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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
You have to keep repeating it until pigs fly, or until enough people are saying if for Canon to listen. The former will probably happen first.

No one thinks Canon will actually make anything just because we keep saying it. That's not the reason I keep saying it.

But one would think those who keep characterizing all of those who desire an APS-C RF mount camera as expecting it to be cheaper than the cheapest RF mount FF camera could eventually take the hint and let go of that fallacy?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
Michael, you made that same statement in April in a different thread, and I showed you ample evidence to the contrary there:


None of those cited Canon rumors articles carry much credence as far as I'm concerned. Read the comments I made on those or similar posts at the time. I don't have time to look them up for you.

When everyone else was gushing about how great the 7D Mark III was going to be I was telling them it was already a done deal that it would never happen, at least not as a DSLR.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
The question for Canon is determine is the number of "many of us" and what you represent to Canon overall.

You can't buy a 7Dii for a long time now. Buy a few second hand 7Dii to keep you going. Or maybe a second hand 1Dxii if your budget allows but that negates the whole reach issue that seems to be paramount for you.

Perhaps your market is disappearing and it is time to look at alternatives - which I know is a hard decision to face.

You can still buy a new 7D Mark II here in the U.S. if you're willing to buy it with a kit with a lens you don't want/need.

Don't forget that Canon changed the stock # of the 7D Mark II several years ago when they started including the WE-1 SD WiFi card with all 7D Mark II bodies. Listings with the old stock number that did not include the WE-1 have been showing "discontinued" for years.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
I don't think that Canon has ever had "affordable" >100mm f/2.8 lenses.

Not to mention that the EF135mm f/2 is right around $1K list price and is my "pry it from my cold dead hands" lens.

I got mine from the Canon USA Refurb store for about $720 + tax during a sale a few years ago when they actually had one (it was the only one) in stock. I consider that very affordable for what it gives you.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
I am willing to bet the people here who keep asking the same questions over and over do not work for Canon

Do you mean like the ones who keep asking, "Why can't you just use the 800mm f/11 + R5 to shoot night field sports?"

Or the ones who keep asking, "Why do you expect an R7 crop body to cost less than a $799 FF body" when no one who has actually expressed that an R7 might be useful to them has suggested such a thing?
 
Last edited:

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
I don't know why stating the reasons the 7D Mark II made sense for me, as an R7 would also make sense, keeps being interpreted as an argument that Canon will release an R7. I've been saying for well over a year that it looks less and less likely. That doesn't negate the legitimate reasons you keep denying for why it would be useful to me.
I have never negated that a 7Diii would be useful for you. Clearly it would be as you passionately argue against any alternative.

None of the same alternatives you folks keep suggesting over and over again in post after post are acceptable for shooting night field sports or in mediocrely lit gyms. I've been doing it for years. Yet you folks who apparently have never done it keep telling me that things I know won't work will work.
I have shot sports in poorly lit gyms. Clearly there are challenges. I started with 5Diii then 5Div then R5. I don't have the same reach issues and can crop heavily in the case of the R5 when needed. I use 70-200/2.8 and 24-105mm/4 and shoot f4/5.6 when there are multiple fighters involved and and use ~1/200s or higher. I under expose by a stop and recover shadows in post which is much easier with 5Div/R5 when ISO3200/4000 is used.

I am not saying that the suggested alternatives are better or even equivalent. Just to consider if they could work. You have shot down each suggestion but it seems that you haven't rented to try it out. It may not be better overall but good enough in some areas for what you want.

Changing systems is not really much of an option at this point in terms of cost vs. revenue, which is why many who do the same thing have already gotten out of it altogether and no one is shooting marching band competitions, youth games and even tournaments that used to have multiple freelancers competing for customers.
Australia doesn't have the same "enthusiasm" for high school or university sports compared to the US so there is no or limited freelancers comparable to the market you work in here.
This is a hard decision to make but hopefully you have alternatives to earn money.
High school sports are being overrun with parents with deep pockets who give everything (most of which looks pretty crappy) away for free.
I guess that I fall into that category as I shoot many genres as my hobby and couldn't possibly provide the same income that I get from my normal job. I buy good gear and share my action shots with other in my club. Hopefully they don't look crappy. I don't do this to deliberately put people out of work but perhaps more representative of the newer customer of Canon.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
You can still buy a new 7D Mark II here in the U.S. if you're willing to buy it with a kit with a lens you don't want/need.

Don't forget that Canon changed the stock # of the 7D Mark II several years ago when they started including the WE-1 SD WiFi card with all 7D Mark II bodies. Listings with the old stock number that did not include the WE-1 have been showing "discontinued" for years.
I didn't realise that it is still available at all!
B&H have the 7Dii + kit lens for USD1799 so no downside from a cost perspective.
All the others (including W-E1) have been discontinued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
I have shot sports in poorly lit gyms. Clearly there are challenges. I started with 5Diii then 5Div then R5. I don't have the same reach issues and can crop heavily in the case of the R5 when needed. I use 70-200/2.8 and 24-105mm/4 and shoot f4/5.6 when there are multiple fighters involved and and use ~1/200s or higher. I under expose by a stop and recover shadows in post which is much easier with 5Div/R5 when ISO3200/4000 is used.

I've never shot fighters (boxers?). But 1/200 (or even 1/500) is totally inadequate for basketball, much less volleyball. I tried that fairly unsuccessfully back in my Rebel XTi and 55-250/4-5.6 days.

I use primes for volleyball (35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2). Luckily the court for volleyball is smaller than for basketball, so you can pick different spots to shoot and not need the same focal length flexibility that one needs with basketball. Sometimes I don't use the 7D Mark II in the gyms unless it's one that has older lights that still flicker really bad. Instead I'll use the 5D Mark IV for the long body and the 5D Mark III (which does not have flicker reduction) as the wide body. But field sports at night and marching bands (both halftimes at football games and competitions that start during daylight but go into the night, which is when the largest bands perform) is what I do the most.


Australia doesn't have the same "enthusiasm" for high school or university sports compared to the US so there is no or limited freelancers comparable to the market you work in here.
This is a hard decision to make but hopefully you have alternatives to earn money.

I'm currently semi-retired so don't need to earn a lot from it, but I can't afford to spend more than I earn doing it, either.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,589
3,930
Perhaps, or they think most of us will cave and eventually buy a 1D X Mark III, R3, or a second R5 instead.
I suspect they thought most people looking for an upgrade to the 7DII would purchase a 90D. I realize you don’t think it was an upgrade, but from Canon‘s perspective I suspect it was the replacement.

I still think Canon's perceived loss of 1-Series sales due to the way most 7D Mark II bodies were used is what killed it, not lack of demand. The demise of photojournalism, particularly of print journalism, is what really cut the sales numbers of 1-Series bodies in the mid 2010s.
What is the basis for your claim of a decline in 1-series sales? Canon certainly doesn’t publish granular details on model sales, and it doesn’t seem like something they’d announce.

They updated the 1-series at a faster pace than the 7-series. There’s a message there.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,235
3,662
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I don't think that Canon has ever had "affordable" >100mm f/2.8 lenses.
It depends on what you consider affordable, but the now apparently discontinued 200 f2.8 L was reasonably priced and an excellent lens. For shooting sports, where you need high shutter speeds and often shoot a 70-200 zoom extended to 200 99% of the time, the f2.8 200 was an excellent alternative.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
915
768
www.flickr.com
I've never shot fighters (boxers?). But 1/200 (or even 1/500) is totally inadequate for basketball, much less volleyball. I tried that fairly unsuccessfully back in my Rebel XTi and 55-50/4-5.6 days.
@ 1/200s I get slight hair blur or front kick blur which adds an element of speed. 1/320s generally freezes the action sufficiently with kumite sparring. It doesn't have fast ball movement though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
I suspect they thought most people looking for an upgrade to the 7DII would purchase a 90D. I realize you don’t think it was an upgrade, but from Canon‘s perspective I suspect it was the replacement.


What is the basis for your claim of a decline in 1-series sales? Canon certainly doesn’t publish granular details on model sales, and it doesn’t seem like something they’d announce.

They updated the 1-series at a faster pace than the 7-series. There’s a message there.

Yes, Canon expected those looking for a 7D Mark II replacement to either be happy with the 90D/M6 Mark II or buy much more expensive FF sports bodies and massively more expensive Big Whites.

My perception of 1-Series sales is certainly limited in scope, but I've seen it over and over among PJs who were once staff photographers with company issued gear who are now freelancers with self-provided gear working for pennies on the dollar compared to a decade or so ago. Most local newspapers used to replaced half their primary bodies each replacement cycle. If those same newspapers that bought multiple 1D X bodies (or Nikon D3s bodies) in 2012 even still exist in 2021, they're not buying any cameras or lenses because they're now contracting out the shoots that demand top level gear. Then they're either issuing old gear to reporters to take their own photos for stories they cover, or asking them to use their smartphones instead.

Canon has traditionally updated the 1-Series every Summer Olympics cycle. The 7D always seemed to have to wait until Canon had time to get around to it. That's nothing new.

Why do you keep misinterpreting my expression of why I would personally find an R7 useful to be a declaration that Canon agrees that it would be equally useful for them to make it?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
It depends on what you consider affordable, but the now apparently discontinued 200 f2.8 L was reasonably priced and an excellent lens. For shooting sports, where you need high shutter speeds and often shoot a 70-200 zoom extended to 200 99% of the time, the f2.8 200 was an excellent alternative.

I find the extra stop of speed the 135/2 gives, as well as the much smoother backgrounds at f/2.8 compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II at 135mm and f/2.8 much more valuable to me than the better bokeh of the 200/2.8 compared to the 70-200/2.8.

The 70-200/2.8 has too much flexibility to be ignored, and if one already has a 70-200/2.8 then the 200/2.8 isn't nearly as attractive.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
@ 1/200s I get slight hair blur or front kick blur which adds an element of speed. 1/320s generally freezes the action sufficiently with kumite sparring. It doesn't have fast ball movement though.

Yeah, with the visual ensemble (the folks who do not play an instrument but spin and toss flags, rifles, sabres, etc.) I'll often drop down to around 1/250-1/320 to get blur at the ends of the spinning appliance or even a bit of hand movement. But they're trained to hold their faces still and smiling while looking up at the judges box at the same time they're doing all of that movement with the rest of their bodies, so the faces are still sharp. Athletes, not so much, especially when they use head fakes to try and get an advantage over a defender.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,235
3,662
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
@Michael Clark I think I get where you are coming from and at least understand some of your frustration with others on the forum.

The 90D is not a reasonable alternative to the 7DII for sports. The autofocus is inferior to the 7D and the buffer would fill up too quickly.

I love the R5, but on a test run last week I realized that it has some real downsides for shooting sports, most notably the small buffer, which means losing access to the camera during critical plays while the buffer clears.

I can't imagine that any of the other cameras people are suggesting would work either.

I'm actually in a very similar situation to yours, with one important difference.

I am very fortunate in that I don't need to rely on my income from the college that I shoot for. They pay me what they can afford, which is way less than what it is worth and would not be a living wage for anyone else. It works for me because I have retirement income and the pay I get feeds my GAS. But, if I had to justify it from a business perspective I could never do that. Photography is my hobby as well as my business and the income it brings in offsets expenses that I would probably be making anyway.

I had a 5DIII and a 7DII when I bought a 1DxII. I bought the 1Dx because neither of the other two cameras were really meeting my needs. I gave up the reach of the 7DII, but gained enough other advantages to make it worthwhile. (I don't generally shoot night sports because the college seldom has night sports. I don't shoot football because like many small colleges, my college can't afford to have a football program) I am planning to go to the R3 because I want to (I want to consolidate mounts and lenses) but from a financial perspective, it's a loser for me.

Point being, from my own experience, I get why you find many of the comments here uninformed. On the other hand, I think there is at least a 50% chance that Canon may not agree that there is a business case to be made for an R7.
 
Last edited:

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,235
3,662
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
I find the extra stop of speed the 135/2 gives, as well as the much smoother backgrounds at f/2.8 compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II at 135mm and f/2.8 much more valuable to me than the better bokeh of the 200/2.8 compared to the 70-200/2.8.

The 70-200/2.8 has too much flexibility to be ignored, and if one already has a 70-200/2.8 then the 200/2.8 isn't nearly as attractive.
Don't disagree. I long ago sold my prime for the zoom. I was just pointing out that Canon has indeed offered an affordable telephoto longer than 100mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,589
3,930
Why do you keep misinterpreting my expression of why I would personally find an R7 useful to be a declaration that Canon agrees that it would be equally useful for them to make it?
I don’t. Why do you seem to believe your reasons for wanting an R7 are unclear to me?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
Don't disagree. I long ago sold my prime for the zoom. I was just pointing out that Canon has indeed offered an affordable telephoto longer than 100mm.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, either, so much as adding to the 200/2.8 example by saying that in my experience, the 135/2 is an even better example. It's the best lens per dollar I've ever bought.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
I don’t. Why do you seem to believe your reasons for wanting an R7 are unclear to me?

Maybe because you reply to and reference my posts about why I would find an R7 useful with comments about why it might not make business sense to Canon? They imply that my comments here are an argument for Canon to make an R7 when I'm not arguing any such thing. I'm only arguing why the suggested alternatives do not work and why desiring an R7 is a legitimate position for my use case.
 
Last edited: