burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It WAS a bit of a branch off of the main thread, but conceivably germane...

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

It devolved from macro being one of her main areas of interest.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Wanting to reduce size and weight, the original poster has a number of options. Keeping in mind their current gear and areas of interest, I recommend a Canon R7... here is why:

Current camera, Canon 7D Mark II.... weight 910 grams, approx. size 148mm wide x 112mm tall x 78mm deep.

They're considering higher resolution, full frame mirrorless particularly for landscape photography (among other things). But here is how some popular ones compare to the 7DII...

- Canon R5... 738 grams, approx. 138mm wide x 98mm tall x 88mm deep.
- Nikon Z8.... 910 grams, approx. 144mm wide x 118mm tall x 83mm deep.
- Sony A7R V... 723 grams, approx. 131mm wide x 97mm tall x 82mm deep.

On the other hand...

- Canon R7... 612 grams, approx. 132mm wide x 90mm wide x 92mm deep.

So, other than the depth of it's grip, the R7 is a much more significant reduction in weight and size, than any of the full frame cameras. In fact the Nikon Z8 weighs the same as 7DII.

Now, the Canon R5 and Nikon Z8 are 45MP full frame cameras, while the Sony a7RV is 61MP. The R7 is "only" 32.5MP... and it's APS-C. This is 160% of the resolution from their current DSLR (20MP). But it's not full frame. And it's not 45MP or more. Although I suspect 32.5MP will be plenty a lot of the time, what to do when you come upon a truly fantastic scene you want to shoot in the highest resolution possible? I'd put the R7 on a tripod in portrait orientation and take a panorama with three or four shots. This will actually be MORE resolution than any of the full frame cameras deliver.

There are other reasons the R7 makes the most sense for the OP. First, it's a $1500 camera, while the three full frame models are each nearly triple that. Also there is the OP's 15-20 year familiarity with Canon systems that will make for an easier transition. Plus most Canon EF/EF-S lenses can easily and inexpensively be adapted for use on the R7, allowing them to more gradually move over to the new RF mount system. (Note: Yes, it's possible to adapt Canon lenses to Sony, too. In the past this has been with a pricey Sigma or Metabones adapter... there are new adapters that cost a lot less, though not sure how well they work. There is noticeable autofocus performance loss with EF/EF-S lenses adapted to Sony.)

The OP needs to look beyond the camera, at the lenses they'll be using too. Canon has been particularly diligent in their weight reduction efforts with lenses in the four year old RF mount system. For example, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 is 410 grams (nearly a full pound) lighter than the latest EF 70-200mm f/2.8. The RF 70-200mm f/4 also lost weight, though not nearly as much (about 1/4 lb.) Another example is the RF 100-500mm, which not only gained 100mm in focal length, but also is more than half a pound lighter than the EF 100-400mm II. Or for someone who only occasionally needs the "reach" of a telephoto, there is a much smaller and approx. 2 lb. lighter RF 100-400mm (granted... it's not a very bright lens: f/5.6-f/8 variable aperture).

There's also the "teleconverter effect" using telephotos on an APS-C camera. A 100-400mm lens on an R7 "acts like" a 160-640mm would on full frame. This is a major weight saver!

The biggest weight savings are had with the telephotos. There is some with wide lenses, too. Just not as much. For example, the RF 14-35mm f/4L weighs 544 grams, or about 70 grams less than the EF 16-35mm f/4L (615 grams).

Wide angle for APS-C is one of the places where the R7 is a bit lacking, as of now. You can bet Canon is working on something... but currently there simply isn't an ultrawide "RF-S" lens for the APS-C R-series cameras. I anticipate Canon will eventually provide an RF 11-22mm similar to the lens they offered in EF-M mount. That's a good thing, since that's an excellent lens. (Note: Unfortunately EF-M cannot be adapted for use on RF mount or any other camera system.)

In the meantime, it's possible to adapt the EF-S 10-22mm (385 grams) or EF-S 10-18mm (240 grams). Of course, an adapter adds a bit of weight. The basic type weigh about 110 grams. It's neat, though, that there are some alternative adapters that provide other features such as a control ring or, especially, a drop-in filter. Other than the basic, Canon's adapters are rather pricey (even the basic Nikon F to Z is pricey). But there are 3rd party adapters that are much more reasonably priced (and in some cases, better than the OEM adapters). Finally, an ultrawide may not even be needed, if planning to do a multi-shot panorama, as suggested above.

There also are some manual focus, manual aperture 3rd party lenses available for R7, including some quality ultrawide primes. I don't know about you, but the way I use this type of lens it's no problem that they are manual focus and aperture.

Canon's RF 100mm macro lens is one that actually gained some weight, compared to its EF mount counterpart. The RF 100mm weighs 730 grams, while the EF 100mm "L" is 625 grams (neither weight includes the optional tripod mounting ring, sold separately). However, the RF 100mm also gains magnification. It can do up to 1.4:1, versus 1:1 possible with the EF lens. If one doesn't need full 1:1 magnification, the RF 85mm f/2 is a smaller, lighter alternative at 500 grams.

Of course, there are a lot of good cameras out there. On paper an R7 seems a very good choice for them. With one of the best AF systems and a fast frame rate, it can be great for wildlife... but also serve very well for many other types of photography. Still, the OP probably should go to a store where they can handle and compare various options, to help with their choice.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

Works great for me. She can get a newer model if she wants, or look into the Nikon Z50 which is also smaller.