Canon R7 ISO Performance

[@markwiemels]

I must have missed this one when I was published, good video. Do you think the high iso performance is noticeably better than the M6 Mark II?

[@faspete2nd]

Like I mentioned in the previous comment...I think they are similar, but I'll have to take a better look at the files that I have in Lightroom and get them side by side. Overall I like the camera so far.

[@DAVE_WHITE]

Same as I am getting pretty noisy as we all knew they would be with a 30meg sensor. But I am getting shots, I also have the R6 a lot less noise of course!

[@faspete2nd]

So far I like the camera and I've got some nice shots with it as well. Small sensor more pixels more noise...like you said it's expected.

[@jimpchip]

I came across your channel while researching the R7 and bought one about a week ago based on your experience and the experience of various other people. I've yet to hear a bad review. Problem though, I've yet to get a good picture from it except at maybe 100 ISO. The noise is a little overwhelming on anything over about 400 ISO and almost unusable over 1000. I've been shooting with an R6 for the past two years and was hoping the R7 would give me the kind of reach that the R6 cannot but it's just been a little - a lot sometimes - noisy. I was wondering if you've had the same issues. The reports are that it has the same picture quality as an R5 but I'm just not getting it.

[@whiskeyisajourney]

There's no way you'll get the same picture quality of the R5. It won't even be close. The best thing about the R7 for me is the reach. I like the R7 a lot for wildlife, but the R6 and R5 win hands down on picture quality because of the sensor size.

[@jimpchip]

@@whiskeyisajourney Topaz maybe? I just seem to remember better quality with the T6. Maybe too long ago to remember clearly.......

[@faspete2nd]

@@jimpchip Topaz solves a lot of issues. I've never used it, but other people rave about the results.

[@frankhardacre9192]

Not sure what post you use but Lightroom is a disaster for Canon raw and will enhance any noise rather than reduce it.

[@whiskeyisajourney]

@@frankhardacre9192 I've been hearing that lately. What do you suggest instead?

[@nordic5490]

Birding often involves dark conditions, early morning, late evening, and / or under dark shady foilage. Then, to avoid motion blur, 2500th/sec or higher is needed for small fast moving birds, resulting in in isos 5000 or higher. As an R5 owner, I predict the R7 fine detail will look like mush @ iso 12800 in the shadows, especially lifting the shadows in post, and even at iso6400. I shoot birds in flight mostly, and dragonflys in flight, at typically iso4000. Smaller pixels = more noise, and dont believe ai denoisers can preserve fine feather detail.

[@faspete2nd]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKTHfpmej9t8lac good comparison video.

[@faspete2nd]

Good take! I agree with you. I am really looking forward to seeing the results I can get with the 100-500 at lower shutter speeds. So far I'm liking the R7 paired with the 100-500.

[@paullanoue5228]

The camera is targeted to a specific market. This is not intended for professional wildlife photographers. The real question is does the Camera meet realistic expectations for a camera at this price point. Certainly it won’t complete with an R5, R6, and R3 at low light performance. It’s a $1500 camera. But knowing the limitations of a camera like the R7 is most of the battle. Enthusiasts can enjoy using them if they stay within the limitations of the camera and still get imagine they can be proud of.

[@nordic5490]

@@paullanoue5228 I agree 100%. The R7 is only 36% of the price of an R5. The R5 is $1500 AUD more now than when I bought mine last year ! For the price, the R7 seems like good value, just don't expect much. If I had one, I would quieten that mech shutter. I couldnt live with that noise. But... I really do question the logic of then buying a RF 100-500 with all its cost and weight, and then only use part of the glass. Just me. I can forsee secondhand R5s holding their price, but the R7 not.

[@zegzbrutal]

@@nordic5490 100-500L isn't heavy for its versatility and its class. The reason for using it on R7 is for the reach without killing your wallet for 400/600/800L primes

[@jeffolson4731]

I get my R7 tomorrow, July 5th. As someone moving from the M6 MKII to the R7 for amateur wildlife photography. After seeing your video it definitely appears noise will be less of an issue than it used to be. I am impatiently waiting to get my hands on my R7 and get to shooting wildlife images with it.

[@faspete2nd]

I like the camera so far. I have gone from the M50 to the M6 Mark II and then the to R6. I sold the M6 to got the R5. Full frame is great, but I missed the reach of the M6 so when I heard the R7 was coming out it was a no brainer for me to get it. 1.6 crop with 32.5mp is great for wildlife.

[@fgb3126]

@@faspete2nd I am currently shooting dSLRs: both 7D Mark 2s (keep same lenses on them all the time, i.e. EF 100-400mm mk 2 and the Sigma 150-600mm). Before seeing your channel I had never heard of an M6. I had to look it up on B&H and saw it is discontinued. I am a birding photographer. Now. I've been considering where to go from here in mirrorless. I wish to stay with Canon b/c I'd like the option of using my current lenses with an adapter for RF. Question so far for me after hours of research on-line, primarily with You Tube videographers like you is: R6 Mark 2 or R7? I had pretty much decided to go with the R6 Mark 2 until I saw your video on full frame vs. APS-C. I had been led to believe via Q&A at B&H that one can switch from full frame to APS-C mode with the R6 Mk 2. From what you've said, I don't think that that is what the B&H answer meant. Your comment? (It'd be nice if it did but I am dubious now). If, in fact, there is no such thing as "switching from full frame to crop" on the R6, R5 or R3, then if I want to transition from my 7D Mk2 "seamlessly" then I should really go with the R7, correct? I hadn't wanted to do this b/c of certain properties of the R7 that I deemed were inferior to the R6 and R5, such as auto-focus, esp. bird-eye. I'd love to get your comment on my questions and just general situation at this point in my evolution. Note: I'd be using the Canon RF 100-500mm regardless. Thanks Peter. Breck on Camano Island WA

[@faspete2nd]

If the budget permits I would go for the R6 Mark 2. It's a all around better camera than the R7 especially with the RF 100-500. If you want to shot in crop mode with the R6 you can. You just need to go into the setting and select the proper shooting mode. That option should be in the Red Camera Icon menu.

[@ArcanePath360]

High ISO and outdoor daylight are not the best test, since the light is good and it doesn't show the noise from dark areas (which is where noise shows up). When you see indoor dimly lit scenes, it looks bad at ISO 1600 compared to the R6, because the blacks get very dirty with banding even showing up.

[@faspete2nd]

I understand what you are saying, but remember I am coming at this from an outdoor wildlife/bird hobbyist. All my testing is coming from that point of view. Studio or indoor shooting is not my forte. If you look at the lower right side of the lake view you can see the grain show up in the shadows as the ISO increases.

[@ArcanePath360]

@@faspete2nd It looks to me like it will be a great wildlife camera. Likely a better choice than the R6 especially if you crop in post a lot like me. It's not really going to hold up as a portrait camera against the R6 I would say, but in good light looks perfectly useable. I'm still wondering if I should get a focal reducer for it to have the best of both worlds. Especially as I have EF L lenses I want to be able to use the full benefit of

[@whiskeyisajourney]

@@ArcanePath360 a few people have done videos on the speed booster already.

[@luigibro2340]

Heyy do you know what the native and base iso the r7 is?

[@faspete2nd]

I want to say 100 for both, but I am not 100% positive.

[@jootai]

Good vid, pure simple.

[@faspete2nd]

Thanks. I try to be right to the point.

[@luigibro2340]

Thank you so much ill most likely get the R7 but sadly i have to wait to get it since i don't have money and have to wait till next year

[@faspete2nd]

Sounds like a good plan.

[@MrDtmix]

ottimo video che va direttamente alle prestazioni della Canon senza giri di parole.... Come ho visto in un noto sito internet che confronta gli iso dei vari brand fotografici, il tuo video mi da la conferma che la R7 il suo limite iso è di 6400,senza usare programmi per la riduzione del rumore, si intende. Complimenti

[@B.D.TRX4]

would you ever do a compare video on the Canon R7 vs. Canon M6 Mark II ?

[@faspete2nd]

Unfortunately , I sold the M6 Mark II to pay for some of the cost of the R5. I still have photos in Lightroom files I can compare, but other then that I have nothing.

[@JamesWarrior]

Great video, Very helpful, Thank you. I'm definitely going to get one!

[@faspete2nd]

Glad it was helpful! Feel free to use the affiliate link in the description of the video if you buy it on line. It help the channel. Thanks!

[@AjaySingh-228]

Wow super Sir..ai love it.. I am a huge fan of canon camers..I think I will buy it soon

[@faspete2nd]

Good choice of brands to buy, but really you can't go wrong with any brands these days. They are all putting out good stuff.

[@AjaySingh-228]

@@faspete2nd ya..you are right sir..

[@MrArunCochin]

Which camera did you use for your indoor talking part?

[@faspete2nd]

I used the R7 4K fine, at 30fps, 1/60, f/1.8, ISO 1600 in C-Log3. Canon Log3-to-BT709 lut added in post. There is a lot of grain in the shadows.

[@faspete2nd]

Sorry I have to amend what I said. The camera was actually in standard 4K not 4K fine.

[@xkben90]

Regarding the noise in the shadows: how did you expose, and did you apply any noise reduction ? I’m referring to the last couple of seconds of the video. I’m trying to determine if it’s even worth shooting in CLOG3 in darker environments

[@whiskeyisajourney]

I exposed for my key light on me using a X-rite Colorchecker Video along with my histogram on my Ninja V. I applied Canon BT709_CanonLog3-to-BT709_WideDR_65_FF lut. I was shooting in Standard 4K. The only other thing I did in post was add 15 contrast using premiere pro. Hope this helps

[@fgb3126]

Excuse me if I seem dumb but when you were going thru the ISOs were you changing your shutter speed to compensate? I noticed from the on-screen note (bottom left) that f stop stayed the same as did focal length.

[@faspete2nd]

Yes. I was keeping the exposure the same.

[@fgb3126]

@@faspete2nd OK so then why did the exposure not change when you set the ISO to very high?

[@faspete2nd]

I was adjusting the shutter speed each time to keep the aperture at f/4 as the ISO increased. That way the exposure stayed the same. Exposure triangle (aperture, shutter speed, and ISO) is used to properly expose a shot.

[@TonyGrant.]

It would have been better if you did the iso close up on a section of the image with water because the grain would have shown up clearer. It was lost in all the textures on the hill and in the trees.

[@faspete2nd]

I had the water in the video originally, but edited it out. I also had a close up on the lower right of the frame in the cat tails. I did not want the video to be 15min long so I had to cut some things out.

[@udaypamphilos]

Hi Peter, thanks for the video and helping us understand the ISO Performance. I am planning to buy the R7 and want to know how is the ISO performance in a indoor situation with a normal room light... how far can we push the ISO before catching noise.

[@faspete2nd]

Not very high. In my opinion I'd say 1600. Probably not much higher.

[@mpactdesignmedia]

3:38 3200 - WOW! Pretty dang impressive for apsc!

[@faspete2nd]

I think so as well.

[@LightSkinJedi1920]

Subscribed!! I’m not a wildlife photographer. I’m a hobbyist turning into a portrait/second shooter at weddings. But I do want to start taking wildlife photos. I currently use a 80D and the noise in lowlight and beyond 6400 really is hard to be okay with (for my standards) I was going to upgrade to a EOS R until I heard about this camera. These ISO test are amazing to see. I’m more likely to get the R7 than anything now. Still saving for it but I’m going to keep watching your videos on it so I can get a great idea of the camera before making a purchase. Thank you!!!

[@faspete2nd]

Welcome to the channel! I appreciate the support. I definitely have a lot to cover with this camera. There are some similarities to other Canon cameras so you will not be unfamiliar with the system if you decide to buy, but there are some button placements that will need to be relearned if you are shooting weddings. I'm currently doing some overheating tests with the video modes. Stick around.

[@jonathan1192]

Hello! Given that I am an 80D user as well, do you recommend the switch as well for me? Is the noise really better than the 80D? I mostly shoot portrait, Urban, and street photography.

[@faspete2nd]

Jonathan L. This might sound bad, but I really don't like to recommend anything to anyone because there are too many variables to take into consideration when looking to "upgrade". I'm just presenting information and I'll leave it up to you to decide if you should switch based on all the videos that are out there. I can tell you the main reason I got the R7 is because of the animal eye detect and the stabilization. I have been waiting for those features to come out in a Canon APS-C size sensor for a long time. Once it showed up I jumped on it. I can also tell you that I feel like I made a good choice. For what I need the camera to do...it does.

[@jonathan1192]

@@faspete2nd thanks so much for your response, truly appreciated. Given the genre of my photography, would you recommend this camera for me? Likewise, I love the IBIS and eye af, hence why I'm tempted to purchase one. However, what holds me back is the iso noise levels...

[@whiskeyisajourney]

@@jonathan1192 If ISO is your main concern I would not go with APS-C...I'd direct you towards full frame.

[@AlexLancashirePersonalView]

Video on the Canon M6 mk2 which I prefer. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXS2e5xmd9l9eJo

[@faspete2nd]

peaceful music.

[@paullanoue5228]

I didn’t see any level of noise that could be handled in post with software. People that are buying this camera because they are enthusiasts that enjoy shooting pictures of wildlife. They probably are not planning on shooting early in blue hour or late in to golden hour with this camera. If they work within the limitations they should be fine.

[@faspete2nd]

You are right on with the comment. People get frustrated with a camera because they work outside the limitations of the camera and then feel let down when the camera does not do what they want. The Canon R7 is a $1,500 APS-C offering. It can only do so much. It will not do what the Sony Alpha 1 will do at $6500 or what the Canon R6 can do at $2500. Temper expectations and all will be right in the world.

[@doug433]

I shoot both blue and golden hours and like what I see from the R7. Over 50 years of photography with pro experience in this field...just stating what I think.

[@letsfindout6587]

Kewl

[@faspete2nd]

Thanks.

[@nevadaxtube]

ISO doesn't matter to me anymore because the noise reduction software like Topaz Denoise AI or DxO makes noise irrelevant it works so well. If you're not using noise reduction software you are really missing out!

[@faspete2nd]

I can't argue that. Computational photography can do amazing things.

[@nordic5490]

Only R7 users are making that claim.

[@markshirley01]

Video?

[@faspete2nd]

I will cover video ISO in a future video. Next up is battery life and overheating times.

[@nevadaxtube]

@@nordic5490 What are you talking about? I don't have an R7 and made no comment about the R7. Why the hate towards the R7?

[@tuanminh3720]

No thanks

[@faspete2nd]

No problem. I know this is not for everyone.