Not getting R5, still waiting to see what the R7 is.

For many months I have agonized over the R5 versus my 90d as well as the 5D Mark IV and the 7D Mark II both of which I picked up used through POTN. I am still learning all the ins and out of the 5D4 and 7D2. The thing that interested me on the R5 was the animal eye AF and it's ability to track birds extremely well, those two things were the main reason I was thinking of switching, as well as the ability to shotgun more because of a bigger buffer. Then I started hearing that it still could get confused with a small bird on a confused or foliage background so would it really be that much better than what I already had. Also the fact that I love the controls on the cameras that I have
It might be teaching an old dog new tricks but the 5D4 The 7D2 and the 90d controls are close enough and when I need a flippy screen I have the 90 when I'm looking at shooting in lousy weather I use the 7D2.
I also like the crop sensor of the 7D and the 90d that is why I'm waiting to see what the R7 turns out to be the rumors I've heard really interest me because I like the extra reach of the APS-C sensors because at times I tend to be the king of cropping
With my feeling eye sight, I depend on auto focus to try to get sharp pictures, my left eye is really bad the right eye is going there it's getting harder to read and harder to work on the computer to process what I shoot.
So far I have about 50k clicks on each camera so they should last a while yet.

Eye focus only works well and consistently when the animals or people are large enough in the scene to cover several AF points.

If you don’t have the reach to do that and the subjects are pretty small, I see no real advantage. The DOF for your gear is large enough in almost all cases to allow a single AF point on something like the 5d4 to land the shot.

The last I knew, you were still restricted by distance for what you are shooting. Is that still the case?

I just recently became aware of an issue experienced by someone on POTN, regarding manual focus control of lenses made for mirrorless Canon bodies. Sounds like something needing a bit more investigation and visibility for anyone needing to refine focus when AF did not do the job on its own.

I agree with TeamSpeed, the eye AF is wonderful if you have enough reach to get it locked on initially.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19267207
The last I knew, you were still restricted by distance for what you are shooting. Is that still the case?

That is correct, still at the local ponds. The only time I am not is when I shoot in my side garden for feeder birds and hummingbirds.

There are 3 hummingbirds shot in my side garden yesterday the 5D4 was before the sun hit it, the 7D2 and 90D were more midday. I was using the 100-400Lii (18-300 on the 7D2) at about 10-12 feet, so they all do very well. At the same time I cropped them severely.

5D4 then 90D then 7D2

7D2 and uncropped image Sigma 18-300 lens at 251mm

Those look good, the R5 might give you some extra capability but not sure how much. Maybe others can help in that regard but closer birds will engage eye AF and could be a boon.

In the meantime

Im still chugging along with an outdated DSLR 1Dx2. Bought it the day it was released and I plan on getting 8 yrs on this body. Im not completely sold on the R5 or mirrorless technology. I still think the 1Dx2 and the 1Dx3 are superior cameras. Eye focus isnt everything. God forbid someone prefers a DSLR. Servo performance on these bodies are excellent.

That 1DX2 won't be an option for Jeff, he needs a denser sensor. The R5 would work but still isn't quite up to the 7D2 density, but better than the 5D4.

I shot another wedding a month ago with the R6, and it never skipped a beat, it was nice being able to just watch composition in the EVF with the camera following eyes of the bride as she walked down, and then 20fps during the key parts of the ceremony including the kiss, etc. It was nice using it.

S0 You know

I have used my 1Dx2 since it came out for weddings. I am going on year 5. I use servo and lock on my brides chest area. It has NEVER missed a processional shot. Because of the reliability, I dont have to take as many shots and I can concentrate on those moments and glances that get me a perfect shot. I shoot 6-8 shots now. I dont need to 20 FPS. I shot an 8 hour wedding last weekend. Shot about 825 frames. Minus test shots and the 5-6 OOF shots....Thats it ....5-6 shots where they moved and it hit something behind them. I delivered 760 shots from the 1Dx2 and 170 from the 5D4.

Im not getting why people think EYE focus is so much better and more reliable.....these DSLR's I have just dont miss. Experience with the equipment goes a long long way. Teamspeed you know this. You would get the same results with your 5D4... I know canon cameras inside and out. Why do I need to invest 5-6K in mirrorless camera bodies just to have eye focus when these perceived outdated DSLR's are so good ?? Im staying with what I have until I just dont have any other choice. I personally opted out of the R6. My 1Dx2 is a better camera. The portrait capabilities on the 5D4 are so much better than the R6 and in my opinion the R5....30 for a sensor is really more than enough especially for weddings and portraits....I have captured over 625 weddings since 2006 and I have not printed anything bigger than a 16x24...Very few people put large prints on their walls from weddings...They frame nice 11x14's for a shelf and they print albums....20 for a sensor is perfect for wedding use.

Im looking for a mirrorless like an R7 that will replace the 7D2 for wildlife needs only. A 30Mb sensor that gives me some more reach or crop ability would be great.....and YES I agree...eye focus for wildlife would be great. I like the results I am seeing

I have maintained my opinion that mirrorless is an ALTERNATIVE technology and apart from some features enabled by active sensor and software, mirrorless does the SAME THING as dSLRS in a slightly different way. The lenses are more expensive to buy, and there are far fewer available on the used market, so cost of ownership is inherently higher. So until there is a HAVE-TO-have reason, I am avoiding the many generations of mirrorless evolution (one already from R/RP to R5/R6) and the accompanying depreciation losses that come with generational upgrades. If Canon decides there is a real market for APS-C mirrorless, and does not launch it as an M series body (which is much more amateur snapshooter oriented) an R7 would give me reason to pause and reconsider; but not with only FF size sensor mirrorless as it is today.

In all of my film coverage of wedding ceremonies and receptions decades back, only ONE couple ordered 24" x 30" print, and they were a couple in midlife, not a young couple. As you said, few weddings come with large prints. And I have made two 20" x 60" canvas wraps for my home walls, and the sensor was smaller than APS-C with zero comments from anyone about needing more detail or more pixels, so I am hard pressed to rationalize a 'need' for FF with its longer FL requirements.

Eye AF allows you to compose exactly in camera without a worry, that is the primary advantage I have been utilizing. I no longer change AF points to be around off center or focus and recompose, etc. The eyes lock and wherever that person goes, the focus follows and you can compose the shot as you want it, so you don't have to crop for composition later.

I also still have my 5D4, and yes with spot AF, never have an issue with faces/eyes in focus for weddings. Sports on the other hand can be more problematic, and the R6 just works, and it even works with a 100-400 1.4x or 2x combination. Eye AF follows the player for a 20fps burst for 60 frames, and not a single one OOF... Why do I keep the 5D4? I want the 30Mpx sometimes and I need a backup, and I cannot think of a better backup body at this point.

Also shoot birds and especially those in flight, and eye AF is just wonderful, feels like cheating!

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19267775
Eye AF allows you to compose exactly in camera without a worry, that is the primary advantage I have been utilizing. I no longer change AF points to be around off center or focus and recompose, etc. The eyes lock and wherever that person goes, the focus follows and you can compose the shot as you want it, so you don't have to crop for composition later.

I also still have my 5D4, and yes with spot AF, never have an issue with faces/eyes in focus for weddings. Sports on the other hand can be more problematic, and the R6 just works, and it even works with a 100-400 1.4x or 2x combination. Eye AF follows the player for a 20fps burst for 60 frames, and not a single one OOF... Why do I keep the 5D4? I want the 30Mpx sometimes and I need a backup, and I cannot think of a better backup body at this point.

Also shoot birds and especially those in flight, and eye AF is just wonderful, feels like cheating!

I am waiting for the R3 to come out...YOUR eye position first lets you pick the current ball handler to give it an idea where in the scene to capture focus, like in a sea full of faces running around during a soccer game. Then the eye focus can take over and follow that primary interest subject as it moves about within the frame. And when the ball is passed, your eye tells it where to shift focus, and the follow that new subject.

Wilt wrote in post #19267786
I am waiting for the R3 to come out...YOUR eye position first lets you pick the current ball handler to give it an idea where in the scene to capture focus, like in a sea full of faces running around during a soccer game. Then the eye focus can take over and follow that primary interest subject as it moves about within the frame. And when the ball is passed, your eye tells it where to shift focus, and the follow that new subject.

Yes I know the theory, but I currently don’t have that as a challenge of mine when I shoot sports now.

And two points…

A. I doubt it will be that accurate and will instead be zone based.

B. I am constantly looking around the scene and wouldn’t want focus to keep shifting on me anyways once I have the player tracked that I want.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19267801
Yes I know the theory, but I currently don’t have that as a challenge of mine when I shoot sports now.

And two points…

A. I doubt it will be that accurate and will instead be zone based.

B. I am constantly looking around the scene and wouldn’t want focus to keep shifting on me anyways once I have the player tracked that I want.

Yes, shooter eye follow will more than likely be a zone selection, but when the entire frame is filled with faces, what exists itoday seems highly awkward in comparison.

I conceptualized this not long ago. Press a button to alter selection zone based on eye position, a joystick allows you to refine which specific set of eyes get followed within that zone.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=19198397