EOS R camera between EOS R7 and EOS R10 coming [CR3]

[entoman]

Honestly, if that happened to me I’d buy Canon again. I might not replace all my gear, but most of it. Partly that’s because my current system meets my current needs very well, but another big part is that I know how everything works, from menus to muscle memory it’s all seamless.

I most likely would also get Canon (R5) again, and for the same reasons, but the competition nowadays is so close that after getting used to the ergonomics, I'd probably be just as happy with a Nikon Z7ii or Sony a1.

I've got used to the nice images from hi-res full frame, so I'd have to think harder about whether to go the Fujifilm XH2S route.

And while I probably wouldn't consider OM Systems OM-1 for my main camera, if I could afford to run two systems, it's something I'd definitely look into.

 

[Botts]

I agree with this opinion. Personally I do not see a need for a camera between the R10 @$900 and the R7 @$1500. An inexpensive FF camera that replaces both the EOS R and EOS RP might make more sense since both of those models are the oldest in the lineup.

Same, I don't see a gap between the R10 and R7.

The gap is between the RP and the R6 which is pretty much where the EOS R would sit if it were updated at or near its launch price.

An EOS R with IBIS and newer autofocus would be an instant buy for me.

 

[Michael Clark]

The 7D and 7DMkii were true professional-level tools.

As for Fujifilm, their cameras are excellent, but I doubt if many find their way into the hands of professionals.

The 7D looked and felt like a professional tool until you looked at the results, particularly with regard to shot-to-shot AF inconsistency. The 7D Mark II managed to get the AF performance up to a "pro" level while improving perceived noise in high ISO images.

The only folks I know shooting GFX bodies from Fuji are full-time pros.

 

[Michael Clark]

Wasn't it rather so that, for quite a few years, digital FFs simply didn't exist?
So, it was more than logical that the high end digital cameras were also APS/C or H models.
When FF came, it quickly became the pro-standard, and, successively, higher MP FF sensors allowed heavy cropping, thus diminishing the attractivity of APS even for birders etc... ?

Canon introduced the FF 1Ds series in 2002 only a year after they introduced the APS-H 1D series. They maintained both FF 1Ds Series and APS-H 1D Series models until they unified the two lines in 2012 with the FF EOS 1D X.

Nikon took much longer before any of their bodies had sensors larger than APS-C. The Nikon D3 appeared in 2007.

Sony's first FF camera was the α7 in 2013.

 

[Michael Clark]

It feels like the old days again, as numerous camera rumors continue to flow in. It’s becoming a bit more challenging figuring out which camera fits which rumor segment, but we’ll do our best. The latest bit of information that we can confirm is a new camera body coming that will fit between the Canon

See full article...

The confirmed information in the original rumor did not mention sensor size, it only mentions price point:

"The latest bit of information that we can confirm is a new camera body coming that will fit between the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10 in the lineup from a price standpoint."

The article did later say that it "will likely be APS-C", but immediately also said, "We don't have any confirmed specifications at this time."

And that was only after already admitting the following regarding any other details beyond the price point: "but those are just guesses at this point."

I think the assumption many commenters make here that this camera priced between the R10 and R7 will be APS-C may be a case of jumping to conclusions.

Just because the R10 and R7 are APS-C cameras does not preclude that any camera priced in between them can't be a FF camera.

 

[neuroanatomist]

We think that the EOS R8/EOS R9 (guessing on the name) will have a different form factor and could possibly see the omission of a built-in viewfinder, but those are just guesses at this point.

An RF-mount philosophical replacement for the M6II would be great as a travel camera paired with the RF-S 18-150 and a yet-to-be-released RF-S repackaging of the M11-22. Small and light (albeit bigger and heavier than the M6II) and able to serve as a backup for a FF RF kit.

 

[entoman]

The 7D looked and felt like a professional tool until you looked at the results, particularly with regard to shot-to-shot AF inconsistency. The 7D Mark II managed to get the AF performance up to a "pro" level while improving perceived noise in high ISO images.

The only folks I know shooting GFX bodies from Fuji are full-time pros.

I had 7D and 7D Mk11. I agree that noise was an issue, particularly with the original 7D, in fact I was very reluctant to shoot at higher than ISO800 with either camera. The 7DMkii had good AF in bright light, but had major problems hunting with low contrast subjects in poor light, and it was pretty hopeless at tracking subjects as they moved towards the camera in SERVO mode. When I referred to it being a pro-level camera, I should really have made it clearer that I was referring to build quality, rather than image quality or AF performance.

 

[AlanF]

I had 7D and 7D Mk11. I agree that noise was an issue, particularly with the original 7D, in fact I was very reluctant to shoot at higher than ISO800 with either camera. The 7DMkii had good AF in bright light, but had major problems hunting with low contrast subjects in poor light, and it was pretty hopeless at tracking subjects as they moved towards the camera in SERVO mode. When I referred to it being a pro-level camera, I should really have made it clearer that I was referring to build quality, rather than image quality or AF performance.

In retrospect, they were very good for their time. The 7D was a leap forward and the first competent APS-C for bird photography, but it wasn't good at high iso and had deficiencies in its AF. The 7DII was a significant improvement, and supreme until the Nikon D500 came along. By coincidence, until yesterday, my avatar was a shot from the 7DII and the 100-400mm II, still one of my all-time favourite BIFs - an Osprey with a flounder flying that took me by surprise but I got a series of perfectly focussed shots.

 

[Jethro]

In retrospect, they were very good for their time. The 7D was a leap forward and the first competent APS-C for bird photography, but it wasn't good at high iso and had deficiencies in its AF. The 7DII was a significant improvement, and supreme until the Nikon D500 came along. By coincidence, until yesterday, my avatar was a shot from the 7DII and the 100-400mm II, still one of my all-time favourite BIFs - an Osprey with a flounder flying that took me by surprise but I got a series of perfectly focussed shots.

View attachment 206883

Wonderful shot Alan! Not sure how many times I've seen your (old) avatar - but I hadn't looked closely at it before.

 

[AlanF]

Wonderful shot Alan! Not sure how many times I've seen your (old) avatar - but I hadn't looked closely at it before.

I was in Nova Scotia on holiday, had just got out of the car, saw a bird flying towards me, just pointed the camera at it and discovered after downloading what it was!

 

[Michael Clark]

I had 7D and 7D Mk11. I agree that noise was an issue, particularly with the original 7D, in fact I was very reluctant to shoot at higher than ISO800 with either camera. The 7DMkii had good AF in bright light, but had major problems hunting with low contrast subjects in poor light, and it was pretty hopeless at tracking subjects as they moved towards the camera in SERVO mode. When I referred to it being a pro-level camera, I should really have made it clearer that I was referring to build quality, rather than image quality or AF performance.

I found the AI SERVO performance tracking athletes moving directly towards the camera to be excellent with the 7D Mark II.


This is an 1877x2816 vertical crop of a 5472x3648 horizontal shot. EOS 7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/800 at 200mm. I've got a six or seven frame burst of this attempted tackle and leap and all of them are as well focused as this one, which was the frame with the peak action. That's not atypical at all for the 7D Mark II. Once you learn how to harness the capabilities of the AF system and customize it to your preferences, it's very reliable and consistent.

The 7D was so bad doing the same thing I had started using my 5D Mark III as my "long body (w/ 70-200mm f/2.8 lens)" for night/gym sports under the lights and using my 5D Mark II with entry level AF for my "wide body (w/ 17-40/4, 24-70/2.8, or 24-105/4)". I did continue to use the 7D with daylight illuminated field sports where the higher pixel density of the 7D vs. the 5D Mark III still allowed more cropping.

My experience with the 7D had led me to the decision to never buy another APS-C body. Then I read Bryan Carnathan's review that showed how well the flicker reduction feature worked and then read what Roger Cicala said about the 7D Mark II's improved AF performance in the opening paragraph of his blog entry about a 7D Mark II teardown. In June of 2015, looking ahead to football/marching band season beginning in August, I decided to give the 7D Mark II a shot. The decision was made easier by the price having dropped to $1,499 USD during the June promotional rebates. I'm glad I did.

Flicker reduction alone was revolutionary for my major use cases. I lost more shots that would have otherwise been "keepers" (peak action that was in focus) to light flicker issues than to AF issues with all of the cameras I used that did not have it. Frames with one side bright and "blue" and the other side dim and "brown" were a pain when they could even be dealt with at all in post. Every. Single. Frame. had to be custom white-balanced in post, and many still looked too bad to be usable. Flicker reduction not only normalizes the color to near uniformity from shot to shot, allowing batch processing of almost all of the images from a shoot under the same lights, but since it releases the shutter at the peak of the light cycle, it also allows faster Tv or lower ISO for the same shooting environment by as much as 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop in the facilities where I regularly shot.

At the time the 7D Mark II was introduced in late 2014 the only other body to offer flicker reduction was the 1D X, which was out of my realistic price range. The 5D Mark IV, introduced in 2016, was the first 5-series to include it.

 

[Michael Clark]

In retrospect, they were very good for their time. The 7D was a leap forward and the first competent APS-C for bird photography, but it wasn't good at high iso and had deficiencies in its AF. The 7DII was a significant improvement, and supreme until the Nikon D500 came along. By coincidence, until yesterday, my avatar was a shot from the 7DII and the 100-400mm II, still one of my all-time favourite BIFs - an Osprey with a flounder flying that took me by surprise but I got a series of perfectly focussed shots.

View attachment 206883

The fins on that flounder look almost like feathers on a wing!

 

[AlanF]

The fins on that flounder look almost like feathers on a wing!

Merry Christmas Michael! The 7DII + 100-400mm II was, and still is, a wickedly good set up for the opportunistic nature photographer.