Canon EOS R7 APS-C Mirrorless

ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovinSuper Moderators Posts: 22,542 moderator

Canon EOS R7 review: HANDS-ON first-looks - Gordon Laing

ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Super Moderators Posts: 22,542 moderator

    Canon EOS R10 and R7 First Impressions Review (From Orlando!) - DPReview

    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Super Moderators Posts: 22,542 moderator
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Super Moderators Posts: 22,542 moderator

    Canon EOS R7 For Wildlife Photography - TESTED ON SAFARI - Pangolin Wildlife Photography

    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • pathfinderpathfinder Drive By Digital Shooter western IndianaSuper Moderators Posts: 14,641 moderator
    edited May 24, 2022

    I've been waiting for the replacement for the 7D Mk II for a very long time - It looks like the R7 is that creature. I have more files from a 7D Mk II in my Lightroom catalog, than all my 1DX and 1DX Mk II files combined. The 7D Mk II was a real favorite of mine due to AF speed, and body size and weight.
    While I own an R3, and like it a great deal, the prospect of the better reach with the same glass, - 1.6 - crop factor - is still a major consideration for me when shooting wildlife. A 500 f4, becomes an 800 f4 lens in terms of image size - with a full 32 Mpxls, far more than an R5 image cropped to APS-C size.
    I think the R7 body is priced less than the 7D Mk II was when it was first released too, if memory serves.

    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Super Moderators Posts: 22,542 moderator
    edited May 24, 2022

    @pathfinder said:
    ...
    I think the R7 body is priced less than the 7D Mk II was when it was first released too, if memory serves.

    According to DPReview, when the Canon EOS 7D Mk II was first released, in 2014, the MSRP was $1799 (body only).
    According to the B&H and Adorama webpages, preorders for the Canon EOS R7 Mirrorless Camera, $1,499.00 (body only)

    https://bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1707911-REG/canon_eos_r7_mirrorless_camera.html

    https://adorama.com/car7.html

    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • pathfinderpathfinder Drive By Digital Shooter western IndianaSuper Moderators Posts: 14,641 moderator

    ๐Ÿ‘

    I would suspect that the mirrorless bodies will suffer fewer mechanical isssues than bodies with clanging mirrors too.
    I put my name on the list at B&H, hopefully I will see it before summer's end.

    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Super Moderators Posts: 22,542 moderator

    Fun fact: If a camera manufacturer were to make a FF sensor with the same pixel pitch as the EOS R7, it would have an approximate total of 83 MegaPixels (if my math is correct).

    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • David_S85David_S85 Spotter of Dgrin Spam and Oddities ChicagolandAdministrators Posts: 12,909 moderator

    @ziggy53 said:
    Fun fact: If a camera manufacturer were to make a FF sensor with the same pixel pitch as the EOS R7, it would have an approximate total of 83 MegaPixels (if my math is correct).

    I really really want each and every RAW file from my camera, firing off at 30 fps, to be 100+ megabytes each. Doesn't everybody?

    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Still learnin'still lovin Super Moderators Posts: 22,542 moderator
    edited May 28, 2022

    @David_S85 said:

    @ziggy53 said:
    Fun fact: If a camera manufacturer were to make a FF sensor with the same pixel pitch as the EOS R7, it would have an approximate total of 83 MegaPixels (if my math is correct).

    I really really want each and every RAW file from my camera, firing off at 30 fps, to be 100+ megabytes each. Doesn't everybody?

    4 years ago, Canon announced the, "120MXS 120MP CMOS Sensor"

    The Fujifilm GFX 100 and the Hasselblad H6D 400c both can shoot 100-megapixel files, and if you use the pixel shift features, both can produce 400-megapixel images.

    The Sony a7R IV, a 3-year old camera, shoots 61 MegaPixels at 10fps.
    Pixel Shift yields 16-Shot Mode for 240.8 mp RAWs.

    The Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro 12K can record 80 megapixel frames at 60fps in video RAW, and with a higher-than-normal shutter speed, each of those frames can be pulled as 80 megapixel stills. Image quality is surprisingly good.

    ๐Ÿ”บ๐Ÿ”บThat's the current technology.

    I still have my father's Nikon D70, 6 megapixel camera from 2005. Don't really use it anymore.

    Full-Frame 100 MegaPixels stills at 30fps is predictably 3-5 years away. I look forward to that day! ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜‰
    (Won't buy one myself, but I know people who might buy one.)

    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sign In or Register to comment.