Compare the pixel and photo quality of R5 & R7.

John Sheehy wrote:

PMUK wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

PMUK wrote:

Hi Bigger,

Yes. I have the R5/ RF 100-500 and Karen has the R7/ EF 100-400 (+ EF 1.4x III).

We will doubtless swap them around occasionally too - for a bit of fun.

That's quite a lot of differences, especially when subjects are close and/or large and both of you are zooming out for the same subject. Switch lenses, however, and everything changes, and they will become more similar in the zoom range, but when both are focal-length-limited, whatever camera is using the 100-500 will have more of the desired characteristics.

Hi John,

Fully agree there - the R7 + 100-500 is terrific fun (and really impressed with the raw files).

Put this combo in Karen’s hands (she blows me into the weeds) and the R5 + 100-400 (and me) has it’s work cut out to bag the winning shot. (I still get lucky, but not very often… ).

I usually get to use the R5 + 100-500 set-up, which evens things out (a little) for me.

I didn't go too "deep into the weeds" in my earlier reply, but zooms within their zoom range are a special case when dealing with different sensor sizes. For the sake of illustration, let's assume that your wife usually used a light kit, with an R7 and 70-200/4, and you used the R5 and a 70-200/2.8. If you both needed the angle of view of 200mm on a FF, you could use 200/2.8, but she would be using 125/4, which as a FF equivalent, gives the same image as a FF camera with 200/6.4; a huge difference from 200/2.8 in terms of diffraction, noise, and background blur.

Swap lenses, however, and you are using 200/4, and she is using 125/2.8, which is FF-equivalent to 200/4.5, so now, there is very little difference (except for 45 vs 32.5MP).

Hi John,

Thank you for taking the time to expand on your original post, I always enjoy (and benefit from) reading your informed and clearly explained comments.

A thought provoking perspective on our casual lens swapping.

(But dare I risk showing it to Karen...  ).

Phil