Is the Canon EOS R7 the next camera to be announced? [CR2]

[Exploreshootshare]

The best thing IF this camera is released:

It would finally end discussions about its necessity and the "should there/ shouldn't there"/ will there/ won't there" be a crop semi pro camera I kind feel nearly every thread was hijacked by this topic lately.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Yep, that to me would be the main advantage of getting an "R7".

The 45MP sensor of the R5, cropped down to APS-C size, becomes a measly 17MP.
I'd assume, possibly wrongly, that the "R7" would have at least 24MP and quite possibly 33MP.

I agree, I expect a 34MP sensor.

 

[David - Sydney]

The 45MP sensor of the R5, cropped down to APS-C size, becomes a measly 17MP.
I'd assume, possibly wrongly, that the "R7" would have at least 24MP and quite possibly 33MP.

Let's be clear that 7D users were quite happy with 18mp at the time and 7Dii are also happy with 20mp. Yes, they would like more and the 90D/M6ii showed a higher density sensor but "measly" is a poor choice of words
I recall the chorus of A7siii fanboys saying that 12mp was more than sufficient for stills.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Let's be clear that 7D users were quite happy with 18mp at the time and 7Dii are also happy with 20mp. Yes, they would like more and the 90D/M6ii showed a higher density sensor but "measly" is a poor choice of words
I recall the chorus of A7siii fanboys saying that 12mp was more than sufficient for stills.

I think you should put in perspective what the 7dii offered in compared to the 5dIV crop mode. The later had a crop mode resolution of 11.7 MP, so the 7dii´s 20MP offered almost twice the amount of pixels. More importantl, it gave people room to work for example for addional cropping in post).

The R5´s crop mode has 17,5MP so 20 MP would not be a real gain. If the R7 would have to offer only 20MP, a lot of people would skip a second (crop) body and invest in one "all-in-one" Body offering such as the R5. Therefore, imho the R7 has to offer a lot more MP than the 7dii did in order to be a success. I'd figure double the amount of MP of R5 in crop mode --> 34MP

 

[entoman]

Let's be clear that 7D users were quite happy with 18mp at the time and 7Dii are also happy with 20mp. Yes, they would like more and the 90D/M6ii showed a higher density sensor but "measly" is a poor choice of words
I recall the chorus of A7siii fanboys saying that 12mp was more than sufficient for stills.

It's my personal viewpoint David. I had 7D, 7DMkii (and plenty of other Canon DSLRs), and for me, the low MP counts were insufficient, as I photograph mostly wildlife, where I find that quite heavy cropping is needed.

Sure, there's the alternative of using a longer focal length to get a narrower angle of view, but lenses such as the 600mm F4L are way beyond what I'm prepared to pay. And there are many who simply don't have that much disposable income.

So for me, and my genres and methodology, a sensor with less than 20MP is "measly", although of course for other photographers with different wants and needs, that may not apply.

 

[AlanF]

Yep, that to me would be the main advantage of getting an "R7".

The 45MP sensor of the R5, cropped down to APS-C size, becomes a measly 17MP.
I'd assume, possibly wrongly, that the "R7" would have at least 24MP and quite possibly 33MP.

I7 Mpx is hardly measly, it’s pretty close to the 7DII, in fact it‘s only 8% less resolution. I had a 32 Mpx 90D for a while and had to use f/4 or wider to take advantage of its resolution. At the isos we use for bird photography, 800 or more, the noise ratchets the resolution down and I was getting as good images on the 5DSR, though in ideal conditions the 90 D is very nice. 50 Mpx FF is bit of a sweet spot in practical terms.

 

[David - Sydney]

Honestly, the only real crop-dedicated lens a R7 needs is something like a APS-C RF-S 15-50mm F/2.8. Anything longer and you might as well just get the RF 100-400 or RF 600, both of which really don't cost all that much to begin with.

Would be nice to see Canon release a 200-600 or 200-500 sorta lens for $1500, though. That would be a great middleground between the RF 600/800, 100-400, and 100-500.

I contend that Canon doesn't need to release any dedicated RF-s lenses (creating a 5th lens mount system) as adapted EF-s lenses already cover the range. Existing 7D/7Dii users would already have these lenses IF they wanted to cover wide angle so no change for them besides the adapter.

Canon already have a RF15-35mm/2.8L which is heavy and expensive. Can you point to a patent/rumor for that focal length that would be low cost/size/weight? The closest in the rumors roadmap is RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

I can't see Canon releasing a 200-600/500mm lens when you can add a TC 1.4/2x to the RF100-400mm. Yes, the cost of the TCs are relatively significant but still fit in the price segmentation that you are referring to.

 

[entoman]

I7 Mpx is hardly measly, it’s pretty close to the 7DII, in fact it‘s only 8% less resolution. I had a 32 Mpx 90D for a while and had to use f/4 or wider to take advantage of its resolution. At the isos we use for bird photography, 800 or more, the noise ratchets the resolution down and I was getting as good images on the 5DSR, though in ideal conditions the 90 D is very nice. 50 Mpx FF is bit of a sweet spot in practical terms.

I agree that the 45MP of the R5 is a nice sweet spot for a FF camera (and it's a very good sensor). The point I was trying to make is that in order for the "R7" to have appeal to wildlife photographers, it needs to offer *more* resolution than a cropped R5 can produce. Otherwise, what would be the benefit of getting the "R7"?

 

[David - Sydney]

I think you should put in perspective what the 7dii offered in compared to the 5dIV crop mode. The later had a crop mode resolution of 11.7 MP, so the 7dii´s 20MP offered almost twice the amount of pixels. More importantl, it gave people room to work for example for addional cropping in post).

The R5´s crop mode has 17,5MP so 20 MP would not be a real gain. If the R7 would have to offer only 20MP, a lot of people would skip a second (crop) body and invest in one "all-in-one" Body offering such as the R5. Therefore, imho the R7 has to offer a lot more MP than the 7dii did in order to be a success. I'd figure double the amount of MP of R5 in crop mode --> 34MP

We certainly have increasing expectations for MP and want the ability to crop on crop sensors as well
7D forum users have said that the R5 is too expensive for them so perhaps is not a good option as they would have already jumped if that was the case.
I think that Canon reusing the 90D sensor with 10fps would satisfy most of the remaining community to switch

 

[David - Sydney]

So for me, and my genres and methodology, a sensor with less than 20MP is "measly", although of course for other photographers with different wants and needs, that may not apply.

I agree that it is your opinion (and mine can be different) but the 1Dxiii/R6 users seem to be okay with 20mp for sports/action.

 

[entoman]

I contend that Canon doesn't need to release any dedicated RF-s lenses (creating a 5th lens mount system) as adapted EF-s lenses already cover the range. Existing 7D/7Dii users would already have these lenses IF they wanted to cover wide angle so no change for them besides the adapter.

Canon already have a RF15-35mm/2.8L which is heavy and expensive. Can you point to a patent/rumor for that focal length that would be low cost/size/weight? The closest in the rumors roadmap is RF 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

I can't see Canon releasing a 200-600/500mm lens when you can add a TC 1.4/2x to the RF100-400mm. Yes, the cost of the TCs are relatively significant but still fit in the price segmentation that you are referring to.

Except that most people would probably prefer to use native RF glass, rather than adapt some rather dated EF glass.

 

[Inspired]

Hope it is full frame

 

[Deleted member 381342]

With an APS-C crop factor of 1.6x, the RF 100-500mm would be equivalent to a 160-800mm on the "R7".

They don't have to use the 1.6x crop factor for R.

 

[David - Sydney]

Except that most people would probably prefer to use native RF glass, rather than adapt some rather dated EF glass.

I agree but would/should Canon release a 5th lens mount?
What price point would you expect new RF glass to hit for these users?
Would Canon make money based on the relatively small volume of sales of them?
I would contend that most xxD/xxxD users would never consider buying a wide angle lens.
If Canon did release a RF-s lens then it would just use the ef-s "dated" optical formula, weld on an adapter and maybe improve the focus speed.

 

[AlanF]

I agree that the 45MP of the R5 is a nice sweet spot for a FF camera (and it's a very good sensor). The point I was trying to make is that in order for the "R7" to have appeal to wildlife photographers, it needs to offer *more* resolution than a cropped R5 can produce. Otherwise, what would be the benefit of getting the "R7"?

The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx sensor is f/5.2. The RF 100-400mm f/8 will be really showing diffraction on it and you wouldn’t be getting the best out of the RF 100-500mm f/7.1. You would have to buy the big white f/4s or otherwise the extra Mpx will just be window dressing. I’d be happy with a 20-24 Mpx R7 as a back up to my R5 and would probably buy one.

 

[entoman]

I agree that it is your opinion (and mine can be different) but the 1Dxiii/R6 users seem to be okay with 20mp for sports/action.

Sports/action photographers are probably shooting for magazines or newspapers, where a resolution of even 12MP is more than enough for a full page image. Most sports pros will also be in a position to buy or hire very expensive big whites. Furthermore, as pros, they'll be highly skilled at tracking and framing fast moving sports players, so can get away with less cropping.

I'm a hobbyist wildlife photographer, as are many here. We need more affordable options, which is where a combination of high MP sensors, shorter and more affordable lenses, heavier cropping, and lower skill levels at tracking subjects becomes relevant.

Like I said, I'm just giving my own perspective, and for me, 20MP is "measly". I can just about justify and afford the cost of an R5, a RF 100-500mm and RF 800mm. But no way am I going to buy a 1DXiii, a 400mm F2.8 and a 600mm F4.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Otherwise, what would be the benefit of getting the "R7"?

I am expecting a 24MP stacked sensor with no blackout that can push 30 or more FPS 14bit. That puts it well ahead of the R5 for wildlife unless you are just taking pictures of stationary animals that don't move. Though I do recall the 7D as being popular for all kinds of sports shooters so I fully expect the selling point will be high FPS at full bit depth with a blackout free fully electric (perhaps even shutter free) sensor.

 

[entoman]

They don't have to use the 1.6x crop factor for R.

Canon traditionally uses a 1.6x crop factor on their APS-C DSLRs and M series MILCs. They are highly unlikely to introduce another format. The crop factor will be 1.6x, take my word for it.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Well apart from that novelty retro one anyway!

The Df was no slouch in its time, it carried over a lot of tech from the D4. If you shot Nikon (glass) but had a penchant for Fuji design and dials galore as well, that was a good body for you. I have an acquaintance that still uses it.

 

[Jasonmc89]

The Df was no slouch in its time, it carried over a lot of tech from the D4. If you shot Nikon (glass) but had a penchant for Fuji design and dials galore as well, that was a good body for you. I have an acquaintance that still uses it.

Oh yeah I’m not denying it was a good camera. Just the design and decision to leave out video was the retro noveltyness.