General APS-C Full Frame VS Crop

[RickyRed]

Theres a lot of bias for full frame over APSC. I use both formats. R5-R7. Plus Rf 24-105 F4, Rf 100-500 and Sigma 10-18 F2.8-18-50 2.8. The Sigma glass, really makes the R7 a complete kit. Birding with the R7 and 100-500, even in low light is pure joy. one shot at a time, with continuous AF. plus, ES. The R7 is one of those rare cameras That make photography a fun hobby. The R5? Also, a great camera for birds and do it all kit. RJ

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[JCBigler]

I had an R7, bought new. But ended up selling it.

Not sure what it was but I just couldn't get used to it after using my RP, R6, and R6 mkII. It didn't seem to focus as fast or as well as my full frame cameras. And I just didn't care for the look of the photos.

Maybe I just didn't spend enough tome to get used to it and figure it out, but I was underwhelmed.

 

[StevenAunan]

I had an R7, bought new. But ended up selling it.

Ditto. But the photo above is gorgeous, and the R7 is a great camera that just didn't suit my photographic style...

The new R7 was my first R camera. I liked it at first, and I did get some good photos with it. But the things I didn't like (shutter shock, noise, autofocus miss rate, etc.) really started to annoy me. Once I got a refurbished R6, the R7 just sat on the shelf (and I sold both for the R5m2).

 

[ShipleyNW]

I started out in digital with Canon APS-C cameras, and while I quickly transitioned to FF, I've never not had a crop body in the quiver.

My R7 replaced a 90D which replaced an 80D as an anchor to my reach kit. Anymore, my R7 lives mounted with an RF 100-500.

The rolling shutter you hear about with the R7 is real. I don't shoot a lot of stick sports so it's not obvious in my pictures. But when I'm culling bursts I can see variations between frames with wings and goose necks and the like. But if I show you one picture in isolation, the effect is pretty much unnoticeable.

I have a love/hate relationship with the sensor. It's high res for sure and there's a lot to like about that. With that 100-500 lens I can put an 800mm full-frame-equivalent angle of view on a 32.5 MP grid. To crop that out of a FF sensor you'd end up with 12-15 useful megapixels. And the R7 leaves you even more room to crop in post. I'm getting into 4-digit reach with that capability.

But those 32.5 megapixels are packed crazy tight on that little APS-C sensor. If you have good, even light and plenty of it, you'll get a decent raw file. But if you have high ISOs or broad dynamic range scenes you'll start seeing noise and other artifacts caused by that high pixel density. I have tools in post to clean up most of that, but even cleaned up and at it's best, I can never expect the R7 to produce the rich, buttery raw files that I get out of the R5 that I use 80% of the time.

I'm an old sports photographer. I love action and long lenses. I don't do that anymore at all, but I get my big glass fix with birds and wildlife. If I'm being honest, the main reason I like shooting birds is because of the gear. Back when I was shooting sports I would have had to work for Sports Illustrated to get access to an 800mm rig and I'd still only get about 6 FPS out of a motor drive with fresh batteries. Now all I have to do is put up with a little rolling shutter.

R7/500mm cropped to 20.8 MP

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[PKM-UK]

R5 vs R7 - but which is which?

Phil and Karen


What a cutie...

 

[MSH411]

R5 vs R7 - but which is which?

Phil and Karen


What a cutie...

View attachment 42519

Not really sure, both shots are very nice but the one on the right is more visually pleasing to my eyes.

 

[ShipleyNW]

R5 vs R7 - but which is which?

I don't have the vocabulary to describe what I'm seeing, but I think the one on the right is the R7. Look at the shadows, particularly in the background and on the bird's breast plumage. Those shadows are a little more blocked up on the right than on the left. Take a look at that greenery in the out-of-focus background in both shots. You don't get that smooth transition from shadow to highlight in the right photo like you do with the one on the left. That's what I described as, "the rich, buttery raw files that I get out of the R5" in my post above.

Am I correct?

Here's another shot from an R7 that kind of shows "blocked up" shadows in the background.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[PKM-UK]

I must admit, I always have to look this one up - and even then I have to double check - but the answer is...



Phil

(In fairness, both were shot raw and later subjected to my random processing - which may also help to explain any differences/ preferences!).

 

[ACEkin]

I think the real question is: Full what? "Full frame" was defined only after the introduction of DSLRs that used smaller sensors. Suppose you take a frame with a Canon R5 and crop it down to the "crop-sensor" dimensions. Will that be a lesser photograph? Here are a few selections from my Infrared Earthscapes photographs that were hung at an exhibit in Italy. They were taken with a crop sensor camera or even a smaller one. And, even a larger collection of them was published in the LensWork Magazine.

I have used the equivalent of 35mm film size sensors as well as "crop-sensor" cameras from the days of the Canon D60 on. Yes, there are physical differences between the two sizes, but, in my opinion, not to a point that the bigger sensor inherently yields better photographs. I am not considering the external camera size, usability, and other features, just the sensor size differences.

But, of course, these are just MY opinions, and I am sure the debate will continue.

 

[Only RF]

I also sold my R7. Great camera but I could never tolerate that thumping shutter. As RickyRed stated worked great with my 100-500. I used it with the 1.4 and it also worked well but my keeper rate dropped quite a bit. So I decided to not use the TC for one year and it was a good experiment.

I was also in a dilemma because I have the RF 24-105 f4 and various R FF bodies. That is another awesome lens. That combo did not get as much use so I started to wonder about the R7. I decided to shoot wildlife with my R6II, 100-500 and with the 1.4 on or off. A FF, that lens and a TC go really well together on any FF body I have used. I'll see what the R7II has to offer when it's released. I won't rush to get it. I will go to my local dealer and press the shuttle button first

I sold my R6II and picked up the R6III and I get 33% more pixels.

• Join to view EXIF data.

Here is one with the R6II, the 1.4 and using Adobe Super Resolution. I don't print posters and while I wouldn't put this on a wall I think it's OK for basic web presentation.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[Only RF]

R7, 100-500 and 1.4. It did well. I didn't have to crop this too much.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[Only RF]

That skyscraper is not one of my shots. Finally got out with the R6III. I think I can crop much more and the AF is very impressive.

_73A4341.jpg

• Only RF
• Yesterday at 7:06 PM

Original image

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[RickyRed]

I was using a 5DIV, at the time of the R7 release. Yes I new the weakness of the R7 at the time. Poor shutter, mushy shutter button. smallish and iffy build quality body. But wow. the AF,IBS,The beautiful pictures that came out of this camera, were such a revelation, Sold the 5D. Such a disappoint camera, picked up a R5 a year later and never looked back. Great Kit. R5-R7, 100-500 and more.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.