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 →
I think you already answered your own question.
If you noticed an AF improvement over the R5 using the R6II and you enjoy having 45mp images the answer is clear.
Sell both current bodies and walk away with the latest and greatest "all arounder" R5II.
I hear ya as far as being a hobbyist. I'm in the same category except I would really like to have two identical bodies with different lens. I miss those days when I had two rigs at the ready, but I just can't justify dumping $2-$4K that depreciates faster then hell. I feel I get more mileage out of using that coin towards a nice trip like Alaska or Yellowstone. And renting is always a viable option on said trips.
Just snag a shiny new R5II and this sale item and be happy! RF 1200mm $14,000
Think about it. When was the last time you saved nearly $6,000 on a single gear purchase!
lighthound wrote:
I think you already answered your own question.
If you noticed an AF improvement over the R5 using the R6II and you enjoy having 45mp images the answer is clear.
Sell both current bodies and walk away with the latest and greatest "all arounder" R5II.
I hear ya as far as being a hobbyist. I'm in the same category except I would really like to have two identical bodies with different lens. I miss those days when I had two rigs at the ready, but I just can't justify dumping $2-$4K that depreciates faster then hell. I feel I get more mileage out of using that coin towards a nice trip like Alaska or Yellowstone. And renting is always a viable option on said trips.
Just snag a shiny new R5II and this sale item and be happy! RF 1200mm $14,000
Think about it. When was the last time you saved nearly $6,000 on a single gear purchase! ...Show more →
Oh you joke, but you don't know how much i'd love to own that lens.
So far I have only found four things I dislike about the R5II
1: AF in pre-capture. a joke!
2: High ISO characteristics.. really bad
3: AF jumping off the subject after a few seconds... Just jumps off for no reason.. I have to stop and re-acquire. Just part of the process now. I know to just stop and re-acquire every few seconds. Annoying, for a supposedly pro-sumer camera.
4: Any virtical lines, such as grass. It will not AF period.... Back to old school.
Happy with everything else so far.. But, as you know I will definitely post if I find something else. Haha
Note: What is it with this site that when I edit a post they have a "view edit". lol..
I noticed a spelling error and changed it.. ridiculous.
I'm not understanding #3. Are you saying that in continuous focus with the BBF engaged it suddenly jumps around or it just moves when AF is not being activated?
gkinard1952 wrote:
4: Any virtical lines, such as grass. It will not AF period.... Back to old school.
I think it's actually horizontal lines when the camera is in landscape orientation.
But anyway, this is how almost every mirrorless camera functions, unfortunately. It's kind of like going back to pre-cross type AF sensors in SLRs/DSLRs. The only Canon that addresses this is the R1 in which alternating rows of pixels are sensitive to vertical or horizontal lines. It's not true quad-pixel AF, which I think is currently only available from Olympus/OM.
It would be nice to see this 'cross type' arrangement, as Canon calls it, in future cameras below the 1-series.
EB-1 wrote:
I'm not understanding #3. Are you saying that in continuous focus with the BBF engaged it suddenly jumps around or it just moves when AF is not being activated?
EBH
I think he meant that subject detect tracking will go 'stale' after a few seconds and start to look for a fresh target even though it's currently tracking one. If this is what he meant, I have also experienced this with pretty much every Canon mirrorless camera with subject detection and tracking. I didn't have enough time with it but my impression was that the R1 was the most sticky. The R5II is better than earlier cameras, especially if the subject has a distinctive/unique characteristic that makes it stand out from other potential targets. In my case with sports, for example hockey, if a player has a unique helmet color (often the case with kids' hockey), the camera will track that player more reliably with subject/face/eye tracking than if the player has the same helmet color as everyone else. For team sports, particularly pro sports, I rarely use subject tracking unless it's an isolated player action situation simply because I can't trust the system not to jump off the intended subject whenever other players cross in front or behind. For my event work, if it's a talking head situation with other people in the scene, every Canon mirrorless camera I've used will eventually drift off of the desired subject if there's a 'better' target in the scene. I've also found that even if the AF point is on the intended subject that sometimes subject detection/tracking will pick someone else in the vicinity. Perhaps because for some technical reason, or however the algorithm works, it prefers that target over the desired one. IMO it just shows that despite how much better mirrorless AF systems are compared to DSLRs, they've still got a ways to go to truly understand or anticipate the photographer's intent.
gkinard1952 wrote:
So far I have only found four things I dislike about the R5II
1: AF in pre-capture. a joke!
2: High ISO characteristics.. really bad
3: AF jumping off the subject after a few seconds... Just jumps off for no reason.. I have to stop and require. Just part of the process now. I know to just stop and require every few seconds. Annoying, for a supposedly pro-sumer camera.
4: Any virtical lines, such as grass. It will not AF period.... Back to old school.
Happy with everything else so far.. But, as you know I will definitely post if I find something else. Haha
What firmware are you running? This could be affecting #3.
rscheffler wrote:
Have you noticed an improvement with the more recent versions?
I'm still stuck on running 1.0.2 because 1.0.3 made this problem worse. I've heard 1.1.1 is supposed to improve the AF jumpiness but I'm content with 1.0.2 for now.
I had the R5 bodies for years - and they are reliable and great. Bought two of the R52 bodies and ended up selling both. I just don’t like the look of the files, especially shooting video with log. The dynamic range with log is not very good; image stabilization is not great in video either.
All these things look good on paper, but then using these cameras over a number of months, the results did not please me.
You can see YouTubers using the Imatest a test charts and proclaiming that the clog2 dynamic range is the same as Sony for video - but I have both and it’s not even close. The Cined exposure latitude tests demonstrate this clear as day.
I would stick with the R5. Good RAW files, good AF, good looking video. And relatively cheap to buy these days.
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 →
As mentioned, it should be issues with horizontal lines, not vertical lines.
Since I started having problems with it, everything I have read and seen said vertical lines not horizontal.. Give me something that shows that so I can see it.
Here is where I had most of my problems with the AF completely failing , that is vertical.
Since I started having problems with it, everything I have read and seen said vertical lines not horizontal.. Give me something that shows that so I can see it.
gkinard1952 wrote:
Since I started having problems with it, everything I have read and seen said vertical lines not horizontal.. Give me something that shows that so I can see it.
EB-1 wrote:
Those are horizontal lines since the camera is in portrait orientation. The horizontal limitation is in hardware (PD-AF dual pixel).
Birds like that should be a cinch to get the eye. What was the AF Area set to; are you using your eye as the starting point; BBF?
EBH
Using BBF tried everything. Finally used spot AF and even then it had a very difficult time. You would think putting the spot on the eye it would stay there but it would not hit...
That was the way I cropped it, the camera was in Landscape.
This is a known problem, after this photo I did a little research.
gkinard1952 wrote:
Using BBF tried everything. Finally used spot AF and even then it had a very difficult time. You would think putting the spot on the eye it would stay there but it would not hit...
That was the way I cropped it, the camera was in Landscape.
This is a known problem, after this photo I did a little research.
And you are running firmware 1.0.2? Maybe you should try 1.1.1?
FWIW, I just tried the R5II again, using spot AF to ensure it didn't latch onto something peripheral, it had great difficulty focusing on horizontal window blinds, horizontal edges of my monitor, etc. Vertical edges of window frames, monitor, shelving, etc. was no problem at all. This was with the camera in landscape/horizontal orientation.
I found horizontal lines were somewhat less problematic when the camera used the AF point I most often use: normal post with four surround/assist points.
