p.23 #2 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
docusync wrote:
I think I saw it somewhere that Canon promised the new Eye AF control should work better with glasses and I think you'd be fine by focusing on an elk. Not sure about birds though.
Anyways, I asked each kid to run towards me, and at 30 fps every single frame was in critical focus, at f/1.2.
The lens is the RF 85/1.2DS which is definitely not the fastest lens on the market. Also 85mm doesn't offer much working distance like a supertele, so the kids approached quickly. I normally perform this test on all my cameras. I never was able to get even half of the frames in acceptable focus with the original R5. The A1 was much better, and the A9III was almost perfect but it could lose critical focus during a rapid approach, when the person is close. I could never imagine that a 100% success rate is possible, and now I'm scared to think what the R1 can do.
I'm likely going to swap the R5II for an R1 whenever it becomes available, and will keep the A9III for action portraiture with strobes.
Now after Canon made such mind blowing cameras they seriously need to release the "promised" 200-500. Yeah, I know nobody promised anything, but still...
P.S. Another neat new feature is the ISO "shortcut". It allows you to have a few "favorite" ISOs (like the second gain ISO) one line above the full ISO list for a quick access/selection....Show more →
The AF sounds promising. So you didn't run into buffer issues shooting a long sequence of the kids running at you @30fps? What AF technique did you use to focus for these sequences?
p.23 #5 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
artsupreme wrote:
The AF sounds promising. So you didn't run into buffer issues shooting a long sequence of the kids running at you @30fps? What AF technique did you use to focus for these sequences?
Is the fake shutter noise the same as the R3?
Apparently I didn't hit the limit.
Out of curiosity I just checked it and I'm unable to get over 11 fps.
Just in case I switched to release priority, disabled tracking, I even switched to "One Shot"...
I swapped the lens for the RF70-200/2.8 - no dice, same 10-11 fps.
I enabled the shutter sound, yes, it sounds similar to the R3, which is ok since I'm going to turn it off anyways
My concern now is what's going on with the frame rate. The H+ is set to 30fps and I'm barely hitting a third of it.
Can someone else please confirm this?
P.S. The camera locks up for about a second when it's hitting the buffer, dumps some files, and the continues for another second.
p.23 #6 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
docusync wrote:
Apparently I didn't hit the limit.
Out of curiosity I just checked it and I'm unable to get over 11 fps.
Just in case I switched to release priority, disabled tracking, I even switched to "One Shot"...
I swapped the lens for the RF70-200/2.8 - no dice, same 10-11 fps.
I enabled the shutter sound, yes, it sounds similar to the R3, which is ok since I'm going to turn it off anyways
My concern now is what's going on with the frame rate. The H+ is set to 30fps and I'm barely hitting a third of it.
Can someone else please confirm this?
P.S. The camera locks up for about a second when it's hitting the buffer, dumps some files, and the continues for another second....Show more →
Hmmmm...that's going to be a stumper until you get it sorted out. No idea why you would get only 11fps unless it was in mechanical shutter mode but it's obviously not that.
Next time you shoot with it see if you can get any rolling shutter out of it, and how bad it may or may not be.
p.23 #7 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
docusync wrote:
Apparently I didn't hit the limit.
Out of curiosity I just checked it and I'm unable to get over 11 fps.
Just in case I switched to release priority, disabled tracking, I even switched to "One Shot"...
I swapped the lens for the RF70-200/2.8 - no dice, same 10-11 fps.
I enabled the shutter sound, yes, it sounds similar to the R3, which is ok since I'm going to turn it off anyways
My concern now is what's going on with the frame rate. The H+ is set to 30fps and I'm barely hitting a third of it.
Can someone else please confirm this?
P.S. The camera locks up for about a second when it's hitting the buffer, dumps some files, and the continues for another second....Show more →
p.23 #9 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Are you shooting in Electronic 1st curtain or full Electronic Shutter?
Electronic 1st curtain gives similar fps to what you have quoted according to the manual.
p.23 #10 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
docusync wrote:
Apparently I didn't hit the limit.
Out of curiosity I just checked it and I'm unable to get over 11 fps.
Just in case I switched to release priority, disabled tracking, I even switched to "One Shot"...
I swapped the lens for the RF70-200/2.8 - no dice, same 10-11 fps.
I enabled the shutter sound, yes, it sounds similar to the R3, which is ok since I'm going to turn it off anyways
My concern now is what's going on with the frame rate. The H+ is set to 30fps and I'm barely hitting a third of it.
Can someone else please confirm this?
P.S. The camera locks up for about a second when it's hitting the buffer, dumps some files, and the continues for another second....Show more →
Well is the time you see there the time the image was taken or the time when the file was written? If it is the latter it doesn't mean that the camera shoots at 11FPS, it means that the camera writes 11 files per second from the buffer which could be reasonable.
p.23 #11 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
randomguy wrote:
Well is the time you see there the time the image was taken or the time when the file was written? If it is the latter it doesn't mean that the camera shoots at 11FPS, it means that the camera writes 11 files per second from the buffer which could be reasonable.
You're right! What's strange the A9 III assigns the files the actual taken date (both created and written). That's why I assumed that Canon would do the same.
I ran exiftool on the 1st and 30th files from a random R5 II sequence and everything is correct:
1st: 2024:08:01 22:48:10.76-05:00
30th: 2024:08:01 22:48:11.78-05:00
p.23 #12 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
docusync wrote:
I had to disable the Eye-controlled AF feature because it's slow and not accurate, even after multiple calibrations. I'm not sure if it's really improved like they said compared to the R3. Both my wife and I had it disabled on the R3 for the same reason, but I'm sure it may work for some folks focusing on large subjects.
That's disappointing to hear. Starts to sound as if it's one of those features that works very well for some and not for others. Apologies if you mentioned it somewhere else; do you wear contacts or glasses?
docusync wrote:
I ran exiftool on the 1st and 30th files from a random R5 II sequence and everything is correct:
1st: 2024:08:01 22:48:10.76-05:00
30th: 2024:08:01 22:48:11.78-05:00
False alarm
Thank you
Does this apply to the pre-capture bursts as well? I suppose then files would be written to the card up to 0.5s after they were actually captured.
NB: if the buffer clears at ~11fps with your card then the quoted 93 RAW buffer looks pretty good at least for my shooting. I rarely shoot a full second burst and even then it's probably no longer 1.5s at most in the absolute worst case, call it 2s of files with the pre-capture...then after a ~6 second wait the buffer would be cleared again.
p.23 #13 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
randomguy wrote:
Well is the time you see there the time the image was taken or the time when the file was written? If it is the latter it doesn't mean that the camera shoots at 11FPS, it means that the camera writes 11 files per second from the buffer which could be reasonable.
docusync wrote:
You're right! What's strange the A9 III assigns the files the actual taken date (both created and written). That's why I assumed that Canon would do the same.
As you realized, you need to check the time in EXIF rather than file creation time. But it is interesting to see that the camera is writing to the card at only 11 fps in CRAW/jpeg and 7 fps in RAW, which suggests there's little benefit to using the fastest CFe cards.
Jeff Cable is shooting the R1 and R5II in Paris. He covered some tennis with the R5II in e-shutter and indicated it worked well. The photos don't show any obvious rolling shutter effects. His blog post.
p.23 #14 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
rscheffler wrote:
As you realized, you need to check the time in EXIF rather than file creation time. But it is interesting to see that the camera is writing to the card at only 11 fps in CRAW/jpeg and 7 fps in RAW, which suggests there's little benefit to using the fastest CFe cards.
Jeff Cable is shooting the R1 and R5II in Paris. He covered some tennis with the R5II in e-shutter and indicated it worked well. The photos don't show any obvious rolling shutter effects. His blog post.
This seems to be the case with both Nikon and Canon...they are no where near utilizing the speed of even the version 2.0 CFExpress B cards let alone the latest version 4.0 cards.
Sony's decision to go with CFe-A hasn't hindered them at all in relation to CaNikon when it comes to speed writing from the internal buffer to the card. Sony is close to maximizing the ver 2.0 CFe-A which is about the same as the speeds CaNikon are using to the CFe-B cards. With the 4.0 spec of CFe-A (similar to 2.0 CFe-B) Sony should be safe from outperforming the cards for a good while.
But the CFe-B certainly has had a great advantage in download speeds back at the computer and $/GB.
p.23 #15 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
I suspect the speed is currently limited below the actual 2.0 CFExpress B card spec due to heat management. I've seen a few reviews of the pre-released R5 Mk IIs that tested video and said though the camera didn't get too hot externally, the CF card was blazing hot when they removed it right after shooting.
p.23 #16 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
_Refraction wrote:
Does this apply to the pre-capture bursts as well? I suppose then files would be written to the card up to 0.5s after they were actually captured.
NB: if the buffer clears at ~11fps with your card then the quoted 93 RAW buffer looks pretty good at least for my shooting. I rarely shoot a full second burst and even then it's probably no longer 1.5s at most in the absolute worst case, call it 2s of files with the pre-capture...then after a ~6 second wait the buffer would be cleared again.
I don't wear glasses or contacts, but my eyes are not perfect. Who knows what's wrong with them lol... I may try the left eye later to see if there's any improvement over the right eye.
Yes, pre-capture works the same. The "usable" buffer is just shorter because it already has the pre-captured files in it. The R5II doesn't mark those pre-captured files unfortunately like the A9 III does it, but it's not a big deal.
rscheffler wrote:
As you realized, you need to check the time in EXIF rather than file creation time. But it is interesting to see that the camera is writing to the card at only 11 fps in CRAW/jpeg and 7 fps in RAW, which suggests there's little benefit to using the fastest CFe cards.
Yep, and it's completely logical, but my prior experience was related to Sony files which have timestamps matched. Well, who knew...
arbitrage wrote:
This seems to be the case with both Nikon and Canon...they are no where near utilizing the speed of even the version 2.0 CFExpress B cards let alone the latest version 4.0 cards.
Sony's decision to go with CFe-A hasn't hindered them at all in relation to CaNikon when it comes to speed writing from the internal buffer to the card. Sony is close to maximizing the ver 2.0 CFe-A which is about the same as the speeds CaNikon are using to the CFe-B cards. With the 4.0 spec of CFe-A (similar to 2.0 CFe-B) Sony should be safe from outperforming the cards for a good while.
But the CFe-B certainly has had a great advantage in download speeds back at the computer and $/GB....Show more →
Yeah so people should probably stop worrying about modern cameras not getting CFe4. Good luck utilizing the older standard's speed...
Regarding download speeds - I dump all my files on one span of a slow but huge (230TB+) RAID, and the write speed is limited to ~800Mb/s. I won't benefit if the cards can be read faster, but of course many people with fast storage will.
p.23 #19 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
rscheffler wrote:
I don't follow why EXIF wouldn't be suitable because it reports capture time down to hundredths of a second.
I think the only way to access the more accurate time data in the metadata is to use Exiftool. If anyone wants to extract that data send me a PM and I will provide information on how to do it. I have used it on Sony cameras (see for example https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1856860/0?keyword=memory#16539214) but not Canon, but I assume it will work the same.
p.23 #20 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
rscheffler wrote:
I don't follow why EXIF wouldn't be suitable because it reports capture time down to hundredths of a second.
dclark wrote:
I think the only way to access the more accurate time data in the metadata is to use Exiftool. If anyone wants to extract that data send me a PM and I will provide information on how to do it. I have used it on Sony cameras (see for example https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1856860/0?keyword=memory#16539214) but not Canon, but I assume it will work the same.
Dave
OK, good point as it likely doesn't show up in the OS's file info.
I'm using Photo Mechanic to rename Canon files, sometimes shot at 40fps, with a timestamp taken from EXIF down to the hundredths of a second, so perhaps some relatively common apps capable of this, too. Maybe LR, but I just had a quick look and only saw the option for renaming down to the second. Maybe I didn't look deeply enough.
