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

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19464007
I think it’s important to realise that DPP only shows which focus point was used and not where it actually focused! So although it looks like the camera focused on the eye, that may not be the case.

I haven't looked into it, but the camera has focus peaking. Is there a way to see that in DPP?

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19464007
I think it’s important to realise that DPP only shows which focus point was used and not where it actually focused! So although it looks like the camera focused on the eye, that may not be the case.

Yes Servo was never an accurate indicator, especially for tracking moving subjects.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19464022
I haven't looked into it, but the camera has focus peaking. Is there a way to see that in DPP?

I haven’t used focus peaking and have no idea how DPP deals with those files. However, since focus peaking is used with manual focusing my guess is that the focus points used don’t register for DPP to read.

I have found in the past fur can be a little deceiving. Another example and here with just some basic capture sharpening. As I get out there and shoot more it will be fine. I have noticed the IS/IBIS does take a few seconds to adjust on this body. Also 800mm is a whole new ball game as any little movement by the shooter will show up. The ISO was a little high as well.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19464022
I haven't looked into it, but the camera has focus peaking. Is there a way to see that in DPP?

I played with focus peaking a bit; it is ok as a MF aid but I don't think it would help here. Apart from being after the event I don't think it would allow enough differentiation.

I suspect this is more about the camera thinking it is focused on something when in fact it is focused on something else.

digital paradise wrote in post #19464036
I have found in the past fur can be a little deceiving. Another example and here with just some basic capture sharpening. As I get out there and shoot more it will be fine. I have noticed the IS/IBIS does take a few seconds to adjust on this body. Also 800mm is a whole new ball game as any little movement by the shooter will show up. The ISO was a little high as well.

DP, 800mm? The exif says aperture f/7.1 so that would be the 100-500, right?

digital paradise wrote in post #19464026
Yes Servo was never an accurate indicator, especially for tracking moving subjects.

Yes I would not be surprised if the subject or camera was in motion but my understanding was bother were relatively stationary in axis, correct?

One way of seeing this effect is if the lens is wobbling around a bit. The camera acquires the subject and then the point of focus moves away as the lens wobbles.

digital paradise wrote in post #19464036
I have found in the past fur can be a little deceiving. Another example and here with just some basic capture sharpening. As I get out there and shoot more it will be fine. I have noticed the IS/IBIS does take a few seconds to adjust on this body. Also 800mm is a whole new ball game as any little movement by the shooter will show up. The ISO was a little high as well.

Hosted photo: posted by digital paradise in
./showthread.php?p=194​64036&i=i111311069
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by digital paradise in
./showthread.php?p=194​64036&i=i142269841
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Agreed, a handheld shot with 800mm would allow the wobbles effect, focussing on the snow on the nose, then the wobble puts the focus location over the eye.

Not saying that is what happened, but it could explain it.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19464059
Agreed, a handheld shot with 800mm would allow the wobbles effect, focussing on the snow on the nose, then the wobble puts the focus location over the eye.

Not saying that is what happened, but it could explain it.

Also, 800mm is a lot of length and the tiniest movement can blur fine detail, especially with a high res camera like the R7.

For focus testing, would recommend using an actual focus chart and not a battery test. It is much easier to show any possible focus issues when using a chart.

Initially I started with this chart that you can print and put on a clip board and then put it on a 45 degree woodworking square: http://regex.info/blog​/photo-tech/focus-chart

I then finally broke down and bought an actual photography focus chart similar to this (but not this actual one): https://www.amazon.com …&pd_rd_i=B07P6F​DW5R&psc=1


Now what do you do if you find that it is actually back focusing, I have no idea without micro adjust settings, I guess call Canon?

TenaCJed wrote in post #19464068
For focus testing, would recommend using an actual focus chart and not a battery test. It is much easier to show any possible focus issues when using a chart.

Initially I started with this chart that you can print and put on a clip board and then put it on a 45 degree woodworking square: http://regex.info/blog​/photo-tech/focus-chart

I then finally broke down and bought an actual photography focus chart similar to this (but not this actual one): https://www.amazon.com …&pd_rd_i=B07P6F​DW5R&psc=1


Now what do you do if you find that it is actually back focusing, I have no idea without micro adjust settings, I guess call Canon?

To be clear I doubt this is a camera issue, difficult to see a fault method with mirrorless (that is why no micro adjust).

I do agree testing in controlled conditions is a good way to build confidence in the camera.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19464073
To be clear I doubt this is a camera issue, difficult to see a fault method with mirrorless (that is why no micro adjust).

I do agree testing in controlled conditions is a good way to build confidence in the camera.

I agree. My test Santa shots already showed that. This is a pretty heavy crop and detail is good.

Based on some of the searching I have done on this topic with recent Canon mirrorless bodies, I would not agree that mirrorless does not need micro adjust; at least in the context of using the adapter for older EF lenses. I know that in this case it is RF lens, but I would still want to do a real focus test chart to know for sure the focus plane is proper. Having completed a proper focus test with controlled conditions lets you know for certain that when you see odd focus issues that it comes down to technique or subject movement. But, that is just the way I think and what I do with any new lens or body.

In doing just a little bit of searching I have come across several complaints about front \ back focus when using the adapter for EF \ EF-S lenses. That is part of the reason that I am very hesitant to make the change, as I am not about to try to sell my EF lenses and replace with RF. Now what I am not sure on is if they were using the Canon adapter or third party and why I intend to look into this more.

TenaCJed wrote in post #19464095
Based on some of the searching I have done on this topic with recent Canon mirrorless bodies, I would not agree that mirrorless does not need micro adjust; at least in the context of using the adapter for older EF lenses. I know that in this case it is RF lens, but I would still want to do a real focus test chart to know for sure the focus plane is proper. Having completed a proper focus test with controlled conditions lets you know for certain that when you see odd focus issues that it comes down to technique or subject movement. But, that is just the way I think and what I do with any new lens or body.

In doing just a little bit of searching I have come across several complaints about front \ back focus when using the adapter for EF \ EF-S lenses. That is part of the reason that I am very hesitant to make the change, as I am not about to try to sell my EF lenses and replace with RF. Now what I am not sure on is if they were using the Canon adapter or third party and why I intend to look into this more.

One reason I loved the transition to ML is no MFA anymore.There have been some complaints about back or front focus on Canon ML. It seems to mostly be a lens issue corrected by the manuufacturer. I suppose the sensor and IBIS would need to be calibrated at Canon these day but I don't hear of many that need it.

digital paradise wrote in post #19464102
One reason I loved the transition to ML is no MFA anymore.There have been some complaints about back or front focus on Canon ML. It seems to mostly be a lens issue corrected by the manuufacturer. I suppose the sensor and IBIS would need to be calibrated at Canon these day but I don't hear of many that need it.

I don't think Canon would touch the EF 500MM F4 (original) as it has long been dropped from support. And if they would, I really do not want to pay for shipping and insurance of that beast!

Again, the complaints I have seen all seem to be with EF lenses and using the adapter. Seems using straight RF seems to be good to go.

I would much rather have the option to do MFA in rare circumstances than to have no option at all and shipping to Canon! Several other camera manufacturers still have MFA in their mirrorless, Canon made the choice not to.