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

[Michael Clark]

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. And I guess third parties could make "RF-S" lenses. Still seems a bit odd, though, an R camera that can't do wide angle with native R lenses.

Not many 7D/7DII users did WA with those cameras. About the only lens I use with my 7D Mark II is a 70-200/2.8. I use my 5D bodies for any wide angle stuff.

 

[Michael Clark]

An R7 mirrorless won't be able to use the 1D Mark III AF, except maybe for the Liveview part.

Have you looked at the 1D X Mark III Live View AF specs? They're pretty impressive and might exceed the OVF AF system. The 90D certainly has better LV AF than OVF AF.

 

[Michael Clark]

However, this could mean the end of the EF-M, as it would lose its size advantage. Even if Canon never released smaller APS-C RF-lenses for it, nothing would stop 3rd party manufacturers like Samyang, Sigma or Tamron from making APS-C lenses for the RF-mount. We already have Samyang/Rokinon AF lenses for the RF-mount cameras, so they already have know how to communicate with the RF cameras.

Aren't most of those manual focus only lenses?

 

[Michael Clark]

Would you (or many people) still buy an APS-C RF if you could buy a FF RF body for just a little more? Canon's new gateway drug for the masses. The RP body is under $1,000 now and rumors on this site predict a cheaper FF RF body is coming this year. So all that’s preventing a low-priced full-frame Canon kit is a few (still to come) inexpensive RF Zoom lenses, as exist now for every other Canon body. Thats where I see Canon going at the low end. Simply no need for APS-C or EF-S. Upgrading is a non-issue with the RF adapter for legacy EF and EF-S lenses.

No one is asking for an APS-C R on the low end. They want an "R7" closer to the higher end with the speed, reach , and toughness of the 7D Mark II. Not many 7D Mark II bodies have ever had EF-S lenses on them. Mine never has had an EF-S lens mounted on it nor anything shorter than a 70-200mm.

 

[Michael Clark]

It's far easier for me to imagine an APS-C RF body than a line of RF-S lenses.However I would think it is more likely that there will be a FF RF body with a crop mode (since the R already does this) with the other specs we all come to know with the 7D line.

No new lens line, no RF-s, no APS-H. This body could be one of the 4 coming.

Does the R speed up in crop mode? Can it go more fps while tracking AF in between each frame? How much processing power is freed up in crop mode? Or is the entire sensor still being read and then discarded by the DiG!C processor after ADC?

A crop mode that can still only do 3 fps with AI Servo tracking is totally useless for shooters looking for a replacement for their 7D Mark II.

Even in cropping mode, at the very least all of the lines on the sensor that are used by the height of the crop mode have to be read out from one end to the other to get the information from the middle part of each of those lines. That's how CMOS sensors work.

The entire point of an APS-C sensor in such a camera is to allow speed on the level of the M6 Mark II by reducing the processor load from a FF sensor that is only being half utilized.

 

[BillB]

Have you looked at the 1D X Mark III Live View AF specs? They're pretty impressive and might exceed the OVF AF system. The 90D certainly has better LV AF than OVF AF.

A big (or at least noisy) question will be whether high end mirrorless AF is going to make the bird in flight people happy. By the posts so far, the 90D (or the M6II) doesn't seem to be there yet. Not sure whether that is going to be really tested until the AF is integrated with a high performance EVF. Even then, it may take a while for the dust to settle.

 

[AlanF]

.

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.

I'm 7DII -> 5DSR + 5DIV. And now + D90. The 5DIV has the best AF speed and accuracy, and it extends further over the frame. I found the 5DSR has better consistency than the 7DII and not much difference in speed. I find the 5DSR quite adequate for predictable birds in flight (and have just posted a shot in the BIF thread, where I have many from the 5DSR/100-400mm II). The 90D is similar to the 5DSR, and I find the central 9 point zone in AI Servo good for fast locking on and picking out a BIF from the background. The keeper rate depends on the difficulty of the shot. The D500 kills all of them for speed, consistency and tracking with a very high keeper rate and is what a 7DIII should be.

 

[Michael Clark]

A big (or at least noisy) question will be whether high end mirrorless AF is going to make the bird in flight people happy. By the posts so far, the 90D (or the M6II) doesn't seem to be there yet. Not sure whether that is going to be really tested until the AF is integrated with a high performance EVF. Even then, it may take a while for the dust to settle.

Well, the 90D is being rated for BIF based on the OVF PDAF system.

The M6 Mark II, of course, uses the main imaging sensor based AF system while allowing the user to still use the EVF, rather than being forced to use the rear LCD as is the case with the 90D.

So in that respect, for BIF they're using two totally different AF systems, and the M6 Mark II seems to be better suited for BIF than the 90D when using the OVF.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

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.

I've had all three (plus the 5D4) and I agree 100%.

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.

Yes. It's occasionally frustrating that the 7D2 has such poor f/8 support compared with its cheaper cousins, but the 90D's limitations have more day-to-day impact. I'm hoping for great things from the 7D3+1.4x+100-400, if we ever get it.

 

[Michael Clark]

I've had all three (plus the 5D4) and I agree 100%.


Yes. It's occasionally frustrating that the 7D2 has such poor f/8 support compared with its cheaper cousins, but the 90D's limitations have more day-to-day impact. I'm hoping for great things from the 7D3+1.4x+100-400, if we ever get it.

For the type of shooting I do with the 7D Mark II, I almost always start out with the center AF point and rarely if ever use f/8 lens+extender combos. So the f/8 thing is a non-issue for me.

 

[Stuart]

Whoa there.

EOS M was very profitable for Canon, especially in Japan. In comparison, Nikon 1 was an unmitigated disaster.

I think he question is: does Canon want folks amassing EF-M glass that will never work on an RF body? With SLRs (where EF-S doesn't mount on EF), this never stopped them. But Canon may possess marketing information that shows how much money they are losing by crop users not wanting to move up to FF because of the EF-M glass they've gathered.

So going to crop + RF is a way to eliminate that gap in the future. I'm not saying it's a great idea, but there is some merit to it.

- A

I like your thinking, but wonder that with the cost of bodies mostly reducing whether the margins on them will be enough. I imagine margins on new lenses are larger.

 

[slclick]

Does the R speed up in crop mode? Can it go more fps while tracking AF in between each frame? How much processing power is freed up in crop mode? Or is the entire sensor still being read and then discarded by the DiG!C processor after ADC?

A crop mode that can still only do 3 fps with AI Servo tracking is totally useless for shooters looking for a replacement for their 7D Mark II.

Even in cropping mode, at the very least all of the lines on the sensor that are used by the height of the crop mode have to be read out from one end to the other to get the information from the middle part of each of those lines. That's how CMOS sensors work.

The entire point of an APS-C sensor in such a camera is to allow speed on the level of the M6 Mark II by reducing the processor load from a FF sensor that is only being half utilized.

The point wasn't about what is but about would could be since the tech is currently in use and possibly could be updated to the 7D level in ML people are clamoring for.. But thanks, for the tech info I guess?

 

[Michael Clark]

The point wasn't about what is but about would could be since the tech is currently in use and possibly could be updated to the 7D level in ML people are clamoring for.. But thanks, for the tech info I guess?

The "tech" as is currently in use is still only 3.5 or so frames per second with AF tracking between each frame, even in crop mode using the FF sensor. On the other hand, the APS-C sensor in the M6 Mark II can do 14 fps in Servo AF mode.

 

[ahsanford]

Yes. It's occasionally frustrating that the 7D2 has such poor f/8 support compared with its cheaper cousins, but the 90D's limitations have more day-to-day impact. I'm hoping for great things from the 7D3+1.4x+100-400, if we ever get it.

Are birders/wildlifers so reach constrained that they'll always want f/8 teleconvertered shooting opportunities?

Or is this more about Canon requiring $9k to leave your pocket if you shoot longer than 400mm?

Would the release of the mythical EF something-600mm f/variable get folks caring less about f/8 AF points? Or is such a reach-obsessed user base that they'll just go teleconverter that, too?

- A

 

[Daner]

Actually, for big whites that need a tripod and a gimbal, there is no issue using an M body other than that the battery doesn't hold up very long running the IS in those big lenses. Where the tiny body does not work well is with more common telephotos like the 70-200L f/2.8 and the 100-400L. Handheld with an M series body, those are very unwieldy. I have an M3 and an M5 and have used both to good advantage on the 800L, but when the M6 II came out, I opted for the 90D, partly because of the better video in crop mode and partly because of the better handling with everyday telephotos. If Canon makes something resembling an M5 II with at least the video features of the 90D, I will likely add that to the collection because I do like the portability of the M series with native lenses.

My ideal second camera built with parts from the current Canon parts bin would include the sensor from the M6 MKII (and 90D), the RF mount, the AF Smart Controller and Digic X from the 1 DX MkIII, the LP-E6N battery, and the flippy screen from the EOS R. Of course, I would hope that the EVF would have less blackout than what I see on my EOS R, but if that ended up being the primary gripe, life would be good indeed.

 

[Daner]

No one is asking for an APS-C R on the low end. They want an "R7" closer to the higher end with the speed, reach , and toughness of the 7D Mark II. Not many 7D Mark II bodies have ever had EF-S lenses on them. Mine never has had an EF-S lens mounted on it nor anything shorter than a 70-200mm.

My experience differs. I shot a lot with my 10-18, 17-55, and 18-135 (all EF-S lenses). Of course, the L lenses earned their keep on the longer end, but the 18-135 is a lot easier to take on holiday than the 200-400 f4. ;-)

 

[ahsanford]

No one is asking for an APS-C R on the low end.

No one asks for anything on the low end of crop. That doesn't mean there aren't immense units there.

- A

 

[Michael Clark]

My experience differs. I shot a lot with my 10-18, 17-55, and 18-135 (all EF-S lenses). Of course, the L lenses earned their keep on the longer end, but the 18-135 is a lot easier to take on holiday than the 200-400 f4. ;-)

Most of the 7D Mark II owners I know use their FF bodies for the wide stuff. It would be interesting to see how many 7D Mark II owners have only the one body. I would think most of the single body owners would have gone for the 80D, which is a better all around general purpose APS-C camera than the 7D Mark II.

 

[Michael Clark]

No one asks for anything on the low end of crop. That doesn't mean there aren't immense units there.

- A

I'd be fairly confident that there are far more folks that want low end EF crop bodies than low end R crop bodies due to the availability of many more low end EF lenses...

And yes, you can use cheap EF lenses on an RF body, but most of the folks in the low end APS-C market probably do not realize that.

 

[slclick]

Are birders/wildlifers so reach constrained that they'll always want f/8 teleconvertered shooting opportunities?

Or is this more about Canon requiring $9k to leave your pocket if you shoot longer than 400mm?

Would the release of the mythical EF something-600mm f/variable get folks caring less about f/8 AF points? Or is such a reach-obsessed user base that they'll just go teleconverter that, too?

- A

Yes, Yes and Yes.