Canon R7 Low Light performance

[RickyRed]

As to lowlight performance of the R7. If you don't use an R7. how do you know how good the low light performance is. I just posted a picture of a owl that was taken in very low light with the RF 100-500. Very minimal noise reduction was used.Before the R7, I used an 5DIV. One of the worst cameras for noise I have used. The R7 is an exhalant all around camera, not just for birds. Canon kit lens for APSC are junk. Sigma has exhalent fast lenses that make the R7 truly shine. I use the R5-R7 and love both. Really the best cameras I have had . How can you not have an R7? Less than a good RF lens. works exhalent with any RF lens. Any ways, The R5 has to be my favor camera. But it's not perfect either. Its a great time to be a photographer RJ

 

[jcass]

Try not to let the comparisons and charts get to you. It's hard nowadays to "be your own judge" with all the technical detail available. I was very happy with cropped sensor cameras. I was happier when I bought an R5, but that was mainly autofocus capabilities and video. I now have a R5II and I'm happier still because of the autofocus. I've yet to tap the video improvements. Notice that I've not mentioned image quality.

You're right, it's more about the lens than the camera, imo. You can apply presets or edits to give the creative character that your looking for. Just be careful of the critics and the hunt for the holy grail. And be your own judge.

 

[MSH411]

Try not to let the comparisons and charts get to you. It's hard nowadays to "be your own judge" with all the technical detail available. I was very happy with cropped sensor cameras. I was happier when I bought an R5, but that was mainly autofocus capabilities and video. I now have a R5II and I'm happier still because of the autofocus. I've yet to tap the video improvements. Notice that I've not mentioned image quality.

You're right, it's more about the lens than the camera, imo. You can apply presets or edits to give the creative character that your looking for. Just be careful of the critics and the hunt for the holy grail. And be your own judge.

Exactly!

 

[Skyblot]

I bought an R7 recently to replace my aging DSLR. The prime driver to going mirrorless was so that I could see though the viewfinder! Now that I need to wear glasses full time (and with increasingly stronger prescriptions) I could not see properly through the OVF of the DSLR, whereas the EVF and physical shape of the Canon bodies let me use the EVF with my glasses. There were other technical aspects to the R7 I liked as well, but being able to see through was most important. APS-C is fine for my wants.

For the first few weeks I was feeling a bit underwhelmed. I frankly thought the low light / high ISO performance was poor and that Canon's in camera JPG handing was pretty brutal on fine detail once ISO went above 3200. The desktop DPP wasn't much better.

A few months on and I've changed my mind. I decided on DXO Pure Raw to process the camera raw files, now I always shoot JPG and Raw and don't sweat the ISO speed. I've concluded the high mega pixel sensor is not forgiving of any camera handling or setting errors, I've had to sharpen my game with choosing shutter speed and controlling depth of field with aperture. The IBIS + OIS is breathtaking in it's effectiveness, but subject movement still demands the right shutter speed. These are all lessons I learned long ago, then forgot or simply became sloppy in my technique.

And lenses? I'm using standard consumer grade - kit if you like - lenses, primarily the 18-150 and occasionally the EF-S 55-250. Would I like "L" lenses? Sure, but I have bigger fish to fry before worrying about that. I'm in this for fun, and the only person to please is me...

 

[RickyRed]

I bought an R7 recently to replace my aging DSLR. The prime driver to going mirrorless was so that I could see though the viewfinder! Now that I need to wear glasses full time (and with increasingly stronger prescriptions) I could not see properly through the OVF of the DSLR, whereas the EVF and physical shape of the Canon bodies let me use the EVF with my glasses. There were other technical aspects to the R7 I liked as well, but being able to see through was most important. APS-C is fine for my wants.

For the first few weeks I was feeling a bit underwhelmed. I frankly thought the low light / high ISO performance was poor and that Canon's in camera JPG handing was pretty brutal on fine detail once ISO went above 3200. The desktop DPP wasn't much better.

A few months on and I've changed my mind. I decided on DXO Pure Raw to process the camera raw files, now I always shoot JPG and Raw and don't sweat the ISO speed. I've concluded the high mega pixel sensor is not forgiving of any camera handling or setting errors, I've had to sharpen my game with choosing shutter speed and controlling depth of field with aperture. The IBIS + OIS is breathtaking in it's effectiveness, but subject movement still demands the right shutter speed. These are all lessons I learned long ago, then forgot or simply became sloppy in my technique.

And lenses? I'm using standard consumer grade - kit if you like - lenses, primarily the 18-150 and occasionally the EF-S 55-250. Would I like "L" lenses? Sure, but I have bigger fish to fry before worrying about that. I'm in this for fun, and the only person to please is me...

Try the Sigma RF 18-50 2.8. This lens takes advantage of all R7 32MPX . I set my ISO limit at 12800. 98% percent is well under. The Sigma lets in a hundred times lighte than the kit lens from Canon.

 

[SwampGrizz]

Skyblot said:
I'm in this for fun, and the only person to please is me...

Exactly.