EB-1 wrote:
Canon has FF bodies for best IQ. The R7 like other 7 series is mostly for action with good reach due to the smaller pixel pitch.
EBH
Don't disagree, but I'll add the weight consideration:
Our R7 has primarily been my wife's camera along side my R5 kit. During the last black friday sales I bought my own R7 because for non-once in a lifetime trips the R7 kit is so much lighter. After several years of using the R7 and RF-S lenses I've found the IQ to be very good. The two Sigma f2.8 zooms are excellent and the 18-150 and 100-400 are very versatile with broad range and very close focusing. Good color and resolution too. Those lenses are about 10oz each except the 100-400 at half the 100-500 . I considered an R10 but the R7 uses the same batteries as the R5, has IBIS, and closes the shutter when turned off. My R7 kit weighs half what my R5 kit does. The rule going forward is that If my wife wants the 100-400 then I'll take the R5 kit. So Africa, Costa Rica yes, Europe probably not.
Not saying the R7 couldn't use some faster readout speed but I have no complaints about its tracking - for my use. Just as my R5 doesn't feel inadequate compared to the II, so far the R7II rumors don't inspire GAS. Time will tell.
But there have been exceptions! The R7 was an underachiever for too many users. But the R5 was, and still is great. I use it in parallell with my R52, which has some true benefits. But the R5 is not that far behind at all, the raw IQ at high ISO perhaps even slightly better.
Now, the R5 was a leap forward when Canon needed a leap. The R52 is just a step not a leap. Will Canon see a niche for a great R72 at a R63 price point? I tend to stay pessimistic and get surprised at rare times. Yes, I´m pessimistic on the great R72.
The camera weight difference is practically insignificant compared to the lenses like 500/4 or 600/4. An R7 II with 100-500 would be good for moderate to bright light but not as good as 180-600 or 200-600 on FF/FX if you can't use a big prime.
It would be great if Canon made better lens options for the R7 II. A faster zoom within the 500-600 range would make it a more viable camera by itself. For now I still see an R7 II as a 3rd or 4th lens when more reach is needed.
Z250SA wrote:
But there have been exceptions! The R7 was an underachiever for too many users. But the R5 was, and still is great. I use it in parallell with my R52, which has some true benefits. But the R5 is not that far behind at all, the raw IQ at high ISO perhaps even slightly better.
Now, the R5 was a leap forward when Canon needed a leap. The R52 is just a step not a leap. Will Canon see a niche for a great R72 at a R63 price point? I tend to stay pessimistic and get surprised at rare times. Yes, I´m pessimistic on the great R72....Show more →
The R5 is still an excellent body if you don't need the high FPS ES mode. It's sort of a backup for me, though the difference in controls is a hassle if you are shooting R5 and R5 II side by side with different lenses.
I just sold my canon R7 last week. I liked everything about that camera except the readout speed with the electronic shutter. My next purchase will be stacked sensor.
EB-1 wrote:
The camera weight difference is practically insignificant compared to the lenses like 500/4 or 600/4. An R7 II with 100-500 would be good for moderate to bright light but not as good as 180-600 or 200-600 on FF/FX if you can't use a big prime.
It would be great if Canon made better lens options for the R7 II. A faster zoom within the 500-600 range would make it a more viable camera by itself. For now I still see an R7 II as a 3rd or 4th lens when more reach is needed.
EBH
Again agreed. I've never needed a lens longer than the 100-400/500 occasionally with a 1.4x going back to the 10D/5D. I'm not as dedicated to BIF as many here. The R7 doesn't weigh much less than the R5 but the lenses make the difference, 10oz vs 24oz per lens adds up. The R5 + 100-500 is magical but the RF-S and Sigma lenses are much better than their EF-S and EF-M equivalents in my use. This is definitely an individual need issue. Used to carry both a 5D# and #0D and several L lenses but both my back and airline carry-on restrictions don't allow that any longer.
I try to fly straight through on US carriers, but some of the internal flights on the lightweight propeller aircraft are limited.
If I take a 600/4, 100-500, 24-105, TCs, and 200-600, then the latter goes in the luggage.
A 180-600/6.3 or 200-600/6.3 would be great on an R7 II.
Yes, a L-level xy0-600 would be about as good a tool as there can be on the R72. The 960mm field of view on a cropper is already +max. Any temp shimmer will start blurring the details at that pixel density at any distances longer than "passerine" or "odonatine".
In good light the 200-800 will be good enough, especially up to about 700mm. I´m afraid that it will suffer some at the full 800mm at the rumored 39Mp, except perhaps in the center. But at 1280mm field of view and 100Mp FF corresponding pixel density... I´d love it if I´d learn to love The Shimmer...
There is only one thing certain with a Canon 7 series release and that is that it will never come close to the rumors or wishlists leading up to it. Always a massive disappointment. This one will be no different.
arbitrage wrote:
There is only one thing certain with a Canon 7 series release and that is that it will never come close to the rumors or wishlists leading up to it. Always a massive disappointment. This one will be no different.
arbitrage wrote:
There is only one thing certain with a Canon 7 series release and that is that it will never come close to the rumors or wishlists leading up to it. Always a massive disappointment. This one will be no different.
Agreed, so maybe this rumor is for an actual quality cropper, like a new R4 line: an R3 with a stacked 39MP 1.6x sensor.
EB-1 wrote:
I try to fly straight through on US carriers, but some of the internal flights on the lightweight propeller aircraft are limited.
It's the in-country flights where I've run into issues. The inter island Air Tahiti has an 11 lb carry-on limit that used to be 6lb. They don't enforce it often unless one flaunts it. For American and international carriers my back is the limit.
arbitrage wrote:
There is only one thing certain with a Canon 7 series release and that is that it will never come close to the rumors or wishlists leading up to it. Always a massive disappointment. This one will be no different.
While I agree, one can still dream.
That said, none of the mainstream FF brands have released a great mirrorless APS-C 'action' camera, yet. Unless you shoot the stacked FF models in APS-C, but that doesn't provide the desired pixel density advantage.
rscheffler wrote:
While I agree, one can still dream.
That said, none of the mainstream FF brands have released a great mirrorless APS-C 'action' camera, yet. Unless you shoot the stacked FF models in APS-C, but that doesn't provide the desired pixel density advantage.
True, none of the big three have released a high end crop sensor camera. The GOAT remains the D500. That camera is a masterpiece for its time. Before that we’d probably have to go back to the 1DIV. Another masterpiece for its time. Nothing in the mirrorless age has come close.
I get a kick out of Canon, I have shot it for the last decade or so.
If the R7II follows trends you will have "Master Classes" in how to polish a turd..
garyvot wrote:
Haha. Well, while we are indulging in fantasy, let's bring back APS-H for the R4.
I realize that ship sailed a long time ago, but it was the best compromise between reach and IQ, IMO.
How about R6CS? C for crop. S for 33MP APS-C stacked (dreaming). Or 33MP APS-C FSI with the same read speed as the R6III. Basically a shrunk down R6III sensor with virtually the same feature set as the R6III. It would be in a better body than the R7 and would be 'acceptable' rolling shutter. Certainly better than the R7. But I think whichever of the 'big 3' can release >30MP APS-C stacked (at least 1/160 read speed) without crippled AF, in the R6III, Z6III, a7V price range, will have a winner.
arbitrage wrote:
True, none of the big three have released a high end crop sensor camera. The GOAT remains the D500. That camera is a masterpiece for its time. Before that we’d probably have to go back to the 1DIV. Another masterpiece for its time. Nothing in the mirrorless age has come close.
If the R7 II has a stackable sensor with better AF, normal control dials, and a CFe card is that enough?
gkinard1952 wrote:
I get a kick out of Canon, I have shot it for the last decade or so.
If the R7II follows trends you will have "Master Classes" in how to polish a turd..
That won't play in this market and Canon knows it. The R7 initially sold well because we were hungry for a mirrorless 7 series. But we quickly found out the R7 was pretty gimped. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
There's lots of "take my money now," available to Canon, even if it prices the R7 II 50% more than the R7, if it fixes all that's wrong with the R7. But that money will walk if the R7 II is merely rearranged buttons and a new sensor that doesn't vastly improve readout speed and low light ability. I think Canon knows that based on how impressive the R6 III is compared to the R6 II. You can't say the R6 III is a turd.
gkinard1952 wrote:
That won't play in this market and Canon knows it. The R7 initially sold well because we were hungry for a mirrorless 7 series. But we quickly found out the R7 was pretty gimped. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Well, the readout speed was a bummer. The camera is still a 32MP APS-C stabilized body though, and honestly that works for a lot of situations - just not what the 7 series is known for.
gkinard1952 wrote:
There's lots of "take my money now," available to Canon, even if it prices the R7 II 50% more than the R7, if it fixes all that's wrong with the R7. But that money will walk if the R7 II is merely rearranged buttons and a new sensor that doesn't vastly improve readout speed and low light ability. I think Canon knows that based on how impressive the R6 III is compared to the R6 II. You can't say the R6 III is a turd.
It really just needs to be an R6 III but with the new APS-C sensor. Change nothing else. Then I'd get one for my wife to pair with an R6 III for me...
