Markov said:

Because I use a diffused flash most of the time, low-light behavior is not the most important. So, I look forward to the R7ii if that has a higher resolution. A stacked sensor is less important although an advantage I hardly ever read is that you can then use a flash with the electronic shutter. Also, I look forward to improvements in pre-capture and focus stacking functionality.

Click to expand...

If the R7II has the stacked sensor that is mentioned in this rumor, the ability to use flash with electronic shutter and thus combine flash with focus stacking (as currently possible on the R1 and R5II) might be of significant interest to you. That assumes you use the camera's focus stacking feature, if you use a macro rail as I sometimes do then you won't have that limitation.

Traveler said:

When I check this article quickly, it looks like an anti-Canon website.

Click to expand...

Being fair isn’t being a hater. Canon Rumors actually has decent writers, not merely blind fanboys.
I often find that Canon Rumors (CR) writes better than Sony Alpha Rumors (SAR) even for Sony gear, which is commendable for CR and laughable for SAR. Heck, a friend of mine, who is a Sony user, enjoys more reading this website than theirs, because the writing is clearly more responsible and mature here.

For this article, specifically, I think Sigma deserved a few recognitions, but that’s all I have to say.

Nemorino said:

I love the SAC!!!!

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

I use it, as well. Those who don’t want to can lock it in the zero position. Others can choose to whine about it on the internet, even if they don’t own the lens.

Click to expand...

Del Paso said:

After having compared the EF and the RF 100 macros, I didn't hesitate one single second and put the EF on sale. This was already my 3rd. EF version, the first ones were even inferior , and it was still far inferior to the RF for landscapes. Don't you please tell me macros aren't for landscapes too, many use them in a more universal way, unless you want to always carry 2 100mm lenses.
The RF is just a full class above the EF. You don't want SA control? Don't use it, I do.
My 2 centimes of an Euro.

Click to expand...

Folks,

I'm very curious to know how you guys make use of the SA Control. A bit of negative to smooth out the background a bit more? Creative effect? I tried it a bit when I first got the lens, but couldn't get much use of the feature and just locked the ring in place and forgot about it.

It was so out of my mind that it bit me in the rear end. I was shooting a work event (informally, I am an engineer and photography is a hobby) and had two cameras, R3 + 28-70 F2 and R5 + RF 135mm. Put the RF 100 on the R5 to take some closeup shots, but the images were coming off completly weird. I had bumped the lock and turned the ring all the way +, but didn't noticed and on the spot it didn't even cross my mind that the lens had an SAC ring. So I just went back to the 135mm for the shots and changed what I had in mind. Oops! . Now this was an issue of me forgetting about the features of my lens, more than anything (it would have taken me less than 10 seconds to fix the issue if I had remembered).

BTW, I love the RF 100! Though, I should say that I like the EF 180mm F3.5 even better! I'm looking forward to an RF version with IS, better AF and sharpness at the level of the RF 100.

At any rate, I made a mental note to come back and learn to use the SA and this thread remined me of it. I am really curious to see how others have put that feature to good use.

Markov said:

Can we please go back to the topic.

When discussing the R7 people often refer to bird and wildlife photographers. I am a macro and close-up photographer, and the camera is also very suited for that. To get enough magnification I almost always crop the image in post-processing. Because I use a diffused flash most of the time, low-light behavior is not the most important. So, I look forward to the R7ii if that has a higher resolution. A stacked sensor is less important although an advantage I hardly ever read is that you can then use a flash with the electronic shutter. Also, I look forward to improvements in pre-capture and focus stacking functionality.

When the new APS-C camera becomes considerably better in all aspects (including form factor), wouldn't it make sense to call it the R4 or R2? In that way there would be a flagship APS-C camera and Canon could raise the price. The R7 mark ii could then be a more modest upgrade for a lower price.

Click to expand...

The R7 with the RF 100-400 is also very good for close up/near-macro photographing of insects in the wild. I use it for dragonflies and butterflies where you can't get too close because you scare them away but that kit gets 0.4x magnification from about a metre away.

Can we please go back to the topic.

When discussing the R7 people often refer to bird and wildlife photographers. I am a macro and close-up photographer, and the camera is also very suited for that. To get enough magnification I almost always crop the image in post-processing. Because I use a diffused flash most of the time, low-light behavior is not the most important. So, I look forward to the R7ii if that has a higher resolution. A stacked sensor is less important although an advantage I hardly ever read is that you can then use a flash with the electronic shutter. Also, I look forward to improvements in pre-capture and focus stacking functionality.

When the new APS-C camera becomes considerably better in all aspects (including form factor), wouldn't it make sense to call it the R4 or R2? In that way there would be a flagship APS-C camera and Canon could raise the price. The R7 mark ii could then be a more modest upgrade for a lower price.

Philnick said:

Don't tell me you've never heard that expression. It means don't reject the good because it's not perfect.

In this context, don't dump on APS-C because Full Frame has some advantages over it.

We are, after all, in a discussion thread about an anticipated APS-C body - and many of us -perhaps most - see the R7 as their main camera, not merely a universal telextender for their full-frame setup.

There's a related, if not exactly the same aphorism, "Don't yuck my yum."

Click to expand...

You're taking offense where there is none.

Traveler said:

it is funny to compare CanonRumors and SonyAlphaRumors. When I check this article quickly, it looks like an anti-Canon website. Best camera is Nikon, best lens is Sony, worst camera and lens is Canon
And then I check SonyAlphaRumors and they brag that Sony leads with the largest booth at CP+

Click to expand...

They need the help.

Zadak said:

I would think so, Canon screwed up the 100mm by giving it that useless SA control. Who approved that feature...

Click to expand...

Maybe they wanted to take the upward market pressure off of the 135mm SoftFocus,

scyrene said:

I salute your continued technical replies, which will hopefully help bystanders, but I am put in mind of that analogy of playing chess with a pigeon.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I was, in fact, a strong chess player in my youth, which was useful training for playing with pigeons. Though I now prefer to photo them. Here is one looking out of a clock taken on my R7 in a beautiful town in Tuscany this summer.

AlanF said:

Are you the perfect or the good? Or both?

Click to expand...

Don't tell me you've never heard that expression. It means don't reject the good because it's not perfect.

In this context, don't dump on APS-C because full frame has some advantages over it.

We are, after all, in a discussion thread about an anticipated APS-C body - and many of us -perhaps most - see the R7 as their main camera, not merely a telextender for their full-frame setup.

There's a related aphorism, "Don't yuck my yum."

David the street guy said:

I know about Prograde cards, but the link you offered is for the United States, and I won't buy from Amazon, having experienced being sent fake Prograde cards twice (and 1 used and broken reader).

Click to expand...

The link that I provided was to B&H Photo, not Amazon. The former is a reputable camera dealer who will ship you the bona fide item you order, the latter is a convenient clearing house for counterfeit goods that facilitates the process by commingling their stock such that 'sold by and ships from Amazon' is meaningless, despite their claims that they are ending the practice (and those claims seem to perpetually be 'we're stopping soon).

David the street guy said:

That said, the writing speed of the Prograde is 850 MB/s, while the Lexar is 3300 MB/s, a huge difference.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between max write speed and sustained write speed. The Lexar is 3300 MB/s max write, 3000 MB/s sustained write. You're correct that is faster than the Prograde card, which for the 1 TB version I linked is 3000 MB/s max write and 1500 MB/s sustained write (the smaller cards are slower, my 256 GB card is the 850 MB/s sustained write).

What is your application that you need the highest possible sustained write speed? Canon cameras that use CFe are on the 2.0 standard, compatible with CFe 4.0 cards but unable to write at those speeds. Certainly the higher read speeds make transfers to a computer faster (using an appropriate card reader). I'm puzzled why you need the 3000 MB/s write speed. My understanding is that 8k/60p RAW video needs about 700 MB/s sustained write speed, and that's faster than anything needed for writing still images to a card.

Philnick said:

It fits even more nicely with "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Click to expand...

Are you the perfect or the good? Or both?

AlanF said:

I am happy for you that you are now liberated and can ignore the whole discussion as it fits nicely with "Ignorance is bliss".

Click to expand...

It fits even more nicely with "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Philnick said:

... but that doesn't mean that an f/2.8 lens is magically transformed into an f/4 lens by being mounted on an APS-C body, which is what the prophets of "equivalence" insist.

Click to expand...

If that's what you believe has been stated by several people clearly possessing more knowledge on the subject than you, then my recent denigration of your reading ability was not inaccurate. Equivalence has been explained, and links provided that offer more detail. For someone who dismisses the concept as irrelevant, you seem to be arguing very hard against it.

Philnick said:

And since PhotonsToPhotos also says that an APS-C R5 shot has shot noise comparable to an R7 and is far worse than a full-frame R5 shot, I now understand that I can ignore this entire discussion - and PhotonsToPhotos - on this issue, since you and they are talking about noise produced by appyling a larger degree of enlargement, starting from a smaller image, to get to the same size. That is totally academic and not relevant to my real-world use of my camera.

I care whether the photosites on my sensor are collecting enough light to create a clean image, I don't care about whether my camera's sensor is collecting as much light in total as a larger sensor might collect.

Congratulations! You folks have liberated me.

Click to expand...

I am happy for you that you are now liberated and can ignore the whole discussion as it fits nicely with "Ignorance is bliss".

I'd like to add two dozen snipe to your 5000, @neuroanatomist.

Bob Howland said:

Consider the number of heated arguments that occur on this web site over trivial issues. In Neuro's previous account, he had over 30,000 postings. I'd bet money that at least 10,000 5000 included some unnecessary snipe at another poster.

Click to expand...

I 'snipe' at posters who post misinformation or show a clear lack of understanding of facts...and rarely the first time they make such a post. What you may consider unnecessary, I consider well-deserved. As I (repeatedly) state, ridiculous statements engender ridicule.

What I don't do is insult whole swaths of people in an insensitive and puerile manner, like you chose to do. Perhaps your pronouns are he/asshat.

AlanF said:

It's not the larger photosites that give the one-stop advantage in S/N. There have been plenty of posts here from photonstophotos where you can see there is no difference in DR between the R5 and R6, R5ii and R6ii etc where there is a difference in photosite size. Again, it is the area of the whole sensor that is important, not the area of the individual photosites, and that is independent of pixel size. This is highly relevant to this thread for those who are worrying that a 40 Mpx sensor will be noisy because of its very small pixels. It shouldn't be worse than the R7, R50 etc when viewing at the same size.

I am trying to be helpful, not to argue. If you are not interested, OK, but others might find it useful.

Click to expand...

And since PhotonsToPhotos also says that an APS-C R5 shot has shot noise comparable to an R7 and is far worse than a full-frame R5 shot, I now understand that I can ignore this entire discussion - and PhotonsToPhotos - on this issue, since you and they are talking about noise produced by appyling a larger degree of enlargement, starting from a smaller image, to get to the same size. That is totally academic and not relevant to my real-world use of my camera.

I care whether the photosites on my sensor are collecting enough light to create a clean image, I don't care about whether my camera's sensor is collecting as much light in total as a larger sensor might collect.

Congratulations! You folks have liberated me.

PS At 32.5 megapixels, I'm applying less enlargement than a user of an 24 megapixel camera might, and even less than the user of an R5, which still has a lower pixel density than the R7 would with the same lens, since an APS-C crop from an R5 would be starting from less than 18 megapixels.

neuroanatomist said:

I use Prograde cards (and a Prograde reader), they are nearly as fast with a 3400 MB/s read speed.

Click to expand...

I know about Prograde cards, but the link you offered is for the United States, and I won't buy from Amazon, having experienced being sent fake Prograde cards twice (and 1 used and broken reader).

That said, the writing speed of the Prograde is 850 MB/s, while the Lexar is 3300 MB/s, a huge difference.

There must be something I don't understand about those cards! Why is the Lexar so difficult to find on the market?

If anyone wants to try a beautiful 45mm lens at a budget price try picking up a Tamron 45/1.8 SP VC.
When adapted to RF mount the AF accuracy is flawless.

mimbu said:

I know that buying a three thousand dollar camera with a sensor using tech that should have been retired a decade ago isn't something I'm interested in doing. Add in the entirely locked down mount and I don't get the attraction at all. In a just world, Nikon and Canon would flip places in market share.

Click to expand...

What about the current market share is unjust? If people want to buy "a three thousand dollar camera with a sensor using tech that should have been retired a decade ago" that's their perogative. Sony's Betamax was superior to VHS and look how that turned out.

With that said if you look at market share of Conon, Sony, Nikon and Fuji from a revenue perspective is appears to be getting a bit more balanced. However Fuji is the company gaining the most ground not Nikon.

Philnick said:

I'm still waiting for you to disclose what gear and settings were used for your two side-by-side pictures of violinists designed to suggest, when you click on it to enlarge it, that APS-C gear is terrible. Your silence on the subject is deafening.

UPDATE: I now see that you admitted last night (by the link in post #101 in this thread) that the terrible shot on the left in that pairing is a crop of a shot from an iPhone. Not relevant at all to this forum, much less this thread. Shame on you!

Click to expand...

Try to grasp the context. 1) I did not state that I was comparing APS-C and FF, you assumed that, and 2) I mentioned fairies, wizards and magic in that post. But you were still expecting a 'fair' comparison. Regardless, the point stands. If using a smaller sensor to achieve a 'longer effective focal length' had no undesirable consequences, then the iPhone photo would be just as good as the FF image. But it's not. The example is far more extreme than a comparison to APS-C, but the concept is identical.

Philnick said:

Factual information, please. Not snark. I'm not posting shots taken with a phone but with APS-C Canons. You're the one caught in a circle of confusion, insisting that nothing but a full-frame camera is worth considering - a totally out-of-bounds bit of snobbery in a thread about a hoped-for APS-C model.

Click to expand...

The fact is that I stated in this thread, "...the higher pixel density of APS-C sensors enables putting more pixels on target for distant or macro subjects. That’s a tradeoff that can be worthwhile, provided you understand what you’re giving up to achieve it," and, "...in bright light with a reasonably close subject and no desire for a shallow DoF, a smaller sensor can produce results that are just as good as those from a larger sensor." All one needs to do is look at some of the images posted with the R7 (by @AlanF, for example), to understand that APS-C sensors definitely have utility.

In case it escaped your notice, I have two FF cameras, two APS-C cameras and a 1.4-type camera (which is essentially m4/3 but in a 3:2 aspect ratio). If you can count, you will see that I have more crop cameras than FF cameras. So why would anyone with a modicum of intelligence or at least the rudimentary ability to read assume I would believe only FF cameras are worth considering, much less insist that is true? Yet...you did make that very assumption.

AlanF said:

No!! You are confusing engineering DR, which is the DR of a single pixel, with photographic DR, which is the DR of the collection of pixels that make up the image. When we look at an image, we don't look at the DR of a single pixel but of the collection. To use your bucket analogy, 4 1/4 sized buckets that occupy the same area of space as a single 4xlarger bucket, hold as much water as the large one. Surely, you must have seen the DR curves on photonstophotos that have been used here 100s of times to show that photographic DR is virtually independent of pixel size. I'll show two pairs: the R7 and lower pixel R10, R5 and lower pixel R6. I recommend you read the first link posted by @neuroanatomist.

View attachment 227175View attachment 227176

Click to expand...

Thank you Alan, I did mean what is called the Full Well Capacity of single pixels, but I didn't want to stress the technical term. In the German physics magazine that I co-edit we had a 2-part in-depth series about smartphone cameras, and in part 2 this was explained. If you don't bother to translate a German article into English, you can read the details here (as I wrote, one of the authors is a ZEISS engineer. Have nice saison's holidays:

Philnick said:

I don't doubt that full-frame sensors with larger photosites have a one-stop advantage in signal to noise ratio, as documented by Photons-to-Photos.com, but that doesn't mean that an f/2.8 lens is magically transformed into an f/4 lens by being mounted on an APS-C body, which is what the prophets of "equivalence" insist.

Click to expand...

It's not the larger photosites that give the one-stop advantage in S/N. There have been plenty of posts here from photonstophotos where you can see there is no difference in DR between the R5 and R6, R5ii and R6ii etc where there is a difference in photosite size. Again, it is the area of the whole sensor that is important, not the area of the individual photosites, and that is independent of pixel size. This is highly relevant to this thread for those who are worrying that a 40 Mpx sensor will be noisy because of its very small pixels. It shouldn't be worse than the R7, R50 etc when viewing at the same size.

I am trying to be helpful, not to argue. If you are not interested, OK, but others might find it useful.