DRM wrote:
I have the RF 100-500 and RF 1.4x. I also have the RF 200-800 on order. With the teleconverter attached, the 100-500 gets you to 700mm at f/10. The 200-800 gains 100mm of focal length and 1/3 stop of light. When the extra reach is needed--such as for distant and/or dangerous wildlife or the upcoming solar eclipse--the 200-800 would be my choice. Otherwise, I expect the 100-500, an L lens (the 200-800 is not an L model), without teleconverter to see more use.
If you order the 200-800, be prepared to wait awhile. Mine has been backordered since late November (B&H).
I have the RF 100-500 and RF 1.4x. I also have th... (
show quote)
I'm also waiting for the 200-800 from B&H since November. I have the 100-500 L and the backorder for the 200-800 doesn't have any end in sight, I considered getting the RF 1.4 teleconverter for the 100-500. However, I read the 1.4 can only be attached when the 100-500 is extended to 300 or more. I learned with a 1.4 teleconverter and the 100-400 II L the number of focus points were dramatically reduced. Assuming a similar result on the 100-500 and the restriction of greater than 300, I decided to pass on the teeconverter idea and continue to wait for the 200-800.
I have the exact same scenario as you. Initially the 100-400 with adapter worked great on the R7. I got the 100-500 and it is now my walk around setup. For me, the biggest issue has been transitioning to the R7 with the electronic viewfinder and figuring out the best combination of autofocus setup with the three custom dial positions (C1,C2,C3, spot focus, small area focus , wide area focus, eye detect on or eye detect off). The viewfinder doesn't turn on until brought to eye level. Some fast action nature shots, like a Sora running across the boardwalk, the bird is half way across the boardwalk before the viewfinder is active. In those situations, the 7DII with optical viewfinder is superior with a 50% improvement in capture. As far as autofocus, if you are set up with a BIF setting and full view focus points, a detailed background, and a solitary image like Red-winged Blackbird at 25 years, the R7 will not focus on the mid-range image. You need to switch to spot focusing. Since both cameras have a cropped sensor, I don't think the extra 100 mm with the 100-500 makes that much of a difference (I have the 200-800 on backorder and that may be a noticeable difference). I got into the R7 for the frame rate and the eye detect. Even though the 7DII is superior in some situations, I am staying with the R7 in order to gain the same proficiency that I had with the 7DII. In the end, both setups work great. The transition was a little greater than anticipated but it does keep the door open for the newer lens like the 200-800.
CHG_CANON wrote:
I'd double-check the camera settings against the RAW burst mode setting(s) as discussed on page 272 of the Advanced User Guide.
Thanks for the suggestion. I've set up the camera as suggested on page 272 and will check it out in the AM.
Using SD cards in my Canon R7, one card is saving jpeg and one card is saving RAW (CR3). I'm shooting BIF at 15 fps and I do not have any problems with buffering. However when I open the RAW card, the files start out as RAW, then I get a string that are jpeg, and then it ends with RAW files. The other card saves all jpeg with no problems. Any suggestion for why some files are not saved as RAW?
I still have my Yashica MAT124G. A great camera to get into the 2 1/4 square format without the great expense of other medium format cameras. I checked with B&H and they still have Ilford 120 B&W film. I was primarily B&W so I could use with my Omega B66 XL enlarger and Heathkit digital photo timer (talk about a blast from the past). The light meter failed on my camera but it still worked perfectly with a Gossen hand held light meter. I used the camera when we were in Europe between 1982 and 1985. It was a different but enjoyable experience from what I had learned using with my Minolta SRT 101. Thanks for helping me remember my time with the Yashica. Maybe I'll order up a couple roll so film from B&H, dust of the B66, and revisit my earlier experiences with B&W photography.
gunflint wrote:
Hello,
This question is for Nikon Mirrorless users...I have been using the D850 since it came out. I am primarily a landscape photographer (not professional) and do some wildlife. I understand the various advantages the mirrorless cameras have for wildlife but am not clear on if there are advantages for landscape photography. I am considering the Z8 so I would appreciate any information you can share with me.
A second part...is there any quality loss or problem if I continue to use my current Nikon lenses with the adapter for the Z cameras?
Thank you so much, and if this has already been discussed I appologize.
David
Hello, br br This question is for Nikon Mirrorles... (
show quote)
I enjoy the comments and offer a perspective from my experience with Canon. You get an increasing percentage of good shots with increasing experience and knowledge of your camera systems. I used a 7DMkII for six years and had great muscle memory using the button driven camera.. Switching to the R7 mirrorless presented a completely different menu/touch screen managed system. I’m still on the learning curve with the R7 and how to compensate for the differences, some negative, using the camera for BIF. My point though is that after using the R7 for six months, I went back to the DLSR and had forgotten how to quickly use the button controls. While I don’t know the differences between the Nikon DLSR and mirrorless camera controls, I suspect that you will not be able to go back without a loss of proficiency.
junglejim1949 wrote:
I moved to mirrorless and purchased an R7 and am pleased with my decision. I have been looking at an evaluating some of the new RF versions. My confusion come with the reviews... one will state excellent, lighter weight and better sharpness. Another states unimpressed, barrel hard to turn, and loses focus.
I would like to hear from HH'ers what they think. I have EF 50, EF 24-70 f4, and EF 70-200 f4.
If I switched to RF, I would upgrade from f4 to f2.8.
Just like to hear from someone that owns one.
Thanks
I moved to mirrorless and purchased an R7 and am p... (
show quote)
I added a R7 to get the 15/30 fps and eye detect for action nature shooting. While I have the RF 100-500, an EF-RF adapter with an EF 100-400 MK II works perfectly. I checked the Canon site and they claim their EF-RF adapter is compatible with all EF lens. I'd suggest trying your EF lens with an adapter (Canon not off-brand) to see if you are happy with the results. The adapter will extend the lens out a bit and that may change the balance point (probably more of a factor with a heavy EF 100-400 lens). Another option is to rent a RF lens that you want to replace one of your current EF lens to see if the weight and size differences would be worth the expense. I have purchased the RF 24-105 lens so my two lens would cover 24 to 500 mm. I think the broader question would be full frame or cropped sensor. For the types of photography that require the shorter focal range lens and perhaps low light situations or silent operation, a full frame camera will give better results. Unfortunately full frame come with a steep cost penalty ($1000 in DLSR and $2000 for Mirrorless).
davidb1879 wrote:
I am toying with the idea of purchasing a Canon EOS R7 with an RF (image stabilized) 100-400 lens. I would like to be able to grab the camera quickly to photograph a moving subject without having to worry about camera shake. Ken Rockwell says with the R7 "You can leave your tripod at home." But watching a U tube review of the R7, I noticed that the reviewer had a tripod. Of course, image stabilization cannot prevent blurring from subject motion (although increasing shutter speed can.) If anyone uses an R7, I would appreciate it if you could share your experience with the R7's image stabilization. Thanks. Davidb.
I am toying with the idea of purchasing a Canon EO... (
show quote)
Lots of good commentary. I use High Speed Continuous, not High speed Continuous +, to stay with 15 frames a second to avoid rolling shutter. With the RF 100-500 and shutter priority at 1/2000 sec in sunlight and 1/1600 with overcast and auto ISO I get tack sharp pictures when the auto focus locks on correctly. I have more challenges with the electronic shutter (time delays) and setting up the auto focus settings (refusing to lock onto subject). But that is a different conversation. I've also used the EF 100-400 MKII with EF to RF adapter and get great results.
Toby wrote:
I have a Canon R7 that is relatively new. I since I could not buy the body only at the time I bought the entire body plus lens kit. I also bought the adapter ring so I could use my non-mirrorless lenses. When I got it I immediately tried all of my lenses on it, and it worked with all of them. I had some health problems during the summer and did not use it much. A week or so ago I decided to use it rather than my &DMII. Fortunately, I tried it out before I left home. When I tried it using my Tamron 18-400 on it the camera had trouble focusing. This never happened before, When I pointed the camera at something it would focus but when I pressed the button to shoot the picture it would refocus into a blur, every time. If I held the shutter release part way down it would continuously hunt for a focus. I didn't have much time, so I put the Tamron on to my 7DMII and it worked fine.
Earlier today I tested it with the Tamron and my Canon70-200 both worked fine. This evening (still daylight) I took these two lenses and the R7 to a shoot and I had almost the
same problem with the Tamron (this time it would not focus with the Tamron). It was better with the canon 70-200 but still not quite right.
I suppose I should send in both the camera and lens to the same place to be checked out but I had to send both during the peak fall sports season. But which place? Canon or Tamron. Both should be under warranty.
Before I do that I was wondering if any one here has had this problem? I was not using the eye tracking feature. Firmware is up to date at 1.3.1 Thanks to all of you in advance
I have a Canon R7 that is relatively new. I since ... (
show quote)
I've seen similar differences between my 7DMII and the R7, tack sharp with the 7DMII and hunting with the R7. I've come to believe it has a lot to do with how I set up the auto-focus points and what is the range to the subject. I seem to get a lot more hunting with spot or 1-point focus points and less with expanded area focus (this would be with the 100-500 mm at 500 mm). Seems with so few focus points there might not be enough contrast for the auto focus to work and the background wins out resulting with hunting (background sharp and subject blurry). For close subjects, sometimes it will not focus (say within 3 meters and at 500 mm). If I manually adjust the focus to get it in focus, then the auto-focus system will work even at these close in ranges. For me, it has all been learning with the electronic viewfinder/auto-focus system and lots of practice. Yes I have a higher percentage of in-focus with the 7DMII and the 100-400 MII than the R7 and the 100-500. But I'm staying with the R7 and continuing to practice and learn how to leverage the electronic viewfinder/auto-focus system. I spoke with someone else with an R5 and they reported the same focus issues.
u4ea wrote:
I'm thinking of getting a Canon R7 and would like people who own them to tell me how they like them good or bad. I currently have a Canon 80d and I think it would be a good step for me to get into the mirrorless ecosystem.
Thanks,
u4ea
I use the camera for nature and BIF. Before getting the R7, I used a 7DMKII for about 6 years. Picked the R7 mirrorless for eye detect, greater frame rate and the same auto-focusing systems as the R3. Married it with the RF 100-500 (have used the RF adapter with the EF100-400 LII and that works great as well). Becoming more efficient with the menu system of the R7 versus the button system of the 7d Mk11. The most difficult transition has been with the electronic viewfinder (EV). For very quick reaction shots, like catching a Virginia Rail running across a boardwalk, the time delay with the EV going active and getting the camera to eye level means you'll lose 50% of the shots compared to an optical viewfinder of the 7D. Still learning how to tweak the auto-focus system with custom settings. Agree with all the positives and I'm brute forcing my way through any EV issues. Staying with the R7 and RF100-500 as my walk along camera system for nature and BIF.
Ruthlessrider wrote:
I have an EOS 5DIV and recently purchased an R5 with the EOS lens adapter. My intention, when I first bought the R5, was to use it until I was was comfortable with it and then sell the 5DIV and EF lenses purchasing RF lenses of similar range as replacements. Since purchasing the R5 I have purchased an RF800mm lens that I occasionally use and enjoy. As I contemplated following through with my plan it suddenly struck me that it may not make sense to follow through with the plan, especially since I have enjoy the flexibility of having two cameras of this quality available at the ready. As a result I thought I would throw it out to the wider experience base of UGG for opinions.
With two fairly high quality cameras that I can currently shoot every lens with except the RF lens (forget that the transition would cost a significant bundle for the moment) does it really make sense to change out the EF lenses for RF? Is there significant photo quality to be gained in going from using EF lenses on an R5 to all RF lenses? Even if I sold the 5DIV would it make sense to go from EF to RF?
I have an EOS 5DIV and recently purchased an R5 wi... (
show quote)
After many years with a 7dII focusing on BIF, I decided to try the R7. I saw no difference with the EF 100-400 LII and the adapter on the R7. I'm not sure what range of lens are compatible with the adapter but I see no issues with the longer lens. I do have two issues with the general DLSR/mirrorless discussion. First is the difference between button driven versus menu driven camera bodies. BIF requires great familiarity with how to rapidly adjust the camera but after using the menu process of the R7, I lost the rhythm with the 7dII buttons. I think the question then is how comfortable you are in switching between the two systems. My second issue is with the electronic viewfinder on the R7. In quick reaction shots, like a Virginia Rail running across a boardwalk, the optical viewfinder of the 7dII is superior compared to the time delays with the electronic viewfinder of the R7. Now I am working to improve my performance with the R7 and a RF 100-500 while the 7dII and EF 100-400LII remain on the shelf.
I use only DeNoise and Sharpen. I always use DeNoise. I agree that Sharpen sometimes over sharpens so I check what it does and then decide on whether to stay with DeNoise or add Sharpen.
I have a Canon 90D with newly formatted 128 GB Scandisc SDXC card. With Canon 100-400 MKII, Shutter priority, Auto ISO, 1/2000 sec, high res JPEG, high speed continuous -- I get buffering after 4 to 6 pictures. DOes this sound normal with this high Megapixel camera? I'm used to a 7D Mk 11 under similar conditions where I can get at least a 10 second high speed burst before buffering. Thought I would seek real world experience from this group before checking with Canon.
I agree each have their place. My favorite is AI DeNoise, particularly with BIF and their background sky. My only criticism, and that may be how I use it, is the huge file size in the processed image. So my workflow after using DeNoise is to complete the process with Photoshop to reduce the file size. My results with AI Sharpen are less satisfactory, in my opinion. It may be due to amount of contrast in the original image. Pictures like the hawk with greater contrast seem to perform better. Pictures like the cardinal with less contrast seem to introduce too many artifacts for my taste. Obviously photography is an art that hinges on personal taste. For me, I always process images I want to share with AI DeNoise. As far as AI Sharpen, when I use it I then decide whether to keep the image or revert to the original AI DeNoise image.
I'm interested in Topaz Sharpen AI software. Does it work as advertised? Any problems ordering the software through them? Because it isn't available in my regular resellers (B&H and Amazon), that is a potential red flag concerning a purchase through them.