Canon R5 Mark II is announced

Still early and learning about the newly released camera, but here is the link to Bryan's news feed and landing page.

A few items catching my eye:

1. Pre-shooting mode, 1/2 of a second
2. 14 bit, up to 30 fps, 6.3 milli-second (~1/160th of a sec) readout speed in electronic shutter. FPS is now programmable. Big thumbs up from me on that one.
3. Great that it is mostly the same very good button layout. A few small changes...I like video/stills switch location
4. About the same size, slightly lighter (68 g) than R5.
5. Claims about upgraded AF system
6. New battery that provides better "higher continuous power". I am hoping this means that the mechanical fps does not drop off as the battery charge goes down.
7. R3's EVF, or something very similar. Eye-controlled AF. Initial impressions seem good.

There are many other features that might appeal to others. Seems like there are overheating improvements, including a cooling-grip. 8K video has improved. Etc. For video, I am seeing it has waveforms, which I hear videographers complain about not having, so that is good.

Then, a lot is the same: 12 fps mechanical shutter, ~45 MPs, general size, button layout, and ergonomics. But, hey, if it ain't broke.....

Actually, that is a big deal to me, as if I went to two cameras for some event, I could have a R5 I and II and likely not lose much in terms of muscle memory switching between cameras.

The R5 is an amazing camera. I am not sure I need more. I have pre-ordered the R5 II, but I will wait to see/read more to see if I keep the pre-order.

I did notice that the new R5's are now ~$2900. A great price, IMO.

Perhaps I am the primary person interested in the R5 II. I do have it pre-ordered and am waiting to hear more about its abilities. I have thus far run the gamut of being very excited to going back and using my R5 and being completely satisfied and wondering if I shoudl skip a generation.

So, I decided to take a minute to look back at the list I created here where I talk about my issues with the R5 Mk 1.

A quick summation:
Cons:

• Battery and FPS.

The issue I had appears to no longer be present with the Mk II. At least the owners manual for the R5 II does not come with the same caution regarding as battery charge drops, the FPS will decrease. Rather, the FPS is more consistent throughout the battery charge (with the new batteries).

• Bit depth and FPS.

Again solved with the R5 II. The issue here was the faster FPS modes dropped bits on the R5: "H" mode and slower is 14 bits, but "H+" dropped to 13 bits and electronic shutter dropped to 12 bits. With the R5 II, Bryan (in his review) clearly states that it is 14 bits in these different modes.

• File size.

Is what it is. This is likely the same. I should probably switch to cRAW. While the computer I built in 2021 can handle it, I am noticing that my libraries are getting larger ever since moving to the R5.

• AF.

I noted this was not a true con as the R5 is very good, but an area where I could see improvement. That holds true. In fact, this is a key factor I want to hear about in order to keep my preorder. The R5 AF was great, but not infallible. The R5 II does not have Quadpixel AF or even the rotated rows of DPAF like the R1. So, is it better? Does AF work better with vertical lines? Does it stay on osprey's better as they dive? Does it stick to small birds better as they flit around? They did add the "Digic Accelerator" chip that seems to be focused on aiding AF while the other processor handles other duties. So, there is reason to hope in addition to simple evolution.

• People/mammal eye-AF.

This seems to be a focused area of improvement for the R5 II. They even included the ability to program in peoples faces so the camera would preferentially pick their face. I expect this to be improved.


So, that is my list of cons. It seems like they were mostly to completely addressed.

In terms of reasons to keep my preorder:

1. If the AF has improved
2. The 0.5 second pre-capture mode will open up opportunities. That was desired.
3. Eye Control AF might be in this list. I haven't used it, but I can see that being very useful

Some lesser but still attractive features:

1. 30 fps. I will not want this often. I usually shoot with 8 fps, even for wildlife. I occasionally go to 12 fps, and even less often use 20 fps. But still, I can see using 30 fps with pre-capture to try to get birds taking off/landing.
2. Faster readout speed = less rolling shutter. Not a huge issue, but sure, that is a good thing.
3. More options for electronic shutter mode. Not a huge deal as I shoot electronic first curtain, but I do like that.
4. I do like the Stills to video switch. I do not like having to go into a menu to switch to video...in fact, I just use the button that defaults to a single mode/limited control.
5. The R5 II is a tick lighter.
6. I wonder if the R5 II will be the last R5 with a shutter.

I am hearing about a con to the R5 II. We'll see how it plays out, but some are saying the battery life is a bit worse and that the R5 II is a power hog. We'll see. The CIPA ratings are slightly better with the R5 II, so we'll see if that holds true. But it would be a concern.

Anyone else considering upgrading?

I'm always intrigued when new cameras come out, but I haven't hit the preorder button as of yet on either of these new models. I do like my R5, but I have a few quibbles with it:
- Frame rate drops with battery charge under about 50% in mechanical shutter mode
- Slow start-up time when turning it on (or bringing it back to life after it goes to sleep)
- Could use better weather sealing (viewfinder will fog up if camera gets wet)
- Animal eye-detect works for birds and cats and dogs but not much else
- Single-point autofocus square is rather large in the frame. Smaller focus point would be nice, to get it exactly where I want it.

I'd be keen to hear if any of these issues have been improved upon with the new R5. Or maybe all of these are reasons I should get a R1 ? :rolleyes:

Also regarding file size --- I've been using C-RAW for quite a while and I like it a lot. Smaller file size means more images on the card, and best of all a larger effective buffer size so I can hold down the button for longer when the action gets going.

I just changed my mode to cRAW. I'll try it for a while and if I do not notice a difference, it'll be here to stay.

The first issue appears fixed. I've heard reports that the start up time is much faster, and the weather sealing is better, but those are somewhat TBD. The animal eye detect I am curious about myself. There is a lot of emphasis on sports, particularly with the R1. But not much chatter about animals, at least not that I've heard. As for the single-point square, I use the smaller point. Historically (5D III/IV) the smaller point was slower and I used expanded point AF. With the R5, I use the smaller point and it works very well for me.

I still have a few days of thinking before I decide if I will cancel my pre-order. Overall, I preach "shoot to need" and I do not have many needs with the R5. However, it does look like the R5 II fixed my minor quibbles and I do like my gear :rolleyes:. So the temptation is there.

In terms of Noise and DR, Bryan has posted his results, as has Photons to photos.

Big picture statement, no real change. Very similar to each other. The R5 break between ADC is at ISO 400 and it is at ISO 800 for the R5 II. I prefer the ISO 400 change, I find having ISO 400 being similar to ISO 100 on the R5 very useful.

There isa slight hit to DR for ES. Given the claims that ES is 14 bit, that was a unexpected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

There isa slight hit to DR for ES. Given the claims that ES is 14 bit, that was a unexpected.

---

The R3 outputs 14-bit in all shutter modes and takes a similar (slightly bigger, actually) hit with ES compared to mechanical, so I wouldn’t call it unexpected for the R5II.

FYI...the R5 II is shipping with availability from B&H, Adorama and Amazon. If interested in extra batteries, rumor has it that B&H was given the most LP-E6P batteries.

I cancelled my preorder of the R5 II. No doubt it is an amazing camera, but I am currently happy with the R5 MkI. If I see enough features that I want down the road, I may change my mind.

I did order a LP-E6P battery and received shipment notification. I am curious if it will prevent FPS from dropping in the R5 MK 1 as the battery charge drops. The LP-E6P has the same 2130 mAh as the LP-E6NH, but with 8.4 V vs 7.2 V. My theory had always been that as the E6NH battery charge decreased, there was a lag coming from the cells to maintain the full charge that the R5 detected and slowed fps. At a higher V, there is more potential energy available to the system, so you may not see this issue.

B&H has indicated it will require a firmware update for the R5. We'll see.

After using both extensively during the Olympics, Jeff Cable is selling his R5, R3 and will be buying the R1, R5 II, and also the 100-300 f/2.8.

Jeff Cable's Blog: How DID the Canon R1, Canon R5 MKII and new lenses REALLY do at the Olympics?

A very positive review by from a birder perspective
https://youtu.be/KeoYvTJcOYg?si=0oas_TIb9rubuXDZ

It's nice to see that the startup time has been greatly reduced --- that is one of my current pet peeves with the R5. And based on the improvements with rolling shutter, I'd probably use electronic shutter all the time (with the shutter click sound turned on). He describes the camera as an R3 with 45 MP, and he states clearly that he loves higher MP cameras. But 24 MP is really quite good (I once made a 6' print from 20 MP). So I'm leaning more to the R1 than the R5II right now (although I haven't pressed the shutter button on that just yet).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan Huyer

(although I haven't pressed the shutter button on that just yet).

---

I see what you did, there. I did press the shutter button on the R1, literally 1 minute after pre-orders opened.

Anyone want to take a shot at explaining this:
Are we splitting pixels 4 ways and why would that even matter.
Wouldn't you just end up with 4 pixels together with the exact same makeup?
In-Camera Upscaling

For instances when 24MP isn't enough, DIGIC Accelerator processing now enables In-Camera Upscaling, which uses deep learning to double the number of pixels both horizontally and vertically in order to produce a separate 96MP image in about 10 seconds. This upscaling can be done after the original image is shot and can also be performed at the time of cropping images in camera, saving time compared to generating a 96MP image and then cropping it afterward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

Anyone want to take a shot at explaining this:
Are we splitting pixels 4 ways and why would that even matter.
Wouldn't you just end up with 4 pixels together with the exact same makeup?
In-Camera Upscaling

For instances when 24MP isn't enough, DIGIC Accelerator processing now enables In-Camera Upscaling, which uses deep learning to double the number of pixels both horizontally and vertically in order to produce a separate 96MP image in about 10 seconds. This upscaling can be done after the original image is shot and can also be performed at the time of cropping images in camera, saving time compared to generating a 96MP image and then cropping it afterward.

---

You pulled from the R1 description, but in a nutshell this is just fancy upscaling. Photoshop does it (old school, with bicubic smoother interpolation), Topaz Gigapixel AI does it (with AI), and now Canon does it (with deep learning, which is probably similar to what Topaz does but more accurately named by Canon), too. Yay.

So is it a worthy upgrade from the R3?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

So is it a worthy upgrade from the R3?

---

Honestly not sure yet, since I really haven’t used it. First event I shot in December, I hadn’t finished configuring the R1 so I used the R3. Then everyone in the house successively caught pneumonia, including me. Since DxO pushed RAW support back from December to February, I’m not in a rush (I eschew DPP). But I’ll let you know. Brant seems to like his.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

So is it a worthy upgrade from the R3?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Honestly not sure yet, since I really haven’t used it. First event I shot in December, I hadn’t finished configuring the R1 so I used the R3. Then everyone in the house successively caught pneumonia, including me. Since DxO pushed RAW support back from December to February, I’m not in a rush (I eschew DPP). But I’ll let you know. Brant seems to like his.

---

Being worth an upgrade from an R3 is pretty specific and personal. If there is something you would like to know, I am happy to give it a go.

The R1 is a phenomenal camera. But like every other high end camera, there are a lot of individual parts that add up to the overall sum. A few points:

• EVF is bright and large. Much better than the R5s which is really good to begin with. You may not notice if you just pick one camera up, but I have recently been switching between cameras and it is very noticeable.
• The resolution difference is not what people want it to be. I am not having a problem resolving details of small birds 10-14 meters away with the R1. I am still working on comparative images but the few I have done remind me back when Nikon came out with the D800 back in 2012. 36 MP and people were talking about everything having to be perfect to take advantage of all that resolution: great lens, perfectly still/tripod, faster shutter speeds, etc. While I know a lot has changed working with the R1 and trying to compare it to the R5 is reminding me of those discussions. It is difficult to take advantage of all that resolution. The smallest things will throw you off. In short, I am finding the 24 MP in the R1 to be very good.
• Buffer. Haven't hit it, but I've posted the best buffer comparison I have seen is posted in the R1 thread.
• AF is great. Not perfect. Do not believe the "game changing" language. But it is better than the R5, which was already very good.
• Control over fps in ES is great. I am set for 7 fps, 12.5 fps and 30 fps.
• AF-on/Smart controller is great. I really like this and do like the dual levels.

I could go on. Let me know if there is something specific you are interested in.

Regarding the R3, Bryan's rundown is the best I've seen. Overall, I do get the sense that you should only upgrade from the R3 if you are looking for something specific that the R1 offers. It seems to have been concluded that the R3 has slightly better DR. But nothing that would really be noticeable unless you are specifically doing a side by side test, as Jared Polin did here. But then the R1 does have some advantages. While I have not seen a good comparison, theoretically, the R1 should have better AF. The buffer is better. And being able to customize the AF-On/Smart Controller and jump from one set of FPS to another FPS is great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Being worth an upgrade from an R3 is pretty specific and personal. If there is something you would like to know, I am happy to give it a go.

The R1 is a phenomenal camera. But like every other high end camera, there are a lot of individual parts that add up to the overall sum. A few points:

• EVF is bright and large. Much better than the R5s which is really good to begin with. You may not notice if you just pick one camera up, but I have recently been switching between cameras and it is very noticeable.
• The resolution difference is not what people want it to be. I am not having a problem resolving details of small birds 10-14 meters away with the R1. I am still working on comparative images but the few I have done remind me back when Nikon came out with the D800 back in 2012. 36 MP and people were talking about everything having to be perfect to take advantage of all that resolution: great lens, perfectly still/tripod, faster shutter speeds, etc. While I know a lot has changed working with the R1 and trying to compare it to the R5 is reminding me of those discussions. It is difficult to take advantage of all that resolution. The smallest things will throw you off. In short, I am finding the 24 MP in the R1 to be very good.
• Buffer. Haven't hit it, but I've posted the best buffer comparison I have seen is posted in the R1 thread.
• AF is great. Not perfect. Do not believe the "game changing" language. But it is better than the R5, which was already very good.
• Control over fps in ES is great. I am set for 7 fps, 12.5 fps and 30 fps.
• AF-on/Smart controller is great. I really like this and do like the dual levels.

I could go on. Let me know if there is something specific you are interested in.

Regarding the R3, Bryan's rundown is the best I've seen. Overall, I do get the sense that you should only upgrade from the R3 if you are looking for something specific that the R1 offers. It seems to have been concluded that the R3 has slightly better DR. But nothing that would really be noticeable unless you are specifically doing a side by side test, as Jared Polin did here. But then the R1 does have some advantages. While I have not seen a good comparison, theoretically, the R1 should have better AF. The buffer is better. And being able to customize the AF-On/Smart Controller and jump from one set of FPS to another FPS is great.

---

Thanks

As an R5 comparison I think I could have said most of the same things comparing the R3. AF is better with the R3 than the R5 no doubt. I found the eye focus feature annoying and turned it off so if there is improvement I doubt that would matter. AF for me would be the big reason to move to it, I couldn't imagine that Canon would use the 1 designation on an RF body unless they thought it had matched the 1D focus abilities. Actually if I remember correctly when the R3 was released they said exactly that. My R3 has had very limited use, but I could sell it and be half way to the owning the R1.

Honestly I am not sure why we upgrade other that we want the latest and greatest. I have hundreds of pictures from my 1D IV that were phenomenal. I do not think I would be handicapped if I pulled it out today and went out with my 500mm L and took a few bird pictures.

I always advocate that you should shoot to your need. It is pretty easy to see someone with a R3 conclude that their needs are fulfilled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I always advocate that you should shoot to your need. It is pretty easy to see someone with a R3 conclude that their needs are fulfilled.

---

The quest for the best AF and Sensor.
Looking at the definition of "need" one of them is this as none of the others really apply:

a thing that is wanted or required.

With that in mind, it obviously doesn't have the same mp as the R5's
But the R3's is substantially better.
Canon wouldn't put the R1 designation on a body because of the AF system, or so I read.
If the R1 AF is a major improvement over the R3 then it might be worthy.
Primarily fast moving action subjects such as BIF would be the standard as "wanted".

I think you are in need of some longer term reviews of the R1, particularly of those that owned the R3. I cannot help you there.

The early impressions I am seeing is that the R3 is holding its own against the R1. It seems that Canon has emphasized readout speed and the R1 is at 2.7 vs 4.8 milliseconds for the R3. Both are incredibly fast, but part of my thought process on buying the R1 is that this would also help with AF speed. Add in the Digic accelerator and I think there is reason to believe that the R1 will outperform the R3 in certain circumstances.

While I know not everyone likes "Youtube" reviews and some are certainly comically bad, I think Whistling Wings has done a nice job. BYU Photo is also pushing out content. Some of his videos are long, but they are bookmarked so you can jump to sections pretty easily. But, the quick summary, both of those guys have jumped to the R1 and are finding better AF/AF Tracking.

My own experience is a bit odd. I think the 45 MPs of the R5 helps as it seems to find a birds eye better in some scenarios. Yet, the R1...yeah, no doubt it is quicker than the R5. No doubt. Shots where the blue box wasn't even on the bird yet for the first image and I look and the shot is in focus. Is the R1 perfect, no. But where my R5 AF would almost never stay on the bird as it jumped from one point on my branch to another, the R1 is giving me usable photos about 50% of the time.

All that said, the R3 does really seem to hold up. Great camera. As Ron from Whistling Wings says in the finale of the R1 Impressions, R1, R5 II...great cameras. Can't go wrong. Then he included the R3 in a great camera you can't go wrong with.