It's ok with owls, which is the only thing I used it on so far, but I still much prefer the R3 for this purpose. It tracks AF much better, pre-capture will be great once I get used to it and especially once they add a button for it (with the m3 in four years.) The IQ I'm not sure because there's no DXO for it yet and I haven't looked at a non-DXO image in ... years.
Canon EOS R5m2RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM lens400mmf/2.81/400s12800 ISO+0.3 EV
Canon EOS R5m2RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM lens400mmf/3.21/125s400 ISO+1.3 EV
Canon EOS R5m2RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM lens400mmf/2.81/2500s3200 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM lens400mmf/2.81/2000s3200 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM lens400mmf/2.81/2500s2500 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM lens400mmf/3.21/125s250 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM lens400mmf/2.81/2000s8000 ISO+0.7 EV
Canon EOS R5m2RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM lens400mmf/2.81/1000s12800 ISO-1.0 EV
stanj wrote:
It's ok with owls, which is the only thing I used it on so far, but I still much prefer the R3 for this purpose. It tracks AF much better, pre-capture will be great once I get used to it and especially once they add a button for it (with the m3 in four years.) The IQ I'm not sure because there's no DXO for it yet and I haven't looked at a non-DXO image in ... years.
Great owl shots Stan.
You say you still much prefer the R3 for your owl shooting but you also say the R5II AF tracks much better? Why do you still prefer the R3 for the owls?
You say you still much prefer the R3 for your owl shooting but you also say the R5II AF tracks much better? Why do you still prefer the R3 for the owls?
Thanks! The R5m2 tracks a lot better than the R5, but the R3 still tracks better, and most importantly, high ISO is so so much better with the R3. The R5m2 looks worse than the R5 thus far in this regard. I prefer the resolution of the R5 because the R3 doesn't fill my screen, but once you get above 6400 or so, things start going south for the R5m2 pretty quickly. Again, not quite apples to apples because DXO isn't out yet, but using LR Denoise, there's worlds.
stanj wrote:
Thanks! The R5m2 tracks a lot better than the R5, but the R3 still tracks better, and most importantly, high ISO is so so much better with the R3. The R5m2 looks worse than the R5 thus far in this regard. I prefer the resolution of the R5 because the R3 doesn't fill my screen, but once you get above 6400 or so, things start going south for the R5m2 pretty quickly. Again, not quite apples to apples because DXO isn't out yet, but using LR Denoise, there's worlds.
I wonder if one reason for better R3 AF is that it can drive the 2nd motor in the RF400 where as the R5II still can't drive that as has been speculated in some other threads on here.
arbitrage wrote:
I wonder if one reason for better R3 AF is that it can drive the 2nd motor in the RF400 where as the R5II still can't drive that as has been speculated in some other threads on here.
If that's the case, would it mean that the R5II might be comparable with the R3 for lenses that don't have 2 motors?
Which lenses have 2 motors?
It's always a good idea to dump some unnecessary weight before taking flight (@ ~3 s)
arbitrage wrote:
I wonder if one reason for better R3 AF is that it can drive the 2nd motor in the RF400 where as the R5II still can't drive that as has been speculated in some other threads on here.
As far as I understand it has just one Ring USM motor but two power inputs (sets of pins). One set is for the higher voltage battery.
https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/vladimir-rys-super-telephoto-lenses/ Mike Burnhill, Professional Imaging Product Specialist at Canon Europe, explains that the enhanced autofocus speed with the Canon EOS R3 is down to Dual Power AF. "These two super-telephoto lenses are the first to need the dual power supply," he says. "The optical groups in these lenses are much larger than those used in other lenses, so we drive them with large, high-torque, ring-type USM motors. There are actually two power inputs into these motors. The more power you feed into the motor, the faster it turns, and therefore the faster the autofocus speed can be."
Unlike linear motors (XD, nano USM, voice coil) ring USM do not work in pairs, and there is only one active group in the 400/2.8.
docusync wrote:
It's always a good idea to dump some unnecessary weight before taking flight (@ ~3 s)
As far as I understand it has just one Ring USM motor but two power inputs (sets of pins). One set is for the higher voltage battery.
https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/vladimir-rys-super-telephoto-lenses/ Mike Burnhill, Professional Imaging Product Specialist at Canon Europe, explains that the enhanced autofocus speed with the Canon EOS R3 is down to Dual Power AF. "These two super-telephoto lenses are the first to need the dual power supply," he says. "The optical groups in these lenses are much larger than those used in other lenses, so we drive them with large, high-torque, ring-type USM motors. There are actually two power inputs into these motors. The more power you feed into the motor, the faster it turns, and therefore the faster the autofocus speed can be."
Unlike linear motors (XD, nano USM, voice coil) ring USM do not work in pairs, and there is only one active group in the 400/2.8. ...Show more →
Thanks for that clarification. It is now all coming back to me.
stanj wrote:
Thanks! The R5m2 tracks a lot better than the R5, but the R3 still tracks better, and most importantly, high ISO is so so much better with the R3. The R5m2 looks worse than the R5 thus far in this regard. I prefer the resolution of the R5 because the R3 doesn't fill my screen, but once you get above 6400 or so, things start going south for the R5m2 pretty quickly. Again, not quite apples to apples because DXO isn't out yet, but using LR Denoise, there's worlds.
I've found the R5II to track significantly better and more precisely than the R3 on the RF600. The R3 *does* certainly drive the lens faster for initial AF acquisition, but I've found the precision, particularly with stickiness on the eye, to be better with the R5II on birds in flight, particularly when they are relatively large in the frame.
KINGOFKNGS wrote:
I've found the R5II to track significantly better and more precisely than the R3 on the RF600. The R3 *does* certainly drive the lens faster for initial AF acquisition, but I've found the precision, particularly with stickiness on the eye, to be better with the R5II on birds in flight, particularly when they are relatively large in the frame.
Interesting. May have to do with what, and when, you shoot. Owls, at ISO 12k or higher, with the RF400, the R3 definitely wins every day. I mean, every day - have been going to the forest every day this week, with both cameras, before the season is completely over
stanj wrote:
Interesting. May have to do with what, and when, you shoot. Owls, at ISO 12k or higher, with the RF400, the R3 definitely wins every day. I mean, every day - have been going to the forest every day this week, with both cameras, before the season is completely over
Definitely agree with your feedback on the high ISO! R3 runs circles around the R5(ii).
I've had a couple of really fast approaching shorebirds that the R5II seemed to track and stay on the eye better than I think the R3 would have. Lots of shots of gulls, terns, etc, which have been quite close. Rarely shooting at more than ISO3200.
I haven't shot the R5II and R3 side-by-side and already sold my R3, but did own the R3 from launch day and surely put 500,000 or so shots on it, if not 1,000,000. The owl shots look great, by the way! Certainly possible that I had AF cases different--R3 I always had set with -2 in subject switching and +2 in accel/decel, but have the R5II in -1 in the accel/decel after seeing Jan Wegener's thoughts.
KINGOFKNGS wrote:
Definitely agree with your feedback on the high ISO! R3 runs circles around the R5(ii).
To a very depressing degree, for sure...
But I didn't only mean what image cleanliness is concerned. Also when tracking. I am very happy how the R5m2 tracks on a good day, but once it gets owl flight time, no chance. I have been forcing myself to shoot with the R5m2 exclusively just to dial it in, and tomorrow I will have no choice since my son is stealing my R3 for HS football, but I definitely can see that the R5's tracking capability drops once the sun sets.
Here's a pre-flight check from tonight. And then she turned and flew the other way.
Canon EOS R5m2RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM lens400mmf/2.81/125s400 ISO-0.3 EV
Canon EOS R5m2RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM lens400mmf/2.81/125s320 ISO-0.7 EV
KINGOFKNGS wrote:
Definitely agree with your feedback on the high ISO! R3 runs circles around the R5(ii).
I've had a couple of really fast approaching shorebirds that the R5II seemed to track and stay on the eye better than I think the R3 would have. Lots of shots of gulls, terns, etc, which have been quite close. Rarely shooting at more than ISO3200.
I haven't shot the R5II and R3 side-by-side and already sold my R3, but did own the R3 from launch day and surely put 500,000 or so shots on it, if not 1,000,000. The owl shots look great, by the way! Certainly possible that I had AF cases different--R3 I always had set with -2 in subject switching and +2 in accel/decel, but have the R5II in -1 in the accel/decel after seeing Jan Wegener's thoughts. ...Show more →
I think it must be different settings/cases because from day one I did not see any noticeable advantage of the R5II over the R3. I still think the R3 is better, even if just splitting hairs, but I guess there’s a lot of variables and it’s possible the R5Ii could be better in certain scenarios.
