• 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...

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.
I have the X-T4 and played with the X-T5, but since I shoot so many brands (Canon (mostly), Fuji, Nikon, Olympus and Sony) I didn't have a need. I think that in all honesty, since they don't use a FF sensor, Fuji have made a better job of the APS-C high-capacity sensor. Still, by now I have rather settled for FF sensors and as a retiree now, I can't justify buying more bodies just for the joy of owning one! :rolleyes:

Having just said that, I shall now contradict myself immediately by admitting that I did get another body recently, a Nikon Df - but was that was a 'love' camera - I just enjoy the classic interface and it reminds me of the bodies I began my career with: FM, F3 etc. I have a thread about the Df and why it strikes such a cord with me: https://focus-on-photography-forum....nd-appreciating-the-nikon-df.891/#post-112907 I already have, and shoot with several, but this is a truly limited collectors' edition (only 1,000 made), Japan release only. So, it's more of a collectable for me and I shall use it sparingly! Canon are rumoured to be bringing out a retro body in 2025 some time... we shall see.
 
@Tronhard.
I do shoot a quite few BIF, I must say the R7 is a big improvement over my last wildlife camera (7D2).

I have used the R62 for BIF but found I preferred the R7, this may just be my particular use-case.

The only issue with R7/R62 focus I have had is the subject detect confussing the background with the subject - this is what may have been happening with the video report you linked; However my experience of such a situation as shown is the the eye detect should grab and hold the subject.

I suspect this issue is common to all mirrorless solutions due to the common physics model.

I have had the issue that the eye detect grabs a white spot-on the bird rather than the eye. But this, like the background grab issue is easily corrected if noticed.

The R5 may perform better but then it is a bit more pricy. Frame rate of 30 I only use for pre-burst, AF seems fine at 15, which is plenty for most use cases.

On DR, I can see this being an issue for fine art B+W use etc, but for most wildlife not the biggest issue.
Noise however is important; however I would rather have the pixel count than lower noise. If I want the other trade I use the R62.

Improvements desired, see my comments in the R72 comming thread.
 
@Tronhard.
I do shoot a quite few BIF, I must say the R7 is a big improvement over my last wildlife camera (7D2).

I have used the R62 for BIF but found I preferred the R7, this may just be my particular use-case.

The only issue with R7/R62 focus I have had is the subject detect confussing the background with the subject - this is what may have been happening with the video report you linked; However my experience of such a situation as shown is the the eye detect should grab and hold the subject.

I suspect this issue is common to all mirrorless solutions due to the common physics model.

I have had the issue that the eye detect grabs a white spot-on the bird rather than the eye. But this, like the background grab issue is easily corrected if noticed.

The R5 may perform better but then it is a bit more pricy. Frame rate of 30 I only use for pre-burst, AF seems fine at 15, which is plenty for most use cases.

On DR, I can see this being an issue for fine art B+W use etc, but for most wildlife not the biggest issue.
Noise however is important; however I would rather have the pixel count than lower noise. If I want the other trade I use the R62.

Improvements desired, see my comments in the R72 comming thread.
I think your response agrees with my proposition that much depends on what one shoots, under what conditions, how we configure our gear and what our output is. These things are always a give and take scenario, one day perhaps we will have a camera that does all that one could possibly want. We have come a long way from the gear of the 1980's, for example, when a hoax article in a photography magazine touted that there was a lens of 24-200mm that had a focal range of f/2.8-f/4. At the end it said it was a hoax and there was no chance of that - well, we are not far off that now with the RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 when combined with IBIS, and the much improved sensors of digital cameras. I wonder what we will be shooting with in another 10 years (if I am still around to see that)!
 
I wonder what we will be shooting with in another 10 year!
A.I cameras that auto everything, compostion, light, remove distractions and fully edited in camera ........... "Never get a bad shot again with the lastest insert camera brand here we take the hard work out so you enjoy the fanfair from your millions of followers insert social media site here"

NEWS FLASH ....film cameras leap ahead of digial for 4th yr in a row for sales :)
 
Now wait a minute here. I gotta defend my R7 and its ancestors.

My first DSLR was an 80D. Got it as a toe tap into the hobby when I retired. I jumped all the way in and I run 5-series Canons now. But I've never not owned a crop body. First that 80D, then a 90D and now an R7.

I keep them mainly to drive my bird kit. I'm not very good with birds, but good enough to bring back shots most trips. I'm certainly not good enough to blame the camera when I don't.

But the other thing I use them for is exactly described in the original post. They drive my urban walking around kit. Something a little more discrete than a FF with fast lenses. For a camera, walking-around shots are a low-stress job. All the complaints I've heard are out at the margins. I'm throwing it f8-and-be-there tasks. I can make it focus. Never a problem.

I generally like the hi-res sensor. It gives you a lot of raw file to work with. It's not as good as a FF raw file, but I don't really expect that. I don't know the math behind it and maybe it's the photosites, or whatever. Maybe the next version will have a less-dense sensor that turns out FF-buttery files. I might pay to upgrade to that. But for what I use it for, the R7/90D raw files give me plenty to work with in post.

To the OP: I'm all mirrorless now, and I won't lie, it's all very nice. I spent a fortune switching over. That being said, I loved my 90D. We went to some fun places together and brought back some nice shots. That body was the last issue of a mature technology, the apex of the APS-C DSLR. They'd found and fixed all the bugs.

I would say, if the camera you're contemplating will be your last one for a while, go with the 90D. It will feel more familiar than a mirrorless menu system, all your lenses were built around its technology, bodies are cheap now and it will work fine for you for years to come.

If you're looking to get back into photography and curious about new technology and what it can provide, upgrading as you can afford it, then skip the DSLR. Mirrorless is the future.

I'm seriously contemplating an R10 as a body that's nearly rangefinder discrete. That will probably be my next purchase. I had a couple of M systems in the past. I liked the idea, but the technology just wasn't there yet. R10 looks promising. Battery life concerns me.
 
Last edited:
I think your response agrees with my proposition that much depends on what one shoots, under what conditions, how we configure our gear and what our output is. These things are always a give and take scenario, one day perhaps we will have a camera that does all that one could possibly want. We have come a long way from the gear of the 1980's, for example, when a hoax article in a photography magazine touted that there was a lens of 24-200mm that had a focal range of f/2.8-f/4. At the end it said it was a hoax and there was no chance of that - well, we are not far off that now with the RF 24-240 f/4-6.3 when combined with IBIS, and the much improved sensors of digital cameras. I wonder what we will be shooting with in another 10 years (if I am still around to see that)!

I agree it does depend on the individual and the situation.

The point is in the case described in the video the camera should not/does not behave that way. Even if the bird is small in the frame and non-ideal light it should stay on the eye.

In heavy against the light and low exposure it might struggle a bit, even on single point, but this should not be a surprise.

I don't know if there is a problem with the body, lens or user setup that explains it.

These on-line videos are quite useful, particular with setting up a complex camera for in-flight etc, I found some useful sites in the states and Canada.

However, I always take a pinch of salt with some of these negative claims,; after all it is a great way to drive traffic to the person's site.
 
I agree it does depend on the individual and the situation.

The point is in the case described in the video the camera should not/does not behave that way. Even if the bird is small in the frame and non-ideal light it should stay on the eye.

In heavy against the light and low exposure it might struggle a bit, even on single point, but this should not be a surprise.

I don't know if there is a problem with the body, lens or user setup that explains it.

These on-line videos are quite useful, particular with setting up a complex camera for in-flight etc, I found some useful sites in the states and Canada.

However, I always take a pinch of salt with some of these negative claims,; after all it is a great way to drive traffic to the person's site.
If one looks at the mass of reviews and comments, I think it is both a function of human nature to be more inclined to express the negative - we rather take for granted that a product or service will perform to our expectation, or at least those in the advertising, On the other hand, folks are quick to express the negative, and indeed when it might become click bate.
I don't shoot video so, in all honesty, I can't make any contribution to the performance of any camera in video mode. I do know that in stills mode, a lot of cameras will take more resources to use the large number of focus points now available, especially for eye tracking. I have set my camera up for BBF, but set it to initially start as single point centred, thus I simply point the centre at the subject's eye (or close by) lock the focus, and it starts tracking. I don't shoot a high frame rates either - even for animals moving, but I still get well over 50% - closer to 80%+ with that methodology. For my purposes, that works for me. The single point focus is one I have used for decades, and even with the modern focusing system, with my subjects often behind confusing jumble of vegetation, having a single point lets me avoid the system deciding to go for a leaf or branch, or whatever. If one was shooting in an open area, I could definitely see a different method being attractive, but my system works for me.
 
Now wait a minute here. I gotta defend my R7 and its ancestors.

My first DSLR was an 80D. Got it as a toe tap into the hobby when I retired. I jumped all the way in and I run 5-series Canons now. But I've never not owned a crop body. First that 80D, then a 90D and now an R7.

I keep them mainly to drive my bird kit. I'm not very good with birds, but good enough to bring back shots most trips. I'm certainly not good enough to blame the camera when I don't.

But the other thing I use them for is exactly described in the original post. They drive my urban walking around kit. Something a little more discrete than a FF with fast lenses. For a camera, walking-around shots are a low-stress job. All the complaints I've heard are out at the margins. I'm throwing it f8-and-be-there tasks. I can make it focus. Never a problem.

I generally like the hi-res sensor. It gives you a lot of raw file to work with. It's not as good as a FF raw file, but I don't really expect that. I don't know the math behind it and maybe it's the photosites, or whatever. Maybe the next version will have a less-dense sensor that turns out FF-buttery files. I might pay to upgrade to that. But for what I use it for, the R7/90D raw files give me plenty to work with in post.

To the OP: I'm all mirrorless now, and I won't lie, it's all very nice. I spent a fortune switching over. That being said, I loved my 90D. We went to some fun places together and brought back some nice shots.

I would say, if the camera you're contemplating will be your last one for a while, go with the 90D. It will feel more familiar than a mirrorless menu system, all your lenses were built around its technology, bodies are cheap now and it will work fine for you for years to come.

If you're looking to get back into photography and curious about new technology and what it can provide, upgrading as you can afford it, then skip the DSLR. Mirrorless is the future.

I'm seriously contemplating an R10 as a body that's nearly rangefinder discrete. That will probably be my next purchase. I had a couple of M systems in the past. I liked the idea, but the technology just wasn't there yet. R10 looks promising. Battery life concerns me.
No issue with your experience. We all seek to get different things and use the cameras in different ways. As the saying goes there is a product for every market and a market for every product! The technical shortcomings I listed are factual and measurable, but that does not mean that is is not something that you or others may not want. I am describing the technical limitations of the unit, and clearly said that FOR ME the unit was not suitable, and gave some context for that comment. if it works for you, I think that is brilliant - if one camera was perfect for all there would likely be only one brand and one model, and that (frankly) would be a shame on many levels. I shoot predominantly wildlife with long lenses (as mentioned), but when I go walkabout in the city I will use a completely different kit - I still shoot with the venerable EOS M5's and some of those EF-M lenses: the kit is small, unobtrusive and it delivers what I want in that context.
My point is, technical limitations aside, how one uses the gear will decide what works for each of us. I still shoot with a Canon EOS 400D or even the EOS D60 (released 2002) a 6MP monster that produces essentially noiseless results on its APS-C sensor and can use a lot of legacy EF lenses.

However, as regards the OP's situations. TBH, I would not recommend getting any DSLR now though from the simple point of longevity and compatibility. The DSLR platform is on life support and the number of lenses and bodies available has decreased for the last couple of years. Perhaps more significantly, service of existing non-pro lenses is starting to be curtailed. My point here is that while the EF or EF-S will work fine on APS-C MILCs via the Canon EF-RF adapter, RF lenses are not able to be mounted on DSLRs and there absolutely no indication of converters from anyone. That means that should any gear fail, someone will be left with either a body or lenses for a dying market. Furthermore, the features of many MILCs offer a lot of user-friendly features not existent on DSLRs even if sone is not expecting to expand their kit - eye and face tracking being one and, for some bodies, IBIS being another. The bodies are also smaller and lighter - and so are many of the non high-end lenses, so that will make them easier to handle. For the APS-C R-series bodies there is an expanding range of native RF and RF-S lenses from both Canon and 3rd parties that will only continue to expand.
This situation of transition is not unique: it has been a historical fact for both the move from Canon F to EOS cameras and for other brands more recently - Nikon being the most recent.

In the end, it's all about the individual's situation, things to consider or express when seeking specifically-targeted advice.
0, If you are upgrading from existing gear, specifically what is it that your gear does not do that constrains your intentions of performance?
1. What is the budget - stick within financial limits
2. What does one photograph - this gives a clue to both the sensor and optics involved. For a lot of people 'general purpose' might mean an appropriate walk-about moderate wide angle to moderate telephoto lens to start with as a base for developing their styles and then considering future applications. On the other hand, someone specifically looking to shoot fashion, or portraits will likely head in a different direction from one who photographs tiny insects. Also, does one shoot only still, only video or both?
3. Under what conditions does one shoot - there is a big difference from shooting sports indoors in dim light compared to field sports during the day - those difference scenarios will demand quite different focal lengths and aperture ranges.
4. What will one produce? This is one of the most critical questions that rarely gets asked; yet, in the end, the end product is what we are seeking. The demands for gear to shoot for social media, where the images are often modified and downsized by the web sites are quite different for someone intent on producing large, high-resolution Fine Art prints.
5. What is one prepared to carry? Different situations demand different gear. As we get older, or have physical constraints, we may need to go to smaller, lighter cameras, or someone doing multi-day hiking might want a tough camera, or a super-zoom bridge camera to offer super large focal ranges in a compact body.
6. What about the ergonomics and interface. Simply reading or watching reviews does not give one the tactile sense that handling a camera physically does, I have known several people who have bought purely off the web and found the interface in terms of buttons or menu to be frustrating.
7. What are the long-term intentions? For someone for whom the device is only a tool to record social events, their approach will be different from those who have long-term serious aspirations - for them the gear as a system needs to be considered. Changing brands can get expensive, despite what some of those on You Tube might suggest.
 
Last edited:
If one looks at the mass of reviews and comments, I think it is both a function of human nature to be more inclined to express the negative - we rather take for granted that a product or service will perform to our expectation, or at least those in the advertising, On the other hand, folks are quick to express the negative, and indeed when it might become click bate.
I don't shoot video so, in all honesty, I can't make any contribution to the performance of any camera in video mode. I do know that in stills mode, a lot of cameras will take more resources to use the large number of focus points now available, especially for eye tracking. I have set my camera up for BBF, but set it to initially start as single point centred, thus I simply point the centre at the subject's eye (or close by) lock the focus, and it starts tracking. I don't shoot a high frame rates either - even for animals moving, but I still get well over 50% - closer to 80%+ with that methodology. For my purposes, that works for me. The single point focus is one I have used for decades, and even with the modern focusing system, with my subjects often behind confusing jumble of vegetation, having a single point lets me avoid the system deciding to go for a leaf or branch, or whatever. If one was shooting in an open area, I could definitely see a different method being attractive, but my system works for me.

Trevor I agree entirely about the self selection criteria for negative reviews.

FB is one of the worst places to research new gear; some of the "my camera must be bad" comments are from people that sound like the have never handled a camera before.

Video is funny: I was quite excited by this feature but found I never use it, even on mirrorless. There was a great opertunity for video a few months back with wild ponies racing towards me; didn't even occure to me untill after what a great video clip it would have made. I was in a landscape/archiology state of mind to be fair.

I get the same blind spot with phones when without a camera, I have to be reminded the phone has a camera.
 
Hi everyone,

The healthy discussion I apparently have fostered with my initial questions has been very interactive - I like it!

As some of you may have read in other threads / subfora, we purchased an R7 (kit with RF 18-150mm) and RF 200-800mm.

We (I?) decided on the R7 because we like the APS-C sensor size for birding (and body size!), plus we have a useful number of EF-S lenses to use for a while. The R10 was a contender, but I liked (there, I admitted it) the higher mega-pixel size of the sensor and the "weather-proofing" (or whatever). The R7 is also a familiar size, similar to the T3i and T2i we had, and the controls are not too far different. I always found my 5DII to be just "too big".

What also spurred my decision was the relative price points. The R7 seemed to be in the target price point range we felt comfortable investing in. The R10 was under consideration, especially for the price, but the sensor resolution and (lack of) weather sealing was something I decided I really wanted in what the R7 offered. Call me a pixel count chaser, but it just seemed weird not getting a useful amount more pixels vs my old T3i. 24MP vs 18MP is a "slight bump", but 18MP to 33MP seems much more like a real evolution: 34% more pixels in each dimension.

Anyway, my wife and I were so happy with the R7 and the performance of the RF 200-800 that we purchased a second R7, so we can both shoot with the same new tech. And we've bought a bunch of other stuff, of course - EF-R mount adapters, batteries, new camera bags to hold the 200-800 with R7 mounted, etc. It was our joint Christmas and Valentines Day combo to each other, I guess. Just looking to score an RF 100-500mm eventually.

I'm still figuring out how/when I want to use the new features like RAW burst with pre-roll, what multi-shot speed I want to use for "Drive Mode" (regular High Speed with Elec First Curtain for 8 fps seems enough), whether I want to use Elec First Curtain, customized button modes, etc.

But even while still figuring it all out, I'm getting a lot more and better keepers than I was with the T3i. My wife too. So we're happy we made the transition to mirrorless, and the R7 body "seems about right" for our needs. If the rumored R7 Mk II comes out with the litany of improvements that are being bandied about, I may eventually grab one. But that's a year or more out (at least), so for now the R7 is it.
 
Video is funny: I was quite excited by this feature but found I never use it, even on mirrorless. There was a great opertunity for video a few months back with wild ponies racing towards me; didn't even occure to me untill after what a great video clip it would have made. I was in a landscape/archiology state of mind to be fair.
I agree with the bit about forgetting the Canon cameras do video, apparently quite well. The old T3i and 5DII did short videos, IIRC, because of the filesize limitations, so I just never really logged it as a useful feature.

I get the same blind spot with phones when without a camera, I have to be reminded the phone has a camera.
This issue I don't have - we've been using our phones as cameras for so long, that's why we faded away from photography using dedicated equipment like our T3i and T2i - it was just "too bulky" when we realized our phones could do almost all the touristy landscape / city shots we would want, as we'd stopped specialized excursions like birding because we got too busy with other hobbies and parts of our lives.
 
Another point of view:

A Canon mirrorless will let you use all the EF and EF compatible lenses you already have, with a twist:

What you see in the viewfinder is the photo, with the lighting you chose. The maximum aperture doen't matter anymore. A f6.3 maximum aperture will look the same as a f1.4 if you chose the appropriate aperture, speed and ISO. That will give a new life to that old Tamron (also the AF will improve markedly as a bonus).

I have used exclusively EF lenses on my mirrorless with great effect, until Santa brought me the RF 24-240, which, combined with my R6II, I plan to use as my travel rig.
 
I have used exclusively EF lenses on my mirrorless with great effect, until Santa brought me the RF 24-240, which, combined with my R6II, I plan to use as my travel rig.
The RF-S 18-150mm mounted on my R7 is almost the APS-C equivalent of the 24-240 mounted on a FF like the R6. 18mm is equivalent to 28.8mm on FF. I wish it went down to 15mm: that would cover precisely the same overall fields of view.

But, as I've said elsewhere, I can live with a lower boundary of 18mm because the 16mm view in an APS-C sensor camera is pretty much identical to the 1x normal setting of my phone camera, with the 0.6x setting equivalent to 10mm on the R7, so using a camera that's almost always in my pocket for those wide and super-wide shots seems an easy compromise most of the time, especially when a tourist. I know how to temporarily tweak exposure and focus of my phone camera in the default mode, and have also explored the phone camera's capabilities in the "Pro" mode, so I think that covers much of my not-deadly-serious landscape / cityscape photography. If I really want, I can utilize my old EF-S 10-22mm, or other wider lenses from the EF mount.
 
Back
Top Bottom