RF 800 vs. RF 600mm

Thoughts for a Friday afternoon, on my rental as well as the Canon R6.
I rented the RF800 and find I can get BIF in the EVF. Much of my shooting is at longer distances, 150 yards plus and I think the 800 will be a good addition to the stable.

I am also considering the R6 to replace my 5DIV, which I don't use very often. At the same time I am wondering if I should keep the 5DIV for low light and people and interiors, and get a second R7 to replace my 90D which I use as a backup to the R7. I do like the 90D, it seems a bit beefier than the R7 and I can use the battery grip, but I do like the button and dial layout and customization of them better on the R7.
With the R6 (R5 is out of range price/use range) I could still use all my 5DIV lenses.

Oh decisions decisions

You lose resolution with the 6D which when you are reach limited, is pretty important. I have both the R6 and 5D4 for that reason.

Why would you consider the R6, what are you hoping to gain? Maybe consider selling the 90D and 5D4 and get the R5. That would make the most sense. A high pixel density crop and FF…

Thank you all for your responses

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19481639
You lose resolution with the 6D which when you are reach limited, is pretty important. I have both the R6 and 5D4 for that reason.

Why would you consider the R6, what are you hoping to gain? Maybe consider selling the 90D and 5D4 and get the R5. That would make the most sense. A high pixel density crop and FF…

The only reason to consider the R6 or R5 is to be able to use the RF lenses, I hardly use the 5DIV at this time as I have been doing lots of BIF. I guess since I would like to be able to have the 800 on the R7 and then be able to have a second camera with a zoom for when BIF are way too close I could grab and shoot. I have been using the 90D for that but the weight of the 90D with 100-400Lii along with the R7/800 is a little tough, at least until I get my second total knee replacement. I also have the 70-300ii which is much lighter and does ok.

Also I agonize way too much and am never satisfied, having the R7 and 90D for BIF and 5DIV for landscapes and low light I should be happy...

For the distances you are shooting at, there is rarely any combination that is ideal. Having two eye AF high pixel density cameras coupled with long lenses are usually the ticket these days. An R7 plus an R5 would beat a 90D and 5D4 combo all day long. Then you can later move to RF lenses.

And this is from an R6 and 5D4 owner…

Not sure what the 70-300 is really doing for you at this point, so perhaps it can help fund a body? Having a lighter lens is good, but 300mm just isn’t going to get the job done ultimately.

Modern high resolution bodies plus good lenses that get you reach of 500-1200mm is what you need.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19481653
For the distances you are shooting at, there is rarely any combination that is ideal. Having two eye AF high pixel density cameras coupled with long lenses are usually the ticket these days. An R7 plus an R5 would beat a 90D and 5D4 combo all day long. Then you can later move to RF lenses.

And this is from an R6 and 5D4 owner…

Not sure what the 70-300 is really doing for you at this point, so perhaps it can help fund a body? Having a lighter lens is good, but 300mm just isn’t going to get the job done ultimately.

Modern high resolution bodies plus good lenses that get you reach of 500-1200mm is what you need.

I may be wrong, often am, I have been using the R7 with my RF600 for BIF but sometimes a bunch of geese or ducks will fly in from behind of besides me and they are within 50 yards of me so I can't get them in the EVF with the 600. I grab my 90D with 70-300ii to try to get a shot of them. I want to do that also with the R7 when I have the 600 or now with the rental 800 as they are coming towards me but I tend to stay on target with the longer lens even though I am missing a wider angle shot. Another thing I have done is to see where the birds are or might be and then put either the 600 or my RF100-400 on the R7 and then hope I was guessing right.
I don't know why I keep agonizing over this stuff and just use the gear I have! Luckily for Ham Radio I am happy with the radios I have and don't want anything thing different

[QUOTE=bigguytf;194815​83]

ct1co2 wrote in post #19314443
I see that you are using a 150-600 on you R bodies. I assume that it is with a Canon adapter. How good doe you feel that works.

Yes, I have used the 150-600C with a basic Canon adapter on both my R6 and R7. Along the same lines of other respondents, I agree that it's done fine overall. I enjoy not having to fuss over micro adjusting on mirrorless bodies. Although you don't get full AF coverage like RF lenses or the adapted 100-400II, the greater AF area is still an improvement vs. mirrored bodies.

The elephant in the room is obviously some online reviews of the lens with mirrorless bodies. Have I seen pulsing from mine, maybe on occasion, I'm not sure, but I've not really looked for it either. Have I experienced some misses, yes. Have I experienced misses with the 100-400II bare or with an extender, also yes. Would I like every frame of an 8-12 image sequence to be pin sharp, well of course, who would not? Do I expect it, especially from a 3rd party lens from 2015 that Canon provides zero RF mount support to, not necessarily.

Is it perfect, no, but expecting it to be is a misplaced expectation. Is it more than capable of yielding some very pleasing results of both static and moving subjects, yes.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19481660
I may be wrong, often am, I have been using the R7 with my RF600 for BIF but sometimes a bunch of geese or ducks will fly in from behind of besides me and they are within 50 yards of me so I can't get them in the EVF with the 600. I grab my 90D with 70-300ii to try to get a shot of them. I want to do that also with the R7 when I have the 600 or now with the rental 800 as they are coming towards me but I tend to stay on target with the longer lens even though I am missing a wider angle shot. Another thing I have done is to see where the birds are or might be and then put either the 600 or my RF100-400 on the R7 and then hope I was guessing right.
I don't know why I keep agonizing over this stuff and just use the gear I have! Luckily for Ham Radio I am happy with the radios I have and don't want anything thing different

I would put the 100-400 on the R5 and 800 on the R7. Another thought is to sell the 100-400 II, maybe the Rf 100-400, and 70-300 and get the RF 100-500. You have quite a bit of overlap in your lenses that you could convert into other options?

With the 100-500, plus a 1.4 TC, on the R5, and 600/800 on the R7, you have coverage from 100mm through 1280mm and beyond.

Just keep in mind that with the R6II you gain a few MP over the R6 and get virtually full field AF coverage on that RF 800 f11. Even my R5 can't do that. I love both of them, though.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19481717
I would put the 100-400 on the R5 and 800 on the R7. Another thought is to sell the 100-400 II, maybe the Rf 100-500, and 70-300 and get the RF 100-500. You have quite a bit of overlap in your lenses that you could convert into other options?

With the 100-500, plus a 1.4 TC, on the R5, and 600/800 on the R7, you have coverage from 100mm through 1280mm and beyond.

I do have overlap for sure.

edmidlifecrisis wrote in post #19481724
Just keep in mind that with the R6II you gain a few MP over the R6 and get virtually full field AF coverage on that RF 800 f11. Even my R5 can't do that. I love both of them, though.

Oh what to do... At least I love my R7 for BIF, I am looking forward to hummingbird season, they should be back up here in about 4 more months, maybe 4 1/2 months.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19481660
I may be wrong, often am, I have been using the R7 with my RF600 for BIF but sometimes a bunch of geese or ducks will fly in from behind of besides me and they are within 50 yards of me so I can't get them in the EVF with the 600. I grab my 90D with 70-300ii to try to get a shot of them. I want to do that also with the R7 when I have the 600 or now with the rental 800 as they are coming towards me but I tend to stay on target with the longer lens even though I am missing a wider angle shot. Another thing I have done is to see where the birds are or might be and then put either the 600 or my RF100-400 on the R7 and then hope I was guessing right.
I don't know why I keep agonizing over this stuff and just use the gear I have! Luckily for Ham Radio I am happy with the radios I have and don't want anything thing different

If you want to be simultaneously ready for birds at >150 yards AND <50 yards at the highest IQ, you probably need to keep the 2 camera setup. I'd recommend using the R7+RF800 and 90D+EF100-400ii. Not sure why you'd use the EF70-300 over the EF100-400ii? But I think you said earlier that carrying 2 cameras was difficult for you.

Alternatively, if you want a do-all setup with just 1 camera, perhaps the R7 with EF100-400ii + 2xIII mounted all the time. Would give you 200-800mm for both situations all the time. Not sure about the IQ with that setup - perhaps you can test it against the RF800 while you still have it. I suspect the IQ will take a hit (although the 100-400ii with a 1.4x is amazingly good) - but every benefit comes at a cost.

I'm curious to do some testing myself once I find a suitable test scenario and some time.

I use the 2x on my 100-400 all the time… there is a bit of IQ hit, but the versatility is nice.

Several forum members have reported good results with the RF100-500 and a TC. I have this lens but haven't invested in a TC yet. MAybe one day. The lens as a standalone lens is really outstanding. Exceptional IQ and easy to handle, not overly heavy and AF is a dream with the R bodies.

PS I had an EF 100-400II for years and thought it was a fantastic lens, despite the fact that mine broke several times and had to go back to Canon. I used that lens a LOT with my 5DIV, 6D, 7DII, over a long time. I ended up selling it when I went with the 100-500 RF and mirrorless but it was a great lens on either the EF or the RF systems.

Also several forum members had posted impressive photos taken with the RF 100-400 which is more economical. Seems like it is a good buy.

As to the RF 800 it has the weight and fun factor going for it along with pretty good IQ. As long as you can work within its parameters.....

View_Finder wrote in post #19481938
If you want to be simultaneously ready for birds at >150 yards AND <50 yards at the highest IQ, you probably need to keep the 2 camera setup. I'd recommend using the R7+RF800 and 90D+EF100-400ii. Not sure why you'd use the EF70-300 over the EF100-400ii? But I think you said earlier that carrying 2 cameras was difficult for you.

Alternatively, if you want a do-all setup with just 1 camera, perhaps the R7 with EF100-400ii + 2xIII mounted all the time. Would give you 200-800mm for both situations all the time. Not sure about the IQ with that setup - perhaps you can test it against the RF800 while you still have it. I suspect the IQ will take a hit (although the 100-400ii with a 1.4x is amazingly good) - but every benefit comes at a cost.

I'm curious to do some testing myself once I find a suitable test scenario and some time.

edmidlifecrisis wrote in post #19481976
Several forum members have reported good results with the RF100-500 and a TC. I have this lens but haven't invested in a TC yet. MAybe one day. The lens as a standalone lens is really outstanding. Exceptional IQ and easy to handle, not overly heavy and AF is a dream with the R bodies.

PS I had an EF 100-400II for years and thought it was a fantastic lens, despite the fact that mine broke several times and had to go back to Canon. I used that lens a LOT with my 5DIV, 6D, 7DII, over a long time. I ended up selling it when I went with the 100-500 RF and mirrorless but it was a great lens on either the EF or the RF systems.

Also several forum members had posted impressive photos taken with the RF 100-400 which is more economical. Seems like it is a good buy.

As to the RF 800 it has the weight and fun factor going for it along with pretty good IQ. As long as you can work within its parameters.....

The reason for the 70-300ii is the weight. I have tried and will try again the 100-400lii with the 2xiii, but when I tried it before it was soft to my eye, the 1.4iii wasn't bad although not as sharp as the lens alone.
One thing I am testing is the 1.4xR and 2xR on my RF100-400 f/8. I need more tests with the 2x but the 1.4x doesn't seem to lose any IQ that I can see. It also seems to go well with the RF600, although at f/16 needs a lot of light.

While have the rental gear I will not be testing the 100-400Lii, but I will when it warms up. I have to send them back on Wednesday so hoping for some good weather like we had today, but the forecast doesn't look good.

Shot with 2xR on 100-400 at 300mm for 600mm f/16 hand held at 1/200th f/16 ISO 160

getting close to the RF 600 with RF 100-400 with 1.4x