I am interested to hear how AF on R5-II does with small Birds in Flight against a busy background. I don't really care about people's shots in particular in that IMHO most top cameras from the last 5+ years will nail shots on people running, walking, etc, so any improvements in that regard are lost on me. Original Canon R5 or Sony as far back as A7R3 are already exceptional in that regard. I don't shoot competitive basketball.
I went shooting hummingbirds recently to a familiar spot where I've tested most cameras I've owned in the last 5 years or so. My R8 has better AF than my original R5 I. It has hummingbirds coming from trees to feeders but a lot of shots are against tree branches. Out of all the bodies that I've owned in the last 5 years (including Canon R5, R8, Sony A1, Sony A7R5, Fuji XH2, XH2s, XT5, you name it), the fastest focus acquisition on these hummers came from Olympus OM1 Mark 1 (I have not tried mark 2). I don't know what OMD did there but it finds birds on very busy backgrounds instantly. The problem with OM1 is once the bird starts flying, OM1 shows traditional Olympus inconsistency with tracking, with shots going in and out of focus. R8 that inherited AF from R3 has amazing AF, but struggled a lot in initial acquisition, just could not locate a hummingbird flying between branches. However, once it hits the hummer, it keeps it in focus throughout the flight most of the time.
Went outside to test the AF on the R5II, I gave up trying to take pictures of birds with the 100-300, should I get a 2x converter or a longer focal lens?
Canon EOS R5m2 RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens 300mm f/2.8 1/2500s 500 ISO
Canon EOS R5m2 RF 100-300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens 300mm f/2.8 1/800s 500 ISO
Yaniv wrote:
Went outside to test the AF on the R5II, I gave up trying to take pictures of birds with the 100-300, should I get a 2x converter or a longer focal lens?
Was down at the beach for a maternity shoot and saw some cool looking birds. These RAW files were converted on an old machine that can't handle heavy editing in LR without crashing so there has been no NR or proper processing done on them.
Canon EOS R5m2EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens300mmf/5.01/2500s3200 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens300mmf/5.01/2500s1600 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens300mmf/5.01/2500s2000 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens300mmf/3.51/2500s800 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens300mmf/3.51/2500s1250 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens300mmf/3.51/2500s1000 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens300mmf/3.51/2500s1250 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens300mmf/3.51/2500s1250 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens300mmf/5.01/2500s2500 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens300mmf/5.01/2500s1600 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5m2EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens300mmf/5.01/2500s1600 ISO0.0 EV
artsupreme wrote:
Was down at the beach for a maternity shoot and saw some cool looking birds. These RAW files were converted on an old machine that can't handle heavy editing in LR without crashing so there has been no NR or proper processing done on them.
Thanks for sharing these images. I love what I see. Was it a struggle to get these images with the 300 F 2.8 +2 x teleconverter combo on the R5M2? Can you comment on how it feels/performs compared to using the combo on a R5M1 or the R3? thanks
Is it an EXIF rendering thing or is it really the RF extender with the EF lens? I read this was possible with a third party RF-EF adapter, or is it just actually the EF 2x? Lovely photos btw
Yaniv wrote:
Went outside to test the AF on the R5II, I gave up trying to take pictures of birds with the 100-300, should I get a 2x converter or a longer focal lens?
Don't know about the 100-300 lens. No experience. But, I was never impressed with the 300II with converters. Or the 300 IS for that matter. My copies showed a huge hit when using a TC. Unless you were right on top of the bird.
IMO once you really get into it you will not want to use TC's on any Canon lenses for birding.
just take a look at the quality of the RF 800 and 1200 mm lenses. If you want to see what a 2x is like on a Canon lens.
gkinard1952 wrote:
Don't know about the 100-300 lens. No experience. But, I was never impressed with the 300II with converters. Or the 300 IS for that matter. My copies showed a huge hit when using a TC. Unless you were right on top of the bird.
IMO once you really get into it you will not want to use TC's on any Canon lenses for birding.
just take a look at the quality of the RF 800 and 1200 mm lenses. If you want to see what a 2x is like on a Canon lens.
I pretty much disagree 100% on every opinion you just stated
Let me ask, are you happy with skintone? To me it‘s too pale or may be it’s the green reflection from the gras. If you made a similar observation, is it a R5 II characteristic or of the RAW converter. Does DPP already support the camera?
gkinard1952 wrote:
Don't know about the 100-300 lens. No experience. But, I was never impressed with the 300II with converters. Or the 300 IS for that matter. My copies showed a huge hit when using a TC. Unless you were right on top of the bird.
IMO once you really get into it you will not want to use TC's on any Canon lenses for birding.
just take a look at the quality of the RF 800 and 1200 mm lenses. If you want to see what a 2x is like on a Canon lens.
Gee, I guess all the photographers that have taken great bird photos taken using TC's on Canon lenses did not know that, or that the RF 800 and 1200mm lenses were so crappy.
Canon EOS R5RF800mm F11 IS STM lens800mmf/11.01/125s250 ISO-0.5 EV
Canon EOS R5RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM + EXTENDER RF2x lens800mmf/16.01/1000s3200 ISO0.0 EV
Canon EOS R5RF800mm F11 IS STM lens800mmf/11.01/2000s2500 ISO+1.0 EV
Canon EOS R5RF800mm F11 IS STM lens800mmf/11.01/500s2000 ISO0.0 EV
gkinard1952 wrote:
No problem. My opinion using the lenses for birding. Just not that sharp with T.C's . For birding, I don't know anything about other photography.
I disagree massively too, but I still respect that, for you, the extenders are not worth it. Everyone has their own limits for IQ.
For me, extenders are INTEGRAL to my wildlife shooting. Can't imagine not using them. It's probably the single biggest reason for not considering Nikon's cool super telephoto lineup. Yes, there is always some degradation, but if used correctly, that degradation is so small that it is not noticeable.
Ever since the R5, TC's have a completely new meaning. The ability to snap focus on small subjects darting around, has really given TCs a new life for me. But note, on slower lenses, the downsides are too great. At least for me. For example, the 100-500 takes it excellently optically, but its performance is in the gutter for just about everything else. So, TCs are definitely a case-by-case type thing. That said, I haven't used a Canon supertele that didn't work well with them. The EF III super teles didn't make me ecstatic but were still better than the rest of the market (minus maybe Sony at that time).
gkinard1952 wrote:
No problem. My opinion using the lenses for birding. Just not that sharp with T.C's . For birding, I don't know anything about other photography.
I can't speak to the RF 800 and RF 1200 but I can say the 1.4TC on my RF 400mm 2.8 was sharp and worked incredibly well.
absolutic wrote:
very nice. Do you have any other Canons on hand and/or can you talk about whether you see any improvements?
I haven't shot anything super demanding to determine how much better it is in the most demanding situations. It's obviously much better than the R5 but I can't say how much better it is than R3 as I would need to shoot more difficult subjects or fast action like motocross with big whites @ wide open apertures. The R3 gives me a lot of confidence as I feel it nails most everything and I felt the same with the R5II after only one session and not tweaking with AF settings.
It could be better than the R3, but I don't shoot birds and it seems the benchmark nowadays for AF seems to be how good AF is with small erratic birds. Hopefully one of the bird photogs here can soon put it to the test.
cjacques wrote:
Thanks for sharing these images. I love what I see. Was it a struggle to get these images with the 300 F 2.8 +2 x teleconverter combo on the R5M2? Can you comment on how it feels/performs compared to using the combo on a R5M1 or the R3? thanks
Definitely a step up from the R5, and for what I've shot with it so far it feels like an R3. It could be better, but I haven't shot anything yet that puts a stress test on the AF as those birds I shot were not too demanding IMO.
yanr wrote:
Is it an EXIF rendering thing or is it really the RF extender with the EF lens? I read this was possible with a third party RF-EF adapter, or is it just actually the EF 2x? Lovely photos btw
Yes, RF 2x was in place and those shots were all at 600mm handheld. It just doesn't report properly with the RF 2x and adapter.
