Wildlife Photography

[mdees88]

 

[HappyClucker7]

If you like shooting animals and wildlife then you will definitely like the R5. The 45mp sensor lets you crop in a LOT (or print very large) and the fast frame rate (12fps mechanical 20 electronic shutter) means you won't miss much when you keep the shutter release held down.

I used an EF 100-400 IS II with the EF-RF adapter on mine and it worked very well. I recently purchased an RF 100-500 and it is a great lens and I think it is a tiny bit sharper than the already sharp 100-400 II. It's quite a bit lighter too and has a little better image quality when using a teleconverter. I would like to have a big prime lens one day (500F4, 600F4, or maybe even a 400 2.8) but I dont think I would use them as much as I want because of how big and cumbersome they are. I think Canon has a 500 F4.5 DO in the works and it will be more compact lighter weight big prime.

The only con if you wanted to use the R5 primarily for video is the overheating issue. While I don't think its as much of an issue at more normal settings (4k30p) I'm pretty sure this can be alleviated by using a Ninja V external video monitor.

If you had to choose between the R5 and the R7 for taking wildlife pictures (particularly of birds), and disregard the price, which would you choose?

 

[mdees88]

If you had to choose between the R5 and the R7 for taking wildlife pictures (particularly of birds), and disregard the price, which would you choose?

R5, without hesitating. The only benefit of the R7 over the R5 (excluding price) is the extra reach you get. And that is important but over the years I have got better at getting as close as possible to my subjects and I find that 400-500mm (plus a 1.4x extender on occasion) on my full frame R5 is enough for me 90% of the time.

I like out of focus backgrounds, and a full frame camera gives you better out of focus backgrounds. Reason is an R5 on a 400mm lens is 400mm. An R7 on a 400mm is 560mm. To make the subject the same size in the frame with both cameras you have to get closer with the R5. This creates a shallower depth of field which gives you more blurred backgrounds. BUT... you have to get closer. This is very situational though. I can move my body position a few feet and make far "blurrier" backgrounds than just what's the difference between using an aps-c vs full frame sensor.

My R5 is getting repaired so unfortunately, i haven't been able to use them side by side in the same exact scenarios. But i have still noticed differences between the two. The AF on the R7 is light-years ahead of an 80D or 90D, but just from some preliminary tests I feel like my R5 focuses a tad better. It's also MUCH better in low light (being a full frame sensor). I can use ISO 6400 and even 12800 in a pinch. On the R7 I limit myself to ISO 3200 and try to stay below ISO 1600.

The R5 has a HUGE buffer that you'll likely never hit, the R7's is tiny and you will definitely hit it if shooting in 30fps. The mechanical shutter is very loud on the R7 too and the 30fps electronic shutter exhibits quite a bit of rolling shutter when panning. The R5 has a tiny bit of rolling shutter at 20fps but I generally always use mechanical shutter and the R5s is a lot quieter.

The R5 also has better weather sealing and has a much better button layout. Not trying to knock the R7, it's an incredible camera for the price and a huge upgrade over 80 and 90Ds. It's just not on the same level as an R5 in my opinion. I originally intended to buy an R5 and then sell it to buy the R7. Well I'm definitely not selling my R5 and I intend to keep both but if I had to sell one it would be the R7. Is the R5 2.5x better than the R7 though? That's debatable...

Now if I had a fixed budget and I could only afford an R5 and a cheap lens or an R7 and an expensive lens I would opt for the better quality glass over the better camera. Or if you are really struggling getting close enough to the birds and wildlife the extra reach of a crop sensor might be worth going with the R7 over an R5. If you've never used an R5 or R7 you would be happy with either but if you've used them both you would be hard pressed to pick an R7 over an R5.

 

[HappyClucker7]

R5, without hesitating. The only benefit of the R7 over the R5 (excluding price) is the extra reach you get. And that is important but over the years I have git better at getting as close as possible to my subjects and I find that 400mm (plus a 1.4x extender on occasion) on my full frame R5 is enough for me.

I like out of focus backgrounds, and a full frame camera gives you better out of focus backgrounds. Reason is an R5 on a 400mm lens is 400mm. An R7 on a 400mm is 560mm. To make the subject the same size in the frame with both cameras you have to get closer with the R5. This creates a shallower depth of field which gives you more blurred backgrounds. BUT... you have to get closer.

My R5 is getting repaired so unfortunately, i haven't been able to use them side by side in the same exact scenarios. But i have still noticed differences between the two. The AF on the R7 is light-years ahead of an 80D or 90D, but just from some preliminary tests I feel like my R5 focuses a tad better. It's also MUCH better in low light. I can use ISO 6400 and even 12800 in a pinch. On the R7 I limit myself to ISO 3200 and try to stay below ISO 1600.

The R5 has a HUGE buffer that you'll never hit, the R7's is tiny abd you will definitely hit it. The mechanical shutter is very loud on the R7 too and the 30fps electronic shutter exhibits quite a bit of rolling shutter when panning. The R5 has a tiny bit of rolling shutter at 20fps but I generally always use mechanical shutter and the R5s is a lot quieter.

The R5 is also has better weather sealing and has a much better button layout. Not trying to knock the R7, it's an incredible camera for the price and a huge upgrade over 80 and 90Ds. It's just not on the same level as an R5 in my opinion. I originally intended to buy an R5 and then sell it to buy the R7. Well I'm definitely not selling my R5 and I intend to keep both but if I had to sell one it would be the R7.

Now if I had a fixed budget and I could only afford an R5 and a cheap lens or an R7 and an expensive lens I would opt for the better quality glass over the better camera.

This is very helpful. Thank you!

 

[Bakbuk]

R5, without hesitating. The only benefit of the R7 over the R5 (excluding price) is the extra reach you get. And that is important but over the years I have got better at getting as close as possible to my subjects and I find that 400-500mm (plus a 1.4x extender on occasion) on my full frame R5 is enough for me.

I like out of focus backgrounds, and a full frame camera gives you better out of focus backgrounds. Reason is an R5 on a 400mm lens is 400mm. An R7 on a 400mm is 560mm. To make the subject the same size in the frame with both cameras you have to get closer with the R5. This creates a shallower depth of field which gives you more blurred backgrounds. BUT... you have to get closer.

My R5 is getting repaired so unfortunately, i haven't been able to use them side by side in the same exact scenarios. But i have still noticed differences between the two. The AF on the R7 is light-years ahead of an 80D or 90D, but just from some preliminary tests I feel like my R5 focuses a tad better. It's also MUCH better in low light. I can use ISO 6400 and even 12800 in a pinch. On the R7 I limit myself to ISO 3200 and try to stay below ISO 1600.

The R5 has a HUGE buffer that you'll never hit, the R7's is tiny and you will definitely hit it if shooting in 30fps. The mechanical shutter is very loud on the R7 too and the 30fps electronic shutter exhibits quite a bit of rolling shutter when panning. The R5 has a tiny bit of rolling shutter at 20fps but I generally always use mechanical shutter and the R5s is a lot quieter.

The R5 also has better weather sealing and has a much better button layout. Not trying to knock the R7, it's an incredible camera for the price and a huge upgrade over 80 and 90Ds. It's just not on the same level as an R5 in my opinion. I originally intended to buy an R5 and then sell it to buy the R7. Well I'm definitely not selling my R5 and I intend to keep both but if I had to sell one it would be the R7. Is the R5 2.5x better than the R7 though? That's debatable...

Now if I had a fixed budget and I could only afford an R5 and a cheap lens or an R7 and an expensive lens I would opt for the better quality glass over the better camera. Or if you are really struggling getting close enough to the birds and wildlife the extra reach of a crop sensor might be worth going with the R7 over an R5. If you've never used them you would be happy with either but if you've used them both you would hard pressed to pick an R7 over an R5.

I did not know all this. Thank you!

 

[HappyClucker7]

@mdees88, I have another question. You mentioned that you also have a Canon 80D. Just out of curiosity, how is that one? Obviously it doesn't compared to the R5, but does it still take good pictures of wildlife? Would it be possible to see some pictures taken by that camera to see the difference?

 

[Bakbuk]

@mdees88, I have another question. You mentioned that you also have a Canon 80D. Just out of curiosity, how is that one? Obviously it doesn't compared to the R5, but does it still take good pictures of wildlife? Would it be possible to see some pictures taken by that camera to see the difference?

I know somebody that shoots with that one. They're really very good at wildlife photography as they have some pretty decent glass (Sigma 150-600) coupled with it. It definitely wouldn't be a bad choice at all, especially if you wanna save money. Us photographers are just perpetually greedy for higher and higher quality, and the R7 and especially the R5 are all the rage now. You can still capture amazing images from the 80D, given you have a decent lens and good photo opportunities.

 

[Bakbuk]

I know somebody that shoots with that one. They're really very good at wildlife photography as they have some pretty decent glass (Sigma 150-600) coupled with it. It definitely wouldn't be a bad choice at all, especially if you wanna save money. Us photographers are just perpetually greedy for higher and higher quality, and the R7 and especially the R5 are all the rage now. You can still capture amazing images from the 80D, given you have a decent lens and good photo opportunities.

It's a ton better than my T3i anyway

 

[Bakbuk]

I know somebody that shoots with that one. They're really very good at wildlife photography as they have some pretty decent glass (Sigma 150-600) coupled with it. It definitely wouldn't be a bad choice at all, especially if you wanna save money. Us photographers are just perpetually greedy for higher and higher quality, and the R7 and especially the R5 are all the rage now. You can still capture amazing images from the 80D, given you have a decent lens and good photo opportunities.

@HappyClucker7
Okay so said friend above actually shoots with the 70D, but still.
Here's some of his bird photos. They're spectacular.
https://media.ebird.org/catalog?mediaType=photo&userId=USER1824290&sort=rating_rank_desc

 

[mdees88]

@mdees88, I have another question. You mentioned that you also have a Canon 80D. Just out of curiosity, how is that one? Obviously it doesn't compared to the R5, but does it still take good pictures of wildlife? Would it be possible to see some pictures taken by that camera to see the difference?

Everything on page 76 and prior posted by me was taken with an 80D (minus a couple t7i's which is essentially the same camera). It is a great camera (90D is a good one too). I would recommend buying used to save some $$$. Honestly I think it would be better to learn on an 80D before going to a R7. The eye tracking AF on the R7 is like cheating and you will be a more well rounded photographer if you learn to shoot with a single AF point or a small cluster like what you will use on an 80D instead of starting off with eye tracking. Eye tracking does not work all the time even on my R5 and I have to switch back to modes I used on the 80D in certain situations.

Here are some 80D images......

While there is a slight difference in overall "quality" between these images and what I'm posting currently, that has a LOT more to do with me getting better at photography over the last couple years than the camera I'm using. I can take just as good of images with my 80D as my R5. But it requires more effort on my part with the 80D and the R5 gives me more opportunities to get good images... if that makes sense.