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

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

That's a version 1. Some users say they like it. There are way more that say they don't like it.
Try to find someone who does not like the EF 100-400 II. It may take a while.

The zoom has, zoom! Lighter weight. Better IS. Better AF. Better IQ. 1 stop slower.

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

I've been playing around with my old 70-300mm DO on the R5 and now the R7. Seems to work just fine! Plenty sharp.

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

Oh, come on! This is just a silly response and you know it.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19406158
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

RodS57 wrote in post #19406184
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

I don’t know if I had a faulty R7. The AF was impressive when I tested it out on the city birds, all close by of course. And I mean it was really good. But out there in the wild (well… ) it struggled with anything a distance away, not just with the swallows. It happened with a kestrel, young wagtails, house sparrows. All soft.

In one of the R7 threads at FM someone posted a long sequence of shots of a bird of prey taking off. Some people downloaded the images to look at them and then commented that most of the shots in the sequence were soft. That bird too was a distance away.

I don’t know what it is, maybe the camera can’t handle warm air very well?

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19406234
I don’t know if I had a faulty R7. The AF was impressive when I tested it out on the city birds, all close by of course. And I mean it was really good. But out there in the wild (well… ) it struggled with anything a distance away, not just with the swallows. It happened with a kestrel, young wagtails, house sparrows. All soft.

In one of the R7 threads at FM someone posted a long sequence of shots of a bird of prey taking off. Some people downloaded the images to look at them and then commented that most of the shots in the sequence were soft. That bird too was a distance away.

I don’t know what it is, maybe the camera can’t handle warm air very well?

Were you using the eye AF on the distant birds? I just wonder if there are too few pixels over the eye to detect the eye reliably; did you try a conventional wisdomSP or spot AF mode?

I know you said the FF seemed to do better, would you say it was a similar number of pixels over the eye?

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

That is a bit unworthy Mike, it could be said of any person or product but it does not make it true.

I think if Lavina found it sub-standard she would returned it.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19406241
Were you using the eye AF on the distant birds? I just wonder if there are too few pixels over the eye to detect the eye reliably; did you try a conventional wisdomSP or spot AF mode?

I know you said the FF seemed to do better, would you say it was a similar number of pixels over the eye?

I used Face/Eye-AF and in the viewfinder everything looked good. The kestrel e.g. was hovering above the field, wings moving, head still. The white tracking boxes were right on the head so all was well. Pressing the shutter the focus point was right where it should be: on the head. It never left the head, never drifted to something else. It wasn’t until I looked at the shots on the rear screen that I saw most all were soft, as if focus missed.

I immediately grabbed the R6, put the 100-500 on it and continued to shoot the kestrel, as I wanted to make sure the problem wasn’t caused by atmospheric conditions. But the R6 shots looked fine.

I’m not sure I understand your question, Lester, but since the R6 has only 20mpx and is full frame where the R7 has 32.5mpx and has a 1.6x crop I would think there are less pixels over the eye with the R6? Or is that not what you mean?

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19406245
I used Face/Eye-AF and in the viewfinder everything looked good. The kestrel e.g. was hovering above the field, wings moving, head still. The white tracking boxes were right on the head so all was well. Pressing the shutter the focus point was right where it should be: on the head. It never left the head, never drifted to something else. It wasn’t until I looked at the shots on the rear screen that I saw most all were soft, as if focus missed.

I immediately grabbed the R6, put the 100-500 on it and continued to shoot the kestrel, as I wanted to make sure the problem wasn’t caused by atmospheric conditions. But the R6 shots looked fine.

I’m not sure I understand your question, Lester, but since the R6 has only 20mpx and is full frame where the R7 has 32.5mpx and has a 1.6x crop I would think there are less pixels over the eye with the R6? Or is that not what you mean?

this is how the AA filter works, which in the Canon apsc is particularly nasty, in addition, it is certain that Canon impairs many functions in cheaper cameras. Personally, I have noticed that every second photo in the series is inaccurately sharp, it seems that continuous tracking and 15 frames per second is a fiction in the case of fast action.
I will probably add mine to remove if possible, then af ​​should work much better because it won't analyze a strong blurry image

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19406245
I used Face/Eye-AF and in the viewfinder everything looked good. The kestrel e.g. was hovering above the field, wings moving, head still. The white tracking boxes were right on the head so all was well. Pressing the shutter the focus point was right where it should be: on the head. It never left the head, never drifted to something else. It wasn’t until I looked at the shots on the rear screen that I saw most all were soft, as if focus missed.

I immediately grabbed the R6, put the 100-500 on it and continued to shoot the kestrel, as I wanted to make sure the problem wasn’t caused by atmospheric conditions. But the R6 shots looked fine.

I’m not sure I understand your question, Lester, but since the R6 has only 20mpx and is full frame where the R7 has 32.5mpx and has a 1.6x crop I would think there are less pixels over the eye with the R6? Or is that not what you mean?

Thanks yes that what I was trying to understand about your use-case.

I would say your test method is good, it sounds as if the target distance and contrast levels should be the same. As you point out the R6 algorithm should have been more stressed with less pixels on target.

It would be cool if others could try this test if they have the kit.

The question is did you have a bad R7 or hit on a use-case that shows up this poor performance.

TBH I would suspect the latter as the system was capable of focussing on the target hinting at algorithm/software at the root.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19406254
Thanks yes that what I was trying to understand about your use-case.

I would say your test method is good, it sounds as if the target distance and contrast levels should be the same. As you point out the R6 algorithm should have been more stressed with less pixels on target.

It would be cool if others could try this test if they have the kit.

The question is did you have a bad R7 or hit on a use-case that shows up this poor performance.

TBH I would suspect the latter as the system was capable of focussing on the target hinting at algorithm/software at the root.

I don’t know if I had a bad copy. I’m in doubt about that though because it performed very well when birds were close. And yes, through the viewfinder everything looked good, with focus point on the mark. Maybe Grzegorz is right and it’s a ‘particularly nasty’ AA filter?

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19406260
I don’t know if I had a bad copy. I’m in doubt about that though because it performed very well when birds were close. And yes, through the viewfinder everything looked good, with focus point on the mark. Maybe Grzegorz is right and it’s a ‘particularly nasty’ AA filter?

it is quite obvious because the af system observes strongly blurred lines

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19406260
I don’t know if I had a bad copy. I’m in doubt about that though because it performed very well when birds were close. And yes, through the viewfinder everything looked good, with focus point on the mark. Maybe Grzegorz is right and it’s a ‘particularly nasty’ AA filter?

grzegorz9992 wrote in post #19406261
it is quite obvious because the af system observes strongly blurred lines

Is the assumption here the R7 AA filter is stronger than the R6 when referred to the pixel spacing (of the dual pixels)?

That seems an design oddity if so, it should be sufficient to have the same characteristic scaled to the pixel spacing.

a quick question about soft focus on the R7 has anyone noticing it in the R7 used the 90D which is basically the same sensor?

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19406277
Is the assumption here the R7 AA filter is stronger than the R6 when referred to the pixel spacing (of the dual pixels)?

That seems an design oddity if so, it should be sufficient to have the same characteristic scaled to the pixel spacing.

it is very aggressive, I have long stopped believing in the data provided by the producers. And in the case of autofokus bezlustr systems, this is especially important

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19406234
I don’t know if I had a faulty R7. The AF was impressive when I tested it out on the city birds, all close by of course. And I mean it was really good. But out there in the wild (well… ) it struggled with anything a distance away, not just with the swallows. It happened with a kestrel, young wagtails, house sparrows. All soft.

In one of the R7 threads at FM someone posted a long sequence of shots of a bird of prey taking off. Some people downloaded the images to look at them and then commented that most of the shots in the sequence were soft. That bird too was a distance away.

I don’t know what it is, maybe the camera can’t handle warm air very well?

I'm genuinely curious about soft images taken when the bird was a distance away. My first reaction was heat haze but I think those experiencing it, would be familiar with this. Would like to see some examples so we can see the kind of distance we are talking about as well as lighting, ISO and lens used.

I checked back on some of my images of birds and they have been fine. I'm using the RF100-500, so don't know if that's making a difference?