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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Do you really think Canon is going to dramatically up the MPX of the R7 to 39mpx in the R7ii

The 7DII was 20 MP. The R50 and R10 are 24 MP. The 32 MP R7 is a 60% increase over the 7DII and a 25% increase over the R50/R10.

But a 39 MP R7II, which is an increase of 22% over the R7, is ‘dramatic’?

I guess math is hard for some people.

 

[P-visie]

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.

Yes, he was a good teacher and a very nice guy. He also taught us that an answer without a unit was not a correct answer.

 

[MkSprintz]

I guess math is hard for some people.

So are reasonable and logical expectations by the looks of it. Even Jan Wegener has heard the R7ii will in all likelihood stay around the current 32.5 Megapixels.

Caught flack when I said it wasn't being released this Spring, ironically enough that turned out to be quite true.

While we're not getting an official announcement anytime soon for both the R7ii and R8ii, it's looking like October at the earliest. We should get some more solid confirmation of basic specs for both the R7ii and R8ii anytime between June-July-August.

Would expect the R8ii retro will likely be announced officially in October for a winter sales release, and the R7ii's official announcement will probably occur sometime in mid 2027 or fall 2027. Fall 2027 is most likely.

As for a potential 300-600 F/5.6 do you realistically think they're going to price a product like that as much as an F/4 lens? If they're going to give it F/4 pricing they'd best make it an F/4 lens rather than F/5.6 to justify such a move. That lens would be a volume lens sales wise and $6500 is fairly reasonable as far as expectations go.

 

[Del Paso]

So are reasonable and logical expectations by the looks of it. Even Jan Wegener has heard the R7ii will in all likelihood stay around the current 32.5 Megapixels.

Caught flack when I said it wasn't being released this Spring, ironically enough that turned out to be quite true.

While we're not getting an official announcement anytime soon for both the R7ii and R8ii, it's looking like October at the earliest. We should get some more solid confirmation of basic specs for both the R7ii and R8ii anytime between June-July-August.

Would expect the R8ii retro will likely be announced officially in October for a winter sales release, and the R7ii's official announcement will probably occur sometime in mid 2027 or fall 2027. Fall 2027 is most likely.

As for a potential 300-600 F/5.6 do you realistically think they're going to price a product like that as much as an F/4 lens? If they're going to give it F/4 pricing they'd best make it an F/4 lens rather than F/5.6 to justify such a move. That lens would be a volume lens sales wise and $6500 is fairly reasonable as far as expectations go.

The problem is that you present your beliefs as facts!
Wich they definitely aren't!
Edit: ***which*** (sorry!)

 

[neuroanatomist]

So are reasonable and logical expectations by the looks of it. Even Jan Wegener has heard the R7ii will in all likelihood stay around the current 32.5 Megapixels.

My point wasn't about whether it is reasonable and logical that the R7II launches with 32 MP or 39 MP, honestly both are reasonable possibilities. My point was about your characterization of going from 32 MP to 39 MP as, "dramatically" increasing the MP count, when such an increase would be far less of a relative change than the 7DII to the R7, and less of a change than the current delta between the R50/R10 and the R7 (and M6II). An increase to 39 MP is neither dramatic nor unreasonable. Anything less than that would be inconsequential (in which case, it could stay at 32 MP, just as the R5 and R5II have the same MP count).

Personally, I have no skin in the 'high end APS-C' game, but the 7-series seems to have remained a lower priority for Canon since its inception, and I don't see that changing now when Canon's strategy seems to be pushing buyers to FF cameras (and lenses).

As for a potential 300-600 F/5.6 do you realistically think they're going to price a product like that as much as an F/4 lens? If they're going to give it F/4 pricing they'd best make it an F/4 lens rather than F/5.6 to justify such a move. That lens would be a volume lens sales wise and $6500 is fairly reasonable as far as expectations go.

Do you realistically not understand that a 300-600/5.6 needs to have essentially the same glass as the 100-300/2.8, which launched at $9500 and today costs $10,600? As another data point, consider that the EF 200-400/4 + 1.4x (i.e., topping out at 560mm f/5.6) launched at about the same price as the EF 600/4 II that was current at the time.

No lens costing >$4000 is a 'volume lens' from a sales perspective. That's where the RF 100-400, RF 600/11 and RF 800/11 sit in Canon's lineup (and they are a significant part of Canon's strategy of pushing buyers to FF cameras, by offering lenses that make the 'reach' of crop sensors superfluous).

Strategically, it seems logical that Canon could launch a 300-600/5.6 at ~$11.5-12K ($2.5-3K cheaper than the current 600/4) and also launch a 600/4 + 1.4x lens at $16-17K, maintaining a distinct advantage for the prime and providing a good cost differential.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The problem is that you present your beliefs as facts!
Wich they definitely aren't!

I suppose some people think parroting something they watched on YouTube means they know what they're talking about. Then again, parrots are smarter than some randos who post on the internet.