1.4EX or R10

Hi

I have an R5 and a RF 100-500 L lens. I am happy with this but on occasion I'd like more reach ( of course ! ) Should I stick on a 1.4EX or use a R10 for the occasions I need this? I use this for birds on the ground. I would probably only look to use this solution infrequently. I did have a 500mm f4 but too big for me!


There isn't much of a price difference and although it doesn't have weather sealing or the handling of the R5, I'm veering towards the R80 option as IQ should be reasonable and with no loss of light, given the already meagre aperture of my lens. What say you?

Unless you have a reason to go for a second body, I'd get the 1.4x. The R5 in crop mode gives you 17.3 MP while the R10 will give you 24. That's just 18% extra pixels in each direction. If you think of that as magnification (somewhat true) then compare that to the 40% magnification that you'd get with the 1.4x and there's no real comparison.

Yes, you lose a stop of light. But the R5 probably has better high-ISO performance.

I have a R10 paired with a R6 M2 and like the combination. Previously, I had a 5D3 + 7D2 combo. I use the crop body as my dedicated wildlife body, and the full frame for everything else. When traveling, having two bodies allows me to shoot a lot more without changing lenses.

That being said, Anton has an excellent point regarding resolution and cropping in your situation. Your R5 has a much higher resolution than the R10 (45MP vs. 24MP), so if you crop in post processing you are not gaining much with the R10. In my case, both the R6 M2 and R10 are 24MP, so there is a significant advantage in having a crop body. So, I would only consider an R10 in your case if a 2nd body would be useful. The R10 also makes a nice light weight alternative to a full size body when paired with an RF-S lens or two if you want to travel light. I also use the R10 for that purpose, replacing the M50 + EF-M lenses I used to own soley for that purpose.

Another, albeit more expensive, option would be an R7. It has a 32.5MP sensor, so would provide more benefits versus cropping your R5 images. It also uses the same batteries as the R5, has IBIS and two card slots, if those things are important to you.

Agree with using an R7.

Of course it depends, but the R7 is an amazing body for birds and also for macro. Both genres benefit from being able to crop heavily, and the R7 supports that.

The RF 1.4 extender is crazy expensive, and it is questionable whether its use gives better IQ than just cropping your 100-500mm shot. The extender gives you more pixels, but adds aberration. And there is that weird thing about not being able to zoom out past 300mm.

Thank you for your replies. I am not sure what path I should take but the R7 seems to make a lot of sense compared with the R 10. I need to look at the Extender a little more before I decide and the other thing I wondered about was maybe the 800mm f11?

willie45 wrote in post #19543163
Thank you for your replies. I am not sure what path I should take but the R7 seems to make a lot of sense compared with the R 10. I need to look at the Extender a little more before I decide and the other thing I wondered about was maybe the 800mm f11?

I had the 800 and found the 100-500mm at 500 cropped was sharper. The 800 is lighter in weight, but not by much.

Archibald wrote in post #19543166
I had the 800 and found the 100-500mm at 500 cropped was sharper. The 800 is lighter in weight, but not by much.

Good info. Thank you, Archibald. That is useful to know. I will perhaps ditch that plan then

willie45 wrote in post #19543167
Good info. Thank you, Archibald. That is useful to know. I will perhaps ditch that plan then

Suggest you read some reviews in case my experience wasn't typical.

Anyway, I sold the 800 because I felt it was redundant with the 100-500.

I really like my RF 800mm f/11. However, I do not have a RF 100-500, as it was more than I wanted to spend. I owned the EF 100-400L II + 1.4x TC III until selling both recently. Instead I now have the RF 100-400 (went for smaller and lighter).

I get very good results with 800mm in good light with both a R6 M2 and R10, as well as the EOS R I used to own. For the money, I think the 800mm is a very good lens - - it's a third of the price of the 100-500.

I know the 800mm f11 is highly regarded at it's price point, and it's weight and IS are all strong points. I guess the question for me is that, as I already own the 100-500, the 800 will likely offer no improvement over the former with a 1.4 EX or a crop.

Yeah, if I had a 100-500 and an R5 with it's 45MP resolution for cropping, I doubt I would have the 800mm f/11, either.

In your circumstance, I really think adding a R7 makes the most sense (disregarding cost).