Mirrorless Cameras (MILC) and Lenses

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
I'm getting an R7 in next week. I hope it does better than the 90D on the 500/4 IS II with a 1.4x III and RF-EF adapter.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,788
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
If you're using it on a tripod, aren't you supposed to disable the lens IBIS anyway?

I had special access to a pre season NBA game this weekend but "special access" meant a VIP suite behind one of the baskets rather than court side. I had a 70 - 200 but nothing longer. 3x zoom didn't really cut it. I didn't realize how big basketball arenas are.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
No tripod for this trip, just bags. I do put a 600/4 with TC on a tripod with true gimbal head.
Canon lens IS and camera IS are not separately controllable. If the lens has IS and it is off, the camera IS is also off. If the lens IS is on then the camera IS is also on.

In general, there is a whole mess of FUD on the interwebs about IS and tripods, etc. It just boggles how people regurgitate nonsense like a lens sensing a tripod. You should really test your own gear under simulated usage conditions and determine the amplitude/velocity envelope over which the lens/body and system IS will operate reliably. I've used about two dozen Canon L lenses with IS and thoughts are as follows.

I often don't turn off IS on longer lenses with 3-mode IS. (300/2.8, 200-400/4, 500/4, 600/4, 400/4). Mode 3 is fine all the time with RF lenses, though can result is reduced AF if the image is quite shaky pre-exposure. It doesn't work well with EF IS lenses on RF bodies and IS also keeps running. I turn off the IS for 24-70 or 24-105 good tripod mounted lenses of all kinds. The 100-500 works great with IS even at lower shutter speeds for landscapes, whereas the 100-400 II is less consistent. 70-200 lenses are in between short and long and you will have to decide based on tripod stability, lens model, and environment. IS tends to be more usable on flimsy tripods if there is constant movement, but can wig out when still. I have not tried the 70-200/2.8 RF, but suspect that the newer IS technology it contains will work better on a tripod than any other Canon 70-200.

I suspect the pros use short lenses like 16-35 or 24-70 around the basket and then somebody else shoots the midcourt and other end. A 70-200/4 and 180-400/4 or 200-400/4 probably cover quite a bit. Nikon also has a 120-300/2.8 that is a great sports lens.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,788
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
My roommate got her iPhone 14 Pro today. Still no sign of my R7 though. I'm contemplating the extra $400 to buy one with the 18 - 150, which is a lens I'd probably at least use if I had it.

Apparently the latest wave of Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom updates that are hitting in the next couple days are adding crap tons of new AI masking capabilities, like being able to specifically mask hair, lips, people or "background." At this point I'm really wondering if any other applications are ever going to reach parity with that, because things like hair flyaways are the bane of my life in photo editing.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
I captured less than 10K with the R7, but it worked quite well in EFCS at 8FPS without shutter shock. I only have practical use for the cropper with a 500/4 or 600/4. The effective angle of view on the 500/4 IS II w/1.4x III is the same as 1130mm FF and 32.3 MP is quite good providing there is enough light. The sensor has the same noise issues as the 90D from what I can see, meaning about ISO 1600 max or 800 for more range. At any ISO R7 images are still not as processable as images from the FF sensors. The 18-150 doesn't have very good IQ for 32.3 MP. It might not matter for lower-res outputs. Maybe start saving for the RF 135/1.8 IS which should be up your alley.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,788
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
I have an EF 135/2 already, which is an amazing lens. I don't have as many opportunities to use it as I'd like given the limitations of my normal subject matter and likelihood that I'm shooting in a relatively small space. I got a "Launch Day" R6 that was actually delivered the day after I heard they were shipping. I ordered my R7 in the same way and I still don't know where that camera is.

Supposedly, we're going to see an R6ii in a few days, which will move up to a 24MP sensor that I can only assume will be the same one they put in the R3. I'll be interested to know if it has the same Smart Shoe and auto-level for video that the R7 does.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
I hope they keep the ergonomics of the R6 II more similar to the R6 or R5 than R7. The R7 is just stupidly designed, not good for the human hnads and not good for R5/R6 users. The power switch is right where the control dial is on the R5. The video is a third position on the On/Off switch so it is easy to accidentally engage the video mode. The traditional rear dial is concentric with the AF position toggle, but it is is so small that anyone with large thumbs will rotate it sometimes while changing the AF point. I don't know how it will function in winter. Full gloves will be impossible. Even using gloves with movable flaps to let out thumb/first digit and digits in a glove liner may be questionable. We'll see in December.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,788
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
As long as they don't bring that godawful touch bar from the R back, I can probably get used to almost anything else, although I definitely miss the top display on my old 5D.

On the R6, I do find that I have to be very deliberate in recording video, because the record button is too close to another button that's a similar size and shape. I wind up looking down at the camera to start a recording almost every time.

I move AF using the camera screen with my left thumb as a joystick if I'm using that instead of Eye AF, but I'm left handed, so that feels more natural than using the joystick in the first place. It's possible to get gloves that work with touchscreens. I use them with my phone probably four or five months out of the year, although that might not be ideal for someone who is used to working the joystick.

If I were to wish for a single feature to make its way back to the new Canons, I'd REALLY like to be able to shoot stills and video at the same time. I know I can framegrab something if I really want it, but that's not the same thing. Lately, I've been using my phone and a USB capture device to record video from the HDMI out on my phone, but my phone can only grab 4k30. This is kind of a time saver for some of the shooting I do, and models like being able to see what I'm doing since my phone also acts as a monitor in that circumstance.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
Unless you have 3 hands, I don't know what supports the lens and zooms, while the right thumb and right index finger control the camera.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,788
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
Unless you have 3 hands, I don't know what supports the lens and zooms, while the right thumb and right index finger control the camera.

Flip the screen. You can control focus and shoot by dragging and tapping your left thumb on the screen if you'd like. I'd love to see a left-handed camera. Having everything on the right is a real inconvenience IMO. Even with my heavy Sigma lenses, it's not a big deal to have my thumb wrapped around the back of my camera body.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
I'm right handed, but anyway I need to constantly zoom and that is a fair ways away from the body with the longer RF or adapted EF lenses.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
The R7 shipments are in most stores this week. I should have a couple in soon. Unfortunately there is no way to save the R7 custom settings since the camera is so cheap. It's a half hour project to configure every time. :(
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
Is that your first one? I'm struggling a bit with the gloves on my second R7. Even with the thumb/index finger flipped back and the glover liners I tend to rotate the control when using the AF toggle.

I'm trying to decide if it is feasible to get away with half-speed UHS-II cards or Tier 2 full-speed cards. The Tier 1 full-speed (half duplex) cards are rather pricey and I already have over 2TBs in high-grade CFe Type B cards. My 576GB of the fast UHS-II might last a week, depending on usage. Actually I am hoping not to need to use the R7 very much, but I know it will be tempting as the R5 runs out of reach. I am testing several other cars also.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
The R7s buffer really sucks once I use the higher framing rates. :( The designers really cheaped out by using the stupid SDXC cards instead of CFe. Otherwise they should have given it more RAM. ISO 1250 S/N is about the same as 3200 on the R5 though the image is 32MP rather than 45MP, so per image will still be somewhat worse. So many things about this camera are just a little out of whack. It seems OK to use, but then going back to the R5 the soft EVF, smaller rear display, and buffer are obnoxious. You have to work around all those limitations.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,788
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
I finally got my goddamned R7. It feels cheap compared to the RP I had and I don't like having the power control on the right-hand side. From just chasing my cats and roommates around the house with it, it definitely doesn't keep up for low light; ISO 6400 looks to be about as high as I can push it without the shot being too noisy, but it'll probably spend most of its time with my 70-200 or 15-30 (yes, 15-30 isn't great on a crop body, but what I have is an image stabilized lens with a quiet motor, which makes it handy for video work).
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
1600 is as high as I will go with an R7 (~4000 equivalent on R5), but I'm not getting paid. The R6 or R6 II will be much better in low light. The video reviews indicate that the R7's oversampled 4K is pretty good, but the line-skipping 4K modes kinda suck. The cropped 4K is really quite tele like 4/3. I'm curious how that video works for you.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,788
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
I'll say that I have enough faith in Topaz DeNoise to use 6400 ISO on the R7. We're having awful weather here. It might be a while before I do anything interesting with it.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
Well outdoors you should be able to use lower ISOs. I would be using the R6 at high ISOs. The more I use the R7, the less I like it.
Mathematically I need about 20 useful images before the Ground Hog's Day to meet break even.
 

Mercutio

Fatwah on Western Digital
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
20,788
Location
I am omnipresent
Website
s-laker.org
The R6 is the dark room with no control over lighting champion. I partway wonder if I should return it for an R6mk2 instead, but unfortunately, I won't get many opportunities to shoot outdoors in good light for several months unless I manage a couple weekend getaways to the south or west. I definitely like it a lot better than the RP. Of that I am certain.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
15,677
Location
USA
The 1st gen R bodies were not very good. I think they were rushed prematurely from marketing pressures and priced cheaply enough that the most severe of the limitations (AF and FPS) could be overlooked. Considering that your subjects are mainly humans or humanoid forms the R6 II seems a natural despite not containing a fast-scan sensor as the R3. I'm mildy intererested in the R6 II for a particular low light project.
 
Top