Lyn, so long as you take joy from photography and continue to learn, you will do fine. My Dad, who also a pro, said that one of the differences between pros and and amateurs is that pros never show you their trashcan. Unless I use it for a teaching moment, you will never see my mistakes, "almost" shots or leaning experiences...only my selects I can safely say I have had my share of trashcan moments. But if you continue to actively try to learn photography and continue to put your heart into it, you will be your best you and your success rate will improve.

I have attached one more in the hopes it brings a smile to your day.

On another note, your R5 will make it a Happy Birthday

Irwin

(Download)

Sometimes there is a tradeoff when shooting ducks: often near frontal lighting emphasizes iridescence on their head while it flattens edge detail on their many of their feathers. Moreover their contrast range makes them an exposure nightmare (lightmare?). You have deep darks and brilliant whites. To the extent you can, particularly if shooting with most Canon cameras, dial down your ISO to its lowest setting consistent with the shutter speed you need to get sharp image. This will give you your best dynamic range. Then take a series of test shots to see where the blinkies stop. I am usually shooting under the evaluative meter setting by 2/3rds to 2 stops. You may have to raise your shadows in post. Chimp often. Shooting in RAW in thse difficult situations may mean the difference between getting the image and almost getting it.

Irwin

I believe that the image stabilization gets you an extra stop with the 100-500 over the 100-400 II. I had no way of testing, but I believe it acquired focus a tad faster. The benefit of the extra 100mm becomes close to 150mm with a teleconverter. The 100-500 is exceptionally sharp at 500mm. I had a 500mm L 4.0 IS version 1 telephoto that I loved and shot with for years. As I am getting older, I wanted to test how much I would be losing by using the zoom at 500mm instead of the prime. Testing three separate distant objects with my R5, I was shocked when the zoom beat the prime in each test. Not long before, the prime had been cleaned and tested by Canon. For me the added benefit was that I could sell both my older zoom and my 500 prime, exceed my prior quality at 500, and avoid carrying a tripod for the most part. You get an added stop due to the in body stabilization in the R5 for a total of 6 stops of stabilization. Hope that helps.

Irwin

I appreciate your kind statement, ecobin.

Thank you Bruce. I am using a bit of legacy lenses and newly developed lenses. The ducks were shot with the RF 800mm f11 lens which sell for about $1000. This lens had no EF equivalent. I replaced my EF 100-400mm L zoom with the RF 100-500L zoom and also my EF 24-70L with the R24-105L. My primary macro lens remains a Sigma 180mm 2.8. and still use the Canon 65MPE. With an adapter, the EF lenses work at least as we as they did with my DSLRs if not better. I used the 100-400 quite a bit before I replaced it. It focused faster and more accurately with the R5.

Thank you Antonio. I have not shot the RP or R6 so I can't comment. As to the R5, it is a truly wonderful camera.

Thanks Jim. When the improvements are significant enough in the areas you push your camera’s capabilities and when the camera otherwise meets you performance needs, you will go mirrorless. You are right. The advances are coming quickly

Thank you Joe. That is about as nice a compliment as a photographer can get.

Thank you, kpmac. It's rare that such an investment is an order of magnitude better than your thought initially.

Thank you Earnest.

I just started a post on whether I thought my decision to purchase the R5 was correct. I sold my 5D Mark IV, my 7D Mark II and gave my 5DSr to my son. The R5 substantially met or surpassed all of their strengths. They were superfluous after the purchase. Unless you want a back up body, I can't think of a reason to Keep the 5D Mark IV. The R5 will do everything as well or better.

Irwin

Paul, though I approach your aphorisms with a smile and a sense of amusement, this one contains a great deal of truth. I am phrasing shots in a manner I had envisioned but could not quite get to before. My shooting buddy says that he smiles when he picks up this camera. As you know, a heartfelt smile can change your day.

Irwin

Thank you. I just changed out the last shot, because I realized I grabbed the wrong image. This image show the detail and color that you can achieve at 5000 ISO a bit better.

Except for my initial cameras that I learned photography on, I am not sentimental about my gear. I view gear as tools to get the images I seek. In deciding whether or not to upgrade to new equipment, I read the reviews, look at the purported benefits, then ask myself whether those benefits would advance my photographic goals and whether I think those benefits are worth the cost. I feel no compulsion to keep gear that is working well within it's original design limitations, if the current model offers features that will improve either the quality of my images or improve my success rate. I do not have to keep my gear an arbitrary number of years. By the same token, I do not buy the new bright an shiny object that I believe will not advance my photographic goals.

So after a year of heavy usage, was the decision to upgrade to the R5 the correct one. For me, the decision is a resounding yes for the reasons below. Your usage and decision points my well be different. This post coincides with a belated review of my images for the last year or so.

Versatility and simplification of kit: Professionally and personally, I shoot a wide range of images, high resolution macros, product, birds and other wildlife, landscapes and grandchildren as well as a fair degree of miscellaneous. I used three bodies, a Canon 7D Mark II, a 5D Mark IV, and a 5DSr. The R5 pretty well matches or exceeds the strengths of each of those bodies.

Better focusing system: The camera's ability for focusing on the eye of flying birds and active grandkids is a game changer. It's not that I didn't get successful shots in the past. It's that I get the successful shot more frequently. Also, I can use certain lenses, such as my 100-500mm with a teleconverter, or my RF 800mm and still have auto focus

Better low light performance. The ability to get clean results at ISO 5000 is of particular benefit when shooting birds and kids in less that stellar light.

The IBIS works in conjunction with the image stabilization in the lens to extend the number of sharp images I get when hand holding in dim light. I also carry my tripod less.

The focus bracketing programs has gotten me more successful stacks. The reason is that I don't have to wait 2 seconds in between shots, for the camera to settle down after the shutter and the mirror move at the end of the preceding shot. Outside, there is less chance for wind movement or light change in a 50 pic stack where it takes two or three seconds to stack the image as opposed to 2 minutes. In my studio, the difference in time may mean that the cactus flower does not yet begin to close when brought inside.

The mirrorless design has worked well with novel lenses, like my 800mm f/11 lens or lenses that have been improved over their EF version the 100-500 zoom.

What brought it home to me was a set of wood duck shots I took this past week with my 800 f/11 on my R5 shooting at 5000 ISO.

I am not advocating for anyone to upgrade their equipment. Nor am I seeking to promote Canon gear over its competitors. I am just stating the reasons I upgraded and my evaluation of the upgrade.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)