? for those of you with both the R5 and the R7

Which one do you mostly choose, and for what ???

I've had my R5 for 1 year, and I've loved it. Especially since I got the RF 800 F11. I mostly shoot birds, and mostly small, perched birds.

So I rented the R7, just to see how well it would work for me. The answer was, fantastic ! 🙂 Put it this way, 2 days before I had to send back the rental, I ordered a new R7 of my own. I also ordered the RF 600 F11 so that I would have two complete setups, in case I dropped one on the rocks, or in the lake.

I could go on and on about the R7, and how I intend to use it.....

But here's the big question, when and for what will I ever use my R5 for now ? I feel like it might be a bit better for landscapes... Too bad I hardly do landscapes anymore ?

PS, I just saw that thread where someone said, "You just lost ALL of your gear in a catastrophe. What will you replace it with" ? Honestly, I'd strongly consider two R7's, another 600 + 800 F11, and the (overpriced) RF 100-500.

Chris, I got the R5 a little more than a year ago and bought the R7 several months ago but have used it sparingly. I really like the R5.

Kent

KENTGA wrote:

Chris, I got the R5 a little more than a year ago and bought the R7 several months ago but have used it sparingly. I really like the R5.

Kent

Yes, I hear you. I really have enjoyed my R5. I'm just trying to figure out what it does better than the R7 ? So far, the biggest thing I can find,is that it feels better in my hand, with the grip.

But I'm still working on some sort of a grip kind of thing for my R7.... Even if I have to fabricate it myself. All I need is a spot for my little finger to rest in, and a slot at the bottom for a hand strap....

I mostly use the R5 (paired with the RF 100-500 or EF 400 2.8 iii), only reaching for the R7 if I need the extra reach or as a lightweight walk around setup coupled with the RF 100-400.

The things I am disappointed with on the R7 are rolling shutter, very noisy mechanical shutter, lack of third control wheel, inferior viewfinder, lack of battery grip and small buffer. Yes, I know those things all save cost but I would rather have spent more for a crop sensor camera better matched to the R5.

hi Chris, and gomorning as well  others sharing their experience here!

I'm trying to stay afloat in the same boat yu're in...

I think I sold my former ( far too complex  ) system ( sony  a7 r IV + a6500 a variety of adapters and good but heavy long focal  lenses) when Canon came up with their extraordinary rf 600 and 800mm rf.

I've long been looking for a way to cut down on weight when travelling and birding. I still have the 800mm but I didn't take it to Iceland  where I spent 2 weeks and where I'll be again next summer. Too bulky . I had the 100-400 rf plus the 2 adapters ( 1.4 and 2x) . I shared my rf  lenses and some adapted ef ones between the r5 and and "old" eos r.

What with the fantastic viewfinder, reactivity, ibis,  and iso range of the r5, its extra apsc crop,

That and the 24-105 f4, the 16mm rf   was almost enough for both birding ( crazy harrassing curlews and nesting terns...) and landscaping ( lava fields dreaming and the rioting colours of the landmannalaugar...)

I've now swapped the eos r an old rf 24-105 ( not the f4 one ) the 600mm rf for an eos r7 and 100-500 combo. Getting ready for Iceland again. Britany is nice but there are far too many trigger happy morons here and it's difficult to get close to wildlife at times.

I think I'll take the 800mm too this time around. It's very light on the r7 the reach is very good.It takes both tcs. The 100-500 is great but I Hate the fact it's stays extended with the tc on! And it is still too heavy ( 1.4 without tripod colar and other stuf compared to the 1.265 of the 800mm. With the 2x tc it is 1.8 kg, very close to the weight of the excellent sony 200-600 f6.3.

I've been experiementing the with extra reach afforded by the digital zoom ( fhd video quality only . And there is the 8k option for video on the r8. I'm thinking of buying an atomos field monitor to capture some stills in video mode.

Another Hateful limit: not being able to capture  stills while in video. No post editing replaces the real life experience, the flow of doing things, being, feeling things  out there.

It takes a lot of patience and bucks to stay with Canon, what with their almost unbearable refusal to allow for third party lenses.

All said somewhat of a mixed bag, but still amazing.

I used to have and R5 but I sold it and got the R6II and R7. I had an R as my first ML and I just loved it as an urban walk around body. 30mp was perfect for me. There are days I wish I kept it. So the R6II is for that purpose and I'm not much into landscapes anymore. The R5 megapixels are probably better for that. but I found that too much for my needs. I'd also use the R6II for sports along with the R7.

R7 for birding and yes it is fantastic, even for the jack jammer mechanical shutter. I did pull out the R6II for some birding.

hedleyw wrote:

I mostly use the R5 (paired with the RF 100-500 or EF 400 2.8 iii), only reaching for the R7 if I need the extra reach or as a lightweight walk around setup coupled with the RF 100-400.

The things I am disappointed with on the R7 are rolling shutter, very noisy mechanical shutter, lack of third control wheel, inferior viewfinder, lack of battery grip and small buffer. Yes, I know those things all save cost but I would rather have spent more for a crop sensor camera better matched to the R5.

I agree with a few of those those things as well. I never really liked grips but I would have preferred the ergonomics of the R5 or my R6II. Hard to get to the * button when you are busy shooting.  You can't map the AF point selection for AF.

Chris Wolfgram wrote:

Which one do you mostly choose, and for what ???

I've had my R5 for 1 year, and I've loved it. Especially since I got the RF 800 F11. I mostly shoot birds, and mostly small, perched birds.

So I rented the R7, just to see how well it would work for me. The answer was, fantastic ! [...]

I did the same a few months ago and took my R5, M6II and rented R7 with me on vacation. My takeway was that I found that, for me, the R7 was too big to replace my M6II and too small to handle lenses like the RF100-500.

I 3D printed this https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5545843 to help with that and that greatly improved things. Just like the EG-E1 grip improved the RP for me.

So the R7 would the anti-goldilocks camera for me, so it wasn't worth spending money on it. If I didn't have the M6II, I would have bought the R7, since the software allows for things my R5 can't do, like resizable AF zones and record video for more than 30 minutes.

With the M6II still working good enough, the R8 seems to be a better 2nd body for me, I really liked my RP before I sold it to fund the R5.

The R5 is superior for landscapes, architecture, and portraits.  If you don't intend photographing any of those then it may well be worthwhile selling it now while it is still worth a lot.

However, on the occasion when you do fill that R5 frame, those 45MP will be truly awesome.  I, for one, would keep it.

R5 gives amazing resolution and shallow depth of field plus better noise if you can fill the frame.  It is also possible to have wide aperture standard zooms too.  Can't beat images when large in the frame with telephotos too like the 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8 and 500 4.

R7 is great for longer reach in good light for most "pixels per duck" - it is a little rougher than the R5 in many ways.  I prefer 500+1.4XTC on R7 vs 500+2XTC on R5.  It lacks the same ability for shallow DoF work.

kikimora wrote:

Chris Wolfgram wrote:

Which one do you mostly choose, and for what ???

R7 for birds and other wildlife with long tele (which is permanently mounted to R7 just like it was to 7D2), R5 for everything else

Well, I could see it being that way for me too..... Except nowadays, I hardly shoot anything else ! 😕

(unless I pick DSLR for that something else, but that's usually when I bring two full frame bodies only).

“Everything else” is primarily macros and architecture.

John Crowe wrote:

The R5 is superior for landscapes, architecture, and portraits. If you don't intend photographing any of those then it may well be worthwhile selling it now while it is still worth a lot.

However, on the occasion when you do fill that R5 frame, those 45MP will be truly awesome. I, for one, would keep it.

You know John, "IF" I could get a lot of money for the R5, I think it would make more sense for me to sell it, based on my current uses (98% birding)

The problem for me is, I've never been able to sell anything in my life, and get even close to what I thought it was worth ☹️

I bet I couldn't get $2K for it... With the grip !

As for landscapes, although I hardly ever shoot them anymore, I do have a couple of really nice EF lenses that work amazingly well on my R5... Better than they ever did on a my old DSLR's (16-35 F2.8, and 24-70 F2.8)

I have R5 for about 1.5 yrs now and R7 since launch. I primarily use R5 for all my need. R7 has very specific use and have used only a few times so far.

To me, R5 is a versatile all-rounder camera. To be honest, I'm thinking to buy another used R5, but holding off due to rumoured R5 II coming out soon.

hedleyw wrote:

I mostly use the R5 (paired with the RF 100-500 or EF 400 2.8 iii), only reaching for the R7 if I need the extra reach or as a lightweight walk around setup coupled with the RF 100-400.

The things I am disappointed with on the R7 are rolling shutter, very noisy mechanical shutter, lack of third control wheel, inferior viewfinder, lack of battery grip and small buffer. Yes, I know those things all save cost but I would rather have spent more for a crop sensor camera better matched to the R5.

For me, I'd add tracking to your list (for my list).  My R5 just plain tracks better than does my r7, even though the r7 has better AF features. I don' t use ES at all anymore on the r7 and instead go for 15 fps on EFCS or MS.  I probably will devote my r7 exclusively to macro since I don't enjoy having to have sound while shooting animals and being slightly limited by buffer size.

RogerZoul wrote:

hedleyw wrote:

I mostly use the R5 (paired with the RF 100-500 or EF 400 2.8 iii), only reaching for the R7 if I need the extra reach or as a lightweight walk around setup coupled with the RF 100-400.

The things I am disappointed with on the R7 are rolling shutter, very noisy mechanical shutter, lack of third control wheel, inferior viewfinder, lack of battery grip and small buffer. Yes, I know those things all save cost but I would rather have spent more for a crop sensor camera better matched to the R5.

For me, I'd add tracking to your list (for my list). My R5 just plain tracks better than does my r7, even though the r7 has better AF features. I don' t use ES at all anymore on the r7 and instead go for 15 fps on EFCS or MS. I probably will devote my r7 exclusively to macro since I don't enjoy having to have sound while shooting animals and being slightly limited by buffer size.

I’m finding the opposite. My R7 tracks better and the AF acquisition is faster.  I’m using both ES @ 15 fps and EFCS@ 15 fps and mixing it up. I’m shooting ES more these days as I don’t find rolling shutter as bad as I expected.

For static objects I also use ES at 3 fps.

Have both the R5 and R7. Use them both. Sometimes I'll grab the R7 when I want a lighter setup. I could probably get as good of a bird photo from either of them. I keep the R5 for possible landscapes but use it for birds as well. The R7 is for birds and street photography. Also the R7 with the RF100-400 is a nice light setup that does a pretty good job for birds.

Now I must say I have also been tempted to add the R6II to my collection.  I like the idea of having three bodies.  Less lens swapping and different features on all three.  Of the three the R6II probably does better in low light.  So, I guess my question is does anybody have all three and do you like having the third body?  Maybe just add a refurbished R6, I see Canon is offering them for a bit over $2,000.  Any thoughts?