As i mentioned, in evaluative (matrix) metering there is weight given to the confirmed AF point but in context of what the whole scene is doing. It's not that they can't do it with the spot meter, they must think doing it in the center is better. I think the canon logic is the spot meter is a measuring tool to judge exposure rather than always wanting the spot under the focus point to be the average exposure for the whole scene. Of course there is also EC.
Canon R5m2 & R1 : First Impressions
- Thread starter David Berry
- Start date
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).
As i mentioned, in evaluative (matrix) metering there is weight given to the confirmed AF point but in context of what the whole scene is doing. It's not that they can't do it with the spot meter, they must think doing it in the center is better. I think the canon logic is the spot meter is a measuring tool to judge exposure rather than always wanting the spot under the focus point to be the average exposure for the whole scene. Of course there is also EC.
foxysport
Active member
Shipment is now inbound to Park Cameras in the UK and I'm informed my camera will be one of those. It will be a battle royale between R5, R5ii, Z9, and Z8 in the household. I had a run in a nature reserve this morning with both R5 and 100-500 and a Z8 with 600mm f4 Z. Best results, objectively speaking, with Canon.
David Berry
🇦🇺 Australia 🦘
Off-topic for just one post: please, excuse the digression.
In YouTube:
In BCG Forum:
Back on topic…
In YouTube:
- Right-click the YouTube video.
- Choose Copy video URL.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
In BCG Forum:
- Click Media Icon (between Emoji & Double Quote).
- Insert Media box opens.
- Paste the URL copied from YouTube.
- Click Continue.
- Click Preview in top right of your post.
- Suggestion: Always click Preview before clicking Post Reply.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Back on topic…
Last edited:
foxysport
Active member
My copy is dispatched and should be here tomorrow.
Alistair
Well-known member
That is a very good review. Looks like a great camera. But it does remind me that we are in a phase of incremental progress rather than "game changer" when it comes to things like AF, frame rates etc. And when it comes to IQ, it is very much that one step forward in one direction costs one step backward in another.
What aspect of IQ are you thinking is compromised?
Last edited:
Alistair
Well-known member
If you view the video you will see where Jan discusses shadow noise compared with the original R5. Also the relative merits of stacked vs non-stacked sensors have already been pretty well aired over the past couple of years.
foxysport
Active member
Got the camera, charged the battery (took 3 hours) and came down with a very nasty virus, so no real testing sadly. Did look at the focus tracking, however, it looked very different from R5 to me, as in better, but setting it up optimally will take a while too plus getting used to it.
Yeah I saw that. Didn't seem like much in the example he gave, but it was there. The photons to photos site listed the low light EV rating of the r5ii as 10.6 while the original R5 was 10.76. So less than 1/3 of a stop. Z8 IS 10.4.
For maximum dynamic range the r5ii was 11.45 and the R5 11.85. So about a half stop there. Z8 was 11.32.
As you said you give up something as a tradeoff.
https://www.canonrumors.com/more-thoughts-on-the-canon-eos-r1-and-eos-r5-mark-ii-from-paris/
Jeff Cables thoughts on using the R1 and the R5 II at the Olympics with a link to his site for more of his experience.
blog.jeffcable.com
Jeff Cables thoughts on using the R1 and the R5 II at the Olympics with a link to his site for more of his experience.
Tuesday, August 20, 2024
How DID the Canon R1, Canon R5 MKII and new lenses REALLY do at the Olympics?
How DID the Canon R1, Canon R5 MKII and new lenses REALLY do at the Olympics?
Jeff Cable Photography, Olympics, Paris 2024, Team USA, Photographer, Official, Canon R1, Canon R5 Mark II, Review
Last edited:
ajrmd
Well-known member
Fro, just posted his video yesterday which included some real life shooting as well as "studio" comparisons to the A1 and Z8. The important take away message with respect to DR, is that for real life applications one wouldn't notice the distinctions.
foxysport
Active member
Still down with flu so cannot really make any 'real' comparisons. but here are two photos of a pair of pigeons with a) Canon R5Mk2 100-500mm at 500mm and b) Nikon Z9 with 600mm f4 TC Z with TC activated at 840mm. It was all in a rush so the photo with a big lens may have been affected in some way but still, obvious winner here.
The photos were not processed beyond default settings of, respectively, Canon DPP and Nikon Studio NX.
I had to crop the second photo further in Windows for it to be accepted here due to size, which removed the EXIF settings.Will try to use Studio NX directly to crop and re-submit (but should be largely the same result).
No joy, cropping further, I still cannot submit due to size not being accepted, but again, no difference, the Nikon shot at the bottom is not even close to the Canon shot at the top.
Got one more shot to share: Nikon Z9 with 600mm TC f4 with TC off. This is one is better than the above with TC but still behind the Canon photo.
Finally, in terms of focus and subject recognition, Canon nailed the eye with a small box around it with a few exceptions when it jumped to the bird body. Nikon had some photos with a biggish box around the eye but most of the photos put the body in the focus box.
The photos were not processed beyond default settings of, respectively, Canon DPP and Nikon Studio NX.
I had to crop the second photo further in Windows for it to be accepted here due to size, which removed the EXIF settings.
No joy, cropping further, I still cannot submit due to size not being accepted, but again, no difference, the Nikon shot at the bottom is not even close to the Canon shot at the top.
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.
Got one more shot to share: Nikon Z9 with 600mm TC f4 with TC off. This is one is better than the above with TC but still behind the Canon photo.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Finally, in terms of focus and subject recognition, Canon nailed the eye with a small box around it with a few exceptions when it jumped to the bird body. Nikon had some photos with a biggish box around the eye but most of the photos put the body in the focus box.
Last edited:
David Berry
🇦🇺 Australia 🦘
Jeff Cable at the Olympic Games (link to Jeff’s blog)
Jeff comments on:
Jeff comments on:
- R1
- R5ii
- RF 100–300 f/2.8
Last edited:
foxysport
Active member
Yes, very positive! I am tempted to get an RF 600mm F/4 to settle my dithering and potentially, sell off Nikon if I see a big difference. Equally possible, might decide to keep Nikon as well while waiting for further firmware or camera improvements. I am totally confident it is the cameras that are behind in some way--not the Nikon glass, which is phenomenal.
HotGates
Member
What do you mean by (the Nikon shot at the bottom is not even close to the Canon shot at the top) sorry but I'm viewing this with my phone, Also R5II must have better AF tracking?
Thanks for this.
foxysport
Active member
Sorry, that was somewhat garbled wording, with flu playing things with my brain. Photo 1 is Canon, I assume it should be visible it is the best of the three. Photo 2 is is Nikon with a TC activated (840mm)--it is the worst of the three, and lastly the third one from the top is Nikon Z9 again at 600mm f4 with TC inactive, second best after Photo 1 at the top with Canon.
And, yes, at first blush (I cannot really stand by this based on a few rushed photos), Canon R5m2 looks good for AF and subject detection, and in certain ways different from Canon R5. These are complex cameras, with a lot of options and variables, so whatever I posted, it is just a first attempt of comparing the systems, which I am personally very interested in clarifying since I have access to both (including Z8, Z9, R5, and R5m2).
HotGates
Member
Ah ok, It just seems kinda strange that the Canon with the 100-500 would have better IQ than the Nikon prime
I am also waiting for my R5II next week but I also have the Z9.
ajrmd
Well-known member
Agree, something isn’t right there. I have little doubt that the R5Ii is an excellent camera which exceeds the Z8 in some respects (AF/SD, RAW pre capture, etc) and lags behind in other areas (buffer, AA filter, etc.). After reviewing Jared’s studio images (froknows), the output is extremely comparable and while the 100-500 is a great lens it will not out resolve, outperform the 600 TC.Ah ok, It just seems kinda strange that the Canon with the 100-500 would have better IQ than the Nikon prime
HotGates
Member
Yes it probably is an excellent camera but as far as AF I think it will be better than Z9 Z8 for sports people photography because of the AI that it has, But as far as wildlife I'm willing to bet they will be close.
Jason Ponfil
Member
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?
nmerc_photos
Well-known member
Ah ok, It just seems kinda strange that the Canon with the 100-500 would have better IQ than the Nikon prime
there is most definitely something wrong with how Foxy is shooting and doing testing. no real world or theoretical test would ever suggest a $2700 zoom would outperform a $15500 prime in terms of raw IQ.
give credit where credit is due, I loved my R5 and would still prefer it to a Z8 today. The R5II I got to test recently was even better than my beloved old R5. I still find Canon's AF blows away Nikon.
but of the pics given, I would hope none of those would be considered good test shots, or post/print worthy.
it's one thing to compare body to body, or ecosystem to ecosystem, but to cherry pick an okay image from the R5II + 100-500 and compare it to horrible images from the Z9 + 600TC doesn't really help anyone... and to say "best results, objectively speaking, with Canon" is hogwash. completely disingenuous.
all of these things are different in the so called "tests" - focal length, image size (cropping), shutter speed, ISO, aperture, viewing angle
my best guess is that since no mention of a tripod was made, these are handheld images and foxy wasn't able to handle such slow shutter speeds with the big rig, while it's much easier to achieve better images with the small rig.
I think this entirely depends on what you shoot. For wildlife, I think most people would say the R5II is the no brainer.
Megapixels are king when it comes to shooting subjects at distances that vary.
All of the reviews from wildlife photographers that I've seen for both Canon and Sony, have shied away from the A9III and R1 for lack of MP.
And although I haven't researched the R1 vs R5II extensively, I know in the case of the R6 vs R5 - the topic of the R6 being better in low light due to lesser MP was debunked. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same this time around.
Last edited:
beano
Active member
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.
Attachments
Last edited:
foxysport
Active member
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.
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.