There is an APS-C RF mount camera coming [CR3]

yeahright

EOS 90D
Aug 28, 2014
111
79
...but you're not buying a full frame camera. You're buying an APS-C sensor camera. Just one with an RF mount, engineered for full frame glass. Unless we're getting some RF-S lenses, I just don't see how it works - am I being dense? what am I missing?
The birders and wildlife photographers get higher pixel density and framerates with an APS-C body, and save unnecessary space on memory cards and hard drives as compared to a full frame sensor, and all else being equal, the body will be considerably cheaper. Essentially the same reason that there was both the 5Ds and the 7DII. The cost-aware buyers have a path for starting into RF-Mount ILCs with a cheap APS-C body and adapted EF-S glass, but over the course of time can buy one or the other RF lens and later upgrade their body to full frame. The slow, low pixel density and not very rugged RP requiring expensive RF mount full frame lenses from the start does not cater to both of these groups.
 
Last edited:

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
353
323
This might be a 7D replacement, so the target market is more interested in long lenses, and is willing to pay.
If it is realy a very small camera, I dont think its a 7D replacement. The 7D is often used for sports or wildlife - so its more of a professional body with good ergonomics and not a travel-friendly, small body. If its even smaller than the RP, there is not much room for a good viewfinder or lots of buttons. This points at a travel camera and maybe a cheaper camera. My guess is, that there will be a true 7D replacement as well. But who knows =D

I wonder though, why this camera is a good idea - if there are no smaller RF-S lenses, than the small body size is not realy that useful. If you have to put full-frame lenss to the camera, it becomse a rather big and heavy package. I thing a small APS-C Body is REALY appealing, if you can pair small APS-C lenses with it. (the other end would be professional sports camer with an aps-c sensor - than a big body is usefull which is used with big lenses)
 

AlanF

Hands. Face. Space.
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
7,340
7,123
A good comparison for prices and use would be the Nikon D850 and D500. Both class leading and built like tanks. The APS-C is much loved by birders because it has the same density of pixels (and "reach") of the FF; faster fps (10 vs 7, ungripped); smaller file size; unlimited buffer vs limited; and much cheaper. These points have been proposed by posters here for the R7 vs R5 and are real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Stig Nygaard

7DII & G5XII
CR Pro
Jul 10, 2013
81
112
Copenhagen
www.flickr.com
If it is realy a very small camera, I dont think its a 7D replacement.
That part also worries me a bit. But still the rumor says it is "for sports shooters".

I have a system build around my 7DII because it is an "affordable" and great high-end tool for advanced users which you can build a relative compact and light system around. Size and weight is very important for me, but I'm primarily thinking about the lenses when I say so. Ergonomics and handling is the most important when it comes to the body.

I have 10 lenses, and when out shooting, I typically carry 3-4 lenses in my camerabag together with the camera. So the weight of camerabody is kind of negligible, it is weight and size of lenses that matters.
I often wish my camerabag was lighter. So I'm hoping I can at least get a good advanced APS-C mirrorless tool I can keep same or similar set of lenses to. So it at least not gets more heavy than it is know.

I think I have relatively small hands, and holding f.ex. an 90D (I had it for a short period) actually better suits my hands in size then the 7DII. Both 90D and 7DII has joystick and various controls/buttons placed nice for your fingers, but I greatly prefer the wheel on back of the 7DII, the 90D's multicontroller/quickwheel is very frustrating for me to use.

But that RP looks scaringly small, also compared to 90D. So wonder if that can work well ergonomically and give us enough conveniently located buttons/controls for fast and direct adjustments? ... But I will probably take what I can get and hopefully get used to it.
 
Last edited:

Marximusprime

EOS M50
Sep 18, 2018
29
37
That part also worries me a bit. But still the rumor says it is "for sports shooters".

I have a system build around my 7DII because it is an "affordable" and great high-end tool for advanced users which you can build a relative compact and light system around. Size and weight is very important for me, but I'm primarily thinking about the lenses when I say so. Ergonomics and handling is the most important when it comes to the body.

I have 10 lenses, and when out shooting, I typically carry 3-4 lenses in my camerabag together with the camera. So the weight of camerabody is kind of negligible, it is weight and size of lenses that matters.
I often wish my camerabag was lighter. So I'm hoping I can at least get a good advanced APS-C mirrorless tool I can keep same or similar set of lenses to. So it at least not gets more heavy than it is know.

I think I have relatively small hands, and holding f.ex. an 90D actually better suits my hands in size then the 7DII. Both 90D and 7DII has joystick and various controls/buttons placed nice for your fingers (but I greatly prefer the better wheel on back of the 7DII, the 90D's multicontroller/quickwheel is not good). But that RP looks scaringly small, also compared to 90D. So wonder if that can work well ergonomically and give us enough conveniently located buttons/controls for fast and direct adjustments.

Have you tried the RP with the grip extension? It's fantastic for my hands, and I like the 7D Mark II.
 

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
353
323
That part also worries me a bit. But still the rumor says it is "for sports shooters".

I have a system build around my 7DII because it is an "affordable" and great high-end tool for advanced users which you can build a relative compact and light system around. Size and weight is very important for me, but I'm primarily thinking about the lenses when I say so. Ergonomics and handling is the most important when it comes to the body.

I have 10 lenses, and when out shooting, I typically carry 3-4 lenses in my camerabag together with the camera. So the weight of camerabody is kind of negligible, it is weight and size of lenses that matters.
I often wish my camerabag was lighter. So I'm hoping I can at least get a good advanced APS-C mirrorless tool I can keep same or similar set of lenses to. So it at least not gets more heavy than it is know.

I think I have relatively small hands, and holding f.ex. an 90D (I tried it for a short period) actually better suits my hands in size then the 7DII. Both 90D and 7DII has joystick and various controls/buttons placed nice for your fingers, but I greatly prefer the wheel on back of the 7DII, the 90D's multicontroller/quickwheel is very frustrating for me to use.

But that RP looks scaringly small, also compared to 90D. So wonder if that can work well ergonomically and give us enough conveniently located buttons/controls for fast and direct adjustments? ... But I will probably take what I can get and hopefully get use to it.
Jeah, I agree on the body size. The RP is realy tiny, great for travel, but shooting with it for a longer time cant be great. The R5 is not even that great - in my opinion the viewfinder should be bigger and its missing dedicated ISO and WB buttons on the right shoulder. But I am coming from a 1DX, so I learned to love big viewfinders :-D
 

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
928
2,013
I don't get it. The RP is a grand, and by that point next year, achievable for less. If you go APSC, what's the point of RF glass? Why would someone drop (let's say) 600 bucks on an APSC body that shoots faster than an RP, but then have to shell out for the expensive RF glass? What am I missing?
The RP **AND** the 24-105 is $999 at BB right now.
 

djack41

EOS RP
Jul 12, 2014
218
157
Cinema cameras aside, why?

Who want's this over full-frame? With today's processors, FF has proven to be just as performant as something like the 7D line. If you give me the "reach" argument, then I would give you the FF crop argument. If you give me the cost argument, then I point to the RP. Cheaper than that then you're going to have an up-hill battle against Fujifilm and Sony, or you know, Canon's M lineup.

I don't think it makes any sense, but maybe that's just me. I just hope they don't split their attention developing 'RF-S' lenses that are inferior in every way.

The only way it would be remotely interesting to me is if they made a really good, significantly more compact camera body with some really good, compact, L-glass (IE, competitive with Fuji's lenses), while also obviously maintaining the ability to use FF lenses. Then, maybe I'd justify one as a travel camera/backup body.

But seeing as how they never made L-glass for EF-S...

In other words, give me an RF line of APS-C lenses that can go toe-to-toe with Fuji X or GTFO.
For us wildlife photographers, it is a fact that an image taken with an APS-C has higher IQ than full frame with same MP cropped to a similar perspective. It is all about number of MPs actually on the subject. Full frames have some advantages but it is best to minimize cropping.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,871
1,734
For us wildlife photographers, it is a fact that an image taken with an APS-C has higher IQ than full frame with same MP cropped to a similar perspective. It is all about number of MPs actually on the subject. Full frames have some advantages but it is best to minimize cropping.
Imagine, then, a hypothetical 83MP full frame, which would crop down to 32MP--that's as dense as any existing Canon sensor. Would your objection still stand?

The R5 crops down to 17MP which isn't all that much worse than the 21 MP the 7D gives you. But maybe even that hit is unacceptable, if so, I can't argue with that.

I certainly wouldn't want to try cropping the R6, though! Or even the R (assuming it were otherwise suitable for you, which...it really isn't).
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene and Bert63

Bert63

What’s in da box?
CR Pro
Dec 3, 2017
928
2,013
You say "throw away pixels", I say "allows me to buy cheaper lenses that get to supertele, without extenders that add cost and rob light, without photoshop". I love full frame and mostly shoot wide, but if I was a birder who liked to travel, a crop R5 with the RF 100 - 500mm would give me a 2-piece setup that gets to 800mm effective and fits in a backpack, with usable files straight off the camera. That's never been done before.

My go-to combo has been the 100-400L II and 1.4X III since I moved from the 7D2 to the 5D4 years ago.

Now I shoot the same combo on the R5 and in crop mode you’re at roughly 1000mm at f8. Awesome. With animal eye AF composition has never been easier so...
 

amfoto1

I'm New Here
Aug 29, 2014
10
5
I wonder if an adapter could be made to use ef-m lenses on the R7. That could make for a versatile and compact camera if able to use these lenses, and potentially sell more of those lenses, as well as bringing more people into the RF ecosystem.
No.

Such an adapter isn't practical, due to the lens registers (bayonet flange to focal plane) distances of the RF and EF-M mounts:

RF lens register: 20mm
EF-M lens register: 18mm

For an EF-M lens to be used on an RF-mount camera would require optical correction, which would spoil image quality, unless very high end (expensive!) optics were used in the adapter.

Canon faced a similar conundrum way back when they went from the old FD/FL mount to today's EF mount. They briefly made a top-of-the line FD to EF adapter with optics.... but it was terribly expensive and also acted as a 1.26X teleconverter. I don't know the original list price for the Canon FD to EF adapter, but it cost more than many of the lenses it was designed to adapt! Today it's a rarity and collectible, often brings upwards of $1000 US when one comes on the market. And, while its teleconverter effect might have been welcome with telephotos, it would make wide angles less wide.

There are affordable FD to EF adapters today, from various third party manufacturers. To keep the price reasonable, they use lower quality optics that pretty much ruins images made with them.

It would be possible to do the opposite though... to fit an RF lens to an EF-M camera, although the 2mm difference in the registers leaves very little room for an adapter.

EF/EF-S lenses for Canon DSLRs have a much longer register: 44mm. That allows them to easily be fitted to either EF-M or RF mount cameras with a simple adapter that requires no optics, so doesn't harm image quality.
 
Last edited:

yeahright

EOS 90D
Aug 28, 2014
111
79
Imagine, then, a hypothetical 83MP full frame, which would crop down to 32MP--that's as dense as any existing Canon sensor. Would your objection still stand?

The R5 crops down to 17MP which isn't all that much worse than the 21 MP the 7D gives you. But maybe even that hit is unacceptable, if so, I can't argue with that.

I certainly wouldn't want to try cropping the R6, though! Or even the R (assuming it were otherwise suitable for you, which...it really isn't).
I would guess that birders want a large leap in technology over the 7DII 7 years after its launch in 2014, and not pay over twice the price (R5 vs. 7DII) for fewer pixels on subject. So if Canon delivers a hypothetical full frame 83MP body without compromising the 20 fps at the price of the 7D series cameras I think not many crop-shooters among the birders would complain and happily switch over to full frame. But that option is not on the horizon. The ratio of pixels on subject to price (body AND lens) should be much BETTER in 2021 than 2014, not worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Kane Clements

EOS M50
Dec 6, 2019
47
33
The wait for R5 was definitely worthwhile for me. I'm sure that moving to Sony (canon lenses) would been been okay but I am glad that I waited.
Vaporware? sure it was a long wait but this is CR3 which is the closest to an actual Canon announcement. A lot of discussion in this forum but no consensus about feature set and cost. A lot of very hopeful people for a lowish cost which I can't see happening.
I'm sure that the Fujis are great for what they are and are available now rather than 12 months from now with Canon. No one is suggesting that you have to wait unless you have EF/RF glass that cannot be used on Fuji so a much larger cost to switch.
How long the smaller players survive is a declining market will be fascinating to watch. Canon doesn't have to compete directly on cost.
There is an EF to Fuji XF Adaptor that works well. Agreed no such product for RF to Fuji XF. If you don't know what Fuji does, take a look at the X-T4 ;). You might be surprised.
 

Kane Clements

EOS M50
Dec 6, 2019
47
33
I have high resolving power lenses, but what is your source for it needing them and the Fuji doesn't?
Fuji FX glass is designed for the X series. The 32 MB Canon sensor packs in a lot of pixels and the need for high resolving power lenses to cope on for example the M6 II and the 90D is well documented. Christoper Frost Photography on YouTube (great channel if you haven't seen it he mostly reviews lenses and been at it for ten years) has a video dealing with the issue in relation to the M6 Mk II. Worth a look.

No camera is perfect and each brand has their foibles. I'd invite you, in no more than a spirit of curiosity, to take a look at what Fuji has achieved with their crop sensor. DP review of the X-T4 and X-S10 give balanced roundups on YouTube and their site.

You might be surprised. :)
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
313
254
What you stand by does not compute. The R5 has the pixel density of approximately 17mp when compared to Canon crop sensors. The "R7" is not going to be a 17mp sensor. It will likely be twice the pixel density of the R5.
Reread my post. I said R5s. It will likely be in the 80 MP range, so essentially the same as the 90D/M6 II. The current R5 is 17 MP in crop, but due to the better AAF, it competes well with the 7D II.