rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #15 · Has anyone regretted moving to an R7? | |
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 →
What sports do you shoot (other than soccer), what lenses do you currently use with the R7? And what do you feel is holding you back with the R7?
The sports I primarily photograph are football and hockey and am coming from a 1DXII and 200-400 as my primary sports system. This fall I borrowed the R3, 5 and 6 FF mirrorless cameras from CPS, as well as the R7.
The R3 is the best overall experience with the fewest compromises. Its EVF feed is the smoothest and closest to an OVF experience and you can use e-shutter for virtually everything without significant concern about rolling shutter effects (warped balls, bats, sticks, etc.). You can even use flash with e-shutter. It's also the best ergonomically with buttons that are distinct and easy to find, also in cold weather while wearing gloves.
But I was surprised at how close the AF performance was with the R5 and 6 to the R3. In this respect, those two are certainly a step up from the best DSLR AF, but to maximize the experience, you kind of want to be in 20fps e-shutter mode. I found that if I used them in 12fps EFCS for sports action, the blackout/stutter of the EVF feed was too distracting and laggy, causing me to more easily fall behind the action. And if adapting older EF lenses, the cameras will drop the fps rate a fair amount in the mechanical shutter modes, which at least for me, made the stutter and lag even more annoying. In 20fps the EVF feed is smoother, though still not ideal. The longer the sequence, the more you feel like you're starting to fall behind the direction the action is moving.
In respect to the R7 compared to the R5 and R6, AF capability is fairly similar, but e-shutter rolling shutter effects are worse with the R7. IMO it meant I didn't want to use it in e-shutter for sports, but found the EVF blackout/lag in the mechanical modes too distracting, similar to the R5 and 6.
IMO the benefit of the R7 with the 200-400 is reach and pixel density. Nothing else from Canon compares if you are reach limited. Given that the R7 is about a stop worse at high ISO than the FF sensors, you can use the 200-400 with farther action before you might feel the need to use the TC, which does somewhat slightly degrade image quality. So it really depends on the sports you cover and whether you're mostly at the long end of the zoom range. If you're not reach limited and could use FF instead, it would benefit you on the wide end by allowing action to get closer before you start cutting off body parts. This is actually what I value about the 200-400 the most. Prior to switching to it, I used 400 primes for decades (as well as the 600/4), but inevitably missed shots that were too close for 400 but still a bit far with a 70-200 on a second camera. The R5 with its higher resolution FF sensor will give you more deep cropping options than either the R3 or R6 and somewhat offset the reach advantage of the R7, while being a more usable camera in e-shutter mode. The R5 also has a higher resolution, brighter and better dynamic range EVF than the R6, which I much preferred in full sun shooting conditions. The R6's EVF in comparison blocks up the shadows more quickly and isn't as bright. I like to shoot midday football backlit and in some situations with the R6, it was difficult to see the action in the EVF because it was all silhouetted...
All that said, I ended up buying the R6II (which has the same EVF as the R6) for a few reasons: better e-shutter rolling shutter control than either the R5 or R6 (and good enough for 98% of my football needs), refined AF subject detection/tracking capabilities found in the R3 and R7, as well as how that subject tracking can be assigned to any manually selectable AF point type, somewhat improved EVF experience/smoothness in e-shutter mode, compatibility with the upcoming EL-5 flash (most of my work is events), considerably better battery life and for me at least, 24MP is still adequate. And the price was a lot more attractive than the R3. But if I shot primarily sports full time, I'd get the R3 hands down. And maybe supplement it with an R5II whenever it's released.
|
OTOH, with the RF 100-400 it weighs 2.7 lbs, gives excellent reach, and can focus down to 1:2.4. The kit 18-150 is good if slow above 60 mm and weighs 11 oz. Adapted, all your EF lenses work excellently and IBIS adds new life to unstabilized lenses like the EF-S 60 macro.
I'll use the R7 more than he will it appears. 