Upvote
0
Is Your Canon EOS R5 Mark II Autofocus Affected by the Latest Firmware?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
-
- Tags
- eos r5 mark ii
Interesting that the R5 Mark II stays drowsy after waking from sleep on the latest firmware. Since I updated my EOS R6 Mark II firmware to version 1.5.0 back in February, I have noticed quite often when I grab the camera to take a shot after it\'s been idle for several minutes and gone into sleep mode, I press the shutter button and nothing. I wait a couple of seconds, press it again nothing then eventually the viewfinder will show a white border, then after another second or so the centre focus grid appears then a couple of more seconds the icons around the edge and eventually it sluggishly returns to life. If I hold down the shutter button and keep it pressed from sleep, it will take 2-3 seconds to light the viewfinder border, then fire off a couple of shots in a coughing pattern like the buffer is full, then eventually things start to come back to life. It happens so frequently now that if I press the button and the viewfinder remains dead for more than a second, I flick the power switch off and back on. Most of the time that works, but now and then even that makes no improvement so it\'s pop the battery for a couple of seconds then reload and voila it\'s back in action. I have noticed it gets worse as the number of images on the SC card start piling up so I suspect when it wakes it is trying to read the SC card and takes a while to read the full file list. I have notified Canon Australia of the symptoms and how to reproduce it, and that a mate of mine in the UK is experiencing the same thing with his... Canon support said they\'d get back to me... still waiting.
Upvote
0
I have been thinking about your issue and this 'solution', I suspect your R5II has an way-more-than-average power draw, which the 3rd party batteries 'fix' because they are limited to a smaller current, e.g. 6A vs 8A. I only have my feelings as proof, so take it with a grain of salt
Upvote
0
having the same issue and didn't realise was firmware related and suspected lighting was different and perhaps causing it, now I know I guess. I upgraded rather than waiting hoping it may fix the battery issues despite not listed. The neewer E6P are perhaps the same capacity cells inside as the NH model but the chip is different as not hobbled in camera and none of my e6NH batteries (mostly Canon and Hahnel extreme) work fully in the R5ii. Picked up more canon 6P's and neewer P's and the latter work fine but the canon ones (one came with camera others from Wex) drain super fast and have problems so definitely something they dropped the ball on it seems.
Upvote
0
My LP-E6NHs work in the R5ii but with limited function, my couple-of-years-old Neewer that were then meant to be equivalent to NH turn on the camera but will not work. An annoying thing for us in the UK is that the LP-E6P cost £119.99 from WEX and elsewhere compared with $79 = £59 from B&H in the USA. I'll be visiting there in October and will order some to be delivered to my hosts. I suspect that as implied by @koenkooi the new Neewer have just been chipped to fool the camera.
Upvote
0
Me too. I also didn ´t notice the firmware version 1.03, still being very satisfied with the R5Mk2 (+“old” firmware 1.0.2). Regarding battery I use the Adicop LP-E6P (bought from Amazon) as a much cheaper alternative to the Canon original. The performance is at least equal to the original. This battery also provides an USB-C connection for direct charging, a feature that is very valuable in my opinion. I do not understand why Canon did not add this feature to their LP-E6P battery.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.
Upvote
0
This also my opinion. The camera was "thoroughly" tested by Canon's service which found out that everything was OK. Standard answer, it seems.I have been thinking about your issue and this 'solution', I suspect your R5II has an way-more-than-average power draw, which the 3rd party batteries 'fix' because they are limited to a smaller current, e.g. 6A vs 8A. I only have my feelings as proof, so take it with a grain of salt
Fortunately, since I bought the camera from Kamera Express, I enjoy 5 years of warranty. Should it ever overheat and come to an atomic meltdown, I'll be on the safe side till 2029.
Upvote
0
I think it is something else going on because for many of those with the issue it is dramatic difference. I can literally watch it tick down by 1% in a minute (at least, often much faster) whilst idle, screen turned down and no continuous AF yet with a 3rd party battery get several hours of normal use on par with older mirrorless canon bodies. Judging from reddit and so on I am not alone with this. Completely guessing but I suspect they F'd up with regards to the bms chip on the battery or something rather than bad cells.I have been thinking about your issue and this 'solution', I suspect your R5II has an way-more-than-average power draw, which the 3rd party batteries 'fix' because they are limited to a smaller current, e.g. 6A vs 8A. I only have my feelings as proof, so take it with a grain of salt
I've not tore down an oem battery yet due to how new they are and still under warranty but in future if they never fix it I may to check the cells in various states of reported charge to meter the actual values to confirm the suspicions. I have various battery welders and Ni strip and other bits I use for making larger battery packs knocking around so in theory could put new 18500's in one to see but I suspect it isn't cells used by canon as I say so wouldn't help in that case.
Upvote
0
Thought I was going crazy! I've been fighting it a lot after updating; especially with my RF 100 2.8 Macro... RF 50 1.2 seems fine though :\
It will lock, and then swap to background. Even if all the settings tell it not to and I have a point selected!
It will even unlock and start hunting for something in the background, again this is after it's already initially locked (onto stationary objects too!), that's way out of range WITH the range limit switch set!
I have also seen some odd behavior with behind the scenes flicker detection in mixed light environments - indoors but with lots of sunlight filtering in. It will change between HS, HS+ etc. unexpectedly for the same scenes where before it would just stay at HS. It IS better behaved when you leave flicker detection off intentionally though: it is better at switching off the background enabled flicker detection that you cant turn off.
It will lock, and then swap to background. Even if all the settings tell it not to and I have a point selected!
It will even unlock and start hunting for something in the background, again this is after it's already initially locked (onto stationary objects too!), that's way out of range WITH the range limit switch set!
I have also seen some odd behavior with behind the scenes flicker detection in mixed light environments - indoors but with lots of sunlight filtering in. It will change between HS, HS+ etc. unexpectedly for the same scenes where before it would just stay at HS. It IS better behaved when you leave flicker detection off intentionally though: it is better at switching off the background enabled flicker detection that you cant turn off.
Upvote
0
My R5mkII with firmware 1.0.3 focuses perfectly with RF 50 f/1.2, but with RF 70-200 f/2.8 Z it is very unstable.
On tele-end it is totally unreliable when switching from objects far away and objects nearby, especially in indoor lighting conditions. Sometimes is focuses immediately, while frequently it is just hangs and doing nothing, not even trying to search (focus indicator appears red).
I've compared it to my 5DmkIV with EF 70-200 f/2.8. It works perfectly with exactly same conditions in both phase AF and matrix AF regimes.
It is very frustrating, to sit with updated gear and waiting for software fix.
On tele-end it is totally unreliable when switching from objects far away and objects nearby, especially in indoor lighting conditions. Sometimes is focuses immediately, while frequently it is just hangs and doing nothing, not even trying to search (focus indicator appears red).
I've compared it to my 5DmkIV with EF 70-200 f/2.8. It works perfectly with exactly same conditions in both phase AF and matrix AF regimes.
It is very frustrating, to sit with updated gear and waiting for software fix.
Upvote
0
Even with Windows10 I temporarily Pause monthly updates rather than getting them right away. That way, if there is a bug in the update, it should get fixed before it gets to me.
Upvote
0
Installed 1.0.3 when it came out. No problems so far with my R5 Mark II. Tested with several different RF lenses. Both zooms and primes. If possible, autofocus is even better than ever before.
Lenses tested:
RF 35mm f 1.8
RF 85mm f 2
RF 28-70mm f 2 L
RF 24-105mm f 4 L
RF 24-105mm f 2.8 L Z
RF 100-500mm L
Lenses tested:
RF 35mm f 1.8
RF 85mm f 2
RF 28-70mm f 2 L
RF 24-105mm f 4 L
RF 24-105mm f 2.8 L Z
RF 100-500mm L
Upvote
0
What I will never understand, maybe this forum's computer specialists could explain it to me, is how different cameras react to such firmwares. From everything is better now to AF no longer usable. Same with the battery issue, from 1700 shots per load to max. 250...
In the case of firmware 1.03, it can't be, like with the battery, a bad electronic component, since, before the download, the R5 II's AF worked correctly.
Any explanation?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
At least partially, this is the answer.
My issues with RF 70-200 2.8 Z is sensitive to setting of maximum auto iso value. If i lower it to 12k, AF issues are much more severe.
The "fun" part is that it not shows that high iso values on screen, while focusing, working in about 1-3k range.
Upvote
0
Some people are just unlucky.What I will never understand, maybe this forum's computer specialists could explain it to me, is how different cameras react to such firmwares. From everything is better now to AF no longer usable. Same with the battery issue, from 1700 shots per load to max. 250...
In the case of firmware 1.03, it can't be, like with the battery, a bad electronic component, since, before the download, the R5 II's AF worked correctly.
Any explanation?
Upvote
0
