$499 for the 100-400!

Mike Engles wrote:

Well I have a 7 year old EIZO monitor, so it should be 'dull'

Not necessarily. It also might have a lower resolution than modern monitors, which will affect how you see images. When I switched to high resolution 4K monitors, my images looked different on screen.

and I have cataracts, but the images, particularly the close squirrel, really looks over sharpened when viewed as 'original size' It is not just yours, it is pretty well all images these days, especially those that have had considerable NR applied. I don't know if yours have had a lot of NR

Deep Prime applies NR, in differing amounts, depending on the ISO level.

It would be useful to post a totally unprocessed comparison with the crop.

There's no such thing as an unprocessed image. To convert RAW data into an image, you need to process it, either in camera or with a RAW converter on a computer. There are simply different ways to process images. I use DXO PL5 for most of my images, with default settings, which I then tweak for things like shadow and highlight recovery. Deep Prime applies both noise reduction, when needed, and lens corrections. I could choose to disable lens corrections, if I wanted to, which would give images an unnaturally, to my eyes, soft look.

I imagine that you will not, practically no one does.

Perhaps because, as I said, there's no such thing? I could post a comparison with different processing settings, but none would be unprocessed. The image processed with Lightroom defaults, for example, won't look as sharp, because LR doesn't do as good a job with lens corrections. Perhaps you just prefer softer-looking images? That's fine, but it doesn't mean that other processing choices are 'over sharpened'. That term used to be used for images that had distinct sharpening 'halos' along edges, because of the way unsharp mask works. It's still possible to apply USM to images, but I don't do that with images processed with PL5, because their lens corrections are so good. I don't know what goes into those corrections, but I don't think it's USM.

If that result is what the R7 and the 100-400 can do natively,

"Natively", the R7 and 100-400 produce a digital file, which then has to be processed, either in camera or on a computer, to produce an image. That's how digital photography works.

then they really are a bargain

It all reminds so much of when I was a sound engineer, when recordings started to have phenomenal amounts of compression and audio processing, because the technology allowed it.That continues today.