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

R2D2 wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

I have the R5 and 100-500, and very happy with the combination. I also have an R7 on order but now I'm wondering whether anyone has done a comparison between the R5 with the 1.4xTC (giving 700mm max FL) and the r7 with the bare lens (giving 800mm effective max FL). I do understand the issue with the TC restricting the short end of the zoom range. I've also tried crop mode on the R5 (17MP) and the results are mostly good but would like the extra sensor resolution. My feeling is that the r7 should have the edge, bearing in mind of course the differences in noise, which I am happy to deal with in RAW conversion (DXO) or in post (Topaz). However the TC would be less expensive...

Thanks for any examples or pointers towards other sources.

For me, 700-800mm is my “Goldilocks Zone,” so this would indeed be my preferred max focal length too (I have the R5 + 100-500 + 1.4x). Love it. I do a lot of BIFs, so anything longer than this is not ideal for me (harder to acquire/track). It’ll be good to see how this all shakes out!

In the future, we may be using super-high resolution sensors and shorter, faster lenses, and depend upon "digital zoom" for much of what we now use longer focal lengths for.  A 200/2 lens that is free of aberration on a 400MP FF sensor would also have crops "equivalent" to 400/4 with 100MP,  and still have 25MP at the equivalent of 800/8.  This would greatly reduce any compromises between pixels-on-subject and the ability to find and stay on the subject.  You wouldn't have to sacrifice pixel resolution of the subject to get a wider tracking view.  Of course, when you start out with only 32.5 or 45 MP, you can't crop as deeply in post, without pixelation.