The Canon EOS R5 Mark II is closer to a reality than Canon’s claims

[AlanF]

One difference, at least from my perspective, is that the goal posts really don't seem to move very far nowadays. Admittedly, that's a perception. For example, mathematically going from 5 fps to 10 fps is the same relative improvement as going from 20 fps to 40 fps. But I find that doubling a 5 fps frame rate makes a real difference in keepers, e.g. being able to select optimal wing positions for BIF, whereas the real difference in doubling a 20 fps frame rate is the time it takes to cull twice as many nearly identical images.

They really do move when you pan with the R7 in ES.

 

[PinholeR5]

I have no idea what the cost per unit translates to for eye-control. The research and development costs are presumably already embedded in the R3. So we may be talking a modest incremental cost to add the current system to the R5.

When I first got the R3 I was very excited to try the eye-control autofocus. After several months of trying to use it to shoot sports I shut it off and pretty much forgot about it. I believe there are two major problems. First, it doesn't react fast enough to follow action accurately. By the time it has found the subject the player has move on or passed the ball to someone else. Second, when I'm shooting sports my eye is not fixed on a specific spot, but is moving around scanning the scene, trying to follow the action and anticipate what is coming next. That rapid scanning causes the eye-control focus point to bounce around seemingly randomly and it is always a fraction of a second behind my eye.

I don't know if my experience is typical, but I have noticed a couple of things on internet videos (I don't pretend to have conducted a thorough disciplined survey). A lot of the videos demonstrating how well it works are shot under fairy controlled situations. For example, studio and portrait shooting or "action" shooting (usually done specifically for the demonstration and not under real world shooting conditions) where the photographer is only following a single person, such as an individual runner or rider. It seems to work well under those controlled situations, but honestly, why would anyone even need it under those conditions?

The other thing I've noticed is that when I've watched videos from bird and wildlife photographers who have been using the R3 for awhile, few if any mention the eye-control autofocus and don't generally discuss it in their "setup" discussions.

I'll readily admit, I'm just one person. But, if it was such a great feature, I would expect a lot more people would be singing it's praises and posting videos showing how well it works.

I think Canon will go one of two ways. They will either invest millions more to perfect eye-control autofocus or they will leave it as is and just include it as a feature on their R5, R1 and R3 lines with incremental tweaks every generation but not really investing the kind of resources that would be needed to make it a truly stellar feature. I'm guessing they'll go the second route because the investment needed to make it truly effective could be prohibitive.

My experience with eye-control on the R3 has been very similar to yours. When shooting soccer, it is just too slow/inaccurate to be of help. Other AF methods are much more reliable. I have felt the same with Wildlife. Tried it for a while, but couldn't really realize the benefits. Once in a while I'll try it again, but have only found few occasions where I thought it was helpful (e.g., focus pull between two subjects in a scene). I'll keep on giving it a go every now and then to see if I find good use cases.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

They have to heavily discount the R5 because it is no longer completely competitive in the 'all around ' prosumer market with the Z8

That is a mighty big leap there.
Canon also discounted a lot of other gear that does not even remotely compete with the Z 8.
It is a fair point though, discounting current models is a good way to compete.
Canon can't just slap together a Z 8 competitor out of thin air.

 

[Zigot]

Nikon Z8 is surprisingly good. I am happy with my R5 but can't wait to see how Canon is going to compete with it with the R5 II.
Hoping for a stacked sensor, pre-shoot burst, no limit video and maybe some more goodies...
Or Canon is going to loose this battle...

 

[Czardoom]

One difference, at least from my perspective, is that the goal posts really don't seem to move very far nowadays. Admittedly, that's a perception. For example, mathematically going from 5 fps to 10 fps is the same relative improvement as going from 20 fps to 40 fps. But I find that doubling a 5 fps frame rate makes a real difference in keepers, e.g. being able to select optimal wing positions for BIF, whereas the real difference in doubling a 20 fps frame rate is the time it takes to cull twice as many nearly identical images.

I agree. Mirrorless is already reaching that level of maturity where there will be little difference in each new generation. Image quality levelledoff about 5 or 6 years ago already (and really is not that difference from 15 years ago, in my opinion), and the major improvements since have been in Autofocus performance and FPS. While I have cameras that can do 40 or even more FPS, I usually shoot at 8 to 12 fps, which is more than enough for most BIF shooting that I do. Keeper rates at Mirrorless Comparisons website with Mathieu shooting BIF is around 909% or higher for almost all models, so it can't get much better folks! This should make photographers happy, as they should realize that the camera they have now will be plenty good enough for many years to come and they can save their money. But gear heads and spec lovers are no doubt feeling very anxious and disappointed with what the future holds.

 

[Czardoom]

Nikon Z8 is surprisingly good. I am happy with my R5 but can't wait to see how Canon is going to compete with it with the R5 II.
Hoping for a stacked sensor, pre-shoot burst, no limit video and maybe some more goodies...
Or Canon is going to loose this battle...

The stacked sensor is advantageous for sports and bird shooters using electronic shutter. The R5 is an all arounder. It is not Canon's sports camera and arguably not specifically a wildlife camera either. So the stacked sensor is only important for a minor percentage of R5 users. Lots of other factors in what makes a good camera. No real battle, unless all you care about is the spec sheet.

 

[Zigot]

The stacked sensor is advantageous for sports and bird shooters using electronic shutter. The R5 is an all arounder. It is not Canon's sports camera and arguably not specifically a wildlife camera either. So the stacked sensor is only important for a minor percentage of R5 users. Lots of other factors in what makes a good camera. No real battle, unless all you care about is the spec sheet.

That's right. I shoot sports and birds and experienced rolling shutter effect sometimes so I hope a stacked sensor will improve that.
R3 is great for sports but I prefer a smaller body with a higher MP for cropping when shooting birds.
Goodies like eye focus is awesome on theory but still needs more time to mature.

 

[-pekr-]

R5 II without a stacked sensor is dead on arrival for us. We will soon add R6 II as a backup to our R5, which, is quaite good for us. Not even doing a video. So - a status quo upgrade to R5 (together with rumoured upcoming firmware improvements) really mean very low interest to sell our R5 and upgrade to R5 II. Really, as wedding photogs, we don't need better dispaly / ovf, second xfexpress, or crazy high frames per second, as we don't spray & prey. As a technology geek I am interested in a real / core technology (sensor, AF) advancements only.

 

[iheartcanon]

Ok, so now that the thread is open again curious on everyones opinions

Is it assumed then if the R5II is to be announced soon that the rumoured fw update to the R5 (the big one that was supposed to come with the ibis shift update and then suggested would come later in a big fw update) will not be coming?

Also, no mention on here of the prores raw FW update coming to R5 or did I miss that?

I was really hoping for a couple more little tweaks to the R5 ( eg. more fps options in ES), holding on to hope as long as possible....

 

[AlanF]

The stacked sensor is advantageous for sports and bird shooters using electronic shutter. The R5 is an all arounder. It is not Canon's sports camera and arguably not specifically a wildlife camera either. So the stacked sensor is only important for a minor percentage of R5 users. Lots of other factors in what makes a good camera. No real battle, unless all you care about is the spec sheet.

The only time I have noticed rolling shutter photographing birds with the R5 has been fast panning against a building of the fastest BIF in flight, a Peregrine Falcon. And that wasn’t of the bird, it was of the building. Rolling shutter with the R5 is in practice a non-problem with wild life photography unless perhaps you are looking at insects with very fast beating wings or other rare situations using ES. On the other hand, it can be a serious problem with the R7, and the difference between the two is dramatic despite the difference in readout time between the two being only a factor of 2 or so.

 

[koenkooi]

[...] I was really hoping for a couple more little tweaks to the R5 ( eg. more fps options in ES), holding on to hope as long as possible....

While I'm hoping for the same, Canon has virtually never added such features after a body has been released. The R3 gaining focus stacking support is the odd one out.

 

[unfocused]

While I'm hoping for the same, Canon has virtually never added such features after a body has been released. The R3 gaining focus stacking support is the odd one out.

The classic example was the 7D upgrade. But there was a five year timeframe between the I and the II. There won’t be five years between the R5 I and II.

 

[GoldWing]

According to B&H. The R1 will be a big hit in 2025 for pro/consumers in "full" production numbers. 2024 will see "some" targeted distribution to professionals through CPS. Make nice with CPS

 

[Czardoom]

The only time I have noticed rolling shutter photographing birds with the R5 has been fast panning against a building of the fastest BIF in flight, a Peregrine Falcon. And that wasn’t of the bird, it was of the building. Rolling shutter with the R5 is in practice a non-problem with wild life photography unless perhaps you are looking at insects with very fast beating wings or other rare situations using ES. On the other hand, it can be a serious problem with the R7, and the difference between the two is dramatic despite the difference in readout time between the two being only a factor of 2 or so.

Good to know it is essentially a non-problem. And of course, not all bird and wildlife shooters are using electronic shutter, or the fastest frame rates. I do a lot of bird photography and usually shoot in H rather than H+, and use Elec 1st curtain as my default (on the R7). So Rolling Shutter is either not an issue or a very minimal issue on the R5 especially. So, as we so often see on forums, those claiming "Canon is behind" or Canon must do this to keep up" are full of baloney becuase they don't actually have any first hand knowledge of the cameras they are commenting on. I'm sure the Nikon Z8 is a great camera. I hope they sell loads of them. But there is so little difference between similarly tiered cameras today, that claiming one is better than another just shows one's ignorance and bias.

 

[R1-7D]

My experience with eye-control on the R3 has been very similar to yours. When shooting soccer, it is just too slow/inaccurate to be of help. Other AF methods are much more reliable. I have felt the same with Wildlife. Tried it for a while, but couldn't really realize the benefits. Once in a while I'll try it again, but have only found few occasions where I thought it was helpful (e.g., focus pull between two subjects in a scene). I'll keep on giving it a go every now and then to see if I find good use cases.

I've had the exact opposite experience with Eye-Control AF. For me, it's simply been incredible and I'd really question purchasing another camera without it. I've used it for events, portraiture, and wildlife and have nothing but praise. I've even called CPS to express my enthusiasm for it.

While shooting events, for example, being able to accurately switch focus from one person to the next - practically on the fly - is just amazing and an enormous time saver; I have found that I can capture fleeting moments that would otherwise be missed if using my R5 simply because there is no way I could manually toggle between subjects as quickly.

For portraiture with multiple people, Eye-Control allows me to use a fast prime wide open and quickly focus between my two subjects almost instantly; this minimizes the subjects' movements, and I can then stack the images in Photoshop to create an in-focus image of both people on slightly different focal planes that still looks natural.

Regarding wildlife, I primarily photograph birds. While I will admit Eye-Control isn't particularly helpful when birds are in-flight (although I have been able to use it to lock on to larger in-flight birds), it's very handy when there are multiple birds in the scene and I need to focus quickly on the one that begins to take off or does something interesting. Also, I've found Eye-Control AF useful when focusing through tall grass or branches.

I understand some people have issues with Eye-Control AF. Fortunately, I'm not one of them. Hopefully with time Canon will improve the technology so that less people have issues. With that said, I always wonder if the people with issues have spent enough time really dialling it in through calibration. I've calibrated mine in a wide variety of different lighting conditions, and often find I rarely need to recalibrate it at this point.

 

[[email protected]]

Just why do you think it's necessary to buy a remote interval timer, when it's been available in many Canon bodies for the past few years?

Canon Knowledge Base - EOS R5: Interval Timer Shooting

Evidently Canon felt enough people would find it useful that they chose to incorporate it into the firmware.

The internal intervalometer is fine in a pinch. I've used it when, for instance, I had dead batteries in my external intervalometer. But it's super basic. Sometimes I do intervalometer set-ups in remote wildlife contexts, and I need features like being able to block out certain hours (often after dark) so as to keep them running out in the field twice as long. I'll often use a delay function with an external device, which the Canon one doesn't have.

Also - and I can't stress how much this sort of thing goofs up lots of would-be set-ups - when a Canon camera external battery temporarily fails. This is common after dark in New England winters. The camera will turn back on when the battery unfreezes , but the Canon internal firmware just stops the intervalometer set. An external intervalometer will just keep chugging away where it left off. That power issue extends to a variety of things, such as reset manual focus on many newer RF lenses. Drives me bananas to the point where I use EF lenses with adapters and use extremely low-watt heaters designed for lizard tanks to keep batteries above 0. Makes things annoyingly complicated when your batteries require batteries.

I could go on, but I'll stop there. The gist: while my needs might be pretty niche, external intervalometers are a whole lot more useful, I find. I understand Canon wants to keep things simple, but it would be pretty easy to accommodate these things in firmware.

 

[[email protected]]

As Canon have stated previously, they won't release an "R1" camera until they believe they and a truly flagship defining product. I don't think that Megapixels is that feature.

What could be considered truly flagship-defining would be QPAF and global shutter. My gut says global shutter. Your guts could say something else. Only Canon Knows.

I don't think many find it a credible argument that the 1dx III is a superior camera to the R3 but for few relatively obscure specs, yet Canon is careful to avoid referring to the R3 as their "flagship." I believe this has more to do with Canon's assessment that pro EF users have a certain fragility to them and may react poorly to having their status as flagship-slingers taken away from them.

Thus, I don't think there's really any spec or feature that Canon is waiting for before they feel comfortable calling an R-mount camera the flagship.

I agree with you that high resolution is unlikely to be the R1 strong suit relative to the R3, but I don't think they're pulling a "no wine before it's time" schtick here. Their naming a flagship is going to have everything to do with product line positioning and marketing and nothing to do with any minimum standard or set of functions.

The headline here is that Canon doesn't have an R1. Anything R3 or better would be hands-down the current Canon flagship, whether the company chooses to use the term. (Incidentally, I'd argue that the R5 beats the 1dx III for that title, but I'm one of those many people who needs the higher resolution.)

 

[john1970]

My experience with eye-control on the R3 has been very similar to yours. When shooting soccer, it is just too slow/inaccurate to be of help. Other AF methods are much more reliable. I have felt the same with Wildlife. Tried it for a while, but couldn't really realize the benefits. Once in a while I'll try it again, but have only found few occasions where I thought it was helpful (e.g., focus pull between two subjects in a scene). I'll keep on giving it a go every now and then to see if I find good use cases.

Same experience as mine. I use the R3 for wildlife and sports and because I wear glasses I have found the eye control Af very unreliable. The eye cup that Canon makes is too large and blocks the articulating screen.

With regards to the R5 Mk2, I could see the R5 Mk2 with a stacked sensor, if the R1 comes with a global shutter. Just my $0.02.

 

[robotfist]

The only area I'd really like to see improved with the R5 and R5C is dynamic range. Everything else is great. But I think Canon should really focus on dynamic range from here on out.

 

[R1-7D]

The only area I'd really like to see improved with the R5 and R5C is dynamic range. Everything else is great. But I think Canon should really focus on dynamic range from here on out.

The R5 has best in class dynamic range. That’s not good enough for you?