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

[Pape]

I think if they make R7 it will be like 6k $ camera .
No need sell it with minimal profit anymore when there are options like 800mm f11 and R6 for low budget bird shooters.
Will be more mini 1 camera than never before.
Maybe they name it R1s

 

[Aussie shooter]

Except the R6 is nowhere near an equivalent for the 7D Mark II the way that most 7D Mark II owners used them.

It doesn't have the pixel density that 7D Mark II users want/need.

It doesn't have the top grade magnesium alloy body and highest level weather sealing that the 7D Mark II has.

It does might have fast handling capability, depending upon how well the lower than top grade EVF can handle sports/action/birds.

It does have a 300,000 shutter durability rating that 7D Mark II users will value.

Oh I agree. The resolution is no match for a 7d2 but the video hinted at it being considered as such. So while i would love to see an R7 so to speak i am thinking it wont happen. I certainly hope i am wrong though.

 

[jolyonralph]

So, just my guess, I think that we will see a mirrorless RF/"RF-S" APS-C digital Rebel... I would guess before year-end 2021. Otoh, the FF RP with its kit was selling for $1k recently, but still, that's not entry-level for a lot of folks. You need something cheaper to get 'em hooked.

The body cost is not the factor here. The cost of the lenses is. RF lenses are not affordable options for APS-C shooters right now (except for the long lenses) - would Canon be willing to invest in yet another lineup of APS-C lenses for such a camera? I really doubt it.

By far the easiest option for them to reach the "chunky hands crowd" (which I really don't think exists, by the way. We're just used to larger cameras and we find smaller cameras uncomfortable. Those who are new to it adapt much more quickly to smaller cameras than us 'old hands') is either to sell them the RP equivalent and get them onto the low-end of full frame, or to produce a slightly meatier EOS M body.

 

[jolyonralph]

There's no issue at all with the lens protocols. Canon has all of the code, and both the EF-M and RF protocols are expanded versions of the EF protocols.

The issue is physical: comparative throat diameters and only 2mm difference in registration distance doesn't leave room for the RF bayonet lugs behind the RF flange 20mm from the sensor.

Canon never produce anything tor any mount which isn't backwards compatible with the oldest models, and older EF-M bodies won't be able to deal with RF protocols because of hardware limitations, not just firmware.

But yes, the physical constraints are the biggest issue.

 

[jolyonralph]

I highly doubt it. $2199 would be very ambitious in a market where full frame is considered the best, and the end game for photography. And you can get a good full frame body for a few hundred less than that.

Which means we've pretty much all accepted that it can't happen because the margins aren't in it for Canon. At least not yet.

 

[jolyonralph]

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.

Agree with pretty much everything you say - the key thing here is the time factor. The rumors now are that we might hear at least an announcement of an APS-C camera this year, but I find that highly unlikely, I really suspect we'll hear about such a camera this time next year at the earliest and then your pricing starts to be possible.

I don't think the R7 would be cheaper than the R6. It will have a higher quality body, a higher pixel count sensor and the benefits of another year of design & technology. I'd wager at the lowest it'll be exactly the same price the R6 is selling for in a years time, and possibly a little more.

 

[Kit.]

The $1,799 7D Mark II had more weather sealing and a higher shutter durability rating when it was introduced in 2014 than the the current 5-series camera at the time, the 5D Mark III introduced at $3,499 in 2012. The much less durable FF 6D was introduced at $2,099 in 2012.

I bet it was also sold in much larger quantities then Canon would expect to sell a "high-end crop RF body" now.

For most potential R7 buyers, the question would be: why buy R6+R7 if you can just buy a R5.

So, the economies of scale should make the R7 more expensive.

 

[Kit.]

I started out with EF-s lenses. I was a little pissed off when I figured out that they frame the same as an EF lens on the same crop sensor camera. Expensive learning experience for me. After that, I never understood the point of those lenses other than maybe the cost.

Unfortunately, there is no EF 15-85 lens.

 

[Kane Clements]

I've trawled through several pages of posts and can't be bothered to get to the end. In all the posts I've read the following has not been mentioned.

1. The EF to R mount adaptor gives full functionality to EF lenses. EF-S lenses do work but the useful MPs are severely reduced.

2. There is a ton of EF-S glass out there. These lenses are native to crop sensor cameras.

3. Canon still sells lots of EF-S glass. The lenses are cash cows for them. Development cost are long since covered, less expensive to produce, good profits.

4. By introducing a Crop Sensor R range body, Canon can open up the joys of a larger body mirrorless camera to EF-S lens owners with a simple adaptor, maybe current EF to R would work allowing use of EF glass as well.

5. That move would drive body sales and keep current users tied in.

6. Canon would avoid in the short term the need to develop an RF-S lens range.

I know everyone likes to speculate about the up and coming bodies. However my take is the move is driven by cold hard commercial realism. If people can use their EF-S glasswork they are more likely to stick with Canon.

And customers benefit as well.

 

[usern4cr]

I see no point in RF-s lenses for a "high end" apsc body. I started out with EF-s bodies and lenses. When I was starting out, I mistakenly believed that an Ef-s lens at 50mm focal length was exactly the same framing as using a 50mm EF lens on a ff. It isn't. It's just a cheaper lens, but not always. They both frame the same on a crop sensor body. Once I figured that out, I only bought EF lenses. It isn't as though Canon is going to make super-tele lenses specifically for a crop sensor body. Never have. The new "cheap" f/11 super-tele lenses are squarely in the FF camp. An APS-C body makes sense for people who want the high density sensor for their birding or sports, or whatever.. APS-C lenses do not make any sense at all. Just my opinion. APS-C lenses offer no path at all to a FF upgrade. They are a dead end.On the other hand, a crop sensor R body makes complete sense.

Well, thinking a compact R crop sensor body making sense is a good start, especially if they can make the EF-M-to-R adapter as I talked about. If they do invest to make the R crop body, then I think it'd be a good idea to make at least 1 or 2 compact R crop lenses to really show it off. They could offer a real discount for buying the body and lens at the same time or as a kit.

You know, all this is just thinking what might be good for Canon, but I'm only interested in their FF anyway.

 

[usern4cr]

RS is probably not a good choice.

"S" in Canon nomenclature of camera bodies for the past two decades has indicated higher resolution variants of different models.

The 1Ds series was the FF, higher resolution counterpart to the APS-H 1D series.
The 5Ds and 5Ds R were the 50MP counterparts to the 22 MP 5D Mark III.

It'd be like calling an APS-C version of a Sony α7 series an α7R.

Also, most of those EF→RF adapters you theorize about already exist and are capable of handling EF-S lenses.

Yeah, I agree. I've corrected my initial post. It was a work in progress. I think it's much reduced in size and clarified. I thought RM might be a better name for a R crop body or lens since EF-M was for the crop mirrorless EF version. Who knows? The name could be anything.

The funny thing is, as a new Canon person I'm only interested in Canon FF so the whole idea was just for Canon's sake, not mine.

 

[SecureGSM]

Price aside that's the direction I thought Canon were going especially with the introduction of the 100-500 which has finally sold me on RF so I'm finding this rumour rather confusing

theoretically, a smaller sensor may allow for a faster mechanical shutter FPS, X-Sync...

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I own the M6ii and it's great. If they made the viewfinder built-in, gave it IBIS, maybe a bigger battery, and gave it true native or downsampled 4k it'd be incredible.

You have to bear in mind that we're talking about a 7D-class body, so it needs the ergonomics to suit. Also, use with bigger lenses is really important. Both of these things point to a larger body, which in turn removes any objection to an RF mount.

What they need is some quality M zooms. Like an 18-55 f2.8, or an 18-105 f4, and then a 400+.

The fact that these don't exist after eight years of EF-M lenses should tell us that Canon is not pursuing that route. They didn't with EF-S either of course, with the exception of the 17-55/2.8 which has seen no updates in 14 years, and even that has no weatherproofing so it's not a good partner to the 7D/7D2.

 

[SteB1]

It would certainly make sense to produce an RF mount 7D mkII type upgrade (he says hopefully). Just slap the M6 mkII gubbins in one of the new R type bodies with IBIS, bigger buffer, and they've probably been developing that anyway, and you've probably got quite a good 7D upgrade without any major R&D. Not sure what the technical limitations of the 32mp sensor will be as regards frame rates, video (obviously not 8K as that would require a 45mp sensor). It's all a matter of whether Canon will do it.

 

[AlanF]

28MP would be in line with the R5's sensor.

28Mpx crop = 72 Mpx FF. R5 sensor is equivalent to ~18 Mpx crop. Apologies to others who have mentioned it. I don't particularly want the 32 Mpx sensor from the M6II/90D. As soon as the iso gets above a couple of 100, I get better files from my 5DSR (cropped to APS-C) or another APS-C that has a 20 Mpx sensor without an AA-filter than from my 90D with no worse resolution.

 

[AlanF]

I prefer dedicated crop sensor as I feel the camera and lenses can be lighter and cheaper.

Less difference in weight than you might think. The Nikon D850 FF is only a few gram heavier than the D500 crop, and can be used in crop mode with the ~same resolution. I would use the R5 in both FF and crop. When using telephoto primes, the FF mode is really useful and adds an extra 1.6x field of view, the crop mode saves file space. I wouldn't consider a new Canon APS-C if it didn't take RF lenses.

 

[BeenThere]

I've trawled through several pages of posts and can't be bothered to get to the end. In all the posts I've read the following has not been mentioned.

1. The EF to R mount adaptor gives full functionality to EF lenses. EF-S lenses do work but the useful MPs are severely reduced.

2. There is a ton of EF-S glass out there. These lenses are native to crop sensor cameras.

3. Canon still sells lots of EF-S glass. The lenses are cash cows for them. Development cost are long since covered, less expensive to produce, good profits.

4. By introducing a Crop Sensor R range body, Canon can open up the joys of a larger body mirrorless camera to EF-S lens owners with a simple adaptor, maybe current EF to R would work allowing use of EF glass as well.

5. That move would drive body sales and keep current users tied in.

6. Canon would avoid in the short term the need to develop an RF-S lens range.

I know everyone likes to speculate about the up and coming bodies. However my take is the move is driven by cold hard commercial realism. If people can use their EF-S glasswork they are more likely to stick with Canon.

And customers benefit as well.

You may be right, but when I owned the 7D II, I never owned or shot any EF-S glass. I only used EF telephoto glass for wildlife (primarily birds). That’s because there was no pro level, telephoto APS-c glass available. It was that extra reach of APS-c that I coveted. If there had been an APS-c telephoto lens available with good IQ and fast focus (in 400 - 600mm range), I would have considered getting it just for use on this camera. Seeing that fast autofocus is now possible at f~8 with R series cameras, I’m seeing some real opportunities for new pro level wildlife lenses. The new RF 100-500mm may be just the beginning.

 

[Kane Clements]

You may be right, but when I owned the 7D II, I never owned or shot any EF-S glass. I only used EF telephoto glass for wildlife (primarily birds). That’s because there was no pro level, telephoto APS-c glass available. It was that extra reach of APS-c that I coveted. If there had been an APS-c telephoto lens available with good IQ and fast focus (in 400 - 600mm range), I would have considered getting it just for use on this camera. Seeing that fast autofocus is now possible at f~8 with R series cameras, I’m seeing some real opportunities for new pro level wildlife lenses. The new RF 100-500mm may be just the beginning.

 

[Chaitanya]

A mirrorless 7d mk 2 replacement would certainly be appreciated.

 

[Kane Clements]

You make a very valid point. The mirror less 7D III would be the flagship and then as is is generally the case the tech will be passed down a new range of cameras designed to fit other market segments. Those are the cameras / users who will tend towards EF-S glass.