More thoughts on the Canon EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II from Paris

[bendilts]

My R5ii came yesterday. I still have to get through all the menus and set up my modes the way I like it, but the headline is that the eye tracking is just terrible for me. I don\'t wear glasses but do wear contacts, no idea if that\'s what\'s screwing it up.

It\'s fine, it\'ll still be an upgrade from the R5 on the other autofocus improvements alone, but I was really hyped up for the eye tracking and it\'s just not remotely there yet.

 

[Canon Rumors]

@EOS 4 Life I threw that pic you posted into the article and also noted the subtle joystick difference. I see some people in the R52 discussion thread have noticed it and have some differing opinions on it.

 

[Canon Rumors]

My R5ii came yesterday. I still have to get through all the menus and set up my modes the way I like it, but the headline is that the eye tracking is just terrible for me. I don\'t wear glasses but do wear contacts, no idea if that\'s what\'s screwing it up.

It\'s fine, it\'ll still be an upgrade from the R5 on the other autofocus improvements alone, but I was really hyped up for the eye tracking and it\'s just not remotely there yet.

I used it on the R3 for about 10 minutes and never tried it again. While I think they improved the R3 version for the R52, it's still going to be hit and miss for some people.

The R1 sounds like a different story.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I used it on the R3 for about 10 minutes and never tried it again. While I think they improved the R3 version for the R52, it's still going to be hit and miss for some people.

The R1 sounds like a different story.

I saw some people who the eye control on the R3 worked great for saying that it does not work as well for them on the R5 II.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I saw some people who the eye control on the R3 worked great for saying that it does not work as well for them on the R5 II.

Interesting.

Turning off the tracking box on the R1 will be great... If it does work for me, it'll be interesting to see how long it takes to adapt to it so it's a benefit.

 

[MikeGalos]

Everything is for a reason on the 1 series.

And pros in that market can get amazingly picky in little things that get in their way.

In the 1970s and '80s Marty Forscher's Professional Camera Repair made a good living modifying pro bodies to fix things pros didn't like. A lot of them were things like removing safety locks designed to prevent accidental movement of switches. When you miss a shot because you needed to hold a button to move a knob rather than just move the knob, you care. A lot. In fact, the major vendors' Professional Services groups often did the same kind of things as special modifications for their top pro clients.

It got to be such a big deal that Nikon produced a special variant of the F3 targeting photojournalists called the F3P. (Note, they did not change which one was the "flagship"). Its big changes were mostly things like taking those safety interlocks off and making some controls uglier but easier to move in a hurry. The kind of things Marty Forscher and Nikon's pro services had been doing on a one-off basis.

 

[snapshot]

I still get high megapixel claims, so I do feel it's coming in an R5 body. It'll have to be at least double 45mp to make sense.

R5 is already a 90 MP camera from a dual-pixel auto-focus point of view. Who would be willing to trade dual pixel auto-focus for contrast detect (ala Lumix) auto-focus at 90MP?

 

[frankchn]

I saw some people who the eye control on the R3 worked great for saying that it does not work as well for them on the R5 II.

For me, I think eye control AF on the R3 is a bit better than the R5II because the eye relief of the EVF is better in the R3 than the R5II, so it is easier to position my eye in the VF to be able to see all 4 corners of the OLED panel at once.

Once I get the position right, I think the actual eye tracking works about the same.

 

[P-visie]

Didn't I read somewhere of small and unimportant incremental changes???
Reading only the spec-sheet has never been the most intelligent approach...

You probably read a post on a Leica website or a Sony fanboys site .

I made a comparison of the changes between the 5D Mk’s. The changes between the different Mk’s are bigger than the sum of the individual parts. IMO it is not correct to state that Canon only makes small changes between versions of a model.

See:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-r1-is-now-expected-in-july.43625/post-997909

 

[Canon Rumors]

You probably read a post on a Leica website or a Sony fanboys site .

I made a comparison of the changes between the 5D Mk’s. The changes between the different Mk’s are bigger than the sum of the individual parts. IMO it is not correct to state that Canon only makes small changes between versions of a model.

See:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-r1-is-now-expected-in-july.43625/post-997909

You're absolutely correct, that's why 0-day reviews by people that don't shoot drive me bonkers. They miss everything.

 

[Canon Rumors]

R5 is already a 90 MP camera from a dual-pixel auto-focus point of view. Who would be willing to trade dual pixel auto-focus for contrast detect (ala Lumix) auto-focus at 90MP?

That would never happen. Canon has shown off 100+ MP sensors, the only question is there a market for such a camera. I believe there is, but they pay people a lot of money to answer those questions.

 

[RobbieHat]

Agree. I had an R5 and it’s a great camera. Firmware eliminated a lot of the overheating issue if video is your thing. I shoot stills.
But I did it and got another R3. I don’t see a need to upgrade to an R1. I don’t shoot sports so the R3 is perfect for me. And at $4000 now it’s a bargain. If anyone really needs huge files there are two options. Medium format is one. I bought a Fuji GFX100. Barely use it. It’s beautiful and its images are fantastic. I just rarely NEED that much resolution. Second solution: software like Gigapixel AI. If for some reason 24MP’s just isn’t enough (hardly ever) I can run an image through Topaz and double the size (or more. Up to 6X). So my 24MP R3 can be a 48MP resolution producer for a couple hundred bucks more and it does an incredible job. Once I used that software I stopped chasing the big sensor game. The R3 is more than enough for 95% of photographers IMHO. Now that Fuji has the new GFX 100S Mark II, take that $4000+ you would spend on an R5 Mark II and apply it towards a 100MP medium format sensor that REALLY shows a difference in a package that’s not much larger. Granted, that means buying new lenses, too. But you wouldn’t regret it IF you really need that much resolution or IF Gigapixel somehow didn’t work wonders.

My main issues with the GFX 100s is the weather sealing and performance in extreme weather. Not sure if the Mark II is better but on a previous trip to Alaska one of the other shooters that was using a GFX had it lock up on the first day when conditions were still pretty reasonable. We ended up shooting down to -40F conditions and the R5 handled it well. GFX is great in better conditions but I like to get out there in rain, cold, sand, ocean, etc. too much to risk it in those conditions. Plus as you mention the lenses would be another huge investment and they don’t seem to have many UWA lenses for the system.

 

[SvO2]

My main issues with the GFX 100s is the weather sealing and performance in extreme weather. Not sure if the Mark II is better but on a previous trip to Alaska one of the other shooters that was using a GFX had it lock up on the first day when conditions were still pretty reasonable. We ended up shooting down to -40F conditions and the R5 handled it well. GFX is great in better conditions but I like to get out there in rain, cold, sand, ocean, etc. too much to risk it in those conditions. Plus as you mention the lenses would be another huge investment and they don’t seem to have many UWA lenses for the system.

Sometimes it’s just bad luck. There’s a thread on Reddit right now where an r5 seemingly failed with light drizzle.

 

[Canon Rumors]

My main issues with the GFX 100s is the weather sealing and performance in extreme weather. Not sure if the Mark II is better but on a previous trip to Alaska one of the other shooters that was using a GFX had it lock up on the first day when conditions were still pretty reasonable. We ended up shooting down to -40F conditions and the R5 handled it well. GFX is great in better conditions but I like to get out there in rain, cold, sand, ocean, etc. too much to risk it in those conditions. Plus as you mention the lenses would be another huge investment and they don’t seem to have many UWA lenses for the system.

I was in Mongolia this past January and all of the Sony cameras failed in the cold.

Only Nikon, Canon and OM Systems have this issue sorted.

Sony and Fuji are miles behind. However, Fuji obviously works hard to keep the price of those bodies down. There are going to be tradeoffs. I love what Fuji does though

This pissed me off when PetaPixel did a "wildlife" review at a zoo with Fuji gear (he still couldn't get a competent frame). Wildlife photography is more about the environment, cameras being bashed around in safari vehicles and all of the dust, dealing with crazy humidity in the Amazon, the bitter cold when trying to get Pallas's Cats or Snow Leopards in Mongolia or Tibet.

-35c, the LCD froze dead, the camera didn't miss a beat.

 

[Del Paso]

You probably read a post on a Leica website or a Sony fanboys site .

I made a comparison of the changes between the 5D Mk’s. The changes between the different Mk’s are bigger than the sum of the individual parts. IMO it is not correct to state that Canon only makes small changes between versions of a model.

See:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-r1-is-now-expected-in-july.43625/post-997909

Agree! Even the change from the 5 DIII to the 5 DIV was more than "a little upgrading".
But disagree with your suspecting Leica Rumors websites. They only speak about Leica products, and, some members quite stupidly, are convinced that other brands are not even worth a single line.
To be concrete: Leica lenses are a class of their own, mechanically and optically. But, apart from the excellent finish, the SL bodies stand no chance when compared to an R5 or R3. Especially the AF lags far behind what Canon can offer. And I didn't even mention the R5 II or R1. The SL's reliability isn't exceptional, either. And the M10's or M11's ISO wheel is notoriously fragile. Freezing also occasionally occurs.The glorious M3 or M4 or Leicaflex days are long gone.
But the lenses...
And: I never read Sonni fora, never!

 

[tomislavmoze]

If anything I think it proves the point. 85,000 shots. That’s an average of 4000+ per day if he shot for 21-22 days. Sounds like a lot of data flow and editing either in-camera or later on a computer. If he’s a stringer then he’s having to do that on the fly and send his selects to an editor or client right away. If someone else sends good or better pix sooner than another photographer he/she is not going to sell his images or might not get hired again. 4000 shots per day is a LOT to chimp (edit as you go) or review later on the camera or laptop. Twice as much storage needed for larger sensors (cards and hard drives). And uploading even a fourth of those is still a ton of images, data, time. Think about it: if it took 10 seconds each to look through and narrow it down to 1000 shots ( that’s 10,000 seconds. 166 minutes. That’s 2.75 hours each day JUST spent editing them down and not including retouching or transmitting them anywhere. File size, camera processing speed, computer processing speed, etc are all important factors.

I do a lot of Red Bull events as one of Red Bull official photographers and it is usual for us to cover whole day events. I’ve had some events that are multiple day events and we usually shoot few thousand photos (3000-6000)a day have delivery during event (some important moments/people) and after the event we straight deliver at least 30 images with included metadata’s and Lightroom edit. Often we include around 100 images for internal use after the above mentioned 30 images that are usually editorial and news images distributed through red bull media pool. Now the longest events that I worked where Red Bull Air race 7 days and swatch major volleyball series 9 days. And it’s usually like his days sleep 5-6 hours shooting around 12-14 hours the rest is travel and editing/selecting all the images.
After few events you become a machine for selecting keepers and the worst part is there are so many great images that are just not the best ones that just disappear in the process and end up on some hard drive where nobody will see them.
I admire anybody older than 30-40 years old still doing this type of work these people are animals.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I do a lot of Red Bull events as one of Red Bull official photographers and it is usual for us to cover whole day events. I’ve had some events that are multiple day events and we usually shoot few thousand photos (3000-6000)a day have delivery during event (some important moments/people) and after the event we straight deliver at least 30 images with included metadata’s and Lightroom edit. Often we include around 100 images for internal use after the above mentioned 30 images that are usually editorial and news images distributed through red bull media pool. Now the longest events that I worked where Red Bull Air race 7 days and swatch major volleyball series 9 days. And it’s usually like his days sleep 5-6 hours shooting around 12-14 hours the rest is travel and editing/selecting all the images.
After few events you become a machine for selecting keepers and the worst part is there are so many great images that are just not the best ones that just disappear in the process and end up on some hard drive where nobody will see them.
I admire anybody older than 30-40 years old still doing this type of work these people are animals.

I couldnt do it.... It's not the body, it's the brain. That exhaustion in your head.

 

[Cyborx]

We all know Jeff Cable at this point, and he has been gracious enough to answer our questions and give a ton of images and feedback on both the Canon EOS R1 and Canon EOS R5 Mark II from the Paris Games. Shooting an Olympics is an extremely demanding experience, you shoot a ton, you're

See full article...

All I’m asking myself again is WHY 1000 euro’s cheaper in the US? Are the Europeans famous for being stupid and paying more???

 

[SvO2]

All I’m asking myself again is WHY 1000 euro’s cheaper in the US? Are the Europeans famous for being stupid and paying more???

Don't the European prices include VAT? That'll make up most of the difference

 

[Billybob]

I'm trying to determine from the initial reviews if I feel like the R5mkII was a bigger than usual upgrade between versions, or just about the same. On the AF side I feel like the added tracking capability is a bigger jump than we got with say the R3 and R6mkII. Stacked sensor is a big deal, but really only kicks in in ES mode for sports and action where rolling shutter can pop up (so a big deal for some, and no deal at all for others).

Either way seems like a lot of quality of life upgrades. I wonder how much might show up in an R6mkIII?

I'm test driving an R3 for a weekend soccer tournament. A good test of how much I'll benefit from the stacked sensor, and how much I will or won't miss the resolution over the R5. Then I can decide on an upgrade path.

Brian

Interesting.

I see people on both sides of the question of whether the R5 MII is a major or minor upgrade. Frankly, they're all right! It really depends on how and what you shoot. If you are a portrait/studio/landscape shooter who might want more resolution, then perhaps there's not much here for you. However, for sports shooters and--I believe--video shooters the MII is a significant upgrade indeed. My R5 was a phenomenal and unbelievable upgrade to, not Canon DSLRs, but to my Sony mirrorless cameras. It had as much (actually, slightly more) resolution, and much, much better AF then the Sony. Also, not only did it get more than 10fps, it went all the way to 20fps--more than the flagship 1D series! But it wasn't perfect. Overheating didn't bother me, the slow start up and quick shut down was irritating. AF was good, but not the best, and tracking was far from perfect. But it was so much better than anything I had used before especially at that price point.

The MII addresses, hopefully, all my concerns (I still haven't heard whether there is audible feedback in EF mode). It didn't find rolling shutter too bad--especially compared to the embarrassing RS of the R7--but that improvement will be welcome as well.

All in all, for me it is a worthwhile and significant upgrade. I won't argue with anyone who claims that it is "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary". The point is that it will provide a better image-taking experience.