Canon R7 R7 Frustrations

[Barry]

Back again. I have now lost patience with the R7 . I have just taken 300 + images in good light using a 1.4x extender on a 100-400mm EF zoom and the adapter ring. I have tried a variety of settings with av, tv, fully automatic, and a range of ISO settings. I have used 1 shot AF, servo AF, mechanical, electronic first curtain and silent shutter modes ........ you get the picture? I have basically tried everything settings wise and been consistent with the choice of lens etc. Result is 12 sharp images and about 290 blurs.

MY camera is a piece of junk!!!! Its gone back to Canon with a stiff note. Apparently there are quite a few people in the UK with the same issues. Are you listening CANON????

 

[pcassel]

I can sense the frustration you must be feeling implicit in your post. I wonder if you've been in contact with other UK snappers to see if your equipment has anything in common with theirs that would account for the poor results all of you are facing.

I have but one EF lens, an EF-S wide angle zoom I got used for, IIRC, U$112. Yesterday when I was out with it, I had a strange difficulty not being able to move the focus square and it taking on an unfamiliar aspect. IIRC, the focus square became white and looked a bit like a double Tik-Tac-Doh setup with nothing in the squares. OK, it wasn't that (actually closer to a Zia Sign) but it was something I'd never seen before and it would not move. I turned the camera on/off and it cleared.

In my case, while the lens is OEM, the adapter is no-name from gosh knows where arriving here courtesy of Amazon. Would this have occurred with a Canon adapter? Will it ever recur? Is the inexpensive obviously used hard lens part of the issue? In your case, could the combination of EF-RF adapter, 1.4x adapter (OEM?) and EF lens or maybe just that lens be the issue?

I'm curious to see how this resolves.

 

[higgins2002]

I'm using R7 with RF100-500 and it performs really well....even with the RF1,4x extender it performs well.

 

[Only RF]

Back again. I have now lost patience with the R7 . I have just taken 300 + images in good light using a 1.4x extender on a 100-400mm EF zoom and the adapter ring. I have tried a variety of settings with av, tv, fully automatic, and a range of ISO settings. I have used 1 shot AF, servo AF, mechanical, electronic first curtain and silent shutter modes ........ you get the picture? I have basically tried everything settings wise and been consistent with the choice of lens etc. Result is 12 sharp images and about 290 blurs.

MY camera is a piece of junk!!!! Its gone back to Canon with a stiff note. Apparently there are quite a few people in the UK with the same issues. Are you listening CANON????

We all get OOF shots. Can you post what you a few files on average what you describe as blur.

 

[tpatana]

We all get OOF shots. Can you post what you a few files on average what you describe as blur.

Second this.

I'd be also curious to know if you tested on static setting so put camera on tripod, use phone app as remote (so you don't touch the camera) on a static subject, preferably something with clear contrast or even those focus test sheets. Whenever I had focus trouble on my earlier dslr bodies the focus tests would give indication on what might be causing it and start figuring out what's the steps to correct it. Could be faulty camera, for example if the sensor is not in plane it'd cause lot of focus issues.

 

[StevenAunan]

I don't usually do birds in flight, but on a recent trip to the coast I took at least 100 shots of seagulls with the R7 and RF 100-400mm (no extender, though). A lot of the birds were out of the frame, but very few were blurry. This one is straight out of the camera with no cropping or post-processing. I also regularly use an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L with the Canon RF adapter, and the results are uniformly good. I like my R6 more than the R7, but have no complaints about either one. I hope Canon resolves the complaint to your satisfaction!

 

[YangMills]

I picked up an R7 last year mainly for macro and wildlife. I haven’t used it that much, preferring my R5 so far. But I have done three or four shoots with it and my results have been mixed. I seem to be getting better results with the native RF lenses (mainly 70-200 f/2.8) than with my EF100-400 II on an adapter. It’s definitely fine for undemanding static subjects. I’ve had some unexplained soft results on two occasions (shooting outdoor sport and aviation) and it’s been pin sharp on other occasions. I have one unedited set to look at with fast moving subjects. So the jury’s out for me. I need to use it more on less important outings where failure doesn’t matter, to get confidence that’s it‘s ok, especially with BIF, sport and macro. The trouble is that I reach for what I have confidence in. Anyway, will report back when I have something more substantive to say, but for the now the bottom line is not sure, but not a disaster.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Do I have issues with my R7? Absolutely. Most frustrating is focus drift where the eye lock finds the subject and it focuses on the eye, then doesn't, then does, then doesn't. I've actually sent multiple sets of these to a Canon rep to send back to engineering.

That said, I'm not talking a 5-10% hit rate. I've said it before, the R7 has a great focus system (better than my R5) but it doesn't seem to have the processing horsepower to use it properly, thus the focus drift and other oddness.

That said, I'm using all RF glass. You're using EF glass with an adapter and a teleconverter. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the camera is only the issue in that you're asking it to do more than it's probably capable of. Put a 100-400mm or 100-500mm RF on it and see how you do before you blame the camera. It's effectively a budget mirrorless that has some great features. I'd love it to perform like my R5 and wish it did. But I know its limits and have had great success working within those.

 

[Only RF]

I don't have my EF 100-400 II anymore so I can't compare and I'm not saying this is the reason. The RF system has 4 additional pins for faster transition transmission speeds. I can't provide any data but I trust/believe they are doing something for me. The R7 is more challenging than my R6II and I don't like the loud clackity shutter. I find myself shooting in ES more than I like.

I was in a blind and this one came out of nowhere from the left and I only had a few seconds. With the 1.4 as well. I consider this a bit of luck because I got the bird within the frame right away. As for losing the eye and finding it. If it loses the eye it finds the head. If it loses the head it finds the body and then goes back to the eye so I don't worry about it. I know it's just AI doing the best it can. My R5 did that and so does my R6II. This AI tech is also self learning so the more you shoot.

Also I'm stunned at how it will find head of the small subject very far away. All my ML bodies do that.

 

[Only RF]

A different day without the TC

 

[RickyRed]

Try resetting the camera back to stock settings. The R7 with canpn EF adapter and EF 100-400 II is an amazing piece of kit. I don't use the noisy mechianial shutter. Just an outstanding camera.

 

[Only RF]

Try resetting the camera back to stock settings. The R7 with canpn EF adapter and EF 100-400 II is an amazing piece of kit. I don't use the noisy mechianial shutter. Just an outstanding camera.

I had the 100-400 II since its release. I shot for almost two years with that lens and the R and it was excellent. My 7D2 never came out of the bag. I ordered both the R5/100-500 and sold the 100-400 II before I got the R5. I know I would have had zero issues using the 100-400 on any ML body.

 

[Only RF]

When things didn't seem right I reset my R5 a few times. All the menu items on that page. Good advice by RickyRed.

 

[Barry]

Interesting reading . I have done what you suggested regarding resetting the camera back to stock. I haven't used a tripod yet as most of my wildlife shooting isn't done in static situations . With my old DSLR kit it didn't matter, I got the shots I was after, but the R7 won't play ball. I have found today a couple of settings to switch off and they have improved the hit rate quite a bit. I turned off all the tracking functions and subjects to track. The eye tracking is appalling anyway. I changed the metering modes around from evaluative through the whole set and compared the results. I even tried auto ISO , something I really dislike doing. Somebody mentioned that sticking to single shot AF would help so I tried that too. All the above made a difference, some improved, others a waste of effort. I am now trying shorter lenses like the 24-105mm L series zoom. I am getting more consistent results with it. BUT !!!! The whole point of my purchasing an R7 was to have an improvement over the 7DmkII. With of course the bonus of extra reach provided by the APS-C sensor. This I haven't got because the longer lenses result in too many bad hits. Did Canon really test out this camera with EF glass? Did they really think we would all happily go and buy a whole set of new RF lenses and secretly didn't bother ensuring the EF glass was really compatible? Who knows.
I don't want an R5, my 5Dmk4 is well suited to the non-wildlife aspects and is superb!

A question for anyone who can assist. Would I really need to spend out on an RF lens of 400mm or higher to ensure that the R7 performed at its best or is there another way?
I have listened carefully to everyone's suggestions and experiences of RF technology and want to get the best I can from it.

 

[Barry]

Second this.

I'd be also curious to know if you tested on static setting so put camera on tripod, use phone app as remote (so you don't touch the camera) on a static subject, preferably something with clear contrast or even those focus test sheets. Whenever I had focus trouble on my earlier dslr bodies the focus tests would give indication on what might be causing it and start figuring out what's the steps to correct it. Could be faulty camera, for example if the sensor is not in plane it'd cause lot of focus issues.

Yes I think that's a worthwhile suggestion. I have has cameras out of calibration before and the guys at Lehmanns in the UK sorted it for me.( they are the approved repair and service people in England)

 

[pcassel]

I think the tripod suggestion was to rule out certain factors. I think it is worth the try.

Where the purchase of an RF 400 lens may no be what's needed, a day or two rental of one may be instructive in offering you direction to get the camera solution you seek.

 

[Only RF]

I think the tripod suggestion was to rule out certain factors. I think it is worth the try.

Where the purchase of an RF 400 lens may no be what's needed, a day or two rental of one may be instructive in offering you direction to get the camera solution you seek.

It's what I used to do with with my DSLR's. Compared phase detect to LV.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

The eye tracking is appalling anyway.

Really?!

REALLY?!

I'm going to have to say that there's either a ton of user error going on here or your body is garbage (I am not implying either), because I find myself wishing my R5 had this eye tracking every time I pick up the R7. As said, I have had issues with what the camera decided to focus on once the eye was locked, but the eye was most certainly locked. I'll just leave it at that, because if this is what you're experiencing then I've got no more help to give.

 

[Only RF]

We would still like to see see samples.

 

[TonyB]

I have an R7 as a second body to an R5. I find it to be excellent and is my preference for traveling being a lighter, smaller system. Regarding the eye tracking and overall camera performance, I find the R7 delivers excellent results, however, I am using only RF lenses. If you’re not feeling the same and are confident in your settings and technique, I would recommend you get the camera over to Canon to get checked. Obviously, others are not sharing in your experiences with the R7.

This was taken with the R7 and RF100-500 w/1.4x.

 

[Only RF]

I have an R7 as a second body to an R5. I find it to be excellent and is my preference for traveling being a lighter, smaller system. Regarding the eye tracking and overall camera performance, I find the R7 delivers excellent results, however, I am using only RF lenses. If you’re not feeling the same and are confident in your settings and technique, I would recommend you get the camera over to Canon to get checked. Obviously, others are not sharing in your experiences with the R7.

This was taken with the R7 and RF100-500 w/1.4x.
View attachment 15932

I like these birds. I always enjoy shooting them.

 

[Only RF]

I was out today. It was too far away but for the heck of it I tried it. Due detect and no matter how man times I did this it found the bird. I didn't have to invoke AF and it was fast. If it can't find the eye it will find the head. If it can't find the head it will find the body. As soon as it can confirm an eye it will go back to it. I couldn't ask for much more.

 

[RickyRed]

So, I have been into Bird and wildlife photography for well over two decades. Last three cameras have been the 7DII with The Tamron 150-600 G2 and 100-400 II. 5DIV with the 100-400 II and the R7 and 100-400. You have 640 mm with this combo. And excellent af. To me all the setup for dlsr cameras is mute. Reset set the whole camera and start over. Ditch the tele converter , The R7 has great cropping and do you really need to go further than 640 mm ? David Bushs guide to setting up the R7 is very good. I use the electronic shutter and single af point with four expansion points. The North west winters are wet and very low light. The R7 has been the best at this so far. I would give this combo a 8+ for what I do. I would rate it higher if Canon would have used the R6 body.

David Buchs

Canon EOS R7 Guide to setting up the R7 and tips.

 

[ACEkin]

The R7 with its kit lens, 18-150 RF-S, is by far the worst Canon I have ever used since 1971, and I have owned many. I sent it to Canon, it came back saying they made minor adjustments. But, the focus inconsistencies continued. I wrote to the support once more, they tried to help and I even spoke with the camera specialist after he took a look at the focus target photographs I provided. There was definite back-focus and the image quality degraded seriously passed f-11. He told me that he could see the focus shift which also varied at different f-stops and focal lengths. After several days, we had another conversation and he told me that yes, the image quality degrades at small apertures which I mentioned earlier anyway. The diaphragm acts as a lens. He said he was getting sharp pictures with both cameras and lenses (I sent my wife's identical camera with slightly better performance) and was going to send them back.

Well, even on a tripod I cannot get consistently sharp focus. The focus target turns green, click the shutter, image is blurry. I am frustrated to no end. I am also wondering if this is a problem triggered by the firmware update to 1.3.0. We replaced our cameras in September 2022 but did not get a chance to use them much due to health problems. Whatever I have then, I do not recall being this bad. I am at the point of abandoning my over fifty years of Canon affinity and satisfaction. One last try will be to go to my local camera store and put on a different lens and see the results. The part that truly surprises me is that I used an identical lens on two Canon M5 cameras for years without problems and I still use it on one M5, the EF-M 18-150, which works fine. Very disappointed.

 

[JHG]

The R7 with its kit lens, 18-150 RF-S, is by far the worst Canon I have ever used since 1971, and I have owned many. I sent it to Canon, it came back saying they made minor adjustments. But, the focus inconsistencies continued. I wrote to the support once more, they tried to help and I even spoke with the camera specialist after he took a look at the focus target photographs I provided. There was definite back-focus and the image quality degraded seriously passed f-11. He told me that he could see the focus shift which also varied at different f-stops and focal lengths. After several days, we had another conversation and he told me that yes, the image quality degrades at small apertures which I mentioned earlier anyway. The diaphragm acts as a lens. He said he was getting sharp pictures with both cameras and lenses (I sent my wife's identical camera with slightly better performance) and was going to send them back...................

It's very likely that you have got a bad copy of the R7. With the IBIS on top of the sensor, there may be a chance that it is defective, causing the focus to shift while it 'moves'. You can try to turn it off and see if it helps.

 

[ACEkin]

Oh, you may be correct. Yesterday, I took the camera and the kit lens to my local camera store where I got it. After trying a different lens and trying a different kit altogether, they saw the problem and offered to exchange the kit. What a difference! In a day or two, there will be a new kit coming to replace my wife's gear. I am amazed that the factory service did not make this offer a few months ago. A few quick test photographs show a far better sense of clarity and much better focus. I will probably chronicle the journey in an article on my site. And, I may retake some photographs for an article about to be published in a week or so.

By the way, I did try disabling the stabilization, focus modes, etc. with no change in results. But, getting two kits at the same time with very similar problems is an extremely rare chance event. I should play the numbers games!!

 

[JHG]

Oh, you may be correct. Yesterday, I took the camera and the kit lens to my local camera store where I got it. After trying a different lens and trying a different kit altogether, they saw the problem and offered to exchange the kit. What a difference! In a day or two, there will be a new kit coming to replace my wife's gear. I am amazed that the factory service did not make this offer a few months ago. A few quick test photographs show a far better sense of clarity and much better focus. I will probably chronicle the journey in an article on my site. And, I may retake some photographs for an article about to be published in a week or so.

By the way, I did try disabling the stabilization, focus modes, etc. with no change in results. But, getting two kits at the same time with very similar problems is an extremely rare chance event. I should play the numbers games!!

Problem solved then?! Canon apparently has been plagued with QC issues (well, same for Nikon and Sony, depends on what source you get your info). I bet that the serial numbers are pretty close to each other with your two cameras.

 

[ACEkin]

Problem solved then?! Canon apparently has been plagued with QC issues (well, same for Nikon and Sony, depends on what source you get your info). I bet that the serial numbers are pretty close to each other with your two cameras.

In a way, you are correct, the problems were solved as I picked up the second replacement camera. However, I cannot comprehend Canon's position to wait until the customer gives up. In my 40+ years of teaching marketing, this has never been a teaching point for me. When I write a new article on my site, I may share it here.

 

[MikeZ]

Several years back, Nikon had issues with the D600 and oil/lubricant of some sort sprinkling the sensor when the reflex mirror snapped up. Their response, after MANY complaints, was to clean the sensor free of charge. Eventually, they decided to replace the camera with the D610 which did not suffer that issue. I'm not sure if the D610 had any real design changes, but it allowed Nikon to move away from the D600 oil issue.

I think that all big companies will refuse to admit that their products have QC issues, even when faced with irrefutable evidence. They'll wait until it effects sales and then introduce a "new and improved" model to help us all forget about the previous failure. I'm glad that the vendor did the right thing, and that just reinforces my desire to buy from bricks and mortar stores.

 

[ctitanic]

Have you compared pictures with and without the 1.4x extender? I use the R7 with the EF100-400 L and I do not have any issues but... I'm not that picky. I have noticed that when using the extender my pictures are softer but nothing that I'll complain about it.

For example, do you feel that this pictures is not sharp enough?