R5? R6? Anyone?

[Rogue]

Have you seen anything much from birders saying the 1DX III isn't as good as a BIF rig? It is a bit odd, but I have seen remarkably little on it in terms of true BIF evaluations. But, Jonathan is doing pretty well with it

I am tempted, at least a little, by everything. The R5 and R6 actually tempt me a little. The weaknesses I have with my 5DIV are AF coverage, AF speed/tracking, buffer size, and fps. I want to say there is something else, but, I am not recalling it at the moment. The R5/R6 both "solve" my fps and AF coverage issues. The R5 has a CFExpress Type B card slot, so that would solve the buffer issue (just write to the one card). So that is great. AF speed/tracking is TBD.

But I am not a fan of the EVFs I've played with (including the R, a Sony in stores and renting the Fuji and owning the EVF-DC1/2). I do not really want more MPs than the 5DIV. And, probably most significant, I do not want to be tempted by the RF lenses. I really just got my EF lens kit where I want it. I know I could use an adapter, but I know me, and as soon as I have an R body, I'll want at least a few RF lenses.

Add that all up, if I want to "solve" my "problems" (I use quotes as the 5DIV really is remarkable) I am leaning toward swallowing hard and the 1DX III.


Yep, just saw those. As for the RF 100-500, it is an f/7.1 lens....and f/5.6 at 400 is not that different than f/7.1 at 500 (400/5.6 = 71 mm while 500/7.1 = 70 mm). So, you are really talking about the same lens as the 100-400, just mirrorless can AF a bit better with less light, or so it seems.

Overall, I get the temptation. If I was coming in with a less populated kit, I would probably be going nuts. And, for someone that takes pictures of pretty much everything, moving...or not, the R5 or R6 both seem like a nice step up given the Eye-AF, fps, and AF point coverage.

I am looking forward to hearing what people think.

Thanks for the info. Pricing make more sense now.

[Jonathan Huyer]

I should also add, in response to the 'low' MP comment, that 20 MP is still really good. I've sold two copies of this image as 3' x 6' prints, and the clients have been absolutely thrilled with the result.

[Fast Glass]

At Jonathan,

How do you feel the noise compares to the 1Dx II (Or just in general) in real life? It seems to be better but have a weird darkness to them (For lack of better words) in Bryans crops and DXO says it's actually worse than the MKII. Which I'm not really sure how they got that score but I digress. Was wonder how real world usage compared as I found out my 1D III is definitely got a bigger edge to the 60D I had even though on paper there was not "That" much difference. I found in real life the 1D III to be a noticable step up as a whole noise wise.

[Jonathan Huyer]

At Jonathan,

How do you feel the noise compares to the 1Dx II (Or just in general) in real life? It seems to be better but have a weird darkness to them (For lack of better words) in Bryans crops and DXO says it's actually worse than the MKII. Which I'm not really sure how they got that score but I digress. Was wonder how real world usage compared as I found out my 1D III is definitely got a bigger edge to the 60D I had even though on paper there was not "That" much difference. I found in real life the 1D III to be a noticable step up as a whole noise wise.

My short answer is I really have no idea! Both the Mark II and Mark III are excellent with regards to noise. I've been really happy with the image quality from both. I assume the Mark III is better but I can't say for sure because I don't do tests like the experts. For me the speed and focus performance are what really matter. And I think the R5 and R6 will match the Mark III focusing quite well, since a lot of the performance improvement comes from the new high speed processing chip.

[Joel Eade]

I should also add, in response to the 'low' MP comment, that 20 MP is still really good. I've sold two copies of this image as 3' x 6' prints, and the clients have been absolutely thrilled with the result.

This image is simply spectacular in every way.

My comment about megapixels was only intended to convey that I was expecting the 1DXIII to be outfitted with a higher resolution sensor and that in comparison to other bodies I had considered for BIF it has a relatively low pixel count. Certainly 20 mp is capable of fine images and large prints.

The biggest advantage I had in mind for the high resolution sensors was the ability to crop significantly and still retain high IQ in terms of resolution. In situations where you can get close or have enough focal length to nearly fill the frame with your subject it wouldn't matter near as much.

After the news today it looks like the R5 and the 100-500mm may actually be a strong contender for my ultimate BIF rig......

[Jonathan Huyer]

This image is simply spectacular in every way.

My comment about megapixels was only intended to convey that I was expecting the 1DXIII to be outfitted with a higher resolution sensor and that in comparison to other bodies I had considered for BIF it has a relatively low pixel count. Certainly 20 mp is capable of fine images and large prints.

The biggest advantage I had in mind for the high resolution sensors was the ability to crop significantly and still retain high IQ in terms of resolution. In situations where you can get close or have enough focal length to nearly fill the frame with your subject it wouldn't matter near as much.

After the news today it looks like the R5 and the 100-500mm may actually be a strong contender for my ultimate BIF rig......

Thank you! And yes for sure, the R5 and the 100-500 would make a very fine setup for BIF. Being able to shoot without a tripod is a huge advantage. I tried hand-holding my big rig for shooting skimmers in flight, and I ended up with a serious case of tennis elbow that took months to heal.

I would say that as long as you have plenty of daylight, then you don't need to worry about losing any detail to noise when you crank up the shutter speed to 1/2000 or faster as is usually necessary. But I'm guessing that if you need to go above ISO 3200, then you might start losing some of the advantages of the high pixel count. My wildlife photography is often happening in low light conditions so I appreciate the advantages of a low-noise sensor and a f/4 lens. But that advantage vanishes completely when light is ample, and the higher MP sensors should definitely show better results.