AdamBlyth wrote:
I've never shot cRAW, only RAW. Isn't cRAW lossy?
I would suggest doing some testing to see if you can tell the difference. I don't know anyone who shoots RAW anymore except for maybe one guy who shoots some landscape every few months because he has very little files to cull/store. But for everyone else who's shooting on a regular basis it's cRAW. Give it a try and compare.
Nice! How fast is the 100-300 on it? Any difference compared to the R5? I'm thinking of getting this lens for my wife, but I will probably rent it first when our soccer season starts. I tried a couple of Ring USM RF lenses on the R5 II but I didn't notice any difference is focusing speed. I don't have any long Canon glass to try (all my big whites are Sony)...
docusync wrote:
Nice! How fast is the 100-300 on it? Any difference compared to the R5? I'm thinking of getting this lens for my wife, but I will probably rent it first when our soccer season starts. I tried a couple of Ring USM RF lenses on the R5 II but I didn't notice any difference is focusing speed. I don't have any long Canon glass to try (all my big whites are Sony)...
Blazing fast, feels faster but to be honest it was fast on the R5 also, so i don't know unless i will use both at the same time. The AF on the mark II is something else.
I use it to mainly picture my kids during swimming and soccer and it is perfect for that.
With the mark II you can take pictures faster than 1/8000 which will be perfect for pictures at 2.8 during full sunny days! can't wait to test it out.
Yaniv wrote:
Blazing fast, feels faster but to be honest it was fast on the R5 also, so i don't know unless i will use both at the same time. The AF on the mark II is something else.
That's good to hear, thanks!
Edit - based on your edit
I don't remember I ever exceeded 1/5000 shooting at f/2.8 ISO 100 here in TN.
Is California getting more sun?
Edit - based on your edit
I don't remember I ever exceeded 1/5000 shooting at f/2.8 ISO 100 here in TN.
Is California getting more sun?
Sometimes I needed faster shutter speeds although i would admit it is rare.
Yaniv wrote:
Blazing fast, feels faster but to be honest it was fast on the R5 also, so i don't know unless i will use both at the same time. The AF on the mark II is something else.
I use it to mainly picture my kids during swimming and soccer and it is perfect for that.
With the mark II you can take pictures faster than 1/8000 which will be perfect for pictures at 2.8 during full sunny days! can't wait to test it out.
I thought your name looked familiar and I remember this thread you posted not too long ago:
I see you made a great decision with the R5II.. With that said, is it safe to say you just came from the 5D4 and don't have much experience with the R5? I would expect you to be really impressed coming from the 5D4, but we are curious how much faster/stickier the R5II is than the R5.
What are you using to track your kids with soccer? Are you using any AI tracking modes? Or, are you shooting old school by controlling your focus point with the rear joystick? Have you tried the new eye AF that uses your eyeball?
I see you made a great decision with the R5II.. With that said, is it safe to say you just came from the 5D4 and don't have much experience with the R5? I would expect you to be really impressed coming from the 5D4, but we are curious how much faster/stickier the R5II is than the R5.
What are you using to track your kids with soccer? Are you using any AI tracking modes? Or, are you shooting old school by controlling your focus point with the rear joystick? Have you tried the new eye AF that uses your eyeball?
To be completely clear, I am not a pro, taking photos is a hobby for me. I probably have less experience and understanding compared to most people here.
To your questions:
Yes, I came from years with the 5D4, the R5 I used for a while but it came at a great time over the summer I used it almost every day.
I did use the AI features 90% of the time with the R5, it was great but failed me sometimes, compared to the 5D4 the R5 is a AF masterpiece.
With the mark II just a few hours today, I already see/feel the AF difference, but it was just one day of use so I will need more time, overall I am impressed. I don't think you need years of use with the R5 to see how the AF is better on the mark II. I felt it immediately.
I did set up the Eye tracking and when I took it out to picture my kids it didn't perform as I expected so I turned it off, i need to understand how to set it up correctly I guess. i am really looking forward to getting it to work.
Yaniv wrote:
To be completely clear, I am not a pro, taking photos is a hobby for me. I probably have less experience and understanding compared to most people here.
To your questions:
Yes, I came from years with the 5D4, the R5 I used for a while but it came at a great time over the summer I used it almost every day.
I did use the AI features 90% of the time with the R5, it was great but failed me sometimes, compared to the 5D4 the R5 is a AF masterpiece.
With the mark II just a few hours today, I already see/feel the AF difference, but it was just one day of use so I will need more time, overall I am impressed. I don't think you need years of use with the R5 to see how the AF is better on the mark II. I felt it immediately.
I did set up the Eye tracking and when I took it out to picture my kids it didn't perform as I expected so I turned it off, i need to understand how to set it up correctly I guess. i am really looking forward to getting it to work....Show more →
artsupreme wrote:
I would suggest doing some testing to see if you can tell the difference. I don't know anyone who shoots RAW anymore except for maybe one guy who shoots some landscape every few months because he has very little files to cull/store. But for everyone else who's shooting on a regular basis it's cRAW. Give it a try and compare.
I shoot always raw on the R3 because I can tell the difference in the shadows. I shoot raw on the R5 for night photos (long exposures, or very high ISO) because there I can see the difference, too. Everything else cRaw for sure.
stanj wrote:
I shoot always raw on the R3 because I can tell the difference in the shadows. I shoot raw on the R5 for night photos (long exposures, or very high ISO) because there I can see the difference, too. Everything else cRaw for sure.
I shoot mostly distant wildlife subjects and almost always in RAW and 1.6 crop mode... better for shadows, apparently.
Yaniv wrote:
With the mark II just a few hours today, I already see/feel the AF difference, but it was just one day of use so I will need more time, overall I am impressed. I don't think you need years of use with the R5 to see how the AF is better on the mark II. I felt it immediately.
Very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts about the new AF with critters vs the R5. Specifically what are you noticing that makes it immediately noticeable? Hopefully you're out there enjoying yourself right now clicking on some critters (feathers or fur).
I think it's safe to say, we're all just a little jealous.
Edit: Oh, and feel free to change the title of this thread to "Official Canon R5II Image thread".
The other one is just spec's and a lot of jabbering with no R5II images and of course lots and lots of troll post.
lighthound wrote:
Very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts about the new AF with critters vs the R5. Specifically what are you noticing that makes it immediately noticeable? Hopefully you're out there enjoying yourself right now clicking on some critters (feathers or fur).
I think it's safe to say, we're all just a little jealous.
Take the bird picture i posed yesterday here on this thread.
I would never have made it with the R5, the R5 mark II tracking has an auto feature where the R5 needs a manual intervention to change between people and animals. I was out with my kids when I saw the little bird, i pointed, and boom it locked in on the eye, the R5 would not as I would have to go into the menu and change the setting from people to animals first and the bird would have gone by then.
Maybe a small thing for some but for me that was big.
Yaniv wrote:
Take the bird picture i posed yesterday here on this thread.
I would never have made it with the R5, the R5 mark II tracking has an auto feature where the R5 needs a manual intervention to change between people and animals. I was out with my kids when I saw the little bird, i pointed, and boom it locked in on the eye, the R5 would not as I would have to go into the menu and change the setting from people to animals first and the bird would have gone by then.
Maybe a small thing for some but for me that was big. ...Show more →
Well that's something I hadn't read about! Sounds great. Do you have to turn this feature on or off or is this a standard feature?
I can't tell you how many times I've almost thrown my R5 thinking something was wrong with it, only to discover I forgot to switch it back to critters after clicking on my family.
lighthound wrote:
Well that's something I hadn't read about! Sounds great. Do you have to turn this feature on or off or is this a standard feature?
I can't tell you how many times I've almost thrown my R5 thinking something was wrong with it, only to discover I forgot to switch it back to critters after clicking on my family.
Exactly, it happened to me all the time with the R5.
To be clear, I am referring to the "subject to detect feature" With the Mark II you have an Auto option, so you set it up and forget about it as it works like a charm! (so far :-))
Giving you the ability to worry about the picture itself and nothing more. I love it.
