I recently took the foot off my 100-500 to help me pack my gear for a trip. I'm not very quick, but I finally figured out that you just loosen the screw to the point that the foot pops apart and then is removed. That is very handy since the old EF 100-400 you actually had to take the lens off camera to remove the foot. The very unhandy part is that I apparently loosened the screw a bit too much (while using the combo on a tripod), and while carrying the camera/lens combo through the house by the foot, it popped apart and everything but the foot crashed onto the tile floor. Thankfully the R5 is a tough bugger as it seems no harm no foul. Just be aware that this , in fact, can happen with this lens, unlike the previous versions that it wasn't possible.

I thought I would just post a couple of examples for you. The first is from the R5 w/100-500. The second is from the R5 w/ 100-500+RF1.4x. This is actually the first effort with the 1.4 attached. Given the high ISO, I was pretty pleased. (These look a heck of a lot better on my computer than these downloads, but I guess that is what we are dealt).

Canon R5, 100-500+RF1.4x, 1/400, f10, ISO 6400, 700mm

(Download)

Canon R5, 100-500, 1/640, f7.1, ISO 800, 500mm

(Download)

A couple of weeks ago I posted my first photos from my new R5, with the topic pertaining to the Eye Tracking focus option. Since there were a few folks that appeared interested in the camera, I thought I would provide an update. Please know that these comments aren't based on scientific experimentation, but just an old guy with a new camera that is noticing a few things.
Photo 1 of the hummingbird in the shade, made me notice that the Eye Tracking option doesn't work quite as well in the shade. The camera made some great shots, but in the deep shade, there were noticeably more failures than successes. (In my opinion, still more successes than with my 5DIV).
Photo 2 of the Sisken in the shade, backlit, on a water feature and in the sprinkler. This was a difficult situation for any focus system, but the Eye Tracking option gave me at least a couple of good captures. It did, however, require some persistence to have success. Using AF, I can't remember ever being successful in similar conditions with the 5DIV.
Photo 3 of the stream. This was my first attempt to see what the IBIS might do (although it is on all the time so trying to actually interpret its' effect is difficult at best). Here is the caveat; I'm an old guy with shaky hands, so in all reality it is often difficult for me to achieve sharp focus (handheld) at 1/100. So, standing in this creek, I shot this photo at 1/20, f11, ISO 400, handheld, bending down in a crouch, using a wide angle 16-28 lens at 18. Although not tack sharp, I was astounded at the sharpness I was able to achieve given how much I was bouncing around.
Anyway, just thought I would throw out some of my experiences so far for those that might be interested. My overall evaluation remains the same from my first shots, WOW.

Canon R5, 100-400II @ 400, f5.6, ISO 1600, 1/500

(Download)

Canon R5, 100-400II @ 400, f7.1, ISO 400, 1/320

(Download)

Canon R5, Tokina 16-26, f11, ISO 400, 1/20

(Download)

Got my new R5 Friday and had the opportunity to do a few tests yesterday regarding the "eye" tracking focus system. I've followed several of the other posts over the past few days regarding other issues, so will keep this simple. My first reaction is overwhelmingly positive. These were literally the first attempt, and from about a 30 frame burst, 24 were tack sharp. I was using a 600II lens on a tripod. Didn't have time to get the light right, so from a photographic perspective lots wrong, but the focus system is absolutely remarkable from this very limited test.

(Download)

Gloria:
Please, please, please read and listen to MTShooter rather than most of the others. Like him, I have and do live in the shadow of Yellowstone, and visit regularly to photograph wildlife, etc. The vast majority of those trips are solo, and although I don't hike much anymore (I'm a bit over 70), I consider Yellowstone much safer than, say NYC You will be overwhelmed with photo ops from your car, as there are plentiful pull outs, in addition to the various "touristy places such as geyser basins, etc.". If you choose to, there are many short hikes, and most likely other folks that you can simply ask to tag along with. Again, you are at higher risk of being mugged in the city, than running into a bear. It is simply a matter of being "bear aware" as they say.
Obviously the hours around sunup and sundown are best for viewing wildlife, but don't quit too early. Most wildlife in the park can be seen at virtually all hours of the day. Early September crowds are starting to thin, but as a photographer I have found the following to be true regardless of the season. You will be with other photographers before 9 or 10, then the "others" start to show up. Same goes with after 5pm, the "others" will start to disappear.
You are spot on with regards to the Lamar Valley and Hayden Valley being prime wildlife viewing areas. The Lamar is on the highway to Cooke City, and is thereby traveled regularly (so don't worry about being alone). There are numerous spectacular options for vast Astrophotography opportunities along this route (although the park in general is great for these shots). In September the elk are starting to rut and bugle, and frankly, one of the best places to see that behavior up close and personal is at Mammoth Hot Springs, as a large herd seems to live there year round. If you work at it you can actually get some photos without other people in them.
September in Yellowstone, or Montana in general, is probably different than back east regarding the weather. Historically we will get our first major snow storm the week of the 15th. It typically doesn't last long, but it can be nasty for the short term. Makes for awesome landscape photography. Your clothing therefore needs to address the possibility of temperatures ranging from 15 to 85 (which could happen in the same day ).
All that being said, September is THE most spectacular month to visit Yellowstone and/or Montana.
This will be a trip of a lifetime, so plan accordingly, and expect to be awed. I am every time I visit, as the park is an extraordinary piece of America.
Please don't fear traveling alone, you will soon see that you aren't, and don't plan your trip fearing an encounter with a bear. I have been attempting to get a decent grizzly photo for years, and am still 0 for 1000. Maybe you will have that great opportunity.
Have an awesome trip.

I introduced Photo Mechanic into my work flow several months ago, at the suggestion of a professional Bird Photographer, and like it a lot. Has significantly sped up reviewing/culling photos for importing into Lightroom. Allows me to do several passes at differing zooms, tag, flag, etc. Was a very satisfying addition to my routine.

You've received many very good and detailed responses. So hopefully something will help. I also shoot a 5D IV, 100-400 II with and without the Canon 1.4III telex. I also have experienced some of your similar problems with regards soft focus. I have found that use of a tripod (with the 1.4 attached) improves my keepers over two fold. I have had very limited success handholding this combo (I'm kind of an old guy, and probably shake too much). Shutter speed has also helped reduce the soft frames. With the 5D I'm not afraid to go to ISO 6400 in order to gain adequate shutter speed in excess of 1/800 (which for birds and some moving animals is necessary). With this combo I also go to single point focus in an effort to increase sharpness (typically focusing on the eye of my subject). Unfortunately it hunts for focus quite a bit, and is kind of slow (i.e. frustrating), but does lend to sharper images. The reality is that the 100-400/1.4 combo (giving you f8) isn't a particularly good low light combo unless you can lock everything down really solidly. Even at that probably plan on a 1/6 or 1/10 keeper rate (not scientific, just my experience as to what to expect). On the other hand the 100-400 by itself is one of the sharpest lens I've ever used. If in doubt, go without the 1.4 and then crop to your satisfaction.
If you really get frustrated, do what I did and find a good used 600 II, f4 lens and your low light issues are greatly reduced, LOL. Good luck and just keep shooting.

This book should be the Bible for Bird Photographers. The chapters on Exposure are worth the read alone. Morris is an excellent teacher and definitely knows his stuff. Check out his blog, as he has teachable moments virtually every day regarding Bird Photography. Also, you will find his Guide to the 7DII worth purchasing as well.

I have the Canon 6D and 7DII, along with the Canon 100-400 II and Sigma 150-600 Sport. For birds I primarily use the 7DII, and since I got the 100-400, it rarely comes off the camera. That lens has opened up numerous hand-held opportunities that I didn't have before I purchased it. I also have the Canon 1.4x III, but don't use it except with a tripod. Checkout Arthur Morris (one of the most respected bird photographers in the world), and you will see that his current gear is the 5DIV and 100-400 II for his BIF and hand-held work.

I have the 7DII, the Sigma 150-600 Sport, and the Canon 100-400 II (and 1.4 III). Primarily used for birds, wildlife. I have gotten great photos with the Sigma (usually with tripod, but occasionally handheld). The 100-400 is relatively new, but I can tell you (from an old guys perspective), it is over twice as easy to handhold, the IS is far superior to the Sigma, the IQ seems to be really good, and it has turned into my "on camera" lens of choice. You just have to recognize that you will give up a bit of distance; but knowing what I know now, I would go with the 100-400.

You've gotten some great advice from many, albeit every option imaginable, LOL. I may as well add to the confusion. I have both the Sigma 150-600 Sport and the 100-400II with both the 1.4 and 2.0 TC's. I use on a 6D and 7D MII. If I had the option of this trip, I would, of course, take all of it (maybe someday). In my opinion, however, I believe that you will have more "keepers" with the 100-400 (even with the 1.4 and MF), then you will with the Big lens if hand holding is your only option. First of all the 100-400 is a superior lens from a quality perspective (again, just my opinion/experience), and secondly, it is so light and easy to use that I have pretty much relegated my BigSig to tripod only use. Honestly, this is a very difficult call, but I think for ease of transportation, hand holding options, and overall camera/lens management in rather dusty and sometimes difficult situations, I would probably go with the 100-400. Regardless your choice have a great trip.

... Luckily they did no damage and no one was hurt.

Actually that isn't true. The footprints they left in the crust will remain for decades, and may even be highlighted by the new micro-organisms that grow in the disturbed area. Frankly, IMHO, no fine is high enough for this blatant disregard for the natural beauty of our NPs and our Historic treasures in general.

You have received great guidance from many who know what they are talking about. I own both the 6D and 7DII. I struggle with the low light capabilities of the 7D (image quality suffers above ISO 800 it seems), but the focus system is far superior to that in the 6D. If I were having to choose, I would probably go with the 7DII or a GOOD used 5DII or III. I have attached a couple recent shots for your comparison. Good Luck.
Egret- 7DII, Sigma 150-600 Sport (at 600), 1/2500, f8, ISO 640; Osprey- 6D, Sigma 150-600 Sport (at 600), 1/1600, f6.3, ISO 1600.

(Download)


(Download)

Have used LR since about v3, and the only issues were caused by operator error. I have experienced a few unforced crashes since the v6 update, but still nothing that would remotely suggest I go elsewhere. Love the program and the seamless interface with PS.

Thanks much. Your screen shot was also helpful. I had kind of ignored this UHH Category since I can get around in LR pretty well, but will now be a more devoted follower of these threads.