Canon confirms that the EOS R5 is the 5D series equivalent for mirrorless

MORphoto.net

EOS R, EOS R
Feb 29, 2020
11
12
Portland, OR, USA
morphoto.net
Earlier this spring, before the coronavirus apocalypse, I was shooting portraits of softball players. They all wanted pictures where they threw the ball up into the air and stood looking at the camera with the ball in mid air. I was trying to shoot with the R and no matter what I did the viewfinder never matched up with the shutter/flash. There was always a lag and I had to just guess and pray. A few days later, I tried it with the 5D4. No problem. That's when it really became apparent to me. Example attached. I did it, but it took many more tries and as I say, I just had to guess and not rely on the viewfinder.
I actually get a tiny bit of lag on the shutter button fairly often. I can see that messing up the timing for something like this as well. I'd bet the R5 has this worked out... hopefully. It's never been a problem for what I shoot, but it is noticeable.

View attachment 189411View attachment 189411
 
Feb 15, 2020
29
18
What were the autofocus issues you had on the 5D mk4? I have had my 5D mk4 for nearly 3 years now and I have not had any problems with the autofocus.
Recently I was on a training course and one of the other photographers made the same comment. He gave that as his main reason for switching to an EOS R. He is very pleased with it, but when we compared the results on his EOS R with 24-105 F and my 5D mk4 with 85mm F1.4L there was little to choose between them. In both cases the focussing was sharp and accurate. To be perfectly honest I would be happy to use either of these cameras.
I had an EF 35mm 1.4L ii that refused to AF accurately on the 5D Mark IV. Canon ended up replacing the lens for me after it was sent in for calibration about 4 or 5 times. The second copy of the lens had the same issues and in the end they gave me a refund for the lens. Hit rate with the 35mm was about 50-60% even when using the centre focus point.

My EF 85mm f1.4L IS was a bit better with a 70-80% hit rate using the centre focus point, but I was still unhappy with the performance overall. No matter what lens or focus point I used i would be lucky to get 80% of photos in focus. This despite multiple trips to Canon for calibration.

As soon as I got the R the difference in Autofocus accuracy was night and day! Especially comparing EF 50mm f1.4 vs RF 50mm f1.2. The EF 50mm was the worst performing in terms of AF on the 5D IV
 
  • Like
Reactions: Normalnorm and sanj

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
543
377
I had an EF 35mm 1.4L ii that refused to AF accurately on the 5D Mark IV. Canon ended up replacing the lens for me after it was sent in for calibration about 4 or 5 times. The second copy of the lens had the same issues and in the end they gave me a refund for the lens. Hit rate with the 35mm was about 50-60% even when using the centre focus point.

My EF 85mm f1.4L IS was a bit better with a 70-80% hit rate using the centre focus point, but I was still unhappy with the performance overall. No matter what lens or focus point I used i would be lucky to get 80% of photos in focus. This despite multiple trips to Canon for calibration.

As soon as I got the R the difference in Autofocus accuracy was night and day! Especially comparing EF 50mm f1.4 vs RF 50mm f1.2. The EF 50mm was the worst performing in terms of AF on the 5D IV
It would be interesting to see if the EF lenses perform better on your R than they did with your 5D IV. (Assuming you have the adapter.) Then you'd know where the blame lies.

You're comparing an EF camera and lenses to an RF camera and lenses here, and you apparently blame the 5D IV for the problems, even though that's not the only difference between the two setups. Most notably your EF 50mm isn't an L, but your RF 50mm is.
 
Feb 15, 2020
29
18
It would be interesting to see if the EF lenses perform better on your R than they did with your 5D IV. (Assuming you have the adapter.) Then you'd know where the blame lies.

You're comparing an EF camera and lenses to an RF camera and lenses here, and you apparently blame the 5D IV for the problems, even though that's not the only difference between the two setups. Most notably your EF 50mm isn't an L, but your RF 50mm is.
Oh no I totally understand that it's not fair to compare the EF to the RF in that way... just saying it was a bad combination for AF.

I tested the 85mm f1.4L IS with an adapter on the EOS R and the autofocus was much improved when using the R. Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

sulla

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2012
296
59
Austria
www.flickr.com
Two killer features for me, zero viewfinder lag and realistic representation of what I can see.
SLR cameras also have viewfinder lag: The time it takes for the mirror to flip up. On modern cameras that's in the order of 20-30 milliseconds.
While it might well be that the R is slower than that, I see no reason why fast EVFs shouldn't beat those 20ms easily and why the R5 should be worse than the 5D4.
 

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
789
155
SLR cameras also have viewfinder lag: The time it takes for the mirror to flip up. On modern cameras that's in the order of 20-30 milliseconds.
While it might well be that the R is slower than that, I see no reason why fast EVFs shouldn't beat those 20ms easily and why the R5 should be worse than the 5D4.
Unless I'm mistaken, you're talking about shutter lag, rather than viewfinder lag. The viewfinder lag should be down to the speed of light, so it should be minimal!
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

sulla

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2012
296
59
Austria
www.flickr.com
Unless I'm mistaken, you're talking about shutter lag, rather than viewfinder lag. The viewfinder lag should be down to the speed of light, so it should be minimal!
yes, indeed. But one of the problems pointed out was that it was harder with the R to capture what you see.
That ability is mainly limited by "how live" the image is plus how fast the image is captured when you press the shutter.
An SLR is perfect in the first aspect, but not soooo good in the second.
An EVF-camera might be worse in terms of "live-ness" but better in terms of responsiveness, so it might be worse or better overall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

Ian_of_glos

EOS RP
Jun 12, 2012
259
48
England
I had an EF 35mm 1.4L ii that refused to AF accurately on the 5D Mark IV. Canon ended up replacing the lens for me after it was sent in for calibration about 4 or 5 times. The second copy of the lens had the same issues and in the end they gave me a refund for the lens. Hit rate with the 35mm was about 50-60% even when using the centre focus point.

My EF 85mm f1.4L IS was a bit better with a 70-80% hit rate using the centre focus point, but I was still unhappy with the performance overall. No matter what lens or focus point I used i would be lucky to get 80% of photos in focus. This despite multiple trips to Canon for calibration.

As soon as I got the R the difference in Autofocus accuracy was night and day! Especially comparing EF 50mm f1.4 vs RF 50mm f1.2. The EF 50mm was the worst performing in terms of AF on the 5D IV
That really surprises me. My copies of the Canon 35mm F1.4L ii and the 85mm F1.4L are the two best lenses I own. They both focus quickly and accurately on my 5D mark 4 so I cannot understand why you have had so many problems. On my camera all the shots taken with these lenses are in focus, regardless of whether I use the centre AF point or one of the peripheral AF points so I can assure you that it is possible to achieve very reliable autofocus on a 5D mk4.
As you can achieve reliable focus on your EOS R then it is unlikely that there is something wrong with your technique so the only thing I can suggest is that there might have been a fault with your 5D mk4. However, that is probably irrelevant now and I pleased that you have been having more success with your EOS R.

Incidentally, the 50mm F1.2L is not one of Canon's best lenses and I had to return the first two copies I bought before I found one that focusses reliably.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,223
1,580
119
SLR cameras also have viewfinder lag: The time it takes for the mirror to flip up. On modern cameras that's in the order of 20-30 milliseconds.
While it might well be that the R is slower than that, I see no reason why fast EVFs shouldn't beat those 20ms easily and why the R5 should be worse than the 5D4.
No DSLR's have viewfinder blackout, but not viewfinder lag. Canon MILC's are famous for having both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

Nelu

5D Mark IV, 1Dx, EOS R
so what can you mirrorless do that cameras like the 1DX III can’t do?
Well, let’s see:
  1. No micro AF adjustment needed.
  2. Superb manual focusing with focus peaking
  3. Image playback in the viewfinder, absolutely great to check the focus at 1:1 zoom
  4. Way better handling for shooting videos, using the EVF, not the back LCD
  5. Silent shutter (?)
Of course, there might be more but these are really important for me.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,223
1,580
119
Well, let’s see:
  1. No micro AF adjustment needed.
  2. Superb manual focusing with focus peaking
  3. Image playback in the viewfinder, absolutely great to check the focus at 1:1 zoom
  4. Way better handling for shooting videos, using the EVF, not the back LCD
  5. Silent shutter (?)
Of course, there might be more but these are really important for me.
1: And yet a lot of MILC’s have AF adjustment.....
2: I have found focus peaking too inaccurate to be mission critical.
3: I haven’t found the EVF high enough quality to judge critical focus.
4: Anytime I am contemplating serious video I’d go monitor route for the video essentials like waveforms, etc.
5: New DSLR’s have silent shutters.

To be sure there are benefits of both types of camera, and they both have a place. But this almost cult like enthusiasm for MILC’s seems to sound to me more like excuses to buy new toys (for which we need no reason) rather than considered comparison. I own DSLR”S and MILC’s, there are times and occasions either works best in a particular scenario, but fo the vast majority of the time the difference comes down to my mood, not the functionality differences such that they are.
 

AEWest

EOS 80D
Jan 30, 2020
107
113
1: And yet a lot of MILC’s have AF adjustment.....
2: I have found focus peaking too inaccurate to be mission critical.
3: I haven’t found the EVF high enough quality to judge critical focus.
4: Anytime I am contemplating serious video I’d go monitor route for the video essentials like waveforms, etc.
5: New DSLR’s have silent shutters.

To be sure there are benefits of both types of camera, and they both have a place. But this almost cult like enthusiasm for MILC’s seems to sound to me more like excuses to buy new toys (for which we need no reason) rather than considered comparison. I own DSLR”S and MILC’s, there are times and occasions either works best in a particular scenario, but fo the vast majority of the time the difference comes down to my mood, not the functionality differences such that they are.
Sure there are some that just want the latest and greatest. To each his own. For me it is a matter of future proofing my investment as much as possible - and DSLRs won't help me do that.
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,360
2,086
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...For me it is a matter of future proofing my investment as much as possible - and DSLRs won't help me do that.
I don't understand this. Not being critical, but I honestly don't understand what people think they are future-proofing against. Every EF lens you own is going to continue to work with every R series camera, either for the rest of your life or the life of the lens. Today, most camera bodies have limited lifespans. I doubt if I will ever see a body that lasts as long as my F1 did (35 years). It's just the nature of electronics and technology that bodies today either fail or go out of date a lot sooner than film bodies used to. So, I don't see buying any camera body as a decades long investment that offers future-proofing.

How does anyone know if the R and RF series will be viable a decade from now? With the amazing things that are happening with technology who knows where things will stand in a few years.

To me, this confidence that people are future-proofing their investment sounds pretty risky. It's a little bit like someone dumping all their DVDs for Blue-Ray disks five years ago. You never know what's just around the corner.
 

AEWest

EOS 80D
Jan 30, 2020
107
113
I don't understand this. Not being critical, but I honestly don't understand what people think they are future-proofing against. Every EF lens you own is going to continue to work with every R series camera, either for the rest of your life or the life of the lens. Today, most camera bodies have limited lifespans. I doubt if I will ever see a body that lasts as long as my F1 did (35 years). It's just the nature of electronics and technology that bodies today either fail or go out of date a lot sooner than film bodies used to. So, I don't see buying any camera body as a decades long investment that offers future-proofing.

How does anyone know if the R and RF series will be viable a decade from now? With the amazing things that are happening with technology who knows where things will stand in a few years.

To me, this confidence that people are future-proofing their investment sounds pretty risky. It's a little bit like someone dumping all their DVDs for Blue-Ray disks five years ago. You never know what's just around the corner.
True, none of us has a perfect crystal ball - or I would have sold off my stock holdings months ago ;) - but we do our best.

I see no future development in the EF mount but lots of new higher quality offerings in RF. The EF line lasted over thirty years and is being phased out for the next generation line of lenses just as the FD line was phased out in favour of EF.

Technology marches on. Given Canon's history I can't imagine the RF line being phased out in less than twenty years - they are investing millions to switch over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
594
206
It would be interesting to see if the EF lenses perform better on your R than they did with your 5D IV. (Assuming you have the adapter.) Then you'd know where the blame lies.

You're comparing an EF camera and lenses to an RF camera and lenses here, and you apparently blame the 5D IV for the problems, even though that's not the only difference between the two setups. Most notably your EF 50mm isn't an L, but your RF 50mm is.
I have used my 70-200 f2.8 L IS on my mk4 and R. The R wins hands down. Not only is focus more accurate in almost every situation but the fact I can place the AF point anywhere I want without re-composing is brilliant.
It was almost like buying a new lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
594
206
1: And yet a lot of MILC’s have AF adjustment.....
2: I have found focus peaking too inaccurate to be mission critical.
3: I haven’t found the EVF high enough quality to judge critical focus.
4: Anytime I am contemplating serious video I’d go monitor route for the video essentials like waveforms, etc.
5: New DSLR’s have silent shutters.

To be sure there are benefits of both types of camera, and they both have a place. But this almost cult like enthusiasm for MILC’s seems to sound to me more like excuses to buy new toys (for which we need no reason) rather than considered comparison. I own DSLR”S and MILC’s, there are times and occasions either works best in a particular scenario, but fo the vast majority of the time the difference comes down to my mood, not the functionality differences such that they are.
1. Sony has AF adjustment to accommodate their mirrored adapters.
2. Agreed
3.Agreed but then that is what Live View is for.
4. Can't comment, don't use video
5. My mk4 certainly is not quiet ever in any mode.

I have to say my DSLRs perform better in bright sun and in action environments.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,223
1,580
119
Sure there are some that just want the latest and greatest. To each his own. For me it is a matter of future proofing my investment as much as possible - and DSLRs won't help me do that.
I’m not dismissing your personal purchasing thoughts, but cameras and lenses are not investments, they are tools or toys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
2,122
222
1: And yet a lot of MILC’s have AF adjustment.....
2: I have found focus peaking too inaccurate to be mission critical.
3: I haven’t found the EVF high enough quality to judge critical focus.
4: Anytime I am contemplating serious video I’d go monitor route for the video essentials like waveforms, etc.
5: New DSLR’s have silent shutters.

To be sure there are benefits of both types of camera, and they both have a place. But this almost cult like enthusiasm for MILC’s seems to sound to me more like excuses to buy new toys (for which we need no reason) rather than considered comparison. I own DSLR”S and MILC’s, there are times and occasions either works best in a particular scenario, but fo the vast majority of the time the difference comes down to my mood, not the functionality differences such that they are.

I myself am becoming more and more a fan of view cameras for focus and seeing depth of field, etc....





:p

Just for a chuckle....

cayenne
 
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

Valvebounce

EOS 5D SR
Apr 3, 2013
4,328
244
53
Isle of Wight
Hi AEWest.
I don’t think saying the FD lens was phased out is quite fair, they were dropped like a hot rock! A mistake that Canon seems to have decided not to make twice!
The FD did not fit EF mounts without an adaptor that either removed infinity focus or added a lens that reduced optical quality, the EF lens will fit the RF with a fully functional adaptor no quality loss no function loss, and both systems are running concurrently with new releases of each, for how long is anyone’s guess, but its 18 months so far.

Cheers, Graham.

True, none of us has a perfect crystal ball - or I would have sold off my stock holdings months ago ;) - but we do our best.

I see no future development in the EF mount but lots of new higher quality offerings in RF. The EF line lasted over thirty years and is being phased out for the next generation line of lenses just as the FD line was phased out in favour of EF.

Technology marches on. Given Canon's history I can't imagine the RF line being phased out in less than twenty years - they are investing millions to switch over.