Canon EOS R7 pre-sales discussion, hypothesizing, and prognosticating

https://youtu.be/Y3GB2​5sguH8 this guy talks about RAW. For those who are interested.

16000 ISO- Ouch

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19391048
for people using Animal AF here is another example from my 90D, this was not on 1 point but on 9 point, trees were at 100 yards, duck was probably about at 80 yards so it is a small target against a bad background. How do the R5 R6 and R3 handle this, especially the R3?
Am I hoping for too much? but this is my usual background for the most part and as I said I am going to rent and try it real life.

Hosted photo: posted by Jeff USN Photog 72-76 in
./showthread.php?p=193​91048&i=i79276000
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

My experience with the R6 in that setting is that the duck in that composition may not be large enough/prominent enough for eye AF to grab. You might need more reach for it to work as you are hoping

noise is not a problem here, the hated Canon aa filter is yes

umphotography wrote in post #19391100
16000 ISO- Ouch

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=193​91100&i=i143029655
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=193​91100&i=i246099601
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

I would not expect to do anywhere near that deep a crop, on a jpg., with that lens at 150mm wide open. Especially at ISO 16000. I assume handheld and a moving subject also.

Latest Adobe release includes support for R7 and R10!

Dave63401 wrote in post #19391129
I would not expect to do anywhere near that deep a crop, on a jpg., with that lens at 150mm wide open. Especially at ISO 16000. I assume handheld and a moving subject also.

I agree. But still cause for me to pause until I can see a real file...these were at 1/640...not sure if it was moving or not.....But we frequently shoot at 1/640 at f/2.8 in the PNW in winter light at 6400-8000 ISO

R7 and R10 are not yet shown in the selector for the DPP download.

umphotography wrote in post #19391097
Found these on the net

25000 ISO files on the R7.....Not usable for serious results in my opinion

here is the link

Im going to hold off placing an order until we can see raws. 6400 might be tough

https://www.photograph​yblog.com/previews/can​on_eos_r7_photos

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=193​91097&i=i142811645
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=193​91097&i=i183276731
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

I would ask why this image was ISO 25.6K to begin with, why it needed to be taken, and what were the other options. That rink was not "an ISO 25.6K place"; that is a result of that location's lighting, plus the f-stop, and the shutter speed. What if everything was the same except the body, and the body was an R6? Then if the second image (the crop) would have to be at double the pixel magnification to compare. What would that look like?

Anyway, that image has far more problems than noise. The light spectrum and directionality look horrendous.

This is why controlled experiments are needed; there are too many confounders and variables in "the real world".

umphotography wrote in post #19391100
16000 ISO- Ouch

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=193​91100&i=i143029655
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by umphotography in
./showthread.php?p=193​91100&i=i246099601
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Does the crap lighting and underexposure "ouch" you, too? The lens seems very soft, too, and there is veiling glare from the lights that are inside and outside the FOV, while the subject is the darkest thing in the scene.

Can't you see how horrible this would be with ANY camera body?

duckster wrote in post #19391114
My experience with the R6 in that setting is that the duck in that composition may not be large enough/prominent enough for eye AF to grab. You might need more reach for it to work as you are hoping

You really don't know until you try with these cameras. Sometimes the R5 still surprises me as to when AF does work, and also when it doesn't. The R7 is reported to have better subject recognition than the R5 and R6 by many who have tried it, but I don't know if that included crop mode on the FF cameras, or just full-sensor mode.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19391161
Does the crap lighting and underexposure "ouch" you, too? The lens seems very soft, too, and there is veiling glare from the lights that are inside and outside the FOV, while the subject is the darkest thing in the scene.

Can't you see how horrible this would be with ANY camera body?

Im not is disagreement. Light looks like the light sucked and he was at F6.3.....probably on a variable. F/4 glass gets this close to 6400 iso which would be better....hard to tell from these images in the link... need to see 6400 files for me to hit the purchase button

John Sheehy wrote in post #19391158
I would to ask why this image was ISO 25.6K to begin with, why it needed to be taken, and what were the other options. That rink was not "an ISO 25.6K place"; that is a result of that location's lighting, plus the f-stop, and the shutter speed. What if everything was the same except the body, and the body was an R6? Then if the second image (the crop) would have to be at double the pixel magnification to compare. What would that look like?

Anyway, that image has far more problems than noise. The light spectrum and directionality look horrendous.

This is why controlled experiments are needed; there are too many confounders and variables in "the real world".

The real world is where it counts. The only time I really care about sensor noise, pixel efficiency, and the rest of it is for specialized tasks. Even if the light is horrendous, that is what you have to use. Sensor experiments are only one part of taking an image. Lens correction, stabilization, focus tracking, focus accuracy also contribute to getting a good image.

umphotography wrote in post #19391174
Im not is disagreement. Light looks like the light sucked and he was at F6.3.....probably on a variable. F/4 glass gets this close to 6400 iso which would be better....hard to tell from these images in the link... need to see 6400 files for me to hit the purchase button

The lens used was the new Canon RF-S 18-150 f3.5-6.3 IS STM. A lens I highly doubt you would consider owning. It is a redo of an M Canon lens, I believe.

9 days to go for local pre-orders. And I can’t wait for the first video of unboxing r7 on YT lol.