Is video bird/animal AF vastly improved over the original R5? Is video stabilization improved? Is ISO performance and dynamic range improved? Can electronic shutter be used while bracketing exposures?
PhilH wrote:
I've had one for a bit now. Will post a few things soon, but for those who rely heavily on AF, yes, it's pretty impressive. There is a lot of personalization to make it work how you want, but the Servo and tracking is pretty wild in action.
I still have one of my OG R5 bodies too.
Oh, I have a few 3rd party battery chargers and all work with the LP-E6P batteries so far.
The biggest ergonomic and control change for those who own an R5 are really two things. One, the Off/Lock/On switch being on the right side of the camera. Two, the joystick texture and shape is different. Where On/Off was on the R5, there is now a Still/Motion dial switch as well. Camera feels largely the same other than that in the hand. ...Show more →
docusync wrote:
It also finds birds very well and effortlessly. It's a throw-away photo but just to give an idea how the recognition works (100-500+1.4x)
If the R52 can find that bird's eye I'm even more excited. That's the kind of shot that I'd have to use single point on w/ the R5. Eye detect would jump to the tip of the leaf or fruit, guaranteed.
Great shots. Haven’t tried the R5ii yet but I just spent an hour playing with the R1 and the AF was unbelievable. It was absolutely ridiculous. If I shot sports I wouldn’t even think twice about buying it. I shoot mammals in Africa primarily so I don’t believe the cross AF would offer me any real value over other camera bodies. But either way it was seriously impressive what Canon accomplished.
Yaniv wrote:
Last weekend, swim meet. 100% focus hit.
Thanks for sharing this - I preordered for the preshoot feature assuming it would be a game changer for any action photography (sports & wildlife) and excited to see it playing out that way in the field.
robert_in_ca wrote:
.... I shoot mammals in Africa primarily so I don’t believe the cross AF would offer me any real value over other camera bodies...
I'd argue cross type points will aid EVERYONE in their photography (who use AF). If you recall the DSLR days, the difference between horizontal and cross points was measurable in all forms of photography. For those who aren't sure what that means, it was basically the difference between focusing with the edge points and the center points. But note, most of the later DSLRs had double cross points in the center which were significantly more accurate than the horizontal edge points, however its likely the differences will still be similar because of how those AF sensors were set up (double cross in the center and single cross in the edges).
Obviously, I can't prove this. This is just an educated guess, but that's my take.
Mike Jacks0n wrote:
I'd argue cross type points will aid EVERYONE in their photography (who use AF). If you recall the DSLR days, the difference between horizontal and cross points was measurable in all forms of photography. For those who aren't sure what that means, it was basically the difference between focusing with the edge points and the center points. But note, most of the later DSLRs had double cross points in the center which were significantly more accurate than the horizontal edge points, however its likely the differences will still be similar because of how those AF sensors were set up (double cross in the center and single cross in the edges).
Obviously, I can't prove this. This is just an educated guess, but that's my take. ...Show more →
Well I shot with the R3 for close to a year and from my limited time with the R1 for what I shoot there's no added benefit to me. That's not to say it wouldn't be to someone else.
If we look at value, the R3 wins hands down over the R1 unless you are shooting something very specific 100% of the time that would require the R1. I don't see the value in the R1 for most people over the R3 considering you can get a new R3 for $3700 or a like new R3 close to $3000. I would much rather have an R3/R5 for the price of an R1, as an R1 is not going to benefit me over the R3.
The extra $2600-$3000 for the R1 would only get me a few more keepers to throw away, in a heavier/bulkier body. I don't feel the R3 is limited anywhere except for the 24mp. If the R1 was 45mp then I would say it's a much better value at $6299, but, it's not.
Even if you were shooting basketball game with the fancy R1 AI AF, I don't believe you'll see a difference in the end result compared to another good photographer shooting the same game with an R3.
robert_in_ca wrote:
Well I shot with the R3 for close to a year and from my limited time with the R1 for what I shoot there's no added benefit to me. That's not to say it wouldn't be to someone else.
I can appreciate the R3 is so good that any differences are minimized. But history has shown me, very minor differences in AF are magnified by orders of magnitude when a shot is missed that the other camera would have got. Not fair to the incumbent, but I feel like that's how most people are.
Yaniv wrote:
Lightroom can edit the R5II RAW files
I guess I'm stuck waiting for Capture One adding support. I abandoned Adobe many years ago. Kudos to them having support before official release. That's how it should be.
Howie4life wrote:
I guess I'm stuck waiting for Capture One adding support. I abandoned Adobe many years ago. Kudos to them having support before official release. That's how it should be.
Try Canon's DPP software to convert to TIFFs in the meantime?
Cduff406 wrote:
For those of you lucky guys who already have your R5M2, have you tried if an R5 l-bracket will fit the Mark 2?
I don't have an L bracket for the R5, but the R5II tripod socket appears to be in the exact same distance from the side and front of the camera. However, from the socket to the back of the camera the R5II is wider, so depending on how wide your L bracket is, it could block the vents on the bottom of the R5II. Not sure if this matters or not.
Mike Jacks0n wrote:
I can appreciate the R3 is so good that any differences are minimized. But history has shown me, very minor differences in AF are magnified by orders of magnitude when a shot is missed that the other camera would have got. Not fair to the incumbent, but I feel like that's how most people are.
But I do respect your opinion on it.
So many times canon has produced a camera that was a dud upgrade on paper but ended up being a star in the field. I think the pre-capture is a game-changer. I was thinking of passing on R5 for a bit but spent a good 10 hours capturing sea lions fish salmon in Valdez, and I missed the best shot by half a second multiple times. Paid for R5II as soon as I got back home and now waiting on delivery. I think between improved eyefocus, subject tracking & prefocus, anyone who ends up using the new cameras is going to love it.
1. The joystick button cap is different. It's more of a dome shape without the sharp edge and it has less bite than the R5 button cap (you can see in my photo above). R5II could have more tendency for thumb slipping and not biting on the joystick if you were trying to bump it on the edge like I did with R5
2. So far without digging further, I don't believe Canon allows you to assign the M-fn button on the R5II to change between photo and video. This is a bummer for muscle memory if using with R5, and it eliminates a quick switch option between photo/video without removing your right hand from the camera. It appears Canon is making us use the new switch on the top left, but I would also like the option to use the M-fn button as I have for years on the R5. I might be missing this setting somewhere, so I'll keep looking.
3. The interval timer is the same old and is unchanged. I would really like the option to select more than 1fps for this. It would be nice to select up between say 1-7fps as I use this feature for a second camera angle on a tripod sometimes and 1fps is not enough.
