Been getting some really good insights on pairing an R7 with an R5 for a two lens/two body combination for wildlife. (For example: R5 w/ 70-200 f2.8 and R7 w/ 100-500 L or R5 w/ 24-105 f4 and R7 w/ 100-500 L)Therefore, I’m thinking of getting an R7 to pair with my RF 100-500 L for wildlife. How have people’s experiences been with the R7? I’m a little nervous about the different layouts with controls.Also, on a slightly different tangent: I’m debating whether I should go this route with the R7 or commit to the OM-1 with Olympus PRO level glass for Wildlife. Compared to the R5 I have heard you gain the ability to have more light hitting the sensor and therefore don’t have high ISO noise penalties in low light/long focal length situations. Is that the case with the R7 as well? That, at longer focal lengths and in lower light situations one would benefit from not having to raise the ISO as much?

So far, I'm very happy with the R7. I'm new to wildlife photography so it's taking me a while to get used to the eye tracking, high speed shutter and high frame rate. My photos, especially the high ISO ones, are a bit noisy but the recent software advances handle this.Here's a photo from Disney's Animal Kingdom. These weavers move very quickly but I managed to get some nice shots. I shot close to 900 photos that day.R7 1/1000 sec at f/7.1, ISO 12800, 200mm(RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM)

Captive18 wrote:Been getting some really good insights on pairing an R7 with an R5 for a two lens/two body combination for wildlife. (For example: R5 w/ 70-200 f2.8 and R7 w/ 100-500 L or R5 w/ 24-105 f4 and R7 w/ 100-500 L)Therefore, I’m thinking of getting an R7 to pair with my RF 100-500 L for wildlife. How have people’s experiences been with the R7? I’m a little nervous about the different layouts with controls.Also, on a slightly different tangent: I’m debating whether I should go this route with the R7 or commit to the OM-1 with Olympus PRO level glass for Wildlife. Compared to the R5 I have heard you gain the ability to have more light hitting the sensor and therefore don’t have high ISO noise penalties in low light/long focal length situations. Is that the case with the R7 as well? That, at longer focal lengths and in lower light situations one would benefit from not having to raise the ISO as much?1. Different layout is not a problem because it's not that different from the R5. So the fingers basically go to the same place on each body if you map them similarly.2. Fewer buttons and dials is a PITA though and does take a few outings to get hardwired if your muscle memory is set to the extra options on the R5. I set my len control ring for aperture so I still have easy access to the exposure triangle. I shoot all manual except for one button assigned to 1/3200, auto aperture, auto ISO for the sudden big BIF that I come upon.3. The biggest difference to get use to activating eye AF.4. I typically only carry one lens and body at a time. Carrying two is a distraction for me because of the weight after a few miles walking around. If you shoot by car different situation. The only lenses that go on my R7 are the 1.4x + RF 100-400 or just the RF 100-500, no extender. If I'm shooting w/ the R5 then RF 100-500, no extender. In all honestly I use the R7 as a very expensive extender. If the RF extenders allowed for the full range on the RF 100-500 my R7 would be unnecessary. If the next R5, whenever that comes is in the 60MP range I'll sell the R7.5. Decision to use the R7 or R5 depends on what I think I'll be coming across -- birds of prey or small bird on trees plus lighting. I avoid going over ISO 1600 on the R7.6. I have the RF 70-200 f/4 but mostly use it for landscape and don't want the 1.6x factor in that situation. I don't enjoy shooting wildlife with such a short lens. Most of my wildlife shots are 400mm and up. Also the RF 100-500 itself is a decent "fake" macro lens w/ its close focusing range.7. Can't comment on Olympus -- no experience there. But I'd be hesitant to buy into a system that has a questionable long term future.

Captive18 wrote:Been getting some really good insights on pairing an R7 with an R5 for a two lens/two body combination for wildlife. (For example: R5 w/ 70-200 f2.8 and R7 w/ 100-500 L or R5 w/ 24-105 f4 and R7 w/ 100-500 L)That's great.  I find the R7 isn't as effective as the R5 is to fend off aggressive wildlife.  The lesser weather sealing and plastic body makes it a poorer choice to throw at the offending critters too ;-))Therefore, I’m thinking of getting an R7 to pair with my RF 100-500 L for wildlife. How have people’s experiences been with the R7? I’m a little nervous about the different layouts with controls.Seriously, it's a great choice and in fact the combination is my "go to" for traveling and/or hiking.  Yes, the layout is different, though with the myriad of videos out there and your own experimentation, you'll discover your own preferences.Also, on a slightly different tangent: I’m debating whether I should go this route with the R7 or commit to the OM-1 with Olympus PRO level glass for Wildlife. Compared to the R5 I have heard you gain the ability to have more light hitting the sensor and therefore don’t have high ISO noise penalties in low light/long focal length situations. Is that the case with the R7 as well? That, at longer focal lengths and in lower light situations one would benefit from not having to raise the ISO as much?I am unable to provide direction as to whether you should consider the OM-1.  You will have to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of owning competing systems.  I've seen plenty of great images from both systems.With respect to the R5, the R7 adds about a stop more of noise though if you need to add a TC to the R5 to obtain a similar FOV, the two bodies offset.  The AF system is pretty solid once you discover the nuances and the settings are more aligned with the R3 than the R5.  The R5 seems to AF better in lower light and is more accurate in challenging situations such as strong back/side lighting.  There are a lot of distinctions between the bodies that we could happily discuss and having more direction would be beneficial.  Rather than considering these bodies to be interchangeable, many of us consider them to be complementary.  Best wishes.

Captive18 wrote:Been getting some really good insights on pairing an R7 with an R5 for a two lens/two body combination for wildlife. (For example: R5 w/ 70-200 f2.8 and R7 w/ 100-500 L or R5 w/ 24-105 f4 and R7 w/ 100-500 L)Therefore, I’m thinking of getting an R7 to pair with my RF 100-500 L for wildlife. How have people’s experiences been with the R7? I’m a little nervous about the different layouts with controls.Also, on a slightly different tangent: I’m debating whether I should go this route with the R7 or commit to the OM-1 with Olympus PRO level glass for Wildlife. Compared to the R5 I have heard you gain the ability to have more light hitting the sensor and therefore don’t have high ISO noise penalties in low light/long focal length situations. Is that the case with the R7 as well? That, at longer focal lengths and in lower light situations one would benefit from not having to raise the ISO as much?Depends on how much reach you need beyond your R5 + 100-500 (I add the 1.4x to mine for 700mm).  The R7 will give you a little more reach than that when all is said and done, but you have the obvious trade-offs to consider.For me, 700mm is smack in the middle of my “ideal” focal length zone (esp for BIFs).  I’m selling my R7 therefore.I have a good (pro) friend who shoots wildlife with an OM-1 and 150-400/4.5.  It’s an excellent setup if you need a smaller rig (and don’t mind using Gigapixel on everything).  AF is better with the R5 tho.lots to consider!R2

R2D2 wrote:Captive18 wrote:Been getting some really good insights on pairing an R7 with an R5 for a two lens/two body combination for wildlife. (For example: R5 w/ 70-200 f2.8 and R7 w/ 100-500 L or R5 w/ 24-105 f4 and R7 w/ 100-500 L)Therefore, I’m thinking of getting an R7 to pair with my RF 100-500 L for wildlife. How have people’s experiences been with the R7? I’m a little nervous about the different layouts with controls.Also, on a slightly different tangent: I’m debating whether I should go this route with the R7 or commit to the OM-1 with Olympus PRO level glass for Wildlife. Compared to the R5 I have heard you gain the ability to have more light hitting the sensor and therefore don’t have high ISO noise penalties in low light/long focal length situations. Is that the case with the R7 as well? That, at longer focal lengths and in lower light situations one would benefit from not having to raise the ISO as much?Depends on how much reach you need beyond your R5 + 100-500 (I add the 1.4x to mine for 700mm). The R7 will give you a little more reach than that when all is said and done, but you have the obvious trade-offs to consider.For me, 700mm is smack in the middle of my “ideal” focal length zone (esp for BIFs). I’m selling my R7 therefore.I have a good (pro) friend who shoots wildlife with an OM-1 and 150-400/4.5. It’s an excellent setup if you need a smaller rig (and don’t mind using Gigapixel on everything). AF is better with the R5 tho.lots to consider!R2I generally use an R5 with the RF100-400 and an R7 with the RF800 f/11.  These combinations are sufficiently light that there is no problem while I am walking.  Af first, I got confused by the different button layout but, with experience, this is less of an issue.  That said, it is so much easier to zoom images using the thrid wheel on the R5 as opposed to the butotn and wheel on the R7.

So far the R7 has been great. I have used it with the EF 400mm f4 DO Mark I, EF 400mm f4 Mark II, and the EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L. It worked "well" with the 400mm DO Mk I (I had a decent copy of this lens), and brilliantly with the 400mm f4 DO Mark II. The focusing and IS are much more consistent with the Mark II than the Mark I. On the 400mm DO Mk II, focus is swift and sure even with the EF 1.4 extender III, and this lens really takes advantage if the pixel density of this sensor. With the EF extender 2x II, images are super sharp and AF is very good and consistent.The animal AF works great. With the EF 400mm DO Mk II and 70-300mm L, it rarely misses, but I must admit you should play with it to get used to it. With the animal AF off, focus speed and accuracy are great.High ISO is excellent, and up to ISO 3200 is fine straight out of the camera, and ISO 5000 is perfectly fine (can get plenty of detail), and it cleans up well with Denoise (not needed in some situations). I was surprised that ISO 6400 and even 12,800 cleaned up in Denoise and retained lots of detail and would have no trouble using these images for any application.I have used the 7D Mark II for quite a few years (a personal favorite) and the R7 is a big upgrade IMO. For the price it's a no brainer for the image quality, AF, video, and extra "reach," and if you shoot with an R5, R6, it makes a fantastic second body.

Captive18 wrote:Been getting some really good insights on pairing an R7 with an R5 for a two lens/two body combination for wildlife. (For example: R5 w/ 70-200 f2.8 and R7 w/ 100-500 L or R5 w/ 24-105 f4 and R7 w/ 100-500 L)Therefore, I’m thinking of getting an R7 to pair with my RF 100-500 L for wildlife. How have people’s experiences been with the R7? I’m a little nervous about the different layouts with controls.The R7 is good - but controls more limiting - so I had to change how I had customised my R5 so to be able to closely match how I can use the R7. 2 vs 3 dials is an initial let down - and why Canon chose to put the dial round the joystick beats me - but I am now used to it. If switching between, I sometimes put my thumb in the wrong place first.Also, on a slightly different tangent: I’m debating whether I should go this route with the R7 or commit to the OM-1 with Olympus PRO level glass for Wildlife.Main benefit of OM1 to me seems much less rolling shutter - so wont have to use mechanical or ECFS for birds in flight - so wont get the viewfinder lag and blackout (even though it is not too bad on the R7)Compared to the R5 I have heard you gain the ability to have more light hitting the sensor and therefore don’t have high ISO noise penalties in low light/long focal length situations. Is that the case with the R7 as well?R5 wins when can fill the frame. DXO Deep Prime is the R7's friend.That, at longer focal lengths and in lower light situations one would benefit from not having to raise the ISO as much?Yes - and prefer 500mm with 1.4X TC on the R7 to needing the 2X TC on R5.

Captive18 wrote:Also, on a slightly different tangent: I’m debating whether I should go this route with the R7 or commit to the OM-1 with Olympus PRO level glass for Wildlife. Compared to the R5 I have heard you gain the ability to have more light hitting the sensor and therefore don’t have high ISO noise penalties in low light/long focal length situations. Is that the case with the R7 as well? That, at longer focal lengths and in lower light situations one would benefit from not having to raise the ISO as much?You heard wrong. Changing the sensor size does essentially nothing about light collection.  It just changes your angle of view.The lens is what collects the light. At the same subject distance, a lens with a large aperture diameter collects more photons from the duck than a lens with a small aperture diameter.You can determine the aperture diameter by dividing focal length by the f number -- or just by looking at it. A big (and probably expensive) lens beats a small lens for light collection.Before you go off about which lens has the smaller f number, I can answer your question in advance. You're looking at the wrong parameter. You need to look at the aperturediameter.The two metrics to look at are (1) the aperture diameter and (2) the number of pixels per duck. On a linear scale the number of pixels per duck is proportional to the focal length divided by the pixel size (i.e., pixel pitch).If you don't believe me (many people don't, so they buy the wrong camera), go ask a follow-up question at the DPR Photo Science and Technology Forum. Do what you want, but I won't argue these points or give any lengthy follow-up answers.

ThrillaMozilla wrote:Captive18 wrote:Also, on a slightly different tangent: I’m debating whether I should go this route with the R7 or commit to the OM-1 with Olympus PRO level glass for Wildlife. Compared to the R5 I have heard you gain the ability to have more light hitting the sensor and therefore don’t have high ISO noise penalties in low light/long focal length situations. Is that the case with the R7 as well? That, at longer focal lengths and in lower light situations one would benefit from not having to raise the ISO as much?You heard wrong. Changing the sensor size does essentially nothing about light collection. It just changes your angle of view.The lens is what collects the light. At the same subject distance, a lens with a large aperture diameter collects more photons from the duck than a lens with a small aperture diameter.You can determine the aperture diameter by dividing focal length by the f number -- or just by looking at it. A big (and probably expensive) lens beats a small lens for light collection.Before you go off about which lens has the smaller f number, I can answer your question in advance. You're looking at the wrong parameter. You need to look at the aperturediameter.The two metrics to look at are (1) the aperture diameter and (2) the number of pixels per duck. On a linear scale the number of pixels per duck is proportional to the focal length divided by the pixel size (i.e., pixel pitch).If you don't believe me (many people don't, so they buy the wrong camera), go ask a follow-up question at the DPR Photo Science and Technology Forum. Do what you want, but I won't argue these points or give any lengthy follow-up answers.Yes agree - and hence why the Olympus fanb0ys talk nonsense when they claim their Olympus 300mm f/4 pro - a very nice lens - somehow is equal to a Canon 600mm f/4 - even if on 20MP FF vs M43 sensors both give same number of pixels per duck.But equally a Canon 300mm f/4 on 20MP full frameif cropping out the middle- no better noisewise - and much fewer pixels per duck than the OM 300f/4 on a 20MP M43.

I’ve been using the R7 for wildlife (mostly birds) with a variety of lenses including the RF 100-500L and am overall very happy with the camera.  I definitely recommend it.  In fact, I like it so much I pretty much have to force myself to use the R5.From what I’ve seen from the Olympus, it’s a great camera as well and I’m sure it’ll deliver the goods if you decide to go that route.  The good thing about going with the R7 is that it’s compatible with all your R5 setup.

Captive18 wrote:Been getting some really good insights on pairing an R7 with an R5 for a two lens/two body combination for wildlife. (For example: R5 w/ 70-200 f2.8 and R7 w/ 100-500 L or R5 w/ 24-105 f4 and R7 w/ 100-500 L)Therefore, I’m thinking of getting an R7 to pair with my RF 100-500 L for wildlife. How have people’s experiences been with the R7? I’m a little nervous about the different layouts with controls.Also, on a slightly different tangent: I’m debating whether I should go this route with the R7 or commit to the OM-1 with Olympus PRO level glass for Wildlife. Compared to the R5 I have heard you gain the ability to have more light hitting the sensor and therefore don’t have high ISO noise penalties in low light/long focal length situations. Is that the case with the R7 as well? That, at longer focal lengths and in lower light situations one would benefit from not having to raise the ISO as much?Well, let me put it this way, I love my R7 so much, I sold my R5 to buy another R7 + the RF 100-400, and some other peripherals too.All the latest stuff here was taken with my R7 + my RF 800 F11. Finally, I’m usually close enough 🙂https://flic.kr/ps/3sNzDS

KevinRA wrote:Yes agree - and hence why the Olympus fanb0ys talk nonsense when they claim their Olympus 300mm f/4 pro - a very nice lens - somehow is equal to a Canon 600mm f/4 - even if on 20MP FF vs M43 sensors both give same number of pixels per duck.Yes, 75 mm aperture versus 150 mm aperture. Only one fourth the light, but maybe enough light, and much easier to carry.But equally a Canon 300mm f/4 on 20MP full frameif cropping out the middle- no better noisewise - and much fewer pixels per duck than the OM 300f/4 on a 20MP M43.Yes, indeed.Everythinghas advantages and disadvantages.With a 300 mm f/4 lens and a 20 MP sensor, FF gives the same number of photons per duck, but only about half the number of pixels per duck length as a MFT sensor. But where a 20 MP MFT sensor has 3.3 μm pixels, the Canon R7 has 3.2 μm pixels, so maybe a close competitor!

I have the r7 with the rf100-400 and a few EF lens.  I also have the om1 and 300f4.  You can easy crop in to an 800mm fov of an MFT body with a 400mm lens and have a 20mp image with the r7 and any 400mm lens.  The r7 with the rf100-400 is the lightest birding kit going.  The rf100-400 is a no brainer for the IQ the lens delivers.  Between the 2 kits the om1 only get used when the weather is very wet and dark.  Good kit but much more heavy than the r7 rf100-400 kit.  Both deliver good results but neither can match what you get with a 500 or 600 f4.  What you get with the 300f4 pro is a 600mm fov with 300mm backgrounds.DA