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

[neuroanatomist]

Hmmm.. that might tend to make the M series redundant. Who would buy an M, if an M-sized FF with RF mount were available as an alternative?

If they do bring out a tiny FF model in RF mount, they'd also need to bring out at least a couple of very small lenses e.g. a pancake wideangle and a retractable kit-zoom.

A RF-mount camera will never be as ‘tiny’ as the M-series, because physics.

I don't like the idea of a camera without an EVF and there's no way I'd buy one - rear screens are completely useless in bright sunshine, and hugely inferior when composing and studying the details of a scene - but there are plenty who feel otherwise, so a screen-only model would probably sell to the smartphone crowd.

I guess you would never take a picture with a smartphone, then.

 

[Andy Westwood]

With the end upon Canon for the new sales of DSLR’s, mirrorless is the new norm.

The RP is a little cracker but starting to show its age now and no longer looks value for money as it once was. So might an RP II be with us soon given a minor revamp / upgrade (hopefully not just firmware lol) Canon might want to try and top the entry level full frame market with an RP II.

I have a couple of compact RF non-L lenses the 35mm and 50mm so I might be tempted to go for an entry full frame body like that as a backup and holiday camera in place of my M-Series.

 

[neuroanatomist]

With the end upon Canon for the new sales of DSLR’s, mirrorless is the new norm.

Yes, last year DSLRs comprised 46% of ILC sales, and so far this year they only comprise 45%.

Next time I’m in Manhattan, I’ll be sure to look for you standing outside B&H wearing your ‘The End (of the DSLR) Is Nigh’ sandwich board.

 

[entoman]

A RF-mount camera will never be as ‘tiny’ as the M-series, because physics.


I guess you would never take a picture with a smartphone, then.

1) The full frame Sigma fp L body measures 113 x 70 x 54. The Canon M6 measures 120 x 70 x 49. It would be easy for Canon to make a full frame model the same size or even smaller than the Sigma, and if they chose to do so, they could even make it compatible with the hotshoe-mounted EVF.

2) The screen area of a smartphone is typically about 4x the area of the screen on a MILC, so indoors or in overcast lighting conditions a smartphone screen is usable for composition. But completely useless in bright sunshine.

3) I use a camera to take Photographs. I don't take selfies. I would use my smartphone if I needed e.g. to urgently transmit a documentary image e.g. to quickly send a copy of a birth certificate or passport, or if I needed an image after a road accident for insurance purposes.

 

[H. Jones]

It truly makes me laugh to read that viewfinder are "1950s technology"

Try holding a 1d with a 400mm f/2.8 in front of your face to stare at the back LCD for even 5 minutes handheld Three points of contact is far more stable(two hands, forehead), and takes some of the strain off your arms having to be so far out in front of you to focus on a back LCD.

I'm not saying that all cameras need a viewfinder, but it is truly hysterical that someone would think that viewfinder are useless. If your sole goal for hours is taking stable photographs and tracking action, you're going to want a viewfinder to keep against your face as a third point of stability. It's also far easier to move your body and view in line with action with a camera to your face.

I expect the $800 camera will lack a viewfinder, and that's fine for what it is and doesn't bother me, same with the M6 which is a perfectly fine camera. But it's incredible the way that people grandstand on websites about what they don't need on a camera because they must be the only photographers on the planet. Viewfinders aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[addola]

At $799, I would be tempted. I wouldn't ask for too much in terms of image quality, but I do hope that they don't re-use the RP's sensor (which was on the 6D Mark II). Giving it the R6's sensor (which is the same as 1D-X Mark III) or the EOS R (which is the same as 5D Mark IV) would be great and "too good" for a camera at this price point.

The only other thing that I would love to see is bigger battery than the EOS RP. Mirrorless cameras use more juice than DSLRs with optical viewfinder. I know you can buy multiple batteries, specially cheaper 3rd party batteries, but I'd rather have more power per-battery than less.

 

[entoman]

I had to look at your equipment list to verify what I sort of knew to be true before I looked: you are not an M user.

That's OK. No snark intended.

I use my 5D Mark III at least thrice weekly.

I also use my M6 Mark II regularly...but especially while traveling.

I get so darned weary of people who don't use the M talking smack about the format.

There are times and places were size matters (insert joke here).

Canon would be foolish to cede the small body market to other camera manufacturers.

Foolish.

Buddy you are far too touchy. Lighten up. Why do you incorrectly assume that I'm snubbing M series? They are excellent cameras and I've nothing whatsover against them. Of course size matters - which is why the subject of a "tiny" FF camera was mentioned by mangobutter. And the fact that my current gear list comprises full frame cameras is irrelevant - I've owned Canon and Sony APS-C cameras, and I'd have no hesitation in using a little Olympus if it could match the image quality and resolution of an R5.

But how long can the M series and a "tiny" FF camera could co-exist in Canon's line up? Canon currently serve 3 (arguably 4) different mounts - EF-S, EF, M and RF. Sooner or later they'll rationalise and consolidate by reducing the number of mounts. And if they decide to produce a "tiny" RF mount camera, it might well prove more popular than the M series.

 

[neuroanatomist]

1) The full frame Sigma fp L body measures 113 x 70 x 54. The Canon M6 measures 120 x 70 x 49. It would be easy for Canon to make a full frame model the same size or even smaller than the Sigma, and if they chose to do so, they could even make it compatible with the hotshoe-mounted EVF.

You complain about lack of utility for a camera without an EVF, then offer up a size comparison with a FF camera that lacks an (in-built) EVF?

There are words to describe people who contravene their own statements to make a point. Hypocrite is among the more polite of them.

 

[MoonMadness]

Easily and fully without EVF. I've been hammering that for years. This is what I want and need to bring me back to RF. I like the size of the RP but I still think it's unnecessarily big, particularly due to the EVF which I rarely used. Why use a .75" screen when you can use a 3.5"+ screen? EVFs are throwbacks to the 1950s to make old school photographers comfortable enough to swtich to mirrorless. If mankind forgot what cameras were and had to design them from scratch today, we'd have no need for EVFs. Sure they can be helpful in bright sun, but that's usually cause our screens suck. Make better screens, iPhone grade.

Older people have a hard time seeing close up. The screen may be hard to see with sharp focus and to see if the object they are focusing on is indeed in focus or not. EVFs on the other hand, with the help of the diopter, fixes this problem. I would never purchase any camera without an VF. There are other reasons for using it, such as making the camera more steady by bracing my eye to the VF vs not using the VF (in most cases, if all else is equal and I do not have anything to keep it steady, such as a tripod, gimbal, the ground...). Not everyone needs or wants a VF, but I do and I am sure many others do too.

 

[entoman]

You complain about lack of utility for a camera without an EVF, then offer up a size comparison with a FF camera that lacks an (in-built) EVF?

There are words to describe people who contravene their own statements to make a point. Hypocrite is among the more polite of them.

You are the one making inaccurate statements about what and what can't be done.
You needed to be corrected, so that's what I did.
Too bad that it hurts your ego...

BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, neither the M6 or the fp L have an EVF, although both will accept an accessory EVF, so it's an absolutely valid comparison, and there is no hypocrisy. I personally wouldn't buy a camera that didn't have an EVF (either integral or as an accessory).

 

[MoonMadness]

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.

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.

Let's say a user has a 7D and a 70-200 f2.8 lens and that is all the reach they need. And now they are ready to enter the mirrorless market. Without an crop RF body, they would have to also spend $$, again, to get a new lens to get the equivalent reach. There are many that do not want f11 and rather have some more like the 2.8 (yes it is FF 2.8, but not as dim as when using the f11 crop lens). If RF has full frames cameras that work great with high ISO, then why not have all their FF lenses at F11? Answer is the same reason that the APS-C users want more than F11.

I believe you, that RF crop may not for you. But for many others, it is.

 

[josephandrews222]

Buddy you are far too touchy. Lighten up. Why do you incorrectly assume that I'm snubbing M series? They are excellent cameras and I've nothing whatsover against them. Of course size matters - which is why the subject of a "tiny" FF camera was mentioned by mangobutter. And the fact that my current gear list comprises full frame cameras is irrelevant - I've owned Canon and Sony APS-C cameras, and I'd have no hesitation in using a little Olympus if it could match the image quality and resolution of an R5.

But how long can the M series and a "tiny" FF camera could co-exist in Canon's line up? Canon currently serve 3 (arguably 4) different mounts - EF-S, EF, M and RF. Sooner or later they'll rationalise and consolidate by reducing the number of mounts. And if they decide to produce a "tiny" RF mount camera, it might well prove more popular than the M series.

This is my last post in this thread.

You are wronger than wrongie wrongerson...I don't need to lighten up...except when I'm traveling and shooting images for friends and family.

Then I need to lighten up!

I could go on and on but I won't...except to say that someone who says they've shot APS-C format cameras (but not the M)...while trashing the M and its inherent strengths (the EF-M bodies and lenses were designed with photo quality as well as lens and body size, weight and volume in mind)...well you make my point for me...better than I ever could.

The sensor in the M6 MkII is identical to the sensor in the 90D.

When linked to any of the EF-M lenses...my goodness what a small and light package capable of tremendous photos!

And much much smaller than a 90D with EF or EF-S lenses attached.

This is a bad as politics...example example example.

Out.

 

[MoonMadness]

1) The cheapest APS-C Canon is $399
2) The people who want a high-end RF mount APS-C camera want a higher cropped resolution at a lower price.
Whether or not Canon thinks it would be profitable to build such cameras has very little to do with the existence of the camera.
It is not like it is going to be a $700 R5.

Doesn't everyone want to spend less money?

But that does not mean they are not realistic with expectations of what the price should be. I think they are just expecting price to be a little lower on a crop frame as long as all else is equal. Seems some people think that: people are expecting an RF-crop body to be less expensive than the least expensive FF body. I believe this expectation is not the case at all, for the majority of people.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You are the one making inaccurate statements about what and what can't be done.
You needed to be corrected, so that's what I did.
Too bad that it hurts your ego...

BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, neither the M6 or the fp L have an EVF, although both will accept an accessory EVF, so it's an absolutely valid comparison, and there is no hypocrisy. I personally wouldn't buy a camera that didn't have an EVF (either integral or as an accessory).

Fair point, I didn’t think Canon would do a FF MILC sans EVF, but it’s possible. Still going to be bigger than the Sigma, because the RF mount is bigger than Leica L.

I’ve had no significant problems using my M, M2 or M6 in full sun, though.

As for the M series and a ‘tiny FF’ coexisting in the lineup, the M50 II with kit lens can be bought for less than $700, and until there’s a FF camera + lens selling for around that, there’s ample room for coexistence. When do you think we’ll see a tiny FF w/ lens kit for under $800? I would guess, not anytime soon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I believe you, that RF crop may not for you. But for many others, it is.

The real question is, for how many others. You don’t know. I don’t know. Canon does know. The update frequency of the 7-series is probably a fair indication of how important that market segment is to Canon…not very.

 

[privatebydesign]

Let's say a user has a 7D and a 70-200 f2.8 lens and that is all the reach they need. And now they are ready to enter the mirrorless market. Without an crop RF body, they would have to also spend $$, again, to get a new lens to get the equivalent reach. There are many that do not want f11 and rather have some more like the 2.8 (yes it is FF 2.8, but not as dim as when using the f11 crop lens). If RF has full frames cameras that work great with high ISO, then why not have all their FF lenses at F11? Answer is the same reason that the APS-C users want more than F11.

I believe you, that RF crop may not for you. But for many others, it is.

Why can’t they just use the possible entry level ff RF and crop when they need the reach?

But how many 7D owners would be happy with an entry level camera body anyway? I doubt many would.

I don’t care if RF crop bodies make sense for me or not, that isn’t the point, the point is does it make sense for Canon? I don’t see the reasoning where it does make sense for Canon. I think most people here vastly overestimate the income the 7 series generated, it was a niche within a niche that in 12 years was updated once. If it was a high earner it would have been updated every other year.

The main reason for crop cameras in the first place was the cost of sensors, that cost has now come down dramatically so isn’t the barrier it used to be. Further, all the camera manufacturers have stated they need to raise the unit price of all their cameras in a shrinking market to maintain profit levels. To do that they need image differentiation, phones will never have ff sensors and they are a way of creating that difference between the images taken by a phone and a ‘real camera’

Which pushes me back to my earlier post and points.

 

[Czardoom]

Ah, another thread with the usual suspects seemingly bewildered about why anyone would want a crop body rather than FF. To summerize their arguments:

"Just get an FF camera and crop when you want the reach." I have a sneaking suspicion that this new $799 FF camera will not be a high MP camera. It might be 26 MPs like the RP, which would give it 10 MP in crop. Not quite the 32 MP that Canon has in their 90D and M6 II - and presumably in a new RF crop camera. So far less pixels on target in your "superior" FF camera, but I guess that doesn't matter when you are just arguing on the internet.

"Just wait until the high 80 MP (or more) FF camera and crop." A better argument except there still is no such camera. And when that camera does appear, how much do you think it will cost? I would guess at least as much as the R5. So, beyond affordable for many folks. Yes, if you were to give me the new 80 MP FF camera, I would take it instead of a 32 MP crop that costs 1/2 as much (or less for a 90D level RF crop camera). But if I have to pay for it myself, then the crop camera will almost certainly be the better option.

"Just crop..." Another thing that people who say this don't seem to understand, is that it is not always easy to get your composition correct when you have to judge where your "crop lines" will be. And composition is arguably the most important factor in what constitutes a good photo (In the art world, "Design" or "Composition" are usually atop every poll on the subject of what is the most important aspect of a painting). If you can compose your shot using the entire viewfinder it will always, without exception, make it easier to get your composition the way you want it.

I won't even get into DOF, because whenever I mention that some people want more DOF, and it is easier (again due to cropping and composition) to get your shot with more DOF with a crop camera, it seems to go completely over the head of the "FF is always better" crowd.

 

[MoonMadness]

Why can’t they just use the possible entry level ff RF and crop when they need the reach?

Not sure why you are asking me this. They can use whatever they want to.

But how many 7D owners would be happy with an entry level camera body anyway? I doubt many would.

I didn't say anything about entry level. Just about people wanting an RF crop in general. I didn't notice that the post you wrote that I replied to mentioned anything about it being entry. Sorry if I missed that.

I don’t care if RF crop bodies make sense for me or not, that isn’t the point, the point is does it make sense for Canon? I don’t see the reasoning where it does make sense for Canon. I think most people here vastly overestimate the income the 7 series generated, it was a niche within a niche that in 12 years was updated once. If it was a high earner it would have been updated every other year.

A company should find ways to make money, not lose it. I don't know if making an RF crop would or wouldn't. I don't know how much income it directly generated. I was just writing that there are people who would want a crop over a FF body. In particular, I was addressing your opening statement in that post: "The only really compelling reasons I have seen for the APS-C format are overall camera size, cost, and focal length limitations." Also, maybe indirectly, there are a good number of crop users that use it in sports where there is a large number of audience members (in person or on TV) and that is free advertisement, not necessarily for the crop models, but for Canon in general.

The main reason for crop cameras in the first place was the cost of sensors, that cost has now come down dramatically so isn’t the barrier it used to be. Further, all the camera manufacturers have stated they need to raise the unit price of all their cameras in a shrinking market to maintain profit levels. To do that they need image differentiation, phones will never have ff sensors and they are a way of creating that difference between the images taken by a phone and a ‘real camera’

Maybe it was the main reason in the 1st place, but later evolved to be another more important reason than the older 1st reason? You mention they need to raise prices. So why can't they raise prices of a crop body too? I doubt they would ever make 2 bodies with the same specs and features (maybe they already did, I don't know). But if they did, Canon could do marketing research or something to figure out how much less it should cost. I bet there are some people who would pay just as much for the crop (I might) or even more for the crop.

ZWO, a very popular telescope camera company, makes cameras with various size sensors. They make some cameras that have smaller sensors than others, but cost more. The smaller sensor makes sense for imaging smaller objects like planets and galaxies. Larger sensors for nebulas and the few larger galaxies. Telescope size and speed makes a difference in which camera to get too.

 

[SteveC]

$799 full frame? What will be the downsides?

Permanently stuck in crop mode?

 

[privatebydesign]

Ah, another thread with the usual suspects seemingly bewildered about why anyone would want a crop body rather than FF. To summerize their arguments:

"Just get an FF camera and crop when you want the reach." I have a sneaking suspicion that this new $799 FF camera will not be a high MP camera. It might be 26 MPs like the RP, which would give it 10 MP in crop. Not quite the 32 MP that Canon has in their 90D and M6 II - and presumably in a new RF crop camera. So far less pixels on target in your "superior" FF camera, but I guess that doesn't matter when you are just arguing on the internet.

"Just wait until the high 80 MP (or more) FF camera and crop." A better argument except there still is no such camera. And when that camera does appear, how much do you think it will cost? I would guess at least as much as the R5. So, beyond affordable for many folks. Yes, if you were to give me the new 80 MP FF camera, I would take it instead of a 32 MP crop that costs 1/2 as much (or less for a 90D level RF crop camera). But if I have to pay for it myself, then the crop camera will almost certainly be the better option.

"Just crop..." Another thing that people who say this don't seem to understand, is that it is not always easy to get your composition correct when you have to judge where your "crop lines" will be. And composition is arguably the most important factor in what constitutes a good photo (In the art world, "Design" or "Composition" are usually atop every poll on the subject of what is the most important aspect of a painting). If you can compose your shot using the entire viewfinder it will always, without exception, make it easier to get your composition the way you want it.

I won't even get into DOF, because whenever I mention that some people want more DOF, and it is easier (again due to cropping and composition) to get your shot with more DOF with a crop camera, it seems to go completely over the head of the "FF is always better" crowd.

I understand why a very few people might want one, I don‘t understand why those people think it makes economic sense for Canon to make one.

For those users I’d be happy if Canon did make the camera for them, I just have yet to see a good economic reason why they would.

I have ready listed the core reasons and users of crop cameras and how the older reasoning just doesn’t seem to fit in this new generation. Maybe I am wrong, but so far nobody has offered anything more than ‘I want one’.

As for your DOF comment, it is entirely fallacious, incorrect, and not based in reality.