Canon R5ii & R1 : Orders being taken.

[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).

---