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

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,888
12,201
The budget for the RF 2x went to snapping up the RF100mm when store.canon.nl showed it to be in stock :) Your experiences with it had me very close to ordering it after my pre-order for the RF100 fell through.

I might rent the RF 2x for a few days during my time off this summer, together with the Laowa probe lens. I'm looking forward to posting underwater shots of dragons and damsels!
Unusually for me, I bought the RF 2x on the gray market as it's so expensive for what it is, has no moving parts to go wrong and there should be little copy variation. Looking forward to your underwater shots!
 

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
133
179
The RF mount is too big for APS-C. If they want a pro APS-C body, they should update an M body and make specific lenses for it. I don’t see market research showing their best selling mirrorless as one that would benefit from getting bigger or more expensive.
What kind of market research do you see? Are you a photography industry analyst? (I’d be looking for a new sector if I were you!) Or do you work in strategic marketing for one of the camera companies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Antono Refa

vangelismm

EOS 90D
Jul 28, 2015
142
88
The are asking to Pro photographers.
So it is "expensive" aps-c body, same price range as the original R.

Looking at this forum we know people want aps-c RF but will never buy it for the same price as a FF camera.

This is not a cheap Rebel RF for people stuck in the delusional upgrade path.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,115
4,707
I had forgotten about "registration cards". I throw them all out as shameless personal data collection with no benefit to the consumer :)

Registration card completion have no impact as long as you have the proof of purchase.
In the US, submitting a registration card is neither necessary nor sufficient (you need proof of purchase for warranty coverage, if you have submitted a registration card but don’t have proof of purchase the manufacturer can deny service).

Regardless of whether they are required in a particular geography, my point was that many people submit them anyway. There’s a card in the box, you fill it out and send it, or you register online.

Incidentally, I just looked at one of mine and there is a spot where they ask what you own and what you want to buy.

Certainly they don’t need data from everyone, just a fraction of users and as I said, I’d be shocked if they aren’t getting that. There’s a small but measurable cost associated with printing and including the cards, as you say they’re of no benefit to the consumer, and if they weren’t a benefit to Canon, they wouldn’t include them.

Point being, as I said…they have ample data on users, including specifics on which lenses are used with which bodies, upgrade paths from APS-C to FF, etc., to support their decisions.
 

David_D

EOS M6 Mark II
Apr 19, 2021
61
61
Point being, as I said…they have ample data on users, including specifics on which lenses are used with which bodies, upgrade paths from APS-C to FF, etc., to support their decisions.
I wonder if they also harvest Flickr etc for images without metadata stripped to get extra info about camera/lens combos actually used?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

reefroamer

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jun 21, 2014
114
138
In the US, submitting a registration card is neither necessary nor sufficient (do you need proof of purchase for warranty coverage, if you have submitted a registration card but don’t have proof of purchase the manufacturer can deny service).

Regardless of whether they are required in a particular geography, my point was that many people submit them anyway. There’s a card in the box, you fill it out and send it, or you register online.

Incidentally, I just looked at one of mine and there is a spot where they ask what you own and what you want to buy.

Certainly they don’t need data from everyone, just a fraction of users and as I said, I’d be shocked if they aren’t getting that. There’s a small but measurable cost associated with printing and including the cards, as you say they’re of no benefit to the consumer, and if they weren’t a benefit to Canon, they wouldn’t include them.

Point being, as I said…they have ample data on users, including specifics on which lenses are used with which bodies, upgrade paths from APS-C to FF, etc., to support their decisions.
If memory serves, once you’ve registered a body or lens, there’s an optional part of the process — at least online — that asks about preferences and priorities for your purchases, like IQ, ergo and controls, battery life, viewfinder, etc. I always fill this stuff out because I view it as my chance to tell Canon what’s important to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

jvillain

EOS RP
Sep 29, 2018
300
241
I was wondering this too.
I wasn't the one that posted it but the big challenge in macro photography is often about getting as much of the subject in focus as possible. That means stopping down as far as you can or backing up the camera. The combination of the percipience increase in the fcal length as well as the increase in the f stop combine to make macro photography much easier with a crop lens. The down side is getting enough light. If your lens closes down to F24 and you multiply that by 1.6 your at F38.4. I shoot those lit with my AD600 at full power and it is just barley enough. I also shoot video like that and I need every video light I have in order to get enough light.

Just as important though is with the increase of the magnification you can move the camera back a bit which radically changes the ratio between the distance from the camera to the plain of focus and the back of the subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,115
4,707
I would definitely buy the crop version of the R6 but would save up to buy the crop R3 eventually.

I suspect the R6 based camera would sell very well and the R3 based one would be reasonably popular and a showcase for what Canon can do.

The M mount camera would be very popular with those who love the tiny form factor of these bodies but would like the latest tech.
I don’t think you represent Canon’s market.

Where was the APS-C version of the 1-series – 1.6x, max AF capability, integrated grip? It was never made, most likely because Canon did not see a market for it. So why would there be one for a MILC, if there wasn’t for a DSLR? (Yes, the 1D was 1.3x APS-H, but that was for technical reasons, the largest sensor that could be generated with a single lithography pass, FF needed three, and Canon said they’re done with APS-H.)

Where was the 7D MkIII? It was never made. Canon gave us the 90D as the successor to the 7DII (the 7-series had a longer refresh cycle than even the normally slowest 1-series).

It seems like the best reason you can come up with for Canon to make these cameras is that you want one of them.
 

SilverBox

I'm not new here
CR Pro
Aug 30, 2018
41
55
I mean, they *could* make an R7 with the RF mount and not make any RFs lenses. It would satisfy the people who seem to think that shooting crop on an R5 is a bridge too far, could make a slightly smaller body, and not have to worry about making another lens mount.

As said, the 24-240 is basically already a crop lens, and they have ultrawides in the pipeline as well. They dont need a new mount to make a crop body.
 
Mar 23, 2020
7
5
I don’t think you represent Canon’s market.

Where was the APS-C version of the 1-series – 1.6x, max AF capability, integrated grip? It was never made, most likely because Canon did not see a market for it. So why would there be one for a MILC, if there wasn’t for a DSLR? (Yes, the 1D was 1.3x APS-H, but that was for technical reasons, the largest sensor that could be generated with a single lithography pass, FF needed three, and Canon said they’re done with APS-H.)

Where was the 7D MkIII? It was never made. Canon gave us the 90D as the successor to the 7DII (the 7-series had a longer refresh cycle than even the normally slowest 1-series).

It seems like the best reason you can come up with for Canon to make these cameras is that you want one of them.
I am sorry that nobody picked up on my earlier comment on APS-H. For me, and I hoped for others, the 1.3 crop, as on the 1D series up to 1D4, is the ideal compromise and must remain cheaper than full frame. Canon never said they were done with APS-H. I remember well that they said that they did not rule it out for the future. APS-H supporters, now is your moment! Come out of hiding!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bahrd

John Wilde

EOS 90D
Jan 2, 2021
138
227
I am sorry that nobody picked up on my earlier comment on APS-H. For me, and I hoped for others, the 1.3 crop, as on the 1D series up to 1D4, is the ideal compromise and must remain cheaper than full frame. Canon never said they were done with APS-H. I remember well that they said that they did not rule it out for the future. APS-H supporters, now is your moment! Come out of hiding!
Some of Canon's industrial sensors are APS-H, so the company still makes them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
133
179
I keep hearing people say that there's no reason why an APS-C camera should be significantly less expensive than an equivalent full frame. Let's assume for a moment that's true.

In this post, I highlighted three high-end APS-C mirrorless cameras that are equivalent to the R6 (see note* below) but cost $1800 or less. Let's also assume that Fuji and Sony are NOT selling these at a loss (and since these are the high end of their respective lines, they're probably making a decent profit as a matter of fact!).

If it's true that there's no reason for APS-C cameras to be significantly less expensive than equivalent FF, then clearly Canon is fleecing its FF customers.

If I were Canon, I wouldn't want to make a high-end APS-C R body either. Why give up the 50% premium that people are willing to pay for the R6? That's pure profit!

*By "equivalent to the R6" I mean: 20+ MP; a fast, action-oriented AF system; eye AF; animal eye AF; 4K video; ~10 FPS or more mechanical shutter; mechanical shutter rated for >200K clicks; magnesium alloy construction; dust/weather sealing; IBIS; and two SD card slots (OK, the Sony a6600 only has one, but it's the cheapest of the bunch at only $1400).
 
Jul 22, 2021
2
0
What matters today is full-frame. The rest is all about lenses. Small sensor in the large RF mount is pointless, wasteful, and confusing.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,115
4,707
I am sorry that nobody picked up on my earlier comment on APS-H. For me, and I hoped for others, the 1.3 crop, as on the 1D series up to 1D4, is the ideal compromise and must remain cheaper than full frame. Canon never said they were done with APS-H. I remember well that they said that they did not rule it out for the future. APS-H supporters, now is your moment! Come out of hiding!
Live the dream!

APS-H was an awkward compromise that did not work well for standard zoom lenses. Who wants a 31-90mm? Not wide enough. A 21-45mm isn’t long enough. Awkward.
 

Sibir Lupus

EOS M6 Mark II + EOS M200
Feb 4, 2015
163
122
38
EF-M is a sad joke and should be killed off ASAP.
You've clearly never used a later model EF-M camera. Yes, the original EOS M stumbled out of the gate, and the product line was readjusted when the EOS M3 was launched. The M50, M5, and M6 Mark II are very capable cameras for what they were designed for, and lenses like the 22mm F/2, 32mm F/1.4, 28mm Macro, and 11-22mm are incredibly sharp for their price points. Heck, even the beginner M200 camera with kit lens can be had for around $500 on sale, which is a great deal for an ILC APS-C camera. Sadly, the system is lacking dedicated high quality zoom lenses and what was at one point a rumored M5 Mark II with IBIS. Still, the system currently sits in limbo while Canon decides what path to take with mirrorless APS-C. Hopefully Canon still sees the value of the EF-M system and continuers to grow it throughout the next few years.
 
Mar 23, 2020
7
5
Live the dream!

APS-H was an awkward compromise that did not work well for standard zoom lenses. Who wants a 31-90mm? Not wide enough. A 21-45mm isn’t long enough. Awkward.
I do. Moderate wide angle to portrait. Perfect for me. Paired with a 16-35 on a 6D2, or a 55-200 on an M series, as and when needed, that gives me pretty good choices for all kinds of general photography. We each have our own likes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,654
596
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 was guessing that especially with the release of the Fuji GFX100S, that is just a bit over only $6K, that the MF camera class would be selling a larger number maybe?

I don't know much about Leica...I didn't realize they had a MF camera. I have a M10M, but that's about all I Know except their M film cameras I'm kinda looking into.

Do they have many crop sensor cameras in their line up?

C
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,004
835
www.flickr.com
*By "equivalent to the R6" I mean: 20+ MP; a fast, action-oriented AF system; eye AF; animal eye AF; 4K video; ~10 FPS or more mechanical shutter; mechanical shutter rated for >200K clicks; magnesium alloy construction; dust/weather sealing; IBIS; and two SD card slots (OK, the Sony a6600 only has one, but it's the cheapest of the bunch at only $1400).

Have I understood you correctly that you want Canon to sell a body that is the same as the R6 (USD2500) for at least USD700 less (to match the Fuji X-Pro3 pricing) with a new high density APS-C sensor. The R6 already has ~10fps (@12fps) and >200k clicks (@300k clicks).

You would additionally be willing to give up a card slot for an additional USD400 price reduction.

And you want Canon to do this so that it has a competitive APS-C offering for those Canon shooters where the existing options listed previously are not sufficient but there is a pent up demand for this body to sell successfully.

I am not trying to say that the R6 is cheap but it is clearly selling well. Would this new body cannibalise R6 sales meaning less profit for Canon?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdcmdcmdc

mdcmdcmdc

7Dii, M5, 100 (film), α6400
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2020
133
179
Have I understood you correctly that you want Canon to sell a body that is the same as the R6 (USD2500) for at least USD700 less (to match the Fuji X-Pro3 pricing) with a new high density APS-C sensor. The R6 already has ~10fps (@12fps) and >200k clicks (@300k clicks).

You would additionally be willing to give up a card slot for an additional USD400 price reduction.

And you want Canon to do this so that it has a competitive APS-C offering for those Canon shooters where the existing options listed previously are not sufficient but there is a pent up demand for this body to sell successfully.

I am not trying to say that the R6 is cheap but it is clearly selling well. Would this new body cannibalise R6 sales meaning less profit for Canon?
I’m not saying I “want” anything.

Others have said that the difference in price between an FF sensor and an APS-C sensor is minimal, with one person in a different thread characterizing it as “tens of dollars.” As a result, they conclude, an APS-C R body with features similar to the R6 will also have to cost close to $2500.

The examples I gave are APS-C bodies with all of those features, but they cost significantly less than that.

If the only difference between those and the R6 is the size of the sensor, and you accept the assertion that the cost difference between the APS-C and FF sensors is minimal, then the R6 is overpriced at $2500 because other manufacturers can sell an equivalent package for $1800 or less.

I’m not knocking the R6. It’s a great camera, and I agree with you that it’s selling well, so Canon can get away with charging a premium for it. That’s the free market, and people who buy R6’s see value at that price. That’s their decision.

But—and this is my point—it doesn’t mean that feature set must intrinsically cost $2500, as Fuji and Sony have shown.
 
Last edited: