Deciding on a new camera, help - Upgrade recommendations from EOS R7

[Ivanteixeira]

Hello. I currently have a canon R7 and I am thinking of changing it for a canon R5 Mark II. Full frame lenses I currently have the 100-500, the 50mm 1,2 and the 24-70 mm 2,8. I shoot street, architectural and wildlife mainly and some portraits. 

Do you feel the R5 will be an upgrade to my photography?

regarfs

[Tronhard]

I shoot predominantly wildlife and I use the Full-frame format in the R-series.  Wildlife covers a fairly wide range -from the innocuous, and placid close-in to the easily spooked and sometimes dangerous that are hard to approach. 

However, while you will lose the 'crop magnification' effect of a crop sensor, you do gain a much greater sensor area and capacity, so you can crop if necessary.   I have shot birds with the R5 and cropped in, and the much lower noise of the FF sensor allows me do get pretty close to what one would get with the R7.

In that context, you may find this post I made to be of interest: where I compared the performance of the R5 in 1.6x  crop mode , using the RF100-500 (rendering about 18MP & FoV 160-800) vs the 20MP R6 with the RF 200-800 .  The differences are very modest.
Is there Much Difference in Quality and FoV? - Page 3 - Canon Community

You will see a benefit at the wide end for street and architecture for sure as you are returning the Field of View back to its native range so your 24-70 will be more effective in those contexts.  While you may have used the 50mm as a portrait lens (on a crop-sensor camera it renders a FoV equivalent to an 80mm lens on the FF), it will return back to its natural 'normal' FoV of 50mm. 

You will also get a far, far better performance from the sensor.  The following is a comparison of Dynamic Range from a site called Photons to Photos, which nerds out on tech stuff:  here they are comparing different sensors' ability to render a DR of 6.5EV (Stops), the R7 has to have an ISO set as low as 2,213, while the setting for the same DR on the R5II is 4,392 - the R5 is even better at 5,435. That's a massive difference and shows the R5II has a significant improvement in performance of the R7.

My point here is unless you need to produce very large, high-resolution prints, you will find the MP size of the resultant images from the R5 in crop mode to be absolutely fine for social media, digital display and prints up to about 11x17" (A3 metric) with minimal difference.  The benefit of this is that you gain the extra wide FoV at the short focal length, but if you choose to switch to 1.6x crop mode you get the 'focal length multiplier' in magnifying your long FL FoV.  Throughout, you will get much, much better dynamic range and, BTW, a stronger, more sealed body and far superior focusing system. 

[JFG]

Hi Ivan,

I myself don't own an EOS R7 camera, however, from what I have read comparing the R5 Mark II with the R7 for wildlife photography, both cameras have their strengths, specially when paired with the RF 100-500mm lens.  Here are some key points to consider:

Canon EOS R5 Mark II

• Resolution:  The R5 Mark II has a 45-megapixel full-frame sensor, which provides higher resolution images.  This is particularly beneficial for wildlife life photography as it allows for more detailed images and greater cropping flexibility without losing quality. 
• Autofocus: The R5 Mark II features advanced autofocus capabilities.  Including Eye Control AF and AI-powered subject detection, which are excellent for tracking fast moving wildlife.
• Low-Light Performance:  The full-frame sensor of the R5 Mark II generally performs better in low-light conditions, which can be crucial for early morning or late evening wildlife shots.

Canon EOS R7

• Crop Factor:  The R7 has an APS-C sensor, which effectively increases the focal length of your lens by 1.6x.  This means that your 100-500 lens will have an effective focal length of 160-800mm, giving you more reach to capture distant subjects.  (This means that with the R5 Mark II your 100-500mm will perform like a 100-500mm lens. When you purchase a 200-800mm lens it will perform like a 200-800mm lens.)
• Speed:  The R7 offers a high burst rate, which is useful for capturing fast action.  However, the R5 Mark II also has a very competitive burst rate.

Conclusion

• For Maximum Image Quality:  The R5 Mark II is the better choice due to its higher resolution and superior low-light performance.
• For Extra Reach:  The R7's crop factor can be an advantage for getting closer to distant wildlife without needing a longer lens.

Ultimately, the best choice depends on your specific needs.  If you prioritize image quality, the R5 Mark II is a fantastic option.  If you need more reach and are happy with the quality of your pictures than stay with the R7.  If you're looking to improve the quality of your photography the choice is clearly the R5 Mark II.  The R7 is still an excellent camera for wildlife photography.

BTW, I do own an R5 Mark II.

My two Indian cents !