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

[Czardoom]

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 benefit would be paying a lot less money - perhaps 1/2 as much. What a surprising number of people on this forum don't seem to understand or realize is that many folks can not afford an R5.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

If the R7 had these specs, then where in the product segmentation would the R7 fit in? More expensive than the R6? With 30fps, wouldn't that potentially hit R3 sales?
The R5 has banding issues under indoor lights with eshutter. I am not sure how the Z9 gets around them. I expect that there will be a mechanical shutter.

 

[entoman]

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.

Yes, one possibility is a lower resolution sensor and really fast burst speeds. But most wildlife (including BIF) photographers that I know (hobbyists and pros), only very rarely, if ever, shoot at 20fps. When slower burst speeds are available, they'll usually opt for no more than about 12fps. Their argument is that it is sufficient for almost any subject, and that shooting at higher fps has multiple disadvantages:

• buffers fill faster with a risk of lockups
• AF and tracking become less reliable
• much more time is needed to go through the images to choose the best ones

Also there is the issue of which camera would sell best for Canon, and I'd contend that a 33MP, 20fps camera would sell in much greater numbers than a 24MP 30fps camera.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

If the R7 had these specs, then where in the product segmentation would the R7 fit in? More expensive than the R6? With 30fps, wouldn't that potentially hit R3 sales?
The R5 has banding issues under indoor lights with eshutter. I am not sure how the Z9 gets around them. I expect that there will be a mechanical shutter.

The Z9 gets around them by matching the read speed of a mechanical shutter. Stacked sensors like the A1 where already dreadfully close to hitting the magic number and by the R3 Mk2 and Z9 Mk2 we'll be surpassing the mechanical shutter I expect.

As for the product segmentation. The R7 doesn't have to be cheaper than the R6, the 7D and 7D Mk2 at least here were priced at or above the 6D and 6D Mk2 and I would argue the 7D was far more capable.

As for R3 sales for a start it isn't an R3. The R3 is full frame, in a 1-series body, has more buttons, the fancy touch joysticks, and eye control.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

So.. you want a body that is affordable, higher pixel counts than a professional sports camera to allow for cropping and matched with cheaper long lenses and better tracking.
It does sound wistful thinking.
I hope that Canon releases such a camera. It would be well received.
I am very happy with my R5 and RF100-500mm lens. No need for longer focal lengths for me at this time.

 

[Czardoom]

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.

Alan, I truly than you for these comments and many of your other threads that point out the diminishing returns of going higher and higher with MPs. I would really like to see 24 MP in a Canon crop camera as I don't have any lenses that would really take advantage of more MPs than that. I am curious as to your thoughts as to how the new RF 100-400 would perform on a 20, 24 or 32 MP sensor.

Since Canon has used a 32 MP sensor in the M6 II and the 90D, I am afraid that they will have to use at least 32 in the upcoming crop camera, or face the wrath of all the internet reviewers and influencers. They would be killed online, because, alas, almost all of those influencers won't understand the diminishing returns of more MPs. There are, however, threads on the internet by Canon users that list and discuss how various EF lenses perform on the 32 MP sensors and whether they are, or are not, worth buying or using on the cameras with 32 MPs.

 

[David - Sydney]

The benefit would be paying a lot less money - perhaps 1/2 as much. What a surprising number of people on this forum don't seem to understand or realize is that many folks can not afford an R5.

I completely agree but why would Canon release a body half the price of the R5 which would be USD550 cheaper than the R6 but give excellent specs?

 

[entoman]

The benefit would be paying a lot less money - perhaps 1/2 as much. What a surprising number of people on this forum don't seem to understand or realize is that many folks can not afford an R5.

I appreciate your point, but think 50% of R5 price is a bit over-optimistic.

If the camera has the same build quality as the R5 (which if it's a sports/wildlife camera, it would need to have), and if it differs primarily in sensor size, the only real difference in manufacturing cost would be the physically smaller sensor. Countering that reduction in cost would be the cost of developing the camera and tooling. So I'd expect the cost to be around $3000.

If the camera is more affordable and designed more for the "Rebel" market, I'd expect the specification and build quality to be relatively poor and far from ideal for sports/wildlife, where cameras are regularly exposed to extreme weather and get more than their fair share of knocks and bangs.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Yes, one possibility is a lower resolution sensor and really fast burst speeds. But most wildlife (including BIF) photographers that I know (hobbyists and pros), only very rarely, if ever, shoot at 20fps. When slower burst speeds are available, they'll usually opt for no more than about 12fps. Their argument is that it is sufficient for almost any subject, and that shooting at higher fps has multiple disadvantages:

• buffers fill faster with a risk of lockups
• AF and tracking become less reliable
• much more time is needed to go through the images to choose the best ones

Also there is the issue of which camera would sell best for Canon, and I'd contend that a 33MP, 20fps camera would sell in much greater numbers than a 24MP 30fps camera.

With CF Express you wouldn't run into any buffering on a R7 with 24 MP 30 FPS. AF is just as reliable at 12 FPS as it is on 120 FPS depending on the camera, I just shot a bunch of tests with my Z9's 120 FPS mode and it happy produced over 2000 tack sharp images of my snakes striking things. The time to filter the images is a legit issue, I use Aftershot to help filter but really what we need is the Stacks feature from Aperture brought into Capture One so it can intelligently group a burst into one stack that you edit then promote the keeper candidates to the top.

And FYI I shoot wildlife at 15, 20, 30, and 120 FPS just now. Canon can and should let you pick a variable FPS for the R7.

 

[David - Sydney]

Alan, I truly than you for these comments and many of your other threads that point out the diminishing returns of going higher and higher with MPs. I would really like to see 24 MP in a Canon crop camera as I don't have any lenses that would really take advantage of more MPs than that. I am curious as to your thoughts as to how the new RF 100-400 would perform on a 20, 24 or 32 MP sensor.

Since Canon has used a 32 MP sensor in the M6 II and the 90D, I am afraid that they will have to use at least 32 in the upcoming crop camera, or face the wrath of all the internet reviewers and influencers. They would be killed online, because, alas, almost all of those influencers won't understand the diminishing returns of more MPs. There are, however, threads on the internet by Canon users that list and discuss how various EF lenses perform on the 32 MP sensors and whether they are, or are not, worth buying or using on the cameras with 32 MPs.

I guess that the internet broke when the R6 was released at 20mps (same as the 1DXiii). It still sells well.
The R5 was also killed online due to the perceived overheating (in 3 video modes) that rendered it useless but Canon are still selling them ok.

 

[David - Sydney]

With CF Express you wouldn't run into any buffering on a R7 with 24 MP 30 FPS. AF is just as reliable at 12 FPS as it is on 120 FPS depending on the camera, I just shot a bunch of tests with my Z9's 120 FPS mode and it happy produced over 2000 tack sharp images of my snakes striking things. The time to filter the images is a legit issue, I use Aftershot to help filter but really what we need is the Stacks feature from Aperture brought into Capture One so it can intelligently group a burst into one stack that you edit then promote the keeper candidates to the top.

And FYI I shoot wildlife at 15, 20, 30, and 120 FPS just now. Canon can and should let you pick a variable FPS for the R7.

The R5 can shoot 20fps (12 bit) @45mp to the USH-ii SD card. There is no need for CFe slot unless there is high bandwidth video being recorded.
Can you comment on the Z9's ability to avoid banding with eshutter for indoor lit sports?

 

[Deleted member 381342]

The R5 can shoot 20fps (12 bit) @45mp to the USH-ii SD card. There is no need for CFe slot unless there is high bandwidth video being recorded.
Can you comment on the Z9's ability to avoid banding with eshutter for indoor lit sports?

You do need CF Express for hi speed shooting or a very deep buffer. UHS-II SD cards are way to slow and we are already getting cameras like the Z9 and likely R1 that need the upcoming 2 GB/s cards and CF Express 2.0.

I don't shoot sports but have indeed tired it, it just works. There is a mode to help if you are having issues but in general it'll behave exactly the same as a mechanical shutter camera. The main issue others have witnessed on all of these cameras was more outdoor sports with LED adverts that were not in sync with the stadium lights. This LED advert issue isn't present on a mechanical shutter as it produces a softer background with the shutter causing some blur. You'll find in the coming months many more shooters with R3's and Z9's reporting what works and what doesn't.

 

[entoman]

With CF Express you wouldn't run into any buffering on a R7 with 24 MP 30 FPS. AF is just as reliable at 12 FPS as it is on 120 FPS depending on the camera, I just shot a bunch of tests with my Z9's 120 FPS mode and it happy produced over 2000 tack sharp images of my snakes striking things. The time to filter the images is a legit issue, I use Aftershot to help filter but really what we need is the Stacks feature from Aperture brought into Capture One so it can intelligently group a burst into one stack that you edit then promote the keeper candidates to the top.

And FYI I shoot wildlife at 15, 20, 30, and 120 FPS just now. Canon can and should let you pick a variable FPS for the R7.

Comparing a $4500 Nikon Z9 with an APS-C is unrealistic, as there's no way that Canon could sell them at anywhere near the price of the Z9. Just like Olympus couldn't sell the ridiculously over-priced EM1x. Even if it's got pro build-quality, the "R7" won't exceed $3000. Sorry but I just can't see the camera you desire ever being made. Canon's objective will be to make a camera that sells in high numbers and brings in a handsome profit, so expect a far more modest specification, and one that fits between other models in their pricing structure.

If you need to shoot at 120fps or even 30fps to capture snakes striking things, it seems pointless to me, as I have achieved similarly tack sharp shots at less than 10fps - in fact I've done it several times just in single-shot mode! For BIF, anything faster than 20fps similarly seems like overkill.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Comparing a $4500 Nikon Z9 with an APS-C is unrealistic, as there's no way that Canon could sell them at anywhere near the price of the Z9. Just like Olympus couldn't sell the ridiculously over-priced EM1x. Even if it's got pro build-quality, the "R7" won't exceed $3000. Sorry but I just can't see the camera you desire ever being made. Canon's objective will be to make a camera that sells in high numbers and brings in a handsome profit, so expect a far more modest specification, and one that fits between other models in their pricing structure.

If you need to shoot at 120fps or even 30fps to capture snakes striking things, it seems pointless to me, as I have achieved similarly tack sharp shots at less than 10fps - in fact I've done it several times just in single-shot mode! For BIF, anything faster than 20fps similarly seems like overkill.

I am expecting the R7 to be a successor to the 7D Mk2 so the specifications I set match what a modern 7D would look like. I am not suggesting it match the Z9 nor R3 for that matter. I am suggesting it lives up to what the 7D line has achieved before it. If it does 'only' 20 FPS it still do a better 20 FPS than the R5/R6 are capable of if they give it a stacked sensor and make it sports focused.

And you know you don't need 120 FPS for most things, but it does get you more interesting shots or important data. You don't alway have use for a 300 fps global shutter camera, it doesn't mean it can't help you produce the result. As for 20 FPS bird in flight, well that's rather ridiculous because we have so many species of birds and smaller ones tent to be much faster than bigger ones and what you can get out of 20 fps vs 30 fps might be the winning shot or still not enough.

20 FPS 24MP stacked sensor is modest for a 7d replacement. Bumping it to 30 fps isn't even pushing the current Digit X into a corner so it is also a reasonable expectation. If you don't want 30 switch it down to 20, 15, 12, 10, 5, or even 1 fps to match the subject.

 

[Otara]

Ill be interested to see if there much benefit to cropping an R5 vs whatever benefit a higher MP APS-C can offer.

Markettingwise it will fit the segment Id say, closer to 7D2, Id expect higher, and also depends what impact it would have on R6 sales. My hope would probably just be more for a higher mechanical frame rate, or more usable electronic, given the all or single rates you get with the R5.

Im still in the 'will it even really happen' category though to be honest.

 

[David - Sydney]

You do need CF Express for hi speed shooting or a very deep buffer. UHS-II SD cards are way to slow and we are already getting cameras like the Z9 and likely R1 that need the upcoming 2 GB/s cards and CF Express 2.0.

Using the USH-ii card:
The R5 can record 5.5s of 20fps (110 shots/12bit) or 15s of 12fps (182 shots /14bit).
The R6 can record 9s of 20fps (180 shots/12bit) or >158s of 12fps (>1900 shots /14bit)

CFexpress 2.0 added type A (used and only made by Sony) and unavailable Type C (54 x 74 x 4.8 mm ie huge!) with 4 lanes.
The Type B cards currently in use today max out at theoretical 2GB/s
I have a Sony Tough 128GB Type B CFe card which has 1480MB/s sustained write speed.
8k/30 raw is 2600Mb/s (325MB/s) is far lower than the card speed
8k/30 IPB lite is 340Mb/s (43MB/s) only needs a V60 SD card as per the advanced user guide (page 915-917)

Let's assume that the R5c is also using the same compression ratio for its 8k/30 raw lite (no uncompressed raw option available) so it would need 86MB/s which still can record on a V90 USH-ii card. This is the same bandwidth needed for R5 8k/30 raw IPB

The A1's 8k is compressed and also can be recorded using the USH-ii card although users can insert a CFe Type A card.

So help me out here... how are "USH-ii cards way too slow"? There are many current USH-ii cards that have >200MB/s sustained writes speeds.

 

[David - Sydney]

I am expecting the R7 to be a successor to the 7D Mk2 so the specifications I set match what a modern 7D would look like. I am not suggesting it match the Z9 nor R3 for that matter. I am suggesting it lives up to what the 7D line has achieved before it.

And this is the issue... I believe that he 7D/7Dii were unicorns from a marketing perspective giving features far in excess of the reasonable pricing at the time.

Canon released the 7Dii in 2014 and has been discontinued for some time now. 8 years is far in excess of their product cycle time.
Either Canon believes that they wouldn't sell enough 7Diii bodies to warrant the R&D or it wouldn't fit their product segmentation.
From forum members, you would think that the former is not correct so that only leaves the latter as the reasonable explanation.
If Canon really thought that there was a significantly profitable market for a 7Diii then they would have made that body at the same time as 90D/M6ii in 2019.

 

[JustUs7]

If you are at the same distance from your subject, the RF 100-150mm f/4.5-f/7.1 lens is still effectively a 100-150mm f/4-5-f/7.1 on a crop as it is on a FF, and that is the usual situation when we are out photographing birds etc. It's only effectively a 160-800mm F7.2-11.36 on the crop if you are standing 1.6x further away with the crop than with the FF.

Where you’re standing doesn’t make any difference as to the effective focal length of the lens. The crop factor exists full time based on the size of the sensor. It doesn’t magically change when you move farther away. BTW, for effective focal length I’m using the generally accepted field of view. I realize the focal length of the lens doesn’t actually change.

That said, multiplying the effective f-stop is only relevant to depth of field calculations. It still lets the same amount of light in regardless of sensor size. If I’m at f/7.1, I don’t use a different shutter speed or iso when in crop mode. I was able to confirm this using Av mode with a fixed iso on my current camera. The same shutter speed was recommended using the full sensor and crop mode.

 

[Pixel]

What's most exciting about this camera is the 7D II was the first camera to introduce Dual-pixel AF. Could the R7 introduce Quad-Pixel AF to us?

 

[dcm]

Time to get the popcorn out....