p.2 #1 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
Hairy Heron wrote:
I’ve been having these AF issues since this update too. I haven’t changed any of my settings since I first set it up at launch. So my question is, if I want to roll back to 1.0.2 is the procedure the same as with the R5? - either the one or two card methods that a Google search shows.
I’ve never felt I needed to do a roll back before but my AF has become stubborn and or slow to react. Previously it was like a magnet on birds. It’s baby and migration season I can’t wait for Canon to maybe fix this when they have a moment....Show more →
I don't believe there's an "official" way to roll back to a previous firmware. If you google it, there's mention of ways to possibly trick a Canon camera by having two firmwares (the latest and the previous) on two different cards and then swapping cards when it thinks you're (re)installing the most recent one. But those comments I saw were older and referring previous Canon models so I'm not sure if that would even work with the R5ii.
I am on the verge of ordering a second body, will likely do so tomorrow or this weekend. If I do, I highly doubt it will come with 1.0.3, I'm hoping 1.0.2. If it does, I'll do a compare/contrast between the two bodies and firmware versions. If it comes with 1.0.0, I hope it's not as buggy as my current R5ii was when it came with 1.0.0. It would crash, glitch and lag pretty badly and 1.0.2 fixed the vast majority of the problems. I've deleted the 1.0.2 installer already on my PC so if I need to get off of 1.0.0 on the second body, 1.0.3 will be my only option.
p.2 #3 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
Carlo_M wrote:
I don't believe there's an "official" way to roll back to a previous firmware. If you google it, there's mention of ways to possibly trick a Canon camera by having two firmwares (the latest and the previous) on two different cards and then swapping cards when it thinks you're (re)installing the most recent one. But those comments I saw were older and referring previous Canon models so I'm not sure if that would even work with the R5ii.
I went ahead and tried the R5/R6 roll back methods and could not get them to work. Could be I was doing it wrong, could be Canon noticed those loopholes too and plugged them up in the R52. But if anyone has had success or has a different working method please share. BTW Canon USA has all the older FW on its support page so no need to hunt and peck for it.
EB-1 wrote:
Why can't you just load the older FW? You can do that on computers and some other devices.
EBH
Canon doesn't make an easy path to do it. If you try to install older FW the normal way the camera will just tell you the FW is older than what is installed so you have to use a workaround, which can differ from model to model. To be fair, a lot of device makers don't allow roll backs anymore just because of the potential screw ups that can happen and then customers bark at them even though the customer tried the roll back at their own risk.
p.2 #4 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
Hairy Heron wrote:
Canon doesn't make an easy path to do it. If you try to install older FW the normal way the camera will just tell you the FW is older than what is installed so you have to use a workaround, which can differ from model to model. To be fair, a lot of device makers don't allow roll backs anymore just because of the potential screw ups that can happen and then customers bark at them even though the customer tried the roll back at their own risk.
As someone with 48 years in the IT world, this make NO sense to me. Any good software developer will tell you that you MUST have a well functioning and documented roll-back plan should any upgrade either fail outright or display errors that were not found during beta testing. This is change control 101. I too am seeing problems with focus-hunting in both wildlife and aviation that was not present prior to my upgrading. I would love to be able to roll back to see if the problem disappears. But I do not have that option, and as HH mentions, Canon does not support rolling back, so I risk bricking a $4K camera body by trying a work around. This is not a reasonable customer support strategy.
p.2 #6 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
Just some general advice and replies.
re: the firmware link, you can google yourself r5 mark ii 1.0.2 firmware and you'll get that HK link above, I think there's a still active Canon Singapore link, there may be others. All the ZIP file sizes are the same so they should be the actual firmware. ***However*** as we've stated, Canon does not officially support downgrading to a previous firmware so if you decide to download it and do one of the unsupported workarounds, you are on your own. Further, if you brick your camera, Canon may technically decide you were doing an unsupported action and not repair it under warranty. So proceed at your own risk. No use asking here "why doesn't Canon allow this" as I'm pretty sure none of us are Canon IT programmers, it is what it is.
Before you decide to risk downgrading firmware, I'd re-watch that video to make sure you are suffering from what the maker of the video is suffering from. He's not just claiming slightly out of focus shots, he's claiming that the AF is essentially failing completely at times. It won't track the right subject, or even if the focus square is on your subject's eye, the actual focus is on a foreground or background item. If your shots are just slightly out of focus, that's not what the "1.0.3 AF is buggy" reports are claiming. That's likely something else (too slow shutter speed, subject moved, camera shake, etc.). I'd hate for people to risk bricking their cameras when the cause isn't necessarily related to what is being reported as the 1.0.3 bug.
FWIW I took my R5ii out yesterday and shot a few random shots around work. Everything was in focus. But admittedly, it was mostly static shots, nothing challenging like trying to shoot a soccer player through the goal net, or rapidly moving birds in flight.
My advice before you try forcing a downgrade is to watch that video beginning to end to confirm you're suffering from the same issue. Too often people just read a short forum post, then think "I have had out of focus shots so clearly my camera is affected as well!" and then try to do something that could brick their camera. If you are suffering from the issue he describes, and it's important to your workflow (e.g. you have that once in a lifetime shoot coming up) then go ahead and try to downgrade so you don't miss out on your event.
I have no wildlife/sporting events coming up in the next few weeks so I can wait and see if Canon release 1.0.4 shortly. I do have some grad photos and my friend just gave birth last night so there will be newborn photos as well some time in the next 1-2 weeks, but all of my static/portrait shots seem to be tack sharp.
Do what's best for you. But before you do a risky downgrade, make sure that you're truly suffering from what is affecting 1.0.3. and can't wait until the next firmware release.
p.2 #7 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
Flowernut wrote:
what seems to be the consensus. is 1.0.0 or 1.0.1 or 1.0.2 best? Has anyone tried the hong kong download from the link given by carlo_m above?
The zipped file with 102 is the same as I downloaded in January from Canon US. I keep all FW versions they offer, but 1.0.0 was the original and not downloadable. 1.0.2 worked fine, but I used 1.0.1 a lot more. Unfortunately the documentation always
I have the concern that if I rent some copies of the R5 II this summer it may have degenerate AF. I hope they fix it by then.
p.2 #8 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
I only wish I knew WHY I'm NOT experiencing the issues reported by some regarding the 1.0.3 firmware. I'm nailing fast moving birds with ease resulting in virtual 100% hit rates. I'm using the 100-500L exclusively too so perhaps it's with OTHER lenses these issues arise who knows. My 24-105 f4L is also perfect. Just glad I'm not part of the group with issues at this point. Who know what 1.0.4 will bring. But I'd submit that the issues with 1.0.3 are NOT universal that's for sure. Another friend with his R5MkII and 100-500L shooting baseball has rendered him perfection in all his shots. I've seen some and marvel at it's ability to track a particular player no matter if anything or anyone gets in the way. Stays in focus no matter what. With 1.0.3
p.2 #9 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
I should have said something. I currently have loaded 1.0.0 on my camera and have copies of 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 so I am in a positon to load which ever operating firmware I want. So which one seems best?
p.2 #10 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
dcisive wrote:
I only wish I knew WHY I'm NOT experiencing the issues reported by some regarding the 1.0.3 firmware. I'm nailing fast moving birds with ease resulting in virtual 100% hit rates. I'm using the 100-500L exclusively too so perhaps it's with OTHER lenses these issues arise who knows. My 24-105 f4L is also perfect. Just glad I'm not part of the group with issues at this point. Who know what 1.0.4 will bring. But I'd submit that the issues with 1.0.3 are NOT universal that's for sure. Another friend with his R5MkII and 100-500L shooting baseball has rendered him perfection in all his shots. I've seen some and marvel at it's ability to track a particular player no matter if anything or anyone gets in the way. Stays in focus no matter what. With 1.0.3 ...Show more →
My R5ii is focussing fast and impeccably with the RF 100-500mm and with no problems with the RF 200-800mm on small birds hopping around complex backgrounds or in flight. There are reports elsewhere that there are no problems with the RF 100-500mm. That is not to say that the reports of problems are imaginary but maybe with certain lenses on certain bodies and not universal.
p.2 #12 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
dcisive wrote:
I only wish I knew WHY I'm NOT experiencing the issues reported by some regarding the 1.0.3 firmware. I'm nailing fast moving birds with ease resulting in virtual 100% hit rates. I'm using the 100-500L exclusively too so perhaps it's with OTHER lenses these issues arise who knows. My 24-105 f4L is also perfect. Just glad I'm not part of the group with issues at this point. Who know what 1.0.4 will bring. But I'd submit that the issues with 1.0.3 are NOT universal that's for sure. Another friend with his R5MkII and 100-500L shooting baseball has rendered him perfection in all his shots. I've seen some and marvel at it's ability to track a particular player no matter if anything or anyone gets in the way. Stays in focus no matter what. With 1.0.3 ...Show more →
It should go without saying that the operating system on cameras is complex and offers 100s of different set up combinations and the # of users sharing the same set up and use case is a subset. So it's no mystery that on any given body or FW version some users experience oddities and others won't notice them. Bug smashing is never complete. Universal issues are less likely because they are widely noticed, presumably easier to catch too during beta testing.
This bug is something that is likely triggered by selecting specific setup options or just a bad install of the FW. Personally, I have both the 100-500 and 200-800 and have been experiencing the lazy AF since I installed 1.0.3. Just yesterday I missed a killer shot of an adult eagle launching straight towards me from the nest w/ 3 chicks looking on. The focus was already on the eagle in the next when it launched out and the focus square remains on the eagle as it comes toward me but the AF never adjusted -- it stuck to the nest, even after I briefly let go of the BBF and then re-engaged, hoping that would trigger the AF on.
The funny thing is until I saw the video hinting at a possible problem and thought "hey, that sounds like what I'm experiencing I was chalking it up to being rusty, having not shot much over the winter. So bottomline, here and with almost any given FW update is YMMV. And just because some users don't notice a problem doesn't negate its existence for others.
gkinard1952 wrote:
Reading this thread is kinda of disturbing! Reading this, looks like Canon is purposely crippling the AF? Wow!
While you are being tongue in cheek, Canon certainly isn't being proactive to resolve the issue. Maybe it takes them a while, but in the meantime they could release a rollback tool for those that want to move back while they work on a solution. Of course, that's not Canon's nature, just me wish casting.
p.2 #13 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
gkinard1952 wrote:
Reading this thread is kinda of disturbing! Reading this, looks like Canon is purposely crippling the AF? Wow!
Of all the different takes on this (and other) threads re: 1.0.3 firmware (the nature of the bug, what conditions it affects the camera, what combo of lens+focal range it impacts, etc.) this is pretty much the only one I am pretty sure isn't true. It's an "arms race" with Canon/Sony/Nikon/etc. to have superior features and performance to the others in order to capture a larger segment of the market. I'm 99.999% sure none of them are going to purposely cripple their own camera because it performs too well.
This is uncharted territory for Canon. Previous models firmware were in the 50-70MB range. The R5mk2 firmware is 250MB. So there's clearly a lot more "under the hood" that this firmware controls than previous models. With a firmware this large and presumably more complex, they quite simply did what many programmers do when updating programs this large. They fixed some things and accidentally messed up some others.
If software were easy to program, they'd get it right the first time and never update. When was the last time any of us used a program that never needed updating?
May 03, 2025 at 10:05 PM
semmmyq Offline • [X]
p.2 #14 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
Likely a firmware quirk or settings drift. Try:
Reset AF settings (or full camera reset).
Check subject detection priority (People vs Animals might conflict).
Test different lighting (firmware may tweak low-light thresholds).
If no fix, report to Canon—R5 II’s new AI AF is still being optimized.
p.2 #15 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
As I read these posts I feel really badly for the folks who are caught in this frustration, that is, having problems with a firmware update but not being able to go back to a previous version.
Having worked daily with software since 1980 I have had a strict personal policy of never adopting an update for at least several months after its release and I see from the forums that all or most of the problems are gone. I've done this with every Windows operating system since it first came out, all major Adobe software packages and a host of others. I did this for the many Nikon cameras I've owned over the years until I switched to Canon in 2022 with the R5. And I continue to do this with my R5 on which I continue to run firmware ver. 1.7.0, flawlessly. I didn't want that weird pixel-shift feature put on my R5 so I didn't load the firmware version that offered it. I find that the risk-reward quotient is just not worth it.
Please understand, I'm not in anyway gloating or bragging, just offering some friendly advice from a guy whose been in the trenches for a while and has found a defensive approach that works for me.
Hope you all get your R5iis working like a dream soon,
Rudy
p.2 #16 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
Rudy Pohl wrote:
As I read these posts I feel really badly for the folks who are caught in this frustration, that is, having problems with a firmware update but not being able to go back to a previous version.
Having worked daily with software since 1980 I have had a strict personal policy of never adopting an update for at least several months after its release and I see from the forums that all or most of the problems are gone. I've done this with every Windows operating system since it first came out, all major Adobe software packages and a host of others. I did this for the many Nikon cameras I've owned over the years until I switched to Canon in 2022 with the R5. And I continue to do this with my R5 on which I continue to run firmware ver. 1.7.0, flawlessly. I didn't want that weird pixel-shift feature put on my R5 so I didn't load the firmware version that offered it. I find that the risk-reward quotient is just not worth it.
Please understand, I'm not in anyway gloating or bragging, just offering some friendly advice from a guy whose been in the trenches for a while and has found a defensive approach that works for me.
Hope you all get your R5iis working like a dream soon,
Rudy...Show more →
Unfortunately I will get at least one body with whatever FW they have in the summer.
It's ridiculous that rollbacks are not allowed. I can update the FW to a half-dozen versions on a $500 mainboard, so there is no excuse for a $5000 camera.
p.2 #17 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
EB-1 wrote:
The zipped file with 102 is the same as I downloaded in January from Canon US. I keep all FW versions they offer, but 1.0.0 was the original and not downloadable. 1.0.2 worked fine, but I used 1.0.1 a lot more. Unfortunately the documentation always
I have the concern that if I rent some copies of the R5 II this summer it may have degenerate AF. I hope they fix it by then.
EBH
I can go with 1.0.0 as that what is currently loaded. I've got 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 available. Assuming I'm going to avoid 1.0.3 for now, which would you recommend?
p.2 #19 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
I would also +1 to using 1.0.2. While no firmware was 100% perfect, I don't recall too many people posting issues with 1.0.2 (although clearly there are some which 1.0.3 was supposed to address).
p.2 #20 · Any Issues With Firmware 1.0.3 on a R5MkII?
About the ONLY thing I'd agree with is that Canon SHOULD have allowed a camera owner, via a memory card process, to load ANY and all firmware available at any time. It would have been nice for those that claim 1.0.2 to be superior, to reload it on their cameras just to see if what they are claiming is correct. In my case 1.0.3 is just fine. But as mentioned it would be nice for the option.
