There may be as many as three RF mount APS-C cameras on the horizon [CR1]

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
295
655
You had the key reason for the popularity of APS-C right there. All that stuff about reach is lipstick on a pig.
Maybe lipstick on a pig for you. Maybe true for all the folks here who say things like, "Just buy an R5 with it's 45 MP. Cropping gives you 17 MP and that's about the same as a crop camera." Well, I don't have an R5 nor can I afford one. For the cameras and lenses I have, the crop camera gives me better results. Not saying that has to be your experience. But just wondering 3why FF camera users are so arrogant that they believe their experience and their equipment are available and affordable to everyone. I have gone birding with my Olympus E-m1 II and their 100-400 lens. I also have gone birding with an R6 and Canon's EF 100-400. I have twice the reach with my Olympus and had far more keepers. That was my experience, why is that not acceptable to FF users?

Can it be that FF users get annoyed when someone comes along as says they get better results with a camera they bought for $800 when they spent nearly $4000? Naw, that can't be it!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fletchahh

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
295
655
Well...what can I say...I disagree with almost every sentence but all I could do is repeat myself.
The introduction of crop sensors was purely economical decision to overcome production challenges 20+ years ago and had nothing to do with photography itself, meaning it was not developed to gain advantage (reach being the only single one) in making pictures. Period. I'm not saying you are silly, just not knowing historical facts (which have been mentioned by other forum members as well).
Saying that greater DOF is an advantage though is pretty silly. It's one of the greatest disadvantages in most cases.
Btw macro photography was exactly one of the fields where I felt a huge positive change when I switched from crop to FF and I was using all kinds of lenses for macro - MP-E65, 100/2.8, 180/3.5, 300/2.8+1.4X.
I know the historical facts quite well. You taught me nothing I did not know.

Greater DOF can be either an advantage or a disadvantage. I don't do portaits or have much need for shallow DOF. I do a lot of landscapes and flowers, and in actual use (not theory) I need more DOF and crop is an advantage. Sorry that my experience does not match yours. Clearly, we do not use our camera for the same types of photography. Why do you not accept that?
 
Last edited:

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
295
655
A sadly common misconception. DoF is determined by primarily by aperture and subject distance. The DoF is deeper with a smaller sensor only if to match framing you move the camera further away. The lens MFD determines maximum magnification, so 1:1 is the same subject distance regardless of the sensor size.

If you are shooting APS-C vs FF at the same subject distance (e.g. 1:1 with both cameras) the DoF is actually very slightly shallower with the smaller sensor (that’s because of the smaller sensor has a smaller circle of confusion, but if you don’t understand that the main factors affecting DoF are aperture and subject distance, let’s not confuse the issue with the CoC).

The bottom line is that your stated ‘advantage’ of deeper DoF for macro only applies if you’re comparing a FF image with an APS-C image shot at lower magnification. If your goal is maximum magnification, crop cameras offer no advantage in terms of DoF (they just frame a smaller area at that magnification).

Like @riker, I find FF to be much better for macro than APS-C. I asked earlier if you’d used a FF camera for birds, you didn’t answer. Have you used one for macro? Or just regular photography? I’m not saying this is true for you, but I have found that many of those touting particular advantages for APS-C sensors have never actually used a FF camera and compared them. In practice, I find APS-C offers only two advantages. Those advantages are lower cost and a smaller system size. Both are real, meaningful advantages, but they have nothing directly to do with the images they produce. If image quality is your goal, FF wins (and MF wins even more).
The advantage with crop over FF is that you don't have to shoot at the same distance - you can shoot from farther away. So, yes, same distance FF adavantage. Need more distance, crop advantage. Yes, I have shot both.
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
295
655
I agree with your points, but I have to point out that the crop mode in the R5 is an in-camera crop: the EVF shows the resulting crop and a 17MP picture is saved to the card. So 3. and 4. are already handled. It doesn't address the other points, the €4500 R5 has less pixels in crop mode than my €1300 7D. But much better pixels, ISO6400 in the R5 is more useable than ISO400 on the 7D :)
Yes, the crop mode in an FF camera takes care of some of the points. The main point is that many foolks - perhaps most - cannot afford a high MP ff camera like the R5. My crop cameras cost me between $600 and $800 US used. Let me know when the R5 costs the same! :p
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,537
3,843
Maybe lipstick on a pig for you. Maybe true for all the folks here who say things like, "Just buy an R5 with it's 45 MP. Cropping gives you 17 MP and that's about the same as a crop camera." Well, I don't have an R5 nor can I afford one. For the cameras and lenses I have, the crop camera gives me better results. Not saying that has to be your experience. But just wondering 3why FF camera users are so arrogant that they believe their experience and their equipment are available and affordable to everyone. I have gone birding with my Olympus E-m1 II and their 100-400 lens. I also have gone birding with an R6 and Canon's EF 100-400. I have twice the reach with my Olympus and had far more keepers. That was my experience, why is that not acceptable to FF users?
Thanks for supporting my point that cost is one of the two APS-C advantages. As I said, it’s a real and meaningful advantage. The APS-C camera you can afford will yield infinitely better images than the FF camera you cannot afford.

I have shot with the 7D with a 100-400, and with the 1D X with a 600/4 II. The latter produces far superior results, but it costs and weighs far more. If I couldn’t afford or carry the FF + supertele, the APS-C + telezoom would be a better choice.

Can it be that FF users get annoyed when someone comes along as says I get better results with a camera they bought for $600 when they spent nearly $4000? Naw, that can't be it!
Can it be that those who have a $600 camera and cannot afford to buy a camera for nearly $4000 are a wee bit jealous of those who can? Naw, that can't be it!


The main point is that many foolks - perhaps most - cannot afford a high MP ff camera like the R5. My crop camera cost me $600 US.
Gee, perhaps that could be it, after all!

But seriously, stepping back a bit… As far as ‘better’ pictures go, that’s really in the hands and eye of the photographer. Empirically, a FF camera will yield technically better results, albeit at higher cost. Likewise, when ‘more reach’ is needed a supertele lens paired with a FF camera will deliver technically superior results compared to a consumer or L-type telezoom paired with a crop sensor. That’s just physics, and no matter how hard you argue against physics, physics is going to win, every single time.

However, superior from a technical standpoint doesn’t mean a ‘better picture’. There are photographers that can use an iPhone 4 to take better pictures than either of us. From that perspective, crop vs. FF and 100-400 vs 600/4 are all just lipstick on pigs.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,537
3,843
The advantage with crop over FF is that you don't have to shoot at the same distance - you can shoot from farther away. So, yes, same distance FF adavantage. Need more distance, crop advantage. Yes, I have shot both.
Then you can just as easily move the FF camera further away to get more DoF. Plus, you can stop the lens down further on the FF sensor to match the DoF of crop without losing as much sharpness to diffraction, and raise the ISO to maintain shutter speed if needed, without additional noise.

Basically, a FF sensor can do what a crop sensor can do, and more.

If you want to make a valid argument here, you should point out that currently available crop sensors have higher pixel density that currently available FF sensors. So if you’re taking a picture of something so small that you cannot achieve sufficient optical magnification, that could be an advantage. Of course, I’d then simply argue that you need more optical magnification and that plus FF would give better results. If 1x with a standard macro isn’t enough, there’s the MP-E 65 that goes to 5x (or 10x with a 2x TC). Personally, if that’s not enough magnification then I attach my FF camera to my Zeiss Stemi DV-4 stereomicroscope, which gives me 20x up to 80x magnification.

So we’re back to system cost and system size as the only real APS-C advantages. Physics!
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
441
550
So we’re back to system cost and system size as the only real APS-C advantages. Physics!
I would also add file storage size and image post-processing time.
I love my R5. It's a joy to use and produces beautiful results. I primarily focus on small wildlife and I shoot in many reach-limited situations because I do most of my shooting while on long walks, and carrying anything heavier would be too much.
There are many times where I would have liked to see 30MP on my subject instead of 17MP.
In a day of shooting I often take hundreds or thousands of photos. If my only option to do get 30MP on a subject is to buy an 80-100MP camera and crop it down, then I will wind up with thousands of enormous files that my computer takes ages to display and process. Culling would be a never-ending nightmare! I would prefer personally to have a high quality 30+MP APS-C sensor with R5 or R3 specs to use as a second body. This has nothing to do with cost or size, but would work best for how I shoot, what I shoot, and the time that I spend post-processing those photos.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,537
3,843
I would also add file storage size and image post-processing time.
I love my R5. It's a joy to use and produces beautiful results. I primarily focus on small wildlife and I shoot in many reach-limited situations because I do most of my shooting while on long walks, and carrying anything heavier would be too much.
There are many times where I would have liked to see 30MP on my subject instead of 17MP.
In a day of shooting I often take hundreds or thousands of photos. If my only option to do get 30MP on a subject is to buy an 80-100MP camera and crop it down, then I will wind up with thousands of enormous files that my computer takes ages to display and process. Culling would be a never-ending nightmare! I would prefer personally to have a high quality 30+MP APS-C sensor with R5 or R3 specs to use as a second body. This has nothing to do with cost or size, but would work best for how I shoot, what I shoot, and the time that I spend post-processing those photos.
I disagree, those are specious advantages. If you routinely need to crop, then you need a longer lens. Granted, not everyone can afford and/or carry an expensive, heavy supertele lens. Cost and size.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,413
2,274
If my only option to do get 30MP on a subject is to buy an 80-100MP camera and crop it down, then I will wind up with thousands of enormous files that my computer takes ages to display and process. Culling would be a never-ending nightmare! I would prefer personally to have a high quality 30+MP APS-C sensor with R5 or R3 specs to use as a second body. This has nothing to do with cost or size, but would work best for how I shoot, what I shoot, and the time that I spend post-processing those photos.

You forget that such a camera might do an in-camera crop just like the R5 does in crop mode, saving you from the monster files.
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
441
550
You forget that such a camera might do an in-camera crop just like the R5 does in crop mode, saving you from the monster files.
No, I don't! I would not buy a 100MP camera and only use it in crop mode.
 

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
441
550
I disagree, those are specious advantages. If you routinely need to crop, then you need a longer lens. Granted, not everyone can afford and/or carry an expensive, heavy supertele lens. Cost and size.
Reach limitations can be solved by a different body or a different lens. At just under 10lbs, my current birding lens+body+grip combo is at the upper limit of what I feel comfortable hiking with. For me, improving reach with a different body is more practical than improving reach with a longer lens, until Canon starts making lighter weight ones. I do not need a longer lens. In fact, a longer lens would prevent me from doing the photography that I enjoy.
Since I would prefer a high-spec APSC camera, I would not be asking for a body with lower cost or smaller size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fletchahh

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,537
3,843
Reach limitations can be solved by a different body or a different lens. At just under 10lbs, my current birding lens+body+grip combo is at the upper limit of what I feel comfortable hiking with. For me, improving reach with a different body is more practical than improving reach with a longer lens, until Canon starts making lighter weight ones. I do not need a longer lens. In fact, a longer lens would prevent me from doing the photography that I enjoy.
Since I would prefer a high-spec APSC camera, I would not be asking for a body with lower cost or smaller size.
Exactly. Your smaller sensor enables you to bring a smaller/lighter lens. Still about size (as I said – system size, i.e., camera plus lens(es), not just camera size).

You’re trading image quality for size. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It’s why I have and use cameras and lenses from the EOS M line.

What I take issue with is the claim that the smaller sensor is producing the same or better image quality in an absolute sense.

There’s always a compromise, there is no free lunch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
413
494
Orewa , New Zealand
Do you have the data on the birding enthusiast market size and spending patterns, or a source for them?

It’s funny – I see many people make claims about the size and/or spending patterns of a particular market segment, and somehow those ‘numbers’ always seem to support the idea that Canon should make the product the poster wants. But then, no one can actually produce those data.

Please note, I’m not disputing that birding enthusiasts are a market segment – that would be foolish, as I consider myself to be one. But I have no idea how many buyers comprise it. However, I’m certain Canon has those data. Consider what they ask in a product registration – what you shoot, what other gear you own, what gear you plan to buy, your income and other demographic information. A ton of data for them to leverage when making development decisions.

So we know that Canon has those data, and we know that they’ve launched only two high-end APS-C cameras, ever. That suggests that either it’s not a very important market segment for Canon, or that the 7-series DSLRs are still selling so well there’s no need for an update or a conversion to MILC (and of course Canon knows exactly how many 7D and 7DII units have sold).

I get the appeal of the 7-series – I used to shoot with a 7D. Then I got a 5DII for better IQ, but continued using the 7D for birds because of the AF and ‘reach’. Then I bought a 1D X, sold the 5DII, but kept the 7D for birds. But comparing the two, the 1D X gave consistently better images, even cropped to match the APS-C framing they were better. I sold the 7D.

Have you used a high-end FF (5DIII or IV or R5, ie a FF body with sufficiently good AF for flying birds)? Personally, I won’t go back to APS-C for anything except casual shooting or a trip where I’m limited to minimal space for gear (for that, I have the EOS M6 and a full set of EF-M lenses from which to choose).
Canon went to a lot of effort and expense to develop eye autofocus for birds which perhaps means they think there are a lot of bird photographers .
It's easy to see why they developed eye AF for people and cats and dogs but why birds unless they think a lot of people want this ?
If so they may well be planning an R mount 7Dii replacement.
 
Last edited:

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
413
494
Orewa , New Zealand
Birders, birders, birders. Always the birders. Since there's not a single other application that is worth mentioning. And even that is not correct, maybe the term "amature birders" would do. I do nature photography (birds included) for 20 years now and know quite some professionals, even a world famous one, who has always been specailzed on birds. None of them are using APS-C bodies. They do not need the extra reach since they are sitting in some kind of hideout and attracting birds (water, feeding, etc). They are typically using 70-200 and 200-400 on FF bodies and enjoying better AF, larger viewfinder, sharper image, better DR, lower noise, etc.

Maybe you need to consider how many ppl you are talking about when saying extra reach is needed all the time. My take is that it's a very niche market, probably mostly amature birders who are shooting while walking in the park.
Or short: just because you can find a bunch of ppl who share your attitude of "reach/resolution is never enough", it doesn't necessarily mean justification for global demand.

BTW: Actually the R was pretty much a 5d4 in RF body. Maybe not real upgrade but definitely a body for ppl needing that class. So the 5 series is 2008-2012-2016-(2018)-2020, while 7 is 2009-2014-_nothing_ - that precisely shows the difference in global demand.
Canon went to a lot of effort and expense to develop eye autofocus for birds which perhaps means they think there are a lot of bird photographers .
It's easy to see why they developed eye AF for people and cats and dogs but why birds unless they think a lot of people want this ?
If so they may well be planning an R mount 7Dii replacement.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,537
3,843
Canon went to a lot of effort and expense to develop eye autofocus for birds which perhaps means they think there are a lot of bird photographers .
It's easy to see why they developed eye AF for people and cats and dogs but why birds unless they think a lot of people want this ?
If so they may well be planning an R mount 7Dii replacement.
Good point. Apparently there are skis a lot of car and motorcycle racing photographers. Who knew??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,799
1,716
I was at the pond at slightly the wrong time: not much flying dragons around, but also no resting ones. I did find a dragonfly exuvium, the first one this season. Lots of damselfly exuvia, but very few dragonfly husks.

IMG_9410.jpeg


The wind blew it away while I was attaching a 1:1 macro lens, so a phone picture will have to do :)
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,413
2,274
No, I don't! I would not buy a 100MP camera and only use it in crop mode.
Um, you were just complaining that you didn't want to buy such a camera and crop because the files would be too large. Well, they wouldn't be, if you used it in crop mode, so that complaint is off-base.

Now your real complaint is if you had it, you'd not use it in crop mode anyway? SMH
 

Tronhard

Tronhard
Jan 7, 2021
33
32
69
Auckland, New Zealand
This is very interesting, hypothetically there will be multiple entry level lenses to go with these cameras. although naming doesnt make sense.
I'm not sure about the other two bodies that are rumoured, but an R7 would be consistent with the numbering for Canon's pro-level APS-C flagship models -7D MkI and II.

I would have thought something like an R70 and an R700 for the consumer units would make sense to those of us around the parts of the world where Canon used a number system of : xxxxD units for the lowest end, xxxxD for consumer units (equivalent to the Rebel series in the US), XXD for enthusiast units and XD for prosumer and professional units.

What might be better than that legacy numbering system would be using the MkI, MkII etc progression instead of going up in numbers, as they did with the 400D ... 900D consumer units and then ran out of numbers, as the 1000 numbers had already been allocated to other model series. The same thing happened to the enthusiast body numbers EOS 10D... 90D could not use the 100D ID because that was already taken!
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,413
2,274
I'm not sure about the other two bodies that are rumoured, but an R7 would be consistent with the numbering for Canon's pro-level APS-C flagship models -7D MkI and II.

I would have thought something like an R70 and an R700 for the consumer units would make sense to those of us around the parts of the world where Canon used a number system of : xxxxD units for the lowest end, xxxxD for consumer units (equivalent to the Rebel series in the US), XXD for enthusiast units and XD for prosumer and professional units.

I assume you meant xxxD for consumer units (three Xs).

Rebels actually can be either three or four digit models, generally a plain Rebel (like my old Rebel T3, stolen 3 years ago by thieves who ignored the 100mm macro lens worth at least three times as much--I hope they enjoyed the 18-55mm kit lens) was a four digit model, but if it has the "i" at the end (like my current Rebel T6i, now dedicated to the copy stand), it's a three digit model.

What might be better than that legacy numbering system would be using the MkI, MkII etc progression instead of going up in numbers, as they did with the 400D ... 900D consumer units and then ran out of numbers, as the 1000 numbers had already been allocated to other model series. The same thing happened to the enthusiast body numbers EOS 10D... 90D could not use the 100D ID because that was already taken!
I don't disagree. Maybe they finally went totally mirrorless when they ran out of two digit numbers.

Alternatively they could use the second digit for small improvements (e.g., go from 40 to 41), and only advance the first digit if they really think that qualitatively it's a new model.
 

Tronhard

Tronhard
Jan 7, 2021
33
32
69
Auckland, New Zealand
I assume you meant xxxD for consumer units (three Xs).

Rebels actually can be either three or four digit models, generally a plain Rebel (like my old Rebel T3, stolen 3 years ago by thieves who ignored the 100mm macro lens worth at least three times as much--I hope they enjoyed the 18-55mm kit lens) was a four digit model, but if it has the "i" at the end (like my current Rebel T6i, now dedicated to the copy stand), it's a three digit model.


I don't disagree. Maybe they finally went totally mirrorless when they ran out of two digit numbers.

Alternatively they could use the second digit for small improvements (e.g., go from 40 to 41), and only advance the first digit if they really think that qualitatively it's a new model.
I'm not sure what the models are like for you, but Canon make models with xxxxD idenitifiers, such as the EOS 4000D, released in 2018 - see https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eos4000d. They are the cheapest of the line. I absolutely agree that the numbering of the EOS M series, for example, appeared totally random. It would be helpful if they had a global numbering system that was not limited to specific digital ranges but used numbers for units with variations of MkI etc.