There is still discussion internally at Canon about an APS-C EOS R camera

[neuroanatomist]

…if you would like to convince the 7D-II crowd to migrate to R. On that last note, the trigger for such a migration would be a proper successor to the EF 500mm F/4 L II and that isn't baked yet

I think your suggestion that most 7DII owners also own a 500/4 is half-baked.

 

[Dragon]

Many who want an R7 already have a "high res" FF. But the 45MP R5, when cropped to APS-C angle of view, is only 17MP at a time when Canon offers a pretty good 32MP APS-C sensor in bodies that don't quite cut the mustard for typical 7D/potential R7 buyers.

Just because one has a FF body (or multiple FF bodies) does not mean that one can't also have use cases where a higher density APS-C camera is a better tool for that specific use case, particularly if the use case calls for multiple bodies sporting both "long" and "short" lenses to be used at the same time.

The other thing you don't seem to be able to see is that even for those who have FF bodies and an EF 500mm f/4L, to get the same pixel density on subjects with a 45MP FF camera that they would get with a 32MP APS-C + 500mm they would need a 940mm lens. The 500/4 might be expensive, but have you priced an 800mm or 1200mm lens recently?

Yes, I have an 800L that I use with both an R5 and a 90D, so I understand the tradeoffs. I think there is something wrong with your math. The R5 has at tad over 17MP in the APS-c area and the 90D just over 32MP in the same area. Those are effectively area numbers, whereas lens reach is a linear number, so you have to compare as follows: Sqrt(32/17)= 1.37 equivalent zoom or 500mm*1.37=685mm equivalent focal length. I have found that the R5 with a 1.4 TC on the 800mm will out-resolve, out-track, and out-focus the 90D without a TC on the same lens and adding the TC to 90D doesn't help that much because the pixel density is pushing the limits of the lens combo. I suspect the 500L II, being arguably the sharpest big white ever made, might be a bit better with the TC, but not enough to make a dramatic difference. Also note that the much better AA filter on the R5 puts the effective APS-c resolution closer to 20MP equivalent from a relative sharpness perspective. In the end, an 80+ MP FF R5s will end all arguments other than price and I suspect that will happen before Canon seriously looks at an "R5c" (and I am not referring to "Cinema").

 

[Dragon]

I think your suggestion that most 7DII owners also own a 500/4 is half-baked.

I pointed to that lens, because it is literally the ONLY long lens that is sharp enough to make a difference (I.e. the sharpest big white ever made). On the EF100-400 L II, the R5 with a 1.4 TC is as good or better in every respect when compared to a 90D without the TC and when you add the TC with the 90D, the lens doesn't hold up the resolution of the camera, so there is not enough gain to make a difference. The situation is similar with the 80mmL. I have and use all of the above and the R5 is at this point my camera of choice. The 500 L II is good enough with the 1.4 TC that the 90D might show some advantage, but then there is always the 2x TC. In the end, getting rid of the f/5.6 AF limit imposed by SLRs changed the game. You really have to spend some quality time with an R5 to understand how things have changed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I pointed to that lens, because it is literally the ONLY long lens that is sharp enough to make a difference (I.e. the sharpest big white ever made).

Actually, the 600/4 II is a bit sharper.

But what you stated was that an RF 500/4 would be the trigger for migration of 7DII owners to the EOS R system, and honestly, that's ridiculous. To extend your cart before the horse analogy, your statement is that the tail will wag the dog.

 

[Dragon]

Actually, the 600/4 II is a bit sharper.

View attachment 199580

But what you stated was that an RF 500/4 would be the trigger for migration of 7DII owners to the EOS R system, and honestly, that's ridiculous. To extend your cart before the horse analogy, your statement is that the tail will wag the dog.

Pick your data source, but the 600 doesn't hold up to TCs as well as the 500. It really falls apart relatively with the 2x.

Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

 

[neuroanatomist]

Pick your data source, but the 600 doesn't hold up to TCs as well as the 500. It really falls apart relatively with the 2x.

Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Oh, ok then. But the 300/2.8 II holds up better when you stack the 1.4x and 2x TCs, so actually it's the sharpest big white ever made.

Also, kudos on ignoring the main point. What happened, couldn't find a way to move the goalposts on that one?

 

[stevelee]

EF-S never made sense either. Sure, the 17-50/2.8 made a lot of sense but both Tamron and Sigma did that without the mirror-fouling of the EF-S lenses. Was mirror-fouling the only standout feature of EF-S? While EF-S was nonsensical, a fast standard zoom for APS-C wasn't and neither was a kit zoom. And a speedy camera body that didn't cost an arm, a leg and a kidney was a nice idea, wasn't it?
Thinking about it, maybe the golden days of photography just passed. Sure, cameras get better with every new generation but the value proposition...

My one EF-S lens other than the kit lens is the 10-22mm zoom. It made a lot of sense when I was shooting the Rebel and gave excellent results. I shot home interiors for a realtor and got excellent results for that purpose.

Now that I am shooting FF, I have the 16-35mm lens, which is equivalent in terms of view angle. It is excellent, but of course much bigger, heavier, and more expensive. After I bought the 10-22, they came out with a 10-18mm, I think it is. It is a little slower, smaller, and cheaper, but it tests well. I might have bought it instead had it been out. But for longer lenses, I don’t see a lot of point for EF-S. I got a couple EF lenses when I still used the Rebel.

 

[Czardoom]

Personally, I think the idea that Canon needs to make any lens - be it a telephoto RF lens or specific RF-S lenses - to sell a crop R series camera is totally off base. 7D series users already have the lenses the want. Even those like me who are not 7D series owners, have lenses that are just waiting for a crop camera with a big enough grip to comfortably use them. My old EF 85-200 f/2.8 and my newer Sigma 100-400mm contemporary are just waiting for an R crop camera. Until then they will be used reasonably comfortably on a Nikon Z50 with adapter. If Canon had a crop R camera, I would gladly sell the Nikon z50 (not a bad camera at all, by the way, but no IBIS and no sensor cleaning make it replaceable if Canon were to come up with a better replacement).

 

[Czardoom]

My one EF-S lens other than the kit lens is the 10-22mm zoom. It made a lot of sense when I was shooting the Rebel and gave excellent results. I shot home interiors for a realtor and got excellent results for that purpose.

Now that I am shooting FF, I have the 16-35mm lens, which is equivalent in terms of view angle. It is excellent, but of course much bigger, heavier, and more expensive. After I bought the 10-22, they came out with a 10-18mm, I think it is. It is a little slower, smaller, and cheaper, but it tests well. I might have bought it instead had it been out. But for longer lenses, I don’t see a lot of point for EF-S. I got a couple EF lenses when I still used the Rebel.

The only lens that would be needed for crop R cameras would be a crop wide angle, something like a 10-22mm. All other lenses Canon can make for the R series cameras can serve both FF and crop users. A wide angle zoom for FF is a standard zoom on crop. Everything longer will work equally well on both.

 

[unfocused]

The only lens that would be needed for crop R cameras would be a crop wide angle, something like a 10-22mm. All other lenses Canon can make for the R series cameras can serve both FF and crop users. A wide angle zoom for FF is a standard zoom on crop. Everything longer will work equally well on both.

Actually, a 15-85 R lens would be important. Don't underestimate the need for a good quality walk-around lens. There is no full frame lens that covers that range. They are either too short at the long end or not wide enough at the wide end. A 15-85, an ultra wide and maybe a 17-55 2.8 is all Canon ever really offered 7D users, so it should be sufficient for a crop R body.

 

[Michael Clark]

In the end, an 80+ MP FF R5s will end all arguments other than price and I suspect that will happen before Canon seriously looks at an "R5c" (and I am not referring to "Cinema").

Yeah, I'm sure all of the birders will be happy with half the frame rate and buffer depth of the R5 in exchange for that higher pixel density with an R5s.

 

[Michael Clark]

Sorry, I didn't realize you were directing so much energy toward something you don't believe makes sense as a production camera.

Probably about as much as I can't figure out why complete strangers feel the constant and continuous need to convince me I wouldn't find such a thing useful, just because they wouldn't find such a thing useful when they don't shoot the same use cases I shoot.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yes, I threw in a little hyperbole for drama, but my ratio would be pretty close for the review community, which is one of the larger concerns for any manufacturer. I agree that the 7d II users would not particularly miss the equivalent of EF-s lenses, but they would scream bloody murder about $3,000 for an "R5-c" and they would also whine about lack of features on an "R6-c" and the "R6-c" would dramatically increase the number of reviewers who would howl about the lack of APS-c specific lenses. The average EOS-M customer wouldn't even notice either introduction. So if you put yourself in Canon's shoes and ask "is it worth the pain?", you have a tough decision to make, even if you would like to convince the 7D-II crowd to migrate to R. On that last note, the trigger for such a migration would be a proper successor to the EF 500mm F/4 L II and that isn't baked yet, so best to not get the cart before the horse.

Canon hasn't seemed too concerned about the massive criticism the review community constantly heaps upon the EOS M system.

Canon just keeps selling the most popular mirrorless interchangeable lens camera system in the world, anyway.

 

[Michael Clark]

In the end, getting rid of the f/5.6 AF limit imposed by SLRs changed the game.

Maybe unless one is shooting sports under lights not up to major college/pro sports standards and needs f/2.8 (or at the very least f/4) no matter how well the camera can focus at apertures narrower than f/5.6

 

[Michael Clark]

Actually, the 600/4 II is a bit sharper.

View attachment 199580

But what you stated was that an RF 500/4 would be the trigger for migration of 7DII owners to the EOS R system, and honestly, that's ridiculous. To extend your cart before the horse analogy, your statement is that the tail will wag the dog.

Meh. The difference between the two is less than what the variation can be from two different copies of the same model lens on the same test bench (as opposed to on different copies of the same model camera body, which could be even greater variation depending on how well the flange ring and sensor are aligned).

There's no real practical difference.

 

[Michael Clark]

The only lens that would be needed for crop R cameras would be a crop wide angle, something like a 10-22mm. All other lenses Canon can make for the R series cameras can serve both FF and crop users. A wide angle zoom for FF is a standard zoom on crop. Everything longer will work equally well on both.

Actually, a 15-85 R lens would be important. Don't underestimate the need for a good quality walk-around lens. There is no full frame lens that covers that range. They are either too short at the long end or not wide enough at the wide end. A 15-85, an ultra wide and maybe a 17-55 2.8 is all Canon ever really offered 7D users, so it should be sufficient for a crop R body.

You both assume most users interested in a higher end APS-C camera in the RF mount wouldn't also have FF cameras for most use cases. The high end APS-C R, if it ever sees the light of day, will be a specialized tool used mostly for narrow angle of view use cases by those who also use FF cameras for wide angle work.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You both assume most users interested in a higher end APS-C camera in the RF mount wouldn't also have FF cameras for most use cases. The high end APS-C R, if it ever sees the light of day, will be a specialized tool used mostly for narrow angle of view use cases by those who also use FF cameras for wide angle work.

So it’s your contention that most 7D/7DII owners also owned a FF DSLR? I highly doubt that.

 

[Michael Clark]

So it’s your contention that most 7D/7DII owners also owned a FF DSLR? I highly doubt that.

Doubt all you want. Pretty much everyone I know that have/had one also used FF cameras, other than one PJ at a really small weekly county newspaper that was issued one by his paper. That's admittedly a small, anecdotal sample, but probably no smaller than what a wealthy enthusiast with all kinds of Super Telephotos in their collection has encountered.

 

[Czardoom]

You both assume most users interested in a higher end APS-C camera in the RF mount wouldn't also have FF cameras for most use cases. The high end APS-C R, if it ever sees the light of day, will be a specialized tool used mostly for narrow angle of view use cases by those who also use FF cameras for wide angle work.

I make no such assumption. All I said was that Canon can make lenses that will work for both FF and crop cameras. Not sure what you were reading into my post. I believe something like an 18-45mm lens has been rumored. That would work as a standard kit zoom for crop and a moderate wide angle for FF. In other words, no need for a line of "crop" lenses.

 

[Michael Clark]

I make no such assumption. All I said was that Canon can make lenses that will work for both FF and crop cameras. Not sure what you were reading into my post. I believe something like an 18-45mm lens has been rumored. That would work as a standard kit zoom for crop and a moderate wide angle for FF. In other words, no need for a line of "crop" lenses.

From your post to which I was responding:

"The only lens that would be needed for crop R cameras would be a crop wide angle, something like a 10-22mm."