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

[Dragon]

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

The precise situation that doesn't justify the price of the f/2.8 lens .

 

[Dragon]

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.

Not necessarily. I haven't tested the R5 in APS-c vs FF to see if there is any speed difference in stills, but it does shoot downsampled 4k/60P in crop mode and not in FF, so the potential for a fast readout APS-c mode is there and also, the hi res version just could be a stacked sensor and thus pretty fast in FF.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not necessarily. I haven't tested the R5 in APS-c vs FF to see if there is any speed difference in stills, but it does shoot downsampled 4k/60P in crop mode and not in FF, so the potential for a fast readout APS-c mode is there and also, the hi res version just could be a stacked sensor and thus pretty fast in FF.

Many others have already tested it.

There's no speed difference in cropped mode. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

 

[Michael Clark]

The precise situation that doesn't justify the price of the f/2.8 lens .

Please explain how crappy, dim, less than full spectrum, flickering light at a sports venue is a situation where one doesn't benefit from having an f/2.8 lens versus an F/11, or even f/5.6 or f/7.1 lens?

 

[Dragon]

Please explain how crappy, dim, less than full spectrum, flickering light at a sports venue is a situation where one doesn't benefit from having an f/2.8 lens versus an F/11, or even f/5.6 or f/7.1 lens?

Picture quality will absolutely benefit, but I was speaking from a potential revenue perspective. There is little to no money to be made shooting such events and thus the better lens can't be justified financially (unless, of course it is your kid on the field and you can afford the lens ).

 

[Michael Clark]

Picture quality will absolutely benefit, but I was speaking from a potential revenue perspective. There is little to no money to be made shooting such events and thus the better lens can't be justified financially (unless, of course it is your kid on the field and you can afford the lens ).

There's also the fact that anything that goes "out there" in public view with one's name on it reflects the overall quality of work one does. That can impact potential customers who might consider hiring one for other types of projects that are more profitable such as senior portraits, engagement shoots, piano or violin recitals, etc. This would be especially the case when one's pool of potential customers is mostly clustered around a specific school's culture as well as the greater community of which that school is a central part.