I have settled on the Canon EOS R7 This is why 27 December 2024

 

Although the total number of cameras sold each year has declined dramatically since 2010 there are still many makes, models and types of camera available. This can make the process of deciding what to buy quite challenging.

In this post I summarise my own decision making process in the hope that this might be of interest to camera buyers in a similar situation.

The first consideration is usage. What do I want to photograph ?

Professional sports photographers will gravitate towards the top end of each maker’s catalogue. They need the speed, weather sealing and ruggedness provided by top tier professional  bodies and lenses. This full frame gear also allows backgrounds to be blurred while keeping the subject sharp. This is important at many venues which present the photographer with a very busy, visually cluttered background.

But most of us are not professional sports photographers.

My own requirements are quite diverse. I like street, documentary, lifestyle, urban scenes, landscapes, amateur sports, close-ups, wildflowers and some wildlife including birds perched and in flight.  I do not record video with my camera but will occasionally capture a few video clips with the iPhone.  I am 81 years old and disinclined to lug about a backpack full of heavy gear.  I also hate changing lenses but find that in 2024 there are no fixed lens offerings which can meet all my photographic requirements.

I use Raw capture and process images in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop.

A proper camera

Over the last 70 years I have used almost every type and design of camera that has come onto the market from 4x5 inch large format to subminiature. This has led me to settle on some definite preferences based mainly on ergonomics and the long term user experience.

For me a proper camera in 2024 is a mainstream mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (MILC) utilising the popular SLR/DSLR/MILC  shape and controls. There is an anatomically shaped handle and thumb rest which harmonise with the functional anatomy of the hands and fingers. The shutter button, on/off switch and front and rear dials are optimally positioned where my fingers can locate them by touch and operate them without looking at the camera.

It has a built-in EVF of good quality over the lens axis, hump style. In long term use I find this location preferable to top left, rangefinder-style for two reasons. First the camera/lens combination is more stable with the EVF over the lens axis as the push of the eyepiece onto the eye is in line with the lens, keeping the rig straight and stable. This is especially an issue with long lenses. The second reason is that top-left EVFs are fitted to flat top rangefinder style bodies which are trying to be as compact as possible. So the EVF gets squeezed into the little space between the top of the screen and the top of the body so it has to be smaller than the hump type and to make things worse it has a smaller, less effective eyepiece and eyecup.

Some models have no EVF at all. I have found the process of using these things to be an exercise in frustration especially in the bright sunny conditions which prevail in Sydney.

My proper camera utilises the Mode Dial + Unmarked Control dials user interface which is standard issue on Canon, Sony and Nikon models. This arrangement which includes Custom Modes on the Mode Dial allows us great flexibility in setting up the camera to personal preference and allows us to change many camera parameters simultaneously when moving from one use case to a different one.

Some users prefer a camera with separate, marked, controls for aperture, shutter speed, ISO and exposure compensation. This arrangement is logical and conceptually straightforward. It can appeal to the user who likes to adopt a deliberative approach to camera work with no expectation of being to change a large number of exposure and focussing parameters simultaneously.

The monitor screen must be touch sensitive and fully articulating for maximum versatility.

The camera must have in body image stabiliser (IBIS). Some of my favourite lenses do not have an optical image stabiliser. 

I want an optimally positioned thumb stick with optimal grippy haptics.

Lenses

I have also decided to go with a kit based almost entirely on zooms. I have spent most of my life using primes because for many years that was the only way to get decent image quality with compact size.

Now we have some wonderfully sharp, compact, f2.8 zooms. The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and 10-18mm f2.8 for Fuji, Sony and Canon APSC are very good examples of these modern zooms which really do make primes irrelevant for most of my uses.

I have retained one prime lens, that being the Canon RF 100mm f2.8 L macro. None of the zooms currently available allows me to photograph tiny things as effectively as this lens.

What’s available ?

* Phone cams.

Most people use their phone cam for still photos and video. For snapshots and  memories of people and places the phone cam is ideal.  But the lack of a viewfinder, zoom lens, handle, controls and Raw capture limit the smartphone’s range of capabilities.

* Compacts

I have owned many compacts over the years and enjoyed using some of them. If our photographic use cases fit within the limited range of capabilities which a compact can offer, that’s fine. But I want something more versatile.

* Bridge type

A bridge camera looks and in many ways works like a MILC but  has a fixed superzoom lens offering the possibility of considerable versatility. This would be my favourite type if camera makers had continued to update their bridge cams with the latest imaging technology. Unfortunately they appear to have abandoned this camera type to my great disappointment.

* MILCs

And so we come to mirrorless interchangeable lens models which in 2025 offer the features and capabilities which I want, although it does mean changing lenses.

* Sensor size

We can have medium format, “full frame” (the sensor is nominally 24x36mm in size), APSC and Micro four thirds.

There are endless discussions on user forums about the merits of each.

Digital medium format is an expensive niche which could be appealing to some studio portrait and fashion photographers.

Full frame (24x36mm) was the most popular film format throughout the 20th Century and has made the transition to digital quite well. However I find that when I put together a full frame kit, even when I use consumer grade bodies and lenses, I still end up with a more bulky lump of stuff to carry than I want.

APSC size digital sensors deliver very much better image quality than the original APSC film format could ever manage. 

The Micro four Thirds format was introduced in the middle of the 2008 global financial crisis which was soon followed by the dramatic decline in camera sales from 2010. So the format never really gained enough market share to be self sustaining. With Olympus' exit from camera making and Panasonic's move upmarket to full frame the M43 format has been starved of R&D with negarive consequences for the M43 products currently available. 

Having used each of these over a period of many years I have settled on APSC as the sensor size which provides the best balance of image quality, performance, ergonomics, size, mass and price for my requirements.

* Image processing software.

The appeal of APSC crop sensor cameras has been boosted considerably in recent times by the availability of noise reduction software driven by artificial intelligence. I use Adobe Denoise AI but similar offerings from DXO and Topaz labs also work well.

These post-capture processing programs have had a greater impact on photographic output quality than any advances in the technology inside cameras in recent years.

Basis of choice

Camera gear reviewers often go to great lengths to compare various camera models as to which has the best image quality as measured by technical criteria, performance in frames per second, autofocus on still and moving subjects, pixel count and other technical characteristics. But in the real world of photography most of these differences are minor and brands which are lagging behind on some specific capability will probably catch up in the next model cycle if they want to stay in the business.

I find the most significant differences between various brands and models is the ergonomics, handling, viewing, operation of the controls and the long term user experience. These are the main factors which determine my buying decisions.

Brands

Four camera makers offer a range of APSC camera bodies and lenses.

* Fujifilm

With no full frame catalogue Fujifilm offers the greatest number and diversity of APSC bodies and lenses. They use the X-Trans sensor filter array which we find only on Fujifilm models. Having owned several cameras with the X-Trans sensor I am yet to be convinced it offers any advantage over the Bayer filter array used by most other camera makers.  Although Adobe Camera Raw works better with X-Trans in 2024 than it did in the past I am still not altogether happy with the way fine green foliage is rendered. I am still reading complaints on user forums about Fujifilm autofocus which is playing catch-up to Canon, Sony and Nikon.

Two models feature a Mode Dial + Control Dial layout.

* X-S20 looks good in the specification list and has been decently well reviewed. But they deleted the cross keys and replaced them with a sad little nubbin of a thumb-stick which is in the wrong place and has poor haptics. It is too small and has no grippy surface with which the thumb can engage.

The X-H2 is larger, heavier and more expensive. The thumb-stick is in the right place and has good haptic design. They got it right on this model. However the front control dial is located in front of and below the shutter button and facing forward. This configuration is also seen on the Sony a6700  and Nikon Z50.2 models discussed below. The problem as seen in the photo is that when using the camera the third finger of the right hand takes up a position which is so close to the dial that in order to bring the right index finger to bear on the dial we must shift the third, fourth and fifth fingers down about 10mm. This need not be a deal breaker but is a niggling nuisance, repeated many times.  Canon puts the control dial behind the shutter button where it can always be operated by the right index finger without having to move any other finger in the slightest.  It is possible to achieve quite good ergonomic design with a control dial in front of the shutter button as seen on the Pana-Lumix S1. On this camera we can see the dial is higher and points about 35 degrees upwards so the index finger can work it without disrupting the other fingers.

* Sony

The a6700  meets most of my criteria as to specifications.  In typical Sony style the a6700 packs a lot of well developed technology into a very small package.    Image quality, performance and autofocus are all reported to work really well.  

The problems I have with the a6700 and the whole a6xxx line are ergonomic.

They forgot the thumb-stick.  Really ?  At this price point ?  Go figure.

The handle is too short so my little finger hangs off the bottom. We can purchase an aftermarket baseplate/grip extender which helps with this problem but I would much prefer a taller handle to start with.

The EVF has good specifications but the eyepiece is very small and the eyecup very shallow. This makes for a much less enjoyable viewing experience than we will have with a larger,  over the lens axis hump-type housing and eyepiece.

As for the front dial the good news is that the a6700 is the first of the a6xxx series to have one. The not-so-good news is the dial  is suboptimally located in front of and  below the shutter button and facing forward.

I had an a6500 a few years ago and did not enjoy using it at all. The problems were mainly ergonomic but that particular model also had AF problems with some lenses.

* Nikon

Unfortunately Nikon has yet to produce a Z-mount APSC model which meets my requirements. The Z50.2 is a nice camera in several ways but lacks IBIS, has that front dial in the suboptimal location, the handle is too short, there is no thumb-stick  and it uses an old 20 Mpx sensor.  I had the Z50 original version for a while a few years ago and found the back of the camera a bit cluttered with 10 buttons and the 4-way controller.

* Canon

The EOS R7 meets almost all my requirements. This model has some well documented flaws, none of which has proven to be a deal breaker for me.

The R7 has very good image quality, autofocus, performance and ergonomics. Setup, Prepare, Holding, Viewing and Operating are all well implemented. It  offers two card slots, IBIS, weather sealing, closed shutter curtain when the lens is removed, nice menus, big buffer, pre-burst, big battery (same as R5) and much more.

Of all the cameras on my list this one offers me the best combination of characteristics and capabilities for my requirements. I have used the camera extensively and keep coming back to it.

It might not score best in class on all or even any of the rating parameters which camera reviewers use but it is close to best in all categories and for my uses is the best all-rounder.

The flaws include the thumb stick co-located with the rear control dial  (memo to Canon: Don’t you ever do this again), shutter shock with the fully mechanical shutter, shutter shock at slow shutter speeds with EFCS, EVF blackout at H drive speed with EFCS and strong rolling shutter with the electronic shutter.  It all sounds messy but in practice there are work-arounds for each of these issues such that a good user experience can be had.

There are also issues with continuous autofocus mostly reported by bird and wildlife photographers. There is a fix for this which involves avoiding H+ (30fps) with E-Shutter and setting Case 1 with Tracking sensitivity and Accel./decel. Tracking both to minus 2 on screen 2 of the AF menu.  Thanks to the reviewers who have spent considerable time and effort to work out the best settings for the R7.

* Lenses and kits for the R7

I rate the Canon RF-S 18-150mm f3.5-6.3 the most versatile all purpose, compact light, moderately priced one lens kit in the whole RF mount catalogue. The full frame equivalent focal length range is 29-240mm. It has IS, fast autofocus, works well indoors at 18mm and f3.5 and gives a maximum magnification of 0.4x for close-ups.

An alternative with constant f2.8 aperture is the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 without IS and less close-up capability. I rate this lens the preferred option if the longer reach of the 18-150 is not required. It is ideal when mostly indoor, low light work is planned and soft backgrounds are desired.

Either of these one lens kits travels easily in a LowePro Toploader Zoom 45 AW 2 bag although there are plenty of alternatives.

For a two lens kit I nominate either the Canon RF-S 18-150mm f3.5-6.3 or the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 plus the Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 ultrawide zoom.  The latter is a little gem of a lens, compact and sharp with no real faults or problems. It is ideal for interiors and anywhere we need to hand hold a compact ultrawide in low light.  This kit fits nicely in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20 bag with one lens mounted and facing up.

My three lens kit uses either the Canon RF-S 18-150mm or the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, the Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 and the Canon RF-S 55-210mm f5-7.1 IS STM. This medium tele zoom has been largely ignored or dammed with faint praise by reviewers and user forums. I suspect that some potential users might look at the somewhat pedestrian aperture range and make no further enquiry.

My experience using it outdoors in good light is very positive. The full frame equivalent focal length is 88-336mm which is a bit unusual but very useful when we want more reach than a standard lens can provide. On all my tests sharpness is very good at all focal lengths, autofocus is fast and accurate even on birds in flight and the combined IBIS/IS works very well. The lens is only 8mm longer than the RF-S 18-150mm so it is very compact.

The three lens kit fits into a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 25i carry bag.

When a longer reach is required I find the Canon RF 100-400mm f5.6-8 IS USM works very well on the R7, giving a full frame equivalent focal length of 160-640mm which is just long enough for birds is they are fairly close.

I have also used the excellent Canon RF 100-500mm f4-7.1 L IS USM on the R7 with very good results for birds and wildlife. The full frame equivalent focal length is 160-800mm. This lens is neither compact nor inexpensive but having used it with both the R5 and 1.4x extender and the R7 without the extender I prefer the latter.

What comes next ?

There are plenty of rumors about an EOS R7Mk2 maybe coming in 2025. I await further revelations about this with considerable interest.

And that is the end of this post. Thank you for reading.