The R7 Mark II with 39MP: It Sounds Spot on – and here’s why it makes sense

[GMCPhotographics]

With the R5ii on the other hand...

View attachment 227635

Boom! Very nice! Yes we all need a R5ii in out photographic lives!

 

[roby17269]

So, Canon, if you’re listening, hopefully you are going to decide to do this.

If the R7 II does indeed materialize in the next few months, then all of such decisions have already been taken some time ago....

 

[Planterz]

Yeah, but how much your are willing to pay for that privilege?
The extra cost of a stacked sensor is way more than a shutter replacement.
This wouldn't be anywhere near the price of a R7 or A6700.

A good amount, assuming the R7 II in fact has a fast sensor and other specs like a decent buffer, CFe, etc. It'd still be less than an R5 II or A1 II.

And to contradict that, you might end up with way more pictures than you need, and it needs way more time to cull through, reducing time spent on taking good pictures, which is not the same as spending time actually taking pictures. It's of course different for sports photographers, etc.

Sure. Those 25K shots resulted in pitiful few keepers. I kinda suck, but I'm getting better with practice and knowledge. I know purchasing skill can only go so far, but I'm certain I'm limited by my current camera (foremost is the offset viewfinder). I don't expect better gear to instantly make me a pro, but it'll provide me a more capable platform to improve with.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

If the R7 II does indeed materialize in the next few months, then all of such decisions have already been taken some time ago....

I have no idea if the R7's competition have a stacked sensors or not. It seems the current focus is on headline MP. I would take a 24mp cropped sensor if it was stacked over a 39MP sensor that isn't stacked. Who wants that kind of resolution strain on their lenses?
However, Canon doesn't seem to want to be the stacked sensor pioneer in non top tier cameras. Currently, only the R1, R3 and R5ii have them in the Canon eco-system.

 

[Planterz]

I have no idea if the R7's competition have a stacked sensor or not. It seems the current focus is on headline MP. I would take a 24mp cropped sensor if it was stacked over a 39MP sensor that isn't stacked. Who wants that kind of resolution strain on their lenses?

The only APS-C camera with a stacked sensor is the Fuji X-H2S, with 26mp. Price-wise, at nearly $3K, it's not a competitor. It's Fuji's version of a professional sports camera...or would be if Fuji's autofocus was better. The R7's closest competitors are the Fuji X-T50 or X-T30 III, maybe a couple other Fujis, and the Sony a6700. Some Fujis have 40mp sensors. It's an odd market, and making direct comparisons aren't as cut-and-dry as R6 III vs Z6 III vs A7V, or R5 II vs A1 II vs Z8.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The only APS-C camera with a stacked sensor is the Fuji X-H2S, with 26mp. Price-wise, at nearly $3K, it's not a competitor. It's Fuji's version of a professional sports camera...or would be if Fuji's autofocus was better. The R7's closest competitors are the Fuji X-T50 or X-T30 III, maybe a couple other Fujis, and the Sony a6700. Some Fujis have 40mp sensors. It's an odd market, and making direct comparisons aren't as cut-and-dry as R6 III vs Z6 III vs A7V, or R5 II vs A1 II vs Z8.

Manufacturer have been splitting brand product portfolio's for years, trying to find a market sweet spot to leverage. However, the question witht eh R7 is "how upmarket" is it going? With a stacked sensor, it would be a game changer in the crop sensor market and lead the way. Especially if it was a relatively cheap camera compared to a R5ii.
I guess we'll all know closer to the time but my gut instinct says nay, it's not have a stacked sensor. If the R7 becomes the 1.6x crop version of a R6iii then...no it's not likely.

 

[roby17269]

I have no idea if the R7's competition have a stacked sensors or not.

Don't think that's the case currently, but the "high end pro crop body" is not a camera class with much representation nowadays, even assuming that the R7 I/II belong in there...

It seems the current focus is on headline MP. I would take a 24mp cropped sensor if it was stacked over a 39MP sensor that isn't stacked. Who wants that kind of resolution strain on their lenses?

Someone that appreciates high resolution and does not need fast speeds? It's not that uncommon...

However, Canon doesn't seem to want to be the stacked sensor pioneer in non top tier cameras. Currently, only the R1, R3 and R5ii have them in the Canon eco-system.

That seems pretty common across the industry - I guess it also depends on whether you consider "partially stacked" sensors (e.g. Nikon Z6 III or Sony A7 V) counting as stacked or not

 

[John Wilde]

"We’ve long thought of where the R3 may fit in with a new Canon landscape that includes the R1"

Jared Polin is of the opinion that there will never be a R3 Mark II. He gets pre-release cameras from Canon USA, so I wonder if his comment is an "authorized leak".

 

[amorse]

I'm definitely in the market for a higher resolution body, and I'm content to accept the limits of diffraction with that body (and work around them), but man, I really don't want an integrated grip. I'd be carrying that thing for weeks on end in a hiking bag, and the weight/size matters a lot in that scenario, especially when I'm definitely going to add an L bracket. I'm hopeful that Fujifilm removing the integrated grip on the GFX 100 in the GFX 100 ii update indicates that the market doesn't want an integrated grip in that type of body. But we'll see I guess! Canon doesn't exactly appear to be in a hurry to release a higher resolution body than the R5 mark ii, so I'm betting it's a small subset of people with my desire.

 

[jim]

No one has talked about the R7's wonderful Quick Control Dial! Am I the only user who prefers Canon's implementation of this dial?? It's position is perfect, allowing for quick movements of my thumb between it and the AF-on button. On other cameras the dial is too low and awkwardly placed for my hand. I hope they keep it but make a few improvements: make it larger(!) and more "grippy". Aesthetically, it is butt ugly but works for me.
Aside from what has been discussed already, I want the 7DII to be tougher, something along the lines of the 7DII or even the 1D series.

 

[Uneternal]

As posted in another thread, I do think the diffraction limit matters. Maybe not so much for printing an uncropped photo, but rather for cropping. And this is exactly why Canon held back on the megapixel race so far.

Manufacturers have been using that 24MP for so long because it sits almost perfectly in the sweet spot between resolution and diffraction. Calculations from Gemini prove that refraction with a 39MP sensor already kicks in at ~f/4, so an image taken with one of Canon's f/11 lenses probably doesn't give you any more detail than just upscaling a 24MP one.

Going forward, I think we're slowly reaching physical limits where resolution merely becomes a marketing tool, as we see it with cellphones. We know a 108 megapixel phone picture is nowhere near as detailed as a 24 megapixel camera photo. They just look good downscaled to Instagram size.

 

[roby17269]

As posted in another thread, I do think the diffraction limit matters. Maybe not so much for printing an uncropped photo, but rather for cropping. And this is exactly why Canon held back on the megapixel race so far.

Manufacturers have been using that 24MP for so long because it sits almost perfectly in the sweet spot between resolution and diffraction. Calculations from Gemini prove that refraction with a 39MP sensor already kicks in at ~f/4, so an image taken with one of Canon's f/11 lenses probably doesn't give you any more detail than just upscaling a 24MP one.

2 things...

1. your view of diffraction seems to be an almost binary one: before a certain limit good results, beyond that limit unusable results. That's not the case, the diffraction effect is a continuum and depending on the photographer's tolerance and the viewing medium / size / distance, a photo can still be acceptable
2. no manufacturers maintain a certain metric constant because it is "good for photography" - they do it because a) making a new sensor is a huge investment and they want to milk that as long as they can, and b) they are happy to spec cameras to the lowest "good enough" point they think that the customers will tolerate given the price at

More mp is an easily sellable metric... Adding more mp to a camera will have a positive sales impact much greater than the negative impact due to increased diffraction. Everyone sees the big mp number, many less understand its actual consequences (negative and positive alike)

Going forward, I think we're slowly reaching physical limits where resolution merely becomes a marketing tool, as we see it with cellphones. We know a 108 megapixel phone picture is nowhere near as detailed as a 24 megapixel camera photo. They just look good downscaled to Instagram size.

We also know that by default 108mp phone sensors deliver 27mp or 12mp images (they bin 4 or 9 pixels into one). You can set it to take 108mp images and in good conditions (that's the big caveat) it will certainly deliver more than 24mp of details