Well most reviewers are saying that above iso 800 the R7 images start to look awful, what about your R6 Alan : what iso are you happy to go up to ?
Well it's very much a consumer grade camera in spite of the amazing specs and reviewers don't give a shit about gear that doesn't belong to them , some like Chelsia Northrup aren't even careful with gear they own
I did notice that in some of the videos I watched. My guess was that it was done intentionally at least in part to disguise an unreleased camera. I saw some also covered in black tape. But I also think when a camera is passed around between a lot of different photographers with lots of different ways of handling it in a short period of time, it's going to take a bit more abuse than it would under normal use.
I usually start at 1000 and go up to several thousand on both the R5 and R6, depending on how much I crop as I like high shutter speeds. But, I cannot emphasise strongly enough you must have the right software for noise reduction. Here are some ridiculously high examples https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/extenders-and-high-iso-with-the-r5.40575/
None of them have compatible RAW converters from the good companies and so are relying on jpegs and whatever Canon hands them. So, we can't really say much at this stage.
I use Garmin eTrex 30x to track and then using Lightroom I use synchronize gpx files, you can get any Garmin handheld GPS(most of them are IPX rated) that fits your budget. It's a little clumsy compared to having Canon receiver or using Canon connect app(connected via bluetooth(only for recent models) which doesnt suck battery as much as wifi or GPS) but biggest advantage is no additional strain on battery(both camera and phone) and you can use it backtrack if you get lost in remote areas.
Price is the key, but they tend to be faster and lighter than the equivalent FF, and the smaller pixel pitch gives more resolution / output size than cropping most FF cameras in to the same format size.
Lower system cost (body and lenses) is a main advantage, along with lower weight (mainly lenses). Smaller size is possible, depending on the system. Here's an extreme example:
It's is both practical and possible to use FF lenses on crop bodies. In fact, originally we only had FF lenses to put on the APS-C crop bodies. My 10D did not take EF-S lenses at all.
Certainly you can use RF (FF) lenses on an R7 or R10, just as you could use EF (FF) lenses on any Canon APS-C DSLR. You only capture the smaller crop area, meaning the equivalent focal length is 1.6x.
Considering APS-C cameras for the past 10 years have been able to shoot above ISO 800 without images looking awful, I would have to believe the reviewer who wrote or said that is totally incompetent or a Sony troll!
