Canon R5 how tight can you crop at high ISO?

I have been waiting to see if they will come out with an R7 but in case they don't I wanted to ask now that people are experienced with the R5, how tight can you crop and still get good results? I am constantly doing severe crops with my 90D as the places I shoot birds I am usually 150 to 300 yards from the birds. Getting closer is not an option being handicapped, I have to set up where I can drive right near where I will put my chair.

I see amazing results from the R5 with high ISO but wonder how tight can you get it? Sometimes I the crops I do are about the size of the focus point, really tight. Sometimes they come out ok sometimes not.
I don't know if I will be able to rent an R5 before I have my eye operations so thought I would ask what people experiences have been.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19358964
I have been waiting to see if they will come out with an R7 but in case they don't I wanted to ask now that people are experienced with the R5, how tight can you crop and still get good results? I am constantly doing severe crops with my 90D as the places I shoot birds I am usually 150 to 300 yards from the birds. Getting closer is not an option being handicapped, I have to set up where I can drive right near where I will put my chair.

I see amazing results from the R5 with high ISO but wonder how tight can you get it? Sometimes I the crops I do are about the size of the focus point, really tight. Sometimes they come out ok sometimes not.
I don't know if I will be able to rent an R5 before I have my eye operations so thought I would ask what people experiences have been.

Kind of dependent on what you're defining as high ISO, the lens you're using and the quality of the light you're shooting in. But, I think you'll find that the comment about sometimes they're ok and sometimes not likely sums up what you're findings will be if you're cropping quite that hard. In general, I've found my results from the R5 land right around on par with the 7DII in the end; the extra resolution of the sensor making up for the "loss" of the crop factor from the 7DII. The number of pixels on target wind up being pretty close at the same shooting distances.

Using the 100-400II, with and without the 1.4 TC, I can crop down to around 1/4 of the entire frame and still be relatively happy; sometimes lower depending on focus, presence of heat haze, etc. With the 800 f/11, I find that I'm unhappy with much more than about a 50% frame crop at anything above about 3200.

I think you also have to factor in your target size (in pixels) for the final product. If you're posting to Instagram, a 1200 pixel image (width) will work just fine ... but if you're posting to this forum or Flickr, you're wanting 2000 pixels for your final image. I personally try to crop no smaller than twice my desired target size. So for Instagram, I could crop down to 2400 pixels and then resize to 1200 when I export to jpg. For flickr, I can only crop down to 4000 pixels. This is a self imposed rule, of course, and i break that rule if the image can "handle" it.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19358964
I have been waiting to see if they will come out with an R7 but in case they don't I wanted to ask now that people are experienced with the R5, how tight can you crop and still get good results? I am constantly doing severe crops with my 90D as the places I shoot birds I am usually 150 to 300 yards from the birds. Getting closer is not an option being handicapped, I have to set up where I can drive right near where I will put my chair.

I see amazing results from the R5 with high ISO but wonder how tight can you get it? Sometimes I the crops I do are about the size of the focus point, really tight. Sometimes they come out ok sometimes not.
I don't know if I will be able to rent an R5 before I have my eye operations so thought I would ask what people experiences have been.

As to pixel density alone the R5 in 1.6 (APS-C) Crop Mode equates to about 17.5MP; whereas your 1.6 APS-C 90D has about 31MP, so discarding any other factors you have more Crop leeway with the 90D over the R5 at equal subject size & distance.

Jeff, let me say you are doing a fine job with what you have!

Your post from last weekend (two birds cropped) shows that you have a pretty good handle on this. You already have two of the highest pixel-density cameras you can get, so extenders and bigger glass seem like the only way forward and it looks like you already have and use a 1.4x. Can you use the 1.4x with the 150-600 or do you lose all AF?

Looking at bigger lenses like the Sigmonster... wow, I don't know if it's reasonable to wield something like that from a chair. The EF-800 is a bit lighter and shorter but not drastically so and what a hit to the wallet.

http://www.billmajoros​.com …new/Sigmonster/​index.html

I have a 1.4 for the Sigma but wasn't impressed with the result

Also the 1.4xiii for the Canon loses some sharpness compared to without it.

.
It mainly depends on what you are looking to have the final (after cropping) image look like ...

- how much of the fine feather detail you want to have resolved. . Do you want each each feather or feather filament to be clear and distinct from the feathers next to it? . Or are you oaky with just capturing the basic form of the bird, without individual feathers being clear and distinct?

- how much you want your subject to be visually separated from the background, with backgrounds are somewhat "busy", such as vegetation. . Do you want your bird to be real crisp and clear, and the trees behind it to be blurred into oblivion, so that the bird really "pops"? . Or are you okay with the trees behind the bird being out of focus, but not way way way out of focus ... so that the bird is readily seen, but not in a real big, bold, and obvious eye-popping fashion?


.

Deep digital zooming coupled with long distances that invariably create convection current haze is a very difficult way to get detailed images unfortunately.

More optical reach is the proper way to try to fix this, or by a super high resolution camera to help with the zoom/crop, but the latter will likely require the best glass you can use on it to be able to record as much detail as can be pulled from the screen. Both cost money, so it is a choice of where to spend it.

A little late, but for example, I love the resolution for people shots as it allows me to shoot full body, or waste up, loosely, then crop in for a pure portrait, or head and shoulders with all the detail I need. (Still way more MP then my early 1D/II/III bodies)

It's three, three, three shots in one!