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

Stig Nygaard

EOS 7D II, Powershot G5 X II & Olympus TG-5
CR Pro
Jul 10, 2013
131
229
Copenhagen
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).
It never fails. Every time I post about crop RF somebody want to sell me the EF-M system.

But EF-M has never had anything that looked better for me, than what I already have. Neither when it comes to cameras (there's nothing like high-end enthusiast 7D series), nor when it comes to lenses. As for the mentioned lenses, a wideangle going down to 10mm (or lower) is very important for me. I think 75% of my photos shot with the 10-22mm are shot at 10mm. And similar for my standard-zoom, a very high rate of my photos are shot at 15mm. So practical to have 15mm in my standard-lens, so I never gonna have another "kit-lens" that doesn't go down to the 15mm (equal to 24mm fullframe).

Also I will never buy a $4000 camera (R5). And definitely not a $4000 fullframe camera only to use it in 17MP crop-mode with a max burst rate at 6 fps when shooting full bit depth RAWs with mechanical shutter.

But most importantly, when I choose a mirrorless system I want to choose a system (with high-end cameras and lenses) I see live and grow big in the next 25-30 years to come.
 
Last edited:

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,916
822
It never fails. Every time I post about crop RF somebody want to sell me the EF-M system.

But EF-M has never had anything that looked better for me, than what I already have. Neither when it comes to cameras (there's nothing like high-end enthusiast 7D series), nor when it comes to lenses. As for the mentioned lenses, a wideangle going down to 10mm (or lower) is very important for me. I think 75% of my photos shot with the 10-22mm are shot at 10mm. And similar for my standard-zoom, a very high rate of my photos are shot at 15mm. So practical to have 15mm in my standard-lens, so I never gonna have another "kit-lens" that doesn't go down to the 15mm (equal to 24mm fullframe).

Also I will never buy a $4000 camera. And definitely not a $4000 fullframe camera only to use it 17MP crop-mode with a max burst rate at 5 fps in at full bit depth raw shooting.

But most importantly, when I choose a mirrorless system I want to choose a system (with high-end cameras and lenses) I see live and grow big in the next 25-30 years to come.
Well said, sir! And the post mentions that Canon is discussing this. They would not discuss it unless they saw potential in it. Time will show. I hope they introduce it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
420
505
Orewa , New Zealand
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.
Yep , and surely Canon and other companies must think Bird photography is a worthwhile segment when they put so much money into developing specific autofocus algorithms for birds.
Also bird photography pushes the limits of cameras and lenses more than any other segment with shooters pushing :
  • sharpness / detail
  • reach
  • low light
  • high speed / erratic movement
The camera company that makes the best gear for this has pushed the boundaries and can show off their technology to the world

Imagine an APS-C version of the R3 : this would be the best possible camera for birding and of course would be priced similarly to the full frame version but sell quite well and create a Halo effect for other more affordable cameras like an APS-C version of the R6

I would buy the aps-c R6 straight away and then save up for the aps-c R3
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SteB1 and FrenchFry

David_D

EOS M6 Mark II
Apr 19, 2021
56
56
As a 7D MkII shooter I thought I would move to mirrorless when an R7 was announced. Having watched the development of the R ecosystem, I am getting more convinced that will not happen for some time, if ever.

As people keep saying there are 3 drivers for crop cameras: size/weight, cost & reach.
Size/Weight: Canon are still focussing most if not all their R&D effort into expanding the line-up of RF lenses and bodies. Clearly focussing on the items with the highest demand (and they hope profit). In time, once this line-up is near completion, they might start looking at something like RF-S. Until then, they will keep the M series ticking over for this segment.
Cost: Where will this cost saving come from? Smaller mirror (oh, no it is mirrorless)? Smaller pentaprism (oh no it has EVF)? That leaves a smaller mechanical shutter and sensor. Fast APS-C shutters are cheaper than a FF one with the same FPS (less material to move at speed), but with very high speed electronic shutters, this cost advantage diminishes. That just leaves the reduced cost of the sensor. Anyone have any evidence that an APS-C sensor is $1,000s cheaper than FF, rather than $100s or even $10s? The only way to make substantial cost savings is to drop or reduce features. Do you need an EVF? Do you need a rear screen? Do you need a mechanical shutter? Do you need AI AF? Do you need high FPS? Do you need a high res, high refresh EVF? Do you need high MP?
Reach: I love the 7D for the extra reach (which was much cheaper and lighter than a 600mm/F4 lens). But Canon have now given us an R5 with 1.5x reach of an 7dMkII. They have given us a 100-500mm RF that has 1.25x reach of a 100-400mm EF. R bodies focus with smaller apertures than the 7D, so a 1.4x or 2x TC works better on them. They have given us a cheap 800mm lens. Is that not enough reach?

I would still love a unicorn, a small, cheap, long reach R7, but I don't see it happening for a long time, if ever. Unless, of course, the marker research reveals there is sufficient demand for a full featured $4-5K (or reduced feature $2K) crop body, with no extra supporting lenses, which would the appear ~2023/4 after sufficient R&D time. More likely is in 5 years, once the R series is fully established, however by then the market may have changed. Or, Canon may have added some other new feature to their FF cameras, meaning the demand for crop is even less.
 

mb66energy

EOS 5D Mark IV
Dec 18, 2011
1,527
381
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
Finally Canon keeps me waiting and enjoying what I have.
I only use two non EF(-S) lenses on a regular basis: RF 35 1.8 and EF-M 32 1.4 because of their extraordinary combination of specs and very good IQ.
Two EF-M zooms are in the drawer maybe to sell my two EOS M bodies (at the moment used for special time lapse effects) WITH lens and the EF-M 22 is only in my set for ultra compactness.

The rest is EF and EF-S to be compatible with ALL OF my EOS and RF bodies. And future proof when an RF-S body comes into play.

Last acquisitions: EF-S 55-250 STM (140 €) and EF-S 15-85 IS USM (200 €) which are great for general photography and video (very silent AF, surprisingly including the USM driven 15-85).
 
  • Like
Reactions: illadvisedhammer

gatabo

I'm New Here
Feb 28, 2020
19
18
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.
The one stop gain through the speed booster could be achieved even with an hypothetical R7, but it's mostly important that with a 1.4x crop sensor there will be the same FOV of a FF camera, something 1.6x crop lenses can't currently achieve.

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.
If it works for video it will work for photos, as the resolution difference between video and photography isn't relevant anymore (R5 45MP 3:2 sensor = 8k 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.
All EF lenses ever made for photo or cinema already work with the 0.71 adapter, Canon is a adding FW updates for optimum performance, no doubt the most useful lenses will be supported if a R7 camera emerges.

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.
I proposed 45Mp APS-H 1.4x sensor (34MP once converted in 1.6x crop), that's "only" 88MP FF equivalent (the future R1 will be probably be 100+MP) , almost identical to the pixel density of the 90D, if you add that this sensor could use the improved low pass filter and the new Canon BSI/stacked tech, it's clear that it's still a very manageable resolution, it's obvious Canon will eventually have to make Super 35mm sensors that support 8K, the R7 is the perfect camera to have this in a photo camera, the R5 8k was available ahead of Canon Cinema cameras, the R7 could do the same for the RF mount crop cameras.

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.
1.4x is exactly 1 stop difference and 1.4x linear resolution is not an enormous jump, it's less than the 1.5x linear resolution difference that you can see between the R6 and the R5 and even with the cheapest lenses we can still see the R5 has a resolution advantage over the R6.

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.
Your math logic is broken, the 500mm F4 is equivalent to 700mm F5.6, if you use a 1.4x extender or an high density 1.4x crop camera (the R7?) so 700mm F5.6 is still far more interesting than the F11 800mm lens, this kind of lenses are very welcome (and a genius move from Canon), but far from a substitute for a good L lens with an extender or a very dense pixel digital crop.

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.
Yepp, but we are still far away from reaching that limit, unless your benchmarks are only very cheap lenses.

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.
... and also great SW engineers, diffraction can be algorithmic-ally "corrected" to some extent especially if you know the optical formula of the lens used ;)
hint: Canon's Diffraction Correction is already available in all current (and past) cameras, once we have very dense pixel cameras this trick will be much more useful :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Bahrd

Red herrings...
Jun 30, 2013
184
127
Why don't you, the "R7 wannabuys", create a shared bank account, locate there $100 bonds (say) and let Canon know how large the Legion R7 is?

PS
I believe the @Canon Rumors Guy could be a reliable and trusty treasurer of such a fund...
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,691
11,705
... and also great SW engineers, diffraction can be algorithmic-ally "corrected" to some extent especially if you know the optical formula of the lens used ;)
hint: Canon's Diffraction Correction is already available in all current (and past) cameras, once we have very dense pixel cameras this trick will be much more useful :)
In theory, you can correct for diffraction if you know the point spread function, and there are algorithms such as the Richardson-Lucy for doing this. Do you know how the Canon and other camera companies supposedly correct for diffraction when they claim so to do? Are they really using these iterative algorithms or are they merely doing some extra conventional sharpening?
 
  • Like
Reactions: reisi007

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
420
505
Orewa , New Zealand
My parsing of the @Canon Rumors Guy post:


This is a rumor about an RF mount APS-C camera to "take the place of the Canon EOS 7D." It's not about other possible APS-C bodies in the RF mount. So, there is really no point in discussing other options in this thread.



Wow! Canon conducts actual market research instead of listening to forum experts who confidently predict that the market is (take your choice) a) huge or b) non-existent.

If true, this probably means we are quite a ways out from seeing an actual product, even if they decide to proceed. Makes sense, as Canon already has enough bodies in the pipeline for 1-2 years anyway (R3, Entry level R, R cinema, R5 s, R1). The good news then is that forum experts will be able to opine on this topic at least through 2022 and maybe even through 2023. Yay!



If correct, this means that Canon has not yet decided what they want to do with the EOS M line. "Unknown" for those who are definition deficient, means a state of uncertainty. As in, no decision has yet been made.



I don't see this as a significant revelation. Of course there is no need for a specialized RF-S mount. RF bodies automatically adapt to the image circle of the lens. EF-S lenses were needed because you could not physically fit a Canon crop sensor lens on a full frame body without hitting the mirror. (You could, however, fit some third party lenses if you didn't mind the vignetting.) If Canon wanted to make lenses for crop sensors, they would not need to change anything, as the lenses would simply crop on a full frame body, just as adapted EF-S lenses currently do. So, I see this as simply stating the obvious.

Depending on what Canon ultimately decides to do with crop sensor bodies in general for the RF mount, I don't see them releasing a body without at least a couple of crop lenses.

My added two cents:

I think time is the enemy of an R7. The 45mp of the R5 already yields a very adequate 1.6 crop. The 100-500 (if Canon ever delivers them) along with the 600 and 800 f11 lenses already cuts into the "reach challenged" market. The release of an R5s would cut into the R7 market even more.

Then there is the pricing. I must assume that part of Canon's research is to determine a price point for an R7. What's the most they can charge for an R7 and still get people to buy one. My guess is that it has to come in under $3,000, but that's just my guess. I can already hear people whining that it should cost $2,000. Dream on. If Canon's research shows they can only get $2,000 for the body, it don't think it will get developed.
If Canon puts an aps-c sensor in an otherwise unchanged R6 and sells it for a similar price I'll buy and so will many others but I won't buy an R5 because it's too expensive and the pixel density is too low . Overall the R5 would be better than my 7Dii but not enough for me to pay that sort of money.
If Canon made a really high end aps-c version of the R3 say and priced it about $4-5000 quite a few people would buy it because it would so vastly better than anything else for birding and I'd eventually save up and buy one.
 

MoonMadness

EOS M50
May 24, 2021
34
48
I hope they move to 1.5x crop sensor if they go to APS-C on RF mount. EF-S was always silly how they limited it's use unlike other makers with their DX lenses.

Not sure why they think there wouldn't be a market for vastly more affordable APS-C cameras. EF-M is a sad joke and should be killed off ASAP.
Canon M50 being the best selling mirrorless camera was just a joke? That's funny!

Why are people so upset with the M series? No one is forcing anyone to buy it.

M is not dying.
Rumors that it will die have been going on for years.
Canon made announcements that they are not going to be developing any new EF lenses. They announced certain EF lenses are discontinued. Have they made any announcements about M products being discontinued? or not going to be developed? No. In fact, a recent interview with Canon at DPR stated: 'We will continue to promote the EOS M-series cameras as a means of meeting diverse needs." - Yes I know this is vague, but it is not an indicator that M is dying.
Canon is concentrating on the R series, the newer line, but that doesn't mean they are killing off M.
 

MoonMadness

EOS M50
May 24, 2021
34
48
What is wrong with the M??o_O:oops::geek:
What's wrong with it is that is not targeted for that majority of people who regularly visit CR and DPR.

But if you search on YT, you'll see a ton of people, even now, salivating over the M50m2 as well as the m1. I read comments there even now how people are "saving up....probably in 4 months I'll have enough to buy it..." and people responding with "...you could get it sooner and save money if you buy it used...". I'm willing to bet the majority of CR people if they wanted to, they could purchase it today with no dent in their finances.

Nah, I'm kidding. Sorry, this was just a "sad joke" *sarcasm* :cautious:
 

Traveler

EOS R6
Oct 6, 2019
118
153
I wish Canon decides to make slow cheap lens lineup rather than the APSC/FF mess again. However I understand that it is easier to sell
APSC 10-18 mm f/4.5-5.6 than Full Frame 16-30 mm f/7.2-9
even though they provide the same results. f/9 looks too dark whereas 5.6 looks acceptable. I also understand that it is difficult to make an entry level FF body with good specs but without canibalizing their pro lineup. It's much easier to sell top-spec APSC.
And even get extra revenue from all those people migrating from APSC to FF.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,691
11,705
... and also great SW engineers, diffraction can be algorithmic-ally "corrected" to some extent especially if you know the optical formula of the lens used ;)
hint: Canon's Diffraction Correction is already available in all current (and past) cameras, once we have very dense pixel cameras this trick will be much more useful :)
Further to my questions about how Canon implements diffraction correction, I went back to some of my charts for measuring resolution of the 800mm f/11 with the RF 1.4x TC at 1120mm f/16, which is well in the diffraction limited region on the R5. I found that Canon DPP with either diffraction correction or DLO does not giver discernibly better resolution than standard and gives slightly poorer resolution than DxO PL4 that doesn't use diffraction correction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign
Mar 23, 2020
7
5
This is almost all nonsense. We have the M series for APS-C. What we need for the R is APS-H. Until that day I am keeping my 1D4.

I say 'almost' as I have seen one recent mention of APS-H.
 
Jul 21, 2021
1
0
I have the original 7D, which I would like to upgrade. However, not knowing if I should wait for a new R-series 7D or go with something else is the reason I have spent no money on a new camera. Canon, if you would like my upgrade money, then please tell me what you are doing, or not doing with APS-C.
 

dlee13

Canon EOS R6
May 13, 2014
233
132
Australia
WWW.photosbydlee.com
I could see a few good options for Canon.

Option 1: They make a rebel style APSC RF camera with 2 kit style RF lenses (18-135mm and 55-250mm) then an 7D RF camera which is more to be used with FF glass only.

Option 2: They make an R7 style body only which is used purely with FF lenses then keep the EF-M line as their rebel style cameras.

I’m personally a huge fan of the EF-M mount so I’d love for it to stick around.
 

fox40phil

5DIV & RP
Apr 12, 2013
250
152
Germany
www.phileas-schoenberg.de
A really nice and state of the art BSI sensor with 20-24MP would be perfect and could have nice iso quality and DR!

12-20 fps,
flipping screen,
nice and robust housing,
fast evf,
maybe dual cars slot and
ibis!

ah would buy this for 1500€ maybe! :D

But we need small go to lenses like the Nikkor 500 5.6 :)
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,502
5,738
Dont crop cameras make up bulk of camera sales? Then why say that Canon would not be interested?
The Rebel/entry level cameras make up the bulk of sales, and for years there was a lot of money to be made selling $599 kits. But that market has been decimated by the shift in buying patterns so it isn’t the cash cow it was and it is a rapidly shrinking sector.

All the camera manufacturers have said the way they see market sustainability in the longer term is selling much fewer but more expensive bodies and lenses.

As I keep asking the people who say Canon have to make a crop RF, how does producing yet another lower cost ‘system within a system’ fit into their stated aims? Especially when you take into account their current lineup, they already sell millions of M cameras that need little R&D and those are effectively replacing the Rebel line anyway.

The vast majority of Rebel purchasers never buy another lens or body, they don’t want or need a system, they are price driven and all the manufacturers have said they don’t see the sustainability in that sector. To me it makes no sense for Canon to stretch their R&D and manufacturing even more to appeal to the bottom/entry level of the market when the various reasoning for that entry level no longer make sense.