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

[Canon Rumors]

I’ve been using the Canon EOS R5 Mark II since launch, and I love this camera. With firmware 1.0.0, autofocus performance was incredible—snappy, confident, and accurate. It tracked subjects better than anything I’ve used before. But after updating to firmware 1.0.3, something changed—and not for the better.

Read The Full Article

 

[Benjamin_L]

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.

 

[Deleted member 395378]

The moral of the story is: take your time to update your camera firmware. Wait and see how it works on other people's gear.

 

[Berowne]

Never install the latest update.

 

[shadowsports]

Never install the latest update.

I disagree. In the majority of cases and 99% of the time Canon's firmware updates fix issues and add features. I'm not saying it's always best to do updates on day one but avoiding something completely can be limiting in most cases. I'm sure a fix for this behavior will be released.

 

[MOBelue]

Definite problem. Just returned from a shooting with the Carolina Nature Photographers association group of the Lowcountry South Carolina chapter where I shot over 15,000 images plus video mostly birds. The R5 mark two took some great images but my hit rate was noticeably lower. There were some things the camera would not focus on at all. Big change for the worst

I\'ve called cannon about this three times lodging complaints for the record. Hopefully they will figure it out.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I disagree. In the majority of cases and 99% of the time Canon's firmware updates fix issues and add features. I'm not saying it's always best to do updates on day one but avoiding something completely can be limiting in most cases. I'm sure a fix for this behavior will be released.

But that 1% when things like this happens it can ruin your trip. I would just wait with firmware update unless there is something critical to fix.

 

[TubaOrNotTuba]

Agreed. 1.0.3 really degraded autofocus across all my lenses. 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

The issues seem to be using the zoom lenses at higher focal lengths. All 3 zoom lenses often refuse to focus at all from 80%-100% of their max focal lengths. I have to back off below 80%, focus, then zoom in again. I can’t tell you how many shots of lost because of this.

I own a ton of EF lenses for my two 6D Mark IIs & none exhibit this issue.

At double the cost & 8 years more modern, there’s no excuse for this & some of the other glitches happening with the R5 Mark II. You can tell by voice tone that Canon support is as frustrated as we are, they just can’t say it out loud. Time for Canon to hire programmers who are also photographers.

 

[koenkooi]

[…] Time for Canon to hire programmers who are also photographers.

Adding programmers who are actually programmers would help even more And then have management admit software is important so they won’t leave after a few months.

 

[Del Paso]

Fortunately, I didn't even know about the existence of firmware 1.03.
Thanks for the warning, I'll wait for 1.04.
Anyway, there seems to be a price for the extreme sophistication of our favourite toys...
But I'm confident help is under way. Maybe someday for the battery too, though the use of Neewer LP-6P is, for me at least, a well proven and inexpensive fix.

 

[ordinaryfilmmaker]

I disagree. In the majority of cases and 99% of the time Canon's firmware updates fix issues and add features. I'm not saying it's always best to do updates on day one but avoiding something completely can be limiting in most cases. I'm sure a fix for this behavior will be released.

While true, there was the time where 1.3.0 could result in the camera being bricked temporarily. I always recommend waiting at least two weeks before applying an update.

 

[CamsSD]

I'm glad to see this article. I have been noticing this issue, too, and couldn't figure out why it wasn't locking on they was it used to.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Ironically, I've experienced the exact opposite of this. I'm using an R5II almost every day in my back yard with the 200-800 and EF 200-400 and it has performed great. On my shoots I'm using the RF 24-105 f/2.8 and RF 70-200 f/2.8 Z - flawless performance there. Tracking has been great, one-shot has been great, and I haven't noticed any issues since the firmware update. On my R1 bodies, the performance is EXCEPTIONALLY better as I reported an issue with the 24-105 not focusing at all around the 35mm mark when shooting video in CLOG3. I think there are difference circumstances where the AF may perform worse. I don't shoot very much video on my R5II (which surprised me that I prefer the R1) and I know that Simon primarily shoots video, so perhaps he's talking about video AF?

 

[XL+]

Reading this, I am not alone. Never ever I got such an buggish camera body. After an electronic exchange, the AF is not working with most of my lenses (Rf and EF with adapter) properly. It is not following the subject I am tracking. Also the Af is very errative and the AF fields are restless moving around and are jumping frome one subject to another. Not able to track an object for longer than one second.

 

[AlanF]

Definite problem. Just returned from a shooting with the Carolina Nature Photographers association group of the Lowcountry South Carolina chapter where I shot over 15,000 images plus video mostly birds. The R5 mark two took some great images but my hit rate was noticeably lower. There were some things the camera would not focus on at all. Big change for the worst

I\'ve called cannon about this three times lodging complaints for the record. Hopefully they will figure it out.

Try calling Canon - they are more likely to help.

 

[AlanF]

Fortunately, I didn't even know about the existence of firmware 1.03.
Thanks for the warning, I'll wait for 1.04.
Anyway, there seems to be a price for the extreme sophistication of our favourite toys...
But I'm confident help is under way. Maybe someday for the battery too, though the use of Neewer LP-6P is, for me at least, a well proven and inexpensive fix.

I took 1700 shots today with 1.0.3 installed, with 25% battery life remaining. Admittedly it was at 20/30 fps. The AF was impeccable photoing with the RF 100-500mm a small Grey Wagtail belting around. Here is a typical crop from this afternoon. It was painful choosing the best dozen and discarding so many good shots.

 

[Del Paso]

I took 1700 shots today with 1.0.3 installed, with 25% battery life remaining. Admittedly it was at 20/30 fps. The AF was impeccable photoing with the RF 100-500mm a small Grey Wagtail belting around. Here is a typical crop from this afternoon. It was painful choosing the best dozen and discarding so many good shots.


View attachment 223668

Very nice shot! I recently took a picture of one myself (yours is classes better...).
My AF also works perfectly well, including the eye controlled AF.
When I spent an afternoon shooting a DH bike race at high fps, using the original Canon battery, I got easily 800 pictures with far more than 70% capacity left.
The issue with limited battery life occurs only when shooting landscapes or macros, with longer breaks in-between. Then, I hardly get more than 200 pictures before the battery sign starts flashing in the EVF. With the inexpensive Neewer batteries, between 450 and 700. Problem solved!
I exclusively use the EVF, maximum economy settings, but IS always on.
Yet, I definitely like the R5 II, and have ordered number 2...
As to the firmware 1.03, I am not in a hurry since I never encountered the problems it was supposed to solve.

 

[AlanF]

Very nice shot! I recently took a picture of one myself (yours is classes better...).
My AF also works perfectly well, including the eye controlled AF.
When I spent an afternoon shooting a DH bike race at high fps, using the original Canon battery, I got easily 800 pictures with far more than 70% capacity left.
The issue with limited battery life occurs only when shooting landscapes or macros, with longer breaks in-between. Then, I hardly get more than 200 pictures before the battery sign starts flashing in the EVF. With the inexpensive Neewer batteries, between 450 and 700. Problem solved!
I exclusively use the EVF, maximum economy settings, but IS always on.
Yet, I definitely like the R5 II, and have ordered number 2...
As to the firmware 1.03, I am not in a hurry since I never encountered the problems it was supposed to solve.

Are these Neewer replacements for the LP-E6P? I bought 3 Neewer LP-E6NH and they are not nearly as good as the Canon. In a normal days shooting, when not using high fps but doing a fair amount of spotting scope with telephotos I tend to get about 500 shots.

 

[josephandrews222]

Are these Neewer replacements for the LP-E6P? I bought 3 Neewer LP-E6NH and they are not nearly as good as the Canon. In a normal days shooting, when not using high fps but doing a fair amount of spotting scope with telephotos I tend to get about 500 shots.

I cannot state with any certainty (in other words, I didn't do any careful testing)...but my general sense of things is that recently-purchased Kastar LP-E6NH batteries, when installed (in pairs) in a gripped (non-fan non-ethernet) R5MkII, perform about as well as a pair of Canon-branded batteries perform, in the same grip/camera duo.

Your Grey Wagtail shot is nice. Very very nice.

=====

Edit: BIG mistake in my post here. My recently purchased (and used as described above) Kastar batteries are NOT labelled LP-E6NH!

They are in fact labelled LP-E6P...and in my hands seem to function well.

 

[Del Paso]

Are these Neewer replacements for the LP-E6P? I bought 3 Neewer LP-E6NH and they are not nearly as good as the Canon. In a normal days shooting, when not using high fps but doing a fair amount of spotting scope with telephotos I tend to get about 500 shots.

According to Neewer, these are indeed LP-E6P replacement batteries. Renamed LP-E&NH maybe? I bought them from Amazon, after one forum member, having the same issue, found out by accident that they solved his R5 II's battery-gluttony problem. So, I tested them myself, and was very satisfied.
Formerly, I had always been reluctant at using non-OEM batteries...
Whether they'll work for you, I couldn't say. Why they work for me, I do not know, just as I do not know why the originals produce such a miserable output.
A few (many?) R5 II reported the LP-E6P quickly sinking capacity, while most users were very satisfied with them. And it seems Canon are working at finding a solution. Hearsay? No idea...
Yet, the R5 II remains a fantastic camera!

Amazon.de