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

[AlanF]

Thank you! I am puzzled. The APsc if E7 has crop factor 1.6; the NFT of OMI II has 2. Hence with the mc14 OM indeed 280 time 2 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????

Ok put a 2xTC on the 200mm f/2.8, and it gives you 400mm f/5.6, with a hit on the IQ from the 2x. But, it will still be behind the R7 with the RF 100-500mm.

The R7 sensor is 22.3mmx14.9mm and is 4640 pixels high, the OM 17.3mmx13mm and is 3880 pixels high. The R7 has 20% more pixels in height and is only 15% higher in mm. So, it is packing in ~4% more resolution. The Canon is like the OM sensor but with extra length either side with no loss of resolution. A 500mm lens on the R7 gives an effective 1.25x1.04 times the focal length of the 400mm on the OM. That is 30% longer, and without a 2xTC to hit the IQ, and you can put a 1.4x on it to give 700mm to give nearly twice the effective focal length.

The image from the R7 should be no noisier than from the OM-1 II. If you don’t believe me, here is the DR chart from photons to photons showing that the R7 is overall better.
As far as light getting in is concerned, a 500mm f/7.1 gives the same number of photons per duck as a 400mm f/5.6. Both lenses have a front lens diameter of about 71mm, and let in the same amount of light.

 

[Del Paso]

Ok put a 2xTC on the 200mm f/2.8, and it gives you 400mm f/5.6, with a hit on the IQ from the 2x. But, it will still be behind the R7 with the RF 100-500mm.

The R7 sensor is 22.3mmx14.9mm and is 4640 pixels high, the OM 17.3mmx13mm and is 3880 pixels high. The R7 has 20% more pixels in height and is only 15% higher in mm. So, it is packing in ~4% more resolution. The Canon is like the OM sensor but with extra length either side with no loss of resolution. A 500mm lens on the R7 gives an effective 1.25x1.04 times the focal length of the 400mm on the OM. That is 30% longer, and without a 2xTC to hit the IQ, and you can put a 1.4x on it to give 700mm to give nearly twice the effective focal length.

The image from the R7 should be no noisier than from the OM-1 II. If you don’t believe me, here is the DR chart from photons to photons showing that the R7 is overall better.
As far as light getting in is concerned, a 500mm f/7.1 gives the same number of photons per duck as a 400mm f/5.6. Both lenses have a front lens diameter of about 71mm, and let in the same amount of light.

View attachment 229689

As usual, very well explained, so even I can understand!

 

[Mr. Warbucks]

I’m

Ok put a 2xTC on the 200mm f/2.8, and it gives you 400mm f/5.6, with a hit on the IQ from the 2x. But, it will still be behind the R7 with the RF 100-500mm.

The R7 sensor is 22.3mmx14.9mm and is 4640 pixels high, the OM 17.3mmx13mm and is 3880 pixels high. The R7 has 20% more pixels in height and is only 15% higher in mm. So, it is packing in ~4% more resolution. The Canon is like the OM sensor but with extra length either side with no loss of resolution. A 500mm lens on the R7 gives an effective 1.25x1.04 times the focal length of the 400mm on the OM. That is 30% longer, and without a 2xTC to hit the IQ, and you can put a 1.4x on it to give 700mm to give nearly twice the effective focal length.

The image from the R7 should be no noisier than from the OM-1 II. If you don’t believe me, here is the DR chart from photons to photons showing that the R7 is overall better.
As far as light getting in is concerned, a 500mm f/7.1 gives the same number of photons per duck as a 400mm f/5.6. Both lenses have a front lens diameter of about 71mm, and let in the same amount of light.

View attachment 229689

thank you very much!