Canon EOS R7 specifications [CR3]

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,301
1,003
Davidson, NC
This comes from Canon Rumors
Years ago I told a friend that I had heard that for NJ Turnpike purposes, radial tires could substitute for snow tires. He replied that he had heard that, too. So we took that as a kind of confirmation. Later I recalled that I had originally heard it from him.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,568
2,473
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.

You're conflating lack of new development with them actually discontinuing the M series. It won't be discontinued as long as it sells; with development amortized it's almost free money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Chaitanya

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jun 27, 2013
1,611
861
36
Pune
Comparing to leaked Fuji XH-2s specs for memory cards, dual SD is quite puzzling for R7.
 

JustUs7

EOS RP
Feb 5, 2020
285
558
I'm thinking more about the megapixels that needs to be transferred from sensor.
I get it. I suspect it’s a mix though, considering how fast the Digic 10 can handle 45 megapixels of the R5. Given the standard rolling readout, physical area read would have an impact on speed as much as ability to transfer data. If the scan can only move so fast, then scanning a smaller area will be more efficient.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

Stig Nygaard

EOS R7, Powershot G5 X II & Olympus TG-5
CR Pro
Jul 10, 2013
218
378
Copenhagen
www.flickr.com
Comparing to leaked Fuji XH-2s specs for memory cards, dual SD is quite puzzling for R7.
I'm exited about the R7, but a bit disappointed about the choice of dual SD instead of a a combi (or double CFE). The previous "CR1" video specs might very well have been true for the camera if Canon had chosen a faster memory card.
I'm not a video-guy myself, but besides affecting buffering performance, maybe the slower SD-cards will also limit bit-depth for high speed RAW shooting (Can someone do the math?) ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

[email protected]

R5
CR Pro
Jan 20, 2014
844
824
Thetford, VT
www.camnostic.com
I used the UHS-II slot for BIF on the R5 before I got a CFExpress card and will be perfectly happy to have 2 UHS-II on an R7. 32.5 Mpx on crop will give in theory the reach of a 2xTC on an R6, and my R6 will go if the R7 looks good. I’d like an f/4 telephoto to go with it.

Depends on the buffer size. This will be a big issue or a non-issue. I sometimes goof up my R5 settings and have it feeding the SD card instead of the CFexpress card, and I seldom notice, unless I'm shooting 75+ shots in a row without interruption, which I seldom do.

If the R7 has similarly-sized buffer, SD will be fine. My beef SD is that the UHS-II cards aren't any cheaper than the CFexpress cards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

grantmasterflash

I'm New Here
Oct 15, 2020
18
18
An R6 with a smaller sensor would cost how much less than an R6? If it's not enough nobody will want it. An R6 is about $2500 so if they could get the APS-C camera down to $2000 would it be enough? Also the R7 will have more MP than the R6 so you can't sell it for too little or it will cannibalize R6 sales.

Is a FF 20 MP camera better than an APS-C 32.5 MP camera if all other specs are the same?

If they go too low in price by cutting margins then it squeezes the R10 which means they have to cut features from the R10 to make it cheaper which makes it no better than an M6 II. It will be interesting to see how Canon works this out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Chaitanya

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jun 27, 2013
1,611
861
36
Pune
I'm exited about the R7, but a bit disappointed about the choice of dual SD instead of a a combi (or double CFE). The previous "CR1" video specs might very well have been true for the camera if Canon had chosen a faster memory card.
I'm not a video-guy myself, but besides affecting buffering performance, maybe the slower SD-cards will also limit bit-depth for high speed RAW shooting (Can someone do the math?) ?
Overall with non BSI sensor and dual SD slots it seems like Canon is trying to make sure all parts are available to ensure availability is good rather than have long backlog of backorders. Lets wait to see buffer depth figures are like for RAW shooting(R6 for eg has excellent depth) and for 4k 60 even the fastest UHS-II cards wont have any issues handling it(agains lets wait for bit rate details). What worries me is if Canon restricts AF in 1080 120fps mode on this camera.
 

PhotoRN86

EOS M50
May 25, 2020
33
58
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?
Correct me if I'm wrong with your conversions, but do crop sensors affect a lens Aperture??? would the 100-500mm just turn into a 160-800mm 4.5-7.1?? etc
 

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
62
92
An R6 with a smaller sensor would cost how much less than an R6? If it's not enough nobody will want it. An R6 is about $2500 so if they could get the APS-C camera down to $2000 would it be enough? Also the R7 will have more MP than the R6 so you can't sell it for too little or it will cannibalize R6 sales.

Is a FF 20 MP camera better than an APS-C 32.5 MP camera if all other specs are the same?

If they go too low in price by cutting margins then it squeezes the R10 which means they have to cut features from the R10 to make it cheaper which makes it no better than an M6 II. It will be interesting to see how Canon works this out.
R6 and R7 are for different markets. There is no good way for a R7 to achieve the shallow depth of field for the f1.2 lens looks nor the ultra wide angles (talking 10-12mmish) of full frame. On the other hand, there is also no good way for R6 to achieve R7's reach and magnification on the long end. Therefore even if prices are similar, I would think they do not intrude upon each other's markets too much. They can rather work as good complements to each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

InchMetric

Switched from Nikon. Still zooming the wrong way.
CR Pro
Jun 22, 2021
226
253
I note that the R7 sensor is like an 83MP FF sensor, cropped down to size. Not bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

jvillain

EOS RP
Sep 29, 2018
324
269
How much more modern can you get? You can't get UHS-iii or SD Express cards

No need for a card faster than USHii. R5 only needs CFe because of 4 video modes (8k raw, 8k ALL-I, 4k120, 4k60 ALL-I). All other video mode eg 8k IPB can use a SD card. I would suggest one of the faster ones though with >250MB/s write speed V90.
32mp/30fps would be fine on a SD card as the R5 45mp/20fps (lower bit depth than mechanical speed) is handled okay.

v90 cards can't even keep up with [email protected] SDex will run in backward comparability mode if the camera doesn't support SDex which these specs seem to indicate it doesn't. It also isn't just an issue of how fast you can write but also how fast you can get the data off. If it had a CFex slot it would be compatible with other modern cameras that are all going in that direction.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,943
15,609
Depends on the buffer size. This will be a big issue or a non-issue. I sometimes goof up my R5 settings and have it feeding the SD card instead of the CFexpress card, and I seldom notice, unless I'm shooting 75+ shots in a row without interruption, which I seldom do.

If the R7 has similarly-sized buffer, SD will be fine. My beef SD is that the UHS-II cards aren't any cheaper than the CFexpress cards.
In the UK, UHS-II cards are a fraction of the price of CFExpress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
559
695
USA
Correct me if I'm wrong with your conversions, but do crop sensors affect a lens Aperture??? would the 100-500mm just turn into a 160-800mm 4.5-7.1?? etc
No, they do not. The lens creates an image circle, regarless of what sensor (or if there is a sensor) behind it. That image circle includes the field of view as well as the depth of field.

A FF sensor 'crops' the image circle to a FF sized rectangle. The APSc sensor 'crops' it to an APSc sized rectangle (taking only the middle section of the full image circle of a FF lens). So you're getting a smaller FOV, as if the lens were longer in focal length. The image scale difference, or 'reach' as people like to call it, comes from the higher pixel density that is typical with APSc sensors vs FF sensors. So the Duck is the same physical size in the image circle whether the lens is on FF of APSc. The space around the duck is less on APSC, since it is not capturing as much of the image around the duck (Crop factor). The number of pixels per duck is higher on APSc (typically), meaning the resulting image of the duck when viewed at 300ppi (for example) is larger. This is 'reach' advantage of APSc.

Depth of field in the two images is the same. Where it would change is if you tried to match the FF field of view on an APSc sensor by going to a shorter focal length lens. For example, a 50mm FF image has about the same FOV as a 35mm APSc image. If both are taken at F2.8, the FF will have shallower depth of field, since the thickness of a focal plane at 50mm f/2.8 is thinner than a 35mm f/2.8 lens. If you are using the same lens at the same aperture, the DOF in the resulting image will be the same on both sensors (but the APSc sensor image will show a smaller FOV, as described above).

So on an R7, the effective FOV of the 100-500 is 160-800 (crop factor). The image scale difference ('reach') will be about 50% greater (more pixels per unit area) than an R5. And the DOF will not be affected.

Hopefully that helps.

Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users