Is Your Canon EOS R5 Mark II Autofocus Affected by the Latest Firmware?

[clarus]

Why?

Lots of photos that turned out to be out of focus. For example a kingfisher BIF sequence, from hopping off the stick throughout the entire buffer, pretty much in the center of the frame all the time. First few frames tack sharp, then nothing was even remotely sharp, neither the background nor the bird.

I have been using an R6 for 3 years and the R5m2 since August 2024. This is not how Canon cameras behave. I remember how the R5m2 stuck to the subject on a whole new level compared to the R6m1 in way more demanding situations than the unobstructed view explained above.

 

[AlanF]

Lots of photos that turned out to be out of focus. For example a kingfisher BIF sequence, from hopping off the stick throughout the entire buffer, pretty much in the center of the frame all the time. First few frames tack sharp, then nothing was even remotely sharp, neither the background nor the bird.

I have been using an R6 for 3 years and the R5m2 since August 2025. This is not how Canon cameras behave. I remember how the R5m2 stuck to the subject on a whole new level compared to the R6m1 in way more demanding situations than the unobstructed view explained above.

What lens were you using?

 

[clarus]

What lens were you using?

200-800, with 1.4x TC on and off

 

[AlanF]

200-800, with 1.4x TC on and off

Not good. Mine works fine, though I don't use the 1.4x on the 200-800.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

I hope they put out an update within the next 2 weeks, I'm going to Yellowstone and plan to take my R5M2 to shoot with. Will be very frustrating if it doesn't work right.

 

[Del Paso]

The idea of sending it to Canon is very good. Canon will have to do something and if they can't maybe they will chose to downgrade themselves.

Unless they simply send it back with the usual "everything's fine" answer...

 

[mpmark]

I just went back to 1.0.2, I'll wait till 1.0.4 is released.

 

[r.j.llex]

Switched to "Power Save" -> "Auto power off" to "disabled". Put battery away for 30 secs. And AF with 70-200 2.8 Z suddenly became almost perfect. Dark inroom environments, low contrast environments, low contrast areas on high contrast scenes. Everything i've tried in 10-15 minutes feels like it should be.

I will test this more deeply, but currently the real difference is obvious.

 

[Mean Durphey]

I was already thinking I am going mad. 1.0.3 feels like a serious downgrade. Tracking animals gives the blue box, but focus is behind and does not move. All shots out of focus. Really annoying. Sometimes it works beautifully, sometimes not at all.

I am having the same issue when shooting with my 100-500. Blue box around the bird but no attempt to focus. I'll try disabling the power saving today.

 

[TubaOrNotTuba]

I see this issue too. I've had my R5 Mark II since January 2025. It shipped with 1.0.2. With the exception of extreme zoom AF issues (basically on any zoom thus far if you zoom past 80% of the max focal length & try to AF it will fail until you back off, focus at <80%, then zoom back in - I've seen this on both the R5 Mark II & R6 Mark II with different lenses) I never had any AF issues on my R5 Mark II until 1.0.3. I have these lenses:

RF16 ƒ2.8 STM
RF24-105mm ƒ4 L IS USM
RF24-240mm ƒ4-6.3 IS USM
RF100-500mm ƒ4.5-7.1 L IS USM
RF200-800mm ƒ6.3-9 IS USM

After "upgrading" to 1.0.3, I thought I'd gone nuts. I was fighting AF issues I hadn't had before 1.0.3. I've not had a chance to try the power saving options suggested in this article, but regardless of their ability to mitigate the issue here's where it gets frustrating. If one calls Canon Support, I don't have access to Canon engineering so front line support via CPS is all I have access to, they claim to have had "no other reports of this issue." The tech I spoke with this morning put me on hold to go ask others, I assume he actually did, & came back & reiterated that I'm the only one who has reported this. I find this very difficult to believe, but even if that's true, there's no way Canon corporate/engineering hasn't heard the professionals writing about this out there, if anything you'd think Canon PR/marketing would pay close attention to any negative reviews/opinions/commentary out there, the lack of comment from Canon corporate/engineering & the lack of communication from Canon to their own front line support is unacceptable for a camera of this stature. If there was no issue & it was all user-error, Canon would surely have come out & said so, but the silence tells me there's a problem & they don't know how to fix it.

I've shot canon since 1983. My first Canon was a T50, which I sold a year later for a T70. I still have the T70 & it still works. Since then I've been through several Canons. While my 2 x 6D Mark IIs have their own quirks, they're comparatively ancient cameras in the modern mirrorless world. With the R5 Mark II we're not talking about near-decade-old cameras or a cheap knock-off-point-&-shoots here, we're talking about state-of-the-art US$4,000 cameras, often attached to US$3,000+ lenses, that no longer can be counted on to properly focus.

Canon, step up. Talk to us. Work with us. Don't leave us hanging.

 

[ordinaryfilmmaker]

customisation?

Could be other settings randomly causing an issue, or some cameras are using components on the PCB from different companies. Could be. bad batch only affecting some like the battery problem. Not everyone is affected the same making it harder to resolve.

 

[ordinaryfilmmaker]

That’s very disturbing. Could you let us know what settings you are using. How much out of focus are the birds in flight? Just soft or completely missing? I’ll put mine though more paces this afternoon.

I wonder if it could be other settings inconjuction with power saving settings. I'm going to test with screen dimmer set to off and see if it makes a difference.

 

[tron]

I just went back to 1.0.2, I'll wait till 1.0.4 is released.

So the trick that allows firmware downgrade still works OK.

 

[mpmark]

So the trick that allows firmware downgrade still works OK.

Yes, but you have to be quick with the door on the R5m2. Took me a couple tries

 

[tiggy@mac.com]

It would be good if @tiggy@mac.com tested them. As it is, my old Neewer are cheap unused spares.

I've been doing some third party battery testing behind the scenes. It's kind of interesting. It does seem that the R5II is thirstier, and it does seem that the LP-E6P batteries aren't as hardy.

My testing of all third party batteries available at the time for the R5-1 revealed that the third party ones were quite a bit worse. The exception was the Smallrig ones that had the USB-C port right on the battery. Those were great, lasting as long as the OEM batteries. I gave the six I bought after that testing to my wife, who continues to use the R5-1.

Having grown used to the USB port charging directly on the battery I purchased some Metacucu (didn't make that up) batteries when I made the move to R5-IIs. They claimed they were LP-E6P compatible. My expectations were very, very low, but they turned out to be great. Here is the page I bought them from...

Amazon.com

I've been doing tests of both the Canon batteries (I have nine of those) and the Metacucus (I have six of these), running them through a Dolgin tester that puts them through their paces.

The early results are interesting, and a little more complex than a simple number.
A) Canon P batteries will charge and then discharge about 2.5 percent more in a cycle versus the Metacucus.
B) Oddly, though, the Canon P batteries start losing charge very quickly, even as they aren't in a camera. I've seen batteries at 75 percent after having sat a week after charging to 100 percent. The Metacucus do not do this, and follow the normal passive discharge rate we all see with the older LP-E6s of various flavors.
C) My strong sense using both batteries in series is that the Metacucus give me more juice on average. It feels like I'm using an NH battery in an R5-1.
D) The Metacucus have a battery meter feature, where it lights up with its current state of charge when you press a button, which has actually been handier than I anticipated.

Of course, that's just one random brand I tested versus Canon. I'll go buy a few of the most popular other third party batteries on Amazon and see if they're any good as well.

-tig

 

[AlanF]

I've been doing some third party battery testing behind the scenes. It's kind of interesting. It does seem that the R5II is thirstier, and it does seem that the LP-E6P batteries aren't as hardy.

My testing of all third party batteries available at the time for the R5-1 revealed that the third party ones were quite a bit worse. The exception was the Smallrig ones that had the USB-C port right on the battery. Those were great, lasting as long as the OEM batteries. I gave the six I bought after that testing to my wife, who continues to use the R5-1.

Having grown used to the USB port charging directly on the battery I purchased some Metacucu (didn't make that up) batteries when I made the move to R5-IIs. They claimed they were LP-E6P compatible. My expectations were very, very low, but they turned out to be great. Here is the page I bought them from...

Amazon.com

I've been doing tests of both the Canon batteries (I have nine of those) and the Metacucus (I have six of these), running them through a Dolgin tester that puts them through their paces.

The early results are interesting, and a little more complex than a simple number.
A) Canon P batteries will charge and then discharge about 2.5 percent more in a cycle versus the Metacucus.
B) Oddly, though, the Canon P batteries start losing charge very quickly, even as they aren't in a camera. I've seen batteries at 75 percent after having sat a week after charging to 100 percent. The Metacucus do not do this, and follow the normal passive discharge rate we all see with the older LP-E6s of various flavors.
C) My strong sense using both batteries in series is that the Metacucus give me more juice on average. It feels like I'm using an NH battery in an R5-1.
D) The Metacucus have a battery meter feature, where it lights up with its current state of charge when you press a button, which has actually been handier than I anticipated.

Of course, that's just one random brand I tested versus Canon. I'll go buy a few of the most popular other third party batteries on Amazon and see if they're any good as well.

-tig

Thanks Tig!

 

[SnowMiku]

Good job to everyone linking the focus issues to the power settings. Maybe Canon should get a wide range of photographers to test out their new firmware in the field so they can pick up on these issues before releasing them? They could even release Beta firmware for everyone to test out with a link where you could give Canon direct feedback on bugs with the option of going back to an older version if need be.

 

[AlanF]

I wonder if it could be other settings inconjuction with power saving settings. I'm going to test with screen dimmer set to off and see if it makes a difference.

Screen dimmer is on for my R5ii and so for mine it's not causing an AF problem.

 

[ulrikjuul]

I have manifest issues with 100-300 F2.8 (with battery-grip and new batteries) and likely also with 28-105 F2.8 (new battery no grip) - at least I have shot way more unfocused action shots with the 28-105 than I usually do. Particularly zoomed in over 60ish mm... Will test in the twilight later today with disabled power save...

 

[Slappy_G]

Is there a reason that almost no one is doing the simple tests mentioned in the post regarding power save settings? All the posts I have seen, with 2 exceptions are just complaining about the problem but not actually trying the workaround. Keenly interested as my R5 II arrives in the mail today. Really hoping it ships with older FW to save me the downgrade step.