Unconfirmed Canon EOS R7 Specifications [CR1]

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
CR1 is by definition unconfirmed. Using ‘unconfirmed’ in the title of a CR1-labeled post really makes this seem more like pure conjecture.
You are mixing up the rumors. The specifications are unconfirmed and CR1. But...

Canon Rumors said:
We have confirmed that the camera will be called the “EOS R7” and it will come this year, Q4 being most likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,406
22,770
You are mixing up the rumors. The specifications are unconfirmed and CR1. But...
@neuroanatomist is being perfectly logical grammatically. The title has Unconfirmed Canon EOS R7 Specifications, which consists of a compound noun "Canon EOS R7 Specifications" and an adjective "Unconfirmed". It's those specifications that are unconfirmed. Adding [CR1] is using a pleonasm: "Grammar and Rhetoric. The use of more words in a sentence or clause than are necessary to express the meaning; redundancy of expression either as a fault of style, or as a rhetorical figure used for emphasis or clarity."

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,235
1,740
Oregon
They really need to start kicking out dual CF Express card bodies. It is a nasty precedence to see mixed media bodies, though most especially concerning on the R3 and R7(which assumedly is also built for speed).
And when were anything but 1 series bodies NOT mixed media (or single card)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Let’s not forget that the 7D series was so successful that Canon didn’t bother releasing a MkIII model and instead brought out a 90D with many of the 7-series features. Also fact.
Not sure I'd call this one a "fact". They went on the record shortly after the 90D saying that the future was not in crop sensors. All but completely killing any 7D3 rumors. Personally, I think they hated how many people looked down to the 7D2 instead of looking up to the 1Dx. The 7D2 was too good for its place in the line.
Hundreds of thousands of bird & wildlife photographers that would snap up this camera? Not fact, merely your opinion.
The only problem with that person's claim is it doesn't account for all the hundreds of thousands of sales of the R5s and R6s. As such, the actual sales will likely be much lower than what would have been possible prior to the R5/R6.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
@neuroanatomist is being perfectly logical grammatically. The title has Unconfirmed Canon EOS R7 Specifications, which consists of a compound noun "Canon EOS R7 Specifications" and an adjective "Unconfirmed". It's those specifications that are unconfirmed. Adding [CR1] is using a pleonasm: "Grammar and Rhetoric. The use of more words in a sentence or clause than are necessary to express the meaning; redundancy of expression either as a fault of style, or as a rhetorical figure used for emphasis or clarity."

Sorry, you seem to have missed my point. As I said, the specifications are unconfirmed. But, as other Canon Rumors Posts have indicated the planned release of an R7 is confirmed. Neuro, through his numerous posts, has made it clear he doubts that an R7 will ever materialize. He's entitled to that opinion, but as more rumors materialize, it is becoming increasingly likely that his opinion is wrong.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,164
12,999
Not sure I'd call this one a "fact". They went on the record shortly after the 90D saying that the future was not in crop sensors. All but completely killing any 7D3 rumors. Personally, I think they hated how many people looked down to the 7D2 instead of looking up to the 1Dx. The 7D2 was too good for its place in the line.
The ‘let’s not forget how successful’ bits are mocking the post to which I was replying. My point is that even though many people on this forum really like the 7-series (as did I, although I far preferred the 1D X that I bought to replace my 5DII/7D combo), the line was apparently not a priority for Canon.

Technically, you’re correct that it’s not a fact Canon decided not to release a 7DIII. However, it is a fact that they have not released one yet and I don’t think anyone could honestly say there’s a shred of chance they will at this point.
The only problem with that person's claim is it doesn't account for all the hundreds of thousands of sales of the R5s and R6s. As such, the actual sales will likely be much lower than what would have been possible prior to the R5/R6.
His suggestion was that even people who already bought an R5/R6 would also buy an R7. Hundreds of thousands of them, apparently. LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,164
12,999
Sorry, you seem to have missed my point. As I said, the specifications are unconfirmed. But, as other Canon Rumors Posts have indicated the planned release of an R7 is confirmed. Neuro, through his numerous posts, has made it clear he doubts that an R7 will ever materialize. He's entitled to that opinion, but as more rumors materialize, it is becoming increasingly likely that his opinion is wrong.
That is certainly possible. It’s also been observed that the forum has been rather quiet lately. A quiet forum does not generate revenue. Rumors that generate clicks generate revenue. While I believe the 7-series was not particularly profitable for Canon, I believe rumors about an upcoming 7-series MILC are profitable for this site. I will leave the dot connecting to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
That is certainly possible. It’s also been observed that the forum has been rather quiet lately. A quiet forum does not generate revenue. Rumors that generate clicks generate revenue. While I believe the 7-series was not particularly profitable for Canon, I believe rumors about an upcoming 7-series MILC are profitable for this site. I will leave the dot connecting to you.
Very true. On the other hand, there is some risk for the site owners/administrators if they push rumors that are completely fabricated, as one would hope it would eventually catch up to them. As for this specific rumor though, I would say that the list of "specifications" are just common sense items that either your or I or anyone else who follows this site could have come up with.
 
Upvote 0

Hector1970

CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,554
1,162
That is certainly possible. It’s also been observed that the forum has been rather quiet lately. A quiet forum does not generate revenue. Rumors that generate clicks generate revenue. While I believe the 7-series was not particularly profitable for Canon, I believe rumors about an upcoming 7-series MILC are profitable for this site. I will leave the dot connecting to you.
Hopefully the rumors are true as it has been a quiet year from Canon. No idea if the 7 series was profitable for Canon. I own the 7DII and know alot of people who have owned it, I'd have thought it sold quite well but I've never seen any data on it. Not sure I've ever loved my 7DII but its been well used for sport. I hadn't consider an R7 previously but I'm curious. If it were 32 MP that would be good for nature photograph. R3 I didn't find attractive, I had hoped for 30MP minimum to justify it as a purchase for my needs. It's expensive for what it is and felt a stop-gap to the R1. Hopefully R1 rumours will arrive soon, it should generate some revenue and give me something to dream about until the price tag is confirmed.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,164
12,999
As for this specific rumor though, I would say that the list of "specifications" are just common sense items that either your or I or anyone else who follows this site could have come up with.
I agree, which means some logical person here could easily have emailed in this ‘hot tip’ to the site admin. No need for fabrication. It wouldn’t surprise me if the site receives many such ‘hot tips’ from specibators sending in their (wet) dream camera description.

Keep in mind that CR2 is one step below fact:
[CR2] – Good information from a known source

Here’s a relevant CR2 rumor from a few years back:


Something to keep in mind about this ‘confirmed’ R7.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I hope some of these specs are right... But others are wrong.

BSI sensor... good. Stacked, too? Needed to avoid rolling shutter effect.

20 fps... that's modest by today's mirrorless standards. Unless that's a mechanical shutter.... in which case it would be amazingly fast. The R3 only manages 12 fps, though that's with a larger full frame shutter. It the 20 fps is electronic shutter, it's nothing special. OM-1 can do 50 fps with AF and metering. I wonder, though, if Canon might consider electronic shutter only in the R7, as Nikon has done in the Z9. If the sensor readout is fast enough to prevent rolling shutter effect, there's little need for a mechanical shutter.

Digic X... well, sure.

Dual memory card slots.... good. Personally I'd prefer two of the same type. I don't care whether they're SD or CFExpress, except that the latter type of memory is a lot more expensive.

Video capabilities... I don't care. I shoot stills, not video. Maybe that will change in the future.

Latest hot shoe? Well, sure.

I sincerely hope it's NOT 32.5MP. First, this is not a "nice balanced resolution for APS-C". In fact, far from it. This is the highest pixel density of ANY sensor being used today in an interchangeable lens camera. The next closest APS-C resolution is 26MP. If full frame were made with the same pixel density as 32.5MP APS-C, it would be 83MP.... the closest is 61MP. Or if it were scaled up even farther to medium format, that would be a 140MP camera... the closest is 100MP. Such ultra pixel dense sensor limits usable high ISO and makes the camera more susceptible to shake blur. And it's simply not necessary for a camera of this type. Yeah, Canon probably should make an APS-C R-series with 32.5MP, just not the R7. A more "general purpose" 32.5MP camera would be a mirrorless for 90D and supersede the M6 Mark II. Neither of those has been a true replacement for the 7D Mark II.

If Canon intends the R7 to be a "mirrorless 7D Mark II", to be their top-of-the-line, pro-oriented APS-C mirrorless... it should be 24MP. This is a more practical resolution for an action camera... a significant increase in resolution from the 20MP 7DII... and very comparable to what Canon did with the R3 versus the 1DX Mark III.

No mention of the R7's autofocus system. Let's hope it emulates the R3's in most respects. Personally don't care if it has "Eye Control" like R3... But do want it come as close as possible to everything else found in the R3.

No mention of IBIS... which the R7 must have (like R3, R5 and R6).

No mention of body format.... which I'd prefer to be fairly similar to R5/R6... including ability to share BG-R10 grip with those cameras.

No mention of price... 7D Mark II was introduced at around $1800 US. Best guess is that an R7 as described above cost a bit north of $2000. Just hope it's not too expensive. If it didn't have Eye Control, didn't have a mechanical shutter, and omitted a few other things, would that make it possible to keep below $2400 US? By the way, Canon 90D was introduced at and is still selling for $1200 US.

Canon needs to carefully consider what the competition is doing or can be expected to do. For example, now that they have the Z9 out, it's just a matter of time until Nikon creates a mirrorless D500 (arguably the one APS-C DSLR superior to the 7D Mark II). Nikon already has DX cameras and lenses in their Z-series. The OM-1 is micro 4/3 crop instead of APS-C, but is impressively improved, by all early reports. Fuji isn't resting on their laurels, though they have some work to do before their AF system can compete with the best from Canon, Nikon and Sony. Speaking of which, might Sony want to jump into the fray with their own, more pro-oriented APS-C model. Surely they'd like to have an APS-C model they can charge more for than the $1400 US an A6600 costs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Commercial, & Motorsports
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
790
983
Tampa, FL
www.diossiphotography.com
My current plan is to replace the R6 with the R7...but I wouldn't be surprised if the R7 suffers from the same limitations the R6 has....such as only shooting in IPB, lack of Tv Priority for video, and a more limited implementation of custom shooting modes. I would love to see a truly professional APS-C camera even if it cost $2300-2800.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
...I sincerely hope it's NOT 32.5MP. First, this is not a "nice balanced resolution for APS-C". In fact, far from it. This is the highest pixel density of ANY sensor being used today in an interchangeable lens camera...Such ultra pixel dense sensor limits usable high ISO and makes the camera more susceptible to shake blur. And it's simply not necessary for a camera of this type...

Actually, it is exactly what is necessary for a camera of this type. An R7 would be a specialist camera aimed at bird and wildlife photographers who simply can never get enough pixels on target. There will always be a tradeoff with high pixel density, but most buyers understand that and the tradeoffs are shrinking with modern sensors. Even with the 1.6 magnification, coupled with a 1.4 converter on something like the 100-500 zoom, many users would still be cropping their images significantly because they are distance limited and some subjects (like songbirds) are small anyway.

This is not meant to substitute for the R5, R6 or R3, it is meant to be a companion body. Use the full frame in poor light and sacrifice some resolution. Use the crop R7 in good light when you need more "reach."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Bob Howland

CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
917
588
Actually, it is exactly what is necessary for a camera of this type. An R7 would be a specialist camera aimed at bird and wildlife photographers who simply can never get enough pixels on target. There will always be a tradeoff with high pixel density, but most buyers understand that and the tradeoffs are shrinking with modern sensors. Even with the 1.6 magnification, coupled with a 1.4 converter on something like the 100-500 zoom, many users would still be cropping their images significantly because they are distance limited and some subjects (like songbirds) are small anyway.

This is not meant to substitute for the R5, R6 or R3, it is meant to be a companion body. Use the full frame in poor light and sacrifice some resolution. Use the crop R7 in good light when you need more "reach."
And it really started in August 2007, when Nikon introduced the D3 and D300 simultaneously. Both were 12MP and used very similar focusing systems. The D3 was FF and the D300 was crop and about half the price. An advantage of the D3 over the D300 was having slightly higher battery voltage and therefore being able to drive long lenses faster. A lot of Nikon pros owned a pair of D3's and a D300 using a D3 most of the time and the D300 when they really needed extra reach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I agree. With CFExpress is already out in the market, both cards & cameras, CF Express type A makes more sense then SD Express or UHS-III.
I am not sure that CFe Type A will take off in the market either. Only 3 Sony bodies (high end) are using combined Type A/SD cards today and until very recently only Sony was making them. They are expensive and have smaller capacity than Type B and are limited to a single lane so slower as well. As the A1 doesn't do 8K raw (only compressed) then it doesn't need the full bandwidth that the R5 can record at.
My impression is that Sony users are preferring to use SD cards due to these issues.

The combined slot is an elegant engineering solution but Type A are also late to the market with limited support.
 
Upvote 0