I have a "would you rather?" question for Wildlife

For long reach.... would rather have?

1- R6ii or R5ii (in other words FF) + RF 200-800 + 1.4x TC?

or

2- R7 +RF 200-800?

I would go with the R5 II and 200-800 and not bother with a TC.

The R5 II is the only one of the options you listed that I have owned and used and it nice so was the original R5. For me I would never even consider the R7 because of the body, the control layout and lack of battery grip option are the main reasons.

I’ve been using the R7 and R5 several times a week since each was released. Both are capable of producing excellent images. With its high pixel density the R7 does best with a very sharp lens. I have no experience shooting the RF 200-800 but wonder about it’s ability on an R7. Will be interested in others opinions and experiences.

SeaLions_and_Birds said:

For long reach.... would rather have?

1- R6ii or R5ii (in other words FF) + RF 200-800 + 1.4x TC?

or

2- R7 +RF 200-800?

Click to expand...

If I had nothing and was able to choose one of those options, for free . . .

I’d choose the R5II + 200-800mm + 1.4x because most of the time I would not need the 1.4x

The R7 + 200-800 would be more versatile - I wouldn’t need to swap in|out the 1.4x, but then I’d only have 33Mp and I’d have inferior AF performance.

R5II it is.

jj

For about the same budget I'd get an R5 II and a used original Canon EF 500mm f4 L IS with an EF 1.4x III and an EF 2x III.

I do a lot of supertelephoto photography and I shoot both FF and APS-C, and it is not often that one needs to go beyond 800mm on FF. If you want the flexibility of the 200-800 then use it on the R5 II, but don't even bother with the 1.4x. The poor image quality at 800mm will just get worse with the 1.4x. I know the RF bodies can try to AF at any maximum aperture but even the R5 II will be challenged to AF well with this combo.

When one can fill the frame, on a regular basis, with a 45MP FF body the results are superior to a 32MP APS-C.

SeaLions_and_Birds said:

For long reach.... would rather have?

1- R6ii or R5ii (in other words FF) + RF 200-800 + 1.4x TC?

or

2- R7 +RF 200-800?

Click to expand...

One option called "FF" is not realistic IMO, because you have very different levels of pixel density and count, and AF ability with different FF sensors. The R5-II, R1, and R3 all have stacked sensors that look at the AF points more often than the other FF R bodies and perhaps apply more processing to what they see, and can lock and hold AF on a subject better. So, the R5-II will clearly be the best choice here for challenging AF. However, when AF is not difficult, the R7 option gives the best subject quality when focal-length-limited (max zoom), read-noise-wise, as the R5-II's superb AF is aided by a sensor that makes some extra noise to work fast.

That's at max zoom, when you're still focal-length-limited. When you zoom out, you can take the TC off of the FF cameras and then they will get faster f-numbers at the same focal length.

Each of your 3 combos would have superiority in some situations, but not in all. The R6-II would give less noise when zoomed out to frame the subject, with the same framing as the R5-II but with less noise, and both with a faster open f-number than the R7, should you remove the TC before zooming out.

T Nels said:

I’ve been using the R7 and R5 several times a week since each was released. Both are capable of producing excellent images. With its high pixel density the R7 does best with a very sharp lens. I have no experience shooting the RF 200-800 but wonder about it’s ability on an R7. Will be interested in others opinions and experiences.

Click to expand...

If the subject were small and/or distant enough that you would still need to crop from the R7 at 800mm, then there's nothing that the R5 would do better, max-subject-quality-wise, other than its faster rolling shutter.

IME, putting the RF1.4 on the R5 brings its AF down to that of the R7, or maybe a bit slower, so you would have to not use the TC on the R5 and get half the pixels-on-subject to benefit from faster AF.

John Crowe said:

For about the same budget I'd get an R5 II and a used original Canon EF 500mm f4 L IS with an EF 1.4x III and an EF 2x III.

I do a lot of supertelephoto photography and I shoot both FF and APS-C, and it is not often that one needs to go beyond 800mm on FF. If you want the flexibility of the 200-800 then use it on the R5 II, but don't even bother with the 1.4x. The poor image quality at 800mm will just get worse with the 1.4x.

Click to expand...

The image quality at 800mm is weaker than at 200mm, too, with more diffraction and probably a little bit more aberration wide open, but the subject quality is much better at 800mm than cropping 4x from 200mm. When you are talking about the working range of zooms, then subject quality and image quality are directly correlated, but when you're cropping, in any option, then they are not, as you can't get the image quality of the entire frame if you aren't using the entire frame.

John Crowe said:

I know the RF bodies can try to AF at any maximum aperture but even the R5 II will be challenged to AF well with this combo.

When one can fill the frame, on a regular basis, with a 45MP FF body the results are superior to a 32MP APS-C.

Click to expand...

Yes for most aspects of subject quality, but the OP's question seems to be about focal-length-limited purposes, and in such cases, it is not inconceivable that the sensor can capture a little more detail with a TC, even if the results seem less resolute because of a lack of acuity at 1:1 pixel views.

SeaLions_and_Birds said:

For long reach.... would rather have?

1- R6ii or R5ii (in other words FF) + RF 200-800 + 1.4x TC?

or

2- R7 +RF 200-800?

Click to expand...

The first question you have to ask yourself is how much do you absolutely need to get to 1280mm "equivalent" focal length?? Can you effectively shoot your particular subjects at that zoom level? Is your body choice able to do it? And are you willing to give up all of the other advantages provided by the other options?

If your overriding concern is subject magnification (of stable well-positioned subjects) at the expense of all else, then the R7 will provide you with a little bit more detail at max zoom than the R5ii combo, given that the distance is not so far that atmospherics start to interfere. I have shot with the R7 myself for a few years.

However don't disregard the impact that autofocus, operation, and superior technology can have on actually getting the picture. The R5 Mark II's subject detection, autofocus, and tracking are among the very best in the world, as are the other features that can play a role in capturing your subject (such as operation, sensor readout speed, pre-capture implementation, buffer size and buffer clearing speed to name a few).

Personally I much preferred even the R5 Mark I to the R7, but the R5 Mark II takes it all to another level entirely.

It's best to get out and actually shoot for a while with both options of course, but from my own experience there is no contest, short of an R7 Mark II that would possibly address some (or many) of those particular shortcomings.

Best of luck with your search! Holler back with any questions,

R2

For longest reach it's the R7, 1280 vs. 1120 eq.

However, if my math is right, the R5 + TC will give you about 5% more pixels per square inch.

I'm not a fan of TCs - just another set of contacts to cause problems. I use a pair of R7s in the field, with 200-800 & 70-200. YMMV.

As mentioned above, best advice is to field test them yourself.

Thank you all for replies. I suppose I was a little vague in my posting. Sorry about that.....bourbon does that.

I'm a recreational shooter. I happen to love the challenge of trying to get wild animal photos and occasionally will print and frame an 11x16 if I really love it for my wall. I'm also somewhat free to spend a little money on this stuff.

I currently have an R5ii, RF 100-500L, RF 200-800, and RF 24-105L, which I probably should have mentioned. The reason I asked the question is that sometimes, more than 800 would be nice, not often, but occasionally. AND with the 16-300 RF-S lens Sigma just dropped, it's VERY tempting to grab that and an R7 (or R7ii late this year if it were to happen) for a travel set up...smallish, light-ish. The other advantage would be the possibility of the 2-800 having more "reach" in that instance. AND the ability to not swap lenses as often.

Does that change any opinions?

The R5 with 100-500 and a R7 with the 200-800. That will cover you from 100mm to 1280mm eq.

I used to do a fair bit of travel on motorcycle. My light weight rig is a FZ1000. Small enough to pack in tight spaces, cheap enough to not worry about something happening.

Yeah, I suppose I'm trying to figure out if I would "like it". The R7 seems to be quite polarizing with users all over the place on it.

FZ1000 looks like a cool little point/shoot.

Reality is I'm probably reading too much into this, and I don't really need anything other than what I have. I suppose that's the point of these press releases though. Create desire for something one doesn't need to transfer money.

Are you doing action shots or mostly static shots? If mostly static I’d go for the R7, if there’s significant action I’d go for the R6 II or r5 II. I’d skip the TC in either case.

--
Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

I have an R5ii and R7. Both are fantastic cameras. I use the R5Ii with the 1.4x frequently over the R7 just be because the auto focus and stacked sensor give it a huge advantage in my specific shooting.

That said, you can't go wrong with either setup. If you already have the R5ii, get the 1.4TC, it's a great addition with the 100-500.

jentfoo said:

I have an R5ii and R7. Both are fantastic cameras. I use the R5Ii with the 1.4x frequently over the R7 just be because the auto focus and stacked sensor give it a huge advantage in my specific shooting.

That said, you can't go wrong with either setup. If you already have the R5ii, get the 1.4TC, it's a great addition with the 100-500.

Click to expand...

I've read all of the posts replying to the OP. I think the question is some ways was going towards the pixel density but missing out other features that an R5, R52 had

SeaLions_and_Birds said:

Thank you all for replies. I suppose I was a little vague in my posting. Sorry about that.....bourbon does that.

I'm a recreational shooter. I happen to love the challenge of trying to get wild animal photos and occasionally will print and frame an 11x16 if I really love it for my wall. I'm also somewhat free to spend a little money on this stuff.

I currently have an R5ii, RF 100-500L, RF 200-800, and RF 24-105L, which I probably should have mentioned. The reason I asked the question is that sometimes, more than 800 would be nice, not often, but occasionally. AND with the 16-300 RF-S lens Sigma just dropped, it's VERY tempting to grab that and an R7 (or R7ii late this year if it were to happen) for a travel set up...smallish, light-ish. The other advantage would be the possibility of the 2-800 having more "reach" in that instance. AND the ability to not swap lenses as often.

Does that change any opinions?

Click to expand...

I think that since you already have some very capable equipment, that it wouldn't hurt to scratch that particular "reach" itch with the addition of an R7 (just don't wait around for that R7ii vaporware ;-) ).

If you've done the required analysis of your shooting needs, go ahead and get the R7 for max reach. Just make sure that you don't end up having the "wrong" kit with you when you really need it. Been there, done that!

Best of luck!

R2

SeaLions_and_Birds said:

For long reach.... would rather have?

1- R6ii or R5ii (in other words FF) + RF 200-800 + 1.4x TC?

or

2- R7 +RF 200-800?

Click to expand...

You are going to be very constrained by diffraction with the 200-800 on aps-c.





But, if distance is your requirement, its probably going to be easier with 32mp and the 200-800 to get more pixels on the subject. Thing is, will the R5ii not be more reliable anyway and with the 1.6x in-camera crop, is diffracted 32mp going to be a huge advantage over 17mp that's not affected by diffraction?

As for the 16-300, the 24-240 on an R5ii will be far superior over the R7+16-300 imo.

alphaZ said:

SeaLions_and_Birds said:

For long reach.... would rather have?

1- R6ii or R5ii (in other words FF) + RF 200-800 + 1.4x TC?

or

2- R7 +RF 200-800?

Click to expand...

You are going to be very constrained by diffraction with the 200-800 on aps-c.



But, if distance is your requirement, its probably going to be easier with 32mp and the 200-800 to get more pixels on the subject. Thing is, will the R5ii not be more reliable anyway and with the 1.6x in-camera crop, is diffracted 32mp going to be a huge advantage over 17mp that's not affected by diffraction?

As for the 16-300, the 24-240 on an R5ii will be far superior over the R7+16-300 imo.

Click to expand...

There have been comparisons posted here demonstrating that the pixel density does indeed provide a noticeable advantage even with f/9 and f/11 lenses.

--
Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

alphaZ said:

SeaLions_and_Birds said:

For long reach.... would rather have?

1- R6ii or R5ii (in other words FF) + RF 200-800 + 1.4x TC?

or

2- R7 +RF 200-800?

Click to expand...

You are going to be very constrained by diffraction with the 200-800 on aps-c.



But, if distance is your requirement, its probably going to be easier with 32mp and the 200-800 to get more pixels on the subject. Thing is, will the R5ii not be more reliable anyway and with the 1.6x in-camera crop, is diffracted 32mp going to be a huge advantage over 17mp that's not affected by diffraction?

As for the 16-300, the 24-240 on an R5ii will be far superior over the R7+16-300 imo.

Click to expand...

That's probably why RF100-500 is at f7.1 too keep the diffraction in good place on45mp FF