The Canon EOS R5 Mark II is closer to a reality than Canon’s claims

[juststeve]

I believe quad pixel autofocus would be a major improvement and a camera with it would very likely get my money. Currently am using an R5 and R3 and am happy with the combination, but do run in to situations where autofocus struggles or fail due to lake of sensitivity to horizontal lines. Not saying it is likely to appear on a R5ii or R1.

 

[unfocused]

Glad to be proven wrong, but I don't believe for one moment that the R5ii will have eye-control AF - it adds too much cost and bulk to the camera. On the R3 it works well for some people in some situations, but apparently not for others or other situations. It seems to be a long way from being reliable enough for general usage.

I have no idea what the cost per unit translates to for eye-control. The research and development costs are presumably already embedded in the R3. So we may be talking a modest incremental cost to add the current system to the R5.

When I first got the R3 I was very excited to try the eye-control autofocus. After several months of trying to use it to shoot sports I shut it off and pretty much forgot about it. I believe there are two major problems. First, it doesn't react fast enough to follow action accurately. By the time it has found the subject the player has move on or passed the ball to someone else. Second, when I'm shooting sports my eye is not fixed on a specific spot, but is moving around scanning the scene, trying to follow the action and anticipate what is coming next. That rapid scanning causes the eye-control focus point to bounce around seemingly randomly and it is always a fraction of a second behind my eye.

I don't know if my experience is typical, but I have noticed a couple of things on internet videos (I don't pretend to have conducted a thorough disciplined survey). A lot of the videos demonstrating how well it works are shot under fairy controlled situations. For example, studio and portrait shooting or "action" shooting (usually done specifically for the demonstration and not under real world shooting conditions) where the photographer is only following a single person, such as an individual runner or rider. It seems to work well under those controlled situations, but honestly, why would anyone even need it under those conditions?

The other thing I've noticed is that when I've watched videos from bird and wildlife photographers who have been using the R3 for awhile, few if any mention the eye-control autofocus and don't generally discuss it in their "setup" discussions.

I'll readily admit, I'm just one person. But, if it was such a great feature, I would expect a lot more people would be singing it's praises and posting videos showing how well it works.

I think Canon will go one of two ways. They will either invest millions more to perfect eye-control autofocus or they will leave it as is and just include it as a feature on their R5, R1 and R3 lines with incremental tweaks every generation but not really investing the kind of resources that would be needed to make it a truly stellar feature. I'm guessing they'll go the second route because the investment needed to make it truly effective could be prohibitive.

 

[unfocused]

I believe quad pixel autofocus would be a major improvement and a camera with it would very likely get my money. Currently am using an R5 and R3 and am happy with the combination, but do run in to situations where autofocus struggles or fail due to lake of sensitivity to horizontal lines. Not saying it is likely to appear on a R5ii or R1.

That would be something that would get me to pre-order.

 

[unfocused]

The R3 style AF-On controller would IMO be far more useful, cheaper to implement, and doesn't add bulk. The only downside is that apparently it doesn't work reliably when wearing gloves. So the conventional AF joystick won't be disappearing anytime soon.

I know I am swimming against the tide on this one, but I much prefer the thumb-on-the-half-screen approach of the R5, R7 and original R, over the AF control button on the 1Dx III and the R3. I find the surface area of the button too small to accurately place the focus point and far too easy to inadvertently move when pressing the button to activate autofocus. I don't understand why Canon won't offer photographers a choice, as the rear screen is always going to be touch-sensitive anyway, so it should be an easy matter to let photographers choose which system to activate.

 

[koenkooi]

Av and M are clearly the most useful modes, but a lot of people make use of the C1, C2, C3 custom modes, with each being assigned to a particular type of subject or situation. This is particularly the case when saving custom AF settings, or any settings that require menu-diving.

And let's not forget - the vast majority of R5 and R6 cameras are sold to amateur enthusiasts, not to professionals, and the same will apply to the "R5ii" and "R5s".

In fact I wouldn't be the least surprised to find that the majority or R3 and "R1" sales also go to affluent enthusiasts, rather than pros.

I’d love to gain c4, c5 and c6, a dial would prevent that.

 

[Del Paso]

I have no idea what the cost per unit translates to for eye-control. The research and development costs are presumably already embedded in the R3. So we may be talking a modest incremental cost to add the current system to the R5.

When I first got the R3 I was very excited to try the eye-control autofocus. After several months of trying to use it to shoot sports I shut it off and pretty much forgot about it. I believe there are two major problems. First, it doesn't react fast enough to follow action accurately. By the time it has found the subject the player has move on or passed the ball to someone else. Second, when I'm shooting sports my eye is not fixed on a specific spot, but is moving around scanning the scene, trying to follow the action and anticipate what is coming next. That rapid scanning causes the eye-control focus point to bounce around seemingly randomly and it is always a fraction of a second behind my eye.

I don't know if my experience is typical, but I have noticed a couple of things on internet videos (I don't pretend to have conducted a thorough disciplined survey). A lot of the videos demonstrating how well it works are shot under fairy controlled situations. For example, studio and portrait shooting or "action" shooting (usually done specifically for the demonstration and not under real world shooting conditions) where the photographer is only following a single person, such as an individual runner or rider. It seems to work well under those controlled situations, but honestly, why would anyone even need it under those conditions?

The other thing I've noticed is that when I've watched videos from bird and wildlife photographers who have been using the R3 for awhile, few if any mention the eye-control autofocus and don't generally discuss it in their "setup" discussions.

I'll readily admit, I'm just one person. But, if it was such a great feature, I would expect a lot more people would be singing it's praises and posting videos showing how well it works.

I think Canon will go one of two ways. They will either invest millions more to perfect eye-control autofocus or they will leave it as is and just include it as a feature on their R5, R1 and R3 lines with incremental tweaks every generation but not really investing the kind of resources that would be needed to make it a truly stellar feature. I'm guessing they'll go the second route because the investment needed to make it truly effective could be prohibitive.

I do fully agree with your criticism of eye-control AF.
In my case yet, macros and lanscapes, buildings etc, in other words for mostly static subjects, it's an almost perfect feature.
Additionally, since I suffer from a partly insensitive right hand thumb, index and middle finger, I cannot reliably use the focus controller. An improved Eye-AF would sell me the R5 II instantly!

 

[kaihp]

I believe there are two major problems. First, it doesn't react fast enough to follow action accurately. By the time it has found the subject the player has move on or passed the ball to someone else. Second, when I'm shooting sports my eye is not fixed on a specific spot, but is moving around scanning the scene, trying to follow the action and anticipate what is coming next. That rapid scanning causes the eye-control focus point to bounce around seemingly randomly and it is always a fraction of a second behind my eye.

Ah, team sports? Yeah, that'll throw proverbial spanners into the eye-tracking algorithm.

I shoot mostly motorcycle racing, so even if there are multiple bikes in view, they are - generally, most of the time, when not crashing - all going in more-or-less then same direction and following more-or-less the same trajectory. That should be fairly benign to the eye-tracking algorithm, even though I haven't become fast friends with it (yet).

 

[Besisika]

Maybe a childish request, but I wish, one day, Canon puts the actual value of the color temperature, instead of AWB(W) when shooting in auto-white balance. I know that I use white balance, but I want to know what color temperature that specific lighting condition, so that I can move to manual WB in order to adjust to taste.

 

[Del Paso]

Maybe a childish request, but I wish, one day, Canon puts the actual value of the color temperature, instead of AWB(W) when shooting in auto-white balance. I know that I use white balance, but I want to know what color temperature that specific lighting condition, so that I can move to manual WB in order to adjust to taste.

Why should your request be childish?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I believe quad pixel autofocus would be a major improvement and a camera with it would very likely get my money. Currently am using an R5 and R3 and am happy with the combination, but do run in to situations where autofocus struggles or fail due to lake of sensitivity to horizontal lines. Not saying it is likely to appear on a R5ii or R1.

Personally, I suspect the R1 will feature a recapitulation of cross-type AF, either as quad pixel AF or as alternating-orientation DPAF (Canon has patents on both). I've also occasionally run into issues with the R3, and while it's pretty simple to solve by picking another subject feature or rotating the camera to focus, it's annoying and I believe that's one reason Canon released the R3 with the caveat that true 1-series performance in a MILC was not quite ready.

 

[Chaitanya]

Replacing the micro-HDMI port with a USB-C port could enable this: 2 USB+HDMI capable ports. I'm undecided if I really want a built-in GPS or a GP-E3 that can use the new hotshoe for power.

Micro and mini Hdmi need to die either in favour of USB-C or full sized HDMi. If there is no replacement for GPS unit then I hope Canon allows for attaching 3rd party units(Garmin, etc...) through USB port.

 

[cohenfive]

I've using the Z8 for the past 10 days, and from what I have experienced, Canon will be making a big mistake if the R52 does not have a stacked sensor. It just speeds up the entire operation of the camera. I agree that the current resolution is still the sweet spot for a great all around camera. They have to heavily discount the R5 because it is no longer completely competitive in the 'all around ' prosumer market with the Z8 now widely available. I know Canon takes their time with these things, hopefully they don't scrimp on the tech of the new release.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I've using the Z8 for the past 10 days, and from what I have experienced, Canon will be making a big mistake if the R52 does not have a stacked sensor. It just speeds up the entire operation of the camera.

Not arguing that the Z8 may operate faster overall, but I really doubt the 1/100th of a second faster readout speed per shot is the main reason.

 

[cohenfive]

It's not just the af performance, which to my gut (so far) is at least as fast. The screen performance is pretty amazing, and I like having the ability to shoot using electronic shutter all the time without having to worry about rolling shutter. I like having the option to slow the camera down and not being forced to shoot 20fps in electronic shutter. I shoot my R5 primarily in mechanical shutter mode for these reasons...but it is a variety of things that are 'speedy' on the Z8 that make me think Canon needs to use this kind of sensor in the new model or be viewed as 'behind' in terms of overall performance.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's not just the af performance, which to my gut (so far) is at least as fast. The screen performance is pretty amazing, and I like having the ability to shoot using electronic shutter all the time without having to worry about rolling shutter. I like having the option to slow the camera down and not being forced to shoot 20fps in electronic shutter. I shoot my R5 primarily in mechanical shutter mode for these reasons...but it is a variety of things that are 'speedy' on the Z8 that make me think Canon needs to use this kind of sensor in the new model or be viewed as 'behind' in terms of overall performance.

The AF tracking performance may be better, if the system samples the scene more frequently (as is the case for the R3 vs. the R5, for example, but not all stacked sensor cameras use faster AF scene sampling). That would not show up as 'feeling faster' but would lead to more accurate focus tracking of fast-moving subjects. Using a slower frame rate with electronic shutter is a firmware thing, the R6 II and even the R8 shoot at 5/20/40 fps e-shutter without a stacked sensor. Yes, rolling shutter is reduced with a stacked sensor (but already not bad on the R6 II and R8), however that really doesn't affect 'camera speed' either.

The point is, the things you are talking about are really not due to the stacked sensor itself, but rather the camera as a whole. The R5 II could (and almost certainly will) 'feel more speedy' than the R5 even if it doesn't have a stacked sensor.

There are some people, and you may be one of them, who will view the R5 II as 'behind' regardless of the type of sensor it has. Funny how for those people, Nikon wasn't 'behind' the R5, but now that the Z8 has launched Nikon is suddenly 'ahead'. It's all about perspective.

 

[Del Paso]

Is it really a wonder, that a brand-new camera performs better, in some aspects, than one that was launched 3 years ago?

 

[AlanF]

Is it really a wonder, that a brand-new camera performs better, in some aspects, than one that was launched 3 years ago?

The manufacturers leapfrog each other. It's taken 3 years for Nikon to bring out an R5-sized camera to overtake it in some areas. The BIF experts I trust who have used the Z9 and R5 extensively rate the AF of the Z8/Z9 still behind that of the R5 although the blackout-free viewing is better. The main point is that all of these cameras are marvellous.

 

[unfocused]

Is it really a wonder, that a brand-new camera performs better, in some aspects, than one that was launched 3 years ago?

We’ve gone through this every cycle. Canon releases a new body. It’s the industry leader for a couple of years. Then Nikon releases a new body and suddenly it’s great and the comparable Canon body is crap. A year or so later and Canon is on top again. Some people switch between brands constantly chasing the moving goal posts. But they can’t ever catch up because technology always moves forward.

 

[neuroanatomist]

We’ve gone through this every cycle. Canon releases a new body. It’s the industry leader for a couple of years. Then Nikon releases a new body and suddenly it’s great and the comparable Canon body is crap. A year or so later and Canon is on top again. Some people switch between brands constantly chasing the moving goal posts. But they can’t ever catch up because technology always moves forward.

One difference, at least from my perspective, is that the goal posts really don't seem to move very far nowadays. Admittedly, that's a perception. For example, mathematically going from 5 fps to 10 fps is the same relative improvement as going from 20 fps to 40 fps. But I find that doubling a 5 fps frame rate makes a real difference in keepers, e.g. being able to select optimal wing positions for BIF, whereas the real difference in doubling a 20 fps frame rate is the time it takes to cull twice as many nearly identical images.

 

[unfocused]

One difference, at least from my perspective, is that the goal posts really don't seem to move very far nowadays. Admittedly, that's a perception. For example, mathematically going from 5 fps to 10 fps is the same relative improvement as going from 20 fps to 40 fps. But I find that doubling a 5 fps frame rate makes a real difference in keepers, e.g. being able to select optimal wing positions for BIF, whereas the real difference in doubling a 20 fps frame rate is the time it takes to cull twice as many nearly identical images.

Agreed.