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

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
IR1234 Senior Member • Posts: 1,889
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...

Distinctly Average wrote:

IR1234 wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

palombian wrote:

It is strange indeed there isn't a 7DII successor after almost 7 years.

Maybe this can be explained by Canon's efforts on getting a leading place in mirrorless again.

It seems inconceivable to me a company with 45% market share would abandon APS-C altogether. The M-system has it's place.

But they are trying hard with half-decent camera's as the 90D and M6II to push wildlife and sport shooters to RF full-frame. I am afraid the R7/M7 will be of the same kind.

OTH the low pixel density indicates the R6 is NOT the 7DII successor, and the R5 is too expensive for the average 7D(II) customer.

I'll wait until August/September.

I don't think it's strange. Look at the market. ILC sales peaked in 2012, and the majority if not all the losses have been in crop/APS-C. What made sense to do back when the first 2 7Ds were released doesn't make sense today. It's a completely different environment, which is why Canon has changed its priorities. Canon didn't push customers to FF RF; customers pushed them.

It does sound like there is demand for a 7D3 successor but if it comes it will 100% be on RF mount, IMO as it should be.

7D3 is already here, it's called the R6.

Everyone is getting totally hung up on the numbers 6 and 7. They think 6 means the 6D/6D2 and 7 means the 7D/7D2.

But what part of the R6 is the 6D2? The R6 has less MP, is much much faster, has dual slot, and has a processor in a different league (resizing second image on the fly for second card) . In fact, the R6 looks exactly what a 7D3 would be - except for the full frame sensor. That is all we are arguing about, whether a mirrorless 7D3 should have a full frame sensor.

The R6 just doesn’t have enough pixels. It is a great camera, sure. However, to get the same number of pixels on subject you need either a bigger lens, be a lot closer or a combo of both. That is what people are arguing about, pixels on subject. An R6 with a 32mp crop sensor would be all it really takes for most of us wildlife togs to be happy. If Canon added a few small tweaks then we would be very happy and throwing our hard earned at them. Currently, if my 7D2 dies, and it is getting close, I would have to go R5 and then would have only 17mp on subject at the same distance.

As I've said earlier, the point of the 600 and 800s was to bring crop reach to a full frame body. So pixel density becomes irrelevant. Full frame gives you a lot more light to play with and the f11 becomes less of a problem.

 IR1234's gear list:IR1234's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 550D +13 more
IR1234 Senior Member • Posts: 1,889
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...
1

MikeJ9116 wrote:

IR1234 wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

palombian wrote:

It is strange indeed there isn't a 7DII successor after almost 7 years.

Maybe this can be explained by Canon's efforts on getting a leading place in mirrorless again.

It seems inconceivable to me a company with 45% market share would abandon APS-C altogether. The M-system has it's place.

But they are trying hard with half-decent camera's as the 90D and M6II to push wildlife and sport shooters to RF full-frame. I am afraid the R7/M7 will be of the same kind.

OTH the low pixel density indicates the R6 is NOT the 7DII successor, and the R5 is too expensive for the average 7D(II) customer.

I'll wait until August/September.

I don't think it's strange. Look at the market. ILC sales peaked in 2012, and the majority if not all the losses have been in crop/APS-C. What made sense to do back when the first 2 7Ds were released doesn't make sense today. It's a completely different environment, which is why Canon has changed its priorities. Canon didn't push customers to FF RF; customers pushed them.

It does sound like there is demand for a 7D3 successor but if it comes it will 100% be on RF mount, IMO as it should be.

7D3 is already here, it's called the R6.

Everyone is getting totally hung up on the numbers 6 and 7. They think 6 means the 6D/6D2 and 7 means the 7D/7D2.

The numbers everyone is, and should be, getting hung up on is sensor resolution and size. The R6 puts 20mp on the target since it is a FF sensor. The hypothetical R7 puts a FF equivalent 80 MEGAPIXELS on the target relative to the R6 when using the same lens. The numbers are undeniable to show the R7 would be a far, far better camera for BIF, sports etc. where long reach and the possibility of heavy cropping is high to get the image framed as desired. The R7 gives the shooter four times the effective megapixels on target than the R6. Saying the R6 is a replacement for a R7 is just not defensible.

But what part of the R6 is the 6D2? The R6 has less MP, is much much faster, has dual slot, and has a processor in a different league (resizing second image on the fly for second card) . In fact, the R6 looks exactly what a 7D3 would be - except for the full frame sensor. That is all we are arguing about, whether a mirrorless 7D3 should have a full frame sensor.

The sensor difference you mention is the sole reason the R7 should exist. Your argument falls on its face with this point alone.

Of course it doesn't fall flat. Why did Canon build the 600 and 800s? They are giving you crop reach on a full frame body and utilizing some of the advantages of mirrorless (eg gain in the viewfinder/rear screen vs dull viewfinder).

So why is pixel density important, when you have 600 or 800mm at full frame? And dear god do not say f11. Everyone who runs both ff and aps-c knows that the exposure on a full frame is 1.5 stops better which mitigates the reduced aperture.

The only reason you guys keep on saying pixel density is because you believe to get the crop you'll have to crop the image and reduce resolution. Whereas Canon are giving you the option of a native lens at full frame.

Is this really that difficult to understand?

 IR1234's gear list:IR1234's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 550D +13 more
gipper51 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,326
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Again the vast majority of APS-C DSLR "users" probably only bought 1 camera kit, which they aren't evne using today. They didn't just reject the M system; they rejected ILCs entirely.

You keep stating something that is literally pulled from thin air. Are you Professor X and are tied into every APS-C user's mind on the planet? What on earth makes you think nearly all APS-C camera owners never touch their cameras?

I'd say it's pretty accurate that most APS-C users don't use their cameras anymore.  This group in question is largely Canon's former cash cow...the non-photo-nerd average Joes and Janes that were buying kit lens rebels a decade ago when phones were still pretty bad.  Because if you wanted decent photos you needed a DSLR at minimum.  These people mostly have those cameras collecting dust in closets today, replaced by their phone.  I have several family members in this group.

Think about it.  Right before the pandemic, go practically anywhere you'd likely see a lot of cameras and it's mostly mobile phones now.  A decade ago, every third bloke wandering around Disneyworld had a cheap DSLR with the 18-55 kit lens slung around their neck. They bought it because it was the only option to take photos that "didn't suck", not because they were photography enthusiasts.  Phones now take photos that don't suck for this sector of the market.  So where does the big, bulky camera end up?  Unused in a closet.

Nowadays a 'real camera' in public is a rare sighting.  You either see the hardcore photo geek carrying the latest and greatest to get 45MP snapshots of their kid with Cinderella, or somebody still toting around their decade old rebel.  Either way you see a far, far fewer cameras now.  Like an order of magnitude fewer.

So yeah, I'd say it's a valid assumption that the vast majority of cheap APS-C cameras sold over the last 10 years are sitting in closets now.

-- hide signature --
 gipper51's gear list:gipper51's gear list
Panasonic LX100 II Canon EOS 5DS Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +18 more
MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,998
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...
1

By your logic, nobody should be using a dedicated camera.  Including FF and P&S models.

MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,998
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...

IR1234 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

IR1234 wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

palombian wrote:

It is strange indeed there isn't a 7DII successor after almost 7 years.

Maybe this can be explained by Canon's efforts on getting a leading place in mirrorless again.

It seems inconceivable to me a company with 45% market share would abandon APS-C altogether. The M-system has it's place.

But they are trying hard with half-decent camera's as the 90D and M6II to push wildlife and sport shooters to RF full-frame. I am afraid the R7/M7 will be of the same kind.

OTH the low pixel density indicates the R6 is NOT the 7DII successor, and the R5 is too expensive for the average 7D(II) customer.

I'll wait until August/September.

I don't think it's strange. Look at the market. ILC sales peaked in 2012, and the majority if not all the losses have been in crop/APS-C. What made sense to do back when the first 2 7Ds were released doesn't make sense today. It's a completely different environment, which is why Canon has changed its priorities. Canon didn't push customers to FF RF; customers pushed them.

It does sound like there is demand for a 7D3 successor but if it comes it will 100% be on RF mount, IMO as it should be.

7D3 is already here, it's called the R6.

Everyone is getting totally hung up on the numbers 6 and 7. They think 6 means the 6D/6D2 and 7 means the 7D/7D2.

The numbers everyone is, and should be, getting hung up on is sensor resolution and size. The R6 puts 20mp on the target since it is a FF sensor. The hypothetical R7 puts a FF equivalent 80 MEGAPIXELS on the target relative to the R6 when using the same lens. The numbers are undeniable to show the R7 would be a far, far better camera for BIF, sports etc. where long reach and the possibility of heavy cropping is high to get the image framed as desired. The R7 gives the shooter four times the effective megapixels on target than the R6. Saying the R6 is a replacement for a R7 is just not defensible.

But what part of the R6 is the 6D2? The R6 has less MP, is much much faster, has dual slot, and has a processor in a different league (resizing second image on the fly for second card) . In fact, the R6 looks exactly what a 7D3 would be - except for the full frame sensor. That is all we are arguing about, whether a mirrorless 7D3 should have a full frame sensor.

The sensor difference you mention is the sole reason the R7 should exist. Your argument falls on its face with this point alone.

Of course it doesn't fall flat. Why did Canon build the 600 and 800s? They are giving you crop reach on a full frame body and utilizing some of the advantages of mirrorless (eg gain in the viewfinder/rear screen vs dull viewfinder).

Do you realize the two lenses you reference are non-starter lenses for professionals and enthusiasts for BIF, sports etc.? The f/11 fixed aperture and slow as a snail STM focus system these lenses are using is not for serious long telephoto shooters. These two lenses are budget lenses that are mostly for people looking to dabble in long telephoto shooting and are not some foretelling of Canon's intent toward their intentions to put out any camera, APS-C or FF.

So why is pixel density important, when you have 600 or 800mm at full frame? And dear god do not say f11. Everyone who runs both ff and aps-c knows that the exposure on a full frame is 1.5 stops better which mitigates the reduced aperture.

The only reason you guys keep on saying pixel density is because you believe to get the crop you'll have to crop the image and reduce resolution. Whereas Canon are giving you the option of a native lens at full frame.

Is this really that difficult to understand?

If you don't understand the concept of what I, and others, have been telling you by now then me explaining it again is a waste of my time.

gipper51 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,326
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...

MikeJ9116 wrote:

By your logic, nobody should be using a dedicated camera. Including FF and P&S models.

I'm not implying any logic, just reporting what's going on out there.  The public at large is not lugging around real cameras anymore.  Camera sales figures back that up.  The cell phone is the camera of choice for masses now.

-- hide signature --
 gipper51's gear list:gipper51's gear list
Panasonic LX100 II Canon EOS 5DS Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +18 more
MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,998
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...
1

gipper51 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

By your logic, nobody should be using a dedicated camera. Including FF and P&S models.

I'm not implying any logic, just reporting what's going on out there. The public at large is not lugging around real cameras anymore. Camera sales figures back that up. The cell phone is the camera of choice for masses now.

By your logic Canon also shouldn't be selling FF or P&S cameras too. I live in one the biggest tourist areas of the USA. I see far more APS-C cameras being toted around than FF cameras. How does this fit with your logic? If people are lugging around real cameras these days most are opting for the APS-C cameras to reduce size, weight and in many cases cost of ownership.

Look at all the people in the forums at DPR that use both APS-C and FF. Both sensor sizes serve a purpose for them. I am one of these people. I have two FF cameras and two APS-C cameras (SL2 and M3). I use the SL2 way more than the other three combined. I am far from an anomaly in this regard. I do this because most situations where I use a camera I would rather carry the smaller SL2 and the EF-S 15-85mm lens. Then add a prime or two as I see fit depending on where I am going. I still take a FF camera on occasion but not very often. I would love to have an RF mount APS-C option to replace the SL2 I use. There are many more people that want this same option too.

Dave
Dave Veteran Member • Posts: 5,915
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...

I was at the zoo on Saturday and estimate I saw about dozen ILCs.  How many would there have been five years ago?  Ten?  Anybody's guess.  But I was happy to have some shooting company.

 Dave's gear list:Dave's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM +10 more
gipper51 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,326
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...

MikeJ9116 wrote:

gipper51 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

By your logic, nobody should be using a dedicated camera. Including FF and P&S models.

I'm not implying any logic, just reporting what's going on out there. The public at large is not lugging around real cameras anymore. Camera sales figures back that up. The cell phone is the camera of choice for masses now.

By your logic Canon also shouldn't be selling FF or P&S cameras too. I live in one the biggest tourist areas of the USA. I see far more APS-C cameras being toted around than FF cameras. How does this fit with your logic? If people are lugging around real cameras these days most are opting for the APS-C cameras to reduce size, weight and in many cases cost of ownership.

Look at all the people in the forums at DPR that use both APS-C and FF. Both sensor sizes serve a purpose for them. I am one of these people. I have two FF cameras and two APS-C cameras (SL2 and M3). I use the SL2 way more than the other three combined. I am far from an anomaly in this regard. I do this because most situations where I use a camera I would rather carry the smaller SL2 and the EF-S 15-85mm lens. Then add a prime or two as I see fit depending on where I am going. I still take a FF camera on occasion but not very often. I would love to have an RF mount APS-C option to replace the SL2 I use. There are many more people that want this same option too.

I was only pointing to the original statements about "most of the APS-C cameras sold are now unused".  This statement is largely true, because we're referring to the MILLIONS of cheap DSLRs that were sold to the public that now sit collecting dust, replaced by the smartphone.  These users were rarely photographers, just regular folks who wanted better pictures than the crappy phones and P&S cameras provided at the time.  This previous cash-cow userbase is largely erased from the camera market now.

You're talking about a different group.  That group is the 'dedicated enthusiasts' who still prefer to use real cameras.  You and I are among them.  And yes, in that group APS-C still holds a strong market share.  I'm a FF and APS-C shooter, also one who is interested in the rumored R7.  I like APS-C for all the reasons everyone else does.  You don't have to convince me of the format's viability.  I'm also toying with adding a m43 system for lighter weight and portability.

My previous statement about 'latest and greatest for Cinderella snapshots' was a bit of hyperbole.  But it still stands that, for the most part, only the dedicated photography crowd are carrying real cameras now; pick your format.

-- hide signature --
 gipper51's gear list:gipper51's gear list
Panasonic LX100 II Canon EOS 5DS Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM +18 more
Distinctly Average Senior Member • Posts: 1,206
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...
1

IR1234 wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

IR1234 wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

palombian wrote:

It is strange indeed there isn't a 7DII successor after almost 7 years.

Maybe this can be explained by Canon's efforts on getting a leading place in mirrorless again.

It seems inconceivable to me a company with 45% market share would abandon APS-C altogether. The M-system has it's place.

But they are trying hard with half-decent camera's as the 90D and M6II to push wildlife and sport shooters to RF full-frame. I am afraid the R7/M7 will be of the same kind.

OTH the low pixel density indicates the R6 is NOT the 7DII successor, and the R5 is too expensive for the average 7D(II) customer.

I'll wait until August/September.

I don't think it's strange. Look at the market. ILC sales peaked in 2012, and the majority if not all the losses have been in crop/APS-C. What made sense to do back when the first 2 7Ds were released doesn't make sense today. It's a completely different environment, which is why Canon has changed its priorities. Canon didn't push customers to FF RF; customers pushed them.

It does sound like there is demand for a 7D3 successor but if it comes it will 100% be on RF mount, IMO as it should be.

7D3 is already here, it's called the R6.

Everyone is getting totally hung up on the numbers 6 and 7. They think 6 means the 6D/6D2 and 7 means the 7D/7D2.

But what part of the R6 is the 6D2? The R6 has less MP, is much much faster, has dual slot, and has a processor in a different league (resizing second image on the fly for second card) . In fact, the R6 looks exactly what a 7D3 would be - except for the full frame sensor. That is all we are arguing about, whether a mirrorless 7D3 should have a full frame sensor.

The R6 just doesn’t have enough pixels. It is a great camera, sure. However, to get the same number of pixels on subject you need either a bigger lens, be a lot closer or a combo of both. That is what people are arguing about, pixels on subject. An R6 with a 32mp crop sensor would be all it really takes for most of us wildlife togs to be happy. If Canon added a few small tweaks then we would be very happy and throwing our hard earned at them. Currently, if my 7D2 dies, and it is getting close, I would have to go R5 and then would have only 17mp on subject at the same distance.

As I've said earlier, the point of the 600 and 800s was to bring crop reach to a full frame body. So pixel density becomes irrelevant. Full frame gives you a lot more light to play with and the f11 becomes less of a problem.

They really are not in the same class as even the 100-400 etc. The AF speed is slower, they are not exactly versatile. While they are good lenses, they are not the sort of thing most serious wildlife shooters want.

-- hide signature --
palombian Regular Member • Posts: 498
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...

Distinctly Average wrote:

IR1234 wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

IR1234 wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

palombian wrote:

It is strange indeed there isn't a 7DII successor after almost 7 years.

Maybe this can be explained by Canon's efforts on getting a leading place in mirrorless again.

It seems inconceivable to me a company with 45% market share would abandon APS-C altogether. The M-system has it's place.

But they are trying hard with half-decent camera's as the 90D and M6II to push wildlife and sport shooters to RF full-frame. I am afraid the R7/M7 will be of the same kind.

OTH the low pixel density indicates the R6 is NOT the 7DII successor, and the R5 is too expensive for the average 7D(II) customer.

I'll wait until August/September.

I don't think it's strange. Look at the market. ILC sales peaked in 2012, and the majority if not all the losses have been in crop/APS-C. What made sense to do back when the first 2 7Ds were released doesn't make sense today. It's a completely different environment, which is why Canon has changed its priorities. Canon didn't push customers to FF RF; customers pushed them.

It does sound like there is demand for a 7D3 successor but if it comes it will 100% be on RF mount, IMO as it should be.

7D3 is already here, it's called the R6.

Everyone is getting totally hung up on the numbers 6 and 7. They think 6 means the 6D/6D2 and 7 means the 7D/7D2.

But what part of the R6 is the 6D2? The R6 has less MP, is much much faster, has dual slot, and has a processor in a different league (resizing second image on the fly for second card) . In fact, the R6 looks exactly what a 7D3 would be - except for the full frame sensor. That is all we are arguing about, whether a mirrorless 7D3 should have a full frame sensor.

The R6 just doesn’t have enough pixels. It is a great camera, sure. However, to get the same number of pixels on subject you need either a bigger lens, be a lot closer or a combo of both. That is what people are arguing about, pixels on subject. An R6 with a 32mp crop sensor would be all it really takes for most of us wildlife togs to be happy. If Canon added a few small tweaks then we would be very happy and throwing our hard earned at them. Currently, if my 7D2 dies, and it is getting close, I would have to go R5 and then would have only 17mp on subject at the same distance.

As I've said earlier, the point of the 600 and 800s was to bring crop reach to a full frame body. So pixel density becomes irrelevant. Full frame gives you a lot more light to play with and the f11 becomes less of a problem.

They really are not in the same class as even the 100-400 etc. The AF speed is slower, they are not exactly versatile. While they are good lenses, they are not the sort of thing most serious wildlife shooters want.

The RF600 and 800 f:11 lenses are IMO a very clever move to get people into RF. As far as I can see the quality is very good for the price. It is an answer to one of the main reasons we stick to APS-C: the exponential rise of lens prices with focal length/aperture.

Another indication maybe there won't come APS-C RF bodies (the lenses would probably disappoint on a smaller sensor too).

As a crop shooter we may think Canon is putting the horse behind the cart, but if they can persuade customers FF is not more expensive or cheaper than APS-C for reach their plan succeeds.

Personally I tried to exploit the reach limits (400 DO II + 2xIII on a 32mpx M6II = 1280mm f:8 FF equivalent) and, while decent results are possible with APS-C and high mp sensors, lens and sensor resolution, diffraction, etc are there.

The optimal image quality with about the same crop possibility or pixels per duck is roughly the same for 32mp(M6II) + 400 f:4, 20mp(7DII) + 560 f:5.6 and (assumed) 45mp(R5) + 800 f:8. As long as there are no APS-C bodies with the same AF and speed as the R5/R6 the choice is obvious.

I expect an eventual R7 to be quite expensive too, so the additional layout could make sense.

 palombian's gear list:palombian's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M100 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 +26 more
Distinctly Average Senior Member • Posts: 1,206
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...
1

palombian wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

IR1234 wrote:

Distinctly Average wrote:

IR1234 wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

palombian wrote:

It is strange indeed there isn't a 7DII successor after almost 7 years.

Maybe this can be explained by Canon's efforts on getting a leading place in mirrorless again.

It seems inconceivable to me a company with 45% market share would abandon APS-C altogether. The M-system has it's place.

But they are trying hard with half-decent camera's as the 90D and M6II to push wildlife and sport shooters to RF full-frame. I am afraid the R7/M7 will be of the same kind.

OTH the low pixel density indicates the R6 is NOT the 7DII successor, and the R5 is too expensive for the average 7D(II) customer.

I'll wait until August/September.

I don't think it's strange. Look at the market. ILC sales peaked in 2012, and the majority if not all the losses have been in crop/APS-C. What made sense to do back when the first 2 7Ds were released doesn't make sense today. It's a completely different environment, which is why Canon has changed its priorities. Canon didn't push customers to FF RF; customers pushed them.

It does sound like there is demand for a 7D3 successor but if it comes it will 100% be on RF mount, IMO as it should be.

7D3 is already here, it's called the R6.

Everyone is getting totally hung up on the numbers 6 and 7. They think 6 means the 6D/6D2 and 7 means the 7D/7D2.

But what part of the R6 is the 6D2? The R6 has less MP, is much much faster, has dual slot, and has a processor in a different league (resizing second image on the fly for second card) . In fact, the R6 looks exactly what a 7D3 would be - except for the full frame sensor. That is all we are arguing about, whether a mirrorless 7D3 should have a full frame sensor.

The R6 just doesn’t have enough pixels. It is a great camera, sure. However, to get the same number of pixels on subject you need either a bigger lens, be a lot closer or a combo of both. That is what people are arguing about, pixels on subject. An R6 with a 32mp crop sensor would be all it really takes for most of us wildlife togs to be happy. If Canon added a few small tweaks then we would be very happy and throwing our hard earned at them. Currently, if my 7D2 dies, and it is getting close, I would have to go R5 and then would have only 17mp on subject at the same distance.

As I've said earlier, the point of the 600 and 800s was to bring crop reach to a full frame body. So pixel density becomes irrelevant. Full frame gives you a lot more light to play with and the f11 becomes less of a problem.

They really are not in the same class as even the 100-400 etc. The AF speed is slower, they are not exactly versatile. While they are good lenses, they are not the sort of thing most serious wildlife shooters want.

The RF600 and 800 f:11 lenses are IMO a very clever move to get people into RF. As far as I can see the quality is very good for the price. It is an answer to one of the main reasons we stick to APS-C: the exponential rise of lens prices with focal length/aperture.

Another indication maybe there won't come APS-C RF bodies (the lenses would probably disappoint on a smaller sensor too).

As a crop shooter we may think Canon is putting the horse behind the cart, but if they can persuade customers FF is not more expensive or cheaper than APS-C for reach their plan succeeds.

Personally I tried to exploit the reach limits (400 DO II + 2xIII on a 32mpx M6II = 1280mm f:8 FF equivalent) and, while decent results are possible with APS-C and high mp sensors, lens and sensor resolution, diffraction, etc are there.

The optimal image quality with about the same crop possibility or pixels per duck is roughly the same for 32mp(M6II) + 400 f:4, 20mp(7DII) + 560 f:5.6 and (assumed) 45mp(R5) + 800 f:8. As long as there are no APS-C bodies with the same AF and speed as the R5/R6 the choice is obvious.

I expect an eventual R7 to be quite expensive too, so the additional layout could make sense.

I honestly don’t mind if a potential R7 is expensive, I fully expect it to be.

-- hide signature --
IR1234 Senior Member • Posts: 1,889
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Do you realize the two lenses you reference are non-starter lenses for professionals and enthusiasts for BIF, sports etc.? The f/11 fixed aperture and slow as a snail STM focus system these lenses are using is not for serious long telephoto shooters. These two lenses are budget lenses that are mostly for people looking to dabble in long telephoto shooting and are not some foretelling of Canon's intent toward their intentions to put out any camera, APS-C or FF.

Well, let's look at the evidence we have right now:

Canon sell 2 "non starter lenses" that give crop like reach on a budget.

Canon don't sell an APS-C RF mount camera.

You don't like the 600/800s, but apparently they must be selling well enough for Canon not to bother with an APS-C RF mount camera.

 IR1234's gear list:IR1234's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 550D +13 more
Distinctly Average Senior Member • Posts: 1,206
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...
1

IR1234 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Do you realize the two lenses you reference are non-starter lenses for professionals and enthusiasts for BIF, sports etc.? The f/11 fixed aperture and slow as a snail STM focus system these lenses are using is not for serious long telephoto shooters. These two lenses are budget lenses that are mostly for people looking to dabble in long telephoto shooting and are not some foretelling of Canon's intent toward their intentions to put out any camera, APS-C or FF.

Well, let's look at the evidence we have right now:

Canon sell 2 "non starter lenses" that give crop like reach on a budget.

Canon don't sell an APS-C RF mount camera.

You don't like the 600/800s, but apparently they must be selling well enough for Canon not to bother with an APS-C RF mount camera.

You could look at it another way. Canon are at the very early stages of the RF system. The R was a dip in the water for Canon and has tray been usurped by the R5. We have the R6 and the cheap RP. So currently Canon only really have three bodies with a fourth on the way. They are working very hard to migrate from EF to RF and doing a sterling job on the lens front IMO. So priorities have obviously been taken into account and releases have to be in a good order, especially from a marketing point of view.

None of us know the future of the RF system outside Canon. It looks like this year and next will see a massive push to grow RF to a complete range of bodies and lenses. It is going to be a great time for us photographers and fun seeing what comes next.

-- hide signature --
Mark B.
Mark B. Forum Pro • Posts: 28,463
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...
2

IR1234 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Do you realize the two lenses you reference are non-starter lenses for professionals and enthusiasts for BIF, sports etc.? The f/11 fixed aperture and slow as a snail STM focus system these lenses are using is not for serious long telephoto shooters. These two lenses are budget lenses that are mostly for people looking to dabble in long telephoto shooting and are not some foretelling of Canon's intent toward their intentions to put out any camera, APS-C or FF.

Well, let's look at the evidence we have right now:

Canon sell 2 "non starter lenses" that give crop like reach on a budget.

Canon don't sell an APS-C RF mount camera.

You don't like the 600/800s, but apparently they must be selling well enough for Canon not to bother with an APS-C RF mount camera.

Not this year for sure, but that wasn't a surprise.  And the budget 600/800 lenses could also be seen as entry level/budget lenses for anyone to get into nature or sports photography.

Maybe I don't speak for all APS-C shooters, but I know I'm not keen on buying a FF body AND new lenses to get the same reach.  I already have the lenses, and from what I've read from R shooters using adapters the EF glass works just fine.

MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,998
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...
1

Distinctly Average wrote:

IR1234 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Do you realize the two lenses you reference are non-starter lenses for professionals and enthusiasts for BIF, sports etc.? The f/11 fixed aperture and slow as a snail STM focus system these lenses are using is not for serious long telephoto shooters. These two lenses are budget lenses that are mostly for people looking to dabble in long telephoto shooting and are not some foretelling of Canon's intent toward their intentions to put out any camera, APS-C or FF.

Well, let's look at the evidence we have right now:

Canon sell 2 "non starter lenses" that give crop like reach on a budget.

Canon don't sell an APS-C RF mount camera.

You don't like the 600/800s, but apparently they must be selling well enough for Canon not to bother with an APS-C RF mount camera.

You could look at it another way. Canon are at the very early stages of the RF system. The R was a dip in the water for Canon and has tray been usurped by the R5. We have the R6 and the cheap RP. So currently Canon only really have three bodies with a fourth on the way. They are working very hard to migrate from EF to RF and doing a sterling job on the lens front IMO. So priorities have obviously been taken into account and releases have to be in a good order, especially from a marketing point of view.

I don't think a lot of people don't understand the tightrope Canon has had to walk with bringing out the R system.  They needed to first insure the professionals were onboard with transitioning to it from the EF system.  If they weren't willing to make the transition then the R system would basically be DOA.  This meant FF cameras and expensive lenses were the top priority for them to bring to market for the first 3-4 years of the R system's existence.  Plus, I think market forces (mainly pressure from Sony) made them have to launch the R system 1-2 years before they would have liked which further complicated things for them.

With Canon's accelerated termination of the DLSR line and many EF/EF-S lenses, I think they will start to pivot to mid range to more budget friendly products in the R system.  The fact they have put nearly zero effort toward the M system (short and long term) indicates it is going to fade away over time.  If the EF-M mount were going to wholly replace the EF-S mount then we would see a flurry of activity of new products coming to the M system.  Instead we hear nothing but crickets chirping there.

IMO, the complete lack of activity in the M system and fast termination of DSLRs are pointing toward APS-C coming to the RF mount.  I see no reason for Canon to drop APS-C cameras at this point.  Sony has a strong line of APS-C cameras.  Nikon has a very capable APS-C Z mount camera.  Fuji is killing it with their APS-C line.  Then look at all the APS-C Canon users out there that will eventually want to update their gear and I see no scenario where Canon won't bring APS-C to the RF mount.  The only thing that would change my thinking on this is if by some miracle Canon pumps a ton of effort into the M system to make it more attractive to a wider range of users.  I think the odds of this happening is slim to none.  Especially so considering the EF-M mount is based on the same technology as the EF/EF-S mounts they are rapidly terminating.

None of us know the future of the RF system outside Canon. It looks like this year and next will see a massive push to grow RF to a complete range of bodies and lenses. It is going to be a great time for us photographers and fun seeing what comes next.

I agree.  I think Canon has indicated this by making the announcement of numerous EF/EF-S lens terminations along with no new DSLRs in the pipeline.  Add in their severe lack of attention toward the M system and I think this means close to 100% of their future effort to bring new products to market will go to the R system.  IMO, the success of the R5 and R6 has given them the confidence to accelerate their efforts in the RF mount AND terminate the products based on EF technology faster than they might have planned.

MikeJ9116 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,998
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...
1

Mark B. wrote:

IR1234 wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

Do you realize the two lenses you reference are non-starter lenses for professionals and enthusiasts for BIF, sports etc.? The f/11 fixed aperture and slow as a snail STM focus system these lenses are using is not for serious long telephoto shooters. These two lenses are budget lenses that are mostly for people looking to dabble in long telephoto shooting and are not some foretelling of Canon's intent toward their intentions to put out any camera, APS-C or FF.

Well, let's look at the evidence we have right now:

Canon sell 2 "non starter lenses" that give crop like reach on a budget.

Canon don't sell an APS-C RF mount camera.

You don't like the 600/800s, but apparently they must be selling well enough for Canon not to bother with an APS-C RF mount camera.

Not this year for sure, but that wasn't a surprise. And the budget 600/800 lenses could also be seen as entry level/budget lenses for anyone to get into nature or sports photography.

Maybe I don't speak for all APS-C shooters, but I know I'm not keen on buying a FF body AND new lenses to get the same reach. I already have the lenses, and from what I've read from R shooters using adapters the EF glass works just fine.

I have enough EF lenses to use on an RF mount APS-C camera and be perfectly content.  I also have the RF 24-240mm lens and after seeing it perform on a FF camera I am stoked to see what it will do on an APS-C RF mount camera.  It would be a 38-384mm equivalent lens with very good sharpness, IQ, fast AF and excellent IS.

While the 600/800mm RF lenses are interesting, they are not going be a reason to replace APS-C cameras.  Their fixed f/11 aperture and slow STM focusing severely limits their usefulness to most serious long telephoto users for BIF, sports etc.

BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,163
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...
4

You’re missing the very obvious enormous price difference in addition to the benefits of high pixel density without enormous pixel counts for FL limited applications.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 25,211
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...
4

Michael Thomas Mitchell wrote:

I believe that today's announcement of the new R3 reveals the future of the rumored 7DII successor R7: it's not going to happen.

Canon's APS-C sensor-based cameras began with the original 3MP D30 twenty years ago out of necessity; cost and development simply did not yet support a full-frame sensor body debut. Even after the release of their first full-frame body, the 1Ds, APS-C bodies continued out of necessity and predominated, even across other brands.

An APS-C "R7" simply does not fit anywhere in Canon's lineup. It is not necessary. It would be a black sheep. Fast, yes. But the sensor? No.

The announced R3 looks every bit like the speed-centric rumored R7... except in sensor size. The tech now no longer requires a smaller sensor to have blazing speed. I've said for years that the 7DII was essentially an APS-C 5DIII/IV that offered the benefit of speed made possible by the smaller resolution sensor.

Meanwhile, the M series remains fully APS-C. It is a very popular platform with vloggers, Youtubers, and travelers. The benefit is clear: small, lightweight and inexpensive. And for those who need it, there's even speed that still rivals and exceeds the 90D.

And so I'm calling it: the R platform is going to remain full-frame, while the M platform will continue to offer the advantages of APS-C. The announced R3 essentially is the successor, of sorts, to the 7DII: an "R7" in all but name. Now full-frame, it sits above the R5 in the product line rather than below.

We'll see.

The rumored R7 and R3 have almost no market overlap, unless the R3 is 83+ MP, but the cost would be prohibitive to many if that was the only way to get the pixel density and intelligent AF.

There is a huge gap in Canon's current offerings: no cameras with good pixel density that have intelligent tracking AF.  A 30 or even 45MP R3 will not fill that gap.

Before I bought my R5, I thought that I could make up for the loss of pixels-on-subject that I had with my 90D through an extra 1.4x of tele-conversion, but it turns out the the R5 is highly incompatible with many lenses and TCs, unless you use a Canon lens and only one Canon TC, which gets me nowhere with the R5's huge pixels, and the 400/4DO II, the heaviest lens that I am willing to carry around.  I need to use it at 1120/11 to get the quality I had with the 90D at 800/8, but 1120/11 crashes the lens and the IS bangs like a pneumatic power tool.  If I turn off IS, it will work with AF for a few seconds before giving a communication error.

sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 19,043
Re: Canon rumored R7. I'm calling it...

John Sheehy wrote:

the IS bangs like a pneumatic power tool.

LOL!

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Sony a7 III Sony FE 24-70mm F4 OSS Sony FE 85mm F1.8 Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE Samyang AF 45mm F1.8 FE
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads