Canon EOS R5 Unite and Discuss!

mtdewlarissa wrote in post #19161635
just got my r5. now to see if i like it better than the r

Well, I can guess that you won't be disappointed by the lag or EVF refresh.

I came from DSLR, and still didn't find them problematic.

mtdewlarissa wrote in post #19161635
just got my r5. now to see if i like it better than the r

More importantly, let us know if you like it $2500 better.

Now that people are using the R5 how does the AF work on birds like ducks and seagulls that are at least 200 yards away when using a 100-400Lii at 400mm or Sigma 150-600 at 600mm can it pick up the eye or isolate the bird against a busy background at that distance and seagull or mallard at that distance is about the size of the AF point in my 90D or 5DIV and I often have to crop really tight and small to bring up the bird, how would the R5 compare to the 90D on an extreme crop?

Okay, pulled the trigger from the Canon site.

For those setting up for back button focus in two (or more) modes, how are you doing it?

My issue is that when I assign the AF<-> setting to a button on the back this doesn't also cause AF On when the button is depressed. Any help appreciated.

Anyone having focus / animal eye detection issues with firmware 1.2?

My Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary had been working great (with the previous firmware) but the last two days even when eyes are detected the focus is way off. Almost always back focused. I've got a 90% miss rate the last two days. I reset all camera settings with no improvement.

Note the in these conditions the camera has been tripod mounted - OS on the lens was turned off.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19161717
Now that people are using the R5 how does the AF work on birds like ducks and seagulls that are at least 200 yards away when using a 100-400Lii at 400mm or Sigma 150-600 at 600mm can it pick up the eye or isolate the bird against a busy background at that distance and seagull or mallard at that distance is about the size of the AF point in my 90D or 5DIV and I often have to crop really tight and small to bring up the bird, how would the R5 compare to the 90D on an extreme crop?

Assuming the same optics and focus success, the 90D will have more resolution and finer noise for the same subject display size, but the R5 has more helps to get focus, and the R5 can also take more teleconversion and still focus, and teleconversion may resolve the eye better and track it better.

200 yards is a lot, though. I don't know that many eyes would be clearly identified at that distance, with the kind of lenses that you're talking about, or with typical atmospheric pollution.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19161717
Now that people are using the R5 how does the AF work on birds like ducks and seagulls that are at least 200 yards away when using a 100-400Lii at 400mm or Sigma 150-600 at 600mm can it pick up the eye or isolate the bird against a busy background at that distance and seagull or mallard at that distance is about the size of the AF point in my 90D or 5DIV and I often have to crop really tight and small to bring up the bird, how would the R5 compare to the 90D on an extreme crop?

It works great. Worse case scenario, it focuses on the head. I use the 100-400ii

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19161717
Now that people are using the R5 how does the AF work on birds like ducks and seagulls that are at least 200 yards away when using a 100-400Lii at 400mm or Sigma 150-600 at 600mm can it pick up the eye or isolate the bird against a busy background at that distance and seagull or mallard at that distance is about the size of the AF point in my 90D or 5DIV and I often have to crop really tight and small to bring up the bird, how would the R5 compare to the 90D on an extreme crop?

I don't think you'll need to worry about eye tracking a bird at that distance. The depth of field on a 400mm or 600mm lens at 200 yards on full frame camera is huge.

As John says, the 90D would probably give you a better image.

I owned a 90D before I got my R5. My final shots on long distance birds with large crop are much better on the R5. Using same lenses. EF 100-400 MK II and 300mm F2.8 MKII with and without 1.4 and 2X.

downhillonwater wrote in post #19161774
For those setting up for back button focus in two (or more) modes, how are you doing it?

My issue is that when I assign the AF<-> setting to a button on the back this doesn't also cause AF On when the button is depressed. Any help appreciated.

I've read this a few times, and don't comprehend what it is you are asking?

Dave63401 wrote in post #19161909
I owned a 90D before I got my R5. My final shots on long distance birds with large crop are much better on the R5. Using same lenses. EF 100-400 MK II and 300mm F2.8 MKII with and without 1.4 and 2X.

How do you define a "crop" when comparing crops? A "crop" for comparison (as I understand it to mean) should not be a certain number of pixels (or 100% pixel views) when pixel density is different, or the same percentage of total sensor area, for different sensor sizes, but a certain absolute cut of the sensor, like 12mm by 8mm, both resampled to the same display size. 100% crops are about different crops, with different pixel densities. As I said, better AF may be possible with the R5, especially with staying on a subject once it is focused on, but the IQ of the 90D is better than a 1.6x crop from the R5, with the same optics, settings, and situation, if both are focused and stable. That includes not just resolution, but also noise, which is better on the 90D at high ISOs, per unit of sensor area. You can gain on the 90D with pixels-on-subject by a small amount with 1.4x more teleconversion on the R5, but that doesn't change the noise, which can only be improved with a lens with a larger entrance pupil, which would benefit both cameras (or by compromising shutter speed, which is always an option for all cameras and lenses).

https://www.youtube.co​m …b_channel=Micha​elTheMaven

1:31:13 Back Button Focusing

John Sheehy wrote in post #19162003
How do you define a "crop" when comparing crops? A "crop" for comparison (as I understand it to mean) should not be a certain number of pixels (or 100% pixel views) when pixel density is different, or the same percentage of total sensor area, for different sensor sizes, but a certain absolute ...............

John,

In post 1983 above, Jeff asked

"I often have to crop really tight and small to bring up the bird, how would the R5 compare to the 90D on an extreme crop?"

My answer was really to him. End result after I finish post processing is what counts to me. The R5 is working better for me than my 90D in the finished product. Not a pro here, just an amateur having fun . I don't care what the sensor does in lab tests, I care what my shots look like on my screen. I am sure the focusing system is a part, as is the sensor and other factors. Thanks for your excellent post.

Dave

John Sheehy wrote in post #19162003
How do you define a "crop" when comparing crops? A "crop" for comparison (as I understand it to mean) should not be a certain number of pixels (or 100% pixel views) when pixel density is different, or the same percentage of total sensor area, for different sensor sizes, but a certain absolute cut of the sensor, like 12mm by 8mm, both resampled to the same display size. 100% crops are about different crops, with different pixel densities. As I said, better AF may be possible with the R5, especially with staying on a subject once it is focused on, but the IQ of the 90D is better than a 1.6x crop from the R5, with the same optics, settings, and situation, if both are focused and stable. That includes not just resolution, but also noise, which is better on the 90D at high ISOs, per unit of sensor area. You can gain on the 90D with pixels-on-subject by a small amount with 1.4x more teleconversion on the R5, but that doesn't change the noise, which can only be improved with a lens with a larger entrance pupil, which would benefit both cameras (or by compromising shutter speed, which is always an option for all cameras and lenses).

John-
What are you describing as noise? What sort of noise? Depending on what you mean, I don't think your statements are correct, especially the second highlighted statement.