Will the Fujifilm X-T6 and Canon EOS R7 Mark II face off in the 2026 APS-C Showdown?

[Richard CR]

Rumor on the street is that Fujifilm is also readying their X-T6 for release later this year, rumored for September. This will follow Canon's expected release of Canon's R7 Mark II, expected to be put sometime in the first half of this year. This will set off an interesting comparison between two APS-C contenders. I […]

See full article...

 

[Richard CR]

Yes I know this is CanonRumors. but what happens in the industry impacts Canon as well. Also I spent almost 3 weeks sick, so finally getting back into things, so I'm allowed to diverge around in topics

 

[MSH411]

Hey Richard, always appreciated the information. You may want to take a look at the second paragraph

I honestly doubt that Canon doesn’t knows what Fujifilm, Nikon, and Sony are doing in terms of camera releases.

I honestly doubt that Canon doesn’t know what Fujifilm, Nikon, and Sony are doing in terms of camera releases.

 

[Traveler]

I’m not sure why “partially stacked” sensors or BSI are treated as such a big advantage. Canon has shown that comparable performance is possible even with traditional FSI technology — the R6 Mark III sensor doesn’t seem slower than the A7 V’s.

So why would the R7 Mark II need a stacked sensor at all? Since it’s APS-C, Canon might be able to achieve very fast readout anyway. I know readout speed depends on pixel count, but I’d expect sensor size to matter as well.

 

[Richard CR]

I’m not sure why “partially stacked” sensors or BSI are treated as such a big advantage. Canon has shown that comparable performance is possible even with traditional FSI technology — the R6 Mark III sensor doesn’t seem slower than the A7 V’s.

So why would the R7 Mark II need a stacked sensor at all? Since it’s APS-C, Canon might be able to achieve very fast readout anyway. I know readout speed depends on pixel count, but I’d expect sensor size to matter as well.

The R6 Mark III sensor is slower, and it's also processing 1/4 of the data as it's running in 12-bit mode.

So there is compromises to what Canon is doing, namely, there is a significant hit to electronic shutter noise and dynamic range.

while the A7 V still has that compromise as well, it has it for different reasons (DGO).

 

[Maximilian]

... the Canon Cripple Hammer™..

™! That made my day. Thank you very much, @Richard CR

 

[Traveler]

The R6 Mark III sensor is slower, and it's also processing 1/4 of the data as it's running in 12-bit mode.

So there is compromises to what Canon is doing, namely, there is a significant hit to electronic shutter noise and dynamic range.

while the A7 V still has that compromise as well, it has it for different reasons (DGO).

Thanks for the explanation, Richard. I had kind of forgotten about the 12-bit readout. If the Sony sensor actually reads out 14-bit data (and it’s not just a 14-bit container), then there’s definitely more data to process.

I’m still not sure whether the compromises show up mainly in dynamic range when using electronic shutter. There seems to be roughly a 0.5 EV gap between the partially stacked Sony sensor (A7 V) and the FSI Canon sensor (R6 Mark III). If I remember correctly, Sony sensors have usually been slightly better in DR, even back when both were using FSI.

 

[DhlcadR6]

I think it's not fair to exclude Sigma Tamron lenses for the ecosystem comparison. They are making RF-S so much more attractive and competitive. And the telephoto lenses in FF RF also makes R7/R7ii worthy over Fuji.

 

[Richard CR]

I think it's not fair to exclude Sigma Tamron lenses for the ecosystem comparison. They are making RF-S so much more attractive and competitive.

Yes, but conversely, those lenses and a bazillion more lenses get added onto the Fuji side if we do that.

It would honestly look far worse. There are a ton of vendors that don't make for the RF mount, but make for the X mount.

 

[Brown]

I turn your attention to the darling of the APS-C lineup for Canon, the EOS R100

Can anyone explain why the R100 can't use the RF extenders?

 

[Brown]

I’m not sure why “partially stacked” sensors or BSI are treated as such a big advantage.

Back-side illumination has been the only architectural improvement to imager sensitivity since gapless microlenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Back-side illumination has been the only architectural improvement to imager sensitivity since gapless microlenses.

The benefit of BSI decreases with increasing pixel size. Below 2 µm it’s evident, above about 4 µm it’s minimal to none. The driver behind the development of BSI in the first place was to pack more pixels onto a small sensor, an innovation which enabled modern smartphone cameras.

 

[GirlsAreBeautiful]

I can't wait for the "dynamic range wars", it will not be for the R7 vs fujifilm but please bring it on

 

[Chig]

"Regardless, the Fujifilm will certainly be the better-looking camera" in your opinion but personally I think all Fuji cameras are Fugly little boxes with nasty sharp angles and crappy ergonomics whereas Canon bodies are beautifully styled by the undisputed masters of ergonomics which always fit human hands and their curves are really sexy just as humans with curves are more appealing both visually and tactilely.

Not sure how many people buying an R7ii care about the lack of RF-S lenses either? I suspect most potential buyers would be using it with long telephoto lenses so it makes no difference that these are designed for full frame and most of them already own full frame bodies with which they can use wide angle and normal FF lenses.

 

[Tom R5R7]

Some miscellaneous thoughts - for me, and I recognize that I'm not everyone, an R7 II would be desirable if it had the same or increased pixel density along with reduced high-ISO noise. I know, I might be bumping up against the laws of physics here, but for my purposes, pixel density and low noise are two big factors.

Improvements to the AF, which is already good, would be a plus for birders and others seeking to photograph the proverbial needle in a haystack.

Readout speed - yes, a must for E-shutter, though I use E-first curtain and get plenty of images typically, for my purposes.

On the part of lenses, I have no idea why Canon didn't, at a minimum, take the best of the EF-M range and adapt them to the RF mount. That is, do what they did with the 18-150 lens. A 15-45 with Canon's 1.6X is a very suitable normal range telephoto. The 32/1.4 is great, the 22/2 pancake lens. Should be pretty easy as the back focus distance is almost the same between M and RF. Seems like Canon has ceded the RF-S lens manufacturing to third parties.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Seems like Canon has ceded the RF-S lens manufacturing to third parties.

Indeed, they made the de regieur standard, ultrawide, telezoom and superzoom lenses with slow/variable apertures (along with some esoteric video lenses) and instead they have devoted some effort to making (relatively) inexpensive RF lenses like the 16/2.8 and 28/2.8 (wide and normal primes on APS-C), and the 15-30 zoom, that facilitate APS-C users shifting to FF down the line.

 

[snapshot]

Yes, but conversely, those lenses and a bazillion more lenses get added onto the Fuji side if we do that.

It would honestly look far worse. There are a ton of vendors that don't make for the RF mount, but make for the X mount.

this is sort of a competitive view, where we are discussing which camera ecosystem should we be in (canon v fuji).
rather than, what does canon have to do get EF-S and EF-M users onto RFS or even better get them onto RF,
I could argue R7 was a pretty mild update over M6/D90. how many people stood pat especially the M6 users who cant get an adapter and have to replace the kit.

 

[Dragon]

The R6 Mark III sensor is slower, and it's also processing 1/4 of the data as it's running in 12-bit mode.

So there is compromises to what Canon is doing, namely, there is a significant hit to electronic shutter noise and dynamic range.

while the A7 V still has that compromise as well, it has it for different reasons (DGO).

The A7 III may be using 14 bits in ES mode, but if you look at the P to P dynamic range chart, it looks more like 12-1/2 useful bits. In other words, processing a lot of garbage because the A/D doesn't have enough time to settle, so dropping out of DGO is only part of the problem. Also, the choice to move the gain step to ISO 1000 is silly. 800 is a nice familiar point for the switch. DGO is a nice touch, but for it to be universally useful, the sensor needs to be designed with dual A/Ds so the two gain settings can be read simultaneously. Canon's experience with DPAF could be helpful in this regard.

 

[fox40phil]

R7II needs also to be more quite /less noisy when shooting with mechanical (what I always do)! It’s near to be DSLR niveau of shutter noise

 

[MontereyBay]

this is sort of a competitive view, where we are discussing which camera ecosystem should we be in (canon v fuji).
rather than, what does canon have to do get EF-S and EF-M users onto RFS or even better get them onto RF,
I could argue R7 was a pretty mild update over M6/D90. how many people stood pat especially the M6 users who cant get an adapter and have to replace the kit.

The R50V runs circles around my M6mk2. And most M6 users know it. There are thousands of EF lenses available, and they work fine. Way better than anything adapted to my M6