Why No EOS R7 Mark II This Year?

[Czardoom]

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.

Clearly, the advantage of the MFT 2x crop factor comes into play if you crop all, or most of your images, as is the case with me. Obviously you understand that if you crop a FF image from the R5 II - or any FF camera - to the size of the MFT image or smaller, than the OM-1's 20 MP sensor totally out-resolves any and all Canon and Nikon FF cameras, and is about the same as the R7. If you have used both the OM 150-400 and the Canon 200-800, then any comparison is a joke. Basically a top-level pro lens with a very good consumer lens. The OM lens is definitely better, in my opinion, than the excellent Rf 100-500, too. The AF subject detection and tracking is definitely on par with the original Canon R5, R6 II, and better than the R7, all of which I have used. Pre-capture is better than any Canon, FPS options are higher, and the stacked sensor has a very fast read-out speed. OM's IBIS is still as good as anything on the market. It is true that OM Systems is basically a niche company now, which is unfortunate. It is difficult, in a world where the internet influencers essentially dominate the marketing opinion of consumers, for them to compete, since we all "know" how FF is the only way to go if you are a "real" photographer.

 

[AlanF]

Clearly, the advantage of the MFT 2x crop factor comes into play if you crop all, or most of your images, as is the case with me. Obviously you understand that if you crop a FF image from the R5 II - or any FF camera - to the size of the MFT image or smaller, than the OM-1's 20 MP sensor totally out-resolves any and all Canon and Nikon FF cameras, and is about the same as the R7. If you have used both the OM 150-400 and the Canon 200-800, then any comparison is a joke. Basically a top-level pro lens with a very good consumer lens. The OM lens is definitely better, in my opinion, than the excellent Rf 100-500, too. The AF subject detection and tracking is definitely on par with the original Canon R5, R6 II, and better than the R7, all of which I have used. Pre-capture is better than any Canon, FPS options are higher, and the stacked sensor has a very fast read-out speed. OM's IBIS is still as good as anything on the market. It is true that OM Systems is basically a niche company now, which is unfortunate. It is difficult, in a world where the internet influencers essentially dominate the marketing opinion of consumers, for them to compete, since we all "know" how FF is the only way to go if you are a "real" photographer.

Your arguments on cropping and resolution are misleading to say the least and absolutely wrong with the example I gave of a 200-800mm f/9 on the R5 vs 150-400mm on the OM because you ignored the point I spelled out in detail that the R5ii has more than twice the numbers of Mpx. Here it is given again with precise numbers allowing for the difference in formats. The 20.4 Mpx OM-1 II sensor has 3.34 µm pixels, the 45.0 Mpx R5ii has 4.39 µm pixels. That means with lenses of the same focal length, the OM-1 outresolves by 31% the R5ii. That means in focal length terms, a 400mm lens on the OM is equivalent to a 525mm on the FF. So the 150-400mm OM only marginally outresolves the much lighter 100-500mm on the R5ii. For the 150-400mm OM versus the equally heavy 200-800mm on the R5ii, the Canon outresolves the OM by 53% cropped to the same size.

You also have no interest in Nikon and Sony either. The Z8 with either its 150-600mm lens or its superb light Z 600mm f/6.3 is equivalent in resolution to a 460mm on an OM, and outresolving it cropped to the same size. Similarly with the Sony A1. The 61 Mpx Sony Ariv/v with its albeit heavy 400-800mm f/8 is equivalent to 700mm on the OM.

The image quality of the RF 200-800mm is not a joke from the many images posted on CR. I have never seen any image posted by you so obviously I can't tell whether they are more serious.

 

[Hovercraft]

There’s one factor that is missing here and actually the most important to me. You don’t crop for the distance only, with r7 and rf 100-500 or even rf 100-400 I don’t crop mostly for the distance, more often it’s for the composition. Especially when you have action, bif when you try to frame to tight, often you’re missing the action, so I need to frame wider and then crop to get the desired composition. 20mpx could be not enough. If I was able to make the perfect composition in camera and keep up with the action, I suppose the OM could be great. But it’s still 3-4 times more expensive with 150-400 compared to the RF lens you mentioned.

 

[AlanF]

There’s one factor that is missing here and actually the most important to me. You don’t crop for the distance only, with r7 and rf 100-500 or even rf 100-400 I don’t crop mostly for the distance, more often it’s for the composition. Especially when you have action, bif when you try to frame to tight, often you’re missing the action, so I need to frame wider and then crop to get the desired composition. 20mpx could be not enough. If I was able to make the perfect composition in camera and keep up with the action, I suppose the OM could be great. But it’s still 3-4 times more expensive with 150-400 compared to the RF lens you mentioned.

I strongly agree about trying to capture erratically moving fast birds and dragonflies in flight. The twice-as-wide FF sensor is a huge advantage as many if not most of my captured images are close to the edges of the frame. Using M4/3 I would have to use a lens of half the focal length and be limited to 20 Mpx compared with 45 Mpx. For this reason, I also prefer FF to APS-C for BIF (so I zoom out more with APS-C for fast BIF).

 

[Trout Bum]

…Crop cameras offer a price advantage and not much else nowadays (if they ever did).

The R50 offers a huge advantage in size and weight from my R5 II, which is why I own one for a second body, despite its many limitations, and my old arthritic hands appreciate the difference.

 

[scyrene]

The R50 offers a huge advantage in size and weight from my R5 II, which is why I own one for a second body, despite its many limitations, and my old arthritic hands appreciate the difference.

But you've chosen a big FF camera as the comparator; the R8 is much smaller and lighter, for instance. If we're generalising it's best not to cherry pick.

 

[Michael Clark]

Clearly, the advantage of the MFT 2x crop factor comes into play if you crop all, or most of your images, as is the case with me. Obviously you understand that if you crop a FF image from the R5 II - or any FF camera - to the size of the MFT image or smaller, than the OM-1's 20 MP sensor totally out-resolves any and all Canon and Nikon FF cameras, and is about the same as the R7. If you have used both the OM 150-400 and the Canon 200-800, then any comparison is a joke. Basically a top-level pro lens with a very good consumer lens. The OM lens is definitely better, in my opinion, than the excellent Rf 100-500, too. The AF subject detection and tracking is definitely on par with the original Canon R5, R6 II, and better than the R7, all of which I have used. Pre-capture is better than any Canon, FPS options are higher, and the stacked sensor has a very fast read-out speed. OM's IBIS is still as good as anything on the market. It is true that OM Systems is basically a niche company now, which is unfortunate. It is difficult, in a world where the internet influencers essentially dominate the marketing opinion of consumers, for them to compete, since we all "know" how FF is the only way to go if you are a "real" photographer.

It sound like someone has an inferiority complex?

 

[Czardoom]

Your arguments on cropping and resolution are misleading to say the least and absolutely wrong with the example I gave of a 200-800mm f/9 on the R5 vs 150-400mm on the OM because you ignored the point I spelled out in detail that the R5ii has more than twice the numbers of Mpx. Here it is given again with precise numbers allowing for the difference in formats. The 20.4 Mpx OM-1 II sensor has 3.34 µm pixels, the 45.0 Mpx R5ii has 4.39 µm pixels. That means with lenses of the same focal length, the OM-1 outresolves by 31% the R5ii. That means in focal length terms, a 400mm lens on the OM is equivalent to a 525mm on the FF. So the 150-400mm OM only marginally outresolves the much lighter 100-500mm on the R5ii. For the 150-400mm OM versus the equally heavy 200-800mm on the R5ii, the Canon outresolves the OM by 53% cropped to the same size.

You also have no interest in Nikon and Sony either. The Z8 with either its 150-600mm lens or its superb light Z 600mm f/6.3 is equivalent in resolution to a 460mm on an OM, and outresolving it cropped to the same size. Similarly with the Sony A1. The 61 Mpx Sony Ariv/v with its albeit heavy 400-800mm f/8 is equivalent to 700mm on the OM.

The image quality of the RF 200-800mm is not a joke from the many images posted on CR. I have never seen any image posted by you so obviously I can't tell whether they are more serious.

Well, I guess we can all be a bit misleading. The OM 150-400 has a built in 1.25x TC, which you conveniently ignored. So it is actually equivalent to 655mm now compared to the Canon 100-500 on FF. While the OM 150-500 is heavier, it has a much shorter throw, and takes both 1.4x and 2.0x TCs with very good results and without the hassle. The RF 200-800 is not equally heavy, it is definitely heavier, bulkier, and has a ridiculously long throw. Sorry, it is not in the same class. A shot with my OM 150-400 with a 1.4x TC is going to outresolve the RF 200-800 at 800mm.

I know my opinion doesn't seem to matter to you, but Duade Paton calls it "one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used." Not sharpest zoom lenses, one of the sharpest lenses period.

My intent is not to criticize Canon, so there is no reason to get defensive. I used the the Canon 100-500 for a number of years and recommend it highly. I would say it is an excellent lens. I used the RF 200-800 for over half a year as well and consider it a great value for the money. It was definitely sharper than I expected. All I can say is that having used both systems for years, I no longer own the Canon lenses, the Canon R5, the Canon R7 and the Canon R6 II because they did not give me quite as good results as my OM-1 and OM 150-400. Whether this is just personal preference, some sort of bias, or my ability to get more out of my OM gear than my Canon gear, I can't say. Clearly, you can't go wrong with any of these cameras and lenses.

 

[Czardoom]

It sound like someone has an inferiority complex?

Are you illiterate or just stupid? Ever used an MFT camera? Apparently not.

 

[AlanF]

Well, I guess we can all be a bit misleading. The OM 150-400 has a built in 1.25x TC, which you conveniently ignored.

Speak for yourself! People most often do not deliberately mislead, especially here, but unfortunately deliberate misleading is the curse of the age. I didn't conveniently ignore the built-in TC. You can add an external TC to Canon lenses, and it's the the number of pixels in the image of a duck we were discussing, not whether a built-in is more convenient, a topic currently being debated in another thread. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on whether to to choose MFT or FF or APS-C because that is purely a personal choice as they are all compromises in different ways, and I do listen to you. It's just the facts behind that choice are open to discussion.