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.

 

[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