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