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

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,113
989
And that is a large part of the problem with threads here, why anthropomorphize corporate decision making, what does ‘deserve’ have to do with anything?

I laid out logical scenarios of and answers to the most often stated reasons why Canon should make an RF crop camera.

1/ Size, weight and cost. The M addresses all of them, that is why it is the best selling MILC system on the planet.
2/ Focal length limited shooting because of financial or size limitations. The RF 800mm f11 addresses that.

Given those basic facts I don’t see why people think it makes sense for Canon to make yet another model of camera for the very small number of people that think an R7 crop camera would replace their ancient 7D II’s.

I don’t care if they do or don’t, I’d just like somebody to present a logical reason why Canon would. What camera buying situation is there for a crop RF camera that isn’t satisfied by the M and RF 800?
I will study the M system. I need a light camera with light lenses for non-professional work. I did not look into them so far as I kept hearing it will be discontinued and is 'ageing'. Since I am not in desperate rush for such a system (iPhone!), I wait for a new crop light camera with lenses to match. There are brilliant options in Fuji and Sony but I would like to stay with Canon.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,149
6,605
People who seek a crop sensor do so not just for the body but for a system. A lighter body with lighter (cheaper) lenses is what they seek.
Exactly what I’ve been saying. That’s why there’s the EOS M, which has been and likely still is the globally best-selling MILC line. Not sure why some people believe Canon will replace the M line with APS-C RF mount cameras, other than those people have the delusion that they represent a large market segment for Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,113
989
I do not get the resistance to Canon launching a new crop mirrorless system. What exactly is the problem?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,149
6,605
I will study the M system. I need a light camera with light lenses for non-professional work. I did not look into them so far as I kept hearing it will be discontinued and is 'ageing'. Since I am not in desperate rush for such a system (iPhone!), I wait for a new crop light camera with lenses to match. There are brilliant options in Fuji and Sony but I would like to stay with Canon.
Personally, I have two M bodies and all the EF-M lenses. It’s a great, portable, relatively inexpensive system (especially compared to my FF gear), and delivers very good image quality.

For the lenses, check out the TDP reviews.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,113
989
Personally, I have two M bodies and all the EF-M lenses. It’s a great, portable, relatively inexpensive system (especially compared to my FF gear), and delivers very good image quality.

For the lenses, I wrote most of the TDP reviews.
Wow.
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,113
989
I checked the M5 for the very first time. Superb. Except it is 6 years old. If they update it, it will be my crop camera for non pro work.
But I can see how the "7" crowd want/need a new crop camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,113
989
I explored more. I think a Canon S120 (is that the latest in the series?) may work perfectly for my needs. :)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,149
6,605
I do not get the resistance to Canon launching a new crop mirrorless system. What exactly is the problem?
I’m not resistant to it, I just think it’s very unlikely. Canon is a business, they’ll do what makes fiscal sense.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,149
6,605
I explored more. I think a Canon S120 (is that the latest in the series?) may work perfectly for my needs. :)
I have an S120 as well, decent but not great. Check out the G series.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,672
6,100
I
I agree with your premise but you can't use the RF800 with the M series. If you mean M series for cheap/small (or M + EF white lenses for reach) OR any of the R bodies + RF800mm then I concur.

Cheap reach is the reason that 7D users will claim with pixel density being the primary one. 7D users will complain that the M6ii/90D with adapted long white lenses is not useful because it doesn't have dual card/weather sealed but it does achieve the required reach parameter.

Using 7Dii + medium whites (70-200/2.8, 300/4, 400/5.6 etc) with TCs gives dual card/AF/fps with pixel density to avoid paying huge sums for big whites.

R5 price is too much for a 7Dii replacement with the 17mp crop being "vastly" insufficient cf 20mp in 7Dii and we can't use TCs with RF70-200mm/2.8 or limited range with RF100-500mm.
They yearn for the 90D/M6ii sensor but in a R mount body at a R6 price (or lower). The unanswerable question is how big is the market for Canon?

I used to have a 7D but I am happy to be corrected by the 7Dii user base for their needs :)
I mean the people that want a small and cheap ‘real camera’ are not the same people that want a reach limit busting 7D replacement.

The first group have the M system. It is small and comparatively cheap, it has the lenses most users will actually use on it too. It is very feature rich with excellent AF and fps.

The people that are after a 7D replacement because of the reach limit argument have the RF800. They used to use a 7D II and a 100-400 4.5-5.6 II, so 20mp at an effective 160-640 focal length, with an effective f5.6-8 dof. With an R5 and RF800 they get 45mp with an 800mm lens at f11 dof. So one stop less dof. As for the light gathering argument, the ff sensor is over twice the area of the APS-C sensor so gains over a stop of iso performance and the R5 is considerably better than a stop of iso performance better anyway!

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 why don’t those mythical R7 supposed buyers put their brains in gear and realize they already have it!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,239
1,032
www.flickr.com
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 why don’t those mythical R7 supposed buyers put their brains in gear and realize they already have it!
but they miss out on 3mp (20mp 7Dii vs 17mp R5 cropped) :)
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,672
6,100
I will study the M system. I need a light camera with light lenses for non-professional work. I did not look into them so far as I kept hearing it will be discontinued and is 'ageing'. Since I am not in desperate rush for such a system (iPhone!), I wait for a new crop light camera with lenses to match. There are brilliant options in Fuji and Sony but I would like to stay with Canon.
The Canon M system will never compete for ‘real’ photographers to the Fuji system, it will never get the lens options or investment Fuji have put into the X series. Don’t forget Fuji don’t make ff cameras so 90% of their R&D goes into their crop sensor cameras and lenses.

The M system and X system are aimed at very different users, I’d very strongly put you in the X system market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,672
6,100
but they miss out on 3mp (20mp 7Dii vs 17mp R5 cropped) :)
You are missing the point. Equivalence.

They don’t need to crop.

They get 45mp not 20, they get a true 800mm rather than an effective 640mm, they get 20fps rather than 10fps, they get over 1,000 focus points covering the entire frame rather than 65 clustered in the center. The list goes on and on....
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,239
1,032
www.flickr.com
You are missing the point.

They don’t need to crop.

They get 45mp not 20, they get a true 800mm rather than an effective 640mm, they get 20fps rather than 10fps, they get over 1,000 focus points covering the entire frame rather than 65 clustered in the center. The list goes on and on....
I see what you mean. the only downside is the prime 800mm. The EF100-400mm (with or without TCs) seems to be the standard lens used. To get some flexibility with focal length would mean the RF100-500mm which is an entirely different price point. Even adding the RF600 would make it more expensive and heavier in total. I guess a RF600 + 1.4TC is another option but you lose another stop
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
1,054
733
Colorado, USA
but they miss out on 3mp (20mp 7Dii vs 17mp R5 cropped) :)
Or they could get the R6, RF800, RF 1.4x for around $3897 and get 20mp without cropping at 800mm and 1120mm. And they can still throw their EF 100-400 on it for closer stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
516
778
Orewa , New Zealand
The problem with an $800 full frame camera is that you lose a lot features for a bigger sensor in an era where image quality is pretty great across the board. For example, I'd use a Nikon D7500 or my EM5 III over an EOS RP for wildlife every single time. I can take my EM5 out in the pouring rain without a second thought. The "full frame is best" mantra is so nearsighted it makes me wonder if those who espouse it even do photography at all.
Yep , and I'd just keep using my 7Dii as it would still be vastly superior to a low budget RF full frame especially for bird photography.
It amuses me that the people who obsessively think full frame is the only acceptable format think that the 7D style semi pro camera segment is insignificant and bird photography is very tiny ignore the fact that Canon (and other companies) have spent millions of dollars developing very sophisticated and capable autofocus algorithms specifically for birds . Why would they do this unless they thought the market for bird photography is large enough to warrant it ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users