Canon EOS R7 Mark II Rumored Specifications Round-up
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Michael Clark
Now we see through a glass, darkly...
What camera are you referencing when you say "in 2024 dollars when it launched"?
Neither does Canon care what you think they will do regarding price and features of the R7 Mark II.
Upvote
0
Ha, good question and good catch, I edited that post several times as I was typing it, was referring to the year that the R5II launched but did not say that.
Of course not, but then...I don't care at all about the price or features of an R7II except as discussion points, since it's very unlikely that I will buy one, regardless of what Canon decides regarding those aspects of the camera.
Upvote
0
R7 inventories are getting very low and, even getting big discounts.
That could be only one thing, there's going to be a better product on the market segment just below that's going to kick it out of the market.
It's not a rumour that Canon said that 2026 is going to be APS-C centered year, nor the three camera registrations.
Upvote
0
It's not only the interest rate differential that is causing the weak yen. It's the bond situation in Japan, which is dire. I don't think US rates going down will have much impact on the USDJPY rate. Maybe it will move from 159 where it is now to 155 or something. Maybe even 150 is possible. But it's not going back to the 120-130 level.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
I'm really looking forwards to this new camera. Spec wise it sounds like massive fix for all of the R7's deficiencies. It's far more like the camera we hoped for in the R7. great as the R7 was, It's AF was notoriously un-reliable in low light (pulsing issues too), it's slightly weird and unique ergonomics. Now it's got pre-capture, all the latest UI and ergonomic upgrades, a better battery and superior buffer and card media. I just hope Canon gives it a better EVF...I think the R7 shares the same unit as the R8. Yes the stacked sensor will be a huge benefit over the current R7 if that's ever been an issue for you.
For me, I've used the 1.6x crop sensor cameras as cameras where I have a built in teleconverter. If i need a teleconverter, then i might as well use a R7 instead.
Your milage, opinion and use case scenario might vary.
For me, I've used the 1.6x crop sensor cameras as cameras where I have a built in teleconverter. If i need a teleconverter, then i might as well use a R7 instead.
Your milage, opinion and use case scenario might vary.
Upvote
0
Michael Clark
Now we see through a glass, darkly...
If the R7 Mark II turns out to be what many wished the R7 could have been, it will be a case of history repeating itself.
The 7D Mark II was what the 7D should have been, but the 7D had frustratingly inconsistent AF from one frame to the next, especially in AI Servo bursts but also with one shot single frame shooting. The 7D was also a lot noisier than the 7D Mark II at typical night field sports ISOs: 3200-6400.
Upvote
0
From the start the R7 II rumors were it would be transformed into a "flagship" level body to go head to head with the Fuji H2, and eventually H3. So I'm inclined to believe these rumored specs and if that's how it pans out the R7 II will be well worth a similar price tag to the H2, maybe $100 more.
The only thing I haven't read or viewed anywhere is its weather and dust sealing level. To be a true wildlife or bird camera this will be the final clincher to me whether it's a "take my money" or wait and see body. (I'm very happy with my R5 II, so not desperate). In addition to the suggested rumored specs, it must have equal or better than the R6 III weather sealing to justify a $2400 price. The OG 7's lack of any sealing was just another reason I ditched it.
The only thing I haven't read or viewed anywhere is its weather and dust sealing level. To be a true wildlife or bird camera this will be the final clincher to me whether it's a "take my money" or wait and see body. (I'm very happy with my R5 II, so not desperate). In addition to the suggested rumored specs, it must have equal or better than the R6 III weather sealing to justify a $2400 price. The OG 7's lack of any sealing was just another reason I ditched it.
Upvote
0
I really don't see it that way. The 7D was pretty good for 2009, and it came along just as I was wondering how to upgrade my 40D with something genuinely better that I could actually afford! Five years later I was well and truly ready for the Mark II, but not because of any real dissatisfaction with the 7D, just that five years of catching up was sorely needed by then.
The R7, on the other hand, was a dreadful disappointment. A fairly decent R-series successor to the 90D, masquerading as a mirrorless 7D3 which of course it wasn't. The one consolation was the 90D-level price, but the fact remains that in this, the twelfth year since the 7D2 was launched, it still has no successor. The R7 Mark II needs to be head and shoulders above the R7, not just an update like the 7D to 7D2.
Upvote
0
Michael Clark
Now we see through a glass, darkly...
The 7D Mark Ii was far more than an update to the 7D. For those who used it to shoot night/indoors sports, flicker reduction was REVOLUTIONARY.
There was no comparison between the poor shot-to-shot consistency of the 7D's 19 point AF system and the much more consistent 65-pont AF system which also covered a larger percentage of the frame. Just read Roger Cicala's take on the 7D Mark II:
Compare that with his assessment of the original 7D, even when using single shot AF on a stationary subject using only the center AF point. It was the second most inconsistent camera he tested from the following list: 1Ds Mark III, 5D Mark II, 1D Mark IV, 1D X, 5D Mark III, 7D, 50D, 60D, T4i, T3i. Only the T3i was barely more inconsistent. The 1D X and 5D III had standard deviation of 15 line pairs per image height (lp/ih). The 7D had a standard deviation of 40 lp/ih, the T3i came in at 41. The 50D and 60D scored 34, and the T4i posted a 29.
My own experience when I transitioned from the 50D to the 7D was similar: The 50D missed focus less often and by lesser amounts than the 7D. When looking through the viewfinder and shooting with the 7D, it felt like a more capable camera. It certainly had a more configurable AF system in terms of settings options. But when looking at the results on even a 24" FHD monitor with the entire image on the screen, the results were undeniable.
Upvote
0
I loved my 7D!. Never had the 7DII. Moved to the 7D from a T2i, so perhaps that is why I was very happy. I stopped doing sports (thriathlon) and moved into new born / kids photography
That is when I got the 5DIII. Man, that was a nice upgrade. I still regret selling the 5DIII when I moved on to the R5.
Upvote
0
The biggest concern I have is: if the 20% increase in pixel density is true and a BSI sensor, I hope that the noise figure at higher ISOs (like 6400) will be much improved. If no improvement, then they should not have increased the pixel density in this proposed version of the R7 unless, they specifically wanted it to be targeted towards video users and not photographers. However, the R7-MII is supposedly designed as a wildlife camera - which generally needs to be able to handle and work in poor or low light situations, often requireing high ISOs. So I will be very disappointed if the noise figure is not improved. No improvement in noise figure and the R7 MII starts to become less desireable. For reasons I can't explain, no one seems to understand and discuss this.
Upvote
0
If you want better noise performance, you need a bigger sensor. For those who understand the relevant concepts, there’s not much more to discuss. The 20% increase in pixel density will make zero difference. BSI will make zero difference.
The R5II has a much higher pixel density than the R6III, the noise performance is the same.
A larger sensor has less image noise, because it gathers more total light. Crop down the R5II to APS-C size, you lose DR (because of increased image noise), and what you get is essentially the same as the R7.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
"If you want better noise performance, you need a bigger sensor."
My point is that with higher pixel denity on the same size chip, the less light you can collect (we agree) and that worsens the noise figure. With a BSI chip however (or even a stacked chip - if the rumours are true), that technology improves the ability to collect more light. However if the net overall performance gain between the increased pixel count and the BSI technology offsets in still no improvement in noise figure, then Canon missed an opportuniy to improve the camera overall. Had they kept the pixel density the same as the original 32MP sensor, then with the addition of the BSI technology, there would have been a much needed improvement in noise figure. It seems however, Canon also tried to target this new camera for higher video capabilities too and so they may have increased pixel density. Sometimes you can't have it both ways. On one hand the marketing has suggested this is a camera for birdiers but it also seems that they chose not to improve noise performance in favor of video. That choice is likely to ultimately be unpopular since as I mentioned above, a lot of action shots take place in poor or low light and it seems Canon may not have done much to improve low light/high ISO performance - thus this Mark II is likely to be a disappointment to action photographers but, maybe vidographers may like it. In my opinion, they could have either released two versions of the R7 like they did for the R50 or perhaps they should have improved one of the full frame models to support video. I'm a photographer and I wanted to see a noise performance improvement and they may have missed the boat there.
"If you want better noise performance, you need a bigger sensor."
My point is that with higher pixel denity on the same size chip, the less light you can collect (we agree) and that worsens the noise figure. With a BSI chip however (or even a stacked chip - if the rumours are true), that technology improves the ability to collect more light. However if the net overall performance gain between the increased pixel count and the BSI technology offsets in still no improvement in noise figure, then Canon missed an opportuniy to improve the camera overall. Had they kept the pixel density the same as the original 32MP sensor, then with the addition of the BSI technology, there would have been a much needed improvement in noise figure. It seems however, Canon also tried to target this new camera for higher video capabilities too and so they may have increased pixel density. Sometimes you can't have it both ways. On one hand the marketing has suggested this is a camera for birdiers but it also seems that they chose not to improve noise performance in favor of video. That choice is likely to ultimately be unpopular since as I mentioned above, a lot of action shots take place in poor or low light and it seems Canon may not have done much to improve low light/high ISO performance - thus this Mark II is likely to be a disappointment to action photographers but, maybe vidographers may like it. In my opinion, they could have either released two versions of the R7 like they did for the R50 or perhaps they should have improved one of the full frame models to support video. I'm a photographer and I wanted to see a noise performance improvement and they may have missed the boat there.
Upvote
0
No, we don't agree on that. For an individual pixel, smaller means more noise, sure. People who measurebate pixels love discussing that. People who take pictures care about image noise. Image noise is fundamentally independent of pixel size, but rather depends on total light gathered, which is determined by the area of the image sensor, not the number of pixels packed into that sensor. Divide a FF sensor into 45 million pixels or 24 million pixels, the total light gathered is the same.
At the pixel sizes relevant for APS-C and FF sensors, BSI makes effectively no difference in noise. BSI was developed to enable packing more pixels into smartphone-sized camera sensors while maintaining acceptable image quality. With pixel sizes <2 µm, the benefit of BSI is meaningful. In the 2-3 µm range, the effect is marginal at best, and >3 µm BSI is effectively a marketing slogan.
As stated, if you want to see meaningful noise improvement, get a camera with a larger sensor. Period. Full stop.
Upvote
0
I definetly don't understand your discussion. In some cases you seem to agree but in the end you disagree. That is confusing.
I think we agree that for the same chip size, as you increase the number of pixels (or decrease the size of the individual collection sites), for each site as the density increases, the individual site collects less light. So, Canon in increasing pixel count, actually decreased the ability of each site to collect light and decreased the signal to noise (made the noise performance worse) of each site. If for example, Canon would conversely chose to go to 24MP, then each indiividual site would be larger and collect even more light than the smaller individual site on a 32MP chip; and the signal to noise would increase (noise performance would improve at 24MP over 32MP). So it is incorrect to say that simply going to a larger format, is the only way to improve noise figure, if that is what you are implying. I do also agree that as you increase the size of a photo site by going to a larger chip size or format you should also improve signal to noise but the discussion within a specific chip size and the fundamental underlying physics is the same. Increase site size, better noise performance, decrease cell size, worse noise performance. There are design choices that can be made to make the signal to noise better on an APC-S chip.
If the rumour is true and Canon has decided to go to newer sensor technology as in BSI, then that technology actually improves each sites ability to collect light. BSI technology moves the collection site higher and closer to the lens actually improving light collection and increasing (making better) the signal to noise.
If Canon stays at the original 32MP density and improved the sensor technology by evolving to a BSI sensor, then the noise figure could have actually improved on the new R7 APC-S chip.
Now the problem I have with all the "rumours" or speculation is that it was suggested strongly that this MII was targeted for action shooters. If that is the case (and I now question if that rumour was true), then they should not have increased pixel density (it wasn't necessary) at the cost of the same or worse signal to noise in the camera. The R7 is well documented to be noisy at ISO 6400+. The R7's noise performance could have been made better simply by improving the sensor technology to a BSI chip. However, and this is what is confusing about the rumour or marketing, it seems Canon is rumored to also want to support 8K video, requiring a higher pixel count to do so. If you are a photographer, what you wanted to see in a Canon R7 MII was a reasonable resolution (like 32MP). better high ISO performance (like at 6400 for those many moments where there is low/poor light and you need shutter speeds of 1/1000 for action photography - helped by a BSI chip), a reduction in rolling shutter (also helped by the addition of a BSI chip with faster readout), some reasonable improvement to the number of frames per second, and perhaps better pre-capture. You can technically accomplish those goals on APC-S chip and I contend it is what most photographers wanted to see. If however, you want a device for 8K video, than perhaps either there should have been two versions as in the R50. I'm not interested in the 8K part, if it compromises the actual image quality that could otherwise have been had.
I think we agree that for the same chip size, as you increase the number of pixels (or decrease the size of the individual collection sites), for each site as the density increases, the individual site collects less light. So, Canon in increasing pixel count, actually decreased the ability of each site to collect light and decreased the signal to noise (made the noise performance worse) of each site. If for example, Canon would conversely chose to go to 24MP, then each indiividual site would be larger and collect even more light than the smaller individual site on a 32MP chip; and the signal to noise would increase (noise performance would improve at 24MP over 32MP). So it is incorrect to say that simply going to a larger format, is the only way to improve noise figure, if that is what you are implying. I do also agree that as you increase the size of a photo site by going to a larger chip size or format you should also improve signal to noise but the discussion within a specific chip size and the fundamental underlying physics is the same. Increase site size, better noise performance, decrease cell size, worse noise performance. There are design choices that can be made to make the signal to noise better on an APC-S chip.
If the rumour is true and Canon has decided to go to newer sensor technology as in BSI, then that technology actually improves each sites ability to collect light. BSI technology moves the collection site higher and closer to the lens actually improving light collection and increasing (making better) the signal to noise.
If Canon stays at the original 32MP density and improved the sensor technology by evolving to a BSI sensor, then the noise figure could have actually improved on the new R7 APC-S chip.
Now the problem I have with all the "rumours" or speculation is that it was suggested strongly that this MII was targeted for action shooters. If that is the case (and I now question if that rumour was true), then they should not have increased pixel density (it wasn't necessary) at the cost of the same or worse signal to noise in the camera. The R7 is well documented to be noisy at ISO 6400+. The R7's noise performance could have been made better simply by improving the sensor technology to a BSI chip. However, and this is what is confusing about the rumour or marketing, it seems Canon is rumored to also want to support 8K video, requiring a higher pixel count to do so. If you are a photographer, what you wanted to see in a Canon R7 MII was a reasonable resolution (like 32MP). better high ISO performance (like at 6400 for those many moments where there is low/poor light and you need shutter speeds of 1/1000 for action photography - helped by a BSI chip), a reduction in rolling shutter (also helped by the addition of a BSI chip with faster readout), some reasonable improvement to the number of frames per second, and perhaps better pre-capture. You can technically accomplish those goals on APC-S chip and I contend it is what most photographers wanted to see. If however, you want a device for 8K video, than perhaps either there should have been two versions as in the R50. I'm not interested in the 8K part, if it compromises the actual image quality that could otherwise have been had.
Upvote
0
Yes, evidently. The concepts you are fixated on are applicable to pixels, not to pictures. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Total light gathered is dependent on the area of the sensor, and independent of pixel size.
The R7 and R10 were released at the same time, according to your mistaken belief the 24 MP R10 has larger pixels so it should have lower noise and thus better dynamic range than the 32 MP R7.
It doesn't. The two sensors are the same size, they gather the same total amount of light, and because of that the image noise is the same.
Yes. Each photosite collects less light. But there are more photosites, so for the sensor as a whole the same total amount of light is collected. Same image noise.
Each photosite would collect more light. But there would be fewer photosites, so for the sensor as a whole the same total amount of light is collected. Same image noise.
At the level of the individual pixels. Not at the level of the whole sensor.
I am not implying it, I am stating it explicitly. Going to a larger format is the way to get better noise performance.
No, it's not the only way...fundamental improvements in sensor technology can certainly decrease read noise and thus improve noise performance, at least at low ISOs where that matters. At high ISO, shot noise is the main driver and that's dependent on the amount of light not the read noise of the sensor. But you're not talking about a fundamentally different sensor (BSI doesn't count in this case, as discussed already). So yes, if you compare an sensor from 15 years ago to a sensor from today, there will be be an improvement; on-die ADC, for example, is one such fundamental improvement that has happened.
No. The whole point is that the size of the pixel is irrelevant. Only the area of the sensor matters.
As already discussed, that is not true for the pixel sizes relevant here. But if you want to drink the marketing Koolaid, go right ahead.
Upvote
0
