Traveler said:

Because high MP is a good selling point and people overestimate it. I know people using high-MP cameras with low-res lenses and they are absolutely sure that it brings them much more sharpness.
Give people high numbers and they are happy.

Click to expand...

Some people underestimate it, as is clear from comments here.

mangobutter said:

I'm not really sure what the point of 40mp crop sensor is if Canon doesn't really have any dedicated high-end APS-C lens ecosystem. Best case scenario, such a high res aps-c sensor (high pixel density) is optimal with the latest 70-200Z and RF 24-105 2.8 or other super high end lenses... i mean sure you can use this with any lens, but at that point, what's the point in getting this body other than to say you have the latest and greatest Canon crop camera. Without any attempt at making high end APS-C lenses, i don't know what Canon is doing here with this sensor. hopefully they have lenses in the works or will open up to 3rd party support?

Click to expand...

I don’t get your point. Every Canon Lens fits this. You don’t need dedicated APS-C lens to make it work.

mimbu said:

By not buying cameras without redundant storage slots for anything except fun cameras.

Click to expand...

Even then, if your camera uses a CFexpress and an SD, they can't really be redundant, can they?

These from today...

Uneternal said:

Sounds like a pretty boring upgrade, similar to the EOS R6III. From 33 to 39MP isn't that big of an upgrade, but at least they finally compete with Fujifilm. I wonder if Sony will still trail behind with 26MP.

Click to expand...

You're missing the 1.6x crop factor. Even if the resolution remains the same as the R7, if you're shooting small/distant things (birds, planes, Kriptonians) that's a lot more pixels on subject. Most likely, this will be Canon's target customer base. I don't really see them trying to compete with either Sony or Fuji in this regard. Sony's a6XXX APS-C cameras are rangefinders and less appropriately suited to action/wildlife and Fuji's tends to cater more towards those interested in the aesthetics of the camera and their jpeg picture profiles.

Sounds like a pretty boring upgrade, similar to the EOS R6III. From 33 to 39MP isn't that big of an upgrade, but at least they finally compete with Fujifilm. I wonder if Sony will still trail behind with 26MP.

Bob Howland said:

Things we don't know:
First, what is the licensing fee that Canon is charging Sigma for the APS-C R-mount lenses that Sigma makes? I own seven of them and they are all excellent (except maybe the 16-300, which is merely very good for what it is).
Second, does the agreement between Canon and Sigma prevent Sigma from introducing new EF mount lenses, to prevent Sigma from doing what Meike is doing? Does Canon see high quality EF lenses and Metabone/Meike speed boosters as a serious threat?
Third, if the R7-2 is optimized for bird watching at long ranges, wouldn't that type of photography be done with FF lenses anyway? The size and weight of long lenses tends to be dominated by the front elements.

Click to expand...

I also wonder about this topic. Is the margin on lenses so small so it doesn't let both Canon and Sigma (Tamron,..) get enough profit? Or Canon is asking for a license fee AND keeping the price still at the same level as for other systems (not allowing Sigma to sell RF-mount lenses for higher price than Sony FE lenses)?
I understand that letting third-party manufacturers cuts a lot of profit from Canon. And I'm sure if Sony had to choose today they'd close the mount too (they just didn't have other options back then).

I don't know. I think that dealing with convertors and spped boosters is a pain for most people. Hard to tell.

Quack said:

I think the target market for the R7 and R7 II is bird and wildlife photographers. They do not need any, let alone high end, APS-C lenses. They will be buying and using "Full Frame" lenses.

Click to expand...

Bingo, I'm only looking at the R7 MKII for wildlife. I already own a Sony Full Frame camera that I use to take pictures of people and lenses for that need. But for Sony, to get good wildlife photos, you have to spend nearly $7k on an A1 MK II body. I can't justify the cost. Sony's APS-C cameras are great for taking pictures of people, but are a complete joke for sports and wildlife.

Justifying the cost to switch to the R5 MK II would mean switching my whole system over. I don't want to go through that again. Plus, Canon lacks the Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 which I love. If they opened up the RF mount for full frame so Tamron could make it for RF, I'd probably go through that hassle.

That's where the R7 MK II comes in. I don't need to switch out my full frame system, I'd just buy R7mkii for my wildlife photography. I'd just buy this and the Canon 200-800. I'd probably buy the Sigma 17-40 f1.8 to use as a backup for my full frame system.

The 2 things I need to make it worth my while are higher megapixel, 39mp is fine, for cropping in on very small wildlife and a very good focus system comparable to at least the R5 MK ii.

mangobutter said:

I'm not really sure what the point of 40mp crop sensor is if Canon doesn't really have any dedicated high-end APS-C lens ecosystem. Best case scenario, such a high res aps-c sensor (high pixel density) is optimal with the latest 70-200Z and RF 24-105 2.8 or other super high end lenses... i mean sure you can use this with any lens, but at that point, what's the point in getting this body other than to say you have the latest and greatest Canon crop camera. Without any attempt at making high end APS-C lenses, i don't know what Canon is doing here with this sensor. hopefully they have lenses in the works or will open up to 3rd party support?

Click to expand...

Because high MP is a good selling point and people overestimate it. I know people using high-MP cameras with low-res lenses and they are absolutely sure that it brings them much more sharpness.
Give people high numbers and they are happy.

mangobutter said:

I'm not really sure what the point of 40mp crop sensor is if Canon doesn't really have any dedicated high-end APS-C lens ecosystem. Best case scenario, such a high res aps-c sensor (high pixel density) is optimal with the latest 70-200Z and RF 24-105 2.8 or other super high end lenses... i mean sure you can use this with any lens, but at that point, what's the point in getting this body other than to say you have the latest and greatest Canon crop camera. Without any attempt at making high end APS-C lenses, i don't know what Canon is doing here with this sensor. hopefully they have lenses in the works or will open up to 3rd party support?

Click to expand...

I think the target market for the R7 and R7 II is bird and wildlife photographers. They do not need any, let alone high end, APS-C lenses. They will be buying and using "Full Frame" lenses.

David - Sydney said:

Does a r7ii with this resolution and the rf100 macro negate the need for a long macro lens (working distance)? AF and fps would support handheld usage

Click to expand...

Using it with the RF100 macro would be one big reason to buy it for me. You would have an effective 160mm f4.5 lens, close enough to 180mm f3.5. Also the 100-500 would have more apparent magnification at close range. For me those 2 lenses together (which I already own) would make the R7II worthwhile if it is any good. A 39mp pixel density would be very similar to the OM1. 39x1.6x1.6 = 99.84, 24x2x2 = 96 full frame equivalent.

Does a r7ii with this resolution and the rf100 macro negate the need for a long macro lens (working distance)? AF and fps would support handheld usage

PhotoBob said:

I had an R7 for a long time that I finally sold. Great camera for the money but the rolling shutter for action is a dealbreaker. The VF is also too small. The AF is actually very good once it's tweaked properly, so if they upgrade that, great. I would love to see a larger sensor that has a much faster readout speed to knock down the rolling. I would buy a M2 with anything close to the above specs. The M2 would be great with the RF200-800mm for wildlife.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I only own one aps-c lens (RF-S10-18mm) for my R7. The rest are either FF RF lenses (like the 200-800) or adapted EF lenses which would allow me to use them with a FF R body, if I ever wanted to go in that direction.

Stig Nygaard said:

These were meant to be comments on Craig's post?

EDIT: Ahhh, you use the same comment-thread for both posts! It's really a confusing practice you have started with these comment-threads shared by multiple posts on CR. I hate it.

Click to expand...

Same topic, same comment-thread. I actually really like it.

justaCanonuser said:

Yes, but there are guys who recommend this camera exactly for wildlife, here is an example

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I was running into that trap because I hadn't much time to make decision, and I already ask my wife to trade it in for a real camera such as Nikon's highly praised Z9. She can afford it.

Click to expand...

Can't watch YT videos at work
If that's what they recommended then I would discount them as a trustable source of advice...
But generally speaking, I'd consider wildlife the realm of any camera system's top offerings a priori, if budget allows.

As a 3D/VR enthusiast: the more resolution the better! Especially when it comes to stereoscopic video: 8K video output would be a game changer vs the very limited 4K of the existing R7.

My hopes for the R7 MKII were basically
35 or more MP ~ Being able to crop wildlife is a nice thing and more necessary than most I think realize.
CFx ~ In my opinion the biggest failing of the OG R7 was buffering issues according darn near every review I watched.
I feel that AF has increased significantly since the R7 release so one can hope it will be on Par with the R6 III R5 II etc
I know the odds of it being a gripped body are likely the same as Nat Geo calling me to shoot for them but one can dream ( on both accounts ) But reality is IF they want this to be a Flagship Wildlife body then I feel that is more important than most would think. Points of failure sealing wise and the improved battery life that come along with the gripped body are important to people in the field.
the other noted things EVF Digic etc are all important and I think Canon needs to decide what they want from this is it meant to be "THE go to wildlife body" or is it meant to fit in between the R6 III and R8 user base wise?
I am stoked to see where it ends up as I need a backup to the R5 even though its a weird choice to go to a Crop sensor the area of photography I do for "me" most is wildlife so I would love a serious Crop option.
I do fear that if it has the features I list it would be more expensive than an R6 III and not sure canon wants that.

I apologize for three consecutive posts I am very excited for this camera and hope this wasn't all too much

Zadak said:

I own it and many other L series RF lenses, and I think it's useless

I would take a 1.4x compatibility any day over it

Click to expand...

Interesting. I still use my old EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM (not yet upgradet) and I never missed that it can't a 1.4x TC, but I use it quite frequently with extension rings to get closer for more magnification...

roby17269 said:

TL;DR: the Z5 II is a great camera unless you use it for a use case it was not made for.
WOW. Somehow I think I could say the same for most cameras….

Click to expand...

Yes, but there are guys who recommend this camera exactly for wildlife, here is an example
I was running into that trap because I hadn't much time to make decision, and I already ask my wife to trade it in for a real camera such as Nikon's highly praised Z9. She can afford it.

To make it short: dial me in for an upgrade. Personally, I am not interested in APS-C lenses. I need this camera for tele + macro photogaphy, both with FF lenses, because I use them also with my R5 II. Just a beefier body with Canon's standard button layout and much less rolling shutter would be already enough reasons to upgrade for me.

DocInfoSci said:

I have found modern EF lenses to be as good as RF equivalents when the entire package is considered: lens glass, digital post-processing, and mechanical operation.

Yes, a few RF lenses apparently blow their EF predecessor out of the water (the 50mm 1.2 by all accounts, but I haven't tried the RF edition) but my experience is most pedestrian L editions are only marginally better in terms of image output — not enough to justify the price gap by any means when the EF predecessor remains available new with warranty.

Throw in patent expirations and general R&D for equivalent yet patent side-stepping innovation and I'd say that the 3rd party landscape with AF on an EF mount basis can be more than competitive when price gets thrown in. Most of us are probably happy with very sharp at a $1,000 whatever below extremely sharp before post-processing even takes place.

Oh, and full time manual mechanical override remains awesome once grass, twigs, and ballon strings enter the view...

Click to expand...

DocInfoSci said:

In my experience the advantages for RF is speed of focusing ( especially in low light ( I do a lot of dimly lit music shows ) focus retention and hit rates trend to improve in most situations. However I do agree too that in the case of a lens like the EF 70-200 2.l IS when it hits the IQ is simply superb adapted to my R5. My RF 85 1.2 is vastly better than my EF counterpart was ( even the very great EF 85 1.4 ) . My BIGGEST frustration since moving to the RF has been the glass is so so so cost prohibitive and as you very wisely noted when you take the entirety of it Post processing etc. I agree it is a hard "sell" to spend the money. For me as a pro it comes down to the fact that in the wild ( not when in my studio fwiw ) the convenience of NOT fussing with adapters and the bulk/weight of it all in my bag is the harder part of the trade off using EF glass. .

Click to expand...

mangobutter said:

You say this "what's the point in getting this body other than to say you have the latest and greatest Canon crop camera

and then this?
"all canon has for their crop system thus far is crappy little low end slow (small aperture) kit zooms."
the comments in my opinion directly contradict each other?

Most wildlife shooters are shooting FF high end glass as it has superior durability and weather sealing.
Broketographers like myself make due with either adapted EF Glass like the Siggy 150-600 or other similarly priced glass.
I think for most wildlife pros the advantage of throw and durability are likely most important. I am very happy they are taking the R7 seriously ( it seems ) this time around.

Click to expand...

mangobutter said:

I feel Canon realizes the 7d was a professional wildlife focused camera body. The original offering of the R7 was, in my opinion very poorly thought out.
Canon from what I am seeing definitely has begun to distance themselves from the "cripple hammer etc" negativity. I do wish they would go all in on this camera and make it a gripped body ( significant increase in battery life and less points of failure in harsh environments, again pro gear mindset ) I am sure they wont make it gripped, however if they really want to be all in on "the best ASP-C wildlife platform I think that is more important than likely others do and I highly doubt canon cares about my thoughts ...

Click to expand...

Forgive my improper formatting as I am new to responding in this format. Also since typed words do not inflect please know this is not meant to take a run at your original comment, just my thoughts on it. Be well