, etc.

HTH,
C
 

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
114
145
The reason I am on this forum is because I have a lot of M lenses and I am still holding out hope that they come out with a better camera with IBIS and 4K and a viewfinder that will be a step up from the m6 mark ii. I guarantee the IPhone 13 will come out before Canon releases another M - if ever. Not sure what to do - I am open to suggestions as long as it is within reasonable orbit price wise of my investment into the M system. Whatever I have to do I probably have to start all over and not sure where to go.
After reading this, your earlier "death of Canon" post makes more sense.

Personally, I would be very surprised if an $800 full frame Canon body had IBIS. The two most likely kit lenses for it (RF 24-105 STM and RF 24-240 USM) both have IS, and I expect Canon wants to steer folks who use higher-end glass without IS toward the R6.

On the other hand, an $800 FF body with uncropped 4K could be a big hit with the vlogging crowd. But Canon would need to give it enough horsepower to read out the full sensor and bin the pixels in real time at 30 fps (at least). That affects cost, battery life, and heat dissipation.

While I love my M5 and want to see the M series continue to grow, I don't expect to see IBIS in a future M body. All of the EF-M lenses have IS except the 22 and 32 mm primes, and I'm willing to bet that most M users are perfectly happy with the kit zooms.
 

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
114
145
If you're wanting to go with a smaller camera body and smaller but high quality lenses, I'd seriously recommend the Fuji X line of cameras.

I'm into rangefinder cameras lately and honestly, I may consider adding their Xpro-3 to my stable....just so great for travel, etc.

Leica is $$$$, but if you had the means, their small bodies, with FF sensors and amazing lenses (even 3rd party are great)...that might work for you.

I love my Canon gear and intend to have something Canon over time, but I"m not stuck on one and only one brand...

Heck, I'm not even stuck to digital, I'm really having fun with medium format film, etc....panoramic cameras, etc.

HTH,
C
The Fuji X-S10 is $999 and has IBIS and 4K (not sure if it's cropped or not). But unfortunately, it won't preserve @tomsop 's investment in EF-M lenses.
 

Quirkz

EOS RP
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2014
289
203
As I've been saying for years, I would absolutely love a full frame version of the inexpensive Canon M6. No need for a 1960s EVF--no real person needs that in 2021, providing a decent screen is available. This would easily cut costs down. Canon PLEASE make this as TINY as possible. If you can make it the size of an M6, double bravo. If it's super slightly bigger than an M6, then single bravo.

I will purchase for $799 or less. Do it!
So would I... but... man, the lenses would just be so large if wouldn't compete with the M line for tiny pack portability.
When I got the RP+35mm, I stopped using my M & fuji X-E3 cameras as much, But they still had a place when just wanted to slip a better-than-cellphone camera in to a jacket pocket.
 
Apr 20, 2021
4
0
Fascinating thread from my perspective. I have two major needs: bird photography and I write and take pics for an online music/festival magazine. After selling my Nikon F's thirty years ago, I only got back into photography when I retired 8 years ago. Although I could afford a lot more, my camera/lens combos have been....shall I say....thrifty. Birding: 7DII and usually a Sigma 150-600 lens, which has worked very well for me. Concerts: even more thrifty, I've shot most concert pics with an M50 with adapted 24-74 2.8, a 70-200 f4 and the occasional slow wide angle M series zoom and the the 18-150, which works great for daytime use but useless at nightime concerts, etc. So now I am considering continuing my thriftiness. My major need right now is a 70-200 2.8 for concert photos, so instead of loading a giant lens on my M50, I'm thinking about an RP with the RF 70-200 2.8. It's small, fast, and exactly what I need for concert photography. I've managed do quite well with the relatively inexpensive gear I've been using, and for my uses, I don't think I'd be willing to get anything larger than the RP (I'll still be using my M50 with 24-70 2.8; I usually carry both cameras at night). I realize the RP has an older sensor, but as I said, I've done just fine with a much older 7Dii sensor. Wonder if anyone has any insight into my plan? I actually am renting an RP/70-200 2.8 next week to try out before I purchase one for three festivals I'm covering in September. Any comments would be helpful.
 
Last edited:

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
86
84
Fascinating thread from my perspective. I have two major needs: bird photography and I write and take pics for an online music/festival magazine. After selling my Nikon F's thirty years ago, I only got back into photography when I retired 8 years ago. Although I could afford a lot more, my camera/lens combos have been....shall I say....thrifty. Birding: 7DII and usually a Sigma 150-600 lens, which has worked very well for me. Concerts: even more thrifty, I've shot most concert pics with an M50 with adapted 24-74 2.8, a 70-200 f4 and the occasional slow wide angle M series zoom and the the 18-150, which works great for daytime use but useless at nightime concerts, etc. So now I am considering continuing my thriftiness. My major need right now is a 70-200 2.8 for concert photos, so instead of loading a giant lens on my M50, I'm thinking about an RP with the RF 70-200 2.8. It's small, fast, and exactly what I need for concert photography. I've managed do quite well with the relatively inexpensive gear I've been using, and for my uses, I don't think I'd be willing to get anything larger than the RP (I'll still be using my M50 with 24-70 2.8; I usually carry both cameras at night). I realize the RP has an older sensor, but as I said, I've done just fine with a much older 7Dii sensor. Wonder if anyone has any insight into my plan? I actually am renting an RP/70-200 2.8 next week to try out before I purchase one for three festivals I'm covering in September. Any comments would be helpful.
I have an RP and the RF 70-200 2.8. For low light, the RP is not class leading, but it is easily as good as if not better than the 7DII, so you'll be fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick D.

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
I'm thinking about an RP with the RF 70-200 2.8. It's small, fast, and exactly what I need for concert photography. I've managed do quite well with the relatively inexpensive gear I've been using, and for my uses, I don't think I'd be willing to get anything larger than the RP (I'll still be using my M50 with 24-70 2.8; I usually carry both cameras at night). I realize the RP has an older sensor, but as I said, I've done just fine with a much older 7Dii sensor. Wonder if anyone has any insight into my plan? I actually am renting an RP/70-200 2.8 next week to try out before I purchase one for three festivals I'm covering in September. Any comments would be helpful.
You might find adding the small inexpensive grip extension to the RP an advantage if using large lenses on it. I have an RP that I run alongside my 5DS cameras and I’ve found it to be very capable. Just don’t unnecessarily underexpose.
 
Apr 20, 2021
4
0
You might find adding the small inexpensive grip extension to the RP an advantage if using large lenses on it. I have an RP that I run alongside my 5DS cameras and I’ve found it to be very capable. Just don’t unnecessarily underexpose.
Thanks for the comments. Has anyone used the aftermarket battery grips for the RP?
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Thanks for the comments. Has anyone used the aftermarket battery grips for the RP?
I haven’t as I bought the RP for its small size, but the extension is specifically not a battery grip; it’s just an extension to the bottom of the camera making the body deeper, more like an R. It has a hinged door in it so you can still access the battery and card. Quite neat.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,801
1,718
I haven’t as I bought the RP for its small size, but the extension is specifically not a battery grip; it’s just an extension to the bottom of the camera making the body deeper, more like an R. It has a hinged door in it so you can still access the battery and card. Quite neat.
And it also made me less worried about setting it down on a wet surface.
 
Apr 20, 2021
4
0
I haven’t as I bought the RP for its small size, but the extension is specifically not a battery grip; it’s just an extension to the bottom of the camera making the body deeper, more like an R. It has a hinged door in it so you can still access the battery and card. Quite neat.
Oh, I know about that extension. But shooting with the M50's tiny batteries in a work situation, changing batteries constantly, drove me nuts. So I'd like to be able to try something like this, but I don't know if anyone here has ever used them. I'm willing to pick up some size and maybe get a better grip and double the battery time. https://www.amazon.com/Mcoplus-MCO-.../B07ZPMJ9SF/ref=psdc_3109896011_t2_B08LW6FCGM
 

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
86
84
I haven’t as I bought the RP for its small size, but the extension is specifically not a battery grip; it’s just an extension to the bottom of the camera making the body deeper, more like an R. It has a hinged door in it so you can still access the battery and card. Quite neat.
I have the extension on my RP. I have big hands and it makes handling it much easier for me. It’s amazing how much difference it makes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sporgon

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,819
2,178
The only really compelling reasons I have seen for the APS-C format are overall camera size, cost, and focal length limitations.

Canon address the size with the M system, which even though it doesn't have some specific lenses people want it does have the lenses most people need and actually buy.

The cost is dealt with two fold, the M series for people that want smaller and cheaper, and if this new body comes out then with that. The new body would suit almost everybody that is looking for a 'real camera' but was pushed into the Rebel market because of price.

The focal length 'limitation' is somewhat addressed by the RF 600 and RF 800 f11's. And anybody that has seen AlanF's pixel level comparisons of those lenses and much more expensive lenses along with TC convertor use would be foolish to dismiss the f11 aspect because the high iso capabilities of the R5 and R6 are pretty outstanding.

To shoot night sports at f/11 instead of f/2.8 at 1/800, I'd need to use ISO 51200 instead of ISO 3200. Not that I'd want to use a 600mm or 800mm lens for that. But a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a current technology level high density crop body sensor in the 32MP range would be nice with the same level of weather resistance, longevity, and build quality as the 7D Mark II.

We'll probably never get it, but I'd find it useful if we did.

A fast handling, solidly built APS-C in the $2,500-3,000 range plus 70-200mm f/2.8 in the $2,000 range is more flexible, lighter, and cheaper than a fast handling FF + 300mm f/2.8 prime that still requires another body with a 70-200mm on it for when the action gets close. Just the 300/2.8 lens in Canon's lineup is $6K+ and weighs 5.5 pounds.


Taken as a whole, and given the 7D market was never regularly replaced which implies the sales were not particularly high, I don't really see the advantage for Canon, or users, who think about an RF crop camera.

Maybe they didn't sell as many as Canon wanted to. Or maybe Canon felt they sold too many that cannibalized 1-series sales?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,819
2,178
I kind of like the 'dumbed down' feature set you get with cheaper cameras. Maybe that's because I come from an age where the most expensive cameras had few features anyway. But at the end of the day I want reliable AF, consistent AE, independent control over shutter speed, aperture, and iso, and the ability to capture RAW. Anything else I really don't care too much about.

It's that reliable AF that has always been lacking in Canon's lower tier bodies for the past decade plus. Even the 5D Mark IV, with the same PDAF hardware (The PDAF array is the same part number, for crying out loud), is not as consistent as the 1D Mark II from shot to shot in AI Servo AF.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,819
2,178
In part because of improved wafer yields, the cost difference between crop and ff sensors has become a matter of tens of dollars. I don't know if this ceases to be true in more complex, modern sensors, but this was true in the waning days of the DSLR. So offering crop is more a way to differentiate product lines and "nerf" things than it is a cost savings. BUT doing so practically requires having a secondary line of lenses, and THAT'S costly.

On the other hand, a cynic could say that going into the crop market could be useful if you wanted to drive a stake through the heart of Fuji once and for all. But you'd have to offer a better value proposition to really kill them; and that would imply high quality glass, rather than kit quality glass.

This is a long way of saying that Neuro is likely right.

The difference has to be more than that. Even if there were zero defects and every chip is used, a FF sensor is 864mm² while a Canon APS-C sensor is 337.5mm², more or less. That means every FF sensor has the same surface area as 2.56 APS-C sensors. Or to put it another way, the same wafer blank can be used to make approximately 2.5X as many APS-C sensors as FF sensors. For the difference to only be tens of dollars per sensor, the wafer could only cost a few hundred dollars, instead of the thousands of dollars for which they sell.