@@leiwanddeluxe I’ve had the camera for a couple months now and I can tell you that it really is a great one. I do find myself leaning on different lenses, but it’s not that big of a deal
I’m coming from a 77D with a 17-55 2.8. I do plan to upgrade to L lens when I switch, but canon has made it so hard to do. I don’t charge enough to warrant the R6Mii that I want so bad (I do a lot of work with low income and foster kiddos) so the r7 was really appealing. I go to look at lenses and I basically get to chose between the 15-35 and 24-70 which neither are “ideal” in price or range for what I do. Primes are out as I need zooms. Unlike many photogs I have disabilities that make me unable to move as quick on my feet. So I’m over here like…hmm…makes me consider leaving canon entirely. And I hate that. I have loved canon for soooo long
@@spuddlefunk I can tell you that the R7 has exceeded my expectations having used it for several months now. You can pick up an RF 16-35mm for about 350USD as well if you need a wide lens :)
@@GaryHughesOfficial the EF? I plan to buy new. And that is still $1200. And needs adapted. If RF is where canon is forcing it’s people to go, I want to marry some glass and date a camera. But I guess that answers my question; kind of. If you’re recommending the 16-35 I can’t imagine you wouldn’t also recommend the RF 15-35
Yes, that’s true. But the problem is the same as with RF full frame lenses. The focal length is cropped. That won’t make a difference to some people, but to others it will. Thank you for watching and for your feedback!
@@GaryHughesOfficial Of course the focal length is cropped, the camera has an APS-C sensor. But everyone knows that beforehand. And the people that want to buy this camera must be the ones that are willing to accept that.
@@GaryHughesOfficial It would be nice, but it definitely doesn't bother me as I'm sticking to the lenses I already have. Someone in the comments section mentioned pairing up the sigma 18-35 with the R7 and that's exactly what I was planning to do. I think this camera is great for the people that know how to use it to its advantages, not the people who only see the disadvantages because they're used to something better. Many people complain about the buffer for example, but that only really applies to photographers and I'm a videographer. Is the camera good enough in low light? Doesn't really matter to me either. I usually film in a studio setting with artificial lighting anyway. Currently I'm using a 77D and I'm one of those people that still uses a DSLR and is looking to tap into the mirrorless cameras without breaking the bank. The fact that it can film in 4k 60p, has C-LOG and a headphone jack is already a huge step up to me.
Spot on. I fall in the first group as a enthousiast wildlife photographer. The crop factor, r3 autofocus and 32 megapixel sensor where the deciding factors to preorder it. Can’t wait.
I sincerely hope that you don't regret it, but have a strong feeling you will. The image quality seems a step backward for Canon APS-C. It's horrendous at high ISOs, it's too noisy at even ISO 1600 and you'll need to go way beyond that for wildlife. The noise at ISO 4000 looks like ISO 16000-25600 on a FF camera.
The lens selection don’t bother me that much. I plan on getting the r7 for videography. The R7 with the RF to EF adapter with built in NDs paired with my sigma 18-35 sounds like a really nice combo for videography. I believe the EF glass will work just fine at least until some of that expensive RF glass is in my budget.
@@burritobrosvideos8060 I doubt it when I first got my 18-35 I adapted it to a m50 with a viltrox adapter and autofocus was fine. I mean the lens was loud but it kept focus. I have to think those canon adapter work better then the viltrox and if it ends up sucking I guess I’ll be pulling focus.
The RF 16mm 2.8, RF 35mm 1.8, RF 50mm 1.8, RF 85mm 2 are all fantastic combos for the R7. Small, fast and cheap. I’m sure Canon has some good general purpose zooms on the way. One lens i’m super excited to put on the R7 is the 24-240. 38mm-384 is pretty cool range. Could be the perfect family outing lens (zoo, beach, hiking).
I've seen ACTUAL hands on reviews and ISO wasn't an issue so I ordered one. If by chance you do experience a noisy image, software like Denoise will take care of it. As with any camera, experience will dictate when and where you can use it. You just have to know its limitations!
The 90D and M6 Mk II before this (the R7's sensor is an improved derivative) were actually really impressive at high ISO - _easily_ besting older FF cameras - so (like all the other clickbait "issues" this guy is coming up with) it'll be an absolute irrelevance in the Real World. *And nothing stopped him tracking down some high ISO 90D files before coming up with this drivel.*
Yep. I use the Canon 80D for theater and stage photography and have been waiting for a good RF crop sensor body to come out to pair with my R6 full frame that I use in studio.
Depends on what the work is, I think. For anything with a lot of high ISO shooting, full frame will likely serve you better. If you do portrait work, headshots, stuff like that, I imagine it will be great. The price is very compelling
Yep, I fall in the second category. I have the 90D but need better video capabilities. the 10-bit 4:2:2 4k@60 was a huge selling point. It was a no brainer for me since I can sell the 90D for 1k once I get the R7.
I‘m not sure if all the RUclipsr are right with the buffer. I looked at the spec sheet for the R7. With 15 fps it‘s possible to shoot 12 seconds in c-raw before the buffer is filled. No matter if electronic or mechanical. And this time you can change the burst rate with electronic shutter too. This are about 200 pictures in 12 seconds in c-raw. What other camera in this price range can do this? A few minutes ago i have had the chance to ask the people from Canon germany. They told me that the spec sheet is right. And the 30 fps are great for focus stacking and pre capture. In c-raw you can take 2 or 3 seconds of pictures if i remember right. More than enought to nail the action. Can the Z9 take 30 fps in RAW? Or the three times more expensive R5? Not even for one second if i remember right. Maybe it‘s not that worse like it sounds at the first look 😉
LMAO you can't isolate ONE feature, i.e. Burst rate and compare it to the Z9 or R5. You're dreaming. Those cameras are so far ahead of the R7 it's laughable. The IQ is chalk and cheese, especially the high ISO performance. One other issue: the pixel density is equivalent to shooting a FF camera with 83.7MP. Most lenses can't resolve it. The RF 100-500mm shots I've seen with the R7 are soft.
@@cooloox why do you think you can speak this way with me? We can talk with respect to each other. Or do you think i don‘t know the difference between full frame and aps-c sensor, and only you do? Sure i can compare special festures of different cameras. Today there are a lot of youtuber spitting or critism on products that don‘t even exist in the market. Before testing them a few days. And others chatter like a parrot without holding the camera in their hand for a minute. I don‘t like it. Because it‘s difficult to correct misjudgements later. They stay in peoples heads.
From Canon user and forums I have chatted on or in. The general catchment area is Canon dslr users who want entry into mirrorless ( ML ) or wildlife/sports semi or pro's who want tge extra reach. Now this R7 is no 7Dii replacement in a ML body ! It is partly weather sealed, polycarbonate body, and is more of an 90D ML upgrade. However, the Eye, subject AF tracking at £1,349 is a steal ! I own a used 7Dii and only purchased itto replaced my 7D which I brought from new. Because I got fed up waiting for 7Diii dslr that never got released. I also purchased Sony A6600 for eye detection AF for portraits and wildlife., and what a big difference in keeper rate this makes ! The R7 does have some spec issues, low res EVF & screen, weather sealing, limited buffer So the R7 with its amazing AF is the big selling point at a price that blows all competitors away ! There is only Sony A6100 or A6600 that come any where near tye spec of this R7. Fuji are good, however detection AF is no where as good as Sony or Canon !
Adapt the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and 50-100 f1.8's into this and you've got a fully professional setup giving full frame equivalent images at about 2/5th of the price (£3k ish). For comparison the R6 with canon's RF 24-70 f2.8 and RF 70-200 f2.8 (which are roughly equivalent to those 1.8 sigmas on a crop body) comes in at approx £7.3k.
Hi Gary thanks for sharing this great timing as I have been on the fence for ages - my ageing budget Canon 700D APS-C has been great for the past 7 years in my portrait and product photgraphy work but I have been wanting more quality, sharpness and better video and have been so undecided on updating to Canon 90D as an obvious next step budget choice but that old thing about full frame keeps coming back to me so now with R7 im not sure if can expect better quality for the extra money on top of adaptor for my budget lens collection or stick with 90D I suppose I will wait longer to hear reviews
Good video but here's my thoughts as to why points #3 and #4 won't really matter for now. Not sure if you are a canon user back in dSLR days but a lot of sports and wildlife pro uses 1d/1dx and premium full frame lenses aka EF lenses. Some of those pros owned a 7dmk2 as a backup and if they needed extra reach without loosing stop of light with extenders. As far as i am aware, there's no premium EFs zoom lens back then. So those who own a 7dmk2 would utilise their existing L lenses. In my case, the ef 100-400l mk2 or say a 300mm L f2.8. Now i believe the r7 is targeted to groups 1 and 2 in your video or for those who wish they could have an eos 7dm2 in a mirrorless body as a backup to their r5 or r6. A lot of the owners of the latter are still using their good old L EF lenses that includes me. Even of canon would release a range of RFs lenses, i myself would not get one as i don't have thr budget and i have ready invested heavily on EF lenses. Besides the premium RF glass are very expensive. I am sure it is going to be the same for premium RFs glass in the future. For group 3 in your video, there are a lot of.options out there in Fuji, Sony and even Olympus if they wanted the crop sensor. And i am sure Canon is aware of that. When EOS R wad released, there was only one or 2 RF lenses. But they will catch up for sure.
Seems reasonable. I definitely think that existing APS-C sensor users won't be bothered too much about lenses. Honestly, this camera probably isn't really aimed at pros who are used to full frame. What I am really looking forward to is the updates to the R and RP. Thanks for watching!
I almost pre-ordered! But decided to see the full reviews, I still use the t3i! And this R7 would a great step up! I thought going FF but the lens investment is to high for me
@@GaryHughesOfficial also, I agree that Canon need a holy trinity for APSC! Would be awesome, I understand that would make sense making efs lens for dslr, but for RF, since they made this camera with so many features, would be awesome to se nice lenses too!
Go FF and initially buy the control ring adapter and EF lenses. They work amazingly well with Canon mirrorless cameras. The ISO noise difference is MASSIVE and the R7 seems unusually poor in this regard.
@@cooloox Yep, that's why I decide to wait for the comparissons! I know a crop sensor is usualy worst in low light, but i'm not a night photographer, besides that, the R7 beats the R (for the same price) and the RP in every aspect. So if the diference isn't that big, I'm ok with it
At first I was excited about the R7, I'm currently a Fuji user and the prospect of getting Canon's much better autofocus and menus/interface was very attractive. But I feel these two models are going to mostly appeal to those already in the R system who want a second body and/or use the crop factor to extend their reach. Unfortunately as a standalone option, I think it's probably not the best option because the RF-S glass is so limited (at the moment), and using RF/EF lenses can be pricey, and although probably fine if you're after telephoto reach, but awkward in that wide-normal zoom range with the crop factor taken into account.
Good points. The XH2 might be a pretty good option if you are willing to wait. I am hopeful for the RF-S lens lineup moving forward, I have heard some good things.
You're correct about wildlife/birding photographers wanting this. I am such, currently shoot 7DII, it's a no brainer for me but your point about 24-105 f4 is bang on and will wait for new lenses
I will use the R7 outdoors as a "tele-converter" with an 120-300/2.8 lens, if the light goes away, I can switch to my R6 and trade some reach for less noise. I mainly shoot JPG or CRAW, so the buffer won´t be a huge problem. I don´t care about APSC-lenses at all, as I will use the camera exclusively with my EF-lenses (well, exept maybe the Sigma 18-35/1.8). No issues so far...
ISO and buffer are definitely very important features for photographers who are still on the DSLR boat, namely with the 7Dii. Even with the increased resolution and burst speed, not to mention the the incredible eye AF, those photographers are going to find something to complain about. It's no secret that Canon made the r7 as the mirrorless successor to the 7d, even if they don't officially say so.
It really does seem like a great camera. If the plan was to get 7D users to go mirrorless, I think it's a tempting offer, especially considering it cost less than the 7D when it came out.
If you get an equiv focal length and the same aperture, you dont get an equivalent lens because you have to add equivalence to aperture also. A 45mm 2.8 = 71mm 4.5 (ish). If you want a 70mm 2.8, you need around a 45mm 1.7 (or 1.8 is prob close enough).
I used to own 7D2 that didn’t have good ISO performance. I stayed at ISO 1600 or lower. But now we have a lot of great noise reduction software. So noise may not be a big concern. I will use it for bird photography. Secondary to my R5. CRAW may be a good option to reduce the impact of low buffer size. I will mainly use the 15 mechanical shutter. So buffer may not be a huge concern. When R1 comes out, I can sell the R7.
Digging in to it more, what I have discovered is that the problem with the buffer isn't the frames (when you optimize the settings) it's the time it takes the buffer to clear. In some cases as much as 10-12 seconds. Nit sure if that makes any difference, it wouldn't matter to me because I don't shoot that way. I hope it works out for you and thanks for watching!
This camera is definitely aimed at the wildlife and sports shooter, people are forgetting that if you like weddings, portraits and landscaped you can buy the EOS R which is still an excellent full frame camera for virtually the same money, horses for courses.
Unfortunately for the R, I think that it lacks some of the tactile controls that wedding photographers really love, but definitely super image quality. There should be an update to that coming soon :)
@@GaryHughesOfficial Tactile controls? Most people don't know how to customise a camera. You have dials for aperture, shutter speed and ISO, if you include the control ring on the lens (or control ring adapter). You can toggle one shot/servo AF with the left arrow button, drive mode with the right arrow, picture style with the up arrow, whatever you like with the down arrow, image quality with focus selection button, depth of field preview with the exposure lock button, eye detection on/off with the AF On button, jump straight to Wi-Fi settings with the record button (in photo mode) and toggle EVF/LCD with the MFn button. Adjust white balance with the touch bar. That was one example, obviously you personalise it to your needs. It has more controls than the R5/R6.
It's all about what you want and what you need. That will determine if this is a good buy. There's no such thing as the perfect camera. Which is why I have several and use for different things.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Me too. Going to be months away according to their waiting list numbers. I might change my mind by then and go with the R6, if only they would update the firmware and remove that 30 minute recording limit
My experience with the R6 is that it is very prone to overheat, even compared to the R5. The R7 doesn't seem to have any of those issues, so as a second video camera, I think it might be a better choice.
@@GaryHughesOfficial You know, I was just thinking about the overheating after I posted this comment. It seems there is always a caveat with Canon between cameras. One day they might build the perfect camera that does everything you need instead of needing multiple cameras.
They were able to fix the heating in the R5, hopefully that will translate to the R6 in the near future. I know a lot of people who would be very happy with that.
I own the EOS RP and was thinking of getting the R7. In your personal opinion would it be an upgrade? I am not a professional whatsoever I just take my camera wherever I go like to Disneyland and such. TIA
EOS RP better image quality, smaller body R7 better battery life, faster shooting, better video - I own the RP and love it. Use it as my travel and personal camera
Honestly, lenses should not be a very big concern. Yes, Canon so far has only released two RF-S specifically for the R7 and R10... and both are basically "kit" lenses: a compact 18-45mm IS STM and a slighlty more upscale 18-150mm IS STM. Nothing special... yet. Keep in mind that the R-series cameras and RF glass are only 3 years old. Canon has stated they expect to double the number of RF mount lenses over the next three years. Within the existing RF system there are already a few reasonably affordable full frame lenses that will work very well on these cameras: RF 16mm f/2.8 STM, 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro, 50mm f/1.8 STM, 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro, 100-400mm IS USM, 600mm f/11 IS STM and 800mm f/11 IS STM. The prices of these range from $149 to $999. There also are more than 125 million Canon EF & EF-S lenses that have been made over the last 30+ years, all of which can easily be adapted and many of which reportedly work better on R-series cameras than they did on the DSLRs and SLRs (mirrorless don't require camera/lens calibration, since the AF sensors are embedded directly in the image sensor). When you consider both RF and EF lenses together, Canon has more lens selection than Sony. Sony has a very respectable 114 e-mount lenses (according to B&H). But there have been at least 130 EF & EF-S lenses, and are currently 27 RF & RF-S. And Canon offers quite a few specialty lenses Sony lacks. For example there are five current Canon Tilt Shift and three older models. Sony has none. Between EF and RF, Canon has eight current macro and has several excellent older macros if you bought used. Sony has three macro. 3rd party lenses are another matter. There are tons of 3rd party lenses for Sony e-mount... Well over 100 with AF from various manufacturers. While there are some fully manual lenses for the R-series, only a few with AF and aperture control have been released so far. I would be a bit distrustful adapting 3rd party EF mount lenses for use on R-series. There have been some reported issues, though with newer models the manufacturers have stepped up to fix the problem at little or no cost. R7 will be a great choice for wildlife photographers. The AF system and 15 fps mechanical shutter frame rate, along with the "free 1.6X teleconverter" effect of the crop sensor will allow for moderate size and weight, and affordable, powerful telephotos. (Which Canon has all lined up and waiting in the RF mount... Until very recently Nikon had nothing longer that 250mm for their Z series mirroreless... Yet they had four or five 50mm! Go figure.) R7 will be great for patents shooting their kid's sports... But lousy for pro sports shooters because of the lack of a battery grip. When I shoot a sporting event I may take 5000 or more images in a day. That will mean a lot of battery changes, I'm afraid. Optimistically, I would guess at least five or six. Invariably batteries run down at the worst time and I will miss shots while changing the battery. I am also concerned about the build of the camera... Weather resistance and durability. The Canon 7D Mark IIs I use are rated to give 200,000 shutter actuations. Those shoot at 10 frames/sec. Because the R7 shoots at 15 fps, I would hope it has a 300,000 click rated shutter. I haven't heard anything from Canon, but doubt it's mechanical shutter is that durable. I've heard its build compared to the 90D, which also shoots at 10 fps, but is rated to have a 120,000 click life span (which was up from the 8 fps, 80D with 100,000 click rating). I also think the R7 would be a poor choice for wedding photography. That's full frame territory, pure and simple. FF is necessary for those dreamy shallow depth of field effects. Same with portrait photography. Back up your full frame with another full frame. In fact, using the R7 alongside any other model presents another problem... The unique control layout. I don't know why Canon felt the need to mess with the best ergonomics and control layout in the business, but apparently they did. This is something most people will adapt to easily and probably even like. However, anyone who uses multiple camera models and switches between them wants reasonably similar controls and feel. That ain't gonna happen with R7, I'm afraid. I can't comment on video capabilities because that's just not something I'm very familiar with. The R7 will show some noise in it's images. Probably it will be similar to the 90D... Maybe a little better thanks to the more powerful processor. I would predict ISO 1600 will be very usable, 3200 fine for a lot of things and 6400 with some post processing work. But those are what I can get away with using my 2014 7D Mark II. Of course, those are 20MP, and the R7 (and 90D) are 32.5MP. For cleanest possible high ISO images, go full frame and modest resolution (20MP R6 or 24MP R3). Of course you'll be spending a lot more money, and not just on the camera. You'll need bigger, heavier, much more expensive lenses, too! Plus a sturdy tripod to sit it all upon. You may have noticed I glossed over the 30 frames/sec electronic shutter of the R7. There's a reason. Besides the concern about filling the buffer in just over 1 second (and filling memory cards and storage devices at an alarming rate), I also have concerns about rolling shutter issues with fast moving subjects. Unfortunately, Canon didn't put an ultra fast readout sensor in the R7, like they did in the R3 ($6000). As a result, shooting sports I would likely need to stick with the 15 fps mechanical shutter. I might use the e shutter occasionally for silent shooting or for its 1/16000 top speed. But I'd wary of it for moving subjects (and what else would you need to shoot at 30 fps?) 😎
I have another concern: In the canon 90d days none of the full frame lenses was sharp enough to make use of the sensor. And I doubt that that has changed. Are there fullframe lenses that can resolve 32,5 mp on aps-c at the moment? And second concern: the zoom ranges of the current lineup are weird on aps-c. If you want an 24-70 equivalent: then you have to buy two zooms. And that already makes is more expensive than a full frame solution. So: I think that canon would have to make some good aps-c lenses before it would be competetive. f6,3 means that it is around 6 times worse in low light then f2.8. The camera itself has good specs, but I think a lot of people will be disapointed if you try to find lenses for it.
That’s an interesting point. From what I can see, the images are tac sharp. Check out Jared Polins review of the files he shot, he even gives a link to download them. Thanks for watching!
In the canon 90d days none of the full frame lenses was sharp enough to make use of the sensor.* Eh? I used to use it with my 500mm f/4 Mk II and 100-400mm Mk II, and the files were so bloody sharp that I had to change my workflow!
Im thinking about buying the r7 to start to shoot bird and motorsport and keep on using my old fullframe dslrs to weddings and portraits etc but im started to think its hard to go back to aps c if the iso is not that good
I think you should be great with the ISO up to 3200 before you start to see a really noticeable difference, but that all depends on the subject matter. I just ordered the R7 for video work and headshots!
I'm on the fence. I have a R5 and GFX100S, so I am set on stills. I'm really considering it for my You Tube channel. I have a 16 and 14-35, so I''m not sure the crop is going to bother me. What do you think about it for just video and a backup to the R5?
Honestly, I think this is a perfect camera for video if you are in the Canon system. Basically limitless 4k recording and some great features. I might be getting one myself along with a wider lens for YT. I also have the R5 and I would love something lighter and cheaper to run and gun with and this just might be perfect.
as someone who’s only ever had point and shoots, and my phone, i have been doing my research for a couple of months and settled on going mirrorless. i preordered the r10 and have been having second guesses about switching the r7. but i know if i do i wont have as much money to spend on things like better lenses if i do so. and now your video has me second guessing altogether. i’m a guy that always likes the newest best tech when it comes to buy tv’s, gaming systems, and mac accessories and thats why i havent just settled on an older body. as for now im crossing my fingers that the r10 lives up to what i want. but, i may change my mind in the future. i have shaky hands and i know the r7 has ibis. and have seen some hands on reviews saying the iso range, though the same between the two, tends to perform better in the r7. so torn with myself 😂
I choose always the thing that has the most advantages, in this case with the R7 you would have the chance to have little to no doubts. In the case of the R7 you're paying that extra for those steps that do count for some video/photographers, like ISO, IBIS to cit somes. I'm like you when it comes to buy the best tech, I'm hoping to hold the R7 for the next 10 years without doubts on my acquisition; like I do have doubts right now on my M6 Mark II. There are too many advantages that I consider if I switch, and I bought it right now, so still in time to send it back and get the new one with all this pros that I considered.
In addition to the high ISO performance, and buffer, I'm waiting to see how much rolling shutter this camera has. I suppose a camera in that price bracket won't come with a stacked sensor like the R3 so I'm probably giving it a pass.
No. If you look at the price point of the Fuji XH2s, that BSI sensor makes it quite a bit more expensive. That and the higher rez LCD screens would have made this camera at least $2k maybe more
I agree about Fuji having a better selection of cheaper native lenses compared the Canon’s more expensive RF line up, and now Canon has a problem with the introduction of the new Fujifilm X-H2S, the camera we all wanted the R7 to be! Yes, the more professional people might now turn to Fujifilm instead of going with the R7 for all the reasons you mentioned especially with the new Fujifilm 150-600mm. 😉 I myself being a Canon user did preorder the R7 because what other option do I have, wait another five years for the Camera the R7 should have been ? Lol! My Canon lenses will not work on the X-H2S! 😢
I have a feeling that Canon will roll out a few great lenses for the APS-C lineup. Especially considering the new lenses Fuji just dropped. That 18-150 F4 would be a great addition.
Fuji _does not_ have a better lens selection. Not even close. Every EF lens will work brilliantly and seamlessly on the R7 and any other R camera, and Fuji isn't in the same league as a result.
@@keithreeder sorry I miss spoke. In his video I think that Gary was referring to Fujifilm native APC lenses line up compared to the more expensive Canon RF lens. Canon doesn’t as of yet have much in the way of APC RF lenses compared to Fujifilms lenses line up in my humble opinion. Thanks ☺️
Yes, that's definitely true, but having to use a third party software just to get usable images might turn some people off. I guess we'll see what the files look like when they start getting into people's hands and they have RAW access. Thanks for watching!
@@GaryHughesOfficial You are right and that ISO worse is part of the APS-C compromise to get the reach of a 1.6X crop while delivering more pixels on the subject. My R5 has 18MP in the center of the image the 32MP of the R7 cover. 32MP is a lot more pixel when trying to shot bird at a distance. Sure I always try to get closer bu this is not always possible. The real question how much lower ISO do you have go to get the same noise as the FF camera. I suspect that it is at least 1 fstop or 1/2 the FF ISO is the corresponding ISO of the R7 vs R5. It could be worse though.
@@keithreeder 80D, 90D, 77D. I have had them all. For professional use in high isos, for the work that I present, they are not valid. And more than that, I wouldn't be able to risk a paid job hoping that the final file would be of minimal quality. I have already seen some weddings done with micro 4/3 and apsc and the results, especially indoors, are (sorry if anyone is offended) bad. And the loss of dynamic range is dramatic.
The biggest issue is your first point. 2 reviewers have made full res images available for viewing and one even invites you to download full res raw files (converted to DNGs). The high ISO performance is absolutely garbage. At ISO 1600 there's a lot of noise, at ISO 4000 it looks like ISO 16000 or maybe even 25600 on a FF camera. There's a lack of detail at the higher ISOs too, so AI noise reduction software won't help as you'll be left with smooth smudgy looking images lacking fine details. I have a FF Canon camera and an M6 Mk II. The R7 seems worse than the M6 Mk II. It definitely doesn't appear to be an improvement.
I was VERY interested in the R7 until I tried to build an small light kit with a few HQ prime$ and F4 glass. Canon has the best AF-C and tracking. Sony has by far the best "contemporary," updated, third party, and variety of lenses. Along with the best customization, but with the worst colors (tried 3 FF bodies and many lenses, I have a background in lab production and color management,) and worst feel in your hands. Nikon has the nicest feel, weight, color, glass, and value. I'll be sticking with my Z7II and Z50 for a while longer, but they both feel like a step back/down from my D500/D750/D7200 with AFP glass and a few 1.8G primes.
@@lbeetech I'm patient, but lenses are more important to me. I should mention that the "step down" was an impression. 85% of the time the images are without a question, quite a bit better in every aspect but Bokeh. I'm confident than Nikon is the place to be with the ability to adapt lenses from nearly any mount likely to grow.
One big problem aps-c in general has and these cameras are no different is that it is obviously impossible to balance this size sensor on a budget. Absolutely routine roll out in m43 at any level but middle range if that in aps-c. Those stops for static images are way more than the sensor size gives for primes unless splashing out for ultra fast lenses and then shallow depth of field becomes a problem. This must have a big sensor syndrome in traditional cameras seem so out of synch with what is happening in phones for any hope of it being a popular choice.
@@GaryHughesOfficial It is what keeps me in m43 and made me give up on Fuji apart from one body and a zoom but not an issue for everyone I am sure. It is interesting that IBIS seems to be rolling out in full frame even though those extra stops of light would make it seem less important. Messages coming out of the industry are confusing to say the least in every respect. Plus that narrow field 18-45mm slow kit lens to add to the confusion on what is considered important if anything outside of full frame.
From what I have seen on another channels sample RAW file at iso 4000, its no better then my old 70D, what's it gonna look like on 8000? But then again, that's at 100% image view.
I LOVE the RP, but as far as features, this blows the RP out of the water. The only way the RP might have an advantage is the sensor size. I own the RP and shoot with it often and it gives pretty tremendous image quality. Until regular photographers and reviewers get the R7 in their hands and have RAW file support, there is no way to tell where it stands in terms of image quality. Looking forward to finding out :)
My big problem with the RP for weddings is the lack of tactile buttons that make working weddings so much easier. Being able to switch between focus modes quickly and shoot in fast bursts as well. Not to mention that the battery life on the RP is pretty lean. The R7 is going to be a much better choice for weddings, provided you have the right lenses and the RAW files look good at 3200 and 6400 ISO.
Make better RAW converter decisions. If you can't get squeaky--clean APS-C images at _ridiculously_ high ISOs with the right software these days, you probably should be looking at another hobby. (I'm assuming you're an amateur - a pro wouldn't need to be told this.)
I imagine it's low light performance will be better than the D500 or the 7D mark 2 and that's the camera specs that wildlife and bird photographers would be updating and expecting to beat for the R7. I have preordered mine and I think it's gonna be the best crop sensor hybrid camera value out there.
*I imagine it's low light performance will be better than the D500 or the 7D mark* It absolutely will, Forrest. High ISO files from the 90D/M6 Mk II are _much_ - over a stop - better than those from the 7D Mk II (experience of all three speaking here) and the R7 will undoubtedly be better again.
I disagree. I shoot birds and I thought I would welcome it because of the 1.6x crop factor for extended reach, but a few things let the R7 down. Ay first, I was pretty excited when I heard about the frame rate, 15 fps mechanical and 30 fps electronic, that is even faster than my R5. But, then once it was confirmed no CFexpress Type B, it basically renders the fast frame rate useless. If you shoot at 30 fps, you may get just over 1 sec on the shutter before your buffer is full. That is terrible for BIF as you need to spray when a bird is flying past. Then, you add that to the low res EVF and LCD, all of a sudden the entire proposition is looking less and less attractive. Last but not least as I found out the day before yesterday, apparently there is no battery grip for the R7. Boom!! OK!! Thanks, but no thanks, end of story, thank you very much!
1. I do like the 32 mpxl.. AF, and camera size. 2. Canon should've had a couple of primes (f1.2 + 1.4) ready at the time of launch. Now I am forced to buy the cheap kit lens which I DON’T WANT, then spend money again to buy better. 3. No forward planning: They experimented with the Canon M, then cancelled it.. That upsets customers, who have to start all over again. My dad had the one camera for 50 years ! 4. Many amazing features from the Panasonic Gh5Mk2 & Olympus that they had long ago should be on the R7 (waveform , etc) 5. The 60fps could have been better. 6. 5. The prices should be less, No more than $1900 to compete with Sony apsc, GH5MK2 and Fuji.
Apsc will *never* keep up with ff for lowlight. Physics. There are reasons to want it and Im getting one to joing my R6. But lowlight isnt one and comparing to ff doesnt make sense.
That's a fair point. I think the main reason I am interested in the idea of APS-C is the value for dollar. Ultimately I think this would end up being a great second camera for video. Thanks!
Lack of GOOD lenses for apsc is the real disappointment. Making fast, good quality lenses specific to apsc will be a reason to use crop cameras. For me having 2x R6 bodies, a high res tight shooter like the r7 would be amazing, but I will always feel like I'm missing out on the full image on the expensive RF L glass I've bought. The r7 would be just OK for weddings as things are. We tell stories and that means crop bodies literally limit how much story we can tell on a lens compared to what a given lens would throw onto a full frame sensor. If they can get that fast trinity for apsc, I might consider it for some niche applications
This is a sports and wildlife camera, not a wedding and event camera. I would never buy any camera based on a spec sheet from any company. Wait until a camera is in use with professionals who are doing the same type of photography you are. All of Canon’s RF and EF lenses can be used on an R7. Inexpensive lens would be RF 16mm F2.8, RF 35mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8, 85mm F 2 and the RF 100-400 mm. The buffer According to Canon can handle 224 jpegs or 51 raw files. Don’t use a cheap slow memory card or you won’t get those numbers.
I see where you are coming from, but I think that although sports and wildlife photographers will love it, saying that those are the only shooters it's for is a little narrow. For example, video creators are going to love this thing, and since they tend to use fixed focal length lenses anyway, they shouldn't have much trouble with the lens selection. Honestly, though, if Canon came out with a lens like the one Fuji just dropped (18mm-150mm F4), it would fundamentally change how attractive this system would be for portrait and wedding shooters. Thanks for watching and for your feedback.
High iso. That the territory of full frame and pixels peepers. Never had a customer turn down an image that was to noisy. Just something RUclipsrs prattle on about. Pros don't use APS C lenses. They will have the RF lenses or adapt EF lenses. And the invite didn't show up... hmmm. Sour grapes?
I see your point, but I know plenty of pros that shoot APS-C bodies and turn out great work. I think that the idea that only full frame cameras are for pros is going to seem antiquated in a couple of years from now. In fact, I think it already is. By the way, some dude with under 5k subs isn't gonna get invited to anything ;)
Canon apsc line is a bait. Same as Sony's. I'd rather take Sonys bait for fairly good selection of inexpensive apsc lenses. I am a Fujifilm user by the way.
A preview, actually :) If it helps you to know, I actually ordered one and plan to use it for headshot and video work. After diving into it more with a few photographers who I know that have them, I am convinced it's a great value. On par with the XT-4 and in the same price point.
I just need an excuse to keep my sigma 18-35mm so I can let go my 90D peacefully haha. I also own the EOS R so looking at R6 as well since Ive started investing in full frame glass
I have mixed feelings about this. I feel this camera is not a natural contender for a 7 designation in the context of the EOS 7D range. I express the following from the point of a pro wildlife stills photographer, and not a wedding or videographer. To explain: the 7DI and II were professional-level APS-C bodies that had several characteristics: the best sensors of the time, good buffers, great weather sealing, great tacking (7DII), and battery grips to increase the energy supply and balance the heavier lenses. While the R7 without doubt has a great tracking system, to me this is more like an evolution of the ##D series, of which the last was the 90D, for the following reasons: There are much better sensors out there and this camera is competing with BSI and stacked sensors from competitors like Sony. In a premium camera I would have expected Canon to match that in competitive market. The buffer is small for the reasons you mentioned and I would have preferred to see a bigger buffer and CF Express type A with slots that are backward compatible with SD cards. According to several sources, Canon have advised that the weather sealing is NOT as good as for the R3, 5, and 6 bodies - which makes no sense for a pro-level wildlife camera. Finally, there is no announcement of a battery grip, when one is usually announced with the body. So: I DO applaud the camera at the price point at which it is located, but to me it is not a inheritor of the characteristics that would make this deserve a 7 designation. Perhaps something like and R9? I would expect a 7 to have all the features that were listed and in some cases, missing. So for me the question is: is this as serious as Canon's APS-C sensor line-up will get?
Good thoughts, for sure. Always room to grow, I guess. A BSI sensor would have made this a $2k camera as we have seen in the Fuji XH2s, my guess is that it was primarily a cost-cutting issue like the EVF and screen resolution. Time will tell
@@GaryHughesOfficial I would happily have paid the extra for the performance. I have this vision of a meeting for the early concepts for this camera where voices were raised that Canon had taken too much flak for making pro-level bodies at pro-level prices to the detriment of consumer and enthusiast users. Fair enough, as I have said this is, to me an exception-value camera for the price, but make this model an R9 (or whatever) and build a pro-level R7 like they are serious about it.
Canon is clearly free to do as they please with the naming. And how they position a body depends on which features the choose to emphasize. Clearly, the fantastic AF of the new mirrorless systems are the main differentiator from the older DSLR systems. Clearly, any systems can be put in any body Canon chooses to put them in. So why did Canon make this system and name it the R7. It called trying to continue doing business in an ever shrinking market. People aren’t buying enough cameras to continue doing business as was done a decade or so ago. There aren’t that many wildlife photographers around to pay for the R&D necessary to keep pushing advances in tech. So Canon is shifting its focus to sell to the largest crowd possible, so they can remain profitable. Plain and simple. So, we get an r7 with way, way better AF systems than we have a right to expect for $1500 in an effort to move units, to make profits, to fund future development. This leads to their future ability to develop and release specialized niche bodies like a true successor to the 7D series in mirrorless form. If you don’t like the r7 because its not housed in the body you want it in, then don’t buy it. Speak with your dollars, and if enough people don’t buy it, then Canon will find their way to a different solution, or go out of business. However, the r7 is still going to be a useful tool to those who wish to pursue wildlife and other types of photography. You can choose to take advantage of this tool or not. It’s still going to provide the reach necessary to distant birds and such, and it still has enough buffer to get shots. People are acting like the 7DM2 had a great buffer - it did not. Neither did the 5D series, but yet we got shots with the. Only the 1D series had a deep buffer on Canon until the r5/6 came along. I still question the build quality on the r5/6, by the way and their level of weather resistance should not be assumed as many do. Canon won’t warranty against weather, so that means you should not trust it, because they don’t. I’m ordering the r7 to go along with my two r5s while my 7DM2 does duty as a webcam.
@@RogerZoul it’s a 90d upgrade the price reflects that an maybe it is all we get for now, my 7d2 will give it a run for its money as I don’t have to worry about the elements an I never had a problem with buffer, I waited on the r7 for years now I’ll wait a little longer, you gta pay to play I understand but gear doesn’t make the photographer
@@jimbird963 It is priced like a 90D upgrade for sure, but sorry, the 7DM2 cannot match it. It was a great camera in its day but it has been sunsetted now. You’re absolutely right that gear doesn’t make the photographer, but ancient gear is not helping either.
That's a fair point, and I plan to get my hands on one soon enough. I think I was pretty clear that these are just my thoughts based on the information that Canon has released and what known reviewers have said (people who do have it in their hands). You don't have to suit up and grab a stick to analyze a hockey game, and there is definitely a place for commentary and conjecture here on YT. Once I (and many others) have had a chance to play with a production model and test it out in the real world, you can expect a video on that experience, as well as my elaboration on any of these points that were confirmed or proven wrong. Thanks for watching!
1) Don’t use a crop sensor camera in low light. That’s what full frame sensors are for. It will not be awesome for high iso. 2) At 15 fps it can get 51 images. At craw, 187! 3) Who is going to use RF-s lenses? Canon didn’t make those for the EF system, so don’t expect them for RF. RF lenses are native for the R7! You aren’t going to see a holy trinity for rf-s. Sorry.
appreciate the feedback. Although I think you might be right about the lenses, Canon has put an unusual amount of pro features in the R7, it gives me hope for sure. That being said, plenty of pro wedding and event shooters use APS-C cameras and turn out great work at high ISO, I guess we'll see :) I remember when my full-frame Canon 5D had pretty pitiful low light performance compared to any modern APS-C sensor.
Don’t forget with IBIS and the IS of the lenses, you can probably drop your shutter speed enough for that to not be an issue, depending of course on your low light needs.
@@burritobrosvideos8060 So you can switch it off. Bags of stops for static images. This argument that an extra facility is no good if it cannot be used in every single circumstance is a bit spurious. Plus the head text here that ISO is 'awesome' for full frame is also rather an exaggeration given that these extra sensor sizes yield stops in a diminishing logarithmic form and people tend to brag about the extra area in linear terms. I remember having a Sony SLT which permanently diverted 1/3 of the light to the focus sensors but any drop off in performance was hardly noticeable against a DSLR.
@@GaryHughesOfficial To what end? Speculation is exactly that. What good is it when all we have to do is wait…then the speculation disappears, replaced by facts.
That’s fair, but if videos like this didn’t get so many views, creators would stop making them. It’s honestly fun to speculate and look up videos on something you’re interested in. When it gets in the hands of regular folks like us, I will review it in a hands-on way and compare it to my initial thoughts. If I was wrong, I won’t mind saying so :)
Totally agree, the price point really took me by surprise considering the 7D was $1800 when it came out back in 2010. I think that is the main reason they didn't go with a BSI sensor, to save on the cost so they could keep the price down.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Fuji X-HS2 is BSI sensor,. looked what it cost now,. 2,500usd,. same price as fullframe A7iv and R6 whis is not ideal price for someone,.
@@kenjiyamamoto423 totally agree. No way they could have kept the price at $1500 and included a BSI sensor. I bet that the Fuji XH2 will have a lower price point than the s for exactly that reason.
I am gonna reserve judgement until I get my hands on the RAW files with the Adobe plugin to view them. It def. won't be as good as a full-frame, but if up to 6400 is usable for event work, I'll be happy.
I have a 7D mk2, and you think I would but this? You have to be joking. Moving from a flexible, tough as a tank, weather proof semi-pro camera to this? Not in this life
Yawn... There is literally no downside to the R7 coming from a 7D Mk II: it's built just like a 7D MK II - polycarbonate over magnesium; it has far fewer mechanical parts to go wrong; its Real World weather proofing will fine for anything up to scuba diving; and _as a camera_ it's going to be in another league completely. And "flexible"? The R7 will allow you to do stuff the 7D Mk II couldn't even dream of..! Unless your 7D Mk II use-case is knocking nails in, you're full of crap, fella...
@@keithreeder Not sure if you have ever heald or used a 7D mk2, I somehow doubt it. The 7D mk2 was not cheap at the time but it was designed for wildlife, it was built like a tank, bumps and bangs - forget it. It was weather sealed like no-one had ever seen before. The only camera with similar weather sealing was the 1Dx. When you say it has fewer parts....... The R7 does have a mechanical shutter you know? " its Real World weather proofing will fine for anything up to scuba diving" - I'd really be interested where you got this piece of information from. Canon admit that the weather sealing is on a par with...... the 90D. Which as we all know wasn't very good. But you are right, it will be in another league. In the old days it was known as the Southern Isthmian League. This is a consumer product and not semi-pro. In football terms, amateur. You conveniently forgot that the wondeful 30 fps hits the buffer at about the 1 second mark. That is because the buffer is not big enough. And it takes about 12 second to clear. Time to get the kettle on. The sensor is straight out of the 90D, after all, those sales weren't great, so there are probably a lot of spares sensors in a stockroom in Tokyo. They say that they have tweeked it, maybe they have, maybe they haven't but one thing we do know is that the low light capabilities will be.......... interesting. If you look at Jared Polin's latest video on the subject you can see some RAWs at 4000 ISO - it has more grain than a Ukrainian seaport. In fact it looks a lot like the 7D mk2 at 4000 ISO - that is an 8 year old camera! So keep with the "Yawn" and the "You're full of crap, fella" - the problem is that facts speak for themselves. You should try reading and watching some quality reviews and then you would see professionals point out the bleeding obvious to everyone.
I have heard this before, and I will definitely add a hands-on review when I can get my “hands-on” one. That being said, it’s pretty normal to speculate based on the specs and videos that have been released, no?
Most popular videos are at least a little bit click bait, honestly (especially the titles). If people stopped clicking on them, creators would stop making them.
Wildlife photographers go outside, sometimes it rains. It appears that the R7 does not have pro-weather sealing, so basically useless for wildlife photographers......
"Useless" is a little severe, I think. I look forward to hear from real world photographers as they start to ship, it may be just fine for most people.
Jeez, your clueless bashing is tiresome. I've seen umpteen 90Ds in the hands of wildlife shooters, and they work out just fine. The R7 is sealed to at least that level, so - _again_ - time to call BS on your nonsense.
@@GaryHughesOfficial I look to see all those pictures taken in damp or rainy conditions, even with some dust and sand blowing around. The 90D got a rep for these problems. I don't think that the average photographer gets what wildlife photographers put their gear through. There are plenty of people with too much money and not enough brain cells, who see one review and pre-order. They are the same people who bought a betamax recorder and thought Microsoft Vista would change their lives. Have you seen the RAWs taken by Jared Polin? There's an indoor photo at 4000 ISO, more grain than the Sahara. Jared kindly says that's ok. It's really not. All I am saying is that this camera has enough faults to sink a ship. If Fuji or Oly had launched it, it would have got absolutely slated. But because Canon launched it, all the fanboys get behind it. I have never owned a SLR or DSLR that wasn't a Canon but I am not blind, deaf or dumb. It's like the Hans Christian Andersen story "The Emperor's New Clothes" - someone has to stand up and say, this is not the replacement to the 7D mk2, it's not fit to lace it's shoes.
@@doghouseriley4732 I think you will find that you are hardly alone in your criticism, lol. I did watch Jared's video and I wasn't convinced by the "it's like film" argument, though he is entitled to his opinion.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Jared shoots different stuff. If you are shooting portraits you can get away with plaenty of grain. Macro insects, not so much. Is the quality of the RAW out put any better than the 7D mk2 or the 90D? We know the autofocus is light years ahead but the rest is garbage, well it's not good. Canon want us to spend bucks on a camera whose output is no different to 8 years ago.
CLICKBAIT YOU DONT EVEN HAVE THE CAMERA IN HAND. NORE HAS A FINAL PRODUCTION ONE BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU HATERS . IF YOU DONT PLAN ON BUYING ONE YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT . JUST ANOTHER SPEC SHEET READER
@@GaryHughesOfficial YOUR WELCOME... YOU SHOULD AT LEAST GET ONE IN YOUR HANDS BEFORE YOU CAN RECOMMEND SOMETHING OR NOT... DO YOU AGREE OR SHOULD WE BASE REVIEWS ON SPEC SHEETS AND POTIENTIAL PROBLEMS FOR CLICK BAIT... I WOULD APRRECIATE IF YOU RESPONDED INSTEAD OF DEFLECTING.
No, I think you are incorrect. I didn't recommend or not recommend. Speculation based on released specifications, price and other reviews is a valid form of commentary. My concerns are legitimate, my reasoning is sound, and the information they are based on is reliable and the best available at the moment. Is your caps lock broken?
@@GaryHughesOfficial CAPS IS WHAT I CHOOSE TO USE , JUST LIKE YOU CHOSE TO MAKE THIS VIDEO. BY SUGGESTING THE CAMERA MAY HAVE A PROBLEM BASED ON SPEC SHEETS AND WHAT YOU HEARD COULD POTENTIALLY SWAY PEOPLE AWAY FROM PURCHASING THE CAMERA. ARE YOU AN INFLUENCER THAT DONT KNOW YOUR INFLUENCE ? WOW... HOW CAN ANYONE BASE Potential PROBLEMS FROM THAT ASPECT. NO ONE HAS A FINAL COPY , NORE HAS ANY RAW FILES BEEN RELEASED. SO ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE A SPEC SHEET READER. WHAT IS YOUR PUPOSE IN POINTING OUT PROBLEMS ? IM TALKING EXACLY ! IS IT THE VIEWS OR ARE YOU TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE PURCHASE THE CANON R7 ? ( HERE COMES THE DEFLECT ). YOU GOT IT AFTER THIS ... NICE CHAT AND MUCH SUCCESS TO YOUR CHANNEL. IM JUST AN HONEST GUY DONT BE OFFENDED . JUST CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
What a waste of time. Please change the title as this is not a review! My advice, make a review with the camera in your hands. Btw, your 3rd point is hilarious...
Thinking about the R7? Let me know what you think!
The crop brothers me most. I have to multiply every affordable lens by 1.5, which changes the focal length.
@@leiwanddeluxe I’ve had the camera for a couple months now and I can tell you that it really is a great one. I do find myself leaning on different lenses, but it’s not that big of a deal
I’m coming from a 77D with a 17-55 2.8. I do plan to upgrade to L lens when I switch, but canon has made it so hard to do. I don’t charge enough to warrant the R6Mii that I want so bad (I do a lot of work with low income and foster kiddos) so the r7 was really appealing. I go to look at lenses and I basically get to chose between the 15-35 and 24-70 which neither are “ideal” in price or range for what I do. Primes are out as I need zooms. Unlike many photogs I have disabilities that make me unable to move as quick on my feet.
So I’m over here like…hmm…makes me consider leaving canon entirely. And I hate that. I have loved canon for soooo long
@@spuddlefunk I can tell you that the R7 has exceeded my expectations having used it for several months now. You can pick up an RF 16-35mm for about 350USD as well if you need a wide lens :)
@@GaryHughesOfficial the EF? I plan to buy new. And that is still $1200. And needs adapted. If RF is where canon is forcing it’s people to go, I want to marry some glass and date a camera.
But I guess that answers my question; kind of. If you’re recommending the 16-35 I can’t imagine you wouldn’t also recommend the RF 15-35
To your third point, keep in mind the Canon EF to RF adapter is fantastic and all their older lenses will work flawlessly with the RF system.
Yes, that’s true. But the problem is the same as with RF full frame lenses. The focal length is cropped. That won’t make a difference to some people, but to others it will. Thank you for watching and for your feedback!
Not true
@@GaryHughesOfficial Of course the focal length is cropped, the camera has an APS-C sensor. But everyone knows that beforehand. And the people that want to buy this camera must be the ones that are willing to accept that.
So you don’t think canon should make any ASP-C specific lenses for the RF mount?
@@GaryHughesOfficial It would be nice, but it definitely doesn't bother me as I'm sticking to the lenses I already have. Someone in the comments section mentioned pairing up the sigma 18-35 with the R7 and that's exactly what I was planning to do. I think this camera is great for the people that know how to use it to its advantages, not the people who only see the disadvantages because they're used to something better. Many people complain about the buffer for example, but that only really applies to photographers and I'm a videographer. Is the camera good enough in low light? Doesn't really matter to me either. I usually film in a studio setting with artificial lighting anyway. Currently I'm using a 77D and I'm one of those people that still uses a DSLR and is looking to tap into the mirrorless cameras without breaking the bank. The fact that it can film in 4k 60p, has C-LOG and a headphone jack is already a huge step up to me.
Spot on. I fall in the first group as a enthousiast wildlife photographer. The crop factor, r3 autofocus and 32 megapixel sensor where the deciding factors to preorder it. Can’t wait.
Enjoy! Look forward to finding out more about the R7
I sincerely hope that you don't regret it, but have a strong feeling you will. The image quality seems a step backward for Canon APS-C. It's horrendous at high ISOs, it's too noisy at even ISO 1600 and you'll need to go way beyond that for wildlife. The noise at ISO 4000 looks like ISO 16000-25600 on a FF camera.
@@cooloox Having owned the 32 MP 90D I have the same concerns with noise at moderate ISO. I'm waiting for some unsponsored reviews.
Same!
The lens selection don’t bother me that much. I plan on getting the r7 for videography. The R7 with the RF to EF adapter with built in NDs paired with my sigma 18-35 sounds like a really nice combo for videography. I believe the EF glass will work just fine at least until some of that expensive RF glass is in my budget.
Right on, good point. Should be a great camera for video
Autofocus will suck
@@burritobrosvideos8060 I doubt it when I first got my 18-35 I adapted it to a m50 with a viltrox adapter and autofocus was fine. I mean the lens was loud but it kept focus. I have to think those canon adapter work better then the viltrox and if it ends up sucking I guess I’ll be pulling focus.
Yep, good call the variable ND adaptor is fantastic. I also use the metabones Eos r speed booster adaptor also works flawlessly.
Dude, why are you trolling my channel?
The RF 16mm 2.8, RF 35mm 1.8, RF 50mm 1.8, RF 85mm 2 are all fantastic combos for the R7. Small, fast and cheap. I’m sure Canon has some good general purpose zooms on the way. One lens i’m super excited to put on the R7 is the 24-240. 38mm-384 is pretty cool range. Could be the perfect family outing lens (zoo, beach, hiking).
Totally agree!
I've seen ACTUAL hands on reviews and ISO wasn't an issue so I ordered one. If by chance you do experience a noisy image, software like Denoise will take care of it. As with any camera, experience will dictate when and where you can use it. You just have to know its limitations!
I look forward to getting my hands on one soon, thank you :)
The 90D and M6 Mk II before this (the R7's sensor is an improved derivative) were actually really impressive at high ISO - _easily_ besting older FF cameras - so (like all the other clickbait "issues" this guy is coming up with) it'll be an absolute irrelevance in the Real World.
*And nothing stopped him tracking down some high ISO 90D files before coming up with this drivel.*
Well I guess I’ll be proven wrong when Adobe upsets the raw plugin. I certainly hope so :)
Yep. I use the Canon 80D for theater and stage photography and have been waiting for a good RF crop sensor body to come out to pair with my R6 full frame that I use in studio.
Sounds like the R7 might be a good fit!
I've been eyeing the R7 for unit stills work, but your review is changing my mind. I might be switching to to a used Sony.
Depends on what the work is, I think. For anything with a lot of high ISO shooting, full frame will likely serve you better. If you do portrait work, headshots, stuff like that, I imagine it will be great. The price is very compelling
Yep, I fall in the second category. I have the 90D but need better video capabilities. the 10-bit 4:2:2 4k@60 was a huge selling point. It was a no brainer for me since I can sell the 90D for 1k once I get the R7.
I‘m not sure if all the RUclipsr are right with the buffer. I looked at the spec sheet for the R7. With 15 fps it‘s possible to shoot 12 seconds in c-raw before the buffer is filled. No matter if electronic or mechanical. And this time you can change the burst rate with electronic shutter too. This are about 200 pictures in 12 seconds in c-raw. What other camera in this price range can do this? A few minutes ago i have had the chance to ask the people from Canon germany. They told me that the spec sheet is right.
And the 30 fps are great for focus stacking and pre capture. In c-raw you can take 2 or 3 seconds of pictures if i remember right. More than enought to nail the action. Can the Z9 take 30 fps in RAW? Or the three times more expensive R5? Not even for one second if i remember right.
Maybe it‘s not that worse like it sounds at the first look 😉
Good to know, thanks!
@@GaryHughesOfficial welcome 🙂👍
@@GaryHughesOfficial What stopped you from finding that out before posting this?
LMAO you can't isolate ONE feature, i.e. Burst rate and compare it to the Z9 or R5. You're dreaming. Those cameras are so far ahead of the R7 it's laughable. The IQ is chalk and cheese, especially the high ISO performance. One other issue: the pixel density is equivalent to shooting a FF camera with 83.7MP. Most lenses can't resolve it. The RF 100-500mm shots I've seen with the R7 are soft.
@@cooloox why do you think you can speak this way with me? We can talk with respect to each other. Or do you think i don‘t know the difference between full frame and aps-c sensor, and only you do? Sure i can compare special festures of different cameras. Today there are a lot of youtuber spitting or critism on products that don‘t even exist in the market. Before testing them a few days. And others chatter like a parrot without holding the camera in their hand for a minute. I don‘t like it. Because it‘s difficult to correct misjudgements later. They stay in peoples heads.
From Canon user and forums I have chatted on or in. The general catchment area is Canon dslr users who want entry into mirrorless ( ML ) or wildlife/sports semi or pro's who want tge extra reach. Now this R7 is no 7Dii replacement in a ML body !
It is partly weather sealed, polycarbonate body, and is more of an 90D ML upgrade.
However, the Eye, subject AF tracking at £1,349 is a steal !
I own a used 7Dii and only purchased itto replaced my 7D which I brought from new. Because I got fed up waiting for 7Diii dslr that never got released. I also purchased Sony A6600 for eye detection AF for portraits and wildlife., and what a big difference in keeper rate this makes !
The R7 does have some spec issues, low res EVF & screen, weather sealing, limited buffer
So the R7 with its amazing AF is the big selling point at a price that blows all competitors away !
There is only Sony A6100 or A6600 that come any where near tye spec of this R7. Fuji are good, however detection AF is no where as good as Sony or Canon !
That’s a good perspective, thanks for the input
Adapt the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and 50-100 f1.8's into this and you've got a fully professional setup giving full frame equivalent images at about 2/5th of the price (£3k ish). For comparison the R6 with canon's RF 24-70 f2.8 and RF 70-200 f2.8 (which are roughly equivalent to those 1.8 sigmas on a crop body) comes in at approx £7.3k.
Great point!
Hi Gary thanks for sharing this great timing as I have been on the fence for ages - my ageing budget Canon 700D APS-C has been great for the past 7 years in my portrait and product photgraphy work but I have been wanting more quality, sharpness and better video and have been so undecided on updating to Canon 90D as an obvious next step budget choice but that old thing about full frame keeps coming back to me so now with R7 im not sure if can expect better quality for the extra money on top of adaptor for my budget lens collection or stick with 90D I suppose I will wait longer to hear reviews
Same, gonna hold out for a bit
Good video but here's my thoughts as to why points #3 and #4 won't really matter for now. Not sure if you are a canon user back in dSLR days but a lot of sports and wildlife pro uses 1d/1dx and premium full frame lenses aka EF lenses. Some of those pros owned a 7dmk2 as a backup and if they needed extra reach without loosing stop of light with extenders. As far as i am aware, there's no premium EFs zoom lens back then. So those who own a 7dmk2 would utilise their existing L lenses. In my case, the ef 100-400l mk2 or say a 300mm L f2.8. Now i believe the r7 is targeted to groups 1 and 2 in your video or for those who wish they could have an eos 7dm2 in a mirrorless body as a backup to their r5 or r6. A lot of the owners of the latter are still using their good old L EF lenses that includes me. Even of canon would release a range of RFs lenses, i myself would not get one as i don't have thr budget and i have ready invested heavily on EF lenses. Besides the premium RF glass are very expensive. I am sure it is going to be the same for premium RFs glass in the future. For group 3 in your video, there are a lot of.options out there in Fuji, Sony and even Olympus if they wanted the crop sensor. And i am sure Canon is aware of that. When EOS R wad released, there was only one or 2 RF lenses. But they will catch up for sure.
Seems reasonable. I definitely think that existing APS-C sensor users won't be bothered too much about lenses. Honestly, this camera probably isn't really aimed at pros who are used to full frame. What I am really looking forward to is the updates to the R and RP. Thanks for watching!
I almost pre-ordered! But decided to see the full reviews, I still use the t3i! And this R7 would a great step up! I thought going FF but the lens investment is to high for me
I think this is a HUGE upgrade from the t3i, and the adapter will let you use your current lenses seamlessly. My guess is that you will love it.
@@GaryHughesOfficial also, I agree that Canon need a holy trinity for APSC! Would be awesome, I understand that would make sense making efs lens for dslr, but for RF, since they made this camera with so many features, would be awesome to se nice lenses too!
Go FF and initially buy the control ring adapter and EF lenses. They work amazingly well with Canon mirrorless cameras. The ISO noise difference is MASSIVE and the R7 seems unusually poor in this regard.
@@cooloox Yep, that's why I decide to wait for the comparissons! I know a crop sensor is usualy worst in low light, but i'm not a night photographer, besides that, the R7 beats the R (for the same price) and the RP in every aspect. So if the diference isn't that big, I'm ok with it
At first I was excited about the R7, I'm currently a Fuji user and the prospect of getting Canon's much better autofocus and menus/interface was very attractive. But I feel these two models are going to mostly appeal to those already in the R system who want a second body and/or use the crop factor to extend their reach. Unfortunately as a standalone option, I think it's probably not the best option because the RF-S glass is so limited (at the moment), and using RF/EF lenses can be pricey, and although probably fine if you're after telephoto reach, but awkward in that wide-normal zoom range with the crop factor taken into account.
Good points. The XH2 might be a pretty good option if you are willing to wait. I am hopeful for the RF-S lens lineup moving forward, I have heard some good things.
I don't care about your concern, and I already pre-ordered mine today.
lol, good deal. I hope that it works out for you. I suspect that, in the end, it’s a pretty great camera (as I said in the video about 6 times)
You're correct about wildlife/birding photographers wanting this. I am such, currently shoot 7DII, it's a no brainer for me but your point about 24-105 f4 is bang on and will wait for new lenses
7D shooters are going to be all over this, I think. Especially with that sweet, sweet bird tracking.
I will use the R7 outdoors as a "tele-converter" with an 120-300/2.8 lens, if the light goes away, I can switch to my R6 and trade some reach for less noise. I mainly shoot JPG or CRAW, so the buffer won´t be a huge problem. I don´t care about APSC-lenses at all, as I will use the camera exclusively with my EF-lenses (well, exept maybe the Sigma 18-35/1.8). No issues so far...
That's an interesting way to look at it, sounds cool. I hope you have a great time with the R7 :)
ISO and buffer are definitely very important features for photographers who are still on the DSLR boat, namely with the 7Dii. Even with the increased resolution and burst speed, not to mention the the incredible eye AF, those photographers are going to find something to complain about. It's no secret that Canon made the r7 as the mirrorless successor to the 7d, even if they don't officially say so.
It really does seem like a great camera. If the plan was to get 7D users to go mirrorless, I think it's a tempting offer, especially considering it cost less than the 7D when it came out.
But they actually made the successor to the 90D. Remember when the 90D came out? Canon told us it was the new 7D mk2. We have seen this con before
If you get an equiv focal length and the same aperture, you dont get an equivalent lens because you have to add equivalence to aperture also. A 45mm 2.8 = 71mm 4.5 (ish). If you want a 70mm 2.8, you need around a 45mm 1.7 (or 1.8 is prob close enough).
Yes that's true, the media size does change the perceived DoF and focal length.
I used to own 7D2 that didn’t have good ISO performance. I stayed at ISO 1600 or lower. But now we have a lot of great noise reduction software. So noise may not be a big concern. I will use it for bird photography. Secondary to my R5. CRAW may be a good option to reduce the impact of low buffer size. I will mainly use the 15 mechanical shutter. So buffer may not be a huge concern. When R1 comes out, I can sell the R7.
Digging in to it more, what I have discovered is that the problem with the buffer isn't the frames (when you optimize the settings) it's the time it takes the buffer to clear. In some cases as much as 10-12 seconds. Nit sure if that makes any difference, it wouldn't matter to me because I don't shoot that way. I hope it works out for you and thanks for watching!
This camera is definitely aimed at the wildlife and sports shooter, people are forgetting that if you like weddings, portraits and landscaped you can buy the EOS R which is still an excellent full frame camera for virtually the same money, horses for courses.
Unfortunately for the R, I think that it lacks some of the tactile controls that wedding photographers really love, but definitely super image quality. There should be an update to that coming soon :)
@@GaryHughesOfficial Tactile controls? Most people don't know how to customise a camera. You have dials for aperture, shutter speed and ISO, if you include the control ring on the lens (or control ring adapter). You can toggle one shot/servo AF with the left arrow button, drive mode with the right arrow, picture style with the up arrow, whatever you like with the down arrow, image quality with focus selection button, depth of field preview with the exposure lock button, eye detection on/off with the AF On button, jump straight to Wi-Fi settings with the record button (in photo mode) and toggle EVF/LCD with the MFn button. Adjust white balance with the touch bar.
That was one example, obviously you personalise it to your needs. It has more controls than the R5/R6.
It's all about what you want and what you need. That will determine if this is a good buy. There's no such thing as the perfect camera. Which is why I have several and use for different things.
Absolutely. Side note: I ordered the R7 as a video camera, features look excellent
@@GaryHughesOfficial Me too. Going to be months away according to their waiting list numbers. I might change my mind by then and go with the R6, if only they would update the firmware and remove that 30 minute recording limit
My experience with the R6 is that it is very prone to overheat, even compared to the R5. The R7 doesn't seem to have any of those issues, so as a second video camera, I think it might be a better choice.
@@GaryHughesOfficial You know, I was just thinking about the overheating after I posted this comment. It seems there is always a caveat with Canon between cameras. One day they might build the perfect camera that does everything you need instead of needing multiple cameras.
They were able to fix the heating in the R5, hopefully that will translate to the R6 in the near future. I know a lot of people who would be very happy with that.
I own the EOS RP and was thinking of getting the R7. In your personal opinion would it be an upgrade? I am not a professional whatsoever I just take my camera wherever I go like to Disneyland and such. TIA
EOS RP better image quality, smaller body R7 better battery life, faster shooting, better video - I own the RP and love it. Use it as my travel and personal camera
@@GaryHughesOfficial thank you
No worries
How will the RF lenses work on R7? How does the adaptor work with Ef lenses?
RF lenses work natively on the R7, just like the R5 etc. my experience with the adapters for EF lenses so far is that they are flawless.
Honestly, lenses should not be a very big concern. Yes, Canon so far has only released two RF-S specifically for the R7 and R10... and both are basically "kit" lenses: a compact 18-45mm IS STM and a slighlty more upscale 18-150mm IS STM. Nothing special... yet. Keep in mind that the R-series cameras and RF glass are only 3 years old. Canon has stated they expect to double the number of RF mount lenses over the next three years.
Within the existing RF system there are already a few reasonably affordable full frame lenses that will work very well on these cameras: RF 16mm f/2.8 STM, 35mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro, 50mm f/1.8 STM, 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro, 100-400mm IS USM, 600mm f/11 IS STM and 800mm f/11 IS STM. The prices of these range from $149 to $999.
There also are more than 125 million Canon EF & EF-S lenses that have been made over the last 30+ years, all of which can easily be adapted and many of which reportedly work better on R-series cameras than they did on the DSLRs and SLRs (mirrorless don't require camera/lens calibration, since the AF sensors are embedded directly in the image sensor).
When you consider both RF and EF lenses together, Canon has more lens selection than Sony. Sony has a very respectable 114 e-mount lenses (according to B&H). But there have been at least 130 EF & EF-S lenses, and are currently 27 RF & RF-S. And Canon offers quite a few specialty lenses Sony lacks. For example there are five current Canon Tilt Shift and three older models. Sony has none. Between EF and RF, Canon has eight current macro and has several excellent older macros if you bought used. Sony has three macro.
3rd party lenses are another matter. There are tons of 3rd party lenses for Sony e-mount... Well over 100 with AF from various manufacturers. While there are some fully manual lenses for the R-series, only a few with AF and aperture control have been released so far. I would be a bit distrustful adapting 3rd party EF mount lenses for use on R-series. There have been some reported issues, though with newer models the manufacturers have stepped up to fix the problem at little or no cost.
R7 will be a great choice for wildlife photographers. The AF system and 15 fps mechanical shutter frame rate, along with the "free 1.6X teleconverter" effect of the crop sensor will allow for moderate size and weight, and affordable, powerful telephotos. (Which Canon has all lined up and waiting in the RF mount... Until very recently Nikon had nothing longer that 250mm for their Z series mirroreless... Yet they had four or five 50mm! Go figure.)
R7 will be great for patents shooting their kid's sports... But lousy for pro sports shooters because of the lack of a battery grip. When I shoot a sporting event I may take 5000 or more images in a day. That will mean a lot of battery changes, I'm afraid. Optimistically, I would guess at least five or six. Invariably batteries run down at the worst time and I will miss shots while changing the battery. I am also concerned about the build of the camera... Weather resistance and durability. The Canon 7D Mark IIs I use are rated to give 200,000 shutter actuations. Those shoot at 10 frames/sec. Because the R7 shoots at 15 fps, I would hope it has a 300,000 click rated shutter. I haven't heard anything from Canon, but doubt it's mechanical shutter is that durable. I've heard its build compared to the 90D, which also shoots at 10 fps, but is rated to have a 120,000 click life span (which was up from the 8 fps, 80D with 100,000 click rating).
I also think the R7 would be a poor choice for wedding photography. That's full frame territory, pure and simple. FF is necessary for those dreamy shallow depth of field effects. Same with portrait photography. Back up your full frame with another full frame.
In fact, using the R7 alongside any other model presents another problem... The unique control layout. I don't know why Canon felt the need to mess with the best ergonomics and control layout in the business, but apparently they did. This is something most people will adapt to easily and probably even like. However, anyone who uses multiple camera models and switches between them wants reasonably similar controls and feel. That ain't gonna happen with R7, I'm afraid.
I can't comment on video capabilities because that's just not something I'm very familiar with.
The R7 will show some noise in it's images. Probably it will be similar to the 90D... Maybe a little better thanks to the more powerful processor. I would predict ISO 1600 will be very usable, 3200 fine for a lot of things and 6400 with some post processing work. But those are what I can get away with using my 2014 7D Mark II. Of course, those are 20MP, and the R7 (and 90D) are 32.5MP. For cleanest possible high ISO images, go full frame and modest resolution (20MP R6 or 24MP R3). Of course you'll be spending a lot more money, and not just on the camera. You'll need bigger, heavier, much more expensive lenses, too! Plus a sturdy tripod to sit it all upon.
You may have noticed I glossed over the 30 frames/sec electronic shutter of the R7. There's a reason. Besides the concern about filling the buffer in just over 1 second (and filling memory cards and storage devices at an alarming rate), I also have concerns about rolling shutter issues with fast moving subjects. Unfortunately, Canon didn't put an ultra fast readout sensor in the R7, like they did in the R3 ($6000). As a result, shooting sports I would likely need to stick with the 15 fps mechanical shutter. I might use the e shutter occasionally for silent shooting or for its 1/16000 top speed. But I'd wary of it for moving subjects (and what else would you need to shoot at 30 fps?)
😎
thanks for the feedback :)
I have another concern: In the canon 90d days none of the full frame lenses was sharp enough to make use of the sensor. And I doubt that that has changed. Are there fullframe lenses that can resolve 32,5 mp on aps-c at the moment? And second concern: the zoom ranges of the current lineup are weird on aps-c. If you want an 24-70 equivalent: then you have to buy two zooms. And that already makes is more expensive than a full frame solution.
So: I think that canon would have to make some good aps-c lenses before it would be competetive. f6,3 means that it is around 6 times worse in low light then f2.8. The camera itself has good specs, but I think a lot of people will be disapointed if you try to find lenses for it.
That’s an interesting point. From what I can see, the images are tac sharp. Check out Jared Polins review of the files he shot, he even gives a link to download them. Thanks for watching!
In the canon 90d days none of the full frame lenses was sharp enough to make use of the sensor.*
Eh? I used to use it with my 500mm f/4 Mk II and 100-400mm Mk II, and the files were so bloody sharp that I had to change my workflow!
Im thinking about buying the r7 to start to shoot bird and motorsport and keep on using my old fullframe dslrs to weddings and portraits etc but im started to think its hard to go back to aps c if the iso is not that good
I think you should be great with the ISO up to 3200 before you start to see a really noticeable difference, but that all depends on the subject matter. I just ordered the R7 for video work and headshots!
I'm on the fence. I have a R5 and GFX100S, so I am set on stills. I'm really considering it for my You Tube channel. I have a 16 and 14-35, so I''m not sure the crop is going to bother me. What do you think about it for just video and a backup to the R5?
Honestly, I think this is a perfect camera for video if you are in the Canon system. Basically limitless 4k recording and some great features. I might be getting one myself along with a wider lens for YT. I also have the R5 and I would love something lighter and cheaper to run and gun with and this just might be perfect.
@@GaryHughesOfficial exactly. Perfect for my You Tube channel and I have a friggin R5 if I need full frame for a shot.
exactly! Good luck!
as someone who’s only ever had point and shoots, and my phone, i have been doing my research for a couple of months and settled on going mirrorless. i preordered the r10 and have been having second guesses about switching the r7. but i know if i do i wont have as much money to spend on things like better lenses if i do so. and now your video has me second guessing altogether. i’m a guy that always likes the newest best tech when it comes to buy tv’s, gaming systems, and mac accessories and thats why i havent just settled on an older body. as for now im crossing my fingers that the r10 lives up to what i want. but, i may change my mind in the future. i have shaky hands and i know the r7 has ibis. and have seen some hands on reviews saying the iso range, though the same between the two, tends to perform better in the r7. so torn with myself 😂
the R10 should be a nice upgrade for you, good luck with it!
I choose always the thing that has the most advantages, in this case with the R7 you would have the chance to have little to no doubts.
In the case of the R7 you're paying that extra for those steps that do count for some video/photographers, like ISO, IBIS to cit somes.
I'm like you when it comes to buy the best tech, I'm hoping to hold the R7 for the next 10 years without doubts on my acquisition; like I do have doubts right now on my M6 Mark II.
There are too many advantages that I consider if I switch, and I bought it right now, so still in time to send it back and get the new one with all this pros that I considered.
They had some really decent EF-s glass like the 17-55 2.8. An improved RF version would be a no-brainer.
Agree with you, I’m hopeful they will add some great lenses
I pre-ordered. I'm coming from T2i.
Awesome, hope it works out well for you!
In addition to the high ISO performance, and buffer, I'm waiting to see how much rolling shutter this camera has. I suppose a camera in that price bracket won't come with a stacked sensor like the R3 so I'm probably giving it a pass.
No. If you look at the price point of the Fuji XH2s, that BSI sensor makes it quite a bit more expensive. That and the higher rez LCD screens would have made this camera at least $2k maybe more
But those aps-c people who are still on a DSLR, they have EF-S lenses that can be adapted onto the R7
True, and they are used to the focal length, which is why I think many of them will go for the R7 :)
I'll wait until full reviews come available. For now, it looks not a good 2nd body next to my R6.
I am very interested to get one and use it in a real-world scenario and see how it does.
watching another video, if you shoot CRAW and slow the 30fps to 15fps in electronic shutter you can fit 100 CRAW in the buffer so that's reassuring
That’s a great tip!
@@GaryHughesOfficial And something you should have been able to find out...
I agree about Fuji having a better selection of cheaper native lenses compared the Canon’s more expensive RF line up, and now Canon has a problem with the introduction of the new Fujifilm X-H2S, the camera we all wanted the R7 to be! Yes, the more professional people might now turn to Fujifilm instead of going with the R7 for all the reasons you mentioned especially with the new Fujifilm 150-600mm. 😉 I myself being a Canon user did preorder the R7 because what other option do I have, wait another five years for the Camera the R7 should have been ? Lol! My Canon lenses will not work on the X-H2S! 😢
I have a feeling that Canon will roll out a few great lenses for the APS-C lineup. Especially considering the new lenses Fuji just dropped. That 18-150 F4 would be a great addition.
Fuji _does not_ have a better lens selection. Not even close. Every EF lens will work brilliantly and seamlessly on the R7 and any other R camera, and Fuji isn't in the same league as a result.
@@keithreeder sorry I miss spoke. In his video I think that Gary was referring to Fujifilm native APC lenses line up compared to the more expensive Canon RF lens. Canon doesn’t as of yet have much in the way of APC RF lenses compared to Fujifilms lenses line up in my humble opinion. Thanks ☺️
Yes, correct
I use the 90d and I have been able to get usable shots at ISO 6400. Anyway there are always DXO pure raw or Denoise AI to deal with excessive noise.
Yes, that's definitely true, but having to use a third party software just to get usable images might turn some people off. I guess we'll see what the files look like when they start getting into people's hands and they have RAW access. Thanks for watching!
@@GaryHughesOfficial You are right and that ISO worse is part of the APS-C compromise to get the reach of a 1.6X crop while delivering more pixels on the subject. My R5 has 18MP in the center of the image the 32MP of the R7 cover. 32MP is a lot more pixel when trying to shot bird at a distance. Sure I always try to get closer bu this is not always possible. The real question how much lower ISO do you have go to get the same noise as the FF camera. I suspect that it is at least 1 fstop or 1/2 the FF ISO is the corresponding ISO of the R7 vs R5. It could be worse though.
6400 iso un a apsc......................un a apsc? Usable...... No profesional use.
@@phototesterYes. The 90D is capable of _much_ high ISOs - with the right RAW converter.
Christ, I used to shoot clean 6400 ISO with the original 7D!
@@keithreeder 80D, 90D, 77D. I have had them all. For professional use in high isos, for the work that I present, they are not valid. And more than that, I wouldn't be able to risk a paid job hoping that the final file would be of minimal quality. I have already seen some weddings done with micro 4/3 and apsc and the results, especially indoors, are (sorry if anyone is offended) bad. And the loss of dynamic range is dramatic.
The biggest issue is your first point. 2 reviewers have made full res images available for viewing and one even invites you to download full res raw files (converted to DNGs). The high ISO performance is absolutely garbage. At ISO 1600 there's a lot of noise, at ISO 4000 it looks like ISO 16000 or maybe even 25600 on a FF camera. There's a lack of detail at the higher ISOs too, so AI noise reduction software won't help as you'll be left with smooth smudgy looking images lacking fine details.
I have a FF Canon camera and an M6 Mk II. The R7 seems worse than the M6 Mk II. It definitely doesn't appear to be an improvement.
I’ve been following some of what you have mentioned. Definitely think that shooters used to FF quality may have issues with the noise
I was VERY interested in the R7 until I tried to build an small light kit with a few HQ prime$ and F4 glass. Canon has the best AF-C and tracking. Sony has by far the best "contemporary," updated, third party, and variety of lenses. Along with the best customization, but with the worst colors (tried 3 FF bodies and many lenses, I have a background in lab production and color management,) and worst feel in your hands. Nikon has the nicest feel, weight, color, glass, and value. I'll be sticking with my Z7II and Z50 for a while longer, but they both feel like a step back/down from my D500/D750/D7200 with AFP glass and a few 1.8G primes.
You should be patient, the lenses will some...
@@lbeetech I'm patient, but lenses are more important to me. I should mention that the "step down" was an impression. 85% of the time the images are without a question, quite a bit better in every aspect but Bokeh. I'm confident than Nikon is the place to be with the ability to adapt lenses from nearly any mount likely to grow.
One big problem aps-c in general has and these cameras are no different is that it is obviously impossible to balance this size sensor on a budget. Absolutely routine roll out in m43 at any level but middle range if that in aps-c. Those stops for static images are way more than the sensor size gives for primes unless splashing out for ultra fast lenses and then shallow depth of field becomes a problem. This must have a big sensor syndrome in traditional cameras seem so out of synch with what is happening in phones for any hope of it being a popular choice.
Well thanks for the feedback
@@GaryHughesOfficial It is what keeps me in m43 and made me give up on Fuji apart from one body and a zoom but not an issue for everyone I am sure. It is interesting that IBIS seems to be rolling out in full frame even though those extra stops of light would make it seem less important. Messages coming out of the industry are confusing to say the least in every respect. Plus that narrow field 18-45mm slow kit lens to add to the confusion on what is considered important if anything outside of full frame.
From what I have seen on another channels sample RAW file at iso 4000, its no better then my old 70D, what's it gonna look like on 8000? But then again, that's at 100% image view.
I am pretty sure that APS-C won’t suit my professional work, but the R7 might just make a great second video camera for me
Can you remap video to C3 on EOS R7?
I'm gonna be honest, I am not quite sure what you mean.
I mean this is better then the rp right ? For video and photo. I shoot portraits a lot but I wanna do wildlife
I LOVE the RP, but as far as features, this blows the RP out of the water. The only way the RP might have an advantage is the sensor size. I own the RP and shoot with it often and it gives pretty tremendous image quality. Until regular photographers and reviewers get the R7 in their hands and have RAW file support, there is no way to tell where it stands in terms of image quality. Looking forward to finding out :)
@@GaryHughesOfficial so the r7 would be better ? And good for wedding photography? Because I have the rp and tbh it feels like a canon rebel t8i
My big problem with the RP for weddings is the lack of tactile buttons that make working weddings so much easier. Being able to switch between focus modes quickly and shoot in fast bursts as well. Not to mention that the battery life on the RP is pretty lean. The R7 is going to be a much better choice for weddings, provided you have the right lenses and the RAW files look good at 3200 and 6400 ISO.
I have shot weddings with a crop sensor in the past... I do not recommend it. If you are a budding event photographer, go buy a used full frame.
I have definitely had that same experience, but it’s been more than a decade since I have shot anything with an APS-C and I hear it has improved :)
Make better RAW converter decisions. If you can't get squeaky--clean APS-C images at _ridiculously_ high ISOs with the right software these days, you probably should be looking at another hobby. (I'm assuming you're an amateur - a pro wouldn't need to be told this.)
I imagine it's low light performance will be better than the D500 or the 7D mark 2 and that's the camera specs that wildlife and bird photographers would be updating and expecting to beat for the R7. I have preordered mine and I think it's gonna be the best crop sensor hybrid camera value out there.
I think you might be right :)
*I imagine it's low light performance will be better than the D500 or the 7D mark*
It absolutely will, Forrest. High ISO files from the 90D/M6 Mk II are _much_ - over a stop - better than those from the 7D Mk II (experience of all three speaking here) and the R7 will undoubtedly be better again.
I disagree. I shoot birds and I thought I would welcome it because of the 1.6x crop factor for extended reach, but a few things let the R7 down. Ay first, I was pretty excited when I heard about the frame rate, 15 fps mechanical and 30 fps electronic, that is even faster than my R5. But, then once it was confirmed no CFexpress Type B, it basically renders the fast frame rate useless. If you shoot at 30 fps, you may get just over 1 sec on the shutter before your buffer is full. That is terrible for BIF as you need to spray when a bird is flying past. Then, you add that to the low res EVF and LCD, all of a sudden the entire proposition is looking less and less attractive. Last but not least as I found out the day before yesterday, apparently there is no battery grip for the R7. Boom!! OK!! Thanks, but no thanks, end of story, thank you very much!
Those are all legit points, thanks for bringing them up. I'm sure you aren't the only one who is concerned about those features. Thanks for watching.
1. I do like the 32 mpxl.. AF, and camera size.
2. Canon should've had a couple of primes (f1.2 + 1.4) ready at the time of launch.
Now I am forced to buy the cheap kit lens which I DON’T WANT, then spend money again to buy better.
3. No forward planning: They experimented with the Canon M, then cancelled it.. That upsets customers, who have to start all over again. My dad had the one camera for 50 years !
4. Many amazing features from the Panasonic Gh5Mk2 & Olympus that they had long ago should be on the R7 (waveform , etc)
5. The 60fps could have been better.
6. 5. The prices should be less, No more than $1900 to compete with Sony apsc, GH5MK2 and Fuji.
Apsc will *never* keep up with ff for lowlight. Physics. There are reasons to want it and Im getting one to joing my R6. But lowlight isnt one and comparing to ff doesnt make sense.
That's a fair point. I think the main reason I am interested in the idea of APS-C is the value for dollar. Ultimately I think this would end up being a great second camera for video. Thanks!
Lack of GOOD lenses for apsc is the real disappointment.
Making fast, good quality lenses specific to apsc will be a reason to use crop cameras. For me having 2x R6 bodies, a high res tight shooter like the r7 would be amazing, but I will always feel like I'm missing out on the full image on the expensive RF L glass I've bought.
The r7 would be just OK for weddings as things are. We tell stories and that means crop bodies literally limit how much story we can tell on a lens compared to what a given lens would throw onto a full frame sensor.
If they can get that fast trinity for apsc, I might consider it for some niche applications
Makes sense, thanks for the feedback
There are 6 more lenses planned for the crop sensor r series. Just look a bit further.
Yep, I have seen a couple that are pretty exciting, for sure :)
rumors, right?
This is a sports and wildlife camera, not a wedding and event camera. I would never buy any camera based on a spec sheet from any company. Wait until a camera is in use with professionals who are doing the same type of photography you are. All of Canon’s RF and EF lenses can be used on an R7. Inexpensive lens would be RF 16mm F2.8, RF 35mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8, 85mm F 2 and the RF 100-400 mm. The buffer According to Canon can handle 224 jpegs or 51 raw files. Don’t use a cheap slow memory card or you won’t get those numbers.
I see where you are coming from, but I think that although sports and wildlife photographers will love it, saying that those are the only shooters it's for is a little narrow. For example, video creators are going to love this thing, and since they tend to use fixed focal length lenses anyway, they shouldn't have much trouble with the lens selection. Honestly, though, if Canon came out with a lens like the one Fuji just dropped (18mm-150mm F4), it would fundamentally change how attractive this system would be for portrait and wedding shooters. Thanks for watching and for your feedback.
High iso. That the territory of full frame and pixels peepers. Never had a customer turn down an image that was to noisy. Just something RUclipsrs prattle on about. Pros don't use APS C lenses. They will have the RF lenses or adapt EF lenses. And the invite didn't show up... hmmm. Sour grapes?
I see your point, but I know plenty of pros that shoot APS-C bodies and turn out great work. I think that the idea that only full frame cameras are for pros is going to seem antiquated in a couple of years from now. In fact, I think it already is. By the way, some dude with under 5k subs isn't gonna get invited to anything ;)
@@GaryHughesOfficial Pros don't use APS C lenses (or I guess very rarely anyway). Never said they don't use APS C cameras though.
Seems like a broad statement, but I am am gonna reserve judgement and wait to see what they come up with.
Great video, 🙏
Thank you 🙌
Let's take a step back and wait for real world image examples.
I agree :) I think I might have actually said that once or twice in the video ;)
Canon apsc line is a bait. Same as Sony's. I'd rather take Sonys bait for fairly good selection of inexpensive apsc lenses. I am a Fujifilm user by the way.
Maybe not aimed at pros, but I am very interested to see where they go with it.
Shoot CRAW and the buffer will be much bigger.
Good call, I think it is probably fine. Production models are on the way!
good points were made
lol, thanks dude.
Not in _this_ video they weren't...
your forgetting about evf and lcd is low res.
Yes, I think that the lower rez screens was to help keep the cost down
So what ? The final product isn't from the EVF or LCD.............
The Major Problem is Lack of 4K Apeature or Shutter Mode for Video!!!
How would you use those?
@@GaryHughesOfficial You can't, Only 4K Auto and 4K Manual Modes are Available
I understand, I am asking you what is the use case for Av or Tv for video?
@@GaryHughesOfficial its only record in 1080p in AV or TV dial on every Canon Camera
Yes, but in what situation would you want to use Av or Tv mode for video?
A reviens from someone who does have the camera. Interesting
A preview, actually :) If it helps you to know, I actually ordered one and plan to use it for headshot and video work. After diving into it more with a few photographers who I know that have them, I am convinced it's a great value. On par with the XT-4 and in the same price point.
I just need an excuse to keep my sigma 18-35mm so I can let go my 90D peacefully haha. I also own the EOS R so looking at R6 as well since Ive started investing in full frame glass
I have heard rumors that an update to the R and RP are coming, keep an eye out ;)
This is a very good analysis!
THanks buddy!
It's as far from being that as I can imagine.
I have mixed feelings about this. I feel this camera is not a natural contender for a 7 designation in the context of the EOS 7D range. I express the following from the point of a pro wildlife stills photographer, and not a wedding or videographer.
To explain: the 7DI and II were professional-level APS-C bodies that had several characteristics: the best sensors of the time, good buffers, great weather sealing, great tacking (7DII), and battery grips to increase the energy supply and balance the heavier lenses.
While the R7 without doubt has a great tracking system, to me this is more like an evolution of the ##D series, of which the last was the 90D, for the following reasons:
There are much better sensors out there and this camera is competing with BSI and stacked sensors from competitors like Sony. In a premium camera I would have expected Canon to match that in competitive market. The buffer is small for the reasons you mentioned and I would have preferred to see a bigger buffer and CF Express type A with slots that are backward compatible with SD cards.
According to several sources, Canon have advised that the weather sealing is NOT as good as for the R3, 5, and 6 bodies - which makes no sense for a pro-level wildlife camera. Finally, there is no announcement of a battery grip, when one is usually announced with the body.
So: I DO applaud the camera at the price point at which it is located, but to me it is not a inheritor of the characteristics that would make this deserve a 7 designation. Perhaps something like and R9? I would expect a 7 to have all the features that were listed and in some cases, missing.
So for me the question is: is this as serious as Canon's APS-C sensor line-up will get?
Good thoughts, for sure. Always room to grow, I guess. A BSI sensor would have made this a $2k camera as we have seen in the Fuji XH2s, my guess is that it was primarily a cost-cutting issue like the EVF and screen resolution. Time will tell
@@GaryHughesOfficial I would happily have paid the extra for the performance. I have this vision of a meeting for the early concepts for this camera where voices were raised that Canon had taken too much flak for making pro-level bodies at pro-level prices to the detriment of consumer and enthusiast users. Fair enough, as I have said this is, to me an exception-value camera for the price, but make this model an R9 (or whatever) and build a pro-level R7 like they are serious about it.
Canon is clearly free to do as they please with the naming. And how they position a body depends on which features the choose to emphasize. Clearly, the fantastic AF of the new mirrorless systems are the main differentiator from the older DSLR systems. Clearly, any systems can be put in any body Canon chooses to put them in.
So why did Canon make this system and name it the R7. It called trying to continue doing business in an ever shrinking market. People aren’t buying enough cameras to continue doing business as was done a decade or so ago. There aren’t that many wildlife photographers around to pay for the R&D necessary to keep pushing advances in tech. So Canon is shifting its focus to sell to the largest crowd possible, so they can remain profitable. Plain and simple. So, we get an r7 with way, way better AF systems than we have a right to expect for $1500 in an effort to move units, to make profits, to fund future development. This leads to their future ability to develop and release specialized niche bodies like a true successor to the 7D series in mirrorless form.
If you don’t like the r7 because its not housed in the body you want it in, then don’t buy it. Speak with your dollars, and if enough people don’t buy it, then Canon will find their way to a different solution, or go out of business.
However, the r7 is still going to be a useful tool to those who wish to pursue wildlife and other types of photography. You can choose to take advantage of this tool or not. It’s still going to provide the reach necessary to distant birds and such, and it still has enough buffer to get shots. People are acting like the 7DM2 had a great buffer - it did not. Neither did the 5D series, but yet we got shots with the. Only the 1D series had a deep buffer on Canon until the r5/6 came along. I still question the build quality on the r5/6, by the way and their level of weather resistance should not be assumed as many do. Canon won’t warranty against weather, so that means you should not trust it, because they don’t.
I’m ordering the r7 to go along with my two r5s while my 7DM2 does duty as a webcam.
@@RogerZoul it’s a 90d upgrade the price reflects that an maybe it is all we get for now, my 7d2 will give it a run for its money as I don’t have to worry about the elements an I never had a problem with buffer, I waited on the r7 for years now I’ll wait a little longer, you gta pay to play I understand but gear doesn’t make the photographer
@@jimbird963 It is priced like a 90D upgrade for sure, but sorry, the 7DM2 cannot match it. It was a great camera in its day but it has been sunsetted now. You’re absolutely right that gear doesn’t make the photographer, but ancient gear is not helping either.
I also didn't get my invitation, strange...
Next time…
If you haven’t used it yourself why are you making this comments for.? No camera will be 100% perfect.
That's a fair point, and I plan to get my hands on one soon enough. I think I was pretty clear that these are just my thoughts based on the information that Canon has released and what known reviewers have said (people who do have it in their hands). You don't have to suit up and grab a stick to analyze a hockey game, and there is definitely a place for commentary and conjecture here on YT. Once I (and many others) have had a chance to play with a production model and test it out in the real world, you can expect a video on that experience, as well as my elaboration on any of these points that were confirmed or proven wrong. Thanks for watching!
I can see why you weren’t invited to the Canon event
Lol, you seem nice :)
Just add a EF to RF adapter all your concerns gone
Gotta disagree on “all my concerns” but it certainly is an option
1) Don’t use a crop sensor camera in low light. That’s what full frame sensors are for. It will not be awesome for high iso.
2) At 15 fps it can get 51 images. At craw, 187!
3) Who is going to use RF-s lenses? Canon didn’t make those for the EF system, so don’t expect them for RF.
RF lenses are native for the R7!
You aren’t going to see a holy trinity for rf-s. Sorry.
appreciate the feedback. Although I think you might be right about the lenses, Canon has put an unusual amount of pro features in the R7, it gives me hope for sure. That being said, plenty of pro wedding and event shooters use APS-C cameras and turn out great work at high ISO, I guess we'll see :) I remember when my full-frame Canon 5D had pretty pitiful low light performance compared to any modern APS-C sensor.
Don’t forget with IBIS and the IS of the lenses, you can probably drop your shutter speed enough for that to not be an issue, depending of course on your low light needs.
@@krisdeaglephotography4539 not if you have a moving subject
@@burritobrosvideos8060 So you can switch it off. Bags of stops for static images. This argument that an extra facility is no good if it cannot be used in every single circumstance is a bit spurious. Plus the head text here that ISO is 'awesome' for full frame is also rather an exaggeration given that these extra sensor sizes yield stops in a diminishing logarithmic form and people tend to brag about the extra area in linear terms. I remember having a Sony SLT which permanently diverted 1/3 of the light to the focus sensors but any drop off in performance was hardly noticeable against a DSLR.
@@michaeld5888 full frame is way better than apsc period. It's not comparison.
Yes pro lenes
Agreed!
The point you missed about the buffer is that people are quoting 12 seconds to clear. So between shots you could have a coffee :)
Good point, that's what I wanted to articulate, thanks!
Like you, I have three concerns….One, you have not held nor used the camera. Two, you believe others. And, Three, you wasted my time.
lol, that’s pretty good. You don’t think I am allowed to speculate based on the specs released by Canon and other reviews?
@@GaryHughesOfficial To what end? Speculation is exactly that. What good is it when all we have to do is wait…then the speculation disappears, replaced by facts.
That’s fair, but if videos like this didn’t get so many views, creators would stop making them. It’s honestly fun to speculate and look up videos on something you’re interested in. When it gets in the hands of regular folks like us, I will review it in a hands-on way and compare it to my initial thoughts. If I was wrong, I won’t mind saying so :)
? there will be no problem to that camera because it only cost 1,500usd,. its very cheap for its specs,.
Totally agree, the price point really took me by surprise considering the 7D was $1800 when it came out back in 2010. I think that is the main reason they didn't go with a BSI sensor, to save on the cost so they could keep the price down.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Fuji X-HS2 is BSI sensor,. looked what it cost now,. 2,500usd,. same price as fullframe A7iv and R6
whis is not ideal price for someone,.
@@kenjiyamamoto423 totally agree. No way they could have kept the price at $1500 and included a BSI sensor. I bet that the Fuji XH2 will have a lower price point than the s for exactly that reason.
Strangely it appears as noisy as the 90D, weirdly, it uses the same sensor even thought Canon claim they have "tweeked" it.
I am gonna reserve judgement until I get my hands on the RAW files with the Adobe plugin to view them. It def. won't be as good as a full-frame, but if up to 6400 is usable for event work, I'll be happy.
You mean really clean at north of 16000 ISO?
However will we manage?
I have a 7D mk2, and you think I would but this? You have to be joking. Moving from a flexible, tough as a tank, weather proof semi-pro camera to this? Not in this life
I don't know what you would buy, but it might be worth renting or borrowing one one to see what you think.
Yawn...
There is literally no downside to the R7 coming from a 7D Mk II: it's built just like a 7D MK II - polycarbonate over magnesium; it has far fewer mechanical parts to go wrong; its Real World weather proofing will fine for anything up to scuba diving; and _as a camera_ it's going to be in another league completely.
And "flexible"? The R7 will allow you to do stuff the 7D Mk II couldn't even dream of..!
Unless your 7D Mk II use-case is knocking nails in, you're full of crap, fella...
@@keithreeder Not sure if you have ever heald or used a 7D mk2, I somehow doubt it. The 7D mk2 was not cheap at the time but it was designed for wildlife, it was built like a tank, bumps and bangs - forget it. It was weather sealed like no-one had ever seen before. The only camera with similar weather sealing was the 1Dx.
When you say it has fewer parts....... The R7 does have a mechanical shutter you know?
" its Real World weather proofing will fine for anything up to scuba diving" - I'd really be interested where you got this piece of information from. Canon admit that the weather sealing is on a par with...... the 90D. Which as we all know wasn't very good.
But you are right, it will be in another league. In the old days it was known as the Southern Isthmian League. This is a consumer product and not semi-pro. In football terms, amateur.
You conveniently forgot that the wondeful 30 fps hits the buffer at about the 1 second mark. That is because the buffer is not big enough. And it takes about 12 second to clear. Time to get the kettle on.
The sensor is straight out of the 90D, after all, those sales weren't great, so there are probably a lot of spares sensors in a stockroom in Tokyo. They say that they have tweeked it, maybe they have, maybe they haven't but one thing we do know is that the low light capabilities will be.......... interesting.
If you look at Jared Polin's latest video on the subject you can see some RAWs at 4000 ISO - it has more grain than a Ukrainian seaport. In fact it looks a lot like the 7D mk2 at 4000 ISO - that is an 8 year old camera!
So keep with the "Yawn" and the "You're full of crap, fella" - the problem is that facts speak for themselves. You should try reading and watching some quality reviews and then you would see professionals point out the bleeding obvious to everyone.
I think you shouldn't "review" gear that you don't even have!
I have heard this before, and I will definitely add a hands-on review when I can get my “hands-on” one. That being said, it’s pretty normal to speculate based on the specs and videos that have been released, no?
Videos like this seem like clickbait... This camera will probably sellout, those that snooze will lose on this one...
Most popular videos are at least a little bit click bait, honestly (especially the titles). If people stopped clicking on them, creators would stop making them.
review??? LOL u dont even got the chance to touch one, dunno what did u say by reviewing? LOL
That's fair. Not a hands-on review, but a review nonetheless based on the released specs, and lots of research. Thanks for watching
Wildlife photographers go outside, sometimes it rains. It appears that the R7 does not have pro-weather sealing, so basically useless for wildlife photographers......
"Useless" is a little severe, I think. I look forward to hear from real world photographers as they start to ship, it may be just fine for most people.
Jeez, your clueless bashing is tiresome.
I've seen umpteen 90Ds in the hands of wildlife shooters, and they work out just fine. The R7 is sealed to at least that level, so - _again_ - time to call BS on your nonsense.
@@GaryHughesOfficial I look to see all those pictures taken in damp or rainy conditions, even with some dust and sand blowing around. The 90D got a rep for these problems. I don't think that the average photographer gets what wildlife photographers put their gear through.
There are plenty of people with too much money and not enough brain cells, who see one review and pre-order. They are the same people who bought a betamax recorder and thought Microsoft Vista would change their lives.
Have you seen the RAWs taken by Jared Polin? There's an indoor photo at 4000 ISO, more grain than the Sahara. Jared kindly says that's ok. It's really not.
All I am saying is that this camera has enough faults to sink a ship. If Fuji or Oly had launched it, it would have got absolutely slated. But because Canon launched it, all the fanboys get behind it. I have never owned a SLR or DSLR that wasn't a Canon but I am not blind, deaf or dumb. It's like the Hans Christian Andersen story "The Emperor's New Clothes" - someone has to stand up and say, this is not the replacement to the 7D mk2, it's not fit to lace it's shoes.
@@doghouseriley4732 I think you will find that you are hardly alone in your criticism, lol. I did watch Jared's video and I wasn't convinced by the "it's like film" argument, though he is entitled to his opinion.
@@GaryHughesOfficial Jared shoots different stuff. If you are shooting portraits you can get away with plaenty of grain. Macro insects, not so much. Is the quality of the RAW out put any better than the 7D mk2 or the 90D? We know the autofocus is light years ahead but the rest is garbage, well it's not good. Canon want us to spend bucks on a camera whose output is no different to 8 years ago.
CLICKBAIT YOU DONT EVEN HAVE THE CAMERA IN HAND. NORE HAS A FINAL PRODUCTION ONE BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU HATERS . IF YOU DONT PLAN ON BUYING ONE YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT . JUST ANOTHER SPEC SHEET READER
Thanks, Gabbie! Appreciate the feedback :)
@@GaryHughesOfficial YOUR WELCOME... YOU SHOULD AT LEAST GET ONE IN YOUR HANDS BEFORE YOU CAN RECOMMEND SOMETHING OR NOT... DO YOU AGREE OR SHOULD WE BASE REVIEWS ON SPEC SHEETS AND POTIENTIAL PROBLEMS FOR CLICK BAIT... I WOULD APRRECIATE IF YOU RESPONDED INSTEAD OF DEFLECTING.
This guy mentioned you directly in this video ruclips.net/video/Y3GB25sguH8/видео.html
No, I think you are incorrect. I didn't recommend or not recommend. Speculation based on released specifications, price and other reviews is a valid form of commentary. My concerns are legitimate, my reasoning is sound, and the information they are based on is reliable and the best available at the moment. Is your caps lock broken?
@@GaryHughesOfficial CAPS IS WHAT I CHOOSE TO USE , JUST LIKE YOU CHOSE TO MAKE THIS VIDEO. BY SUGGESTING THE CAMERA MAY HAVE A PROBLEM BASED ON SPEC SHEETS AND WHAT YOU HEARD COULD POTENTIALLY SWAY PEOPLE AWAY FROM PURCHASING THE CAMERA. ARE YOU AN INFLUENCER THAT DONT KNOW YOUR INFLUENCE ? WOW... HOW CAN ANYONE BASE Potential PROBLEMS FROM THAT ASPECT. NO ONE HAS A FINAL COPY , NORE HAS ANY RAW FILES BEEN RELEASED. SO ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE A SPEC SHEET READER. WHAT IS YOUR PUPOSE IN POINTING OUT PROBLEMS ? IM TALKING EXACLY ! IS IT THE VIEWS OR ARE YOU TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE PURCHASE THE CANON R7 ? ( HERE COMES THE DEFLECT ). YOU GOT IT AFTER THIS ... NICE CHAT AND MUCH SUCCESS TO YOUR CHANNEL. IM JUST AN HONEST GUY DONT BE OFFENDED . JUST CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.
What a waste of time. Please change the title as this is not a review! My advice, make a review with the camera in your hands. Btw, your 3rd point is hilarious...
Sorry it wasn’t your cup of tea. If it makes you feel any better, I am probably going to buy one, definitely gonna do a review then :)
What a bunch of blah, blah, blah.
Welcome to RUclips :)