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

Archibald wrote in post #19411439
I do some crazy crops with the 90D. I don't claim they are all successful. Below is an ant, cropped to 798x568 px, which is a bit less than half a megapixel out of the 32.5. That's about one and a half percent of the sensor. There is probably diffraction present, but with the flare from the flower, noise, and probable focus inaccuracy, it is hard to know what is what. Processed in LR with the usual controls.

I often do bird crops that sever with the 90D and R7

Immaculens wrote in post #19411444
I would buy the kit in a snap and then sell the lens 'As New' and then be patient.
Otherwise, I think the 18-150 would be a good street photography lens.

I have the new kit lens, like it better than my 18-135 STM from the 90D, glad I got the R7 with lens or I would still be waiting.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19411436
What is the metric of cropping, though?

A sensor area X by Y millimeters? 2 final MP of original pixels after cropping?

I would say that the 32.5MP APS-C sensors are the best for the former, and the worst for the latter, out of all recent Canon APS-C and FF sensors (assuming the same optics are used).

Until the image starts to look bad on whatever medium the image is presented, such as a cell phone, tablet screen, a small print on paper, or a large billboard seen at a distance at 65 miles per hour.

Pippan wrote in post #19407306
This baby Tawny Frogmouth was sitting on our driveway as we drove in last night, and just sat there while I got out with camera and took lots of shots from about 2.5 metres (8') away. I thought it might be injured or too young to fly but when I went to pick it up it flew off.

I was impressed with the R7's ability to focus on the bird's eye in the dim, yellow light of our old minibus's headlights, and with how steady it was at 1/8th sec at 335 mm on a crop body. Not too much noise either for ISO3200; I used Topaz but at its absolute minimum settings: noise reduction 1, sharpening 0.

Hosted photo: posted by Pippan in
./showthread.php?p=194​07306&i=i245667415
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

EOS R7 / RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 @ 335 mm

TIL that Tawny Frogmouths are hatched with a full sized head and their body just grows into it (somewhat)...

got a hawk on the light pole in the front yard this morning.
Canon R7 Canon 400mm 5.6L

Image hosted by forum (1171696) © Jeff USN Photog 72-76 THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

Snowy Egrets

PinholeR5 wrote in post #19411732
Snowy Egrets

Hosted photo: posted by PinholeR5 in
./showthread.php?p=194​11732&i=i21971846
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by PinholeR5 in
./showthread.php?p=194​11732&i=i231572807
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

nice shots, easy to blow out the whites... just ask me how I know

Archibald wrote in post #19411439
I do some crazy crops with the 90D. I don't claim they are all successful. Below is an ant, cropped to 798x568 px, which is a bit less than half a megapixel out of the 32.5. That's about one and a half percent of the sensor. There is probably diffraction present, but with the flare from the flower, noise, and probable focus inaccuracy, it is hard to know what is what. Processed in LR with the usual controls.

Hosted photo: posted by Archibald in
./showthread.php?p=194​11439&i=i85452121
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

That's like a ~13.5x crop from an 83MP FF; a much smaller sensor area than 1/2.3" sensors (~5.56x).

Looks like in the pursuit of visible fine detail, you used a bit of sharpening and/or diffraction deconvolution, which creates that textured noise, but of course, you are sharpening levels of detail that are not captured with much larger pixels, so that has to be kept in mind when people complain about the noise. Personally, when a lot of sharpening is needed, I try to do most of it with edge-only sharpening, so as not to emphasize the dot dither of noise. I would like to see more flexible sharpening tools, like ones that have separate sliders for edges than for dots, each with its own strength and radius.

You used ISO 160, which doesn't show too much noise with no extra sharpening, but sharpening can quickly make the noise more visible, especially in flat areas of trouble colors. I found with the 90D that If you had a scene that did not have highlights to protect and was exposed for ISO 32 at the ISO 100 setting (1.67 stops of ETTR), the RAW files could receive ridiculous sharpening without the noise becoming noticeable.

Anyway, your noise is what I would call "superficial"; it is noticeable, but would quickly disappear out of consciousness with a higher-res display, even at 100%, or with the slightest visual impairment (you forgot your glasses or was the wrong distance from the monitor to focus perfectly, or you squinted), or in a video, where the shallow dither would perceptually disappear with successive frames. Well, the R7 has digital zoom for FHD, so that may make for some very high magnification video, where the noise should be subliminal.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19411826
nice shots, easy to blow out the whites...

Thanks

I'm guessing it is the same way I know

John Sheehy wrote in post #19411849
That's like a ~13.5x crop from an 83MP FF; a much smaller sensor area than 1/2.3" sensors (~5.56x).

Looks like in the pursuit of visible fine detail, you used a bit of sharpening and/or diffraction deconvolution, which creates that textured noise, but of course, you are sharpening levels of detail that are not captured with much larger pixels, so that has to be kept in mind when people complain about the noise. Personally, when a lot of sharpening is needed, I try to do most of it with edge-only sharpening, so as not to emphasize the dot dither of noise. I would like to see more flexible sharpening tools, like ones that have separate sliders for edges than for dots, each with its own strength and radius.

You used ISO 160, which doesn't show too much noise with no extra sharpening, but sharpening can quickly make the noise more visible, especially in flat areas of trouble colors. I found with the 90D that If you had a scene that did not have highlights to protect and was exposed for ISO 32 at the ISO 100 setting (1.67 stops of ETTR), the RAW files could receive ridiculous sharpening without the noise becoming noticeable.

Anyway, your noise is what I would call "superficial"; it is noticeable, but would quickly disappear out of consciousness with a higher-res display, even at 100%, or with the slightest visual impairment (you forgot your glasses or was the wrong distance from the monitor to focus perfectly, or you squinted), or in a video, where the shallow dither would perceptually disappear with successive frames. Well, the R7 has digital zoom for FHD, so that may make for some very high magnification video, where the noise should be subliminal.

I think the 90D sensor is a pretty good proxy for the R7 sensor. And the 90D sensor is really amazing, in particular for its croppability. My 7D2 and 90D lived together for a while in my house, and gradually the 7D2 just got forgotten. Sold it with no regrets. There is more to a camera than just the sensor, of course. But it shows much promise for the R7. The problem I have with buying an R7 is that the 90D would become redundant.

Archibald wrote in post #19411861
I think the 90D sensor is a pretty good proxy for the R7 sensor. And the 90D sensor is really amazing, in particular for its croppability. My 7D2 and 90D lived together for a while in my house, and gradually the 7D2 just got forgotten. Sold it with no regrets. There is more to a camera than just the sensor, of course. But it shows much promise for the R7. The problem I have with buying an R7 is that the 90D would become redundant.

The problem I am having with buying an R7 is any idea of a delivery date from Park camera.

To be fair it is obviously Canon and not Park.

Archibald wrote in post #19411861
I think the 90D sensor is a pretty good proxy for the R7 sensor. And the 90D sensor is really amazing, in particular for its croppability. My 7D2 and 90D lived together for a while in my house, and gradually the 7D2 just got forgotten. Sold it with no regrets. There is more to a camera than just the sensor, of course. But it shows much promise for the R7. The problem I have with buying an R7 is that the 90D would become redundant.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19411881
The problem I am having with buying an R7 is any idea of a delivery date from Park camera.

To be fair it is obviously Canon and not Park.

Yes my 90D is sitting there but that is the life of a backup camera. If for some reason the R7 goes into the shop or whatever I want to be able to still shoot. Same with my 5DIV, not used often but I know I could.

I was lucky back on July 2nd when I returned the rental R7 the salesman said they had one kit camera left and did I want it as they had only gotten 4 of them and no body only's and every one wanted body only. I grabbed it and am glad I did.

I am now about to go over 10k clicks.

I was thinking of adding the R7 to my setup instead of buying a 1,4x TC ...but I have some concerns though:

* "Rolling shutter" in ES (sensor readout speed 1/30 vs R5 1/60)
* Tiny Buffer
* Button layout differs from my R5
* Tried the camera in a store and WTF .....how could any company make a camera with a shutter this loud?? it's 2022!! for gods ace

Positive things are that high ISO images when carefully processed are fine... didn't expect that
AF seems to be different in a good way

biggles2002 wrote in post #19411917
I was thinking of adding the R7 to my setup instead of buying a 1,4x TC ...but I have some concerns though:

* "Rolling shutter" in ES (sensor readout speed 1/30 vs R5 1/60)
* Tiny Buffer
* Button layout differs from my R5
* Tried the camera in a store and WTF .....how could any company make a camera with a shutter this loud?? it's 2022!! for gods ace

Positive things are that high ISO images when carefully processed are fine... didn't expect that
AF seems to be different in a good way

As a fellow R5 shooter, I got over the differences in control layout very quickly. It's just not as bad as going from 7D2 to a rebel, or ANY DLSR to the original EOS-R.
Using mech shutter, I have not really run into a huge issue with the buffer. this is only a matter of time though. Fast cards help.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19411881
The problem I am having with buying an R7 is any idea of a delivery date from Park camera.

To be fair it is obviously Canon and not Park.

Me too, Lester! I can’t get a delivery date from them either! Maybe Canon underestimated demand or was rushing to get an APS C on the the market to pacify those of us who really wanted a proper replacement for the 7DII. Perhaps an R7 mkII will hopefully follow soon - with decent weather sealing, a flash unit and a GPS. Carry on dreaming.

Ray.Petri wrote in post #19411927
Me too, Lester! I can’t get a delivery date from them either! Maybe Canon underestimated demand or was rushing to get an APS C on the the market to pacify those of us who really wanted a proper replacement for the 7DII. Perhaps an R7 mkII will hopefully follow soon - with decent weather sealing, a flash unit and a GPS. Carry on dreaming.

Yes it does seem more and more that Canon totally misunderstood their user base and did not see the demand for mirrorless APS-C and likely use cases, doubly so with the sensor read out speed and limited weather proofing. It does suggest a knew jerk response to a gap in their line-up rather than a planned development roadmap.

It seems that a R7mk2 will need to come to adress that market, hopefully with a top plate, selector on the other side of the body or at least a selector lock. I would also prefer to separate the video mode from the on-off control, I am sure that will be a pain.

Still we await the R7 delivery: I expect by the time se see ours the new camera will be the R7mk2 or whatnot.