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

American Bald Eagle waiting for the sun to take the chill out of the -21F morning.

Do I watch you eat?

Image hosted by forum (1190333) © Jeff USN Photog 72-76 THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19459114
Results were rubbish.

Thank you for your concise summary! That's what we needed to know....

Keep in mind that there is no real apples-to-apples comparison here. The whole premise of Digital Zoom's existence is that a more appropriate lens is not available, so it's either this or doing the same thing in Photoshop or doing something else that still isn't going to be as good as having the ultimate glass. The motivation of the user for using DZ is up to that user.

And it's not an R7 issue anyway, so maybe it should go to the R6ii thread.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19459304
Keep in mind that there is no real apples-to-apples comparison here. The whole premise of Digital Zoom's existence is that a more appropriate lens is not available, so it's either this or doing the same thing in Photoshop or doing something else that still isn't going to be as good as having the ultimate glass. The motivation of the user for using DZ is up to that user.

And it's not an R7 issue anyway, so maybe it should go to the R6ii thread.

The R7 has digital zoom in 2K video.

digital paradise wrote in post #19459134
How are you finding that rig with the TC. I have the 1.4 but have not been out of the condo yet. Only did a few test shots with the 100-500. I can’t see BIF being all that easy but I’ll give it a shot. I’m interested in static shots.

The TC works very well with the 100-500mm. Of course, you are pushing it in terms of exposure and "effective FL", so the usual difficulties apply. I'll play around with it on occasion, especially in cooler weather, but I won't really be using it that way very often. I'm quite satisfied with the IQ and AF performance of the 100-500mm + 1.4TC. The "only zooming out to 300mm" restriction is very annoying for me from a lens/camera handling point of view.

I used the 100-500mm with the 1.4xTC much more often on the R5. However, with the R7's high pixel density (compared to the R5's 17.3MP in 1.6 crop mode) I find that I can do an extra 1.4x crop in post when I need to and still be satisfied with the results. In other words, I am pretty happy with the 160-800mm range, which covers most situations.

When I want to push for higher than ~1200mm equivalent FOV, I'll go for the TC. Shooting conditions have to be good, or the keeper rate starts dropping fast.

PinholeR5 wrote in post #19459319
The TC works very well with the 100-500mm. Of course, you are pushing it in terms of exposure and "effective FL", so the usual difficulties apply. I'll play around with it on occasion, especially in cooler weather, but I won't really be using it that way very often. I'm quite satisfied with the IQ and AF performance of the 100-500mm + 1.4TC. The "only zooming out to 300mm" restriction is very annoying for me from a lens/camera handling point of view.

I used the 100-500mm with the 1.4xTC much more often on the R5. However, with the R7's high pixel density (compared to the R5's 17.3MP in 1.6 crop mode) I find that I can do an extra 1.4x crop in post when I need to and still be satisfied with the results. In other words, I am pretty happy with the 160-800mm range, which covers most situations.

When I want to push for higher than ~1200mm equivalent FOV, I'll go for the TC. Shooting conditions have to be good, or the keeper rate starts dropping fast.

Thanks detailed info.

Another Flamingo

Went to the local hawking centre to get some testing of in-flight capability.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2o7v​GDK

Bit of rolling shutter here as in ES as I was not getting on with MS in the viewfinder, later worked out it was because the frame rate was too low.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2o7v​hue

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19459454
Bit of rolling shutter here as in ES as I was no getting on with MS in the viewfinder, later worked out it was because the frame rate was too low.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2o7v​hue birds snowy owl C7_000_000 by Lester W, on Flickr

Nice series, Lester!

John Sheehy wrote in post #19459306
The R7 has digital zoom in 2K video.

Well, I've looked more into what Digital Teleconverter is on the R6-II, and even if it may have some value for some purposes, its implementation is a fraudulent marketing joke. Basically, it is just a 2x and 4x crop mode, just like 1.6x, except that it won't give you raw files, and it resamples the images to the size that JPEG files are set to. Why they couldn't just have a 2x and 4x crop mode can only be answered by marketing. The use of the word "teleconverter" in this context is pretty much fraud, IMO, and that fraud is reinforced by the resampling - no loss of output pixels, just like a real TC. The only problem is, there are only 1.5M unique sample points in those 24MP files, unlike a real TC, that gives you 24M sample points.

And Duade used f/7.1 in both cases, so his pupil was 4x the diameter at 400mm. So, the 100mm 4x version is not just softer because of a lot less pixels, but also because of a lot more noise and a lot more diffraction. If there was recognizable background, you'd se a huge difference in background blur. Clearly, his comparison is not the least bit relevant in practice, unless you want to know how much the IQ will suffer if you use 4x for a 4x faster rolling shutter with the same AOV as 400mm.