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

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #19382972
I think an easy detail to miss with the auto-leveling is that it only fcns in video modes. It uses pixels of the sensor essentially not used ordinarily in shooting video in order to compensate for slight variations in leveling. Something they can't do, obviously; when shooting stills at full resolution. Nifty though. It will definitely be a welcome addition to shooting video, though as limited as it is (3 degrees?), it remains to be seen how useful it will really be.

Oh I overlooked that. I could really use that for stills, but definitely a welcome option for video.

Canonised wrote in post #19381744
I hope the noise control on this new camera is as good as the R6. The 7D2 noise issues was legendary.
Unless Canon has succeeded to implement or include a superior noise control feature on the DPP software.

Otherwise, wondering if the camera has the added feature of reducing the file sizes in the setup menu. Would that help with reducing the noise? I wonder...

What do you have in mind when comparing different sensor sizes and different pixel sizes?

If you use the 90D and the R6 in equivalence (same total light forming the same photo except for pixel count), the R6 and 90D have almost identical noise, with a very slight benefit to the 90D with less chromatic blotchiness in near-blacks. Depending on the lenses you have available, the R6 will give less noise when you hit the walls or limits of equivalence. If you use a 50/1.4 on the R6 and 35/1.4 on the 90D, for example, you will get a lot less noise on the R6 along with the shallower DOF.

Look here, to see what the 90D and R6 do with the same total light per pixel: https://www.dpreview.c​om …9034&y=0.555895​9434364252

We can probably expect the R7 to be similar to the 90D for noise.

Choderboy wrote in post #19381792
60 frames RAW was Compressed RAW.
At 30fps, buffer filling at 30 frames does not equal 1 second of shooting.
The camera takes 30 frames in 1 second. How many of those frames are already on the SD card after 1 second? However many are already on the card, subtract that number from 30 to arrive at space left in the buffer.

You also have to wonder what the write speeds of the cards were. The buffer will fill faster with a slower SD card, because the buffer isn't emptied as fast.

duckster wrote in post #19381873
The high ISO capability of these new bodies will be interesting, for example, pairing them with the RF600 or RF800 f11. Giving you effective 960mm or 1280mm at f11

The RF600/11 will give an image the same as a 32.5MP FF with a 960/18.
The RF800/11 will give an image the same as a 32.5MP FF with a 1280/18.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19382731
I personally never use GPS, I know where all my shots were taken. But I can see how other would want it. Built in GPS has always been a battery killer. Canon used to have something where you could wifi/BT to your phone from the camera, and then the Canon app would transmit phone GPS to the camera. Perhaps that is still a thing?

I am replying to your post mostly because of the statement, "I personally never use GPS, I know where all my shots were taken." I can mostly say the same about my pictures but there is a catch. When you're gone who will know then.
A lot of people on POTN take great pains to ensure there pictures all have backup copies. Outside of well known landmarks, who 40 years from now will know where one of your pictures was taken. So enter gps coordinates. Who will value a bunch of random pictures from unknown locations. Wouldn't it be better to say it looked like this and know where 'this' was.

As an example, last September I visited a city I used to live in. I have many pictures from the late 1970s. A lot of the places in the pictures no longer exist. Big difference between guessing where the picture was taken and knowing where it was taken. No gps then. Different story now.

As an aside I mostly don't geotag, I use a handheld gps and record position.

Rod

RodS57 wrote in post #19383003
I am replying to your post mostly because of the statement, "I personally never use GPS, I know where all my shots were taken." I can mostly say the same about my pictures but there is a catch. When you're gone who will know then.
A lot of people on POTN take great pains to ensure there pictures all have backup copies. Outside of well known landmarks, who 40 years from now will know where one of your pictures was taken. So enter gps coordinates. Who will value a bunch of random pictures from unknown locations. Wouldn't it be better to say it looked like this and know where 'this' was.

As an example, last September I visited a city I used to live in. I have many pictures from the late 1970s. A lot of the places in the pictures no longer exist. Big difference between guessing where the picture was taken and knowing where it was taken. No gps then. Different story now.

As an aside I mostly don't geotag, I use a handheld gps and record position.

Rod

I inventory my images by event/location so as long as digital files retain their directory structure, I am good. People don't lat/lon their prints either so most images people see already today are such you may not know where it was taken without a backstory.

Physical location on a map just isn't important for me when I view images. Others put more emphasis on such things, it's all good.

Some people look at vehicles as a means to get from point A to point B, others look at vehicles as investments, and others use vehicles as a stress reliever. It depends on each person's priorities, perspectives, and goals.

duckster wrote in post #19381931
So currently if you use a EF-S lens on one of the FF Canons, it will automatically crop down. I assume that if you put a EF-S lens on the new R7 or R10, it will be a normal APS-c view without any additional crop?

It would be pretty weird if they cropped the crop sensor for a lens designed for the full crop sensor. I don't think Canon wants to spend money on support calls that ask "why is my wide angle lens not wide?".

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19382954
I hate to say it (and I really do mean that), but both shots look awful to me. There is no detail, no clarity, it's a muddy mess. And the final image is oversharpened and full of digital artifacts.

Fair enough, I try to never take offense at any comments on my posted images, but I do want to put some perspective on this.

- This is from a 2014 sensor, today's expectations and reality is much different.
- Add to that this is ISO 8000 (from an APS-C 2014 sensor), and at that time, this was quite good.
- This was in shadows, a bane to the APS-C sensors at the time, and had to be brought up in post in raw.
- I typically don't save JPG in absolute highest quality settings, usually 10 from a possible 12 in Photoshop, and you are seeing a bit of the compression.
- This is a 100% crop, so yes, your observations are warranted at that level. However when the full image is printed as a small poster for the kids, you see none of that, you see a very good image of a bird with all the detail you could hope for.
- I almost always shoot at high ISO levels, so this is likely not the best test case, but was one I had readily available in my electronics folder in smugmug.

So if you look at this with the eyes and critique of an APS-C shooter in 2014, this is great. If you look at it from the perspective of a 2022 1DX3 sensor shooter (or any models since 2017 or so since), then sure, this sucks.

My point with the after on the left and the before on the right is that you can post process high ISO images such that the noise is largely removed, leaving that detail. Did my actions overdo things a bit? Sure, that is possible. I don't spend individual time on every image, I run a custom action for the ISO level in question across hundreds of shots. If I were to actually process this one image with personal attention to detail from raw to final full quality JPG, the result would be better.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19382958
I don't poo poo the 90D I like it a lot, the only problem I have with it is the AF system. I like the dual BBF on my 7DII and 5DIV, spot on one and zone on the other. Also it sometimes misses focus when shooting birds in flight at 200 yards against a cluttered background. I wish it was bigger like my 5DIV.

I AM going to rent an R7 before I pull the trigger, if the AF is what I hope it is I will get it otherwise will stick with the 90D especially as I only have 60k clicks so far

Per Rudy Winston's comments early on here, https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=jnh5gAcdVNk, they have built the function/feature set out to be its own line of cameras, distinct from the others, but falling somewhere in between the 7DII and the 90D if trying to chart against the dSLR line. So, it very well may wind up being the replacement for the 7DII in the RF lineup; but, it sounds like the feature set and controls have been switched around to be less configurable and have a lesser available feature list.

I would be renting one before buying, as well, and will certainly be spending some time at the local camera shop to mess around with one before making any buying decision.

Tommydigi wrote in post #19382935
I've used the 7D2 at 12800 and it's is pretty good. I was actually amazed when I got it how clean the files are but I wouldn't upgrade if it's not an improvement and I'd like something more on par with the R.

I agree- and I've taken it 16000 and above.
Here's ISO 51200 (first image in the post) POST 18131188

This is only 12800 POST 18448908

This one is interesting- Yes, it is really noisy. By most standards, a terrible shot at 51200. But I couldn't see the bird. I saw and heard something moving but I couldn't recognize it until I took the picture and chimped it. A real live kiwi. POST 18590443

Not high ISO, but both the moon and Venus during daylight POST 18802296

12800- I didn't notice the ISO until I posted the image POST 19248407

One more night shot, but a low ISO POST 19031413

Sometimes a noisy image is better than none at all! Of course the inverse is true too depending on content.

goalerjones wrote in post #19382168
was hoping for a less expensive 2nd camera for the track, have the R5 and my 5DM4 (which I haven't used there yet). I want to have newer remote/wifi capable cameras for remote shooting across the track, and not needing a pocket wizard.

The buffer issue might be a deal breaker though.

The buffer is only really there to deal with situations when the file bandwidth is greater than the card write speed. The smaller the difference between a greater bandwidth and a lesser write speed, the longer you can depend on the buffer.

If these people reporting various buffer depths are in fact using 300MB/s UHS-II cards, then the numbers they are giving are probably the limit. If they are using 85MB/s UHS-I, then you should be able to get more shots before buffer overrun, with the fastest-writing SD cards.

If the camera can't deliver 300MB/s to the card, or not even close, then that might be one of the product differentiations that goes along with the seemingly low R7 price.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19382294
Kinda funny, but yes, maybe that would have been better, then reserve the R7 for the higher end APS-C, if there will ever be one. It will be interesting to see the sports/action/wildlife shooter reviews once this hits more hands, than just Canon spokespeople.

The R7 interests me as an M50 replacement, for the battery life, dual SD, and better eye AF over the M50, so that is my thoughts on my further progression into the R mount. However it will be hard to get rid of the M glass I have, the entire set of lenses and body all fit into such a small bag today for travel.

Unfortunately, I think that since the "7" is used in the model number, this may be a clear indication that this is the flagship APS-C RF-mount camera, and that maybe only crop mode in a future ~83MP FF RF-mount camera will be what many hoped an R7 will be.

If that camera comes about, then perhaps I will sell my R7 dirt cheap, used, as it may be mostly redundant.

Canon has not done so yet, to my knowledge, but other MFRs' sensors can be read at a pixel bandwidth, rather than a line bandwidth, and can burst 1.5x mode almost 2.25x as fast as FF, rather than just almost 1.5x as fast.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19383025
Sometimes a noisy image is better than none at all! Of course the inverse is true too depending on content.

Or a blurry image. Before the advent of auto-ISO, I lost far too many photo-ops to horribly blurred images when the ISO was set too low in Av mode. M with auto-ISO has it's problem spots, which could easily be covered by an option that says, "if my image will blow out with the Av and Tv values I've chosen, then raise first the Tv value, to prevent overexposure", but I have a lot less problems than I did with fixed ISO and Av mode.

Seeing that the R7 is going to be smaller than the 90D, which I find too small for me and normally use a battery grip, I decided to try my 90D without the grip again.
Went out do to some hummingbirds, without the grip my pinky and usually my 3rd finger hang under it in the air and it is awkward. I put the grip back on.

As I said I will rent, and the size might be a deal breaker, you have to be comfortable with your gear. I don't like dinky cameras