I am a bit surprised nobody mentions macro photography. The R7 was already good for this and the mark ii sound great. More resolution means more cropping. Pre-capture is important for insects and, although the R7 has some form, I hope we now get the normal pre-capture. In such cases a stacked sensor is important to avoid rolling shutter effects in insect wings. And another advantage of a stacked sensor is that you can most likely use a flash with the electronic shutter. This would also mean I could use a flash with the built-in focus stacking.

R52+RF600/4, Fulica atra

Personally I would have preferred a stacked sensor in the R6 iii as I find full frame works much better for my bird photography and would rather use longer focal length for magnification than using a cropped sensor. I have the 200-800 and it works great with 1.4x and even 2x extenders provided I'm not too far away. Distance ruins image quality more than any other factor I find and if I'm too far away no amount of magnification or MP helps over come the degradation of atmospheric effects.

dwkdnvr said:

Actually 8K UHD makes perfect sense, and I may even have had that realization in the past and have been willfully ignoring it. It does indicate that this flavor of R7II isn't 'just' a bird/wildlife beast but more of a hybrid which will probably make many folks here unhappy. But video clearly drives the market to a large degree.

I personally just want usable 4k120 - the R7 HD120 is actually quite good, but 4k120 even with a mild crop would be much better.

Click to expand...

I think many people overlook just how good a general use video camera the R7 is for it's price; I've used it to film several work projects now and really appreciate it's capabilities: Headphone jack, dedicated video switch ON THE RIGHT SIDE with 3 custom profiles available, CLOG3 or HDR PQ, resistant to overheating (mine has never come close to doing so), 4K60 uncropped (despite being lineskipped you can't really tell unless cropping heavily or pixel peeping against oversampled modes), IBIS (a blessing and a curse, can't believe Canon still doesn't allow this to be turned off independently), auto-level, and much better battery life compared to the other RF-S bodies and the R8.

With the R7ii bringing an improved sensor readout speed, we should indeed see minimal rolling shutter and higher framerates; personally I'm hoping for faster than 120p, at LEAST 2K 240fps like the R5ii, but come on Canon you can go higher. 480 1080p anyone?

Aldherrian said:

In that case, I'm not sure you could extract this kind of information after the fact

Click to expand...

Oh well…….

Some interesting insight here, thanks everyone... After reading the discussion it seems clearer what to expect.

If I'm not mistaken, the 6D cost around 200 to 500 EUR more than the 7D. I'd say if it is a fully stacked BSI sensor, there isn't much of a competition so the price can be closer to the R6 III. But, as someone said, the 6D was more of a "budget full frame" camera while the R6 III is a serious beast, at least from my enthusiast perspective. If these specs are true - IBIS, stacked, BSI, 8K video - then the R7 II will also be seriously specced itself.

I'm not sure if it makes sense for the R7 I to remain in the catalog, where I live its price is already down to 1000 EUR which is R10 territory... To me it seems more likely they're selling it off to clear the space for - what kind of an R10 II could it be if it would compete with the R7 I at this price? Compared to the R7, newer software for sure, slight hardware upgrade only where necessary to support the software, downgrades to remove stuff that is not interesting for the the different target group.

David - Sydney said:

For me, the 39MP aligns with 8k UHD. It hits a spec sheet tick box and people won't quibble the difference with DCI.

45MP (3:2) is needed for 8KDCI and the R5 hits that with internal raw recording and records UHD as well of course which is cropped. Overkill for most users.

My guess that if the sensor is stacked then the extra AF processor would be added meaning 3 bodies with it. Additional volume should decrease the unit cost and will have class leading performance but it will impact the price segmentation.

Click to expand...

Actually 8K UHD makes perfect sense, and I may even have had that realization in the past and have been willfully ignoring it. It does indicate that this flavor of R7II isn't 'just' a bird/wildlife beast but more of a hybrid which will probably make many folks here unhappy. But video clearly drives the market to a large degree.

I personally just want usable 4k120 - the R7 HD120 is actually quite good, but 4k120 even with a mild crop would be much better.

Stig Nygaard said:

As far as I know, all(/most?) Sigma RF-S lenses does indeed have control ring!?!

Click to expand...

Thx for the hint. I still not quite sure about all the lenses. Apparently, some lenses don´t have a dedicated control ring, but a "customizable" focus ring which can switched between focus (manually) and control ring feature. There is no physical button for switching, so one has to go through the menu to set it up or switch. Since I don´t own a R7 and sigma lens, I can´t test whether this correct or not. Other than that, is does sound like a hassle... I can live with a "control/ focus" switch just like the RF 16mm has it.

tron said:

A simple resolution upgrade will not tempt existing owners.

Click to expand...

Most upgrades are incremental, designed for new buyers, not previous buyers of the same model.

In that case, I'm not sure you could extract this kind of information after the fact

Bob Howland said:

Zooms, yes, most primes,no. That is why I think that Sigma will be overhauling their APS-C prime lens line over the next couple years.

Click to expand...

Ah yes. My 12mm does have it. And I can see the new 15mm got it too. But it looks like the other primes (including my 56mm) are missing it.

I was a 7D guy in 2012 when they released the 5DIII and 6D and wouldn’t even consider the 6D, as I felt it inferior to the 7D, which was in my opinion a flagship APS-C for Canon. While I purchased a 6D years later for astrophotography, I’ve always viewed the 6-series as a budget FF camera with limitations that didn’t do much for me and would rather save longer to get the 5-series.

In my opinion, this is a return to the status quo for Canon, and a camera I would likely add to my R1 and R5II lineup. Bravo Canon!

Stig Nygaard said:

As far as I know, all(/most?) Sigma RF-S lenses does indeed have control ring!?!

Click to expand...

Zooms, yes, most primes,no. That is why I think that Sigma will be overhauling their APS-C prime lens line over the next couple years.

Aldherrian said:

You need to have a specific item both in the frame you *know* is at 105mm and in the frame you want to identify focal length
Assuming you're taking both frames from the same position, measuring pixel height between of the same item in both frames will let you infer the focal length of the second shot by a simple operation described above :
Focal length is x, so hx is height of the item in the frame to be identified. 105 is the shot you know is at 105 and h105 the height in said shot.

Click to expand...

I don’t have any specific frames that I know what the mm is.

Bob Howland said:

Another rumor has been "the best focusing in any APS-C camera." That is at least as important to me as a BSI,, maybe stacked or partially-stacked, sensor. Also, If the 10-2 includes IBIS, I hope it doesn't get (much) larger or heavier.

Update, hypothetical question: So are all these improvements worth a $1000 price increase?

Click to expand...

If it has a decent buffer (3-5 sec at 30fps in non-lossy RAW) then yes!

Michael T said:

Canon really needs a 14-50mm f2.8 for their APC. Nikon has brought one out.

Click to expand...

Where is this 14-50? According to B&H, Nikon makes a 16-50 f/2.8 VR APS-C lens selling for about $900, but not a 14-50. The 18-50 Sigma, in other mounts, sells for over $200 less but has no IS. One rumor in Nikon-land is that they will be introducing a Z90 (or whatever) to compete with the R7 and/or R7-2.

You need to have a specific item both in the frame you *know* is at 105mm and in the frame you want to identify focal length
Assuming you're taking both frames from the same position, measuring pixel height between of the same item in both frames will let you infer the focal length of the second shot by a simple operation described above :
Focal length is x, so hx is height of the item in the frame to be identified. 105 is the shot you know is at 105 and h105 the height in said shot.

Exploreshootshare said:

main reasons I´d prefer Canon lenses and also why I opted for the R8 as a "light" travel/ hiking setup is that all the Sigma lenses don't have a control ring.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, all(/most?) Sigma RF-S lenses does indeed have control ring!?!

Dragon said:

The Sigma 17-40 f/1.8 is a nice option (...) and Canon has clearly given Sigma considerable space in the RF-s realm.

Click to expand...

I do like some of the Sigma lenses for RF-s, but of the main reasons I´d prefer Canon lenses and also why I opted for the R8 as a "light" travel/ hiking setup is that all the Sigma lenses don't have a control ring. I use the control on every outing and I am so used to it. Going APS-C without control ring was/ is a definite no-go for me. Therefore, I´d need some tempting RF-S native lens options, which I absolutely don't see atm. But thats absolutely fine since the R8 works wonderfully with the contemporary 16mm, 35mm and 85mm prime lenses. I just might add the 28-70mm F2.8 to the kit.

My wife and her family are actually considering buying my father-in-law either the 23mm or the 30mm Sigma RF-S prime as a birthday gift.

David - Sydney said:

First we hear that canon is doomed that they don't allow 3rd party lenses and now complaints that their native lens portfolio is not sufficient even though there are 3rd party options for RFs sensors.

Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between "not sufficient" and "nothing to brag about". First of all, I was talking about Canons APS-C lenses, not Sigma lenses for RF mount. Secondly, Canons RF-S lenses are ok-good, but there is nothing overwhelming or lens that screams "must-have". They are intended for people who a camera and need two lenses to coverage their range and that's it. Nothing special concerning zoom range, f-stop or extra features. There's not even a macro lens or a prime lens. That really justifies "nothing to brag about"...


Sigma lenses provide "sufficient" portfolio, even though the entire portfolio is still lacking some options. But I don´t count them as Canon portfolio since they are made by Sigma.

dwkdnvr said:

I think 2200€ is optimistic for a 39MP fully stacked sensor as it would represent unprecedented value in the market and that generally isn't what Canon does. Unfortunately, this is why the apparent 'accuracy' of the 39MP number is concerning - to me it likely means either a partially-stacked sensor and the compromises that go with it OR a much higher price than I was hoping for.

Click to expand...

It sounds optimistic, it really does. But the 1.499 € for the R7 was also a very "optimistic" price and a great value-for-money. Yes, it wasn't the wildlife or birder cam many people had hoped for, but for 1.500 € you got great AF, 40 FPS e-shutter, high-res sensor, IBIS, joystick and some other bells and whistles. If Canon wants to keep the r7ii as a great value for money camera, 2.200 € should/ could be the limit even with a 39 mp stacked sensor.

Furthermore, it should keep its distance to the R6iii which already has rebates in some places. And please don't forget that Canon might want to attract a lot of R6/ R5 owners to get a R7ii as a second body. Therefore, going upmarket with a price increase of nearly 50% (46% or something like that) is already very bold.

mimbu said:

AFAIK there are no FF AF mirrorless lenses with mechanically linked manual focus. Everything is fly by wire.

Click to expand...

That does seem to be the trend.

mimbu said:

With many of the modern linear AF systems I don't think it's possible (or maybe it's just impractical) to have mechanically linked MF.

Click to expand...

I doubt it, or the EF lenses wouldn't work.

I think the loss of mechanical linking is more about giving the platform greater control over computer-controlled AF for very fast or erratic subjects, such as athletes and bats (as in the mammal). I strongly suspect that the people who tend to talk directly to Canon are more in these situations, and they can reasonably purchase (personally or via a company) multiple big white lenses, or beasts like the 28-70.

And the fact that EF lenses still reasonably exist. So if you're weird like me and like that kind of feel or universal MTF then that stockpile satisfies the need, in one way of thinking.

I just re-read your statement and I think I replied after misreading what you wrote. I agree, it probably is impractical. In which case if mechanical linking were reintroduced it might well need to be with older EF technology such as ring USM.

mimbu said:

This does bother me because we saw what happened with some of the older Canon lenses that were also entirely electronic for focusing. The 200/1.8L. The 50/1L. Many more. Once parts availability ends, the lens is completely useless if the AF motor dies.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

---

I think that if the following were achieved by Canon then mechanical linking could die a full death for my purpose and feel:

1. Universal FTM focus during one-short and servo, regardless of lens (including older RF lenses)
2. No need to push AF-on or shutter button
3. Tactile feedback in the focus ring with resistance and placement stickiness (use a quality, modern L EF lens to understand this)
4. No damage potential if the focus ring is spun with or without power
5. No need for menu option or camera switch to engage, or default to engaged
6. Identical approach to FTM on all Canon R cameras going forward — again, no on-body switches on some but not on others, etc.

My EF USM lenses all achieve: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. My 40mm STM is focus by wire.

I understand that many L series RF lenses support: 4, and 1 can now be achieved for most using firmware updates for the lens and sometimes the camera. Probably all except 3 and 6 can be solved with firmware. 3 would probably require some hardware, and 6 is more of a camera design thing.

Richard-CN said:

you aren't seriously comparing the EF 24mm f1.4 vs the RF 24mm f1.4 and completely ignoring the fact that the RF 24mm takes the EF version out to the woodshed in terms of image quality?


mechnical linking with no power on is a weird hill to die on when the entire view finder optical path for mirrorless.. requires power.

Click to expand...

I have yet to see the slaughter with my own eyes, but I'll compare when I get the chance to properly play with the RF 24 based on your comment! Not that I have ever — I mean ever — complained about my 24mm quality outside of astro. But I believe you when you suggest you have.

To be fair, I was comparing the EF 24mm 1.4 ii with the EF 24-70 4 IS and noting the effect on scene inclusion due to the digital corrections. I have assumed that the larger exit on the prime has much to do with this outcome. Physics being what it is, I assume the same issues in the RF line when optics are compared. I suspect that the RF "glass" performance is really more about other factors such as the shorter distance from exit to sensor, improved IS, etc. and had the EF lines continued the glass would otherwise have been as good anyhow. I mean, look at where the big whites landed, or the 11-24 — it seems "glass" of itself had been figured out.

By the way, have you compared the amount of scene included in the final images between the EF 24 and the RF 24? Just curious. Is the same amount of view captured after digital corrections, or is one getting shorted? If the EF is getting shorted then that would be astounding and say a lot about the progress of Canon's lens element engineering capabilities in a short period of time.

It also occurs to me that if Canon makes the exit optics in such a way that the projected image covers the sensor then the same effect as the larger glass in previous iterations is probably achieved. I don't recall anyone looking at and remarking the projected image size. I'm curious.

I think I was simply turned off to the RF way of MTF by the initial one-shot limited MTF, or the need for a switch, or the need for a menu config, or the fact that still not all RF lenses can yet MTF with servo on a whim. The power thing just makes it all the more obvious. MTF in my approach is important, and I really like servo. I'm aware from an earlier discussion that I need to rent / borrow some modern RF lenses and try again.

I do also like the tactile feel of the mechanical linking. As a person who sometimes has the luxury of enjoying the experience that includes focusing just right it's nice to have the slight resistance, give, etc. when focusing. My EF 40 STM just feels... disconnected... when focusing; the exact focus achieved doesn't totally line up with the human input. It's subtle, but it is there. So it has been thus for the earlier RF lenses that I tried. It's a meh feel. Cheap even, which is ironic. Perhaps Canon has made it much better? I just haven't been bothered to check lately.

I hope an R10 II comes soon after the R7 II.

dwkdnvr said:

I agree with this, which is why I continue to be surprised by the fact that 39MP seems to be *THE* one thing that has been consistent in the rumors. Of all the complaints about the R7 from a birding perspective resolution seems to be well down the list. Staying at 32MP would be perfectly fine as long as you have the readout speed and AF performance expected of an up-market birding-focused body. Heck, a fully stacked 26MP sensor as in the X-H2S might even be preferable to a 39MP one as it would offer faster frame rates and deeper buffers on the same hardware.

Click to expand...

For me, the 39MP aligns with 8k UHD. It hits a spec sheet tick box and people won't quibble the difference with DCI.

45MP (3:2) is needed for 8KDCI and the R5 hits that with internal raw recording and records UHD as well of course which is cropped. Overkill for most users.

My guess that if the sensor is stacked then the extra AF processor would be added meaning 3 bodies with it. Additional volume should decrease the unit cost and will have class leading performance but it will impact the price segmentation.