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

[AlanF]

I never claimed speaking for everyone. Canon doesn't have to match the 90D's density, exactly because there are customers like you who could live with 20MP.

If Canon did bring out an APS-C, given their past record with the M6II and 90D, I think it is actually quite likely that they would have a 32+ Mpx sensor because they like trumping other companies with higher resolution when they can. They have proved they can get adequately fast data acquisition and transfer with the R5, and the M6II and 90D sensors are pretty good. I am actually doing well enough to my satisfaction with the R5 that has 17 Mpx in crop mode.

 

[unfocused]

Please explain how it gives you more reach in crop mode. It says this also on official Canon sites:

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 https://snapshot.canon-asia.com/india/article/en/eos-r5-vs-eos-r6-5-key-differences-to-note

and I am confused.

I'm not sure what there is to be confused about. Canon and I are both saying that if you prefer the perceived reach of an APS-C sensor camera, Canon's R series has a 1.6 crop mode on all models that will give you the same field of view as an APS-C camera. But, your other responses indicate you already know that, so perhaps you are just being pedantic. If you are wanting to start some sort of debate over our use of the term reach, I'll take a hard pass. If it's good enough for Canon it's good enough for me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon released a 250MP APS-H sensor a year ago, so why not an 80MP FF sensor now? Could be supply problems, but I doubt its demand.

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.

 

[docsmith]

Canon released a 250MP APS-H sensor a year ago, so why not an 80MP FF sensor now? Could be supply problems, but I doubt its demand.

If you believe in rumors....and considering which forum we are on, I am going to say you do....a "high MP" camera is expected in early 2022. But, I'd take that with a grain of salt, not because it is a rumor, but because Canon is having supply chain issues that are delaying production of announced products and likely pushing back the announcement of new products.

 

[AlanF]

I'm not sure what there is to be confused about. Canon and I are both saying that if you prefer the perceived reach of an APS-C sensor camera, Canon's R series has a 1.6 crop mode on all models that will give you the same field of view as an APS-C camera. But, your other responses indicate you already know that, so perhaps you are just being pedantic. If you are wanting to start some sort of debate over our use of the term reach, I'll take a hard pass. If it's good enough for Canon it's good enough for me.

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.

 

[stevelee]

My guess is that making a high performance R camera with 20.2MP * 1.6 ^ 2 = 51.7MP full frame sensor would be easier and more profitable than making an R7 & RF-S lenses, all the more so with the market shrinking long term, and short term parts shortage. Apparently the price difference between APS-C & FF sensors isn't that big either nowadays.

Yield might differ for larger sensors of the same density. That might be the biggest factor.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I expect that Canon has some designs but is taking a wait and see position. If Nikon sells a ton of APS-C large body cameras, Canon can quickly respond. I expect that as the market shrinks, so will the number of different camera models. Since all the development and tooling for M lenses exists, its profitable to continue that line even as camera sales drop.

A totally new model is extremely expensive to roll out. Not only is there camera tooling, but firmware, and a huge cost to provide spare parts, training, and equipment to repair them. A new series of R lenses just runs up the bill even more. Who's to say what might happen once there are enough RF lens models in production, right now, Canon has said they were borrowing lens designers from other divisions to get as many RF lens models developed as possible.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

11 fps isn't that far from 12 fps, either. The R3 maxes out at 12 fps with mechanical shutter.

 

[neuroanatomist]

11 fps isn't that far from 12 fps, either. The R3 maxes out at 12 fps with mechanical shutter.

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.

 

[Antono Refa]

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

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

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.

 

[_AmatuerSnaps_]

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.

Not been looking at cameras recently and just looked at someone's link to the Canon "extra reach" literature.

I agree, that is a shocking piece of marketing bs.

Seriously its just pre-cropping your image and does not increase reach.

Surprised they haven't been pulled by relevant advertising boards for that one.


As for Canon producing a cropped R mount camera? I am not certain they see a future in APS-C cameras.
Their incredibly poor and insulting "update" to the m50 and no update to the m6Mkii, plus the (shocking) 1.6 crop mode nonsense, I do wonder if they feel their future is in FF only.

 

[unfocused]

Canon did not invent the use of the term "reach" to refer to the cropping of an APS-C sensor. It has been in common use for many, many years and there are probably thousands of references to the reach of an APS-C sensor on this forum alone. Everyone understands what it means. It's handy shorthand and no one should be "shocked" by Canon using the phrase.

 

[AlanF]

Canon did not invent the use of the term "reach" to refer to the cropping of an APS-C sensor. It has been in common use for many, many years and there are probably thousands of references to the reach of an APS-C sensor on this forum alone. Everyone understands what it means. It's handy shorthand and no one should be "shocked" by Canon using the phrase.

Now that's a real sweeping statement: "Everyone understands what it means". There is plenty of confusion in forums about crop factor, field of view and reach, and we should be sorting out that confusion, not spreading it.

 

[SteveC]

Now that's a real sweeping statement: "Everyone understands what it means". There is plenty of confusion in forums about crop factor, field of view and reach, and we should be sorting out that confusion, not spreading it.

I agree there's a lot of confusion; I don't think there's necessarily a "standard" definition of the term. There's the one AlanF likes, and the one neuroanatomist likes (which may or may not be the same) but is there an "official" definition of the term? Without one, you can argue endlessly about it and it would be totally fruitless because the other guy defines it differently, and he's arguing from his definition, which (there being no official definition) would be every bit as good as yours.

For one thing, is it more "reach" on the part of Picture A, if, when printed on (say) a 6x4 print, it looks closer in than Picture B does printed on the same size page? That could result from one being APS-C and the other not, or one being cropped before printing and the other not. And note THAT criterion doesn't say anything about pixel density either on the sensor or in the print at that size, much less how many pixels are on the duck.

If it's simply a question of "how many pixels end up on the duck" that's yet another possible definition of "reach."

 

[AlanF]

I agree there's a lot of confusion; I don't think there's necessarily a "standard" definition of the term. There's the one AlanF likes, and the one neuroanatomist likes (which may or may not be the same) but is there an "official" definition of the term? Without one, you can argue endlessly about it and it would be totally fruitless because the other guy defines it differently, and he's arguing from his definition, which (there being no official definition) would be every bit as good as yours.

For one thing, is it more "reach" on the part of Picture A, if, when printed on (say) a 6x4 print, it looks closer in than Picture B does printed on the same size page? That could result from one being APS-C and the other not, or one being cropped before printing and the other not. And note THAT criterion doesn't say anything about pixel density either on the sensor or in the print at that size, much less how many pixels are on the duck.

If it's simply a question of "how many pixels end up on the duck" that's yet another possible definition of "reach."

Here's a nice article that refers to "pixels on a duck". https://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/t...echnology-guide-reaching-for-your-goals-85682 (Advanced technology guide: a camera’s ‘reach’ – photographing distant objects). It briefly discusses crucial. factors such as pixel size.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If it's simply a question of "how many pixels end up on the duck" that's yet another possible definition of "reach."

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

For one thing, is it more "reach" on the part of Picture A, if, when printed on (say) a 6x4 print, it looks closer in than Picture B does printed on the same size page? That could result from one being APS-C and the other not, or one being cropped before printing and the other not. And note THAT criterion doesn't say anything about pixel density either on the sensor or in the print at that size, much less how many pixels are on the duck.

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

 

[unfocused]

Now that's a real sweeping statement: "Everyone understands what it means". There is plenty of confusion in forums about crop factor, field of view and reach, and we should be sorting out that confusion, not spreading it.

Is there really confusion? Or is there just a lot of bored people who like to argue incessantly on forums about trivia. I vote for the latter.

 

[JohnC]

While those examples are accurate I just don’t see another crop sensor coming from Canon, at least outside an m-type line.
Resolution is so high now that running a full frame in crop mode still gets you a lot of pixels. I have great prints at a large size from a 12mp 5D classic. The crop modes available to me on the R5 are already far more than that.

 

[Czardoom]

A STORY

A man took his 12 year old daughter out to take some photographs. They had two cameras, one with what is called a Full-Frame sensor, and the other had what is called a Crop sensor. The stood behind a fence, looking at a house in the distance. The man gave his daughter the Full-Frame camera and had her look through the 300mm lens at the house. "It's still kinda small," she said.

The man put the same lens on the Crop camera. "Here, try this one," he said.

She looked through the camera and said, "Hey. the house looks bigger with this camera! It's like I'm closer; like my arms were reaching farther out in front of me!"

"Yes," said the man, "it's like you have greater reach."

"Oh, I understand," said the 12 year old.

"That's because you are still too young to be stupid," said the man, grinning.

THE END

 

[_AmatuerSnaps_]

Canon did not invent the use of the term "reach" to refer to the cropping of an APS-C sensor. It has been in common use for many, many years and there are probably thousands of references to the reach of an APS-C sensor on this forum alone. Everyone understands what it means. It's handy shorthand and no one should be "shocked" by Canon using the phrase.

Must have missed that.

So Canon used to advertise smaller megapixel sized cropped images as extra reach in their previous cameras?