Here is what Canon is announcing next, including the EOS R7, EOS R10 and RF-S lenses [CR3]

[blackcoffee17]

We do not know the price of the R7. But if you are buying a R7 to compliment an R6 you might have been able to buy the R5.

$1500 (R7) vs $2500 (R6) vs $3500 (R5). Massive price difference and the R7 seems to be a better video camera than the R5/R6 with the oversampled 7K video without limits and overheating.

 

[koenkooi]

$1500 (R7) vs $2500 (R6) vs $3500 (R5). Massive price difference and the R7 seems to be a better video camera than the R5/R6 with the oversampled 7K video without limits and overheating.

Only if sensor size isn't a factor!

 

[takesome1]

$1500 (R7) vs $2500 (R6) vs $3500 (R5). Massive price difference and the R7 seems to be a better video camera than the R5/R6 with the oversampled 7K video without limits and overheating.

You responded to an old post before the information was available.
I think it is early to say "without limits and overheating", only a very select few have had their hands on it.
Still why would you want 7K, isn't 4K and 8K the standard.

Also if you read the post, it would be more$4k vs $3.5K. Get the R5 for $500 less and keep the $500.00.

 

[blackcoffee17]

You responded to an old post before the information was available.
I think it is early to say "without limits and overheating", only a very select few have had their hands on it.
Still why would you want 7K, isn't 4K and 8K the standard.

Also if you read the post, it would be more$4k vs $3.5K. Get the R5 for $500 less and keep the $500.00.

"Still why would you want 7K, isn't 4K and 8K the standard."

It's not about what is the standard. The R7 won't create 7K videos, only 4K.
The point is it's oversampling from the whole sensor area (7K), so the 4K video quality should be close to R5's 4K HQ but without the 30 minute record limit and probably no overheating concerns.

So, the R5 will still have better low light performance, the R7 might be a much more usable video camera.

 

[Michael Clark]

whats the point of an R5s. Seems like canon is using 1-9 for the mirrorless. If the R5C is just an R5 with a fan basically, i cant see them naming a whole new sensor and camera an R5 still. I think we are more likley to see an R2 before an R5. The number 4 is bad luck in Japan so I dont know if we will see an R4.

45Mp is already a high resolution. Very few people would need more. I just feel like the R5S sounds like BS.

I guess you thought the 1Ds, 1Ds Mark II, 1Ds Mark III (all higher resolution FF versions of the various APS-H 1D models), as well as the 5Ds and 5Ds R were all "bs" as well?

 

[Michael Clark]

Is there any point for the 3 pin shutter release when the camera has intervalometer and can be controller by smartphone?

I'd much rather use a wired cable release that doesn't require any additional batteries or ruining my night vision with a phone screen when doing astro work.

Sometimes one needs better shutter response than the slight lag with smartphone control, particularly when taking bulb exposures of something like fireworks, when the exact instant the shutter is opened and the exact instant the shutter is closed are much more important than the length of exposure.

 

[Michael Clark]

$1500 (R7) vs $2500 (R6) vs $3500 (R5). Massive price difference and the R7 seems to be a better video camera than the R5/R6 with the oversampled 7K video without limits and overheating.

The R5 is still listed at $3,899 at any reputable Canon dealer in the U.S.

If you're talking about a "CPW" kind of deal, then wait until the R7 has been out almost two years and compare the "CPW" price of the R7 at that time.

$1,499 + $2,499 = $3,998, only $99 more than $3,899.

You then have two bodies that are extremely usable tools for different use cases. Having two bodies that can be used to hang a wider angle lens on the FF body and a longer lens on the APS-C body at the same time can also be very useful in many situations.

It is true that the R5 can do almost anything that either the R6 or the R7 can do, but it can't do much (besides 8K video) that either the R6 or the R7 could match. And it can't mount two different lenses at the same time. Or be its own backup when it has a glitch.

 

[Michael Clark]

I would prefer a 90mm lens, but that is pure personal preference. One reason why I like the Olympus 45mm so much. Great lens at an affordable price.
See above, my disliking of 50mm as portrait prime is my personal opinion. YMMV

Instead of building on the extensive M userbase and fill in the gaps in the lens line up we get the same shoddy stuff we already have with a new mount. I dont see the point.

If you're talking Olympus, then you're into 4:3 territory.

Crop the ends of a Canon 1.6X APS-C 3:2 sensor to 4:3 you have a diagonal that puts you at ≈1.75X crop factor.

So now your 50mm Canon lens yields an AoV very similar to your 45mm Oly lens. (43.75mm in "µ/3 equivalent" vs. 45mm - lens' actual focal lengths are often rounded more than that to the number they're marketed under.)

----------------------------------------------------------

The vast majority of the M user base worldwide never buy another lens after they buy the camera and whatever lens(es) they buy with the camera. They're not the same market as camera gearheads that are constantly looking for a new lens or body to yearn for. They're not the people that are looking for any "upgrade path". They're not vloggers than mindlessly follow the leader any time someone on YouTube tells them whatever they're using is now "trash" and they must upgrade to the latest new toy.

They're the folks who are looking for a dedicated camera that is relatively compact, relatively light, and relatively inexpensive that they can use for special occasions, vacations, and other use cases when a smartphone isn't quite enough. They're then happy to use that same camera and lens(es) for the next several years.

They're also mostly in Asia and emerging markets in other parts of the world, not in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe (+AUS and NZ).

 

[Michael Clark]

Yeah, I don't know about that. All I know is the color balance multipliers are different and the technical specs that canon lists for the 80D lists a slightly larger sensor than what they usually do for APS-C. Of course, they couch it with an "approximately", so who knows what it actually is, all I know is that if you compare different canon APS-C sensors from different cameras (that have the same resolution) on DXO-mark, they don't all have the same white balance multipliers, which tells me that they aren't exactly the same sensor. You could also use dcraw to extract the full sensor array from the files and compare the dimensions if you wanted to. I wouldn't be surprised if they were different dimensions. You'll need to use Adobe DNG Converter to convert the CR3 files to DNG, then use dcraw to extract the raw sensor data from the DNG, and just use dcraw directly on the cr2 files.

I think they did the same thing with those 18MP sensors too where each line had a sensor that varied slightly from the others, even though they were all 18MP. Moving forward, hopefully, they can get some cost savings by just having the same sensors and differentiating on features, body size, buttons, etc. Fabbing sensors isn't exactly cheap, and they can't be doing themselves any favors to have so many different sensor variations, even if it is as relatively simple as just changing the pigments/dyes used in the CFA filters. From what I understand, that's an integral part of the chip making process, so it's not like they're just taking a sensor chip and slapping a different CFA filter on the top when they're putting the camera together on the production line.

They may not be doing anything to the CFA. They could just be changing the tint/cut/response curve of the IR filter in the stack in front of the sensor. Possibly they are playing with the UV filter in the sensor stack as well.

With the "shelf" in the response to wavelengths in the "blue" range demonstrated by sensels filtered with "red" (they're actually more "yellow-orange" most transmissive to around 590-600nm to more closely mimic human retinal L-cone response at 564nm (lime-green!) than the 640nm "red" emitted by our emissive displays), playing with the amount and curves of near-IR and near-UV reduction would affect both the "R" and "B" response more than the green response.

 

[Michael Clark]

the high resolution DSLR were named 5dR and 5ds.

Actually, they were named 5Ds and 5Ds R.

 

[Michael Clark]

True. What'd I'd really like to see is an APS-C camera that was 7680x5120 (~39.3MP, UHD video) and a full frame at the same pixel density, so 12400x8266 (~102MP). That would be pretty awesome.

8266 is not divisible by 16. Maybe 12,384 x 8256 or 12,432 x 8,288?

Pretty much every image sensor Canon has ever produced for a consumer ILC has sensel counts that are wholly divisible by 16 both horizontally and vertically. It helps simplify demosaicing and also resizing for thumbnails.

 

[Michael Clark]

This isn't quite what I was getting at in my original proposition - I doubt RF users would be that concerned with EF-M glass and I realise going the other way round, to use EF-M on RF isn't at all practical or cost-effective.

My thought was what if RF-S was simply EF-M with a new name, so you could use existing EF-M lenses and also RF lenses via an adaptor - exactly the same way as EOSM can use EF and EF-S lenses. Of course, this does mean you wouldn't be able to take your RF-S glass with you if you wanted to "upgrade" to FF. Similar (compatibility wise, not physically) to EF-S and EF in that regard.

What you're suggesting is not really feasible.

Using existing EF-M lenses on an RF mount would require an adapter with optics, and likely result in substantial image degradation.

EF and EF-S lenses have a longer flange distance (44mm) than RF (20mm) or EF-M (18mm). That allows room for an adapter that is really just a spacer, without optics. Mounting an RF lens on an M body means a 2mm adapter, not really practical to use and no one has made one (nor, I suspect, will anyone). Mounting an EF-M lens on an R body would require the lens to sit 2mm inside the body, and that's not possible. Thus, any adapter would need optical elements like the old FD-to-EOS adapter.

On the other hand, adapting EF & EF-S lenses on the M and RF mount are much easier, as the adapter is essentially just a spacer (with electronics that allow for communication between the lens and the camera body). Using adapter with optical elements to adapt lenses for shorter flange distance to lenses for longer flange distance system does not seem to have happened yet, as far as I know, for the major camera companies.

It's not even physically possible. The bayonet lugs on the RF mount extend more than 2mm behind the lens' flange. With a 54mm throat, the RF bayonet lugs are in too large a circle to fit inside the smaller 47mm throat of the EF-M mount.

 

[Michael Clark]

Back in the 7D II days "reach" was tested. Smaller pixels do not translate to the 1.6 crop. The 7D II gave you about 20% of what people term "reach" over the 5D II. Then came along the 5Ds R and "reach" no longer existed. If an R7 has 32mp it is highly unlikely that you would be better off with it than a R5. People still talk "reach", that is often an illusion. The real comparison is resolution, how it relates to other bodies with lower and greater pixel density and how does the "crop" body compare to a full frame body with a similar crop. "Reach" and the superiority of the 7D II line is one that many highly intelligent people bought into in earlier years and once they tested the theory changed their beliefs. However it is a marketing tool that is used to make you believe your 500mm is now a 800mm.

To the second part it depends on what "serious" means, but with its 55x200 mm attached it has taken some fine wildlife pictures for me. It has its place, in the pocket, the wives purse a backpack when weight really matters. It is, and always has been IMO, a glorified point and shoot.

With a 100x500 attached to any body both the pocket and wives purse will be eliminated. A small camera on this lens would have poor ergonomics IMO.

The 5D Mark III had already been around for over two years when the 20 MP 7D Mark II was introduced in late 2014. The 7D Mark II's 4.09µm pixel pitch is 52.8% denser linearly than the 5D Mark III's 6.25µm pixel spacing.

Your "20%" comparison doesn't work between the between the 18MP 7D and the 21MP 5D Mark II, either. Pixel pitch was 4.3µm vs. 6.41µm, also roughly a 50% advantage for the 7D. The biggest problem with the 7D was that it couldn't AF two shots in a row at the same distance to save its own life. It also had an anti-aliasing filter that was too strong for its pixel pitch and was too noisy.

The 2014 7D Mark II has essentially the same pixel density as the 2015 5Ds and 5Ds R, thus it has the same "reach". (It's 4.09µm vs. 4.14µm, so the crop body has a miniscule advantage in pixel density.)

It also bursts at 10fps for 31 raw or as many JPEGs as your memory card can hold instead of only 5 fps for 14 raw or 510 JPEGs, and could be had for less than half the price of the 5Ds/R from 2015 until early 2021 when the 7D Mark II was discontinued and the prices of the 5Ds and 5Ds R were slashed by around 60%.

Not to mention that those 7D Mark II raw files were less than half the size of the 5Ds/R raw files, which has significant implications for storage costs and time to transfer backups, as well as for rendering and processing times with raw convertor applications.

You pay your money and you make your choice. Which tool is "better" for a specific use case all depends upon what that use case entails. I can't imagine having to shoot the 200,000+ sports/action frames I've shot with my 7D Mark II since 2015 using a 5Ds/R instead any more than I can imagine using my 7D Mark II for all of the photoshoots where my 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV were the better tools (the majority of jobs, though entailing far fewer total frames over the same 2015-present time period).

 

[Michael Clark]

We do not know the price of the R7. But if you are buying a R7 to compliment an R6 you might have been able to buy the R5.

There's only $99 difference between an R6 + R7 ($3,998) and an R5 ($3,899) in the U.S. In countries, like the UK, that charge an inexplicable premium for the R5 (above and beyond the VAT), the R6 + R7 combo would probably be less than a single R5.

The R5 can do almost anything either body can, but it can't do much (other than 8K video) that one or the other of the two other bodies can't do, and it can't mount two different lenses, like a long one and a wide one, at the same time.

 

[Michael Clark]

What’s with the flippy MF/AF switch on the front of these mock ups? No other R camera has this. What’s that about?

Innovation?

There's also a DoF preview button in the middle of the switch.

 

[takesome1]

The 2014 7D Mark II has essentially the same pixel density as the 2015 5Ds and 5Ds R, thus it has the same "reach". (It's 4.09µm vs. 4.14µm, so the crop body has a miniscule advantage in pixel density.)

Thanks for making my point.

Another note, when quoting someone use their quote. It is annoying to see a quote box with your name on it and words you never typed.

 

[RayValdez360]

I guess you thought the 1Ds, 1Ds Mark II, 1Ds Mark III (all higher resolution FF versions of the various APS-H 1D models), as well as the 5Ds and 5Ds R were all "bs" as well?

those cameras are like 20 years old bruh escept the 5DS.

 

[blackcoffee17]

The R5 is still listed at $3,899 at any reputable Canon dealer in the U.S.

If you're talking about a "CPW" kind of deal, then wait until the R7 has been out almost two years and compare the "CPW" price of the R7 at that time.

$1,499 + $2,499 = $3,998, only $99 more than $3,899.

You then have two bodies that are extremely usable tools for different use cases. Having two bodies that can be used to hang a wider angle lens on the FF body and a longer lens on the APS-C body at the same time can also be very useful in many situations.

It is true that the R5 can do almost anything that either the R6 or the R7 can do, but it can't do much (besides 8K video) that either the R6 or the R7 could match. And it can't mount two different lenses at the same time. Or be its own backup when it has a glitch.

In UK the R5 is actually, £4299 vs £1349 for the R7.

 

[Michael Clark]

Thanks for making my point.

Another note, when quoting someone use their quote. It is annoying to see a quote box with your name on it and words you never typed.

Everything in the quote box in my comment to which you replied was in your post.

Bold text in the middle of my comment is not a quote box.

 

[Michael Clark]

those cameras are like 20 years old bruh escept the 5DS.

And Canon is almost 100years old, "BRUH".

The EOS system is 35 years old and they're still using much of the same branding as they did when it was introduced in 1987.