Canon EOS R7 pre-sales discussion, hypothesizing, and prognosticating

JJD.Photography wrote in post #19382724
Or one can simply carry a 2nd battery...

I never wanted a grip, but found a used one at a fine price and bought it anyway. Put it on and took it back off in 20 minutes. Never used it again. I don't need the extra controls but it's the added weight that is the killer. I would rather keep 2 spare batteries in 2 separate pants pockets.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19382777
Re: Focus Stacking
I have to believe creating the composite image "in-camera" would take an enormous amount of time away from shooting. In my 5d4 when I take a 3 shot HDR I can't shoot again for 7 seconds while the camera compiles the finale image. Image processing 20 focus stacked images into 1. Granted, the Digic 10 chip is faster than my Digic 6, but by enough?

Re: GPS
I personally don't need GPS if I drive over to the dog park, or the botanical gardens, etc. But looking back, there have been a few times I wish I had used GPS tracking on a series of images taken over several days. The first example was our trip to Ireland. We did a circle shaped tour of the south side of the country stopping in several cities over 5 days. I wish now I could look back at a map of pins and then see the images taken, location/date/time stamped, along the trip.

Same thing for driving vacations here. Leave Florida, hit a few other states, record and review the trip vie GPS coordinates. Lightroom will do that.

And looking back, in addition to using my Canon body I should have at least snapped 1 photo using my phone with GPS tagging turned on. That could essentially create a map of where we were each day or so.

GPS location tagging can be useful from time to time.

With phone GPS and other GPS, a GPS built into the camera the camera isn't needed as much. I do use the 7D2 GPS also to set the time on the camera so it matches an external GPS.

mcoren wrote in post #19382763
I didn’t really use the GPS on the 7DII. I couldn’t get it to lock reliably, even under relatively open sky, and it seemed to eat a lot of battery.

I’m actually a fan of the app method. It’s only as good as the phone’s GPS so it won’t work well indoors or around trees or buildings, anyplace the phone has trouble. But it’s always with me.

I use an app called GeoTagr for iOS. It has a companion macOS app that tags the pics after they’ve been transferred to the Mac. It’s an extra step but I like the program.

It does eat a lot of battery, but it usually lasts through a day for me. At airshows or other venues where I take a lot of pictures, I will need to change a battery once.

The GPS seems better in later software revisions. I will turn on the GPS at least once a month because I assume it contains an ephemeris database similar to the other GPS devices I use. GPS takes longer to lock if it needs to rebuild that database which is transmitted from the satellites. The 7D2 isn't as good as a dedicated GPS, but it works most of the time for me. It eventually loses lock when traveling in a commercial jet, possibly because of the limited number of satellites it can receive through the tiny window, or it just has a cheap receiver or antenna. Also, when the cabin crew dims the windows on a Boeing 787, no GPS will work (my personal experience). Outside of that situation, my 7D2 GPS works well now.

I use a BadElf GPS when the 7D2 GPS doesn't work well (airlines). I can be happy with using an external GPS if Canon makes it easy to somehow synchronize the clocks to within a second or two.

I like using a GPS because it documents where I was, and from the location, I can document what I imaged when I get home. When photographing wild life, it documents where I was when I saw wildlife. If I manage to image something unusual for the area, it gives very good documentation for the few people who might have an interest.

For more information about ephemeris data: https://cenv.wwu.edu …s%20position%20​on%20earth.
BadElf GPS I use: https://bad-elf.com/pages/be-gps-2300-detail I use it for aviation as well as photography.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19382791
I never wanted a grip, but found a used one at a fine price and bought it anyway. Put it on and took it back off in 20 minutes. Never used it again. I don't need the extra controls but it's the added weight that is the killer. I would rather keep 2 spare batteries in 2 separate pants pockets.

I had the exact same experience with the 70D. Bought a used grip at a good price but didn’t like the extra size and weight versus just carrying a second battery.

I rarely shoot vertically and I like a smaller bag, but I know a lot of people like them so hopefully Canon will make a good functional grip for the R7.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19382791
I never wanted a grip, but found a used one at a fine price and bought it anyway. Put it on and took it back off in 20 minutes. Never used it again. I don't need the extra controls but it's the added weight that is the killer. I would rather keep 2 spare batteries in 2 separate pants pockets.

I put on my 7D2 grip after a yr or two and found it quite uncomfortable using in portrait mode, quite an unnatural feeling how my wrist and fingers were made to contort.

The R7 body compatatively seems so small that a battery grip would likely give better ergonomics.

PSteven wrote in post #19382681
Hey Levina. I am curious what this R7 brings you that the R6 doesn't offer you? In the back of my mind I have always craved for the R5 to replace my Canon 5D IV but I am very happy with my R6 and never use the Canon 5D IV anymore. So perhaps the R7 would be a cheaper alternative that would add something to the mix. It was really only the higher resolution that was pulling me towards the R5 but the price tag is pushing me right back again - tho hoping the used prices have come down now.

Paul, I also sometimes thought of getting the R5 but I couldn’t justify spending that kind of money. And like you I am very happy with the R6. I’ve never had a camera with a high res sensor so I am fine with 20mpx; like in the past I just find ways to get closer. However, it would be nice to have more reach. So enter the R7: 32.5mpx, 1.6x crop, an AF system inherited from the R3, for just 1500 euro. I think it’s crazy. And I want one.

But, much depends on how good that sensor is. Its low light/high ISO performance will obviously not be as good as the R6’s, so how much noise will there be? That’s my no. 1 concern. Nobody has been able to open the raw files yet and evaluate them, see how much wiggle room you have in post, if noise cleans up nicely e.g., so I’m waiting for that and for the reviews.

I think the R7 would make a very nice companion to the R6 when I’m out in the fields and need more reach. And the price! It’s an amazing move by Canon. I’m excited.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19382803
Paul, I also sometimes thought of getting the R5 but I couldn’t justify spending that kind of money. And like you I am very happy with the R6. I’ve never had a camera with a high res sensor so I am fine with 20mpx; like in the past I just find ways to get closer. However, it would be nice to have more reach. So enter the R7: 32.5mpx, 1.6x crop, an AF system inherited from the R3, for just 1500 euro. I think it’s crazy. And I want one.

But, much depends on how good that sensor is. Its low light/high ISO performance will obviously not be as good as the R6’s, so how much noise will there be? That’s my no. 1 concern. Nobody has been able to open the raw files yet and evaluate them, see how much wiggle room you have in post, if noise cleans up nicely e.g., so I’m waiting for that and for the reviews.

I think the R7 would make a very nice companion to the R6 when I’m out in the fields and need more reach. And the price! It’s an amazing move by Canon. I’m excited.

Thanks Levina for the very helpful reply. I will watch this space and see what people make of the reviews. I do really appreciate the fantastic low light / high ISO capabilities of the R6 so wouldn't want to take too many steps backwards on that front but I do like the idea of more reach for a reasonable cost. I have always liked to have 2 camera bodies when I go to special places just in case.

Here is Bryan Carnathan's review of the R7.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Ca​non-EOS-R7.aspx

He is the only reviewer I know who routinely uses DPP for processing photos, so apparently, he was able to work with the RAW files. He makes the following statement about IQ:

"I'll wait until I can get an R7 into the lab before finalizing my evaluation, but I expect that this camera, with the latest technology in the new Canon CMOS imaging sensor along with a DIGIC X processor, will have image quality that modestly outperforms the 90D. What I see in my about-2,500 sample images supports this expectation"

He says the following about the battery grip:

"Is battery grip available for the Canon EOS R7? Unfortunately, no, and the grip positioning holes are not provided."

PinholeR5 wrote in post #19382816
Here is Bryan Carnathan's review of the R7.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Ca​non-EOS-R7.aspx

He is the only reviewer I know who routinely uses DPP for processing photos, so apparently, he was able to work with the RAW files. He makes the following statement about IQ:

"I'll wait until I can get an R7 into the lab before finalizing my evaluation, but I expect that this camera, with the latest technology in the new Canon CMOS imaging sensor along with a DIGIC X processor, will have image quality that modestly outperforms the 90D. What I see in my about-2,500 sample images supports this expectation"

He says the following about the battery grip:

"Is battery grip available for the Canon EOS R7? Unfortunately, no, and the grip positioning holes are not provided."

I believe he says he viewed the jpegs in DPP, not raw, but was impressed.

mcoren wrote in post #19382729

Hosted photo: posted by mcoren in
./showthread.php?p=193​82729&i=i10806484
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

I can't reconcile these two statements.

mcoren wrote in post #19382763
I didn’t really use the GPS on the 7DII. I couldn’t get it to lock reliably, even under relatively open sky, and it seemed to eat a lot of battery.

I’m actually a fan of the app method. It’s only as good as the phone’s GPS so it won’t work well indoors or around trees or buildings, anyplace the phone has trouble. But it’s always with me.

I use an app called GeoTagr for iOS. It has a companion macOS app that tags the pics after they’ve been transferred to the Mac. It’s an extra step but I like the program.

i mean who needs gps on a camera. just like you said you didn't really use it before. everyone has a phone that has gps capablities if you want to tag the location of something.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19382803
Paul, I also sometimes thought of getting the R5 but I couldn’t justify spending that kind of money. And like you I am very happy with the R6. I’ve never had a camera with a high res sensor so I am fine with 20mpx; like in the past I just find ways to get closer. However, it would be nice to have more reach. So enter the R7: 32.5mpx, 1.6x crop, an AF system inherited from the R3, for just 1500 euro. I think it’s crazy. And I want one.

But, much depends on how good that sensor is. Its low light/high ISO performance will obviously not be as good as the R6’s, so how much noise will there be? That’s my no. 1 concern. Nobody has been able to open the raw files yet and evaluate them, see how much wiggle room you have in post, if noise cleans up nicely e.g., so I’m waiting for that and for the reviews.

I think the R7 would make a very nice companion to the R6 when I’m out in the fields and need more reach. And the price! It’s an amazing move by Canon. I’m excited.

Me too I opted to buy the R6 and I am very happy with it, now the R7 with 32.5 I have been waiting for this crop mirror less body for extra reach and higher megapixel than R6 and got more than I wished. I am excited that I pre ordered it on May 12, way before announcement lol. Cheers.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19382728
- The M50 and the fast primes I use all fit in the space of a DSLR and one lens, which is great for travel.

- when the urge strikes me, the M50 acts as a 24Mpx 10fps body using the speedbooster.

- the M50 will AF through at least f11 when using long teles and teleconverters.

- I don’t have any other crop body at this point, sold the 7d2 a long time ago after getting this body.

- eye AF and silent shutter is useful, but is in a limited mode.

- makes for a really nice little video camera with an articulating lcd.

It certainly has its merits especially considering the $500 price tag.

yeah, you convinced me to get one with the speedbooster but i don't use it very much. it's so tiny it would be really awkward to use with my 500mm. seeing the size of this r7 being so close to the m50 turns me off a bit.

DreDaze wrote in post #19382825
yeah, you convinced me to get one with the speedbooster but i don't use it very much. it's so tiny it would be really awkward to use with my 500mm. seeing the size of this r7 being so close to the m50 turns me off a bit.

I think you are severely underestimating the size of the R7, and that's from someone who owns an R6 and M6 Mk II among many, many others.

DreDaze wrote in post #19382825
yeah, you convinced me to get one with the speedbooster but i don't use it very much. it's so tiny it would be really awkward to use with my 500mm. seeing the size of this r7 being so close to the m50 turns me off a bit.

Oh absolutely, I cannot use it for more than an hour or so myself. By time a battery has no juice left, I am done for a while. But trips to Disney or otherwise, this set up is a dream, IQ is great, high ISO is great, and if it gets stolen, I won't cry as much as having a 5D4 or R6 stolen.

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #19382833
I think you are severely underestimating the size of the R7, and that's from someone who owns an R6 and M6 Mk II among many, many others.

I agree, watching videos, the R7 is even a bit larger than the SL3. If you measure the RF mount alone and look at the R7, then compare that dimension to the M50, you can tell relative sizes.

Immaculens wrote in post #19382818
I believe he says he viewed the jpegs in DPP, not raw, but was impressed.

Oh, it might be. This is the statement that made me think he had opened the RAW files in DPP:

"For example, look at the detail showing in this 100% crop from an ISO 640 EOS R7 RAW photo processed in Canon DPP using the Standard Picture Style with sharpness set to only 1 and low noise reduction."