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

From the EXIFtools website:

23 ShutterMode int16s
0 = Mechanical
1 = Electronic First Curtain
2 = Electronic

Tested an R6 file from 2020 and one from yesterday and both include the following when dragged onto exifTool.exe

Shutter Mode : Mechanical
Shutter Curtain Sync : 1st-curtain sync

That's about flash, right? Default would logically be first-curtain sync.

PSteven wrote in post #19404362
Tested an R6 file from 2020 and one from yesterday and both include the following when dragged onto exifTool.exe

Shutter Mode : Mechanical
Shutter Curtain Sync : 1st-curtain sync

But are they listed in DPP, in the info window?

Immaculens wrote in post #19403994
I wrote a month ago on FB that technology and software are closing the gap between FF and Crop sensors (and got the typical 'laughing emoji' from trolls without them defending FF) and I think I asked at the time "what is the benefit of FF today?". I also said camera makers put all the better tech in FF and proceed to add a premium price tag - vs giving apsc the same tech and ergonomics - citing the 7D2 (or D500) as exceptions.

I appreciated your words above John. What advantage do 'you' see to owning a FF body today vs a good (non-crippled) APS-c?

Do you own a FF, and if so in what circumstances do you shoot it vs a crop.

I'm looking at both the R3 and R5 - mainly because of the advanced tech and performance in them. Canon could easily have come out with a real 7D2 upgrade - a mini R3 - with 24-32mp range sensor - but it would kill R3 & R5 sales. I figure on keeping my 7D2 untill further R7 reviews come in to make a decision.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19403986
That's not how I would put things. The R6 has no real noise advantage other than the brute force of a larger sensor area, which makes it capable of less noise at the same exposure and ISO, but that does not automatically become possible, depending on shooting conditions and glass. There is a false belief prevalent out there that total final image light comes from your sensor size. It does not; total light that you keep in your composition if cropping comes from your lens' pupil and its distance from the subject, for any subject size in any given ambient light. The bottom line is that you must have shallower DOF to get a noise advantage from FF, above base ISO. Only at base ISO, when you have so much light that you can use an unnecessary shutter speed, does FF get more light without shallower DOF. If you want and can get shallower DOF with FF, like 85/1.2 vs 50/1.2 on APS-C, it is win-win, but in many situations in which people shoot small/distant subjects and are always focal-length-limited, that this shallower DOF never materializes, and FF noise superiority is a miscalculation of scale.

The FOV gets closer in size, but the R7 is still giving 2x as many pixels-on-subject. If you put a 2x on the R6 for the same pixels-on-subject, then the R6 is at 4x the ISO, where 100% pixel views, which are now safe for comparing the sensors doing the same pixels-on-subject "job", should show slightly less noise with the R7. So, capturing the subject at the same number of pixels with the same main glass gives zero noise benefit to the R6.

I think it is pretty clear that there is an empirical fact that R7 captures are never really noisier than R6 captures DOING THE SAME THING with the same amount of light, but many people will interpret the higher resolution of the R7 as a "flaw" because they can see individual pixel noise impulses at 2x the resolution that you can see anything at all coming from the R6 pixels, with the same ISO and exposure. You have a choice to use those finer details at magnification, in which case you need to see noise or use a lot of reduction, or you can just not sharpen them and use them for better sampling quality.

Not everyone is looking at 200% crops from the R6 and comparing them to not-heavily-sharpened 100% crops from the R7, which is what it would take to even begin to be equitable for focal-length-limited photography, so many people are seeing "more noise" where it does not actually exist. And no matter how many times I or anyone else explains this to you, you too may feel that the R7 is noisier with the same light, even though it isn't. Take someone with smooth skin that makes other people jealous, and put it under a microscope, and it will show all kinds of "imperfections", but you don't have to use 400x power if 287x will do what you need.

I addressed this to John yesterday - but if anyone else wants a crack at it. Aside from camera manufacturers putting the best tech typically in their FF bodies - what is the true benefit to a FF sensor today?

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19404367
But are they listed in DPP, in the info window?

No I don't see them there for either photo

Immaculens wrote in post #19404369
I addressed this to John yesterday - but if anyone else wants a crack at it. Aside from camera manufacturers putting the best tech typically in their FF bodies - what is the true benefit to a FF sensor today?

I was working on a reply to your other post, but maybe I can answer better here.

It works better with available lenses for certain photographic needs. Equivalent function fails as you try to approach minimal DOF; for example, what can you use on APS-C to get the characteristics of 50/0.95 on FF? Not only are 35/0.6 lenses not available, but if the pixels are smaller on the APS-C, then there is more loss of light at very low f-ratios down below f/2.0 to f/2.8 or so, where all pixels are loss-y, but smaller ones are more loss-y, so you couldn't get same shallow DOF, even if there were a 35/0.6 lens.

Then, you also have the fact that FF does come in higher pixel counts, generally, like 45MP vs 33MP with Canon, with 60MP FF with Sony and higher counts coming down the road.

The operation of cameras is mostly independent of sensor size, but manufacturers often put their best knobs dials and firmware features in only FF cameras, because of their perceived superiority, real or not, depending on the situation.

another shot at the BURST mode. Young hawk was sitting on a roof after the rain, there is a haze from the rain evaporating off the roof. Got 10 usable shots, this is the one just as he left the roof.
I do like the burst mode.

Another shot of the thrush in my new found tree with the 1.4 TC

John Sheehy wrote in post #19404384
I was working on a reply to your other post, but maybe I can answer better here.

It works better with available lenses for certain photographic needs. Equivalent function fails as you try to approach minimal DOF; for example, what can you use on APS-C to get the characteristics of 50/0.95 on FF? Not only are 35/0.6 lenses not available, but if the pixels are smaller on the APS-C, then there is more loss of light at very low f-ratios down below f/2.0 to f/2.8 or so, where all pixels are loss-y, but smaller ones are more loss-y, so you couldn't get same shallow DOF, even if there were a 35/0.6 lens.

Then, you also have the fact that FF does come in higher pixel counts, generally, like 45MP vs 33MP with Canon, with 60MP FF with Sony and higher counts coming down the road.

The operation of cameras is mostly independent of sensor size, but manufacturers often put their best knobs dials and firmware features in only FF cameras, because of their perceived superiority, real or not, depending on the situation.

Thanks John,
So in your opinion the benefit (only?) of a FF sensor is that you can use rare ultra-large aperture lenses for minimum depth of field that a crop sensor can't duplicate.

You mentioned nothing of an image quality nor a low light (low noise) advantage - which the FF world is conditioned to spout off - and you made a compelling argument about these two items yesterday that no one chose to challenge, yet.

I like thousands of others - had hoped there would be a true 7D2 mirrorless successor - but we'll stand by and await the R72 or a new crop champion, which is possible but less likely given Canon's model line numbering scheme, i.e., an R8 or 9 is unlikely to be superior to the R7 - but they still have an R2 & 4 to play with lol.

It's not just ultra-rare lenses. If you want the FOV and the DOF that you get with 50/1.2 or even 50/1.4 on FF, you can't with APS-C. You can get the DOF by just using that same lens, and you can get the FOV with a 35, but not both.

Similar loss when we went from 4x5 down to 35mm, right?

To me, it doesn't matter. I don't shoot stuff that needs wide-angle shallow DOF.

PSteven wrote in post #19404387
Another shot of the thrush in my new found tree with the 1.4 TC

Hosted photo: posted by PSteven in
./showthread.php?p=194​04387&i=i153664593
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Oops it may be a young blackbird - not a thrush?

A couple more from me

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19404438
To me, it doesn't matter. I don't shoot stuff that needs wide-angle shallow DOF.

Me neither - but if I want an updated sensor and processing power with magical eye detect & bag of tricks, the offering is FF R3,5,6 at a premium price - or - the 'perceived' sensor downgrade of the smaller, less expensive & non-grippable R7 but with eye-detect and the reach I want.

I have a 5D classic and love its no-frills simplicity & unique colour rendering - and my 7D2 can do it all - but its showing its age vs mirrorless R BIF prowess lol.

This whole conversation would be so much more... err... Animated... if it was in an R5 forum lol. But John's arguments are quite convincing to much of this R7s crowd anyways. Or no one is raising arguments at least.

Hummingbird in my garden

Canon R7

I do like the sharpness of the 400L 5.6