Canon EOS R not good for action photography

[Nelu]

...at least that's what I keep on hearing some folks complaining, here and there.
I'm sorry, I didn't know that, so I made a huge mistake: I use it for birds in flight and also sports photography.
Here is a burst of six shots I took today, late afternoon, at a skatepark. I don't know what to say but I believe wedding guests might be a bit slower than these kids, don't you think?

What can be challenging though is keeping the subject in the frame; EVF's suck at this, maybe except for the Sony A9.
The EOS R's AF is very accurate and fast and the 5 fps is acceptable. Of course, faster would be better but I'll take accuracy over speed anytime of the day.
Anyhow, shooting sports with this camera is a piece of cake, compared to BIF, no doubt about that. People are big, slow(ish) and predictable so there's no problem for EOS R's AF.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If the camera doesn't need to follow a erratically moving subject, its fine. My issue is keeping the viewfinder on a erratically moving subject because it freezes after a shot, and the subject may need to be found again in the viewfinder. It the images above, it does not appear that there was that type of movement, just straight at the camera.

 

[Nelu]

If the camera doesn't need to follow a erratically moving subject, its fine. My issue is keeping the viewfinder on a erratically moving subject because it freezes after a shot, and the subject may need to be found again in the viewfinder. It the images above, it does not appear that there was that type of movement, just straight at the camera.

And that’s exactly what I said: wedding photography, sports photography, no problem at all.
BIF, that’s a different story. I agree, keeping the subject in the frame is difficult for small birds, especially when landing or taking off.
I had no issues though with larger birds, like gees, ducks, seagulls, etc.
That’s why I find the OVF superior to any EVF. Again, this is not just for the EOS R but for almost any mirrorless camera.

 

[YuengLinger]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you've posted a set of images which proves the R's EVF causes a problem properly framing a subject in motion. The first four in the sequence are framed well. And they should be. I'm guessing that you knew where your subject would be going airborne, and you timed your shots accordingly.

But in the fifth shot, I see something that is all to familiar to me after close to two months of using the R. You have, apparently, lost track of the subject, and you are guessing how fast and where the subject is coming down to the surface. One foot has left the frame in this shot, and in the sixth shot, the whole riding-platform part of the scooter is out of the frame. There is plenty of headroom within the frame to have composed properly. So, as I said, this sequence appears to show exactly the problem I have with the R.

I cannot agree with your assertion that, for "wedding photography, sports photography, no problem at all." Not if the wedding includes dynamic, emotional gestures and interactions (before and after a typical procession and ceremony), or a reception with dancing.* Sports? Only if the subject is so small within the frame as to make composition irrelevant, in my opinion.

You did the honest and right thing with this sequence--you included those last two shots. Without them, your case would be stronger, but you would, in fact, have misled readers here. Thank you. And you got very good lighting!

The AF does track a subject well, but I believe the R needs much looser framing than a dSLR with moving subjects. Compared to a dSLR, and all other factors being the same, the subject needs to be smaller in the frame to give the photographer some wiggle room. This is because the EVF lags slightly behind what is happening, so a subject can zig when we guess it is going to zag, and there goes the framing. If you say I should just zoom out a little or step back farther, you are asking me to make a compromise that I don't need to make with a dSLR. That's a workaround, and if somebody must get their action shots with an EOS R, certainly there are ways to get some good shots, even some great shots. But that doesn't make it our best choice when there are much better options available.

The EOS R is a wonderful camera--for what it does. I think it takes amazing portraits, landscapes, and still-lifes, and it works well with subjects that are being directed, or moving in otherwise predictable ways. The new Rf primes are superb. I'm glad I have it!

*And I don't mean these kind of scenarios!

 

[AlanF]

...at least that's what I keep on hearing some folks complaining, here and there.
I'm sorry, I didn't know that, so I made a huge mistake: I use it for birds in flight and also sports photography.
Here is a burst of six shots I took today, late afternoon, at a skatepark. I don't know what to say but I believe wedding guests might be a bit slower than these kids, don't you think?

What can be challenging though is keeping the subject in the frame; EVF's suck at this, maybe except for the Sony A9.
The EOS R's AF is very accurate and fast and the 5 fps is acceptable. Of course, faster would be better but I'll take accuracy over speed anytime of the day.
Anyhow, shooting sports with this camera is a piece of cake, compared to BIF, no doubt about that. People are big, slow(ish) and predictable so there's no problem for EOS R's AF.

Could you please post some of your shots of birds in flight as many of will be very interested to see how the R performs. We have a good BIF thread and, if you want, post there. Thanks.

 

[AlanF]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you've posted a set of images which proves the R's EVF causes a problem properly framing a subject in motion. The first four in the sequence are framed well. And they should be. I'm guessing that you knew where your subject would be going airborne, and you timed your shots accordingly.

But in the fifth shot, I see something that is all to familiar to me after close to two months of using the R. You have, apparently, lost track of the subject, and you are guessing how fast and where the subject is coming down to the surface. One foot has left the frame in this shot, and in the sixth shot, the whole riding-platform part of the scooter is out of the frame. There is plenty of headroom within the frame to have composed properly. So, as I said, this sequence appears to show exactly the problem I have with the R.

I cannot agree with your assertion that, for "wedding photography, sports photography, no problem at all." Not if the wedding includes dynamic, emotional gestures and interactions (before and after a typical procession and ceremony), or a reception with dancing.* Sports? Only if the subject is so small within the frame as to make composition irrelevant, in my opinion.

You did the honest and right thing with this sequence--you included those last two shots. Without them, your case would be stronger, but you would, in fact, have misled readers here. Thank you. And you got very good lighting!

The AF does track a subject well, but I believe the R needs much looser framing than a dSLR with moving subjects. Compared to a dSLR, and all other factors being the same, the subject needs to be smaller in the frame to give the photographer some wiggle room. This is because the EVF lags slightly behind what is happening, so a subject can zig when we guess it is going to zag, and there goes the framing. If you say I should just zoom out a little or step back farther, you are asking me to make a compromise that I don't need to make with a dSLR. That's a workaround, and if somebody must get their action shots with an EOS R, certainly there are ways to get some good shots, even some great shots. But that doesn't make it our best choice when there are much better options available.

The EOS R is a wonderful camera--for what it does. I think it takes amazing portraits, landscapes, and still-lifes, and it works well with subjects that are being directed, or moving in otherwise predictable ways. The new Rf primes are superb. I'm glad I have it!

*And I don't mean these kind of scenarios!

Don't be hard on him! The shots are all nicely in focus and maybe he simply wasn't worried about the feet in the last two frames. The ones in the middle of the sequence are very good.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Do you actually shoot stuff that moves, YuengLinger?

I'm going to guess not...

 

[Nelu]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you've posted a set of images which proves the R's EVF causes a problem properly framing a subject in motion. The first four in the sequence are framed well. And they should be. I'm guessing that you knew where your subject would be going airborne, and you timed your shots accordingly.

But in the fifth shot, I see something that is all to familiar to me after close to two months of using the R. You have, apparently, lost track of the subject, and you are guessing how fast and where the subject is coming down to the surface. One foot has left the frame in this shot, and in the sixth shot, the whole riding-platform part of the scooter is out of the frame. There is plenty of headroom within the frame to have composed properly. So, as I said, this sequence appears to show exactly the problem I have with the R.

I cannot agree with your assertion that, for "wedding photography, sports photography, no problem at all." Not if the wedding includes dynamic, emotional gestures and interactions (before and after a typical procession and ceremony), or a reception with dancing.* Sports? Only if the subject is so small within the frame as to make composition irrelevant, in my opinion.

You did the honest and right thing with this sequence--you included those last two shots. Without them, your case would be stronger, but you would, in fact, have misled readers here. Thank you. And you got very good lighting!

The AF does track a subject well, but I believe the R needs much looser framing than a dSLR with moving subjects. Compared to a dSLR, and all other factors being the same, the subject needs to be smaller in the frame to give the photographer some wiggle room. This is because the EVF lags slightly behind what is happening, so a subject can zig when we guess it is going to zag, and there goes the framing. If you say I should just zoom out a little or step back farther, you are asking me to make a compromise that I don't need to make with a dSLR. That's a workaround, and if somebody must get their action shots with an EOS R, certainly there are ways to get some good shots, even some great shots. But that doesn't make it our best choice when there are much better options available.

The EOS R is a wonderful camera--for what it does. I think it takes amazing portraits, landscapes, and still-lifes, and it works well with subjects that are being directed, or moving in otherwise predictable ways. The new Rf primes are superb. I'm glad I have it!

*And I don't mean these kind of scenarios!

I don’t think we disagree in any way: I said the AF is fast and accurate but the EVF sucks for tracking fast subjects.
I love using the 1DX or the 5D Mark IV for such subjects for this exact reason.
On the other hand I shot a couple of events in low light and the EOS R was better than my 5D Mark IV.
Framing was not an issue and the percentage of in-focus pictures was very high, almost 100%.
I’m glad I have the EOS R but I hope the next generation will be more suitable for very fast action photography, I mean the EVF and maybe, the frame rate in tracking mode.

 

[Nelu]

Could you please post some of your shots of birds in flight as many of will be very interested to see how the R performs. We have a good BIF thread and, if you want, post there. Thanks.

Thanks Alan, I think I will.
The purpose of this thread was to post an entire sequence, as it was, good or bad, to prove a point. I think I need to adjust myself to the mirrorless camera way of shooting fast action. It's challenging but it can be done.
I started learning photography in 1990 and thinking of the cameras back then and what we have now, there's no way I'll let some minor technical specifications prevent me getting the results I want.
I can only see two possible outcomes for us:

1. We get a new camera with a better EVF, suitable for fast motion photography
2. I develop chameleon eyes, one to look at the subject, on to look at the screen

Thanks,
Nelu

 

[AlanF]

Thanks Alan, I think I will.
The purpose of this thread was to post an entire sequence, as it was, good or bad, to prove a point. I think I need to adjust myself to the mirrorless camera way of shooting fast action. It's challenging but it can be done.
I started learning photography in 1990 and thinking of the cameras back then and what we have now, there's no way I'll let some minor technical specifications prevent me getting the results I want.
I can only see two possible outcomes for us:

1. We get a new camera with a better EVF, suitable for fast motion photography
2. I develop chameleon eyes, one to look at the subject, on to look at the screen

Thanks,
Nelu

I have an M5, which is great for stills. So, I opted for the 90D, which has proven to be really good for the birds.

 

[Nelu]

I have an M5, which is great for stills. So, I opted for the 90D, which has proven to be really good for the birds.

I'm fortunate to have both the 5D Mark IV and the original 1DX, and they're both amazing. I'll tell you, the 1DX AF is almost telepathic!
I skipped the 1DX Mark II because I wasn't sure how can it have better AF than the first generation. The 1DX Mark III specs look pretty wild though, I'm drolling already...

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm fortunate to have both the 5D Mark IV and the original 1DX, and they're both amazing. I'll tell you, the 1DX AF is almost telepathic!
I skipped the 1DX Mark II because I wasn't sure how can it have better AF than the first generation. The 1DX Mark III specs look pretty wild though, I'm drolling already...

The 1DX MkII is a much better camera than the MkI if its strengths tie in with your uses. I am predominantly a low iso shooter and the difference in DR at low iso values is appreciable, on the other hand if you predominantly use iso over 1600 the MkII is not as attractive but everything, resolution, AF, etc. is just a bit better.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

 

[AlanF]

The 1DX MkII is a much better camera than the MkI if its strengths tie in with your uses. I am predominantly a low iso shooter and the difference in DR at low iso values is appreciable, on the other hand if you predominantly use iso over 1600 the MkII is not as attractive but everything, resolution, AF, etc. is just a bit better.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

View attachment 187356

Low iso? Never use it for my action photography as high a speed as possible is best.

 

[YuengLinger]

I don’t think we disagree in any way: I said the AF is fast and accurate but the EVF sucks for tracking fast subjects.
I love using the 1DX or the 5D Mark IV for such subjects for this exact reason.
On the other hand I shot a couple of events in low light and the EOS R was better than my 5D Mark IV.
Framing was not an issue and the percentage of in-focus pictures was very high, almost 100%.
I’m glad I have the EOS R but I hope the next generation will be more suitable for very fast action photography, I mean the EVF and maybe, the frame rate in tracking mode.

Ok, I read right past the line where you say EVF's "suck" for keeping the subject in the frame! Sorry!

So I'm not sure what you are claiming in your post. You open by asserting that those who say the R is not a top choice for action are mistaken, and that you are using yours for all kinds of action, including sports and birds-in-flight. That was the main point I was responding to.

Anybody who cares to reread my earlier post will also see I was not criticizing you as a photographer! I was pointing out that the sequence you shared shows exactly what happens after the subject leaves the anticipated zone of action: The EVF can't keep up and the subject often gets "lost" for a moment. (And anybody who checks Nelu's shutterstock pages, as I did before responding, will see he is an excellent photographer. I'm sure he has no problem with comments from the peanut gallery in any event.)

Yes, we agree! I have the R and find it to be the best camera I've ever used for portraits.

I had the 20D. I was able to catch some action shots. Is there anybody here who will defend the old 20D as good for action by today's standards? Yes, the R is much better than the 20D! (I wonder if we could go back and find these same "debates" happened with that camera?) But is it better for sports, dance, event antics, and wildlife than the 5D Mark IV? Is it really a jack-of-all-trades type of body? Would the R be the right choice, if you could also choose a 5D IV, to get the best shots of street performances, rides at a fair, gymnasts and athletic magicians at Renaissance fairs, cheerleaders, and so on?

Will sports and wildlife photographers be happy if a mirrorless version of the 1D series uses the same EVF with the same performance as the EOS R?

 

[YuengLinger]

Thanks Alan, I think I will.
The purpose of this thread was to post an entire sequence, as it was, good or bad, to prove a point. I think I need to adjust myself to the mirrorless camera way of shooting fast action. It's challenging but it can be done.
I started learning photography in 1990 and thinking of the cameras back then and what we have now, there's no way I'll let some minor technical specifications prevent me getting the results I want.
I can only see two possible outcomes for us:

1. We get a new camera with a better EVF, suitable for fast motion photography
2. I develop chameleon eyes, one to look at the subject, on to look at the screen

Thanks,
Nelu

My wife chops vegetables super fast with a big, heavy, sharp chopping knife. We have a drawer full of very good steak knives, but, for some reason, she doesn't use those for chopping. It would be challenging but it could be done! (Again, Nelu, thank you for posting that whole sequence.)