There may be a higher-end APS-C mirrorless announced in late 2020, early 2021 [CR2]

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,310
641
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Do you acknowledge that the 7D Mark II at launch was cheaper and had better build quality than the 5D Mark III? Not to mention the inferior 6D (in all but sensor size) was more than the 7D Mark II as well? An R7 for slightly less than the R6 would not be historically unprecedented compared to the history of the 7D series and the 6D series.
Never owned a 7D II (only mark 1) so I can't speak for the build quality, but we are in different times now and expectations are different. The 7D II came out much later than the 5D III so it's not entirely surprising that the build quality is better.

I'd be very happy to see an R7 class camera come in at a lower price point than the R6. Of course it's possible, and we mustn't forget that the EOS R and RP are still being sold presumably at a profit at a lower price point.

Following on from this I wonder

What compromises would be acceptable to the 7D market in order to get the price of the R7 lower?

I'm assuming that essential features would include the best weather-sealing, magnesium body, high-quality EVF, two card slots and it would certainly make sense to share the R6/R7 body shape and grip.

Would the R5 top screen be required or would the R6 dials be acceptable?

Would CFExpress be needed, or dual UHS-II?


I certainly could imagine a hybrid of R5 and R6 features with an APS-C sensor as a way of getting something at a lower price point than the R6 - but not a straight R5 with an APS-C sensor.
 

SteveC

R5
Sep 3, 2019
1,205
972
Don't forget the EF-M mount was designed so that it *could* work with full-frame sensors (it's virtually identical to the FE mount on Sony which can still work with absolutely ANY design capable of working on the EF mount for full-frame). It was only later that Canon decided NOT to use this mount for full frame.

What this means is that for APS-C, the EF-M mount is similarly capable of maximum performance over older mounts for the smaller APS-C sensor as the RFmount is for full frame.

We've seen a slight increase in size on the EF-M mount since the first EOS-M through to the EOS M5. It wouldn't take much imagination to see Canon producing a more upmarket M body somewhere in size between the M5 and a 90D. We've already seen plans for a possible EF-M mount APS-C 100-400 5.0-7.1 lens which would fit nicely with this too.

It *could* happen, so could an EOS R7. I have no idea which will come.

As you've seen with the R5 and the new 600/800 lenses, Canon are anything but predictable!
Either move, an R7 or an M7, would break a Canon paradigm; full frame [and full size] vs. compact [and crop]. People favoring one alternative will point to the paradigm that the OTHER alternative would break, and say "Canon will never break that" while ignoring the equal unlikelihood of them breaking the paradigm that's blocking their alternative.

If Canon will not break a paradigm, there will never be a full size crop, and that applies to both an R7 and an M7. The arguments one camp is using apply against them as well, which is why this discussion has been fruitless.

As Michael Clark pointed out over and over and over again yesterday (to the point where I nearly lost patience with the repetition of the same rant), Canon has never produced a lens for the M that wasn't a
single particular outside diameter; to make the hypothetical M7 useful for the current 7D crowd, they'd have to break with this (and I wish they would, for other reasons). [Or that crowd would have to buckle down and (*gasp*!!!) use a fragging adapter, but they would be "stuck" with EF lenses that way. The horror!] The logical fallacy here is that Canon is incapable of changing its mind or, perhaps, coming out with another "line" of cameras that use the M mount. That way they could keep their single diameter fetish for the "entry level" line but create another line that isn't bound by those rules, and the lenses would likely be completely interchangeable between the two lines (and why not, the line would be a marketing distinction, not an engineering one). So I could see a semi-pro EF-M mount camera coming out, though the model number might not start with a single "M", maybe PM or MP or something like that. This would let them keep their paradigm largely intact, by supplying a loophole to it. Rather than the EF-M mount being restricted to compact cameras, it would be the M line of cameras and lenses, which just so happens to use the EF-M mount, being restricted to compact cameras, leaving cameras outside that line free to use the EF-M mount as well.

The R mount, on the other hand, seems explicitly intended for Full Frame, Full Stop. They could do something similar here, creating a new line for the crop sensor camera, I'll call it the RC line for convenience. Though I hope that if they do they don't come out with RF-S lenses, or if they do, they don't create/restrict them to a variant of the RF mount.

So you'd have two present, and two potential, marketing lines of lenses.

R cameras and R lenses, using the RF mount, with a full frame sensor.

RC cameras and RC lenses, using the RF mount and a crop sensor. The RC lenses, though only imaging enough to cover a crop sensor, would be interchangeable with the R lenses, with R cameras going into crop mode if an RC lens is attached; there is no special RF-S mount that MUST be used with an RC lens.

MP cameras and MP lenses, using the EF-M mount and (of course) a crop sensor. These could have all the weather sealing, ergos, and build quality of the current 7D, though I can imagine a lesser model roughly corresponding to 90D, that doesn't, being sold alongside the MP7. There'd be no restriction on the sizes of these, and big telephotos and/or superzooms would abound here. Lenses would be fully interchangeable with the M line of cameras.

M cameras and M lenses, using the EF-M mount as well; this is the current bunch of cameras whose name starts with M. The lenses could (and often would) be used on the MP cameras, but nothing that cannot be done in a 61 mm diameter would be sold as an M lens. (Hmm, how close can they get to F/1 on a 61mm focal length? Obviously they can't get all the way there because the lens must have a wall of finite thickness.)

Thus you could have FOUR distinct lines while still having only two mounts, and it's reasonably "tidy." There's no necessity for building redundant lenses just to put a different name on them. Now I expect Canon would chose RC or MP but not both; but nothing precludes them going back a few years later and saying "yeah we should do the MP" (or "yeah we should do the RC") if they see a potential market for it.

Love that MP 100-400 lens but all you have is an M200? No problem, put it on, and ignore anyone who snickers at how the camera looks because they can't snicker at your pictures.
Need an 800mm lens for your R, and all you can afford is an RC800mm? Well, if your R has high resolution, get the RC 800mm and get cropped photos, or for the framing an R 800mm would give you, buy the RC 500mm.
 
Last edited:
Jul 26, 2019
7
2
It seems like a lot of the debate here is around the " One thing multiple sources seem to agree with is that we are going to get some kind of EOS 7D Mark II replacement in mirrorless camera form" but that seems to be a footnote at the end of the article, which otherwise describes something that DOES NOT sound like a 7D replacement. Can it not be possible that maybe everyone is right? Maybe we're getting a significantly upgraded M body AND an APS-C R body. It would explain why there's apparently rumors for both options. Mind you there was a CR2 rumor about a month ago about a "Higher end than M5" M body supposedly coming out within a year. Now we're hearing about a 7D replacement that's "Basically an R6 with a smaller sensor."

Based on the sheer amount of advocates on both sides, it seems like there is easily a market for both options.
 
Jul 26, 2019
7
2
I'll also say I think it's pretty obvious that the M line's primary competitor is the A6000 line from Sony - and they just had a pretty huge upset with the A6600. I'm not saying it necessarily sold the best out of any APS-C body. but they made it bigger, added a new battery, gave it a headphone jack, and people seemed to like it. I think a slightly larger, more-buttons and more-ports M body would follow pretty logically with that line of thinking. Also, we do already have a whole selection of M lenses - is it great? No. But there's more options for that than there are for an APS-C R camera.

Michael's mentioned that the M lineup has existed for eight years and obviously that's true. But I'd argue they've only been taking it seriously since the launch of the M50 - the first M camera to seriously compete with the DLSR lineup and the predecessor to the M6ii, which is the first to surpass the DSLR lineup. That was only a couple months before the R line was released. I believe there's an equal amount for upset within either line.
 

SteveC

R5
Sep 3, 2019
1,205
972
I'll also say I think it's pretty obvious that the M line's primary competitor is the A6000 line from Sony - and they just had a pretty huge upset with the A6600. I'm not saying it necessarily sold the best out of any APS-C body. but they made it bigger, added a new battery, gave it a headphone jack, and people seemed to like it. I think a slightly larger, more-buttons and more-ports M body would follow pretty logically with that line of thinking. Also, we do already have a whole selection of M lenses - is it great? No. But there's more options for that than there are for an APS-C R camera.
Not if you include the RF lenses for full frame, which would work perfectly well on an R-APSC camera, They wouldn't have to make a special line of lenses for this camera; in fact its likely market will probably want to use the full frame glass. In fact, the people who insist that we need an APS-C R do so because they want to get their cropped mitts on RF glass.

Michael's mentioned that the M lineup has existed for eight years and obviously that's true. But I'd argue they've only been taking it seriously since the launch of the M50 - the first M camera to seriously compete with the DLSR lineup and the predecessor to the M6ii, which is the first to surpass the DSLR lineup.
This seems very likely, but it's not certain. I would love to see some sign they're starting to think outside that particular box; fortunately third parties are doing so, including Tamron and Sigma. One thing that I believe is certain is that Canon takes the M cameras more seriously than the posters here who think Canon just ought to dump them. (Riiiiiiight, dump the biggest selling series of cameras on Earth that doesn't place phone calls!)
 
Jul 26, 2019
7
2
Not if you include the RF lenses for full frame, which would work perfectly well on an R-APSC camera, They wouldn't have to make a special line of lenses for this camera; in fact its likely market will probably want to use the full frame glass. In fact, the people who insist that we need an APS-C R do so because they want to get their cropped mitts on RF glass.

This seems very likely, but it's not certain. I would love to see some sign they're starting to think outside that particular box; fortunately third parties are doing so, including Tamron and Sigma. One thing that I believe is certain is that Canon takes the M cameras more seriously than the posters here who think Canon just ought to dump them. (Riiiiiiight, dump the biggest selling series of cameras on Earth that doesn't place phone calls!)
1. It's true that a lot of people who chose the 7D specifically to shoot professional nature and action photography would likely want to use FF glass since the additional crop is the main draw. But I still know plenty of people who gravitated to the 7D simply because it was less expensive and there was cheaper, smaller glass for it (think Sigma 18-35 or EF-S 17-55 for a cheaper standard zoom). I don't think Canon is going to bank the entire market for a high-end APS-C camera on people who could just as easily crop into an R5 image, but I could be wrong. As one of the people that prefers the cost savings of APS-C, I'd hope they'd put out at least SOME solid APS-C glass.

2. And that's ultimately why I think, or at least hope, that we get a high-spec M camera. Even if they have to size it up a bit, I think that it makes more sense to round out their most successful line with one slightly larger camera that can compete directly with the A6600. Bigger battery, bigger grip, better I/O, and some of the new features from the R line would absolutely smash Sony.
 

SteveC

R5
Sep 3, 2019
1,205
972
1. It's true that a lot of people who chose the 7D specifically to shoot professional nature and action photography would likely want to use FF glass since the additional crop is the main draw. But I still know plenty of people who gravitated to the 7D simply because it was less expensive and there was cheaper, smaller glass for it (think Sigma 18-35 or EF-S 17-55 for a cheaper standard zoom). I don't think Canon is going to bank the entire market for a high-end APS-C camera on people who could just as easily crop into an R5 image, but I could be wrong. As one of the people that prefers the cost savings of APS-C, I'd hope they'd put out at least SOME solid APS-C glass.
I based my statement on what I've seen here since I joined--a lot of people who want to put RF glass on a crop camera. Fewer in your situation. Of course, your situation actually means you could be satisfied with an M-series, as you said in your next paragraph.

2. And that's ultimately why I think, or at least hope, that we get a high-spec M camera. Even if they have to size it up a bit, I think that it makes more sense to round out their most successful line with one slightly larger camera that can compete directly with the A6600. Bigger battery, bigger grip, better I/O, and some of the new features from the R line would absolutely smash Sony.
This makes more sense to me than bastardizing the RF mount with a crop sensor model, but it would disappoint the people who want to put fancy RF glass in front of a crop sensor. I even suggested (somewhere) that Canon could "invent" the MP line of cameras, that happens to use the EF-M mount, but isn't as compact as the M series. (It would be a distinction in name, not in engineering); then they could put some fat lenses out there without breaking their precious "M is compact" paradigm.

The funny thing is, in many cases when you suggest that they could buy an R5 and use it in crop mode with the fancy RF glass...THEN they complain about the price--even though they're talking about using the expensive RF glass!! (OK, there are other reasons people might want a crop RF, and only a crop RF, but I maintain most of those issues could conceivably be addressed with an M mount--IF Canon is willing to break their paradigm (or use the loophole I suggested).
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
That's simply not true. Sony have chosen not to make FF 1.2 lenses, but the FE mount is perfectly capable of 1.2 designs. I use the EF 50mm f/1.2L and 85mm f/1.2L with great success on the Sony A7RII.


“Yes we could, but there is no market demand,” Tanaka says. “Maybe some demand exists for an f/1.2, but an f/1.0? Technically we could produce an f/1.0, but it would not make business sense.”

You can't make a 1.2 lens as compact as you can with the RF or Z mount on the FE mount, but it's totally possible. It's only the Nikon F mount for DSLRs that precludes 1.2 design due to the flange distance & throat diameter combination.
And part of the edges of the image circle are "cut off" by the throat of the mount, similar to how a T-adapter can "choke" the image projected by a telescope, when you do, so you're not getting the full benefit of the larger aperture. Compare, for example, vignetting of the same 50/1.2 when used on an EF mount body vs. when used on an E-mount body vs. when used on an F-mount body. It gets progressively worse.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Never owned a 7D II (only mark 1) so I can't speak for the build quality, but we are in different times now and expectations are different. The 7D II came out much later than the 5D III so it's not entirely surprising that the build quality is better.

I'd be very happy to see an R7 class camera come in at a lower price point than the R6. Of course it's possible, and we mustn't forget that the EOS R and RP are still being sold presumably at a profit at a lower price point.

Following on from this I wonder

What compromises would be acceptable to the 7D market in order to get the price of the R7 lower?

I'm assuming that essential features would include the best weather-sealing, magnesium body, high-quality EVF, two card slots and it would certainly make sense to share the R6/R7 body shape and grip.

Would the R5 top screen be required or would the R6 dials be acceptable?

Would CFExpress be needed, or dual UHS-II?


I certainly could imagine a hybrid of R5 and R6 features with an APS-C sensor as a way of getting something at a lower price point than the R6 - but not a straight R5 with an APS-C sensor.
2012 to 2014 is not "much later". Please.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Never owned a 7D II (only mark 1) so I can't speak for the build quality, but we are in different times now and expectations are different. The 7D II came out much later than the 5D III so it's not entirely surprising that the build quality is better.

I'd be very happy to see an R7 class camera come in at a lower price point than the R6. Of course it's possible, and we mustn't forget that the EOS R and RP are still being sold presumably at a profit at a lower price point.

Following on from this I wonder

What compromises would be acceptable to the 7D market in order to get the price of the R7 lower?

I'm assuming that essential features would include the best weather-sealing, magnesium body, high-quality EVF, two card slots and it would certainly make sense to share the R6/R7 body shape and grip.

Would the R5 top screen be required or would the R6 dials be acceptable?

Would CFExpress be needed, or dual UHS-II?


I certainly could imagine a hybrid of R5 and R6 features with an APS-C sensor as a way of getting something at a lower price point than the R6 - but not a straight R5 with an APS-C sensor.
The build quality of the 7D was around the same as the 40D and 50D.

The build quality of the 7D Mark II was, according to Roger Cicala shortly after the 7D Mark II was out in the wild and he found an excuse to tear one down:

"For those who want to take my word for it and skip on to some other blog, the Canon 7D Mk II may be the best weather-sealed camera I’ve run across."
This in the next paragraph after he had opened the blog entry by expressing his skepticism when camera companies claim "better weather sealing" and his belief that:

"... weather sealing still means, “the warranty doesn’t cover water damage.”

"However, when I read that Canon claimed the 7D II has “4 times better weather sealing than the original 7D” I went mildly nuts. Most of you know I hate marketing drivel. HATE IT. Most of you know I’m generally not impressed with weather sealing claims. Unless something has changed in the last 30 seconds, weather sealing still means, “the warranty doesn’t cover water damage.”

"So when I read the claim “4 times more weather sealing” my inner cynic just thought 4 times zero equals zero. But I wanted to be fair so I decided I’d open up the 7D II before I wrote a scathing article about making ridiculous weather sealing claims. Which results in me once again writing an article where I have to admit my assumptions were wrong less correct than I would have liked. (Sorry, I forgot for a moment this was the internet where no one ever says “I was wrong.”)"
In his conclusion to the same blog entry he said:

"This is, by dissection at least, the most thoroughly weather-sealed camera I’ve ever run across. (I would point out that I don’t take apart every camera so please don’t change my wording to say it’s the most weather sealed camera. I don’t know that.) But this isn’t just market-speak weather sealing. It’s a thorough and complete attempt to seal every possible crack and crevice the camera has."
Again, there wasn't anything in the 7D Mark II that was reduced to the level of the 6D vs. the 5D series, yet it sold for less than the 6D before it and the 6D Mark II after it. The 7D Mark II was comparable (or superior) to both the 5D Mark III before it and the 5D Mark IV after it in every way except sensor/mirror size and the resulting performance impacts of the smaller sensor and mirror.

Both the 5D Mark III and the 5D Mark IV sold at just under twice the price of the 7D Mark II. Half of $3,499 is $1,749. The 7D Mark II came in at $1,799.

Canon might or might not price an R7 similarly, but there's certainly precedent for it that you continue to refuse to fully acknowledge.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,646
2,608
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...Both the 5D Mark III and the 5D Mark IV sold at just under twice the price of the 7D Mark II. Half of $3,499 is $1,749. The 7D Mark II came in at $1,799.

Canon might or might not price an R7 similarly, but there's certainly precedent for it that you continue to refuse to fully acknowledge.
On the other hand, we don't know if that bargain price for a mini-1Dx (as it was often called) is one reason why Canon apparently isn't making a 7DIII. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,310
641
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
And part of the edges of the image circle are "cut off" by the throat of the mount, similar to how a T-adapter can "choke" the image projected by a telescope, when you do, so you're not getting the full benefit of the larger aperture. Compare, for example, vignetting of the same 50/1.2 when used on an EF mount body vs. when used on an E-mount body vs. when used on an F-mount body. It gets progressively worse.
Have you actually tried this? I own the EF 50/1.2L and use it frequently with the A7RII and vignetting at 1.2 is no worse than on my Canon bodies. Anyway, you said it was not possible, but it clearly is. We all agree than the wider throat of the RF mount is better, so remind me what you're arguing about?
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,310
641
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Both the 5D Mark III and the 5D Mark IV sold at just under twice the price of the 7D Mark II. Half of $3,499 is $1,749. The 7D Mark II came in at $1,799.

Canon might or might not price an R7 similarly, but there's certainly precedent for it that you continue to refuse to fully acknowledge.
Don't get me wrong, Canon could certainly produce an R7 as you'd suggest at 1/2 the price of the R5. I just don't think they will.

An R7 wouldn't sell anywhere close to how well the 7D II sold. The general downturn in the economy, the reluctance of many to switch to mirrorless, and because finally you don't have to compromise on frame rate by switching to a full-frame sensor as you did before.

The biggest threat to the R7 is the success of the R5. If it's as good as it looks by all accounts for wildlife photography I can imagine a lot of people won't wait for the R7.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
On the other hand, we don't know if that bargain price for a mini-1Dx (as it was often called) is one reason why Canon apparently isn't making a 7DIII. :)
That may well be. But Nikon must have seen the 7D Mark II as some sort of success for Canon or they probably would not have created the D500 after leaving the D300 twisting in the wind for six years.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
Have you actually tried this? I own the EF 50/1.2L and use it frequently with the A7RII and vignetting at 1.2 is no worse than on my Canon bodies. Anyway, you said it was not possible, but it clearly is. We all agree than the wider throat of the RF mount is better, so remind me what you're arguing about?
What I initially said was: "Actually, Sony can not make FF f/1.2 lenses to compete with Canon's due to the limitations of the E-mount throat diameter." I didn't say they couldn't make any f/1.2 lenses, I said they couldn't use the same optical designs to get the same performance with the E-mount that Canon can get with the EF mount.

If there is a 47mm throat at 16mm in front of the sensor one of two design compromises, or a combination of both, must be made:

- Allow more extreme angles from the full surface of the rear element to the edges/corner of the sensors due to a smaller rear element able to fit inside 47mm being so close to the sensor. More extreme angles for the rays coming from each point in the exit pupil results in lower light density at the edges/corners because light spread out over an oval is weaker that the same amount of light spread over a circle with the same diameter as the minor chord of the oval.
- Place the rear elements as far forward as with designs created for the 44mm registration distance and 54mm throat of the EF mount and live with the cutoff/diffraction that results from light striking the edges/corners interacting with the edge of the lens flangering. (This is what happens when you use a Canon f/1.2 EF lens with an E-mount Sony)
- Place the rear element somewhere between the first two options and live with a bit of both.

Admittedly, Canon does not leverage the full possibility of the 54mm throat with the EF 50mm f/1.2 and RF 50mm f/1.2 in terms of the rear element diameter the way they do with the 85mm f/1.2 and the RF 85mm f/1.2 lenses. But they certainly could have if they had wanted to. Sony does not have that option with the 47mm throat of E-mount. Perhaps the geometry only makes a real difference as the focal lengths get longer.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,937
1,689
2 years is much later when we're talking about a possible R7 announcement within a few months of the R5 release. Thank you.
A possible development announcement that the rumor says could be anytime from late 2020 until early 2021?

A possible official product announcement introducing a camera that will be available in a few weeks after a late 2020 or early 2021 announcement?

This rumor is not at all clear about when we can expect any kind of official product introduction and release. It could well be into 2021 before a "development' announcement" might be made. There had been "serious" rumors regarding the 7D Mark II swirling around since at least 2012 before finally ti finally showed up on the market in late 2014. Remember when a lot of folks were mad because they weren't getting a 7D Mark II in early 2012 when Canon announced a replacement for the 7D... (wait for it)... firmware ... which would be released in mid-summer 2012?

The more I go back and read the initial rumor, though, the less I'm convinced whatever this might turn out to be will be a bona fide 7D Mark II type of camera if it is based on the R6 rather than the R5.
 
Last edited:

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,310
641
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
What I initially said was: "Actually, Sony can not make FF f/1.2 lenses to compete with Canon's due to the limitations of the E-mount throat diameter." I didn't say they couldn't make any f/1.2 lenses, I said they couldn't use the same optical designs to get the same performance with the E-mount that Canon can get with the EF mount.
I agree with this now that you have explained things better. Canon and Nikon have an obvious advantage over Sony when it comes to lens design - however this hasn't managed to stop Sony having the widest range of FF lenses for mirrorless - including some extremely well-regarded lenses. Some of these, such as the Sony Zeiss 55mm FE 1.8 are tiny, lightweight and optically magnificent. WIth the Sony 35mm f/2.8 I can keep a full frame camera with lens IN MY COAT POCKET. The RP with the 35mm RF is close, but not quite as compact.

So while Canon and Nikon pushed the boundaries to bring in exceptional high-end lenses, Sony decided to go for a compromise mount that allowed them to keep compatibility with their existing lens and body line, and to keep cameras and lenses compact (which I agree is certainly not what everyone wants). But it was a strategy that's worked for them - and there are plenty of photographers very happy with their investment into the Sony system - myself included.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,310
641
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
The more I go back and read the initial rumor, though, the less I'm convinced whatever this might turn out to be will be a bona fide 7D Mark II type of camera if it is based on the R6 rather than the R5.
I think this is more likely - essentially an R6 body with a 32-mpx APS-C sensor, improved weather sealing . But this assumes DPAF II can be fitted into the denser sensor - because we all agree there's no point having an R7 without the new animal eye AF etc functionality. Perhaps a more conservative 24mpx sensor would be better.

In all cases, I think the best you'll get for video will be pixel binned or cropped 4K30. I don't think Canon would release it without some kind of 4K support.
 

koenkooi

EOS R
Feb 25, 2015
1,180
968
I think this is more likely - essentially an R6 body with a 32-mpx APS-C sensor, improved weather sealing . But this assumes DPAF II can be fitted into the denser sensor - because we all agree there's no point having an R7 without the new animal eye AF etc functionality. Perhaps a more conservative 24mpx sensor would be better.
[..]
I wonder how much of 'DPAF II' is sensor and how much is Digic X. Suppose we hook the 32MP M6II sensor up to a Digic X, will that be 'DPAF II'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark