My first few weeks with the R7

jromer79 wrote:

Great post, and very well done and so useful. Highly recommend those interested int eh R7 read this post several times.

I also have an R7, but I am not a bird or nature photographer, I am using it for soccer and other sports. Simply put, it has exceeded my expectations. I was using a Canon 7D MKII and a Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 MK II and moved to the R7 and got a new Canon EF 70-200 f28 MK III.

I may cause comments, but I found the RF 70-200 f2.8 unsuited to my style of taking sports pictures. The zoom ring takes too much rotation for a comfortable sports experience. I am sure it would be good for portraits and other settings. The EF 70-200 f2.8 MK iii has been spectacular, with fast focusing and a great look to my pictures. Its heavy, and I don't care. It feels right in my hands. I have found the controls easy to get used to. I have yet to deplete a battery. In one game, I took 852 pictures and could have kept going a few more, it never gave up. The max fps rate did drop, but no matter.

My results have been stunning. Many people have already asked what I am doing now. My pictures are just that much better looking. The focus system has taken a bit to get used to, and sometimes I fear I do not have it set up just right, but when it locks on, the camera just stays with a subject quite aggressively well.

I have always shot in raw, and to see how fast I could shoot. I switched to Canon Compressed Raw. There seems to be no limit to the number of pictures I can take in a burst. At least 80, and I gave up. I am hard-pressed to see significant differences in quality to raw until I push to 3200 ISO and have some shadows. Overall I am impressed, never used it before. I will use it when need lots of shots I think.

I am using the PNY Elite X-Pro 90 64 GB cards in the camera. This card is fast and does a great job for me. Have 4 of them. A fast card is needed for the best performance. The card holds a lot of images in CRAW, even more images for the card I record JPG to.

Thanks so much for sharing your experience.

As others have said, very nice write-up, especially about the usage.  I went with the R5 over the R6 since it has better video options and more pixels (I like to look at details).  Having the R5, I knew when I bought it that buying an eventual crop RF-mount camera wouldn't be a sure thing for me.  I haven't bought the R7 and not sure if I will.

With DSLRs, I typically used a 7D/7D2 + 5D3/5D4 combo when out photographing birds and other wildlife.  A big benefit was having a very similar interface across the models, so quickly switching from one camera to another in the field didn't cause issues for me.  The R7 having a significantly different interface than the R5 is a negative for me.  Will I eventually get used to it and seamlessly move between the R5 and R7 when out shooting, or will I have occasional issues, miss shots, and have some frustrations about it?  I'm not sure, and right now this is the biggest negative for me with the R7.

On the plus side for the R7, getting the full fps with the Canon 500mm f/4 IS (original) and the R7's higher pixel density is a big benefit for me.  I typically used the 7D/7D2 with this lens but currently use it with the R5.  The 6.8 fps feels sluggish since I'm used to 10 fps or more.  I have the 1.4x III and 2x III, but haven't liked my copy of the lens with teleconverters, so I don't use them to to get more pixels on the subject.  Having said that, I need to do some controlled tests to see if for some reason it's better with the R5 than what I was getting with the 7D2 or 5D4.  When I last did some checks, I wasn't seeing image quality hits from missed focus, which can be a common source of issues with teleconverters.

So I'm somewhat in the opposite position than you.  You have the R6 and R7 and will continue to use them to see if this setup works for you, or decide later that you want to move to the R5 to replace both.  I have the R5 and while I won't replace it with the R6, I'll see if I want to get the R7 later for the benefits with the 500 and the occasional times that I'm really focal length limited.  The other eventual solution will be to get the RF 500 when it's released, so that will take care of the fps limits and TC performance.  And also take care of a chunk out of my bank account...:-D

Question:  If you have the RF 1.4x, have you tried it with the R7 and 100-500?  Wondering how it holds up when you want a lot of focal length.

James

jckk wrote:

As others have said, very nice write-up, especially about the usage. I went with the R5 over the R6 since it has better video options and more pixels (I like to look at details). Having the R5, I knew when I bought it that buying an eventual crop RF-mount camera wouldn't be a sure thing for me. I haven't bought the R7 and not sure if I will.

With DSLRs, I typically used a 7D/7D2 + 5D3/5D4 combo when out photographing birds and other wildlife. A big benefit was having a very similar interface across the models, so quickly switching from one camera to another in the field didn't cause issues for me. The R7 having a significantly different interface than the R5 is a negative for me. Will I eventually get used to it and seamlessly move between the R5 and R7 when out shooting, or will I have occasional issues, miss shots, and have some frustrations about it? I'm not sure, and right now this is the biggest negative for me with the R7.

On the plus side for the R7, getting the full fps with the Canon 500mm f/4 IS (original) and the R7's higher pixel density is a big benefit for me. I typically used the 7D/7D2 with this lens but currently use it with the R5. The 6.8 fps feels sluggish since I'm used to 10 fps or more. I have the 1.4x III and 2x III, but haven't liked my copy of the lens with teleconverters, so I don't use them to to get more pixels on the subject. Having said that, I need to do some controlled tests to see if for some reason it's better with the R5 than what I was getting with the 7D2 or 5D4. When I last did some checks, I wasn't seeing image quality hits from missed focus, which can be a common source of issues with teleconverters.

So I'm somewhat in the opposite position than you. You have the R6 and R7 and will continue to use them to see if this setup works for you, or decide later that you want to move to the R5 to replace both. I have the R5 and while I won't replace it with the R6, I'll see if I want to get the R7 later for the benefits with the 500 and the occasional times that I'm really focal length limited. The other eventual solution will be to get the RF 500 when it's released, so that will take care of the fps limits and TC performance. And also take care of a chunk out of my bank account...:-D

Question: If you have the RF 1.4x, have you tried it with the R7 and 100-500? Wondering how it holds up when you want a lot of focal length.

James

Thanks, the user interface difference has for sure been my biggest struggle when using the R7 alongside the R6.  If not for that I don’t think I’d really have anything to really complain about.  I would suggest trying the 2x iii on the 500.  I always found it pretty mediocre on the 7d mk2 but with these mirrorless cameras I actually find it’s ok.  I don’t have the RF 1.4x so unfortunately can’t offer any first/hand experience about it.

jckk wrote:

As others have said, very nice write-up, especially about the usage. I went with the R5 over the R6 since it has better video options and more pixels (I like to look at details). Having the R5, I knew when I bought it that buying an eventual crop RF-mount camera wouldn't be a sure thing for me. I haven't bought the R7 and not sure if I will.

The R5 was my first Canon MILC and the R7 was added when it first came out.

With DSLRs, I typically used a 7D/7D2 + 5D3/5D4 combo when out photographing birds and other wildlife. A big benefit was having a very similar interface across the models, so quickly switching from one camera to another in the field didn't cause issues for me. The R7 having a significantly different interface than the R5 is a negative for me. Will I eventually get used to it and seamlessly move between the R5 and R7 when out shooting, or will I have occasional issues, miss shots, and have some frustrations about it? I'm not sure, and right now this is the biggest negative for me with the R7.

I much preferred the 5d series over the 7d series which IMHO suffered from AF consistency issues.  The lack of identical interface is spoken of frequently, though I've found it not to be a problem.  By-in-large the cameras are set up similarly but because of button layout, they cannot be identical.  When I am using the pair together, I usually have the R5 connected to the big white and the R7 slung on my shoulder with the 100-500.

On the plus side for the R7, getting the full fps with the Canon 500mm f/4 IS (original) and the R7's higher pixel density is a big benefit for me. I typically used the 7D/7D2 with this lens but currently use it with the R5. The 6.8 fps feels sluggish since I'm used to 10 fps or more. I have the 1.4x III and 2x III, but haven't liked my copy of the lens with teleconverters, so I don't use them to to get more pixels on the subject. Having said that, I need to do some controlled tests to see if for some reason it's better with the R5 than what I was getting with the 7D2 or 5D4. When I last did some checks, I wasn't seeing image quality hits from missed focus, which can be a common source of issues with teleconverters.

Appreciate the limitations of the 500mm f/4.  I have an IS II and don't have these issues.  It performs flawlessly on the R5 with the 1.4x III and takes a significant hit in terms of IQ with the 2x III.  My experience with the adapted lens on the R7 is less as it just doesn't seem as an assured combination and the R7 has really become my walking/hiking body with the 100-500.

So I'm somewhat in the opposite position than you. You have the R6 and R7 and will continue to use them to see if this setup works for you, or decide later that you want to move to the R5 to replace both. I have the R5 and while I won't replace it with the R6, I'll see if I want to get the R7 later for the benefits with the 500 and the occasional times that I'm really focal length limited. The other eventual solution will be to get the RF 500 when it's released, so that will take care of the fps limits and TC performance. And also take care of a chunk out of my bank account...:-D

Many users, myself included purchases the R7 for the benefit of the 1.6 crop.  I'm not entirely certain that it eclipses FL limitations.

Question: If you have the RF 1.4x, have you tried it with the R7 and 100-500? Wondering how it holds up when you want a lot of focal length.

Yes, I have the RF 1.4x and while I have tested it extensively it really doesn't suit my shooting style.  While the 100-500 is a really solid performing lens, adding the TC does degrade the IQ, increase the CA, and makes flare worse.  If one can fill up the frame, these effects are less apparent.  More importantly, the functional design of these two optical elements leaves a lot to be desired.  The lens has to bayonet out to 300mm to accept the TC so the lens is constantly in the semi-extended position.  Additionally, one loses the wide angle benefit and in effect it becomes a 420-700 mm lens with a minimum f/10 at the long position.

Nonetheless, if I were travelling to a remote location and wanted to have all of the bases covered, I'd take the 100-500 with the TC.

James

Zeee wrote:

jckk wrote:

As others have said, very nice write-up, especially about the usage. I went with the R5 over the R6 since it has better video options and more pixels (I like to look at details). Having the R5, I knew when I bought it that buying an eventual crop RF-mount camera wouldn't be a sure thing for me. I haven't bought the R7 and not sure if I will.

With DSLRs, I typically used a 7D/7D2 + 5D3/5D4 combo when out photographing birds and other wildlife. A big benefit was having a very similar interface across the models, so quickly switching from one camera to another in the field didn't cause issues for me. The R7 having a significantly different interface than the R5 is a negative for me. Will I eventually get used to it and seamlessly move between the R5 and R7 when out shooting, or will I have occasional issues, miss shots, and have some frustrations about it? I'm not sure, and right now this is the biggest negative for me with the R7.

On the plus side for the R7, getting the full fps with the Canon 500mm f/4 IS (original) and the R7's higher pixel density is a big benefit for me. I typically used the 7D/7D2 with this lens but currently use it with the R5. The 6.8 fps feels sluggish since I'm used to 10 fps or more. I have the 1.4x III and 2x III, but haven't liked my copy of the lens with teleconverters, so I don't use them to to get more pixels on the subject. Having said that, I need to do some controlled tests to see if for some reason it's better with the R5 than what I was getting with the 7D2 or 5D4. When I last did some checks, I wasn't seeing image quality hits from missed focus, which can be a common source of issues with teleconverters.

So I'm somewhat in the opposite position than you. You have the R6 and R7 and will continue to use them to see if this setup works for you, or decide later that you want to move to the R5 to replace both. I have the R5 and while I won't replace it with the R6, I'll see if I want to get the R7 later for the benefits with the 500 and the occasional times that I'm really focal length limited. The other eventual solution will be to get the RF 500 when it's released, so that will take care of the fps limits and TC performance. And also take care of a chunk out of my bank account...:-D

Question: If you have the RF 1.4x, have you tried it with the R7 and 100-500? Wondering how it holds up when you want a lot of focal length.

James

I also had the DSLR's you mentioned. All the way back to the 20D and 5D. Currently I just have the R5. I was going to skip the R7 and wait until the next version. R5 crops well. Now I'm thinking about the R7. I'll decide before I go to Portugal next year where I do most of my birding. Sounds like it will be a good fit with my 100-500.

Yes, it is an excellent (or ideal) fit with the 100-500.  Light, compact, performs well, and is easily managed.  Where do you go birding in Portugal?

Zeee wrote:

Adam2 wrote:

Zeee wrote:

jckk wrote:

As others have said, very nice write-up, especially about the usage. I went with the R5 over the R6 since it has better video options and more pixels (I like to look at details). Having the R5, I knew when I bought it that buying an eventual crop RF-mount camera wouldn't be a sure thing for me. I haven't bought the R7 and not sure if I will.

With DSLRs, I typically used a 7D/7D2 + 5D3/5D4 combo when out photographing birds and other wildlife. A big benefit was having a very similar interface across the models, so quickly switching from one camera to another in the field didn't cause issues for me. The R7 having a significantly different interface than the R5 is a negative for me. Will I eventually get used to it and seamlessly move between the R5 and R7 when out shooting, or will I have occasional issues, miss shots, and have some frustrations about it? I'm not sure, and right now this is the biggest negative for me with the R7.

On the plus side for the R7, getting the full fps with the Canon 500mm f/4 IS (original) and the R7's higher pixel density is a big benefit for me. I typically used the 7D/7D2 with this lens but currently use it with the R5. The 6.8 fps feels sluggish since I'm used to 10 fps or more. I have the 1.4x III and 2x III, but haven't liked my copy of the lens with teleconverters, so I don't use them to to get more pixels on the subject. Having said that, I need to do some controlled tests to see if for some reason it's better with the R5 than what I was getting with the 7D2 or 5D4. When I last did some checks, I wasn't seeing image quality hits from missed focus, which can be a common source of issues with teleconverters.

So I'm somewhat in the opposite position than you. You have the R6 and R7 and will continue to use them to see if this setup works for you, or decide later that you want to move to the R5 to replace both. I have the R5 and while I won't replace it with the R6, I'll see if I want to get the R7 later for the benefits with the 500 and the occasional times that I'm really focal length limited. The other eventual solution will be to get the RF 500 when it's released, so that will take care of the fps limits and TC performance. And also take care of a chunk out of my bank account...:-D

Question: If you have the RF 1.4x, have you tried it with the R7 and 100-500? Wondering how it holds up when you want a lot of focal length.

James

I also had the DSLR's you mentioned. All the way back to the 20D and 5D. Currently I just have the R5. I was going to skip the R7 and wait until the next version. R5 crops well. Now I'm thinking about the R7. I'll decide before I go to Portugal next year where I do most of my birding. Sounds like it will be a good fit with my 100-500.

Yes, it is an excellent (or ideal) fit with the 100-500. Light, compact, performs well, and is easily managed. Where do you go birding in Portugal?

All alone the southern part of the Algarve. That whole area is a preserve called the Ria Formosa. Lots of salt water marches. The birds migrate from North Africa around the time I'm there. I added a category to my site called Birds of Portugal. Under Wildlife. All taken around Feb/March of this year. All with the R5 and 100-500.

https://zenonchar.photography

Super.  Is that the best time of the year to visit the Algarve?  I threaten my wife all of the time that we're retiring to Portugal and this is another good reason why...

Basil Fawlty wrote:

First, thank you very much for posting this well documented review and posting all those terrific pictures! I have been struggling with whether to buy an R6 or spend an additional $1400 for an R5, but after reading your commentary and seeing some of the resulting images, I have to rethink my situation. This has me thinking of maybe just keeping my 5D Mark IV, which is terrific in most of my use cases, then get an R7 for instances where I want to maximize my resolution and improve my ability to crop in without loss in resolution. The only images of yours that I thought were not as sharp as the others were the one where you used a 2x extender and then the one where you used the RF800 f11. Those two images looked decent but seems a tad soft when looking at full size. Nevertheless, they were all impressive (makes me think I need to book a trip to Costa Rico).

I do have one question - was there any Denise or enhancement software used, such as Topaz for any of these images? I'm especially interested in the Owl picture where you shot at ISO 5000 - I was surprised by the lack of noise?

Thanks.  I did use topaz denoise on some of them, including the owl.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Beautiful shots as always!

Thanks for the review re: birding. I've mainly been using mine for macros, so it's good to hear your (trusted) thoughts.

As far as AF stickiness goes, I'd recommend trying Case 2, and adjusting the TS all the way to ( - ), and the Accel all the way to ( + ), with Switching Tracked Subject at ( 0 ). HUMAN Eye AF with the R7 has been incredibly sticky with these settings (at least as good as my R5), and I'd be curious to see if the same holds true for Animal Eye AF.

Happy shooting!

R2

Thanks, that’s a good suggestion and I definitely plan to try it out when I have some better in-flight opportunities when I have a good chance to try it both ways. So far I’ve been a bit limited but I’m itching to explore the AF more.

I have been just using Auto rather than a specific case so far with good results most of the time. I’ve just been too busy to experiment with the case settings. I will do though and see if I can make the AF better for my particular subjects. On the 7D2 I used to use different settings depending on the subject and conditions but so far have not found the need to do that.