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

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

Excellent shot. Can I ask were you using mechanical or electronic shutter please

I was wondering if it was possible to look in the EXIF to see which shutter was used, but this site makes it difficult or impossible to do that. The hotlink protection keeps you from even examining the file within the site. So we have EXIF extraction built into the site that's not being maintained, and it seems that we are blocked from accessing that EXIF on our own. Anyone have any ideas? Maybe it's simple and it's just eluding me.

I installed an EXIF viewer for Firefox and when I tried to get the EXIF from the hummingbird image, it was acting on the "No hotlinking" image instead. With enough trickery I can get to an unprotected thumbnail but it doesn't have any EXIF at all.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19404033
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?

Jake,
They are virtually the same for sharpness but with my 100-400ii and the 400, at this point I give the sharpness edge to the 400 f/5.6, maybe my mk II is a not quite as good, not sure, was always and still am happy with it. BUT you are right the AF is faster on the 100-400ii, it is noticeable. BUT the light weight and where I use it at the pond, it is a winner. It is another horse for the stable

Taxboy wrote in post #19404041
Excellent shot. Can I ask were you using mechanical or electronic shutter please

This was H+ on the mechanical shutter. I have found the ES with hummers to give rolling shutter and can ruin a good shot. The noise doesn't scare them from 15 feet away but any movement does. I am shooting CRaw and get about 4 seconds with H+ and the shutter held down, about 60 shots., same with ES, only time I have used the ES 30fps has been with burst mode.

Blue Jay in Japanese Maple

Canon R7

PSteven wrote in post #19403990
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

Hosted photo: posted by PSteven in
./showthread.php?p=194​03990&i=i50462015
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by PSteven in
./showthread.php?p=194​03990&i=i179068953
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Lovely shots, that background is so nice! And from a window!

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

R7 + US$480 for Metabones Canon Full-Frame EF-Mount Lens to Canon RF-Mount Camera T Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71x Adapter
yields much of full frame goodness in 32 megapixels and nearly R3 autofocus for < $2K?

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19404050
I was wondering if it was possible to look in the EXIF to see which shutter was used, but this site makes it difficult or impossible to do that. The hotlink protection keeps you from even examining the file within the site. So we have EXIF extraction built into the site that's not being maintained, and it seems that we are blocked from accessing that EXIF on our own. Anyone have any ideas? Maybe it's simple and it's just eluding me.

I installed an EXIF viewer for Firefox and when I tried to get the EXIF from the hummingbird image, it was acting on the "No hotlinking" image instead. With enough trickery I can get to an unprotected thumbnail but it doesn't have any EXIF at all.

I don’t believe the shutter type is included in the EXIF info. I’ve looked at full EXIF info on some shots and no data field exists that I can find for it

Oristo wrote in post #19404097
R7 + US$480 for Metabones Canon Full-Frame EF-Mount Lens to Canon RF-Mount Camera T Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71x Adapter
yields much of full frame goodness in 32 megapixels and nearly R3 autofocus for < $2K?

Does metabones booster help still photos ?

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

It is no doubt sharper than the 100-400.....Bt a lot in my opinion. BUT...It does not have IS so you need shutter speed to get results....plenty of light and it would b my first choice......My problem with this lens was dusk....ran out of light pretty quick and cant keep shutter speed high enough......Its an outstanding lens but I think the 100-400 is more versatile

LoneRider wrote in post #19404119
I don’t believe the shutter type is included in the EXIF info. I’ve looked at full EXIF info on some shots and no data field exists that I can find for it

DPP should have it listed in the info panel. It has for the R6.

LoneRider wrote in post #19404119
I don’t believe the shutter type is included in the EXIF info. I’ve looked at full EXIF info on some shots and no data field exists that I can find for it

How are you looking for that data? Unless a program has code to look for that data, it can't display it.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19404128
DPP should have it listed in the info panel. It has for the R6.

This suggests there is a field in the EXIF and whatever version of DPP that Levina is using has the code to find and display the data.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19404128
DPP should have it listed in the info panel. It has for the R6.

Hmmm, I am not seeing it anywhere in the info panel. Admittedly I have only opened DPP a handful of times, but am I looking in the wrong place?

This is a screen shot of one of my R6 files and not seeing anything for shutter type???

It’s mentioned about 2/3 down this document. Look for ShutterMode

https://exiftool.org/T​agNames/Canon.html

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.

The R6 would leave money for EF 200 2.8 and 135 f2 compared to an R5 body, or almost EF 70-200 2.8. So a need, or want for the R5 extra pixels is required to make the R5 worthwhile.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19404180
It’s mentioned about 2/3 down this document. Look for ShutterMode

https://exiftool.org/T​agNames/Canon.html

OK, but where s it displayed in DPP??