Sell the R5 and get an R7 and R? Crazy?

I wouldn't, but if it works for you, well, not crazy. If you do a lot of wildlife then the R7 makes a lot of sense.

Great photos!  To me that seems like a reasonable trade with the benefit of also giving you a “backup” camera in case anything happens when traveling.  However, the R5 really is a spectacular camera that pretty much can “do it all”

dmanthree wrote:

I wouldn't, but if it works for you, well, not crazy. If you do a lot of wildlife then the R7 makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, I'd say I'm about 80% wildlife these days...

I like the R5 a lot but if I'm cropping most of the shots then it feels silly and I don't see an RF 600 f/4 in my future...

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Great photos! To me that seems like a reasonable trade with the benefit of also giving you a “backup” camera in case anything happens when traveling. However, the R5 really is a spectacular camera that pretty much can “do it all”

Thanks! Yes, I agree. It really is a wonderful camera. And perhaps I should just exclusively shoot with it in crop mode and convince myself to be happy with 17mp, which is perfectly fine most of the time. It's odd to say, but it feels like more camera than I need in many respects but also less effective at the wildlife shots unless paired with a 500mm+ prime.

mraifman wrote:

Yeah, I'd say I'm about 80% wildlife these days...

I like the R5 a lot but if I'm cropping most of the shots then it feels silly and I don't see an RF 600 f/4 in my future...

I don't see the RF 600 in my future either but do have something close with the 300mm F2.8 and 2x making it a 600mm f5.6.  Still it's too heavy to carry for comfort.

That's why I bought the inexpensive RF 600mm F11.  It works well unless the lighting is horrible.  I'm sure that it would work even better on the R5.

Question, why the R versus the R6 MKII or even the R6?

Steve Fink wrote:

mraifman wrote:

Yeah, I'd say I'm about 80% wildlife these days...

I like the R5 a lot but if I'm cropping most of the shots then it feels silly and I don't see an RF 600 f/4 in my future...

I don't see the RF 600 in my future either but do have something close with the 300mm F2.8 and 2x making it a 600mm f5.6. Still it's too heavy to carry for comfort.

That's why I bought the inexpensive RF 600mm F11. It works well unless the lighting is horrible. I'm sure that it would work even better on the R5.

Question, why the R versus the R6 MKII or even the R6?

Yes, that is what I was thinking too. I had a 2x TC mk III that I was using on the 300 f/2.8 but I wasn't thrilled with the sharpness performance at f/5.6 (I have since returned the TC within the return window; may repurchase it down the line depending on how things settle). Unfortunately, I find myself shooting at lot in lower light conditions - sunrise or a forest - so the f11 becomes a challenge. I do think the 600 f/5.6 is an extremely compelling option, however, if it needs to be stopped down to f/8 to get sharp results, it is a little less useful.

Regarding the R, my thinking is: a) it's cheap at $900 refurbished; b) it is higher resolution: 30 vs 20 or 24 which would be good for landscape; c) as a landscape first body, the better AF and tracking of the R6 series wouldn't be as valuable as that would be fulfilled by the R7. Just my initial thinking...disagree?

KEG wrote:

If I owned a beast like R5 I would keep it, I would also just add R7 just for fun.

I see you have the R...have you shot with the R5 vs R for landscapes and stationary scenes? Curiously if you have thoughts on the comparison for that purpose. Thanks!

mraifman wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Great photos! To me that seems like a reasonable trade with the benefit of also giving you a “backup” camera in case anything happens when traveling. However, the R5 really is a spectacular camera that pretty much can “do it all”

Thanks! Yes, I agree. It really is a wonderful camera. And perhaps I should just exclusively shoot with it in crop mode and convince myself to be happy with 17mp, which is perfectly fine most of the time. It's odd to say, but it feels like more camera than I need in many respects but also less effective at the wildlife shots unless paired with a 500mm+ prime.

That’s very similar to my thinking and I ended up with the R7 and R6 and overall I’m happy with the decision.  I don’t do landscape photography but use the R6 for the lowlight situations like in the rainforest where I can usually get nice and close and use the R7 for more open areas where getting close is more challenging.

KevinRA wrote:

Lovely shots!

I've thought about this too - the R7 is potentially a 1.4X extender in terms of reach.... but one key benefit with the R5 in wildlife is you can still make very good crops at 17MP in high quality pixels - and with prime lenses even if one normally throws the edges away, when wildlife then comes much closer (or closer than expected!), you don't then crop off wings, legs, tails etc. The R5 also makes framing (and then cropping) birds in flight easier.

I also think to get the full 1.4X TC reach effect of the R7 over R5 the technique and conditions need to be absolutely perfect and with top quality lenses - otherwise the gain is less. Less rolling shutter is a R5 benefit - and ergonomically those three rather than two control wheels is a plus for me - I miss the 3rd control wheel on my R10 - even the M6II has 3! And when one can fill the frame - the better noise and performance comes in on the R5 - for example low light work on closer and/or larger subject.

I'd not sell my R5 - but would not buy a 2nd one right now as far too pricy.

Thanks for this! You have perfectly articulated my reluctance with the R7 vs the R5 for wildlife. I'm curious, I see you shoot with the ef 300 f/2.8 mk ii. Have you tried that via adapter with the M6II? How does that lens in particular perform on the crop sensor? I would think it would do quite well because it is so sharp but never assume!

mraifman wrote:

Steve Fink wrote:

I don't see the RF 600 in my future either but do have something close with the 300mm F2.8 and 2x making it a 600mm f5.6. Still it's too heavy to carry for comfort.

That's why I bought the inexpensive RF 600mm F11. It works well unless the lighting is horrible. I'm sure that it would work even better on the R5.

Question, why the R versus the R6 MKII or even the R6?

Yes, that is what I was thinking too. I had a 2x TC mk III that I was using on the 300 f/2.8 but I wasn't thrilled with the sharpness performance at f/5.6 (I have since returned the TC within the return window; may repurchase it down the line depending on how things settle). Unfortunately, I find myself shooting at lot in lower light conditions - sunrise or a forest - so the f11 becomes a challenge. I do think the 600 f/5.6 is an extremely compelling option, however, if it needs to be stopped down to f/8 to get sharp results, it is a little less useful.

Regarding the R, my thinking is: a) it's cheap at $900 refurbished; b) it is higher resolution: 30 vs 20 or 24 which would be good for landscape; c) as a landscape first body, the better AF and tracking of the R6 series wouldn't be as valuable as that would be fulfilled by the R7. Just my initial thinking...disagree?

Yes, sounds reasonable for your case. The jury is still out on my 300mm F2.8 with the 2x or 1.4x.  I would be concerned that the R may be a step backwards as far as tracking is concerned, compared to the R5. Maybe I'm wrong, IDK.

I may have considered the R6 had it had 24 MP, but 20 seemed a little too small. Some BIF shots need more cropping than others. I think 24 may work however.

Canon USA has a great deal ($899) on the refurbished Eos R for Cyber Monday. I photographed a high school basketball game with my R7. I shot CRAW + jpeg with the 15 fps mechanical shutter and never had a problem with the buffer. The buffer also clears pretty quickly with a UHS II card. Before I bought the R7 I was worried about the buffer size, but it just hasn't been an issue. If you shoot at 30fps and like long bursts it might be a problem.

expro wrote:

Yes crazy.

and I would certainly miss the separation provided by FF versus crop for wildlife etc.

Thanks! It's complicated. For two subjects that fill the frame, yes the FF has more separation. But the separation is a function of focal length, distance to subject, and sensor.