Great video! You always compared the AF to the R5, is it safe to assume the R6 is the same as R5? Id be more interested in an R6 to R7 comp personally.
@@TonyAndChelsea NO, R7 is not similar, it's better than the R6 and R5, it's more similar to the R3 / it has another layer of tracking ability and stickier than the R5 or R6 Also, recapture that non of the Sony body has even the A1; i have them all.
I called them after the video posted...no stock but they took my info. Honestly never expected to hear from them...guess who called today?! YES! Should be getting my kit in time for the weekend! Woohoo!
7D mark II users who are complaining, please stick to the 7D mark II so those who care about performance and are waiting for delivery of the r7 can get theirs in time.
At first I was slightly disappointed with the robustness of R7. But there had been 0 occasions where my 7D mark2 robustness was put into tests. So it's not a big deal
Same sensor dynamic range as M6ii (and better than 7Dii). Ibis is not a reason for me to sell my m6ii and pay thousands of dollars for much bulkier lenses. I wait for M7.
@@barkan86 I don't believe that's going to happen. I'm shooting on an m6ii for wildlife, and while I think it's decent for that, it really wasn't made for it. The r7 is going to be much better which is why I'm upgrading. If you're waiting for another M camera, you'll be waiting for an eternity since I don't believe they will be making any new M series cameras. Plus an "M7" would be worse. An "M5ii" would be the one to look for.
If (as you noted) you had a better lens mounted on the RP, why not put that same lens on the R7 and compare its portrait results with the RP? It's hardly fair to test a camera with a cheapo kit lens against one with a mid-range lens. When you matched them with F/1.2 L lenses, the only real difference was the increased DOF of a crop sensor, which is to be expected.
I agree with you John, both bodies have the SAME lens mount.....(maybe Tony was thinking M and RF and not RF and RF ) these folks sometimes makes me want to double scratch my head. I put my R7 on the 800 f11... Whao!! and on my 400mm F2.8 WHOA!!!! R7 with R3 focus engine...amazing. awesome for 1,400 bucks.
@@smaakjeks and yet they also put it on the 100-500, because people buying the R7 for wildlife want good images. The R7 is only $500 more than the RP, so not a huge leap. They were supposed to be comparing the sensors, but it was really a lens comparison. No kit lens is going to compare with an L lens or even the midrange zooms. T&C should have made it clearer that they were comparing apples to oranges, and why.
100% agree on the misname - the body, ergonomics etc to me say it should be the R70, leaving room for a similarly spec’d, beefier body, R5/6 button layout, a true R7! Still tempted to get one as my stationary backup wedding video camera as it goes beyond 30min without an external recorder!
So, if the body was beefier, but otherwise it had the same specs, it would be a "true" R7? Personally I think the smaller, lighter body is a huge plus. Why carry more weight than you have to? Especially if you are using this camera outdoors for wildlife, which is what a lot of photographers want it for. Vertical grip? Again, just added weight. Buy an R5 or R6 for all around photography. Or an R3 if you really need "beefy". For hiking over hill over dale, up the dusty trail, for shooting small birds, this camera is perfect.
Thank you for sharing. I upgraded from Canon EOS M6 (APSC), to Canon EOS RP with good quality Canon lenses, following some reviews you made in the past and I am so happy with this step.
While I can't say I agree with all your findings, I was impressed that you compared the R7 with the RP when most people seem intent on pointing out that the R7 is not an R5. In my case, as a current RP user, the R7 will be an additional body to do best what the RP does worst and still cost the same as one R6 (or a small piece of an R3).
30fps with rolling shutter negates the value of 30fps. What use is a high frame rate if moving subjects are distorted. 15fps is still good, but 30fps seems useless here. Thanks for the review.
So many cameras are like this, it's just a bullet point to put on advertising. No one will actually use it because if you need 30fps, you're shooting something that will warp.
I found that while the RP produced lower noise at high ISO it still was not good enough to necessarily make it a preferable camera for high ISO as the ISO was still poor in my opinion.
@@Quoutub isnt the 30fps only 12bit ? vs the 14bit of the 15fps raw. The 30fps rolling shutter of the R7 looks quite bad indeed. My R5 20fps rolling shutter is not nearly as bad, but, it still means about half of my bif shots need to be discarded due to funky bent wing tips.
By the way, regarding an object at a fixed distance, the rolling shutter effect becomes smaller, the smaller the focal length is. So if you want to take a photo of a fast object and want to shoot in raw, but with 50% less rolling shutter, you just need to use a focal length that is 50% smaller and then crop the image. The disadvantage is that the object will have more noise and fewer pixels. An alternative is using the 4k crop 60 fps video mode, which will have less rolling shutter as well, but won't give you raw files.
i wouldnt say the rp is significantly better in low light, based on the samples you provided both are about equal and aren't impressive. so better go for r7 and apply noise reduction.
I completely agree with your statement that the R7 is mis-named. I have been shooting wildlife professionally for 40 years, and I purchased the 7DII as my pro-level APS-C unit. I used high-end crop-sensor bodies for the benefits offered by the more concentrated Field of Capture and the pixel-density offered by the the APS-C sensor. I also wanted a fast buffer, serious weather protection and a battery grip to balance heavy super telephoto lenses in the field. Currently I still use the 7DII, along with R5 and R6 units. Canon have been fairly consistent in naming their new R-series MILCs in parallel with the DSLR range. So: the R3 is a high-end sports camera (like the 3D), the R-5 is a great FF general-purpose pro camera like the 5D, and the R6 is a great lower-MP enthusiast and prosumer unit like the 6D series. Logically then, one would expect a camera with the name R7 to match the same market as the 7D series. It doesn't: and Canon have specifically said in a video from Canon Australia that this camera is a replacement for the 90D. So, why was this not called (as you suggest) a 70D, for example? The differences are significant. The R7 is not fully weather-sealed, no battery grip, and has a limited buffer that suffers quickly with overload. This has implications when one wants to shoot fast sequences in RAW. Considering other brands are offering BSI, stacked sensors (my RX-10, which is 4 years old has that), Canon needs to look at that for a camera designed to catch fast-moving subjects. The challenge is that it would put more stress on an already strained buffer. To speed up writing to file, if they had a significantly larger buffer and chose to use the CF-Express type A card slots that are backwardly-compatible with SD cards, this would have eliminated the issue. While this might initially appear nit-picky, my concern is that it opens the question as to whether there will be no real equivalent to the 7D series. LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR that I think that at the PRICE POINT, the R7 offers INCREDIBLE VALUE for money in the areas you mention and AS A SUCCESSOR TO THE 90D; but if falls short in several areas as a successor to the 7D series that is designed for a different market space. I would be happy to pay the extra for a camera with all the features I mentioned, and now am left wondering if that is going to eventuate, with the logical slot in the line-up used by this 90D successor.
@@evabeen4012 This is a more complex question than might appear obvious. There is a series of questions I would ask myself: 1. What is the budget? Usually that is fixed and impacts all other considerations. 2. What kinds of wildlife? Usually that is seen as long-distance works but not always. However, the conditions - bright daylight vs dim bush or forest, even night work have big significance. At that point the light efficiency of the sensor and dynamic range are critical. Also the range of optics available has a huge impact. 3. MOST critical: WHAT WILL YOU PRODUCE? This is rarely asked, but really in the end it's about what you output that counts. There is a huge difference between producing large, detailed Art prints, compared to shooting for digital displays or the web. 4. Ergonomics: You need to consider the controls. I know folks who bought on specs alone and then hated the control and menu systems. 5. What are you prepared to carry? The best camera is useless if you leave it at home because it's too heavy or bulky. To give you a couple of extreme examples. a) Someone has a budget under $2k, is a general photographer who is also casual wildlife shooter, in generally good light and produces images for digital display and the web. Weight and bulk are an issue for them. I would suggest they consider the Sony Rx-10 IV @
@@trevor9934 thanks for your advice! I like to photograph horses, birds and dogs. the photos will be put online and maybe printed out. i have a canon 750d but i would like to take better and faster pictures. my budget for a body is a maximum of 3000euro
@@evabeen4012 What lenses do you have at present? The body is only a part of the story. Arguably, the lens has a greater impact on image quality than the camera.
A lot of people have been waiting for someone with a big following to do a real world R7 video. Thank you. My thoughts on my R7 so far: I find the autofocus to be better than my R6. The auto tracking is cool, the customizable zones, the fact that the Canon f11 lenses have a wider focus area than with the R6 due to the crop, the additional reach of course. My Canon EF 70-200 2.8 L IS appears to be out resolved by the pixel density so I’m thinking others will be also. The mechanical shutter is clanky. I haven’t hit the buffer yet but I mainly shoot in successive bursts of 3 or 4 with bird photography. You can also run the camera in CRaw to extend the buffer. Also, you can use the electronic shutter at 15 FPS instead of 30. Compared to my 7D2, 15 FPS is more than enough for my style anyway. The R6 is a beast at high iso and there is no comparison but almost a week into the R7 I’m enjoying the R6/R7 combo.
Once Canon release some strong APS-C primes for the RF mount, the R7 will be incredibly difficult for me to deny. This camera has just about everything I'd need in a secondary body already. My dream is a fast aperture prime in the 24, 50, and 135 equivalent ranges and I'll be set along with a high quality zoom (a 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 would be ideal.) Plus I wouldn't mind adapting any kind of FF glass to it in a pinch. Hopefully between now and then the price will settle and it will be easy to find a new or like new body for a bit below MSRP.
@@okaro6595 That's EF-M, which would be adapted lens. It's not a bad lens but it is not RF mount. There's rumors of a 33mm f1 RF mount APS-C lens, which sounds great. Hopefully it's a killer lens to kick off their prime APS-size RF lenses. Ultimately the drawbacks of crop sensor cameras do not bother me if the camera's actual performance is great, I just take issue with (quality) wide angle options being available, even just the 18mm to 28mm FF equivalent range is often enough for anything I do.
The rp is seriously underrated. I bought it refurbished for $900 and it can no camera at $900 can touch it. And what shocked me was how much sharper the images were versus the 6d2 even with the exact same lens and same conditions. I thought it would be a mirrorless versus of the 6d2 but I was wrong.
Yeah, I got the RP and 24-240 kit lens for under $1500 2 years ago. A heck of a bargain! I'm now running an R6 with 24-105 f/4 lens and am thrilled, but at well over double the price...
@@paparazzininja7897 unfortunately, no. no matter how you take the picture, the rp will take a sharper picture than the 6d2. even on tripod. live view. view finder. it doesn't matter. I used the exact same lens and same conditions and took photos of solid simple objects like soda cans, mugs, wall decorations, etc. I took more complex patterns such as couches, flowers. I used single point one shot and ai servo. Even when you set the rp to eye af and the 6d2 to single point, the eye af will win even on a stationary object like a mannequin. I don't know how they do it. maybe it's just built-in sharpening? i don't know but it's easy to notice. the only advantages the 6d2 has over the rp is frames per second and battery life. but because you won't get the same sharpness, that takes away from the frames per second and it has a lower hit rate. I take more shots but less are usable. I still have my 6d2 but more as a memento (and a camera I can lend to people without worry about what happens to it).
It's very tough to judge a camera by it's "kit lens"... I notice when you mounted the RF 50 1.2 it produced stunning results. Kit lenses are meant to get you hungry for better lenses, not a long term solution.
I think the problem is that there is not too much really good glass for the Canon mirrorless APS-C size... so, this might be why the kit lens was included in the review...
Generally, I agree. But the 18-150 was well reviewed for the M mount, where it was seen as superior to the "regular" 18-45 mm kit lens and able to resolve well enough for the 32 MP sensor on the M6 II. My experience with both the M6 II and now the R7 has been positive, too. It's a great "walk around" lens
Chelsea, the R7 body only sells for $1499. The camera in kit with the RF-S 18-150mm lens costs $1899. Unless my math is off, that's not an add'l $500 for the kit. However, if bought separately the lens alone is selling for $499. Tony, I agree with you. Canon "mis-named" the R7, giving the impression it's a continuation of the 7D series, which it is not. It is more a mirrorless 90D. To the other commenter here, not to worry. I am keeping my two 7DII for a while longer and not ordering a pair of R7s to replace them. There are several aspects of the R7 that really appeal to me, but also a couple things that make it unusable for my particular purposes. I shoot a lot of sports, prefer an APS-C camera that allows me to use more compact, lighter weight telephoto lenses and had been hoping the R7 would be that camera. I reeeeasally want the R7's AF. The mechanical shutter frame rate is great, as are the dual memory card slots and the EVF. However, I also wanted the option to fit a grip and am baffled why Canon didn't simply design the R7 to use the same BG-R10 used by the R6 and R5. The size and footprint of the R7 is different, but so close this should have been a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. I want a grip both for the second battery (which is the same LP-E6NH used in R6 and R5) and for the vertical controls. I also prefer a removable grip for travel, hiking, biking, etc. I've corresponded with someone about their first use of R7 and am now less concerned about shots per charge and need for the 2nd battery. Originally I was worried because Canon rated the R7 to get a little less than 700 shots out of a fresh battery (not all that great since it doesn't have a built in flash). But the person I chatted with online said he took 3000 shots in four or five hours of shooting (gotta use those high frame rates!) while his daughter took nearly 4000 with a 2nd R7. That's darned good if true and makes me less worried about not having a 2nd battery. But I still want the grip for the vertical control and because it would help the camera balance better with moderately large lenses. Tony and Chelsea, you confirmed another concern: rolling shutter problems when using the electronic shutter, which is the only way to get faster than 15 fps continuous shooting. You clearly illustrated the problems we could expect. I suspected I'd only be able to use the mechanical shutter, but you proved it. Of course the R7 still offers a very respectable 15 fps with that mechaical shutter, up from the 10 fps I have now with my DSLRs. I thought the "pre-shot" feature sounded interesting, but now hearing it requires the e-shutter, I can forget about it too. I also am not happy about the bottlenecking in the buffer or the unique.control layout Canon used with the R7. While I know I could get accustomed to the controls, I often use several cameras alongside each other when shooting sports and it's important their controls be very similar, to be able to switch between cameras quickly and seamlessly. I know from experience that when one camera is different, in rapid sports shooting situations it almost guarantees delays and mistakes. I don't know why Canon felt the need to change the.R7's control layout so much... But they did. I also sort of wish Canon had used a bit of restraint and put a 24MP sensor in the R7, instead of the 32.5MP. In my opinion 24MP would have been plenty for sports and many things (seems sufficient for the $6000 R3) and a nice increase from the 7DII's 20MP. It also might have helped alleviate the buffer bottleneck a bit, and maybe even reduce rolling shutter issues by allowing faster data readout (though a more advanced sensor design would be be needed to truly eliminate most rolling shutter effects). Honestly, the R7 is one heck of a lot of camera for the money, Canon is going to sell a ton of them and a lot of people are going to love ising it! But, for me it comes up short in a few too many ways, even though because of some of its other features (the AF system!) I really, really, really wish I could put a pair of R7s to work!
R7: 1. Just shoot in CRAW and 15 FPS electronic shutter and there will be no buffer issue, 2. If third party could create a :simple battery grip" for the RP, they can also do it for the R7. Shutter button in the "simple battery grip" connects with a short cable with a 3 1/2 jack into the remote shutter port of the camera. Better than no battery grip.
@@set3777 I would say the 3rd party grips are only marginally "better than no grip at all". I use grips on all my cameras as much for the vertical controls as for the add'l battery. The 3rd party grips lack most of the controls... No back button focusing, no AF point/pattern selection. And that external cable for the shutter release wouldn't survive long, I predict! A battery grip also can help a camera balance better with large lens. In the case of the R7, the camera is so close in size to the R6 and R5, you'd think it would have been easy to make the R7 compatible with the BG-R10 they use.
@@alanm.4298 There is no electrical interface insider the battery chamber for the EOS RP not sure about EOS R7. A third part battery grip for the RP with 2 batteries provides vertical handling and a shutter button using a little cable. Half-pressed shutter should do the focusing or touch on touch screen if on tripod. "Half a loaf is better than no bread." The R7 is a Camera for hobbyist. That is why there is SCN modes, automatic panorama, automatic multiple exposure HDR, automatic multi exposure HIGH ISO noise reduction, highlight tone priority , automatic in camera focus stacking etc etc. Many so called Pros, who are deceived to only shoot RAW and always assume ISO is based on film grain size, will quarrel with the R7. Few hobbyist will want a $500 Canon OEM battery grip anyway, so why should Canon design and stock one only for China pirate copy to flood the market. Hobbyists will use CRAW or JPEC instead of complaining about buffer size while shooting RAW and use autoISO (with a max.) instead of complaining of no dial to change ISO manually and use multiple exposures with JPEG instead of complaining about dynamic range and Automatic focus stacking in-camera with the RF 85mm f2.0 macro lens that has very fine focusing gears instead of complaining that that macro lens has slower auto focus when shooting portrait (a L portrait lens focusing gears may be too coarse for macro focus stacking). So it is horses for courses. If "Pros" stop hoarding the R7, the R7 will shine in hobbyists hands and most hobbyists will not use any redundant post processing.
It’s probably the best aps-c camera on the market, but could have been much better. The shutter roll problem has been a problem with this camera, and now shown right here in the video. When the R5 first came out, it also exhibited some shutter roll (wasn’t as bad as the stuff shown on the R7). And now, Canon fixed the R5 and it’s better than the more expensive Nikon Z9. Although Nikon claims it’s new firmware 2.1 will address those problems and bring it up to par with the R5. That means the Nortrups must retest the Z9 with the firmware update against the R5. I bet the lighter, more efficient R5 will still be the winner.
@@p3rrypm nah. the fuji autofocus is crap, it misses much which makes its 40fps useless. and basically both would be about the same usable images or canon even more usable images. plus the canon would do better in video autofocus as well.
@@ytr8989 I just wish canon made new wildlife lenses. Nikon has the 500pf and now the 400 4.5, also the 300pf. Canon has either the big whites or a 30 year old 400 5.6/300 4. It makes no sense. Its time to make something for normal people
If it's more advanced than the 7D then it's a worthy successor. With the pre-capture feature, focus bracketing, 15-30 frames per second and 32 megapixels it's better than the 7Dm2 and even the D500 in every way that matters to me and I have shot with both of those. You mentioned the grip and the lack of screen on top being reasons it's not an update from the 7D. I don't need the screen on top and I'm sure the grip will be fine. Thanks for the review!
I feel like this is the successor to the 7D line. Because its the first it the line perhaps it should be compared to the 7D rather than the 7D2! Lets wait to see what the R7Mrk2 brings.
That's the first R7 review that I can trust! Thanks Chelsea and Tony! Are you considering to make a comparison of the R6 with a 1,4 teleconverter with the R7? I'm really curious to se this
Thanks! This isn’t the first of your videos I’ve watched and learned from, but it’s the first I’ve seen a “thanks” button on. High time! Looking forward to more of your comprehensive and useful videos.
I sold my R5 to get a second R7. Works amazingly well with my "slow" F11 lenses ;) I've never produced so many clean, sharp images in my 20 years of digital photography. Couldn't be happier :)
@@collinsal1433 yes, and while I explain, keep in mind, I consider myself to be a bit of a megapixel freak 🙂 Especially when I did mostly landscapes, I used to do 3 x 3 and even 4 x 4 stitches to make huge 200+ mp images. But anyway, for small birds, here's the thing, "IF" I were always able to get close enough, and didn't have to crop, for sure the R5 would do better. But when you put the 45mp R5 into crop mode, it only makes 17mp, compared to my 32 mp, R7 which is by default "always" in crop mode 🙂 For a full frame camera to make 32 mp in crop mode, that camera would have to be more than 80 MP's !
As always a great review. The Canon RP sensor is old and does not show the full capabilities. Also you tested the RP with a better lens. The conclusion is that for the same price APS-C give you better video, IBIS and speed. The R7 is showing some rolling shutter. It is time Canon upgrade the RP with a new sensor and processor.
I think the RP is dead. M series will be gone too. They will basically be converting the old DSLR numbers into Mirrorless R numbers, the rest will be gone
@@momo_the_great6969 Well... maybe not. It looks like while they may not do any more M-series development at the moment at least; according to a briefing from Canon, as reported on the 'thephoblographer' website, they were told that the M-series sells very well to a market that values small, compact cameras and interchangeable lenses for convenience, and travel. They obviously see no reason to kill a viable economic market segment - and there is some logic in that. The market is a complex one, reflecting that people take photos for many different reasons and with different budgets and constraints; and with cell phones killing off point and shoot cameras with fixed lenses (in the main), for those who want to bridge the gap between that market and the more expensive and bulkier R-series MILC, an M-series camera makes sense. I contribute to the Canon North America user forum, that takes questions from Canon users with issues or wanting advice. From those submissions a lot of people are still buying and using the M-series gear.
@@momo_the_great6969 the RP is still a good little camera especially for the cost. The better comparison would be between the R7 and the R. The RP is more useful to me at this point given the cost. The R would seriously need to come down in price considering all the competition it has at that price point currently.
We got ours this week (my son is the primary user) and it’s awesome. His R6 is going away and I am half tempted as well (I use an R5). At least for him the autofocus system seems faster and he has to switch to spot autofocus less often.
What kind of card and raw mode were you using for the buffer tests? You should be getting 150-180 shots before it buffers using CRAW at 15fps with the mechanical on a 300MB/s card. People on forums are confirming these speeds. Otherwise around 50-60 with standard RAW. This is for wildlife, people aren't going to skimp on any of this.
I now own a R7, thanks to you (Tony and Chelsea). Previously was in the works to purchase a professional Canon, until wife surprised me with a Rebel t6i. Took us on a cruise instead.😊
Now that the R8 is out I think all your recommendations for the RP should now be the R8 instead. Is there anything I am missing here? Of coure the R7 and R8 are nearly identical in price so it makes the choice easier if that is your budget.
Great review. I agree, the R7 must be appreciated for what it is, a great wildlife and sports camera for all of us who can't afford the R3 or the R5... As a bonus it's a great all around travel/family camera. I just wish Canon could give us more APS-C lens. I think the R7 will prove to be a commercial succes for Canon and it will likely boost the sales of wildlife lens like the very good 100-500mm... a win for Canon.
Not only could I "afford an R5" but I had one for 14 months. Then I got the R7 and started killing it ! I shot with my R7 exclusively for 5 weeks, and LOVED it ! Then I tried to go back to the R5, and it was loud, bulky, heavy, and just didn't give me the reach I need for the small birds I usually shoot. Nor did it give me the keeper rate. So I sold my R5 to get another R7 + the 100-400 + some other cool peripherals.
In short - the R7 is better for shooting action photos and shooting video. RP is better for shooting things that do not run and has the advantage to use the full potential of the great new RF lenses.
Just got the r7. Owned only 5d mark II and eos rp so far. Have to say im just really impressed on how well the sensor is dealing with the high ISO. with the eos RP even as a FF sensor most of the time i was afraid to go even above 1600 ISO which resulted in a lot of noise in low light... But this one for the price is just amazing. Initially i bought the r7 for the autofocus and FPS performance. I have a feeling now for my budget this is a jackpot of a camera. And i decided to go for it after watching your reviews as always so thank you for the work that you both put to inform people as well
Good specs, but disappointing image quality. I would have preferred to have seen a comparison between the R5 in crop mode and this. The Eos RP isn't going to interest any sports and wildlife photographers so I don't get the point of this comparaison.
A lot of good information about the 2 cameras. I use Nikon personally, but it's always nice to get a different perspective. Nice to see Milford Photo mentioned. They have a lot of good online and in person classes, too.
Very nice review. Thank you. Camera manufacturers spend huge resources to bring out products that are as good as they can make them, and it annoys me to see whiney self-appointed You-tubers nit-picking. Your review covered the limitations of the camera is a respectful way, and were happy to stress the strengths. A delight to watch.
The R7 is the highest pixel to sensor area mirrorless body Canon currently offers and for astrophotography, being able to shoot at high frame rates like 15 with the electronic 1st curtain shutter is great because without a sky tracker, you have to stack the images of the moving moon for example and you can get up there really close with a 600mm lens or something and shoot like 80-100 images if you're using the 15 fps first curtain shutter and using craw instead of raw as it becomes much easier for the limited buffer to handle. And around like 5-6 seconds is enough for the moon to remain fully inside the frame, covering a lot of it the entire time. This is less expensive than top end DSLR bodies and it outperforms even more expensive DSLR's in raw burst shooting capabilities. At this price point there's no other camera which offers the same reach + frame rate. Even only that is enough of a reason for a professional to pick up this body. And as far as it seems it's also great in many other areas such as wildlife photography etc.
I totally understand, I also have the 5Dmk4 and have recently purchased an R6. The R6 has some great features but at the end of the day I still find myself grabbing the 5Dmk4, I just love that camera 👍😎
I caught a lot of flack at the final announcement over saying I was disappointed. But it was 100% because it was not the 7D replacement based on the build and sealing. Like Tony said, this is the mid-tier where the 90D left off, not where the 7D left off. I, like many others, was expecting the mirrorless 7D. But then, I was also expecting a much higher price point, like, 2000 or more (very early in the rumors I even said as much as 2500). I am not disappointed by what it is, only by what it is not and was at the very least hoping for. I agree it is one hell of a camera for its price point, and that this was probably the right move at this time for Canon rather than a more expensive, likely bulkier, 7D replacement. Which, I do think will happen eventually too. But not until after the R1 now. So probably at least 2 years. I would say, I didn't notice you pointing out the lack of a battery grip, as well as all the features that it would need to have in order to eventually have one (if you did, I just don't recall lol). I felt that right there was the big ball drop by Canon. How in the F did they do that to this model? And its not even a "maybe eventually" thing, it doesn't have any of the features needed for a proper grip (no alignment holes, no release lever on the battery door, no electrical contacts on the inside for the pins). Even the camera series it is an obvious replacement for can take a grip. Just feels like a very odd omission.
I wonder how it compares with the Nikon D500 which is the Nikon equivalent to the 7D. The R7 has faster shutter burst but could have a better buffer time perhaps?
@@nordic5490 Different folks have different situations. I shoot with battery grips on all of my DSLRs, and my R5 and R6 units: not only for the extended battery capacity, but for the improved CoG that brings it back towards the body when using large, heavy super tele lenses. Also, I like the extra set of controls that comes with the grips for shooting in portrait mode. Different strokes for different folks...
@@trevor9934 I'd never see more weight as an advantage. And I always hold the lens so cog isn't something I personally think about. I'd never want to just hold the camera with a big lens attached. I think they are an acquired taste and adding to the price for this camera wouldn't be a good move. But yeah different strokes is true
I think a side by side comparison with the 7D Mark II would make a great video. A lot a people have forgotten that it is about taking photos. Strange evaluation of the cameras with different lenses. The nifty 50 would still be in peoples budget.
I have an RP. It's a very good camera for the money. It also doesn't handhold you. But if you got the skill, it will give you pictures you just can't get on a crop sensor.
I think the most desirable RP kit is pairing it with RF 24-105 F4 L. The only way R7 can match that in a good way would be an RF-S 15-65 F2.8... but I don't think it will be happening anytime soon.
My take away from this video is that Chelsea has a nice swing🏏. The R7 does look like a good camera for the price, at the end of the day I'm still a full frame fan👍😎
Long time viewer…. Most photographers would use the rf lens and not the rfs lens. Please review the r7 with rf lens, specifically your the 14-35, 28-70, 70-200, 100-500. Thanks.
i bought the R7 ,(i have R6) i think the auto focus and the speed are realy great and i doo bird most of the time ,when you have the bird close enough it is fine but when the birds are far away and you have to crop the picture it is bad it gets very noise, the R 6 does it better there
I think that it is important to understand that the image comparisons between the RP and R7 in this video are set up to simulate using the same zoom lens to frame for different sensor sizes or using the same f-ratio for different (equivalent) focal lengths, while aiming for shallowest DOF with the same angle of view. These comparisons will not apply if the photography *needs* a specific stopped-down subject-DOF or is focal-length-limited with the same optics. In those two types of photography, the R7 should walk all over the RP for both noise and detail.
The R7 with the RF 100-400mm lens seems like a great "budget" wildlife combo considering it's just over $2000. That's cheaper than any telephoto Nikon Z lens, which is the main reason I want to buy both later this year instead of just putting more money into expensive Nikon lenses on my entry level Z50 body
I was almost set to buy the Canon m6ii, until this camera came around R7. Definitely a lot to like. In a sense it is an upgrade to m6ii and the Canon 90D. The only question is what is more important to someone buying: fast speed 15fps mechanical great for wildlife and sports and 4K full screen in R7, or the somewhat better image quality of the full frame RP in low light and less noise but 4K is limited, HD is fine though, but fps is slower for action in RP.
Well, if you got an R6, you'd have both. I had the RP and really liked it, but it was very slow. The R6 felt like a beast in comparison. I went an R7 to back it up for wildlife and astro shots.
I agree. Gotta say, I like the fullframe performance. I crop a lot so that detail is going to help. Going from apsc to fullframe brings along some lens issues though. Grown to like the crop factor.
I personally use the RP. When I found out Canon came out with a similarly priced mirrorless camera with way better autofocus and 4k 60 video I thought about switching. But I really like the full frame’s advantages.
@@Supertaldo916 once go through proper post processing, it does not matter. The benefits of brighter f stops reducing ISO is more preferable than higher noise but sharper image. It matters even less in video.
One thing that was not mentioned is the difference in batteries: LPe17 (RP) vs LP-e6nh. I own an RP and love it despite its limitations EXCEPT for those damned batteries. They die quickly (and have a curious habit of running out in the middle of my shoots), cost as much if not more than the ubiquitous LP-e6 and are rarely in stock. If I didn’t already own an RP, between the two I would probably pick the R7 on account of the battery alone.
@@jonathandelreal7808 Yeah - I typically shoot much more than that for events. What’s more problematic is the battery drain when recording video or shooting RAW+JPG via viewfinder. I’m finding I get around 600-700 photos or just under an hour of solely video recording. I turn my power off between video takes or during breaks in the action.
Have recently got mine in the UK but it is without doubt the best wildlife camera I have used and have used both the 90D and 7DMKii for very long periods and it out performs them both. The frame rate is excellent in mechanical shutter but the downside is it is a bit noisy but found found if I used the silent shutter mode and the 15 frames per second burst mode it solves that. Found at the higher frame rate in electronic shutter there is some rolling shutter on flight shots but it still produces enough keeper shots to make me very happy and many I would not have got before. There is some noise in some images taken at over 1600 iso but I expected that from a crop sensor camera but with the noise reduction software out there it is no major issue. The auto focus systems are even better imho than in the R5 which I used for a short time and have found it lightning fast paired with RF lenses. Canon should take a bow and the camera was worth the wait....now if only they would make a new lightweight image stabilized RF 400 or 500mm 5.6 at a affordable price the camera would become a giant slayer
Very interesting review, I think if someone understands the limitations you have pointed out this is definitely a good option at the price. For me, 15 frames mechanical seems like it would be my go to, leaving me to never worry about rolling shutter in any situation which was pretty bad. 15 FPS should be pretty good for almost any hobbyist I would say. Interestingly, I recently started doing bird photography with the M6 Mk II for the sensor size and crop factor, that also having a fast FPS and though I got some good shots, I was never blown away by the image quality, for that particular genre, my RP quality was much better, though of course at the sacrifice of FPS. Thanks for the comprehensive review :)
15 fps should be fast enough for just about any pro. The R5 and R6 are only 12fps. The only holdup might be buffering, but it wasn't that long ago that $5,000.00 pro action cameras were shooting 10 fps. As for weatherproofing, I always protect my cameras from the weather, whether I'm shooting a Rebel or a 1d series. Camera covers are cheap, and it's not like this camera has no weatherproofing at all.
Can you review this high megapixel sensor with Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and Sigma 50-100 f1.8. Coz I believe both the lenses were made to resolve enough detail. As R7 is a mirrorless camera so I don't think there should be any auto focus issues just like these lenses have with DSLR's.
7D MKII was a beast. You’d have to spend a lot more to get it’s capabilities. Picture quality for Bird photography was top notch. Took the R5 at a much higher price to retire mine. If sports and wildlife is your thing I don’t think the R7 will be a solid replacement.
The image quality comparison highlighted 2 things: 1. The RP has a dud sensor that pretty much negates any benefit of full frame (other than being able to say "yes, it's full frame"), and that's even without comparing the under 500 iso dynamic range. It takes intense pixel peeping at never-used isos to see any benefit at all over the APS-C sensor. 2. Canon has no interest in providing lenses to get the best out of their APS-C sensors. Unlike Fuji they _do_ have a full frame range to sell us if we want that little bit better. They abandoned optimising EF-S a decade or so ago. They gave us just a couple of sharpish primes and nothing fully featured for EF-M and they're never going to allow R-S(?) to be a fully realised system. Hard pass.
I now own the Canon R7 with the Canon 100-400mm II and mostly use it for wildlife love the camera so far eye tracking is great keeps up with the eye of whatever animal im shooting the auto focus is very fast as it is the focusing system from the R3 i also own the 7D Mark II and the 5D Mark III the quality of my R7 is better than both of the other cameras all though it does not handle the ISO like my 5D III will with the R7 and my 100-400mm II lens i get very sharp and clear wildlife pictures for the price of the the R7 i can't complain what so ever love it.
The spec suggest this camera is a repackaged M6 Mk2, perhaps with a better EVF and an fully articulated screen. The M6 Mk2 is presently selling for $850. I have been using the M6 Mk2 as a backup or when I need a smaller camera to keep people from shying away.
Thank you for this guys. I was looking at upgrading to a R8 but started hearing about the R7 and I think that will be best for sports especially with the IBS.
I found the RF14-35 and RF16 to be wide enough to shoot Horseshoe Bend, which is one of the wider landscapes shots one would need to take on an any camera. The shot would have been easier on my R5, no doubt. But the point is that, paired with the two lenses I mentioned, the R7 is wide enough for just about anything.
Reading out the R7’s high-res sensor seems to be a challenge for e-shutter mode and sports and wildlife. Hoping someone compares the R7 with the OM-1 for those use cases
I think the om1 beats the r7 in every way. 25/50 fps already means that you're gonna get more keepers and it seems like the autofocus is about as good.
@@ryzgms nope. Sorry to break it to you om1 lovers, but, no. The R7 af tracking birds in flight is better than the z9, and waaay better than the om1. I have been out birding with om1 users. The r5 (me) and r3 users all have plenty of bif, swallows inflight & dragonflys in flight, shots to share. The several experienced om1 users, none.
Interesting that you found the autofocus not as good as the R5, others have found the opposite. I have found the R7 to be a great camera, especially for the money, it punches way above it's weight. The images aren't as good as say my 1Dxiii, but that is full frame - the extra megapixels don't appear to matter. Noise is acceptable at least up to ISO 4000, but obviously the lower the better. I use it in mechanical shutter as I find this provides better images and 30 fps is just too many unless you are photographing something like a Kingfisher diving and then the rolling shutter may distort the image. I find 15 fps is more than enough, the only reason to use the electronic shutter would be to shoot silently for more static subjects. If you are contemplating this lens then I can recommend it, always use it with the best glass you can and it works great with my EF lens's.
The r7 is good, dont get me wrong, but it is far from "Best Sports & Wildlife mirrorless camera". The best sports&Wildlife camera would be something like the Z9, A1, R3 or 1dxmkiii with each having their unique pros and cons. The Z9 has 120fps 11mpx jpg for example
I came to check this video after the review of the a6700, and just cannot believe the R7 has such a bad burst mode buffer. I currently have a sony a6500 that shoots 11fps RAW and I can do 11 seconds non stop! which is specially useful for animals and the international space station transit on the moon... I just can't believe a 7yo camera performs better than this.
First of all, love your videos, and I hope if you read this you can take it as constructive criticism/feedback. I've been able to test an R7, and I have to say I'm not a fan. I know it's at a very competitive price point, and on paper has some great specs. But to me the most important thing is whether the camera is enjoyable to use, and to me the R7 just isn't. I've never liked the ergonomics of Canon cameras and the R7 feels like a step in the wrong direction. Besides the standard Canon front command dial on top instead of on the front below the shutter, which has always felt awkward to me (though I know that's a personal preference), the new position of the rear command dial around the thumbstick feels super clumsy. It's where I would want to naturally rest my thumb when not pressing any buttons, and it's really easy to accidentally change your exposure when reaching for the thumbstick. The position of the manual/auto focus switch is also really odd, on the grip side of the lens mount, and there are no front custom buttons. It also seems strange that you'll talk about the benefits of APS-C for wildlife, travel and macro, with the extra reach from the crop factor, more efficient sensor stabilisation and smaller form, but don't seem to be willing to extend the same courtesy to Micro Four-Thirds cameras (unless I've missed a video). To be honest, this seems to be the one time your reviews feel somewhat biased. Yes, the depth of field on M4/3 is deeper at any given aperture, but unless you're shooting portraits I find this to be largely not an issue, and for wildlife and macro I find this to be actively useful. Depth of field at f5.6 at 500mm (wildlife) or at 1:1 (macro) on a full-frame camera is razor-thin, and often (at least for me) it doesn't put enough of the subject in focus. And for wildlife, the Olympus or Panasonic 100-400mm gives a huge 200-800mm full-frame equivalent and is very portable (compared to a 150-600mm, 100-500mm or 200-500mm). Depth of field is also rarely an issue with landscape where most of the image is usually in focus by design. The M4/3 cameras are generally 20MP which means you can't crop as much, but with a lighter overall kit and longer equivalent focal length I find cropping isn't necessary as frequently. And, for low-light performance, a 20MP M4/3 camera actually has less pixel density (~89k pixels/mm^2) than the 32.5MP R7 (~98k pixels/mm^2). I haven't had a chance to test it but given this I would expect the latest M4/3 cameras to at least match the low-light performance of an R7. They are also the most progressive with implementing computational photography in-camera, which Tony talks a lot about - Olympus were the first to implement the pre-shot buffer. OM PRO gear now also has IP ratings, rather than just "weather-sealed" to an unspecified degree, which is perfect for outdoors shooters. I'd really love to see you guys do a comparison of real-world results between MFT, APS-C (maybe one Nikon/Sony and one Canon due to the different crop factors) and full-frame. I think the results would be interesting. For wildlife for example, an R7 with an RF 100-400mm would be cheaper than an OM-1 with an Olympus 100-400mm, but with less reach. An R7 with an RF 100-500 would be more comparable, but cost significantly more, and an R5 with either lens has less effective reach AND costs more, which I would say mitigates the benefit of the extra resolution.
Great video, you guys are awesome. I just ordered an R7 last night and I get it on Fri. Can't wait to use it! I had an 80D but it got ruined with a little water accident and I had to go back to using my super T6 that shoots at an amazing 3 fps, ha!
While I appreciate say nice things about cheaper cameras when possible but did you notice that you can buy both the RP and the R7 for the price of an R6 (or an R7 and an R6 for the price of an R5 if you consider the extra cost of the CF-Express card). I don't know about you, but I have lost too many shots changing lenses when something came up unexpected so I like that option. Did you compare the two using the 24-240 on each. I have both the R7 and the RP and use each for what it is better for. To me IBIS and using the larger battery is worth the price difference but for tripod landscapes the RP does win.
@Tony & Chelsea Northrup - about the Buffer! it's important to mention that in (lossless) cRAW you can shoot much longer, 5+secs and 250+ photos! BIG difference. I tested it with the fastest Sony Tough Cards
I have given up switching to R series because the RF lens are either way too expensive for me or seems inferior to the EF lens I already have. The adapter ring seems to issue with reduced AF performance so it is not really a good choice. It is a shame as I felt the R7 was right for me. It is the right price and have good enough speed.
How about a video about low pass filters? Tell us what they are and what they do, and why camera manufacturers install them. If you have already done a video on this topic, please give us the reference to it. Thanks for all you do.
I have an R6 and an RP. I shoot occasional weddings, but I'm considering replacing the RP with the R7 just to have the utility of a sports/wildlife capability of the R7.
Firstly brilliant review. What I was very disappointed with was the noise level on some of your pictures which I assume is because of the sensor size. I have a 6D mk2 just now and was thinking of selling for the R7 but after your review I'm having 2nd thoughts - so thank you for saving me a bundle !
I don't know, pixel peeping always leaves a sour taste in the mouth, even for excellent sensors. If you have the 6D MK2, that's your sensor in the RP. I don't know, I thought the pictures of the heron from the R7 was stunning...
That is very clearly the 90D sensor with a new AF system mounted to it. The shadow recovery noise is pretty rough, but that AF will be great for people looking to get into the system but can't afford the R5 or R3.
For a serious amateur doing all around family photography (wild life, grandchildren sports, street, etc) would you recommend the R-7, Fugi XS-20, or OM 5 (or1)?
It's very expensive for a small sensor camera, there are plenty of really good full frame cameras for the same price or less. It doesn't really make any sense unless you are using it for action or maybe for wildlife where you need the additional reach of the small sensor. Otherwise most people buying a small sensor camera are doing it to save money. The frame rate of the electronic shutter sounds enticing but frequently won't work for fast action because of the distortion. If your subject has to hold still so you don't have rolling shutter then you don't need to shoot that fast. If you need silent shooting that's a different story.
This is my first review (now that I sort of know what I'm doing) that isn't a dream for me as I'm going to eventually buy a R7, along with either RP or a R6. This was really nice to watch. I have a question for you. You mention there are only 2 lenses made to go with the R7. How did other RF lenses perform on it? You didn't mention it during the portraits but it seemed great.
Get all your photography gear from milfordphoto.com/tonyandchelsea & support small business!
Great video!
You always compared the AF to the R5, is it safe to assume the R6 is the same as R5? Id be more interested in an R6 to R7 comp personally.
@@alankirby3839 Yeah the R6's AF is about the same as the R5. They're really similar to the R7. It's all really good.
@@TonyAndChelsea NO, R7 is not similar, it's better than the R6 and R5, it's more similar to the R3 / it has another layer of tracking ability and stickier than the R5 or R6 Also, recapture that non of the Sony body has even the A1; i have them all.
@@TonyAndChelsea great! thanks.
I called them after the video posted...no stock but they took my info. Honestly never expected to hear from them...guess who called today?! YES! Should be getting my kit in time for the weekend! Woohoo!
7D mark II users who are complaining, please stick to the 7D mark II so those who care about performance and are waiting for delivery of the r7 can get theirs in time.
At first I was slightly disappointed with the robustness of R7. But there had been 0 occasions where my 7D mark2 robustness was put into tests. So it's not a big deal
Yes 🤣 I'm shooting with a Canon rebel t5 so this would be a huge upgrade
@@hubcityrez6058 T6 shooter here... I feel you Dude!
Same sensor dynamic range as M6ii (and better than 7Dii). Ibis is not a reason for me to sell my m6ii and pay thousands of dollars for much bulkier lenses. I wait for M7.
@@barkan86 I don't believe that's going to happen. I'm shooting on an m6ii for wildlife, and while I think it's decent for that, it really wasn't made for it. The r7 is going to be much better which is why I'm upgrading. If you're waiting for another M camera, you'll be waiting for an eternity since I don't believe they will be making any new M series cameras. Plus an "M7" would be worse. An "M5ii" would be the one to look for.
If (as you noted) you had a better lens mounted on the RP, why not put that same lens on the R7 and compare its portrait results with the RP? It's hardly fair to test a camera with a cheapo kit lens against one with a mid-range lens. When you matched them with F/1.2 L lenses, the only real difference was the increased DOF of a crop sensor, which is to be expected.
I agree with you John, both bodies have the SAME lens mount.....(maybe Tony was thinking M and RF and not RF and RF ) these folks sometimes makes me want to double scratch my head. I put my R7 on the 800 f11... Whao!! and on my 400mm F2.8 WHOA!!!! R7 with R3 focus engine...amazing. awesome for 1,400 bucks.
They compared similarly priced set-ups, because people usually have a budget.
@@smaakjeks and yet they also put it on the 100-500, because people buying the R7 for wildlife want good images. The R7 is only $500 more than the RP, so not a huge leap. They were supposed to be comparing the sensors, but it was really a lens comparison.
No kit lens is going to compare with an L lens or even the midrange zooms. T&C should have made it clearer that they were comparing apples to oranges, and why.
@@JohnDrummondPhoto You're entitled to your opinion.
It's doesn't matter , she is switching soon :)
one of the best r7 videos so far. very unbiased, well done Tony and Chelsea.
100% agree on the misname - the body, ergonomics etc to me say it should be the R70, leaving room for a similarly spec’d, beefier body, R5/6 button layout, a true R7!
Still tempted to get one as my stationary backup wedding video camera as it goes beyond 30min without an external recorder!
So, if the body was beefier, but otherwise it had the same specs, it would be a "true" R7? Personally I think the smaller, lighter body is a huge plus. Why carry more weight than you have to? Especially if you are using this camera outdoors for wildlife, which is what a lot of photographers want it for. Vertical grip? Again, just added weight. Buy an R5 or R6 for all around photography. Or an R3 if you really need "beefy". For hiking over hill over dale, up the dusty trail, for shooting small birds, this camera is perfect.
Thank you for sharing. I upgraded from Canon EOS M6 (APSC), to Canon EOS RP with good quality Canon lenses, following some reviews you made in the past and I am so happy with this step.
While I can't say I agree with all your findings, I was impressed that you compared the R7 with the RP when most people seem intent on pointing out that the R7 is not an R5. In my case, as a current RP user, the R7 will be an additional body to do best what the RP does worst and still cost the same as one R6 (or a small piece of an R3).
That's a great take. I agree with your reasoning.
30fps with rolling shutter negates the value of 30fps. What use is a high frame rate if moving subjects are distorted. 15fps is still good, but 30fps seems useless here. Thanks for the review.
So many cameras are like this, it's just a bullet point to put on advertising. No one will actually use it because if you need 30fps, you're shooting something that will warp.
I found that while the RP produced lower noise at high ISO it still was not good enough to necessarily make it a preferable camera for high ISO as the ISO was still poor in my opinion.
Not useless at all. It should be very good for computational photography and not extremely fast objects.
@@Quoutub isnt the 30fps only 12bit ? vs the 14bit of the 15fps raw. The 30fps rolling shutter of the R7 looks quite bad indeed.
My R5 20fps rolling shutter is not nearly as bad, but, it still means about half of my bif shots need to be discarded due to funky bent wing tips.
By the way, regarding an object at a fixed distance, the rolling shutter effect becomes smaller, the smaller the focal length is. So if you want to take a photo of a fast object and want to shoot in raw, but with 50% less rolling shutter, you just need to use a focal length that is 50% smaller and then crop the image. The disadvantage is that the object will have more noise and fewer pixels.
An alternative is using the 4k crop 60 fps video mode, which will have less rolling shutter as well, but won't give you raw files.
i wouldnt say the rp is significantly better in low light, based on the samples you provided both are about equal and aren't impressive. so better go for r7 and apply noise reduction.
Awesome! Happy shooting! :)
I completely agree with your statement that the R7 is mis-named. I have been shooting wildlife professionally for 40 years, and I purchased the 7DII as my pro-level APS-C unit. I used high-end crop-sensor bodies for the benefits offered by the more concentrated Field of Capture and the pixel-density offered by the the APS-C sensor. I also wanted a fast buffer, serious weather protection and a battery grip to balance heavy super telephoto lenses in the field. Currently I still use the 7DII, along with R5 and R6 units.
Canon have been fairly consistent in naming their new R-series MILCs in parallel with the DSLR range. So: the R3 is a high-end sports camera (like the 3D), the R-5 is a great FF general-purpose pro camera like the 5D, and the R6 is a great lower-MP enthusiast and prosumer unit like the 6D series. Logically then, one would expect a camera with the name R7 to match the same market as the 7D series. It doesn't: and Canon have specifically said in a video from Canon Australia that this camera is a replacement for the 90D. So, why was this not called (as you suggest) a 70D, for example?
The differences are significant. The R7 is not fully weather-sealed, no battery grip, and has a limited buffer that suffers quickly with overload. This has implications when one wants to shoot fast sequences in RAW. Considering other brands are offering BSI, stacked sensors (my RX-10, which is 4 years old has that), Canon needs to look at that for a camera designed to catch fast-moving subjects. The challenge is that it would put more stress on an already strained buffer. To speed up writing to file, if they had a significantly larger buffer and chose to use the CF-Express type A card slots that are backwardly-compatible with SD cards, this would have eliminated the issue.
While this might initially appear nit-picky, my concern is that it opens the question as to whether there will be no real equivalent to the 7D series.
LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR that I think that at the PRICE POINT, the R7 offers INCREDIBLE VALUE for money in the areas you mention and AS A SUCCESSOR TO THE 90D; but if falls short in several areas as a successor to the 7D series that is designed for a different market space. I would be happy to pay the extra for a camera with all the features I mentioned, and now am left wondering if that is going to eventuate, with the logical slot in the line-up used by this 90D successor.
Which camera do you think is the best for wildlife photos?
@@evabeen4012 This is a more complex question than might appear obvious. There is a series of questions I would ask myself:
1. What is the budget? Usually that is fixed and impacts all other considerations.
2. What kinds of wildlife? Usually that is seen as long-distance works but not always. However, the conditions - bright daylight vs dim bush or forest, even night work have big significance. At that point the light efficiency of the sensor and dynamic range are critical. Also the range of optics available has a huge impact.
3. MOST critical: WHAT WILL YOU PRODUCE? This is rarely asked, but really in the end it's about what you output that counts. There is a huge difference between producing large, detailed Art prints, compared to shooting for digital displays or the web.
4. Ergonomics: You need to consider the controls. I know folks who bought on specs alone and then hated the control and menu systems.
5. What are you prepared to carry? The best camera is useless if you leave it at home because it's too heavy or bulky.
To give you a couple of extreme examples.
a) Someone has a budget under $2k, is a general photographer who is also casual wildlife shooter, in generally good light and produces images for digital display and the web. Weight and bulk are an issue for them. I would suggest they consider the Sony Rx-10 IV @
@@trevor9934 thanks for your advice! I like to photograph horses, birds and dogs. the photos will be put online and maybe printed out. i have a canon 750d but i would like to take better and faster pictures. my budget for a body is a maximum of 3000euro
@@evabeen4012 What lenses do you have at present? The body is only a part of the story. Arguably, the lens has a greater impact on image quality than the camera.
Also, where in Europe are you?
A lot of people have been waiting for someone with a big following to do a real world R7 video. Thank you. My thoughts on my R7 so far:
I find the autofocus to be better than my R6. The auto tracking is cool, the customizable zones, the fact that the Canon f11 lenses have a wider focus area than with the R6 due to the crop, the additional reach of course. My Canon EF 70-200 2.8 L IS appears to be out resolved by the pixel density so I’m thinking others will be also. The mechanical shutter is clanky. I haven’t hit the buffer yet but I mainly shoot in successive bursts of 3 or 4 with bird photography. You can also run the camera in CRaw to extend the buffer. Also, you can use the electronic shutter at 15 FPS instead of 30. Compared to my 7D2, 15 FPS is more than enough for my style anyway. The R6 is a beast at high iso and there is no comparison but almost a week into the R7 I’m enjoying the R6/R7 combo.
very important is that in (lossless) cRAW you can shoot much longer, 5+secs and 250+ photos! BIG difference
Once Canon release some strong APS-C primes for the RF mount, the R7 will be incredibly difficult for me to deny. This camera has just about everything I'd need in a secondary body already. My dream is a fast aperture prime in the 24, 50, and 135 equivalent ranges and I'll be set along with a high quality zoom (a 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 would be ideal.) Plus I wouldn't mind adapting any kind of FF glass to it in a pinch. Hopefully between now and then the price will settle and it will be easy to find a new or like new body for a bit below MSRP.
I got interested initially, but there seems to be s bunch of caveats. 4k 60 limitations is a dealbreaker for me.
There is already RF 85 mm f/2 and Canon will release the 32 mm f/1.4 for RF-S.
@@okaro6595 32 f1.4 sounds juicy ngl
@@okaro6595 That's EF-M, which would be adapted lens. It's not a bad lens but it is not RF mount. There's rumors of a 33mm f1 RF mount APS-C lens, which sounds great. Hopefully it's a killer lens to kick off their prime APS-size RF lenses.
Ultimately the drawbacks of crop sensor cameras do not bother me if the camera's actual performance is great, I just take issue with (quality) wide angle options being available, even just the 18mm to 28mm FF equivalent range is often enough for anything I do.
Sigma will do it if there is enough demand.
The rp is seriously underrated. I bought it refurbished for $900 and it can no camera at $900 can touch it. And what shocked me was how much sharper the images were versus the 6d2 even with the exact same lens and same conditions. I thought it would be a mirrorless versus of the 6d2 but I was wrong.
Yeah the RP is an amazing camera. I recommend it constantly and we still use it for video in our podcast and news formats.
Yeah, I got the RP and 24-240 kit lens for under $1500 2 years ago. A heck of a bargain! I'm now running an R6 with 24-105 f/4 lens and am thrilled, but at well over double the price...
What if you use Live view with 6D II? Should be just the same then.
@@paparazzininja7897 unfortunately, no. no matter how you take the picture, the rp will take a sharper picture than the 6d2. even on tripod. live view. view finder. it doesn't matter. I used the exact same lens and same conditions and took photos of solid simple objects like soda cans, mugs, wall decorations, etc. I took more complex patterns such as couches, flowers. I used single point one shot and ai servo. Even when you set the rp to eye af and the 6d2 to single point, the eye af will win even on a stationary object like a mannequin. I don't know how they do it. maybe it's just built-in sharpening? i don't know but it's easy to notice. the only advantages the 6d2 has over the rp is frames per second and battery life. but because you won't get the same sharpness, that takes away from the frames per second and it has a lower hit rate. I take more shots but less are usable. I still have my 6d2 but more as a memento (and a camera I can lend to people without worry about what happens to it).
It's very tough to judge a camera by it's "kit lens"... I notice when you mounted the RF 50 1.2 it produced stunning results. Kit lenses are meant to get you hungry for better lenses, not a long term solution.
I think the problem is that there is not too much really good glass for the Canon mirrorless APS-C size... so, this might be why the kit lens was included in the review...
Generally, I agree. But the 18-150 was well reviewed for the M mount, where it was seen as superior to the "regular" 18-45 mm kit lens and able to resolve well enough for the 32 MP sensor on the M6 II. My experience with both the M6 II and now the R7 has been positive, too. It's a great "walk around" lens
Chelsea, the R7 body only sells for $1499. The camera in kit with the RF-S 18-150mm lens costs $1899. Unless my math is off, that's not an add'l $500 for the kit. However, if bought separately the lens alone is selling for $499.
Tony, I agree with you. Canon "mis-named" the R7, giving the impression it's a continuation of the 7D series, which it is not. It is more a mirrorless 90D.
To the other commenter here, not to worry. I am keeping my two 7DII for a while longer and not ordering a pair of R7s to replace them. There are several aspects of the R7 that really appeal to me, but also a couple things that make it unusable for my particular purposes. I shoot a lot of sports, prefer an APS-C camera that allows me to use more compact, lighter weight telephoto lenses and had been hoping the R7 would be that camera.
I reeeeasally want the R7's AF. The mechanical shutter frame rate is great, as are the dual memory card slots and the EVF.
However, I also wanted the option to fit a grip and am baffled why Canon didn't simply design the R7 to use the same BG-R10 used by the R6 and R5. The size and footprint of the R7 is different, but so close this should have been a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. I want a grip both for the second battery (which is the same LP-E6NH used in R6 and R5) and for the vertical controls. I also prefer a removable grip for travel, hiking, biking, etc.
I've corresponded with someone about their first use of R7 and am now less concerned about shots per charge and need for the 2nd battery. Originally I was worried because Canon rated the R7 to get a little less than 700 shots out of a fresh battery (not all that great since it doesn't have a built in flash). But the person I chatted with online said he took 3000 shots in four or five hours of shooting (gotta use those high frame rates!) while his daughter took nearly 4000 with a 2nd R7. That's darned good if true and makes me less worried about not having a 2nd battery. But I still want the grip for the vertical control and because it would help the camera balance better with moderately large lenses.
Tony and Chelsea, you confirmed another concern: rolling shutter problems when using the electronic shutter, which is the only way to get faster than 15 fps continuous shooting. You clearly illustrated the problems we could expect. I suspected I'd only be able to use the mechanical shutter, but you proved it. Of course the R7 still offers a very respectable 15 fps with that mechaical shutter, up from the 10 fps I have now with my DSLRs.
I thought the "pre-shot" feature sounded interesting, but now hearing it requires the e-shutter, I can forget about it too.
I also am not happy about the bottlenecking in the buffer or the unique.control layout Canon used with the R7. While I know I could get accustomed to the controls, I often use several cameras alongside each other when shooting sports and it's important their controls be very similar, to be able to switch between cameras quickly and seamlessly. I know from experience that when one camera is different, in rapid sports shooting situations it almost guarantees delays and mistakes. I don't know why Canon felt the need to change the.R7's control layout so much... But they did.
I also sort of wish Canon had used a bit of restraint and put a 24MP sensor in the R7, instead of the 32.5MP. In my opinion 24MP would have been plenty for sports and many things (seems sufficient for the $6000 R3) and a nice increase from the 7DII's 20MP. It also might have helped alleviate the buffer bottleneck a bit, and maybe even reduce rolling shutter issues by allowing faster data readout (though a more advanced sensor design would be be needed to truly eliminate most rolling shutter effects).
Honestly, the R7 is one heck of a lot of camera for the money, Canon is going to sell a ton of them and a lot of people are going to love ising it! But, for me it comes up short in a few too many ways, even though because of some of its other features (the AF system!) I really, really, really wish I could put a pair of R7s to work!
R7:
1. Just shoot in CRAW and 15 FPS electronic shutter and there will be no buffer issue,
2. If third party could create a :simple battery grip" for the RP, they can also do it for the R7.
Shutter button in the "simple battery grip" connects with a short cable with a 3 1/2 jack into the remote shutter port of the camera.
Better than no battery grip.
@@set3777 I would say the 3rd party grips are only marginally "better than no grip at all". I use grips on all my cameras as much for the vertical controls as for the add'l battery. The 3rd party grips lack most of the controls... No back button focusing, no AF point/pattern selection. And that external cable for the shutter release wouldn't survive long, I predict! A battery grip also can help a camera balance better with large lens.
In the case of the R7, the camera is so close in size to the R6 and R5, you'd think it would have been easy to make the R7 compatible with the BG-R10 they use.
@@alanm.4298 There is no electrical interface insider the battery chamber for the EOS RP not sure about EOS R7. A third part battery grip for the RP with 2 batteries provides vertical handling and a shutter button using a little cable. Half-pressed shutter should do the focusing or touch on touch screen if on tripod.
"Half a loaf is better than no bread."
The R7 is a Camera for hobbyist. That is why there is SCN modes, automatic panorama, automatic multiple exposure HDR, automatic multi exposure HIGH ISO noise reduction, highlight tone priority , automatic in camera focus stacking etc etc.
Many so called Pros, who are deceived to only shoot RAW and always assume ISO is based on film grain size, will quarrel with the R7. Few hobbyist will want a $500 Canon OEM battery grip anyway, so why should Canon design and stock one only for China pirate copy to flood the market. Hobbyists will use CRAW or JPEC instead of complaining about buffer size while shooting RAW and use autoISO (with a max.) instead of complaining of no dial to change ISO manually and use multiple exposures with JPEG instead of complaining about dynamic range and Automatic focus stacking in-camera with the RF 85mm f2.0 macro lens that has very fine focusing gears instead of complaining that that macro lens has slower auto focus when shooting portrait (a L portrait lens focusing gears may be too coarse for macro focus stacking).
So it is horses for courses.
If "Pros" stop hoarding the R7, the R7 will shine in hobbyists hands and most hobbyists will not use any redundant post processing.
you mean best apsc sports & wildlife mirrorless camera!, Yes.
It’s probably the best aps-c camera on the market, but could have been much better. The shutter roll problem has been a problem with this camera, and now shown right here in the video. When the R5 first came out, it also exhibited some shutter roll (wasn’t as bad as the stuff shown on the R7). And now, Canon fixed the R5 and it’s better than the more expensive Nikon Z9. Although Nikon claims it’s new firmware 2.1 will address those problems and bring it up to par with the R5. That means the Nortrups must retest the Z9 with the firmware update against the R5. I bet the lighter, more efficient R5 will still be the winner.
@@p3rrypm nah. the fuji autofocus is crap, it misses much which makes its 40fps useless. and basically both would be about the same usable images or canon even more usable images. plus the canon would do better in video autofocus as well.
@@ytr8989 I just wish canon made new wildlife lenses. Nikon has the 500pf and now the 400 4.5, also the 300pf. Canon has either the big whites or a 30 year old 400 5.6/300 4. It makes no sense. Its time to make something for normal people
If it's more advanced than the 7D then it's a worthy successor. With the pre-capture feature, focus bracketing, 15-30 frames per second and 32 megapixels it's better than the 7Dm2 and even the D500 in every way that matters to me and I have shot with both of those. You mentioned the grip and the lack of screen on top being reasons it's not an update from the 7D. I don't need the screen on top and I'm sure the grip will be fine. Thanks for the review!
I feel like this is the successor to the 7D line. Because its the first it the line perhaps it should be compared to the 7D rather than the 7D2! Lets wait to see what the R7Mrk2 brings.
That's the first R7 review that I can trust! Thanks Chelsea and Tony! Are you considering to make a comparison of the R6 with a 1,4 teleconverter with the R7? I'm really curious to se this
Buying a camera from a private shop, where you can go in and touch it and test it out is so much better than buying it online from a mega corporation.
Thanks! This isn’t the first of your videos I’ve watched and learned from, but it’s the first I’ve seen a “thanks” button on. High time! Looking forward to more of your comprehensive and useful videos.
I sold my R5 to get a second R7. Works amazingly well with my "slow" F11 lenses ;) I've never produced so many clean, sharp images in my 20 years of digital photography. Couldn't be happier :)
Even though the R5 is 45 megapixels, you’re saying that the R7 produced better quality images for you?
@@collinsal1433 yes, and while I explain, keep in mind, I consider myself to be a bit of a megapixel freak 🙂 Especially when I did mostly landscapes, I used to do 3 x 3 and even 4 x 4 stitches to make huge 200+ mp images.
But anyway, for small birds, here's the thing, "IF" I were always able to get close enough, and didn't have to crop, for sure the R5 would do better. But when you put the 45mp R5 into crop mode, it only makes 17mp, compared to my 32 mp, R7 which is by default "always" in crop mode 🙂 For a full frame camera to make 32 mp in crop mode, that camera would have to be more than 80 MP's !
As always a great review. The Canon RP sensor is old and does not show the full capabilities. Also you tested the RP with a better lens. The conclusion is that for the same price APS-C give you better video, IBIS and speed. The R7 is showing some rolling shutter. It is time Canon upgrade the RP with a new sensor and processor.
I think the RP is dead. M series will be gone too. They will basically be converting the old DSLR numbers into Mirrorless R numbers, the rest will be gone
@@momo_the_great6969 Well... maybe not. It looks like while they may not do any more M-series development at the moment at least; according to a briefing from Canon, as reported on the 'thephoblographer' website, they were told that the M-series sells very well to a market that values small, compact cameras and interchangeable lenses for convenience, and travel. They obviously see no reason to kill a viable economic market segment - and there is some logic in that.
The market is a complex one, reflecting that people take photos for many different reasons and with different budgets and constraints; and with cell phones killing off point and shoot cameras with fixed lenses (in the main), for those who want to bridge the gap between that market and the more expensive and bulkier R-series MILC, an M-series camera makes sense. I contribute to the Canon North America user forum, that takes questions from Canon users with issues or wanting advice. From those submissions a lot of people are still buying and using the M-series gear.
@@momo_the_great6969 the RP is still a good little camera especially for the cost. The better comparison would be between the R7 and the R. The RP is more useful to me at this point given the cost. The R would seriously need to come down in price considering all the competition it has at that price point currently.
I live on a different continent, but you have my respect for working with local a camera store. They have become a rare sight.
LOVE you guys, TYSM for your balanced and unbiased assessments of new releases that matter, subscribed, liked and commented!
We got ours this week (my son is the primary user) and it’s awesome. His R6 is going away and I am half tempted as well (I use an R5). At least for him the autofocus system seems faster and he has to switch to spot autofocus less often.
What kind of card and raw mode were you using for the buffer tests? You should be getting 150-180 shots before it buffers using CRAW at 15fps with the mechanical on a 300MB/s card. People on forums are confirming these speeds. Otherwise around 50-60 with standard RAW. This is for wildlife, people aren't going to skimp on any of this.
I now own a R7, thanks to you (Tony and Chelsea). Previously was in the works to purchase a professional Canon, until wife surprised me with a Rebel t6i. Took us on a cruise instead.😊
Now that the R8 is out I think all your recommendations for the RP should now be the R8 instead. Is there anything I am missing here? Of coure the R7 and R8 are nearly identical in price so it makes the choice easier if that is your budget.
Great review. I agree, the R7 must be appreciated for what it is, a great wildlife and sports camera for all of us who can't afford the R3 or the R5...
As a bonus it's a great all around travel/family camera. I just wish Canon could give us more APS-C lens.
I think the R7 will prove to be a commercial succes for Canon and it will likely boost the sales of wildlife lens like the very good 100-500mm... a win for Canon.
correct
Not only could I "afford an R5" but I had one for 14 months. Then I got the R7 and started killing it ! I shot with my R7 exclusively for 5 weeks, and LOVED it ! Then I tried to go back to the R5, and it was loud, bulky, heavy, and just didn't give me the reach I need for the small birds I usually shoot. Nor did it give me the keeper rate. So I sold my R5 to get another R7 + the 100-400 + some other cool peripherals.
In short - the R7 is better for shooting action photos and shooting video. RP is better for shooting things that do not run and has the advantage to use the full potential of the great new RF lenses.
Just got the r7. Owned only 5d mark II and eos rp so far. Have to say im just really impressed on how well the sensor is dealing with the high ISO. with the eos RP even as a FF sensor most of the time i was afraid to go even above 1600 ISO which resulted in a lot of noise in low light... But this one for the price is just amazing. Initially i bought the r7 for the autofocus and FPS performance. I have a feeling now for my budget this is a jackpot of a camera. And i decided to go for it after watching your reviews as always so thank you for the work that you both put to inform people as well
Very nice of Milford Photo getting the R7 for you to do this review. Been waiting for this because I have a friend on the fence with this camera.
Good specs, but disappointing image quality. I would have preferred to have seen a comparison between the R5 in crop mode and this. The Eos RP isn't going to interest any sports and wildlife photographers so I don't get the point of this comparaison.
The point is that they are at the same price range. EOS R5 is at a completely different price range.
A lot of good information about the 2 cameras. I use Nikon personally, but it's always nice to get a different perspective. Nice to see Milford Photo mentioned. They have a lot of good online and in person classes, too.
Very nice review. Thank you.
Camera manufacturers spend huge resources to bring out products that are as good as they can make them, and it annoys me to see whiney self-appointed You-tubers nit-picking. Your review covered the limitations of the camera is a respectful way, and were happy to stress the strengths. A delight to watch.
The R7 is the highest pixel to sensor area mirrorless body Canon currently offers and for astrophotography, being able to shoot at high frame rates like 15 with the electronic 1st curtain shutter is great because without a sky tracker, you have to stack the images of the moving moon for example and you can get up there really close with a 600mm lens or something and shoot like 80-100 images if you're using the 15 fps first curtain shutter and using craw instead of raw as it becomes much easier for the limited buffer to handle. And around like 5-6 seconds is enough for the moon to remain fully inside the frame, covering a lot of it the entire time. This is less expensive than top end DSLR bodies and it outperforms even more expensive DSLR's in raw burst shooting capabilities. At this price point there's no other camera which offers the same reach + frame rate. Even only that is enough of a reason for a professional to pick up this body. And as far as it seems it's also great in many other areas such as wildlife photography etc.
I love this because I just got the R7 as my second camera, and the first one is the RP 😁
Looking closely at the body designs, I think you may appreciate the similarity in the layout of the controls that are common between the two
Thanks Tony and Chelsea for your accurate review. Unbiased and objective.
Don't forget, using first curtin electronic shutter the R7 can flash sync at 1/320. That's kind of crazy.
Still cant bring myself to it just yet. 5Dmk4 is just wonderful with all the Canon glass.
I totally understand, I also have the 5Dmk4 and have recently purchased an R6. The R6 has some great features but at the end of the day I still find myself grabbing the 5Dmk4, I just love that camera 👍😎
I love it when Pixel is in the videos.
I caught a lot of flack at the final announcement over saying I was disappointed. But it was 100% because it was not the 7D replacement based on the build and sealing. Like Tony said, this is the mid-tier where the 90D left off, not where the 7D left off. I, like many others, was expecting the mirrorless 7D. But then, I was also expecting a much higher price point, like, 2000 or more (very early in the rumors I even said as much as 2500). I am not disappointed by what it is, only by what it is not and was at the very least hoping for. I agree it is one hell of a camera for its price point, and that this was probably the right move at this time for Canon rather than a more expensive, likely bulkier, 7D replacement. Which, I do think will happen eventually too. But not until after the R1 now. So probably at least 2 years.
I would say, I didn't notice you pointing out the lack of a battery grip, as well as all the features that it would need to have in order to eventually have one (if you did, I just don't recall lol). I felt that right there was the big ball drop by Canon. How in the F did they do that to this model? And its not even a "maybe eventually" thing, it doesn't have any of the features needed for a proper grip (no alignment holes, no release lever on the battery door, no electrical contacts on the inside for the pins). Even the camera series it is an obvious replacement for can take a grip. Just feels like a very odd omission.
I wonder how it compares with the Nikon D500 which is the Nikon equivalent to the 7D. The R7 has faster shutter burst but could have a better buffer time perhaps?
I dont want to hold up the extra 450g for several hrs birding. Save your money, and keep acouple of spare batteries in your pocket.
@@nordic5490 Different folks have different situations. I shoot with battery grips on all of my DSLRs, and my R5 and R6 units: not only for the extended battery capacity, but for the improved CoG that brings it back towards the body when using large, heavy super tele lenses. Also, I like the extra set of controls that comes with the grips for shooting in portrait mode. Different strokes for different folks...
@@trevor9934 I'd never see more weight as an advantage. And I always hold the lens so cog isn't something I personally think about. I'd never want to just hold the camera with a big lens attached.
I think they are an acquired taste and adding to the price for this camera wouldn't be a good move.
But yeah different strokes is true
I think a side by side comparison with the 7D Mark II would make a great video. A lot a people have forgotten that it is about taking photos. Strange evaluation of the cameras with different lenses. The nifty 50 would still be in peoples budget.
The 7dii is too old. Theres no comparison
I have an RP. It's a very good camera for the money. It also doesn't handhold you. But if you got the skill, it will give you pictures you just can't get on a crop sensor.
You guys are awesome, thanks so much for sharing another wonderful video, I am still waiting for my r7 order 😢
Don't Mess it, RP Is Far Better because of its Full Frame Sensor Ability in Best Price
I think the most desirable RP kit is pairing it with RF 24-105 F4 L.
The only way R7 can match that in a good way would be an RF-S 15-65 F2.8... but I don't think it will be happening anytime soon.
The Canon 17-55 2.8 EF-S should work, right?
@@chris-nj3vg I guess it would
The R7 did fantastic in the Christmas room. It had no lag time and AF was dead on.
My take away from this video is that Chelsea has a nice swing🏏. The R7 does look like a good camera for the price, at the end of the day I'm still a full frame fan👍😎
Long time viewer…. Most photographers would use the rf lens and not the rfs lens. Please review the r7 with rf lens, specifically your the 14-35, 28-70, 70-200, 100-500. Thanks.
you always preached for better lenses and now you compare full frame camera with good lend to the r7 with kit lens
i bought the R7 ,(i have R6) i think the auto focus and the speed are realy great and i doo bird most of the time ,when you have the bird close enough it is fine but when the birds are far away and you have to crop the picture it is bad it gets very noise, the R 6 does it better there
Where did you buy the r7?
@@gmatennis2768 in denmark i pre odrer it
@@gmatennis2768 vefa foto
I think that it is important to understand that the image comparisons between the RP and R7 in this video are set up to simulate using the same zoom lens to frame for different sensor sizes or using the same f-ratio for different (equivalent) focal lengths, while aiming for shallowest DOF with the same angle of view. These comparisons will not apply if the photography *needs* a specific stopped-down subject-DOF or is focal-length-limited with the same optics. In those two types of photography, the R7 should walk all over the RP for both noise and detail.
The R7 with the RF 100-400mm lens seems like a great "budget" wildlife combo considering it's just over $2000. That's cheaper than any telephoto Nikon Z lens, which is the main reason I want to buy both later this year instead of just putting more money into expensive Nikon lenses on my entry level Z50 body
Did you do it? I am in exactly the same spot with my Z50. The z100-400 $2,700!
I was almost set to buy the Canon m6ii, until this camera came around R7. Definitely a lot to like. In a sense it is an upgrade to m6ii and the Canon 90D. The only question is what is more important to someone buying: fast speed 15fps mechanical great for wildlife and sports and 4K full screen in R7, or the somewhat better image quality of the full frame RP in low light and less noise but 4K is limited, HD is fine though, but fps is slower for action in RP.
Well, if you got an R6, you'd have both. I had the RP and really liked it, but it was very slow. The R6 felt like a beast in comparison. I went an R7 to back it up for wildlife and astro shots.
I agree. Gotta say, I like the fullframe performance. I crop a lot so that detail is going to help. Going from apsc to fullframe brings along some lens issues though. Grown to like the crop factor.
"Even with this *_not so extreme athlete_* reaction is the best part of this video.
I personally use the RP. When I found out Canon came out with a similarly priced mirrorless camera with way better autofocus and 4k 60 video I thought about switching. But I really like the full frame’s advantages.
Use Viltrox speedbooster with R7, you get a pseudo FF
@@zegzbrutal and you degrade the image quality at the same time
@@Supertaldo916 once go through proper post processing, it does not matter. The benefits of brighter f stops reducing ISO is more preferable than higher noise but sharper image.
It matters even less in video.
One thing that was not mentioned is the difference in batteries: LPe17 (RP) vs LP-e6nh. I own an RP and love it despite its limitations EXCEPT for those damned batteries. They die quickly (and have a curious habit of running out in the middle of my shoots), cost as much if not more than the ubiquitous LP-e6 and are rarely in stock. If I didn’t already own an RP, between the two I would probably pick the R7 on account of the battery alone.
In my experience using my RP, I'm able to push 800-1200 images taken on a full charge with the included battery.
@@jonathandelreal7808 Yeah - I typically shoot much more than that for events. What’s more problematic is the battery drain when recording video or shooting RAW+JPG via viewfinder. I’m finding I get around 600-700 photos or just under an hour of solely video recording. I turn my power off between video takes or during breaks in the action.
Finally the video I have been waiting for , mine got delivered Wednesday !
Congrats!
Have recently got mine in the UK but it is without doubt the best wildlife camera I have used and have used both the 90D and 7DMKii for very long periods and it out performs them both. The frame rate is excellent in mechanical shutter but the downside is it is a bit noisy but found found if I used the silent shutter mode and the 15 frames per second burst mode it solves that. Found at the higher frame rate in electronic shutter there is some rolling shutter on flight shots but it still produces enough keeper shots to make me very happy and many I would not have got before. There is some noise in some images taken at over 1600 iso but I expected that from a crop sensor camera but with the noise reduction software out there it is no major issue. The auto focus systems are even better imho than in the R5 which I used for a short time and have found it lightning fast paired with RF lenses. Canon should take a bow and the camera was worth the wait....now if only they would make a new lightweight image stabilized RF 400 or 500mm 5.6 at a affordable price the camera would become a giant slayer
Very interesting review, I think if someone understands the limitations you have pointed out this is definitely a good option at the price. For me, 15 frames mechanical seems like it would be my go to, leaving me to never worry about rolling shutter in any situation which was pretty bad. 15 FPS should be pretty good for almost any hobbyist I would say. Interestingly, I recently started doing bird photography with the M6 Mk II for the sensor size and crop factor, that also having a fast FPS and though I got some good shots, I was never blown away by the image quality, for that particular genre, my RP quality was much better, though of course at the sacrifice of FPS. Thanks for the comprehensive review :)
15 fps should be fast enough for just about any pro. The R5 and R6 are only 12fps. The only holdup might be buffering, but it wasn't that long ago that $5,000.00 pro action cameras were shooting 10 fps. As for weatherproofing, I always protect my cameras from the weather, whether I'm shooting a Rebel or a 1d series. Camera covers are cheap, and it's not like this camera has no weatherproofing at all.
Can you review this high megapixel sensor with Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and Sigma 50-100 f1.8. Coz I believe both the lenses were made to resolve enough detail.
As R7 is a mirrorless camera so I don't think there should be any auto focus issues just like these lenses have with DSLR's.
Hmm that's an interesting idea....
7D MKII was a beast. You’d have to spend a lot more to get it’s capabilities. Picture quality for Bird photography was top notch. Took the R5 at a much higher price to retire mine. If sports and wildlife is your thing I don’t think the R7 will be a solid replacement.
The image quality comparison highlighted 2 things:
1. The RP has a dud sensor that pretty much negates any benefit of full frame (other than being able to say "yes, it's full frame"), and that's even without comparing the under 500 iso dynamic range. It takes intense pixel peeping at never-used isos to see any benefit at all over the APS-C sensor.
2. Canon has no interest in providing lenses to get the best out of their APS-C sensors. Unlike Fuji they _do_ have a full frame range to sell us if we want that little bit better. They abandoned optimising EF-S a decade or so ago. They gave us just a couple of sharpish primes and nothing fully featured for EF-M and they're never going to allow R-S(?) to be a fully realised system. Hard pass.
I now own the Canon R7 with the Canon 100-400mm II and mostly use it for wildlife love the camera so far eye tracking is great keeps up with the eye of whatever animal im shooting the auto focus is very fast as it is the focusing system from the R3 i also own the 7D Mark II and the 5D Mark III the quality of my R7 is better than both of the other cameras all though it does not handle the ISO like my 5D III will with the R7 and my 100-400mm II lens i get very sharp and clear wildlife pictures for the price of the the R7 i can't complain what so ever love it.
As an RP owner who was considering the R7, this was so helpful. Thank you!
Moving from full frame to crop sensor?😲😲😲😲 Nooo
I like these "on location" type videos rather than the studio based ones. A mix is good I suppose but more of these please 😃.
The spec suggest this camera is a repackaged M6 Mk2, perhaps with a better EVF and an fully articulated screen. The M6 Mk2 is presently selling for $850. I have been using the M6 Mk2 as a backup or when I need a smaller camera to keep people from shying away.
Thank you for this guys. I was looking at upgrading to a R8 but started hearing about the R7 and I think that will be best for sports especially with the IBS.
I found the RF14-35 and RF16 to be wide enough to shoot Horseshoe Bend, which is one of the wider landscapes shots one would need to take on an any camera. The shot would have been easier on my R5, no doubt. But the point is that, paired with the two lenses I mentioned, the R7 is wide enough for just about anything.
Should have tested these with the same lens for proper comparison
Reading out the R7’s high-res sensor seems to be a challenge for e-shutter mode and sports and wildlife. Hoping someone compares the R7 with the OM-1 for those use cases
I think the om1 beats the r7 in every way. 25/50 fps already means that you're gonna get more keepers and it seems like the autofocus is about as good.
@@ryzgms nope. Sorry to break it to you om1 lovers, but, no. The R7 af tracking birds in flight is better than the z9, and waaay better than the om1.
I have been out birding with om1 users. The r5 (me) and r3 users all have plenty of bif, swallows inflight & dragonflys in flight, shots to share. The several experienced om1 users, none.
The OM1 has no rolling shutter at 50fps and track very good 👍
Interesting that you found the autofocus not as good as the R5, others have found the opposite. I have found the R7 to be a great camera, especially for the money, it punches way above it's weight. The images aren't as good as say my 1Dxiii, but that is full frame - the extra megapixels don't appear to matter. Noise is acceptable at least up to ISO 4000, but obviously the lower the better. I use it in mechanical shutter as I find this provides better images and 30 fps is just too many unless you are photographing something like a Kingfisher diving and then the rolling shutter may distort the image. I find 15 fps is more than enough, the only reason to use the electronic shutter would be to shoot silently for more static subjects. If you are contemplating this lens then I can recommend it, always use it with the best glass you can and it works great with my EF lens's.
The rolling shutter is the deal breaker.
Brilliant review, and just ordered mine from China as the UK no longer stocks them. These reviews will keep me going until it arrives.
I sell the canon eos RP for new photographers who want to do portrait and studio work long term
The r7 is good, dont get me wrong, but it is far from "Best Sports & Wildlife mirrorless camera". The best sports&Wildlife camera would be something like the Z9, A1, R3 or 1dxmkiii with each having their unique pros and cons. The Z9 has 120fps 11mpx jpg for example
Thank you chaps that was really interesting. Hope my pre ordered r7 comes soon to England 👍
I will wait the R7 Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV or Mark V. Rolling shutter noooooooo
I came to check this video after the review of the a6700, and just cannot believe the R7 has such a bad burst mode buffer. I currently have a sony a6500 that shoots 11fps RAW and I can do 11 seconds non stop! which is specially useful for animals and the international space station transit on the moon... I just can't believe a 7yo camera performs better than this.
First of all, love your videos, and I hope if you read this you can take it as constructive criticism/feedback.
I've been able to test an R7, and I have to say I'm not a fan.
I know it's at a very competitive price point, and on paper has some great specs. But to me the most important thing is whether the camera is enjoyable to use, and to me the R7 just isn't. I've never liked the ergonomics of Canon cameras and the R7 feels like a step in the wrong direction.
Besides the standard Canon front command dial on top instead of on the front below the shutter, which has always felt awkward to me (though I know that's a personal preference), the new position of the rear command dial around the thumbstick feels super clumsy. It's where I would want to naturally rest my thumb when not pressing any buttons, and it's really easy to accidentally change your exposure when reaching for the thumbstick. The position of the manual/auto focus switch is also really odd, on the grip side of the lens mount, and there are no front custom buttons.
It also seems strange that you'll talk about the benefits of APS-C for wildlife, travel and macro, with the extra reach from the crop factor, more efficient sensor stabilisation and smaller form, but don't seem to be willing to extend the same courtesy to Micro Four-Thirds cameras (unless I've missed a video). To be honest, this seems to be the one time your reviews feel somewhat biased.
Yes, the depth of field on M4/3 is deeper at any given aperture, but unless you're shooting portraits I find this to be largely not an issue, and for wildlife and macro I find this to be actively useful. Depth of field at f5.6 at 500mm (wildlife) or at 1:1 (macro) on a full-frame camera is razor-thin, and often (at least for me) it doesn't put enough of the subject in focus. And for wildlife, the Olympus or Panasonic 100-400mm gives a huge 200-800mm full-frame equivalent and is very portable (compared to a 150-600mm, 100-500mm or 200-500mm). Depth of field is also rarely an issue with landscape where most of the image is usually in focus by design.
The M4/3 cameras are generally 20MP which means you can't crop as much, but with a lighter overall kit and longer equivalent focal length I find cropping isn't necessary as frequently. And, for low-light performance, a 20MP M4/3 camera actually has less pixel density (~89k pixels/mm^2) than the 32.5MP R7 (~98k pixels/mm^2). I haven't had a chance to test it but given this I would expect the latest M4/3 cameras to at least match the low-light performance of an R7. They are also the most progressive with implementing computational photography in-camera, which Tony talks a lot about - Olympus were the first to implement the pre-shot buffer. OM PRO gear now also has IP ratings, rather than just "weather-sealed" to an unspecified degree, which is perfect for outdoors shooters.
I'd really love to see you guys do a comparison of real-world results between MFT, APS-C (maybe one Nikon/Sony and one Canon due to the different crop factors) and full-frame. I think the results would be interesting. For wildlife for example, an R7 with an RF 100-400mm would be cheaper than an OM-1 with an Olympus 100-400mm, but with less reach. An R7 with an RF 100-500 would be more comparable, but cost significantly more, and an R5 with either lens has less effective reach AND costs more, which I would say mitigates the benefit of the extra resolution.
Great video, you guys are awesome. I just ordered an R7 last night and I get it on Fri. Can't wait to use it! I had an 80D but it got ruined with a little water accident and I had to go back to using my super T6 that shoots at an amazing 3 fps, ha!
Thanks for a great comparison video. This is just what I have been looking for.
While I appreciate say nice things about cheaper cameras when possible but did you notice that you can buy both the RP and the R7 for the price of an R6 (or an R7 and an R6 for the price of an R5 if you consider the extra cost of the CF-Express card). I don't know about you, but I have lost too many shots changing lenses when something came up unexpected so I like that option. Did you compare the two using the 24-240 on each. I have both the R7 and the RP and use each for what it is better for. To me IBIS and using the larger battery is worth the price difference but for tripod landscapes the RP does win.
That buffer result is significantly worse than what canon advertises, what was the speed of the card?
@Tony & Chelsea Northrup - about the Buffer! it's important to mention that in (lossless) cRAW you can shoot much longer, 5+secs and 250+ photos! BIG difference. I tested it with the fastest Sony Tough Cards
for me this means that its almost no buffer, bc I can continuously shoot bursts of 60-80 pics with some seconds between
I have given up switching to R series because the RF lens are either way too expensive for me or seems inferior to the EF lens I already have. The adapter ring seems to issue with reduced AF performance so it is not really a good choice. It is a shame as I felt the R7 was right for me. It is the right price and have good enough speed.
How about a video about low pass filters? Tell us what they are and what they do, and why camera manufacturers install them. If you have already done a video on this topic, please give us the reference to it. Thanks for all you do.
My favorite thing is how well Chelsea can play baseball!!! :-))
I have an R6 and an RP. I shoot occasional weddings, but I'm considering replacing the RP with the R7 just to have the utility of a sports/wildlife capability of the R7.
R7 is mostly for wildlife and sports and for general and portraits RP is better choice.
The problem is wildlife often means low light but small sensor+many megapixels=noise
Firstly brilliant review. What I was very disappointed with was the noise level on some of your pictures which I assume is because of the sensor size. I have a 6D mk2 just now and was thinking of selling for the R7 but after your review I'm having 2nd thoughts - so thank you for saving me a bundle !
I don't know, pixel peeping always leaves a sour taste in the mouth, even for excellent sensors. If you have the 6D MK2, that's your sensor in the RP. I don't know, I thought the pictures of the heron from the R7 was stunning...
I think they did a very simple pixel peep but they couldve been a little more indepth. Maybe do a peep at the studio for more reliable results.
Hey! That’s Harkness Park! I just did a photo shoot there a few weeks ago 😂. I love that park!
That is very clearly the 90D sensor with a new AF system mounted to it. The shadow recovery noise is pretty rough, but that AF will be great for people looking to get into the system but can't afford the R5 or R3.
Clearly Canon has stated that these are newly developed sensors.... It might be slightly better than the 90D sensor, but its not the old sensor.
For a serious amateur doing all around family photography (wild life, grandchildren sports, street, etc) would you recommend the R-7, Fugi XS-20, or OM 5 (or1)?
It's very expensive for a small sensor camera, there are plenty of really good full frame cameras for the same price or less. It doesn't really make any sense unless you are using it for action or maybe for wildlife where you need the additional reach of the small sensor. Otherwise most people buying a small sensor camera are doing it to save money.
The frame rate of the electronic shutter sounds enticing but frequently won't work for fast action because of the distortion. If your subject has to hold still so you don't have rolling shutter then you don't need to shoot that fast. If you need silent shooting that's a different story.
why didnt u use the same lens on the rp and r7 on their comparison?
Good review . Still waiting for a detailed examination of the R7 high iso noise performance in comparison to a 7Dmkii and an RP/R .
This is my first review (now that I sort of know what I'm doing) that isn't a dream for me as I'm going to eventually buy a R7, along with either RP or a R6. This was really nice to watch. I have a question for you. You mention there are only 2 lenses made to go with the R7. How did other RF lenses perform on it? You didn't mention it during the portraits but it seemed great.