Canon EOS R7 V & Canon EOS R7 Mark II Coming in 2025?

[PhilC]

We have been told Canon plans to release two versions of the next Canon EOS R7. One will be video-focused, perhaps called the Canon EOS R7 V, and the other photography-focused. The EOS R7 Mark II will potentiall be something like a baby EOS R1 with an APS-C sensor.

Read the Full Article

When the 7D came out it was with a new 15-85 lens which many users including me found very sharp and very useful as a travel lens. It was an equivalent to a 24-135 which is close to the 24-105 FF lens. It is my go to lens 90% of the time and it is the only reason I haven’t upgraded to R series yet. I want APS-c because lighter and cheaper for an amateur usage . I also have 5 other EFS lenses which I don’t want to replace as not used a lot but nevertheless happy with. Going FF R6 and 24-105 would be an improvement for sure but then I would need to replace all my lenses and the cost would be huge. My 15-85 is now 15 y.o and shows signs of wear… error 1 message . So don’t want to invest in R7 with an adapter if my 15-85 dies and no equivalent replacement.
So I hope new APSc RF lenses come as well with a top end quality like the 15-85 was at a reasonable price. A 15-70 could be OK.

 

[SereneSpeed]

When the 7D came out it was with a new 15-85 lens which many users including me found very sharp and very useful as a travel lens. It was an equivalent to a 24-135 which is close to the 24-105 FF lens. It is my go to lens 90% of the time and it is the only reason I haven’t upgraded to R series yet. I want APS-c because lighter and cheaper for an amateur usage . I also have 5 other EFS lenses which I don’t want to replace as not used a lot but nevertheless happy with. Going FF R6 and 24-105 would be an improvement for sure but then I would need to replace all my lenses and the cost would be huge. My 15-85 is now 15 y.o and shows signs of wear… error 1 message . So don’t want to invest in R7 with an adapter if my 15-85 dies and no equivalent replacement.
So I hope new APSc RF lenses come as well with a top end quality like the 15-85 was at a reasonable price. A 15-70 could be OK.

If you haven’t tried a new mirrorless camera, you may be absolutely amazed. Something simple like the original EOS R would likely blow your mind. Although I Haven’t tried one, I’d bet an m6ii would be a stellar upgrade for you, and both options (and others like them) are relatively affordable.

I’m making assumptions here, so I won’t keep going other than to say; there are new, older cameras that are priced very well, and are massive upgrades to the original 7D.

 

[David - Sydney]

Going FF R6 and 24-105 would be an improvement for sure but then I would need to replace all my lenses and the cost would be huge.

Why would you need to replace any EF/EF-S lenses? You just need the R mount adapter and the older lenses will work fine.

GAS is another story though... once you go RF lenses then they are always tempting as they (mostly) improve on the EF/EF-S lenses in significant ways (weight, size, focal range, magnification etc).

 

[Denevans]

Is it V for Vlog? V for Virtual Reality? V for video? Since they aren’t going C for cinema…

The M50 sold very well as a web cam kit during the covid times. Wouldn’t be surprised if we see an R50 V marketed as that.

I still carry around my M5 pretty much everywhere. Fits in the pocket of my winter coat, and the old FD lenses look amazing on them are the right size for it. I think I’m one of the few that wishes the M line stayed alive with a few more offerings. I guess I’ll just have to settle for my R1…. Le sigh

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why would you need to replace any EF/EF-S lenses? You just need the R mount adapter and the older lenses will work fine.

GAS is another story though... once you go RF lenses then they are always tempting as they (mostly) improve on the EF/EF-S lenses in significant ways (weight, size, focal range, magnification etc).

True. For me, the other factor is the adapter is a bit of a pain if using both EF and RF lenses, assuming your shooting style involves frequent lens changes.

I started with the EOS R and just one RF lens, the 24-105/4. But the 1D X remained my primary camera until the R3 came out. From that point over the next year or so, I swapped the EF lenses for which there was an RF replacement. Going out with two RF and two EF lenses was something of a juggling exercise.

Now, I only have four EF lenses left (plus the extenders for the 600/4 II), and usually I’m taking only one of them on any given outing so the adapter just stays on the lens.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

True. For me, the other factor is the adapter is a bit of a pain if using both EF and RF lenses, assuming your shooting style involves frequent lens changes.

I started with the EOS R and just one RF lens, the 24-105/4. But the 1D X remained my primary camera until the R3 came out. From that point over the next year or so, I swapped the EF lenses for which there was an RF replacement. Going out with two RF and two EF lenses was something of a juggling exercise.

Now, I only have four EF lenses left (plus the extenders for the 600/4 II), and usually I’m taking only one of them on any given outing so the adapter just stays on the lens.

For me, I don't yet have any RF lenses. Although I'm sure this will change as 2025 progresses. foe me, it makes the EF to R adapter toil a non issue. I leave adapters permently fitted to both my R6ii bodies and i hav leared to just swap out the lens and not the adapter by training my muscle memory. However...when I get my RF 135mm and maybe a RF 100-500L, along with a R6iii, I'll probably have one body with an adapter and the other body without out. Which camera really depends on how the R6iii turns out.

Some lenses I use are EF becuase the RF variants are so expensive and they are low use lenses. My EF 85IIL and 135L are used a lot less than when i bought them new (I was doing a LOT of portraits, family shoots and weddings at the time). The 135L is so versatile it's very useful beyond the usual portraiture context. However, both are on my refresh list....but quite low.
Lenses like my EF 24-70 II L and are so good, the upgrade cost feels more like a side grade for a heck of a lot of cash and the EF lens is working so well for me, it's not a lens I can see me upgrading for some time. My EF 70-200mm f2.8 II L is a lens I hardly use these days. I love the IQ, brightness and the focal range but with my current shooting situations, I find I prefer using my current EF 100-400mm f5.6 II L, which is also on my slate for a potential upgrade.

I can well belive the adpater toil you face where most of your lens collection is RF and only a few specific lenses are EF. I guess your 600/f4 II is less of an adapter issue too becuase it's already a big lens and there are IQ benefits of the mkII over the RF version. I tend to find my excursions with my EF 400/II tend to be very specific too.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can well belive the adpater toil you face where most of your lens collection is RF and only a few specific lenses are EF.

Not a big deal now. For travel, I usually take either the TS-E 17 or -24 (depending on destination) and the adapter stays on the lens.

 

[One Focus Photos]

I just don't see how cameras can get any better at this point. The benefits are getting smaller and smaller. Only thing I see is maybe a camera that one day has 100% perfect white balance all the time but even white balance is subjective to some people lol.
-Cody M

 

[Quack]

I just don't see how cameras can get any better at this point. The benefits are getting smaller and smaller. Only thing I see is maybe a camera that one day has 100% perfect white balance all the time but even white balance is subjective to some people lol.
-Cody M

Congratulations. One of the few who understand.

 

[koenkooi]

I just don't see how cameras can get any better at this point. The benefits are getting smaller and smaller. Only thing I see is maybe a camera that one day has 100% perfect white balance all the time but even white balance is subjective to some people lol.
-Cody M

There’s still a lot of improvement to be had that isn’t related to the capturing of the image, like being able share it easily with others.

 

[neonlight]

When the R7 came out many said it should have been an R90 - more like a 90D upgrade than an R version of the 7DII.
Hoping that the R7II will have the same buttons and features of the R5, making it like the 7DII/5DIII.

 

[mikeyc38]

I think Canon are still misreading the market with the R7. There are many still using a 7D MkII who would like to go mirrorless but the present R7 does not cut it. A battery grip is required for a small camera body with large lenses fitted. If the R7 II has a battery grip and updated focussing and weatherproofing I would buy one in a heart beat. I bought EF L lenses when buying Canon DSLR so that I would not loose my investment in quality glass. The only EF-S lenses I have are the kit lens and the excellent EF-S 15-85 which is the compact equivalent of the FF 24-105 - such a useful walk-around lens.

 

[David - Sydney]

Not a big deal now. For travel, I usually take either the TS-E 17 or -24 (depending on destination) and the adapter stays on the lens.

I ended up with 2 adapters as I needed them for RP/R5 for astro with those lenses. EF8-15/4 is unlikely to be replaced for some time and I probably wouldn't buy a new version given the number of times I use it. A new Canon fast/wide is likely to be pricey so cost/usage/benefit over current lenses would be a tough call.

It has been nearly 5 years now since my R5 and the migration is basically done. The only one I don't use as often as I thought is the RF70-200/2.8 which was my first RF lens. I have ended up only using it for indoor sports a couple of times a year as it doesn't handle TCs so I got the RF100-500 for reach and never looked back.
Weirdly enough, the 70-200/2.8 seems to have some fungus on the front element and I am sending it back today to get fixed whereas my EF16-35/4 has been around sea water for most of its life and never had any issues.

 

[David - Sydney]

I just don't see how cameras can get any better at this point. The benefits are getting smaller and smaller. Only thing I see is maybe a camera that one day has 100% perfect white balance all the time but even white balance is subjective to some people lol.
-Cody M

Ultimately, the ability to maxmise your hit rate can determine the worth to upgrade.
For sports/wedding etc, Priority subject AF, pre-capture, eye controlled AF, minimising rolling shutter, faster flash sync assists this but at a cost of some DR. Sensor DR hasn't improved significantly for many years and stacked sensors have made it a little worse but it don't seem to be stopping sales.

Video features are improving all the time though.

For me, auto white balance for video is important but not for stills. You can copy WB across images in lightroom for instance eg for astro landscapes and star trails as the auto AF can changes during the multiple shots.
I have to change WB for every underwater shot as the depth and distance to subject changes the WB. The trick is to turn saturation to 100% and then move the tint/temp sliders until they switch dramatically. Bring the saturation back to normal and it should have a nice WB.
When I use strobes underwater, the subjects can have a nice white balance but the background can have an ugly green. I normally fix this by unsaturating the green channel for the background instead of white balance though.

That said, WB can be a creative tool. My daughter's favourite engagement photo has a strong orange WB which happened accidentally.

 

[Slappy_G]

Splitting the R7 into two cameras is really a stupid move. The point of the R7 is to do almost everything the R1 does, just with APS-C. There should be absolutely no reason to cripple and split the product line. This is just more stupidity, so I have faith that it is accurate.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Splitting the R7 into two cameras is really a stupid move. The point of the R7 is to do almost everything the R1 does, just with APS-C. There should be absolutely no reason to cripple and split the product line. This is just more stupidity, so I have faith that it is accurate.

It should be more like same CMOS but different built&tuning for different markets. Kind of like R8 R6ii.

 

[JESPhoto]

You are wrong, per DPReview:

• RF-S 3.9mm F3.5 STM Dual Fisheye: The APS-C lens is compatible with the Canon EOS R7 camera
• RF-S 7.8mm F4 STM Dual: The RF-S 7.8mm F4 STM Dual is compatible with the EOS R7 running firmware 1.60.

Edit: Or Canon’s VR recording guide: “RF-S3.9mm F3.5 STM DUAL FISHEYE and RF-S7.8mm F4 STM DUAL lenses can be used with the following cameras.

• EOS R7 (firmware ver. 1.6.0 or later)”

RF-S 10-18 IS compatible with R10

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf-s10-18mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm

RF-S 10-45 Compatible with R10

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf-s18-45mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm?color=Black&type=New

RF-S 18-150

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf-s18-150mm-f3-5-6-3-is-stm?color=Black&type=New

RF-S 55-210

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf-s55-210mm-f5-7-1-is-stm

I did not look up the dual fisheye lenses but all the RF-S lenses above are supported with the R10. This is from the Canon website not a DP Review article about the dual fisheye lenses.

My wife shoots the R10 and uses the RF-S 18-150 and I can assure you the IS works with it.

Hope this helps

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hope this helps

What might help is you admitting that you were wrong when you stated:

EOS R10 also supports RF-s VR lenses.

It doesn’t. End of story. Listing other lenses with which the R10 is compatible doesn’t make your incorrect assertion true.

My wife shoots the R10 and uses the RF-S 18-150 and I can assure you the IS works with it.

I think I see the problem here. VR is an abbreviation for virtual reality, not vibration reduction. Canon developed Image Stabilization first, and has always referred to it as IS. Other manufacturers had to pick other abbreviations (vibration reduction / VR, Vibration Compensation / VC, etc.) for their copycat versions.

The RF-S 3.9mm dual fisheye and RF-S 7.8mm dual lenses (neither of which actually have IS) are intended for use in producing Virtual Reality footage. Those two lenses (unlike the ones you listed) are only compatible with the R7. They are not compatible with the R10.

Confusion on your part, but clicking on any of the links that @P-visie posted or checking the product pages for the actual lenses under discussion on Canon’s website would have provided you with the correct information.

 

[JESPhoto]

What might help is you admitting that you were wrong when you stated:

It doesn’t. End of story. Listing other lenses with which the R10 is compatible doesn’t make your incorrect assertion true.


I think I see the problem here. VR is an abbreviation for virtual reality, not vibration reduction. Canon developed Image Stabilization first, and has always referred to it as IS. Other manufacturers had to pick other abbreviations (vibration reduction / VR, Vibration Compensation / VC, etc.) for their copycat versions.

The RF-S 3.9mm dual fisheye and RF-S 7.8mm dual lenses (neither of which actually have IS) are intended for use in producing Virtual Reality footage. Those two lenses (unlike the ones you listed) are only compatible with the R7. They are not compatible with the R10.

Confusion on your part, but clicking on any of the links that @P-visie posted or checking the product pages for the actual lenses under discussion on Canon’s website would have provided you with the correct information.

Ahh. Misunderstanding in acronyms. My wife and I came to Canon from other systems (her from Sony, me from Nikon) about 2 years ago. I shoot R7 she shot my R7 and Sony. Last summer, she got an R10 so she wouldn't have to borrow my camera. I don't know anyone who is shooting Virtual Reality content therefore, it wasn't top of mind. My mind went to vibration reduction as it is called in the systems we had been shooting for years (I had been a Nikon user since the late 1970's starting with an FE2 then going to F3, she has been shooting Sony since about 2019.
Honest mistake on my part.
Jeff

 

[PhotonShark]

There’s still a lot of improvement to be had that isn’t related to the capturing of the image, like being able share it easily with others.

Exactly. And this is where Canon have really dropped the ball with their included software. It's decades old and doesn't make sharing images easy at all. The modern way of sorting and searching is location based. Almost none of their cameras have built in GPS.

As you say ... lots of improvements to be made.

Also, time for a huge push towards HDR.