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

[Lee Jay]

Bigger wingspan...

Not necessarily. I've taken shots of R/C airplanes as small as 10 inches in wingspan. As big as 23 feet too.

 

[Otara]

Not necessarily. I've taken shots of R/C airplanes as small as 10 inches in wingspan. As big as 23 feet too.

Its possible that different strategies are needed to get close to birds.

 

[AccipiterQ]

HOOK IT TO MY VEINS

 

[researcher]

I'm sure the R7 will be great APSC camera (if that is what it is) with a bevy of features to help coax the hoardes of mere Rebel owners into the RF fold. I'm gonna assume it will have IBIS, dual pixel AF and all the other basics and allow me to use my EF-S lenses with an adapter.

One thing I really want: native webcam capability. Yes, Canon - do it, make it happen. Please.

Dorky, but seriously - I wanna be able to use this thing as a webcam with sound without lag.
I need all the help I can get looking presentable on Zoom meetings, and the pandemic taught me that my $29 clip on webcam just don't cut it.

 

[Michael Clark]

As entertaining as it is (not) to repeat the same pedantic discussions for the millionth time on this forum, I wonder if those who are actually interested in an R7 might be willing to express their opinion. (@Michael Clark?)

If an R7 is essentially an R6 with a crop sensor and comes in at close to the price point of the R6 (give or take $100 or so) would such a body meet the needs/desires of those who want an R7? I am unfamiliar with the R6, but it seems like the main differences between the R5 and the R6 (aside from the sensors) are the dual SD slots and the mode dial. While a CFExpress slot might be preferred by some, I suspect Canon might opt for dual SD slots instead.

It strikes me that Canon will need to balance features and price point to reach a target that is affordable enough, yet feature rich enough, to attract sufficient buyers to make it profitable. I suspect that a mirrorless 90D (R90?) would not be attractive to those who want a crop sensor R. So I wonder if a crop sensor R6 with a sensor resolution in the 90D range, would tick enough boxes.

Just seeing this.

I've already said more than once in various threads here that a 32MP APS-C camera similar to the R6 would be a camera I'd be very interested in even it it cost as much or even a tad bit more than the R6. Dual UHS-II SD slots wouldn't be that bad in terms of write speed compared to CFExpress. Canon would probably see that as a win-win from a marketing standpoint. Those who don't need blazing speed could use slower and cheaper UHS-I cards, while those who do need sustained speed shooting raw in the 10-12 fps range could pay more for fast UHS-II cards.

I've also said that what I expect we'll actually see offered by Canon is a mirrorless 90D with only one card slot, an AF system slightly inferior to the R5/R6, and the lower build quality and durability of the x0D series vs. the xD series.

If that's the case it would be harder for me to pull the trigger on such a camera, even if it is priced significantly lower than the R6.

Durability is a prime consideration for any camera I plan to use as my main sports camera. As you well know, it's the nature of shooting sports that you take a lot of frames and do it in all kinds of environmental conditions.

One reason I bought a Sigma 120-3200mm f/2.8 Sports before the 2021 fall sports season was to see how performs it on my 5D Mark IV compared to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II on the 7D Mark II. The idea is that if I find that acceptable I'd go ahead and buy another 5D Mark IV (preferably a clean, low mileage used one) and use it when the 7D Mark II wears out or breaks and can't be fixed for a reasonable amount. So far the biggest negative for me is that the thing weighs as much as a bowling ball. 8+ pounds before you hang a camera body on it!

 

[Michael Clark]

If Canon does a non-L zoom with that range I doubt we'll get a constant aperture. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 always seemed to be out of character for Canon to me, like the EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Maybe that's how Canon keeps us guessing, by releasing a solid L-like non-L lens that doesn't work on the high end bodies.

Could it be that the 7D Mark II (far superior to the original 7D in terms of AF consistency, durability, and so much more usable for night/indoor sports with flicker reduction), all for only $1,800 when the 1D X was selling for $6,800 was as equally out of character for Canon as the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 was?

 

[Michael Clark]

That might be true if the owner also owns a FF body. Otherwise, the R7 also would need a wide zoom, perhaps a 10-20 f/4 and a fast and small 30mm prime.

If Canon makes an R7, might they also introduce an M7 that is 90-95% common with the R7?

It's anecdotal to be sure, but almost every 7D Mark II owner I know/knew also owns/owned a 5-series FF body.

 

[Michael Clark]

Exactly. I can't name any digital stills camera that doesn't also have at least basic functionality. Which is why I found cgc's comment odd.

I think the original comment was referring to a hybrid viewfinder, with both optical (rangefinder type?) and EVF overlay?

 

[Michael Clark]

Let's be clear that 7D users were quite happy with 18mp at the time and 7Dii are also happy with 20mp. Yes, they would like more and the 90D/M6ii showed a higher density sensor but "measly" is a poor choice of words
I recall the chorus of A7siii fanboys saying that 12mp was more than sufficient for stills.

I'm still a 7D Mark II user. If Canon had offered a 32MP 7D Mark III at the same time it introduced the 90D and M6 Mark II, I'd have preordered it without question. I've never preordered a camera body before, having always waiting a few months to read quality reviews from those I trust.

Saying 7D Mark II users are "quite happy" with something when nothing better has been offered without also having to accept a few steps backwards in other areas is a bit disingenuous.

 

[Michael Clark]

I7 Mpx is hardly measly, it’s pretty close to the 7DII, in fact it‘s only 8% less resolution. I had a 32 Mpx 90D for a while and had to use f/4 or wider to take advantage of its resolution. At the isos we use for bird photography, 800 or more, the noise ratchets the resolution down and I was getting as good images on the 5DSR, though in ideal conditions the 90 D is very nice. 50 Mpx FF is bit of a sweet spot in practical terms.

How fast does that 5Ds R go in burst mode, though? That's the other advantage of a higher pixel density APS-C body: faster frame rates without needing massive increases in processing power, buffer depth, and card write speed to process and record FF pixels you're not even going to use.

 

[Michael Clark]

The Df was no slouch in its time, it carried over a lot of tech from the D4. If you shot Nikon (glass) but had a penchant for Fuji design and dials galore as well, that was a good body for you. I have an acquaintance that still uses it.

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

It might have been a very good camera, but Nikon sold practically zilch of them.

 

[Michael Clark]

I am expecting a 24MP stacked sensor with no blackout that can push 30 or more FPS 14bit. That puts it well ahead of the R5 for wildlife unless you are just taking pictures of stationary animals that don't move. Though I do recall the 7D as being popular for all kinds of sports shooters so I fully expect the selling point will be high FPS at full bit depth with a blackout free fully electric (perhaps even shutter free) sensor.

So basically you expect an APS-C R3? Good luck with that.

 

[Michael Clark]

The Z9 gets around them by matching the read speed of a mechanical shutter. Stacked sensors like the A1 where already dreadfully close to hitting the magic number and by the R3 Mk2 and Z9 Mk2 we'll be surpassing the mechanical shutter I expect.

As for the product segmentation. The R7 doesn't have to be cheaper than the R6, the 7D and 7D Mk2 at least here were priced at or above the 6D and 6D Mk2 and I would argue the 7D was far more capable.

As for R3 sales for a start it isn't an R3. The R3 is full frame, in a 1-series body, has more buttons, the fancy touch joysticks, and eye control.

Au contraire mon frere!

The 6D and 6D Mark II were introduced at $1,899 (2012) and $1,999 (2017), respectively. The 7D and 7D Mark II were $1,699 (2009) and $1,799 (2014) at launch. The 6D series only got significantly cheaper in 2019 when the EOS RP was introduced, putting extreme pressure on the price of the 6D Mark II. The 7D Mark II never really dropped much in price at all, other than a few very short limited time promotions here and there.

 

[Michael Clark]

I appreciate your point, but think 50% of R5 price is a bit over-optimistic.

If the camera has the same build quality as the R5 (which if it's a sports/wildlife camera, it would need to have), and if it differs primarily in sensor size, the only real difference in manufacturing cost would be the physically smaller sensor. Countering that reduction in cost would be the cost of developing the camera and tooling. So I'd expect the cost to be around $3000.

If the camera is more affordable and designed more for the "Rebel" market, I'd expect the specification and build quality to be relatively poor and far from ideal for sports/wildlife, where cameras are regularly exposed to extreme weather and get more than their fair share of knocks and bangs.

I think you're missing the mark at both extremes. It likely won't be an R5 level camera, but it also won't be a Rebel level camera either.

What I expect we'll see when it is announced is a mirrorless 90D. Maybe it will have two instead of one UHS-II SD card slots. But otherwise, it will be a slightly less durable body than the R5/R6, have a slightly inferior AF system to the R5/R6, be slower handling than the R5/R6, have a shallower buffer than the R5/R6, etc.

 

[Michael Clark]

With CF Express you wouldn't run into any buffering on a R7 with 24 MP 30 FPS. AF is just as reliable at 12 FPS as it is on 120 FPS depending on the camera, I just shot a bunch of tests with my Z9's 120 FPS mode and it happy produced over 2000 tack sharp images of my snakes striking things. The time to filter the images is a legit issue, I use Aftershot to help filter but really what we need is the Stacks feature from Aperture brought into Capture One so it can intelligently group a burst into one stack that you edit then promote the keeper candidates to the top.

And FYI I shoot wildlife at 15, 20, 30, and 120 FPS just now. Canon can and should let you pick a variable FPS for the R7.

CFExpress? More likely to have one (or maybe two if Canon decides to be extremely generous) UHS-II SD slot.

 

[Michael Clark]

Using the USH-ii card:
The R5 can record 5.5s of 20fps (110 shots/12bit) or 15s of 12fps (182 shots /14bit).
The R6 can record 9s of 20fps (180 shots/12bit) or >158s of 12fps (>1900 shots /14bit)

CFexpress 2.0 added type A (used and only made by Sony) and unavailable Type C (54 x 74 x 4.8 mm ie huge!) with 4 lanes.
The Type B cards currently in use today max out at theoretical 2GB/s
I have a Sony Tough 128GB Type B CFe card which has 1480MB/s sustained write speed.
8k/30 raw is 2600Mb/s (325MB/s) is far lower than the card speed
8k/30 IPB lite is 340Mb/s (43MB/s) only needs a V60 SD card as per the advanced user guide (page 915-917)

Let's assume that the R5c is also using the same compression ratio for its 8k/30 raw lite (no uncompressed raw option available) so it would need 86MB/s which still can record on a V90 USH-ii card. This is the same bandwidth needed for R5 8k/30 raw IPB

The A1's 8k is compressed and also can be recorded using the USH-ii card although users can insert a CFe Type A card.

So help me out here... how are "USH-ii cards way too slow"? There are many current USH-ii cards that have >200MB/s sustained writes speeds.

Photo Bunny is probably one of those fools who tried to use an UHS-II card in one of Canon's cameras with a UHS-I slot and didn't realize the high speed UHS-II card was defaulting to only 50MB/s when used in a UHS-I slot.

 

[Michael Clark]

What's most exciting about this camera is the 7D II was the first camera to introduce Dual-pixel AF. Could the R7 introduce Quad-Pixel AF to us?

The 70D had DP AF for over one year before the 7D Mark II was introduced.

 

[Michael Clark]

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

What is a "bin" in this context?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I love this forum.

We have one set of people convinced this will be an R1 with an APS-C sensor, packed with new features and outperforming the R3 at a fraction of the cost.

We have another set of people convinced this will be a cheap camera that will obviate the need for the EOS M line and Rebel/xxxD DSLRs, so Canon will just abandon those lines.

All we need is a set of people arguing for a pink Hello Kitty R7 and we’ll have covered all the bases.

Well, except the one where the R7 is a Canon smartphone.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What is a "bin" in this context?

BINoculars, given the context of birders and the mention of (spotting) scopes in the same sentence.