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.

 

[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.