There are a couple of “higher-end” RF-S zoom lenses coming with the EOS R7 Mark II

[AccipiterQ]

But what will the "professional" bird shooters complain about next if they do this? What will they blame for their bird photos being blurry by one pixel? Hopefully the camera body can withstand titanic depth submersion, meteoric impact, and many other things so that these birders can get their shots.

That's a bit disingenuous. The R7 is a very flawed body overall, especially when the 7Dii was so highly regarded. The R7 was far from what we expected as a successor and entry into the mirrorless market. It's not a bad camera, it's just that they made a very middling camera and slapped the R7 label on it to sell more units as opposed to really going all-out on it.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Interesting! I briefly owned the R7 and although it is a capable camera for the given price point, I never kind a fell in love with it. The thumbwheel is/ was kind of weird to me, even of three months of usage. The buffer for continuous shooting also filled up really quickly. My father-in-law now owns the camera and he loves it! He is more of people/ travel shooter who likes a lightweight set-up with one or maximum two lenses. For him, it is perfect but obviously it is the market Canon targets or which consumer wish Canon should target.

Richard had an article out a few months ago: "let´s redo the APS-C line-up" in which he stated he wish the R7 would move down to become the R10mkii. I would agree with this sentiment. But please, oh please, keep the R10 body with it.

 

[Dragon]

A 15-85 f/2.8 would be interesting. I have two copies of the EF-s 15-85 and they are both excellent, but slow at the long end. Even a constant f/4 would be nice and clearly smaller than f/2.8. Reality is probably more like 15-70 and 50-120 or 135.

 

[Berowne]

I would like to see an RF-Version of the minimalistic EF-S 60/2.8 Macro (internal focus, no IS) together with an 40Mpx R7 Mark II. Nice and small, Canon take my Money!

 

[Billybob]

I think some Nikon enthusiasts are already complaining that their company doesn't have anything like the original R7.

Be careful what you wish for...

The original R7 was neither an R7 nor D500 replacement.

 

[Billybob]

Just give it a faster Sensor, better DR AND a battery grip and off we go. I am running on two APS-C DSLRs now and I REALLY wanna upgrade, but not to the current R7. When the R7 II comes out then Canon can take all my money and I want two of them plus battery grip.

Tempting, tempting, but I swore off APS-C cameras after my flirtation with the incredibly disappointing R7. As others have said, it's not a bad camera, but it felt like a huge tease promising much but disappointing on the delivery.

I agree with GMCPhotographics that the R7II doesn't need more resolution. It needs a better sensor (faster and...). It also needs a decent buffer. If you give a camera 30fps capability, it needs to be able to go 3-5 secs (or more) before filling the buffer, and it needs to clear that buffer quickly. Give it the R5MII buffer and clearing speed.

And, I know it's too much to ask (or is it?), give it controls similar to the R5MII. What's the point of sticking with Canon if bodies have different interfaces?

 

[Skux]

I hope the body design doesn\'t change much: I like the rear control wheel where it is. Plus, a D-pad allows for those buttons to be programmed. I\'d love to see a VC/Battery grip -- that needs to happen. I\'d also love to see the flash sync speed pushed from 1/320 sec to 1/500 sec! A faster sensor readout speed might make that possible.

APS-C: living the dream!

We need a third horizontal dial on the top plate like the R5/R6 and then move the power switch to the left, then we'd have three dials and the D-pad!

 

[David - Sydney]

But would birders accept a slight DR decrease to offset using a stacked sensor?
I assume pre-capture and 30-40fps top speed. Maybe a R6iii but in APS-C?

 

[David - Sydney]

I haven't really understood the need for longer RF-S lenses when there are lots of RF FF lenses that could be used eg RF100-400 through to RF800/5.6

Would the only benefit be for a smaller size/weight design to cover the smaller image circle? Would they be expensive as the sales volume is probably likely to be small for a constant aperture lens?
Would birders care or just for a smaller walkaround kit?

Would Canon allow longer focal length/constant aperture APS-C options from Sigma/Tamron - and do they exist today in their catalogues?

 

[Bob Howland]

I haven't really understood the need for longer RF-S lenses when there are lots of RF FF lenses that could be used eg RF100-400 through to RF800/5.6

Would the only benefit be for a smaller size/weight design to cover the smaller image circle? Would they be expensive as the sales volume is probably likely to be small for a constant aperture lens?
Would birders care or just for a smaller walkaround kit?

Would Canon allow longer focal length/constant aperture APS-C options from Sigma/Tamron - and do they exist today in their catalogues?

I have the Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 lenses for my R7 and they are optically excellent. Also, I would like Sigma to make a 50-135 f/2.8. But the lens used most often with the R7 is the RF 100-400, mostly because I also own an R6-2 and a closet full of lenses for it.

 

[Gino_FOTO]

RF-S primes as 32mm f/1.4, 22mm f/2, and 500mm f/7.1 are a must for preserving APS-C relevancy, especially when a full-frame camera way below the R8 is very likely.

 

[H. Jones]

If they really want to make it more upmarket like the R7, I think it goes without saying the body itself should be almost identical to the R5. The 7D series being so close to the 5D series just made sense, and made it a more consistent experience for the professionals who may have one of both. I feel like the radical departure on the R7 made it less appealing, but I'm not really in the market for a crop sensor camera after the R5 series fulfilled that need with 45mp full frame and 17mp crop mode.

Quite a few photogs around me though, including a competing newspaper, had paired a 5D3 and a 7D2 at one point, with the 7D on the long glass.

My bet in regards to the lenses is a 15-55mm F/2.8 and a 55-150mm F/2.8, though I don't have any skin in that game haha.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

I seem to be in the minority, at least among CR forum posters, in that I'm very happy with my R7 as-is. I get great results from it, certainly better than I ever got with my 7D2.

If Canon could improve the sensor speed so it could take fast action shots without EVF blackout, then I would seriously consider the upgrade. Otherwise, I'll probably skip this cycle and wait for the Mk III.

That said, any love Canon shows for high end APS-C bodies and lenses is definitely welcome. I'm still holding out hope for that RF-S 16-60 f/2.8 that was rumored a while back.

 

[neuroanatomist]

RF-S primes as 32mm f/1.4, 22mm f/2, and 500mm f/7.1 are a must for preserving APS-C relevancy

Can you explain how a 500mm f/7.1 designed for APS-C would be better than…or different from…one designed for full frame?

Just for fun, compare the specs of long lenses for Olympus/OM (m4/3, smaller sensor than APS-C) with similar focal length/aperture lenses for FF. For example, compare the size/weight of the OM 150-600/5-6.3 for m4/3 with the Sigma/Tamron 150-600/5-6.3 lenses for FF. In fact, the OM lens would work just fine on a FF camera, if OM made them.

You can probably deduce that the above was a rhetorical question, it would not be different at all and therefore have zero impact on preserving APS-S relevancy. That’s why such lenses don’t exist already.

 

[blackcoffee17]

With plastic mounts?

 

[blackcoffee17]

Can you explain how a 500mm f/7.1 designed for APS-C would be better than…or different from…one designed for full frame?

Just for fun, compare the specs of long lenses for Olympus/OM (m4/3, smaller sensor than APS-C) with similar focal length/aperture lenses for FF. For example, compare the size/weight of the OM 150-600/5-6.3 for m4/3 with the Sigma/Tamron 150-600/5-6.3 lenses for FF. In fact, the OM lens would work just fine on a FF camera, if OM made them.

You can probably deduce that the above was a rhetorical question, it would not be different at all and therefore have zero impact on preserving APS-S relevancy. That’s why such lenses don’t exist already.

I agree with you but the Olympus 150-600 is a bad example because that is just a rebranded full frame Sigma lens. A better example would be the Olympus 300mm F4, designed for micro 43 and that lens is about the same size as any full frame 300mm F4 lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I agree with you but the Olympus 150-600 is a bad example because that is just a rebranded full frame Sigma lens. A better example would be the Olympus 300mm F4, designed for micro 43 and that lens is about the same size as any full frame 300mm F4 lens.

Thanks, I'll change the example going forward (not the first time this point has needed to be made, won't be the last). Point stands, the image circle is not limiting for the design of super telephoto lenses (≥300mm, give or take), therefore there is no design advantage to reducing the size of the image circle for a smaller sensor.

 

[esspy2]

A compact RF-S 15-125 F/4 would be most welcome, providing an alternative to the olympus 12-100mm F/4! If Canon could do a tiny 13-30mm F/2.8 or F/4, that would also be much appreciated kind of in the same vein as the 8-25mm olymps

 

[SnowMiku]

Hopefully the price of the R7 II will be around the same as the original R7 at release except for inflation. I don't think they will make the mistake with no battery grip this time, in my opinion mirror-less need it more then DSLR cameras did.

If the R10 gets a mark II, hopefully they will change the battery to the LP-E6N and include weather sealing just like the xxD DSLRs.

Converting the rest of the EF-M lenses to RF-S would show real commitment to RF-S.

 

[LSXPhotog]

That’s the 26MP one, not the 40MP one, right?

Correct. The "X-Trans CMOS 5" is a 26mp stacked sensor and it's actually pretty darn spectacular to use. For some reason, Fujifilm hasn't put that sensor into anything else. They've become obsessed with the SLOW READOUT SPEED 40mp "X-Trans CMOS 5 HR". They've shoved that piece of junk into the X-H2, X-T5, X-T50, and X-100IV. In my opinion, that sensor is a step back from the 26mp X-Trans CMOS 4 that was in the X-T3 and X-T4...it was pretty spectacular and it delivered impressive APS-C low-light performance, an area that the 40mp sensor REALLY REALLY struggles...it also struggles with sensor readout speeds, and buffer....oh and new mandatory video cropping in some record modes.

I own an X-T5 and X-100VI with the new sensor. I'm just like "Cool, I can crop in more, but most of my Fuji lenses look soft now...and all my record modes look/perform worse than the X-T4. My buffer clears slower and fills up quicker...was it worth it? Can I just have a 26mp sensor again?" haha