Quack said:

Sounds like you want an OM-1 II. 599 grams.

Click to expand...

It also doesn't have the top LCD. And for that system I can't get lenses that I'd like to use, also other functions that Canon offers

Was considering a return to Canon before the viltrox 35 1.2 for Nikon was announced. Firmly staying now.

What a great photo.

Richard CR said:

it's not advanced packaging ie: TSMC level of advanced packaging that's entirely different. it is more production steps that happen after lithography. Essentially the sensor is flipped over and the silicon is planed off, exposing the photodiode structure. the packaging - sensor on package is essentially the same.

fabbing a BSI involves quite a few extra steps on the fabrication process that isnt' there for a normal FSI sensor.

Click to expand...

The master of understatement. I agree that BSI alone is different from CoWos, but stacked sensors require much of the same type of technology that TSMC uses. BSI alone is not trivial, however. Back lapping a 300mm wafer to a uniform 1.1 micron thickness and then somehow cutting and packaging it sounds to me like something that needs special packaging equipment. Put in perspective, that is a 12 inch disc of silicon about 1/100th the thickness of a human hair. At a minimum, it is likely an expensive process relative to FSI, particularly for large sensors. If canon is working on alternatives like quantum dot sensors, they may have decided to not overspend on the handling equipment for BSI. Just a thought. Time will reveal much of what we only speculate on today.

David - Sydney said:

Sure, they can do bsi but it is still a higher cost and lower cumulative yield. The wafer needs to be flipped and then ‘thinned’ which makes the wafer very fragile and prone to damage (lower yield) and then the pass through wiring and bonded for the electronics (D/A etc) added on the back side.
Canon uses 300mm wafer sizes so a damaged wafer could hit 50-60 working dies at one time

Click to expand...

I thought about the yield rates - BUT. the R3 (canon's first I believe BSI "in theory" was 4 years ago. so assume what? working on BSI in the fab since 2020? so 5-6 years? if they haven't gotten yields up on what is a known process by now, someone would have been fired. Also my understanding is that there is no bonding outside of a strengthing substrate post thinning of the wafer. so vias etc aren't done unless you are making a stacked sensor. and for that, Canon actualyh bought out an entire company for via tech.

Dragon said:

You missed my point. Stacked and BSI sensors are both more an advanced packaging issue than a fab issue. Just because Canon can fab a BSI sensor does not mean they have the packaging capacity to make lots of them.

Click to expand...

it's not advanced packaging ie: TSMC level of advanced packaging that's entirely different. it is more production steps that happen after lithography. Essentially the sensor is flipped over and the silicon is planed off, exposing the photodiode structure. the packaging - sensor on package is essentially the same.

fabbing a BSI involves quite a few extra steps on the fabrication process that isnt' there for a normal FSI sensor.

The White-tipped Sicklebill has the most curved beak of any of the hummingbirds. It feeds almost exclusively on Heliconia or Centropogon flowers deep in the forest understory and does not visit feeders. It was a real treat to observe both this species and the Sword-billed Hummingbird, which has the longest beak of the hummingbird family, on the same trip. I photographed this individual while birding at Reserva Natural Retorno del Colibrí, Colombia, November, 2025.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

If Canon also follows competition to introduce Dual gain in stills, I don't see a problem with high MP APS-C CMOS

Sword-billed Hummingbird seen while birding at Hacienda El Bosque, Colombia, November, 2025.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

Martin868 said:

The issue with the focal being a bit narrow on Canon is that they chose a crop factor of 1.6 while everybody else use a crop factor of 1.5. APSC lenses seems designed for 1.5 and simply adapted to Canon, without modifying the optics. As canon APSC shooter this is something we have to live with I think. It would not make sense for Sigma, Tamron or anybody else to design a new optic just for Canon. I also would prefer the zoom range to start at 24mm equivalent instead of 29mm but I can live with it.

Click to expand...

I kinda think it would make sense for Sigma or Tamron to make a standard zoom that started wider than their current ones. For Sony there's 3 f2.8 options. The Sigma 18-50mm, which gives a 27-75mm FoV, the Tamron 17-70mm for a 25.5-105mm FoV, and the Sony 16-55mm, for the idea 24-82.5mm FoV. All three have benefits and compromises. The Sigma is narrow and short and has some chromatic aberration issues, but very small and light. The Tamron has extra range and IS, but is quite a chonk. The Sony is the sharpest but is slightly large and more than twice the price of the other two ($1600 on sale).

If a 3rd party made one that started at 15mm for Canon, it'd almost assuredly be available on E mount, and Sony shooters would jump all over that, myself included.

Of course Canon could make one themselves...if they wanted to.

Etnaphele said:

I would suggest avoiding this way of thinking, because it's wrong: f/2.8 refers to a physical property of the lens and Richard's text is correct.

DOF matches f/4.5 on FF, but light gathering is the same as f/2.8 FF (exposure triangle doesn't change). It's not easy to really understand this, I had to douple check multiple times with my cameras

Click to expand...

this is the way I think about it as well. it only really matters for DoF or if you are comparing the physical size / cost of a lens across different formats.

I hope it stays 32. 40 is unnecessary for APSC. I really like my R7, and has been fantastic to use for not only personal wildlife/bird photography, but also indoor hockey, landscape (auto levelling is awesome), travel and even portrait and wedding. I don’t have a problem with iso 6400 (with all the great tools available this isn’t an issue), and the size is great for travel. Yes the sensor could be faster to rely on electronic shutter, and the AF could benefit from recent tweaks (but still great). My biggest “complaints” - and I say that knowing the price point was actually really good when it came out ($2k Cdn)…improve EVF resolution, and figure out how to get a third dial. Keep the size, it’s perfect. And the layout of buttons I really like (just third dial). Buffer could definitely be improved as well, though I never just hold the shutter down, so it’s never really bugged me (shooting in EFC). So, I hope it’s just smart improvements and not an overhaul keeping the target price similar to the original - kind of like the R6II to III. If they need to stuff 8k in it, I hope they just create a video focused camera (I can’t be the only photographer that doesn’t care about the video side). The Sigma RF lenses are awesome (I have 10-18, 18-50, and 56) and are about as close to L quality on an R7 optically as I’ve seen….at their size it makes the R7 the perfect Canon travel camera.

Martin868 said:

But it is true Canon has no high quality APS-C long lens. Many will be happy to use full frame lenses in those scenarios. Maybe sigma will introduce a long fast lens to RF-S.

Click to expand...

The reason they have no APS-c long lenses is because such lenses don't make any sense as they would be just as big as FF lenses of the same focal length. The most obvious example is the OM System 100-400, which is virtually the same size and weight as the RF 100-500 and we are talking 1/4th the image size with the Oly. The Oly tops out at f/6.3 and the Canon at f/7 but 100mm longer, so all things being equal, the Canon should be a bit bigger. The only way you can make a telephoto smaller is to make it slower. DO or mirrors might make it lighter, but won't reduce the diameter of the entrance pupil (i.e. the objective lens). Rest assured, Sigma won't go there either, although rumor has it that they make the OM Systems 100-400, but that would have been a contract deal to round out the M43 line. If you look at the specs of the Fuji x-mount 100-400 and 150-600, you will see that they are the same size as equivalent FF lenses as well.

The issue with the focal being a bit narrow on Canon is that they chose a crop factor of 1.6 while everybody else use a crop factor of 1.5. APSC lenses seems designed for 1.5 and simply adapted to Canon, without modifying the optics. As canon APSC shooter this is something we have to live with I think. It would not make sense for Sigma, Tamron or anybody else to design a new optic just for Canon. I also would prefer the zoom range to start at 24mm equivalent instead of 29mm but I can live with it.

scotsman said:

I think a camera of this spec would probably also need a decent range of dedicated glass to be fully attractive.

Click to expand...

Quack said:

My guess is that Canon has data that tells them the majority of R7 buyers are bird/wildlife shooters. So they will be buying RF or EF Full Frame lenses. No additional RF-S lenses needed for the R7 II. What would concern me is the lowering of the diffraction limit. Maybe it is too minor to matter, but lenses like the RF 200-800 are already at f/9 minimum.

Seems like 40 MP stacked sensor would push the price up near - or over $3,000.

Click to expand...

The Sigmas and the couple of other lenses cover the bare minimum if you want a "standard" setup with zooms and primes. However, I'd like to see a Canon specific (although no doubt it'd be available for Sony and perhaps others too) standard zoom that's a better range than the Sigma 18-50mm, which gives a ~29-80mm FF effective. A 15-45mm would give a more typical 24-72mm range (like the old EF-M, but make it f2.8 constant). 29mm is kinda narrow for a standard zoom. I know 28mm is a popular starting point for a lot of zooms, but that's narrower than I'd like, and there's a reason 24mm is also popular with most (all?) of the pro glass starting there.

As for telephoto, there's probably no reason for an APS-C specific one. Shorter focal lengths get the crop benefit because they don't need to be as large, but with telephoto everybody wants big long ones (giggity) and making something with a 300mm or 400mm focal length will be large enough for a full frame image circle. Even the Sony 70-350mm APS-C lens can apparently be converted to full frame by removing the plastic "crop" insert (or so I've read somewhere). In any case the 70-350mm isn't substantially different in size than the 70-300mm zooms. I can only assume Sony made it APS-C specific to stear FF users to their 100-40mm GM. Perhaps Canon might do the same? I've been complaining about the gap between the budget RF 100-400mm f5.6-8 and the "prothusiast" 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 for a mid-range ~$1000-$1500 supertelephoto since I began researching for my first camera. I'd be half surprised if Canon did something similar to Sony and made an APS-C supertelephoto, but I'd be equally surprised if they made a lens in that range and it wasn't full frame. OTOH, I would be half surprised if they did, as a high-spect R7 II is most certainly aimed towards people who already or intend to own their big whites.

Bob Howland said:

I own seven of those Sigma lenses in RF mount so I mostly agree with you. Disagreements: (1) It's 17-40 f/1.8 (2) Sigma needs to add a small 50-135 or 140 f/2.8 and (3) Sigma needs to redesign their 16 f/1.4 to make it much smaller and add a control ring and maybe add a control ring to their other older APS-C primes as well.

Click to expand...

I agree with your disagreements !

Martin868 said:

Depends how you look at it. As it stands Canon essentially outsources its APSC line of lenses to Sigma, which offer 4 fast primes (14, 23, 30, 56mm f1.4) and 4 zoomes (10-18mm f2.8, 18-50mm f2.8, 16-40mm f1.8, and 16-300mm) for Canon RF-S. And they are descent quality. That covers the general use pretty good, such as family, travel, portrait, etc.. For wildlife people like me would be pleased to use my full frame lenses such as the RF 100-500mm. I have an R5. The R7ii would provide better reach with the same lens and would add to my kit, but not replace a full frame body. But it is true Canon has no high quality APS-C long lens. Many will be happy to use full frame lenses in those scenarios. Maybe sigma will introduce a long fast lens to RF-S.

Click to expand...

I own seven of those Sigma lenses in RF mount so I mostly agree with you. Disagreements: (1) It's 17-40 f/1.8 (2) Sigma needs to add a small 50-135 or 140 f/2.8 and (3) Sigma needs to redesign their 16 f/1.4 to make it much smaller and add a control ring and maybe add a control ring to their other older APS-C primes as well.

scotsman said:

I think a camera of this spec would probably also need a decent range of dedicated glass to be fully attractive.

Click to expand...

Depends how you look at it. As it stands Canon essentially outsources its APSC line of lenses to Sigma, which offer 4 fast primes (14, 23, 30, 56mm f1.4) and 4 zoomes (10-18mm f2.8, 18-50mm f2.8, 17-40mm f1.8, and 16-300mm) for Canon RF-S. And they are good quality. That covers the general use pretty good, such as family, travel, portrait, etc.. For wildlife people like me would be pleased to use my full frame lenses such as the RF 100-500mm. I have an R5. The R7ii would provide better reach with the same lens and would add to my kit, but not replace a full frame body. But it is true Canon has no high quality APS-C long lens. Many will be happy to use full frame lenses in those scenarios. Maybe sigma will introduce a long fast lens to RF-S.

Richard CR said:

If Canon is doing their own stacked sensors even just the top photodiode substrate, then they should be able to do BSI without stacking. the cost difference assuming they have good yield rates - which they should by now, wouldn't be that significant.

Click to expand...

Sure, they can do bsi but it is still a higher cost and lower cumulative yield. The wafer needs to be flipped and then ‘thinned’ which makes the wafer very fragile and prone to damage (lower yield) and then the pass through wiring and bonded for the electronics (D/A etc) added on the back side.
Canon uses 300mm wafer sizes so a damaged wafer could hit 50-60 working dies at one time

Traveler said:

Sure. I don't need video so it would be fine for me. The thing is that I want a camera that will never exist. I noticed that a lot of people here love bigger cameras (I like the R body the most). A lot of people want high-megapixel sensor. I don't care about those things. I just want a camera that is easy to use, has all the features (I don't mean specs, I mean things like I can save the settings on a memory card etc). I didn't used to care about high fps for still but I have to admit that now with pre-shooting and easy way to select one or few pics from a burst the high fps is useful.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you want an OM-1 II. 599 grams.

scotsman said:

I think a camera of this spec would probably also need a decent range of dedicated glass to be fully attractive.

Click to expand...

My guess is that Canon has data that tells them the majority of R7 buyers are bird/wildlife shooters. So they will be buying RF or EF Full Frame lenses. No additional RF-S lenses needed for the R7 II. What would concern me is the lowering of the diffraction limit. Maybe it is too minor to matter, but lenses like the RF 200-800 are already at f/9 minimum.

Seems like 40 MP stacked sensor would push the price up near - or over $3,000.

I'm in if two wishes come true. Put it in a R6 body I need bigger buttons and please add the voice note. As a news photographer it is so helpful to add an ID or "this was a two run double in the sixth". When you are sending pictures on deadline it is so helpful.

I think a camera of this spec would probably also need a decent range of dedicated glass to be fully attractive.

My bet:
→ R7 with sensor close to global shutter readout / 32 Mpix (enough for APS-C IMO) / S&F mode would be a cool tool - and please keep the auto level feature which is insanely helpful for me.
→ R8 V as a refresh of the R8
→ 3rd camera? ???

R7 with similar ergonomics would be interesting as 2nd body to my R7. R8 V is interesting but the small battery and the missing IBIS makes it much less usable.
Just trying to learn/understand my LAOWA 180mm Macro (EF): IBIS of the R7 helped me to get sharp shots at 1/4 s which is insane. Auto level helps a lot to concentrate on breathing etc to get the right moment for shutter release.