# EOS R and 100-400 II



## digigal (Jan 11, 2019)

I'm renting the R for a week to check it out prior to considering buying it. It would be my first FF camera. I shoot wildlife and always use a crop for the distance factor because I can't handle the weight of the FF equipment for the places I want to go and the things I want to do, so that's the compromise and it's worked well so far, but the size of the picture from the 7DMII and the quality in low light leaves me increasing frustrated when I compete against other FF competitors. I try to do more artistic/unusual/behavioral wildlife composition and capture unusual lighting rather than things that demand maximum high speed but that's not to say speed and capturing the decisive moment isn't important. I'm used to shooting at ~150-600 equiv range to get the pictures I want. Has anyone used the R with 1.4 TC and the 100-400 II lens? How did it perform for single shots?


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 12, 2019)

Hi, digigal!

Don't have this combo myself, just the lens. So I cannot give you a direct info.

But in another thread *Mt Spokane Photography* posted this


Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ... With my EOS R, focus is crisp, fast, and accurate. Even with TC's. It works fine with 1.4 and 2X, and will even focus with them stacked as long as the focus is in the same general distance to start. A distant 2 mile away object will snap to focus if I first focus on a object a few hundred feet away. Focus is slower for sure.
> 
> I would not recommend the R for tracking birds in flight, but for near stills, it works great with the 100-400L II.



Maybe he will come here to share some more of his expereiences with this combo.


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 12, 2019)

AF is accurate and fast. Haven't tested with TC 2X though.
Canon EOS R, EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II 
@ƒ/6.3, 400.0 mm, 1/500 sec, ISO 640


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 12, 2019)

digigal said:


> I'm renting the R for a week to check it out prior to considering buying it. It would be my first FF camera. I shoot wildlife and always use a crop for the distance factor because I can't handle the weight of the FF equipment for the places I want to go and the things I want to do, so that's the compromise and it's worked well so far, but the size of the picture from the 7DMII and the quality in low light leaves me increasing frustrated when I compete against other FF competitors. I try to do more artistic/unusual/behavioral wildlife composition and capture unusual lighting rather than things that demand maximum high speed but that's not to say speed and capturing the decisive moment isn't important. I'm used to shooting at ~150-600 equiv range to get the pictures I want. Has anyone used the R with 1.4 TC and the 100-400 II lens? How did it perform for single shots?



To put it short: just great!!!!!
Buy buy buy!!!!!!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 12, 2019)

There is no doubt that the EOS R is a great camera, but there are reports like this one https://www.holgercremer.org/single...the-EOS-R-is-useless-for-Wildlife-Photography that claim it is not good for wildlife. Is there anyone in CR who is using it for wildlife with telephotos who will respond so we can get a diversity of views?


----------



## digigal (Jan 12, 2019)

Thanks for the input from everyone. I think I might be able to live with the single shot focus because I have my 7DMII as my principal high speed camera but I certainly would want something that could acquire focus in low light since that would be where I would want to use it. I guess it's good news that it's supposed to be overcast and rainy during the time I'll be renting it so I'll have the low light to work with. 
Catherine


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 12, 2019)

I definitely agree that its not the best choice of a camera to get for a wildlife photographer. Once we ave a RF telephoto lens, that may change. 

I have tested my R with TC's won my 100-400L II and found no hunting, but did not use it in a low light situation at f/5.6 or f/8 or f/11. It took me a while to learn to use the screen drag feature to control the AF point, it worked well once I found the trick, It was not obvious to me as to the best method. I think its different for everyone. I just spent two nights using my R in a dark theater with my 70-200L, but its f/2.8. AF was fast and accurate. I shared the lens with my 5D MK IV, taking about 500 shots with each body. I just finished culling images for oof and blown out shots, AF was a notch more accurate than the 5D MK IV, but some of the shots had motion blur and I did not worry about the cause of a blurry image, just deleted it. The exposure was similar with both cameras, and a headache when at a wide angle view of the stage because the lighting varied to much. Telephoto shots had better exposure accuracy, thats always been the case. There were probably mote blown out images than there were oof ones.

The R is definitely not good for tracking a moving bird in flight, but for a still or slow moving subject, I've seen no issue.

The poster said he expected something as good as his 1D MK II or at least, his 5D MK IV, that's pretty naive its not going to happen in a ~$2,000 camera. That does not make the camera useless with the 100-400L, but its not the best combination.

I may do some more trials, there is a learning curve with the camera and my try with the 100-400 came the first week. Its winter here, and my old age limits my mobility, particularly in snow and ice, so I can't go tramping in the woods looking for wildlife, and most of it does not appear until after dark.

The AF point is not as small as my 5D MK IV, so it is more difficult to focus on a object thru the trees or brush, it just grabs the closest branch, that was my biggest issue.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 12, 2019)

Thanks Mt S. The last point about the size of the AF spot is a concern as I frequently have to focus on a small bird in foliage.


----------



## anthony_s (Jan 12, 2019)

I have a copy coming from LensRentals next week. I'll give it a try to see what my experience is.


----------



## digigal (Jan 13, 2019)

Thanks a lot MtS. I do more animal behavior photography and try to do "anticipatory" shots rather than "spray and pray" type stuff. I do however photograph through brush and foliage to get precise focus and do resort to the pinpoint focus spot a lot to achieve that type of focus. It's possible that magnifying the focus might help but I think that is only in the manual mode. I've switched to that sometimes when hand holding my M5 to get precise focus. I've learned to work with the M5 to get some pretty good shots but was using their lens so when you blow them up they're pretty crappy and don't have the L quality. 
I'm hoping that I can use the R as my back up camera where I've been trying to use the M because surely the focusing has to be better than the M5 I've been using and I've been able to get birds in flight with it with the 100-400! We'll see.
Catherine
The first shot below I took with the M5 and the 55-200 lens handheld using the zebras for focus in bright light.
The second shot was taken in overcast rainy conditions a Giant Petrel displaying aggressively to another Giant Petrel and intermittently attacking--also taken with the M5 and 55-200 because it's the only camera I had at the time. This is the full size shot and in spite of it being sharp, the feathers get too mushy for my taste.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 13, 2019)

digigal said:


> Thanks a lot MtS. I do more animal behavior photography and try to do "anticipatory" shots rather than "spray and pray" type stuff. I do however photograph through brush and foliage to get precise focus and do resort to the pinpoint focus spot a lot to achieve that type of focus. It's possible that magnifying the focus might help but I think that is only in the manual mode. I've switched to that sometimes when hand holding my M5 to get precise focus. I've learned to work with the M5 to get some pretty good shots but was using their lens so when you blow them up they're pretty crappy and don't have the L quality.
> I'm hoping that I can use the R as my back up camera where I've been trying to use the M because surely the focusing has to be better than the M5 I've been using and I've been able to get birds in flight with it with the 100-400! We'll see.
> Catherine
> The first shot below I took with the M5 and the 55-200 lens handheld using the zebras for focus in bright light.
> The second shot was taken in overcast rainy conditions a Giant Petrel displaying aggressively to another Giant Petrel and intermittently attacking--also taken with the M5 and 55-200 because it's the only camera I had at the time. This is the full size shot and in spite of it being sharp, the feathers get too mushy for my taste.


The EF-S 55-250mm STM with the M5 adapter is far, far sharper than the EF-M 55-200mm.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 13, 2019)

I tried the R + 1.4x III + 100-400 II earlier this morning when deer were crossing the back yard near sunrise. ISO 12800, 560mm, f/8, 1/100s. There is a lot of noise at that ISO, but the camera had no hesitation focusing on the deer through the branches or when I focused on something far, near, far, near. The combo is slower due to the smaller max aperture as it would be on a DSLR, but focus was good on the R.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 13, 2019)

R + 2x III + 100-400 II. AF is slower than R + 1.4x III + 100-400 II or bare lens, but that is expected. Both are at 800mm. The vertical is at 800mm and cropped slightly. ISO 1000, 800mm, f/11, 1/640s. The horizontal is uncropped, ISO 1600, 800mm, f/11, 1/640s.


----------



## digigal (Jan 14, 2019)

I received the R this weekend and had a chance to play with setting up all the various buttons and MFn bar. I'm looking as this camera to be my second camera for all my non high speed wild life shooting, and "other" photography. Yesterday I spent some time trying to see if it could function as an emergency b/u if my 7DMII "died" while I was in the wilds of somewhere. Hand holding the R with the 100-400 II + 1.4 TC was no problem and it performed quickly. My missed focus shots were probably because of lack of contrast to focus on and lack of ability to move the focus point quickly manually without the nubbin on a quickly foraging bird. I'm still working on how to do that with the MFn bar. 
I like the R because of the potential customization for shooting. I think it's a camera that you have to work with to get it tweaked just for you but I can see how that might be possible. Don't know if I'll be able to do that in a week.
These are a couple of shots yesterday with the R + 100-400 II + 1.4 TC straight out of camera--misses in focus mainly because I couldn't move focus point to where I wanted it in a timely fashion while the bird was foraging. Some lack of sharpness may also due to my using too slow a shutter speed of 500 for the constantly moving bird and shooting and 560 mm handheld.
First picture show good focus across bird that is parallel to sensor but second shows eye out of focus but feathers on body sharp because I was unable to move sensor to directly over the eye with the scrolling wheel before the bird moved. These are resized images because I couldn't post the full sized originals. They are out of the camera with NO adjustments.
The third picture I posted was one taken with the R = 100-400II+1.4 indoors at night of my African Grey at 25,000 ISO!! Again untouched and out of camera. Not just totally awful and potentially salvageable 
Catherine


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 15, 2019)

I've had deer hanging out around our place all day, about 100 yards away, so when it began to get dark tonight, I put on my 100-400 and took my R outside. No deer to be seen, but I did try focusing on various things, and on a dark brown llama in my field, I had a problem focusing, then I realized that I had inadvertently put the AF point on the far corner of the screen. I recentered it, and AF was fast, But I did not take a photo. By that time, it was getting pretty dark fast, so I pointed at the moon with spot AF and spot exposure. It locked on immediately, and as I waited the 1-2 sec for IS to lock on, the exposure corrected to what looked reasonable, so I thought that was a surprise, I usually use manual exposure on the moon. I took a few handheld shots which weren't bad, considering handheld and a relatively slow shutter speed with the lens at max aperture.

Then, I focused at a TV transmitter building on top of Mt Spokane 7.5 miles away, that focused fine, and contrast was low. As it got darker, I focused on more distant objects until it reached ISO 40,000. Even then, AF was fine, but a bit slower. No hunting.

Finally, I tried a MFD object, and it seemed to take forever to rack in to focus on a deck railing 5-7 ft away. Then, it focused fast and accurately on a object close to a mile distant with no hunting, and nearly dark by then. The bottom hay wagon was at 1/100 sec, f/5.6, ISO 40,000, over 100 yards away.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 15, 2019)




----------



## digigal (Jan 16, 2019)

Thanks, Mt S. That's what I've found too, that there will be some unexpected difficulty with focusing on objects that I would think it should not have any difficulty with. I I finally decided that part of that was due to the fact i was using the single point focus and when it got off my subject it was just so "lost in the woods" I would have to manually focus to get it back on track to the subject I was focusing on. I couldn't use the focus limiter because the subject was fairly close. 
Catherine


----------

