I think Canon has lost the plot, and their product line up is all over the place in terms of expense vs features. The R7 is earlier than the R8 and has unlimited movie recording, because of the laws over it, where the newer camera still has a limit. Not to mention it's ridiculously small battery life. And their lenses are crazy prices. The RF100-500 is f7.1 which I find a big no no. I'd sooner keep the EF100-400
Yeah, not really sure they ever really had a strategy beyond “catch up to sony” but also they really have caught up on AF capabilities and pretty amazing that all new cameras are getting some AF feature set, no? The recording limits are silly and the prices are outrageous. No third party is enough to make me switch in the future. I think the ef 100-400 ii is basically same IQ for what it’s worth.
@@MatthewRaifman Yeah, the AF seems good on paper, but in the field it seems to do what it wants and gets confused easily. Most of the time I turn eye tracking off. I had it on animal tracking once, and there was a lady on a kayak surrounded by swans. The R7 tracked only her face. I don't think she would be happy that my camera was calling her an animal, lol. As for their numbering system.... R5,6,7,8,10.... are all completely different cameras which bare no resemblance to being part of the same series. At least separate FF from APSC!
@@ArcanePath360 yeah I agree. The AF implementation functionally is great on the R7 but doesn’t work as well as the R5 in practice. I think the r6ii is probably the best option short of the r3. But yeah the numbering makes no sense. I’ve generally be happy with the AF in the field personally, but definitely issues to be sorted.
@@MatthewRaifman For wildlife the R7 is better than R6ii because of the pixel density when cropping. Unless you can fill the frame on a FF body, which was rare for me, as I mostly shoot BIF.
@@ArcanePath360 yes, I agree with that. You can't argue with the math. If you're cropping on FF, the R7 gives more pixels on the subject. That said, I find the shutter to be really horrible to work with and it took away a lot of the fun of shooting with the camera compared to the R5.
Very interesting points indeed. I think it’s applicable to all camera brands in general these days.
Appreciate the comment. Yeah, absolutely, I think these are systemic issues that all the manufacturers are facing.
I think Canon has lost the plot, and their product line up is all over the place in terms of expense vs features. The R7 is earlier than the R8 and has unlimited movie recording, because of the laws over it, where the newer camera still has a limit. Not to mention it's ridiculously small battery life. And their lenses are crazy prices. The RF100-500 is f7.1 which I find a big no no. I'd sooner keep the EF100-400
Yeah, not really sure they ever really had a strategy beyond “catch up to sony” but also they really have caught up on AF capabilities and pretty amazing that all new cameras are getting some AF feature set, no? The recording limits are silly and the prices are outrageous. No third party is enough to make me switch in the future. I think the ef 100-400 ii is basically same IQ for what it’s worth.
@@MatthewRaifman Yeah, the AF seems good on paper, but in the field it seems to do what it wants and gets confused easily. Most of the time I turn eye tracking off. I had it on animal tracking once, and there was a lady on a kayak surrounded by swans. The R7 tracked only her face. I don't think she would be happy that my camera was calling her an animal, lol.
As for their numbering system.... R5,6,7,8,10.... are all completely different cameras which bare no resemblance to being part of the same series. At least separate FF from APSC!
@@ArcanePath360 yeah I agree. The AF implementation functionally is great on the R7 but doesn’t work as well as the R5 in practice. I think the r6ii is probably the best option short of the r3. But yeah the numbering makes no sense. I’ve generally be happy with the AF in the field personally, but definitely issues to be sorted.
@@MatthewRaifman For wildlife the R7 is better than R6ii because of the pixel density when cropping. Unless you can fill the frame on a FF body, which was rare for me, as I mostly shoot BIF.
@@ArcanePath360 yes, I agree with that. You can't argue with the math. If you're cropping on FF, the R7 gives more pixels on the subject. That said, I find the shutter to be really horrible to work with and it took away a lot of the fun of shooting with the camera compared to the R5.