R5/R7 and RF100-500mm thoughts for those who use both

RogerZoul wrote:

tsinvest wrote:

I have used the RF100-500 on both my R5 and R7 and actually get great results with each body. I am referring to the longer end of the lens. Shooting birds at a distance, I think my results are equally as good with either camera. It would be interesting to see if others with these setups feel the same or do you prefer the 5 over the 7 or the 7 over the 5 with the RF100-500 lens?

I have both. I feel the R5 wins every time for birds in flight, but the R7 isn't bad if the light is good or if the bird it perched. Also, I prefer the r7 for butterflies and dragons, or any insect life and for macro, with a macro lens. The r7 is great with the 1.4x TC and the 100-500 when photographing tiny butterflies at very close range. Hard combo to beat for that application and it the reason I will keep it.

For me, the r7, even with its beefed up AF system compared to the R5, still can't track like the r5. I have had many birds in pretty close range and the R7 would fail to lock on or give me shots that seemed to be slightly oof, when doing BIF, when I know from experience that the R5 will nail such a shot (as I have done time and time again). Frankly, I had similar results with the 90D and even the 7DM2. I personally think QC on the lower priced Canon bodies is not consistent. Also, I see a similar situation with my RF 800mm F11 lens. Several of my Canon shooting buddies have this lens, but my copy not only "pulls" to the right sometimes when shooting a burst, but it is not consistently sharp. On some occasions, usually at close range, I have gotten really sharp results from that lens. But most of the time and greater range, it loses it sharpness. I find it too "iffy" to use and now just use my L glass.

These are all good points to keep in mind.  Thanks for sharing this information.  I need to get the 1.4x TC.  I've never used a TC but after a few responses about how well they work I think it's time for me to try one.