The one just announced/released. I'm not fluent on Canon nomenclature.......
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).
We could chalk it up to poor choice of words – the Canon rep also said later in response to
‘what’s left for the EOS R3’,
“Obviously, the EOS R1 is the flagship product, and we wanted to surpass the capabilities and possibilities of the EOS R3 . Therefore, in some areas, the EOS R1 is better than the EOS R3. However, we still think that the EOS R3 is the most balanced in terms of performance. ..”
Or, we could consider buffer size, where according to this article,
https://petapixel.com/2024/07/17/how-the-canon-eos-r1-compares-to-its-peers-spec-for-spec/
“But buffer depth is also an essential factor. This is where the a9 III’s top speed comes with compromises, as the camera can only shoot at 120 frames per second for less than a couple of seconds. The R1, on the other hand, has a greater than 1,000-frame buffer depth. Further testing will be required to determine precisely what the RAW+JPEG buffer is, but it’s a very safe bet that the R1 will capture more images and shoot for longer at its top speed than the faster Sony a9 III. ..”
Jason Ponfil
Member
I would be interested in knowing too!
Jason Ponfil
Member
They announced two cameras.
David Berry
🇦🇺 Australia 🦘
R5ii : broadly similar to Z8 (default for wildlife)
R1 : vaguely similar to Z9 (journalism-oriented)
arbitrage
Well-known member
DR measurements....splitting hairs between the competition in ES.
Of note R5II doing some form of NR at all ISOs now instead of just up to ISO 800 with the R5.
Also R5II doing dual-gain jump at ISO 500 now where R5 did it at ISO 400.
Of note R5II doing some form of NR at all ISOs now instead of just up to ISO 800 with the R5.
Also R5II doing dual-gain jump at ISO 500 now where R5 did it at ISO 400.
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.
ajrmd
Well-known member
There was tremendous hand wringing in the Canon fanboy world when preliminary tests suggested that the R5II had less DR. As PTP demonstrates, this was unnecessary angst and the R5II has competitive DR. From my extremely limited use in a demo situation, the R5II's AF distinguishes it from the Z's and A1. Since I didn't have the opportunity to test it against an A9III or in video modes, I am unable to comment on those domains. In addition to the application of NR, Canon appears to be doing something else to the RAW files as well. I'm not sure if it's a consequence of the lack of final RAW converters, applied sharpening, or attributable to the stacked sensor, though the images accutance appears closer to a Nikon rather than the R5.
As I mentioned before, had Canon featured a line of mid-priced, lightweight, high-quality lenses, I would be back in the fold. For those who don't care about size/expense, an R1 and/or R5II with a 100-300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, +- 600 f/4 would be something.
Tough to get an accurate comparison as the Canon’s are using NR which will boost the score higher on the chart. Someone will compare them in lightroom eventually and the difference is probably pretty small.
I passed over the original R5 which was my first pick going to mirrorless because Canon’s weather sealed lenses are either L or nothing. And I don’t need to buy L everything so I went with Nikon which has much less expensive weather sealed primes (Outside of the telephoto primes). The AF is plenty close enough and splitting hairs a bit as well between all these cameras.
If you can’t get keepers with an A1, R5/R5ii, R1/R3 or Z8/Z9/Z6iii then I don’t know what to say. They’re all quite similar in specs and performance now.
ajrmd
Well-known member
In my experience, brands aren't "quite similar" with respect to AF/tracking, eye detect, and operation. Additionally, size, weight, and ergonomics figure prominently. Having used Canon 35mm since the late 1980's (Nikon, Minolta, and a host of others before that), perhaps that explains my impressions. With the development of MILC, the whole dynamic changed and while I remained with Canon originally with the release of the R5, R3, and R7, after a short foray with Sony, settled with Nikon when they released the mid-range lenses. The vast majority of my gear is now Nikon, though I stay current and have access to a variety of manufacturers equipment. The differences in AF are more than "hair splitting" and until recently, Sony had the best AF/tracking bar none. I still afford the edge to Canon for human eye detect and Nikon for aircraft. With the release of the R1 (which I have yet to use) and based on my limited experience with the R5II, I believe that the Canon has eclipsed the market on the AF front for sports and WL. Though I have yet to put an R5II though its paces with osprey/eagle strikes on water, the older R5 was vastly superior in that respect to the Z8 with its current FW.
It seems like all of them are getting any shots anyone is asking of them to me. I don’t see any vastly superior use cases. Are you saying one is getting double the rate of keepers? Or are we talking 5% more. For something to qualify that term I would expect a huge increase of in focus shots. So your telling me the R5 gets double the keeper rate of a Z8 on current firmware?
Is this very specific situations or in general?
When I see the R1 taking basketball shots I don’t see anything you won’t also get with an A1 or a Z9.
Last edited:
I’m just very skeptical when I hear terms like vastly superior, for that I expect a huge increase in performance, not 1-5 percent or anything like that. All these recent flagship or near flagship cameras seem to be quite close in keeper rates to me and I just am not seeing where with proper technique and learning the intricacy’s of how each works you won’t get the shots your after at a high keeper rate.
I know Sony had a big advantage years ago but things seem to have really closed in amongst them for performance.
I’m just really curious how it’s vastly superior. That’s why I asked if it’s double, because that would be vastly superior. 5%, a little better, for example.
HotGates
Member
Vastly superior nah I don't buy that and especially with the original R5, I shoot both Nikon Z9 Z8 and R3 (Sold the R3 to purchase the R5II) and the only difference with the R3 and Z9 was the R3 would be a little stickier and would remain on the bird or whatever and this is after they added bird mode on the Z9, And the R3 was better than the R5 and my guess the R5II will be a little better than the R3.
I can see a bit stickier and getting a few more frames for the difference, and nuance differences for very specific subjects where one’s machine learning probably had a different or better dataset for that subject specifically. I just see that as 1-5% vs a night and day difference like going from a Pentax K-1 to an R5ii or something of that nature, that I would qualify as a vastly superior difference in keeper rate for wildlife on the move.
HotGates
Member
That's the way it is, But even going from say a Nikon D850 to a Z9 Z8 is a huge difference in AF. Even Steve said that the AF between the A1 and Z9 there's not much in it and I believe him.
I'm interested in how the quad pixel on the R1 will perform. I believe the R5ii is continuing with the dual pixel, which is already a heck of a system in which the af is informed by differences between the left and right side of a pixel. The quad is supposed to add the pixel above and below, making it more like a cross type af.
ajrmd
Well-known member
AF efficacy depends on the camera and circumstances. For eagles/osprey moving through a fish strike, the R5/R3, A1 nail them nearly every time. The Z8 loses af in the same situation frequently (see an old thread on this). Human eye af, the other cameras consistently nail the eyeball, under similar circumstances the Z8 wanders sometimes grabbing the lash, nose, cheek, etc. The R1/R5II follow the ball in volleyball, basketball, etc. No other current cameras on the market demonstrate this ability. For airshows, the Z8/Z9 cockpit detection is tops and exceeds the R5. It’s difficult to quantitate the differences though if one camera manages to capture an entire sequence in focus whereas another on drops a couple of critical frames do the percentages matter? If one camera can identify and track a fast moving swallow across the frame whereas the other one struggles and maybe gets a couple in focus, do percentages matter? If one body produces tack sharp portraits all of the time, while the other one misses a few key shots, do percentages matter?
David Berry
🇦🇺 Australia 🦘
I found Will Goodlet's musings on whether to purchase the R5ii most interesting.
He also comments on the wildlife lenses available: Canon versus Nikon versus Sony (as always in alphabetical order!). No surprises: Nikon shines; however, Canon is well represented in both entry-level zooms and exorbitantly expensive primes (the latter, mostly adapted DSLR lenses). Canon's mid-level wildlife lenses — sorry 'lens' — is the RF 100–500mm (f/4.5–f/7.1).
As usual the star of Will's video is Basil, his trusty Land Rover Defender.
Last edited:
Small point, but the R5 meter does weigh the confirmed focus point anywhere in the scene if in evaluative metering (matrix). As he said the spot meter only works off the center. One of those canon things they've always done. Not a fault, they just thing that is the better way to do it.
A detailed article on dynamic range:
I think this is also a good comparison piece of the R5 Mk II - to the R5, to the Z8, ..
That seems very counter intuitive to me - if you are spot metering and move the focus point to the eye, Canon mid-range cameras (?) still spot meter off the center of the grid. I would think this means you should be mindful of light/shadow changes between the center and the selected eye.
I believe he said certain of Canon's top models can meter off of the AF point?? He was unsure whether the R5 II would be able to meter off of the selected AF point or not?
This is really an Admin question, but I can't figure out why? In the past, when I included a URL the post appeared with a nice Preview as in David's above. Now when I include an address it just appears as the address line sans preview.