I watched this last night while browsing youtube and quite frankly it was a significant waste of time. He shot a single, static image of his wooden owl doll in the woods with a couple different bodies including an R5, R7 etc. and then brought the images into ACR at 100% and briefly commented on them. It didn't account for crop factor, assess how the cameras function under different lighting conditions, or track and focus on moving subjects. It's a holiday, I'm working, am in a foul mood, and I really don't want to disparage Glenn. I usually like his and Jan's stuff but the video really seemed to be a race to be first to put "something" out there.
It's just a noise test in a real low-light situation. Nothing more and nothing less.
armd wrote:
I watched this last night while browsing youtube and quite frankly it was a significant waste of time. He shot a single, static image of his wooden owl doll in the woods with a couple different bodies including an R5, R7 etc. and then brought the images into ACR at 100% and briefly commented on them. It didn't account for crop factor, assess how the cameras function under different lighting conditions, or track and focus on moving subjects. It's a holiday, I'm working, am in a foul mood, and I really don't want to disparage Glenn. I usually like his and Jan's stuff but the video really seemed to be a race to be first to put "something" out there....Show more →
armd wrote:
I watched this last night while browsing youtube and quite frankly it was a significant waste of time. He shot a single, static image of his wooden owl doll in the woods with a couple different bodies including an R5, R7 etc. and then brought the images into ACR at 100% and briefly commented on them. It didn't account for crop factor, assess how the cameras function under different lighting conditions, or track and focus on moving subjects. It's a holiday, I'm working, am in a foul mood, and I really don't want to disparage Glenn. I usually like his and Jan's stuff but the video really seemed to be a race to be first to put "something" out there....Show more →
The more 'reviews' they post, the more hits they get. It is a race to bring in more money.
It should have been posted on the R7 discussion thread, not on this R7 image thread.
I downloaded the files and looked at them in Lightroom. I can't see the noise difference between the 90D and R7 that he did, but I could sure see that the R7 is sharper. Same lens, so focus accuracy, lack of 90D calibration? Was he using Live view or OVF with the 90D? Dunno. ISO 6400 noise cleaned up nicely with Topaz/Low Light and 25600 cleaned up well with Topaz/Severe Noise. Didn't help the 90D's softness however.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
I downloaded the files and looked at them in Lightroom. I can't see the noise difference between the 90D and R7 that he did, but I could sure see that the R7 is sharper. Same lens, so focus accuracy, lack of 90D calibration? Was he using Live view or OVF with the 90D? Dunno. ISO 6400 noise cleaned up nicely with Topaz/Low Light and 25600 cleaned up well with Topaz/Severe Noise. Didn't help the 90D's softness however.
It would be nice if someone here had the 90D and could shoot some samples. Hard to believe there is that much difference between it and the R7.. Wow
Ok, back to the photos...
bobbytan wrote:
It's just a noise test in a real low-light situation. Nothing more and nothing less.
20" for a single image low light test? Quite candidly, it wasn't even "valid" as he claimed unless he controlled for lighting and again, not accounting for sensors of various crop and pixel density. Did I mention I was in a foul mood?
gkinard1952 wrote:
It would be nice if someone here had the 90D and could shoot some samples. Hard to believe there is that much difference between it and the R7.. Wow
I have the 90D and R7 and a 100-400 II. I'll do some test shots tomorrow. Unfortunately I don't have image download available. I'm also curious about the focus issue. But I'll let you know my totally unbiased assessment.
---------------------------------------------
PinholeR5 wrote:
Using Raw Burst Mode. It is awesome!
Just awesome as you say. To have this capability and many others, IBIS, focus stacking, panorama, etc. in a convenient XXD equivalent. Is well, just awesome. My wife used the camera with kit lens to take a series of "stacked" (simulated show stance, a dog show thing) images of our 8 week old puppies. The puppies were all over the place, but the camera tracked them beautifully in her hands.
Honolulu at Dusk | EOS R7 and EF-s 18-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM. F5.6, 1/60 sec and ISO 800.
Landscapes in dim light are not the forte of the R7, but I gave it a go. You almost have to leave shadows as is in low light or they’ll turn to mush.
As duncang mentioned, once you enable RAW Burst Mode it automatically sets ES. There is rolling shutter. See the images below where I was panning to follow the Egret. You can clearly see the "Leaning Power Line Tower of Pisa" .
Despite that, I almost exclusively use ES. The only times my R7's shutters go to work are at power up and shutdown.
Were they shot in ES or MS? I'm trying to get a sense of the R7's rolling shutter. Thanks for posting these.
---------------------------------------------
duncang wrote:
RAW burst mode is only available with ES
Ah, now I got it. Failed at the Multi-quote in the last post
Just one more comment on the RAW Burst Mode series above. This was, I think, an ideal case for the feature. I didn't have to move the camera and all the action happened within the original frame of view. If I were panning, the effects of the electronic shutter would potentially show up more (depending on the background).
Gochugogi wrote: Honolulu at Dusk | EOS R7 and EF-s 18-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM. F5.6, 1/60 sec and ISO 800.
Landscapes in dim light are not the forte of the R7, but I gave it a go. You almost have to leave shadows as is in low light or they’ll turn to mush'
Peter, how would you say it compares using for the same lens on your 90D?
