An APS-C RF mount prototype is currently in the wild [CR2]

[Michael Clark]

Only Canon knows the size of the 7Dii user base. It is an assumption that all current 7Dii users will buy a R7. It is also an assumption that all 7Dii users were birders etc requiring the extra reach compared to other systems. It is not clear how many current 7Dii users have moved to 5D or other systems in the last 7 years or even moved to the R6/7. I moved from 7D to 5Diii to 5Div to R5 for instance.
The R5 has the best AF/fps/weather sealing that you want on a R7. Saying that 17mp equivalent reach on the R5 is not sufficient as the D90 etc has 30mp doesn't make sense as the 7Dii only has 20mp. 17mp vs 20mp is not a large difference in linear resolution. If pixels on subject is mandatory then use D90/M5ii.
I contend that the 7D/7Dii were marketing unicorns ie best AF/weather sealing/fps in a relatively inexpensive body doesn't make sense in Canon's market segmentation today and unlikely to continue in the future. 5 year refresh from 7D to 7Dii and now 7 years with no refresh supports my argument.

I don't think anyone is saying ALL 7D Mark II users will buy an R7. But the type of shooters who found a use for the 7D Mark II are the same type of shooters who would be interested in an R7.

No one is saying all 7D Mark II users are birders, either, particularly not me since I rarely shoot birds/wildlife.

What I am saying is that, in my experience, almost every 7D Mark II user I know also uses FF cameras already. I already owned a 5D Mark II before I bought my first 7D. I didn't stop using the 5D Mark II. I started using both of them.

I regularly use a 5D Mark IV, a 7D Mark II, and a 5D Mark III. I rarely shoot three bodies at once. Which one or two I use for a given shooting scenario all depends on the circumstances of that assignment. For most scenarios other than field sports I use only FF cameras. Most days I don't use the 7D Mark II. But when I do use it, it is for a specific purpose when it best meets my needs: More reach with a 70-200/2.8 shooting things that require high frame rates and very large numbers of images over the course of the shooting session. Even though I only use the APS-C camera on about 25% of the sessions I shoot per year, 75% of the frames I shoot each year are on that body. It saves my more expensive FF bodies for where they are most useful.

It's not an either/or decision between APS-C or FF. For most of us who use higher end APS-C bodies it is a decision between another extra FF body or one less FF body and a lower cost, faster APS-C body that also tends to last longer on which to do our "high mileage" telephoto work, be that birds, night sports, or whatever.

"Saying that 17mp equivalent reach on the R5 is not sufficient as the D90 etc has 30mp doesn't make sense as the 7Dii only has 20mp."

Dude, if Canon had offered a 32MP 7D Mark III in the last three years or so, many 7D Mark II users would already be using that camera instead. The only reason most of us passed on the 90D was because of the less durable shutter rating and the downgraded AF system compared to the 7D Mark II. Those of us still using our 7D Mark II bodies would be more than happy with the 90D/M6 Mark II sensor in an R5/R6 body.

 

[Michael Clark]

Just read what I wrote and what it was responded to, but I am repeating it: I was taking about the upcoming high-resolution R5s having no AA filter and I do not see them doing an APS-C model without an AA filter as they are not going to just ignore video features.

They didn't put the same AA filter in front of the 7D Mark II sensor which had the same pixel density and technology as the 5Ds R. They didn't even use the same AA filter for the 5Ds as they did for the 5Ds R! That was the only difference between the two models! Both cameras had identical sensors, but different AA filter assemblies in front of them.

What makes you think they would have to put the same AA filter in front of a 32MP version of an 82MP FF sensor with the same underlying sensel size and technology?

 

[padam]

They didn't put the same AA filter in front of the 7D Mark II sensor which had the same pixel density and technology as the 5Ds R. They didn't even use the same AA filter for the 5Ds as they did for the 5Ds R! That was the only difference between the two models! Both cameras had identical sensors, but different AA filter assemblies in front of them.

What makes you think they would have to put the same AA filter in front of a 32MP version of an 82MP FF sensor with the same underlying sensel size and technology?

Once again, it is already written in the previous comments: video features. The 5Ds series almost completely ignored them and the R5s won't focus on it either. And the AA filter on new cameras is quite weak anyway.
And at this point there is no indication if these newest FF and APS-C sensors will be closely related or not.

 

[Michael Clark]

Once again, it is already written in the previous comments: video features. The 5Ds series almost completely ignored them and the R5s won't focus on it either. And the AA filter on new cameras is quite weak anyway.
And at this point there is no indication if these newest FF and APS-C sensors will be closely related or not.

Your argument ignores the fact that the 5Ds/5Ds R and the 7D Mark II shared differently scaled version of the same sensor. One had lots of video features (for the time at which it was released), one did not.

You're saying something that has already been done is not possible. Whether they will or not in the future remains to be seen, but they've certainly done so in the past.

 

[Dragon]

@Dragon

"You are still missing the point that (all else equal) a FF with the same pixel density as 7D will get more good shots than the small sensor simply because of the wider field of view. "

I'm not missing your point at all. I simply disagree with it.

When the subject doesn't even fill an APS-C sized portion of a FF sensor, the extra real estate is just excess data that needs to be processed. Do you seriously think the R5s will have the same top frame rate as an R7? Compare the 5Ds to the 7D Mark II, both of which had almost the exact same pixel density. The 5Ds tops out at 5 fps for 14 raw files or 510 JPEGs. The 7D Mark II tops out at 10 fps for 31 raw files or as many JPEGS as the memory cards can hold and the batteries can power. Now what was that about getting more good shots?

All I can say is your birds must have a more predictable flight path than my birds. .

 

[Michael Clark]

All I can say is your birds must have a more predictable flight path than my birds. .

I don't shoot many birds. I shoot sports with my 7D Mark II.

Knowing when to be where with the correct focal length before the action happens is the name of the game with both, though. So is the experience and skill to be able to track an erratically moving subject mostly filling your frame while keeping all of it within the frame.

 

[No Longer Active]

Since the point of smaller sensors is to have smaller and lighter cameras and lenses, I’m not sure what the point is to putting an APS-C sensor in a FF body.

Certainly for me, as a predominantly long lens shooter the main benefit is that the narrower FoV means that the image of the cropped sensor has a higher pixel density than doing a crop after shooting with a FF sensor: a benefit especially true with the R6's 20MP sensor. If they could make a 34MP sensor equivalent to what the 90D had but tweaked for the mirrorless environment, I can see that being very tempting for me.

 

[Rumourhasit]

When you say: “get the most out of”, then you’re saying the body with the highest IQ. Do you think that will be an APS-C body?

traditionally, APS-C has NEVER been at the high end, once FF came out. It’s a compromise product category, which as I said earlier, is why you don’t find high end lenses specifically made for it by the major camera manufacturers.

Someone has never heard of the Fuji XT4

 

[AlanF]

Someone has never heard of the Fuji XT4

Good body but lacks the telephotos that the 7DII crowd/birders want. The Fuji 100-400mm is pretty good at 100-300mm but gets softer at 400mm where we want sharpness - see https://www.lenstip.com/475.4-Lens_...0_mm_f_4.5-5.6_R_LM_OIS_Image_resolution.html and https://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-xf-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-r-lm-ois-wr-review-29005
I once looked at it as the local dealer had one and was selling it cheap.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Technical matters are not the final say. If people are willing to plunk down $2700 for a R7, Canon will make them. However, Canon and Nikon both removed that segment for a reason. I'd bet it was sales volume.

 

[No Longer Active]

We can speculate all we want on what might be coming, but right now it would be nice to get deliveries of the stuff that is actually for sale. I got an RF 24-105L, bundled with the R6 body on sale. That was at the end of December, and Canon tell me that they have absolutely no idea when they will be able to deliver the 24-105. It's not their fault, the global logistics network is completely disrupted by COVID causing closure of ports, disruptions of shipping routes, container cycling etc. Then again, there is the issue of the factories getting all the parts they need from their distributed networks of suppliers.

 

[slclick]

We can speculate all we want on what might be coming, but right now it would be nice to get deliveries of the stuff that is actually for sale. I got an RF 24-105L, bundled with the R6 body on sale. That was at the end of December, and Canon tell me that they have absolutely no idea when they will be able to deliver the 24-105. It's not their fault, the global logistics network is completely disrupted by COVID causing closure of ports, disruptions of shipping routes, container cycling etc. Then again, there is the issue of the factories getting all the parts they need from their distributed networks of suppliers.

Your wish is their command.....https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-production-issues-to-be-resolved-by-the-end-of-march/

 

[Michael Clark]

If it is less expensive than the R6 it's probably not going to have the features it needs to be a true 7D replacement.

Why do you say that? The 7D Mark II was introduced at a lower price than the 6D before it and the 6D Mark II after it.

 

[No Longer Active]

Your wish is their command.....https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-production-issues-to-be-resolved-by-the-end-of-march/

Thank you for that link, but alas it does little to help us in Oceania, which is very much a side issue, as we are out of the way and our markets are so small. The Canon rep told my retailer that they had hopes but absolutely no proof that Canon might get their October 2020 shipment of lenses into NZ in late March - but that was pure speculation and we should hold out no hopes whatsoever in that respect. I know that we have major bottlenecks at ports and there will doubtless be a serious backlog of orders to fulfill once more stock does turn up. That said, I am sincerely happy for you folks in Canada, Europe and the United States, with the encouraging news in that front.

 

[slclick]

Thank you for that link, but alas it does little to help us in Oceania, which is very much a side issue, as we are out of the way and our markets are so small. The Canon rep told my retailer that they had hopes but absolutely no proof that Canon might get their October 2020 shipment of lenses into NZ in late March - but that was pure speculation and we should hold out no hopes whatsoever in that respect. I know that we have major bottlenecks at ports and there will doubtless be a serious backlog of orders to fulfill once more stock does turn up. That said, I am sincerely happy for you folks in Canada, Europe and the United States, with the encouraging news in that front.

I'd rather have your PM, covid response and climate than all the camera gear in the world!

 

[unfocused]

Why do you say that? The 7D Mark II was introduced at a lower price than the 6D before it and the 6D Mark II after it.

Because full frame sensor costs as a share of the total cost of the camera continues to drop. At the time of the original 7D, there was a substantial premium between the cost of full frame sensors and crop sensors. The gap has been narrowing ever since. At the same time, the features that most people want in an R7 do not become less expensive simply because the sensor is smaller.

When the 7DII was introduced, it would have been unthinkable that a full frame body could be sold for under $1,000. But today the RP sells for $900 street price. For the R7 to come in at under the price of the R6 will either require significantly fewer features than the R5 or a willingness on Canon's part to purposely underprice the R7. I see no reason why Canon would want to underprice the R7.

 

[No Longer Active]

I'd rather have your PM, covid response and climate than all the camera gear in the world!

I must agree with you there. Still, we are in lockdown again because a 21y.o. idiot was a close contact of an infected person, got a test and was told to go home and self isolate. What did he do? Go to the gym, a technical institute for in-person lectures and then go to a mall to shop. He WAS infected, so now more than a million people are restricted to their homes and business is hurting again. Not the government's fault, just arrogant people who don't think the rules apply to them... Go figure.

 

[No Longer Active]

When you say: “get the most out of”, then you’re saying the body with the highest IQ. Do you think that will be an APS-C body?

traditionally, APS-C has NEVER been at the high end, once FF came out. It’s a compromise product category, which as I said earlier, is why you don’t find high end lenses specifically made for it by the major camera manufacturers.

I must respectfully disagree with that statement about bodies with crop sensors being inherently inferior to a FF camera. It was for a reason that Canon put the 7D series in the same league as the 5D etc. with the best tracking system and the same level of weather sealing' and general build quality as the 5 series.

To me, a lot depends on what one is using the camera for. In many cases, the larger sensor will beat the crop sensor for light sensitivity, wide angle use etc. No argument there. However, as one who shoots with super telephotos at long range, the crop factor is an advantage for the pixel density. I might add that my interest does not just lie in birds, but macro predators from which one wants to keep a respectful distance.

If I shoot an image with the FF sensor and crop it to get the same FoV as the APS-C sensor, it will reduce the pixel count by a factor of about 2.5. That is significant if one needs to crop more. So it's about pixel density at long focal lengths where the high-end crop sensor comes into its own. If I have a FF sensor and an APS-C sensor with the same pixel count, I can crop the APS-C sensor much more than the FF sensor and still get a decent number of pixels, and to me that has value.

The 7D series is getting long in the tooth, but even at 20MP, it is the same pixel density as cropping a FF sensor of around 50MP to its FoV.

If they could create an R7 with a sensor similar to that of the 90d, tweaked for mirrorless, and with the same features as the R6 as regards IBIS, AEAF etc, it would give me a big advantage for shooting at the longer range. Absolutely NOT for everyone, but there are a lot of long lens shooters out there, so I think there is a market.

As to the M7... What I want in a camera is a decent size and a battery grip using the standard R-series LP-E6 battery format, to be able to provide some balance for a long lens, portrait controls and good battery life. Then, I want an integrated EVF - I have tried the clip-on ones and they are bulky, fragile and use up the flash mount. Third, I want weather proofing. So for me the M7 fails on all of those elements. Something with the physical, IBIS and focus attributes of the R6, (I don't shoot video) but with a good size (34MP+/-) APS-C sensor and able to take RF lenses would work for me.