p.1 #1 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
I am heading off for a one day trip to Churchill (Polar Bears) on Nov 16. I have a r8 (for backpacking), R5 (landscape and cold), R5ii (summer wildlife) [and an old 7dii]. The bears will be mostly slow moving.
I have EF200-800, EF200-400(1.4x), EF600ii and RF100-400. It's mostly day time shooting so I will likely take 200-800 and 200-400. I would put my R5 (because of cold risk vs r5ii) on 200-400 (1.4x) and was thinking r7 on 200-800 for extreme distances.
I looked at renting R7 and it was $450 Canadian per week. I can buy the r7 for $2000 Canadian. And sell it for $1500 Canadian, so newer is likely better.. I looked at used R7's and lightly used ones are scarce below $1500cdn. So I will likely buy. There are virtually no great deals on r7 unless they come without warranty or much used. But lots of rumours about R7II.
Here is my question. The R7 will deliver about twice as many pixels per bear (17mpx cropped on R5 vs 32mpx uncropped on R7) more reach on the 200-800. Anyone thinking I would be better to:
1) Get a 1.4x for my R5 with 200-800. Anyone every use 1.4x on 200-800 with success.
2) Not use the R7 because of crappy performance (?)
p.1 #2 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
The R5 is a better camera, but I can't imagine that you'll get better performance with the 1.4x+200-800 than you'd get from the R7+200-800. I've been very happy with my R7 overall. If you can find a decent price used then I'd guess you could resell it at the same or very similar price.
p.1 #4 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
I would take the R5 and R5 II. But I'm not happy with the 200-800 at 800 with R5/R5 II. Adding a TC is kind of diminished returns not to mention that the air quality is not so good as the focal length increases. The R7 would be more practical than adding a 1.4x though.
p.1 #5 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
Mmeece wrote:
The R5 is a better camera, but I can't imagine that you'll get better performance with the 1.4x+200-800 than you'd get from the R7+200-800. I've been very happy with my R7 overall. If you can find a decent price used then I'd guess you could resell it at the same or very similar price.
I have observed from the thedigitalpicture that 200-800 is acceptable at 800 but would likely not be acceptable at 800/1.4x. So I am not keen on 1.4x on 200-800. That's what makes me think 200-800 at 800 with R7 (1280mm) or 600 (1000mm) is likely to be better than cropping r5 more.
In addition thedigitalpicture has indepentely compared 1.4x on r5 vs r7 and concluded that R7 delivers more resolution.
I understand that r5 is better if you fill the screen, but I would be buying /renting r7 for the event where R5 has too little screen filling.
The fact that you are happy with your r7 is encouraging. I will be shooting in okay light with polar bears not moving too much. So 32mpx is better than 17mpx is likely.
p.1 #6 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
big country wrote:
Daytime in Churchill in mid november can be like dusk. I would suggest:
R52 + 600 +/- TC's
R5 + 100-400 (maindy due to size).
You could see other animals that will come close such as fox - that is were the 100-400 will come into place.
Most of my shooting will be from the tundra buggy so short shots at 100 will not be great - too much looking down.
Maybe 7d & 200-800, r5 & 200-400/1.4x. It's hard to juggle more - I could bring the 600/1.4x as well but that's a lot of equipment. Which lens is the other debate. I prefer a zoom and small.
p.1 #7 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
I can understand the marginal case for using the smaller format camera for distant subjects, but…
… that addresses a really marginal case where not only would you have to crop the FF image but you’d have to crop it to APS-C size while using your very longest lens. Other than that outlier, you’d rather be using the FF body in all other situations.
So from my perspective, the advantage of the extra body would not be that great.
On the other hand, if you had no backup body for the R5, then an existing APS-C body could serve in that capacity. (I do something like that with my primary Canon system when I bring along my Fujifilm system as a secondary.)
p.1 #8 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
I'd just take the R5 and R5II along with your 200 - 400 and the 600/4. The 200 - 800 is at a significant disadvantage to the 200 - 400 because of the aperture.
At 200 you're 1 1/3 stops slower, at 270 it's 1 2/3 stops. Even if you flip on the TC to get over 400mm the 200 - 400 is still a full stop faster. But honestly I don't see many cases where you would go I need 500+ and not just switch over to the 600 at that point.
Those two lens give you F4 all day long with the option to go to F5.6 if you really need to. And ignoring pixels the 600 F4 II is going to have way better contrast than the RF lens, and provide 2 full stops more light. Here's a comparison to see sharpness and contrast:
That said I completely understand that's the heaviest combination you have, and might be too unwieldy to travel with. If that's the case then I like Big County's suggestion of taking the small 100 - 400. I don't see the point of the 200 - 800 if you already have better lenses unless you are taking it as the one and only option.
p.1 #9 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
I haven't had the opportunity or pleasure to shoot polar bears, but I do have a R5 and a 200-800 and a 1.4x. It has its limitations, but the combo does let you get shots you otherwise couldn't. I recommend bringing it along.
Canon EOS R5RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x lens840mmf/13.01/500s3200 ISO-1.0 EV
Canon EOS R5RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x lens1120mmf/14.01/500s6400 ISO-0.7 EV
Canon EOS R5RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x lens1120mmf/14.01/500s160 ISO-1.0 EV
Canon EOS R5RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x lens1120mmf/14.01/1000s1600 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x lens1120mmf/14.01/250s16000 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x lens840mmf/11.01/1000s1000 ISO-0.3 EV
Canon EOS R5RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x lens560mmf/11.01/1000s6400 ISO+0.3 EV
p.1 #10 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
Scott Stoness wrote:
So 32mpx is better than 17mpx is likely.
Of course it is, but that is only meaningful when you are extremely reach limited. If you could take 3 bodies, then add the R7, but I would not take the overall worse camera for IQ and performance instead of one R5/R5 II. I'm not sure how much you have used the R7, but make sure you really use it first. For me it's definitely a 3rd string body after my R5 and R5 II. You will need the fastest SDxC UHS-II write speed cards and even then it buffers out quickly on ES since SD is slower than CFe. 15FPS ES will probably keep it going long enough in short bursts. MS causes shutter shock to the sensor, but I don't know how much with a lens like the 200-800. It's a real problem with the 100-500. Make sure you test all R7 combination setups ahead of time. It's kind of a small envelope IME.
p.1 #12 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
EB-1 wrote:
Of course it is, but that is only meaningful when you are extremely reach limited. If you could take 3 bodies, then add the R7, but I would not take the overall worse camera for IQ and performance instead of one R5/R5 II. I'm not sure how much you have used the R7, but make sure you really use it first. For me it's definitely a 3rd string body after my R5 and R5 II. You will need the fastest SDxC UHS-II write speed cards and even then it buffers out quickly on ES since SD is slower than CFe. 15FPS ES will probably keep it going long enough in short bursts. MS causes shutter shock to the sensor, but I don't know how much with a lens like the 200-800. It's a real problem with the 100-500. Make sure you test all R7 combination setups ahead of time. It's kind of a small envelope IME.
I have never used the R7. But I have used the 7dii (and 7d) a long time ago, together with a 5diii. And achieved some good pictures.
I am intending to bring r5 and mostly use it unless I am reach limited at 800mm. After the discussion above I would also bring the r5ii as backup (R5 is better at cold temperature and very high iso). I have gone on this trip before and missed some really long shots with low mpx (cropped or 7dii) body. So I would use r5 predominantly, r5ii for back up and potentially r7 for extreme distance shots using electronic shutter.
As you point out, the reported shutter shock in mechanical, inferior buffer depth, lessor focus snappiness, less iso performance in poor light, make it a 5% prospect. But better than a 1.4x on r5 cropped even more - and I anticipate using it in Yellowstone for far wolves as well, where the wolves are really far, on my ef600f4ii. Unfortunately I cannot rent it at a reasonable price or buy it at a reasonable price used to try.
p.1 #13 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
gdanmitchell wrote:
I can understand the marginal case for using the smaller format camera for distant subjects, but…
… that addresses are really marginal case where no only would you have to crop the FF image but you’d have to crop it to APS-C size while using your very longest lens. Other than that outlier, you’d rather be using the FF body in all other situations.
So from my perspective, the advantage of the extra body would not be that great.
On the other hand, if you had no backup body for the R5, then an existing APS-C body could serve in that capacity. (I do something like that with my primary Canon system when I bring along my Fujifilm system as a secondary.)...Show more →
Shooting from the Tundra buggy has challenging features like
- up really high for safety
- being limited to very rudimentary road farther than desired
- much movement as others shift position meaning monopod does not work well
- standing on back platform at minus 15c
- limited space for lens/camera and risk that someone will sit on them
meaning
- close in shooting is not ideal (shooting down on bear)
- longer shots are way better composed.
- heavy lens are hard to hold for more than 15mins
- handholding
The r7 would just be there for the extreme long shots.
Ideally, I would bring 600f4 (best iq long with 1.4x) for long, and 200-400 (1.4x) for close. But then I will struggle for overhead space on plane and juggling lens/adapters. But 600f4 is challenging for airplane and tundra buggy. Bodies are smaller, I could take r5, r5ii, and r7. 200-400 and 200-800 is doable. I am still checking plane overhead space.
p.1 #14 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
Max_Pain wrote:
I haven't had the opportunity or pleasure to shoot polar bears, but I do have a R5 and a 200-800 and a 1.4x. It has its limitations, but the combo does let you get shots you otherwise couldn't. I recommend bringing it along.
Thank you for the samples. I really like the 200-800 for situations where I am in my car (it's small enough) and it's not safe to get out (grizzlies).
But while it does deliver good images at 800mm, I don't think I want to push my 200-800 to 1.4x on r5. I would rather try the r7 to avoid the extra distortion and lower shutter speed of the 1.4x.
Your images are good at 1.4x but I don't think you could blow them up to 42x32 (my preferred size). They would be good at smaller print size.
p.1 #15 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
Save your money... Hard pass on R7. You have everything you need for a successful Churchill tour. No benefits from the extra reach really but lots of frustrations
p.1 #16 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
drobertfranz wrote:
Save your money... Hard pass on R7. You have everything you need for a successful Churchill tour. No benefits from the extra reach really but lots of frustrations
p.1 #17 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
Looking at your kit. This would be my suggestions considering weight restrictions on flights
A: R52, R5 RF100-400mm , 600mm F4 + 1.4x
B: R52, R5 EF200-400mm , RF200-800mm
Longer focal length is more important in reducing apparent angle than having subjects too far out. Shooting down at the bears is not a great look. Choosing subjects further away and using the long FL helps reduce that angle. Light can be at a premium at times up there. That's why having F4 lenses is helpful. It's been quite a while since I've been to Churchill bus as I recall I took 600mmF4, 300mmF2.8 & 70-200mmF2.8. Get out of the buggy to photograph. Park yourself on the rear deck. The heat waves pouring out the open windows on the inside of the buggy will ruin your photos. Tough to get sharp images. Unless they turn off the heat in the buggies it will be a huge problem. Other people in the buggy would scream bloody murder if they turned off the heat.......
p.1 #18 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
I did the polar bears in Churchill a decade ago with a Canon 50D and EF 100-400 and never felt reach limited. The bears often came right up to the buggy, and I got a great variety of compositions with that single camera-lens combo. The daylight is good enough and once it starts to get dark it’s really hard to see white bears on white snow. The biggest challenge was exposing correctly and getting the white balance right. You might see a few arctic foxes that challenge you reach at a distance, but some will be close enough for 400 on an R7. You’ll likely be confined to shooting from the buggy, either through an open window or from the platform. Have fun. It’s a great experience.
p.1 #19 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
Max_Pain wrote:
I haven't had the opportunity or pleasure to shoot polar bears, but I do have a R5 and a 200-800 and a 1.4x. It has its limitations, but the combo does let you get shots you otherwise couldn't. I recommend bringing it along.
Did you miss this?
big country wrote:
Daytime in Churchill in mid november can be like dusk.
He will probably be needing to shoot at f2.8 or f4, not f14.
p.1 #20 · Considering R7 for Reach for Polar Bears Mid Nov
If you’re on a Tundra Buggy®, you’re going to be 15 feet or more off the ground. Having a telephoto lens and intentionally shooting wildlife from a slight distance will help to make your images look like you’re on the ground. This will make for more engaging images than if it appears that you’re looking down on the wildlife, eye-to-eye, so to speak. I bring along my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L and rent both Canon’s 300mm and 400mm f/2.8L to get closer with more powerful perspectives.
