Evan Atkinson
Always finding a way to go off topic...
The image quality looks extremely good in the R10 images. Wonder how that would be effected when adding an ef converter?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
R7 to be announced soon. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Roy C
- Start date
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
The EF converter appears to make absolutely no difference to the image quality on the R5.
edenwatcher
Well-known member
R7 pre-ordered. In the past I've always waited for real world reviews and for price drops etc. The adapter offer is a good one and these days price drops don't seem to happen, so no point in waiting.
Rob
Rob
The EF adapter is just an empty tube. No optics involved, it just takes up the space left by the reduced flange distance (where the mirror would be on a DSLR). Image quality is the same as if used on a native EF camera.
Evan Atkinson
Always finding a way to go off topic...
Now for the R10 (since I’m still learning bird and wildlife photography) I want to either wait until it comes up on eBay or somewhere or earn some money and get it for myself. Some of the images are excellent and for such a good price it’s good quality in my eyes
pdwinter
Paul Winter
The images from the R10 do look good but I would like to see what the images look like when taken on a normal dull day in the UK when you have to up the ISO before making the decision.
Evan Atkinson
Always finding a way to go off topic...
I think that the image quality would drop quite a bit when pushing 6400 ISO on the R10, but I wonder how the R7 files would look. If anything it seems like they might be around the same quality as the R5 and the R6 but the extra £1500 on the R5 compared to the R7 might make a bit of a difference when comparing pictures at high ISO’s.
Evan Atkinson
Always finding a way to go off topic...
I'm now looking at a setup with the R10 and the Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM. Has anyone had any experience with this lens? Its less expensive than the mark 2 and it would enable me to switch to mirrorless should I do so.
Many thanks
Ev
Many thanks
Ev
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Evan Atkinson
Always finding a way to go off topic...
I've not heard that reference before, what does it mean? Not up to date with the nicknames of lenses.
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Both the Mk I and II 100-400 lenses have an extending barrel rather than internal changing of focal length. The Mk I you push/pull it in and out, the Mk II is a twist mechanism and is sealed somewhat better than the Mk I which used to take in dust readily.
John
Don't get the Mk I version of the 100-400. It isn't very sharp, especially on a high pixel density APS-C. The Mk II version is super sharp, buy way more expensive.
The best wildlife lenses on a budget are the 400mm f5.6 L, 300mm f4 L or the Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm IMO.
Evan Atkinson
Always finding a way to go off topic...
I was considering primes but I like having the ability to zoom in and zoom out. The mk2 seems to be the one that most people are suggesting and that is what I asked my dad to get me once I finished school. I do want to see how the files come out from some pictures before deciding though.
Farnboro John
Well-known member
The Mk 2 100-400 will give you sharp pictures and flexibility. It is also (relatively) light (bear in mind I carried a Mk 1 500mm f4 on a tripod for years, the lens weighs 3.8 kg on its own.) Using a camera hand-held is much quicker into action than on a tripod you have to set up, which will mean you get more and better momentarily available shots, not to mention that twisting your body rather than dancing round a tripod is a different and easier motion. The zoom is a really great piece of kit.
The reach of the Sigma 150-600 is all very well but it weighs 2.8kg whereas the Canon 100-400 is a mere 1.6 kg. I know which I'd rather be carrying on a day's birding! You could always add a 1.4 times for more reach though I would just get closer or crop a bit more.
John
Evan Atkinson
Always finding a way to go off topic...
Indeed, I want to try a prime, but hiring the 500 f4 (which is the one I want to try) is nearly £500 for 7 days which is a lot of money. When I had the 100-400 for 2 weeks, honestly I didn't even feel the weight at all. It felt like the 75-300 (which produces poor quality photos for me) but with a little more weight on it. My 700d is alright for bird photography, for example the shot below was shot with it and the 100-400mk2 but I think that with the EOS R10 or the 7d mk ii, I could majorly improve with some of the shots that I am getting now. Will have to add photo later as chromebook doesn't seem to like copy and pasting.
I have been shooting with a 7DII for awhile now. When I upgrade it will be for the R7.
Farnboro John
Well-known member
I seriously think you should look at making the effort to go straight to an R7 with - if budget is the issue - a 100-400 Mk 2 but if you can stretch to it, the RF 150-500. You will then be future-proofed for a considerable number of years and not be left going: "I need to do these all over again" in ten years time.
John
Evan Atkinson
Always finding a way to go off topic...
I have thought about that, but I don't quite have enough money to afford both, although, maybe getting the R7 instead of the 100-400 might be a better choice, as it is the same price as the lens. Although, having the sharpness of the Mk 2 would be good as well, but with the eye af on the R7 would I really need to worry about the sharpness? I'll have to have a think because I know I will have to wait a while for it to turn up, whereas I could get the lens within a couple of days. My mum was willing to get me a 7d mark ii and I tried to convince her about the R10 but she didn't really gravitate towards the idea. I'll see what I can muster up.