Thanks, Click. Kind of amazing the shots you can get in very low light with a small aperture when you throw in modern camera sensitivity, image stabiliztion, and AI noise reduction.
It's nice to see so many in one tree! I didn't notice back focus from the webpage until I loaded the large image. So That's pretty cool!
It depends on what you want to do with the camera. I use the R7 when I want maximum magnification and the R5 for most other shots unless traveling light and then it will be the M6 II. With Adobe Enhance or PL7 Prime xd, the R7 is very usable at ISO 6400 and the R5 to about 16000. The R5 has a faster readout and larger pixels, so the AF works better in low light than the R7, but that said, I have no problem with the R7 focusing on hummingbirds in low light with an f/11 lens (as you can see from the above shot at ISO 6400 and 1/100 sec). I can't make a judgment relative to the 7D II AF, because I have never used one, but compared to the 70D or 90D, the R7 is much faster and far more capable with modern subject recognition. If you have a bunch of glass that you bought for optimal use with the 7D II, then it will only be be better with the IBIS on the R7. The below chart shows what you can expect in dynamic range improvement relative to your 7D II. The useful noise improvement is more, thanks to the very fine grain noise from the R7 and how well it can be managed by AI noise reduction.
Thank you for the detailed response. I guess I did not fully look into the CRAW before. I've been seeing pretty decent photos at ISO 6400, which is why I was asking. I don't think a really close up photo of a subject at a high ISO is a good judge of the capabilities, though. Something 50' away or more would better show what can or can't be done at ISO 6400, especially for smaller birds, IMO. I think I've had my mind made up for a while now, that I'm finally going full frame. Otherwise, I would have purchased the R7 for $999 on Black Friday.
For birds, either way works. An R7 with a bare telephoto and an R5 on the same lens with a 1.4 extender give you almost exactly the same number of pixels on the bird and essentially the same IQ (just one stop higher ISO on the FF). The image from the R5 with extender will cover a somewhat larger area and if you have plenty of light, the the R5 will give you a better image because the ISO can be at base in both cases. The upside of the R7 is that with the 600mm f/11 or the 800mm f/11 it makes a very lightweight package. I bounce back a forth, but tend to use the R7 most of the time on the long lenses and the R5 for most everything else.
Like you, I use both the R5 and R7. The RF 100-400mm on the R7 is an even lighter package and performs almost on a par at 400mm as the RF 100-500mm at 500m on the R5. My gut reaction is the the R7 + RF 100-500mm will perform as well as the R5 + RF 200-800mm, and I can't wait to test the 200-800 to find out. If the R7 had a faster read out sensor, it would be an absolute killer. The Waxwings pics posted by me here in the last week are all from the R7 with the RF 100-500mm, and they were taken in miserable light - up to iso 32000.
I'd need a 14,000x extender to get that shot! The 1.4x works pretty well with the R7 + 100-500 for some reason. I'm in extender testing mode.
I forgot to ask, may I please I add some words to the top photo to make a meme?
