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

[Hansall]

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

 

[josephandrews222]

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.