Here are the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10

[Sharlin]

I'm sure most every 70/80/90D owner that fits the profile you describe were glad those cameras had the customized automatic Scene Modes (beach, flowers, snow, night portrait, etc.) and might have chosen them over the 7-Series because the 7-Series bodies did not. They probably didn't mind only having one "C" mode on the dial, since they probably had no idea what the "C" stood for.

I'm… rather doubtful of this, honestly. I would think that most people who ever "graduate" from the entry-level models do so at a point where they don't need the hand-holding of the scene modes anymore, and for many choosing between a 7D(2) and a xxD may not have been trivial. For myself, having been in that situation (going from a 450D to a 7D vs a 60D) the two deciding factors were: a) price and b) the flippy screen. (Some years later, I anguished even more between the 80D and the 7D2, and again the main factors were the same, plus additionally the 80D's improved sensor). But of course this is too just a single datapoint.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm… rather doubtful of this, honestly. I would think that most people who ever "graduate" from the entry-level models do so at a point where they don't need the hand-holding of the scene modes anymore, and for many choosing between a 7D(2) and a xxD may not have been trivial. For myself, who has been in that situation (from a 450D to a 7D vs 60D) the two deciding factors were: a) price and b) the flippy screen. (Some years later, I anguished even more between the 80D and the 7D2, and again the factors were the same, plus the 80D's improved sensor). But of course this is too just a single datapoint.

Even so, you still make my original point: The 70/80/90Ds were better general purpose cameras than the 7D Mark II was. The 7D Mark II was built for speed and the sensor was optimized for moderately high ISOs, all in a no-frills enclosure that could handle the kind of environmental abuse that field sports and wildlife/birding throw at a camera. It was designed to be a specific tool, rather than a more generalist camera.

 

[takesome1]

Even so, you still make my original point: The 70/80/90Ds were better general purpose cameras than the 7D Mark II was. The 7D Mark II was built for speed and the sensor was optimized for moderately high ISOs, all in a no-frills enclosure that could handle the kind of environmental abuse that field sports and wildlife/birding throw at a camera. It was designed to be a specific tool, rather than a more generalist camera.

It seems Canon didn't see it that way:
"Professional photographers and advanced amateurs have been demanding higher performance and more diverse functions in their cameras, and Canon has answered – with the new EOS 7D."

Released when the 50D was the highest level of APS-C: Canon's new EOS 50D bridges the gap between the novice and the seasoned pro with a perfect combination of high-speed and quality.

The 7D closed that gap further for Canon, giving a body that feel in between the 50D and the 5D II.

Many complained when the 60D released that it was dumbed down from what you could do with the 50D. It was, most likely they didn't want it competing with the 7D.

The 7D line was not a specialty camera or a specific tool. Photographers that believe in the crop "reach fairy" bought in to the idea that it was a specialty animal to give more reach.

I bought in to this line and bought a 7D, after a few months I realized the illusion and bought a 1D IV. The "reach fairy" is a myth created to sell more crop bodies.

If I would have had one thing to change in the progression I bought digital cameras I would have never owned an APS-C body. Those 4 bodies would have paid for an R3. I put the R7 on preorder on its release the other morning, I came to my senses a few hours later and canceled.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

Now it's showing $499 at Canon USA as well.

View attachment 203882

That’s strange. It says MSRP $479.99, Canon Store price $499.99.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You can criticize my experience all you want, but unless you present factual, documented evidence to the contrary about who bought what camera models with or without kit lenses and why, and how many other bodies those buyers owned, you're just stabbing in the dark at the same time you're criticizing me for introducing anecdotal information about people I've actually known and interacted with at sporting events, concerts, festivals, etc. How many 7D/7DII owners that only had one body have you personally interacted with on multiple occasions?

I am stating an opinion, that's why I used phrases like 'I suspect...' and 'I believe...' Clearly, you're also stating an opinion, and it differs from mine. But you cannot demand that I present factual evidence on unit sales data to support my stated opinion when you have none to present to support your own opinion. I have anecdotal information of my own, in that I knew/know many photographers that upgraded from a Rebel to a 7D, and some subsequently to a 7DII, and while they probably kept the Rebel in a drawer or closet as you suggested, their 7D/7DII was their primary camera, not a timeshare with a FF camera.

So just maybe the larger differences in the kit prices had to do with the difference between the price of the EF-S 18-135mm f/ 3.5-56 IS and the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS?

Gee, you can look up camera prices on the internet. You must be very proud of your Google-fu, Grasshopper. Your ineffectual sarcasm aside, obviously the difference in kit lens price is what's driving the difference in kit costs. That's exactly my point, thank you for supporting it.

Just in case you're still missing it, the point is that if one was upgrading from a lower-tier APS-C camera to a 7D or 7DII, they would almost certainly already have a standard zoom lens to use on the 7D and could pay the cheaper body-only price. If they were buying a 7-series de novo, they would be getting a cheaper kit lens and thus a cheaper kit. But...if they were upgrading from a lower-tier APS-C camera to a 6D/6DII or buying a 6-series de novo, either way they'd need a standard zoom for their FF camera, because any EF-S lenses they had would not mount on the 6-series body. Thus, most people buying a 6-series as their first FF camera, whether as a first DLSR or an upgrade from an APS-C DSLR, would be paying a lot more than someone buying a 7-series camera whether upgrading or a first-time buyer.

 

[Otara]

"you'd probably get slightly better image quality with the R5 but slightly better AF performance with the R7 (if it's true that it matches the R3 in Servo AF performance)."

This is too similar to the old '1DX AF in the 7D' talk for my liking.

I see lots of 'borrowed from R3' talk but nothing saying 'same AF speed as R3' unless Ive missed something somewhere. Similar features and interface doesnt mean much by itself, given the very different sensors involved.

But if it is, great.

 

[neuroanatomist]

"you'd probably get slightly better image quality with the R5 but slightly better AF performance with the R7 (if it's true that it matches the R3 in Servo AF performance)."

This is too similar to the old '1DX AF in the 7D' talk for my liking.

I see lots of 'borrowed from R3' talk but nothing saying 'same AF speed as R3' unless Ive missed something somewhere. Similar features and interface doesnt mean much by itself, given the very different sensors involved.

But if it is, great.

As I stated earlier, Canon talked up the Servo AF performance of the R3 as being significantly enhanced by the fast readout speed of the stacked sensor that allows the AF system to sample the scene at double the frequency compared to older sensor architecture. The R7 may have inherited algorithms from the R3, but it’s using them with half the data input.

Some people want to believe they’re getting the best for less money. That’s delusion, not reality. My Subaru gets me safely from point A to point B and back, but I don’t delude myself into thinking it’s a BMW.

 

[Otara]

As I stated earlier, Canon talked up the Servo AF performance of the R3 as being significantly enhanced by the fast readout speed of the stacked sensor that allows the AF system to sample the scene at double the frequency compared to older sensor architecture. The R7 may have inherited algorithms from the R3, but it’s using them with half the data input.

Thanks, I just noticed weasel words and assumed something had to give. Wondered if the smaller battery might have an impact in some way too on processing speed etc.

 

[AlanF]

It looks like there has been a rush of pre-orders here for the R7 + RF 18-150mm. The pre-order for the Canon UK store is now no longer available but the body alone is, as well as the R10 kit. WEX has removed the half-price offer for the UHS-II cards with it. I got in my pre-order early on the first morning from WEX.

 

[canonmike]

It looks like there has been a rush of pre-orders here for the R7 + RF 18-150mm. The pre-order for the Canon UK store is now no longer available but the body alone is, as well as the R10 kit. WEX has removed the half-price offer for the UHS-II cards with it. I got in my pre-order early on the first morning from WEX.

Curious, Alan, I just checked Canon USA site, where both are available for pre-order, priced at $1499 and $1899, respectively. Personally, I only wanted the body when I pre-ordered from B&H on day one.

 

[canonmike]

Adorama hosted an R7/R10 discussion with Canon's Rudy Winston. Listening to Rudy's commentary, it was interesting to note that he said that the R7 was not intended to be a direct replacement for the 7Dii nor a successor to the 90D but rather a body that would fit in between these two offerings. In the same interview, he mentioned he doubted there would be any available battery grip for the new R7. Here's a link to the discussion with Rudy. https://www.adorama.com/car7.html. You may have to scroll down to the video link, once on Adorama's site.

 

[Sharlin]

[T]he R7 was not intended to be a direct replacement for the 7Dii nor a successor to the 90D but rather a body that would fit in between these two offerings.

Which is pretty much what it appears to be. It's a logical fallacy – a false dilemma – to insist (as some do) that it must be a direct successor of one of the DSLR models (and if it's not clearly a 7D2 successor then it must be a 90D successor and obviously suck )

If anything, the R7 could be seen as a reunification of the original xxD line that was bifurcated when Canon released the 7D and the 60D.

 

[Czardoom]

Which is pretty much what it appears to be. It's a logical fallacy – a false dilemma – to insist (as some do) that it must be a direct successor of one of the DSLR models (and if it's not clearly a 7D2 successor then it must be a 90D successor and obviously suck )

If anything, the R7 could be seen as a reunification of the original xxD line that was bifurcated when Canon released the 7D and the 60D.

Well said. I am amazed at times at the need for so many on this forum to find these distinct comparisons and to totally compartmentalize the camera offerings. As if camera companies aren't learning things and adapting to the ever-changing market. Clearly, the sales of a high-end wildlife, sports, action camera were not enough to have them release a 7D III. The release of the 90D without also releasing a 7D III proved that, did it not? So no one should be surprised that this new mirrorless camera is not the high-end 7D successor. And yet, in some ways it is - as it inherits Canon's best AF system and subject detection, for a seemingly very low price. And in other ways it is not the successor in terms of body size and weather sealing.

A few months ago, there was a very real possibility that there would never be a crop sensor camera that would be targeted to the wildlife, sports, action shooter. Now we find this new release is a very capable crop camera for that target market (in many ways more capable than many would have have thought for the price). And are people happy...of course not. All they can do is whine and complain that it isn't the EXACT camera they wanted. Well, you know, there could easily have been no crop camera from Canon. Zip. Nothing.

My guess is that those enthusiast photographers that care about the image - about getting the shot - will adapt to whatever they think is missing in the R7 and absolutely love the positives regarding the AF system. Those that care more about the gear will continue to complain.

 

[Otara]

I think the naming alone means Canon cant entirely escape these comparisons, it wasnt a coincidence that it was released as an R7 vs an R24b, and the R10 as the supposed 0D line replacement - they haven't been reunited, they've been replicated, but with some change in focus as it becomes mirrorless in a shrinking market.

But they obviously think it will get them more buyers as a halo effect than it loses from aggrieved forum members.

So for those who think it does miss fundamental aspects, its not entirely unwarranted to discuss if the emperor is missing some clothes. I did find the 80D AF irritating after the 7D2 for instance, even though in theory there were some improvements, and I dont want to repeat that experience where marketting and reality had some differences with the R3 AF claims being made.

Be nice if people were a bit less pedantic or emotive about it but it could be worse and be anime or Dr Who.

 

[Sharlin]

and the R10 as the supposed 0D line replacement

Supposed, maybe, but it's pretty clear that the R10 is not a xxD successor but a step below. A spiritual 77D successor I would say, even though Canon's new tech mean the AF and burst speed are totally unprecedented at that level. Taking the names too literally only serves to confuse.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Supposed, maybe, but it's pretty clear that the R10 is not a xxD successor but a step below. A spiritual 77D successor I would say, even though Canon's new tech mean the AF and burst speed are totally unprecedented at that level. Taking the names too literally only serves to confuse.

Rudy Winston made it seem to me that the names coincide with the markets they are after.
It is still a shame to me that the R10 is not weather sealed but I foresee people using it with mostly lenses that are not weather sealed anyway like the RF 100-400, RF 600 f/11, and the RF 800 f/11.

 

[Czardoom]

Supposed, maybe, but it's pretty clear that the R10 is not a xxD successor but a step below. A spiritual 77D successor I would say, even though Canon's new tech mean the AF and burst speed are totally unprecedented at that level. Taking the names too literally only serves to confuse.

People are just too hung up on the word successor. I think Canon has made it clear that the R7 is the mirrorless camera that occupies the same place in the canon lineup as the 7D series did in the DSLR lineup. It is the higher end crop camera. Not as high as many 7D users would like, clearly, but this is the position it occupies whether you like it or not. The R10 occupies the position in the mirrorless lineup that the 90D does in DSLR. A mid-level crop camera. Anyone looking at the price can tell it is not a Rebel replacement, and yet people continue to stupidly make that claim. Of course, the market can change - and may continue to do so at a more rapid rate than camera companies want, but that's the lineup for now. Will their be a "Rebel" crop RF mount camera. Only time will tell, although I think it will inevitably happen. Will there be a higher crop camera than the R7? Seems quite unlikely as Canon is categorizing this as their high-end crop camera.

I'm sure the executives at Canon are shaking their heads. I'm sure many thought that giving essentially the same numbering scheme to the new mirrorless lineup would make it much easier for Canon users to transition and know where the new cameras fit into the lineup. I'm sure they thought that consumers would be smart enough that these are all new cameras and mirrorless represents an opportunity to tweak and modify what sort of spec list would go into each level and what price point was appropriate. Boy were they wrong!

So far, it seems pretty straightforward:

1= highest priced flagship (yet to be seen)
3=next in price
5=next in price
6=next in price
7=next in price
8=?
9=?
10= lowest priced (so far)

Now, we believe there will be an R and RP replacement, will they become the R8 and R9? I have no idea. Will their price necessarily fall between the R7 and R10. I would say no, not necessarily. But I think the general pattern is pretty clear.

 

[Otara]

I think thats a fairly generous take on marketting strategies.

But when smart and stupid start to appear theres not much point in continuing.

 

[Michael Clark]

Adorama hosted an R7/R10 discussion with Canon's Rudy Winston. Listening to Rudy's commentary, it was interesting to note that he said that the R7 was not intended to be a direct replacement for the 7Dii nor a successor to the 90D but rather a body that would fit in between these two offerings. In the same interview, he mentioned he doubted there would be any available battery grip for the new R7. Here's a link to the discussion with Rudy. https://www.adorama.com/car7.html. You may have to scroll down to the video link, once on Adorama's site.

"... a body that would fit in between these two offerings."

That's pretty much what I've been predicting for months. Just because it isn't a 7D Mark II on every level does not mean it is nothing more than a 90D or M6 Mark II on any level.

"... he mentioned he doubted there would be any available battery grip for the new R7."

That's quite a departure from Chuck Westfall's standard, "I am not at liberty to comment on any future products that Canon may or may not bring to the market place." Rudy has parroted Chuck at that point on more than one occasion in the past. For him to say this it seems to me to be fairly clear he is thinking, ["Not a snowball's chance in..."]

 

[neuroanatomist]

“…a body that would fit in between these two offerings."
That's pretty much what I've been predicting for months. Just because it isn't a 7D Mark II on every level does not mean it is nothing more than a 90D or M6 Mark II on any level.

Was anyone predicting the successor to the 90D or 7DII would be nothing more than the 90D?

Although not necessary for a successor as defined, in the world of consumer products a successor has improvements relative to its predecessor. The 90D improved on the 80D. The 7DII improved on the 7D. I’m not aware of any meaningful ways in which the 90D was a step down from the 80D, or the 7DII from the 7D.

If the R7 sits between the 90D and the 7DII, then it is the successor to the 90D, but not the successor to the 7DII.