Upvote
0
Is a Canon EOS R7 Mark II coming this year? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Don't know if it's geographically-limited or not. I call the sales number on the Canon USA website. Try calling your country's Canon website's sales number and ask. The camera you use to qualify has to be old enough that they don't service it any more.
Upvote
0
IIRC, it started as an option when your camera was broken, i.e., when you call/send in your camera they will tell you it will cost X to repair it or they can give you 20% off a new camera or 10% off a refurbished camera. They would send you a prepaid box to return your camera.
I don’t know that you can just call and get the discount, I doubt it. ‘Loyalty’ means you’re replacing a prior camera.
It used to apply even to PowerShots, so there has been advice out there to buy a broken one on eBay and use that to get a discount from Canon on a new ILC.
For example, I have a dead EOS M and I could call Canon USA and get a discount on a new/refurb camera. It’s not available on all cameras, e.g., I doubt it would apply to the R5II, but it would for the R8 and probably even the R6II.
Upvote
0
The discounts only apply after a camera or lens has been available for half a year, so not yet for the R5 Mark II.
Upvote
0
The Powershots still count - I used mine to get the discount on an R6 Mark II (which they reduced because it was already on sale for 20% off). They no longer ask for the old camera back. The discounts on lenses require an old lens, and the percentages off are smaller.
Upvote
0
I’d have been willing to drop my EF-M 15-45 from my second-story window to the patio below for 10% off the 100-300/2.8. Somehow, I doubt that would’ve been an option. Loyalty only goes so far.
Upvote
0
This is literally the only piece of camera gear I'm interested in. I own two R7\'s and have taken more than 300K shots with the original one. I love / hate these cameras 
lol They can produce absolutely amazing images, if you take the time to work around all of their weaknesses > and their are MANY !
Like most, I think a stacked sensor would be great, as would the ability to use a grip. But also, I hope they can work on the AF and EAF, to make it more consistent.
I should mention, the ONLY reason I hassle with this camera, is for the extra reach of an APS-C camera. IMPO, I think a lot of folks who buy the R7, are buying the wrong camera. Being mostly a small, skittish bird shooter, I feel like I really don't have any choice. But I think a LOT of folks do, and buy the R7 without researching it enough first. For nearly anything besides what I do, I think one of the many full frame bodies are a better choice.
lol They can produce absolutely amazing images, if you take the time to work around all of their weaknesses > and their are MANY !Like most, I think a stacked sensor would be great, as would the ability to use a grip. But also, I hope they can work on the AF and EAF, to make it more consistent.
I should mention, the ONLY reason I hassle with this camera, is for the extra reach of an APS-C camera. IMPO, I think a lot of folks who buy the R7, are buying the wrong camera. Being mostly a small, skittish bird shooter, I feel like I really don't have any choice. But I think a LOT of folks do, and buy the R7 without researching it enough first. For nearly anything besides what I do, I think one of the many full frame bodies are a better choice.
Upvote
0
I enjoyed your response
I think we are on just about the same page. I own two R7's > because I pretty much don't have any other choice ! I love / hate these cameras lol I lol'd when you said the Mechanical shutter is "cataclysmic"
I'm going to have to remember that one. I usually say its horrendous ! TBH, I don't use my MS anymore at all ! Not only because of how loud it is, and how much shutter shock it causes. But also, it fails a LOT ! Can't afford to have my cameras down..... especially if Im on a birding trip 2000 miles from home, which I do often. I'm SO hoping the Mk II has a faster readout speed, a battery grip option, and a MUCH improved AF and EAF system.
Upvote
0
I'm a bit of an outlier on the R7: I want lower resolution, not higher, on a Mark II, to get better low light performance.
Just realized that I could kind of kludge that by putting my RF-S lenses onto my R6 Mark II, to get the low-light performance (and stickier AF) - if I was willing to have 9.35mp images. That's not much less than my second DSLR, the 10mp Rebel XTi.
Since I've got analogous ranges of lenses for my R7 and R6/II, the only reason to do this would be to reduce carrying size and weight by using a smaller, light lens. Putting my Sigma RF-S 56mm f1.4 on the R6/II would give me 90mm f/1.4 in a much faster rig that would also be easier to tote than my RF 85mm f/2. The only downside would be the lower resolution.
Just realized that I could kind of kludge that by putting my RF-S lenses onto my R6 Mark II, to get the low-light performance (and stickier AF) - if I was willing to have 9.35mp images. That's not much less than my second DSLR, the 10mp Rebel XTi.
Since I've got analogous ranges of lenses for my R7 and R6/II, the only reason to do this would be to reduce carrying size and weight by using a smaller, light lens. Putting my Sigma RF-S 56mm f1.4 on the R6/II would give me 90mm f/1.4 in a much faster rig that would also be easier to tote than my RF 85mm f/2. The only downside would be the lower resolution.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Not trying to hound you in multiple threads, but it’s apparent after your response regarding crop factor and aperture and what you wrote above that you do not fully understand the principles involved in sensor equivalence.
A lower MP count will not give you improved low light performance, a larger sensor area will.
Using your full frame camera in crop mode will not offer you the benefit you seem to think. even if it had more megapixels, it would still have more noise.
Without getting into the physics of it, the capsule version is that although light per unit area determines exposure, total light gathered determines noise (and thus dynamic range). The only way to gather more total light is to use a larger sensor. It doesn’t matter if that total light is captured by larger or smaller pixels.
That’s easy to see if you compare noise performance of the R5 and R6, same sensor generation and same size sensor, significantly different MP count. Identical noise performance and dynamic range for all practical purposes.
Upvote
0
The adage "larger pixels are better pixels" is a bit outdated, if not completely outdated. There have been several technical advances. But, first, where did this thought originate? Pixels have walls. More pixels per given area, the more walls. Light hitting those walls was lost. So, more pixels, more walls, less light being collected equaled poorer performance.
First, there was microlenses. These sat directly above the pixel and directed the light that would have hit the wall into the pixel well, so much less light was being lost. This really did solve most of the problem.
But, next, and I haven't seen specifically how much this has improved the situation, but back side illuminated (BSI) sensors. Originally the "walls" were bulky as they included circuitry, etc which was all located above the sensor. But now, that circuitry has been moved behind the sensor, that is the backside part.
I think most of the solution was microlenses. The pixel walls are simply not as big of a factor as they once were. This has been the case for over a decade. When you look at ISO noise, etc, it now mostly correlates to sensor size. A larger area gathers more light which reduces noise.
Upvote
0
First there were microlenses, then those microlenses were made without gaps between them (IIRC, gapless microlenses were introduced on the 50D). Both of those improvements made meaningful differences in the amount of light hitting the photodiode (I think microlenses have been around as long as CMOS sensors, though I did use CCD sensors without microlenses over two decades ago).
BSI makes a meaningful difference with pixel sizes smaller than about 2 µm. For smartphone cameras, BSI makes a meaningful difference in IQ (it was primarily developed to enable, squeezing more pixels into a small sensor).
For sensors of the pixel size used in ILCs today, there is no significant benefit with BSI. One need only compare the FSI R5 to its BSI competitors from Sony and Nikon to see that. The only real value of BSI in an APS-C or FF sensor is from a marketing standpoint.
Upvote
0
The ISO noise is a product of the much smaller photosites on the R7 which has a higher pixel density than any other Canon, As each can only gather a smaller amount of light there's more noise. Where do you think the noise is coming from? The photosites that aren't there because it's a smaller sensor?
Go to photonstophotos.net and look at the noise curves of the R5 Mark II, R6 Mark II and R7 (you can toggle them on and off in the list on the right). You'll see that the 45mp R5 II is closer to the 32.5mp R7 (which would be an 83mp sensor if full-frame) than to the 24mp R6 II.
You're arguing against both logic and test results to support a shibboleth that ignores the physical basis for why high mp crop sensors have more noise. Not because they're smaller but because they have much smaller photosites to reach the high megapixel count.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I would encourage you to review the first note on PtP page you linked:
"These raw values are not appropriate for comparing camera models because they are not adjusted for gain or area."
BTW, you can link to figures you create on PtP by going to the top right and click "link".
Here is a comparison of PtP's analysis of DxOMark data for the R5, R6 and 80D. Others might correct me, but a few years ago, there was a lot of discussion of QE, which is the conversion rate of photons to electrons (so, efficiency of the sensor process). Sure the R6 has a slightly higher QE than the R5 but then the 80D with smaller pixels and "older tech" is only 1% lower than the R6, higher than the R5. I also take all of those to be close enough to the same value. Essentially the same QE.
Then, here is the progression I mentioned. Going from low 30% QE up into the 50-60% QE that we have been living in for awhile now (almost all cameras are in this range now).
Almost all sensors of the last 8-10 years are converting photons to electrons at about the same efficiency and as a result, performance is mostly about sensor size.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thanks for demonstrating once again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Just for fun, let's say you get your wish and the R7II has a lower MP count than than the R7. For example, say they drop it from 32 MP to 24 MP. Well, you'd have lower noise from the smaller pixels just like the R10 has lower noise than the R7. Oh, wait...it doesn't.
The key point that you're missing, and you're not alone missing it, is analogous to being unable to see the forest for the trees. It's true that at the level of the individual pixel, a larger pixel will have lower noise. But at the level of the full image, that tiny difference is completely overshadowed by the difference in sensor area. Claff doesn't show crop mode data on the read noise plots, because those are pixel-driven and cropping doesn't matter. But he does show crop mode on the DR plots, and in low light the DR is driven mainly by read noise.
You can easily see the effect of the higher noise floor with a smaller sensor on DR when cropping an image but keeping everything else about the pixels the same, by comparing the R5II to the crop-mode R5II:
Or if you prefer to look at it another way, compare the same sensor sizes with very different pixel sizes, e.g. the R7 vs. the R6II in crop mode, where if you're correct the noise from the much larger pixels would be lower and the DR would be higher. Is it?
You can measurebate a single pixel until the full well overflows, it doesn't change the fact that for a picture it's the sensor area that determines the image noise, not the number of pixels that sensor area comprises.
As I stated earlier, it's apparent that you don't really understand the relevant principles. Whether you learn about them or continue in ignorance is up to you.
Upvote
0
Question for all you folks who know the physics of the APC vs FF sensor compromises...
Am I correct in wanting an APS-C body (lets say a 32mp R7ii) to pair with my R5, for the following reasons:
1. I want better AF than my R5 with a teleconverter behind my 100-500
2. I want to resolve more detail than the 1.4 teleconverter with the above lens
3. I would like better overall image quality, for far away subjects than the teleconverter... (possibly same as above)
All of the above, because:
4. I don't wan't longer, heavier lenses
5. 17mp (R5 in crop mode) isn't quite enough MP on subject for my liking
6. 45mp is more than enough in FF (don't need/want ~83mp)
7. I'd love two bodies that give the 'feel' of different focal lengths, when sharing lenses (ie. 35mm on full frame 'feels like' 56mm on APS-C)
EDIT: updated some errors and added clarification
Am I correct in wanting an APS-C body (lets say a 32mp R7ii) to pair with my R5, for the following reasons:
1. I want better AF than my R5 with a teleconverter behind my 100-500
2. I want to resolve more detail than the 1.4 teleconverter with the above lens
3. I would like better overall image quality, for far away subjects than the teleconverter... (possibly same as above)
All of the above, because:
4. I don't wan't longer, heavier lenses
5. 17mp (R5 in crop mode) isn't quite enough MP on subject for my liking
6. 45mp is more than enough in FF (don't need/want ~83mp)
7. I'd love two bodies that give the 'feel' of different focal lengths, when sharing lenses (ie. 35mm on full frame 'feels like' 56mm on APS-C)
EDIT: updated some errors and added clarification
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Some reading for the interested. Is it sensor size that is the MAIN factor in producing noise. Not directly. Is it pixel size? Nope. It is amount of light gathered by the lens's entrance pupil that is the main factor in producing noise, at least according to the Clarkvision website, which has many great articles on the subject, including this one: https://clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter2/
Some excerpts from various articles on that site:
"The true differences in apparent noise are due to the amount of light collected by each camera. The common internet cited reason for the larger sensor camera is that the sensor is responsible. No, it is the lens. The sensor is just a receptacle to hold the photoelectrons. The analogy is a water bucket: the reason for the amount of water in the bucket is how fast and for how long you poured water in the bucket. The size of the bucket only determines when/if the water will fill and overflow the bucket. Another cited reason for the difference in noise is the larger pixels need more light to fill the pixel. That is a consequence of large pixels, not a reason for noise. Noise is the square root of the number pf photons (photoelectrons in the pixel), and that is independent of how full the pixel is."
"Larger sensors enable one to use larger physical aperture lenses. For example, say you have a 35 mm f/1.4 lens and a 1.6x crop sensor camera. The lens covers the field of view you require. Upgrading to a full frame sensor and 50 mm f/1.4 lens would provide 2x additional light collected from the subject, so a 1-stop improvement, due to the larger lens."
"There are three factors that determine the true exposure in a camera +lens. 1) The lens area, or more accurately, the lens entrance pupil, which is the effective light collection area of a complex lens. The area determines how much light the lens collects to deliver to the sensor. 2) The angular area of the subject. The product of these two values is called Etendue, or A*Ω (A*Omega) product. (A= the lens entrance pupil area, and Ω, omega = the angular area of subject). The third value is 3) exposure time, the length of time the sensor is exposed to light. One way to think of this is the lens area collects the light, the focal length of the lens spreads out the light and the pixels collect the light spread out by the lens. While a larger pixel collects more light than a smaller pixel, which led to the concept that larger sensors are more sensitive (which is not strictly true), the subject at the sensor is still the same angular size, thus independent of pixels. Changing pixel size simply trades spatial resolution (pixels on subject) for more light per pixel, but does not change the same total light from the subject. Only changing the lens collection area changes the total light collected (or moving closer with the same lens so the inverse square law comes into effect)."
"When then lens aperture diameters are the same and the pixels on the subject in the output presentation are the same and the exposure times are the same, then the images from different cameras will show the same depth of field, and the same signal-to-noise ratio regardless of sensor size."
Some excerpts from various articles on that site:
"The true differences in apparent noise are due to the amount of light collected by each camera. The common internet cited reason for the larger sensor camera is that the sensor is responsible. No, it is the lens. The sensor is just a receptacle to hold the photoelectrons. The analogy is a water bucket: the reason for the amount of water in the bucket is how fast and for how long you poured water in the bucket. The size of the bucket only determines when/if the water will fill and overflow the bucket. Another cited reason for the difference in noise is the larger pixels need more light to fill the pixel. That is a consequence of large pixels, not a reason for noise. Noise is the square root of the number pf photons (photoelectrons in the pixel), and that is independent of how full the pixel is."
"Larger sensors enable one to use larger physical aperture lenses. For example, say you have a 35 mm f/1.4 lens and a 1.6x crop sensor camera. The lens covers the field of view you require. Upgrading to a full frame sensor and 50 mm f/1.4 lens would provide 2x additional light collected from the subject, so a 1-stop improvement, due to the larger lens."
"There are three factors that determine the true exposure in a camera +lens. 1) The lens area, or more accurately, the lens entrance pupil, which is the effective light collection area of a complex lens. The area determines how much light the lens collects to deliver to the sensor. 2) The angular area of the subject. The product of these two values is called Etendue, or A*Ω (A*Omega) product. (A= the lens entrance pupil area, and Ω, omega = the angular area of subject). The third value is 3) exposure time, the length of time the sensor is exposed to light. One way to think of this is the lens area collects the light, the focal length of the lens spreads out the light and the pixels collect the light spread out by the lens. While a larger pixel collects more light than a smaller pixel, which led to the concept that larger sensors are more sensitive (which is not strictly true), the subject at the sensor is still the same angular size, thus independent of pixels. Changing pixel size simply trades spatial resolution (pixels on subject) for more light per pixel, but does not change the same total light from the subject. Only changing the lens collection area changes the total light collected (or moving closer with the same lens so the inverse square law comes into effect)."
"When then lens aperture diameters are the same and the pixels on the subject in the output presentation are the same and the exposure times are the same, then the images from different cameras will show the same depth of field, and the same signal-to-noise ratio regardless of sensor size."
Upvote
0
1. The R7 has some additional AF features compared to the R5, like pre-capture and subject tracking in all AF zones, but whether it is "better" is debatable.
2. Yes, the R7 should resolve more detail than the R5 with 1.4x TC.
3. Depends on how you define image quality, but in my opinion, the answer to this would be no.
4-7. all valid, in my opinion.
Upvote
0
That's all correct, which is why above I stated, "Without getting into the physics of it, the capsule version is that although light per unit area determines exposure, total light gathered determines noise (and thus dynamic range)." That's essentially what Roger is saying, "The true differences in apparent noise are due to the amount of light collected by each camera."
Roger Clark is correct that the ultimate limit on that is the entrance pupil of the lens, but practically speaking you can use a lens with a large entrance pupil with a camera that has a sensor that captures only a small amount of the light it passes, e.g. using an 600/4 lens with an APC-S sensor means less total light gathered than using that lens with a FF sensor.
Upvote
0
This does not address using the same lens on a crop sensor versus a full-frame sensor at the same distance from the subject.
The part of the subject covered by the crop sensor would be the same on both cameras, but the light within that area is often divided into more pixels to get higher resolution of that part of the image. So the rest of the quoted discussion is irrelevant, as it's addressing the use of different lenses projecting different size images of the subject onto different size sensors. The pixels on the subject in the output presentation is not the same, so the use of this quote is misdirected.
My APS-C sensor does not generate noise from the matte-black area outside the APS-C sensor. The only noise is that generated by the sensor, which neither knows nor cares what is hitting the matte-black area around it.
Exposure and noise are characteristics of each pixel, not global across the entire sensor, and a full-frame f/1.4 lens illuminates each point on the sensor to the same extent regardless of the dimensions of the sensor. And (while this is truest when lenses are rated in T-stops) an f/1.4 APS-C lens will put about the same amount of light at each point on the APS-C sensor as would the f/1.4 full-frame lens.
The total light collected is only relevant after being divided across the total area it is being read by. That there is light "wasted" by putting a full-frame lens on a crop body is only relevant to whether you care about carrying a larger and heavier lens to collect light that you're not recording, in order to have a faster and sharper lens and compatibility with full-frame bodies.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
