Everything We’ve Been Told About The Canon EOS R7 Mark II

[woody04]

I purchased the R7 just after it came out, and although it was a good camera, I quickly realised it did have some design flaws. Shooting at 30fps was great until the camera hit the buffer, and although I changed the setting to shoot in compressed RAW, it was still an issue. The other main issue for me was the rolling shutter, unfortunately the read out speed was just inadequate for a supposedly wildlife / sports camera. The reason I purchased the camera was to have the benefits of an APS-C for wildlife, however because of the limitations of the R7, I resorted back to my trusty R5. I have been waiting for the R7 mark II to be released, as I believe for wildlife, this could be a great camera to have in the bag, if the limitations outlined above are addressed in the new model. Its going to be either the R7 II or the R5 II, lets wait & see ?

 

[Philnick]

Anyone else notice the radio silence on the R7/II? I think Canon is at war internally between (I) those who see the R7 as an "any lens telextender" and want it to have a full-size R5 body and (II) those who have used the R7 as their main camera since it came out and just want a BSI/Stacked sensor with the controls left where they are. Two different audiences - and while group I may have more money to spend on each camera, group II represents more users - including me.

I don't want a bigger, heavier camera just so the larger full-frame lenses feel better balanced. Let the R7/II take a battery grip - that would solve that problem without making everyone carry a heavier camera all the time.

For those who want the rear dial in the traditional location next to the rear screen, put one there as well. (That would also take care of the "one control wheel too few" gripe.) But leave the existing controls alone.

Give it a BSI/Stacked sensor for low-light and fast readout.

If you're going to take out the mechanical shutter because you've sped up readout, give us a sensor shield that closes while changing lenses.

Viola! Everyone should be happy and you can stop dithering.

 

[Philnick]

If the R5 offered 32.5 mpx in APS-C "crop" mode, there would be no need for me to have an R7. At least not for me. But it does not because that would require that the R5 have about 83 megapixels. (1.6^2 * 32.5).

Also, as the flagship APS-C body, it ought to share its design and ruggedness with mid/high end bodies like the R5 series.

Agree as to your first paragraph, disagree about the second. Smaller size and lighter weight is a major selling point for APS-C. Bulking up the camera (and making it substantially more expensive) would turn off a large part of its current user base.

Letting it take a battery grip would let it be better balanced when using heavy lenses, but still let it be smaller when desired. I wouldn't object to giving it a second rear dial in the traditional location next to the display.

Just give it a BSI/Stacked sensor and a sensor shield for while changing lenses if you're taking out the mechanical shutter.

 

[Philnick]

Leave the top tier APS-C body alone! Let it match the top tier FF bodies!

If you want that goofy one-off abomination, ask them to put it on the R10 Mark II.

Right - and go down to an entry level toy with lower resolution, no IBIS, a tiny battery, etc. etc.. No thanks.

"Leaving the top-tier APS-C body alone" and "letting it match the top tier FF bodies" are mutually-exclusive, since the actual top-tier APS-C body is the current R7 - not your imagined R5 with an APS-C sensor.

You appear to be saying "leave my imaginary camera alone" - the camera you're lusting after doesn't exist - it's a unicorn - so it can't be "left alone."

I suspect that Canon sells more R7 bodies than R5s. You may have more to spend on a camera, but there are a lot of us peasants turning out good work with our R7s. (I link to some of my work in my signature.)

 

[Philnick]

I'm glad your thumb is long enough to reach it. Not everyone's is.

Nonsense. The two locations are the same distance from the top right corner of the camera.

 

[Michael Clark]

Right - and go down to an entry level toy with lower resolution, no IBIS, a tiny battery, etc. etc.. No thanks.

"Leaving the top-tier APS-C body alone" and "letting it match the top tier FF bodies" are mutually-exclusive, since the actual top-tier APS-C body is the current R7 - not your imagined R5 with an APS-C sensor.

You appear to be saying "leave my imaginary camera alone" - the camera you're lusting after doesn't exist - it's a unicorn - so it can't be "left alone."

I suspect that Canon sells more R7 bodies than R5s. You may have more to spend on a camera, but there are a lot of us peasants turning out good work with our R7s. (I link to some of my work in my signature.)

Canon has sold more APS-C bodies than FF bodies over the course of the digital history of the EOS system. This is mainly due to price constraints for most buyers. Likewise, the lower priced APS-C bodies have outsold higher priced APS-C bodies (and lower priced FF bodies have outsold higher priced FF bodies).

The 7-Series has never been a high sales unit model compared to lower tier APS-C offerings ("Rebels" in North America during the DSLR era). The x0-Series was in between in terms of price, features, and sales numbers.

By your definition, the 7D Mark II was a "unicorn", seeing as how it was almost identical in layout, size, and shape to the concurrent 5D Mark III and then 5D Mark IV.

 

[Tom R5R7]

Canon has sold more APS-C bodies than FF bodies over the course of the digital history of the EOS system. This is mainly due to price constraints for most buyers. Likewise, the lower priced APS-C bodies have outsold higher priced APS-C bodies (and lower priced FF bodies have outsold higher priced FF bodies).

The 7-Series has never been a high sales unit model compared to lower tier APS-C offerings ("Rebels" in North America during the DSLR era). The x0-Series was in between in terms of price, features, and sales numbers.

By your definition, the 7D Mark II was a "unicorn", seeing as how it was almost identical in layout, size, and shape to the concurrent 5D Mark III and then 5D Mark IV.

The 7-series is a big seller solely because neither Nikon nor Sony have anything as good. In the DSLR days, it would have been maybe an xxD body (or a high-end Rebel), and would not have competed well with the D7200 Nikon nor the D500 Nikon, both of which were premium crop bodies. Nikon abandoned pro-level or even semi-pro level crop bodies in its mirrorless lineup, and doesn't seem to want to put anything higher than 20.9 mpx in their crop bodies. Without competition, Canon apparently sees no reason to bring the 7-series mirrorless up to the build level of the old 7D II body, which is a shame.

I have a friend who's been shooting Nikon crop bodies for quite some time. Her D7200 just gave up the ghost, and she got hold of an R7 to replace it. The level of disappointment for her is pretty large. Going from a solid 7D-level body to something closer to a Rebel isn't a step forward. Her other camera is a D500 and she is considering selling the R7 and getting a used D500 instead. Granted, the D500 only has that 20.9 mpx sensor, but it's a rock of a body.

edited - her other body is a D500, not a D850. She has no full frame bodies.

 

[Michael Clark]

Nonsense. The two locations are the same distance from the top right corner of the camera.

Nonsense. Who holds their camera with the base of their right thumb all the way at the top right corner of the rear of the camera?

 

[Michael Clark]

The 7-series is a big seller solely because neither Nikon nor Sony have anything as good. In the DSLR days, it would have been maybe an xxD body (or a high-end Rebel), and would not have competed well with the D7200 Nikon nor the D500 Nikon, both of which were premium crop bodies. Nikon abandoned pro-level or even semi-pro level crop bodies in its mirrorless lineup, and doesn't seem to want to put anything higher than 20.9 mpx in their crop bodies. Without competition, Canon apparently sees no reason to bring the 7-series mirrorless up to the build level of the old 7D II body, which is a shame.

I have a friend who's been shooting Nikon crop bodies for quite some time. Her D7200 just gave up the ghost, and she got hold of an R7 to replace it. The level of disappointment for her is pretty large. Going from a solid 7D-level body to something closer to a Rebel isn't a step forward. Her other camera is a D850 and she is considering selling the R7 and getting a used D500 instead. Granted, the D500 only has that 20.9 mpx sensor, but it's a rock of a body.

The 7-series debuted in 2009. It sold concurrently with the 50D-60D-70D-80D-90D. During the time both were available the x0D series outsold the 7-Series by a fairly significant margin.

The Nikon D500, which many consider to have been superior to the 7D Mark II, was introduced in January 2016 barely a year after the 7D Mark II in November 2014. Nikon definitely had something just as good from January 2016 onward.

 

[scyrene]

Anyone else notice the radio silence on the R7/II?

If they're preparing to release the R6III then that is bound to be the priority.

Viola! Everyone should be happy

Oh my sweet summer child.

 

[Philnick]

Nonsense. Who holds their camera with the base of their right thumb all the way at the top right corner of the rear of the camera?

View attachment 226561View attachment 226562

I notice from the gear list in your signature that you don't actually have any mirrorless camera at all, just DSLRs.

I suggest that you get some actual experience with a Canon mirrorless camera before you start telling those of us using them that it would be great for Canon to change the next model of the camera we're used to to make it more like some old DSLR you're used to.

If you look at the back panel of the R5 and R6 series cameras, you'll see their joysticks are in essentially the same position as the nested dial and joystick of the R7. Only on your 5D and 7D series DSLRs is the joystick lower down on the back. (And on the oversized R1 and R3 models that have permanent battery grips - so it can be reached when the camera is held in portrait orientation.)

So if you intend to use the joystick on any of the Canon mirrorless bodies that don't have a permanent battery grip you'll be reaching your thumb to the same place as the R7 combo.

I have no objection to Canon putting a third control dial in the traditional location onto an R7/II - just leave the one by the viewfinder alone. You do know that you can set any of the controls on an EOS camera to do whatever you want (or nothing) - right?

 

[Philnick]

. . .
I have a friend who's been shooting Nikon crop bodies for quite some time. Her D7200 just gave up the ghost, and she got hold of an R7 to replace it. The level of disappointment for her is pretty large. Going from a solid 7D-level body to something closer to a Rebel isn't a step forward. Her other camera is a D500 and she is considering selling the R7 and getting a used D500 instead. Granted, the D500 only has that 20.9 mpx sensor, but it's a rock of a body.

edited - her other body is a D500, not a D850. She has no full frame bodies.

I prefer carrying a camera to carrying a rock. I've used my R7 for the whole three years it's been on the market with no complaints about sturdiness. Perhaps your friend is of the old school of thought that considered the swiveling screen to be a childish weak point and the mark of a toy. Sorry, Canon disagrees - even the flagship R1 model has it.

If I'm going to drive nails, I'll use a hammer. To take pictures, I prefer my R7.

 

[Philnick]

. . .

By your definition, the 7D Mark II was a "unicorn", seeing as how it was almost identical in layout, size, and shape to the concurrent 5D Mark III and then 5D Mark IV.

My definition of a unicorn is a creature or camera that exists only in someone's imagination. As it did really exist, the 7D Mark II was not a unicorn. Your hoped for "mirrorless 7D Mark II" or "APS-C R5" will be unicorns unless and until they're actually put on the market.

 

[Tom R5R7]

I prefer carrying a camera to carrying a rock. I've used my R7 for the whole three years it's been on the market with no complaints about sturdiness. Perhaps your friend is of the old school of thought that considered the swiveling screen to be a childish weak point and the mark of a toy. Sorry, Canon disagrees - even the flagship R1 model has it.

If I'm going to drive nails, I'll use a hammer. To take pictures, I prefer my R7.

Or, just stick with what you have. I mean, I have an R7 and it's a very good camera, but it's delicate, a little too small, battery life sucks (like most mirrorless), the controls aren't the same as other one-digit series Canons like the R5 and R6. I'd say that the R7 is closer to the top of the line Rebel body than even an xxD level body. I use it for its purpose but it could have been a LOT better. Too much compromise.

 

[AlanF]

Or, just stick with what you have. I mean, I have an R7 and it's a very good camera, but it's delicate, a little too small, battery life sucks (like most mirrorless), the controls aren't the same as other one-digit series Canons like the R5 and R6. I'd say that the R7 is closer to the top of the line Rebel body than even an xxD level body. I use it for its purpose but it could have been a LOT better. Too much compromise.

The battery life of the R7 is good compared with the EOS R5 and R5ii - I get at least twice as many shots with it.

 

[Tom R5R7]

The battery life of the R7 is good compared with the EOS R5 and R5ii - I get at least twice as many shots with it.

Anybody coming from a DSLR will not like the battery life of a mirrorless. She's been known, especially in migration season, to head out in the morning with the camera and shoot all day. A battery grip would have gone a long way to helping her enjoy her R7. That and a little more substantial 'heft' for the inevitable times that it gets banged around off trees and branches.

She just ordered a used EF-S 18-135 USM lens, and an adapter, thinking that the heavier lens would give a better feel. I think, really, that that 18-150 lens is such a lightweight thing that it feels incredibly cheap. Like a toy. A rather expensive toy, given what it costs new. That lens might have been what made her feel like it was less of a camera than her 2 Nikon DSLR bodies. Her 7200 died, but way over 200k shots on it, so it served her well for a long time.

As for me, I always carry an extra battery or two when I go out to photograph birds, or just about anything else really. I did the Cleveland air show Labor Day weekend, and swapped out the battery about 3/4 of the way through the show, just before the Thunderbirds showed up, so that I wouldn't have to deal with a dead battery at the wrong time. It still had around 10% on it, but definitely better to have a fresh one in there.

 

[Philnick]

Have her get the Sigma RF-S 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art. It's a standard zoom (equivalent focal lengths 29-64mm) more than a stop faster than most of the full-frame models, and is substantial enough, being comparable in size and weight to a full-frame standard zoom, to give her the heft she wants, in what's Sigma's equivalent to an L lens.

It doesn't have the telephoto reach, true, but she can get decent fast lenses for that - look at my signature for a list. The problem with Canon's EF-S and RF-S lenses is that they don't give them wide enough apertures to overcome the crop sensor's low light issues - the Sigmas and Canon's full-frame lenses do. I don't use any lens slower than f/2.8 except for the telextended 448mm f/4 combo resulting from the 200mm f/2.8L + 1.4 telextender.

 

[Tom R5R7]

Have her get the Sigma RF-S 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art. It's a standard zoom (equivalent focal lengths 29-64mm) more than a stop faster than most of the full-frame models, and is substantial enough, being comparable in size and weight to a full-frame standard zoom, to give her the heft she wants, in what's Sigma's equivalent to an L lens.

It doesn't have the telephoto reach, true, but she can get decent fast lenses for that - look at my signature for a list. The problem with Canon's EF-S and RF-S lenses is that they don't give them wide enough apertures to overcome the crop sensor's low light issues - the Sigmas and Canon's full-frame lenses do. I don't use any lens slower than f/2.8 except for the telextended 448mm f/4 combo resulting from the 200mm f/2.8L + 1.4 telextender.

I would take interest in that Sigma 17-40 myself if I didn't have an R5 also - it sounds like a great lens for low light situations like receptions, concerts, events, or just people photography during night life activity. I tend to go full frame when I'm going wide-normal, and would use it for most "people" photography. I tend to use my own R7 for birding and wildlife.

She already has a copy of the 18-135 EF USM lens and adapter on its way, and based on her happiness with her Nikon 18-140, I think she'll be happy with this. It's an all in one zoom, and certainly not competition for an L lens, but it's a much more substantial build quality level than the 18-150. Optically, I think it looks similar based on The-Digital-Picture's web comparison tool.

I kind of wish that Canon had made a bit more investment into the RF-S lens lineup. They want to relegate the crop bodies to the toy department and push everyone into full frame, it seems. They could at least bring a couple of the EF-M lenses over, like that 32 mm f/1.4 and one of the 15-xx lenses. 15 is a nice wide angle start for a normal-range zoom on a crop body.

 

[Philnick]

I would take interest in that Sigma 17-40 myself if I didn't have an R5 also - it sounds like a great lens for low light situations like receptions, concerts, events, or just people photography during night life activity. I tend to go full frame when I'm going wide-normal, and would use it for most "people" photography. I tend to use my own R7 for birding and wildlife.

She already has a copy of the 18-135 EF USM lens and adapter on its way, and based on her happiness with her Nikon 18-140, I think she'll be happy with this. It's an all in one zoom, and certainly not competition for an L lens, but it's a much more substantial build quality level than the 18-150. Optically, I think it looks similar based on The-Digital-Picture's web comparison tool.

I kind of wish that Canon had made a bit more investment into the RF-S lens lineup. They want to relegate the crop bodies to the toy department and push everyone into full frame, it seems. They could at least bring a couple of the EF-M lenses over, like that 32 mm f/1.4 and one of the 15-xx lenses. 15 is a nice wide angle start for a normal-range zoom on a crop body.

I agree that Canon has always sidelined its APS-C models, trying to force ambitious users to go full frame - or at least buy full-frame lenses - by not making fast -S glass. (The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 was a very popular exception, and my main lens before going mirrorless.) That's where the Sigma RF-S lenses come in. Their 10-18mm f/2.8 has the wide end covered, and their others make the R7 quite competitive, giving it parity with the Sony, Fujifilm and Leica APS-C models, which have had the same lenses for a few years, where they're very popular. Nikon's limiting IBIS to their full-frame models puts them that much further behind Canon, since the R7's IBIS lets it stabilize small and light unstabilized APS-C lenses.

 

[Tom R5R7]

I agree that Canon has always sidelined its APS-C models, trying to force users to go full frame - or at least buy full-frame lenses - by not making fast -S glass. (The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 was a very popular exception, and my main lens before going mirrorless.) That's where the Sigma RF-S lenses come in. Their 10-18mm f/2.8 has the wide end covered, and their others make the R7 quite competitive, giving it parity with the Sony, Fujifilm and Leica APS-C models, which have had the same lenses for a few years, where they're very popular. Nikon's limiting IBIS to their full-frame models puts them that much further behind Canon, since the R7's IBIS lets it stabilize small and light unstabilized APS-C lenses.

Yeah, that 17-55 was nice. I used the 17-40L on my 10D and kept it through, I think, my 40D. It was a pretty sharp lens on a crop body, and it was available before the EF-S lenses were developed. It was the only very good lens that went wide enough before the EF-S lenses came out, and even after, until the 17-55.

Once I tasted the 5D, my wide ventures were mostly full frame. Right now, I have the RF 14-35 f/4 which works pretty well as a wide angle on the R7. Not fast enough for low-light work or extreme subject isolation, but a very good lens that gives me some architectural options if I'm out with the R7. I'd say though, the 100-500 sits on my R7 90% of the time.