Anyone using an R8?

Thinking of updating the 7D mark II to a something mirrorless, but not quite sure what. Between the R6mkII, R7, and R8, the R6mkII is the ideal... but pricey. And yes, I'll see whatever it is Sony is unveiling today before making a decision, but lets ignore that for now and talk about the Canon options.

The R8 having the same sensor and AF as the R6mkII, for nearly half off seems like a deal... but I'm worried it strips off too much. Worse viewfinder. Worse battery. Electronic shutter only, which can lead to jello effect, and more worry of dust and debris when changing lenses in the field. No rear control wheel making it awkward to change settings.

I never use dual-cards, so things like that don't factor into my choice.

I'm sure I can take nice pictures with an R8, but I'm not sure it will be enjoyable if using the camera is a constant fight. Has anybody used one for an extended period? Are the negatives real, or negligible? Anything you wished you'd considered before buying it?

The R7... still crop. Will still be noisy. Lighter, and better AF, sure, but I'm not sure that's enough to justify a switch for an occasional shooter. It does open up the option of using the RF 100-500, which is I think the only big plus I have in the R7 column. Anything I'm ignoring?

Assuming that you already have a substantial investment in Canon glass, I would say go for the R6 MkII (if you can find one) as opposed to one of the new Sony compact bodies.

Yeah, saw the price on the Sonys... no longer on my radar.

So, no comment on the R8, but essentially what I'm taking from your comment is "go big or go home", and pony up for the R6mkII. R8's not worth the savings. Not what I wanted to hear, but what I expected.

Neuro/John picked up a R8. The images from his recent Europe trip were taken with it. I've seen him make positive comments about it. I haven't used one, so I cannot speak from experience, but it seems to be well regarded.

Ah, perfect. Neuro having both an R8 and R3 is in a good place to judge what the R8 gives up, and the impact of Canon's choices. I'll await his comment.

Camera bodies depreciate in value quickly so, I think if you go for the R8 now but really want several of the features on the R6 mkII it will certainly cost you more money if you decide to upgrade later as opposed to just getting the R6 mkII now.

I suspect Neuro went with the R8 since he already had the R3. Since the R6 mkII is sort of like a "lower level" R3 it wouldn't make sense for him.

His images with the R8 looked great, no issue with image quality, just a matter of what features you want.

I understand, buying cheap then upgrading would cost more. That's why I'm trying to get a feeling of whether I'd actually miss anything from the R6m2.

The AF is supposedly the same between R6m2 and R8. The sensor/noise the same. The pre-burst option if we're looking for new features, the same, in fact, the R8 may have a faster burst speed.

I never use two cards at once, so one card slot is not a concern.
I don't really do video, so the loss of an option there isn't a concern.
The 30min/2hr recording time isn't a concern. Who shoots a feature length movie in one shot?
I've never bought a grip, so the lack of a grip option isn't a concern.

My hands aren't huge, so the smaller body is not a major concern.
I tend to do action or wildlife over low-light landscape and portrait work. I'll already need a decent shutter speed, so lack of IBIS isn't a major concern.

The smaller battery is a minor concern.
The smaller view finder will be annoying, but, I expect, livable. It's the same size on the R7 too... minor concern I'd say.
The electronic first curtain burst speed of just 6 is a minor concern. It seems a bit low.

The loss of a wheel and other button layout choices is a concern, which someone familiar with a more capable camera can comment on.
The lack of shutter leading to rolling shutter jello effect is a concern. The reviews that show this... is that in normal shooting or panning the camera like a madman to exaggerate the effect?
The lack of shutter protecting the sensor is a concern.

So, there aren't really any R6m2 features I'm looking to gain (that I'm aware of) other than a shutter, a control wheel. A nicer viewfinder, burst, and battery life are secondary desires I'd like but could live without. The question is whether these deficiencies are biggies or not. If not, I'd rather save money for glass. I have a hard time thinking those features are worth an extra ~CAD$1300, but that's what it would take to get them.

Maybe I order a used 5DIV instead. Still get full frame, familiar controls, and a shutter. Or is mirrorless just that much better?

I am surprisingly pleased with the R8, though I know that's partly due to my intended use for it. I was looking for a small camera for family travel, and the R8 fits the need. On previous trips, I would take an EOS M kit (I had M then M2 then M6 then M6II) with the M11-22, M18-150 and M22/2 as the main walk around camera carried in a small messenger bag. I would also take the 1D X or R3 and several L lenses (minimally 24-70/105, 14/16-35 and TS-E 17) that I would use only on solo outings at blue hour/night when my wife and kids were resting. For our trip to Italy, I decided I wanted just one camera and thus I wanted it to be FF...and the R8 is the smallest body compatible with my lenses.

Addressing some of your points, from two posts and partly out order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

Electronic shutter only, which can lead to jello effect...

---

Clarification (and as you note below), the R8 has a mechanical shutter to end the exposure, i.e. your choices are EFCS or full electronic shutter. No rolling shutter / jello effect with EFCS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

The R7... still crop. Will still be noisy. Lighter, and better AF, sure, but I'm not sure that's enough to justify a switch for an occasional shooter. It does open up the option of using the RF 100-500, which is I think the only big plus I have in the R7 column. Anything I'm ignoring?

---

The RF 100-500L is an excellent lens, but for example for those who already have the EF 100-400 II, the RF version doesn't really add too much (the physical aperture is the same, 400/5.6 vs. 500/7.1. However, if you don't have a good long lens, the RF 100-400 (non-L) is surprisingly good period (just shy of the 100-500L, IMO, and punches much heavier than its price class). I had the EF 70-300L (used to have the 100-400 MkI, sold it after getting the 600/4 II), and when I got the R3 I swapped that for the 100-500. I added the RF 100-400 later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

The AF is supposedly the same between R6m2 and R8. The sensor/noise the same. The pre-burst option if we're looking for new features, the same, in fact, the R8 may have a faster burst speed.

---

AF and sensor are the same. The identical sensor and smaller size were the main reasons I opted for the R8 instead of the R6II. They have the same burst rate, but the R6II has a deeper buffer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

I've never bought a grip, so the lack of a grip option isn't a concern.
My hands aren't huge, so the smaller body is not a major concern.

---

The body is small, bigger than the M6II but still small. The difference is that the M lenses are also small and light, whereas the RF lenses are often not. Canon sells a little extension grip, instead I bought the RRS L-plate that duplicates that extension by adding ~1/4" of height to the camera. That makes it holdable with a lens like the RF 24-105/4L, although for me it was not what I'd call comfortable (note that one of the main reasons I prefer integrated grip bodies is for handholding comfort with heavy lenses). Technically, there is no RRS plate for the R8, but just as the Canon extension for the RP fits the R8, the RRS plate/bracket for the RP do as well (though I had to buy used from KEH since they are discontinued).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

I tend to do action or wildlife over low-light landscape and portrait work. I'll already need a decent shutter speed, so lack of IBIS isn't a major concern. The electronic first curtain burst speed of just 6 is a minor concern. It seems a bit low.

---

That use mitigates part of the benefit of a FF body in general (better high ISO and shallower DoF achievable). There are times when a 30 fps burst is great, and there are times when it's a lot of frame to sort through. With the R3, I often use the slower fps options, but with birds I do use the full 30 fps.

With the R8, I've never shot 40 fps...in fact, I just leave it in EFCS mode at 6 fps. The main reason for that is with every Canon MILC except the R3, when you switch from mechanical shutter (full or EFCS) to full electronic shutter, the RAW bit depth drops from 14 to 12. Doesn't matter at higher ISOs where the DR is lower anyway, but I'd rather not give up any data at low ISOs. The R3 does 14-bit RAWs with electronic shutter, and on that body I've never used the mechanical shutter. But again that's a use case thing – if I'm going to shoot something moving fast, I'll be using the R3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

The smaller battery is a minor concern.

---

If you switch to mirrorless, you will very soon realize that they drain batteries faster. Combined with the smaller LP-E17, it does mean you'll want to carry extra batteries. Personally, I don't mind...in fact, since the M6 and M6II also use the LP-E17 I already had three and the R8 made it four. I did have to swap for a new battery on a couple of days during the trip, but I never went through two batteries. However, if you're shooting for long periods and looking through the viewfinder a lot (as I tend to with the R3 when birding), I imagine 2 battery changes might be needed in a day of shooting, or three if it's cold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

The smaller view finder will be annoying, but, I expect, livable. It's the same size on the R7 too... minor concern I'd say.

---

The R3 has Canon's best FF EVF, the R8 arguably their worst. When I switch back and forth from one to the other (e.g. if testing something), it's noticeable. But for me, at least, once I'm using a camera it just becomes normal and it's a non-issue. The R8 viewfinder was perfectly usable for me in a variety of conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

The loss of a wheel and other button layout choices is a concern, which someone familiar with a more capable camera can comment on.

---

I was worried about that, as well. One common response is that if you're using an RF lens, there's a control ring on the lens you that provides the third wheel. However, some time back I discovered Fv mode and that has become my mode of choice. With that, only two wheels are needed so using Fv on the R8 is a breeze. I have a button assigned to reset the active setting to Auto, and in any case I typically leave ISO on Auto.

The big thing I miss on the R8 won't be a loss for you, it's the Smart Controller. So far, that's only on the 1D X III and R3, but if there's a better way to select AF points I can't imagine what it would be. AF point selection is a bigger deal on a MILC, because instead of a relatively finite number of AF points, you can select anywhere in the FoV. The solution I use on the R8 is what I used on the EOS R, using the upper right quadrant of the touchscreen as a selection pad for the AF point. The automatic eye selection functionality works very well for birds/wildlife, so you may not need to manually select an AF point that often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

The lack of shutter leading to rolling shutter jello effect is a concern. The reviews that show this... is that in normal shooting or panning the camera like a madman to exaggerate the effect?

---

Depending on what you shoot, it may or may not be an issue. Keep in mind that even a mechanical shutter can have rolling shutter effects if the subject is moving fast enough in the right orientation. It's down to readout speed, and the slower that is the more rolling shutter effect (and the slower a subject has to move to get it). Effectively, the readout speed of a mechanical shutter is ~4 milliseconds (not really readout in that case, but that's the line-by-line equivalent speed of the closing curtain). The R3 uses a stacked sensor and has a readout speed of ~5.5 ms (Sony's and Nikon's flagships are 4 ms). For comparison, the R8 (and R6II) have a readout speed of 14.5 ms. The R7 is 29 ms and more likely to show rolling shutter.

But whether or not you actually see the rolling shutter effect is dependent on what you shoot. The 'jello' shows up mostly with regular shapes moving across the sensor. Panning past a lamp post or a golf club mid-swing will look bent, a ball flying across the field will look oval instead of round. With irregular shapes like animals moving, it's pretty hard or even impossible to see the effect, unless they're moving really fast like the wings of a hummingbird (I've seen shots with those 'floating' separate from the body due to the rolling shutter on the R7).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

The lack of shutter protecting the sensor is a concern.

---

Yes, my R8 needs a good cleaning. That may partly be due to the fact that I changed lenses a bunch of times while hiking through volcanic dust kicked up by other hikers on Mt. Etna. OF course, if you rarely stop down you likely won't notice a little dust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

So, there aren't really any R6m2 features I'm looking to gain (that I'm aware of) other than a shutter, a control wheel. A nicer viewfinder, burst, and battery life are secondary desires I'd like but could live without. The question is whether these deficiencies are biggies or not. If not, I'd rather save money for glass. I have a hard time thinking those features are worth an extra ~CAD$1300, but that's what it would take to get them.

Maybe I order a used 5DIV instead. Still get full frame, familiar controls, and a shutter. Or is mirrorless just that much better?

---

Mirrorless offers lots of nice features, like blazing fast frame rates and a WYSIWYG viewfinder (I really like the 'permanent' DoF preview in the EVF). Overall, I highly recommend the R8 and unless you need IS and plan to use a bunch of non-IS lenses, the R8 gets you most of the R6II for far less money. But...and it's a big but...a much weaker recommendation for a primary use of action and wildlife shooting coming from a 7DII unless you upgrade your lenses, and that applies to the R6II as well. You'd be going from a 20 MP APS-C to a 24 MP FF, and that means your 300mm lens won't reach nearly as far (an APS-C crop from a 24 MP sensor is 9.4 MP). The 100-500 would make up for that, though (but it's not cheap, either). In other words, the combination of the R8 + 100-500L should give you a big performance boost over the 7DII + 70-300L. Of course, you'd need to replace your UWA lenses (or use them in crop mode with 9.4 MP).

Hope that helps, happy to answer any specific questions or address anything I missed.

Thanks neuro.

I was under the impression the EFCS reduced, but didn't eliminate, the jello effect. Still, if the readout speed is just 4x the time it take for the shutters to cross the frame, it's likely fine.

I'm aware of the lowered reach I'd get going full frame. I'm often already annoyed at the 70-300L's reach. But the image quality I used to see from the 1Ds2 was just so much nicer than anything the 7D2 spits out. The improved per-pixel quality will mean more crop ability to get some of that reach back. A 100-500 would more than get it back, and the ability to use an extender would pretty much cancel out the lack of crop too... so I'd have options and combinations... and I'd still have the 7D2 + 70-300L if I felt the need.

A forgotten concern when making my list was the lack of / reduced weather sealing on the R8. I'd prefer not to have to get paranoid about rain.

I doubt you have any EF-S lenses kicking around to judge the quality on the 9.4MP crop mode images, which really would only affect the 10-18mm. On the 7D2, I like to keep a fair number of pixels just because the individual pixels aren't the highest quality, and downsampling makes up for it. If the R8 gives 9.4MP of high quality pixels, then the lost pixels in the rare ultra-wide shot might not matter... Even if I decide the 10-18 isn't fit for use on the R8, the 24-70 will have become wider. Not as wide, granted, but probably a more useful range in most cases. We'll see if I feel a need to get a replacement ultra wide.

Typically I use the 7D2 w/ centre point AF, M mode w/ auto-ISO. The two wheels are shutter and aperture, and the thumb lever that normally defaults to AF mode selection I have configured for exposure compensation, for quick use when auto ISO goes dumb. If I have to use the M-Fn to switch the wheel between shutter and aperture, it's not the end of the world. The shutter and EC are the two I likely change the most often. I could likely live with one dial and the M-Fn to choose what I'm setting... or get the adapter with the control ring.

I'll have to search for some sample EF-S images, and see what the new Fv mode is. But you're making the R8 seem like a reasonable option (that gets me 1/3 of the way to 100-500mm in savings already!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

I was under the impression the EFCS reduced, but didn't eliminate, the jello effect. Still, if the readout speed is just 4x the time it take for the shutters to cross the frame, it's likely fine.

---

Nope, as far as rolling shutter goes EFCS is the same as mechanical shutter. With mechanical shutter, the shutter opens (first curtain) to begin the exposure and closes (second curtain) to end it. With EFCS, the sensor begins the exposure (that happens all at once), and the mechanical shutter ends it. In both cases, the sensor is read out with the shutter closed, after the exposure has ended. Readout speed doesn’t matter.

As I said, technically mechanical shutter can also suffer from a rolling effect with a subject moving fast enough, and thus EFCS can also. So from that standpoint, EFCS does reduce but not eliminate the jello effect...it reduces to the same magnitude/problem as with a mechanical shutter.

As a side note, EFCS also eliminates the shutter shock sometimes observed with mechanical shutter so in some ways it's the best of both worlds. Shutter shock comes from the vibration of the first curtain opening. Of course, the second curtain closing also causes vibration but in that case the exposure was already ended by that curtain so there's no more light hitting the sensor as the vibration occurs. However, I recently learned that the R7 has a problem with shutter shock even with EFCS...the vibration is strong enough to affect the next shot in a burst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

I doubt you have any EF-S lenses kicking around to judge the quality on the 9.4MP crop mode images, which really would only affect the 10-18mm.

---

Nope, sorry. I've only owned two EF-S lenses (the 17-55/2.8 that was the first lens I bought with my T1i/500D, and the 10-22), and I sold both when I sold my 7D, after getting the 1D X.

Interesting that the R8 has a mechanical second curtain shutter, yet they don't use it to protect the sensor when off. I'm going to guess that one was marketing driven, to not make the R8 too appealing.

The only EF-S mode mentions I could find anywhere were all about using the 10-18mm for vlogging. I couldn't find a single still image. I know it's a niche feature, but that was surprising.

I looked up the Fv mode. It's basically you choose one thing, the camera auto selects the other two. So it's 1) Av+Auto Tv/ISO, 2) Tv+Auto Av/ISO, or 3) manual ISO+Auto Av/Tv, with the camera auto selecting every creative option, ie. DoF and motion blur. I'd still prefer to choose the creative parts and let the camera select just the exposure.

Maybe Fv is smarter than the old sports mode which used a fixed 1/60th shutter. I can't remember if this baffling choice was on the Canon T1i or the old Sony H1, but I lost any trust of camera firmware authors after that. Perhaps with the AI subject detection it chooses an appropriate shutter speed, but what does it consider appropriate? No blur? A bit of blur on something fast? What makes the DoF appropriate? It doesn't know if I want an isolated subject. Nah, I'd rather pick.

Since Auto ISO was already a thing, the only real new option it gives you is manual ISO + Auto everything else... which is green box mode with a random Av or Tv change applied to compensate for your ISO choice... Or am I missing something compelling?

Adding further wrinkles (that nobody can help with) Magda wanted something light, as the old 1Ds2 hurt her hands. She also requested a zoom faster than 2.8 since she became aware such a thing existed... The two requests seem mutually exclusive on Canon mirrorless, as the RF 28-70 f/2 seems to be the only option, and it weighs the same as the 1Ds2 did. Maybe I need to invest in helium lens coats. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

I looked up the Fv mode. It's basically you choose one thing, the camera auto selects the other two. So it's 1) Av+Auto Tv/ISO, 2) Tv+Auto Av/ISO, or 3) manual ISO+Auto Av/Tv, with the camera auto selecting every creative option, ie. DoF and motion blur. I'd still prefer to choose the creative parts and let the camera select just the exposure.

Maybe Fv is smarter than the old sports mode which used a fixed 1/60th shutter. I can't remember if this baffling choice was on the Canon T1i or the old Sony H1, but I lost any trust of camera firmware authors after that. Perhaps with the AI subject detection it chooses an appropriate shutter speed, but what does it consider appropriate? No blur? A bit of blur on something fast? What makes the DoF appropriate? It doesn't know if I want an isolated subject. Nah, I'd rather pick.

Since Auto ISO was already a thing, the only real new option it gives you is manual ISO + Auto everything else... which is green box mode with a random Av or Tv change applied to compensate for your ISO choice... Or am I missing something compelling?

---

I think you're missing something compelling.

With Fv, one dial controls which side of the exposure triangle you are setting and the other dial controls the value for that setting. I view it as a practical combination of Av+Tv+M (+P), and functionally you can switch between analogs of all those modes on the fly. You can set any or all of the three controls to Auto in Fv mode, but you can also set a specific value for any or all of them in Fv. If you set all of them to Auto, that's like P mode. If you set two of them to Auto, that's like Tv or Av mode with Auto ISO. If you set all of them to a specific value, that's like M mode. But all of that is done without changing your mode dial.

In M mode on a three-dial camera, you can have shutter speed, aperture and ISO each on their own dial. Fv mode gets you very close to that capability with only two dials.

https://www.eos-magazine.com/article...e/fv-mode.html

The only 'challenge' is if you have dialed in a setting for one of the values then you want to go back to Auto for that setting. Auto is at one end of the range, i.e. if you're in Fv mode shooting with a specified aperture and you decide you need a fast shutter speed. You rotate the quick dial 2 to select shutter speed and you rotate the main dial to set 1/1000 s. But then you want to go back to Auto, so you have to spin the main dial all the way past 30 s, which is a lot of clicks (granted, you had to do that to get from Auto to 1/1000 s). My workaround for that is to set a button to reset the active control to Auto (a button can also be assigned to reset all three controls to Auto).

To be honest, I just left Fv alone for a while. Reading about it made it seem cumbersome and a bit confusing. But once I started using it, I loved it. On my R3, I have mode changes assigned to the M.Fn button and I have the available modes restricted to M and C1-3. All of my C# modes are based on Fv; C1 for static subjects, C2 for moving subjects, C3 for birds, with different controls set to default values e.g. C3 is set to aperture wide open (I set it with an f/1.4 lens mounted so any lens I mount starts wide open), shutter speed 1/2500 s and Auto ISO. But I can change any of those on the fly with Fv.

Wow thanks for that explanation! Super helpful.

Yes, thanks for the explanation. It's something to try out if/when I get one of the R's.

So.... I'm rethinking the RF 100-500mm, and considering the EF 100-400mm II and an EF 1.4x. Why? Because it would ALSO work on the 7D2.

As I mentioned above, I already find the 70-300L's reach limiting, and it's equal to a 480mm FOV on the 7D2. The so 100-500mm buy me the same reach with the R8's higher quality pixels. Maybe some extra cropping power, but no real extra reach. The RF 1.4x would get some extra reach, but currently only works on 3 lenses, the 100-500mm being the only one I'm interested in (the other f/11 super-teles all appear soft in Bryan's charts... maybe they're better real world).

The 100-400mm on the other hand would buy me more reach on the 7D2. The extender would nearly double my current reach (560mm vs 300mm)... but yes, bit softer. The lens would also work on the R8 w/ or w/out the extender w/ the EF adapter, which I'd most likely be getting anyway to keep my other lenses available.

A worthwhile option, or a pointless clinging to my old camera where I'd wish I'd just gone with the RF from the start?

I have both the RF100-500 and the EF100-400 .... they both work well on the R5

I think with the 1.4 TC you will not notice much drop in sharpness with the EF100-400 but the AF maybe a touch slower.

I have not tried the teleconverters with the RF100-500 but at 500mm it is an f/7.1 lens already, adding a 1.4TC loses one more stop I think.

I use the RF100-500 a lot on my R5 and it is very sharp for a zoom lens, no issue there at all and I am sure you would love it on the R8. (see my Tiger Swallowtail image in the August part II competition) In 1.6 crop mode you sort of get the effect of a teleconverter.

So, for versatility if you plan to still use the 7D2 frequently, go with the EF100-400, RF-EF adapter and the 1.4TC

If you think you are going to go completely to mirrorless (which I think you might once you get the R8!) and sell the 7D2 go with the RF100-500.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

So.... I'm rethinking the RF 100-500mm, and considering the EF 100-400mm II and an EF 1.4x. Why? Because it would ALSO work on the 7D2.

As I mentioned above, I already find the 70-300L's reach limiting, and it's equal to a 480mm FOV on the 7D2.

---

When you want reach, there is no such thing as enough. ;) But, if you have figured out the 100-400 plus TC will allow you to photograph something you couldn't with the 100-300L, cool. I still have the EF 100-400 II and use it fairly regularly with the 1.4TC. IQ sharpness is great. I think bokeh takes a slight hit. AF, I mean, the general consensus has always been that it falls off with the 1.4xTC, I still find it to be snappy and have used it for BIF, etc. It does hunt a bit more often. But, overall, a great combination. All of these comments are based on my used on the 5DIV and R5.

And while I opened up with the "no such thing as enough" reach comment, I can also say, I own the 100-300L and the 100-400 II. I picked up the 100-300L on a good deal when I shot with the Sigma 150-600S as a light weight alternative. After I picked up the 100-400 II, the 100-300L pretty much just sits. The difference in reach is noticeable and worth the extra weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

A worthwhile option, or a pointless clinging to my old camera where I'd wish I'd just gone with the RF from the start?

---

I am not sure if you are debating having two camera bodies or not, but a photon-to-photos chart on DR. I checked, and it is almost the exact difference I see with my M6 II vs R5, which I find to be a noticeable difference. Low ISO, not so much, but mid-ISO and long exposures, absolutely. High ISO, not even really comparable. So, while you are considering reach, you may also consider the other benefits of the R8. Low light, modern AF, AF across the entire screen, etc.


As for advice, my thoughts pretty much mirror Joel's.

So, we WANT the full-frame FOV, thin DOF, lower noise, etc at times. But we also want reach for wildlife. They two separate issues. The 70-300L is nice, but definitely has it's limits.

Further digging reveals it's commonly believed that the EF 100-400 II doesn't resolve enough to add any detail with a 1.4x over just cropping the bare lens with used on a crop body... so I'd really only get 400mm usable reach anyway. (640mm equiv.), it would just be softer and need more downsampling with the 1.4x.

On the other hand, the RF 100-500 DOES resolve extra detail. Adding the 1.4x makes it 300-700mm. If I went all out and got both an R8 and an R7, I'd have an effective reach of 1120mm, more than double my current 300 (effective 480), plus 50% more pixels... that's a lot of reach.

Another interesting recent development is the idea of the 0.71x mount adapter. Intended for super 35 cinema bodies to make better use of EF glass, it is similar to a reversal of the 1.6x crop (not exact), making lenses use the full FOV of a lens on a crop body, regaining the lost light, and acting a stop faster... so perhaps giving you something like FF framing, DOF, and noise levels on a crop body.

This sounded pretty cool. BUT. Canon's version of this adds in purple flaring. And Canon, not wanting to share the RF mount yet, is suing the maker of an alternative... people are expecting a firmware update to block the non-Canon adapter... sigh.

It's a neat idea that makes choice between FF and crop less distinct, with crop bodies getting the ability hold a dual role depending on the use of the converter or not... Of course it doesn't help you with actual RF glass, only converted EF glass, so it's likely to become a less useful trick over time, so not really a viable option.

Alright, enough talk.

Ordered: R7, R8, 2x mount adaptors, 2x Lexar 128GB v60 cards (one free with each camera), 2x Lexar 64GB v90 cards (they write twice the speed), an RF 100-500mm, an RF 1.4x, and a spare battery for each.

Yipee....good for you, congrats!!!! Can't wait to see some images ..... I think you won't regret it (I sold my 7D2 many moons ago)

Sweet. Congrats!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

Ordered: R7, R8, 2x mount adaptors, 2x Lexar 128GB v60 cards (one free with each camera), 2x Lexar 64GB v90 cards (they write twice the speed), an RF 100-500mm, an RF 1.4x, and a spare battery for each.

---

Enjoy!

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e11ace53_c.jpg
R7, 100-500mm test. How is ISO 10000 fully usable?!? by Dave E, on Flickr

Slight improvement in technology from the 7D2:cool:

Here's an R7 100-500mm + 1.4x shot of a GBH, and the 100% crop around the eye. Shooting semi-hand-held (I believe I was resting on the railing of a bridge). The 100% crop has the same processing, except luma noise reduction is dropped to 0. A touch of clarity and contrast may be accentuating the noise.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6dc678fa_c.jpg
Great Blue Heron by Dave E, on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e3c766cf_c.jpg
R7 100-500mm/1.4x/100% crop by Dave E, on Flickr

The full frame shot is nice and looks even better on Flickr ..... can you share the EXIF data?

I suspect Topaz DeNoise AI and Sharpen AI would make it really pop.

The cropped image is pretty noisy but you may be surprised what they can do there too.

I specifically left out the noise reduction on the crop to give a sense of what the camera/lens combo can capture. There are some single-pixel wide details, so the resolving power of the lens+extender is there.

Full EXIF is available from Flickr, but to save you a click: EOS R7 RF100-500mm + 1.4x -- 700mm, F/10.0, 1/400s, ISO 1250.

Thanks. I think it's a very good combination for situations where the light is good. At f/10 you may have difficulty in low light but, as you said, resolution and sharpness is good. It's possible the sample image you posted is a little under exposed which can accentuate noise. Congrats on the new gear, I am confident it will be really fun for a long time.

Congratulations on the new gear and the beautiful results you shared!

I had planned to rent the RF 100-500mm for my birthday, which was over the weekend. Coincidentally, the main subject I found was a GBH.

My usual longest lens is the ancient EF 400mm f/5.6 with a 1.4X teleconverter. Naturally I compared the two. The RF 500 is sharper and focuses faster, though the performance gap between it and the old lens was less than I had expected. The camera was an R5 in crop mode. So not an R7, but I thought the comparison might still be interesting in this thread.

For sure, David's results were significantly better than any of mine.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9ac2082c_b.jpg
500mm f7_1 ISO 500 by dfwatsoneuro, on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...1e73e3cd_b.jpg
560mm NR added by dfwatsoneuro, on Flickr

I expected him to disappear in a puff of smoke behind the cape!


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...49447110_b.jpg
560mm f8 ISO 800 by dfwatsoneuro, on Flickr

Posing like the villain in a melodrama.

The big thing with the 100-500mm is that it's got prime-like sharpness on a 5X zoom. Whether the extra versatility is with the asking price is what you need to figure out... The big down side is the lack of prime-like apertures over the whole focal length. Can't win 'em all.

Yep .... in good light though it works great, is easy to carry and very versatile.