Canon EOS R Series Cameras

On another forum it was reported that in a Youtube video Canon's rep said there would be no grip. :(

The free adapter is valid until September and if you order via Camerworld you can get another battery at half price as well so I have just sent them a message to see if I preorder through them I will get it on release day as I see it as the ideal camera for RIAT.
 
Im very tempted by the r7. after umming and arring over the r5 for ages but going from a gh5 the loss of reach for wildlife would have been painful on full frame.
My only concern is I shoot 4k60 on the gh5 but on the r7 its saying it crops down to 1/4 of the sensor to get 4k60 so because that will take the mp down way below the og gh5 mp then will that mean its 4k60 quality wont be as good?
I dont want to spend loads of money on a r7 and 100-500 if the video quality will be less than my ancient gh5 and 100-400.
 
Just pre ordered the R7 and trading in my 5D4 which pretty much will cover the cost. I hardly use my 5D4, as i much prefer my M50. Seems strange that i wont have FF, but, meh lol.
Looking forward to having IS on my 24-70 f/2.8 MKII (i know ill loose FOV etc,)
 
This is no 7Dii replacement !

From the spec I have read the EVF and screen are lower res than R6 and that for me will be an issue as the R6 is lower than than the R5 !
When you put on 1.4x extender and 100-400 or 100-500 the resolution will be more pixelated when you zoom to max focal lenght. As most users will want the R7 to take advantage of the 1.6 crop factor !
This is of course reflected in the £1,349 price tag and being a 7Dii owner I was really looking forward to the R7.
Most people suspected the R7 would be utilizing the R6 body components and therefore the price tag would be around £1,800k ish
As for the sensors it seems to be a tweaked 90D has been used as it is not a stacked version.

Now what is selling the R7 is the auto focus which is similar to the R3 and that is a big deal.
 
Tysonator said:
This is no 7Dii replacement !

From the spec I have read the EVF and screen are lower res than R6 and that for me will be an issue as the R6 is lower than than the R5 !
When you put on 1.4x extender and 100-400 or 100-500 the resolution will be more pixelated when you zoom to max focal lenght. As most users will want the R7 to take advantage of the 1.6 crop factor !
This is of course reflected in the £1,349 price tag and being a 7Dii owner I was really looking forward to the R7.
Most people suspected the R7 would be utilizing the R6 body components and therefore the price tag would be around £1,800k ish
As for the sensors it seems to be a tweaked 90D has been used as it is not a stacked version.

Now what is selling the R7 is the auto focus which is similar to the R3 and that is a big deal.
Click to expand...
I’ve never used the 7D or 7Dii before but heard lots about both. I will at some point get one on the test drive to try it out.

There was always going to be cost cutting if they’re trying to make an affordable crop body.

Being a R6 owner there are points of the R7 that intrigue me. The cost is more lower than I expected it to be. The extra crop factor being another. I used to be a big fan of teleconverters but I’m unsure about them now as I don’t have fast long primes. I don’t think I’d put one on the 100-500 as it’s already at f7.1 at 500mmf10 or whatever it is doesn’t interest me in the slightest. I’d be more inclined to get a R7 instead of a teleconverter for the ‘extra reach’. The biggest question for me is whether I’d be better of running a R6 and R7 together or step up to the R5 for the extra crop.

Potentially there may be some R7’s on the used market within the year if they don’t live up to the 7D replacement hopes. That may be a good time to grab one. Have to wait until test cameras are out. That may be a while.
 
rob-nikon said:
I’ve never used the 7D or 7Dii before but heard lots about both. I will at some point get one on the test drive to try it out.

There was always going to be cost cutting if they’re trying to make an affordable crop body.

Being a R6 owner there are points of the R7 that intrigue me. The cost is more lower than I expected it to be. The extra crop factor being another. I used to be a big fan of teleconverters but I’m unsure about them now as I don’t have fast long primes. I don’t think I’d put one on the 100-500 as it’s already at f7.1 at 500mmf10 or whatever it is doesn’t interest me in the slightest. I’d be more inclined to get a R7 instead of a teleconverter for the ‘extra reach’. The biggest question for me is whether I’d be better of running a R6 and R7 together or step up to the R5 for the extra crop.

Potentially there may be some R7’s on the used market within the year if they don’t live up to the 7D replacement hopes. That may be a good time to grab one. Have to wait until test cameras are out. That may be a while.
Click to expand...
Yeah I would never put a tc on a zoom lens. A zoom lens is already not the sharpest tool so to then reduce sharpness even more with a tc. Nope, I used to not like putting a tc on my 500mm f4. The drop in quality on a prime is too noticeable but you can get away with it sometimes. Tcs and zooms should never be put together imo.
 
Tysonator said:
TC or Cropping !
This has been a question for DSLR's / digital cameras for ages.
Jaredd Polin aka fronoknowsphoto https://www.youtube.com/c/froknowsphoto
did a video about IQ of teleconvertors or cropping, also a YouTuber Camera conspiracy
Click to expand...
Was it this one?

View: https://youtu.be/jAOPEBpJ78s


I did my own test some years ago (Crop or teleconverter) and also a guide to teleconverters a few years later as I was an avid teleconverter user. I haven’t used one for years since I left Nikon.

Unless I’m going to print it didn’t seem to make much of a difference for web viewing. I’d only ever use one on a fast prime long lens or a 200-400 f4 zoom. For me it’s not the loss of sharpness but loss of aperture as it increases ISO and reduces background blur.

The 100-500 is f7.1 at 500mm. I’d hate to put a teleconverter on it and nearly be at f11. I see the 100-500 as a 100-400 lens with ‘built in teleconverter’ as it can stretch out to 500mm f7.1 if I really need it to. If I wanted more than 500mm I’d either get a different lens or a crop camera like the R7. The R7 with 100-500 would give the reach. At £560 for the RF 1.4TC and £700 for the RF 2x TC I’d rather wait for a used R7 which will be a few hundred more than the 2x TC. A second camera body with crop sensor would be much more versatile than a teleconverter.

Call me cynical but the only reason I can see for manufacturers promoting teleconverter use on lenses like the 100-500 etc is because of the potential extra sales (£500-£700) they could make selling amateurs teleconverters at ridiculous prices that they don’t really need. Even canons 70-200 RF lenses can’t take teleconverters which feels a bit strange but I’m guessing to do with the compact design.
 
rob-nikon said:
Was it this one?

View: https://youtu.be/jAOPEBpJ78s


I did my own test some years ago (Crop or teleconverter) and also a guide to teleconverters a few years later as I was an avid teleconverter user. I haven’t used one for years since I left Nikon.

Unless I’m going to print it didn’t seem to make much of a difference for web viewing. I’d only ever use one on a fast prime long lens or a 200-400 f4 zoom. For me it’s not the loss of sharpness but loss of aperture as it increases ISO and reduces background blur.

The 100-500 is f7.1 at 500mm. I’d hate to put a teleconverter on it and nearly be at f11. I see the 100-500 as a 100-400 lens with ‘built in teleconverter’ as it can stretch out to 500mm f7.1 if I really need it to. If I wanted more than 500mm I’d either get a different lens or a crop camera like the R7. The R7 with 100-500 would give the reach. At £560 for the RF 1.4TC and £700 for the RF 2x TC I’d rather wait for a used R7 which will be a few hundred more than the 2x TC. A second camera body with crop sensor would be much more versatile than a teleconverter.

Call me cynical but the only reason I can see for manufacturers promoting teleconverter use on lenses like the 100-500 etc is because of the potential extra sales (£500-£700) they could make selling amateurs teleconverters at ridiculous prices that they don’t really need. Even canons 70-200 RF lenses can’t take teleconverters which feels a bit strange but I’m guessing to do with the compact design.
Click to expand...

you have a valid point...
I think the main user of teleconverters must be the paparazzi wanting to get a topless pic of a celeb on a remote villa sun lounger 4 miles away from the nearest road ! ! ! lol
 
I do agree about teleconverters on zoom lenses but they are meant to be used on fast primes, Canon has optimised the MK 3 teles for the big whites
I use the MK 3 1.4 and 2.0 on my 300 2.8 it’s a very versatile setup and I can’t see any difference in IQ with the 1.4 and the 2.0 is still excellent
 
Might be a silly question but what does the crop mode on the R5 offer above just a smaller image resolution and closer field of vision in the viewfinder? Is there any disadvantage compared to say a real crop sensor?

One thing I find on the R5 at motorsport is that I miss the crop of my mk1 7D and I’m wondering what the solution for this is.

Is it a second hand 500 f4 (potentially with a TC. I use my 300 f4 with the 1.4 mk2 but your right focusing is slower and image quality suffers), is it the 100-500 but 500 at 7.1 or an even lower aperture with a tc.

This isn’t really appealing for motorsport through a fence especially when I can get 420 at 5.6 on the 300 + TC (but I usually shoot at f8 anyway unless the fence is an issue) or 700ish f5.6 with the 500 f4…

So I’m a bit between a rock and a hard place really.
 
Last edited:
LCPete said:
I do agree about teleconverters on zoom lenses but they are meant to be used on fast primes, Canon has optimised the MK 3 teles for the big whites
I use the MK 3 1.4 and 2.0 on my 300 2.8 it’s a very versatile setup and I can’t see any difference in IQ with the 1.4 and the 2.0 is still excellent
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Fast 300mm/400mm f2.8/500mm f4/600mm f4 prime lenses or fast zoom lenses like the 70-200 f2.8 or 200-400 f4 are what teleconverters are meant to be used on and not slower variable aperture zoom lenses.



A_S said:
Might be a silly question but what does the crop mode on the R5 offer above just a smaller image resolution and closer field of vision in the viewfinder? Is there any disadvantage compared to say a real crop sensor?

One thing I find on the R5 at motorsport is that I miss the crop of my mk1 7D and I’m wondering what the solution for this is.

Is it a second hand 500 f4 (potentially with a TC. I use my 300 f4 with the 1.4 mk2 but your right focusing is slower and image quality suffers), is it the 100-500 but 500 at 7.1 or an even lower aperture with a tc.

This isn’t really appealing for motorsport through a fence especially when I can get 420 at 5.6 on the 300 + TC (but I usually shoot at f8 anyway unless the fence is an issue) or 700ish f5.6 with the 500 f4…

So I’m a bit between a rock and a hard place really.
Click to expand...
You could get the canon 100-500 on the test drive for a weekend when you have a motorsport event to see for yourself.

The benefits of the 100-500 is compact size and lightweight. Using a teleconverter loses the compact size because of the mechanical stop at 300mm increases the physical minimum size with teleconverter fitted.

Camera labs has a diagram of aperture steps at the different focal lengths.

Canon RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1L review | Cameralabs

www.cameralabs.com www.cameralabs.com

I found that useful to see how much difference there is at different focal lengths.

Compared to your 300mm f4 it’s f5.6 at 300mm and f6.3 at 420mm so 1/3 to 1 stop slower but if you’re generally shooting at f8 that’s not much of an issue. Even at 500mm it’s f7.1 so within your normal f8 shooting. With the R5 you could probably crop to 700mm and still have a reasonably good sized file rather than use a 1.4 teleconverter.

I generally shoot between 200mm to 400mm for wildlife so I see 500mm as like attaching a teleconverter but with only a twist of zoom ring. I still lose a bit of aperture (only 1/3rd of a stop after 400mm) f6.3 or 2/3rds if I was keeping below 362mm previously) but don’t have the hassle of physically fitting one.

I love the versatility and quickness of a zoom lens. So far I’ve not regretted getting the 100-500 but my main reasons were size and weight so fast primes we’re really out.
 
Started doing macro with the r5 and the rf100 it seems to be eating the battery life I have of the 2 genuine ones and tried using my 7d2 Battery as Backups but they do not give enough power to operate I kept them as I thought they would work ok but the shutter works slowly anyone else had any probs ? and dose anyone use any good third party ones in the r5?
 
I've not had this problem. For third party batteries, I find the Patona Platinum Battery LP-E6NH 2250 mAh works well.
 
I’ve never had issues when using the old the old batteries from my 7D 2, a mixture of different 3rd party ones
I did have a issue a while ago with the 7 day shop own brand charger, I thought my batteries were faulty, I tried charging them with my canon charger and they were fine
I now only use a canon charger, I’ve got a few from different cameras
 
Thanks a lot for the quick answers They are running as if on slow motion slow shutter but put the r5 originals perfect and the 7d 2 originals are as well dont know then ? will get some third party ones and see ?
 
Last edited:
I’ve got a tech question. Can the R6 be charged off a portable power bank via usb? I’m wondering if it could also be charged via the USB port on my car too?

I have a DJI mini drone and with the batteries in the charger I can charge my iPhone off it. I’m just wondering if I could use it the same to charge the R6 if I needed to.

Edit: some web research says this power bank can charge a R5 so I’m guessing it can charge the R6 too.

 
Last edited:
As I understand it only charges when the camera is off. It will power the camera when on but not charge.
 
TimHughes said:
As I understand it only charges when the camera is off. It will power the camera when on but not charge.
Click to expand...
charging when the camera is off would be ok. I’m trying to think of a way a way not to buy more spare batteries especially if I can charge whilst out (when not using the camera or via a different charger using a power bank).
 
That should work, yes. I’ll give it a try too, thank you for reminding about this possibility.
 
no problems using my original canon 7D battery and hanhel (sp) 3rd party example. Both bought in 2012. The only issue being that the Hanhal gives a non genuine battery message when you start the camera.

I've recently bought a few Neewer accessories and bought their double battery pack on amazon, works perfectly and doesn't give a non genuine battery error
 
Notice on Canon's web site the R7 shipping date has changed to 31/8/22 from the original middle of this month.

Hopefully that is just any orders taken after the original batch has been spoken for .... Also hoping I get mine before this years RIAT otherwise I may cancel, use what I have and wait to see grey pricing.
 
So, is there any confirmation yet as to whether this R7 will have a compatible battery grip?
 
Last edited:
Mike.P said:
Yes, and no.
Click to expand...
Right, OK.
It’s a more definitive answer than I’ve managed to get out of the main retailers anyway :D

It’s not as if I’d be able to get one anytime soon anyway (even if I did put in an order now) so I suppose it’s a case of waiting and see what they do about it…

I could understand the decision to hold back on one if the RF range still only included a lightweight / easily balanced option like the 100-500.
But now that they’ve added the 2 big whites that people will inevitably want to use. It seems a bit of a strange one.
 
James Thomas 75 said:
Right, OK.
It’s a more definitive answer than I’ve managed to get out of the main retailers anyway :D

It’s not as if I’d be able to get one anytime soon anyway (even if I did put in an order now) so I suppose it’s a case of waiting and see what they do about it…

I could understand the decision to hold back on one if the RF range still only included a lightweight / easily balanced option like the 100-500.
But now that they’ve added the 2 big whites that people will inevitably want to use. It seems a bit of a strange one.
Click to expand...
It could be to distinguish between different ranges or a means of cost cutting to get to the price point. Nikon did the same with the D7500. Third party grips soon appeared with just a shutter button via the remote control socket.

I do wonder if the R7 was in fact the R10 people would be happier knowing there was potentially a 7D replacement still to come.
 
James Thomas 75 said:
Right, OK.
It’s a more definitive answer than I’ve managed to get out of the main retailers anyway :D
Click to expand...

Sorry for the blunt answer, I was down at a lake photographing terns taking fish.

There are no contacts in the battery compartment to take a grip apparently and it has also been confirmed by several Canon reps.
 
Tysonator said:
I have watched quite a few reviews now and the general opinion is the R7 is not a 7Dii replacement, more of a evolution of 90D !
Click to expand...

I think that's the best we are going to get.

Hope I'm wrong but I have pre ordered as it has the autofocus I want in a mirrorless crop body. At the end of the day it's not the camera but what the person produces with it (as a mainly Pentax user that's what I continue to tell myself anyway) :)
 
I’ve only just noticed the R7 doesn’t have a rear top dial like the R5/R6. Being new to canon meant I hadn’t noticed the 7Dii doesn’t have a top rear dial either so in a way it’s not surprising. I quite like having front and rear top dials to change aperture and shutter speed whilst using auto iso (I use the lens control ring to set exposure compensation). How would you control those with just the front dial on the R7?
 
rob-nikon said:
I’ve only just noticed the R7 doesn’t have a rear top dial like the R5/R6. Being new to canon meant I hadn’t noticed the 7Dii doesn’t have a top rear dial either so in a way it’s not surprising. I quite like having front and rear top dials to change aperture and shutter speed whilst using auto iso (I use the lens control ring to set exposure compensation). How would you control those with just the front dial on the R7?
Click to expand...

Top front dial / rear wheel next to viewfinder (further down on 7D II)
 
Mike.P said:
I think that's the best we are going to get.

Hope I'm wrong but I have pre ordered as it has the autofocus I want in a mirrorless crop body. At the end of the day it's not the camera but what the person produces with it (as a mainly Pentax user that's what I continue to tell myself anyway) :)
Click to expand...

The opinion I have noticed is Canon users would have paid slightly more for better spec on R7 as a 7Dii successor, however it may then end up as a 2nd body for a R5 or R6 user and Canon do not want that. It seems Canon want DSLR owners to buy in to a cheap ML camera system like the R7 or even R10 is pretty cheap
 
rob-nikon said:
That’s in an easier to access location on the R7.
Click to expand...

Maybe but on all previous semi pro Canon cameras it's been in the same place as the 7DII (I think) so will take a bit of getting used to.

Tysonator said:
The opinion I have noticed is Canon users would have paid slightly more for better spec on R7 as a 7Dii successor, however it may then end up as a 2nd body for a R5 or R6 user and Canon do not want that.
Click to expand...

Personally I would have paid an extra £500 or so for twin CFexpress slots, mag body, connections for a grip, few more buttons and top screen but heyho.

On the Canon forums it seems a lot of R5 buyers got theirs basically for the crop (that's why I tried one) so are thinking of selling and going R6/R7 so getting the best of both worlds.
 
Mike.P said:
Maybe but on all previous semi pro Canon cameras it's been in the same place as the 7DII (I think) so will take a bit of getting used to.



Personally I would have paid an extra £500 or so for twin CFexpress slots, mag body, connections for a grip, few more buttons and top screen but heyho.

On the Canon forums it seems a lot of R5 buyers got theirs basically for the crop (that's why I tried one) so are thinking of selling and going R6/R7 so getting the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine has the R5 and paid £4,500 for it, then a adapter and a walk around RF L lens apx £5,500 !
One thing I have noticed when we go out for a wildlife shoot he goes through memory cards very quickly compared to my 7Dii and Sony A6600 !
 
Is magnesium alloy body really a deal breaker for some? As far as I’m aware, please correct me if I’m wrong, the R7 has a polycarbonate exterior with magnesium alloy chassis beneath. It may not feel as robust but I’m guessing it won’t be too different to the R6. That doesn’t feel like it’s going to fall apart. Polycarbonate exterior may have some advantages in being lighter or less temperature conduction in cold weather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top