PhotonsToPhotos does the Canon EOS R5 Mark II and it’s good
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Many thanks for this serious article! The transformation of a natural science measurement in a religious emotion does not help anyone. Canon marketing is part of this story, so hopefully they will wake up fully now and communicate with their users and doing better things than limiting access to CPS and kick out people from the front line. Michael
Upvote
0
Great article. Especially the conclusion. Choose the camera that's right for you. Saving my pennies...
4.5k in the UK, plus a grip, plus an RF/EF adapter, plus Canon batteries (bastards!)
it's an expensive leap, an R5 (non mark II) may be a good choice. especially now that we'll be start seeing them in the used shops
Upvote
0
Like you....I feel sad for all the other photographers who currently don't use Canon cameras...poor poor lost souls. They are in my moring prayers for redemption
I get that this is a bit of a facetious comment, but what is the underlying reasoning here? All these sensors are basically no different now, no?
Upvote
0
yep. there's quite a bit changed. adding the R3 / R1 AF functions into the R5 Mark II will make it the defacto wedding camera.
Upvote
0
Eye control if it works for you (and it doesn't for all) and it is needed then fine, but it isn't what I would use; much better AF is for 2 or 3 particular sports if you photo them and I don't; less heat if you use video modes that I don't; and the E-shutter has worked fine for me for the last 4 years - I use it all the time for BIF and DIF. For you coming from DSLRs, the R5ii is an incredible upgrade but so is the R5. The improvement of the R5ii over the R5 is a variable that varies from significant to negligible depending on your needs. If you need it and have the cash get the R5ii, if you don't need the features either stick with the R5 or take advantage of its falling price. As @neuroanatomist keeps pointing out, Canon's target for the R5ii is primarily DSLR users.
Upvote
0
i have only played with r52 for a little bit at my local store, but its head/eye tracking seemed better. I am sure we will hear more.
Upvote
0
I think the A9iii should have been compared to the R5ii ES as the point of the A9iii is to shoot fast, and the point of the R5ii in electronic is to shoot fast.
I think in today's day and age of wanting faster and faster, nitpicking about half a stop of DR is pointless, especially when a 5Div still has more DR than the R5ii.
The point is use the proper tool for the job and if you are a sports shooter, chances are you are using long lenses and a high shutter speed which means you won't be anywhere near ISO 100. If you want a GS, than the A9iii is great, If you want an all around balanced hybrid, than the R5ii is great.
At this point, I think all the Canon, Nikon and Sony offerings are good at what they are intended for and the whole brand war is pretty much a matter of personal preference and personal budget.
I think in today's day and age of wanting faster and faster, nitpicking about half a stop of DR is pointless, especially when a 5Div still has more DR than the R5ii.
The point is use the proper tool for the job and if you are a sports shooter, chances are you are using long lenses and a high shutter speed which means you won't be anywhere near ISO 100. If you want a GS, than the A9iii is great, If you want an all around balanced hybrid, than the R5ii is great.
At this point, I think all the Canon, Nikon and Sony offerings are good at what they are intended for and the whole brand war is pretty much a matter of personal preference and personal budget.
Upvote
0
Have a feeling, I won’t need a new camera for a long time. Sad feelings.
Especially the 5d mark IV vrs R5 mark II chart is frustrating.
Yes I know… fast and faster for video. But for the high dynamic range / low noise guys or high MPx the race is dead for years now.
The 5d mark IV is still great
Especially the 5d mark IV vrs R5 mark II chart is frustrating.
Yes I know… fast and faster for video. But for the high dynamic range / low noise guys or high MPx the race is dead for years now.
The 5d mark IV is still great
Upvote
0
There isn't a real world performance difference. There are a couple of psychological phenomenon at play.
1. Spec sheet warriors grasping on to any tiny detail to justify their personal preference as objective, conclusive, irrefuteable evidence of being the winning one.
2. Someone wants to switch, and needs a reason, any reason at all, so they grasp on. Just switch, don't expect magic when you do. Its fine. The best evidence I have of this one is when the R3 came out. On this very forum, one user came on and noted that it was missing the little ring at the bottom of the grip to loop a strap through for the hand strap type carrying device. Biggest fail ever. Totally unusable camera. Instant reason to switch. Are there hand straps that attach a different way? Yes. Were the industry leading stacked sensor and AF performance (at the time) considered? No. That dude just wanted any excuse to buy Sony. We can be happy for him.
3. Internet influencers who's job relies on having something to say, and as a necessity can't let there being nothing to stay stop them from saying something.
Upvote
0
Thanks for the article.
Even if the R5 mkII, seems to be a great camera with several good improvements, the fact that the DR and ISO performance are on par or slightly below the R5. is the main reason for me, not to upgrade from R5 to R5 mkII.
Personally, I will likely spend my photo budget to upgrade the last of my EF lenses to the RF, and perhaps buy another L lens. E.g. the RF 135mm L is very tempting and will probably cost me less than an R5 upgrade. this will give me better value for money in improved image quality and flexibility.
Even if the R5 mkII, seems to be a great camera with several good improvements, the fact that the DR and ISO performance are on par or slightly below the R5. is the main reason for me, not to upgrade from R5 to R5 mkII.
Personally, I will likely spend my photo budget to upgrade the last of my EF lenses to the RF, and perhaps buy another L lens. E.g. the RF 135mm L is very tempting and will probably cost me less than an R5 upgrade. this will give me better value for money in improved image quality and flexibility.
Upvote
0
Nothing meaningful to YOU.
The readout speed, and ball tracking modes in sports are very meaningful to many. I suspect for the next couple of generations we may see the trend being that the upgrades that come are more in the computational photography side of things, rather than hardware specs. Even considering global shutter, the hardware spec differences are quite slight in terms of real world performance difference. But on the software side...much more impactful. R5II and R1 seem to be heavy hitters on the software upgrade side, and typical version upgrades on the hardware side.
Upvote
0
Could you explain that sentence to me.thanks for the kind words - and I may steal this sentence
Upvote
0
What is worrying is that you are right and the major upgrades will be on the computational side but in order to get them we will have to buy new hardware that is is only superficially upgraded.
Upvote
0
R1 and R3 potential customers, and R5 event and wildlife photographers will be overjoyed with these results! You get most of the benefits and flexibility of the R1 and R3 with additional resolution. As a current R5 user that focuses primarily on landscape the R5 II will be a pass or delayed purchase for me. I was hoping, probably unrealistically, that there would be more gain on DR at low or even higher ISO but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Oh well, I will save my money and hope for a higher MP R5 or some better native lenses to come out soon.
Upvote
0
josephandrews222
Square Sensors + AI = Better Images
If I may, rephrasing:
Those who interpret data should proceed with caution.
=====
Not that long ago (or was it?!), the world's most prestigious scientific journals were only printed on paper--real paper.
In my lab, we used to have fun with the following statement:
"They don't print articles on perforated paper."
In other words, be very careful. Make sure the data are rock-solid (i.e. reproducible) and do the very best you can in the discussion section and especially the conclusion...because those journal pages are forever--you can't just rip them out.
=====
On the flip side, though: This very website has the word 'Rumors" as part of URL. So who knows?! All in fun, I guess.
Upvote
0
A very good point, but unfortunately it's not fun when other popular sites take the same data and manipulate it with a narrative. Something that's not even worth it... it's just a sensor and a processor.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
