Is a Canon EOS R7 Mark II coming this year? [CR2]

[HMC11]

I am frankly sick of seeing grinning YouTube faces and their clickbait. There job is to hook you to make money.

I actually quite like some of them as they can make sense and offer good learning. Duade (spelling corrected) Paton comes across as honest, and importantly, seems to be genuinely interested in photography and enjoy sharing his own experiences - click bait or otherwise. I usually watch a few episodes first before I decide if I should dismiss the Youtube channel or to track its work. To each his/her own, I guess.

 

[koenkooi]

I am frankly sick of seeing grinning YouTube faces and their clickbait. There job is to hook you to make money.

The look of the thumbnails isn't entirely the fault of the content creators, Youtube and its algorithm currently strongly prefer this style.
To make it worse, Youtube was(is?) testing a beta feature to only show thumbnails of a certain colour in your recommendation feed. You could tell it "I only want blue videos" and it would give you that aesthetic!

I'm glad the ALL CAPS VIDEO TITLE AND DESCRIPTION isn't spreading exponentially, that makes my eyeballs bleed!

 

[AlanF]

I actually quite like some of them as they can make sense and offer good learning. Daude Paton comes across as honest, and importantly, seems to be genuinely interested in photography and enjoy sharing his own experiences - click bait or otherwise. I usually watch a few episodes first before I decide if I should dismiss the Youtube channel or to track its work. To each his/her own, I guess.

His name is Duade, not Daude, and is pleasant enough. I find my own direct experience is often at odds with YouTube presentations, which are usually too long and light on detail. But, they are entertainment.

 

[AlanF]

The look of the thumbnails isn't entirely the fault of the content creators, Youtube and its algorithm currently strongly prefer this style.
To make it worse, Youtube was(is?) testing a beta feature to only show thumbnails of a certain colour in your recommendation feed. You could tell it "I only want blue videos" and it would give you that aesthetic!

I'm glad the ALL CAPS VIDEO TITLE AND DESCRIPTION isn't spreading exponentially, that makes my eyeballs bleed!

It's possibly different in Dutch but in English vernacular "blue movie" means pornography.

 

[Del Paso]

I am frankly sick of seeing grinning YouTube faces and their clickbait. There job is to hook you to make money.

Me too!

 

[Del Paso]

It's possibly different in Dutch but in English vernacular "blue movie" means pornography.

Also beware of the French "ballets bleus"...

 

[koenkooi]

It's possibly different in Dutch but in English vernacular "blue movie" means pornography.

It is indeed different in Dutch

 

[HMC11]

His name is Duade, not Daude, and is pleasant enough. I find my own direct experience is often at odds with YouTube presentations, which are usually too long and light on detail. But, they are entertainment.

Yes, his name is Duade, and I should respect him enough to correct my typo.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This Youtuber explains some focusing issues his had with his R7, and got some feedback from Canon about it. It seems to happen when used at 30FPS with low contrast scenes.

The R7 is actually better in low light than the R10.
I would expect the R10 to have the same issues.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I am frankly sick of seeing grinning YouTube faces and their clickbait. There job is to hook you to make money.

That is genuinely Duade.
He has an awkward smile throughout all of his videos.
It is not just for the thumbnails.

 

[grilled_rooster]

It seems to happen when used at 30FPS with low contrast scenes.

had the R7 for few weeks. Had to return it.

There's one problem, that's actually mentioned in the manual: while using Servo AF, the AF point may jump in front or the back of a subject, that is stationary. This is a huge problem for me. I shoot sports and i'm in Servo AF all the time. But when the game is paused i shoot some portraits of players standing. So when i'm in burst mode i'm lucky to have one sharp image of that player out of a dozen. I don't have tha issue with my R5 or R6II oder my pre-owned R6. This is a no-go. So i had to return it.

 

[Dragon]

This Youtuber explains some focusing issues his had with his R7, and got some feedback from Canon about it. It seems to happen when used at 30FPS with low contrast scenes.

And how often are you going to shoot low contrast scenes at 30 fps? All cameras will eventually fail to focus as you lower the contrast. When comparing the R7 to other cameras, remember it has resolution equivalent to an 82 MP FF, so it has to focus more accurately than, for example, an R5 to appear to be in focus. Inevitably, that will cause it to "fail" somewhat earlier than an R5 as the contrast fades. Tracking moving targets at high frame rates only aggravates the situation. Frankly, I have found the R7 to be pretty amazing at focusing correctly in dim, foggy conditions, but as with every AF camera I have used, it takes a little patience and that does not include tracking at 30 fps at high ISO. In the video, this guy is showing problems at 30 fps at ISO 6400. If you correct for sensitivity and required AF accuracy to be "in focus", that is about equivalent to shooting with the R5 at 30 fps (which it won't do) at ISO 25600. Under those conditions, the R5 would likely fail too. Just because the R7 has a 30 fps burst rate available doesn't mean it will work under all conditions. YouTubers are the masters of ideo-onanism.

 

[AlanF]

And how often are you going to shoot low contrast scenes at 30 fps? All cameras will eventually fail to focus as you lower the contrast. When comparing the R7 to other cameras, remember it has resolution equivalent to an 82 MP FF, so it has to focus more accurately than, for example, an R5 to appear to be in focus. Inevitably, that will cause it to "fail" somewhat earlier than an R5 as the contrast fades. Tracking moving targets at high frame rates only aggravates the situation. Frankly, I have found the R7 to be pretty amazing at focusing correctly in dim, foggy conditions, but as with every AF camera I have used, it takes a little patience and that does not include tracking at 30 fps. YouTubers are the masters of ideo-onanism..

Absolutely agree with you. I use both the R7 and R5 a lot. The R5 has amazing AF and it is better than the R7, but the R7 is more than good enough for most circumstances. You just have to know the limitations of your camera and work around them. I went to Skomer, a Puffin island, last year and because of the climbing with a bad back I took the R7 and the RF 100-400mm. I did well with that pair under pretty difficult conditions, and I wouldn't have done materially better with my R5 + RF 100-500mm.

 

[Dragon]

Absolutely agree with you. I use both the R7 and R5 a lot. The R5 has amazing AF and it is better than the R7, but the R7 is more than good enough for most circumstances. You just have to know the limitations of your camera and work around them. I went to Skomer, a Puffin island, last year and because of the climbing with a bad back I took the R7 and the RF 100-400mm. I did well with that pair under pretty difficult conditions, and I wouldn't have done materially better with my R5 + RF 100-500mm.

If you add a 1.4 TC to the R5, then the comparison is almost fair, since the pixels on the bird are just about equal. Still, the R5 doesn't have that 30 fps rate, so test would have to be done at a slower rate. In any case, I think the AF performance is pretty close between the two cameras if you actually make the conditions equal. I have done a lot of shooting with the 800/11 on both the R7 and the R5 (with TC) and both the keeper rate and the IQ are very similar (with the R5 having to go 1 stop higher in ISO thanks to the TC). The upside of the R7 is that the total package is smaller and lighter and the performance is equivalent. Clearly, if you don't need the reach and are limited only by the native aperture of the lens, the R5 will perform better. Funny how users of a technology as advanced as YouTube can't seem to get their arms around physics.

 

[Dragon]

It's possibly different in Dutch but in English vernacular "blue movie" means pornography.

Amsterdam has live porn and the predominant color is red.

 

[ashmadux]

At this point it would take a miracle for me to buy a canon crop camera. RFS lenses are garbage, and the great m62 form factor is MIA.

My m50/m62 will be in use with its SIGMA 30mm, EFM 22f2, and EFM 11-22 until the wheels fall off. Discontinued yet better than any of the crap they are selling to poor RFS users.

What a joke.

 

[Dragon]

At this point it would take a miracle for me to buy a canon crop camera. RFS lenses are garbage, and the great m62 form factor is MIA.

My m50/m62 will be in use with its SIGMA 30mm, EFM 22f2, and EFM 11-22 until the wheels fall off. Discontinued yet better than any of the crap they are selling to poor RFS users.

What a joke.

Your view is a bit narrow. I still have my M6 II and my M3 and will likely keep them for some time as I have all the M series lenses and a number several MF M mount lenses as well as an FD to M speed booster. That said, the M6 II has one glaring fault and that is the absence of EFCS. The mechanical shutter is harsh and causes shutter shock problems in way too many situations. I gave my M5 to a granddaughter and now I miss it, both for the built in EVF and EFCS.

When it comes to features and capability, the R10 and R50 completely outclass the M6 II and the M50 and that is not even to mention the R7 ( or video). As to lenses, the basics are pretty much the same. The RF 18-150 is a virtual clone of the EF-m 18-150, albeit a bit sharper in my experience. The RF 10-18 is smaller and lighter than the M 11-22, but similarly sharp. I would agree that the 18-45 is a bit on the sleazy side in that it doesn't go to 15mm, but the IQ is not terrible.

Now when you get to primes, the selection is a bit different, but far from "garbage". The RF 16mm f/2.8 is an excellent crop lens and tiny. Ditto for the RF 28 f/2.8 and both are cheaper than most of the EF-M lenses were. The RF 24mm and 35mm 1.8 IS macros are excellent lenses for crop frame and are similar in size and weight to your Sigma 30mm and not very expensive. Your Sigma is a bit faster, but without IS, so for many uses, the 24 and 35 is will outperform it. Lastly, the RF 50mm f/1.8 a competent longer lens and very cheap. If you are hung up on the RF-s label, maybe you should look around and see what is really available to use on RF crop cameras. The choices are a bit different than they were for EF-M and we would all like to see the excellent EF-M 32mm f/1.4 come across to RF, but the choices that are there are not by any means "garbage" and most of them are portable to FF. I have found the R7 to be a truly outstanding camera and I guided a neighbor on a budget into an R10 and it also has very deep capability for stills. At first experience, the AF is the difference that just jumps off the page at you, but there are many more subtle features that make the RF crop bodies all around better cameras than the M series (you really miss true point focus when you go back to an M)

Lastly, when it comes to telephoto lenses, there is little to no gain in making crop-specific lenses thanks to the diameter and length constraints of tele lenses being functions of f stop and length (i.e. magnification) as opposed to sensor size. In that context, the RF 100-400 is very good, very small, and not very expensive. There is no lens for M that is even in the ballpark.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Your view is a bit narrow. I still have my M6 II and my M3 and will likely keep them for some time as I have all the M series lenses and a number several MF M mount lenses as well as an FD to M speed booster. That said, the M6 II has one glaring fault and that is the absence of EFCS. The mechanical shutter is harsh and causes shutter shock problems in way too many situations. I gave my M5 to a granddaughter and now I miss it, both for the built in EVF and EFCS.

When it comes to features and capability, the R10 and R50 completely outclass the M6 II and the M50 and that is not even to mention the R7 ( or video). As to lenses, the basics are pretty much the same. The RF 18-150 is a virtual clone of the EF-m 18-150, albeit a bit sharper in my experience. The RF 10-18 is smaller and lighter than the M 11-22, but similarly sharp. I would agree that the 18-45 is a bit on the sleazy side in that it doesn't go to 15mm, but the IQ is not terrible.

Now when you get to primes, the selection is a bit different, but far from "garbage". The RF 16mm f/2.8 is an excellent crop lens and tiny. Ditto for the RF 28 f/2.8 and both are cheaper than most of the EF-M lenses were. The RF 24mm and 35mm 1.8 IS macros are excellent lenses for crop frame and are similar in size and weight to your Sigma 30mm and not very expensive. Your Sigma is a bit faster, but without IS, so for many uses, the 24 and 35 is will outperform it. Lastly, the RF 50mm f/1.8 a competent longer lens and very cheap. If you are hung up on the RF-s label, maybe you should look around and see what is really available to use on RF crop cameras. The choices are a bit different than they were for EF-M and we would all like to see the excellent EF-M 32mm f/1.4 come across to RF, but the choices that are there are not by any means "garbage" and most of them are portable to FF. I have found the R7 to be a truly outstanding camera and I guided a neighbor on a budget into an R10 and it also has very deep capability for stills. At first experience, the AF is the difference that just jumps off the page at you, but there are many more subtle features that make the RF crop bodies all around better cameras than the M series (you really miss true point focus when you go back to an M)

Lastly, when it comes to telephoto lenses, there is little to no gain in making crop-specific lenses thanks to the diameter and length constraints of tele lenses being functions of f stop and length (i.e. magnification) as opposed to sensor size. In that context, the RF 100-400 is very good, very small, and not very expensive. There is no lens for M that is even in the ballpark.

I agree with everything you said but I still think Canon should make some RF-S prime lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Your view is a bit narrow. I still have my M6 II and my M3 and will likely keep them for some time as I have all the M series lenses and a number several MF M mount lenses as well as an FD to M speed booster. That said, the M6 II has one glaring fault and that is the absence of EFCS. The mechanical shutter is harsh and causes shutter shock problems in way too many situations. I gave my M5 to a granddaughter and now I miss it, both for the built in EVF and EFCS.

When it comes to features and capability, the R10 and R50 completely outclass the M6 II and the M50 and that is not even to mention the R7 ( or video). As to lenses, the basics are pretty much the same. The RF 18-150 is a virtual clone of the EF-m 18-150, albeit a bit sharper in my experience. The RF 10-18 is smaller and lighter than the M 11-22, but similarly sharp. I would agree that the 18-45 is a bit on the sleazy side in that it doesn't go to 15mm, but the IQ is not terrible.

Now when you get to primes, the selection is a bit different, but far from "garbage". The RF 16mm f/2.8 is an excellent crop lens and tiny. Ditto for the RF 28 f/2.8 and both are cheaper than most of the EF-M lenses were. The RF 24mm and 35mm 1.8 IS macros are excellent lenses for crop frame and are similar in size and weight to your Sigma 30mm and not very expensive. Your Sigma is a bit faster, but without IS, so for many uses, the 24 and 35 is will outperform it. Lastly, the RF 50mm f/1.8 a competent longer lens and very cheap. If you are hung up on the RF-s label, maybe you should look around and see what is really available to use on RF crop cameras. The choices are a bit different than they were for EF-M and we would all like to see the excellent EF-M 32mm f/1.4 come across to RF, but the choices that are there are not by any means "garbage" and most of them are portable to FF. I have found the R7 to be a truly outstanding camera and I guided a neighbor on a budget into an R10 and it also has very deep capability for stills. At first experience, the AF is the difference that just jumps off the page at you, but there are many more subtle features that make the RF crop bodies all around better cameras than the M series (you really miss true point focus when you go back to an M)

Lastly, when it comes to telephoto lenses, there is little to no gain in making crop-specific lenses thanks to the diameter and length constraints of tele lenses being functions of f stop and length (i.e. magnification) as opposed to sensor size. In that context, the RF 100-400 is very good, very small, and not very expensive. There is no lens for M that is even in the ballpark.

I agree with you, as well. But rational statements just seem to bounce off the thick skulls of trolls.

 

[koenkooi]

I agree with everything you said but I still think Canon should make some RF-S prime lenses.

While I would appreciate Rf-S variants of the EF-M 22 and 32, the current 16/28/50 FF RF lenses are very small, affordable and have decent IQ. I suspect Canon thinks they have that market covered with those lenses.

If I start using an RF-S camera, I would wish the most for a modern variant of the Ef-S 60mm macro lens.

I know that a lot of online commentators think that using a FF lens on an APS-C camera is equivalent to getting waterboarded, but those people need to grow up and start taking actual pictures.