A new camera not named the R1 is coming in the 2nd half of 2021 [CR2]

ctk

Refurb EOS R Kit
Mar 25, 2020
65
66
It's called the EOS R6.
20MP? No thanks. You can spare me the impassioned arguments over how I won't miss the resolution yadda yadda. Point is I don't want to pay more for a camera that has less of the things that are important to me. I'm happy enough with my R to stick with it for now
 
  • Like
Reactions: bergstrom

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,190
2,065
20MP? No thanks. You can spare me the impassioned arguments over how I won't miss the resolution yadda yadda. Point is I don't want to pay more for a camera that has less of the things that are important to me. I'm happy enough with my R to stick with it for now
A 32 MP camera with R5 features (minus those that require 45MP, i.e., 8K and 4K downsampled from 8K) would have been my sweet spot. Or you can look at it as a 32MP R6. Actually that's probably a better comparison, since I'd be happier with dual SD slots instead of one being that horrifically expensive CFE.

I opted for overkill rather than underkill, and I can understand exactly where you're coming from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SereneSpeed

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
748
560
Frankfurt, Germany
The 7D Mark II was officially discontinued about three or four years ago. Since then, only the 7D Mark II + W-E1 stock number has been available. Be sure you're looking for the right listing. A lot of places have that stock number on back order, but say they will be getting more soon. It may be that Canon let production get behind in order to respond to the overwhelming demand for the R5 and R6 at a time when supply chain problems where at a peak.
Never seen any official announcement, but I may have missed it. But it would be logical to phase out stock, if production would be already stopped now. The 7D2 is an old camera now. Still not bad, despite its mediocre phase AF system, I use mine frequently for birding. But it really would be time to come up with a (mirrorless) successor. Pretty sure that there would be a market for a good, fast crop camera with a not too high pixel number but improved low light performance.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,428
2,011
Never seen any official announcement, but I may have missed it. But it would be logical to phase out stock, if production would be already stopped now. The 7D2 is an old camera now. Still not bad, despite its mediocre phase AF system, I use mine frequently for birding. But it really would be time to come up with a (mirrorless) successor. Pretty sure that there would be a market for a good, fast crop camera with a not too high pixel number but improved low light performance.

Models that old go in and out of production as needed to stockpile predicted sales until the next scheduled production run. Right now, with the crunch on flash memory and chips in general, as well as overall supply chain issues caused by the disruption of COVID-19 and the fire at a major chip fabricator, I'd be surprised if 7D Mark II production was not currently on hiatus. Whether Canon has decided to make some more when capacity loosens up or has decided that the curtain on the 7D Mark II has been closed remains to be seen. But if the fat lady hasn't already begun singing, she's definitely been warming up her voice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
638
537
www.flickr.com
On the other hand, some of us would prefer not to wear out our new and expensive R5 bodies on "high mileage" sports/action that requires us to crop to APS-C dimensions anyway if we can't justify spending what it takes to get a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 to use under the (poor) lighting at high school/youth sports facilities. So bring on an R7 for the high mileage assignments and let us save the R5 for when we really need all that it has to offer.
High mileage assignments? The R5's shutter life is 500k actuations (same as 1DX iii) compared to 150k for the 5Div, 200k for the 7Dii and 300k for the R6. Using the eshutter doesn't affect the shutter life of course.
I contend that the 7D series are a marketing unicorn with fast fps, weather sealing, dual card and top AF in a relatively cheap body. I can't see all these features coming in a R7 body. All these features are already in R5/R6. A crop sensor would have a cheaper fab cost than full frame but I can't see that translating to a big price decrease compared to the R6.
I'm just not convinced that there is a big enough difference to the R6 to warrant a R7 and the required new RF-S wide angle lenses that a crop sensor would need (10-16mm plus maybe some primes). Alternatively, Canon may say to use an ef-R adaptor and EF-S lenses.
The only benefit for a crop sensor over the R5/R6 would be if there is a greater pixel density. Perhaps a crop version of the R5s' sensor.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,428
2,011
High mileage assignments? The R5's shutter life is 500k actuations (same as 1DX iii) compared to 150k for the 5Div, 200k for the 7Dii and 300k for the R6. Using the eshutter doesn't affect the shutter life of course.
I contend that the 7D series are a marketing unicorn with fast fps, weather sealing, dual card and top AF in a relatively cheap body. I can't see all these features coming in a R7 body. All these features are already in R5/R6. A crop sensor would have a cheaper fab cost than full frame but I can't see that translating to a big price decrease compared to the R6.
I'm just not convinced that there is a big enough difference to the R6 to warrant a R7 and the required new RF-S wide angle lenses that a crop sensor would need (10-16mm plus maybe some primes). Alternatively, Canon may say to use an ef-R adaptor and EF-S lenses.
The only benefit for a crop sensor over the R5/R6 would be if there is a greater pixel density. Perhaps a crop version of the R5s' sensor.

At the time the 7D Mark II came out in 2014, the 1D X had a shutter durability rating of 400,000 actuations. But the 5D Mark III, and the 5D Mark IV that followed in 2016, only had 150,000 ratings. The 1D X was 18 MP (giving only 7MP cropped to APS-C "reach") and the 5D Mark III was only 22 MP (giving only 8.6MP at an APS-C crop) and slower handling. The 1D X could do 12fps, the 7D Mark II could do 10fps, and the 5D Mark III could only do 6fps and bogged down in fewer frames than either the 1D X or 7D Mark II.

Yes, the 500K shutter rating, equal to the 1D X Mark III, and 12fps (mechanical) of the R5 does make the calculation a little different from comparing the 200K/10fps 7D Mark II to the 150K shutter rating/6fps of the 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV. But who's to say an R7 is only going to have a 200K shutter? I would expect if we get an R7, it will have a higher shutter durability rating than the 7D Mark II. The R6, at 300,000, is quite the improvement over the unrated 6D Mark II and the 6D with a 100,000 rating. Perhaps the R7 would be somewhere in the 300K-400K range?

Any APS-C camera can have the same sensor transit time at 1/1.6X the same curtain acceleration/deceleration/average speed, or 1/1.6X the transit time at the same average speed. Using the same technology in the R6 shutter scaled down by 1.6X would give it a 1.6X faster transit time. Reducing the transit time to match the R6 would make it cheaper if using lower grade components or more durable if using the same grade components.

The R6, with a 20MP FF sensor that crops to only 8MP, is a non-consideration for the same use case when one would expect at least a 30MP APS-C sensor in any forthcoming R7.

Even if it is the same price, or even slightly more than the R6, many would be attracted to basically an R6 body with a 32MP APS-C sensor inside (giving the same pixel density as an 82MP FF sensor - that's a FAR cry from the R6's lower pixel density.)

Why would Canon make a scaled sown 18 MP version of the R5 sensor when they've already got a 32MP APS-C sensor used in the 90D and M6 Mark II? The 32MP APS-C sensor is much newer technology (2019 vs. 2014) and performs noticeably better than the "vintage" 20MP sensor in the 7D Mark II. Many of us would have bought a 90D if the 7D Mark II's AF system and the 200,000 shutter durability rating had been included. Instead, Canon chose to keep the lower grade 80D AF system in the 90D and give it only a 120,000 actuation rated shutter. It had the sensor we wanted, but not the durability we needed. The R6 has, perhaps, the durability - but it does not have the sensor we need.

Lack of wide angle lenses is not much of a consideration, either, as most 7D Mark II users used telephoto lenses on them and chose the higher pixel density APS-C sensor to get more "reach" from their telephoto lenses. For those who even do WA work, they used their FF cameras for that.

Not many who want an R7 want only an R7. They want one R7 to supplement one R5 or R6 when higher pixel density shooting sports/action is needed for the "long" body while simultaneously using the R6/R5 as their "wide" body, rather than having to buy two R5 bodies or an R5 plus R6. Only if the price of an R7 gets close to the price of an R5 would it make more sense to use an R5 in crop mode as the "long" body and an R6 in FF mode as the "wide" body. But even then the R5 cropped to APS-C is only 18MP, rather than 32MP. That can be quite the difference when "reach" without spending a mint is a key consideration. Shooting high school and youth sports can cover the cost of a 70-200/2.8. It's hard to cover the cost of a 300/2.8, much less a 400/2.8, and have anything left for all one's trouble.

Given a choice, I'd rather use an R5 at 45MP (short body) and R7 at 32MP (long body) combo than an R6 at 20MP (short) and R5 at 17MP in crop mode (long) if the cost is the same. If I'm really budget challenged, I could use an R6 (short) and R7 (long) combo. I'd have two bodies that, together, give me most of what the R5 can do for only about $500-600 more than a single R5.
 

EOS 4 Life

EOS RP
Sep 20, 2020
457
309
I'm just not convinced that there is a big enough difference to the R6 to warrant a R7 and the required new RF-S wide angle lenses that a crop sensor would need (10-16mm plus maybe some primes).
A big advantage to crop sensors is the extra reach.
For wide-angle it would make more sense to use a focal reducer and a full-frame lens.
That is how I use my G9.
I have no wide-angle MFT lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TravelerNick

TravelerNick

EOS M6 Mark II
Dec 4, 2020
77
49
A big advantage to crop sensors is the extra reach.
For wide-angle it would make more sense to use a focal reducer and a full-frame lens.
That is how I use my G9.
I have no wide-angle MFT lenses.

Or just have a full frame body for wide angle use. But even that assumes people wouldn't just use FF WA lenses
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
638
537
www.flickr.com
At the time the 7D Mark II came out in 2014, the 1D X had a shutter durability rating of 400,000 actuations. But the 5D Mark III, and the 5D Mark IV that followed in 2016, only had 150,000 ratings. The 1D X was 18 MP (giving only 7MP cropped to APS-C "reach") and the 5D Mark III was only 22 MP (giving only 8.6MP at an APS-C crop) and slower handling. The 1D X could do 12fps, the 7D Mark II could do 10fps, and the 5D Mark III could only do 6fps and bogged down in fewer frames than either the 1D X or 7D Mark II.

Yes, the 500K shutter rating, equal to the 1D X Mark III, and 12fps (mechanical) of the R5 does make the calculation a little different from comparing the 200K/10fps 7D Mark II to the 150K shutter rating/6fps of the 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV. But who's to say an R7 is only going to have a 200K shutter? I would expect if we get an R7, it will have a higher shutter durability rating than the 7D Mark II. The R6, at 300,000, is quite the improvement over the unrated 6D Mark II and the 6D with a 100,000 rating. Perhaps the R7 would be somewhere in the 300K-400K range?

Any APS-C camera can have the same sensor transit time at 1/1.6X the same curtain acceleration/deceleration/average speed, or 1/1.6X the transit time at the same average speed. Using the same technology in the R6 shutter scaled down by 1.6X would give it a 1.6X faster transit time. Reducing the transit time to match the R6 would make it cheaper if using lower grade components or more durable if using the same grade components.

The R6, with a 20MP FF sensor that crops to only 8MP, is a non-consideration for the same use case when one would expect at least a 30MP APS-C sensor in any forthcoming R7.

Even if it is the same price, or even slightly more than the R6, many would be attracted to basically an R6 body with a 32MP APS-C sensor inside (giving the same pixel density as an 82MP FF sensor - that's a FAR cry from the R6's lower pixel density.)

Why would Canon make a scaled sown 18 MP version of the R5 sensor when they've already got a 32MP APS-C sensor used in the 90D and M6 Mark II? The 32MP APS-C sensor is much newer technology (2019 vs. 2014) and performs noticeably better than the "vintage" 20MP sensor in the 7D Mark II. Many of us would have bought a 90D if the 7D Mark II's AF system and the 200,000 shutter durability rating had been included. Instead, Canon chose to keep the lower grade 80D AF system in the 90D and give it only a 120,000 actuation rated shutter. It had the sensor we wanted, but not the durability we needed. The R6 has, perhaps, the durability - but it does not have the sensor we need.

Lack of wide angle lenses is not much of a consideration, either, as most 7D Mark II users used telephoto lenses on them and chose the higher pixel density APS-C sensor to get more "reach" from their telephoto lenses. For those who even do WA work, they used their FF cameras for that.

Not many who want an R7 want only an R7. They want one R7 to supplement one R5 or R6 when higher pixel density shooting sports/action is needed for the "long" body while simultaneously using the R6/R5 as their "wide" body, rather than having to buy two R5 bodies or an R5 plus R6. Only if the price of an R7 gets close to the price of an R5 would it make more sense to use an R5 in crop mode as the "long" body and an R6 in FF mode as the "wide" body. But even then the R5 cropped to APS-C is only 18MP, rather than 32MP. That can be quite the difference when "reach" without spending a mint is a key consideration. Shooting high school and youth sports can cover the cost of a 70-200/2.8. It's hard to cover the cost of a 300/2.8, much less a 400/2.8, and have anything left for all one's trouble.

Given a choice, I'd rather use an R5 at 45MP (short body) and R7 at 32MP (long body) combo than an R6 at 20MP (short) and R5 at 17MP in crop mode (long) if the cost is the same. If I'm really budget challenged, I could use an R6 (short) and R7 (long) combo. I'd have two bodies that, together, give me most of what the R5 can do for only about $500-600 more than a single R5.
Quite an essay!
I bought a 7D as my only camera due to cost. To assume that all or most crop sensor buyers would buy a R7 as a second body is based on your experience. Your assumption that the R7 will be
Relatively cheap like the 7D/ii is a big assumption
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,428
2,011
Quite an essay!
I bought a 7D as my only camera due to cost. To assume that all or most crop sensor buyers would buy a R7 as a second body is based on your experience. Your assumption that the R7 will be
Relatively cheap like the 7D/ii is a big assumption

Cheap is always a relative term. Compared to the R5, the R6 is cheap. Currently the R5 sells for 152% what the R6 is going for in the U.S. ($3,800 vs. $2,500). If history is any indication (though it may not be with the unique market conditions we currently have regarding production capacity and the current state of the memory market), the R6 will start edging down in price well before the R5 will. Compare the prices of the 6D and 6D Mark II eighteen months after introduction to the prices of the contemporary 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV eighteen months after introduction. Will the R7 be as cheap as the 7D was? No. But then the R5 is not as cheap as the 5D series was, and the R6 is not as cheap as the 6D series was, either.

As for the typical user of the 7D and 7D Mark II: It seems to me based on my experience at a lot of youth sports and high school sporting events as well as hot air balloon festivals, air shows, etc. over the past decade plus there were a lot more folks who bought a 7D as a single body than there were who later bought the 7D Mark II as their only body. I knew plenty of folks who had a single 7D. I knew almost no one who had a 7D Mark II that didn't also have at least a 6D, if not one or more 5-series bodies. A lot of that had to do with the introduction of the 6D in 2012 that lowered the price of admission to the FF club from $3,500 to $2,200. Most of the original 7Ds that were sold had already been bought by then. After the 70D came along in 2013, sales of the 7D dropped even more. Even those who wanted a 7D rather than a 70D or 6D were waiting for the 7D Mark II, which many expected to see as early as 2011 or 2012, based on the replacement cycles of the 30D/40D/50D/etc.

With how Canon "downgraded" the 60D compared to the 50D in many ways, a lot of folks who wanted a replacement for their 50D chose the 7D. The shot-to-shot inconsistency of the 7D's AF system frustrated many of us and when the 70D was introduced with a slightly better sensor most of those folks shooting a single "prosumer" crop body went back to the x0D line and left the 7D line as a specialized sports/action camera to be used with FF telephoto lenses to give more "reach".

That movement only increased when the 80D was rolled out barely a year after the 7D Mark II. The 80D was a better general purpose body than the 7D Mark II, especially when shooting below ISO400. I saw/knew a lot more folks who had a 7D as their only body than I later saw/knew who had a 7D Mark II as their only body. Almost all of the 7D as their only body folks I know eventually replaced it with either a 70D or an 80D (or a 6D if they weren't into sports/action/birding).

I saw a lot of folks shooting 7D + EF 100-400 around 2010-13 at balloon festivals, airshows, and the like. By 2014-17, those same folks were shooting 70D/80D bodies with the EF 100-400 II.
 
<-- start Taboola -->