Canon officially announces the Canon EOS R7, Canon EOS R10 and two new RF-S lenses

bf

Jul 30, 2014
298
69
They wanna sell RF 100-400.
I frequently use ef-m 55-200. There are several scenarios that I wished for longer reach. RF 100-400 is promising. It's even lighter than fuji x's 100-400. Thus, some may go with RF 100-400/500 or rf 800f11 and skip 55-200 etc. They may still need a walkaround lens although I'm not much into 18-150!
 
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
To be fair, I’ve used the iOS app a time or two for controlling the camera and it was fine for that purpose.

For GPS, I find it utterly useless.
I used the app on my iPhone during a trip through the Rockies several years ago. In other travels, particularly when on bus tours and such, I tried conserving batteries in both phone and camera by not using the pairing for GPS. If I was somewhere I wanted to be sure of the location later, I’d just take a shot with my phone. I could go by the time of that picture to correlate with the times of the camera shots to pinpoint the locations of the latter. And sometimes, I really liked the picture from the phone, so it wasn’t just a locator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
It feels like Canon is run by General Motors accountants. It does the same flubs of lack of attention to details like GM's pencil pushers are famous for; just look at the bottomline without looking at what consumers want. To me R7 does not feel like a 7D Mirrorless replacement, like R5 is to 5D.

1. Weather sealing deficiencies
2. Small buffer
3. No battery grip option
4. Lack of LCD on top
5. Only SD cards capability

This is more of a mirrorless Rebel+, than a prosumer 7D was. I wonder what the capital outlay decision was to have the camera in the body of a R5 with a higher price than making its own body and eliminating the features above with a lower price. Because I am certain prosumers would have shelled money for it, for those features even if it would have been $500 to $700 higher. If my memory serves correct, 6D and 7D were on price parity targeting different clientele. I was hoping the same with R6 and R7.

2. The buffer is deeper than what the M6 Mark II/90D/7D Mark II have. Read past the line for slow UHS-I cards and look at the numbers for fast UHS-II cards.

5. Top UHS-II cards are faster than what any of Canon's bodies wrote to UDMA-7 CF cards. CF cards were the fastest slots in the 7D Mark II. The M6 Mark II and 90D both have one UHS-II SD card slot.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

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

Other than possibly Rebels (I haven't looked at them in well over a decade), not since before at least the 20D for Canon x0D and xD bodies.

20D-90D all have at least one guide hole in the body and at least one guide pin on the grip.
5D-5D Mark IV all have a guide hole in the body and guide pin on the grip.
6D and 6D Mark II both have a guide hole in the body and a guide pin on the grip.
7D and 7D Mark II both have a guide hole in the body and a guide pin on the grip.

The 1-Series have no guide holes, but the reason for that should be quite obvious.

They've all got guide holes.

I wish you were correct, but I don't think you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,168
13,006
More comfortable but not essential

Still wouldn’t say essential. More comfortable yes..
Fair enough. In the same way, wearing the correct shoe size isn’t essential. If you like, you can stuff your feet into shoes that are two sizes too small and walk around all day – the right size is more comfortable, yes, but not essential.

Personally, I consider properly fitted shoes essential, and likewise I consider a camera that’s comfortable to hold all day essential.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 7, 2019
411
478
UK
Fair enough. In the same way, wearing the correct shoe size isn’t essential. If you like, you can stuff your feet into shoes that are two sizes too small and walk around all day – the right size is more comfortable, yes, but not essential.

Personally, I consider properly fitted shoes essential, and likewise I consider a camera that’s comfortable to hold all day essential.
Haha, that’s not really the same thing..

The camera is designed to be used as is.. The grip would be an optional extra.

Shoes are made in different sizes.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

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

I think global economic uncertainty due to the events in eastern Europe have Canon hedging their bet a bit more on the lower priced stuff. It's always easier to put a camera on sale if things go better than expected than it is to raise an already established price if things go worse than forecast.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
I guess the R7 is the new 90D and not the new 7DII

It's a mixed bag, though more like the M6 Mark II/90D than the 7D Mark II.

But it does have two memory card slots instead of one and a 200,000 activation shutter rating like the 7D Mark II, compared to the 90D's 120,000.
 
Upvote 0

HenryL

EOS R3
CR Pro
Apr 1, 2020
359
983
I used the app on my iPhone during a trip through the Rockies several years ago. In other travels, particularly when on bus tours and such, I tried conserving batteries in both phone and camera by not using the pairing for GPS. If I was somewhere I wanted to be sure of the location later, I’d just take a shot with my phone. I could go by the time of that picture to correlate with the times of the camera shots to pinpoint the locations of the latter. And sometimes, I really liked the picture from the phone, so it wasn’t just a locator.
I've done that, too. Sometimes I just want to mark the general location, for example which State or National Park I was in at the time. More often than not, though, I want to mark a specific spot - for example a difficult to find eagle nest, the exact spot on a waterway where I've spotted Osprey fishing, or a specific little waterfall on a trail with many similar ones. I got really spoiled with the 7DII and 5DM4. :)

Best solution I've found when using the R5 or other non-GPS equipped camera is to export the Garmin track and import the .gpx file into Lightroom. I'm always tracking hikes and kayak trips anyway, so the data is already available without futzing with connecting to a phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
I think the R7 sounds like a nice camera and reasonable merger of the 7DII and 90D. Given the price, the compromises of the R7 seem quite acceptable.

To add a little perspective, you can get an R7 and an R5 for less than the price of an R3. If you are not a sports shooter the combination may be a better value.

Personally, the lack of a battery grip is no big deal to me. I have a grip for the R5 and never use it and I find the R3 to be a bit of a brick with its integrated grip (I realize others have different opinions, but that's mine).

I am perplexed by the R10. I'm not sure what niche it fills, other than to upsell buyers to the R7, RP or R. It seems too expensive for what it is and too stripped down for its price point.

You could also get an R7 + R6 for barely more than the price of an R5. That's a combo that looks to complement each others' strengths and weaknesses quite well.

If you had the rotator cuff I do in my right shoulder, you'd understand why I consider a vertical grip essential. While I can shoot in portrait mode without a grip, it's painful and I'm nowhere near as stable as I am with a set of vertical controls. I've been shooting ILCs since the mid-1980s and have never been able to get the hang of rotating the camera clockwise and shooting with my right hand and shutter on the bottom. I used to be fine with rotating counterclockwise and not being able to tuck in the right elbow, but my aging joints don't let me do that very well any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Basically, it means more pixels on duck. Cropping the R5's 45mp to APS-C size gives ~17mp. To have an equivalent full frame sensor would mean >80mp which would be difficult to have a high fps to suit sports shooters (R1 may prove me wrong!)

Other advantages are:
- working distance ie you can be further away shooting the same subject if they are prone to move if too close
- cheaper lenses for reach eg using a 70-200mm /2.8 instead of a ~300mm/2.8 (or 300mm/4) prime. Focal length flexibility in this case as well. With EF mount, a EF70-200mm + TCs gave huge flexibility but EF70-200mm doesn't accept TCs. 400mm instead of 600mm etc.
- a niche specialty is underwater macro where you can get 100mm focal length from a much smaller EF-s 60mm macro and smaller bodies
- cheaper sensor as the good sensors per wafer should be higher
- in theory, the higher pixel density should have lower rolling shutter ie 32mp APS-C is less sensor lines to read than the 17mp crop on the R5's 45mp unless the crop mode on the R5 only reads from the crop sensor lines

In the past, the downside for higher pixel density was poorer high ISO performance but the correlation doesn't seem to be as strong now.

I think you meant RF70-200mm doesn't accept extenders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Presumably the integrated grip is lighter and stronger than an add-on as well?

I don't know about the mirrorless models, but the 1D X series with battery installed were lighter than the 5D series with grip and two batteries installed, at least by the 5D Mark III and Mark IV. The 5D Mark II grip was lighter and a bit more svelte than the grips for the 5D Mark III and IV, so it may not have been the case with the first two in the 5-series.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
An 800mm f/11 goes very nicely with an R6 - maybe not the best for sports but fine for distant wild life.

F/11 would mean ISO 51,200 to stay at 1/800 in the stadiums and gyms where I shoot sports. At f/2.8 I can use ISO 3200.

But 800mm would be too long for any of that except maybe baseball home plate shots from beyond center field.

300-500mm is the sweet spot for American football, futball (soccer) , and baseball, with a 70-200mm or wider on another body for when the action gets closer.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Haha, that’s not really the same thing..

The camera is designed to be used as is.. The grip would be an optional extra.

Shoes are made in different sizes.

Wearing my eyeglasses when driving is not essential. After all, the car was designed to be driven as is without eyeglasses. But they sure do help me see what I need to see to drive safely.

If you had a right shoulder in the shape mine is in, you'd understand why some of us consider vertical controls essential for shooting in portrait orientation.
 
Upvote 0
Wearing my eyeglasses when driving is not essential. After all, the car was designed to be driven as is without eyeglasses. But they sure do help me see what I need to see to drive safely.

If you had a right shoulder in the shape mine is in, you'd understand why some of us consider vertical controls essential for shooting in portrait orientation.
If your eyesight is poorer than a given threshold, are you not legally obliged to wear glasses (or contact lenses) while driving?
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
If your eyesight is poorer than a given threshold, are you not legally obliged to wear glasses (or contact lenses) while driving?

So now all of sudden you can see how who is using something may affect how essential a certain "optional" feature is?

How about that!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0