Which camera is best for me? Wildlife Photography Recommendations

[bravo6]

So I’m getting into wildlife photography, birds mostly. I’ve been set on the r6ii, but am a little weary of the 24 mp because I’d like to be able to crop and still have great detail. I’m also considering the r7 and the r5 ( although the r5 is definitely pushing it budget wise). My only concern is lowlight performance with it being a crop sensor AND having 30+ mp. Does anyone with an r7 struggle in lowlight situations? It it really worth the $2000 price increase to get the full frame high MP r5 simply for better low light handling? I struggle with my current apsc dslr, and definitely want better low light performance than what I’m currently getting.

[johnrmoyer]

I went from EOS 80D to EOS R5. I wanted the higher resolution so that I might try some landscape as well as bird photography. I only use EF lenses and have not purchased any RF lenses. All of my EF and EF-S lenses work better on my EOS R5 than on the 80D. I often use the EOS R5 in crop mode and in crop mode it has only a few pixels less than my 80D and it seems to me more likely to find the eye of a far away bird in crop mode.

I guess that either R5 or R7 would work for you.

Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) at Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma, United States on September 6, 2023, does not usually come this far north, EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM +2x III, about 75 meters away, hazy skies, low light

[Tronhard]

Hi and welcome to the forum:

I shoot wildlife, and right now mostly birds, so I hope I can be of assistance.  There are some questions I hope you will consider, as they are critical to you getting the right gear.

1. What IS your budget, and does that include allowance for lenses?

2. What lenses do you have now - please be precise here as there are often several different versions of a lens focal range.

3. What are you going to produce?  Are you looking to create for social media, viewing on digital displays, small-medium prints, or very large prints (i.e. bigger than 11"x19") with fine detail.  As you go along that list the demands get more expensive.

4. What kinds of birds and how far away are you likely to be from the wildlife you are photographing?

I have done a fair bit of testing on different cameras for my purposes, which are to produce images mostly for digital display on large screens.  However, I have also produced images with a 15MP camera that look absolutely fine an a 4ftx 3ft print.  People normally look at an image from a comfortable distance - so for an 8"x10" print, that might be at arms length, but the average viewer is unlikely to view a very large image from the same distance.  Pixel peeping is generally only done by photographers, and that's mostly a hangover from the days of painting when artists would scrutinize images closely to understand brush technique - which is not so relevant with a digital device that generates pixels or printed DPI. 

All that said, and considering your concern about low light, I have a couple of observations.  Modern Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras (MILCs) have far better low light performance than previous generations.  However, you can still make an image noisy by under-exposing a shot.   I investigated the low light performance of several R-series bodies: specifically the R5 (45MP FF), R6 (20MP FF), R6II (24MP FF) and R7(32MP APS-C).  In order of ranking for low light, this is how they ended up: R6II, R6, R5 and R7.  Basically, apart from the R6II (which is the newest) the ranking follows sensor size in reverse, or to put it more accurately, photosite density.  Photo-sites are the tiny tubes into which light is captured and sent to the light sensor for recording.  The smaller they are the less efficient each one will be.  While the R7 has only 32MP compared to the R5, it's low-light performance suffers because it is a much smaller (APS-C) sensor, so in converting the density to that of a full-frame (FF) sensor, it would be lik a FF 83MP sensor!  So, for me, logic would suggest one go with one of the FF sensors.  However, as Rick said, the R7 is popular as a wildlife camera because it offers a Field of View (FoV) 'boost' to any telephoto lens.  To understand this, I suggest you read the following article I wrote discussing the implications of crop-sensor cameras. Equivalence.pdf

But the sensor does not work alone.  Arguably, the lens has a bigger impact on the quality of the image than the camera, and your investment in glass will last much, much longer than that of the body - as the latter change relatively rapidly. In fact, one can very easily invest as much, if not  more money on a lens than the camera body. This is where the question of what you shoot comes in.  You don't want to get up close and personal with a grizzly, and a bird may not let you get very close either, so you want long telephoto lenses. 

Right now, the best in class of the RF-series native lenses would be the RF 100-500L, but that is expensive.  A good, and cheaper alternative is the RF 100-400 IS USM. Both of these Canon lenses have Opical Image Stabilization (OIS) that works in combination with the R-series In Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) to really help with avoiding camera movement at low shutter speeds or in low light situations.  If you want more reach, then lenses like the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary are excellent (as is apparently the Tamron equivalent), or one of the Canon legacy EF lenses like the EF 100-400MkII L - however, all of these require an EF-RF lens mount adapter and the lens stabilization does not work with the IBIS - so it's a balancing act. That said, I have never found an issue with using legacy lenses via the Canon adapters.  I get absolutely fine results with all of these lenses (except the Tamron that I have not used) and at distance the 20MP and 24MP sensors of the R6 models work fine and can still tolerate some cropping.  

Then we come to the desire for detail, and that is why I ask what you are shooting and what you will produce.  For large, detailed landscape images I would want the R5 for it's FF and high MP size.  However, for wildlife, and producing mostly for digital output or prints up to about 11"x19" either of the R6 units will work fine and offer the best low light capability.  Right now the R6II is, IMHO, the best balance of cost, MP size and low light performance, and is certainly much cheaper than the R5.  (I note that R5's are on sale right now, and I suspect that a possible new version early in 2024 may drop that price further, if you can wait).

There is no perfect solution when one is balancing budget, optics, sensors in the context of different subjects but I hope this will give you some food for thought.

FWIW, I have taken a series of images with my R5, R6 and R6II bodies to investigate their performance, perhaps reviewing those may be of assistance to gauge what these bodies and lens combinations do:
Sigma 60-600 with EOS R6MkII - Canon Community
A Quick Try with the Sigma 60-600 Sports and the C... - Canon Community
Thinking Small with a Big Lens: - Canon Community
Spot On Focus with the R5 - Canon Community
Legacy Lenses with the Canon EOS R5 - 1: EF 70-300... - Canon Community
The New EOS R6 MkII is a BEAST! - Canon Community
A Day at the Zoo with the RF 100-500 - Canon Community
Testing the Sigma 150-600 with the Canon EOS R5. - Canon Community
Farewell to the Sigma 150-600c on a trip to the zo... - Canon Community
I LOVE the R5 with the RF 100-500 - Canon Community - example of heavy cropping
Tiritiri Island Open Scientific Sanctuary - Canon Community Specifically, birds in the wild.
Zoo Images - Canon Community
Legacy Lenses with the EOS R6 MkI: EF 100-400L MkI... - Canon Community

These are only my images, and there are many others from great photographers posted in the General Discussion, Share Your Photos section, for example the following post of images from Florida Drafter: The Moon and Jupiter. - Canon Community

[Outlander]

Thanks Tronhard for your excellent article. Could you please expand on "the lens stabilization does not work with the IBIS ". What are the implications?

I just purchased a Sigma 150-600 for wildlife and quick action. I currently have an old beginner's EOS T3i and it appears what I want to have is an R7 according what the canon site recommends. Will a R7 be a justifiable improvement? 

Your equivalence.pdf is not accessible but please confirm if what I found is correct: another good candidate appears to be a R6II but if I understand correctly a full frame has a crop factor of 1.6x which means that my 600 will effectively become 375mm. 

thanks

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

This thread appears to be fake as the OP has put spam links in the message body of their post.  

The thread is also a few years old.  Crop occurs with APS-C sensors, not the other way around. 

Your 150-600 is intended for full frame. Its focal length and FOV does not become less on a camera with a full frame sensor.  

For reference:

If you put the lens on a DSLR with a APS-C sensor, the FOV will be equivalent to 240mm - 960mm.     

On a DSLR or mirrorless body with a full frame sensor 150-600mm.

Mirrorless body's with a full frame sensor can be put into crop mode.  This will in turn lower the capture resolution of your images.  This is not typically ideal or desirable.

R5 45MP, in crop mode 17MP

R6 mkII 24MP, in crop mode 9.3MP

The R7 has an APS-C sensor, so you will capture at 33MP.  Your full frame lens will project a full image circle to the smaller (APS-C) sensor.  You equivalent FOV will be 240-960mm.  You just have the crop factor (basically) backwards.

Will the R7 perform better that a T3i?  Yes, there is an 11 year difference in age.

Here is a side by side:

Canon R7 vs Canon 600D (T3i) Detailed Comparison 

[Outlander]

Thanks a lot Rick for your quick response and I apologize for my ignorance. 

I feel I need to describe the way I am looking at this issue: My reference point is my current camera (T3i) and main lens (Canon  EF-S 55-250 1.4-5.6 IS II). I bought the Sigma 150-600 because I could not get from distance, the "lion's face" of the size and detail I wanted.

The sensors of the T3i and R7 appear to be of same size +- . So (asides of the higher resolution of the new cameras), is the following correct?:  by using the same lens and zoon level in the R7  the resultant picture will show the "lion's face" of ~same size as with the T3i and by doing the same with the R6II the lion's face will show 1.6x smaller? 

And the previous question: will the image stabilization of my EF-s lenses  keep working with the EF-S to R adaptor with say the R7? 

thanks once again