I found the contrast was not as good, it demonstrated more CA, and the AF wasn't as consistent though this may have more to do with the R7 than the lens. It may be that at this relative pixel density that the R7 approaches the acutance limits of the lens. The 100-500 which I don't love on the R5 (would much rather have the 500 IS II even with a tc) seems to perform better on the R7.
EB-1 wrote:
The body is lightweight and flimsy, and operating with a 15FPS shutter. I don't think it is particularly loud/vibrating considering those attributes. The R5 is more solidly constructed and 12FPS.
EBH
It's not 7d is it! lol
I too am shocked at just how low grade Canon's build quality is, it's shocking
The R6 also feels like a budget Rebel, I expected way more for 2.5K cost. Friend of mine returned the R6 a day after getting it, I agreed with him the build was just plain nasty for the cost. It's a good camera but way too much plastic, and the finish is weird too.
R5 is pretty good, but lacks the heft of the 5d series and it's expensive too. Canon really cut back on build, they're nowhere near what they used to be. Disappointing is an understatement, and don't even get me started on the plastic lenses lol It's kinda greed cut back on costs pump prices, they are in for a big shock in 2023 and 2024 though
Pinky Boy wrote:
It's not 7d is it! lol
I too am shocked at just how low grade Canon's build quality is, it's shocking
The R6 also feels like a budget Rebel, I expected way more for 2.5K cost. Friend of mine returned the R6 a day after getting it, I agreed with him the build was just plain nasty for the cost.[...]
How was your friend able to evaluate the build quality after a single day? Did something actually fail or was it just "heavy equals quality, lightweight is trash" prejudice? I saw, and participated in, similar posturing when lenses with from metal to plastic shells and for the lenses I have used, the plastic seems to hold up a bit better than the metal. Which surprised me and forced me to think about other prejudices I might have when it comes to perceived quality of cameras.
Apart from gaps and bits breaking off, I don't think you can judge build quality after a single day, at least a few serious outings over the span of months are needed for a proper evaluation. If it still look OK and functions after being dropped/dunked/sandblasted/rained on, that is build quality.
If you don't like how something feels, it's your prerogative to return it, but please don't confuse the percentage of plastic(s) used with actual build quality and endurance.
It was his choice and I personally agreed having used the camera. I don't have a problem with plastic, but I do have a problem with plastic for a 2.5 grand camera.
We both came to the conclusion it wasn't as expected, it might pass for a grand less. I personally think it is unacceptable for the asking price. I didn't say it was going to fall apart or was a toy build, but it is very similar to the budget rebel bodies.
In fact the 90d build was a step back from the 80d, perhaps Canon are using a new plastic, it doesn't feel very tactile or pleasant.
The EOS R felt far better in terms of build solid feel mag alloy body, and that camera was cheaper then the R6. Obviously Canon are cost cutting to the extreme these days.
The R5 is cheaper built compared to the 5D4, it should take about two seconds to asses that. Likewise the latest 600mm f4 is far more fragile than the first generation 500/600mm f4 lens. I've crashed the 500mm quite a few times on rocks and concrete with some relatively minor bents, but I'm not sure that the latest 600mm could survive that treatment. I get the use of lighter material on the long lenses, where every gram counts, but don't know why the new bodies are so small and cheap. Let's see how the next generation of the R5 will look like with the crazy inflation these days.
The perception of build quality is as fascinating to behold as it is an exercise in futility. There have been technological innovations in all fields from clothing to refrigerators. Heck early cameras were made of wood, brass, leather, and other materials though that's not necessarily an indicator of capabilities or durability.
In addition to cost and market pressures, the life cycle of a product dictates in some measure the build quality. Think of rotary telephones from 50 years ago - built like tanks. Now, consider the build quality a land line telephone if you can even find one? Lightweight, all plastic, a couple of cheap circuit boards, and extremely flimsy.
Quite candidly, my R5 functions just fine and I've deployed it all kinds of extremes from -20 deg F to over 107 deg F in the desert. It's been in rain, fog, extremes of humidity, etc. and it hasn't missed a beat. I doubt my R7 would tolerate similar conditions, but it really wasn't designed for that and I use and protect it accordingly. FWIW, from a mechanical standpoint, my R5 has performed as well as my old film bodies and early 1d DSLR's, so I think the sentiments about construction quality are overblown. All in all, I worry more about creating great images and less about the intangibles that I have no control over.
EB-1 wrote:
The body is lightweight and flimsy, and operating with a 15FPS shutter. I don't think it is particularly loud/vibrating considering those attributes. The R5 is more solidly constructed and 12FPS.
EBH
Yes it is and I知 not concerned about that. So feeling that vibration in my hand during bursts is normal? I just want to be sure.
Agreed. Spent lots of time in a rainforest with an R5 and a 5DmkIV. Both worked perfectly. I'm not sure why I'd want the R5 to be heavier and bulkier when there is no actual quality issue.
Car manufacturers spend lots of time tuning the sound of the door closing. Not because it needs to have a satisfying thump to be good quality, but because people associate the two. I think if the R5 was needlessly heavier people might wrongly think it was higher quality. And we'd all be stuck lugging them around.
armd wrote:
The perception of build quality is as fascinating to behold as it is an exercise in futility. There have been technological innovations in all fields from clothing to refrigerators. Heck early cameras were made of wood, brass, leather, and other materials though that's not necessarily an indicator of capabilities or durability.
In addition to cost and market pressures, the life cycle of a product dictates in some measure the build quality. Think of rotary telephones from 50 years ago - built like tanks. Now, consider the build quality a land line telephone if you can even find one? Lightweight, all plastic, a couple of cheap circuit boards, and extremely flimsy.
Quite candidly, my R5 functions just fine and I've deployed it all kinds of extremes from -20 deg F to over 107 deg F in the desert. It's been in rain, fog, extremes of humidity, etc. and it hasn't missed a beat. I doubt my R7 would tolerate similar conditions, but it really wasn't designed for that and I use and protect it accordingly. FWIW, from a mechanical standpoint, my R5 has performed as well as my old film bodies and early 1d DSLR's, so I think the sentiments about construction quality are overblown. All in all, I worry more about creating great images and less about the intangibles that I have no control over. ...Show more →
EB-1 wrote:
The body is lightweight and flimsy, and operating with a 15FPS shutter. I don't think it is particularly loud/vibrating considering those attributes. The R5 is more solidly constructed and 12FPS.
EBH
Pinky Boy wrote:
It's not 7d is it! lol
I too am shocked at just how low grade Canon's build quality is, it's shocking
The R6 also feels like a budget Rebel, I expected way more for 2.5K cost. Friend of mine returned the R6 a day after getting it, I agreed with him the build was just plain nasty for the cost. It's a good camera but way too much plastic, and the finish is weird too.
R5 is pretty good, but lacks the heft of the 5d series and it's expensive too. Canon really cut back on build, they're nowhere near what they used to be. ...Show more →
I was comparing the R7 and R5. Of course the R5 is still too small for me and I did find the 5D series (and D8xx series) to be just about perfect for the human hands. Unfortunately the MILS cameras and lenses suffer from dwarfism and everyone is a weakling nowadays, so small and flimsy is the new black. The RF 70-200/4 is one of the worst examples of the trend in expensive, de-featured lenses. The R7 at least is cheaper than that lens and even if only used 10% of the time, it is worth it for that. I've five R5s this year, and after about 160,000 shots in the field none of them broke, so the build is good enough for now. Of course it is not an R3, but I travel with 2-3 R5s to mitigate against failures. If I had the need, I'd also use a second R7 for when it failed.
Yes it is and I知 not concerned about that. So feeling that vibration in my hand during bursts is normal? I just want to be sure.
I don't use the R7 handheld very much but it does vibrate a little. Maybe you can make a handgrip if that bothers you. I found that the ES mode is not so bad as you might think for most subjects that are not rapidly moving.
EB-1 wrote:
I don't use the R7 handheld very much but it does vibrate a little. Maybe you can make a handgrip if that bothers you. I found that the ES mode is not so bad as you might think for most subjects that are not rapidly moving.
EBH
No it does not bother me and I don't like grips. Just wanted to be sure it was normal to feel it. Several years ago I said I would buy locally, which did but to save on taxes I ordered it from another province. The drawback is I can't take it in to discuss things with the dealer. Locally I can do that. The one main reason I started buying locally with a mom and pop operation. Something goes wrong they replace or ship to Canon for me.
I can go in and try their demo but mine sounds exactly like this so I imagine it will feel the same. You can hear it vibrating on the table I think.
armd wrote:
I'll be interested to hear your experiences. FWIW, I didn't have a lot of great success with any EF lenses adapted to the R7 though perhaps the later FW's improve the situation. The 500 f/4 IS II in particular was not as good as the same lens+1.4tc on the R5. I much prefer the 100-500 on the R7 though the f/7.1 is a killer for lower light.
EB-1 wrote:
What was the issue, the AF or other?
EBH
armd wrote:
I found the contrast was not as good, it demonstrated more CA, and the AF wasn't as consistent though this may have more to do with the R7 than the lens. It may be that at this relative pixel density that the R7 approaches the acutance limits of the lens. The 100-500 which I don't love on the R5 (would much rather have the 500 IS II even with a tc) seems to perform better on the R7.
The R7 with the 100-500 at 500 is not as good as the 500/4 II by itself (no TC). I'd had or used 5 or so copies of the 500/4 IS II and like other lenses they are not all quite the same. I've also used 6 copies of the 100-500 and they are pretty consistent, with IQ dropping slowly after about 400 mm especially around the edges on FF R5 and CA becomes noticeable without correction.
However, you'd have to have a 500/4 IS II with problems not to find it better optically than the zoom. Maybe AF is the issue or something else. I suppose the 100-500 at 500 might be more similar to the 500/4 IS II with 1.4x at 1.4x the distance on the R7 depending on air, but have not tested that. IS of any of the adapted lenses is more of a problem than with the native RF lenses. At higher shutter speeds I turn it off where possible. If Canon would just make a 500/4 RF we would not be in this dilemma. For now, I will use the 500/4 IS II with the R5 and 1.4x III before I would use the R7, then use the R7 when the 1.4x III is not enough. I am also preferring the R7 and 100-500 to the R5 and 100-500 with the RF 1.4x.
Have no idea why anyone would buy the grossly overpriced RF 70-200mm F4, it's scary expensive.
I thought as did many that the F4 lenses were supposed to be "moderately affordable" at least near there. Now the F4's are almost as much as the F2.8 ones used to be! As it's optically no better than the EOS non IS F4 you might as well buy that an adapt it and save a fortune.
A lot of people don't like Canon's extending design on both the F4 and 2.8 versions
RF 14-35mm F4 is also another ouch price optic
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop, where camera makers get their payback for insane prices. The next couple of years should do some serious punishment to overpriced camera gear. Products in low demand can't maintain high prices, basic rule of business. No wonder the used market is booming
Pinky Boy wrote:
Have no idea why anyone would buy the grossly overpriced RF 70-200mm F4, it's scary expensive.
I thought as did many that the F4 lenses were supposed to be "moderately affordable" at least near there. Now the F4's are almost as much as the F2.8 ones used to be! ...
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop, where camera makers get their payback for insane prices. The next couple of years should do some serious punishment to overpriced camera gear. Products in low demand can't maintain high prices, basic rule of business. No wonder the used market is booming
I think we are already seeing price realities for some lenses that have likely been gathering dust in the warehouse. The RF 100 macro has been "on sale" for $1K for a few months now and the 70-200 f/4 is $1500 but Canon also offers the refurb for $1K. I suspect the refurbs are actually new and Canon just wants to get inventory levels down, because like you said they probably were not flying off the shelf at $1800.
But L lenses are not cheap or easy to design or manufacture and with the ever declining user base for non-cell phone cameras, higher prices are inevitable to recoup these costs plus normal margin. It's just a matter of not being able to achieve a good economy of scale. I do think Canon will be pressured into opening up the RF mount to 3rd parties now that Nikon has and Sony always has. That should open a path to decent & more affordable RF lenses.
I did recently buy those "budget" fire sale Canon L lenses: RF 70-200 4L IS USM and RF 100 2.8 Macro IS USM. Wonderful optics: sharp and super fast AF. Build is more light duty than the EF equivalents I owned back in the day but optically superior and easier on the shoulder. The RF 70-200 4L IS USM is amazingly compact.
Gochugogi wrote:
I did recently buy those "budget" fire sale Canon L lenses: RF 70-200 4L IS USM and RF 100 2.8 Macro IS USM.
Those two are on my list but will probably wait until I decide the fate of my EF collection. The EF versions work well on my R5 for now. But I am a sucker for close focus. The RF 70-200 f4 focuses to nearly half the distance of its predecessor and the 100 goes to 1.4x. Don't know how often I'd use that, but...
I did get the 14-35 L on fire sale. Interesting story: The first 14-35 I received just yielded an error message when mounted so I sent it back for exchange. Worried that they might run out during the return shipment, the nice B&H customer service person assured me they had over 600 in stock!!! I found this astonishing but I guess I'm just naive about how large the market really is.
Some interesting build quality comments. My R7 has arrived now and to me it does feel quite solid. Ok, it does not feel like a 7Dii or 1D4 ( both of which I have) but I do feel that it feels pretty solid.
Obviously, I will reserve final judgement until I have been using it a while - but I am impressed so far. Very intuitive for a Canon user. Wish it had a battery pack option, but I do have other options. All in al, I am very impressed after a few hours playing around with it. The real test will be taking it out with the EF100-4002, but I have not seen any negative comments about performance with that lens.
I got the R7 the day it came out, and only shot it ever in ES mode. I guess few people can tell if an owl has rolling shutter or not. But this discussion got me to try the mechanical shutter for the first time, and man, it's not the sound but the vibration. I can feel my hand shaking, whereas with the R5 not so much. I guess back to ES for me.
stanj wrote:
I got the R7 the day it came out, and only shot it ever in ES mode. I guess few people can tell if an owl has rolling shutter or not. But this discussion got me to try the mechanical shutter for the first time, and man, it's not the sound but the vibration. I can feel my hand shaking, whereas with the R5 not so much. I guess back to ES for me.
It's kinda greed cut back on costs pump prices, they are in for a big shock in 2023 and 2024 though