Is the Canon EOS R7 the next camera to be announced? [CR2]

[Deleted]

Superb photos! How did you set up the R5 when you found the EVF difficult to cope with changing light? I always use full manual control for BIF or DIF so the exposure doesn't change with the background illumination as I pan. By the way, I agree with you about the daftness of Nikon using a left hand action for fitting lenses on to bodies - for just about everything else in life, from turning on radiators, turning screws, screwing on bottle caps, manual cranking a veteran car, winding up a clock, to the apex of technology, putting a lens on every other camera body, its a Right Handed twist.

Thanks.

I was in manual for those. Normally I shoot manual with auto iso but for backlit shots cameras really get confused as I am sure you know. I only had the camera for a few hours and as it was borrowed I didn’t want to fiddle too much. It was a very good experience overall, certainly better than the A9 I used a few weeks before. I just didn’t get on with the A9, technological marvel, but ergonomically lacking.

 

[entoman]

Does your EVF show 14-bit images? Mine doesn’t, despite Canon’s effort with ‘OVF simulation mode’ in my R3 (which, by the way, isn’t compatible with DoF Preview mode).

So really, neither type shows ‘what the camera sees’ since an OVF csn show more exposure latitude than the camera can capture, and an EVF shows less exposure latitude than could be present in a 14-bit RAW file. You really only see what the camera sees if you shoot in-camera JPGs.

Also, with lenses like the RF 14-35/4L, 16/2.8 and 24-240, the EVF will show an image with forced distortion correction. When I shoot at 14mm on the 14-35/4 and process the RAW file with DxO PhotoLab, the resulting image has an FoV of about 13.5mm, meaning my EVF is cropping out the edges of my final picture and making fully accurate composition impossible.

The bottom line is claiming an EVF is better because it shows you what the camera sees is false.

Personally, I didn’t like the image quality displayed in the EVF on my EOS R, especially coming from the excellent OVF of the 1D X. The image quality displayed in the EVF on the R3 is definitely better, but I still prefer that of a good OVF.

However, I like the convenience of the EVF. Being able to see a lot of relevant information overlayed, or none at the touch of a button. Being able to literally see in the dark to compose a shot that will be taken with high ISO.

So overall, I prefer the EVF of my R3 to the OVF of my 1D X.

Agree. I've been slammed here many times for suggesting that "WYSIWYG" is over-hyped. I find it to be unreliable as the human eye (and the auto EVF brightness setting) automatically adjust to the brightness of the EVF, misleading me about what the final file will look like on the Mac (which is calibrated). The contrast of an EVF is higher than the output file, and the resolution on most EVFs is coarse compared to a good OVF. In most situations I prefer the OVF on my 5DMkiv to the EVF on my R5. The exception is when working in poor light, when the boosted light level of the EVF is advantageous.

But, overall, I still prefer the R5, due to the many other advantages is has over the 5D4.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What I'd personally like to have is:
28MP
5, 10, 20 fps all with electronic shutter
5.7K EVF with instant startup and no blackout
2 CFE-B slots
Ability to share battery grip with R5/R6
Same AF tech as R5, but more intelligent AI that dispenses with need for focus cases
Body shell based on R5 or R6
Panasonic-style tilt/flippy screen
Ability to assign a button to instant exposure-bracketing

Price? - If they got it absolutely right, I'd go to £3000.

If Canon makes that exact camera, I think it will be in a reality where you can use it to shoot PIF (pigs in flight).

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Would be nice to see Canon release a 200-600 or 200-500 sorta lens for $1500, though. That would be a great middleground between the RF 600/800, 100-400, and 100-500.

Only if it is as good as the Nikon. The Sony had fast AF but I don’t want a 300mm on my 600mm just because the subject is too close for its liking.

 

[lote82]

Well, I haven’t changed my correct statements to false ones and the concept of equivalence hasn’t changed. So if you think we’re on the same page now……


Ladies and gentlemen, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming.

No. It has nothing to do with pixel density. However, you have changed the terms. I was talking about comparing a FF picture to an APS-C picture. You are talking about cropping a FF image to the area of an APS-C image. In that case, the images, FoV, DoF and noise are identical.


There’s nothing fuzzy about it, it’s basic physics. A larger sensor gathers more light. The oft-used analogy is water – put a teacup and a bucket out in the same rainfall (the light coming from the scene), leave them out for the same amount of time (shutter speed), and the bucket will collect more water than the teacup. As I said to someone else, if you argue with physics, physics will win. Every. Single. Time.

I think neuroanatomist is meaning gathered light on the whole(!) sensor.
Whereas unfocused is meaning gathered light on final(!) image.

To give an example:
If you take a photo at same distance, with same (FF)lens, one with APS-C and one with FF camera, you'll get two different images.

Because the sensor on APS-C is smaller, it is gathering less light than FF sensor. But if you crop FF image down to APS-C size (to get comparable final images!), the amount of light is also "cropped". In the end both final(!) images will have "nearly" the same amount of light.

Or am I wrong?

In real life you rather compare pictures than sensors!
At least I prefer real images than theoretical amount of light on a sensor.

 

[entoman]

If Canon makes that exact camera, I think it will be in a reality where you can use it to shoot PIF (pigs in flight).

I can dream.....

Equivalence: I agree with your reply to unfocused. The problem is that it is a subject that many find complex so they turn away from it. Many people here may be very intelligent and experts in their own fields, but unable to grasp particular subjects that are alien to them. The solution for those who do understand it fully, is to explain it courteously *and* in simple terms. Experts often fail in communication because they make a subject sound even more complicated than it is in reality.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think neuroanatomist is meaning gathered light on the whole(!) sensor.
While unfocused is meaning gathered light on final(!) image.

To give an example:
If you take a photo at same distance, with same (FF)lens, one with APS-C and one with FF camera, you'll get two different images.

Because the sensor on APS-C is smaller, it is gathering less light than FF sensor. But if you crop FF image down to APS-C size (to get comparable final images!), the amount of light is also "cropped". In the end both images will have "nearly" the same amount of light.

Or am I wrong?

In real life you rather compare pictures than sensors!
At least I prefer real images than theoretical light amount.

Exactly right.

In practice, it really depends on your use case. If you’re talking about a portrait, you’d probably match framing by moving or zooming – headshot vs. headshot not eyes-and-nose shot. The FF gathers more light.

If you’re focal length limited, you’re probably going to crop the FF image down (or crop both but crop the FF deeper). Cropped to match framing, same image and same light gathered. There’s no difference between cropping in post to the framing of a smaller sensor and just using a smaller sensor. That’s why it makes sense to call it a ‘crop factor’ and not a ‘focal length multiplier’.

I think only a small fraction of photography is really focal length limited, but that fraction is disproportionately represented on this forum. Regardless, once you understand the principles they apply across the board. Where some people get into trouble is applying a limited understanding of the principles to use cases where their limited understanding does not apply. A limited understanding can still be correct sometimes, just like a stopped analog clock shows the correct time twice a day.

 

[Czardoom]

As entertaining as it is (not) to repeat the same pedantic discussions for the millionth time on this forum, I wonder if those who are actually interested in an R7 might be willing to express their opinion. (@Michael Clark?)

If an R7 is essentially an R6 with a crop sensor and comes in at close to the price point of the R6 (give or take $100 or so) would such a body meet the needs/desires of those who want an R7? I am unfamiliar with the R6, but it seems like the main differences between the R5 and the R6 (aside from the sensors) are the dual SD slots and the mode dial. While a CFExpress slot might be preferred by some, I suspect Canon might opt for dual SD slots instead.

It strikes me that Canon will need to balance features and price point to reach a target that is affordable enough, yet feature rich enough, to attract sufficient buyers to make it profitable. I suspect that a mirrorless 90D (R90?) would not be attractive to those who want a crop sensor R. So I wonder if a crop sensor R6 with a sensor resolution in the 90D range, would tick enough boxes.

I would be interested in an R7 - and would probably sell my R6 - if, and when it becomes available, as long as it has similar AF and tracking capabilities, and hopefully comes in at a few hundred dollars less. I don't need 20 FPs, 10-12 is plenty, I don't want CFExpress, but do want two SD slots. I do want 24 MP, and the main reason I would prefer the R7 is for the greater "reach". I bought the new RF 100-400 lens and it will serve my needs much better on a crop camera with more pixels and greater pixel density for the somewhat limited wildlife photography that I do - that has become more and more of what I shoot compared to even a couple years ago. The R6's 20 MP is more than good enough for landscapes, but as I am an extreme amatuer when it comes to wildlife and BIF, I am a great distance from my subjects most of the time as I am not in a bind, nor dressed up in camaflouge laying on my belly. My other main photographic subject is flowers and a crop camera gives me much better results as I usually need more (not less) DOF at the desired distances I usually shoot from the flowers.

 

[Lee Jay]

I doubt it's that high based on extinction resolutions published by Imaging Resource when they used to do that level of testing. But I do agree it has to be >2. In my own estimations I tend to use 2.2, though I admit I grabbed that value from the domain of audio sampling. I have not performed, nor seen, any tests that would firmly establish if it should be 2.2 or 3 or 2.5...

Whatever the exact numbers are, there's something to this because in the real world the diffraction limit is observably not a hard and fast limit. Higher pixel pitch cameras continue to resolve more detail a couple stops beyond their supposed limit. I'm sure target contrast, and how steeply it falls off towards the airy disk edge, comes into play as well because if there's enough contrast the detail can still be resolved.

For sure there's room to argue about the numbers. 1.22 for Rayleigh or 1.0 for extinction? 500nm light or 550nm light? 2, 2.5 or 3 pixels per cycle (not 2!)? And it depends on the demosaicing algorithm, the AA filter, and even the microlenses. The "diffraction limit" is definitely a squishy place!

 

[Lee Jay]

You seem to be saying that if you change the sensor from FF to APS-C but not the lens, zoom setting, or distance to subject then you get A resulting image with a narrower FOV (corresponding to a focal length 1.6x longer) AND a narrower aperture A little more than a stop you state, the math would put it at 1.3 stops). The former is true, the latter is not fact, it’s completely false.

The *aperture* doesn't change, but the equivalent f-stop does change. If you change the equivalent focal length, the equivalent f-stop changes by simple math - f-stop = focal length/aperture. Therefore equivalent f-stop = equivalent focal length/aperture. Equivalence is just relating how the system performs compared to a different system and a 100/2 on crop performs just like a 160/3.2 would on full-frame - same field of view, same light captured, same depth of field, same effects of diffraction, same everything. Yes, "exposure" will be different so the EXIF data will be different (increase ISO by 1.6^2) but the images will be the same.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The "diffraction limit" is definitely a squishy place!

But you're absolutely sure that for a 32 MP APS-C sensor, the DLA is not f/5.2. Ok, fine.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The *aperture* doesn't change, but the equivalent f-stop does change. If you change the equivalent focal length, the equivalent f-stop changes by simple math - f-stop = focal length/aperture. Therefore equivalent f-stop = equivalent focal length/aperture. Equivalence is just relating how the system performs compared to a different system and a 100/2 on crop performs just like a 160/3.2 would on full-frame - same field of view, same light captured, same depth of field, same effects of diffraction, same everything. Yes, "exposure" will be different so the EXIF data will be different (increase ISO by 1.6^2) but the images will be the same.

Yes, water was wet a few posts ago, and not surprisingly, water is still wet. Thanks for posting.

By the way, if you read the post to which I was referring, the only change was the sensor. The systems were not equivalent. Cropping —whether via post-processing or via a smaller sensor— changes neither focal length nor aperture. It does change field of view (makes it narrower), and it does change depth of field (makes it shallower, which is the opposite direction from what 'equivalent f-stop' would suggest). You probably know this, but it seems the poster to whom I was replying doesn't.

 

[unfocused]

Equivalence: I agree with your reply to unfocused. The problem is that it is a subject that many find complex so they turn away from it. Many people here may be very intelligent and experts in their own fields, but unable to grasp particular subjects that are alien to them. The solution for those who do understand it fully, is to explain it courteously *and* in simple terms. Experts often fail in communication because they make a subject sound even more complicated than it is in reality.

Perhaps you don't mean it this way, but this response is insulting and condescending. It is not that my poor little pea brain is unable to understand the concepts. It is that I understand it and simply disagree with the way some use equivalence interchangeably to describe both exposure equivalence and apparent depth of field. I have seen the endless confusion and downright baloney that gets posted on here when people use equivalence to refer to depth of field so I decline to use it in that way.

 

[Lee Jay]

But you're absolutely sure that for a 32 MP APS-C sensor, the DLA is not f/5.2. Ok, fine.

It's closer to 15 than 5, and the squishiness is in the +/- 25% range, not a factor of 3.

 

[Lee Jay]

Perhaps you don't mean it this way, but this response is insulting and condescending. It is not that my poor little pea brain is unable to understand the concepts. It is that I understand it and simply disagree with the way some use equivalence interchangeably to describe both exposure equivalence and apparent depth of field. I have seen the endless confusion and downright baloney that gets posted on here when people use equivalence to refer to depth of field so I decline to use it in that way.

Why?

The DOF of a shot on a full-frame camera at 160mm/16 will be the same as the DOF of a shot on a crop camera at 100mm/10.

 

[unfocused]

For context, I'm a prospective buyer of an R7, as a second body to my R5 (third body if you include my 5DMkiv). I photograph wildlife including BIF, insects, landscapes and nature in general. I only rarely shoot sports. I don't shoot video.

What I'd personally like to have is:
28MP
5, 10, 20 fps all with electronic shutter
5.7K EVF with instant startup and no blackout
2 CFE-B slots
Ability to share battery grip with R5/R6
Same AF tech as R5, but more intelligent AI that dispenses with need for focus cases
Body shell based on R5 or R6
Panasonic-style tilt/flippy screen
Ability to assign a button to instant exposure-bracketing

Price? - If they got it absolutely right, I'd go to £3000.

Of course no one gets exactly what they want. So I'd be interested in knowing if a more likely specification list would still entice you or not.

I am guessing that Canon is not going to reinvent the wheel, but instead base an R7 on existing specifications in other cameras. That's why I asked about a crop sensor R6 with a sensor resolution similar to the 90D and priced in the neighborhood of the R6 give or take a few hundred dollars.

From your list I think dual CFExpress slots and redesigning the flip screen are definitely non-starters. I doubt that the autofocus will see any improvement over the R6/R5 although it is possible that they will add next generation refinements, as Canon has frequently done that with subsequent camera bodies. I would expect that the EVF would be closer to the R6 than the R5.

 

[Lee Jay]

Yes, water was wet a few posts ago, and not surprisingly, water is still wet. Thanks for posting.

By the way, if you read the post to which I was referring, the only change was the sensor. The systems were not equivalent. Cropping —whether via post-processing or via a smaller sensor— changes neither focal length nor aperture. It does change field of view (makes it narrower), and it does change depth of field (makes it shallower, which is the opposite direction from what 'equivalent f-stop' would suggest). You probably know this, but it seems the poster to whom I was replying doesn't.

Cropping doesn't change focal length or aperture, it changes equivalent focal length and equivalent f-stop. Since DOF goes with focal length *squared* (for shallow DOF) and only f-stop *not squared* (linear), that's why you think this double change is in "the opposite direction from what 'equivalent f-stop' would suggest". It's not opposite, it's just that the change in equivalent focal length more than compensates for the change in equivalent f-stop.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's closer to 15 than 5, and the squishiness is in the +/- 25% range, not a factor of 3.

Why is it that this diffraction calculator shows a 32 MP 1.6x APS-C camera being diffraction limited at f/8 but not at f5.6 (with only full stop increments available), and this other diffraction calculator with 1/3-stop increments shows a 32 MP 1.6x APS-C camera being diffraction limited at f/6.3 but not at f5.6?

Based on those, it's much closer to 5 than to 15.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Somewhere buried deep in this thread is a person chiming in hoping the purported R7 will be housed in an R6 body. As someone who came into the 5 series bodies from a 7D, which was a natural progression and ergonomic fit, I would agree that this would make sense for many of us and make a great 2 body approach to handling and settings.

If I only had a nickel for every time I heard someone say they shot with both a 5D 2 and a 7D.

My R7 hopes and dreams would be:

24-32 MP backlit sensor
2 SD card slots
R6 dials and button layout
faster fps than R6
same sealing
same or improved AF, improved with trickle down from R3 for servo cases

$200-300 more than R6 in USD...am I delusional?

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's not opposite, it's just that the change in equivalent focal length more than compensates for the change in equivalent f-stop.

The point is that CoC varies directly with sensor size, so a smaller sensor will have a shallower DoF, all else been equal (not equivalent, equal). With a smaller sensor, when you use a wider focal length or increase subject distance to match framing, that results in a deeper DoF (i.e., the 'equivalent f-stop' is narrower).