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!

[Tronhard]

Your approach is perfectly valid.  The issue I, and I suspect many of my colleagues have, is that Canon have been quite consistent in naming R-series bodies with the same numbers as their DSLR equivalents.  In numbering this new camera the R7 they are essentially taking a category of model that was occupied by a high-end, professional-grade APS-C DSLR.

The camera that now has the R7 badge on it is not at the level of a 7D-series successor, for reasons I laid out in my original post.   This camera is an excellent upgrade for those who want to have a camera to replace their XXD series bodies, but I would feel happier if it was identified as something like a R70

What is concerning is for those who want a replacement to 7D-series camera for our wildlife or other applications, where an APS-C sensor offers benefits but will work at the highest level with the best protection. With this slot in the line-up taken, it begs the question as to whether Canon will or will not make such a camera.  If they did not, then it pushes us in the direction of other brands, such as Fuji (which specializes in APS-C bodies and has some excellent offerings), Nikon and Sony.  All of these brands are offering stacked and/or back-lit sensors, decent buffers and fast cards, along with serious environmental sealing - all things that are missing in this camera.

So, no-one is trying to deny you, or anyone else this body - it's a great deal (although I would wait for the reviews on its noise above ISO-4000) and will be a great upgrade, but those of us who wanted something more are asking - "That's great, but what about us?"

[Tronhard]

I understand where you come from.  It's an interface thing and you, like me, harken back to those days when cameras were controlled by dials on top and rings on the lens, and not by menus.  I have shot Canon since about 1980, but I went to Nikon for their excellent Df body back in 2016, which was a direct tribute to those cameras by their designer, MR TETSURO GOTO who made the camera his parting project as head of Nikon design from 1975 until his retirement in 2019.  I love this tribute camera: the ergonomics of a classic Nikon SLR combined with the quality of a high-end DSLR FF sensor that is outstanding in low light.  I have two of them and love shooting with them.
In the MILC realm Nikon did come out with the Zfc, but I was less enamoured with that as it was a crop sensor body and pandered to market forces to add video.  Instead I looked at the excellent Fuji X-T4, and found that I could use all of my Canon glass on it with a Fringer Pro II adapter, that offered full aperture control via a ring, and allowed me to use my lenses flawlessly.  I have a couple of those and really enjoy them too.  The X-T4 has a brilliant sensor, and many other features that make it a competitor to what Canon is offering in the APS-C MILC market.  I am expecting a new release of the X-T5 in the not too distant future.

So if you are seeking a classic camera design there are some beautiful units out there, and with one you can actually use your Canon glass.

[Philnick]

I go back even further. I started with a 120 roll-film camera in 1958 doing my own B&W darkroom work, taught by my dad when I was 8. Worked my way up to a folding camera with a  small rangefinder in the flash shoe and a tiny light meter in the flash shoe I epoxied on top of the rangefinder, before buying the FT-QL in my senior year in high school in 1968.

Taught myself color printing in college when home chemistry and paper became available. Only went digital in 2003 with a Rebel XTi - which let me control the whole process with Photoshop and an Epson Stylus printer and ceramic-coated paper that maintains the image's sharpness courtesy of a surface covered with thousands of inkwells across its surface so the pigment sprayed by the print head doesn't spread horizontally or smear if touched. (At this point I mainly use DxO's PhotoLab because I prefer its more Canon-faithful color rendering of Canon RAW files to Adobe's and it's ViewPoint geometry-correction makes my 10-18 lens into an anamorphic Cinemascope lens with no "fisheye" lens distortion.)

I've ridden the improvements in the tech, adopting the scattered dual pixel and Live View of the T4i and then the vastly improved versions in the 70D and 80D. 

Call me an oddball, but Live View lets me ditch auto-exposure completely. I live in Manual exposure, and Live View and an EVF in my G5X (and the R7 I've got on order) let me set exposure "to taste." There's no electronic "backseat driver" trying to override my settings for exposure! What I see is what I get.

[Tronhard]

I respect your experience. 🙂 
We all have different ways of shooting, and that is one of the great boons of the modern technology.  Pretty much from the get go I shot transparencies and that meant my images were judged for sale as shot - no processing.  The combinations of film and transparencies, and my work in the wild for long periods meant I had to develop a discipline that one does not often see today.  I had fixed ISO's, limited film stock, and I wasn't going to see the outcome for possibly weeks.  That all meant I shot very conservatively.  These days the trend is to fire off shots like Rambo.  For me, having to look at a gazillion images in PP is not how I want to spend my life.

I don't do much printing: from early on I led a fairly mobile life, so the prints became more of a liability than an asset.  Now that digital photo frames are available, I can get the images I want on the wall at a decent size and I can change them as often as I like for no cost!

That was one thing I liked about the Df and the Fuji bodies: the top dial controls (which are an option, you can use the conventional DSLR interfaces), make one slow down and turn the taking of an image into an occasion that I choose to savour at this stage in my life.  I wish Canon would bring out a retro body with modern innards and dials on top, but I suspect that bird has flown...

I do use Av a lot, and don't share your view that it is a 'back seat driver' - it was even on my F3 and A-1 bodies - but we all gravitate to those things within our comfort zones. I do use M when I know the light won't change significantly and I want to keep the settings.  That said, with Av, back button focus and exposure lock can also be very effective and they are my go to settings on my cameras. I shoot mostly hand-held, and appreciate the stability offered by using any viewfinder to stabilize the camera, especially with longer lenses that I use. 

I have a couple of G5X bodies and think they are brilliant within their family of 1" sensors, especially with the longer focal length range.  I have a G1XMkIII, and with its APS-C sensor, and body the size of the G5X, it's great for more detailed work when I want more resolution, but don't need the reach.  Both great when carrying a bulkier unit is not on the agenda.

If I was to name a best all-in-one unit it would be Sony's RX-10 MkIV, really the best bridge camera out there with a 1" sensor, Stacked 21MP Sensor, 24-600 Equivalent FoC, stabilization, environmental sealing, IS.  IMHO nothing touches it for going on multi-day hikes or when bulk and weight are an issue but one needs the flexibility.

[Philnick]

I found that by coupling my G5X's RAW files with DxO PhotoLab I get very good available light shooting from that combo - much better image quality than I had expected.

I like the idea of a digital picture frame - I've heard them talked about a lot but haven't seen one in real life.

[Tronhard]

There are lots of small digital photo frames, but what I wanted was something that would replace a decent-sized print, framed.  

An image that is seen using reflected light will never have the same characteristics as one that projects light. In case of point, if one visits the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition, there is a huge difference in lustre and pop between the backlit screens in the show and prints in the books etc.

While most TV's will display images as a slide show, they often don't have the matte surface and wide angle of view one would prefer for a static image, nor are they necessarily as thin or elegant as a framed image.

There are now a couple of solutions out there. Samsung makes The Frame, which is both a TV and Photo frame. It is super thin, and can be wall-mounted to look like a print frame, or sit on a stand. The sizes range 24" to 55".

The other is the Netgear 'Meurel' frame. It comes in sizes up to 27" and has the added advantage of giving one access to a huge range of digitized artwork of various genres. I recently got this one.

The higher initial cost is, for me, worth the investment, as I can enjoy the display characteristics I like, and I can change the images to match my mood, as often I like, and for no cost.

[Tronhard]

I think your perspective is very valid.  A lot depends on where one is coming from. At the moment, given my reservations about the R7 and the promise of a lot of glass coming out for the RF / RF-S mount (Canon promised 32 over 4 years), , so I feel no necessity to go out to look for RF-S units: I can wait and enjoy what I've got.  But again: everyone is different! 

For myself, I have a huge range of Canon lenses, at last count: 34 EF and EF-M lenses, and 4 RF lenses.  I have the actually rather excellent RF 24-240 lens which is a bit of hidden gem. I was encouraged by reviews by those I respect that indicated it was actually quite competitive to some RF L glass: for example, it held its own across the range of the RF 24-105 f/4 L lens.  So that works for me as a walk-around unit very well with my R6 bodies

Also a lot depends on what focal lengths one is shooting at.  My work is usually at the very long tele end, being a wildlife photographer, and so the RF 100-500 is a natural unit for me, but I can also use my existing EF 100-400MkII, and Sigma 150-600 and 60-600 units as they work flawlessly with the Canon EF-RF adapters, so no further immediate investment is needed.  🙂