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

Dragonflies at Memorial Pond. The R7 picks them up very well with the auto focus

the AF picked up the dragonflies about 25 feet away no problem

Canon R7 Canon RF600 f/11
1/800 F/11 ISO 640

LoneRider wrote in post #19402767
Levina, please don’t take this the wrong way, you have made your decision and I understand and respect your reasoning. I went back a forth with myself a few times before deciding to post the following and I don’t mean to try and change your mind but rather wanted to offer some info for others to consider as they read these posts.

You are comparing the R6, a 20mp and $2500 (USD) camera against the the 32mp $1500 R7 and seem to be focusing primarily on ISO noise levels and shutter sound as the reason for dissatisfaction.

I don’t think the tech exists, at any price, to make a sensor with the pixel density of the R7 that could match ISO/noise performance of the R6. The R7, if extrapolated to a FF sensor would be 83mp, more than 4x that of the R6 and almost twice the R5 (45mp/$3900).

Yes, the R7 has more noise but my so far limited experience is that the R7 files stand up pretty well.

There is always a trade off. Noise, reach of a APS-C sensor, AF performance, price, etc. In my opinion comparing the R7 to the R6 just isn’t “fair”. I see them as two very different tools. For me, the R6 is the “ultimate” for IQ and ISO where the R7 is more of an affordable “jack of all trades”.

For those trying to decide between R7 and R6, you really need to understand the differences they offer and think about how you will use them. I am thankful to be able to make enough money with my “hobby” that it (mostly) pays for my gear. I now have the “Trinity” of not only RF lenses, but the “Trinity” of R5/R6/R7 bodies as well. If I could ONLY have one, for general purpose use the R7 would be the no brainer for me.

I am going to see if I can do a “apples to apples” R6/R7 comparison later today in early evening light with same lens/subject at a couple different ISOs so people can see out of camera noise comparison between the R6 and R7

No. I didn’t compare the R7 to the R6. The person asking me the question (Taxboy) said he had a hard time deciding between the two cameras so I summed up what I think is the main difference between the two cameras in my first sentence.

But everything that followed was about the R7 alone without comparing it to any other camera. I judged the R7 on its own merits. Taxboy asked specifically about noise levels on the R7 and I gave him my experience with that without once referring to the R6. If I had never had the R6 I would have said the same thing as the R7 files would still look the way they do at the pixel level. They only look good at low ISO’s. In which case you can crop nicely. But the higher the ISO, the less you can crop.

It’s often said that you shouldn’t pixel peep with these high res sensors. That may be true if you don’t have to crop. But if you just shot a tiny songbird and need to crop substantially then the signal to noise ratio and sharpness at the pixel level become very important.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19402769
I knew that you weren't going to be happy, unless you switched also to a monitor with double the PPI that didn't double the magnification in your default mode of image inspection.

For me, pixel-level image noise is the least of my concerns. My main concern is going backward from 1/60s rolling shutter to 1/30s, with a relatively noisy mechanical shutter as the only alternative. People are rejoicing over 14-bit ES readout, but that could be a key reason why the rolling ES is slow by current standards in "serious" cameras.

Well as it happens my monitor died an hour ago and I have ordered a new, outrageously expensive Eizo monitor. So in a few days I will be able to finally see those R7 files in all their glory.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #19402776
Wow that sucks.

Have you got the heatwave we have here?
If so there is a small chance it will be ok when the ambient temperatures drop, at least in the interim.

Yeah, it really does suck. Thanks, Lester.

No, no heatwave here. On the contrary, it’s rather chilly with temps barely reaching 20°C.

Seems to be lots of talk on R7 and noise on this thread. We were out yesterday morning shooting whatever we came across at a Conservation area about 25 miles from home. My wife and I had 4000 acres to look around and in 3 1/2 hours saw 1 other vehicle! Love living in a rural area. I captured this Indigo Bunting in some shaded dark trees from the seat of my SUV. Used the RF 100-500 at 500mm. 1/1000 sec f7.1 and ISO 6400 -2/3 EC. Cropped shot is 3518X2345 and full frame was 6969X4640. So I threw away 75% of the frame. I opened in Lightroom, did auto tone. Turned LR sharpening down to 0. Opened file in Topaz DeNoise. Did standard DeNoise using auto setting. Looked good, returned to LR. Did my normal tweak of shadows, highlights ect.This is my normal work flow with this and my R5. I was happy with results. Great image. NO. If I did not have a good amount of Bunting shots, I would be happy to have got it. Many times I, as most of us, can not shoot in good light. As Levina stated correctly, this is my opinion right now with limited use of the R7. You may end up with a different one. I was so frustrated with the R5 at first, I thought I had made a mistake. But after a few weeks, and help from Levina and others here, I learned different things and ended up loving the R5. I think I will end up using the R7 most, because it fits my focal length challenged shooting the most. Also, I just checked the noise of the R5 VS: R7 using electronic first curtain. R7 is louder, for sure. But not a lot, to me, or a deal killer for me. I also checked it against a Canon 77D, and they are about them same in loudness. YMMV.

Cropped version first, followed by full frame, no noise reduction.

The raw processor and monitors used to view images matter, thus why there is such a seemingly large disparity across the web on R7 IQ.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19402826
The raw processor and monitors used to view images matter, thus why there is such a seemingly large disparity across the web on R7 IQ.

That's true for any camera, so I'm not understanding what the comment means.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19402794
No. I didn’t compare the R7 to the R6. The person asking me the question (Taxboy) said he had a hard time deciding between the two cameras so I summed up what I think is the main difference between the two cameras in my first sentence.

But everything that followed was about the R7 alone without comparing it to any other camera. I judged the R7 on its own merits. Taxboy asked specifically about noise levels on the R7 and I gave him my experience with that without once referring to the R6. If I had never had the R6 I would have said the same thing as the R7 files would still look the way they do at the pixel level. They only look good at low ISO’s. In which case you can crop nicely. But the higher the ISO, the less you can crop.

It’s often said that you shouldn’t pixel peep with these high res sensors. That may be true if you don’t have to crop. But if you just shot a tiny songbird and need to crop substantially then the signal to noise ratio and sharpness at the pixel level become very important.

Many thanks for sharing your thoughts. Always appreciated from regular contributors to get real world experiences. Sorry to hear your tech issues

From this morning.

The main reason I got this camera: Reach. 1-1 Crop.

This guy shows noise control with the R7 at high ISO using Lightroom along with Topaz Denoise. Some of his shots were purposely underexposed to test what could be salvaged. While the shots may not be perfect, they looked better than I expected. Forward to about 7:17 into the video to see the images

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=CArpdPJ2ASU

Now a mild crop.

A few shots from today…

Photo from LoneRider's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1168068)

Photo from LoneRider's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1168067)

Photo from LoneRider's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1168070)

Photo from LoneRider's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1168069)

Photo from LoneRider's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1168066)

LoneRider wrote in post #19402952
A few shots from today…

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by LoneRider originally in forum: Birds

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by LoneRider originally in forum: Birds

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by LoneRider originally in forum: Birds

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by LoneRider originally in forum: Birds

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by LoneRider originally in forum: Birds

Were they taken with the Sony A7 or the Canon R7?

Great Blue Heron at Memorial Pond Walpole about to chow down on a fish

Canon R7 Canon RF600mm f/11
1/1600 f/11 ISO 1000