Features I Want to See in the Canon EOS R7 Mark II

[Canon Rumors]

All the talk recently has been about the upcoming Canon EOS R6 Mark III, and that release has the Canon world excited to see what Canon comes up with. I gave my thoughts on things that I’d like to see earlier this week. The Canon EOS R7 has been a very popular APS-C camera for […]

See full article...

 

[Maximilian]

Getting the ergonomics closer to the R6 series would make me think of getting this APS-C body, too.
I don't see R5 series ergonomics at the expected price. No top display, etc.
More MP at APS-C? Really? I think the actual number is good. Better pixels are always welcome (readout, s/n, etc...)

 

[phils.pix]

I'm using both the R7 and the R6-2 and I really like the position of the "scroll wheel" and the joystick on the R7, where it is right now. To me it feels more ergonomic to reach, compared to the R6-2.
What I really like to see is a third "wheel dial", to manage exposure compensation. Ususally I'm in (M)anual mode and Auto-ISO. On the R6-II I use the wheel above the on/off switch for exposure compensation. On the R7 I need to reach for the control ring on the lens or on the adapter, which feels a bit odd.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Needs to accommodate add-on battery grip IMHO in Mark II version.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

R7mkii desperately needs:
- faster readout speed and/ or larger buffer
- better ergonomics --> move the joystick to a similar position as the R6 series. It should have similar ergo. in general
- replace the "scroll wheel" and give it a dedicated second dial. One for shutter, one for ISO and control ring for aperture is great.
- BG compatabiliity
- pre-capture

There, done

 

[Gino_FOTO]

The AF must be transforming, far more sensitive to be worthy as a seamless companion to the R6 II-alike. The current AF system in APS-C bodies is extremely dependent on the surrounding light. Anything less than perfect sunlight and it falls apart to the point of borderline usability, where full frames still do the job justice. That's all despite Canon marketing those APS-C cameras as same autofocus as in R3 or something. There must be some kind of physical limitation, like the focusing diodes are perhaps too small for the current technology state, which would be likely hard to overcome in the mark II as well.

 

[KT]

If you want a state of the art pro AF capabilities, no mechanical shutter, a sensor that can output 40 FPS without the annoying rolling shutter effect, better ergonomics, articulating rear LCD, higher resolution EVF and weather-sealed semi-pro body then you have to accept the fact that it'll come with a stacked sensor and cost well above the $2K threshold. Then the question becomes, why not just get an R6 mark III while at it.

 

[Tom R5R7]

All the talk recently has been about the upcoming Canon EOS R6 Mark III, and that release has the Canon world excited to see what Canon comes up with. I gave my thoughts on things that I’d like to see earlier this week. The Canon EOS R7 has been a very popular APS-C camera for […]

See full article...

All I want is an interface and size the same as the R5/R6, perhaps a faster readout speed, and even better high-ISO performance. It is, for me, a birding camera so any help I can get for grabbing those elusive warblers in somewhat dark forest areas is a help.

Also, needs to have an available battery grip. Nothing like heading out for a few hours and having to swap batteries in the middle of an outing. I know it's not quite possible, but I miss the long battery life of the DSLR.

 

[PinholeR5]

I'm using both the R7 and the R6-2 and I really like the position of the "scroll wheel" and the joystick on the R7, where it is right now. To me it feels more ergonomic to reach, compared to the R6-2.
What I really like to see is a third "wheel dial", to manage exposure compensation. Ususally I'm in (M)anual mode and Auto-ISO. On the R6-II I use the wheel above the on/off switch for exposure compensation. On the R7 I need to reach for the control ring on the lens or on the adapter, which feels a bit odd.

The third wheel would be great. The control ring concept is great. Canon's execution of it in the lens line-up, not so much. I really loved using it in the beginning when I really didn't have RF lenses and only used EF adapted lenses. The control ring was always in the same convenient spot and could reliably be used for exposure control.

However, once I started to get RF lenses and realized that the location of the control ring kept varying, often positioned at the front of the lens, then it became virtually impossible to rely on it for exposure control in any sort of action situation.

Significantly improved readout speed would be great (stacked would be awesome, even if expensive).
Battery grip!
All newer generation features/HW (Digic accelerator, pre-capture, action priority, etc, etc)

 

[blackcoffee17]

That tiny sensor looks comical in the huge mount. EF-S mount was nicer designed.

 

[Bob Howland]

That tiny sensor looks comical in the huge mount. EF-S mount was nicer designed.

The EF-S mount is the same size as the EF mount, which is why FF lenses fit into EF-S bodies. The only reason it exists is that Canon wanted to extend EF-S lenses back far enough that they might contact the flopping mirror of a FF body. The EF-M mount was designed for APS-C sensors and we all know what Canon did with that.

 

[Daner]

I may be alone in this, but I'd like to see the R7Mk2 and R6Mk3 with essentially identical bodies and controls, only differing in sensor size.

 

[dwkdnvr]

If you want a state of the art pro AF capabilities, no mechanical shutter, a sensor that can output 40 FPS without the annoying rolling shutter effect, better ergonomics, articulating rear LCD, higher resolution EVF and weather-sealed semi-pro body then you have to accept the fact that it'll come with a stacked sensor and cost well above the $2K threshold. Then the question becomes, why not just get an R6 mark III while at it.

This is what I've been feeling all along. If you look at what folks are asking for in a "true 7DII successor", then the closest thing on the market to that camera is the Fuji X-H2S which checks in at $2900 (tariff adjusted), although it has a fully stacked sensor. I think that would mean at least $2500 for that version of the R7 MkII. Not that this is impossible, but it certainly pushes the R7 into an entirely different price tier, and also leaves a massive gap in the APS-C lineup between the R10 and the new R7II

 

[Maximilian]

I may be alone in this, but I'd like to see the R7Mk2 and R6Mk3 with essentially identical bodies and controls, only differing in sensor size.

It seems you are only alone in not reading the article and many of the posts above

For example:

I want to see Canon make the body a bit bigger and please put the scroll wheel back to where it’s supposed to be. I have big hands and a larger nose, and it was like I was going to stick my thumb in my eye anytime I used it.

Getting the ergonomics closer to the R6 series would make me think of getting this APS-C body, too.

- better ergonomics --> move the joystick to a similar position as the R6 series. It should have similar ergo. in general
- replace the "scroll wheel" and give it a dedicated second dial. One for shutter, one for ISO and control ring for aperture is great.

All I want is an interface and size the same as the R5/R6, ...

and so on

 

[amfoto1]

Canon should keep it simple...
Same body size, build quality, and ergonomics as the R5-series. Don't mess around with what works (like they did with original R7). No need to reinvent the wheel... or control wheel in this case.
In fact, some shared parts across models should help keep manufacturing costs down and retail prices under control.
This also should make it possible to fit a battery grip... IMO, perhaps the single most important omission from the original R7. Ideally, the R7II should share the same grip as the R5-series. Again, no need to reinvent the wheel, Canon!
If they go with electronic shutter only, Canon must solve the rolling shutter issues completely. How they do that is up to them. If it requires a stacked sensor, put in a stacked sensor. Like the 7D series DSLRs, this camera will be used extensively by sports and wildlife photographers who don't need or want full frame... or who want to complement their full frame cameras with an APS-C camera. Rolling shutter effects are a serious problem for us folks shooting fast moving subjects.
And, based upon who will use the R7II, it needs durability and weather sealing comparable to the old 7DII and/or today's R5-series.
When it was introduced, the 7DII cost $1800. I know full well because I bought two to replace my original pair of 7D that were still fine, but after four or five years were getting pretty high mileage. It was relatively seamless switching between those APS-C cameras and the 5DII and 5DS that I used alongside. In contrast, eight years later R7's introductory price was $1500. Why Canon felt the need to cheapen the mirrorless camera baffled me. They sold a ton of 7DII at the higher price, didn't they?
Other comments are right... R7II needs better AF, better viewfinder and MUCH bigger buffer (especially if it gets pre-shoot and 40 fps)!
While I prefer two identical memory card slots, Canon never does that. At least one slot in R7II needs to be CFexpress.
Do it right this time Canon and maybe I'll finally buy one or two of your APS-C mirrorless!

 

[blackcoffee17]

The EF-S mount is the same size as the EF mount, which is why FF lenses fit into EF-S bodies. The only reason it exists is that Canon wanted to extend EF-S lenses back far enough that they might contact the flopping mirror of a FF body. The EF-M mount was designed for APS-C sensors and we all know what Canon did with that.

Im aware it's the same size. Just the current design of the APS-C cameras looks weird.

 

[Sigurd2]

I struggle to get as close to animals and birds as I would like.
And for me it actually works better with the R7 and 100-500, than the R6 and 200-800.
- R6 & 100-500: Too little MP if I have to crop
- R6 & 200-800: Poorer autofocus performance, especially for birds in flight.

If the R7 II were to cost as much as $3200, I would still consider it, if it had a stacked sensor, autofocus performance on par with the R6 III, and same ergometry.

 

[justaCanonuser]

All the talk recently has been about the upcoming Canon EOS R6 Mark III, and that release has the Canon world excited to see what Canon comes up with. I gave my thoughts on things that I’d like to see earlier this week. The Canon EOS R7 has been a very popular APS-C camera for […]

See full article...

I am typical R7 wildlife shooter (more stills than video), and I use my R7 most frequently for that purpose. But I did also some social video shootings with it with an external stereo microphone, e.g. of an exhibition of an artist friend, because I loved to have a relatively light, compact but powerful video gear. With it I could easily and smoothly move with her through that exhibition and film her interaction with her work all the time. So, being such a compact video tool, this little powerhouse of a camera really impressed me.

Shooting wildlife, I have to say that my initial worries about a potential fragility of the R7 compared to the very rugged 7D series didn't come true. Okay, my R7 was the first camera in my life that I stuffed in a rubber case, simply to have a bit beefier body when paired with a big tele prime. So it features some additional protection. Overall, after an extensive use in wildlife I have to say that am quite happy how reliable this tiny camera is, and I am impressed by its image quality, given its conventional sensor. For the mark II version I - like other users here - I do hope for the following main improvements:

- bigger body with the same layout like the R5 series (I am convinced that Canon got that message)
- more reliable AF for shooting birds in flight against blue, cloudy or overcast skies (funnily, my R7's AF works much better with a vivid background, e.g. trees, here its AF really shines)
- better trained eye AF (the R7's eye AF mode gets too easily distracted by bright reflections on water or some particular patterns on bird feathers, a typical example is a pronounced spot on the "shoulders" of folded heron wings that nearly always attracts the eye AF more than the bird's head)
- faster sensor readout (if Canon is not willing to substantially speed up the new senor's readout speed, they should at least stick with that fast mechanical shutter of the Mk I version).

I guess many users of the R7 for wildlife have roughly about the same wish list.

Btw, just in the 7 series tradition, the R7 is a really great macro camera for free-hand shooting, in combo with e.g. a 100mm macro lens (I still use my EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM), and the in-camera focus bracketing is real fun to use when the motif isn't moving too fast. So I hope the Mk II version will fit within this tradition, maybe with some additional new features.

PS: The only thing that had to be exchanged so far was my R7's eyepiece, the frequent use has worn through its rubber coating.

 

[Planterz]

As long as the readout speed is fast enough, I don't much care if the sensor is stacked or not. I'd prefer having a mechanical shutter, but again, if the readout speed is fast enough, I can live with it. It needs to be fast enough not to warp propellersrotors and bird wings.

UHS-II is good enough (two please), but a CFe slot would be better.

Healthy buffer. It doesn't have to be huge, nor do I expect it to be, but the bigger the better of course. At the very least it has to be better than the first R7, which I understand to be disappointing.

I'd be surprised if the AFtracking wasn't whatever Canon's standard is these days that they're sticking in the R6 III or R5 II. Don't need or expect the Eye AF. Aircraft recognition as well as animalsbirds, please, since that's what I'd be buying it for.

OT, but I'll take the opportunity again to bitch about Canon not having (or allowing a 3rd party) mid-level supertelephoto. The RF 100-400mm is unsealed and average (good price though, I'll admit) and the RF 100-500mm is expensive. Why is there nothing in the $1000-1500 range? The Tamron 50-400mm would be practically perfect, even if Canon added a few hundred bucks compared to the E or Z mount versions so they'd get a healthy cut.

 

[woody04]

I purchased the R7 just after it came out, and although I thought this was a good camera, it did have its limitations. Although I generally shoot in compressed RAW, the buffer became an issue, which was just frustrating. The other big issue was the rolling shutter, the read out speed for this camera was just not up to scratch. After using the camera for a number of months, I decided to revert back to my trusty R5, so side lined the R7. When I heard the initial rumours of the R7 II, I sold the R7 and decided to wait and see if the current R7 issues would be addressed in the new R7 II, as having an APS-C camera in the bag for wildlife is still very desirable. So the decision will be its either the R7 II, if the current design flaws are addressed, or the R5 II. Lets see what happens ?