mraifman

FWIW, I have been using the ef 300 f/2.8 mk ii and rf 100-500 on the R7 and have observed particularly bad shutter shock with both mechanical and EFCS (first shot is sharper) with both lenses. I ...

Thanks for explaining all of this. Some responses in line below. OK this makes sense to me in the context of noise. This makes sense ... I think. OK, I just looked up an aperture diameter ...

Yes! Glad to hear I'm not the only one considering this and that it has worked for you!

Yes! I religious watch his videos. I think he's the best wildlife reviewer on youtube these days. Very thorough. I think it basically means you should use the R7 in mechanical shutter 99% of the ...

This was an interesting exchange. Thank you both for your thoughts on this. I realized that my initial question wasn't entirely clear on this front. My general preference (like many) is maximum ...

I kind of agree with you on this. That's also why I've moved towards more wildlife...it's just more challenging and interesting and rewarding when you nail the shot.

Yeah, exactly. I think I've come to the realization that I would have been better off with the R + R7 than the R5 but it's not like the R5 is a slouch by any respect. It's phenomenal but just a ...

Yes, this is a really important point. I agree. If the image looks the same on the R7 with the 1.4x as the R5 with the 2x then there really is no point in bothering with the R7 at all. Yea, ...

Ah, yes. I don't think I properly provided an update. I returned the lens in question to the selling for a full refund and repurchased a used copy from KEH. (Not without its own issues; they ...

Yeah, I mean you are right as far as what I intended (and what I thought I wrote) but also this is all kind of missing the plot at this point. I think Thriller's comments about the R7 and R5 being ...

Just because I'm the OP here I figure I should clarify for posterity. I did not put the 2x on the 300mm f/5.6 on the R7; I did do this on the R5 (as it was designed for) and found that the results ...

OK, two things here: first, pixel size and number of pixels are both relevant to image quality, noise, etc but they are also two separate things. You have referred to both here in your response. ...

Yes, I think we all understand each other fully I think and have no disagreement here. Any perceived misunderstanding is most likely due to the challenges of communicating asynchronously via text ...

Thanks! Appreciate the report. I think the 300mm f/2.8 mk ii is just about the most lens I can handle handheld and I place a premium on being able to walk around a shoot without a tripod. That ...

Yeah, I hear you. Here's my financials on it for what it's worth. Canon R5 refurbished: $3509 Canon 3yr CarePak for R5 (protection for everything basically): $244 I believe this can be sold given ...

Yes, that's what I was thinking too. Just a confusion probably sparked by me not writing it all out.

Oh yes, I apologize if some of this got lost in my write up. The depth of field and bokeh from the 300mm f/2.8 mk ii is extraordinary. I love it. But it doesn't have enough reach for birding in my ...

Yes, I feel you. There's part of me that thinks I over purchased on the R5 and that I might be content with just the R7. I mean these cameras are so capable now that we have to recognize that we ...

This is sound advice. I have discovered that Amazon has free returns by January 31 for items purchased now until Dec 25...so I have purchased an R7 to try out and help make this decision, with the ...

Yeah, there is no real reason to shoot the R5 in crop mode (just using as an example of how much I'm cropping when shooting small birds). There is some advantage to shooting in crop in one small ...