It makes economic sense for them to use their 1.4" sensor in multiple PowerShot models. The 1" Sony sensor that they used to use won't work, because it doesn't have DPAF. APS-C would work though.

@zajicekpavel said:

tree frog

Click to expand...

That's a beautiful photo. Feel free to post it in a larger size.

bloblom said:

That's what I meant by "FF gives you more flexibility".

Click to expand...

Indeed. Same with DoF – for example, with an f/1.2 lens on FF you can achieve shallower DoF than you can on APS-C (for the same framing), and while you can stop the lens down to f/2 on FF, you cannot use an f/0.75 lens on APS-C (at least, not easily).

bloblom said:

But if you lack light, a larger sensor will not necessarily save your shooting session, you simply need more light. That's why for shooting in the forest I'd rather invest in faster glass (also cheaper and lighter thanks to crop) than switch to FF hoping it will solve my problem.

Click to expand...

Short of adding light to the scene, your options are a larger sensor or a faster lens. Both are valid approaches, and both enable you to capture more light. Depending on the focal range you need, a smaller sensor may not be cheaper or lighter with a crop sensor. Once you get longer than about 300mm, there is zero benefit of a smaller image circle for lens design. That's why there aren't 'crop lenses' in supertelephoto focal lengths, and that's why long lenses from Oly/OM that are for use on their m4/3 2x crop cameras are the same size, weight and as similar lenses for FF bodies (which Oly/OM doesn't make).

Personally, my approach is to do both – use a FF camera with fast lenses. Most of my bird shots are at 840mm f/5.6 (600/4 + 1.4x). But smaller sensors have their utility, which is why I have a full EOS M kit, a PowerShot V1, and an iPhone. For me, the utility is mainly about size and weight. For many, the utility is also about lower cost.

bloblom said:

...a big white that costs as much as a car.

Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on the car. I did spend more for the EF 600/4L IS II than I did on the first car I bought, a Saturn SL (though adjusting the $10K cost of that car in 1991 to the 2012 dollars that I used to buy the lens, the car did cost a bit more). I just handed down my previous car to one of my kids, it's current blue book value is ~$17K and I will admit it was a bit weird going out to shoot birds knowing that the R1 + 600/4L II that I had in the car was worth more than the car.

This year:
G1X IV
G5X III

Next year:
G7X IV
G9X IV

@zajicekpavel.

Cute little fellow. Nicely done.

Very nice series, GMCPhotographics.

@zajicekpavel said:

yes 1.3 EV exactly physically...

Click to expand...

Indeed. Whether that matters depends on the situation. There's not really a meaningful difference in noise levels between ISO 200 and ISO 500, for example. However, IMO there is a meaningful difference in noise levels between ISO 12800 and ISO 32000.

@zajicekpavel said:

yes, FF wins hands down in low light at weddings, take a little bird in the sun photographed with an R7 with a quality lens and FF owners cry, do you want to argue any further? : )

Click to expand...

If it's a good picture, why would I cry about that? There are technical and budgetary differences between full frame and APS-C systems. you seem to be approaching this from a rather emotional standpoint.

AlanF said:

I have had the the R7, R5, R5ii and RF 100-500 and RF 200-800mm since they first came out, and have taken 100s of 1000s of bird photos with the permutations, and I think I know their quirks and how to get around them. When it comes to IQ, the RF 100-500mm on the R7 and the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii are close to the same. I frequently take the R5ii/200-800 bird photographing with my wife who uses the R7/200-800, and our images are of identical quality. So, your experience may either be due to a bad copy of the 200-800mm or your lack of experience with it. The 200-800mm is not at its best at 800mm, but it is compensated by the better AA-filter on the R5/R5ii.

Click to expand...

Yes, as I said it's possibly due to my inexperience with this lens. I had the opportunity to shoot the same bird on the same branch with both kits. The 100-500 was slightly sharper, had better micro-contrast and color rendition. It's not night and day but it was noticeable.

neuroanatomist said:

In this context, dynamic range is really a surrogate for image noise.

Perhaps you usually shoot in 'proper lighting' (by which I think you mean lots of it). I shoot in the light I have, and it's often not very bright, either due to the fast shutter speeds needed for flying birds, or because I need to stop motion at indoor events.

I shoot a lot of birds in flight, and that requires a fast shutter. You mention your preference for the R7 and the 100-500L combo, and for my birding shots with that relatively slow lens, my most commonly used ISOs are at or over 12800.

View attachment 229751

Personally, I would not shoot with an APS-C camera at those high ISOs. YMMV.

The story for me is similar for indoor events – I am usually shooting those with the 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, and almost all my shots are at ISO 6400 or higher. Here are the ISOs from my 100-300/2.8 shots, for example.

View attachment 229755

If 'proper light' means, for example, in the ISO 100-1600 range, then for me that's a small minority of my images in some use cases.

And once again, the point is not about one sensor size being 'better' than another, but to be aware of the capabilities and limitations so an informed choice can be made based on an individual's needs.

Click to expand...

I cap the R7 at 6400. Most of my pictures are taken around 3200, and with modern denoising 6400 on APS-C isn't nearly as bad as it used to be.

I shoot in the light I have, and it's often not very bright, either due to the fast shutter speeds needed for flying birds, or because I need to stop motion at indoor events.

Click to expand...

That's what I meant by "FF gives you more flexibility". With FF I could start shooting a bit earlier and stop later, I could jump to 12800 if the situation requires it. If you mostly shoot low light, by all means, FF will give you better results overall. But if you lack light, a larger sensor will not necessarily save your shooting session, you simply need more light. That's why for shooting in the forest I'd rather invest in faster glass (also cheaper and lighter thanks to crop) than switch to FF hoping it will solve my problem.

If we want to move away from purely technical specs and talk about real world usage, we should take into account that birding on FF requires a much bigger investment for bigger, heavier lenses. In the same situation, if the 100-500 allows me to shoot at 6400 on the R7, the 200-800 on the R5II forces me to be at 12800. At that point there is actually less than a stop of difference between both cameras with the ES. If I want to take advantage of the R5II at 600mm and beyond without being forced to shoot f/9, the only alternative is a big white that costs as much as a car.

The R7 and 100-500 can be bought second hand for less than a R5II and that kit weighs less than the 200-800 alone.

AlanF said:

I have had the the R7, R5, R5ii and RF 100-500 and RF 200-800mm since they first came out, and have taken 100s of 1000s of bird photos with the permutations, and I think I know their quirks and how to get around them. When it comes to IQ, the RF 100-500mm on the R7 and the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii are close to the same. I frequently take the R5ii/200-800 bird photographing with my wife who uses the R7/200-800, and our images are of identical quality. So, your experience may either be due to a bad copy of the 200-800mm or your lack of experience with it. The 200-800mm is not at its best at 800mm, but it is compensated by the better AA-filter on the R5/R5ii.

Click to expand...

Have you ever used a Metabones or Meike speedbooster with EF lenses and your R7? I own both and use them (mostly the Metabones) with Canon 70-200 lenses and Sigma 100-400 and 150-600 lenses. They work best with the 150-600 but are more useful to me with the 100-400. I shoot motocross motorcycles (sometimes in flight) and the 71-284 f/3.5-4.5, that the 100-400 becomes, is perfect. The 100-300 would probably work just as well without the Speedbooster but I'm not spending that kind of money for one.

blackcoffee17 said:

Actually i would love a 100-600 but only if the optical quality stays the same or better and it will be still F5.6/6.3 at 400mm and 7.1 at 500mm.

Click to expand...

I agree, or even 150-600 f4.5-8 if the weight would be the same.

R6III + EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II

R6III + EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II

This lens with the R10 camera:

https://adobe.ly/4vgAfxh

R7 + RF 100-400 + 1,4 TK

Skyfall said:

Wonder what improvements are possible though? 80-500? 100-600 4.5-8? 0.5x macro? Reduction in size to 1kg?

Click to expand...

Actually i would love a 100-600 but only if the optical quality stays the same or better and it will be still F5.6/6.3 at 400mm and 7.1 at 500mm.

tree frog

Keithf2.8is said:

It sure would be nice if Canon would update the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 being that it came out in September 2020. And big disappointment about the R7 Mark II, but the good news is I'm not out $2000-ish bucks!! If it has the same setbacks at the 7D MII, then it won't be released until the end of 2027.

Click to expand...

Wonder what improvements are possible though? 80-500? 100-600 4.5-8? 0.5x macro? Reduction in size to 1kg?

Motacilla cinerea (Grey Wagtail)
R7 photo

Ian K said:

Optically the rf 100-500 is excellent. however using it with an extender is significantly annoying. It just won’t collapse completely. A mark II that fixed that would be a great feature. Reducing the f/7.1 at the high end would be better for low light, even if it added some size / weight. For example f/6.3 would increase the front element from the current 77mm to approximately 82mm. Not much of an improvement I know, but according to Tesco every little helps.

Click to expand...

Im afraid any aperture increase will be a significant size and weight increase and im not sure Canon will do that. The main selling point of this lens is being a compact do-everything sports, wildlife and events. But full TC compatibility would be great.