duncang wrote:
Surprising the Canon manual seems to skip over explaining how to customise the AF mode for each button. When assigning AF ON to a button click the Details Set button and configure each of the parameters. These are more flexible than Sony's I think.
At the bottom of the Customize buttons section (on page 872) it says "You can configure advanced settings for functions labeled with [INFODetail set.] in the lower left of the screen by pressing the INFO button.", but it doesn't show what that page looks like (like it does for other pages).
Can someone post a "screen shot" of that page or a description of what settings are there (actually I'd prefer the info for an R3, but I'm guessing they're identical or at least similar)?
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Peter, how would you say it compares using for the same lens on your 90D?
Jeff, IQ is in the same ball park with the 90D but with a little better high ISO and noise control. But R7 AF and video are a lot better, and I like the slightly smaller form factor. It will be a great travel camera for light packers.
Gochugogi wrote:
Jeff, IQ is in the same ball park with the 90D but with a little better high ISO and noise control.
Thanks, I haven't had a chance to really test the R7 for this kind of sunset scenario yet and was wondering how this sensor compares with previous sensors, 90D, 80D. It seemed to me with some sensors, like the 7D, that the electronics was set up for speed and higher ISO noise rather than lower ISO DR. From what I've seen here and my limited experience the R7 sure hits this higher performance mark. I'm hoping its not at too much cost for landscape use.
I want to play with this aspect a bit. I'm sure liking the camera as a field and wildlife machine with the 60 macro, 70-300, and Sigma 100-400. I want to do some sunset shots with the 10-22, (loving IBIS). Have you tried using the HDR PQ setting and its affect on raw files? I have given up on HEIC files since Adobe doesn't like them.
Jeff, yes macro is great on the R7 but you're right, it's designed for speed and higher ISO noise rather than lower ISO DR. Not that you can't get nice landscapes out of it, but you'll have to go gently on shadows. I guess I should try some of the HDR settings...
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
I compared the R7 to the 90D on the 100-400 II using some fuzzy stuffed toys at about 40 ft. All shots were at 400 mm using ISO 100 and 1600. Tripod mounted. I used both the OVF and rear display on the 90D. I compared in Lightroom. There was some sample variability but the best shots were of equal focus sharpness across the board. One shot appeared a bit better than eye tracking with the R7. So I cannot find a focus accuracy difference with this lens on static targets.
ISO 1600 appeared a tad bit finer grained on the R7 but I doubt this difference would survive post processing.
--------------------------------------------- Gochugogi wrote:
Jeff, IQ is in the same ball park with the 90D but with a little better high ISO and noise control. But R7 AF and video are a lot better, and I like the slightly smaller form factor. It will be a great travel camera for light packers.
I did my typical lens comparison test between the EF-S 10-22, RF-S 18-150, and my G1X3. My G is my APS-C test standard, it beats the EF-S 15-85 on the 80D which has the same sensor and compares it favorably to the 24-70 f4 L on my 5D4. It is also my standard zoom when I'm not carrying full frame.
The G is just a tad sharper than the 10-22 where they overlap. The G holds its sharpness edge at 15 mm f2.8 agains the 10-22 at 15 mm f4. But generally they are very close and I'll happily use the 10-22 for wide shots. It is sharper than the 10-18 from 10-15 on my 90D.
The surprise is the 18-150 kit lens. It held up very well at the focal lengths and apertures it shared with the other two. At 18 mm f5.6 all three lenses were very close and at 45 mm f5.6 it equaled the G1X3. I haven't tested it longer yet. I should probably match it up with the 55-250. It seems like it will be a serviceable part of the kit.
I over pushed the shadows on a pair of equivalent G1X3 and R7 images and the ISO 100 noise appeared equal and acceptible. This was in deep shade under some large native bushes in my canyon. Probably not equivalent to Peter's deep sunset Honolulu shots. Mine were mid day in sunny San Diego.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
I compared the R7 to the 90D on the 100-400 II using some fuzzy stuffed toys at about 40 ft. All shots were at 400 mm using ISO 100 and 1600. Tripod mounted. I used both the OVF and rear display on the 90D. I compared in Lightroom. There was some sample variability but the best shots were of equal focus sharpness across the board. One shot appeared a bit better than eye tracking with the R7. So I cannot find a focus accuracy difference with this lens on static targets.
ISO 1600 appeared a tad bit finer grained on the R7 but I doubt this difference would survive post processing.
---------------------------------------------
I did my typical lens comparison test between the EF-S 10-22, RF-S 18-150, and my G1X3. My G is my APS-C test standard, it beats the EF-S 15-85 on the 80D which has the same sensor and compares it favorably to the 24-70 f4 L on my 5D4. It is also my standard zoom when I'm not carrying full frame.
The G is just a tad sharper than the 10-22 where they overlap. The G holds its sharpness edge at 15 mm f2.8 agains the 10-22 at 15 mm f4. But generally they are very close and I'll happily use the 10-22 for wide shots. It is sharper than the 10-18 from 10-15 on my 90D.
The surprise is the 18-150 kit lens. It held up very well at the focal lengths and apertures it shared with the other two. At 18 mm f5.6 all three lenses were very close and at 45 mm f5.6 it equaled the G1X3. I haven't tested it longer yet. I should probably match it up with the 55-250. It seems like it will be a serviceable part of the kit.
I over pushed the shadows on a pair of equivalent G1X3 and R7 images and the ISO 100 noise appeared equal and acceptible. This was in deep shade under some large native bushes in my canyon. Probably not equivalent to Peter's deep sunset Honolulu shots. Mine were mid day in sunny San Diego. ...Show more →
My tests with the RF-S 18-150mm are nowhere near as systematic as yours, but I have been pleasantly surprised.
Yes, I really hope Canon releases equivalently good 11-22, 22, and 32 lenses from the M line. The rumored 16-55 f2.8 seems pie in the sky but would be nice.
Yeah, I admit I bought the 18-150 STM too and, I agree, it is surprisingly good and oh so tiny. Wish it stayed at F5.6 longer—seems to switch to 6.3 at about 60mm.
