mccamli wrote in post #19153054
I'm not convinced about long exposure shooting yet, I seem to be getting a fair few hot/stuck pixels and Lightroom isn't automatically fixing them...more testing required.
I also like the increased resolution.
When I got my R I kept my 7Dii for wildlife (although I didn't really use it). I'm more than happy to sell it now.
The potential advantages of the APS-C sensors when AF is accurate and fast enough decrease as you go back further. The 90D has 1.84x the pixel density of the R, and slightly less noise at high ISOs than the R5 in crop mode, but the 7D2 has more noise than the R5 with only 1.15x the pixel density, and the 7D has about the same pixel density as the R5, and significantly more noise than the R5 in crop mode. For me, the 90D stays home because of AF intelligence in the R5, and the fact that I can use my 400/4 at 800/8 all the time, unless the FOV gets too narrow, whereas with my 90D, I used it at 560/5.6 most of the time, and only popped the 2x in when focus was easier.
Funny; most photographers I meet who I tell that I am using the R5 now instead of the 90D for birds assume that I have a low-light noise advantage with the R5 now due to the larger sensor and pixels, but that isn't true at all. All I have is an AF advantage (and burst-speed/silent-shutter advantage, too, in ES mode) but better enough that I use the inferior sensor of the R5 (inferior per unit of sensor area; the bottom line in focal-length-limited final IQ). It's still too dark out there much of the time for shutter speed needs. The AA filter on the R5 is better, but I must be using 1.4x the focal length on the R5 to get the most out of that benefit, as higher pixel density is usually better than a better AA filter on larger pixels.
It is getting very clear to me that the R5 can AF through extremely high open f-numbers, compared to DSLRs, and perhaps a quality 2.8x or 3x TC is in order, as the R5 seems to freak out with stacked TCs in most combinations, at least with reporting ones (the only type I own). A TC designed for 2.8x or 3x also has the potential to have less aberration than stacked converters. I find the TC situation to be dismal, in the way that they interact with bodies and lenses. They often report in a way that slows focus too much for the R5, and when they draw power because they are reporting, but are taped or put in a stack in such a way that there is nothing for them to communicate with, they still draw power, and somehow I think that newer cameras like the 90D and R5 might be somehow trying to figure out how much identifiable equipment is drawing power, and throttling the power or doing something with timing that is causing problems with phantom TC power draw. I need to find out if there are any optically-good TCs that are not too expensive that I can open up and remove any electronics from the pass-through, just by cutting wires that tap into it, or better-yet, undoing a connector. That would provide a stacking solution, where I can mix reporting with non-reporting, and get an intermediate AF drive speed: not too fast, and not too slow. IOW, 1.4x with no reporting, 2x with 1.4x reporting, or 2.8x with either 1.4x or 2x reporting, whichever one seems to work best with a given lens.
