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!

 

[MkSprintz]

What is your source for this statement?

reputable YouTube channels such as Ordinary Filmmaker. Do you really think Canon is going to dramatically up the MPX of the R7 to 39mpx in the R7ii with a stacked sensor and a variation of a Digic Accelerator chip? Most realists can already see that's not true. 32mpx already makes it a high Mpx camera.

We'll likely some information between June-August on some of the actual specs along with the Retro style R8ii.

 

[P-visie]

reputable YouTube channels such as Ordinary Filmmaker. Do you really think Canon is going to dramatically up the MPX of the R7 to 39mpx in the R7ii with a stacked sensor and a variation of a Digic Accelerator chip? Most realists can already see that's not true. 32mpx already makes it a high Mpx camera.

We'll likely some information between June-August on some of the actual specs along with the Retro style R8ii.

I would not call the clickbait video’s from the ‘Ordinary Filmmaker’ a reputable source. A while ago he made a video comparing Canon’s marketshare for digital camera’s (which includes DSLR’s, at the time Canon sold about a million DSLR’s per year) with Canon’s MILC marketshare and made a lot of fuss about Canon’s spectacular loss of marketshare (Yet Another Prediction of Doom for Canon).
When I was 13, our physics teacher taught us that we should pay attention to unit’s when making comparisons. Apparently a concept that he has not grasped.

 

[AlanF]

I would not call the clickbait video’s from the ‘Ordinary Filmmaker’ a reputable source. A while ago he made a video comparing Canon’s marketshare for digital camera’s (which includes DSLR’s, at the time Canon sold about a million DSLR’s per year) with Canon’s MILC marketshare and made a lot of fuss about Canon’s spectacular loss of marketshare (Yet Another Prediction of Doom for Canon).
When I was 13, our physics teacher taught us that we should pay attention to unit’s when making comparisons. Apparently a concept that he has not grasped.

You had a good physics teacher. A rudimentary grasp of units or "dimensional analysis" goes a long way in understanding and not making elementary mistakes.