Steve Spencer wrote: Scott Stoness wrote: Steve Spencer wrote: 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.
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, if they just want inexpensive and highest quality a/f/fps/reach - its already available in the R7 at a very competitive price $1500.
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.
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 moving animals - a rarity for me.? 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.
Apr 06, 2026 at 12:14 PM
Previous versions of Scott Stoness's message #17016427 « R7II Rumours »
