I currently use the R1 and R5 Mark II, along with the RF 100-500mm, and my RF 100-300mm f/2.8 is due to arrive tomorrow.
I shoot a lot of wildlife in Africa, so reach is always important. However, as I travel from the UK and I'm now in my 70s, the weight of my kit is a significant consideration, especially on long-haul flights.
I'm wondering whether adding an R7 could be a worthwhile way of extending the effective reach of these lenses. The obvious advantage is the 1.6× crop factor, giving greater subject magnification without the light loss that comes with using 1.4× or 2× extenders. On the other hand, there's the smaller APS-C sensor and its reduced low-light performance.
My understanding is that, for distant subjects, the R7 would also give me more pixels on the subject than using the R1 or R5 Mark II and cropping the image, whereas extenders cost either one or two stops of light.
I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who has real-world experience of using an R7 alongside Canon's full-frame bodies in this way. Do you find the R7 a better solution than using extenders, or would you stick with the full-frame bodies and teleconverters?
My images are purely for personal enjoyment rather than publication, but image quality is still very important to me.
IMO for Wild live, an APS-C is always a favorable companion to FF for the additional reach without a TC, however a 1.4 TC is generally worth having along in addition and they generally work well if there's "good" light.
Too bad the R72 has been delayed though.
I have an R7 and R5 Mark I and use both frequently. After a couple of years of using mostly the R7 for wildlife "reach" I went back to using my R5 a lot because the R7 will drive you mad with it's flakey autofocus and the fact that it's sensor gets noisy fast, so low light is a challenge at times.
I also have the 100-500 with the R7 and at the long end is when it has all the problems that I listed above. I personally have better images and autofocus with my R5 and use that with my 400mm DO II f4 with the EF x1.4 and RF x2.0 (via a modified Commlite adapter) teleconverters. This also allows me, in good light, to stack them without losing infinity for 1120mm.
Finally, the R7 will perform the best on your brightest lens. If I put it on my 400mm bare, it performs much better than the 100-500mm at 500mm even with the newer autofocus motor driving the RF glass.
Fordsabroad wrote:
I currently use the R1 and R5 Mark II, along with the RF 100-500mm, and my RF 100-300mm f/2.8 is due to arrive tomorrow.
I shoot a lot of wildlife in Africa, so reach is always important. However, as I travel from the UK and I'm now in my 70s, the weight of my kit is a significant consideration, especially on long-haul flights.
I'm wondering whether adding an R7 could be a worthwhile way of extending the effective reach of these lenses. The obvious advantage is the 1.6× crop factor, giving greater subject magnification without the light loss that comes with using 1.4× or 2× extenders. On the other hand, there's the smaller APS-C sensor and its reduced low-light performance.
My understanding is that, for distant subjects, the R7 would also give me more pixels on the subject than using the R1 or R5 Mark II and cropping the image, whereas extenders cost either one or two stops of light.
I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who has real-world experience of using an R7 alongside Canon's full-frame bodies in this way. Do you find the R7 a better solution than using extenders, or would you stick with the full-frame bodies and teleconverters?
My images are purely for personal enjoyment rather than publication, but image quality is still very important to me....Show more →
Are you a birder? If not, where in Africa do you need so much reach and for what type of animals? You have nice gear so I’m assuming you have money to go to the conservancies. I’ve never felt the need to bring my 600 to Africa. Just curious.
Jun 30, 2026 at 09:38 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I have both the R7 and the R5 II, and in general I prefer to use the R5 II and an extender to the R7.
Let's start with the geeky stuff. Let's first talk pixels. If you take the R5 II and add the 1.4X TC you of course get a file with 45 MP, now if you crop that image 1.14X it will match field of view of the lens on the R7 (e.g., a 500mm lens will have the reach of an 800mm lens - you can multiply 500 x 1.6 and get 800 or 500 X 1.4 X 1.14 and get 800). How many pixels will be left in the R5 II image if you do this 1.14X crop? You will have 34.4 MP, just slightly more than the 32.5 MP with the R7. That is so close it is really a wash, but the R7 doesn't have an advantage when you do this comparison.
Next let's talk light. The total amount of light hitting the sensor is the brightness of the light, multiplied by the length of time it hits the sensor, multiplied by the area that is being illuminated. For photography we can translate that to aperture, shutter speed, and size of the sensor. It is not true that more light is hitting the sensor when you use the R7 even if you shoot it at a stop faster aperture. Because the FF sensor is bigger even if you use the 1.4X TC, which does make result in light loss and a smaller aperture, you can offset this light loss by turning up the ISO a stop and get the same shutter speed (depth of field will be the same too). So, when you use the FF camera you can just turn the ISO up a stop and use the 1.4X TC and the noise will be about the same because the FF sensor has about a stop less noise. So, light is pretty much a wash too. Just when you add the 1.4X TC know you will have to turn the ISO up a stop, or let the camera do it with Auto ISO.
That leaves us with AF. Now it is true that the TC can affect the AF and slow it down, but there is a pretty big difference between the R5 II and R7 in AF capability. After using both quite a bit, I don't think it is even close the R5 II with a TC has quite a bit better AF than the R7 and that is especially true with high frame rate shooting where the R5 II let's you use the electronic shutter without worries of motion distortion. The R7 really can only use the electronic shutter for still or almost still targets.
So either camera can work, but for me and my shooting I have found that the megapixels are mostly a wash (but a very small advantage in favor of the R5 II if you do an additional 1.14X crop), the light gathering is totally a wash (just turn up the ISO a stop on the R5 II), but the much better AF of the R5 II makes it the camera I always reach for when I want to shoot wildlife or really anything with even moderately fast action.
I think this would be a more interesting question if Canon had an APS-C camera that was as capable (in terms of autofocus and shutter readout speed) as its more premium full frame bodies. Unfortunately, that camera does not yet exist.
Given that, you will get many more keepers when shooting anything that moves with something like an R5 II + extender, even if you will have somewhat less resolution.
The R7 is still a good camera and has its place, but it's hard to argue that it does not have its drawbacks for wildlife shooting when compared to Canon's 5-series full frame cameras.
I suspect much of the forementioned anomalies fore mentioned in the R7 will be eliminated in the Mark-2 so in the meantime likely best to stick with the R5-2, and a 1.4TC.
artsupreme wrote:
Are you a birder? If not, where in Africa do you need so much reach and for what type of animals? You have nice gear so I’m assuming you have money to go to the conservancies. I’ve never felt the need to bring my 600 to Africa. Just curious.
To say I am a birder would be a bit of a stretch. I like photographing large birds but am fairly indifferent to perched birds. Having said that i enjoy the challenge of getting the best from any subject. I visit Botswana often and take advantage of the Pangolin special off season rates. I have also been to Zimanga a couple of times and am returning there in September. Next month I am in Eastern Finland to photograph bears. As for the money- no not lots but also no wife to share it with!! (Widowed).
Last year I went to India for tigers and long lenses were a boon there. I also went to the night hides is Shompole (Kenya). Where shorter fast lenses were king.
This last statement is i little tongue in cheek but I am from the UK and I would rather have good kit than let my money grabbing government strip me of all I've worked hard for!!!
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have both the R7 and the R5 II, and in general I prefer to use the R5 II and an extender to the R7.
Let's start with the geeky stuff. Let's first talk pixels. If you take the R5 II and add the 1.4X TC you of course get a file with 45 MP, now if you crop that image 1.14X it will match field of view of the lens on the R7 (e.g., a 500mm lens will have the reach of an 800mm lens - you can multiply 500 x 1.6 and get 800 or 500 X 1.4 X 1.14 and get 800). How many pixels will be left in the R5 II image if you do this 1.14X crop? You will have 34.4 MP, just slightly more than the 32.5 MP with the R7. That is so close it is really a wash, but the R7 doesn't have an advantage when you do this comparison.
Next let's talk light. The total amount of light hitting the sensor is the brightness of the light, multiplied by the length of time it hits the sensor, multiplied by the area that is being illuminated. For photography we can translate that to aperture, shutter speed, and size of the sensor. It is not true that more light is hitting the sensor when you use the R7 even if you shoot it at a stop faster aperture. Because the FF sensor is bigger even if you use the 1.4X TC, which does make result in light loss and a smaller aperture, you can offset this light loss by turning up the ISO a stop and get the same shutter speed (depth of field will be the same too). So, when you use the FF camera you can just turn the ISO up a stop and use the 1.4X TC and the noise will be about the same because the FF sensor has about a stop less noise. So, light is pretty much a wash too. Just when you add the 1.4X TC know you will have to turn the ISO up a stop, or let the camera do it with Auto ISO.
That leaves us with AF. Now it is true that the TC can affect the AF and slow it down, but there is a pretty big difference between the R5 II and R7 in AF capability. After using both quite a bit, I don't think it is even close the R5 II with a TC has quite a bit better AF than the R7 and that is especially true with high frame rate shooting where the R5 II let's you use the electronic shutter without worries of motion distortion. The R7 really can only use the electronic shutter for still or almost still targets.
So either camera can work, but for me and my shooting I have found that the megapixels are mostly a wash (but a very small advantage in favor of the R5 II if you do an additional 1.14X crop), the light gathering is totally a wash (just turn up the ISO a stop on the R5 II), but the much better AF of the R5 II makes it the camera I always reach for when I want to shoot wildlife or really anything with even moderately fast action....Show more →
Thank you for that detailed answer - just what I was after and has saved me the cost of an R7!
Fordsabroad wrote:
I currently use the R1 and R5 Mark II, along with the RF 100-500mm, and my RF 100-300mm f/2.8 is due to arrive tomorrow.
I shoot a lot of wildlife in Africa, so reach is always important. However, as I travel from the UK and I'm now in my 70s, the weight of my kit is a significant consideration, especially on long-haul flights.
I'm wondering whether adding an R7 could be a worthwhile way of extending the effective reach of these lenses. The obvious advantage is the 1.6× crop factor, giving greater subject magnification without the light loss that comes with using 1.4× or 2× extenders. On the other hand, there's the smaller APS-C sensor and its reduced low-light performance.
My understanding is that, for distant subjects, the R7 would also give me more pixels on the subject than using the R1 or R5 Mark II and cropping the image, whereas extenders cost either one or two stops of light.
I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who has real-world experience of using an R7 alongside Canon's full-frame bodies in this way. Do you find the R7 a better solution than using extenders, or would you stick with the full-frame bodies and teleconverters?
My images are purely for personal enjoyment rather than publication, but image quality is still very important to me....Show more →
I've used both R5 with a 1.4x and R7 without TC on the 100-500s side by side.
I don't like either option much, but R7 could be bit better if you don't need the AF and can live within the small box of mechanical shutter shock and ES motion blur. If Canon had a better cropper it would be an easier call.
The R7 with 100-300/2.8 + 1.4x might work better, but I have no experience. The R7 is desparately in need of a replacement. maybe rent one and see for yourself?
The last 15 times I was in Africa I used a 100-400 or 100-500 and 500/4 prime. I guess the 100-300 is smaller, but not really light either.
