Three new segments of EOS R cameras coming in 2025

[YuengLinger]

Sorry for mansplaining, but it's not "reach" you need but pixel density. The smaller APS-C sensors have a higher pixel density than the larger full frame cameras, which means the image circle of the lion covers more pixels. The APS-C sensor doesn't give you reach, it just crops for you.

The other side of that is that it is more cost effective to produce 24MP APS-C sensors than it is 24MP FF sensors but if Canon made a 61MP FF sensor, it would have the same pixel density as the 24MP APS-C - it would just cost more.

Perhaps we could replace the snarky “mansplaining” with “tiresomely pedantic”?

 

[Billybob]

...

Why would I buy a Canon retro camera and not a Nikon retro camera?

Maybe because you have Canon lenses and no Nikon lenses?

 

[John Wilde]

"The APS-C camera will be far more video focused that any other APS-C camera in the lineup."

That should be like the Sony ZV-E10 II and Nikon Z30.

​

 

[Baywoof]

Yes on the R5S or whatever it will be called. It would be great to get confirmation of this, especially if Sony announces the A7R6 which is expected to be a higher resolution than the existing A7R5. I hope this happens and will pre-order whenever it's produced.

 

[VegasCameraGuy]

I vote for 100 megapickles!

That sounds like what the R-1 was supposed to be!

 

[sanj]

You must take wildlife photos in a zoo! Reach is by far the most important reason most wildlife photographers desire APSC. Not all of us can afford an RF 600 F4 lens.

Cute. And not all can understand basic concepts.

 

[sanj]

Huh? Reach! Size and weight? See 7DM2.

I miss your point. Huh?

 

[bichex]

Huh? See 5Ds. It was contemporary with and essentially the same size and weight as the 7DII, and in crop mode delivered the same 'reach'. But keep on living the APS-C dream!

La 5Ds tenia peor rafaga y costaba el doble. Yo usaba la 7DII porque de todos modos en la mayoria de los casos hubiera recortado la foto en caso de usar una 5Ds. Al que no le guste una camara APS que no la compre, simple. En mi caso deseo una R7 II con sensor apilado y mejor AF. Veremos si sucede

 

[byjohnburns]

I've owned a GFX 100 II for a little over a year now and I am absolutely spoiled by that resolution. Not because I like to pixel peep, but because post-sharpening with that much resolution results in an absolutely gorgeous quality of detail that I didn't know I was missing with my R5. And of course, a lot of that has to also do with the larger sensor size -- not just more megapixels.

A high-resolution full frame offering from Canon would be no more niche than Fuji's GFX line, which is doing increasingly well. For it to be competitive, I'd guess it would need to be faster and cheaper than the GFX 100 II -- otherwise there is no appeal for me. Matching the GFX 100S II at $5K would feel right.

And a more efficient version of CRAW would be extremely welcome for that many MPs.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But 5Ds was nearly $4k and shoots 5fps.

...and the same 'reach'. I am not saying that APS-C has no advantages, I'm just saying 'reach' isn't the main one (and that's about pixel size anyway, not sensor size). Body + lenses kits that are cheaper, lighter and sometimes smaller are advantages of smaller sensors. There are disadvantages, as well. Photography, like life, is about compromise.

 

[john1970]

You must take wildlife photos in a zoo! Reach is by far the most important reason most wildlife photographers desire APSC. Not all of us can afford an RF 600 F4 lens.

For wildlife photography on a more economical budget might I suggests a Canon R6 Mk2 and the RF 200-800 mm zoom. Yes I realize that the RF 200-800 mm zoom is on short supply, but in theory this is a very good combo for less than $4K in the United States before sales tax.

 

[john1970]

Photography, like life, is about compromise.

A very wise statement.

 

[Skux]

- Video focused no-EVF vlogging camera, a true M6 II successor

- Retro style fixed lens party/lifestyle/fashion accessory camera with built-in flash for the digicam zoomers

- R7 Mark II, a true 7D II successor with identical build and ergonomics to the R5/R6 series

Let's do it Canon

 

[Bob Howland]

For wildlife photography on a more economical budget might I suggests a Canon R6 Mk2 and the RF 200-800 mm zoom. Yes I realize that the RF 200-800 mm zoom is on short supply, but in theory this is a very good combo for less than $4K in the United States before sales tax.

OK, why is that combination better than the combination of an R7 and an adapted Sigma or Tamron 150-600 lens? (I use the Sigma and own an R6-2.) I think my combination is cheaper.

 

[Kit.]

OK, why is that combination better than the combination of an R7

Shutter, ergonomics, weather sealing...?

 

[LeBlobe]

retro film camera plz

 

[Elmonducky]

For wildlife photography on a more economical budget might I suggests a Canon R6 Mk2 and the RF 200-800 mm zoom. Yes I realize that the RF 200-800 mm zoom is on short supply, but in theory this is a very good combo for less than $4K in the United States before sales tax.

Im not looking for another camera, my point was that many find crop sensor cameras such as the R7 to be excellent for wildlife photography due to its 60% longer reach. Coupled with a much better lens such as the RF 100-500 is a better choice in my opinion than an R6ii with a 200-800. Your statement that it can only be for size or lighter weight wasnt true. The weight difference between an R7 and and R6ii is insignificant.

 

[Martin K]

I do not wish for more than 50 mpx. But others do, and they may get it...

I do not understand why \'as a wildlife photographer\' anyone wishes for APSC. For me, the only reason to get APSC would be size and weight.

Lucky you. I would add cost.

 

[koenkooi]

Im not looking for another camera, my point was that many find crop sensor cameras such as the R7 to be excellent for wildlife photography due to its 60% longer reach. Coupled with a much better lens such as the RF 100-500 is a better choice in my opinion than an R6ii with a 200-800. Your statement that it can only be for size or lighter weight wasnt true. The weight difference between an R7 and and R6ii is insignificant.

On the flip side you get much, much better AF, in speed, accuracy and consistency, an actually useable electronic shutter and a high fps mode where more than half of the pictures are in focus.

While the R7 can deliver stunning results, it is fickle. When I still had an R7, I would start with the R8 and change to the R7 if I needed more pixels on the target. And even then the R7 had trouble detecting the subjects the R8 had no trouble with, despite using the same lens at the same distance.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

That's like having a 3000mm lens on your R7. That's REACH!

That would be reach but not very rich.