Canon EOS R7 Mark II to Have Stacked 40MP Sensor?

[Planterz]

You might want to consider what you wrote above more carefully. Fuji’s lens (50-140/2.8 not 45-150) hasn’t been updated in over a decade. No other major manufacturer makes a similar lens for APS-C. So the companies that collectively sell over 85% of ILCs don’t see a market for such a lens and the one niche player that thought there was such a market has let their offering languish.

There’s a logical conclusion that can be drawn from the above facts, even if you’d prefer to ignore it.

Something else to consider is that for manufacturers that offer both APS-C and FF, having their APS-C buyers switch to FF is profitable. While people may not mind ‘abandoning’ an APS-C kit lens with a format switch, I suspect many would be reluctant to do the same with a lens costing $2000 (the old Fuji 50-140/2.8 sells for $1700, a new lens like that from Canon would likely cost more).

That's why we were talking about Sigma or Tamron or other 3rd party making the lens. A lot of their lenses are ones that camera manufacturers don't or don't want to make themselves. That's why Sigma makes lenses for Canon APS-C cameras now - because Canon doesn't want to.

Even when 3rd party manufacturers make lenses that overlap 1st party lenses, they make less expensive versions. Compare the standard f2.8 zooms. For first party lenses the Nikon 16-55mm f2.8 is $900, the Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 is $1400, and the Sony 16-55mm f2.8 is freaking $1700 (prices not on sale).

Sigma's 18-50mm f2.8 however is $570 and the Tamron 17-70mm is $600. If Sigma or Tamron made a ~45-135mm f2.8 it wouldn't be cheap, but it wouldn't be anywhere near $1700-2000. $800-1200, maybe?

Even if Canon sold such a lens for less than the Fuji version, say $1500, your suggestion that someone could buy that lens and an R7II for less than the cost of a 70-200/2.8 ($2500) is ludicrous.

I said

A high school's photography/journalism department or proud parent could feasibly get the camera and lens to shoot basketball or volleyball games for about the cost of the RF 70-200mm Z (no body).

The new 70-200mm Z is a $3300 lens ($3100 on sale). But if this completely hypothetical ~45-135mm f2.8 3rd party lens is around $1000 (wild assumption), and the R7 II is around $2000 (again, wild assumption) or so, then the total cost would be about that of the $3300 70-200mm Z lens. I never said "less than".

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's why we were talking about Sigma or Tamron or other 3rd party making the lens. A lot of their lenses are ones that camera manufacturers don't or don't want to make themselves.

Possible, but the same logic applies. If the market for such a lens was there, why did 3rd parties never make one? They made a slew of 17-50ish f/2.8 variants to match the framing of a 24-70 on FF.

The new 70-200mm Z is a $3300 lens ($3100 on sale). But if this completely hypothetical ~45-135mm f2.8 3rd party lens is around $1000 (wild assumption), and the R7 II is around $2000 (again, wild assumption) or so, then the total cost would be about that of the $3300 70-200mm Z lens. I never said "less than".

Fair, sorry I missed the Z. But using that lens for a budget-based comparison is a little bit contrived, right? You’re giving the 3rd party the benefit of offering a cheaper lens but using the OEM’s more expensive version as a comparator. Someone buying a 3rd party APS-C version to save money for equivant framing wouldn’t be looking at the Z.

You could also say that for $3300 one could buy the RF 70-200/2.8 non-Z and an EOS RP to put it on.

 

[Michael Clark]

I’m not sure… (I’ve wondered that myself).

The R-single-digit cameras are all unique in some way and stand-out in some way.

R1 - Flagship
R3 - First with eye detect/First integrated-grip RF mount/Technology development (a bit different than the rest)
R5 - Highest resolution
R6 - Best balance of cost and performance
R7 - Best APSC
R8 - Entry level FF

Without something like an integrated grip, I’m not sure if Canon would create a new name for the flagship APSC?

These are similar to the positions of the EF mount DSLRs. Of course there was no 8D. There were no 2D, 3D, 4D, or 9D series, either. Just 1D, 5D, 6D, and 7D.

There's no guarantee there will ever be an R2 or R4 camera. Or R9 for that matter. The R6 was the continuation of the EOS R. (Yes, The EOS R has the 5D Mark IV sensor, but most everything else about it was squarely in the 6-Series niche rather than the 5-Series.) The R8 is the budget FF that began with the EOS RP. (Again, the RP had the 6D Mark II sensor, but it was not a 6-Series camera in many other respects. It was more like a FF version of the 77D: A little more than a Rebel, not quite an x0D.)

The EOS 3 FILM body was the first to offer eye controlled AF.

Prior to 2012 The 1Ds series were the resolution kings.

For all practical purposes, the 5D Mark III was the continuation of the 1Ds line, other than the gripped indestructible body and larger battery.

The 2007 1Ds Mark III was 21.1 MP, compared to the 2008 5D Mark II at 21.0 MP (which seemed at the time to be intentional to not exceed the 1Ds Mark III)
The 2004 1Ds Mark II was 16.7 MP, compared to the 2005 5D at 12.7 MP.

The 5D Mark II had only a slightly better than x0D grade AF system with only 9 AF points (plus 6 AF "Assist Points" unmarked in the viewfinder that were only active when using AI Servo AF). It was fairly poor at shot-to-shot AF consistency. It was a consumer grade AF system.

When Canon introduced the FF 18 MP EOS 1D X in 2012, they claimed it unified the APS-H 1D Series and FF 1Ds series (the most current models were the 16.1 MP APS-H 1D Mark IV that could shoot at 10 fps and the FF 21.1 MP 1Ds Mark III that was limited to 5 fps). They said they did this because processing power had reached the point where one no longer had to trade resolution for speed.

But in reality the 18 MP 1D X was a FF 1D Mark IV successor that handled faster than the APS-H 1D Mark IV but gave up resolution compared to the 21.1 MP 1Ds Mark III.

It's no coincidence that just after the 1D X was introduced, the 5D Mark III followed with 22.3 MP and the same PDAF array part number found in the 1D X. (There were some slight differences in firmware and AF menu options. A few AF menu options were only available with the 1D X, but the 5D Mark III allowed the selection and customization of several AF "cases", just as the 1-Series had exclusively offered in the past.) The frame rate increased to 6 fps from the 5D Mark II with 3.9 fps. The 5D Series now had a pro grade AF system that it had previously lacked, a frame rate faster than the 5 fps 1Ds Mark III, higher resolution than the 1Ds Mark III, and a substantially lower price tag. Many 1Ds Mark III shooters, particularly wedding photographers, migrated to the 5D Mark III or later to the 5D Mark IV.

From the 5D Mark III on, the 5-Series was the functional continuation of the 1Ds line. Higher resolution but slower handling than the 1D series. The ultimate model in terms of resolution was the 50 MP 5Ds/5Ds R.

 

[Michael Clark]

In the Netherlands, the R5 mark ii is ridiculously expensive. About 4600 euro, versus 3900 $ in the US.

For the R5 mark ii the difference is much less: 2950 euro in the Netherlands versus 2800 $ in the US.

No idea why this is the case.

By the time we pay sales tax is the U.S. (taxes are not included in posted prices in the U.S.), for the R5 Mark II that's another $312-390 depending on location as tax rates are different in different states, counties, and cities. If we want more than a 1-year warranty it's another $199 for 2 years, $280 for 3 years, and $390 for 4 years. So with sales tax and a 5-year warranty, we pay around $4,600 USD.

For the R6 Mark III, that adds $224-280 in sales taxes and $290 for four years of CarePAK past the one-year warranty, though some dealers are giving the 2-year CarePAK version at no additional charge as an incentive at the moment. So it's actually around $3,050 with sales tax and a 3-year warranty or $3,340 for a 5-year warranty.

 

[Planterz]

Possible, but the same logic applies. If the market for such a lens was there, why did 3rd parties never make one? They made a slew of 17-50ish f/2.8 variants to match the framing of a 24-70 on FF.

Well, that's exactly what we're lamenting. As I said earlier, there were rumors of Sigma making one, but obviously that hasn't happened. My only guess is that there hasn't been a "pro" or "sports" APS-C camera from Sony or Nikon to make one for, and Canon's RF mount was previously completely closed, so Sigma decided that the market wasn't big enough (or there was never a plan to make one in the first place, just rumors). I have an a6700 myself, and while it's capable for some "action", it's not really an APS-C version of the A1 or A9 by any stretch. If I slapped this hypothetical 45-135mm f2.8 on it I could shoot some basketball or volleyball or tennis, but the limitations of the camera would be quite evident.

Fuji does have a "pro" body, the X-2HS, which is, as far as I'm aware, currently the only APS-C camera with a stacked sensor. And they do have that 50-140mm f2.8, so that combo makes sense.

And again I'm repeating myself, but if this R7 II is everything it's rumored to be (except the stuff that contradicts other stuff), then it might make sense for Sigma or Tamron or whomever to make this hypothetical lens, with potentially 4 mounts to market it to, depending on if Fuji, Nikon, and/or Canon allow it. Fanciful, wishfull thinking? Of course it is - nobody implied otherwise. Just saying that it's not a completley absurd idea, and it'd be nice if it happened.

Fair, sorry I missed the Z. But using that lens for a budget-based comparison is a little bit contrived, right? You’re giving the 3rd party the benefit of offering a cheaper lens but using the OEM’s more expensive version as a comparator. Someone buying a 3rd party APS-C version to save money for equivant framing wouldn’t be looking at the Z.

You're agreeing with me without realizing it and reiterating my point. Someone (parent, school, amatuer) on a budget could see a $3000-3500 camera/lens combo (R7 II + hypothetical ~45-135mm f2.8) that's about the cost of a $3300 lens. Not being a professional, the cheaper but very capable R7 II could be a no-brainer for such a person, except for the hanging chad that the lens doesn't exist.

You could also say that for $3300 one could buy the RF 70-200/2.8 non-Z and an EOS RP to put it on.

Who would do that though?

 

[neuroanatomist]

From the 5D Mark III on, the 5-Series was the functional continuation of the 1Ds line. Higher resolution but slower handling than the 1D series. The ultimate model in terms of resolution was the 50 MP 5Ds/5Ds R.

The R5 (and R5II) essentially match the 5DsR in terms of spatial resolution.

Regardless, it seems clear that the high-MP crown now sits on the 5-series and I doubt Canon will move it back to an integrated grip body.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'd say that it's pointless to argue about theoretical specs before we even know what they are, or assume that Canon hasn't improved both noise performance and resolution. I guess that's the point of these forums though.

I wasn't arguing about theoretical specs, I was asking why 40MP would get more complainers than 32MP when there are lots of loud complainers no matter what Canon does with each camera they announce.

 

[Michael Clark]

I did. Here's the original context, which you've ignored twice now.




I'm not going to make excuses on your behalf if you're going to misread things out of context.

What part of...



...don't you understand?

You might want to google "Emily Litella"?

 

[Michael Clark]

The iso doesn't affect the amount of light let into to the camera - it's the same amount at all isos, and there is the same noise (Poisson) distribution if you keep the aperture and speed constant and fiddle with the iso up and down. The iso just sets the ceiling for the amplification in the read out, it doesn't increase the amplification. If you fully saturate the highlights, you will bleach them.

If you're shooting at ISO 6400 to allow 1/1000 instead of shooting at ISO 100 and 1/8, you're letting six stops less light into the camera at the same aperture and under the same shooting conditions.

In the context of my previous comment, "saturation" is meant to indicate "255" after digitization and processing to 8-bit, not full well capacity. I should have been a bit more clear in that respect.

 

[Planterz]

What part of...

View attachment 227284

...don't you understand?

You might want to google "Emily Litella"?

Gilda Radner was a bit before my time, but I've seen some of those old sketches and I get what you're saying now.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well, that's exactly what we're lamenting.

The ‘we’ doing the lamenting has not yet represented a large enough target market for one of the big three or a 3rd party to make such a lens.

More likely they’d all rather just sell their 70-200/2.8 FF lenses and let those who want the ‘reach’ offered by a smaller sensor buy those lenses.

You're agreeing with me without realizing it and reiterating my point. Someone (parent, school, amatuer) on a budget could see a $3000-3500 camera/lens combo (R7 II + hypothetical ~45-135mm f2.8) that's about the cost of a $3300 lens. Not being a professional, the cheaper but very capable R7 II could be a no-brainer for such a person, except for the hanging chad that the lens doesn't exist.

That’s a very arbitrary number, and I suspect a higher number that would be reasonable for most. And in your contrived scenario, that someone would have no need of a standard zoom? Because yeah, that makes sense.

Not being a professional, an R10 or even R50 is much more of a no-brainer for a highly capable body. If the R7II goes ‘upmarket’ as the rumor of a stacked sensor suggests, the likely target market will not be people/organizations with a $3000-3500 budget.

 

[Michael Clark]

The R5 (and R5II) essentially match the 5DsR in terms of spatial resolution.

Regardless, it seems clear that the high-MP crown now sits on the 5-series and I doubt Canon will move it back to an integrated grip body.

I never said they would move it back. I was just saying that prior to 2012 the 1Ds series was the resolution king, not the then existing 5-series. But the 5-series has essentially been the the continuation of the 1Ds-series since the 5D Mark III appeared in 2012. It was a significant leap from the 5D Mark II in everything other than image quality, where it was a more modest incremental improvement.

Roger Cicala described the 5D Mark III:

This is no minor upgrade camera; it’s an entirely new camera using the old camera’s name. And it’s better—in every way. After just a few hours with it (30 minutes of which was a lesson from Tim about using the autofocus system) this camera has grown on me like salmonella on room temperature chicken. I absolutely love it and have set aside my 5D II for good.

Elsewhere he stated:

Despite my well-recognized modesty, I will also point out that when the 5D Mk III was first released, and Canon fanboys were dropping off cliffs right and left, I said “the 5D III is no minor-upgrade camera; it’s an entirely new camera using the old camera’s name”. Its autofocus system is certainly not a minor upgrade–it’s moved over to the big-boy camera side.

 

[AlanF]

If you're shooting at ISO 6400 to allow 1/1000 instead of shooting at ISO 100 and 1/8, you're letting six stops less light into the camera at the same aperture and under the same shooting conditions.

In the context of my previous comment, "saturation" is meant to indicate "255" after digitization and processing to 8-bit, not full well capacity. I should have been a bit more clear in that respect.

What I was saying, if you are shooting at your example of ISO 100 and 1/8, it makes no difference to the total amount of light let in if you shoot at ISO 100, 1000 or 10,000 all at ISO 100 and 1/8. The ISO just puts a ceiling on the amount of saturation. If you shoot in RAW and 10,000 is the highest that doesn't bleach highlights, then you can shoot in RAW at 5000, 2,500 etc and push through 1 or 2 stops etc in post with a modern iso invariant sensor and not decrease the S/N. It makes "exposure to the right" unnecessary. When I shoot birds that are white against a dark background or have highly reflective feathers etc or catching a fish, I usually deliberately underexpose to save the highlights.

I am pleased to see you quoting Poisson distributions.

The iso doesn't affect the amount of light let into to the camera - it's the same amount at all isos, and there is the same noise (Poisson) distribution if you keep the aperture and speed constant and fiddle with the iso up and down. The iso just sets the ceiling for the amplification in the read out, it doesn't increase the amplification. If you fully saturate the highlights, you will bleach them.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I never said they would move it back. I was just saying that prior to 2012 the 1Ds series was the resolution king, not the then existing 5-series. But the 5-series has essentially been the the continuation of the 1Ds-series since the 5D Mark III appeared in 2012.

Where did I state that you said that? I was agreeing with you. Even when you’re right, you want to argue about it.

 

[Michael Clark]

What I was saying, if you are shooting at your example of ISO 100 and 1/8, it makes no difference to the total amount of light let in if you shoot at ISO 100, 1000 or 10,000 all at ISO 100 and 1/8. The ISO just puts a ceiling on the amount of saturation. If you shoot in RAW and 10,000 is the highest that doesn't bleach highlights, then you can shoot in RAW at 5000, 2,500 etc and push through 1 or 2 stops etc in post with a modern iso invariant sensor and not decrease the S/N. It makes "exposure to the right" unnecessary. When I shoot birds that are white against a dark background or have highly reflective feathers etc or catching a fish, I usually deliberately underexpose to save the highlights.

I am pleased to see you quoting Poisson distributions.

Yes, I understood what you were saying about using the same Av and Tv. But that's not how many people shoot. Especially if they need or want JPEGs straight out of camera. They set the ISO that high so they can get "medium" exposure at 1/1000 and f/2.8 under the stadium lights at night.

As someone who did shoot raw and culled up to 2,500-3,000 images from each game and halftime show before processing/editing/publishing 250-300 of them, that's a time investment that many folks do not have. They shoot to JPEG, cull the obvious misses, and upload the rest without any editing. They got their images up by Saturday morning after a Friday night game. I was lucky to get mine up before the game the following week. But mine were the ones that wound up in the yearbook and other places after it was all said and done.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, I understood what you were saying about using the same Av and Tv. But that's not how many people shoot. Especially if they need or want JPEGs straight out of camera. They set the ISO that high so they can get "medium" exposure at 1/1000 and f/2.8 under the stadium lights at night.

As someone who did shoot raw and culled up to 2,500-3,000 images from each game and halftime show before processing/editing/publishing 250-300 of them, that's a time investment that many folks do not have. They shoot to JPEG, cull the obvious misses, and upload the rest without any editing. They got their images up by Saturday morning after a Friday night game. I was lucky to get mine up before the game the following week. But mine were the ones that wound up in the yearbook and other places after it was all said and done.

Far and by far the majority of photos are taken in jpeg - there are billions of phone photographers who are very happy, which is a good thing, and straight out of camera jpegs are very successful. But, we agree that if you wish to squeeze the best out of your gear under demanding conditions, then you have to work at it.

 

[BurningPlatform]

In the Netherlands, the R5 mark ii is ridiculously expensive. About 4600 euro, versus 3900 $ in the US.

For the R5 mark ii the difference is much less: 2950 euro in the Netherlands versus 2800 $ in the US.

No idea why this is the case.

There is a 400 € cashback, though, for the R5 mk II

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm looking forwards to seeing what Canon are going to offer with the R7ii. However....I suspect by the time it's launched and available....I'd have upgraded my R5 to a R5ii and it's becomes a bit of a moot point. I'm curious in the R7ii but I'm not convinced one will ever grace my camera bag....buy hey...you never know.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

These are similar to the positions of the EF mount DSLRs. Of course there was no 8D. There were no 2D, 3D, 4D, or 9D series, either. Just 1D, 5D, 6D, and 7D.

There's no guarantee there will ever be an R2 or R4 camera. Or R9 for that matter. The R6 was the continuation of the EOS R. (Yes, The EOS R has the 5D Mark IV sensor, but most everything else about it was squarely in the 6-Series niche rather than the 5-Series.) The R8 is the budget FF that began with the EOS RP. (Again, the RP had the 6D Mark II sensor, but it was not a 6-Series camera in many other respects. It was more like a FF version of the 77D: A little more than a Rebel, not quite an x0D.)

The EOS 3 FILM body was the first to offer eye controlled AF.

Prior to 2012 The 1Ds series were the resolution kings.

For all practical purposes, the 5D Mark III was the continuation of the 1Ds line, other than the gripped indestructible body and larger battery.

The 2007 1Ds Mark III was 21.1 MP, compared to the 2008 5D Mark II at 21.0 MP (which seemed at the time to be intentional to not exceed the 1Ds Mark III)
The 2004 1Ds Mark II was 16.7 MP, compared to the 2005 5D at 12.7 MP.

The 5D Mark II had only a slightly better than x0D grade AF system with only 9 AF points (plus 6 AF "Assist Points" unmarked in the viewfinder that were only active when using AI Servo AF). It was fairly poor at shot-to-shot AF consistency. It was a consumer grade AF system.

When Canon introduced the FF 18 MP EOS 1D X in 2012, they claimed it unified the APS-H 1D Series and FF 1Ds series (the most current models were the 16.1 MP APS-H 1D Mark IV that could shoot at 10 fps and the FF 21.1 MP 1Ds Mark III that was limited to 5 fps). They said they did this because processing power had reached the point where one no longer had to trade resolution for speed.

But in reality the 18 MP 1D X was a FF 1D Mark IV successor that handled faster than the APS-H 1D Mark IV but gave up resolution compared to the 21.1 MP 1Ds Mark III.

It's no coincidence that just after the 1D X was introduced, the 5D Mark III followed with 22.3 MP and the same PDAF array part number found in the 1D X. (There were some slight differences in firmware and AF menu options. A few AF menu options were only available with the 1D X, but the 5D Mark III allowed the selection and customization of several AF "cases", just as the 1-Series had exclusively offered in the past.) The frame rate increased to 6 fps from the 5D Mark II with 3.9 fps. The 5D Series now had a pro grade AF system that it had previously lacked, a frame rate faster than the 5 fps 1Ds Mark III, higher resolution than the 1Ds Mark III, and a substantially lower price tag. Many 1Ds Mark III shooters, particularly wedding photographers, migrated to the 5D Mark III or later to the 5D Mark IV.

From the 5D Mark III on, the 5-Series was the functional continuation of the 1Ds line. Higher resolution but slower handling than the 1D series. The ultimate model in terms of resolution was the 50 MP 5Ds/5Ds R.

I think they are reading way too much into the meaning of the numbers.

1 is top.
5 is midrange.
9 is the theoretical bottom, before we head into the double-digit APS-C camera range.
There are a bunch of numbers in between.
None of this tells us what specific features a camera will have, but we can go back to history for existing model names.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

By the time we pay sales tax is the U.S. (taxes are not included in posted prices in the U.S.), for the R5 Mark II that's another $312-390 depending on location as tax rates are different in different states, counties, and cities. If we want more than a 1-year warranty it's another $199 for 2 years, $280 for 3 years, and $390 for 4 years. So with sales tax and a 5-year warranty, we pay around $4,600 USD.

For the R6 Mark III, that adds $224-280 in sales taxes and $290 for four years of CarePAK past the one-year warranty, though some dealers are giving the 2-year CarePAK version at no additional charge as an incentive at the moment. So it's actually around $3,050 with sales tax and a 3-year warranty or $3,340 for a 5-year warranty.

Not everyone pays sales tax in the USA.
There is also Payboo on B&H.