I am pretty sure I will choose the R7 over the R10. IBIS, battery life etc. But today I took out my 7Dii with 100-400ii and started to wonder why should I get the R7? Did anyone make the move and regret it? I recently bought the RP btw and love it
Getting mine today. Only one reason I’m getting a crop again- reach. I have the R62 and considered the 800 f11. i decided to spend a little more for the body. I have the 100-500.
I won’t be getting into serious testing for several weeks so I won’t have feedback soon but I’m curious what the other owners have to say. My only concern is how sticky the AF is. Mixed reviews. The Fro said it was good and I trust his reviews. He actually called out the 7D2 for AF drift but not many took him seriously back then. Also I use the pre-focus technique a lot so I can control AF comfortably on ML bodies.
I also had the 7D2 and 7D. One year when I went to Portugal the R was the only one out there. I had it and the 7D2. The 7D2 never came out of bag. ML AF was just too much fun. Also I will never, ever miss MFA.
annacarty wrote:
I am pretty sure I will choose the R7 over the R10. IBIS, battery life etc. But today I took out my 7Dii with 100-400ii and started to wonder why should I get the R7? Did anyone make the move and regret it? I recently bought the RP btw and love it
Regrets? In what respect?
I purchased an R7 for the crop sensor/pixel density as an adjunct to my R5 for WL. Compared to the 7d(ii) it is superior in many respects though one has to consider some of the relational issues of switching to MILC (not going to get into those here). Overall, AF is better than the 7d(ii) in terms of consistency though it is not as good as either the R5 or R3. There are the known buffer limitations though these are easily managed with the use of cRAW and changes in shooting style. Again, compared to the 7d(ii) there is some improvement in DR. From an ergonomic/build standpoint you may gain different impressions though it is reasonably solid but not well weather sealed. For me, the R7 is a great travel and backup camera though I much prefer the R3/R5 for numerous reasons. When the R7 hit the scene there was a lot of initial hand wringing over the lack of a dedicated ISO dial, sensor speed, build/layout, weather sealing, etc. For the things that people wanted in the camera, it would have likely bumped the price upwards of $2.5k. Instead, Canon released a highly functional camera for under $1.4k.
If you take the time to learn and understand the camera and see it in this context, I think that coming from a 7d(ii) you'll be pleased with some of the advancements.
@armd can you give some details on why the R5 or R3 would be better than the R7? I have the R7 - upgraded from the 80D - and the R7 is way better than the 80D. I am know thinking of getting either an R3 or R5. I would like to par it with a 200-400 F/4. I shoot sports, so on paper the R3 or R5 is better than the R7 but i've read so many mixed reviews that maybe the R7 is fine for me - especially with the crop. Just wondering if you had any more details on the R3 or R5. Thanks
soccerphotos wrote:
@armd@ can you give some details on why the R5 or R3 would be better than the R7? I have the R7 - upgraded from the 80D - and the R7 is way better than the 80D. I am know thinking of getting either an R3 or R5. I would like to par it with a 200-400 F/4. I shoot sports, so on paper the R3 or R5 is better than the R7 but i've read so many mixed reviews that maybe the R7 is fine for me - especially with the crop. Just wondering if you had any more details on the R3 or R5. Thanks...Show more →
Primarily faster sensor read out speeds, so fewer warped balls in your shots.
Cnyphotoguy wrote:
Primarily faster sensor read out speeds, so fewer warped balls in your shots.
Also better buffer, better high ISO performance, faster/better AF performance (though note that the R7 has the R3 version of the system, just not the R3 processing power, but the R5 has much faster processing). R3 stacked sensor is built for sports - all those FPS and zero rolling shutter.
I think if you like the R7, the R5 and R3 would be like supercharging its engine. But the question remains whether the cost difference is justified. If you hit the buffer a lot with the R7, the R5 or R3 will definitely help there. If you can live with the minimal rolling shutter the R5/R6 have (I do for soccer) and the reduced pixel density compared to the R7, then you could go from your R7 to an R6mk2. Same resolution as the R3, faster frame rates, just no BSI sensor and the other 3 series features.
jedibrain wrote:
Also better buffer, better high ISO performance, faster/better AF performance (though note that the R7 has the R3 version of the system, just not the R3 processing power, but the R5 has much faster processing). R3 stacked sensor is built for sports - all those FPS and zero rolling shutter.
I think if you like the R7, the R5 and R3 would be like supercharging its engine. But the question remains whether the cost difference is justified. If you hit the buffer a lot with the R7, the R5 or R3 will definitely help there. If you can live with the minimal rolling shutter the R5/R6 have (I do for soccer) and the reduced pixel density compared to the R7, then you could go from your R7 to an R6mk2. Same resolution as the R3, faster frame rates, just no BSI sensor and the other 3 series features.
I recently added the R7, and it is a decent camera, but not in the same league as the R5. In December alone I shot over 80K and 90% were on R5s, compared to 10% on R7s. Of course the R7 will be better than the 7D II and it's archaic sensor for the vast majority of purposes. My only use for an R7 is extra reach. It will be relegated to a drawer if Canon finally produces a hi-res FF body.
@EB-1 Thank you for that feedback. If I sold my R7 and went with the R7, sounds like I wouldn't regret it. If the cost is not as big of a deal, I'm assuming the R3 would be even better? I do like the possibility of 45mp on the R5.
soccerphotos wrote:
@EB-1@ Thank you for that feedback. If I sold my R7 and went with the R7, sounds like I wouldn't regret it. If the cost is not as big of a deal, I'm assuming the R3 would be even better? I do like the possibility of 45mp on the R5.
From my perspective the R7 was about $2,000 CND. The R3 is $8,000 so I would expect it to be a little better
EB-1 wrote:
I recently added the R7, and it is a decent camera, but not in the same league as the R5. In December alone I shot over 80K and 90% were on R5s, compared to 10% on R7s. Of course the R7 will be better than the 7D II and it's archaic sensor for the vast majority of purposes. My only use for an R7 is extra reach. It will be relegated to a drawer if Canon finally produces a hi-res FF body.
EBH
Not in the same league. So you are likely describing AF as the primary issue?
No regrets here—it's a great little camera. It replaces my M6 and 90D as a small travel, hiking, and out to dinner cam. I don't shoot sports or BIF but R7 tracking and agile focusing are great for flowers waving in the wind and wee critters. I greatly prefer it for macro over my R. The auto focusing bracketing is amazing for focus stacks. Matched with the RF 100 2.8L Macro it blazes.
With tracking and AI servo you can even do a modern version of lock AF and recompose, but with the benefits of AF updating for movements of the subject or photographer. I love the ability to track in any AF mode (spot, single, expanded, area, etc.). Oddly, the auto level via IBIS I found extremely useful around ocean horizons. In video modes it has a motorized gimbal like smoothness as the IBIS rotates. I put auto level on the DOF button I use it so much.
My only disappointment is I'd like a couple more buttons to customize. Canon won't let you rededicate the lock button.
