I am so anxious to have the R-7 and put it to use with my RF 100/500 mounted on the front. 800mm @ f 7.1 I can only imagine how this versatile lightweight combination will make my wildlife photography even more enjoyable. Thanks and keep up the great work.
Am I one of a very few who actually likes aps-c and has no desire to "upgrade" to FF? The R7 is exactly what I am looking for. Tony, you talk about how great the R7 will be for wildlife shooters and then talk about how bad it is that FF and aps-c share the same lens mount. If it weren't for the way things currently are with EF\EF-S, I would not be able to use my 100-400 L II lens on my aps-c camera for wildlife. Canon has never made decent long glass for EF-S, and I expect things won't change with RF-S. What is the benefit of a crop sensor like the R7 for wildlife if there are no compatible lenses?
Well, you could put the FF 1200mm F8 on this R7, and get the equivalent field of view of 1920mm. If you use an R5 and crop the shot in, you are left with only 17.5mp, instead of 32.5mp on this R7. That means, using this APS-C you get double the detail, and faster frame rates, and you don't even have to handle larger files that you have to crop in post. I personally don't think that people who buy this R7 mind having to use FF lenses on their APS-C body for this reason. But wildlife is the only time in my opinion that it makes some sense to put a FF lens on an APS-C body, else you just have have heavy expensive glass that don't even provide great image quality when used on APS-C. (Check Christopher Frost lens reviews where he often also tests the FF lenses on APS-C and often corner sharpness is far worse, although you think it is just a crop of the FF and should be better)
I also really like APS-C by the way, on my D500. But I am considering moving to Full Frame as there is just no appealing APS-C mirrorless lens lineup from any company other than Fuji (and I don't like the price-quality of those). The Sony lineup is not too bad, especially the 70-350mm is appealing but I am not a huge fan of the A6600 body, especially the EVF. I also wouldn't mind having a bit more out of focus background for some creative shots. So I think I might make the jump
Value for money and a much more manageable size APS-C is great, getting f1.8, f2.8 sigma lenses for under $400 second hand is amazing. I do e-com product photography and a 90d/200d combo with some canon ef-s and sigma glass is all I need.
@@Eikenhorst I don't think you need a full frame lens to enjoy that increased reach for the same focal length. Plus, as you pointed out, a lens designed for APS-C is usually sharper than the FF equivalent on an APS-C body. So unless you plan to use the same lens on both crop and FF bodies, using FF lenses on a crop body seems to bring a weight penalty without much benefit.
@@CaseyFinnerty You are totally right! Except that Canon doesn't make a 1900mm APSC lens, and they do make a 1200mm FF lens. I agree it is a 'waste' to use that on an APSC body, but if you end up cropping your image a lot anyway (as wildlife photographers tend to do), this is not completely crazy. However, using a 24-70 F2.8 full frame lens on your APS-C body is completely crazy, because there are good APS-C specific alternatives available that are lighter and usually also a bit sharper.
I will be interested to see the size of the R10. The best feature of the M system is it's size. Just a great travel system that I will be sad to see go if the R10 is much larger. If these RF-s Lenses will be the same size as the RF like EF-s is to EF than the camera will be larger. I own the RP and several M cameras and the RP is larger than all of my M's and the M lenses are just tiny.
That is what some other You Tubers are thinking also, like Ordinary Filmmaker. I would prefer a 90D replacement that had oversampled 4K video. 90D 4K video quality was soft and disappointing.
My R gear waits at home as my M kit heads up the hiking trail with me. Whatever the future holds for these new cameras, I sure hope that a smaller-sized camera is still an option.
Lightweight. Convenient. Practical. Inexpensive. Usable. There's so much emphasis on 6k and 8k and a bazillion megapixels... The reality is that us average folks just don't use the premium features enough to justify the money. Don't get me wrong... those premium features are really cool, but if I don't use them, does it really make sense to pay more for a camera that has it. The thing I like about the EOS-M is the low barrier to entry and the compact size. It really makes for a great travel camera. No need for big, bulky, expensive, performance oriented body and glass... My photography isn't making me money. I just want an easy and reliable way to capture memories.
@@kevinbui4059 Someone who doesn't want to take pictures of his family with equipment worth 10k dollars? I must be dreaming. Hey pal, nice to meet you ;) I switched from my R to Sony APS-C. There are affordable and small lenses, also from Sigma and Samyang.
@@Layman927 I have no doubt that the x-t series is excellent, but to replace what I have for body and lenses makes that far from worth my while at this point. The M performs very capably. BUT, if Canon does not provide a smaller camera to replace, it, the Fuji is my first choice.
I really like how small and light the EF-M cameras and lenses are. I think its great for carrying on bicycle trips. Doubt these new cameras will be as small, so maybe I'll get a refurbished M6 II and not buy another camera for a long while.
@@dice3809 It looks like they dont want to carry on with the M mount when they can base apsc cameras around the RF mount you can use full frame lenses too then, however it means bigger cameras. Probably.
Tony was talking about how the Canon R7 would be good for wildlife photographers, but when he talked about the R7, I was thinking that it could also be a great camera for macro photographers.
Canon probably has a large supply of APSC lenses they need to push out and the R10 might be a way for them to dispose of these lenses. As for mixing mounts. I wish the manufacturers simply labeled their lenses with a graphic logo specifying what type of lens it is either APS-C or FF. It's like buying a video game for your game console. Just check to see if you have the PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, or PC version of the game by looking for the graphic. And If I am switching lenses, it should be displayed on the lens so I can see it. Same with the cameras actually for those who have multiple cameras. This would make matching and pairing so much easier.
Some people on other channels are suspecting the R10 to replace the 90D but at 24mp. Are you sure that the m50ii, a hot selling camera for content creators is going away with all M mount cameras in the near future? The m6ii is the only m camera discontinued so far. It totally makes sense to keep M mount (for now) as the lens are much smaller than R lenses so far, and general consumer will want small bodies AND small lenses. However if R10 is a low priced entry apsc, and lenses are very compact like Nikon's Z50 or the Canon M small lens line with a revised R mount, then maybe. R10 will have to prove itself equal or better than a m50ii (in functionality and size) to be a good entry level aps-c for Canon and outsell the m50ii, before the m50ii and M mount is gone. Canon's m50ii main competitor for "beginner" content creators is Sony ZV E-10 which is recommended by numerous sites as it does 4K downsampled from 6K with Sony s-log video.
With "more numbers means cheaper /lower end camera"-scheme I also think the R10 cannot be a M10 successor. Within the M it was not a great differentiation but after M10 tge M100 came and then the M200. Would be weird to lock in that number for such an entry level body.
Question is: will I be able to adapt all of my EF-M and EF lenses to the R10? Or, will I need to start all over from scratch, buying all new lenses? If that is the case, I'm switching to Nikon or Sony.
You cannot adapt EF-M lenses to RF today. The lens is made for a 2 mm shorter flange distance. Assuming RF-S is the same. Since EF can be adapted to RF the same should go for it. The only thing, maybe, my pipedream would be if they designed the camera with an interchangeable mount. I.e. a totally custom way to change the plate the lens sits against.
With the inexplicably low pixel count on the R6, I simply have no way to migrate from my Canon DSLR to their mirrorless system in my budget. I'm considering just switching to the Sony system completely.
@@veganpotterthevegan The Sony A7 IV is looking very attractive in comparison. I tried it in the store with a couple of my Canon lenses (with the adapter) and they came to focus quite well it seemed.
Agree they should have stuck with full-frame, especially for the R10. They could have still made this R7 as a single, super specialist camera, repackage a couple of wildlife lenses, mark up the price as needed and call it good. They'd be better giving beginners a better and easier upgrade path as you say.
Single mount is fantastic... EF mount ... E mount, F mount... Sucks for the random consumer that won't know this or not know what the difference is... but it makes it so much easier for the rest of us that may have different format bodies while using same lenses across different bodies
There are plenty of beginners who also think having to buy a lens as well as a body is a scam to get more money from you. I don't think the criticism that some beginners will get confused between APS-C and full frame lenses should hold weight. If you want to cater to beginners, you make a point and shoot.
I noticed that Tony posted equivalent full frame focal lengths for the rumored RF-S lenses. He allowed for crop factor. Makes sense. But, he also applied crop factor to the aperture range, too. That does NOT make sense. He has applied crop factor two times.
DOA? I don’t think you understand what wildlife photographers want. The FPS of the a7 iv isn’t great. A7iv and R7 are two completely different segments.
@@touringband What matters is the hit rate of those FPS as well, and when it gets a bit darker with higher shutters you would need that ISO power that you would bit that they're on different levels. R7 could have a chance at $2000, but $2500 is pretty laughable.
@@Bo_Hazem considering the autofocus in the R5 and R6 is brilliant it sets an extremely high precedence for the R7. As for the price, Tony was incorrectly suggesting a price for the R5C to be thousands more than it actually was so I wouldn’t be “complaining” about it yet until Canon themselves announce it.
Do the newer full frame Sony cameras allow you to disable crop mode while using an APS-C lens? There are many crop sensor lenses where the image sensor is much larger than the APS-C area but a little smaller than full frame. In cases like that, if you had to use APS-C focused lens for any reason, you utilize more of that image circle. Beyond that, many wide zooms for APS-C will cover a full frame sensor when zoomed in a bit, though with a larger corner sharpness dropoff (part of which is due to field curvature where it would be very noticeable on a flat surface, but not very noticeable on most environments where objects are at a wide range of distances.
Michael Maven You Tube channel reviewed the 90d has a great answer to your question. The 90D has a similar and maybe the identical sensor, and to get the most from the sensor, you need to get higher resolving lenses. Certainly L glass is fine.
Same mount, so yes. Just like you can put FF lenses on the crop sensor EF bodies. You'll get a cropped image of course, which translates to "more reach" with telephotos. That's why the R7 will be great for wildlife shooters. The RF 100-500 will frame images like a full-frame 160-800, and that's before adding a teleconverter.
Probably going to hang onto my EOS 6D until they start building GPS into the bodies again. Still don't know why that hasn't been standard at this point.
Not sure why you went on a tangent about the M series lenses here when the subject of the video has nothing to do with the M mount. And why complaints about not having professional grade APSC lenses? Just use the full frame pro lenses for the RF mount that are already available. The only area you might need an APSC specific lens is if you need a really wide lens.
Happy to see the R7. They will sell well to the Canon faithful, but wonder if a high MP high output FF with crop mode might have been a better route? The folks in the target niche don’t seem to have a problem dropping 6-7K on a body anyway
Crop mode on an R5 turns 45MP into 17.6 MP. Give me 32.5 any time. I'm in that target niche and I would definitely balk at dropping $7K on an 83MP body.
80+ megapixels at high frame rates asks a lot from current tech. Perhaps they could create fovea-like sensors with higher pixel density only in the crop area?
@@blekenbleu 80+ megapixels at that frame rate would overheat faster than the R5. Not to mention, it would need a much faster processor and sensor to read that much data fast enough to avoid unacceptable rolling electronic shutter. The much-rumored high MP Canon will be for studio and landscape shooters, likely topping off at 10-12 FPS. Don't expect much in the way of video specs, for the same reason.
As an owner of the M6 Mll, with the full compliment of M series lens, the R7 would be hard to justify. My logical next cam will be a full frame. Nice job looking into these rumors.
I've owned original EOS M and switched over to Fuji xt20 because I didn't want to go FF and lens options in M line wasn't great. It was 3 years ago. Fuji surprised me, image quality was much better than EOS M. But it was camera design from 2012, EOS M6 mark II has much better opinions
I don't agree with the statement that APS-C cameras underperform smartphones. I'd say the opposite is the truth. Smart phones are okay in good light with static subjects. Although they still won't outperform APS-C, even with a kit lens -- they'll just be tolerably similar. If you only need one megapixel (Insta), and your subjects are standing still, and your light is perfect, by all means reach for your smartphone. Smartphones do have a few advantages mostly related to computational photography (auto-HDR and also night modes). They are also better if you don't edit. They are far more *convenient*, that is unquestionable. And the mass market has absolutely spoken r.e. which of these classes of devices most people would prefer. Nonetheless, I think it's a bit of a disservice to keep saying this blatantly untrue thing, that APS-C or indeed m43 is routinely outperformed by a dinky 1/1.7" sensor with a tiny lens whose primary advantage is automatic exposure stacking.
@@asghiasughiqughbqwg Apart from image quality for me the experience of holding a camera, pressing a button, manually adjusting the focus or zooming in. For me phones are just to document things when a camera is not available.
I’m interested in the R7, thought it would be my secondary camera to my R5 but may become my primary, Loved my 7d MK II but made the switch to mirrorless. Primarily shoot birds & wildlife.
I don't think the R10 is going to be a M10 replacement I think it would be a 90D replacement so far the R series have been replacing the D series 1 for 1
If the R7 is truly what we were expecting in a 7DmkIII but as an RF, then I will likely get one. I was thinking closer to 2000, but won't be surprised if 2500, in which case I will be waiting until refurbs pop up. At 2000 I will be first in line at my shop for one. But, it has to have a tough build, it can't just be an R6 with a crop sensor. If that is the case it had better be 1400 or less, or it is dead to me (might be anyway if that happens). I agree about the 18-45mm. If they were already cutting it short from an 18-55mm that is the most common kit lens, then I would say they should also have made it wider. 15-45mm makes sense. But its not like I personally will ever bother with it. I would hope that at some point an RF version of the 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM can come into play, with better optics, better coatings, better IS (man, combo IS/IBIS would really rock for video), and nanoUSM.
Considering the latest micro 4/3 Panasonic GH6 is well over $2000, I don’t think Canon would price their larger sensor, pro body camera less than that… unless they really want to be competitive… 🤨
A thing you missed is that you actually can use a APS-C lens on a full frame Sony body. I have used several lenses. The thing is to NOT USE the automatic aps-c changer in camera (that steals a lot of Mega Pixel). Use the Pure View crop option instead, - no loss of MP. I have an old A7R with 36 MP. Putting a good quality aps-c lens on, and switching to Pure View, it uses the whole usable part of the lens by cropping smart and I still have that 36 MP! At 1,4 crop the corner vignetting is usually gone, but you can use it to Pure View's max 2,0 crop if you need to. No loss in MP. Just much lighter lenses. If you already had invested in that good quality aps-c lens, it's a win-win situation!
I would really appreciate a side-by-side comparison of the OM-1 vs. the R7 when it becomes available. Perhaps paired with the Olympus 100-400 and Canon RF 100-500. I have been shooting a 7DII with a Sigma 150-600C lens for bird and wildlife photography. This combo produces very good results, but I am hoping to upgrade to improve low light and autofocus performance. I have been leaning toward the OM-1, primarily to have a lighter kit that I could take on long hikes and backpacking and is good for both wildlife and landscape photography. With its pixel shift, I am hoping the OM-1 would be capable as a landscape camera, in addition to its current strength for bird and wildlife photography. I also appreciate that this system has small, sharp, weather-sealed lenses. My biggest gripe about APS-C is that wildlife photographers are forced to carry full-frame glass (with the weight penalty) if they want longer focal lengths. I really wish Canon would release an RF-S 100-400/500/600 zoom with the R7. I would also like to see them drop the anti-aliasing filter rather than reuse the 90D sensor, and perhaps use a backlit, BSI sensor to improve low light capability and speed to match or exceed the OM-1's 50 fps electronic shutter. Finally, it would be great if the R7 had the pro-capture and in camera focus stacking found in the OM-1.
Canon already have a 32 megapixel APSC - and in little M10 body - with a 15-45 kit lens. But they need to sell new product. That’s why they’re discontinuing the M6 mark ii.
Would 24-70 4.5-7.1 be almost same size on FF? I want M6, but it locks me to flat (or what some call "crisp") images. If R10 would be FF then i can install that 24-70 4.5-7.1 and enjoy crop look alike images, or bump 85mm f/1.2 too. And no more debates what sensor size cameras are better :)
EOS R is way too expensive for the average user. Honestly I'll just go back to Pentax and get a DSLR is Canon kills off EOS M, I have no money for EOS R.
That Canon's arguably premium EF-M cameras lacked viewfinders seemed confusing; if that R7 has a flippy screen; I'll regret getting a 90D. I never did fully sort Sony and Nikon APS-C offerings...
I agree with your concern over full frame and APSC using the same mount. People can buy a lens that poorly matches their full frame sensor. I think manufactures could help by alerting the user when they mount the lens that the camera has to go into crop mode with significantly reduced resolution. At least their would be some notification then. Luckily mounting a full frame lens on a APSC camera does not have that problem. The problem I have seen with Sony is they develop almost exclusively for full frame forcing APSC users to buy FF lenses. Let’s are bigger and heavier than they have to be when designed for full frame verses APSC.
OK so if putting a -s lens on a full frame sensor is so crippling, why make -s lenses at all, a crop sensor body can use as much of a full frame lens as possible and have no loss of quality in the crop sensor body? Correct Once everyone learns the focal length arithmetic in reverse all is good?
Sold all my heavy bulky dslr Canon gear. Will not return to their aps-c without a mirrorless 2.8 ultra wide angle, 1.8 Sigma zooms or 1.4 primes. Leaning towards Fuji and Sony for my next kit. Delighted for the sports and wildlife folks who've been waiting a long time to upgrade.
i am getting ready to make the purchase on an r5, but i will wait until the r7 is announced. I don’t know if the price will be enough to convince me to make that purchase instead but i am curious!!
Why would they change format, which would cost them hundreds of millions to retool for? 1.6 vs 1.52 is nothing in practical terms. Nobody is or isn't buying one system over another because of a 0.08 difference.
@@blekenbleu they would file patents for new lenses but not a crop factor. That is nothing really to have a patent for. It’s nothing their existing EF-S lenses can’t already do.
My 'Grab and Go Kit' for some years now has been a Canon 80D, an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, an EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM and an EF-S 10-18 f/4-5.6 IS STM. These lenses have been a satisfactory combination for travel involving long flights since 2015. Equivalent RF-S lenses would probably provide similar carry-on utility with an RF mount APSC camera. It does appear that a similar range of RF variable aperture non-L lenses is currently catalogued for full-frame Canon mirrorless cameras: a bit more than $1400.00 for an RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM, an RF24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM and an RF16mm F2.8 STM.
I currently have the Canon Rebel T7i when I started my photography almost a year ago. Now you mentioned the R7 camera ... I like to do Landscape Photography of mountains, and getting more into Air Shows. So I am working on fast focus and tack sharp photos. Would you recommend moving up to an R7 or stay with the Rebel T7i? As for a high quality camera with old lenses, does this mean I would have to purchase new/higher quality glass? Thanks Gordon
I'm excited my 20 year old camera is shot. I'm retired now so the r7 sounds good. My canon 300d took some great photos. Hope sigma and Tamron make lenses for new cameras. My camera experience is old black n white darkroom. I loved my Canon A1 with motor drive with a 1.2 aspherical lens. Tony thanks for the information.
I think you're off from the R10, it seems to be a successor to the 90D series, it has a lot of pro features and it doesn't seem to accomodate for the casual small camera user
At $500, the R10 will be a mirrorless replacement for the Rebel T7 DSLR, the largest selling camera in the world two years ago. If DSLRs weren't going away, we would have a cheap Rebel T8 to go along with the better Rebel T8i. But DSLRs are going away so we have the R10 instead for all the newbies who will be asking "I don't know anything about photography but I want to start. What camera should I get?" next Christmas.
Other channels also suggest R10 replaces 90D and not replacing the m6ii. Also the m50ii is still a hot camera for beginner content creators so Canon has that going for it (B&H Photo recommends it). Why kill M entirely at this point. Consumers want small M size lenses they just don't need many. There are enough M lenses at half a dozen and Sigma has 3 great sharp primes for M mount.
@@adrianvanleeuwen I'm impressed with my Sigma 16mm f/1.4 for my Sony A6400. It would be hard to part with it if I switch systems. If I were to switch to Canon, they don't make it for the R, only the M mount.
To counter the crop lenses on fullframe bodies confusion they should do the same thing as the EF mount where EF-S lenses cannot be put on Fullframe bodies cuz of a little notch on the lens mount
want to know your opinion now. when Nikon released z50, you termed it as mistake. Now when Canon is also joining the Apsc market, will you term it too as mistake?
I’ve waited for years to upgrade my 7D Mk1, I got sick of the silence from Canon and continued rumours about release dates so I jumped on an R6. Not too sure how I feel about this camera at present, I hope I didn’t jump to FF too soon 😳☹️😳
Really hoping RF-S isn't a reality. I love my RF system for when size isn't a concern or I have a job, and I love my M100 when I need to go out with the family (32 f1.4 is amazing) and keep things compact. Don't kill EF-M I love how everything has been built with a small footprint.
Cool. Enjoy your M cameras. They're not being taken away from you, they're not going to cease functioning, and they're not suddenly going to produce worse images.
I am so confused at what camera to buy at this point… (I am an amateur)… I thought the R10 was going to be the ticket… I travel a lot and want something that will give me higher quality than the iPhone… looking for a 18 x 150mm lens to go with it… I have a canon rebel T5 now… hoping to find something lighter/smaller (bad neck)… help… I need advise…. Canon, Sony, Fuji… what do I buy!
Do you think that the R7 has the same sensor as the 90D? I have that camera and while it is a killer wildlife sensor for cropping images, it struggles with high ISOs. I'll still be replacing my 90D with an R7, just for the higher frame rate, IBIS and Animal Eye AF, but it would be a bummer if the sensor can't perform better at ISO 12800 or 25600.
It can't be literally the same sensor because the 99D/M6mk2 sensor doesn't have readout speed anywhere near high enough for these fps and video specs, but it probably won't be much different. They're clearly going to optimise for speed, and you can't optimise for both speed _and_ image quality. Also, the 90D's sensor is already as good as APS-C gets, and at this kind of pixel density it's near-impossible to make substantial improvements. Downsampled to the same density as the R5's sensor, for example, the 90D's noise is the same. So your choice is either have the high density of 32mp, which will mean more noise at a 1:1 pixel level but with more resolution to downsample, or have a lower resolution camera which will be cleaner 1:1 but not as flexible for editing, cropping in, and capture less detail. Nine times out if ten, you're better off with a noisier but higher-resolution sensor, so you get more detail at low ISO and can downsample for better quality at high ISO. No such thing as a free lunch when it comes to camera sensors, resolution, speed and noise.
Is there really a worthwhile difference in development and production costs for a crop sensor vs full frame? The R7 does look like a nice option for wildlife though.
If you consider per unit cost to manufacture, market size, and profit margins between APS-C and full frame sensors then no, there not much savings between the two. Let’s say Canon can manufacture an APS-C sensor for $5, but a full frame sensor would run $25. At first glance it looks like the smaller APS-C sensor would give Canon a good costs savings and generate some hefty profit margins. However, the market size is much smaller for the APS-C crop cameras than for full frame cameras. So, the first glance in savings is quickly gobbled up by the greater quantities and sales numbers for full frame sensors. It takes the same amount of labor and expense to set up materials and machines to make 5,000 APS-C sensors as it would 25,000 full frame sensors. Hence, realistically speaking the larger full frame sensors are actually cheaper to produce, and because Canon can ask mor for its full frame bodies, it gets a much larger profit margin.
Yes, RP with 800mm f/11 "cheap and evil" :) Crop is not getting any advantage: price, size, weight. All can be done on FF. I am trying understand too what is the catch with crop.
The kind of buyer that would have bought a low end crop sensor camera 10 years ago is probably going to be using a smartphone now. A low end FF with a plastic body, no IBIS and no viewfinder would be a better entry level camera.
@@Mangust2 people like crop for the extra reach, faster frame rates, and lower weight. There is definitely a market for crop. I would imagine most serious photographers would have both FF and crop to shoot everything they want.
I moved from EOS/EF/EF-S to EOS M/EF-M because the size and weight of the former was getting me down. EOS M was slow when I first got it in 2013, but it evolved into the perfect system eventually with the EOS M6 Mk 2. I didn't change systems because I wanted an APS-C sensor, I changed because of the form factor. Putting an APS-C into a large body that needs large RF lenses is a big step backwards. Very disappointing news, but not unexpected. There have been no new EOS M/EF-M developments for years.
Hello. I have a Canon 7d mark II and I thinking about to update to Canon R o this R7. I photographing birds, landscapes and travel. Next autumn we will travel to Feroe Islands for watch, photo and video Aurora. I don’t know which one is better for this kind of photography. Could you add me? Thank you.
I dont think there is much confusion about aps-c to ff lenses. Its important to have a system that all works together and one you can grow with. I shoot macro insect and in fall and winter birds - both I prefer apsc for. I also shoot a little landscape and family portraits, candids etc which I use ff for. I have kept both a fullframe and Apsc for years and Ive been chomping at the bit waiting for an R7 to go with my R6. It really surprises when people suggest camera companies should just put resources into full frame. I whole heartedly disagree. Having both an apsc and fullframe, of which our lenses can work on both and grow with us in both formats is best.
I just want a camera that will take nice portrait, maybe nature photos.. im not a youtuber nor a vlogger.. what would be a good camera for a budget around 1k?
Canon RF 50mm 1.8? Canon RF 16mm f/2.8? Affordable. Same about 35 and 85 IS lenses. Crop kit lens 3.5-5.6... on full frame can be 4.5-7.1? maybe even smaller and cheaper
You are totally right. the R10 should have been full frame, nothing fancy just cheap and full frame. Although I guess that's the job of the RP series. The R7 can be APS-C, if it is a specialist camera for wildlife with telephoto. The problem of APS-C is, cellphone cameras are taking photos with 4 or 6 of their smaller cameras at once. 6 cellphone cameras will have roughly the same sensor size and quality as an APS-C camera. That is why firstly point and shoot cameras died, and APS-C cameras are next.
When I ever have the money I will buy a Canon R5 and R7, with a 24-70 2.8 for my R5 and a 100-500 for my R7. So that I basically have the same I have now, the 6DMarkII with 24-70 and 80D with 100-400 lens. This setup is like perfection for me. As now I can shoot basically everything without needing to change to much, paying to much, carry to much and so on. The only thing is that I am already WAY past the maximum amount of shots the camera's should both be able to make, around 500.000 shots I've already made. So I need the new gear. But the money isn't there yet.
Nice but can not replace M6ii with hi res 22mm pancake or the best Sigma 56. Not mentioning 83 mp resolution for wild life. With Sigma RF no reason to leave EOS m.
If you're exulting the use of APS-C sensors for wildlife, as you were here for the R7, why don't you include Fujifilm when you compare wildlife cameras?? You get the high pixel density but only need to carry around a smaller dedicated APS lens without wasting glass diameter/weight/aperture/cost. You must be getting excited for the stacked sensor 40 fps X-H2S or 40 MP X-H2, and upcoming XF150-600mm lens! It should be teleconverter compatible too. And way better video specs on the X-H2 to the R7 which may match the 2018 X-T3!
I think that I'm going to pass on the R7. I would rather have the R5 and lose the crop factor than lose a stop of light. I already have the 90D. But if I was upgrading my 7DM2 then I would want this. But for indoor sports I'll take the R5 all day to keep that ISO low and shutter speed high.
This R7 is a niche camera and that niche is not indoor sports! It's small birds with a big telephoto and maybe outdoor sports with a 70-200 2.8 but I think you are right, for indoor sports, even under great lights an R5 (or R6 or R3) would be a better choice.
Good content Tony but don’t remind Canon (cuz you know their watching) that a $500 full frame would cannibalize their FF higher end cameras, some of us don’t want to spring for or can’t afford a $1000+ FF body, besides if Canon etc. want to compete with the ever evolving smartphones they need a sweet selling point which would be FF sensor cameras starting at $500…. I think more sales would follow and besides they could make good money selling more glass.
I am so anxious to have the R-7 and put it to use with my RF 100/500 mounted on the front. 800mm @ f 7.1 I can only imagine how this versatile lightweight combination will make my wildlife photography even more enjoyable. Thanks and keep up the great work.
Am I one of a very few who actually likes aps-c and has no desire to "upgrade" to FF? The R7 is exactly what I am looking for.
Tony, you talk about how great the R7 will be for wildlife shooters and then talk about how bad it is that FF and aps-c share the same lens mount. If it weren't for the way things currently are with EF\EF-S, I would not be able to use my 100-400 L II lens on my aps-c camera for wildlife. Canon has never made decent long glass for EF-S, and I expect things won't change with RF-S. What is the benefit of a crop sensor like the R7 for wildlife if there are no compatible lenses?
Well, you could put the FF 1200mm F8 on this R7, and get the equivalent field of view of 1920mm. If you use an R5 and crop the shot in, you are left with only 17.5mp, instead of 32.5mp on this R7. That means, using this APS-C you get double the detail, and faster frame rates, and you don't even have to handle larger files that you have to crop in post. I personally don't think that people who buy this R7 mind having to use FF lenses on their APS-C body for this reason. But wildlife is the only time in my opinion that it makes some sense to put a FF lens on an APS-C body, else you just have have heavy expensive glass that don't even provide great image quality when used on APS-C. (Check Christopher Frost lens reviews where he often also tests the FF lenses on APS-C and often corner sharpness is far worse, although you think it is just a crop of the FF and should be better)
I also really like APS-C by the way, on my D500. But I am considering moving to Full Frame as there is just no appealing APS-C mirrorless lens lineup from any company other than Fuji (and I don't like the price-quality of those). The Sony lineup is not too bad, especially the 70-350mm is appealing but I am not a huge fan of the A6600 body, especially the EVF. I also wouldn't mind having a bit more out of focus background for some creative shots. So I think I might make the jump
Value for money and a much more manageable size APS-C is great, getting f1.8, f2.8 sigma lenses for under $400 second hand is amazing. I do e-com product photography and a 90d/200d combo with some canon ef-s and sigma glass is all I need.
@@Eikenhorst I don't think you need a full frame lens to enjoy that increased reach for the same focal length. Plus, as you pointed out, a lens designed for APS-C is usually sharper than the FF equivalent on an APS-C body. So unless you plan to use the same lens on both crop and FF bodies, using FF lenses on a crop body seems to bring a weight penalty without much benefit.
@@CaseyFinnerty You are totally right! Except that Canon doesn't make a 1900mm APSC lens, and they do make a 1200mm FF lens. I agree it is a 'waste' to use that on an APSC body, but if you end up cropping your image a lot anyway (as wildlife photographers tend to do), this is not completely crazy. However, using a 24-70 F2.8 full frame lens on your APS-C body is completely crazy, because there are good APS-C specific alternatives available that are lighter and usually also a bit sharper.
I will be interested to see the size of the R10. The best feature of the M system is it's size. Just a great travel system that I will be sad to see go if the R10 is much larger. If these RF-s Lenses will be the same size as the RF like EF-s is to EF than the camera will be larger. I own the RP and several M cameras and the RP is larger than all of my M's and the M lenses are just tiny.
The R7 is enticing. Very interested. Waiting for the R1. It’s either that or new hardwood floors for my townhouse.
Get the floors, lol....
consider luxury vinyl floors too 🤣
Install the hardwood floors yourself, and buy the R5. It’s a double win!
Best comment ever.
@@davidjoseph4459 -Already have the R5.
I always assumed the R10 would replace the 90D. That series has always been super popular, way more so than the 7D series.
That is what some other You Tubers are thinking also, like Ordinary Filmmaker. I would prefer a 90D replacement that had oversampled 4K video. 90D 4K video quality was soft and disappointing.
I feel the same way. and the spec and name also sounds like it will replace the 90D.
My R gear waits at home as my M kit heads up the hiking trail with me. Whatever the future holds for these new cameras, I sure hope that a smaller-sized camera is still an option.
Lightweight. Convenient. Practical. Inexpensive. Usable.
There's so much emphasis on 6k and 8k and a bazillion megapixels... The reality is that us average folks just don't use the premium features enough to justify the money. Don't get me wrong... those premium features are really cool, but if I don't use them, does it really make sense to pay more for a camera that has it.
The thing I like about the EOS-M is the low barrier to entry and the compact size. It really makes for a great travel camera. No need for big, bulky, expensive, performance oriented body and glass... My photography isn't making me money. I just want an easy and reliable way to capture memories.
@@kevinbui4059 Someone who doesn't want to take pictures of his family with equipment worth 10k dollars? I must be dreaming. Hey pal, nice to meet you ;)
I switched from my R to Sony APS-C. There are affordable and small lenses, also from Sigma and Samyang.
@@kevinbui4059 The Kevins are in agreement!
If you need something better than the M for your hikes, look into the Fujifilm x-t series. Hikers love those cameras.
@@Layman927 I have no doubt that the x-t series is excellent, but to replace what I have for body and lenses makes that far from worth my while at this point. The M performs very capably. BUT, if Canon does not provide a smaller camera to replace, it, the Fuji is my first choice.
I really like how small and light the EF-M cameras and lenses are. I think its great for carrying on bicycle trips. Doubt these new cameras will be as small, so maybe I'll get a refurbished M6 II and not buy another camera for a long while.
Ive been buying M6ii cameras and lenses for a while, I think the compact body and lens era is over
@@jukeboxjohnnie canon should make those x100 competitors if they dont make new Ef-M cameras.
@@jukeboxjohnnie so we are going back to big bulky bodies? Why?
@@dice3809 It looks like they dont want to carry on with the M mount when they can base apsc cameras around the RF mount you can use full frame lenses too then, however it means bigger cameras. Probably.
@@jukeboxjohnnie then I will just switch to something else.
No, the 7DII had a CF and a SD Card slot. Not CF Express. I am expecting a CF-E in the R7. That makes sense.
Tony was talking about how the Canon R7 would be good for wildlife photographers, but when he talked about the R7, I was thinking that it could also be a great camera for macro photographers.
Canon probably has a large supply of APSC lenses they need to push out and the R10 might be a way for them to dispose of these lenses.
As for mixing mounts. I wish the manufacturers simply labeled their lenses with a graphic logo specifying what type of lens it is either APS-C or FF. It's like buying a video game for your game console. Just check to see if you have the PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, or PC version of the game by looking for the graphic. And If I am switching lenses, it should be displayed on the lens so I can see it. Same with the cameras actually for those who have multiple cameras. This would make matching and pairing so much easier.
They should continue with the M50, as it’s a proven design and quite popular.
The R10 is definitely a replacement to the 70/80/90D series line. I have to disagree on the M10 comparison
Some people on other channels are suspecting the R10 to replace the 90D but at 24mp. Are you sure that the m50ii, a hot selling camera for content creators is going away with all M mount cameras in the near future? The m6ii is the only m camera discontinued so far.
It totally makes sense to keep M mount (for now) as the lens are much smaller than R lenses so far, and general consumer will want small bodies AND small lenses. However if R10 is a low priced entry apsc, and lenses are very compact like Nikon's Z50 or the Canon M small lens line with a revised R mount, then maybe. R10 will have to prove itself equal or better than a m50ii (in functionality and size) to be a good entry level aps-c for Canon and outsell the m50ii, before the m50ii and M mount is gone. Canon's m50ii main competitor for "beginner" content creators is Sony ZV E-10 which is recommended by numerous sites as it does 4K downsampled from 6K with Sony s-log video.
With "more numbers means cheaper /lower end camera"-scheme I also think the R10 cannot be a M10 successor. Within the M it was not a great differentiation but after M10 tge M100 came and then the M200. Would be weird to lock in that number for such an entry level body.
Question is: will I be able to adapt all of my EF-M and EF lenses to the R10? Or, will I need to start all over from scratch, buying all new lenses? If that is the case, I'm switching to Nikon or Sony.
You cannot adapt EF-M lenses to RF today. The lens is made for a 2 mm shorter flange distance. Assuming RF-S is the same.
Since EF can be adapted to RF the same should go for it.
The only thing, maybe, my pipedream would be if they designed the camera with an interchangeable mount. I.e. a totally custom way to change the plate the lens sits against.
With the inexplicably low pixel count on the R6, I simply have no way to migrate from my Canon DSLR to their mirrorless system in my budget. I'm considering just switching to the Sony system completely.
Migrating systems always costs more so why not just put these dollars towards an R5? Or if you’ve waited this long, just wait for the R6ii
@@touringband Good points. If they make an R6ii with 30ish mp that would be ideal. I'm not in a hurry. Thanks.
The R7 being a crop body may make me go to Sony. I was hoping they'd come out with something to compete with the A7iii and Z5.
@@oudviola I have serious doubts it'll be 30mp. They may bump it to 24 but not much higher.
@@veganpotterthevegan The Sony A7 IV is looking very attractive in comparison. I tried it in the store with a couple of my Canon lenses (with the adapter) and they came to focus quite well it seemed.
Agree they should have stuck with full-frame, especially for the R10. They could have still made this R7 as a single, super specialist camera, repackage a couple of wildlife lenses, mark up the price as needed and call it good. They'd be better giving beginners a better and easier upgrade path as you say.
Bro, you skipped over the 32.5mp 90D. This is a mirrorless 90D.
Single mount is fantastic... EF mount ... E mount, F mount... Sucks for the random consumer that won't know this or not know what the difference is... but it makes it so much easier for the rest of us that may have different format bodies while using same lenses across different bodies
There are plenty of beginners who also think having to buy a lens as well as a body is a scam to get more money from you. I don't think the criticism that some beginners will get confused between APS-C and full frame lenses should hold weight.
If you want to cater to beginners, you make a point and shoot.
I noticed that Tony posted equivalent full frame focal lengths for the rumored RF-S lenses. He allowed for crop factor. Makes sense.
But, he also applied crop factor to the aperture range, too. That does NOT make sense. He has applied crop factor two times.
I forget… a full frame lens on the R7 for sports.Good idea or not a good idea?
In Toneh's dimension only a7 III exists. Didn't he know that a7 IV is already out at $2500? At that pricetag R7 is DOA.
DOA? I don’t think you understand what wildlife photographers want. The FPS of the a7 iv isn’t great. A7iv and R7 are two completely different segments.
@@touringband What matters is the hit rate of those FPS as well, and when it gets a bit darker with higher shutters you would need that ISO power that you would bit that they're on different levels. R7 could have a chance at $2000, but $2500 is pretty laughable.
@@Bo_Hazem considering the autofocus in the R5 and R6 is brilliant it sets an extremely high precedence for the R7. As for the price, Tony was incorrectly suggesting a price for the R5C to be thousands more than it actually was so I wouldn’t be “complaining” about it yet until Canon themselves announce it.
If canon kills off EOS-M, I am never buying a Canon camera again. EOS R is way too expensive.
I wonder if the R7 uses the same sensor on the 90D. The 90D has poor dynamic range and ISO performance.
Will the R7 low light performance fall short of the R6 being a crop sensor?
Most definitely, even my old FF 6D would likely be better at higher ISO 6400 than the R7 unless Canon have added some new wiz tech unheard of.
Do the newer full frame Sony cameras allow you to disable crop mode while using an APS-C lens? There are many crop sensor lenses where the image sensor is much larger than the APS-C area but a little smaller than full frame. In cases like that, if you had to use APS-C focused lens for any reason, you utilize more of that image circle.
Beyond that, many wide zooms for APS-C will cover a full frame sensor when zoomed in a bit, though with a larger corner sharpness dropoff (part of which is due to field curvature where it would be very noticeable on a flat surface, but not very noticeable on most environments where objects are at a wide range of distances.
The question I have about the R7 as a wildlife camera: do the long Canon FF lenses have the resolving power to do service to that pixel pitch?
Michael Maven You Tube channel reviewed the 90d has a great answer to your question. The 90D has a similar and maybe the identical sensor, and to get the most from the sensor, you need to get higher resolving lenses. Certainly L glass is fine.
The sensor will resolve the max for your lens. Imagine that film had 150mp equivalent resolution.
@@bngr_bngr Sure sure. I'm just wondering if the extremely fine pixel pitch of this sensor has rendered the lens the bottleneck in more cases.
I needed to hear these details, thank you!
Will current RF full frame lenses fit on the R7? Will EF lenses work with current EF to RF adaptors?
Same mount, so yes. Just like you can put FF lenses on the crop sensor EF bodies. You'll get a cropped image of course, which translates to "more reach" with telephotos. That's why the R7 will be great for wildlife shooters. The RF 100-500 will frame images like a full-frame 160-800, and that's before adding a teleconverter.
Probably going to hang onto my EOS 6D until they start building GPS into the bodies again. Still don't know why that hasn't been standard at this point.
You can just pair camera with your phone
Not sure why you went on a tangent about the M series lenses here when the subject of the video has nothing to do with the M mount. And why complaints about not having professional grade APSC lenses? Just use the full frame pro lenses for the RF mount that are already available. The only area you might need an APSC specific lens is if you need a really wide lens.
Happy to see the R7. They will sell well to the Canon faithful, but wonder if a high MP high output FF with crop mode might have been a better route? The folks in the target niche don’t seem to have a problem dropping 6-7K on a body anyway
Crop mode on an R5 turns 45MP into 17.6 MP. Give me 32.5 any time. I'm in that target niche and I would definitely balk at dropping $7K on an 83MP body.
80+ megapixels at high frame rates asks a lot from current tech. Perhaps they could create fovea-like sensors with higher pixel density only in the crop area?
@@blekenbleu 80+ megapixels at that frame rate would overheat faster than the R5. Not to mention, it would need a much faster processor and sensor to read that much data fast enough to avoid unacceptable rolling electronic shutter. The much-rumored high MP Canon will be for studio and landscape shooters, likely topping off at 10-12 FPS. Don't expect much in the way of video specs, for the same reason.
As an owner of the M6 Mll, with the full compliment of M series lens, the R7 would be hard to justify. My logical next cam will be a full frame. Nice job looking into these rumors.
I've owned original EOS M and switched over to Fuji xt20 because I didn't want to go FF and lens options in M line wasn't great. It was 3 years ago. Fuji surprised me, image quality was much better than EOS M. But it was camera design from 2012, EOS M6 mark II has much better opinions
@@chodzsiepowoczymy1892 I also own the EOS M, and EOS M6II .. the first and the last EOS M?
I don't agree with the statement that APS-C cameras underperform smartphones. I'd say the opposite is the truth. Smart phones are okay in good light with static subjects. Although they still won't outperform APS-C, even with a kit lens -- they'll just be tolerably similar. If you only need one megapixel (Insta), and your subjects are standing still, and your light is perfect, by all means reach for your smartphone.
Smartphones do have a few advantages mostly related to computational photography (auto-HDR and also night modes). They are also better if you don't edit. They are far more *convenient*, that is unquestionable. And the mass market has absolutely spoken r.e. which of these classes of devices most people would prefer.
Nonetheless, I think it's a bit of a disservice to keep saying this blatantly untrue thing, that APS-C or indeed m43 is routinely outperformed by a dinky 1/1.7" sensor with a tiny lens whose primary advantage is automatic exposure stacking.
I agree. Once i took some photos with a camera, i could not enjoy phone photography. There is a difference in quality.
@@dice3809 I still like taking phone pictures but I think we shouldn't misrepresent the state of the art here.
@@asghiasughiqughbqwg Apart from image quality for me the experience of holding a camera, pressing a button, manually adjusting the focus or zooming in. For me phones are just to document things when a camera is not available.
The previous 7d had a CF express card? Did I hear that correctly?🤔
The R7 will need to have no blackout and no rolling shutter to be great for wildlife photographers in these modern times.
Yeah the rolling shutter just sort of makes the 20 fps so much less appealing on the R5
I’m interested in the R7, thought it would be my secondary camera to my R5 but may become my primary, Loved my 7d MK II but made the switch to mirrorless. Primarily shoot birds & wildlife.
I don't think the R10 is going to be a M10 replacement I think it would be a 90D replacement so far the R series have been replacing the D series 1 for 1
Does it have shutter priority in video mode?
That's always been the main deal breaker for me in most Canon cameras...
I wonder of the R7 body will be like the R3?
If the R7 is truly what we were expecting in a 7DmkIII but as an RF, then I will likely get one. I was thinking closer to 2000, but won't be surprised if 2500, in which case I will be waiting until refurbs pop up. At 2000 I will be first in line at my shop for one. But, it has to have a tough build, it can't just be an R6 with a crop sensor. If that is the case it had better be 1400 or less, or it is dead to me (might be anyway if that happens).
I agree about the 18-45mm. If they were already cutting it short from an 18-55mm that is the most common kit lens, then I would say they should also have made it wider. 15-45mm makes sense. But its not like I personally will ever bother with it. I would hope that at some point an RF version of the 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM can come into play, with better optics, better coatings, better IS (man, combo IS/IBIS would really rock for video), and nanoUSM.
Considering the latest micro 4/3 Panasonic GH6 is well over $2000, I don’t think Canon would price their larger sensor, pro body camera less than that… unless they really want to be competitive… 🤨
Hi, I never saw you didn't a review a Nikon Z7II with Voigtlander 58mm lens, why?
A thing you missed is that you actually can use a APS-C lens on a full frame Sony body. I have used several lenses. The thing is to NOT USE the automatic aps-c changer in camera (that steals a lot of Mega Pixel). Use the Pure View crop option instead, - no loss of MP.
I have an old A7R with 36 MP. Putting a good quality aps-c lens on, and switching to Pure View, it uses the whole usable part of the lens by cropping smart and I still have that 36 MP! At 1,4 crop the corner vignetting is usually gone, but you can use it to Pure View's max 2,0 crop if you need to. No loss in MP. Just much lighter lenses.
If you already had invested in that good quality aps-c lens, it's a win-win situation!
If the R7 lives up to it's current specs, it might replace my R6 as my favorite camera. I had the 7D Mark II and loved it1
The 7D is still a very capable sports camera ! to this day...
Can you use RF lenses on the Canon R7
I would really appreciate a side-by-side comparison of the OM-1 vs. the R7 when it becomes available. Perhaps paired with the Olympus 100-400 and Canon RF 100-500. I have been shooting a 7DII with a Sigma 150-600C lens for bird and wildlife photography. This combo produces very good results, but I am hoping to upgrade to improve low light and autofocus performance. I have been leaning toward the OM-1, primarily to have a lighter kit that I could take on long hikes and backpacking and is good for both wildlife and landscape photography. With its pixel shift, I am hoping the OM-1 would be capable as a landscape camera, in addition to its current strength for bird and wildlife photography. I also appreciate that this system has small, sharp, weather-sealed lenses. My biggest gripe about APS-C is that wildlife photographers are forced to carry full-frame glass (with the weight penalty) if they want longer focal lengths. I really wish Canon would release an RF-S 100-400/500/600 zoom with the R7. I would also like to see them drop the anti-aliasing filter rather than reuse the 90D sensor, and perhaps use a backlit, BSI sensor to improve low light capability and speed to match or exceed the OM-1's 50 fps electronic shutter. Finally, it would be great if the R7 had the pro-capture and in camera focus stacking found in the OM-1.
Canon already have a 32 megapixel APSC - and in little M10 body - with a 15-45 kit lens. But they need to sell new product. That’s why they’re discontinuing the M6 mark ii.
Would 24-70 4.5-7.1 be almost same size on FF? I want M6, but it locks me to flat (or what some call "crisp") images. If R10 would be FF then i can install that 24-70 4.5-7.1 and enjoy crop look alike images, or bump 85mm f/1.2 too. And no more debates what sensor size cameras are better :)
The R7 is ideal I admit.
Although I do admire the compactness of the M-mirrorless series since (for obvious reasons) the RF FF are quite large.
EOS R is way too expensive for the average user. Honestly I'll just go back to Pentax and get a DSLR is Canon kills off EOS M, I have no money for EOS R.
I think eos M user will have hard time in the future.
Will R7 have stacked sensor?
That Canon's arguably premium EF-M cameras lacked viewfinders seemed confusing; if that R7 has a flippy screen; I'll regret getting a 90D.
I never did fully sort Sony and Nikon APS-C offerings...
The M5 has a view finder and the most direct controls....
Thanks, better explanation than other UTubers.
Can i use my ef-s lenses with this camera
?
I agree with your concern over full frame and APSC using the same mount. People can buy a lens that poorly matches their full frame sensor. I think manufactures could help by alerting the user when they mount the lens that the camera has to go into crop mode with significantly reduced resolution. At least their would be some notification then. Luckily mounting a full frame lens on a APSC camera does not have that problem. The problem I have seen with Sony is they develop almost exclusively for full frame forcing APSC users to buy FF lenses. Let’s are bigger and heavier than they have to be when designed for full frame verses APSC.
I still use a 7Dii, and I know many other birders who do as well. I’m very excited about the R7, but I really hope it’s not $2500.
Yes, I agree. If the price is that high, I will just go with the R6.
Will this be good for sports? Would it be worth upgrading from the 7d mark ii to the new r7?
10:30 Why do people round down?
you guys never did anything on the Canon C70...why? Missed your clarity on that one...
I wasn't sure I was going to be into this but when I saw you remove those glasses at the beginning, I knew I was in for some serious business. lol. 😂
OK so if putting a -s lens on a full frame sensor is so crippling, why make -s lenses at all, a crop sensor body can use as much of a full frame lens as possible and have no loss of quality in the crop sensor body?
Correct
Once everyone learns the focal length arithmetic in reverse all is good?
I especially liked the last part of the video where discussing the M-mount and stuff around.
I am still waiting for my book. It's been a couple of months and I still don't have it. No communication. Can someone please answer me.
Are you filming with a Canon RP?! I’ve been thinking of getting one for a long time! Mostly for photos.
Sold all my heavy bulky dslr Canon gear. Will not return to their aps-c without a mirrorless 2.8 ultra wide angle, 1.8 Sigma zooms or 1.4 primes. Leaning towards Fuji and Sony for my next kit.
Delighted for the sports and wildlife folks who've been waiting a long time to upgrade.
do you think they'll make an aps-c tele for the R7?
I doubt the R 10 is going to follow the M 10 standard. More likely replacement for the xxD line, 80D etc.
I agree. Wasn't 70/80/90D a way more popular line? I still see 80D for sale.
i am getting ready to make the purchase on an r5, but i will wait until the r7 is announced. I don’t know if the price will be enough to convince me to make that purchase instead but i am curious!!
Possible Canon will switch to 1.5 crop on RF APS-C?
Someone would likely have reported Canon patent filings for new 1.5 crop lens formulae.
Why would they change format, which would cost them hundreds of millions to retool for? 1.6 vs 1.52 is nothing in practical terms. Nobody is or isn't buying one system over another because of a 0.08 difference.
@@aceflibble why would they need to retool and why would it cost them hundreds of millions of Dollars?
@@blekenbleu they would file patents for new lenses but not a crop factor. That is nothing really to have a patent for. It’s nothing their existing EF-S lenses can’t already do.
If they ever do, this would be the time to do it.
My 'Grab and Go Kit' for some years now has been a Canon 80D, an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, an EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM and an EF-S 10-18 f/4-5.6 IS STM. These lenses have been a satisfactory combination for travel involving long flights since 2015. Equivalent RF-S lenses would probably provide similar carry-on utility with an RF mount APSC camera. It does appear that a similar range of RF variable aperture non-L lenses is currently catalogued for full-frame Canon mirrorless cameras: a bit more than $1400.00 for an RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM, an RF24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM and an RF16mm F2.8 STM.
I currently have the Canon Rebel T7i when I started my photography almost a year ago.
Now you mentioned the R7 camera ...
I like to do Landscape Photography of mountains, and getting more into Air Shows.
So I am working on fast focus and tack sharp photos.
Would you recommend moving up to an R7 or stay with the Rebel T7i?
As for a high quality camera with old lenses, does this mean I would have to purchase new/higher quality glass?
Thanks
Gordon
I'm excited my 20 year old camera is shot. I'm retired now so the r7 sounds good. My canon 300d took some great photos. Hope sigma and Tamron make lenses for new cameras. My camera experience is old black n white darkroom. I loved my Canon A1 with motor drive with a 1.2 aspherical lens. Tony thanks for the information.
Tony, what is a good setup to film my son’s soccer game?
1990’s Sony handycam
This is a great time to be alive in the camera world!
I think you're off from the R10, it seems to be a successor to the 90D series, it has a lot of pro features and it doesn't seem to accomodate for the casual small camera user
At $500, the R10 will be a mirrorless replacement for the Rebel T7 DSLR, the largest selling camera in the world two years ago. If DSLRs weren't going away, we would have a cheap Rebel T8 to go along with the better Rebel T8i. But DSLRs are going away so we have the R10 instead for all the newbies who will be asking "I don't know anything about photography but I want to start. What camera should I get?" next Christmas.
Other channels also suggest R10 replaces 90D and not replacing the m6ii. Also the m50ii is still a hot camera for beginner content creators so Canon has that going for it (B&H Photo recommends it). Why kill M entirely at this point. Consumers want small M size lenses they just don't need many. There are enough M lenses at half a dozen and Sigma has 3 great sharp primes for M mount.
@@adrianvanleeuwen I'm impressed with my Sigma 16mm f/1.4 for my Sony A6400. It would be hard to part with it if I switch systems. If I were to switch to Canon, they don't make it for the R, only the M mount.
To counter the crop lenses on fullframe bodies confusion they should do the same thing as the EF mount where EF-S lenses cannot be put on Fullframe bodies cuz of a little notch on the lens mount
I have noticed the top line flickering in a bunch of your recent news videos - is this some editing artifact ?
want to know your opinion now. when Nikon released z50, you termed it as mistake. Now when Canon is also joining the Apsc market, will you term it too as mistake?
I use video in my 7d2 a lot. 4k 60fps with 'continuous auto focus' will be a good thing along with no crop..
I’ve waited for years to upgrade my 7D Mk1, I got sick of the silence from Canon and continued rumours about release dates so I jumped on an R6. Not too sure how I feel about this camera at present, I hope I didn’t jump to FF too soon 😳☹️😳
Really hoping RF-S isn't a reality. I love my RF system for when size isn't a concern or I have a job, and I love my M100 when I need to go out with the family (32 f1.4 is amazing) and keep things compact. Don't kill EF-M I love how everything has been built with a small footprint.
Just when I spent all kinds of money on the M system
Cool. Enjoy your M cameras. They're not being taken away from you, they're not going to cease functioning, and they're not suddenly going to produce worse images.
@@aceflibble If they dropped the price of an M6ii, I'd be tempted to buy one. It's still $849 as it is, a hell of a lot less than $2500.
How does the image stablisation on the R7 compare with the image stablisation of the Olympus EM-1?
And..... Does it have live composite feature?
So it sounds like the Canon r10 will have the same sensor as the Canon 80d, but just slightly improved.
The 80D is a great camera, so it will definitely be an improvement
I am so confused at what camera to buy at this point… (I am an amateur)… I thought the R10 was going to be the ticket… I travel a lot and want something that will give me higher quality than the iPhone… looking for a 18 x 150mm lens to go with it… I have a canon rebel T5 now… hoping to find something lighter/smaller (bad neck)… help… I need advise…. Canon, Sony, Fuji… what do I buy!
Do you think that the R7 has the same sensor as the 90D? I have that camera and while it is a killer wildlife sensor for cropping images, it struggles with high ISOs. I'll still be replacing my 90D with an R7, just for the higher frame rate, IBIS and Animal Eye AF, but it would be a bummer if the sensor can't perform better at ISO 12800 or 25600.
It can't be literally the same sensor because the 99D/M6mk2 sensor doesn't have readout speed anywhere near high enough for these fps and video specs, but it probably won't be much different. They're clearly going to optimise for speed, and you can't optimise for both speed _and_ image quality. Also, the 90D's sensor is already as good as APS-C gets, and at this kind of pixel density it's near-impossible to make substantial improvements. Downsampled to the same density as the R5's sensor, for example, the 90D's noise is the same. So your choice is either have the high density of 32mp, which will mean more noise at a 1:1 pixel level but with more resolution to downsample, or have a lower resolution camera which will be cleaner 1:1 but not as flexible for editing, cropping in, and capture less detail. Nine times out if ten, you're better off with a noisier but higher-resolution sensor, so you get more detail at low ISO and can downsample for better quality at high ISO.
No such thing as a free lunch when it comes to camera sensors, resolution, speed and noise.
Is there really a worthwhile difference in development and production costs for a crop sensor vs full frame?
The R7 does look like a nice option for wildlife though.
If you consider per unit cost to manufacture, market size, and profit margins between APS-C and full frame sensors then no, there not much savings between the two. Let’s say Canon can manufacture an APS-C sensor for $5, but a full frame sensor would run $25. At first glance it looks like the smaller APS-C sensor would give Canon a good costs savings and generate some hefty profit margins. However, the market size is much smaller for the APS-C crop cameras than for full frame cameras. So, the first glance in savings is quickly gobbled up by the greater quantities and sales numbers for full frame sensors. It takes the same amount of labor and expense to set up materials and machines to make 5,000 APS-C sensors as it would 25,000 full frame sensors. Hence, realistically speaking the larger full frame sensors are actually cheaper to produce, and because Canon can ask mor for its full frame bodies, it gets a much larger profit margin.
Yes, RP with 800mm f/11 "cheap and evil" :) Crop is not getting any advantage: price, size, weight. All can be done on FF. I am trying understand too what is the catch with crop.
The kind of buyer that would have bought a low end crop sensor camera 10 years ago is probably going to be using a smartphone now. A low end FF with a plastic body, no IBIS and no viewfinder would be a better entry level camera.
@@Mangust2 people like crop for the extra reach, faster frame rates, and lower weight. There is definitely a market for crop. I would imagine most serious photographers would have both FF and crop to shoot everything they want.
I moved from EOS/EF/EF-S to EOS M/EF-M because the size and weight of the former was getting me down. EOS M was slow when I first got it in 2013, but it evolved into the perfect system eventually with the EOS M6 Mk 2. I didn't change systems because I wanted an APS-C sensor, I changed because of the form factor. Putting an APS-C into a large body that needs large RF lenses is a big step backwards. Very disappointing news, but not unexpected. There have been no new EOS M/EF-M developments for years.
When will you be reviewing the OM-1 ?
Hello. I have a Canon 7d mark II and I thinking about to update to Canon R o this R7. I photographing birds, landscapes and travel. Next autumn we will travel to Feroe Islands for watch, photo and video Aurora. I don’t know which one is better for this kind of photography. Could you add me? Thank you.
I dont think there is much confusion about aps-c to ff lenses. Its important to have a system that all works together and one you can grow with. I shoot macro insect and in fall and winter birds - both I prefer apsc for. I also shoot a little landscape and family portraits, candids etc which I use ff for. I have kept both a fullframe and Apsc for years and Ive been chomping at the bit waiting for an R7 to go with my R6. It really surprises when people suggest camera companies should just put resources into full frame. I whole heartedly disagree. Having both an apsc and fullframe, of which our lenses can work on both and grow with us in both formats is best.
the previous 7d only had a cf slot and an sd slop not a cf express like the r5
I just want a camera that will take nice portrait, maybe nature photos.. im not a youtuber nor a vlogger.. what would be a good camera for a budget around 1k?
As long as the R lenses are 10 times more expensive then EF lenses, the R series camera's will not be affordable.
Canon RF 50mm 1.8? Canon RF 16mm f/2.8? Affordable. Same about 35 and 85 IS lenses. Crop kit lens 3.5-5.6... on full frame can be 4.5-7.1? maybe even smaller and cheaper
Tony, instead of asking them to charge 2500usd for a crop camera, ask them to reduce the crop factor to 1.5 or lower or go apsh.
You are totally right. the R10 should have been full frame, nothing fancy just cheap and full frame. Although I guess that's the job of the RP series. The R7 can be APS-C, if it is a specialist camera for wildlife with telephoto.
The problem of APS-C is, cellphone cameras are taking photos with 4 or 6 of their smaller cameras at once. 6 cellphone cameras will have roughly the same sensor size and quality as an APS-C camera. That is why firstly point and shoot cameras died, and APS-C cameras are next.
When I ever have the money I will buy a Canon R5 and R7, with a 24-70 2.8 for my R5 and a 100-500 for my R7. So that I basically have the same I have now, the 6DMarkII with 24-70 and 80D with 100-400 lens. This setup is like perfection for me. As now I can shoot basically everything without needing to change to much, paying to much, carry to much and so on. The only thing is that I am already WAY past the maximum amount of shots the camera's should both be able to make, around 500.000 shots I've already made. So I need the new gear. But the money isn't there yet.
Nice but can not replace M6ii with hi res 22mm pancake or the best Sigma 56. Not mentioning 83 mp resolution for wild life. With Sigma RF no reason to leave EOS m.
If you're exulting the use of APS-C sensors for wildlife, as you were here for the R7, why don't you include Fujifilm when you compare wildlife cameras?? You get the high pixel density but only need to carry around a smaller dedicated APS lens without wasting glass diameter/weight/aperture/cost. You must be getting excited for the stacked sensor 40 fps X-H2S or 40 MP X-H2, and upcoming XF150-600mm lens! It should be teleconverter compatible too. And way better video specs on the X-H2 to the R7 which may match the 2018 X-T3!
I think They will not kill M line up until they have an equivalent of M50 and m200.
I think that I'm going to pass on the R7. I would rather have the R5 and lose the crop factor than lose a stop of light. I already have the 90D. But if I was upgrading my 7DM2 then I would want this. But for indoor sports I'll take the R5 all day to keep that ISO low and shutter speed high.
This R7 is a niche camera and that niche is not indoor sports! It's small birds with a big telephoto and maybe outdoor sports with a 70-200 2.8 but I think you are right, for indoor sports, even under great lights an R5 (or R6 or R3) would be a better choice.
Good content Tony but don’t remind Canon (cuz you know their watching) that a $500 full frame would cannibalize their FF higher end cameras, some of us don’t want to spring for or can’t afford a $1000+ FF body, besides if Canon etc. want to compete with the ever evolving smartphones they need a sweet selling point which would be FF sensor cameras starting at $500…. I think more sales would follow and besides they could make good money selling more glass.
Fools.
Canon: We must simplify our system.
Canon: Welcome to the RF-S.
It sounds like the R7 would be using the same (or slightly improved) sensor from the 90D.