Wouldn't this be sweet (if true) - R5 firmware with precapture

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

MatthewK said:
It's already an amazing camera, anything else that gets added is just a bonus at this point.

Wife has an R5, and I've been having thoughts of getting a 100-500 for it, just to see what the fuss is about.
Click to expand...

What do you use for telephoto now? I use the EF 100-400 which I think is as sharp but I wish I had that last 100mm. I have the 1.4 with it, but would rather have the rf100-500 and maybe a 1.4 with it.
 
Member's gallery
I shoot w/ the Nikon and the 800PF, though it may be a bit much for travel, and since the wife usually takes her R5, might as well piggyback off of that and have a 1-camera traveling solution. Problem being, I'll have to end up carrying her camera gear too :LOL:

Used the EF 100-400 II for years, one of my all time favorite lenses, but I almost always used it w/ a 1.4TC, so having 100-500 would be really convenient. If I were going all-in w/ the 100-500 though, I'd probably also consider adding the R7 into the mix. Having an R5, R7, and 1.4 TC would grant a ton of flexibility, as this is how I employed the EF 100-400 (w/ 5D4 and 80D). Eventually, I was using the 1.4TC so much that I upgraded to a 500 f/4 in order to claw back some light gathering capability, but I lost that amazing versatility.

W/ sensor performance being what is today, it looks like the 100-500 is a do-everything lens, and the more I look into it, the more I'm starting to seriously entertain the idea.
 
Member's gallery
When deciding to upgrade from a D-500/500pf a R5/100-500 was the "strawman". I held that combo in my hand and found that it was no heavier than a D-500/500pf. My problem with the 100-500 is that a TC retards its zoom capabilities to 300-500mm. That meant to me that I would be shooting the R5 in crop mode to get the 750mm equivalent reach of the D-500/500pf. I also looked hard at the R7 because it creates an 800mm equivalent reach with a 32mp file.

Tom
 
Member's gallery
Tom Reynolds said:
When deciding to upgrade from a D-500/500pf a R5/100-500 was the "strawman". I held that combo in my hand and found that it was no heavier than a D-500/500pf. My problem with the 100-500 is that a TC retards its zoom capabilities to 300-500mm. That meant to me that I would be shooting the R5 in crop mode to get the 750mm equivalent reach of the D-500/500pf. I also looked hard at the R7 because it creates an 800mm equivalent reach with a 32mp file.

Tom
Click to expand...
The TC design choice that Canon made bothered me at first as well, but now not so much because if there's a point that I'm shooting at max focal range, I probably won't need the lower end anyway. Like most, when I used the 100-400, I was always at 400mm anyway, could've been shooting a 400 prime for all intents and purposes. Take the TC off when finished with it, call it a day.

I more so don't like the fact that a 1.4 on the 100-500 puts me at f/10, so would rather shoot FF and no TC for maximum aperture, and crop after, vs. use the TC. And you know what? The pixel density difference when comparing a cropped R5 shot to the D500 + 500PF is negligible, so that wouldn't' bother me either. It was the same conundrum when people were considering the D850 vs. D500, and more so came down to whether or not you were cropping to fill the frame. Honestly though, cropping doesn't bother me, I'd now rather have the benefits of FF w/ the slight downside of losing some resolution if I happen to crop too much.

Yes, the 100-500 has some compromises, and it sounds as though I'm talking myself into it. Not really, it's just me rationalizing how I'd go about using it if I were to own one someday. The zoom range, MFD, and light weight all combine to make a super compelling package.
 
Tom Reynolds said:
When deciding to upgrade from a D-500/500pf a R5/100-500 was the "strawman". I held that combo in my hand and found that it was no heavier than a D-500/500pf. My problem with the 100-500 is that a TC retards its zoom capabilities to 300-500mm. That meant to me that I would be shooting the R5 in crop mode to get the 750mm equivalent reach of the D-500/500pf. I also looked hard at the R7 because it creates an 800mm equivalent reach with a 32mp file.

Tom
Click to expand...
I guess I'm missing your point. The 100-500 with the 1.4 would be equivalent to 700 full frame. No? Or in crop mode 1120 if you think of it that way with the 1.6 crop?
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I guess I'm missing your point. The 100-500 with the 1.4 would be equivalent to 700 full frame. No? Or in crop mode 1120 if you think of it that way with the 1.6 crop?
Click to expand...
Deleted my response in order to allow Mr. Reynolds to answer instead, don't want to steal his thunder :)

The MFD of the 100-500 is, to me, its main attraction. As time goes by, I've gotten better and better at getting close to birds (using a hide, or concealing myself in surrounding vegetation/behind trees/etc), so more often I'm getting subjects that are falling under the MFD of the primes I've been using. Doesn't happen all the time, still have a lot to improve in my technique, but eventually I'd love to just need a shorter lens for the added versatility and ease of carrying in the field.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
In analyzing the R-5/100-500, I determined that I would usually be shooting in crop mode because I am NOT generally capable of getting close to the subject and I felt that carrying the R-5/100-500 with a TC and the lens extended to 300mm would be ungainly.

So, the choice came down to:
1-R5/100-500 (800mm equivalent reach <20MP cropped image)
2-R7/100-500 (800mm equivalent reach 32mp cropped image)
3-OM-1/100-400 (800mm equivalent reach 20mp cropped image)

None of these solutions would suit the 600mmf4 tripod boys but would all provide a single camera/lens solution at a low weight. I had just come back from The South Padre Island Birding Center where either the 800mm equivalent reach was needed or the subject was "right there". I concluded that is a common condition. (A am going to the St. Augustine Alligator Farm next month and I understand that the same 800mm or "right there" conditions apply.)

I still can't tell which solution was best. My wife LOVED the OM-1 so that cemented the decision. The OM Systems 150-400 lens would still be in the same weight ballpark but was no and is still not easily available.

I can tell you that a lighter, more compact, more flexible solution was more fun than my D-500/500pf.

Tom
 
Tom Reynolds said:
In analyzing the R-5/100-500, I determined that I would usually be shooting in crop mode because I am NOT generally capable of getting close to the subject and I felt that carrying the R-5/100-500 with a TC and the lens extended to 300mm would be ungainly.

So, the choice came down to:
1-R5/100-500 (800mm equivalent reach <20MP cropped image)
2-R7/100-500 (800mm equivalent reach 32mp cropped image)
3-OM-1/100-400 (800mm equivalent reach 20mp cropped image)

None of these solutions would suit the 600mmf4 tripod boys but would all provide a single camera/lens solution at a low weight. I had just come back from The South Padre Island Birding Center where either the 800mm equivalent reach was needed or the subject was "right there". I concluded that is a common condition. (A am going to the St. Augustine Alligator Farm next month and I understand that the same 800mm or "right there" conditions apply.)

I still can't tell which solution was best. My wife LOVED the OM-1 so that cemented the decision. The OM Systems 150-400 lens would still be in the same weight ballpark but was no and is still not easily available.

I can tell you that a lighter, more compact, more flexible solution was more fun than my D-500/500pf.

Tom
Click to expand...

I see. Because with the extender attached it won't retract back to the 100 size?
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I see. Because with the extender attached it won't retract back to the 100 size?
Click to expand...
Bill-
Correct. The lens will remain partially extended and the TC adds 1.1" and 1/2 pound to the configuration. In my quest to find an easy to carry on a Black Rapids strap combo I concluded that both the R7 and OM-1 were better for me. Your mileage may vary.

Tom
 
Member's gallery
Bill-
I should add that pre-capture on a R5 would be sweet. In order to catch a BIF taking off in Pre-capture you need to zoom back to allow the bird to spread it wings and fly away from the perch. Pre-capture is NOT for the fill-the-frame folks. Shoot the R5 in FF intending to crop down to crop size will get you some great shots.
-Tom
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
Possibly coming in April according to the rumor. Wishful thinking?

www.canonrumors.com

Canon to release major firmware update for the Canon EOS R5

We reported in late November that we could see an EOS R5 Mark II in 2023, but that timeline has been debunked for the most part. We expect to see the next EOS R
www.canonrumors.com
Click to expand...
That would be great if true! Precapture would be an awesome feature to add, as well as the others mentioned.
MatthewK said:
It's already an amazing camera, anything else that gets added is just a bonus at this point.

Wife has an R5, and I've been having thoughts of getting a 100-500 for it, just to see what the fuss is about.
Click to expand...
I’m also interested in the RF 100-500. I currently use the EF 100-400 II adapted to my R5, which I love, and also use the Sigma 150-600 C if I think I’ll need the extra reach. The RF 100-500 would replace both.

The f/7.1 aperture on the RF 100-500 doesn’t bother me since I typically use the Sigma 150-600 C at f/7.1 or f/8, I find my copy is sharper stopped down from f/6.3.

That said, I’m content with my current lenses so not sure I can justify the cost of upgrading to the RF 100-500. I would love if Canon came out with something similar to the 500 PF as far as budget, performance, and light weight are concerned!
 
Jonathan said:
That would be great if true! Precapture would be an awesome feature to add, as well as the others mentioned.

I’m also interested in the RF 100-500. I currently use the EF 100-400 II adapted to my R5, which I love, and also use the Sigma 150-600 C if I think I’ll need the extra reach. The RF 100-500 would replace both.

The f/7.1 aperture on the RF 100-500 doesn’t bother me since I typically use the Sigma 150-600 C at f/7.1 or f/8, I find my copy is sharper stopped down from f/6.3.

That said, I’m content with my current lenses so not sure I can justify the cost of upgrading to the RF 100-500. I would love if Canon came out with something similar to the 500 PF as far as budget, performance, and light weight are concerned!
Click to expand...


The 100-500 already $800 less than the 500 pf.
 
Member's gallery
I gave a zoom talk to fellow pros who are getting into video for client work. Majority were Canon DSLR and some R5 users, and they absolutely LOVE that camera. I never used one for video, but the stills i took with a friend's were great, as were the ergonamics. I'm waiting for mk2, non-overheating one to add to my arsenal as a backup to my Z9.
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
It's already an amazing camera, anything else that gets added is just a bonus at this point.

Wife has an R5, and I've been having thoughts of getting a 100-500 for it, just to see what the fuss is about.
Click to expand...
I have both the 100-400L with EF to R adapter for my R5...and I bought the RF100-500 lens....gotta say it's and awesome lens. My typical shooting is R5 plus 1.4TC and 600F4, and R5 with 100-500. Can't imagine you would not like the lens. My go to for BIF.
 
Nimi said:
I gave a zoom talk to fellow pros who are getting into video for client work. Majority were Canon DSLR and some R5 users, and they absolutely LOVE that camera. I never used one for video, but the stills i took with a friend's were great, as were the ergonamics. I'm waiting for mk2, non-overheating one to add to my arsenal as a backup to my Z9.
Click to expand...

One of the rumored firmware fixes is the removal of the 30 minute limit on video. So maybe they have addressed the heat in firmware. I don't shoot video, but for stills heat has never been a concern to me.
 
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
I gave a zoom talk to fellow pros who are getting into video for client work. Majority were Canon DSLR and some R5 users, and they absolutely LOVE that camera. I never used one for video, but the stills i took with a friend's were great, as were the ergonamics. I'm waiting for mk2, non-overheating one to add to my arsenal as a backup to my Z9.
Click to expand...
I'm used to shooting 3 different camera systems (Nikon, Canon, Fuji), but have never shot them side-by-side. Would be a fun experiment in the field switching between my Z9 and the R5!

The last Canon camera I used for birding was the EOS R (which was atrocious), and the R5 is in a different universe as far as AF, so I've been keenly interested to see how much better it is than its predecessor. Problem being, Canon priced their f/4 birding lenses out of reach, so after I switched to Nikon I've just never considered ever going back... until now! At this point, I'm loosely considering three lenses to compliment my 800PF: Nikkor 100-400, 400 f/4.5, or the Canon 100-500.
 
Last edited:
Getting even better, today's rumor is that it might include pixel shifting.
 
Member's gallery
I chose Nikon mirrorless because of the lenses available, both Z-mount and my Nikon f-mount tilt shift lenses. But as I get more into shooting video with the Z9 camera it is increasingly apparent how much better the overall R5 C ecosystem for video is than Nikon's. Better support for Atomos recorders and the many cine lenses from Canon and others.

I am hoping that Sigma will release its second generation 60-600mm lens with a Z-mount. I am using the 100-400mm with an without the 1.4x TC in the meantime.
 
Calson said:
I chose Nikon mirrorless because of the lenses available, both Z-mount and my Nikon f-mount tilt shift lenses. But as I get more into shooting video with the Z9 camera it is increasingly apparent how much better the overall R5 C ecosystem for video is than Nikon's. Better support for Atomos recorders and the many cine lenses from Canon and others.

I am hoping that Sigma will release its second generation 60-600mm lens with a Z-mount. I am using the 100-400mm with an without the 1.4x TC in the meantime.
Click to expand...

Now do I understand correctly that there is no IBIS on the R5C? if so then pixel shifting would not work on the C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top