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

[EOSR7MkII]

40Mpx is only 11% more linear resolution than 32.5Mpx, and each 40Mpx pixel is only 10% narrower so it's not going to make much difference in the DLA, the demands on lens resolution etc. It will make no difference to the S/N and high iso when you look at the whole image, because they are independent of pixel size. And if you pixel peep and look at the engineering S/N, each pixel will have only 10% less S/N, ie, less than 1/6th stop.

I agree, it is not much of a linear resolution increase, and I didn't consider that this also means that the noise ratio is only going to be affected by a small amount. However, 40MP enables one wonderful thing: 8k video! I didn't want to get my hopes up about open gate even when the consensus was still on an unchanged 32.5MP resolution, but 8k (hopefully @60p) will allow cropping into any video footage and still get ≥4k resolution. I may not need or even use 8k video at all for now, but future me, 2-3 years down the line, may be very appreciative of the fact that this new APS-C flagship will be capable of doing so. And I would imagine that many wildlife videographers will make heavy use of this as well, as long as lighting conditions permit.

Now this is pure speculation from my side, but it was a thought that I had recently, and I think it could be worth mentioning: Could the R7 Mark II become the first camera that natively supports CF Express Type B 4.0 speeds and cards?

 

[mb66energy]

My bet:
→ R7 with sensor close to global shutter readout / 32 Mpix (enough for APS-C IMO) / S&F mode would be a cool tool - and please keep the auto level feature which is insanely helpful for me.
→ R8 V as a refresh of the R8
→ 3rd camera? ???

R7 with similar ergonomics would be interesting as 2nd body to my R7. R8 V is interesting but the small battery and the missing IBIS makes it much less usable.
Just trying to learn/understand my LAOWA 180mm Macro (EF): IBIS of the R7 helped me to get sharp shots at 1/4 s which is insane. Auto level helps a lot to concentrate on breathing etc to get the right moment for shutter release.

 

[scotsman]

I think a camera of this spec would probably also need a decent range of dedicated glass to be fully attractive.

 

[MSH411]

I think a camera of this spec would probably also need a decent range of dedicated glass to be fully attractive.

We will have to look to third parties for RF-S glass as it appears Canon has very little interest in supporting the ASP-C bodies they produce. Sigma already has as many lenses available as Canon and they just got ramped up on April 23, 2024.

 

[johnrowlandphoto]

I'm in if two wishes come true. Put it in a R6 body I need bigger buttons and please add the voice note. As a news photographer it is so helpful to add an ID or "this was a two run double in the sixth". When you are sending pictures on deadline it is so helpful.

 

[Quack]

I think a camera of this spec would probably also need a decent range of dedicated glass to be fully attractive.

My guess is that Canon has data that tells them the majority of R7 buyers are bird/wildlife shooters. So they will be buying RF or EF Full Frame lenses. No additional RF-S lenses needed for the R7 II. What would concern me is the lowering of the diffraction limit. Maybe it is too minor to matter, but lenses like the RF 200-800 are already at f/9 minimum.

Seems like 40 MP stacked sensor would push the price up near - or over $3,000.

 

[Martin868]

I think a camera of this spec would probably also need a decent range of dedicated glass to be fully attractive.

Depends how you look at it. As it stands Canon essentially outsources its APSC line of lenses to Sigma, which offer 4 fast primes (14, 23, 30, 56mm f1.4) and 4 zoomes (10-18mm f2.8, 18-50mm f2.8, 17-40mm f1.8, and 16-300mm) for Canon RF-S. And they are good quality. That covers the general use pretty good, such as family, travel, portrait, etc.. For wildlife people like me would be pleased to use my full frame lenses such as the RF 100-500mm. I have an R5. The R7ii would provide better reach with the same lens and would add to my kit, but not replace a full frame body. But it is true Canon has no high quality APS-C long lens. Many will be happy to use full frame lenses in those scenarios. Maybe sigma will introduce a long fast lens to RF-S.

 

[Bob Howland]

Depends how you look at it. As it stands Canon essentially outsources its APSC line of lenses to Sigma, which offer 4 fast primes (14, 23, 30, 56mm f1.4) and 4 zoomes (10-18mm f2.8, 18-50mm f2.8, 16-40mm f1.8, and 16-300mm) for Canon RF-S. And they are descent quality. That covers the general use pretty good, such as family, travel, portrait, etc.. For wildlife people like me would be pleased to use my full frame lenses such as the RF 100-500mm. I have an R5. The R7ii would provide better reach with the same lens and would add to my kit, but not replace a full frame body. But it is true Canon has no high quality APS-C long lens. Many will be happy to use full frame lenses in those scenarios. Maybe sigma will introduce a long fast lens to RF-S.

I own seven of those Sigma lenses in RF mount so I mostly agree with you. Disagreements: (1) It's 17-40 f/1.8 (2) Sigma needs to add a small 50-135 or 140 f/2.8 and (3) Sigma needs to redesign their 16 f/1.4 to make it much smaller and add a control ring and maybe add a control ring to their other older APS-C primes as well.

 

[Martin868]

I own seven of those Sigma lenses in RF mount so I mostly agree with you. Disagreements: (1) It's 17-40 f/1.8 (2) Sigma needs to add a small 50-135 or 140 f/2.8 and (3) Sigma needs to redesign their 16 f/1.4 to make it much smaller and add a control ring and maybe add a control ring to their other older APS-C primes as well.

I agree with your disagreements !

 

[Planterz]

I think a camera of this spec would probably also need a decent range of dedicated glass to be fully attractive.

My guess is that Canon has data that tells them the majority of R7 buyers are bird/wildlife shooters. So they will be buying RF or EF Full Frame lenses. No additional RF-S lenses needed for the R7 II. What would concern me is the lowering of the diffraction limit. Maybe it is too minor to matter, but lenses like the RF 200-800 are already at f/9 minimum.

Seems like 40 MP stacked sensor would push the price up near - or over $3,000.

The Sigmas and the couple of other lenses cover the bare minimum if you want a "standard" setup with zooms and primes. However, I'd like to see a Canon specific (although no doubt it'd be available for Sony and perhaps others too) standard zoom that's a better range than the Sigma 18-50mm, which gives a ~29-80mm FF effective. A 15-45mm would give a more typical 24-72mm range (like the old EF-M, but make it f2.8 constant). 29mm is kinda narrow for a standard zoom. I know 28mm is a popular starting point for a lot of zooms, but that's narrower than I'd like, and there's a reason 24mm is also popular with most (all?) of the pro glass starting there.

As for telephoto, there's probably no reason for an APS-C specific one. Shorter focal lengths get the crop benefit because they don't need to be as large, but with telephoto everybody wants big long ones (giggity) and making something with a 300mm or 400mm focal length will be large enough for a full frame image circle. Even the Sony 70-350mm APS-C lens can apparently be converted to full frame by removing the plastic "crop" insert (or so I've read somewhere). In any case the 70-350mm isn't substantially different in size than the 70-300mm zooms. I can only assume Sony made it APS-C specific to stear FF users to their 100-40mm GM. Perhaps Canon might do the same? I've been complaining about the gap between the budget RF 100-400mm f5.6-8 and the "prothusiast" 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 for a mid-range ~$1000-$1500 supertelephoto since I began researching for my first camera. I'd be half surprised if Canon did something similar to Sony and made an APS-C supertelephoto, but I'd be equally surprised if they made a lens in that range and it wasn't full frame. OTOH, I would be half surprised if they did, as a high-spect R7 II is most certainly aimed towards people who already or intend to own their big whites.

 

[Martin868]

The issue with the focal being a bit narrow on Canon is that they chose a crop factor of 1.6 while everybody else use a crop factor of 1.5. APSC lenses seems designed for 1.5 and simply adapted to Canon, without modifying the optics. As canon APSC shooter this is something we have to live with I think. It would not make sense for Sigma, Tamron or anybody else to design a new optic just for Canon. I also would prefer the zoom range to start at 24mm equivalent instead of 29mm but I can live with it.

 

[Dragon]

But it is true Canon has no high quality APS-C long lens. Many will be happy to use full frame lenses in those scenarios. Maybe sigma will introduce a long fast lens to RF-S.

The reason they have no APS-c long lenses is because such lenses don't make any sense as they would be just as big as FF lenses of the same focal length. The most obvious example is the OM System 100-400, which is virtually the same size and weight as the RF 100-500 and we are talking 1/4th the image size with the Oly. The Oly tops out at f/6.3 and the Canon at f/7 but 100mm longer, so all things being equal, the Canon should be a bit bigger. The only way you can make a telephoto smaller is to make it slower. DO or mirrors might make it lighter, but won't reduce the diameter of the entrance pupil (i.e. the objective lens). Rest assured, Sigma won't go there either, although rumor has it that they make the OM Systems 100-400, but that would have been a contract deal to round out the M43 line. If you look at the specs of the Fuji x-mount 100-400 and 150-600, you will see that they are the same size as equivalent FF lenses as well.

 

[intothewestcalgary]

I hope it stays 32. 40 is unnecessary for APSC. I really like my R7, and has been fantastic to use for not only personal wildlife/bird photography, but also indoor hockey, landscape (auto levelling is awesome), travel and even portrait and wedding. I don’t have a problem with iso 6400 (with all the great tools available this isn’t an issue), and the size is great for travel. Yes the sensor could be faster to rely on electronic shutter, and the AF could benefit from recent tweaks (but still great). My biggest “complaints” - and I say that knowing the price point was actually really good when it came out ($2k Cdn)…improve EVF resolution, and figure out how to get a third dial. Keep the size, it’s perfect. And the layout of buttons I really like (just third dial). Buffer could definitely be improved as well, though I never just hold the shutter down, so it’s never really bugged me (shooting in EFC). So, I hope it’s just smart improvements and not an overhaul keeping the target price similar to the original - kind of like the R6II to III. If they need to stuff 8k in it, I hope they just create a video focused camera (I can’t be the only photographer that doesn’t care about the video side). The Sigma RF lenses are awesome (I have 10-18, 18-50, and 56) and are about as close to L quality on an R7 optically as I’ve seen….at their size it makes the R7 the perfect Canon travel camera.

 

[Planterz]

The issue with the focal being a bit narrow on Canon is that they chose a crop factor of 1.6 while everybody else use a crop factor of 1.5. APSC lenses seems designed for 1.5 and simply adapted to Canon, without modifying the optics. As canon APSC shooter this is something we have to live with I think. It would not make sense for Sigma, Tamron or anybody else to design a new optic just for Canon. I also would prefer the zoom range to start at 24mm equivalent instead of 29mm but I can live with it.

I kinda think it would make sense for Sigma or Tamron to make a standard zoom that started wider than their current ones. For Sony there's 3 f2.8 options. The Sigma 18-50mm, which gives a 27-75mm FoV, the Tamron 17-70mm for a 25.5-105mm FoV, and the Sony 16-55mm, for the idea 24-82.5mm FoV. All three have benefits and compromises. The Sigma is narrow and short and has some chromatic aberration issues, but very small and light. The Tamron has extra range and IS, but is quite a chonk. The Sony is the sharpest but is slightly large and more than twice the price of the other two ($1600 on sale).

If a 3rd party made one that started at 15mm for Canon, it'd almost assuredly be available on E mount, and Sony shooters would jump all over that, myself included.

Of course Canon could make one themselves...if they wanted to.

 

[DhlcadR6]

If Canon also follows competition to introduce Dual gain in stills, I don't see a problem with high MP APS-C CMOS

 

[AlanF]

The reason they have no APS-c long lenses is because such lenses don't make any sense as they would be just as big as FF lenses of the same focal length. The most obvious example is the OM System 100-400, which is virtually the same size and weight as the RF 100-500 and we are talking 1/4th the image size with the Oly. The Oly tops out at f/6.3 and the Canon at f/7 but 100mm longer, so all things being equal, the Canon should be a bit bigger. The only way you can make a telephoto smaller is to make it slower. DO or mirrors might make it lighter, but won't reduce the diameter of the entrance pupil (i.e. the objective lens). Rest assured, Sigma won't go there either, although rumor has it that the make the OM Systems 100-400, but that would have been a contract deal to round out the M43 line. If you look at the specs of the Fuji x-mount 100-400 and 150-600, you will see that they are the same size as equivalent FF lenses as well.

Absolutely true. And, the Canon RF 100-400mm f/8 (which fits FF) is much lighter than the OM 100-400 f/6.3 to prove your point about lighter by being slower.

 

[Martin868]

The reason they have no APS-c long lenses is because such lenses don't make any sense as they would be just as big as FF lenses of the same focal length. The most obvious example is the OM System 100-400, which is virtually the same size and weight as the RF 100-500 and we are talking 1/4th the image size with the Oly. The Oly tops out at f/6.3 and the Canon at f/7 but 100mm longer, so all things being equal, the Canon should be a bit bigger. The only way you can make a telephoto smaller is to make it slower. DO or mirrors might make it lighter, but won't reduce the diameter of the entrance pupil (i.e. the objective lens). Rest assured, Sigma won't go there either, although rumor has it that the make the OM Systems 100-400, but that would have been a contract deal to round out the M43 line. If you look at the specs of the Fuji x-mount 100-400 and 150-600, you will see that they are the same size as equivalent FF lenses as well.

Sure, makes sense. For the same focal length FF and APS-C size is the same regardless of the image circle. But not for the same effective FL. So a wildlife shooter on APS-C can shoot his 800mm equivalent using a 500mm lens. It is thus much smaller but because of the focal length, not so much the size of the image circle.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sure, makes sense. For the same focal length FF and APS-C size is the same regardless of the image circle. But not for the same effective FL. So a wildlife shooter on APS-C can shoot his 800mm equivalent using a 500mm lens. It is thus much smaller but because of the focal length, not so much the size of the image circle.

It sparks joy to know that there are people out there who still believe in fairies, wizards and the magic of the crop factor.

Who needs a longer lens and a bigger sensor when a shorter lens with a smaller sensor gives the same 'effective focal length'?

 

[AlanF]

Sure, makes sense. For the same focal length FF and APS-C size is the same regardless of the image circle. But not for the same effective FL. So a wildlife shooter on APS-C can shoot his 800mm equivalent using a 500mm lens. It is thus much smaller but because of the focal length, not so much the size of the image circle.

Sure, a 500mm lens on Canon APS-C gives you the same field of view as 800mm on FF. But, pixel size is a crucial factor. If the FF is about 50 Mpx and the APS-C is about 20 Mpx, then a 500mm on FF has the same reach for resolving wild-life as does a 500mm on APS-C. Problem is that once you get to 50 Mpx on FF and 20 Mpx on APS-C, then there is diminishing returns because of diffraction requiring wide aperture lenses. Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking APS-C as I frequently use an RF 100-400mm on an R7. But, to get the best out of it, I would need to go back to my old 400mm f/4.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I hope this is true! I got an R7 to use with the RF-S7.8MM F4 STM Dual but when it comes to video recording, because EOS VR Utility has to crop two eyes out of the 4K footage, the 3D footage ends up being worse than 1080p after processing. If they come out with an 8K60 APS-C camera, then that will be a huge leap in quality for stereoscopic recording.

For every other purpose the increase of about 11% in linear resolution is much, much less important than a big improvement to readout speed, while maintaining noise and dynamic range performance. And for your purpose, open gate video will give you a big step up without the need for an 8K-capable sensor.