RF Mount APS-C camera coming second half of 2021 [CR2]

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
589
492
Interesting that it is supposed to be a 'smaller footprint' than the R5/R6. In which case, a lot of the native RF lenses (and adapted big EF ones) are going to look awfully big attached to it. It'll be quite a bit smaller than the old 7 series bodies. How can they then not introduce smaller RF-S lenses? The unlikelihood of Canon developing yet another lens mount is the reason I've always discounted an RF APSC body.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,683
4,115
Irving, Texas
Is this going to be R-system dedicated sport camera? Also, If it's "built for speed" and costs $2000, how does it compete with the M-system?
It doesn't compete with the M system at all, in my opinion. The vast availability of lenses, better AF, better weather sealing, different ergonomics, more rugged, etc., will put this in an ASP-c class all it's own. I'd expect the body to be a slightly smaller version of the R5.
 

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
1,003
634
Colorado, USA
Talk about off topic. Starting with the first reply. Why are we talking so much about the M series and EF-M in a thread that had no mention of them in the title and original post. This should be a discussion about APS-C body in the R family with RF lenses which should generate a lot of excitement on its own. There are other threads to discuss the M.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slclick

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,481
2,346
Interesting that it is supposed to be a 'smaller footprint' than the R5/R6. In which case, a lot of the native RF lenses (and adapted big EF ones) are going to look awfully big attached to it. It'll be quite a bit smaller than the old 7 series bodies. How can they then not introduce smaller RF-S lenses? The unlikelihood of Canon developing yet another lens mount is the reason I've always discounted an RF APSC body.

Yeah, but no one says they have to develop a new mount--I don't know where people keep getting this idea. (IMHO they'd be silly to do so.) Just design an RF mount lens with a small image circle. Let it mount on an ordinary RF mount. The fullframe RF cameras can go into crop mode with these lenses, just like they do when you adapt a Canon-brand EF-S lens onto them. The only thing they would have to do is clearly label the box "For APS-C sensors and Cropped Mode full frame Sensors."

Really, EF-S wasn't a truly different mount anyway. They just added a tab to their cropped EF lenses so you couldn't put them on an EF mount, then created a version of the EF flange that would accomodate the tab. Other than that they were identical, and EF lenses could go onto an EF-S version mount without an adapter. They don't need to do ANY of that with the RF because the RF cameras already handle cropped lenses.
 

tiggy@mac.com

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
720
609
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
Seriously, the case for APS-C is weaker today than it was when the 7D came out. Back then, the rate of rejection for a wafer of many sensors was very, very high, and the larger the sensor, the more had to be rejected. Making a smaller sensor was much cheaper, proportionately, than it is today relative to a full frame sensor.

Imagine taking a circular piece of paper about 14 inches in diameter and flicking a fingertip of dye at it. The dots that appear represent parts of that chip wafer that need to be rejected. Now draw 35mm sensor rectangles across it and count up the proportion of the sensors you'd have to reject. Then do that with APS-C-sized sensors and count up the proportion. That is the geometry that caused APS-C sensors to be hundreds of dollars cheaper than the full frame ones.

Anyway, today it's a new world with better manufacturing techniques, and the rejection rate of full frame sensors is quite low. Why does this matter? There isn't any longer a cost-borne price differentiation of any great amount between a full frame and a crop sensor. In other words, no great benefit. The cost of the sensor might be $50 more for full frame, and it might imply a need for three times the cache memory and a bunch of other scaling costs, but when you tally it up it's going to be less than $100, especially if you're just recycling your old CPU chips.

But then there's the form factor. Yes, you can make a smaller camera, and one with smaller lenses. In fact the only way you're going to see the benefit of the size difference is if you have a set of new lenses. Which means you'd have to divide your economies of scale to start new lines of smaller lenses. To win Fuji's market?

Canon is a mysterious creature, but this is a decision that does not make sense for a company preparing for a shrinking market.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,481
2,346
Talk about off topic. Starting with the first reply. Why are we talking so much about the M series and EF-M in a thread that had no mention of them in the title and original post. This should be a discussion about APS-C body in the R family with RF lenses which should generate a lot of excitement on its own. There are other threads to discuss the M.

Yup. But I suppose as long as people keep bringing it up, I'll keep responding. (And note, it's the people who want the M to die, or think this somehow means it will die, who keep bringing it up.)
 

PhotoGenerous

R5 + GAS
CR Pro
Apr 11, 2017
46
65
There will be an RF-S body, but zero RF-S lenses. All RF lenses will be RF lenses and usable on all RF bodies. They'll have a RF nifty fifty, the 18-45mm, and some other small and wide primes, and that will be good enough to keep a small-ish kit for the small-ish body.

If the EF-M mount dies, the RF-S bodies won't be the replacement for me if I want to replace it. I'm going Fuji for when I need small and light, because RF-S wouldn't be small enough. What an RF-S line will be good for is a R7, and the new Rebel line where the consumers buy one or two lenses max if they buy any at all. No need to develop RF-S lenses when non-L lenses are small enough for that scenario.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,481
2,346
Seriously, the case for APS-C is weaker today than it was when the 7D came out. Back then, the rate of rejection for a wafer of many sensors was very, very high, and the larger the sensor, the more had to be rejected. Making a smaller sensor was much cheaper, proportionately, than it is today relative to a full frame sensor.

Imagine taking a circular piece of paper about 14 inches in diameter and flicking a fingertip of dye at it. The dots that appear represent parts of that chip wafer that need to be rejected. Now draw 35mm sensor rectangles across it and count up the proportion of the sensors you'd have to reject. Then do that with APS-C-sized sensors and count up the proportion. That is the geometry that caused APS-C sensors to be hundreds of dollars cheaper than the full frame ones.

That's a very good way to explain that issue!

Anyway, today it's a new world with better manufacturing techniques, and the rejection rate of full frame sensors is quite low. Why does this matter? There isn't any longer a cost-borne price differentiation of any great amount between a full frame and a crop sensor. In other words, no great benefit. The cost of the sensor might be $50 more for full frame, and it might imply a need for three times the cache memory and a bunch of other scaling costs, but when you tally it up it's going to be less than $100, especially if you're just recycling your old CPU chips.

But then there's the form factor. Yes, you can make a smaller camera, and one with smaller lenses. In fact the only way you're going to see the benefit of the size difference is if you have a set of new lenses. Which means you'd have to divide your economies of scale to start new lines of smaller lenses. To win Fuji's market?

Canon is a mysterious creature, but this is a decision that does not make sense for a company preparing for a shrinking market.

By this logic, Canon should make a very high MP camera with a crop mode, so the 7D folks can have their "reach." There's currently a camera out there that resembles this, and it's the R5. Buuuuutttt... it's expensive, more so than they imagine an R7 would be. And if we wait for the (occasionally rumored) R5s/R3, it will probably be even more expensive.
 
Last edited:

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,418
4,073
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Yeah, but no one says they have to develop a new mount--I don't know where people keep getting this idea. (IMHO they'd be silly to do so.) Just design an RF mount lens with a small image circle. Let it mount on an ordinary RF mount. The fullframe RF cameras can go into crop mode with these lenses, just like they do when you adapt a Canon-brand EF-S lens onto them. The only thing they would have to do is clearly label the box "For APS-C sensors and Cropped Mode full frame Sensors."

Really, EF-S wasn't a truly different mount anyway. They just added a tab to their cropped EF lenses so you couldn't put them on an EF mount, then created a version of the EF flange that would accomodate the tab. Other than that they were identical, and EF lenses could go onto an EF-S version mount without an adapter. They don't need to do ANY of that with the RF because the RF cameras already handle cropped lenses.

Pretty much what I was thinking. I do wonder how they would handle the marketing though, as I'm not sure just labeling the box would be sufficient. Although presumably, most people buying into the RF system would be sufficiently knowledgeable to understand that a 15-85 RF Crop lens won't have a 15mm field of view on an R5.
 

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
240
341
Kenosha, WI
I also agree here. I’m the owner of a 7DMarkii, a 5DMarkIV, and an M50. All have different purposes.

I basically only use the M50 with the 32mm 1.4 or the 22mm f2.0. This is for when I want a super lightweight tag-along camera for the unexpected photo op, or just common family events. I would never hang a huge zoom on it because the ergonomics suck in that configuration. I would love the opportunity to replace it with an M5 mkii, and will be a customer if Canon ever releases one. Sorry—just can’t get behind the clunkiness of the detachable M6 viewfinder.

The R5 is a compelling option for me to replace both my 5DIV AND my 7Dii, because the R5 is now faster, has incredible autofocus, and almost has the same pixel density of the 7DMarkii. Equivalent crop section of R5 is 17.58Mpix. Think that’s a coincidence that they made it just under the 20.1 mpix of the 7Dii? Like, they couldn’t push the R5 to 50Mpix, so it would have same density. Also just under the pixel count of the 5DSR as well.

I think there is a market for the R7, but it would need to have at least the 32Mpix sensor to be a huge step up in pixel density for birders. And it needs the ergonomics to handle big whites. And hell, maybe they will make some RF-S lenses at some point to sell more options to those that go down that path.
But I think the market will still exist for all 3 segments.

my 2 cents

I think they probably set the sensor megapixel format of the R5 to make uncropped 8k RAW possible, 50 MP would have necessitated a slight crop and perhaps required too much processing power/resulting in too much heat to work. It would make sense if the 5DSR replacement is 100 MP with no 8K, and maybe nothing better for video than 4k 30p standard, which I would be totally down with as long as I could get a smaller uncropped raw image size (like maybe 66/50/33/25 even) as a setting.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,418
4,073
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
By this logic, Canon should make a very high MP camera with a crop mode, so the 7D folks can have their "reach." There's currently a camera out there that resembles this, and it's the R5. Buuuuutttt... it's expensive, more so than they imagine an R7 would be. And if we wait for the (occasionally rumored) R5s/R3, it will probably be even more expensive.

I do wonder about the pricing. To be a 7DII replacement, it really has to have all the features of the R5. Would Canon offer all that with an APS-C sensor at a deeply discounted price? The 7DII had a feature set that was superior to the 5DIII (The model that was current when the 7DII was released). If an R5 is not similarly equipped, 7DII users will scream. But if it comes it at say $2,600 (which would still be a huge bargain in comparison to the R5) will people also scream?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu_bert

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
359
770
I think the camera market is in such flux, not even Canon knows exactly what lines they will be making in a few years. But I think the most obvious and least complicated answer is that Canon looks at the RF mount to ultimately replace the EF and EF-S mounts. I think the success of the R5 and R6 has perhaps convinced them that this will happen much sooner than they originally thought. So it makes sense that current APS-C users will be given some choices to join the RF mount consumers. R7 seems to be the first choice, but Canon will no doubt be interested to see if there is a market for current Rebel users and current 90D users to switch to an RF APS-C cameras. And to keep things simple, there is no reason that I can see for Canon to create any special RF-S lenses. They already have RF patents for lenses with focal lengths that will work as a kit lens for RF APS-C buyers. They can sell those lenses to RF FF buyers as well. One mount and one line of lenses (RF) for all of those looking for a replacement for EF and EF-S.

The M line is targeted for those wanting VERY small and VERY light. If RF lenses and RF APS-C cameras can be made small enough, then M might get phased out. I consider that very unlikely, perhaps impossible. I seriously think that those that want the M line to disappear or somehow think it is redundant to have two APS-C lines, have no idea just how small the M cameras and lenses are.
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
419
276
Australia
M6 mk2 sensor
R6 speed minus 2 fps
RP body upgraded and weather sealed

If this is ahigh end APS-C then I hope none of that is true at all. This sounds like it should be a 7DII successor, and priced at around $2K. I would have no trouble believing 14fps mechanical with smaller shutter, same 20fps e-shutter and hopefully since the sensor is smaller even faster scan speed than the R6.I’d prefer something less than 32MP too, 26-28MP would be fine (61-66MP FFE) for superior ISO performance than M6II/90D. 4K30p from oversampled 6K30p, 4K60p from pixel binned full sensor read,, same AF as R6/R5, same EVF res as R6, same LCD top screen from R5, dual SD but preferably CFExpress Type A for one slot like Sony A7sIII. Same sealing as R5. Would be very tempting to me rather than get the R5 as I don’t need all the advanced video stuff, but R6 is too pixel challenged for my birding.
 

Maru

EOS 90D
Feb 9, 2019
131
30
so they are planning to kill R/RP thing... APS-C cant go much cheaper than RP so probably they are keeping R5/R6 and their kids..this is horrible
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Baron_Karza