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

Wilt wrote in post #19267807
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

I shoot scenes all the time with 10+ players in the scene. I don't have an issue now. I just put the initial point on the person, press AF ON, and the camera takes over from there, and I compose and shoot during the action. Again, sports is my main gig...

I never had this issue with the DSLRs either, except with those, I HAD to crop for composition later. The R6 frees me up from this a bit and it's nice.

Anyways none of this matters for this thread. This thread is whether an eye AF system would help in wildlife photography. The answer is "it depends". Depends on the size of the subjects in the scene, the lenses being used, etc. Is a mirrorless better than a DSLR? Yes in many situations, but no in others.

Eye detect AF and the ability for AF to track completely across the frame; not to be limited by a smattering of hard AF points across the scene have been a HUGE boon to me for any wildlife/bird action shots (mostly BIF). It's *really* nice for static, portrait type shots as it allows 'focus/recompose' during Servo AF, which is a nifty trick to have available. That said, I am still severely missing the crop factor from the 7DII even after a couple of months shooting the R5. I miss a lot of opportunity for shots that I can crop down to a happier final result in post compared to shooting the APS-C; but, it still hasn't been enough to pull me back onto the 7DII for my field trips.

While there are a number of things I feel are notable tradeoffs (optical viewfinder being one example), I've found that the overall feature set of the mirrorless ecosystem fairly solidly outweighs them as far as performance and usability. I can certainly not push it as a "must have" upgrade for anyone else shooting the convenience of a high end, APS-C for fins/fur/feathers type shooting, but it sure is a NICE upgrade. If they would hurry to the conclusion that there is still an APS-C market in us, I'd be all over it like hair on a Yak.

Ha, I like the pun! For Jeff though, if he gets a mirrorless, he probably should also look at the 800 RF lens. With what he shoots at those distances, 800mm vs 600mm or less, might be very beneficial. 200mm more reach can really make the difference between a good vs great photo in some cases.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19267830
Ha, I like the pun! For Jeff though, if he gets a mirrorless, he probably should also look at the 800 RF lens. With what he shoots at those distances, 800mm vs 600mm or less, might be very beneficial. 200mm more reach can really make the difference between a good vs great photo in some cases.

You're absolutely right. I shoot a combo of the 800 RF and a 100-400vII + 1.4x; I found that that combo was near enough to identical to the 600 RF that it wasn't worth having both. The 800 is a *great* lens, for what it is and is a great addition to the R5; it is pretty much at the absolute limit of handhold-ability vs focal length, however. I can only get about 1/3 of panning/IF shots to land clearly with it, whereas I can pretty easily land 2/3 to 3/4 with the L/TC combo. I find that there is next to zero crop-ability with it, and even then you've gotta already be at >70% of the frame with your original capture.

I still feel it's a fairly critical addition to the birder's bag to pair w/ the R5, but you'll definitely feel the tradeoffs fairly quickly. Fixed f/11 (f/16 if you throw a 1.4 on it) removes a full third of your shooting triangle adjustments; mitigated fairly well by the R5's ISO handling, but it's definitely a thing to be aware of.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19267830
Ha, I like the pun! For Jeff though, if he gets a mirrorless, he probably should also look at the 800 RF lens. With what he shoots at those distances, 800mm vs 600mm or less, might be very beneficial. 200mm more reach can really make the difference between a good vs great photo in some cases.

When I go out shooting I think about where I am going and what I am trying for. If I am doing walkabout or people at the Seagrave Observatory or when I do Churches and interiors I will grab my 5D4 and 24-105L and carry my 16-35L, I like the 5D4 for these types of shots. If I am birds in the side yard or where the birds will be close or the weather sucks, I will grab the 7D2. For most of my bird shooting I am using the 90D, the focus system isn't quite up to the 7D2 or 5D4 but I can switch from one point or spot to all points with one push of the button next to the shutter button (with the 7 and 5 I have the AF-ON set for 1 point and the "*" for all points).
Lately I have been using my 100-400Lii with or without the 1.4xiii more than my 150-600C on the 90D, partly due to weight but mostly that the 90D likes the L slightly better than the C, but the 7D2 is very happy with the 150-600 when shooting at 600mm.
The cropablility of the APS-C is a big thing. The 90D with 32.5 mp is like having an 83 mp FF and I find I can really crop.
Those reasons are why I am waiting to see what I can get with the R7, should it come out.

the 600 and 800 being light would be great on the R7, the down sight is the light, not weight in this case but the brightness of the scene. F11 will really raise the ISO in the morning or early evening. You would need a lot of light from what I can see when I stop down to F/11 to see what I get. 1/1250 or 1/2000 and f/11 and you get some crazy ISO's. BUT often I am shooting in the middle of the day or early afternoon when the light is strong.

I handhold everything because due to my legs I shoot sitting down in my photo chair, at one pond I lug my gear about 100 yards along the top of a dam and setup and stay until my bladder says GO, which happens quicker and quicker the older I get ROFL.

Here is my wish, a R7 with an APS-C 32.5 mp and the same controls as the 90D so it is seamless to switch.

What is a crazy ISO? The gear you have now should give you usable results (provided the technique and tools in post processing) up through 6400, and often up to 12800.

I have already switched to the 100-400 with 1.4x over the Sigma and sold my sigma. I even use the 2x on the 100-400 with the R6 from time to time, but more with sports than birding.

The only advantage I could see with something like the R7 would be eye AF and ability to AF at f11 should you need it, everything else, I feel, you have covered with the gear you have now.

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19267179
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.

That's certainly true, in my experience. The R5 is sometimes worse than the 90D for obtaining focus; I really don't understand people who talk about R5 AF like it is above and beyond anything any DSLR can do. Many of the very best, silver-platter bird portraits served to me this spring migration, I missed because the R5 would not even try to focus on a bird that was many times the size of the AF point, but a lot closer than the last distance that the system focused at. This is made extra problematic by a lens with a slow manual focus ratio that requires several twists of the focus ring to "pre-focus". I find my Sigma 100-400 to be far easier to pre-focus than my 400/4DO II; my $7,000K lens is more problematic than my $700 lens, in that regard. A larger entrance pupil actually makes this problem worse, when light levels are not the main issue, because subjects are more OOF initially. AF is getting so complicated with so many factors these days that just saying that one combo is better than another is just impossible.

The real strength of R5 AF, IMO, is that once a subject is almost in focus, and the system grabs onto it, it will stay closer to focus and hunt a lot less, as long as the subject is still visible and in the AF zone.

duckster wrote in post #19267321
I agree with TeamSpeed, the eye AF is wonderful if you have enough reach to get it locked on initially.

... and the subject's eye has sufficient contrast and definition.

When I photograph Cicada-killer Wasps, the R5 subject-eye-AF sees the black and yellow-white markings on the rear of the wasp. With American Goldfinch, I've had it grab the wing bars. With a baby muskrat last week, it didn't seem to see the animal at all, and I had to switch to spot AF and put it on the eye. With a Solitary Sandpiper this morning, the eye was seen and locked onto from a ridiculous distance, with my Sigma 100-400 at 560/9. This sandpiper has a bright-ish circle around the eye.

Teleconverters make things interesting; historically, they interfere with AF in general, but now that we have image-analyzing engines in the cameras, TCs may actually help AF track an eye or head. I have had it happen where the system wouldn't lock onto a subject at a distance, until I added a 2x TC.

That is why I have my AF on and * set up with two different AF programs.

AF ON is eye AF, then face/object detect if the eye can’t be seen, and * set to spot AF.

If I ever have an issue with eye af, I just change which button I use.

duckster wrote in post #19267321
I agree with TeamSpeed, the eye AF is wonderful if you have enough reach to get it locked on initially.

Also, dual back-button focus where one of the buttons star (*) for example, set to eye/tracking solves most of the issues talked about.
a. Spot focus one can move to the bird with the joystick-if needed.

b. Back button focus. At a longer distance the eye focus may not always work, but one still can move the focus point to the bird-if the camera does not automatically focus on it.

c. Then eye focus and tracking at the press of the "star" button for instances when the first back button focus fails to work.

Watch this video and pay attention to the focus issues for both the R5 and the new Sony Alpha 1 (keep in mind that the A1costs nearly twice as much as the R5):
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=WA_aV9MyDiE&​t=2s

And this one is about the host's reasons for dual back-button focus, and how to set the R5 and R5 that way (may be of interest to the OP):
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=5l5feoIUmdI

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.

I have heard rumors that the R3 may have a 24MP sensor, in which case it would be targeting sports photographers. Something like the 1DX III (?).