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

[Lee Jay]

Of course it can.

Oh, sorry for not knowing that, as I haven't followed any R-series developments since I tried the EVFs in the R and Rp and found them unusable.

So, do they support them natively or do you need an adapter?

 

[Bonich]

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.

The lens never changes specifications.
But the picture style you get WITHOUT changing shooting distance change to 1.6x focal length and (a little bit more than) one stop smaller aperture.
Fact.

 

[Bonich]

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

??????????

 

[Lee Jay]

The lens never changes specifications.
But the picture style you get WITHOUT changing shooting distance change to 1.6x focal length and (a little bit more than) one stop smaller aperture.
Fact.

Same thing happens when you simply crop an image in post. The only difference is the size of the pixels (if it's actually different) and thus the number of pixels in the crop.

 

[AlanF]

No it isn't.

Why did you contradict the statement that the 90D has a DLA of f/5.2, and more puzzling why didn't you say what it is if it isn't f/5.2. I did check it before posting with https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-90D.aspx (I usually check data before posting.) (Or hadn't you realised the discussion was about the sensor in the 90D?)

 

[lote82]

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).

Good point!

People often seem to miss the advantage of flexibility (zoom range) of APS-C lenses. There is no FF equivalence for an 16-300mm or 15-85mm lens. I can run and gun a 7d with a 15-85mm and 150-600mm combination for a whole day. Even if you could achieve equivalent zoom range (with more lenses!) on FF, portability and price would suffer heavily!

I would NEVER claim that APS-C is "better" than FF (neither the other way round). I also know the downsides (f. e. image quality). But if it comes down to flexibility, portability and price, APS-C still has advantages!

 

[Deleted]

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

If a crop R like an R7 arrives then an EF adapter should allow you to use all your lenses. I’ve seen all those you listed used with the R5.

EVF technology has massively improved. It was crap IMO. The first Sony A9 was still not up to it imho. The R5, R6 are much better and from the time I have spent using them the benefits are there to be seen. I kept toying with the idea of getting an R5 but have stuck with the 7D2 and am hoping the rumoured R7 arrives and deserves to be a successor. I am quir hopeful.

 

[AlanF]

The lens never changes specifications.
But the picture style you get WITHOUT changing shooting distance change to 1.6x focal length and (a little bit more than) one stop smaller aperture.
Fact.

Of course the lens doesn't change specification. Just read the posts around it and my replies to entoman. It's all about "Equivalence". There's an article about it here: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

 

[unfocused]

Oh, sorry for not knowing that, as I haven't followed any R-series developments since I tried the EVFs in the R and Rp and found them unusable.

So, do they support them natively or do you need an adapter?

You use the same adapter on an EF-S lens as you use on an EF lens. All current full frame R bodies automatically crop the sensor to fit the 1.6 crop of APS-C. With a full frame body, you can also choose the 1.6 crop yourself when using RF and EF lenses. If Canon produces an APS-C body, it will almost certainly be able to accept any EF and EF-S lenses with the same adapter, but will automatically crop EF lenses to the 1.6 crop.

 

[Bonich]

Time to get the popcorn out....

Indeed!

(Me shooting Canon since 1980)

 

[Lee Jay]

Why did you contradict the statement that the 90D has a DLA of f/5.2, and more puzzling why didn't you say what it is if it isn't f/5.2. I did check it before posting with https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-90D.aspx (I usually check data before posting.) (Or hadn't you realised the discussion was about the sensor in the 90D?)

View attachment 202337

It's wrong.

I'm not sure what they did wrong, but it's usually one of two methods of getting the wrong answer.

1) Use MTF50 as the cutoff
2) Assume a monochrome sensor with no AA filter

Both are wrong. I've seen people apply *both*, which seems to be closest to the case here.

Using MTF0 as the cutoff (some will use MTF5 for extinction, some MTF9=Airy disk) and assuming a Bayer sensor, it's about f/17 for the 3.2 micron pixels on the 90D. If you prefer MTF9 it's more like f/14.

Obviously, in the case you mentioned above where you are light-limited, resolution will decrease because of a simple lack of photons leading to either low MTF or reduction from noise filtering. But in good light, f/5.2 is nowhere close to correct.

 

[JohnDeere6930]

Honestly, i woud consider upgrading my stash to this, get rid of the 2000D and 7D

 

[dtaylor]

Until then, I'm more than happy to stay where I am.

While cell phones have had a devastating impact on camera sales in general, the industry faces another very real problem: the DSLRs and lenses of the mid-late 2010's were so highly evolved, and high performance, that there's little reason for a stills shooter to upgrade. The innovation on the video side is impressive. But on the stills side you could put together a DSLR kit that would serve every photographic need indefinitely.

 

[Deleted]

While cell phones have had a devastating impact on camera sales in general, the industry faces another very real problem: the DSLRs and lenses of the mid-late 2010's were so highly evolved, and high performance, that there's little reason for a stills shooter to upgrade. The innovation on the video side is impressive. But on the stills side you could put together a DSLR kit that would serve every photographic need indefinitely.

In my case I have worn out multiple 7 series bodies. My current 7d2 is nearing 800k shots. It simply cannot go on forever. The top dial is getting jumpy but other than that it is still working well. Quite a testament to how well Canon made that body. Hopefully it lasts until a suitable R comes out.

 

[Lee Jay]

If a crop R like an R7 arrives then an EF adapter should allow you to use all your lenses. I’ve seen all those you listed used with the R5.

EVF technology has massively improved. It was crap IMO. The first Sony A9 was still not up to it imho. The R5, R6 are much better and from the time I have spent using them the benefits are there to be seen. I kept toying with the idea of getting an R5 but have stuck with the 7D2 and am hoping the rumoured R7 arrives and deserves to be a successor. I am quir hopeful.

Thanks to both of you that responded about the adapter. Didn't know that.

I've been told that EVFs have massively improved so much so that they are better than OVFs ever since the A55, and every time I try one, they're just awful. But the last batch I tried was the first group of Nikon and Canon ones and the the Olympus EM5 Mark II, which was better but still awful. I haven't seen any of the newer cameras.

 

[dtaylor]

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.

While you are correct to point out that other factors can and do limit resolution, and I absolutely believe that you saw this in real life at high ISOs, there's something wrong with one or both of those AP tests. They report the same exact resolution for both sensors at base ISO. Just comparing DPReview RAWs it's clear the 90D resolves significantly more detail at base ISO.

It looks to me like the article author(s) are just eye balling the charts and making a judgement call. Both articles cite the 16 mark as the resolution point for the cameras. But on the D500 chart lines are already starting to merge, while 90D lines remain distinct further than that even if they are experiencing color aliasing.

Again, this doesn't undermine your point. I would concur that at 6400 the D500 is better resolving the lines, and I have no doubts you saw the impact of this in the real world.

 

[AlanF]

It's wrong.

I'm not sure what they did wrong, but it's usually one of two methods of getting the wrong answer.

1) Use MTF50 as the cutoff
2) Assume a monochrome sensor with no AA filter

Both are wrong. I've seen people apply *both*, which seems to be closest to the case here.

Using MTF0 as the cutoff (some will use MTF5 for extinction, some MTF9=Airy disk) and assuming a Bayer sensor, it's about f/17 for the 3.2 micron pixels on the 90D. If you prefer MTF9 it's more like f/14.

Obviously, in the case you mentioned above where you are light-limited, resolution will decrease because of a simple lack of photons leading to either low MTF or reduction from noise filtering. But in good light, f/5.2 is nowhere close to correct.

What he has done is to calculate the size of the Airy disk using the standard formula d/2 = 1.22*wavelength*f-number. Using green light of 500nm wavelength gives the values in his table.

 

[AlanF]

While you are correct to point out that other factors can and do limit resolution, and I absolutely believe that you saw this in real life at high ISOs, there's something wrong with one or both of those AP tests. They report the same exact resolution for both sensors at base ISO. Just comparing DPReview RAWs it's clear the 90D resolves significantly more detail at base ISO.

It looks to me like the article author(s) are just eye balling the charts and making a judgement call. Both articles cite the 16 mark as the resolution point for the cameras. But on the D500 chart lines are already starting to merge, while 90D lines remain distinct further than that even if they are experiencing color aliasing.

Again, this doesn't undermine your point. I would concur that at 6400 the D500 is better resolving the lines, and I have no doubts you saw the impact of this in the real world.

I agree with you. The AP results at base iso puzzled me too. The AP articles are useful where they show the degradation of resolution with increasing iso in the actual images of the charts' converging lines.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The lens never changes specifications.
But the picture style you get WITHOUT changing shooting distance change to 1.6x focal length and (a little bit more than) one stop smaller aperture.
Fact.

You seem to be saying that if you change the sensor from FF to APS-C but not the lens, zoom setting, or distance to subject then you get A resulting image with a narrower FOV (corresponding to a focal length 1.6x longer) AND a narrower aperture A little more than a stop you state, the math would put it at 1.3 stops). The former is true, the latter is not fact, it’s completely false.

Field of view is narrower because you’re sampling a smaller area of the image circle. Focal length doesn’t change.

Aperture doesn’t change. If distance doesn’t change, the depth of field is actually (very) slightly shallower (because the smaller sensor has a smaller circle of confusion). It is only if you increase the distance to subject to match framing that the depth of field corresponds to a 1.3 stop narrower aperture.

The smaller sensor means less total light collected, which means effectively 1.3 stops more noise.

Hopefully I am misunderstanding your post. if not, it’s a good example of how pressing a shutter button for 40 years doesn’t confer technical understanding, anymore than someone who flips a light switch their whole lives necessarily knows how wiring actually works.

 

[AlanF]

While cell phones have had a devastating impact on camera sales in general, the industry faces another very real problem: the DSLRs and lenses of the mid-late 2010's were so highly evolved, and high performance, that there's little reason for a stills shooter to upgrade. The innovation on the video side is impressive. But on the stills side you could put together a DSLR kit that would serve every photographic need indefinitely.

Nikon has just officially discontinued the D500, arguably the best crop DSLR ever. https://nikonrumors.com/2022/02/01/the-nikon-d500-is-now-officially-discontinued.aspx/ I used one for over a year, incredible AF and superb IQ. I sold it because I prefer the R5.