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

After the sun set behind the mountains. 4k (3240x2160) crop.

Pippan wrote in post #19411059
I must have been lucky enough to be one of the first in Australia to get one--didn't expect my pre-order to materialise for months but I've had it now for a few weeks. I'm liking it the more I use it. Things I like (in no particular order):

The autofocus; after a few strange things happened from time to time I am slowly working out why they happened and how to get it to do what I want (this is my first mirrorless camera of any sort so a lot of this is new to me). The autofocus is awesome the way it can pick up and track an eye or other subject right across the frame, even when I can barely make it out through the viewfinder. And I've set a second back button to do normal AF point focusing as well. Sometimes that button gets it close enough to the eye's focal plane that eye-AF can then pick up the eye.

15 fps; I thought 10 fps on the 90D was pretty cool and all I'd ever need but 15 is awesome. Of course it can do 30 on electronic shutter but I haven't tried that yet, I have so many shots to sort and cull at 15. And you get rolling shutter with ES. I'm using electronic first curtain shutter--quieter and less lag than mechanical but no (or not much) rolling shutter. I understand it does strange things to point source bokeh but I'm not using it for that.

The customisability; there are so many buttons and wheels you can set to so many different actions, setting it up just how you'd like to use it. Way more than the 90D or 5DIV.

The wheel to the right of the viewfinder; I have it set to change ISO and can finally change ISO on the fly, with eye to the viewfinder, without having to press a button first. I shoot a lot in full manual and it works a treat. Since I don't change aperture as often as ISO I do that with the control ring (if the lens has one) or with the Q-menu.

The feel in the hand, ergonomics and the lightness of it.

32.5 Mpx; same as 90D but it's cool for getting a lot of pixels on a distant target--slight disadvantage re diffraction, which kicks in at about f/5 or so but I think it's barely noticeable, and noise is not bad if exposed properly (i.e. with highlights just short of clipping).

Two SD card slots.

Lighter, better balanced lenses than EF equivalents

Things I don't like:

The EVF--but at least the clear info you get through the viewfinder goes some way to making up for it. Also don't like the fact you have to have it on and awake to see anything through it.

It seems to take a long time to wake up (although I realised yesterday that it was on eco-power mode or something, which probably slowed its waking time--seems better now).

No built-in flash! I use the one on the 90D a lot.

The lack of a wheel around the 4-way controller (this would have been nice but isn't a big issue).

The back cover that goes on RF lenses is a bit frustrating to align properly when putting it on--the EF just goes straight on (update, I now realise there is a line on the cover that you line up with the red mark on the lens and it goes on just fine).

The mode dial and back dial are a bit too easy to turn inadvertently--the 90D and 80D have a mode dial with a button that has to be pushed before you can turn it, the R7 doesn't.

I wouldn't like to get it wet or drop it.

A lot of raw converters can't yet handle its raws.

Overall, the pros outweigh the cons well and truly, even battery life is surprisingly good.

Nice report, Pippan. Not having got my hands on the camera yet it is nice to read the enthusiasm/positivenes​s coming through in the first part of your article.
The latter half of your report is what I have been most concerned with, gleaned from many previous comments - but I will most likely be seeing for myself soon (not holding my breath though, and although my finger is on the trigger I still have safety catch on).
My concerns, in advance are mainly - lack of robustness, lack of weatherproofing, no built-in flash and no GPS - Oh damn! I am talking myself out of the R7 before I even get my hands on it. And, annoyingly, but understandably the RF lenses are not backward compatible.

But to reiterate your last comment :- Overall, the pros outweigh the cons well and truly, even battery life is surprisingly good.

Thank you, Pippan.

Archibald wrote in post #19410978
We have had several USB ports on phones and tablets fail, and after getting by for a while using books or other weights to place just the right pressure on the connection at just the right angle to allow charging, we gave in and had to buy replacements.

I've never had a USB fail on a desktop computer, but that should be no big deal as there are usually several, and if needed, a USB card can be installed. It would be a lot harder in a laptop.

That's why I use a sacrificial port for my laptop: USB cable about 10cm long. So the female end of the cable gets plenty of use.
The actual port in the laptop has probably had less than 10 insertions over 3 or so years. When I bought the cable, I got 2 extras to stick it up Murphy and of course, I sill have the 2 extras unused.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #19411108
Nice report, Pippan. Not having got my hands on the camera yet it is nice to read the enthusiasm/positivenes​s coming through in the first part of your article.
The latter half of your report is what I have been most concerned with, gleaned from many previous comments - but I will most likely be seeing for myself soon (not holding my breath though, and although my finger is on the trigger I still have safety catch on).
My concerns, in advance are mainly - lack of robustness, lack of weatherproofing, no built-in flash and no GPS - Oh damn! I am talking myself out of the R7 before I even get my hands on it. And, annoyingly, but understandably the RF lenses are not backward compatible.

But to reiterate your last comment :- Overall, the pros outweigh the cons well and truly, even battery life is surprisingly good.

Thank you, Pippan.

If you are looking for a 7D mark III it is not, mainly due to the weather sealing - adequate but not up to the 7D or 5D series.

I have both the 7DII and 90D, and mainly used the 90D. This is the hoped for 90D mark II but in mirrorless. It has the AF system I wish the 90D had and if the 90D had this AF and even if it was still 10 fps I would have been happy. The ability to customize all the buttons, well you can have a field day. I have the AF on the shutter button for full field and servo, spot AF on the AF-ON and AF-OFF on the "*" and then on C3 I have it set to quickly get to raw burst.

Speaking of RAW BURST - That is amazing! It is great for getting birds taking off!

I will never own a R3 but from what I have heard the AF is almost the same as the R3. I find it amazing and I have gotten a bunch of shots that I would never have nailed with my 90D.

That being said... it is not perfect. I do a lot of "snap shooting" not snapshots but a bird will suddenly flush out of the brush and I snap the camera to my eye and in the split second that the bird is visible I will try to nail a shot. No chance to follow the bird and even at 15 fps I might get 2-3 exposures. Unless the bird is really close the AF often will not be able to lock on. If it is already focused to the general area I can nail focus, it tends to be a 50/50 thing. It is fast but not perfect.

MY biggest nit was the size of the camera, I am talking the height. My pinky is well below the bottom and I have to have my palm in the air to use the back buttons. I saw on the "Michael the Mavin R7" FB site someone had modified a BG-E2 grip to make a grip extension, while it won't power the R7 and you have to remove it each time you change the battery it makes the R7 VERY comfortable and just the right size for my hands. You have to cut the extension off but on the grip side of the R7 it lines up perfectly.

if you see it as a 90D mark II then it is fantastic, if you want a APS-C R3 or a 7D mark III it isn't quite that.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19410857
So because I’d be cropping the R6 too, pixel level softness on the R7 isn’t relevant to cropping? That’s a really strange argument.

Cropping is very much relevant, regardless of camera, especially when images were shot at higher ISO levels. The more you crop the more noise will show and the less sharp an image becomes. Crop too much and an image falls apart.

Sure, but it isn't any worse information and at least a small bit better than cropping the same sensor area (say, 9x6 millimeters) with the R6, which is what one would normally do with the same subject, distance, and optics. If you want to bring in a 2x TC for the R6, to get the same pixels-on-subject, it becomes much clearer that the R7 is not worse with the same subject light. This is one aspect in which one can see that the R7 is just as good or even a hair better in low light, as the R6 at 4x the ISO has nothing over the R7, noise-wise. I've shown something like this before, but all I got was the sound of crickets; here again is the R7, R5, R6, and 6D all with TCs as necessary for the same pixels-on-subject:

I have eyes, but I know that they can deceive me if I do not normalize scale and sharpening..

Not in any controlled test with the same sensor area used. Only in "real world" viewing habits combined with converter defaults, which can have big perceptual biases in them. Of course, if one is thinking about cropping out a certain number of pixels and what the quality would be, then of course, the larger pixels will give the better crop, but that has nothing to do with comparing normalized results, and would result in different images with the same glass.

You won't do any better regarding max IQ with the R6, though, AOTBE; you'll just get diminishing returns on the density.

Pippan wrote in post #19411059
I must have been lucky enough to be one of the first in Australia to get one--didn't expect my pre-order to materialise for months but I've had it now for a few weeks. I'm liking it the more I use it. Things I like (in no particular order):

The autofocus; after a few strange things happened from time to time I am slowly working out why they happened and how to get it to do what I want (this is my first mirrorless camera of any sort so a lot of this is new to me). The autofocus is awesome the way it can pick up and track an eye or other subject right across the frame, even when I can barely make it out through the viewfinder. And I've set a second back button to do normal AF point focusing as well. Sometimes when Eye-AF gets confused by branches, foliage etc. that 2nd button gets it close enough to the eye's focal plane that eye-AF can then pick up the eye.

15 fps; I thought 10 fps on the 90D was pretty cool and all I'd ever need but 15 is awesome. Of course it can do 30 on electronic shutter but I haven't tried that yet, I have so many shots to sort and cull at 15. And you get rolling shutter with ES. I'm using electronic first curtain shutter--quieter and less lag than mechanical but no (or not much) rolling shutter. I understand it does strange things to point source bokeh but I'm not using it for that.

The customisability; there are so many buttons and wheels you can set to so many different actions, setting it up just how you'd like to use it. Way more than the 90D or 5DIV.

The wheel to the right of the viewfinder; I have it set to change ISO and can finally change ISO on the fly, with eye to the viewfinder, without having to press a button first. I shoot a lot in full manual and it works a treat. Since I don't change aperture as often as ISO I do that with the control ring (if the lens has one) or with the Q-menu.

The feel in the hand, ergonomics and the lightness of it.

32.5 Mpx; same as 90D but it's cool for getting a lot of pixels on a distant target--slight disadvantage re diffraction, which kicks in at about f/5 or so but I think it's barely noticeable, and noise is not bad if exposed properly (i.e. with highlights just short of clipping).

Two SD card slots.

Lighter, better balanced lenses than EF equivalents

Things I don't like:

The EVF--but at least the clear info you get through the viewfinder goes some way to making up for it. Also don't like the fact you have to have it on and awake to see anything through it.

It seems to take a long time to wake up (although I realised yesterday that it was on eco-power mode or something, which probably slowed its waking time--seems better now).

No built-in flash! I use the one on the 90D a lot.

The lack of a wheel around the 4-way controller (this would have been nice but isn't a big issue).

The back cover that goes on RF lenses is a bit frustrating to align properly when putting it on--the EF just goes straight on (update, I now realise there is a line on the cover that you line up with the red mark on the lens and it goes on just fine).

The mode dial and back dial are a bit too easy to turn inadvertently--the 90D and 80D have a mode dial with a button that has to be pushed before you can turn it, the R7 doesn't.

I wouldn't like to get it wet or drop it.

A lot of raw converters can't yet handle its raws.

Overall, the pros outweigh the cons well and truly, even battery life is surprisingly good.

Very useful info here, thank you. Now if only I could get one, lol. Nobody in Canada seems to have them available.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19410882
Yes, that is indeed what I take away from the responses to my question, that “DLA is […] lost in the noise.”
I wonder why TDP put a bit of emphasis on it, but I’ll never worry about it again. Thanks, Jack.

I think that the concept of DLA is a bit of noise, itself. What it implies is that if you have a series of sensors of the same size with a wide range of pixel counts, then as you choose progressively denser sensors to take the same image with the same lens and f-number, that at some threshold of pixel density, you stop getting any more detail. That would be a very erroneous assumption. The level of density at which you start to see maximum contrast between neighbor pixels drop visibly is still far, far from the point where you get nothing in return from greater pixel density, especially if you are looking to avoid all significant color channel aliasing.

Dragon flies about 20 feet away from me at the pond.

So it sounds like DLA is a mathematical thing based on pixel density, when the diffraction blur becomes significant for a given pixel spacing. Which really plays into the whole pixel-peeping thing.

Seems to me people can be in two general camps when it comes to crop sensors and higher MP. If you want the extra MP to give you more reach through cropping, then you're kind of chasing your tail on IQ but yes, you are getting more reach but you're magnifying the diffraction in doing so. If you appreciate the extra MP because it gives you better resolution at your existing reach, then you're probably not going to care about DLA at all because the actual diffraction is no greater than it was before and you have better resolution on everything else.

The first camp sort of reminds me of taking pics of tiny distant birds that don't resolve well, then getting a bigger lens and using TCs so you can take pics of tinier and more distant birds that still don't resolve well.

I have finally tried to take a RAW and a CRAW picture with my R7. I only use Photos to post process my pictures. When I go to Photos and try to use the RAW as Original it shows a "switching RAW/JPEG Masters" window. It just keeps showing this until I get tired of looking at it and Force Quit Photos. Can I not edit RAW and CRAW pictures with Photos? I have Photos 7.0 and my iMac OS is 12.5. Is there something from Canon Canada I need to download so I can do this?

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19411278
So it sounds like DLA is a mathematical thing based on pixel density, when the diffraction blur becomes significant for a given pixel spacing. Which really plays into the whole pixel-peeping thing.

Seems to me people can be in two general camps when it comes to crop sensors and higher MP. If you want the extra MP to give you more reach through cropping, then you're kind of chasing your tail on IQ but yes, you are getting more reach but you're magnifying the diffraction in doing so. If you appreciate the extra MP because it gives you better resolution at your existing reach, then you're probably not going to care about DLA at all because the actual diffraction is no greater than it was before and you have better resolution on everything else.

The first camp sort of reminds me of taking pics of tiny distant birds that don't resolve well, then getting a bigger lens and using TCs so you can take pics of tinier and more distant birds that still don't resolve well.

There are times when diffraction and pixel density are important, but it rarely comes into play in the photography seen here.
The people who do this sort photography do run into it, but the situation is very different from the photography most of us do.
https://www.nikonsmall​world.com …tomicrography-competition

JackCharlton wrote in post #19411283
I have finally tried to take a RAW and a CRAW picture with my R7. I only use Photos to post process my pictures. When I go to Photos and try to use the RAW as Original it shows a "switching RAW/JPEG Masters" window. It just keeps showing this until I get tired of looking at it and Force Quit Photos. Can I not edit RAW and CRAW pictures with Photos? I have Photos 7.0 and my iMac OS is 12.5. Is there something from Canon Canada I need to download so I can do this?

Hi Jack, you can convert (to a picture) and edit the R7's raws and craws using the free Canon DPP software that you can download from Canon's website (you'll need to enter your camera's serial number) or with an up to date (subscription) version of Adobe Lightroom CC Classic. Affinity Photo will open them but I haven't tried to edit using it. Raw Therapee and Photo Ninja can't open them. I haven't tried any other software.

JackCharlton wrote in post #19411283
I have finally tried to take a RAW and a CRAW picture with my R7. I only use Photos to post process my pictures. When I go to Photos and try to use the RAW as Original it shows a "switching RAW/JPEG Masters" window. It just keeps showing this until I get tired of looking at it and Force Quit Photos. Can I not edit RAW and CRAW pictures with Photos? I have Photos 7.0 and my iMac OS is 12.5. Is there something from Canon Canada I need to download so I can do this?

I know when I bought an R6, it took a bit for Photos to recognize the new camera but it happened with a update

This discussion about diffraction reminded me of a blog post written in 2013 by Roger Cicala of Lensrentals. Roger is one of the very few people in the world to have access to advanced image quality testing equipment for cameras and lenses (as well as access to a huge number and variety of them). He tested various lenses for sharpness at various apertures and found that diffraction had much less effect than he'd imagined. While sharpness did fall off at higher f-ratios (like 16 and 22), even at those apertures it was still way better than with the same lenses shot at wide open apertures. He also found that higher f-ratio images could be sharpened up in Photoshop more effectively than wide open images. The blog post is here: https://www.lensrental​s.com …rcoming-my-fentekaphobia/.

Hi Pippan. Thanks for the info. I know with my old XS, I could just choose “use Raw as Original” and it worked. I will try downloading the lastest DPP and see if that works.