Canon EOS R7 specifications [CR3]

[David - Sydney]

v90 cards can't even keep up with 4K@24. SDex will run in backward comparability mode if the camera doesn't support SDex which these specs seem to indicate it doesn't. It also isn't just an issue of how fast you can write but also how fast you can get the data off. If it had a CFex slot it would be compatible with other modern cameras that are all going in that direction.

Just look up the R5's advanced user guide. The specs are all listed there for what is covered or not. Most A1 users are not even using CFe Type A cards as their USHii SD cards are fast enough - noting that the A1 uses compression codecs for their 8K video ie not raw.
SD express is only backward compatible with UHS i slots/cards. It is not backwards compatible with UHSii or UHSiii (if there were any available)
SD express have barely any cards available and maybe a couple of laptops announced supporting the slots.

Please name any current camera body that has SD express in it

 

[sanj]

Nah, I’d rather save money and size. I shoot most often at shutter speeds high enough IBIS isn’t needed.

There is no evidence that IBIS increases size. Thank you.

 

[sanj]

An R6 with a smaller sensor would cost how much less than an R6? If it's not enough nobody will want it. An R6 is about $2500 so if they could get the APS-C camera down to $2000 would it be enough? Also the R7 will have more MP than the R6 so you can't sell it for too little or it will cannibalize R6 sales.

Is a FF 20 MP camera better than an APS-C 32.5 MP camera if all other specs are the same?

If they go too low in price by cutting margins then it squeezes the R10 which means they have to cut features from the R10 to make it cheaper which makes it no better than an M6 II. It will be interesting to see how Canon works this out.

Good points.

 

[sanj]

Correct me if I'm wrong with your conversions, but do crop sensors affect a lens Aperture??? would the 100-500mm just turn into a 160-800mm 4.5-7.1?? etc

I do not think crop sensors change the aperture.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I do not think crop sensors change the aperture.

Definitely not.

 

[sanj]

R5 with 1.6x crop is 17mp vs this camera has 32.5 mp, almost double and the smaller sensor will produce less heat, IBIS has more room to move for better stabilisation, less data so better speed and of course it'll be priced similar to R6 so should sell plenty and still make good profit margin.
Birders like myself would still use it with long telephotos.
Hope it's a BSI stacked sensor

Thx!

 

[stevelee]

I do not think crop sensors change the aperture.

That’s one of the reasons I stay away from “equivalence” arguments. Somewhere in the process someone argues that the sensor size magically changes the optical properties and/or the laws of optics. It is apparently easy to misapply some valid principles.

Years ago I wanted to buy a relatively fast prime for portraits on my T3i. I wanted the “equivalent” of an 85mm lens on FF, but I had to decide what about it should be equivalent. Eventually I learned that what I wanted to preserve was the distance to the subject, not the optical properties of the lens, so i bought a 50mm lens. When I put it on the Rebel, it still was a 50mm lens optically. The sensor didn’t change that. At f/1.4 it still had the depth of field as a 50mm lens, no matter the amount of crop. (But then you can start playing around with magnification, and the matter becomes more complex. But I was just interested in taking pictures, choosing what I thought looked good, once the lens decision was made.)

 

[Berowne]

Potaayyyyyto
Potaahhhhhto

Let's Call The Whole Thing Off

 

[Chig]

Sounds like a great replacement for my 7D mark ii
I hope the sensor is a BSI stacked one but even a rehashed 90D one would be great.
If I could afford it I'd buy an R3 as it'd be the best for my bird photography especially as I have a Great White 400 f/2.8 now (although it's the original non IS one the optics are still amazing and I now understand why people love these lenses)
If I get the R7 I'm thinking of getting the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R 0.71x speed booster which presumably would make my EF lenses work with the R7 like on a FF camera with a slight crop of 1.136 . Is this true or am I mistaken? I'd like the flexibility of using my EF lenses either with the 1.6x crop of the 1.136x crop.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Correct me if I'm wrong with your conversions, but do crop sensors affect a lens Aperture??? would the 100-500mm just turn into a 160-800mm 4.5-7.1?? etc

All of this terminology gets used in different contexts and gets confusing.
Technically the aperture is the size of the image circle so APS-C lenses do have a smaller aperture.
F-stops are relative so APS-C has a smaller aperture at the same F-stop.

 

[bernie_king]

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.

It really didn't. I had both and the 7D II AF was not in the same league as the 1DX, especially when paired with a big white. It was more advanced than the xxD systems for sure. I tried going from the 1D4 to the 7D Mark II on that assumption and ended up moving to the 1DX within 6 months out of frustration with the AF system. I'm sure the AF on the R7 will be fantastic, but you're not going to get an APS-C version of a $6k camera for $2-$3k. There is a reason the R3 costs what it does.

 

[neuroanatomist]

All of this terminology gets used in different contexts and gets confusing.
Technically the aperture is the size of the image circle so APS-C lenses do have a smaller aperture.
F-stops are relative so APS-C has a smaller aperture at the same F-stop.

Sorry but nope. Perhaps a bit of confusion on your part.

The aperture is not the image circle. The image circle is measured as the diameter of the circle illuminated by the lens at the image plane (sensor). Since an APS-C sensor is smaller than FF, lenses designed for crop sensors can have smaller image circles, meaning the lens can be designed smaller (but telephoto lens designs have large image circles, so there’s no real point in designing them specifically for a crop sensor).

Aperture is the diameter of the iris diaphragm, f/number is the ratio of the focal length to that diaphragm diameter. Focal length, aperture, and f/number are all intrinsic properties of a lens. They do not change regardless of the size of the sensor behind that lens. An 85mm f/1.2 lens has an iris diaphragm diameter of ~70 mm whether that lens is mounted on an APS-C or full frame camera.

You are correct that f/number is relative, but not that it changes with sensor size. It’s relative to focal length. A 50/1.2 lens will have a smaller Iris diaphragm diameter than an 85/1.2. A 500/7.1 will have about the same size iris diaphragm as an 85/1.2.

 

[bbasiaga]

All of this terminology gets used in different contexts and gets confusing.
Technically the aperture is the size of the image circle so APS-C lenses do have a smaller aperture.
F-stops are relative so APS-C has a smaller aperture at the same F-stop.

This is incorrect. See my post on the previous page. Aperture as discussed in camera terms is the relationship of the size of the opening of the aperture blades to the focal length of the lens. What you are describing is the image circle, which is the diameter of the in-focus image plane created by the lens.

The image circle size does not change when you change the aperture. You don't suddenly start cropping images because you've dialed up to f/22. In fact, vignette is more common at WIDER apertures! What really bakes people's noodle is that ever part of the front element of the lens contributes to every part of the image. So the very center of the lens is putting some light in to the very corner of the photo, and the very edge of the lens is also putting some light in to the very center of the image. Weird, but true. Obviously, the angles of the light to do that can get steep. And that's exactly whey wider aperture shots (say F/1.4) have blurry out of focus areas - all that light from all that area can't get bent to the right place and be in focus at the same time. When you stop down to say f/16, now you are taking the light only from the center section of the front element. The light that can bend out to still fill the corners is coming in straighter, and thus more of the image is in focus or close to focus - exactly whey the DOF is deeper! Now you've also stopped collecting light from the outer areas of the front element (the aperture blades are literally, physically blocking it. This is why you have to leave the shutter open longer to get the same exposure.

None of the above changes because there is an APSc sensor behind it instead of a FF sensor. The exposure time, DOF, etc will be the same in the same conditions on both. The only thing that changes is the field of view, since the APSc sensor isn't using the full image circle of a FF lens.

Brian

 

[sanj]

That’s one of the reasons I stay away from “equivalence” arguments. Somewhere in the process someone argues that the sensor size magically changes the optical properties and/or the laws of optics. It is apparently easy to misapply some valid principles.

Years ago I wanted to buy a relatively fast prime for portraits on my T3i. I wanted the “equivalent” of an 85mm lens on FF, but I had to decide what about it should be equivalent. Eventually I learned that what I wanted to preserve was the distance to the subject, not the optical properties of the lens, so i bought a 50mm lens. When I put it on the Rebel, it still was a 50mm lens optically. The sensor didn’t change that. At f/1.4 it still had the depth of field as a 50mm lens, no matter the amount of crop. (But then you can start playing around with magnification, and the matter becomes more complex. But I was just interested in taking pictures, choosing what I thought looked good, once the lens decision was made.)

Wait. Are you saying 50mm will have the same depth of field on crop or full frame?

 

[unfocused]

Wait. Are you saying 50mm will have the same depth of field on crop or full frame?

Please. Please. Please. Let's not gum up this thread with a dozen pages of pointless posts on equivalence.

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Wait. Are you saying 50mm will have the same depth of field on crop or full frame?

If you shoot at the same f/number setting and distance from the subject then DoF will be close to the same, yes. Technically, it will be slightly shallower on crop because of the smaller circle of confusion.

But of course with a crop sensor, the framing at 50mm is tighter, and if you move further away to match the framing of the full frame sensor, increasing the distance results in a deeper DoF. But it was not the smaller sensor that made DoF deeper, it was you moving further away from the subject.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Please. Please. Please. Let's not gum up this thread with a dozen pages of pointless posts on equivalence.

If someone asks an honest question, providing a correct answer is never pointless.

 

[jvillain]

I do not think crop sensors change the aperture.

When you use a crop sensor you use the multiplier (1.6) on both focal length and aperture. You use the square of the aperture for noise.

 

[AlanF]

When you use a crop sensor you use the multiplier (1.6) on both focal length and aperture. You use the square of the aperture for noise.

Please explain what you mean by: You use the square of the aperture for noise.

 

[stevelee]

And don’t forget diffraction.