Here are the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10

Jul 21, 2010
31,196
13,067
As I've been predicting for well over a year, the R7 is a little bit of both that is somewhere between the two. Rudy Winston said the same thing last week.

Canon named it the R7 because they see it as fitting in the same market segment as the 7D Mark II did, just as they named the R5 and R6 to communicate that those cameras fit the same market space as the 5D Mark IV and 6D Mark II before them did.

Canon bases model names on market segments, not specs. They always have and probably always will.

You can continue to deny the obvious if you wish to continue making a fool out of yourself.

The 90D only had a 120,000 actuation shutter rating and one memory card. It had an intentionally downgrade AF system from the top APS-C AF system in the 7D Mark II. It had a smaller viewfinder than the 7D Mark II. The 90D, introduced in 2019, only has an USB 2 interface. The 90D has a polycarbonate body.

The R7 has a 200,000 shutter rating (just as the 7D Mark II did). The R7 has two memory card slots. By all reports it has the same AF software as the R3 and sensor pixel density, which contributes to DPAF performance, that is higher than the R5. It has a larger VF than the 7D Mark II, not to mention the smaller 90D VF. The R7 has an USB 3.2 interface, compared to the USB 3 interface the 7D Mark II, introduced in 2014, has. The R7 has a body made of magnesium alloy and engineering plastics. This slots it between the magnesium alloy body of the 7D Mark II (though there were external parts of the 7D Mark II body that were plastic, like the pop-up flash cover) and the polycarbonate body of the 90D.

Yes, the narrower baseline of APS-C will always result in slightly lower AF performance than FF cameras with the same level of hardware and software. But the 90D also had downgraded software and hardware compared to the 7D Mark II, which had the same software and very similar hardware, other than the narrower baseline, as the 5D Mark III and the 1D X that were both current when the 7D Mark II was introduced.

The 90D and 7D Mark II only had two continuous shooting speeds, the R7 has three, similar to the higher tier 5D Mark IV.
The R7, at $1,499, is priced exactly between the introductory prices of the 7D Mark II ($1,799) and the 90D ($1,199).
Time passes. Technology improves. On certain specs, the R10 surpasses the 7DII. Even the T8i has features like 4K video and focus peaking that aren’t found on the 7DII. It’s certainly logical that newer cameras will have features not found on other cameras, even higher end models, simply because newer cameras are newer.

The R5 equals or surpasses the 5DIV on most or all specifications. The R6 equals or surpasses the 6DII on most or all specifications. The R7 sits between the 90D and the 7DII. If the R5 sat between the 5DIV and 6DII, only a fool would consider it to be a successor to the 5DIV.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Time passes. Technology improves. On certain specs, the R10 surpasses the 7DII. Even the T8i has features like 4K video and focus peaking that aren’t found on the 7DII. It’s certainly logical that newer cameras will have features not found on other cameras, even higher end models, simply because newer cameras are newer.

The R5 equals or surpasses the 5DIV on most or all specifications. The R6 equals or surpasses the 6DII on most or all specifications. The R7 sits between the 90D and the 7DII. If the R5 sat between the 5DIV and 6DII, only a fool would consider it to be a successor to the 5DIV.

Technological improvements are one thing. Product line segmentation is quite another thing.

Whether a camera has one or two memory card slots has absolutely nothing to do with technological improvements and everything to do with product line segmentation. Ditto for shutter endurance ratings when much higher ratings have been used in relatively low cost bodies for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,196
13,067
Well, I guess Canon's marketing department are fools, then?
Of course they’re not. Are you foolish or naive enough to believe that telling the truth to customers is the intent of a marketing department?

“Canon is thrilled to announce the R7. It’s a step down from the 7D Mark II in several ways, and a step up in several others. We’re calling it the R7 because we want 7D Mark II owners to think it’s the successor to their camera, we want 90D owners to think they’re moving up a line when they’re really not, and mainly because the ILC market is swirling around in the toilet and Canon simply can’t support having so many different lines.”

Anyone in their marketing department who wrote that would be fired. Even though it’s true. Especially because it’s true.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
That is a pretty good point.
Most of us expect the R1 to be over 45 MP.
That would make the R3 more of the 1DX replacement but the R1 would be targeted at the 1DX market.

I'm not sure I'd agree that the R1 will be targeted at the 1D X market, which was aimed at sports and photojournalism professionals where very high resolution is more of a disadvantage to many than an advantage.

What the R1 and the 1-Series overall seem to have in common is the cachet of being at the top of the heap in terms of a no expenses spared camera body that offers things, such as integrated vertical controls and much larger battery capacity, which no other body in the catalog does. As such, the R3 will serve one end of the 1-series market while the R1 will serve the other.

At one time that "flagship" status was mostly reserved for full time professionals shooting a wide variety of use cases: Photojournalism, sports, fashion, architecture, real estate, high end portraiture, weddings and events, etc. But many of those sectors have far fewer full time photographers than they did even a decade ago. Real estate, at least for properties below the 95th percentile, is much more often than not shot with automated 360° cameras these days. Fashion, high end portraiture, and high end commercial work has moved back to MF, though digital MF is hardly the same format size as it was with film. The wedding market has been eroded by many folks who consider their friends' smart phone images "good enough" on one end of the continuum and by "weekend warriors" willing to shoot for far less than what is needed, after expenses, to support a full time salary on 40-45 dates per year on the other end of the same continuum.

It seems to me, though I could be wrong, that the R1 will be a camera squarely aimed at the well-heeled enthusiast market which is continuing to emerge as the dominant portion of the highest tier stills camera buying sector as the rank and file sports/PJ sector continues to shrink with the demise of print journalism and the consolidation of web-based journalism with fewer and fewer staffers who are provided top end gear being replaced by more and more poorly paid freelancers who must provide their own equipment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,142
2,448
1D X market, which was aimed at sports and photojournalism professionals
The 1DX was always much more than just that, but if you imply that the R3 is a better fit for sports and photojournalism, I very much agree.
However, plenty of sports photographers and photojournalists use the R5 right now.
By target market, I mean people who buy flagships.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,142
2,448
Then I guess we will have to wait just a little longer for the general release and find out for ourselves. As a 7Dmkll user this seems a natural progression IF what we are told is true regarding focus accuracy and speed, compatibility with EF glass and the sensor quality/processors are as described. Its just a big unknown as yet.
I guess it depends on what you get out of it.
I think most of us can agree that the R7 is a different camera.
For some of us, it replaces everything that we need.
For others of us, it does not.
It is the same thing with the R10.
The R3 has very little in common with the EOS 3 other than the eye-controlled autofocus but that is a stand-out feature for the EOS 3.
 
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,721
1,540
Yorkshire, England
The 1DX was always much more than just that, but if you imply that the R3 is a better fit for sports and photojournalism, I very much agree.
Quite right. In fact some of the very few genuinely professional landscape photographers, such as Sebastiao Saldago and Colin Prior use the 1DX series, despite them not being 100 mp ;)
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
The 1DX was always much more than just that, but if you imply that the R3 is a better fit for sports and photojournalism, I very much agree.
However, plenty of sports photographers and photojournalists use the R5 right now.
By target market, I mean people who buy flagships.

The 1D and 1Ds were more than that. The 1D X series not so much.

In 2012 Canon made a conscious decision to design the 1D X as primarily a sports/reportage camera and move the high resolution market over to the 5-series.
The 5-series went from excellent IQ but with Rebel level AF and other prosumer level features in the 5D Mark II to a pro level AF system and features just a tic below the 1-Series with the 5D Mark III that started shipping the same month as the 1D X in March of 2012.

With the shift in the primary market for the 1-series from the ever dwindling number of full time pros, particularly those in staff positions with media companies large and small who issue company gear to them, to well financed amateurs and hobbyists, Canon seems on the verge of reintroducing a 1-series body with resolution at least as high as the R5 because some of those well-heeled enthusiasts would rather pay more for a 1-series body with 45-50 MP than pay less for a 5-series body with the same resolution and similar AF performance and only slightly fewer/lower other features.

Plenty of sports and pj photogs use the R5 now because they have to buy their own to get paid pennies on the dollar as a freelancer compared to what they were making 15-20 years ago when the company provided them with all gear. That trend was already well underway by 2012.

From this article published in 2015:

What Killed Editorial Sports Photography?: You’ve Got To Hustle As A Sports Shooter These Days

"It’s very simple. There are not many clients left who will pay for working photographers to create original content at a ballgame of any kind. The market is flooded with free or cheap wire pictures that are good enough for most end users. The ride is over. It was fun while it lasted." - Brad Mangin, who has had over 83,000 captioned images published in various top-line sports publications since 1987.

"It has been going on for some time but this “corporatization” of the sports industry has been accelerated because now corporations are in control and it is only big business and big money to them. What I have found with big money is that they want it all for themselves and very little for others." - Michael Zagaris, who started shooting for the San Francisco 49ers in 1971 and the Oakland A's in 1981 and has had his work appear frequently in Sports Illustrated, The Sporting News, Inside Sports, and used by Topps and Upper Deck.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
For some of us, it replaces everything that we need.

For many of us, no single camera can do everything that we need very well. Different use cases require different tools.

In may ways, an R5 (or even an R6) + an R7 works better than a single R1 might, even though the R1 will very likely cost more than an R5 + R7 combined. Even an R6 + R7 may work better and cost about the same as a single R5 for those who need to shoot with different lenses mounted on two bodies at the same time.

It's not much different than how much better even a mid-grade normal zoom (24-70/4) + a mid-grade telephoto zoom (70-200/4), maybe even from a third party like Tamron or Sigma, will serve most of us better than a single 28-300mm/3.5-5.6L that costs more than the other two combined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

canonmike

EOS R6
CR Pro
Jan 5, 2013
494
419
So, has anyone rec'd notification that their R7 body or kit has shipped?? Supposedly, they were to start shipping today, June 23, from various vendors, including B&H. As of late this morn, I have not rec'd any shipping info on mine. I pre-ordered early on May 24. Still shows backordered on BH site, as well as Canon USA store. Y'day, Amar Talwar of 247 media group put out a YT video, stating that he had spoken with B&H y'day, who indicated his R7 body would be shipping today. Of course, the day is not over yet, so maybe we'll see some posts from fellow CR members, indicating their R7's have shipped.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Stig Nygaard

EOS R7, Powershot G5 X II & Olympus TG-5
CR Pro
Jul 10, 2013
278
463
Copenhagen
www.flickr.com
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I was just looking at the specs of the R10 and it occurred to me that it very well may be the intended replacement to the RP. If Canon truly isn't going to directly replace the RP with another full frame low cost body (I hope that they do, the 5DIV sensor and updated electronics would be great), the R10 very well may be it. I see the RP as the upgrade path for digital rebel and M series users because it uses the same battery, the LP-E17 and sensor aside, shares many of the same electronics. The R10 also uses that same battery and has similar resolution as other rebel and m series bodies, so very well could be the new intended gateway body to migrate users to RF mount over time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0