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

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19405947
I know the facts, Mike as I own one. That's why I know first hand how brilliant the lens is because I shoot with it.

100% agree.

Also, the 100-500 is still new to market compared to the 100-400L MKII. If you compare the new-from-Canon price the difference isn't nearly as large. The 100-400L MKII from Canon is $2399 US versus $2899 for the 100-500L. But, if you want the 100-400L MKII to have a similar focal range to the 100-500 then you need to add the 1.4x III converter, which is around $300-350, and of course the EF-to-RF adapter.

The real advantage of the 100-400LMKII, and I've said this before, is the fact that it's been on the market so long you can find a good deal on a very nice used one. That's to be expected for something that was initially released in 2014.

I've had both, and they're both great lenses. And I'm sure a similar discussion was had about the MKII version when it came out compared to the MKI, as the MKI had an MSRP of $1699, versus $2199 of the initial release price of the 100-400L MKII.

Around and around we go...

Green tree python with the RF 100mm Macro through glass, no cropping

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nyS​S7j

I don't do much macro at the moment, but with the R7 it's cool

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19406046
I am surprised with my R7 a "close" bird is at 100 yards and many are at 200-275 yards. when shooting ducks at 225 yards it will lock on the duck and focus well, however when even a duck is at 225 yards you would really have to crop severely to get close. Swallows at 125 yards which are very small birds will lock on (if I can get them in the FOV)

the AF will struggle when a duck is at 225 yards against trees, it can't always see it.

All I know is the AF struggled with the swallows if they weren't near by. When I switched to the R6 AF was quick and accurate. Which surprised me because with the crop sensor and more reach I would've thought that the R7 would actually do better than the R6, but the reverse was the case. I don't know why. It was a fairly sunny day, warm but windy. Maybe there was a bit of heat turbulence, shimmer I think it's called? But then again, the R6 had to deal with all that too.

But up close, the R7 did well.

EDIT: this is a JPEG SOOC by the way. That’s why the bird looks overly contrasty. I couldn’t do much in post about that. I just wanted to show how well the focus did when the birds were close. And well, the R7 nailed it here.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

A few shots from this weekend. The weather is still not what I would normally look for as it's just pure sun here right now and it makes getting shots without very high contrast difficult. However, it does allow me to test some lower shutter speeds to see how the IS+IBIS works in comparison with the R5. My initial impression is that it works well, but it actually seems a bit over-active compared to the R5. Some of the wobble that people are seeing is likely the IBIS stepping in rather then rolling shutter.

These are all stacked images using the built-in focus bracketing, merged in Helicon Focus and edited in Lightroom.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nz3​sGo

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nz3​sVK

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nz1​5kG

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nz3​tdt

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nyZ​YJK

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nz3​uwk

Here are a couple from yesterday. It was really hot here, around 37 C.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19406116
All I know is the AF struggled with the swallows if they weren't near by. When I switched to the R6 AF was quick and accurate. Which surprised me because with the crop sensor and more reach I would've thought that the R7 would actually do better than the R6, but the reverse was the case. I don't know why. It was a fairly sunny, warm but windy. Maybe there was a bit of heat turbulence, shimmer I think it's called? But then again, the R6 had to deal with all that too.

But up close, the R7 did well.

You know you might be right, when I am trying to do swallows it is on the water, when the water is relatively calm and with out of focus reflections the R7 struggles to focus on the water, although if a swallow gets in the FOV it will often get the swallow but they are so darn fast that it is only in the FOV a moment as they zip from side to side, they are usually about 75-100 yards away

JayLT wrote in post #19406051
The MKI version of that lens is not known for the best image quality, the MKII version is much improved. You'd be better off with something like an EF 100-400L MKII for overall image quality when compared to the DO MKI

thanks - i was looking at F4 at 400 and rather than 5.6 on 100-400 ii

Radha-krishna wrote in post #19406164
thanks - i was looking at F4 at 400 and rather than 5.6 on 100-400 ii

Understood, but of the two lenses, the 100-400L MKII will produce a better image. Now if you're comparing the 400 f/4 DO MKII then it's a different story, as that lens has much better sharpness and contrast.

Your other option is to get a 300mm f/2.8 L IS and use a 1.4x converter to get a 420mm f/4, that would also be a better option then the 400 DO MKI

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19405947
I know the facts, Mike as I own one. That's why I know first hand how brilliant the lens is because I shoot with it.

If I spent $2900 for one then I would probably think it was brilliant as well

PinholeR5 wrote in post #19406155
Here are a couple from yesterday. It was really hot here, around 37 C.

Hosted photo: posted by PinholeR5 in
./showthread.php?p=194​06155&i=i80507163
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by PinholeR5 in
./showthread.php?p=194​06155&i=i154618985
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Nice shots and yikes - I thought our 35C was bad... and - it is lol

Radha-krishna wrote in post #19406007
Anyone tried these older DO lenses on R7 (i am told they go for $1500) https://www.amazon.com …oto-Cameras/dp/B00006I53U

Im in the market for a 400 DO version 2..I cant tell if the one you posted is a version 1 or version 2.....The version 2 400 D0 is much sharper and has a much better IS system on it and it takes version 3 TC's very very well. My friend has on and he uses TC's a lot with it...Images are super sharp and on the 2.0 TC you would really have to look and pixel peep for break downs..they are pretty sharp. It why I am excited about this R7...the crop FOV really gives this lens a lot of life over a 500F4....No tripod needed, easily hand holdable....the version 2 is a super nice lens......also another reason why im not excited about the 100-500....used 400Do's can be had for $4500...Thats not much of a difference for a super tele of this quality

jbrackjr wrote in post #19405704
All of your pics from the Rowan tree have been wonderful. Can I borrow your tree?

I second that!

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19406116
All I know is the AF struggled with the swallows if they weren't near by. When I switched to the R6 AF was quick and accurate. Which surprised me because with the crop sensor and more reach I would've thought that the R7 would actually do better than the R6, but the reverse was the case. I don't know why. It was a fairly sunny, warm but windy. Maybe there was a bit of heat turbulence, shimmer I think it's called? But then again, the R6 had to deal with all that too.

But up close, the R7 did well.

Hosted photo: posted by Levina de Ruijter in
./showthread.php?p=194​06116&i=i145470087
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Maybe you can blame it on copy variation and you happened to have a bad copy of the R7. It would be nice if you could run some tests with another copy. Just a thought anyway. You definitely have the skill to make the camera shine.
And maybe your dissatisfaction with the ISO performance makes it a moot issue.

Rod

umphotography wrote in post #19406172
If I spent $2900 for one then I would probably think it was brilliant as well

I get the logic. Your comment was free and it sucks.