DPReview reviews the Canon EOS R5 Mark II

[dirtyvu]

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 think for the sake of the technology, Canon needs to include the bigger eyecup. Right now, they want you to buy it as an accessory. Just include it as an accessory in the box. For people that don't want to use it and don't care about the eyecup, they can leave it off. But for the rest, it would be a nice bonus. Because from my tests, it's about how much light gets into the eyecup. The farther your eye is from the viewfinder, the more light leaks in. When I wear glasses (so my eyes are farther from the eyepiece), it's really unreliable. But when I wear contacts, my eye is right up against eyepiece and it works well. Also, this light leak is more likely to happen when you hold the camera vertically because of how the eyepiece is shaped to favor holding the camera landscape.

If you look at the eyecup on the R1, it's definitely bigger.

 

[Snapster]

As an R5 shooter I mostly just wanted improved dynamic range and high ISO performance. And those stagnated or regressed.

I don't need...
- Faster than 20 FPS. 12 is already enough.
- Video specs beyond 4k 60fps.
- Eye AF gimmicks

The only reason for me to get the mark II would be for improved autofocus. Which is good enough on the R5 so I'll probably just skip the mark II.

I'd really like to see a photography focused R5 or R6 in the future. Superior IQ and DR, video specs can be whatever.

 

[David - Sydney]

As an R5 shooter I mostly just wanted improved dynamic range and high ISO performance. And those stagnated or regressed.

I don't need...
- Faster than 20 FPS. 12 is already enough.
- Video specs beyond 4k 60fps.
- Eye AF gimmicks

The only reason for me to get the mark II would be for improved autofocus. Which is good enough on the R5 so I'll probably just skip the mark II.

I'd really like to see a photography focused R5 or R6 in the future. Superior IQ and DR, video specs can be whatever.

As a current R5 user, I also don't have a compelling case to upgrade and the AF on the R5 is good enough for me.
12fps is great but it drops as the battery voltage drops <50%. Perhaps the newer batteries will address that.

The R5ii has better AF in a number of ways including the AF processor for predictive shooting in 3 sports (so far) and the eye-controlled AF which works very well for some. Besides AF improvements and faster eShutter speeds, still shooters also get pre-capture so there are a number of improvements for still shooters.

If you want better DR then your only option is medium format. Canon/Sony/Nikon are prioritising faster read speed for video/rolling shutter over pure DR. Irrespective, the higher end FF bodies are very close in DR performance.

I am not sure why you think that video improvements aren't relevant for stills shooters as the feed from the sensor is "video" and used for AF processing and EVF. The end result of still images or video files happens after the image is captured.

 

[Snapster]

If you want better DR then your only option is medium format. Canon/Sony/Nikon are prioritising faster read speed for video/rolling shutter over pure DR. Irrespective, the higher end FF bodies are very close in DR performance.

I am not sure why you think that video improvements aren't relevant for stills shooters as the feed from the sensor is "video" and used for AF processing and EVF. The end result of still images or video files happens after the image is captured.

Fuji GFX 100 II's AF struggles to keep slowly walking people in focus. And shoots at only 8 fps. Medium format isn't there just yet. You'd still need a Canon or Sony setup for any kind of action shots.

40 fps for the R5/6 or especially R8 line seem really overkill to me. If that's a "side effect" of better autofocus or readout speed, sure whatever. But if there was a clearly photography focused camera, I'd go for that one rather than a hybrid.

Also, it seems the new RF 35mm 1.4 VCM suffers from this hybrid craze as well. Sure it's probably handy for video but the amount of loca or distortion don't belong in a 2k € photography lens. And it rattles in your pack because of the VCM. I find myself waiting for another mirrorless 35mm lens, again.

 

[Sean C]

As an R5 shooter I mostly just wanted improved dynamic range and high ISO performance. And those stagnated or regressed.

The only reason for me to get the mark II would be for improved autofocus. Which is good enough on the R5 so I'll probably just skip the mark II.

I've been on the sidelines with a Mark IV considering the same thing.
The 'I really want' feature I've been missing from all of these is 2nd curtain sync for off camera strobes but Canon has feature restricted that to 1st party battery strobes.
I think this is enough of an upgrade to persuade me to jump once it's been out long enough for discounting to start. (Photography isn't my day job at the moment, so I don't need it I just *want* it)

 

[clarus]

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

Meanwhile I bought the large eyecup. What to say... it is like day and night. Calibration worked right from the start and the pointer is spot on! It really follows the eye immediately and across the entire screen. Wow.

The eyecup is HUGE and completely out of proportion, though

 

[Jack Douglas]

Meanwhile I bought the large eyecup. What to say... it is like day and night. Calibration worked right from the start and the pointer is spot on! It really follows the eye immediately and across the entire screen. Wow.

The eyecup is HUGE and completely out of proportion, though

Is it comfortable?

Jack

 

[clarus]

Is it comfortable?

Jack

Pretty much. It is just too large for my taste (I don't wear glasses).