Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 31 posts | 
by neverspook on Fri May 27, 2022 2:37 pm
neverspook
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1228
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
jnadler wrote:For several decades, small stationery songbirds  (warblers, vireos, etc) has 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.
That parallels my experience. I just got to Camera and I have been photographing with the 100 to 500 snakes at close range and warblers and that showed up where the snakes are. So I guess I am trying to camera under the worst circumstances. But one of the things I liked about the 100 to 500 is that it focussed quite close so would be good for semi macro things. I am finding even with the snakes, it is not always that accurate in auto focus.
 

by DChan on Fri May 27, 2022 5:32 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
neverspook wrote:
jnadler wrote:[snip]  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. [snip]
That parallels my experience. I just got to Camera and I have been photographing with the 100 to 500 snakes at close range and warblers and that showed up where the snakes are. So I guess I am trying to camera under the worst circumstances. [snip]
May be you two can take a look at this video and listen to what he said starting at 17:44:

Om-1 Digital Solutions bird tracking. Does it work as well as the Sony A1?


Not sure why my Olympus EM 1 Mk II does not have this focus issue despite many people said all mirrorless sensors had this issue, like they had used all the mirror-less cameras available since day one when it looks like they had only used some of them. All my Olympus m43 lenses can focus at very close range (relatively speaking). For example, 300f4 focuses down to 1.4m; 45-150 f2.8  0.7m; 150-400f4.5 1.3m even with built-in TC at all focal length; 12-40mm f2.8 0.2m. Shifting the focusing back and forth from a far away mountain to a fence a few feet away is not an issue. Guess Olympus might have tried hard not to have that close distance focusing issue. Don't know.
 

by hullyjr on Fri May 27, 2022 10:01 pm
hullyjr
Forum Contributor
Posts: 507
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Location: Grayslake, IL, USA
neverspook wrote:
jnadler wrote:For several decades, small stationery songbirds  (warblers, vireos, etc) has 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.
That parallels my experience. I just got to Camera and I have been photographing with the 100 to 500 snakes at close range and warblers and that showed up where the snakes are. So I guess I am trying to camera under the worst circumstances. But one of the things I liked about the 100 to 500 is that it focussed quite close so would be good for semi macro things. I am finding even with the snakes, it is not always that accurate in auto focus.
Maybe this isn't totally applicable but my Canon macro lenses (35mm, 60mm, 100mm EF/RF) have no problem focusing up close with various M cameras. Often I start from close to infinity because I have switched the camera off to save on battery juice.

I've been photographing moths for years and have not seen any particular combo that is markedly worse or better. The R5 does a better job compared to M but that is more related to the better viewfinder/rear screen and better IS. I do use the auxillary lights on the MR-14EX flash (with red filter) which undoubtedly helps.

Going from a far subject to a close one, can cause the focus to just hang. You keep pushing the focus/shutter button but nothing happens even with the setting for the camera to keep trying to focus. It does not "know" which way to focus. I'm told the wasn't a problem with DSLRs but is with mirrorless. I'm used to moving the focus ring as it helps speed up acquisition time even with DSLRs.
Jim Hully
Grayslake, IL
Images now at https://www.flickr.com/photos/138068378@N06/
 

by OntPhoto on Sat May 28, 2022 6:21 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
Ed Cordes wrote:
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.
Thanks Ed.  That's awesome to know.  Bye Bye 7D MK2.  It was solid built and still working after 8 years.  

The R7 is pretty much a sure thing for me.  Past several days photographing an unusually high eastern screech owl nest cavity and I'm seeing the limitations of a FF.  Even with 500mm + 1.4x.  Would need a 600mm + 1.4x or 800mm.   
 

by OntPhoto on Sun May 29, 2022 4:24 pm
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
This review makes the R7 sound much better than the 7D MK2 for high-ISO.  The 7D MK2 starts to show some noise after ISO 1,000.

They say in low light (I suupose everyone's definition of low light varies) it looks "extremely" clean up to about ISO 1,600 and at ISO 3,200 just a slight increase in noise.  They follow up by showing ISO 6,400 which looks relatively noise free.  An image taken in lower but still good light at ISO 3,200 may look cleaner from an image taken in real low-light at same ISO which will look noisier. (I assume these are images of photos and not stills from videos).  

I want to see how it performs in very low light which is when I use ISO 3,200 and above.  As far as the R7 goes, sure, Canon had to give it a smaller buffer.  They'll probably increase it in the R7 MK2.  Give you a reason to upgrade :-)   I still remember how Canon did not give us true Ai-Servo mode in the 300D Rebel.  Only to implement it in later models.

R7 Initial Review - Dan Watson
 

by WJaekel on Mon May 30, 2022 4:07 pm
User avatar
WJaekel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 663
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Location: Germany
OntPhoto wrote:This review makes the R7 sound much better than the 7D MK2 for high-ISO.  The 7D MK2 starts to show some noise after ISO 1,000.

They say in low light (I suupose everyone's definition of low light varies) it looks "extremely" clean up to about ISO 1,600 and at ISO 3,200 just a slight increase in noise.  They follow up by showing ISO 6,400 which looks relatively noise free.  An image taken in lower but still good light at ISO 3,200 may look cleaner from an image taken in real low-light at same ISO which will look noisier. (I assume these are images of photos and not stills from videos).  

I want to see how it performs in very low light which is when I use ISO 3,200 and above.  As far as the R7 goes, sure, Canon had to give it a smaller buffer.  They'll probably increase it in the R7 MK2.  Give you a reason to upgrade :-)   I still remember how Canon did not give us true Ai-Servo mode in the 300D Rebel.  Only to implement it in later models.

R7 Initial Review - Dan Watson
In fact it remains to be seen if unbiased reviews and tests confirm that the noise for higher ISOs is better compared to the 90D - and not higher than the noise of the 7D MK2 despite the MP increase of the R7, at least. From what I read, the early previewers who obviously had been invited by Canon to Florida were not allowed to shoot/publish raw files of the preproduction R7 bodies. Their Jpegs out of the cam look good so far but aren't a real proof regarding noise, IMO.
The AF of the R7, especially Animal Eye AF certainly is the biggest bonus over the 7D MK2 and the 32+ MP are very welcomed, too - if the impact on noise turns out to be acceptable. I'm not so much into video yet but the options of the R7 are also much more advanced here. Regarding AF, my 7d Mark2 is very reliable with the EF100-400 II and EF 600 II but inconsistent on the EF 200-400mm and EF 300mm/f 2.8 IS (I).
On the other hand, ruggedness and weather sealing is important for me in demanding enviroments. I'm travelling to Tanzania in October which is said to be extremely prone to dust. The 7d2 probably is much better sealed, I guess. I wouldn't completely rely on the R7 in polar regions and on Zodiac rides either. So it's a tough decision to skip/trade in my 7d2 in favor of the R7 alongside with my 1DK III and R5 for the planned trip to Africa. Moreover, the buffer of the R7 fills up in 1-2 sec face to the higher frame rate though it's obviously not smaller than the one in the 7d2. That's not good and requires fast UHS II cards to clear the buffer as quick as possible, at least. 2 Sony Tough 128GB  amount to around 400€ here which have to be added to the fair price of the R7 while I still could use my CF cards on the 7d Mark2.
Finally the lack of the optional battery grip is also a negative point of the R7, IMO - especially if you pair the small body of the R7 with bigger glass.
So it's a difficult decision - even more if you additionaly consider the RF 100-500 which looks like the best option for the R7 for wildlife and birds - unless you stick with the EF 100-400 II, of course. In the end the R7 seems like a major upgrade of the 90D but not a complete replacement of the semi-pro 7D Mark II. It will be interesting to see, if the sensor of the R7 in fact is newly designed or just the same as in the 90D with minor adjustments. Anyway, I doubt, that there will be a "real" 7DII replacement in the ML department in the foreseeable future. Nobody knows, though.

Wolfgang
http://www.wjaekel-foto.de
 

by jnadler on Wed Jun 01, 2022 6:07 am
jnadler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6926
Joined: 6 Oct 2003
Location: New York State
I believe that the combo of the R7 and 100-500 will pose a problem for low light shooters. On my R5, the 100-500 at 500 F7.1 usually causes me to shoot at Iso over 6400. On a noisier crop sensor, this will not be wise.
 

by OntPhoto on Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:12 am
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
WJaekel wrote:
OntPhoto wrote:This review makes the R7 sound much better than the 7D MK2 for high-ISO.  The 7D MK2 starts to show some noise after ISO 1,000.

They say in low light (I suupose everyone's definition of low light varies) it looks "extremely" clean up to about ISO 1,600 and at ISO 3,200 just a slight increase in noise.  They follow up by showing ISO 6,400 which looks relatively noise free.  An image taken in lower but still good light at ISO 3,200 may look cleaner from an image taken in real low-light at same ISO which will look noisier. (I assume these are images of photos and not stills from videos).  

I want to see how it performs in very low light which is when I use ISO 3,200 and above.  As far as the R7 goes, sure, Canon had to give it a smaller buffer.  They'll probably increase it in the R7 MK2.  Give you a reason to upgrade :-)   I still remember how Canon did not give us true Ai-Servo mode in the 300D Rebel.  Only to implement it in later models.

R7 Initial Review - Dan Watson
In fact it remains to be seen if unbiased reviews and tests confirm that the noise for higher ISOs is better compared to the 90D - and not higher than the noise of the 7D MK2 despite the MP increase of the R7, at least. From what I read, the early previewers who obviously had been invited by Canon to Florida were not allowed to shoot/publish raw files of the preproduction R7 bodies. Their Jpegs out of the cam look good so far but aren't a real proof regarding noise, IMO.
The AF of the R7, especially Animal Eye AF certainly is the biggest bonus over the 7D MK2 and the 32+ MP are very welcomed, too - if the impact on noise turns out to be acceptable. I'm not so much into video yet but the options of the R7 are also much more advanced here. Regarding AF, my 7d Mark2 is very reliable with the EF100-400 II and EF 600 II but inconsistent on the EF 200-400mm and EF 300mm/f 2.8 IS (I).
On the other hand, ruggedness and weather sealing is important for me in demanding enviroments. I'm travelling to Tanzania in October which is said to be extremely prone to dust. The 7d2 probably is much better sealed, I guess. I wouldn't completely rely on the R7 in polar regions and on Zodiac rides either. So it's a tough decision to skip/trade in my 7d2 in favor of the R7 alongside with my 1DK III and R5 for the planned trip to Africa. Moreover, the buffer of the R7 fills up in 1-2 sec face to the higher frame rate though it's obviously not smaller than the one in the 7d2. That's not good and requires fast UHS II cards to clear the buffer as quick as possible, at least. 2 Sony Tough 128GB  amount to around 400€ here which have to be added to the fair price of the R7 while I still could use my CF cards on the 7d Mark2.
Finally the lack of the optional battery grip is also a negative point of the R7, IMO - especially if you pair the small body of the R7 with bigger glass.
So it's a difficult decision - even more if you additionaly consider the RF 100-500 which looks like the best option for the R7 for wildlife and birds - unless you stick with the EF 100-400 II, of course. In the end the R7 seems like a major upgrade of the 90D but not a complete replacement of the semi-pro 7D Mark II. It will be interesting to see, if the sensor of the R7 in fact is newly designed or just the same as in the 90D with minor adjustments. Anyway, I doubt, that there will be a "real" 7DII replacement in the ML department in the foreseeable future. Nobody knows, though.

Wolfgang
http://www.wjaekel-foto.de
It will be an interesting summer as reviews and tests come in.  I was checking out another photography site and based on an alleged twitter reply from Canon, there isn't a plan to have a battery grip for the R7.  Whether true or not, we'll soon find out.  

With several of my past cameras I have always used a battery grip.  I liked the bulk for handholding and making sure I have the needed battery capacity to shoot for a long time.  Two batteries in a grip means less battery changes in the field. As the years move along, I like to go lighter and lighter and mirrorless helps.  Perhaps the newer batteries have a greater capacity as well.  

Lenses are still heavy.  I seldom if ever bring my Canon 500 f4 II along.  RF may be the way to go for lenses too for less weight.  I know someone who uses a R6 / R5 and RF 100-500 and it is light.  For some of the faster lenses like f/2.8 maybe not much you can do about the weight. 

As for buffer size, I never had an issue with the 7D MK2.  I picked my spots because the more images on the card, the more work IK have to do afterwards.  I like less work and more fun in the field.  Keep in mind, photography is a hobby for me and I don't shoot for a living.  So, my thoughts are from that perspective.  I am even happy shooting in JPeg.  For me, the buffer size of the R7 isn't a big issue but it depends on how fast it clears.  I still remember the older Canon DSLR's and it was a pain waiting for the buffer to clear.  

Having said all the above, the R7 will be used for the same things as my current 7D MK2, good light or on a tripod for slower shutter speeds.  I likey will get the R6 to replace my 6D at some point.  Have the best of both worlds.   
 

by KK Hui on Thu Jul 07, 2022 6:00 am
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42662
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
Couple of shots with my new R7 and RF600/11 IS STM
1. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=298361
2. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=298448

I'm impressed with R7's AF tracking for BIF and noise level at ISO 6400 and below.
The above rig is so light that you can shoot BIF whole day hand holding it without suffering from fatique on yourself.
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536
 

by hullyjr on Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:59 pm
hullyjr
Forum Contributor
Posts: 507
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Location: Grayslake, IL, USA
KK Hui wrote:Couple of shots with my new R7 and RF600/11 IS STM
1. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=298361
2. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=298448

I'm impressed with R7's AF tracking for BIF and noise level at ISO 6400 and below.
The above rig is so light that you can shoot BIF whole day hand holding it without suffering from fatique on yourself.
Hi KK,

Those are great shots. There cannot be too many places to see Roseates these days. Was that near the Farne Islands?

I'm interested in the focus area limitation of those DO lenses. Does that still apply when using the R7 or can you use all of the camera's focus points?

Jim
Jim Hully
Grayslake, IL
Images now at https://www.flickr.com/photos/138068378@N06/
 

by KK Hui on Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:35 pm
User avatar
KK Hui
Moderator
Posts: 42662
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Hong Kong, China
Member #:00536
hullyjr wrote:Those are great shots. There cannot be too many places to see Roseates these days. Was that near the Farne Islands?

I'm interested in the focus area limitation of those DO lenses. Does that still apply when using the R7 or can you use all of the camera's focus points?
Thanks, Jim!

The Roseate Tern shots were captured in the North Eastern waters of Hong Kong.

The RF 600/11 IS STM lens is compatible with [Vertical] 80% x [Horizontal] 60% AF Area in R7 (APS-C).
The reduced coverage is not too bad in real life BIF shooting situation but a challenge for keeping the erratic flying birds inside the square AF area 'box'.  I'm glad I didn't opt for the RF800/11 IS STM which would have been even more challenging shooting fast erratic flying birds handheld with an APS-C body like the EOS R7.
KK Hui  FRPS
Fellow of The Royal Photographic Society
Personal Website | Portfolio @ Flickr

Lifetime Member NSN 0536
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
31 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group