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

[privatebydesign]

Am I not understanding correctly or didn't you answer your own question of what people want from the M system that it does not provide?

The M system and X system are marketed to slightly different people. Canon are aiming the M at the volume market, such that it is, that want a real camera and value size and weight and cost above specialized lenses and fast apertures, but the system does not have lenses some photographers might want. The X system is aimed at keen photographers who know and want to pay for the difference between an f2 lens and an f1.4 lens.

My contention is that given the very small number of people that the X system is targeted to Canon don’t see the value in the niche that is the X market. Canon don’t make medium format digital either, then again Fuji don’t make ff sensor cameras or cameras with specialized Astro sensors. No one company makes a camera to suit every single individual.

 

[yeahright]

1) How does having access to RF lenses satisfy a desire for small and cheap?

2) Again the reasoning isn’t logical, it gives a photographic advantage, it is just, “because they want it”. Why do they want it? What specific advantage is there to having a high end APS-C camera? I listed them and showed those people already have options.

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.

 

[David_D]

As a member of the 7D crowd (with a 100-400mm, used for bird photography), I can confirm one data point. If Canon made an R7, I would [probably -see below] buy it in an instant. If it was a baby R3, with the 90D sensor (or even higher pixel density) even better.

But, I don’t see Canon doing that any time soon (if ever). As others have explained an R6 or R5 (or R3) with 800mm/F11 or 100-500mm (+ 1.4TC) cover my market segment. The sensor improvements are supposed to give 3 stops better ISO performance, more than compensating for the smaller apertures. That is the decision I am currently deliberating, mainly which body. I will get an R body paired with 800mm (for smaller/distant subjects) and keep the 7D and 100-400mm (for larger/closer). When money permits, I will upgrade to the 100-500mm. Maybe if I take too long I will be proved wrong and an R7 will appear for ~$800! Of course, in an ideal world where money is not a consideration, I would love a 600mm/f4 + gym subscription to be able to wield it.

 

[privatebydesign]

Of course. If Canon doesn’t make a high-end APS-C R body, then your natural alternative is the R5. ROTFL!

Embrace the free market, comrades! If you want high-end APS-C mirrorless and Canon doesn’t make it, give your money to somebody who does.

Here are some other options. All of these have magnesium alloy construction, some degree of weather sealing, a mechanical shutter rated for at least 200K clicks, a fast, action/sports capable AF system, and eye AF:

- Sony a6400 - $900

Need IBIS?
- Fuji X-S30 - $1000
- Sony a6600 - $1400

Need IBIS and two card slots?
- Fuji X-T4 - $1700

Add an adapter costing between $200-400 and your existing EF lenses may workon these bodies. Admittedly, performance of adapted lenses can vary so check specific lens/adapter compatibility beforehand.

Sony and Fuji also have their own lines of dedicated lenses, including serious APS-C offerings.

There is a whole world out there beyond Canon!

I don’t care what anybody buys, I was just laying out the options Canon already provide for the specific user groups that made up the APS-C market. I pointed out they don’t suit everybody but they do suit most of those potential APS buyers.

If you offered a 7D II owner more than double the pixels, fps, focus points, focus area and 160mm of reach and said it was a $600 firmware upgrade everybody would be saying it was amazing value.

Who else makes an 800mm prime lens, or equivalent, for $1,200?

I really like the Fuji cameras, the X100 series is something I have seriously considered since it’s first iteration, but the Canon M5 with 22mm f2 (that I own) has more flexibility, works with thousands of dollars worth of accessories and lenses I already own etc etc..

 

[privatebydesign]

I would argue that purchasing decisions,forum posts, 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 ‘fixed’ that for you

But I agree with your point, shame really that when it comes to a logical discussion people can’t present logic based points.

 

[Dinesh262]

$799 full frame? What will be the downsides?

I too wants to know.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I would love to see light versions of the R6, R5 and R1 in the same bodies, but without video, burst and eye autofocus for half the price. I feel those cameras could be much cheaper if Canon would not have to fear that they cannibalize its video cameras.

As somebody who only takes photos of buildings, even the most basic autofocus would work for me. I feel modern cameras have a lot of features I do not need.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It amuses me that the people who obsessively think full frame is the only acceptable format

Who is saying FF is the only acceptable format? Saying FF is better is objectively true, but that doesn’t mean APS-C is not acceptable. That would be rather hypocritical for anyone who shoots FF to claim, since medium format is objectively better than FF.

Personally, I routinely use cameras with different sensor sizes, FF when feasible and APS-C or an iPhone when portability and convenience are more important. Compromise isn’t a bad thing.

Yep , you're very lucky to be able to afford a 600mm f/4 lens but very few people can and personally I wouldn't want one even if I could afford one because they're far too heavy to hand hold.
If I could afford one I'd choose the EF400 DO ii as it's light enough to hand hold and works great with T.Cs
I'd always choose a crop sensor given the choice.
People say you can just crop the image of a full frame sensor anyway but why use the full frame if you need to crop every time ? Just have a cropped sensor.

That’s your chosen compromise, and good for you. But it's sad that people can't acknowledge they are compromising, and feel the need to claim that their choice is objectively best (a claim which may not be true, and is often easily disproven), instead of simply claiming that their choice is the best for them personally, which is certainly true and really impossible to argue with.

Yep , I suspect that Canon thinks that bird photography (which is what a lot us 7D crowd like ) is a worthwhile segment otherwise why did they spend millions developing af algorithms for birds ?

How do you know what they spent? They already had AF tracking and eye AF algorithms. Adapting them to birds would not be that difficult (based on my experience working with teams of software engineers developing code for automated image analysis). Do you believe that the car and motorcycle photography segment also justified spending millions of dollars on tracking algorithms and that's why Canon is adding that to the R3? Far more likely that these algorithmic tweaks aren't terribly difficult or costly. Sort of like the astrophotography versions of cameras – developed at minimal effort as a minor modification to an existing technology, which makes a lot of sense for a small market segment.

Consider the update frequency for the 7-series, and compare that to the update frequency for the xxD series and Canon's FF body lines. What does that say about the relative importance of the market to Canon?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Just because RF800 is a light lens does not mean that there should not be a crop camera! The RF800 equivalant for the crop camera will be yet lighter and probably cheaper.

No it won't, because physics. Why is there no EF-S lens longer than 250mm? Physics. With long lenses, the image circle is not a limiting factor, so making a long lens with a smaller image circle doesn't change the size of the optic.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I would love to see light versions of the R6, R5 and R1 in the same bodies, but without video, burst and eye autofocus for half the price. I feel those cameras could be much cheaper if Canon would not have to fear that they cannibalize its video cameras.

As somebody who only takes photos of buildings, even the most basic autofocus would work for me. I feel modern cameras have a lot of features I do not need.

It's possible that if you paid Canon a few million dollars, they'd develop a camera just for you. If you want a camera without video, get the Nikon Df. There's even a gold-plated version:

LUX NIKON KIT FINISHED IN 24K YELLOW GOLD

Brikk designs and manufactures couture products and accessories such as platinum diamond gold iPhone for the technology, lifestyle, and fashion industries.

www.brikk.com

But seriously, what you want is never going to happen.

 

[BBarn]

I really like my RP. I found it interesting when I read that Canon was looking at two new FF R series bodies, one lower in cost than the RP, and one between that lower cost model and the R6. And seemingly phasing out the R and RP in the process.

For whatever reason, Canon is apparently choosing to introduce a new model rather than simply lowering the cost of the RP another 20% ($200). I suspect they feel a replacement will better fit the intended market and offer a better ROI than simply lowering the cost of the RP. It will be interesting to see what is different about this lower cost model versus the RP. I suspect at least one major difference will be related to the EVF and/or the articulating LCD. To achieve an even lower cost of entry into Canon FF Mirrorless ILC, a new lens would be beneficial, perhaps a 28-70. Especially if it could be produced at a significantly lower cost than the 24-105 STM.

As a current owner and proponent of the RP, I'm more interested in the other rumored R body that will sit above this new model and below the R6. I'm looking for something I can move up to, rather than something to back up the RP. The R6 is fine, but also really like the smaller size of the RP.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm always so disappointed reading posts like this. Photography isn't a technical endeavor. It's an artform. But, so many people treat it as the former. Some of my favorite images ever taken are by Jeff Bridges, who uses a Widelux from the 1950s. I'm pretty sure he can afford any gear he wants, too. Anyway, I know this is a gear forum, and we'll all bicker over what's better until the sun dies, but in the end it hardly matters. Use whatever you want. But, saying a certain piece of gear is "objectively" anything, in an artistic field, just shows lack of experience.

I'm always so disappointed when people make assumptions based on their biases or a chip on their shoulder. Where did I mention images, or claim FF is needed for better pictures? (Hint: I didn't.)

A 2019 MacBook Pro with an Intel Core i9 processor is a better computer than a 2006 MacBook Pro with an Intel Core Duo processor. That's an objective fact. I've owned both, and I can promise you that there are a myriad of people out there who can write better prose with a pencil and paper than I can on either of those computers. However, modern AI-driven noise reduction algorithms will simply not run on that 2006 MBP, and those algorithms enable significantly better output for images shot at high ISO.

Photography is both artistic and technical in nature. Gear is required. Better gear has the potential to yield better results, or results that are not possible with inferior gear. Saying that the quality and capabilities of the equipment used to make images doesn't matter, just shows complete naiveté.

 

[cayenne]

Yes, I sometimes wonder how it must feel for somebody in a poor country to watch a video about a new lens that costs "only" $1000 or so, while he only earns $200 per month.

Well, guessing that person is NOT a Canon customer....
I mean with that low of an income, I doubt they are looking to spend disposable cash on ANY camera out there.

Heck for that level, I'm doubtful of them having a mechanism to connect to the internet and watch videos.

You gotta take care of basic living requirements first before you think about 'toys'.

 

[snapshot]

The M6 MkII is a full featured "M" series crop body. I would buy the system in an instant, except that the associated glass is a bit slow for my tastes. And it seems to me that they release 3 bodies for every lens they release. . . .which tells me (a lens snob of the 1st order) that I should look else where.

The "RF" system issue. . . in my mind. . . . .is that the the lenses are flat out too expensive. It "seems" to me that the the 100-400/EF which I could get pre-covid for $1800 was replaced by the 100-500. . .which at $2700 you can't even buy (well, maybe with a wait list). There are no "good buys" in the RF world

(to be fair. . . . over the last 10 years canon was introducing new EF versions of old EF lenses with major price markup every few years. . . so I just view the RF pricing as part of that trend).




The canon S120 was a GREAT camera. . . a good P&S companion for a dSLR. . . .and a good camera that you could "risk" in public places and whatnot (in terms of simply losing or breaking it).

The "S" series is no longer sold. There are a few "G"s that can replace it. I had a G7 II; great little camera. . . .barely pocketable but really nice images. Current version is the Mk III. I replaced the G7 mk II (due to GAS) with a G5 mk II. . . . .an even better camera; but just on the wrong side of "pocketable". I still take the G5Xii everywhere. . .

The canon refurbished powershot page has Refurbished PowerShot SX740 HS Black in stock. i have had several of cameras from canon like this. prety descent, cheaper than panasonic zs100 which i also quite like.

 

[cayenne]

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.

Well, maybe look at a Leica, that definitely fits the bill for you.
Or, if. you want to go crop....look into the solid Fuji X line of cameras...small, good glass, crop mode.

Why limit yourself?

I have multiple brands of cameras....best tool for the job, no?

 

[Hector1970]

They probably have a few 6D Mark 1 sensors left over to use in this mirrorless. Combine with 3FPS and HD video I'm sure they will get it below $799.

 

[cayenne]

I still shoot primarily 1080p video.
I think one of these, even without a EVF would be a great 2nd or third camera set up fixed on a tripod would be tempting at only $799.

Or, something good for streaming video, if you did such on YouTube, etc....

I could see uses for it, especially at this low price point.

cayenne

 

[Sharlin]

How on earth can you claim the RP piles compromises on top of compromises ? Outside of really niche, specialist areas there’s pretty well nothing that camera can’t do. Even the build is good for the price. Having used an RP along side my 5DS cameras for a while I’m not surprised Canon is able to come out with a cheaper, lower cost model

It can't do better low-ISO DR than a 750D/T6i, for one. It also can't do better burst rate than a 750D. Both of which are nowhere near "really niche, specialist areas". Neither are 1/8000s shutter speed or 1/250s flash sync, which the x0D models do have thanks to the smaller shutter.

If I'm looking to get serious, then I'll pull out my R5 or R6, depending on what I'm looking to do. It's literally gotten to the point where I haven't taken my little M5 out at all since I've had the RP. Yeah, the RP is bigger than the M5, but in all honesty, not by much.

That's just… hilarious and incredibly out of touch with the reality of normal people. Most of us here on actual Earth have money to spend on a single body, and that body is not going to be an R6 or R5 or anything else that costs several thousand eurodollars. You sound like that one guy here who thought that being able to afford a couple of Big Whites per year is totally normal.

 

[blackcoffee17]

What can be removed from the RP to make it even cheaper? Viewfinder is the only thing I can think of.
I expect a $799 full frame RF camera to have a 1.8x 4K crop with no usable AF.

 

[blackcoffee17]

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.

Shooting with a 100-500 or 800 F11 type of lens at arm's length, like a phone? Not so sure about that. A viewfinder has many advantages.
Otherwise, I would love an M6 sized FF camera, even tho RF lenses will never be that small. Just compare the RF 35mm to the 22mm F2. It's like 3 times the size and weight.