# Hands-on with the Canon EOS R7



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 24, 2022)

> Dan Watson had a chance to spend 3 days with the Canon EOS R7 and has posted an initial review on YouTube. As always, these reviews are done with “pre-production” cameras, but it’s safe to say that these are 99% of what you’ll be able to purchase soon.
> From Dan Watson:
> Took the Canon R7 for an awesome 3 day test with sports, wildlife, portraits, and obviously, some crazy cinematic video…and it didn’t disappoint.
> Canon EOS R7
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## AlanF (May 24, 2022)

None of these pre-release reviews have said much of substance. None I have seen have told us whether you can dial in less than 30 fps electronic shutter - 30 fps is a pain when you want less (if they have, please let me know). Only one or two reviews have even mentioned the pre mode of 15 shots. I sometimes wonder if all have actually handled the camera as they all seem to singing from the same hymn sheet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I sometimes wonder if all have actually handled the camera as they all seem to singing from the same hymn sheet.


I suspect pre-reviewers are given suggested talking points, and if the don't stick to them then they are left off the list for the next release.


----------



## Joules (May 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect pre-reviewers are given suggested talking points, and if the don't stick to them then they are left off the list for the next release.


Bring presented the same spec sheet content over and over again in verbal form makes for much less useful content than a simple, concise written spec sheet.

So I agree with Alan that it is disappointing that apparently the more nuanced properties of a body that one can often only discover through use are not described in the videos available so far.


----------



## AlanF (May 24, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect pre-reviewers are given suggested talking points, and if the don't stick to them then they are left off the list for the next release.


They all do seem scripted.


----------



## SHAMwow (May 24, 2022)

Joules said:


> Bring presented the same spec sheet content over and over again in verbal form makes for much less useful content than a simple, concise written spec sheet.
> 
> So I agree with Alan that it is disappointing that apparently the more nuanced properties of a body that one can often only discover through use are not described in the videos available so far.


That's while I'll always respect and support Polin. He's up front about what he can and can't say. Doesn't call it a review. And then drops the real review later and is still fair. Dude is one of the few who does the gear stuff right. Almost everyone else is a spec reader.


----------



## neonlight (May 24, 2022)

Hmmm... 30+MP OK, but diffraction limited at smaller apertures that even the 100-500 will be.
No removable eyecup. Bummer, I have to use a diopter correction on my 7DII as my eye needs more than +2.
No PC terminal. Just as I was starting to use the PC terminal for night time flash set-ups. Not all of us can afford Canon's RF speedlites, though I do have a couple of 580 II's.
No battery grip. Maybe not as thirsty as the 7DII, which I found needed a second battery just to stay full during a photoshoot.
Looks to be a good camera but I'm not convinced so far that it is really the 7DIII. It has good capabilities, sure, but it seems slightly down from what I was hoping a 7DIII would be in terms of looking like an R5 back. Perhaps Canon think that pros won't use the R7 only amateurs like myself.
I'll wait for real reviews.


----------



## Macoose (May 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> None I have seen have told us whether you can dial in less than 30 fps electronic shutter - 30 fps is a pain when you want less (if they have, please let me know).


I downloaded the spec sheet this morning from Canon USA and the Drive System is on page 9 and it reads much like the page from the R5. It doesn't say anything about the fps being user adjustable.


----------



## AlanF (May 24, 2022)

Macoose said:


> I downloaded the spec sheet this morning from Canon USA and the Drive System is on page 9 and it reads much like the page from the R5. It doesn't say anything about the fps being user adjustable.





neuroanatomist said:


> Not sure if you found the answer to this already, but yes the R7 has H, M and L settings that give you (up to) 15/6.5/3 fps mechanical or 30/15/3 fps electronic.


----------



## Macoose (May 24, 2022)

Thanks Alan! 
I answered your question before I started looking at the other threads. I thought you meant that you wanted to be able to choose a specific Fps like on the 7D2 or the 1DX3. I always liked 8 fps for my 7D2 instead of 10 on the fast setting.


----------



## AccipiterQ (May 25, 2022)

Am I the only one that finds this R7 *really* underwhelming? I think they knew there was huge pent up demand so they put something out (like the R/RP a few years ago) and are going to drop a *real* successor to the 7Dii in a couple years.


----------



## Czardoom (May 25, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> Am I the only one that finds this R7 *really* underwhelming? I think they knew there was huge pent up demand so they put something out (like the R/RP a few years ago) and are going to drop a *real* successor to the 7Dii in a couple years.


If you are underwhelmed by a $1500 camera having the same AF and tracking system as the $6000 R 3 than I'm afraid you will always be underwhelmed. I can't believe that Canon is using the R3 AF system in a camera under $2000 - and in the case of the R10, under $1000. I wasn't sure if I would be interested in these cameras, but with the highest level pro AF system and the prices listed, I already pre-ordered the R10, and strongly considered the R7.

I think when Canon released the 90D rather than a 7D III it was pretty clear that the market for a true pro-level APS-C was not sufficient. (Perhaps too many pros won't go for any camera less than FF - who knows.) But Nikon never upgraded their pro level wildlife camera (the D500) either. So, I think the days of a pro-level crop sensor camera are over as far as Canon is concerned. So I doubt the 7D II successor you are looking for will ever come in a crop camera. The most likely successor may be a high MP FF Camera that has a high MP count in crop mode.


----------



## Macoose (May 25, 2022)

AccipiterQ said:


> Am I the only one that finds this R7 *really* underwhelming? I think they knew there was huge pent up demand so they put something out (like the R/RP a few years ago) and are going to drop a *real* successor to the 7Dii in a couple years.


I think that after looking at the spec sheet, and considering what you can get for $1500.00 US, the R7 is starting to look like a bargain. I'm happy with the Af system and that it has the Af Cases which one can adjust if needed. For me, a 32.5 mp sensor hits a sweet spot.

I'd like to know if users will be able to change the file name to anything other than "IMG_0000". I'd also like to see the same Custom Controls that are in my 7D2 or whatever changes Canon has made since then. There are other things I'd like to see but all in all, the camera seems very well featured for the price.

I think it will be a winner.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> I can't believe that Canon is using the R3 AF system in a camera under $2000 - and in the case of the R10, under $1000.


Canon has stated that the readout speed of the stacked sensor in the R3 improves AF performance by allowing more frequent sampling. So no, the R7 and R10 don’t have the AF system of a $6000 camera. Nor do they have eye-controlled AF (which I personally find very useful). What they have are some of the same AF features, not all and not the same performance.

In the DSLR days, better AF required a better dedicated PDAF sensor. With MILCs, AF features are in large part firmware, not hardware. Using previously-developed firmware features likely costs less than ‘nerfing’ the firmware for a lower-end body. So from that standpoint, reusing the same code lowers development costs and raises profits. That’s very Canon (despite giving users better features at lower MSRPs).


----------



## Chaitanya (May 25, 2022)

SHAMwow said:


> That's while I'll always respect and support Polin. He's up front about what he can and can't say. Doesn't call it a review. And then drops the real review later and is still fair. Dude is one of the few who does the gear stuff right. Almost everyone else is a spec reader.


You should add Gordon Laing of cameralabs to top of list for camera reviews.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 25, 2022)

neonlight said:


> Hmmm... 30+MP OK, but diffraction limited at smaller apertures that even the 100-500 will be.
> No removable eyecup. Bummer, I have to use a diopter correction on my 7DII as my eye needs more than +2.
> No PC terminal. Just as I was starting to use the PC terminal for night time flash set-ups. Not all of us can afford Canon's RF speedlites, though I do have a couple of 580 II's.
> No battery grip. Maybe not as thirsty as the 7DII, which I found needed a second battery just to stay full during a photoshoot.
> ...


7D 2 had gps which did drain battery quite fast and given I use dedicated gps recievers dont really care about ones built in camera.


----------



## fasterquieter (May 25, 2022)

I would be curious to know which lenses are sharp enough to take full advantage of that 32MP APS-C sensor. Are all RF lenses going to be sharp enough? Just the L glass? A random few? I have no idea.


----------



## neonlight (May 25, 2022)

It is not just a matter of sharp lenses. The DLA for the R7 is around f/6, so any lens with a larger aperture would/should be fine.
Hence my comment that the 100-500 may be disappointing. I'd like to see an R7 comparing 100-500 and 100-400 with and w/out 1.4x. Still got to continue saving for a 500 f/4.
Nearly moved over to Nikon to use their 500. CHeaper, and apparently good IQ.


----------



## Chig (May 27, 2022)

Whilst the R7 is an excellent camera with great features (and it and the R10 should sell well), I'm personally disappointed in it as it's not very well suited to serious bird photography in tough environments like estuaries and mudflats and rain and for using with the Great White telephotos like the 400mm f/2.8 or 600 f/4 with it's tiny size and no vertical grip option, low budget 90D grade weather sealing and unusual rear controls.
To replace my old 7Dii I'm thinking I'm better off saving up a bit more money and buying an R6 instead with it's more pro build/weather sealing and nice familiar controls and phenomenal low light performance especially as I'm fortunate to own a EF400mm f/2.8 (non IS) so reach isn't much of an issue for me but low light performance is as I like to shoot at dawn or soon after and I really like shooting backlit birds where better dynamic range/low light performance will make a difference for me.

These 2 cameras will be a great option and are reasonably priced for people starting out in wildlife and sports shooting but not for me and perhaps many other 7Dii owners


----------



## AlanF (May 27, 2022)

Chig said:


> Whilst the R7 is an excellent camera with great features (and it and the R10 should sell well), I'm personally disappointed in it as it's not very well suited to serious bird photography in tough environments like estuaries and mudflats and rain and for using with the Great White telephotos like the 400mm f/2.8 or 600 f/4 with it's tiny size and no vertical grip option, low budget 90D grade weather sealing and unusual rear controls.
> To replace my old 7Dii I'm thinking I'm better off saving up a bit more money and buying an R6 instead with it's more pro build/weather sealing and nice familiar controls and phenomenal low light performance especially as I'm fortunate to own a EF400mm f/2.8 (non IS) so reach isn't much of an issue for me but low light performance is as I like to shoot at dawn or soon after and I really like shooting backlit birds where better dynamic range/low light performance will make a difference for me.
> 
> These 2 cameras will be a great option and are reasonably priced for people starting out in wildlife and sports shooting but not for me and perhaps many other 7Dii owners


I have an R6. It's a great camera, and I love the crisp images from it. However, as been written over and over again here, the dynamic range/low light performance of the modern low Mpx sensors is no better than the high Mpx sensors at the same size output - if you downsize the high Mpx image to the same number of pixels as the low Mpx image, you see the same dynamic range and noise. Here is a shot of the dynamic range of the R6 and 90D. The 90D at first sight looks much lower, but that's because it's comparing crop enlarged to the same size as the FF. If you compare the R6 in crop mode with then 90D you can see straight away they have the same DR.


----------



## Scarris (May 27, 2022)

Has anyone else noticed that the R7s used the early reviews are already looking kind of beat up? This one and the one DPReview have both have very noticeable scratches through the Canon logo. I'm wondering if the plastic shell is particularly soft on this camera. Obviously, it doesn't impact the quality of the photos, but I do try to keep my gear in good shape cosmetically, and it seems like the R7 may be prone to scratches.


----------



## Chig (May 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I have an R6. It's a great camera, and I love the crisp images from it. However, as been written over and over again here, the dynamic range/low light performance of the modern low Mpx sensors is no better than the high Mpx sensors at the same size output - if you downsize the high Mpx image to the same number of pixels as the low Mpx image, you see the same dynamic range and noise. Here is a shot of the dynamic range of the R6 and 90D. The 90D at first sight looks much lower, but that's because it's comparing crop enlarged to the same size as the FF. If you compare the R6 in crop mode with then 90D you can see straight away they have the same DR.
> 
> View attachment 203919


Well most reviewers are saying that above iso 800 the R7 images start to look awful, what about your R6 Alan : what iso are you happy to go up to ?


----------



## Chig (May 27, 2022)

Scarris said:


> Has anyone else noticed that the R7s used the early reviews are already looking kind of beat up? This one and the one DPReview have both have very noticeable scratches through the Canon logo. I'm wondering if the plastic shell is particularly soft on this camera. Obviously, it doesn't impact the quality of the photos, but I do try to keep my gear in good shape cosmetically, and it seems like the R7 may be prone to scratches.


Well it's very much a consumer grade camera in spite of the amazing specs and reviewers don't give a shit about gear that doesn't belong to them , some like Chelsia Northrup aren't even careful with gear they own


----------



## vjlex (May 28, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> 7D 2 had gps which did drain battery quite fast and given I use dedicated gps recievers dont really care about ones built in camera.


Do you use a Canon GPS receiver or third party? Is there one you recommend?


----------



## vjlex (May 28, 2022)

Scarris said:


> Has anyone else noticed that the R7s used the early reviews are already looking kind of beat up? This one and the one DPReview have both have very noticeable scratches through the Canon logo. I'm wondering if the plastic shell is particularly soft on this camera. Obviously, it doesn't impact the quality of the photos, but I do try to keep my gear in good shape cosmetically, and it seems like the R7 may be prone to scratches.


I did notice that in some of the videos I watched. My guess was that it was done intentionally at least in part to disguise an unreleased camera. I saw some also covered in black tape. But I also think when a camera is passed around between a lot of different photographers with lots of different ways of handling it in a short period of time, it's going to take a bit more abuse than it would under normal use.


----------



## AlanF (May 28, 2022)

Chig said:


> Well most reviewers are saying that above iso 800 the R7 images start to look awful, what about your R6 Alan : what iso are you happy to go up to ?


I usually start at 1000 and go up to several thousand on both the R5 and R6, depending on how much I crop as I like high shutter speeds. But, I cannot emphasise strongly enough you must have the right software for noise reduction. Here are some ridiculously high examples https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/extenders-and-high-iso-with-the-r5.40575/
At high iso, my experience with the 90D was that it didn’t resolve better than a 20 Mpx APS-C or 50 Mpx FF. The R6 with your 400/2.8 and a 2xTC should give excellent images and plenty of reach. The R6 might be the one for you - I really like the images from it.


----------



## Chig (May 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I usually start at 1000 and go up to several thousand on both the R5 and R6, depending on how much I crop as I like high shutter speeds. But, I cannot emphasise strongly enough you must have the right software for noise reduction. Here are some ridiculously high examples https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/extenders-and-high-iso-with-the-r5.40575/
> At high iso, my experience with the 90D was that it didn’t resolve better than a 20 Mpx APS-C or 50 Mpx FF. The R6 with your 400/2.8 and a 2xTC should give excellent images and plenty of reach. The R6 might be the one for you - I really like the images from it.


Thanks Alan


----------



## vjlex (May 28, 2022)

Chig said:


> Well most reviewers are saying that above iso 800 the R7 images start to look awful, what about your R6 Alan : what iso are you happy to go up to ?


Do you remember which reviewers?


----------



## AlanF (May 28, 2022)

vjlex said:


> Do you remember which reviewers?


None of them have compatible RAW converters from the good companies and so are relying on jpegs and whatever Canon hands them. So, we can't really say much at this stage.


----------



## vjlex (May 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> None of them have compatible RAW converters from the good companies and so are relying on jpegs and whatever Canon hands them. So, we can't really say much at this stage.


Ah, right. I forgot no one has access to RAWs yet.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 28, 2022)

vjlex said:


> Do you use a Canon GPS receiver or third party? Is there one you recommend?


I use Garmin eTrex 30x to track and then using Lightroom I use synchronize gpx files, you can get any Garmin handheld GPS(most of them are IPX rated) that fits your budget. It's a little clumsy compared to having Canon receiver or using Canon connect app(connected via bluetooth(only for recent models) which doesnt suck battery as much as wifi or GPS) but biggest advantage is no additional strain on battery(both camera and phone) and you can use it backtrack if you get lost in remote areas.


----------



## rpg51 (May 29, 2022)

I am probably missing something because I am new to digital photography. But, I don't honestly get the appeal of these crop cameras, other than price.


----------



## Sporgon (May 29, 2022)

rpg51 said:


> I am probably missing something because I am new to digital photography. But, I don't honestly get the appeal of these crop cameras, other than price.


Price is the key, but they tend to be faster and lighter than the equivalent FF, and the smaller pixel pitch gives more resolution / output size than cropping most FF cameras in to the same format size. 
However I’m sure there are many hobbyist photographers who can’t see the point of FF, especially as crop is now so good.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2022)

rpg51 said:


> I am probably missing something because I am new to digital photography. But, I don't honestly get the appeal of these crop cameras, other than price.


Lower system cost (body _and_ lenses) is a main advantage, along with lower weight (mainly lenses). Smaller size is possible, depending on the system. Here's an extreme example:




For those who are ‘reach limited’, crop sensors generally put more pixels on target. That’s still mainly about cost and weight, until you get to the extreme of something like a 1200mm f/8 on FF. 

Macro shooting of skittish subjects like insects is another use case, because of the longer working distance for the same framing.


----------



## rpg51 (May 29, 2022)

You are peaking my curiosity. Is it practical/possible/advisable to use RF full frame lenses? Or does that defeat the whole idea?


----------



## kaihp (May 29, 2022)

rpg51 said:


> You are peaking my curiosity. Is it practical/possible/advisable to use RF full frame lenses? Or does that defeat the whole idea?


It's is both practical and possible to use FF lenses on crop bodies. In fact, originally we only had FF lenses to put on the APS-C crop bodies. My 10D did not take EF-S lenses at all. 

The downside of using FF lenses on crop cameras is that you pay for part of the optics that you do not use. And unused glass is wasted glass, to paraphrase Linus Torvalds.


----------



## rpg51 (May 29, 2022)

kaihp said:


> ... you pay for part of the optics that you do not use. And unused glass is wasted glass, to paraphrase Linus Torvalds.


Of course, I would pay zero because I already own them. They are awful big though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2022)

rpg51 said:


> You are peaking my curiosity. Is it practical/possible/advisable to use RF full frame lenses? Or does that defeat the whole idea?


Certainly you can use RF (FF) lenses on an R7 or R10, just as you could use EF (FF) lenses on any Canon APS-C DSLR. You only capture the smaller crop area, meaning the equivalent focal length is 1.6x.

Focal length is intrinsic to the lens, so for example the RF-S 18-45mm on an R7 or R10 gives framing equivalent to 29-72mm on FF. A 24-70 is a good walk around lens on FF, but on an R7/10 it would frame like 38-112mm, which isn’t wide enough for a standard zoom for me.


----------



## Czardoom (May 29, 2022)

Chig said:


> Well most reviewers are saying that above iso 800 the R7 images start to look awful, what about your R6 Alan : what iso are you happy to go up to ?


Considering APS-C cameras for the past 10 years have been able to shoot above ISO 800 without images looking awful, I would have to believe the reviewer who wrote or said that is totally incompetent or a Sony troll!

Here were the reviews I could find that mentioned image quality at various ISO's...

Camera Jabber: As yet, it’s not possible to process raw files from the R7 so I’m only able to look at the Jpegs. The results at ISO 25,600 look good and I might even use to ISO 32,000 if the circumstances really called for it, but if possible I’d make 12,800 the maximum value I’d used at this strikes a nice balance between the level of detail and noise that’s visible.

Imaging Resource: While we won't know the full story on the R7's image quality until it goes through our lab, the initial impressions are quite positive. The camera performs well at higher ISOs, including up to ISO 6400, which is as high as I got during daytime shooting.

The Phoblographer: I almost never shot below ISO 800. ISO 3200 is incredibly clean. But we’re going to need to do more work with the RAW files to see more results.

Just a tad bit above ISO 800 I would say!


----------



## Chig (Jun 4, 2022)

Well Fuji have released something much more like a proper mirrorless replacement for the 7D mark ii now : the Fujifilm X-H2s which has: 

a 26mp BSI stacked crop sensor
15 fps mechanical shutter
40 fps electronic shutter
1x CFexpress slot + 1x SDii slot
an awesome battery grip which allows you to keep a battery in the camera plus 2 in the grip
Priced at USD $ 2,500 

Of course the AF isn't as good as Canon's DPAF ii and Fuji cameras aren't my "cup of tea" 

The R7 is a great camera but personally would have liked a proper flagship aps-c camera with all of the above in an R6 body even if it was $3,000 USD


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 11, 2022)

Chig said:


> Well most reviewers are saying that above iso 800 the R7 images start to look awful, what about your R6 Alan : what iso are you happy to go up to ?



I doubt the image quality is "awful" above iso 800. It should be no worse than any other APS-C camera. Sure, if you have no light then even ISO 400 will look awful.


----------



## Chig (Jun 11, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I doubt the image quality is "awful" above iso 800. It should be no worse than any other APS-C camera. Sure, if you have no light then even ISO 400 will look awful.


Well I'm sure the new Fuji aps-c camera is vastly better in low light with it's BSI stacked sensor and I wish Canon had chosen to make a high end aps-c body with similar tech
This R7 is great value for money but it's not what I'd hoped for and Fuji,(and also Sony and Nikon will probably make BSI stacked sensor aps-c soon) will probably leave them far behind in terms of flagship aps-c cameras sadly


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 11, 2022)

Chig said:


> Well I'm sure the new Fuji aps-c camera is vastly better in low light with it's BSI stacked sensor and I wish Canon had chosen to make a high end aps-c body with similar tech
> This R7 is great value for money but it's not what I'd hoped for and Fuji,(and also Sony and Nikon will probably make BSI stacked sensor aps-c soon) will probably leave them far behind in terms of flagship aps-c cameras sadly



I think we have seen before that BSI sensors don't really improve image quality in a significant way. Just compare the Fuji 26MP BSI sensors with the older 24MP. The old FSI sensor is even a little better at high ISO. Stacked sensor also won't improve high ISO performance, only rolling shutter and readout speed. So I'm not sure how it will be "vastly better in low light".

I think APS-C sensors reached almost the maximum in image quality department, I have not seen any significant jump in image quality for years now. The M6 Mark II (likely same sensor as the R7) does actually look a little better at high ISO than the BSI Sony A6400.


----------



## Chig (Jun 12, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I think we have seen before that BSI sensors don't really improve image quality in a significant way. Just compare the Fuji 26MP BSI sensors with the older 24MP. The old FSI sensor is even a little better at high ISO. Stacked sensor also won't improve high ISO performance, only rolling shutter and readout speed. So I'm not sure how it will be "vastly better in low light".
> 
> I think APS-C sensors reached almost the maximum in image quality department, I have not seen any significant jump in image quality for years now. The M6 Mark II (likely same sensor as the R7) does actually look a little better at high ISO than the BSI Sony A6400.


Well BSI gives about 1/2 stop more light at 90% hitting the diodes vs 60% for FSI as explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-...nsors are most,and other low light conditions.
Theoria Apophasis has a good explaination of why BSI sensors have better native SNR than conventional FSI: 



Cheers
Noel


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2022)

Chig said:


> Well BSI gives about 1/2 stop more light at 90% hitting the diodes vs 60% for FSI as explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-illuminated_sensor#:~:text=BSI-CMOS sensors are most,and other low light conditions.
> Theoria Apophasis has a good explaination of why BSI sensors have better native SNR than conventional FSI:
> 
> 
> ...


That YouTube compares by scribbling on paper a Nikon D500 with a conventional sensor and the Nikon D850 with a BSI sensor. I have used both and can tell you that there is no difference in light noise between the two. And here is what is actually measured for a D500 APS-C and the D850 in crop mode from Photonstophotos.net. The D500 has actually got better noise characteristics! It is complete and utter drivel that a BSI sensor in these size ranges has 1/2 stop advantage in light gathering. The BSI sensor does have advantages in speed of read out and minor possibilities for light, especially in vignetting, but 1/2 a stop is nonsense - in practice there is minimal difference in iso and signal to noise. That superb BSI Nikon D850 sensor is no better than the R5's in my practical experience, and is also again measured to be slightly worse!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 12, 2022)

Chig said:


> Well BSI gives about 1/2 stop more light at 90% hitting the diodes vs 60% for FSI as explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-illuminated_sensor#:~:text=BSI-CMOS sensors are most,and other low light conditions.
> Theoria Apophasis has a good explaination of why BSI sensors have better native SNR than conventional FSI:
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, cmon, quoting that guy with the most subjective videos on Youtube, a known fanboy of specific brands.
Yes, BSI gives better image quality in THEORY but we have not really seen that in practice. This is why I said go an compare X-T2 and X-T4 images on sites like DPReview. One is an old FSI and other is a much newer BSI design. You will see that the old non-BSI sensor has actually slightly better
high ISO performance.


----------



## kaihp (Jun 12, 2022)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Oh, cmon, quoting that guy with the most subjective videos on Youtube, a known fanboy of specific brands.



Oh wow, finally someone who beats The Unnameable.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 16, 2022)

That RF-S mount looks so ugly. It's the same size as the EF/EF-S but the smaller sensor looks ugly inside that big black plastic thing.
I know it does not matter but EF-S was much nicer designed.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 24, 2022)

I picked up my R7 yesterday (6/23). I haven't had much time to play around with it or a chance to look into the image quality yet. Hopefully I will do that over the weekend. I haven't been able to get the Bluetooth to connect to my phone (that Canon app is really annoying). Also, it seems the ability to back up settings that I was really glad to get in the R5 is not present in the R7. I guess they're going to keep that a premium feature. I get it, but wish they wouldn't.

I also have heard a lot of people talking about the build quality. But maybe my standards are just lower- I really like how it feels in my hand. And I like it's size. Small, but not too small. I'm really looking forward to a pancake lens that I can throw on this body and go. Those are some of my early impressions so far.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Jun 24, 2022)

As an APSC and full frame user, I find it amusing that APSC is always treated as the poor second cousin to full frame cameras in many forums (usual arguments - more noise, worse dynamic range, etc, while ignoring specific use cases), until the Canon marketing hype hits, then they're somehow like a whole new technology that has never been seen before, and everyone needs to have! This is bewildering and just goes to show how much people are influenced by mindless marketing hype, especially when they're so keen to buy something without ever having seen it perform in real life. I suspect the R7 will be a great APSC camera, and those who use ASPC, such as macro and wildlife shooters, who liked the 80D and 90D will probably like this even more. I guess most 'reviewers' (influencers) are to blame due to the uncomfortable relationship they have with the companies. All glowing reports, if they give balanced reviews that highlight the pros and cons, rather than provide a free advertisement, and are critical of faults (R5 overheating anyone?) they won't be given the brand new toys to test next time round, so no early YouTube product review videos before release, and no money-earning clicks by getting reviews out before other reviewers.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 26, 2022)

So far I'm really enjoying the new features and capabilities of the R7. A few of them are making me ever so slightly envious that they are missing on the R5. One thing I noticed today is the Focal Length Display. On the R7 under the Shooting Info Display menu (red menu page 9), there is a Lens Info Display option. But for the R5, the Lens Info Display option does not exist. I find having the focal length on-screen really handy. I really hope some of these R7 firmware features trickle up to the R5.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 26, 2022)

vjlex said:


> So far I'm really enjoying the new features and capabilities of the R7. A few of them are making me ever so slightly envious that they are missing on the R5. One thing I noticed today is the Focal Length Display. On the R7 under the Shooting Info Display menu (red menu page 9), there is a Lens Info Display option. But for the R5, the Lens Info Display option does not exist. I find having the focal length on-screen really handy. I really hope some of these R7 firmware features trickle up to the R5.


I could’ve used that on my R5 last week, I bumped my 100-500 to 238mm by accident and then wondered why it wouldn’t focus as close anymore. I only noticed it in Lightroom :/
I also my the focus distance indicator when using EF lenses, I haven’t used the 180mm macro long enough to know where the MFD is by intuition. The display helps a lot with that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> As an APSC and full frame user, I find it amusing that APSC is always treated as the poor second cousin to full frame cameras in many forums (usual arguments - more noise, worse dynamic range, etc, while ignoring specific use cases), until the Canon marketing hype hits, then they're somehow like a whole new technology that has never been seen before, and everyone needs to have!


I certainly see the former. I don’t really see the latter, but that may be because I don’t follow YouTube reviewers. The situation you describe makes sense, though, when you consider that the vast majority of reviews are done for the purpose of earning money from affiliate links. When there’s a new product, it’s praises are sung loudly. In between new product launch periods, the more expensive products get more praise because they generate more unit revenue. 

As for reality, it’s objectively true that FF can deliver better IQ than APS-C, and that FF offers more exposure flexibility. I think those (e.g., forum members) who have switched from APS-C to FF tend overstate the benefits, likely that’s confirmation bias at work. 

Bias goes the other way, too. Those using only APS-C sometimes downplay the advantages of FF because they’ve chosen to use APS-C. Often the reason for that choice is lower system cost (body + lenses), and that’s a great reason to choose APS-C. 

Those who use both FF and APS-C recognize that these are tools and that it’s good to use the right tool for the job at hand. If I need a small/light kit and/or am shooting outdoors in daylight, APS-C is a good choice. If I’m shooting moving subjects in a school gymnasium, a FF body and fast lenses are a good choice. I’m fortunate to have both options.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 29, 2022)

I discovered the Quick Menu customization option on the R7 yesterday. I heard people who had previously used cameras with it mentioning this feature missing when the R5 came out. It's a really great feature to declutter or move buttons around on the Quick Menu screen. I know that there is bound to be product differentiation, but there are some features in one body and not in another that baffle me. I wonder why Canon does this, particularly when lower level bodies have software features that the higher level ones don't (I believe this also happened when the newer, cheaper RP had focus bracketing while the more expensive R never got it).


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 30, 2022)

I missed out on the first batch of R7s and I called around to various stores. The largest photo related store in the Netherlands said they received ten R7 and had 'hundreds' of pre-orders. Other stores reported similar amounts. It seems that everyone got a batch of 10, I hope production ramps up.

So for the vacation next month I'll have to "make do" with the R5


----------



## Chig (Jun 30, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I missed out on the first batch of R7s and I called around to various stores. The largest photo related store in the Netherlands said they received then R7 and had 'hundreds' of pre-orders. Other stores reported similar amounts. It seems that everyone got a batch of 10, I hope production ramps up.
> 
> So for the vacation next month I'll have to "make do" with the R5


First world problems Koen


----------

