Canon EOS R7 vs R8 – which makes more sense for my type of photography, replacing my 760D

Hello everyone,

After using a Canon EOS 760D for many years, I'm considering upgrading to a newer Canon body. At the moment I'm mainly looking at the EOS R7 and EOS R8, but I'm finding it difficult to decide which system makes the most sense for the way I actually use my camera.

I'm hoping to get some advice from people who have experience with these cameras, especially regarding the practical differences rather than just the specifications.

A bit about how I photograph​

I'm a recreational/hobby photographer rather than a professional or particularly serious enthusiast. Photography is something I enjoy, but my camera is usually a secondary part of a day out.

When we go on holiday, visit a city, go on a day trip or visit an interesting place, I take my camera with me. I rarely go out these days with the sole purpose of photography. I used to do that more often, but with work and family life I simply don't have as much time anymore.

My main subjects are:

• landscapes
• cities and skylines
• architecture and buildings
• church and other interior photography
• family occasions
• simple portraits
• group photos

I don't have a particular interest in wedding photography. Wildlife and birds do interest me occasionally, and I sometimes photograph sports, but these are secondary rather than my main subjects.

My current equipment​

I've been using a Canon EOS 760D for many years.

My current lenses are:

• Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0 DC Macro OS HSM
• Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
• Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

I also have four LP-E17 batteries.

One thing I noticed during our last holiday is that I used the 10-18mm much more than I expected. I really like having a wide field of view for landscapes, architecture, city scenes and especially church interiors.

The 35mm f/2 is another lens I really enjoy, particularly for people, lower-light situations and when I want a relatively compact setup.

R7 or R8?​

This is where I'm struggling.

The EOS R7 seems like the most logical upgrade from my 760D. I could use my existing EF/EF-S lenses with the Canon EF-EOS R adapter and replace them gradually if necessary.

The R7 would also allow me to keep using my 10-18mm without immediately having to rebuild my entire lens collection.

The fact that the R7 is APS-C could also be useful if I occasionally want to photograph wildlife or sports, where the additional reach and high-speed shooting could be an advantage.

The EOS R8, however, is tempting because of the full-frame sensor. I often photograph interiors and occasionally work in relatively low light, so the potential advantages of full-frame are interesting to me. It also uses the same LP-E17 batteries that I already own.

However, moving to the R8 would probably mean replacing most of my current zoom lenses, especially if I want to retain the wide-angle capability I currently get from the 10-18mm.

That raises the question I'm really trying to answer:

Would full-frame actually make a meaningful difference for the type of photography I do, or would the R7 be the more sensible and practical upgrade?

What I'm considering​

For the R7, I could initially keep things fairly simple:

R7 + EF-EOS R adapter + existing 10-18 + existing Sigma 17-70 + 35mm f/2

I could then replace lenses over time if there was a good reason to do so.

For the R8, I would probably need to start building a new full-frame lens setup, for example something along the lines of:

R8 + RF 15-30 + RF 24-240

while keeping the 35mm f/2 through the adapter.

I'm also considering whether a good travel superzoom would make more sense for the R7, since I'm often carrying the camera simply because we're going somewhere rather than going out specifically to photograph.

What would you choose?​

If you were in my position, would you choose the R7 or R8?

I'm looking for the system that makes the most sense for my actual use.

Thanks in advance for any advice and experiences

You have put together a well-constructed and logical post that no doubt describes the conundrum faced by many.

Canon would prefer you buy both! And you might prefer that, too.

It really depends on your budget, I think.

My read is that an R7 (or wait for th eR7II?) might be the place to start...and you will find that today's sensors (even Canon's APS-C sensors) are much better at low-light shooting than your current Canon body.

A 7-series body combined with a really nice (for the money) RF 100-400 lens would get you reach you don't have and your current adapted lenses would of course function as expected.

Good luck.

Based on your main subject list I'd stay away from the R7. You don't need reach, you need more sensor real estate to work with. I don't know if you like to shoot using an electronic (ES) or mechanical shutter mode. I always used electronic because the R7 has bit of heavy mechanical shutter thump to it. The first time I tried it I thought it was broken. Some don't mind it but I never liked it. ES increases frames per second that you don't need for landscapes. You may want to head out to a local store and try the R7.

There is a EFCS mode which is a hybrid mode using both ES and mechanical modes. Still thumps but only every second time so it is better.

I think the R8 II might be announced officially pretty soon. You may not need all the bells and whistles so there might be good prices for R8.

Also I don't know much about the R8 Subject and Eye Detect AF and if that is important to you. The R6II has come down in price because the R6III came out last year. I shot with the R6II for about 3 years. Great Eye detect AF. Not sure if that is in your budget.

This is a wildlife presentation but it will work great on people.

I have not used the R8 or for that matter not interested. Ah the R7. Howe can you go wrong. From the camera you have now to the R7 is like going form the dark ages to space flight. . The biggest knock against the R7, the shutter sucks. Just don't use it. ES and one shot.. I use the R5-R7 and love both. I have the Sigma RF 10-18 and the 18-50 2.8 No one praises the R7 as a landscape tool. Today I went out for a walk, Grabbed the R7 and 18-50 . If you have to fo full frame? R61-or II would be a better choice. A lot more money going full frame. Just a note I very skeptical when I bought the R7 I am not anymore. Rj

I have just bought an R7 as a replacement for my aging EOS600D. I too did lots of internet research before buying, and while I haven't used an R8 I have a couple of observations on the R7.

• It is a wonderful camera, great autofocus, and many more features than I realistically need.
• IBIS + lens IS is amazing. I use my EF-S 55-250 lens and the reduction in "shake" is astounding.
• I regularly hand hold the RF 18-150 lens at 150mm and 1/40th shutter speed with very acceptable results.
• The camera's sensor does best at low ISO settings - less than 3200 - in my limited experience.
• The in camera JPG conversion seems very good for the lower ISO shots, but but above that the noise reduction squashes lots of details. Canon's DPP raw conversion isn't much better! Frankly I was disappointed at the results over ISO3200
• Using a better raw developing software makes a huge difference. I trialed whatever free trial versions I could find, and finally went with DXO Pure Raw. This transforms the output from the camera and completely changes the game with the standard kit (slow) lenses. I am very happy with the output now!
• The APS-C size makes it hard to get a truly wide angle lens. That doesn't bother me much as I prefer the "reach", but if wide angle view appeals then the full frame sensor might be better. Even though I have the 18-150 zoom, plus the EF-s 18-55, I think I will get either a Sigma 23mm f1.4 or the 30mm f1.4 lens as a fast "normal" lens.

I very much like the R7, but if low light/wide angle/landscape style appeals to you, maybe full frame would be worth looking at.

RickyRed said:

I have not used the R8 or for that matter not interested. Ah the R7. Howe can you go wrong. From the camera you have now to the R7 is like going form the dark ages to space flight. . The biggest knock against the R7, the shutter sucks. Just don't use it. ES and one shot.. I use the R5-R7 and love both. I have the Sigma RF 10-18 and the 18-50 2.8 No one praises the R7 as a landscape tool. Today I went out for a walk, Grabbed the R7 and 18-50 . If you have to fo full frame? R61-or II would be a better choice. A lot more money going full frame. Just a note I very skeptical when I bought the R7 I am not anymore. Rj

Click to expand...

I forgot about Silent Shutter. I never used it as I used my R7 for birding so it was always on a higher frame rate. I've never had a crop body its own since about 2015. I always have a FF with it. Or a FF only. I sold my R7 and now just have the R6III. It's my year long FF experiment to use one body for multiple purposes. I may look into the R7II as is it should have the R6III and R5II advanced subject to detect AF algorithms, or better. AF on the R6III is still keeps blowing me away. Not that the R7 AF was not good. I got a lot of great shots with it.



When I had the Canon 7D I used a Tokina 10-20 APS-C lens. Heavy but well built. It had really good IQ. I also had Canon EF 18-55 and EF 55-250 STM lenses at one time. They are part of my light on the go travel kit. Great IQ for the price and if I had dropped a lens in the river I'd just buy another one. Fortunately that never happened. Not sure if those are available in RF.

I went all out RF in 2020. Currently (and since 2020) all I have had is the 100-500, RF 24 -105 f4 and a 1.TC. Bodies change. Sold the R7 last summer and upgaded to the R6III last November.

Only RF said:

I went all out RF in 2020. Currently (and since 2020) all I have had is the 100-500, RF 24 -105 f4 and a 1.TC. Bodies change. Sold the R7 last summer and upgraded to the R6III last November.

Click to expand...

The R6 Mk III is a outstanding body, versatile, incredible AF and a fairly light weight body. My R7 doesn't see much daylight at this point as the AF has been somewhat disappointing. Waiting to see what they do with the R7 Mk II, I will probably trade the R7 at some point.

MSH411 said:

The R6 Mk III is a outstanding body, versatile, incredible AF and a fairly light weight body. My R7 doesn't see much daylight at this point as the AF has been somewhat disappointing. Waiting to see what they do with the R7 Mk II, I will probably trade the R7 at some point.

Click to expand...

Yes and it is back to a 32mp sensor. No sure I that is in Hans's budget but it is a beauty. This was no effort at all.



Cropped from this.

I'm getting a little off topic but over years I have found sometimes you learn or lead to other paths you weren't expecting.

My best crop so far with the R6III at ISO 16,000

I've never looked too hard at the R8. It seems like an entry-level full-frame body, whereas the R7 is Canon's flagship APS-C body.

What scares me the most about the R8 is that it uses that little LP-E17 battery. I have an R10 that uses that battery and I get, maybe, a couple hundred shots from a full charge. My R7, with an LP-E6nh battery gets about 400-500 shots to a charge; about the same as my R5.

The R8 has no in-body image stabilization (IBIS), and the build quality is -- let's call it entry level.

I started digital photography with APS-C cameras and while I went to FF pretty quickly, I've never not owned a crop body; currently the R7. As I mentioned earlier, it's a Canon flagship with all the features and build quality that implies. It's biggest drawback is rolling shutter. That's very real, but unnoticeable unless you're shooting fast action, especially with stick sports (baseball, golf, hockey, etc.) The R7 will take every Canon EF and RF lens made.

The R8's only real benefit is its full frame sensor, and that's a very real benefit. But Canon cut a lot of corners to provide that benefit at an entry-level price. If a FF sensor is the main thing you're looking for, then the R8 is you're only option in that price range. But if you can live with an APS-C sensor, the R7 is a feature-packed, well-built camera for about the same price.

ShipleyNW said:

I've never looked too hard at the R8. It seems like an entry-level full-frame body, whereas the R7 is Canon's flagship APS-C body.

What scares me the most about the R8 is that it uses that little LP-E17 battery. I have an R10 that uses that battery and I get, maybe, a couple hundred shots from a full charge. My R7, with an LP-E6nh battery gets about 400-500 shots to a charge; about the same as my R5.

The R8 has no in-body image stabilization (IBIS), and the build quality is -- let's call it entry level.

I started digital photography with APS-C cameras and while I went to FF pretty quickly, I've never not owned a crop body; currently the R7. As I mentioned earlier, it's a Canon flagship with all the features and build quality that implies. It's biggest drawback is rolling shutter. That's very real, but unnoticeable unless you're shooting fast action, especially with stick sports (baseball, golf, hockey, etc.) The R7 will take every Canon EF and RF lens made.

The R8's only real benefit is its full frame sensor, and that's a very real benefit. But Canon cut a lot of corners to provide that benefit at an entry-level price. If a FF sensor is the main thing you're looking for, then the R8 is you're only option in that price range. But if you can live with an APS-C sensor, the R7 is a feature-packed, well-built camera for about the same price.

Click to expand...

I agree. I started out with the R which had the 5D4 sensor. If was awesome for landscapes, people, etc. BIF was tough but I made it work.

If price were no object, I would suggest going FF, but to something like the R6 II or R6 III. Those are amazing cameras. You would need to buy good quality FF lenses - otherwise why invest in FF? Such an FF kit would be fantastic, but IMO it is not a typical kit for a casual shooter as you describe yourself.

Instead I would agree with the advice to get the R7, as others have said. It is a versatile camera. I use it mostly for wildlife - birds and bugs. But it is very capable for general photography too. The main problem with it is the rolling shutter effect, but it can be eliminated by shooting with the electronic first curtain shutter. That is how I shoot all the time.

The R7 has lots of AF problems when shooting low contrast distant subjects, but the AF performs very well with good quality subjects that are nearer. Get to know your camera. When I recognize a marginal subject, I overshoot (take 10-20 shots in burst mode) and usually a few will be sharp. Many advanced photographers do this in any case, taking many hundreds of shots in an outing.

I would get the R7 with the very versatile 18-150mm kit lens. It is not a pro lens, but performs great and nobody can tell that you took your photos with a kit lens. I'm not familiar with the lenses you have now, but newer generation lenses perform better than older models. EF lenses perform great on the R7 with the adapter, but swapping the adapter often gets old fast. If you buy the adapter, don't pay extra for the one with the control ring. Most of us find it awkward to use.

Good luck with the hunt, and I wish you much enjoyment with the new gear.

Really, in today's world there is no wrong answer in this debate. Your use cases indicate a full frame over a cropped sensor. But I can't imagine being disappointed either way.

I think for landscapes, cityscapes, architecture, and interior people photography you're going to be happier with the full frame sensor of the R8.

For wildlife, outdoors, in sunny conditions the R7 may be the better option. But it's not as good in low light, and I had problems with the tracking and focus system. I had an R7 for a short while and sold it. I didn't like it compared to my R6 mkII at the time. I couldn't get used to the crop frame sensor, and the higher megapixel of the smaller sensor made the low-light capability atrocious.

The R8 mkII is suppose to be announced/released this week. You might wait and see what that has to offer. The rumored MSRP is ~$1,800, which is right in line with a refurbished R6 mkII. You can use your EF lenses with one of the EF-RF converters.

That would be a hard decision, the new R8 mkII or a refurbed R6 mkII.

Yellow-thoated Euphonia taken with the R7 at 6400 ISO, before denoise.



Same photo after Adobe AI denoise.



Noise isn't much of an issue any more with modern post-processing software.

Archibald said:

Yellow-thoated Euphonia taken with the R7 at 6400 ISO, before denoise.

View attachment 49451

Same photo after Adobe AI denoise.

View attachment 49452

Noise isn't much of an issue any more with modern post-processing software.

Click to expand...

Pretty amazing tools we have these days.

32,000 with the R6III.

FF is definitely better for noise.

But APS-C is fine for most purposes.

JCBigler said:

The R8 mkII is suppose to be announced/released this week. You might wait and see what that has to offer. The rumored MSRP is ~$1,800, which is right in line with a refurbished R6 mkII. You can use your EF lenses with one of the EF-RF converters.

Click to expand...

If we're ratcheting up the OP's budget a few hundred dollars at a time, you can find a used R5 for about $2000. That's the best value in photography today.

Second place is a used R7, which go for about $1000 right now and should drop another couple hundred when the MkII comes out. I wasn't aware it was that eminent. If I were looking for an R7 right now, I'd wait until the MkII came out. Prices for the classic should drop on new, refurbished and used stock.

If you can't tell, I outfit this hobby with used gear. The sweet spot for value is one-generation old.

I'm very happy with my R7. As @Archibald mentioned, noise has pretty much been solved. Mine mainly anchors my reach kit and the mechanics all work fine for me. My main beef is that it doesn't have the dynamic range of my R5, but that's too much to expect from pretty much any other camera.

ShipleyNW said:

If we're ratcheting up the OP's budget a few hundred dollars at a time, you can find a used R5 for about $2000. That's the best value in photography today.

Second place is a used R7, which go for about $1000 right now and should drop another couple hundred when the MkII comes out. I wasn't aware it was that eminent. If I were looking for an R7 right now, I'd wait until the MkII came out. Prices for the classic should drop on new, refurbished and used stock.

Click to expand...

It is not currently eminent. It seemed like it would be out in the summer. That faded. It has come up again here and there about this fall. All based on patents submitted by Canon. Nothing for sure.

ShipleyNW said:

If you can't tell, I outfit this hobby with used gear. The sweet spot for value is one-generation old.

I'm very happy with my R7. As @Archibald mentioned, noise has pretty much been solved. Mine mainly anchors my reach kit and the mechanics all work fine for me. My main beef is that it doesn't have the dynamic range of my R5, but that's too much to expect from pretty much any other camera.

View attachment 49460

View attachment 49463

Click to expand...