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).
Doug Herr
Well-known member
Same for me. The day the 300 GM reviews came on line was the day my 600 PF lust evaporated.
Cameron T
Well-known member
Well, if it requires an additional expensive powered grip, seems like it still loses to the z9, which becomes comparable in price. Just my thoughts on it.
What does BEAF mean?
RikWriter
Well-known member
Maybe if they weren't so blatantly obviously shorter lenses with TCs permanently attached...
I agree. On the surface, it has no advantage over the Z9. Unless you're in the RF ecosystem (Red users) or have a strong preference to Clog and Craw over the N counterparts.
R5 was actually my "next camera" after switching to FF mirrorless, but it overheated on my first shoot so I went all-in with Nikon.
Don't know what post you're referencing but in the context of this thread and camera I'd suspect: Bird Eye Auto Focus
Paul Grecian
Member
I'm intrigued by the in camera Neural Network upscaling with jpeg output but don't really understand how it works or if it is better than just uprezing through computer software.
ajrmd
Well-known member
That's an interesting take and FWIW, the whole overheating thing is largely overblown. Initially, the R5 suffered from issues though it was fixed to a degree in firmware unless one needed to do a continuous, long, high resolution shoot in hot weather. For my purposes, a scene might be comprised from as little as a couple of seconds to a couple of minutes of continuous shooting. Fortunately, the Z8 has fewer issues than the original R5 and I haven't encountered any significant overheating. Then again, I don't go to the desert, turn on the camera and push record until it shuts down, though YMMV.
nmerc_photos
Well-known member
If you mean the RF 800 F5.6 and RF 1200 F8, they are horrible lenses in terms of price to performance. Essentially a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4 with a built in 2x. It increases the price, reduces flexibility, and I doubt anyone is ever going to use one of those lenses with an additional TC on it.
The only real world value I've seen for those lenses has been for government agencies "spying" or looking at people on disability. I've a few friends who got work doing that.
But IMO, they'd be better served with a 400 or 600, or something like a Coolpix P1000
---------------------------------------------------
My impression of these releases is exactly what I predicted in the other thread. It's an underwhelming release and I think it'll be the final nail in the coffin for a lot of users to swap from Canon to Nikon.
Canon really had a lot of pressure to knock it out of the park with the R1 and R5II, and it seems they did just the bare minimum to catch up. A few improvements here and there, but nothing that makes up for their lacking ecosystem when it comes to wildlife photography.
Bird eye auto focus I think
arbitrage
Well-known member
It won't make much difference. The R5II is 1/160 which is the same as the A9 and A9II. I shot those two cameras in ES 100% of the time for hummingbirds and every other bird. There is no shot ruining wing distortion from that readout speed.
That said, I can notice a bit of distortion in A9 images compared to the Z9/A1 speed when I compare them but again it isn't really noticeable to the average viewer if not comparing. I also do still see some leaning lines in the background on some A9 images with very fast pans....not seen in Z9/A1.
It would be nice if R5II could be a bit faster but I don't think you will have to shoot it in MS for birds what so ever.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Don't have interest in those two. They are overpriced and just 2xTC elements fixed in place onto of the RF400 and RF600 respectively. I don't shoot 800mm much, I prefer 600. Therefore I'd rather suffer the 1.4TC to get 840 when I need it than start off at 800. I think the only 800mm lens I'd consider buying is the 800PF just because it has the other benefits of smaller and lighter.
arbitrage
Well-known member
Bird Eye Autofocus is correct.
If the R1 is only 24MP, then why didn't they just call it what it is: R3 mkII?
mosoaringwings
Member
Do we know R52 precapture jpeg or raw. If it is raw, then that's huge IMO.
MarkG
Active member
I am curious why you think A1 is a much better bird camera than Z8/Z9. Thanks! I also have A1 (with 100-400 and 200-600) and also like it a lot, but have been envious of the 400 4.5 and 600PF in Nikon system because I often find 800mm or even longer useful (and for that I use OM-1mk2 + 300mmPRO + 1.4TC). I recall you really liked 300GM + 2xTC in another thread, but it tops out at 600mm. I do wish Sony made a 400, 500, or 600mm prime with F5.6-6.3 to compete with Nikon. I love the customization options on Sony.
ajrmd
Well-known member
Another interesting take and I think it illustrates the disconnect between corporate and its customers. For better or worse, I think Canon users were clamoring for more though corporate took the safer approach and delivered just enough. Depending on which side of the fence one sits on, the releases are certainly adequate enough to consider purchasing, though they are unlikely to cause users of other systems to "switch". When one looks at the overall MILC market, Canon still rules with Sony far behind, and Nikon is a distant 3rd. Corporate looks at sales/profits rather than producing what the customer wants. If I were still shooting the R5, I would probably upgrade to the R5II for the improved read out speed, variable (and faster) FPS, lack of EVF blackout, and pre-capture. It's still missing zebras, needed a bigger buffer, and even faster read out. Apart from what the body itself is lacking, the biggest impediment for me is the current, comparatively antiquated, expensive, large, long lens line up.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
It is jpeg only.
One can't really compare the whole mirrorless market, because Canon is very strong in medium and lower cost models including the pretty capable but cheaper R10, r50, and r100. If it was a graph of high end cameras nikon and sony would be well represented. Let's say bodies over $3000.
hef19898
Well-known member
Regarding the disconnect between corporate and customers, well, I think the disconnect is between the average bird / wildlife photographer on bcg and the rest of the market.
And not producing what the customer wants is highly unprofitable. With a 46% marketshare, Canon is doing something right.
By the way, slicing the market into arbitarily defined markets to confirm an opinion is lying to oneself. One couod also say, that Canon is the only brand with a clear pipeline from entry level mirrorless bodies all the way to pro bodies.
And not producing what the customer wants is highly unprofitable. With a 46% marketshare, Canon is doing something right.
By the way, slicing the market into arbitarily defined markets to confirm an opinion is lying to oneself. One couod also say, that Canon is the only brand with a clear pipeline from entry level mirrorless bodies all the way to pro bodies.
nmerc_photos
Well-known member
Probably out of embarrassment. They've had to keep moving back the R1 release for so many years. If they kept postponing it even more... it wouldn't be a good look.
Although, calling something your flagship and having it be an R3MKII also isn't a good look lol.
I expect Canon has run the numbers and realizes that once someone is locked in an ecosystem, it's very costly to switch, and they only care about people on the budget end and about big corporations (news outlets, photojournalism, etc.). And both of those people are going to buy their products almost no matter what.
Yep exactly. Canon didn't get to be a giant in the industry and remain there because they're dumb. The choices they are making are what they believe will lead to the most market share and profit.
Wildlife photographers are a very niche market. Wildlife photographers with $5K - $50K to spend on big primes is an even smaller segment of that already small market.
fcotterill
Well-known member
And the quad-pixel AF in the R1 is a first. This should improve focus discrimination in the vertical access.I've only seen the B&H video on the R1, but there are some impressive features - for sports where it follows the player who has the ball is very impressive as well as the 'noted player' focussing priority - real sports issue where you have to get shots of the new player in a team, milestone match etc. Canon shooters will love this camera.
Hope the firmware updates are coming soon for the Z9 with a few new silver bullets
Canon's Big Day | Sans Mirror | Thom Hogan
Canon announces the R5 II and R1 mirrorless cameras
MarkG
Active member
Well, OM-1 had introduced the quad-pixel AF two years ago.And the quad-pixel AF in the R1 is a first. This should improve focus discrimination in the vertical access.
Canon's Big Day | Sans Mirror | Thom Hogan
Canon announces the R5 II and R1 mirrorless camerassansmirror.com
ajrmd
Well-known member
I don't think that I was trying to compare the entire market, rather the intent was to present one possible explanation for corporate decision making. Could Canon have produced a body which would have eclipsed the A1? Based on their broad based technologies, the answer is probably affirmative, though at what cost and yield. So, instead they produced a couple of products which are at near parity. A win? That depends on for whom. The R1/R5 do not appear to advance the market much in terms of technology though users of the R5 and R3 will likely appreciate the relative upgrades. Canon likely gains profit and continues to maintain market share largely through its entry pipeline in Asia, though I doubt many users will switch because of these releases.