Why did Canon release RF mount APSC crop sensor models ?

 

Preamble: As I write this there are strong rumors that Canon will soon announce several RF mount interchangeable lens models without an EVF. Based on the leaked product renditions these look like EF-M models but with the larger RF mount squeezed in there somehow. My personal view is that these pre-entry models, if that is a meaningful concept, are an abomination. 

However there is a generation of imaging device users whose experience is entirely with smart phones. These people do not look through the EVF window on top of a proper camera thus creating a market for these crippled little things with no EVF. I want nothing to do with them.

This is not mere prejudice. I live in Australia where recent la nina event  rain and floods notwithstanding usually turns on bright sunny skies. I have attempted to use several cameras which lack an EVF but found this an exercise in frustration in bright sun. In addition using telephoto lenses without an EVF inevitably leads to a high percentage of blurry or mis-framed shots.

This post is about proper cameras which do have a built in EVF.

If we examine the logistics of full frame vs crop sensor bodies and lenses there would appear to be no compelling reason for crop sensor models at all.

Body size is determined by a range of components unrelated to sensor size, including monitor dimensions, handle height and contour, lens mount, battery, electronics, heat dispersion, sensor stabiliser and  EVF size.

We can see this in existing products. The entry level RP is actually smaller than the entry level R10 measured as box volume by multiplying  width x height x depth and much smaller than several cameras with APSC and the even smaller Micro four thirds sensor from other brands.

	Width mm	Height mm	Depth mm	Box volume cc wxdxh	Mass with battery g
Canon RP FF	133	85	70	791	485
Canon R10 APSC	123	88	83	898	426
Canon R5 FF	138	98	88	1190	738
Canon R7 APSC	132	90	92	1093	612
Lumix GH6 MFT	138	100	100	1380	823
OM OM-1 MFT	135	92	73	906	599
Fuji X-H2 APSC	136	93	95	1201	660

 

The R7 is only marginally smaller than the R5, R6 and R6.2 and would permit a more effective control layout if it was the same width as the full frame models.

Looking at the table, you can see that the full frame RP is smaller than each of these crop sensor models and lighter than all except the R10.

Even the flagship R5 full frame model is smaller than the MFT Lumix GH6 and APSC  Fuji X-H2.

So we can see that crop sensor bodies are not necessarily smaller or lighter than full frame models.

They can be made smaller but only by reducing monitor size, EVF size and handle size and downgrading the control layout. But of course the same thing can be done with a full frame model.

What about lenses ?

This is where comparisons get a bit more difficult to understand due to the effect of scaling on equivalent lens aperture and the photographic convention of quoting lens aperture as an f-stop, a concept not readily understood by people who have grown up without a camera in their world.

I will try to illustrate the issue with a relatively simple lens case.

Here I compare the Canon RF 50mm f1.8 “nifty fifty” lens for full frame with the EF-M 32mm f1.4 for EF-M mount APSC.

	Focal length mm	Aperture as f stop	Length mm	Diameter mm	Filter mm	Mass g	Price AUD retail
RF 50mm f1.8 FF	50	f1.8	41	69	43	160	319
Equivalent on Canon APSC	31.25	f1.125
EF-M 32mm f1.4	32	F1.4	57	61	43	235	775

 

Starting with the RF 50mm f1.8 as the index lens, the EF-M 32mm f1.4 is the nearest APSC equivalent that I could find in the Canon catalogue. It has an approximately equivalent focal length. But it is longer and heavier and  more than twice the price of the 50mm full frame model. In addition a truly equivalent maximum aperture would be f(1.8/1.6) = f1.125.

We could go through the whole catalogue of primes and zooms this way to discover that the only way APSC crop sensor lenses can be made smaller or lighter or less expensive than full frame optics of equivalent focal length is to give the crop sensor lenses a smaller effective aperture than their nearest full frame equivalents.

So crop sensor bodies and lenses are not inherently smaller or lighter than their full frame equivalents.  They do not deliver better image quality or performance or ergonomics or overall user experience.

So why do we have them ?

I think there are four reasons, the first three reasonably easy to describe and understand, the third a bit more speculative.

1. Price point. In the early days of digital photography full frame sensors were much more expensive to produce than APSC ones. So the great majority of interchangeable lens cameras (ILC) sold over the last 20 years or so have used an APSC sensor.  It appears this factor may still be in play and that APSC sensors may still be less expensive to produce than full frame ones.  As the cost of the sensor is a significant part of the overall cost of the camera body it follows that APSC still has a price point advantage over full frame.

2. An existing cohort of Canon camera owners with APSC gear. Most Canon ILC buyers over the last 20 years have purchased one or more APSC models. Members of this large cohort are accustomed to using APSC gear and regard this as “normal” for them.  So when exploring options for a transition from DSLRs to mirrorless interchangeable lens (MILC) or EF-M to RF systems these people will probably be looking first at APSC options.

3. Heading off the opposition.  Sony and Nikon offer APSC crop sensor models, Panasonic and OM Systems (formerly Olympus) offer Micro Four Thirds models and Fujifilm has the greatest range and diversity of APSC crop sensor bodies and lenses on the market. So Canon needs to offer an appealing catalogue of APSC bodies and lenses to discourage defection to the competition.

4. Marketing strategy.   Initial rollout of products for the new RF mount starting in 2018 was exclusively oriented to full frame bodies and lenses. Retail price for the entry level RP came down to a symbolically significant USD999. All the signs appeared to be pointing towards an RF catalogue entirely populated by full frame bodies and lenses. Some industry pundits predicted a USD500 full frame model.  If that came to pass it would make APSC irrelevant.

If that was the plan it was upset by a series of events many of which were outside the control of camera makers.   The Covid pandemic threw production and marketing plans into disarray.  Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had consequences far beyond the local conflict.  A shortage of essential supplies especially computer chips has drastically inhibited production and increased the cost of a wide range of products including motor vehicle and cameras.

So this is what I imagine might have played out in the corridors of Canon marketing.

Canon has always been very exercised by price point segments. Their strategy has been to ensure they have a viable product in every price segment of the market.

We can see from declining product availability that DSLRs and the EF-M system are  being quietly phased out.

A price check at one Sydney camera retailer today shows that APSC DSLR entry level is either AUD679 for the EOS 1500D with kit lens or AUD899 for the EOS 200D with kit lens.

The M50.2 with kit lens is AUD929 and the R10 with kit lens is AUD1379.

The full frame RP with RF 240-105mm kit lens is AUD1879.

So we can see that Canon is managing models and price points rather cleverly here.

I think Canon was able to bring the R10 and R7 onto the market with minimal R&D outlays. The R7 recycles the 32Mpx sensor from the 90D and M6.2. The R10 recycles the 24 Mpx  sensor from the M50 and several other models. The promotional blurb for the R7 and R10 says the sensors in these cameras are “new” but what does that mean ? My tests and those of other independent reviewers show that these sensors have the same imaging characteristics as their predecessors. Maybe they have slightly different microlenses or peripherals. They do use an upgraded processor.

As for other components Canon already had a parts bin of monitors, EVFs, shutters, IBIS modules and electronic components which they could use in the new RF-S models with little modification.

RF-S APSC entry level pricing is substantially higher than DSLR or EF-M entry level but compared to the full frame RF mount line-up still looks attractive.

So Canon gets to divest itself of DSLRs and the EF-M line, rationalise the model catalogue and in the process substantially increase the entry level price with a product which is nevertheless attractive to consumers.

If I am on the right track with all of this I would expect to see the next entry level RF mount full frame model come on at a significantly higher price than the RP and have significantly upgraded performance capabilities and controls. The higher price will leave the APSC models to occupy the lower price bands and will also enable Canon to make more profit on each entry level full frame unit than I would guess they are doing with the RP right now.

What about consumers ?

Well, they also do pretty well with the R10 having a higher level of features, capabilities, specifications, performance and ergonomics than any previous entry level model and the R7 having a higher specification than full frame models up to the mid tier level.

Everybody wins, right ?

Well…..yes……but for consumers…. not perhaps as much as they might have hoped for.

I think there are two problems with Canon RF APSC crop sensor cameras.

The first is specific to the R10 and R7 both of which have significant issues with shutter shock and rolling shutter. In addition the R7 has ergonomic issues due to the experimental nature of that camera’s control layout.

The second is of a more existential nature. Canon, Nikon and Sony have never fully supported their APSC catalogue. Choice of bodies and in particular lenses has been very limited. Fujifilm only supports APSC because they have no presence in the full frame market.

Canon, Nikon and Sony have never provided anything like a fully fledged performance/capability upgrade path for their APSC sector. If a happy APSC user has no desire for much in the way of an upgrade path then all is well. But if they do get the itch for more image quality and performance they have to switch to the full frame environment which usually means a complete turnover of bodies and lenses.

I will discuss these issues further in the next post.