Canon R5ii & R1 : First Impressions

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).

Member's gallery
Not-so-Minor Changes…
— Duade Paton's Preference for R5ii (over R5 & R1)​

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


 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Not-so-Minor Changes…

— R5ii SENSOR (from Duade's YouTube video)​

duade-paton-r5ii-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Readout Speeds in Milliseconds…

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


14 bit files with Electronic shutter…

duade-04.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
WOW! Interesting thread! I guess I am an outlier here. I shoot mostly wildlife and some landscapes. I am also upgrading my canon to mirrorless. My thoughts are far different than most of you. My current cameras are the Canon 5D Mark II and the 1DX Mark II. I was vacillating between the two new cameras because I like my 5D for shooting landscapes and the higher megapixels are much more noticeable. However, for wildlife shooting, the 1DX is a no-brainer for me. Granted, the R5 Mark II has a great autofocus (but I think the R1 will be even better), also, I am leaning to the R1 for its faster shutter speed and lower light capabilities. Plus, I feel 24 megapixels is enough to to do s slight crop. Of course, I am not blowing up huge prints (less than 3 feet at most, and that is rare). Also, lime many here, I am not strictly a birder. I am planning a trip to Africa next year and that is what is prompting my upgrade. Amazing how few people talk about wildlife photography in general, and especially about the R1. Most of the articles I have read just assume the R5 is for wildlife and the R1 is for sports....why that is, is beyond me, especially when they have virtually the same auto focus system....I just think based on my experiences pre-mirrorless that the cameras will perform similarly, i.e., the R5 will be better for landscapes and the R1 will be better for wildlife. That said....if I am wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, nor the last!
 
Member's gallery
Jason Ponfil said:
WOW! Interesting thread! I guess I am an outlier here. I shoot mostly wildlife and some landscapes. I am also upgrading my canon to mirrorless. My thoughts are far different than most of you. My current cameras are the Canon 5D Mark II and the 1DX Mark II. I was vacillating between the two new cameras because I like my 5D for shooting landscapes and the higher megapixels are much more noticeable. However, for wildlife shooting, the 1DX is a no-brainer for me. Granted, the R5 Mark II has a great autofocus (but I think the R1 will be even better), also, I am leaning to the R1 for its faster shutter speed and lower light capabilities. Plus, I feel 24 megapixels is enough to to do s slight crop. Of course, I am not blowing up huge prints (less than 3 feet at most, and that is rare). Also, lime many here, I am not strictly a birder. I am planning a trip to Africa next year and that is what is prompting my upgrade. Amazing how few people talk about wildlife photography in general, and especially about the R1. Most of the articles I have read just assume the R5 is for wildlife and the R1 is for sports....why that is, is beyond me, especially when they have virtually the same auto focus system....I just think based on my experiences pre-mirrorless that the cameras will perform similarly, i.e., the R5 will be better for landscapes and the R1 will be better for wildlife. That said....if I am wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, nor the last!
Click to expand...
You are much more talented wildlife photographer than me, I end up cropping quite a bit with my wildlife photography. So much prefer a higher megapixel camera. Not a Canon shooter, but if I was, the higher megapixels in the R5 would sway me to buy that one. At least in the Nikon system, the lower megapixels of the Z6iii don't seem to provide a huge advantage for low light compared to either the Z8 or Z9 (and one has a number of programs for noise). And even in Africa, find that the higher megapixels help with smaller mammals (ie. bat-eared foxes, mongooses, etc) or ones we couldn't get close to (an aardwolf) and of course birds. For sure lions and elephants and giraffes, etc the higher megapixels aren't necessary. So if you can get close to your wildlife, than the R1 seems to be the better choice but for me, it would be the R5.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Jason Ponfil said:
WOW! Interesting thread! I guess I am an outlier here. I shoot mostly wildlife and some landscapes. I am also upgrading my canon to mirrorless. My thoughts are far different than most of you. My current cameras are the Canon 5D Mark II and the 1DX Mark II. I was vacillating between the two new cameras because I like my 5D for shooting landscapes and the higher megapixels are much more noticeable. However, for wildlife shooting, the 1DX is a no-brainer for me. Granted, the R5 Mark II has a great autofocus (but I think the R1 will be even better), also, I am leaning to the R1 for its faster shutter speed and lower light capabilities. Plus, I feel 24 megapixels is enough to to do s slight crop. Of course, I am not blowing up huge prints (less than 3 feet at most, and that is rare). Also, lime many here, I am not strictly a birder. I am planning a trip to Africa next year and that is what is prompting my upgrade. Amazing how few people talk about wildlife photography in general, and especially about the R1. Most of the articles I have read just assume the R5 is for wildlife and the R1 is for sports....why that is, is beyond me, especially when they have virtually the same auto focus system....I just think based on my experiences pre-mirrorless that the cameras will perform similarly, i.e., the R5 will be better for landscapes and the R1 will be better for wildlife. That said....if I am wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, nor the last!
Click to expand...
If 24MP is enough and the size/weight/price of the R1 are not deterrents then for sure there is always something special about owning/shooting the Canon flagship. I loved my 1DX and 1DXII even with only 18-20MPs and I shot birds with them which usually need a lot of cropping. The X-type sensors in the R1 over the R5 should make a difference in AF in some scenarios. But the R5II is still packed with amazing AF.

I've moved away from 20-odd MP sensors over the past 7 years and recently had a chance to go back to 24MP with an A9III on loan. I really felt I was missing my pixels I've become accustomed to. For myself, shooting a lot of birds, the R5II would be my choice even without the x-type sensors or the 40FPS. But your needs sound a bit different, less small birds, more wildlife in general and the R1 is certainly a camera that can be used for that.
 
The issue is that wildlife is less predictable than sports or weddings or events. So sometimes a subject is surprisingly far away, or beyond our longest lens. Cropping is another tool, and more pixel resolution is better for cropping.

If you compare a resampled 45 megapixel camera to the same size as a 24 megapixel camera, as they "normalize" on photons to photos there isn't much light gathering benefit to the larger pixels of the lower megapixel cameras. This link shows the R5 compared to the R6 to the R3, very similar. But that site normalizes to compare apples to apples.

 
Last edited:
I was noticing how many big white lenses there were at the women's gymnastics final. Many photographers had two cameras, especially those close to the athletes staging area. But even so 24 megapixels would be plenty because the nearest and farthest action was predictable.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I was noticing how many big white lenses there were at the women's gymnastics final. Many photographers had two cameras, especially those close to the athletes staging area. But even so 24 megapixels would be plenty because the nearest and farthest action was predictable.
Click to expand...
No Nikon cameras at the Olympics?
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I was noticing how many big white lenses there were at the women's gymnastics final. Many photographers had two cameras, especially those close to the athletes staging area. But even so 24 megapixels would be plenty because the nearest and farthest action was predictable.
Click to expand...
Sony's big lenses are white.
 
Member's gallery
Jason Ponfil said:
WOW! Interesting thread! I guess I am an outlier here. I shoot mostly wildlife and some landscapes. I am also upgrading my canon to mirrorless. My thoughts are far different than most of you. My current cameras are the Canon 5D Mark II and the 1DX Mark II. I was vacillating between the two new cameras because I like my 5D for shooting landscapes and the higher megapixels are much more noticeable. However, for wildlife shooting, the 1DX is a no-brainer for me. Granted, the R5 Mark II has a great autofocus (but I think the R1 will be even better), also, I am leaning to the R1 for its faster shutter speed and lower light capabilities. Plus, I feel 24 megapixels is enough to to do s slight crop. Of course, I am not blowing up huge prints (less than 3 feet at most, and that is rare). Also, lime many here, I am not strictly a birder. I am planning a trip to Africa next year and that is what is prompting my upgrade. Amazing how few people talk about wildlife photography in general, and especially about the R1. Most of the articles I have read just assume the R5 is for wildlife and the R1 is for sports....why that is, is beyond me, especially when they have virtually the same auto focus system....I just think based on my experiences pre-mirrorless that the cameras will perform similarly, i.e., the R5 will be better for landscapes and the R1 will be better for wildlife. That said....if I am wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, nor the last!
Click to expand...

I read your post with interest to appreciate your ‘different’ point of view. I am very used to and can fully understand the action sports shooters preferences: a lower resolution camera capable of capturing fast action in all conditions with small(er) files; and fast in camera processing to be able to ship the files quickly. I’m less used to seeing wildlife shooters expressing a preference for a lower resolution flagship camera, even if birds are not their primary pursuit. I should say that I have noticed shooters using their D5s/D6s for wildlife. I’m sure, like your 1DX, these Nikon flagships had the top of the line AF and fps to make them sound choices for wildlife.

My preference for higher resolution cameras – currently a Nikon Z9 – largely reflects my wildlife experience. In Africa, when drivers were not permitted off the roads, e.g., the Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania, my only opportunity for a cheetah photo turned out postage stamp size, even with an effective 600mm lens. (There were a great mix of photo opportunities in the crater with hyenas and lions also resting in the shade of the rovers). Back home in Texas, many of my wildlife (including birds) opportunities are spur of the moment while documenting other projects, often with no time for hides or walkups. Based on my prevailing experiences, I zeroed in on a goal of carrying 600mm minimum for wildlife, recognizing that I would still be disappointed at times. By now, and with mirrorless freeing us from the f/8 AF barrier, carrying around even longer focal lengths is much more practical – and affordable.

My interest in higher resolution is to be able to crop – quite a bit at times. So my interest in the new Canon models is in the R5 II, although some of the R1 features are tempting, and, if paired with the Canon RF 600mm f4, would probably meet my objectives. I would have to rent the gear to check it out in my environment and make sure I could lift that lens. Btw, I’m seeing very few wildlife reviews of the new Canon models, the R5 II or the R1. Still too early, I think.

After the Z9, I frankly thought that the traditional 24, 20’ish MP flagships would shift to 30’ish MP sensors, but that doesn’t seem to be happening, at least with Canon. I’m pretty sure that processing, transmission and storage measures have improved, making me wonder if 30/40+ sensors are that much of a penalty. But, faster is still faster, I guess.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I'm sure there are plenty. This topic was about canon though. Cool article here how Canon supports the pros, I'm sure Nikon has a similar program.

blog.jeffcable.com

Behind the Scenes at the Olympics - Canon heaven!

Jeff Cable Photography, Canon, CPS, Behind the Scenes, BTS, Lenses, Cameras
blog.jeffcable.com blog.jeffcable.com
Click to expand...

While we check, there's this

www.digitalcameraworld.com

Is this the best photo of the 2024 Olympics? With 6 million likes it may be!

A stunning shot by Jerome Brouillet of Brazilian surf star Gabriel Medina has been making waves on the internet
www.digitalcameraworld.com www.digitalcameraworld.com
 
Member's gallery
ricardo00 said:
You are much more talented wildlife photographer than me, I end up cropping quite a bit with my wildlife photography. So much prefer a higher megapixel camera. Not a Canon shooter, but if I was, the higher megapixels in the R5 would sway me to buy that one. At least in the Nikon system, the lower megapixels of the Z6iii don't seem to provide a huge advantage for low light compared to either the Z8 or Z9 (and one has a number of programs for noise). And even in Africa, find that the higher megapixels help with smaller mammals (ie. bat-eared foxes, mongooses, etc) or ones we couldn't get close to (an aardwolf) and of course birds. For sure lions and elephants and giraffes, etc the higher megapixels aren't necessary. But if you can get close to your wildlife, than the R1 seems to be the better choice.
Click to expand...
I doubt I am more talented than anyone. I have never used either camera.
txstone said:
I read your post with interest to appreciate your ‘different’ point of view. I am very used to and can fully understand the action sports shooters preferences: a lower resolution camera capable of capturing fast action in all conditions with small(er) files; and fast in camera processing to be able to ship the files quickly. I’m less used to seeing wildlife shooters expressing a preference for a lower resolution flagship camera, even if birds are not their primary pursuit. I should say that I have noticed shooters using their D5s/D6s for wildlife. I’m sure, like your 1DX, these Nikon flagships had the top of the line AF and fps to make them sound choices for wildlife.

My preference for higher resolution cameras – currently a Nikon Z9 – largely reflects my wildlife experience. In Africa, when drivers were not permitted off the roads, e.g., the Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania, my only opportunity for a cheetah photo turned out postage stamp size, even with an effective 600mm lens. (There were a great mix of photo opportunities in the crater with hyenas and lions also resting in the shade of the rovers). Back home in Texas, many of my wildlife (including birds) opportunities are spur of the moment while documenting other projects, often with no time for hides or walkups. Based on my prevailing experiences, I zeroed in on a goal of carrying 600mm minimum for wildlife, recognizing that I would still be disappointed at times. By now, and with mirrorless freeing us from the f/8 AF barrier, carrying around even longer focal lengths is much more practical – and affordable.

My interest in higher resolution is to be able to crop – quite a bit at times. So my interest in the new Canon models is in the R5 II, although some of the R1 features are tempting, and, if paired with the Canon RF 600mm f4, would probably meet my objectives. I would have to rent the gear to check it out in my environment and make sure I could lift that lens. Btw, I’m seeing very few wildlife reviews of the new Canon models, the R5 II or the R1. Still too early, I think.

After the Z9, I frankly thought that the traditional 24, 20’ish MP flagships would shift to 30’ish MP sensors, but that doesn’t seem to be happening, at least with Canon. I’m pretty sure that processing, transmission and storage measures have improved, making me wonder if 30/40+ sensors are that much of a penalty. But, faster is still faster, I guess.
Click to expand...
I want to thank you for your thoughtful post. I have no idea what the right answer is, and I have been wrong numerous times (ask my wife!). Funny you brought up the R5 and 600 F4 combo because after much deliberation, I went the opposite way, i.e., the R1 and the 400 2.8! Let me explain my thoughts (even if they turn out wrong!). Re: the R1 vs R5 Mark II, let me preface my explanation by saying it totally based on what I have read as I have never used either camera nor do I personally know anyone who has. My reason for picking the R1 is two fold: First, I think the autofocus system in the R1 will be quite a bit better with the cross-type autofocus, especially when there are distracting branches or other things close by as well as tracking animals in tall grass, trees, woods, etc. Second, I believe it will perform much better in lower light situations, i.e., the golden hours. Third, although I think the higher megapixels will do landscapes better, I like the better screen on the R1 for composing pictures in manual and getting them sharp. I don't think the extra frames per second or the extra frames from pre-shooting will matter as much between the R1 and the R5 II. Likewise, I am not sure how much more of a benefit the extra mega pixels of the R5 II will provide. Regarding my choice of lens, i.e. the 400 2.8 vs the 600 4, let me start by saying I already have an EF 800 5.6. Also, I have not shot with it yet because it is an R lens and I don't have my mirrorless camera yet (I purchased the R3, but immediately returned without even opening it when Canon said they were announcing the R1 and R5 Mark II. I chose the 400 2.8 for a couple reasons: First, I like the idea of more light getting in and the blur created at 2.8 (although I have seen similar results re: background blur, from photos using the 600 and 800, especially with birds. But the second, and equally compelling reason is the ability to get shots when the subject is closer to me, i.e., the minimum focusing distance. Plus, I figure if I just want to take one lens, I could use it with the 1.4 or 2X TCs. Like I said, I vacillated between both cameras and both lenses, especially because I have my first safari scheduled for next July, which I will likely take the R1 and 1DX along with the 400 and 800 lenses (and a Tamron 150-600). Did I make the right choices? Who knows! But, in any event, I can live with them!
 
Member's gallery
Jason Ponfil said:
Third, although I think the higher megapixels will do landscapes better, I like the better screen on the R1 for composing pictures in manual and getting them sharp. I don't think the extra frames per second or the extra frames from pre-shooting will matter as much between the R1 and the R5 II. Likewise, I am not sure how much more of a benefit the extra mega pixels of the R5 II will provide. Regarding my choice of lens, i.e. the 400 2.8 vs the 600 4, let me start by saying I already have an EF 800 5.6. Also, I have not shot with it yet because it is an R lens
Click to expand...
Good rationale - I think you're in good shape! Enjoy your safari!
 
Member's gallery
FWIW, R5II cameras are being shipped to retailers already. Some have violated the Aug 20th sale date and some lucky people got their cameras early. A guy over on FM shared some RAW files but then removed them after others warned him that Canon could track the serial # back to his retailer and possibly get them in trouble. I saw the thread too late to grab the download. They do already open in LR supposedly.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
FWIW, R5II cameras are being shipped to retailers already. Some have violated the Aug 20th sale date and some lucky people got their cameras early. A guy over on FM shared some RAW files but then removed them after others warned him that Canon could track the serial # back to his retailer and possibly get them in trouble. I saw the thread too late to grab the download. They do already open in LR supposedly.
Click to expand...
Since they have R5II and R1 at Olympics for photographers to use, even if only for 24 hours at a time, they must have some way for them to process the files.
 
I'm sure DPP4 opens the files, but it is surprising that Adobe has got it done. It usually takes a month or so for them.
 
Member's gallery
I pre-ordered the MKII, one for now not two (I prefer two identical bodies in the field). Also ordered more batteries and the standard battery grip. I see this as overcomming some obstacles with my beloved R5, some great improvements, and increased shutter speed. I'm just back from Cost Rica, and in the intense heat there my cards did get hot...not warning but hot, so the improved cooling can be helpful there as well. The stacked sensor, more FPS are the big attractors for me. Precapture is a wait and see (for me). I had Canon A2E back in the film days, and found eye control focus to be a bit hit or miss...will be interesting to see how well it works. Worth the purchase, at least for my needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top