Scheduled to try out the R7 at Canon Experience Store next week- any questions you want to ask before I do?

[neuroanatomist]

Unfortunately not, does it help in reducing the perceived difference between EVF and OVF?

I think so. It’s a sort of natural-looking HDR mode, strong for HDR but doesn’t look HDResque.

The one caveat is that you have to choose between OVF Simulation and Display Simulation (@Lee Jay, that’s why). The latter can be set to a useful combination of DoF preview and exposure simulation. Unlike an OVF that darkens substantially when you press the DoF preview button at a narrow aperture, if you’ve got something else set to auto (Tv or ISO), you can see the actual DoF at full brightness, which makes DoF preview much more useful. Personally, I usually use Display Simulation and not OVF simulation.

 

[EricN]

the EVF, it's not terrible, but it's not great either.

3.6 roentgen, not great, not terrible​

 

[Lee Jay]

I think so. It’s a sort of natural-looking HDR mode, strong for HDR but doesn’t look HDResque.

The one caveat is that you have to choose between OVF Simulation and Display Simulation (@Lee Jay, that’s why). The latter can be set to a useful combination of DoF preview and exposure simulation. Unlike an OVF that darkens substantially when you press the DoF preview button at a narrow aperture, if you’ve got something else set to auto (Tv or ISO), you can see the actual DoF at full brightness, which makes DoF preview much more useful. Personally, I usually use Display Simulation and not OVF simulation.

Since I've never found DOF preview to be of any use, I can't really envision what display simulation means.

Does this mode help with lag and blurriness while panning that all EVS suffer from?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Since I've never found DOF preview to be of any use, I can't really envision what display simulation means.

The idea is that it shows you the relative DoF of your image by stopping down the lens to the selected aperture as you look through the VF, to give you a sense of whether you have sufficiently deep or shallow DoF, as you desire. Normally, MILCs like DSLRs default to the lens aperture being wide open, and only stopping down when you take the shot. I did not find DoF Preview useful on a DSLR (I reassigned the button on my 1D X, actually), mainly because the image became unusably dark unless the scene was sunlit.

The exposure simulation component simulates the final exposure of the image, for example with a DSLR if you're shooting very dark conditions with a high ISO, or commonly for me on a tripod with a 10x ND filter, looking through the OVF you see only black, or at least not enough to compose. On the DLSR's LCD you can use exposure simulation to see what the high ISO or long exposure would give in the final image, and it's possible to compose an image that way.

Display simulation does both at the same time – shows you the DoF and simulates the higher ISO or slower shutter you use to compensate for the narrower aperture, so you get the real DoF. Incidentally, and EVF works the other way, too – for an OVF, the stock focusing screen doesn't show you any wider than ~f/2.8 (thus the Eg-S screen to show the wide-open DoF of fast primes); an EVF shows you the shallower DoF with a fast lens that you don't see with an OVF unless you replace the stock focusing screen.

Does this mode help with lag and blurriness while panning that all EVS suffer from?

No, but the faster refresh rate of the EVF in the R3 certainly does.

 

[Lee Jay]

I know what DOF preview does, and have since I bought my AE-1 in 1979. But I've never found it of any use partly because I rarely stop-down and partly because DOF can't be determined at capture time - it changes with how the final image is viewed. The only heavy ND filter (more than 4 stops) I've ever used is for solar eclipse images, so I don't care about that either.

I looked up the R3. None are locally available so I can't try one and I'd never own a camera of the 1D format. I rarely need a portrait grip and I'm not capable of shooting with a 1D because my hands are too small to reach the shutter release (the grip is large and my hands are small). But every single time someone tells me some new EVF is better, when I've tried it I've found no change. This goes all the way back to the A55. The most recent was the R6, which is no better than any of the rest. I've heard people sing the praises of the A7r and I had to use one Tuesday in a simple situation (snapshots of stationary people) and I found it nearly unusable because shadows on the face made it impossible to see when eyes were open or closed.

I take it the R7 is the same from the discussion above.

I'm half resigned to keeping my 7Dii until it dies and then quitting the hobby. If it were possible, someone would have made a usable EVF by now and I'm less than convinced there will be enough ILC business worldwide to justify the investment needed to produce any advancements going forward.

Maybe someday.

 

[Del Paso]

I think so. It’s a sort of natural-looking HDR mode, strong for HDR but doesn’t look HDResque.

The one caveat is that you have to choose between OVF Simulation and Display Simulation (@Lee Jay, that’s why). The latter can be set to a useful combination of DoF preview and exposure simulation. Unlike an OVF that darkens substantially when you press the DoF preview button at a narrow aperture, if you’ve got something else set to auto (Tv or ISO), you can see the actual DoF at full brightness, which makes DoF preview much more useful. Personally, I usually use Display Simulation and not OVF simulation.

Thanks for the answer, I'll test both settings!

 

[AlanF]

I'm half resigned to keeping my 7Dii until it dies and then quitting the hobby. If it were possible, someone would have made a usable EVF by now and I'm less than convinced there will be enough ILC business worldwide to justify the investment needed to produce any advancements going forward.

Maybe someday.

A parallel with evolution - species that can't adapt die out.

 

[Aussie shooter]

I got a chance to handle the R7 today for a few minutes. Admittedly, I like how it feels in hand, but of course this is going to be user dependent.

Regarding the requested information:

• ergonomics (the new dial, comparison with R5 feel, lens balance) It is only a little smaller than the R5, and a little bigger than the M50 (both of which I brought along to compare). Pretty much the perfect in-between size. The new quick control dial/multi-controller isn't bad, but it will take some getting used to. While it is convenient to reach with your thumb, it was a little awkward to use when my eye was against the viewfinder. Also, the multi-controller is almost flush with the dial, so it was sometimes a little difficult to manipulate. But really, I mostly like it and think I will quickly get used to it.
  
  
• EVF quality (resolution, how it handles indoor vs. outdoor lighting) I found the resolution of the EVF noticeably lower than the R5 that I had in my other hand for direct comparison. I generally prefer using the back LCD for my shooting style; for anyone who relies on the EVF, it's not terrible, but it's not great either. As the camera was literally tethered to the display table, there was no way to take it into an outdoor setting to get a sense of how it performed in bright daylight.
  
  
• touch AF control Yes, I was able to enable this in the menu and use my thumb to select and move the Autofocus point using the screen, even with my eye against the viewfinder (like the R and R5). The autofocus seemed on par with the R5 (quick, responsive, sticky), although the Canon rep noted that the R5 is still faster.
• RAW & JPEG file size The RAW files were about 44 Mb and the JPEGs were about 7Mb
  
  
• customize D-pad to control ISO No, the D-pad could only be customized as 4 separate buttons; you could customize them all to access the ISO setting, but you still needed to use the main dial to actually change it. On the bright-side, I might finally have a use for the control ring.
  
  
• evidence of weatherproofing (douse with water from PET bottle ; subsequently get kicked out of center) No additional information
  
  
• battery grip possibility* (I know there is no answer that they would give beyond what has already been stated; highly unlikely) No additional information

Cheers. Looks like it definitely is not for me then. I have gotten to used to having three dials to quickly change settings in the fast paced arena of wildlife photography.

 

[unfocused]

I got a chance to handle the R7 today for a few minutes. Admittedly, I like how it feels in hand, but of course this is going to be user dependent.

Regarding the requested information:

• ergonomics (the new dial, comparison with R5 feel, lens balance) It is only a little smaller than the R5, and a little bigger than the M50 (both of which I brought along to compare). Pretty much the perfect in-between size. The new quick control dial/multi-controller isn't bad, but it will take some getting used to. While it is convenient to reach with your thumb, it was a little awkward to use when my eye was against the viewfinder. Also, the multi-controller is almost flush with the dial, so it was sometimes a little difficult to manipulate. But really, I mostly like it and think I will quickly get used to it.
  
  
• EVF quality (resolution, how it handles indoor vs. outdoor lighting) I found the resolution of the EVF noticeably lower than the R5 that I had in my other hand for direct comparison. I generally prefer using the back LCD for my shooting style; for anyone who relies on the EVF, it's not terrible, but it's not great either. As the camera was literally tethered to the display table, there was no way to take it into an outdoor setting to get a sense of how it performed in bright daylight.
  
  
• touch AF control Yes, I was able to enable this in the menu and use my thumb to select and move the Autofocus point using the screen, even with my eye against the viewfinder (like the R and R5). The autofocus seemed on par with the R5 (quick, responsive, sticky), although the Canon rep noted that the R5 is still faster.
• RAW & JPEG file size The RAW files were about 44 Mb and the JPEGs were about 7Mb
  
  
• customize D-pad to control ISO No, the D-pad could only be customized as 4 separate buttons; you could customize them all to access the ISO setting, but you still needed to use the main dial to actually change it. On the bright-side, I might finally have a use for the control ring.
  
  
• evidence of weatherproofing (douse with water from PET bottle ; subsequently get kicked out of center) No additional information
  
  
• battery grip possibility* (I know there is no answer that they would give beyond what has already been stated; highly unlikely) No additional information

Thanks for filling us in. Much appreciated.

 

[Lee Jay]

A parallel with evolution - species that can't adapt die out.

I won't adapt myself to the equipment I purchase. It has to serve my needs, not the other way around.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I won't adapt myself to the equipment I purchase. It has to serve my needs, not the other way around.

And if there comes a time when none of the equipment available to purchase meets your needs, and your current equipment has failed?

 

[Lee Jay]

And if there comes a time when none of the equipment available to purchase meets your needs, and your current equipment has failed?

Then it will be no longer possible to do this activity with new equipment. So, I'll have to find used equipment, repair my own equipment, or not do the activity.

 

[vjlex]

I'm a little surprised that the R7 RAW file sizes are as big as they are for a 32.5 megapixel sensor. I thought they would be closer to the megapixelage of the 5D4: 33-35 Mb. Even the R5 files are just 45-50-ish Mb, aren't they? Any ideas why they would be the same size RAW even though the sensor is much smaller?

 

[koenkooi]

I'm a little surprised that the R7 RAW file sizes are as big as they are for a 32.5 megapixel sensor. I thought they would be closer to the megapixelage of the 5D4: 33-35 Mb. Even the R5 files are just 45-50-ish Mb, aren't they? Any ideas why they would be the same size RAW even though the sensor is much smaller?

The CR3 files of my M6II top out at 49MiB, which was an ISO6400 shot.

 

[vjlex]

The CR3 files of my M6II top out at 49MiB, which was an ISO6400 shot.

Ah, I guess the 44 Mb makes sense then. I just checked some of my R5 files. They range from about 45-70 Mb.

 

[koenkooi]

Ah, I guess the 44 Mb makes sense then. I just checked some of my R5 files. They range from about 45-70 Mb.

For high FPS shots I tend to use CRAW anyway, which cuts the size in half.

 

[AlanF]

For high FPS shots I tend to use CRAW anyway, which cuts the size in half.

I use C-RAW for everything. Do you find it worse in any way?

 

[koenkooi]

I use C-RAW for everything. Do you find it worse in any way?

I haven't been able to spot a visual difference, but DPP4 will refuse to run DLO on CRAWs. That is becoming less and less of an issue, LR and DXO PL are close or better in most situations nowadays.
I do wish I could find a way to get the LR 'texture' slider equivalent in DXO PL, deepprime seems to soften hairs on insects a lot more than DPP/LR/Topaz.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm a little surprised that the R7 RAW file sizes are as big as they are for a 32.5 megapixel sensor. I thought they would be closer to the megapixelage of the 5D4: 33-35 Mb. Even the R5 files are just 45-50-ish Mb, aren't they? Any ideas why they would be the same size RAW even though the sensor is much smaller?

At what ISO were you shooting? Av? Tv? How much "variety of detail" was in the scene. Even raw .cr2 and .cr3 files use lossless compression, so the size can vary based on the scene and total light entering the camera. Less light (typically shot at higher ISOs) is noisier, and noise tends to be more random and therefore doesn't compress as well because there is more variation from pixel to pixel.

 

[Michael Clark]

I got a chance to handle the R7 today for a few minutes. Admittedly, I like how it feels in hand, but of course this is going to be user dependent.

Regarding the requested information:

• ergonomics (the new dial, comparison with R5 feel, lens balance) It is only a little smaller than the R5, and a little bigger than the M50 (both of which I brought along to compare). Pretty much the perfect in-between size. The new quick control dial/multi-controller isn't bad, but it will take some getting used to. While it is convenient to reach with your thumb, it was a little awkward to use when my eye was against the viewfinder. Also, the multi-controller is almost flush with the dial, so it was sometimes a little difficult to manipulate. But really, I mostly like it and think I will quickly get used to it.
  
  
• EVF quality (resolution, how it handles indoor vs. outdoor lighting) I found the resolution of the EVF noticeably lower than the R5 that I had in my other hand for direct comparison. I generally prefer using the back LCD for my shooting style; for anyone who relies on the EVF, it's not terrible, but it's not great either. As the camera was literally tethered to the display table, there was no way to take it into an outdoor setting to get a sense of how it performed in bright daylight.
  
  
• touch AF control Yes, I was able to enable this in the menu and use my thumb to select and move the Autofocus point using the screen, even with my eye against the viewfinder (like the R and R5). The autofocus seemed on par with the R5 (quick, responsive, sticky), although the Canon rep noted that the R5 is still faster.
• RAW & JPEG file size The RAW files were about 44 Mb and the JPEGs were about 7Mb
  
  
• customize D-pad to control ISO No, the D-pad could only be customized as 4 separate buttons; you could customize them all to access the ISO setting, but you still needed to use the main dial to actually change it. On the bright-side, I might finally have a use for the control ring.
  
  
• evidence of weatherproofing (douse with water from PET bottle ; subsequently get kicked out of center) No additional information
  
  
• battery grip possibility* (I know there is no answer that they would give beyond what has already been stated; highly unlikely) No additional information

Thanks for the report! That disappearing ink you wrote it in, though....

I had to change to dark mode to even see it.