Here are the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10

[Del Paso]

This site is becoming far too intellectual for poor illiterate me.
I'll jump ship and visit Soni-rumors...

 

[Michael Clark]

Hmmm, 15 fps mechanical/23 fps electronic...all the subject tracking of the R3...yup, that sure spells Rebel. Not!

Competition has forced Canon to give their lower tier models more goodies than they used to.

I could have probably been a bit clearer before and said, "The R10 has always appeared to me to be the RF version of the Rebel xx0D series. Nothing about this news changes that."

The $1000 price tag doesn’t spell Rebel.

A lot of shared components with the R7. I wonder how much of the R10’s higher end feature set was driven by Canon trying to build in flexibility in response to supply shortages, minimizing the number of components.

Ask me how much I paid (at $100 less than list price) for my first Rebel in 2008. Translated to 2022 dollars it was more than the R10.

 

[Michael Clark]

I would say that usage is incorrect, as you could have cared even less and not have commented at all.

The Scoop on 'The Proof Is in the Pudding'

No evidence is in there, but it was a treat to find out.

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Michael Clark]

After digesting the R7 release it appears to be a decent APS-C camera at its price point. Personally I would have rather seen a higher end APS-C camera with a stacked BSI sensor, one CFExpress lot, and a much improved buffer at 30 fps of ~100 RAW files. I would have gladly spent $2500 for such a camera, but as is I shall pass and wait patiently for a R1, which I assuming is going to be a combination of R3 and R5 with all the bells and whistles.

With a fast UHS-II card you get 187 frames shooting C-RAW at 15 fps with the R7. Using the 30 fps e-shutter you get 93 C-RAW frames, which is pretty close to ≈100.

Based on other recent Canon bodies that offer C-RAW, it's really hard to see any difference between RAW and C-Raw unless you're shooting right on the absolute edge of the camera's low light capability. For sports and wildlife shooters it's usually not quite that bad, light wise.

With the slowish readout sensor Canon used to keep the cost down, rolling shutter effect will probably be too severe to use e-shutter for most sports. Personally, I spend way too much time culling bursts taken at 10 fps. 15 fps is almost more than I want, especially with file sizes for 32MP.

I'm not sure how rolling shutter will affect birders' decision on electronic vs. mechanical shutter. But even at 30 fps and lossless RAW the 42 shot buffer is significantly larger than what the M6 Mark II, 90D, or 7D Mark II offer(ed).

 

[Michael Clark]

I wouldn't attribute this to any nefarious intent. Oftentimes, dealers have little more notice than the rest of us mere mortals when new products are announced. They might have put it into their system with incorrect or miscommunicated information.

From what I understand, official Canon dealers (at least in the USA) aren't allowed to deviate from the "official" prices. So they'll likely correct it at some point, and anybody who preorders one at $499 should only be charged $479 when it actually ships.

I don't think either of us suggested anything nefarious about it at all. I was only observing that it is extremely unusual for B&H to list any Canon products at anything other than the "official" Canon price. I'd guess it almost certainly was an oversight/error/miscommunication. But it's still there for $499 today.

The contracts actually state they cant advertise a price lower than the "official" price. They can sell for any price they choose above or below the official price.
They are not prohibited from advertising a price more than the official one, either.

Depending on your customer habits (i.e how much stuff you buy from B&H) you can call them and often get an unadvertised discount below the "official price", or get them to throw in an extra goodie or two, if they've got more inventory of that item than they'd prefer to have sitting in the warehouse. Right now that's not the case for much of anything made by Canon, but hopefully it will be the case again in the near future.

 

[Pierre Lagarde]

I can’t decide if I should go for R7 or save a bit more for R6. Can the hive mind tell me what to do?

Reach & action are a priority. But so are sunrises with flowers.

They are quite in different leagues to my sense.

I'd say save even (much) more and take R5. You will have decent reach (nearly 20Mp APS-C with good pixels) and at least, everything R6 can do as well.

As said JustUs7 though, + some complements :
- if reach, and light weight/smaller body+APS-C kit lenses is the priority, take R7 (18-150 looks like a great walk around kit zoom and there's a risk you won't have as full usage of it with R6 as with R7)
- if FF is the priority (beauty of colours, more bokeh, more light, higher ISOs etc..), then take the R6

This 32Mp sensor is very good and will give you decent colours, DR and precision all the way for landscape to my sense.
I attached a basic panoramic view made with M6 mark II and 11-22 (let's hope they'll do a similar lens for R).

I'd say you probably can't go wrong with the specs of R7 if image quality is the question anyway, then, but I still think the priority may be to do serious handling test to ensure you'll be at ease with the shape of this camera.
...

 

[blackcoffee17]

Canon states that the sensor in the R7 is brand new

Of course it is brand new but the same design as the 90D's sensor

 

[Michael Clark]

Another key point is that I suspect those who own more than one camera body are a tiny minority of Canon shooters. Sure, there are lots of us on this forum…but we are far from typical users.

Overall, I'd agree with you that most Canon shooters only have one body, or at least only one that they use with maybe the older model it replaced buried in a closet somewhere. But I don't think most 7D Mark II owners fell/fall into that same category.

The 7D and especially the 7D Mark II were more specialized tools than most Canon bodies. They were optimized for sports and action, sometimes at the expense of other tasks. The x0D series were better general purpose cameras than the 7D series. At ISO 100-400 both the 80D and 90D outperformed the 7DII in terms of DR and Color Sensitivity. The Rebels, which are all that the vast majority of Canon shooters ever own(ed), are jacks of all trades as well. So are the 5-series and 6-series.

 

[takesome1]

The Scoop on 'The Proof Is in the Pudding'

No evidence is in there, but it was a treat to find out.

www.merriam-webster.com

This site is so educational.

I suppose at some point in the past when the phrase originated someone actually tasted the pudding.

Not long ago on the forum I learned everything I needed to know about Do-nuts and Dough-nuts and cannibals eating Munchkins at Dunkin.

 

[takesome1]

Overall, I'd agree with you that most Canon shooters only have one body, or at least only one that they use with maybe the older model it replaced buried in a closet somewhere. But I don't think most 7D Mark II owners fell/fall into that same category. The body available at that time was the 70D and the only thing it would have had the 7D Mark II didn't is the flippy screen.

The 7D and especially the 7D Mark II were more specialized tools than most Canon bodies. They were optimized for sports and action, sometimes at the expense of other tasks. The x0D series were better general purpose cameras than the 7D series. At ISO 100-400 both the 80D and 90D outperformed the 7DII in terms of DR and Color Sensitivity. The Rebels, which are all that the vast majority of Canon shooters ever own(ed), are jacks of all trades as well. So are the 5-series and 6-series.

At its release the 7D II did everything the other current crop bodies did and more (the 70D). I wouldn't have called either specialized in comparison to other crop bodies. The 7D and 7D II just had a higher price point and more features. Both of the bodies you reference were released years after the 7D II so they should have had improvements.

Canon milked the 7D II for all they could. It was announced in September of 2014 and there was never another 7D update.

It isn't like the separation you have now and had with full frame. You either had high mp slow cameras or the fast 1D series.

 

[Del Paso]

This site is so educational.

I suppose at some point in the past when the phrase originated someone actually tasted the pudding.

Not long ago on the forum I learned everything I needed to know about Do-nuts and Dough-nuts and cannibals eating Munchkins at Dunkin.

This site is better than the Sorbonne, Oxford, Cambridge or Princeton.
And we benefit from lifetime membership!

 

[Michael Clark]

They are quite in different leagues to my sense.

I'd say save even (much) more and take R5. You will have decent reach (nearly 20Mp APS-C with good pixels) and at least, everything R6 can do as well.

As said JustUs7 though, + some complements :
- if reach, and light weight/smaller body+APS-C kit lenses is the priority, take R7 (18-150 looks like a great walk around kit zoom and there's a risk you won't have as full usage of it with R6 as with R7)
- if FF is the priority (beauty of colours, more bokeh, more light, higher ISOs etc..), then take the R6

This 32Mp sensor is very good and will give you decent colours, DR and precision all the way for landscape to my sense.
I attached a basic panoramic view made with M6 mark II and 11-22 (let's hope they'll do a similar lens for R).

I'd say you probably can't go wrong with the specs of R7 if image quality is the question anyway, then, but I still think the priority may be to do serious handling test to ensure you'll be at ease with the shape of this camera.
...

On the other hand, both an R6 and an R7 can be had for about the same price as a single R5.

The R7 looks to be a much better camera for sports/action where reach is an issue than the R6. By the time you crop the R5 to R7 size (because your lens is reach limited), you'd probably get slightly better image quality with the R5 but slightly better AF performance with the R7 (if it's true that it matches the R3 in Servo AF performance). For me, I'd rather have a slightly noisier image that's in focus than a slightly cleaner image that is slightly out of focus. YMMV.

The R6 will be a much better camera than the R7 for landscapes and flowers. It's also about as good as the R5 for those use cases unless you plan on printing/displaying very large.

You do get the best of both with the R5, but it's only one body so you'd be limited to a single lens at any given moment with no backup if you have an issue with your one camera.

Sometimes two bodies come in very handy for sports and action, especially if one is APS-C and the other is FF. Throw a telephoto on the APS-C body and a wide angle on the FF body and you can cover a lot of ground with only two lenses. Start the play with your "reach" body/lens combo and if the play comes straight towards you on the sideline swap to the "wide" body/lens combo to finish out the play. With a two camera harness it's very fast to go from using one body to the other without missing shots changing lenses.




(The image numbers are reversed because the clocks on both cameras were not perfectly synchronized and the latter shot has a slightly earlier timestamp and was automatically sorted ahead of the earlier shot before the files from all cameras were renumbered in sequence.)

Or to catch the play with the "long" setup and then get an immediate sideline reaction with the "wide" combo.

 

[Michael Clark]

At its release the 7D II did everything the other current crop bodies did and more (the 70D). I wouldn't have called either specialized in comparison to other crop bodies. The 7D and 7D II just had a higher price point and more features. Both of the bodies you reference were released years after the 7D II so they should have had improvements.

Canon milked the 7D II for all they could. It was announced in September of 2014 and there was never another 7D update.

It isn't like the separation you have now and had with full frame. You either had high mp slow cameras or the fast 1D series.

The 7D Mark II was released (shipped) in November, 2014.

The 80D was released (shipped) in the Spring of 2016 barely 16 months later.

16 months is not "years", especially when the 70D was only sold alongside the 7DII for 16 months and the 80D was sold alongside the 7DII for almost 4 years (≈42 months). Even if the 7DII had only had a 4-year life cycle, it would have been sold alongside the 80D for longer (32 months) than it was sold alongside the 70D (16 months), which was right at half of its marketing life cycle when the 7D Mark II was introduced about 15 months after the 70D introduction in mid-2013.

The "separation" between high MP slow cameras and lower MP crop bodies ended in the Spring of 2012 with the release of the 18 MP EOS 1D X at a time when the highest resolution body in the Canon inventory was 22.3MP (5D Mark III also released the same quarter). That's what Chuck Westfall included in his spiel every time he was interviewed about the upcoming release of the 1D X to replace both the 1Ds Mark III and the 1D Mark IV.

2012 was before 2014 unless you're Dr. Who, Bill & Ted, or "Doc" & Marty.

 

[unfocused]

Canon never really made any EF-S lenses specifically for the 7-series, either. Most of the 7D/7DII owners I know used EF telephoto lenses with them. When we wanted to shoot wider angles of view, we used our 5-series bodies...

That's not quite correct. While the 15-85mm was not made specifically for the 7D, they were announced in tandem and at the time it was generally considered by reviewers that the 15-85 mm was meant to be paired with the 7D.

 

[Michael Clark]

That's not quite correct. While the 15-85mm was not made specifically for the 7D, they were announced in tandem and at the time it was generally considered by reviewers that the 15-85 mm was meant to be paired with the 7D.

I'm sure you're correct. I thought I recalled the earliest 7D kits having the EF 28-135mm, but I guess that was the 50D. The wider range zoom lens offered with the 7D was the EF-S 18-135mm? Canon had to do something at that point about the EF-S 17-85mm, which had only been out for 5 years, but was bad to break the ribbon cable between the rear pc board and the internal pc board that controlled the AF motor and aperture with fairly pedestrian usage.

P.S. The EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro was also introduced at the same time as the 7D...

 

[Michael Clark]

I wouldn't attribute this to any nefarious intent. Oftentimes, dealers have little more notice than the rest of us mere mortals when new products are announced. They might have put it into their system with incorrect or miscommunicated information.

From what I understand, official Canon dealers (at least in the USA) aren't allowed to deviate from the "official" prices. So they'll likely correct it at some point, and anybody who preorders one at $499 should only be charged $479 when it actually ships.

Now it's showing $499 at Canon USA as well.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I can’t decide if I should go for R7 or save a bit more for R6. Can the hive mind tell me what to do?

Reach & action are a priority. But so are sunrises with flowers.

It sounds like the R7 would give you all of that and the R6 would give you everything except reach

 

[unfocused]

P.S. The EF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro was also introduced at the same time as the 7D...

That’s right. I forgot about that lens. As far as I know the 15-85 was never offered as a kit with the 7D although many people expected that it would be. I think the lens was too costly to be kitted with the 7D so Canon just sold it separately, even though they marketed it as a companion to the 7D.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Overall, I'd agree with you that most Canon shooters only have one body, or at least only one that they use with maybe the older model it replaced buried in a closet somewhere. But I don't think most 7D Mark II owners fell/fall into that same category.

The 7D and especially the 7D Mark II were more specialized tools than most Canon bodies. They were optimized for sports and action, sometimes at the expense of other tasks. The x0D series were better general purpose cameras than the 7D series. At ISO 100-400 both the 80D and 90D outperformed the 7DII in terms of DR and Color Sensitivity. The Rebels, which are all that the vast majority of Canon shooters ever own(ed), are jacks of all trades as well. So are the 5-series and 6-series.

I think your perspective is colored* too much by your own experience. When the 7D came out, there was a large price difference between it as the top APS-C body and the 5DII as the bottom FF body. The 7DII w/ a kit lens was substantially cheaper than the 6DII with lens, and the 7D/II were a much cheaper upgrade from xxxD or lower bodies because no additional lens(es) would be needed.

I suspect there were many for whom the 7D/7DII was their only camera.

*colored, you mention that xxD bodies had better low ISO DR and Color Sensitivity. That’s a forum dweller perspective. I doubt most Canon owners, including FF and even 1-series owners, know about or care about measured Color Sensitivity or are even aware of DxOMark.

 

[Michael Clark]

I think your perspective is colored* too much by your own experience. When the 7D came out, there was a large price difference between it as the top APS-C body and the 5DII as the bottom FF body. The 7DII w/ a kit lens was substantially cheaper than the 6DII with lens, and the 7D/II were a much cheaper upgrade from xxxD or lower bodies because no additional lens(es) would be needed.

I suspect there were many for whom the 7D/7DII was their only camera.

*colored, you mention that xxD bodies had better low ISO DR and Color Sensitivity. That’s a forum dweller perspective. I doubt most Canon owners, including FF and even 1-series owners, know about or care about measured Color Sensitivity or are even aware of DxOMark.

I'm sure most every 70/80/90D owner that fits the profile you describe were glad those cameras had the customized automatic Scene Modes (beach, flowers, snow, night portrait, etc.) and might have chosen them over the 7-Series because the 7-Series bodies did not. They probably didn't mind only having one "C" mode on the dial, since they probably had no idea what the "C" stood for. 7D owners probably did prefer the three positions on the dial (C1, C2, and C3) and didn't mind giving up all of those various 'Auto' modes clogging the mode dial.

You can criticize my experience all you want, but unless you present factual, documented evidence to the contrary about who bought what camera models with or without kit lenses and why, and how many other bodies those buyers owned, you're just stabbing in the dark at the same time you're criticizing me for introducing anecdotal information about people I've actually known and interacted with at sporting events, concerts, festivals, etc. How many 7D/7DII owners that only had one body have you personally interacted with on multiple occasions?

New 7D Mark II (Body Only) cameras have not been available from Canon retailers for almost two years. A few dealers still have a few rare brand new 7D Mark II kits with the EF-S 18-135mm kit lens (but without the Wi-Fi card, which means these kits predate 2017 when Canon stopped shipping any 7D Mark II bodies or kits without the W-E1). That ought to tell you something about which SKU sold faster or was more in demand.

A large part of the reason 7D II was "substantially" cheaper with kit lens than the 6D with kit lens was due to the difference in the two lenses in question.

Upon introduction in 2012, the 6D body was priced at $1899 USD.
Upon introduction in 2014, The 7D Mark II body was priced at $1,799 USD.
Upon introduction in 2017, the 6D Mark II body was priced at $1,999 USD.

So just maybe the larger differences in the kit prices had to do with the difference between the price of the EF-S 18-135mm f/ 3.5-56 IS and the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS?