Canon EOS R7 Mark II to Have Stacked 40MP Sensor?

[neuroanatomist]

A lot more than buyers for a $20k+ 1200mm lens, yet Canon makes and sells that.

Sorry, I should have been more explicit and/or clear. It’s not really about the absolute number, it’s about return on investment and profitability. Canon would need to sell enough units at a price the market will bear for the feature set, with a sufficient margin for the product to cover development costs and become profitable in a desired time frame.

The margin on a 1200mm f/8 lens is much higher than one could be on a high-end APS-C body.

The bottom line is that Canon has the decision rights here, and they have the data on sales, cost of goods, and market demand to drive those decisions. To date, the 7-series is the least frequently refreshed line (slower than even the 1-series), and has moved downmarket with the switch to mirrorless. I don’t think those facts bode well for those wanting an R7II to be significantly upmarket from the R7, but time will tell.

 

[Del Paso]

A lot more than buyers for a $20k+ 1200mm lens, yet Canon makes and sells that.

I can only guess that for NASA, FBI, CIA etc... price has only a very relative importance.
Canon certainly wouldn't release such a lens without knowing a real demand exists.

 

[Jowe-79]

I have the R7 and I'm happy with it... But here there are opinions that it is crap that at ISO 800 is unusable that if rolling shutter... Let's see rolling shutter for very fast objects fine, but I take photos with electronics and no ghosts or deformations come out...

Is the R7 so bad?? Let's see if you compare it with the r5 mark ii because I'm not surprised... it's logical it's worth 5 times more...

 

[AlanF]

I have the R7 and I'm happy with it... But here there are opinions that it is crap that at ISO 800 is unusable that if rolling shutter... Let's see rolling shutter for very fast objects fine, but I take photos with electronics and no ghosts or deformations come out...

Is the R7 so bad?? Let's see if you compare it with the r5 mark ii because I'm not surprised... it's logical it's worth 5 times more...

I really cannot keep answering the trolls who claim that the R7 is crap at iso 800 etc. It's absolutely fine at isos 10x higher than that, and if you enough photographic skill you can work around its problems. The trolls are either pure trolls or incompetent. The R7 is a good enough piece of kit.

 

[Markov]

I have the R7 and I'm happy with it... But here there are opinions that it is crap that at ISO 800 is unusable that if rolling shutter... Let's see rolling shutter for very fast objects fine, but I take photos with electronics and no ghosts or deformations come out...

Is the R7 so bad?? Let's see if you compare it with the r5 mark ii because I'm not surprised... it's logical it's worth 5 times more...

As always, it depends what you use it for. I am primarily a macro photography. For that it is an excellent camera. I bought it three years ago, did a lot of research, and it was clearly the best camera for me at that time. And I have been very happy with it. But the quality and features of cameras are improving at a fast pace. At this moment I would probably not buy the R7 anymore. But there is a good chance that the R7 mark ii will again be the best camera for my type of photography. (And with all the lenses I bought, switching brands is not really an option at this stage anyhow.)

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The margin on a 1200mm f/8 lens is much higher than one could be on a high-end APS-C body.

Especially considering it's a recycled EF 600mm f4 LIS III, an integrated RF adapter and a 2x TC! Talk about a parts bin special....not a bad mark up for sure!

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Especially considering it's a recycled EF 600mm f4 LIS III, an integrated RF adapter and a 2x TC! Talk about a parts bin special....not a bad mark up for sure!

Funnily enough I own an EF 600/4 III, an EF 2x III and a control ring adapter. Keeping them for now, but if the R7 II is another disappointment I will probably be offering them for less than half the price of an RF 1200/8 . It's a great combo for the R5 II but I'm not going that route.

 

[Mark flyer]

 

[Mark flyer]

View attachment 227424View attachment 227425

Top is r3, bottom r5, cropped in on mount bachelor, im not sure if the r3 out resolved the r5 but either way there's not much difference

 

[Quack]

Top is r3, bottom r5, cropped in on mount bachelor, im not sure if the r3 out resolved the r5 but either way there's not much difference

R5 is very obviously out-resolving the R3. Not sure why you can't see it.

 

[Mark flyer]

You will also notice that it's not as cropped in

R5 is very obviously out-resolving the R3. Not sure why you can't see it.

 

[AlanF]

View attachment 227424View attachment 227425

It would be rather difficult to choose a worse example for assessing resolution. It’s virtually devoid of detail to resolve.

 

[Mark flyer]

Really? Looks like you can almost see individual pixels. The key is almost, count down the left side of the right peak for detail

It would be rather difficult to choose a worse example for assessing resolution. It’s virtually devoid of detail to resolve

 

[Planterz]

A distant mountain is a poor choice. Too much atmosphere in the way to resolve fine detail, too much that can change between shots.

 

[Mark flyer]

A distant mountain is a poor choice. Too much atmosphere in the way to resolve fine detail, too much that can change between shots.

I see your point

 

[Mark flyer]

But there's not much else to compare to, sorry

A distant mountain is a poor choice. Too much atmosphere in the way to resolve fine detail, too much that can change between shots.

 

[AlanF]

Really? Looks like you can almost see individual pixels. The key is almost, count down the left side of the right peak for detail

Yes. Resolution is the ability to separate two close lines or points, and your image is virtually devoid of such detail. Resolution and acuity are two very common ways to assess technical quality of photographic images. Resolution refers to how much subject detail is retained in the image or print. Acuity refers to the sharpness of fine edges and lines.

 

[Mark flyer]

Yes. Resolution is the ability to separate two close lines or points, and your image is virtually devoid of such detail. Resolution and acuity are two very common ways to assess technical quality of photographic images. Resolution refers to how much subject detail is retained in the image or print. Acuity refers to the sharpness of fine edges and lines.

Thanks for explaining. Makes sense, I've had it wrong all along. Either way, I would say the r3 does better but every man to his own.

 

[roby17269]

Thanks for explaining. Makes sense, I've had it wrong all along. Either way, I would say the r3 does better but every man to his own.

Does better in which way?
There seems to be more CA in the R3 image and a smidge more detail in the R5 image.
Why the difference in exposure though? weather?
In any case the quality is so bad that I am not sure how you've reached your conclusion

 

[Mark flyer]

D

Does better in which way?
There seems to be more CA in the R3 image and a smidge more detail in the R5 image.
Why the difference in exposure though? weather?
In any case the quality is so bad that I am not sure how you've reached your conclusion

That part i sent was the best decided factor, I thought. I can't send the whole file as I don't want to blow all my data this close to the beginning of the month, I may have labeled them wrong, the difference in time was about ten minutes as we went to the car to switch out cameras, as you can see a cloud developed on the r3, both at 800 iso f11. Sorry if I'm waisting your time when you're arguing me.