Sell the R5 and get an R7 and R? Crazy?

mraifman wrote:

Steve Fink wrote:

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?

Yes, sounds reasonable for your case. The jury is still out on my 300mm F2.8 with the 2x or 1.4x.  I would be concerned that the R may be a step backwards as far as tracking is concerned, compared to the R5. Maybe I'm wrong, IDK.

I may have considered the R6 had it had 24 MP, but 20 seemed a little too small. Some BIF shots need more cropping than others. I think 24 may work however.