Possible Canon EOS R7 Mark II Specifications

[Canon Rumors]

The most anticipated camera coming from Canon for 2026 is the EOS R7 Mark II. There will be other cameras launched, but this will be the big one. I have been told that it will begin shipping in the first half of 2026, but I don't have an announcement date at this time. I think […]

See full article...

 

[DhlcadR6]

Not stacked with 40fps isn't a good idea. Unless the 15fps mechanical shutter stays(and no shutter shock), I rather take lower MP stacked CMOS.

 

[PinholeR5]

• 8.5 Stop IBIS (5 Axis)
• CFe/SD Card slots
• Higher resolution EVF (R7 is 2.36m)
• A larger form factor (R6 size)

The upgrades above look really good to me and would bring the R7 on par with the R6 III in those categories, assuming the EVF gets the same 3.69m as the R6 III and the form-factor also includes having a simialar wheels and buttons layout and enables compatibility with the BG-R20.

Now the item below

• DIGIC Accelerator (Conflicting)

would put the R7 II above the R6 III in terms of the AI AF processing capabilities.

 

[DocInfoSci]

The EVF and body dissuaded my family from a purchase. An EVF and body about the same as an R6 would make this much more enticing as a detail-oriented "tele" camera. In fact, I don't see why at all this would be differentiated from the R6 beyond the sensor.

 

[AlanF]

The EVF and body dissuaded my family from a purchase. An EVF and body about the same as an R6 would make this much more enticing as a detail-oriented "tele" camera. In fact, I don't see why at all this would be differentiated from the R6 beyond the sensor.

If you are often reach-limited and generally cropping to APS-C and below, a 39 Mpx sensor is a huge advantage over a 34-30 Mpx FF with almost twice the linear resolution under optimal conditions.

 

[DocInfoSci]

If you are often reach-limited and generally cropping to APS-C and below, a 39 Mpx sensor is a huge advantage over a 34-30 Mpx FF with almost twice the linear resolution under optimal conditions.

Agreed!

I don't see why at all this would be differentiated from the R6 beyond the sensor.

As in, give me an R6 with the crop sensor...

 

[mangobutter]

I'm not really sure what the point of 40mp crop sensor is if Canon doesn't really have any dedicated high-end APS-C lens ecosystem. Best case scenario, such a high res aps-c sensor (high pixel density) is optimal with the latest 70-200Z and RF 24-105 2.8 or other super high end lenses... i mean sure you can use this with any lens, but at that point, what's the point in getting this body other than to say you have the latest and greatest Canon crop camera. Without any attempt at making high end APS-C lenses, i don't know what Canon is doing here with this sensor. hopefully they have lenses in the works or will open up to 3rd party support?

 

[mangobutter]

all canon has for their crop system thus far is crappy little low end slow (small aperture) kit zooms.

 

[DocInfoSci]

Yeah, my family started with crop systems back in 2005 with the Rebel but realized shortly after that full frame was inevitable / king for personal interests. It was just a matter of saving. So we stopped buying crop lenses about three in, sold those, and only bought full frame lenses going forward. Now we can switch with impunity. Alas, that does cost more. Ignoring the double wallet punch if someone invested in a crop ecosystem and then down the road added a full frame to the mix, I could see a core trinity set of crop lenses being nice. But what about simply grabbing an EF-S 18-135, which is still available new?

 

[PhotoBob]

I had an R7 for a long time that I finally sold. Great camera for the money but the rolling shutter for action is a dealbreaker. The VF is also too small. The AF is actually very good once it's tweaked properly, so if they upgrade that, great. I would love to see a larger sensor that has a much faster readout speed to knock down the rolling. I would buy a M2 with anything close to the above specs. The M2 would be great with the RF200-800mm for wildlife.

 

[Bob Howland]

Things we don't know:
First, what is the licensing fee that Canon is charging Sigma for the APS-C R-mount lenses that Sigma makes? I own seven of them and they are all excellent (except maybe the 16-300, which is merely very good for what it is).
Second, does the agreement between Canon and Sigma prevent Sigma from introducing new EF mount lenses, to prevent Sigma from doing what Meike is doing? Does Canon see high quality EF lenses and Metabone/Meike speed boosters as a serious threat?
Third, if the R7-2 is optimized for bird watching at long ranges, wouldn't that type of photography be done with FF lenses anyway? The size and weight of long lenses tends to be dominated by the front elements.

 

[neffels]

I'm not really sure what the point of 40mp crop sensor is if Canon doesn't really have any dedicated high-end APS-C lens ecosystem. Best case scenario, such a high res aps-c sensor (high pixel density) is optimal with the latest 70-200Z and RF 24-105 2.8 or other super high end lenses... i mean sure you can use this with any lens, but at that point, what's the point in getting this body other than to say you have the latest and greatest Canon crop camera. Without any attempt at making high end APS-C lenses, i don't know what Canon is doing here with this sensor. hopefully they have lenses in the works or will open up to 3rd party support?

There already are Rf-s third party lenses. Sigma has a bunch

 

[DocInfoSci]

Does Canon see high quality EF lenses and Metabone/Meike speed boosters as a serious threat?

I have found modern EF lenses to be as good as RF equivalents when the entire package is considered: lens glass, digital post-processing, and mechanical operation.

Yes, a few RF lenses apparently blow their EF predecessor out of the water (the 50mm 1.2 by all accounts, but I haven't tried the RF edition) but my experience is most pedestrian L editions are only marginally better in terms of image output — not enough to justify the price gap by any means when the EF predecessor remains available new with warranty.

Throw in patent expirations and general R&D for equivalent yet patent side-stepping innovation and I'd say that the 3rd party landscape with AF on an EF mount basis can be more than competitive when price gets thrown in. Most of us are probably happy with very sharp at a $1,000 whatever below extremely sharp before post-processing even takes place.

Oh, and full time manual mechanical override remains awesome once grass, twigs, and ballon strings enter the view...

 

[neffels]

Not stacked with 40fps isn't a good idea. Unless the 15fps mechanical shutter stays(and no shutter shock), I rather take lower MP stacked CMOS.

Theoretically assuming it is in like a R6mkiii body or similar I imagine the shutter will be upgraded and much better

 

[AlanF]

Third, if the R7-2 is optimized for bird watching at long ranges, wouldn't that type of photography be done with FF lenses anyway? The size and weight of long lenses tends to be dominated by the front elements.

You have hit the nail on the head. For birding etc with long telephoto lenses, the front elements are the same, and the natural image circle at the back from a long telephoto will be so large to cover FF as well as APS-C.

 

[LCDVS00]

I'm not really sure what the point of 40mp crop sensor is if Canon doesn't really have any dedicated high-end APS-C lens ecosystem. Best case scenario, such a high res aps-c sensor (high pixel density) is optimal with the latest 70-200Z and RF 24-105 2.8 or other super high end lenses... i mean sure you can use this with any lens, but at that point, what's the point in getting this body other than to say you have the latest and greatest Canon crop camera. Without any attempt at making high end APS-C lenses, i don't know what Canon is doing here with this sensor. hopefully they have lenses in the works or will open up to 3rd party support?

8K UHD my friend.
R5 and R5 II have a 4500MP sensor, can record 8K DCI video, it means 8192×4320, for camera ,sensor need about 8192*5460, about 4500 MP sensor.
8K UHD video means 7680×4320 resolution, for camera, sensor need about 7680*5120, about 3900~3950MP sensor.
Yes, my Chinese compatriot E8M did said: "R7II will record 8KUHD rather than 8KDCI, in order to avoid competing directly with the R5 series."

 

[50wyldeman]

You say this "what's the point in getting this body other than to say you have the latest and greatest Canon crop camera

and then this?
"all canon has for their crop system thus far is crappy little low end slow (small aperture) kit zooms."
the comments in my opinion directly contradict each other?

Most wildlife shooters are shooting FF high end glass as it has superior durability and weather sealing.
Broketographers like myself make due with either adapted EF Glass like the Siggy 150-600 or other similarly priced glass.
I think for most wildlife pros the advantage of throw and durability are likely most important. I am very happy they are taking the R7 seriously ( it seems ) this time around.

I feel Canon realizes the 7d was a professional wildlife focused camera body. The original offering of the R7 was, in my opinion very poorly thought out.
Canon from what I am seeing definitely has begun to distance themselves from the "cripple hammer etc" negativity. I do wish they would go all in on this camera and make it a gripped body ( significant increase in battery life and less points of failure in harsh environments, again pro gear mindset ) I am sure they wont make it gripped, however if they really want to be all in on "the best ASP-C wildlife platform I think that is more important than likely others do and I highly doubt canon cares about my thoughts ...

Forgive my improper formatting as I am new to responding in this format. Also since typed words do not inflect please know this is not meant to take a run at your original comment, just my thoughts on it. Be well

 

[50wyldeman]

I have found modern EF lenses to be as good as RF equivalents when the entire package is considered: lens glass, digital post-processing, and mechanical operation.

Yes, a few RF lenses apparently blow their EF predecessor out of the water (the 50mm 1.2 by all accounts, but I haven't tried the RF edition) but my experience is most pedestrian L editions are only marginally better in terms of image output — not enough to justify the price gap by any means when the EF predecessor remains available new with warranty.

Throw in patent expirations and general R&D for equivalent yet patent side-stepping innovation and I'd say that the 3rd party landscape with AF on an EF mount basis can be more than competitive when price gets thrown in. Most of us are probably happy with very sharp at a $1,000 whatever below extremely sharp before post-processing even takes place.

Oh, and full time manual mechanical override remains awesome once grass, twigs, and ballon strings enter the view...

In my experience the advantages for RF is speed of focusing ( especially in low light ( I do a lot of dimly lit music shows ) focus retention and hit rates trend to improve in most situations. However I do agree too that in the case of a lens like the EF 70-200 2.l IS when it hits the IQ is simply superb adapted to my R5. My RF 85 1.2 is vastly better than my EF counterpart was ( even the very great EF 85 1.4 ) . My BIGGEST frustration since moving to the RF has been the glass is so so so cost prohibitive and as you very wisely noted when you take the entirety of it Post processing etc. I agree it is a hard "sell" to spend the money. For me as a pro it comes down to the fact that in the wild ( not when in my studio fwiw ) the convenience of NOT fussing with adapters and the bulk/weight of it all in my bag is the harder part of the trade off using EF glass. .

 

[justaCanonuser]

To make it short: dial me in for an upgrade. Personally, I am not interested in APS-C lenses. I need this camera for tele + macro photogaphy, both with FF lenses, because I use them also with my R5 II. Just a beefier body with Canon's standard button layout and much less rolling shutter would be already enough reasons to upgrade for me.

 

[50wyldeman]

My hopes for the R7 MKII were basically
35 or more MP ~ Being able to crop wildlife is a nice thing and more necessary than most I think realize.
CFx ~ In my opinion the biggest failing of the OG R7 was buffering issues according darn near every review I watched.
I feel that AF has increased significantly since the R7 release so one can hope it will be on Par with the R6 III R5 II etc
I know the odds of it being a gripped body are likely the same as Nat Geo calling me to shoot for them but one can dream ( on both accounts ) But reality is IF they want this to be a Flagship Wildlife body then I feel that is more important than most would think. Points of failure sealing wise and the improved battery life that come along with the gripped body are important to people in the field.
the other noted things EVF Digic etc are all important and I think Canon needs to decide what they want from this is it meant to be "THE go to wildlife body" or is it meant to fit in between the R6 III and R8 user base wise?
I am stoked to see where it ends up as I need a backup to the R5 even though its a weird choice to go to a Crop sensor the area of photography I do for "me" most is wildlife so I would love a serious Crop option.
I do fear that if it has the features I list it would be more expensive than an R6 III and not sure canon wants that.

I apologize for three consecutive posts I am very excited for this camera and hope this wasn't all too much