Canon Announces Development of the EOS R5

SYS wrote in post #19091176
We'll see, time will tell. Given the pricing, it looks the R5 is an answer to Sony's A7 IV except for 20mp difference.

Yeah I would personally wait for reviews from people like Dustin Abbott who use multiple brands and aren't brand bias.

Dlee13 wrote in post #19091169
I own the A7III and have used the A9II for a few hours to shoot birds and that. It A7III honestly doesn’t track that well. I find if it sticks to the subject, it will track it really well from far to near BUT it has the tendency to be tracking perfectly then just jump over to something random without reason.

I tried the A9II at a Sony event for like 2-3 hours and that tracked amazingly and didn’t have the same issue as my A7III. I didn’t try testing it on very small items but it seemed to work well at a distance. I guess it’s hard to tell how small Canon are referring too.

Before making my decision about the R5 I spent a lot of time researching Sony in the last month. My local camera store suggested the AR7 IV or the A7III.

I was interested in the Sony 200-600 as well. Doing some investigation I learned that lens did not play nicely with AR7 IV,

That left the the A7III. With more hunting I started to look at the A9 II. It was a serious option as well which is probably what I would have gone with.

Will the R5 be as good? Maybe, maybe not. I’ll take 90% as long as it works as good as what I’ve seen in the videos.

I hafta be careful how much R5 reading I do. My 5DM4 is doing a great job for now and my GAS flares up when I read more articles and watch more videos.

Christmas is likely the time I will make decisions since my wife and I can share the cost and also more in depth reviews will be in place. Plus there will be updates for the fixes that will come along.

There are many nice features I like already tho

digital paradise wrote in post #19091186
Before making my decision about the R5 I spent a lot of time researching Sony in the last month. My local camera store suggested the AR7 IV or the A7III.

I was interested in the Sony 200-600 as well. Doing some investigation I learned that lens did not play nicely with AR7 IV,

That left the the A7III. With more hunting I started to look at the A9 II. It was a serious option as well which is probably what I would have gone with.

Will the R5 be as good? Maybe, maybe not. I’ll take 90% as long as it works as good as what I’ve seen in the videos.

TBH if you already have Canon gear there's no need to switch.

I LOVE my A7III but would I be happy with an EOS R? YES!

The R6 would be even better for me and a dream come true but will I switch back, not for a long time. The cameras are just tools and you can get great results with whichever body you have.

I would love to get a fully articulating screen again but aside from that I have no complaints about my current system so switching again would just be GAS. I switched from Canon in the first place PURELY FROM GAS and that was it. I loved Canon bodies and lenses but they didn't have a FF mirorrless body at that very moment so I switched.

In regards to the R5 being as good as the A9II, it has the same tracking as the 1DXIII in Live View so I would say so. Jared Polin compared the 1DXIII in live view vs the A9II and they were pretty much perfectly matched so in reality the R5/R6 would be great options, especially since they both do 20fps like the A9II.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19090970
.
Subject tracking ..... "does require the subject to be a certain size in the frame, or a certain distance from the camera."

Hmmmmmm. . One of the biggest problems I have had with traditional contrast-detect DSLR focusing is when an animal is pretty far away, and small in the frame - especially when moving quickly and unpredictably.

It really struggles to focus on the animal in such situations, and often when I get back home and download the images and look at them very closely, I will see that some patch of grass behind the animal, or in front of the animal, is sharper than the animal that I was trying to focus on .... even though the active AF point was precisely on the animal itself. . The far-away subject has always been one of the biggest weak points of traditional contrast-detect AF systems.

So I was thinking that this great new on-sensor focusing that mirrorless cameras have would just eliminate that problem entirely, even when tracking a moving subject. . That it would always focus in what it is supposed to be focusing on, no matter what, even when the subject is small in the frame and far away and moving and being focus-tracked. . But now they're saying that it may not work very well in such situations? . That is one of the situations that I need it for most.

If you need absolutely certain AF that will focus perfectly on the animal itself, when the animal is far away and small in the frame - what do you use for that? . If traditional contrast-detect AF doesn't work perfectly in those situations, and now they're telling us that subject-detect won't necessarily work in those situations, and we can't manually focus because the critter is on the move and tiny in the frame, and DOF is still not deep enough to include the animal if we're off a wee bit, and we can't pre-focus on a spot because we don't know where the erratically running animal is going to go next ..... then what do we do?

Is there really still no reliable system for these situations? . That seems unbelievable to me - that cameras and technology in general have some so far, yet still don't have this one situation covered in a way that is completely reliable.

.

That is my problem as well. I often crop quite severely being unable to get closed to the subjects, 200 yards is routine. If it won't do better than my 5D4 or 7D2 I will stick with them. Will be watching for reports on BIF that are small in the frame

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19091085
Yeah, he probably was talking about head tracking. But if your subject is a person's head, or an animal's head, then there really isn't any difference between subject tracking and head tracking. When photographing people or wildlife, in most cases, the head IS the subject.

That's what's been causing me to scratch my own head over all this. Are you BIF folk really trying to work with such narrow depths of field that you're not even getting the entire heads of birds in focus?

RDKirk wrote in post #19091238
That's what's been causing me to scratch my own head over all this. Are you BIF folk really trying to work with such narrow depths of field that you're not even getting the entire heads of birds in focus?

depends but yes. If you get focus on the wing you will miss they head, mainly looking for the eye. if you get the eye in focus the wing may be out especially on a goose or large bird.

RDKirk wrote in post #19091238
.
That's what's been causing me to scratch my own head over all this. Are you BIF folk really trying to work with such narrow depths of field that you're not even getting the entire heads of birds in focus?
.

.
The focusing and DOF challenges are not just with birds in flight, but overall bird photography. . There are many times that birds are in fast, erratic motion, but not flying.

There are many times with birds that the DOF is such that only a portion of the bird is in focus. . In some situations this can look okay, but usually it just looks bad .... or at least not quite as good as the image would look with the entire bird in focus, or nearly in focus. . That's why so much of my bird photography is done stopping down to f8, f11, even f16.

Keep in mind that there isn't just "in focus" and "out of focus". . It really doesn't work like that in real-life image viewing. . There is "in the very sharpest focus" and then there is everything else, which is a series of gradations of how unsharp things are.

If the absolute sharpest focus is on the bird's eye, then nothing except the eye will be quite as sharp as the eye. . This is ideal, and what we are normally going for every time we snap the shutter. . When I say "the eye", that can be either the eye ring or the iris/pupil edge.

If you zoom deeply into an image and some feathers on the head are perfectly razor sharp, and the eye is almost as sharp, but not quite, then that just looks stupid, and leaves me wishing that the eye itself was the very sharpest thing in the image.

Then there are the gazillions of times when I shoot birds in flight and a part of one of the wings will be sharp, but the head will be very soft. . I get dozens of images like this every day at my set-ups, and such images are simply useless for anything (except to show how the camera and myself failed so terribly).

Here's an example taken at f16 (attached image below). . The head is uselessly soft. . The image is trash - worthless - because the plane of focus is about an inch and a quarter behind the near eye.

Notice that the far side of the tail, and the base of the left wing, are much sharper than the bird's eye? . That shows the kind of DOF that we bird photographers are dealing with. . And that's even when stopping down to f16! . Imagine the sh__ we have to try to overcome when shooting at f8 or f5.6. . It's just ridiculous that we don't have an autofocus system that can just pick the eye out and focus perfectly on it in such situations.

If the eye was the sharpest thing in the image, and the tail, body, and wings of the bird were soft, that would be so much better than having a part of one wing and part of the tail in focus, but the head soft. . Far from ideal, not what I really want, but much better than what actually happened.

R with 100-400 II and 2X. I sent the 2nd image to Topaz Sharpen AI for a little tune tuning.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19091504
.
The focusing and DOF challenges are not just with birds in flight, but overall bird photography. . There are many times that birds are in fast, erratic motion, but not flying.

There are many times with birds that the DOF is such that only a portion of the bird is in focus. . In some situations this can look okay, but usually it just looks bad .... or at least not quite as good as the image would look with the entire bird in focus, or nearly in focus. . That's why so much of my bird photography is done stopping down to f8, f11, even f16.

Keep in mind that there isn't just "in focus" and "out of focus". . It really doesn't work like that in real-life image viewing. . There is "in the very sharpest focus" and then there is everything else, which is a series of gradations of how unsharp things are.

If the absolute sharpest focus is on the bird's eye, then nothing except the eye will be quite as sharp as the eye. . This is ideal, and what we are normally going for every time we snap the shutter. . When I say "the eye", that can be either the eye ring or the iris/pupil edge.

If you zoom deeply into an image and some feathers on the head are perfectly razor sharp, and the eye is almost as sharp, but not quite, then that just looks stupid, and leaves me wishing that the eye itself was the very sharpest thing in the image.

Then there are the gazillions of times when I shoot birds in flight and a part of one of the wings will be sharp, but the head will be very soft. . I get dozens of images like this every day at my set-ups, and such images are simply useless for anything (except to show how the camera and myself failed so terribly).

Here's an example taken at f16 (attached image below). . The head is uselessly soft. . The image is trash - worthless - because the plane of focus is about an inch and a quarter behind the near eye.

Notice that the far side of the tail, and the base of the left wing, are much sharper than the bird's eye? . That shows the kind of DOF that we bird photographers are dealing with. . And that's even when stopping down to f16! . Imagine the sh__ we have to try to overcome when shooting at f8 or f5.6. . It's just ridiculous that we don't have an autofocus system that can just pick the eye out and focus perfectly on it in such situations.

If the eye was the sharpest thing in the image, and the tail, body, and wings of the bird were soft, that would be so much better than having a part of one wing and part of the tail in focus, but the head soft. . Far from ideal, not what I really want, but much better than what actually happened.

Hosted photo: posted by Tom Reichner in
./showthread.php?p=190​91504&i=i230001870
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by Tom Reichner in
./showthread.php?p=190​91504&i=i41677915
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

All of this pre-focusing at a given distance, trying to guess exactly where the bird will be when it zips through the frame, stopping down to f14 or f16 .... it all seems so ridiculous. . Cameras should be able to do the focusing for us in such situations, and get the very sharpest focus right on the nearest eye, every time. . Shooting all morning, for hours, just hoping to get one or two perfect images, is preposterously inefficient. . EVERY frame we take should be perfectly focused. . Every darn one!

.

Excellent post, Tom. Spot on.

So if the AF from the 1DX3 is truly in the R5/R6 series, then it will just do fine tracking birds.

https://www.fredmirand​a.com …/topic/1653898/​0#15278227

The crazy thing to think is, these are just 5D and 6D bodies but have the AF of a 1DXIII. I really can’t wait to see what the 1D series mirrorless body can do when it’s released!

Everything I've seen points to the R6 being dang near the perfect camera for an awful lot of people including me. God I wish it had the same specs it has with the R sensor. I may even do the R6 and just keep my R to have something with a little higher resolution for landscapes and crops. I have an M6 Mk II also.

The more I look at the R5, the more I can't justify the huge cost difference. I'd love to have 45 megapixels, but there seems to be a great cost that comes with it beyond just cash outlay in terms of heat. I've never seen much complaining on the 1Dx III sensor. To me, the R6 seems to be pretty much a stripped down 1Dx Mk III and I'm quite certain that's good enough for me. It may even be better than the R5 for me since most of my EF glass is going to stick around for a while given the price of RF glass and it should all be more than fine at 20 megapixels. It has certainly all been more than fine with both my R and my M6 Mk II.

I keep hearing about excessive heat in the R5

Is that only when doing video or if I fire off a burst of 20 or 30 raw+jpegs will the camera also overheat?

Long video clips...