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

gatabo

I'm New Here
Feb 28, 2020
19
18
The EOS C70 has a crop factor that "varies" (4096 or 3840 4K pixels) if you measure the diagonal or the width, between the size of an APS-H 1,37x to APS-C 1.5x sensor, that's bigger than the "past" cameras from Canon, 1.6x crop EF-S lenses (and EF-M), APS-H never had a dedicated lens mount, it just used FF lenses (if we exclude Cine lenses).

Canon already makes an EOS R 0.71X speed booster for FF EF lenses that is roughly equivalent to 1.4X crop factor (similar to the APS-H from the past), the de facto Super 35mm film from the cinema industry, this could be an hint, Canon should stick with this "useful" crop factor also for the future EOS R7, as someone already said in this thread, some Canon RF lenses like the 24-240mm or the 24-105mm F4-7.1 have a reduced image circle that could fit well with a crop sensor and 1.4x seems more appropriate than the "old" 1.6x crop.

Canon RF extenders aren't anymore as versatile as the EF extenders, no more 70-200mm compatibility and even with the new 100-500mm it's less practical than it was with the 100-400mm, but if the future R7 is just a mini R5 (or R3) some photographers could like to use a digital extender instead than an optical extender (even if it's much more expensive), in the past birders and any photographer searching the extra reach used the 7D and similar cameras just for this (and macro), obviously to make this trick work the future EOS R crop cameras should have a pixel number that is similar to the FF equivalent model, the future R7 to be considered a mini R5 needs to have roughly 45MP, otherwise the crop "advantage" is useless (the 7D was considered a mini 1Dx an both had the same amount of pixels).

If Canon don't want to make RF-S lenses (it makes sense) an APS-H 1.4x crop sensor is the way to go, the EOS R to EF 0.71X adapter already exist, Canon could make an RF to RF version too.

An R7 with 45MP sensor like a mini R5, but at a price point that is lower than the R6 could be a massive success, many photographer just want a pro body without the need of a FF sensor, I think many 7D and 7DII photographers, but also 40D 50D 60D 70D 80D and 90D shooters looking for an "upgrade" to mirrorless will love to buy such a camera, it could be the first step to RF mount before eventually upgrade to FF.
 

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
152
162
I wonder whether phone cameras have killed the chance for big volume on crop sensors like it seems to have killed the pocket P&S cameras, making it more profitable to sell a slightly more expensive FF sensor to the interchangable lense newcomers on a tight budget. $599 full frame to start? Maybe wiuthout EVF? Better than developing a whole product line and range of lenses for a dwindling market?
 

Stig Nygaard

EOS 7D II, Powershot G5 X II & Olympus TG-5
CR Pro
Jul 10, 2013
132
231
Copenhagen
www.flickr.com
So frustrating to hear that Canon is still discussing RF APS-C, and once again stated that they don't plan to make any crop lenses for RF mount. That tells me that Canon only considers an "R7" as something people have as supplement to a fullframe camera, and not something being the primarily/only camera.
I mean, I partly have my 7DII for the (price &) extra reach of my [wildlife] tele-lenses - or to put it another way, the smaller price & size/weight of same reach, but just as much I have it because of my cheaper and light weight 385g EF-S 10-22mm (equals fullframe 16-35mm) and my 575g EF-S 15-85mm (equals fullframe 24-135mm).
 
Last edited:

wyotex43n

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 24, 2016
66
42
A line up of RF-S, lenses makes no sense to me. Inexpensive non L glass makes business sense but not another mount to confuse people.
As a person who likes to shoot birds I would like to see something that is above 10 frames a second that would get more pixels on the bird than my R5 while having similar AF capabilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

HAWKS61

I'm New Here
Aug 11, 2019
11
12
No need for a "Canon" lens on a M-50 or M6. There are Sigma lenses which work wonderfully
It’s ok to say there are a few sigma lenses for the M system but unless they open the Mount up fully to third party manufacturers the system is restricted to a couple of ok zoom lenses that just don’t handle the full resolution or the M6 mark 2. It’s a terrific APS-c camera with really good autofocus and features that with the right lenses could be a nice small sports and wildlife option. The M6 mk2 with most current lenses is like putting a formula one motor in a VW beetle.
 

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
125
164
I think the M line was a massive misstep.
That's because you're an enthusiast who prefers high-end, full-frame gear. The M system wasn't meant for you.

Here's another perspective: Canon was playing catch-up in mirrorless after being caught flat-footed by the success of Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic, in the shrinking DSLR market. The M series was a low-risk way for Canon to test the waters and learn about mirrorless camera considerations, before bringing the technology to their flagship EOS series. Without the lessons Canon learned from the M, the R series might very well have stumbled right out of the gate.
 

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
125
164
Dear internal Canon discussion team: you can count at least both on PhilRP and me for a fast, responsive ML 7D II successor with decent low light performance :D. And I am pretty sure there are more future users you can make happy. If this world really deserves something, then it is a bit more happiness :giggle:. Plus, "7" stands for luck at least in Western mythology and fairy tales.
Dear internal Canon discussion team: I have used exclusively Canon ILCs for 40 years, starting with an AV-1 when I was in high school and later moving to the EOS system with a succession of film and digital EOS bodies, culminating with a 7D Mark II. Earlier this year, I purchased my first ever non-Canon ILC, a Sony a6400. To your credit, it took Sony and Fuji five years to catch up to the 7D Mark II, but catch up they did. I am getting great results with the a6400, and my EF lenses work perfectly with the adapter. So my wish list for you is simple: Give us an APS-C R body that will make me WANT to come back to Canon!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,824
4,273
Every time this comes up, self-styled experts will opine that there is no longer any market for APS-C. I cannot say for other niches, but those who express these opinions completely fail to understand the nature photography niche and understand how big it is. We're not necessarily talking about pro nature shooters here, but general bird and macro photographers. The niche is massive. Who do you think buys all those high end binoculars and scopes. The simply fact is if you use FF, you inevitably end up cropping it to less than APS-C size - I mean nearly every photo. I shoot FF as well. I am speaking from experience.

Sorry, but I had to LOL at that. The bird and macro niche is ‘massive’?!? I think it is you who acompletely fail to understand the nature of the ILC market.

You’re quite correct that the suggestion that there is no longer any market for APS-C is ludicrous. The market for APS-C is massive compared to FF, which is in turn massive compared to MF (a few years ago, Leica stated the MF market —the whole market, not their portion of it— comprised 6,000-7,000 MF bodies sold per year). But what drives APS-C sales isn’t bird or macro photographers, it’s the simple fact that APS-C ILCs are cheaper.

Incidentally, that’s also likely the reason that most bird/macro photographers buy APS-C bodies.
 
Last edited:

dilbert

EOS 90D
Aug 12, 2010
114
92
The problem for Canon is that RF-S can't be EF-M. EF-M lenses are smaller because the mount is smaller. That also means lighter.

If Canon don't replace EF-M when it is discontinued then they leave that segment of the market to the other vendors.

There are size and weight advantages with EF-M for consumers that can't be delivered with RF.
 

mccasi

EOS M50
Oct 24, 2019
42
60
People buy aps-c for 3 reasons:
- price
- portability
- specialty applications which require high pixel density

Price conscious buyers can be swayed by cheap FF body, cheap FF kit lens. In fact canon would prefer selling a 800 usd kit FF kit over their M50 kit which is their top seller. Not sure how Sony and Fuji are actually doing with this segment.

portability conscious buyers, like I was when I bought the EOS M, then m3, less so the m5, they just need a single small body and a pancake lens. Now the 50mm 1.8 on an RP would have likely been enough for me back then. The extreme of this would be the Sony a7c, no compromises on performance, if you want small and have small hands; canon will monitor their sales well. No one would take a eos m with 22/2 over a RPii with 35/2.8 if they cost the same and weight the same and are within a CM of each other.
… also, I was increasingly buying lenses for my EOS M and portability was getting worse and worse, yet performance, esp autofocus and image quality was only meh, even on the M5. So a good customer for canon, will get more unhappy sticking with eos M.

niche applications are just that, niche and low volume. And… Cheap birders are not getting Fuji’s. They’re getting a cheap FF body and a 600/11.. or buying a power zoom with a 1 inch sensor. High end birders can just get either a r5s or a teleconverter, Both are giving the photog more flexibility in their kit. Also, Aps-c birders were using FF lenses as there aren’t any good aps-c long lenses.
Case and point, if this niche was big enough, Olympus would be alive right now, they tried and even got the super long lens for it.

don’t tell me that people love aps-c without telling me what the need is that FF cannot do equal or better.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,824
4,273
Unless Canon can produce a ~$750 full frame R camera, then they'll need a crop body with an RF mount to attract the entry level market. The M line is good, but it's a locked-in system without the ability to mount/upgrade to Canon's amazing new RF lenses.

I think the M line was a massive misstep.
Let me introduce you to reality. Seems you’re not acquainted.

Keep in mind that:
1) the M line is a global best-seller, and consistently a best-seller domestically for Canon.
2) Canon wants you to buy more – cameras and lenses. So you have an M and want FF? You buy an R and lenses, too. Canon wins.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
946
791
www.flickr.com
I think that an ASPC R-mount camera makes a lot of sense, and if so, it should be supported by a few RF-S lenses. You can them mount RF and RF-S lenses without an adapter, similar to mounting EF and EF-S on a crop DSLR. The difference would be that you could also mount an RF-S lens on a full-frame camera, which would then switch into crop mode. This wasn't possible with DSLRs due to mirror clearance issues.

Such a system would provide a clear upgrade path, unlike moving from M to R.
Canon can't afford to support a 5th lens mount with RF-s lenses. If they did then only wide angle RF-s lenses would be needed as the range of RF glass or adapted EF glass is excellent!

If Canon brings out a higher level (not Rebel level) APS-C R body (R6 + M6ii sensor/internals?) then those users could user adapted EF-s lenses for wide angle. Some are quite good. M series is a good mirrorless fit for the comparable Rebel (xxD/xxxD/xxxxD) kits. I am not convinced that many Rebel buyers migrated to full frame over time. I started from 7D + EF24-105/4 for instance.

I believe that the existing birding etc community already have their EF telephoto lenses and would adapt them onto the R7. There would be a few upgrades to RF100-500mm and new RF600/800mm but I can't see the rest of the RF lenses being important to that market segment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene and Jethro

AJ

EOS RP
Sep 11, 2010
747
153
Sorry, but I had to LOL at that. The bird and macro niche is ‘massive’?!? I think it is you who acompletely fail to understand the nature of the ILC market.

You’re quite correct that the suggestion that there is no longer any market for APS-C is ludicrous. The market for APS-C is massive compared to FF, which is in turn massive compared to MF (a few years ago, Leica stated the MF market —the whole market, not their portion of it— comprised 6,000-7,000 MF bodies sold per year). But what drives APS-C sales isn’t bird or macro photographers, it’s the simple fact that APS-C ILCs are cheaper.

Incidentally, that’s also likely the reason that most bird/macro photographers buy APS-C bodies.
I think you're quoting SteB1, not me. But I agree with you. The APSC market is massive. With APSC DSLRs and EF-S sailing off into the sunset, the question is whether APSC is going to the M mount (which has been neglected lately) or to R, or both. I don't think APSC is going away completely. The demise of APSC has been predicted again and again, but the format seems to hang on.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
504
494
So frustrating to hear that Canon is still discussing RF APS-C, and once again stated that they don't plan to make any crop lenses for RF mount. That tells me that Canon only considers an "R7" as something people have as supplement to a fullframe camera, and not something being the primarily/only camera.
I mean, I parly have my 7DII for the extra reach of my [wildlife] tele-lenses (or to put it another way, the smaller size/weight of same reach), but just as much I have it because of my 385g EF-S 10-22mm (equals fullframe 16-35mm) and my 575g EF-S 15-85mm (equals fullframe 24-135mm).
The EF-M 11-17 is an all around better lens than the EF-s 10-22 and it has IS and is also cheaper. The M line badly needs an equivalent to the EF-s 15-85 which is a very fine piece of glass, but the vast majority are happy with the 18-150, so it may be a while. Making an R body just for APS-c is silly. If you want the portability of your 10-22 and your 15-85, just slap them on your R5 and it will automatically switch to APS-c with proper APS-c RAW files and image quality and resolution better than your 7d II (yes, only 17MP, but the new AA filter makes a big difference).
 

BakaBokeh

EOS 90D
CR Pro
May 16, 2020
198
427
People buy aps-c for 3 reasons:
- price
- portability
- specialty applications which require high pixel density

Price conscious buyers can be swayed by cheap FF body, cheap FF kit lens. In fact canon would prefer selling a 800 usd kit FF kit over their M50 kit which is their top seller. Not sure how Sony and Fuji are actually doing with this segment.

portability conscious buyers, like I was when I bought the EOS M, then m3, less so the m5, they just need a single small body and a pancake lens. Now the 50mm 1.8 on an RP would have likely been enough for me back then. The extreme of this would be the Sony a7c, no compromises on performance, if you want small and have small hands; canon will monitor their sales well. No one would take a eos m with 22/2 over a RPii with 35/2.8 if they cost the same and weight the same and are within a CM of each other.
… also, I was increasingly buying lenses for my EOS M and portability was getting worse and worse, yet performance, esp autofocus and image quality was only meh, even on the M5. So a good customer for canon, will get more unhappy sticking with eos M.

niche applications are just that, niche and low volume. And… Cheap birders are not getting Fuji’s. They’re getting a cheap FF body and a 600/11.. or buying a power zoom with a 1 inch sensor. High end birders can just get either a r5s or a teleconverter, Both are giving the photog more flexibility in their kit. Also, Aps-c birders were using FF lenses as there aren’t any good aps-c long lenses.
Case and point, if this niche was big enough, Olympus would be alive right now, they tried and even got the super long lens for it.

don’t tell me that people love aps-c without telling me what the need is that FF cannot do equal or better.
Agreed on all accounts. The only thing I'd add is that the portability of M series to me is mostly because of the lenses. A tiny full frame RF body will never match the portability of an EF-M system. RF 50 and 35 f1.8 are small but will never be as small as EF-M. Canon might have limited themselves in lens design by standing fast by their rule to not exceed a certain diameter, but it sure does keep the system tiny. Shrinking the bodies without getting smaller lenses actually doesn't make sense to me either. That just makes for a more unbalanced, less ergonomic camera.

I also agree that those f11 lenses was Canon's way of appeasing the birders. They may not like it, but I think it's a more economical solution than developing an APS-C Pro body that only has a niche market.

The price aspect is interesting because there are varying factors. On one end, I feel like they do need to eventually come out with a $500 camera body. Whether that's APS-C or Full frame, I don't know. It's just something baked into the psyche of a first time buyer who wants to get a "nice" camera and in their mind, a budget of $500 almost always is the magic number. I just suspect that the cost difference between full frame and crop is growing more negligible, and the streamlining of the lens system makes more business sense. The other end of the discussion is the improvement of Phone cameras shrinking the market. If they are targeting first time buyers and beginners, they have to offer some way of being superior. That is becoming increasingly harder as AI is automatically applying filters, balancing HDR scenes, compensating in lowlight, all instantaneously, and some have multiple lenses (wide, standard, telephoto) built in.

Lastly, I think having a transitional lens system ala EF-S is not as important as some make it out to be. Canon, would rather you just buy more lenses if you decide to upgrade anyway. Actually thinking about it, it's actually backward. Why would you buy a crop lens with the intent of going to fullframe if it wouldn't even be compatible on the mount? Okay maybe RF would be different since you can put the body in crop mode, but that makes my previous point of unnecessarily complicating the lens lineup. This is why I agree with you that it's easier to just have one full frame system, and make different lenses for different applications and budgets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pzyber

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
504
494
The EOS C70 has a crop factor that "varies" (4096 or 3840 4K pixels) if you measure the diagonal or the width, between the size of an APS-H 1,37x to APS-C 1.5x sensor, that's bigger than the "past" cameras from Canon, 1.6x crop EF-S lenses (and EF-M), APS-H never had a dedicated lens mount, it just used FF lenses (if we exclude Cine lenses).

Canon already makes an EOS R 0.71X speed booster for FF EF lenses that is roughly equivalent to 1.4X crop factor (similar to the APS-H from the past), the de facto Super 35mm film from the cinema industry, this could be an hint, Canon should stick with this "useful" crop factor also for the future EOS R7, as someone already said in this thread, some Canon RF lenses like the 24-240mm or the 24-105mm F4-7.1 have a reduced image circle that could fit well with a crop sensor and 1.4x seems more appropriate than the "old" 1.6x crop.

Canon RF extenders aren't anymore as versatile as the EF extenders, no more 70-200mm compatibility and even with the new 100-500mm it's less practical than it was with the 100-400mm, but if the future R7 is just a mini R5 (or R3) some photographers could like to use a digital extender instead than an optical extender (even if it's much more expensive), in the past birders and any photographer searching the extra reach used the 7D and similar cameras just for this (and macro), obviously to make this trick work the future EOS R crop cameras should have a pixel number that is similar to the FF equivalent model, the future R7 to be considered a mini R5 needs to have roughly 45MP, otherwise the crop "advantage" is useless (the 7D was considered a mini 1Dx an both had the same amount of pixels).

If Canon don't want to make RF-S lenses (it makes sense) an APS-H 1.4x crop sensor is the way to go, the EOS R to EF 0.71X adapter already exist, Canon could make an RF to RF version too.

An R7 with 45MP sensor like a mini R5, but at a price point that is lower than the R6 could be a massive success, many photographer just want a pro body without the need of a FF sensor, I think many 7D and 7DII photographers, but also 40D 50D 60D 70D 80D and 90D shooters looking for an "upgrade" to mirrorless will love to buy such a camera, it could be the first step to RF mount before eventually upgrade to FF.
To your comment re the C70, Canon has stuck with super-35 sensors in pro Cine cameras because pro cinematographers are accustomed to working with the DOF that size imager produces and that group doesn't switch gears easily. The .71 adapter/focal reducer simply makes EF lenses (including EF cinema lenses) one stop faster and better suited to the C70.

AFAIK, the .71 adapter will also work with an R5 and the R5 APS-c cropped video is very good, so once again, the adapter makes sense for video. Other than a few Cinema lenses and FF lenses attached to that .71 adapter, there are almost no available crop lenses that will cover a 1.4 crop, so I think your 1.4 proposal is pretty much a dead end.

The 90D sensor has the same pixel pitch as an 83 MP FF sensor and the list of lenses that will do that sensor justice is very short (I know, I have one). A 45 MP APS-c sensor has the same pixel spacing as a 115 MP FF sensor. That lens list would be even shorter and with the MTF drop at that pixel pitch, such a camera would lose at least two and likely 3 stops of detail sensitivity vs a 45MP ff camera. That makes a a $7500 500mm f/4 on your ideal crop camera about equivalent to the $900 800mm f/11 on a FF body for detail capture. Given how good the EF 500 is, it might buy one stop, but no more than that. Not a very attractive tradeoff when you look at size, weight, and cost. An R5 with the cheapie 800 starts to look very nice, and that is probably the reason why Canon went down that road. The rumor that has been floating around about 800mm and 1200mm AF/IS mirror lenses further supports the FF approach.

The bottom line is that shrinking pixels on a crop camera was a handy trick when FF cameras were 20 MP, but as you approach the diffraction limit, the advantage of that trick is not linear and the return becomes much less attractive. It is useful to remember that Canon really does employ many of the best optical engineers in the world and they do think these things through quite well.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
946
791
www.flickr.com
The EF-M 11-17 is an all around better lens than the EF-s 10-22 and it has IS and is also cheaper. The M line badly needs an equivalent to the EF-s 15-85 which is a very fine piece of glass, but the vast majority are happy with the 18-150, so it may be a while. Making an R body just for APS-c is silly. If you want the portability of your 10-22 and your 15-85, just slap them on your R5 and it will automatically switch to APS-c with proper APS-c RAW files and image quality and resolution better than your 7d II (yes, only 17MP, but the new AA filter makes a big difference).
"Making a R body just for APS-C is silly" is not true. There are many reasons to make one... it just depends on whether there is sufficient demand, sufficient profitability and sufficient product capacity to make it.

Affording a R5 is not always possible and 17mp crop is not the current 20mp of the 7Dii or the 32mp of the M6ii.

A R7 (R6 body with M6ii sensor/internals) would be relatively cheap by raiding the spare parts bin similar to 6Dii/RP and 5Div/R bodies. I think that the birders etc would buy it if ~R6 price. They would prefer a new high density sensor with bird eye-AF etc of course. The only way I could see that happening is if Canon can leverage a R5s sensor with a high density cropped version for R7