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

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
Mark B.
Mark B. Forum Pro • Posts: 28,281
Re: what about the R1 ?

Michael Thomas Mitchell wrote:

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


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.

Thev only thing the RP has for it over the 7Dii, other than price, is the FF sensor.  It lags way behind in every other spec that counts where 7Dii users would want it for - frame rate, durability, af speed, buffer size, weather sealing, etc.  There's a very good reason for it to be priced below a high- performance crop body.

And the ability of a full-frame EVF to have a built-in crop mode makes the smaller sensor unnecessary.

Not in the RP it doesn't.

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.

Yes it is all speculation, we so agree on that.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow