Canon R5ii & R1 : First Impressions

[David Berry]

I have attached a photo I’ve taken with my old d500… Maybe it was the d850.

• Canon : 500D — 15MP; crop; 2009
• Nikon : D850 — 45 MP; full; 2017
• Canon : 850D — 24MP; crop; 2020
• Nikon : D500 — 21MP; crop; 2022

What were the marketing execs thinking!

I hope my info isn’t as confused as the manufacturers’ nomenclature. There are also ‘Kisses’ and ‘Rebels’ mixed in there.

Anyway, I know which of those DSLRs I’d choose: only one is comparable with the Z9, Z8, R1 or R5ii.

 

[beano]

I agree that holding a heavier rig with shaky hands affected by flu was perhaps an issue with the big Nikon. Also agree that _all of them_ are soft to various degrees, but bear in mind the distance, at least 40 feet, fading light, and again, shaky hands perhaps--but obviously, was eager to do _some_ comparison so rushed those out. Having said that, Canon R5 and R5m2 are a great pair and the former had surprised me many times over where I was not expecting good photos, while Nikon surprised me in the opposite direction: getting worse photos than I expected.

Once recovered, I'll try to do a better comparison as I could walk around with both combos at the same time and use them as two separate 'guns' on the same/similar target.

Cheers, and Gratz on the new body! Look forward to further pix from you, always exciting to play with new gear.

 

[froolk]

Having said that, Canon R5 and R5m2 are a great pair and the former had surprised me many times over where I was not expecting good photos, while Nikon surprised me in the opposite direction: getting worse photos than I expected.

First: without a doubt, the R5 and R5II are great cameras...
Maybe it's a language barrier because English is not my native language, but Your opinions don't sound objective. No offense, but to me they sound very subjective. I am a Nikon user but for years I take photos with friends who use Canon and Sony. I don't see any major differences in photo quality or autofocus effectiveness. Certainly not enough to consider changing the system.

 

[foxysport]

First: without a doubt, the R5 and R5II are great cameras...
Maybe it's a language barrier because English is not my native language, but Your opinions don't sound objective. No offense, but to me they sound very subjective. I am a Nikon user but for years I take photos with friends who use Canon and Sony. I don't see any major differences in photo quality or autofocus effectiveness. Certainly not enough to consider changing the system.

Subjective to a large degree, no doubt about it! Having said that, being able to compare virtually the same subject in exactly the same conditions and trying to get the best from either kit is an objective approach--for me. I shoot the same subject with all the skill and kit mastery I have and try to get the best result from either. It may not translate to some other person's skills and _they_ may get the opposite result. I am planning to get a slightly used Canon RF 600mm F4L USM tomorrow and perhaps do some real like for like battle between that and the Nikon 600mm f4 TC S Z at some nature reserve nearby in Hampshire over the weekend. I hope I don't break my back lugging around two heavy lenses ;-)

 

[nmerc_photos]

Subjective to a large degree, no doubt about it! Having said that, being able to compare virtually the same subject in exactly the same conditions and trying to get the best from either kit is an objective approach--for me. I shoot the same subject with all the skill and kit mastery I have and try to get the best result from either. It may not translate to some other person's skills and _they_ may get the opposite result. I am planning to get a slightly used Canon RF 600mm F4L USM tomorrow and perhaps do some real like for like battle between that and the Nikon 600mm f4 TC S Z at some nature reserve nearby in Hampshire over the weekend. I hope I don't break my back lugging around two heavy lenses ;-)

Saying "is an objective approach-- for me" is an oxymoron. it defeats the purpose of using the word "objective" at all lol. The idea is that it shouldn't be influenced by personal feelings or opinions. The conditions you posted were nowhere near "virtually the same subject in exactly the same conditions".

It sounds like what you're wanting to communicate is that a light body with a light zoom allows YOU to produce better images than a heavy body with a heavy prime. Nothing to actually do with the R5II, Z9, RF 100-500, or 600TC specifically.

Instead, what you've said is "the R5II + RF 100-500 produces objectively better results than the Z9 + 600TC". I believe that's why everyone is thrown off. it's an easily disprovable statement with actual objective testing, basic understanding of physics, etc.

Not trying to gang up on you - but I don't want some reader down the line to get confused about what is being stated vs what is objectively true.

Could be a language barrier thing too as froolk pointed out.

 

[bleirer]

Personally, trying to decide between the R1 and the R5 Mark II, I just want to know whether it is better to have more megapixels (R5 mark II) or lower light capability and perhaps a slightly better autofocus (R1) for wildlife in general (for me, that means mostly mammals and some birds) ... Thoughts?

For me the r5ii is the wildlife camera. No doubt. No matter how much reach you have you will want to crop under unpredictable circumstances. The resolution of the crop mode on the r5ii is still plenty usable, where you won't want to crop the R1 much.

 

[bleirer]

This is a good example of the impact on dynamic range when you have a lower megapixel camera. The R5 and R6 were virtually identical and released together, except for the resolution. To compare them fairly this site normalizes the image size. This makes sense because in the real world we will be viewing the results at the same output. So in this example either the 45 mp R5 would have to be downsampled or the R6 upsampled. With downsampling the algorithm makes use of surrounding pixels, so reduced noise and preserved detail. With upsampling the algorithm has to invent pixels, so loss of detail.

As you see, not much advantage to less resolution in this case, just stay away from the diffraction limit.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

 

[Joel N]

Subjective to a large degree, no doubt about it! Having said that, being able to compare virtually the same subject in exactly the same conditions and trying to get the best from either kit is an objective approach--for me. I shoot the same subject with all the skill and kit mastery I have and try to get the best result from either. It may not translate to some other person's skills and _they_ may get the opposite result. I am planning to get a slightly used Canon RF 600mm F4L USM tomorrow and perhaps do some real like for like battle between that and the Nikon 600mm f4 TC S Z at some nature reserve nearby in Hampshire over the weekend. I hope I don't break my back lugging around two heavy lenses ;-)

I think what most here meant is that to produce a sharp image from static subject a 600mm tc lens is a pretty low bar to hit even if it is paired on a z30. and we know z9 + 600tc should do better than that but that said I am not sure why it didn't produce the desired result in your case as oppose to many other examples with similar combo. We can only objectively say that yes, the picture you provided does look like r5 ii's is sharper. If your z9 + 600mm tc is consistently producing the less desired image, do consider investigating further before doing an objective comparison. Alternatively just go for the setup that you are more comfortable with and give you your desired result.

 

[foxysport]

Saying "is an objective approach-- for me" is an oxymoron. it defeats the purpose of using the word "objective" at all lol. The idea is that it shouldn't be influenced by personal feelings or opinions. The conditions you posted were nowhere near "virtually the same subject in exactly the same conditions".

It sounds like what you're wanting to communicate is that a light body with a light zoom allows YOU to produce better images than a heavy body with a heavy prime. Nothing to actually do with the R5II, Z9, RF 100-500, or 600TC specifically.

Instead, what you've said is "the R5II + RF 100-500 produces objectively better results than the Z9 + 600TC". I believe that's why everyone is thrown off. it's an easily disprovable statement with actual objective testing, basic understanding of physics, etc.

Not trying to gang up on you - but I don't want some reader down the line to get confused about what is being stated vs what is objectively true.

Could be a language barrier thing too as froolk pointed out.

Like I said, I am getting a 600mm Canon f4 tomorrow, and that wil be exactly comparable kit at 600mm that I will be able to handle in a very similar fashion against the same subjects (subject to them cooperating). It's a hobby, it's fun, right?

For the record, the photos below are all taken with the same Z9+600 TC: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67846957 and I am personally happy with those, the prints are beautiful--however, the number of rejects or missed shots I get from this combination is very large--this is the parameter I am trying to optimise--not the best photos obtainable.

 

[nmerc_photos]

Like I said, I am getting a 600mm Canon f4 tomorrow, and that wil be exactly comparable kit at 600mm that I will be able to handle in a very similar fashion against the same subjects (subject to them cooperating). It's a hobby, it's fun, right?

For the record, the photos below are all taken with the same Z9+600 TC: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67846957 and I am personally happy with those, the prints are beautiful--however, the number of rejects or missed shots I get from this combination is very large--this is the parameter I am trying to optimise--not the best photos obtainable.

Yes, I agree it's a hobby and supposed to be fun. But I don't find intentionally misleading people to be fun. Could be a difference of opinion I suppose.

I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the 600mm f4. OEM to OEM, the RF is a bit longer (8%) but a bit lighter (6%). in my own experience I found no usability or IQ differences between the two when used without TC's.

My guess is that if you have a high rate of failure with the 600TC, you'll have the same high rate of failure with the RF 600 f4. It sounds more like a technique issue and less like an optical issue.

 

[foxysport]

Yes, I agree it's a hobby and supposed to be fun. But I don't find intentionally misleading people to be fun. Could be a difference of opinion I suppose.

I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the 600mm f4. OEM to OEM, the RF is a bit longer (8%) but a bit lighter (6%). in my own experience I found no usability or IQ differences between the two when used without TC's.

My guess is that if you have a high rate of failure with the 600TC, you'll have the same high rate of failure with the RF 600 f4. It sounds more like a technique issue and less like an optical issue.

Well, having a wrong technique with supertelephoto lenses is not the same as "intentionally misleading people" surely! You might say "unintentionally" but "intentionally" implies ill intent, which I did not have. Plus, I showed above a few shots that are not easy to get with really awful technique, including a totally blocked shot of a swallow behind an awful amount of vegetation, so some modicum of technique perhaps is available.

 

[arbitrage]

Is it just me, or are all those photos soft? Maybe my eyes are a bit tired tonight. I have attached a photo I’ve taken with my old d500 and 200-500 at 500 f/5.6, and cropped the hell out of it, probably 5MP or so only, and imho, it looks a bit sharper? Maybe it was the d850, need to check.

Apologies, it’s an old jpeg, I can probably hunt the original raw file down.

Not just you.
They all look soft to me. Either too slow SS and minor motion blur or they were shot through a window or door and we are seeing atmospherics ruin them all.
This is certainly no way to test a lens. Setup a bank note and test for critical sharpness or a stuffed animal/bird or some bird feathers. Anything that will stay constant and allow one time to take consistent shots between the two systems.

There is no planet where the 600TC without a TC is less sharp than the 100-500. Even with the TC in I'd guess the 600TC would win. Now if one is planning on handholding the rigs then of course the 600TC could be the wrong choice as muscle fatigue can ruin shots and require much higher SS even for perched birds. But if shooting with support then I can't see how the 600TC could be worse.

 

[foxysport]

I already said that I believe that the problem is not with the 600TC per se but with the Z cameras: the shots are soft because in the first place, there was no firm focus established, and the eye never got picked up with a small focus box. Canon instead found the eye much more reliably and that is why it has better chance of producing something more usable. The fact that focusing was better with Canon is completely objective.

 

[froolk]

Well, having a wrong technique with supertelephoto lenses is not the same as "intentionally misleading people" surely! You might say "unintentionally" but "intentionally" implies ill intent, which I did not have. Plus, I showed above a few shots that are not easy to get with really awful technique, including a totally blocked shot of a swallow behind an awful amount of vegetation, so some modicum of technique perhaps is available.

I suggest using a tripod in Your tests, it will reduce the influence of the human factor

I already said that I believe that the problem is not with the 600TC per se but with the Z cameras: the shots are soft because in the first place, there was no firm focus established, and the eye never got picked up with a small focus box. Canon instead found the eye much more reliably and that is why it has better chance of producing something more usable. The fact that focusing was better with Canon is completely objective.

Please don't joke! I use Z9 and maybe the SD in it is not perfect, but I can't believe it had a problem with a big bird sitting on its perch

 

[foxysport]

I suggest using a tripod in Your tests, it will reduce the influence of the human factor

Just checked your portfolio Adam, lovely photos, do you use a tripod for those?

 

[froolk]

Thank You! This portfolio hasn't been updated for a very long time, there are still photos from my DSLR.
I always use a tripod when using my old F400 VRII F2.8G which weighs about 4.6kg. Unfortunately, I can't afford nice pupies like Yours

 

[David Berry]

Brent Hall's R5ii Wildlife Settings…

I've set the video to start at 3:15; that is, after the unboxing ritual and everyday setup.

For Nikon and Sony users, I hope that this video provides an insight into how the Canon menu system is structured. Unfortunately, Brent's explanations are a bit too rapid (my opinion).

---

 

[arbitrage]

My friend lent me her brand new, in box, R5II for the evening and Friday morning. She wanted me to get it setup to match her R5 which used to be my R5 so many years ago.

So last evening I spent an hour trying to shoot birds in the backyard. Cloudy conditions, ISO was high as her lens is the 100-500 so f/7.1. I shot hummingbirds amongst my flower garden and finches coming and going from my feeders. Not the best conditions to really test the camera but I hope to have some better subjects this morning (fingers crossed for barn swallows to give it the ultimate test).

It has been a couple years since I've had a Canon in my hand. I sold my R5 back in 2021 when I got the A1. I had an R3 on demo from CPS in Apr 2022.

First thing first, BEAF is top notch. It seems improved from the R5. It can find perched birds very small in the frame. I think overall a bit better than the A1 when the bird is somewhat camouflaged. It was finding the eye of the hovering hummingbird even in the dim conditions. Right on par with the A1 for that. Hummingbirds are one of the standouts for the A1's BEAF system so I was impressed the R5II could hang with it.

I tried the pre-capture (actually had it enabled the entire time) and it worked as expected. Light levels were a bit low to really get a fast enough SS without 25600 ISO to really get a sharp shot of a launching finch but the precapture did its part, ruined shots are motion blur as I only went to 1/2000s and I'd normally want 1/4000 or faster for launching songbirds.

There is still an ongoing debate of what the camera is doing in precapture. Some are thinking that regardless what you set the FPS at the precapture portion is always running at 30FPS, saving 0.5s=15 shots (then dropping to your selected FPS for the post-capture shots). Others say the camera always buffers 15 shots but runs at your selected FPS and therefore goes further into the past the slower your FPS. Others say it runs at 0.5s and therefore would save less shots the lower the FPS. I couldn't quite figure it out last night but will try again this morning. Not that it would matter much to me as I'd leave it at 30FPS and get the 0.5s=15shots.

If you are a back button AF (BBAF) shooter than it is very easy to just leave pre-capture on all the time. This is because the pre-capture isn't activated by an AF-ON button no matter what. Only half-press of the shutter triggers it to buffer the shots. Therefore as a BBAF shooter if you don't want pre-capture you just do your BBAF and push the shutter fully when you want to shoot...no frames will have time to buffer. If you want pre-capture you use your BBAF to focus and half-press the shutter at the same time to buffer the shots. So simple, and you don't have to menu dive to turn it on/off. If you are a shutter button AF shooter than it is more difficult to not trigger it all the time (and therefore get a lot of extra shots to cull at the end of the day). I'm a shutter AF guy. What I did is setup my shutter AF as Spot AF, AF-ON button to be Eye-AF and * button to be Zone AF with AF activation. Therefore anytime I was using the Eye-AF or Zone AF I was basically a BBAF shooter and it wouldn't do precapture if I didn't touch the shutter. When I needed the Spot AF to get initial targeting before handing off to Eye-AF I'd just release the shutter when switching to Eye-AF (on AF-ON button) and it would clear the pre-capture buffer it had saved. That worked, not my ideal but I also tried going to full BBAF and I just couldn't get on with it even though I was a dedicated BBAF shooter for all my DSLR days.

A few other shots on the camera...I find the controls to be inferior to the Sony cameras. Excepting the AF-ON button the other back buttons are too small, have no texture and are too close together. The camera without a grip just doesn't fit well in my hand. But I'm sure if I had the grip it would be much better as I always run my Sony cameras with grip and had a grip on my R5 back in the day. It was hard to get used to the position of the front scroll wheel even though I used to shoot Canon for years with the wheel in this top position. I guess I'd get used to it if I was using the R5II as my daily driver.
EVF was nice, no more of the R5 stuttering slideshow in ES because of the stacked sensor in the R5II. A1 is a more expansive view but overall they are pretty equal when shooting. Way better WYSIWYG and easier to judge exposure than the Z9/Z8. Still can't compare to Sony with its live zebras in stills. Nothing beats Sony for nailing exposure.

I'll add more thoughts after I shoot it this morning. Unfortunately, it is going to be cloudy with chance of showers so I won't be able to fully realize the camera's capabilities in good light. Not helped by being handcuffed by an f/7.1 lens. I'm used to shooting f/2.8 through f/5.6.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[foxysport]

The RF 600mm is here so will see what I can do this weekend with it at a local nature reserve. Not contemplating carrying both the 600 TC and the Canon one yet: I'll need to get a better idea how I can carry them both at the same time.

 

[arbitrage]

The RF 600mm is here so will see what I can do this weekend with it at a local nature reserve. Not contemplating carrying both the 600 TC and the Canon one yet: I'll need to get a better idea how I can carry them both at the same time.

Let us know how it goes. I shot the RF600 on the R3 a couple years ago borrowed from CPS through my CPS Platinum membership benefit. Great lens but longer and worse balanced than the Sony 600GM. I think the Nikon 600TC will also be better balanced than the RF600 for handholding. But I've never held/shot the 600TC.

After using the R5II yesterday after a 2 year hiatus from Canon, I have to say that it confirms my thoughts that Canon and Sony have the noticeable edge over Nikon for basic perched BEAF. I think Canon is the winner in BEAF performance for less obvious bird shapes over Sony. Sony ergo, button customization and AF customization continues to make it the camera of choice for my use. Canon 2nd, Nikon a distant 3rd in those categories.

 

[ajrmd]

I already said that I believe that the problem is not with the 600TC per se but with the Z cameras: the shots are soft because in the first place, there was no firm focus established, and the eye never got picked up with a small focus box. Canon instead found the eye much more reliably and that is why it has better chance of producing something more usable. The fact that focusing was better with Canon is completely objective.

Hmmm... In my experience, Default Nikon images are generally sharper which I attribute to the lack of an AA filter. Arbitrage's experience with respect to AF parallels mine and I continue to take incoming arrows for this assertion in another thread.

 

[foxysport]

Quick run in the marsh with RF 600 and R5m2--really basic settings, no real optimisation of what I was doing. Woodpecker (about 50 yards out, plus really wrong high shutter speed) and heron (about 25 yards out) almost straight against the sun (plus, heavy water highlights for the heron photo), immature linnet (about 10 yards out) at 90 degrees. Tight crops from DPP with no enhancement except for chrominance noise reduction for the linnet photo--it had some blotching before dialing that setting up a bit. The camera found all critters' eyes very consistently.

And did I mention Canon has the colours spot on with no need for tinkering.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Bonus: a juvenile shelduck (30 yards out, again against the sun). Here there was a bit of focus jumping from eye to body as the head was very close to water.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[ajrmd]

Please don't misinterpret my critique but these images hardly speak to the camera or the lens. The first one is shot through some intervening vegetation and the subject is woefully underexposed. Similar thoughts for the second one and why would you be shooting a fishing GBH at Tv 1/500 with an ISO of 100? The third image could do with some PP and NR, and the fourth image has grossly visible shake (not to mention other issues).

 

[foxysport]

Not at all, thanks for the critique, however, I would say with Nikon 600 TC, I cannot get anything properly coloured against the sun. About the first photo: it was right against the sun, how can I push the exposure up without blinding the sensor. As for the vegetation: I had to crawl around the bush so that I'm not seen or reacted to quickly, from 40 yards out, as soon as I emerged from behind the bush, the woodpecker was off--that is life. Second photo again right against the sun: Nikon would not find the eye at all in the circumstances--and--again blinding sun and water highlights, how can I expose this any higher. On the third one, would be great if you explain this further, it sounded a bit cryptic to me. The fourth one, I am not sure how did you establish there was a shake: I actually was very stable with my elbow against my knee? The real reason for softness was that the camera did struggle to find the focus with the head held so close to the blindingly bright water--as I indicated. Also, note these are heavy crops, not full photos by a huge distance. The woodpecker horizontal size was about 1/25-1/30 of the frame and the shelduck was about 1/12 horizontally, again that is life.

Finally, my exact point was that there was no extra post-processing, sharpening, noise reduction unless stated. Why would you critique that?

 

[foxysport]

Speaking of portraits. No processing, just crop.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.