Canon R5 Mark II is announced

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[Kayaker72]

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.

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[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.

[HDNitehawk]

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".