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

[neuroanatomist]

Where you’re standing doesn’t make any difference as to the effective focal length of the lens. The crop factor exists full time based on the size of the sensor. It doesn’t magically change when you move farther away.

Please, just don’t. @AlanF understands the concepts quite well. His point, which you apparently missed, was that if you’re already cropping the image from the FF sensor to an area smaller than the APS-C sensor size (which is very common for those shooting birds), the longer ‘effective focal length’ resulting from the smaller sensor is meaningless.

He also understands that exposure is based on light per unit area.

Since you feel compelled to explain things we already know, the DoF doesn’t magically get deeper with a smaller sensor. In fact, because the circle of confusion varies directly with sensor size, the smaller sensor actually has a shallower DoF. It’s when and because you increase the subject distance to match framing on the smaller sensor that the DoF increases.

Enjoy your popcorn, @dcm!

 

[JustUs7]

Please, just don’t. @AlanF understands the concepts quite well. His point, which you apparently missed, was that if you’re already cropping the image from the FF sensor to an area smaller than the APS-C sensor size (which is very common for those shooting birds), the longer ‘effective focal length’ resulting from the smaller sensor is meaningless.

He also understands that exposure is based on light per unit area.

Since you feel compelled to explain things we already know, the DoF doesn’t magically get deeper with a smaller sensor. In fact, because the circle of confusion varies directly with sensor size, the smaller sensor actually has a shallower DoF. It’s when and because you increase the subject distance to match framing on the smaller sensor that the DoF increases.

Enjoy your popcorn, @dcm!

Appreciate the clarification . I did not pick up on comparing cropping an image from a full frame vs using a cropped sensor. Perhaps taking one post out of context of the larger conversation.

Size 13 and yet they still fit in my mouth. Amazing.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Oh yeah I’m not denying it was a good camera. Just the design and decision to leave out video was the retro noveltyness.

Some might say it really should have caught on... the only time I hit the record button is a fat finger moment

 

[neuroanatomist]

Appreciate the clarification . I did not pick up on comparing cropping an image from a full frame vs using a cropped sensor. Perhaps taking one post out of context of the larger conversation.

Size 13 and yet they still fit in my mouth. Amazing.

Size 10 but equally guilty.

 

[Chaitanya]

SPECS! I NEED SPECS!!

Hopefully 24 or 28MP BSI sensor with whatever insane fps these days works for marketing with dual card slots(CFe and SD).

 

[canonmike]

With an APS-C crop factor of 1.6x, the RF 100-500mm would be equivalent to a 160-800mm on the "R7".

Now, that is one pleasant thought, my friend.......

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hopefully 24 or 28MP BSI sensor with whatever insane fps these days works for marketing with dual card slots(CFe and SD).

To paraphrase Uncle Rog, HINASS (hope is not a spec sheet).

 

[Chig]

The benefit would be paying a lot less money - perhaps 1/2 as much. What a surprising number of people on this forum don't seem to understand or realize is that many folks can not afford an R5.

They also can't afford 600mm f/4 lenses either so an R7 with say a converted EF100-400mm ii is much more affordable than an R5 and 600 f/4 and also much lighter

 

[Jasonmc89]

Some might say it really should have caught on... the only time I hit the record button is a fat finger moment

Same! Or a shit, dull, out of focus video of my kids blowing candles out on a cake or something.

 

[Jasonmc89]

Hopefully 24 or 28MP BSI sensor with whatever insane fps these days works for marketing with dual card slots(CFe and SD).

Sounds good to me!

 

[Joaquim]

And this is the issue... I believe that he 7D/7Dii were unicorns from a marketing perspective giving features far in excess of the reasonable pricing at the time.

Canon released the 7Dii in 2014 and has been discontinued for some time now. 8 years is far in excess of their product cycle time.
Either Canon believes that they wouldn't sell enough 7Diii bodies to warrant the R&D or it wouldn't fit their product segmentation.
From forum members, you would think that the former is not correct so that only leaves the latter as the reasonable explanation.
If Canon really thought that there was a significantly profitable market for a 7Diii then they would have made that body at the same time as 90D/M6ii in 2019.

You're likely right that the 7D series was maybe underpriced. Except that in 2019 they were likely already working on the future R3/R1 and the market would have and likely has, preferred to wait instead for a mirrorless successor or just move to Fuji (like I did.)
The 7Dii was meant to be a baby 1D and with the R3 out as a new model in the family, proving what they can do in mirrorless, if the R7 is still certain to be launched, it would be exactly that, a baby R3/R1. (With sadly the rumored caveat of it being a mix with the M50.)

 

[AlanF]

Where you’re standing doesn’t make any difference as to the effective focal length of the lens. The crop factor exists full time based on the size of the sensor. It doesn’t magically change when you move farther away. BTW, for effective focal length I’m using the generally accepted field of view. I realize the focal length of the lens doesn’t actually change.

That said, multiplying the effective f-stop is only relevant to depth of field calculations. It still lets the same amount of light in regardless of sensor size. If I’m at f/7.1, I don’t use a different shutter speed or iso when in crop mode. I was able to confirm this using Av mode with a fixed iso on my current camera. The same shutter speed was recommended using the full sensor and crop mode.

Thank you for having the good grace in your reply to neuro that you misunderstood my post. Your last paragraph here needs some correction, which was implied in neuro's post. The effective f-stop also applies to pixels per duck or light intensity. If, for example, you have an f/2 20mm lens on a 1.6x crop and an f/2 32mm lens on a FF, they do indeed both have the same exposure ratings and the same number of photons fall per unit area of each sensor. But, the image of the duck on the crop is 1.6x1.6 times smaller on the crop and so the total amount of light hitting it is 1/2.56 that of the FF, so the signal/noise from the light is 1.6x less - the image is noisier, especially noticeable at high iso. The 20mm lens on the crop is effectively an f/3.2 lens when it comes to signal to noise, as well as for dof.

 

[FabFR]

For an R7, I can imagine a 24 to 26Mpix brand new stacked APSC CMOS Sensor, ultra fast reading, good ISO and dynamics performances, sold in Europe for 1990€ or a bit less (to bother competition).
Why not 32Mpix as the 90D ? Because I think this sensor is more marketing figures than necessity.
The R3 is "only" 24Mpix, the R6 is 20Mpix, I think 24-26Mpix for a new sport APSC camera could be a maximum pixel count.
If performances are top level, there's no need of pixel marketing arguments.

 

[Deleted]

They also can't afford 600mm f/4 lenses either so an R7 with say a converted EF100-400mm ii is much more affordable than an R5 and 600 f/4 and also much lighter

It is not always about cost. Many of us have big whites etc. Here in the UK, the older members of the birding community feat nothing of dropping £10k on a new scope each year, £3K on the latest bins etc. The same group do tend to walk a long way to see and photograph their subjects. Lugging around their scope, bins, two tripods, a 600mmF4 and a camera body is just a step too far. A lens like the 100-500 on a crop body handheld gets all the pixels on subject many desire with a substantially lighter load.

Compared to many in my local wildlife community I am relatively young and fit. I walk many miles each day photographing wildlife. While I occasionally use my FF setup , I prefer to travel light and react quickly. There are plenty of situations where the 100-400II I currently use with a 7D2 has allowed me to get a shot where I would have otherwise failed. Simple things like when laying in the grass shooting hares. Moving around with a 600 I would have spooked them. There have also been many times where the minimum focus distance of the 100-400 has meant I got the shot, that happened yesterday with hareswhen one came inside 3M away. Finally, here in the UK many reserves only allow you to shoot from their hides. These hides are often designed for birders, not togs. As such the windows are little more than slots too small for the girth of any big lens. Some I can only get the 100-400 through if I remove the hood. It is why lenses like the Nikon 500pf has become popular here.

It is not all about long lenses too. I shoot a lot of handheld macro. A crop body with a 60mm allows me to shoot longer without knackered, shaky arms. My MPE-65 is heavy, particularly when extended so gets less use. My 100L IS rarely gets used over my 60mm for the same reason. Hopefully a crop R7 will arrive and become my macro body of choice when the 80D I currently dedicate to the task dies.

I think often people on these forums think more about specs, what can be done. In practice we are often limited so having more options can only be a good thing. I know plenty of wildlife togs who have both FF and Crop setups so they can shoot as often as possible. I am sure Canon know that hence hopefully releasing a suit

 

[Del Paso]

Thank you for having the good grace in your reply to neuro that you misunderstood my post. Your last paragraph here needs some correction, which was implied in neuro's post. The effective f-stop also applies to pixels per duck or light intensity. If, for example, you have an f/2 20mm lens on a 1.6x crop and an f/2 32mm lens on a FF, they do indeed both have the same exposure ratings and the same number of photons fall per unit area of each sensor. But, the image of the duck on the crop is 1.6x1.6 times smaller on the crop and so the total amount of light hitting it is 1/2.56 that of the FF, so the signal/noise from the light is 1.6x less - the image is noisier, especially noticeable at high iso. The 20mm lens on the crop is effectively an f/3.2 lens when it comes to signal to noise,

Without any doubt the best explanation as to the disadvantages of APS.
I was still tempted to get one for macro, now, no longer!

 

[mpmark]

I bet (it's free ) it will be the hybrid APS-C. That way it would follow the tradition (5D -> R5, 6D -> R6, 7D -> R7)...

In addition, the (I assume fake) photo at CanonRumors shows a crop sensor

BTW... what are the chances of an hybrid (EVF+OVF) R1?

Your question regarding a EVF/OVF camera, it’s ZERO! It’s pointless, would be a engeering challenge. And did I mention pointless?

 

[mpmark]

Thank you for having the good grace in your reply to neuro that you misunderstood my post. Your last paragraph here needs some correction, which was implied in neuro's post. The effective f-stop also applies to pixels per duck or light intensity. If, for example, you have an f/2 20mm lens on a 1.6x crop and an f/2 32mm lens on a FF, they do indeed both have the same exposure ratings and the same number of photons fall per unit area of each sensor. But, the image of the duck on the crop is 1.6x1.6 times smaller on the crop and so the total amount of light hitting it is 1/2.56 that of the FF, so the signal/noise from the light is 1.6x less - the image is noisier, especially noticeable at high iso. The 20mm lens on the crop is effectively an f/3.2 lens when it comes to signal to noise, as well as for dof.

Honestly, you guys are seriously overthinking the purpose of photography, none of that will be something anyone should care about in the real world.

 

[RF_specialist]

@maboleth:​

Well I expect the prices to go up, not down! The camera industry is declining. The losses in revenue have to be compensated by higher prices!
The newest announcement from Canon: price increase of 100Dollars+ on selected RF Lenses. I bet other lenses will follow.

 

[lote82]

We certainly have increasing expectations for MP and want the ability to crop on crop sensors as well
7D forum users have said that the R5 is too expensive for them so perhaps is not a good option as they would have already jumped if that was the case.
I think that Canon reusing the 90D sensor with 10fps would satisfy most of the remaining community to switch

Exactly!

It's not the question wether R5 or (assuming) R7 is the better camera. For most scenarios the R5 is the better camera. But for long range (wildlife) usage the R7 (probably) will be the better camera (at least if price point and portability is important for you). The R5 is more a generalist, the R7 is more a specialist.

R5 is a great camera even for wildlife. If I had (or would be willing to pay) the money I would love to by one. But as a wildlife photographer being more on the budget orientated side the R7 (probably) will be the better choice. Paying less to get more pixels per duck is a no-brainer!

 

[entoman]

20 FPS 24MP stacked sensor is modest for a 7d replacement. Bumping it to 30 fps isn't even pushing the current Digit X into a corner so it is also a reasonable expectation. If you don't want 30 switch it down to 20, 15, 12, 10, 5, or even 1 fps to match the subject.

If only that were possible. On my R5, when using electronic shutter, it only operates at single shot or 20fps, there is no option to use a lower burst speed, other than to switch to EFCS or mechanical. The "R7" will definitely sit below the R5 in Canon's range, so I'd be very surprised if it enables a choice of burst speeds in electronic shutter. But we can always live in hope.

I also live in hope that Canon will have the sense to allow exposure bracketing in electronic shutter on future models. It seems like a very odd oversight. I always bracket exposures in tricky situations (unless shooting a sequence of BIF), and it would be highly beneficial if I could shoot e.g. a bracketed burst of 3 or 5 shots at 20fps. This would minimise subject movement between frames, allowing for better alignment when stacking.