Will there be an APS-C EOS R-series camera?

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
971
564
Colorado, USA
If the crop sensor has greater pixel density, then there is some rationale for “reach.”

Maybe, if you qualified the statement with “all other things being equal”. The problem is that all other things are never equal. Simplifying our statements sometimes turns them into sweeping generalizations that don’t hold. This results in all of the counter examples that appear to refute the original statement.
 

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
555
451
Sure, one could argue that the 1.6x magnified view in the EVF (which I’m assuming happens with crop mode, but I don’t actually know) is a form of ‘more reach’. But if that’s true, that 12 year old girl could push the magnifying glass button and get so much reach she might be injured by bumping up against the wall of that house.
Well this is the killer argument isn't it - if I go to 10x magnification in the EVF, I suddenly have 10 times the 'reach' of a normal FF sensor? And in terms of 'perceived' reach, yes I do! Pixels be damned. But, in practice, 10x mainly tells me how much I miss not having IBIS yet ...
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,142
849
Davidson, NC
Only if you are a moron and consider all pixels, regardless of size, or AA filter, or processor, equal.
Only if you are a moron and consider all pixels, regardless of size, or AA filter, or processor, equal.
So the argument against the statement “there is some rationale” needs an insult. I realize it is hard to argue against such a mealy mouthed statement without escalation.

And BTW, I am the moron who hasn’t used my Rebel since I got my FF camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,142
849
Davidson, NC
Maybe, if you qualified the statement with “all other things being equal”. The problem is that all other things are never equal. Simplifying our statements sometimes turns them into sweeping generalizations that don’t hold. This results in all of the counter examples that appear to refute the original statement.
I agree that all things are never equal. But when I acknowledge that here, I tend to get sent links to scores of pages on “equivalence.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
It doesn’t take a lot to trigger posting links to 75 pages on “equivalence.”
So the argument against the statement “there is some rationale” needs an insult. I realize it is hard to argue against such a mealy mouthed statement without escalation.

And BTW, I am the moron who hasn’t used my Rebel since I got my FF camera.
Hmm, so your mealy mouthed comments are OK but other peoples aren't?

And BTW, I never called you a moron, I said anybody that "considers all pixels are equal, regardless of size, or AA filter, or processor, is a moron."
 

old-pr-pix

EOS RP
Dec 26, 2011
439
75
Since the purpose of an AA filter is to blur an image slightly, it certainly makes a difference. It’s not just presence or absence, they come in different strengths. The R3 has a lower strength AA filter, which is the basis for Canon‘s statement that its 24MP sensor delivers better resolution then the 30 MP sensor in the 5DIV.
IMO a lower strength AA filter in the R3 is a move in the right direction for Canon. For some reason, Canon has seemed reluctant to eliminate or reduce the strength of their AA filters. Many people complained that the 7 series suffered from too strong an AA filter which limited apparent sharpness. Some even complained it was 'soft.' Ironically Canon didn't even remove the AA filter in its 5DsR, it just added another filter to undo the AA effect. I have no sales figures, but it seems from comments on this forum and others that the 5DsR is more popular than the 5Ds and I assume that is at least in part because users favor more apparent sharpness over reduced chance of moire even at a higher cost. Other manufacturers have removed AA filters from various models, why is Canon so reluctant to let go? (I know, based on sales success we must conclude they know what they are doing!)
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,142
849
Davidson, NC
Hmm, so your mealy mouthed comments are OK but other peoples aren't?

And BTW, I never called you a moron, I said anybody that "considers all pixels are equal, regardless of size, or AA filter, or processor, is a moron."
I didn’t mean to imply that you called me personally a moron. But you did use that language as a comeback to a statement that something was arguable. I certainly didn’t take personal offense. After all, I’m not somebody who puts a lot of stock in “reach” by cropping, though I realize that the 7D2 folks had a practical point.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,666
11,602
Hmm, so your mealy mouthed comments are OK but other peoples aren't?

And BTW, I never called you a moron, I said anybody that "considers all pixels are equal, regardless of size, or AA filter, or processor, is a moron."
All pixels are equal but some pigsels are more equal than others. Apologies to George Orwell.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: SteveC and stevelee

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Other manufacturers have removed AA filters from various models, why is Canon so reluctant to let go? (I know, based on sales success we must conclude they know what they are doing!)
Well if you can achieve 75 pages of posts regarding the subject of eqvivalence you’d probably reach 150 on AA filters. Personally I think Canon have stuck with them because it’s the right thing to do. ;)
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,305
3,839
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Well if you can achieve 75 pages of posts regarding the subject of eqvivalence you’d probably reach 150 on AA filters. Personally I think Canon have stuck with them because it’s the right thing to do. ;)
Sadly, I am afraid we will be in for a year or more of redundant and pointless discussions of equivalence, reach, AA filters and other trivia with forum participants confidently mansplaining how they are right and everyone else, including Canon, is wrong. I think we've reached the end of the road for major new camera and lens announcements that will capture the imaginations and whet the desires of people on this forum for the foreseeable future.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
74
45
Thank you for clarifying. Cropping FF in camera to APS-C gives identical results to cropping FF post capture to APS-C. And a Canon site saying switching to crop increases reach is just marketing BS. It does other worthwhile things, like reducing file size, but increasing reach it doesn't do, and saying that is not being pedantic - it's dispelling another myth that takes in the unwary.

Hi Alan, I think the Canon site explains it well, with some qualifiers:

EOS R5: Larger resolution even in 1.6x crop mode

The 1.6x crop mode on both cameras uses part of the image sensor to achieve 1.6x more reach on any given lens (equivalent to the angle of view on an APS-C camera). The megapixel difference also affects the size of files shot in this mode.
On the EOS R6, these files are around 7.7 megapixels, which is sufficient for A4 printing and online publication.
On the EOS R5, these files are around 17.3 megapixels—still sufficient for an A3 print.


APSC extended reach is not perceived, and it's not marketing BS either, it's very real, let me explain! :)

I shoot a lot of macro and the 'reach' is really obvious when using the same lens at a fixed distance on both a crop and full frame sensor camera body that have similar megapixel counts (24-26 MP respectively). Macro photographers care a lot about real reach because we need to maintain a certain distance from subjects (since most insects scare easily), while needing as many pixels as possible on the subject for maximum detail.

Say I've set up my tripod with crop body and full-frame EF 100mm macro lens, and I'm focussing on a bug that's 23mm long. At the ideal distance, it will totally cover the full width of the APSC sensor which is 23.6 x 15.8mm, and I'll get 24 megapixels on the subject when I take the photo.

Now, leaving the tripod where it is, I swap out the camera body for a full frame, where the sensor is 36 x 23.9mm. With the same lens at the same distance from the subject, nothing changes, it will still produce a 1:1 likeness as project an image of the 23mm bug across 23mm of sensor. The catch is, the 26MP sensor is now 36mm wide, or around 1.5x wider, so were projecting the same identical image onto a much area, covering less pixels on the sensor with the same image.

A full frame sensor has a surface area of 8.6cm2 vs 3.73cm2 on an APSC sensor.

If I take this photo on the full frame, the bug will be much smaller in the photo because I've just put the same image on a bigger canvas so to speak, I can't just crop it, because if I do that, it will reduce the 26MP photo to around 10MP, which is only 38% of its original size. This is nowhere near the size of the 24MP image taken on the crop body, where the subject fills the width of the sensor.

THE QUALIFIER - it makes sense to say that a crop body gives more reach than a full frame body when the two sensors have a similar number of megapixels. On the canon ecosystem, with the same camera position and same lens, a crop body can get 1.6x more pixels covered by the same subject compared to a full frame sensor. Alternatively, a full frame camera will either need a lens with x1.6 focal length, or move much closer to the subject to produce the same image, covering the same amount of pixels.

The problem with Canon's marketing statement, like most marketing statements, is that it was written by someone in a marketing deportment, the source of all half-truths in the world. The concept of reach can't be expressed without context, it needs to be specified in respect to some other comparison, something like this:

EOS R5: Larger resolution even in 1.6x crop mode (amended, changes in bold)

The 1.6x crop mode on both the R5 camera cameras uses part of the image sensor to achieve 1.6x more reach on any given lens (equivalent to the angle of view on an APS-C camera) relative to the R6. The megapixel difference also affects the size of files shot in this mode.
On the EOS R6, these files are around 7.7 megapixels, which is sufficient for A4 printing and online publication.
On the EOS R5, these files are around 17.3 megapixels—still sufficient for an A3 print.

There, I fixed it! :cool:

The R6 should not have been included in this, as it only gives more 'reach' in crop mode relative to a 8MP full frame sensor camera, which would be the 1D Mark II at 8mp from way back in 2004... That, I would call BS, and agree with you wholeheartedly on that point!
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
74
45
Sadly, I am afraid we will be in for a year or more of redundant and pointless discussions of equivalence, reach, AA filters and other trivia with forum participants confidently mansplaining how they are right and everyone else, including Canon, is wrong. I think we've reached the end of the road for major new camera and lens announcements that will capture the imaginations and whet the desires of people on this forum for the foreseeable future.
Well, that's to be expected when people spend more time fussing over the technical minutiae of their gear rather than going out and using it. The concept of 'adequacy', which refers to how most camera gear in the mid-range level up is more than adequate for most people, is anathema for those who just more features and better specs on their tech gadgets, but hey, that mindset drives the whole Apple market. In a consumerist society, people buy tools they don't need but want, and forums give them a social outlet and an arena to exchange ideas, which is more of an intellectual thing. For me, camera gear is primarily a tool for a task, secondly something that's technically interesting, but for others, it's different, so whatever floats your boat!

From a more positive perspective, the discussions could be worse, think of a forum that begins with DP, you can guess the rest!:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,767
4,146
Hi Alan, I think the Canon site explains it well, with some qualifiers:

EOS R5: Larger resolution even in 1.6x crop mode

The 1.6x crop mode on both cameras uses part of the image sensor to achieve 1.6x more reach on any given lens (equivalent to the angle of view on an APS-C camera). The megapixel difference also affects the size of files shot in this mode.
On the EOS R6, these files are around 7.7 megapixels, which is sufficient for A4 printing and online publication.
On the EOS R5, these files are around 17.3 megapixels—still sufficient for an A3 print.


APSC extended reach is not perceived, and it's not marketing BS either, it's very real, let me explain! :)

I shoot a lot of macro and the 'reach' is really obvious when using the same lens at a fixed distance on both a crop and full frame sensor camera body that have similar megapixel counts (24-26 MP respectively). Macro photographers care a lot about real reach because we need to maintain a certain distance from subjects (since most insects scare easily), while needing as many pixels as possible on the subject for maximum detail.

Say I've set up my tripod with crop body and full-frame EF 100mm macro lens, and I'm focussing on a bug that's 23mm long. At the ideal distance, it will totally cover the full width of the APSC sensor which is 23.6 x 15.8mm, and I'll get 24 megapixels on the subject when I take the photo.

Now, leaving the tripod where it is, I swap out the camera body for a full frame, where the sensor is 36 x 23.9mm. With the same lens at the same distance from the subject, nothing changes, it will still produce a 1:1 likeness as project an image of the 23mm bug across 23mm of sensor. The catch is, the 26MP sensor is now 36mm wide, or around 1.5x wider, so were projecting the same identical image onto a much area, covering less pixels on the sensor with the same image.

A full frame sensor has a surface area of 8.6cm2 vs 3.73cm2 on an APSC sensor.

If I take this photo on the full frame, the bug will be much smaller in the photo because I've just put the same image on a bigger canvas so to speak, I can't just crop it, because if I do that, it will reduce the 26MP photo to around 10MP, which is only 38% of its original size. This is nowhere near the size of the 24MP image taken on the crop body, where the subject fills the width of the sensor.

THE QUALIFIER - it makes sense to say that a crop body gives more reach than a full frame body when the two sensors have a similar number of megapixels. On the canon ecosystem, with the same camera position and same lens, a crop body can get 1.6x more pixels covered by the same subject compared to a full frame sensor. Alternatively, a full frame camera will either need a lens with x1.6 focal length, or move much closer to the subject to produce the same image, covering the same amount of pixels.

The problem with Canon's marketing statement, like most marketing statements, is that it was written by someone in a marketing deportment, the source of all half-truths in the world. The concept of reach can't be expressed without context, it needs to be specified in respect to some other comparison, something like this:

EOS R5: Larger resolution even in 1.6x crop mode (amended, changes in bold)

The 1.6x crop mode on both the R5 camera cameras uses part of the image sensor to achieve 1.6x more reach on any given lens (equivalent to the angle of view on an APS-C camera) relative to the R6. The megapixel difference also affects the size of files shot in this mode.
On the EOS R6, these files are around 7.7 megapixels, which is sufficient for A4 printing and online publication.
On the EOS R5, these files are around 17.3 megapixels—still sufficient for an A3 print.


There, I fixed it! :cool:

The R6 should not have been included in this, as it only gives more 'reach' in crop mode relative to a 8MP full frame sensor camera, which would be the 1D Mark II at 8mp from way back in 2004... That, I would call BS, and agree with you wholeheartedly on that point!
While your qualifiers make it clear you understand the issue, I can’t help but think that if smaller sensors have more reach we should all be shooting like this:

37EC573C-9517-4D23-A015-5B4134D30898.jpeg
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
74
45
Your image isn't showing unfortunately! :(

There's a price for more reach, and without going into details, that comes at the expense of image quality! A crop sensor is never going to be the same as a full frame one.

In engineering everything is a compromise, there's always a trade-off, it's really a matter of picking the right tool for the job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
74
45
Can see your image now, was guessing it was going to be a smartphone.

There are smartphone mounting frames which hold the phone and lens, but also add a bluetooth activated shutter button that's situated on the top right-hand corner, to there's no need for screen touch shutter... :rolleyes:

Be careful, you might upset the iPhone snapshot crowd who are convinced that their smartphones will outdo a DSLR hands-down because of some shoddy YouTube video they watched! :oops: