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

[LogicExtremist]

Getting back to the original topic - will there be an APS-C EOS R-series camera?

Not sure how constructive speculation is without any supporting data.

These are some of the possibilities:

• Canon might be watching the market to decide which way to go further down the track, or
• Canon might have made a decision, but are waiting...

They could be waiting to see how the market responds to new products, such as a budget full-frame, before they:

• Cut certain APSC lines - either EF-M of EF
• Cease making APSC lines altogether?

Obviously, they wouldn't terminate product lines that sell, and lose sales if they don't have products to replace them.

The other possibility is that they may introduce a R-series body with a crop sensor, to cater to:

• The beginner photographer market who buy Rebel series DSLRs, or mirrorless cameras like the M50
• The wildlife photographer market who buy the 7D series

That's assuming that the markets are big enough to support such an investment. They might go with any, all or none of these options.

Or they may do nothing in the short term, but buy their time with minimal investment, the way they did with the introduction of the M50 II.

In the absence of any real data, it's just wait and see situation. Wait for more Canon Rumors leaks people!!!

​

 

[neuroanatomist]

Refer my response: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...the-second-half-of-2022-cr2.40848/post-912545

It's less about the merits of a crop sensor (personally, I use both FF and APS-C), and more about the market for a 'high-end' APS-C camera.

A lot of wildlife shooters do not operate that way. Many are not going to utilize the benefits of the fast transmission capability of the R3, but what they want is as much pixel density as possible, thus they will forego speed in that context for resolution so they can crop further. A good balance would be in the area of 35-40MP on a crop sensor, rendering a pixel density equivalent to cropping a FF sensor from 77 to 104MP respectively, but at a much cheaper price point.

Similarly, It's less about how 'a lot of wildlife shooters operate' and more about how many wildlife shooters there really are. I don't know the answer, but I believe that Canon does. The lack of attention to the 7-series DSLRs is evidence that Canon is not especially motivated to keep the high-end APS-C market happy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have both the 7DII and 90D and do not consider the latter as a replacement for the former. For one excellent reason - the tracking system on the 7DII is much better than that of the 90D - and that is significant to wildlife shooters. Sure, the 90D has other improvements, but the 7DII in tracking is only bettered IMHO by the R3, 5 and 6 bodies.

I explained my logic in this post: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...the-second-half-of-2022-cr2.40848/post-912545 as to why I can see an argument for serious wildlife shooters. I have shot macro predators in the wild and I can personally say that not having to approach closer than necessary is a big advantage.

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with your rationale or your statements. I also do not think the 90D was a 7DII replacement, personally. If the 90D is not a 7DII replacement, then Canon simply abandoned the 7-series. Regardless of the logic regarding what serious wildlife shooters want, given the abandonment of the 7-series it seems plausible that Canon does not feel that market segment is adding to its bottom line.

Many people on this forum treat things as personal, but from Canon's perspective it's just business. They don't care what people want or what gives them a big advantage, they care what will garner profit and ROI for them. History supports them having made the right decisions from a business standpoint.

You can argue logically until your keyboard wears out, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that you're one person. Canon doesn't care about you, or me. They care about aggregate buying habits, and they have ample data on those.

Bottom line, if Canon releases a high-end, APS-C EOS R body then it will be because there's a market for it. That hasn't happened yet, and I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon went to the effort of upgrading the 7D to the 7DII.

Yes, after 5 years. The longest cycle time of any series. And only one update, compared to ≥2 updates to all the other lines. Sort of seems like a grudging effort, and one not worth repeating.

So, I'm not going to make sweeping statements about what will happen. But I will be quite happy to quote you if the product comes to market!

If it comes to market, I'll be happy too. I won't buy one, but it will be good for those who will.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Yes, after 5 years. The longest cycle time of any series. And only one update, compared to ≥2 updates to all the other lines.

Just curious, wasn't there also a significant mid-cycle firmware update?

So now we have a CR2 rumor there will be two APS-C EOS R series bodies next year. Seems Canon has decided there might be a market after all. My speculation is one mostly plastic body at the low end - to replace the $500-$700 Rebels (SL-3, T7 w/kit lens) and maybe some of the M series. The other body potentially being a high end unit with solid weather sealing, durable chassis and enough resolution to match or exceed similar cropped area on R5. Pricing should be around the R6 or so.

Canon has the market numbers and we don't, but I'm still not convinced. There are other great alternatives in the market already, many from Canon. The question I keep asking myself is why would I buy into a whole new lens system on an APS-C chassis? With EF glass the argument was initial cost and having an upgrade path to FF. That was in an era when technology was improving rapidly and body replacement every couple/few years was expected. Now the cost gap has seemingly narrowed and the body replacement cycle has slowed. (I'm in my mid-70's so for me it's likely down to just replacing what wears out - current models are so excellent already!)

 

[koenkooi]

Just curious, wasn't there also a significant mid-cycle firmware update?[..]

Yes, the 7D received a firmware update with big improvements, one of them being that the red channel wouldn't clip as easily as it used to do.

 

[unfocused]

Yes, after 5 years. The longest cycle time of any series. And only one update, compared to ≥2 updates to all the other lines. Sort of seems like a grudging effort, and one not worth repeating...

My recollection is a bit different. As @koenkooi pointed out, there was a mid-term update of the original 7D that many reviewers at the time likened to getting a new camera for free. Part of the long-wait between updates could also be ascribed to the fact that Nikon effectively abandoned it's top of the line crop sensor camera during that interim (although they revived it after the 7DII came out) meaning Canon had no competition in that market.

When the 7DII came out it was widely heralded as a mini-1Dx that had most of the top of the line features packed into it at a bargain price. Canon shortly created a special wi-fi card for the 7DII to enable wireless transfers. I wouldn't characterize the 7DII in any way as a grudging effort.

Whether or not Canon decides it's worth repeating, only time will tell. The market has changed and it may not be needed now, but we shouldn't rewrite history.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So now we have a CR2 rumor there will be two APS-C EOS R series bodies next year. Seems Canon has decided there might be a market after all.

Are you referring to this month's CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2022? Or the 2020 CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2021? Or perhaps the 2018 CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2019? I do believe in unicorns. I do, I do!

 

[old-pr-pix]

Are you referring to this month's CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2022? Or the 2020 CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2021? Or perhaps the 2018 CR2 rumor about an APS-C EOS R camera coming in 2019? I do believe in unicorns. I do, I do!

Good point... note the rest of my comment: "Canon has the market numbers and we don't, but I'm still not convinced."

 

[Michael Clark]

11 fps as a top-line spec isn’t ‘high performance’ when the R5 does 20 fps and the R3 does 30 fps.

R5s. 80 MP, 10 fps (5 fps mechanical). You heard it here first.

Why only 5 fps with mechanical shutter? The bottleneck with the 5Ds was the data processing power of DiG!C 6, not Canon's ability to make a faster mechanical shutter at reasonable cost. The 30 MP 5D Mark IV can do 7 fps with the DiG!C 6+, also likely limited by data rate.

The R3 only does 12 fps with mechanical shutter. To claim that 11 fps *mechanical shutter* is not top line when the top line R3 only does 12 fps is both comical and disingenuous.

 

[Michael Clark]

I think Canon could raise fps if the camera would read just the middle 40% of the sensor.

Hence my comment about supply problems, though there might be more than that to the story. IIRC, Canon press releases did not say Canon would use the sensor in any of its cameras, but rather sell it to 3rd party, e.g. some high res telescope. My point is, it seems to me it would be easier for Canon to make an 80MP full frame sensor, and crop 20MP from the center, than make an R camera with APS C sensor and crop RF lenses.

The way CMOS sensors are read out, it would need to read the full width of each line that crosses that center 39%, so you'd be back to reading 62.5% of the sensor.

 

[Michael Clark]

Here's how an APS-C crop mode on a FF sensor provides more reach in terms of pixels on duck:
View attachment 200370


Here's how an APS-C crop mode on a FF sensor provides more reach in terms of both being printed on 6x4 paper:
View attachment 200371

Except your duck enlarged by 1.6X isn't really that pixelated. It's this (strictly enlarged only, no additional dithering, etc.)

 

[Michael Clark]

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!)

Probably mainly due to the effect it would have on video. For most of the 2010s, almost all of the advances made in the Canon EOS single digit camera lines were in video, not still imaging. Canon, rightly or wrongly (but apparently rightly), reasoned that incrementally improved video performance motivated more potential buyers to upgrade their camera body every renewal cycle than similar levels of improvement in stills resolution would motivate buyers mainly interested in shooting stills.

 

[Michael Clark]

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with your rationale or your statements. I also do not think the 90D was a 7DII replacement, personally. If the 90D is not a 7DII replacement, then Canon simply abandoned the 7-series. Regardless of the logic regarding what serious wildlife shooters want, given the abandonment of the 7-series it seems plausible that Canon does not feel that market segment is adding to its bottom line.

Many people on this forum treat things as personal, but from Canon's perspective it's just business. They don't care what people want or what gives them a big advantage, they care what will garner profit and ROI for them. History supports them having made the right decisions from a business standpoint.

You can argue logically until your keyboard wears out, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that you're one person. Canon doesn't care about you, or me. They care about aggregate buying habits, and they have ample data on those.

Bottom line, if Canon releases a high-end, APS-C EOS R body then it will be because there's a market for it. That hasn't happened yet, and I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

I think there are other considerations beside just whether there is a large enough market for it or not.

In the end Canon also considers how much introducing another 7-series camera would cannibalize higher tier products and how that affects net profitability.

If selling 1.0x number of 7-series camera at a profit of 1.0y per camera (including development, R&D, distribution costs, etc. amortized on a per camera basis) means they'll sell 0.3x fewer 1-series cameras at a profit of 4.2y per camera, then it's obvious at the end of the year Canon will sell fewer cameras but make more profit by not offering the 7-series body. On the other hand, if Canon can sell 1.0x number of 7-series cameras at a profit of 1.0y per camera and it only costs them sales of 0.2x 1-series cameras at a profit of only 2.8y per camera, then Canon will generate more total profit by introducing a 7-series body

 

[Michael Clark]

Just curious, wasn't there also a significant mid-cycle firmware update?

So now we have a CR2 rumor there will be two APS-C EOS R series bodies next year. Seems Canon has decided there might be a market after all. My speculation is one mostly plastic body at the low end - to replace the $500-$700 Rebels (SL-3, T7 w/kit lens) and maybe some of the M series. The other body potentially being a high end unit with solid weather sealing, durable chassis and enough resolution to match or exceed similar cropped area on R5. Pricing should be around the R6 or so.

Canon has the market numbers and we don't, but I'm still not convinced. There are other great alternatives in the market already, many from Canon. The question I keep asking myself is why would I buy into a whole new lens system on an APS-C chassis? With EF glass the argument was initial cost and having an upgrade path to FF. That was in an era when technology was improving rapidly and body replacement every couple/few years was expected. Now the cost gap has seemingly narrowed and the body replacement cycle has slowed. (I'm in my mid-70's so for me it's likely down to just replacing what wears out - current models are so excellent already!)

Yes, the 2012 firmware update for the 7D was more significant in terms of buffer depth and maximum sustained fps over more than about three seconds than the improvements were between the 1D Mark II (2004 Q1) and 1D Mark IIn (2005 Q3).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why only 5 fps with mechanical shutter? The bottleneck with the 5Ds was the data processing power of DiG!C 6, not Canon's ability to make a faster mechanical shutter at reasonable cost. The 30 MP 5D Mark IV can do 7 fps with the DiG!C 6+, also likely limited by data rate.

5 fps because Canon.

The R3 only does 12 fps with mechanical shutter. To claim that 11 fps *mechanical shutter* is not top line when the top line R3 only does 12 fps is both comical and disingenuous.

Do you know what a top-line spec is?



The R3 is a 30 fps camera. The R5’s data throughput is 45 MP at 20 fps with electronic shutter, which equates to 80 MP at 11 fps with electronic shutter.

You’re the one who brought the mechanical shutter strawman to the discussion. Knocking down your own strawman is what’s both comical and disingenuous.

 

[Michael Clark]

5 fps because Canon.


Do you know what a top-line spec is?

View attachment 200561

The R3 is a 30 fps camera. The R5’s data throughput is 45 MP at 20 fps with electronic shutter, which equates to 80 MP at 11 fps with electronic shutter.

You’re the one who brought the mechanical shutter strawman to the discussion. Knocking down your own strawman is what’s both comical and disingenuous.

Again, the R3 is a 30 fps with electronic shutter. (Electronic shutter does still have a few [admittedly minimized compared to previous bodies] downsides. Otherwise Canon could just forgo a mechanical shutter assembly altogether.)

The R3 is 12 fps with mechanical shutter. No straw man here. That's what the camera can do with the mechanical shutter.

Further, the R5 only reaches 20 fps at 45 MP by limiting raw files to 12-bit, does it not?

Finally, you're the one who actually brought mechanical shutter into the discussion when you said, "The R5 does 20 fps at 45 MP, at 80 MP that would be 11 fps - that’s barely better than the seven year old 7DII. That's one 'why not'."

Oh, and just one more thing...

... You also make a pretty good argument for why Canon might want to introduce a higher pixel density, fast handling APS-C body to the RF mount lineup. Why would you do that when you constantly refer to such a possibility as "unicorns"?

At 50 MP, 5Ds/R delivered 20 MP at APS-C crop. But at 5 fps, it wasn’t ‘high performance’ enough. The R5 does 20 fps at 45 MP, at 80 MP that would be 11 fps - that’s barely better than the seven year old 7DII. That's one 'why not'.

I do think we'll see an R5s-type camera – high MP, lower fps. I don't think we'll see an 80 MP body with 20-30 fps for a long time.

Incidentally, despite that 250 MP APS-H sensor being announced in 2015, having a prototype shown in 2017 and being ‘released’ in late 2020, nearly a year later it doesn’t seem to be available in any actual products, and if you want more info than the press release you can contact Canon for the “preliminary brochure”. So there’s really no evidence that think is being made, much less ‘at scale’. But then, it may be unlikely we’d see such evidence anyway.

 

[mkabi]

You know what - as much as I would love an R7 with R5 specs but cheaper and with APS-C.... will it happen???

I'm kinda siding with Neuro on this one.... Canon is a very conservative company.... for every reason Neuro gave plus its going to eat into C70 territory. At which point.... you will have to ask... how much of a watered down version can it be and will it be worth the price given that there is a $800 FF version with the same specs.

I would like to add... I could be completely wrong about everything and R7 can meet everyone's expectations and more. Sh!t I aint clairvoyant.

 

[docsmith]

Yep. I can see a lot of disappointment sometime in 2022. What everyone wants is a killer R7. I suspect what we will get is an entry level body priced below the RP replacement (taking CR3 at full value here).

So, we can get a crop sensor camera....just doesn't mean we get the crop sensor camera many on the forum are clamoring for.

 

[Joules]

The way CMOS sensors are read out, it would need to read the full width of each line that crosses that center 39%, so you'd be back to reading 62.5% of the sensor.

I wonder if this is necessarily true. The Canon M6 II so far is the only Canon body to feature a crop mode with increased FPS. You can either shoot 14 FPS 32.5 MP or 30 FPS 18 MP cropped to the image center.

Those two modes have basically identical throughput, as the bit depth also drops with the crop mode. The throughput is 60 % of what they R5 archives at 45 MP 20 FPS.

So if they achieve that speedup in the crop mode by actually reading the full width and just skipping some rows at the top and bottom, that implies the M6 II actually manages 91 % of the R5's throughput internally and its uncropped 14 FPS mode could be much faster if Canon allowed it.

(9/16) / (2/3) * (32.5 MP * 30 FPS) / (45 MP * 20 FPS) ~ 0.91

If instead they actually read just the cropped section and therefore reduce the number of required read operations, that at least explains nicely why the uncropped 14 FPS mode and cropped 30 FPS mode line up so nicely in throughput, and why the numbers are what they are.