When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I've got an R7 waiting for me at a local camera shop. I was on my way to pick it up this afternoon but the roads were treacherous so I turned around and came home. Talk me off the ledge. Someone. Anyone.
I've been doing my due diligence on this camera and while it won't replace my R5 I do think I'd benefit from owning it. It's not *crazy* expensive like the R3 for example and besides, that camera's megapixel count is a big drawback for the kind of shooting I typically do anyway.
A camera isn't worth piling up your car for or risking injury. Make sure you let us know how the crop sensor works with your EF 800. It should get you up close and personal.
congrats, Jerry
As a rule I am one of those RTFM types but I'm pretty familiar with Canon cameras. There are things about the focus system on the R7 that differ from the R5 but they're *very* similar in many (most) regards.
Being Christmas I didn't get a whole lot of opportunity to give it a good shakedown but I did get out for a short while this afternoon. These two shots were with the 100-500 + 1.4.
Thomas, what is your overall opinion vs. the R5? Besides being a crop sensor are there any other things that really stand out in regards to advantages/disadvantages?
I think comparing the R7 it to the R5 is a bit like comparing a Corvette to an Impala so to speak. The R5 is a $3900.00 camera and the R7 is $1500.00. That being said, here’s some thoughts after a few days of use.
It’s too small. When MILC first started showing up on the market they were all *so* small. (I’m looking at you Sony) I can almost hear the discussion in the design department; “No mirror! Lets make it smaller!” I for one like some heft to my camera body. I think the 5D MK IV was absolutely perfect in size and felt substantial in your hand. The R5 is smaller than the 5D MK IV but acceptable. It somewhat boils down to button/dial layout for me. The 5D MK IV was perfect, the R5 is good and the R7 is a bit cramped. These are important considerations in my opinion. Some of this I can attribute to my unfamiliarity with the layout but it’s not a show stopper by any means.
Autofocus performance is very good. As good as the R5? In good light with a quality lens I’d say it’s pretty close. The tracking feature can be assigned to all the Auto Focus Methods. Take single point as an example. Put the subject under the single point and it will begin tracking whatever you put the focus point over. Maybe. If for example you point it at a Goose, it seems to have a habit of jumping to the Goose next to it or maybe to the one slightly behind it. Busy backgrounds seem to confuse the autofocus at times. To be fair this happens on the R5 also but that camera seems more ‘sticky.’ Some experimentation is in order. Perhaps a tweak here or there will resolve some of this.
Image quality is great in good light. As good as the R5? Probably not if you’re a pixel peeper and look at the your images on a 32” monitor at 1:1. Noise on crop sensor cameras is just part of the cost of admission. But noise isn’t exclusive to high ISOs. I’ve seen noise on my R5 in poor light. There’s a lot of factors to consider with noise and how to mitigate it.
The EVF definitely isn’t as good as the R5 nor is the LCD. I can review shots on the R5 and tell if they’re sharp. On the R7 I’m finding I need to get the images to a computer at times.
Rolling shutter with the electronic shutter R7 is awful. On the R5 it’s almost non existent.
Advantages over the R5 include additional reach which means less cropping (throwing away perfectly good pixels) and a higher FPS. If you’re trying to capture that decisive moment, 30 FPS as opposed to 20 is a BIG deal. But this comes at a cost. Yesterday I came home with 2000 images of a Goose. Think about that for a minute - 2000 images of a damn Goose. An 800mm lens on this body gives you and effective focal length of 1,280mm. That’s,,,, insane.
When you consider the fact this camera’s price point is 40% percent of the R5, it’s a HELL of a value. What you’re getting for your money is truly remarkable.
I think comparing the R7 it to the R5 is a bit like comparing a Corvette to an Impala so to speak. The R5 is a $3900.00 camera and the R7 is $1500.00. That being said, here’s some thoughts after a few days of use.
It’s too small. When MILC first started showing up on the market they were all *so* small. (I’m looking at you Sony) I can almost hear the discussion in the design department; “No mirror! Lets make it smaller!” I for one like some heft to my camera body. I think the 5D MK IV was absolutely perfect in size and felt substantial in your hand. The R5 is smaller than the 5D MK IV but acceptable. It somewhat boils down to button/dial layout for me. The 5D MK IV was perfect, the R5 is good and the R7 is a bit cramped. These are important considerations in my opinion. Some of this I can attribute to my unfamiliarity with the layout but it’s not a show stopper by any means.
Autofocus performance is very good. As good as the R5? In good light with a quality lens I’d say it’s pretty close. The tracking feature can be assigned to all the Auto Focus Methods. Take single point as an example. Put the subject under the single point and it will begin tracking whatever you put the focus point over. Maybe. If for example you point it at a Goose, it seems to have a habit of jumping to the Goose next to it or maybe to the one slightly behind it. Busy backgrounds seem to confuse the autofocus at times. To be fair this happens on the R5 also but that camera seems more ‘sticky.’ Some experimentation is in order. Perhaps a tweak here or there will resolve some of this.
Image quality is great in good light. As good as the R5? Probably not if you’re a pixel peeper and look at the your images on a 32” monitor at 1:1. Noise on crop sensor cameras is just part of the cost of admission. But noise isn’t exclusive to high ISOs. I’ve seen noise on my R5 in poor light. There’s a lot of factors to consider with noise and how to mitigate it.
The EVF definitely isn’t as good as the R5 nor is the LCD. I can review shots on the R5 and tell if they’re sharp. On the R7 I’m finding I need to get the images to a computer at times.
Rolling shutter with the electronic shutter R7 is awful. On the R5 it’s almost non existent.
Advantages over the R5 include additional reach which means less cropping (throwing away perfectly good pixels) and a higher FPS. If you’re trying to capture that decisive moment, 30 FPS as opposed to 20 is a BIG deal. But this comes at a cost. Yesterday I came home with 2000 images of a Goose. Think about that for a minute - 2000 images of a damn Goose. An 800mm lens on this body gives you and effective focal length of 1,280mm. That’s,,,, insane.
When you consider the fact this camera’s price point is 40% percent of the R5, it’s a HELL of a value. What you’re getting for your money is truly remarkable.
My biggest complaint? I wish it were bigger.
Nice review.
But why buy the R7 when you have an R5?
Wanted a beater?
I don't know what I would get now after seeing your review of the R7. Seems like a good deal if I ever decide to upgrade. The Nikon 850d would have to come down a lot more in price before I would buy one.
I'm leaning more towards something in the entry level mirrorless now.
I asked myself this very question when the idea of the R7 first hit me. The additional reach of the crop sensor appealed to me as did the higher frame rate. I wanted the ability to mount my big white to the R5 and the 100-500 to the R7. The additional body gives me more options and greater flexibility without breaking the bank.
This'll all probably get flushed in a year when Canon finally get's around to releasing the 60MP stacked sensor global shutter R1.
I warned you guys I geek out on these things. This GIF is shows the difference between the R5 and R7 and what a 1.6 crop factor looks like in the real world. The only editing on these combining them in photoshop and creating the GIF. The closer shot is the R7. Both were taken moments after one another at 800mm.
Dummy me thought a 800 lens would be the same on either body.
The R5 is full frame sensor the R7 is a 1.6x crop so on the R5 the 800mm lens is ... well 800mm on the R7 it would be (effectively) 1280mm that this is very significant increase in reach. Besides cost the major advantage of a Crop Sensor is reach. Kind of perfect when reach is everything like when you cannot move closer....so things like BIF, outdoor sports on big fields, auto racing from a distance...etc...
Dummy me thought a 800 lens would be the same on either body.
Originally Posted by Nitro-C5
The R5 is full frame sensor the R7 is a 1.6x crop so on the R5 the 800mm lens is ... well 800mm on the R7 it would be (effectively) 1280mm that this is very significant increase in reach. Besides cost the major advantage of a Crop Sensor is reach. Kind of perfect when reach is everything like when you cannot move closer....so things like BIF, outdoor sports on big fields, auto racing from a distance...etc...
The R5 has a 1.6 crop mode so the R7 would be a redundant system. The main advantage would be the 10 fps the 7 would offer. The main disadvantage would be the need to carry 2 bodies when 1 "superior in every way" body is at hand. The extra 10 fps is negated by the very nice 8k video screen grab that Thomas posted a few days ago from his R5.
While I think a back up system is warrented when traveling to a distant shoot, I don't feel the R7 is what I would choose.
Thanks for reading, Jerry
The R5 has a 1.6 crop mode so the R7 would be a redundant system. The main advantage would be the 10 fps the 7 would offer. The main disadvantage would be the need to carry 2 bodies when 1 "superior in every way" body is at hand. The extra 10 fps is negated by the very nice 8k video screen grab that Thomas posted a few days ago from his R5.
While I think a back up system is warrented when traveling to a distant shoot, I don't feel the R7 is what I would choose.
Thanks for reading, Jerry
Thanks Jerry for contributing.
I think you make some valid points that would be a good consideration for the additional body. That said I own an R5 so I am familiar with the crop mode, that said your statement regarding it being redundant is not really an apples to apples comparison. You are discounting the fact that when shooting in the R5 in 1.6 crop mode you have reduced the image size to only 17mp as compared to 32mp in the R7. That is a pretty significant drop off in resolution, especially considering the image may need to be cropped even further (after it is taken in post). That may not seem like a big deal but if just posting small photos on social media but would be pretty significant if wanted to do large scale fine art photos. Another point is that there will be more digital noise using the R5 in crop mode vs. the R7 (using the whole sensor). Again might not be a big deal to many but again depends on use. Lastly, the R5 in crop mode cannot select a 4:3 ratio (if that is important to someone).
Again, you made good points I just wanted to clarify there is definitely a difference between the R5 in crop mode vs. the R7. To many this may not be enough to warrant another body, but at least something to consider
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.
On Hold
I was on my way to pick it up this afternoon but the roads were treacherous so I turned around and came home. Talk me off the ledge. Someone. Anyone. 
On the R5 it’s almost non existent. 
That’s,,,, insane. 
