The R5 didn't have a stackable sensor from what I read, yet the R5 was head and shoulders above the R7 in AF and IQ. It seems that a sensor at the level of the 2020 R5 could be fast enough for the R7 II in the $2K range. It really could use a CFe slot for throughput. SDxC is stupidly expensive for 2011 SSD technology.
rscheffler wrote:
If it's 39MP, I'd like to see a native option to output full image, lower resolution RAW files that benefit from oversampling. I'd also like to customize SOOC jpeg output resolution to whatever I prefer, rather than a few options that Canon decides to offer. I'd actually like this with all my cameras.
johnctharp wrote:
There are options for this in nearly all Canon cameras - I assume the point is space / buffer savings, but the biggest constraint here is processing time; anything that isn't hard-coded into the camera's CPU is going to take longer, deprive resources for other functions, and eat more power per shot etc.
Where do these options exist in current Canon cameras? There are no multi-resolution full sensor RAW options, only full resolution FF and APS-C (on FF cameras). Jpeg options are limited to a few presets and are not customizable resolution.
My point is I have applications where I don't need 39MP but still want RAW. Many of these applications don't need full 30/40fps capability, so processing time wouldn't be a factor. I actually don't really care much about the R7II, but if it were to have these options, I'd love to see it trickle down to the R5II via fw updates (though knowing Canon, this would be unlikely). Yes, my interest in other resolution options is partly space/storage savings. I ended up with the R5II because it has features that I want not available in the R6 series and I'm not interested in spending even more than the R5II, as much as I love the capabilities of the R1, just to get a highly capable 24MP camera. So for me, the compromise with the R5II is accepting its 45MP resolution when I don't need it most of the time. The R7II would be a similar situation.
Apr 06, 2026 at 03:45 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
EB-1 wrote:
The R5 didn't have a stackable sensor from what I read, yet the R5 was head and shoulders above the R7 in AF and IQ. It seems that a sensor at the level of the 2020 R5 could be fast enough for the R7 II in the $2K range. It really could use a CFe slot for throughput. SDxC is stupidly expensive for 2011 SSD technology.
EBH
The R5 has a sensor scan speed of 16.3ms or 1/60 of a second. I think that, or something close, is quite possible without a stacked sensor that is why I suggested 20ms or 1/50 of a second which is just a tiny bit slower for the R7 II that I suggested for the lowered priced R7 II in my post above. In my view, the AF in the R7 is quite good. I think the major issue that could be improved, however, wouldn't be sensor scan speed, but buffer depth. I would expect that to be modestly addressed as well. Of course having a CFE card slot would help with clearing the buffer as well. I don't think they will do that in a lower priced model, but they might.
I actually expect a better sensor than in the R5, which is FSI. I expected at least BSI which has some clear advantages in the R7, but I do not expect a stacked sensor as the price would go up too high.
So, yes, I agree a 39 MP, BSI (but not stacked) sensor with something like a 16.3ms (i.e., 1/60 sec) sensor scan speed and with a CFE card slot (and probably a bigger better viewfinder) could well come in at around $2,000 in price or I think even slightly lower.
Why does the FSI sensor in the R5 produce better IQ than the BSI sensor in the R5 II? Is that just because Canon sensor stacking sucks? I'm not sure how much of the R7 is badly due to the shutter shock, but it's a big deal with the longer lenses.
Me personally, I am most concerned about the read speed. R6iii FSI achieved 13ms. R5ii achieved 5ms. 13ms would not make me overexcited about R7ii. R5 FSI 16ms, is okay/meh but not great for long mm lens because of heavily magnified angular views eg. At 800m (16x magnification) a bears feet vs his head are moving lots and need a 5ms read speed. So I need to use EFCS 3ms to offset it.
I can already achieve 3ms at 15fps with R7 (EFCS) at 32mpx. I am less likely to buy r7ii at electronic 13ms read speed, because I would still have to use EFCS for long lens.
For me, 39mpx is bad, it decreases the read speed over 32mpx and causes bulk/cost to deal with heat issues. 39mpx related 8k/30 causes heat issues. I would rather 32mpx, with faster read (eg r5 did 16 which suggests 11ms is doable (32/45mpx x 16) because of 32mps vs 45mpx r5.
The best I would expect is ~11ms read speed 32mpx FSI, with CFexpress and slightly improved A/f. For $2500? With 4k/60 video. I would be tempted even though 11ms is not great its a lot greater than current r7 30ms (very not great ). But better precapture, cfpexpressB, clog2, variable fps electronic, might get me there begrudgingly.
EB-1 wrote:
Why does the FSI sensor in the R5 produce better IQ than the BSI sensor in the R5 II? Is that just because Canon sensor stacking sucks? I'm not sure how much of the R7 is badly due to the shutter shock, but it's a big deal with the longer lenses.
EBH
R7 is not a great landscape camera (shutter shock mechanical, and worse ISO). And its not a great wildlife camera (slow read speed and noisy in EFCS). But its a good landscape (efcs) and good wildlife camera (15fps EFCS).
Shutter shock only matters a lot in mechanical. EFCS is much better (at end with time to attenuate at 15fps). Basically the R7 is not a good mechanical mode camera. It is great at EFCS --- but very noisy in shutter, that scares the bears. And the R7 is not good at electronics because of the slow read speed, except for very low magnification (30ms is okay at 100mm).
Even making r7ii EFCS much quieter would be a big gain.
Electronic mode would be okay at 10ms but it would really shine for wildlife at 32mpx 5ms read.
Hopefully canon reads these kind of forums and drops the 8k30fps pursuit and focusses on electronic <10ms.
The other thing about 39mpx, in addition to heat issues and slower read speed, is that 39mpx hits defraction at > f4, whereas 32mpx hits defraction at >f5.6.
The majority of potential buyers will not be shooting wildlife at f4 and the 32mpx to 39mpx, is wasted. Eg maybe only 10% of potential market have a $10,000 600/500 f4. Wheras 50% have 100-500 or 200-800. And many have the rf 100-400 f9 or its equivalent.
The only reasons for 39mpx is 8k30 video and canon bragging rights. Most people buying r7II are not needing 8k/30 or they would buy the discontinued r5. 8k/30 video takes you into bukier/more expensive heat caused features, the specialized expensive software and computers and technique.
Which takes me into the other feature that I really hate. The AA filter reduces iq by about 10%. They only reason Canon keeps its is again moire in video. A non aa 32mpx would be way better.
A wildlife flagship is apsc 32mpx (effective reach), 30fps (pretty fast) , no aa (maximum iq), <10ms read speed, with a bit buffer and good precapture - which is only 1 stop behind the r5ii in dynamic range. With a 60fps/4k video at most.
There is a market for the folks that used to use the 7D and 7DII that were looking for a high quality sports camera body at an attractive price but weren't willing to spend the long dollar on Canon's flagship line. Arguably, the R6 II and III more or less fill that niche without the crop sensor. I think there are still a fair amount of people that would pick up an R6 III with the simple addition of a crop sensor. They can shoot that way but I am referring to a native crop sensor. I don't think folks seek the R7 being the natural mirrorless extension of the 7D II.
Apr 06, 2026 at 11:06 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
EB-1 wrote:
Why does the FSI sensor in the R5 produce better IQ than the BSI sensor in the R5 II? Is that just because Canon sensor stacking sucks? I'm not sure how much of the R7 is badly due to the shutter shock, but it's a big deal with the longer lenses.
EBH
Does it? What makes you believe the 5R produces better images than the 5R II. I have seen no evidence of that. Sure if you compare the 5R in 14-bit mode vs. the 5R II in electronic shutter mode with 12-bit, there will likely be a small advantage for the 5R, but apples to apples comparison (e.g., EFCS on both cameras, 14-bit mode on both cameras) the 5R II will do at least as well as the 5R and likely outperform the 5R by a small amount in the corners and edges where BSI does help. BSI also helps with high ISO but Canon might have used that advantage to either reduce built-in noise reduction or to enhance the electronic shutter mode of the 5R II. I am very happy with the IQ of the 5R II, and it compares quite favorably with the Sony A7r V (top IQ from Sony). In my view, Canon used to lag but recently I don't find sensors like in the R5 II to be very competitive and produce excellent IQ.
Now, the R7 can look bad if you look at 100% magnification, but keep in mind when you do that you are magnifying the image greatly because the pixels are so small. I find the images are very good for an APS-C camera if you equalize magnification and look just as good as the files from my former Fuji cameras.
Llewtwo wrote:
There is a market for the folks that used to use the 7D and 7DII that were looking for a high quality sports camera body at an attractive price but weren't willing to spend the long dollar on Canon's flagship line. Arguably, the R6 II and III more or less fill that niche without the crop sensor. I think there are still a fair amount of people that would pick up an R6 III with the simple addition of a crop sensor. They can shoot that way but I am referring to a native crop sensor. I don't think folks seek the R7 being the natural mirrorless extension of the 7D II....Show more →
The original r7 is way better than the 7dii. 15fps/efcs. 2x bigger buffer. And $1500. 32mpx instead of 22mpx. Better eye focus. Much lighter.... It is a highly underated camera. There is nothing that can match it or come close to it, at 15fps and effective reach for wildlife.
The closest is sony 6700 but it is 11fps/15ms/26mpx $1400 (r7is 15fps, 3ms, 32mpx, $1500) or Fujifilm x-h2s (15fps, 5ms, $2500). r7 beats sony on read speed, fps --- and way beats fuji on price. And crushes 7dii on everything.
You should try it. Its a bargain. Just ignore the electronic mode.
Scott Stoness wrote:
The other thing about 39mpx, in addition to heat issues and slower read speed, is that 39mpx hits defraction at > f4, whereas 32mpx hits defraction at >f5.6.
The majority of potential buyers will not be shooting wildlife at f4 and the 32mpx to 39mpx, is wasted. Eg maybe only 10% of potential market have a $10,000 600/500 f4. Wheras 50% have 100-500 or 200-800. And many have the rf 100-400 f9 or its equivalent.
The only reasons for 39mpx is 8k30 video and canon bragging rights. Most people buying r7II are not needing 8k/30 or they would buy the discontinued r5. 8k/30 video takes you into bukier/more expensive heat caused features, the specialized expensive software and computers and technique.
Which takes me into the other feature that I really hate. The AA filter reduces iq by about 10%. They only reason Canon keeps its is again moire in video. A non aa 32mpx would be way better.
A wildlife flagship is apsc 32mpx (effective reach), 30fps (pretty fast) , no aa (maximum iq), <10ms read speed, with a bit buffer and good precapture - which is only 1 stop behind the r5ii in dynamic range. With a 60fps/4k video at most....Show more →
I agree that is a wildife flagship camera, but you are talking specs that are as good or better than the Fuji X-H2S and that is a $2,900 camera. If Canon wants an APS-C flagship wildlife camera, then that would be it but it wouldn't be priced anything like the 7R. I think Canon sees the 5R II as its flagship wildlife camera and the 5R II is very capable for wildlife--perhaps not as capable as the camera you are proposing (in some ways not as strong in some ways stronger)--but also more versatile.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I agree that is a wildife flagship camera, but you are talking specs that are as good or better than the Fuji X-H2S and that is a $2,900 camera. If Canon wants an APS-C flagship wildlife camera, then that would be it but it wouldn't be priced anything like the 7R. I think Canon sees the 5R II as its flagship wildlife camera and the 5R II is very capable for wildlife--perhaps not as capable as the camera you are proposing (in some ways not as strong in some ways stronger)--but also more versatile.
I agree with what you say but I am saying the original r7 is already better than the competitors for reach, price, and function for $1500. eg it is the apsc industry current flagship.
So what should they do for R7ii. Faster read speed is the biggest opportunity. They likely can get it down to 10ms from 30ms in electronic and update it to cfexpress, and it will even better than the best (the original $1500 R7).
But no one should be waiting for the r7ii at >$2000 that they might screw up by pursuing 8k/60fps, if they just want inexpensive and highest quality a/f/fps/reach - its already available in the R7 at a very competitive price $1500.
Likely if Canon meets the rumours 39mpx, 30fps, ~13ms read speed, .... at $2500, people will suddenly realize - wait I will just buy the r7 original $1500 and stick it in EFCS, craw for buffer, I don't need 30fps. Eg r7 will remain the best price/reach/fps wildlife camera for photographers on a budget.
Last week I was in La Paz Mexico, with my travel kit (r7, rf100-400) in EFCS mode, and a whale breached a few times. Even with r7, and $1000 lens, I got some reasonable EFCS 12fps shots, which could have been better at 1/2000/craw/shutter priority, if I was ready.
Canon EOS R7RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM lens270mmf/8.01/1000s160 ISO-0.3 EV
Scott Stoness wrote:
I agree with what you say but I am saying the original r7 is already better than the competitors for reach, price, and function for $1500. eg it is the apsc industry current flagship.
So what should they do for R7ii. Faster read speed is the biggest opportunity. They likely can get it down to 10ms from 30ms in electronic and update it to cfexpress, and it will even better than the best (the original $1500 R7).
But no one should be waiting for the r7ii at >$2000, if they just want inexpensive and highest quality a/f/fps/reach - its already available in the R7 at a very competitive price $1500. ...Show more →
I think we are in agreement, except I don't think they can get it down to 10ms without a stacked sensor and a lot of extra cost. No one has done that yet. Olympus has 10ms in their flagship, but it is a stacked sensor and it normally lists for $2,400 and is only 20 MP. I think 20ms or maybe just a big faster at 5R speed is doable, but I don't think 10ms is possible. I guess we will see. I own an R7 and I think it is a super capable camera. You just need to know how to use it--and probably more importantly how not to use it. As you don't use EFCS or electronic shutter for anything moving fairly fast. The sensor scan speed is 29.2 ms seconds that is roughly 1/35th of a second. As a general rule of thumb if you convert the sensor scan speed to a fraction of a second and you wouldn't use that shutter speed to freeze action in the scene, then you have some danger of seeing artefacts when using the electronic shutter. You can probably double it or so and not see anything too bad, but there are lots of things that 1/60th won't cut it for shutter speed and those are things for which you probably shouldn't use the electronic or EFC shutter on the R7. So know for most wildlife it should be mechanical shutter with that camera.
Likewise, it has a really fast but clunky mechanical shutter. The fast part is good for using the camera for wildlife, but if you put that camera on a tripod and have any sort of longer exposure (or really any exposure) you really should switch to EFCS. Here you should avoid the mechanical shutter.
Can you use the electronic shutter at all? Yes, if you know what you are doing and there is very little motion in the scene. You will want to use electronic shutter if the shutter speed ever exceeds 1/1000 and there is any bokeh in the scene. That bokeh will look a lot rougher if you use EFCS. Here you should avoid EFCS.
So as long as you keep all that straight it is a great camera. Sure there are some limits but it is capable of shooting almost anything and comes is a small light package.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think we are in agreement, except I don't think they can get it down to 10ms without a stacked sensor and a lot of extra cost. No one has done that yet. Olympus has 10ms in their flagship, but it is a stacked sensor and it normally lists for $2,400 and is only 20 MP. I think 20ms or maybe just a big faster at 5R speed is doable, but I don't think 10ms is possible. I guess we will see. I own an R7 and I think it is a super capable camera. You just need to know how to use it--and probably more importantly how not to use it. As you don't use EFCS or electronic shutter for anything moving fairly fast. The sensor scan speed is 29.2 ms seconds that is roughly 1/35th of a second. As a general rule of thumb if you convert the sensor scan speed to a fraction of a second and you wouldn't use that shutter speed to freeze action in the scene, then you have some danger of seeing artefacts when using the electronic shutter. You can probably double it or so and not see anything too bad, but there are lots of things that 1/60th won't cut it for shutter speed and those are things for which you probably shouldn't use the electronic or EFC shutter on the R7. So know for most wildlife it should be mechanical shutter with that camera.
Likewise, it has a really fast but clunky mechanical shutter. The fast part is good for using the camera for wildlife, but if you put that camera on a tripod and have any sort of longer exposure (or really any exposure) you really should switch to EFCS. Here you should avoid the mechanical shutter.
Can you use the electronic shutter at all? Yes, if you know what you are doing and there is very little motion in the scene. You will want to use electronic shutter if the shutter speed ever exceeds 1/1000 and there is any bokeh in the scene. That bokeh will look a lot rougher if you use EFCS. Here you should avoid EFCS.
So as long as you keep all that straight it is a great camera. Sure there are some limits but it is capable of shooting almost anything and comes is a small light package....Show more →
Agreed, however:
EFCS is ~3ms and 14 bit at 15fps
Why would you bother with 30fps/12bit/30ms electronic if there was no motion
The only use case for 30fs/30ms is at really low magnification (eg <100mm) with slow skittish moving animals. Noting that the r7 EFCS is very noisy and might scare birds really close
Anyway I have already derailed this post. The R7ii must deliver faster read speeds to be competitive with r7, and if it better offer lots if its $2500.
Scott Stoness wrote:
Last week I was in La Paz Mexico, with my travel kit (r7, rf100-400) in EFCS mode, and a whale breached a few times. Even with r7, and $1000 lens, I got some reasonable shots.
270mm is not such an issue. My problem is sometimes with the 100-500 at 500 and especially the 500/4 IS II with 1.4x where I need more reach for smaller subjects at medium distances. Of course there are various combinations of MS/ECFS and ES that work for various situations, but an R7 II would need to expand the envelope substantially for me. I feel like the R7 has me in a box so I only use it as a 3rd or 4th body. I'd like to move an R7 II up to being a 2nd body. I'm also hoping that Nikon takes notice and wakes up, then introduces a better DX camera as they usually do. So far they have only low-medium grade croppers.
EB-1 wrote:
270mm is not such an issue. My problem is sometimes with the 100-500 at 500 and especially the 500/4 IS II with 1.4x where I need more reach for smaller subjects at medium distances. Of course there are various combinations of MS/ECFS and ES that work for various situations, but an R7 II would need to expand the envelope substantially for me. I feel like the R7 has me in a box so I only use it as a 3rd or 4th body. I'd like to move an R7 II up to being a 2nd body. I'm also hoping that Nikon takes notice and wakes up, then introduces a better DX camera as they usually do. So far they have only low-medium grade croppers.
In theory my 1/4,000 max shutter speed in efcs would enable 500mm with better motion stopping as above. eg its not that bad.
I used to be of the same view. WIth my 200-800 at near long end, R7 is too slow a ms, but then I bought it and realized that at 800mm finding the bird is difficult, culling 30fps is difficult, a/f is okay, and the versatility of 200-800/r7 or my 200-400-560 f4/f5.6 it is quite good at EFCS 15fps. eg, when considering practical stuff, there are marginal gains and many practical challenges to 30fps.
But I agree, R7ii would be much better if they could get <10ms 30fps. It would be a less regret/ more effective reach good companion to r3 or R5ii.
I'm kinda skeptical that the 39MP RF-s sensor with the relatively low quality of the 200-800 plus the f/9 aperture will yield a lot of useful resolution. Is it going to look more like 24MP best case?
EB-1 wrote:
I'm kinda skeptical that the 39MP RF-s sensor with the relatively low quality of the 200-800 plus the f/9 aperture will yield a lot of useful resolution. Is it going to look more like 24MP best case?
EBH
Yes at 39mpx, the lens defraction and the sensor defraction and softening of 200-800 at 800 will likely reduce it to the equivalent of 24mpx. But ~24mpx is not so bad. And I can bring 200-800 back to 500mm for sharper middle range, thats equivalent to 800mm.
I normally use my 200-400 at 560 f5.6 to achieve the equivalent of 800mm on r7 - for this reason. You need a really sharp fast lens to get the potential iq out of r7 sensor.
I think effective reach gained from moving from 32mpx to 39mpx, will only be seen with those with a $10,000 f4 lens. Sensor read speed is the real potential gain for long lens.
But in a pinch or travel, the 200-800 at 500mm is pretty good. Just look at what my rf100-400 achieved, in the previous post.
EB-1 wrote:
I'm kinda skeptical that the 39MP RF-s sensor with the relatively low quality of the 200-800 plus the f/9 aperture will yield a lot of useful resolution. Is it going to look more like 24MP best case?
EBH
Maybe but IMO it would still be a better option than the current R7 if the sensor read speed can be improved to about the R5II level (6ms).
I think I'm happy with the R5II as my APS-C option. Stacked sensor and 17MP is usable for what I need to do. Definitely more flexible than 9MP from R6II 24MP FF. That said, I'm finding APS-C crop at ISO 12800 with a lens like the 70-200Z and/or 1.4x TC is not quite the replacement I hoped it would be for 24MP FF SOOC jpeg-medium that is oversampled from 45MP, or even jpeg-small 12MP oversampled from 45MP and the 200-400. It's definitely a lighter combo but it's also pushing the sensor and lens combo more to its limits.
I'm guessing the 70-200Z will look really nice on the future R7II's sensor at reasonable ISOs. It is a sharp lens! 100-300 should also be great. I think some higher-end EF lenses will start to show some limitations.
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe but IMO it would still be a better option than the current R7 if the sensor read speed can be improved to about the R5II level (6ms).
I think I'm happy with the R5II as my APS-C option. Stacked sensor and 17MP is usable for what I need to do. Definitely more flexible than 9MP from R6II 24MP FF. That said, I'm finding APS-C crop at ISO 12800 with a lens like the 70-200Z and/or 1.4x TC is not quite the replacement I hoped it would be for 24MP FF SOOC jpeg-medium that is oversampled from 45MP, or even jpeg-small 12MP oversampled from 45MP and the 200-400. It's definitely a lighter combo but it's also pushing the sensor and lens combo more to its limits.
I'm guessing the 70-200Z will look really nice on the future R7II's sensor at reasonable ISOs. It is a sharp lens! 100-300 should also be great. I think some higher-end EF lenses will start to show some limitations. ...Show more →
The r7 original at 15fps (EFCS) is 3ms effective 14 bit 32mpx. The only reason to use apsc on r5ii is i) the inconvenience of carrying / using a 2nd camera, and ii) you need 30fps at 6ms read speed. 17mpx is okay as long as you don't need to crop much. And why crop in camera when you could do it in computer. R7 at 32mpx 15fps for most purposes is superior at apsc.
). But better precapture, cfpexpressB, clog2, variable fps electronic, might get me there begrudgingly.
Is it going to look more like 24MP best case?