Unconfirmed Canon EOS R7 Specifications [CR1]

tapanit

.
CR Pro
Jul 17, 2012
131
66
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."
Agreed with the first paragraph. If it's basically an R5 with a crop sensor but higher pixel density and better AF, I would consider buying it even at close to the R5 price. I wouldn't mind if the crippled the video features, either.

The second, I'm not so sure about. For several people (including me) yes, but I think quite a few people would be happy with it as their only body, if they have fairly little need for shorter focal lengths. For those needs they'd want a crop standard zoom and a crop wide-angle, something like 18-55 and 10-22.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,723
4,663
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...For several people (including me) yes, but I think quite a few people would be happy with it as their only body, if they have fairly little need for shorter focal lengths. For those needs they'd want a crop standard zoom and a crop wide-angle, something like 18-55 and 10-22.
To elaborate, I agree that quite a few people would be happy with an R7 as their main or only body and Canon will be happy to sell to those people. I just think that Canon may prefer to market the R7 to those who will use it as a second body or, at least at a minimum, make that a key part of their marketing strategy. I agree a two lens RF-S strategy would be likely and reasonable, although I think a 15-85 would be a better option than the traditional 18-55, which in my view is too long at the wide end and too short at the long end.
 

bernie_king

EOS 90D
Jun 30, 2014
127
156
The 7dm2 was above the 6d, it was a mini 1dx, so I'd expect it to be better than the R6, I still use my 7d MK2 and my 6d, I take one along with my R5.
I really never got the "Mini 1DX" reference to the 7D II. After having both, the only thing the 7D2 did that was even close to a 1DX was the frame rate. I actually hated that camera. It couldn't focus near as well as the 1D4 I had before it and for sure nowhere near as well as the 1DX I replaced it with, at least with the 500/4 I had at the time. Also terrible high-iso.
 
Last edited:

SHAMwow

EOS R5
CR Pro
Sep 7, 2020
80
125
I really never got the "Mini 1DX" reference to the 7D II. After having both, the only thing the 7D2 did that was even close to a 1DX was the faster shutter speed. I actually hated that camera. It couldn't focus near as well as the 1D4 I had before it and for sure nowhere near as well as the 1DX I replaced it with, at least with the 500/4 I had at the time. Also terrible high-iso.
Agree on all points. People romanticize the 7D series so much. I get it, back then the model fit the lineup but it wasn't really the end all be all. The high iso was brutal. I still stand by that I'd take an R6 right now. I get that the extra $500 is off-putting to people, but you are getting a lot of camera for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,904
6,181
I really never got the "Mini 1DX" reference to the 7D II. After having both, the only thing the 7D2 did that was even close to a 1DX was the faster shutter speed. I actually hated that camera. It couldn't focus near as well as the 1D4 I had before it and for sure nowhere near as well as the 1DX I replaced it with, at least with the 500/4 I had at the time. Also terrible high-iso.
I suspect that relatively few 7-series owners have actually used a 1-series body. They make a spec-based comparison, e.g. the 7-series has the same fps as the concurrent 1-series.

I had a 7D and 5DII, then bought a 1D X. There’s really no comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

danfaz

RFIVE
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2015
132
102
www.1fineklick.com
  • "A combination of ergonomics from the EOS R6 and EOS R5"
As far as I can see, the only *ergonomic* difference between these models is that the R5 has a top plate LCD, whereas the R6 has a conventional mode dial.

So which is it to be?
That's the biggest difference, for sure. The R5 has a slightly larger LCD and more rubberized texture around the body than the R6.
 

SaP34US

EOS 90D
Aug 21, 2018
132
14
Once the R7 comes out or is at least announced will come out with R C version of the R7?
 

mkabi

EOS RP
Mar 21, 2013
513
3
42
I know this probably going to get on the nerves of some people... but it has to be said if it hasn't already been said...

Its kinda lame in terms of video specs... considering the rumors of the Fuji XH2 and/or XH2-S. Just saying...
 

researcher

EOS M50
May 30, 2015
26
8
Will the R7 be at a similar technical & price point, adjusted for inflation and supply chain woes, as the 7D? If so, will there be a down-spec version(s) to pick up the more entry/recreational Rebel-series market? Or have cell-phone cameras rendered the entry-level post-DSLR market moot?