# Canon EOS R7 specifications [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 9, 2022)

> We have finally confirmed some specifications for the upcoming Canon EOS R7, the first RF Mount camera for APS-C sensors. This is probably also going to finally put the EOS M system out to pasture.
> 
> Canon EOS R7 Specifications
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Martin K (May 9, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Might be a good complement to an R3. But I'll complete my M line-up first...


----------



## Berowne (May 9, 2022)

Might be a good complement to my R6 with the EF 100-400L Mk. II.


----------



## SteveC (May 9, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Again, the demise of the M series doesn't follow, no matter how much he might wish it did.

Totally different markets, and Ms sell well.


----------



## john1970 (May 9, 2022)

Interesting specifications. The 15 fps mech is actually faster than the R3's 12 fps and the 30 fps electronic matches the R3. At 30 fps and moving 32.5MP of data I wonder if the sensor is BSI stacked?


----------



## docsavage123 (May 9, 2022)

Probably may take a look, I replaced my 7DII with an RP as a backup for my R5, but the R5 does everything and more that I want it to.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (May 9, 2022)

Sounds like the M5 Mark II many M series owners have been waiting a long time for..........


----------



## RayValdez360 (May 9, 2022)

john1970 said:


> Interesting specifications. The 15 fps mech is actually faster than the R3's 12 fps and the 30 fps electronic matches the R3. At 30 fps and moving 32.5MP of data I wonder if the sensor is BSI stacked?


the sensor is smaller so that might make things a lot easier as far as physics.


----------



## knight427 (May 9, 2022)

Berowne said:


> Might be a good complement to my R6 with the EF 100-400L Mk. II.



The 1.4x iii would be a lot cheaper! R6 AF with this combo is very good, but does at times struggle to grab focus mid flight. Obviously the R7 will have many other advantages beyond 1.6x crop. If I was in a position to consider the R7, as an alternate idea, I'd consider upgrading to the RF 100-500 + tc after selling off the EF 100-400ii + tc.


----------



## Fletchahh (May 9, 2022)

Excited to upgrade from my 7D II as my only camera, and am eagerly awaiting the official announcement. Coming from someone who will use it as a general purpose camera as well as for birding, it’s nice to see in-body IS mentioned again.


----------



## jvillain (May 9, 2022)

Would have liked to have a modern card slot.


----------



## speg (May 9, 2022)

Hmm. I’m a bit bummed there is IBIS: can this be priced lower than the R6? If not, I may end up there instead. This year is going to be such a long wait!


----------



## jdavidse (May 9, 2022)

Excellent. I would love to hear more! In particular:
Build quality and top screen: more like R6 or R5?
Controls: all R5/R6 controls present?
Any features from the R3 going to trickle down?


----------



## John Wilde (May 9, 2022)

A high-end R7 isn't going to put a low-end M50 "out to pasture".


----------



## Bob Howland (May 9, 2022)

Any idea what the price is? Does it use R5/R6 focusing or something different and/or lesser? How large is it? Is there a variant in Canon R&D with an M-mount?


----------



## masterpix (May 9, 2022)

Martin K said:


> Might be a good complement to an R3. But I'll complete my M line-up first...


Canon bodies and lenses work years after they are "discontinued", so there is no reason to "abandon" your gear once they stop manufacturing the product you have.


----------



## JustUs7 (May 9, 2022)

So an R6 with an M6II / 90D sensor as many thought.


----------



## masterpix (May 9, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> A high-end R7 isn't going to put a low-end M50 "out to pasture".


A high end R7 is only the first of a line of R-ebel line of cameras (RXX, RXXX) that will soon follow. Canon produce the R7 to allow 7D users to get the camera they were longing to get in the 7DIII, but rest assure that e R-ebel will come soon as well after the R7. Since the R7 and the R-ebel will be able to use the EF-S glass (with a converter) it means that those people that have a good line of EF-S lenses, will be able to use them for longer than expected.


----------



## masterpix (May 9, 2022)

Fletchahh said:


> Excited to upgrade from my 7D II as my only camera, and am eagerly awaiting the official announcement. Coming from someone who will use it as a general purpose camera as well as for birding, it’s nice to see in-body IS mentioned again.


And you will be able to use your EF-S glass as well. catching two birds at once you said...


----------



## Bob Howland (May 9, 2022)

masterpix said:


> Canon bodies and lenses work years after they are "discontinued", so there is no reason to "abandon" your gear once they stop manufacturing the product you have.


I'm still using a couple lenses that I bought in 2000. They still take great pictures.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 9, 2022)

masterpix said:


> A high end R7 is only the first of a line of R-ebel line of cameras (RXX, RXXX) that will soon follow. Canon produce the R7 to allow 7D users to get the camera they were longing to get in the 7DIII, but rest assure that e R-ebel will come soon as well after the R7. Since the R7 and the R-ebel will be able to use the EF-S glass (with a converter) it means that those people that have a good line of EF-S lenses, will be able to use them for longer than expected.


That is certainly possible. But there are lots of possibilities and nobody here can say which accurately reflects reality.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 9, 2022)

No BSI and no 240 FPS


----------



## masterpix (May 9, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> That is certainly possible. But there are lots of possibilities and nobody here can say which accurately reflects reality.


Well, if there is one things I would bet my money on is that Canon will develop R-ebel and RXX cameras very soon. Once they make a R-ebel which will (I guess, 24MP, dual pixel, less FPS, no manual shutter, lesser (or non) EVF, no control wheel and lesser shooting options) be about 500-800USD.... That is, in my opinion, the near future. Anyone with other guesses is welcomed to try and guess also. I think that soon we will have answers.


----------



## jam05 (May 9, 2022)

A DSLR like mirrorless camera will not replace the popular M50. It will garner nowhere near the sales. Most consumers don't want a DSLR look alike camera to travel with. Nor the hassle with TSA or import controls in various airports. Canons mirrorless versions of their DSLRs still resemble "professional" cameras. The M50 is the travel camera of choice. Especially if one dares to pack a compact gimbal. Anyone dreaming to invision any of the current mirrorless body style options replacing the compact M50 or M6 is delusional.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 9, 2022)

jam05 said:


> A DSLR like mirrorless camera will not replace the popular M50. It will garner nowhere near the sales. Most consumers don't want a DSLR look alike camera to travel with. Nor the hassle with TSA or import controls in various airports. Canons mirrorless versions of their DSLRs still resemble "professional" cameras. The M50 is the travel camera of choice. Especially if one dares to pack a compact gimbal. Anyone dreaming to invision any of the current mirrorless body style options replacing the compact M50 or M6 is delusional.


The M50 family and M5 look to me like shrunken DSLRs? The M200 and M6 family don't have viewfinders.


----------



## AccipiterQ (May 9, 2022)

Any word on BSI?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 9, 2022)

jam05 said:


> A DSLR like mirrorless camera will not replace the popular M50. It will garner nowhere near the sales. Most consumers don't want a DSLR look alike camera to travel with. Nor the hassle with TSA or import controls in various airports. Canons mirrorless versions of their DSLRs still resemble "professional" cameras. The M50 is the travel camera of choice. Especially if one dares to pack a compact gimbal. Anyone dreaming to invision any of the current mirrorless body style options replacing the compact M50 or M6 is delusional.


I do get what you mean.
It won't be a replacement but that does not mean it won't sell.
Rebel cameras still sell very well.
I would hate to see Canon abandon the M mount because cameras and lenses would get larger.
I do not think all of the customers would automatically move over.


----------



## AccipiterQ (May 9, 2022)

Fletchahh said:


> Excited to upgrade from my 7D II as my only camera, and am eagerly awaiting the official announcement. Coming from someone who will use it as a general purpose camera as well as for birding, it’s nice to see in-body IS mentioned again.



Same. I use the R5 for birding photography now. I was going to use it for general purposes, and then the 7Dii as my birding camera....then one day I took the R5 out for a test run birding and never looked back. Looking forward to the R7; going to keep the 600 on it at all times. I'm so sick of going back and forth with lenses every time I want to do some general-purpose shooting at home.


----------



## Bahrd (May 9, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> Any word on BSI?


Nope.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 9, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> So an R6 with an M6II / 90D sensor as many thought.



15-30fps (mechanical/electronic)
4K @ 60/50fps (NTSC/PAL)
... with an M6II/90D sensor?
Okay, I know the M6II can do 30fps in some "cropped mode", but I would be surprised if that's the case here.
Sounds like a sensor with faster readout than the M6II/90D. Maybe BSI/stacked? - Maybe "just" technology similar to the fast R5 sensor?


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2022)

Finally. The never-ending argument if Canon will make an RF APSC camera or not ends here, proving many a pandit dead wrong!! Ouch, that must hurt their egos. 
And I am delighted that Canon is launching this - many were waiting for this. I, personally, do not have a need for this. But full power to those who do.


----------



## Berowne (May 9, 2022)

knight427 said:


> The 1.4x iii would be a lot cheaper! R6 AF with this combo is very good, but does at times struggle to grab focus mid flight. Obviously the R7 will have many other advantages beyond 1.6x crop. If I was in a position to consider the R7, as an alternate idea, I'd consider upgrading to the RF 100-500 + tc after selling off the EF 100-400ii + tc.


Not a good idea, AF will become pretty slow. Believe me i tried it .


----------



## bergstrom (May 9, 2022)

Just waiting for the RP2


----------



## Orni76 (May 9, 2022)

And we still don't have 240fps...


----------



## Fletchahh (May 9, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> Same. I use the R5 for birding photography now. I was going to use it for general purposes, and then the 7Dii as my birding camera....then one day I took the R5 out for a test run birding and never looked back. Looking forward to the R7; going to keep the 600 on it at all times. I'm so sick of going back and forth with lenses every time I want to do some general-purpose shooting at home.


Nice. I held off getting an R5 because of the cost (as a college student) and the R6 because most all of my lenses are crop lenses. Stuff like the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and 50-100 f1.8, my only full frame lens is the 100-400 II even though bird photography is what I do the most. So I've been waiting specifically for the R7 for a while.


----------



## John Wilde (May 9, 2022)

sanj said:


> Finally. The never-ending argument if Canon will make an RF APSC camera or not ends here, proving many a pandit dead wrong!! Ouch, that must hurt their egos.


CanonRumors has been rumoring about this since 2018, so it's not exactly like the were spot-on. I don't think anyone cares enough one way or the another to have a hurt ego.


----------



## Berowne (May 9, 2022)

Birding with the R6 & TC 1.4 & EF 100-400L Mk. II and not miss focus.


----------



## Dagryl (May 9, 2022)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Sounds like the M5 Mark II many M series owners have been waiting a long time for..........


I'm afraid that the price point will be slightly off.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (May 9, 2022)

SD instead of CF Express is going to hamper the 30 FPS. But over all it seems like a reasonable successor to the 90D and 7D Mk 2, maybe something in-between due to the consumer memory format.


----------



## StandardLumen (May 9, 2022)

jvillain said:


> Would have liked to have a modern card slot.


I'm a fan of fast cards too, but while UHS-II might bottleneck potential video features a bit, it should be plenty fast for 32mpx photography, and I think a lot of the customers for this camera would actually prefer to use cards that fit straight into their other devices.


----------



## Famateur (May 9, 2022)

My two cents...

I think the R7 will have an AF system equal to or better than the R3. If I remember correctly, the 7DII had essentially the same AF system as the same-generation 1DX. I would anticipate the R7 possibly even being a test run for what the R1 AF system will bring.

Regarding the M series and it's possible demise, I think the fact that Canon will release APS-C bodies with the RF mount makes it more likely (but not guaranteed) that the M series will phase out. I guess it'll depend on how small of lenses and bodies Canon can create with the RF mount. Size and weight are the biggest differentiators for the M series, so only comparable size and weight in RF will be a threat to M. APS-C on RF is the first hurdle. Let's see where overall size and weight end up...


----------



## unfocused (May 9, 2022)

sanj said:


> Finally. The never-ending argument if Canon will make an RF APSC camera or not ends here, proving many a pandit dead wrong!! Ouch, that must hurt their egos.
> And I am delighted that Canon is launching this - many were waiting for this. I, personally, do not have a need for this. But full power to those who do.


I am willing to bet you underestimate the ability of people to remain in denial right up until the point that Canon starts taking orders.


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I am willing to bet you underestimate the ability of people to remain in denial right up until the point that Canon starts taking orders.


YEP. Epic funny comment, Unfocused. I can't stop laughing.


----------



## AlanF (May 9, 2022)

I used the UHS-II slot for BIF on the R5 before I got a CFExpress card and will be perfectly happy to have 2 UHS-II on an R7. 32.5 Mpx on crop will give in theory the reach of a 2xTC on an R6, and my R6 will go if the R7 looks good. I’d like an f/4 telephoto to go with it.


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> CanonRumors has been rumoring about this since 2018, so it's not exactly like the were spot-on. I don't think anyone cares enough one way or the another to have a hurt ego.


No sir. APSC R mount has been a religion here. With believers and non-believers bitterly fighting.


----------



## Tom W (May 9, 2022)

If the 32 mpx sensor is clean, and the camera operates in a manner similar to my R5, then I'm probably going to get one. Could be a good birding body.


----------



## lote82 (May 9, 2022)

sanj said:


> No sir. APSC R mount has been a religion here. With believers and non-believers bitterly fighting.


The religious thing was more on the M side. But like religion nowadays M is withering away through facts and data!


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 9, 2022)

Interesting stats (IMHO)...
Flickr is currently updating their camera database (Camera Finder). And maybe the position doesn't hold as stats are updated and more cameras added. But at the time of writing 7DII are in top 5 when it comes to activity (daily users) in the Canon cameras category:




__





Flickr: Camera Finder: Canon


The safest and most inclusive global community of photography enthusiasts. The best place for inspiration, connection, and sharing!




www.flickr.com


----------



## JustUs7 (May 9, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> 15-30fps (mechanical/electronic)
> 4K @ 60/50fps (NTSC/PAL)
> ... with an M6II/90D sensor?
> Okay, I know the M6II can do 30fps in some "cropped mode", but I would be surprised if that's the case here.
> Sounds like a sensor with faster readout than the M6II/90D. Maybe BSI/stacked? - Maybe "just" technology similar to the fast R5 sensor?


The increased frame rate and readout would be due to the Digic X processor vs Digic 8 (M6II and 90D), not just the sensor itself. M6II is already 14 fps.


----------



## Blue Zurich (May 9, 2022)

Great News, CR3's are not usually wrong. Happy for those who will shoot with this. 

Ok, bring on the R1 CR1, 2 & 3's.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 9, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Again, the demise of the M series doesn't follow, no matter how much he might wish it did.
> 
> Totally different markets, and Ms sell well.


M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today. Canon is not spending a single dollar on R&D for the EOS M cameras or lenses now that the PowerShot division is basically 2 guys with red staplers and interns. This switch would be further ahead if it wasn't for supply chain constraints.

The margins aren't in the cameras anyway, so it doesn't matter how many M50's they sell. The margins are in the lenses and we haven't seen an EF-M lens since 2018. We also haven't seen the EOS M series mentioned in quarterly earnings reports in years.


----------



## canonmike (May 9, 2022)

knight427 said:


> The 1.4x iii would be a lot cheaper! R6 AF with this combo is very good, but does at times struggle to grab focus mid flight. Obviously the R7 will have many other advantages beyond 1.6x crop. If I was in a position to consider the R7, as an alternate idea, I'd consider upgrading to the RF 100-500 + tc after selling off the EF 100-400ii + tc.


Your last thought is a good one and compels me, as an RF 100-500 owner to very well consider the R7, knowing that I could then have a reach of 1120mm tele using the 1.4x RF converter, shooting up to 15 FPS. Now that is a very pleasant thought, indeed....


----------



## John Wilde (May 9, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today.


M won't officially be dead until Canon comes up with an R that can match the M50 price point. Canon needs that price point, for first-time camera buyers. Canon also needs that price point to maintain it's huge ILC market share. Canon wants an ILC market share of around 50%.


----------



## kocmonabt (May 9, 2022)

None of these specs are important unless the body is M sized with properly swinging display (not the broken Rs). Oh, and the lenses should be the same size. ASPC body would complement nicely the R series, for those that use it, but discontinuing the M series will be madness.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 9, 2022)

jvillain said:


> Would have liked to have a modern card slot.


How much more modern can you get? You can't get UHS-iii or SD Express cards

No need for a card faster than USHii. R5 only needs CFe because of 4 video modes (8k raw, 8k ALL-I, 4k120, 4k60 ALL-I). All other video mode eg 8k IPB can use a SD card. I would suggest one of the faster ones though with >250MB/s write speed V90.
32mp/30fps would be fine on a SD card as the R5 45mp/20fps (lower bit depth than mechanical speed) is handled okay.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 9, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> SD instead of CF Express is going to hamper the 30 FPS. But over all it seems like a reasonable successor to the 90D and 7D Mk 2, maybe something in-between due to the consumer memory format.


Why? UHS-ii is fast enough for the R5's 45mp/20fps with 5.5s of burst (110 shots). cRaw would be even more. Yes CFe will clear the buffer faster but only an extra 1.8s @ 20 fps.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 9, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today. Canon is not spending a single dollar on R&D for the EOS M cameras or lenses now that the PowerShot division is basically 2 guys with red staplers and interns. This switch would be further ahead if it wasn't for supply chain constraints.
> 
> The margins aren't in the cameras anyway, so it doesn't matter how many M50's they sell. The margins are in the lenses and we haven't seen an EF-M lens since 2018. We also haven't seen the EOS M series mentioned in quarterly earnings reports in years.


Have you published a rumour that there will be low end APS-c RF mount bodies? I recall one for low end FF RF body (replacing or lower in cost than the RP) which would be well into "Rebel" territory.
M system is clearly in cash cow product lifecycle and maybe in decline but no end of line sales etc. Besides the M6ii's discontinuation in Australia, was there any other country that had it discontinued on Canon's local website?
I have no vested interest in the M system but it has also been 8 years since the 7Dii was released


----------



## unfocused (May 9, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today. Canon is not spending a single dollar on R&D for the EOS M cameras or lenses now that the PowerShot division is basically 2 guys with red staplers and interns. This switch would be further ahead if it wasn't for supply chain constraints.
> 
> The margins aren't in the cameras anyway, so it doesn't matter how many M50's they sell. The margins are in the lenses and we haven't seen an EF-M lens since 2018. We also haven't seen the EOS M series mentioned in quarterly earnings reports in years.


Is this based on your sources or is this your opinion? We can all read tea leaves, but you need to disclose if this is based on actual information from reliable sources or not.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 10, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Is this based on your sources or is this your opinion? We can all read tea leaves, but you need to disclose if this is based on actual information from reliable sources or not.


I'll second that request.


----------



## goldenhusky (May 10, 2022)

This is exciting! The 32.5MP is plenty, 15-30 fps is awesome, video specs are very good. I hope the video both 4k and 1080p are full sensor minus any aspect ratio crop and the video is over sampled. I wish it has at least one CF-Express Type B card. The CF-E type B will help clear buffer faster but it is Canon so the cripple hammer has to strike  I am sure there will be one or two more disappointments (like pixel binning over, heating, etc.) for me when Canon finally announces this.


----------



## shire_guy (May 10, 2022)

It will be very interesting to see how the R7 compares to the R5. I have kept my EF glass and the only thing that I thought would temp me was a lighter weight RF 500/600mm lens at around f5.6. If the R7 is any good maybe get the RF 100-500mm and sell the R5. Good to see some interest come back in the Canon world, it's been too quiet recently.

P.S. Just checked my M50. It's still works - not dead


----------



## flaviojzk (May 10, 2022)

Famateur said:


> My two cents...
> 
> I think the R7 will have an AF system equal to or better than the R3. If I remember correctly, the 7DII had essentially the same AF system as the same-generation 1DX. I would anticipate the R7 possibly even being a test run for what the R1 AF system will bring.
> 
> Regarding the M series and it's possible demise, I think the fact that Canon will release APS-C bodies with the RF mount makes it more likely (but not guaranteed) that the M series will phase out. I guess it'll depend on how small of lenses and bodies Canon can create with the RF mount. Size and weight are the biggest differentiators for the M series, so only comparable size and weight in RF will be a threat to M. APS-C on RF is the first hurdle. Let's see where overall size and weight end up...


Nikon managed a relatively small body despite the large Z mount (Z50) and an almost ‘pancake’ kit lens. Let’s wait and see…


----------



## sanj (May 10, 2022)

Now I am seriously confused. I learnt here that cropping for reach was the same if done in-camera (APSC) or
in post for image quality. If R7 is the same size as R5, why would a smart company like Canon make R7? This will reveal itself to me eventually, but as of now, I am confused. Perhaps, they will make lighter, cheaper lenses for R7. Then and only then will R7 make sense (assuming the crop theory above is correct.)


----------



## speg (May 10, 2022)

sanj said:


> Now I am seriously confused. I learnt here that cropping for reach was the same if done in-camera (APSC) or
> in post for image quality.


Some cameras do crop in in software, the same as in post. But that’s not what this is. This is still the full 32 megapixels taking up a smaller area (the circle that you would crop to from a larger sensor).


----------



## Jethro (May 10, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today.


This is the first I've heard of multiple RF mount APS-C bodies in the M mount form factor. To be clear, that's likely to be much smaller than the current R7 rumour (assuming it's a genuine 7D successor). If (and when) these smaller bodies actually happen, then they will be a direct replacement for the M series, and the M series will be 'dead'. Until then, it remains on persistent (and despite your protestations) presumably profitable life-support. 

A hell of a lot of M series lenses get sold in kits, BTW.


----------



## knight427 (May 10, 2022)

Berowne said:


> Not a good idea, AF will become pretty slow. Believe me i tried it .
> View attachment 203463


Depends on your perspective I guess. I also shot R6 with 100-400ii and 1.4x iii. I found it to be head and shoulders above 7Dm2 and 5Dm3. As noted, it sometimes struggled to grab birds mid flight, but much less problematic than the DSLR performance.


----------



## diegopisante (May 10, 2022)

If the R7 work just like the R6 that will be amazing...just hope to be the Dual pixel AF II, not I.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 10, 2022)

sanj said:


> Now I am seriously confused. I learnt here that cropping for reach was the same if done in-camera (APSC) or
> in post for image quality. If R7 is the same size as R5, why would a smart company like Canon make R7? This will reveal itself to me eventually, but as of now, I am confused. Perhaps, they will make lighter, cheaper lenses for R7. Then and only then will R7 make sense (assuming the crop theory above is correct.)


I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, so I'll assume you're not. The R5 has a 1.6x crop mode which results in about an 18MP image. You could use the R5 in that mode all of the time or you can crop FF images to 18MP. Either way you have purchased a FF camera with 45MP which makes it more expensive or slower or both. Using the same size body with a 18MP APS-C sensor reduces the cost of the sensor and image processing circuity and (maybe) allows 18MP images to be processed faster than a 45MP FF images.The 32MP APS-C sensor splits the difference. The cost reduction and potential speed improvement aren't as great as with the 18MP sensor but there more pixels per feather because the 32MP sensor uses smaller pixels. (A 32MP APS-C sensor scaled to FF results in about 82MP.)


----------



## roqdawg (May 10, 2022)

Will make a great birding camera if it has eye tracking focus on par with the R5/6.


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

I think back to the niche the 7D and 7D II held when they were released. Without the support of multiple RF-S lenses and very cheap APS-C bodies to upgrade from I question how well this body will do. The mythical added reach by pixel density is now understood by many and they will be reluctant to add this as a second body against an R5.

I am curious to see what hype they will offer to make this body appealing.


----------



## dominic_siu (May 10, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today. Canon is not spending a single dollar on R&D for the EOS M cameras or lenses now that the PowerShot division is basically 2 guys with red staplers and interns. This switch would be further ahead if it wasn't for supply chain constraints.
> 
> The margins aren't in the cameras anyway, so it doesn't matter how many M50's they sell. The margins are in the lenses and we haven't seen an EF-M lens since 2018. We also haven't seen the EOS M series mentioned in quarterly earnings reports in years.


You are right, if a company want to continue a product line why not introducing new product for more than 3 years? People always think selling well means doing a good job but Canon want you guys buying more expensive lenses rather than just using kit lens bundle with the entry level cameras.


----------



## vjlex (May 10, 2022)

sanj said:


> Finally. The never-ending argument if Canon will make an RF APSC camera or not ends here, proving many a pandit dead wrong!! Ouch, that must hurt their egos.
> And I am delighted that Canon is launching this - many were waiting for this. I, personally, do not have a need for this. But full power to those who do.


I still wouldn't go quite as far as calling it "proof" as I've seen CR3s that were wrong on very very rare occasions, but I share your overall sentiment. While I won't rule it out at this point, the R7 is not a camera that I myself plan to get, but I am very interested in what it indicates we can expect in the near future for R body options. And killing off some of the more dogmatic arguments about what Canon will and won't do is an added bonus. I have never seen the logic in the argument that the R line up only needs a few premium cameras plus the R and RP to be complete. To me the gap between the M offerings and R offerings has always been a gaping wide chasm begging to be filled. While I don't necessarily believe the R7 is meant to directly threaten the M line, it does portend a future where APS-C is not just for those who want compact, miniature bodies with compact lenses. I generally consider more options a good thing.

Not the perfect analogy, but right now Canon's mirrorless offerings are kind of like Goldilocks without mama bear's bed. M might be just right for some (I've been satisfied with mine), but I wouldn't mind some alternative in between.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 10, 2022)

goldenhusky said:


> This is exciting! The 32.5MP is plenty, 15-30 fps is awesome, video specs are very good. I hope the video both 4k and 1080p are full sensor minus any aspect ratio crop and the video is over sampled. I wish it has at least one CF-Express Type B card. The CF-E type B will help clear buffer faster but it is Canon so the cripple hammer has to strike  I am sure there will be one or two more disappointments (like pixel binning over, heating, etc.) for me when Canon finally announces this.


Firstly you want CFe card and then no heating issues. One of the R5's main heat sources is the CFe card/slot. Multiple reviews showing longer record times without cards in place.
Deliberate feature removal is one thing (to match price/segmentation) and another to want everything and ignore physics


----------



## David - Sydney (May 10, 2022)

sanj said:


> Now I am seriously confused. I learnt here that cropping for reach was the same if done in-camera (APSC) or
> in post for image quality. If R7 is the same size as R5, why would a smart company like Canon make R7? This will reveal itself to me eventually, but as of now, I am confused. Perhaps, they will make lighter, cheaper lenses for R7. Then and only then will R7 make sense (assuming the crop theory above is correct.)


In addition to Bob's explanation of pixel density (pixels on duck), another reason for APS-c is working distance especially with hand held macro of nervous subjects.
It is unlikely that any RFs lens will be as light/cheap as M lenses besides maybe a RF pancake (if Canon decides in their wisdom to make one)

APS-c sensors also means that users can use cheaper lenses eg 70-200 instead of 300mm lenses without TCs. This is great for shooters but bad for Canon.

The last reason is for niche APS-C applications where for a smaller macro system using EF-S 60mm for underwater use


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today. Canon is not spending a single dollar on R&D for the EOS M cameras or lenses now that the PowerShot division is basically 2 guys with red staplers and interns. This switch would be further ahead if it wasn't for supply chain constraints.
> 
> The margins aren't in the cameras anyway, so it doesn't matter how many M50's they sell. The margins are in the lenses and we haven't seen an EF-M lens since 2018. We also haven't seen the EOS M series mentioned in quarterly earnings reports in years.




On the internet I just read the M is dead again. It must be true.
Don't believe it, just ask google:

*Is the Canon M Series discontinued?

*
_*The Canon EOS M lineup, which includes popular models such as the EOS M50 and the EOS M6 Mark II, may soon be no more. This comes from Canon Rumors, which reports that “two sources… suggested that 2021 will be the last year of the EOS M lineup.”*_

Wait, that says 2021... isn't this 2022?


----------



## Otara (May 10, 2022)

I saw the debate as being some doubt more over whether it would be a 7D III vs a M6 II/90D equivalent. 

Shame if it is at a dead end for M, was hoping to keep using it as a compact u/w system.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 10, 2022)

vjlex said:


> Not the perfect analogy, but right now Canon's mirrorless offerings are kind of like Goldilocks without mama bear's bed. M might be just right for some (I've been satisfied with mine), but I wouldn't mind some alternative in between.


In terms of body sizes, the RP is the goldilocks of body size. Smaller than R3/5/6 and approximately the same size as the larger M bodies
M50ii = 387g. 116 x 88 x 59 mm
M6ii = 408g. 120 x 70 x 49 mm
RP = 485g. 133 x 85 x 70 mm

A RP without EVF would be a lot smaller and lighter... in proportion as the M6ii vs M200
M200 = 299g. 108 x 67 x 35 mm

Of course, the M6ii has significantly better specs vs RP in some areas


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

Famateur said:


> My two cents...
> 
> I think the R7 will have an AF system equal to or better than the R3. *If I remember correctly, the 7DII had essentially the same AF system as the same-generation 1DX.* I would anticipate the R7 possibly even being a test run for what the R1 AF system will bring.


The 7D II was compared to the 1DX on release....
But the AF systems performance was in no way close to the 1D AF system.
Just the opinion of someone who owned both.


----------



## Pain (May 10, 2022)

(Sorry. I'm poor at English)
I have strongly insisted since July 2020 at the latest that Canon wouldn't release APS-C camera body and lens in RF system for not cinema camera, but still camera. The reasons I presume are shown below.

(1)
Customers and users who want a budget price camera are mainly classified as two groups.

The persons belong to the one group could not concern about specifications and could be satisfied with camera kit like EF-M system. Several years later, they almost wouldn't buy a next interchangeable lens camera. The other words, provide of EF-M and EF-S systems are worth keeping unless net deficit.

While the persons belong to the other group couldn't have enough budget, they are interested in photography and/or videography and they want to improve their skill and equipments. The other words, most important thing for them is not image sensor size, but simply price. Their ideal camera is a budget price one using "high speed present generation" FF sensor. I'm calling this camera "R9" which is similar in design to R6 with EVF and flip screen in spite of intensive cost reduction. One of the biggest missions on "R9" is a bridge the gap in videography between M50/M50ii and mid range like R6. While Canon well understood Sony APS-C series like A6*** occupy this gap several years ago, they didn't take measures during long years. On viewpoint of videography, Canon is building their ecosystem, including "R9", R6, R5, R3, R5C, C70, C300iii, C500ii and so on.

(2)
Regarding APS-C still camera, the rest meaning of existence is crop effect. However, it's extremely difficult the balance between price and high performance; high speed burst shooting, durability etc. I'd like to remind, especially, photographers who need high speed burst shooting that the rolling shutter effect using equivalent technology on image sensor is directly proportional to not image sensor size, but numbers of pixels. The sales period of 7D2 which price was roughly $2000 was about four years; from 2014 to 2018. If the price of 7D2 successor would be almost as same as R6, the demand of this successor should be very small. Therefore, I think "R9" should have high priority to 7D2 successor.


For your information: Canon has introduced key parts as shown below.

--- introducing Dual Pixel technology ---
*S35 image sensor for cinema cameras: C300 (01/2012), C100 (11/2012) -- introducing Dual Pixel technology in 2012 and DPAF thanks to update in 11/2013
*APS-C image sensor for still cameras: 70D (08/2013) -- introducing DPAF

--- low speed previous generation ---
*APS-C image sensor for still cameras: 80D (03/2016) and 11 models (11/2016 - 11/2020)
*FF image sensor for still cameras: 5D4 (08/2016), R (09/2018)
*FF image sensor for still cameras: 6D2 (06/2017), RP (02/2019)
*Image processor for still cameras: DIGIC 8 (03/2018) -- maybe introduce GPGPU for computing deconvolution
*FF image sensor for cinema cameras: C700FF (07/2018), C500ii (12/2019)

--- high speed present generation ---
*High-speed and intelligent communication system between the lens and the camera body: RF mount (09/2018) -- maybe USB3.1 (12pin, 5Gbps)
*APS-C image sensor for still cameras: 90D/M6ii (08/2019) -- maybe delay about 2 years
*Image processor for cinema cameras: DIGIC DV 7 (12/2019)
*FF image sensor for still cameras: 1DX3 (02/2020), R6 (08/2020)
*Image processor for still cameras (and cinema cameras!!): DIGIC X (02/2020)
*S35 image sensor for cinema cameras: C300iii (06/2020), C70 (11/2020) -- introducing Dual Gain Output (DGO)
*FF image sensor for still cameras: R5 (07/2020), R5C (03/2022) -- 2 line readout same time

--- high speed next generation ---
*FF image sensor for still cameras: R3 (11/2021)


----------



## Otara (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> The 7D II was compared to the 1DX on release....
> But the AF systems performance was in no way close to the 1D AF system.
> Just the opinion of someone who owned both.











Canon EOS 7D Mark II AF System Compared to the 1D X and 5D III


Canon EOS 7D Mark II AF System Compared to the 1D X and 5D III




www.the-digital-picture.com





A few advantages, but overall, yes 1DX oddly enough was better overall.


----------



## vjlex (May 10, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> In terms of body sizes, the RP is the goldilocks of body size. Smaller than R3/5/6 and approximately the same size as the larger M bodies
> M50ii = 387g. 116 x 88 x 59 mm
> M6ii = 408g. 120 x 70 x 49 mm
> RP = 485g. 133 x 85 x 70 mm
> ...


Agreed. The RP seems like a good size. I wouldn't mind something like that or something just a bit smaller as a second body. I have the M50 now and previously had the M3. I love the quality and features of the M, but really don't like the compactness of the button layout. I would prefer a second body that can utilize my RF lenses when I want, but also be compact when I need it to be. As an early R camera, the RP features were okay. But if I'm going budget R and it offers less resolution than the R5, I would prefer it to offer some sort of differentiation. APS-C would fit the bill for me. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 10, 2022)

sanj said:


> No sir. APSC R mount has been a religion here. With believers and non-believers bitterly fighting.


I have no vested interest in M or APS-c RF mount but there has been 2 camps with 7Dii users desperately wanting an upgrade with no satisfaction after 8 years and others (such as myself) that haven't been able to see the logic in releasing one. Wishful thinkers vs what limited data we have today.
eg
- 7D series were somewhat unicorns with relatively low price for high build quality, high fps and good AF and not really fitting into the current R3/5/6 product segmentation and pricing
- Canon could have released a 7Diii with the same sensor at the same time as M6ii/90D but chose not to for reasons unknown
- APS-c sensors means that shooters can avoid buying more expensive big whites to get their reach. Great for shooters but not so good for Canon
- Canon missing normal lifecycle updates for 7 series (nor Nikon for that matter in the same segment). Has any body been released 8 years from the previous one?
- M series has had no R&D but seem to tick along nicely in sales based on limited sales data in different parts of the world especially in Asia and likely still profitable
- M series is a great system of low cost/size but reasonable quality and can support EF lenses but with no pathway to RF lenses. It is a great question whether a M body users would upgrade to RF lenses if it were possible. The likelihood of Canon releasing replacement EF-m lenses (small/cheap/light) in RF is a lot of R&D
- Canon's willingness to support 5 lens mounts (Ef-M, EF-s, EF, RF and RF-s) from a lens product management perspective

Canon can always surprise us eg the RF5.2mm/2.8 dual fish eye which came from nowhere with no rumours. I am happy to be wrong of course and happy for 7D upgraders to get what they wished for


----------



## takesome1 (May 10, 2022)

Otara said:


> Canon EOS 7D Mark II AF System Compared to the 1D X and 5D III
> 
> 
> Canon EOS 7D Mark II AF System Compared to the 1D X and 5D III
> ...



Technical specs seldom tell the whole story. I read this article at release to decide whether to order or not.

A cut from the article you linked:
_*I would like to personally thank Chuck Westfall very much for the time and effort he put into preparing this information for us. I hope that any missing decision-making factors are now clarified in your mind.*_

The 7D II was a let down., while it had some good qualities it never lived up to the hype.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 10, 2022)

vjlex said:


> Agreed. The RP seems like a good size. I wouldn't mind something like that or something just a bit smaller as a second body. I have the M50 now and previously had the M3. I love the quality and features of the M, but really don't like the compactness of the button layout. I would prefer a second body that can utilize my RF lenses when I want, but also be compact when I need it to be. As an early R camera, the RP features were okay. But if I'm going budget R and it offers less resolution than the R5, I would prefer it to offer some sort of differentiation. APS-C would fit the bill for me. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else.


The RP would be my second body if I needed one. I have a trip to Iceland in 7 weeks and my question is whether to get a RP as a second body or my first drone (DJI Mini 3 Pro) to use there.... the drone option is more exciting  
I have sufficient reach with R5/RF100-500mm and cropping as needed. No need for APS-c sensor for me.


----------



## AEWest (May 10, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today. Canon is not spending a single dollar on R&D for the EOS M cameras or lenses now that the PowerShot division is basically 2 guys with red staplers and interns. This switch would be further ahead if it wasn't for supply chain constraints.
> 
> The margins aren't in the cameras anyway, so it doesn't matter how many M50's they sell. The margins are in the lenses and we haven't seen an EF-M lens since 2018. We also haven't seen the EOS M series mentioned in quarterly earnings reports in years.


I agree that Canon's best option is to go RFS and discontinue M line. The reason is that M line is a stand alone line. So if someone's first real camera is an M camera and a couple of lenses, and wants to get into a broader ecosystem, there is nothing keeping him/her with Canon - they could go Sony. With RFS, they could acquire and use regular RF lenses on their camera. That would more likely keep them with Canon.


----------



## Fletchahh (May 10, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> - Canon's willingness to support 5 lens mounts (Ef-M, EF-s, EF, RF and RF-s) from a lens product management perspective


I do wonder if any future RF-S lenses will be more or less confusing to the average consumer than EF-S lenses were. As in, which is more confusing, EF-S lenses that couldn't physically mount to full frame bodies, or any potential RF-S lenses that are likely to work on the same R mount but automatically activate the crop shooting mode as any mounted EF-S lenses do today.


----------



## John Wilde (May 10, 2022)

dominic_siu said:


> People always think selling well means doing a good job but Canon want you guys buying more expensive lenses rather than just using kit lens bundle with the entry level cameras.


No entry-level camera models would mean no first-time camera buyers. 

A low-margin sale is more profitable than a lost sale.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> No entry-level camera models would mean no first-time camera buyers.


Canon doesn't need those. They just need CR forum members to be happy and buy cameras.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 10, 2022)

AEWest said:


> I agree that Canon's best option is to go RFS and discontinue M line. The reason is that M line is a stand alone line. So if someone's first real camera is an M camera and a couple of lenses, and wants to get into a broader ecosystem, there is nothing keeping him/her with Canon - they could go Sony. With RFS, they could acquire and use regular RF lenses on their camera. That would more likely keep them with Canon.


M is a self contained ecosystem. They may buy some M lenses besides the kit ones eg for wide angle but they can always buy EF lenses if they wanted reach for instance M6ii + EF100-400mm. Once they had an EF lens then they are more likely to upgrade bodies to match that lens.

You are correct that there is nothing stopping having 2 OEM systems eg R mount + Fuji 4/3 for different applications. 
You could even buy a Z9+800mm/6.3 cheaper than the RF800mm alone.
Sony have some good gear of course and Canon needs to compete where they think that they will make more money


----------



## dominic_siu (May 10, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> No entry-level camera models would mean no first-time camera buyers.
> 
> A low-margin sale is more profitable than a lost sale.


People now tend to use smartphone for taking photos rather than entry level cameras.


----------



## Otara (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Technical specs seldom tell the whole story. I read this article at release to decide whether to order or not.
> 
> A cut from the article you linked:
> _*I would like to personally thank Chuck Westfall very much for the time and effort he put into preparing this information for us. I hope that any missing decision-making factors are now clarified in your mind.*_
> ...


 I read it as saying the 1dx was on another level, but perhaps thats with hindsight.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 10, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Interesting stats (IMHO)...
> Flickr is currently updating their camera database (Camera Finder). And maybe the position doesn't hold as stats are updated and more cameras added. But at the time of writing 7DII are in top 5 when it comes to activity (daily users) in the Canon cameras category:
> 
> 
> ...


Fascinating! I didn't know that those stats were available. Interesting that the number of active daily users is almost identical for R5 and 7Dii shooters.
Looking at the graph over the last year, the R5 is certainly increasing and just taking over from 7Dii with the 5Div/iii dropping significantly


----------



## Phenix205 (May 10, 2022)

I still can’t justify putting those heavy, bulky and super expensive RF lenses on a body with the M6 II APS-C sensor. A smaller sensor is not going to give you extra reach. Put in a 70 MP full frame sensor and shoot in crop mode, you get a 35 MP APS-C.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 10, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> The increased frame rate and readout would be due to the Digic X processor vs Digic 8 (M6II and 90D), not just the sensor itself. M6II is already 14 fps.


I don't think a new Digic version alone can do that. The 20mp R6 does "only" 20fps with electronic shutter.
A lot depends on if/when R7 lowers bit-depth and by how much (or eventually crop like the M6II). But I think specs makes it look like a new sensor.
But we will see...


----------



## Bahrd (May 10, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> M is dead.


_"Mr. CRG, I find this morbid fascination of yours with [the M system's] death quite disturbing!"_ 
R. Atkinson, "_Schoolmaster_"


----------



## vjlex (May 10, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> I still can’t justify putting those heavy, bulky and super expensive RF lenses on a body with the M6 II APS-C sensor. A smaller sensor is not going to give you extra reach. Put in a 70 MP full frame sensor and shoot in crop mode, you get a 35 MP APS-C.


And what about the people who want to shoot 30mp+ telephoto and not spend $5000+ on a 70MP camera only to not utilize most of the pixels? I only partially agree with your statement- heavy, bulky super expensive RF lenses wouldn't particularly be a good fit on an M6 size _body_, but an APS-C sensor would be okay for many people I think. The 17MP crop of the R5 doesn't appeal to me at all, and there is no way I'm getting a flagship 70-80 MP monster just to get 32 MP cropped photos. I'm not sure why so many seem set on limiting options to just what fits their personal preferences and budget (not saying that's what you're doing).


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 10, 2022)

It looks like Canon is finally intending to replace the 7DII, an 8 year old, pro-grade, niche APSC sports/action cam,era with an RF equivalent.

This is in a completely different class to the EF-M camera series, and has nothing to do with the discontinuation of the M6 MkII. There's no evidence yet to indicate the fate of the M platform, because there is no compact, entry level range of APSC camera bodies to replace them yet. At best we can say we don't know.

At least a 32MP R7 will stop the delusional thinking from R5 owners who think they can get more reach by using crop mode! It's called digital zoom on smartphones, and cropping in post-processing. What matters is 'pixels on duck', and cropping in camera or in post is just a crop, while a 'crop' sensor isn't cropping anything when at the same MP count, it's just using less of the projected imaged from the lens much like a tilt-shift lens does in shift mode, but is still using a whole sensor with smaller pixels, whose images, incidentally, can also be cropped. If cropping images taken with an APSC sensor was not possible, then maybe there might be an argument. Anyone care to guess what MP count on a full-frame would be needed to crop down to a 35MP image? Hint, it much more than double, because a 1.6x crop on the 45MP R5 yields only a 17MP image! 

It will be interesting to see how well the RF macro lenses and the ultra telephoto lenses such as the 100-400mm f/5.6-8 (160-640mm f/9-12.8 f FF equiv.), 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 (160-800mm f/7.2-11.4 FF equiv.), 600mm f/11 (960mm f/17.6 FF equiv.) and 800mm f/11 (1280mm f/17.6 FF equiv.) will perform on a new RF APSC body, and what the noise levels will be like at higher ISO settings. Will Canon used 'baked in' noise reduction in its RAW files, like it does in all the newer RF bodies, to produce less noisy images at higher ISO?


----------



## Chaitanya (May 10, 2022)

Hopefully it still have top display and some improvements to battery life. Also dual SD is interesting as they are easy to source and quite cheap.


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 10, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> I still can’t justify putting those heavy, bulky and super expensive RF lenses on a body with the M6 II APS-C sensor. A smaller sensor is not going to give you extra reach. Put in a 70 MP full frame sensor and shoot in crop mode, you get a 35 MP APS-C.


Your math is incorrect, that's not how it works. 

cropped resolution = total resolution / (crop factor^2)

You are cropping both the height and width of the image by 1.6x

For an R5 (45MP) in 1.6x crop mode, the final image size is 45/(1.6x1.6) = 45/2.56 = 17.6MP, and not half, which would be 22.5MP

The 32.5MP APSC sensor on the 90D produces an image that 6983 x 4655 pixels. 
When you do the calculation, you have to increase the height and width by 1.6, or just multiply the figure by the square of 1.6.
Either (6983 x 1.6) x (4655 x 1.6) or 32.5 x (1.6^2) = 32.5 x 2.56 = 83.2MP

You would need an 83MP full frame sensor to do a 1.6x crop mode to give you the same resolution as the32.5MP APSC sensor.
Good luck getting a camera at that high resolution that can do a fast shooting rate at a reasonable price! Ever wondered why even the flagship cameras are only 20MP?

High resolution APSC bodies have their place, otherwise manufacturers would not be producing them!


----------



## masterpix (May 10, 2022)

jam05 said:


> A DSLR like mirrorless camera will not replace the popular M50. It will garner nowhere near the sales. Most consumers don't want a DSLR look alike camera to travel with. Nor the hassle with TSA or import controls in various airports. Canons mirrorless versions of their DSLRs still resemble "professional" cameras. The M50 is the travel camera of choice. Especially if one dares to pack a compact gimbal. Anyone dreaming to invision any of the current mirrorless body style options replacing the compact M50 or M6 is delusional.


I am not sure you are correct in your assumptions, as today, most people carry cellphones for their travels and not even M series cameras. The R-ebel might not have EVF and beside the R bionet will look pretty much like the M class cameras. You can think of the R-ebel as M class camera with R mount. If I am allowed to suspect the future, I think this is where Canon aim the R-ebel to be. It sill have RF mount, but something like (bit bigger) the M shape and size. 

All in all, our personal wishes, like R1 with 85MP global shutter sensor, quad 3D focusing system that will catch any bird in the sky, and so and so,, for less than the R6 is now prices...


----------



## David - Sydney (May 10, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> High resolution APSC bodies have their place, otherwise manufacturers would not be producing them!


But their place has been misplaced up til now by Canon and Nikon


----------



## mxwphoto (May 10, 2022)

My primary concern regarding the sensor is that IF it is same as the 90D one then how good would the highlight and shadow recovery be. The R6 and R5 have great latitudes on that front and it would be a miss if recovery performance is no better than 90D.


----------



## Aussie shooter (May 10, 2022)

So is the fact that it doesn't say BSI a typo or is it really not. BSI sensor?


----------



## tonial (May 10, 2022)

If after 8 years of waiting for the canon 7dII to take over, it uses an obsolete technology sensor. Not BSI. I think canon will be wrong.


----------



## tataylino (May 10, 2022)

So probably they will be releasing an R50 to replace the M50 in the future? M50 is a lot cheaper than R7 so there is still a market for M50 unless they replace it with equivalent price range.


----------



## Otara (May 10, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> High resolution APSC bodies have their place, otherwise manufacturers would not be producing them!


 
I think its more they 'could' still have a place, but how much they will is tricky to predict in the current market situation.


----------



## vjlex (May 10, 2022)

tataylino said:


> So probably they will be releasing an R50 to replace the M50 in the future? M50 is a lot cheaper than R7 so there is still a market for M50 unless they replace it with equivalent price range.


Ideally, I think an R50 type body is what I would like as a second body. An RP sized M50 (or XXD) spec equivalent mid-tier APS-C body. I imagine something like this will come along in the next couple years (the sooner the better).

I only have a few EF lens left. While I plan to keep my EF-M 22mm until it falls apart, I would be thrilled if a similar quality and focal length RF pancake lens came along, even if just a slightly wider diameter than the M lens. I would much prefer being able to use all my lenses on all bodies I own interchangeably, instead of the hodgepodge that it is now between EF-M, EF, RF, and my various mount adapters.


----------



## tron (May 10, 2022)

tonial said:


> If after 8 years of waiting for the canon 7dII to take over, it uses an obsolete technology sensor. Not BSI. I think canon will be wrong.


Not so fast.

1st It may not be the same sensor.
2nd. Even if it is (which I doubt) EOS 90D sensor is a major improvement over 7DII's sensor with less noise and significantly greater dynamic range.
3rd. It does not have to be BSI. R5's sensor is not and it is an excellent one.

It all comes to camera's response and AF system.


----------



## Martin K (May 10, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today. Canon is not spending a single dollar on R&D for the EOS M cameras or lenses now that the PowerShot division is basically 2 guys with red staplers and interns. This switch would be further ahead if it wasn't for supply chain constraints.
> 
> The margins aren't in the cameras anyway, so it doesn't matter how many M50's they sell. The margins are in the lenses and we haven't seen an EF-M lens since 2018. We also haven't seen the EOS M series mentioned in quarterly earnings reports in years.


I read that M is no longer in PowerShot divison, so that point seems not valid. I understand it now with the EOS group. What they will do with it, nobody knows. I also read that they will support it so long as it is profitable, but I have seen no commitment to develop it


----------



## Chig (May 10, 2022)

sanj said:


> Now I am seriously confused. I learnt here that cropping for reach was the same if done in-camera (APSC) or
> in post for image quality. If R7 is the same size as R5, why would a smart company like Canon make R7? This will reveal itself to me eventually, but as of now, I am confused. Perhaps, they will make lighter, cheaper lenses for R7. Then and only then will R7 make sense (assuming the crop theory above is correct.)


R5 with 1.6x crop is 17mp vs this camera has 32.5 mp, almost double and the smaller sensor will produce less heat, IBIS has more room to move for better stabilisation, less data so better speed and of course it'll be priced similar to R6 so should sell plenty and still make good profit margin.
Birders like myself would still use it with long telephotos.
Hope it's a BSI stacked sensor


----------



## scyrene (May 10, 2022)

AEWest said:


> I agree that Canon's best option is to go RFS and discontinue M line. The reason is that M line is a stand alone line. So if someone's first real camera is an M camera and a couple of lenses, and wants to get into a broader ecosystem, there is nothing keeping him/her with Canon - they could go Sony. With RFS, they could acquire and use regular RF lenses on their camera. That would more likely keep them with Canon.


Here we go again.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 10, 2022)

AEWest said:


> I agree that Canon's best option is to go RFS and discontinue M line. The reason is that M line is a stand alone line. So if someone's first real camera is an M camera and a couple of lenses, and wants to get into a broader ecosystem, there is nothing keeping him/her with Canon - they could go Sony. With RFS, they could acquire and use regular RF lenses on their camera. That would more likely keep them with Canon.


Or Canon could stuff the R7 sensor and electronics into an M-mount body about the size of the Olympus OM-1 (or even smaller) and give M users a serious upgrade path. (Compare the size, capabilities and price of the OM-1 with the Canon R3.) I've suggested that on several occasions but I would be amazed if Canon actually did it.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 10, 2022)

speg said:


> Hmm. I’m a bit bummed there is IBIS: can this be priced lower than the R6? If not, I may end up there instead. This year is going to be such a long wait!


You don’t want IBIS…?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 10, 2022)

Sounds good to me! Time to start saving..

CR3 too! Exciting!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 10, 2022)

John Wilde said:


> CanonRumors has been rumoring about this since 2018, so it's not exactly like the were spot-on. I don't think anyone cares enough one way or the another to have a hurt ego.


People will just move on to the next pointless argument


----------



## knight427 (May 10, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> People will just move on to the next pointless argument


NO WE WONT!!!!!!!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 10, 2022)

sanj said:


> Now I am seriously confused. I learnt here that cropping for reach was the same if done in-camera (APSC) or
> in post for image quality. If R7 is the same size as R5, why would a smart company like Canon make R7? This will reveal itself to me eventually, but as of now, I am confused. Perhaps, they will make lighter, cheaper lenses for R7. Then and only then will R7 make sense (assuming the crop theory above is correct.)


An APS-C cropped R5 is only 17MP


----------



## bbasiaga (May 10, 2022)

Berowne said:


> Not a good idea, AF will become pretty slow. Believe me i tried it .
> View attachment 203463


Interesting to hear you say that. I've noticed only a tiny slow down in acquisition of initial focus (sports, virtually all soccer), and no degradation in tracking accuracy. With this same combo - R6, TC vIII, lens vII. And no degradation in image quality. I rented one to try, and was sold immediately. Then bought one used and got the same result. I've been thinking of grabbing the 2xTC to try as well. 

Bottom line - i'd suggest at least trying it to anyone with an R5 or R6. And decide for yourself. 

Brian


----------



## JustUs7 (May 10, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I don't think a new Digic version alone can do that. The 20mp R6 does "only" 20fps with electronic shutter.
> A lot depends on if/when R7 lowers bit-depth and by how much (or eventually crop like the M6II). But I think specs makes it look like a new sensor.
> But we will see...





Stig Nygaard said:


> I don't think a new Digic version alone can do that. The 20mp R6 does "only" 20fps with electronic shutter.
> A lot depends on if/when R7 lowers bit-depth and by how much (or eventually crop like the M6II). But I think specs makes it look like a new sensor.
> But we will see...


The sensor of the R6 has 1.6x the area for read speed. What’s 20 (fps) x 1.6? Call it 30, rounding down.


----------



## Berowne (May 10, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> Interesting to hear you say that. I've noticed only a tiny slow down in acquisition of initial focus (sports, virtually all soccer), and no degradation in tracking accuracy. With this same combo - R6, TC vIII, lens vII. And no degradation in image quality. I rented one to try, and was sold immediately. Then bought one used and got the same result. I've been thinking of grabbing the 2xTC to try as well.
> 
> Bottom line - i'd suggest at least trying it to anyone with an R5 or R6. And decide for yourself.
> 
> Brian


Image Quality is ok. The one-shot spot mode, which i use often is terrible. Servo spot mode is constantly pumping. Tracking is slow. My Camera-Firmware Firmware is 1.52. No idea what to do. Without TC the AF is nice. 
BTW with my old 2.8/200L Mk II performance is better.


----------



## stevelee (May 10, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> _*This comes from Canon Rumors*_


Years ago I told a friend that I had heard that for NJ Turnpike purposes, radial tires could substitute for snow tires. He replied that he had heard that, too. So we took that as a kind of confirmation. Later I recalled that I had originally heard it from him.


----------



## stevelee (May 10, 2022)

knight427 said:


> NO WE WONT!!!!!!!


"I'm here for an argument."

"No, you're not."


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2022)

stevelee said:


> "I'm here for an argument."
> 
> "No, you're not."


Potaayyyyyto
Potaahhhhhto


----------



## SteveC (May 10, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> M is dead. There will be more APS-C RF Mount cameras that will be the same form factor as the M series we know today. Canon is not spending a single dollar on R&D for the EOS M cameras or lenses now that the PowerShot division is basically 2 guys with red staplers and interns. This switch would be further ahead if it wasn't for supply chain constraints.
> 
> The margins aren't in the cameras anyway, so it doesn't matter how many M50's they sell. The margins are in the lenses and we haven't seen an EF-M lens since 2018. We also haven't seen the EOS M series mentioned in quarterly earnings reports in years.



You're conflating lack of new development with them actually discontinuing the M series. It won't be discontinued as long as it sells; with development amortized it's almost free money.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 10, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> The sensor of the R6 has 1.6x the area for read speed. What’s 20 (fps) x 1.6? Call it 30, rounding down.


I'm thinking more about the megapixels that needs to be "of loaded" from sensor (bits/bytes.)


----------



## Chaitanya (May 10, 2022)

Comparing to leaked Fuji XH-2s specs for memory cards, dual SD is quite puzzling for R7.








RUMOR UPDATE: Fujifilm X-H2S Compatible with CFExpress and SD-Cards - Fuji Rumors


Just very recently I’ve shared the rumor about the Fujifilm X-H2S being compatible with the super fast CFexpress cards. Well, some readers contacted me asking me if the Fujifilm X-H2S would also still be compatible with SD-Cards and I am happy to report that the X-H2S will take also SD-Cards. If...




www.fujirumors.com


----------



## JustUs7 (May 10, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I'm thinking more about the megapixels that needs to be transferred from sensor.


I get it. I suspect it’s a mix though, considering how fast the Digic 10 can handle 45 megapixels of the R5. Given the standard rolling readout, physical area read would have an impact on speed as much as ability to transfer data. If the scan can only move so fast, then scanning a smaller area will be more efficient.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 10, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Comparing to leaked Fuji XH-2s specs for memory cards, dual SD is quite puzzling for R7.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm exited about the R7, but a bit disappointed about the choice of dual SD instead of a a combi (or double CFE). The previous "CR1" video specs might very well have been true for the camera if Canon had chosen a faster memory card.
I'm not a video-guy myself, but besides affecting buffering performance, maybe the slower SD-cards will also limit bit-depth for high speed RAW shooting (Can someone do the math?) ?


----------



## [email protected] (May 10, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I used the UHS-II slot for BIF on the R5 before I got a CFExpress card and will be perfectly happy to have 2 UHS-II on an R7. 32.5 Mpx on crop will give in theory the reach of a 2xTC on an R6, and my R6 will go if the R7 looks good. I’d like an f/4 telephoto to go with it.



Depends on the buffer size. This will be a big issue or a non-issue. I sometimes goof up my R5 settings and have it feeding the SD card instead of the CFexpress card, and I seldom notice, unless I'm shooting 75+ shots in a row without interruption, which I seldom do. 

If the R7 has similarly-sized buffer, SD will be fine. My beef SD is that the UHS-II cards aren't any cheaper than the CFexpress cards.


----------



## speg (May 10, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> You don’t want IBIS…?


Nah, I’d rather save money and size. I shoot most often at shutter speeds high enough IBIS isn’t needed.


----------



## grantmasterflash (May 10, 2022)

An R6 with a smaller sensor would cost how much less than an R6? If it's not enough nobody will want it. An R6 is about $2500 so if they could get the APS-C camera down to $2000 would it be enough? Also the R7 will have more MP than the R6 so you can't sell it for too little or it will cannibalize R6 sales. 

Is a FF 20 MP camera better than an APS-C 32.5 MP camera if all other specs are the same?

If they go too low in price by cutting margins then it squeezes the R10 which means they have to cut features from the R10 to make it cheaper which makes it no better than an M6 II. It will be interesting to see how Canon works this out.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 10, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I'm exited about the R7, but a bit disappointed about the choice of dual SD instead of a a combi (or double CFE). The previous "CR1" video specs might very well have been true for the camera if Canon had chosen a faster memory card.
> I'm not a video-guy myself, but besides affecting buffering performance, maybe the slower SD-cards will also limit bit-depth for high speed RAW shooting (Can someone do the math?) ?


Overall with non BSI sensor and dual SD slots it seems like Canon is trying to make sure all parts are available to ensure availability is good rather than have long backlog of backorders. Lets wait to see buffer depth figures are like for RAW shooting(R6 for eg has excellent depth) and for 4k 60 even the fastest UHS-II cards wont have any issues handling it(agains lets wait for bit rate details). What worries me is if Canon restricts AF in 1080 120fps mode on this camera.


----------



## PhotoRN86 (May 10, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> It looks like Canon is finally intending to replace the 7DII, an 8 year old, pro-grade, niche APSC sports/action cam,era with an RF equivalent.
> 
> This is in a completely different class to the EF-M camera series, and has nothing to do with the discontinuation of the M6 MkII. There's no evidence yet to indicate the fate of the M platform, because there is no compact, entry level range of APSC camera bodies to replace them yet. At best we can say we don't know.
> 
> ...


Correct me if I'm wrong with your conversions, but do crop sensors affect a lens Aperture??? would the 100-500mm just turn into a 160-800mm 4.5-7.1?? etc


----------



## mxwphoto (May 10, 2022)

grantmasterflash said:


> An R6 with a smaller sensor would cost how much less than an R6? If it's not enough nobody will want it. An R6 is about $2500 so if they could get the APS-C camera down to $2000 would it be enough? Also the R7 will have more MP than the R6 so you can't sell it for too little or it will cannibalize R6 sales.
> 
> Is a FF 20 MP camera better than an APS-C 32.5 MP camera if all other specs are the same?
> 
> If they go too low in price by cutting margins then it squeezes the R10 which means they have to cut features from the R10 to make it cheaper which makes it no better than an M6 II. It will be interesting to see how Canon works this out.


R6 and R7 are for different markets. There is no good way for a R7 to achieve the shallow depth of field for the f1.2 lens looks nor the ultra wide angles (talking 10-12mmish) of full frame. On the other hand, there is also no good way for R6 to achieve R7's reach and magnification on the long end. Therefore even if prices are similar, I would think they do not intrude upon each other's markets too much. They can rather work as good complements to each other.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (May 10, 2022)

speg said:


> Nah, I’d rather save money and size. I shoot most often at shutter speeds high enough IBIS isn’t needed.


Then the R10 might be better for you!


----------



## fox40phil (May 10, 2022)

Berowne said:


> Might be a good complement to my R6 with the EF 100-400L Mk. II.


Or with my new 2nd hand 300 2.8L IS II <3... like back in the days with 7D


----------



## InchMetric (May 10, 2022)

I note that the R7 sensor is like an 83MP FF sensor, cropped down to size. Not bad.


----------



## jvillain (May 10, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> How much more modern can you get? You can't get UHS-iii or SD Express cards
> 
> No need for a card faster than USHii. R5 only needs CFe because of 4 video modes (8k raw, 8k ALL-I, 4k120, 4k60 ALL-I). All other video mode eg 8k IPB can use a SD card. I would suggest one of the faster ones though with >250MB/s write speed V90.
> 32mp/30fps would be fine on a SD card as the R5 45mp/20fps (lower bit depth than mechanical speed) is handled okay.



v90 cards can't even keep up with [email protected] SDex will run in backward comparability mode if the camera doesn't support SDex which these specs seem to indicate it doesn't. It also isn't just an issue of how fast you can write but also how fast you can get the data off. If it had a CFex slot it would be compatible with other modern cameras that are all going in that direction.


----------



## AlanF (May 10, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Depends on the buffer size. This will be a big issue or a non-issue. I sometimes goof up my R5 settings and have it feeding the SD card instead of the CFexpress card, and I seldom notice, unless I'm shooting 75+ shots in a row without interruption, which I seldom do.
> 
> If the R7 has similarly-sized buffer, SD will be fine. My beef SD is that the UHS-II cards aren't any cheaper than the CFexpress cards.


In the UK, UHS-II cards are a fraction of the price of CFExpress.


----------



## bbasiaga (May 10, 2022)

PhotoRN86 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong with your conversions, but do crop sensors affect a lens Aperture??? would the 100-500mm just turn into a 160-800mm 4.5-7.1?? etc


No, they do not. The lens creates an image circle, regarless of what sensor (or if there is a sensor) behind it. That image circle includes the field of view as well as the depth of field. 

A FF sensor 'crops' the image circle to a FF sized rectangle. The APSc sensor 'crops' it to an APSc sized rectangle (taking only the middle section of the full image circle of a FF lens). So you're getting a smaller FOV, as if the lens were longer in focal length. The image scale difference, or 'reach' as people like to call it, comes from the higher pixel density that is typical with APSc sensors vs FF sensors. So the Duck is the same physical size in the image circle whether the lens is on FF of APSc. The space around the duck is less on APSC, since it is not capturing as much of the image around the duck (Crop factor). The number of pixels per duck is higher on APSc (typically), meaning the resulting image of the duck when viewed at 300ppi (for example) is larger. This is 'reach' advantage of APSc.

Depth of field in the two images is the same. Where it would change is if you tried to match the FF field of view on an APSc sensor by going to a shorter focal length lens. For example, a 50mm FF image has about the same FOV as a 35mm APSc image. If both are taken at F2.8, the FF will have shallower depth of field, since the thickness of a focal plane at 50mm f/2.8 is thinner than a 35mm f/2.8 lens. If you are using the same lens at the same aperture, the DOF in the resulting image will be the same on both sensors (but the APSc sensor image will show a smaller FOV, as described above). 

So on an R7, the effective FOV of the 100-500 is 160-800 (crop factor). The image scale difference ('reach') will be about 50% greater (more pixels per unit area) than an R5. And the DOF will not be affected. 

Hopefully that helps. 

Brian


----------



## David - Sydney (May 10, 2022)

jvillain said:


> v90 cards can't even keep up with [email protected] SDex will run in backward comparability mode if the camera doesn't support SDex which these specs seem to indicate it doesn't. It also isn't just an issue of how fast you can write but also how fast you can get the data off. If it had a CFex slot it would be compatible with other modern cameras that are all going in that direction.


Just look up the R5's advanced user guide. The specs are all listed there for what is covered or not. Most A1 users are not even using CFe Type A cards as their USHii SD cards are fast enough - noting that the A1 uses compression codecs for their 8K video ie not raw.
SD express is only backward compatible with UHS i slots/cards. It is not backwards compatible with UHSii or UHSiii (if there were any available)
SD express have barely any cards available and maybe a couple of laptops announced supporting the slots.

Please name any current camera body that has SD express in it


----------



## sanj (May 11, 2022)

speg said:


> Nah, I’d rather save money and size. I shoot most often at shutter speeds high enough IBIS isn’t needed.


There is no evidence that IBIS increases size. Thank you.


----------



## sanj (May 11, 2022)

grantmasterflash said:


> An R6 with a smaller sensor would cost how much less than an R6? If it's not enough nobody will want it. An R6 is about $2500 so if they could get the APS-C camera down to $2000 would it be enough? Also the R7 will have more MP than the R6 so you can't sell it for too little or it will cannibalize R6 sales.
> 
> Is a FF 20 MP camera better than an APS-C 32.5 MP camera if all other specs are the same?
> 
> If they go too low in price by cutting margins then it squeezes the R10 which means they have to cut features from the R10 to make it cheaper which makes it no better than an M6 II. It will be interesting to see how Canon works this out.


Good points.


----------



## sanj (May 11, 2022)

PhotoRN86 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong with your conversions, but do crop sensors affect a lens Aperture??? would the 100-500mm just turn into a 160-800mm 4.5-7.1?? etc


I do not think crop sensors change the aperture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

sanj said:


> I do not think crop sensors change the aperture.


Definitely not.


----------



## sanj (May 11, 2022)

Chig said:


> R5 with 1.6x crop is 17mp vs this camera has 32.5 mp, almost double and the smaller sensor will produce less heat, IBIS has more room to move for better stabilisation, less data so better speed and of course it'll be priced similar to R6 so should sell plenty and still make good profit margin.
> Birders like myself would still use it with long telephotos.
> Hope it's a BSI stacked sensor


Thx!


----------



## stevelee (May 11, 2022)

sanj said:


> I do not think crop sensors change the aperture.


That’s one of the reasons I stay away from “equivalence” arguments. Somewhere in the process someone argues that the sensor size magically changes the optical properties and/or the laws of optics. It is apparently easy to misapply some valid principles.

Years ago I wanted to buy a relatively fast prime for portraits on my T3i. I wanted the “equivalent” of an 85mm lens on FF, but I had to decide what about it should be equivalent. Eventually I learned that what I wanted to preserve was the distance to the subject, not the optical properties of the lens, so i bought a 50mm lens. When I put it on the Rebel, it still was a 50mm lens optically. The sensor didn’t change that. At f/1.4 it still had the depth of field as a 50mm lens, no matter the amount of crop. (But then you can start playing around with magnification, and the matter becomes more complex. But I was just interested in taking pictures, choosing what I thought looked good, once the lens decision was made.)


----------



## Berowne (May 11, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Potaayyyyyto
> Potaahhhhhto


Let's Call The Whole Thing Off


----------



## Chig (May 11, 2022)

Sounds like a great replacement for my 7D mark ii 
I hope the sensor is a BSI stacked one but even a rehashed 90D one would be great.
If I could afford it I'd buy an R3 as it'd be the best for my bird photography especially as I have a Great White 400 f/2.8 now (although it's the original non IS one the optics are still amazing and I now understand why people love these lenses)
If I get the R7 I'm thinking of getting the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R 0.71x speed booster which presumably would make my EF lenses work with the R7 like on a FF camera with a slight crop of 1.136 . Is this true or am I mistaken? I'd like the flexibility of using my EF lenses either with the 1.6x crop of the 1.136x crop.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (May 11, 2022)

PhotoRN86 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong with your conversions, but do crop sensors affect a lens Aperture??? would the 100-500mm just turn into a 160-800mm 4.5-7.1?? etc


All of this terminology gets used in different contexts and gets confusing.
Technically the aperture is the size of the image circle so APS-C lenses do have a smaller aperture.
F-stops are relative so APS-C has a smaller aperture at the same F-stop.


----------



## bernie_king (May 11, 2022)

Famateur said:


> My two cents...
> 
> I think the R7 will have an AF system equal to or better than the R3. If I remember correctly, the 7DII had essentially the same AF system as the same-generation 1DX. I would anticipate the R7 possibly even being a test run for what the R1 AF system will bring.


It really didn't. I had both and the 7D II AF was not in the same league as the 1DX, especially when paired with a big white. It was more advanced than the xxD systems for sure. I tried going from the 1D4 to the 7D Mark II on that assumption and ended up moving to the 1DX within 6 months out of frustration with the AF system. I'm sure the AF on the R7 will be fantastic, but you're not going to get an APS-C version of a $6k camera for $2-$3k. There is a reason the R3 costs what it does.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> All of this terminology gets used in different contexts and gets confusing.
> Technically the aperture is the size of the image circle so APS-C lenses do have a smaller aperture.
> F-stops are relative so APS-C has a smaller aperture at the same F-stop.


Sorry but nope. Perhaps a bit of confusion on your part.

The aperture is not the image circle. The image circle is measured as the diameter of the circle illuminated by the lens at the image plane (sensor). Since an APS-C sensor is smaller than FF, lenses designed for crop sensors can have smaller image circles, meaning the lens can be designed smaller (but telephoto lens designs have large image circles, so there’s no real point in designing them specifically for a crop sensor).

Aperture is the diameter of the iris diaphragm, f/number is the ratio of the focal length to that diaphragm diameter. Focal length, aperture, and f/number are all intrinsic properties of a lens. They do not change regardless of the size of the sensor behind that lens. An 85mm f/1.2 lens has an iris diaphragm diameter of ~70 mm whether that lens is mounted on an APS-C or full frame camera.

You are correct that f/number is relative, but not that it changes with sensor size. It’s relative to focal length. A 50/1.2 lens will have a smaller Iris diaphragm diameter than an 85/1.2. A 500/7.1 will have about the same size iris diaphragm as an 85/1.2.


----------



## bbasiaga (May 11, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> All of this terminology gets used in different contexts and gets confusing.
> Technically the aperture is the size of the image circle so APS-C lenses do have a smaller aperture.
> F-stops are relative so APS-C has a smaller aperture at the same F-stop.


This is incorrect. See my post on the previous page. Aperture as discussed in camera terms is the relationship of the size of the opening of the aperture blades to the focal length of the lens. What you are describing is the image circle, which is the diameter of the in-focus image plane created by the lens. 

The image circle size does not change when you change the aperture. You don't suddenly start cropping images because you've dialed up to f/22. In fact, vignette is more common at WIDER apertures! What really bakes people's noodle is that ever part of the front element of the lens contributes to every part of the image. So the very center of the lens is putting some light in to the very corner of the photo, and the very edge of the lens is also putting some light in to the very center of the image. Weird, but true. Obviously, the angles of the light to do that can get steep. And that's exactly whey wider aperture shots (say F/1.4) have blurry out of focus areas - all that light from all that area can't get bent to the right place and be in focus at the same time. When you stop down to say f/16, now you are taking the light only from the center section of the front element. The light that can bend out to still fill the corners is coming in straighter, and thus more of the image is in focus or close to focus - exactly whey the DOF is deeper! Now you've also stopped collecting light from the outer areas of the front element (the aperture blades are literally, physically blocking it. This is why you have to leave the shutter open longer to get the same exposure. 

None of the above changes because there is an APSc sensor behind it instead of a FF sensor. The exposure time, DOF, etc will be the same in the same conditions on both. The only thing that changes is the field of view, since the APSc sensor isn't using the full image circle of a FF lens. 

Brian


----------



## sanj (May 11, 2022)

stevelee said:


> That’s one of the reasons I stay away from “equivalence” arguments. Somewhere in the process someone argues that the sensor size magically changes the optical properties and/or the laws of optics. It is apparently easy to misapply some valid principles.
> 
> Years ago I wanted to buy a relatively fast prime for portraits on my T3i. I wanted the “equivalent” of an 85mm lens on FF, but I had to decide what about it should be equivalent. Eventually I learned that what I wanted to preserve was the distance to the subject, not the optical properties of the lens, so i bought a 50mm lens. When I put it on the Rebel, it still was a 50mm lens optically. The sensor didn’t change that. At f/1.4 it still had the depth of field as a 50mm lens, no matter the amount of crop. (But then you can start playing around with magnification, and the matter becomes more complex. But I was just interested in taking pictures, choosing what I thought looked good, once the lens decision was made.)


Wait. Are you saying 50mm will have the same depth of field on crop or full frame?


----------



## unfocused (May 11, 2022)

sanj said:


> Wait. Are you saying 50mm will have the same depth of field on crop or full frame?


Please. Please. Please. Let's not gum up this thread with a dozen pages of pointless posts on equivalence. 



Shakepeare said:


> It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

sanj said:


> Wait. Are you saying 50mm will have the same depth of field on crop or full frame?


If you shoot at the same f/number setting and distance from the subject then DoF will be close to the same, yes. Technically, it will be slightly _shallower_ on crop because of the smaller circle of confusion.

But of course with a crop sensor, the framing at 50mm is tighter, and if you move further away to match the framing of the full frame sensor, increasing the distance results in a deeper DoF. But it was *not* the smaller sensor that made DoF deeper, it was you moving further away from the subject.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Please. Please. Please. Let's not gum up this thread with a dozen pages of pointless posts on equivalence.


If someone asks an honest question, providing a correct answer is never pointless.


----------



## jvillain (May 11, 2022)

sanj said:


> I do not think crop sensors change the aperture.


When you use a crop sensor you use the multiplier (1.6) on both focal length and aperture. You use the square of the aperture for noise.


----------



## AlanF (May 11, 2022)

jvillain said:


> When you use a crop sensor you use the multiplier (1.6) on both focal length and aperture. You use the square of the aperture for noise.


Please explain what you mean by: You use the square of the aperture for noise.


----------



## stevelee (May 11, 2022)

And don’t forget diffraction.


----------



## goldenhusky (May 12, 2022)

vjlex said:


> I still wouldn't go quite as far as calling it "proof" as I've seen CR3s that were wrong on very very rare occasions, but I share your overall sentiment. While I won't rule it out at this point, the R7 is not a camera that I myself plan to get, but I am very interested in what it indicates we can expect in the near future for R body options. And killing off some of the more dogmatic arguments about what Canon will and won't do is an added bonus. I have never seen the logic in the argument that the R line up only needs a few premium cameras plus the R and RP to be complete. To me the gap between the M offerings and R offerings has always been a gaping wide chasm begging to be filled. While I don't necessarily believe the R7 is meant to directly threaten the M line, it does portend a future where APS-C is not just for those who want compact, miniature bodies with compact lenses. I generally consider more options a good thing.
> 
> Not the perfect analogy, but right now Canon's mirrorless offerings are kind of like Goldilocks without mama bear's bed. M might be just right for some (I've been satisfied with mine), but I wouldn't mind some alternative in between.



While CF-E is one source of heat that was not the sole reason for the R5 to overheat. There is phyisics but also there are ways to improve the heat sink. There is evidence Canon' cripple hammer was at work with R5 deliberately way under sizing the heat sink. Then they came up with R5C I was like finally a true hybrid camera from Canon, guess what? Canon' cripple hammer was at work on that too, no IBIS and the Micro HDMI. I pre-prdered the R5C right away and then came to this forum and learnt there is no IBIS and microHDMI. I cancelled my order. Bottom line Canon is yet another corporate exploiting it's market dominance to the core.


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 12, 2022)

PhotoRN86 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong with your conversions, but do crop sensors affect a lens Aperture??? would the 100-500mm just turn into a 160-800mm 4.5-7.1?? etc



A 100-400mm f/5.6-8 on APSC is equivalent to 160-640mm f/9-12.8 on FF.

Using a crop sensor doesn't change the aperture, only the aperture dial does that!

For the same depth of field to a full frame, a narrower aperture is required on APSC.

Looking at calculations below from https://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html , the DOF is identical when a 400mm lens is at 0.29m (0.14m in front and 0.15m behind the subject) when FF is at f/8 and APSC is at f/12.7 (FF aperture x 1.6)







What happens if the aperture remains at f/8 on APSC? Your DOF drops from 0.29m to 0.18m (0.09m in front and 0.0.09 m behind the subject), which is 1/3 less in either direction.



If your want to do an apples-for-apples comparison, to compare equivalent parameters, and achieve the same DOF, you need to change the aperture with the APSC sensor, otherwise we're comparing two images with very different DOF!

An Canon APSC sensor utilises a x1.6 crop, so the field of vies (FOV) will look like one taken on 400 x 1.6 = 640mm on full frame.

That may be great for wildlife photography, as the subject will be 1.6x larger in the final image.

When shooting portraits, head and shoulder photos for example, irrespective of whether you're using a FF or APSC camera, the subject has to stay the same size in the frame, so you need to stand further back when using a crop body, and that will change the DOF. To get the same DOF as a full-frame, we need a faster aperture lens on the APSC camera.

To take the same image (identical FOV, subject size and DOF) when using an 85mm portrait lens:

Using FF, subject is 2m away, aperture is f/2
Using APSC, subject must be 3.2m away (much further for same framing), and the aperture needs to be opened up to f/1.2
The APSC sensor does not alter the aperture, you do to achieve the same DOF and subject framing when taking the photo from further away. It's only 'equivalent', when the FF and APSC body are producing the very same photo.

The calculations below show the 85mm lens producing the same DOF of 0.06m, but since different distances are needed, different apertures are aslo.


----------



## LogicExtremist (May 12, 2022)

goldenhusky said:


> While CF-E is one source of heat that was not the sole reason for the R5 to overheat. There is phyisics but also there are ways to improve the heat sink. There is evidence Canon' cripple hammer was at work with R5 deliberately way under sizing the heat sink. Then they came up with R5C I was like finally a true hybrid camera from Canon, guess what? Canon' cripple hammer was at work on that too, no IBIS and the Micro HDMI. I pre-prdered the R5C right away and then came to this forum and learnt there is no IBIS and microHDMI. I cancelled my order. Bottom line Canon is yet another corporate exploiting it's market dominance to the core.








It's real, and people must learn to fear it! Nobody ever knows which product it will strike down before its release!


----------



## PhotoLife (May 12, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Hope the Canon R7 has internal satellite based GPS. The Canon 6D, 6D Mark II, Canon 7D Mark II, Canon 5d IV, Canon R3, and the Nikon Z9 all have internal satellite based GPS vs sometimes/often unreliable cell phone coverage in remote areas to link your cell phone's GPS to your camera. Remote areas where, for example, wildlife may reside where many, including myself, use satellite based GPS to Geo-locate the photograph. Taking a long arduous journey with backpack and camera to a remote location and being able to, relatively precisely, Geo-locate a photograph for future reference is very important to me.


----------



## AlP (May 12, 2022)

goldenhusky said:


> While CF-E is one source of heat that was not the sole reason for the R5 to overheat. There is phyisics but also there are ways to improve the heat sink. There is evidence Canon' cripple hammer was at work with R5 deliberately way under sizing the heat sink. Then they came up with R5C I was like finally a true hybrid camera from Canon, guess what? Canon' cripple hammer was at work on that too, no IBIS and the Micro HDMI. I pre-prdered the R5C right away and then came to this forum and learnt there is no IBIS and microHDMI. I cancelled my order. Bottom line Canon is yet another corporate exploiting it's market dominance to the core.


What is the evidence?
Pictures on various forums, YT,... after a R5 teardown showing a thin metal cover over the DSP with some heat-conducting material in between are hardly any evidence. We don't even know if the purpose of that part is really to act as a heatsink. 
There is a big difference between seeing the final result (product) and knowing the reasons which led to that final result. Except there is first-hand information from product management/R&D at Canon of course, but it wouldn't be wise to publish it here I guess.
There could be many reasons for IBIS being left out. Canon knows what the target audience of the product expects and can plan products based (also, not only) on those expectations. There could be technical reasons and putting IBIS into the camera would have led to other compromises which would have been more problematic. We don't have that information.
The use of micro HDMI could be simply due to the fact that the R5 and R5C share the same main PCB and the R5C volume was deemed too low to design and manufacture a different board.


----------



## VOTOXY (May 13, 2022)

I really hope a M6 Mark II form factor. I just love how tiny and compact it is.


----------



## VOTOXY (May 13, 2022)

We truly need an update to the G7x series.
I would love to see a Canon G7x camera with the leap forward in technology Canon made since 2-3 years on their mirrorless bodies.

I refuse to buy Sony RX100 VII, I do want Canon to make the equivalent with their know-how.
Fingers crossed it'll happen in the near future


----------



## Botts (May 14, 2022)

I really like the look of these specs, but it has me wondering about a line up hole where the 6D/6D2 existed.

I'm going to use MSRP launch prices for the next statement. This is (assuming it's under $1,999) a great replacement for 7D2 or 90D users! The R5 is a discount vs the 5D4 at MSRP and another great replacement. The R6 carries a $500 premium over the 6D2 which is tough pricing.

The wider availability of the EF cameras below MSRP vs the RF cameras is also worth noting.


----------



## Czardoom (May 15, 2022)

goldenhusky said:


> While CF-E is one source of heat that was not the sole reason for the R5 to overheat. There is phyisics but also there are ways to improve the heat sink. There is evidence Canon' cripple hammer was at work with R5 deliberately way under sizing the heat sink. Then they came up with R5C I was like finally a true hybrid camera from Canon, guess what? Canon' cripple hammer was at work on that too, no IBIS and the Micro HDMI. I pre-prdered the R5C right away and then came to this forum and learnt there is no IBIS and microHDMI. I cancelled my order. Bottom line Canon is yet another corporate exploiting it's market dominance to the core.





LogicExtremist said:


> It's real, and people must learn to fear it! Nobody ever knows which product it will strike down before its release!


Yes, the evidence is real. I obtained a secret transcript from an operative that I have working within the Canon engineering division..

VOICE 1: We need to make the heat sink smaller on the R5.
VOICE 2: Why would we do that? The camera will overheat faster.
VOICE 1: Because we must employ the Canon Cripple Hammer.
VOICE 2: But we want the camera to sell as many copies as possible. If we make it worse, less people will buy it.
VOICE 3: Yes, Our best marketing is always word of mouth. If we make a camera with problems or issues, less people will buy it.
VOICE 2: And with the internet...and influencers, word of mouth is more important than ever before.
VOICE 1: BUT WE MUST EMPLOY THE-
VOICE 2: There is no logic in intentionally crippling the camera. It will sell less. Less is bad.
(Muffled voices in background)
VOICE 1: Yes, it would sell less and that is bad. That is the only logical conclusion if we cripple the camera.
VOICE 4: And yet, biased idiots on the internet will still find ways to hate us and use that insulting and ugly phrase.
VOICE 1: Even though it makes no logical or reasonable sense to intentionally, uh, worsen a product since the only LOGICAL outcome is that it will sell less. We, uh, do want to sell more...right???

Unfortunately the transcript ends at this point and the final question remains unanswered.


----------



## Marauder (May 15, 2022)

The absence of a CFexpress slot is the most surprising thing, particularly given the 30fps burst speed. It'll be interesting to see how many images it can capture in a burst. 
Also, it will be interesting to see if the sensor is BSI.


----------



## AlanF (May 15, 2022)

Marauder said:


> The absence of a CFexpress slot is the most surprising thing, particularly given the 30fps burst speed. It'll be interesting to see how many images it can capture in a burst.
> Also, it will be interesting to see if the sensor is BSI.


The answer is likely to be as posted earlier (45 Mpx R5 at 20 fps is equivalent data transfer as 30 Mpx at 30 fps).



[email protected] said:


> Depends on the buffer size. This will be a big issue or a non-issue. I sometimes goof up my R5 settings and have it feeding the SD card instead of the CFexpress card, and I seldom notice, unless I'm shooting 75+ shots in a row without interruption, which I seldom do.
> 
> If the R7 has similarly-sized buffer, SD will be fine. My beef SD is that the UHS-II cards aren't any cheaper than the CFexpress cards.


----------



## speg (May 17, 2022)

sanj said:


> There is no evidence that IBIS increases size. Thank you.


But it does the cost. Thank you.


----------



## Quirkz (May 18, 2022)

Sibir Lupus said:


> Sounds like the M5 Mark II many M series owners have been waiting a long time for..........


Not quite for me: The m5 was all about 'high end features/quality in a very compact body'.

7D and M5 were different cameras for a very good reason.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (May 18, 2022)

goldenhusky said:


> While CF-E is one source of heat that was not the sole reason for the R5 to overheat. There is phyisics but also there are ways to improve the heat sink. There is evidence Canon' cripple hammer was at work with R5 deliberately way under sizing the heat sink. Then they came up with R5C I was like finally a true hybrid camera from Canon, guess what? Canon' cripple hammer was at work on that too, no IBIS and the Micro HDMI. I pre-prdered the R5C right away and then came to this forum and learnt there is no IBIS and microHDMI. I cancelled my order. Bottom line Canon is yet another corporate exploiting it's market dominance to the core.


IBIS is likely why it overheats. Canon isn't crippling the camera here, they are picking the compromises they are willing to make in order to get a product out to your hands. IBIS or cooling and a bigger body, choose which compromise you are willing to live with until the technology evolves.


----------



## Chig (May 19, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> IBIS is likely why it overheats. Canon isn't crippling the camera here, they are picking the compromises they are willing to make in order to get a product out to your hands. IBIS or cooling and a bigger body, choose which compromise you are willing to live with until the technology evolves.


Yes IBIS must negatively effect heat dissipation compared to a fixed sensor which can be mounted directly onto a heat sink.

I'd much prefer no IBIS for better heat transfer, reliability and cost savings which could allow for a better sensor type such as a BSI stacked sensor for faster read out and better low light performance.


----------



## Chig (May 19, 2022)

I'm confused about whether the R7 will be better than a (presumably) similarly priced R6 for my bird photography:

higher pixel density : plus
smaller sensor so less light captured : negative
higher fps : plus
I'm fortunate to own a 400mm f/2.8 (which I bought very cheap) so I can use either 1.4x or 2x T.Cs for more reach but would prefer better low light performance/good dynamic range as I mostly shoot in very low light at dawn or in forests.

If I choose the R7 , I can try using Canon's 0.71 x EF-eosR speed booster which gives an extra stop of light and a more modest crop factor of 1.154x so my EF400mm f/2.8 becomes 462mm and the extra stop of light brings the light gathered by the sensor closer to Full frame with 76% of FF rather than 38% without the speed booster .
However this speed booster is very expensive at NZD 1,159 so this makes the R7 - speed booster combo nearly as expensive as an R5

If Metabones or Viltrox spots an opportunity they might make a 0.62x speed booster EF-eos R adapter making an EF lens work like it's on FF on the R7 so my EF 400mm f/2.8 would give FF performance and the R7 would effectively work like a 32mp full frame with this 0.62x speed booster or am I missing something ?


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2022)

Chig said:


> I'm confused about whether the R7 will be better than a (presumably) similarly priced R6 for my bird photography:
> 
> higher pixel density : plus
> smaller sensor so less light captured : negative
> ...


The speed booster is a bit of an illusion as far as light is concerned. Sure, a 0.71x gives an extra stop in the f-number, so you can double the shutter speed at the same iso to get the same exposure as without the booster. But, the total amount of light on the image, the number of photons per duck, is unchanged by the speed booster and so the signal/noise in the image is the same with the speed booster or without. This means you can shoot at the same twice-higher shutter speed without the booster but at double the iso and have just as clean an image. (The noise in the image is not caused by the iso, which is just a cut-off for the amplifier, but is caused by the number of photons hitting the duck.) What a speed booster really does is to give a wider field of view and a shorter telephoto length.

It's the diameter of the front element (entrance pupil) that controls the total amount of light in. and speed boosters and extenders don't change that. The converse of the speed booster argument is that when you put a 1.4xTC on your telephoto you have to double your iso to maintain shutter speed and exposure, but it doesn't give you a noisier image of the duck you are photographing.

The take home message is save your money and don't buy a speed booster - physics can save money and give you a longer telephoto length!


----------



## Chig (May 19, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The speed booster is a bit of an illusion as far as light is concerned. Sure, a 0.71x gives an extra stop in the f-number, so you can double the shutter speed at the same iso to get the same exposure as without the booster. But, the total amount of light on the image, the number of photons per duck, is unchanged by the speed booster and so the signal/noise in the image is the same with the speed booster or without. This means you can shoot at the same twice-higher shutter speed without the booster but at double the iso and have just as clean an image. (The noise in the image is not caused by the iso, which is just a cut-off for the amplifier, but is caused by the number of photons hitting the duck.) What a speed booster really does is to give a wider field of view and a shorter telephoto length.
> 
> It's the diameter of the front element (entrance pupil) that controls the total amount of light in. and speed boosters and extenders don't change that. The converse of the speed booster argument is that when you put a 1.4xTC on your telephoto you have to double your iso to maintain shutter speed and exposure, but it doesn't give you a noisier image of the duck you are photographing.
> 
> The take home message is save your money and don't buy a speed booster - physics can save money and give you a longer telephoto length!


Thanks for the reply Alan, but this doesn't seem right to me: surely I'm capturing more of the "wasted" light that otherwise would miss the smaller aps-c sensor and it's hitting the sensor now ?
My understanding is these Focal Reducers (as they are otherwise called) shrink the image down to fit the sensor as described in this article https://zebrazone.tv/what-is-a-speedbooster/#:~:text=How does a Speed Booster,means that with a F2.
They're the opposite of Tele convertors


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2022)

Chig said:


> Thanks for the reply Alan, but this doesn't seem right to me: surely I'm capturing more of the "wasted" light that otherwise would miss the smaller aps-c sensor and it's hitting the sensor now ?
> My understanding is these Focal Reducers (as they are otherwise called) shrink the image down to fit the sensor as described in this article https://zebrazone.tv/what-is-a-speedbooster/#:~:text=How does a Speed Booster,means that with a F2.
> They're the opposite of Tele convertors


All a speed booster does is to put a magnifying glass at the end of your lens and reduce its focal length and f-number by the same amount. You are a nature photographer, so look at it this way. Suppose you take a photo of a square duck with your 400mm f/4 lens and it makes an image of the duck at say a 10mm x 10mm on the sensor, and the square contains say 10 Mpx and a 1000 photons hitting every second. Put a 0.71x speed booster on the lens to make it 284mm f/2.84 lens. The size of the image is now 7.1mm x 7.1mm, and contains only 5 Mpx, but still has 1000 photons/second hitting it. The image is now twice as bright and so you can increase the shutter speed 2x to get the same exposure as before. But, that's no advantage in the signal to noise of the image as you reduce the amount of light captured during the exposure two fold. If you take the speed doubler off you can also double the speed and double the iso and capture the same amount of light during the exposure. In this situation, all the speed doubler is doing for you is to give you a 5 Mpx image instead of a 10 Mpx without any gain of signal to noise. So, if you are reach limited, then the speed doubler is a true disadvantage. 

On the other hand, if what you want is a wider field of view, then the speed doubler will do that for you. It is totally misleading to call these things speed doublers, they should be called field of view doublers.


----------



## neonlight (May 19, 2022)

PhotoRN86 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong with your conversions, but do crop sensors affect a lens Aperture??? would the 100-500mm just turn into a 160-800mm 4.5-7.1?? etc


You raise an interesting point. Nothing changes the lens, it stays a 100-500 4.5-7.1, on a crop sensor you only get the central part of the whole image it could produce. The "reach" factor is dependent on pixel density rather than the crop factor - how many pixels your crop image covers on the sensor. But it will appear to be a 160-800 field of view because of the cropping. 
On the other hand, to match the image quality of a FF sensor you do need a larger aperture on a crop. So if you need an 80mm f/2 for some portrait or something it won't give you the same on a crop body because you have to move back to get the same framed image - and loose the sharp DOF. You would need a 50mm f/1.2 to get close to the same.


----------



## Chig (May 21, 2022)

AlanF said:


> All a speed booster does is to put a magnifying glass at the end of your lens and reduce its focal length and f-number by the same amount. You are a nature photographer, so look at it this way. Suppose you take a photo of a square duck with your 400mm f/4 lens and it makes an image of the duck at say a 10mm x 10mm on the sensor, and the square contains say 10 Mpx and a 1000 photons hitting every second. Put a 0.71x speed booster on the lens to make it 284mm f/2.84 lens. The size of the image is now 7.1mm x 7.1mm, and contains only 5 Mpx, but still has 1000 photons/second hitting it. The image is now twice as bright and so you can increase the shutter speed 2x to get the same exposure as before. But, that's no advantage in the signal to noise of the image as you reduce the amount of light captured during the exposure two fold. If you take the speed doubler off you can also double the speed and double the iso and capture the same amount of light during the exposure. In this situation, all the speed doubler is doing for you is to give you a 5 Mpx image instead of a 10 Mpx without any gain of signal to noise. So, if you are reach limited, then the speed doubler is a true disadvantage.
> 
> On the other hand, if what you want is a wider field of view, then the speed doubler will do that for you. It is totally misleading to call these things speed doublers, they should be called field of view doublers.


I think you're confused about focal length reducers (speed boosters) , they're the opposite of tele convertors (focal length extenders) so they simply reduce the focal length of a lenses instead of increasing it.
Just as a 1.4x T.C increases the focal length and decreases the aperture by one stop by diverging the light rays a 0.71 Focal Length Reducer decreases the focal length and increases the aperture by one stop by converging the light rays.
In both cases the entrance pupil of the lens is still the same but because the focal length has changed so has the aperture.
For my 400mm f/2.8 if I use a 1.4x convertor the focal length has become 565.68mm but the entrance pupil is unchanged at 143mm so the lens is now f/4 as 565.68 /143 = f/4
If I use a 0.7071 focal length reducer then the focal length becomes 283mm and the entrance pupil is still 143mm so the lens is now f/2 because 283/143 = f/2 but when mounted to a FF camera we get heavy hard vignetting (port holing) so instead use a crop sensor camera such as the R7 and the sensor nearly matches (it's a bit smaller) the smaller image circle and the fov is now equivalent to 282.8427 x 1.6162 = 457.13mm but the f number is still f/2 and the crop factor is only 1.1428 instead of 1.6162
Of course adding extra lens elements degrades the IQ slightly (same as T.Cs) but the increase in light as a result of modifying the focal length is a real thing increasing the aperture by one stop and reducing the 1.6x fov crop factor to 1.14x
So with a 0.71 Focal Length Reducer adapter my EF400mm f/2.8 becomes a 283mm f/2 with a fov equivalent to a FF focal length of 457mm when attached to a 1.6x crop mirrorless camera such as an M6ii or an R7 and both cameras still have a resolution of 32.5 mp but an R5 in crop mode would have only 17mp
Some videos 







Best explanation is this one: 



Cheers


----------



## stevelee (May 21, 2022)

I have got lost somewhere in this discussion. If you are wanting to use a crop sensor camera for shooting wildlife because of the reach, why would you want to make the lens wider? And if so, why not just use a wider and faster lens in the first place?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2022)

Chig said:


> I think you're confused about focal length reducers (speed boosters) , they're the opposite of tele convertors (focal length extenders) so they simply reduce the focal length of a lenses instead of increasing it.


TL;DR - you suggested using a speed booster with an APS-C camera would be nearly as good as using a FF camera for bird photography, and that's not the case.

Sorry, but you do not seem to understand the concept @AlanF is discussing. He stated, "All a speed booster does is to put a magnifying glass at the end of your lens and reduce its focal length and f-number by the same amount. ...400mm f/4 lens ... Put a 0.71x speed booster on the lens to make it 284mm f/2.84 lens," so clearly he fully understands that a 'speed booster' decreases focal length and f-number (the latter taken exactly as he stated, decreasing f-number, i.e. 2.84 is less than 4).

@AlanF is talking about the concept of signal to noise, and his point is that while a 'speed booster' reduces the f-number, if you're reach-limited (i.e. you cannot move closer to achieve the same framing with the shorter focal length), then you gain no 'speed' benefit in terms of signal-to-noise, and all you do is reduce the capture resolution of the subject.

You suggested that using a full frame lens with a speed booster on an APS-C camera would mitigate the effect of the smaller sensor, as you put it, "The extra stop of light brings the light gathered by the sensor closer to Full frame with 76% of FF rather than 38% without the speed booster." That is true only if you move closer to the subject so the framing is the same as it would be without the speed booster. Since you're talking about bird photography, something at which @AlanF excels, the presumption is that you generally cannot simply move closer to the subject. If you're the same distance from the subject with or without the speed booster, he is saying (correctly, of course) that you aren't gaining any light, all you're doing is throwing away MPs.

Note that the above discussion is about sensor-based image quality. There are other reasons why the (still just vaporware) R7 might be better than the R6 for bird photography. In many cases, AF and frame rate make a big difference for bird photography. To the extent that those are significantly better on the R7 than the R6, that's relevant. Personally, I had a 7D then bought a 5DII. The 5DII delivered better IQ for most of my subjects, but I kept using the 7D for birds – not because of the 'extra reach' but because the better AF system and faster frame rate enabled me to get shots I couldn't get with the 5DII. The sensor IQ was lower, but I'll take a noisy image of a BIF that's in focus and has the right wing position over a cleaner image that's blurry because the AF couldn't keep up. When the 1D X came out, with a FF sensor, the same frame rate as the 7D and a FF sensor, and even better AF, I switched to that for birds (and everything else) and sold both the 7D and 5DII.


----------



## Chig (May 21, 2022)

stevelee said:


> I have got lost somewhere in this discussion. If you are wanting to use a crop sensor camera for shooting wildlife because of the reach, why would you want to make the lens wider? And if so, why not just use a wider and faster lens in the first place?


This is just something to give me more options especially when I'm lucky enough to get really close but the light is very low but normally I'd use a normal adapter for the reach.
Also I have several wide fast lens which I can use for portraits , etc with close to full frame results .
Basically the speed booster gives me more options without having to buy a full frame as well as crop sensor body


----------



## Chig (May 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> TL;DR - you suggested using a speed booster with an APS-C camera would be nearly as good as using a FF camera for bird photography, and that's not the case.
> 
> Sorry, but you do not seem to understand the concept @AlanF is discussing. He stated, "All a speed booster does is to put a magnifying glass at the end of your lens and reduce its focal length and f-number by the same amount. ...400mm f/4 lens ... Put a 0.71x speed booster on the lens to make it 284mm f/2.84 lens," so clearly he fully understands that a 'speed booster' decreases focal length and f-number (the latter taken exactly as he stated, decreasing f-number, i.e. 2.84 is less than 4).
> 
> ...


I would only use the speed booster when I happen to be very close but the light is poor which happens quite often for me as I go to a lot of trouble to set up quietly and wait for the birds to come close . Here's an example below where either using a full frame camera or a speed boosted R7 might have helped. I was very close and this is uncropped and taken with my 7Dii and EF400 f/2.8 so an R7 with the same lens and a 0.71x speed booster would have given a wider view and perhaps a better image (ignoring how much better it's sensor and af is compared to my old 7Dii)



Another example where I was just too close for the EF400 f/2.8


----------



## AlanF (May 21, 2022)

Chig said:


> I think you're confused about focal length reducers (speed boosters) , they're the opposite of tele convertors (focal length extenders) so they simply reduce the focal length of a lenses instead of increasing it.


I am not confused at all - see @neuroanatomist comments. I responded to your post in which you said you would use a speedbooster to give you more light as you asked if you were missing something.



Chig said:


> If I choose the R7 , I can try using Canon's 0.71 x EF-eosR speed booster which gives an extra stop of light and a more modest crop factor of 1.154x so my EF400mm f/2.8 becomes 462mm and the extra stop of light brings the light gathered by the sensor closer to Full frame with 76% of FF rather than 38% without the speed booster .
> 
> 
> If Metabones or Viltrox spots an opportunity they might make a 0.62x speed booster EF-eos R adapter making an EF lens work like it's on FF on the R7 so my EF 400mm f/2.8 would give FF performance and the R7 would effectively work like a 32mp full frame with this 0.62x speed booster or am I missing something ?


I emphasized twice that when you are reach limited you are not gaining more light using a speedbooster and it is a disadvantage in terms of reach, and another two times that what a speedbooster does instead for you is to increase your field of view, which your last post shows for the case where the bird was too close. But, you still haven't got my or neuros point that when you do crop using the speedbooster, it won't give you a better image - you are gaining no light and you are losing Mpx with the speedbooster. I have said that 3x now!


----------



## Chig (May 21, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I am not confused at all - see @neuroanatomist comments. I responded to your post in which you said you would use a speedbooster to give you more light as you asked if you were missing something.
> 
> 
> I emphasized twice that when you are reach limited you are not gaining more light using a speedbooster and it is a disadvantage in terms of reach, and another two times that what a speedbooster does instead for you is to increase your field of view, which your last post shows for the case where the bird was too close. But, you still haven't got my or neuros point that when you do crop using the speedbooster, it won't give you a better image - you are gaining no light and you are losing Mpx with the speedbooster. I have said that 3x now!


Well perhaps I was confused about what I wanted with Focal Length Reducers but after some research and thought I've concluded that I would still have a use for them.
I never wanted to use them for situations where I needed reach but only for very close up subjects where the low light is the limiting factor.
I have only EF glass plus an EF-s zoom and a EF-S 24mm pancake.
Ignoring the crop factor as I've always shot with my 7Dii (except for my film cameras) so I'm used to a cropped camera the 0.71x FLR will be handy for baby portraits and where I'm very close to a bird.
My EF lenses:

EF400mm f/2.8 + FLR _= 283mm f/2_
EF300mm f/2.8 + FLR. _ = 212mm f/2_
EF100-400mm ii f/4.5-5.6 + FLR _= 71-283mm f/3.2-4_
EF135mm f/2.8 + FLR _ = 95mm f/2_
EF85mm f1.8 + FLR _= 60mm f/1.2_
EF35-80mm f4-5.6 + FLR _= 25-57mm f/2.8-4_
EF50mm f/1.4 + FLR _= 35mm f/1_
EF50mm f/1.8 + FLR _= 35mm f/1.2_
Lots of interesting possibilities with the FLR as well as these lenses attached to an R7 with the normal adapter plus of course my 1.4x and 2x Focal Length Extenders

Unfortunately Canon's 0.71x FLR adapter is very expensive which is to be expected because it's very high quality and aimed at Cinema photographers to go with the C70 but I'd still be keen to buy one eventually.

Very excited about the R7 and hoping the sensor is a new one rather a rehashed 90D/M6ii one , ideally a BSI stacked one which I'd much prefer to IBIS if I had a choice as IBIS would be of minimal use to me whereas a BSI stacked sensor would be truly helpful in terms of low light performance and speed .

Hoping Canon puts a popup flash on the R7 , all cameras should have one as they're so handy for fill light on backlit subjects and for triggering studio strobes without mounting triggers on your hotshoe.

Cheers
Noel


----------



## blackcoffee17 (May 21, 2022)

VOTOXY said:


> I really hope a M6 Mark II form factor. I just love how tiny and compact it is.



Unlikely. Canon will add a big bumpy EVF on the middle.


----------



## ronbyram (May 24, 2022)

Just read Review/spcs for the New R7. Was ready to Pre order, but being a sports shooter, I see there is NO battery grip for the Camera (Why Canon). At present this is a Deal Breaker for me.


----------



## [email protected] (May 26, 2022)

i don't get it. maybe someone can explain to me what APCS-C is good for? Is it so much cheaper to have such a line of sensors on the market? Do customers want APS-C? and if yes, why?


----------



## Sharlin (May 26, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> i don't get it. maybe someone can explain to me what APCS-C is good for? Is it so much cheaper to have such a line of sensors on the market? Do customers want APS-C? and if yes, why?


I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain to me what FF 35mm sensors are good for? Is it so much better IQ to have such a line of sensors on the market? Do customers want FF? And if yes, why?


----------



## neonlight (May 28, 2022)

So the R7 is not a 7DIII.
No adjustable eyepiece for those of us needing diopter corrections greater than +2.
No GPS.
No PC socket (boohoo say some, but at least the 7DII did have, and I use it).
No popup flash, so youre' going to have to buy an optical or radio transmitter to remote flash trigger.
Has Canon lost the plot? The R7 might be a nice upgrade from a 90D ...
But those 800 and 1200mm lenses : paying £5k for a 2x t/c???
Someone in Canon marketing is overriding engineering I think.


----------



## ronbyram (May 28, 2022)

ronbyram said:


> Just read Review/spcs for the New R7. Was ready to Pre order, but being a sports shooter, I see there is NO battery grip for the Camera (Why Canon). At present this is a Deal Breaker for me.


I heard


neonlight said:


> So the R7 is not a 7DIII.
> No adjustable eyepiece for those of us needing diopter corrections greater than +2.
> No GPS.
> No PC socket (boohoo say some, but at least the 7DII did have, and I use it).
> ...


That and NO battery Grip! this is keeping me away from Buying a R7


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

AEWest said:


> I agree that Canon's best option is to go RFS and discontinue M line. The reason is that M line is a stand alone line. So if someone's first real camera is an M camera and a couple of lenses, and wants to get into a broader ecosystem, there is nothing keeping him/her with Canon - they could go Sony. With RFS, they could acquire and use regular RF lenses on their camera. That would more likely keep them with Canon.



On the other hand, the vast majority of EOS M buyers are like the vast majority of Rebel/xx0D/xx00D buyers. They're not going to buy any more lenses other than what they buy when they purchase the camera, and they're not going to constantly be looking to "upgrade" every waking moment. They'll use the camera they have for several years until it no longer meets their needs. 

Canon is not in any danger of losing those customers to Sony, Nikon, Oly, Fuji, or anyone else in the foreseeable future because those customers are not going to buy any camera or lens for the next five years or even longer. 

The types of buyers whom Canon aims the EOS M series at and the vast majority of those who buy EOS M cameras and lenses are "one and done" buyers.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

Phenix205 said:


> I still can’t justify putting those heavy, bulky and super expensive RF lenses on a body with the M6 II APS-C sensor. A smaller sensor is not going to give you extra reach. Put in a 70 MP full frame sensor and shoot in crop mode, you get a 35 MP APS-C.



Nope. When you crop 70MP by 1.6X in both the horizontal and vertical directions you get 27MP. To get 35MP on a 1.6X APS-C sensor, you need the same pixel density as a 90MP FF sensor.

You also get 2.56X the readout time, 2.56X the processing time, 2.56X the writing to card time, and 2.56X the file size.

With DiG!C X that's less of an issue than it once was, but the fact remains that reading/processing/writing/storing 0.4X as many pixels will always require 0.4X as much time and storage capacity, all other things being equal.

Look at the 50MP 5Ds compared to the 20 MP 7D Mark II. Both had the exact same pixel density. The FF body maxed out at 5 fps for 14 raw or 510 JPEGs, the APS-C body maxed out at 10 fps for 31 raw or as many JPEGs as your card could hold.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> This is in a completely different class to the EF-M camera series, and has nothing to do with the discontinuation of the M6 MkII.



There is the possibility that the M6 Mark II will see an earlier demise than the Marketing Department would normally prefer in order to divert capacity for making 32MP APS-C sensors from the M6 Mark II (and by extension the 90D) to use that production capacity for the R7. 

It's not a strategic marketing decision, though. It's a decision based on the harsh reality of production capacity and limited availability of raw materials and parts that didn't really exist until late 2020.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> But their place has been misplaced up til now by Canon and Nikon



Just an opinion, and we all have them. Everyone is free to disagree.

It seems to me that both Canon and Nikon let the 7DII and D500 replacements get lost in the shuffle in the rush to bring FF mirrorless to market earlier than either had planned because of the surge in Sony's share of the FF camera market from around 2015-2016 on.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Comparing to leaked Fuji XH-2s specs for memory cards, dual SD is quite puzzling for R7.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fast UHS-II cards are good enough to run every shooting mode on the R5 just as well as the CFExpress slot except for the three most demanding video modes. Otherwise there is no advantage to using the CFExpress vs. the UHS-II slot in the R5.


----------



## john1970 (May 30, 2022)

On the R5 (and R3) the UHS-II buffer clears significantly slower than the CF Express card and for those of us using the cameras at their maximum frame rate (20 fps and 30 fps respectively) using the CF Express card is basically mandatory. I use the CF Express as the primary and the camera is set to auto switch cards so the UHS-II slot is only used if CF Express is full. Lastly I use 625 GB CF Express cards so the chance of that is minimal.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

grantmasterflash said:


> Is a FF 20 MP camera better than an APS-C 32.5 MP camera if all other specs are the same?



That all depends upon what one wants to use either camera to do. They're different tools for different tasks.

No one asks if a #000 JIS screwdriver is better or worse than a 1/2" slotted bit screwdriver. It all depends upon what kind of screw one wants to turn.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

PhotoRN86 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong with your conversions, but do crop sensors affect a lens Aperture??? would the 100-500mm just turn into a 160-800mm 4.5-7.1?? etc



For exposure you don't need to apply the conversion factor.
For depth of field you do need to apply the conversion factor.

There's no such thing as "true equivalency" when comparing differently sized sensors.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Then the R10 might be better for you!



Well, except for the difference between the pixel density of a 32MP APS-C sensor (same pixel density as an 82MP FF sensor) and a 20MP FF sensor...


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> No, they do not. The lens creates an image circle, regarless of what sensor (or if there is a sensor) behind it. That image circle includes the field of view as well as the depth of field.
> 
> A FF sensor 'crops' the image circle to a FF sized rectangle. The APSc sensor 'crops' it to an APSc sized rectangle (taking only the middle section of the full image circle of a FF lens). So you're getting a smaller FOV, as if the lens were longer in focal length. The image scale difference, or 'reach' as people like to call it, comes from the higher pixel density that is typical with APSc sensors vs FF sensors. So the Duck is the same physical size in the image circle whether the lens is on FF of APSc. The space around the duck is less on APSC, since it is not capturing as much of the image around the duck (Crop factor). The number of pixels per duck is higher on APSc (typically), meaning the resulting image of the duck when viewed at 300ppi (for example) is larger. This is 'reach' advantage of APSc.
> 
> ...



DoF changes with increase in enlargement ratio/display size. Take the same exact negative and print both an 8x10 and a 16x20. When viewed from the same distance, the 8x10 will have greater DoF than the 16x20! When you enlarge by a greater factor you also enlarge blur by a greater factor and allow your eye to see blur that was too small to see as blurry at the lower enlargement ratio.

If you're cropping a FF sensor to match an APS-C sensor and display at the same size as you would with the other sensor, then the DoF field will be no different than if you used an APS-C sensor to begin with. But if you view an uncropped FF image at the same display size as an uncropped APS-C image shot with the same focal length from the same distance, the DoF will be different due to the difference in enlargement ratios.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Just an opinion, and we all have them. Everyone is free to disagree.
> 
> It seems to me that both Canon and Nikon let the 7DII and D500 replacements get lost in the shuffle in the rush to bring FF mirrorless to market earlier than either had planned because of the surge in Sony's share of the FF camera market from around 2015-2016 on.


Lost in the shuffle? Or an informed decision not to replace them? I suspect that if the 7DIII had merely been ‘lost’ or delayed, the R7 would have been a clear step up from the 7DII in all respects. The fact that it wasn’t suggests Canon‘s knowledge of the market let them to decide not to truly replace the 7DIII.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)




----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> But if you view an uncropped FF image at the same display size as an uncropped APS-C image shot with the same focal length from the same distance, the DoF will be different due to the difference in enlargement ratios.


More specifically, the DoF from the APS-C image will be shallower than that from the FF image under those conditions. That’s the opposite of the prevailing wisdom that DoF is deeper with APS-C. The latter results when you try to match the framing at a given focal length – to do so, the APS-C camera must be further from the subject and it’s that increased distance that results in deeper DoF.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lost in the shuffle? Or an informed decision not to replace them? I suspect that if the 7DIII had merely been ‘lost’ or delayed, the R7 would have been a clear step up from the 7DII in all respects. The fact that it wasn’t suggests Canon‘s knowledge of the market let them to decide not to truly replace the 7DIII.



Canon's tendency to split/combine model lines as market conditions evolve over the years (i.e. 50D → 60D + 7D, 1Ds III + 1D IV → 1D X) betrays your (lack of) logic here.

Market conditions, not to mention supply chain issues, in 2022 are not remotely the same as they were in 2016-17 when the decision to accelerate FF MILC development was made.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon's tendency to split/combine model lines as market conditions evolve over the years (i.e. 50D → 60D + 7D, 1Ds III + 1D IV → 1D X) betrays your (lack of) logic here.


There’s no lack of logic. Perhaps you merely fail to grasp it. When the 1D X came out, there was much wailing from some 1DsIII owners that the 1D X was not an upgrade for them, and many called for a true successor to the 1DsIII. Canon still hasn’t delivered one. 

It certainly appears that the R7 combines the 90D and 7DII lines. That doesn’t mean it’s the successor to the 7DII. 



Michael Clark said:


> Market conditions, not to mention supply chain issues, in 2022 are not remotely the same as they were in 2016-17 when the decision to accelerate FF MILC development was made.


Indeed. Before 2020, the supply chain constraints didn’t exist. Canon managed to develop and launch several camera bodies during the 5 years prior to 2020. They chose not to develop a 7DIII.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

john1970 said:


> On the R5 (and R3) the UHS-II buffer clears significantly slower than the CF Express card and for those of us using the cameras at their maximum frame rate (20 fps and 30 fps respectively) using the CF Express card is basically mandatory. I use the CF Express as the primary and the camera is set to auto switch cards so the UHS-II slot is only used if CF Express is full. Lastly I use 625 GB CF Express cards so the chance of that is minimal.



Based on those who have held the shutter button down long enough to measure it, by all accounts buffer depth doesn't become a differentiator with the _fastest writing_ UHS-II cards in the R5 until somewhere around 75 frames. YMMV. (Hint: not all UHS-II cards are as fast as the fastest UHS-II cards. Not even all V90 UHS-II cards write as fast as the fastest ones do.)


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> There’s no lack of logic. Perhaps you merely fail to grasp it. When the 1D X came out, there was much wailing from some 1DsIII owners that the 1D X was not an upgrade for them, and many called for a true successor to the 1DsIII. Canon still hasn’t delivered one.



Canon would not agree with you. 

The official press release announcing the 1D X said it unequivocally:

"As the new leader in Canon’s arsenal of professional DSLRs, the EOS-1D X will be a high-speed multimedia juggernaut replacing both the EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS-1D Mark IV models in Canon’s lineup."

I think Canon gets to decide if specific Canon cameras are replacements/successors of previous ones.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

sanj said:


> I do not think crop sensors change the aperture.



They don't change the actual focal length either. But they do change both the angle of view and the depth of field when images from both are viewed at the same display size.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry but nope. Perhaps a bit of confusion on your part.
> 
> The aperture is not the image circle. The image circle is measured as the diameter of the circle illuminated by the lens at the image plane (sensor). Since an APS-C sensor is smaller than FF, lenses designed for crop sensors can have smaller image circles, meaning the lens can be designed smaller (but telephoto lens designs have large image circles, so there’s no real point in designing them specifically for a crop sensor).
> 
> ...





bbasiaga said:


> Aperture as discussed in camera terms is the relationship of the size of the opening of the aperture blades to the focal length of the lens.




The diameter of the physical iris is not the measurement used to calculate f-number. Entrance pupil size is the measurement used to calculate f-number.

The entrance pupil is the size that the aperture diaphragm appears to be when viewed from along the lens' central optical axis from a distance sufficient to be considered "infinity" (which is based on focal length - the longer the focal length, the further the distance needed to make diverging rays from a point source of light indistinguishable from collimated light rays due to the limits of an optical system).

Any magnification between the physical diaphragm and the front of the lens will affect the size of the entrance pupil as compared to the actual physical size of the aperture diaphragm. For zoom lenses, as the amount of magnification between the iris and front of the lens increases or decreases so does the size of the entrance pupil, even though the actual physical aperture diaphragm is usually unchanged. (There are a few sophisticated designs that do slightly alter the physical diaphragm size, or even have a second diaphragm in the light path - usually to prevent optical aberrations from becoming too bad as the width of the entrance pupil would become to large for the amount of corrective optics incorporated into the lens.)

True constant aperture zoom lenses place all of the change in magnification between the physical aperture diaphragm and the front of the lens. Even most variable aperture lenses place the majority of the change in magnification between the iris and the front of the lens.

Consider a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 zoom lens. At 70mm and f/4 the entrance pupil has a diameter of 17.5mm. At 300mm and f/5.6 the entrance pupil has a diameter of 53.6mm. The physical iris does not enlarge by a factor of ≈3X as the lens is zoomed from 70mm to 300mm. Rather the amount of magnification that takes place between the physical iris and the front of the lens increases by ≈3X while the total magnification of the lens, including that magnification that takes place behind the aperture diaphragm, increases by a factor of ≈4.25X.

Consider an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. At 18mm and f/3.5 the entrance pupil has a diameter of ≈5mm. At 55mm and f/5.6 the entrance pupil has a diameter of ≈9.8mm. The physical diaphragm does not expand to double in size between 18mm and 55mm. The size of the entrance pupil does, though, as roughly two-thirds of the ≈3X increase in magnification is applied between the physical diaphragm and the front of the lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Based on those who have held the shutter button down long enough to measure it, by all accounts buffer depth doesn't become a differentiator with the _fastest writing_ UHS-II cards in the R5 until somewhere around 75 frames. YMMV. (Hint: not all UHS-II cards are as fast as the fastest UHS-II cards. Not even all V90 UHS-II cards write as fast as the fastest ones do.)


You’re missing the point. The statement was about time to clear the buffer, meaning the lag period after releasing the shutter button following a burst, while the buffer is being written out to the memory card.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> All a speed booster does is to put a magnifying glass at the end of your lens and reduce its focal length and f-number by the same amount. You are a nature photographer, so look at it this way. Suppose you take a photo of a square duck with your 400mm f/4 lens and it makes an image of the duck at say a 10mm x 10mm on the sensor, and the square contains say 10 Mpx and a 1000 photons hitting every second. Put a 0.71x speed booster on the lens to make it 284mm f/2.84 lens. The size of the image is now 7.1mm x 7.1mm, and contains only 5 Mpx, but still has 1000 photons/second hitting it. The image is now twice as bright and so you can increase the shutter speed 2x to get the same exposure as before. But, that's no advantage in the signal to noise of the image as you reduce the amount of light captured during the exposure two fold. If you take the speed doubler off you can also double the speed and double the iso and capture the same amount of light during the exposure. In this situation, all the speed doubler is doing for you is to give you a 5 Mpx image instead of a 10 Mpx without any gain of signal to noise. So, if you are reach limited, then the speed doubler is a true disadvantage.
> 
> On the other hand, if what you want is a wider field of view, then the speed doubler will do that for you. It is totally misleading to call these things speed doublers, they should be called field of view doublers.



Well, they do also allow one to use a shorter exposure time, which does have implications for moving subjects, especially if shooting straight to JPEG.

You are correct that in terms of "shot" noise caused by the Poisson distribution of photons there is no advantage. Depending on the camera design, though, there could be an advantage due to less "read" noise caused by thermal issues. With mirrorless cameras which keep the sensor powered pretty much all of the time this is moot. For cameras which do not energize the sensor when the shutter is closed this can be an advantage, particularly for long exposure photography.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You’re missing the point. The statement was about time to clear the buffer, meaning the lag period after releasing the shutter button following a burst, while the buffer is being written out to the memory card.



Buffer clearing time is also directly related to the number of frames needing to be written, is it not? If an initial burst only half fills the buffer, it will clear in half the time as an initial burst that fills the buffer. I won't have to wait until those images that half filled the buffer are all written to the card before I can begin another burst.

If the buffer is never filled by not reaching the limits of the buffer, then clearing times are moot except on some very old designs that wouldn't allow one to begin another burst once the shutter button had been released until the buffer was completely clear. 

Sure, beginning another burst when there are still images being written reduces how many frames one can add before the buffer is full. But if one never fills the buffer, then the buffer clear time is moot.

Say I have a camera/memory card combo I am using which allows me to shoot a burst of 75 images before the buffer is full and the burst rate bogs down.

Let's then say I shoot a burst of 40 images and release the shutter button. The buffer is a little over one-half full. I then wait a second or two, because of a lull in the action I am shooting, and the buffer is not yet clear but 20 of the 40 images have been written to the card and 20 remain to be written. At that point I can shoot another 55 images at full burst rate before the buffer is full. I won't be limited to only 35 additional images before the buffer is full.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Indeed. Before 2020, the supply chain constraints didn’t exist. Canon managed to develop and launch several camera bodies during the 5 years prior to 2020. They chose not to develop a 7DIII.



They did, however, divert internal human resources to the development of RF lenses and bodies. They even publicly announced doing so on the lens side of things.


----------



## unfocused (May 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> There’s no lack of logic. Perhaps you merely fail to grasp it. When the 1D X came out, there was much wailing from some 1DsIII owners that the 1D X was not an upgrade for them, and many called for a true successor to the 1DsIII. Canon still hasn’t delivered one.
> 
> It certainly appears that the R7 combines the 90D and 7DII lines. That doesn’t mean it’s the successor to the 7DII.


This is one of the goofiest arguments I’ve heard. For months (probably more like years) you’ve argued that Canon would never make a successor to the 7D II. Right up until the day they announced the R7 you were absolutely insistent it wouldn’t happen. Well it happened and now you insist it’s not really a successor to the 7D and that you rather than Canon gets to decide what is and isn’t a successor. Sorry that your ego has been hurt. There is no shame in guessing wrong, but it’s embarrassing to pretend you won the election when you clearly lost.


----------



## lote82 (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon would not agree with you.
> 
> The official press release announcing the 1D X said it unequivocally:
> 
> ...


How dare you?! Mr. Neuromancer knows better about Toyotas and Canons lineup than the manufacturers themselves!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Buffer clearing time is also directly related to the number of frames needing to be written, is it not?


It’s mainly about max sustained card write speed, and CFe is faster than the fastest SD. 

From the IR review, clearing a full buffer with SD ~3x longer than with CFe (6 vs. 18 s).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2022)

unfocused said:


> This is one of the goofiest arguments I’ve heard. For months (probably more like years) you’ve argued that Canon would never make a successor to the 7D II. Right up until the day they announced the R7 you were absolutely insistent it wouldn’t happen. Well it happened and now you insist it’s not really a successor to the 7D and that you rather than Canon gets to decide what is and isn’t a successor. Sorry that your fragile male ego has been hurt. There is no shame in guessing wrong, but it’s embarrassing to pretend you won the election when you clearly lost.


Thanks, that gave me almost as much of a laugh as your refusal to accept (or inability to grasp) the concept of equivalence.

The R7 looks like a great camera, and I’m pleased for those excited about it. Lower build quality, fewer control options, no grip, that’s not a true successor to the 7DII. It’s like saying the 2022 Corolla is the successor to the 2014 Corolla.

People will tell themselves it is, just like people told themselves the 7-series were baby 1-series bodies. Possibly because of their fragile egos.


----------



## unfocused (May 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks, that gave me almost as much of a laugh as your refusal to accept (or inability to grasp) the concept of equivalence.
> 
> The R7 looks like a great camera, and I’m pleased for those excited about it. Lower build quality, fewer control options, no grip, that’s not a true successor to the 7DII. It’s like saying the 2022 Corolla is the successor to the 2014 Corolla.
> 
> People will tell themselves it is, just like people told themselves the 7-series were baby 1-series bodies. Possibly because of their fragile egos.


Nice try but I’m not going to take the equivalence red herring bait. Bottom line, you were adamant that Canon would not make an APS-C R body and definitely wouldn’t make a 7 series body. This is a forum where people express their opinions and often make predictions. Adults on the forum admit when they guess wrong. Then there are those who can’t admit they got it wrong and just double down and move the goalposts.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 30, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Fast UHS-II cards are good enough to run every shooting mode on the R5 just as well as the CFExpress slot except for the three most demanding video modes. Otherwise there is no advantage to using the CFExpress vs. the UHS-II slot in the R5.


There is a clear advantage of CFe Type B over UHS-ii when it comes to clearing the buffer.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=34990
Of course, if you are dual recording to both cards then the slowest card will be the limiting factor


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Nice try but I’m not going to take the equivalence red herring bait. Bottom line, you were adamant that Canon would not make an APS-C R body and definitely wouldn’t make a 7 series body. This is a forum where people express their opinions and often make predictions. Adults on the forum admit when they guess wrong. Then there are those who can’t admit they got it wrong and just double down and move the goalposts.


I already admitted I was wrong, as I’ve done regarding other matters. But, since you seem to need it personally, I’ll reiterate: I predicted there would be no APS-C EOS R body, and I was wrong.

I maintain the R7 is not a true successor to the 7DII. The analogy of the 1D X holds – 1Ds, 11 MP; 1DsII, 16 MP, 1DsIII, 21 MP...see the pattern? 1D X, 18 MP. Not a true successor to the 1DsIII. Canon says it is, because they wanted 1DsIII owners to buy the 1D X. There wasn't a 1DsIV. There are plenty of people on this forum predicting that the R1 will be the spiritual successor – a high MP 1-series body. I doubt it, but time will tell. Similar with the R7. I doubt there will be an APS-C EOS R line sitting 'above' the R7.

As I've said many (many!) times, Canon knows the market better than anyone on this forum. That definitely includes me. I'm truly surprised there apparently is no vertical grip for the R7. But Canon knows how many grips they sold for the 90D and 7DII, and they apparently chose not to develop a grip.


----------



## vjlex (May 31, 2022)

Good. While we're on the topic of UHS-II, based on the video specs of the R7, will a V60 card be good enough for all photo and video modes? Those V90 card prices are still shockingly high out here.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 31, 2022)

vjlex said:


> Good. While we're on the topic of UHS-II, based on the video specs of the R7, will a V60 card be good enough for all photo and video modes? Those V90 card prices are still shockingly high out here.


I agree. For the R5, the CFe cards were about the same cost as the UHS-ii cards so it was uncertain why the decision to have mixed cards if just looking at cost/performance issue vs backwards compatibility support

The R7 advanced user guide hasn't been released yet. I believe that the R10 version has been released. Once the R7 guide is released, then it will specify which cards are needed for the video modes. 
Copied from the R5 manual, you can see the modes that a V60 card can support assuming the same codecs. I'm not sure whether the 4k60 on R7 is 8 or 10bit


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I already admitted I was wrong…


I missed that. Good for you.


neuroanatomist said:


> I maintain the R7 is not a true successor to the 7DII.


Expressed as an opinion is certainly fair.


neuroanatomist said:


> Similar with the R7. I doubt there will be an APS-C EOS R line sitting 'above' the R7.


I do too. 


neuroanatomist said:


> I'm truly surprised there apparently is no vertical grip for the R7. But Canon knows how many grips they sold for the 90D and 7DII, and they apparently chose not to develop a grip.


I’m surprised as well. Mostly because I believe it is a high margin accessory. On the other hand I wonder how many genuine Canon grips sold vs third party knockoffs. 

As an old film camera shooter I never got used to the vertical controls and just find it easier and more natural to use the top controls in the vertical position even on 1 series cameras.


----------



## vjlex (May 31, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I agree. For the R5, the CFe cards were about the same cost as the UHS-ii cards so it was uncertain why the decision to have mixed cards if just looking at cost/performance issue vs backwards compatibility support
> 
> The R7 advanced user guide hasn't been released yet. I believe that the R10 version has been released. Once the R7 guide is released, then it will specify which cards are needed for the video modes.
> Copied from the R5 manual, you can see the modes that a V60 card can support assuming the same codecs. I'm not sure whether the 4k60 on R7 is 8 or 10bit
> View attachment 204006


Yeah, for the prices that UHS-II go for, I would much rather just buy more CFe cards. Thanks for digging out the R5 manual page. I'm not really a video shooter, so don't actually plan to use the camera for that purpose too much, but would prefer not to limit my options if I don't have to. Is it known whether the R7 can do 4K RAW? I'm guessing 'no' since RAW would actually be 7K? Other than that, based on the R5, it seems like V60 might be able handle all modes the R7 offers. Knowing me, I'll probably still go V90 though...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2022)

Another prediction I made is that the M line is not ‘dead’. Here’s what Canon said in a recent interview:

The *EOS M Series accounts for about 30% of Canon’s total camera sales.* By the way, EOS R is about 20% and digital SLR is about 40%.The ratio of the M series to our camera sales is extremely high at 30% or more, and *it is unlikely that the M series will not be upgraded in the future*. We would like to listen to the requests of our customers and provide the M series as long as there is demand.
I wonder how those who have predicted the demise of the M line feel about that?


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Another prediction I made is that the M line is not ‘dead’. Here’s what Canon said in a recent interview:
> 
> The *EOS M Series accounts for about 30% of Canon’s total camera sales.* By the way, EOS R is about 20% and digital SLR is about 40%.The ratio of the M series to our camera sales is extremely high at 30% or more, and *it is unlikely that the M series will not be upgraded in the future*. We would like to listen to the requests of our customers and provide the M series as long as there is demand.
> I wonder how those who have predicted the demise of the M line feel about that?


This raises a question about the future of DSLRs. If the M series will be updated at 30% of sales, will DSLRs at 40% not be updated as well?

My prediction has been that Canon will wait until mirrorless sales have stabilized and then determine the fate of DSLRs.


----------



## AEWest (Jun 1, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I already admitted I was wrong, as I’ve done regarding other matters. But, since you seem to need it personally, I’ll reiterate: I predicted there would be no APS-C EOS R body, and I was wrong.
> 
> I maintain the R7 is not a true successor to the 7DII. The analogy of the 1D X holds – 1Ds, 11 MP; 1DsII, 16 MP, 1DsIII, 21 MP...see the pattern? 1D X, 18 MP. Not a true successor to the 1DsIII. Canon says it is, because they wanted 1DsIII owners to buy the 1D X. There wasn't a 1DsIV. There are plenty of people on this forum predicting that the R1 will be the spiritual successor – a high MP 1-series body. I doubt it, but time will tell. Similar with the R7. I doubt there will be an APS-C EOS R line sitting 'above' the R7.
> 
> As I've said many (many!) times, Canon knows the market better than anyone on this forum. That definitely includes me. I'm truly surprised there apparently is no vertical grip for the R7. But Canon knows how many grips they sold for the 90D and 7DII, and they apparently chose not to develop a grip.


I believe the R7 is the successor to the 7D due to the naming convention, just as the R5 is the succssor to the 5D series. If Canon felt that there was room for a higher level crop camera than this, I bet they would have called this one the R70 instead, whilst waiting for a future more "pro-grade" R7. 

Instead we have the aps-c line comprising of a semi pro/enthusiast R7, and consumer R10 line-up. I doubt there is room for another camera in this line since Canon focuses on full frame, unlike Fuji.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 1, 2022)

AEWest said:


> I believe the R7 is the successor to the 7D due to the naming convention, just as the R5 is the succssor to the 5D series. If Canon felt that there was room for a higher level crop camera than this, I bet they would have called this one the R70 instead, whilst waiting for a future more "pro-grade" R7.
> 
> Instead we have the aps-c line comprising of a semi pro/enthusiast R7, and consumer R10 line-up. I doubt there is room for another camera in this line since Canon focuses on full frame, unlike Fuji.


Rudy Winston from Canon USA gets into this a bit in the Adorama live stream. He said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit: The R7 is not the successor of the 7D and 7D2, it sits in between the 90D and 7D2.

I interpret that as the R7 is built like a 90D, not like a 7D2, but the fps, AF and dual slots make it 'better' than a 90D. And reading between the lines, I suspect Rudy isn't happy with it being 'R7' instead of 'R70', since my first thought was "mirrorless 7D!!!!", when it's more of a mirrorless 90D.

I'll keep my expectations low till I get my preorder delivered.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 1, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Rudy Winston from Canon USA gets into this a bit in the Adorama live stream. He said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit: The R7 is not the successor of the 7D and 7D2, it sits in between the 90D and 7D2.
> 
> I interpret that as the R7 is built like a 90D, not like a 7D2, but the fps, AF and dual slots make it 'better' than a 90D. And reading between the lines, I suspect Rudy isn't happy with it being 'R7' instead of 'R70', since my first thought was "mirrorless 7D!!!!", when it's more of a mirrorless 90D.
> 
> I'll keep my expectations low till I get my preorder delivered.


If the R7 has AF that is as good as the R5 or R6 and the resolution at high isos no worse than the R5, I shall be happy. The other factors are minor to me, apart from the fortunate presence of dual card slots and the welcome ability to change fps in ES mode.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> If the R7 has AF that is as good as the R5 or R6 and the resolution at high isos no worse than the R5, I shall be happy. The other factors are minor to me, apart from the fortunate presence of dual card slots and the welcome ability to change fps in ES mode.


My low expectations are for the build quality, I'm already happy with the IQ on my M6II and I think the R7 can only improve on that. The autolevelling feature alone would make things better for me, I tend to be about 1 degree off when there's a horizon in frame


----------



## AEWest (Jun 1, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Rudy Winston from Canon USA gets into this a bit in the Adorama live stream. He said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit: The R7 is not the successor of the 7D and 7D2, it sits in between the 90D and 7D2.
> 
> I interpret that as the R7 is built like a 90D, not like a 7D2, but the fps, AF and dual slots make it 'better' than a 90D. And reading between the lines, I suspect Rudy isn't happy with it being 'R7' instead of 'R70', since my first thought was "mirrorless 7D!!!!", when it's more of a mirrorless 90D.
> 
> I'll keep my expectations low till I get my preorder delivered.


It's interesting how Canon PR operates. I distinctly recall that when the R5 came out, Canon specifically stated that the R5 is not a 5D4 replacement. And when the R3 came out, that the 1Dx3 was still the flagship. Does anyone believe these statements?

What the naming convention tells me is that there won't be a more expensive aps-c Canon (e.g. Fuji X-HS2) coming out.

It appears to me that Canon will keep the crop R line limited in scope as they expect more serious photographers to go to full frame.


----------



## kritter (Jun 2, 2022)

So if R7 is considered 'hobbyist' camera, does that mean there is a pro version yet to come (perhaps a R9)? Would be nice to have the CF Express card with 1700 Mb/s vs SD card with 300 Mb/s so I won't be buffering with wildlife pix.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 2, 2022)

kritter said:


> So if R7 is considered 'hobbyist' camera, does that mean there is a pro version yet to come (perhaps a R9)? Would be nice to have the CF Express card with 1700 Mb/s vs SD card with 300 Mb/s so I won't be buffering with wildlife pix.


Already here. R5 or R3 (possibly an R1 in the future). @neuroanatomist is correct. The R7 is as good as it gets for Canon APS-C. C-Raw can resolve your buffer concerns with no discernible loss of quality.


----------



## kritter (Jun 2, 2022)

I love my R5. Would be nice to have a pro level APS C mirrorless for wildlife to replace the pro level EF 7DII. Just seems to me Canon's repeated mention of the R7 as a hobbyist camera is a signal that a pro level is in the works. Just my guess. Time will tell.


----------



## john1970 (Jun 3, 2022)

kritter said:


> I love my R5. Would be nice to have a pro level APS C mirrorless for wildlife to replace the pro level EF 7DII. Just seems to me Canon's repeated mention of the R7 as a hobbyist camera is a signal that a pro level is in the works. Just my guess. Time will tell.


Difficult to tell if Canon is going to come out with a pro-grade APS-C camera. Personally, I would have anticipated that as the R7, but only Canon knows.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I’m surprised as well. Mostly because I believe it is a high margin accessory. On the other hand I wonder how many genuine Canon grips sold vs third party knockoffs.
> 
> As an old film camera shooter I never got used to the vertical controls and just find it easier and more natural to use the top controls in the vertical position even on 1 series cameras.



When a 20% discount means you only have to pay $256 for a grip to fit your $1,500 camera, is it any wonder the third parties selling them for $49-$89 beat their socks off in sales?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> When a 20% discount means you only have to pay $256 for a grip to fit your $1,500 camera, is it any wonder the third parties selling them for $49-$89 beat their socks off in sales?


No surprise. On the other hand I got a Canon grip for the original R free with the 24-105 f4. Thanks for reminding me that in in the pre-pandemic days Canon used to give them away with bundle deals. Also not very profitable though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It’s mainly about max sustained card write speed, and CFe is faster than the fastest SD.
> 
> From the IR review, clearing a full buffer with SD ~3x longer than with CFe (6 vs. 18 s).



Yeah, and if I don't want to take anywhere near 75 frames per play and then it's around 25-30 seconds before the next play I have nothin to worry about having to use UHS-II cards, do I? If I'm taking frames between plays, it's with the other body with the wide angle lens when I turn around to get crowd reaction shots in the stands right in front of me.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 5, 2022)

unfocused said:


> No surprise. On the other hand I got a Canon grip for the original R free with the 24-105 f4. Thanks for reminding me that in in the pre-pandemic days Canon used to give them away with bundle deals. Also not very profitable though.



The only actual Canon grip I own is the one I got free with my 5D Mark IV, but that was several years after the model had been on the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Yeah, and if I don't want to take anywhere near 75 frames per play and then it's around 25-30 seconds before the next play I have nothin to worry about having to use UHS-II cards, do I? If I'm taking frames between plays, it's with the other body with the wide angle lens when I turn around to get crowd reaction shots in the stands right in front of me.


News flash: your style of shooting isn’t universal. 

Even among sports shooters, many sports don’t have ‘25-30 seconds before the next play’. Consider football (as it’s called in the non-Amaeican majority of the world, though Americans call it soccer) or basketball, where players don’t get long rests between short bursts of action like American football players. 

So while you may have ‘nothin to worry about having to use UHS-II cards’, for others buffer clearing time is much more important.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> News flash: your style of shooting isn’t universal.
> 
> Even among sports shooters, many sports don’t have ‘25-30 seconds before the next play’. Consider football (as it’s called in the non-Amaeican majority of the world, though Americans call it soccer) or basketball, where players don’t get long rests between short bursts of action like American football players.
> 
> So while you may have ‘nothin to worry about having to use UHS-II cards’, for others buffer clearing time is much more important.


Soccer used to be the name in Britain. It's short for "Association" Football as used by English Public schoolboys (Public = expensive private) who would abbreviate words to end in "er" like Honkers and Shankers = Hong Kong and Shanghai etc. Your American Football (the one that is elliptical) would be called a Rugger Ball as it is similar to the one used in Rugby Football.


----------



## AEWest (Jun 23, 2022)

My R7 has arrived at the camera store! Will pick up this weekend. I am 13th on wait list. Who says that number is unlucky?


----------

