R7 for bird photography and birds in flight (26 Viewers)

[Barred Wobbler]

If I read you correctly, that you are taking .jpg images as the final output of your camera in challenging conditions, then I think you are short-changing the gear. You can do more to get more out of the camera by using full feature post-processing apps and raw images.

I am not using canon gear but feel pretty confident that the above works irrespective of brand.
Niels

Spending thousands on camera bodies and lenses, then not spending a few quid on basic photo-editing software is false economy. I don't use the full photoshop, nor lightroom, because I don't like the subscription model and I don't need the full range of features, but I find that spending a few pounds one-off on Adobe Photoshop Elements and DxO fits my needs and lets the camera's potential show. I don't shoot in full Raw, I instead use cRAW, that gives as much quality as far as anyone can tell, with much smaller files to store.

EDIT. These 4 heavy crops of moving targets were taken in poor light as the Late-November (21 November at 55°N) low afternoon sun dropped behind thin cloud. ISO 4000 for the first shot and ISO 6400 for the others. (Files reduced to 2048 pixels for posting on Facebook, so not at the same quality of the original edits). I've added a couple of chiffchaff shots from the last day of October, also in not great light, ISO 5000 for the first and ISO 4000 for the other. Goldcrest ISO 8000.

 

[Mark Jarrett]

Thanks Mikbul, Niels and Barred Warbler for your replies.

Yes, I’ll drop the 1.4 extender for the time being but will also have a go again in better light. It’s all trial and error at this stage.

I realise I’m a stubborn old git but, yes, I shoot jpeg, not Raw or C-Raw. I’ve tried the latter two in the past but don’t notice too much difference anyway and I know other photographers who feel the same.

To be honest, I’ve never felt the need for Apps like Photoshop and Lightroom. I’ve always been happy enough with my final images and just tweaking here and there with what Apple provides. I may well have a look at Adobe Photoshop Elements though.

I mainly use my R5 and RF 100-500 and have been delighted with the results. A cracking set up. Mike is correct in saying use the R7 for its strengths. It’s just that I was a little disappointed with the first results of the R7 when the general opinion seems to be that it is a definite upgrade on the 7Dii. I just don’t see that yet but will persevere.

Thanks all, once again..(and nice photos BW)

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Thanks Mikbul, Niels and Barred Warbler for your replies.

Yes, I’ll drop the 1.4 extender for the time being but will also have a go again in better light. It’s all trial and error at this stage.

I realise I’m a stubborn old git but, yes, I shoot jpeg, not Raw or C-Raw. I’ve tried the latter two in the past but don’t notice too much difference anyway and I know other photographers who feel the same.

To be honest, I’ve never felt the need for Apps like Photoshop and Lightroom. I’ve always been happy enough with my final images and just tweaking here and there with what Apple provides. I may well have a look at Adobe Photoshop Elements though.

I mainly use my R5 and RF 100-500 and have been delighted with the results. A cracking set up. Mike is correct in saying use the R7 for its strengths. It’s just that I was a little disappointed with the first results of the R7 when the general opinion seems to be that it is a definite upgrade on the 7Dii. I just don’t see that yet but will persevere.

Thanks all, once again..(and nice photos BW)

In most situations, jpeg is perfectly adequate, but in challenging conditions, or when a subject has been wrongly exposed, the RAW option gives much more control and you can recover detail that just doesn't exist in the jpeg, being lost in shadows or highlights. This was brought home to me when I took my first (and so far and probably forevever, only) trip to Sinai in 2010. We were driving out into the desert to get to St Catherine's monastery before dawn and in the half-light as the sky changed from darkness, I spotted my first ever white-crowned wheatear next to the car. I grabbed some shots with my Canon 40D and as we pulled away, I checked the images and at first I couldn't understand why the display just showed blackness.

That's when I realised that in my excitement, I'd forgotten to change the camera settings from those I'd been using in the sunlit desert the previous afternoon (I shoot in manual). I'd underexposed by about a million stops (actually 4 or 5). On the plus side, I'd been shooting in RAW, so I had a go at recovering the images, with a surprising amount of success. If I'd been trying to recover Jpegs in the same way, I'd have been out of luck.

I've posted two images here of the first of those shots, one the original, as shot, and the second is the same photo, slightly cropped and edited in PSE. Not the greatest of poses, but you can see feather detail, even in a black bird. If that had been a jpeg, I'd just have been pulling it back to a smudge of darkness.

Regarding the R5, I've had one for three years this week, and I love it, and since the day it arrived, I've not even picked up the 7Dii I bought on the first day of issue in 2014. Since I got my R7 in August 2022, the R7 has been my almost exclusive bird camera and the R5 gets used for everything else.

 

[Farnboro John]

In most situations, jpeg is perfectly adequate, but in challenging conditions, or when a subject has been wrongly exposed, the RAW option gives much more control and you can recover detail that just doesn't exist in the jpeg, being lost in shadows or highlights. This was brought home to me when I took my first (and so far and probably forevever, only) trip to Sinai in 2010. We were driving out into the desert to get to St Catherine's monastery before dawn and in the half-light as the sky changed from darkness, I spotted my first ever white-crowned wheatear next to the car. I grabbed some shots with my Canon 40D and as we pulled away, I checked the images and at first I couldn't understand why the display just showed blackness.

That's when I realised that in my excitement, I'd forgotten to change the camera settings from those I'd been using in the sunlit desert the previous afternoon (I shoot in manual). I'd underexposed by about a million stops (actually 4 or 5). On the plus side, I'd been shooting in RAW, so I had a go at recovering the images, with a surprising amount of success. If I'd been trying to recover Jpegs in the same way, I'd have been out of luck.

I've posted two images here of the first of those shots, one the original, as shot, and the second is the same photo, slightly cropped and edited in PSE. Not the greatest of poses, but you can see feather detail, even in a black bird. If that had been a jpeg, I'd just have been pulling it back to a smudge of darkness.

Regarding the R5, I've had one for three years this week, and I love it, and since the day it arrived, I've not even picked up the 7Dii I bought on the first day of issue in 2014. Since I got my R7 in August 2022, the R7 has been my almost exclusive bird camera and the R5 gets used for everything else.

I'm absolutely with Barred Wobbler on this. I shot jpeg for several years after going digital and once I tried RAW I never looked back. Both control and rescue are solid arguments for doing it. I also don't have Lightroom, I just use the free Canon Digital Photo Professional and then do some tweaking in Photoshop Elements mainly because I am used to that and the 2020 version does everything I need (so far )

I'm currently working over some holiday photos from Kruger in 2010 that were shot in jpeg and the pp is much harder than it would be with RAW in DPP to get anything like a decent result.

Cheers

John

 

[Mark Jarrett]

Regarding the R5, I've had one for three years this week, and I love it, and since the day it arrived, I've not even picked up the 7Dii I bought on the first day of issue in 2014. Since I got my R7 in August 2022, the R7 has been my almost exclusive bird camera and the R5 gets used for everything else.

That’s good to hear BW and gives me nenewed optimism!

 

[mike nesbitt]

The R7 provided many keepers in a session packed with action and good light.
I missed more shots than I'd have liked but that's most likely settings/user error. It's encouraging though.

 

[colincurry]

I use the R5, tc 1.4 and 100-500. Do I need an R7?

Colin

 

[Mark Jarrett]

I use the R5, tc 1.4 and 100-500. Do I need an R7?

Colin

Possibly. I bought the R7 to simply replace my five year old 7Dii and to go ‘all mirrorless.’ The general opinion seems to be that the R7 is a definite upgrade on the 7Dii.

With my R5, which I love, I use my RF 100-500 lens with a 1.4 extender and am therefore shooting at 700mm max.

With my R7 and the same set up, I’m at 1,120mm. However, my experience, so far, is that in dull and dreary weather, it’s better to shoot without the extender, so I’m at 800mm max. Not much difference…

But… I can well imagine being sat in a hide in Spain, in the spring, in good light and being at 1,120mm. Perhaps even somewhere in the UK 😆. I’ve only had my R7 for a couple of weeks, so I’ll update at some point, when this dreary weather improves.

Been out, yet again in overcast and wet conditions today and the results without the extender were much improved. At a woodland hide, very dull but the birds were nearer and the final results, after sharpening and lightening in post, were sharp enough. Not as many keepers as with my R5 but getting there.

 

[edenwatcher]

After going through a Scottish winter with the R7 (and EF100-400 MkII) I got an R5 and RF100-500 which I love. I haven't used the R7 since.

Rob

 

[colincurry]

After going through a Scottish winter with the R7 (and EF100-400 MkII) I got an R5 and RF100-500 which I love. I haven't used the R7 since.

Rob

Have you ried the 100-500 with R7?

Colin

 

[edenwatcher]

No I haven't. I should probably do so sometime, although I may sell the R7 before I get round to it...
Ergonomically I found the lack of a third dial on the R7 a pain.

Rob

 

[mike nesbitt]

Have you ried the 100-500 with R7?

Colin

Colin,
I've tried it a few times and I'm not complaining. Both images are heavy crops approx 2800 on the longest, then resized to 2048. It does a good job in my opinion.
R5 it is certainly not but for the price it must be as good as anything out there.

 

[mike nesbitt]

No I haven't. I should probably do so sometime, although I may sell the R7 before I get round to it...
Ergonomically I found the lack of a third dial on the R7 a pain.

Rob

Rob.
One of the reasons I never got an R7 for so long was exactly the lack of a third dial.
On the R5 I always shoot fully manual and use all three dials - nothing else, it's perfect for me.
When the R7 is used with the 100-500, the more I thought about it, the less you actually need the third dial. I invariably shoot with the 100-500 at 500mm which gives me f7.1
The diffraction limited aperture with that combo is f5.2 so I only ever want to shoot it wide open. Closing the aperture down would soften images and negate any benefits.
I just moved the aperture onto the 100 - 500 control ring. The position of control ring on the lens makes it pretty unusable but that's another story.
Mike.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Rob.
One of the reasons I never got an R7 for so long was exactly the lack of a third dial.
On the R5 I always shoot fully manual and use all three dials - nothing else, it's perfect for me.
When the R7 is used with the 100-500, the more I thought about it, the less you actually need the third dial. I invariably shoot with the 100-500 at 500mm which gives me f7.1
The diffraction limited aperture with that combo is f5.2 so I only ever want to shoot it wide open. Closing the aperture down would soften images and negate any benefits.
I just moved the aperture onto the 100 - 500 control ring. The position of control ring on the lens makes it pretty unusable but that's another story.
Mike.

This is what I do with my R7.

On my R5 I have my dials set for shutter speed, ISO and aperture, because I almost always shoot full manual. I just don't agree with people who say they are shooting in manual when they are using Auto ISO. It's Auto, just as much as Tv or Av are. Since I use my R5 for mainly stuff other than wildlife these days, I need to change the aperture sometimes and the third dial is handy for that.

With my R7, which is my birding body since I bought it 16 months ago, the top dial is shutter speed, the rear dial is ISO and the lens ring is aperture, simply because I almost never feel the need to change the aperture from wide open 7.1, so the inaccessibility of the ring on the 100-500 isn't important.

 

[colincurry]

This is what I do with my R7.

On my R5 I have my dials set for shutter speed, ISO and aperture, because I almost always shoot full manual. I just don't agree with people who say they are shooting in manual when they are using Auto ISO. It's Auto, just as much as Tv or Av are. Since I use my R5 for mainly stuff other than wildlife these days, I need to change the aperture sometimes and the third dial is handy for that.

With my R7, which is my birding body since I bought it 16 months ago, the top dial is shutter speed, the rear dial is ISO and the lens ring is aperture, simply because I almost never feel the need to change the aperture from wide open 7.1, so the inaccessibility of the ring on the 100-500 isn't important.

I am interested in finding out the benefits of the R7 v vthe R5. I know about the cropped sensor and understand that the AF system is like that on the R3. I wonder how the R7 AF system is better than that of the R5 in real life andwould be grateful for enlightenment.

Colin

 

[Barred Wobbler]

I am interested in finding out the benefits of the R7 v vthe R5. I know about the cropped sensor and understand that the AF system is like that on the R3. I wonder how the R7 AF system is better than that of the R5 in real life andwould be grateful for enlightenment.

Colin

Although I have both, I don't think I can comment on the detail of the AF system comparisons, other than to point you at Duade Paton's comments on the R7. This camera can frustratingly lose focus for a frame or two in the middle of a burst, before regaining the eye for the following shots. He has a video specifically on this and he suggests that it's a function of the higher frame rate that the R7 achieves in the first place (he was using the 30fps electronic shutter, I normally use ESFC shutter). It could be that the end product is that you finish up with the same number in focus as with a slower rate (in for example the R5) after the duds are discarded, but I've not gone that far into it to work it out. I just take the R7 out and fire away and I'm happy with what I get.

The extra reach of the cropped sensor over the R5 is a big factor with me. I think there's a train of thought amongst R5 users that using it in crop mode (which I've not been a fan of) makes it easier to find difficult subjects in the first place, simply because eliminating the periphery of a shot gives the AF system less area to investigate, making subject acquisition easier in the first place. Maybe the crop sensor on the R7 gives it an advantage in that respect, but I simply don't know whether it does or not.

At the end of the day, all I'm bothered about is that whichever camera I'm using gives me good results. Maybe one camera might be marginally better (or worse) than another, but if the results from both are good any marginal difference isn't that important.

 

[ApusApus]

Some interesting comments on the settings people use!

In addition to birds, I take a lot of dragonfly & butterfly photos as well. With dragonflies in particular, I have found that the maximum aperture of the R100-500 produces too little dof which results in wing tips being out of focus if shooting side on or the tip of the abdomen if shooting head on.

I use the flexible mode setting and after a bit of practice have found that I can easily alter any of the settings using the 2 dials while looking through the EVF to suit the subject in front of me.

I have the lens control ring set up for AF control.


Shane

 

[Mendobirder]

After going through a Scottish winter with the R7 (and EF100-400 MkII) I got an R5 and RF100-500 which I love. I haven't used the R7 since.

Rob

My wife has the R5 with the RF100-500 and I just got the R7, on which I have mounted her old EF100-400 (mk1). So far the difference in IQ are huge. I have very few images that I am really pleased with. Just the other day we were shooting the same bird and the images are vastly different. The R7 is definitely better than the 7D I was using with the same lens, but not by as wide a margin as I'd hoped. I am getting a lot of badly exposed (usually overexposed) images and a lot of soft-focus shots even when the camera was locked onto the eye.
I am putting some of this down to inexperience and will continue fiddling with settings etc but am also wondering if that old EF100-400 is part of the problem. How well should I expect it to work with this camera, compared to the RF100-500 (setting aside the different in effective focal length)?

 

[mike nesbitt]

Barred Wobbler said:
"The extra reach of the cropped sensor over the R5 is a big factor with me. I think there's a train of thought amongst R5 users that using it in crop mode (which I've not been a fan of) makes it easier to find difficult subjects in the first place, simply because eliminating the periphery of a shot gives the AF system less area to investigate, making subject acquisition easier in the first place. Maybe the crop sensor on the R7 gives it an advantage in that respect, but I simply don't know whether it does or not."

I heard all that myself off several people. Not one of them could ratify it, everything was anecdotal.
I emailed Canons technical department and asked them about it and they told me most emphatically that it is not the case and that crop mode is crop mode, nothing else. You do not get better af performance in crop mode on the R5. I tried it myself a few times and never saw a shred of evidence that crop mode improves af on the R5.

 

[mike nesbitt]

I am interested in finding out the benefits of the R7 v vthe R5. I know about the cropped sensor and understand that the AF system is like that on the R3. I wonder how the R7 AF system is better than that of the R5 in real life andwould be grateful for enlightenment.

Colin

The R7 af is good and does the job but is certainly not better that the R5 af. My experience so far is that the R5 af is definitely more consistent.