The Canon EOS R7 Mark II is Getting Closer

[PaulL]

I've never personally understood the 7 lineup. If you exclusively shoot crop, seems you'd typically have less expensive lenses (most of the crop lenses are lower end). If you're using full frame lenses, surely you'd want a full frame camera? You can buy the R5ii, and crop to basically the same resolution and zoom as an R7 will give you. But on the days when you don't need that much crop, you still have full frame to take advantage of that expensive glass.

I get that some people do exclusively crop, and use full frame glass - they only shoot wildlife or whatever. But I would have thought the number who'd drop close to R5 money but not take that step and just get an R5 would be reasonably small.

I'm obviously wrong because the R7 sells quite well. I just don't really understand why.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

I've never personally understood the 7 lineup. If you exclusively shoot crop, seems you'd typically have less expensive lenses (most of the crop lenses are lower end). If you're using full frame lenses, surely you'd want a full frame camera? You can buy the R5ii, and crop to basically the same resolution and zoom as an R7 will give you. But on the days when you don't need that much crop, you still have full frame to take advantage of that expensive glass.

I get that some people do exclusively crop, and use full frame glass - they only shoot wildlife or whatever. But I would have thought the number who'd drop close to R5 money but not take that step and just get an R5 would be reasonably small.

I'm obviously wrong because the R7 sells quite well. I just don't really understand why.

You are right, most of Canon's RF crop lenses are lower end. And that is annoying if you are an "high-end" or "prosumer" R7 user like I would describe myself. I still use EF-S 15-85mm as my standard zoom. I see no other options on the market to replace that. I have yet to find the first Canon RF-S lens worth buying for me (even though I buy a lot of lenses - too many sometimes ). But luckily with Sigma crop-lenses, things are starting to look better.
Btw, I also do wildlife photography. But I do "all kinds" of photography. I choose crop with intention to get a kit of prosumer equipment at less weight and cost than a fullframe kit. And yes, kit also includes fullframe lenses like the RF 100-500L which conveniently on a 1.6x crop-camera is equivalent to 160-800mm on fullframe, but at much reduced and nice handheld size and weight.

 

[PaulL]

You are right, most of Canon's RF crop lenses are lower end. And that is annoying if you are an "high-end" or "prosumer" R7 user like I would describe myself. I still use EF-S 15-85mm as my standard zoom. I see no other options on the market to replace that. I have yet to find the first Canon RF-S lens worth buying for me (even though I buy a lot of lenses - to many sometimes ). But luckily with Sigma crop-lenses, things are starting to look better.
Btw, I also do wildlife photography. But I do "all kinds" of photography. I choose crop with intention to get a kit of prosumer equipment at less weight and cost than a fullframe kit. And yes, kit also includes fullframe lenses like the RF 100-500L which convincingly on a 1.6x crop-camera is equivalent to 160-800mm on fullframe, but at much reduced and convenient handheld size and weight.

My partner has an R6. We moved to it from the M6ii. The M6 was a great transportable camera with good image quality. The lenses were surprisingly good, and the overall kit was tiny. But she was never happy.

The R6 is a massive step up, and a big part of that is the lenses. The camera is good, the auto focus is a game changer for her (she photos her dogs a lot and was having focus issues). But the light that comes in the lenses is the difference - she has the 70-200L and a couple of primes. I rudely refused to also buy the 24-70 F2.8, so she has the 24-105 F4L. That was a stupid thing for me to do, because whilst it was cheaper, she doesn't like it and doesn't use it much - I should have just got her the 24-70 and been done with it. I'll end up buying it anyway, and then we'll have a spare 24-105F4.

And that's why I struggle a bit with the crop lenses, even in the Sigmas. The high end L lenses are just so much better. Sure, not everyone can afford them. But people who are buying an R7 presumably can - it's not a cheap camera.

Again, obviously that's not true of everyone, and there's a niche for it. I'm just still surprised at how big that niche is. If you're buying a few L lenses, particularly big ones like a 100-500, then most of your money is in the glass. Why would you pinch a few dollars on the difference between the R5 and the R7? It always seems to me that the R5 does everything the R7 does - but perhaps there's something you can do with an R7 that you can't do with an R5?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

> On the surface, it looks like the rumored EOS R7 Mark II will be an APS-C equipped EOS R5 Mark II.

What does that even mean?

45 megapixels in FF is 20 megapixels in APS-C. So the sensor is not the same, obviously...

Is it the button layout? The number of buttons? R7's are usually smaller so how would that work.

Hmmm it's more like a R6II R7 hybrid. The pixel count is way less than the R5/R5II and the EVF is from the budget parts box that is also shared with the R6II and R8. The R5II carries some of the best tech avilable to canon, the R6ii less so....the current R7 even less so. Great cameras, but the low resolution EVF is one of the R6II / R7 and R8's weak points.

 

[ThomasTH]

Hmmm it's more like a R6II R7 hybrid. The pixel count is way less than the R5/R5II and the EVF is from the budget parts box that is also shared with the R6II and R8. The R5II carries some of the best tech avilable to canon, the R6ii less so....the current R7 even less so. Great cameras, but the low resolution EVF is one of the R6II / R7 and R8's weak points.

The R6 II does not have the same EVF as the R7 and R8. The EVF of the R6 II has 3.69 million dots and the EVFs of the R7 and R8 have 2.36 million dots.

 

[Quack]

....
Again, obviously that's not true of everyone, and there's a niche for it. I'm just still surprised at how big that niche is. If you're buying a few L lenses, particularly big ones like a 100-500, then most of your money is in the glass. Why would you pinch a few dollars on the difference between the R5 and the R7? It always seems to me that the R5 does everything the R7 does - but perhaps there's something you can do with an R7 that you can't do with an R5?

The R5 mark I is selling for $2999, the R7 $1499. If you consider $1500 to be a "few dollars," then you don't understand the financial situation that the vast majority of people are in. The original R5 does not have the same AF system as the R7, as it only tacks in full sensor AF zone. For some this may not matter, but the ability to track in all of the zones (which is possible in all of the newer Canon cameras, including the R7) is a big advantage, in my opinion. Plus the 1.6x crop factor makes the R7 the choice for many birders and wildlife photographers. So, yes, for many, there is something you can do - at least better - with the R7, not to mention save a lot of money.

 

[Del Paso]

My partner has an R6. We moved to it from the M6ii. The M6 was a great transportable camera with good image quality. The lenses were surprisingly good, and the overall kit was tiny. But she was never happy.

The R6 is a massive step up, and a big part of that is the lenses. The camera is good, the auto focus is a game changer for her (she photos her dogs a lot and was having focus issues). But the light that comes in the lenses is the difference - she has the 70-200L and a couple of primes. I rudely refused to also buy the 24-70 F2.8, so she has the 24-105 F4L. That was a stupid thing for me to do, because whilst it was cheaper, she doesn't like it and doesn't use it much - I should have just got her the 24-70 and been done with it. I'll end up buying it anyway, and then we'll have a spare 24-105F4.

And that's why I struggle a bit with the crop lenses, even in the Sigmas. The high end L lenses are just so much better. Sure, not everyone can afford them. But people who are buying an R7 presumably can - it's not a cheap camera.

Again, obviously that's not true of everyone, and there's a niche for it. I'm just still surprised at how big that niche is. If you're buying a few L lenses, particularly big ones like a 100-500, then most of your money is in the glass. Why would you pinch a few dollars on the difference between the R5 and the R7? It always seems to me that the R5 does everything the R7 does - but perhaps there's something you can do with an R7 that you can't do with an R5?

I too did buy the 24-105 f/4 rather than the 24-70, for its longer focal.
And, like your partner's 24-105, mine didn't get much use.
Hard to say why, but I never liked it. I found it ok, but never stunning. I just found it good, but boring...
So I sold it and got the 24-70, and now, I'm happy but waiting for an f/2 version. No matter what so-called internet experts say, the 24-70 plays in a different league.
The 24-70 f/2,8 could become a nice Christmas gift if you know what I mean...

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I don't own an R5 Mark II, but I do have an R5 and an R7 (love one, not the other), and I'm very impressed by what I hear and see from R5II owners. If the R7 Mark II really is an R5II body with a stacked BSI 32/33 MP crop sensor then I will be absolutely delighted. A low resolution EVF would be a big disappointment, especially as I've grown used to the excellent 5.76 MP EVF in my OM-1, but not a deal-breaker I guess.

 

[ShowMeTheEagles]

2.36m pixel EVF is disappointing for a body that is suppose to be going up market. But I can live with it. What is a must for me is R5 2-like rolling shutter, improved low light capability, and CFx slot. These are the reasons I sold my R7 earlier this year. I'm happy with my R5 2 and would prefer to stick with Canon on a crop sensor body, but if Canon puts it's thumb on the R7 2's potential I'll go with a dual brand kit. The R7 was a disappointment to me because it was "dumbed down" and didn't live up to its digital ancestor's heritage. This is Canon's chance to make good. I'm not afraid of a $1K price hike over the R7 if it's a true upgraded body.

 

[Uneternal]

You can buy the R5ii, and crop to basically the same resolution and zoom as an R7 will give you.

Um, the R5 will end up with 17.5 megapixels if you crop to 1.6x. With the R7 you have 33 megapixels, allowing you an additional 1.25x crop and you still have 21 megapixels left. That's ideal for wildlife, sports etc. With a 200mm lens you basically get a 320mm lens + a 400mm lens equivalent.

 

[SteB1]

My hope is if it has no shutter, that it will do focus stacking, with flash like I believe the R5 mkII does, and the OM-D cameras. However, whilst this would give Canon kudos in the macro photography world they would ideally need a lens that goes to at least 2:1, like the OM 90mm macro. Okay, the RF 100mm does 1.4:1 (I still have the EF 100mm L). I'm also looking forward to better AF and proper pre-shooting. I'm not so interested in the R6 mkIII, unless it offers something fantastic over the R6 mkII, as I'd look to getting the R5 mkII in the future, if I wanted to update my FF.

 

[jam05]

Sounds great. Hope that most of this comes to fruition.

Three main things for me is I hope Canon start to standardise the layout rather than every camera having different ergonomics. Be nice to pick up cameras in a similar pro line and muscle memory to be retained like it used to be with the 5D and 7D line.

Secondly I hope that they can make the AF like the R5II, its so good that it rarely misses and the R7 is more hit and miss and the specs on paper dont really translate into the real world.

Third, I hope we have a quicker sensor to reduce rolling shutter, maybe not stacked like the R5II. Readout speeds of the R6II would be great.

In other words cheapen the R5mk II?

 

[Steve Balcombe]

My hope is if it has no shutter, that it will do focus stacking, with flash like I believe the R5 mkII does, and the OM-D cameras. However, whilst this would give Canon kudos in the macro photography world they would ideally need a lens that goes to at least 2:1, like the OM 90mm macro. Okay, the RF 100mm does 1.4:1 (I still have the EF 100mm L). I'm also looking forward to better AF and proper pre-shooting. I'm not so interested in the R6 mkIII, unless it offers something fantastic over the R6 mkII, as I'd look to getting the R5 mkII in the future, if I wanted to update my FF.

I don't think there's a cat's chance that Canon will compete with the OM-1 plus M.Zuiko 90 Macro. It's not just the 2:1, it's the compact size and significantly lower weight, and the tiny TCs which not only fit the macro lens but also retain fully functional autofocus and focus stacking/bracketing at macro distances.

Focus stacking with flash is a brilliant feature on the OM-1, I use it loads, but Canon has to do a lot more than that.

And yet, if the R7 MkII has the rumoured specification I will still buy one to use with my RF 100-500, and (like yourself) an adapted EF 100L Macro for 'simple' macro.

 

[David - Sydney]

I've never personally understood the 7 lineup. If you exclusively shoot crop, seems you'd typically have less expensive lenses (most of the crop lenses are lower end). If you're using full frame lenses, surely you'd want a full frame camera? You can buy the R5ii, and crop to basically the same resolution and zoom as an R7 will give you. But on the days when you don't need that much crop, you still have full frame to take advantage of that expensive glass.

I get that some people do exclusively crop, and use full frame glass - they only shoot wildlife or whatever. But I would have thought the number who'd drop close to R5 money but not take that step and just get an R5 would be reasonably small.

I'm obviously wrong because the R7 sells quite well. I just don't really understand why.

APS-C sensors have a number of advantages:
- The R7 has "more pixels on bird" pixel density. 33mp vs ~17mp on the highest density full frame R5. Better options for cropping in this case.
- Working distance eg for nervous insects/birds/snakes eg one of the reasons for the EF180mm macro lens.
- Generally smaller and cheaper lenses eg
- The EF60mm macro giving the same equivalent focal length as the EF/RF100mm macro. Much smaller underwater housing setup for macro in this case.
- Using a EF or RF70-200/2.8 vs EF300mm/4 or EF300/2.8 or RF100-300/2.8 for the same "reach". No one would suggest that the 70-200/2.8 is lower end.

Of course the equivalent depth of field suffers vs full frame but "reach" can be a higher priority for some (most?).
It also assumes similar dynamic range between crop and full frame sensors which is not the case.

 

[SnowMiku]

My partner has an R6. We moved to it from the M6ii. The M6 was a great transportable camera with good image quality. The lenses were surprisingly good, and the overall kit was tiny. But she was never happy.

The R6 is a massive step up, and a big part of that is the lenses. The camera is good, the auto focus is a game changer for her (she photos her dogs a lot and was having focus issues). But the light that comes in the lenses is the difference - she has the 70-200L and a couple of primes. I rudely refused to also buy the 24-70 F2.8, so she has the 24-105 F4L. That was a stupid thing for me to do, because whilst it was cheaper, she doesn't like it and doesn't use it much - I should have just got her the 24-70 and been done with it. I'll end up buying it anyway, and then we'll have a spare 24-105F4.

And that's why I struggle a bit with the crop lenses, even in the Sigmas. The high end L lenses are just so much better. Sure, not everyone can afford them. But people who are buying an R7 presumably can - it's not a cheap camera.

Again, obviously that's not true of everyone, and there's a niche for it. I'm just still surprised at how big that niche is. If you're buying a few L lenses, particularly big ones like a 100-500, then most of your money is in the glass. Why would you pinch a few dollars on the difference between the R5 and the R7? It always seems to me that the R5 does everything the R7 does - but perhaps there's something you can do with an R7 that you can't do with an R5?

I personally prefer to spend more on lenses then the cameras, I have the original 70-200mm f2.8L and 70-300mm f4-5.6L that I use on both my 90D and 6D.

 

[SteB1]

I don't think there's a cat's chance that Canon will compete with the OM-1 plus M.Zuiko 90 Macro. It's not just the 2:1, it's the compact size and significantly lower weight, and the tiny TCs which not only fit the macro lens but also retain fully functional autofocus and focus stacking/bracketing at macro distances.

Focus stacking with flash is a brilliant feature on the OM-1, I use it loads, but Canon has to do a lot more than that.

And yet, if the R7 MkII has the rumoured specification I will still buy one to use with my RF 100-500, and (like yourself) an adapted EF 100L Macro for 'simple' macro.

Yes, Canon have dug a deep hole for themselves. I haven't used the OM-1, but I do have a EM-5 mkIII and the 60mm macro. I have borrowed both the OM-1 and 90mm macro briefly from an OM ambassador. I've no idea why Canon made both of their 100mm L, lenses, not compatible with TCs. Also, Canon needs a long macro lens, to replace the ancient EF 180mm.

 

[SteB1]

I've never personally understood the 7 lineup. If you exclusively shoot crop, seems you'd typically have less expensive lenses (most of the crop lenses are lower end). If you're using full frame lenses, surely you'd want a full frame camera? You can buy the R5ii, and crop to basically the same resolution and zoom as an R7 will give you. But on the days when you don't need that much crop, you still have full frame to take advantage of that expensive glass.

I get that some people do exclusively crop, and use full frame glass - they only shoot wildlife or whatever. But I would have thought the number who'd drop close to R5 money but not take that step and just get an R5 would be reasonably small.

I'm obviously wrong because the R7 sells quite well. I just don't really understand why.

Essentially, if you do a lot of both bird and macro photography, with FF, you have to crop every single photo, a lot. I mean, even with APS-C you have to crop a lot. Take the UK, unless you use a blind/hide, you will rarely get close enough to a bird, for you to fill the frame with it, no matter how long your lens is. The R5, is only 18mp when cropped to APS-C, and you will probably have to crop well into that. So you need as much pixel density as you can get. That's the reason why.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

My partner has an R6. We moved to it from the M6ii. The M6 was a great transportable camera with good image quality. The lenses were surprisingly good, and the overall kit was tiny. But she was never happy.

The R6 is a massive step up, and a big part of that is the lenses. The camera is good, the auto focus is a game changer for her (she photos her dogs a lot and was having focus issues). But the light that comes in the lenses is the difference - she has the 70-200L and a couple of primes. I rudely refused to also buy the 24-70 F2.8, so she has the 24-105 F4L. That was a stupid thing for me to do, because whilst it was cheaper, she doesn't like it and doesn't use it much - I should have just got her the 24-70 and been done with it. I'll end up buying it anyway, and then we'll have a spare 24-105F4.

And that's why I struggle a bit with the crop lenses, even in the Sigmas. The high end L lenses are just so much better. Sure, not everyone can afford them. But people who are buying an R7 presumably can - it's not a cheap camera.

Again, obviously that's not true of everyone, and there's a niche for it. I'm just still surprised at how big that niche is. If you're buying a few L lenses, particularly big ones like a 100-500, then most of your money is in the glass. Why would you pinch a few dollars on the difference between the R5 and the R7? It always seems to me that the R5 does everything the R7 does - but perhaps there's something you can do with an R7 that you can't do with an R5?

Expensive photoequipment "hurts". It can be hard to justify when it's just a hobby. I don't need L-lenses, but I want something better than the cheapest and slowest ones. So "prosumer" lenses is my ideal. But Canon doesn't have so many of them (neither for fullframe). I also think some of my L-lenses has been too expensive. But I closed my eyes and bought them anyway

But as you say, if I really wanted a fullframe kit, I could probably afford it. The thing is, I just don't want it.

I actually had an R6 for a while. I had no hurry making the switch to mirrorless, and it wasn't until the introduction of Animal Eye AF in R5/R6 that mirrorless cameras started to look attractive to me. But the Animal Eye AF was also so attractive, that I purchased the R6 together with the 800mm/f11 to use for wildlife (I already had the EF 70-300L and some other fullframe lenses too).

I loved the R6. It is probably the "best" camera I have had. I think it feels a lot more mature than the later R7 does. But when I got the R7, I never looked back at the R6 again. Why? The R6 is a great camera, but it is not the kind of camera I want. My lenses becomes to big and heavy for the setups I want to carry with me. And that goes both for wildlife and for the more "casual photography".

My casual walk-around APS-C kit today consist of Sigma 10-18mm/2.8, EF-S 15-85mm and EF-S 55-250mm. There's room for making it even more lightweight, especially if we get a mirrorless replacement for the 15-85mm. But it is still much more lightweight than a similar set of lenses for a fullframe camera would be. For wildlife the 1365g RF100-500L vs the 2050g RF200-800mm speaks for itself. While I can handhold the 200-800mm for a short while, I would never go anywhere with it without also bringing a monopod/tripod. The 100-500mm I pack without support most of the time.

But if we should talk a bit more about prices of photo-equipment...
Good lenses are (almost) "forever". Bodies only last a limited number of years before I feel the need to replace them. With my first DSLR (EOS 400D in 2006) I purchased the EF-S 10-22mm and EF-S 17-55mm/2.8. And when the EF-S 15-85mm was introduced in 2009 I purchased that too. If it wasn't for the change of mount, I would probably still be using all three of them today (the 17-55/2.8 as an alternative to the 15-85 for situations I want a faster lens).
The shorter flange distance of the new RF-mount does however make it possible to make more extreme or lightweight lenses. And Sigma 10-18mm/2.8 has replaced the EF-S 10-22mm, and in a week I expect the new Sigma 17-40mm/1.8 to completely replace the 17-55/2.8. And as many might guess, a mirrorless replacement for the 15-85mm would be an instant buy (either "similar" but lower weight or more "extreme" at same weight), if such a lens was to be introduced.

I don't change camera as often as I think many others do. Since 2006 I have had the 400D, 50D, 7DII and now the R7 (ignoring the R6 because it never fully replaced my APS-C kit). But for me it is still makes much more sense to use a lot of money on a lens than on a camera body. So even if I wanted that kind of camera, paying the price for a camera like the R5II would feel insane.

The subject is a beaten horse. A lot of people feel provoked that I prefer APS-C, and want to convince me that I should go fullframe. And I'm probably also going to stop with this post, because the discussion will continue forever, but not change my mind. Maybe I'm in a niche group, maybe I represent a lot of other R7/APS-C shooters? I don't know... But I know what I want.

 

[AlanF]

Expensive photoequipment "hurts". It can be hard to justify when it's just a hobby. I don't need L-lenses, but I want something better than the cheapest and slowest ones. So "prosumer" lenses is my ideal. But Canon doesn't have so many of them (neither for fullframe). I also think some of my L-lenses has been too expensive. But I closed my eyes and bought them anyway

But as you say, if I really wanted a fullframe kit, I could probably afford it. The thing is, I just don't want it.

I actually had an R6 for a while. I had no hurry making the switch to mirrorless, and it wasn't until the introduction of Animal Eye AF in R5/R6 that mirrorless cameras started to look attractive to me. But the Animal Eye AF was also so attractive, that I purchased the R6 together with the 800mm/f11 to use for wildlife (I already had the EF 70-300L and some other fullframe lenses too).

I loved the R6. It is probably the "best" camera I have had. I think it feels a lot more mature than the later R7 does. But when I got the R7, I never looked back at the R6 again. Why? The R6 is a great camera, but it is not the kind of camera I want. My lenses becomes to big and heavy for the setups I want to carry with me. And that goes both for wildlife and for the more "casual photography".

My casual walk-around APS-C kit today consist of Sigma 10-18mm/2.8, EF-S 15-85mm and EF-S 55-250mm. There's room for making it even more lightweight, especially if we get a mirrorless replacement for the 15-85mm. But it is still much more lightweight than a similar set of lenses for a fullframe camera would be. For wildlife the 1365g RF100-500L vs the 2050g RF200-800mm speaks for itself. While I can handhold the 200-800mm for a short while, I would never go anywhere with it without also bringing a monopod/tripod. The 100-500mm I pack without support most of the time.

But if we should talk a bit more about prices of photo-equipment...
Good lenses are (almost) "forever". Bodies only last a limited number of years before I feel the need to replace them. With my first DSLR (EOS 400D in 2006) I purchased the EF-S 10-22mm and EF-S 17-55mm/2.8. And when the EF-S 15-85mm was introduced in 2009 I purchased that too. If it wasn't for the change of mount, I would probably still be using all three of them today (the 17-55/2.8 as an alternative to the 15-85 for situations I want a faster lens).
The shorter flange distance of the new RF-mount does however make it possible to make more extreme or lightweight lenses. And Sigma 10-18mm/2.8 has replaced the EF-S 10-22mm, and in a week I expect the new Sigma 17-40mm/1.8 to completely replace the 17-55/2.8. And as many might guess, a mirrorless replacement for the 15-85mm would be an instant buy (either "similar" but lower weight or more "extreme" at same weight), if such a lens was to be introduced.

I don't change camera as often as I think many others do. Since 2006 I have had the 400D, 50D, 7DII and now the R7 (ignoring the R6 because it never fully replaced my APS-C kit). But for me it is still makes much more sense to use a lot of money on a lens than on a camera body. So even if I wanted that kind of camera, paying the price for a camera like the R5II would feel insane.

The subject is beaten horse. A lot of people feel provoked that I prefer APS-C, and want to convince me that I should go fullframe. And I'm probably also going to stop with this post, because the discussion will continue forever, but not change my mind. Maybe I'm in a niche group, maybe I represent a lot of other R7/APS-C shooters? I don't know... But I know what I want.

Regarding wild-life lenses, I use the RF 200-800, RF 100-500 and RF 100-400 on the R5ii and the R7, depending on what I am doing and shooting. May I recommend to you the RF 100-400mm as an additional lens on the R7 - it is so light, cheap and sharp enough that it is a pleasure to carry around and can produce very nice images.

 

[Stig Nygaard]

Regarding wild-life lenses, I use the RF 200-800, RF 100-500 and RF 100-400 on the R5ii and the R7, depending on what I am doing and shooting. May I recommend to you the RF 100-400mm as an additional lens on the R7 - it is so light, cheap and sharp enough that it is a pleasure to carry around and can produce very nice images.

I have that too, and I fully agree. Cheap and lightweight, but still pretty great optically.
I have too many lenses, cannot list them all in one post ;-) But I use the RF100-400mm pretty often for more "casual wildlife" or when carrying a "just-in-case" lens for wildlife.