This is where the RF 100-500 and 100-400mm are so good. It's just great to have a lens you can use for both birding and dragonflies on a hike. Put a 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm and you have a good 1000mm for long distances and x0.6 at about 1m for dragonflies and butterflies. Although the 200-800mm is my favourite for birding, it's second fiddle to the RF 100-500mm on many occasions.
This makes me VERY jealous of Sony boys with the new TC compatible 100mm Macro. Or would it still not cut it?
Interesting, I have a couple of butterfly shots taken with the 200-800 but environmental rather than closeup macro. I won't ever justify an additional 100-500 for myself, but am seriously thinking about the 100 Macro. I have to dig deeper to understand what floats my boat...
Consider the RF 100-400mm. It's one of the bargain kings, and small, light and versatile.
Adding a TC to a 100mm macro lens on a APS-C camera will increase your chances of not disturbing a dragonfly or butterfly by coming too close.
Fullframe lenses are fine for tele lenses. But when it comes to standard and wideangle lenses, fullframe options are generally way bigger and more expensive than dedicated crop-lenses.
The chances of this camera getting a fully stacked sensor are effectively zero. Stacked sensors are hard to make and require fabbing separate layers that are then literally physically stacked on top of each other. Canon couldn't even be bothered to give the R6 III a non-stacked BSI sensor, I'll be surprised if they go to that effort for the lower price & higher volume R7 II. Another ~33mp FSI sensor seems most likely.
Yes but only really if the birds are moving (I've generally only done perched/static bird shots so it wouldn't be an issue).
I wrote "optimal" to give the upper limit. Under suboptimal conditions, you still get varying degrees of extra resolution, from nearly none at the real extreme to nearly twice. The diffraction limited aperture for a 39 Mp sensor is f/4.7, as opposed to f/5.2 for the R7. DLA is not a sharp cut off but there is a progressive decrease in what can be resolved as you approach it. There are several posting here who use the RF 200-800mm on the R7 at f/9, nearly 2 x the DLA on not the sharpest of lenses, because they squeeze out more detail than on their FF bodies. An f/4 lens would bring out closer to the best.
The R7 with the RF100 already works very well in that way. I have used it the past three years for handheld macro photography of insects and flowers, using autofocus most of the time. So the mark ii will be even better in this respect and I am look forward to it.
For butterflies and dragonflies you don't need/want a macro lens. I have used the R7 with the RF 100-400 mm lens for that and it works great.
Maybe YOU do not want or need a macro lens, but please do not tell me what I want (or need).
I suspect "you" is meant as the royal you, as in "a person of the community in general". In which case, the statement probably holds. The EF 300 IS f/4 L plus an extender (some image quality impact) or spacer (no image quality impact) has been used by many for great insect shots in lieu of a dedicated macro -- as an example.
