Duncang you were posting some challenges you were having a fing on some swallows… what lens and case settings were you using? Though I don’t have the r7 yet, it should be able to keep up.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
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.
I haven't tried many EF-M lenses. Only the 14-55 and the 22. I really do like the 22. I was eyeing the 11-22, but never got too serious with the M mount. I have an M50 II which will soon go on sale. It is really compact, but if we get a couple of compact lenses, like the 11-22 to go with the 18-150 the body size difference will not be an issue for me. Usually, it is the lenses that end up taking up most of the space and have most of the weight.
armd wrote:
Duncang you were posting some challenges you were having a fing on some swallows… what lens and case settings were you using? Though I don’t have the r7 yet, it should be able to keep up.
---------------------------------------------
duncang wrote:
RF100-400, Whole Area AF, Animal Detect.
I have tried with the RF 100-500mm. I also find it has some difficulty. It feels to me as if the AI AF algorithm can keep up, but the camera can't drive the lens fast enough.
I have tried with the RF 100-500mm. I also find it has some difficulty. It feels to me as if the AI AF algorithm can keep up, but the camera can't drive the lens fast enough.
If the lens was too slow then no consecutive frames would be in focus but there are consecutive frames that are in focus (even if not perfectly in focus - but that's another story). And when it missed focus on one frame it seems to be able to catch up so I think the lens is plenty fast enough.
PinholeR5 wrote:
I haven't tried many EF-M lenses. Only the 14-55 and the 22. I really do like the 22. I was eyeing the 11-22, but never got too serious with the M mount. I have an M50 II which will soon go on sale. It is really compact, but if we get a couple of compact lenses, like the 11-22 to go with the 18-150 the body size difference will not be an issue for me. Usually, it is the lenses that end up taking up most of the space and have most of the weight.
IMHO the 11-22 is the only decent M zoom. To be honest, I haven't tried the EF-M 18-150, but I've been really impressed with the RF version, so maybe I missed something. Lenses like the 22 f2 and 32 f1.4 would be amazing with the R7's IBIS. If sigma were to release an R mount 56 f1.4 I'd be delighted although I'm quite happy with the renewed life of my 40D vintage 60 f2.8 macro. The EF-M 22 f2 goes to 1:2 for close focus, its is small and very light. It would make a great flower and misc accessory lens on the R7 for hiking. Maybe the RF 100-400 at some point. The R7 + 100-400 + 22 + G1X3 would weigh about 4 lbs for dayhikes.
duncang wrote:
If the lens was too slow then no consecutive frames would be in focus but there are consecutive frames that are in focus (even if not perfectly in focus - but that's another story). And when it missed focus on one frame it seems to be able to catch up so I think the lens is plenty fast enough.
I've suspected that the camera drives the lens with some closed loop feedback and the accel/decel tracking setting is a "user friendly" way of describing the overshoot/settling time baked into the control system parameters. If this is the case it may be that the lens cannot be driven in a way to match the velocity/accelerations of the target without either overshooting of the desired focal position or delay in catching up to the desired focal position. With a more responsive motor this would likely be lessened. So it may be possible to get multiple consecutive frames in focus while still having an underperforming focus motor for a specific scenario if the motor is driven too hard and eventually overshoots but is able to match the velocity of the subject for a few frames.
Or im completely wrong. It is really a coin toss here
duncang wrote:
If the lens was too slow then no consecutive frames would be in focus but there are consecutive frames that are in focus (even if not perfectly in focus - but that's another story). And when it missed focus on one frame it seems to be able to catch up so I think the lens is plenty fast enough.
---------------------------------------------
My comments were motivated by thoughts along the lines of what pokemeng said. Compared to the R3, I feel (just my impression) that the box indicating the tracked subject locks and tracks the subject does just as good a job. There seems to be more EVF delay in the R7, but in terms of the percentage of time the tracking box is on target they seem similar.
However, the R3 has a higher percentage of frames in focus. I hypothesized that it was due to the lens drive feedback loop on the R3 having higher bandwidth than that of the R7 and hence it was able to track a higher percentage of the trajectory of the fast-moving erratic subject.
One big motivator for the hypothesis is the use of the LP-E19 higher voltage battery in the R3 vs the LP-E6NH on the R7 allowing for a more powerful lens drive in the R3.
Like pokemeng says, I could be wrong, but that was my thought process anyway.
pokemeng wrote:
I've suspected that the camera drives the lens with some closed loop feedback and the accel/decel tracking setting is a "user friendly" way of describing the overshoot/settling time baked into the control system parameters. If this is the case it may be that the lens cannot be driven in a way to match the velocity/accelerations of the target without either overshooting of the desired focal position or delay in catching up to the desired focal position. With a more responsive motor this would likely be lessened. So it may be possible to get multiple consecutive frames in focus while still having an underperforming focus motor for a specific scenario if the motor is driven too hard and eventually overshoots but is able to match the velocity of the subject for a few frames.
Or im completely wrong. It is really a coin toss here ...Show more →
Looks like the folks moving up from a 80/90D or Rebel are pleased, and the folks comparing it to an R3 or R5 are disappointed. At this price point, it seems the R7 is a really good value, at least from my perspective.
That is correct. I have no idea as to when my pre-order for the R7 (with B&H on the 1st day) will arrive but I am already looking forward to the R7 Mk II which I think will check more (important) boxes!
jedibrain wrote:
Looks like the folks moving up from a 80/90D or Rebel are pleased, and the folks comparing it to an R3 or R5 are disappointed. At this price point, it seems the R7 is a really good value, at least from my perspective.
jedibrain wrote:
Looks like the folks moving up from a 80/90D or Rebel are pleased, and the folks comparing it to an R3 or R5 are disappointed. At this price point, it seems the R7 is a really good value, at least from my perspective.
-Brian
---------------------------------------------
bobbytan wrote:
That is correct. I have no idea as to when my pre-order for the R7 (with B&H on the 1st day) will arrive but I am already looking forward to the R7 Mk II which I think will check more (important) boxes!
Not everyone . I have an R5 and R3. I like the R7 paired with the R3 better than R3 + R5 for wildlife. I like the AF framework consistency of R7 and R3 and the larger pixel density of the R7 for that extra reach compared to the R5 in APS-C mode and use R3 for everything closer. In other words, I so far really like the R7 and think it is an exceptional value for the money! (Note: I have had a 7D, but never the MK II and had a couple of Rebels before that, but never an xxD body either).
That said, I would VERY MUCH welcome all the extra missing items most folks wished would be in the R7, hope it will come soon in a derivative model (R7P, R7x, etc), but fear will only come later in an R7 MK II.
Here is some of that Electronic Shutter awesomeness with the R7. Still, I remain 100% ES. I'll perhaps engage the mechanical shutter at some point if I feel there is something critical.
At first it was really strange having no sound. Now, I almost can't stand having any sound.
Lenses like the 22 f2 and 32 f1.4 would be amazing with the R7's IBIS. If sigma were to release an R mount 56 f1.4 I'd be delighted although I'm quite happy with the renewed life of my 40D vintage 60 f2.8 macro. The EF-M 22 f2 goes to 1:2 for close focus, its is small and very light. It would make a great flower and misc accessory lens on the R7 for hiking. Maybe the RF 100-400 at some point. The R7 + 100-400 + 22 + G1X3 would weigh about 4 lbs for dayhikes.
