Canon EOS R7 Mark II: What We Know

[Philnick]

How does dual SD provide more security than CFe plus SD?

Note that sensor read out speed is one of the factors determining AF performance (at least, as far as subject tracking is concerned). A faster read out speed means better sampling of moving subjects.

The rationale for dual cards has been that if one card failed, you had a backup. That only works if both cards are the same type. The CF could serve as a backup for the SD, but not vice versa. And as a backup for the SD the CF is way overpriced.

 

[Philnick]

Many of the requests here from R5 II users for "upgrades" to the R7 (40MP, CF card slot, etc) would make it essentially an R5 II switched permanently into crop mode, costing about as much an R5 II.

So use an R5 II in crop mode - no ergonomic "switching" issues that way.

How would you like it if I insisted that the R5 III should have controls that matched my R7 to avoid me being confused switching back and forth?

Sauce for the goose.

PS No reaction to my suggestion of giving the R7 II a third control dial in the traditional location with the joystick down there? That way both camps could be happy.

 

[pierceography]

Many of the requests here from R5 II users for "upgrades" to the R7 (40MP, CF card slot, etc) would make it essentially an R5 II switched permanently into crop mode, costing about as much an R5 II.

The 7dmk1/2 was basically the crop version of the 5dmk2/3/4, but considerably less expensive. What rationale are you using to infer a crop r5m2 would deviate from that pricing model?

 

[Philnick]

The 7dmk1/2 was basically the crop version of the 5dmk2/3/4, but considerably less expensive. What rationale are you using to infer a crop r5m2 would deviate from that pricing model?

Because you're asking for things that not even the R5 Mark II has - like a stacked sensor, eye control, and nearly as much resolution on a smaller chip, while improving dynamic range. I'm proposing compromises, while everyone else here is asking for the moon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The rationale for dual cards has been that if one card failed, you had a backup. That only works if both cards are the same type. The CF could serve as a backup for the SD, but not vice versa. And as a backup for the SD the CF is way overpriced.

Huh? If a camera has two card slots, and a setting to write simultaneously to both cards, how does that only work if the cards are the same type?

I suppose you’re referring to one card being faster than the other. Have you found that to be a problem in practice, as in you tried it and it didn’t work?

Last I checked, more dual-slot Canon cameras had different card slots than matching card slots. The R3 has one CFe and one SD card slot. I always shot RAW (not cRAW) simultaneously to both cards, and I shot a lot of 30 fps bursts. It worked just fine, and provided the peace of mind to have at least two copies of an image from the moment the shutter button is pressed.

More often than not, I would use the SD card to transfer images to my computer because it has a built-in SD slot. With the dual CFe slots of the R1, I have to dig out a card reader instead.

So yes, it works just fine. If you choose not to use the dual slots that way, that’s up to you.

 

[AlanF]

Because you're asking for things that not even the R5 Mark II has - like a stacked sensor, eye control, and nearly as much resolution on a smaller chip, while improving dynamic range. I'm proposing compromises, while everyone else here is asking for the moon.

The R5ii does have a stacked sensor and eye control.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The R5ii does have a stacked sensor and eye control.

@Philnick has a poor relationship with facts. I’m not sure if it’s agnostic or outright antagonistic, but either way there’s little love lost between them.

 

[David - Sydney]

The rationale for dual cards has been that if one card failed, you had a backup. That only works if both cards are the same type. The CF could serve as a backup for the SD, but not vice versa. And as a backup for the SD the CF is way overpriced.

Actually, I am finding that CFe cards are cheaper than the faster USH-ii cards.
I shoot dual raw to both cards in my R5 and don't have an issue. The SD cards is then used to plug directly into my macbook pro.
If I really need bursts close to each other, I will either change to cRaw or shoot only to the CFe card.

 

[wsmith96]

Sounds like it will be an awesome camera that will make many people happy. I do like my 5D4/7DII set up, and it would be nice to have ergonomic parity between the R5 and R7 series as suggested. I've been a hold out (because it's just a hobby for me), but I could see the R7II being my entry into the R system.

 

[pierceography]

Because you're asking for things that not even the R5 Mark II has - like a stacked sensor, eye control, and nearly as much resolution on a smaller chip, while improving dynamic range. I'm proposing compromises, while everyone else here is asking for the moon.

As the owner and frequent user of an r5m2, I can definitively state that you are incorrect.

Sit this one out, my guy.

 

[Philnick]

I'm sorry that I didn't check the feature set of the R5 Mark II before posting, but we'll see who's right about features and pricing for the R7 Mark II by the end of the year.

I seriously doubt that Canon would let an R7 Mark II cannibalize the market for the R5 Mark II by giving it feature parity at a lower price - unless they were going to further upgrade the R5 series at the same time.

 

[pierceography]

I'm sorry that I didn't check the feature set of the R5 Mark II before posting, but we'll see who's right about features and pricing for the R7 Mark II by the end of the year.

I seriously doubt that Canon would let an R7 Mark II cannibalize the market for the R5 Mark II by giving it feature parity at a lower price - unless they were going to further upgrade the R5 series at the same time.

Canon has already proved that a high end crop body and high end full frame body can coexist without cannibalization (see previous remarks on 7d/5d). Besides, those cameras aren't in the same segment, so cannibalization is irrelevant anyway.

 

[Bob Howland]

Many of the requests here from R5 II users for "upgrades" to the R7 (40MP, CF card slot, etc) would make it essentially an R5 II switched permanently into crop mode, costing about as much an R5 II.

I disagree. An R7 with 40MP would have the same pixel size as a 102MP FF camera, considerably smaller than the 45MP sensor pixels in the R5/R52. The R7 pixels are the same size as the OMD OM1, about 83MP FF and I find the R7 to be too noisy above ISO 3200. I also own an R6-2 which is what I use at ISO 12800. Image size is not the only important difference, pixel size matters.

 

[Philnick]

I disagree. An R7 with 40MP would have the same pixel size as a 102MP FF camera, considerably smaller than the 45MP sensor pixels in the R5/R52. The R7 pixels are the same size as the OMD OM1, about 83MP FF and I find the R7 to be too noisy above ISO 3200. I also own an R6-2 which is what I use at ISO 12800. Image size is not the only important difference, pixel size matters.

Be careful - neuroanatomist will scold anyone who suggests that pixel size has anything to do with noise performance. I'm with you, of course.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Two people believing something is true doesn’t make it so. The Flat Earth Society has lots of members.

Pixel size does matter…for resolution and diffraction. Pixel size matters for noise from an individual pixel, for those who are addicted to measurebation.

Pixel size does not matter for image noise (any more, though it did before the advent of gapless microlenses).

Same size sensor + smaller pixels = same noise floor = same DR (e.g., R6II vs R5II). Smaller sensor + same size pixels = higher noise floor = less DR (e.g., R5II in crop mode).

 

[Bob Howland]

Two people believing something is true doesn’t make it so. The Flat Earth Society has lots of members.

Pixel size does matter…for resolution and diffraction. Pixel size matters for noise from an individual pixel, for those who are addicted to measurebation.

Pixel size does not matter for image noise (any more, though it did before the advent of gapless microlenses).

Same size sensor + smaller pixels = same noise floor = same DR (e.g., R6II vs R5II). Smaller sensor + same size pixels = higher noise floor = less DR (e.g., R5II in crop mode).

View attachment 223212

I own a 5D3 and a 5DS, both of which are FF. The maximum possible ISO for the 5D3 is 51200 and I regularly used it a 6400 and occasionally at 12,800. The maximum ISO for the 5DS is 6400 and I never use it above 3200.

 

[Philnick]

I propose a new discussion.

Anyone with a Canon R series mirrorless that can use an RF-S lens - which is all of them - and who uses DxO Photolab or PureRaw, should go to DxO's supported cameras page and request that they support Sigma's two RF-S f/2.8 zooms and four f/1.4 primes released last year with Canon's blessing. (Sigma calls them RF lenses, but they're for crop-sensor use.)

Of that group of lenses, only one - the 18-50mm f/2.8 zoom - is supported by DxO, even though DxO has supported all of those lenses on Sony, Fujifilm, Leica, and even Canon EF-M bodies for years - including on the M6 Mark II which has the same resolution sensor as the R7.

I've been banging on them to support them but it feels like shouting down a well. I bought the 56mm f/1.4 prime for my R7 in early December and have been asking them in vain to support it. (I was successful last fall in lobbying Sigma to send them the 18-50 zoom, and getting it supported.)

Seems like DxO's long evident grudge against Canon is in full force, refusing to support most of a group of lenses that could rescue the RF-S bodies.

Maybe if enough folks here put in requests they might do something about it.

 

[EricN]

I propose a new discussion.

Anyone with a Canon R series mirrorless that can use an RF-S lens - which is all of them - and who uses DxO Photolab or PureRaw, should go to DxO's supported cameras page and request that they support the Sigma's two RF-S f/2.8 zooms and four f/1.4 primes released last year with Canon's blessing. (Sigma calls them RF lenses, but they're for crop-sensor use.)

Of that group of lenses, only one - the 18-50mm f/2.8 zoom - is supported by DxO, even though DxO has supported all of those lenses on Sony, Fujifilm, Leica, and even Canon EF-M bodies for years - including on the M6 Mark II which has the same resolution sensor as the R7.

I've been banging on them to support them but it feels like shouting down a well. I bought the 56mm f/1.4 prime for my R7 in early December and have been asking them in vain to support it. (I was successful in lobbying Sigma to send them the 18-50 zoom, and getting it supported.

Seems like DxO's long evident grudge against Canon is in full force, refusing to support most of a group of lenses that could rescue the RF-S bodies.

Maybe if enough folks here put in requests they might do something about it.

They'll add them at some point.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I propose a new discussion.

Anyone with a Canon R series mirrorless that can use an RF-S lens - which is all of them - and who uses DxO Photolab or PureRaw, should go to DxO's supported cameras page and request that they support the Sigma's two RF-S f/2.8 zooms and four f/1.4 primes released last year with Canon's blessing. (Sigma calls them RF lenses, but they're for crop-sensor use.)

Of that group of lenses, only one - the 18-50mm f/2.8 zoom - is supported by DxO, even though DxO has supported all of those lenses on Sony, Fujifilm, Leica, and even Canon EF-M bodies for years - including on the M6 Mark II which has the same resolution sensor as the R7.

I've been banging on them to support them but it feels like shouting down a well. I bought the 56mm f/1.4 prime for my R7 in early December and have been asking them in vain to support it. (I was successful in lobbying Sigma to send them the 18-50 zoom, and getting it supported.

Seems like DxO's long evident grudge against Canon is in full force, refusing to support most of a group of lenses that could rescue the RF-S bodies.

Maybe if enough folks here put in requests they might do something about it.

Didn't know that. I have no plans to buy an APS-C R body, but I do think DxO should support all compatible lenses.

 

[Philnick]

They'll add them at some point.

User requests would help - it's been five months since the 56mm f/1.4 and the other four lenses came out.