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

[lote82]

Canon R5 + RF 16mm + RF 24-105mm f/7.1 + RF 100-400mm = 2328g. This covers your FF-equivalent 16-400mm, and because the R5 has a pixel density only slightly less than the 7DII, it has much more reach than 250mm on the 7DII.

1. R5 is mirrorless and therefore lighter. Wait for the R7 to make a fair comparison.

2. Keep the cost factor in mind... I'm too lazy to look for the cost of R5 with all these lenses... But I think it's far beyond any fair comparison.

3. There is quite a heavy gap between 16 and 24 mm.

4. I sometimes take the combination of 7DII with ef-s 10-18mm, ef-s 16-300mm and ef 160-600mm(C). I don't know (and don't care about) the exact weight, but there is no gap between focal lengths. It gives you a (seamless!) FF-equivalence of 16-960mm(!). Additionally it is much cheaper ...

I know the quality will not keep up with R5. But when it comes down to zoom range, reach, portability and price ff is not the "best" option.

 

[AlanF]

It doesn't cover. There's a big (and very important) hole from 16 up to 24mm. Big loss.

Also I don't think the RF 16mm and RF 24-105mm f/7.1 are up to the optical performance I want. I considered the RF 24-105/7.1 STM to my R6, to have "something". But choose the EF 24-105 STM instead because the quality in wideangle corners looked too bad to me on the RF lens. I don't know if that was a good choice or not. But I suspect at least the EF and RF lens are very similar when it comes to optical performance. I do not consider myself a pixel-peeper, but I have to say the EF 24-105 STM was a huge impulsive disappointment when I saw my first results from that lens. But considering that both the EF and the RF lens are (less than?) half the price of what I gave for the EF-S lens, I probably shouldn't have been surprised.

Which brings me to another point about Canon's fullframe lenses for both EF and RF mount. They totally lack something between budget and L-lenses when it comes to wideangle zooms and normal-zooms. USM zooms that are close or comparable to L-lens optical performance, but in a more lightweight variable-aperture build would be much more appealing to me, but totally lacks in Canon's lineup. Yes, I know it won't completely solve my weight problem, that's why I go for APS-C. But it would still make fullframe look much more appealing to me.
And you can call the EF-S 55-250mm from my APS-C kit a budget lens - and it kind of is. But optically it is actually really good.

RF 100-400mm is however a great addition to Canon's fullframe lineup. I have bought it. Partly for my R6, but hopefully also for my future R7 (I also dream about the 100-500L, and will probably start saving, if I get that R7;-))

There is not a hole from 16 up to 24mm. Switch the R5 to crop mode and you have the same field of view with the 16mm as 25.6mm on the 7DII with nearly the same number of pixels. Or, you can get the same zoom range by cropping in post to any field of view between 16mm and 25.6mm.

 

[AlanF]

1. R5 is mirrorless and therefore lighter. Wait for the R7 to make a fair comparison.

2. Keep the cost factor in mind... I'm too lazy to look for the cost of R5 with all these lenses... But I think it's far beyond any fair comparison.

3. There is quite a heavy gap between 16 and 24 mm.

4. I sometimes take the combination of 7DII with ef-s 10-18mm, ef-s 16-300mm and ef 160-600mm(C). I don't know (and don't care about) the exact weight, but there is no gap between focal lengths. It gives you a (seamless!) FF-equivalence of 16-960mm(!). Additionally it is much cheaper ...

I know the quality will not keep up with R5. But when it comes down to zoom range, reach, portability and price ff is not the "best" option.

I wasn't making a "fair comparison". I was replying specifically to a post about the weight of the 7DII with lenses compared to FF mirrorless. And, you have missed the same point that cropping 16mm on a high density FF sensor will give you the same range of field of view as a 16-24mm zoom on APS-C. I am not making that last point for the sake of argument, but it is one I make practical use of when using telephoto primes: a 500mm prime on FF gives me the equivalent of a 312-500mm on APS-C.

I suggest you overcome your laziness and look at the cost of the RF 16mm f/2.8, RF 24-105mm f/7.1 and RF 100-400mm. They are remarkably cheap. The 100-400mm for example is about $700 or €700.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

There is not a hole from 16 up to 24mm. Switch the R5 to crop mode and you have the same field of view with the 16mm as 25.6mm on the 7DII with nearly the same number of pixels. Or, you can get the same zoom range by cropping in post to any field of view between 16mm and 25.6mm.

Besides my concerns about the optical quality of the 16mm, I'm really trying to create myself a great tool(kit). People always throw the "you just buy an R5 and crop" after me when discussing APS-C/R7. On paper that probably looks good. But in practice that's nowhere the optimized tool I'm trying to create myself. Being able to zoom and see the photo fill the frame in viewfinder is super-important for me when judging photo and composition.

 

[AlanF]

Besides my concerns about the optical quality of the 16mm, I'm really trying to create myself a great tool(kit). People always throw the "you just buy an R5 and crop" after me when discussing APS-C/R7. On paper that probably looks good. But in practice that's nowhere the optimized tool I'm trying to create myself. Being able to zoom and see the photo fill the frame in viewfinder is super-important for me when judging photo and composition.

That's a valid choice. I am just used to cropping in post for nearly everything I do and composing then. Despite my preference for FF, I may well buy an R7 as a back-up/alternative if it has the right AF specs and sensor as I end up cropping so much anyway. So many of my birds in fast flight have the bird at the edge of the frame, the FF gives me more keepers.

 

[Lee Jay]

I really don't think the R7 (if at the 7D2 level) would be for folks using wide angle lenses.

Oh, really.

I have a 7DII and my lens kit includes the 8-15/4L and the 10-18STM.

 

[lote82]

I wasn't making a "fair comparison". I was replying specifically to a post about the weight of the 7DII with lenses compared to FF mirrorless. And, you have missed the same point that cropping 16mm on a high density FF sensor will give you the same range of field of view as a 16-24mm zoom on APS-C. I am not making that last point for the sake of argument, but it is one I make practical use of when using telephoto primes: a 500mm prime on FF gives me the equivalent of a 312-500mm on APS-C.

I suggest you overcome your laziness and look at the cost of the RF 16mm f/2.8, RF 24-105mm f/7.1 and RF 100-400mm. They are remarkably cheap. The 100-400mm for example is about $700 or €700.

I'm well aware you can crop! But R5 in crop mode has only 17mp (vs. 7DII 20mp). Paying (a lot) more to get less is not a good option!

A 500mm prime on FF gives you the equivalent of a 312-500mm on APS-C?
Nice, but a 500mm prime on APS-C therefore gives me 800mm (without croping!) on ff. When I buy a tele lens I'm rather interested in the long end than the short end.

Don't get me wrong ... if I would own an R5 I also (probably) wouldn't wait for an R7 to come. R5 with shorter reach but overall better image quality is the better choice for you. I can absolutely understand that. But there are also people like me who prefer more reach at lower costs.

 

[AlanF]

I'm well aware you can crop! But R5 in crop mode has only 17mp (vs. 7DII 20mp). Paying (a lot) more to get less is not a good option!

The difference between 20 and 17.57 Mp (it's 17.57 not 17 Mp) is only 6.6% in magnification, which you would hardly notice. But, in any case, 16mm cropped to 24mm of the R5 puts exactly 20 Mp on target, the same as the 7Dii!

A 500mm prime on FF gives you the equivalent of a 312-500mm on APS-C?
Nice, but a 500mm prime on APS-C therefore gives me 800mm (without croping!) on ff. When I buy a tele lens I'm rather interested in the long end than the short end.

Look, cropping 500mm lens on the FF to APS-C size gives exactly the same field of view as putting a 500mm lens on an APS-C. The reach depends on the relative pixel densities of the sensors. I used to to shoot both a 7DII and the 5DSR - they give exactly the same reach as the 5DSR cropped gives the same 20 Mp as the 7DII, and the D850 and D500, which I also shot does the same. So, if you consider the 500mm on the APS-C is equivalent to an 800mm lens on FF, then having the same lens on FF and cropping to APS-C gives you 800mm.

Don't get me wrong ... if I would own an R5 I also (probably) wouldn't wait for an R7 to come. R5 with shorter reach but overall better image quality is the better choice for you. I can absolutely understand that. But there are also people like me who prefer more reach at lower costs.

The only advantage for most is indeed the price. And that is a good enough reason for buying an APS-C. And that is precisely the reason I would buy an R7 as a back-up for the R5. I would prefer that the R7 had a 24 Mp sensor to give it a boost in reach. The R5 gives a theoretical reach of 93.4% of that of the current 7DII, and because it has a weaker AA-filter probably has more than 100% of the 7DII reach.

 

[lote82]

The difference between 20 and 17.57 Mp (it's 17.57 not 17 Mp) is only 6.6% in magnification, which you would hardly notice. But, in any case, 16mm cropped to 24mm of the R5 puts exactly 20 Mp on target, the same as the 7Dii!

True, but still a lot of money to get (only in best case scenario!) the same amount of pixels.

So, if you consider the 500mm on the APS-C is equivalent to an 800mm lens on FF, then having the same lens on FF and cropping to APS-C gives you 800mm.

True, but again ... a lot of money to get slightly lower amount of pixels. By the way, it's rather 17,58mp ;-)

The only advantage for most is indeed the price. And that is a good enough reason for buying an APS-C. And that is precisely the reason I would buy an R7 as a back-up for the R5. I would prefer that the R7 had a 24 Mp sensor to give it a boost in reach. The R5 gives a theoretical reach of 93.4% of that of the current 7DII, and because it has a weaker AA-filter probably has more than 100% of the 7DII reach.

Probably true (even if I'm not sure about the AA-filter). Why you would prefer 24mp instead of 32mp? Because of diffraction limit?

 

[AlanF]

True, but still a lot of money to get (only in best case scenario!) the same amount of pixels.


True, but again ... a lot of money to get slightly lower amount of pixels. By the way, it's rather 17,58mp ;-)


Probably true (even if I'm not sure about the AA-filter). Why you would prefer 24mp instead of 32mp? Because of diffraction limit?

Discussed earlier in this thread https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-to-be-announced-cr2.41232/page-6#post-924169 post 105 onwards. In theory, you should increase resolution with a 32 Mp over a 24 Mp. But, I would like to see what it is like in practice. You do need wider lenses to take advantage of these very dense sensors.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Continue reading...

I am a bit late here, absorbed by work, but if the R7 has decent specs, I hit the button. Like many 7D2 owners I am waiting since many years now for an update. My 7DII still works reliably w/o failures, like an old tank, but a better AF and less noisy sensor would already be a reason to upgrade. A fully articulating touchscreen and better video would be welcomed, too... so, please, c'mon Canon!

 

[unfocused]

I am a bit late here…

You didn’t miss anything.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

I am a bit late here,

You didn’t miss anything.

Ha ha. I was late too. I read first and last page (p14) of comments.
Some day I might look at what I (maybe not) missed

But there's definitely a tendency to all these R7/APSC discussions goes in same directions and tracks we're been down before...

 

[justaCanonuser]

You didn’t miss anything.

But that's the essence of rumors in general

 

[justaCanonuser]

But there's definitely a tendency to all these R7/APSC discussions goes in same directions and tracks we're been down before...

It's been so far definitely a "Groundhog Day" sort of thread , but finally and luckily, like Bill Murray, we may find a way out of this time loop trap and get from Canon what we want - a capable 7D2 ML successor...

 

[SteveC]

It's been so far definitely a "Groundhog Day" sort of thread , but finally and luckily, like Bill Murray, we may find a way out of this time loop trap and get from Canon what we want - a capable 7D2 ML successor...

WoooHooo, the M7 I've been waiting for!!!!

(Ducks a barrage of thrown dead lenses and camera bodies.)

 

[Midge]

I am a bit late here, absorbed by work, but if the R7 has decent specs, I hit the button. Like many 7D2 owners I am waiting since many years now for an update. My 7DII still works reliably w/o failures, like an old tank, but a better AF and less noisy sensor would already be a reason to upgrade. A fully articulating touchscreen and better video would be welcomed, too... so, please, c'mon Canon!

Agreed. Just for a change, instead of people naysaying 7Dmk2 owners over a mirrorless APS-C replacement, let us get on with it. Canon has a market for these despite what many others might think. If you dont like the idea, dont go there. Leave it for the enthusiasts who DO want such a camera

 

[Blue Zurich]

Agreed. Just for a change, instead of people naysaying 7Dmk2 owners over a mirrorless APS-C replacement, let us get on with it. Canon has a market for these despite what many others might think. If you dont like the idea, dont go there. Leave it for the enthusiasts who DO want such a camera

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. They shoot tele and wide both. They crave weather sealing, top notch Servo, not too small of a body (like how the 7D series is similar to the 5D) fast fps and after the M6ll got it's sensor, that has ignited the cravings even more so. However, no matter what we here and our friends may think, it may not jive with Canon Inc and their market research. We get what we get.

 

[Midge]

I know what you are saying. We will still have to wait and see. This rumour has been going on for a few years now so it may still prove to be real. Who knows? Hope we do get an R7 with comparable specs to the 7Dmk2 build wise and a decent sensor. Ah ,we can hope!!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

However, no matter what we here and our friends may think, it may not jive with Canon Inc and their market research. We get what we get.

Exactly. This forum is not very representative of the broader market, and it’s that broader market about which Canon cares. Not that rumors are worth much, but the one from a week before this suggested, “Maybe a little M50 mixed with some 7D.” To me, that sounds a lot like a mirrorless 90D. Given that the 90D was a big step toward the 7DII from the 80D, I think a mirrorless 90D is the best case scenario for those hoping for a mirrorless 7DIII (with whatever designation).

Hapving said that, I’m still not convinced we’ll see an APS-C RF mount body at all.