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

Taxboy wrote in post #19403673
I'm still deliberating between the R6 and R7. Based on my reading would appreciate if people could confirm or correct my thinking please

The R6 deals with higher ISO noise better than the R7 producing cleaner RAW files. However it has a full frame sensor compared to the R7's APS C. If you add a 1.4x TC to the R6 this will give a broadly similar field of view to the R7; The TC will require an additional stop of exposure to be applied but the R6's cleaner files permit the use of a higher ISO with minimal impact.

The R6 produces a smaller file size so does not allow a great deal of cropping in post if required to maintain a reasonable size file. The R7 produces a bigger file size allowing cropping but noise can be cleaned up in post up to about 6400 ISO before some impact is seen on image quality

All input appreciated

I have both, getting the R7 to complement the R6. They both have advantages and disadvantages over each other.

The R6 is much better in low light and the files in general seem cleaner and sharper. There's less rolling shutter and I've not hit the buffer limit. I've never felt the 20mp limiting and if I really need to crop heavily, I use Topaz Gigapixel AI. The extra dial is useful and it has a better EVF, thought to be honest I don't notice the difference. Can put a batterygrip on it which isn't available for the R7. Smaller file to deal with. The machanical shutter is quite a bit quieter.

The R7 has the useful option to choose 15 fps, the focusing seems a little quicker (could be imagining that) and I really like the focus tracking. 30 fps is higher but the buffer really negates that. Has a few other useful options such as horizon leveler and pre capture and it's quite a bit cheaper and of course you have the crop factor and higher megapixels. Really like the video option on the dial and video is generally more customizable.

It comes down to what you need it for. If the crop factor is of major importance then this is better than adding an extender to the R6. If it's cleaner files and better low light ability then the R6 is better.

fma wrote in post #19403709
....The R7 has the useful option to choose 15 fps, the focusing seems a little quicker (could be imagining that) and I really like the focus tracking.

By the above do you mean the focus tracking in the R7 is superior to the R6 in your opinion?

fma wrote in post #19403709
I have both, getting the R7 to complement the R6. They both have advantages and disadvantages over each other.

The R6 is much better in low light and the files in general seem cleaner and sharper. There's less rolling shutter and I've not hit the buffer limit. I've never felt the 20mp limiting and if I really need to crop heavily, I use Topaz Gigapixel AI. The extra dial is useful and it has a better EVF, thought to be honest I don't notice the difference. Can put a batterygrip on it which isn't available for the R7. Smaller file to deal with. The machanical shutter is quite a bit quieter.

The R7 has the useful option to choose 15 fps, the focusing seems a little quicker (could be imagining that) and I really like the focus tracking. 30 fps is higher but the buffer really negates that. Has a few other useful options such as horizon leveler and pre capture and it's quite a bit cheaper and of course you have the crop factor and higher megapixels. Really like the video option on the dial and video is generally more customizable.

It comes down to what you need it for. If the crop factor is of major importance then this is better than adding an extender to the R6. If it's cleaner files and better low light ability then the R6 is better.

You can create a grip extension, it works great, only downside you have to remove it every time you change the battery and it is JUST an extension.

I picked up a used 400L f/5.6, was curious to see how it does with the R7. Crow was about 125 yards away across the pond

I am pleased so far

Canon R7

Immaculens wrote in post #19403711
By the above do you mean the focus tracking in the R7 is superior to the R6 in your opinion?

I have to admit, that I am getting the same feeling vs. R5.
It's what Canon said, and I doubted it. But I think it's true. It's not huge, the R5 and R6 (and 1DXIII in live view) was the BIG jump in Mirrorless AF for cannon. But the R3 and R7 have clearly moved ahead.

for AF I'd list them as follows

R3
R7
R5=R6
1DXIII

Did you do some sort of spot sharpening or other treatment to the area where the bird is? The sky seems bluer, and the bird has a white outline that is more pronounced than it is in the other focused areas.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19403752
Did you do some sort of spot sharpening or other treatment to the area where the bird is? The sky seems bluer, and the bird has a white outline that is more pronounced than it is in the other focused areas.

I saw that afterwards, I used AUTO in AI Denoise and then a present in LR. My problem is with my new eyes, cataract surgery, I can see a duck at 250 yards (20/15 both eyes) but my close PC vision even with glasses isn't that great yet.

I am going to redo it and see what I get

Here is the reprocessed image, used less AI Denoise and milder LR

I have to take more time to look at what I am processing!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19403718
I have to admit, that I am getting the same feeling vs. R5.
It's what Canon said, and I doubted it. But I think it's true. It's not huge, the R5 and R6 (and 1DXIII in live view) was the BIG jump in Mirrorless AF for cannon. But the R3 and R7 have clearly moved ahead.

for AF I'd list them as follows

R3
R7
R5=R6
1DXIII

$6000 for the R3
$1500 for the R7
$3900 for the R5
$2499 for the R6
$6000 for the 1Dx3

$1500 is a no brainer decision For the #2 spot for AF Functions....No Brainer

R7 and RF 800 f11 1/800sec ISO 400 -1 1/3EC Cropped from 6984X4660 down to 4428X2952 , so threw away 60% of original image.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nxT​Nz3

fabian_fopp wrote in post #19403580
Hi,

I was testing the Canon EOS R7 for about a week shooting birds, mammals, insects and more. This is of course not a long-term test, but I think I got a lot of impressions of the camera and therefore made a review about the R7 on my YouTube channel.

https://youtu.be/W2UGM​YzrgLM

I hope this kind of post is welcome here. Let me know if you have any questions regarding the camera and will try my best to answer them ߘ

Cheers,
Fabian

This was helpful ~ thank-you

Taxboy wrote in post #19403673
I'm still deliberating between the R6 and R7. Based on my reading would appreciate if people could confirm or correct my thinking please

The R6 deals with higher ISO noise better than the R7 producing cleaner RAW files. However it has a full frame sensor compared to the R7's APS C. If you add a 1.4x TC to the R6 this will give a broadly similar field of view to the R7; The TC will require an additional stop of exposure to be applied but the R6's cleaner files permit the use of a higher ISO with minimal impact.

The R6 produces a smaller file size so does not allow a great deal of cropping in post if required to maintain a reasonable size file. The R7 produces a bigger file size allowing cropping but noise can be cleaned up in post up to about 6400 ISO before some impact is seen on image quality

All input appreciated

With a 1.4TC, using the same shooting distance and lens, the R6 will give you 13.8 megapixels for your target while the R7 without TC will give you 32.5.
Are you sure the R6 shot, with 1 stop less light is going to have less noise?
Printed say at 12x8, or displayed 'to fit screen'.

Alternatively, print the R6 shot at 8x12 and the R7 shot at 12x18. I think the R6 shot will then be cleaner, but it's a lot smaller.

If you use long lenses and have 500 f4, 600 f4 and 800 5.6, buy the R6.
If you have the longest lens you can afford but wish you had a longer lens, buy the R7. The money saved will help getting a longer, or better long lens.

umphotography wrote in post #19403767
$6000 for the R3
$1500 for the R7
$3900 for the R5
$2499 for the R6
$6000 for the 1Dx3

$1500 is a no brainer decision For the #2 spot for AF Functions....No Brainer

Such no brainer that you said it twice!

Choderboy wrote in post #19403836
With a 1.4TC, using the same shooting distance and lens, the R6 will give you 13.8 megapixels for your target while the R7 without TC will give you 32.5.
Are you sure the R6 shot, with 1 stop less light is going to have less noise?
Printed say at 12x8, or displayed 'to fit screen'.

Alternatively, print the R6 shot at 8x12 and the R7 shot at 12x18. I think the R6 shot will then be cleaner, but it's a lot smaller.

If you use long lenses and have 500 f4, 600 f4 and 800 5.6, buy the R6.
If you have the longest lens you can afford but wish you had a longer lens, buy the R7. The money saved will help getting a longer, or better long lens.

Your point re: "Are you sure the R6 shot, with 1 stop less light is going to have less noise?" is strong, and this is the comparison that Taxboy mentioned. I'd curious how much better either is over the other in these specific circumstances,. On the other hand, in many light challenged circumstances, long lens work or filling the frame is not a concern. My own uses involve shooting in dark theatres where 200mm f/2.8 on full frame is more than long enough. In these cases the R6 just plain wins.

umphotography wrote in post #19403767
$6000 for the R3
$1500 for the R7
$3900 for the R5
$2499 for the R6
$6000 for the 1Dx3

$1500 is a no brainer decision For the #2 spot for AF Functions....No Brainer

Exactly so. I like comparing apples to apples, not oranges.