Why No EOS R7 Mark II This Year?

[dynamike]

The major drawbacks for the R7 are AF and not having Pre-shooting. It's great for stills, but for action, BIF, DIF etc it's not in the same league as the R5ii etc. If they improved the AF and added Pre-shooting, I'd throw on a lighter telephoto like the RF 100-500mm or the RF 100-400mm and use it rather than the R5ii + RF 200-800mm. I have a feeling Canon might not like that.

The R7 does have Pre-shooting, although 0.5s is not always enough (1s like the Z9 & Z8 are offering gives a bit more room for reaction, if you are slow, but the Nikons don't record RAW-files, only JPEGs...). Unfortunately it is hidden in the menu under RAW burst mode and is not deployable as a single button action via Custom Functions which makes it not very useful especially in situations (such as wildlife has plenty of) where you would want to activate this setting quickly.

Here's the link to the manual for those who are not familiar with the feature:

Canon : Product Manual : EOS R7 : RAW Burst Mode

The R7 has other major drawbacks such as its "unique" button layout (no other Canon EOS has the same scheme; the EOS 7D, 7DII and 5D models had all the same universal button layout which was extremely comfortable when using different bodies - except for the EOS 1D series which was and is always something special), it has a very loud mechanical shutter (almost unusable for shy wildlife) and a slow electronic shutter, no option for a separate battery grip (like the EOS 7D & 7DII had and all the EOS 5D models had and was extremely handy with long telephoto lenses) and - as you mentioned - the lack of a powerful & intelligent AF-system (which could have been at least partially addressed via Firmware updates, but that never happened and this shows the low priority the R7 has at Canon).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Unfortunately it is hidden in the menu under RAW burst mode and is not deployable as a single button action via Custom Functions which makes it not very useful especially in situations (such as wildlife has plenty of) where you would want to activate this setting quickly.

Not very easy to deploy, and the RAW burst must be unpacked with Canon's DPP. Vastly inferior to the pre-continuous shooting option on more recent cameras.

 

[MkSprintz]

The R7 does have Pre-shooting, although 0.5s is not always enough (1s like the Z9 & Z8 are offering gives a bit more room for reaction, if you are slow, but the Nikons don't record RAW-files, only JPEGs...). Unfortunately it is hidden in the menu under RAW burst mode and is not deployable as a single button action via Custom Functions which makes it not very useful especially in situations (such as wildlife has plenty of) where you would want to activate this setting quickly.

Here's the link to the manual for those who are not familiar with the feature:

Canon : Product Manual : EOS R7 : RAW Burst Mode

The R7 has other major drawbacks such as its "unique" button layout (no other Canon EOS has the same scheme; the EOS 7D, 7DII and 5D models had all the same universal button layout which was extremely comfortable when using different bodies - except for the EOS 1D series which was and is always something special), it has a very loud mechanical shutter (almost unusable for shy wildlife) and a slow electronic shutter, no option for a separate battery grip (like the EOS 7D & 7DII had and all the EOS 5D models had and was extremely handy with long telephoto lenses) and - as you mentioned - the lack of a powerful & intelligent AF-system (which could have been at least partially addressed via Firmware updates, but that never happened and this shows the low priority the R7 has at Canon).

Despite its shortcomings it is an incredible camera, and very capable of capturing quite a lot of avian wildlife including hummingbirds. The only BiF it might struggle with is take-offs, of which pre-capture on cameras can sometimes make that scene more obtainable than in the pre-mirrorless days.

That said bodies such as the R6ii run circles around the R7, and there is a noticeable step up in image quality sometimes. Though better image quality might not always be discernible to the naked eye. Probably why the R7 has largely sat in my bag while I use the R6ii.

Hopefully whatever is released in 2027 or 2028, or whenever at this point addresses those minor shortcomings of the existing R7.

 

[AlanF]

The R7 does have Pre-shooting, although 0.5s is not always enough (1s like the Z9 & Z8 are offering gives a bit more room for reaction, if you are slow, but the Nikons don't record RAW-files, only JPEGs...). Unfortunately it is hidden in the menu under RAW burst mode and is not deployable as a single button action via Custom Functions which makes it not very useful especially in situations (such as wildlife has plenty of) where you would want to activate this setting quickly.

Here's the link to the manual for those who are not familiar with the feature:

Canon : Product Manual : EOS R7 : RAW Burst Mode

The R7 has other major drawbacks such as its "unique" button layout (no other Canon EOS has the same scheme; the EOS 7D, 7DII and 5D models had all the same universal button layout which was extremely comfortable when using different bodies - except for the EOS 1D series which was and is always something special), it has a very loud mechanical shutter (almost unusable for shy wildlife) and a slow electronic shutter, no option for a separate battery grip (like the EOS 7D & 7DII had and all the EOS 5D models had and was extremely handy with long telephoto lenses) and - as you mentioned - the lack of a powerful & intelligent AF-system (which could have been at least partially addressed via Firmware updates, but that never happened and this shows the low priority the R7 has at Canon).

I have used it, and it's a disaster. As @neuroanatomist and you have said it's a pain to get into and use. But, more importantly, it works only with ES, of course, and the R7's rolling shutter is a catastrophe with fast action. Here are some shots from it I posted some years ago to illustrate how rolling shutter renders it useless for capturing fast action with ES using the pre-shooting mode of the R7. You need to use the mechanical shutter or EFCS for fast action and it's OK then.

 

[AlanF]

Despite its shortcomings it is an incredible camera, and very capable of capturing quite a lot of avian wildlife including hummingbirds. The only BiF it might struggle with is take-offs, of which pre-capture on cameras can sometimes make that scene more obtainable than in the pre-mirrorless days.

I don't use Pre-shooting much at all waiting for birds or insects to take off. For me, it's far more useful for birds in flight in general as it enables you to track and capture an action that you would otherwise need to save images continuously and have more to process. It's also very useful when you are trying to capture very fast erratically flying birds or insects that flash across your viewfinder and you react only after they have disappeared off screen.

 

[Skyfall]

The R7 plus RF 100-400mm is a winning combination, and for perched birds is pretty close to the R5ii + RF 100-500mm. It's also great for dragonflies and butterflies etc. I've posted dozens of shots on CR of birds and insects taken side by side by my wife with the R7 + RF 100-400mm and by me with the R5ii/R5 + R 100-500mm, and it's pretty difficult to distinguish between them. Here are some shots from yesterday. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/page-148#post-1046336

It also has the benefit of being half the weight, it thought about it while chasing swallows with the 100-500

 

[track inspector]

I sold my R5 just as it was announced that the R7II was not coming out until 2027! The R7II would be a perfect match to a 70-200 F2.8Z as well as being a great second camera to the R5II. Now I am stuck with 1 camera until 2/27.

 

[Czardoom]

It appears that crop sensor bodies are the redheaded stepchild of multiple brands. Birders of limited means are not amused.

Which is why OM Systems OM-1 mark II is my birding camera of choice. What Canon, Nikon and Sony do are of no interest.

 

[JPJ]

Put an upgraded APS-C sensor in an R6 mark iii body and slap an r7 mark ii badge on it please.

 

[AlanF]

Which is why OM Systems OM-1 mark II is my birding camera of choice. What Canon, Nikon and Sony do are of no interest.

I go out birding most days and see a large number of Canons and a sprinkling of Nikons and Sonys, but not a single OM in the past few years. I occasionally saw an Olympus pre-Covid. Canon and Sony have about 70% of worldwide mirrorless sales and OM are now down to only 2-3% from higher when they were Olympus. They are more popular in Japan but have dropped behind Nikon at around the 12% mark or less.

In terms of practicality for birding, the star OM telephoto is the 150-400mm f/4.5 with the 1.25x TC, costing over £6000 here. Given the crop factor of 2, that is equivalent to an 300-800mm f/9, about the same weight as the Canon 200-800m f/9, costing £2000. Further, the OM sensor is only 20.4 Mpx, compared with 45 Mpx on an R5ii, so the R5ii has an effective extra reach of 50%, like having a built in 1.5x TC. The cheaper 32 Mpx R6iii has 32.5 Mpx, which is equivalent to having a 1.26xTC on it compared with the OM. The lighter RF 100-500mm f/7.1 has an equivalent reach of 750mm on the R5ii, compared with the OM. The cheaper M. Zuiko Digital ED 150-600mm f/5.0-6.3 IS costs £2500, weighs more than the 200-800, and is just a rebadged Sigma with a marked-up price.

As good as Olympus used to be, and it was far ahead in the past, OM haven't put in the development and so Canon has leapt ahead in terms of AF, subject identification and tracking. However, your opinion clearly differs, and there are devotees of M4/3.

 

[GrunRad]

Any news about the RF-S 15-70/4.0 which was rumoured to be released as the kit lens for the R7 ii? Haven't heard anything about this lens since it became known that the R7 ii was delayed to 2027...

 

[cruso]

I have Been a canon supporter for 44 years and my passion is doing wildlife, And In my option they seem to be more interested in Video than stills nowadays ? I have the r5 camera at the moment and some big prime lenses but are now getting increasing to heavy for me nowadays so I for one was looking forward to the r7mk2

 

[scyrene]

I have Been a canon supporter for 44 years and my passion is doing wildlife, And In my option they seem to be more interested in Video than stills nowadays ? I have the r5 camera at the moment and some big prime lenses but are now getting increasing to heavy for me nowadays so I for one was looking forward to the r7mk2

Would the difference in weight between the two bodies really make that much difference? I would think you'd be better off getting lighter lenses if it's an issue.

 

[cruso]

With the crop camera I would gain the reach so i would Be able to get the smaller and lighter lenses ?

 

[Bob Howland]

With the crop camera I would gain the reach so i would Be able to get the smaller and lighter lenses ?

Shooting an R7 is functionally equivalent to shooting with an 83MP FF camera and FF lens, then cropping the image in post processing. The advantage of the crop camera is that it doesn't have to deal with all the pixels that would be removed and, therefore, can be faster and cheaper. As you state, the lenses can be smaller and lighter, as shown by Sigma. (Come on guys, show us how small a quality 50-140 f/2.8 OS lens can be made.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

With the crop camera I would gain the reach so i would Be able to get the smaller and lighter lenses ?

You would be able to get smaller and lighter lenses in focal lengths from ultrawide to short telephoto. For long telephoto lenses, meaning primes or zooms with focal lengths of ≥300mm, there is no size/weight advantage to lenses with smaller image circles. That's because the image circle is not limiting for lens designs at those focal lengths. It's why you don't see long telephoto APS-C lenses, and why long lenses for the m4/3 OM cameras (2x crop) are the same size and weight as comparable lenses for FF sensors.

 

[scyrene]

With the crop camera I would gain the reach so i would Be able to get the smaller and lighter lenses ?

As I thought, you're labouring under something of an old fallacy (see Neuro's tireless reply above). But even if it's still partially true, you save a hell of a lot more weight by choosing one of the lower tier RF superteles than by trading a FF body for a crop.

 

[Bob Howland]

As I thought, you're labouring under something of an old fallacy (see Neuro's tireless reply above). But even if it's still partially true, you save a hell of a lot more weight by choosing one of the lower tier RF superteles than by trading a FF body for a crop.

I own both an R6-2 (24MP) and an R7 (32MP) and use them for different things. As I stated previously, the R7 has the same pixel size as an 83MP FF sensor and provides many more pixels per feather than the R6-2, R6-3 or R5-2 using the same lenses. However, I believe that the size advantage of APS-C lenses disappears at about 150-200mm.

 

[scyrene]

I own both an R6-2 (24MP) and an R7 (32MP) and use them for different things. As I stated previously, the R7 has the same pixel size as an 83MP FF sensor and provides many more pixels per feather than the R6-2, R6-3 or R5-2 using the same lenses. However, I believe that the size advantage of APS-C lenses disappears at about 150-200mm.

Sure but the comparison made by the OP wasn't with the 6 series but the R5. And as you say, there's not much if any advantage beyond short telephoto lengths. I just want people to be honest and straightforward. Crop cameras offer a price advantage and not much else nowadays (if they ever did).

 

[neuroanatomist]

However, I believe that the size advantage of APS-C lenses disappears at about 150-200mm.

A bit longer. For example, compare the EF-S 55-250mm with the old EF 55-200mm or the 75-300mm cheap zooms. The EF-S lens is smaller.