Would you rather buy an R7 ?

Therein lies the conundrum for Canon. What can the R7 bring to the table, that makes a decent margin for the company, that the R5 (or R6 or R3) don't. I fear that the pandemic has demonstrated Canon doesn't need an APS-C R camera body.

Fuji can still market APS-C camera bodies because they don't have FF bodies -- they have MF bodies with a much larger gap in IQ at the expense of speed/responsiveness and file size (factor of 4 in sensor size and pixel count and about two f-stops in DR). So there is a clear distinction for Fuji. Not as much for Canon IMO.

russbecker wrote in post #19365029
Therein lies the conundrum for Canon. What can the R7 bring to the table, that makes a decent margin for the company, that the R5 (or R6 or R3) don't. I fear that the pandemic has demonstrated Canon doesn't need an APS-C R camera body.

Fuji can still market APS-C camera bodies because they don't have FF bodies -- they have MF bodies with a much larger gap in IQ at the expense of speed/responsiveness and file size (factor of 4 in sensor size and pixel count and about two f-stops in DR). So there is a clear distinction for Fuji. Not as much for Canon IMO.

For me, the thing that most dampens my hope for something like an R7 is the long, slow RF lenses that Canon has been making, as they make "pixels on subject" a bit easier to achieve, without the higher pixel density of something like the 90D sensor.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19365039
For me, the thing that most dampens my hope for something like an R7 is the long, slow RF lenses that Canon has been making, as they make "pixels on subject" a bit easier to achieve, without the higher pixel density of something like the 90D sensor.

looking at the RF 800 f/11 yes it gets pixels on target but I would think it the hour at dawn and at sunset it would really struggle, although you could bump the ISO to 25,000 or something, but even my 100-400 ends up with very high ISO's is at 5.6

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19365838
looking at the RF 800 f/11 yes it gets pixels on target but I would think it the hour at dawn and at sunset it would really struggle, although you could bump the ISO to 25,000 or something, but even my 100-400 ends up with very high ISO's is at 5.6

I don't worry about ISOs per se. The shutter speed you use, the size of your pupil during exposure, and the distance to any given subject are the only things that you can vary to affect total light from a found subject, if you're not adding any light sources. The 800/11 has a 71mm maximum pupil, just like a 500/7.1, 400/5.6 or 200/2.8. It gets the same subject light as them with the same shutter speed, but if you crop harder from 400/5.6, say, you get he same total subject light, but 1/4 the pixels.

The RF800/11 is slower than faster lenses at large initial changes in focus distance (especially in low light), but it has the advanced RF ability to stay closer to perfect focus in AIServo once the system has identified something to focus on, better than any EF lens in that price range.

More rumors in the last day or two that are saying R7 in quarter 4 of 2022.

duckster wrote in post #19371842
More rumors in the last day or two that are saying R7 in quarter 4 of 2022.

Click bait?

Ray.Petri wrote in post #19371951
Click bait?

certainly possible

John Sheehy wrote in post #19368363
I don't worry about ISOs per se. The shutter speed you use, the size of your pupil during exposure, and the distance to any given subject are the only things that you can vary to affect total light from a found subject, if you're not adding any light sources. The 800/11 has a 71mm maximum pupil, just like a 500/7.1, 400/5.6 or 200/2.8. It gets the same subject light as them with the same shutter speed, but if you crop harder from 400/5.6, say, you get he same total subject light, but 1/4 the pixels.

The RF800/11 is slower than faster lenses at large initial changes in focus distance (especially in low light), but it has the advanced RF ability to stay closer to perfect focus in AIServo once the system has identified something to focus on, better than any EF lens in that price range.

But f/11 is still -3EV dimmer than f/4, and this technospeak about how much light comes thru a 71mm diameter opening does not matter in that context. Having to tripod mount rather than handhold with a 3EV slower shutter speed matters when the FL is longer! The brighter display of a mirrorless merely distracts the photographer from the reality of less light thru smaller f/stop

Wilt wrote in post #19372215
But f/11 is still -3EV dimmer than f/4, and this technospeak about how much light comes thru a 71mm diameter opening does not matter in that context. Having to tripod mount rather than handhold with a 3EV slower shutter speed matters when the FL is longer! The brighter display of a mirrorless merely distracts the photographer from the reality of less light thru smaller f/stop

Jeff was talking about elevated ISO, which is what I addressed. Jeff typically crops heavily, and when you go into the world of focal-length-limited photography, any notion of what an entire frame looks like at a given ISO becomes unavailable when cropping. My point was that needing to crop less is just as useful as more exposure, for noise.

AF in low light is another story, but most of the penalty from an f/11 lens in low light is going to be with initial large changes in focus, and less so with small changes or AI tracking (which may benefit from a longer focal length for resolving eyes or heads).

This is my general guideline for "reach", with the priorities I put on each. Each of the overlaps on the VENN diagram come with different pros and cons, maybe hits on AF, exposure, and/or ISO.

If you are lucky enough to sit right in the middle of all 3, that means you have all the tools necessary to land just about any shot.

If you sit in one of the overlaps between two categories, then you probably often play a juggling act on what and how you deal with the scenario at some sort of expense later, whether more shots to get that one keeper, a bit more noise, lower resolutions, a bit less IQ, or slower AF.

Also when you get to #2 to get that framing, there are times you probably would employ a mix of both a lower power TC and a bit of cropping, because too much of either may not be that beneficial, and it is better to straddle the fence of more optical reach (with more glass in the way) and some digital zooming/cropping.

Example would be the decision to go to a 2x on a lens, or use a 1.4x and crop out later...

So it is coming, possibly...

https://www.canonrumor​s.com …os-r7-specifications-cr1/

Interesting

rndman wrote in post #19373282
So it is coming, possibly...

https://www.canonrumor​s.com …os-r7-specifications-cr1/

Hope it's correct, I sold my Sony a9 and 200-600mm a couple of days ago on the strength of that rumour

Mike-P wrote in post #19373382
Hope it's correct, I sold my Sony a9 and 200-600mm a couple of days ago on the strength of that rumour

And to increase the "strength" some RF-S lenses, may be

https://www.canonrumor​s.com …ongside-the-canon-eos-r7/

What? Another CR1 R7 rumor?

It’s been coming for what seems to be an eternity now.