-= Canon EOS R7 owners unite! Post photos and discuss.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19401876
My Sigma 150-600 was very good in good light. I really enjoyed the images. AF for initial acquisition was a bit slow, but then continuous AF from that point was decent.

This is with that lens with good light on the 7D2, plenty of detail.
https://photos.smugmug​.com …KWF/0/X3/i-NZKPKWF-X3.jpg

Things obviously get a bit soft with a 2x on the lens, this is 1100mm on the M50.
https://photos.smugmug​.com …zXQCLFf/0/O/i-zXQCLFf.jpg

I never got to use the lens on the R6 to see how it holds up though, I had sold it by then. I wonder how soft 100% views would be on the R7 with that lens.

It might not be a big concern for me with the 150-600. It works well on my 1Dx2 and my plan is to sell the 500 F4 and get a 400 DO....also wanting to see how this R7 is going to play with a 1.4 TC and the EF adapter. ...having an 896 FOV and being able to hand hold is priceless for me

I think I understand his point, and it relies on the electronic curtain turning the pixels on in a wave across the sensor that matches the speed of the mechanical 2nd curtain.

The wide aperture supplies a wide disk of OOF light. Without that there is no bokeh to be compromised.

The two curtains also provide an aperture, basically a 1-dimensional one. Normally there is an even exposure of the OOF bokeh ball on the sensor as the shutter slot moves over.

But, in the case of the uneven height curtains, one side of the bokeh ball gets shaded more heavily and becomes underrepresented on the sensor. As the slot narrows, this uneven shading becomes more pronounced because the slot effectively becomes more angled. Take it to an extreme (have the curtain edges even with each other) and you can see that only one side of the bokeh ball will have any exposure at all.

Immaculens wrote in post #19401878
Well this was an interesting tidbit you offered here ~ thank-you. Seems one could safely do action wildlife or sports or your dog without concern (using EFCS) unless perhaps using the 70-200 at f2.8 & shutter faster than 1/1600. My own lenses will surely be in the safe zone, as the rf 100-500 is f7.1 lol

"...When using fast lenses with F / 0.95-F / 2.8, the effect is very noticeable in the range of shutter speeds of 1 / 4000-1 / 1600 seconds. In the 1/1600 - / 1000 range, the effect is noticeably weak. At shutter speeds longer than 1/1000 of a second, this effect disappears completely."

No worries, but I think I got something wrong:
EFCs has much reduced rolling shutter compared to slow ES, ie current non stacked sensor cameras. (as opposed to my No Rolling Shutter statement)
Maybe reduced enough that it won't be an issue, remembering that even modern mechanical shutters have some rolling shutter.

https://www.dpreview.c​om …ash-what-you-need-to-know
Graphs shown approximating ES vs EFCS, but article was May 2017 and ES has generally become faster since then.
Interesting as the photo at the top of the page shows rolling shutter used creatively.

It's becoming a common wish for mirrorless cameras to provide shutter speed options so that users can choose to use EFCS below certain shutter speeds.
Like Exposure comp in M mode with Auto ISO, we'll probably get it sooner or later.

This link, that I posted above, has an animated Gif of EFCS
(although the other link shows the different heights you're talking about)

Gif showing EFCS
https://www.dpreview.c​om …ash-what-you-need-to-know

Diagram showing different height 'curtains' (1 physical curtain, 1 electronic curtain)
https://radojuva.com/e​n/2021/05/efcs-and-bokeh/

With both of those, I think I got 'me head around it!

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19401838
How does that fit into a workflow? Do you resize the entire batch, then assess/cull/pick and then undo the resize? That is to say, you’re not editing the resized files, right?

Not necessarily. You can convert at full res and keep that as a working TIF or JPEG; just get used to the fact that you're looking at Nicole Kidman's skin under a microscope, and it's supposed to look uglier there, and the converter is likely sharpening and making NR vs sharpening trade-offs at a level of detail that would not even exist with larger pixels.

I don't think anyone here has suggested that it is "wrong" to look at 100% pixel views. The point has always been that it is not equitable to view at 100% to compare images or subjects with different pixel counts. If you want to compare the R7 to the R6 at 100% with a 2x on the R6 only, then that makes sense for focal-length-limited subjects, but that would mean 4x the ISO on the R6, and you would likely find that the R7 has slightly less noise and better color resolution, with the same pixels-on-subject with the same main lens, subject, lighting, and distance.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19401602
Paul, your shots above are lovely. They look really good! And I have been taken some shots today that I'm quite happy with too, even though they're just test shots from flying gulls. Maybe it's me, too stuck in my ways of looking at images. People have said to me often that with high res files you shouldn't look at them at 100%. Sigh... maybe I do need to let go of certain conventions.

It's funny, since my old Mac Pro is not able to process the raw files from the R7 the way I usually do raw files, I decided instead of also having to learn a new workflow now, to just shoot in full jpeg for a bit. And I must say I'm pleasantly surprised by the quality of those jpegs. They're excellent. Canon does a great job with in-camera processing.

Here are two gulls shots from this afternoon. The first was taken a bit late in the afternoon at ISO3200, the second around noon at ISO1000. Light wasn't good, it was rainy. At 100% or even at 50% the first shot doesn't look very good, lots of noise but the bird was in good focus. I hardly had to crop though, and then resizing the file, I don't know, I think it looks good. The second shot though is a big crop. But at ISO1000 it didn't look too bad, a bit of noise, but a very sharp bird. Only thing I did was resize the files and apply a bit of extra noise reduction on the background.

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=194​01602&i=i219623709
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=194​01602&i=i210296649
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Lovely shots. I love the demon gull, lol.

I do think you will grow with the camera. I was rather shocked (horrified, actually) at the quality of the R files compared to my dslr when I first got it, they looked harsh and ugly to me. My first shots were not under the best conditions either, bad settings, harsh lighting, bad subjects.

The R had a learning curve to get the best out of it, and once I found the sweet spots in the setting and understood the best shooting conditions for that camera, I found I love the R. In every way, it's a perfect camera for me in all aspects except birding, and the r7 may be the economical alternative for that aspect.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19401901
Not necessarily. You can convert at full res and keep that as a working TIF or JPEG; just get used to the fact that you're looking at Nicole Kidman's skin under a microscope, and it's supposed to look uglier there, and the converter is likely sharpening and making NR vs sharpening trade-offs at a level of detail that would not even exist with larger pixels.

I don't think anyone here has suggested that it is "wrong" to look at 100% pixel views. The point has always been that it is not equitable to view at 100% to compare images or subjects with different pixel counts. If you want to compare the R7 to the R6 at 100% with a 2x on the R6 only, then that makes sense for focal-length-limited subjects, but that would mean 4x the ISO on the R6, and you would likely find that the R7 has slightly less noise and better color resolution, with the same pixels-on-subject with the same main lens, subject, lighting, and distance.

It's sort of my point. Not that it's wrong to assess at 100%, more that it's just too hard (for me)
Viewing at 100% works for me for lower pixel densities but the extreme case of APS-C 32.5mp results in looking at mush at 100%.

I have mentioned that monitor size and resolution is a significant variable.
I have a fairly large display but also fairly low resolution. (27 inch, 2560x1440)
4K resolution on 27 inch is common and even 4K on laptops now.

When I view my 3000 pixel JPGs at 'fit to screen', I'm at about 31% and If I change to "view at full size" I'm at 43%.

Depending on subject size in the frame and subject type, if I'm assessing 20mp 1DX2 pics, I'll view at 100% or sometimes '1 click out'. I have never checked what 1 click out is, but ball park 80%.

So 20mp, 24mp, 30mp I treat pretty much the same. For 90D 83mp FF equivalent and 61mp A7RIV files I usually find 100% difficult to work with.
The exception is Sony 135 1.8 results. Incredibly sharp, so even at 61mp, 100% viewing can work.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19401852
That would depend on the amount of distortion. The low shutter speed softens the long edges of the props, so it is a little harder to see if they are slightly distorted.

I've shot props with e-shutter as well, and it's easy to see the distortion, the slight bend and the fact that the prop blurs are no longer equal distances from each other is the main culprit

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19401879
I’m at the moment shopping for a new display as my NEC monitor is starting to fall apart (yellow tint in one corner, flickering). I already know I want a 27” Eizo ColorEdge but not sure if I want a 2K or 4K. I’m actually leaning towards the quad HD. Decisions…

When I was going thru this decision, I took some of my own files into a Best Buy and was able to look at them on Full Hd and 4K. Saw detail in my photos I had not seen before and ended up with 4K on a laptop. My current monitor is a Dell 27 inch 4k(3840X2160). Dell P2721Q 27 Inch 4K FHD.About 700-750 new when I got it 1 year ago (but got a open box on amazon when they had a extra % on prime day used for $235}. Current new is around 625-675 from 3rd party amazon sellers.
I have been very happy with it. That Eizo looks very nice.

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #19401829
Most of you youngsters would have never survived the hobby in the film days.

I'm kind of surprised that I survived without getting fired, lol. I do remember some of those film disasters...

LoneRider wrote in post #19401884
Just for that brief period of time when I was forking over the $$$

You get a bargain.
BnH:
RF 100-500 $2,899
Sony 200-600 $1,998

In Australia approx:
RF 100-500 $4800
Sony 200-600 $2400

I got a 200-600 for $2093. Pretty sure 100-500 lowest has been $4,549. I won't be forking over to Canon....

Ray.Petri wrote in post #19401777
Not quite sure if this is a silly question or not in such a learned thread. But do I go for the RF100-500L or keep my 100-400L mkII with the 1.4x extender and also keep a couple of grand in my pocket?
The results I have seen with either lens on the R7 leave me on the brink of flipping a coin. Just need an opinion - thanks.

Optically I am convinced it makes absolutely no difference. It's really a matter of native RF mount, and having the longer FL built in without needing to add a T-con, or lose the 100mm short end, and more compact size. That in itself makes the RF lens pretty attractive for added flexibility and convenience, it's up to each individual to decide if the cost is worth it.

After years of delaying on the RF, last week I just found one in stock by coincidence. I was really tempted, and yet I did not take the plunge. The price (which has gone up if i recall correctly vs. when it launched) just scared me away.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19401924
Optically I am convinced it makes absolutely no difference. It's really a matter of native RF mount, and having the longer FL built in without needing to add a T-con, or lose the 100mm short end, and more compact size. That in itself makes the RF lens pretty attractive for added flexibility and convenience, it's up to each individual to decide if the cost is worth it.

After years of delaying on the RF, last week I just found one in stock by coincidence. I was really tempted, and yet I did not take the plunge. The price (which has gone up if i recall correctly vs. when it launched) just scared me away.

For me it is the cost. I will stick with my 100-400Lii and my 400 f/5.6. for reach I did get the RF600 and like it a lot the only downside of it to me is trying to get the birds in the FOV. The f/11 means it is mostly a middle of the day lens

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19401772
What I have not got my head around is what the advantage of EFCS is of mechanical shutter, you are still using the mechanical in part?

Only 1 out of 2 mechanical curtains is swooshing in EFCS, as the 2nd one doesn't have to move at all.

Exposure begins about 50ms sooner after the shutter is pressed; the same delay as electronic (50ms vs 100ms for full-mechanical).

There is no shock immediately before the exposure; only at the very end. If you are using a fast burst, the "end shock" of one frame might shock the next one a little, but not as much as if there was a "start shock", too.

You get 1/3 stop advantage against the sun for flash fill (1/320 vs 1/250).

Choderboy wrote in post #19401774
I can't get my head around it either.
I get the 'slit' of mechanical shutter, how that relates to flash sync and how rolling shutter is still possible with mechanical shutter, even though it's rarely detectable.
I also understand how electronic shutter produces rolling shutter, depending on the read speed of the sensor.
I think one simplification (regarding ES) is that I imagine the sensor read starting at 'pixel 1' and working across the sensor, just like a type writer, working it's way down to the last pixel. In fact there may be several lines read at once, and maybe groups of pixels read at once, but this has almost no change to the result compared to just thinking pixel by pixel read. Starts at top left (top left with respect to the final result) and finishes bottom right.
So keeping the camera still, a train travelling right to left will lean backwards, as the roof of the train is read before the read process reaches the wheels of the train, which are now further to the left compared to when the roof pixels were read.

I suppose a mechanical shutter is like a type writer that types an entire line in 1 go, then page downs to the next line, etc.

So with EFCs, I think, a number of lines are read, just like in full electronic shutter, until the equivalent of the mechanical slit timing is reached and the 2nd (mechanical) curtain starts it's travel.

Electronic 2nd curtain does take time reading across the row, but the time differential is very small in horizontal neighbor pixels compared with vertical neighbor pixels, so there is no noticeable effect with most real world subjects.

Say you had a 6000x4000 sensor with a 33ms rolling shutter. 33ms/4000 = .00825ms (1/120,000s) max across each row! "instantaneous" for most practical purposes. You'd probably need a super-fast-pulsing laser light source to cause any vertical banding.