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
ajrmd said:
R5II studio images up at dpreview for comparison. Not surprising. Slightly worse than R5, slightly better than Z8 at some ISO’s.
Click to expand...

Why is that not surprising? I find it very surprising that the image quality is worse than the R5 given they're the same size sensor with the same number of megapixels.
 
Seems to be a hit you take for the advantages of the stacked sensor. Same with the unstacked Z6ii and the partially stacked Z6iii, or even the Z7ii compared to the Z9.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
So according to that interview Canon kept the R1 at 24MPs so they could get 40FPS? Ok Canon, Sony managed to pull out 120FPS at 24MPs and did 30FPS at 50MPs 3 years ago. Back to the drawing board.
Click to expand...
As I understood the video, it was also the autofocus and ISO....say what you want, and I cannot argue (not having used the R1), but I understand Canon's autofocus is tops, and their pixel size is also pretty good....to me it makes sense considering both sensors (Sony and Canon) are the same size.....In any event, as a Canon user, I am not switching my whole system out so for me, the question comes down to R1 or R5 mark II....and I am going with the R1....time will tell if I made the right choice, and if I am wrong.....won't be the first time! (As a side note, my other dilemma was choosing between Canon's 400 f2.8 and their 600 f4.0.....contrary to most I also went with the 400....so I know I am an outlier!)
 
Member's gallery
RikWriter said:
Canon has like 43% of the market. They probably think they don't need to bother.
Click to expand...
I guess I have a little more faith in Canon than you! Everything I have read about Canon's autofocus system is way better than any other company....I don't think Canon is resting on their laurels, as you imply! Although I do not do sports photography, what they have accomplished in their autofocus system sounds truly amazing. In fact, when I get my R1, one of the first things I plan on trying out is picking an animal in a group and seeing if I can preload it and get the autofocus to follow it.....how cool would that be for wildlife! Even if that doesn't work (and I suspect it may not), I still think all companies now have have great autofocus that do eye detection, but I suspect Canon leads the way! I personally would rather have killer autofocus than more megapixels or more shutter speed. But, to each his (or her) own!
 
Member's gallery
Don't believe everything you read, or see. A lot of it is paid for, or otherwise based on agreements made to give positive reviews. It's one reason I have a lot of respect for Steve, who doesn't get a free ride (just gets stuck under an NDA while he's waiting to be able to hit the publish button).
 
Jason Ponfil said:
I guess I have a little more faith in Canon than you! Everything I have read about Canon's autofocus system is way better than any other company....I don't think Canon is resting on their laurels, as you imply! Although I do not do sports photography, what they have accomplished in their autofocus system sounds truly amazing. In fact, when I get my R1, one of the first things I plan on trying out is picking an animal in a group and seeing if I can preload it and get the autofocus to follow it.....how cool would that be for wildlife! Even if that doesn't work (and I suspect it may not), I still think all companies now have have great autofocus that do eye detection, but I suspect Canon leads the way! I personally would rather have killer autofocus than more megapixels or more shutter speed. But, to each his (or her) own!
Click to expand...

I thought that was only for people, to follow a particular one.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I thought that was only for people, to follow a particular one.
Click to expand...
It is....but I started thinking, how does the camera know if it is a monkey, a bird, or a very strange person? :) Probably won't work, but no harm in trying!

As a side note, I know they also have a separate function to follow certain round balls (soccer, basketball and volleyball) to anticipate action and shift focus accordingly. Something I will likely never use, but I guess I should never say never! Of course, this all based on what I have read and not first hand knowledge.
 
Member's gallery
RikWriter said:
Why is that not surprising? I find it very surprising that the image quality is worse than the R5 given they're the same size sensor with the same number of megapixels.
Click to expand...

I haven’t read through all the replies, might have been answered already: The technology used to achieve fast sensor read-out speeds, which can only be obtained through either semi- or fully stacked, or, global sensors, is diametrically opposed to dynamic range, as one side-effect. Modern hybrid cameras are catering for both stills and videography, and for fast action, low/no rolling shutter is desirable, so it is always going to be a bit of a trade-off.

My D850 still gives cleaner images when compared to my z8/z9 bodies, if one is to pixel-peep, even the Z6II and Zf is very decent in this regard. In Nikon world, the best landscape body still is the d850, or z7/z7ii. This is probably why I believe Nikon will release a high MP BSI z7iii body, for those photographers where DR and ISO performance is the main KPI. Might even feature a new Expeed 8 processor, and something like a 61MP sensor, or at least the Expeed 7.

The R5II and R1 is probably in a similar mould to the Z6iii/Z8/Z9, so speed and hybrid capabilities over everything else. Again, I think clickbait youtoobers are really trying to break the cameras, pushing 6+ stops to make a point. Reality is, these things will hardly be an issue for any semi or pro photographers out there. These guys know the limits of their equipment, and they really work within those limits to produce fantastic art.

I guess it‘s the difference between photographers and digital image technicians. Just IMHO of course.
 
Member's gallery
hef19898 said:
Depeding on the charger, a couple (!) of bucks is too high in terms of production cost. And my professional experience conforms that yes, companies do optimize costs at that level, even at the cent level if production volumes are high enough. Or where do you think all those profit margins come from? If anything, electronic OEMs should thank the EU for giving them an excuse to not ship chargers anymore without reducing prices.

And by the way, Canon includes a charger with R1. Nikon doesn't with the Z9. If that isn't a reason to switch!
Click to expand...
In US, Z9 come with charger included. Check website.
 
Member's gallery
There's been too much bellyaching about what I perceive as relatively irrelevant issues, namely the DR (which is fine), the MP of the R1 (which is fine), etc. Had Canon released these lenses along with some mid-priced, high performing, DO lenses (400, 600, etc.), I would have jumped ship instantly. Sorry Canon!
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
There's been too much bellyaching about what I perceive as relatively irrelevant issues, namely the DR (which is fine), the MP of the R1 (which is fine), etc. Had Canon released these lenses along with some mid-priced, high performing, DO lenses (400, 600, etc.), I would have jumped ship instantly. Sorry Canon!
Click to expand...

Disagree about the MP of the R1. I was a Canon shooter for nearly two decades. If they had made a game-changer flagship, I would have considered going back.
 
Member's gallery
RikWriter said:
Disagree about the MP of the R1. I was a Canon shooter for nearly two decades. If they had made a game-changer flagship, I would have considered going back.
Click to expand...
Here’s what you might consider. For professionals who shoot motor and other sports, weddings, etc. the R1 is perfect. For those looking for a nearly as good camera and wants more MP, the R5II will do it. There’s little question that if I were still shooting professional sports, I’d have the R1, a 100-300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, etc. These two bodies far exceed anything I had when shooting that genre. For an all a rounder, i.e. sports, landscapes, WL, etc. the R5II will be more than adequate. For the true landscape photographer (commercial fashion, etc), I’d be shooting MF. Whether I purchased an R5II or R1, the biggest gap IMHO, is that which I already described.
 
Member's gallery
hef19898 said:
Depeding on the charger, a couple (!) of bucks is too high in terms of production cost. And my professional experience conforms that yes, companies do optimize costs at that level, even at the cent level if production volumes are high enough. Or where do you think all those profit margins come from? If anything, electronic OEMs should thank the EU for giving them an excuse to not ship chargers anymore without reducing prices.

And by the way, Canon includes a charger with R1. Nikon doesn't with the Z9. If that isn't a reason to switch!
Click to expand...
Where did you buy your Z9?
 
Member's gallery
Nowhere, my Z6 came without a charger. And people here said their Z9s came without one as well. I honestly don't care either way. The third party charger I use charges two batteries, cost 12 bucks and is considerably smaller than any Nikon charger I ever owned or saw. So, even with a Nikon one, I'd still buy a third party one anyway.
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
Here’s what you might consider. For professionals who shoot motor and other sports, weddings, etc. the R1 is perfect. For those looking for a nearly as good camera and wants more MP, the R5II will do it. There’s little question that if I were still shooting professional sports, I’d have the R1, a 100-300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, etc. These two bodies far exceed anything I had when shooting that genre. For an all a rounder, i.e. sports, landscapes, WL, etc. the R5II will be more than adequate. For the true landscape photographer (commercial fashion, etc), I’d be shooting MF. Whether I purchased an R5II or R1, the biggest gap IMHO, is that which I already described.
Click to expand...

That's definitely your opinion.
 
Member's gallery
hef19898 said:
Nowhere, my Z6 came without a charger. And people here said their Z9s came without one as well. I honestly don't care either way. The third party charger I use charges two batteries, cost 12 bucks and is considerably smaller than any Nikon charger I ever owned or saw. So, even with a Nikon one, I'd still buy a third party one anyway.
Click to expand...
Where did people here say that? The Z9 charger provides battery calibration, functionality I doubt is available on a $12 3rd party charger.
 
Member's gallery
FWIW - A friend of mine is leading a photo tour to South Africa next week - and just got the latest Canon camera. He is blown away by the focusing speed and accuracy! He tells me it is substantially better than the previous model. Full disclosure.....he is a working Canon pro in the Photographers of Light program. He is a personal friend and no reason to sugar coat what he tells me.....he knows I shoot Nikon! LOL!
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
FWIW - A friend of mine is leading a photo tour to South Africa next week - and just got the latest Canon camera. He is blown away by the focusing speed and accuracy! He tells me it is substantially better than the previous model. Full disclosure.....he is a working Canon pro in the Photographers of Light program. He is a personal friend and no reason to sugar coat what he tells me.....he knows I shoot Nikon! LOL!
Click to expand...
Which camera did he get?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top