Do you think this is crazy ?So in the last week, I have corresponded with at least 5 folks who own both, or have owned both the R5 and the R7, but are using there R7's almost exclusively for birds. Biggest plus is the extra reach. Certainly has been for me.Anxious to get my second R7. It will make an awesome backup, plus, I will probably keep the RF 100-400 on it, for wider angle stuff that might pop up.I know the R5 has an advantage with some types of photography, and also, it could get a really big bump with the new big firmware update. Sound for the electronic shutter would have been a big one for me.But anyway, I'm just killing it with my R7, and in the 5 weeks I've had it, I finally picked up my R5 once.... Shot about 800 shots with it, and thought, Nope. I'd rather shoot with my $1500 R7.Now, with two $1500 cameras, I won't feel near so "locked" in, whenever the R7 Mk II comes out.... And if it takes 2 or 3 years, eh. That's fine. No rush 🙂Geez, these $1500 cameras with a $900 800 F11, what a fantastic value !All the recent photos on my Flicker page were shot with the RF 800, and most recent were with my R7.https://www.flickr.com/photos/161603079@N02/

Your R7 + 800/f11 images on Flickr look great Chris.Rudy

Very nice work.  Like you, I mostly use my R7, but I do enough other kind of work that I’m keeping my R5.  For birds, though, the R7 is great.  Debating whether to get an RF 100-500 and 1.4x for the R7 or a 600 or 800 for it so I can get the new RF 135 for the R5.

Rudy Pohl wrote:Your R7 + 800/f11 images on Flickr look great Chris.RudyThank you Rudy 🙂

danferrin wrote:Very nice work. Like you, I mostly use my R7, but I do enough other kind of work that I’m keeping my R5. For birds, though, the R7 is great. Debating whether to get an RF 100-500 and 1.4x for the R7 or a 600 or 800 for it so I can get the new RF 135 for the R5.My best advice, rent these options and see for your self ! 🙂 I rented the 800 F11 for a week...Then, a little while later I rented the 100-500 (probably wasn't a fair trial though, as I have good reason to believe mine was damaged)Then, I actually rented the 800 F11 again, to make sure I wasn't crazy 😀 Couldn't believe how well I did with that cheap, F11 lens the very first time I picked it up ! And I've been loving it ever since I owned it. I now I own the 600 F11 too, and getting ready to buy the RF 100-400, as soon as I get paid for my R5 👍

You’re crazy haha, but it’s your choice. To me, having one would be enough, the r5 is a HELL of a camera but you know best what you need. Good luck!

Chris;  I've seriously thought about doing that too, but I can't bring myself to part with my R5.  I do think that when the weather improves I'll be using the R5 a lot more.  I do really do love the R7-- a lot.  Your bird photos are excellent-- and I'm envious of colorful choices you have.  Enjoy your pair of R7s.Bramble9

Chris Wolfgram wrote:All the recent photos on my Flicker page were shot with the RF 800, and most recent were with my R7.https://www.flickr.com/photos/161603079@N02/I think it makes sense. FF is not the solution for everything. APS-C seems to work just as fine - or better - for both birding and studio work for example. No need to go FF there.I have a somewhat odd question but I have noticed in the past (when I used to have a 7D Mark II as a sidekick) that the APS-C models have slightly more "punch" in the files. Contrast is a bit higher and colors slightly more saturated "out of the gate". Is this something you have noticed with the R7 vs R5 for example?

There's no extra reach, don't be fooled by the idea to the equivalent extra focal length from a cropped image than the full. It's simply the electric magnification, whatever the density it has.Cropped sensor is not invented for that, it's only because it is cheap.

Nimonus wrote:There's no extra reach, don't be fooled by the idea to the equivalent extra focal length from a cropped image than the full.I for one don't care about the focal length. It's not a very useful number in itselfIt's simply the electric magnification, whatever the density it has.Every digital image is electric, every discrete pixel sensor's resolution comes partly from the density. Optics is also simply light that gets captured by all that important electronicsCropped sensor is not invented for that, it's only because it is cheap.Indeed. And for practicality too. For neither can the manufacturers make high density FF sensors, nor it seems most people can afford it right away. We can talk when we see that 80+MP FF sensor show up. Till then, people like OP will see a real difference whether you agree or not

It's not crazy.  They're simply tools and each has its own pros and cons.  If the R7 is a better fit for what you're doing, then keeping the R5 makes little sense.

Enjoy. I really like mine.For those distractors out there just yell 'Ricky Nelson' -you can't please everyone So you got to please yourself

Chris, those bird photos are great!!!Kent

So in the last week, I have corresponded with at least 5 folks who own both, or have owned both the R5 and the R7, but are using there R7's almost exclusively for birds. Biggest plus is the extra reach. Certainly has been for me.Crop sensor doesn't give you extra reach, though. This is a misconception. Only the focal length of your lens will give you reach.

boldcolors wrote:Chris Wolfgram wrote:All the recent photos on my Flicker page were shot with the RF 800, and most recent were with my R7.https://www.flickr.com/photos/161603079@N02/I think it makes sense. FF is not the solution for everything. APS-C seems to work just as fine - or better - for both birding and studio work for example. No need to go FF there.I have a somewhat odd question but I have noticed in the past (when I used to have a 7D Mark II as a sidekick) that the APS-C models have slightly more "punch" in the files. Contrast is a bit higher and colors slightly more saturated "out of the gate". Is this something you have noticed with the R7 vs R5 for example?Hmmm. Not really sure ? With my work flow, if there was good color there, I will usually end up with good color > Almost never touching the saturation or vibrance sliders, but rather, achieving my "punch" through exposure and contrast...

Nimonus wrote:There's no extra reach, don't be fooled by the idea to the equivalent extra focal length from a cropped image than the full. It's simply the electric magnification, whatever the density it has.Cropped sensor is not invented for that, it's only because it is cheap.Someone always has to say this..... And I'm not even going to go down that whole road again.The R7 does a better job for me, than the R5 did. Period

KENTGA wrote:Chris, those bird photos are great!!!KentThank you Kent 🙂 I think I got some pretty good ones with my R5 too. Just more consistent with my R7 👍

LennyLevino wrote:So in the last week, I have corresponded with at least 5 folks who own both, or have owned both the R5 and the R7, but are using there R7's almost exclusively for birds. Biggest plus is the extra reach. Certainly has been for me.Crop sensor doesn't give you extra reach, though. This is a misconception. Only the focal length of your lens will give you reach.As I said above, I've totally considered all this.But what the R7 does give me, is better photos more consistently. So you can attribute that to anything you would like to 🙂

LennyLevino wrote:So in the last week, I have corresponded with at least 5 folks who own both, or have owned both the R5 and the R7, but are using there R7's almost exclusively for birds. Biggest plus is the extra reach. Certainly has been for me.Crop sensor doesn't give you extra reach, though. This is a misconception. Only the focal length of your lens will give you reach.This continuously repeated statement is only a technicality and does not help at all. You make it sound like there is zero advantage of crop sensors for some use cases, which is not true either.Crop will often get you more "pixels per duck", and this is often what matters. Of course sensor resolution / pixel density has a say in this as well (e.g. the 20MP Z50 does not have an advantage over 46MP Z7 in crop mode) and of course the lens has to be able to resolve some additional detail, but nevertheless with most lenses a R7 will provide additional, meaningful detail on the target vs a R6 or a R6 II and often even vs the R5 with the same lens. This is meant when uers casually write "gives more reach", no need to be pedantic about that. And I'm sure you know that as well.

LennyLevino wrote:So in the last week, I have corresponded with at least 5 folks who own both, or have owned both the R5 and the R7, but are using there R7's almost exclusively for birds. Biggest plus is the extra reach. Certainly has been for me.Crop sensor doesn't give you extra reach, though. This is a misconception. Only the focal length of your lens will give you reach.What 'extra reach' means in these discussions about sensors is higher pixel density, which is one of (several) relevant factors, especially to those who want to get as many pixels as possible on their subject (often distant birds). Everyone posting on this forum knows this. It's been discussed and explained to death. There is no misconception, only misplaced pedantry.