Hands-on with the Canon EOS R7

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Dan Watson had a chance to spend 3 days with the Canon EOS R7 and has posted an initial review on YouTube. As always, these reviews are done with “pre-production” cameras, but it’s safe to say that these are 99% of what you’ll be able to purchase soon.
From Dan Watson:
Took the Canon R7 for an awesome 3 day test with sports, wildlife, portraits, and obviously, some crazy cinematic video…and it didn’t disappoint.
Canon EOS R7

Canon EOS R7 Body $1499
Canon EOS R7 w/RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM $1899

Canon EOS R10

Canon EOS R10 Body $979
Canon EOS R10 w/RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM $1099
Canon EOS R10 w/RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM $1379

Canon RF-S Lenses...

Continue reading...

 

[AlanF]

None of these pre-release reviews have said much of substance. None I have seen have told us whether you can dial in less than 30 fps electronic shutter - 30 fps is a pain when you want less (if they have, please let me know). Only one or two reviews have even mentioned the pre mode of 15 shots. I sometimes wonder if all have actually handled the camera as they all seem to singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I sometimes wonder if all have actually handled the camera as they all seem to singing from the same hymn sheet.

I suspect pre-reviewers are given suggested talking points, and if the don't stick to them then they are left off the list for the next release.

 

[Joules]

I suspect pre-reviewers are given suggested talking points, and if the don't stick to them then they are left off the list for the next release.

Bring presented the same spec sheet content over and over again in verbal form makes for much less useful content than a simple, concise written spec sheet.

So I agree with Alan that it is disappointing that apparently the more nuanced properties of a body that one can often only discover through use are not described in the videos available so far.

 

[AlanF]

I suspect pre-reviewers are given suggested talking points, and if the don't stick to them then they are left off the list for the next release.

They all do seem scripted.

 

[SHAMwow]

Bring presented the same spec sheet content over and over again in verbal form makes for much less useful content than a simple, concise written spec sheet.

So I agree with Alan that it is disappointing that apparently the more nuanced properties of a body that one can often only discover through use are not described in the videos available so far.

That's while I'll always respect and support Polin. He's up front about what he can and can't say. Doesn't call it a review. And then drops the real review later and is still fair. Dude is one of the few who does the gear stuff right. Almost everyone else is a spec reader.

 

[neonlight]

Hmmm... 30+MP OK, but diffraction limited at smaller apertures that even the 100-500 will be.
No removable eyecup. Bummer, I have to use a diopter correction on my 7DII as my eye needs more than +2.
No PC terminal. Just as I was starting to use the PC terminal for night time flash set-ups. Not all of us can afford Canon's RF speedlites, though I do have a couple of 580 II's.
No battery grip. Maybe not as thirsty as the 7DII, which I found needed a second battery just to stay full during a photoshoot.
Looks to be a good camera but I'm not convinced so far that it is really the 7DIII. It has good capabilities, sure, but it seems slightly down from what I was hoping a 7DIII would be in terms of looking like an R5 back. Perhaps Canon think that pros won't use the R7 only amateurs like myself.
I'll wait for real reviews.

 

[Macoose]

None I have seen have told us whether you can dial in less than 30 fps electronic shutter - 30 fps is a pain when you want less (if they have, please let me know).

I downloaded the spec sheet this morning from Canon USA and the Drive System is on page 9 and it reads much like the page from the R5. It doesn't say anything about the fps being user adjustable.

 

[AlanF]

I downloaded the spec sheet this morning from Canon USA and the Drive System is on page 9 and it reads much like the page from the R5. It doesn't say anything about the fps being user adjustable.

Not sure if you found the answer to this already, but yes the R7 has H, M and L settings that give you (up to) 15/6.5/3 fps mechanical or 30/15/3 fps electronic.

 

[Macoose]

Thanks Alan!
I answered your question before I started looking at the other threads. I thought you meant that you wanted to be able to choose a specific Fps like on the 7D2 or the 1DX3. I always liked 8 fps for my 7D2 instead of 10 on the fast setting.

 

[AccipiterQ]

Am I the only one that finds this R7 *really* underwhelming? I think they knew there was huge pent up demand so they put something out (like the R/RP a few years ago) and are going to drop a *real* successor to the 7Dii in a couple years.

 

[Czardoom]

Am I the only one that finds this R7 *really* underwhelming? I think they knew there was huge pent up demand so they put something out (like the R/RP a few years ago) and are going to drop a *real* successor to the 7Dii in a couple years.

If you are underwhelmed by a $1500 camera having the same AF and tracking system as the $6000 R 3 than I'm afraid you will always be underwhelmed. I can't believe that Canon is using the R3 AF system in a camera under $2000 - and in the case of the R10, under $1000. I wasn't sure if I would be interested in these cameras, but with the highest level pro AF system and the prices listed, I already pre-ordered the R10, and strongly considered the R7.

I think when Canon released the 90D rather than a 7D III it was pretty clear that the market for a true pro-level APS-C was not sufficient. (Perhaps too many pros won't go for any camera less than FF - who knows.) But Nikon never upgraded their pro level wildlife camera (the D500) either. So, I think the days of a pro-level crop sensor camera are over as far as Canon is concerned. So I doubt the 7D II successor you are looking for will ever come in a crop camera. The most likely successor may be a high MP FF Camera that has a high MP count in crop mode.

 

[Macoose]

Am I the only one that finds this R7 *really* underwhelming? I think they knew there was huge pent up demand so they put something out (like the R/RP a few years ago) and are going to drop a *real* successor to the 7Dii in a couple years.

I think that after looking at the spec sheet, and considering what you can get for $1500.00 US, the R7 is starting to look like a bargain. I'm happy with the Af system and that it has the Af Cases which one can adjust if needed. For me, a 32.5 mp sensor hits a sweet spot.

I'd like to know if users will be able to change the file name to anything other than "IMG_0000". I'd also like to see the same Custom Controls that are in my 7D2 or whatever changes Canon has made since then. There are other things I'd like to see but all in all, the camera seems very well featured for the price.

I think it will be a winner.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can't believe that Canon is using the R3 AF system in a camera under $2000 - and in the case of the R10, under $1000.

Canon has stated that the readout speed of the stacked sensor in the R3 improves AF performance by allowing more frequent sampling. So no, the R7 and R10 don’t have the AF system of a $6000 camera. Nor do they have eye-controlled AF (which I personally find very useful). What they have are some of the same AF features, not all and not the same performance.

In the DSLR days, better AF required a better dedicated PDAF sensor. With MILCs, AF features are in large part firmware, not hardware. Using previously-developed firmware features likely costs less than ‘nerfing’ the firmware for a lower-end body. So from that standpoint, reusing the same code lowers development costs and raises profits. That’s very Canon (despite giving users better features at lower MSRPs).

 

[Chaitanya]

That's while I'll always respect and support Polin. He's up front about what he can and can't say. Doesn't call it a review. And then drops the real review later and is still fair. Dude is one of the few who does the gear stuff right. Almost everyone else is a spec reader.

You should add Gordon Laing of cameralabs to top of list for camera reviews.

 

[Chaitanya]

Hmmm... 30+MP OK, but diffraction limited at smaller apertures that even the 100-500 will be.
No removable eyecup. Bummer, I have to use a diopter correction on my 7DII as my eye needs more than +2.
No PC terminal. Just as I was starting to use the PC terminal for night time flash set-ups. Not all of us can afford Canon's RF speedlites, though I do have a couple of 580 II's.
No battery grip. Maybe not as thirsty as the 7DII, which I found needed a second battery just to stay full during a photoshoot.
Looks to be a good camera but I'm not convinced so far that it is really the 7DIII. It has good capabilities, sure, but it seems slightly down from what I was hoping a 7DIII would be in terms of looking like an R5 back. Perhaps Canon think that pros won't use the R7 only amateurs like myself.
I'll wait for real reviews.

7D 2 had gps which did drain battery quite fast and given I use dedicated gps recievers dont really care about ones built in camera.

 

[fasterquieter]

I would be curious to know which lenses are sharp enough to take full advantage of that 32MP APS-C sensor. Are all RF lenses going to be sharp enough? Just the L glass? A random few? I have no idea.

 

[neonlight]

It is not just a matter of sharp lenses. The DLA for the R7 is around f/6, so any lens with a larger aperture would/should be fine.
Hence my comment that the 100-500 may be disappointing. I'd like to see an R7 comparing 100-500 and 100-400 with and w/out 1.4x. Still got to continue saving for a 500 f/4.
Nearly moved over to Nikon to use their 500. CHeaper, and apparently good IQ.

 

[Chig]

Whilst the R7 is an excellent camera with great features (and it and the R10 should sell well), I'm personally disappointed in it as it's not very well suited to serious bird photography in tough environments like estuaries and mudflats and rain and for using with the Great White telephotos like the 400mm f/2.8 or 600 f/4 with it's tiny size and no vertical grip option, low budget 90D grade weather sealing and unusual rear controls.
To replace my old 7Dii I'm thinking I'm better off saving up a bit more money and buying an R6 instead with it's more pro build/weather sealing and nice familiar controls and phenomenal low light performance especially as I'm fortunate to own a EF400mm f/2.8 (non IS) so reach isn't much of an issue for me but low light performance is as I like to shoot at dawn or soon after and I really like shooting backlit birds where better dynamic range/low light performance will make a difference for me.

These 2 cameras will be a great option and are reasonably priced for people starting out in wildlife and sports shooting but not for me and perhaps many other 7Dii owners

 

[AlanF]

Whilst the R7 is an excellent camera with great features (and it and the R10 should sell well), I'm personally disappointed in it as it's not very well suited to serious bird photography in tough environments like estuaries and mudflats and rain and for using with the Great White telephotos like the 400mm f/2.8 or 600 f/4 with it's tiny size and no vertical grip option, low budget 90D grade weather sealing and unusual rear controls.
To replace my old 7Dii I'm thinking I'm better off saving up a bit more money and buying an R6 instead with it's more pro build/weather sealing and nice familiar controls and phenomenal low light performance especially as I'm fortunate to own a EF400mm f/2.8 (non IS) so reach isn't much of an issue for me but low light performance is as I like to shoot at dawn or soon after and I really like shooting backlit birds where better dynamic range/low light performance will make a difference for me.

These 2 cameras will be a great option and are reasonably priced for people starting out in wildlife and sports shooting but not for me and perhaps many other 7Dii owners

I have an R6. It's a great camera, and I love the crisp images from it. However, as been written over and over again here, the dynamic range/low light performance of the modern low Mpx sensors is no better than the high Mpx sensors at the same size output - if you downsize the high Mpx image to the same number of pixels as the low Mpx image, you see the same dynamic range and noise. Here is a shot of the dynamic range of the R6 and 90D. The 90D at first sight looks much lower, but that's because it's comparing crop enlarged to the same size as the FF. If you compare the R6 in crop mode with then 90D you can see straight away they have the same DR.