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

[ulrikjuul]

Point taken, Slappy_G (Just had to finish up something else as I only just read about the power save fix this morning). Quick test supports the finding: I can consistently reproduce at 100mm on 100-300mm - disabling power saving immediately removes the problem UNDER TOTALLY VANILLA conditions - clearly defined objects in the foreground, less distinct objects not moving in the background - in decent but not perfect lighting. I cannot reproduce at 105mm with 28-105 f2.8. Will continue testing tonight under more challenging conditions when shooting anyway... However, the 100-300mm test is enough for me to disable power saving for now for anything serious. Now next problem is out of battery when you forget to shut off manually... LOL

 

[Mean Durphey]

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.

I tried the power saving fix last night. It seems to work. I have screen dimmer disabled, screen off disabled, auto power off disabled and viewfinder off at 1 min. Autofocus was much like it was on the previous firmware.

It seems like the Power savings was temporally turning off the autofocus on the lens.

 

[antonn]

Hello everyone!
I have two cameras R1 and R5M2, I use them with RF600/4 lens mainly for bird photography. As soon as firmware 103 was released, I immediately updated to them. R5M2 worked as before, but R1 began to focus very poorly, did not detect eyes or even silhouettes, did not track birds in flight, the number of bad shots was 99%. I updated R1 to firmware 102 and the focusing speed returned, excellent tracking of flying birds.
In my case, everything is not clear with R5M2, because it works slowly with RF600/4 lens (relative to R3/R1), focuses slowly, often does not have time to maintain focus after the bird. Perhaps that is why I did not notice a deterioration in focusing with firmware 103, but now I have updated to 102 and will check the changes in the near future.

 

[AlanF]

Hello everyone!
I have two cameras R1 and R5M2, I use them with RF600/4 lens mainly for bird photography. As soon as firmware 103 was released, I immediately updated to them. R5M2 worked as before, but R1 began to focus very poorly, did not detect eyes or even silhouettes, did not track birds in flight, the number of bad shots was 99%. I updated R1 to firmware 102 and the focusing speed returned, excellent tracking of flying birds.
In my case, everything is not clear with R5M2, because it works slowly with RF600/4 lens (relative to R3/R1), focuses slowly, often does not have time to maintain focus after the bird. Perhaps that is why I did not notice a deterioration in focusing with firmware 103, but now I have updated to 102 and will check the changes in the near future.

It could be there is something wrong with your R5ii. The internet is not full of reports of slow AF with the RF600/4 but I haven't used that lens - it's very fast with my RF 100-500mm.

 

[ulrikjuul]

Hmm - I thought it was limited to the R5II, and I disregarded the issues I have had with my R1 / 1200mm as I have ONLY been using it in a way that is new. I was just trying to refine the way to catch the bird in flight full frame. However, I have been disappointed with myself... So - at least take it as sporadic indications that there could also be issues with the R1... Will try both a systematic test and when I am shooting birds tonight...

 

[antonn]

It could be there is something wrong with your R5ii. The internet is not full of reports of slow AF with the RF600/4 but I haven't used that lens - it's very fast with my RF 100-500mm.

I didn't notice any deterioration, the latest version (103) on R5M2 allowed to shoot fast birds through branches and the focus followed the eye well (as well as the slow work of small cameras with "big white" allows). With 600/4 R5M2 doesn't work fast on any firmware) I have 100-500 and it is very fast. Only big cameras work fast with "big white" - R3/R1, R5M2/R7 move focus very slowly compared to R1.Everything is known in comparison.

 

[AlanF]

I didn't notice any deterioration, the latest version (103) on R5M2 allowed to shoot fast birds through branches and the focus followed the eye well (as well as the slow work of small cameras with "big white" allows). With 600/4 R5M2 doesn't work fast on any firmware) I have 100-500 and it is very fast. Only big cameras work fast with "big white" - R3/R1, R5M2/R7 move focus very slowly compared to R1.Everything is known in comparison.

Thanks for that information. Big whites are too heavy for me so you make me feel good, or rather even better, with my 100-500!

 

[AlanF]

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.

Don't over worry, the odds are it will be OK with 1.0.3. Not everyone is having problems.

 

[mpmark]

for all those with lens issues on some lenses, you do realize there is also firmware updates for many new RF lenses?

 

[neuroanatomist]

for all those with lens issues on some lenses, you do realize there is also firmware updates for many new RF lenses?

Specifically for some posting here, there were updates to the RF 24-105/2.8 and RF 100-300/2.8 that improved AF tracking performance with the R1 and R5II.

 

[mpmark]

I didn't notice any deterioration, the latest version (103) on R5M2 allowed to shoot fast birds through branches and the focus followed the eye well (as well as the slow work of small cameras with "big white" allows). With 600/4 R5M2 doesn't work fast on any firmware) I have 100-500 and it is very fast. Only big cameras work fast with "big white" - R3/R1, R5M2/R7 move focus very slowly compared to R1.Everything is known in comparison.

This isn't true, I have the RF 600mm, I've used it with the R5 and now the R5m2. It's substantial faster AF. On par with a friends R3. I also have the latest RF 600 firmware, off hand I think it's 1.0.6

The R5 only utilized one of the AF motors, the R5m2 must use both as its notably faster.

 

[SnowMiku]

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.

If yours ships with the latest firmware, let us know what your findings are.

 

[antonn]

This isn't true, I have the RF 600mm, I've used it with the R5 and now the R5m2. It's substantial faster AF. On par with a friends R3. I also have the latest RF 600 firmware, off hand I think it's 1.0.6

The R5 only utilized one of the AF motors, the R5m2 must use both as its notably faster.

Both motors at full speed use only large housings with a high-voltage battery (10V, such as LP1-E9). R5M2 is significantly slower than R3 and R1 on RF600/4 (firmware 106). I feel this constantly, as I use two cameras (R5M2 and R1), including on the same day in the same place. It is especially noticeable at close range (5-10m), R5M2 does not keep up with flying birds on a longitudinal course.

 

[PhotoFred]

As an underwater photographer, I have big problems with the power supply of the R5 II. I use an external monitor because of the high energy consumption. The R5 went from approx. 400 photos (without a monitor) to 1100 photos (with a constantly running monitor). The R5 only sends the data and the viewfinder/display do not consume any energy. With the same setting as the R5, the R5ii with monitor only takes 350-400 photos. The energy-saving mode of the viewfinder/display is also set to the shortest. Conclusion: the R5ii with firmware 1.03 consumes several times more energy than the R5. I suspect that the display/viewfinder (as is the autofocus) are always switched on in the background even though the screens are dark. Have now focus problems also under water.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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

Beautiful wagtail with a really waggin' tail, Alan

 

[AlanF]

Both motors at full speed use only large housings with a high-voltage battery (10V, such as LP1-E9). R5M2 is significantly slower than R3 and R1 on RF600/4 (firmware 106). I feel this constantly, as I use two cameras (R5M2 and R1), including on the same day in the same place. It is especially noticeable at close range (5-10m), R5M2 does not keep up with flying birds on a longitudinal course.

We both find that the RF 100-500mm is very fast with the R5ii. That has 2 motors so either one is fast enough or does it use both with a lower voltage?

 

[antonn]

We both find that the RF 100-500mm is very fast with the R5ii. That has 2 motors so either one is fast enough or does it use both with a lower voltage?

I was talking about 600/4, the 100-500 lens is light and fast with all cameras.I will also note that the 100-500 has a large depth of field, and incorrect focus on the eyes is barely noticeable. And on 600/4 the slightest deviation in focus is immediately visible I am not saying that the R5M2 is bad, but I am saying that the R1 with the "big white" works faster and more accurately at high longitudinal speeds. Therefore, focus errors on the R5M2 with the new firmware and with the "big white" might not be as noticeable as I had with the R1. However, I will also note that the R1 with the new firmware (103) even stopped detecting bird silhouettes, immediately lost the object in motion, and this was very noticeable. And the R5M2 (103) continued to detect objects, eyes well, in portraits it continued to work perfectly. I updated to R5M2 on 102 to test the changes for fast motion shooting, would the camera focus faster on the eye of a flying bird.

 

[neuroanatomist]

We both find that the RF 100-500mm is very fast with the R5ii. That has 2 motors so either one is fast enough or does it use both with a lower voltage?

There is some confusion of the terminology in this discussion.

The RF 100-500 has ‘Dual Nano USM AF’. That’s two separate Nano USM (linear-type) motors, each driving a small focusing group. Those motors are both used simultaneously to focus, and their speed is independent of battery power. Basically, Canon designed the lens with two separate focusing groups so they’d be light enough to move with the smaller Nano USM motors. The two groups also control focus breathing better than a single group. Nano USM came out in 2016. Dual Nano USM was first used on the RF 70-200/2.8 in 2019. The RF 100-300/2.8 and 24-105/2.8 also use it, for example.

The RF 600/4 has ‘Dual Power AF’. That’s a single Ring USM motor driving a single, larger focus group. Ring-type USM can move a larger mass than Nano USM. The ‘dual power’ part is that the motor is driven at a faster speed when a higher power battery (R3, R1) is used. Two lower power batteries in a grip won’t do it. Most Ring USM lenses don’t have the dual power capability, e.g. the RF 28-70/2 and a whole bunch of EF lenses drive the motor at the same speed regardless of battery power. The ‘great white’ EF lenses like my 600/4 II have the capability, but it was not an officially documented feature (though confirmed by Chuck Westfall). Canon made ‘Dual Power AF’ official with the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4, probably because they wanted some marketing fluff to wave around and distract from what they did (building a mount adapter into an EF lens and calling it new).

 

[AlanF]

There is some confusion of the terminology in this discussion.

The RF 100-500 has ‘Dual Nano USM AF’. That’s two separate Nano USM (linear-type) motors, each driving a small focusing group. Those motors are both used simultaneously to focus, and their speed in independent of battery power. Basically, Canon designed the lens with two separate focusing groups so they’d be light enough to move with the smaller Nano USM motors. The two groups also control focus breathing better than a single group. Nano USM came out in 2016. Dual Nano USM was first used on the RF 70-200/2.8 in 2019. The RF 100-300/2.8 and 24-105/2.8 also use it, for example.

The RF 600/4 has ‘Dual Power AF’. That’s a single Ring USM motor driving a single, larger focus group. Ring-type USM can move a larger mass than Nano USM. The ‘dual power’ part is that the motor is driven at a faster speed when a higher power battery (R3, R1) is used. Two lower power batteries in a grip won’t do it. Most Ring USM lenses don’t have the dual power capability, e.g. the RF 28-70/2 and a whole bunch of EF lenses drive the motor at the same speed regardless of battery power. The ‘great white’ EF lenses like my 600/4 II have the capability, but it was not an officially documented feature (though confirmed by Chuck Westfall). Canon made ‘Dual Power AF’ official with the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4, probably because they wanted some marketing fluff to wave around and distract from what they did (building a mount adapter into an EF lens and calling it new).

Thanks neuro - that's very clear.

 

[mpmark]

Both motors at full speed use only large housings with a high-voltage battery (10V, such as LP1-E9). R5M2 is significantly slower than R3 and R1 on RF600/4 (firmware 106). I feel this constantly, as I use two cameras (R5M2 and R1), including on the same day in the same place. It is especially noticeable at close range (5-10m), R5M2 does not keep up with flying birds on a longitudinal course.

Agreed and I understand that, what I am correcting is the behaviour between the R5 and R5m2, it is substantially better and BIF shots (ex pet for express circumstances) are far better and higher hit rate. This is my experience