Yours might focus abominably slowly with the RF 100-500mm, mine doesn't.
Upvote
0
Is a Canon EOS R7 Mark II coming this year? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I don't have an R5, waiting on whenever Canon decides to bring out the new version. But I'm presuming it has to be faster on AF than the R7. If you look at Jan Wegener's vids on Youtube he probably has more time with the R7/R5 than most people out there and talks about the AF on the R7 being a bit iffy at times. I get more keepers on the R7 with the RF100-500mm than the Tamron once it actually acquires focus, but on moving subjects like birds it just doesn't have the snappy AF of my other cameras.
Upvote
0
The RF 100-500mm is faster on the R5 but is acceptably fast on the R7 and certainly not abominably slow. I've also used extensively the 5DIV with the EF 400mm f/4 DO II and EF 100-400mm II for birds in flight and know how fast they focus. I've even got good shots of fast flying birds like Puffins with then RF 100-400mm on the R7.
ps I far prefer full frame for BIF, as I have often written here, as the wider field of view makes it far easier to track fast birds. For BIF, I take my R5 because it is FF. The 5DIV is particularly fast for acquiring focus, but I find the R5 as good.
Upvote
0
Depending on the airline and airport, it's already happening especially internationally. I nearly missed a flight in Paris (CDG) because my carry-on was too heavy, and on an Icelander flight out of Orlando, I ended up putting several lenses into jacket pockets (not an eVEST) in order to make weight.
Upvote
0
I use the Sigma 150-600 C on my R5.
It misses a lot of shots compared to my Canon lenses or on my R3.
Upvote
0
I sold my very sharp copy of the 150-600 C as it focussed too slowly. Perhaps firmware updates have helped.
Upvote
0
I love my R7. I had the 7D for four years, and the 7DII for five years. Both excellent crop cameras for their day. The R7 far surpasses the 7DII in every sense that matters to me. The AF is amazingly good, just a bit behind my R6II, which is even better (maybe the best AF available currently), but very reliable, especially when you get to know how to dial it in. I don't use the 30fps burst speed, because that's simply overkill for what I shoot (action and some wildlife, plus everyday stuff when traveling), so perhaps I just haven't used it in the mode that gives people inconsistent results. For me, 15fps is more than fast enough (I wish my R6II allowed an e-shutter speed slower than 20fps but faster than 5fps). Rolling shutter has also not been a problem for me at all, but that's because of the subjects I shoot. Runners, for example, are just fine with the R7 e-shutter. I've also never experienced shutter shock with the R7. When I'm not in e-shutter, I'm shooting EFCS, not full mechanical. EFCS simply isn't affected by shutter shock (there were some early reports of shutter shock in EFCS at 15fps with shutter speeds around 1/200, but Canon introduced a very effective firmware fix for that). And for those who complain about the noise of the shutter, I still have my old 20D, which was a great camera in its day. The 20D shutter is significantly louder than the R7 mechanical shutter (yes, I measured both with a sound meter). I also love the ergonomics with the control wheel around the joystick. Given the fact that so many photographers seem to be the kind of old dogs who refuse to learn new tricks (as with the original R's touch bar, which I also really liked), I expect that Canon will change this in the next version, which is a real shame. I'm also very happy with Canon's lenses for the R7. Now that the excellent RF-S 10-18 is available, I don't see the need for more dedicated RF-S lenses. I shot crop DSLRs for many years, and mostly used full frame lenses. The RF lineup has plenty of small, light, cheap, and very sharp lenses, that work really well with both crop and full frame. I like my RF-S 10-18 and 18-150, but otherwise use lenses that I can also use on my R6II, which I see as a major advantage. Finally, the image quality of the 32.5MP sensor is excellent, especially when processed with DXO Photolab.
Having said all this, I'll probably get the R7II eventually, but maybe not when it's first released (I did get the R7 when it was first released). I don't see a better crop camera available right now, from any manufacturer, but I'm sure the R7II, when it comes out (who knows when?) will be even better. And I do love my photographic toys.
Having said all this, I'll probably get the R7II eventually, but maybe not when it's first released (I did get the R7 when it was first released). I don't see a better crop camera available right now, from any manufacturer, but I'm sure the R7II, when it comes out (who knows when?) will be even better. And I do love my photographic toys.
Upvote
0
I didn't know they sorted out the EFCS shutter shock with a firmware update. Must have been one of their "minor issues" not specifically reported. Thanks, I've updated my firmware.
Upvote
0
I do choose airlines that are generous with weighing but you can't always have that option or you don't expect it. Qantas is tier 1 and normally expensive but sometimes weigh which is very annoying. BA is expensive and my daughter was able to add the extra bag under her frequent flyer tier. I don't have that luxury except on Virgin Australia at the moment.
I will travel long haul in premium economy if possible but local legs can be with other airlines.
Flying to Lady Elliot Island is on a small plane and you pay per kg above their small limit. You can only hand carry a body+lens on board. At least you can see you bag being loaded.
I have no issues to pay for additional cabin weight... some do offer it and others don't. Some airlines allow a 2nd checked bag at a reasonable rate and others don't. Flights to/from the US used to have 2 checked bags but rare now. Some airlines have a 30kg limit per checked bag and others only 23kgs.
A real mess when trying to get somewhere!
Upvote
0
Iceland Air also has a peculiar hand carry size limit being smaller than most airlines... and I am not referring to US domestic traveller hand-carry sized bags.
They will generally try to put it in their size measurer-thingy at the gate and check any bags that don't fit. This is a regular complaint in the Iceland facebook forums.
I don't think that they use planes that have particularly small overhead bins.
Upvote
0
The 23 kg limit is usually my issue when traveling for business, because I need suits (and dress shoes), casual clothes and a tripod in my checked bag. International I usually fly business with a 30 kg limit.
Upvote
0
And this is an example of the inconsistencies... in that individual bag weight depending on the class but it is the same person that is physically moving the bags.
Yes, they will have a "heavy" label on them but it isn't clear to me why there are the arbitrary limits. Occupational, health and safety rules don't seem to apply... unless they have the stronger workers handling the business class luggage.
Upvote
0
Air travel has become awful. I've reached the age where I can get away looking like a slob. BA business allows 2x23 kg + cabin. I couldn't handle all that weight anyway.
Upvote
0
That’s worse! With my status on American (oneworld, including BA), I get 3 x 23 kg free checked bags even flying economy. But I really can’t drag around more than one suitcase, so one 30 kg bag would be preferable. My status on Untied (a notch lower than American) gets me 2 x 30 kg which is much more useful.
Sometimes ‘priority bag delivery’ backfires. When traveling to San Francisco last month, I expected my suitcase to be one of the first as usual but the last bag came out of the chute and I still didn’t see mine. The AirTag in it reported it nearby. Turned out is was off to the side on a belt signed as ‘Special Luggage’, though that was probably mainly due to the fact that my suitcases are Pelican ProGear luggage.
Upvote
0
A workshop attendee was traveling with a very conspicuous yellow pelican case and lock on it which had 2xA1 and 600/4 in it but anyone could have picked it up and walked out of domestic as he wasn't watching. He should have put the pelican case inside a nondescript cheap bag and no one would have looked twice at it.
Upvote
0
You are probably the first one I found on the internet to say 10-18 and 18-150 is excellent&sharp. There's quite a few saying the 18-150 isn't sharp enough. And 10-18 is bad because of the f-number.....
Upvote
0
There is a lot of snobbery on the internet. The RFs 18-150, like its M counterpart is an excellent super zoom. No, it does not exhibit L level prime performance, but you can take fine images with it. I don't have the 10-18, but I do have the excellent EFM 11-22 and the tests of the 10-18 show similar sharpness. none of the these lenses is fast, but they are all relatively tiny and that is a very useful tradeoff for many applications. Just as an example, here is a shot that was taken with an M6 II with the EFM 18-150 through a darkened car window at 55 mph on dark evening. I thought it came out remarkably well.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'll make it clear that I didn't write that section on taking squirrels with the 5DIV! The R is notorious for its slow focus. The R5, on the other hand, is excellent and reportedly even faster at locking on to birds than the Z9. I doubt that you would be disappointed with the R5.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
