Dang, I was really hoping for a battery grip on this one, that's a deal breaker for me.
Canon officially announces the Canon EOS R7, Canon EOS R10 and two new RF-S lenses
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The lack of positioning holes does not mean that a grip can't be attached. There have been grips in the past that didn't rely on positioning holes.
There already was M10, the predecessor of M100 and M200. There likely will not be any significant new development on EOS M. It makes sense that f one is interested in sports shootin one gors to EOS R where the lens selection on tele lenses is much larger.
The M50 will live on, at least for the foreseeable future, because it's in a significantly different price category than the R10.
R7 looks like a really good camera at that price point. Enough so it makes me wonder if I want to try one for more pixel density for field sports over my R6. At this point, it might also be over my dead body, unless I can hide it from my wife. 
And I'm also left to wonder if the M line got a stay of execution? The R10 is definitely not a successor that. More time to find out, more rumors to sort through in the future.
Brian
And I'm also left to wonder if the M line got a stay of execution? The R10 is definitely not a successor that. More time to find out, more rumors to sort through in the future.
Brian
I feel like the price point here is a little odd--I was expecting higher for the R7 and lower for the R10. Considering that the next step up to the R6 is $2500, it feels like there had been more room to make the R7 around $1600 and the R10 closer to $800.
$500 doesn't feel like the biggest amount of money to differentiate these two cameras. That's definitely going to push a lot more prosumer people towards the R7 for what it offers over the R10. The main advantage to the R10 is a more compact size, which I guess will be the main draw other than the $500 price difference.
That said, I could see Canon quickly putting the R10 on sale after it comes out and they have enough in stock, and making it more of a consumer "wow a camera for 100-200 dollars off" while keeping the R7 at full price.
$500 doesn't feel like the biggest amount of money to differentiate these two cameras. That's definitely going to push a lot more prosumer people towards the R7 for what it offers over the R10. The main advantage to the R10 is a more compact size, which I guess will be the main draw other than the $500 price difference.
That said, I could see Canon quickly putting the R10 on sale after it comes out and they have enough in stock, and making it more of a consumer "wow a camera for 100-200 dollars off" while keeping the R7 at full price.
That gray haired youtube guy predicted that the R10 would be priced at $600. You can always count on him to have predictions that are wrong. A clue was that the Nikon Z50 is priced at $860 (body only). I never thought the R10 would sell for less than that.
The R7's 'small' buffer seems similar to the R6's buffer. E.g. on the R6, I fill the buffer in just over 3 seconds (or 69 shots according to the display) at 20fps RAW + JPG. If we suppose that the R6 had 50% larger files and 50% faster frame rates, the buffer would fill at numbers similar to the R7. So perhaps less than we'd prefer, but not too bad.
Last edited:
I think the M line is safe until we see an R100, which I doubt Canon is in a rush to release. They'll likely focus on the R1 and RF lens lineup for awhile.
No, FSI not BSI. Canon says it's a 'new' 32 MP sensor, but strictly speaking they rarely don't say that. There were many 'new' 18 MP sensors over the years. A small tweak in the CFA spectral tuning, a slight tweak in the underlying architecture, a slight tweak in the AA filter, that's all it takes for 'new'. I wonder if the R7 uses the improved AA filter design (16-point lowpass filter) found on the more recent FF sensors. That would be nice. Knowing Canon, I suspect it doesn't.
FSI means a slower readout speed and the rolling shutter effect that comes with it. This is from the TDP p/review. Every volleyball I've ever used is spherical. With the R7, not so much...
Genuinely curious, what do you mean about buying it for pixel density? I truly can't imagine that as part of a buying decision.R7 looks like a really good camera at that price point. Enough so it makes me wonder if I want to try one for more pixel density for field sports over my R6. At this point, it might also be over my dead body, unless I can hide it from my wife.
And I'm also left to wonder if the M line got a stay of execution? The R10 is definitely not a successor that. More time to find out, more rumors to sort through in the future.
Brian
If you display a photo on a monitor at 1:1 ratio of camera pixels to monitor pixels, the higher pixel density will zoom in more, giving you more "reach". In reality, this is what typically gives you more reach in an APS-C camera over a full frame camera because APS-C cameras almost always have a higher pixel density over full frame cameras. That's what attracts many amateur bird and wildlife photographers to APS-C cameras like the 7D, where it's often hard to get close to a bird without spooking it.
That's exactly what i meant. The actual hardware cost difference between R7 and R5 is nowhere near that big. A full frame sensor alone does not cost $500 more. And as you said, things like software (firmware), Digic X and many things are developed once and shared between the 2 cameras.
Now of course the more expensive a camera is, the smaller volume it will sell, so needs some extra cost added to compensate. But in the UK the R5 costs 3.2 times as much as the R7. £4299 vs £1349.
I bet there is a huge full frame premium tax on the R5.
Were you one of the testers for the R7? What'd you think of it overall?
Similar threads
