(Megapixels) War...what is it good for....

[Kayaker72]

Have you tried the 500mm with an adapter on the M6II ?

IMG_1491 by kayaker72, on Flickr



So, yes, I have. But I am going through something right now. I used the M6 II with the 500 and various extenders in April. My impression was mostly favorable. I found that it worked fairly well with the bare lens, ok with the 1.4x TC, but then not very well at all with the 2x with the issue being ability to AF. I gave myself several weeks of shooting exclusively with the M6 II to really get a feel for it. But, as soon as I switched over to the 5DIV, even with the 1.4x TC, and I was like...ahh, this is better.

But, given the Yellowstone trip (assuming it still happens, taking a second look at everything this weekend), I wanted to test out the M6 II with the 500 mm again to make sure I would be satisfied and....it is killing it. The AF is much better. I am hardly missing any shots. It is even more consistently critically sharp than my 5DIV.

I am not sure what the difference is, but I have two theories, either of which would say something about DPAF: 1) There is something about the quality/quantity of light effecting AF speed and accuracy. In April, I shot a lot with clouds, right after the rain. Here in July, still some clouds, but generally brighter; and 2) I am shooting subjects that are closer. Due to the leaves on the trees, I am having to wait for the birds to hit my feeder, which is ~30 ft. In April, most of my shots were in the trees, which range from 50-70 ft. So, either DPAF is more sensitive to light than PDAF, or it has more difficulty with smaller subjects. This actually plays considerably into my thoughts on the R5/R6 for wildlife. Granted those are DPAF II, but I know AF speed for PDAF speed is sensitive to brightness and am wondering if DPAF speed and maybe even precision is very sensitive. I'll work on that at some point.

I should also note, in April, it could have been user error (). While I was shooting 1/800th-1/1250th, etc, that may not be enough for 1.6x plus, 1.4x = 1,120 mm equivalent. At the time, I was thinking "IS", but I'll shoot more today at 1/2000th or faster. This high of pixel density will likely pick up everything.

I have been shooting only at 500 mm in July as the feeder is closer and, honestly, the birds at 30 ft fill up a good amount of the frame, especially the WP. But, I'll add the 1.4x TC today and post some results.

[Joel Eade]

That sounds very promising ....

My current kit is great for most of what I want to do BUT I'm still having trouble resisting to pre-order the R5 and the 100-500mm and an EF adapter.

I figure if I don't like it I can return it right????

[Kayaker72]

That sounds very promising ....

My current kit is great for most of what I want to do BUT I'm still having trouble resisting to pre-order the R5 and the 100-500mm and an EF adapter.

I figure if I don't like it I can return it right????

Of course

I will say, I think I may have discovered the difference in my images from April until July. In April, I was really testing the M6II and wanted that 14 fps (it is really ~13). So, I had the camera's Drive Mode set in "H+" mode. Toward the end, I noticed that the camera refers to "H" mode as "tracking priority," so I figured a bit better AF even though it slows you down to 7 fps. So, April was most 14 fps in "H+" and July has mostly be 7 fps in "H" mode. I forgot I even made that change.

Well, doing a quick test this morning and in terms of the general image, you cannot see a difference, but zoom into 1:1 and the very fine details, like a birds eye, and I am seeing a difference. The "H" mode and 7 fps is hitting the eye in very sharp focus much better than the "H+" mode.

I just thought of this last night, and have only done two tests (one on static target, one on a flower in a slight breeze). I'll test out on birds later today or tomorrow.

Is this relevant to you, perhaps, I believe the 12 fps in the R5 is in an "H+" mode and they do have an "H" drive mode. If this is correct, I am going to consider the M6 II more of a 7 fps camera for small birds. I am not sure what the R5 "H" mode is, but if it has the similar issue, probably more of a 6 or 7 fps camera.

[Joel Eade]

I think frame rate reduction is a potential issue .... do you think H mode would also reduce the frame rate using electronic shutter?

The last day or two I have been thinking if the R5 autofocus tracking performs well with adapted EF lenses it could replace both my 5DS-R and 5DMKIV.

It could take a very long time to find out and may not be fully possible without trying it for myself.

[Kayaker72]

I think frame rate reduction is a potential issue .... do you think H mode would also reduce the frame rate using electronic shutter?

I am not sure. I have only minimally tested the electronic shutter.

The last day or two I have been thinking if the R5 autofocus tracking performs well with adapted EF lenses it could replace both my 5DS-R and 5DMKIV.

It could take a very long time to find out and may not be fully possible without trying it for myself.

When phrased like that, yes, I think so. Most importantly, yes, the best way to find out would be to test for yourself. As you have mentioned with the 1DX III, it is a bit surprising how few reviews have really come from wildlife photographers. With the R5 having characteristics that lend itself to video, portrait, event, etc types of photography, I am expecting most reviews to focus on its strengths there. With B&H's 30 day return policy, that is actually fairly easy to test yourself.

But also, yes, I expect the R5 to be able to replace both your 5DIV and 5DSr. Canon is pushing out the concept that the R5, with modern filters, will "out resolve" the 5DSr despite having a few less pixels. In terms of DR, as the 1DX III is just a smidge better at lower ISO than the 5DIV, I expect the R5/R6 sensors to be very similar to the 5DIV, but just a smidge better and a significant jump, especially at low ISO, over the 5DSr.

So, even slightly better resolving power over the 5DSr, the DR of the 5DIV, higher FPS, eye/head/face/animal auto-AF....yes, the R5 should be able to replace, and be a bit better in numerous ways, those two cameras.

[Jonathan Huyer]

As you have mentioned with the 1DX III, it is a bit surprising how few reviews have really come from wildlife photographers. With the R5 having characteristics that lend itself to video, portrait, event, etc types of photography, I am expecting most reviews to focus on its strengths there. With B&H's 30 day return policy, that is actually fairly easy to test yourself.

I have to agree --- the 1DX III has not been widely endorsed by wildlife photographers. There is a smidgen of reviews on YouTube, but not a big rush to embrace. The intended audience is really sports photographers, and with no sports happening these days you're just not hearing anything about the camera at all since the initial release. A friend of mine who is a Canon ambassador and pro wildlife photographer got one to try out for a bit, and he said he was struggling to get the AF to work for him. Now he's testing the R5 and he seems to enjoy it quite a lot. As for me I'm still really quite delighted with Mark III and find it a very nice step up from the Mark II. It's too bad that 20 MP is now considered inadequate (especially when compared to the R5). If nobody knew in advance that a particular image was taken with a "low" MP camera, they'd probably never realize it.

[Joel Eade]

My interest in mirrorless (as opposed to upgrading to the 1DXIII) was originally to fit a niche .... that being a smaller, lighter rig with stellar AF tracking for birds in flight.

I wasn't so much motivated by sensor resolution and was seriously considering the Sony a9 (also 20 mp).

I have been satisfied with the resolution of the 1DX. You (and others) have certainly proven that glorious images and large prints can be done with 20 mp.

The low light performance of the 1DX is truly amazing too but it does struggle with AF tracking quite frequently when shooting birds in flight and believe me I have tried extensively with different AF settings. I have shot side by side with D850 and a9 users who were getting way more sharp images shooting the same subjects. I just have no doubt those bodies have much better AF tracking.

The R5 interests me mostly because of it's reported AF tracking.

If the R5 can provide AF performance equivalent to the a9 with more pixels too then, to me, that is a win-win because of more "crop ability"

If it is the consensus that the R6 is significantly better at AF tracking or that the reduced ISO performance of the smaller pixels is a big problem I would certainly consider the R6.

One more point, for my purposes the R lens line up is not yet optimum: I wish there existed an R mount 500 or 600mm f/4 DO lens. (a built in 1.4 TC would be really cool)

So, if I take the plunge, I will probably try my existing EF lenses first.

[Kayaker72]

If it is the consensus that the R6 is significantly better at AF tracking or that the reduced ISO performance of the smaller pixels is a big problem I would certainly consider the R6.

You know, that is really interesting. Is tracking better with larger pixels or smaller? We might learn by comparing tracking between the two. It did surprise me that EOLs like Rick Sammon was given the R6. I actually assumed that was due to the 600 f/11 and 800 f/11 he also reviewed and Canon wanted him to demonstrate the more entry level package.

As for ISO performance between the two, my money is that there is negligible to no difference. Before microlenses, smaller pixels let in less light because of the physical sidewalls of the pixels was essentially negative space. The light just bounced right off of it and was not captured. But, since microlenses capture that light and redirect it to the actual pixel well, I haven't seen much difference in noise between same sized sensor. Microlenses are not 100% efficient, nothing is, but they are really good and getting better.

So, the R6 has the same sensor as the 1DX III. It is every so slightly better than the 5DIV. I was attributing that to some ever so slight enhancement in sensor tech. But, if it is the same sensor tech, and pixel size difference, then the R5 should be slightly lower. What gets interesting is would the R5 actually have a better noise pattern due to the smaller pixels? Time will tell.

[Jonathan Huyer]

The low light performance of the 1DX is truly amazing too but it does struggle with AF tracking quite frequently when shooting birds in flight and believe me I have tried extensively with different AF settings. I have shot side by side with D850 and a9 users who were getting way more sharp images shooting the same subjects. I just have no doubt those bodies have much better AF tracking.

Absolutely yes --- that was a sore point with me and my Mark II. The Mark III is a massive upgrade in tracking, hopefully bringing it up to (or even beyond) the level of the D850 and a9. But I have no doubt that the R5 will be just as good. Maybe even better, since you're focusing with the sensor instead of a separate system. And the firmware for the focusing logic sounds like it is more advanced, in terms of subject detection.