Canon R7 R7 AF issues - no sharp images

[shamlin]

I have a nearly new R7 that I'm using with mostly older EF L-series lenses. I've been out with it twice photographing birds and haven't gotten a single usable image - a far cry from the tack-sharp images I expected after reading reviews and watching Youtube videos. The eye detect locks onto my subject and tracks it, giving the appearance that the focus is working exactly as it should, but on download, every image is soft. I ran rhe best of them through DxO PureRaw 3 and it was still very soft, so I ran that image through Topaz Sharp AI. It was still way too soft to be usable.

I have the current firmware and I have a bit of experience with Canon cameras and bird photography in the field - I've been using Canon gear to shoot wildlife since 2004. I called Canon service and spoke at length with a rep there who recommended I send it to the service center. Since I bought the camera used, I expected it would cost me at least a couple hundred dollars for the service. When I filled out the online form, I was pleasantly surprised that the estimate was $0. A couple of nights ago, I was reading reviews of the camera on the B&H website. Among them, I stumbled on a review from a buyer who described precisely the same problem. He sent his to the service center where it was repaired for free too. It fixed the problem for him. I just shipped my camera out yesterday. His experience gives me hope that my camera will return without a surprise bill and capable of delivering the sharp photos I expected.

From my conversation with Canon support, combined with the $0 estimate and the review on B&H, I get the impression my experience isn't unique. I don't think it's a widespread problem, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's more common than the few isolated cases I've been able to find evidence of, since Canon seems to be aware of it and to have a remedy worked out. According to the B&H review, the repair invoice was vague, stating "Your product has been examined and Electrical adjustments were performed." Whatever they did, it fixed the problem for him. I hope to have the same result.

 

[koenkooi]

Do you have any sample pictures with EXIF intact you can share?

Wild guess: If you’re using fully mechanical shutter and shutter speeds between 1/60s and 1/200s, the shutter will make the IBIS and in-lens IS misbehave.

 

[shamlin]

Sure. I'm aware of the shutter shock issue. I've experimented with both mechanical and first-curtain electronic. On one of the two tries with the R7, I had the shutter speed set at 200. On the second, thinking the slow shutter speed might have been the problem, I made sure to use nothing slower than 1/1000. I'm attaching the photo from that day that is probably the best. The issue seems to be much more noticeable with distant subjects. I took some photos in my backyard using my 100-400 IS II which were reasonably sharp, although still not nearly as sharp as I had expected. the subjects in those were around 20' from me, as opposed to the 35 yds or so with the Green-winged Teal in the photo below. That was shot using my 500mm f4 L IS with my 1.4x III extender.

 

[koenkooi]

That looks like the softness I had with my RF100-500L, which turned out to be an incredibly even coating of something on the CPL. Do you have any filters on your lens?

 

[shamlin]

No. I had a UV filter on my 100-400 IS II, but I removed it. I have no filters on any of my long lenses now. I was getting very sharp images with all the same gear on my M6 MkII bodies much of the time. That's got essentially the same sensor as the R7. My complaint with that was the AF system, which, while very good compared to my 7D's, wasn't reliable as far as recognizing what the subject was, which made tracking fairly useless. I bought the R7 mostly because of the eye detect, expecting that I'd get at least similarly sharp images and reliable subject detection and tracking.

My camera body should arrive at the service center today. Hopefully they'll turn it around quickly. I posted this mostly because I suspected there might be other people experiencing similar problems, to let them know that there may be a free, if inconvenient solution. I know I felt a lot better about my chances of finding resolution after stumbling on the B&H review.

 

[shamlin]

I received my R7 body from the Canon service center today. The shipping turned out to be an adventure, through no fault of the folks at Canon. The FedEx driver delivered it to the wrong address and apparently signed for it himself. Fortunately, the guy who lives at the address it was delivered to was kind enough to deliver it to me. By the time I received it, it was pretty late, but I tested it out nonetheless. The photos I took look very good, although they're pretty noisy due to the low light. I'll have to give it a more thorough test, but my initial impression is that it's what I expected it to be when I bought it. Canon covered the service under warranty, despite the fact that I bought the camera used on Ebay, and they turned it around fairly quickly - five business days in-house. They shipped it back two-day for no charge too. All in all, I'm very pleased with the way Canon handled my issue.
I've uploaded a couple of the test photos I took. They were shot with my 100-400L IS II with a 1.4 III extender, processed in DxO PureRaw 3 and On1 Photo Raw 2023.

 

[ACEkin]

I sent my R7 and its lens to Canon for a similar problem. I am hoping to get it back with the newly earned capability of sharper images! I don't remember having a problem like this with any other Canon I owned since 1971. My previous 5DM4 produced tack-sharp images from day one.

 

[shamlin]

Good luck with yours. I expect you'll be happy with the camera when it returns. I've now had the chance to test my camera out in more challenging conditions than my backyard and, on average, I'm happy with the quality of the shots I'm getting. I photographed some very distant Green-winged Teal yesterday morning, using my 500mm F4 L IS with my 2x extender mounted. The majority of those were throw-aways, but the light was very difficult and the eyes of the birds were in deep shadow. Between the distance and the shadows, the camera's eye detect wasn't working. I did get some shots where the lighting was more favorable, and most of those are probably going to be fine, once they've been processed.

I don't know why this issue is as common as it is, and it probably isn't all that common, but between you, me, and the guy with the B&H review, there are at least three. I know it's very disappointing to get a new camera and immediately have to send it for service. Fortunately, having done that, I think our cameras have gotten a much more thorough inspection than most coming off the assembly line.

Steve

 

[ACEkin]

Steve, it is probably the paradigm shift for Canon from DSLR to mirrorless. I had their early mirrorless cameras in the M series and had no problems. I think as they started loading up the functions, certain things started acting up. I am hoping the problem will be fixed. We got the same camera and the lens for my wife and her gear takes sharp photographs.

 

[Zombo]

I have a nearly new R7 that I'm using with mostly older EF L-series lenses. I've been out with it twice photographing birds and haven't gotten a single usable image - a far cry from the tack-sharp images I expected after reading reviews and watching Youtube videos. The eye detect locks onto my subject and tracks it, giving the appearance that the focus is working exactly as it should, but on download, every image is soft. I ran rhe best of them through DxO PureRaw 3 and it was still very soft, so I ran that image through Topaz Sharp AI. It was still way too soft to be usable.

I have the current firmware and I have a bit of experience with Canon cameras and bird photography in the field - I've been using Canon gear to shoot wildlife since 2004. I called Canon service and spoke at length with a rep there who recommended I send it to the service center. Since I bought the camera used, I expected it would cost me at least a couple hundred dollars for the service. When I filled out the online form, I was pleasantly surprised that the estimate was $0. A couple of nights ago, I was reading reviews of the camera on the B&H website. Among them, I stumbled on a review from a buyer who described precisely the same problem. He sent his to the service center where it was repaired for free too. It fixed the problem for him. I just shipped my camera out yesterday. His experience gives me hope that my camera will return without a surprise bill and capable of delivering the sharp photos I expected.

From my conversation with Canon support, combined with the $0 estimate and the review on B&H, I get the impression my experience isn't unique. I don't think it's a widespread problem, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's more common than the few isolated cases I've been able to find evidence of, since Canon seems to be aware of it and to have a remedy worked out. According to the B&H review, the repair invoice was vague, stating "Your product has been examined and Electrical adjustments were performed." Whatever they did, it fixed the problem for him. I hope to have the same result.

Same thing here. Canon has mine as we speak. I bought mine new a month ago from local shop. Same as you I updated firmware, messed with tracking settings etc. and nothing worked. I have been shooting sports with Canon for 15 years so not user error. Extremely disappointing I had to send it in. Plus the shipping (which I had to cover even though it’s under warranty) cost me 50 bucks. I’m glad to read they at least fixed your issue. Hopefully mine too

 

[ACEkin]

I have just received my R7 from Canon Factory Service. I sent it for the same reason, no consistently sharp images. It came back with a report that the body was fine and they fine-tuned the lens. The photos are not as sharp as I have been accustomed to since 1971. Even my scanned film photographs are better in terms of consistency of sharpness. I miss my 5DM4! Yes, it was heavy and bulky but the photos were far sharper than these. Oh, well ... Live and learn that all good things will come to an end.

 

[ACEkin]

I have updated the post at the following link that summarizes the back-and-forth with Canon:

R7 with EF-S 18-55mm lens: bad focus.

Hi all, I bought the R7 two weeks ago and have been shooting with my old EF 70-300 zoom lens and an older EF-S lens that came with my EOS 300D. Both lenses use the Canon adapter to mount to the R7 body. While the pictures shot with the EF lens are perfectly in focus, the EF-S poses a problem...

rfshooters.com

 

[Barry]

I have a nearly new R7 that I'm using with mostly older EF L-series lenses. I've been out with it twice photographing birds and haven't gotten a single usable image - a far cry from the tack-sharp images I expected after reading reviews and watching Youtube videos. The eye detect locks onto my subject and tracks it, giving the appearance that the focus is working exactly as it should, but on download, every image is soft. I ran rhe best of them through DxO PureRaw 3 and it was still very soft, so I ran that image through Topaz Sharp AI. It was still way too soft to be usable.

I have the current firmware and I have a bit of experience with Canon cameras and bird photography in the field - I've been using Canon gear to shoot wildlife since 2004. I called Canon service and spoke at length with a rep there who recommended I send it to the service center. Since I bought the camera used, I expected it would cost me at least a couple hundred dollars for the service. When I filled out the online form, I was pleasantly surprised that the estimate was $0. A couple of nights ago, I was reading reviews of the camera on the B&H website. Among them, I stumbled on a review from a buyer who described precisely the same problem. He sent his to the service center where it was repaired for free too. It fixed the problem for him. I just shipped my camera out yesterday. His experience gives me hope that my camera will return without a surprise bill and capable of delivering the sharp photos I expected.

From my conversation with Canon support, combined with the $0 estimate and the review on B&H, I get the impression my experience isn't unique. I don't think it's a widespread problem, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's more common than the few isolated cases I've been able to find evidence of, since Canon seems to be aware of it and to have a remedy worked out. According to the B&H review, the repair invoice was vague, stating "Your product has been examined and Electrical adjustments were performed." Whatever they did, it fixed the problem for him. I hope to have the same result.

Its more common than you think. I have been through this process too with my R7. The focussing is still random even after the service. They dont have a remedy worked out for me. I am currently working through a host of issues with a macro lens as I gave up using my long lenses as the camera just wouldnt do what it should. My 7Dmk2 never lets me down so I am not concerned about missing a shot. I am more disappointed with Canon for not producing a mirrorless equivalent of the 7Dmk2 , which is what I had hoped the R7 would be. Its too fussy with too many gimmicky functions that detract from ease of use. When the R7 behaves itself it will take superb sharp images. Using a standard 50mm prime lens, with most of the annoying functions disabled , gives me great images on the whole, but if I try to use servo and H or H+ continuous shooting, only one in 8 on average is sharp, even when using a tripod or hide mount or bean bag as a steady assist. As for long lenses, forget it!
My wish is that Canon will address the poor behaviour of the R7 and if it can be corrected with a firmware update, so much the better, but, being cynical, I think it will be a MK2 version, at a higher price that will solve most of the issues. I do wonder what the beta testers were doing when they were given these cameras to test out. They raved about many of the features but completely missed the practical issues. What was the point of super fast focussing capability when the camera cannot perform? What is the point of great resolution images when most of them arent sharp? So frustrating!

 

[shamlin]

Its more common than you think. I have been through this process too with my R7. The focussing is still random even after the service. They dont have a remedy worked out for me. I am currently working through a host of issues with a macro lens as I gave up using my long lenses as the camera just wouldnt do what it should. My 7Dmk2 never lets me down so I am not concerned about missing a shot. I am more disappointed with Canon for not producing a mirrorless equivalent of the 7Dmk2 , which is what I had hoped the R7 would be. Its too fussy with too many gimmicky functions that detract from ease of use. When the R7 behaves itself it will take superb sharp images. Using a standard 50mm prime lens, with most of the annoying functions disabled , gives me great images on the whole, but if I try to use servo and H or H+ continuous shooting, only one in 8 on average is sharp, even when using a tripod or hide mount or bean bag as a steady assist. As for long lenses, forget it!
My wish is that Canon will address the poor behaviour of the R7 and if it can be corrected with a firmware update, so much the better, but, being cynical, I think it will be a MK2 version, at a higher price that will solve most of the issues. I do wonder what the beta testers were doing when they were given these cameras to test out. They raved about many of the features but completely missed the practical issues. What was the point of super fast focussing capability when the camera cannot perform? What is the point of great resolution images when most of them arent sharp? So frustrating!

Hi Barry,

I had to send my R7 back to Canon Service a second time (having nothing to do with sharpness this time). They replaced the circuit board to resolve issues with burst rate, inconsistent file saving to SD cards, and occasional runaway shutter. I'm pretty happy with it now. On the focusing issues, Duade Patton just put out a video addressing it: https://youtu.be/hsmY4f1J0t8?si=AeIslIaTWVzLV-cu

I had the 7D MkII and the M6 MkII (as well as a string of other bodies going back to the 10D). While I still get inconsistent sharpness, I'm satisfied with the number of sharp images I'm getting, although I rely on DxO PureRaw and Topaz a lot. For my purposes, and now that the prior issues have been resolved, I now think the R7 is the best camera I've owned. There is still a lot of room for improvement, but I liked it enough to buy a second body, this time a refurb from Canon.

Steve

 

[Barry]

Hi Steve. I tried a different lens this afternoon. It seems that it maybe isn't a good idea to use a macro lens with a crop sensor camera. ( only kidding) I did wonder if that made any difference but it doesn't. I have seen Duades video and it did make a positive difference (sort of) but there is still a lot of inconsistency with my camera, no matter what the lens or settings. I do allow for user error in case anyone is wondering. I just find the R7 frustrating as I have never encountered these problems with my 7Dmk2. 5Dmk3/4 and 1DX 3. Ah well. Keep trying as they say!

 

[ctitanic]

I just find the R7 frustrating as I have never encountered these problems with my 7Dmk2. 5Dmk3/4 and 1DX 3. Ah well. Keep trying as they say!

DSLR AF is different.

Check this article:

Autofocusing – Tony & Chelsea Northrup

northrup.photo

 

[Barry]

Yes....I know it is different. That isn't the point

 

[Barry]

OK here goes. Finally........ got my R7 back from a second service. This time I got no response to the question why it was not working properly and a brief comment that they couldnt find a fault with the camera, having tested it thoroughly. HA! Took it out today. First thing it did was refuse to focus so that the first 20 images were a blur. Turned it off then restarted it. Changed no settings from my usual settings for wildlife shooting and .... hey presto... 64 concurrent sharp images at all focal lengths for the lens I wa using(100-400mm L series IS II with 1.4x extender 3). Unbelievable. Canon said they had done nothing to the camera as it was working properly. I DONT BELIEVE THEM!!! It works now but it didnt work before. Is this a new policy by Canon, fix the damn thing whilst denying its at fault in the fist place????
Anyway I am just glad I now have an R7 that will take good images with my lenses (all EF).

Still dont trust the damn thing though........................

 

[ctitanic]

OK here goes. Finally........ got my R7 back from a second service. This time I got no response to the question why it was not working properly and a brief comment that they couldnt find a fault with the camera, having tested it thoroughly. HA! Took it out today. First thing it did was refuse to focus so that the first 20 images were a blur. Turned it off then restarted it. Changed no settings from my usual settings for wildlife shooting and .... hey presto... 64 concurrent sharp images at all focal lengths for the lens I wa using(100-400mm L series IS II with 1.4x extender 3). Unbelievable. Canon said they had done nothing to the camera as it was working properly. I DONT BELIEVE THEM!!! It works now but it didnt work before. Is this a new policy by Canon, fix the damn thing whilst denying its at fault in the fist place????
Anyway I am just glad I now have an R7 that will take good images with my lenses (all EF).

Still dont trust the damn thing though........................

AF with the 1.4 extender is worse than if you just use the EF100-400.

 

[Barry]

So I am not supposed to use my full kit like I can with the 7Dmk2? I have stated previously that my R7 was intended to be a step forward from the 7Dmk2 , to be used for the same purposes. It doesnt match up as it still doesnt perform to my liking. The AF on the 7Dmk2 is fine with any lens/extender combination I choose but the R7 doesnt come close, most of the time. Why should the AF freeze for no apparent reason, then become functional after switch off and on again? Would you trust a car that runs when it sees fit then stalls on you for no reason? No, you wouldnt and its the same with this camera. It cannot be relied upon so will be used alongside tried and tested (and trustworthy) dslr kit for years to come, unless........... maybe Canon will replace the R7 with a mark 2 with no faults? I dont believe in Santa Claus either !!

 

[AntonLargiader]

My R7 does not play particularly well with my 300/2.8 IS. Subjects that fill the frame look OK, but as soon as I have to crop the soft edges begin to show. Some images from Friday's field hockey game seem to indicate some back focusing. I think that lens performed better on my 7D2 than on the R7.

I'm wondering what effect the higher resolution has on this. With 32MP it's easy to pixel-peep into oblivion, especially when you're starting with a cropped view that magnifies weaknesses of an 18 year old design. At any rate, I'm going to take a series of test shots with various combinations of lenses/adapters/bodies to see what is what.

 

[Barry]

My R7 does not play particularly well with my 300/2.8 IS. Subjects that fill the frame look OK, but as soon as I have to crop the soft edges begin to show. Some images from Friday's field hockey game seem to indicate some back focusing. I think that lens performed better on my 7D2 than on the R7.

I'm wondering what effect the higher resolution has on this. With 32MP it's easy to pixel-peep into oblivion, especially when you're starting with a cropped view that magnifies weaknesses of an 18 year old design. At any rate, I'm going to take a series of test shots with various combinations of lenses/adapters/bodies to see what is what.

Hi Anton
Its interesting that you should find back focussing a problem too. Is your 300mm lens an early one? I ask because my 400mm lens is the last of the EF -L series lenses and doesnt show the soft edges you mention. I can crop images quite well. My main grouch is unreliability with the R7. I took some bird photos yesterday and they were superbly sharp, which I didnt expect, but that was after a bout of focus freeze when the camera wouldnt even try to focus. Its a pain!

 

[ctitanic]

Keep in mind that EF lenses were not designed for R cameras.

 

[Barry]

Yes, and Canon clearly stated in all their promotional literature that with an adapter(and they provided 3 versions remember)EF glass would be completely compatible. It would be reasonable to assume that their assertions would be true, wouldn't it?

 

[AntonLargiader]

It's compatible, but that doesn't mean it's equivalent to the RF glass (except in cases where Canon states that it's the same). Lenses got redesigned for digital, because the sharpness demands were higher. I suspect the same is happening again as high-density sensors proliferate.

EDIT: I think, however, that this may be more of a focus drive issue in my case. I feel like the AF moves in larger increments than the situation warrants. For sports, faces are generally moving toward me and if the AF is racking back and forth a bit it may be spending more time in back focus than in front focus. Just a hypothesis. I took a bunch of test shots yesterday and didn't see any back focusing but it was a static subject.

 

[Barry]

So what you are suggesting is what I believe to be the case. Canon , by the back door route, are making sure that the new mirror less kit is what will have to be purchased if we want to keep up with the latest trends. HA! Suspected it all along. Call me cynical but there you go.

 

[Archibald]

So what you are suggesting is what I believe to be the case. Canon , by the back door route, are making sure that the new mirror less kit is what will have to be purchased if we want to keep up with the latest trends. HA! Suspected it all along. Call me cynical but there you go.

Canon said that the RF versions of the lenses would be better in some way than the EF versions. That's good, not bad.

Most folks report that the EF lenses perform better on R bodies than on mirrored bodies. That's good too.

The high prices for R gear are bad, though!

So you see, I'm agreeing with you, but putting a different spin on it.

 

[Barry]

OK. I took my R7 out yesterday to shoot birds. In a hide at reasonable range, with a 100-400mm zoom lens and 1.4x extender3. I took 100 images. 96 of them were rejected. The camera body, that Canon have tested and assured me is working to specification, failed miserably. Can I blame the EF glass? No, as it works perfectly on all my dslr cameras. Can it be user error? I concede that we all get some dud shots but 96%?

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Backfocusing shouldn't be an issue with mirrorless cameras. If that's what you believe you're getting then perhaps the camera is firing before focus is complete? Or the subject is moving towards you and the focus is not keeping up (which might be fixable with a different AF option set in the menu)? EF glass should focus fine, but it may not focus as quickly so it's rendered "less than perfect" in some situations. This is only going to be exacerbated by the R7's less than robust sensor and processor, particularly with action photography.

 

[Barry]

Hi Jake. I agree fully with your assertions.I have gone through all of the above with Canon,having fully tested the camera myself. The top UK repair centre did likewise as has Canon UK. The camera I have is at fault as it still does odd things such as locking up and refusing to focus, not tracking as it should, changing settings on the touch screen unless it's turned off . The list is a big one. I think I will put it back in the box as I am not convinced that spending a sum on an RF lens is a good investment right now. I did get a super image of a Eurasian Bluetit the other day, showing that the R7 can be brilliant. But...its too random