Need input re: backup/additional R series camera - R5 or R7?

[WesternBirder]

I'm still fairly new to photography and have owned and used the R6 (my first camera) for the past year with the RF 100-500mm and 800mm lenses. I'm still learning, but I know I need a backup/additional camera (I need to send my R6 in for repairs - I know I want to have another camera).

My question is... should I jump on the R7, or go for the R5 since I already have the R6? I am a casual photographer; I do a lot of walking around and taking photos while birding. I don't do set-ups or hides or anything like that. I end up having to do more cropping than is desired, no doubt. I don't know if the R6 is to close to what the R7 can do, or if I should save that $$ and go ahead and get the R5 $$$.

I know the R5 files are large, but I know it's a more powerful camera than the R7; still, based on what I've read, the R7 should be good for bird and general wildlife photography. I'd appreciate any input.

 

[Able1039]

I'm still fairly new to photography and have owned and used the R6 (my first camera) for the past year with the RF 100-500mm and 800mm lenses. I'm still learning, but I know I need a backup/additional camera (I need to send my R6 in for repairs - I know I want to have another camera).

My question is... should I jump on the R7, or go for the R5 since I already have the R6? I am a casual photographer; I do a lot of walking around and taking photos while birding. I don't do set-ups or hides or anything like that. I end up having to do more cropping than is desired, no doubt. I don't know if the R6 is to close to what the R7 can do, or if I should save that $$ and go ahead and get the R5 $$$.

I know the R5 files are large, but I know it's a more powerful camera than the R7; still, based on what I've read, the R7 should be good for bird and general wildlife photography. I'd appreciate any input.

If you’re into birding and end up doing a lot more cropping then desired in post, then I recommend choosing the R7. The APSC sized sensor will increase the reach of your lenses plus, you can save a boat load of money over the R5. There’s my two cents…

 

[BirdShooter7]

I also have a R6 that I use for bird photography and I’ve ordered a R7. I hope it will pair up with the R6 well but the R5 should as well. I don’t think you can go wrong either way.

 

[dprime]

Based on what you've said, either R5 or R7 would be great for your second body.

However, how you operate each body will be different.

R5 - similar to R6, take a picture then crop

R7 - it's an APS-C crop sensor body which will provide more reach by 1.6 crop factor, failry decent resolution so you can probably crop little bit more.

If money is no issue, R5 looks like a great option to go, but I'd rather save up the cash for lens upgrade. That leaves R7, which seems really a great camera with a relatively cheaper price tag. If I were in the same situation with no intention to add a prime telephoto lens down the road, I'd go R7 with RF100-500mm and R6 with additional 70-200mm for light hand carry birding.

 

[Klaus dk]

From what you explain, you're right on target for the R7. You get more pixels on the bird and very advanced AF.

Good luck and good light.

 

[CameraCarl]

I know what you are talking about. I bought an R6 as backup for my R5 and am happy with the combination. If I were you, I'd wait until the R7 comes out and is in the hands of lots of users to see what they think of the camera. The thing that worries me the most about the camera is how different the layout is from the R5 or R6. When I am doing intense shooting, e.g., birds in flight, or the airshow I was at this past weekend, I intuitively know where the various buttons are. The back button autofocus button(s) (because I now use two), for example, are in exactly the same place on the R5 & R6, but it appears that one is moved to a different location on the R7. I rely on these three "thumb" buttons all the time when making photos in demanding situations. I don't want to have to take my camera down from my face to see why my thumb isn't hitting the correct button. And the R7 has a selection dial in an odd place compared to any other Canon ever made. I wonder how hard it will be to adapt to this when using other cameras at the same time. If the R7 were to be my only camera, this wouldn't bother me, and I'm sure I would eventually adjust, but I wonder how many once-in-a-lifetime shots I would miss in the process of adapting.

 

[souvikdgp]

I'm also like you and have migrated from R6 to R5. I'm happy with my decision.

I'm also considering R7 but I have a concern. Since I don't have expensive telephoto lenses, I have to shoot my ISO really high. I have seen that in R5 images are very clean up to ISO 16000. ISO 32000 is also usable.

I'm not sure about that point in R7 and want to have some review on that. It's a high mp APSC sensor and not stacked. That why I have my doubts.

Otherwise the AF for all these newer Canon cameras are like cheating on the field. Even with no experience I can shoot birds in flight.

--
See my work @ https://www.flickr.com/photos/souvikchatterjee/

 

[R2D2]

I'm still fairly new to photography and have owned and used the R6 (my first camera) for the past year with the RF 100-500mm and 800mm lenses. I'm still learning, but I know I need a backup/additional camera (I need to send my R6 in for repairs - I know I want to have another camera).

My question is... should I jump on the R7, or go for the R5 since I already have the R6? I am a casual photographer; I do a lot of walking around and taking photos while birding. I don't do set-ups or hides or anything like that. I end up having to do more cropping than is desired, no doubt. I don't know if the R6 is to close to what the R7 can do, or if I should save that $$ and go ahead and get the R5 $$$.

I know the R5 files are large, but I know it's a more powerful camera than the R7; still, based on what I've read, the R7 should be good for bird and general wildlife photography. I'd appreciate any input.

If there's any chance you would be ordering an R7, I'd do it post haste! Otherwise you might be waiting a couple of months.

R2

 

[Leigh A]

If Bird photography is your main "thing", the APS-C camera will likely become the "main" body, & the R6 the backup; so get the best APS-C--the R7.

The R7 with the RF 100-500L's 800mm "reach" without a TC , & the ability to zoom back to 160mm VS 400mm with the TC, it should be a Bird photographer's dream rig.

I plan to pair an R7 with my R5. If in the future, you get more into Landscapes, & wish to print "big"---Trade the R6 for an R5.

 

[yerach]

I'm still fairly new to photography and have owned and used the R6 (my first camera) for the past year with the RF 100-500mm and 800mm lenses. I'm still learning, but I know I need a backup/additional camera (I need to send my R6 in for repairs - I know I want to have another camera).

My question is... should I jump on the R7, or go for the R5 since I already have the R6? I am a casual photographer; I do a lot of walking around and taking photos while birding. I don't do set-ups or hides or anything like that. I end up having to do more cropping than is desired, no doubt. I don't know if the R6 is to close to what the R7 can do, or if I should save that $$ and go ahead and get the R5 $$$.

I know the R5 files are large, but I know it's a more powerful camera than the R7; still, based on what I've read, the R7 should be good for bird and general wildlife photography. I'd appreciate any input.

the r5 will make your r6 the 2nd camera...

are you happy with your lenses?

if not save the (rather enormous...) price difference and get some glass, it'll do more for your photography than an r5 will over an r7.

if you are, the r5 is the obviously better option in my opinion, it'll give you more room to crop (though i hope you grow out of that...), and you can get the greater "reach" in crop mode at a completely acceptable 17mp, if you have to.

 

[WesternBirder]

Yes, I see the benefit of getting a better lens, but man, to step up from the RF 100-500, I'd have to go to a prime lens, right? I'm not sure I want to carry one of those around, but I'll think about it. Thanks!

 

[WesternBirder]

Thanks, Able1039.

 

[WesternBirder]

Thanks, dprime.

 

[WesternBirder]

Yeah, I pre-ordered it, but since it may be coming in soon, I thought I'd better decide whether to switch or not. It's good to get other ideas...

 

[WesternBirder]

Yes, I think this is probably the best plan.

 

[WesternBirder]

Thanks, Leigh. Yeah, I'll probably stick with the R7. Right now, all I do is birding.

 

[yerach]

Yes, I see the benefit of getting a better lens, but man, to step up from the RF 100-500, I'd have to go to a prime lens, right? I'm not sure I want to carry one of those around, but I'll think about it. Thanks!

do only shoot birds? (well... your screen-name implies so...)

if you do shoot some other things, your photography could benefit from the 70-200 2.8 or the 28-70 2 or one of the 1.2 primes, any of those could fit in the price difference between r7 and r5.

if you shoot only birds, well... i guess you should be happy with your lenses... (maybe you still could find benefit in the bright 70-200, but it's hard to determine if as much as getting an r5)

 

[BirdShooter7]

Yes, I see the benefit of getting a better lens, but man, to step up from the RF 100-500, I'd have to go to a prime lens, right? I'm not sure I want to carry one of those around, but I'll think about it. Thanks!

Well it sounds like in the not too distant future Canon will be coming out with a 500mm f/4 that’s significantly lighter and smaller than the EF mk2.



I guess you didn’t like my answer about the body but really you can make a strong argument either way on that matter. However, given that none of us have actually used a R7 yet it’s sort of difficult to really recommend it at this point. I have used the R5 quite a lot for bird photography and I can say without hesitation that it is excellent for the job.



What is helpful to know is what is your style of bird photography. What are you going to be doing with the photos? What sorts of birds do you mainly like to photograph? Do you travel much for bird photography?



It sounds like you might be more on the casual end of the spectrum given that you are hesitant to get a fast prime. If that’s the case, I doubt that the R7 will disappoint. Canon does have a pretty solid track record for making great cameras and the specs for the R7 do look very promising.

 

[BirdShooter7]

Yes, I see the benefit of getting a better lens, but man, to step up from the RF 100-500, I'd have to go to a prime lens, right? I'm not sure I want to carry one of those around, but I'll think about it. Thanks!

do only shoot birds? (well... your screen-name implies so...)

if you do shoot some other things, your photography could benefit from the 70-200 2.8 or the 28-70 2 or one of the 1.2 primes, any of those could fit in the price difference between r7 and r5.

if you shoot only birds, well... i guess you should be happy with your lenses... (maybe you still could find benefit in the bright 70-200, but it's hard to determine if as much as getting an r5)