CisherPhotography wrote in post #18298018
To start this forum is awesome. Just saying.
As per my post topic. I found a blog
( http://www.birdsasart-blog.com ...lations-i-finally-get-it/
) and it made the 5dsr out to be a steller performer. But what if say a subject was shot from the same distance and the 5dsr was cropped to the 1.6 frame of the 7d mkii. Would it still hold its own?
I think a plus should be given to the 7d mkii's autofocus capabilities.
So which is the choice for someone already owning a FF (5d3) in terms of IQ/resolution. Im looking to have a better suited wildlife camera body.
The 5D3 is already a fully capable wildlife camera. You're overthinking it a lot.
Put that money into incredible glass instead. The Sigma 150-600 that you're using is good, but a big white is a whole other level. You'd benefit more from better, faster glass, than a very minor camera upgrade (very, very minor).
Are you already handling a 300 F2.8L II, 400 F2.8L II or 500 F2.8L II or 200-400 F4L? Or Sigma equivalent? If not, then worry more about this. You already have a very capable body.
To your question, yes, the 5DSR will have the same pixel density as a 7D2 and basically has the same field of view once cropped to match, but the 5DSR has a wider field of view for composition and tracking purposes (which is nicer in my opinion). I'd take the 5DSR over the 7D2 for general wildlife. I would take the 7D2 or a 1DX if you needed RAW FPS for something moving incredibly fast to capture specific stances, poses, wing positions, etc. If it's a bunch of stationary or big lumbering flying birds, a slower FPS camera is totally capable with room to spare. But is splitting hairs in terms of benefits, compared to comparing a F6.3 entry zoom to a top shelf F4 or F2.8 super telephoto. I'd take the best lens possible and a junk camera any day over worrying about which top shelf camera to use with entry glass.