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

JayLT wrote in post #19408153
First few shots with the R7 and the 300mm f/2.8L IS II lens. Of course this is not what it's meant for, but with the 25mm extension tube it actually does a pretty good job, and it was nice having more light in some of the shady spots. All of these are barely cropped, or not cropped at all, taken using the focus bracketing options, merged in Helicon Focus and edited in Lightroom.

Nest weekend I'll probably find some time to take it out to one of the local wetland preserves, but this lens it mostly going to be used on the R5 I think.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LpT R7__0023-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LXM R7__1523-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA1​k6R R7__9752-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​M5v R7__1943-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LGbR7__0776-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LMmR7__0650-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

Great results Jay!

JayLT wrote in post #19408153
First few shots with the R7 and the 300mm f/2.8L IS II lens. Of course this is not what it's meant for, but with the 25mm extension tube it actually does a pretty good job, and it was nice having more light in some of the shady spots. All of these are barely cropped, or not cropped at all, taken using the focus bracketing options, merged in Helicon Focus and edited in Lightroom.

Nest weekend I'll probably find some time to take it out to one of the local wetland preserves, but this lens it mostly going to be used on the R5 I think.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LpT R7__0023-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LXM R7__1523-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA1​k6R R7__9752-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​M5v R7__1943-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LGbR7__0776-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LMmR7__0650-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

Very nice indeed! Good to see some R7 macro beauty.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19407815
That does sting more, IMO, even though the outcome is the same.

BTW, I tried the Tamron 150-600 G1 with the first firmware update from late 2014, and it doesn't AF on the R7. On the R5, it auto-switches to "MF" and just flickers into AF for moments, but can't AF. With the R7 it isn't switching to MF, but AF still is erratic and never focuses.

I guess I need to contact Tamron and see if their latest firmware works, and send it in if it does.

These 600/6.3 lenses are unique in that they provide a large pupil at 600mm that no Canon zoom other than the 200-400/4 can provide; it is almost as big as the pupil of the 400/4 and 300/2.8 primes.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19407821
Ah thanks for the info, this is disappointing.

I tried contacting TAMRON a while back but got nothing back from them.

Checking the order date for my 150-600 it is 19/07/2014, I have never sent it for a firmware update so I guess it is an earlier firmware, I assume that will not help much.

Thanks again.
Ok permission for a 100-500 was granted, arrives Monday, just need the R7 to dispatch so I can use it!!!

John Sheehy wrote in post #19407934
We have websites that measure the noise of most cameras, show the noise of most cameras, compare the same lens on different cameras, etc, but unfortunately, I know of no comprehensive reference on rolling shutter times.

One can very easily measure rolling shutter of multiple cameras that they have available with a fixed strobing light source, and the actual speed if they know the cycle of that light source, but I know of no attempt to measure all cameras in a single exhaustive resource. You need a light that strobes faster than 50/60cps directly from the power mains, as that is too slow for faster rolls or accuracy in slower ones. If you use a monitor as the source, make sure the monitor doesn't roll, by taking a shot in both portrait and landscape orientation. If they are the same, then the monitor is global. There are some graphics systems now with 360fps which entices me for animation and motion experiments, but such might be usable for such measurement, as 360fps is fast enough for all current electronic shutters, and will give two or three pulses within each capture even with most mechanical shutters.

The rolling shutter on the R7 is said to be about 1/30s, which until a few years ago was considered "fast" for a rolling shutter in a commercial ILC. The R5 is about twice as fast, and the Sony A1 and A9 series and the Canon R3 are all at least 4x the speed of the R7, which, itself, is almost 3x as fast as the rolling shutter in most cameras not that long ago, when 1/12s or 1/13s seemed to be the norm.

In your supplied photo, that wing is so big because the wing speed through the frame and the speed of the rolling shutter were very close; the sensor was sampling almost the same part of the wing all the way down the frame. Maybe someone better knows the rolling shutter speed of the R, but my fuzzy memory is of hearing about 1/25s.

The tighter you frame any given active subject, the more distortion you get with the same motion, so it might be good to consider shooting a little on the wide side with active subjects and a shutter that you think rolls a little too slow.

Thanks for the comprehensive answer. As a point of interest, the image is cropped quite a bit. I usually use my R in mechanical shutter, but wanted to play with the ES for the higher fps. There's not much room in the R for adjusting the fps either unfortunately (or if there is, I missed it).

I'd suspect the severity on this image is due to the FF sensor, more acreage to write on. I was thinking because of the smaller pixels and crop size, maybe that would not be a big problem on the R7. I have seen several posts noting the problem in sports mostly, with oval balls for instance, even on the r7, which makes me wonder how problematic it would be for birders.

A friend of mine shoots birds with the Olympus OM-1, and she's never had a problem with rolling shutter, due to the M4/3rds sensor I would assume.

I was kind of curious as to whether people could give a ballpark figure on their experiences with RS on their mirrorless, regardless of model, it would be interesting to see how much of a problem this is in real life across the board. Exif here doesn't show if ES was used on posted images.

I will most likely still be getting the r7 for the amazing eye AF though.

JayLT wrote in post #19408153
First few shots with the R7 and the 300mm f/2.8L IS II lens. Of course this is not what it's meant for, but with the 25mm extension tube it actually does a pretty good job, and it was nice having more light in some of the shady spots. All of these are barely cropped, or not cropped at all, taken using the focus bracketing options, merged in Helicon Focus and edited in Lightroom.

Nest weekend I'll probably find some time to take it out to one of the local wetland preserves, but this lens it mostly going to be used on the R5 I think.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LpT R7__0023-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LXM R7__1523-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA1​k6R R7__9752-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​M5v R7__1943-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LGbR7__0776-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/2nA2​LMmR7__0650-STK-Edit-07-23 by Jay Cline, on Flickr

Wonderful images!

First attempt at sunset pics with the R7.

greyswan wrote in post #19408229
Thanks for the comprehensive answer. As a point of interest, the image is cropped quite a bit. I usually use my R in mechanical shutter, but wanted to play with the ES for the higher fps. There's not much room in the R for adjusting the fps either unfortunately (or if there is, I missed it).

I'd suspect the severity on this image is due to the FF sensor, more acreage to write on. I was thinking because of the smaller pixels and crop size, maybe that would not be a big problem on the R7. I have seen several posts noting the problem in sports mostly, with oval balls for instance, even on the r7, which makes me wonder how problematic it would be for birders.

I think what we have with birds is the fact that most of their motions are not super-fast over a significant vertical distance in the frame, but there are just some times when they use high-velocity wing beats for emergency-type situations. This one seems to be a balance correction, as the bird's left wing is not moving the same.

It looks like the total vertical wing range during the exposure was about 1/4 the frame; 1/100s if the R rolling shutter is 1/25s, 1/120s if it is 1/30s If you had used the R7 for this shot, the time would have been longer, because instead of being 1/4 the height of the frame, it would have been 40% of 1/30, or about 1/75s. That does not mean that the apparent wing size would have been taller, though. The tallness is due to the wing and roll speeds being very close, so this particular artifact may not be "taller" with a slower roll; distorted, but different than this.

Like I said, it would be nice if there was a good reference on all the rolling shutter speeds. You could look up the values and compare camera; you just have to remember that optically, you may fill the frame differently with different sensors.

I was kind of curious as to whether people could give a ballpark figure on their experiences with RS on their mirrorless, regardless of model, it would be interesting to see how much of a problem this is in real life across the board. Exif here doesn't show if ES was used on posted images.

I will most likely still be getting the r7 for the amazing eye AF though.

Hosted photo: posted by greyswan in
./showthread.php?p=194​08229&i=i61177158
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Experience is going to vary more than rolling shutter speeds, I'm afraid. One person with a 1/60 rolling shutter might complain more than another person with a 1/25s rolling shutter. Unfortunately, people with the most capable optics in terms of focal length, who crop the least but shoot very fast-moving subjects, will have the most problems with rolling shutter, in general. If you were 4x as far from that bird with the same optics, it would have looked far more normal, even with the same rolling shutter, and it would take 4x the wing speed to get this effect.

I was visiting family in Philadelphia this week and took a trip to the Philadelphia Zoo.

Thanks to feedback from other forum contributors, I've been looking more critically at my exported JPEGs from ON1 Photo RAW. I disabled the additional sharpening during export, and the only other option is to resize using either bicubic interpolation or "Resize AI". Both still produce visible artifacts in different situations, so I've taken to exporting a full-size TIFF and opening that in GIMP to resize and export a JPEG.

I've also begun using ON1's built-in "NoNoise AI" for noise reduction and sharpening, and I've been pretty pleased with the results from that just using the default settings.

Two more from the Philadelphia Zoo.

Last ones.

Parks delivery pushed back again..,,

Was July....

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19408364
Parks delivery pushed back again..,,

Was July....

That is bad news for you. The good news is August is just a week away so hopefully they mean early August...

PSteven wrote in post #19408367
That is bad news for you. The good news is August is just a week away so hopefully they mean early August...

Yeah, I always ask subcontractors "begining or end of month" when they promised something on a "month".

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19408163
Beautiful stuff Jay, great selection too.

Thank you!

Dave63401 wrote in post #19408211
Great results Jay!

Thanks! When I switched back to the 100-500, it really felt like a feather compared to the 300mm LOL

PSteven wrote in post #19408220
Very nice indeed! Good to see some R7 macro beauty.

Thanks! I was quite surprised how well that lens did for close-up stuff. I still like the 100-500 for it's much lighter weight and flexibility, but for those dark mornings the 300mm might come in more handy then I thought for these as well

greyswan wrote in post #19408231
Wonderful images!

Thank you!

John Sheehy wrote in post #19408329
I think what we have with birds is the fact that most of their motions are not super-fast over a significant vertical distance in the frame, but there are just some times when they use high-velocity wing beats for emergency-type situations. This one seems to be a balance correction, as the bird's left wing is not moving the same.

It looks like the total vertical wing range during the exposure was about 1/4 the frame; 1/100s if the R rolling shutter is 1/25s, 1/120s if it is 1/30s If you had used the R7 for this shot, the time would have been longer, because instead of being 1/4 the height of the frame, it would have been 40% of 1/30, or about 1/75s. That does not mean that the apparent wing size would have been taller, though. The tallness is due to the wing and roll speeds being very close, so this particular artifact may not be "taller" with a slower roll; distorted, but different than this.

Like I said, it would be nice if there was a good reference on all the rolling shutter speeds. You could look up the values and compare camera; you just have to remember that optically, you may fill the frame differently with different sensors.

Experience is going to vary more than rolling shutter speeds, I'm afraid. One person with a 1/60 rolling shutter might complain more than another person with a 1/25s rolling shutter. Unfortunately, people with the most capable optics in terms of focal length, who crop the least but shoot very fast-moving subjects, will have the most problems with rolling shutter, in general. If you were 4x as far from that bird with the same optics, it would have looked far more normal, even with the same rolling shutter, and it would take 4x the wing speed to get this effect.

Good points, thank you. I hadn't thought about the crop factor either, I have shot only full frame for years.