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

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19406476
re: blurriness on distant subjects:

My initial image post in this thread of a Snowy Egret hunting minnows,. ( https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=19400660 not the great egret in the second image)

....the series was taken at a distance. It was a cool (ish) overcast day so not the sort of conditions where I'd expect heat haze to effect the AF. Nor was it foggy, just overcast.

I had a large percentage of OOF images the further the subject got. I could see none of this in the viewfinder, it was only made obvious when I had them up on the big monitor. These were also the only images of the day that OOF was an issue, these distant ones with an almost stationary subject.

I attributed this to the "always on" af issue which seemed to have a habit of moving AF off of my subject at this distance.

I wonder if this behavior was instead similar to what Levina and Grzegorz are discussing? I've not had the chance to try this again with that "feature" finally turned off, nor have a compared side by each with the R5, but I hope to do so soon.

It will have to wait however, tomorrow I jet off the Newfoundland for a long delayed funeral. I think Ill pack the r7 vs R5, but haven't decided yet. Won't be much time for wildlife, and have to pack very light, so at best, one body and the longest lens is likely the 100-400mm with 1.4x in the bag.

One of the wild Alaska video reviews mentioned that sort of issue with the tracking AF on.

Turning it off solved these focus pulling issues.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19406488
One of the wild Alaska video reviews mentioned that sort of issue with the tracking AF on.

Turning it off solved these focus pulling issues.

I was hopeful that was my issue. I'll likely know when I get back from Newfoundland.

Just got a nice big box in from Japan. I won't have much time in the next few days to do all that much with it, but hopefully be able to spend some time out in the next couple of weeks (300mm f/2.8L IS MKII + 1.4x III)

A quick indoor test of the lens+1.4x III on both the R7 and R5 show similar detail when the camera hits which is nice. And even when it wasn't perfect (using one of my wifes cats as a subject) it still looked great as it was ever so slightly off, or picked up on the reflection in the eye rather then the eye itself. Very hand-holdable, and should provide some nice reach with the 1.4x on either camera. I'm debating getting the 2x at this point, but I know someone that has one so I might borrow it for a weekend and see how much I like it.

I'm running a class this weekend for intro to macro and close-up butterflies, and unfortunately this lens isn't going to be all that useful for that!

With the RF 100-500 for scale

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nze​1Q6

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19406494

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19406488
One of the wild Alaska video reviews mentioned that sort of issue with the tracking AF on.

Turning it off solved these focus pulling issues.

I was hopeful that was my issue. I'll likely know when I get back from Newfoundland.

Tracking AF? What exactly are you guys talking about? The tracking frames as Canon now calls them, as in the white AF preview boxes? Or the Always On setting for the IS/IBIS? Or the Preview AF?

I did use the tracking frames, and did turn the Preview AF off, but not sure if I had the Always On setting turned off. On my R6 that setting is only available when a lens without IS is mounted and I assume it's the same on the R7. I haven't shot with any non-IS lenses on the R7 so that setting would have been in its default mode. I think.

I have the 100-400Lii but was reading reviews on the RF100-400 as to how good it is and how much lighter than the EF L lens

Has anyone tried both and how do they compare?

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19406520
I have the 100-400Lii but was reading reviews on the RF100-400 as to how good it is and how much lighter than the EF L lens

Has anyone tried both and how do they compare?

I had the 100-400L MKII, it's a fantastic lens. I have not tried the RF 100-400 yet, but you've got a L-series f/5.6 versus a non-L f/8 @400. To me it would be an easy decision to go with the EF 100-400L MKII. However, if the weight of the lens is an issue because of other reasons, then the RF may be worth looking into. Other then that though, the EF is likely better in just about every regard.

JayLT wrote in post #19406525
I had the 100-400L MKII, it's a fantastic lens. I have not tried the RF 100-400 yet, but you've got a L-series f/5.6 versus a non-L f/8 @400. To me it would be an easy decision to go with the EF 100-400L MKII. However, if the weight of the lens is an issue because of other reasons, then the RF may be worth looking into. Other then that though, the EF is likely better in just about every regard.

Thanks, based on price that is what I thought, that and I have the 100-400Lii I also have the 400L 5.6 so when weight is an issue and I am going to the pond were the birds are a football field away I carry that one.

Dragonflies in flight, DANG these things are tough to get into the FOV of my RF600! and to get a shot of them!

Canon R7

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19406510
Tracking AF? What exactly are you guys talking about? The tracking frames as Canon now calls them, as in the white AF preview boxes? Or the Always On setting for the IS/IBIS? Or the Preview AF?

I did use the tracking frames, and did turn the Preview AF off, but not sure if I had the Always On setting turned off. On my R6 that setting is only available when a lens without IS is mounted and I assume it's the same on the R7. I haven't shot with any non-IS lenses on the R7 so that setting would have been in its default mode. I think.

On that first day, I had not set up the R7, so it was set to defaults which includes this insane setting that has the lens constantly trying to autofocus even if no buttons are pressed. On the R7 it has a different name than on the older R or maybe even the R5, so i had trouble finding it to turn it off later. It might now indeed be called "Preview AF" Again,. I was assuming that this was my issue. Now I am not 100% sure.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19406520
I have the 100-400Lii but was reading reviews on the RF100-400 as to how good it is and how much lighter than the EF L lens

Has anyone tried both and how do they compare?

JayLT wrote in post #19406525
I had the 100-400L MKII, it's a fantastic lens. I have not tried the RF 100-400 yet, but you've got a L-series f/5.6 versus a non-L f/8 @400. To me it would be an easy decision to go with the EF 100-400L MKII. However, if the weight of the lens is an issue because of other reasons, then the RF may be worth looking into. Other then that though, the EF is likely better in just about every regard.

I have both. I got the RF as a lighter, less obtrusive option, mainly for my wife who doesn't like the weight of the EF. Jay is on the money. The RF is a consumer grade lens and is of course a stop slower. Its AF is quite snappy though and it's fairly sharp in the centre (and for birds on a crop sensor this is the part of the lens you use) but away from the centre it softens, lacks contrast and has a lot of chromatic aberration. It also has a bit of focus shift if you stop it down (which at f/8 wide open you're probably not going to do often, especially on the R7 as even wide open you're well into diffraction territory). Also I wouldn't like to get the RF wet, whereas the EF is fairly weatherproof. But the RF is 40% of the weight and a third of the price of the EF, and of course doesn't need the adapter that adds more weight and price to the EF, so it's quite good value from that point of view and is quite usable for birds, including birds in flight.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19406540
On that first day, I had not set up the R7, so it was set to defaults which includes this insane setting that has the lens constantly trying to autofocus even if no buttons are pressed. On the R7 it has a different name than on the older R or maybe even the R5, so i had trouble finding it to turn it off later. It might now indeed be called "Preview AF" Again,. I was assuming that this was my issue. Now I am not 100% sure.

Ah, okay. I had that setting turned off. What an annoying thing that was!

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19406339
John, the more I think about it the more I think it could have been atmosphere. Maybe combined with the higher magnification so it had more impact on the R7 than on the R6? Because if it were the AF it wouldn't have done so well earlier, in the city.

Hi Levina,
I was out today from sunup until 11am. I had a similar result with some of my distant shots. Earlier in the day fine, as it heated up, I was shooting a heron across some water, and I had focus on the head/eye. After some I previewed the shots and soft. When I got home I checked focus boxes in lightroom (have a plug-in), and the spots were where they should be. It had heated up to 85-87 and full sun. I had experienced similar results at a distance to an eagle nest in cold weather but sunny , heating up conditions. I had shots just before these that are right on, at a closer distance. And shots right after on smaller bird, closer and not over water, just fine. So I think I had heat waves that made shots soft.
I have shot in the same location, earlier on other day, and no problems at same distance.
So I think you are spot on that atmosphere is ruining our fun.
I was using the 100-500 at 500mm.
Glad you have your monitor sorted out.
Dave

Unlike the R6, the R7 has a subsampling (AKA line-skipping) video mode,
which wants stronger anti-aliasing.
I doubt whether Canon has a method to change anti-aliasing between modes.

so I am confused

I have Subject Tracking on and Preview AF disabled. Is that correct?

Dave63401 wrote in post #19406556
Hi Levina,
I was out today from sunup until 11am. I had a similar result with some of my distant shots. Earlier in the day fine, as it heated up, I was shooting a heron across some water, and I had focus on the head/eye. After some I previewed the shots and soft. When I got home I checked focus boxes in lightroom (have a plug-in), and the spots were where they should be. It had heated up to 85-87 and full sun. I had experienced similar results at a distance to an eagle nest in cold weather but sunny , heating up conditions. I had shots just before these that are right on, at a closer distance. And shots right after on smaller bird, closer and not over water, just fine. So I think I had heat waves that made shots soft.
I have shot in the same location, earlier on other day, and no problems at same distance.
So I think you are spot on that atmosphere is ruining our fun.
I was using the 100-500 at 500mm.
Glad you have your monitor sorted out.
Dave

Ah! Thanks for posting this, Dave. It's good to know it's not just me.

I was looking through the shots I took that day and it's a real pity I deleted all the blurry ones but at the time I didn't know I needed them as samples. However I found a folder with a sequence of a kestrel coming down and all shots are seriously soft. Even at 30% view. But, look at this shot. There is a ton of atmospheric turbulence in the air! The shot is unprocessed. Just cropped and resized.
The tail seems to be in better focus than anything else on the bird, by the way. But I was using Face/Eye AF and it was working well, with the white tracking frames on the eye or head, at least seen through the viewfinder.

…