I use an R7 for motorsport. Occasionally to maintain a high shutter speed I have to use high iso because of weather conditions. I know that as a pro, Rob, that speed of post- capture processing is very important to you (I’ve seen in a previous video you shoot in jpg). As an amateur I have the “luxury” of having less pressure on me and more time available during processing. I always shoot in c-raw (small files and therefore less storage space needed so less buffer space constraints) and process in subscription Lightroom. The AI denoise in subscription Lightroom is fantastic! I apply it as the first step in the processing procedure and it takes less than a minute. It means that now I don’t think twice about using high iso. AI denoise does require a fairly powerful graphics card, however (I use a Mac M2).I know as a pro that you’ll not have a lot of spare time available, but if you get a chance, give the c-raw +AI denoise combination a try (perhaps the subject of a video?). Finally, really love your videos! Keep up the great work.
My first mirrorless camera was the R5. It was a fine camera, but being FF, it just didn't give me the reach I needed for my typical subjects, small birds. So I rented an R7. Killed it ! Ordered one for myself the day before I returned the rental. Then I shot with it everyday for a month, while my R5 collected dust on the dresser. Finally I sold the R5 and bought a second R7 for my back up + the RF 600 F11 + the RF 100-400. That was a year ago, and I've never thought twice about that decisions. I primarily shoot with the 800 F11 for an equivalent reach of 1280mm. I have gotten good shots up to ISO 6400. But nowadays, I have the ISO set for a max of 3200. If that's not enough, and my shots come out underexposed. I can lift them > a bunch, if necessary, in post processing. I've taken about 130K shots with my original R7 in the last 16 months, many of my best can be seen in my gallery... link in my channel.
Hi mate, how good is R7 with the RF 100 400 on low light? I know it would be too much to ask from an F8. I currently shoot with R10 and 100 400 but my R7 is on the way ...
@@RoadTales well, I have kind of a two part answer. Now, I mostly shoot small, perched birds, and I just slow my shutter down enough to get my ISO to 3200 or less, and if I can do that, no problem. After PP, buttery smooth :) On the other hand, if you just have to have a faster shutter, you can only go so high with your ISO, and then your IQ will suffer. So for fast action stuff, or BIF, Id suggest something faster if 1) you can afford it, and 2) you don't mind lugging it around. I'm kind of glad I prefer small, perched songbirds mostly, and way :) Hey BTW, I've used my 800 F11 in SUPER low light, on a tripod, with a remote shutter release, and have taken 1 full second shots, that came out very clean, at ISO 100 to ISO 320. I think this is going to be great for a perched owl right after sunset, whenever I come across one :) And I always have the tripod, and the remote shutter release with me for whenever that pops up :)
Hi Rob I can't see why some people say the 7Dmkii isn't good for low light.I did an outdoor night shoot last week for a media agency of the local Christmas lights switch-on event,using auto ISO up to 6400,and auto-bracketing. The ones at 6400 hardly showed any noise at all,and the odd bits were easily sorted in Lightroom without any loss in IQ.Can't have been that bad with the agency using all the shots I sent them. I also had it up to 6400 in January for a Chinese New Year event,outdoors in the evening with hardly any lighting around,again there were hardly any noise issues.
Hi Rob. I love my R7. So glad I got it. You may have mentioned it but sorry I missed it. Quality fast glass will make a lot of difference in the noise. R7 is still the best bang for the buck. I have shot football as the sun begins to set and stadium shadows enter the field. The photos look great until you zoom 100% and see the face is blotchy. Other than that, I have captured tons of great images taking advantage of the crop. I put my EF f2.8 70-200 on my R7 (football) and it is amazing for day games. Now reaches 320mm. Still not a 400 but no complaints. I like it better having the zoom in/out options. Thanks for the great content!
Used correctly, "slow glass" can make super clean shots too :) I'm super nit picky about noise ! If you can find a shot in my gallery that has even a tiny bit of noise, please let me know so I can fix that :)
! Hello my dear friend, please tell me how on Canon R7, is it possible to make a test frame in video mode? (take a picture) without changing the settings, without taking a video or switching to photo mode? I mean, when you've set everything up, but you're not taking it off yet. Thanks to everyone who will help. I can't find how to do it... .
I got the R6 Mark II, but I'm not liking the 24.2 MP only?😢 I would think this camera would have higher resolution. I may need to return it, and get different camera. I want to do bird/wildlife photography, this camera may not be enough? 🤔
run the images through DXO PureRaw3. I have an R7 and have the software. I shot images all the way to 31k ISO and after a quick run through Pureraw with the Prime XD noise reduction setting they look like 6400 but with more detail. Its a free 30day trial. Give it a try. I was blown away at what it would produce. I have Topaz Denoise and Lightroom and the DXO is better than Topaz and light years better than lightroom.
The only problem with DxO is it’s Raw only. Many sports shooters on deadlines don’t shoot raw as it’s very time restrictive to run images through tools like DxO. I own it and love it, but just can’t use it on my assignments.
You should show tests using in camera NR at various levels too. There are some that swear by the camera NR at super high isos. I need to try those myself.
J'ai le kit R7. Pour débruiter, retoucher mes photos. Je n'ai pas peur de monter jusqu'à 12 800 Iso si nécessaire. Je suis même monté à 25 600 en cas extrême.
I own Topaz de-noise and Topaz sharpen AI, but the denoise AI in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw is just as good, if not better. Topaz cost money and Adobe includes it with their subscription cloud software.
Hi Rob, perfect timing of this video as I have just received my R7 yesterday and taking it out to compare it against my 5D4 at a gig tonight so looking to shed the weight of the 5D if I get images I can use. just for info I have topaz and its awesome for noise reduction.
Could you please run LR Denoise on the 32000 iso shot of Jeff? I’d love to see how it performs on such an image! This is very useful thank you for making this video!
Great video. I would just add after shooting my R5 and R7 side by side and cropping to equivalent field of view…The R5 still wins out with noise and sharpness (as to be expected). The R7 is a wonderful bang for the $ though and can get the job done. Nice review here. Thanks for producing.
Hey Rob, I’m shooting youth hockey these days, and while some of the rinks have upgraded their lights, many have not, so I have resorted to using in-camera high ISO noise reduction on my R6. How does that feature compare in the R7 with the R6 or is it essentially equivalent? Thanks!
Hi Rob A good test for low light performance would be a non league game under floodlights. I shoot Isthmian League North football where the floodlights can be terrible especially around the edges of the pitch. I’ve just started using the R7 I find I can’t go above ISO 6400, but it’s a lot better than my previous 90D. I’ve just start using Topaz Sharpen AI which helps remove a lot of noise.
I am changing to mirrorless and the R7 according to reviews it was the best I could afford and with the adapter can still use my lenses. I still use the 90D with 24 - 70 F2.8 for close ups
Hi, advice needed please! I’m stuck in between this R7 and 90d . I’m not into wildlife or sport, mainly I do vlogs and some photography , street photography and portraits. I’ve never had a mirrorless camera and I’m worried I won’t like how small it is lol. I’m an amateur who’s only,had one camera , canon 200d which they don’t make anymore, but it did the job for me perfectly. I’m now ready to upgrade my game and really need guidance one which to get .
I wouldn’t over look the R10. The R7 might be overkill for your needs. The body will be smaller but you can add a cage now (which I’m planning to do with my R7)
Skip the 90D. Grab an EF to RF adapter and go for the R8 or R7. IMHO. And given your subject matter, I think the full frame R8 would be a huge step up for you.
@@AndrewCCM thank you , I’ve made my mind up over a week ago and decided for the R7, the R8 was tempting being a Full frame, but those megapixels and the recording in clog in the R7 just was too enticing
Hi Rob, a very helpful video as I'm thinking of upgrading from the 7d mk2 to the R7 so this video has almost convinced me to make the jump. I'm just concerned that a R7 won't work well with my canon 500mm F4 prime mk1, do you or anyone following this video have any experience of pairing these two or do I also have to upgrade my lens? Thanks
I don’t have quite the same setup, but I shoot with R6iis on adapted EF glass, and I’ve never had any issues. Autofocus works great, and some lenses even seem to perform better than they did on my 6D or 80D. One thing you might experience with your 500 mk1 though is reduced mechanical shutter burst speeds. If you google “Lenses Supporting Maximum High-Speed Continuous Shooting Speed”, you’ll find a table that lists out all the lenses that can get max burst speed. If your lens isn’t on there, you might “only” be able to get 8-10fps (not sure the exact number) vs. 10-15fps. This is not an issue with mechanical shutter, though.
I had the 400/5.6 and I had no slowdown of any fps when using the canon adapter if that helps. You could rent for a day and see how it stacks up. Just add another lp e6nh as they drain faster.
Thanks Rob for producing these informative videos. I have a quandary. I own two 1DX bodies and a 6D. I’m in no hurry to abort all of these classics but I’m looking at something lighter for travel. I shoot football abroad. I once owned a 7d mkIi but sold it as it didn’t meet my needs in low light. I shoot some football under poor flood lights or in domes (as it is Canada) . Price point is very important to me ( I’m frugal) and love my EF glass. I’m also a retiree on a fixed income. Is the R7 a serious choice if I sold one of my 1DX bodies. Thanks again.
I am impressed. I owned a 7D2 until I got on the R5 bandwagon, and I would prefer to shoot at lower ISOs. Preferably max out at 3200. I wonder what the pictures would look like at ISO 12k8, 25k6, and 32k would look like with and without noise reduction. It would be interesting to see NR done in Topaz and Lightroom's AI noise reduction.
Unfortunately static iso test's only give a best case scenario, "movement" and or stopping action, will make a difference, and it never helps, nor is it ever consistent. Best to review actual action shots at the iso interested in as well as focal length and aperture used, all making huge differences, at least if high iso action or sports is the concern. If not, you may just be drastically fooled into expectations that won't materialize. Not vid bashing at all, just throwing out some seed, like the vid.
I use an R7 for motorsport. Occasionally to maintain a high shutter speed I have to use high iso because of weather conditions. I know that as a pro, Rob, that speed of post- capture processing is very important to you (I’ve seen in a previous video you shoot in jpg). As an amateur I have the “luxury” of having less pressure on me and more time available during processing. I always shoot in c-raw (small files and therefore less storage space needed so less buffer space constraints) and process in subscription Lightroom. The AI denoise in subscription Lightroom is fantastic! I apply it as the first step in the processing procedure and it takes less than a minute. It means that now I don’t think twice about using high iso. AI denoise does require a fairly powerful graphics card, however (I use a Mac M2).I know as a pro that you’ll not have a lot of spare time available, but if you get a chance, give the c-raw +AI denoise combination a try (perhaps the subject of a video?). Finally, really love your videos! Keep up the great work.
My first mirrorless camera was the R5. It was a fine camera, but being FF, it just didn't give me the reach I needed for my typical subjects, small birds. So I rented an R7. Killed it ! Ordered one for myself the day before I returned the rental. Then I shot with it everyday for a month, while my R5 collected dust on the dresser. Finally I sold the R5 and bought a second R7 for my back up + the RF 600 F11 + the RF 100-400. That was a year ago, and I've never thought twice about that decisions. I primarily shoot with the 800 F11 for an equivalent reach of 1280mm.
I have gotten good shots up to ISO 6400. But nowadays, I have the ISO set for a max of 3200. If that's not enough, and my shots come out underexposed. I can lift them > a bunch, if necessary, in post processing.
I've taken about 130K shots with my original R7 in the last 16 months, many of my best can be seen in my gallery... link in my channel.
Hi mate, how good is R7 with the RF 100 400 on low light? I know it would be too much to ask from an F8. I currently shoot with R10 and 100 400 but my R7 is on the way ...
@@RoadTales well, I have kind of a two part answer. Now, I mostly shoot small, perched birds, and I just slow my shutter down enough to get my ISO to 3200 or less, and if I can do that, no problem. After PP, buttery smooth :) On the other hand, if you just have to have a faster shutter, you can only go so high with your ISO, and then your IQ will suffer. So for fast action stuff, or BIF, Id suggest something faster if 1) you can afford it, and 2) you don't mind lugging it around. I'm kind of glad I prefer small, perched songbirds mostly, and way :)
Hey BTW, I've used my 800 F11 in SUPER low light, on a tripod, with a remote shutter release, and have taken 1 full second shots, that came out very clean, at ISO 100 to ISO 320.
I think this is going to be great for a perched owl right after sunset, whenever I come across one :) And I always have the tripod, and the remote shutter release with me for whenever that pops up :)
Hi Rob I can't see why some people say the 7Dmkii isn't good for low light.I did an outdoor night shoot last week for a media agency of the local Christmas lights switch-on event,using auto ISO up to 6400,and auto-bracketing.
The ones at 6400 hardly showed any noise at all,and the odd bits were easily sorted in Lightroom without any loss in IQ.Can't have been that bad with the agency using all the shots I sent them.
I also had it up to 6400 in January for a Chinese New Year event,outdoors in the evening with hardly any lighting around,again there were hardly any noise issues.
Hi Rob. I love my R7. So glad I got it. You may have mentioned it but sorry I missed it. Quality fast glass will make a lot of difference in the noise. R7 is still the best bang for the buck. I have shot football as the sun begins to set and stadium shadows enter the field. The photos look great until you zoom 100% and see the face is blotchy. Other than that, I have captured tons of great images taking advantage of the crop. I put my EF f2.8 70-200 on my R7 (football) and it is amazing for day games. Now reaches 320mm. Still not a 400 but no complaints. I like it better having the zoom in/out options. Thanks for the great content!
Used correctly, "slow glass" can make super clean shots too :) I'm super nit picky about noise ! If you can find a shot in my gallery that has even a tiny bit of noise, please let me know so I can fix that :)
Glad you made that comment. I have been looking to add that very lens.
!
Hello my dear friend,
please tell me how on Canon R7, is it possible to make a test frame in video mode? (take a picture) without changing the settings, without taking a video or switching to photo mode?
I mean, when you've set everything up, but you're not taking it off yet.
Thanks to everyone who will help.
I can't find how to do it...
.
I got the R6 Mark II, but I'm not liking the 24.2 MP only?😢 I would think this camera would have higher resolution. I may need to return it, and get different camera. I want to do bird/wildlife photography, this camera may not be enough? 🤔
run the images through DXO PureRaw3. I have an R7 and have the software. I shot images all the way to 31k ISO and after a quick run through Pureraw with the Prime XD noise reduction setting they look like 6400 but with more detail. Its a free 30day trial. Give it a try. I was blown away at what it would produce. I have Topaz Denoise and Lightroom and the DXO is better than Topaz and light years better than lightroom.
The only problem with DxO is it’s Raw only. Many sports shooters on deadlines don’t shoot raw as it’s very time restrictive to run images through tools like DxO. I own it and love it, but just can’t use it on my assignments.
You should show tests using in camera NR at various levels too. There are some that swear by the camera NR at super high isos. I need to try those myself.
J'ai le kit R7. Pour débruiter, retoucher mes photos. Je n'ai pas peur de monter jusqu'à 12 800 Iso si nécessaire.
Je suis même monté à 25 600 en cas extrême.
I own Topaz de-noise and Topaz sharpen AI, but the denoise AI in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw is just as good, if not better. Topaz cost money and Adobe includes it with their subscription cloud software.
The one at 32,000, it be interesting to see how noise reduction what difference it would make to the Photo
Yes my question exactly! Would love to see the results and if it could convert to a usable image!
I feel like we need to get a Sony A9iii in your hands Rob!!!
Ha - yeah that could happen one day! Never shot a Sony
Hi Rob, perfect timing of this video as I have just received my R7 yesterday and taking it out to compare it against my 5D4 at a gig tonight so looking to shed the weight of the 5D if I get images I can use. just for info I have topaz and its awesome for noise reduction.
Which one would you choose? 1DX or R7? I would purchase them used and using them for sports photography. Thank you for your videos.
Could you please run LR Denoise on the 32000 iso shot of Jeff? I’d love to see how it performs on such an image!
This is very useful thank you for making this video!
i use my 7d mk2 at iso 10 800 with little bit denoise and its great shots for a crop body
Great video. I would just add after shooting my R5 and R7 side by side and cropping to equivalent field of view…The R5 still wins out with noise and sharpness (as to be expected). The R7 is a wonderful bang for the $ though and can get the job done. Nice review here. Thanks for producing.
Wow that 32 000 ISO on the R7 looks better than 1200 ISO on my EOS 850D , I really should upgrade!😊
thanks for the video Rob. Were you not tempted to run it through lightroom denoise to see how it looked? ;)
It looks good - for this though I wanted to just show people the results
Hey Rob, I’m shooting youth hockey these days, and while some of the rinks have upgraded their lights, many have not, so I have resorted to using in-camera high ISO noise reduction on my R6. How does that feature compare in the R7 with the R6 or is it essentially equivalent? Thanks!
Hi Rob A good test for low light performance would be a non league game under floodlights. I shoot Isthmian League North football where the floodlights can be terrible especially around the edges of the pitch. I’ve just started using the R7 I find I can’t go above ISO 6400, but it’s a lot better than my previous 90D. I’ve just start using Topaz Sharpen AI which helps remove a lot of noise.
Do you think 90D owners should jump ship to R7 or even FF R6mkII ?
I am changing to mirrorless and the R7 according to reviews it was the best I could afford and with the adapter can still use my lenses. I still use the 90D with 24 - 70 F2.8 for close ups
Thanks!
Hi, advice needed please! I’m stuck in between this R7 and 90d . I’m not into wildlife or sport, mainly I do vlogs and some photography , street photography and portraits.
I’ve never had a mirrorless camera and I’m worried I won’t like how small it is lol. I’m an amateur who’s only,had one camera , canon 200d which they don’t make anymore, but it did the job for me perfectly. I’m now ready to upgrade my game and really need guidance one which to get .
I wouldn’t over look the R10. The R7 might be overkill for your needs. The body will be smaller but you can add a cage now (which I’m planning to do with my R7)
Skip the 90D. Grab an EF to RF adapter and go for the R8 or R7. IMHO. And given your subject matter, I think the full frame R8 would be a huge step up for you.
@@AndrewCCM thank you , I’ve made my mind up over a week ago and decided for the R7, the R8 was tempting being a Full frame, but those megapixels and the recording in clog in the R7 just was too enticing
Hi Rob, a very helpful video as I'm thinking of upgrading from the 7d mk2 to the R7 so this video has almost convinced me to make the jump.
I'm just concerned that a R7 won't work well with my canon 500mm F4 prime mk1, do you or anyone following this video have any experience of pairing these two or do I also have to upgrade my lens?
Thanks
I don’t have quite the same setup, but I shoot with R6iis on adapted EF glass, and I’ve never had any issues. Autofocus works great, and some lenses even seem to perform better than they did on my 6D or 80D.
One thing you might experience with your 500 mk1 though is reduced mechanical shutter burst speeds. If you google “Lenses Supporting Maximum High-Speed Continuous Shooting Speed”, you’ll find a table that lists out all the lenses that can get max burst speed.
If your lens isn’t on there, you might “only” be able to get 8-10fps (not sure the exact number) vs. 10-15fps. This is not an issue with mechanical shutter, though.
I had the 400/5.6 and I had no slowdown of any fps when using the canon adapter if that helps. You could rent for a day and see how it stacks up. Just add another lp e6nh as they drain faster.
I use my R7 with the EF 500mm Mkii via the basic Canon adapter and the combination works beautifully
Topaz & modern sensor = good clean pictures
I have the r7 and I love it for sports. I have the r8 as well but I prefer the r7.
what' the difference? why do you prefer the r7?
Thanks Rob for producing these informative videos. I have a quandary. I own two 1DX bodies and a 6D. I’m in no hurry to abort all of these classics but I’m looking at something lighter for travel. I shoot football abroad. I once owned a 7d mkIi but sold it as it didn’t meet my needs in low light. I shoot some football under poor flood lights or in domes (as it is Canada) . Price point is very important to me ( I’m frugal) and love my EF glass. I’m also a retiree on a fixed income. Is the R7 a serious choice if I sold one of my 1DX bodies. Thanks again.
I am impressed. I owned a 7D2 until I got on the R5 bandwagon, and I would prefer to shoot at lower ISOs. Preferably max out at 3200.
I wonder what the pictures would look like at ISO 12k8, 25k6, and 32k would look like with and without noise reduction. It would be interesting to see NR done in Topaz and Lightroom's AI noise reduction.
Unfortunately static iso test's only give a best case scenario, "movement" and or stopping action, will make a difference, and it never helps, nor is it ever consistent. Best to review actual action shots at the iso interested in as well as focal length and aperture used, all making huge differences, at least if high iso action or sports is the concern. If not, you may just be drastically fooled into expectations that won't materialize. Not vid bashing at all, just throwing out some seed, like the vid.
Anybody who has tried the R7 on concert photography yet? I’m planning to upgrade from my 800D just to still use my sigma cropped lenses