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

PSteven wrote in post #19403301
Wonderful capture

thanks my friend

fma wrote in post #19403302
Pushed the ISO to 25600 for this one and processed with noise reduction. Certainly very useable.

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …/0A3A1665-X3.jpg&lb=1&s=A on Smugmug

perfectly cleaned

fma wrote in post #19403302
Pushed the ISO to 25600 for this one and processed with noise reduction. Certainly very useable.

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …/0A3A1665-X3.jpg&lb=1&s=A on Smugmug

There's so much noise I can't see what it is....
Squirrel?
Joking ~ nice capture

If I can get my gymnastics shots to be that clean at 25k, I'll be ecstatic!

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.

Maybe someone else made a claim about your specific monitor not being up to the task, I don't know, but any point that I have been making is about monitor pixel size (fixed and large - a problem with most monitors). The R7 has the smallest pixels that you work with for that type of photography, so the sensor area is magnified more than with the other cameras at 1:1 or 100% pixel view, because the pixels on your monitor don't get smaller when displaying images taken with smaller pixels. I've said many times in the past that the fact that monitors have big, fixed-size pixels causes no end of confusion. We should be using monitors that have many times more pixels than our cameras, and upsampling everything just to get images to fill the frame, but that technology is still distant. If you had such a monitor today, you would have no reason to use 100% exactly; you'd view your bird at the highest magnification at which it looked good to you, and you'd gauge the quality of subject capture by how big you could make the bird before it starts to show distracting flaws. You wouldn't likely look at the R7 at 2x the bird height and width on the monitor; you might find that it is only worth 1.6x as much magnification, because technique and optical sharpness have their limitations.

If you look at the same shot (same exposure, Av, TV, ISO in the same light) with the same lens on the R6 and the R7, and look at the R6 at ~200% so that the subject is the same size in the frame, and don't sharpen the R7, you shouldn't have any significant difference in noise. If you put a 2x on the R6 and everything was the same except f-number (twice the bare lens), and ISO (4x what it would be without the TC), and this is less prone to illusion than the first one and with both at 100%, the R7 will likely look a tad cleaner, and should be sharper without the extra glass.

and an immortal test

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:

When everything else but the sensor is the same, even a strong AA filter on 3.2 micron pixels causes much less subject blur than a weak AA filter on 6.4 micron pixels, because "strong" and "weak" are relative to pixel size, and don't really vary that much. That's one reason that I like to lean towards "more pixels on subject", because it means less AA blur on subject.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19403340
When everything else but the sensor is the same, even a strong AA filter on 3.2 micron pixels causes much less subject blur than a weak AA filter on 6.4 micron pixels, because "strong" and "weak" are relative to pixel size, and don't really vary that much. That's one reason that I like to lean towards "more pixels on subject", because it means less AA blur on subject.

It's true, but I prefer there is no filter at all, but Canon takes it off for an extra charge and calls it hi res:szeroki uśmiech:

grzegorz9992 wrote in post #19403335
and an immortal test

Hosted photo: posted by grzegorz9992 in
./showthread.php?p=194​03335&i=i262622796
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Did you try to get closer to the subject?

John Sheehy wrote in post #19403344
Did you try to get closer to the subject?

Yes! He used an extender!

grzegorz9992 wrote in post #19403343
It's true, but I prefer there is no filter at all, but Canon takes it off for an extra charge and calls it hi res:szeroki uśmiech:

That's all well and good if your lens is a little soft, or your technique is never stable, but the whole idea of being rewarded with moiré when everything comes together perfectly doesn't exactly thrill me.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19402993
The comment is about how 10 year old software and/or equipment is likely more the cause about bad noise or IQ than the R7.

The two biggest improvements I made in relation to processing were 1) replace PSe (8-bit raw converter) with Lr (16-bit) and 2) a good 4K monitor.

At some point the newness will wear off... but for now, here are a couple more. They were doing some work on the streets in front of the house, so I had to park a few blocks down the road. It is close to an empty field and here are a couple of shots from the morning around 7am. Both with the 1.4x TC.

And then on my way home, around 1:30pm, after parking the car . Really hot, 37 C, just a couple of birds along the sidewalk. This time without the TC.

Amazon played the "underpromise and overdeliver" game by pushing my R7 delivery date from 7/7 to 7/18, then on the 8th I got the notification it was shipping next day air. We were away so I had to wait until today, the 11th, to take delivery. First impressions after a couple hundred shot in the backyard late in the afternoon.

• The mechanical shutter was fortunately not quite the "hailstorm falling on a tin roof" sound I was worried about, but it's definitely a shock coming from the wonderfully plush R6.
  
• Having a sound in electronic, and having the option of adjusting it is a really nice feature.
  
• Tried double back button AF and not sure it's really going to be feasible with how recessed the buttons are. I am really going to need to spend some time understanding the AF settings and how the setup will need to be different from the R6.
  
• EVF seems fine, but the diopter is a pain having it on the left side. Can't really hand hold it and dial it in.