Considering Canon R7

I too found the 18mm kit lens a bit too narrow for my needs so like the OP, went to the same place and bought a 10-22 again like him finding the money exposure to be tiny. I haven't had extensive experience with it but I'm satisfied with the results using a no-name EF-RF adapter. I did experience an odd focus issue once. The focus square wouldn't move from its location using the joystick controller. I'm unclear if this is an issue with the adapter, the lens or me.

I was in the yard anyway so put the lens on and took a snap of my wife's 'bird tree' so show the OP what mine apparently does (at least for me). This is a fig that died. She cut it off at the ground level, moved it to near the house and hung some bird feeding devices from it. The plant life at its base are the seed droppings from the birds. The parched look of the land is due to it being parched. We're back in major drought conditions.

I did not intend on erasing the EXIF data but if it disappeared, this was taken at mid range or about 14mm.

Edit: I cannot u/l my image. I never get the little square the 'how to' refers to.

Did you use the instructions here? They work for me.

David

^^ Yes. Those are the ones I referred to as the 'how to'. I'll try again today.

Edit: AFAIK, I duplicated my steps but got a different result.

I own an R3, R5, and a R7 kit with the RF-S 18-150mm lens. I've used all extensively. The R7 with the 18-150mm has been a joy to use and the results far exceeded my expectations. The kit lens is sharp as I use it primarily at f/5.6. The IBIS is as good as the R3 and R5. The auto focus performance is closer to the R3 and somewhat better than the R5. I've used the focus stacking and bracketing very successfully in dark automobile museums, railroad museums, airplane museums, for flowers, and food. All handheld. The focus stacking in camera is valuable to verify the sharpness of the stack.

My experience adapting an EF-S 10-18mm was not as successful. The kit 18-150mm simply provided noticeably better results. Wait for the RF-S UWA. The RF 100-400mm worked outstandingly well.

The IQ is much better than expected and comes very close to the FF brethern. The R3 and R5 provide somewhat better shadow and highlight recovery as expected.

I am very pleased with the R7 and RF-S 18-150mm. Easy to carry and use all day. All in all, I believe it may represent the best value in photography today.

There you go! Perfect! Looks like my yard when I lived near Houston.

David

I have the R7 and R5 with 11 RF & a various14 EF lenses. I use the R7 with adapted: EF-S 10-28mm, & Sigma 18-50f8 along with the RF-S 18-150 & RF100-400 when there is an all day carry or small birds. My configuration of R5 is bigger and heavier with grip for indoor or low light event shooting and for long heavy lenses. The big grip of the R5 is nice for controlling long heavy lenses. The R7 is a great camera and way beyond my expectations with the RF-S 18-50 and RF-100-400. It is better than the R5 for macro I think. I use it the most these days. I think the R7 is a very good choice in an ATS-C camera.

On my R5, they joystick is triple-disabled by default.

1) C.Fn3 Menu, Item 3: “Customize Buttons”: You must scroll to the last item, “Multi-Controllers” and Enable “Direct AF Point Selection”

2) AF5 Menu (AF Menu, Tab 5): Select “Initial Servo Point for :-)[] “and set it to NOT Auto. Either of the other two modes.

3) Use an AF Mode which is not a Tracking (Smiley Face) mode.

Now it works!!!

I have re-enabled BBF and the joystick still works. It works with the AF-ON button, which I have configured to Face Detect, and it works for the * button, which is center point AF without Face Detect.

BUT, it only works with Servo AF. In fact, if I configure the * Button to enable Servo AF, the joystick still won’t work if the camera was in One Shot.

I agree with the recommendation of DXO PhotoLab. Canon R cameras and RF (even some EF) lenses definitely benefit from the corrections to the raw files that can be done in software. I have been using PhotoLab for a couple of years and find it much more friendly to me than Photoshop, which I have had for many years. DXO offer a free 30 day trial and have reduced their prices considerably on recent Black Fridays.

David

I don't know about that. The R5 has damaged deep shadows in low ISOs from raw cooking, which the R7 doesn't have. At the pixel level, and image level, the R3 and R5 have less shadow noise than the R7, but that is just arbitrary scaling. If you use crop mode on the FF cameras and normalize the resulting image sizes, the R7 has less read noise than the R3 or R5 with the same exposure. If you use a 1.4x on the R5 to get the pixels-on-subject the same as the R7 without a TC, at double the ISO, the pixel level noise is higher on the R5.

As always, it comes down to a larger sensor only giving less noise with the same exposure when you actually use a larger sensor area, by using a longer lens with a larger entrance pupil, or by getting closer to the subject.

FF vs smaller sensors (or Medium Format vs FF) regarding noise is always undefined until a specific context is mentioned. A zoom lens is a good example that covers most of the bases; if your zoom is "too short" for your subject matter, and you are focal-length-limited, then the R7 IQ trumps all Canon FF sensors. If you need to zoom out, however, for both formats, then the smaller sensor will force you to zoom the zoom mechanism out farther with the smaller sensor which will yield a smaller entrance pupil, which means more subject- and image-level diffraction, less DOF, and less photons per millisecond.

Yes EF and EF-S mount lenses with adapter work better than on EF camera.

You generally don't use the same high ISO setting to take the same shot on APS-C and FF, so I don't know why people like to compare the same ISO with different sensor sizes or pixel counts. The bottom line to noise is going to be lens pupil size and distance from subject; not sensor size or pixel size. The R7 is just as clean at high ISOs as the R6 if you get the same total subject light. The are virtually twins, as far as visible read noise per unit of sensor area is concerned, Canons two best sensors for low visible read noise per unit of area.

If you need pixels-on-subject and are focal-length-limited, then there is no noise advantage to the R6, and it will put about 1/4 as many pixels on-subject. If you have a zoom, though, and would need to use 250mm on the R7 and 400mm on the R6, then, you will have a larger maximum pupil with the R6, and will get less noise.

I found the location awkward at first, but once I got used to it, I preferred it. I just wish that the R7 had a mode-dial/button like the R5; having to use the set button for EC on the R7 is not my idea of fun.

At the pixel level and at the same ISO, but that may not be applicable to some real-world use and decisions. In the cases where the R3 and R5 are getting shallower DOF, then less noise automatically comes with that, but if you are getting the same subject DOF (equivalence or focal-length-limited), then Canon has no FF sensor with less noise than the R7. The R6 is about the same in those cases, then the R6-II and R8, and then the R3 slightly behind them, and the R5 a tad behind them. I own both the R5 and R7, and the R5 in crop mode can't compare to the R7 at high ISOs, even in the shadows The R7 has a smaller sheet of a better virtual "film emulsion".

Yes, generally speaking, except for when you have a large open pupil, and a close, narrow subject when you're previously focused on the background, in which case these mirrorless cameras can get pretty dumb when you need AF. If the foreground subject is so OOF that you can see through it, the camera often won't see it at all. Canon doesn't seem to be in any rush to give us tools assignable to camera controls that can nudge the focus distance quickly. Just a button that made focus move towards the minimum focus distance when you pressed it would be very useful. Some lenses don't even have full-time manual override, and some that do have it are geared too slow to be practical in such situations. It takes about 4 big turns sometimes with the EF400/4DO II to get the focus close; a lot of jostling.