It’s been a while, but an APS-C equipped EOS R body gets another mention [CR2]

[BillB]

I would surmise that EF-M was made to be compatible with EF, and RF was made to be compatible with EF, but to make RF compatible with EF-M would not be possible without a compromise in the RF design, and since Canon's apparent future lies in the design of that mount, they felt it would not be worth a compromise. 2 cents.

My guess is that Canon realized when it designed the EF-M mount that it it would not be compatible with a full frame mirrorless mount and decided that was the way they wanted to go because they didn't like the compromises required to maintain compatibility.

 

[ahsanford]

I am afraid, you are right. But I also think any APS-C equipped EOS R would have also been an almost equally niche product.

Only if they just make it just for 7D users. If they offer crop image circle lenses, it won't be niche. It will replace all crop products over time, which is not niche at all.

- A

 

[scyrene]

I would surmise that EF-M was made to be compatible with EF, and RF was made to be compatible with EF, but to make RF compatible with EF-M would not be possible without a compromise in the RF design, and since Canon's apparent future lies in the design of that mount, they felt it would not be worth a compromise. 2 cents.

Fair point.

 

[Bob Howland]

It's not merely a different sensor. It's also all of the internal supporting structures as well as software. It would be a sizable investment with a questionable ROI.

What do you mean by "internal supporting structures"? And why would the difference in software be any greater than the difference between two FF models having, for example, 20MP and 30MP? My guess is that the biggest expense would be in marketing and that should be roughly the same as adding a new FF model.

 

[Bob Howland]

My guess is that Canon realized when it designed the EF-M mount that it it would not be compatible with a full frame mirrorless mount and decided that was the way they wanted to go because they didn't like the compromises required to maintain compatibility.

I was surprised that the R mount didn't have a larger flange distance, from lens mount to sensor. The M distance is 18mm, the EF distance is 44mm and the R distance is 20mm. Could Canon have made an adapter to use R lenses in an M body by increasing the R distance to (wild guess!!) 24mm?

 

[slclick]

I was surprised that the R mount didn't have a larger flange distance, from lens mount to sensor. The M distance is 18mm, the EF distance is 44mm and the R distance is 20mm. Could Canon have made an adapter to use R lenses in an M body by increasing the R distance to (wild guess!!) 24mm?

I think the drive to create the highest quality optics was greater than the need to make the two lines compatible.

 

[Baron_Karza]

THIS---->: "EOS M was very profitable for Canon, especially in Japan. In comparison, Nikon 1 was an unmitigated disaster."

 

[brad-man]

What do you mean by "internal supporting structures"? And why would the difference in software be any greater than the difference between two FF models having, for example, 20MP and 30MP? My guess is that the biggest expense would be in marketing and that should be roughly the same as adding a new FF model.

Well, let's start with the redesigned PCB that the sensor is attached to (green thing in image). Then we have the electrical connections to that board. Then we have the shutter and motor, etc. Perhaps the same shutter that is in the R could be used, perhaps not. I don't know, do you? It is not as simple as pulling out the sensor and plugging in another one. As to software, it is true that it would be the same as 2 different models, but another model is not a niche product. It would be a well researched addition to the line up.

 

[Dragon]

I would surmise that EF-M was made to be compatible with EF, and RF was made to be compatible with EF, but to make RF compatible with EF-M would not be possible without a compromise in the RF design, and since Canon's apparent future lies in the design of that mount, they felt it would not be worth a compromise. 2 cents.

If it is really an issue, there is no technical barrier to making adaptors with glass in them to move the back focus distance and make EF-M lenses fit on R and vice versa. It would likely add a little reach to the lenses, but not that much. I just don't see the point. All the complainers love Fuji with no FF upgrade path and a completely separate MF line, but when Canon makes an APS-c only package (with complete EF/EF-s compatibility BTW) then all the pundits start whining. When you take the lenses in to account, EF-M is the smallest, lightest ILC package available and it is selling quite well (as in better than all the others). Is there a niche for a 7D replacement? absolutely. How big is the market? Only Canon knows. Is there more than one way to skin that cat? As they say in Minnesota - "ubetcha". I still think a FF R with a fast readout of an APSC center area is the best of both worlds. Remember, a 7D replacement needs to be big and rugged enough to swing big whites and that makes it bigger than any R to date, so why would the biggest R be APS-c only?. Think about it. If you can afford big whites, an extra grand for a body isn't going to cause you much pain.

 

[Dragon]

If you had 11-24 in FF and you wanted something similar in APS-C yes you are right. But if you have and use 10-22 in APS-C and want to upgrade to FF the answer is the 16-35. So it depends on the direction.

EDIT: Judging from your moon photo comment on which I agree about the IQ (I do have 5DsR by the way) the most probable course of action is the upgrade not the downgrade which means going from 10-22 APS-C to 16-35 FF.

EDIT2: On some birding excursions where I do not have a car I squeeze a 200D with 10-18 in the bag (which contains 5DsR with 400DII or 500II so no much available room). I guess there is a reason for all formats and we make our choices. And it is good to be able to.

The 10-18 is decent lens, but the 11-22 M is a LOT better. In fact it is so good that it justifies owning an M body simply for the sake of the 11-22. BTW, an M5 or M6 with the 11-22 is even smaller than a 200D with the 10-18. I know as I have them all. I definitely would like to see an M5 II or something similar, though.

 

[reefroamer]

The M line punches above its weight in IQ, especially for the price. It might survive the coming APS-C apocalypse. Otherwise, Canon seems all-in on full frame RF mirrorless for the future. Within a year or so, we could see new, Rebel-priced, full frame RF mirrorless bodies kitted with economy-priced RF zoom lenses and legacy adapters selling at intro for under $1,000 and then dropping. Of course, I could be wrong. It’s happened before

 

[researcher]

I think for those of us who don't shoot enough to warrant going to full frame, but who have a couple of EF-S lenses that we like, an APSC RF camera seems like a decent option if its priced right and isn't totally crippled. As I recall, the RF mount can accomodate EF-S lenses, and there is a crop mode on them that allows for the smaller lenses to work on them, no? I think I read something like that in the original specs. I would definitely like to see a 1/8000 shutter, lens micro adjustment, and IBIS on top of all the usual stuff. Lets see what they deliver.

 

[[email protected]]

I actually DID once put a friend's 500mm Sigma on one of my M cameras (I don't recall which one, but the exifs would tell the story if I were anywhere near that system right now).

We were just clowning about, but there's no reason it couldn't have worked in real life, given a tripod. Sure it looks silly (that's why we did it), but really who cares how the camera looks? You're not taking pictures of it, you're taking pictures with it.

When I was fooling with the M system, I unintentionally acquired a used M1 in a transaction for a used M5. I used that M1 as the lens cap for a 500mm II.

I did actually wield the 500 with the M5 attached at times. Had the M5 not been laggy, I'd have liked it (and I'd still own it).

 

[slclick]

I think for those of us who don't shoot enough to warrant going to full frame, but who have a couple of EF-S lenses that we like, an APSC RF camera seems like a decent option if its priced right and isn't totally crippled. As I recall, the RF mount can accomodate EF-S lenses, and there is a crop mode on them that allows for the smaller lenses to work on them, no? I think I read something like that in the original specs. I would definitely like to see a 1/8000 shutter, lens micro adjustment, and IBIS on top of all the usual stuff. Lets see what they deliver.

I hate that word. Do you not understand differentiation? I too would like to see what you are asking for (although with mirrorless , AFMA is not required) Anyone who brings up the word crippling immediately makes me think they deserve more camera than they can afford. Just selfish. FF is not about how much you shoot, it's about desiring a certain look and a particular depth of field. It does not need to be seen as an evolutionary step after using crop for a certain time like a sentence served. You can start as a first timer in full frame or never use it. It's choice and furthermore it is finally becoming somewhat affordable for all to work with and that alone is something to applaud.

 

[koenkooi]

Well, let's start with the redesigned PCB that the sensor is attached to (green thing in image). Then we have the electrical connections to that board. Then we have the shutter and motor, etc. Perhaps the same shutter that is in the R could be used, perhaps not. I don't know, do you? It is not as simple as pulling out the sensor and plugging in another one. As to software, it is true that it would be the same as 2 different models, but another model is not a niche product. It would be a well researched addition to the line up.View attachment 188349

So, crazy idea, what if the cheaper-than-RP only has an electronic shutter? If it uses the M6II/90D sensor tech with say, 24MP, readout would be fast enough for most situations.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Imagine a body which is the M6 mark II internally, which is also M6ii externally but slightly larger and with an RF mount. Use the extra space on the back to fit in the AF button from the 1DX3. Set the price at the same level as the 90D (it's hard to see why that wouldn't be possible).

 

[Michael Clark]

Doesn't the 90D have the same fps as the 7D Mk ii? It really out specs it on all fronts except buffer, build and ergonomics/button layout.

I'd like to hear from shooters who had extensive 7D2 experience and then made a lateral move to the 90D and could tell us about the AF speed and accuracy, the buffer difference and keeper rate.

The 90D AF system is somewhere between the lower grade 80D AF system and the 7D Mark II AF system. But where it really counts - AF accuracy and shot-to-shot consistency - it's much closer to the 80D than the 7D Mark II.

They did add "Single Point Spot AF" and "iTR" to the 90D, but did not give it "Single Point with 4/8 AF Assist points." It has the same 45 AF points as the 80D. Both the 80D and newer 90D have more f/8 sensitive AF points than the 7D Mark II (or 1D X and 5D Mark III, for that matter), but less than half as many f/8 sensitive AF points as the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark IV.

The 7D Mark II has a near 1D X/5D Mark III level AF system that is at a higher level of accuracy and shot-to-shot consistency than the 80D/90D. It's got 65 AF points and all are cross type.

A true 7D Mark III would be expected to have an improved 1D X Mark II/5D Mark IV level AF system with all AF points f/8 sensitive.

For me, the deal breaker is the 90D's 120,000 rated shutter vs. the 7D Mark II's 200,000 rated shutter (which my 4.5 years old 7DII is fast approaching) and the overall build quality of each.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'll go one more:

4. The 90D (or next XXD if there is one) becomes the de facto 7D3.

The 90D already has [32.5 x 10] + [on-chip sensor] + [27 f/8 AF points] + [tilty-flippy] right now, and a good deal of the 7D2 masses would give their left nut for just that in a bulletproof 7D body. I know 7D2 folks want higher fps and better low light, but the 90D is no slouch and it (in some ways) feels like a 7D2 upgrade already.

- A

I'd settle for the 90D sensor, an AF system upgraded to the 1D X Mark II/5D Mark IV level (the 7D Mark II has essentially a 1D X/5D Mark III level AF system), and the same tank like construction and 200,000+ rated shutter. I'd be willing to pay several hundred dollars more than the intro price of the 7D Mark II for such a camera.

 

[Bahrd]

What do you mean by "internal supporting structures"? And why would the difference in software be any greater than the difference between two FF models having, for example, 20MP and 30MP? My guess is that the biggest expense would be in marketing and that should be roughly the same as adding a new FF model.

Also: what is more expensive: a new PCB with a smaller sensor or a new line of lenses (with their own PCBs)?

PS
Haven't Canon showed off the 120mpx sensor in an APS-H format?

 

[Michael Clark]

The source supposedly said there would be an APS-C equipped R, but there would not be any RF-S lenses. That doesn't seem to make sense, it would mean there would be no ability to take wide angle shots. Unless, as someone suggested, it had a built-in focal reducer, but where would that fit? Not much space in the flange to add a focal reducer. Would people actually buy a camera with which it was impossible to shoot wide angle? I guess the Canon 10D did sell for a while, but times have changed. I guess it might be useful for birders or others needing maximum reach, but I'm skeptical.

EF-S lenses already work on the RF bodies with autocrop. So the EF-S 10-22, EF-S 10-18, etc. would instantly give a cropped RF camera the ability to shoot wide.