Rumored Canon EOS M7 camera specifications, and the end of the line for EOS M? [CR1]

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,606
1,455
I could've sworn those were plastic as well, but an actual look proved me wrong. The 32mm also has a metal mount. So that leave my 4th most used EF-M lens, the 28mm. Mount still looks good and is still tight, but it's not as old as the 22 and 11-22 and used a lot less.
I'll get back to you in 4 years or so about the mount on the 28mm :)
Leave it locked in a hot car for a few days and come back to us next week. :D
 

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,074
259
Disagree? With what? I pointed out the RF mount has a diameter nearly equal to the height of an M6-II and M50 (excepting viewfinder hump). Are you claiming that's not true?
I agree those are the camera & mount sizes.

I disagree with the opinion that making EOS-M cameras 10mm taller is a big deal.
 

Baron_Karza

EOS RP
Feb 17, 2019
343
410
I like your photos

Yeah, it's absolutely awful at ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/800, isn't it?

View attachment 192552

View attachment 192553

View attachment 192554

But the age and performance of the 2014 7D Mark II is beside the point.

The existing 32MP APS-C sensor in the 90D and M6 Mark II is better than the 7D Mark II in similar lighting. Presumably a 32MP version of the roughly 80MP sensor expected in the predicted R5s would be even better than that.

This would be a more significant improvement over the 7D Mark II than a 17.8MP APS-C version of the FF 45MP sensor found in the R5.

Many of us who want a 7D Mark II replacement would be perfectly happy with an R7 that uses the existing 32MP sensor found in the 90D/M6 Mark II combined with the DiG!C X processing pipeline and an APS-C version of the 500,000 cycle shutter in the R5 (or even the 300,000 rated shutter of the R6) in a magnesium alloy body with weather sealing comparable to the R5.

Just for comparative purposes, the 2014 $1,799 7D Mark II had a 200,000 cycle rated shutter at the same time the 2012 $3,499 5D Mark III and the 2016 $3,499 5D Mark IV had shutter ratings of 150,000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
461
496
I could've sworn those were plastic as well, but an actual look proved me wrong. The 32mm also has a metal mount. So that leave my 4th most used EF-M lens, the 28mm. Mount still looks good and is still tight, but it's not as old as the 22 and 11-22 and used a lot less.
I'll get back to you in 4 years or so about the mount on the 28mm :)
The 18-55 is also metal mount. I'm sure plastic mount lasts but i've seen broken plastic lens mount before. It's just gives more quality feel.
The 18-150 costs almost £500 new and you get a cheap plastic mount. While metal mount would be 2g heavier and cost $1 more.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,606
1,455
I disagree with the opinion that making EOS-M cameras 10mm taller is a big deal.
I never said that, though others might have. I did infer, mistakenly, that you thought it could go on without a size change, and that I would--and did--disagree with.
 

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
57
27
Orewa , New Zealand
Yeah, it's absolutely awful at ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/800, isn't it?

View attachment 192552

View attachment 192553

View attachment 192554

But the age and performance of the 2014 7D Mark II is beside the point.

The existing 32MP APS-C sensor in the 90D and M6 Mark II is better than the 7D Mark II in similar lighting. Presumably a 32MP version of the roughly 80MP sensor expected in the predicted R5s would be even better than that.

This would be a more significant improvement over the 7D Mark II than a 17.8MP APS-C version of the FF 45MP sensor found in the R5.

Many of us who want a 7D Mark II replacement would be perfectly happy with an R7 that uses the existing 32MP sensor found in the 90D/M6 Mark II combined with the DiG!C X processing pipeline and an APS-C version of the 500,000 cycle shutter in the R5 (or even the 300,000 rated shutter of the R6) in a magnesium alloy body with weather sealing comparable to the R5.

Just for comparative purposes, the 2014 $1,799 7D Mark II had a 200,000 cycle rated shutter at the same time the 2012 $3,499 5D Mark III and the 2016 $3,499 5D Mark IV had shutter ratings of 150,000.
Speak for yourself. I owned a 5D Mark II before my first 7D. I owned a 5D Mark III before my 7D Mark II. Both are tools for different jobs. Most 7D Mark II owners I know also own FF cameras.

What is too expensive for many of us is a $6,000-$8,000 lens needed with a FF camera to get the same reach at f/2.8 under the dim lights in youth and high school stadiums and gyms when a $2,000 or less 70-200/2.8 will do almost as well with a high density APS-C camera. For those of us who need to make more than we spend shooting youth/high school sports it's the only feasible way to stay in the black or green, rather than in the red.

That application also demands durability. My 7D Mark II has more shutter actuations than my 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV combined, even though the 5D Mark III is older than my 7D Mark II. The two FF cameras are my primary bodies except for my "long" body when shooting sports. But that's where the shutter clicks add up the fastest, and in all kinds of weather.
Yep , I’d be happy with an R7 which is exactly the same as the R6 except for an aps-c sensor and I’d buy it at the same price as the R6 but if Canon priced it a bit lower then even better
Also could use a speed booster adapter for wide angle EF lenses for when you don’t need the extra reach
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,691
558
Davidson, NC
The birders "flock" here (pun intended) so it's understandable someone would get the impression that's what 7D users are primarily interested in. I had that impression myself, so thank you for pointing out something different.
I like birds. We have a lot of Cardinals here, so they show up well and are lovely. They are even more obvious and seem more numerous when it snows. I take shots of them occasionally at the bird feeders next door. I once did a time-lapse video of them in a tree near my deck. The woods north of my house begin a few feet from the deck. My bedroom and family room each has three large windows facing the woods, and the breakfast area has one large window and a glass door to the porch and deck facing that way. I saw a male cardinal out the window a few moments ago.

I have photographed hummingbirds in flight. I rarely see them any other way. Exception:

IMG_1242.jpg


I really don't understand the passion I see here for photographing birds in flight. I'm not beyond enjoying some of the photos, but I can't see devoting significant time and effort to making them. I'm not begrudging the people who do. I would imagine a lot of the fun is in the challenge. I can see how if one had no other knowledge of photography except from this board, that one might think that shooting birds in flight is the main use for cameras, and that should be the prime consideration in camera and lens design. OTOH, I can't think of anyone I've ever met in person, and I know a fair number of photography enthusiasts, who are into BIF photography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron_Karza

slclick

Cyclist, photog, drummer & sardonic haiku writer
Dec 17, 2013
4,164
2,154
The M thread is inundated with RF posts, the RF thread is flooded with M posts. This place, sheesh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Baron_Karza

EOS RP
Feb 17, 2019
343
410
Hummingbirds. My favorite bird.
Amazing how they can maneuver and even stay in the same location in mid air.
Their wings move so fast.
They are so small and light.
Amazing to see them photographed in flight.


I like birds. We have a lot of Cardinals here, so they show up well and are lovely. They are even more obvious and seem more numerous when it snows. I take shots of them occasionally at the bird feeders next door. I once did a time-lapse video of them in a tree near my deck. The woods north of my house begin a few feet from the deck. My bedroom and family room each has three large windows facing the woods, and the breakfast area has one large window and a glass door to the porch and deck facing that way. I saw a male cardinal out the window a few moments ago.

I have photographed hummingbirds in flight. I rarely see them any other way. Exception:

View attachment 192557

I really don't understand the passion I see here for photographing birds in flight. I'm not beyond enjoying some of the photos, but I can't see devoting significant time and effort to making them. I'm not begrudging the people who do. I would imagine a lot of the fun is in the challenge. I can see how if one had no other knowledge of photography except from this board, that one might think that shooting birds in flight is the main use for cameras, and that should be the prime consideration in camera and lens design. OTOH, I can't think of anyone I've ever met in person, and I know a fair number of photography enthusiasts, who are into BIF photography.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: privatebydesign

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,691
558
Davidson, NC
Hummingbirds. My favorite bird.
Amazing how they can maneuver and even stay in the same location in mid air.
Their wings move so fast.
They are so small and light.
Amazing to see them photographed in flight.
This is the only shot I got of that bird in flight. The shutter speed was 1/320, which was too fast to get the wings as a good blur, and too slow to stop the wings. I don't even know whether that is possible with an ordinary camera.

IMG_1245.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron_Karza

canonnews

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
753
1,203
Canada
www.canonnews.com
The 18-55 is also metal mount. I'm sure plastic mount lasts but i've seen broken plastic lens mount before. It's just gives more quality feel.
The 18-150 costs almost £500 new and you get a cheap plastic mount. While metal mount would be 2g heavier and cost $1 more.
I have used that 18-150 to death. mount still looks like new.

Frankly I think it's much adu over nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

canonnews

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
753
1,203
Canada
www.canonnews.com
10mm is 12% of the height of the M50, and that includes the viewfinder hump. That's significant to someone looking for a compact, lightweight body.
there's also mount volume to consider. if you made the bodies approximately the same size the RF mount just simply takes up more volume inside of the camera, making less room for shutter, electronics and whatnot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,057
1,801
If I am not wrong, the biggest attraction of the 7D is as a birding camera. The R5 with it's animal eye focus together with the new 600mm and 800mm are amazing combination for birding. I believe that Canon knows the market and will not bother trying to create a true mirrorless replacement for the 7D as the above mentioned combination will suffice and generate volume for the R5.
A lot of sports/action photographers on a budget (think youth, high school, and even small college) also use the 7D Mark II. Under lights or in dim gyms f/2.8 is pretty much mandatory.

There's a big difference between a 7D Mark II ($1,799) + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II ($2,399) = $4,198 and a 1D X Mark II ($5,999) + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II ($6,100) = $12,098 to get the same reach for field sports under the lights. Plus, with a 300/2.8 you still need a 70-200/2.8 or similar lens on another body for when the action gets closer! Sure, there's a difference in IQ, but it's "good enough" for that segment and makes staying in the black or even making a little bit, instead of spending more than one makes, possible. Lesser APS-C cameras don't hold up to the pounding and wear out much sooner or fall victim to weather much easier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu_bert

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,057
1,801
The birders "flock" here (pun intended) so it's understandable someone would get the impression that's what 7D users are primarily interested in. I had that impression myself, so thank you for pointing out something different.
Yeah, most youth/high school/small college sports shooters spend all of their free time editing, posting, and promoting images in an attempt to make as much as they spend on it. LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu_bert
Anything narrower than f/2.8 is a no go when shooting youth/high school/small college sports under lights. A 100-400/4.5-6.3 is useless for that. At f/2.8 we're already using ISO 3200 or higher just to get 1/800 to 1/1000. Before flicker reduction, which times the shutter release at the peak of the lights' cycle, we were only getting 1/500 at f/2.8 and ISO 3200 at most stadiums/ballparks.

The attraction of a camera like the 7D Mark II when we already own FF 5-series bodies is that a $2,000 or less 70-200/2.8 on a high density APS-C sensor will give us the same reach for field sports as a $6,000 EF 300/2.8 L IS II will on a FF body. That's the difference between breaking even/making money and spending more than we make doing that kind of shooting. It doesn't hurt that we're also putting obscenely high shutter counts on a $1,700 body with a 200,000 shutter rating instead of a $3,500 body with a 150,000 shutter rating. Some of us do wear them out and need to replace them before the next "improved" model comes out.
Yep valid points, thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,057
1,801
For them, the R6 with a 70-200 L lens might be the best option. So either way, I don't think that the 7D will be replaced with a mirrorless offering.
As has already been said here several times, the R6 cropped to APS-C is less than 8MP. The R6 is not the answer. Maybe the R5 is, or even a potential R5s if it can maintain the frame rate needed.