So I got a used R5 for my Yellowstone trip. Before that I've been using a R6II for everything and was pretty satisfied. Now that I'm on my way back (literally typing this while in the air flying back to Miami), I can't help but notice I leaned on the R5 more and chose it over the R6II whenever possible. The 45mp is just too good to ignore. It reminds me of the 5DsR which I loved. I do see some AF shortcomings between the R5 and the R6II. Does the R5II improve on the AF to the point that it could be a better overall camera than the R5 and R6II combined? I'm only a hobbyist so I don't need to have two bodies. I think I can sell the two cameras for close to what I would pay for a R5II.
Thoughts?
If you use the R5 far more due to the 45MP and set for a single camera, the R5mii is a nice alternative.
MOst of my shooting is sports, but for fun and recreational uses I go out every now and then and shoot some birds and some other wildlife subjects that I come across.
I upgraded from R5 to R5mii and for me the AF was not a reason to upgrade, the R5 AF was sufficient for my needs. The AF of the R5mii has improved over the AF of the R5, but over the past few months I did not feel that it gave me shots I would have missed with the original R5. I mention this, because you mentioned the R5 had some shortcomings over the R6mii. The R5mii has the better AF over the R6mii, so if the AF of the R5 limits you and you want the 45MP's most of the time, the R5mii would be a nice upgrade.
As mentioned, I didn't upgrade to the R5mii from the R5 for the AF. The reasons that I considered in my upgrade decision were:
1. The faster readout when using electronic shutter (this was by far my no 1 reason, since I bought an old 400mm f2.8 which has limitations on FPS in mechanical shutter mode, so I wanted to use electronic shutter more often and wanted less rolling shutter than the R5 could offer).
2. The pre-capture feature. I had used this on my R7 (which I sold to get the 400mm) and it was a nice feature to have. I don't use it for my main shooting purposes (sport), but it is very nice to have for my occasional wildlife. The implementation of it on the R5mii is much better than that of the R7 and the rolling shutter effect is far less on the R5mii than on the R7, making it more usable. (I think the R6mii has the pre-capture feature similar to the R7).
3. The ability to set a beep sound in electronic shutter. This was not a decisive reason, but a very nice to have. I had that ability on my R7 as well and I just prefer to have some audible feedback when shooting and not only the flickering white border in the viewfinder. But if the R5 and R5mii had the same readout speeds (i.e. same rolling shutter effect) I would have stayed with the R5 and accepted the (only) silent electronic shutter.
I don't use the 24MP FF bodies, but I would not give up two cameras for one, especially since the R5 II is not a major upgrade over the R5 like other Mark IIs have been. I have hundreds of thousands from both and used over a dozen copies of R5/R5 II bodies altogether. The R5's AF has improved over the past few years with FW updates. The R5 II's AF is better yet but the difference only matters in certain circumstances. The adjustable framing rate in ES is more important to me than the AF. For fast action like flying BIFs 30 FPS is obviously better than 20, but the buffer throughput is no better. You will need the cRAW to get longer bursts. I have not found pre-continuous mode to be as useful as hoped and the eyeball aimed AF point isn't so great for me. The R5 II images are noisier than the R5's due to the stackable sensor. I always suggest renting first.
Both are excellent cameras. I used the R5 along with my R6II and found the AF to be better on the R6II. In my experience the AF on the R6II acquired subjects a bit faster and was noticeably stickier. I did, however, find the 45mp to be very nice to work with and more addictive than I thought it would be. It was nice to be able to crop without great loss of detail. For me the R5II has been a great combination of both cameras with the AF being noticeably improved over the R5 and even over the already outstanding R6II. I have kept the R6II as I find it to be an excellent companion to the R5II and is sometimes my preferred choice, particularly in low light where it out performs the R5II. I shoot a lot of wildlife in evening light as well as astrophotography, and the results from the R6II are better to my eyes than the R5II.
I find that the R5II is the camera I pick up first and use most frequently though as it's a superb all-around camera and if you are looking to have just one camera, I think the R5II is a solid replacement for both the R5 and R6II.
Andy
Max_Pain wrote:
So I got a used R5 for my Yellowstone trip. Before that I've been using a R6II for everything and was pretty satisfied. Now that I'm on my way back (literally typing this while in the air flying back to Miami), I can't help but notice I leaned on the R5 more and chose it over the R6II whenever possible. The 45mp is just too good to ignore. It reminds me of the 5DsR which I loved. I do see some AF shortcomings between the R5 and the R6II. Does the R5II improve on the AF to the point that it could be a better overall camera than the R5 and R6II combined? I'm only a hobbyist so I don't need to have two bodies. I think I can sell the two cameras for close to what I would pay for a R5II.
Thoughts?...Show more →
In short, yes, the R5II's AF is the 'best' of the three options.
A longer response would need to delve into whether or not you'd really benefit from the AF improvement.
My experience is that the R5II and R1 (and maybe R3, but I have not used one for a few years) are a noticeable improvement in initial AF acquisition and overall AF performance over previous Canon cameras, in dynamic situations that would benefit from this. For example I do a lot of sports and people events. The R5II's AF is faster to recognize/acquire/lock onto people/faces/eyes than the R6II. It also feels overall more responsive to fire the first frame in timing critical situations. Along with this, its EVF performance is less laggy than the R6II's, which was already better than the R5/R6 generation, to the point of barely being a factor when photographing fast action (IMO the R1 is better than the R5II in this respect). And the R5II's stacked sensor is fast enough for most action to use the camera virtually 100% in e-shutter. The only downside here for my uses has been that e-shutter flash sync at 1/160 is on the slow side in brighter ambient conditions and leads to image ghosting when there is camera or subject motion. Sometimes it's possible to use HSS to get around this, but at the cost of reduced flash range. Or just switch to EFCS or fully mechanical shutter to slightly bump the flash sync speed.
Ignoring resolution and just focusing on overall responsiveness of these cameras, the R5II is the best of the three. If responsiveness and 'smoothness' of use are relatively high priorities for you, then yes, I strongly believe you will prefer the R5II.
It's these reasons I reach for the R5II first yet sometimes wish it wasn't 45MP, which IMO is overkill for a lot of what I'm covering. A downside is that even in CRAW it's easy to generate a couple hundred GB of images per event, which in turn burns faster through storage, requires more computing time for things like AI noise reduction, etc. I upgraded my computer system because 45MP was bogging down what I was previously using, so there was also that expense. I am indeed looking forward to seeing what the R6III offers and hope that its AF performance will at least match the R5II (and that it has a stacked sensor), but am not holding my breath. While I don't really care about MP that much, I do appreciate that in some situations 45MP lets me use shorter glass (saving size and weight) to put a similar number of pixels on the subject compared to what I'd need to fill the frame at 24MP.
I took a trip last year and took a R5 Mk II. I’ve shot many different cameras over time. I found that it was the most comfortable and intuitive camera I’ve ever used. I didn’t have to think about it - it just delivered. I could just observe and record. IMO, that’s what we need to look for.
The AF shortcomings, I wonder, could it just be the higher pixel count that demands slightly more accuracy of the photographer?
I´ve had the R5 since 2021 and have found it accurate enough. I had to tighten my shooting technique jumping from the 30Mp 5D4. The field of sharpness is shallower and higher Mp is more sensitive to motion blur. With the 24Mp R8 I got a year ago, I can be more relaxed. With the even more demanding R7 I really had to step up. There is a small but noticeable difference. In my case it was me, not the AF accuracy.
I have now had the R52 for some weeks and got to try it a bit. Yes, it has a better AF, specifically the tracking of BIF and staying on the subject.
BUT I would feel naked with only one camera. I´d far rather have my R5 and R8 instead of just my R52! It is like boat engines. When the only one stops... the silence is earsplitting!
I love my R5m2, but I only love it for the AF. I have heard stories that the R5II is much worse in the noise dept than the R5. I believe it now. It has the worst noise characteristics I have ever used in a camera. Actually the 7D II which I came from had much better noise characteristics then the R5m2. I am not sorry I got the new R5II it is a nice transition into mirrorless. But, noise wise it is the worst I have ever used. And when you get into really bad noise it affects lifting shadows ect. Canon has a long way to go in sensor tech.
I don't know... at base ISO R5II has 2.5 stops greater DR than the 7DII, which to me would suggest it has a significant head start over that camera when it comes to pushing tonality around. I guess it's not as clean as the Sony sensors.
Here's the DPR studio scene comparing the 7DII, R5II, Z8 and R5 cameras at ISO 100. You can download the RAW files and do your own tests. Yes, pushed 4-5 stops, the Nikon (Sony) sensor is cleaner in the deep shadows. But the differences between the R5 and R5II are not what I would consider to be significant. They're a lot closer to each other than either is to the Nikon file. If you're regularly pushing files around a lot, maybe Canon isn't the right system.
I'm using the R5II, R6II and R6 pretty interchangeably at a range of ISOs, but especially above ISO 800 and I'm not seeing a huge difference once images are normalized. Yes, I run everything through AI noise reduction anyway. So far in *my* real world uses, I haven't found the R5II lacking in respect to image quality. But then, I've never been chasing ultimate DR or the most MP. I'd rather have a highly responsive camera that stays out of my way while working, and the R5II is very good in this respect. The R1 is better still.
gkinard1952 wrote:
I love my R5m2, but I only love it for the AF. I have heard stories that the R5II is much worse in the noise dept than the R5. I believe it now. It has the worst noise characteristics I have ever used in a camera. Actually the 7D II which I came from had much better noise characteristics then the R5m2. I am not sorry I got the new R5II it is a nice transition into mirrorless. But, noise wise it is the worst I have ever used. And when you get into really bad noise it affects lifting shadows ect. Canon has a long way to go in sensor tech....Show more →
Noise from the R5 II is a little worse than the R5, but the main issue is that there is some baked in NR in the R5 II at high ISOs that can interfere with the AI NR used during PP. In comparison the 61MP Sony a7rIV/V raw files are really noisy, but it has no AA filter and no NR built in, so the AI NR can do really well at cleaning it up.
EB-1 wrote:
Noise from the R5 II is a little worse than the R5, but the main issue is that there is some baked in NR in the R5 II at high ISOs that can interfere with the AI NR used during PP. In comparison the 61MP Sony a7rIV/V raw files are really noisy, but it has no AA filter and no NR built in, so the AI NR can do really well at cleaning it up.
EBH
Sounds about right. I have not looked into it. But, it is the worst I have ever used. I have to be extremely careful shooting birds with the R5m2. I am just finishing up my testing of it. I know now what it is and is not capable of. For what I want to shoot.
If I didn't have a couple of Canon lenses I like I would bail for sure. But, I will live with it until one of the lenses die.
I'm not sure what your imaging workflow is, but pretty much all of the older cameras would have been worse for noise. There are differences between the MS and ES modes with the R5 being better in MS, but losing more DR in ES.
Max_Pain wrote:
So I got a used R5 for my Yellowstone trip. Before that I've been using a R6II for everything and was pretty satisfied. Now that I'm on my way back (literally typing this while in the air flying back to Miami), I can't help but notice I leaned on the R5 more and chose it over the R6II whenever possible. The 45mp is just too good to ignore. It reminds me of the 5DsR which I loved. I do see some AF shortcomings between the R5 and the R6II. Does the R5II improve on the AF to the point that it could be a better overall camera than the R5 and R6II combined? I'm only a hobbyist so I don't need to have two bodies. I think I can sell the two cameras for close to what I would pay for a R5II.
Thoughts?...Show more →
If you don't value a two body setup, then yes the R5II is the best all-around Canon body made to date.
With the R5m2 I thought my exposure habits from the 7D series would change. It hasen't. Expose as far tot he right as possible even if you have to blow highlights to help with noise. I was hoping those days were behind me but unfortunately they are not. And cleaning up the noise even with AI is a mess at best. Most photos I just marginally underexpose I have to toss because of the characteristics of the noise. Pretty rough to clean up.
Good thing is in the viewfinder you can set or enable functions to show the clipping, and help with exposure, very helpful.
Thinking about this, and using the camera I would imagine the reason they have not updated the R7 yet is because of the sensor problems. With a crop sensor you would magnify the problems to absolute unacceptable levels.
ETTR without clipping is generally not a bad thing. But as mentioned, I'm not seeing significant high ISO noise with the R5II after AI NR. I'd be curious to see what defines 'a mess.'
When printing, ink spread will mask individual pixels. Viewing on high resolution displays (200+ ppi) does similar at normal viewing distances, unless pixel peeping.
gkinard1952 wrote:
With the R5m2 I thought my exposure habits from the 7D series would change. It hasen't. Expose as far tot he right as possible even if you have to blow highlights to help with noise. I was hoping those days were behind me but unfortunately they are not. And cleaning up the noise even with AI is a mess at best. Most photos I just marginally underexpose I have to toss because of the characteristics of the noise. Pretty rough to clean up.
Good thing is in the viewfinder you can set or enable functions to show the clipping, and help with exposure, very helpful.
Thinking about this, and using the camera I would imagine the reason they have not updated the R7 yet is because of the sensor problems. With a crop sensor you would magnify the problems to absolute unacceptable levels. ...Show more →
Hi
I have both the R5 and the R5 M 2
I have used both extensively for wildlife photography. The 5M2 is just over all a better camera and tool.
I would agree that the R5m2 has a slight increase in noise at higher ISO. But a mess, I would definitely disagree with that.
Regards
