The R7

[Tronhard]

OK, first of all I am not using a production model of the R7, nor do I have one in my hands, but I can read the specs and the first reviews from sources I trust, and I have reservations.  I make these points from someone looking for a pro-level body that is great for wildlife photography in particular.  So features like video specs, for example, have no value to me.

I honestly feel this camera is not a natural contender for a R7 designation in the context of the EOS 7D range and market.

To explain: the 7DI and II were professional-level APS-C bodies and that had several characteristics: the best sensors of the time, great buffers, great weather sealing (and built like a tank), great tracking (7DII), and battery grips to increase the energy supply and balance the heavier lenses.

While the R7, without doubt, has a great tracking system, to me this is more like an evolution of the ##D series, of which the last was the 90D, for the following reasons:

This camera is competing with BSI and stacked sensors from competitors like Sony and Fuji.  In a premium camera I would have expected Canon to match that.

While the sensor may not be leading edge it is capable of producing enough throughput to stress the buffer.  I would like to have seen a bigger buffer leading to dual CF Express A card slots that were backward compatible with SD cards, as Nikon has done - that would resolve any bottleneck issues. 

According to several sources, Canon have advised that the weather sealing is NOT as good as for the R3, 5, and 6 bodies - which makes no sense for a pro-level wildlife camera that has to be used in all conditions.

The reviews and sample images I have seen seem to indicated a lot of noise for images in excess of ISO 4000, which these days is considered a fairly modest ISO value, again time will tell but it's another straw in the wind...

Finally, there is no announcement of a battery grip, when one is usually announced with the body.  This provides not only a benefit for more energy capacity, but also (especially for a light body) helps to balance the longer and heavier glass that normally goes along with wildlife photography.

So: I DO applaud the camera at the price point at which it is located, and I think it is great value for money - no argument there.  However, to me it is not a inheritor of the pro-level characteristics that would make this deserve a R7 designation. Perhaps call it something like an R8 or R9? I would expect a R7 to have all the features that I listed as a true inheritor of the marque... 

So for me the question is: is this their best effort at a truly pro-level APS-C camera?  I am not going to rush out to find this camera (I suspect there will be a long queue for that anyway), I shall wait and see.  Maybe Canon will make a 100+MP replacement for the 5DsR that I love, and with that capacity, keep the specs above and produce a camera that I can shoot great scenery in FF and wildlife in crop mode!

[dkoretz]

I complexly agree. I’d add the mediocre EVF and the slow, seemingly consumer-oriented RF-S lenses it was released with. It looks to me like an excellent, reasonably priced replacement for the 90D. I don’t see it as a replacement for he 7D II.

I’m looking for a lighter alternative or complement to my 5D IV, but this appears to be too much of a step down. It will be a superb camera for many purposes, just not mine.

[Waddizzle]

Totally agreed.

[Waddizzle]

The RF-S lens lineup is irrelevant.  

[Tronhard]

Personally, I have not even considered the RF-S lenses, I have enough FF lenses of EF and RF varieties for my needs.  If Canon were to bring out the 10-24 on the RF roadmap as a FF lens, I would be interested, as it would give me 10-24 + 24-105 + 100-500, which is a massive spread in three lenses.  But otherwise,  if it is RF-S glass, it is not on my list of wants.

[dkoretz]

RF lenses matter to me for two reasons. First, there is no high-quality R-mount zoom with the appropriate focal lengths to make a good walk-around lens for the R7, as far as I know. Second, the bulk of the weight savings from a smaller sensor system is the lenses. This is not just because a shorter FL provides he same AOV. It’s also because lenses designed for a smaller image circle are narrower, hence lighter and cheaper to produce.

[Tronhard]

Nothing wrong with that perspective.  That's the nature of photography! 🙂  If we all needed or wanted exactly the same thing, it would make for a rather limited market space, I suspect.

[Philnick]

A contrary viewpoint:

While I agree that the R7 could have been called something like an R70 or R90 - if maintaining the xD naming conventions applies outside the xD series - from the viewpoint of someone upgrading from the xxD series (70D -> 80D to this) who could never justify the price level of the xD and prior R-series bodies, the R7 is perfect. Other than losing a pop-up flash that I don't use and the top-panel LCD, this body is an across-the board win. (I'll keep my 80D to use with its battery grip until one comes out for the R7.)

My main reason to upgrade is to get the EVF so I can use Live View in bright daylight (I'm a landscape shooter who trusts the sensor focusing more than the viewfinder focus points, which have a different light path - yes, I've done the Micro AF calibration for all of my lenses, but that's still a kludge).

Like the EVF, everything else is an improvement over the xxD series: two card slots, viewfinder focus joystick, R3-type autofocus, fast burst speeds.

With the EF to RF Control Ring adapter I'll be able to use my two EF lenses (Canon 70-300 IS USM, Tamron f1.8 45 VC) and my three EF-S lenses (Canon f2.8 17-55 IS USM, Canon 10-18 IS STM. and Canon 18-135 IS USM).

You folks looking for an upgrade to your 7D Mk II bodies will probably get one with dual CF card slots and a stacked BSI sensor - but it will probably cost a lot more than this xxD-priced model. 

[dkoretz]

Not a contrary view at all. Look at Tronhard's OP or my first reply. He wrote "this is more like an evolution of the ##D series, of which the last was the 90D." I wrote: "It looks to me like an excellent, reasonably priced replacement for the 90D." What neither he nor I think it is is a replacement for the 7D II.

There are a few smaller-sensor cameras that are designed to compete in the semi-pro market. One is the new OM-1, which does cost $700 more than the R7 despite having a smaller sensor. Another is the new Fuji X-H2S, which is $1000 more. The Fuji XT-4, which costs only $200 more than the R7, might be in this category also. I don't know it well enough to know.

BTW, I may be wrong, but I don't think you need the EF-RF adapter with the control ring to use your EF lenses. I think the regular adapter without the control ring works fine, from what I have read, and it costs half as much.

[Philnick]

I know that the control ring version isn't necessary, but that control ring is desirable, since it makes EF/EF-S lenses behave more like RF lenses, giving me the ability to have an aperture control ring on the lens - something I grew up with on FL/FD lenses on my Canon FT-QL (from over half a century ago).

I believe that the FT-QL was the only SLR to ever have Canon's Quick Load system - a hinged inner panel that opened and closed with the back door of the camera to hold the end of the film in place over the sprocket gear while you closed the back. It made loading 35mm film a breeze. No threading the end into a slot in the take-up spool, just lie the end of the film over the sprocket gear and close the back. Not only could you load the camera while walking around, it made loading so repeatable that you could switch film types in the middle of a roll with no waste.  Just put the lens cover on and fire off enough shots to get back to where you were - all you had to do was always put the same-numbered sprocket hole over the gear.