Is the Canon EOS R7 the next camera to be announced? [CR2]

[Lee Jay]

I'm not sure this is an issue. For years quite a few folks here who have been 7D and 7D2 users have been eagerly waiting for a mirrorless version.

Really? I've been waiting for a *new* version, but I don't see any reason for it to be mirrorless. For what I do, EVFs provide all disadvantages and no advantages on stills. The only advantage is for shooting video.

What I actually want is a 7DIII with the 90D (or M6II? whatever that is) sensor.

Seems like that's impossible so I'm either going to have to learn to get used to an EVF (I've had, I think 7 compacts with EVFs and camcorders starting in the 80s, and they all suck) or use my 7DII for the rest of my life. Either that or they will have to make an EVF that doesn't suck.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Really? I've been waiting for a *new* version, but I don't see any reason for it to be mirrorless. For what I do, EVFs provide all disadvantages and no advantages on stills. The only advantage is for shooting video.

What I actually want is a 7DIII with the 90D (or M6II? whatever that is) sensor.

Seems like that's impossible so I'm either going to have to learn to get used to an EVF (I've had, I think 7 compacts with EVFs and camcorders starting in the 80s, and they all suck) or use my 7DII for the rest of my life. Either that or they will have to make an EVF that doesn't suck.

Get thineself to ye olde camera store post haste! The R5/6 evf's are much improved over the older tech..I was a mirrorless holdout for my main body until I tried them and I'm now sold.

 

[Lee Jay]

Get thineself to ye olde camera store post haste! The R5/6 evf's are much improved over the older tech..I was a mirrorless holdout for my main body until I tried them and I'm now sold.

And yet, someone in this very thread owns an R5 and complained about all the same issues I've had with every EVF I've ever tried.

 

[Blue Zurich]

And yet, someone in this very thread owns an R5 and complained about all the same issues I've had with every EVF I've ever tried.

They are far from perfect, my point was that they have gotten much better. Case in point, seeing my R6 and my spouse's M50 side by side, it's crazy how less contrasty and quicker they've become.
However when you have used an OVF such as a 1D series for years, it may still not be time for you to switch yet, ymmv.
I have zero experience with the R3 and would love to hear users chime in on their experience since it's the top of the Canon line for viewfinders.

 

[Sporgon]

Case in point, seeing my R6 and my spouse's M50 side by side, it's crazy how less contrasty and quicker they've become.

Really ? I thought that the R6 had the same viewfinder as the R, and the M50 the same as the RP. Personally I don’t see a game changing difference between the R and the RP. No doubt people will say I have to try the R5 or R3 and so it will go on, but is the viewfinder on the R3 a different experience to that of the R ?

 

[neuroanatomist]

…is the viewfinder on the R3 a different experience to that of the R ?

Very.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Really ? I thought that the R6 had the same viewfinder as the R, and the M50 the same as the RP. Personally I don’t see a game changing difference between the R and the RP. No doubt people will say I have to try the R5 or R3 and so it will go on, but is the viewfinder on the R3 a different experience to that of the R ?

There are more to certain EVF's than dots, refresh rates such as the 120 on the R6 makes considerable differences.

 

[Sporgon]

There are more to certain EVF's than dots, refresh rates such as the 120 on the R6 makes considerable differences.

Does refresh rate effect the contrast then ? Excuse my ignorance if there’s a obvious answer to this.

 

[Lee Jay]

Does refresh rate effect the contrast then ? Excuse my ignorance if there’s a obvious answer to this.

Not really.

The problems are, lag (even worse in low-light), lack of dynamic range (both instantaneous and global), slow response to changes in lighting (viewfinder goes completely black or completely white), noise in low-light, and to a lesser extent, resolution (they use "dots" instead of "pixels" to hide the fact that they are low-res microdisplays). Oh...and power draw. It's not uncommon for me to use the viewfinder for 3 hours straight and shoot 2,000+ shots on one battery in my 7DII.

 

[koenkooi]

Really ? I thought that the R6 had the same viewfinder as the R, and the M50 the same as the RP.[..]

The RP and M50 share the same LCD in the EVF, but not the optics. The optics in the RP EVF are superior to the ones in the M50. I hated every moment I had to use the M50 EVF and I pretty much enjoyed the RP EVF all the time.

 

[puffo25]

Stupid question. Currently I own a Canon R5 with several Canon RF lenses and I am very happy.
I am doing mostly astro (northern lights, star trails, milky way) , landscape, travel and documentary, street sceneries.

I might need a second camera body. The R6 might be the first option (smaller sensor, a bit better dynamic range in low light).... but no weather sealing, and couple of other options removed from the more expensive R5. So I am wondering if the R7 might fit btw the R5 and R6 or might be (as I suspect) a downgrade solution of the R6?

 

[Blue Zurich]

Stupid question. Currently I own a Canon R5 with several Canon RF lenses and I am very happy.
I am doing mostly astro (northern lights, star trails, milky way) , landscape, travel and documentary, street sceneries.

I might need a second camera body. The R6 might be the first option (smaller sensor, a bit better dynamic range in low light).... but no weather sealing, and couple of other options removed from the more expensive R5. So I am wondering if the R7 might fit btw the R5 and R6 or might be (as I suspect) a downgrade solution of the R6?

Who told you the R6 isn't sealed? It is, maybe not the same as the 5 but it is.

 

[tron]

Really? I've been waiting for a *new* version, but I don't see any reason for it to be mirrorless. For what I do, EVFs provide all disadvantages and no advantages on stills. The only advantage is for shooting video.

What I actually want is a 7DIII with the 90D (or M6II? whatever that is) sensor.

Seems like that's impossible so I'm either going to have to learn to get used to an EVF (I've had, I think 7 compacts with EVFs and camcorders starting in the 80s, and they all suck) or use my 7DII for the rest of my life. Either that or they will have to make an EVF that doesn't suck.

Me too but since I could not have that I got the closest thing:

D500 with 500mm 5.6 PF

Later I added a D850.

Now a R7 with improved focusing (Quad pixel maybe? probably not...) and even a slightly improved 90D sensor could be a useful addition to the R series.

Also a 32.7 mp sensor would give a SQRT(32.5/17.5) = 1.36x advantage very close to a 1.4TC but without using one. Useful for those FL limited situations.

I used 17.5 in the above formula as this is R5's mpixels at 1.6 crop.

 

[Lee Jay]

Me too but since I could not have that I got the closest thing:

D500 with 500mm 5.6 PF

Later I added a D850.

Now a R7 with improved focusing (Quad pixel maybe? probably not...) and even a slightly improved 90D sensor could be a useful addition to the R series.

Also a 32.7 mp sensor would give a SQRT(32.5/17.5) = 1.36x advantage very close to a 1.4TC but without using one. Useful for those FL limited situations.

Can't stand Nikon gear and didn't want to have to replace the entire lens kit anyway.

I'll keep an eye on EVFs to see if anyone comes up with one that's usable but keep my 7DII for now. It's a pretty rock-solid camera.

 

[tron]

Can't stand Nikon gear and didn't want to have to replace the entire lens kit anyway.

I'll keep an eye on EVFs to see if anyone comes up with one that's usable but keep my 7DII for now. It's a pretty rock-solid camera.

I have kept my Canons (DSLRs and my mirrorless R5). The gear I mentioned is the only one I have and it is mostly dependable for birding (both static and BIF).

 

[Lee Jay]

I have kept my Canons (DSLRs and my mirrorless R5). The gear I mentioned is the only one I have and it is mostly dependable for birding (both static and BIF).

I'm always amazed at how many people use primes for birding and such. I shoot a lot of airplanes (full-scale and R/C) and can't imagine being stuck with a prime. I'm constantly zooming in and out as the object gets closer and farther away. I used to use a 70-200/2.8 with 2x TC and now use a 150-600C.

 

[tron]

I'm always amazed at how many people use primes for birding and such. I shoot a lot of airplanes (full-scale and R/C) and can't imagine being stuck with a prime. I'm constantly zooming in and out as the object gets closer and farther away. I used to use a 70-200/2.8 with 2x TC and now use a 150-600C.

I think airplanes are a different kind of birds

Anyway we can't have everything. Your 150-600 weight a lot more than my 500PF. And D500 is better than 7DII.

I don't have zooming or super close focusing but my success ratio has gone up a lot! So I accept a prime's lens limitations.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm always amazed at how many people use primes for birding and such. I shoot a lot of airplanes (full-scale and R/C) and can't imagine being stuck with a prime. I'm constantly zooming in and out as the object gets closer and farther away. I used to use a 70-200/2.8 with 2x TC and now use a 150-600C.

Many people shooting birds are focal length limited, so zooming out is rarely required. When using my 600/4 for birding (usually as an 840/5.6), I can count on one hand the number of times a subject has flown so close they overfilled the frame. This was one:



After screeching in the treetop perch for a while, the red tail took off and flew directly overhead, low enough that my shots clipped off both wings. But as I said, that's rare. A far more common reason I see people cite for using a zoom is being able to locate the subject at a wider focal length, then zoom in for the actual shot. I found that with a simple physical trick (ensuring the thumbscrew for the lens hood of the 600/4 is right at the top) and some practice, finding a subject in the VF is simple even at 1200mm.

 

[Lee Jay]

Many people shooting birds are focal length limited, so zooming out is rarely required. When using my 600/4 for birding (usually as an 840/5.6), I can count on one hand the number of times a subject has flown so close they overfilled the frame. This was one:

View attachment 202449

After screeching in the treetop perch for a while, the red tail took off and flew directly overhead, low enough that my shots clipped off both wings. But as I said, that's rare. A far more common reason I see people cite for using a zoom is being able to locate the subject at a wider focal length, then zoom in for the actual shot. I found that with a simple physical trick (ensuring the thumbscrew for the lens hood of the 600/4 is right at the top) and some practice, finding a subject in the VF is simple even at 1200mm.

Well, with airplanes, it's so common that about 2/3rds of my shots are at less than 600mm.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well, with airplanes, it's so common that about 2/3rds of my shots are at less than 600mm.

Bigger wingspan...