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????

 

[ctitanic]

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.

Hi ACEkin
You have made me doubt about my R7. May be I'm getting too old and not that picky. Can you tell me if this picture looks sharp to you?

 

[ctitanic]

Or this one?

 

[ACEkin]

Hi ACEkin
You have made me doubt about my R7. May be I'm getting too old and not that picky. Can you tell me if this picture looks sharp to you?

View attachment 16746

Hello, ctitanic,
I am not sure where the focus target was placed or the f-stop. The grass in the front appears reasonably sharp and the sharpness fades as my eyes move backward. The eye of the hippo (which happens to be my favorite animal) conveys sharpness. The creases on the neck and around its jaws have some presence and clarity. Have you tried looking for the focus point in the Canon DPP to see if it is focusing where it says it is? In the example I shared. the focus point was on the nib of the pen but the actual photograph did not have any sense of sharpness. This kind of feeding uncertainty is not healthy for Canon, I wish they would acknowledge the problems, find acceptable solutions, and bring the old stability to the brand.

 

[ACEkin]

Or this one?

View attachment 16747

Again, without knowing the focus target or the f-stop, I would say there is a shallow depth of field but it should not affect the gator. The green leaves on its snout don't give me a good sense of sharpness. But, the lines on the lower part of its neck seem OK but the top part does not look as sharp. This is similar to the photographs I posted before the Canon-related article with photographs taken at Stepstone Falls. There is a link to that in my article. When you compare those to the later bunch taken at Roger Williams Park, you will feel and see what I am talking about. In my 52 years of using Canon gear, I have not had anything remotely resembling the problems I experienced with the two R7 kits. I was lucky that my camera store stood by me and swapped the kits with brand-new ones. Worth a shot!

 

[ctitanic]

ACEKin
in both pictures I use Eye AF so most likely that's the focus point.

EXIF for the alligator ƒ/8.0 560.0 mm 1/1250 2000.
EXIF for the Hipo ƒ/8.0 189.0 mm 1/320 640.

 

[ACEkin]

The long focal length at f/8 explains the shallow DoF on the alligator. But I don't know why the green debris on its nose is not as sharp as the skin on the neck area. But, it may look fine with the original image.

 

[ctitanic]

The long focal length at f/8 explains the shallow DoF on the alligator. But I don't know why the green debris on its nose is not as sharp as the skin on the neck area. But, it may look fine with the original image.

may be because the nose was closer to the camera than the eye? The eye and the neck may have been in the same distance from the camera. will that explain that?

The bottom line, do you feel that my camera may be having the same issue as your?

Here is a whole album where you may have more information to answer this last question: * Focus point most of the time is the eye of the subject.

20230521

Explore this photo album by Frank J Garcia on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

I do not think that I have the problem but when I read your article I do not notice any problems, to me your pictures from the old R7 are ok, so that makes me doubt about my camera!

 

[YangMills]

may be because the nose was closer to the camera than the eye? The eye and the neck may have been in the same distance from the camera. will that explain that?

The bottom line, do you feel that my camera may be having the same issue as your?

Here is a whole album where you may have more information to answer this last question: * Focus point most of the time is the eye of the subject.

20230521

Explore this photo album by Frank J Garcia on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

I do not think that I have the problem but when I read your article I do not notice any problems, to me your pictures from the old R7 are ok, so that makes me doubt about my camera!

In my opinion your shots look fine. My advice would be to enjoy your R7 and stop fretting.

 

[ctitanic]

In my opinion your shots look fine. My advice would be to enjoy your R7 and stop fretting.

Thanks for checking. I'm enjoying my R7, that's for sure.

 

[GaryM]

I've been watching these discussions on the R7 take place for a month or so and thought I would share my experiences.

I find that the R7 is an extraordinary camera for the price, which lately has been around $1399 US or less. With good lenses (non-L RF primes and EF and RF L's ) and good technique I found that it renders excellent images. So much so that I have been extensively comparing it with my 5D4 with similar EF lenses and find that it does, at times, produce better images. I also have added the 16mm 2.8, 24mm 1.8, and 50mm 1.8 primes, which lately have had substantial price drops, both new and refurbished. They all work quite well on the R7. I have no kit or RF-S lenses so cannot speak to them.

The only negative issues I have experienced are the well documented buffer space, mechanical shutter shock at low shutter speeds and the rolling shutter problems with the electronic shutter. All have technique remedies and are the nature of the beast in lower dollar cameras and hopefully will be addressed in newer versions. The limited buffer space is one that there really is no excuse for as Canon should have known (and I am sure did) that was a stinker.

I am hoping to add a R6Mk2 later this year (perhaps around the holidays during price drops). In the mean time I will keep enjoying the heck out of this little and light R7. Put me down as a very satisfied R7 owner.

 

[ACEkin]

may be because the nose was closer to the camera than the eye? The eye and the neck may have been in the same distance from the camera. will that explain that?

The bottom line, do you feel that my camera may be having the same issue as your?

Here is a whole album where you may have more information to answer this last question: * Focus point most of the time is the eye of the subject.

20230521

Explore this photo album by Frank J Garcia on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

I do not think that I have the problem but when I read your article I do not notice any problems, to me your pictures from the old R7 are ok, so that makes me doubt about my camera!

Frank, in general, I do not see a pattern of focus problems like I had on my old camera. In my case, the clearest example of the problem was my face taken with the old kit, then the old camera with a lens from a different kit. If you look at those, you will see how sharpness suffered and then rescued. In all the others, as large as the pictures in the galleries may be, they still do not convey the problem a full image does. That's why I included the pen nib photo at 100%. That photograph was taken with the camera on the tripod and the focus target positioned on the nib. I don't see anything like those in your collection.

 

[ctitanic]

Frank, in general, I do not see a pattern of focus problems like I had on my old camera. In my case, the clearest example of the problem was my face taken with the old kit, then the old camera with a lens from a different kit. If you look at those, you will see how sharpness suffered and then rescued. In all the others, as large as the pictures in the galleries may be, they still do not convey the problem a full image does. That's why I included the pen nib photo at 100%. That photograph was taken with the camera on the tripod and the focus target positioned on the nib. I don't see anything like those in your collection.

Thanks for all your help. I'm feeling better now.

 

[ctitanic]

I own the EF100-400 + 1.4 extension. I can tell you that they work really well in the R7. With the 1.4 extension you will notice a little bit softer pictures than if you just the EF100-400. I only use the 1.4 extender when I really want more reach. After all the EF100-400 will give you more than 600mm and that for birding is more than enough. At least for me.

Here is one of my pictures, I can't recall if I used the extender here.

CR7_8898.jpg

rfshooters.com

 

[Barry]

A lovely image. Its my thought you were not too far away from the bird in question. I still believe that my camera is a dud despite all I have tried so far. The authorised repair found it just a bit out of true and they corrected it. I still think its not designed to use EF glass whatever Canon says it can do. I have been using a 70-200mm L series zoom today to photograph insects. I have a bit of success but not up to the standard I get with a 7Dmk2

 

[ctitanic]

The only RF lens that I own is a RF50 f1.8 and the RF18-150. I do not use them. All my pictures are from the EF100-400 and the EF70-200. You can check a huge example of what type of pictures I get using the EF lenses here:

FRANK Garcia

Explore FRANK Garcia’s 44,407 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[ctitanic]

A lovely image. Its my thought you were not too far away from the bird in question. I still believe that my camera is a dud despite all I have tried so far. The authorised repair found it just a bit out of true and they corrected it. I still think its not designed to use EF glass whatever Canon says it can do. I have been using a 70-200mm L series zoom today to photograph insects. I have a bit of success but not up to the standard I get with a 7Dmk2

Those 3 pictures look sharp to me. I do not have any doubt that the RF lenses may work better than the adapted lenses but I do not have any complains about the EF L lenses that I use. I have other EF lenses that are not L and I do not use them that much but I do not attribute their limitations to the R7, they are just cheap lenses. The R7 has a huge sensor and no all EF lenses work well, you have to understand the limitations that come from using old lenses with new cameras.

 

[ctitanic]

An example of the EF70-200 L f2.8

202306_CR7_9040-CR3 -1

Explore ctitanic's 44407 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Barry]

ctitanic---I agree with you totally regarding lenses which was why my lenses are all L series. I guess I am just used to better images from EF cameras. Those insect shots are the best three out of 60. The hit rate is so poor. I am not putting down the R7 , I just don't rate it that highly. I have read elsewhere that a lot of users have been disappointed by some aspects of the R7. It is a useable camera, but not one I would rely on for anything important. The sensor is not much different from the 90D. A colleague uses one and gets amazing images with it using the exact same lens we are on about, the 100-400mm zoom.

 

[ctitanic]

ctitanic---I agree with you totally regarding lenses which was why my lenses are all L series. I guess I am just used to better images from EF cameras. Those insect shots are the best three out of 60. The hit rate is so poor. I am not putting down the R7 , I just don't rate it that highly. I have read elsewhere that a lot of users have been disappointed by some aspects of the R7. It is a useable camera, but not one I would rely on for anything important. The sensor is not much different from the 90D. A colleague uses one and gets amazing images with it using the exact same lens we are on about, the 100-400mm zoom.

If your hit rate is so poor then you have a faulty camera. It's not the first time that owners have reported AF issues with faulty R7s that have been replaced and the AF in the replacement is a lot better.

I'm a lucky one with a good camera that gives me more than 90% of keepers.
I use:
-Most of the time electronic shutter mode
-Single shot, I do not have the patience to go checking 30 pictures to pic one. I shoot usually 2 or 3 pictures and pick one, the other two are sharp but from the point of view of composition are not good enough for me
-I use mechanical shutter mode with burst only for birds in flight, the success rate on those is a lot less, may be 30%, but I never had a better rate in any of the other cameras that I ever owned from Nikon or Sony.

I would recommend you to see if you can replace your camera.