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.

 

[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!