Canon EOS R7 specifications [CR3]

[shire_guy]

It will be very interesting to see how the R7 compares to the R5. I have kept my EF glass and the only thing that I thought would temp me was a lighter weight RF 500/600mm lens at around f5.6. If the R7 is any good maybe get the RF 100-500mm and sell the R5. Good to see some interest come back in the Canon world, it's been too quiet recently.

P.S. Just checked my M50. It's still works - not dead

 

[flaviojzk]

My two cents...

I think the R7 will have an AF system equal to or better than the R3. If I remember correctly, the 7DII had essentially the same AF system as the same-generation 1DX. I would anticipate the R7 possibly even being a test run for what the R1 AF system will bring.

Regarding the M series and it's possible demise, I think the fact that Canon will release APS-C bodies with the RF mount makes it more likely (but not guaranteed) that the M series will phase out. I guess it'll depend on how small of lenses and bodies Canon can create with the RF mount. Size and weight are the biggest differentiators for the M series, so only comparable size and weight in RF will be a threat to M. APS-C on RF is the first hurdle. Let's see where overall size and weight end up...

Nikon managed a relatively small body despite the large Z mount (Z50) and an almost ‘pancake’ kit lens. Let’s wait and see…

 

[sanj]

Now I am seriously confused. I learnt here that cropping for reach was the same if done in-camera (APSC) or
in post for image quality. If R7 is the same size as R5, why would a smart company like Canon make R7? This will reveal itself to me eventually, but as of now, I am confused. Perhaps, they will make lighter, cheaper lenses for R7. Then and only then will R7 make sense (assuming the crop theory above is correct.)

 

[speg]

Now I am seriously confused. I learnt here that cropping for reach was the same if done in-camera (APSC) or
in post for image quality.

Some cameras do crop in in software, the same as in post. But that’s not what this is. This is still the full 32 megapixels taking up a smaller area (the circle that you would crop to from a larger sensor).

 

[Jethro]

M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today.

This is the first I've heard of multiple RF mount APS-C bodies in the M mount form factor. To be clear, that's likely to be much smaller than the current R7 rumour (assuming it's a genuine 7D successor). If (and when) these smaller bodies actually happen, then they will be a direct replacement for the M series, and the M series will be 'dead'. Until then, it remains on persistent (and despite your protestations) presumably profitable life-support.

A hell of a lot of M series lenses get sold in kits, BTW.

 

[knight427]

Not a good idea, AF will become pretty slow. Believe me i tried it . View attachment 203463

Depends on your perspective I guess. I also shot R6 with 100-400ii and 1.4x iii. I found it to be head and shoulders above 7Dm2 and 5Dm3. As noted, it sometimes struggled to grab birds mid flight, but much less problematic than the DSLR performance.

 

[diegopisante]

If the R7 work just like the R6 that will be amazing...just hope to be the Dual pixel AF II, not I.

 

[Bob Howland]

Now I am seriously confused. I learnt here that cropping for reach was the same if done in-camera (APSC) or
in post for image quality. If R7 is the same size as R5, why would a smart company like Canon make R7? This will reveal itself to me eventually, but as of now, I am confused. Perhaps, they will make lighter, cheaper lenses for R7. Then and only then will R7 make sense (assuming the crop theory above is correct.)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, so I'll assume you're not. The R5 has a 1.6x crop mode which results in about an 18MP image. You could use the R5 in that mode all of the time or you can crop FF images to 18MP. Either way you have purchased a FF camera with 45MP which makes it more expensive or slower or both. Using the same size body with a 18MP APS-C sensor reduces the cost of the sensor and image processing circuity and (maybe) allows 18MP images to be processed faster than a 45MP FF images.The 32MP APS-C sensor splits the difference. The cost reduction and potential speed improvement aren't as great as with the 18MP sensor but there more pixels per feather because the 32MP sensor uses smaller pixels. (A 32MP APS-C sensor scaled to FF results in about 82MP.)

 

[roqdawg]

Will make a great birding camera if it has eye tracking focus on par with the R5/6.

 

[takesome1]

I think back to the niche the 7D and 7D II held when they were released. Without the support of multiple RF-S lenses and very cheap APS-C bodies to upgrade from I question how well this body will do. The mythical added reach by pixel density is now understood by many and they will be reluctant to add this as a second body against an R5.

I am curious to see what hype they will offer to make this body appealing.

 

[dominic_siu]

M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today. Canon is not spending a single dollar on R&D for the EOS M cameras or lenses now that the PowerShot division is basically 2 guys with red staplers and interns. This switch would be further ahead if it wasn't for supply chain constraints.

The margins aren't in the cameras anyway, so it doesn't matter how many M50's they sell. The margins are in the lenses and we haven't seen an EF-M lens since 2018. We also haven't seen the EOS M series mentioned in quarterly earnings reports in years.

You are right, if a company want to continue a product line why not introducing new product for more than 3 years? People always think selling well means doing a good job but Canon want you guys buying more expensive lenses rather than just using kit lens bundle with the entry level cameras.

 

[vjlex]

Finally. The never-ending argument if Canon will make an RF APSC camera or not ends here, proving many a pandit dead wrong!! Ouch, that must hurt their egos.
And I am delighted that Canon is launching this - many were waiting for this. I, personally, do not have a need for this. But full power to those who do.

I still wouldn't go quite as far as calling it "proof" as I've seen CR3s that were wrong on very very rare occasions, but I share your overall sentiment. While I won't rule it out at this point, the R7 is not a camera that I myself plan to get, but I am very interested in what it indicates we can expect in the near future for R body options. And killing off some of the more dogmatic arguments about what Canon will and won't do is an added bonus. I have never seen the logic in the argument that the R line up only needs a few premium cameras plus the R and RP to be complete. To me the gap between the M offerings and R offerings has always been a gaping wide chasm begging to be filled. While I don't necessarily believe the R7 is meant to directly threaten the M line, it does portend a future where APS-C is not just for those who want compact, miniature bodies with compact lenses. I generally consider more options a good thing.

Not the perfect analogy, but right now Canon's mirrorless offerings are kind of like Goldilocks without mama bear's bed. M might be just right for some (I've been satisfied with mine), but I wouldn't mind some alternative in between.

 

[David - Sydney]

This is exciting! The 32.5MP is plenty, 15-30 fps is awesome, video specs are very good. I hope the video both 4k and 1080p are full sensor minus any aspect ratio crop and the video is over sampled. I wish it has at least one CF-Express Type B card. The CF-E type B will help clear buffer faster but it is Canon so the cripple hammer has to strike I am sure there will be one or two more disappointments (like pixel binning over, heating, etc.) for me when Canon finally announces this.

Firstly you want CFe card and then no heating issues. One of the R5's main heat sources is the CFe card/slot. Multiple reviews showing longer record times without cards in place.
Deliberate feature removal is one thing (to match price/segmentation) and another to want everything and ignore physics

 

[David - Sydney]

Now I am seriously confused. I learnt here that cropping for reach was the same if done in-camera (APSC) or
in post for image quality. If R7 is the same size as R5, why would a smart company like Canon make R7? This will reveal itself to me eventually, but as of now, I am confused. Perhaps, they will make lighter, cheaper lenses for R7. Then and only then will R7 make sense (assuming the crop theory above is correct.)

In addition to Bob's explanation of pixel density (pixels on duck), another reason for APS-c is working distance especially with hand held macro of nervous subjects.
It is unlikely that any RFs lens will be as light/cheap as M lenses besides maybe a RF pancake (if Canon decides in their wisdom to make one)

APS-c sensors also means that users can use cheaper lenses eg 70-200 instead of 300mm lenses without TCs. This is great for shooters but bad for Canon.

The last reason is for niche APS-C applications where for a smaller macro system using EF-S 60mm for underwater use

 

[takesome1]

M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today. Canon is not spending a single dollar on R&D for the EOS M cameras or lenses now that the PowerShot division is basically 2 guys with red staplers and interns. This switch would be further ahead if it wasn't for supply chain constraints.

The margins aren't in the cameras anyway, so it doesn't matter how many M50's they sell. The margins are in the lenses and we haven't seen an EF-M lens since 2018. We also haven't seen the EOS M series mentioned in quarterly earnings reports in years.

On the internet I just read the M is dead again. It must be true.
Don't believe it, just ask google:

Is the Canon M Series discontinued?


The Canon EOS M lineup, which includes popular models such as the EOS M50 and the EOS M6 Mark II, may soon be no more. This comes from Canon Rumors, which reports that “two sources… suggested that 2021 will be the last year of the EOS M lineup.”

Wait, that says 2021... isn't this 2022?

 

[Otara]

I saw the debate as being some doubt more over whether it would be a 7D III vs a M6 II/90D equivalent.

Shame if it is at a dead end for M, was hoping to keep using it as a compact u/w system.

 

[David - Sydney]

Not the perfect analogy, but right now Canon's mirrorless offerings are kind of like Goldilocks without mama bear's bed. M might be just right for some (I've been satisfied with mine), but I wouldn't mind some alternative in between.

In terms of body sizes, the RP is the goldilocks of body size. Smaller than R3/5/6 and approximately the same size as the larger M bodies
M50ii = 387g. 116 x 88 x 59 mm
M6ii = 408g. 120 x 70 x 49 mm
RP = 485g. 133 x 85 x 70 mm

A RP without EVF would be a lot smaller and lighter... in proportion as the M6ii vs M200
M200 = 299g. 108 x 67 x 35 mm

Of course, the M6ii has significantly better specs vs RP in some areas

 

[takesome1]

My two cents...

I think the R7 will have an AF system equal to or better than the R3. If I remember correctly, the 7DII had essentially the same AF system as the same-generation 1DX. I would anticipate the R7 possibly even being a test run for what the R1 AF system will bring.

The 7D II was compared to the 1DX on release....
But the AF systems performance was in no way close to the 1D AF system.
Just the opinion of someone who owned both.

 

[Pain]

(Sorry. I'm poor at English)
I have strongly insisted since July 2020 at the latest that Canon wouldn't release APS-C camera body and lens in RF system for not cinema camera, but still camera. The reasons I presume are shown below.

(1)
Customers and users who want a budget price camera are mainly classified as two groups.

The persons belong to the one group could not concern about specifications and could be satisfied with camera kit like EF-M system. Several years later, they almost wouldn't buy a next interchangeable lens camera. The other words, provide of EF-M and EF-S systems are worth keeping unless net deficit.

While the persons belong to the other group couldn't have enough budget, they are interested in photography and/or videography and they want to improve their skill and equipments. The other words, most important thing for them is not image sensor size, but simply price. Their ideal camera is a budget price one using "high speed present generation" FF sensor. I'm calling this camera "R9" which is similar in design to R6 with EVF and flip screen in spite of intensive cost reduction. One of the biggest missions on "R9" is a bridge the gap in videography between M50/M50ii and mid range like R6. While Canon well understood Sony APS-C series like A6*** occupy this gap several years ago, they didn't take measures during long years. On viewpoint of videography, Canon is building their ecosystem, including "R9", R6, R5, R3, R5C, C70, C300iii, C500ii and so on.

(2)
Regarding APS-C still camera, the rest meaning of existence is crop effect. However, it's extremely difficult the balance between price and high performance; high speed burst shooting, durability etc. I'd like to remind, especially, photographers who need high speed burst shooting that the rolling shutter effect using equivalent technology on image sensor is directly proportional to not image sensor size, but numbers of pixels. The sales period of 7D2 which price was roughly $2000 was about four years; from 2014 to 2018. If the price of 7D2 successor would be almost as same as R6, the demand of this successor should be very small. Therefore, I think "R9" should have high priority to 7D2 successor.


For your information: Canon has introduced key parts as shown below.

--- introducing Dual Pixel technology ---
*S35 image sensor for cinema cameras: C300 (01/2012), C100 (11/2012) -- introducing Dual Pixel technology in 2012 and DPAF thanks to update in 11/2013
*APS-C image sensor for still cameras: 70D (08/2013) -- introducing DPAF

--- low speed previous generation ---
*APS-C image sensor for still cameras: 80D (03/2016) and 11 models (11/2016 - 11/2020)
*FF image sensor for still cameras: 5D4 (08/2016), R (09/2018)
*FF image sensor for still cameras: 6D2 (06/2017), RP (02/2019)
*Image processor for still cameras: DIGIC 8 (03/2018) -- maybe introduce GPGPU for computing deconvolution
*FF image sensor for cinema cameras: C700FF (07/2018), C500ii (12/2019)

--- high speed present generation ---
*High-speed and intelligent communication system between the lens and the camera body: RF mount (09/2018) -- maybe USB3.1 (12pin, 5Gbps)
*APS-C image sensor for still cameras: 90D/M6ii (08/2019) -- maybe delay about 2 years
*Image processor for cinema cameras: DIGIC DV 7 (12/2019)
*FF image sensor for still cameras: 1DX3 (02/2020), R6 (08/2020)
*Image processor for still cameras (and cinema cameras!!): DIGIC X (02/2020)
*S35 image sensor for cinema cameras: C300iii (06/2020), C70 (11/2020) -- introducing Dual Gain Output (DGO)
*FF image sensor for still cameras: R5 (07/2020), R5C (03/2022) -- 2 line readout same time

--- high speed next generation ---
*FF image sensor for still cameras: R3 (11/2021)

 

[Otara]

The 7D II was compared to the 1DX on release....
But the AF systems performance was in no way close to the 1D AF system.
Just the opinion of someone who owned both.

Canon EOS 7D Mark II AF System Compared to the 1D X and 5D III

Canon EOS 7D Mark II AF System Compared to the 1D X and 5D III

www.the-digital-picture.com

A few advantages, but overall, yes 1DX oddly enough was better overall.