p.2 #1 · First hand experience of R3 autofocus vs R5 II, R1 by sports photographers?
Llewtwo wrote:
I have an R1, two R5 IIs, and an R3. I don't use the R3 since getting the others and didn't need the R1 but wanted one. Now that the precontinuous shooting is adjustable it is more useful. You rarely need 40 fps but it's nice to have it on the R1. The R1 is usually on my longest lens and the R5 IIs on a 70-200 and a wider lens. The sports priority modes are helpful but they are assistive and not a quantum leap kind of helpful. Eye control does not work for me on any of them. I have battery grips for the R5 II so have no issue with battery life when running the grips but more recently have taken the grips off so they are a little lighter and easier to use when the action is in your lap. I go through two batteries on the R5II and 70-200 combo during a football game including a robust half time with marching band and more. The R5 II and R1 are pretty close to me. You couldn't justify whatever difference there is at the difference in price. The R3 is a very good body. The other two are just better overall....Show more →
Two batteries is not bad for a day of shooting with the R5II considering you are probably doing a fair amount of chimping, etc. There are ways to improving battery life but it has its drawbacks, with the worst being wake time. I would be perfectly happy with using two batteries a day but there are times when I need more life out of batteries (water housing) and so I dumb down the camera and make it fall asleep immediately, and also ensure the proximity sensor is not activating, which can be a battery drainer while sitting on your lap/seat/bag too.
p.2 #2 · First hand experience of R3 autofocus vs R5 II, R1 by sports photographers?
big country wrote:
My Experience is R1<R52<R3. However, it is my belief the IQ out of the R3 is better than the R52.
This comment about IQ of the R52 is my experience also, especially for indoor sports where higher ISO is needed. E.g., volleyball where I need very high ISO to gain the shutter speed necessary. This is a facility that does not have major arena lighting levels. I've given up on R52 for volleyball and basketball and that is part of the reason that I primarily run R1 and R3.
Bruce
p.2 #3 · First hand experience of R3 autofocus vs R5 II, R1 by sports photographers?
R1-R3-R5II in my experience. My R5 II has so much trouble pulling into focus sometimes, even though it clearly sees a subject and places a box around it.
I've pretty much turned off all smart features and shoot it like a DSLR for anything at a distance. I've gotten significantly better results that way with initial acquisition and not having eye detection, etc., on. With a 400 or 600mm lens it doesn't hurt me in any way. The subject is always in focus as if it was while only looking for the eye but it doesn't hunt or jump around , fooled by a rock, or ear, etc.
On the R5II, during pre-capture, the camera does not actively track the subject as it does once the shutter button is fully pressed.
This can be beneficial if your subject is moving parallel to the camera, as it reduces the chance of the autofocus being distracted by other objects in the frame. However, for other subjects, this behavior may limit the effectiveness of pre-capture.
Both the R5ii and R1 manual describes this behavior under “Caution” but I can’t comment on how the R1 behaves.
R5ii & R1 Manual wrote:
Subjects may be out of focus if there are sudden changes in the distance between subjects and the camera while you are pressing the shutter button halfway.
p.2 #5 · First hand experience of R3 autofocus vs R5 II, R1 by sports photographers?
aCuria wrote:
You might not be aware of this:
On the R5II, during pre-capture, the camera does not actively track the subject as it does once the shutter button is fully pressed.
Just as much as it's false that it's 0.5s pre-capture (actually, it's 15 frames), it is not true that there's no tracking during pre-capture. That can be very easily disproven. What the documentation says is that there can be OOF photos with sudden movement, just as it would be if you had the shutter fully pressed at the time that e.g. a bird takes off a perch.
p.2 #6 · First hand experience of R3 autofocus vs R5 II, R1 by sports photographers?
stanj wrote:
Just as much as it's false that it's 0.5s pre-capture (actually, it's 15 frames), it is not true that there's no tracking during pre-capture. That can be very easily disproven. What the documentation says is that there can be OOF photos with sudden movement, just as it would be if you had the shutter fully pressed at the time that e.g. a bird takes off a perch.
stanj wrote:
it is not true that there's no tracking
Yes, it’s “following” the subject, but not “actively tracking” the way it does once the shutter is fully pressed. The video I linked demonstrates this much better than I can explain in words.
My guess is that during half-press, the camera is repeatedly running subject detection algorithms only, and then switches to subject tracking algorithms once the shutter is fully pressed. In computer vision, these two types of algorithms are considered distinct. Repeated subject detection can look like “tracking,” even though strictly speaking it isn’t.
Are you saying 15 frames is not 0.5s of pre-capture at 30fps? How many seconds is it then?
p.2 #7 · First hand experience of R3 autofocus vs R5 II, R1 by sports photographers?
I know I'm just a n00b and he's Jan, but he's not reading an official Canon statement or technical document; he's interpreting what he has observed how the camera behaves, and then looks for the reason in the user handbook.
What I am saying is that if you do a test like he's doing: bird on perch, pre-capture on, bird takes off, full press - disappointment due to OOF bird after takeoff; or the test I am doing: bird on perch, no pre-capture but rather full shutter press, gun fires, bird takes off -- the disappointment will be identical, assuming all things are the same - lens, settings, bird direction.
The problem isn't that somehow pre-capture makes AF lazy. The problem is that pre-capture has made AF deficiencies all too easy for everyone to scrutinize, to the point that Canon had to blurb about it.
I would invite anyone who's questioning this to a test that is easy to do at home: point the R5m2 (or for that matter, R1) at a bushtit, fully squeeze the trigger, fire a gun (or blow an air horn), and admire how OOF the first few frames are. The fact that Jan (and others) haven't A/B tested this pretty obvious scenario is regrettable but not all too shocking if you look at what happened to Rob Galbraith back in 2008.
For the record, I have the R1 and R5m2 (and R3 and R5 and previously just about every Canon ever made), and getting a bird taking off a perch in focus isn't something that has gone sideways with precapture.
p.2 #8 · First hand experience of R3 autofocus vs R5 II, R1 by sports photographers?
nanousm wrote:
outrun the buffer?
On the R5ii, with electronic shutter, raw + heif is 79 frames, raw + jpeg is 85 frames, craw + jpeg is “160” frames, craw is “170” frames and jpeg is 200 frames.
Craw files are much larger at high ISO, which means the craw buffer gradually drops to as low as ~90 frames as ISO increases.
Using pre-capture will use up to 15 frames from the stated buffer size.
For some reason the R5ii (and R3 iirc) when shooting at high fps will first fill the buffer before attempting to write to card. This means using a faster CF card has a limited impact on the effective buffer size.
If you ask me, a 90 frame buffer is a bit small when shooting at high ISO + 30fps but ymmv.
p.2 #9 · First hand experience of R3 autofocus vs R5 II, R1 by sports photographers?
stanj wrote:
I know I'm just a n00b and he's Jan, but he's not reading an official Canon statement or technical document; he's interpreting what he has observed how the camera behaves, and then looks for the reason in the user handbook.
What I am saying is that if you do a test like he's doing: bird on perch, pre-capture on, bird takes off, full press - disappointment due to OOF bird after takeoff; or the test I am doing: bird on perch, no pre-capture but rather full shutter press, gun fires, bird takes off -- the disappointment will be identical, assuming all things are the same - lens, settings, bird direction.
The problem isn't that somehow pre-capture makes AF lazy. The problem is that pre-capture has made AF deficiencies all too easy for everyone to scrutinize, to the point that Canon had to blurb about it.
I would invite anyone who's questioning this to a test that is easy to do at home: point the R5m2 (or for that matter, R1) at a bushtit, fully squeeze the trigger, fire a gun (or blow an air horn), and admire how OOF the first few frames are. The fact that Jan (and others) haven't A/B tested this pretty obvious scenario is regrettable but not all too shocking if you look at what happened to Rob Galbraith back in 2008.
For the record, I have the R1 and R5m2 (and R3 and R5 and previously just about every Canon ever made), and getting a bird taking off a perch in focus isn't something that has gone sideways with precapture....Show more →
stanj wrote:
point the R5m2 (or for that matter, R1) at a bushtit, fully squeeze the trigger, fire a gun (or blow an air horn), and admire how OOF the first few frames are.
This means even without pre-capture, the R1 cant keep the bushtit in focus?
gkinard1952 wrote:
Here is a sequence I took using pre capture. I am using both the 400 DO II lens and the 500 II lens. Took several thousand photos in every possible angle and speed of the bird. This sequence is one of the more simple, I thought the pics should have been in focus. EVERY shot I took using the two lenses were out of focus when using pre-capture. You can see the AF is lagging very bad.
Oddly enough if I turned off pre-capture, when the bird started to move most all were in focus.
gkinard1952's comments seem to indicate the birds are more in focus when pre-capture off.
Anyway regardless of whether the issue is localized to pre-capture or not, the OP should be sufficiently appraised of any limitations at this point.
p.2 #10 · First hand experience of R3 autofocus vs R5 II, R1 by sports photographers?
In my brief time (3 days) with the R1, I certainly found that the camera still tracked a bird launching from a perch and coming towards you with pre-capture.
I didn't do any testing to see if it was better with pre-capture off. It was working with pre-capture on so I didn't think to test with it off.
Is it as good as some of the competition for this specific use case? Well no, it isn't. My daily driver is better and that is why it is my daily driver. But then again, Canon's bird detection/eye-af puts my daily driver to shame so you win some and you lose some.
p.2 #12 · First hand experience of R3 autofocus vs R5 II, R1 by sports photographers?
stanj wrote:
I currently own all three, although the R3 has been delegated to my son since I got the R1. I don't shoot sport but owls, which is an interesting niche as it's very low light with flight tracking (with RF400/2.8)
I'd rank the R1 > R3 > R5m2 > R5 for this specific purpose. The R1 tracking is definitely better under these difficult conditions, it doesn't hunt and it sticks with the owl, but the R3 was no slouch. The R5m2 has caught up nicely, but there's still a clear gap to the big bodies.
I concur. I also owned all three bodies and can confirm the focusing and tracking was better on the R1 over the R5 Mark II…also found the R3 to be slightly better than the R5Ii as well.
