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

[Michael Clark]

With respect, I strongly believe that Canon’s market research data is more quantitative, more accurate and more relevant than ‘all the talk and videos’ you’ve seen.

Decisions on what Canon does with that data are based on maximizing profit.

They're not basing it on maximizing sales units, nor are they basing it on pleasing the most potential Canon users.

So the two things can both be true: Lots of folks want a true successor to the 7D Mark II AND canon thinks they can maximize profitability by not producing such a camera, perhaps because enough of those potential R7 Mark II buyers will break down and buy an R5 Mark II instead (or a less capable but higher profit margin at this point in its life cycle R7).

 

[Michael Clark]

Honestly, one of the things that might have made the R5 II (that's mk two, not eleven)

You could have saved a bunch of keystrokes and just typed "R5 Mark II".

 

[Michael Clark]

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

Is not the AF on the R5 Mark II significantly better than the R5 with a lot of different lenses? Especially with animal eye AF or humans wearing race helmets?

 

[Michael Clark]

We could be seeing a sensor that resolves over 1.0 at 50 l/mm.

MTF 1.0 is theoretically perfect reproduction which is indistinguishable from the original.

 

[neuroanatomist]

MTF 1.0 is theoretically perfect reproduction which is indistinguishable from the original.

So it will go to 11 (or 1.1, as the case may be).

RIP Rob Reiner.

 

[AlanF]

Is not the AF on the R5 Mark II significantly better than the R5 with a lot of different lenses? Especially with animal eye AF or humans wearing race helmets?

Reputedly so. The 200-800 is the one I have noted personally to be improved, and we were talking about it. The RF 100-500 is so fast any improvement is indetectable.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

MTF 1.0 is theoretically perfect reproduction which is indistinguishable from the original.

Is that an assumotion on your part or a documented fact? I thought it was a linear scale not a log scale.
Is a MFT score of 1.0 just the current top value on the chart. 1.1 is another value thats just over the current scale and would require a longer chart that goes over 1.0. There are sensors (on other camera brands) that are already resolving detail over 1.1 on a MFT 50 lpm chart.
If you check out this site here:

Test Canon EOS R7 - Rozdzielczość - Test aparatu

Test aparatu Canon EOS R7 - Rozdzielczość ...

www.optyczne.pl

The X-H2 is scoring a sensor resolution value of 106 (1.06) and the GH6 gets a score of 111 (1.11). Both are over the nominal 1.0 top value on a lot of lens MFT charts.

 

[AlanF]

Is that an assumotion on your part or a documented fact? I thought it was a linear scale not a log scale.
Is a MFT score of 1.0 just the current top value on the chart. 1.1 is another value thats just over the current scale and would require a longer chart that goes over 1.0. There are sensors (on other camera brands) that are already resolving detail over 1.1 on a MFT 50 lpm chart.
If you check out this site here:

Test Canon EOS R7 - Rozdzielczość - Test aparatu

Test aparatu Canon EOS R7 - Rozdzielczość ...

www.optyczne.pl

The X-H2 is scoring a sensor resolution value of 106 (1.06) and the GH6 gets a score of 111 (1.11). Both are over the nominal 1.0 top value on a lot of lens MFT charts.

MTF as on the Canon charts etc is on a scale of 0 to 1, by definition. An MTF of 1.0 is as @Michael Clark states for a perfect lens, ie one that has 0 aberrations and a huge aperture. 0 is when the lens cap is on or it is the end of a coke bottle. Similarly, the MTF of a sensor is from 0 to 1. You may be confusing it with other measurements that are reported, perhaps resolution in line pairs per mm.

 

[@zajicekpavel]

A cut-up cola bottle instead of a lens sounds like a good idea. Has anyone tried it? : )

 

[Michael Clark]

Is that an assumotion on your part or a documented fact? I thought it was a linear scale not a log scale.
Is a MFT score of 1.0 just the current top value on the chart. 1.1 is another value thats just over the current scale and would require a longer chart that goes over 1.0. There are sensors (on other camera brands) that are already resolving detail over 1.1 on a MFT 50 lpm chart.
If you check out this site here:

Test Canon EOS R7 - Rozdzielczość - Test aparatu

Test aparatu Canon EOS R7 - Rozdzielczość ...

www.optyczne.pl

The X-H2 is scoring a sensor resolution value of 106 (1.06) and the GH6 gets a score of 111 (1.11). Both are over the nominal 1.0 top value on a lot of lens MFT charts.

Anything that scores more than 1.0 on a real MTF test is creating more than was in the test chart, possibly by using computational photography. It's impossible to show more detail than the test chart has which one is attempting to reproduce. At 1.0 it is impossible to distinguish between the test chart and the test image.

 

[mmills79]

So were the statements that the R7 MII was in the "wild" during the winter Olympics totally false?

 

[MkSprintz]

So were the statements that the R7 MII was in the "wild" during the winter Olympics totally false?

Yes, likely the reports were about the R6 V, a more Video focused version of the R6 iii. I would think at the earliest we might see an R7 MKii in or around late winter 2027, but thinking late winter 2028 is more likely.

 

[Mr. Warbucks]

I would like to obtain some reactions on the following. I have been following R7ii intensely, and was obviously very disappointed with the news of postponement

But, it also opened the blinkers a bit and am looking now also at other brands

My workflow is birding, sport of children next to the pitch and occasional ski action of the kids. Weight on shoulders is an issue, hence the cotton carrier is helpful. I hate backpacks. My neck and shoulder muscles hurt, not my back itself

The rumored specs move the R7ii above €2000 (or $). In that price range why not buying the OM-1 II with the brand new 50-200 f2.8 IS Pro. With mc14. Tests show the mc14 does not or very very little impact the quality. Super light . Cropfactor 2. Is that not a lot better than r7 plus 100-500L? Obviously the 100-400 is an option, it is a less quality (from 200 onwards f8) but approx a pound lighter, probably 400 gr with the R7ii

When you remove the MC, excellent reach for ski and football kids. It becomes versatile. The mC20 is probably too much of a quality stretch, however, for hobby in rare case it yields 800 mm in FF equivalence, at f5.6.

I am also looking at a6700 plus 70-350, but got advice that the expansion options may be limited if you want to grow the gear with that small body.

I was really all in for the R7ii but ……

Any feedback please?

Thank you

 

[AlanF]

The rumored specs move the R7ii above €2000 (or $). In that price range why not buying the OM-1 II with the brand new 50-200 f2.8 IS Pro. With mc14. Tests show the mc14 does not or very very little impact the quality. Super light . Cropfactor 2. Is that not a lot better than r7 plus 100-500L? Obviously the 100-400 is an option, it is a less quality (from 200 onwards f8) but approx a pound lighter, probably 400 gr with the R7ii


Any feedback please?

Thank you

Cropfactor 2. Is that not a lot better than r7 plus 100-500L? No it isn't!! The sensor of the OM-1 II is only 20 Mpx, pixel size 3.34µ, but the R7 32 Mpx, pixel size 3.20µ. The R7 has greater reach than the OM-1 II with a lens of the same focal length. In fact, a 280mm lens on it has the reach of only 270mm on an R7.
Edit: to clarify. A 270mm lens on an R7 would have the same reach as a 280mm on an OM-1 II. A 100-500mm on the R7 would have nearly twice the reach of a 280mm on the OM-1 II

 

[MkSprintz]

I would like to obtain some reactions on the following. I have been following R7ii intensely, and was obviously very disappointed with the news of postponement

But, it also opened the blinkers a bit and am looking now also at other brands

My workflow is birding, sport of children next to the pitch and occasional ski action of the kids. Weight on shoulders is an issue, hence the cotton carrier is helpful. I hate backpacks. My neck and shoulder muscles hurt, not my back itself

The rumored specs move the R7ii above €2000 (or $). In that price range why not buying the OM-1 II with the brand new 50-200 f2.8 IS Pro. With mc14. Tests show the mc14 does not or very very little impact the quality. Super light . Cropfactor 2. Is that not a lot better than r7 plus 100-500L? Obviously the 100-400 is an option, it is a less quality (from 200 onwards f8) but approx a pound lighter, probably 400 gr with the R7ii

When you remove the MC, excellent reach for ski and football kids. It becomes versatile. The mC20 is probably too much of a quality stretch, however, for hobby in rare case it yields 800 mm in FF equivalence, at f5.6.

I am also looking at a6700 plus 70-350, but got advice that the expansion options may be limited if you want to grow the gear with that small body.

I was really all in for the R7ii but ……

Any feedback please?

Thank you

The rumored specs aren't true, you're not getting any version of the Digic Accelerator chip in the R7ii and expect when and if it's announced to still be a 32mpx camera not 39mpx.

Unless Canon developed a new APS-C sensor, that strongly points to an R7ii likely re-using the sensor from the R7.

With that said it's also not going to be more than $2000.

 

[SnowMiku]

The rumored specs aren't true, you're not getting any version of the Digic Accelerator chip in the R7ii and expect when and if it's announced to still be a 32mpx camera not 39mpx.

Unless Canon developed a new APS-C sensor, that strongly points to an R7ii likely re-using the sensor from the R7.

With that said it's also not going to be more than $2000.

I would have thought that 90D/M6 ii sensor would be getting a bit too old for an R7 ii in 2027, it will be around 8 years old by then. I think they will make a new faster sensor with less rolling shutter.

 

[P-visie]

The rumored specs aren't true

What is your source for this statement?

 

[Mr. Warbucks]

Cropfactor 2. Is that not a lot better than r7 plus 100-500L? No it isn't!! The sensor of the OM-1 II is only 20 Mpx, pixel size 3.34µ, but the R7 32 Mpx, pixel size 3.20µ. The R7 has greater reach than the OM-1 II with a lens of the same focal length. In fact, a 280mm lens on it has the reach of only 270mm on an R7.
Edit: to clarify. A 270mm lens on an R7 would have the same reach as a 280mm on an OM-1 II. A 100-500mm on the R7 would have nearly twice the reach of a 280mm on the OM-1 II

Thank you! I am puzzled. The APSC of R7 has crop factor 1.6; the MFT of OMI II has 2. Hence with the mc14 OM indeed 1,4 times 200 is 280, times2 is 560 ff equivalent, with constant f4. With mc20 it becomes 400 times 2 is 800 ff equivalent at constant f5.6
The R7 with 100-500L has 1.6 times 500 is 800 at f7.1 . That is also not a lot of light! And even 500gr heavier than the OM.
Pixel density is comparable. Is the software crop capability in lightroom or eq should then be comparable?
I probably miss the point why the canon set up has so much more reach????

 

[neuroanatomist]

What is your source for this statement?

The same place as his ‘source’ for the statement that the RF 300-600/5.6 will cost about half the price of the RF 100-300/2.8.

Some people understand that it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than post on the Internet and remove all doubt. Others…don’t.

 

[Del Paso]

What is your source for this statement?

FOX NEWS or NEWSMAXX