fbpixel

Moderators: E.J. Peiker, Greg Downing

All times are UTC - 5 hours

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 28 posts | 
by KK Hui on Tue May 24, 2022 1:49 am
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42300
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
The new 33MP APS-C Canon EOS R7 - $1499 body-only
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCIi7dSxG_k

Key Specifications
    32.5MP APS-C CMOS sensor with Dual Pixel AF
    Up to 30 fps shooting (e-shutter), 15 fps with mechanical
    In-body image stabilization, rated at up to 7 stops
    Oversampled UHD 4K up to 30p, line-skipped or cropped 4K/60p
    10-bit video as 'PQ' true HDR footage or C-Log
    2.36M dot OLED viewfinder
    1.62M dot fully-articulating touchscreen
    Twin UHS-II SD card slot
    Environmental sealing
    Mic and headphone sockets
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue May 24, 2022 10:23 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86186
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Also an APS-C R10 entry level:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r10-initial-review
 

by Ed Cordes on Tue May 24, 2022 8:38 pm
User avatar
Ed Cordes
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4669
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Location: Corning, NY
Member #:00700
Interesting in that the verbiage on the R7 indicates the AF detects the "subjects" people, animals and vehicles. It doesn't specifically say "eye detect". On my R5 I absolutely love the eye detect. Maybe this is just semantics? Frankly, the "eye detect" is stunning on my R5.
Remember, a little mild insanity keeps us healthy
 

by OntPhoto on Tue May 24, 2022 8:55 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6960
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
Ed Cordes wrote:
Interesting in that the verbiage on the R7 indicates the AF detects the "subjects" people, animals and vehicles.  It doesn't specifically say "eye detect".  On my R5 I absolutely love the eye detect.  Maybe this is just semantics? Frankly, the "eye detect" is stunning on my R5.

I have been searching on the web to see if the R7 has eye detect focus.  It may be a pass for me if it doesn't have the eye detect.  Especially if the noise is worse or no better than my 8-year old 7D MK2.  I would rather get the R6 but that means I would be leaving my 6D on the shelf.  I may just wait. 

Update:  I went over to DPReview and see someone has a video showing eye-detect.  According to the reviewer, it seems to work the same as on the R5 and R6.  I may consider buying one then.  But first, waiting for the high-ISO noise comparisons.

Canon R7 pre-production review
 

by Ed Cordes on Wed May 25, 2022 10:47 am
User avatar
Ed Cordes
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4669
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Location: Corning, NY
Member #:00700
OntPhoto wrote:

Yes, my wife needs to update her 7D2 and we have been consideringthe R7.  However, if there isn't eye detect we will pass.  If the noise is acceptable the 32 mp on a crop sensor will allow her to crop so she could still use her EF 100-400 and crop to make up the difference in not having the 100-500.
Remember, a little mild insanity keeps us healthy
 

by jnadler on Wed May 25, 2022 11:41 am
jnadler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6913
Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Location: New York State
As a former 7D Mk2 user and now R5 user, the R7 may be a pass for me.  I switched to full frame due to shooting birds and wildlife in lower light and not being content with crop sensor noise at ISOs over 800. While I have usable R5 images at ISO 12800, there are several things about the R5 I do not like for bird photography. Missing the crop factor, I do use the crop setting but it is only 17MP.  For near small songbirds, the R5 just will not grab focus. I miss many shots. I usually have to focus on a tree trunk first. A mirrorless sensor issue overall. Finally, the R5 paint finish is not durable and metal is exposed in many corners. 

The issue with considering the R7 is that I went ahead and replaced my 100-400 mk2 with the RF 100-500. At 500 and F7.1 in lower light, high ISOs are usually called for. This would be just a poor path to start using it on a noisier crop sensor. The 100-500 was obtained for more full frame reach without extender, faster AF, and avoiding an adapter. The F7.1 is not ideal for low light subjects if you want to keep ISO down.

But now committed to the R5, I do not see a single upside for an R7 for me other than a good lighting backup.
Jeff Nadler
Jeff Nadler Nature Photography
Moose-loons-325 bird species-Adirondacks
 

by hullyjr on Wed May 25, 2022 12:32 pm
hullyjr
Forum Contributor
Posts: 500
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Location: Grayslake, IL, USA
I'm on the fence till I see controlled test mages from the "new" sensor. I have the M6 Mark II and its sensor is not that great, perhaps as good as it gets for Canon APS-Cs. The increased pixel density (32 vr 17MP) when comparing to the R5 is very tempting but as others have said, a feature best used in good light. Having "close to R3 focusing capabilities" (that is what is being said...) is a huge step forward for APS-C and possibly best-in-class until we see that Fuji has to offer. A 7D Mark II may have a few more features but is a dinosaur compared to this model. I use the M6 Mark II for moth/macro photography and aside from its diminitive size, it is a PITA - user interface is maddeningly different from DSLRs, the buttons are just too small for my hands/finger, no IBIS and finally that joke of a battery (I generally carry 3 extras!). The R7 solves many of my gripes and I actually think it has a better button/dial layout that even my R5.
Jim Hully
Grayslake, IL
Images now at https://www.flickr.com/photos/138068378@N06/
 

by hullyjr on Wed May 25, 2022 12:55 pm
hullyjr
Forum Contributor
Posts: 500
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Location: Grayslake, IL, USA
The two new lenses are a real disappointment, the 18-45 may be small but offers no wide field of view and lists for $299! Nikon have a 16-50mm for less. The 18-150 is interesting but only if there is a wide-angle offering to pair with it. The R7/10 do make the 16/2.8 & 50/1.8 more appealing especially as you now avoid the not-too-good edges! And the RF 100-400mm plus R10 could be a compact, reasonable cheap birding combo with excellent focusing ability.
Jim Hully
Grayslake, IL
Images now at https://www.flickr.com/photos/138068378@N06/
 

by OntPhoto on Wed May 25, 2022 3:55 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6960
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
Great reasoning and reples so far.  I am not expecting much but still curious about R7 high-ISO noise.  The R7 has enough going for it that I'm ready to ditch the 8-Year old 7D MK2.  I may ditch the battery grip to go lighter.  Just bring an extra R7 battery. 

Over the last year, I have gotten accustomed to full-frame IQ.  Did not miss the loss in focal length as much as I thought I would.  Maybe it was the fact I could get close to the subject, eastern screech owl fledglings.  6D was absolutely a necessity because I was shooting under a canopy mostly as the sun set and until it got a bit too dark. Canon 70-200 2.8L IS III handheld or occasionally with a monopod.  

If I did not have the 6D already and used for less than a year, I'd have bought the R6 already.  I wanted max big pixels so R6 over R5.  R6 is on my list because what a killer combo to have a fast lens 2.8 with built-in lens IS and IBIS and eye-detect?  The possibilities.
 

by Mike Veltri on Thu May 26, 2022 12:46 am
User avatar
Mike Veltri
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4492
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
jnadler wrote:
As a former 7D Mk2 user and now R5 user, the R7 may be a pass for me.  I switched to full frame due to shooting birds and wildlife in lower light and not being content with crop sensor noise at ISOs over 800. While I have usable R5 images at ISO 12800, there are several things about the R5 I do not like for bird photography. Missing the crop factor, I do use the crop setting but it is only 17MP.  For near small songbirds, the R5 just will not grab focus. I miss many shots. I usually have to focus on a tree trunk first. A mirrorless sensor issue overall. Finally, the R5 paint finish is not durable and metal is exposed in many corners. 

The issue with considering the R7 is that I went ahead and replaced my 100-400 mk2 with the RF 100-500. At 500 and F7.1 in lower light, high ISOs are usually called for. This would be just a poor path to start using it on a noisier crop sensor. The 100-500 was obtained for more full frame reach without extender, faster AF, and avoiding an adapter. The F7.1 is not ideal for low light subjects if you want to keep ISO down.

But now committed to the R5, I do not see a single upside for an R7 for me other than a good lighting backup.



The R5 is a dog compared to the R3, so much so that after a few days with the R3 I put the R5 up for sale.
I then thought maybe I am going to fast and should keep the R5 for portraits and landscapes, but after a few weeks with the R3  (new king of auto focus) the R5 is going to be sold off.

Images are super crisp with the R3 and the auto focus blows the R5 out of the water.
Since selling my 1d mark II, I have missed so many images of birds in flight. And I always considered myself a good flight shooter.
I have many crisp images shot at 10,000 ISO that I would not hesitate to go there with any subject. If your a low light shooter the R3 not only locks on in super low light, it also retains great detail even after cleaning the files up in Topaz.

In a burst of lets say 20 shots from the r5, I might have half in focus. (might). Not so with the R3 as I have bursts of 20-30 and even 50+ images that are all in focus with the R3. It's like my Mark II on steroid and the best camera that Canon has ever produced to date.
 

by neverspook on Thu May 26, 2022 1:44 am
neverspook
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1177
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Mike Veltri wrote:
jnadler wrote:
As a former 7D Mk2 user and now R5 user, the R7 may be a pass for me.  I switched to full frame due to shooting birds and wildlife in lower light and not being content with crop sensor noise at ISOs over 800. While I have usable R5 images at ISO 12800, there are several things about the R5 I do not like for bird photography. Missing the crop factor, I do use the crop setting but it is only 17MP.  For near small songbirds, the R5 just will not grab focus. I miss many shots. I usually have to focus on a tree trunk first. A mirrorless sensor issue overall. Finally, the R5 paint finish is not durable and metal is exposed in many corners. 

The issue with considering the R7 is that I went ahead and replaced my 100-400 mk2 with the RF 100-500. At 500 and F7.1 in lower light, high ISOs are usually called for. This would be just a poor path to start using it on a noisier crop sensor. The 100-500 was obtained for more full frame reach without extender, faster AF, and avoiding an adapter. The F7.1 is not ideal for low light subjects if you want to keep ISO down.

But now committed to the R5, I do not see a single upside for an R7 for me other than a good lighting backup.



The R5 is a dog compared to the R3, so much so that after a few days with the R3 I put the R5 up for sale.
I then thought maybe I am going to fast and should keep the R5 for portraits and landscapes, but after a few weeks with the R3  (new king of auto focus) the R5 is going to be sold off.

Images are super crisp with the R3 and the auto focus blows the R5 out of the water.
Since selling my 1d mark II, I have missed so many images of birds in flight. And I always considered myself a good flight shooter.
I have many crisp images shot at 10,000 ISO that I would not hesitate to go there with any subject. If your a low light shooter the R3 not only locks on in super low light, it also retains great detail even after cleaning the files up in Topaz.

In a burst of lets say 20 shots from the r5, I might have half in focus. (might). Not so with the R3 as I have bursts of 20-30 and even 50+ images that are all in focus with the R3. It's like my Mark II on steroid and the best camera that Canon has ever produced to date.


I just got an R5 and have been struggling to get it to AF on warblers. When it catches the eye, it is pretty good. But as noted, all too often it just does not see the bird at all and I have to MF to get the focus in the zone before it will see the bird. It also does not really track the eyes of snakes unless they are close enough for head shots. So I am guessing an R3 is in my future. But I am not sure about that 24 MP part. Do you not miss having more MP and being able to crop etc?
Also wondering how the AF on R5 and R3 compare to the Nikon Z9. (I have a Nikon lens or two.)
 

by OntPhoto on Thu May 26, 2022 3:01 am
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6960
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
One of the best reviews I have read so far on the R7.  This guy from The-Digital-Picture explains in an easy to understand way and with details to back up if yu want to dig deeper.  He expects noise to be better than on the Canon 90D APS-C based on what he is seeing in the R7 images right now.  

I got off the upgradeitis bandwagon starting with the Canon 40D.  Kept it for maybe 6+ years before buying the 7D MK2 which I have been using for 8 years now although mostly preferring FF (6D) for past year or so.  I shoot often in wooded areas later into the day and knowing my images will be less noisy (compared to an APS-C) at up to 25,000 is liberating.  

The more I read on the R7, the more I am leaning to finally upgrading from the 7D MK2 after 8 years.

The-Digital-Picture Review of Canon R7
 

by Ed Cordes on Thu May 26, 2022 7:45 am
User avatar
Ed Cordes
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4669
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Location: Corning, NY
Member #:00700
I am surprised at the negative comments re the R5 AF. I have been using this camera since August 2020. I have used it on critters, and birds - small birds, large birds and birds in flight. I have found the AF system and eye detect to be super. I have achieved many consistent bursts of in focus flight images, as long as I was able to keep the bird in the frame. I like it so much we are considering another for my wife - but also looking at the R7. I never considered The R3 due to the bigger form and smaller MP count.
Remember, a little mild insanity keeps us healthy
 

by EGrav on Thu May 26, 2022 8:09 am
User avatar
EGrav
Forum Contributor
Posts: 466
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: USA
I agree , the R5 AF is unbelievably quick and accurate (for me). I have 2 R5's and both are excellent. Using the latest firmware...
 

by EGrav on Thu May 26, 2022 8:09 am
User avatar
EGrav
Forum Contributor
Posts: 466
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: USA
I agree , the R5 AF is unbelievably quick and accurate (for me). I have 2 R5's and both are excellent. Using the latest firmware...


Last edited by EGrav on Thu May 26, 2022 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 

by hullyjr on Thu May 26, 2022 9:52 am
hullyjr
Forum Contributor
Posts: 500
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Location: Grayslake, IL, USA
I agree with the positive comments about the R5. No experience with the R3 but like all advanced gear it takes time to learn the oddities. I need to make sure of the right image stablizer setting for BiF - makes a difference for me. Its a pity you cannot assign that in the custom settings instead of manually moving the switch every time. My criticisms of the R5 are the poor button layout/lack of dedicated dials, longish blackout and the viewfinder lag. But the ability to get bursts of images with the bird's eye/head in focus 95-100% of the time blows me away. If the R7 has similar focusing capabilitites to either R5 or R3 it makes for a great second body. Maybe Nikon will step-up and bring the D500 into the mirrorless arena with Z9 focusing.
Jim Hully
Grayslake, IL
Images now at https://www.flickr.com/photos/138068378@N06/
 

by OntPhoto on Thu May 26, 2022 12:57 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6960
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
Ed Cordes wrote:
I am surprised at the negative comments re the R5 AF.  I have been using this camera since August 2020.  I have used it on critters, and birds - small birds, large birds and birds in flight. I have found the AF system and eye detect to be super.  I have achieved many consistent bursts of in focus flight images, as long as I was able to keep the bird in the frame.  I like it so much we are considering another for my wife - but also looking at the R7.  I never considered The R3 due to the bigger form and smaller MP count.


This begs the question.  With eye-detect, is lens micro-adjustment still required?  You would figure, if the camera will detect and follow the eye, even if the lens may be slightly out of adjustment, the AF will still focus on the eye?

PS.  R7 body only is $1999 CAD.  A decent price for the new features.  I just need an extra battery and the EF to R mount adapter.  As for battery grip, only if a third-party comes out with one but even then, I may stay light and forget battery grip. 
 

by Ed Cordes on Thu May 26, 2022 3:41 pm
User avatar
Ed Cordes
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4669
Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Location: Corning, NY
Member #:00700
OntPhoto wrote:
Ed Cordes wrote:
I am surprised at the negative comments re the R5 AF.  I have been using this camera since August 2020.  I have used it on critters, and birds - small birds, large birds and birds in flight. I have found the AF system and eye detect to be super.  I have achieved many consistent bursts of in focus flight images, as long as I was able to keep the bird in the frame.  I like it so much we are considering another for my wife - but also looking at the R7.  I never considered The R3 due to the bigger form and smaller MP count.


This begs the question.  With eye-detect, is lens micro-adjustment still required?  You would figure, if the camera will detect and follow the eye, even if the lens may be slightly out of adjustment, the AF will still focus on the eye?

PS.  R7 body only is $1999 CAD.  A decent price for the new features.  I just need an extra battery and the EF to R mount adapter.  As for battery grip, only if a third-party comes out with one but even then, I may stay light and forget battery grip. 


Mirrorless cameras do not need micro adjustment.  The AF detecting pixels are right on the sensor itself, so the image is always in the best focus regardless of lens.
Remember, a little mild insanity keeps us healthy
 

by Mike Veltri on Fri May 27, 2022 4:57 am
User avatar
Mike Veltri
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4492
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Ed Cordes wrote:
I am surprised at the negative comments re the R5 AF.  I have been using this camera since August 2020.  I have used it on critters, and birds - small birds, large birds and birds in flight. I have found the AF system and eye detect to be super.  I have achieved many consistent bursts of in focus flight images, as long as I was able to keep the bird in the frame.  I like it so much we are considering another for my wife - but also looking at the R7.  I never considered The R3 due to the bigger form and smaller MP count.


As soon as I watched the interview Adorama had on the R10 and R7, I turned it off after watch what Ruddy Winston said about the cameras. The R10 if for novices and the R7 seems to be for advanced novices. I do wonder if it will be up to snuff for people that want it to replace their old 7D dlsr's. As soon as I saw that they were using the RF100-400 on the R7 I turned the video off. Why not use the 100-500 which is what the 7D II users I am sure would want or on big whites.

As far as the R5, it can't shoot birds that enter the frame really fast and can't even track swallow unless your shooting next to the perch. The camera is very laggy, and the blackout comes into play when shooting lets say a diving bird. As it accelerates you're shooting blind. Now, if the birds are 50 feet out, it will work fine most of the time. But in  a burst, never have I got the entire burst in focus.

Shooting warblers on a tripod birds 20 to 30 feet out, sometime it won't lock on the bird and the bird is stationary.
Even is some of the videos by Jan Wagner and others, you need two ways to lock focus in case one does not work. For a $5k camera you need to have two ways to focus... sad.

And how about the AF alone with out eye detect, what is your hit rate. Mine is not good, and when you miss images you know you should have got it gets really really frustrating.

A bird jumps up in front of you, and bang! you have to screw around with the focus ring as the two buttons won't lock and then the bird is gone. Twice if the camera was not on my lens it would have found a new home in a lake or river.

I think the R5 is good camera, but the auto focus has a lot of flaws. So for me, it's going up for sale.

Now, with the R3 I have runs of 50+ images all in focus.

I will have fun shooting the R3 until Canon decides to bring out a R1 if the R1 is geared for fast shooting and not a megapixel medium format style camera.

Also you note about the bigger form factor!
The R3 is actually lighter than a gripped R5 with no batteries in the grip. Put batteries in a r5 grip and the R3 is the lighter option.

I sold off my 1D Mark II and did not want the hybrid 1/2 dslr and half mirrorless option so went the R5
Due to age my hands would kill me at night after using the Mark II so I was excited about the R5 and sold the Mark II
Now, the buttons on the R3 have been moved closer and no more stretching the fingers on a wide heavy body.
It's the perfect pro body, if you're not a huge cropper.
I have taken many images at 10,000 ISO and the camera retains tons of detail at that high level and one of the things I like best about the camera. I can now shoot at 2000 ISO as a base if I wanted it's very clean.

Sorry for the long winded post, trying to give you as much info I have. :)


Cheers,
Mike
 

by jnadler on Fri May 27, 2022 2:35 pm
jnadler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6913
Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Location: New York State
For several decades, small stationery songbirds  (warblers, vireos, etc) have been my primary bird subject. Often close. I have owned and used every Canon _D crop sensor camera from digital beginnings. Now using the R5 for this, I can say it is the worse camera that I have used for obtaining AF on close stationery subjects. I must first focus on a large tree trunk. I have been told that close focusing capability is an issue with mirrorless sensors.  

If this is the case with the R7, it will not be in my future.

I use the Canon EF 500mm F4 Mk2 and RF 100-500 for my bird photography.
Jeff Nadler
Jeff Nadler Nature Photography
Moose-loons-325 bird species-Adirondacks


Last edited by jnadler on Sat May 28, 2022 6:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
28 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group