• Welcome to Focus on Photography Forum!
    Come join the fun, make new friends and get access to hidden forums, resources, galleries and more.
    We encourage you to sign up and join our community.

New user here, ex-POTN, and I'm curious about mirrorless...

shinksma

Member
Joined
22 Nov 2024
Posts
149
Likes
292
Location
Florida
Image Editing
Yes
Hi all,

I posted in the "New member? Introduce yourself" thread, but thought I'd start a separate "hey I'm new here" thread so I could lay out some of my interests and see if anyone has advice they'd like to offer, that I might follow. (Those are two separate concepts, of course!)

For quite a few years, my wife and I were avid (but very amateur) DSLR photographers. She had a Canon T2i since before meeting me, and I had a T3i and a 5D Mk II. I had a bit more experience, so I taught her some tips and tricks, and we took our cameras everywhere that seemed useful: trips around the country and abroad, on cruises, and just walking around the neighborhood. My 5D II was used occasionally, but I just found it "too big, too slow" for what I wanted to do, though I did use it on a cross-country trip, especially for landscapes in the Rockies. But that seems like a lifetime ago now.

I'm not sure exactly of the circumstances, but it appears we both stopped using our DSLRs for "serious amateur photography" after our last big trip at the end of 2019 - one could hypothesize that the pandemic-induced travel shutdown meant that we got rusty/lazy, and our phones' cameras got better and better, so when we started traveling after the pandemic, we just brought our phones. Maybe because we weren't traveling anywhere we thought we needed long lenses, more just "fun, urban, and landscape" shots. I recently did a quick experiment, and the widest FoV on my phone is wider than 10mm on my T3i. I do remember being on one trip abroad where I wanted to take a wide shot of a church and found it easier to do that with my phone...so that was probably the beginning of the end for always having a DSLR around my neck.

It doesn't help that we have other hobbies / interests consuming our time and disposable income.

I did break out the T3i for a band photoshoot this past winter/spring - that was good use of that kind of tool: I set up the camera on a tripod, got the group in focus (yay for BBF!), and had someone else press the trigger after I got into the shot. Or for shots of just me, my wife did the focus/composing.

As noted in the other "New member" thread, we're looking to take a trip around the holidays that would probably benefit from bringing along a DSLR with a long lens. But I'm also sensitive to lugging around some of my bigger lenses (100-400L, 70-200L), so we have a pair of Tamron 16-300 lenses attached to our T3i and T2i cameras for this trip - not the best glass in the biz, and the 6.3 aperture at the long end is annoying, but we'll survive. I had considered bringing along the 10-22 and 12-28 for wider shots, but my experiment using my camera phone's widest FoV made that decision easy.

The T3i / T2i combo has served us well - the smaller form factor makes for good portability, and we like the added reach the crop sensor gives when using a longer lens. For a while I was waiting for the "next big thing" in APS-C, and the 7D2 was a possibility, but I was really hoping for an evolutionary step in sensor MP size, since at the time, competitors seems to be coming out with ~50 MP sensors. I might be mis-remembering the details.

The 90D seems like a good step up from the T3i, so I've been stalking that for a while to see if I want to make the investment (including the time to learn a new camera...). It would be compatible with all of our existing glass, but hopefully offer up better images and keeper percentages. I have read about some of its limitations, though, including noisy high ISO performance. I'm also hankering to upgrade my 100-400mm L to the "II" edition - ye olde dust pump is getting tired. OTOH, the evolution of mirrorless cameras with EVF seems to have reached a tipping point now where I'm considering those - I remember the first EOS M, and how it was "new but not better" for many users - like when the first DSLRs came out with pretty low-res sensors, and they simply couldn't compare to the images from the better film cameras of the day.

In reading through the forum, it appears the new mirrorless offerings from Canon are varied in capabilities, features, and pricing, as their range always has been. I'm not really interested in spending more than $2000 on a new body - heck, that's why the 90D is still on my radar. I'm an amateur, and this is no longer my primary artistic outlet. So I look forward to vicariously exploring the various models Canon is offering, and the new lenses that are dedicated to the new format. But my preferences remain with a body not much bigger than the T3i, with a sensor that can offer, either through high MP or APS-C sizing or whatever, images that are a whole step up from what I can achieve with the T3i. Oh, and a 10-1000mm f 1.2 lens that weighs less than a kilo, too, please, while I'm asking... ;)

And thanks once again for carrying on the legacy of what was POTN and all that Pekka did.
 
Last edited:
While I respect that you are not heavily into photography, the DSLR world is currently on life-support and is fast becoming completely extinct.

For Canon that started about 7 years ago and there are few offerings for either bodies or lenses now. They, like other makers, have moved to the Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC) platform. This disposes of the whole mirror mechanism and does the metering and focus off the sensor itself, making the cameras smaller and lighter. You also get the benefit of seeing the actual exposure in the viewfinder as you take the photo. Other benefits are significant improvements in dynamic range, and the focusing abilities are light-years ahead of anything in the DSLR lineup. They now offer face and eye tracking for people, animals and even folks in vehicles.

As regards the 32MP sensor. There is a trap with pursuing MP count: the more pixels a sensor is rated at, the smaller the photosites that capture the light and the less efficient they are. Most people don't need a huge MP count, but they do need good dynamic range. I had the 90D and got rid of it because of its extremely poor dynamic range and tendency to show a lot of noise. This is because Canon crammed 32MP into an APS-C sensor. If that same pixel density was on a FF camera it would have an 83MP sensor, which no-one has tried so far. Because the photosites are so small, they are inefficient and generate low dynamic range and generate noise. I sold the 90D but kept the 80D with its 24MP sensor - and that works a lot better.

In the APS-C MILC line up, the model I would recommend is the EOS R8. It is small and light, has face/eye tracking, and a fabulous 24MP sensor that offers great DR and colour. It will work with your Canon EF and EF-S lenses via a Canon EF-RF adapter that has never failed me with my own many optics. You should test your 3rd-party lenses to make sure for yourself.

You can pick up a bargain via the sales currently on, or go to the Canon Refurb store and pick up one that was either new and over-stock, new but open box, demo or display unit at a discount, but good as new and comes with a Canon warranty. Here is the link: https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/cameras/refurbished-cameras and to the R8 specifically: https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-eos-r8?color=Black&type=Refurbished
You can pick up an EF-RF adapter from them https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-mount-adapter-ef-eos-r - currently out of stock but they can notify you when they are back in.

There is a "higher-end model" available, the R7, which is the MILC equivalent of the 90D, but I would avoid it for the same reasons as the 90D - it has the second-worst dynamic range of any MILC on the market. It also has significant issues with focus, causing it to pulse in and out of focus. See:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

The R8 is much, much better in that respect, especially for your application and can be brought in for much less than your $2k budget. You could even consider one of the rf lenses for it. Sigma makes some great lenses for the RF-S mount and the RF lenses are incredible. I love the RF 24-240 - as good as an L series and can be a great one-lens solution.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the insights!

As regards the 32MP sensor. There is a trap with pursuing MP count: the more pixel a sensor is rated at, the smaller the photosites that capture the light and the less efficient they are.
OK, that's disappointing that photosite sensitivity has not improved, instead just cramming the same surface efficiency into a smaller bits to achieve that higher density (and because the "square footage" is smaller per photosite, the photons don't go as far).

You said:

In the APS-C MILC line up, the model I would recommend is the EOS R8.
This is listed as a "Full Frame" camera/sensor on the Canon site, not APS-C - the R7 is the "best" APS-C camera I could find.

So I'm confused. If it was APS-C sized, it would indeed meet my needs.

EDIT: did you mean the R10? That's the "next one down" from the R7 in the APS-C sensor size category.
 
I agree with Tronhard. The DSLR technology is on the way out.

The R8 is quite bargain: the same full-frame sensor and many of the same features as the R6 II (which I shoot), but for $800 less. The R6 II is superior in some respects, but most won't matter for most people. The one lacking that might matter is IBIS (in body stabilization), but if your lenses have image stabilization, it will work just as well as it does on a DSLR.

With one exception, all of my lenses are left-over EF lenses, not RF lenses built for mirrorless. All work flawlessly with the mirrorless camera, using the cheaper Canon adapter.

If you want something smaller, you would have to go with a smaller sensor. However, I have the same reservations as Tronhard does about the R7. One can go lighter with a Fuji APS-C system or an OM-1 micro four thirds, but both would require replacing your lenses, so it would be a huge expense.
 
Thanks for the insights!


OK, that's disappointing that photosite sensitivity has not improved, instead just cramming the same surface efficiency into a smaller bits to achieve that higher density (and because the "square footage" is smaller per photosite, the photons don't go as far).

You said:


This is listed as a "Full Frame" camera/sensor on the Canon site, not APS-C - the R7 is the "best" APS-C camera I could find.

So I'm confused. If it was APS-C sized, it would indeed meet my needs.

EDIT: did you mean the R10? That's the "next one down" from the R7 in the APS-C sensor size category.
It;s more a case of physics than anything else - there are limits to the optics that deliver the light down to the actual sensor level.

As regards the model- sorry, my bad! Although I actually prefer the full-frame MILCs over APS-C, the correct body for you in the APS-C line is the R10.

Here is a link to a review:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

There is a lot to this camera so here is a Tutorial:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
It;s more a case of physics than anything else - there are limits to the optics that deliver the light down to the actual sensor level.

As regards the model- sorry, my bad! Although I actually prefer the full-frame MILCs over APS-C, the correct body for you in the APS-C line is the R10.
Agree, physics is a limitation, I was just hoping someone had found some new way of extracting a new level of efficiency in sensor sensitivity.

OK, yeah, the R10 does sound like the solution you were trying to suggest for me, based on my perceived preferences.

I might still look at the R8. Maybe I should play with my 5D2 a bit more and figure out whether the EF lenses I have are all I would want to transition to a mirrorless body.
 
Actually, chip development is improving, so for any given pixel size, performance has been improving over time. In general, small size still means weaker performance in terms of low-light performance, dynamic range, and noise, but you have to look at current models to decide how much compromise is involved. As an example of progress, your 5D II had a pixel size of 41 microns. The OM systems OM-1 Mark II, with a much smaller micro four thirds sensor, has a pixel size of only 11 microns. However, there has been so much progress in sensor design since your 5D II was released that the dynamic range of the OM-1 Mark II is comparable to that of the 5D II from ISO 300 up and has a larger dynamic range at lower ISOs.

So, my advice is to look at current reviews. In addition, keep in mind that the standards of what one can expect have been going up, so even if a camera is mediocre by today's standards, it may be better than what you were used to.
 
OK, that's disappointing that photosite sensitivity has not improved, instead just cramming the same surface efficiency into a smaller bits to achieve that higher density (and because the "square footage" is smaller per photosite, the photons don't go as far).
I'd say that photosite sensitivity has improved, allowing good results with improved resolution compared to cameras of a few years ago. However, your statement is correct when comparing sensors with similar technology.
 
Agree, physics is a limitation, I was just hoping someone had found some new way of extracting a new level of efficiency in sensor sensitivity.

OK, yeah, the R10 does sound like the solution you were trying to suggest for me, based on my perceived preferences.

I might still look at the R8. Maybe I should play with my 5D2 a bit more and figure out whether the EF lenses I have are all I would want to transition to a mirrorless body.
I had been shooting with both FF and crop-sensor DSLR bodies - mostly for wildlife, but not exclusively. I was looking forward with genuine enthusiasm to the R7 and rejected it for a lot of reasons, of which sensor performance in terms of DR was just one. The thing was not a true successor, as originally touted, to the 7D series, so it was then compared to the 90D, which is a bit more like it. Still, there are a lot of other issues with that body and to me it was built to a price under pressure to get an APS-C body out. For a more detailed explanation, see my post:
https://focus-on-photography-forum....ldlife-ditched-aps-c-cameras.3924/post-112511

I decided to stick purely to FF and have an R5, 2xR6 and an R6II - they are all awesome cameras, with extremely good build, great sensors, tracking and IBIS. They each have a BG-10 battery grip for extended life, portrait controls, and balance with big lenses. Instead of depending on the crop-sensor 'magnifying' effect, I just got longer lenses to add to my list of EF glass. So, I now use the RF100-500 and Rf 200-800: all great optics, along with the EF mount Sigma 60-600s.

For my purposes they do a great job and I shall not be likely to go back to an APS-C camera again. I may go for the R6III when it comes out, but it will have to be compelling.
 
So I look forward to vicariously exploring the various models Canon is offering, and the new lenses that are dedicated to the new format. But my preferences remain with a body not much bigger than the T3i, with a sensor that can offer, either through high MP or APS-C sizing or whatever, images that are a whole step up from what I can achieve with the T3i.
I had used Canon cameras since 1980 (and still have that A-1 plus an F-1N) up to a 5D II. I was mostly into landscape and family photos but tired of lugging around all the weight. I bought a Fuji X-E1 many years ago as my first mirrorless camera and I knew within a few weeks mirrorless was my future and the DSLR days were behind me. I only bought the X-E1 with the kit zoom (a very optically-decent but slow lens) plus a couple of FD to FX mount adapters for my numerous FD lenses. I struggled with the FF > APS-C focal length conversions at the time, but, quite frankly, the X-TRANS sensor was remarkable. I'm now on my third Fuji body, the X-T4 and have 6 Fuji lenses that in total weigh less than my 5D II, 50mm f/1.4, 17-40L, 135L, 70-200L combined, and with the same bulk. I do pine for a full-frame body with IBS, but that is not available from Fuji, so I have settled on APC-C.
 
In most cases, the big difference in weight isn't mirrorless as such. For example, the difference in weight between the 5D IV and the R5 II is only 150 g, about 1/3 of a pound. (The R6 II is a little lighter.) The big weight savings from moving to an APS-C (like the Fuji) or MFT is that the lenses are much smaller and lighter. That's why switching to APS-C but using FF lenses doesn't save much weight; there usually isn't a huge difference in the weight of the bodies.

However, it's good that weight has been added to the thread. The OP hasn't said how old they are. But at my age (mid-70s), the weight of a bag full of FF gear (particularly when I lug my 100-400) is getting to be a nuisance. I love my Canon gear and would hate to give it up, and I would take a huge financial hit selling it all used and buying a whole new system, but I suspect that it's in the works at some stage in the future.

Re Fuji: I ended up not going with it for two reasons. One is that there is still argument about artifacts processing Fuji raws with Lightroom (some say no longer, others say still a problem), and I've invested too much time in learning Adobe products to give it up now. The other is that the pixel count of the X-T5 is really pushing it for APS-C. However, since then I've seen that Photonstophotos says that the X-T5 loses less than 1 stop of DR relative to the X-T4, which is pretty remarkable for the huge decrease in pixel size. I haven't looked into noise, which is the other issue with small pixels, because the choice is no longer relevant for me.
 
The OP hasn't said how old they are.
Well, this is only our first date!

;)

I'm in my 50s. I don't mind lugging around 10 or 15 lbs of camera gear if going on a "safari" away from home. But usually, if going birding locally, it would be just the camera body (currently T3i) and the longest lens I have, my 100-400 (I) L. And my wife's T2i and I guess the Tamron 16-300 - maybe in the same bag, maybe she lugs her own.

I have gone on trips taking the 100-400L, my 70-200 II L, a 24 1.4L, and one or two other lenses (maybe 17-40L), sometimes with the 5DII, sometimes with the T3i - depends on whether I want that extra "reach" from APS-C, or want the wider FoV offered by FF, maximizing the use of those FF lenses. Sometimes I brought both camera bodies if it was a longer trip, or if my wife was along for the trip. But since I've been in photo-safari hiatus for so long, I'm not sure what I will do, in general.

I'm quite tempted to put off buying a new body, and instead investing in the 100-400 II L, since that will improve the keeper rate on BIF and other "reaction-based" shots - and when I go birding with my wife, we can both have a 100-400 to play with. Then, when the next-gen of mirrorless APS-C Canon bodies come out (assuming there will be some), I can choose between newer tech or discounted current gen.
 
I didn't mind the weight when I was in my 50s either.

I don't do birding, but some newer mirrorless cameras have a few features that might have a big effect on your keeper rate. One is AF tracking that is light years ahead of what you will find even in the newest 5D, the 5D IV. I use this for candids of kids: I focus on the kid in question, and the camera obligingly follows that kid around, focusing on an eye when one is available and on the head otherwise. A second is fast burst speeds. A third, which not all of the cameras have, is a burst mode, using the electric shutter, that starts recording when you half-press the shutter. It discards as it records but retains some number from before you fully press the shutter, allowing you to get good shots when your reflexes were slightly too slow. I don't know which cameras have this, but my R6 II does, and so does the OM-1. My guess is that you won't find it on cheaper mirrorless cameras, but I may be wrong.
 
A third, which not all of the cameras have, is a burst mode, using the electric shutter, that starts recording when you half-press the shutter. It discards as it records but retains some number from before you fully press the shutter, allowing you to get good shots when your reflexes were slightly too slow. I don't know which cameras have this, but my R6 II does, and so does the OM-1. My guess is that you won't find it on cheaper mirrorless cameras, but I may be wrong.
This appears to be available on both the R7 and R10. It is listed on the R7 product page:

"The EOS R7 lets you shoot a fast 15 fps using mechanical shutter[2,3], up to 30 fps with the electronic shutter[3,4], and with RAW Burst Mode with ½ second pre-shooting, you can capture the perfect moment down to the split second."

And a review of the R10 that I found described the feature and showed the menu where you enable it. So both of these models are now of interest to me if they have that pre-shooting feature - there's been many a shot missed because by the time I noticed the bird/whatever had turned "just right", in an instant they moved back or flew away.

One is AF tracking that is light years ahead of what you will find even in the newest 5D, the 5D IV.
Yeah, that's another feature I'd love to have - better AF tracking. My 5D2 is just "slow" at the best of times with BIF.

Hmph. More things to think about. Thanks!
 
While I respect that you are not heavily into photography, the DSLR world is currently on life-support and is fast becoming completely extinct.

For Canon that started about 7 years ago and there are few offerings for either bodies or lenses now. They, like other makers, have moved to the Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC) platform. This disposes of the whole mirror mechanism and does the metering and focus off the sensor itself, making the cameras smaller and lighter. You also get the benefit of seeing the actual exposure in the viewfinder as you take the photo. Other benefits are significant improvements in dynamic range, and the focusing abilities are light-years ahead of anything in the DSLR lineup. They now offer face and eye tracking for people, animals and even folks in vehicles.

As regards the 32MP sensor. There is a trap with pursuing MP count: the more pixels a sensor is rated at, the smaller the photosites that capture the light and the less efficient they are. Most people don't need a huge MP count, but they do need good dynamic range. I had the 90D and got rid of it because of its extremely poor dynamic range and tendency to show a lot of noise. This is because Canon crammed 32MP into an APS-C sensor. If that same pixel density was on a FF camera it would have an 83MP sensor, which no-one has tried so far. Because the photosites are so small, they are inefficient and generate low dynamic range and generate noise. I sold the 90D but kept the 80D with its 24MP sensor - and that works a lot better.

In the APS-C MILC line up, the model I would recommend is the EOS R8. It is small and light, has face/eye tracking, and a fabulous 24MP sensor that offers great DR and colour. It will work with your Canon EF and EF-S lenses via a Canon EF-RF adapter that has never failed me with my own many optics. You should test your 3rd-party lenses to make sure for yourself.

You can pick up a bargain via the sales currently on, or go to the Canon Refurb store and pick up one that was either new and over-stock, new but open box, demo or display unit at a discount, but good as new and comes with a Canon warranty. Here is the link: https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/cameras/refurbished-cameras and to the R8 specifically: https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-eos-r8?color=Black&type=Refurbished
You can pick up an EF-RF adapter from them https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-mount-adapter-ef-eos-r - currently out of stock but they can notify you when they are back in.

There is a "higher-end model" available, the R7, which is the MILC equivalent of the 90D, but I would avoid it for the same reasons as the 90D - it has the second-worst dynamic range of any MILC on the market. It also has significant issues with focus, causing it to pulse i
While I respect that you are not heavily into photography, the DSLR world is currently on life-support and is fast becoming completely extinct.

For Canon that started about 7 years ago and there are few offerings for either bodies or lenses now. They, like other makers, have moved to the Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC) platform. This disposes of the whole mirror mechanism and does the metering and focus off the sensor itself, making the cameras smaller and lighter. You also get the benefit of seeing the actual exposure in the viewfinder as you take the photo. Other benefits are significant improvements in dynamic range, and the focusing abilities are light-years ahead of anything in the DSLR lineup. They now offer face and eye tracking for people, animals and even folks in vehicles.

As regards the 32MP sensor. There is a trap with pursuing MP count: the more pixels a sensor is rated at, the smaller the photosites that capture the light and the less efficient they are. Most people don't need a huge MP count, but they do need good dynamic range. I had the 90D and got rid of it because of its extremely poor dynamic range and tendency to show a lot of noise. This is because Canon crammed 32MP into an APS-C sensor. If that same pixel density was on a FF camera it would have an 83MP sensor, which no-one has tried so far. Because the photosites are so small, they are inefficient and generate low dynamic range and generate noise. I sold the 90D but kept the 80D with its 24MP sensor - and that works a lot better.

In the APS-C MILC line up, the model I would recommend is the EOS R8. It is small and light, has face/eye tracking, and a fabulous 24MP sensor that offers great DR and colour. It will work with your Canon EF and EF-S lenses via a Canon EF-RF adapter that has never failed me with my own many optics. You should test your 3rd-party lenses to make sure for yourself.

You can pick up a bargain via the sales currently on, or go to the Canon Refurb store and pick up one that was either new and over-stock, new but open box, demo or display unit at a discount, but good as new and comes with a Canon warranty. Here is the link: https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/cameras/refurbished-cameras and to the R8 specifically: https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-eos-r8?color=Black&type=Refurbished
You can pick up an EF-RF adapter from them https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-mount-adapter-ef-eos-r - currently out of stock but they can notify you when they are back in.

There is a "higher-end model" available, the R7, which is the MILC equivalent of the 90D, but I would avoid it for the same reasons as the 90D - it has the second-worst dynamic range of any MILC on the market. It also has significant issues with focus, causing it to pulse in and out of focus. See:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

The R8 is much, much better in that respect, especially for your application and can be brought in for much less than your $2k budget. You could even consider one of the rf lenses for it. Sigma makes some great lenses for the RF-S mount and the RF lenses are incredible. I love the RF 24-240 - as good as an L series and can be a great one-lens solution.

I have not seen a pulsing issue in use.

There is a pulsing issue with some third party lenses.

What the video seems to be describing is the subject detect getting confused, I would expect this to be a general issue with mirorless, the R6II seems to behave the same in comparable situations.

I would say this is user error, the standard practice is the revert to single point or fine single point focus on odd occasions the subject/eye detect is not finding the the right subject consistently.

Most users have a second BBF method setup for this.

On dynamic range; is this really an issue. In real life I doubt it.
 
I have not seen a pulsing issue in use.

There is a pulsing issue with some third party lenses.

What the video seems to be describing is the subject detect getting confused, I would expect this to be a general issue with mirorless, the R6II seems to behave the same in comparable situations.

I would say this is user error, the standard practice is the revert to single point or fine single point focus on odd occasions the subject/eye detect is not finding the the right subject consistently.

Most users have a second BBF method setup for this.

On dynamic range; is this really an issue. In real life I doubt it.
RESPONSE PART 1:
With respect, much depends on the types of subjects one uses the R7 for. Those who have the most issue with this camera tend to shoot birds in flight and depend on accurate focus at high frame rates. For example, I would not be expecting anyone to use high frame rates to shoot relatively static subject - it makes little sense to produce large volumes of essentially identical images that one has to plough through in PP, so they will likely not face this issue. How much experience do you have with the R7 - especially with long telephoto lenses?

I will be clear of my own use. I have historically worked as a professional wildlife photographer of subjects that are both static and in movement and, as I mentioned, looked to the R7 to continue the success I had with the 7D series. I tested the R7 during its release and, like Paton, experienced pulsing on both RF, native EF and 3rd-party units. I used multiple different configurations to see if I could get around the focusing issue and I reverted to single point BBF and single point BB centre exposure as giving the best results and a configuration I am used to dealing with - but that is not how many users will want to shoot. I had my own discussions with the tech folks at Canon, and from those chose to stick with the FF bodies for my purposes and shooting conditions - these days, due to health reasons, I generally shoot more static subjects. I do support work on the Canon community site and, looking at the frequency of issues with regards to focus, there is definitely a clear and absolute differentiation between the frequency of focusing issues with the R7 as opposed to the R5 and R6 (which share a more sophisticated focusing system and more balanced data bus). The frequency of focusing issues on the R7 is significantly higher and we get relatively few for either the other two bodies. Absolutely, user setup and operation have some influence, and generally account for the majority of the issues seen on other bodies, but when experienced professionals get those issues with some frequency then one has to look past their operation.

I concur with Paton from my own experience and discussions with fellow site supporters that the issues I have mentioned are to do with the much-touted eye tracking and electronic shutter mode (the mechanical shutter sounds like a tinker's cart), especially (but not exclusively) combined with high frame rate of the R7, and that cannot be dismissed as it is a significant benefit that one is supposed to get with the R7's focusing system. That focusing system is not at the same level as used on the F5 or R6 and, as I have explained. The pixel density has a significant impact on that, combined with the slower data bus between the sensor and processor for focus. The focusing system will work more reliably if one avoids the high frame rates that are supposed to be a feature of the camera - which is clearly supported by Canon in their response to Duade Paton in his video. If one sticks to around 12 fps the focusing system is more reliable. However, as he was also able to demonstrate that is not a given in low contrast situations.

My objection to the R7 covered a litany of issues far beyond simply what you addressed, as I hope you realized from my post. In looking to the R7 I was expecting at least retain the same features of the 7D series and some of those were not there - a battery grip is but one example. So, I go back to my comment that the R7 is misnamed: I see it as more of an R70. It is suggested that the R7II will have a significantly better configuration that will address these issues that I, along with many colleagues and other wildlife photographers have fed back to Canon. We are expecting a BSI/Stacked sensor that should significantly improve the data throughput from the sensor to the focusing processor, and it is suggested that they have apparently taken on board the other issues with buffer size and card speed, and the latter will likely be addressed with a CF-Express card configuration - similar to that of the other higher-end FF bodies. I hope to see and R7II use the BG-R20 grip.
 
Last edited:
RESPONSE PART 2:
As regards dynamic range and ISO performance, the size of the photosites is significant and I would personally prefer to see a 24MP APS-C sensor on the R7. If we convert that density of an APS-C sensor to that of a FF sensor, one multiplies by the square of the crop factor, giving a conversion factor of 2.56 Applying that, we come up with the following chart:
R1: 24MP
R3: 24MP
R5 45MP
R5II 45MP
R6 20MP,
R6II 24MP
R7 83MP (32MP x 2.56)
R10 61MP (24MP x 2.56)

To date, no camera manufacturer has attempted to create a 35mm sensor with a photosite density of 83mm - but there is a constituency of consumers who dream of such a camera. One can never say never, but the cost would be pretty phenomenal to not only make the sensor, but also to handle the data throughput and focusing alone.

Features should always be mapped to the benefits required by customers, and those are generally dictated by what one shoots, under what conditions and for what output or client requirement.. It's a compromise between sensor size, photosite size, the need to crop or for large image output vs low light performance and transmission speed. For example, the R1 and R3 were designed specifically for sports photographers who do not want high MP counts because they produce images in close to real time for their agencies' or clients' websites and publications that do not exceed magazine size, but speed of focus and capture. and throughput are critical for them, hence the BSI/Stacked sensor, fast cards and extremely efficient connectivity via Wi-Fi and Ethernet for data transmission. They shoot a high frame rates, want clean images in low light conditions (they often cannot use flash). Depending on the publication size they work with, wildlife and event photographers also find those bodies attractive. The criticisms level at the R1 and R3 not having enough MP are not from those users, but those critics were never the intended market space, the R5 is more for them.

The R5 is the high-MP body that is the choice of those photographers who need to crop more, or produce higher-resolution images, such as landscape, and output that may be significantly larger. For most of them, the ability to crop and to produce larger prints will be supported by the higher MP values. It is notable that Canon pulled back their hi-density sensors from the 52MP of the 5Ds and 5DsR in order to get the performance to balance with focus and dynamic range. I own the 5DsR, which is a brilliant camera for detail and cropping, but struggled with low light compared to the other 5D variants I shot with. I saw the same phenomenon elsewhere. I owned both the 80D with a 24MP sensor and the 90D with the 32MP sensor and the difference was clear. When I transitioned to MILCs I sold the 90D and kept the 80D for that reason.

By the same token the R6 variants echo the 6D series of DSLRs which make great prosumer units. The R6 had a demonstrably better low light performance of about 1.3EV over the R5 for example, which may not matter to some, but it does for many who cannot use a flash in the environments within which they operate. I shoot a lot in dense bush where there is often minimal light, and I don't often need the output of a 45MP sensor. I don't produce enormous hi-resolution prints, so those bodies are a great match. I will note that the average person looking at a large print will usually do so from a comfortable distance from where they will see the whole image, so the larger the medium, the further they are likely to be away. Years ago I produced a billboard using a 6MP sensor and it looked fine from the road, from which it was intended to be viewed. No-one in their right mind would examine such a medium from nose distance.

The 7D and now R7 have been marketed as the premier APS-C bodies: great for wildlife and some sports photographers who need to boost their reach beyond that offered by their optics alone, thanks to the Field of View characteristics of crop-sensor bodies to get a subject larger in the viewfinder and sensor area. That the magnification is done by cropping the image as it is shot, which can be beneficial. If one was using a 24MP FF sensor alongside a 24MP APS-C sensor, then one gets the full benefit of the latter compared to cropping the image of the FF in post to the same FoV. But there we come to the payback in terms of loss of ISO performance and DR and, now, ability to use those same photosites to do the focusing, which was not how DSLRs focused - they had their own focusing sensor arrays unless shooting in Live View mode, something most wildlife photographers were unlikely to do unless they were shooting relatively static subjects as they could not use the viewfinder.
One can achieve the same magnification boost of either using a crop sensor body with a given lens, or with a FF sensor with a longer lens. While many sports and wildlife photographers shot with APS-C bodies and with lenses up to 600mm, giving them an equivalent FoV of that from a 960mm lens. Using a FF sensor now been made more viable in such situations by the introduction of lenses like the native RF 600 and RF800, or the RF 200-800 lenses. Those optics, combined with improvements in DR and resolution, mean that one can shoot FF with minimal cropping to much the same result as the high density APS-C sensor, but with a cleaner image. For me, that is the solution I prefer. What others may choose is absolutely up to their needs and constraints and those are rather individual things.
 
I agree with Tronhard but thought of it more simply. To really oversimplify, the 7D was in many respects an APS-C version of the prosumer FF cameras, like the 5D III. I had hoped that the R7 would be to the R5 what the 7D II was to the 5D III. It isn't. And when you add the lack of truly good RF-S lenses, it isn't in the same ballpark

The 32 MPX sensor also is a drawback, in my opinion, for the reasons Tronhard gives. But I note that this is no longer the densest APC-C sensor. Fuji leapfrogged Canon with the X-T5, which has a 40 MPX sensor. Performance did take a hit relative to the XT-4, but less than I had expected. There is appreciably more noise above ISO 400 and about 1 stop less DR. I have no idea how it performs in burst mode.
 
The rumored R7 Mark II will supposedly be the 7D Mark II-like prosumer camera we all hoped the R7 would be. Time will tell if there is even an R7 II and what it ends up looking like.
 
Back
Top Bottom