Canon R7

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.48 #1 · p.48 #1 · Canon R7

bobbytan wrote:
I am really impressed - especially so because it was taken with the very inexpensive RF 100-400 lens.

For the price, it is a pretty good zoom lens, and much easier to pack around than the 100-500.

Jul 02, 2022 at 09:26 PM

bobbytan
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.48 #2 · p.48 #2 · Canon R7

Exactly. Just 2.7 lbs for the body and lens ... and costing only $2,100.

Imagemaster wrote:
For the price, it is a pretty good zoom lens, and much easier to pack around than the 100-500.

Jul 02, 2022 at 09:28 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.48 #3 · p.48 #3 · Canon R7

Jeff Nolten wrote:
The TDP comparison of the RF 100-400 on R5 vs the Canon 100-400 II or Sigma 100-400 C on 5DSR doesn't look very good. Yet your images look pretty sharp. The RF is very attractively light but I'm concerned about image sharpness. Both my Sigma C and Canon II work really well on the R7 so how much IQ would I sacrifice to save the weight?

---------------------------------------------

Tom_W wrote:
I just checked TDP - I agree that the RF 100-400 pales in comparison to the 100-400 II and the 100-500 RF lens (both on par with one another). On the other hand, it seems to be fairly close to the older Canon 100-400 IS L, though the comparison is hard to make due to the significant difference in camera resolution used in the tests.

It's a good example of price vs. performance IMHO. Lower cost, lighter weight, not quite as sharp. But TDP tests are pretty-much pixel peeping too. I can see the 100-400 RF on the 7 as a...Show more →

It might be worth reiterating that TDP photographs test charts at relatively near distances. This may not necessarily be the distance a given lens performs best. It's possible the RF lens falls off more at closer distances than the more expensive lenses. And maybe we can see that to a degree in some of Duncan's photos. But it would be interesting to see 'real world' side by side comparisons of the RF100-400 at 400mm against other lenses such as the EF100-400 II, RF100-500, any flavor of 400 prime, to get a better idea of how it compares across a range of actual working distances.

Jul 02, 2022 at 10:03 PM

Uarctos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.48 #4 · p.48 #4 · Canon R7

TeamSpeed wrote:
You may have that impression, but that simply isn't the rule. I know several paid sports photographers, including myself, that sported a 7D2 alongside a 1D series. There is no reason one cannot use an APS-C for paid sports deliveries. There are many different sports, with many different access points and different agreements with organizations for better locations to shoot from, etc. You cannot make such a blanket statement across all sports and paid photographers.

In fact, it was results from two seasons I shot with a 7D2 that ended landing a contract with the Pacers organization years ago. I picked...Show more →
I didn't say one can't use an Aps-c body for shooting sport. I've said it's rather an exception (for pro photographers) than the rule. Sport shooting isn't usually reach limited. Of course, there are a lot of sports and situations, that can favour , sometimes, an Aps-c body. But wildlife photography is mostly about reach limited situations, where a body like the R7 could shine. Of course, for wildlife in Florida, coastal bears or hide photography or whatever, one can use even a low Mpx body with great results.

Jul 02, 2022 at 11:55 PM

mdees88
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.48 #5 · p.48 #5 · Canon R7

Looks like Duade had the same issue I did with birds on the ground and the AF jumping between the bird and the background.

https://youtu.be/Dk8T2OlfS90

Jul 05, 2022 at 05:27 AM

1 2 3 … 47 48 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 47 48 end