There may be a higher-end APS-C mirrorless announced in late 2020, early 2021 [CR2]

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
The R, RP and reportadly R5 and R6 all have 1.6X crop modes built in. The 5Ds has both 1.6X and 1.3X crop modes. When cropped, the 20MP R6 sensor has about 7.8MP, which arguably isn't "enough" while the 45MP R5 has about 17.6MP which is about what the 7D had and less than the 7D2. There is also the question of whether having everything in one body is a good idea or having two more specialized bodies for about the same amount of money or maybe slightly more is preferable.


Well, there seems from reading here, a consensus that this new R7 would share the same "large" body of the R5/R6, with same large R mount...so, I"m guessing maybe this new camera wouldn't be any smaller....

So, again, if this is the case, why not just enable a "crop mode" on the R5 and then have the best of all worlds...FF and crop?

Just curious.

C

Most 7D Mark II owners I know also have a FF body or a second APS-C body. They use both, often at the same time. The 7D Mark II is used mostly as a "long" sports body so that they can use a 70-200/2.8 to get the same reach as a much more expensive 300/2.8 under artificial lighting. They'll often use the FF or other APS-C body at the same time with a "short" or "wide" lens on it for when the action moves closer. The "long" body gets the lion's share of the work and takes the lion's share of the wear and tear. On Friday nights I tend to shoot a couple of thousand frames with my "long" body and maybe a couple of hundred with the "wide" body, and half of those or more are probably of the band at halftime or from in the middle of the band in the stands.

The 80D, for example, was a much better "general purpose" camera than the 7D Mark II is. But the 7D Mark II was a better "sports" body. I know guys who used both. When shooting sports they used the 7DII as their "long" body and their 80D as their "wide" body. It was fast enough for the occasional close action sideline shots and wider angle non-action shots of other things going on in the venue. Apart from sports they used the 80D for their portrait, landscape, etc. type of work.

One FF body + one 7D Mark II and a 70-200/2.8 is a lot cheaper than two FF bodies plus a $6,000 lens one doesn't need if the APS-C body has high enough pixel density.

For wildlife shooters it's all about speed and pixels on subject, as well as durability. Cost, not so much since they're already going well past the 70-200/2.8 price threshold that jumps rapidly to $6,000+ for lenses longer than 300mm with fast apertures. But any body that meets the needs of the budget sports/action shooter also meets the needs of the "need more reach" crowd if the pixel density is also there.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,191
2,022
Kentucky, USA
Here's what I would do if I were Canon:

* The new 1.6x crop sensor body talked about would use the existing R mount and for sake of argument let's assume it could be called a RM type of body. I assume they would make these as small as the R mount and good ergonomics would allow.

* Various EF-to-R adapters for EF FF and EF-S 1.6x crop image circles already exist.
* A EF-M-to-R adapter for 1.6x(or somewhat different) image circles could be made IF the adapter can extend the focus distance by 2mm + depth of adapter. I hope it can be made - they are Canon after all!

Now, R and RM bodies could both use: RF, EF, EF-S, and (hopefully)EF-M lenses. So, "Everybody: y'all bring your existing lenses and join the new R party!" :ROFLMAO:

OK - If I made some glaring mistake, please let me know. I'm not a Canon expert, and am trying to "think outside the box", and I suppose it's possible I'm so far outside it that I "fell off the table!" :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

c.d.embrey

EOS RP
Jul 21, 2010
663
11
If they are doing this, why not give it the R5 body and weather sealing. Forgive me is I am mistaken, but a high end APS-C body would mostly be for wildlife guys with a 100-500mm lens permanently attached and having a wee wade through a humid environment or even a swamp.

I would be happy taking a 7dII or 1D body into the wild, but one with (in Canon's words suggesting inferior) 6 series weather/environmental sealing.

I''ve never shot BIF or wildlife. And have absolutely no interest in ever doing so. My longest lens is an EF 85mm f/1.8. My most used lens is an EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5.

I'd be more interested in an RP APS-C than either an R5 or R6 APS-C.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: slclick

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
I don't think this is all true. The APS-C rebels also served as a ladder for many of us to get into full-frame cameras. In fact, I don't know any photographers who went whole-ham and purchased a 5D as their first digital camera (though I suppose I don't know many wealthy people, either. Maybe this is more common than I know).

Many current FF photographers started out in APS-C when the cheapest FF cameras were $3,000 or more. That much is true.

But the $3,000 threshold is no longer the case. The EOS RP is currently at $899 brand new in the U.S. from authorized sellers!

But not everyone who started with APS-C when most of us did would go on to become FF photographers. In fact, the vast majority of them DID NOT. They're still using APS-C cameras or they're using their phones while their APS-C cameras gather dust in a closet.

The number of folks entering the ILC market at all has been shrinking for years. Most of the reduction in numbers of ILC units sold over the last eight years has been in the entry level smaller-than-FF market space. Most people that once thought they needed a Rebel a decade ago now think their smartphone is good enough (because with the advances in computational photography being leveraged by smartphones, it is)!
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
But that still doesn't solve the issue of having a whole new line of lenses in a rapidly shrinking market. I think the best solution is to strengthen the EF-M lens line up then consolidate around the EF-M and RF lines in the long term.

What if the EF-M line isn't about "all APS-C cameras and lenses" but is rather about a small system of compact, affordable mirrorless cameras for the non-professional, non-enthusiast who wants a camera that is convenient to carry when their phone just isn't quite enough for trips, family gatherings, etc? What if Canon has never planned to grow the EF-M lens line to include lenses that can't be made having the same 61mm diameter as Every.Single.EF-M.Lens.In.Existence?

What if the R line is not about "all FF cameras" but is rather about a more well rounded system of larger bodies and lenses for professionals and enthusiasts? What if such a system might include an APS-C body that is NOT a cheap, entry level model like a Rebel used to entice new buyers into the RF system, but rather a specialized tool for specific use cases by those already in the professional or enthusiast ranks and already using RF gear?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene and Bundu

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
With the R6 RAW buffer of 240 images, I dont think you really need CFexpress.. Same goes with 4K ALL-I recording.

That depends upon whether it only has 20 MP like the R6 or has much higher resolution. UHS-II would probably be more than enough. But for similar capacity, the fastest UHS-II cards aren't much cheaper than CFExpress cards, and even the slowest CFExpress cards are faster than the fastest UHS-II cards.
 

c.d.embrey

EOS RP
Jul 21, 2010
663
11
The R, RP and reportadly R5 and R6 all have 1.6X crop modes built in. The 5Ds has both 1.6X and 1.3X crop modes. When cropped, the 20MP R6 sensor has about 7.8MP, which arguably isn't "enough" while the 45MP R5 has about 17.6MP which is about what the 7D had and less than the 7D2. There is also the question of whether having everything in one body is a good idea or having two more specialized bodies for about the same amount of money or maybe slightly more is preferable.

8 megapixels is enough for a billboard or a double-truck in a print magazine. Also a 12x18 silver gelatin print could be made from files of a 2004 Canon 20D (8.2 megapixel) at your local big-box store.
 
  • Love
Reactions: slclick

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
I think I'm leaning to your way of thinking. I did do the whole upgrade path myself, but being able to use full frame lenses on my crop body was more a nice to have. It wasn't a huge deciding factor in making the transition to full frame. At least for me, the psychology was, I wanted to use better gear, so I moved up. If I entered photography now and entered the EF-M system, I think I would eventually jump to the RF line anyway. It's just as a hobbyist starts to become more of an enthusiast and maybe even a pro, they'll naturally upgrade. They don't need lens compatibility between the systems, or at least I don't think it would be a huge road block.

100% agree that the Canon is likely segmenting the two mirrorless lines by Small & Light vs Pro/Enthusiast grade. They are such fundamentally different principles that it makes lens compatibility almost impossible between the two. The small and light EF-M lenses could not properly cover the sensor on an RF camera, and an RF to EF-M adapter would need to be much more sophisticated to account for the physics limitations. I suspect, this might be why the EF-M lens lineup might be limited. They may be perfectly happy selling tons of M50's with a few good lenses, instead of developing a full gamut of great EF-M lenses because they would rather consumers just upgrade to the RF system. I hope this isn't the case because EF-M has so much potential based on how great the EF-M 22 f2 & EF-M 32 f1.4 are, so surely they have the capability of developing more. I'd throw my money at them if they did.

That leaves the one niche area that APS-C occupied. The 7D. And I agree Canon has showed how they plan to address this with the release of the RF 600 & RF 800 + teleconverters. Plus the bodies will have a crop mode. I know that the birders don't like this answer, but think about it. They created a new lens segment, that was not previously available for full frame. Supertele's that are sub-$1000. It was previously the APS-C crop that enabled the low cost extra reach. Now, they are providing low cost lenses for that reach.

I also suspect that the cost of an APS-C size sensor versus a Full Frame sensor doesn't have the cost premium it once had. I mean, the EOS RP is evidence that a full frame sensor camera can be made cheap. So with the shrinking market, it makes sense to streamline the Mirrorless lines, instead of creating a third mount. It would be easier to make a full frame R7 that shares the R6 specs but with more Megapixels, than to make a Crop Sensor R and then have to develop RF-S lenses. In the contracting camera market, I could understand why Canon would not go that route.

A lot of what you say is true, but you don't seem to understand how most 7-series bodies, particularly the 7D Mark II that has been around since 2014, are used by those that own them.

Yes, the f/11 FF lenses are a new possibility for the daylight crowd, particularly "backyard" birders and daylight only youth sports shooters. But Most of the 7D bodies I've seen in use were in sports/action scenarios where wide apertures are needed to maintain high Tv in poor artificial lighting. Those shooters don't tend to spend much time in forums. They're too busy cropping/straightening/color correcting thousands of action shots and marketing them. At least they were until SARS-CoV-2 hit and shut down youth/high school/college sports.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
Put all this together and... the M50 mkII is coming for the M series small camera use case. The "R7 " will be aps-c but will of course accept RF lenses without an adapter. The 18-45 IS STM makes most sense as an "RF-S" lens. The "RF-S" lenses will also mount on the FF RF camera bodies -- likely such lenses will be interpreted as ef-s lenses by the camera body and use the existing crop mode software. No more adapters.

... Then the digital mirrorless rebels will start coming. The 18-45 "RF-S" kit lens will be accompanied by a few more -- maybe a pancake like the 24 2.8 ef-s, a WA crop zoom, and a compact tele such as the 55-250. Of course the digital mirrorless Rebels will also take RF lenses without an adapter. No more adapters.

But the ef-m will be on its own island going forward. The M series will live on if sales are good; I hope so, 'cos it's so darn handy to have the option to shoot small.

Except the Rebel buyers are disappearing in droves into the mist of computational photography using their smartphones. That is what is causing the slide in overall ILC sales. The EF-M series already *is* the upper half of the Rebel series for all of the world except North America and Western Europe. Even in N.A. and W.Eur., the vast majority of Rebel buyers never go on to the upgrade paths people at this forum have followed.

It seems to me Canon's strategy is to make FF cheap enough of an entry point that there will be no need for any low-end APS-C R-series cameras.

If FF had been cheap enough when most of us here had started, we would not have even considering starting with a Rebel or x0D. I know I would not have. I shot 135 format film for 20+ years before going digital. The only reason I entered the digital ILC space with an APS-C camera is because at the time Nikon didn't even offer a FF camera at any price and the cheapest one Canon sold was $3,299+tax.

If an APS-C R7 happens, it will not be a Rebel kind of entry level camera cheaper than the RP. It will be a specialty body for the sports/action/wildlife/birder crowd, just as the 7-series is in the EF ecosystem. There are FF EF cameras (6D Mark II) that now retail new from authorized Canon dealers for the same as a new 7D Mark II costs. The EOS RP is even several hundred dollars cheaper than the 90D. With the latest affordable RF lenses coming down the pike, I think Canon has made it clear that entry level RF cameras will be FF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
Agreed. I use 7D2 for birds, but for several years have used it more for insects, especially with the close-focusing 100-400 mark II. I always crop. I have held off on the buying a 90D, because I want to be rid of AFMA. If Canon makes an R-series version of the 7D with appropriate build quality and weatherproofing, even with the 32 mpix sensor of the 90D, I would probably buy it. I would like to see features of the R series added to it, especially IBIS and focus stacking. The sales potential for Canon is huge. I see far more people in the field using a 7D2 with the 100-400 than any other body/lens combination.

Fair enough for the birders. In the youth/highschool/small college sports community, I see the 7D Mark II with a 70-200/2.8 more than any other lens.
 

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,241
667
Eastern Shore
8 megapixels is enough for a billboard or a double-truck in a print magazine. Also a 12x18 silver gelatin print could be made from files of a 2004 Canon 20D (8.2 megapixel) at your local big-box store.
Could be made? Sure, and if the image is sufficiently compelling it cold be printed large. However, a file 2, 3, or 4 times larger would look significantly better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,235
3,662
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
8 megapixels is enough for a billboard or a double-truck in a print magazine. Also a 12x18 silver gelatin print could be made from files of a 2004 Canon 20D (8.2 megapixel) at your local big-box store.
This has been raised many times before and those who say this don't understand bird photography. The thing is, if you are shooting almost any kind of songbird you aren't going to get an uncropped image to use.

Try getting close to an Indigo Bunting. They don't stand still and pose when you walk up to them. That eight megapixels that you think is enough for a billboard can be down to 1 mp or less by the time you crop in on the bird, and that's at 896 mm (400 x 1.4 x 1.6).

Plus, detail is everything in bird photography. It's not enough for the general outline of the bird to be sharp. Nobody cares if you can pick out every pore on some model's skin. But, you need sharp feathers and a sharp eye and that requires megapixels.

A billboard that you are viewing from 50-100 feet away has no relevance. The 32 mp 90D has been a godsend to my wife (who is a better bird photographer than I am). It's noticeably more useful than the 24 mp of the 80D or the 20 mp of my 7DII. She'd laugh at 8 mp.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
729
867
Many current FF photographers started out in APS-C when the cheapest FF cameras were $3,000 or more. That much is true.

But the $3,000 threshold is no longer the case. The EOS RP is currently at $899 brand new in the U.S. from authorized sellers!

But not everyone who started with APS-C when most of us did would go on to become FF photographers. In fact, the vast majority of them DID NOT. They're still using APS-C cameras or they're using their phones while their APS-C cameras gather dust in a closet.

The number of folks entering the ILC market at all has been shrinking for years. Most of the reduction in numbers of ILC units sold over the last eight years has been in the entry level smaller-than-FF market space. Most people that once thought they needed a Rebel a decade ago now think their smartphone is good enough (because with the advances in computational photography being leveraged by smartphones, it is)!

Yeah, but you weren't talking about the the EOS RP (2019-present), you were talking about APS-C cameras from "2003-2012." During those years, many photographers would begin on affordable 20D/Rebel bodies and work their way up to full-frame Canons like the 5D series.

I never said "everyone who shot on APS-C cameras went out to shoot full-frame." I only claimed that some people did, and APS-C cameras became the ladder into full-frame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
So. Another thing about an APS-C EOS R model. How much do you think it's going to cost?

If what you want is essentially a 32mpx APS-C sensor in the same body as the R5 - same weather sealing, same IBIS, same dual slots (maybe you'll accept dual SD), maybe only 4K video but possibly 6K RAW.

Essentially, it's more or less the same as an R5 but with a smaller sensor. How much is the cost of the sensor vs the overall camera cost? It's no doubt the most expensive component but it's certainly not half of the cost.

With the R5 at $3899 how much do you think they'd have to charge for an APS-C R right now? It probably wouldn't be any much less than $2800

Now, the 7D was based significantly on the 5D II body, but it took a whole year for that to come out after the 5D II - after which they were able to write off a lot of the R&D costs with 5D II sales. 7D II was 2 years after the 5D III (although the 7DII was obviously at least partially developed in parallel with the 5DS/SR with which it shares similar sensor tech albeit at a different size)

They aren't there yet on the R5, so I would guess if you're waiting for an R7 it's going to be a year out. Also, with the R5 and R6 selling so well, they really don't want to disrupt production by adding a third product right now.

Now, if you take the R6 body and throw in an APS-C sensor I think something could come out a lot sooner and a lot cheaper than with an R5 based one. But that won't be exactly a 7D class camera.

It seems to me the original 7D was more the direct continuation of the 40D/50D than it was based on the 5D mark II. The 60D was the first x0D without a magnesium alloy body, and also didn't include AFMA that the 50D had offered. They did move the buttons from the bottom of the 50D to the left side of the 7D like the 5D Mark II. The 7D introduced the "Q" button that the 5D Mark II did not have.

I shot with both the 7D and 5D Mark II at the same time from early 2012 when I replaced my (by then backup body) 50D with a 7D until late 2014, when a 5D Mark III superseded the 5D Mark II. A 7D Mark II replaced the 7D in mid-2015. They were two very different cameras. The 7D had a larger, brighter OVF, highly configurable 19 pt. AF system, and was very fast shooting and responsive while the 5D Mark II had a smaller, dimmer OVF, primitive 9 pt. AF system, and was nowhere near as fast handling. If anything, the design of the 7D was looking ahead to the design of the 5D Mark III more than back to the 5D Mark II. The 5D Mark III is where the two series really converged in terms of size, shape, menus, AF system, etc. The 7D Mark II then moved up to the 5DIII/1D X level AF system.

But even if the 7D was based on the 5D Mark II:

The 5D Mark II cost $2,699 when introduced in 2008. That was considerably cheaper than the 5D had debuted at $3,299.
The 7D cost $1,699 at introduction in 2009.

The 5D Mark III came in at $3,499 in 2012.
The 7D Mark II was priced at $1,799 in 2014.

The 7D was less than 2/3 the price of the 5D Mark II.
The 7D Mark II was barely more than half the price of the 5D Mark III.

I do not think it unrealistic to expect a possible APS-C R7 to be priced around $2000-$2200 USD in 2021.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
729
867
It seems to me the original 7D was more the direct continuation of the 40D/50D than it was based on the 5D mark II. The 60D was the first x0D without a magnesium alloy body, and also didn't include AFMA that the 50D had offered. They did move the buttons from the bottom of the 50D to the left side of the 7D like the 5D Mark II. The 7D introduced the "Q" button that the 5D Mark II did not have.

I shot with both the 7D and 5D Mark II at the same time from early 2012 when I replaced my (by then backup body) 50D with a 7D until late 2014, when a 5D Mark III superseded the 5D Mark II. A 7D Mark II replaced the 7D in mid-2015. They were two very different cameras. The 7D had a larger, brighter OVF, highly configurable 19 pt. AF system, and was very fast shooting and responsive while the 5D Mark II had a smaller, dimmer OVF, primitive 9 pt. AF system, and was nowhere near as fast handling. If anything, the design of the 7D was looking ahead to the design of the 5D Mark III more than back to the 5D Mark II. The 5D Mark III is where the two series really converged in terms of size, shape, menus, AF system, etc. The 7D Mark II then moved up to the 5DIII/1D X level AF system.

But even if the 7D was based on the 5D Mark II:

The 5D Mark II cost $2,699 when introduced in 2008. That was considerably cheaper than the 5D had debuted at $3,299.
The 7D cost $1,699 at introduction in 2009.

The 5D Mark III came in at $3,499 in 2012.
The 7D Mark II was priced at $1,799 in 2014.

The 7D was less than 2/3 the price of the 5D Mark II.
The 7D Mark II was barely more than half the price of the 5D Mark III.

I do not think it unrealistic to expect a possible APS-C R7 to be priced around $2000-$2200 USD in 2021.

Well-argued, I agree, that pricing seems right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,821
2,181
I have a Canon Eos M5 and I am really happy with this camera. I really hope and believe that this new camera is an M camera. Supposed that this camera is a 7D replacement for bird photography and stuff like that, how many of the 7D users have moved to Full Frame? Probably none because they want APS-C sensor. So there is no need to be a path from a APS-C to FF, at least for those users. The second reason I think this would be a M camera is the price. If this is going to be the best M mount camera then a price of 1.500 € is quite reasonable but if it’s an RF mount camera then I don’t think it’s logical to be more expensive than a camera in the same mount category which has better sensor (RP). It makes more sense to compare cameras with the same sensor size or in the same mount than to compare different mounts. Third and last reason is Canon’s reliability. If this is an RF mount camera it sends a message that the M mount is dead and although it is not one of the best mount it is one of the most popular and most profitable Mount. If you can’t trust Canon to keep developing a system that popular you can’t trust the RF mount either. Camera market is in danger and although RF mount is great and professional is not by itself a sustainable for the company mount.
Just my opinion

"Supposed that this camera is a 7D replacement for bird photography and stuff like that, how many of the 7D users have moved to Full Frame? Probably none because they want APS-C sensor."

Most 7-series camera owners I know also own FF cameras. I owned my first 5-series camera before my first 7-series camera. Both were available when I got the 5D Mark II in 2011.

"The second reason I think this would be a M camera is the price. If this is going to be the best M mount camera then a price of 1.500 € is quite reasonable but if it’s an RF mount camera then I don’t think it’s logical to be more expensive than a camera in the same mount category which has better sensor (RP)."

Based on comparative pricing of the 7-series and 5-series (please see my most recent previous post above), it's not unrealistic to expect a 7D-like R7 to come in at around $2,000 USD. It will not be an entry level camera designed to give new buyers a cheaper option than the RP. A FF camera like the RP didn't really exist in the EF line. The price of the RP and the dwindling price of the R is more a reaction to Sony and Nikon competition, not a duplication of the 6D-series pricing practices. Canon seems to have determined that the entry level R cameras will be FF.

"It makes more sense to compare cameras with the same sensor size or in the same mount than to compare different mounts."

Except that almost all users of 7D and 7D Mark II bodies tend to use EF (full frame) telephoto lenses on them, rather than cheaper, smaller EF-S lenses in the wide angle and normal focal length ranges. The EF-S lens users stuck with the 70D/80D/90D.

"Third and last reason is Canon’s reliability. If this is an RF mount camera it sends a message that the M mount is dead and although it is not one of the best mount it is one of the most popular and most profitable Mount."

It does no such thing. The M-series cameras are the new affordable and compact cameras for non-professionals and non-enthusiasts, much like the Rebels once were. Every EF-M lens Canon has released is the same diameter. Canon has never indicated they plan to ever make the M-series anything other than a small, affordable camera that is convenient to take along when a smartphone camera is not enough. Canon has never even hinted that any lenses larger than the existing EF-M lineup will ever be introduced.

An APS-C R7 will be no more like an M-series camera than the 7D Mark II was like a Rebel/xx0D. They're aimed at totally different potential buyers.
 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,639
4,064
Irving, Texas
Does she read these forums....

Seriously, that's awesome!
You know, the one with zero thickness so that it can be placed between an RF lens and RF body!
Honestly, atmospheric disrotion would play a huge role in really long equivalent focal lengths. These guys talking about how they will get 1,200 or 1,600 mm equivalents out of these lenses... I don't think they have thought about that much.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark