The Canon EOS R7 Mark II likely isn’t coming in 2026

[MkSprintz]

In a way I agree they want us to buy FF bodies, but that isn't reality for many of us or what we're looking for. A robust APS-C body is highly desired to use as a backup and for special gigs. A FF body isn't what I need, I already own 2. I need a more advanced APS-C body, that can take a vertical grip, and the 1.6 crop factor so my 70-200 2.8 becomes a 112-320. Purchasing a 100-300 2.8, even used, is not an option. I strongly believe many pros, and semi-pros, would purchase an R7 MII as soon as it was available. I say this because of all the talk and videos I've seen on how hungry the public is for this R7 MII.

The 70-200 doesn't become a 112-320, the 1.6x crop factor just provides the equivalent focal length if you had used a 112-320mm lens, if you're still too far away from your subject at 200mm it won't be anymore in focus with a 1.6x crop factor.

 

[AlanF]

The 70-200 doesn't become a 112-320, the 1.6x crop factor just provides the equivalent focal length if you had used a 112-320mm lens, if you're still too far away from your subject at 200mm it won't be anymore in focus with a 1.6x crop factor.

Focus isn't the point - it should be in focus whatever the crop factor - it's the number of pixels on the subject. A 20 Mpx APS-C sensor will give you 1.6x1.6 times the number of pixels than does a 20 Mpx FF sensor. And, that can make a perceptible difference if you are reach limited.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I need a more advanced APS-C body, that can take a vertical grip, and the 1.6 crop factor so my 70-200 2.8 becomes a 112-320. Purchasing a 100-300 2.8, even used, is not an option.

There’s no free lunch. 70-200/2.8 on APS-C is equivalent to 112-320mm on FF in terms of field of view, yes. Assuming you’re reach-limited at 200mm, it’s not like you’re going to move further away so DoF will be very slightly shallower on APS-C. But you’re also losing 1.3-stops of light collection, and that translates to more noise. For example, a shot at f/2.8, ISO 1600 on APS-C will have about the same noise as f/2.8, ISO 4000 on FF.

As @AlanF states, the higher pixel density means more pixels on target.

 

[AccipiterQ]

As I’ve stated before, the 7-series historically has been the least frequently updated.

7D – 2009​

7DII – 2014​

R7 – 2022​

The line moved downmarket with the R7. The concept of a ‘flagship APS-C’ isn’t really relevant. Lens sales are very profitable for Canon, they likely want high-end users to buy FF bodies and lenses.

Yup....That's the conclusion I reached as well. I remember making a comment here that the R7 wasn't a real successor, and you said "It is a successor..to the 90D". I bought the R7 at launch and never picked it up again after using it maybe 6 or 7 times. It just isn't flagship or even 'prosumer' to me. I actually used the 7Dii a few times after I put the R7 down, but largely stuck with the R5. While the rumors on the R7ii looked pretty good, I wonder if reality is just that the in-hand product just wasn't much better than the R7. I know some folks here really like the R7, but for me, it was the first time I was disappointed by a Canon product that I used.

 

[Tom R5R7]

Not that Canon cares about individual buyers, but still I hear someone at HQ saying, “Mwaaaahaaaahaaaa, our plan continues to succeed!”

Honestly, one of the things that might have made the R5 II (that's mk two, not eleven) quite possible for birding is the affordable RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 IS lens. While it's not quite up to L standards, it presents a focal length range similar to the 100-500 on an R7, takes teleconverters well, and has pretty decent optical quality, especially given the price.

I'm experimenting this bird migration season with the 200-800 on my R5 rather than the 100-500 on the R7 that I've used these last couple of years. I can attest to the fact that the IS works really well. Granted, it's a little bit slow at the long end at f/9, but in terms of noise, f/9 on the R5 is at least as good or better than f/6.3 on the R7, plus you get more pixels on the subject. I'm thinking that it's a good tradeoff and may well end up with the R5 II in the future.

Whereas I'm comfortable going up to even ISO 12,800 for the occasional shot on the R5, I'm inclined to keep it at 6400 or below on the R7.

My ramblings...

So, a shot with the R7 with the 100-500 at 500 mm f/7.1 taken wide open at 6400 ISO may have a little more noise than a shot taken with the R5 at 800 mm (similar framing) f/9 taken at 12,800 ISO. And to make the equivalent exposure, you would use ISO 10000 on the R5 which would produce an even cleaner image. Based on the PDR charts on Photonstophotos.net , the R5 is about 1 to 1 1/3 stops cleaner than the R7 in the 3200+ ISO range.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Honestly, one of the things that might have made the R5 II (that's mk two, not eleven) quite possible for birding is the affordable RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 IS lens. While it's not quite up to L standards, it presents a focal length range similar to the 100-500 on an R7, takes teleconverters well, and has pretty decent optical quality, especially given the price.

I do think the RF 100-400, 600/11, 800/11 and 200-800 are part of Canon's strategy to increase the shift to FF MILC bodies. All of them provide good IQ and far more reach at substantially lower cost than was available (from Canon) for DSLRs.

 

[MkSprintz]

I wonder if reality is just that the in-hand product just wasn't much better than the R7. I know some folks here really like the R7, but for me, it was the first time I was disappointed by a Canon product that I used.

Wouldn't be surprised if they just recycled the 32.5mp sensor and just upgrade the image processing unit and call it done. We'll see what happens in 2028 most likely, as I don't foresee anything earlier than November 2027 at the most likely if they do release an R7ii.

The R7 itself is still a solid camera, probably why I still keep it as a backup to the R6ii I use as my primary camera body. Have thought about selling the R7 and maybe getting the R6iii or an R5ii.

 

[AlanF]

Honestly, one of the things that might have made the R5 II (that's mk two, not eleven) quite possible for birding is the affordable RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 IS lens. While it's not quite up to L standards, it presents a focal length range similar to the 100-500 on an R7, takes teleconverters well, and has pretty decent optical quality, especially given the price.

I'm experimenting this bird migration season with the 200-800 on my R5 rather than the 100-500 on the R7 that I've used these last couple of years. I can attest to the fact that the IS works really well. Granted, it's a little bit slow at the long end at f/9, but in terms of noise, f/9 on the R5 is at least as good or better than f/6.3 on the R7, plus you get more pixels on the subject. I'm thinking that it's a good tradeoff and may well end up with the R5 II in the future.

Whereas I'm comfortable going up to even ISO 12,800 for the occasional shot on the R5, I'm inclined to keep it at 6400 or below on the R7.

My ramblings...

So, a shot with the R7 with the 100-500 at 500 mm f/7.1 taken wide open at 6400 ISO may have a little more noise than a shot taken with the R5 at 800 mm (similar framing) f/9 taken at 12,800 ISO. And to make the equivalent exposure, you would use ISO 10000 on the R5 which would produce an even cleaner image. Based on the PDR charts on Photonstophotos.net , the R5 is about 1 to 1 1/3 stops cleaner than the R7 in the 3200+ ISO range.

The AF of the RF 200-800mm is significantly better on the R5ii than on the R5.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Wouldn't be surprised if they just recycled the 32.5mp sensor and just upgrade the image processing unit and call it done. We'll see what happens in 2028 most likely, as I don't foresee anything earlier than November 2027 at the most likely if they do release an R7ii.

The R7 itself is still a solid camera, probably why I still keep it as a backup to the R6ii I use as my primary camera body. Have thought about selling the R7 and maybe getting the R6iii or an R5ii.

Both are vastly superior cameras in every aspect except equivelent reach. The R6iii's buffer depth is a joy to behold.
For me, the R7 feels like a toy. The buffer has little depth, the AF isn't a patch on my R5 / R6ii and it's over a stop noiser than my R5...over 2 stops noiser than my R6ii. If I want that kind of reach, I'll use my R5 and crop (then upscale later). I'd rather that than having a camera that constantly delivers files that i'm not happy with.
My concearn with the rumoured sensor in the R7ii is centered around lens optical sharpness. The R5 already stresses lens optical sharpness enough...the R7 will push those requirements even higher. Geeze, even a RF 70-200/2.8 Z might look a tad soft on that sensor! We could be seeing a sensor that resolves over 1.0 at 50 l/mm.

 

[AccipiterQ]

Both are vastly superior cameras in every aspect except equivelent reach. The R6iii's buffer depth is a joy to behold.
For me, the R7 feels like a toy. The buffer has little depth, the AF isn't a patch on my R5 / R6ii and it's over a stop noiser than my R5...over 2 stops noiser than my R6ii. If I want that kind of reach, I'll use my R5 and crop (then upscale later). I'd rather that than having a camera that constantly delivers files that i'm not happy with.
My concearn with the rumoured sensor in the R7ii is centered around lens optical sharpness. The R5 already stresses lens optical sharpness enough...the R7 will push those requirements even higher. Geeze, even a RF 70-200/2.8 Z might look a tad soft on that sensor! We could be seeing a sensor that resolves over 1.0 at 50 l/mm.

I remember the first time I picked up the R7 after buying it...I thought "uh oh". Like you said, felt cheap, like a toy. Noise is awful by modern standards, the subject detection in anything other than "subject against a blank sky or wall" for me was atrocious. So disappointing.

 

[AlanF]

I remember the first time I picked up the R7 after buying it...I thought "uh oh". Like you said, felt cheap, like a toy. Noise is awful by modern standards, the subject detection in anything other than "subject against a blank sky or wall" for me was atrocious. So disappointing.

What I do is very demanding with high cropping of images of birds etc in poor light and high shutter speeds and using lenses like the RF 200-800mm that have narrow apertures and not overly sharp. So, I am at the limits of noise and resolution. Yet, I can squeeze out more detail from the R7 than I can on the R5 and R5ii. Ok, the AF is not a patch on the R5ii, and the rolling shutter means I don't use ES where fast motion is involved. The R7 is like most cameras in that if you play to its strengths, work around its weaknesses and use DxO for noise control, it is a very capable camera. I often go out shooting with my wife where I use the R5ii (or R5) and RF 100-500mm and she the R7 and RF 100-400mm, or I use the RF 200-800mm and she the RF 100-500mm, and her images of the same subjects are barely worse in IQ than mine. For BIF, the R5ii is unbelievably good and not many other bodies can compete with or beat it.