Unconfirmed Canon EOS R7 Specifications [CR1]

tapanit

.
CR Pro
Jul 17, 2012
141
75
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
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.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.
 
Upvote 0
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:
Upvote 0

SHAMwow

EOS R5
CR Pro
Sep 7, 2020
188
257
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
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,186
13,043
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
Upvote 0

danfaz

Coffee Fiend
Jul 14, 2015
950
1,829
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.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
Once the R7 comes out or is at least announced will come out with R C version of the R7?
I doubt it. Cinema versions are generally reserved for just one or two models in the lineup. There was a cinema 1Dx and there is now a cinema R5. I expect that will be the extent of Canon cinema R models for the time being.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 28, 2013
1,615
280
70
A matter of opinion, indeed. Let’s not forget that the 7D series was so successful it was refreshed even less frequently than the 1-series. That’s fact. 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.

Hundreds of thousands of bird & wildlife photographers that would snap up this camera? Not fact, merely your opinion.

You’re right about Canon knowing the market, but that really doesn’t bode well for the CR forum members who want a ‘cropped pro camera’, of which over the past 13 years Canon has launched only two.
Looks like that’s about to change!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0