Canon R7 rumors - APS-C?

mcoren wrote in post #19207893
Yes crop-specific RF lenses will be RF lenses. But it makes sense for Canon to call them RF-S as a marketing designation to avoid the confusion of having some "RF" lenses that cover a full frame sensor and some that do not.

No, they could very well do what all the 3rd party companies do, add a designation to the lens. RF is the mount type, RFS would indicate a new mount type just like EFS did. So like Sigma's DC, Canon could create a designation as such.

umphotography wrote in post #19207907
Its gonna come down to how they can control the noise. R6 as you know is phenominal. Thats a lot of pixels to cram into a crop sensor at 32.5mb and still keep it clean....for me...the 7D2 sensor is useless for what I do after 5000 ISO..6400 is really pushing it on a 7D2 sensor for most of us..even IF the doubled the performance at got it clean at 12800....thats still 2 stops behind your 51000 iso image that you posted

price and ISO will be the factors

you may be much better off shooting an R5 in crop mode if you get better sensor performance...especial​ly if the price for an R7 exceeds the price of the R6

We have no clue what they will do with the sensor but you can bet they wont transfer a 90D sensor to this body

The R5 in crop mode doesn't give you very much resulting resolution (the equivalent of a decade old crop body). Having a crop R body doesn't mean it has to have the same performance as FF, that has never happened in the past, and won't now. The 90D/M6II sensor is actually quite good, and with that kind of cropped resolution, it would be very easy to process and easily meet the FF equivalent sensors.

It wouldn't be for weddings or such, it would be for sports, wildlife, etc and I think it would be pretty good and easy to work with. A 90D with eye af, 20fps ES, 12fps mech, etc would be a very useful body.

The M50 has a decent sensor, I think the 7D2 might be a bit better however still despite its age.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19207912
No, they could very well do what all the 3rd party companies do, add a designation to the lens. RF is the mount type, RFS would indicate a new mount type just like EFS did. So like Sigma's DC, Canon could create a designation as such.

I don't disagree with that. My reason for suggesting "S" is because it will already be familiar to Canon users, but any designation can work.

You and I obviously have different views of what EF-S means. My only "full frame" body is 30 years old and uses wet chemical sensor technology. I've used exclusively APS-C DSLRs since the 20D. EF-S has always been just a lens designation to me since I could slap on any EF or EF-S lens without giving much thought to the difference on the body side. OTOH, I know you've used full frame and crop bodies concurrently, so that difference on the body becomes significant.

EFS is unique to Canon for two reasons.

1. Canon is the only one that made EFS lenses, both in name and in a different mount than EF.

2. The lenses projected into the mirror box just a bit, and again this is unique to Canon.

However for number two, this was to project a smaller image circle and to lower manufacturing costs. This is not unique to Canon, because third party manufacturers also made lenses that created a smaller image circle, rendering the second point almost moot.

This leaves EFS unique to the other lenses due to its mount type, its designation, and not so much in how it was manufactured to create a smaller image circle. That white dot next to the red dot for mounting a lens became a daily reminder about EFS lenses being so different than EF.

An RFS style lens would not be so easily recognised other than to look for some lettered designation on the lens, just like looking for the letters DC or whatever sigma used for their crop lenses.

Could Canon do this? Sure but I find it really unlikely. Then again Canon became more expensive than Sony for making new lenses and switching systems, and I never expected that either. EFS lenses were known to be very much less expensive than the EF equivalents on a FF, so there is the other reason I don't think Canon will want people to think of EFS by using RFS as a label.... Those lenses won't be cheaper than the other RF lenses.

It shall be interesting to see if either an R7 or new crop only lenses even come out at all though.

umphotography wrote in post #19207907
...especially if the price for an R7 exceeds the price of the R6

Mike, I always appreciate your insights and I'm not picking on your post specifically. But the idea that an R7 will naturally have to be priced comparably to the R6, or at least well north of $2000, seems to be accepted in a lot of online discussions without question.

Well, I'm going to question it.

Where is the precedent for a $2500 APS-C body? I just don't see it in today's market. The most expensive body I see is the Fujifilm X-Pro3 ($1800), but I think the $1700 X-T4 is a better option for 7DII sports/action/wildlife shooters looking to move to mirrorless. My personal "if I bail on Canon" choice is currently between the Sony a6600 ($1400) and a6400 ($900), depending on if I'm willing to pay an extra $500 for IBIS and the bigger battery and grip (there are other differences, but those are the significant ones to me at present).

All three of these bodies check the boxes for many of today's high-end expectations: Magnesium alloy construction, weather/dust resistance, fast AF, face/eye AF, animal eye AF (Sony, not sure about Fuji), 200K (Sony) or 300K (Fuji) shutter rating, 4K video, large image buffer.... On the other hand, one could argue that the Sonys are just a fresh coat of paint on the same a6xxx imaging engine they've been selling since 2016. And all three have only one card slot, which I'm OK with but I know is a non-starter for a lot of folks.

My point is that there aren't any APS-C MILC bodies at or above the $2K price point today, and you can get a whole lot of camera for well under that. But I also know that the R6 is an exceptional performer, and Canon has never been shy about pushing the envelope on price as well as performance. So for now I'll keep waiting to see what Canon does and then evaluate the whole package.

Mike

mcoren wrote in post #19208024
Mike, I always appreciate your insights and I'm not picking on your post specifically. But the idea that an R7 will naturally have to be priced comparably to the R6, or at least well north of $2000, seems to be accepted in a lot of online discussions without question.

Well, I'm going to question it.

Where is the precedent for a $2500 APS-C body? I just don't see it in today's market. The most expensive body I see is the Fujifilm X-Pro3 ($1800), but I think the $1700 X-T4 is a better option for 7DII sports/action/wildlife shooters looking to move to mirrorless. My personal "if I bail on Canon" choice is currently between the Sony a6600 ($1400) and a6400 ($900), depending on if I'm willing to pay an extra $500 for IBIS and the bigger battery and grip (there are other differences, but those are the significant ones to me at present).

All three of these bodies check the boxes for many of today's high-end expectations: Magnesium alloy construction, weather/dust resistance, fast AF, face/eye AF, animal eye AF (Sony, not sure about Fuji), 200K (Sony) or 300K (Fuji) shutter rating, 4K video, large image buffer.... On the other hand, one could argue that the Sonys are just a fresh coat of paint on the same a6xxx imaging engine they've been selling since 2016. And all three have only one card slot, which I'm OK with but I know is a non-starter for a lot of folks.

My point is that there aren't any APS-C MILC bodies at or above the $2K price point today, and you can get a whole lot of camera for well under that. But I also know that the R6 is an exceptional performer, and Canon has never been shy about pushing the envelope on price as well as performance. So for now I'll keep waiting to see what Canon does and then evaluate the whole package.

Mike

I agree with most of what you said. Thats why I said price and ISO performance......I dont see a market for it at $2500+ either. The only people this R7 is going to appeal to is wildlife photographers. If its $2500 i think most would opt for R6 and use reach that they have or step up and buy an R5 and shoot in crop mode for wildlife needs. They can then switch out to full frame and basically have a dual purpose camera for $1300 more......if they price this at $2000....it will it sells like hot cakes

mcoren wrote in post #19208024
So for now I'll keep waiting to see what Canon does...

Well this doesn't bode well: https://www.canonwatch​.com …-eos-r-with-aps-c-sensor/

No indication of how credible the source is, only that it's someone they "dealt with in the past".

That mirrors my sentiment. Sales have dropped so low, I see no real market for either an R mounted body with a crop sensor and then some set of dedicated apsc lenses.

I can see an R1, an R7 seems a bit far fetched, at least at this time.

I wanted my 7D mk II for reach, I never cared about EF-S lenses myself. The arguments in the Canonwatch page don’t address any concerns I would have liked. RP may be cheap but the pixel density is not there, the F11 lenses are of no interest to me and if I wanted to use an M body they don’t work on them. The 90D may have a decent sensor but a lot of people were complaining about the autofocus not working well unless you used live view. Look at the size of the 7D mark II thread here and you see what was popular, sales probably tailed off when the competition made a better camera and Canon didn’t respond with a proper replacement.

Canon made a mistake in my opinion when they used a smaller mount for the M series cameras, Nikon got it right with the Z50 using the same mount as their full frame bodies.

Most of the birds I shoot are done with the 90D now, the AF is not as good as my 7DII or 5DIV but the cropability is there and since I normally am below 4,000 iso the noise is easy to deal with. I only use my 7DII for shooting birds on my feeders in the side yard about 12 feet away. The 5DIV when the light is really bad and for all my other shooting. My Concern with the R5 in crop mode is it becomes 17 or 20 mp (17 I think) and that makes it tough to crop it as tight as I can with my 90D which has an equivalent 83mp if it were a FF

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19208261
Most of the birds I shoot are done with the 90D now, the AF is not as good as my 7DII or 5DIV but the cropability is there and since I normally am below 4,000 iso the noise is easy to deal with.

The 90D should have had better autofocus than the 7D mkII and not worse, I switched to Nikon and the D500 has better autofocus with better coverage than the 7D mk II, Canon should have been trying to one up Nikon with their last APS-C DSLR. The D500 is probably the end of the APS-C line for Nikon but it is awesome. Pentax is still planning to release an APS-C DSLR that will be their equivalent to the 7D MkII or D500 but you don’t have as good of a lens selection, I don’t think Sigma and Tamron make any lenses for them.

Canonuser123 wrote in post #19208276
The 90D should have had better autofocus than the 7D mkII and not worse, I switched to Nikon and the D500 has better autofocus with better coverage than the 7D mk II, Canon should have been trying to one up Nikon with their last APS-C DSLR. The D500 is probably the end of the APS-C line for Nikon but it is awesome. Pentax is still planning to release an APS-C DSLR that will be their equivalent to the 7D MkII or D500 but you don’t have as good of a lens selection, I don’t think Sigma and Tamron make any lenses for them.

the 90D AF is fine, except for the fact that you cannot customize two back buttons to different AF points, you have to change the AF method with the AF button on the back and then the button on by the shutter button to switch, it is just slower and hard to do with BIF on the fly

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19208471
the 90D AF is fine, except for the fact that you cannot customize two back buttons to different AF points, you have to change the AF method with the AF button on the back and then the button on by the shutter button to switch, it is just slower and hard to do with BIF on the fly

I read the 90D thread when the camera was released, there were complaints about the autofocus through the optical viewfinder not being very good, case in point read post number 200 in that thread by Mfingar. https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=15099​35&page=14


There were people who were using LV and getting great results but that is not how I like to shoot.

Canonuser123 wrote in post #19208496
I read the 90D thread when the camera was released, there were complaints about the autofocus through the optical viewfinder not being very good, case in point read post number 200 in that thread by Mfingar. https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=15099​35&page=14

There were people who were using LV and getting great results but that is not how I like to shoot.

When I can I will try some LV shots, but for BIF I find LV with a 150-600 or even my 100-400 tough, holding the camera away from me and having to pull my glasses down to focus as I am very nearsighted, it just doesn't work...

mostly I have been correcting the focus in post.

umphotography wrote in post #19207907
Its gonna come down to how they can control the noise. R6 as you know is phenominal. Thats a lot of pixels to cram into a crop sensor at 32.5mb and still keep it clean....

The 90D sensor has no special problem with noise, as far as I can see. It has one of lowest levels of read noise per unit of sensor area across all current APS-C and FF sensors, bested only by a couple of cameras like the Nikon D5 and the Sony A6600, and the character is fine and random like many current sensors. It may seem noisier than it is because the smaller pixels result in higher magnification of sensor area in 100% pixel views, and also because the compromises between desired sharpening and noise reduction create a look that people don't like in 100% pixel views with OOC JPEGs or default RAW converter output.

Also, people tend to grab a smaller sensor with smaller pixels when the subject is small and/or distant, which in itself is the foundation of lower-quality results with any given lens.

The 90D at ISO 25,600 appears to have slightly less noise than the R6 at ISO 102K at the pixel level, which becomes a fair base of comparison for the 90D with a bare lens, and the R6 with a 2xIII TC, as they give the same quantity of "pixels on subject", or what some people call "reach".

Here's the 90D vs three ~20MP FF cameras with 1/4 the pixel density, with the ISOs you would use with the different sensors for the same pixels-on-subject with the same shutter speed, lens, and distance with a 2x TC. You can swap between incandescent and "daylight", and move around the image. The features in the image are larger for the 90D because it wasn't shot from 2x as far away; just 1.6x, so you should probably ignore the fact that the 90D has more resolution and things are bigger, and concentrate on the noise on-screen and edge quality, as they are all 100% pixel views in "Full" mode.

https://www.dpreview.c​om …96&y=-0.06973479525355954

The 90D sensor is the best existing candidate, IMO. Of course, there could be something better in the works, but I certainly hope it is something with significantly more pixel density than the R5, otherwise, what's the point for someone who already owns the R5, if the R5 does crop mode, when you don't want to waste pixels, battery, storage space, and heat on the entire FF sensor?

As an owner of both the R5 and the 90D, I can tell you that my experience is that crop mode on the R5 is not only less resolute, but noisier at high ISOs as well. You need to fill the frame of the R5 to get less noise at high ISOs, and that requires a different lens or perspective (and shallower DOF). The only reason I use my R5 instead of the 90D for most small/distant bird photography is the AF ability which is much better on the R5 in many situations. If all my subjects were still and allowed time to focus, I would be using the 90D, except when FF generically gives more of what I need, like shallower DOF, or I can fill the R5 frame and use all 45MP.

Pixel density is better than teleconverters in some ways, such as no extra TC aberrations, and system AF that works better with less or zero TCs in the stack. Even if I were to accept the combined optical aberrations of a 1.4x Kenko Pro 300 DG and the 2xIII (which don't seem to be bad), my R5 and/or lens can't even deal with them; the IS mechanism throws wildly and the camera gives error messages. With the 90D pixel density, I could drop the 1.4x, and use just the 2xIII, which works pretty well with my 400/4DO II. Before I got my R5, I used the 90D and 400/4DO II with the 1.4x most of the time, and the 2x when the subject was especially smaller or more distant, and one-point AF worked for me. I have lost that level of pixels-on-subject with the R5, since I can't compensate with an extra 1.4x.