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

[Nigel95]

Exactly. I'm pretty disappointed. I was hoping that with R the days of APS-C are finally over. No need for it anymore, FF is cheap, body is small.
I wish R was FF-only, and EF-M was the more portable APS-C line and that's it. It could be such a nice and clean product portfolio.
And they say EF-M will be discontinued. wtf.

FF glass is cheap? Cheap compared to what? Arri lenses? Prices between APS-C and FF equivalent glass can easily be x3.

Why do you want the R line FF only? Because you don't want a R APS-C body? Maybe other people on the planet want it..

It's weird if you want Aps-C that you are sort of stuck into the EF-M line(in your opinion) . It's compact and light but not always favourable for a main camera.

 

[riker]

Who says that though? People who mistake the M50 II as a small improvement, when it really is an upgrade in features at a reduced introduction price? That's just folks on forums, right?

Well, it was here on CR multiple times in the official news feed, not the forums. Plus looking at development pace of EF-M bodies as well as EF-M lenses tells the story pretty well. It's anything but taken seriously.

 

[mpeeps]

Slower though..

True. Way more versatile, however. I like landscapes and wide angle photography too.

 

[mpeeps]

Yeah, the full frame crowd is about as bad as Sony fanboys. It's not their money, they obviously aren't getting one. Their opinions are pretty much irrelevant. Also, and it might sound nuts, but some people like having two camera bodies. Yes, it's possible to own a full frame and a crop body. Who'd have known?

Why get defensive/offensive about this conversation? I've learned so much on this site and don't profess to be an optics engineer. I don't see anyone's opinions as being pretty much irrelevant, even yours.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Exactly. I'm pretty disappointed. I was hoping that with R the days of APS-C are finally over. No need for it anymore, FF is cheap, body is small.
I wish R was FF-only, and EF-M was the more portable APS-C line and that's it. It could be such a nice and clean product portfolio.
And they say EF-M will be discontinued. wtf.

FF is not cheap. Small and slow FF is cheap with missing features like the RP. Cropped video, no dual pixel, 3 fps. People loved the 7D because offered professional features for an affordable price.

 

[Ozarker]

Why someone will buy APS-C mirrorless when RP and R both are in reachable price range... dont understand the concept

Birders and sports shooters. That's the target marker.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Why someone will buy APS-C mirrorless when RP and R both are in reachable price range... dont understand the concept

Wildlife and sport photographers won't be happy with the RP shooting 3 fps. And the R is not much faster. The R5 on the other hand is unreachable in price for many. The R6 too low resolution for cropping.

 

[AJ]

It's funny how, ever since the announcement of the 5D mk1 back in '05, people on internet forums like this have predicted and cheered on the demise of APSC. Every time an APSC camera is announced there is a chorus of "why do we need this, surely it's the end of the line for APSC." Yet APSC refuses to die. Despite rumors to the contrary, IQ on crop cameras, even lowly rebels, is excellent, especially when these cameras are coupled with good glass (e.g. 50/1.8). It is miles and leagues above cell phone shots, even $1000+ iphones. I think an R-mount Rebel will do well and it will present a clear upgrade path to an RP.

 

[Jasonmc89]

True. Way more versatile, however. I like landscapes and wide angle photography too.

It always depends on what the photographer wants to capture and what tools work for them. A lot of the time for birds I need a fast FPS but possibly more importantly, a buffer that clears quickly! But yes, wide angle and landscape shots suffer with crop!

 

[Jasonmc89]

Wildlife and sport photographers won't be happy with the RP shooting 3 fps. And the R is not much faster. The R5 on the other hand is unreachable in price for many. The R6 too low resolution for cropping.

Exaaaactly the way I see it too.

 

[dwarven]

Why get defensive/offensive about this conversation? I've learned so much on this site and don't profess to be an optics engineer. I don't see anyone's opinions as being pretty much irrelevant, even yours.

I get defensive when people come in and try to shame someone for not buying full frame, either through willful ignorance or elitism. The newer, cheaper full frame cameras are super gimped in some way, so there are still plenty of reasons to get a crop body. It's especially insulting when someone tells you to jUsT gEt aN Rp BrO, after you've just explained you like shooting action and birds. The RP is a great, compact camera. But it's not an action or bird camera.

 

[mpeeps]

I get defensive when people come in and try to shame someone for not buying full frame. The newer, cheaper full frame cameras are super gimped in some way, so there are still plenty of reasons to get a crop body. It's especially insulting when someone tells you to jUsT gEt aN Rp BrO, after you've just explained you like shooting action and birds. The RP is a great, compact camera. But it's not an action or bird camera.

I haven't seen any shaming, just opinionating. This isn't politics, it's a photography forum. 'Nuff said!

 

[canonmike]

Yes but why a smaller and therefore poorer handling body what is this obsession with teeny weeny

Well, Zim. Understand your position but an argument can be made for teeny weeny, too. I use both full frame and crop bodies. For yrs, I carried a 7d coupled to heavy EF zooms while hiking and doing trail maintenance. My heavy 7d and lenses kept getting banged up every time I went on trail, so I tried various ways of carrying it. Holster, straps and more, to no avail. Finally, I tried an M50 just for the heck of it. Easy to carry, small form factor body and lenses, decent picture quality for my purposes(promoting BMTA trail work and hiking) and really cheap. The M series bodies and lenses have been a game changer for trail work. Due to the nature of my work, my M50 does occasionally get banged a bit but nothing like the 7d I was carrying, primarily due to using Peak Designs capture clip, attached to my backpack straps, which keeps the body more protected, yet readily available for that sudden trail Kodak moment. An added perk is the low M series teeny weeny cost factor keeps me from crying as much when I do destroy the camera, not to mention how lighter it is to pack, when you're carrying pack gear and eqpt that already weighs 40-50 lbs. Sure, you can put any camera body in your back pack but then it doesn't get used because it's not readily accessible like a small body is. I think it's great to have different choices at our disposal and in the end, you use what works for you. For my needs, I hope they keep teeny weeny awhile longer, even while I love the new R5/R6 bodies, albeit I won't be carrying either on the trail. Too heavy, too big and too expensive to risk damaging. If the Canon community wants an R series APSC crop body, as well, I say give it to them.

 

[reef58]

Yes, I know, pixel density. I have a 90D and there are damn few lenses that will effectively use that pixel density. Also, the R5s will almost certainly have equivalent pixel density and still give you that FF field of view, so I stand by what I said above.

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.

 

[Kane Clements]

Because I don't want two camera systems with different lenses batteries and chargers. And if you except the MP then you are comparing apples to oranges.

I disagree with you over the MP and processor. The Canon 32 MP is 'difficult'. It needs high resolving power lenses. The 26 MP X-Trans on the Fuji kicks it out of the park.

 

[wyotex43n]

..., what an APS-C sensor will do betten than than the FF R5? ...



Also full 14 bit depth images at high framerates (R5 only goes to 6-8 fps at 14bit).
Faster sensor-readout should be possible, and would besides less rolling shutter also potentially give you better performing EVF for action photography.
Less heat (I'm not very much into video - but some will appreciate it). EDIT: Not sure about this one.

Could you elaborate on the 14 bit comment. I thought the R5 did 14 as long as it was in mechanical shutter mode which could be up to 10 or 12 FPS. Willing to be educated.

 

[jvillain]

This thread is already up to page 10. Don't tell me there is no interest in an APS-C RF mount camera.

 

[PerKr]

I don't think it makes any sense, but maybe that's just me.

Yes, that is just you (and a bunch of other people).

APS-C sensors are cheaper to make

Differentiation. As long as you have an APS-C model in the lineup, FF can be treated as a premium feature and you can charge more for the same or even worse overall performance. They have been able to charge a premium in DSLRs and now the R5 and R6 come with a much increased price compared to the 5D and 6D in many markets. Canon will want to be able to keep charging as much as possible. The RP becomes a moot point being based on older sensor tech and will, if it remains in the lineup, be seriously outperformed by a similarly priced APS-C model because it will at best be an entry-level FF body.

because the competition offers APS-C models in their main mount.

Because FF isn't as big a deal as it was as the greatest advantage is lost; a big nice viewfinder can be had with any sensor format when you have an EVF (and that "FF look" really doesn't matter all that much to most people and to those who crave it, well, just pay a premium to get it)

Do you recognize why people bought the 7D rather than the 6D, 5D or the 1D? If not, well, too bad.

Why bother with the 135 size sensor anyway? There are larger sensors available, not like there's anything magical about this particular size. Too large to be compact when taking lenses into account and still not large enough.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Large Format or GTFO

Yeah, shut up'n shoot yer Speed Graphic (to say it with Frank Zappa)

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Could you elaborate on the 14 bit comment. I thought the R5 did 14 as long as it was in mechanical shutter mode which could be up to 10 or 12 FPS. Willing to be educated.

I was unable to quickly find a link/reference, but it is somewhere in specs/manual.
In H+ mode (fastest mechanical shutter mode) RAW bit depth is 13 bit.
If you lower mechanical shooting mode to H, you get the usual 14 bit depth. As far as I remember H is approx. 6-8 fps depending on other settings.

I'll update this comment if I can find the official overview of the shooting modes (But maybe others are faster than me?).

Btw, the R6 does not have this restriction. With the lower pixel count of R6, it is 14 bit all the way with mechanical shutter.

UPDATE. Here it is. Actually it is 6fps with pure mechanical shutter and 8 fps with electronic 1st curtain: