Canon EOS R7 specifications [CR3]

[vjlex]

In terms of body sizes, the RP is the goldilocks of body size. Smaller than R3/5/6 and approximately the same size as the larger M bodies
M50ii = 387g. 116 x 88 x 59 mm
M6ii = 408g. 120 x 70 x 49 mm
RP = 485g. 133 x 85 x 70 mm

A RP without EVF would be a lot smaller and lighter... in proportion as the M6ii vs M200
M200 = 299g. 108 x 67 x 35 mm

Of course, the M6ii has significantly better specs vs RP in some respects

Agreed. The RP seems like a good size. I wouldn't mind something like that or something just a bit smaller as a second body. I have the M50 now and previously had the M3. I love the quality and features of the M, but really don't like the compactness of the button layout. I would prefer a second body that can utilize my RF lenses when I want, but also be compact when I need it to be. As an early R camera, the RP features were okay. But if I'm going budget R and it offers less resolution than the R5, I would prefer it to offer some sort of differentiation. APS-C would fit the bill for me. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else.

 

[David - Sydney]

No sir. APSC R mount has been a religion here. With believers and non-believers bitterly fighting.

I have no vested interest in M or APS-c RF mount but there has been 2 camps with 7Dii users desperately wanting an upgrade with no satisfaction after 8 years and others (such as myself) that haven't been able to see the logic in releasing one. Wishful thinkers vs what limited data we have today.
eg
- 7D series were somewhat unicorns with relatively low price for high build quality, high fps and good AF and not really fitting into the current R3/5/6 product segmentation and pricing
- Canon could have released a 7Diii with the same sensor at the same time as M6ii/90D but chose not to for reasons unknown
- APS-c sensors means that shooters can avoid buying more expensive big whites to get their reach. Great for shooters but not so good for Canon
- Canon missing normal lifecycle updates for 7 series (nor Nikon for that matter in the same segment). Has any body been released 8 years from the previous one?
- M series has had no R&D but seem to tick along nicely in sales based on limited sales data in different parts of the world especially in Asia and likely still profitable
- M series is a great system of low cost/size but reasonable quality and can support EF lenses but with no pathway to RF lenses. It is a great question whether a M body users would upgrade to RF lenses if it were possible. The likelihood of Canon releasing replacement EF-m lenses (small/cheap/light) in RF is a lot of R&D
- Canon's willingness to support 5 lens mounts (Ef-M, EF-s, EF, RF and RF-s) from a lens product management perspective

Canon can always surprise us eg the RF5.2mm/2.8 dual fish eye which came from nowhere with no rumours. I am happy to be wrong of course and happy for 7D upgraders to get what they wished for

 

[takesome1]

Canon EOS 7D Mark II AF System Compared to the 1D X and 5D III

Canon EOS 7D Mark II AF System Compared to the 1D X and 5D III

www.the-digital-picture.com

A few advantages, but overall, yes 1DX oddly enough was better overall.

Technical specs seldom tell the whole story. I read this article at release to decide whether to order or not.

A cut from the article you linked:
I would like to personally thank Chuck Westfall very much for the time and effort he put into preparing this information for us. I hope that any missing decision-making factors are now clarified in your mind.

The 7D II was a let down., while it had some good qualities it never lived up to the hype.

 

[David - Sydney]

Agreed. The RP seems like a good size. I wouldn't mind something like that or something just a bit smaller as a second body. I have the M50 now and previously had the M3. I love the quality and features of the M, but really don't like the compactness of the button layout. I would prefer a second body that can utilize my RF lenses when I want, but also be compact when I need it to be. As an early R camera, the RP features were okay. But if I'm going budget R and it offers less resolution than the R5, I would prefer it to offer some sort of differentiation. APS-C would fit the bill for me. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else.

The RP would be my second body if I needed one. I have a trip to Iceland in 7 weeks and my question is whether to get a RP as a second body or my first drone (DJI Mini 3 Pro) to use there.... the drone option is more exciting
I have sufficient reach with R5/RF100-500mm and cropping as needed. No need for APS-c sensor for me.

 

[AEWest]

M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today. Canon is not spending a single dollar on R&D for the EOS M cameras or lenses now that the PowerShot division is basically 2 guys with red staplers and interns. This switch would be further ahead if it wasn't for supply chain constraints.

The margins aren't in the cameras anyway, so it doesn't matter how many M50's they sell. The margins are in the lenses and we haven't seen an EF-M lens since 2018. We also haven't seen the EOS M series mentioned in quarterly earnings reports in years.

I agree that Canon's best option is to go RFS and discontinue M line. The reason is that M line is a stand alone line. So if someone's first real camera is an M camera and a couple of lenses, and wants to get into a broader ecosystem, there is nothing keeping him/her with Canon - they could go Sony. With RFS, they could acquire and use regular RF lenses on their camera. That would more likely keep them with Canon.

 

[Fletchahh]

- Canon's willingness to support 5 lens mounts (Ef-M, EF-s, EF, RF and RF-s) from a lens product management perspective

I do wonder if any future RF-S lenses will be more or less confusing to the average consumer than EF-S lenses were. As in, which is more confusing, EF-S lenses that couldn't physically mount to full frame bodies, or any potential RF-S lenses that are likely to work on the same R mount but automatically activate the crop shooting mode as any mounted EF-S lenses do today.

 

[John Wilde]

People always think selling well means doing a good job but Canon want you guys buying more expensive lenses rather than just using kit lens bundle with the entry level cameras.

No entry-level camera models would mean no first-time camera buyers.

A low-margin sale is more profitable than a lost sale.

 

[neuroanatomist]

No entry-level camera models would mean no first-time camera buyers.

Canon doesn't need those. They just need CR forum members to be happy and buy cameras.

 

[David - Sydney]

I agree that Canon's best option is to go RFS and discontinue M line. The reason is that M line is a stand alone line. So if someone's first real camera is an M camera and a couple of lenses, and wants to get into a broader ecosystem, there is nothing keeping him/her with Canon - they could go Sony. With RFS, they could acquire and use regular RF lenses on their camera. That would more likely keep them with Canon.

M is a self contained ecosystem. They may buy some M lenses besides the kit ones eg for wide angle but they can always buy EF lenses if they wanted reach for instance M6ii + EF100-400mm. Once they had an EF lens then they are more likely to upgrade bodies to match that lens.

You are correct that there is nothing stopping having 2 OEM systems eg R mount + Fuji 4/3 for different applications.
You could even buy a Z9+800mm/6.3 cheaper than the RF800mm alone.
Sony have some good gear of course and Canon needs to compete where they think that they will make more money

 

[dominic_siu]

No entry-level camera models would mean no first-time camera buyers.

A low-margin sale is more profitable than a lost sale.

People now tend to use smartphone for taking photos rather than entry level cameras.

 

[Otara]

Technical specs seldom tell the whole story. I read this article at release to decide whether to order or not.

A cut from the article you linked:
I would like to personally thank Chuck Westfall very much for the time and effort he put into preparing this information for us. I hope that any missing decision-making factors are now clarified in your mind.

The 7D II was a let down., while it had some good qualities it never lived up to the hype.

I read it as saying the 1dx was on another level, but perhaps thats with hindsight.

 

[David - Sydney]

Interesting stats (IMHO)...
Flickr is currently updating their camera database (Camera Finder). And maybe the position doesn't hold as stats are updated and more cameras added. But at the time of writing 7DII are in top 5 when it comes to activity (daily users) in the Canon cameras category:

Flickr: Camera Finder: Canon

The safest and most inclusive global community of photography enthusiasts. The best place for inspiration, connection, and sharing!

www.flickr.com

Fascinating! I didn't know that those stats were available. Interesting that the number of active daily users is almost identical for R5 and 7Dii shooters.
Looking at the graph over the last year, the R5 is certainly increasing and just taking over from 7Dii with the 5Div/iii dropping significantly

 

[Phenix205]

I still can’t justify putting those heavy, bulky and super expensive RF lenses on a body with the M6 II APS-C sensor. A smaller sensor is not going to give you extra reach. Put in a 70 MP full frame sensor and shoot in crop mode, you get a 35 MP APS-C.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

The increased frame rate and readout would be due to the Digic X processor vs Digic 8 (M6II and 90D), not just the sensor itself. M6II is already 14 fps.

I don't think a new Digic version alone can do that. The 20mp R6 does "only" 20fps with electronic shutter.
A lot depends on if/when R7 lowers bit-depth and by how much (or eventually crop like the M6II). But I think specs makes it look like a new sensor.
But we will see...

 

[Bahrd]

M is dead.

"Mr. CRG, I find this morbid fascination of yours with [the M system's] death quite disturbing!"
R. Atkinson, "Schoolmaster"

 

[vjlex]

I still can’t justify putting those heavy, bulky and super expensive RF lenses on a body with the M6 II APS-C sensor. A smaller sensor is not going to give you extra reach. Put in a 70 MP full frame sensor and shoot in crop mode, you get a 35 MP APS-C.

And what about the people who want to shoot 30mp+ telephoto and not spend $5000+ on a 70MP camera only to not utilize most of the pixels? I only partially agree with your statement- heavy, bulky super expensive RF lenses wouldn't particularly be a good fit on an M6 size body, but an APS-C sensor would be okay for many people I think. The 17MP crop of the R5 doesn't appeal to me at all, and there is no way I'm getting a flagship 70-80 MP monster just to get 32 MP cropped photos. I'm not sure why so many seem set on limiting options to just what fits their personal preferences and budget (not saying that's what you're doing).

 

[LogicExtremist]

It looks like Canon is finally intending to replace the 7DII, an 8 year old, pro-grade, niche APSC sports/action cam,era with an RF equivalent.

This is in a completely different class to the EF-M camera series, and has nothing to do with the discontinuation of the M6 MkII. There's no evidence yet to indicate the fate of the M platform, because there is no compact, entry level range of APSC camera bodies to replace them yet. At best we can say we don't know.

At least a 32MP R7 will stop the delusional thinking from R5 owners who think they can get more reach by using crop mode! It's called digital zoom on smartphones, and cropping in post-processing. What matters is 'pixels on duck', and cropping in camera or in post is just a crop, while a 'crop' sensor isn't cropping anything when at the same MP count, it's just using less of the projected imaged from the lens much like a tilt-shift lens does in shift mode, but is still using a whole sensor with smaller pixels, whose images, incidentally, can also be cropped. If cropping images taken with an APSC sensor was not possible, then maybe there might be an argument. Anyone care to guess what MP count on a full-frame would be needed to crop down to a 35MP image? Hint, it much more than double, because a 1.6x crop on the 45MP R5 yields only a 17MP image!

It will be interesting to see how well the RF macro lenses and the ultra telephoto lenses such as the 100-400mm f/5.6-8 (160-640mm f/9-12.8 f FF equiv.), 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 (160-800mm f/7.2-11.4 FF equiv.), 600mm f/11 (960mm f/17.6 FF equiv.) and 800mm f/11 (1280mm f/17.6 FF equiv.) will perform on a new RF APSC body, and what the noise levels will be like at higher ISO settings. Will Canon used 'baked in' noise reduction in its RAW files, like it does in all the newer RF bodies, to produce less noisy images at higher ISO?

 

[Chaitanya]

Hopefully it still have top display and some improvements to battery life. Also dual SD is interesting as they are easy to source and quite cheap.

 

[LogicExtremist]

I still can’t justify putting those heavy, bulky and super expensive RF lenses on a body with the M6 II APS-C sensor. A smaller sensor is not going to give you extra reach. Put in a 70 MP full frame sensor and shoot in crop mode, you get a 35 MP APS-C.

Your math is incorrect, that's not how it works.

cropped resolution = total resolution / (crop factor^2)

You are cropping both the height and width of the image by 1.6x

For an R5 (45MP) in 1.6x crop mode, the final image size is 45/(1.6x1.6) = 45/2.56 = 17.6MP, and not half, which would be 22.5MP

The 32.5MP APSC sensor on the 90D produces an image that 6983 x 4655 pixels.
When you do the calculation, you have to increase the height and width by 1.6, or just multiply the figure by the square of 1.6.
Either (6983 x 1.6) x (4655 x 1.6) or 32.5 x (1.6^2) = 32.5 x 2.56 = 83.2MP

You would need an 83MP full frame sensor to do a 1.6x crop mode to give you the same resolution as the32.5MP APSC sensor.
Good luck getting a camera at that high resolution that can do a fast shooting rate at a reasonable price! Ever wondered why even the flagship cameras are only 20MP?

High resolution APSC bodies have their place, otherwise manufacturers would not be producing them!

 

[masterpix]

A DSLR like mirrorless camera will not replace the popular M50. It will garner nowhere near the sales. Most consumers don't want a DSLR look alike camera to travel with. Nor the hassle with TSA or import controls in various airports. Canons mirrorless versions of their DSLRs still resemble "professional" cameras. The M50 is the travel camera of choice. Especially if one dares to pack a compact gimbal. Anyone dreaming to invision any of the current mirrorless body style options replacing the compact M50 or M6 is delusional.

I am not sure you are correct in your assumptions, as today, most people carry cellphones for their travels and not even M series cameras. The R-ebel might not have EVF and beside the R bionet will look pretty much like the M class cameras. You can think of the R-ebel as M class camera with R mount. If I am allowed to suspect the future, I think this is where Canon aim the R-ebel to be. It sill have RF mount, but something like (bit bigger) the M shape and size.

All in all, our personal wishes, like R1 with 85MP global shutter sensor, quad 3D focusing system that will catch any bird in the sky, and so and so,, for less than the R6 is now prices...