Only tests and reports - including DPReview show the R7 to have a slow read out speed. Not "substantially faster",It’s been tested by more than one person, and there’s a chart making the rounds. To be perfectly honest, I can’t be bothered to fish it out now
It’s been tested by more than one person, and there’s a chart making the rounds. To be perfectly honest, I can’t be bothered to fish it out now
Sensor readout speed depends far more on the silicon substrate technology than it does on photosite count. Naturally, if you have two chips, one with 8MP and one with 24MP, made using the same process, the less dense one will have a faster readout. But this doesn’t scale linearly, and different processes can have vastly different readout speeds, enough to offset any losses from extra photosites. Like it happens with the Canon 24MP and 32MP chips.
It does. Canon sensors today use similar strategies to Sony chips, meaning that they drop down to a much lower bitrate when in “EVF mode”, which is also how they find focus. Ten milliseconds don’t sound like much, but that means a couple of extra frames for the processor to scan during AF tracking each second. Over time, that definitely adds up.
ExactlyOnly tests and reports - including DPReview show the R7 to have a slow read out speed. Not "substantially faster",It’s been tested by more than one person, and there’s a chart making the rounds. To be perfectly honest, I can’t be bothered to fish it out now
R7 and R10 both slow and similar. Only Canon camera R7 "substantially" faster is the R. Substantially slower the R7 than the R5 - which is substantially slower than the Z9.
ht
tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrT93f5yq9E
C'mon - an almost 25% faster readout isn't significant for you? Using the R5 or Z9 as benchmarks is absurd - you're talking about an order of magnitude in difference for the latter (and almost the same in price). That's not a "substantial" difference, that's an immense one.Only tests and reports - including DPReview show the R7 to have a slow read out speed. Not "substantially faster",
R7 and R10 both slow and similar. Only Canon camera R7 "substantially" faster is the R. Substantially slower the R7 than the R5 - which is substantially slower than the Z9.
ht
tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrT93f5yq9E
I disagree that it’s absurd. You really need to be up at Z9 sorts of speeds to not have to worry about rolling shutter. As you still really need to rely on mechanical shutter for the R5, R7 and R10 so it’s a difference that really isn’t all that important. Maybe there’s a potential benefit for AF performance but comparing the R7 and R10 in AF I’d say either Canon hasn’t really taken advantage of the potential or they did and the improvement is so small that it’s difficult to notice.C'mon - an almost 25% faster readout isn't significant for you? Using the R5 or Z9 as benchmarks is absurd - you're talking about an order of magnitude in difference for the latter (and almost the same in price). That's not a "substantial" difference, that's an immense one.Only tests and reports - including DPReview show the R7 to have a slow read out speed. Not "substantially faster",
R7 and R10 both slow and similar. Only Canon camera R7 "substantially" faster is the R. Substantially slower the R7 than the R5 - which is substantially slower than the Z9.
ht
tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrT93f5yq9E
I don't think there is a need to declare or search for some sort of universal truth these days on whether one camera is better than the other on AF etc, especially when these two cameras are from the same manufacturer. I have owned the R10 for three months before I replaced it with the R7, which I have been using for two months now. My experience is I can get the R7 to focus faster on sceneries with scarce light, which the R10 can but not as immediately as the R7. We're splitting hairs because I am talking about 1-2 second/s difference when they will both focus. I cannot dismiss the fact that in some situations, the R7 focused eventually when the R10 was not able to. That you cannot repeat my experience can be down to our skills (big chance you are more skilled than I am for instance, so I'd love you learn some techniques from you), focus points we're using and as you already mentioned, lenses we are using.The bottom line is that I’m using both of these cameras for actual photography and am really struggling to find any difference in AF performance. So yeah, on paper there might be a difference but so far, for making actual photos the difference hasn’t been a meaningful one. At this point I certainly wouldn’t recommend one camera over the other based on AF performance.It’s been tested by more than one person, and there’s a chart making the rounds. To be perfectly honest, I can’t be bothered to fish it out now
Sensor readout speed depends far more on the silicon substrate technology than it does on photosite count. Naturally, if you have two chips, one with 8MP and one with 24MP, made using the same process, the less dense one will have a faster readout. But this doesn’t scale linearly, and different processes can have vastly different readout speeds, enough to offset any losses from extra photosites. Like it happens with the Canon 24MP and 32MP chips.
It does. Canon sensors today use similar strategies to Sony chips, meaning that they drop down to a much lower bitrate when in “EVF mode”, which is also how they find focus. Ten milliseconds don’t sound like much, but that means a couple of extra frames for the processor to scan during AF tracking each second. Over time, that definitely adds up.
yes, these multiple factors, when combined, all add up - R7, better cropping power, better low noise at high iso, better dynamic range, better buffer, better AF in low light, IBIS vs none, etcI don't think there is a need to declare or search for some sort of universal truth these days on whether one camera is better than the other on AF etc, especially when these two cameras are from the same manufacturer. I have owned the R10 for three months before I replaced it with the R7, which I have been using for two months now. My experience is I can get the R7 to focus faster on sceneries with scarce light, which the R10 can but not as immediately as the R7. We're splitting hairs because I am talking about 1-2 second/s difference when they will both focus. I cannot dismiss the fact that in some situations, the R7 focused eventually when the R10 was not able to. That you cannot repeat my experience can be down to our skills (big chance you are more skilled than I am for instance, so I'd love you learn some techniques from you), focus points we're using and as you already mentioned, lenses we are using.The bottom line is that I’m using both of these cameras for actual photography and am really struggling to find any difference in AF performance. So yeah, on paper there might be a difference but so far, for making actual photos the difference hasn’t been a meaningful one. At this point I certainly wouldn’t recommend one camera over the other based on AF performance.It’s been tested by more than one person, and there’s a chart making the rounds. To be perfectly honest, I can’t be bothered to fish it out now
Sensor readout speed depends far more on the silicon substrate technology than it does on photosite count. Naturally, if you have two chips, one with 8MP and one with 24MP, made using the same process, the less dense one will have a faster readout. But this doesn’t scale linearly, and different processes can have vastly different readout speeds, enough to offset any losses from extra photosites. Like it happens with the Canon 24MP and 32MP chips.
It does. Canon sensors today use similar strategies to Sony chips, meaning that they drop down to a much lower bitrate when in “EVF mode”, which is also how they find focus. Ten milliseconds don’t sound like much, but that means a couple of extra frames for the processor to scan during AF tracking each second. Over time, that definitely adds up.
The person reading this post should take away the fact that the R7 and the R10 have equally capable AF capabilities. The differences I experienced does not change that. That does not mean my experiences aren't real, because they are. Otherwise, I did not need to burn more money for it. 24mp was plenty enough for me, 32mp was a bonus/nice to have. The one big difference that matters when I am photographing sports and horse-racing is buffer. With a V60 Pro-Grade SD Card, the R7 almost never chokes. The R10 makes me pause like every 3-5 seconds, before I can do high-speed shooting again, on the same kind of memory card.
Again, I’m not seeing this difference and I’m REALLY looking for it. 1 - 2 seconds is a HUGE difference and in my opinion VERY significant.I don't think there is a need to declare or search for some sort of universal truth these days on whether one camera is better than the other on AF etc, especially when these two cameras are from the same manufacturer. I have owned the R10 for three months before I replaced it with the R7, which I have been using for two months now. My experience is I can get the R7 to focus faster on sceneries with scarce light, which the R10 can but not as immediately as the R7. We're splitting hairs because I am talking about 1-2 second/s difference when they will both focus.The bottom line is that I’m using both of these cameras for actual photography and am really struggling to find any difference in AF performance. So yeah, on paper there might be a difference but so far, for making actual photos the difference hasn’t been a meaningful one. At this point I certainly wouldn’t recommend one camera over the other based on AF performance.It’s been tested by more than one person, and there’s a chart making the rounds. To be perfectly honest, I can’t be bothered to fish it out now
Sensor readout speed depends far more on the silicon substrate technology than it does on photosite count. Naturally, if you have two chips, one with 8MP and one with 24MP, made using the same process, the less dense one will have a faster readout. But this doesn’t scale linearly, and different processes can have vastly different readout speeds, enough to offset any losses from extra photosites. Like it happens with the Canon 24MP and 32MP chips.
It does. Canon sensors today use similar strategies to Sony chips, meaning that they drop down to a much lower bitrate when in “EVF mode”, which is also how they find focus. Ten milliseconds don’t sound like much, but that means a couple of extra frames for the processor to scan during AF tracking each second. Over time, that definitely adds up.
There are definitely plenty of differences between the R7 and R10 making the price difference justified. As a jpeg only shooter I find the buffer on the R10 to be great, I have only run out a couple of times when shooting really long sequences of birds flying by and I will say that I’m finding the R10 handles a full buffer (at least for jpeg shooting) much more gracefully than the R7. The couple of times I did shoot RAW with the R10 I did find the buffer does fill up quickly and could really be annoying.
