Canon EOS R7 specifications [CR3]

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
545
821
Orewa , New Zealand
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.
I think you're confused about focal length reducers (speed boosters) , they're the opposite of tele convertors (focal length extenders) so they simply reduce the focal length of a lenses instead of increasing it.
Just as a 1.4x T.C increases the focal length and decreases the aperture by one stop by diverging the light rays a 0.71 Focal Length Reducer decreases the focal length and increases the aperture by one stop by converging the light rays.
In both cases the entrance pupil of the lens is still the same but because the focal length has changed so has the aperture.
For my 400mm f/2.8 if I use a 1.4x convertor the focal length has become 565.68mm but the entrance pupil is unchanged at 143mm so the lens is now f/4 as 565.68 /143 = f/4
If I use a 0.7071 focal length reducer then the focal length becomes 283mm and the entrance pupil is still 143mm so the lens is now f/2 because 283/143 = f/2 but when mounted to a FF camera we get heavy hard vignetting (port holing) so instead use a crop sensor camera such as the R7 and the sensor nearly matches (it's a bit smaller) the smaller image circle and the fov is now equivalent to 282.8427 x 1.6162 = 457.13mm but the f number is still f/2 and the crop factor is only 1.1428 instead of 1.6162
Of course adding extra lens elements degrades the IQ slightly (same as T.Cs) but the increase in light as a result of modifying the focal length is a real thing increasing the aperture by one stop and reducing the 1.6x fov crop factor to 1.14x
So with a 0.71 Focal Length Reducer adapter my EF400mm f/2.8 becomes a 283mm f/2 with a fov equivalent to a FF focal length of 457mm when attached to a 1.6x crop mirrorless camera such as an M6ii or an R7 and both cameras still have a resolution of 32.5 mp but an R5 in crop mode would have only 17mp
Some videos
Best explanation is this one:
Cheers
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
I think you're confused about focal length reducers (speed boosters) , they're the opposite of tele convertors (focal length extenders) so they simply reduce the focal length of a lenses instead of increasing it.
TL;DR - you suggested using a speed booster with an APS-C camera would be nearly as good as using a FF camera for bird photography, and that's not the case.

Sorry, but you do not seem to understand the concept @AlanF is discussing. He stated, "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. ...400mm f/4 lens ... Put a 0.71x speed booster on the lens to make it 284mm f/2.84 lens," so clearly he fully understands that a 'speed booster' decreases focal length and f-number (the latter taken exactly as he stated, decreasing f-number, i.e. 2.84 is less than 4).

@AlanF is talking about the concept of signal to noise, and his point is that while a 'speed booster' reduces the f-number, if you're reach-limited (i.e. you cannot move closer to achieve the same framing with the shorter focal length), then you gain no 'speed' benefit in terms of signal-to-noise, and all you do is reduce the capture resolution of the subject.

You suggested that using a full frame lens with a speed booster on an APS-C camera would mitigate the effect of the smaller sensor, as you put it, "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." That is true only if you move closer to the subject so the framing is the same as it would be without the speed booster. Since you're talking about bird photography, something at which @AlanF excels, the presumption is that you generally cannot simply move closer to the subject. If you're the same distance from the subject with or without the speed booster, he is saying (correctly, of course) that you aren't gaining any light, all you're doing is throwing away MPs.

Note that the above discussion is about sensor-based image quality. There are other reasons why the (still just vaporware) R7 might be better than the R6 for bird photography. In many cases, AF and frame rate make a big difference for bird photography. To the extent that those are significantly better on the R7 than the R6, that's relevant. Personally, I had a 7D then bought a 5DII. The 5DII delivered better IQ for most of my subjects, but I kept using the 7D for birds – not because of the 'extra reach' but because the better AF system and faster frame rate enabled me to get shots I couldn't get with the 5DII. The sensor IQ was lower, but I'll take a noisy image of a BIF that's in focus and has the right wing position over a cleaner image that's blurry because the AF couldn't keep up. When the 1D X came out, with a FF sensor, the same frame rate as the 7D and a FF sensor, and even better AF, I switched to that for birds (and everything else) and sold both the 7D and 5DII.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
545
821
Orewa , New Zealand
I have got lost somewhere in this discussion. If you are wanting to use a crop sensor camera for shooting wildlife because of the reach, why would you want to make the lens wider? And if so, why not just use a wider and faster lens in the first place?
This is just something to give me more options especially when I'm lucky enough to get really close but the light is very low but normally I'd use a normal adapter for the reach.
Also I have several wide fast lens which I can use for portraits , etc with close to full frame results .
Basically the speed booster gives me more options without having to buy a full frame as well as crop sensor body
 
Upvote 0

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
545
821
Orewa , New Zealand
TL;DR - you suggested using a speed booster with an APS-C camera would be nearly as good as using a FF camera for bird photography, and that's not the case.

Sorry, but you do not seem to understand the concept @AlanF is discussing. He stated, "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. ...400mm f/4 lens ... Put a 0.71x speed booster on the lens to make it 284mm f/2.84 lens," so clearly he fully understands that a 'speed booster' decreases focal length and f-number (the latter taken exactly as he stated, decreasing f-number, i.e. 2.84 is less than 4).

@AlanF is talking about the concept of signal to noise, and his point is that while a 'speed booster' reduces the f-number, if you're reach-limited (i.e. you cannot move closer to achieve the same framing with the shorter focal length), then you gain no 'speed' benefit in terms of signal-to-noise, and all you do is reduce the capture resolution of the subject.

You suggested that using a full frame lens with a speed booster on an APS-C camera would mitigate the effect of the smaller sensor, as you put it, "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." That is true only if you move closer to the subject so the framing is the same as it would be without the speed booster. Since you're talking about bird photography, something at which @AlanF excels, the presumption is that you generally cannot simply move closer to the subject. If you're the same distance from the subject with or without the speed booster, he is saying (correctly, of course) that you aren't gaining any light, all you're doing is throwing away MPs.

Note that the above discussion is about sensor-based image quality. There are other reasons why the (still just vaporware) R7 might be better than the R6 for bird photography. In many cases, AF and frame rate make a big difference for bird photography. To the extent that those are significantly better on the R7 than the R6, that's relevant. Personally, I had a 7D then bought a 5DII. The 5DII delivered better IQ for most of my subjects, but I kept using the 7D for birds – not because of the 'extra reach' but because the better AF system and faster frame rate enabled me to get shots I couldn't get with the 5DII. The sensor IQ was lower, but I'll take a noisy image of a BIF that's in focus and has the right wing position over a cleaner image that's blurry because the AF couldn't keep up. When the 1D X came out, with a FF sensor, the same frame rate as the 7D and a FF sensor, and even better AF, I switched to that for birds (and everything else) and sold both the 7D and 5DII.
I would only use the speed booster when I happen to be very close but the light is poor which happens quite often for me as I go to a lot of trouble to set up quietly and wait for the birds to come close . Here's an example below where either using a full frame camera or a speed boosted R7 might have helped. I was very close and this is uncropped and taken with my 7Dii and EF400 f/2.8 so an R7 with the same lens and a 0.71x speed booster would have given a wider view and perhaps a better image (ignoring how much better it's sensor and af is compared to my old 7Dii)20220306CHIG7150.JPG20220306CHIG8294.JPG
Another example where I was just too close for the EF400 f/2.8 :cool:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,517
I think you're confused about focal length reducers (speed boosters) , they're the opposite of tele convertors (focal length extenders) so they simply reduce the focal length of a lenses instead of increasing it.
I am not confused at all - see @neuroanatomist comments. I responded to your post in which you said you would use a speedbooster to give you more light as you asked if you were missing something.

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 .


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 ?
I emphasized twice that when you are reach limited you are not gaining more light using a speedbooster and it is a disadvantage in terms of reach, and another two times that what a speedbooster does instead for you is to increase your field of view, which your last post shows for the case where the bird was too close. But, you still haven't got my or neuros point that when you do crop using the speedbooster, it won't give you a better image - you are gaining no light and you are losing Mpx with the speedbooster. I have said that 3x now!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
545
821
Orewa , New Zealand
I am not confused at all - see @neuroanatomist comments. I responded to your post in which you said you would use a speedbooster to give you more light as you asked if you were missing something.


I emphasized twice that when you are reach limited you are not gaining more light using a speedbooster and it is a disadvantage in terms of reach, and another two times that what a speedbooster does instead for you is to increase your field of view, which your last post shows for the case where the bird was too close. But, you still haven't got my or neuros point that when you do crop using the speedbooster, it won't give you a better image - you are gaining no light and you are losing Mpx with the speedbooster. I have said that 3x now!
Well perhaps I was confused about what I wanted with Focal Length Reducers but after some research and thought I've concluded that I would still have a use for them.
I never wanted to use them for situations where I needed reach but only for very close up subjects where the low light is the limiting factor.
I have only EF glass plus an EF-s zoom and a EF-S 24mm pancake.
Ignoring the crop factor as I've always shot with my 7Dii (except for my film cameras) so I'm used to a cropped camera the 0.71x FLR will be handy for baby portraits and where I'm very close to a bird.
My EF lenses:
  • EF400mm f/2.8 + FLR = 283mm f/2
  • EF300mm f/2.8 + FLR. = 212mm f/2
  • EF100-400mm ii f/4.5-5.6 + FLR = 71-283mm f/3.2-4
  • EF135mm f/2.8 + FLR = 95mm f/2
  • EF85mm f1.8 + FLR = 60mm f/1.2
  • EF35-80mm f4-5.6 + FLR = 25-57mm f/2.8-4
  • EF50mm f/1.4 + FLR = 35mm f/1
  • EF50mm f/1.8 + FLR = 35mm f/1.2
Lots of interesting possibilities with the FLR as well as these lenses attached to an R7 with the normal adapter plus of course my 1.4x and 2x Focal Length Extenders

Unfortunately Canon's 0.71x FLR adapter is very expensive which is to be expected because it's very high quality and aimed at Cinema photographers to go with the C70 but I'd still be keen to buy one eventually.

Very excited about the R7 and hoping the sensor is a new one rather a rehashed 90D/M6ii one , ideally a BSI stacked one which I'd much prefer to IBIS if I had a choice as IBIS would be of minimal use to me whereas a BSI stacked sensor would be truly helpful in terms of low light performance and speed .

Hoping Canon puts a popup flash on the R7 , all cameras should have one as they're so handy for fill light on backlit subjects and for triggering studio strobes without mounting triggers on your hotshoe.

Cheers
Noel
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sharlin

CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,415
1,433
Turku, Finland
i don't get it. maybe someone can explain to me what APCS-C is good for? Is it so much cheaper to have such a line of sensors on the market? Do customers want APS-C? and if yes, why?
I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain to me what FF 35mm sensors are good for? Is it so much better IQ to have such a line of sensors on the market? Do customers want FF? And if yes, why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
So the R7 is not a 7DIII.
No adjustable eyepiece for those of us needing diopter corrections greater than +2.
No GPS.
No PC socket (boohoo say some, but at least the 7DII did have, and I use it).
No popup flash, so youre' going to have to buy an optical or radio transmitter to remote flash trigger.
Has Canon lost the plot? The R7 might be a nice upgrade from a 90D ...
But those 800 and 1200mm lenses : paying £5k for a 2x t/c???
Someone in Canon marketing is overriding engineering I think.
 
Upvote 0

ronbyram

CR Pro
Apr 6, 2021
28
7
Just read Review/spcs for the New R7. Was ready to Pre order, but being a sports shooter, I see there is NO battery grip for the Camera (Why Canon). At present this is a Deal Breaker for me.
I heard
So the R7 is not a 7DIII.
No adjustable eyepiece for those of us needing diopter corrections greater than +2.
No GPS.
No PC socket (boohoo say some, but at least the 7DII did have, and I use it).
No popup flash, so youre' going to have to buy an optical or radio transmitter to remote flash trigger.
Has Canon lost the plot? The R7 might be a nice upgrade from a 90D ...
But those 800 and 1200mm lenses : paying £5k for a 2x t/c???
Someone in Canon marketing is overriding engineering I think.
That and NO battery Grip! this is keeping me away from Buying a R7
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.

On the other hand, the vast majority of EOS M buyers are like the vast majority of Rebel/xx0D/xx00D buyers. They're not going to buy any more lenses other than what they buy when they purchase the camera, and they're not going to constantly be looking to "upgrade" every waking moment. They'll use the camera they have for several years until it no longer meets their needs.

Canon is not in any danger of losing those customers to Sony, Nikon, Oly, Fuji, or anyone else in the foreseeable future because those customers are not going to buy any camera or lens for the next five years or even longer.

The types of buyers whom Canon aims the EOS M series at and the vast majority of those who buy EOS M cameras and lenses are "one and done" buyers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.

Nope. When you crop 70MP by 1.6X in both the horizontal and vertical directions you get 27MP. To get 35MP on a 1.6X APS-C sensor, you need the same pixel density as a 90MP FF sensor.

You also get 2.56X the readout time, 2.56X the processing time, 2.56X the writing to card time, and 2.56X the file size.

With DiG!C X that's less of an issue than it once was, but the fact remains that reading/processing/writing/storing 0.4X as many pixels will always require 0.4X as much time and storage capacity, all other things being equal.

Look at the 50MP 5Ds compared to the 20 MP 7D Mark II. Both had the exact same pixel density. The FF body maxed out at 5 fps for 14 raw or 510 JPEGs, the APS-C body maxed out at 10 fps for 31 raw or as many JPEGs as your card could hold.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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 is the possibility that the M6 Mark II will see an earlier demise than the Marketing Department would normally prefer in order to divert capacity for making 32MP APS-C sensors from the M6 Mark II (and by extension the 90D) to use that production capacity for the R7.

It's not a strategic marketing decision, though. It's a decision based on the harsh reality of production capacity and limited availability of raw materials and parts that didn't really exist until late 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
But their place has been misplaced up til now by Canon and Nikon

Just an opinion, and we all have them. Everyone is free to disagree.

It seems to me that both Canon and Nikon let the 7DII and D500 replacements get lost in the shuffle in the rush to bring FF mirrorless to market earlier than either had planned because of the surge in Sony's share of the FF camera market from around 2015-2016 on.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Comparing to leaked Fuji XH-2s specs for memory cards, dual SD is quite puzzling for R7.

Fast UHS-II cards are good enough to run every shooting mode on the R5 just as well as the CFExpress slot except for the three most demanding video modes. Otherwise there is no advantage to using the CFExpress vs. the UHS-II slot in the R5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

john1970

EOS R3
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
971
1,213
Northeastern US
On the R5 (and R3) the UHS-II buffer clears significantly slower than the CF Express card and for those of us using the cameras at their maximum frame rate (20 fps and 30 fps respectively) using the CF Express card is basically mandatory. I use the CF Express as the primary and the camera is set to auto switch cards so the UHS-II slot is only used if CF Express is full. Lastly I use 625 GB CF Express cards so the chance of that is minimal.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Is a FF 20 MP camera better than an APS-C 32.5 MP camera if all other specs are the same?

That all depends upon what one wants to use either camera to do. They're different tools for different tasks.

No one asks if a #000 JIS screwdriver is better or worse than a 1/2" slotted bit screwdriver. It all depends upon what kind of screw one wants to turn.
 
Upvote 0