In-body image stabilisation

[Swa]

So rummaging through the specifications it appears the EOS R7 is the only Canon APS-C camera with IS. Is IS still a factor though with all the RF lenses seemingly having IS?

The R7 does not appear to offer much advantage over the R10 and is both heavier and doesn't have a built-in flash. Also between the RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 and RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 is the 18-45mm not redundant or am I missing something?

 

[bwana]

I spent a lot of time considering the R7 as a replacement for my long-in-the-tooth 7Dmk2 but at the last minute ended up pumping the breaks. It ticked most of the boxes but one - no battery grip, not even third party. That ended up being the deal breaker. I wasn't too keen on the size of the viewfinder but could have lived with it.

Looking at the specs the biggest plus for me in favour of the R7 over the R10 is weather sealing. I don't use IS and I use a popup so infrequently it may not exist. I also like the heavier body.

As for the lens the only appealing thing about the RF-S 18-45mm is probably the size of it.

 

[Barbarian Conan]

So rummaging through the specifications it appears the EOS R7 is the only Canon APS-C camera with IS. Is IS still a factor though with all the RF lenses seemingly having IS?

The R7 does not appear to offer much advantage over the R10 and is both heavier and doesn't have a built-in flash. Also between the RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 and RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 is the 18-45mm not redundant or am I missing something?

The Sonys have had in body stabilization and lens stabilization for a while, and I remember reading that they work well together? It may be worth investigating.
Not having built in flash is a benefit and protects you from making bad decisions. Even on my original 6D mk1, I never miss it. Grainier images due to bumped iso looks better than that flat, built-in flash look. You can buy a relatively cheap 3rd party flash for when you really want extra light.

 

[Swa]

I spent a lot of time considering the R7 as a replacement for my long-in-the-tooth 7Dmk2 but at the last minute ended up pumping the breaks. It ticked most of the boxes but one - no battery grip, not even third party. That ended up being the deal breaker. I wasn't too keen on the size of the viewfinder but could have lived with it.

Looking at the specs the biggest plus for me in favour of the R7 over the R10 is weather sealing. I don't use IS and I use a popup so infrequently it may not exist. I also like the heavier body.

As for the lens the only appealing thing about the RF-S 18-45mm is probably the size of it.

The R7 seems like a design flaw. For what is missing it doesn't even reduce the size and weight. I can live without flash especially on a full size sensor and hardly ever use it but the price doesn't justify the few plus points for me. Resolution is quite a weird number and only 16% more effectively so no substantial gain for me. Weight can be added if need be.

I might just skip the R7 altogether if I go for the R10.

 

[bwana]

The R7 seems like a design flaw. For what is missing it doesn't even reduce the size and weight. I can live without flash especially on a full size sensor and hardly ever use it but the price doesn't justify the few plus points for me. Resolution is quite a weird number and only 16% more effectively so no substantial gain for me. Weight can be added if need be.

I might just skip the R7 altogether if I go for the R10.

Have you read this: https://www.canon.co.za/pro/stories/eos-r7-vs-eos-r10/

Apart from the weather sealing, which is important to me, the R7 uses the same battery my 7D uses and I've got a ton of them and it's got dual card slots.

What are you planning on using it for? Anything in particular?

 

[Swa]

Have you read this: https://www.canon.co.za/pro/stories/eos-r7-vs-eos-r10/

Apart from the weather sealing, which is important to me, the R7 uses the same battery my 7D uses and I've got a ton of them and it's got dual card slots.

What are you planning on using it for? Anything in particular?

Thanks for that. So as I thought not that much that I'd be using or would be of benefit to me.

Mainly portraits and studio shots so IBIS may actually be of benefit. Also some outdoor and the occasional landscape but I won't be doing travelling apart from holidays if that ever happens again and will be shooting mainly in good weather. So really looking for an all rounder and not something that's good in one area. What bothers me is that even though the extra pixels isn't of much benefit and hovering in the realm of negative returns the R7 will save those pixels in RAW format even when set to a lower res no?

The main thing though is the price doesn't justify it for me seeing I won't be upgrading from anything that I could reuse on the R7 specifically so will be starting from scratch basically. I also don't understand the cropping. I thought it only cropped by x1.6 when using an RF or EF lens as the RF-S and EF-S lenses are already 'cropped' lenses so when using a 200mm RF lens it's really a 320mm lens but when using a 200mm RF-S lens it stays 200mm.

 

[bwana]

What bothers me is that even though the extra pixels isn't of much benefit and hovering in the realm of negative returns the R7 will save those pixels in RAW format even when set to a lower res no?

I'm not sure about that.

The main thing though is the price doesn't justify it for me seeing I won't be upgrading from anything that I could reuse on the R7 specifically so will be starting from scratch basically. I also don't understand the cropping. I thought it only cropped by x1.6 when using an RF or EF lens as the RF-S and EF-S lenses are already 'cropped' lenses so when using a 200mm RF lens it's really a 320mm lens but when using a 200mm RF-S lens it stays 200mm.

APS-C cropping means "subjects fill more of the frame than on a full-frame sensor, which means a 300mm lens effectively has the same field of view as a 420mm lens." according to the article I linked to. That applies equally to RF and RF-S lenses. In 35mm terms the RF-S 18-150mm will essentially be 28.8 to 240mm.

 

[Harmonic]

Can't talk much to canons offering but as far as I understand IBIS works in conjunction with IS in the lens. If you have both, it's just more stops of stabilization so you can still get sharp photos with slower shutter speeds hand held.

Since you're planning on doing mostly studio work, it shouldn't matter all that much since you control the lighting.

Just an idea, why don't you rather get a cheap full frame camera and invest the difference in better glass? The glass is what stays with you longer, bodies you can upgrade as and when you feel you need to.

 

[Swa]

I'm not sure about that.

APS-C cropping means "subjects fill more of the frame than on a full-frame sensor, which means a 300mm lens effectively has the same field of view as a 420mm lens." according to the article I linked to. That applies equally to RF and RF-S lenses. In 35mm terms the RF-S 18-150mm will essentially be 28.8 to 240mm.

The way I understand it with an RF lens the sensor only "sees" 62.5% of the viewing area, from there the cropping. RF-S lenses already take this into account and are labelled accordingly and also smaller for that reason. I think the article is just badly worded as all the other articles state it like that. If you put an RF-S lens on a full frame the sensor itself crops by x1.6 so you only get 62.5% of the resolution.

Can't talk much to canons offering but as far as I understand IBIS works in conjunction with IS in the lens. If you have both, it's just more stops of stabilization so you can still get sharp photos with slower shutter speeds hand held.

Since you're planning on doing mostly studio work, it shouldn't matter all that much since you control the lighting.

Just an idea, why don't you rather get a cheap full frame camera and invest the difference in better glass? The glass is what stays with you longer, bodies you can upgrade as and when you feel you need to.

That seems to be how it works. So even without IBIS you still get some stabilisation and if you use a lens without IS you get some from the camera. It is a bit of overkill in most cases where you can control the camera.

I hear you but the cheapest full frame R cameras are already rather expensive and from what I read don't offer much benefit in normal situations. It's literally just pixel differences. I might go for the R50 which is a cheaper budget option similar to the R10 but that doesn't come with the newer lens. I can already use all of the RF lenses with APS-C which is a plus for me as I'm always looking for extra zoom factor so a 400mm lens becomes a 640mm.

 

[bwana]

The way I understand it with an RF lens the sensor only "sees" 62.5% of the viewing area, from there the cropping. RF-S lenses already take this into account and are labelled accordingly and also smaller for that reason. I think the article is just badly worded as all the other articles state it like that. If you put an RF-S lens on a full frame the sensor itself crops by x1.6 so you only get 62.5% of the resolution.

No, it doesn't work like that - have a look at Canon's own page for the RF-S 18-150mm. Same goes for the EF-S lenses fwiw.

Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens

Discover the Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM zoom lens. The lightweight design & versatility enables you to cover a range of subjects while travelling.

www.canon.co.za

Just an idea, why don't you rather get a cheap full frame camera and invest the difference in better glass? The glass is what stays with you longer, bodies you can upgrade as and when you feel you need to.

Buying just the body on its own and some good glass is also an option.

 

[garyc]

As has already been stated the advantage of IBIS is that allows for lower shutter speeds when shooting hand-held. Where this does not work is if anything in the picture is moving since you will need to up the shutter to freeze the movement. This will also apply to portraits since people always move slightly.

 

[Swa]

No, it doesn't work like that - have a look at Canon's own page for the RF-S 18-150mm. Same goes for the EF-S lenses fwiw.

View attachment 1611009

Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM Lens

Discover the Canon RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM zoom lens. The lightweight design & versatility enables you to cover a range of subjects while travelling.

www.canon.co.za

That is technically correct if seen from the perspective of 35mm but is really the wrong way of looking at it. Because APS is a smaller form factor it scales and uses a smaller lens to achieve the same field of view. If however you use an RF lens on APS you get the crop factor reducing the viewing area and field of view. Focal length never actually changes.

Focal length has become an outdated term.

 

[bwana]

That is technically correct if seen from the perspective of 35mm but is really the wrong way of looking at it. Because APS is a smaller form factor it scales and uses a smaller lens to achieve the same field of view. If however you use an RF lens on APS you get the crop factor reducing the viewing area and field of view. Focal length never actually changes.

It's not complicated - if you're shooting APS-C then you know to multiply the focal length by 1.6. If math isn't your thing shoot Nikon - their crop is 1.5x. The focal length might not really change but the overall effect is that it does.

I shoot both FF and APS-C for that simple reason. Bodies are cheaper than lenses.

 

[Swa]

It's not complicated - if you're shooting APS-C then you know to multiply the focal length by 1.6. If math isn't your thing shoot Nikon - their crop is 1.5x. The focal length might not really change but the overall effect is that it does.

I shoot both FF and APS-C for that simple reason. Bodies are cheaper than lenses.


Have you got a better method?

I don't see how you can really compare focal length. The focal length doesn't change but the effect is that the field of view does. It's really what we should be comparing. Using an equivalent is like saying a toy locomotive is the equivalent size of the real thing.

 

[bwana]

I don't see how you can really compare focal length.

Experience. Most photographers are comfortable discussing focal length rather than angle of view. It's something they can visualise.

Good luck with your project. Given what you want to do you might want to revisit Harmonic's advice. There are options other than mirrorless.

 

[Swa]

Experience. Most photographers are comfortable discussing focal length rather than angle of view. It's something they can visualise.

Good luck with your project. Given what you want to do you might want to revisit Harmonic's advice. There are options other than mirrorless.

I say it's more the way you learned. The only 35mm I ever owned I only got to take 36 shots with. After that it was a Powershot G6 so I always tended to think in terms of angle or field of view or what my zoom factor is. I can work with physical dimensions like focal length but it feels unnatural to me. I do currently have an SX50 HS which works excellent in outdoor shooting so I'm not going to buy anything in haste.

For those with Medium this article sets out a bunch of things nicely

5 Old School Photography Rules That Are Outdated (5 Photography Myths)

Not everything you once learned still has to be a relevant rule to adhere to nowadays.

mskorna.medium.com

The only thing I'd change is "learn to work with what you can get or afford".

 

[bwana]

I say it's more the way you learned. The only 35mm I ever owned I only got to take 36 shots with. After that it was a Powershot G6 so I always tended to think in terms of angle or field of view or what my zoom factor is. I can work with physical dimensions like focal length but it feels unnatural to me. I do currently have an SX50 HS which works excellent in outdoor shooting so I'm not going to buy anything in haste.

I should probably tell you that "zoom factor" is based entirely on focal length - you simply divide the longest focal length by the widest. Unfortunately zoom really tells you nothing about nothing without knowing at least one of those focal lengths and is obviously useless when it comes to primes.

For those with Medium this article sets out a bunch of things nicely

5 Old School Photography Rules That Are Outdated (5 Photography Myths)

Not everything you once learned still has to be a relevant rule to adhere to nowadays.

mskorna.medium.com

The only thing I'd change is "learn to work with what you can get or afford".

His advice is pretty good at a rudimentary level but once you delve into the minutiae... well, I get the overwhelming sense that a lot of it isn't based on practical experience.

 

[Swa]

I should probably tell you that "zoom factor" is based entirely on focal length - you simply divide the longest focal length by the widest. Unfortunately zoom really tells you nothing about nothing without knowing at least one of those focal lengths and is obviously useless when it comes to primes.

Which is what just about everybody does so everyone is thinking in terms of zoom or angles in any case.

In any case I tested with my SX50 first setting between superfine and fine and only got a slight reduction in jpeg quality. Then I took a picture each between large, medium and small. The jpegs were remarkably different in size but the raw images were all more or less the same and larger in resolution than the largest jpeg. The size option also disappears when setting it to raw only.

What struck me as odd was that the files were always 10MB with no light source which led me to believe there should be a lot of compressibility and as it turns out this was just over 30% but I expected in the region of 90%. Other photos I took only add to the base size up to 6MB in some cases. I don't know how the sizes compare between different cameras or if the SLR and mirrorless cameras allow setting raw size but it seems if you want smaller raw sizes it's best to get a camera with lower res sensor.

Something that should be of interest is the new C-RAW format that reportedly reduce file sizes by 40-50%. @bwana I don't know if you use raw but this is also something that might interest you.

 

[bwana]

Which is what just about everybody does so everyone is thinking in terms of zoom or angles in any case.

When photographers talk, and they talk a lot, it's focal length. Always. Nobody is thinking of zoom or angles.

FWIW you've been chopping and changing between field and angle of views and they're really not interchangeable.

Something that should be of interest is the new C-RAW format that reportedly reduce file sizes by 40-50%. @bwana I don't know if you use raw but this is also something that might interest you.

I use raw for studio work and complicated environments, but unless the client begs for it, I prefer JPG because if it's dialled in then I don't have to do any editing.

I've always thought that if someone prefers editing to capturing then that's what they should probably be doing.

 

[Swa]

When photographers talk, and they talk a lot, it's focal length. Always. Nobody is thinking of zoom or angles.

Because that's what manufacturers state? But it's useless without a reference so everyone is always looking for a reference to determine the zoom or how much of a scene will be visible when using it. They do the conversion without even realising it but I've never seen where someone uses focal length to determine visibility. It's always a conversion they do to determine it.

FWIW you've been chopping and changing between field and angle of views and they're really not interchangeable.

Not much difference if we're honest. Angle will give you field of view. Really different ways to state the same thing.