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

[Mikehit]

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.

I fully understand what you are saying about diffraction and aware of the calculations behind it.
As far as I am aware, a higher MP body will always give more detail, despite diffraction ( and I have not yet seen an example where that is not the case). In other words, for me, it is not whether I am getting 'the maximum out of the lens' but whether I am getting more detail than I already have. And how much it costs to get that difference.

Admittedly, the R7 you then come into how a camera with higher than 20MP would fit into the model hierarchy and cost structures that Canon are developing. They did it with the 7D but as this is a new product line it remains to be seen.

 

[AlanF]

Honestly, you guys are seriously overthinking the purpose of photography, none of that will be something anyone should care about in the real world.

It's your prerogative to underthink seriously the technical aspects of photography, but don't ascribe your opinion to be the only one that anyone should care about in the real world. This is a gear-oriented site where members exchange tips about current gear and speculate on future in order to get the best out of their equipment to further what they think is the purpose of their photography.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

If only that were possible. On my R5, when using electronic shutter, it only operates at single shot or 20fps, there is no option to use a lower burst speed, other than to switch to EFCS or mechanical.

The R3 supports different rates and I would expect the R7 if it follows it predecessors will be more akin to that. The 7d and 7d2 where more capable in many ways than their 5d2 and 5d3 counterparts. The R5 should really give you the option to change the rate, I can’t imagine a technical reason.

 

[entoman]

Honestly, you guys are seriously overthinking the purpose of photography, none of that will be something anyone should care about in the real world.

What we "should care about in the real world" is getting the best images possible, both in terms of composition etc, and technical quality.

The aspects we've been debating affect technical quality, and also aesthetics (depth of field, angles of view etc). They also greatly affect choice and suitability for purpose of equipment we may be considering buying, and the amount of money we need to spend to achieve the desired result.

Some of these issues e.g. "equivalence" are *very* poorly understood by the majority of photographers, so it's helpful to have them fully explained (hopefully in easily digested form) by those who do understand them.

 

[AlanF]

I fully understand what you are saying about diffraction and aware of the calculations behind it.
As far as I am aware, a higher MP body will always give more detail, despite diffraction ( and I have not yet seen an example where that is not the case). In other words, for me, it is not whether I am getting 'the maximum out of the lens' but whether I am getting more detail than I already have. And how much it costs to get that difference.

Admittedly, the R7 you then come into how a camera with higher than 20MP would fit into the model hierarchy and cost structures that Canon are developing. They did it with the 7D but as this is a new product line it remains to be seen.

In theory you are right that a higher MP body should always give more detail, despite diffraction. However, this predicates that the construction of a higher megapixel sensor does not lose detail because of electronic and physical constraints. I had at one stage both the 1.6x crop 32 Mpx 90D and the 1.5x crop 20.9 Mpx Nikon D500 and got better resolution at the higher isos I work at with the Nikon. This is borne out in two reviews in AP.

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/canon-eos-90d-full-review
Canon EOS 90D Review: Resolution
A close inspection of our resolution chart tells us the EOS 90D’s new sensor resolves a very creditable 3,700l/ph at its base sensitivity of ISO 100. Detail remains high at low sensitivity settings; with resolution figures of 3,600l/ph and 3,400l/ph recorded at ISO 200 and ISO 400 respectively. Push higher into the ISO range and you’ll start to observe fine detail being affected by noise. We recorded 3,100l/ph at ISO 3200 and 2,900l/ph at ISO 6400. The sensor can resolve 2,600l/ph at ISO 12,800 and 2,400l/ph at ISO 25,600 before expansion, with detail dropping right off at ISO 51,000 (2,100l/ph).

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/nikon-d500-review
Nikon D500 Review: Resolution
The D500 captures as much from our resolution charts as we could realistically expect from its 20.9MP sensor. At low ISOs in raw it resolves around 3,700l/ph before maze-like aliasing comes into play; the JPEG processing tends to suppress such artefacts at the expense of slightly lower resolution. But what’s more impressive is its high ISO capability, with 3,000l/ph still recorded at ISO 6,400. At the highest standard setting of ISO 51,200, it achieves 2,600l/ph, but past this things go downhill quickly. Even at ISO 204,800, we see around 2,000l/ph, but the higher extended settings are too poor to be worth reproducing here.

 

[JustUs7]

Thank you for having the good grace in your reply to neuro that you misunderstood my post. Your last paragraph here needs some correction, which was implied in neuro's post. The effective f-stop also applies to pixels per duck or light intensity. If, for example, you have an f/2 20mm lens on a 1.6x crop and an f/2 32mm lens on a FF, they do indeed both have the same exposure ratings and the same number of photons fall per unit area of each sensor. But, the image of the duck on the crop is 1.6x1.6 times smaller on the crop and so the total amount of light hitting it is 1/2.56 that of the FF, so the signal/noise from the light is 1.6x less - the image is noisier, especially noticeable at high iso. The 20mm lens on the crop is effectively an f/3.2 lens when it comes to signal to noise, as well as for dof.

I follow all that. But you’re talking about using two different lenses to achieve equivalent field of view.

How about when you use the same 35mm f/1.8 lens starting 10 ft from your subject on both a full frame sensor and a crop sensor. Assume Canon. Your field of view on the crop sensor is that of an effective 56mm lens. You’d have to back up to 16 ft to get the same framing. Then your depth of field is effectively that of an f/2.8 exposure using 35mm from 10 ft.

But does your signal to noise ratio change at all since you’re using the same 35mm lens at the same f-stop in the same lighting? The only change being the size is the sensor and the distance from subject?

Same scenario as above, except you don’t move. You take advantage of the reach to put more pixels on subject. Your depth of field is shallower on the crop sensor (divide by 1.6), and your pixels on subject increase. Same actual focal length. Same f-stop. Same light. Any change to signal to noise there?

 

[JustUs7]

Honestly, you guys are seriously overthinking the purpose of photography, none of that will be something anyone should care about in the real world.

Of course. But math is fun. I work in finance / accounting. Minutia is my forte. I’m no expert in this subject matter but I like to talk about it and learn about it.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue my average photography with my RP and M6II and not buy any of this new stuff anyway.

 

[AlanF]

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.

The RF 100-400 performs very well in the centre at f/8 on the R5, which is equivalent to 17 Mpx crop. I now have two of the lenses and they are just as sharp as the various copies I have had of the 100-400mm II at f/5.6. Stop down to f/11 and you do lose detail. My experience of using the 400mm f/4 DO II and 100-400mm DO II on the 5DIV and 5DSR was the narrower lens was just about as good. But, at low iso on the D90, the f/4 pulled ahead and was sharper, and I saw less benefit of putting on extenders.

 

[AlanF]

I follow all that. But you’re talking about using two different lenses to achieve equivalent field of view.

How about when you use the same 35mm f/1.8 lens starting 10 ft from your subject on both a full frame sensor and a crop sensor. Assume Canon. Your field of view on the crop sensor is that of an effective 56mm lens. You’d have to back up to 16 ft to get the same framing. Then your depth of field is effectively that of an f/2.8 exposure using 35mm from 10 ft.

But does your signal to noise ratio change at all since you’re using the same 35mm lens at the same f-stop in the same lighting? The only change being the size is the sensor and the distance from subject?

An f/1.8 lens will provide the same light intensity per unit area on the image at any focal length, which is why f-number is what we use for getiing exposure right. If you move back to 16 ft, the size of the duck decreases by 1.6x horizontally and vertically and so the total amount of light hitting it during exposure has gone down 1.6x1.6x. Blow up the image of the duck taken at 16 ft to the same size for viewing as the duck taken at 10 ft, and it will appear noisier.

Same scenario as above, except you don’t move. You take advantage of the reach to put more pixels on subject. Your depth of field is shallower on the crop sensor (divide by 1.6), and your pixels on subject increase. Same actual focal length. Same f-stop. Same light. Any change to signal to noise there?

The duck is the same size on both sensors and is being illuminated by the same lens. So, if both sensors are equally efficient, then there should be the same S/N for both.

 

[AlanF]

Of course. But math is fun. I work in finance / accounting. Minutia is my forte. I’m no expert in this subject matter but I like to talk about it and learn about it.

Meanwhile, I’ll continue my average photography with my RP and M6II and not buy any of this new stuff anyway.

Good on you! I research and teach in my spare time and my day job is taking photos for fun! I really do like understanding the science behind the art and sharing it with others.

 

[Bahrd]

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.

Could the Super 35 format be a reason behind keeping a 1.6x factor?

 

[vladk]

APS-C body would have to be complemented with RF-S 10-22 and lightweight RF-S 17-85.

 

[JustUs7]

The duck is the same size on both sensors and is being illuminated by the same lens. So, if both sensors are equally efficient, then there should be the same S/N for both.

This is where I misinterpreted your post that I originally replied to. I was picturing using an R5 vs a mythical R7 both with the RF 100-500 standing in the same spot at the same focal length and photographing the same subject. The R7 putting more pixels on subject of course (assuming something greater than a 17 megapixel sensor, which would be a certainty I expect). In fact, I believe if you crop the full frame image to the same field of view, even your depth of field would be the same.

I accepted that I misinterpreted your original message. Now I think it just clicked what I misinterpreted about it. Yay!

Only in backing up 1.6x do you get the same field of view in a crop sensor that you would in a full frame sensor without cropping.

 

[jordanisaak]

I'll repeat my guess from the previous thread. The R7 will be an R6 body with an M6II sensor to minimize development cost.

It doesn't make too much sense to me in current camera market conditions for Canon to develop an all new sensor for a relatively niche camera, but if they do it bodes well for the odds of future APS-C bodies to amortize the development cost.

 

[Paul6]

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"?

Price

 

[GoldWing]

Is this another low resolution camera

 

[Lee Jay]

That might be true if the owner also owns a FF body. Otherwise, the R7 also would need a wide zoom, perhaps a 10-20 f/4 and a fast and small 30mm prime.

If Canon makes an R7, might they also introduce an M7 that is 90-95% common with the R7?

Are you saying a camera like this can't use EF-s lenses?

In 2015 I switched from the 5D series to a 7D mark II and built an entire lens kit around it, with only about half EF lenses (8-15/4L, 50/1.8, 70-200II, 150-600C).

All I *really* want is a 7DII with a 90D sensor in it but SLRs seem dead leaving me with three choices.

1) Quit the hobby (this is essentially what I've done so far).
2) Use my 7DII forever.
3) Get a mirrorless version and hope I can get used to it someday. All the EVFs I've tried don't make me optimistic.

But number 3 can't work if I have to buy all new lenses. That's just not going to happen. Current kit:

8-15/4L
10-18STM
18-135USM
18-35/1.8
50/1.8
55-250STM
70-200/2.8L IS II
150-600C

 

[SteveC]

I agree but would/should Canon release a 5th lens mount?

It wouldn't have to be a fifth lens mount.

They can simply produce lenses that trigger a full-frame camera's crop mode, just like an adapted EF-S lens will. (I want them adequately labeled, though.)

 

[Lee Jay]

The diffraction limited aperture of a 32 Mpx sensor is f/5.2.

No it isn't.

 

[unfocused]

Are you saying a camera like this can't use EF-s lenses?...

Of course it can.