R6 with EF 100-400mm II and TC EF 1.4x III for wildlife?

Shawn1519 wrote:

Ephemeris wrote:

Shawn1519 wrote:

The R7 and R5 are better cameras for wildlife than the R6 - the R7 will get you the most "pixels on duck", while the R5 is a "workhorse" for wildlife. R6 is better for portrait work, etc because it has lower noise, etc than the R7/R5.

Is this noise statement correct? Do we really are less noise with R6/R5 at probably ISO 100? I know this is off topic but I see this idea quite a lot.

I have never used a R6, but I have heard alot of people say the R6 has less noise than the R5. I think it is because the R6 has fewer pixels thus larger pixels which require less electrical amplification which increases noise.

Other than playing with friends R6 briefly I've never used one either. If you (anyone) takes a look at Photons2Photos we can get some insite I to that normalised noise level.

I think the outcome looks to be they are comparable but take a look and see what you think.

We use the 1.4x iii with the 100-400 ii quite a lot. Mostly static object or static with something rotating.

It's a really good combination, not lightweight, pretty fast facus time to lock on, quiet and has survived the elements.

Yeah, the 100-400 ii with or without a tele has been a good combo for me on my old 90D and the R5. To me, the R5 with the 100-400 ii is a great walk around wildlife combo.

After reading and replying to your posts i discussed internally that we only have one 1.4 x iii so have bought another from MPB so we have two systems that can have the extended on the 100-400ii.

I've never used the 100-500 in earnest I think the issues with the 1.4x worried me and loosing a bit of light in some circumstances.  The plus side is a bet it's a darn bit lighter and smaller than my kits

Shawn

Thanks Sean appreciate the reply.