artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Canon announces up to 6 month delay for next R5II shipment (parts shortage) | |
Hairy Heron wrote:
I have to disagree a bit with this part of your analysis based on my previous R5 ownership and my current experiences with the R52. The AF is much more than sticking to "extreme action." The beauty of the R52's AF is as much its accuracy in a crowded scene as it is its stickiness of fast moving subjects. By example, there is a rabbit that's routinely snacking on a path I walk a few days a week. I'll take a few shots of it as a "warm up" exercise. The R5 alway had a tough time focusing on the eye when the rabbit's head was in the grass. OTOH the R52 hones in on the eye as if the grass didn't exist, and it does it immediately, no flittering around for a few seconds.
Also, the AF finds and locks in on BIF at a much further distance than the R5, giving me more time to prepare for when it gets into shooting distance and to think about what the bird is preparing to do.
Similarly, when you ask "do you really need" pre-capture it reads rather pejorative like it's a gimmick. It's not a gimmick. It may be "cheating," but it works beautifully on the R52 (though needs a better way to control or dial it down). Anyone who shoots sports or wildlife "needs" it, unless they are mind readers of humans and animals. Yes, I lived without pre-capture for decades and still have lots of great bird action shots, but humans also lived without electricity for millennia.
I agree the R5's current price is a bargain but the R52 is not a "speciality" or "pro only" camera. Anyone who mostly shoots wildlife or sports will benefit from its improvements over the R5. Period. It seems to me the decision to buy or not buy the R52 really comes down to the impact on one's financial picture and how serious a hobby wildlife or sports photography is for them....Show more →
My analysis is based on the (2) R5II's I've owned for several weeks now, while shooting along side my R5's. Based on your response maybe you think I'm one who's never used one?
The three things I mentioned are the three things the R5 can't do and are worthy of an R5II upgrade, IF one really needs them. Rolling shutter is another one I did not mention but again, is that something everyone really needs? I did not call pre-capture a gimmick as you put it, I asked if Gkinard if he really needed an R5II because not everyone will use this feature. It burns the battery and heats up the camera, and as of right now it can't be programmed to be easily turned on/off. Maybe pre-capture is popular here for birds taking off from a perch, but not everyone shoots birds. There's a use for it in other areas, but let's not forget we've been shooting Canon digital for 24yrs with great results without pre-capture, and now somehow pre-capture is an absolutely necessity as if all former photos taken before the R5II missed the mark?? You say "anyone who shoots wildlife or sports needs it"....I completely disagree because I shoot both, and I'll rarely use it unless I'm trying to get a specialty shot. Pre-capture is a small part of the photography portfolio, so if you think it's the be-all end-all then you are missing out on a lot of other amazing captures.
I'm very aware of the R5's AF limitations, like your bunny in the grass scenario. However, this does not mean using a different method won't allow you to get the shot with the R5. Not everyone relies on AI AF, all the time. Some people use it only in situations when they know it will work. The R5II AF will obvioulsy do better and will nail a much higher percentage, but are you saying the R5 is not capable of getting the shot as well? Do we present and publish the 90 keepers of the R5II sequence of 100 or do we just pick a few favorites of the batch? My point is in the end, the R5 is plenty capable of getting the shot too, but you just have less to choose from, and less keepers to throw away. I've been shooting motocross with the R3 and R5 side by side for years. Yes, the R3 nails most everything compared to the R5, but at the end of the day when I cull and pick my favorites, the R5 is nailing just as many keepers in that final collection. It's a very capable camera, even for fast action.
As for the R5II being a specialty or pro camera? I agree everyone who shoots wildlife or sports can benefit from its improvements, but if one is on a budget the R5II is far from a necessity when looking at the end result. When members here are discussing the price point of the R5II and it being too expensive, then you have to look at what it really gives you over a less expensive R5. You won't see many images here in the R5II threads that the R5 is not very capable of, or has already been posted here from the R5, and this is why I asked Gkinard why he really needs the R5II. Does he shoot tiny erratic birds with pre-capture 100% of the time? Doubt it.
If one has the money to afford the R5II then by all means buy it as it's a great all-in-one camera, with great resolution, speed, and AF. However, if you are concerned about budget and value then the R5 can do nearly everything the R5II can do, with pretty much identical IQ for stills.
IMO, when considering budget and value, two cameras is better than one. So unless you are someone who shoots primarily the things the R5 can't do, then (2) R5's is better than one R5II. I would happily take (2) R5's to Africa instead of one of my R5II's as I can already tell you which would yield a better end result.
And at this point, for approx $700 more, you can own an R3/R5 combo for the price of an R5II. So there's options to look at when you are considering budget, versatility, and value, which was what my post to Gkinard was referring to.
|
