I agree that am not finding it better than the R3 but it is dam close, so personally I will give Canon credit here. The R5 II is a nice package. If you need the 45MP then it could be a great choice, if not the R3 is a great value right now. I still prefer the feel of the R3 over the R5 II with and without the grip. Both are solid choices. The R5 II paired with the 100-300 is such a nice combo.
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.
In the absence of DxO, I tried LR and PS denoise and found it very slow and not particulary good. Using LR (or DPP4) to convert RAW and saving to jpeg without any noise reduction or sharpening and then denoising and sharpening with Topaz AI gave much cleaner and more detailed results. It's a real pain having to wait for DxO as it works so well with high resolution sensors.
RobAmy wrote:
I agree that am not finding it better than the R3 but it is dam close, so personally I will give Canon credit here. The R5 II is a nice package. If you need the 45MP then it could be a great choice, if not the R3 is a great value right now. I still prefer the feel of the R3 over the R5 II with and without the grip. Both are solid choices. The R5 II paired with the 100-300 is such a nice combo.
I'll be interested in your and Stan's opinions when you revisit this after using the R1.
@stanj the light in the third image in post #5 above is pure magic to my eyes!
I took the R5II + 85/1.2 (non-DS) today to take my girls' pictures doing flying trapeze.The venue in Nashville features horrendous light, so I started at ISO 3200 1/1600s but after seeing the first images switched to ISO 2500 1/1250s.The R5II produces much harsher noise than the R5 / A1 at high ISOs. It's some sort of black grain. Much harder to clean up too. Tried Topaz and LR NR, and at the end it's either noise or no details.
Overall the camera performed very well. AF is fantastic. I remember a year ago I gave up on human recognition of my A1 and was just shooting with a Small area AF (similar to Canon's single point in size).The original R5 performed much better than the A1 in terms of recognition but was having hard times following my subjects. The R5 II has no issues recognizing unusual poses and following.Unlike the 50/1.2GM I had on the A1, the RF85/1.2 is not a fast lens. It takes a noticeable amount of time (~1/3s) to acquire focus initially but then it has zero problems following and nailing focus frame by frame. https://gallery-api.medolap.com/api/file/any/34a76b15-309c-4f67-b557-43e66696cbc4?width=3000&height=2000&quality=100&ext=.jpg
The flash capabilities when using electronic shutter is a real game changer. This is a 12 image focus stack with Helicon Focus and using the EL-5 (which I really like).
R52A8637_48 v2 (B,R8,S4) Forest Mushroom Baxter SP[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/downhillonwater/]Steve King, on Flickr
downhillonwater wrote:
The flash capabilities when using electronic shutter is a real game changer. This is a 12 image focus stack with Helicon Focus and using the EL-5 (which I really like).
I'm not a flash guy but I'm curious how a flash can fire fast enough doing focus bracketing.
Isn't recycle time something like 1.2 sec. on the EL-5? How does that work when the camera is banging off 20 or 30fps?
I know I'm missing something here.
