This is a complaint I see thrown around constantly, and frankly, I think it's comical. Most everyone seems to forget that there is a third control dial conveniently placed on pretty much every single RF lens on offer, and on an adapter if you want to use it on EF-mount lenses. To me, the control ring is one of the most impressive things about the RF mount design. It's an absolute coup, and yet it's the most neglected. Consider this: with the control ring plus two body control dials, you can take complete control over the entire exposure triangle pretty much simultaneously because you have both hands involved. Try that with separate thumb wheels. Having the control ring really made it easier for me to make quick adjustments on the fly, once I got used to using it. After a while, the gripe starts to sound less like "Canon won't give me the proper controls" and more like "I'm resistant to learning anything new."
Yes, that's a very good point. I can see that folk using just one body could quickly adjust to using the control ring instead of a third dial. I just prefer to use the traditional third dial on my R5, and wouldn't want to confuse my muscle memory, if I was switching back and forth between 2 bodies, by having to use the control ring on the R7.
It would just have been so easy (and IMO considerably better) to have put the R7 sensor and electronics in a R6 body shell. I suspect that the primary reason why Canon didn't do so, is because that would mean the R7 would then have to be priced a lot closer to the R6.
I would have been happy to pay more to get an R6-based R7, but Canon clearly believe that the affordable R7 will sell more units than a higher-priced version in a R6 shell, and they're probably correct. Anyway they've made the decision, so there's no point in me moaning about it.
Similarly, all I hear about the R7 is how sturdily it's built. The complaints against the R7 seem to be that it's either built too light, or has a plastic body. (Did the 7D have an all-metal body? I'm pretty sure it didn't, but I can't remember.) Either way, it's surprising, and makes me wonder if people are equating heavy with well-built and lighter with poorly built. It seems to me that Canon has done a pretty good job of charting a course between weight, size, and build. But it's important that I say directly that I spent a lot of time with the 7D or a lot of other cameras, so my vision is perhaps skewed a bit. I'm not filthy rich, and am lucky to afford the camera tools I have gotten my hands on. That has, by necessity, forced me to make the most of Canon's less expensive cameras, and accept some of their shortcomings and figure my way around them. That absolutely could give me a more forgiving perspective than others might have.
I'm pretty sure that my 7D and 7DMkii had all metal bodies, just like my 5DMkiii, 5DS and 5DMkiv. And yes, I do think a metal body is more durable than a polycarbonate shell, although it's just a gut feeling. My 5DS got dropped, knocked and banged, subjected to vibration and a whole lot more, yet it never dented, just scuffed the paintwork, and after a quarter of a million shutter actuations it was still functioning as good as new when I eventually sold it. My R5 feels well built, but I just don't think it would survive as well, and the R7 is built down to a price, and is less weather-proof than the R5 or R6.
I was excited initially when the R7 was announced, but have decided it isn't for me. I'm very tempted t get an R6 Mkii as a second body to my R5 though, but will be hanging in for a few more months hoping (probably in vain) for a R5 Mkii to be announced.
