LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,769
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Are you an owl? A cat perhaps?
Canon EOS R Series Cameras
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,769
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I could think of 899 better ways to spend £899. Honest advice
Quick one. I tend to use Fv Mode quite a lot now, flexibility mainly, so i dont have to keep changing modes. Not sure its FV specific but I am slightly confused about Canon's metering... on my 85 1.4 i tend to shoot at the smaller F numbers but my camera seems to meter for the lowest ISO possible, so I'll be focusing on getting the shot on an effective AV with auto ISO and Auto shutter but my camera seems to think i want to shoot at ISO-100 1/100s and F1.4.... I've missed so many shots since I got it because of this... Its at a point where I have to compensate for it and make sure I concider it and set my shutter manually, not a problem when I remember but when i forget... had it a few more times at the weekend.
Any suggestions on why and how to avoid? (other than the obvious shoot manual, move off auto ISO etc...) just seems a bit wierd as to why it does this?
Any suggestions on why and how to avoid? (other than the obvious shoot manual, move off auto ISO etc...) just seems a bit wierd as to why it does this?
Dale.
Bo Derek
- Messages
- 13,980
- Name
- Dale.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 542
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Give the free Canon test drive a go Canon test drive, its pretty much the only all in one travel zoom available at the moment.
- Messages
- 26,386
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
If I’ve understood your question correctly (I don’t know what fv mode is).
You can set a minimum shutter speed for auto iso. That way you never get inappropriate shutter speeds. Mines set at 1/250. And if I need higher than that I choose TV and select my shutter speed (usually for sports)
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,769
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Right now car maintenance, new tyres, more shoes (never enough), travel, etcOk.
How would you spend £899?
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,769
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Dale.
Bo Derek
- Messages
- 13,980
- Name
- Dale.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think a lot depends on what you are shooting. I find it very useful for bird photography; I set the max aperture and desired shutter speed letting the iso float with auto iso. It allows you to quickly use the exposure compensation with one wheel adjustment for black / white birds
me too @taxboy - but when I am doing candid racing stuff, and one minute I want to poke the camera into a car and the next I want to be shooting backlit into the sun as a car comes into the pits or something i want the camera to control the speed to avoid under exposure or hitting ISO 12500 etc, or blowing the hilights at the other extreme and that can happen, if I say sat a shutter speed of 1/500 - even that a median value. Its just that when I let the camera choose the shutter it inadvertantly picks 1/100 or 1/125 which for people moving, celebrating, changing wheels etc is just not fast enough, and not needed if its metering for ISO-100......
Last edited:
I think you are expecting too much from the camera as effectively you are asking it to think about how you want to photograph a subject. I'd imagine the algorithm leans towards giving a low iso without dropping the shutter speed too low.
As you've stated 1/100 isn't fast enough for your needs but the camera can't know that - that's your creative choice. I'd suggest leaving the shutter speed control being the live control in Fv so you can quickly spin the wheel to take control of the camera doesn't give what you want
In my defence it all does happen very quickly!
Maybe I've just become too used to it coping with situations, not being used to having F1.4 though, as my old 50mm 1.4 just wasn't quick enough focusing to use in these situations. So, I'd always be controlling the shutter on an F2.8 lens as the F stop was the limiting factor. 9/10 the camera would leave it at 2.8, maybe 3.2 or 4 - which i guess is what its doing here with the shutter...
Just learning that something with a lot more light requires different technique maybe - I just thought there must be a setting somewhere that would limit how low it would go or whether other people had experienced similar behaviour - Custom settings is a good idea.
Maybe I've just become too used to it coping with situations, not being used to having F1.4 though, as my old 50mm 1.4 just wasn't quick enough focusing to use in these situations. So, I'd always be controlling the shutter on an F2.8 lens as the F stop was the limiting factor. 9/10 the camera would leave it at 2.8, maybe 3.2 or 4 - which i guess is what its doing here with the shutter...
Just learning that something with a lot more light requires different technique maybe - I just thought there must be a setting somewhere that would limit how low it would go or whether other people had experienced similar behaviour - Custom settings is a good idea.
I've been looking for a camera (mostly for wildlife/birds) and decided on the EOS R7 and Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM which seem to tick all the boxes, dedicated bird-in-flight recognition, ok in low light and just about fits into the budget.
Question is if I go with the above lens and body, should I just get the body, or the body with the RF-S 18-150mm STM Lens? Body only is £799 at Cotswold, plus lens is £1,039 currently. I would also take landscape shots I think when walking in the Lakes and Yorkshire Dales.
Question is if I go with the above lens and body, should I just get the body, or the body with the RF-S 18-150mm STM Lens? Body only is £799 at Cotswold, plus lens is £1,039 currently. I would also take landscape shots I think when walking in the Lakes and Yorkshire Dales.
- Messages
- 2,322
- Name
- Jason
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Only you can answer the question if the bundled lens is worth £240 to you.
- Messages
- 3,273
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Canon folks - can you help me please with any thoughts on the following:
I'm a long time user of Sony's RX10iv which I very largely use for casual wildlife shooting (mainly birds) - I was pondering replacing it with an R10 and 100-400. Relevant factors I can think of:
1. Size and weight should be similar (I cannot be bothered lugging something big and heavy around)
2. Both lenses are sharp at the long end
3. The RX10iv does F4 at 600mm equivalent but the R10 should be far better at high iso so a draw I think in terms of low light (neither are great I know)
4. Slightly more reach for the Canon (640eqv vs 600eqv)
5. More pixels on the Canon for cropping (20mp on the Sony's 1 inch sensor vs 24mp on the apsc Canon)
6. Neither are going to win a smooth bokeh competition so not a deal breaker
7. The focusing is probably better on the Canon I would guess?
8. Big plus is that the 100-400 can do a decent macro which I also enjoy and the Sony is not great at (potentially with a Raynox)
9. The minus is the loss of the wide end but I rarely use it on the RX10iv and would probably pick up a 10-18
10. The Sony has been great but it's getting long in the tooth and with no replacement in sight I'm probably going to have to change at some point
I've got also an Olympus OM1 with a wide angle and a macro lens so it feels like there's an opportunity for some rationalisation there and I could get down to one body and two lenses...
Any thoughts/views would be welcome
I'm a long time user of Sony's RX10iv which I very largely use for casual wildlife shooting (mainly birds) - I was pondering replacing it with an R10 and 100-400. Relevant factors I can think of:
1. Size and weight should be similar (I cannot be bothered lugging something big and heavy around)
2. Both lenses are sharp at the long end
3. The RX10iv does F4 at 600mm equivalent but the R10 should be far better at high iso so a draw I think in terms of low light (neither are great I know)
4. Slightly more reach for the Canon (640eqv vs 600eqv)
5. More pixels on the Canon for cropping (20mp on the Sony's 1 inch sensor vs 24mp on the apsc Canon)
6. Neither are going to win a smooth bokeh competition so not a deal breaker
7. The focusing is probably better on the Canon I would guess?
8. Big plus is that the 100-400 can do a decent macro which I also enjoy and the Sony is not great at (potentially with a Raynox)
9. The minus is the loss of the wide end but I rarely use it on the RX10iv and would probably pick up a 10-18
10. The Sony has been great but it's getting long in the tooth and with no replacement in sight I'm probably going to have to change at some point
I've got also an Olympus OM1 with a wide angle and a macro lens so it feels like there's an opportunity for some rationalisation there and I could get down to one body and two lenses...
Any thoughts/views would be welcome
- Messages
- 11,223
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have you had a chance to play with your copy of the 45 much Phil?
I pulled the trigger at the beginning of the month and I've had the opportunity to use it in anger a couple of times now, specifically shooting people.
It certainly seems sharp enough where I want it to be and I've used it at a fair range of apertures to see how it behaves.
- Messages
- 11,223
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is an example from about a week ago on the cloudy streets of London.
It seems to work okay as far as I can tell, especially for people shots.
Laurita Gruodytė-Žilė - Pierre Garroudi Fashion Mob - The City / Bank by Tim White, on Flickr
I'm a new owner of the R7 and Canon 100-400, so on a steep learning curve!
I took some shots yesterday which I am pleased with but on closer inspection, the cormorant and whitethroat shots aren't as sharp as I would have hoped for, whereas the duck one seems much sharper?
Is this because the birds were so far away and I was at "full zoom" but still having to crop a lot or is it my technique or some settings I can change? I'm using the recommended settings from the Jan Wegener youtube video. I've uploaded 2 screenshots from DPP4 to show the focus area, and then the crops I've settled on post processing in ON1 Photo Raw 2026 then the sharper duck pic.
I took some shots yesterday which I am pleased with but on closer inspection, the cormorant and whitethroat shots aren't as sharp as I would have hoped for, whereas the duck one seems much sharper?
Is this because the birds were so far away and I was at "full zoom" but still having to crop a lot or is it my technique or some settings I can change? I'm using the recommended settings from the Jan Wegener youtube video. I've uploaded 2 screenshots from DPP4 to show the focus area, and then the crops I've settled on post processing in ON1 Photo Raw 2026 then the sharper duck pic.
Attachments
I think you have identified the issue; they are both quite large crops. Additionally in this recent hot spell heat haze can reduce sharpness
Canon R7 and FR 100mm macro lens
This combination worked fine this was in flight
5T2A3059-CR3_DxO_DeepPRIME -1Hoverflyv3 by davholla2002, on Flickr
But now focusing is really hard - stationary photos are harder than the above- I haven't changed anything - or rather hadn't - I have now to fix it without success.
The limiter on the side is not the problem because I changed it
Any ideas?
This combination worked fine this was in flight
5T2A3059-CR3_DxO_DeepPRIME -1Hoverflyv3 by davholla2002, on FlickrBut now focusing is really hard - stationary photos are harder than the above- I haven't changed anything - or rather hadn't - I have now to fix it without success.
The limiter on the side is not the problem because I changed it
Any ideas?
Curious as to what settings people use (when shooting cRAW) for these options (taken from my R7 and recommendations from AI)
It provided a bit more info:
Even though the RAW data itself remains untouched, the R7's processor still works overtime if DLO is turned on:
It provided a bit more info:
Even though the RAW data itself remains untouched, the R7's processor still works overtime if DLO is turned on:
- The Buffer Hit: The camera will still try to calculate and apply the DLO corrections to generate the embedded JPEG preview that sits inside your CRAW file.
- The Result: Even when shooting CRAW, keeping DLO on will still slow down your burst rate and delay your buffer clearing.
- To show you a corrected image on your R7's LCD screen or electronic viewfinder, the camera has to process this warp in real-time for the embedded JPEG preview.
- When you are firing off a fast burst of CRAW files at a bird, this extra processing step actively slows down how fast the camera can clear the buffer to your memory card.
Last edited:
Dale.
Bo Derek
- Messages
- 13,980
- Name
- Dale.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Incoming 'what do I get?' post.
Toyed a few weeks ago with the RF 200-800. I was going to trade in my Sigma 150-600 against one as I think it would play better on my R7 and R5ii. I've reconsidered though and I'm now considering the 100-500, possibly with the 1.4xtc.
The problem I have though (and a nice one to have to be fair) is that I already have the EF 100-400mkii and the 1.4xTCiii, which gives me similar figures to what the 100-500 would.
I'm wondering if the 100-500 would be better on an RF sensor than the EF is? I noticed this last 2 weeks that I have been struggling, albeit in quite a low light situation, to get clean images, especially for some reason with the R5.
Probably operator error.
I've been doing some fair crops too but nothing too hefty. I'm thinking the 100-500 might resolve the R5ii's sensor better than the EF 100-400ii, or am I talking rubbish?
So I should drop the cash on the 100-500 or stick with what I have, for now anyway?
ta.
Toyed a few weeks ago with the RF 200-800. I was going to trade in my Sigma 150-600 against one as I think it would play better on my R7 and R5ii. I've reconsidered though and I'm now considering the 100-500, possibly with the 1.4xtc.
The problem I have though (and a nice one to have to be fair) is that I already have the EF 100-400mkii and the 1.4xTCiii, which gives me similar figures to what the 100-500 would.
I'm wondering if the 100-500 would be better on an RF sensor than the EF is? I noticed this last 2 weeks that I have been struggling, albeit in quite a low light situation, to get clean images, especially for some reason with the R5.
Probably operator error.
I've been doing some fair crops too but nothing too hefty. I'm thinking the 100-500 might resolve the R5ii's sensor better than the EF 100-400ii, or am I talking rubbish?
So I should drop the cash on the 100-500 or stick with what I have, for now anyway?
ta.
@Dale. Why not test drive both? https://testdrive.trythekit.com/
- Messages
- 1,668
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
I have the Sigma 150-600 and have recently added an EF 100-400 ii with 1.4 iii extender. I have a R7 and a R6 so the resolution of the latter does not match your R5 ii. I have tried the RF 200-800 and the RF 100-500 through the Test Drive scheme. The former was impressive but needs good light. The latter I found to be better quality than the 200-800 but I couldn’t justify the extra cost over the EF lens. The EF 100-400 ii with 1.4 iii extender is very good.Incoming 'what do I get?' post.
Toyed a few weeks ago with the RF 200-800. I was going to trade in my Sigma 150-600 against one as I think it would play better on my R7 and R5ii. I've reconsidered though and I'm now considering the 100-500, possibly with the 1.4xtc.
The problem I have though (and a nice one to have to be fair) is that I already have the EF 100-400mkii and the 1.4xTCiii, which gives me similar figures to what the 100-500 would.
I'm wondering if the 100-500 would be better on an RF sensor than the EF is? I noticed this last 2 weeks that I have been struggling, albeit in quite a low light situation, to get clean images, especially for some reason with the R5.
Probably operator error.
I've been doing some fair crops too but nothing too hefty. I'm thinking the 100-500 might resolve the R5ii's sensor better than the EF 100-400ii, or am I talking rubbish?
So I should drop the cash on the 100-500 or stick with what I have, for now anyway?
ta.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,556
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I had a 200-800 for a bit. And at the same time the 100-500. 100-500 is far better I found, and even with the 2x converter which I use frequently with it, is very sharp and I’d say - better than the 200-800. I use it on an R8Incoming 'what do I get?' post.
Toyed a few weeks ago with the RF 200-800. I was going to trade in my Sigma 150-600 against one as I think it would play better on my R7 and R5ii. I've reconsidered though and I'm now considering the 100-500, possibly with the 1.4xtc.
The problem I have though (and a nice one to have to be fair) is that I already have the EF 100-400mkii and the 1.4xTCiii, which gives me similar figures to what the 100-500 would.
I'm wondering if the 100-500 would be better on an RF sensor than the EF is? I noticed this last 2 weeks that I have been struggling, albeit in quite a low light situation, to get clean images, especially for some reason with the R5.
Probably operator error.
I've been doing some fair crops too but nothing too hefty. I'm thinking the 100-500 might resolve the R5ii's sensor better than the EF 100-400ii, or am I talking rubbish?
So I should drop the cash on the 100-500 or stick with what I have, for now anyway?
ta.
- Messages
- 1,992
- Name
- David Williams
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you are getting the expected results, I am constantly amazed how good the images are from the R7 even when making big crops. BUT the best thing you can do is get as close as possible to your subject, easier said then done of course.
I have a R7 and a 200-800 and while its an amazing combination it is obvious that the 200-800 is not an "L" lens, but if it was it would be 5* the price.
I have just acquired an R6mk3 and am looking forward to comparing the images from the R7 and a comparable crop from the R6
I think the pixel density and high ISO performance of the R7 crop sensor are not helping the image quality from the 200-800 in less than ideal conditions.
I have also noticed that although the autofocus is pretty amazing I will often see the odd "not quite sharp" image in a sequence of much sharper shots, if you are at 800mm the depth of field is pretty much wafer thin even at quite a long shooting distances
I will report back in due course
D
Dale.
Bo Derek
- Messages
- 13,980
- Name
- Dale.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I may look into that but I have had a rethink ... see below.
Totally agree, the 100-400 is a beautiful piece of glass, even on the RF bodies with the TC.
I had a 200-800 for a bit. And at the same time the 100-500. 100-500 is far better I found, and even with the 2x converter which I use frequently with it, is very sharp and I’d say - better than the 200-800. I use it on an R8
I think I'd probably go for the 100-500 over the 200-800. Not bashing the 200-800 mind you, I know it's a very decent lens.
I think the sensible pill has dropped, I'm going to hold out as I think any gains the 100-500 might have over my current combination would be negligible.
There's a rumoured 500 f5.6, so we'll see.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,769
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
some RF lenses have the highest possible distortion LOL
depends on a case by case, and only for what you see in the viewfinder or in camera JPEGs which you should avoid.
Action and fast burst rate suffers with many of these on at least with the older RF cameras. The viewfinder becomes almost unusable, not that it is great to begin with.