Canon EOS R7 Mark II: Minor Tweaks or a Major Transformation?

[West Coast Birder]

Ok... this is starting to sound more real now, hopefully. Talk about a 2025 release, although it seems like I have heard this song before.

I'm sure Canon will have to thread the needle here... make it interesting enough to get people to upgrade without cannibalizing some of their higher rated FF bodies. I'm personally agreeing with the author's belief that it will be a new 32.5 MP sensor in it. I can't see them going back down to 24 MP, and anything higher on a crop camera would be counterproductive, and also may be venturing into the 5D Mark II territory.

Cost is a concern however. If it pushes $2000, that's spendy, given that the R7 came in at under $1500 IIRC.

Kinda exciting, IMO though. If they can include some of the R5 goodies like the stacked sensor and the new DIGIC chip to get better AF, that would fix the only issues that one can argue the R7 has, namely rolling shutter and occasional AF issues.

Details (and wild speculations) here:

Canon EOS R7 Mark II: Minor Tweaks or a Major Transformation?

Canon’s EOS 7D series once held a proud spot in the bags of wildlife and action shooters — a true “baby 1D” for those who needed flagship performance wi

www.canonrumors.com

 

[Mike_d]

I think they could get R6 pricing if the camera had a top-notch APS-C sensor and matched the R6 in ergonomics, AF, buffer, etc. I also doubt they'd reduce the resolution, but 24 MP APS-C is still the same pixels/duck as a 64MP full frame. I'd take that if it were a really excellent sensor that didn't feel like I was trading quality for quantity.

 

[paddler4]

A big limitation is the lack of a variety of high-quality RF-S lenses.

 

[Mike_d]

A big limitation is the lack of a variety of high-quality RF-S lenses.

Reach-limited sports and wildlife shooters will be using big EF and RF glass.

 

[paddler4]

Reach-limited sports and wildlife shooters will be using big EF and RF glass.

There is virtually no benefit to doing so. Given the same (actual) focal length, aperture, and lens quality, EF and RF lenses will provide the same image as EF-S or RF-S lenses on a crop sensor. The reach will be absolutely identical because the reach is determined by the angle of view, which is solely a function of sensor size and focal length. The main difference is that the bigger lenses will cast a larger image circle, but the crop sensor can't see the additional area. The sole advantage is that using EF or RF lenses means that one doesn't use the edges of the lens (because the sensor can't see them), so you avoid the lower quality one typically sees in the corners. Sports and wildlife photography rarely make extensive use of the corners.

 

[Mike_d]

There is virtually no benefit to doing so. Given the same (actual) focal length, aperture, and lens quality, EF and RF lenses will provide the same image as EF-S or RF-S lenses on a crop sensor. The reach will be absolutely identical because the reach is determined by the angle of view, which is solely a function of sensor size and focal length. The main difference is that the bigger lenses will cast a larger image circle, but the crop sensor can't see the additional area. The sole advantage is that using EF or RF lenses means that one doesn't use the edges of the lens (because the sensor can't see them), so you avoid the lower quality one typically sees in the corners. Sports and wildlife photography rarely make extensive use of the corners.

The advantage of using big telephoto EF or RF glass on APS-C bodies is that they already exist. There's little point in making an RF-S 250 f/2.8 or 125-500 f/6.3-9 for such a tiny market when they can just use existing lenses. If you want smaller lenses, you need to shoot Fuji or Olympus.

 

[KD_Reno]

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice shame on Canon Rumors. I'll believe the "baby R1" specs when the camera ships. But if they actually ship one for $2500 or less I'll probably get right in line.

32MP would be great, depending on AF, rolling shutter and high ISO performance. But I would gladly take a 24 with better performance in those areas. That would still be a 12% increase in density over the R5. That's enough for me most of the time.

For form factor, just put the APS-C guts in an R5 body and call it a day. I really like using the M-Fn button to toggle through the C modes. And it definitely needs an R5 buffer.