Canon R5m2 & 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
foxysport said:
To give you an update, I have now returned the RF 600mm F4 and will be only keeping a 100-500mm Zoom with my Canon R5 Mk 2.

The reasons for returning were:

1. It is big, in fact it is one inch longer without the hood and the hood is huge, easily extra two inches on that of a Nikon 600mm F4 TC.

2. This is a real kicker: I have found that in my lightly used copy, it would fairly regularly refuse to move the focus electronically. It happens sometimes directly after switching on the camera or, pretty regularly, when focusing far, then close, and then far again. The latter would not work until I pump the back button many times, change the aperture, go to another preset, it could take half a minute of fiddling to get it to focus. It especially refused to budge if there was no obvious subject in the field of view. Now, before you say it is just this copy, it may be worse than usual, however, the shop people have confirmed that the Canon RF 400 and 600 have dual motors and R5 (even Mark 2) cannot 100% reliably drive them. It is likely that R3 can and most certainly R1 will be able to. This means this is not uncommon and one just has to live with it. Now, I've checked that the big Z Nikons both focus instantly wherever you point them, to me that Canon behaviour felt like a major downgrade.

The reason for not returning would have been excellent photos _when the body+lens worked_--I do think that my RF 600mm was better than Nikon 600mm TC.

I have now replaced this RF 600mm lens with a new Nikon 400mm F2.8 TC Z S.
Click to expand...

Canon has a setting in the menus called "Lens drive when AF not possible" or something close to that. I believe it is OFF by default. You need to turn that on so the camera will try to drive the lens when it can't see an obvious target. If you turn it on it will perform as good as the Nikon. The 100-500 probably seems better as it has much more DOF to work with at 500/7.1 than the 600 has at 600/4 or 840/5.6.

The other key setting to turn ON with the R5II is Electronic Full Time MF. This will allow the 100-500 and the RF600 to use the MF ring at anytime to "help out" the AF if it is grossly OOF and can't find a good target.
I would be curious if you still have the RF600 if you change the Lens Drive setting ON and the Electronic MF on if it performs better. One thing would be if it isn't focusing see if by just MF closer to something will solve it.
It could be a faulty lens but I would try those other things first.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
Canon has a setting in the menus called "Lens drive when AF not possible" or something close to that. I believe it is OFF by default. You need to turn that on so the camera will try to drive the lens when it can't see an obvious target. If you turn it on it will perform as good as the Nikon. The 100-500 probably seems better as it has much more DOF to work with at 500/7.1 than the 600 has at 600/4 or 840/5.6.
Click to expand...
I did try that setting. There were two issues with that: 1. it drains the battery too much and it keeps focusing even if the lens was pointed down or wherever--that is not what my Nikons do--when I press the back AF-ON button on Z9/Z8, the camera starts focusing and refocusing if I point it elsewhere, otherwise, the focus is locked, and if I switch on the camera, and point it somewhere, it is a blur--until I press AF-ON, 2. I first encountered the described issue of not focusing precisely with that setting set to ON, and then I changed it to OFF and it made no difference.

To clarify, with it ON, I would walk with my lens down or sideways for a few minutes, then I see something, I lift the lens to my eyes and it is a blur even when I press any of my triple back focus buttons, and then I had to switch the camera off and on, fiddle with aperture etc, until it eventually would focus anywhere--with the subject, frustratingly, long gone.

PS That lens is now gone but again, if I am pretty certain a brand new one will work flawlessly, I might consider getting it-- returning the 400 2.8 TC--can't have both ;-)
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
foxysport said:
I did try that setting. There were two issues with that: 1. it drains the battery too much and it keeps focusing even if the lens was pointed down or wherever--that is not what my Nikons do--when I press the back AF-ON button on Z9/Z8, the camera starts focusing and refocusing if I point it elsewhere, otherwise, the focus is locked, and if I switch on the camera, and point it somewhere, it is a blur--until I press AF-ON, 2. I first encountered the described issue of not focusing precisely with that setting set to ON, and then I changed it to OFF and it made no difference.

To clarify, with it ON, I would walk with my lens down or sideways for a few minutes, then I see something, I lift the lens to my eyes and it is a blur even when I press any of my triple back focus buttons, and then I had to switch the camera off and on, fiddle with aperture etc, until it eventually would focus anywhere--with the subject, frustratingly, long gone.

PS That lens is now gone but again, if I am pretty certain a brand new one will work flawlessly, I might consider getting it-- returning the 400 2.8 TC--can't have both ;-)
Click to expand...
foxysport,
You have 2 settings mixed up. In menu 2 AF in column 1, on Continuous AF , you do want to have that disabled. It does what you speak of on battery ect.
Also in Menu 2 AF column 4 there is a setting that says Lens drive when AF impossible. You want to have that one set to on . That way your lens keeps trying to focus.
Hope this helps.
Dave
 
Also, at least in the r5 there is a setting for continuous autofocus. I keep this turned off because the camera is always trying to focus even when just walking around with the lens down.

I'll add that what you describe is a lament common to all mirrorless to a degree compared to dslr. A lot of folks get in the habit of focusing on the ground a little in front of the subject to prime the af.
 
Member's gallery
foxysport said:
I did try that setting. There were two issues with that: 1. it drains the battery too much and it keeps focusing even if the lens was pointed down or wherever--that is not what my Nikons do--when I press the back AF-ON button on Z9/Z8, the camera starts focusing and refocusing if I point it elsewhere, otherwise, the focus is locked, and if I switch on the camera, and point it somewhere, it is a blur--until I press AF-ON, 2. I first encountered the described issue of not focusing precisely with that setting set to ON, and then I changed it to OFF and it made no difference.

To clarify, with it ON, I would walk with my lens down or sideways for a few minutes, then I see something, I lift the lens to my eyes and it is a blur even when I press any of my triple back focus buttons, and then I had to switch the camera off and on, fiddle with aperture etc, until it eventually would focus anywhere--with the subject, frustratingly, long gone.

PS That lens is now gone but again, if I am pretty certain a brand new one will work flawlessly, I might consider getting it-- returning the 400 2.8 TC--can't have both ;-)
Click to expand...
Dave has already explained things but the setting I'm talking about does not cause continuous AF all the time. That setting "Continuous AF" should always be set to OFF. Lens drive when AF impossible....set to ON.
 
Member's gallery
Original R5's confusing AF terminology…
  • Servo AF
  • Continuous AF
Beware: they're not the same!


It's generally accepted amongst R5 (mark 1) wildlife photographers that the first should be ON and the second should be OFF, as follows:
  • Servo AF — ON
  • Continuous AF — DISABLE (off)

Here is a clip from Janine Krayer's R5 (mark 1) setup guide — only the first 30 seconds relate to this topic.

Before you run this YouTube clip, note the settings shown on the AF Menu in the screenshot below. (Yes, it's confusing!)
  • Line 1 : AF Operation : SERVO AF
  • Line 5 : Continuous AF : DISABLE



Has the term 'Continuous AF' been dropped with the arrival of the R5ii?

I'm not sure to what extent the AF Servo versus Continuous AF confusion has carried over to the R5ii.

As far as I am aware, the term 'Continuous AF' is no longer used; but has it survived with a new name? That I don't know. Any comments?
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Hmm, I have the Mark II manual in PDF that I can search on my iPad, and there is no term Continuous AF mentioned anywhere and neither submenu 1 of AF has that option listed.

I stand by what I said about "Lens drive when AF impossible"--I had it ON and the issue was present with focus impossible to achieve by pressing any of the back focus buttons either after switching the camera on or after a few passes back and forth with focusing away and close and back. Setting this setting to ON or OFF did not fix this issue.

About continuous focusing while walking: I absolutely had that happening for some reason and (perhaps mistakenly) attributed that behaviour to the above setting. However, now with only 100-500 to pair with Mark II, I cannot seem to reproduce it at all. Also, with a 100-500mm, I do not have the issue I was describing of camera not focusing: focus instantly goes wherever I point and press a suitable back button.

[EDIT] There is an option Preview AF in AF submenu 4 and _that_ option starts continuous focusing.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
foxysport and Dave Berry,
Yes, they have changed the name to Preview AF and both the settings we have talked about are in submenu 4 of the AF settings when in photo mode. I should have looked at my camera instead of google search for location of those settings. I'm guessing pre-release R5 MKII video review I found where settings were was updated to same tab in final release. Sorry for any confusion.
Dave
 
I know Jan Wegener uses the 600 f4 a lot on a tripod along with the 100-500 for handheld. I believe his 600 f4 is the ef but I am not 100% sure. He did not report any issues with the f4 on his extensive r5 setup guide youtube, and he used it a lot there.
 
Member's gallery
Like I said, it is more likely then that my "slightly used" copy was faulty. I do not think I have a drive or energy to replace the brand new Nikon 400TC I've got with a brand new Canon 600 RF :) I'll be using a 100-500 with R5 Mark2 as a short range tool. I've actually tried already walking with the latter combination on a Cotton carrier with a 600TC on a horizontal carrier system from Mr Jan Gear https://mrjangear.com/shop/lens-carrier-system/, and that was comfortable and practical.
 
I had a question about the metering modes. On the R5 the spot meter is only the center of the frame but the evaluative mode weighs the confirmed focus point anywhere in the scene. Is it the same on the mark ii or can spot meter be set to follow the focus point?
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I had a question about the metering modes. On the R5 the spot meter is only the center of the frame but the evaluative mode weighs the confirmed focus point anywhere in the scene. Is it the same on the mark ii or can spot meter be set to follow the focus point?
Click to expand...
Bill,
I'm not sure. I used evaluative metering and adjusted EC based on what I see thru viewfinder on almost 100% of my shots with my R5.
I had very good luck most times on most scenes, and have continued with that on the R5 MKII.
I don't have time to research that now, but have been trying to learn the new stuff on the new body.
Dave
 
Member's gallery
Older (or aftermarket) batteries in R5m2…

In my experience the R5m2, when fitted with the 'old' LP-E6NH battery, is almost a downgrade from the original R5:
  1. The advanced functions that I bought the R5m2 for are not available.
  2. The R5m2 stops functioning far too early because the battery is exhausted. Take that 'dead' battery out and put it in the original R5 — 40% charge left!
Buyer (of anything other than the correct battery) beware? My experience is limited, but I keep the older batteries (I have several) in reserve for emergencies… and wouldn't touch a non-Canon 'equivalent'.

Of course, we should purchase additional new-style LP-E6P batteries and be patient (I have three on order).
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Duade Paton: R5m2 Disapppointments & Frustrations…

Duade Paton: R5m2 Disapppointments & Frustrations
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Amongst Duade's frustrations:
  • Auto focus problems with bird-in-flight photography, especially when using pre-continuous shooting.
  • Lower dynamic range at high ISO than original R5.
  • Unavailability of new batteries.
 
Last edited:
David Berry said:
Duade Paton: R5m2 Disapppointments & Frustrations…

View attachment 97187

Amongst Duade's frustrations:
  • Auto focus problems with bird-in-flight photography, especially when using pre-continuous shooting.
  • Lower dynamic range at high ISO than original R5.
  • Unavailability of new batteries.
Click to expand...

I can't comment on the first one, but the chart from ptp shows almost no difference in dynamic range. It sucks the batteries are backorder, that would drive me crazy.

 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
I can't comment on the first one, but the chart from ptp shows almost no difference in dynamic range. It sucks the batteries are backorder, that would drive me crazy.

Click to expand...
The Ptp charts can get skewed by noise reduction in RAW, add more and it looks like more DR on the charts. Canon uses NR in RAW so it's tough to apples to apples compare the Canon DR on those charts depending on how much was added per model. It skews them higher.

Here's a EV pull set of images DP review setup. You can see the difference there pretty easy. E-shutter is worse than EFC, which is where you'll get your pre-capture and 30fps RAW files. It's pretty noticeable if you raise EV. But I'm also not sure how many people pull up shadows that much.

 
Dpreview seemed to like it: what they say about noise, "The EOS R5 II is essentially indistinguishable from its predecessor in terms of detail. It can't quite match the resolving power of Sony's 61MP a7R V, but it's consistent with it most direct peer: the Nikon Z8. The similarities persist as the light levels drop: at moderate ISOs it's consistent both with its predecessor and its peers and perhaps a touch noisier at very high ISOs. Not enough that you're ever likely to notice."

www.dpreview.com

Canon EOS R5 II in-depth review

The EOS R5 Mark II supercharges what the EOS R5 offered, boosted by a host of features shared with the flagship EOS R1. We've been shooting with it extensively to get a sense for what benefits those upgrades bring.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
Dpreview seemed to like it: what they say about noise, "The EOS R5 II is essentially indistinguishable from its predecessor in terms of detail. It can't quite match the resolving power of Sony's 61MP a7R V, but it's consistent with it most direct peer: the Nikon Z8. The similarities persist as the light levels drop: at moderate ISOs it's consistent both with its predecessor and its peers and perhaps a touch noisier at very high ISOs. Not enough that you're ever likely to notice."

www.dpreview.com

Canon EOS R5 II in-depth review

The EOS R5 Mark II supercharges what the EOS R5 offered, boosted by a host of features shared with the flagship EOS R1. We've been shooting with it extensively to get a sense for what benefits those upgrades bring.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com
Click to expand...
I doubt you would notice much difference unless you pull EV a lot. You can see the difference in the linked example shots they took.

This is kind of the same situation Nikon had with the Z6iii where you need to abuse the files some to see the DR difference. Which isn't something most are going to be doing. 1 to maybe 3 stops occasionally? But you don't even see it in the examples until 4-5, and the Z6iii it was 5-6 stops EV pull. Since Lightroom only goes to +/- 4 I doubt it's much concern real world.

Another thing I notice on the examples with EV pull is the R5ii looks noisier, but also like it has less noise reduction in RAW, that may initially look worse but I see more detail in the feathers on that test board. That means LR AI noise reduction will be more effective in recovery of extreme shots like that as less NR is better to let it do its thing. So canon may have dialed back the RAW noise reduction that's built in a bit.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy the R5ii over the DR difference. It looks like a great camera.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top