R5+100-500+1.4x or R7+100-500?

Add another dimension to the mix. Get R6 and R7. That way have reach, and backup.

drsnoopy wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

I just completed my third my third comparison shot session for collecting images from the label on the power pole near my house. I have made several small refinements in technique for each of the three test shooting days.

There is was a great deal of forum interest/attention to the use of the R5/ RF 100-500 with the 1.4X TC vs the R7 using the same RF 100-500 lens. These pictures are of a label that is over 100 feet from the shooter and all pictures are made from same shooting location.

Using the R7 and the RF 100-500 with no TC resulted in 6000 pixels on the label

Using the R5 and the RF 100-500 with no TC resulted in 3000 pixels on the label

Using the R5 and the RF 100-500 with 1.4X TC and 1.96 more pixels on the label resulted in

Using the R5 and the RF 100-500 using 451mm FL with 2X resulted in 6000 pixels on the label

Note: the 902mm was the FL because the zoom got bumped changing the 1.4X TC with the 2X TC. Also note the increased number of pixels on the label from using the 2X TC rather than the 1.4X TC.

To judge the images above for detail you should adjust them to be side by side and same physical size on your large computer screen. The R7/RF100-500 without TC and R5/RD100-500 1.4X TC are best compared side side and adjust to make both the same size.

Despite being a f2X TC resulting in the aperture to be f13 at the 904mm the image it generations is pretty competitive with R7 image using only the bare RF 100-500

Your 1st and 2nd images are what interest me, though I think the 2nd (R5 + 1.4x) is unfortunately affected by image movement (looks like camera shake). As a result I don’t think it is a useful comparison. The 1st image (R7, bare lens) is the best of the series, with numbers clearly legible. Your test shows the difficulty of creating reproducible conditions, but is a good attempt nevertheless!

There's only 1 winner though and R7 for tele is simply annihilating the others, which is what we all knew already!

17mp might be competitive/enough but usability of the R5 in crop is not ideal, then you have the better af implementation on the R7 and fully optimized for aps-c eg 4:3 ratio on the R7 provides a further 1.125× crop, so ostensibly on the ef 100-400 you have 720mm in camera @400 5.6 and 32mp, its certainly going to take some beating! Sure, you have the 100-500 but personally I want 600+ @5.6 and the R7 and 100-400 seems a very logical choice, crikey it hangs onto f5 all the way to 500mm so essentially is on equivalent parity with 100-500 on FF @7.1 vs f8 equivalent aps-c, but the R5 is shooting 1 full stop slower.

Bridging the R7 resolution gap and to an extent its af is a difficult ask imo for R5. R7 issues are more ergo/no battery grip, evf, RS and the the likes!

Robbey TC wrote:

The 1.4 TC reduces the amount of light hitting the sensor by half, or one full stop. (1.4^2 approximates 2)

The 1.4 TC on a 100-500 f4.5 to f7.1 means that you will be either shooting between f6.3 @ 100mm to f10 @ 500mm, or have to double the ISO or halve the shutter speed for each stop foregone (or a combination to achieve correct exposure).

When the R7's FOV is at 700mm (actually between 580mm to 755mm), with the 100-500, the maximum f-stop is f6.3 . This is 1.3 stops better than the R5 with a 1.4 TC will achieve for 700mm (f10). (The R7 moves to 7.1 above 755mm FOV and the R5 moves to f10 above 660mm FOV ...(1.6 vs 1.4 comes into play))

You've omitted one mission-critical fact, which is that a 1.4x crop also reduces the amount of light collected, by exactly the same amount as a 1.4x TC. (Canon APS-C is a 1.6x crop of course, which is even worse.) This is why it is so important to use equivalent f-numbers as well as equivalent focal lengths.

If you do the comparison correctly, the R7 without a TC and the R5 with a TC are equivalent to within a third of a stop. Then, if you also trim the 700 mm (actual) R5 image to match the FoV of the R7's 800 mm (equivalent) image, they become exactly the same with regard to light collected.

Going on from that, the trimmed R5 image is now 7168 pixels wide, compared with the R7's 6960 - 3% difference, which is so close as to be negligible.

This is why the OP and I are so keen to see an actual comparison, without which it is too close to call.

So in the end it's a choice between reducing the $5,000 lens's capabilities (IQ, fstop, speed and ISO) to gain 700mm reach. While 800mm reach is achievable, with better IQ, ISO, fstop and shutter speed, on the R7 for an extra $1,200 above the TC's cost.

Choices... choices

Rob

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Robbey TC wrote:

The 1.4 TC reduces the amount of light hitting the sensor by half, or one full stop. (1.4^2 approximates 2)

The 1.4 TC on a 100-500 f4.5 to f7.1 means that you will be either shooting between f6.3 @ 100mm to f10 @ 500mm, or have to double the ISO or halve the shutter speed for each stop foregone (or a combination to achieve correct exposure).

When the R7's FOV is at 700mm (actually between 580mm to 755mm), with the 100-500, the maximum f-stop is f6.3 . This is 1.3 stops better than the R5 with a 1.4 TC will achieve for 700mm (f10). (The R7 moves to 7.1 above 755mm FOV and the R5 moves to f10 above 660mm FOV ...(1.6 vs 1.4 comes into play))

You've omitted one mission-critical fact, which is that a 1.4x crop also reduces the amount of light collected, by exactly the same amount as a 1.4x TC. (Canon APS-C is a 1.6x crop of course, which is even worse.) This is why it is so important to use equivalent f-numbers as well as equivalent focal lengths.

If you do the comparison correctly, the R7 without a TC and the R5 with a TC are equivalent to within a third of a stop. Then, if you also trim the 700 mm (actual) R5 image to match the FoV of the R7's 800 mm (equivalent) image, they become exactly the same with regard to light collected.

Going on from that, the trimmed R5 image is now 7168 pixels wide, compared with the R7's 6960 - 3% difference, which is so close as to be negligible.

This is why the OP and I are so keen to see an actual comparison, without which it is too close to call.

Honestly, you are fighting a losing battle with tc's already, these high f stops on the 100-500 already playing against it! Its alright saying its f10 equivalent on the r7, which ir is for dof, but physics are physics and the R7 gets a better f stop and can even be used at 6.3 and still out reach the the 100-500 with 1.4* on R5, it works out that you are shooting 1.5 stops slower, 1.75* slower stops equivalent!

Honestly, R7 is the way to go for 600+ and ef100-400 even more so!

So in the end it's a choice between reducing the $5,000 lens's capabilities (IQ, fstop, speed and ISO) to gain 700mm reach. While 800mm reach is achievable, with better IQ, ISO, fstop and shutter speed, on the R7 for an extra $1,200 above the TC's cost.

Choices... choices

Rob

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/ or
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/stevebalcombe/popular-interesting/

And-roid wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Robbey TC wrote:

The 1.4 TC reduces the amount of light hitting the sensor by half, or one full stop. (1.4^2 approximates 2)

The 1.4 TC on a 100-500 f4.5 to f7.1 means that you will be either shooting between f6.3 @ 100mm to f10 @ 500mm, or have to double the ISO or halve the shutter speed for each stop foregone (or a combination to achieve correct exposure).

When the R7's FOV is at 700mm (actually between 580mm to 755mm), with the 100-500, the maximum f-stop is f6.3 . This is 1.3 stops better than the R5 with a 1.4 TC will achieve for 700mm (f10). (The R7 moves to 7.1 above 755mm FOV and the R5 moves to f10 above 660mm FOV ...(1.6 vs 1.4 comes into play))

You've omitted one mission-critical fact, which is that a 1.4x crop also reduces the amount of light collected, by exactly the same amount as a 1.4x TC. (Canon APS-C is a 1.6x crop of course, which is even worse.) This is why it is so important to use equivalent f-numbers as well as equivalent focal lengths.

If you do the comparison correctly, the R7 without a TC and the R5 with a TC are equivalent to within a third of a stop. Then, if you also trim the 700 mm (actual) R5 image to match the FoV of the R7's 800 mm (equivalent) image, they become exactly the same with regard to light collected.

Going on from that, the trimmed R5 image is now 7168 pixels wide, compared with the R7's 6960 - 3% difference, which is so close as to be negligible.

This is why the OP and I are so keen to see an actual comparison, without which it is too close to call.

Honestly, you are fighting a losing battle with tc's already, these high f stops on the 100-500 already playing against it! Its alright saying its f10 equivalent on the r7, which ir is for dof, but physics are physics and the R7 gets a better f stop and can even be used at 6.3 and still out reach the the 100-500 with 1.4* on R5, it works out that you are shooting 1.5 stops slower, 1.75* slower stops equivalent!

Physics is physics but you can't cherry-pick the bits of physics to suit your argument while conveniently ignoring others. It would be worth doing some background reading on equivalence for a proper understanding of this.

Honestly, R7 is the way to go for 600+ and ef100-400 even more so!

Ah - for various reasons I also favour the R7, but as I've explained it's not because cropping has an inherent advantage over using a TC.

I look forward to being able to make the comparison for myself, when my R7 finally arrives!

Steve Balcombe wrote:

And-roid wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Robbey TC wrote:

The 1.4 TC reduces the amount of light hitting the sensor by half, or one full stop. (1.4^2 approximates 2)

The 1.4 TC on a 100-500 f4.5 to f7.1 means that you will be either shooting between f6.3 @ 100mm to f10 @ 500mm, or have to double the ISO or halve the shutter speed for each stop foregone (or a combination to achieve correct exposure).

When the R7's FOV is at 700mm (actually between 580mm to 755mm), with the 100-500, the maximum f-stop is f6.3 . This is 1.3 stops better than the R5 with a 1.4 TC will achieve for 700mm (f10). (The R7 moves to 7.1 above 755mm FOV and the R5 moves to f10 above 660mm FOV ...(1.6 vs 1.4 comes into play))

You've omitted one mission-critical fact, which is that a 1.4x crop also reduces the amount of light collected, by exactly the same amount as a 1.4x TC. (Canon APS-C is a 1.6x crop of course, which is even worse.) This is why it is so important to use equivalent f-numbers as well as equivalent focal lengths.

If you do the comparison correctly, the R7 without a TC and the R5 with a TC are equivalent to within a third of a stop. Then, if you also trim the 700 mm (actual) R5 image to match the FoV of the R7's 800 mm (equivalent) image, they become exactly the same with regard to light collected.

Going on from that, the trimmed R5 image is now 7168 pixels wide, compared with the R7's 6960 - 3% difference, which is so close as to be negligible.

This is why the OP and I are so keen to see an actual comparison, without which it is too close to call.

Honestly, you are fighting a losing battle with tc's already, these high f stops on the 100-500 already playing against it! Its alright saying its f10 equivalent on the r7, which ir is for dof, but physics are physics and the R7 gets a better f stop and can even be used at 6.3 and still out reach the the 100-500 with 1.4* on R5, it works out that you are shooting 1.5 stops slower, 1.75* slower stops equivalent!

Physics is physics but you can't cherry-pick the bits of physics to suit your argument while conveniently ignoring others. It would be worth doing some background reading on equivalence for a proper understanding of this.

Honestly, R7 is the way to go for 600+ and ef100-400 even more so!

Ah - for various reasons I also favour the R7, but as I've explained it's not because cropping has an inherent advantage over using a TC.

I look forward to being able to make the comparison for myself, when my R7 finally arrives!

Sure things,

Look, here are the facts;

100-500 is 7.1 @ 500, on R3, 24mp, R5, 45mp, R6 20mp

100-500 is 6.3 upto 470mm, on R7 that's 750mm with 32mp

If you crop any of the above FF in-camera, the max you can get is 17mp on R5, and it will be the same as shooting the R7 but with far less resolution, reduced features in 1.6x crop etc.

However,

If you fit a tc to the 100-500, the max you can get is 660mm f9 or 1 full stop slower than the R7 @6.3 and 750mm equivalent (f10 dof), to crop that difference results in a total equivalence of F10 and 35mp on the R5 but you are shooting 1 full stop slower.

My argument would be, don't push the 100-500 past 6.3, either on R5 or R7 as the small amount of focal length doesn't really help, better to do the extra cropping in post imo. But having no tc in front of the 100-500, well, I don't believe that will not have a huge impact in itself on a 100-500 tele, no matter how good it is!

I find it hard to comprehend that a 100-500 with tc will ever out resolve the 32mp of the aps-c sensor without tc, even in the 6.3 scenario above where the R5 will have 35mp vs 32mp as the tc will soften most of that resolution further, imo. On a prime lens, tc's can provide great results but on zooms, it can't perform miracles.

Having said all of that, I am looking forward to your real world results

And-roid wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

And-roid wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Robbey TC wrote:

The 1.4 TC reduces the amount of light hitting the sensor by half, or one full stop. (1.4^2 approximates 2)

The 1.4 TC on a 100-500 f4.5 to f7.1 means that you will be either shooting between f6.3 @ 100mm to f10 @ 500mm, or have to double the ISO or halve the shutter speed for each stop foregone (or a combination to achieve correct exposure).

When the R7's FOV is at 700mm (actually between 580mm to 755mm), with the 100-500, the maximum f-stop is f6.3 . This is 1.3 stops better than the R5 with a 1.4 TC will achieve for 700mm (f10). (The R7 moves to 7.1 above 755mm FOV and the R5 moves to f10 above 660mm FOV ...(1.6 vs 1.4 comes into play))

You've omitted one mission-critical fact, which is that a 1.4x crop also reduces the amount of light collected, by exactly the same amount as a 1.4x TC. (Canon APS-C is a 1.6x crop of course, which is even worse.) This is why it is so important to use equivalent f-numbers as well as equivalent focal lengths.

If you do the comparison correctly, the R7 without a TC and the R5 with a TC are equivalent to within a third of a stop. Then, if you also trim the 700 mm (actual) R5 image to match the FoV of the R7's 800 mm (equivalent) image, they become exactly the same with regard to light collected.

Going on from that, the trimmed R5 image is now 7168 pixels wide, compared with the R7's 6960 - 3% difference, which is so close as to be negligible.

This is why the OP and I are so keen to see an actual comparison, without which it is too close to call.

Honestly, you are fighting a losing battle with tc's already, these high f stops on the 100-500 already playing against it! Its alright saying its f10 equivalent on the r7, which ir is for dof, but physics are physics and the R7 gets a better f stop and can even be used at 6.3 and still out reach the the 100-500 with 1.4* on R5, it works out that you are shooting 1.5 stops slower, 1.75* slower stops equivalent!

Physics is physics but you can't cherry-pick the bits of physics to suit your argument while conveniently ignoring others. It would be worth doing some background reading on equivalence for a proper understanding of this.

Honestly, R7 is the way to go for 600+ and ef100-400 even more so!

Ah - for various reasons I also favour the R7, but as I've explained it's not because cropping has an inherent advantage over using a TC.

I look forward to being able to make the comparison for myself, when my R7 finally arrives!

Sure things,

Look, here are the facts;

100-500 is 7.1 @ 500, on R3, 24mp, R5, 45mp, R6 20mp

100-500 is 6.3 upto 470mm, on R7 that's 750mm with 32mp

If you crop any of the above FF in-camera, the max you can get is 17mp on R5, and it will be the same as shooting the R7 but with far less resolution, reduced features in 1.6x crop etc.

However,

If you fit a tc to the 100-500, the max you can get is 660mm f9 or 1 full stop slower than the R7 @6.3 and 750mm equivalent (f10 dof), to crop that difference results in a total equivalence of F10 and 35mp on the R5 but you are shooting 1 full stop slower.

My argument would be, don't push the 100-500 past 6.3, either on R5 or R7 as the small amount of focal length doesn't really help, better to do the extra cropping in post imo. But having no tc in front of the 100-500, well, I don't believe that will not have a huge impact in itself on a 100-500 tele, no matter how good it is!

I find it hard to comprehend that a 100-500 with tc will ever out resolve the 32mp of the aps-c sensor without tc, even in the 6.3 scenario above where the R5 will have 35mp vs 32mp as the tc will soften most of that resolution further, imo. On a prime lens, tc's can provide great results but on zooms, it can't perform miracles.

Like I said, learn about equivalence then we'll talk again.

Having said all of that, I am looking forward to your real world results

Me too.

drsnoopy wrote:

I have the R5 and 100-500, and very happy with the combination. I also have an R7 on order but now I'm wondering whether anyone has done a comparison between the R5 with the 1.4xTC (giving 700mm max FL) and the r7 with the bare lens (giving 800mm effective max FL). I do understand the issue with the TC restricting the short end of the zoom range. I've also tried crop mode on the R5 (17MP) and the results are mostly good but would like the extra sensor resolution. My feeling is that the r7 should have the edge, bearing in mind of course the differences in noise, which I am happy to deal with in RAW conversion (DXO) or in post (Topaz). However the TC would be less expensive...

Thanks for any examples or pointers towards other sources.

From any given distance, you will put almost exactly the same pixels on the subject at any zoom position, because the difference in pixel spacing with the two sensors is about 1.36x, very close to the TC magnification.  Since this is true, it is fair to compare pixel-level noise, and the R5 has more pixel-level noise at 2x the ISO, plus, the extra aberration from the TC, even if small, makes the captured detail punch less through the noise at the pixel level.  However, the R5 will have a slightly wider angle of view to aid in visual tracking, and the e-shutter will roll through the subject about 2.3x as fast with the R5.  The R5's AA filter is less prone to color moiré at the pixel level.

You would likely only use both at the same physical zoom position when you are at the long end, because if you zoom out, the two different sensor sizes will give different angles of view when you aren't in "forced crop" mode at the long end.  If you chose to remove the TC in such a situation, you are better off with the R5 in almost every way, if you want to use the largest pupil possible.  If you leave the TC on and just back out as far as you can, most of that benefit would not exist, as zooming out with an unnecessary TC gives you a smaller pupil at any given angle of view.

I believe that I have already graphed what pupils you get over their ranges of angle of view for all three combos mentioned (APS-C, FF, FFx1.4), I have posted it in the past and it is on my other computer.  I'll look for it.

So, if you were hoping for a simple answer, you won't get one from me, but if one is speculating about such things, always think about the pupil; the pupil is the core of imaging with a lens.

R2D2 wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

I have the R5 and 100-500, and very happy with the combination. I also have an R7 on order but now I'm wondering whether anyone has done a comparison between the R5 with the 1.4xTC (giving 700mm max FL) and the r7 with the bare lens (giving 800mm effective max FL). I do understand the issue with the TC restricting the short end of the zoom range. I've also tried crop mode on the R5 (17MP) and the results are mostly good but would like the extra sensor resolution. My feeling is that the r7 should have the edge, bearing in mind of course the differences in noise, which I am happy to deal with in RAW conversion (DXO) or in post (Topaz). However the TC would be less expensive...

Thanks for any examples or pointers towards other sources.

For me, 700-800mm is my “Goldilocks Zone,” so this would indeed be my preferred max focal length too (I have the R5 + 100-500 + 1.4x). Love it. I do a lot of BIFs, so anything longer than this is not ideal for me (harder to acquire/track). It’ll be good to see how this all shakes out!

In the future, we may be using super-high resolution sensors and shorter, faster lenses, and depend upon "digital zoom" for much of what we now use longer focal lengths for.  A 200/2 lens that is free of aberration on a 400MP FF sensor would also have crops "equivalent" to 400/4 with 100MP,  and still have 25MP at the equivalent of 800/8.  This would greatly reduce any compromises between pixels-on-subject and the ability to find and stay on the subject.  You wouldn't have to sacrifice pixel resolution of the subject to get a wider tracking view.  Of course, when you start out with only 32.5 or 45 MP, you can't crop as deeply in post, without pixelation.