Canon EOS R7 specifications [CR3]

[goldenhusky]

I still wouldn't go quite as far as calling it "proof" as I've seen CR3s that were wrong on very very rare occasions, but I share your overall sentiment. While I won't rule it out at this point, the R7 is not a camera that I myself plan to get, but I am very interested in what it indicates we can expect in the near future for R body options. And killing off some of the more dogmatic arguments about what Canon will and won't do is an added bonus. I have never seen the logic in the argument that the R line up only needs a few premium cameras plus the R and RP to be complete. To me the gap between the M offerings and R offerings has always been a gaping wide chasm begging to be filled. While I don't necessarily believe the R7 is meant to directly threaten the M line, it does portend a future where APS-C is not just for those who want compact, miniature bodies with compact lenses. I generally consider more options a good thing.

Not the perfect analogy, but right now Canon's mirrorless offerings are kind of like Goldilocks without mama bear's bed. M might be just right for some (I've been satisfied with mine), but I wouldn't mind some alternative in between.

While CF-E is one source of heat that was not the sole reason for the R5 to overheat. There is phyisics but also there are ways to improve the heat sink. There is evidence Canon' cripple hammer was at work with R5 deliberately way under sizing the heat sink. Then they came up with R5C I was like finally a true hybrid camera from Canon, guess what? Canon' cripple hammer was at work on that too, no IBIS and the Micro HDMI. I pre-prdered the R5C right away and then came to this forum and learnt there is no IBIS and microHDMI. I cancelled my order. Bottom line Canon is yet another corporate exploiting it's market dominance to the core.

 

[LogicExtremist]

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

A 100-400mm f/5.6-8 on APSC is equivalent to 160-640mm f/9-12.8 on FF.

Using a crop sensor doesn't change the aperture, only the aperture dial does that!

For the same depth of field to a full frame, a narrower aperture is required on APSC.

Looking at calculations below from https://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html , the DOF is identical when a 400mm lens is at 0.29m (0.14m in front and 0.15m behind the subject) when FF is at f/8 and APSC is at f/12.7 (FF aperture x 1.6)





What happens if the aperture remains at f/8 on APSC? Your DOF drops from 0.29m to 0.18m (0.09m in front and 0.0.09 m behind the subject), which is 1/3 less in either direction.


If your want to do an apples-for-apples comparison, to compare equivalent parameters, and achieve the same DOF, you need to change the aperture with the APSC sensor, otherwise we're comparing two images with very different DOF!

An Canon APSC sensor utilises a x1.6 crop, so the field of vies (FOV) will look like one taken on 400 x 1.6 = 640mm on full frame.

That may be great for wildlife photography, as the subject will be 1.6x larger in the final image.

When shooting portraits, head and shoulder photos for example, irrespective of whether you're using a FF or APSC camera, the subject has to stay the same size in the frame, so you need to stand further back when using a crop body, and that will change the DOF. To get the same DOF as a full-frame, we need a faster aperture lens on the APSC camera.

To take the same image (identical FOV, subject size and DOF) when using an 85mm portrait lens:

• Using FF, subject is 2m away, aperture is f/2
• Using APSC, subject must be 3.2m away (much further for same framing), and the aperture needs to be opened up to f/1.2

The APSC sensor does not alter the aperture, you do to achieve the same DOF and subject framing when taking the photo from further away. It's only 'equivalent', when the FF and APSC body are producing the very same photo.

The calculations below show the 85mm lens producing the same DOF of 0.06m, but since different distances are needed, different apertures are aslo.

 

[LogicExtremist]

While CF-E is one source of heat that was not the sole reason for the R5 to overheat. There is phyisics but also there are ways to improve the heat sink. There is evidence Canon' cripple hammer was at work with R5 deliberately way under sizing the heat sink. Then they came up with R5C I was like finally a true hybrid camera from Canon, guess what? Canon' cripple hammer was at work on that too, no IBIS and the Micro HDMI. I pre-prdered the R5C right away and then came to this forum and learnt there is no IBIS and microHDMI. I cancelled my order. Bottom line Canon is yet another corporate exploiting it's market dominance to the core.

It's real, and people must learn to fear it! Nobody ever knows which product it will strike down before its release!

 

[PhotoLife]

Continue reading...

Hope the Canon R7 has internal satellite based GPS. The Canon 6D, 6D Mark II, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon 5d IV, Canon R3, and the Nikon Z9 all have internal satellite based GPS vs sometimes/often unreliable cell phone coverage in remote areas to link your cell phone's GPS to your camera. Remote areas where, for example, wildlife may reside where many, including myself, use satellite based GPS to Geo-locate the photograph. Taking a long arduous journey with backpack and camera to a remote location and being able to, relatively precisely, Geo-locate a photograph for future reference is very important to me.

 

[AlP]

While CF-E is one source of heat that was not the sole reason for the R5 to overheat. There is phyisics but also there are ways to improve the heat sink. There is evidence Canon' cripple hammer was at work with R5 deliberately way under sizing the heat sink. Then they came up with R5C I was like finally a true hybrid camera from Canon, guess what? Canon' cripple hammer was at work on that too, no IBIS and the Micro HDMI. I pre-prdered the R5C right away and then came to this forum and learnt there is no IBIS and microHDMI. I cancelled my order. Bottom line Canon is yet another corporate exploiting it's market dominance to the core.

What is the evidence?
Pictures on various forums, YT,... after a R5 teardown showing a thin metal cover over the DSP with some heat-conducting material in between are hardly any evidence. We don't even know if the purpose of that part is really to act as a heatsink.
There is a big difference between seeing the final result (product) and knowing the reasons which led to that final result. Except there is first-hand information from product management/R&D at Canon of course, but it wouldn't be wise to publish it here I guess.
There could be many reasons for IBIS being left out. Canon knows what the target audience of the product expects and can plan products based (also, not only) on those expectations. There could be technical reasons and putting IBIS into the camera would have led to other compromises which would have been more problematic. We don't have that information.
The use of micro HDMI could be simply due to the fact that the R5 and R5C share the same main PCB and the R5C volume was deemed too low to design and manufacture a different board.

 

[VOTOXY]

I really hope a M6 Mark II form factor. I just love how tiny and compact it is.

 

[VOTOXY]

We truly need an update to the G7x series.
I would love to see a Canon G7x camera with the leap forward in technology Canon made since 2-3 years on their mirrorless bodies.

I refuse to buy Sony RX100 VII, I do want Canon to make the equivalent with their know-how.
Fingers crossed it'll happen in the near future

 

[Botts]

I really like the look of these specs, but it has me wondering about a line up hole where the 6D/6D2 existed.

I'm going to use MSRP launch prices for the next statement. This is (assuming it's under $1,999) a great replacement for 7D2 or 90D users! The R5 is a discount vs the 5D4 at MSRP and another great replacement. The R6 carries a $500 premium over the 6D2 which is tough pricing.

The wider availability of the EF cameras below MSRP vs the RF cameras is also worth noting.

 

[Czardoom]

While CF-E is one source of heat that was not the sole reason for the R5 to overheat. There is phyisics but also there are ways to improve the heat sink. There is evidence Canon' cripple hammer was at work with R5 deliberately way under sizing the heat sink. Then they came up with R5C I was like finally a true hybrid camera from Canon, guess what? Canon' cripple hammer was at work on that too, no IBIS and the Micro HDMI. I pre-prdered the R5C right away and then came to this forum and learnt there is no IBIS and microHDMI. I cancelled my order. Bottom line Canon is yet another corporate exploiting it's market dominance to the core.

It's real, and people must learn to fear it! Nobody ever knows which product it will strike down before its release!

Yes, the evidence is real. I obtained a secret transcript from an operative that I have working within the Canon engineering division..

VOICE 1: We need to make the heat sink smaller on the R5.
VOICE 2: Why would we do that? The camera will overheat faster.
VOICE 1: Because we must employ the Canon Cripple Hammer.
VOICE 2: But we want the camera to sell as many copies as possible. If we make it worse, less people will buy it.
VOICE 3: Yes, Our best marketing is always word of mouth. If we make a camera with problems or issues, less people will buy it.
VOICE 2: And with the internet...and influencers, word of mouth is more important than ever before.
VOICE 1: BUT WE MUST EMPLOY THE-
VOICE 2: There is no logic in intentionally crippling the camera. It will sell less. Less is bad.
(Muffled voices in background)
VOICE 1: Yes, it would sell less and that is bad. That is the only logical conclusion if we cripple the camera.
VOICE 4: And yet, biased idiots on the internet will still find ways to hate us and use that insulting and ugly phrase.
VOICE 1: Even though it makes no logical or reasonable sense to intentionally, uh, worsen a product since the only LOGICAL outcome is that it will sell less. We, uh, do want to sell more...right???

Unfortunately the transcript ends at this point and the final question remains unanswered.

 

[Marauder]

The absence of a CFexpress slot is the most surprising thing, particularly given the 30fps burst speed. It'll be interesting to see how many images it can capture in a burst.
Also, it will be interesting to see if the sensor is BSI.

 

[AlanF]

The absence of a CFexpress slot is the most surprising thing, particularly given the 30fps burst speed. It'll be interesting to see how many images it can capture in a burst.
Also, it will be interesting to see if the sensor is BSI.

The answer is likely to be as posted earlier (45 Mpx R5 at 20 fps is equivalent data transfer as 30 Mpx at 30 fps).

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.

 

[speg]

There is no evidence that IBIS increases size. Thank you.

But it does the cost. Thank you.

 

[Quirkz]

Sounds like the M5 Mark II many M series owners have been waiting a long time for..........

Not quite for me: The m5 was all about 'high end features/quality in a very compact body'.

7D and M5 were different cameras for a very good reason.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

While CF-E is one source of heat that was not the sole reason for the R5 to overheat. There is phyisics but also there are ways to improve the heat sink. There is evidence Canon' cripple hammer was at work with R5 deliberately way under sizing the heat sink. Then they came up with R5C I was like finally a true hybrid camera from Canon, guess what? Canon' cripple hammer was at work on that too, no IBIS and the Micro HDMI. I pre-prdered the R5C right away and then came to this forum and learnt there is no IBIS and microHDMI. I cancelled my order. Bottom line Canon is yet another corporate exploiting it's market dominance to the core.

IBIS is likely why it overheats. Canon isn't crippling the camera here, they are picking the compromises they are willing to make in order to get a product out to your hands. IBIS or cooling and a bigger body, choose which compromise you are willing to live with until the technology evolves.

 

[Chig]

IBIS is likely why it overheats. Canon isn't crippling the camera here, they are picking the compromises they are willing to make in order to get a product out to your hands. IBIS or cooling and a bigger body, choose which compromise you are willing to live with until the technology evolves.

Yes IBIS must negatively effect heat dissipation compared to a fixed sensor which can be mounted directly onto a heat sink.

I'd much prefer no IBIS for better heat transfer, reliability and cost savings which could allow for a better sensor type such as a BSI stacked sensor for faster read out and better low light performance.

 

[Chig]

I'm confused about whether the R7 will be better than a (presumably) similarly priced R6 for my bird photography:

• higher pixel density : plus
• smaller sensor so less light captured : negative
• higher fps : plus

I'm fortunate to own a 400mm f/2.8 (which I bought very cheap) so I can use either 1.4x or 2x T.Cs for more reach but would prefer better low light performance/good dynamic range as I mostly shoot in very low light at dawn or in forests.

If I choose the R7 , I can try using Canon's 0.71 x EF-eosR speed booster which gives an extra stop of light and a more modest crop factor of 1.154x so my EF400mm f/2.8 becomes 462mm and the extra stop of light brings the light gathered by the sensor closer to Full frame with 76% of FF rather than 38% without the speed booster .
However this speed booster is very expensive at NZD 1,159 so this makes the R7 - speed booster combo nearly as expensive as an R5

If Metabones or Viltrox spots an opportunity they might make a 0.62x speed booster EF-eos R adapter making an EF lens work like it's on FF on the R7 so my EF 400mm f/2.8 would give FF performance and the R7 would effectively work like a 32mp full frame with this 0.62x speed booster or am I missing something ?

 

[AlanF]

I'm confused about whether the R7 will be better than a (presumably) similarly priced R6 for my bird photography:

• higher pixel density : plus
• smaller sensor so less light captured : negative
• higher fps : plus

I'm fortunate to own a 400mm f/2.8 (which I bought very cheap) so I can use either 1.4x or 2x T.Cs for more reach but would prefer better low light performance/good dynamic range as I mostly shoot in very low light at dawn or in forests.

If I choose the R7 , I can try using Canon's 0.71 x EF-eosR speed booster which gives an extra stop of light and a more modest crop factor of 1.154x so my EF400mm f/2.8 becomes 462mm and the extra stop of light brings the light gathered by the sensor closer to Full frame with 76% of FF rather than 38% without the speed booster .
However this speed booster is very expensive at NZD 1,159 so this makes the R7 - speed booster combo nearly as expensive as an R5

If Metabones or Viltrox spots an opportunity they might make a 0.62x speed booster EF-eos R adapter making an EF lens work like it's on FF on the R7 so my EF 400mm f/2.8 would give FF performance and the R7 would effectively work like a 32mp full frame with this 0.62x speed booster or am I missing something ?

The speed booster is a bit of an illusion as far as light is concerned. Sure, a 0.71x gives an extra stop in the f-number, so you can double the shutter speed at the same iso to get the same exposure as without the booster. But, the total amount of light on the image, the number of photons per duck, is unchanged by the speed booster and so the signal/noise in the image is the same with the speed booster or without. This means you can shoot at the same twice-higher shutter speed without the booster but at double the iso and have just as clean an image. (The noise in the image is not caused by the iso, which is just a cut-off for the amplifier, but is caused by the number of photons hitting the duck.) What a speed booster really does is to give a wider field of view and a shorter telephoto length.

It's the diameter of the front element (entrance pupil) that controls the total amount of light in. and speed boosters and extenders don't change that. The converse of the speed booster argument is that when you put a 1.4xTC on your telephoto you have to double your iso to maintain shutter speed and exposure, but it doesn't give you a noisier image of the duck you are photographing.

The take home message is save your money and don't buy a speed booster - physics can save money and give you a longer telephoto length!

 

[Chig]

The speed booster is a bit of an illusion as far as light is concerned. Sure, a 0.71x gives an extra stop in the f-number, so you can double the shutter speed at the same iso to get the same exposure as without the booster. But, the total amount of light on the image, the number of photons per duck, is unchanged by the speed booster and so the signal/noise in the image is the same with the speed booster or without. This means you can shoot at the same twice-higher shutter speed without the booster but at double the iso and have just as clean an image. (The noise in the image is not caused by the iso, which is just a cut-off for the amplifier, but is caused by the number of photons hitting the duck.) What a speed booster really does is to give a wider field of view and a shorter telephoto length.

It's the diameter of the front element (entrance pupil) that controls the total amount of light in. and speed boosters and extenders don't change that. The converse of the speed booster argument is that when you put a 1.4xTC on your telephoto you have to double your iso to maintain shutter speed and exposure, but it doesn't give you a noisier image of the duck you are photographing.

The take home message is save your money and don't buy a speed booster - physics can save money and give you a longer telephoto length!

Thanks for the reply Alan, but this doesn't seem right to me: surely I'm capturing more of the "wasted" light that otherwise would miss the smaller aps-c sensor and it's hitting the sensor now ?
My understanding is these Focal Reducers (as they are otherwise called) shrink the image down to fit the sensor as described in this article https://zebrazone.tv/what-is-a-speedbooster/#:~:text=How does a Speed Booster,means that with a F2.
They're the opposite of Tele convertors

 

[AlanF]

Thanks for the reply Alan, but this doesn't seem right to me: surely I'm capturing more of the "wasted" light that otherwise would miss the smaller aps-c sensor and it's hitting the sensor now ?
My understanding is these Focal Reducers (as they are otherwise called) shrink the image down to fit the sensor as described in this article https://zebrazone.tv/what-is-a-speedbooster/#:~:text=How does a Speed Booster,means that with a F2.
They're the opposite of Tele convertors

All a speed booster does is to put a magnifying glass at the end of your lens and reduce its focal length and f-number by the same amount. You are a nature photographer, so look at it this way. Suppose you take a photo of a square duck with your 400mm f/4 lens and it makes an image of the duck at say a 10mm x 10mm on the sensor, and the square contains say 10 Mpx and a 1000 photons hitting every second. Put a 0.71x speed booster on the lens to make it 284mm f/2.84 lens. The size of the image is now 7.1mm x 7.1mm, and contains only 5 Mpx, but still has 1000 photons/second hitting it. The image is now twice as bright and so you can increase the shutter speed 2x to get the same exposure as before. But, that's no advantage in the signal to noise of the image as you reduce the amount of light captured during the exposure two fold. If you take the speed doubler off you can also double the speed and double the iso and capture the same amount of light during the exposure. In this situation, all the speed doubler is doing for you is to give you a 5 Mpx image instead of a 10 Mpx without any gain of signal to noise. So, if you are reach limited, then the speed doubler is a true disadvantage.

On the other hand, if what you want is a wider field of view, then the speed doubler will do that for you. It is totally misleading to call these things speed doublers, they should be called field of view doublers.

 

[neonlight]

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

You raise an interesting point. Nothing changes the lens, it stays a 100-500 4.5-7.1, on a crop sensor you only get the central part of the whole image it could produce. The "reach" factor is dependent on pixel density rather than the crop factor - how many pixels your crop image covers on the sensor. But it will appear to be a 160-800 field of view because of the cropping.
On the other hand, to match the image quality of a FF sensor you do need a larger aperture on a crop. So if you need an 80mm f/2 for some portrait or something it won't give you the same on a crop body because you have to move back to get the same framed image - and loose the sharp DOF. You would need a 50mm f/1.2 to get close to the same.