R5-800mm vs R5-500mm Cropped vs R7-500mm (Page 3): I should do some controlled tests with the 1.4x. I haven't found myself using it that much. Frankly, with either the R5 or R7 body...

MtManMD Loc: Beaverton, Oregon

lorvey wrote:

Thanks for your feedback. I will look for your Oct post. Do you find that using the 1.4x extender provides high quality images, as good as shooting without it, or do you see a slight degradation of the image?

I should do some controlled tests with the 1.4x. I haven't found myself using it that much. Frankly, with either the R5 or R7 body and the 100-500mm lens, just about everything is covered. The R7 gives that 1.6x additional reach. Images from both bodies can be cropped significantly.

DaveJ Loc: NE Missouri

I have the R5 and the R7. I also have the 800 f11, the 100-500 and the RF 1.4. If you want to see examples of the RF 1.4 on these two lenses and these two bodies, look thru my Flickr photo stream. I interchange all the time, and will say the 1.4 is very good on these two lenses, but lens is slightly better without it, as would be expected. The shooting data is on 95%+ of my shots on Flickr account.My Flickr address is below my name. My Youtube link below has videos with these bodies and lenses, but I don't think I call out which I use there.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IMEO (educated opinion) The R7 with 100-500 has the potential to render the most detail images/large prints - but it will require good light, good stabilization, and proper shutter speed for moving subjects. IOW, the moon and stars will have to align !

The full frame R5 has more versatility - especially when using AI pixel enlargement on cropped images.

Again IMEO, optically, the 100-500 and 1.4X are effectively equal to the 800, except for the IS of the zoom. Cost and size/weight are another matter.......

lorvey Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

DaveJ wrote:

I have the R5 and the R7. I also have the 800 f11,... (show quote)

Thanks, Dave, will check it out.

lorvey Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

imagemeister wrote:

IMEO (educated opinion) The R7 with 100-500 has th... (show quote)

Thank you for your comments. I need to do more shooting with the R7 combo to see if I am satisfied with the results.

lorvey Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

DaveJ wrote:

I have the R5 and the R7. I also have the 800 f11,... (show quote)

Dave, you've got some great shots using the R7 with various lens on your Flickr site. Your photos with the 1.4X also look pretty good. That's encouraging. I think I need to shoot more so I become more comfortable with the R7 camera.

DaveJ Loc: NE Missouri

lorvey wrote:

Dave, you've got some great shots using the R7 with various lens on your Flickr site. Your photos with the 1.4X also look pretty good. That's encouraging. I think I need to shoot more so I become more comfortable with the R7 camera.

Thanks lorvy,

I like the extra reach at times with the R7, but the R5 files can be very good. Both very capable cameras.
Dave

mikey12654 Loc: Vancouver, WA

Basil wrote:

I’d love to have one too, but probably not gonna happen anytime soon. In the meantime I’ve been very happy with my Sigma 150-600. That lens (compared to the RF 100-500) is 100mm longer and 1/3 stop brighter. I’ve had it paired with the R5 at Bosque Del Apache and it was quite good. Surprisingly so.

I hear ya, I won't be getting the 100-500 anytime soon either but wish I had it. I've seen some very sharp shots at the long end, the part I like is the weight & sharpness. I've had the 150-600 and that sucker is heavy, carrying it was like being in the service again lol. I do love using EF fit lenses on the R5, including Sigma, I was in awe of how well my 50mm Art lens performs on the R5! I was thinking of getting the R7 to use my 100-400 ii lens with, that would give me 640mm with a 32.5mp sensor though it's not full frame.

mikey12654 Loc: Vancouver, WA

DaveJ wrote:

Thanks lorvy,

I like the extra reach at times with the R7, but the R5 files can be very good. Both very capable cameras.
Dave

I took a quick look at your awesome shots, were all the shots on the 1st few pages (or all?) shot with the R7? I'm seriously thinking of buying an R7 to increase the range and have as a backup camera. Love your work Dave!

DaveJ Loc: NE Missouri

mikey12654 wrote:

I took a quick look at your awesome shots, were all the shots on the 1st few pages (or all?) shot with the R7? I'm seriously thinking of buying an R7 to increase the range and have as a backup camera. Love your work Dave!

Thank You mikey! When you go to my Flickr Photostream, if you click on the individual photos, the page will show what camera and what settings. I was on a kick for a while after getting the R7 to use it more. Now I seem to be going back and forth between the R5 and the R7. Your idea on the R7 is solid, and it is what I got one for. I take a lot of photos I don't put on Flickr because I use a free account and there is a limit.

Dave

Basil Loc: New Mexico

mikey12654 wrote:

I hear ya, I won't be getting the 100-500 anytime ... (show quote)

Just curious - did you have the contemporary or the Sport version of the Sigma 150-600? My Contemporary is right at 4 lbs, which is a pound heavier than the RF 100-500, but I look at it like this: I get an extra 100mm reach and 1/3 better stop of light for that extra pound. The Sport version of the Sigma, on the other hand, is a monster at 6.29 lbs!

I agree with you on the EF 50mm f/1.4. I love that lens on my R5 and have no intentions of parting with it any time soon. Two other EF lenses I love on the R5 are my 135 f/2 and the 300mm f/4. They both work better of the R5 than they did on the 5D Mark IV.

I've been toying with eventually gettin an R7 also, to have primarily as a birding camera.

mikey12654 Loc: Vancouver, WA

Basil wrote:

Just curious - did you have the contemporary or th... (show quote)

I had the "Sport" version but only had it for 2 wks I think and you're right on the mark regarding it's weight, I will say it was built very well. I see you have the 50mm too so you know how well it performs, I had heard about their Art series lenses and I wasn't sure if the R5 IBIS would function well with it. As you know it does function well, I was blown away by the sharpness of that lens...and still am every time I use it! I have no hesitation using any Sigma lens these days, glad your 135 & 300mm lenses are performing well for you. That's impressive they work better on the R5 than with the 5D4, I see Canon's website is selling a refurbished 5D4 for $1499.00, that too is impressive. I noticed a new R7 has come down a bit to $1399.00 too, I watched a couple Youtube vids on issues with the R7 regarding rolling shutter and how the sharpness/IQ can be affected by shooting mechanical or even in some cases shooting Elec 1st curtain. More research!

mikey12654 Loc: Vancouver, WA

DaveJ wrote:

Thank You mikey! When you go to my Flickr Photostream, if you click on the individual photos, the page will show what camera and what settings. I was on a kick for a while after getting the R7 to use it more. Now I seem to be going back and forth between the R5 and the R7. Your idea on the R7 is solid, and it is what I got one for. I take a lot of photos I don't put on Flickr because I use a free account and there is a limit.

Dave

You're so very welcome Dave, I will re-visit your Flickr pics and I love being able to learn what camera & settings were used for each shot, great info! Before I went to bed last night I watched a couple Youtube vids that talked about the effect on sharpness when using mechanical & EFC shooting, also talked about rolling shutter and the buffer. Also, one guy said he only shoots Elec and not mech/EFC and is content getting a few sharp shots of the 30, then another guy says to only shoot EFC! Would love to hear your thoughts on this Dave, this is all brand new to me, oh, one guy also said he had wished he hadn't installed the latest firmware. Thanks Dave!

DaveJ Loc: NE Missouri

mikey12654 wrote:

You're so very welcome Dave, I will re-visit your ... (show quote)

It is very easy to be confused by all the different opinions. And remember , it is opinions. I used to use EFCS 100% of the time on 6d MK II and 90D, 80D ect. I did the same on R5 until a friend touted the ES. I think it is possible to get blurry shots with mechanical shutter slap(or EFCS), but it is not the norm, IMO. On rolling shutter and ES, I have only seen it in a small minority of my shots, and it is when I am very shaky or panning very fast on a moving subject. Now I mostly use ES unless I have a reason to use EFCS. On buffering, on the R7 if you hold down the shutter and blast as fast as possible for several sec onds, you can experence. I think I have only had that happen twice, but I don't blow and go a lot. Too many shots to cull for me.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

mikey12654 wrote:

I watched a couple Youtube vids on issues with the R7 regarding rolling shutter and how the sharpness/IQ can be affected by shooting mechanical or even in some cases shooting Elec 1st curtain. More research!

Yes, there are some unfortunate limitations with the R7, rolling shutter with Electronic shutter being the elephant in the room. I'd probably rent one first before deciding for sure to get one. Maybe the R7 Mark II will solve or at least improve that (assuming there is an eventual R7 Mark II)