I understand the point about total light collection and how, when images are normalized to the same output size, noise performance can converge. That makes sense in a controlled comparison, but it’s not really how I—or many others—use the camera in practice. In real-world shooting at higher ISOs, noise is a visible and often limiting factor in image quality, and that’s the condition where we were hoping to see an improvement with the R7 MII.
At the same time, I don’t think it’s accurate to say pixel size is irrelevant. On a fixed sensor size, increasing resolution reduces pixel area, which affects per-pixel signal-to-noise. While normalization can reduce those differences when images are resized, in real-world use—especially at high ISO—those factors can still influence how noise presents in the actual image.
I would also question whether dynamic range charts are the right way to evaluate this specific point. Dynamic range is related to noise, but it’s not the same as how noise actually presents in an image—especially at higher ISO. Dynamic range charts are helpful, but they’re not a direct proxy for perceived image noise. Two sensors can plot very similarly in DR and still produce different-looking images at high ISO, particularly when viewed at native resolution or when cropped. That distinction matters a lot for the kind of shooting we’re talking about.
My concern is more about how these cameras are actually used. For action and wildlife photography, I’m often shooting at ISO 3200–6400+ to maintain shutter speeds around 1/1000, and I’m not downsampling to evaluate noise—I’m looking at the image at native resolution or cropping, which is very common in birding. In that context, how noise presents in the actual file matters, not just how it behaves after normalization.
More broadly, this comes down to a design tradeoff. Resolution, noise performance, and video capability are competing priorities on a fixed sensor size. Increasing resolution shifts the balance toward detail, cropping flexibility, and enabling features like 8K video, but it doesn’t necessarily improve high ISO image quality—and it can limit how much improvement you can realize there.
That’s really the point I was making. If newer sensor technologies like BSI improve efficiency, those gains can be used in different ways. You can spend them on more pixels, or you can spend them on better signal-to-noise performance. From a photographer’s perspective—especially for action and low-light shooting—I would have preferred to see those gains translate into visibly cleaner images at higher ISO rather than increased resolution.
You could even make a reasonable case that a lower resolution APS-C sensor—something closer to 24MP—would better serve that use case. Larger pixels would improve per-pixel signal-to-noise, and in many real-world scenarios where shutter speed and ISO are the limiting factors, that could result in better overall image quality. Of course, that comes at the expense of cropping flexibility and video features, which some users value more.
It also raises a more basic question about who this camera is really for. Canon seems to be positioning it for both action/wildlife photographers and hybrid/video users, but those goals are not fully aligned. Pushing resolution higher to support 8K makes sense from a video standpoint, but for action photographers—who are often working in difficult light—the priority is usually cleaner high ISO performance, not additional resolution.
By trying to cover both use cases in a single design, Canon is making a compromise that may end up being at odds with both groups. If the improvements from a new sensor are largely used to increase resolution rather than improve noise performance, then the real-world benefit for low-light action shooting may be limited. At the same time, if video performance relies heavily on noise reduction to clean up high ISO footage, that can come at the expense of fine detail—raising questions about how meaningful that extra resolution really is.
At higher ISO, where shot noise dominates and images are often pushed in challenging light, differences in per-pixel signal-to-noise and how the sensor handles amplification can still influence real-world results in ways that aren’t fully captured by normalized comparisons.
So it’s not that higher resolution is inherently worse—it’s that it reflects a choice about what the camera is optimized for. My concern is that in trying to be a one-size-fits-all solution for both videographers and action photographers, the camera may not deliver the level of improvement either group is really looking for. A more focused design—either prioritizing high ISO image quality for photographers or leaning fully into hybrid/video capability—might have resulted in a more compelling upgrade.
As an action photographer, I’m really hoping the Canon EOS R7 Mark II does deliver a meaningful improvement in noise performance. But if those gains are largely offset by design tradeoffs around resolution and video capability, I think I—and many others shooting in similar conditions—may come away disappointed.
).
.
(Hoping my wife won't read this answer...)
