# R5+RF100-500 vs D850+500 PF



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 12, 2020)

A shout out in the dark since both setups are calling out to me and there is only £1000 between them in Nikon's favour(£6000 for Nikon, £7000+memory card and spare battery for Canon)

So if I am shooting at 500mm almost exclusively(A 70-200 on my Z6 will solve any closer subjects), which of these is giving the best image or how comparable are they. To be frank, if Canon had a prime RF 500mm of any kind I would have already made my mind up. But till such time I can afford ether set up, but the Nikon one is looking more appealing since its a prime so on the off chance someone here has both I would be delighted to hear some feedback.

I do have a 500mm PF turning up on Wednesday on a rental which I'll use on my Nikon Z6. I do not yet seem to be able to find anyone renting out a 100-500 yet and even at that the rental on the R5 will likely be high given that the 5dIV is close to £200 for 5 days.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 12, 2020)

The AF options on the R5 would make me pause on the Nikon solution. I would be inclined to wait for an RF 500mm f~5.6 or f~6.2 prime for maybe a year or so. Buy the 100-500mm RF zoom until then, with the intention of swapping it for the prime when available. Sorry, but I can’t help you with the specific feedback you are soliciting.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 12, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> The AF options on the R5 would make me pause on the Nikon solution. I would be inclined to wait for an RF 500mm f~5.6 or f~6.2 prime for maybe a year or so. Buy the 100-500mm RF zoom until then, with the intention of swapping it for the prime when available. Sorry, but I can’t help you with the specific feedback you are soliciting.



Any feedback is worth consideration and at the end of the day nether lens will last forever. Should add as well, I am considering just using my Z6 with that 500 PF or a 200-500 until the bodies and lenses come out on ether side that take my fancy. I have it here for 6 days from Wednesday(16th). This saves about £2500 to £4000 that can go a long way to a Z mount or RF mount super-tele prime.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 12, 2020)

Don't you think you should commit to one manufacturer and stick with either Nikon or Canon and not possibly end up with two different camera bodies and lens types?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 12, 2020)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Don't you think you should commit to one manufacturer and stick with either Nikon or Canon and not possibly end up with two different camera bodies and lens types?



I don't agree. I almost see my Z6 has a point and shoot that I put lightweight primes on for walking about. The wildlife body is going to have a super tele attached to it and may not necessarily be the body I would want follow my pets about the house with or take on holiday. And these things can always be sold or traded if I want to put all my eggs into one system, but even if I was all in on one, I would still have a 'big' body and a 'small' body. 

Right now I use my 5dII with the 300mm f/2.8 for wildlife needs, its that combo that is up for replacement.


----------



## digigal (Sep 13, 2020)

All I can say is that I had my 100-400 II + 1.4 TC on the R5 today shooting a hummingbird using the eye tracking and it was mind-blowing! I don't know the number of sharp pictures I got--amazing with this combination. Can't imagine how the new 100-500 could be even better.
Catherine
These are all full frame, non cropped pictures and I let the eye tracking do the focusing!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2020)

digigal said:


> All I can say is that I had my 100-400 II + 1.4 TC on the R5 today shooting a hummingbird using the eye tracking and it was mind-blowing! I don't know the number of sharp pictures I got--amazing with this combination. Can't imagine how the new 100-500 could be even better.
> Catherine
> These are all full frame, non cropped pictures and I let the eye tracking do the focusing!


Pretty remarkable. Could you please post 100% crops of the hummingbird so we can see the detail.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2020)

VegasCameraGuy said:


> Don't you think you should commit to one manufacturer and stick with either Nikon or Canon and not possibly end up with two different camera bodies and lens types?


It's one good way of doing things, and sometimes the most efficient and cost effective. But, if you want the best tools for different jobs you might need to use products from different manufacturers. Also, by being willing to use different manufacturers, you force the manufacturers to be competitive in their products and pricing. Airlines, for example, buy from different plane manufacturers and even different manufacturers for engines for the same planes (eg the Dreamliner can be powered by Rolls-Royce or GE engines).


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> It's one good way of doing things, and sometimes the most efficient and cost effective. But, if you want the best tools for different jobs you might need to use products from different manufacturers. Also, by being willing to use different manufacturers, you force the manufacturers to be competitive in their products and pricing. Airlines, for example, buy from different plane manufacturers and even different manufacturers for engines for the same planes (eg the Dreamliner can be powered by Rolls-Royce or GE engines).



Agreeing with this, also just adding to it that just now one of the best 50mm and 85 mm lenses are the Nikon S and with the camera it came out less than a RF 50mm. £1399 for the body, £500 for the 50, £619 for the 85. So when I bought these I was looking at filling in my sub 200mm range on the cheep and that even if I bought into Canon RF later, that was always going to be for my wildlife stuff so I would never be buying a RF 50mm f/1.2 or RF 85mm f/1.2. I need good versions of these focal ranges, but don't want to spend big money on them.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 13, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I don't agree. I almost see my Z6 has a point and shoot that I put lightweight primes on for walking about.
> 
> Right now I use my 5dII with the 300mm f/2.8 for wildlife needs, its that combo that is up for replacement.


All I'm saying is that when you are buying lenses that cost over $2,000 each and the lens will only fit one of the three cameras then you'd be spending a lot of money to outfit your two or three cameras. And while I've invested over $10,000 to upgrade to the R5, I'm not ready to spend extra money on a $2,000 "point and shoot" for more lenses. This isn't counting for the lost time in learning and remembering how to do something on different platforms. I was always taught to standardize and minimize the possibilities of losing a shot because you incorrectly did something based upon forgetting which camera you were using. But, hey, opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 13, 2020)

digigal said:


> All I can say is that I had my 100-400 II + 1.4 TC on the R5 today shooting a hummingbird using the eye tracking and it was mind-blowing! I don't know the number of sharp pictures I got--amazing with this combination. Can't imagine how the new 100-500 could be even better.
> Catherine
> These are all full frame, non cropped pictures and I let the eye tracking do the focusing!


I agree, it is unbelievable. I shot a full-frame image of a model from the waist up and then cropped the image to one of her eyes. Her eyelashes were tack sharp. The resolution of the RAW image and autofocus blew me away.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2020)

I


VegasCameraGuy said:


> I agree, it is unbelievable. I shot a full-frame image of a model from the waist up and then cropped the image to one of her eyes. Her eyelashes were tack sharp. The resolution of the RAW image and autofocus blew me away.


I can understand that people find 45 Mpx a revelation if they are coming from one of the lower resolution Canon models, but the resolution of the 5DS and 5DSR has been slightly higher for several years and the D850 the OP is asking about has had a superb 45 Mpx sensor without an AA-filter also for a long time. What I find interesting about the R5 is its eyeAF for birds - I have no expectation of better quality images than from my current gear, just AF tracking.


----------



## digigal (Sep 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I
> 
> I can understand that people find 45 Mpx a revelation if they are coming from one of the lower resolution Canon models, but the resolution of the 5DS and 5DSR has been slightly higher for several years and the D850 the OP is asking about has had a superb 45 Mpx sensor without an AA-filter also for a long time. What I find interesting about the R5 is its eyeAF for birds - I have no expectation of better quality images than from my current gear, just AF tracking.


I agree! The R5 combines the high resolution with fabulous tracking abilities. Attached is a crop of one of the above hummingbird pictures.


----------



## Joules (Sep 13, 2020)

digigal said:


> I agree! The R5 combines the high resolution with fabulous tracking abilities. Attached is a crop of one of the above hummingbird pictures.


Wow, that's sharp. For how tiny those eyes are, the camera seems to do an amazing job at finding them in a scene.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 13, 2020)

The AF is indeed amazing on the R5, but I am looking more into raw IQ. Getting a AF point on a foxes eye is a lot less effort than on a tiny bird that I'll never* shoot as I haven't ever went out of my way to photograph birds. So just now I am looking at this from the point of view as replacing my 300mm f/2.8 and using something on the R5 or D850 or even my little Z6. For the last decade I was getting sharp shots with the 7D and the 5DII. 


* never say never, I might grow to like birds at some point but just now they go all but unnoticed when there are furry and scaly friends about.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2020)

digigal said:


> I agree! The R5 combines the high resolution with fabulous tracking abilities. Attached is a crop of one of the above hummingbird pictures.


Thanks! That's the quality I was expecting.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 13, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The AF is indeed amazing on the R5, but I am looking more into raw IQ. Getting a AF point on a foxes eye is a lot less effort than on a tiny bird that I'll never* shoot as I haven't ever went out of my way to photograph birds. So just now I am looking at this from the point of view as replacing my 300mm f/2.8 and using something on the R5 or D850 or even my little Z6. For the last decade I was getting sharp shots with the 7D and the 5DII.
> 
> 
> * never say never, I might grow to like birds at some point but just now they go all but unnoticed when there are furry and scaly friends about.


Don't wait too long - I've just been watching David Attenborough's new programme about extinction, and it's too scary.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 13, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Don't wait too long - I've just been watching David Attenborough's new programme about extinction, and it's too scary.



It is indeed, though I think foxes are far from extinction. They do have much smaller snouts and are less intelligent in cities now though.


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2020)

I think that the R5 shoots 13-bit raw files at 12fps but I do not know if this is a problem and in which conditions.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 14, 2020)

tron said:


> I think that the R5 shoots 13-bit raw files at 12fps but I do not know if this is a problem and in which conditions.



I think it depends on the ISO. Wildlife photography I don't think I am ever at the ISO that gives a monkeys if it is 14bit RAW or 12bit RAW.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> It is indeed, though I think foxes are far from extinction. They do have much smaller snouts and are less intelligent in cities now though.


I was replying to your last point that you might grow to like birds in the future - their numbers are decreasing badly so photo them while you can.


----------



## Joules (Sep 14, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I think it depends on the ISO. Wildlife photography I don't think I am ever at the ISO that gives a monkeys if it is 14bit RAW or 12bit RAW.


You can check it out if you want:



Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting



From ISO 800 and upwards there is no difference between the regular mechanical, High speed and electronic. Before that, you lose some DR, but are still above 10 stops at ISO 100.

I don't think foxes are typically photographed against a bright sky, so this is not the most important point. And one should keep in mind that it's kinda apples to oranges, comparing the R5 12 / 20 FPS to the D850's 7 or 9.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 14, 2020)

Joules said:


> You can check it out if you want:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We are only interested in pure IQ. Something like the R5 with the 100-500mm f/7.1 at ISO 8000 vs the D850 with the 500mm f/5.6 at ISO 6400. Does is the Canon sensor good enough to make up for the 2/3 light loss and can the zoom even keep up with the IQ of that wee prime?

I already know the R5 has better AF and more FPS. Those aren’t part of my decision making, that’ll come into it in a couple years when the RF and Z super tele come out. The prize to me would be a RF 200-400mm f/4.

Before all this mirrorless nonsense I had my heart set on a EF 200-400 and a 1DXII/III, the RF equivalents are now on the agenda, so for lack of a bette word, this body and lens will be disposable. I am even considering the F 200-500mm f/5.6 as something to get me by and just pump all that money into the R1+200-400/4 day one fund.


----------



## tron (Sep 14, 2020)

To get 14 bit you have to be at 8fps. So it is apples to apples but yes I understand that if we are at lower DR territory like high ISO it has no meaning and R5 has the advantage. But think 12 fps not 20fps for moving targets if you want to avoid possible distortion. Regarding the iso difference 6400 to 8000 is 1/3 stop. 2/3s of a stop are 5000 vs 8000 or 6400 vs 10000 ISO. I think the most important at these minor differences is which handling suits the photographer the best. Both combinations will be satisfactory.I got my D850/D500 and 500mm PF before the new Canons (half a year) and I didn't regretted since I took some pictures I could have missed otherwise. So no rush to change. If I hadn't gotten the Nikon setup and If Canon R5 was introduced faster (and cheaper) I might go otherwise. Who knows. The rest of my equipment is Canon (5DIV, 5DsR and some big whites up to 500II).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2020)

tron said:


> To get 14 bit you have to be at 8fps. So it is apples to apples but yes I understand that if we are at lower DR territory like high ISO it has no meaning and R5 has the advantage. But think 12 fps not 20fps for moving targets if you want to avoid possible distortion. Regarding the iso difference 6400 to 8000 is 1/3 stop. 2/3s of a stop are 5000 vs 8000 or 6400 vs 10000 ISO. I think the most important at these minor differences is which handling suits the photographer the best. Both combinations will be satisfactory.I got my D850/D500 and 500mm PF before the new Canon's (half a year) and I didn't regretted since I took some pictures I could have missed otherwise. So no rush to change. If I hadn't gotten the Nikon setup and If Canon R5 was introduced faster (and cheaper) I might go otherwise. Who knows. The rest of my equipment is Canon (5DIV, 5DsR and some big whites up to 500II).


I have the same equipment as you (apart from the 500II) and have no regrets about buying any of my gear as I have got so much joy from it. The bird photography got me through the Covid lock down. And, I do not feel I am limited by my gear as I can get very sharp shots near and far and difficult BIF, and the AF varies from great to incredible. If the R5 is better, then I'll enjoy that as well.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 14, 2020)

Here is a sequence I got with the D500 and 500PF. I don't think I could have done this with 5DSR, and might have got it with the 5DIV, but without the detail of the images, but I think the R5 with eyeAF should be able do this with ease.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 14, 2020)

Do you have the reference for the 12 bit at HS? I noticed the difference on PtoP, but did not realize that H+ mode dropped to 12 bit.

All that said, the DR of HS mode of the R5 at low ISO is either very similar to or better than the 5DIV at low ISO. So, worse than the R5 at lower frame rates, sure. But is it really a problem?


----------



## tron (Sep 15, 2020)

docsmith said:


> Do you have the reference for the 12 bit at HS? I noticed the difference on PtoP, but did not realize that H+ mode dropped to 12 bit.
> 
> All that said, the DR of HS mode of the R5 at low ISO is either very similar to or better than the 5DIV at low ISO. So, worse than the R5 at lower frame rates, sure. But is it really a problem?








Canon EOS R5 Specifications and Features - - Canon Europe


Canon EOS R5 specifications and key features in detail.




www.canon-europe.com





Still Image Type
JPEG: 2 compression options RAW: RAW, C-RAW 14 bit (14-bit with Mechanical shutter and Electronic 1st Curtain, 13-bit A/D conversion with H+ mode, 12-bit A/D conversion with Electronic shutter, Canon original RAW 3rd edition) HEIF: 10bit HEIF is available in HDR shooting with [HDR PQ] set to [Enable] Complies with Exif 2.31 and Design rule for Camera File system 2.0 Complies with Digital Print Order Format [DPOF] Version 1.1


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 15, 2020)

Some crackers there *AlanF, *one of the reasons the 500mm PF appeals more than the RF 100-500 is that I can put it on a D500 with a 1.4x converter and get a boat out to the May Island from Crail(home) or Anstruther and photograph those bird things I don't care too much for, in this case the island has a good puffin population.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 15, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Some crackers there *AlanF, *one of the reasons the 500mm PF appeals more than the RF 100-500 is that I can put it on a D500 with a 1.4x converter and get a boat out to the May Island from Crail(home) or Anstruther and photograph those bird things I don't care too much for, in this case the island has a good puffin population.


Don't mention Puffins - Covid cancelled my Puffin trip for this year, and it hurts - but Covid would have hurt more. The R5 gets more and more hypothetical: my local dealer's estimate of delivery has gone from the end of August, to some time in September to now "maybe" October. We have to live for the present as well as the future so TG I have good enough gear.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Don't mention Puffins - Covid cancelled my Puffin trip for this year, and it hurts - but Covid would have hurt more. The R5 gets more and more hypothetical: my local dealer's estimate of delivery has gone from the end of August, to some time in September to now "maybe" October. We have to live for the present as well as the future so TG I have good enough gear.



https://www.nature.scot/enjoying-ou...es/isle-may-nnr/isle-may-nnr-visiting-reserve perhaps next year, the Isle of May is a great place for it. Though I haven't been out since I was a kid, when you could take your rod down to the harbour as a 10 year old and ask pretty much any fishing boat if they have room for you.


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 15, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Don't wait too long - I've just been watching David Attenborough's new programme about extinction, and it's too scary.


the massive fires on the west coast, earlier in austrailia and other places really hit home on that.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 16, 2020)

Heres one off my first pictures testing the 500mm f/5.6 PF on my Nikon Z6. ISO 1400, 1/80. I mean it is a throw away image, but there is a lovey bit of detail. Bun friend here is usually about for test photos. I look forward to renting a R5 and 100-500 to see how it compares, but this lens feels really good. About as long as my 300 f/2.8 but not even close to the weight or girth.


----------



## Squawk3000 (Sep 17, 2020)

It would be awesome to see an F to RF adapter come out. I would buy the 500 pf even though I have a 100-400ii and 100-500.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 18, 2020)

Here is another from the 500mm. The images out of this lens and the Z6 are fab. Quite a few of my test shots have been ISO 10,000 or even 14,400 and not once have I wanted less focal length. So the RF 100-500 would be always extended and always giving me 2/3rd less light. I'll still need to try out a R5 and 100-500 but I think I am really wanting a prime lens in the f/5.6 or f/4 range. Basically it would just be spot on if Canon put out a RF 500 f/5.6.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 18, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> View attachment 192900
> 
> 
> Here is another from the 500mm. The images out of this lens and the Z6 are fab. Quite a few of my test shots have been ISO 10,000 or even 14,400 and not once have I wanted less focus length. So the RF 100-500 would be always extended and always giving me 2/3rd less light. I'll still need to try out a R5 and 100-500 but I think I am really wanting a prime lens in the f/5.6 or f/4 range. Basically it would just be spot on if Canon put out a RF 500 f/5.6.


I have been managing very well indeed with just the prime - 500mm with an MFD of 3m is pretty versatile on FF. Just got the news from DPD that my R5 is on the way so I'll be able to post comparisons. Nikon has just reduced the price of the 500mm PF by £350!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 18, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Nikon has just reduced the price of the 500mm PF by £350!



Don't tell me that, it is whispering dark secrets to my credit card already while I sit and stare at it. Only got it for 3 more days.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 18, 2020)

A ISO 10,000 shot


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 18, 2020)

@AlanF I even photographed some of those bird things you like.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 20, 2020)

So a wee mid rental review: In the forest I miss f/2.8, in golden hour it is ISO 5000 to 10,000 and the Z6 treats this as nothing. Getting closer always helps, even offsetting higher ISO levels. I feel for many occasions I still want a f/4 and more focus length but never less. But I can make do with the f/5.6 and get some good subject isolation as long as I am getting a lot of animal in frame. The AF of the Z6 was fine for everything but super fast squirrel tracking. Never felt like I needed more pixels, just needed to get closer, more pixels don't isolate the subject more.

The R5 is not on the agenda until a f/5.6 or f/4 lens comes out. But I might buy one anyway for the 70-200 as my second body with this 500 on my Z6 until Canon has a lens I want. Eye AF would not have saved any of my missed pictures, I missed some shots because I was slow not the camera.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2020)

The R5 is shaping up well. I'll take it to a nature reserve tomorrow where there is a good chance of seeing some birds. The D850/500PF is a winning combination but the R5 is well up there with phenomenal AF. The full frame coverage of AF is awesome.


----------



## VegasCameraGuy (Sep 21, 2020)

You might want to check out the Youtube video from James Quantz 



 . He's a sports photographer and discusses the differences he sees as he's learning to use the R5 over his D850. He feels the autofocus especially eye autofocus is superior to the D850's capabilities. While his subjects are a lot bigger than birds, he faces some of the same problems wildlife shooters do.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 21, 2020)

Last day of testing, got a few pictures of this snookums. This location I would have more interest in the RF 100-500, but the Z6 and 500mm f/5.6 PF didn't skip a beat. The R5 + 100-500 is going to come entirely down to raw IQ as I had no problems getting eyes in focus.

Edit: All pictures would still have been taken at 500mm, the 100-499 part would have just been to make finding the wee speed demons faster.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2020)

I did some limiting testing today of the R5 with the 100-400mm II, +1.4xTCIII and +2xTCIII. 
The R5 focusses surprisingly fast with the 100-400mm II at 800mm. The lens is somewhat soft but with some sharpening there are some reasonable shots. Here is a couple of shots at 800mm, both 100% crops.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2020)

A couple at 560mm with the 1.4xTCIII. The eyeAF works fine with dragonflies. And something I have never got previously: butterflies in flight. These are tiny Small Copper butterflies.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2020)

At 248mm without the TC, a Cattle Egret doing what it should be doing, with cows. The full frame reduced to fit and 100% crops.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2020)

So, what do I think? The R5 is more convenient to use than the D850, with the C1, C2, C3 modes in particular. The AF is lightning fast and latches on to animals incredibly well, even at a distance, and focusses fine at f/11 with the Canon lens (very slow with my Sigma 150-600mm C). The IQ is comparable to the 5DSR and better than the 5DIV. It captured the flying butterflies which I couldn't do on the D850, and it did the same with a small fast bird. The D850, on the other and gives sharper and more contrasty images with the 500mm PF and also at 700mm with its TC. It does most of the birds in flight just as well so far. Both systems are absolute winners. One thing I didn't like with the EVF is that I generally underexpose, either with an offset allowing the camera to choose the iso or by a stop or two in manual for BIF and then correct in post as for these great sensors there is no noise penalty and so I never bleach highlights. With the EVF, the image was very dark for my BIF shots. I did like being able to adjust iso while shooting, on the other hand.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2020)

My BIF preference until now is 1. D500/500mmPF and 2.D850/500mmPF. Although I understand they do have the same AF module it is my impression that my D500 behaves better in BIF than D850. Having said that D850 is a must if the flying targets are close enough. In that case I wouldn't even be able to see them using a crop camera. A zoom gives versatility but I had some occasions (user error of course) with my 100-400 where after zooming out say to somewhere between 200 to 300 I then forgot to zoom back in to 400mm. In that case 500mm wins with a difference.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Sep 21, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I did some limiting testing today of the R5 with the 100-400mm II, +1.4xTCIII and +2xTCIII.
> The R5 focusses surprisingly fast with the 100-400mm II at 800mm. The lens is somewhat soft but with some sharpening there are some reasonable shots. Here is a couple of shots at 800mm, both 100% crops.
> 
> View attachment 192934



What's going on with the neck of the right bird? Looks like sky in place of the white band.


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> So, what do I think? The R5 is more convenient to use than the D850, with the C1, C2, C3 modes in particular. The AF is lightning fast and latches on to animals incredibly well, even at a distance, and focusses fine at f/11 with the Canon lens (very slow with my Sigma 150-600mm C). The IQ is comparable to the 5DSR and better than the 5DIV. It captured the flying butterflies which I couldn't do on the D850, and it did the same with a small fast bird. The D850, on the other and gives sharper and more contrasty images with the 500mm PF and also at 700mm with its TC. It does most of the birds in flight just as well so far. Both systems are absolute winners. One thing I didn't like with the EVF is that I generally underexpose, either with an offset allowing the camera to choose the iso or by a stop or two in manual for BIF and then correct in post as for these great sensors there is no noise penalty and so I never bleach highlights. With the EVF, the image was very dark for my BIF shots. I did like being able to adjust iso while shooting, on the other hand.


thanks for that bit... was curious on the Sigma 150-600mmC.. I have it, so :-/ but will stick with it for a while. I don't have enough funds to buy everything I want


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2020)

Bdbtoys said:


> What's going on with the neck of the right bird? Looks like sky in place of the white band.


Oops, I moved it closer to the one on the left so I could post the two without shrinking the size for posting here. Heres what I should have done, 100% crops plus full size reduced.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> One thing I didn't like with the EVF is that I generally underexpose, either with an offset allowing the camera to choose the iso or by a stop or two in manual for BIF and then correct in post as for these great sensors there is no noise penalty and so I never bleach highlights. With the EVF, the image was very dark for my BIF shots. I did like being able to adjust iso while shooting, on the other hand.



I do not have an R5, but I had heard that you could turn this off. Looking at the manual, maybe Photo menu tab 7? There you can disable the exposure simulation or flip it to be associated with the DOF button. Then on the tools tab 3, you can control VF brightness.

This works on the M6II. Hopefully that works for you.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2020)

docsmith said:


> I do not have an R5, but I had heard that you could turn this off. Looking at the manual, maybe Photo menu tab 7? There you can disable the exposure simulation or flip it to be associated with the DOF button. Then on the tools tab 3, you can control VF brightness.
> 
> This works on the M6II. Hopefully that works for you.


Thanks for the heads up. There is so much to be learned and all tips are appreciated.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2020)

@AlanF turning off exposure preview may improve performance a wee bit too. I do this on my Z6(every wildlife person does) and suddenly AF performance takes a noticeable jump and you get a comfortable exposure. Though I would like a custom button on any camera that lets to turn it on and off on the fly as it is very handy when the subject is backlit in a tree.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> @AlanF turning off exposure preview may improve performance a wee bit too. I do this on my Z6(every wildlife person does) and suddenly AF performance takes a noticeable jump and you get a comfortable exposure. Though I would like a custom button on any camera that lets to turn it on and off on the fly as it is very handy when the subject is backlit in a tree.


The R5 doesn't need the jump in AF performance like the Z6. The best thing for me about the R5 is its spectacular AF. By many accounts, it's up there with the Sony A9 and has nearly twice the number of Mpx to process.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The R5 doesn't need the jump in AF performance like the Z6. The best thing for me about the R5 is its spectacular AF. By many accounts, it's up there with the Sony A9 and has nearly twice the number of Mpx to process.



Hows the raw IQ between it and the D850? I didn't have any real AF with all my eyes in focus and the only OOF images being due to MFD or me just being physically too slow to keep up with a squirrel. My first thought is holding of Canon RF until a prime I want comes out, that rumoured 500/2.8 would do it if it fits in a backpack and is under £20,000.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Hows the raw IQ between it and the D850? I didn't have any real AF with all my eyes in focus and the only OOF images being due to MFD or me just being physically too slow to keep up with a squirrel. My first thought is holding of Canon RF until a prime I want comes out, that rumoured 500/2.8 would do it if it fits in a backpack and is under £20,000.


At mfd of the 500PF of 3.0m, the D850 at with the PF at 500mm is much sharper and with more contrast than the 100-400mm II at 560mm and a distance of 3.0m, and the same is true with the PF at 700mm and the 100-400mm II at 800mm. I might some images. At, far distances, the prime is somewhat better than the zoom, but not as marked.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2020)

One of the test shows of some kind of wee bird.





Another wee bird





I know this one is a wee blue tit at least





One of the wee squirrels I was shooting.





And another wee en.





This poor wee en seems to have a tick in his ear.

500mm f/5.6 PF on the Z6, still not a fan of birds but I won't pass one by if I see it. I look forward to trying out the R5, I have more than enough comparison shots to compare now.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> One of the test shows of some kind of wee bird.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We'll convert you to bird photography yet, slowly. If we had red squirrels down south, I'd shoot them too.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> We'll convert you to bird photography yet, slowly. If we had red squirrels down south, I'd shoot them too.



The buzzards and eagles give me a wee buzz, but nothing like the thrill I get from a fox or a badger. And just a wee musing I am having, I got my subjects about where I wanted them with very few images needing crops on my 24MP. Not feeling the more MP thing. What I am feeling is that those 24MP are much better MP's than what my 5DII had.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 24, 2020)

One of the prior shots now edited. I got a 60% discount on a perpetual licence for Capture One so now layers and brushes are all in my tool kit, which mostly means I can recover the eyes without fussing with the dodge brush in Photoshop.


----------

