Rumored Canon EOS M7 camera specifications, and the end of the line for EOS M? [CR1]

[brad-man]

As in the Sigma? I have it, just not had much chance to play with it as the R5 came

I've had my eye on the Sigma, but I would prefer to stay native. Also, due to the interchangeability of the mount, I think it's a bit larger and heavier than it needs to be. I have the EF-M 32 and would like a 16 at the same quality.

 

[Stu_bert]

Historically, the advanced APS-C 7D (2009) and 7D Mark II (2014), which are superior in every way except sensor size, have sold for less than the entry level FF 6D (2012) and 6D Mark II (2017).

An APS-C R7 would almost certainly sell for less than a FF R6.

Yes I agree Michael re EF, but I think the closest to the 6D is the R. The R6 is more action oriented with it's focus and fps etc. I think someone else mentioned in another thread, that a 600mm f/11 with a R6 would be a good alternative to the 7D if you can accept the MFD and restrictions on lighting. As you're likely to have maybe a EF 100-400mm already then you get the reach when you need it, or the zoom and quality when you don't. I had the 7D, never the MK II, but I did more landscapes so I accepted the FF compromise and sold the 7D.

Now someone will do the maths and show me a 400mm on a 7D II sensor gives more pixels on subject than a R6 with a 600mm lens , and with a 1.4x tele well there is no comparison.

But I think a R7 and the R6 would be really close in capabilities other than the sensor. Would Canon offer another action oriented APS-C sensor R that close to the release of the FF R6? I can't make up my mind.

 

[Stu_bert]

I've had my eye on the Sigma, but I would prefer to stay native. Also, due to the interchangeability of the mount, I think it's a bit larger and heavier than it needs to be. I have the EF-M 32 and would like a 16 at the same quality.

Fair enough!

I just thought it was unlikely Canon would go there, especially now Sigma has. The Sigma's are heavier and yes I am sure some of that is due to the mounts, but also the construction is different materials. Don't get me wrong, the Canon's offer a nice balance, and if you take a little bit of effort to protect them then I think they will last a long time.

Maybe Canon is going to shake up the M mount, and the M6 II was like the R and the RP - enough to keep you hooked while the R5/R6 come and now the M7...

 

[Stu_bert]

I’m glad they make a camera that suits you but I have small hands and I much prefer the big chunky grip on my 7D ii especially as I mostly use it with great white lenses like my EF400mm f/5.6 and EF300mm f/2.8

Yep I am with you there. Someone else posted that they were happy with the M6 II and a 400mm f/2.8 iirc, and I was amazed. I need the 100-400mm on a monopod to handhold it with the M6 II for any period of time - the balance for me is not good. Put the same lens on a larger body and that balance is restored such that I can just hold the body when I am walking with the lens pointing down.....

If I am in a hide or something, well then I would not care and would happily the m6 / 100-400mm combo.

 

[Stu_bert]

I know most of the buyers don't really care about build quality or absolute image quality but that 55-200 could be a killer lens if Canon made it:
- a bit sharper and with better quality control
- improved build quality - add a metal mount and some weather sealing / better plastic quality

I would be even happy if they dropped the focal length and made it 50-150 F4

If you want weather sealing could you consider the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS II? Ignoring price.
Or the 55-250mm IS STM is better than the 55-200mm based on the reviews I saw.

I did toy with the 70-200mm especially with the possibility of using it on the M6 II and any FF when I didnt want to lug the 100-400mm, but as I got a new 55-250 IS STM for only 130 squid, then I decided to control my GAS (a bit!)

 

[Deleted member 378664]

Why is the price of a potential R7 so important for some. Below R6, same as R6 or slighlty above R6. I can't imagine that this would be a show stopper for people who want the R7 instead of a M7. I speak of 7D/7DII owners who also have a FF Camera and one or more of the big whites that cost easily 2-5 times as much as a potential R7. When one says a price below the R6 price would enable one to invest in lenses rather than the body what kind of lens could this be when we speak of a price deifference of maybe 400$ to 600& (between below-R6 and above-R6 price). The most interesting lense will be quality L RF lenses maybe even replacements for the EF big whites. Than these ~500$ are peanuts. Other people that will be fine with a M7 want this camera to be cheap as it will be unlikely they use the big whites on their M7.

 

[blackcoffee17]

If you want weather sealing could you consider the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS II? Ignoring price.
Or the 55-250mm IS STM is better than the 55-200mm based on the reviews I saw.

I did toy with the 70-200mm especially with the possibility of using it on the M6 II and any FF when I didnt want to lug the 100-400mm, but as I got a new 55-250 IS STM for only 130 squid, then I decided to control my GAS (a bit!)

How is the 70-200 on the M6II? And which version?

I'm looking to buy the 70-200 IS but it's 800g, compared to 200g for the 55-200. Add the adapter and you are at 1kg almost.
Would be nice to have a compromise, something like Fuji's 55-200 or Sony's 70-350 which both weight around 500g. The Fuji is also very sharp and a stop brighter.

 

[Michael Clark]

If this is true, (I know I know I know its a CR1), BUT and this is a big BUT, if this is true, this would be all I need in a camera. the only two things I hate about my m50 is that it doesn't have IBIS and it doesn't shoot clog, give me those and take my money NOW!!!

I'm sure there are many who want a GoPro sized camera that can do everything an Arri can do, too. Doesn't mean they are going to get it, though.

 

[Michael Clark]

I’d buy an R7 with similar features to the R6 and downsized 17mp sensor for the same price as the R6 as it would give me all I need for high performance Birds in Flight camera at a price I can afford.
7D ii buyers didn’t buy FF because we can’t afford it as the 7D ii was better than the equivalent 5D for what we wanted

Speak for yourself. I owned a 5D Mark II before my first 7D. I owned a 5D Mark III before my 7D Mark II. Both are tools for different jobs. Most 7D Mark II owners I know also own FF cameras.

What is too expensive for many of us is a $6,000-$8,000 lens needed with a FF camera to get the same reach at f/2.8 under the dim lights in youth and high school stadiums and gyms when a $2,000 or less 70-200/2.8 will do almost as well with a high density APS-C camera. For those of us who need to make more than we spend shooting youth/high school sports it's the only feasible way to stay in the black or green, rather than in the red.

That application also demands durability. My 7D Mark II has more shutter actuations than my 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV combined, even though the 5D Mark III is older than my 7D Mark II. The two FF cameras are my primary bodies except for my "long" body when shooting sports. But that's where the shutter clicks add up the fastest, and in all kinds of weather.

 

[Michael Clark]

I’m glad they make a camera that suits you but I have small hands and I much prefer the big chunky grip on my 7D ii especially as I mostly use it with great white lenses like my EF400mm f/5.6 and EF300mm f/2.8

The EF 400mm f/5.6 L is not a Great White. The EF 300mm f/2.8 is right on that line.

 

[Stu_bert]

How is the 70-200 on the M6II? And which version?

I'm looking to buy the 70-200 IS but it's 800g, compared to 200g for the 55-200. Add the adapter and you are at 1kg almost.
Would be nice to have a compromise, something like Fuji's 55-200 or Sony's 70-350 which both weight around 500g. The Fuji is also very sharp and a stop brighter.

Sorry, maybe I misled.

I have a f/4 mark 1 at home. I have a 100-400 mk 2 here. I nearly considered the 70-200 f/4 mk 2 to replace my mark 1, but got the ef-s 55-250 Is stm instead.

 

[Michael Clark]

I know most of the buyers don't really care about build quality or absolute image quality but that 55-200 could be a killer lens if Canon made it:
- a bit sharper and with better quality control
- improved build quality - add a metal mount and some weather sealing / better plastic quality

I would be even happy if they dropped the focal length and made it 50-150 F4

You're comparing EF-M lenses to the kinds of lenses basement dwelling forum warriors who have never actually seen them salivate over. That's not how the vast majority of buyers of EOS M cameras are comparing them. They're comparing them to similarly sized lenses from Fuji and Sony, and they're comparing them on price.

 

[Stu_bert]

The EF 400mm f/5.6 L is not a Great White. The EF 300mm f/2.8 is right on that line.

Ah now that’s piqued my interest. TDP includes the 200mm f2 and 300mm in a 2015 article in the list

Canon themselves say their larger telephoto lenses which is where they first applied the white coating to prevent overheating (their quote, not mine). They also say the name first coined was Big White

 

[Michael Clark]

Yes I agree Michael re EF, but I think the closest to the 6D is the R. The R6 is more action oriented with it's focus and fps etc. I think someone else mentioned in another thread, that a 600mm f/11 with a R6 would be a good alternative to the 7D if you can accept the MFD and restrictions on lighting. As you're likely to have maybe a EF 100-400mm already then you get the reach when you need it, or the zoom and quality when you don't. I had the 7D, never the MK II, but I did more landscapes so I accepted the FF compromise and sold the 7D.

Now someone will do the maths and show me a 400mm on a 7D II sensor gives more pixels on subject than a R6 with a 600mm lens , and with a 1.4x tele well there is no comparison.

But I think a R7 and the R6 would be really close in capabilities other than the sensor. Would Canon offer another action oriented APS-C sensor R that close to the release of the FF R6? I can't make up my mind.

Anything narrower than f/2.8 is a no go when shooting youth/high school/small college sports under lights. A 100-400/4.5-6.3 is useless for that. At f/2.8 we're already using ISO 3200 or higher just to get 1/800 to 1/1000. Before flicker reduction, which times the shutter release at the peak of the lights' cycle, we were only getting 1/500 at f/2.8 and ISO 3200 at most stadiums/ballparks.

The attraction of a camera like the 7D Mark II when we already own FF 5-series bodies is that a $2,000 or less 70-200/2.8 on a high density APS-C sensor will give us the same reach for field sports as a $6,000 EF 300/2.8 L IS II will on a FF body. That's the difference between breaking even/making money and spending more than we make doing that kind of shooting. It doesn't hurt that we're also putting obscenely high shutter counts on a $1,700 body with a 200,000 shutter rating instead of a $3,500 body with a 150,000 shutter rating. Some of us do wear them out and need to replace them before the next "improved" model comes out.

 

[Michael Clark]

Ah now that’s piqued my interest. TDP includes the 200mm f2 and 300mm in a 2015 article in the list

Canon themselves say their larger telephoto lenses which is where they first applied the white coating to prevent overheating (their quote, not mine). They also say the name first coined was Big White

Call them "Big Whites" if it makes you feel better. I don't consider my 70-200/2.8 a Big White, nor anything else shorter than 300-400mm with f/2.8 or equivalent entrance pupil (500/4, 600/4, 800/5.6, etc.).

 

[Michael Clark]

You've replied to a comment about lenses. I referred to bodies earlier - the difference in throat diameter is 10mm. What a huge difference. Not.

10mm is 12% of the height of the M50, and that includes the viewfinder hump. That's significant to someone looking for a compact, lightweight body.

 

[koenkooi]

I know most of the buyers don't really care about build quality or absolute image quality but that 55-200 could be a killer lens if Canon made it:
- a bit sharper and with better quality control
- improved build quality - add a metal mount and some weather sealing / better plastic quality[..]

Roger from lensrentals has mentioned a few times that most of the "metal" mounts are screwed into a plastic spacers inside the lens. So it's mostly for aesthetics. The plastic mounts of the EF-M22 and 11-22 are still tight after 7 years of heavy use.

 

[koenkooi]

Thank you. I was trying to delicately avoid offending anyone... I have an M6II. About an inch deeper and a grip maybe half an inch deeper would be nice...

I really like the EG-E1 'grip' on my RP. It gives it just enough extra height to work for my hand. And if my wife brings it, it comes off really easily. Something like that for the M6II would be great. The Smallrig L-bracket for the M6II improves things, but it doesn't taper in at the bottom, making my pinky feel like it's being pushed out.
But that's for when I use the 180L on the M6II, for all EF-M lenses the body alone works great.

 

[Michael Clark]

20mp on the 7D ii’s 6 year old sensor will perform much worse than a 17mp version of the new R5 sensor especially with a low pass or no AA filter.
The 7D ii performance in low light is pretty terrible for instance and I’m sure the R5 in crop mode would be vastly superior and I’d love to buy an R5 but it’s very expensive
If canon priced the R7 at the same or slightly less than the R6 and with similar features I’d buy it for sure.

Yeah, it's absolutely awful at ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/800, isn't it?









But the age and performance of the 2014 7D Mark II is beside the point.

The existing 32MP APS-C sensor in the 90D and M6 Mark II is better than the 7D Mark II in similar lighting. Presumably a 32MP version of the roughly 80MP sensor expected in the predicted R5s would be even better than that.

This would be a more significant improvement over the 7D Mark II than a 17.8MP APS-C version of the FF 45MP sensor found in the R5.

Many of us who want a 7D Mark II replacement would be perfectly happy with an R7 that uses the existing 32MP sensor found in the 90D/M6 Mark II combined with the DiG!C X processing pipeline and an APS-C version of the 500,000 cycle shutter in the R5 (or even the 300,000 rated shutter of the R6) in a magnesium alloy body with weather sealing comparable to the R5.

Just for comparative purposes, the 2014 $1,799 7D Mark II had a 200,000 cycle rated shutter at the same time the 2012 $3,499 5D Mark III and the 2016 $3,499 5D Mark IV had shutter ratings of 150,000.

 

[unfocused]

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between hoping for an RF mount successor to the 7D Mark II because it seems to fit the needs of the vast majority of current 7D Mark II users (who often also use FF bodies and EF lenses) more than a potential M7 would and being hellbent that Canon must offer such a camera.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between saying anything in the EOS M system has to be small and saying Canon will most likely choose to keep everything in the EOS M system small.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between saying Canon can't offer anything larger in the EOS M system and saying that by all previous indications Canon most likely won't offer anything larger in the EOS M system.

There's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between being disappointed if Canon does not offer some kind of 7D replacement in the RF mount and being really upset if Canon does not offer some kind of high end APS-C body in the RF mount.

In other words, there's a huge difference, which you seem to be unable to comprehend, between what you keep arguing against and what many current 7D Mark II users are actually saying.

Given the intensity with which you respond to every post on this subject, terms like "hellbent" and "really upset" seem very accurate.