Good point, true. I was thinking of me!Oh, I think it far more likely that they would want to continue using their current 100-400mm, 70-200mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and so on, with the EF - R converter.
Upvote
0
Good point, true. I was thinking of me!Oh, I think it far more likely that they would want to continue using their current 100-400mm, 70-200mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and so on, with the EF - R converter.
That's the big question for me. Hopefully the trusted real world testers will answer. I'm really looking forward to those reviews. That extra 100 on the 100 to 500 is there for a reason though, Canon ain't stupid. Can't wait for the reviews on that lens too!Apparently Canon are touting the R5 as capable of equalling the resolving power (if not the resolution) of the 5DsR, in which case it has the 'reach' of the 7D2, and it has a high fps, so that could be your best bet for now?
Oh, I think it far more likely that they would want to continue using their current 100-400mm, 70-200mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, and so on, with the EF - R converter.
The appeal of the RF mount in this context is in the size of the body - more real estate for buttons, knobs, multi-controllers, the things that make quick setting changes possible.In which case it makes no real difference if the 7D replacement uses EF-M or RF mount, as both can adapt those lenses without any problems (although we'd need a new weather-sealed EF-M -> EF adaptor)
But the 7D2 was launched at almost half the launch price of the 5D4 and 5D3 - $1799 vs $3499.This is the problem. People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much.
It makes a big difference to me - I want access to RF lenses (which can't be adapted to the M mount) and I couldn't care less about EF-M lenses.In which case it makes no real difference if the 7D replacement uses EF-M or RF mount, as both can adapt those lenses without any problems (although we'd need a new weather-sealed EF-M -> EF adaptor)
Of course it all depends. The R5 has a buffer of 180 RAW images, so I don’t think it will be a problem.
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.
theoretically, a smaller sensor may allow for a faster mechanical shutter FPS, X-Sync...
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.
They already make larger diameter lenses that fit the M mount...with an adapter. I have used my M5 with the Canon 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2 and 70-200 f/4 L IS lenses. All work well and aren't absurdly large on the M5. On the wide end, it's a different story. I own the 24 and 35 f/1.4 L lenses and those are too large. I bought the Sigma 16 f/1.4 and 30 f/1.4 lenses and highly recommend them on the M5. I'll probably never buy the 56 f/1.4 Sigma because the Canon 50 works so well.
I think our thoughts of segmentation and product tier-ing may be off a bit now that we've seen the R5 and R6.
'The R5 is effectively the mirrorless 5D5.' I'd peg this as just about right.
'The R6 is the effectively the mirrorless 6D3.' Now that we know what that camera was given, that statement seems a bit of a reach -- that camera got hooked up with just about everything from the R5 other than the sensor. And Canon has somewhat fragmented the lower end of the FF market with the R and RP -- both of which may or may not get sequeled (my money is now on R = RIP, RP may live on).
So 'The R7 is effectively the mirrorless 7D3' -- while surely possible -- does not fill my heart with confidence. Perhaps Canon is simply imagining a completely FF future, and they are trying to diversify that platform's appeal to different budgets and userbases.
- A
This is the problem. People would be expecting it to be half the price of the R5, and there's no way swapping out the FF sensor for an APS-C sensor will reduce canon's costs *that* much.
Now, one thing I've thought about, and I have no idea if it's even possible to make, is whether they can produced a hybrid FF sensor where the dot pitch of the APS-C section is higher than the dot-pitch of the full frame area outside. It would produce confusing raw files that would take Adobe an age to decode, but could potentially allow lower-resolution FF shots or higher resolution APS-C shots. I've no idea if this would even have any price advantage over simply making the entire sensor the higher resolution - just thinking random thoughts.
And yet the 7DII was less than half the cost of the 1Dx. Granted, there were more differences than just the sensor, but the feature set of the 7DII sat well above the then current and more expensive 5DIII and was much closer to the 1Dx. Suggesting that Canon price points and profit margins are something that none of us can really speak to with any authority.
One last comment: Of course Canon may be thinking an R6 at 20mp with a 1.4 extender is how the satisfy/pacify those of us that want a 7Dmk2 replacement.
The more I think about this the more I believe that an M7 is the more likely possibility. An APS-C R body would create tremendous market confusion and splitting APS-C bodies into three different lines (DSLR, M and R) seems unlikely. If Canon truly intends to phase out DSLRs (I don't believe they do, but I'm willing to accept the possibility) then I can't imagine them mucking up the R and M lines with a mixture of sensor sizes.
It makes much more sense and far less confusing to consumers to have a single full frame line and single crop sensor line.
Canon could create a very compelling M7 to sit at the top of the line using the 90D sensor and carrying over many of the R5 features. There is nothing that the R body provides that could not be built into an M7. In fact, like the 7D, it could be essentially the same size as the R5.
They've designed the R series to offer the option of a 1.6 crop, so why put a 1.6 crop sensor in R bodies? If they proceed with a high megapixel R body, there is even less of a reason to offer a crop sensor camera. Put a 90 mp full frame sensor in and you'd got the equivalent of the 90D sensor in a full frame body, while offering all the advantages of full frame.
When Canon created the R mount they made a huge deal out of how they could now design lenses specifically for the R mount, offering things they couldn't offer in EF. Why mess with that by throwing in RF crop sensor lenses? Plus, most RF lenses would be ridiculous overkill for a crop sensor and you'd still have the confusing 1.6 factor for focal lengths.
Adding an additional body at the top end of the M line would help sell EF-M lenses and the cost of new lenses would be spread out over more bodies, including a body that appeals to the highly lucrative enthusiast market.
All EF lenses work fine with the existing adapter, just as they do with the RF adapter. So, consumers who want to use both formats would still be able to do so using EF lenses.
The only question would be whether or not they create a handful of long zooms or primes that are custom tuned to the M mount.
Canon's new RF lenses show they can create low-cost telephotos, so they could certainly build a handful of telephotos specifically for the M line. In fact, I would bet Canon engineers would be energized by the prospect of designing lenses designed specifically for the M mount and the APS-C image circle.
For Canon, the prospect of a mirrorless future with a clear cut division between APS-C and Full Frame has got to be compelling.
Can I ask, would a graduated (incremental) crop on FF be possible entirely through software? I wish the FPS was like that