Re: Sell the R5 and get an R7 and R? Crazy?
1
Steve Fink wrote:
mraifman wrote:
Yeah, I'd say I'm about 80% wildlife these days...
I like the R5 a lot but if I'm cropping most of the shots then it feels silly and I don't see an RF 600 f/4 in my future...
I don't see the RF 600 in my future either but do have something close with the 300mm F2.8 and 2x making it a 600mm f5.6. Still it's too heavy to carry for comfort.
That's why I bought the inexpensive RF 600mm F11. It works well unless the lighting is horrible. I'm sure that it would work even better on the R5.
Question, why the R versus the R6 MKII or even the R6?
Yes, that is what I was thinking too. I had a 2x TC mk III that I was using on the 300 f/2.8 but I wasn't thrilled with the sharpness performance at f/5.6 (I have since returned the TC within the return window; may repurchase it down the line depending on how things settle). Unfortunately, I find myself shooting at lot in lower light conditions - sunrise or a forest - so the f11 becomes a challenge. I do think the 600 f/5.6 is an extremely compelling option, however, if it needs to be stopped down to f/8 to get sharp results, it is a little less useful.
Regarding the R, my thinking is: a) it's cheap at $900 refurbished; b) it is higher resolution: 30 vs 20 or 24 which would be good for landscape; c) as a landscape first body, the better AF and tracking of the R6 series wouldn't be as valuable as that would be fulfilled by the R7. Just my initial thinking...disagree?