Brown said:

And let said R&D and production depreciate?

Click to expand...

Unless there is capitalised cost, then there will be no "depreciation".
Cash flow will be affected by spending the R&D early but the sunk cost is not "lost" unless the body never sees the light of day.

The assumption that volume production of bodies are already in finished goods/shipping warehouse can't be confirmed.
I would doubt that Canon would delay the release by >6 months if they had stock on hand ready to distribute/ sell.

It is entirely likely that manufacturing capacity constraints have made the product release schedule change.
If sales are up on higher profit bodies then it makes sense to delay.
It could even be a problem sourcing a key component or a yield problem with a custom chip. We will never know.

The R&D/testing hasn't been wasted unless the body needs to change ie more R&D/testing needed. It is just a cash flow/advance cost.

TexPhoto said:

Would I love a successor to the 7D I and II? Yes!
Was the R7 that? H377 NO!
Was the R7 II going to be? Maybe.... a little.

Click to expand...

I had the 7D and 7DII for many years. My R7 is a huge upgrade over both cameras in every way that matters to me.

blackcoffee17 said:

The R7 was released years ago already and still no direct competitor from Nikon.

Click to expand...

My Nikonian friend tells me that she thinks Nikon has basically given up on the crop bodies. Nothing really since the D7500. 7200 really since they went with less pixel density in later models. Birders aren't all that happy, though they're still great cameras.

*democratic republic

Brown said:

And let said R&D and production depreciate?

Click to expand...

If their financial models indicate that they can’t make a profit on the product, then ultimately it would be yes - write it off.

I actually think the ‘supply chain crunch’ is a very plausible explanation of the situation. The rumored R7II is basically an R5II with an APS-C sensor rather than a FF sensor. You almost certainly aren’t going to save $1k+ on a camera just by switching to APS-C so the R7II was already going to have narrower margins - price increases in RAM and associated electronics could easily squeeze those margins to the point where it just doesn’t make economic sense to proceed at this time.

If this is the case, then it’s highly likely that they aren’t abandoning the project, but instead putting it on hold for 6 or 8 months to see what happens with the supply chain landscape.

Quite the disappointment.
I was hoping the release of the R7MkII would push down the prices of the 7D2 so that a particularly good deal could be had on one.

Exploreshootshare said:

I kind of think Canon has finished the R&D process for the R7, field tested it (it has been reported on multiple channels) and basically has the camera ready to go. Then all of a sudden, the R7 still keeps selling well plus nobody knows what happens to the worlds economy at moment. Sooooo, let's wait a little bit longer.

Click to expand...

And let said R&D and production depreciate?

Oh well. Canon took R7ii so far upmarket that it became a fullframe R6V. At least some more money is now saved to buy the RF 300-600. Or should I say used EF 200-400...

justaCanonuser said:

How much do you pay?

Click to expand...

Not enough.

mb66energy said:

Maybe Canon wants to skip minor changes and is thinking about a real leap forward IMO this might be a global shutter or at least a really fast readout of the sensor for video and electronic shutter as a real difference between other offerings.
To make such a sensor in a e.g. 2000 €-body is a large step.

Click to expand...

Well, the rumored upgrades were hardly minor. Regardless, it doesn't explain a year plus of rumored specs from "accurate" sources. Canon didn't leak the false specs. That said, I have my doubts Canon will ever make a mirrorless APS body suitable for birding. Too much cost, too few buyers. We wanted to believe the fantasy.

Steve Balcombe said:

I see people carrying broadcast-quality video gear including a massive tripod, and honestly wonder how they do it. They must be much fitter than me.

Click to expand...

JRetz said:

Looks like Canon just opened the door for the Nikon Z90.

Click to expand...

Except the Z90 is every much Rumorware as the R7 II. Nikon Rumors explicitly said no such animal was expected in 2026 and it hasn't mentioned anything about potential specs or news this year.

However, the Fuji X-T6 is real and coming later this year, so there is that. The R7 II news is disappointing but always seemed too good to be true. I'll keep rolling with my R5 II but a solid performing APS body is still on my want list.

Michael Clark said:

As for why your EF 300mm f/4 L IS with a 1991 design isn't as good with newer MILCs, please see Roger Cicala's old blog entry Autofocus Reality: Part 3B from back in 2012. He explains that Canon upped the game around 2010 as to how accurately the lens reports the focus position to the camera.

Click to expand...

I know, I loved to follow his blog for many years. But in real life, the old EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM worked quite well even with my 5D4. Interestingly, my old EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM from 1995 worked still surprisingly well with my R7, in contrast to my 300mm, a lens that was introduced in 1997.

AlanF said:

I 'd need you to be my Sherpa!

Click to expand...

How much do you pay?

Michael Clark said:

The baseline for an APS-C DSLR camera is narrower due to the narrower semi-silvered portion of the narrower reflex mirror.

Click to expand...

Yes but this doesn't explain the light dependent behavior, noise (and contrast on the AF sensor) does.

I already gave up my hope that I could upgrade my R7 before I leave for a birding trip in June. Well I'll survive with the R7 and R5II. My R7 is really a strange package: shooting birds in flight against blue and or overcast skies is quite a challenge - the camera's object recognition quite frequently fails in a mind-boggling way. On the other hand, with a vivid background when the old 7D II would have struggled, the R7 can really shine. Here are two fighting skylarks, they were quite far away, this image is heavily cropped. So they were mere quite small spots on the sensor. I just lifted my lens and took a series of shots w/o hope to get any in-focus hit. But then I found a whole series in focus, this is one of the best. Shot with the EF 600mm f/4.0 III, f = 6.3 and 1/1250 s shutter speed. So, the original R7 is always good for a surprise, either a bad or a really great one.

It is understood that rumors are rumors. However the way this site keep writing about a camera like the R7 ii, and keep coming up with posts to collect clicks, you are setting expectations. In the end it sure looks like it is just a lot of BS being posted to get the clicks and sell ads.

Exploreshootshare said:

I´m struggling with that assumption. As posted in a different thread:
Canon could easily reuse the 24mp sensor for the r8ii and use it for further market segmentation with a 24 - 33 - 45 mp line up. I´d actually expect them to do just that.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I actually prefer the file I get out of my R6ii to those I get from my R5. The resolution choice of 24mp was to buff 4K video (yawn) and the bump to 33mp in the mkiii was to assist 8K video (double yawn). So none of these choices were made for photographers needs in mind. It was all about the hybrid / video sales. If the R8II is truly an enthusiasts photographer’s camera, then let’s hope Canon truly hit that specific target.
That said the R8 is still a remarkably capable camera.

Maybe Canon wants to skip minor changes and is thinking about a real leap forward IMO this might be a global shutter or at least a really fast readout of the sensor for video and electronic shutter as a real difference between other offerings.
To make such a sensor in a e.g. 2000 €-body is a large step.

With this news about the r7ii’s delay…are we ready to spot ourselves on the Kubler-Ross curve?

JRetz said:

I have been waiting for the R7MKii to replace my 90D. I could not see going to the R7 as it was not much of an upgrade for me and I do have a R5 as well as a Nikon Z6. For my wildlife photography (the majority of my photography) I use my R5 with a RF100-500 and RF200-800 along with my 90D with my EF 800 f/5.6. I was hoping for the R7 MKII to upgrade this. Since the delays in the R7 MKII I have been looking at the OM System OM-1 MKII for more range and better performance than my 90D. Looks like I will be adding the OM-1MKII to my camera systems and keeping the 90D for a while. I could even go to the OM-5 MKII and have an upgrade over my 90D and better performance over the R7. Canons marketing strategies has lost them another customer and longtime Canon user. Also, since I use the Nikon for street and travel photography, I can get rid of that and just use the OM System to cover all my photo needs.

Click to expand...

You could also replace the Nikon Z6 with the Nikon Z6iii which is a fairly good wildlife option in and of itself. Yes the R6ii and R6iii even without a partially stacked sensor are marginally better, but its minuscule differences at best.

AlanF said:

However, Art Morris's website, birdsasart, was very influential and he was a staunch proponent of the 400 prime, and he initially ran down the zoom. But, eventually he changed his mind and went over to the original zoom.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of people do jump to zooms when the differences in cost and comforts converge appropriately. I think even the modern 100-300 2.8 pretty much well splashes writing on the wall for any similar prime, right? Like for the same cash, more or less, why buy a 100, 200, 300 2.8 prime when all can be had for prime like quality and zoom convenience? This ever has been Canon's long term direction, I think. For good reason.

But I also have you, in my mind, as a Formula 1 for BiF kinda guy with the cash and experience. Of course you're right on how much better some options are, but does that apply to the people driving Hondas? Only while they're in the stands cheering, not once they leave the parking lot.

AlanF said:

Mind you, he was one of the first to go to Nikon and then Sony. So, you are not right!

Click to expand...

Haha! For the love of life, Art — WHY?

But ya got me: Art jumped so all of those lens sales of the 400mm f/5.6 where bogus and I'm wrong. I mean, Canon just kept pumping them out from 1992 through 2022 because they were bored and stuff.

AlanF said:

The first version bettered it

Click to expand...

But so marginally in terms of the mark I, and who shoots animals or people in the lens corner? Kind of like maybe this truck tows more than that truck in the same class, but then one might also consider sway control. Even with the zooms available and evolving rapidly. And even when the II came out big names still talked-up the prime for beginners. Some examples:

The Digital Picture maintains this statement:

The Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Lens is popular for bird photography and especially birds in flight as it offers lots of reach for a reasonable cost in a relatively light package. Good vignetting performance helps keep even blue skies as they should be - evenly blue. Other uses include general wildlife photography and well-lit field sports.

Click to expand...

Honestly, if you're just dipping your toe into animals (maybe birds, could also be deer or mountain climbers) then these lingering endorsements of yesteryear are more than enough to justify a minimal investment at the time (new) or now (used). If people like what they see, then they know spending the cash on the DO, or zoom, or a new RF lens would probably give them smiles.

AlanF said:

the magnificent EF 100-400mm II rendered it totally obsolete.

Click to expand...

Well, yes — but that didn't stop people from promoting the prime for beginners. Let's consider:

The 400 f/5.6L has been in the Canon lineup for 5 years longer than the original 100-400 L IS, yet it is a good performing lens with image quality essentially equivalent to the 100-400 L II and less distortion (compared at 400mm). The 400 f/5.6L is lighter, longer and considerably less expensive [...] I find the zoom to be a far more useful lens.

Click to expand...

Bold emphasis is mine.

This lens fits in even my smallest and lightest travel kit, and I have confidence when using it wide open that it’s going to give me excellent performance. Sure, I’d like it to be an f/4, but the extra weight and bulk wouldn’t be welcome. [...] I definitely miss Image Stabilization, and wish that Canon would re-issue this lens with IS, but since I will be using it tripod mounted 90% of the time it’s no real hardship.

Click to expand...

And just because I wanted to know, we tested the old, but excellent Canon 400mm f/5.6 L prime lens, for comparison. Few people shoot it anymore, but there’s a reason it’s remained in production for decades. It’s not quite as good as the 100-400 IS L, but still, an excellent performer considering how old the design is.

Click to expand...

AlanF said:

The 500/4.6 was OK for BIF when you are at 1/3200s and don't need IS. But for hand held shooting in other than good light, a tripod or support was essential, and if you have ever tried to focus a hand held 400mm lens without IS, it is very difficult as the image darts all over the view finder.

Click to expand...

I 100% agree with you about the hassle and comforts. And cash being no issue your argument wins every time.

But if you put the two lenses on the table in front of my kid, or someone still in university, or someone buget limited and they read all of those reviews I bet they'll buy the cheaper lens each time. Or, at least 95% of the time. Sure, eventually they'll buy a 600mm f/4 if they get the bug for shooting tiny skittish things, but probably not up-front.

And I think this gets back to the point of what a 500mm 5.6 represents: an affordable way to get quality images of "distant" things that need to be magnified to fill enough of the frame in a daylight situation. Most people will be happy with that. Some will realize f/4 or f/2.8 matters and spend the extra cash — but only after being really sure about that. Sigma showed this option is not just viable, but pragmatic. A silver ring edition from Canon will probably make a relative killing over decades.

And let's not forget: yes, the lack of IS (or useful IS) and need for daylight can be a hassle, but that never stops a determined person.

Maximilian said:

TBH, I don't see any "fault" here at all.
@Canon Rumors, @Craig:
You get bits of information, you interpret this, and then you share your conclusion with us.
Rumors are rumours , it would be quite boring if they all became fact the moment you spread them.

OTOH...

Those two are quite boring to me. And I already shared my thought, that I don't like the R8(m2) being hijacked for a retro style cam.
Make this retro cam a solitaire, make it unique, especially in its name (RE-1 was a no-brainer to me, just great!) , then even I would like it - but still won't buy it.
But please don't take away the product line of a small modern (!) FF entry camera, with modern egos and so on.


This was the one cam I was interested in.

Looking around, seems that 2026 is becoming more and more disappointing, in any facet I can think of... meh.

Click to expand...

There are still 8 more months to come, and, why not, a 14 TSE, a 20-70 L, new big whites...

Damn … this hit hard!
I was about to sell my r7 … but I have shot with it yesterday.. AF was better then remembered … soo expected the damn slow and loud shutter, annoying handling (1 wheel is missing)… it’s a really ok camera…

I would love to have a nice low light apsc with 24-26MP and stacked sensor…