topic Re: I really wanted an R7 until in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

I really wanted an R7 until

MehZhure — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 00:09:45 GMT

I had decided I was going to drop some cash on an R7 until I found out about not allowing third party manufacturers to make RF lenses and the IBIS problems going on with the R7. I mean, it's a new camera, there are bound to be some issues...no biggie. It only becomes a major problem when the blame is being placed on everyone else...or the company tries to pretend they don't understand the problem. Much as I hate to say it, this has pretty much changed my mind to go look at Sony's offerings. Pretty annoyed about it too.

Just for reference, here is a current user who has thoroughly described the problem I am referring to.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

Tronhard — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 00:47:19 GMT

You Tube is full of information that is valid and not valid, along with a lot of opinions: some of which are very valid, others not so much. One way to get a handle on this is to look at reviews from trustworthy sources and avoid the clickbait - which thrives on creating rumour. We get a lot of inquiries here about issues with different bodies, but I cannot recall any on the R7 having IBIS issues. There are others, but none that fit this specific issue.

However, the best thing to do is to check it out for yourself. I would recommend borrowing or renting a Canon R7 and trying it out for yourself.

As to the issue of Canon and 3rd party lenses...

What I find perplexing is the concept that people have that Canon have to make their cameras compatible with 3rd party lenses - which is a common misconception, it would appear.

It is absolutely the responsibility of the 3rd party makers to ensure their gear works with the OEM's equipment. Licensing agreements are established between the OEM and the 3rd party, in which both sides will have commitments: specifically the OEM will ensure that if they have licensed firmware to control devices like lenses of strobes, that they will update the 3rd party with such IP as appropriate - for this the 3rd party pays a fee. However, it is the responsibility of that 3rd party to then make their products compliant. That does not apply as current 3rd party lenses were never intended by the makers to work with the new RF mounts and the makers clearly say so.

There is no suggestion by Canon that they will never allow 3rd party lens makers to create fully-compliant RF glass. Canon and other makers have very good relationships with Sigma and other quality lens makers, because they recognize the benefits to their camera and peripheral sales to have alternative lenses for those who, for one reason or another, will not use OEM lenses.

Could I respectfully suggest that you read an earlier post in which I responded at length to this issue:
HERE

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

MehZhure — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 01:29:55 GMT

Thanks for the reply, and the link to your prior discussion. I get the impression you did not watch the video I linked. The guy gets into the IBIS problem fairly quickly, and does a good job of demonstrating it. You may want to give it a watch so you know what I am referring to.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

Tronhard — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 02:18:19 GMT

Fair enough, I should have looked, but I have dealt with a long line-up of people demanding that Canon make their cameras compliant with 3rd party gear, and that's ridiculous. I have had a good look at the video and have a couple of questions to ask.

I think that as a general principle, Canon is still correct in not taking responsibility in any way for third-party lenses. They are likely fairly defensive about that issue for the reasons I mentioned in the post to which I referred. I suspect they don't want to even start to engage with any issues to do with third party lenses in any shape or form because that opens the door the the principle that they are in any way responsible for them, and they are not. From what I can see those video lenses were not Canon: hence the reaction.

My own experience: I am not a cinematographer, so I don't use cinematic lenses. I have personally tested for still photography purposes over 29 EF and lenses with the R5 and R6 cameras and found them to work perfectly. So, the issue seems to be with the R7 and in particular with cinematic lenses, applied to video - this seems to be the focus of the video clip. Would that be your impression?

While I have not personally seen issues reported on this site for IBIS, that does not mean they don't exist, I would expect that those would be addressed directly to tech support, which this is not. Personally, I have other issues with the R7 and have declined to purchase one.

The R7 was touted as the replacement for the 7DII pro-level APS-C camera, and my own belief (reinforced by statements by Canon Oz) is that it is actually more aligned with the 90D, which is a tier lower in the hierarchy of Canon products.

Canon, it seems to me, were under pressure to bring out an APS-C body range and to make it affordable. They put in adapted versions of the R3 tracking and IBIS systems, but onto an ASP-C sensor array, and I wonder how well that is going to port across? I honestly still see the line-up of DSLR and R bodies (with the exception of the R5c) as stills cameras with some video capability, despite the clear improvements that they have incorporated. My point is that for a video-centric person who wants to pimp the R7 with cinema specific lenses that might be asking too much at this stage. I wonder how many people will have that experience? The presenter is correct that if enough people have the issue it will attract resources to solve it.

Question - for your personal use, are you intending to use the R7 in the same fashion as the presenter? That is, with specialist video lenses? If not, I what lenses and under what conditions will you use the camera? I would suggest that it would be worthwhile seeing if you can get hold of an R7 yourself to test the lens + camera combos for your specific purposes.

If it turns out the camera does not perform well, in that case I would not buy the R7, for sure. Get the Fuji x-T4 or the new Fuji X-H camera tweaked for video. I have two X-t4 units and have to say that their tracking and IBIS do not perform as well as the R5 and R6, but they are FF cameras, built to a higher spec than the R7.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

MehZhure — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 08:49:05 GMT

I was left with the general impression that he was both mildly surprised and disappointed to find the IBIS problem existed in the first place, but thought it wasn't such a big deal...until he had worked with support for a while only to have them either push the blame off on other companies, or pretend to not understand the problem.

And, no...I absolutely do not believe they don't understand the problem. This is what corporations do to avoid having to address known problems. It's enough to turn me against Canon...possibly permanently. I have, quite literally, spent the last several hours learning about Sony's offerings.

Regarding my intent, and reason for my interest in the R7... I was looking to get a moderately priced camera suitable for a VERY wide range of situations. Portrait shots, landscape, action photos, video...the whole gamut. Up until I stumbled across this problem, I had settled on getting an R7 sometime this month. As it stands now, I am probably going to go with a Sony a7R III or the Sony a7R IIIA.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

Waddizzle — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 10:10:16 GMT

Please indulge me for a minute. What exactly is this IBIS problem that you allude to? Please do not tell me to watch your video. If you do not want to describe it, then I do not want to watch it.

[EDIT]. Posts about some new found bug appear from time to tome. Far more times than not, the problem is simple operator error. But, some people are quick to blame the gear, instead of first taking an objective look at themselves.

I find it extraordinary that these posters cannot see the basic illogic to their claims. They are experiencing a one-of-a-kind issue that they declare is firmware or hardware bug. No one else using similar gear and settings has had a similar issue.

One recent example is a guy who claimed that R Series bodies experience “autofocus pulsing” with the Sigma 150-600mm C lens. The lens has a rated MFD of about 3 meters, but he was trying focus on subjects at that distance with the lens fully zoomed out to 600mm. Bad science is the best description I have for it.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

Tronhard — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 10:12:25 GMT

Hi Bill:
I did and as best as I can summarize, the IBIS is not working as expected with cinema lenses. The video also suggests that with some native EF glass the IBIS is not working either.

The video also expresses frustration that Canon tech support do not see it as an issue and decline to get involved in any 3rd party lens issues, even if they are fully manual.

I think that is it - but I am sure the OP will correct me if I am missing something.

To be honest, I think that an expectation has been created that this is a pro-level camera and folks are going with that and trying to get it to do things that it is not designed for nor capable of doing. I have not seen previous issues about IBIS, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I am not a videographer, so I am not familiar with the lenses but according to the video the video lenses are all manual 3rd party lenses - the claim being that as all manual lenses they should not need firmware to make them work.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

MehZhure — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 18:53:02 GMT

Tronhard summarized the issue well enough. Honestly, though...if you don't feel up to watching a link posted that not only explains the problem, but also demonstrates it...why bother responding at all? You may as well have simply posted something to the effect of, "My opinion is so amazing that you must perform a task to acquire it. The fact that you already provided excellent resources explaining/documenting the issues means nothing to me."

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

Waddizzle — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 20:12:57 GMT

“Just for reference, here is a current user who has thoroughly described the problem I am referring to.”

Okay, I surrendered to curiosity and watched the video. It was about what I expected, bad science. He failed to fully describe his test conditions.

What make of mount adapter was he using? Was he shooting from a tripod or handheld? I came away with the impression that he was using a tripod, which begs the question of WHY.

Why would you enable IBIS when the camera is sitting on a tripod?

@MehZure, you have also failed to describe your own test conditions and gear, too. You and the video content creator have both failed to provide sufficient info to reproduce your issue.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

MehZhure — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 22:00:58 GMT

I believe you may be making too many knee-jerk assumptions to give an opinion on this situation. For instance, you came away with the impression he was filming using a tripod...yet, he was explicitly demonstrating a problem he has had with the IBIS...something which one would never use in conjunction with a tripod. Then, you pose the question of why a person would enable IBIS while using a tripod. The obvious answer being...they wouldn't. Which means, he didn't...since there would have been no shake if he had been using a tripod.

As for a full description of the test conditions, seems to me a person owning the R7 and some similar lenses would have sufficient info to replicate the situation quite easily.

As for my own test conditions...maybe you actually just skipped the original post entirely. I was considering purchasing the R7...meaning I do not own one yet. Thus...no test conditions for me.

I think maybe you are a Canon "fanboy", and are triggered by the thought someone might not believe the Canon corporation can do no wrong. Regardless, with what I have seen from you thus far, I am more likely to disregard your opinion now, as it appears you are so biased toward Canon that anything you say I would have to go verify it for myself anyway...making your opinion useless to me. Not saying that you aren't highly knowledgeable about this general topic. But, you have presented yourself as dangerously biased in favor of Canon. You have, effectively, invalidated your own opinion.

Maybe next time you join a conversation, do it in a manner that you would if you were speaking to the people face-to-face, instead of hidden behind the anonymity of the internet.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

Waddizzle — Thu, 03 Nov 2022 11:55:12 GMT

I stand behind everything I said about the video, which fell far short of standard scientific methodolgies.

If you’re going to announce to the world that you have made a technical discovery, then you had better be correct and have data to back it up. You MUST provide sufficient data for others to reproduce and confirm your result. You MUST not leave anything open to assumption of speculation.

First and foremost, you request a peer review. You invite others to run the same tests to see if they get the same results. The video failed on all of the above.

Enjoy your new Canon camera.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

MehZhure — Thu, 03 Nov 2022 20:47:55 GMT

Don't misunderstand me. I agree with you that his testing methodology was not scientific. That said, it should be fairly easy to reproduce given the information he gave. Since I don't have the camera or lenses...I cannot even attempt to reproduce it. That said, I don't recall seeing anyone in the comments stating they attempted to reproduce it and could not. And, yes, it is a highly situational issue...which most people would never encounter anyway. Regardless of all the points anyone has made, it isn't reasonable to dismiss a thing out-of-hand without personal investigation. Doing so is why it takes so long to advance science.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

rs-eos — Thu, 03 Nov 2022 21:22:41 GMT

But ultimately it's up to you to either reproduce it before you make a purchasing decision (to see if it will affect your workflows), or otherwise make that decision without first-hand knowledge.

Personally, I wouldn't base my purchasing decisions on one single video that may or may not be demonstrating an issue. And, an issue which appears to be an edge case.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

Tronhard — Thu, 03 Nov 2022 21:44:47 GMT

I think the issue is the need for Canon to investigate is based on the premise that they have a responsibility to do so. As discussed ad nauseam in many posts on this site, Canon have no right or responsivity to test lenses from other makers on their products and make statements about them. Nor do they have the authority to recommend or execute changes to such lenses. That would be, in this case, the responsibility of Sigma, who have stepped away from this too. Sigma simply state that their EF lenses are not designed to work on the R-series bodies. So, it falls to other parties to investigate in a responsible and appropriate way.

However, to do a fully-scientific test, it would require multiple repeated experiments under several conditions: several copies of the lens and camera should be used shooting different subjects under different lighting conditions, use of a tripod or not, IS on or not, variations for distance and aperture; and then we need to start on the lens customization options from Sigma that are available.

So, we come down to the fact that this one, rather casual test which Duade is quite open about is not a scientific one, has been taken and expanded completely out of proportion.

To come back to the original post. In the light of all this, really the best way to decide if the R7 is for you is to rent or borrow one, and use it along with the lenses you wish to use, and under the conditions under which you intend to use it.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

Waddizzle — Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:19:35 GMT

“…I don't recall seeing anyone in the comments stating they attempted to reproduce it and could not….”

That’s my point. No one could attempt to reproduce the results, even if they wanted to.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

MehZhure — Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:26:56 GMT

I have no qualms with Canon for just outright saying, "That problem cannot be replicated on a Canon lense. You will need to speak with the third party company and have them fix the issue, since it is clearly something they have implemented incorrectly." Indicating they don't understand the problem, or denying it exists...that's an entirely different thing. The problem clearly exists.

Plus, I mean, the issue is not with something in the lense. It can't be...because the problem exists in manual lenses. If there is no IS in the lense, and the entirety of the stabilization is coming from the camera's IBIS...honestly, how do you get around that? It's a problem with the camera. There is no communication with the lense for stabilization. The lense info has to be set manually in the camera. Thus, if there is a problem with image stabilization...it cannot possibly be due to the lense. That option is explicitly ruled out due to it being a purely manual lense.

That is why I agree with Mark Wiemis (guy in the video) about the issue being something with the R7's IBIS...and it probably being fixable via a firmware update. But, if they (canon) refuse to acknowledge it/pretend to not understand this problem...that looks extremely bad on them.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

MehZhure — Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:31:39 GMT

I agree this needs further, more detailed, examination. But, let me ask you this question. Since the problem (in the video) exists with manual lenses...i.e. there is no communication with the lense...and the entirety of the image stabilization is being handled exclusive by the IBIS based on manually entered lense information...how can it be anything else except a problem with the IBIS of the R7?

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

Tronhard — Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:40:17 GMT

To be perfectly honest I am qualified to answer that, since:
a) the manual lenses you refer to appear to be video lenses. I have no history of videography
b) I don't have access to that hardware to test it for myself - neither the R7 or the lenses.

I am not trying to belittle you or your question, I am being honest enough to know my limitations and I judge myself as having not the means to give you a valid answer. Others on this site may be able to help you, I hope so.
Again, I come back to the idea of test what you have with the gear you want for your specific purposes. There are professional reviewers that I respect, but when it comes down to making sure something will work for me, I do that myself so I have no-one to blame but me if it goes wrong.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

MehZhure — Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:52:44 GMT

Ah...so, you didn't even attempt to investigate. Because, yeah...there are several people who commented about having the exact same issues. One even noted that they ended up returning their R7 because of it.

So...yeah. That's why I think you are emotionally caught up in this. You go on and on about it not being scientific...while concurrently overlooking some pretty major details.

Re: I really wanted an R7 until

MehZhure — Fri, 04 Nov 2022 01:54:44 GMT

If you happen to be intrigued enough, you can scan over the comments on the video. It seems quite a few people have been able to replicate this problem. So, it's not an isolated incident.