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

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,523
5,780
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 :)
If I was in the marketing department of Canon I’d say you get more than you want in the R6 II and 800 f11. The R6 II is bound to have a BSI sensor.

The Nikon lens is a $3,600 lens, plus your imaginary $1,500 (which is a crazy pipe dream anyway because the 7D II is $1,799) for a total of just over $5,000 or €. The R6 is $2,499 and the RF 800 is $899, for a total of $3,398. The lens is two stops slower but you get more than one stop of sensitivity back because of the sensor size increase and the f5.6 on a crop is equivalent to an f8 on a ff camera anyway.
 
Last edited:

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
526
510
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.
And there you hit the nail directly on the head. Most of the R7 wannabuys are looking for another bargain like 7D II. In a much shrunken market, that is very unlikely. The flexibility to shoot in crop mode in the R5 (and potentially the R5s) is a great feature, but a crop only camera without a line of lenses to support it would get more derision for the lack of lenses than it got praise for its "reach". We will see where Nikon goes with this, but so far the crop lens offering makes their cropped Z's far less interesting than the M system, particularly for those seeking portability.
 

jvillain

EOS RP
Sep 29, 2018
300
241
So walking back all the previous rumors about a crop body APS-C camera.

The problem with Canon focusing on a $800 FF camera with every single feature stripped out of it and a 12 year old sensor is that it there will be no compelling reason to buy it when you have a cell phone. Or when a point and shoot gives you a far better experience for a fraction of the money. I know the accountants are dreaming people will buy a $800 camera that won't do bracketing. won't do long exposure, doesn't have a hot shoe, doesn't have an OVF, has only auto mode,has 6 stops of dynamic range 4MP and more noise than twitter etc but will then run right out and buy a $4000 RF lens because .. full frame. But it just isn't going to happen.
 

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
133
180
Canon A-2.

It's time for Canon to jump into the retro-style market with a Canon A-1-inspired mirrorless camera. Full frame, APS-C, who cares as long as it looks cool.

They'll never do it, and I'll never stop asking for it :ROFLMAO:
They already did an A2, back in 1992. The “e” version was called EOS 5 outside of the US. First Canon body with eye-controlled focus.
 

AccipiterQ

EOS 90D
Sep 11, 2014
179
236
I love my R5....I took it birding a few times, using it as an alternative to my 7Dii, figuring I'd go back to the 7Dii after those day trips. The results were so stunning, and I can get nearly the same pixels on bird with the R5, that I have barely used the 7Dii since. If there was an R7 that offered the added reach, and was even 90% similar in terms of IQ that'd be a grand slam in my opinion.
 

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
133
180
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.
I’ve also given up hope on an R7, but I think your cost analysis is looking at it backwards.

It’s not that APS-C cameras are inherently cheaper to manufacture, it’s that companies like Canon know they can charge a lot more for full frame.

I am not aware of any high end APS-C cameras currently on the market with a base price greater than $2000. These are the high end prices I see:

Fuji X-Pro3: $1800
Fuji X-T4: $1700
Sony a6600: $1400

These cameras are all comparable in specs and construction to the 7Dii, AND they have 4K video and IBIS.

if Canon comes out with an R7 at $2500 or more, it will be a clear message that they are doing it only to satisfy existing Canon 7Dii customers, not to compete seriously in the high-end APS-C market.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MoonMadness

mchris

EOS R, EOS M50
APS-C cheap cameras are essential for any company in order to attract new customers, some of them will eventually move to FF. There are two options here: 1) Extend the M line and make it somehow compatible with the RF lenses, or start to produce APS-C RF cheap bodies (not the 7D equivalent) and APS-C cheap lenses. And the third option is to get rid of almost all new users. The first option, harder to implement has the benefit of even smaller/cheaper bodies and lenses. In any case a small amount of new lenses must be produced. I don't think that the M system lacks lenses. It is designed for amateur use and has the essential lenses an amateur could need.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,121
4,714
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.
It 'fits in' because They Wants It, Precious. The people on CR forums posting about a market for an APS-C EOS R camera are mainly the DSLR 7-series owners, many of whom seem to believe they comprise a large market segment ('massive' one poster called it).

Creating an EOS R system analogous to the Canon DSLR system, with lenses for full frame as well as APS-C image circles, would require a large user base. Historically, APS-C sensors were used first in DSLRs because they were cheaper. Even after the advent of FF DSLR, APS-C remained more popular because they are cheaper, and that applies to MILCs as well – the EOS M lines far outsell the EOS R lines. Canon (and other companies) pushed APS-C DSLRs up to higher model levels, e.g. the 7-series, built on the base of the cheaper DSLRs.

The people wanting a mirrorless 7-series seem to be ignoring the fact that there is no large base of cheap RF-mount bodies to build on. Given that, the market for a mirrorless 7-series is really just those 7D/7DII owners wanting to move to mirrorless. Is that market large enough to develop such a camera? Well, people who want the camera seem to think so, with no real evidence to support that belief. Conversely, Canon knows the size of that market quite well based on their sales data, and they have not yet released a mirrorless 7-series.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pzyber

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,523
5,780
It 'fits in' because They Wants It, Precious. The people on CR forums posting about a market for an APS-C EOS R camera are mainly the DSLR 7-series owners, many of whom seem to believe they comprise a large market segment ('massive' one poster called it).

Creating an EOS R system analogous to the Canon DSLR system, with lenses for full frame as well as APS-C image circles, would require a large user base. Historically, APS-C sensors were used first in DSLRs because they were cheaper. Even after the advent of FF DSLR, APS-C remained more popular because they are cheaper, and that applies to MILCs as well – the EOS M lines far outsell the EOS R lines. Canon (and other companies) pushed APS-C DSLRs up to higher model levels, e.g. the 7-series, built on the base of the cheaper DSLRs.

The people wanting a mirrorless 7-series seem to be ignoring the fact that there is no large base of cheap RF-mount bodies to build on. Given that, the market for a mirrorless 7-series is really just those 7D/7DII owners wanting to move to mirrorless. Is that market large enough to develop such a camera? Well, people who want the camera seem to think so, with no real evidence to support that belief. Conversely, Canon knows the size of that market quite well based on their sales data, and they have not yet released a mirrorless 7-series.
Indeed, and as I keep pointing out those crop sensor 'birding' shooters do have R options already. Even if people ignore my comments it gets more difficult to ignore people like AlanF who has (or had) the PF500, the EF400 DO, the EF100-400 and the various RF lenses like the 100-500 and 800 along with the TC combinations and does meticulous testing and analyzing of the results, and then goes to the trouble of posting those results.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,121
4,714
APS-C cheap cameras are essential for any company in order to attract new customers, some of them will eventually move to FF. There are two options here: 1) Extend the M line and make it somehow compatible with the RF lenses, or start to produce APS-C RF cheap bodies (not the 7D equivalent) and APS-C cheap lenses. And the third option is to get rid of almost all new users. The first option, harder to implement has the benefit of even smaller/cheaper bodies and lenses. In any case a small amount of new lenses must be produced. I don't think that the M system lacks lenses. It is designed for amateur use and has the essential lenses an amateur could need.
This type of statement is made frequently, and ignores the elephant under the rug.

Clearly your 3rd option is ridiculous, posted for effect, so let's just ignore that.

Option 1: make the M line compatible with RF lenses. Difficult, because of physics.
Option 2: make cheap RF-mount APS-C bodies. Why? The EOS M line is a global best-seller already.

You and similar posters are making a big assumption, that people who upgrade from APS-C cameras to FF cameras do so in large part because their lenses are compatible. However, in the Canon DSLR world, that only applies to those people who bought EF lenses to use on their APS-C bodies (bi-directional lens compatibility exists in the Nikon DSLR world, and Canon sold rings around them).

Given the ratio of 1:1.4 bodies to lenses, and the fact that two-lens kits are very popular, it's likely that the segment of users who bought EF lenses to use on their APS-C bodies is pretty small. I am guessing about that, but Canon has ample data to size that market with good accuracy. Canon designed the EF-M mount, then designed the RF mount in a way that made it incompatible with the M bodies. They have tons of historical data on APS-C users and FF users and which bodies and lenses they bought, in which order...and they made the MILC mounts incompatible. That suggests two possibilities: 1) Canon does not believe an 'upgrade path' from APS-C to FF MILCs via compatible lenses is needed, or 2) Canon is stupid. Since #2 makes about as much sense as your option 3 to pass on new users, we can ignore that option.

The reality is that brand loyalty exists. A Canon APS-C user who is happy with their kit but wants a FF body is most likely going to buy a Canon FF body (and minimally a new standard zoom to go with it). That's true regardless of whether or not their existing lenses work on their new body. So an EOS M owner is likely to buy an EOS R, regardless of lens compatibility. That's the 'upgrade path'.
 

David_D

EOS M6 Mark II
Apr 19, 2021
61
61
that only applies to those people who bought EF lenses to use on their APS-C bodies
That's me! I have 4 EF lenses (3 Ls) and only 1 EF-S (10-22mm as an EF ultra-wide was too expensive) that I bought with or later added to my 40D, as I planned to upgrade to FF for my next camera. Unfortunately, Canon ruined that plan by bringing out the 7D (and then 7D MkII). So, thanks to Canon I wasted all that money on FF glass ;) (Actually, I can still use it when I move to a R body, and most of my lenses don't have an equivalent EF-S.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: fastprime

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,121
4,714
That's me! I have 4 EF lenses (3 Ls) and only 1 EF-S (10-22mm as an EF ultra-wide was too expensive) that I bought with or later added to my 40D, as I planned to upgrade to FF for my next camera. Unfortunately, Canon ruined that plan by bringing out the 7D (and then 7D MkII). So, thanks to Canon I wasted all that money on FF glass ;) (Actually, I can still use it when I move to a R body, and most of my lenses don't have an equivalent EF-S.)
That was me, too. I started with a T1i/500D, then upgraded to a 7D, and before I bought my first FF body (a 5DII), I had purchased an EF 24-105L, 70-200/2.8L, 100L macro, 85/1.2L II, and a 100-400L (also a used 300/4L that I sold for the 100-400). I never bought an APS-C 'kit lens', even with the T1i I bought just the body and an EF-S 17-55/2.8 to go with it.

But, I am fully aware that I am not the typical Canon customer. That does not seem to be the case for some of the posters here.
 

fastprime

EOS R6
Feb 10, 2021
17
34
That's me! I have 4 EF lenses (3 Ls) and only 1 EF-S (10-22mm as an EF ultra-wide was too expensive) that I bought with or later added to my 40D, as I planned to upgrade to FF for my next camera. Unfortunately, Canon ruined that plan by bringing out the 7D (and then 7D MkII). So, thanks to Canon I wasted all that money on FF glass ;) (Actually, I can still use it when I move to a R body, and most of my lenses don't have an equivalent EF-S.)
Same here. I still have EF lenses that I use on my R6 that I originally bought to use on my old Rebel. It was nice choosing what to upgrade without needing to upgrade everything at once.
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
356
757
This type of statement is made frequently, and ignores the elephant under the rug.

Clearly your 3rd option is ridiculous, posted for effect, so let's just ignore that.

Option 1: make the M line compatible with RF lenses. Difficult, because of physics.
Option 2: make cheap RF-mount APS-C bodies. Why? The EOS M line is a global best-seller already.

You and similar posters are making a big assumption, that people who upgrade from APS-C cameras to FF cameras do so in large part because their lenses are compatible. However, in the Canon DSLR world, that only applies to those people who bought EF lenses to use on their APS-C bodies (bi-directional lens compatibility exists in the Nikon DSLR world, and Canon sold rings around them).

Given the ratio of 1:1.4 bodies to lenses, and the fact that two-lens kits are very popular, it's likely that the segment of users who bought EF lenses to use on their APS-C bodies is pretty small. I am guessing about that, but Canon has ample data to size that market with good accuracy. Canon designed the EF-M mount, then designed the RF mount in a way that made it incompatible with the M bodies. They have tons of historical data on APS-C users and FF users and which bodies and lenses they bought, in which order...and they made the MILC mounts incompatible. That suggests two possibilities: 1) Canon does not believe an 'upgrade path' from APS-C to FF MILCs via compatible lenses is needed, or 2) Canon is stupid. Since #2 makes about as much sense as your option 3 to pass on new users, we can ignore that option.

The reality is that brand loyalty exists. A Canon APS-C user who is happy with their kit but wants a FF body is most likely going to buy a Canon FF body (and minimally a new standard zoom to go with it). That's true regardless of whether or not their existing lenses work on their new body. So an EOS M owner is likely to buy an EOS R, regardless of lens compatibility. That's the 'upgrade path'.
As someone who has owned Canon APS-C, FF and M cameras an lenses, I couldn't agree more. Starting with APS-C, I was actually one of those users who bought EF lenses. I had the one EF-S kit lens that I almost never used in favor of the much better (and old) EF 28-70 non-L. I know forum users will immediately say that this lens on a crop body would not be nearly wide enough and unusable, but for my purposes it was on the camera 80% of the time. When I bought a 6D to replace it, I also bought new lenses as the 28-70 was not nearly as good on the FF body and had no lens profile due to its age. My other lens (the EF 75-300) was also replaced by an EF 70-300. So lens compatibility was a complete non-issue. While I owned the 6D, I bought an M5. I did not use any of my EF lenses on the M5 as the whole purpose of the M system is being very small and light. At some point I sold the 6D and then ultimately bought the R. Again, never thought about lens compatibility as the systems I had (M and R) served two distinct purposes, at least to me. Ultimately, could not really afford two Canon systems and sold the M5 and lenses, but that is neither here nor there.

As you mention - and what CR and other forum users can't seem to accept, is that - Canon has the sales data. All the users who claim to know or think they know, don't know at all. If Canon sees that the sales of the 7 series crop cameras is high enough, they will probably come out with an R7 camera. Clearly the numbers are not high enough that they put a priority on it, but the lineup is obviously not filled out yet, and may not be for years (Still awaiting the flagship, the high MP body, the even less expensive RP replacement and the R replacement that will fall in-between the cheapest and the R6, if rumors and speculation are correct).

But it seems quite likely that in the mirrorless realm, Canon will have M for crop and R for FF. And if they continue to sell well, there will be no reason to change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heart+eyes

reefroamer

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jun 21, 2014
114
138
Look, I love my 7D2, especially coupled to the 110-400II. But I think there were never really enough of us to reach critical mass for Canon. It's very possible in fact that the original 7D never met it’s sales targets and the 7D2 was its second chance. Had the 7D models been really successful, Canon probably would have given it more attention. Instead, the 7D line got merged into the XXD line and we got the 90D.

I love my new R6 and would probably buy an APSC R7, but I really just don’t believe Canon sees the numbers there to make it work. Which also tells me that’s probably not going to be a lucrative market for Canon competitors. Not to say it isn’t profitable, but that Canon sees better opportunities for applying its resources. For starters, they can fill the many back orders for the $2,800 RF 100-500, other RF lenses and RF bodies. At some point in the fairly far-off future, when all the most-profitable fruit is picked, we might get an APSC RF body. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for it.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
660
371
Total BS. The sector and user group of the M50 and M6 are NOT professional, wedding, or the traditional users of apsc cameras. People need to get over the sensor and mount trip. The belief that every consumer purchases a camera device based on the mount or sensor is a falacy.
I NEVER said "every" consumer would benefit or care about the road map I proposed.

Why are you saying I said "every consumer?"

Please show me where I said that, or correct your post.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,121
4,714
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.
So I’ll ask again – how much money did Canon spend on AF algorithms for birds? How much for cars and motorcycles? It could be a couple of days of one software engineer’s time. It could be a year of work by a team of 20. Do you know? As someone who’s worked with developers writing image analysis algorithms (including feature-based AF algorithms for microscopy), I suspect the former is closer to the truth…yes, it took longer than two person-days, but they did not spend ‘millions of dollars’ doing it.

Trying to support your argument with a claim not backed by evidence is like putting your expensive camera rig on a tripod missing a leg – it falls flat.
 

wsmith96

Advancing Amateur
Aug 17, 2012
949
43
Texas
So walking back all the previous rumors about a crop body APS-C camera.

The problem with Canon focusing on a $800 FF camera with every single feature stripped out of it and a 12 year old sensor is that it there will be no compelling reason to buy it when you have a cell phone. Or when a point and shoot gives you a far better experience for a fraction of the money. I know the accountants are dreaming people will buy a $800 camera that won't do bracketing. won't do long exposure, doesn't have a hot shoe, doesn't have an OVF, has only auto mode,has 6 stops of dynamic range 4MP and more noise than twitter etc but will then run right out and buy a $4000 RF lens because .. full frame. But it just isn't going to happen.

That depends. Some people may desire the simplicity of a cheap FF camera. Let's see what the camera actually has to offer before passing judgement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark