R5+100-500+1.4x or R7+100-500?

drsnoopy wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

I just completed my third my third comparison shot session for collecting images from the label on the power pole near my house. I have made several small refinements in technique for each of the three test shooting days.

There is was a great deal of forum interest/attention to the use of the R5/ RF 100-500 with the 1.4X TC vs the R7 using the same RF 100-500 lens. These pictures are of a label that is over 100 feet from the shooter and all pictures are made from same shooting location.

Using the R7 and the RF 100-500 with no TC resulted in 6000 pixels on the label

Using the R5 and the RF 100-500 with no TC resulted in 3000 pixels on the label

Using the R5 and the RF 100-500 with 1.4X TC and 1.96 more pixels on the label resulted in

Using the R5 and the RF 100-500 using 451mm FL with 2X resulted in 6000 pixels on the label

Note: the 902mm was the FL because the zoom got bumped changing the 1.4X TC with the 2X TC. Also note the increased number of pixels on the label from using the 2X TC rather than the 1.4X TC.

To judge the images above for detail you should adjust them to be side by side and same physical size on your large computer screen. The R7/RF100-500 without TC and R5/RD100-500 1.4X TC are best compared side side and adjust to make both the same size.

Despite being a f2X TC resulting in the aperture to be f13 at the 904mm the image it generations is pretty competitive with R7 image using only the bare RF 100-500

Your 1st and 2nd images are what interest me, though I think the 2nd (R5 + 1.4x) is unfortunately affected by image movement (looks like camera shake). As a result I don’t think it is a useful comparison. The 1st image (R7, bare lens) is the best of the series, with numbers clearly legible. Your test shows the difficulty of creating reproducible conditions, but is a good attempt nevertheless!

There's only 1 winner though and R7 for tele is simply annihilating the others, which is what we all knew already!

17mp might be competitive/enough but usability of the R5 in crop is not ideal, then you have the better af implementation on the R7 and fully optimized for aps-c eg 4:3 ratio on the R7 provides a further 1.125× crop, so ostensibly on the ef 100-400 you have 720mm in camera @400 5.6 and 32mp, its certainly going to take some beating! Sure, you have the 100-500 but personally I want 600+ @5.6 and the R7 and 100-400 seems a very logical choice, crikey it hangs onto f5 all the way to 500mm so essentially is on equivalent parity with 100-500 on FF @7.1 vs f8 equivalent aps-c, but the R5 is shooting 1 full stop slower.

Bridging the R7 resolution gap and to an extent its af is a difficult ask imo for R5. R7 issues are more ergo/no battery grip, evf, RS and the the likes!