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

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19403755
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

I'm sure you know about this, and maybe it will have no impact, but I only just recently learned that there are "computer glasses" Essentially reading glasses for computer screen distances. I got mine directly from my optometrist with all prescription built in, and they are truly amazing!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19403970
I'm sure you know about this, and maybe it will have no impact, but I only just recently learned that there are "computer glasses" Essentially reading glasses for computer screen distances. I got mine directly from my optometrist with all prescription built in, and they are truly amazing!

"Workspace" type prescription are fantastic. When I got mine earlier this year I was amazed at how clear my phone is. It's pretty cool to not have to hold a restaurant menu at arms length. I don't use them with the camera as adjusting the diopter will do, but on my computers for personal and work, very happy. Ahhh, the "joys" of getting older.

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.

That's not how I would put things. The R6 has no real noise advantage other than the brute force of a larger sensor area, which makes it capable of less noise at the same exposure and ISO, but that does not automatically become possible, depending on shooting conditions and glass. There is a false belief prevalent out there that total final image light comes from your sensor size. It does not; total light that you keep in your composition if cropping comes from your lens' pupil and its distance from the subject, for any subject size in any given ambient light. The bottom line is that you must have shallower DOF to get a noise advantage from FF, above base ISO. Only at base ISO, when you have so much light that you can use an unnecessary shutter speed, does FF get more light without shallower DOF. If you want and can get shallower DOF with FF, like 85/1.2 vs 50/1.2 on APS-C, it is win-win, but in many situations in which people shoot small/distant subjects and are always focal-length-limited, that this shallower DOF never materializes, and FF noise superiority is a miscalculation of scale.

The FOV gets closer in size, but the R7 is still giving 2x as many pixels-on-subject. If you put a 2x on the R6 for the same pixels-on-subject, then the R6 is at 4x the ISO, where 100% pixel views, which are now safe for comparing the sensors doing the same pixels-on-subject "job", should show slightly less noise with the R7. So, capturing the subject at the same number of pixels with the same main glass gives zero noise benefit to the R6.

I think it is pretty clear that there is an empirical fact that R7 captures are never really noisier than R6 captures DOING THE SAME THING with the same amount of light, but many people will interpret the higher resolution of the R7 as a "flaw" because they can see individual pixel noise impulses at 2x the resolution that you can see anything at all coming from the R6 pixels, with the same ISO and exposure. You have a choice to use those finer details at magnification, in which case you need to see noise or use a lot of reduction, or you can just not sharpen them and use them for better sampling quality.

Not everyone is looking at 200% crops from the R6 and comparing them to not-heavily-sharpened 100% crops from the R7, which is what it would take to even begin to be equitable for focal-length-limited photography, so many people are seeing "more noise" where it does not actually exist. And no matter how many times I or anyone else explains this to you, you too may feel that the R7 is noisier with the same light, even though it isn't. Take someone with smooth skin that makes other people jealous, and put it under a microscope, and it will show all kinds of "imperfections", but you don't have to use 400x power if 287x will do what you need.

LoneRider wrote in post #19403678
That is pretty much the differences.

Nothing is "free" there is always a trade off.

I disagree; things get thrown away all the time, and if they are not thrown away then they are free. In this case, larger pixels throw away detail without getting any less noise for a given total amount of subject light. The extra detail of smaller pixels does not cost "more noise" at any common level of subject detail, AOTBE. Only the new, extra, finer level of detail has a lower SNR, and you can choose to emphasize those details and associated noise or not; it's your choice how you process it and magnify it. What would people do if they received a magical camera where the sensor just recorded the location and wavelength of every photon that struck it? You'd have infinite resolution, and virtually infinite noise at the virtual pixel level, but you'd have the best sensor possible, bar none.

Resulting in 2x or 4x the ISO on the FF R6, losing any R6 noise benefit (at the same ISO", and dulling the captures slightly with the TC's aberrations.

Just as capable as the R6; you merely have a choice to use the finer details with the lower SNR, or not. It is not a loss, except if you believe that telling the converter not to sharpen pixel-level details for best results is a loss.

Well I have discovered a tree I can see from my bathroom is popular with some birds. So had a go with the R7 and 1.4 TC

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

That shutter sound is my major apprehension, since ES rolls a bit on the slow side for current "serious" cameras. I'd take a limit of 10fps with a leaf shutter, if the choice were available.

Manufacturers ignore the possibility of leaf shutters probably because "global shutters are on their way", but where are they?

John Sheehy wrote in post #19403986
That's not how I would put things. The R6 has no real noise advantage other than the brute force of a larger sensor area, which makes it capable of less noise at the same exposure and ISO, but that does not automatically become possible, depending on shooting conditions and glass. There is a false belief prevalent out there that total final image light comes from your sensor size. It does not; total light that you keep in your composition if cropping comes from your lens' pupil and its distance from the subject, for any subject size in any given ambient light. The bottom line is that you must have shallower DOF to get a noise advantage from FF, above base ISO. Only at base ISO, when you have so much light that you can use an unnecessary shutter speed, does FF get more light without shallower DOF. If you want and can get shallower DOF with FF, like 85/1.2 vs 50/1.2 on APS-C, it is win-win, but in many situations in which people shoot small/distant subjects and are always focal-length-limited, that this shallower DOF never materializes, and FF noise superiority is a miscalculation of scale.

The FOV gets closer in size, but the R7 is still giving 2x as many pixels-on-subject. If you put a 2x on the R6 for the same pixels-on-subject, then the R6 is at 4x the ISO, where 100% pixel views, which are now safe for comparing the sensors doing the same pixels-on-subject "job", should show slightly less noise with the R7. So, capturing the subject at the same number of pixels with the same main glass gives zero noise benefit to the R6.

I think it is pretty clear that there is an empirical fact that R7 captures are never really noisier than R6 captures DOING THE SAME THING with the same amount of light, but many people will interpret the higher resolution of the R7 as a "flaw" because they can see individual pixel noise impulses at 2x the resolution that you can see anything at all coming from the R6 pixels, with the same ISO and exposure. You have a choice to use those finer details at magnification, in which case you need to see noise or use a lot of reduction, or you can just not sharpen them and use them for better sampling quality.

Not everyone is looking at 200% crops from the R6 and comparing them to not-heavily-sharpened 100% crops from the R7, which is what it would take to even begin to be equitable for focal-length-limited photography, so many people are seeing "more noise" where it does not actually exist. And no matter how many times I or anyone else explains this to you, you too may feel that the R7 is noisier with the same light, even though it isn't. Take someone with smooth skin that makes other people jealous, and put it under a microscope, and it will show all kinds of "imperfections", but you don't have to use 400x power if 287x will do what you need.

I wrote a month ago on FB that technology and software are closing the gap between FF and Crop sensors (and got the typical 'laughing emoji' from trolls without them defending FF) and I think I asked at the time "what is the benefit of FF today?". I also said camera makers put all the better tech in FF and proceed to add a premium price tag - vs giving apsc the same tech and ergonomics - citing the 7D2 (or D500) as exceptions.

I appreciated your words above John. What advantage do 'you' see to owning a FF body today vs a good (non-crippled) APS-c?

Do you own a FF, and if so in what circumstances do you shoot it vs a crop.

I'm looking at both the R3 and R5 - mainly because of the advanced tech and performance in them. Canon could easily have come out with a real 7D2 upgrade - a mini R3 - with 24-32mp range sensor - but it would kill R3 & R5 sales. I figure on keeping my 7D2 untill further R7 reviews come in to make a decision.

Another with the R7 and 1.4 TC.

I also took some shots of the same subject with the R6 and 1.4 TC and I am now appreciating the extra reach of the R7

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19403962
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.

That is the "zoom" context, though. That is a context where you do get a larger pupil with a larger sensor, if you are either looking for the shallowest DOF or the most light. If you need 200/2.8 on FF, then you have a 71mm pupil. If you need the same AOV with APS-C, then you will back out to 125/2.8, and now you have only a 44mm pupil, with less background blur and more DOF, and less total light.

If you're cropping both, though, from 200/2.8, then the pupil is the same size, and so is the total light the same.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19403986
That's not how I would put things. The R6 has no real noise advantage other than the brute force of a larger sensor area, which makes it capable of less noise at the same exposure and ISO, but that does not automatically become possible, depending on shooting conditions and glass. There is a false belief prevalent out there that total final image light comes from your sensor size. It does not; total light that you keep in your composition if cropping comes from your lens' pupil and its distance from the subject, for any subject size in any given ambient light. The bottom line is that you must have shallower DOF to get a noise advantage from FF, above base ISO. Only at base ISO, when you have so much light that you can use an unnecessary shutter speed, does FF get more light without shallower DOF. If you want and can get shallower DOF with FF, like 85/1.2 vs 50/1.2 on APS-C, it is win-win, but in many situations in which people shoot small/distant subjects and are always focal-length-limited, that this shallower DOF never materializes, and FF noise superiority is a miscalculation of scale.

The FOV gets closer in size, but the R7 is still giving 2x as many pixels-on-subject. If you put a 2x on the R6 for the same pixels-on-subject, then the R6 is at 4x the ISO, where 100% pixel views, which are now safe for comparing the sensors doing the same pixels-on-subject "job", should show slightly less noise with the R7. So, capturing the subject at the same number of pixels with the same main glass gives zero noise benefit to the R6.

I think it is pretty clear that there is an empirical fact that R7 captures are never really noisier than R6 captures DOING THE SAME THING with the same amount of light, but many people will interpret the higher resolution of the R7 as a "flaw" because they can see individual pixel noise impulses at 2x the resolution that you can see anything at all coming from the R6 pixels, with the same ISO and exposure. You have a choice to use those finer details at magnification, in which case you need to see noise or use a lot of reduction, or you can just not sharpen them and use them for better sampling quality.

Not everyone is looking at 200% crops from the R6 and comparing them to not-heavily-sharpened 100% crops from the R7, which is what it would take to even begin to be equitable for focal-length-limited photography, so many people are seeing "more noise" where it does not actually exist. And no matter how many times I or anyone else explains this to you, you too may feel that the R7 is noisier with the same light, even though it isn't. Take someone with smooth skin that makes other people jealous, and put it under a microscope, and it will show all kinds of "imperfections", but you don't have to use 400x power if 287x will do what you need.

And yet, @Levina de Ruijter has noticed differences between the R7 and R6, with the R6 showing less noise.

Capn Jack wrote in post #19403999
And yet, @Levina de Ruijter has noticed differences between the R7 and R6, with the R6 showing less noise.

R5 has less noise too

Couple more shots on my lunchtime walk with the R7 and 1.4 TC

Sitting in the garden with the wife.

I just picked up a Canon 400 f/5.6 used from KEH and my first impression is the it is very slightly sharper than my 100-400L mk II, it is certainly lighter. At the pond I almost always shoot at 400mm on the 100-400 or use the RF600, also in the garden even though I am only 15 feet from the bee balm plants I use the 400.

Here is a hummingbird this morning with the R7

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19404028
Sitting in the garden with the wife.

I just picked up a Canon 400 f/5.6 used from KEH and my first impression is the it is very slightly sharper than my 100-400L mk II, it is certainly lighter. At the pond I almost always shoot at 400mm on the 100-400 or use the RF600, also in the garden even though I am only 15 feet from the bee balm plants I use the 400.

Here is a hummingbird this morning with the R7

Hosted photo: posted by Jeff USN Photog 72-76 in
./showthread.php?p=194​04028&i=i246035211
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Excellent! Really top quality image.

The old 400mm "pocket rocket" is an amazing lens!

I could not part with it back when i was still shooting the version 1 100-400mm "trombone"
It had noticeably better image quality, and MUCH faster, more confident autofocus. I was always left having to decide which was best for each use, as it was no good at all for 100-399mm

IMHO, the Version II changed a lot of that. IQ is now so close as to make no difference (I am sure you are correct that the prime may have the edge) and if I recall correctly I was pretty convinced the modern AF motor was slightly faster. I finally did sell the 400mm, but I do miss it's lightweight and ease of use.

It was that light, back when lightweight long primes was not a thing. Imagine f they applied some of the more recent weight savings to a modern version of this lens?

Great photo, I too owned the 400 and sold it when I got the 100-400 II. The 400 was great and I loved the built in lens hood. I don't know why that's not more common.