R5/R7 and RF100-500mm thoughts for those who use both

I have used the RF100-500 on both my R5 and R7 and actually get great results with each body.  I am referring to the longer end of the lens.  Shooting birds at a distance, I think my results are equally as good with either camera.  It would be interesting to see if others with these setups feel the same or do you prefer the 5 over the 7 or the 7 over the 5 with the RF100-500 lens?

I have too, but the jury is still out on this one in that I am not sure yet whether the combo with the R5 gives me a higher hit rate.

Emile15 wrote:

I have too, but the jury is still out on this one in that I am not sure yet whether the combo with the R5 gives me a higher hit rate.

It's funny, I don't favor either one and I always feel I will get similar results with each.  It looks like perhaps you may be in agreement with this.

tsinvest wrote:

Emile15 wrote:

I have too, but the jury is still out on this one in that I am not sure yet whether the combo with the R5 gives me a higher hit rate.

It's funny, I don't favor either one and I always feel I will get similar results with each. It looks like perhaps you may be in agreement with this.

I have both. I get similar results for sure. The R7 weighs less and has newer autofocus EV behavior like the R3. I use the R7 with the RF100-500 but more often with the RF100-400 & the 1.4X TC. I like low weight for cases when there is lots of light the R7 and RF100-400 X1.4 is lighter, easier to swing in heavy action and does a great job. The R7 1.6 crop sensor reach can be precious some times,

Does this mean FF is dead and do not like the R5. No. Not at all. I am keeping them both for what they are slightly better at. Low light and bokeh is for the R5. I would prefer the R5 with big aperture RF glass (50f1.2, 135f1.9, 15-35f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200f2.8) for indoor sport in low lit gyms.

I value having the right tool for right job.

RDM5546 wrote:

tsinvest wrote:

Emile15 wrote:

I have too, but the jury is still out on this one in that I am not sure yet whether the combo with the R5 gives me a higher hit rate.

It's funny, I don't favor either one and I always feel I will get similar results with each. It looks like perhaps you may be in agreement with this.

I have both. I get similar results for sure. The R7 weighs less and has newer autofocus EV behavior like the R3. I use the R7 with the RF100-500 but more often with the RF100-400 & the 1.4X TC. I like low weight for cases when there is lots of light the R7 and RF100-400 X1.4 is lighter, easier to swing in heavy action and does a great job. The R7 1.6 crop sensor reach can be precious some times,

Does this mean FF is dead and do not like the R5. No. Not at all. I am keeping them both for what they are slightly better at. Low light and bokeh is for the R5. I would prefer the R5 with big aperture RF glass (50f1.2, 135f1.9, 15-35f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200f2.8) for indoor sport in low lit gyms.

I value having the right tool for right job.

I agree with you, less weight is always a plus. I may buy the 1.4 extender as you mentioned and give it a try.  I've never used extenders and it may be about time I try. Thanks for your comments 🙂

tsinvest wrote:

I have used the RF100-500 on both my R5 and R7 and actually get great results with each body. I am referring to the longer end of the lens. Shooting birds at a distance, I think my results are equally as good with either camera. It would be interesting to see if others with these setups feel the same or do you prefer the 5 over the 7 or the 7 over the 5 with the RF100-500 lens?

I have both and, while the results are often quite similar, I do find that i tend to use different combos in different situations.

If the objects (usually birds) are way off then I do tend to prefer using the R7/Rf 100-500 L combo, as I find that the extra 1.6X “reach” of the R7 is very useful in those situations (and yes, i know the difference between angle of view and actual reach, and i know i can crop, etc., etc. but I suspect most people know what i mean).

If the objects are closer, even if they are quite small, then i tend to use the R5 combo, simply because I find I get better Bokeh/ Out of Focus backgrounds from that combo than the one with the R7.

One other factor is that my R5 typically hads a Battery Grip on it and so it’s much heavier than the same combo using the R7. That’s an issue if I am doing long walks, especially on sand (beaches) or going up hills.

Chris

chrisis wrote:

tsinvest wrote:

I have used the RF100-500 on both my R5 and R7 and actually get great results with each body. I am referring to the longer end of the lens. Shooting birds at a distance, I think my results are equally as good with either camera. It would be interesting to see if others with these setups feel the same or do you prefer the 5 over the 7 or the 7 over the 5 with the RF100-500 lens?

I have both and, while the results are often quite similar, I do find that i tend to use different combos in different situations.

If the objects (usually birds) are way off then I do tend to prefer using the R7/Rf 100-500 L combo, as I find that the extra 1.6X “reach” of the R7 is very useful in those situations (and yes, i know the difference between angle of view and actual reach, and i know i can crop, etc., etc. but I suspect most people know what i mean).

If the objects are closer, even if they are quite small, then i tend to use the R5 combo, simply because I find I get better Bokeh/ Out of Focus backgrounds from that combo than the one with the R7.

This is a very good observation.  I never considered this however I always noticed very good Bokeh with the R5 but never compared it to the R7.  Good point!

One other factor is that my R5 typically hads a Battery Grip on it and so it’s much heavier than the same combo using the R7. That’s an issue if I am doing long walks, especially on sand (beaches) or going up hills.

Chris

tsinvest wrote:

I have used the RF100-500 on both my R5 and R7 and actually get great results with each body. I am referring to the longer end of the lens. Shooting birds at a distance, I think my results are equally as good with either camera. It would be interesting to see if others with these setups feel the same or do you prefer the 5 over the 7 or the 7 over the 5 with the RF100-500 lens?

I have both.  I feel the R5 wins every time for birds in flight, but the R7 isn't bad if the light is good or if the bird it perched. Also, I prefer the r7 for butterflies and dragons, or any insect life and for macro, with a macro lens. The r7 is great with the 1.4x TC and the 100-500 when photographing tiny butterflies at very close range.  Hard combo to beat for that application and it the reason I will keep it.

For me, the r7, even with its beefed up AF system compared to the R5, still can't track like the r5.  I have had many birds in pretty close range and the R7 would fail to lock on or give me shots that seemed to be slightly oof, when doing BIF, when I know from experience that the R5 will nail such a shot (as I have done time and time again).  Frankly, I had similar results with the 90D and even the 7DM2.  I personally think QC on the lower priced Canon bodies is not consistent.  Also, I see a similar situation with my RF 800mm F11 lens.  Several of my Canon shooting buddies have this lens, but my copy not only "pulls" to the right sometimes when shooting a burst, but it is not consistently sharp.  On some occasions, usually at close range, I have gotten really sharp results from that lens. But most of the time and greater range, it loses it sharpness.  I find it too "iffy" to use and now just use my L glass.

chrisis wrote:

tsinvest wrote:

I have used the RF100-500 on both my R5 and R7 and actually get great results with each body. I am referring to the longer end of the lens. Shooting birds at a distance, I think my results are equally as good with either camera. It would be interesting to see if others with these setups feel the same or do you prefer the 5 over the 7 or the 7 over the 5 with the RF100-500 lens?

I have both and, while the results are often quite similar, I do find that i tend to use different combos in different situations.

If the objects (usually birds) are way off then I do tend to prefer using the R7/Rf 100-500 L combo, as I find that the extra 1.6X “reach” of the R7 is very useful in those situations (and yes, i know the difference between angle of view and actual reach, and i know i can crop, etc., etc. but I suspect most people know what i mean).

If the objects are closer, even if they are quite small, then i tend to use the R5 combo, simply because I find I get better Bokeh/ Out of Focus backgrounds from that combo than the one with the R7.

One other factor is that my R5 typically hads a Battery Grip on it and so it’s much heavier than the same combo using the R7. That’s an issue if I am doing long walks, especially on sand (beaches) or going up hills.

Chris

The R7 has higher pixel density than the R5. So in those cases when you cannot fill the frame on an R5 at 500mm, the R7 results will be better.

RogerZoul wrote:

tsinvest wrote:

I have used the RF100-500 on both my R5 and R7 and actually get great results with each body. I am referring to the longer end of the lens. Shooting birds at a distance, I think my results are equally as good with either camera. It would be interesting to see if others with these setups feel the same or do you prefer the 5 over the 7 or the 7 over the 5 with the RF100-500 lens?

I have both. I feel the R5 wins every time for birds in flight, but the R7 isn't bad if the light is good or if the bird it perched. Also, I prefer the r7 for butterflies and dragons, or any insect life and for macro, with a macro lens. The r7 is great with the 1.4x TC and the 100-500 when photographing tiny butterflies at very close range. Hard combo to beat for that application and it the reason I will keep it.

For me, the r7, even with its beefed up AF system compared to the R5, still can't track like the r5. I have had many birds in pretty close range and the R7 would fail to lock on or give me shots that seemed to be slightly oof, when doing BIF, when I know from experience that the R5 will nail such a shot (as I have done time and time again). Frankly, I had similar results with the 90D and even the 7DM2. I personally think QC on the lower priced Canon bodies is not consistent. Also, I see a similar situation with my RF 800mm F11 lens. Several of my Canon shooting buddies have this lens, but my copy not only "pulls" to the right sometimes when shooting a burst, but it is not consistently sharp. On some occasions, usually at close range, I have gotten really sharp results from that lens. But most of the time and greater range, it loses it sharpness. I find it too "iffy" to use and now just use my L glass.

These are all good points to keep in mind.  Thanks for sharing this information.  I need to get the 1.4x TC.  I've never used a TC but after a few responses about how well they work I think it's time for me to try one.

I have both R5 and R7 w/ 100-500L, RF100-400, and 600mm f11.  I'm rapidly approaching "Geezer Class" i.e. 80 y.o. and now mainly shoot yard birds during the day and moon-shots at night, conditions permitting.  And for those two purposes, I almost totally rely on the  R7 + 100-500L.  I add the 1.4 xTC for the moon shots.  I also like the R5 w/ the 600mm for yard birds as the focal length is "right on".

The 32 MP sensor of the R7 seems to be a sweet spot for me with plenty of room for cropping and file sizes still easy to work with.  I do use the R5 for anything low light and grand kids duty w/ either 24-105L or 24-240 for outdoors, e.g. beach work.

With the R7 I prefer not to have ISOs higher than about 1600, but with the R5 I can easily shoot fairly clean at ridiculously high ISOs. (Topaz Ai noise reduction as needed)  But anymore I don't do much night shooting.  One last thought, for bumbling around daytime, the RF 100-400 and either body makes for lighter carry and optical quality is still very good.  I may add the R8 and 24-50 for an "easy to carry" package-- hope that lens is at least decent,

Bramble9

Bramble9 wrote:

I have both R5 and R7 w/ 100-500L, RF100-400, and 600mm f11. I'm rapidly approaching "Geezer Class" i.e. 80 y.o. and now mainly shoot yard birds during the day and moon-shots at night, conditions permitting. And for those two purposes, I almost totally rely on the R7 + 100-500L. I add the 1.4 xTC for the moon shots. I also like the R5 w/ the 600mm for yard birds as the focal length is "right on".

The 32 MP sensor of the R7 seems to be a sweet spot for me with plenty of room for cropping and file sizes still easy to work with. I do use the R5 for anything low light and grand kids duty w/ either 24-105L or 24-240 for outdoors, e.g. beach work.

With the R7 I prefer not to have ISOs higher than about 1600, but with the R5 I can easily shoot fairly clean at ridiculously high ISOs. (Topaz Ai noise reduction as needed) But anymore I don't do much night shooting. One last thought, for bumbling around daytime, the RF 100-400 and either body makes for lighter carry and optical quality is still very good. I may add the R8 and 24-50 for an "easy to carry" package-- hope that lens is at least decent,

Bramble9

More good information...Thanks!

The R8 sounds interesting.  I was thinking of adding it too, however I decided to get the R10 instead since I do a lot of bird photography.  It is working out well.  I'm 73 and also enjoy lightening the load when I can.

Best of luck!

Have both inkl both extenders. Great on all combinations.

tsinvest wrote:

RDM5546 wrote:

tsinvest wrote:

Emile15 wrote:

I have too, but the jury is still out on this one in that I am not sure yet whether the combo with the R5 gives me a higher hit rate.

It's funny, I don't favor either one and I always feel I will get similar results with each. It looks like perhaps you may be in agreement with this.

I have both. I get similar results for sure. The R7 weighs less and has newer autofocus EV behavior like the R3. I use the R7 with the RF100-500 but more often with the RF100-400 & the 1.4X TC. I like low weight for cases when there is lots of light the R7 and RF100-400 X1.4 is lighter, easier to swing in heavy action and does a great job. The R7 1.6 crop sensor reach can be precious some times,

Does this mean FF is dead and do not like the R5. No. Not at all. I am keeping them both for what they are slightly better at. Low light and bokeh is for the R5. I would prefer the R5 with big aperture RF glass (50f1.2, 135f1.9, 15-35f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200f2.8) for indoor sport in low lit gyms.

I value having the right tool for right job.

I agree with you, less weight is always a plus. I may buy the 1.4 extender as you mentioned and give it a try. I've never used extenders and it may be about time I try. Thanks for your comments 🙂

The 1.4X works very well with almost degradation from the extra glass.    The 2X pleases me when it is needed.  I particularly like full 4X zoom when using TCs rather the reduced zoom range of 300-500 when using the 100-500mm.   You need the right for the right job.  The 100-400 is both less weight and less bulk even when the 1.4X is used.