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.

 

[ACEkin]

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

I fully sympathize with you and your assessments, Barry. I had very similar problems with the camera and the lens as well as Canon factory support. In the end, I was lucky to have an understanding and accepting retailer who replaced both kits I bought from them six months prior. Since then, the same retailer, Hunt's Photo, has done the same for another R7 owner who visited them after reading my article on my Web site. I exchanged many e-mails with that user, whom I did not personally know. Too bad that your retailer did not show the same level of understanding. By the way, I got somewhat better results from the EF L lens than the RF-S kit lens with the old bodies. Now, the kit lens performs fine, and so does the EF 70-200 f/4 L version 1 lens.

 

[Barry]

Sadly, many retailers in the UK only care about taking money off you and offer limited recourse to refunds. I borrowed an RF 100-500mm lens for a few days and put it to the test. Its not really any better than the EF glass with the adapter. At the short end its fine 100mmx 1.6 (160mm actual) but at the 500mm end its off by a good amount. I still get focus shift. I have included an image to show doubters. I pointed the camera clearly at the flower in the centre, with all settings to spot focus as that was my subject. As you can see the best focussed part of the image is to the left, a shift of several degrees. I cannot blame the lens for that as all my lenses did the same more often than not. The camera body is at fault and its been back to Canon who "tested" it and said it "was working to specification". That being the case its rubbish!!! As I have mentioned before I allow some margin for user error but as well over 60% of images taken with the R7 are off, I can only believe that I have a dud!. Into the box it goes ready for sale or PX.

• Canon EOS R7
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 100.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/125 sec
• ISO 400

 

[AntonLargiader]

It looks like the flower is slightly farther away than the surrounding leaves (below, left, and upper right), which are all in the plane of focus. If I had done everything right, I'd sure be disappointed. When you look at the shot in DPP, where is the active focus point? Can you post the RAW?

 

[Barry]

I didnt shoot in RAW so no-sorry! I agree with you that the plane of focus seems even right across the frome but, with centre weighted focus point surely the camera should concentrate on that point, not the wider area. The active focus point should have been in the centre of the frame. I have many images where this error occurs, despite trying all the focus settings available for comparison. Its like the sensor is slightly on the skew.

 

[ctitanic]

I wonder if the Firmware update 1.4 fixed anything relative to this topic.

 

[Barry]

No it didn't. I updated the firmware before the lens was borrowed.

 

[ctitanic]

That's a problem with Canon, they do not give a detailed list of issues fixed with a firmware. A simple "fixed minor issues" does not cut it.

 

[Barry]

I totally agree. You can't get diddley squat out of them.

 

[Archibald]

I didnt shoot in RAW so no-sorry! I agree with you that the plane of focus seems even right across the frome but, with centre weighted focus point surely the camera should concentrate on that point, not the wider area. The active focus point should have been in the centre of the frame. I have many images where this error occurs, despite trying all the focus settings available for comparison. Its like the sensor is slightly on the skew.

Sorry that your R7 is having focus problems. It happens to all of us at times, but it should be sharp most of the time.

How does the camera perform with bigger subjects that have good contrast? ...like traffic signs or animals with clearly visible eyes that are big in the frame.

What happens if you photograph a flat subject square-on? ... like a wall, or flat copy when on a copy stand. Is the whole image slightly off, or only part? Or maybe it's all sharp.

When shooting, if the little AF points jump around crazily, then you know the camera is having trouble, and anything could happen.

AF should normally perform better when on 1-point (not spot AF). 1-point gives the AF system more data. I know that the camera sometimes behaves inexplicably, but we need to give it the best chance.

When testing for focus, it is best to shoot wide open. That is the most critical. It also avoids focus shift when stopping down, which has been reported for the RF 100mm macro. I don't think it happens with the RF 100-500mm.

By doing some careful tests, it should be possible to determine if the problem is caused by the subject, the camera, or the settings.

 

[Barry]

Bigger subjects are easier to photograph so I would use a wider area focus for them. Under those circumstances there is no problem. My point has always been that I wanted a natural replacement for my 7D mk2 and hoped the R7 would be that camera. As it doesnt perform nearly as well as the 7Dmk2 it doesnt fit the bill. Its like owning a car that has countless faults, better that I trade it in. Its not like I havent explored every avenue. I have had it over a year and have had it back to Canon etc, ie: done all the right things. I have tested the camera in a wide range of conditions and setting changes and have had the same poor results. I will say that when it takes a good picture its really good, sharp, clear and detailed, but thats a rarity. If I cannot trust or rely on it whats the point?

 

[Archibald]

Bigger subjects are easier to photograph so I would use a wider area focus for them. Under those circumstances there is no problem. My point has always been that I wanted a natural replacement for my 7D mk2 and hoped the R7 would be that camera. As it doesnt perform nearly as well as the 7Dmk2 it doesnt fit the bill. Its like owning a car that has countless faults, better that I trade it in. Its not like I havent explored every avenue. I have had it over a year and have had it back to Canon etc, ie: done all the right things. I have tested the camera in a wide range of conditions and setting changes and have had the same poor results. I will say that when it takes a good picture its really good, sharp, clear and detailed, but thats a rarity. If I cannot trust or rely on it whats the point?

OK, now what you seem to be saying is that it's the design of the R7 that doesn't suit you. It's not malfunctioning, it can't be repaired, because that's how they are designed and they are all the same.

 

[Barry]

OK, now what you seem to be saying is that it's the design of the R7 that doesn't suit you. It's not malfunctioning, it can't be repaired, because that's how they are designed and they are all the same.

Not at all. What I am concerned about is that MY R7 is defective and too erratic for my liking. Its been reported across this forum by many . I have found the same problems as other people across the world. I have followed advice and processes none of which have given me a reliable camera body. It has nothing to do with unsuitable design. It has a malfunction that has not been dealt with and I cannot get a response from Canon as to what tests they are supposed to have carried out.

 

[Archibald]

Not at all. What I am concerned about is that MY R7 is defective and too erratic for my liking. Its been reported across this forum by many . I have found the same problems as other people across the world. I have followed advice and processes none of which have given me a reliable camera body. It has nothing to do with unsuitable design. It has a malfunction that has not been dealt with and I cannot get a response from Canon as to what tests they are supposed to have carried out.

There are contradictions in your post. If everybody has the same problem, then it is not a defect.

 

[AntonLargiader]

I agree with you that the plane of focus seems even right across the frome but, with centre weighted focus point surely the camera should concentrate on that point, not the wider area. The active focus point should have been in the centre of the frame

I'm not sure if DPP shows active focus points for JPEGs but have you inspected that? You say spot AF in one place but then center weighted. Either you have a spot AF point on the flower and only on the flower or you don't. If the AF area includes the surrounding leaves and they are closer, the camera will focus on them by design. Rudy explains this very clearly in a video.

 

[Barry]

Try again. All reference to a defect is in my camera only. I commented that other people across the world had reported problems. I make no claim to anything other than the fault/defect that is present in my R7.

 

[Barry]

I'm not sure if DPP shows active focus points for JPEGs but have you inspected that? You say spot AF in one place but then center weighted. Either you have a spot AF point on the flower and only on the flower or you don't. If the AF area includes the surrounding leaves and they are closer, the camera will focus on them by design. Rudy explains this very clearly in a video.

Thanks. I don't believe the flower was in a different plane. I also pointed out that I had tried a variety of settings as I continue to try and find the best settings to use the camera effectively. I would ask this question: how come I have not encountered any such problems with any dslr that I have owned or currently own? I just want a camera body I can rely on. Mirrorless is new technology (relatively) any may still need a tweak or two. If no one raises issues then progress doesn't occur.

 

[AntonLargiader]

Three points define a plane and there are three sharp points in that photo. I'm not sure there's much the camera can do to make part of the focal plane blurry; that's pretty much up to the lens. To me, it's logical that the flower is not in the same plane. I thought it might have been behind but really I can't tell which way.

I don't know what was happening with that particular image but if it happened to me I would start in DPP looking at the active focus points.

 

[Archibald]

Try again. All reference to a defect is in my camera only. I commented that other people across the world had reported problems. I make no claim to anything other than the fault/defect that is present in my R7.

No, that is incorrect. You said "Its been reported across this forum by many . I have found the same problems as other people across the world."

 

[Barry]

I will do as you suggest. All advice/ suggestions are welcome (constructive please)

 

[ctitanic]

Mirrorless is not that new technology, I have been shooting mirrorless the last 7 years!. I do not know exactly when Canon entered into this market but Sony has been releasing mirrorless cameras probably around 10 years already.

In my opinion you have a faulty camera and that is not going to get better. Just get rid of it in anyway you can. I do not know in UK but here you can buy a digital camera in any of the big cameras and if you do not like it return it back (you 7 days or 14 days depending on the store). Get one, compare results with the one you have and if it's the same and you still do not like it return it back.

Note on the history of Mirrorless (https://www.lightstalking.com/a-brief-history-of-the-mirrorless-camera-system/) . Canon released the R ecosystem in 2018! Sony did that in 2013!

 

[Archibald]

When you are working with the R7, you will see little squares in the viewfinder. They are white, gray, green and blue, at different times, and appear before and also after half-pressing the shutter button. These squares give information about focus. They show what the camera is thinking and where it will focus when the shutter is fully depressed. If you half-press and see a blue or green square right on the subject you want to focus on, you should be good. If that is not what you see, then the camera won't focus as you want.

The behavior of those squares is pretty complicated, but pay attention to them and little by little, their behaviour will become clearer and they should give you useful feedback.

 

[AntonLargiader]

... If you half-press and see a blue or green square right on the subject you want to focus on, you should be good....

Let me offer that if you see only ONE square and it's on your subject, then OK. The wider AF areas like Zone or Whole Area have many squares and one of them being on the flower may not be conclusive. The example is a good case for Spot or Single-point AF which would only have one. Expand AF may reduce to one square but it's probably a bit less predictable if the helpers are landing on surrounding foliage. I can't see how helpers would be good here. This needs Spot or Single-point.

 

[Archibald]

Keep it simple.

 

[ctitanic]

Let me offer that if you see only ONE square and it's on your subject, then OK. The wider AF areas like Zone or Whole Area have many squares and one of them being on the flower may not be conclusive. The example is a good case for Spot or Single-point AF which would only have one. Expand AF may reduce to one square but it's probably a bit less predictable if the helpers are landing on surrounding foliage. I can't see how helpers would be good here. This needs Spot or Single-point.

Good points, Whole Area is… unreliable in many cases, specially in case like the flowers in the picture. Even with single spot, if you have subject tracking the AF may scan the whole area looking for the subject. This is why I have one of the back buttons configured with single spot AF and subject tracing off. In the example picture from Barry that’s what I would use to be sure that I get in focus whatever I decide to focus on.

 

[Archibald]

I wanted to add - that I too have had issues with Canon gear. And they were focus problems. One was a body misbehaving, the other was a lens that sometimes gave blurry pictures. These were very stressful experiences. The body was a difficult issue because I didn't understand where the problem was. It took months before I finally sent it in. Canon found a fault with it and repaired it.

The lens was quite a different issue. Focus was inconsistent. I sent it to Canon 6 times (to service centers in Canada and the US) before they finally phoned me (yes, the tech phoned me) and explained that it was a "feature" of that lens. All those lenses behaved the same, tending to overshoot or undershoot the focal plane. After that I went into camera stores and borrowed the same lens for a few minutes, and was able to show the behavior to the sales people.

These experiences were very stressful and made me think about switching to Nikon. But I found out Nikon users also had problems.

Since then I have had more problems but they were simple to figure out (failed shutter, failed zoom on a lens) and easy (but expensive) to repair.

Moral of the story is that there can be mysterious problems with gear that are hard to understand and that cause much anguish.

A central issue with Barry's R7 is whether it is a repairable fault or whether the camera is performing as designed. I would say, if at all possible, rent or borrow another R7 body and shoot with it for a while, and see how the shooting compares. Of course you need to shoot with exactly the same settings. If the fault is easy to reproduce, you might be able to do the test in just a few minutes in a camera store showroom.

 

[RedCobra]

Bought an R7 to get more range/reach without resorting to my OM-1. It sits in the bag as it is not an R5 or a OM-1. It is what it is, but it is not a great camera, but them again I can buy 2 R7s for the price of a OM-1 and 4 R7s for the price of a R5. My R7 is for sale if anyone is interested.

 

[Archibald]

@RedCobra, I love my R7. I find it is way better than my R5 for macro and bird photography. It does have issues, though. One of the main ones IMO is its complexity. It is the most complicated camera I have ever owned. The manual has almost 1000 pages, which is crazy. The R7 firmware is bigger than the R5's. There are long discussions on different forums on best R7 settings for different scenarios, and tons of discussions on its AF system. Because it is so complicated, it has a steep learning curve.

All cameras are compromises, none are ideal. You have to choose the one that is right for you and for the job.

 

[Barry]

I cannot believe I am writing this. I took the R7 out today with the RF 100mm-500mm lens attached ,to a local bird reserve. I took 129 photos. Rejected just 15 of them. The camera and lens behaved perfectly for the first time ever. Sharpness, contrast, detail, correct ISO, aperture prioritised, shutter speed all in sync. All I did differently was set it to auto ISO ( I dont usually do this) . The light was good ( 10:00 to 11:00 am in the UK is best light in winter). I am amazed at the response from the camera and lens. I even, for the first time , didnt experience any focussing issues (the green square lit up exactly as was suggested by Anton) and I got the results that I wanted at last.
Its staying out of the box after all!!!!

 

[Barry]

Mirrorless is not that new technology, I have been shooting mirrorless the last 7 years!. I do not know exactly when Canon entered into this market but Sony has been releasing mirrorless cameras probably around 10 years already.

In my opinion you have a faulty camera and that is not going to get better. Just get rid of it in anyway you can. I do not know in UK but here you can buy a digital camera in any of the big cameras and if you do not like it return it back (you 7 days or 14 days depending on the store). Get one, compare results with the one you have and if it's the same and you still do not like it return it back.

Note on the history of Mirrorless (https://www.lightstalking.com/a-brief-history-of-the-mirrorless-camera-system/) . Canon released the R ecosystem in 2018! Sony did that in 2013!

When did Canon release the M series? I never got involved in them so have no idea.

 

[Archibald]

I cannot believe I am writing this. I took the R7 out today with the RF 100mm-500mm lens attached ,to a local bird reserve. I took 129 photos. Rejected just 15 of them. The camera and lens behaved perfectly for the first time ever. Sharpness, contrast, detail, correct ISO, aperture prioritised, shutter speed all in sync. All I did differently was set it to auto ISO ( I dont usually do this) . The light was good ( 10:00 to 11:00 am in the UK is best light in winter). I am amazed at the response from the camera and lens. I even, for the first time , didnt experience any focussing issues (the green square lit up exactly as was suggested by Anton) and I got the results that I wanted at last.
Its staying out of the box after all!!!!

Good stuff, Barry. Great to hear. Hopefully it will continue that way.