I've been using Canon SLRs and DSLRs since 1968 and the R7 is the best camera I've ever had. I use full-frame lenses on my R7, with the assurance that its smaller sensor simply omits the weaker outer area of any lens' image. As it has more pixels per square inch of sensor than *any* Canon camera ever made, with the same lens at the same distance, the R7 puts more pixels on my subject, allowing me to crop the image to get just what I want. No, an APS-C camera doesn't include as much area *around* the subject as a full-frame camera would, but that is a matter of composition, not quality. Want more surrounding context? Stand further away or use a wider lens. There are only two valid criticisms that can be made of APS-C versus full-frame sensor: (1) If you want to shoot vast panoramas, you'll need to use wider lenses, back up, or stitch a few frames together (Lightroom can do that for you automatically). That's a question of composition, not quality. (2) As the pixel density on the sensor goes up, the size of the individual light sensing photosites goes down, so so they may need more light, whether from faster lenses, lower shutter speeds, or higher ISO. In low light situations this may lead to more use of noise reduction. In normal lighting there's no difference in noise. Only in low light situations is there any potential for a difference in image quality. There's a widespread misconception that APS-C sensors reduce exposure by throwing away some of the light coming in from the lens. *Applesauce*. They don't reduce exposure, just coverage of the surrounding context. The subject on the smaller sensor gets same amount of light from an f/2.8 lens as it does on a larger sensor. All that's thrown away is some of the surrounding imagery, not the light level per square area on the sensor.
I have an R7 and as a beginner I have found it to be an awesome camera to start with!!! I have used it for street photography, night photography and for events.
Best review of the R7 I've seen, nice and concise. Beautiful photos too. Except for the "upgrading to full frame" nonsense. As you said, "small, light, and affordable" is perfect for some of us.
Thanks Zach. I've been seriously considering the R7 for macro videography for which I think it would be amazing. For anything that requires detail at either a long distance (wildlife) or super close (macro), APSC will work in ones favour being already cropped (zoomed in). Indeed, nice to have a full frame in the kit for portrait work, for the increased depth of field over that of an APSC. So many amazing cameras to work with. If only my wallet would agree alas.
Love your reviewing style, but could you leave the music off in the background as I have a hearing issue which make it near impossible to hear over background sound, and the music is also too distracting. I kept rewinding to try and catch what was said, so took a long time to get through and due to all the rewinding, interrupted too much to take in all the information.
Love the video Zach. Just some feedback though, I don’t think music with vocals in the background was a good choice. I found it was a bit of a struggle to focus on you as the vocals were competing for my attention.
Sensor size doesn’t matter but the lens are going to work differently. The 14-35mm F4 that you have on it is very soft on that camera because of the very small mega pixels but if you put a sigma 18-35mm F1.8 on a R7 it will kill a R5 with L glass. The R6 is sharper then the R5 with the L lens that Canon has out now. The higher mega pixels cameras really dull down lenses.
So shouldn’t the 14-35 look sharp on the r7 since it’s only 32 megapixel’s? Do you think it would look sharp on an R10? I’m considering getting the 14-35
@@superstringsbro honestly run from Canon like it’s the plague. The lens selection is terrible. After 7 years I’m done. Sony is better. Fuji is better. Nikon is better. Canon is over priced garbage.
A sharp lens is a sharp lens. The BS about diffraction due to high resolution sensors is just that. Complete nonsense. If you have a soft lens on a high res sensor and you look at the image at the image size you need, it is no more soft or sharp as a lower res sensor with the same lens. Just process it correctly. You can easily prove this by down sampling it to the lower resolution and comparing the images.
I just got the R7 and it's going back. Shocked of how bad the IBIS is in this camera for video. It feels like it's always dragging behind and if you just want to hold the camera still there are terrible microjitters, a wobble on the edges of your footage. I use the RF 16mm and RF 15 - 30mm. Both lenses are giving me the same results. I shoot interiors on a gimbal (Crane M3), with very slow movements... The image quality is amazing, but we are at firmware 1.4 and it seems canon still doesn't fix this issue. For photo is excellent.
Thanks for this video. I am a long-time Canon user. I really wanted the R7 with the 18-35 Sigma. Now, I saved the money for the combo and learned about the S5ii. What do you think of that, and which would you pick if you rely heavily on autofocus and the camera's control app for long-form content, talking heads, Broll, and some cinematics?
I agree mostly. The R7 is part of the Canon ecosystem. It is a highly capable 1.6x teleconverter. In my opinion, there is no “RF-S native” lenses. The IQ is so good, I can see why a lens like the RF-S 10-18 makes sense - to give you a realistic option for the wide side on this camera. But other than that and some travel lenses I see no point to RF-S lenses in the ecosystem. It is not trying to be a Fuji. I use a metabones 0.71 x converter - mostly on my old EF 500mm F4 L is. That makes it a 350mm ish F2.8… Which looks like a FF 550mm F4 but gathers light like F2.8 - negating the 1 stop drop in IQ in low light compared to the FF sensors. I dont see any IQ difference in good exposures. If by IQ you mean perspective and DOF etc then that is easy to fix. There is no such thing as a medium format look….it’s why those kids who sucked at math say they can’t put their finger on exactly what it is, but it is there…
Hey, @Zach! Thanks so much for the review. I’m a hobbyist at best with a passion for wildlife photography. I currently use a Nikon D5300, and want to upgrade to get sharper, more vivid images & videos. I’m keen to utilize a 200-500mm lens for wildlife shots. Would you still think the EOS R7 is worth a go?
Decent video but... you really should learn how to hold your camera.. off-hand should be on the bottom for stabilization and zoon adjustment.. other than that, good video..
Have you used a speed-booster with full frame EF lenses? I’m curious about this camera for longer video format projects, preferably with an extended battery grip attached.
@@TheZachMendez I like the idea of the r6, but wished they could have removed that 30min record limit. In firmware, they’ve addressed the overheating issue with both the r5 and r6; why not the record limit. I think I’m okay with not having all-i, only ipb.
I love my R kit and amazing RF lenses, but with the M line being discontinued, I decided to get the R7 and okay 18-150mm lens for my "grab and go" and hiking kit (I'm getting old. Fewer and lighter is a good thing in my pack.). Of course, the focusing system runs circles around my R, but I use the R for a very different purpose. The R7 went on its first two hikes last week, with very good results. Now I want an RF-S 11-22mm to replace my M lens!
that is how I'm thinking, I have an R and am thinking of an R7 as a second body. The new 10-18 RF-S which has come out since your comment gets great reviews.
@@alandargie9358 I now have the 10-18mm. I don't find it to be as good a lens as my EF-M 11-22mm (You'll want to make sure that "Peripheral illumination correction" is on under "Lens aberration correction," as the vignetting is pretty bad at 10mm. That aside, it will be a great addition to my hiking kit.
Why not shooting both one camera Full Frame and another APS-C during events or weddings. Every New cameras release nowadays are lacking Character without Filmic look like DSLR. I Don't see APS-C is a Downside or image quality are not that good compare to Full Frame. It's all in the head of photographer.
Who are these photographers??? I'm not hating (I love the Micro Four Thirds format!), but the biggest photogs I see who use the format tend to be TH-camrs who are ambassadors of OM System or Lumix.
Thanks for the video! I rented my first camera ever, the Canon R50 and bought the lenses; RF 35mm 1.8 RF 85mm F2 RF 18-150mm I am not a professional but I love photography and I am learning to be able to shoot pictures for my own business, I make wine. I shoot bottles of wines in different scenarios, food photography and vineyards, inside the winery etc Would you recommend to upgrade to an R7? Thank you!
You need to upgrade to a medium format if you shoot professional , I wouldn't shoot full frame for my personal photos. The difference between medium and full frame is night and day, medium is much better
I don't understand why would anybody (expect wildlife and sport photographers) buy this camera. There are only 3 lenses for it (10-18mm f4.5-f6.3, 18-45mm f4.5-f6.3 and 18-150mm f3.5-f6.3) and they are all very slow. Yes you can use full frame lenses but they are big, heavy and expensive, and they cannot get very wide because of the crop from smaller sensor. Adopting EF-S lenses is also bad idea because they are very old and new ones are not being developed any more. Why would somebody buy Canon APS-C camera when they can buy Sony or Fujifilm and get to choose between hundred or more lenses available?
Because you dont buy separate glass just for an aps-c body. If you shoot Canon, you use the R7 as a TC. I don’t understand why anyone would want anything other than a FF if they want to do portraits or landscapes or travel. And if you go FF, then pick your poison. Its a personal preference. I personally think Canon is the only company that understands what makes a real photographic system. Sony makes good electronics. And if you think that paying $4000 for a body is fine but you have to have access to cheap lenses then you deserve a Sony. Nikon finally has some good bodies now but I feel their lens lineup is very costly for the good stuff. Fuji … really?
@@GerhardBothaWFF I wasn't thinking about people who can afford a FF body, FF lenses and a APS-C body. I was thinking about people who only have one APS-C body
I absolutely do not get this: the r8 is the far better option here. It is cheaper, it is lighter, it is already full frame so no need to try and figure out the whole "1.6x crop so you need a 31mm for 50mm". The trade offs for a beginner make FAR MORE SENSE: dual card slot is really only relevant for pro paid work, smaller battery doesn't affect the beginner who by definition shoots less than the pro, etc. Etc. Etc. The list goes on. The R7 is great, but pushing it instead of R8 (which really is a RPmk2 when you think about it) makes no sense to me
I think it depends on your use case. I shoot wildlife/birds almost exclusively, where the effective field of view of the R7 is perfect for applications like birds and sports. For example, the superb RF100-500 has a FOV of 160-800 mm, which is well suited to both. Moreover, the R8 lacks IBIS; in contrast, the R7 IBIS cooperates nicely with the OIS in the both the RF100-500 and the RF-S 18-150, which is extremely handy, especially for videography, where I'd rather not use a gimbal or monopod. In fact, I upgraded to the R7 for precisely these reasons, and I wouldn't trade them away for a full-frame camera. Of course, FOV may not be relevant to your interests, which is fair enough.
I agree that the r7 is amazing in general. And yes for birding it's definitely better than the r8. But he mentions specifically "a hobbyist who wants to document their every day life". I think the lack of ibis is overblown here, sure it would totally be nice don't get me wrong, but if you are mainly shooting photos in daylight, that won't impact you much if at all. The r8 is a more entry level camera than the r7 for sure but I think that when you get into photography and try to understand FOV the whole full frame equivalence and calculation are a huge bummer (far more of a headache than ibis is). Today if I were recommending an aps-c to a new person I would go straight to fuji xs20. The r7 is great sure but it's much better to the invest in lenses
@@jcloiseau I think we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's really that difficult to explain multiplication by 1.6x to someone motivated to move beyond their phone's camera. Many "hobbyists" also want to document sports activities as part of their "every day lives", especially when it involves their kids or grandkids. Just like bird/wildlife photographers, they can benefit from a crop sensor's extra reach. Moreover, not every square peg fits into the same round hole: I suffer from a neurologic disease with a progressive tremor; for me, IBIS is not a luxury, but a vital feature that allows me to pursue a gratifying hobby. Aging users with benign "essential tremor" often face the same issues, and it may not be fair to dismiss their needs as "niche". We are also fortunate to be living in a time of rapid technological change, where the image quality of modern crop sensor cameras, like the R7, can competes favourably with what a full frame sensor was able to offer just a few years ago. As with most things, the best choice depends on the individual use case. After all, that's why Canon makes multiple bodies :).
R7 is far from a pro camera. Not built like a tank. Not weather proof enough. Even the r5 is not pro grade. The r3 is Canon's only true pro body mirrorless camera at the present time. Yet I still have all three of these bodies. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. R7 high megapixel crop sensor. Great for telephoto images. With its mp count, you'd need 80mp on a full frame body to match it. Good auto focusing system. R5 for Landscapes and Architecture. R3 for the best all around camera. Fantastic auto focus tracking and system. Canon made one dslr crop body that was pro grade. 7d mii and it has a weather sealed alloy body. Plus with it you could add a battery grip. And Canon marketed the 7d mii as a prosumor body. With the r7 a battery grip isn't an option. The r5 series come closer to a prosumor body than the r7.
I've been using Canon SLRs and DSLRs since 1968 and the R7 is the best camera I've ever had. I use full-frame lenses on my R7, with the assurance that its smaller sensor simply omits the weaker outer area of any lens' image.
As it has more pixels per square inch of sensor than *any* Canon camera ever made, with the same lens at the same distance, the R7 puts more pixels on my subject, allowing me to crop the image to get just what I want.
No, an APS-C camera doesn't include as much area *around* the subject as a full-frame camera would, but that is a matter of composition, not quality.
Want more surrounding context? Stand further away or use a wider lens.
There are only two valid criticisms that can be made of APS-C versus full-frame sensor:
(1) If you want to shoot vast panoramas, you'll need to use wider lenses, back up, or stitch a few frames together (Lightroom can do that for you automatically). That's a question of composition, not quality.
(2) As the pixel density on the sensor goes up, the size of the individual light sensing photosites goes down, so so they may need more light, whether from faster lenses, lower shutter speeds, or higher ISO. In low light situations this may lead to more use of noise reduction. In normal lighting there's no difference in noise. Only in low light situations is there any potential for a difference in image quality.
There's a widespread misconception that APS-C sensors reduce exposure by throwing away some of the light coming in from the lens. *Applesauce*. They don't reduce exposure, just coverage of the surrounding context. The subject on the smaller sensor gets same amount of light from an f/2.8 lens as it does on a larger sensor. All that's thrown away is some of the surrounding imagery, not the light level per square area on the sensor.
Fully agree
I have an R7 and as a beginner I have found it to be an awesome camera to start with!!! I have used it for street photography, night photography and for events.
I have an R7 as well. What lenses do you use? I would like to get into shooting events and street photography as well.
@@kd3869 I have the 35 F1.8, 50 F1.8 and 85 F2 plus the kit lens 18-150
Best review of the R7 I've seen, nice and concise. Beautiful photos too. Except for the "upgrading to full frame" nonsense. As you said, "small, light, and affordable" is perfect for some of us.
Thanks Zach. I've been seriously considering the R7 for macro videography for which I think it would be amazing. For anything that requires detail at either a long distance (wildlife) or super close (macro), APSC will work in ones favour being already cropped (zoomed in). Indeed, nice to have a full frame in the kit for portrait work, for the increased depth of field over that of an APSC. So many amazing cameras to work with. If only my wallet would agree alas.
Love your reviewing style, but could you leave the music off in the background as I have a hearing issue which make it near impossible to hear over background sound, and the music is also too distracting. I kept rewinding to try and catch what was said, so took a long time to get through and due to all the rewinding, interrupted too much to take in all the information.
Great video and a fantastic camera. Plan on buying a second one. The value is insane with the 18-35 Sigma and Canon's ND adapter
Love the video Zach. Just some feedback though, I don’t think music with vocals in the background was a good choice. I found it was a bit of a struggle to focus on you as the vocals were competing for my attention.
Came here to say the same thing.
Sensor size doesn’t matter but the lens are going to work differently. The 14-35mm F4 that you have on it is very soft on that camera because of the very small mega pixels but if you put a sigma 18-35mm F1.8 on a R7 it will kill a R5 with L glass. The R6 is sharper then the R5 with the L lens that Canon has out now. The higher mega pixels cameras really dull down lenses.
So shouldn’t the 14-35 look sharp on the r7 since it’s only 32 megapixel’s? Do you think it would look sharp on an R10? I’m considering getting the 14-35
@@superstringsbro honestly run from Canon like it’s the plague. The lens selection is terrible. After 7 years I’m done. Sony is better. Fuji is better. Nikon is better. Canon is over priced garbage.
@@jeremycurran4488 I think will wait 6 months to a year more before dropping canon. If I don’t see a good apsc lens by then, I’m gone
@@superstringsbro Canon licensed RF lenses to Sigma and Tamron. 3rd party RF lenses will arrive this year.
A sharp lens is a sharp lens. The BS about diffraction due to high resolution sensors is just that. Complete nonsense. If you have a soft lens on a high res sensor and you look at the image at the image size you need, it is no more soft or sharp as a lower res sensor with the same lens. Just process it correctly. You can easily prove this by down sampling it to the lower resolution and comparing the images.
When you have what you have, you don't miss anything. Be happy with the sensor size in your camera, and shoot away to your heart's content.
Good point!
Having background music is nice. But important to chose the correct type. Having vocals in the music makes what you are saying very distracting.
I just got the R7 and it's going back. Shocked of how bad the IBIS is in this camera for video. It feels like it's always dragging behind and if you just want to hold the camera still there are terrible microjitters, a wobble on the edges of your footage. I use the RF 16mm and RF 15 - 30mm. Both lenses are giving me the same results. I shoot interiors on a gimbal (Crane M3), with very slow movements... The image quality is amazing, but we are at firmware 1.4 and it seems canon still doesn't fix this issue. For photo is excellent.
Sorry you had a poor experience with the R7!
With lenses that wide I leave the IBIS off, put it on a gimbal and stabilize on post
Zach is back! 🙌
How are the photos from the R7 not the same as from the R6 or R5? In what ways specifically
Thanks for this video. I am a long-time Canon user. I really wanted the R7 with the 18-35 Sigma. Now, I saved the money for the combo and learned about the S5ii. What do you think of that, and which would you pick if you rely heavily on autofocus and the camera's control app for long-form content, talking heads, Broll, and some cinematics?
Thanks for this great video. Does this camera produce better videos than Lumix S5IIX?
Thanks for watching! I haven't used the Lumix, so I'm not sure!
I agree mostly. The R7 is part of the Canon ecosystem. It is a highly capable 1.6x teleconverter. In my opinion, there is no “RF-S native” lenses. The IQ is so good, I can see why a lens like the RF-S 10-18 makes sense - to give you a realistic option for the wide side on this camera. But other than that and some travel lenses I see no point to RF-S lenses in the ecosystem. It is not trying to be a Fuji.
I use a metabones 0.71 x converter - mostly on my old EF 500mm F4 L is. That makes it a 350mm ish F2.8… Which looks like a FF 550mm F4 but gathers light like F2.8 - negating the 1 stop drop in IQ in low light compared to the FF sensors.
I dont see any IQ difference in good exposures. If by IQ you mean perspective and DOF etc then that is easy to fix. There is no such thing as a medium format look….it’s why those kids who sucked at math say they can’t put their finger on exactly what it is, but it is there…
Thanks for this video. Well explained I was in the market for a camera and this is the one that I just ordered. 👍🏼🙌🏼
Awesome! I hope it's working out for you. Thanks for watching!
Hey, @Zach! Thanks so much for the review. I’m a hobbyist at best with a passion for wildlife photography.
I currently use a Nikon D5300, and want to upgrade to get sharper, more vivid images & videos. I’m keen to utilize a 200-500mm lens for wildlife shots. Would you still think the EOS R7 is worth a go?
The Canon R7 is everything I wanted the Canon 90D and Canon 80D to be.
Love the review. Sigma just announced RF lenses. I may buy it. My R6 needs a little brother 😊
The Canon R7 is Best best bird photography especially when using large lenses. it's so much better than the R8 many many ways .
Decent video but... you really should learn how to hold your camera.. off-hand should be on the bottom for stabilization and zoon adjustment.. other than that, good video..
The R7 is for beginners and professionals. it's really amazing for the price point
Have you used a speed-booster with full frame EF lenses? I’m curious about this camera for longer video format projects, preferably with an extended battery grip attached.
I haven’t used a speed booster but would be interested to try that! Thanks so much for watching.
@@TheZachMendez I like the idea of the r6, but wished they could have removed that 30min record limit. In firmware, they’ve addressed the overheating issue with both the r5 and r6; why not the record limit. I think I’m okay with not having all-i, only ipb.
I love my R kit and amazing RF lenses, but with the M line being discontinued, I decided to get the R7 and okay 18-150mm lens for my "grab and go" and hiking kit (I'm getting old. Fewer and lighter is a good thing in my pack.). Of course, the focusing system runs circles around my R, but I use the R for a very different purpose. The R7 went on its first two hikes last week, with very good results. Now I want an RF-S 11-22mm to replace my M lens!
that is how I'm thinking, I have an R and am thinking of an R7 as a second body. The new 10-18 RF-S which has come out since your comment gets great reviews.
@@alandargie9358 I now have the 10-18mm. I don't find it to be as good a lens as my EF-M 11-22mm (You'll want to make sure that "Peripheral illumination correction" is on under "Lens aberration correction," as the vignetting is pretty bad at 10mm. That aside, it will be a great addition to my hiking kit.
Why not shooting both one camera Full Frame and another APS-C during events or weddings. Every New cameras release nowadays are lacking Character without Filmic look like DSLR. I Don't see APS-C is a Downside or image quality are not that good compare to Full Frame. It's all in the head of photographer.
Some of the highest paid and best photographers in the world shoot with micro 4/3 and aps-c cameras. You drank the full frame kool aid.
Oh thanks for letting me know
😂
Who are these photographers??? I'm not hating (I love the Micro Four Thirds format!), but the biggest photogs I see who use the format tend to be TH-camrs who are ambassadors of OM System or Lumix.
Good review until we have to listen to the nonsense about crop sensor and yes I use both
When shooting wildlife, reach is everything. Full frame doesn't have the reach, FOV, compared to a cropped sensor.
what camera was the beginning of the video shot on? first praise
Wondered that myself.
Unfortunately, they don't have a light original lens equivalent to the 24-70 2.8 without an adapter which complicates the matter.
I wish to be as articulate as you one day! Lol, no but seriously. I'm impressed
Ah thank you so much!
Great video. I wish you'd make presets!🔥
Plus you can have unlimited recording time limit
Thanks for the video!
I rented my first camera ever, the Canon R50 and bought the lenses;
RF 35mm 1.8
RF 85mm F2
RF 18-150mm
I am not a professional but I love photography and I am learning to be able to shoot pictures for my own business, I make wine.
I shoot bottles of wines in different scenarios, food photography and vineyards, inside the winery etc
Would you recommend to upgrade to an R7?
Thank you!
I don’t think the R7 is that much of a step up for the kind of pictures you’re taking.
But can your customers tell the dofference?
Thanks for watching!
You need to upgrade to a medium format if you shoot professional , I wouldn't shoot full frame for my personal photos. The difference between medium and full frame is night and day, medium is much better
Lol
I don't understand why would anybody (expect wildlife and sport photographers) buy this camera. There are only 3 lenses for it (10-18mm f4.5-f6.3, 18-45mm f4.5-f6.3 and 18-150mm f3.5-f6.3) and they are all very slow. Yes you can use full frame lenses but they are big, heavy and expensive, and they cannot get very wide because of the crop from smaller sensor. Adopting EF-S lenses is also bad idea because they are very old and new ones are not being developed any more. Why would somebody buy Canon APS-C camera when they can buy Sony or Fujifilm and get to choose between hundred or more lenses available?
Because you dont buy separate glass just for an aps-c body. If you shoot Canon, you use the R7 as a TC. I don’t understand why anyone would want anything other than a FF if they want to do portraits or landscapes or travel. And if you go FF, then pick your poison. Its a personal preference. I personally think Canon is the only company that understands what makes a real photographic system. Sony makes good electronics. And if you think that paying $4000 for a body is fine but you have to have access to cheap lenses then you deserve a Sony. Nikon finally has some good bodies now but I feel their lens lineup is very costly for the good stuff. Fuji … really?
@@GerhardBothaWFF I wasn't thinking about people who can afford a FF body, FF lenses and a APS-C body. I was thinking about people who only have one APS-C body
R6 mark 1 is only 300 usd more
I absolutely do not get this: the r8 is the far better option here.
It is cheaper, it is lighter, it is already full frame so no need to try and figure out the whole "1.6x crop so you need a 31mm for 50mm".
The trade offs for a beginner make FAR MORE SENSE: dual card slot is really only relevant for pro paid work, smaller battery doesn't affect the beginner who by definition shoots less than the pro, etc. Etc. Etc. The list goes on. The R7 is great, but pushing it instead of R8 (which really is a RPmk2 when you think about it) makes no sense to me
Thanks for sharing your opinion! And thanks for watching.
@@TheZachMendez I still thumbed up your vid for effort of course. I appreciate all content :)
I think it depends on your use case. I shoot wildlife/birds almost exclusively, where the effective field of view of the R7 is perfect for applications like birds and sports. For example, the superb RF100-500 has a FOV of 160-800 mm, which is well suited to both. Moreover, the R8 lacks IBIS; in contrast, the R7 IBIS cooperates nicely with the OIS in the both the RF100-500 and the RF-S 18-150, which is extremely handy, especially for videography, where I'd rather not use a gimbal or monopod. In fact, I upgraded to the R7 for precisely these reasons, and I wouldn't trade them away for a full-frame camera. Of course, FOV may not be relevant to your interests, which is fair enough.
I agree that the r7 is amazing in general. And yes for birding it's definitely better than the r8. But he mentions specifically "a hobbyist who wants to document their every day life". I think the lack of ibis is overblown here, sure it would totally be nice don't get me wrong, but if you are mainly shooting photos in daylight, that won't impact you much if at all. The r8 is a more entry level camera than the r7 for sure but I think that when you get into photography and try to understand FOV the whole full frame equivalence and calculation are a huge bummer (far more of a headache than ibis is). Today if I were recommending an aps-c to a new person I would go straight to fuji xs20. The r7 is great sure but it's much better to the invest in lenses
@@jcloiseau I think we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's really that difficult to explain multiplication by 1.6x to someone motivated to move beyond their phone's camera. Many "hobbyists" also want to document sports activities as part of their "every day lives", especially when it involves their kids or grandkids. Just like bird/wildlife photographers, they can benefit from a crop sensor's extra reach. Moreover, not every square peg fits into the same round hole: I suffer from a neurologic disease with a progressive tremor; for me, IBIS is not a luxury, but a vital feature that allows me to pursue a gratifying hobby. Aging users with benign "essential tremor" often face the same issues, and it may not be fair to dismiss their needs as "niche". We are also fortunate to be living in a time of rapid technological change, where the image quality of modern crop sensor cameras, like the R7, can competes favourably with what a full frame sensor was able to offer just a few years ago. As with most things, the best choice depends on the individual use case. After all, that's why Canon makes multiple bodies :).
Hi Zach Efron! 🤣 hahaha
Seems to me the R8 would suit you better
Not me but maybe someone else! Thanks for watching!
R7 is far from a pro camera.
Not built like a tank.
Not weather proof enough.
Even the r5 is not pro grade.
The r3 is Canon's only true pro body mirrorless camera at the present time.
Yet I still have all three of these bodies.
Each have their strengths and weaknesses.
R7 high megapixel crop sensor. Great for telephoto images. With its mp count, you'd need 80mp on a full frame body to match it.
Good auto focusing system.
R5 for Landscapes and Architecture.
R3 for the best all around camera. Fantastic auto focus tracking and system.
Canon made one dslr crop body that was pro grade. 7d mii and it has a weather sealed alloy body. Plus with it you could add a battery grip. And Canon marketed the 7d mii as a prosumor body.
With the r7 a battery grip isn't an option. The r5 series come closer to a prosumor body than the r7.
Thanks so much for the comment and thank you for watching!
sony is better a6700 way better
No it isn’t. It cannot use any RF glass. So it is crap