DPReview reviews the Canon EOS R5 Mark II

[neuroanatomist]

I’ve done some testing with my R5 Mk II and my conclusion is that what you are stating is not correct. Eye controlled AF does not need a tracking frame or a subject it ‘ recognizes’ to work correctly:

• When I set ‘subject to detect’ to ‘None’, the Eye controlled AF will move the pointer across the viewfinder and focus when I half press the shutter button.
• The same happens when I select an AF point without ‘Whole area tracking servo AF’ (AF point with a padlock), this disables ‘Subject to detect’. The camera will move the AF point to the pointer and focus when I half press the shutter button.
• This works for ‘AF operation’ set to ‘One shot’. Or ‘Servo’.

With eye controlled AF I can move the pointer at across the whole viewfinder and get the camera to focus on any subject (curtains, tv flatscreen, bowl of fruit, cushions of the couch etc.) when I half press the shutter button.

P.S. I did not test with zucchini and tomato plants as these do not grow in my holiday apartment .

Yes, my mistake! I always use back button AF, and on the R3 with the Smart Controller set to automatically drive AF point selection, that overrides eye control. Putting AF back on the shutter half press took care of that.

 

[Toamelicious]

I like how the closest competitor for generalist body is the Z8 (at substantial weight difference but price/features pro/cons).
Sony doesn't have anything close so they compare to A1 at USD2k more and 61mp for A7Rv as basically being the only advantage there.

It would be interesting to know the % of users that the eye controlled AF work for. It seems amazing for them but an extra cost for those that can't use it.
Clearly Canon thinks it has more universal application otherwise they wouldn't have invested (and continue to invest) in the technology.

I have given the camera to a bunch of coworkers and friends to see what's up with the variing usability of the eye control.
For me it always works great and I have some very thick correcting glasses.

It's not in any way scientific data, but it seems to me, the system depends on lighter coloured eyes.
The people who were having problems with it, or even didn't even manage to get it calibrated, were all brown eyed.

 

[Nemorino]

According to the manual the eye should be positioned in the middle of the viewfinder. Probably a changing position may cause also problems.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

I have given the camera to a bunch of coworkers and friends to see what's up with the variing usability of the eye control.
For me it always works great and I have some very thick correcting glasses.

It's not in any way scientific data, but it seems to me, the system depends on lighter coloured eyes.
The people who were having problems with it, or even didn't even manage to get it calibrated, were all brown eyed.

I have greyish eyes that can often reflect the color of clothing I am wearing. I cannot get the EC to work at all in portrait orientation, it works OKish in landscape.

 

[angelisland]

I like how the closest competitor for generalist body is the Z8 (at substantial weight difference but price/features pro/cons).
Sony doesn't have anything close so they compare to A1 at USD2k more and 61mp for A7Rv as basically being the only advantage there.

It would be interesting to know the % of users that the eye controlled AF work for. It seems amazing for them but an extra cost for those that can't use it.
Clearly Canon thinks it has more universal application otherwise they wouldn't have invested (and continue to invest) in the technology.

I have both the A1 and the R5II and the A1 is quite a lot better for video. Also, it can be had for $5k new now, so no longer $2k more.
I do like the R5 II a lot as well, however (among other things):
-4K 60 and 4K 120 are SOFT/lacking detail on the R5 II. They look almost like 1080. Not even close to the IQ on the A1's 4K60 and 4K120.
-eye tracking does not work for me (it used to on my Elan or EOS-3 or whatever it was.)

 

[AlanF]

I have given the camera to a bunch of coworkers and friends to see what's up with the variing usability of the eye control.
For me it always works great and I have some very thick correcting glasses.

It's not in any way scientific data, but it seems to me, the system depends on lighter coloured eyes.
The people who were having problems with it, or even didn't even manage to get it calibrated, were all brown eyed.

I'm brown eyed and it works for me.

 

[MikeGalos]

I like how the closest competitor for generalist body is the Z8 (at substantial weight difference but price/features pro/cons).

The weight difference is about 22%. I would say that might be significant, but 64 grams (5.8 oz) is hardly substantial given the full weight of a system including a pro-level lens.

 

[Toamelicious]

I'm brown eyed and it works for me.

Well... There goes that theory

 

[Toamelicious]

I have both the A1 and the R5II and the A1 is quite a lot better for video. Also, it can be had for $5k new now, so no longer $2k more.
I do like the R5 II a lot as well, however (among other things):
-4K 60 and 4K 120 are SOFT/lacking detail on the R5 II. They look almost like 1080. Not even close to the IQ on the A1's 4K60 and 4K120.
-eye tracking does not work for me (it used to on my Elan or EOS-3 or whatever it was.)

Well that issue with line skipped 60p is unfortunate.
But as the past showed us, canon is capable and willing to deliver features via Firmware-Updates further down the road. And as far as I know some smart minds have speculated that in theory the data throughput for downsampled 4k60 should be doable for the processor.
So there might be 4kfine60p coming in the future, when canon gets the fine-tuning of the efficiency and heat development down.
Hell, they might even fix the heat up message covering up the histogram.

 

[Besisika]

I don't plan on commenting on DPR's review of the R5II because I don't intend to read it. The last review by them that I read was over a decade ago, the 5DIII review where they bashed the AF because the auto AF point selection 'just selects the closest subject' when, in fact, that's exactly what Canon says it should do (Nikon AF behaves differently, and the reviewer didn't know what to expect from a Canon camera because he wasn't a Canon shooter and didn't bother to RTFM).

You are not alone.

 

[angelisland]

Well that issue with line skipped 60p is unfortunate.
But as the past showed us, canon is capable and willing to deliver features via Firmware-Updates further down the road. And as far as I know some smart minds have speculated that in theory the data throughput for downsampled 4k60 should be doable for the processor.
So there might be 4kfine60p coming in the future, when canon gets the fine-tuning of the efficiency and heat development down.
Hell, they might even fix the heat up message covering up the histogram.

Better 4K line skipped would also work.
Sony A1 4K60 is like skipped I think - but when shooting the same subject side-by-side, the Sony looks like Canon's fine mode (very sharp and detailed), while the Canon looks like 1080p. No kidding.
If you want to get good looking 4K60 or 120 with the R5 II, you need to shoot RAW, ffs.
Focus on the Canon is good though ;-)

 

[David - Sydney]

I have both the A1 and the R5II and the A1 is quite a lot better for video. Also, it can be had for $5k new now, so no longer $2k more.
I do like the R5 II a lot as well, however (among other things):
-4K 60 and 4K 120 are SOFT/lacking detail on the R5 II. They look almost like 1080. Not even close to the IQ on the A1's 4K60 and 4K120.
-eye tracking does not work for me (it used to on my Elan or EOS-3 or whatever it was.)

Have you used 8k raw (or raw light) on the R5/R5ii?

 

[David - Sydney]

The weight difference is about 22%. I would say that might be significant, but 64 grams (5.8 oz) is hardly substantial given the full weight of a system including a pro-level lens.

Agreed but it is all about balance and for smaller lenses, it could make a difference. 22% is still a lot though and I wonder where that difference is coming from as the Z8 doesn't have a mechanical shutter.

 

[angelisland]

Have you used 8k raw (or raw light) on the R5/R5ii?

Tried RAWlight, or whatever it's called. MASSIVE files. Also I think you can't use crop mode or digital I.S. with RAW - if you're into that sort of thing.
PLUS more time in post.
I'm not trying to make my life more difficult with huge files, huge storage needs, etc. etc.
Should not need to shoot RAW to get decent high frame rates from a $4500 camera IMO.
I am shooting a big video job this week - using the A1 because the 4k60/120 files are so much better, SLOG is great, file sizes are perhaps 1/5 or less the size of comparable Canon files.

 

[David - Sydney]

You are not alone.

All reviews are somewhat biased and generally easy to see through. The written ones don't take a lot of time to go through and there has been different reviewers at DPR over the years.
Reading a range of views also avoids an echo chamber and who knows... maybe there will be something worthwhile.

What I have noticed more recently with DPR for the higher end bodies is the lack of definitive statements. Perhaps an indication that they are all great image takers and that most differences are hard to tell in the final image. New features like eye control (and eye AF before that) were innovations and lauded as very useful though.
Minor hits to dynamic range vs crazy shutter speeds/flash sync for the A9iii or the original R5's 8kRaw/4K120/4kHQ recording limits (before firmware improvements) vs having any 8k in a hybrid are 2 examples.

 

[David - Sydney]

I have both the A1 and the R5II and the A1 is quite a lot better for video. Also, it can be had for $5k new now, so no longer $2k more.

DPR has to use list prices for comparison though. Product lifecycle is another thing so if you say the the A1 is USD5k new but the R5 is USD3k then that would be a reasonable comparison though.

That said, in Australia the A1 is still 27-37% more expensive than the R5ii using some current pricing.

 

[angelisland]

Stills from video tests - shot moments apart, and lifted shadows a bit.
That is CLOG2 on the right. As you can see, you have to go to town with noise reduction, and the detail is already hurting.

 

[angelisland]

DPR has to use list prices for comparison though. Product lifecycle is another thing so if you say the the A1 is USD5k new but the R5 is USD3k then that would be a reasonable comparison though.

That said, in Australia the A1 is still 27-37% more expensive than the R5ii using some current pricing.

It's worth it!
Read my comments here in this thread comparing the two.

 

[David - Sydney]

It's worth it!
Read my comments here in this thread comparing the two.

Out of my budget unfortunately and video isn't a high priority for me.
If anything, I would go for A7Siii and Sigma 14/1.4 (maybe Sony 14/1.8) for astro for low noise and reasonably priced fast/wide primes.

 

[clarus]

According to the manual the eye should be positioned in the middle of the viewfinder. Probably a changing position may cause also problems.

That's a helpful remark. I think, though, given that there are numerous sensors reading out the eye position, the software should warn right at the start when the eye is not in a suitable position.
PS: I have ordered the eyecup and will see if that makes Eye Control more dependable