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.

 

[RedCobra]

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!!!!

Yep, I've often found that the Camera is smarter than I am. LOL

 

[AntonLargiader]

the green square lit up

Remember that green means One-shot, so once the camera locks focus it stops trying. If you are swaying back and forth a bit you are moving the plane of focus. For some use that's fine, but depending on your exact situation you may want to try Servo AF so the camera continues to correct as you move relative to the subject.

 

[ctitanic]

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

Canon M was released in 2012.

 

[ctitanic]

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!!!!

Shooting Manual for Wildlife is possible but not practical in most cases. By the time you got the 3 settings right the bird or animal moved to a different lighting condition! I personally prefer to shoot A or V with Auto ISO.

In your case, if you have been setting your ISO manually a little too dark that could have been a cause of AF failing. If your picture is too dark there is less contrast and AF will have more problems getting focus. So may this is the explanation to what was happening to you.

AF will work a lot better in sunny days than cloudy days.

 

[Grahamk]

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?

The last sentence sums up your frustration nicely. Have you thought about borrowing another R7 from the Canon Test Drive scheme for comparison - there is an extended loan period over Christmas and New Year (at least in the UK)?

 

[ctitanic]

The last sentence sums up your frustration nicely. Have you thought about borrowing another R7 from the Canon Test Drive scheme for comparison - there is an extended loan period over Christmas and New Year (at least in the UK)?

I think that he found a solution. ;-)

 

[Grahamk]

I think that he found a solution. ;-)

I think that he found a solution. ;-)

Yes, I’d noticed the improvement but thought the comparison might still be informative. Test Drive loans are free apart from the refundable deposit.

 

[Ed Cordes]

The single, most effective way to increase sharpness is to have fast shutter speeds. For stationary birds at 500mm I try to have at least 1/800. For birds in flight at least 1/2000.

 

[Dcweather]

An interesting discussion and one that is repeated all over Facebook Groups and every other R7 forum. So it must be real because not all of them are newbies by any stretch. It's a bit like the Post Office scandal here in the UK - where everybody was led to believe it was just them with the problem by the Post Office. If Canon were to read all of the forums and stuff on social media they would realise it is harming their image and many are moving to Sony .I fall somewhere in between and have a fairly neutral view. I have come from the excellent Nikon D500 and was expecting miracles having read all of the initial reviews and Canon hype. I have been disappointed with the AF. It is worse than the D500. But I do get sharp shots - quite a lot actually. Pretty much always with static birds if I have time to think what I am doing. Eye AF can be sensational. I use burst a lot and some in the exact same burst are soft. There is an article about why this must be somewhere on YouTube. But tracking and BIF are very challenging and I have missed a lot of great opportunities - but I have got sharp shots as well. I have just accepted that it is a cheap camera that can be very good - just not the panacea we were led to believe. I intend to keep it with the hope that a mk2 will come out in the next year or so and fix these issues. In the meantime I should be receiving an R8 this week so if that focuses well I will at least know it's not me! This is worth reading and shows how far down the R7 is ranked in testing for BIF:-

The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

A few years ago, our reader Alfredo suggested an idea for an article. Since we test the autofocus performance of many cameras at the same red kite feeding stations, why not publish a list of all the cameras we use with their keeper rate for birds in flight? I liked ... Read more

mirrorlesscomparison.com

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

...I have come from the excellent Nikon D500 and was expecting miracles having read all of the initial reviews and Canon hype. I have been disappointed with the AF....

I shot the D500 for years and loved it so much that when my brother, a pro news photographer who sot Canon, got a gig where they gave him an entirely new kit and he offered my his Canon DSLR gear to use I turned him down flat. When I switched to mirrorless and bought a Z6ii to start he loaned me an R5 and 100-500mm for a weekend and I sold all my Nikon gear.

The Canon AF hype is real, it's just underpowered in the R7. Put the R7 AF system in the R5 (or the R5's processor, sensor and buffer in the R7) and you have the perfect birding/wildlife camera. I won't use the R7 for BIF, but if I need reach I grab it. It can be stunningly sharp when you use it for stationary birds. I spent the weekend shooting burrowing owls and the added reach was perfect. I am hoping an R7 Mkii is just that and more, with a sensor that gives me slightly better OOF areas and a much faster read speed so I can use the electronic shutter. But until them I'm still glad I switched.

• Canon EOS R7
• 500.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 500

 

[Dcweather]

Yes, agree with all of that

 

[Barry]

I wrote about this weeks ago. Canon said exactly the same after they had examined and "repaired" my R7. I suspected all along that there was a fault with the R7 despite some pooh poohs from some members. I had hoped to use my R7 with the adapter so I could utilise my extensive EF lens collection but was disappointed by the results. Having applied all the firmware updates issued by Canon, Canon themselves examining the body and "fixing" it, and a UK repair centre also having a look, I reached the conclusion that an RF lens was probably my only solution despite all the promises about compatibility with EF lenses. As it turned out, the RF 100-500mm L series was the best compromise for what I wanted from the camera. It takes pleasing images 90+% of the time which is a relief. I would agree that Canon needs to up its game, as many have suggested, if they bring out a MK2 version. Maybe a bit more spent on better sensors and focussing would be the way forward? Dcweather makes a good point and the link to the ranking is worth a read,

 

[Archibald]

... This is worth reading and shows how far down the R7 is ranked in testing for BIF:-

The Best Mirrorless Cameras for Birds in Flight Ranked - Mirrorless Comparison

A few years ago, our reader Alfredo suggested an idea for an article. Since we test the autofocus performance of many cameras at the same red kite feeding stations, why not publish a list of all the cameras we use with their keeper rate for birds in flight? I liked ... Read more

mirrorlesscomparison.com

I wrote about this weeks ago. Canon said exactly the same after they had examined and "repaired" my R7. I suspected all along that there was a fault with the R7 despite some pooh poohs from some members. I had hoped to use my R7 with the adapter so I could utilise my extensive EF lens collection but was disappointed by the results. Having applied all the firmware updates issued by Canon, Canon themselves examining the body and "fixing" it, and a UK repair centre also having a look, I reached the conclusion that an RF lens was probably my only solution despite all the promises about compatibility with EF lenses. As it turned out, the RF 100-500mm L series was the best compromise for what I wanted from the camera. It takes pleasing images 90+% of the time which is a relief. I would agree that Canon needs to up its game, as many have suggested, if they bring out a MK2 version. Maybe a bit more spent on better sensors and focussing would be the way forward? Dcweather makes a good point and the link to the ranking is worth a read,

Thanks for the info. Phew, now I don't have to blame myself for OOF BIF shots.

I'm on a trip now and shooting quite a bit with the R7, and just cannot get good BIF shots. On the other hand, if the subject is reasonably close and not black, I get really great static shots. I too am waiting to see what Canon's next move is with its APSC line.

 

[Only RF]

I don't have the R3 to compare it to. My R6II does edge out my R7 a bit. Yes some rolling shutter but I can't complain about the AF. I was in a blind and this one came out of the left and I only had seconds. I'll take better but overall for the price point.

From last year.

• Canon EOS R7
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/3200 sec
• ISO 1600

I have not done a lot of birding this year because they have not been around. I'm hoping March is better.

From last month.

• Canon EOS R7
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/3200 sec
• ISO 4000

• Canon EOS R7
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/5000 sec
• ISO 2500

• Canon EOS R7
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/4000 sec
• ISO 2000

 

[Only RF]

This my R7 could not do. R6II small bird flying through reeds.

• Canon EOS R6m2
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/6400 sec
• ISO 2500

 

[Dcweather]

Shooting Manual for Wildlife is possible but not practical in most cases. By the time you got the 3 settings right the bird or animal moved to a different lighting condition! I personally prefer to shoot A or V with Auto ISO.

In your case, if you have been setting your ISO manually a little too dark that could have been a cause of AF failing. If your picture is too dark there is less contrast and AF will have more problems getting focus. So may this is the explanation to what was happening to you.

AF will work a lot better in sunny days than cloudy days.

I'm assuming you mean AV and TV modes which are fine as is manual with experience. It is true that AF will perform better in brighter light and more contrasty situations. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the ISO setting in itself will have any affect on AF per se - ISO setting is the result of the poor light raising the gain in the amplifier to achieve the correct exposure. It is the result of the already poor light - i.e the signal, not the cause. It is what it is and the LCD or viewfinder view doesn't make it lighter or darker - it is just the representaton of your chosen exposure.

 

[Only RF]

The R7 is not a low light camera, for me anyway. I use my R6II for that. One thing I also found is if there is a small bird on a big pond I can't believe how it will isolate and lock onto its head. If the eye is pretty good it will switch to it if it can but it's usually too small and too far away.

 

[Dcweather]

This my R7 could not do. R6II small bird flying through reeds.

View attachment 26083

Yes, nice shots. I think most of the modern cameras can achieve AF with relatively close subjects against the sky but some perform better and more consistently than the R7 (though the majority are more expensive) in lower light and lower contrast settings and more confusing backgrounds. This has been demonstrated objectively compared to sometimes subjective views based on easier situations (not saying you are). The shot against the reeds is amazing by the way. I understand that the R8 may focus like that as well so intend to get that soon as my backup and first FF camera which I can use for other things as well and keep the R7 and upgrade if they have solutions in the future for the known issues.

 

[Archibald]

I don't have the R3 to compare it to. My R6II does edge out my R7 a bit. Yes some rolling shutter but I can't complain about the AF. I was in a blind and this one came out of the left and I only had seconds. I'll take better but overall for the price point.

From last year.

View attachment 26075

I have not done a lot of birding this year because they have not been around. I'm hoping March is better.

From last month.

View attachment 26076

View attachment 26077

View attachment 26078

Those are great BIFs. It can be done with the R7!

 

[ctitanic]

I'm assuming you mean AV and TV modes which are fine as is manual with experience. It is true that AF will perform better in brighter light and more contrasty situations. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the ISO setting in itself will have any affect on AF per se - ISO setting is the result of the poor light raising the gain in the amplifier to achieve the correct exposure. It is the result of the already poor light - i.e the signal, not the cause. It is what it is and the LCD or viewfinder view doesn't make it lighter or darker - it is just the representaton of your chosen exposure.

The cause if the lack of contrast caused by shooting in a low light situation. But an incorrect ISO may cause AF to fail. Check the second answer in this question.

 

[ctitanic]

To be honest, I have been looking around whether ISO has any impact of AF and I have found people saying that it does and people saying that it does not. The fact is that a if you are forced to use a higher ISO is because you are shooting in a dark environment where contrast is poor and that really affect ISO. The R7 uses a crop sensor and crop sensors do not perform well in poor light conditions. No surprises here. If you need to shoot in poor light then a full size sensor is recommended.

 

[Only RF]

To be honest, I have been looking around whether ISO has any impact of AF and I have found people saying that it does and people saying that it does not. The fact is that a if you are forced to use a higher ISO is because you are shooting in a dark environment where contrast is poor and that really affect ISO. The R7 uses a crop sensor and crop sensors do not perform well in poor light conditions. No surprises here. If you need to shoot in poor light then a full size sensor is recommended.

If you need high ISO then poor lighting can be a factor. Reminds me of my 7D2. I rare I used it low light. I would use my 5D4 for that. I used it call my 7D2 sensor light hungry. Same goes for the R7 I suppose.

Every tool has its job. The R7 works best in good light.

As we search for the answers there is not much we can do. We have no control over AF sensitivity. It either sees contrast or it doesn’t. We have some control over tracking characteristics with the case numbers and switching tracked subjects. Good technique and appropriate shutter speeds gets you further I think but that is just me.

 

[Dcweather]

To be honest, I have been looking around whether ISO has any impact of AF and I have found people saying that it does and people saying that it does not. The fact is that a if you are forced to use a higher ISO is because you are shooting in a dark environment where contrast is poor and that really affect ISO. The R7 uses a crop sensor and crop sensors do not perform well in poor light conditions. No surprises here. If you need to shoot in poor light then a full size sensor is recommended.

I have previously tried that and not noticed any difference. All of this is true of course and is not the case in point because it applies to all cameras to a greater or lesser extent. A few of the cameras with higher scores in the objective BIF tests in good light were crop sensors but more were FF especially the Canon ones. I came from a crop sensor Nikon (D500) to this and my friend from a 7Dmk2 and we both think the AF is less reliable with the R7 in difficult and regular tracking circumstances than these cameras, for example were. That is our opinion and if you are happy with things as they are then that is absolutely fine and I am happy with the camera as it is for now. There is little point in any further discussion as we know what we think and others can make their own judgement dependent on their requirements.

 

[Only RF]

I have previously tried that and not noticed any difference. All of this is true of course and is not the case in point because it applies to all cameras to a greater or lesser extent. A few of the cameras with higher scores in the objective BIF tests in good light were crop sensors but more were FF especially the Canon ones. I came from a crop sensor Nikon (D500) to this and my friend from a 7Dmk2 and we both think the AF is less reliable with the R7 in difficult and regular tracking circumstances than these cameras, for example were. That is our opinion and if you are happy with things as they are then that is absolutely fine and I am happy with the camera as it is for now. There is little point in any further discussion as we know what we think and others can make their own judgement dependent on their requirements.

More difficulty tracking when the R7 is in tracking and eye/face mode or using the traditional AF system? For example single point AF, Zone AF or whatever you used with the D500 or 7D2. If comparing using the new eye detect AF to DSLR focusing then it's not apples to apples.

If you are comparing the R7 using traditional AF then perhaps. I've never tested it. I'm in eye focus pretty much all of the time. Eye detect is pretty new tech and will only improve. Pretty amazing where they are today and in a pretty short time.

 

[Dcweather]

More difficulty tracking when the R7 is in tracking and eye/face mode or using the traditional AF system? For example single point AF, Zone AF or whatever you used with the D500 or 7D2. If comparing using the new eye detect AF to DSLR focusing then it's not apples to apples.

If you are comparing the R7 using traditional AF then perhaps. I've never tested it. I'm in eye focus pretty much all of the time. Eye detect is pretty new tech and will only improve. Pretty amazing where they are today and in a pretty short time.

Yes, I find it amazing at times and is good for small birds in branches I find. The times I find it poor are when you expect it to be - like trying to pick out an owl from a grassy background from 25m or more. Then the traditional method is inferior to D500 in terms of consistency especially.

 

[ctitanic]

I have set the * button to AF using single point without eye detection and tracking. This way I can just push and hold the button to focus in a specific point on the subject. Very helpful when you need to focus in a bird hidden behind branches.

 

[Only RF]

Yes, I find it amazing at times and is good for small birds in branches I find. The times I find it poor are when you expect it to be - like trying to pick out an owl from a grassy background from 25m or more. Then the traditional method is inferior to D500 in terms of consistency especially.

I see. Like Frank said that is where I would use my Eye Detect override. I left AF and metering on the shutter button. Currently the AF-ON is set to Zone AF with no eye detect. I just toggle it as many times as I need to and when the body gets into focus the system usually finds the eye. Again all depends on how good the eye contrast is.

As all camera manufacturers continue to train their AI algorithms the more complex scenes will be easier to work with. We are just on the cusp of these amassing times.

 

[ctitanic]

Well, like anything AI, sometimes are more A than I. If you know what I mean. You could use A+ and let the camera decide everything or you can go Manual and take control. Eye AF is not perfect. AF is not perfect. Sometimes is better to go to the basic and elemental one focus point and place it where you want. I find that this method is sometimes more reliable.

Yesterday I accidentally disabled Animal Detection, I turned off the whole detection feature, that turns off the Eye Detection as well. I took pictures of some birds in my feeder. Guess what, I worked.


The bird was perfectly in focus. I got a box around the bird when I was focusing and I was wondering why it could not detect the eye to later find that I had the whole detection feature OFF.

 

[David Policansky]

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.

Your backyard photographs look tack sharp to me.

 

[Only RF]

If need to use the traditional method I will but I always use eye detect first. I paid for it so I make it work for me.

If it can’t find the eye it finds the head. When it can’t fins the head it finds the body and goes back to the previous two. I’m OK with that.