R5 @ 500 mm versus 1DXIII @ 700 mm

[Fast Glass]

So I'm seeing a couple things, there seems to be a noticeable difference in sharpening between the two. Maybe it is just because of the ISO, but it looks like it is sharpened more. I would process both identically and with pretty mild sharpening as to not exaggerate the noise. It should be easier to see if it is miss focused a touch, but it seems like it is.

I still prefer the 700mm shot more as HD has said, the resolution looks more organic to me even if not as sharp. And there is more background blur and I like the framing better. It's quite a nice shot.

Lol, I made that comment last night and didn't send it till now. I just saw what you did with the 700mm shot and it did a fabulous job! Very impressive.

[Jonathan Huyer]

Lol, I made that comment last night and didn't send it till now. I just saw what you did with the 700mm shot and it did a fabulous job! Very impressive.

Thanks! I appreciate the feedback. Yes there's a lot to be said for a wide aperture and nice background blur. As I looked through my images, I could see that within a single burst from my 1DXIII, there would be a few shots that are soft and then a few more that are tack sharp. I was trying to hold the focus point on the owl's eye, but there was probably a bit of movement during the burst. Whereas with the R5 and 100-500, every single image in a burst was sharp. That's probably due to the wider depth of field, plus the auto tracking AF holding on the eye.