What’s Coming Next from Canon?

[scyrene]

I think what people get confused by (as I was myself until I did some reading up about the physics of it) is the difference in the effect on noise of total light and that of light per unit area. Good explanation (the one that finally made it click for me) from Richard Butler on this DPreview thread, with the bit that I think people get led astray by in bold:


I know that's what you've been saying but it puts it in a slightly different way that I personally found easier.

That's fair enough, and this subject not particularly intuitive; but the bigger problem (on this forum and in the world generally) is when people who don't understand things cling doggedly to their ignorance in the face of any and all evidence and explanations. A little humility goes a long way - nobody knows everything, and all of us had to learn each thing for the first time once upon a time. But those people don't have that attitude, they start from a position of absolute self confidence (and even if they do finally concede, an apology is rarely forthcoming).

 

[bloblom]

In my opinion, you are mixing apples and pears. The comparison with rain and area is wrong. The same amount of water falls on the area. That's the principle of the rain gauge, gentlemen

I really don't know what you're talking about here. I know the R7 takes nice pictures of animals. And that's why I bought it.

26. 5. 2026 14:34:37 by Pavel Zajíček

adobe.ly

Here you have a squirrel, for example.

Do you see her fine whiskers? Are those the buckets of water?

Don't sweat, you'd be hard pressed to find any difference between APS-C and FF under proper lighting.
Full frame merely raises the ceiling of what you can theoretically achieve in terms of image quality by giving you a bit more flexibility, that's it. I take much better pictures with my R7 + RF 100-500L than the R5 Mark II + 200-800 I was lent. Possibly because I know my setup much better and know how to go around its weaknesses, but also because I simply have a superior lens.

Depth of field is a much more compelling argument in favor of FF for portrait photographers than dynamic range is for birders.

 

[@zajicekpavel]

Don't sweat, you'd be hard pressed to find any difference between APS-C and FF under proper lighting.
Full frame merely raises the ceiling of what you can theoretically achieve in terms of image quality by giving you a bit more flexibility, that's it. I take much better pictures with my R7 + RF 100-500L than the R5 Mark II + 200-800 I was lent. Possibly because I know my setup much better and know how to go around its weaknesses, but also because I simply have a superior lens.

Depth of field is a much more compelling argument in favor of FF for portrait photographers than dynamic range is for birders.

RF 100-500L is on my wish list... is it worth more than 200-800 for R7?

 

[bloblom]

RF 100-500L is on my wish list... is it worth more than 200-800 for R7?

It's $1000 / 1000€ more expensive new, but you can have it second hand for about 2500€ so not much more than the 200-800.

If you're talking about performance, you get an equivalent 160-800 with dual USM AF, great stabilization, three stabilizer modes, one dedicated to panning/birds in flight. All in a much lighter, smaller and more robust lens body.
The 200-800 is heavy, bulky, hard to balance when zoomed out and all around inferior. 800mm is quite soft on it so you're better off cropping from 700. On the R7 I can only imagine this being worse.
1280mm FF equivalent is far too much anyway, atmospheric disturbances will ruin the vast majority of your images.

The R7 paired with the 100-500 is already a bargain compared to FF equivalent kits and can absolutely produce award winning images. In fact, many people have won photography awards with this exact kit.

 

[MikeGalos]

Don't sweat, you'd be hard pressed to find any difference between APS-C and FF under proper lighting.

One other difference is that given the same sensor resolution you lose about one f/stop before diffraction becomes a problem because the photo site in an APS-C sensor of the same sensor resolution is that much smaller. Going in the other direction, keeping the photo sites the same size and not hitting diffraction losses earlier is going to cut overall sensor resolution.

Note I didn't say where diffraction becomes a problem since that depends on what the photographer considers acceptable loss of sharpness but given the same photographer, you lose about one stop by going APS-C. If diffraction bothers you at f/16 on full frame then you'll find it bothers you at f/11 on APS-C. If diffraction bothers you at f/8 on full frame then you'll find it bothers you at f/5.6 on APS-C.

 

[bloblom]

One other difference is that given the same sensor resolution you lose about one f/stop before diffraction becomes a problem because the photo site in an APS-C sensor of the same sensor resolution is that much smaller. Going in the other direction, keeping the photo sites the same size and not hitting diffraction losses earlier is going to cut overall sensor resolution.

Note I didn't say where diffraction becomes a problem since that depends on what the photographer considers acceptable loss of sharpness but given the same photographer, you lose about one stop by going APS-C. If diffraction bothers you at f/11 on full frame then you'll find it bothers you at f/8 on APS-C.

With higher resolution sensors, this difference between FF and APS-C is getting slimer with each new generation of camera and in a few years we probably won't compare FF and APS-C on diffraction.

The DLA of the R7 is around f/5.0, on the A7RVI it's f/5.6.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Don't sweat, you'd be hard pressed to find any difference between APS-C and FF under proper lighting.
Depth of field is a much more compelling argument in favor of FF for portrait photographers than dynamic range is for birders.

In this context, dynamic range is really a surrogate for image noise.

Perhaps you usually shoot in 'proper lighting' (by which I think you mean lots of it). I shoot in the light I have, and it's often not very bright, either due to the fast shutter speeds needed for flying birds, or because I need to stop motion at indoor events.

I shoot a lot of birds in flight, and that requires a fast shutter. You mention your preference for the R7 and the 100-500L combo, and for my birding shots with that relatively slow lens, my most commonly used ISOs are at or over 12800.



Personally, I would not shoot with an APS-C camera at those high ISOs. YMMV.

The story for me is similar for indoor events – I am usually shooting those with the 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, and almost all my shots are at ISO 6400 or higher. Here are the ISOs from my 100-300/2.8 shots, for example.



If 'proper light' means, for example, in the ISO 100-1600 range, then for me that's a small minority of my images in some use cases.

And once again, the point is not about one sensor size being 'better' than another, but to be aware of the capabilities and limitations so an informed choice can be made based on an individual's needs.

 

[@zajicekpavel]

here we are at the heart of the problem. R5 will probably never have 80-85 MP, why? because then it would have the same pixel density as R7 and the noise in the photo would be very similar. Yes your buckets of water ... I write similar not the same because, yes there is still a camera sensor size but this factor is smaller than you think. Even with a small puppet you can play a big show!

 

[neuroanatomist]

here we are at the heart of the problem. R5 will probably never have 80-85 MP, why? because then it would have the same pixel density as R7 and the noise in the photo would be very similar.

The difference would still be 1.3-stops worth of noise. ISO 6400 on the 85 MP FF sensor will still look like ISO 2500 on the 32 MP APS-C sensor.

You can argue with physics, but you’ll lose. Every. Single. Time.

 

[@zajicekpavel]

The difference would still be 1.3-stops worth of noise. ISO 6400 on the 85 MP FF sensor will still look like ISO 2500 on the 32 MP APS-C sensor.

You can argue with physics, but you’ll lose. Every. Single. Time.

yes 1.3 EV exactly physically...

yes, FF wins hands down in low light at weddings, take a little bird in the sun photographed with an R7 with a quality lens and FF owners cry, do you want to argue any further? : )

 

[AlanF]

Don't sweat, you'd be hard pressed to find any difference between APS-C and FF under proper lighting.
Full frame merely raises the ceiling of what you can theoretically achieve in terms of image quality by giving you a bit more flexibility, that's it. I take much better pictures with my R7 + RF 100-500L than the R5 Mark II + 200-800 I was lent. Possibly because I know my setup much better and know how to go around its weaknesses, but also because I simply have a superior lens.

Depth of field is a much more compelling argument in favor of FF for portrait photographers than dynamic range is for birders.

I have had the the R7, R5, R5ii and RF 100-500 and RF 200-800mm since they first came out, and have taken 100s of 1000s of bird photos with the permutations, and I think I know their quirks and how to get around them. When it comes to IQ, the RF 100-500mm on the R7 and the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii are close to the same. I frequently take the R5ii/200-800 bird photographing with my wife who uses the R7/200-800, and our images are of identical quality. So, your experience may either be due to a bad copy of the 200-800mm or your lack of experience with it. The 200-800mm is not at its best at 800mm, but it is compensated by the better AA-filter on the R5/R5ii.

 

[AlanF]

yes 1.3 EV exactly physically...

yes, FF wins hands down in low light at weddings, take a little bird in the sun photographed with an R7 with a quality lens and FF owners cry, do you want to argue any further? : )

It's more nuanced than that. For difficult shots of birds or dragonflies in flight, I would use the RF 100-500mm (which I too highly recommend) on the R5ii any day because it's so much easier to keep the fast moving critters in frame on an FF. Otherwise, with the APS-C I would zoom out to 300mm to give a similar field of view. For slow moving distant birds, it's a different situation and I go for maximum magnification.

 

[@zajicekpavel]

AlanF: thank you very much for the advice, it is really useful for me, because I have been shooting for a short time (a year with the R10 and now for some time with the R7). But I had to respond to the talk here like free lunch, go and bury yourself with APS-c, etc.

I thought for a very long time what to buy and I decided on the R7 precisely because I only shoot wildlife.

I am thinking about where to move next .. the 200-800 attracts me because of the range ...

so far I only have 100-400 + TK 1.4

For example, 2 photos that I took 30 minutes ago in my garden ... with this setup.

May 29, 2026 by Pavel Zajíček

adobe.ly

May 29, 2026 by Pavel Zajíček

adobe.ly

For example, these are the photo taken by the R10:

May 29, 2026 by Pavel Zajíček

adobe.ly

 

[Bob Howland]

I have had the the R7, R5, R5ii and RF 100-500 and RF 200-800mm since they first came out, and have taken 100s of 1000s of bird photos with the permutations, and I think I know their quirks and how to get around them. When it comes to IQ, the RF 100-500mm on the R7 and the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii are close to the same. I frequently take the R5ii/200-800 bird photographing with my wife who uses the R7/200-800, and our images are of identical quality. So, your experience may either be due to a bad copy of the 200-800mm or your lack of experience with it. The 200-800mm is not at its best at 800mm, but it is compensated by the better AA-filter on the R5/R5ii.

Have you ever used a Metabones or Meike speedbooster with EF lenses and your R7? I own both and use them (mostly the Metabones) with Canon 70-200 lenses and Sigma 100-400 and 150-600 lenses. They work best with the 150-600 but are more useful to me with the 100-400. I shoot motocross motorcycles (sometimes in flight) and the 71-284 f/3.5-4.5, that the 100-400 becomes, is perfect. The 100-300 would probably work just as well without the Speedbooster but I'm not spending that kind of money for one.

 

[bloblom]

In this context, dynamic range is really a surrogate for image noise.

Perhaps you usually shoot in 'proper lighting' (by which I think you mean lots of it). I shoot in the light I have, and it's often not very bright, either due to the fast shutter speeds needed for flying birds, or because I need to stop motion at indoor events.

I shoot a lot of birds in flight, and that requires a fast shutter. You mention your preference for the R7 and the 100-500L combo, and for my birding shots with that relatively slow lens, my most commonly used ISOs are at or over 12800.

View attachment 229751

Personally, I would not shoot with an APS-C camera at those high ISOs. YMMV.

The story for me is similar for indoor events – I am usually shooting those with the 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, and almost all my shots are at ISO 6400 or higher. Here are the ISOs from my 100-300/2.8 shots, for example.

View attachment 229755

If 'proper light' means, for example, in the ISO 100-1600 range, then for me that's a small minority of my images in some use cases.

And once again, the point is not about one sensor size being 'better' than another, but to be aware of the capabilities and limitations so an informed choice can be made based on an individual's needs.

I cap the R7 at 6400. Most of my pictures are taken around 3200, and with modern denoising 6400 on APS-C isn't nearly as bad as it used to be.

I shoot in the light I have, and it's often not very bright, either due to the fast shutter speeds needed for flying birds, or because I need to stop motion at indoor events.

That's what I meant by "FF gives you more flexibility". With FF I could start shooting a bit earlier and stop later, I could jump to 12800 if the situation requires it. If you mostly shoot low light, by all means, FF will give you better results overall. But if you lack light, a larger sensor will not necessarily save your shooting session, you simply need more light. That's why for shooting in the forest I'd rather invest in faster glass (also cheaper and lighter thanks to crop) than switch to FF hoping it will solve my problem.

If we want to move away from purely technical specs and talk about real world usage, we should take into account that birding on FF requires a much bigger investment for bigger, heavier lenses. In the same situation, if the 100-500 allows me to shoot at 6400 on the R7, the 200-800 on the R5II forces me to be at 12800. At that point there is actually less than a stop of difference between both cameras with the ES. If I want to take advantage of the R5II at 600mm and beyond without being forced to shoot f/9, the only alternative is a big white that costs as much as a car.

The R7 and 100-500 can be bought second hand for less than a R5II and that kit weighs less than the 200-800 alone.

 

[bloblom]

I have had the the R7, R5, R5ii and RF 100-500 and RF 200-800mm since they first came out, and have taken 100s of 1000s of bird photos with the permutations, and I think I know their quirks and how to get around them. When it comes to IQ, the RF 100-500mm on the R7 and the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii are close to the same. I frequently take the R5ii/200-800 bird photographing with my wife who uses the R7/200-800, and our images are of identical quality. So, your experience may either be due to a bad copy of the 200-800mm or your lack of experience with it. The 200-800mm is not at its best at 800mm, but it is compensated by the better AA-filter on the R5/R5ii.

Yes, as I said it's possibly due to my inexperience with this lens. I had the opportunity to shoot the same bird on the same branch with both kits. The 100-500 was slightly sharper, had better micro-contrast and color rendition. It's not night and day but it was noticeable.

 

[neuroanatomist]

yes 1.3 EV exactly physically...

Indeed. Whether that matters depends on the situation. There's not really a meaningful difference in noise levels between ISO 200 and ISO 500, for example. However, IMO there is a meaningful difference in noise levels between ISO 12800 and ISO 32000.

yes, FF wins hands down in low light at weddings, take a little bird in the sun photographed with an R7 with a quality lens and FF owners cry, do you want to argue any further? : )

If it's a good picture, why would I cry about that? There are technical and budgetary differences between full frame and APS-C systems. you seem to be approaching this from a rather emotional standpoint.