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

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
413
494
Orewa , New Zealand
Oi....that could fit on r/ConfidentlyIncorrect....
"Advanced Photo System (APS) is a discontinued film format for still photography first produced in 1996." *Wikipedia
It was the last new film format before digital became a common thing. Reason were in fact the ability to build smaller and cheaper cameras with smaller lenses.

If they'll do produce APS-C R cameras, APS-C Lenses would make a lot of sense for both advanced and budget users.
Budget users can get affordable and compact lenses at all, while birders (or who whatever) can get cheaper, lighter or longer telephoto lenses (choose 2),
just imagine super tele RF-S L lenses. maybe a RF-S 600mm f/4 L which is way lighter and not as expensive as its RF counterpart. or one with an bigger aperture while maintaining the same weight and price.....just imagine...
I mean - I am not into that super telephoto range, but if I were and I buy an professional APS-C camera to get more reach, I would too be very happy about lenses, especially for that. I mean with FF lenses on APS-C - you waste a lot of money and you carry a lot of weight for an image circle, you are actually not using at all.

And I don't see any typical rebel user jumping from rebel and efs to r9 or r8 with those very expensive RF lenses. They also need totally different focal lengths for standards - now there is only 2 24-105s (not enough wide angle) or the very very expensive 15-35L (not enough tele). For the start you can continue to use the EFs lenses, but they won't be available new for long.
An RF-s 600mm f/4 wouldn't be any smaller as the front element would still have to be 150mm to get f/4 : that's what f/4 means f= 600mm / 4 = 150mm .
The only part that could be made smaller are the rear elements which would make very little difference .
A freznell element DO version would be a lot shorter and a bit lighter but the front element would still be the same size and that would be much the same crop or full frame.
A bigger aperture 600mm such as f/2.8 would be colossal as 600 / 2.8 = 214mm and insanely expensive and ridiculously heavy whether it was crop or full frame.
 

schaudi

I'm New Here
Feb 4, 2021
13
25
An RF-s 600mm f/4 wouldn't be any smaller as the front element would still have to be 150mm to get f/4 : that's what f/4 means f= 600mm / 4 = 150mm .
The only part that could be made smaller are the rear elements which would make very little difference .
A freznell element DO version would be a lot shorter and a bit lighter but the front element would still be the same size and that would be much the same crop or full frame.
A bigger aperture 600mm such as f/2.8 would be colossal as 600 / 2.8 = 214mm and insanely expensive and ridiculously heavy whether it was crop or full frame.
naaa if u want to be really picky - "f/4" doesn't refer to the size of the front element. The F Number refers to the entrance pupil (effective aperture) which is >not< the front element (but could be extremely close in a lot of cases, especially on tele lenses). Just take a look at the Ef 35 f/2 for example - the front element is way bigger than 17.5mm.
Sorry if there was some misunderstanding - of course the difference wouldn't be enormous but still - there would be some. Just compare entry level (no heavy metal L of course) ef lenses with nearly identical ef-s lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
413
494
Orewa , New Zealand
naaa if u want to be really picky - "f/4" doesn't refer to the size of the front element. The F Number refers to the entrance pupil (effective aperture) which is >not< the front element (but could be extremely close in a lot of cases, especially on tele lenses). Just take a look at the Ef 35 f/2 for example - the front element is way bigger than 17.5mm.
Sorry if there was some misunderstanding - of course the difference wouldn't be enormous but still - there would be some. Just compare entry level (no heavy metal L of course) ef lenses with nearly identical ef-s lenses.
Ok but the front element is always the same or bigger than the entrance pupil so any weight or size savings would be modest and probably not worth making separate RF-s super telephotos.
I think some RF-s wide angles would be worthwhile though for example 28mm f/2.8 pancake lens
 

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
111
52
riker.hu
There are many who want APSC. Canon knows that.
I don't think so. People are given the choice backed up by serious marketing and they take it.
My personal bet for going with APS-C RF would something like attracting more amatures with low price pays off on the long run coz they will end up buying RF lenses, upgrade to FF bodies, etc.
Btw my experience shows that many total beginners, buying their first camera want a dsrl-like body coz it's more "serious", more authentic in being a "real" camera and they think that will help them produce better images. I have no idea even about the concept of changing lenses, but they want a real body. They will never buy an M and if Canon doesn't offer something priced very entry level, they will just choose another brand. It's pure marketing/financial math and has nothing to do with photography technicality (reach or whatever ppl like to say).
Btw there's a reason why 1.3x 1D became FF and there's no 7D since 2014.

APS-C never had anything to do with photography, it was an economical decision (workaround) when FF sensors were still impossible (or at least very expensive) to produce and has all kind of disadvantages from a photography point of view, reach being the only single advantage. That advantage has already degraded considerably due to technological evolution and the introduction of high resolution and high frame rate FF bodies while also cheap FF bodies have arrived.

Canon might decide to squeez in an R7 but it's far from need or wanted.

(Samsung has like ~40 phone models every year while Apple had 1, now 4 or whatever. Samsung probably knows ppl want 40 models while Apple does not know :D )
 

schaudi

I'm New Here
Feb 4, 2021
13
25
I don't think so. People are given the choice backed up by serious marketing and they take it.
My personal bet for going with APS-C RF would something like attracting more amatures with low price pays off on the long run coz they will end up buying RF lenses, upgrade to FF bodies, etc.
Btw my experience shows that many total beginners, buying their first camera want a dsrl-like body coz it's more "serious", more authentic in being a "real" camera and they think that will help them produce better images. I have no idea even about the concept of changing lenses, but they want a real body. They will never buy an M and if Canon doesn't offer something priced very entry level, they will just choose another brand. It's pure marketing/financial math and has nothing to do with photography technicality (reach or whatever ppl like to say).
Btw there's a reason why 1.3x 1D became FF and there's no 7D since 2014.

APS-C never had anything to do with photography, it was an economical decision (workaround) when FF sensors were still impossible (or at least very expensive) to produce and has all kind of disadvantages from a photography point of view, reach being the only single advantage. That advantage has already degraded considerably due to technological evolution and the introduction of high resolution and high frame rate FF bodies while also cheap FF bodies have arrived.

Canon might decide to squeez in an R7 but it's far from need or wanted.

(Samsung has like ~40 phone models every year while Apple had 1, now 4 or whatever. Samsung probably knows ppl want 40 models while Apple does not know :D )
And you really thing, people (like birders) who really need that extra reach all the time, will be happy to pay for a R5 or a possibly upcoming R1, which (probably) are the only canons with enough resolution left in cropped mode? R, RP, R6 and probably the R3 (if the rumors are somewhere correct) don't offer much resolution in crop mode. APS-C offers them much more resolution on that smaller image plane and an APS-C Sensor is STILL much cheaper than an FF sensor, so an APS-C Body would be much cheaper as a FF Body with the same functionality. Not only beginners are looking on a price tag - pros do to.
--> Or short: just because YOU don't see an use in Pro APS-C body, doesn't mean nobody does.

BTW.: The lifespan of the 7DI was around 5 Years. In 2019, when the 7DII was 5 years old, they already started the R Line. There is no new 5D too since 2016 ... mhm maybe nobody needs a camera like the 5D? Or maybe .... a yes - the R5 was released ....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
111
52
riker.hu
And you really thing, people (like birders) who really need that extra reach all the time, will be happy to pay for a R5 or a possibly upcoming R1, which (probably) are the only canons with enough resolution left in cropped mode? R, RP, R6 and probably the R3 (if the rumors are somewhere correct) don't offer much resolution in crop mode. APS-C offers them much more resolution on that smaller image plane and an APS-C Sensor is STILL much cheaper than an FF sensor, so an APS-C Body would be much cheaper as a FF Body with the same functionality. Not only beginners are looking on a price tag - pros do to.
--> Or short: just because YOU don't see an use in Pro APS-C body, doesn't mean nobody does.

BTW.: The lifespan of the 7DI was around 5 Years. In 2019, when the 7DII was 5 years old, they already started the R Line. There is no new 5D too since 2016 ... mhm maybe nobody needs a camera like the 5D? Or maybe .... a yes - the R5 was released ....
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.
 
Last edited:

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
111
52
riker.hu
Imho, I just can't believe this rumor for several reasons.
1. the name scheme... R7 makes sense, but R8 and R9 should be reserved for the successors of the R and the RP. If the proposed name schemes was indeed true, Canon would have no numbers left for their "full-frame entry camera" models because R2 & R4 would be extremely misleading... And an R6RP or R6R or whatever is just weird...

I don't think R is going to have a successor. It was an introductory camera to the RF system, wasn't meant to be part of any line that's why it's just an R, no number. Why the RP is not called R10 is beyond me. The ways of the Japanese are just unpredictable. :)

I definitely don't want Canon to waste devel resources on RF-S lenses. The world would be so clean and nice with EF-M being APS-C and RF being FF :) Plus I would really love to see an ultra-compact yet professional M system which by the way I think is the only chance for compact cameras to survive and not get eaten by phones.
 

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.
I find it bizarre how upset some people get about the idea of any crop sensor R bodies as if it's in some way going to affect them ? If you prefer full frame great and there are plenty of models available so why get your ''knickers in a twist" ?

There are large numbers of amateur bird shooters and many professionals who do this for a hobby (as it's very difficult to earn a living from this).
Many of us don't like using hides or feeding wild birds and the extra reach is always welcome especially if you want to use lenses that are light enough to handhold like my EF100-400ii rather than ridiculously heavy and expensive super telephotos such as the 600mm f/4
The extra reach isn't just about the bird being far away but also about them being extremely small and it's also great for semi macro for bugs , etc : my 7Dii can get amazing magnification with the EF100-400ii and the working distance is much better than any dedicated macro lens.

All digital cameras other than smartphones are a niche market but companies like Canon , Sony , Nikon , Fujifilm etc seem to think it's still worthwhile to develop new cameras.

If Canon brings out an R7 crop sensor camera I guess you can just not buy it and don't get upset that many others such as myself will buy it.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,565
3,885
I find it bizarre how upset some people get about the idea of any crop sensor R bodies as if it's in some way going to affect them ? If you prefer full frame great and there are plenty of models available so why get your ''knickers in a twist" ?
I find it equally bizarre that people seem to think Canon must provide an ‘upgrade path’ from APS-C to FF that enables APS-C users to buy at least some lenses for their cameras then have them work on FF, or have the ability to use their APS-C image circle lenses on FF.

There are large numbers of amateur bird shooters and many professionals who do this for a hobby (as it's very difficult to earn a living from this).
Are there, though? Everyone seems to think they are part of the majority. Totally anecdotal, but I only know a handful of bird photographers. I know many birders, but they use binoculars and spotting scopes, not cameras (and look askance at my Canon IS binoculars because they’re not Swarovski or at least Zeiss).

However, history and market share data show that Canon knows their market. They had a semi-upgrade path with EF lenses on APS-C DSLRs and abandoned it with APS-C-to-FF MILCs.

Since the high-end APS-C 7D came out, Canon has released 8 FF DSLRs, 4 mid range (xxD) APS-C DSLRs, and 16 <$1000 APS-C DSLRs. And they’ve released one other high-end APS-C DSLR, the 7DII. What does that say about the relative importance of the high-end APS-C market to Canon?

But there’s hope – there have been 4 high-end FF MILCs and 11 <$1000 APS-C MILCs so far (with a 5th high-end FF MILC about to launch). So based on an approximation from the DSLR releases, perhaps we’re due for a high-end APS-C MILC.

But you should also consider that prior to last year, the longest ‘affordable’ DSLR lens combo with AF support (in recent bodies) was 560mm (100-400 + 1.4x TC), giving a FFeq FoV of 900mm. With the RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses, Canon has provided a way (even cheaper) to get well beyond 900mm on FF 600/800 + 1.4x/2x) with full AF capability.

I’m sure your mind immediately jumps to the idea of a high-end APS-C camera and a 1600mm lens or to a 1.6x crop sensor needing a 1.4x instead of a 2x TC. But Canon’s goal is to maximize profit, and if their data suggest these non-L supertele lenses plus FF MILCs will do that better than a high-end APS-C MILC, then you won’t be seeing the latter any time soon.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
413
494
Orewa , New Zealand
I find it equally bizarre that people seem to think Canon must provide an ‘upgrade path’ from APS-C to FF that enables APS-C users to buy at least some lenses for their cameras then have them work on FF, or have the ability to use their APS-C image circle lenses on FF.


Are there, though? Everyone seems to think they are part of the majority. Totally anecdotal, but I only know a handful of bird photographers. I know many birders, but they use binoculars and spotting scopes, not cameras (and look askance at my Canon IS binoculars because they’re not Swarovski or at least Zeiss).

However, history and market share data show that Canon knows their market. They had a semi-upgrade path with EF lenses on APS-C DSLRs and abandoned it with APS-C-to-FF MILCs.

Since the high-end APS-C 7D came out, Canon has released 8 FF DSLRs, 4 mid range (xxD) APS-C DSLRs, and 16 <$1000 APS-C DSLRs. And they’ve released one other high-end APS-C DSLR, the 7DII. What does that say about the relative importance of the high-end APS-C market to Canon?

But there’s hope – there have been 4 high-end FF MILCs and 11 <$1000 APS-C MILCs so far (with a 5th high-end FF MILC about to launch). So based on an approximation from the DSLR releases, perhaps we’re due for a high-end APS-C MILC.

But you should also consider that prior to last year, the longest ‘affordable’ DSLR lens combo with AF support (in recent bodies) was 560mm (100-400 + 1.4x TC), giving a FFeq FoV of 900mm. With the RF 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses, Canon has provided a way (even cheaper) to get well beyond 900mm on FF 600/800 + 1.4x/2x) with full AF capability.

I’m sure your mind immediately jumps to the idea of a high-end APS-C camera and a 1600mm lens or to a 1.6x crop sensor needing a 1.4x instead of a 2x TC. But Canon’s goal is to maximize profit, and if their data suggest these non-L supertele lenses plus FF MILCs will do that better than a high-end APS-C MILC, then you won’t be seeing the latter any time soon.
The RF 600 f/11 & 800 f/11 are plastic low end lenses with a minimum focal length of 6m and are not very affordable here in New Zealand at over NZD 2000 for the 800 .
I bought my 100-400ii 2nd hand for $2500 and it's an amazing lens which works well with all EF and RF bodies

The M mount cameras are nice cameras but don't appeal compared to my 7Dii for telephoto use.

The 90D has a much improved sensor compared to the 7Dii but the autofocus is much worse and the build quality is low end.

I was a bit tempted by the R5 as it is probably Canon's best wildlife body but it costs $NZ7000 here and has lower pixel density to my 7Dii so whilst being a better camera the improvements are fairly modest compared with a crop sensor R body

The entire world market for non smartphone cameras is fairly small but a worthwhile percentage of this is birding enthusiasts who spend quite a lot on lenses which have much higher profit margins than cameras.

If Canon choose to put the 90D's sensor into an R6 which would cost very little in terms of R&D and priced it at the same or slightly lower cost it would sell pretty well I think and I would buy one as it would be far superior to any other camera for birding ,etc.

I do hope though that Canon makes a high end crop camera based on the R3 and I'll certainly buy one even though it'll cost at least as much as the R5 . This probably wouldn't sell in huge numbers but neither will the R3 or the R1 however it would be the best camera in the world for wildlife especially small fast moving birds.

Another advantage to a crop sensor R body would be that you could use metabones EF-RF speed booster to use full frame EF lenses with only a slight crop for when you want wide angle and more light gathering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,565
3,885
The entire world market for non smartphone cameras is fairly small but a worthwhile percentage of this is birding enthusiasts who spend quite a lot on lenses which have much higher profit margins than cameras.
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).
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
297
662
I don't think so. People are given the choice backed up by serious marketing and they take it.
My personal bet for going with APS-C RF would something like attracting more amatures with low price pays off on the long run coz they will end up buying RF lenses, upgrade to FF bodies, etc.
Btw my experience shows that many total beginners, buying their first camera want a dsrl-like body coz it's more "serious", more authentic in being a "real" camera and they think that will help them produce better images. I have no idea even about the concept of changing lenses, but they want a real body. They will never buy an M and if Canon doesn't offer something priced very entry level, they will just choose another brand. It's pure marketing/financial math and has nothing to do with photography technicality (reach or whatever ppl like to say).
Btw there's a reason why 1.3x 1D became FF and there's no 7D since 2014.

APS-C never had anything to do with photography, it was an economical decision (workaround) when FF sensors were still impossible (or at least very expensive) to produce and has all kind of disadvantages from a photography point of view, reach being the only single advantage. That advantage has already degraded considerably due to technological evolution and the introduction of high resolution and high frame rate FF bodies while also cheap FF bodies have arrived.

Canon might decide to squeez in an R7 but it's far from need or wanted.

(Samsung has like ~40 phone models every year while Apple had 1, now 4 or whatever. Samsung probably knows ppl want 40 models while Apple does not know :D )
As has been often mentioned, Canon knows the popularity of the higher-end 7D series and since there has been no successor (either DSLR or mirrorless) we can assume the market is not that large. Of course, the market for a 1 series camera is reportedly not that large either, so it may still happen - certainly niche cameras are being made and sold. What I do know is that after 40 years as an enthusiast (and making an occasional sale) I use my crop cameras far more than my FF one. If I see an animal nearby, I reach for my crop camera, not my FF. If I take pictures of flowers (one of my main subjects) I use my M4/3rds or my new Nikon Z50 (yes, I switched while waiting for Canon to make a APS-C R camera) almost all the time. So reach is not just for birds. It's for flowers, dogs, rabbits, etc. as well. (Go take your FF camera into your neighbors flower garden and then ask yourself it might not be better to get a camera with more reach).

Yes, camera companies started with crop cameras when they went to digital due to the high cost and difficulties making larger sensors. But to say that APS-C never had anything to do with photography is silly. Reach can be a major aspect of someone's photography (as well as the greater DOF). And it is still is an economical decision - for the buyers of cameras. Every time I have looked of late, the best selling cameras on Amazon are almost all crop (last time I checked there were 16 crop cameras (including duplicates in various kits) and 3 FF cameras in the top 50 digital cameras (only 1 FF in the top 10). My guess is that the vast majority of camera sales are still crop. If I'm a colllege student interested in my first real camera - or a parent looking for a real camera to get pics of my kid playing sports, I'm choosing the $400-$600 camera not the $1200 (or much more) camera.

Just to summarize, why an APS-C (or even M4/3rds) camera?

1) More reach for nearly all everyday subjects as well as birds and wildlife. Yes, I could get a high MP FF camera, but...
2) Crop cameras can be had for much cheaper, especially if I want a comparable number of pixels on target.
3) I don't have to crop all the pics that I would have to crop on a FF camera.
4) Since I don't have to crop (as much) I am much more likely to get the composition I want, as I can see my exact composition in the viewfinder and don't have to "estimate" the composition based on the post processing crop.

As someone who has used various camera systems over the years, I have no problem understanding the advantages of FF. So, it seems strange to me that so many FF users can't seem to understand the advantages of a crop camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,802
1,718
[..]Just to summarize, why an APS-C (or even M4/3rds) camera?

1) More reach for nearly all everyday subjects as well as birds and wildlife. Yes, I could get a high MP FF camera, but...
2) Crop cameras can be had for much cheaper, especially if I want a comparable number of pixels on target.
3) I don't have to crop all the pics that I would have to crop on a FF camera.
4) Since I don't have to crop (as much) I am much more likely to get the composition I want, as I can see my exact composition in the viewfinder and don't have to "estimate" the composition based on the post processing crop.[..]
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 :)
 

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
111
52
riker.hu
As has been often mentioned, Canon knows the popularity of the higher-end 7D series and since there has been no successor (either DSLR or mirrorless) we can assume the market is not that large. Of course, the market for a 1 series camera is reportedly not that large either, so it may still happen - certainly niche cameras are being made and sold. What I do know is that after 40 years as an enthusiast (and making an occasional sale) I use my crop cameras far more than my FF one. If I see an animal nearby, I reach for my crop camera, not my FF. If I take pictures of flowers (one of my main subjects) I use my M4/3rds or my new Nikon Z50 (yes, I switched while waiting for Canon to make a APS-C R camera) almost all the time. So reach is not just for birds. It's for flowers, dogs, rabbits, etc. as well. (Go take your FF camera into your neighbors flower garden and then ask yourself it might not be better to get a camera with more reach).

Yes, camera companies started with crop cameras when they went to digital due to the high cost and difficulties making larger sensors. But to say that APS-C never had anything to do with photography is silly. Reach can be a major aspect of someone's photography (as well as the greater DOF). And it is still is an economical decision - for the buyers of cameras. Every time I have looked of late, the best selling cameras on Amazon are almost all crop (last time I checked there were 16 crop cameras (including duplicates in various kits) and 3 FF cameras in the top 50 digital cameras (only 1 FF in the top 10). My guess is that the vast majority of camera sales are still crop. If I'm a colllege student interested in my first real camera - or a parent looking for a real camera to get pics of my kid playing sports, I'm choosing the $400-$600 camera not the $1200 (or much more) camera.

Just to summarize, why an APS-C (or even M4/3rds) camera?

1) More reach for nearly all everyday subjects as well as birds and wildlife. Yes, I could get a high MP FF camera, but...
2) Crop cameras can be had for much cheaper, especially if I want a comparable number of pixels on target.
3) I don't have to crop all the pics that I would have to crop on a FF camera.
4) Since I don't have to crop (as much) I am much more likely to get the composition I want, as I can see my exact composition in the viewfinder and don't have to "estimate" the composition based on the post processing crop.

As someone who has used various camera systems over the years, I have no problem understanding the advantages of FF. So, it seems strange to me that so many FF users can't seem to understand the advantages of a crop camera.
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.
 

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
111
52
riker.hu
I find it bizarre how upset some people get about the idea of any crop sensor R bodies as if it's in some way going to affect them ? If you prefer full frame great and there are plenty of models available so why get your ''knickers in a twist" ?

There are large numbers of amateur bird shooters and many professionals who do this for a hobby (as it's very difficult to earn a living from this).
Many of us don't like using hides or feeding wild birds and the extra reach is always welcome especially if you want to use lenses that are light enough to handhold like my EF100-400ii rather than ridiculously heavy and expensive super telephotos such as the 600mm f/4
The extra reach isn't just about the bird being far away but also about them being extremely small and it's also great for semi macro for bugs , etc : my 7Dii can get amazing magnification with the EF100-400ii and the working distance is much better than any dedicated macro lens.

All digital cameras other than smartphones are a niche market but companies like Canon , Sony , Nikon , Fujifilm etc seem to think it's still worthwhile to develop new cameras.

If Canon brings out an R7 crop sensor camera I guess you can just not buy it and don't get upset that many others such as myself will buy it.

I find it bizarre how upset some people get about the idea of any crop sensor R bodies as if it's in some way going to affect them ? If you prefer full frame great and there are plenty of models available so why get your ''knickers in a twist" ?

There are large numbers of amateur bird shooters and many professionals who do this for a hobby (as it's very difficult to earn a living from this).
Many of us don't like using hides or feeding wild birds and the extra reach is always welcome especially if you want to use lenses that are light enough to handhold like my EF100-400ii rather than ridiculously heavy and expensive super telephotos such as the 600mm f/4
The extra reach isn't just about the bird being far away but also about them being extremely small and it's also great for semi macro for bugs , etc : my 7Dii can get amazing magnification with the EF100-400ii and the working distance is much better than any dedicated macro lens.

All digital cameras other than smartphones are a niche market but companies like Canon , Sony , Nikon , Fujifilm etc seem to think it's still worthwhile to develop new cameras.

If Canon brings out an R7 crop sensor camera I guess you can just not buy it and don't get upset that many others such as myself will buy it.
Why is it so hard to see that Canon's vision for the future, their direction in development, creation of product lines, etc affects everyone?

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. Plus the above positive experience accounts to the new 100-400ii which has great closest focusing distance. You could have not done it with the first generation. In the meantime for nice macro, shallow DoF is can be very important which is much harder to achieve on APS-C.

Sidenote, I missed to mention something very important regarding APS-C - as a system it is pretty crippled since it was created. There's no proper lens selection until today. Of course 100-400ii is heavy and expensive, it was never developed for APS-C. You are carrying a lens which creates FF images, and then you take a cropped body and capture only half of the light, the rest just falls off. Not an ideal investment. To me, the concept of paying for low aperture L lenses (or actually any kind of FF lenses) and then using them on crop bodies (which I did for years) is very frustrating.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
413
494
Orewa , New Zealand
Why is it so hard to see that Canon's vision for the future, their direction in development, creation of product lines, etc affects everyone?

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. Plus the above positive experience accounts to the new 100-400ii which has great closest focusing distance. You could have not done it with the first generation. In the meantime for nice macro, shallow DoF is can be very important which is much harder to achieve on APS-C.

Sidenote, I missed to mention something very important regarding APS-C - as a system it is pretty crippled since it was created. There's no proper lens selection until today. Of course 100-400ii is heavy and expensive, it was never developed for APS-C. You are carrying a lens which creates FF images, and then you take a cropped body and capture only half of the light, the rest just falls off. Not an ideal investment. To me, the concept of paying for low aperture L lenses (or actually any kind of FF lenses) and then using them on crop bodies (which I did for years) is very frustrating.
Well for macro shallow depth of field is one of the biggest problems so crop cameras are an advantage with this.

If you use a FF camera with a telephoto lens and crop it to match the crop factor of an APS-C then what is the advantage ?

If Canon made an aps-c version of say a EF 600 f/4 the size of the lens would be almost identical as the front element would still have to be at least 150mm for f/4 and only the elements at the camera end would be very slightly smaller so you might shave 5-10% off the weight if you're lucky.

My 100-400 ii is plenty light enough for me to handhold for hours and if I was using it with a 5D mark iv camera for example (which is 2 years more recent) I would have to crop the image heavily to wind up with a much lower resolution image and that camera's af system and fps is not as good as my 7Dii
Overall I'm really happy with my EF100-400ii and also my old EF300 f/2.8 and they work really well with my 7Dii

I could spend NZD 7000 on a R5 and it would be an improvement on my old 7Dii but I'd much rather buy a new crop sensor R7 based on the R6 for example and get a much bigger improvement in performance for a lot less money.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
413
494
Orewa , New Zealand
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 :)
The R5 would be an improvement over my 7Dii but a crop sensor version of the R6 with say the 90D's 32.5 mp sensor would be a much bigger improvement at a much lower price point.

A crop sensor version of the R3 would be the best birding camera ever made and even if it cost the same as the R3 I'd buy it.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,565
3,885
Well for macro shallow depth of field is one of the biggest problems so crop cameras are an advantage with this.
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).
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,802
1,718
[..]

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).
For ‘true’ macro I experienced the same thing, but for full body dragon and damselfly shot I find myself wanting more pixels, 32MP APS-C would be great for that specific use case.
For 1:1 or better, using the RP with the MP-E was a revelation, I could suddenly fit a full paper wasp in the frame! The images also felt sharper and more detailed, but that might be placebo effect.