Possible Canon EOS R7 Mark II Specifications
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Agreed, I only own one aps-c lens (RF-S10-18mm) for my R7. The rest are either FF RF lenses (like the 200-800) or adapted EF lenses which would allow me to use them with a FF R body, if I ever wanted to go in that direction.
Upvote
0
Does a r7ii with this resolution and the rf100 macro negate the need for a long macro lens (working distance)? AF and fps would support handheld usage
Upvote
0
Using it with the RF100 macro would be one big reason to buy it for me. You would have an effective 160mm f4.5 lens, close enough to 180mm f3.5. Also the 100-500 would have more apparent magnification at close range. For me those 2 lenses together (which I already own) would make the R7II worthwhile if it is any good. A 39mp pixel density would be very similar to the OM1. 39x1.6x1.6 = 99.84, 24x2x2 = 96 full frame equivalent.
Upvote
0
Because high MP is a good selling point and people overestimate it. I know people using high-MP cameras with low-res lenses and they are absolutely sure that it brings them much more sharpness.
Give people high numbers and they are happy.
Upvote
0
Bingo, I'm only looking at the R7 MKII for wildlife. I already own a Sony Full Frame camera that I use to take pictures of people and lenses for that need. But for Sony, to get good wildlife photos, you have to spend nearly $7k on an A1 MK II body. I can't justify the cost. Sony's APS-C cameras are great for taking pictures of people, but are a complete joke for sports and wildlife.
Justifying the cost to switch to the R5 MK II would mean switching my whole system over. I don't want to go through that again. Plus, Canon lacks the Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 which I love. If they opened up the RF mount for full frame so Tamron could make it for RF, I'd probably go through that hassle.
That's where the R7 MK II comes in. I don't need to switch out my full frame system, I'd just buy R7mkii for my wildlife photography. I'd just buy this and the Canon 200-800. I'd probably buy the Sigma 17-40 f1.8 to use as a backup for my full frame system.
The 2 things I need to make it worth my while are higher megapixel, 39mp is fine, for cropping in on very small wildlife and a very good focus system comparable to at least the R5 MK ii.
Upvote
0
I also wonder about this topic. Is the margin on lenses so small so it doesn't let both Canon and Sigma (Tamron,..) get enough profit? Or Canon is asking for a license fee AND keeping the price still at the same level as for other systems (not allowing Sigma to sell RF-mount lenses for higher price than Sony FE lenses)?
I understand that letting third-party manufacturers cuts a lot of profit from Canon. And I'm sure if Sony had to choose today they'd close the mount too (they just didn't have other options back then).
I don't know. I think that dealing with convertors and spped boosters is a pain for most people. Hard to tell.
Upvote
0
You're missing the 1.6x crop factor. Even if the resolution remains the same as the R7, if you're shooting small/distant things (birds, planes, Kriptonians) that's a lot more pixels on subject. Most likely, this will be Canon's target customer base. I don't really see them trying to compete with either Sony or Fuji in this regard. Sony's a6XXX APS-C cameras are rangefinders and less appropriately suited to action/wildlife and Fuji's tends to cater more towards those interested in the aesthetics of the camera and their jpeg picture profiles.
Upvote
0
I don’t get your point. Every Canon Lens fits this. You don’t need dedicated APS-C lens to make it work.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I could be wrong, but fairly sure that Canon has actually opened up the R mount, in APS-C format, to third party lens makers.
Upvote
0
I'm all in for boring updates, now the kinks of the RF systems have been mostly ironed out: body ergonomics of the R7 are one of these kinks and really hope they use the R6 body. The MP count upgrade won't be the focus of the Mark II, but its speed: a jump from 33 to 39 plus a faster scan is a huge upgrade sensor side. Personally, I would prefer they stick with 33 but really kill rolling shutter.
Upvote
0
Using a middle of the road lens on a ‘high’ mp sensor definitely gives a sharper, higher IQ image when reduced in size to the output of a ‘low’ mp sensor using the same lens. However, if you use a really high resolving lens on both then the ‘low’ mp sensor steps up to match the reduced ‘high’ mp in my experience, at least when not shooting at the extremes of either spherical aberration or diffraction.
I agree with you; high mp is a good selling point, and will no doubt continue to increase until such a time when manufacturers can gain further sales by offering a ‘low’ mp model of about 20 mp !
Upvote
0
This is the reason why Canon is the only (full-frame) company making this type of camera (mid/upper range crop sensor): it is a specific tool for specific needs. It will mostly be bought as a second body to a full frame camera, hence the absence of specialized APS-C lenses. As others wrote, if you crop a lot and value pixels on target, such a high-performing crop camera makes perfect sense. Birding, macro, astro should be the main uses for it. It (may) not target lower weight or cost reduction as is usually the case for R10 und below.
The alternative is a very high MP count camera with high price and where you don't use much of the sensor: the R5II gives around 17MP in crop mode. The current 33MP R7 has 40% more linear resolution than that.
Upvote
0
I wouldn't argue with your experience at viewing high and low MP sensors output at the same size. But, when not downsizing the higher MP sensor, the wider and sharper the lens, the more the improvement in increasing MP. I really noticed this when I had both the 400mm f/4 DO ii and 100-400mm f/5.6 ii and the 90D.
Upvote
0
Absolutely. I’ve stopped using what might be regarded as mid level lenses on my 5DS for landscape work, lenses such as the EF 24-70 f/4 L for instance, because the IQ I get from ‘high resolution’ lenses is stunning, especially when viewed at full output. But technique is also critical of course, my most important accessory now is an umbrella to keep wind off the camera !
As you noted, my comments were based on viewing high and ‘low’ res files at more normal sizes, so closer to the lower mp camera’s output size.
Upvote
0
No, the working distance from the front of the lens to the subject would be way too short for skittish insects like dragonflies and butterflies. Cropping is no substitue for a long RF macrolens.
Upvote
0
