Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Michael Thomas Mitchell Forum Pro • Posts: 12,158
Re: what about the R1 ?
1

Mark B. wrote:

Michael Thomas Mitchell wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

By the same ‘logic’ we might conclude that there’s no place now for an R1

Peter

Not at all. Sensor size was not the only difference between the 1D-series and the 7D-series.

The point is that, from a marketing perspective, there's really no need for a fast APS-C R3-type body. If an R3 might retail at a price point higher than an R5, it would probably be in the $4K-4.5K range. A theoretical R-series successor to the 7DII would need to be in the $2.5K range. (The original price for the 7DII was about $2K, and the R-series cameras seem to debut roughly 25% higher than their DSLR predecessors.) It is unrealistic to expect what would essentially be an APS-C version of an R3 to cost up to $2K less, especially when the entry-level full-frame RP has retails for under $1K.

At the moment, Canon has two wholly distinct product lines: an APS-C M-series and a full-frame R-series.

  • RP 1000 Entry
  • R 1800 Standard
  • R6 2600 Enthusiast
  • R5 3800 Professional high-resolution standard
  • R3 4500 Professional fast (actual price unknown)
  • R1 ???? Flagship (unknown but presumed)

While the R3 is built for speed, it likely won't have features I would expect in an R1 such as a global shutter and quad-pixel AF. An R1 will likely also feature a new large battery system. The question for the R3 is whether or not the "1D-inspired" body would also include the same large battery system. I would expect an R1 to cost well beyond 1DX-series prices.

I leave some question as to whether and/or how the R and RP models might ultimately shake out. With the RP, Canon was clearly showing a desire to have an entry-level full-frame R-series body. The specs on the RP are, accordingly, underwhelming for any enthusiast, much less professional; it's basically an R-series Rebel. The original R now seems only there to fill a price point, like an advanced Rebel. The R6 is a solid entry for enthusiasts, while the R5 and R3 are clearly aimed at the same pro-oriented crowd as the 5DIV and 7DII, albeit the latter now with a full-frame sensor; basically, affordable tools for the professional. Then, of course, the R1 as the ultimate flagship camera featuring the most advanced tech at a premium price.

Note that this line can still accommodate an ultra-high resolution body in the same spirit as the 5Ds/r. (And could still accommodate such even with a rumored medium format.)

Looking at the lineup, it's clear what DOESN'T belong here: an APS-C body. Here are several reasons why:

  1. A successor to the 7DII would feature speed in a tough body. That's what the R3 seems to offer.

No, the R3 is a FF sensor in a fully gripped body at a cost no doubt 3x or higher. The R3 is a top of the line mirrorless for the pro, or enthusiast with deep pockets. It is in no way, shape, or form a successor to the 7D II.

  1. With EVF, a digital "crop-mode" for extra "reach" is not only possible but far more practical. To the user, there would be virtually no difference.
  2. No APS-C-specific R-series lenses. With the potential for crop-mode, the only advantage to an APS-C sensor body is the potential for smaller lenses. Lenses are not merely a product; they are part of an "eco-system" of products. There's no hint of any such lenses in development. And a theoretical APS-C R-series 7DII successor would be the ONLY body to be able to take advantage of them.

Many users of the 7D II are already using FF lenses for sports/birding. I only use EF-S lenses as a matter of convenience (bundled with the body) or to save a few bucks for wide angle.

I always thought the 7DII was a bargain. It was basically a very fast 5DIII/IV made possible by an APS-C sensor but costing significantly less. Those market conditions simply do not exist any longer. Where APS-C sensor were once necessary for cost and speed, their biggest advantage now is for camera and lens size. The R3 looks more like a smaller brother to a potential R1. Thus, it may not necessarily be a direct successor to the 7DII, but it does essentially replace it.

No, a $6,000+ mirrorless does not "essentially" replace a sub-$2k crop sensor body. I'm neither a pro nor a 2-percenter.

As I said, it is not a direct "successor". And there never was a fast full-frame "D3" model for an R3 to succeed. But it does eliminate the need for one from a technical standpoint.

Your biggest complaint is about price point. We were fortunate with the 7DII, which essentially gave us near-1D capability in a 5D-quality body for far less than the cost of either of those two cameras. That cost was possible ONLY because of the cost disadvantage of full-frame sensors at the time. In a world of the sub-$1K ful-frame RP, that disadvantage has clearly evaporated. And the ability of a full-frame EVF to have a built-in crop mode makes the smaller sensor unnecessary.

In order to have a 7DII replacement in the R system, the body would need to be on par with the R5 yet offer faster operation for a price nearly $1.5K less than the R5 and just a few hundred less more than the standard (!) EOS R. An APS-C sensor could have gotten you that seven years ago. It doesn't today. Economics simply do not make an APS-C ~$2K "R7" viable any longer. But of course, this is all just speculation.

 Michael Thomas Mitchell's gear list:Michael Thomas Mitchell's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 80D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV GoPro Hero7 Black +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow