R5 with 100-500 + 1.4tc vs R7 with Canon 100-500

Here I decided to make this comparison as precise as possible , with tripod 10 sec timer and electronic shutter.

Results are almost identical when viewing at 300% , there is small different in focus , but it is close enough in my opinion.

Also bokeh seems to be same as well.

Hope this helps someone.

Left is R5 and right id R7 at 300%

Resolution

Bokeh at 100%

Bokeh

All the best

Kristian

kristian1 wrote:

Here I decided to make this comparison as precise as possible , with tripod 10 sec timer and electronic shutter.

Results are almost identical when viewing at 300% , there is small different in focus , but it is close enough in my opinion.

Also bokeh seems to be same as well.

Hope this helps someone.

Left is R5 and right id R7 at 300%

Resolution

Thanks for the test.

Actually, focus is very important when doing these comparisons.  Each leaf area in your sample is rendering differently due to the difference in focus.

Another attempt? 

R2

Here I give my best to get focusing as close as possible , it was a bit difficult with r7 since it only gives x10 magnification.

Here are crops from different parts of image:

R5 on left , R7 on right , shoot at 500mm wide open.

(I choose to set same exposure and use iso 200 on R5 because there was a bit wind , so to get similiar (or none) motion blur from leaf movement.

All the best

Kristian

Interesting comparison.  On your second test, I still see a slight advantage to the R5. 
However I have a question - what did you do to get the image scale identical?  The R7 image should be 14% larger (800mm EFL vs 700mm FL).  Did you zoom back to 437mm on the R7 to get 700mm EFL?  In which case the different position of the zoom lens elements could affect the results.  Or did you match the sizes by using different magnification on-screen in Lightroom?  In which case apparent resolution is affected by interpolation (fractional magnifications show best screen resolution at 16.7, 25, 33.3,50, 66.7 and 75%, scales in between appear less sharp) - you would need about 87% on the R7 vs 100% on the R5.

Just interested to know what you did - not intended as a criticism, but to point out that there are confounding factors in such a test.

Right - additionally, the TC could be used on the R7 resulting in detail the R5 cannot touch but with a narrower field of view.

drsnoopy wrote:

Interesting comparison. On your second test, I still see a slight advantage to the R5.
However I have a question - what did you do to get the image scale identical? The R7 image should be 14% larger (800mm EFL vs 700mm FL). Did you zoom back to 437mm on the R7 to get 700mm EFL? In which case the different position of the zoom lens elements could affect the results. Or did you match the sizes by using different magnification on-screen in Lightroom? In which case apparent resolution is affected by interpolation (fractional magnifications show best screen resolution at 16.7, 25, 33.3,50, 66.7 and 75%, scales in between appear less sharp) - you would need about 87% on the R7 vs 100% on the R5.

Just interested to know what you did - not intended as a criticism, but to point out that there are confounding factors in such a test.

You forgot that r5 has higher mp count. It is 700mm at 45mp vs 800mm at 32mp.
Both images are at 300% of course , and lens is at 500mm in both cameras.

R5 image has slight higher magnification.

Kristian

Pipps wrote:

There was another thread where this was done with a sign on a post. Couldn't read the sign on the R5, but you could on the R7.

On comparisons like this many things can go wrong, from slight miss focus (or a bit different focus point), motion blur, heat haze…

Kristian

TnSkiDude wrote:

Thanks Kristian, that is exactly the comparison I have been hoping to see. I have the R5, 100-500 and extender. It would appear the biggest advantage of adding an R7 to the kit would be that the 100-500 would recover full range of motion.

Thats right, and also slight weight advantage.

Kristian

Thanks for posting this. At last a comparison that some of us were hoping to see, but no one had yet managed!

Looking pretty good either way, nice to have choices!

kristian1 wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

Interesting comparison. On your second test, I still see a slight advantage to the R5.
However I have a question - what did you do to get the image scale identical? The R7 image should be 14% larger (800mm EFL vs 700mm FL). Did you zoom back to 437mm on the R7 to get 700mm EFL? In which case the different position of the zoom lens elements could affect the results. Or did you match the sizes by using different magnification on-screen in Lightroom? In which case apparent resolution is affected by interpolation (fractional magnifications show best screen resolution at 16.7, 25, 33.3,50, 66.7 and 75%, scales in between appear less sharp) - you would need about 87% on the R7 vs 100% on the R5.

Just interested to know what you did - not intended as a criticism, but to point out that there are confounding factors in such a test.

You forgot that r5 has higher mp count. It is 700mm at 45mp vs 800mm at 32mp.
Both images are at 300% of course , and lens is at 500mm in both cameras.

R5 image has slight higher magnification.

Kristian

Hi - naturally I know the R5 has a higher pixel count, as I own one, and the 100-500. However I do *not* see any difference in image size between the two images (R5 and R7 - both look identical) so if they are both had the lens set at “500mm”, you must have used a different image scale to make them appear the same size, as the R5 is at 700mm FL and the R7 at 800mm EFL, which is a 14% difference. They cannot both be at 300%, as there is a 38% difference between 32.5 and 45 MP. Please explain how you achieved the comparison at the same size on-screen - I’m genuinely interested, not trying to criticise!

Pipps wrote:

There was another thread where this was done with a sign on a post. Couldn't read the sign on the R5, but you could on the R7.

That was not a good test, too many uncontrollable issues.