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

Back to the photo part of the thread.

Went to the pond last night, not much going on but a father and son fishing and a couple crows, slow evening but they made a couple of catches. Pond is getting low!

I still had Animal Eye AF set and didn't change it, seems to have done ok, although the fish may be the sharpest.

Canon R7

crow behind trees

Canon R7

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19410469
crow behind trees

Canon R7

Hosted photo: posted by Jeff USN Photog 72-76 in
./showthread.php?p=194​10469&i=i78821946
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Nice shot Jeff! Did you follow it behind the tree or was the AF able to catch it like that?

Pippan wrote in post #19410455
Hi Ray, see here. Evidently it is possible. I haven't tried it yet but will give it a go later tonight and let you know how it works.

Many thanks Pippan, you are a Toff.
I look forward to hearing of your practical results.

I've decided to make the jump from my 7Dii and go for an R7 (although it will probably be close to Christmas before it arrives !!). I'm also looking at my current lens line up and considering consolidating for that reason always happy to take peoples thoughts on where to go. Subject matter is wildlife / birds, aviation and I'm getting more into landscape / gardens again.

Current lenses
Canon ef-s 10-22, Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC, Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, Canon 70-200 f4L, Canon 400 f5.6

I'm thinking I should replace the 17-50 with either an EF 24-70 (used) or more likely an RF 24-105 f4 as this would fill the gap between 50 and 70 mm. I'm leaning towards the 24-105 as combined with the 10-22 would give me a lightweight walkabout combo but still offer good image quality plus I would gain the benefits from a more modern RF lens

This then got me thinking should I trade the 70-200 and 400 for an RF 100-500 which would trim my camera bag...but also my bank account !!

The final alternative is do nothing until the camera arrives and see how these older lenses perform especially the non Canon brands

All input appreciated

mcoren wrote in post #19410474
Nice shot Jeff! Did you follow it behind the tree or was the AF able to catch it like that?

I was shooting at 15fps MS while it was flying across the pond and as it went into the trees, the AF stayed on it

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19410502
I was shooting at 15fps MS while it was flying across the pond and as it went into the trees, the AF stayed on it

What were your AF case / settings?

Taxboy wrote in post #19410478
I've decided to make the jump from my 7Dii and go for an R7 (although it will probably be close to Christmas before it arrives !!). I'm also looking at my current lens line up and considering consolidating for that reason always happy to take peoples thoughts on where to go. Subject matter is wildlife / birds, aviation and I'm getting more into landscape / gardens again.

Current lenses
Canon ef-s 10-22, Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC, Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, Canon 70-200 f4L, Canon 400 f5.6

I'm thinking I should replace the 17-50 with either an EF 24-70 (used) or more likely an RF 24-105 f4 as this would fill the gap between 50 and 70 mm. I'm leaning towards the 24-105 as combined with the 10-22 would give me a lightweight walkabout combo but still offer good image quality plus I would gain the benefits from a more modern RF lens

This then got me thinking should I trade the 70-200 and 400 for an RF 100-500 which would trim my camera bag...but also my bank account !!

The final alternative is do nothing until the camera arrives and see how these older lenses perform especially the non Canon brands

All input appreciated

I would advice your final alternative and that is to do nothing until the camera arrives and just use it with your older lenses. The results might surprise you. So wait a bit before you start replacing your current lenses.

One thing I am wondering about is the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) of the R7. It is only f/5.2. On the R6 it is double that at f/10.6. I had no idea about this but stumbled upon this information just a few days ago on the TDP site, in the R7 review. So I now wonder if that is causing or contributing to the softness I saw in birds a bit farther away, for which I obviously used the RF 100-500mm @500mm which means shooting at f/7.1. So with the R7 having a DLA of f/5.2, diffraction surely has a softening effect when shooting at f/7.1. Maybe the tech guys can say something about that.

So I'm wondering if maybe the EF 400/5.6 would actually be a better match with the R7. With the 1.6x crop factor and 32.5 megapixels, 400mm should be plenty reach. Jeff is reach limited and shoots with a 400/5.6L now and with great results. Of course a zoom lens is more versatile. There is that. Personally I have no need for a zoom. I bought the 100-500 for the 500mm but this is very personal.

By the way, I have the Tamron 17-50 non VC also. Such a fantastic lens. Crazy sharp.

Kestrel

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19410538
I would advice your final alternative and that is to do nothing until the camera arrives and just use it with your older lenses. The results might surprise you. So wait a bit before you start replacing your current lenses.

One thing I am wondering about is the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) of the R7. It is only f/5.2. On the R6 it is double that at f/10.6. I had no idea about this but stumbled upon this information just a few days ago on the TDP site, in the R7 review. So I now wonder if that is causing or contributing to the softness I saw in birds a bit farther away, for which I obviously used the RF 100-500mm @500mm which means shooting at f/7.1. So with the R7 having a DLA of f/5.2, diffraction surely has a softening effect when shooting at f/7.1. Maybe the tech guys can say something about that.

So I'm wondering if maybe the EF 400/5.6 would actually be a better match with the R7. With the 1.6x crop factor and 32.5 megapixels, 400mm should be plenty reach. Jeff is reach limited and shoots with a 400/5.6L now and with great results. Of course a zoom lens is more versatile. There is that. Personally I have no need for a zoom. I bought the 100-500 for the 500mm but this is very personal.

By the way, I have the Tamron 17-50 non VC also. Such a fantastic lens. Crazy sharp.

With those small pixels in the R7, everything becomes more important if you are a pixel peeper - diffraction, motion blur, focus inaccuracies, lens aberrations, heat/moisture waves.

I routinely shoot the 90D (same pixel density) at f/11 and get good results with it.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19410538
I would advice your final alternative and that is to do nothing until the camera arrives and just use it with your older lenses. The results might surprise you. So wait a bit before you start replacing your current lenses.

One thing I am wondering about is the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) of the R7. It is only f/5.2. On the R6 it is double that at f/10.6. I had no idea about this but stumbled upon this information just a few days ago on the TDP site, in the R7 review. So I now wonder if that is causing or contributing to the softness I saw in birds a bit farther away, for which I obviously used the RF 100-500mm @500mm which means shooting at f/7.1. So with the R7 having a DLA of f/5.2, diffraction surely has a softening effect when shooting at f/7.1. Maybe the tech guys can say something about that.

So I'm wondering if maybe the EF 400/5.6 would actually be a better match with the R7. With the 1.6x crop factor and 32.5 megapixels, 400mm should be plenty reach. Jeff is reach limited and shoots with a 400/5.6L now and with great results. Of course a zoom lens is more versatile. There is that. Personally I have no need for a zoom. I bought the 100-500 for the 500mm but this is very personal.

By the way, I have the Tamron 17-50 non VC also. Such a fantastic lens. Crazy sharp.

What he says below....

Archibald wrote in post #19410543
With those small pixels in the R7, everything becomes more important if you are a pixel peeper - diffraction, motion blur, focus inaccuracies, lens aberrations, heat/moisture waves.

I routinely shoot the 90D (same pixel density) at f/11 and get good results with it.

I'd also add DLA isn't very visible due to camera movement when hand-holding. There are so many ways that blur an image more effectively than DLA. Diffraction is therefore low on my list of concern.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19410538
I would advice your final alternative and that is to do nothing until the camera arrives and just use it with your older lenses. The results might surprise you. So wait a bit before you start replacing your current lenses.

One thing I am wondering about is the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) of the R7. It is only f/5.2. On the R6 it is double that at f/10.6. I had no idea about this but stumbled upon this information just a few days ago on the TDP site, in the R7 review. So I now wonder if that is causing or contributing to the softness I saw in birds a bit farther away, for which I obviously used the RF 100-500mm @500mm which means shooting at f/7.1. So with the R7 having a DLA of f/5.2, diffraction surely has a softening effect when shooting at f/7.1. Maybe the tech guys can say something about that.

So I'm wondering if maybe the EF 400/5.6 would actually be a better match with the R7. With the 1.6x crop factor and 32.5 megapixels, 400mm should be plenty reach. Jeff is reach limited and shoots with a 400/5.6L now and with great results. Of course a zoom lens is more versatile. There is that. Personally I have no need for a zoom. I bought the 100-500 for the 500mm but this is very personal.

By the way, I have the Tamron 17-50 non VC also. Such a fantastic lens. Crazy sharp.

I thought you had returned the r7? Or did you decide to keep it?

greyswan wrote in post #19410567
I thought you had returned the r7? Or did you decide to keep it?

No, I don’t have the camera anymore. These shots are from a couple of weeks ago.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19410538
One thing I am wondering about is the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) of the R7. It is only f/5.2. On the R6 it is double that at f/10.6. I had no idea about this but stumbled upon this information just a few days ago on the TDP site, in the R7 review. So I now wonder if that is causing or contributing to the softness I saw in birds a bit farther away, for which I obviously used the RF 100-500mm @500mm which means shooting at f/7.1. So with the R7 having a DLA of f/5.2, diffraction surely has a softening effect when shooting at f/7.1. Maybe the tech guys can say something about that.

Bryan (TDP) seems to always mention DLA vs most other reviewers. I think its interesting that Canon introduced two rf-s lenses that are certainly not aperture optimized for best IQ regarding DLA.

While Bryan Peterson, well known instructor and author of Understanding Exposure is not concerned with DLA effects.

I guess we have to know our lenses... both the DLA and the best IQ obtained by stopping down the aperture - which we're told f8 is often the best...

Immaculens wrote in post #19410584
Bryan (TDP) seems to always mention DLA vs most other reviewers. I think its interesting that Canon introduced two rf-s lenses that are certainly not aperture optimized for best IQ regarding DLA.

While Bryan Peterson, well known instructor and author of Understanding Exposure is not concerned with DLA effects.

I guess we have to know our lenses... both the DLA and the best IQ obtained by stopping down the aperture - which we're told f8 is often the best...

I was thinking about how those two things - DLA and stopping down for sharper results - are conflicting.

Bryan (TDP) writes that softness from DLA occurs at the pixel level? So not much to be concerned about then, unless you want to crop.