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

Suddenly she ran out of the bushes next to me. R7 He caught it immediately. Then her mother ran out. I took a series of 10 photos, all sharp

Just a test with the R7 and the 100-400ii and a 1.4 TC

This comment is directed to those in this thread that think I can’t judge RAW files because my system needs upgrading.

Yes, my Mac Pro is from 2009 and is as capable as it ever was, I just can’t update the OS any longer. However, Mojave, the last update I could install, was launched less than 4 years ago. My monitor is/was a NEC high end display from their PA line from 2011. So, these are the reasons I don’t like the R7 files? How come, on the same system, I liked the files of my 1DIIn, 1DIII, 1DIV, 5Dc, R6? How come I liked the high ISO, high res RAW files I have looked at from the R3 and R5? Explain please.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19403106
This comment is directed to those in this thread that think I can’t judge RAW files because my system needs upgrading.

Yes, my Mac Pro is from 2009 and is as capable as it ever was, I just can’t update the OS any longer. However, Mojave, the last update I could install, was launched less than 4 years ago. My monitor is/was a NEC high end display from their PA line from 2011. So, these are the reasons I don’t like the R7 files? How come, on the same system, I liked the files of my 1DIIn, 1DIII, 1DIV, 5Dc, R6? How come I liked the high ISO, high res RAW files I have looked at from the R3 and R5? Explain please.

there is only one explanation, this is a Canon apsc body with a nasty AA filter I have a feeling of at least 35%. but something for something (af) . :szeroki uśmiech:

PSteven wrote in post #19403084
Just a test with the R7 and the 100-400ii and a 1.4 TC

That looks as good as I hoped.

How was the af speed / lock ?

grzegorz9992 wrote in post #19403130
there is only one explanation, this is a Canon apsc body with a nasty AA filter I have a feeling of at least 35%. but something for something (af) . :szeroki uśmiech:

True. There are always trade offs. Thanks, Grzegorz.

Mike-P wrote in post #19403132
That looks as good as I hoped.

How was the af speed / lock ?

The AF speed / lock seemed very good. I didn't really notice any difference to not having the 1.4 tc on but I wasn't really paying too much attention - more testing needed.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19403106
This comment is directed to those in this thread that think I can’t judge RAW files because my system needs upgrading.

Yes, my Mac Pro is from 2009 and is as capable as it ever was, I just can’t update the OS any longer. However, Mojave, the last update I could install, was launched less than 4 years ago. My monitor is/was a NEC high end display from their PA line from 2011. So, these are the reasons I don’t like the R7 files? How come, on the same system, I liked the files of my 1DIIn, 1DIII, 1DIV, 5Dc, R6? How come I liked the high ISO, high res RAW files I have looked at from the R3 and R5? Explain please.

There are many here that are sporting old raw converters and older systems. It isn't just you. Raw files can change upon any rlease and thus why raw converters have to updated. This has happened in the past with other bodies. Old raw converters don't always convert new raw files correctly (the raw files are actually a bunch of containers of data, some JPG, some raw, etc, and you may get things like undue noise, etc without upgrading. Software is what is being used here to convert raw content into a viewable imaging format, both from a raw converter perspective, and from a monitor display perspective, both are software driven. This was indeed a huge issue back when the 7D2 was launched, but once Adobe updated their converter, things settled down a bit.

a question and a comment.

Question: The R7 has both ES and MS, I have been shooting MS but today decided to try the ES. was wondering if it is easier on the camera than the MS, less moving parts etc?
I think the R7 is rated to 200k clicks on the MS and I am sure they can be replaced. Which leads me to my comment

Comment: with the ES I see the rolling shutter even at 15 FPS, not that noticeable against foliage but it is certainly noticeable when you include something that should be square.

One of the things I was hoping for on the R7 was birds against cluttered backgrounds. It is not perfect but it is better than my 90D. It seems less likely to jump to the background rather than the bird.
Many of my shots have this sort of background.

the full frame image is a straight jpg from the R7 (I always shoot CRaw and L fine jpg but only process the CRaws as I found culling is just a bit faster by culling jpgs and then deleting the Craws, I am just fast that way)

Rolling shutter effect has nothing to do with shutter speed or burst rate. It's just about the read rate of the sensor. ES is simply not appropriate for panning against a geometrically distinct background. You can probably get away with it against BGs like sea, sky, or OOF foliage but hard verticals are just going to be a problem.

Dave63401 wrote in post #19402988
Great Blue Heron taken yesterday. One of the first shots of the day. Normally would not process, but wanted to see what it would do. It was heavy overcast about 45 minutes after sunrise, is a shady area not close to getting any light. RF 100-500, 1/1000 f7.1 ISO 25,600. Topaz DeNoise Severe Noise auto settings.

Hosted photo: posted by Dave63401 in
./showthread.php?p=194​02988&i=i2465311
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

wow

25800

crazy....what did you do in post...that looks good

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19403156
There are many here that are sporting old raw converters and older systems. It isn't just you. Raw files can change upon any rlease and thus why raw converters have to updated. This has happened in the past with other bodies. Old raw converters don't always convert new raw files correctly (the raw files are actually a bunch of containers of data, some JPG, some raw, etc, and you may get things like undue noise, etc without upgrading. Software is what is being used here to convert raw content into a viewable imaging format, both from a raw converter perspective, and from a monitor display perspective, both are software driven. This was indeed a huge issue back when the 7D2 was launched, but once Adobe updated their converter, things settled down a bit.

I have used the Adobe DNG converter for a number of years but couldn’t update to the latest version that supports the R7. But not everything begins and ends with Adobe; there are other RAW converters that have updated recently to include the R7 that could be installed and run on my Mac, so still not seeing the problem.

I don't know how this pertains to you, I am only stating a fact that video displays, drivers, raw converters, etc all have to be updated to see the best from digital files. My own system is years old now (old HP) but I keep on the curve simply because Canon updates DPP and I keep using it. Also just because one can process raw files from many camera models doesn't mean one is getting the best from the files. A raw file is much like a house with many rooms, and Canon will do remodeling on the rooms from time to time as to what the purpose of the data is in each room. This causes some heartburn during new releases until raw converters are updated to make use of the new rooms/data.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19401865
...Because everything on my old Mac Pro can work with the jpegs and no longer with the R7’s raw files....

I am running the latest DPP on a Mac with Mojave, like you have. I haven't tried to open any R7 files but it does install and I use it as my only raw converter.

Now, that Mac of mine is capable of running one further level of MacOS, Catalina I think, so maybe it has something that your old Mac Pro doesn't. Are you saying that the latest DPP won't run on your machine? What version is it that won't work to convert R7 raws for you?