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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
The M system and X system are marketed to slightly different people.

I'd say more than just slightly different.

The M system is marketed by Canon for people who want one camera and a lens or two that is better than a smartphone and will last them for several years when taking photos at family events and on vacations/holidays. They're no worried about what the latest photo gear is every week.

The Fuji X system is for photographers who do photography for the sake of photography, not because they are at a family event or on vacation.

There may be a relative few number of EOS M owners who are more committed photographers than the family/vacationer profile of most M users, but in most cases the M camera is a supplement to their main camera systems. It is not the main system itself. And they are not who Canon is aiming for with the M system.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
I would argue that purchasing decisions, in particular when it comes to relatively 'luxurious' items such as high-end photography gear, are rarely reasonable, but governed mostly by emotion. Being able to afford something that can be considered 'top of the line' in any respect (such as the 7D series was in Canon world for APS-C) may be frequently much more important than the actual functionality.

I'd argue that you're incorrect. Pretty much every 7D Mark II owner I know had FF cameras before they had a 7D Mark II. For most 7D Mark II owners it's not their main camera, it's a supplemental tool for a specific use case.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,860
1,787
[..] Even the 45MP R5 only has 17MP in the APS-C footprint. If the R5 had a crop mode where the full area of the EVF only showed the APS-C output from the sensor, it might be satisfactory once the R5 drops to the current R6 price...
That's exactly how it works on the R5 :) It makes it hard to keep track of crop-mode, so sometimes I don't realize I'm still in crop mode and take a lot of 17MP pictures.

For me the give-aways are that framing changes when going to movie mode or when the dragonflies suddenly fill the frame at MFD on the 100-500.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
But what I meant is that an M50 with a FF sensor would be not much different from an RP. So it either needs to have fewer features or the RP will be discontinued.

There should be little doubt that this rumored $799 FF body will replace the RP. They may sell remaining RP stocks after the new body comes out, in much the same way they're still selling remaining stocks of 50MP 5Ds bodies after the introduction of the 45MP R5, but it won't be long after the $799 camera is introduced until the RP is gone. By the time the new $799 body is out in 2022, the RP will be three years old. That's an average replacement cycle for Canon's lower end models.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
The equivalence is not quite the same. It would be 280mm f4 for a 7Dii + 70-200/2.8.
Comparing the quality of the EF300/2.8 with the 70-200/2.8 is a little ambitious.
Are you saying that the sensor in the 1DXii is the same as the 7Dii (besides mp)?

You have mentioned the 300/2.8 so I assume you are only talking about reach....
The 7D II (USD1,799) and the EF70-200mm/2.8iii (USD2,099) costs USD3,898.
The R6 (USD2,499) plus EF300/4 (USD1,349) plus R mount adapter (USD99) costs USD3,947 ie
- same price, resolution and dual card mp
but....
- much better high ISO (very important for indoor shooting), AF, fps using the same sensor as 1DXiii
The battery life will not be the same but the other mirrorless features should make up the difference and worth carrying a spare battery.

If you needed the focal length flexibility then there isn't a direct R mount option. The RF70-200/4 is USD1,599 and can't be used with a TC unfortunately

Anyone who has used both the EF 300mm f/4 and the EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II are laughing right now. You can crop the 70-200/2.8 IS II at 200m to match the frame from a 300/4 taken on the same camera body and the cropped image is still sharper, even with the loss of sensor resolution. Or maybe my 70-200mm is the best one that's ever been made?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
But the 7Dii is also 20mp so same pixel density.

The same number of pixels in 39% of the area is not the same pixel density. It's 2.25X the pixel density of the R6.


If you want greater pixel density then
From PBD's comment...
"The 7D II cost $1,799 and the 100-400II $2,399, total $4,198. An R5 costs $3,899 the RF800 $899, total $4,798. Thats $600 more six years later with longer reach, more than twice the mp and fps, and MUCH better AF, all things reach limited shooters say they want. Downside is one stop of dof."

so in the same ballpark ie ~13% in cost but dramatically better features.

That's all well and good as long as you don't need to shoot wider than 600mm or faster than f/11...

It does nothing if you need f/2.8 at a FF angle of view of 300-400mm with the ability to zoom out to about 100mm (FF).
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
The equivalence is not quite the same. It would be 280mm f4 for a 7Dii + 70-200/2.8.
Comparing the quality of the EF300/2.8 with the 70-200/2.8 is a little ambitious.
Are you saying that the sensor in the 1DXii is the same as the 7Dii (besides mp)?

You have mentioned the 300/2.8 so I assume you are only talking about reach....
The 7D II (USD1,799) and the EF70-200mm/2.8iii (USD2,099) costs USD3,898.
The R6 (USD2,499) plus EF300/4 (USD1,349) plus R mount adapter (USD99) costs USD3,947 ie
- same price, resolution and dual card mp
but....
- much better high ISO (very important for indoor shooting), AF, fps using the same sensor as 1DXiii
The battery life will not be the same but the other mirrorless features should make up the difference and worth carrying a spare battery.
You are correct that the image quality is not quite the same using a 7D Mark II (2014)+ EF 70-200mm f/2.8 compared to, say a 1D X (2012) or 1D X II (2016). But for typical viewing sizes it's close enough that most customers won't see any difference.

If you needed the focal length flexibility then there isn't a direct R mount option. The RF70-200/4 is USD1,599 and can't be used with a TC unfortunately

That's were the rubber really hits the road. Without the focal length flexibility you need both a FF body with a 300mm prime AND another FF body with a 70-200 anyway. There goes the cost comparison!
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
It seems to me that the 90D/M6ii's sensor and burst fps is the source of all angst for the crop sensor community. Yearning for the same sensor in a weather sealed/dual card body is the holy grail :)

In terms of spare parts bin, it makes some financial sense to add a RF body similar to R6 with the M6ii sensor/processing pipeline. Dual cards would be the main difference. The RP/R bodies essentially did the same thing with 6Dii/5Div. Sales volume is the key issue. Canon might not have any RF-s lenses ie not support another lens mount and effectively restrict the wide angle lens options to adapted EF-s lenses.

Developing a new high pixel density APS-C sensor for R mount with Digic X processing capability is a vastly different financial and supply chain scenario.

No, it's the fragility of the M6 Mark II with a hot shoe mounted EVF and the steps backwards the 90D takes compared to even the 7D Mark II: noticeably lower performance AF and barely more than half the shutter life rating. If the 90D had the same AF system as the 7D Mark II and the same shutter life rating I'd have bought one as soon as they came out. Two years later, though, it would have to be a mirrorless for me to pull the trigger. An M6 Mark II type camera with a built in EVF would be a consideration if it were cheap enough to account for a shorter expected service life.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Well, you guys haven't disappointed me.

My two cents:

@Canon Rumors Guy has previously posted that an APS-C R body is coming from Canon. He's either right or wrong, but all the arguments one way or the other won't change anything.

Question is, if he is right, what form might that body take? I think logic would dictate a 7D or 90D successor. I don't see any point whatsoever in a low-cost crop sensor R. And by not seeing any point, I mean any point for Canon, which already offers the M line to fill that niche. Maybe if they completely abandoned the M line, but that would be a big leap off the cliff with no parachute.

The logic on this forum dictates that it would be a higher end crop body. I could see Canon offering a crop sensor R7 at about the price of the R6 or slightly above, which would be consistent with the historical placement of the 7D. That's going to disappoint the people who think they will get an R7 at 2014 prices. Don't see that happening.

We can (and apparently will) debate the viability of such a body until the cows come home. I can only relate my own perspective.

If Canon had offered a 7DIII with the 90D sensor, multiple f8 autofocus points and updated autofocus, I would have bought two (one for me and one for my wife). Instead I bought two R5s. I also bought her the 800 f11 and have two 100-500s on order (going on four months now) So, Canon not offering a 7DIII or R7 paid off for them in my case.

If the R7 ever materializes, I'm not sure what it would take for me to consider buying one. I'm perfectly happy with the R5 sensor and use it in crop mode consistently for songbirds with no problem. While I'm an extreme example, the point is that I suspect there are a lot of potential 7D III/R7 buyers who have moved on, meaning an even smaller niche for the body. A high megapixel R5s might shrink that potential market even more. if it means a crop mode of 25-35 mp.

Now, Canon's resources are not unlimited. They are having a hard time delivering on already introduced products, and I see a new post that says they are delaying future lens releases, so presumably, they are taking a close look at how best to allocate those resources once they meet current demand. We know the R3 is next in line. Beyond that, the more solid rumors are for a budget R, a high megapixel R, a cinema R and a flagship R (I may be missing other bodies). So, even at the most optimistic, it seems like an R7 would be unlikely to appear until 2023 at the earliest. That means it might be arriving about the time an R5II, which will likely have an even higher mp count, is being teased. Point being, with each new release, I suspect the pool of R7 users is going to shrink a bit.

Will it happen. I don't know, but I know it's damn fun reading all the arguments pro and con.

I'd be surprised if an R5 Mark II appears any time before mid 2024. That's a four year life cycle, which is what the 5-series has had since 2008.

5D Mark II - 2008
5D Mark III - 2012
5D Mark IV - 2016
R5 - 2020
 
  • Like
Reactions: EOS 4 Life

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
So, logic won...

In his case. The revenue generated shooting high school and youth sports can't cover the cost of that, though. So in my, and I'm sure there are many others, case the cost of two R5s and lack of affordable f/2.8 lenses at 300mm focal lengths mean we're still shooting with our aging 7D Mark II bodies and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II lens we bought in 2010.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Not as much as before. Sensor yields have vastly improved and the wafers, discs, they cut them from have gotten bigger.

The difference between a ff and APS-c sensor used to be in the $100’s, now it is probably in the $10’s.


Perhaps in the very high $10s, compared to the low to mid $100s. Nowhere near a factor of 10:1, though. It's not even physics, it's simple geometry. A FF sensor takes up 2.56X the area of a Canon APS-C sensor. A standard size wafer yields about 60 FF sensors or 170 APS-C sensors. That's with zero defects, which is not realistic.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
I'm not trying to be argumentative but rather trying to understand... A 20mp 7Dii with EF100-400 @400mm is equivalent to a 20mp FF 560mm f8. Given the better quality (AF, fps etc) of the R6 sensor, taking a 1 stop hit should be comparable. using the 100mm end @f4.5 would be equivalent to 140mm ~f7 so slightly more than 1 stop difference.

Asking for higher pixel density is the issue and the only fiscal option I can only see happening is Canon making a R6 body with M6ii sensor/processor in R mount (no RF-s lens). Would such a body fit your requirements?
The alternative is the R5 combo that gives all that and more with a ~$600 premium.

The 7D Mark II came out with 20MP in 2014 almost seven years ago. In 2021 the standard for APS-C sensors has changed. The 32MP sensor in the 90D and M6 Mark II is superior in pretty much every way to the 20MP sensor in the 7D Mark II, yet both the cameras with the 32MP APS-C sensor are priced much lower than what the 7D Mark II is still priced (or was when everyone started running out of them a few months ago - you might can still find one bundled with a kit lens, which raises the cost even more for someone who will never use a 24-105mm/3.5-5.6 on a 7D Mark II or anything else they own). Even so, many of us have been saying for months that we would be willing to pay an R6 price for an R7 that is basically the same as an R6 with the 32MP APS-C sensor in it. How many times do we have to keep repeating that?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
If an R7 cost Canon $100 less to make than an R5 how would they price it? How much pressure would they then put on themselves to make dedicated lenses for that crop sensor?

I wish people would stop thinking I am ‘anti R7’ or that I think ‘ff is the answer to everything’ and would realize I am only putting forwards what I see as logical reasons why Canon might or might not do something.

So far, from my logic, I see very little reason for Canon to make an R7, but what do I know? I am certainly not a corporate manufacturing guy!

How much less does it cost Canon to make an R6 than an R7? I bet the difference is a LOT less than the retail price difference. Why would an R7 with R6 construction but an off-the-shelf 32MP APS-C sensor cost more to make than an R6? If Canon sells the R6 for $1,400 less than the R5, why wouldn't they sell an R7 for around the same price as the R6? They'd make more profit on an R7 than on an R6, unless the 32MP APS-C sensor found in the $850 M6 Mark II and the $1,100 90D is more costly to make than the 20MP FF sensor found in the $2,500 R6.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
But would an R5 + 800mm/f11 down-sampled to say 25-30mp be better or worse than a 7Dii + 100-400mm? (That would still have the 45mp for larger/closer subjects with a shorter lens.)

But when I'm already using the R5 with a shorter lens at the same time I want to use the R7 with a longer lens (but nowhere near 600-800mm long and I need f/2.8 instead of f/11), what then?

I'd be fairly certain that the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS on a 32 MP APS-C crop sensor in an R6 body could be cropped to match the angle of view of the 800/11 on an R5 body and would still beat the latter handily. 32MP APS-C is the same pixel density as 82MP on FF. That's just shy of twice the pixel density of the 45 MP R5.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Probably not. The MFD is a good point. I am guessing that current 7Dii users already have glass eg EF100-400 so reusing it with R6 would alleviate the MFD issue.

But now you're only at 400mm and f/6.3 with a sensor that only has 7 MP in the APS-C sized center of the frame.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
They can right now buy a R5 body with adapter and have a much better wildlife tracking camera that gives them more creativity if they want to crop in post. It's essentially the same number of pixels when cropped, but with more play around it. So it comes down to how much time you are at 200 on your 70-200. I'll wager in sports you are not at 200 more than 50% of the time, otherwise you'd be talking about having a 100-400.
You'd lose that wager. The 100-400 is useless for night and indoor sports. It's too slow. In "good" high school stadiums and gyms I'm at ISO 3200, 1/800 and f/2.8.

I'm usually at 200mm and still need to crop a bit for most of the shots I take when shooting football. But though not the most numerous, some of the best shots are when the play is coming right at you and the ball carrier is running almost directly towards you. It may only happen a handful of times (If you're lucky - if you're not you can shoot all night and it won't happen) during an entire game, but when it does happen that's when you NEED to be able to zoom out. If they come all the way to the sideline you're whipping out your "wide" body (FF with 24-70 or 24-105) and shooting it one-handed while jumping out of the way and holding your monopod mounted long lens in your left hand.

This play started at 200mm on the QB, then dropped to 185mm as the back caught the screen and ran towards the camera position. The fourth shot was at 70mm with APS-C, the final frame was at 24mm on FF.

2010152101LR.JPG


2010152102LR.JPG


2010152105LR.JPG


2010152106LR.JPG


2010152109LR.JPG


At APS-C dimensions, the R5 is essentially the same number of pixels as the 7D Mark II that came out in 2014. It's half the number of pixels in the current 32MP APS-C sensor Canon uses in the $1,100 90D and the $850 M6 Mark II. The goal posts have moved in the last seven years.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,795
4,196
You folks keep ignoring those of us who wouldn't have a problem paying $2,500+ for an APS-C version of the R6 (build quality, etc.) with a 32MP or so APS-C sensor.
Those of you who want that are being ignored by Canon, most likely because there aren’t enough of you to justify making it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,311
3,854
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
You folks keep ignoring those of us who wouldn't have a problem paying $2,500+ for an APS-C version of the R6 (build quality, etc.) with a 32MP or so APS-C sensor.
I am curious what your Plan B is. We know that there will be no R7 this fall, which means one football season is gone. Given the delays, there is a good chance there won't be one available by fall of 2022. Will you just wait and how long will you wait, or will you consider something else?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy