Canon R5 and Canon EF 500 F/4L IS Mark 1 FPS

[Fast Glass]

Yeah, but I know for a fact Canon is more than smart enough to allow for full performance. The 1DX III can drive it at noticeably faster FPS, and the R5/R6 can allow for 12FPS on the more modern versions of the same lens. To me this is just being typical Canon and crippling something for their own reasons. In this case buying a 13k lens.....

I know I am being kinda harsh, but it's the truth. Especially with how amazing the 1DX III. They certainly know how to make a good product if they wanted to. I remember the same thing with the 7D/5D II with the ridiculous crippling of their video features like not implementing manual controls.

[Joel Eade]

You could be absolutely right .... I don't know enough about the specifics of the technology.

[Karsaa]

Bit offtopic but also it can be seen on the r6 and the cameras own intervalometer. Pretty much useless for somebody like me who needs fast and reliable intervals on the time lapse shooting.

But there is a solution, if i use r6 with syrp genie mini, i can pretty much use what intervall i need to have even panning motion timelapses. So yeah, not entirely happy witht the solutions they have on but luckily i am able to tackle mine atleast.

[Kayaker72]

First of all, thanks Joel and JW for running the test. Hopefully Nate found it useful.

Yeah, but I know for a fact Canon is more than smart enough to allow for full performance. The 1DX III can drive it at noticeably faster FPS, and the R5/R6 can allow for 12FPS on the more modern versions of the same lens. To me this is just being typical Canon and crippling something for their own reasons. In this case buying a 13k lens.....

I know I am being kinda harsh, but it's the truth. Especially with how amazing the 1DX III. They certainly know how to make a good product if they wanted to. I remember the same thing with the 7D/5D II with the ridiculous crippling of their video features like not implementing manual controls.

Hmmm...can't agree with you here. And, to get to what I suspect is the point quickly, we do all know a primary difference between a "1" and "5" body here and that is the 7.2 V vs 10.8 V battery. We also know that the R5 drops from 12 to ~9 fps even with modern lenses in "H+" mode at ~60% battery life remaining and that the 12 fps is not even available with older batteries, it has to be the new LP-E6NH battery. The explanation I have read for needing a fully charged battery is that even the new LP-E6NH cannot charge the necessary capacitors quickly enough as the battery charge gets lower. This is actually common, if you think about it, say with the recharge time of a flash gets longer as the batteries get lower.

I would even consider it an expectation that the older circuitry of the 500 Mk1 is less efficient/more demanding than more modern circuitry of the 500 MK II. I think it stands to reason that with that additional demand, the time to charge certain capacitors in camera is slower, even with a topped off battery. What makes this interesting, ES not slowing down, makes it seem that moving the mechanical shutter is the main capacitor that needs charged.

I consider this to be more of evidence of the razors edge that Canon operates certain systems. Also, that for future releases, watch to see if you can control the ES fps, as with the R5 it is 20 fps or nothing (for now).

Also, you could likely pick up a MK II Big White for far less than the $12k you are mentioning. I know I did . Just looking at it, KEH has a used 500 II rated EX+ for $6.8k.

[HDNitehawk]

With the 5D II and 7D the AF was slower with the V1 500mm than the 1D series. With the V2 500mm the 5Ds R and 7D II is noticeably slower than my 1D IV.
Why would it be slower with newer batteries and technology?
I think Fast Glass's theory would be easy enough to test.
Shoot without IS on see how many fps you get.
Shoot with AF off and IS off and see how many fps you get.
If it is still low I would give some credibility to FG's conspiracy theory.
Besides, Canon is in the business of selling new equipment.
Supporting lenses first released three decades ago might be counter productive.

Keeping in mind that the battery, AF and IS when the Version 1 500mm was replaces was just 10 fps with the 1D IV.

[Kayaker72]

With the 5D II and 7D the AF was slower with the V1 500mm than the 1D series. With the V2 500mm the 5Ds R and 7D II is noticeably slower than my 1D IV.
Why would it be slower with newer batteries and technology?

Of course, the 5DII/7D/5DsR and 7DII all have the same base LP-E6 battery with 7.2V. All 1D batteries are 10.8V.

In all your scenarios, the 1D AFs faster than the other cameras because it has the better battery. Mind you, this is not what Fast Glass was discussing, that was fps on the R5.

But, staying with this, some basic equations:

Work (joules)= Force x distance
Power (watts) = Work x time
Volts = Watts/Amps

Or, putting that all together Volts = Force x distance x time / Amps

So, for the same amps (just to hold something constant), the more volts you have, the more power you have, and you can do the same work in less time, for example, move a focusing element the same distance. Thus, a 1D body should AF faster than a "5" or a "7" body. I have seen people contest it, but I share your experience, I think 1D bodies do AF faster.

Using the above equations to discuss Fast Glass's question, I would focus on power. There is going to be a max power that the camera can provide. Say it is 10 watts. Say the 500 Mk 1 requires 6 watts to operate, but the 500 Mk II only needs 4 watts. To operate the shutter (fill the capacitor) on the R5 as well as all other functions at 12 fps requires 5 watts of power while at the measured 7 fps Joel observed, the R5 only needs 4 watts of power. Well, with the 500 Mk 1, you simply do not have enough power to run at 12 fps (6+5>10). Period. But it has enough power to do the 8 fps (6+4 = 10). The 1DX III can run it as 10.8/7.2 = 1.5 x 10 watts = 15 watts, which is more than enough power. With the 500 Mk2, the R5 can power 12 fps up until the battery drains (40-60% in my experience) after which it drops to ~9 fps.

Of course, I do not know the actual values, but the fact that even modern cameras drop fps as the battery drains tells me that if anything is requiring extra power, such as an old lens, you should not expect to get those 12 fps.

I think Fast Glass's theory would be easy enough to test.
Shoot without IS on see how many fps you get.
Shoot with AF off and IS off and see how many fps you get.
If it is still low I would give some credibility to FG's conspiracy theory.

Keeping in mind that the battery, AF and IS when the Version 1 500mm was replaces was just 10 fps with the 1D IV.

That test may tell us something about Fast Glass's theory if the issue is the IS. And, it might be.

But, if say the issue is something else, say that the 500 Mk 1 has a heavier focusing element (as force = mass x acceleration), if the distance the focusing element has to move is longer on the Mk1 vs Mk2, or if this is simply about the efficiency of the circuitry (modern electronics are typically more efficient), then I am not sure the test would tell you much.


All this said, and sure, maybe there is a Canon engineer someplace laughing because they used the cripple hammer. I am just saying that there is a very plausible alternative.

[HDNitehawk]

Yes but if you are using MF and no IS and it is still slower then it tells quite a bit. The battery / power to run the lens wouldn't matter.

Why would FPS and AF even be tied together? The camera apparently has enough power to focus. Do you have to achieve focus before the R5 takes a picture?

I think Canon saw no need to give much consideration to a lens that was released in 1999. Is it slower because of power or Canon crippling the lens so we have to buy a new version? Both actually make sense.

[Kayaker72]

Yes but if you are using MF and no IS and it is still slower then it tells quite a bit. The battery / power to run the lens wouldn't matter.

Ok, yep. That could tell you something. Aperture control, overall circuitry, etc could still be issues, but AF and IS are likely main power draws.

Why would FPS and AF even be tied together? The camera apparently has enough power to focus. Do you have to achieve focus before the R5 takes a picture?

Mostly power supply as it does AF between frames. But my initial thoughts here were not directly AF vs fps, but rather overall power vs achievable fps with the R5 having the smaller battery than a 1D body. I am going off part of what I read, and part my own experience and thoughts on what I've seen. I have read that the reason the R5 drops FPS as the battery draws down is that certain capacitors cannot charge quickly enough at lower battery levels. Because electronic shutter is at 20 fps and that does not appear to be impacted by the 500 MK1, I am assuming the primary power demand other than the lens is the capacitor that drives the mechanical shutter.

The other piece of anecdotal evidence that the 500 MK 1 is a power hog, at least on the R5, is the video I linked earlier in this thread. For whatever it is worth, they burned through batteries and complained about battery life using the R5 and 500 Mk1. This does not fit my experience with the 500 MK II nor others I have seen use the R5 with MK II big whites. For reference, I was shooting all day, 4,500 to 6,500 images per day, at Laguna Seca and only once did I need a 3rd battery. The other two days were 2 batteries.

[Joel Eade]

I could repeat the crude test with AF and IS off but even if the frame rate came up I don't think most folks would be pleased to shoot that lens with only manual focus and no IS just to achieve 12 fps.

The copy of the Version I 500mm that my son has is a really really good one ... it is razor sharp on the 1D MKIV but it is actually heavier than my version II 600mm. He is creating some great images with this combo and because he is 25 years younger than me and in great physical shape the weight is no issue for him. I'm pretty sure he would not like it if he had to use manual focus all the time and no IS.

Anyone who owns a version I 500 and is contemplating an R5 maybe should consider trading for an RF100-500 or a newer version 500 or 600mm.

My 600mm II works great on the R5. At Laguna Seca I was shooting 2500-3000 images daily with the battery grip and no battery changes.

Another thought .... perhaps the upcoming R3 and/or R1 will achieve max shutter speed with the old 500. Looks like these will be similar to 1D bodies with the bigger/more powerful battery.

[Karsaa]

If you are using any other that the new version of the canon's battery on R6 and i bet on R5 also, you are not getting the maximum speed. I have 3 batteries, the new one, all speeds works fine then the 1 older version, speed drops, not able to use h+ even with full battery and same with the 2 generations older battery. ONly the newest version on R6/R5 gives the maximum performance.

LP-E6NH is the working version.