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

Steve Fink wrote:

mraifman wrote:

Just because I'm the OP here I figure I should clarify for posterity. I did not put the 2x on the 300mm f/5.6 on the R7; I did do this on the R5 (as it was designed for) and found that the results at f/5.6 were too blurry and needed to be stopped down to f/7.1 or f/8 for sharpness. This is normal and not surprising, but there isn't a miracle here with the 300mm f/2.8+2x. The performance with the ef 1.4x mk iii is great though even wide open at f/4. Again, typical of top performing TCs.

This is where confusion as to who said what. I knew that you said you put those on the R5 but Thriller thought otherwise, and led to confusing thoughts in my head.

Yes, absolutely I mentioned these things as desirable attributes in wildlife photography. I would beg to differ that noise is not a function of the camera as sensors definitely dictate noise levels when controlling for everything else. Also, full frame cameras do provide nicer boken than crop sensors typically. Again, separate from the lens. However, don't disagree that lens choice is a big part of this.

Agreed.

Yeah, I mean you are right as far as what I intended (and what I thought I wrote) but also this is all kind of missing the plot at this point.

I think Thriller's comments about the R7 and R5 being pretty similar once you account for the pixel density and pixel size is pretty accurate. Inspired me to find some RAW files to do a proper comparison of what the all the numbers/analysis mean at the end of the day (shared this in previous post). Personally, I do think the R7 is sharper compared to the R5 cropped but it is pretty darn close at the end of the day.

On the one hand this suggests that R7 is a great wildlife camera for the money. On the other hand it suggests that the R7 may not offer a large upgrade to the R5 in terms of wildlife resolution for far away subjects (there's some benefit but not huge).