Here are a few recent examples from a visit to my local elephant seals. The 100-400 struggled a little at first light, but performed magnificently once the golden hour arrived.
Testing out the new (used) R7 and RF 100-400 that I bought for my wife. As usual, whenever new gear arrives, we can be assured of several days of gloomy, rainy weather... but it's also a good opportunity to see how the camera deals with high ISO's.
Somewhat surprisingly, in really poor light, the R7 seems to grab focus noticeably faster than my Nikon Z8.
Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna)
Canon EOS R7RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM lens400mmf/8.01/200s3200 ISO0.0 EV
molson wrote:
Testing out the new (used) R7 and RF 100-400 that I bought for my wife. As usual, whenever new gear arrives, we can be assured of several days of gloomy, rainy weather... but it's also a good opportunity to see how the camera deals with high ISO's.
Somewhat surprisingly, in really poor light, the R7 seems to grab focus noticeably faster than my Nikon Z8.
Nice. Enjoy the new camera!
You may already be aware of all this, but the R7 can be a little quirky with both autofocus and with image sharpness due to shutter shock.
If you are using servo and eye tracking shooting short high-speed bursts and you find that the focus frame to frame is inconsistent, try dialing back the frame rate. The accumulated wisdom here seems to be that the readout speed of the R7 sensor is not quite fast enough to keep up with AF tracking at the fastest frame rates. Slowing the camera down a bit helps with consistency of focus, apparently.
What I found in my own testing is considerable shutter shock with certain lenses when using EFCS at the highest 'H+' frame rate. The initial frame was always sharp but subsequent frames would blur. Switching to the slower 'H' mode eliminated this problem. If you are shooting with a bigger, heavier lens or at higher shutter speeds, then this could be masked.
I think the R7 is a pretty great camera with a couple of quirks. You can work around them if you know what to expect.
Hi, as I'm new on FM I'll introduce myself. Just a hobbyist and nothing fancy
I have a R6 and the RF100-400 5.6-8. I like the 100-400 a lot but miss some extra reach sometimes. I was wondering if a TC on the 100-400 would be a good option. The alternative for me is to get a 600 F11 due to budget. Also looked at older EF glass. I find the RF800 F11 and the Tamron and Sigma's 150-600 to big and heavy for my use during hikes in daytime.
Well that's about it. Looking forward to your opinions and thanks in advance.
Imagemaster is an OK photographer, as you can see from his work, but a bit rough at the keyboard. And he is an avid user of the Hide Me button, so he wont see this message of mine.
Yes, the RF 100-400 is a very good lens especially at that price point as well as the weight and size. And it does very well with the RF 2x. Mine with and without 2x see far too little use as I tend to select the 100-500 unless I need the lightest gear possible.
I use the 600/11 too when I need the lightest possible reach. With the crop sensors, R7 and R10 it has a field of view on 960mm (1.6x600mm, as the sensor is 1.6x smaller than the fullframe sensor of the R6, R5 etc). 960mm is fantastic! I really miss my croppers at times. The R5 is my goto body these days, with the 600/11 yesterday.
RF 2x or 600/11? They are roughly the same price. Both combos do need good light. With the 100-400+2x you get 200-800. Perhaps the RF 1,4x would be a better choice giving 140-560mm and perhaps sliiightly better image quality.
If you find yourself reach limited all too often, it might be better to change to the R7. The R6 is one of the best though image quality-wise. And the relatively large full frame pixels are more forgiving than the croppers small and dense pixels. The 2x does well with the R6 (and the more demanding R5) where it show weakness with the crop sensors. As always, there are tradeoff´s in every direction.
Hi, thanks for your advise and the welcome preciate it ! I'm not into forums (newbee I think) so no idea how to post certain "things". What I don't like about the R7 is the button layout with dial and joystick combined. I do see the positives of the crop sensor though. So i'll stick to the R6 if you don't mind .
Maybe I should rent the RF 2 or 1.4 x for a day to see what the results are. I hate swapping lenses and am afraid that when I get the RF600 F11 one of the lenses won't be used so that's something to reconsider.
Ab_1959 wrote:
Hi, thanks for your advise and the welcome preciate it ! I'm not into forums (newbee I think) so no idea how to post certain "things". What I don't like about the R7 is the button layout with dial and joystick combined. I do see the positives of the crop sensor though. So i'll stick to the R6 if you don't mind .
Maybe I should rent the RF 2 or 1.4 x for a day to see what the results are. I hate swapping lenses and am afraid that when I get the RF600 F11 one of the lenses won't be used so that's something to reconsider.
I had the R7 last season and mostly liked it. The ergonomics was better than expected. It turned the 100-500 to a 160-800. But... I could not stand the distorted images that was the result too often. Sold it to a friend to help financing the 200-800 last November, and getting it perhaps as early as June...............perhaps even this year.................
At least I´ll get the 200-800mm field of view, that I from the experience with the R7 know is perfect for me, with the R5. But I already know I will find it too heavy. So my plan is to grab a R7 Mark "?" _IF_ Canon makes it a R5/R6Mk2 class body, throw in the 200-800 and stay with the then outdated R5 for wide angle. Dreams dreams dreams...
Yes, renting the converters is a good idea. I think I would go with the 1.4x with the 100-400. That f/16 you get at the f/8 end of the 100-400 is usable, but only in very good light, nothing more. Check out the YT videos of Duade Paton. He tested the RF 100-400 with and without converters: "Crikey! What a ripper!". My dictionaries did not help at all in finding out if that was good or bad...
The 600/11 is very nice, on a full fram too. But perhaps more as the added specialty tool. The very long prime lenses can be very limiting if you are used to zooms.
Forums have their sides. You can find good ideas as well as friends. But some added "skin thickness" is needed and the danger of GAS is ever present, you learn that you "neeed" new stuff... neeed mooore! Beware!
As I said, I am not used to post on forums. Still look for the manual
To be honest I've spent enough money due to GAS. I'm 65 now and look at things differently now. There are so many great lenses and other gear but I use it just for my own purpose as a hobby. There will always be new camera bodies and lenses along the way. A 200-800 would be great but I just can't justify the money. I'll stick to the dreams dreams dreams part
I'll pick up the 1.4x this Monday and rent it for a day to see if it works for me. If not I'll probably go for the 600 F11 for birding.
O believe me my skin is "thick" enough by now, it "grows" with the age
Yes, both were cropped. The Song Sparrow was a heavy crop, the kingfisher was closer. The Kingfisher photo was taken on my first day with the lens. I was impressed with the sharpness of the lens. The sparrow photo was a quick snap taken during a walk, just raised the camera, shot a few frames and continued the walk. It seems to be a good birding lens.
