Am I limiting my R7 with lens choices

Appleby

Appleby

Messages
9
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

About a year ago I swapped my aging 600d for an R7. I felt like the poor ISO performance on the 600d was starting to limit my photos and I fancied a jump up to mirrorless.

I stuck with Canon because I have a 70-200mm 2.8L (original version, no IS) and a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS.

I mainly shoot wildlife and Motorsport and have the shorter lens as a walkabout travel lens. Both are mounted using an official Canon EF-RF adapter.

I don't know if it's my settings (mainly shoot on aperture priority or manual) or the pixel density but I'm feeling a bit disappointed in the upgrade.

I feel like the pictures I'm getting aren't quite the change I was expecting. I seem to be getting grainy or soft focus far more than I did with my old camera (even at low ISO).

Although I have been doing this a while, I still consider myself a bit of a beginner but I'm sure with the settings I'm using I should be getting better shots.

While sat musing while trying to process my latest set of photos last night I wonder if the older and lower end lens are starting to show limitations with a high MP crop sensor.

Any opinions, or recommendations of anything I should look for in the menu? Or am I just looking for a quick fix that could be resolved better through technique and skill?
 
Without looking it up, I don’t know the MP count or the R7 but you do need good glass for high MP cameras. I don’t know anything about your sigma lens but the original 70-200 2.8 was released in 1995 (29 years ago) so probably not up to the job anymore with modern high MP sensors.
 
Last edited:
My 2c - I have a R6MkII & it usually has a RF100-500 stuck on the front... That's away at Canon seeing the nice man so for a week I've had an EF100-400MkII on there and it is as frustrating as a frustrating thing. Takes great pictures but the AF is slower than a wet weekend in somewhere salubrious...

Did I use the EF lens when I first got the R6? Sure it was still better than it was natively on the 6DMkII body...

Are there still other EF lenses that I use routinely - sure the 100mm f/2.8L macro, the TS-E 45mm are the most obvious ones - one the speed of AF is mostly irrelevant; the other is MF.

Are you being limited? I'd say it depends on how important the AF performance is to your shooting.
 
Last edited:
I have an R7 and like all modern high megapixel crop bodies (mirrorless or otherwise) you really do need to have all your ducks lined up to get the best from these cameras.

Looking at the resulting images at 100% on a big screen as many of us do is asking for any faults to be shown in vivid detail.

I have a 27 inch monitor and it's about the same size as most of the images I have displayed around the house, and they look great :)

Do a few experiments, tripod, good light, detailed subject - and you will see the actual capability of your equipment, and also how much it can be affected by things such as camera shake (or shutter shake in the R7 - look it up if your not familiar), atmospheric haze, slightly missed focus (despite the incredible focusing on the R7 I have had it get confused at times) etc etc

The R7 is a great camera, might need to invest in some de-noise software though as I do find it a bit noisy.

Good luck

David
 
There may be pixel density differences, but I’m using the original 70-200 on my R6.
IIRC; when they added the IS, despite advances in lens technology, the IQ actually went down and didn’t become a decent improvement over the old lens till the mkIII. I may have that wrong but that’s how I remember it and led to me keeping the older lens.

As for the Sigma; it’s the only lens I ever bought new and returned because I really didn’t like its images, I ended up with the 17-55 IS, but I think the Tamron could later give it a run for its money. To add - that was for a 7d, but it was the CA and distortion that led that rather than ‘sharpness’.
 
Yes I wish Canon would make a nice grip for it
 
I appreciate all the responses so far! The R7 is 32mp on a crop sensor which gives it nearly doubled the pixel density of the R5. Probably validate the claim it needs the best glass in front of it to make the most of it!

I also edit on a 27" 1440p monitor and and probably guilty of zooming in 1:1 on the pixels and being dissatisfied but I've definitely got more shots where I can tell it's noisy or the focus is soft when fully zoomed out. I'm finding I'm using a lot of denoise in lightroom just to get holiday snaps usable.

I have to be honest and say I haven't done and empirical tests to see if it's technique, equipment or both.

Any recommendations for a process or just find a details object, fix the camera position with a tripod work through some settings. Thinking about I'm probably getting noisy on the Sigma and soft and slow focus of the Canon lens.

I do have a well regarded local camera shop who do rentals at a fair price. Maybe the next step would be to rent some RF glass for a weekend and see if that makes a difference. Reading just the physical specs for the RF 70-200mm F4L is making me want to swap!
 
Appleby said:
I appreciate all the responses so far! The R7 is 32mp on a crop sensor which gives it nearly doubled the pixel density of the R5. Probably validate the claim it needs the best glass in front of it to make the most of it!

I also edit on a 27" 1440p monitor and and probably guilty of zooming in 1:1 on the pixels and being dissatisfied but I've definitely got more shots where I can tell it's noisy or the focus is soft when fully zoomed out. I'm finding I'm using a lot of denoise in lightroom just to get holiday snaps usable.

I have to be honest and say I haven't done and empirical tests to see if it's technique, equipment or both.

Any recommendations for a process or just find a details object, fix the camera position with a tripod work through some settings. Thinking about I'm probably getting noisy on the Sigma and soft and slow focus of the Canon lens.

I do have a well regarded local camera shop who do rentals at a fair price. Maybe the next step would be to rent some RF glass for a weekend and see if that makes a difference. Reading just the physical specs for the RF 70-200mm F4L is making me want to swap!
Click to expand...

I have the RF 70-200 f4 and the 100-500 and they are superb on my R5.

Be careful renting them, they may be cheap to rent but you'll end up buying them which isn't so cheap :)
 
Yeah; you can try for free.

I’m confused though that the faster lens gives ‘noise’. Empirically a lens isn’t capable of being the cause of noise; that’d be low light / underexposure.
 
Phil V said:
As for the Sigma; it’s the only lens I ever bought new and returned because I really didn’t like its images, I ended up with the 17-55 IS, but I think the Tamron could later give it a run for its money. To add - that was for a 7d, but it was the CA and distortion that led that rather than ‘sharpness’.
Click to expand...

Back when I had Canon DSLR's I had a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and it did seem to be very good for the little money it cost. Actually, that lens on my Canon 20D convinced me that pictures of your GF can be too sharp.
 
Last edited:
Just throwing this thought out there but have you changed how you sharpen the images in post. Something else to try is a comparison between the electronic shutter and mechanical shutter.
 
I have a R7 and only use EF lenses, most of which are relatively old. For small bird photography it can be noisy but noise reduction software works wonders, however there are limits. A distant bird in low light and with high ISO is likely to be beyond redemption, but this was also the case with DSLRs.

For other subjects eg people and flowers where the subjects fill more of the screen, there is a greater spread across the histogram and the ISO is lower I find the images to be fine, usually with no need to apply noise reduction. They are not soft unless I really pixel peep at the edges.


hunnymonster said:
I've had an EF100-400MkII on there and it is as frustrating as a frustrating thing. Takes great pictures but the AF is slower than a wet weekend in somewhere salubrious...
Click to expand...


I find this surprising. I tried that model lens on my R7 and didn't have any AF issues. Perhaps I should hire a RF lens to find out what I am missing, but it may prove too tempting!
 
Brentor said:
I find this surprising. I tried that model lens on my R7 and didn't have any AF issues. Perhaps I should hire a RF lens to find out what I am missing, but it may prove too tempting!
Click to expand...
As I said, very much depends on what you're photographing - the faster it moves the more you're likely to become irritated.

As you allude - if you're happy now, trying a native RF lens might rain on your parade.

Also, R6MkII Vs 6DMkII was like chalk & cheese - but RF100-500 Vs EF100-400MkII seemed to be as big a jump.

Further - rather than limiting, maybe think of it as compromising - every choice creates a compromise... 100-400mm lens necessarily stops you zooming out to 500mm - etc
 
Last edited:
I'd never really felt like I'd needed to use denoise before, whether it wasn't as good in Lightroom previously or I adapted my photography to try and reduce noisy images anyway.

I'd like to do the lens tryout from Canon as it looks like a great deal, but unfortunately I'm currently living in California and it doesn't look like they have the same scheme here. I bet they get a lot of sales from that though! A 3 day weekend rental of the RF 70-200mm F2.8L (or the RF 100-500mm L) is $90 which isn't too bad all in

I do feel the AF is slow and I feel like it doesn't help with the focus breathing issues especially trying to focus on a bird that doesn't stand out from it's background, even with the eye detection on.
 
I'm going to guess 70-200 doesn't resolve anywhere near r7 resolution. The newer ii is already completely useless on 50mp ff sensor. It's not hard to imagine an older model of a zoom lens being even worse. Should have bought r6 here for that oldie, it would just about resolves ok here.

I would not suggest wasting any $ on RF plastic, just buy some sigma art primes, maybe 200mm f2.8l or some big fat white ones and be done or better still pick up a z9 or z8
 
Phil V said:
Yeah; you can try for free.

I’m confused though that the faster lens gives ‘noise’. Empirically a lens isn’t capable of being the cause of noise; that’d be low light / underexposure.
Click to expand...
Could be this. Appleby- try exposing to the right and push up the ISO as much as needed.

The R7 looks like it has one of those dual amplifier sensors that changes the base ISO (in this case at 400). You will definitely get more noise if you underexpose at under ISO 400 and then boost the light levels in post than exposing properly at ISO 400+.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top