Sylvester said:

While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.

Click to expand...

Of course dedicated top of the line APSC body will always be able provide more details/reach than high MP Full frame bodies but at some point you will be able with a single body to do both wildlife + others.
I would say for someone that don't want to have to deal with 2 bodies and having to buy a R6 camera + R7 camera it can worth it to just buy a single R5 line camera.

At least for an amateur like me I could totally see myself trying a bit of wildlife photography with a R5 without buying a R7, 17 mp would be enough for my use case. Once R5 in 1,6 crop mode will have 30mp the needs would only really matter for the very high end of professionnal wildlife photographer.

Sylvester said:

While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.

Click to expand...

And far more noise as a counterpart. Don't forget it.

Crippled buffer incoming ;P

I'm disappointed, but not surprised. I can't afford it yet anyway (well, I can, but not the 100-500mm to go along with it), but It would have been nice to have a few extra months of reviews and testing by others before I make the decision to purchase.

Bob Howland said:

I own an R50V and it's pretty good. I'm thinking of something a bit upmarket from there, an R7V perhaps, to compete with the Sony FX30.

Click to expand...

Right, if the R50V competes more with the ZV-E10 II then there's a gap in Canon's lineup (if they want to fill it) to compete with the FX30.

Jethro said:

Oh dear, do we really need to get into another argument about the 'equivalence' of f/ numbers as between APS-C and FF sensors?

Click to expand...

Apparently.

AlanF said:

If a 1.6x crop factor turns my RF 100-500 into a 160-800 f/7.1, then clicking my R5 into 1.6 crop mode would do the same. Or, cropping a full frame image by 1.6x in post processing would also lengthen the lens.

Click to expand...

While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.

Powerful Owl

There was another Powerful Owl higher up in the tree but I couldn't see a nest. From the droppings below it looks like they had enjoyed a possum recently.


View attachment 226593

snapshot said:

may still have differences in exposure?

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely, that’s normal

blackcoffee17 said:

OYeah, Canon really needs to up their lens game, especially on entry level. No more "optional" lens hood or slow AF motors (RF 85 F2) or zero weather sealing.

Click to expand...

On the high end too.
Where are the equivalent to 50-150 f2.0 with internal zoom, a lighter 28-70 f2.0 with internal zoom or extend it to 24mm, a 15-35mm f2.8 with internal zoom, the 35mm f1.2, tilt shift lenses, etc... And I'm not even talking about telephotos lenses.

They have a least 10-15 lenses to release to have an offer that could satisfy most people. Hopefully some of these needed lenses will be announced in November.

SvO2 said:

This is only really the case if Canon's lens selection is superior to what you can get elsewhere. That's not really the case these days IMO.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Canon really needs to up their lens game, especially on entry level. No more "optional" lens hood or slow AF motors (RF 85 F2) or zero weather sealing.

John Wilde said:

Their closed-lens-mount strategy seems to be working OK.

Click to expand...

eh.
Canon is now around 800-900 days for each 10 million lenses.

They used to be around 400-450

I'll have more on this later.

Here are a few shots with my new 400mm F4 DO II. All of these were shot with relatively high ISO (4k-12k) and had noise reduction applied. I checked the focus points in DPP and they all seem to be located on an eye. Something just looks off in the cat photo, the nose is a little soft but the rest of the body looks fine to me. I had to crop the birds a lot but those images were still around 7MP and look fine to me.

One small mistake in the specs chart posted. It says colour (color to us Americans): black. In fact it comes in either dark blue or medium gray, but not black.

Eloniel said:

Kind of between 2009 and 2014 they produced 50 millions lenses (10 millions average) and between 2014 and now 70 millions (6,36 millions average). So they are definitely slowing down, we don't have more precise data's in the article. RF could have had a noticeable impact on this average per year.

Click to expand...

I wonder if the seamless integration of EF is also a factor. I have noticed a lot of people adapting EF lenses that they could previously not afford before the arrival of RF and putting off new purchases consequently. Looking at the secondary market, EF lenses are an absolute bargain.

Jethro said:

Oh dear, do we really need to get into another argument about the 'equivalence' of f/ numbers as between APS-C and FF sensors?

Click to expand...

If you consider three things: (1) field of view, (2) depth of field and (3) exposure, it's possible to construct a definition of "equivalence" by holding two of them constant while allowing the third to change. Most people, including me, hold the FOV and exposure constant while allowing the DOF to change. Others hold the FOV and DOF constant while allowing the exposure to change (F/2.8 is F/2.8 regardless of the size of the sensor.) And most people don't consider that cropping an image changes the FOV but holds the DOF and exposure constant.

Hope that helps or, at least, doesn't make things worse..

Update: Comparing images between my R6-2 and R7, I'd say the R7 noise is about a stop worse than the R6-2.

If you put a 100-300mm f/4-5.6 lens on a APS-C body, at 300mm it will be equivalent to 480mm F/9. If you used a Full Frame body, for example using the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM @480mm F/9 will give the same depth of field. But if you used that same lens @500mm F/7.1 on a full frame you will get 2/3 stop more shallow depth of field then with the APS-C with the 100-300 f/5.6

CJaurelius said:

If Canon were to open up their RF mount on the full frame side it would only accelerate the takeover. By keeping them out it at least drags out the process and allows them time to make any possible pivots.

Click to expand...

This is only really the case if Canon's lens selection is superior to what you can get elsewhere. That's not really the case these days IMO.

Uneternal said:

You're just too zoomed in, change to print view. Even in the RAW the camera leans slightly towards green. Navigate to the Asian lady and look at her nose or her neck.
It's a fact. If you don't believe it, rent an R5/R6, try them side by side in the real world and you'll see the difference.

Click to expand...

i have access to the 4 cameras in my comparison. not sure how to proceed with a color test through. i suppose a picture taken in a clear sky with noonish sun shoot a raw through an ef 70-200 f/2.8 at 100 iso,, some same shutter speed and maybe f/4? may still have differences in exposure?

Oh dear, do we really need to get into another argument about the 'equivalence' of f/ numbers as between APS-C and FF sensors?

A 70-200mm f/2.8 is a 70-200mm f/2.8 and will always be a 70-200mm f/2.8, no matter the sensor you put behind it.
The smaller the sensor, the smaller the portion of the circle of projection the camera will use.
In terms of light gathering, a 2.8 lens is and will always be a 2.8, no matter the sensor you attach it on, so at the same settings the exposure will be the same.
Depending on the size of the sensor you will get a narrower or a wider field of view. The bigger the sensor, the wider; the smaller, the narrower.
In terms of ISO noise, at higher ISO an R7 is about 2 stops worse than an R6 at the same settings.

John Wilde said:

But not much. To date, their camera body market share has been consistently high. Last year it was (2.84/6.00) 47%, according to Canon's financial documents. They will release an updated 2025 forecast in a few days.

Click to expand...

From a units sold perspective you are correct. However as mentioned Canon has a lower price per unit sold. So when you look at the market share from a revenue perspective they are losing market share. If you're just looking at the top 4 (Canon, Sony, Nikon and Fuji) in 2021 they were about 37% of the revenue down to 33% in 2024, decreasing in each of those 3 years. And this is only among the big Japanese makers and ignores DJI.

From Canon Financials:
In 2025 as well, our plan is to expand sales of full-frame models, mainly the EOS R5Mark II and EOS R1, which will raise our average selling price and lead to an increase in RF lens sales.

All the companies see the writing on the wall and know they need to move up market. Canon's 47% market share is only against other Japanese camera makers and its pretty obvious that products like the DJI Pocket 3 are eating their lunch at the low end.

If Canon were to open up their RF mount on the full frame side it would only accelerate the takeover. By keeping them out it at least drags out the process and allows them time to make any possible pivots.

Keithf2.8is said:

I really hope the release of the R7 MII doesn't follow the same path of the 7D MII, which kept getting pushed out for months, 6-7 I believe. But it felt more like a year with all the talk and hype about the camera. Just like all the talk and hype of the R7 MII and the features it may, or may not, have.

The R7 MII isn't a must camera for me, but the 1.6 crop factor that turns the RF 70-200 into a 112-320 2.8 that is much cheaper than a RF 100-300 f2.8, is very appealing. And for birding/sports the RF 100-500 making it a 160-800 f7.1 is also appealing. It's really a no brainer for me that the R7 MII is a good choice...as long as Canon fixes the issues of the R7 rolling shutter, camera ergonomics, and lack of no grip.

Click to expand...

With a 1.62x crop, you generally gain a stop more depth of field. So your 70-200/f2.8 becomes a relative 100-300/f4, not a 100-300/f2.8 (although that what the camera will record in its exif files).

Typically, you loose a stop’s worth of light for your aperture value. This is usually seen in a 1 stop more iso noise, observable between a R5 and a R7.

To add to this as a former Canon currently X & GFX mount shooter, the lens selection is so much better there. Fuji makes excellent lenses, but for non-traditional focal lengths or lesser used FL's that I don't want to pay Fuji prices for there are lots of options, some of them really, really good like Viltrox. I've shot my Viltrox 75mm f/1.2 more than the rest of my lenses combined for more than two years now, it's fantastic for unique portraits and subject photography. If I didn't already own the Fuji 33mm I'd probably already have picked up the Viltrox 27mm. The new 50mm f/1.2 is also awesome, but I already have the amazing Fuji 50mm f/1 on semi-permanent loan.

In short, I wouldn't buy a closed system anymore, it only limits my ability to take unique shots and have more options in my bag since money isn't unlimited.

Maybe they are trying to bring global shutter into that camera. Would be great to have that at maybe 11 bit but a progressive readout with higher dynamic range. I do not know if that is possible technologically but global shutter means to hold the state and read out the sensor faster. Lower ADC bit depth might help to speed up the ADC conversion.
Would be a good compromise IMO.
Just an idea - and soma hope about a small revolution with 7D ii. - EDIT R7 ii !

snapshot said:

i dont see the green tint

Click to expand...

You're just too zoomed in, change to print view. Even in the RAW the camera leans slightly towards green. Navigate to the Asian lady and look at her nose or her neck.
It's a fact. If you don't believe it, rent an R5/R6, try them side by side in the real world and you'll see the difference.