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

[IVS]

Might As well put my kidney on the market now. I only need one anyway

 

[Bob Howland]

Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....

But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?

Seems that would be the route to go....give you everything you'd want in one body?

C

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.

 

[yeahright]

I seriously doubt there will be RF-S lenses developed. How many lens mounts could Canon have in the current marketplace? Now there are EF, EF-s, M, and R. Now adding another one? They want to reduce the number of mounts, not increase.

except that RF-S lenses would not introduce another mount, but fit the RF mount and could also be used on any FF R body in crop mode.

 

[cayenne]

cayenne said:
Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....

But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?

Seems that would be the route to go....give you everything you'd want in one body?

C


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

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

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Sure, as long as you don't mind your DLA running around f/2.8 (I didn't do the actual calculation to get the DLA of a 45MP APS-C sensor, but considering the 90D 32MP sensor has a DLA of f/5.x I can only imagine what the DLA would be with a pixel size a 45+MP APS-C sensor would have!)

I've yet to meet anyone who has had meaningful Real World issues with diffraction limits. I've got an M6 Mk II (same sensor as the 90D) and I can say with absolute confidence that DLA is irrelevant to my use and appreciation of its pixel pitch and density.

I don't expect to be meaningfully hurt by a 45mp sensor, and its advantages would outweigh its disadvantages for me.

 

[cornieleous]

Unless it can shoot 10K for 12 hours, it is a failure! What a piece of junk!

Speaking seriously, I am encouraged to see Canon gradually offering MILC versions and blends between segments of their EF FF and APS-C lines. This means there is going to be a camera at every price point and allow customers to choose to very gradually shift to RF and MILC bodies.

I don't think DSLRs will totally go away for a long time even if their market shrinks down really small over the next few years. Kind of like reading a real book, there is something nice about not looking at a screen for a viewfinder, even one with crazy resolution. I'm happy to shoot my DSLR alongside my new R5 until I feel like switching out my lenses and second and third DSLR bodies.

 

[zim]

Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....

But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?

Seems that would be the route to go....give you everything you'd want in one body?

C

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

 

[unfocused]

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

The R5 already has a crop mode. 17 mpx I think.

 

[yeahright]

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

The crop mode on the R5 (which it will feature anyway) does not make the camera cheaper, and the 17 MP on the R5 in crop apparently are not enough for some. So some people would prefer a R7 with 45 MP on crop at less than $2000

 

[tarek]

I hope to god it's not an RF mount camera, keep the Full Frame and Crop systems separate. Canons lens, sensor and mount lineup is already complicated enough with ef, ef-s, ef-m, rf, the last thing we need is to add something like "RF-S" lenses, praying it'll be an EF-M mount camera

 

[Keith_Reeder]

The crop mode on the R5 (which it will feature anyway) does not make the camera cheaper, and the 17 MP on the R5 in crop apparently are not enough for some. So some people would prefer a R7 with 45 MP on crop at less than $2000

Personally I'm happy to pay way north of $2k for a camera like that, but a good summation otherwise.

 

[AEWest]

except that RF-S lenses would not introduce another mount, but fit the RF mount and could also be used on any FF R body in crop mode.

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.

 

[Twinix]

Two card slots - maybe somebody smarter than me could work out whether CFexpress would be needed?

With the R6 RAW buffer of 240 images, I dont think you really need CFexpress.. Same goes with 4K ALL-I recording.

 

[Bob Howland]

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

See also my previous post. Also, the 32MP sensor in the M6-2, when expanded to FF yields about 82MP. There is room in the world for a FF sensor with that many pixels but large pixel vs small pixel is another discussion.

 

[yeahright]

Personally I'm happy to pay way north of $2k for a camera like that, but a good summation otherwise.

btw I second Bert63s question about seeing some of the maximum-pixels-per-duck images

 

[BeenThere]

With the R6 RAW buffer of 240 images, I dont think you really need CFexpress.. Same goes with 4K ALL-I recording.

Are there minimum write speed requirements for the cards, or does the camera throttle back write speed to match the card inserted?

 

[Whowe]

“EOS R6 with a small sensor”

Smaller than what? Smaller than the R6?

Smaller in physical size (i.e. APS-C), not smaller in Megapixels...

 

[Kit.]

APS-R system with better everything than current APS cameras and lenses.

Larger, heavier and more expensive, with the same sensor size.

 

[JayLT]

I've yet to meet anyone who has had meaningful Real World issues with diffraction limits. I've got an M6 Mk II (same sensor as the 90D) and I can say with absolute confidence that DLA is irrelevant to my use and appreciation of its pixel pitch and density.

I don't expect to be meaningfully hurt by a 45mp sensor, and its advantages would outweigh its disadvantages for me.

I won't disagree (that's why the winky face thingy at the end). I shoot a ton of macro with the 90D and an constantly at f/16 with zero issues

 

[BakaBokeh]

It's surely logical to presume they knew what they were doing. A lot has been made on these forums about the 'lack of an upgrade path' from M to R, but Canon knew that limitation would exist, and it seems they decided it wasn't as important as other factors.

My take has always been, APS-C means M, FF now means RF. Canon seems to think the former is mostly about small size. Maybe it'll change a bit as DSLR sales decline relative to MILC, but I'd still be surprised by an APS-C RF body. The new superteles seem to point to their strategy for budget-minded birders.

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.