No need to apologize. As a wildlife photographer who is presently using the R5 I need to hear an honest review/opinion on the R5 version 2 b4 I decide whether or not I should upgrade. You've given me a lot of info both positive and negative and that's what I need to hear to help me make the upgrade decision. Many thanks. Keep up the great videos...
I'm confused basically I have plan of getting R6 mark 2 just 4 months used with RF 24-105 4L and RF 100 2.8 + 256 GB card 300MB/s In 3465 USD. On the other hand R5mark2 is 4265 USD. I also don't have any lens. There are 2 options first is buy the 2 lens with R62 or 2nd option is R52 with Rf50 1.8... later on I'll upgrade my lens 24-105.. is it worth to sacrifice more money. I want 4,5 years future safe. If you're in my place what you'll do?? Is it good offer or suggest me any other option!! I don't have any gear now .. I used to have 5dmark3 in 2016... But I changed my field as currently working in the restaurant business industry. I want to target small restaurants and small businesses for social media and products photography, as I have planned to give free 30 sec, 1 min reels for Snapchat, tiktok and Instagram. Just to build my portfolio on Instagram and other platforms. Plus I'll do street photography as I'm living an expat in Saudi Arabia. I belong to Pakistan..
@@iabdulhaseeb Sounds like you want the better body and you will regret it, if you don't buy it. You said that you want to be future proofed, but all the companies will get something out that you will want as well, that's their way. Consider the file sizes, also because you are going to make videos, consider if your PC/laptop is fast enough, consider disk space/size and just think about it for a week or two, don't let the hype get the best out of you, let it sink and then decide.
I appreciate your candor when reviewing cameras. So many You Tubers skip over a camera's weaknesses or excuse them. They sound like fan boys rather than objective reviewers. When considering investing hard earned money, it's much better to watch your videos because of your candid, truthful approach to reviews. Thank you.
My favorite things about wildlife photography are the experiences you come away with and the stories behind the shots. I really like that you added the bit about your trip to the wetlands. It drove home the fact that despite the disappointments with the new camera, it is still capable of giving you an amazing and wonderful time capturing moments while enjoying nature!
Very true mate and that is the most important thing for sure, I have taken some wonderful photos with the camera and I am sure I will take many more going forward. Cheers, Duade
I "upgraded" to the R5II from the R6II about three weeks ago and I really wish I had taken this video more to heart when viewing it before my purchase. After these past three weeks, I now share the same disappointment as you do, but for me, this is a deal breaker. Even lower ISOs seem to have too much noise. It really makes me appreciate my R6II even more. Hopefully, I'll be able to sell my R5II soon and not lose too much money in the process. Update: Just sold mine and didn't lose any money in the process, due to high demand...phew!
If you’re looking for low noise on high ISO, 24mp sensor is much better than 45mp sensor. This is just physics. 24mp to 30mp is the sweet spot for 35mm sensors. I own both the R5 and R5II. My previous EOS 5DsR is the worst sensor camera I’ve owned, I can’t get past ISO800!
@@16afoongAs you mentioned you own both R5 and R5 Mark II, can you please share how your experience is with R5 Mark II in low light scenarios? Is 12800 too noisy and loses details after noise reduction (let's say in topaz) ? I mean will the photos be usable with these high iso's?
Nice analysis. I went from a 5DIV and R7 to the R5M2 and here is what I found after 8k photos. The R5M2 does have some tracking issues with smaller birds but it's very hit or miss. Sometimes it tracks them fine other times not. Large birds no problem. If I use the Canon RF 100-500 with the 1.4x TC on the R5M2 it tracks small birds worse than the R7. If I use the Canon RF 200-800mm it's quite a bit better. Compared to the R7 it seems the tracking issue on the R5M2 is that the animal eye detection algorithm isn't quite as good. This can likely be fixed in firmware. I agree with the sensor noise. It's worse than I expected but I have gotten some shots as high as ISO 8000 that are actually very good. It's quite a bit better than the R7 at the higher ISOs. 12800 is not as usable as I had hoped but I can make it work in a pinch as long as I don't crop too heavily. The other issue I found is that the highlight tone priority is not as good on the R5M2 as on the R7. Blown highlights are routine on the R5M2 and it's very easy to overexpose highlights even with the HTP turned on, so I have to be really careful about exposure settings compared to the R7. There is basically no noticeable rolling shutter on the R5M2; it's terrible on the R7. As for overall picture quality, I've gotten shots with the R5M2 that I could never have gotten with the R7 or 5DIV. So for me it's a good upgrade. I don't do video much as all so probably will never have it overheat. I spent almost 2 hours one day in 95F heat taking shots and the camera worked fine no issues.
Thanks for sharing your real world experience and great to get the comparisons. I agree it is a wonderful camera, just wish the noise was the same as the R5. Cheers, Duade
Fine video and great shots, Duade. I've definitely noticed the additional noise on my R5II compared to my old R5. Haven't pushed it too much yet, but I'm happy to say so far the Enhance denoise in Lightroom cleans it up pretty nicely. What I'm eagerly awaiting, though, is an update adding the R5II to DxO Pure RAW 4--that's been my go-to NR software and I'm hoping it will remove any hesitancy to shoot at 12800 or even 25600 when needed.
Excellent review, as always. I have been shooting the R5ii for two months. For that time, my main subjects have been Concourse d'Elegance (auto shows), fine art, and portraits. And for those genres, as late as 9:00 a.m. on clear days -- with light the R5 can handle without pause -- noise has been a real problem. My first morning out at a car show with the R5ii was shocking. I wondered if the camera was broken! I am weary of having to run every single image through Denoise. So . . . today, I ordered a new (original) R5 and I'm listing my R5ii for sale. One of the greatest strengths of the R5 is a weakness for the mk.ii.
Duade you help make our decisions a lot easier when we have too choose witch camera gear to purchase. I’ve been wanting a 30 megapixel or better full frame camera from Canon for awhile now. Been waiting to see if Canon has got off their ass in producing one. The R6iii & R7ii or hints of a R9 are probably years away for this senior. But after watching this great video of how you delved into the pluses and minuses of what’s on the market now, I probably will go with the R6ii, and some good RF lenses. Your a big inspiration to all photographers trying their best to getting the perfect shot we all hope to get. All the best mate, wishing good health and peaceful adventures. Brian
@@noelchignell1048 Hi Noel, currently I’m using the 90D with the Sigma 150-600 C lens and I find 32 megapixels on the camera is the sweet spot and allows for cropping very good. My concern with 24 megapixels is you can’t get close to wildlife and you always need to do some cropping. I do like everything else about the R6ii maybe this Christmas when Black Friday arrives sales for this camera will be better too purchase. Brian
I have acquired two R5 MK IIs, and I’m just starting to use them in my wildlife and sports photography. I am encouraged to hear that I am not the only one experiencing the lock-up problem. I’ve had that occur on both cameras and had to do battery removal reboots. Hoping, as you do, that a firmware update will fix this issue. Thanks for your lengthy and informative report.
Thanks Steve, seems to be a universal problem that should never have made it to the production version IMO, fingers crossed for a quick firmware upgrade. Cheers, Duade
Similar thing still happening on R6 Mark II with the latest firmware... if Canon couldn't fix the issue with older models, I would not assume they can fix it with this one. I guess we just have to accept Canon does not make quality products anymore, as used to in the past (my 5D III and IV had zero issues for example).
it happened during initial r5 firmwares as well back when it was launched but been fixed for a while. it froze up once with my r5m2 but I guess they‘ll fix it too
Once again Duade your comments are so valid and no beating about the bush that there are things that are disappointing about the new camera, I fully expect that like the original R5 the firmware updates will sort out a few of the problems but I do agree that Canon should do more testing before releasing the camera especially with the camera locking up, that really should not be happening. Myself like others took advantage of the price drop of the original R5 and been blown away how good this camera is, will probably look at the Mk II in a couple years time but lets not forget that the original R5 when it was released had a lot of problems and is now a completely different camera after firmware updates and I expect the same will happen with the MK II over time ~ Thanks again Duade for these honest UA-cam videos that you put so much effort into ~ keep up the great work
Thanks for the comment, the video represents my real world experience, apologies if you think I got some of the specs wrong, always happy to hear others opinions. Cheers, Duade
Thanks for the feedback Peter, totally agree re the locking up, they should have learnt from the R5, but it appears they have not. Hopefully a firmware upgrade will fix the lock ups. Have fun with the R5, a really good value camera. Cheers, Duade
Great review. I purchased my R5 a few weeks back when prices started to drop in anticpation of the Mark II. I'm not a wildlife photographer, I shoot more product and lifestyle photos. I've been very happy with my R5 so far for my work and good to hear I didn't wait to purchase the Mark II. Dinamic range is so important for the photography I do.
Great news for me having an R5. 🙂 Greetings from the Netherlands. 🙂 And keep making these great UA-cams, you are improving a lot these years for sure. 🙂
One correction: The R5II is not saving 0.5s except at 30FPS. It is always saving 15 shots regardless of FPS. It is only saving 0.5s when at 30FPS. At 20FPS it is going back 0.75s, at 15FPS it goes back 1s, 10FPS back 1.5s etc. Of course will do less if you don't hold precapture down long enough to get those full 15 shots at your given FPS. Therefore shooting at 15FPS is going to end up with a lot of garbage pre-capture shots. I find 0.3s-0.5s ideal for bird takeoffs and other bird pre-capture photography (experience with the A9III where you can at least adjust these things)....therefore at 30FPS, the pre-capture behaviour on the R5II is good enough. But at 15FPS you are going back 1s and that is just going to be a lot of shots before anything happens and 50% less chance to get those awesome frames during a bird takeoff or some other unexpected action.
and the great thing is, there's no way for you to easily find this out, because the camera doesn't mark the first shot after the precapture like sony cameras do
This disagrees with all of the reviews I have seen to date, which all say it is 0.5s, and so the number of shots does vary with the FPS selected. I do not have access to verify it, but it has been well reported.
@@tonyb9882 Well I've tested it myself and it is very easy to verify by just shooting your phone's stopwatch. Really easy to see if you go to a slow FPS like 5FPS and you will see 3s worth of time in the 15 pre captured shots and you don't overshoot by more than one shot so can get accurate data. There is also a multi-page thread over at FM forums where we have all verified the same. All the reviews seem to have just tested it at 30FPS and there you get 0.5s. They all just assumed the rest. Maybe when you get the camera in hand you can see for yourself!!
Thank you very much for all those disadvantages in the camera that you found. I also shoot wildlife - but I only make portraits in flight of fast-flying ones: swallows, swifts. I was alerted by the fact that when taking off from a rock, the swallow 's wing shape changed , and this is a rolling shuttle . I suffer a lot with this on the electronic shutter on my FZ 1000 ll, there is no such thing on the mechanics. But it's not all about mechanics, it ends and then you change it, and we have a problem with that... I hope that Canon will watch your reviews and fix the flaws in the firmware....Good luck and Good Health to you.
I've also experienced the same issue with the AF on my R52 not tracking the subject closely in pre-capture. It often seems to be stuck on the perch or focused on random parts of the background. I thought it was just me, so am glad that you've raised this issue Duade. Hopefully this can be fixed with firmware updates? But I do think the pre-capture feature is a game changer, and also really like the eye control AF, which I've found to work quite well for me (which I use as part of my triple BBF setup). Thanks for another fantastic, really informative and helpful video! 🙏👍
Thanks for sharing your experience Valerie, the more people who raise issues the quicker they will be sorted out hopefully, have fun with the camera, Cheers, Duade
Great video, Duade, and not negative at all, but very honest. I too have experienced the same issues with the camera and thought I was the problem, but clearly that's not the case. As a bird shooter, I like to get out in the evening, or sometimes early morning, and that of course means lower light and pushing that iso. I have exactly the same experience as you with both the R5 and the R5ii - the R5 performs much better in low light. It is very disappointing to upgrade 'down', when one outlays a small fortune in gear expecting to get an improved version of something only to be let down. Like you, I'll live with it, but it makes me quite gun-shy about purchasing the next 'upgrade', if there is one.
I used a Canon 1 Dx Mark II for all photos/videos of my Macaw family since 2016. After watching various bird photographers here on YT using the Canon R3, I decided to rent one for a week. The eye tracking autofocus is truly beyond words so I decided to buy the R3. Uses the same batteries as the 1 Dx and the body size is perfect. Great video, thanks for sharing.
Hi Duade... a great a very fair review.... but nothing here to convince me to part with my R3.... The R3 is not a good wildlife camera .... its a great wildlife camera and a true joy to use and produces quality images throughout its DR. ... and its does not over heat ! :-)))
Thanks Martin, yes, my question that is hard to answer is why is the R3 so good in terms of dynamic range and speed etc yet the R5II has taken a big hit, Canon have shown they can do both with that camera. Have fun with it, Cheers, Duade
Congratulations for your thorough review of R5MkII. Coming from R5 I consider this new model as a great improvement. Regarding the lack of autofocus tracking in combination with pre-capture, initially I had the same problem with the tracking set to Locked-on. Then I got much better results setting both tracking and acceleration to +2 (in AF manual of course). In this way the AF, not being constrained to the initial position, tracks the bird as it leaves the perch instead to stay locked on that silly empty twig. I'll be looking to your comment on this.
Thanks Duade for the honest and informative video. Over the past year, I have rented Fujifilm and OM 1 Systems cameras with telephoto lenses to test them as possible replacements for the "getting heavier by the day" Canon equipment, R5 and RF 600mm f4. Nope, compared to the R5, their low light performance was seriously lacking. So, now I am testing my new R5 Mark II and, so far, its low light performance has been sub par compared to the R5. In response, I have set max auto ISO to 3200 and, based on preliminary results, have been forced to try out settings that bring the ISO down to 1600 or lower, which is going to involve slower speeds (more blur) and lots of photos (too many). On the positive side, I think a lot of these issues will be improved with firmware updates and Adobe getting its Lightroom and Photoshop software updated. AND, we will all learn to maximize the Canon R5 Mark II potential. Today, I am going to process some Mark II photos on Canon DPP 4 to see how that compares to Adobe, and also will be taking a lot of jpgs to see what that brings. Lastly, I will keep my R5 and continue using it in low light situations. Cheers, glad to see you are recovering. Wildlife photography is great!!!!!
Sold my R3 went to the R5II. The noise was def better in the R3, but couldn't be happier with the R5II, AF is far superior and the preshot is awesome. I also still have an R5 and havent noticed my shots being worse in high ISO in the R5II.
Awesome review. Thanks. I have the R5 version 1. I as super happy with it. I love the high ISO/image quality. Not sure I need to upgrade just yet. Maybe I will wait for version III.
Your UA-cam video is spot on. Your critiques are a spot on, positive and negative. You stated well the positives. The negatives were patently obvious to me when I began shooting the mark two versus the original. I shoot raw auto, with the 100-500, 1.4 extension. I shoot manual with auto iso. I post process in Canon DPP4. Then I’ll use other programs if needed. The photos and general are noisier than theoriginal R5. The bokeh is noisier. I shoot electronic shutter, but I cap iso at 3200. I did the same with the original. I tried capping it at 6400, hoping for a better image quality performance, but I soon realize that I had to move back to 3200. You take more shots and better shots with the pre-capture and the auto focus, but the shots you take sometimes are noisier. Again, your video and title are spot on. Keep up the good work. One other thing. In the original, I set the camera default auto focus to spot focus, the little square with the dot in it. I liked having access to the old DSLR spot focus with precision, like in the original. If you do that in the Mark two, Then the subject detection will gray out and default to no subject detection at all. It took me a few times in the menu to figure this out. So I set the camera default auto focus to the little box and I program one of the back buttons in the button programming function to the little box with the dot in it. This way I can choose animal Subject detection. The camera is more complicated, so the menu is more complicated and it takes some getting used to. I just returned from a trip to the Carolina coast shooting a lot of birds and I am processing them now. The auto focus is great, but there are a few shots that I’ve noticed that are noisier. Overall, the camera performed very well, but like you stated, there are limitations with this camera. Generally noisier bokeh than the original. Good luck on the batteries.
Thanks for sharing your experience, good to hear from actual owners of the camera. I agree that the overall improvments like precapture are fantastic but the extra noise is a bummer. Cheers, Duade
Generally, I would consistently achieve “creamy” bokeh with mki, and “sand-papery” bokeh (about 320 grit) with the mkii. In fairness, did employ standard noise reduction in camera with mki. Tried same setting in mkii to no avail. Going through about 20k images took down at coast. Most good but rarely creamy bokeh.
Duade, I didn't find your comments to be negative, but rather honest, and I appreciate that. Photography gear has always been compromised in one area or another. It is hard to find gear that dose all things well. I have the R6II and was pleased to see how high it scored on the high dynamic range chart. I do wish the sensor was bigger than 24 megapixels (compromise), but it is the most well rounded camera I have ever owned, and was putting high hopes on one day owning an R5 ii. It is through really honest reporting like yours that help shape those decisions. Just last week I upgraded the firmware of my OM system Om-1, and it would blow the focus system of the R5 ii out of the water based on what I was seeing on that video you showed, but I couldn't help wonder if the lens wasn't keeping up with focus rather than the camera itself (again compromise).
Thanks for your reply Duade. I tried to buy the R5 Mkii and enquired about extra batteries after a recent trip to Sydney because of the price. However, I may just check things out with our local camera store who I usually try and support. Thanks for your great info and advice. Actually, I do crop with my R6, but do try and get as close as possible. I am definitely not in your league with my bird photography but enjoy the stalking and experimentation and am quite happy with my keep images (I know you and Jan wouldn't be). I am trying to improve and enjoy that also. So, thanks once again for what you do, and my extra enjoyment is viewing other Birders images. Thumbs up to all.
Thanks Ian, have you considered a second hand R5? It is still a very good camera and the price has dropped considerbly since the R52 release. Or wait for sales on the R52, Canon are always doing sales from time to time. Cheers, Duade
Having bought the R5 not long ago because I was tired of waiting of the R5 mkII (and it was cheap price too) , hearing that it is under performing under poor lights makes me numb knowing I may have avoided disapointment. I find myself using my R5 quite a lot under poor lighting and hearing that makes me not regretting to have skipped the R5II . Thanks for your sharing.
The manual does mention in the precapture section: “Subjects may be out of focus if there are sudden changes in the distance between subjects and the camera while you are pressing the shutter button halfway.”
@Duade You mean you hadn't read the complete manual Duade... 😂😅 Remind me, how many pages in the manual.. 😮 Great that it has been acknowledged by Canon , well pointed out.
As always. a very honest and competent review. I really appreciate it - thank very much you, Duade. My R5 II arrived a few days ago and I had no time yet to test it extensively. I've been struggling for a long time to upgrade from my trusty R5 that never had let me down on all my trips to Africa or to the High Arctic etc.. Preburst options and the reported even snappier and stickier AF made me bite the bullet and sell my R5 to go for the successor. I had also watched Ian's overall pretty enthusiastic review of the R5 II though he mentioned a bit loss of shadow detail compared to the R5, too. That said, the equivalent value of the R5 on the used market becomes more and more absurd and out of proportion if you need to sell the camera to reduce the price for the upgrade. There's kind of a bargain hunt mentality rather than the willingness to pay a fair price for a camera that had been regarded a high end product a couple of weeks ago. That's why I decided to sell the R5 before its value will drop even further and order the R5II instead. Now, in perspective of the concrete DR issue that I've seen at Bill Claff's sensor analysis and a few other reports - shortly after the sale of my R5,- I somehow regret not having sticked with my R5. I'm shooting wildlife, birds but also landscapes. The R5 II is optimized for video and speed, - more targeted to sports and at some point maybe to wedding shooters (the action programs and registration of people are pretty worthless for nature photogs, IMO). My feeling and disappointment are exactly the same as yours. Though I rarely need ISO 12800 and normally don't shoot in the Rainforest, you don't want a step back in IQ for a € 5000 cam - even if it's not huge. I didn't know either that the pre-burst functionality obviously doesn't include the servo tracking mode. That's an additional disappontment. I don't think that this can be changed with a firmware upgrade. Anyway, I don't want to talk the R5 II down before I have tested it personally and still hope that some of the new features and updates wil offer a benefit in the field. But from today's standpoint so far, I probably would stick with my R5 instead. Wolfgang
Thanks for the feedback Wolfgang, I apprecaiet it. The R5II is better in pretty much every way, I was just a little disappointed with the extra noise but it is not a dealbreaker. I will continue to use the camera and take more photos before my final review, Cheers ,Duade
Thank you for your review that addresses what works and what doesn’t. Your comments and perspective are appreciated. Plus I loved your photos. Good shooting to you! If you were fishing I would say “tight lines”.
Hi Duade, the issues you are experiencing are the main reason that I never buy the first production run of any electronic device, especially cameras. Sorry it has to be you, but I'm glad someone is putting these new cameras through there paces to find these issues for the rest of us. You always do a great job in your reviews, very professional and fair. I'm not sure if you had this experience with your R5, but on occasion I have forgotten to turn off the camera when changing lenses, and then the camera would lock up. I also had this happen with my R3. Other then then that I have had no issues. Right now I'm fine with my R5. I may revisit the R5ii in about a year as an addition, not a replacement for my current R5. Keep up the great work!
Thanks Mark, I am happy to be the guinea pig and you are dead right. Getting the R5 now for half what I paid for it makes it a great value camera at present. Cheers, Duade
Thanks Duade. I haven't gotten the r5ii yet, but I will. I really like the pre-capture feature on my OM1m2, and I'm looking forward to using that on the R5m2. And, compared to 4/3 sensor OM1m2, the R5m2 has great dynamic range. And compared to the to the R5, it looks like that the focus acquisition is a fair bit better. Based on this video, however, I'm going to keep my R5, at least for a while, after getting the R5m2 to see if I really 'need' the increased dynamic range in some situations. I'll keep the OM1m2 too because it and the 300F4 is such a light hiking/biking kit. As to the pre-capture maintaining focus as bird comes toward the camera, I've got that problem with the OM1 as well. Hopefully Canon can address the issue in a firmware update, but even if they don't, pre-capture is still awesome in capturing the initial act of leaving a perch. And, if the bird remains in the focal plane, you get additional keepers. Fortunately, the 45mp sensor on the R5m2 allows you to pull back a bit so you can keep the bird in frame and then crop later if you need to.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and all very good points, I do like the camera and I am sure it will improve with firmware upgrades. Have fun when it arrives, Cheers, Duade
Thank you for your updates on the R5 Mark II. I have an R5 still and a Sony A1 and now will start looking for an R5 Mark II but since I live in the northern hemisphere I may wait till spring since Pre-capture will be my main reason for the upgrade. Take care.
Hi Duade. Your settings for birds worked a treat for floodlit rugby last night. Three buttons really helped and the spot and track is great. I'm resigned to a bit of de-noising and even at ISO 10,000 Lightroom gave me some good results. Many thanks for the tips.
Well, that was my first complaint to Canon sales rep when I went out first day to shoot. The noise recovery was shockingly bad, coming from 5D4, I was expecting more than this. I was pretty much laughed at by few people, saying user error. I will test it tomorrow with 4000 ISO and see if that might perform better.
Thank you Duade for all your highly informative videos. I picked up my R5II the day of release to replace my 5D MkIII. I have the same high ISO problem with noise as you have experienced and now I've viewed this video I'm pleased it wasn't just me but I'm annoyed that this wasn't addressed before release. Sure, denoise software can eliminate much of it but it's one more chore in post. Coincidentally, I was thinking about the battery shortage this morning and was pleased to find that, when I saw the video this afternoon, we had the same view. Canon shouldn't have released the camera without adequate stocks of batteries, knowing that the R5II chews up power with all its extra features.
Thanks Gareth, totally agree and thanks for sharing your real world experience, the battery situation is very poor from Canon, don't release a camera that needs a new battery then tell us there are none available. Cheers, Duade
I currently have the R5 mk1 and was looking to upgrade. Having seen your review along with several others I've now decided that stepping sideways and up a bit to the R3 is the better option.
G'day Garry, the R5II is still a very good camera and with the proper precapture it works very well. The R3 is a nice camera but the R6III is due early next year with the same sensor and proper precapture so perhaps that will be worth waiting for. Sorry to muddy the waters, Cheers, Duade
You perfectly expressed my same disappointments, Duade. In fact, I had thought of contacting the retailer I bought the camera from to return it as a sample defect. Now I know it's not just me or my particular camera, especially that pre-capture lack of autofocus. And, like you, I'm disappointed as well in the lack of high dynamic range. I had the original R6 and thought this would be a VERY good upgrade but it's just barely in reality, especially in light of the cost of the camera and I wonder if I might have been better off just upgrading to the R6ii.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, always good to hear from other owners of the camera. I am still happy with the camera and it has a number of improvements but just a little disappointing in those areas. Cheers, Duade
Good to hear an honest opinion. I do wonder how compared results would look in DPP. Adobe LR is well know for the fact that it needs updates in order to get camera rendering and profiles right. I'm sure there's a difference between the camera's (one reason I'm holding out to see what the R1 brings to the table), but software might make it look a bit worse than it actually is
Fair warning and apologies to all: this is a pretty lengthy post, but I think it's needed. Thanks for the interesting analysis, Duade. I'd urge you and others to take pause and dig deeper when reading and interpreting technical performance charts, such as the excellent "Photons-to-Photos" Dynamic Range data and charts you reference at the 16:55 point in your video. Firstly, let's not lose sight of the forest through the trees: the ISO values of 5,435 and 4,846 that your graph displays for the Canon R5 and R5Mk2, respectively, equal a ONE-THIRD OF A STOP difference in sensitivity. As the data indicate, DYNAMIC RANGE performance at these ISO's is virtually IDENTICAL for all three cameras in question (see chart in the Photons-to-Photos link at the bottom of the next paragraph, which is the SOURCE DATA for the graph you display in this video). Additionally, although this was not a discussion about NOISE per se (it was about how increasing ISO values adversely impact DR), nonetheless, I hope we can all agree that the noise performance of both the R5 and the R5Mk2 at ISO 5,435 and at ISO 4,846, respectively, are comparable, and quite capable of producing professional results with current high-end cameras (like the R5 series) and pro-editing software (PS/LR; DxO; Tpz; etc.). Secondly, the P-to-P data you quote, while accurate, describe the sensor dynamic range behavior at the median dynamic range value for each sensor (in other words, how each sensor is performing, in terms of dynamic range, WHEN SAMPLED AT ITS MEDIAN DR VALUE, which is 6.5 stops of DR, the median (not mean) value between zero DR and maximum DR for each sensor being measured here; note that median rather than mean values are used here in order to account for the NON-LINEARITY of the plotted performance curves at various sensitivity settings -- particularly those BELOW ISO 640, where the greatest degree of variation and non-linearity occur). People can study your original source chart of the dynamic range data you reference, here: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm. DXO also has a similar and helpful analysis here: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm. When we examine the "Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting" chart in the attached link (which is from the same source you reference in this video), we find the following data: Canon 5Ds: Max. DR: 9.76 -- ISO 5091 yields 6.49 stops of DR (ISO 5,043 yields 6.5 stops of DR) Canon R5: Max. DR: 11.85. -- ISO 5091 yields 6.60 stops of DR (ISO 5,435 yields 6.5 stops of DR) Canon R5Mk2: Max. DR: 11.45 -- ISO 5091 yields 6.43 stops of DR (ISO 4,846 yields 6.5 stops of DR) The data in the third column standardize ISO values, rather than dynamic range values, and in so doing, it clarifies how NEGLIGIBLE the performance of ALL THREE of these cameras are, in terms of dynamic range performance WHEN SAMPLED NEAR THEIR MEDIAN DYNAMIC RANGE VALUE of 6.5 (a dynamic range variation between the three cameras of only 0.17 stops AT ISO 5091). Likewise, the fourth column, which lists the ISO values at which dynamic range declines to a value of 6.5 stops, reveals that the difference in ISO between the R5 and the R5Mk2 is 192, which represents about one-third of a stop difference at these ISO values - perhaps not inconsequential (and definitely not desirable), however, still very manageable and completely viable. All of this is relevant and applicable here because this data is the SOURCE DATA from the Photons-to-photos website referenced in the video at 17:10, and the somewhat misleading or inaccurate interpretations which followed. From the above data (and from the chart from which these data were culled - refer to URL, above), we can make a few meaningful observations: 1. While the new R5 and R5Mk2 sensors have about a 2.09 and 1.69 stop greater MAXIMUM photographic dynamic range, respectively, than the much older 5Ds does (that's not surprising; I include the older 5Ds here only because the 5Ds was included in your analysis and comments here, too), the actual difference in MAXIMUM dynamic range between the R5 and R5Mk2 are exactly 0.40 stops of dynamic range, which I think we can all agree is pretty negligible - especially considering how quickly and easily a 0.40-stop advantage in dynamic range is forfeited with even small errors in exposure; post-processing editing technique and proficiency; and of course, the rarity with which most of us today are PRINTING our images on photographic paper (a tricky process to consistently "get right," and a severe test of dynamic range preservation and fidelity). In other words, the data here DO NOT indicate what most would consider a meaningful difference between the two R5 models, as far as MAXIMUM DR potential is concerned (0.40 stops difference, as tested here, in favor of the R5), and hence, the comment "Surprisingly, that old DSLR 5Ds actually has better dynamic range than the R5Mk2," is misleading. The data in the SOURCE chart (referenced in the link I provided, above) DO NOT support the conclusion that the 5Ds has either a greater dynamic ranger, or better dynamic range preservation at high-ISO's, than either of the R5 cameras. Instead, the data show TINY (albeit unexpected) differences between the 5Ds and the R5Mk2 AT ISO 400; ISO 4,000; and ISO 6400: the 5Ds produced dynamic range values of 9.39 stops (ISO 400); 6.96 stops (ISO 4,000); and 6.34 stops (ISO 6,400), while the R5Mk2 produced 9.27 stops; 6.78 stops; and 6.14 stops, respectively, a difference in favor of the 5Ds of only 0.12 stops; 0.18 stops; and 0.20 stops, respectively, between the two cameras, at ISO 400; ISO 4,000, and ISO 6,400. Obviously, these differences are not very meaningful, because they're not indistinguishable to the human eye, and in addition to being effectively invisible, these values are so small as to be made moot with even the tiniest errors in exposure; editing; and/or printing; 2. The R5 dynamic range drops more precipitously (more non-linearly) from base ISO 100 through ISO 320, than does that of the 5Ds or the R5Mk2, HOWEVER, at ISO 320, a very odd "spike" occurs in the DR curve, where the R5 somehow INCREASES its dynamic range capture between ISO 320 (9.52 stops of DR) and ISO 400 (10.6 stops of DR), at which point (ISO 400) it resumes its mostly-linear decline in dynamic range performance, effectively joining and overlapping almost perfectly the dynamic range curves of both the R5Mk2 and the older 5Ds, from about ISO 1,280, all the way to the maximum ISO's of 102,400 (ISO 12,800 max. for the 5Ds). In other words, the more complete and accurate story told by the data in the video (referencing the linked charts) reveals that the ONLY ISO value at which the R5 produces a meaningfully or even visibly greater dynamic range than the R5Mk2 is SOLELY at ISO 400, immediately after the aforementioned "spike," where the R5 delivered 10.6 stops of DR, whereas the R5Mk2 delivered 9.27, which is 1.33 stops more dynamic range achieved by the R5, versus the R5Mk2, AT ISO 400 ONLY -- see chart). Curiously, the R5Mk2 also has an inexplicable INCREASE in DR performance between ISO 400 (9.27 stops of DR) and ISO 500 (9.75 stops of DR), although this "spike" is of a lesser magnitude than the aforementioned "spike" seen in the original R5; and finally... 3. The most notable and unambiguous finding when we study these charts is that THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL (VISIBLE) DIFFERENCE IN DYNAMIC RANGE PERFORMANCE BETWEEN ANY OF THESE THREE CAMERAS (and especially not between the R5 and R5Mk2) AT ANY ISO (except at ISO 400, where the R5 delivered 10.6 stops of DR, versus 9.27 stops of DR delivered by the R5Mk2). The DR curves of ALL THREE CAMERAS literally overlap each other from ISO 1,280 right up to their maximum ISO limits; and, in fact, THE DR CURVES OF BOTH THE R5 AND THE R5Mk2 OVERLAP EACH OTHER COMPLETELY, FROM ISO 800 ALL THE WAY TO THEIR MAXIMUM LIMITS OF ISO 102,400, so...ISO impact on DR is virtually IDENTICAL at basically ALL of the ISO's birding photographers commonly use today (i.e. ISO 800 and beyond). Please understand that I'm not refuting your FIELD OBSERVATIONS here, Duade; I'm merely pointing out that the specific DYNAMIC RANGE AND ISO DATA that you refer to do not support your conclusions, for the reasons I've detailed above. I believe if you incorporate the chart I've linked above (which is the source data for the chart you present in your video: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm; and DXO data here: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm), you may see a broader, more accurate (and less disconcerting) perspective on the issue of ISO and dynamic range performance. Final thought: even though I've gone pretty "deep into the weeds" in my comments here, myself, it's important that we all remind ourselves from time to time, that WHAT REALLY MATTERS MOST is not the technical and theoretical minutia, but rather, THE EVOCATIVE POWER (THE EMOTIONAL IMPACT) OF OUR IMAGES. Those hardest on, or most demanding of, photographers, are...photographers themselves! The general public (and most clients) aren't pixel peeping; they're not measuring dynamic range, or scrutinizing noise levels. They're simply REACTING TO OUR IMAGES EMOTIONALLY...or not.
Thanks for such a detailed comment and I apprecaite the time and effort that has gone into your post. It makes for very interesting reading. I don't have the knowledge or expertise in regards to the technical aspects of DR and the charts etc. All I am basing my views on is my in field experience. To me and most other people that used the R5 and R52 extensively in the field suggest its a noticeable difference between the two. The reason I think it stands out is in low light on the R5 people were shooting at 6400 or 12800 ISO. The two cameras at ISO12800 look very different as even a .4 of a stop actually looks a lot different if that makes sense as I assume 12800 on the R5 might look like 18000ISO on the R52? So the higher the ISO the more pronounced any small differences are is my guess as to why people instantly notice a difference when shooting the two cameras. And I agree whilst NR can assist, you do lose some details in the blacks and just overall detail. It is just frustrating to me that the IQ went backwards, and whilst I can concur that having a stacked sensor is the reason, it is hard to swallow when the A1II and R1 have such good DR with both being stacked. Admittedly both cost considerably more. In summary, for me there is a noticable difference in the field between the two cameras and anyone upgrading to the R52 should be aware of that. Now is it a deal breaker? No, because I will still use the R52 for all the other benefits and as you mention we have NR. Overall it was just disapointing and I had some buyers remorse when noticing this in the field. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful reply, Duade. It's an interesting topic, and I can certainly understand the frustration with what may feel like (in certain circumstances such as high-ISO noise performance), a slight step-backwards between the R5 and R5-2. While the high-ISO noise performance of the R5-2 may be a disappointment to some (perhaps many), the Dynamic Range response of each of these cameras is effectively identical, particularly at ISO's above about 640 (as the charts indicate). The real takeaway here seems to be that, for many people, increasing NOISE is more harmful to image quality (and more immediately perceptible), than decreasing DYNAMIC RANGE is, which isn't surprising, as high noise levels obliterate image DETAIL more dramatically than low dynamic range does. I appreciate the content you're creating and sharing on your channel - well done! Nice conversation with Jan that you two just posted a few hours ago, too! Thanks again, Duade. Kind regards...
@@infiniteeye9155 My pleasure, I appreciate the time you took to post your knowledge. I think the R5II is a great camera and I will happily continue using it. I thikn once you get used to a certain noise level any change to that can seem exaggerated and you just notice it becuase its different. I had just not expected it to be worse so it taints your view a little and you lose a little bit of perspective. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, Thanks very much for the video. In the R5 MkII manual under Pre-continuous shooting in the 'caution' drop down, one note says "Subjects may be out of focus if there are sudden changes in the distance between subjects and the camera while you are pressing the shutter button halfway.". So not a fault, it's the way it works, I'm afraid. I just got my MkII yesterday and out today for the first time and got some great shots with it. Managed to get two spare batteries as well. But haven't used any extreme ISO settings yet. My heart sank when you said about the high iso issues as it's the one thing I loved about my R5's. Oh, dear!
Thanks for sharing, congrats on the extra batteries, mine are still on backorder. That is interesting what the manual says there. Have fun with the camera. Cheers, Duade
I have the R5M2 and no crashes so far. I haven’t had a chance to really push it much though. I’m also disappointed in the lower dynamic range but the new speed and features are amazingly good and, overall, I really enjoy using it.
I didn't expect you using the whole area autofocus for slow subjects. Instead, expand af area is quite nice because it allows to narrow down the focus area and yet some automatic detection going on (e.g. detected faces will override the area to expand). That mode is also what Canon recommended at Photopia. With center focus and "set to eye tracking" bound to buttons on my thumb, I never feel the necessity of using the whole area autofocus that goes full auto.
Very astute observation and quite right...in the AF tracking demonstration birds were very far away, often turning their backs to the camera, so it probably should be testing other possible subjects for faces and eyes. These things are somewhat obvious. Our need for the instant gratification and very little thought is what is weakening our experience and love for the photographic experience.
Duade, congratulations on some excellent photos! And thanks for pointing out your frustrations with Dynamic Range / High ISO problems. I, too, upgraded from R5 (which I passed on to my wife) and for all the reasons you mentioned. I am having very similar issues, as well. It's frustrating. The AF jumps around once I lock on to a subject and I get exasperated when it starts jumping. I start thinking that I must have made an incorrect setting, and so I redo everything over and over again. In my well-invested position, Canon's reputation is slowly going downhill. I hope they can develop some helpful firmware updates to address these issues. It makes me wonder if marketing is more important to them than true quality control. In my opinion, the battery issue that you spoke of is a major embarrassment for them. All these great features on their newest camera but not enough batteries to go around. Oh, well! At the cost of $80USD per unit, one would think this battery would have been in large supply long before the release of the R5Mk2. And now it's being back-ordered? Come on Canon, get a clue. You have a lot of loyal users. I used to be one of those loyal users, but now....? Regardless, I still love what I'm doing with my photography. I just don't particularly like being an uncompensated BETA tester for a muliti-billion dollar company. Keep the faith, sir!
Thanks for sharing your experience, it is always great to hear from actual users of the camera and your expereince mirrors mine. I agree the battery situation is very frustrating, I asked Canon for an eta and they are unable to tell me when the batteries will be available. Trying to shoot with one battery is getting very old. Cheers, Duade
If you are in the US the batteries are available at BC Camera, B&H and Adorama. Fortunately, I did not have any problems finding batteries here in the US. When there are shortages, I search out the smaller companies with luck.
I will never understand why the reduced serial speed and the audio feedback were never added to the R5. As a software developer, I'm convinced that it would be a very small thing to add. The lack of improvements by FW by Canon is the reason that I recommend Nikon rather than Canon to people who start with photography. Unfortunately I'm locked in due to the expensive lenses I own. PS: If the pre-capture is unable to track the subject, then it is pretty useless.
It would certainly be more useful if it could track better when a subject is coming towards you, but even in this example he got a couple nice shots that he wouldn't have been able to get otherwise. I've used the feature on the R7 and it's a must-have feature for my next camera not exactly "useless" to me. I agree with the lack of firmware updates for sure. They could easily fix the R7's firmware so that pre-capture would output individual RAW files instead of one big file that is cumbersome to extract images from. Even so it's so hard to give up your lenses and make the switch once you have invested enough in their lenses.
Thanks for the honest review! I was surprised how well the A7R5 sensor ranked. I love this Sony, but I enjoy the Canon menus and overall aesthetics. Low fps on the A7R5 has been limiting as well. When Canon opens to 3rd party FF glass I might look more seriously. Beautiful pictures, would love to visit Oz, thanks for sharing.
Thanks for your honest analysis Duade. Disappointing conduct by Canon again re: releasing products with problems they were aware of or should have been aware of, shades of the R7 release. I suspect it may be a strategy of exploiting brand loyalty and using customers to identify problems, much cheaper. Now gives me concerns over the rumoured R7 2 with a stacked sensor. If that too has reduced dynamic range and greater noise I doubt it will be worth an "upgrade"! and the OM system may be a better option for me.
Hey Jerry, the guy with the camera is back. Act natural, man. Precapture is a very useful feature. I started using it on my R7, which I totally forgot was there until it was brought up in an R5ii discussion. Yes, I do find sometimes the AF has trouble maintaining lock on very fast moving subject. I got terns doing breakfast dives, and I managed maybe 70% hits with RAW Burst mode. But having to select which shots I want from some proprietary file off the camera is a pain. So I'm jealous of R5ii users with the new iteration of this feature.
Great caption, yes the implementation on the R5II is an improvement which is great, I would still like the option to choose the length of precapture though. Cheers, Duade
it's simply best to use a mechanical shutter at high iso, and then just wait until PureRAW 4 releases an update to R5 Mark II. Canon mentioned in the update that the quality of photos at high ISO may improve, they announced many updates, so we have to wait patiently and see
Another interesting and thoughtful video, thanks, Duade. I answered some questions I've had about the performance of the new R5ii. After shooting with the R7 / RF 100-500 for a year, I purchased a used R5 just after R5ii was released - $2,300 with less that 300 shutter activations! Talk about a value proposition! I can be quite content with the fantastic results that camera and lens combo is giving me for some time to come, no pre-capture notwithstanding.
For people like me who shoot non-moving subjects, image quality really is the ONLY thing I want to see improved in every new camera. It bothers me a lot if dynamic range is sacrificed for a faster readout speed. The problem with mirrorless cameras in general is that the sensor is read out constantly even during composition. That inevitably warms up the sensor an introduces more noise the longer you use the camera in a shooting. I wish Canon had still kept a line of high end DSLRs in its portfolio. For my area of photography mirrorless cameras have a lot more downsides than advantages. Didn't camera manufacturers tell us all the time that stacked sensors would reduce noise, as they shorten the circuitry? It seems the fast frame rates have eaten up that advantage, because they limit the processing time for each pixel. I would be happy to buy a camera that can only to five frames per second or even less, but in exchange has very little noise. The goal is to shoot at low light handheld and still get minimal noise that can easily be removed. Many places around the world to not allow tripods without a special permission. So low light performance is essential. Is the market for a high end camera for still subjects really too small for Canon?
@@skyscraperfan No speedbooster, the longer flange of EF lens ( 44mm vs 26mm GFX) allows bigger image projection. Also the electronic adapter like the Fringer EF-GFX Pro has all the lens correction profile included. Now some EF lens works better than other of course. What's great is that the lens become wider and faster, for example the Canon 85mm f/1.2 becomes a 67mm f/0.9, a true MF 645 look ! :)
@@normangrafaviationphotogra4548 They may have a great dynamic range, but they could have even more dynamic range, if dynamic range was prioritized. You "need" as much as you get, because at low light you could always use more dynamic range.
@@Ultrarmx R6II is a wonderful upgrade to the OG R6, in regards to autofocus, but the new R5II absolutely blows even that out of the water. The DR hit is negligible compared to the massive AF and user comfort upgrades of the R5II
Thanks, I think its great we have both options tbh, both cameras are very good and we are free to chose which one bests suits our needs and budget. Cheers, Duade
Absolutely have the same experience with out of depth of field focusing with pre-capture. That being said the R5 had the same problem if you were fast enough to get subject. My conclusion is that, although the AF is much faster than R5, it is still not fast enough to follow a bird that leaves a perch quickly. I also wish pre-capture time was slightly longer. Typical reaction time is around 0.2 seconds, so you really capture starting 0.2 seconds after the bird has flown.
Such a useful video for me, thank you. I was almost being tempted back, but I think you have saved me some money. I have the R5 and was also running an Olympus system. I ended up selling my long lenses for the Canon and getting the big white OM lens and OM1body. The OM system lets you choose on their pre-capture system whether you want it to continue to focus on your subject or not. I never use the scenario where it stays on the original focus. There are a couple of things I miss about the R5 - the double back button focusing and the ability to crop. I discovered you have to be much more skilled in framing the subject if you can't crop... still working on that ha ha! Beautiful photos. It brought back happy memories of time spent in Australia - loved the birds... sadly in film days when all I had was a little Olympus XA2 with me 😊
I'm really happy to hear you report this (well I am and I'm not!) I only just made the transition from a 5D MKlll to this camera and really didn't know what to expect. At first I was disappointed that I would have to go back to using LR in order to view my images as nothing else seems to read the RAW files and then I saw the noise and thought, am I doing something wrong!? I really hope they fix it because it really is quite bad. Otherwise it's an incredible camera and I love shooting with it.... just the dynamic range and the noise!!!
Duade, thanks for your down to earth and honest assessment of the R5ii. Canon should be calling to sign you up and pay you as their product field tester. Sorry to hear about the R5ii's poorer dynamic range IQ results... 2 steps forward... 1 step back. Glad to hear that the R5 is still holding on its own - a true generational camera.
Thanks mate, yes, that would be great, I was probably a little critical in this video and it is a wonderful camera, I was just a little annoyed at the time. I agree the R5 might be Canons greatest ever camera for its time. Cheers, Duade
I have watched this video a second time as I recently tried to buy the R5Mii in favor of the R6Mii (I am presently using R6 1). I could order the R5Mkii, and it would apparently be available i about 5 weeks. However, there was no due date to buy extra batteries, and they weren't expected soon. I must admit I find this extremely disappointing with this no extra battery issue. I am not sure at this stage what to do and am again thinking of the R6 ii. Time will tell. Thanks for your honest review Duade. I really appreciate it.
G'day Ian, I just recently got my extra batteries, it was annoying but finally got them. The R5II is a great camera and I am enjoying using it. The less DR is a bummer but its not terrible, the other upgrades make up for it. If you shoot a lot of low light sports or indoors and dont crop a lot the R6II sensor will have better low light performance. But you do get a little bit of rolling shutter. Depending on your location you could possibly rent the R5II and have a play and compare to your R6. Cheers, Duade
Hey Duade many thanks for your review. You covered the overheating issue and suggested there was no issue. I have a completely different experience. I am bitterly disappointed having come from the R5 and thinking this would be fixed in the R5 Mk2. I have had my camera overheat on me x2 at x2 airshows I've attended. This morning I went birding and it overheated to the point the camera shut down and I got a black screen. I was in photo mode and I didnt once use the video mode. I was shooting for a 45 minute period, with frequent breaks in using the shutter and pre-capture and back button focus. I only shot a total of 3682 images in Craw on a fully manual mode. I am so disappointed in my purchase. I do not think this camera is fit for purpose if it has such a glaring problem. This failure for me is the elephant in the room. Everything else about the camera is brilliant but if you cant use it because it overheats what good is that. I spent approximately 15 minutes with the battery out and the battery door open. When it was cooled down sufficiently, that I could begin looking through the viewfinder I noticed a white circle of light in the image and this circle of light expanded to the edges of the frame until the overheating bars were reduced. Please if someone could explain what is going on?
I also note going through my images that there appears to be a vignette on them - this may have been during the overheating phase just prior to shutdown as it did the reverse of this when it was cooling down?
I have the Nikon Z9 and it doesn’t bother me the little more noise because I know it has compared to the Original R5 but that is not a deal breaker.. the Z9 is an incredible camera that said the Canon R5II has better DR than the Nikon Z9 so it’s amazing. That’s why I kept my Canon R3 so I could use it in low light ⭐️
Actually, based on side by side testing the Z8/Z9 is better in buffer, rolling shutter and most importantly dynamic range. m.ua-cam.com/video/8r1uDeYeLhM/v-deo.html&pp=ygUKWjggdnMgcjVJSQ%3D%3D
@Duade Thanks Duade. Actually I am a bit confused between R5 Mark II and R5 - which one to buy for bird and wildlife photography. The low light performance of R5 is compelling but the R5 Mark II's Pre-capture is a game changer. I also heard that R5 Mark II's AF is better than R5. Because of these 2 main reasons maybe I am a bit inclined towards R5 Mark II. It'd be great if you could compare how bad the ISO performance is in the real world and if it's going to be a deal breaker.
@@sayansdesire G'day, I think the R52 is the better camera, precapture and 30fps are very nice to have. The faster sensor and no rolling shutter wobbles is also nice. It is shame re the dynamic range but we just have to work through those. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Thanks a lot for sharing your insights. 👍 Do you mind sharing which software you prefer for noise reduction - DXO Pure Raw or Topaz Photo AI ? I mean, I am just trying to understand which one cleans up better without compromising image quality/sharpness.
@@sayansdesire I mostly use Lightrooms Denoise AI now to be honest. A also sometimes use Topaz on just background but Adobe does a much better job now. Cheers, Duade
Hey Duade, interesting about the R5II DR issues that you are experiencing. Other channels (Whistling wing photography, Wild Alaska etc) aren't mentioning this. Also, the AF stickiness. Only Jan has mentioned this alongside yourself. Everyone else is singing the praises of the R5II's AF performance on "auto" mode. From what I have seen, the R3 is the current king of high ISO performance, and is typically the 2nd best for DR (behind the A1). In theory, DR should be a function of pixel size and the electron well depth of the sensor design and a BSI stacked sensor shouldn't necessarily have a hindered DR. As I have said several times, I honestly believe that Canon is behind Sony in sensor development tech. Canon hasn't even managed to match the near 4 year old A1 (which has 5 more mp!) with the R5II. Canon has no shame - they should have made absolutely sure that basic things like batteries were well and truly stocked to the hilt upon camera release. This is very bad on Canon's part. I mentioned the buffer to Jan on his video a month ago and he felt it wasn't an issue. At 20fps (matching the original R5), the buffer is slightly better, but only slightly. if shooting at 30fps on the R5II, then it matches the R5 at 20fps. Not exactly a big improvement imho and a disappointment. There's no real sane reason why Canon couldn't have improved the buffer significantly other than an artificial cripplehammer to not pull sales from the R1. The same with the R1 having cross type AF (a combination of Canon not being able to produce a 45mp stacked sensor with cross type AF tech and cripplehammer imho). I know I'm sounding like a whinging prick, but if I'm giving Canon my hard earned cash, I expect them to perform. I am a consumer and have every right to demand specs or performance. Yes, Sony isn't perfect - they have held back firmware upgrades for the A1, to the detriment of consumers. The precapture looks like a really good tool, although having to hold down the shutter button to activate this feature is a crappy design imho. It should just give you that 0.5 second upon firing the shutter button. I'm not in the market for the R1 or R5II (don't have the money) and my R3 does it for me, other than being only 24mp, which does hurt me with birding photography. I got a new lifer on Monday - White winged Fairywren! Stoked. Have been to this location 4 times now and had no luck up until Monday. I also got my best image (still not great) of a red rumped parrot, and a zebra finch. Spotted wedgie, pair of BSKs hunting, nankeen kestrel hunting, pair of nankeen kestrels in a different location (with possible nest and as soon as I spotted the nest I backed away quick smart) and spotted a brown goshawk from a distance (and heard its call). So, a pretty nice day overall. No killer images, but it's just nice being out in nature and seeing the birds.
Thanks mate, great comment and I appreciate the feedback, congrats on the White-winged Fairy a wonderful bird that I still need much better photos of. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade I do think the R5II is a better camera, but I also think it could have been EVEN better. Spotted a white bellied sea eagle yesterday, but was too late in doing so and didn't get any good shots.
Try to set the AF menu the Tracking sensitivity on -2 and Acceleration/ deceleration on -1. For me it worked, now it no longer jumps from one bird to another
Thank you Duade for this analysis. It's a great Cam. But: In one week of intense shooting I had that freezing (crashing) at least five times a day. And I'm not able to calibrate the eye detection at all. It doesn't work. I started with the setup file of Jan. He uses RAW video, these files confused me. What is really great: You can register a focus point an call it back with a button you like it to do so. This was limited to the super lenses before.
That’s one of the most annoying thing is if your camera freezes up and you have to take the battery out I remember when I first got an android phone back 10+ years ago. It was the same issue and that deterred me from ever buying another android phone again. Just using that as an example that it really sucks and it puts a bad taste in your mouth when you have that happening and I totally agree. They should’ve had that sorted out same thing with the batteries. It is very disappointing that it has lower dynamic range. I was really considering buying this camera maybe next year but I think I’m gonna hold off and wait till the next version. My canon 5D mark four is still working really well.
Use the eye control in conjunction with the eye tracking AF then the camera will continue to track eyes that are close to where you are looking in the viewfinder!
There are some extremely helpful comments here! After finally selling all my DSLR and EF lenses (except for my beloved old 300D, which is too much of an old friend to dump), I picked up an R6 Mk II and R5. I'd like to add one more full-frame mirrorless to the bag, and I was giving serious thought to the R5 Mk II, but I'm wondering if perhaps the R3 would be a better bet all around.
@@Duade Don't think I'm not considering that, but the price difference is several thousand USD between the R1 and a good used R3. I can take the savings and put it towards more RF glass! It does seem that the R3 would be a better purchase than the R5 Mk II, regardless.
@@adude394 That is a tough one, the R3 to be honest is a beautiful body, and the sensor is fantastic and they are availabe at a very good price at the moment. For pure birding I would go with the R52 as working precapture is such a nice improvement and 45mp is great for birding. The R3 at 24mp and not a proper working precapture mean I would always be reaching for the R52 for me. Its strengths would be very fast sports or very low light. The R62 though is also great for low light, just not super fast sport action. Ultimately it is up to you and what you plan on shooting. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade More food for thought! Thanks, I appreciate that. I do no video, just stills, and I like to photograph birds and other wildlife, flowers, landscapes, that sort of thing.
I’m so glad i bought the R6 m2 because low light was my biggest concern with my full frame setup. I started looking at reviews of newer sensor cameras and even the R5 and quickly realized what I wanted was already out there a heavily discounted in the R6 m2. I have a R7 for wildlife so other features didn’t matter that much to me.
We have r7 an r6 mII and for sure r7 is nice for wildlife but in low light he is very very bad. We were thinking about buying a r5 mII but for big cats low light is important... so still wondering maybe taking a r5 only...
I am very surprised to see the R6 mark ii has better dynamic range than the R5 ii and the R5. I have just made the switch to mirrorless and thankfully chose the R6 mark ii.
Hello Duade! First of all, congratulations on your videos, you do a great job and it is a great help to us. I have had the Canon R5 mark II for a few days and it seems to me that, both in the electronic viewfinder and on the rear screen, some vertical elements that are repeated as a pattern (for example the bars on the balconies of the buildings) . ) have a strange effect. It is as if these vertical elements are illuminated or moving, or a light passes through them, a kind of moiré effect. I don't know if you have had the opportunity to check it in urban photography and if it also happens on your camera. Obviously, this effect is not visible in the photos or videos, only during image capture. Thanks.
Thanks for the excellent reviews and focus setup videos Duade. Having spent 3 full days shooting indoor sport at 6,400 ISO (ice skating) with the R5 II, the plus points are great autofocus (probably well I excess of 95% sharp - would have been even better but for operator incompetence), 30 frames a second - amazing how often a blinking competitor spoils a shot (I used to think the 1DX was good), spot autofocus with tracking, and stickier autofocus. I can put up with the noise at higher ISO (one stop and a bit worse than the R5?). Pre capture was very useful for sport, but I did find it disconcerting as the viewfinder seemed to judder when I was panning - is this a feature? Overall, I am very pleased with the camera. It has capabilities well beyond the skill of this operator. So far Lightroom de-noise or DxO are getting me perfectly acceptable results with the higher ISOs. For my needs, the R5 is a keeper as a second body, but the R3 is going (an excellent camera but I like more megapixels).
When photographing birds taking off on my OM-1 I use the loosest C-AF mode (+2) for precapture rather than the tightest (-2). I also use a shutter speed of 1/4000 and a five-point cross for a target. It works great. Maybe the same sort of thing will work with the R5 II
A friend of mine owns one of those Amazon warehouse resale stores and he called me up a few months back with the Canon R6 Mark II for sale. I did some video work for him and he gave me the camera for $1200!! I really wasn't in the market for it but waiting for the R5 Mark 2 I decided what the hell. I got the camera and by default when you have it on auto ISO. Which is how I shoot manual with auto ISO. The iso goes to 25,600. I limit my cameras to 12,800.. but I literally bought this camera and went straight to a small venue concert which I was hired to film video and pictures for. Shooting the majority of the night on my R5 I decided to pull my R6 Mark II out just to take some fun test shots. When I got home I noticed that 25,600 ISO the R6 Mark II was equivalent to the R5 at 12800!! I couldn't believe it!! The low light capabilities of the R6 Mark II are beyond anything I've ever seen!! The R5 is still my favorite, but I really LOVE the R6II.. I'm using it more ans more with birds now due to the auto focus. But on Special Days when we are chasing Eagles, the R5 is my main camera.. Because of the video, mostly and the 45MP for cropping
Such a great detailed review, thanks for putting in the time. With auto focus, on the R5/R3 there is a sub-menu within each autofocus case that is something along the lines of 'subject switching', this should prevent the AF box switching to a different subject.
Also i'm listening to your comment about the AF not staying locked on to a subject moving front/back. I have the R5 and R3 and I have found this was one of the biggest differences between these two cameras. When shooting F1 and a car is going at top speed entering the frame and going away from me, the R3 is noticeably far superior with quickly catching the car and staying locked on, whereas the R5 doesn't catch onto the car until a good 20 or so meters ahead of where the R3 would catch it. This was the first time I really understood the differences in AF performance between these two cameras, because like you said, when the subject moves horizontally there is virtually no difference.
One point of interest about those dynamic range numbers is that Canon bakes noise reduction into its RAW files whereas some other brands do not. I'm wondering if the R5 II having a lower number is because they have stopped baking as much mandatory noise reduction into their raw files. So while that would lead to a lower quality looking image it might mean that you have more processing headroom. But of course I don't have the camera in my hands so I'll defer to what you're seeing!
Hi mate, I have the R6ii and I've had a couple of opportunities to play with the R5ii and I found the improvements quite modest considering the much higher price so I'm hoping that Canon will be releasing an R6 mark iii soon with a stacked sensor which will be more affordable. It'll be interesting to see how the R1 compares in terms of dynamic range: I've tried out a pre-production R1 at a launch event and I was deeply impressed by it's low light performance. In regards to battery supply Canon has had to send the new batteries out by sea freight as the airlines only allow 1 battery with each camera and no separate battery shipments. Canon NZ told be the extra batteries will reach NZ and presumably Australia very soon. Cheers Noel
Thanks for sharing Noel, that makes sense, hopefully we don't have to wait too long. I look forward to trying the R1 at some stage and yes, an R6III with the R3 sensor will be a very nice camera. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade yes! Arrived last week. Had panic ordered from 3 different stores…now I have all the batteries I’ll ever need 😂 Just in time to shoot a wedding this weekend 😅
Hi, I'm like you a camera tester, I've just started! I ask you to try a dynamic range comparison in high light! overexpose by 3 stops and 4 stops and you will see that the R5II recovers the highlights better than the R5, so just overexpose and you will have the same dynamic range!! Don't forget this comment. Thanks Elia
G'day, thanks for sharing, I think the camera perhaps does some noise reduction in the camera with jpeg whereas it does not with RAW, this will make the images look cleaner. Just be aware you do lose the ability to adjust white balance and recover the whites as well. Cheers, Duade
It’s crazy how these manufacturers trade quality of image for features🤷🏼 I do want the R5II because of the video mostly and the pre capture feature but, I get better dynamic range with my R6 then the R5 hands down. I do bird photography and landscapes as a hobby but, really need the camera to perform in low light for weddings and events. A little disappointed to hear the dynamic issue and the subject tracking problem. Thanks for the video✊🏼 great job as always 😉
It's not negative, as consumers we should know about it, thanks forn sharing your experience with Canon R5 mark ii. I had similar experience with R5 mark I, it freezes often I missed some nice shots.
The problem with dynamic range is that the stacked sensor technology trades off some ofvthe dynamic range for speed... You can't have your cake and eat it. Global shutter is even more detrimental!
Thanks Karl, how do you explain the R3 and A1? Both very fast but both having good dynamic range? I agree that it does appear to be a trade off for many sensors though, the A9III as you mentioned which actually has better dynamic range then the R5II ES and the Z6III is worse etc. It just seems odd that Canon can make the R3 so good. Cheers, Duade
No need to apologize. As a wildlife photographer who is presently using the R5 I need to hear an honest review/opinion on the R5 version 2 b4 I decide whether or not I should upgrade. You've given me a lot of info both positive and negative and that's what I need to hear to help me make the upgrade decision.
Many thanks. Keep up the great videos...
Thanks for the feedback, my goal is to be as honest as I can sharing my real world experience, Cheers, Duade
What was your decision?
I'm confused basically I have plan of getting R6 mark 2
just 4 months used with RF 24-105 4L and RF 100 2.8 + 256 GB card 300MB/s
In 3465 USD. On the other hand R5mark2 is 4265 USD. I also don't have any lens.
There are 2 options first is buy the 2 lens with R62 or
2nd option is R52 with Rf50 1.8... later on I'll upgrade my lens 24-105.. is it worth to sacrifice more money. I want 4,5 years future safe. If you're in my place what you'll do??
Is it good offer or suggest me any other option!!
I don't have any gear now .. I used to have 5dmark3 in 2016... But I changed my field as currently working in the restaurant business industry. I want to target small restaurants and small businesses for social media and products photography, as I have planned to give free 30 sec, 1 min reels for Snapchat, tiktok and Instagram. Just to build my portfolio on Instagram and other platforms. Plus I'll do street photography as I'm living an expat in Saudi Arabia. I belong to Pakistan..
@@iabdulhaseeb Sounds like you want the better body and you will regret it, if you don't buy it. You said that you want to be future proofed, but all the companies will get something out that you will want as well, that's their way.
Consider the file sizes, also because you are going to make videos, consider if your PC/laptop is fast enough, consider disk space/size and just think about it for a week or two, don't let the hype get the best out of you, let it sink and then decide.
I appreciate your candor when reviewing cameras. So many You Tubers skip over a camera's weaknesses or excuse them. They sound like fan boys rather than objective reviewers. When considering investing hard earned money, it's much better to watch your videos because of your candid, truthful approach to reviews. Thank you.
Thanks Sam, I appreciate the feedback, Cheers, Duade
My favorite things about wildlife photography are the experiences you come away with and the stories behind the shots. I really like that you added the bit about your trip to the wetlands. It drove home the fact that despite the disappointments with the new camera, it is still capable of giving you an amazing and wonderful time capturing moments while enjoying nature!
Very true mate and that is the most important thing for sure, I have taken some wonderful photos with the camera and I am sure I will take many more going forward. Cheers, Duade
Same here. While I enjoy the photography. The moments and memories of taking the photo are more enjoyable.
I "upgraded" to the R5II from the R6II about three weeks ago and I really wish I had taken this video more to heart when viewing it before my purchase. After these past three weeks, I now share the same disappointment as you do, but for me, this is a deal breaker. Even lower ISOs seem to have too much noise. It really makes me appreciate my R6II even more. Hopefully, I'll be able to sell my R5II soon and not lose too much money in the process. Update: Just sold mine and didn't lose any money in the process, due to high demand...phew!
good job. smart decision.
If you’re looking for low noise on high ISO, 24mp sensor is much better than 45mp sensor. This is just physics. 24mp to 30mp is the sweet spot for 35mm sensors. I own both the R5 and R5II. My previous EOS 5DsR is the worst sensor camera I’ve owned, I can’t get past ISO800!
@@16afoongAs you mentioned you own both R5 and R5 Mark II, can you please share how your experience is with R5 Mark II in low light scenarios?
Is 12800 too noisy and loses details after noise reduction (let's say in topaz) ? I mean will the photos be usable with these high iso's?
@@sayansdesire
For printing, I’ll not go beyond ISO 3200.
@@16afoong I found noise also in the R7 with 32mp
Great to see you guys chatting in such an informative manner.Thank you for inspiring so many people to be better at their craft.
Cheers Boyd
Thanks Boyd, glad you enjoyed it, Cheers, Duade
Thanks
Thanks for the support, Cheers, Duade
Nice analysis. I went from a 5DIV and R7 to the R5M2 and here is what I found after 8k photos. The R5M2 does have some tracking issues with smaller birds but it's very hit or miss. Sometimes it tracks them fine other times not. Large birds no problem. If I use the Canon RF 100-500 with the 1.4x TC on the R5M2 it tracks small birds worse than the R7. If I use the Canon RF 200-800mm it's quite a bit better. Compared to the R7 it seems the tracking issue on the R5M2 is that the animal eye detection algorithm isn't quite as good. This can likely be fixed in firmware. I agree with the sensor noise. It's worse than I expected but I have gotten some shots as high as ISO 8000 that are actually very good. It's quite a bit better than the R7 at the higher ISOs. 12800 is not as usable as I had hoped but I can make it work in a pinch as long as I don't crop too heavily. The other issue I found is that the highlight tone priority is not as good on the R5M2 as on the R7. Blown highlights are routine on the R5M2 and it's very easy to overexpose highlights even with the HTP turned on, so I have to be really careful about exposure settings compared to the R7. There is basically no noticeable rolling shutter on the R5M2; it's terrible on the R7. As for overall picture quality, I've gotten shots with the R5M2 that I could never have gotten with the R7 or 5DIV. So for me it's a good upgrade. I don't do video much as all so probably will never have it overheat. I spent almost 2 hours one day in 95F heat taking shots and the camera worked fine no issues.
Thanks for sharing your real world experience and great to get the comparisons. I agree it is a wonderful camera, just wish the noise was the same as the R5. Cheers, Duade
I will wait for the R7 MK2.
@@Martinskitchen-pj9yd Happy waiting.
22:25 "Don't look now but there's a weirdo with his big white rod checking you out."
Lol, great caption, made me laugh, Cheers, Duade
Fine video and great shots, Duade. I've definitely noticed the additional noise on my R5II compared to my old R5. Haven't pushed it too much yet, but I'm happy to say so far the Enhance denoise in Lightroom cleans it up pretty nicely. What I'm eagerly awaiting, though, is an update adding the R5II to DxO Pure RAW 4--that's been my go-to NR software and I'm hoping it will remove any hesitancy to shoot at 12800 or even 25600 when needed.
Thanks, great points and yes with NR software it is less of a problem for sure. Cheers, Duade
Excellent review, as always. I have been shooting the R5ii for two months. For that time, my main subjects have been Concourse d'Elegance (auto shows), fine art, and portraits. And for those genres, as late as 9:00 a.m. on clear days -- with light the R5 can handle without pause -- noise has been a real problem. My first morning out at a car show with the R5ii was shocking. I wondered if the camera was broken! I am weary of having to run every single image through Denoise. So . . . today, I ordered a new (original) R5 and I'm listing my R5ii for sale. One of the greatest strengths of the R5 is a weakness for the mk.ii.
Cockatoo quote, “Hey Charlie, you think he knows his Dynamic Range is lower with that camera?”
Lol nice work, Cheers, Duade
Duade you help make our decisions a lot easier when we have too choose witch camera gear to purchase. I’ve been wanting a 30 megapixel or better full frame camera from Canon for awhile now. Been waiting to see if Canon has got off their ass in producing one. The R6iii & R7ii or hints of a R9 are probably years away for this senior. But after watching this great video of how you delved into the pluses and minuses of what’s on the market now, I probably will go with the R6ii, and some good RF lenses.
Your a big inspiration to all photographers trying their best to getting the perfect shot we all hope to get.
All the best mate, wishing good health and peaceful adventures.
Brian
Just thinking the same thing - the R6ii seems like a great balance of price and performance.
@@fepatton used prices on R3 are coming way down right now. Something to consider. Of course the market may be quite different down by you.
Wonder how a used R5 would stack up against the R6ii? Personally I’m looking to see if an R7ii comes out in 2025.
I have the R6ii and it's a brilliant camera for birds/action and pairs very well with the RF 200-800
@@noelchignell1048 Hi Noel, currently I’m using the 90D with the Sigma 150-600 C lens and I find 32 megapixels on the camera is the sweet spot and allows for cropping very good. My concern with 24 megapixels is you can’t get close to wildlife and you always need to do some cropping. I do like everything else about the R6ii maybe this Christmas when Black Friday arrives sales for this camera will be better too purchase.
Brian
Thanks again for your clip! You really opened my eyes to the issues with Canon-your insights are spot on and so well explained. 😊
I have acquired two R5 MK IIs, and I’m just starting to use them in my wildlife and sports photography. I am encouraged to hear that I am not the only one experiencing the lock-up problem. I’ve had that occur on both cameras and had to do battery removal reboots. Hoping, as you do, that a firmware update will fix this issue. Thanks for your lengthy and informative report.
Thanks Steve, seems to be a universal problem that should never have made it to the production version IMO, fingers crossed for a quick firmware upgrade. Cheers, Duade
Similar thing still happening on R6 Mark II with the latest firmware... if Canon couldn't fix the issue with older models, I would not assume they can fix it with this one. I guess we just have to accept Canon does not make quality products anymore, as used to in the past (my 5D III and IV had zero issues for example).
Guess you like wasting money 🤣
it happened during initial r5 firmwares as well back when it was launched but been fixed for a while. it froze up once with my r5m2 but I guess they‘ll fix it too
It happened to me too the lock and I fixed with the reset to factory settings
Once again Duade your comments are so valid and no beating about the bush that there are things that are disappointing about the new camera, I fully expect that like the original R5 the firmware updates will sort out a few of the problems but I do agree that Canon should do more testing before releasing the camera especially with the camera locking up, that really should not be happening. Myself like others took advantage of the price drop of the original R5 and been blown away how good this camera is, will probably look at the Mk II in a couple years time but lets not forget that the original R5 when it was released had a lot of problems and is now a completely different camera after firmware updates and I expect the same will happen with the MK II over time ~ Thanks again Duade for these honest UA-cam videos that you put so much effort into ~ keep up the great work
He is simply wrong in some areas. Take with a bit of salt his opinion.
Thanks for the comment, the video represents my real world experience, apologies if you think I got some of the specs wrong, always happy to hear others opinions. Cheers, Duade
Thanks for the feedback Peter, totally agree re the locking up, they should have learnt from the R5, but it appears they have not. Hopefully a firmware upgrade will fix the lock ups. Have fun with the R5, a really good value camera. Cheers, Duade
Great review. I purchased my R5 a few weeks back when prices started to drop in anticpation of the Mark II. I'm not a wildlife photographer, I shoot more product and lifestyle photos. I've been very happy with my R5 so far for my work and good to hear I didn't wait to purchase the Mark II. Dinamic range is so important for the photography I do.
Great news for me having an R5. 🙂 Greetings from the Netherlands. 🙂 And keep making these great UA-cams, you are improving a lot these years for sure. 🙂
One correction: The R5II is not saving 0.5s except at 30FPS. It is always saving 15 shots regardless of FPS. It is only saving 0.5s when at 30FPS. At 20FPS it is going back 0.75s, at 15FPS it goes back 1s, 10FPS back 1.5s etc. Of course will do less if you don't hold precapture down long enough to get those full 15 shots at your given FPS. Therefore shooting at 15FPS is going to end up with a lot of garbage pre-capture shots. I find 0.3s-0.5s ideal for bird takeoffs and other bird pre-capture photography (experience with the A9III where you can at least adjust these things)....therefore at 30FPS, the pre-capture behaviour on the R5II is good enough. But at 15FPS you are going back 1s and that is just going to be a lot of shots before anything happens and 50% less chance to get those awesome frames during a bird takeoff or some other unexpected action.
This is an EXCELLENT explanation (this comment should be pinned). Thank you.
and the great thing is, there's no way for you to easily find this out, because the camera doesn't mark the first shot after the precapture like sony cameras do
Thanks for sharing that, I was not aware of this and very important to know. Cheers, Duade
This disagrees with all of the reviews I have seen to date, which all say it is 0.5s, and so the number of shots does vary with the FPS selected. I do not have access to verify it, but it has been well reported.
@@tonyb9882 Well I've tested it myself and it is very easy to verify by just shooting your phone's stopwatch. Really easy to see if you go to a slow FPS like 5FPS and you will see 3s worth of time in the 15 pre captured shots and you don't overshoot by more than one shot so can get accurate data. There is also a multi-page thread over at FM forums where we have all verified the same. All the reviews seem to have just tested it at 30FPS and there you get 0.5s. They all just assumed the rest. Maybe when you get the camera in hand you can see for yourself!!
"Don't do anything silly.....he's got pre-capture!"
Lol, wonderful, Cheers, Duade
Fair and balanced review. Waving from The Bahamas 🇧🇸
Thank you very much for all those disadvantages in the camera that you found. I also shoot wildlife - but I only make portraits in flight of fast-flying ones: swallows, swifts. I was alerted by the fact that when taking off from a rock, the swallow 's wing shape changed , and this is a rolling shuttle . I suffer a lot with this on the electronic shutter on my FZ 1000 ll, there is no such thing on the mechanics. But it's not all about mechanics, it ends and then you change it, and we have a problem with that... I hope that Canon will watch your reviews and fix the flaws in the firmware....Good luck and Good Health to you.
I've also experienced the same issue with the AF on my R52 not tracking the subject closely in pre-capture. It often seems to be stuck on the perch or focused on random parts of the background. I thought it was just me, so am glad that you've raised this issue Duade. Hopefully this can be fixed with firmware updates? But I do think the pre-capture feature is a game changer, and also really like the eye control AF, which I've found to work quite well for me (which I use as part of my triple BBF setup). Thanks for another fantastic, really informative and helpful video! 🙏👍
Thanks for sharing your experience Valerie, the more people who raise issues the quicker they will be sorted out hopefully, have fun with the camera, Cheers, Duade
Great video, Duade, and not negative at all, but very honest. I too have experienced the same issues with the camera and thought I was the problem, but clearly that's not the case. As a bird shooter, I like to get out in the evening, or sometimes early morning, and that of course means lower light and pushing that iso. I have exactly the same experience as you with both the R5 and the R5ii - the R5 performs much better in low light. It is very disappointing to upgrade 'down', when one outlays a small fortune in gear expecting to get an improved version of something only to be let down. Like you, I'll live with it, but it makes me quite gun-shy about purchasing the next 'upgrade', if there is one.
I used a Canon 1 Dx Mark II for all photos/videos of my Macaw family since 2016. After watching various bird photographers here on YT using the Canon R3, I decided to rent one for a week. The eye tracking autofocus is truly beyond words so I decided to buy the R3. Uses the same batteries as the 1 Dx and the body size is perfect. Great video, thanks for sharing.
Hi Duade... a great a very fair review.... but nothing here to convince me to part with my R3....
The R3 is not a good wildlife camera .... its a great wildlife camera and a true joy to use and produces quality images throughout its DR.
... and its does not over heat ! :-)))
The output is superb on the R3
Thanks Martin, yes, my question that is hard to answer is why is the R3 so good in terms of dynamic range and speed etc yet the R5II has taken a big hit, Canon have shown they can do both with that camera. Have fun with it, Cheers, Duade
Congratulations for your thorough review of R5MkII. Coming from R5 I consider this new model as a great improvement. Regarding the lack of autofocus tracking in combination with pre-capture, initially I had the same problem with the tracking set to Locked-on. Then I got much better results setting both tracking and acceleration to +2 (in AF manual of course). In this way the AF, not being constrained to the initial position, tracks the bird as it leaves the perch instead to stay locked on that silly empty twig. I'll be looking to your comment on this.
Thanks Duade for the honest and informative video. Over the past year, I have rented Fujifilm and OM 1 Systems cameras with telephoto lenses to test them as possible replacements for the "getting heavier by the day" Canon equipment, R5 and RF 600mm f4. Nope, compared to the R5, their low light performance was seriously lacking. So, now I am testing my new R5 Mark II and, so far, its low light performance has been sub par compared to the R5. In response, I have set max auto ISO to 3200 and, based on preliminary results, have been forced to try out settings that bring the ISO down to 1600 or lower, which is going to involve slower speeds (more blur) and lots of photos (too many). On the positive side, I think a lot of these issues will be improved with firmware updates and Adobe getting its Lightroom and Photoshop software updated. AND, we will all learn to maximize the Canon R5 Mark II potential. Today, I am going to process some Mark II photos on Canon DPP 4 to see how that compares to Adobe, and also will be taking a lot of jpgs to see what that brings. Lastly, I will keep my R5 and continue using it in low light situations. Cheers, glad to see you are recovering. Wildlife photography is great!!!!!
Thanks for sharing your experience Edward, sound like a very similar experience. Have fun with your cameras, Cheers, Duade
Díky za upřímná a pravdivá slova v recenzi , klady i zápory R5M2.Přji vám dobré světlo...👍
Sold my R3 went to the R5II. The noise was def better in the R3, but couldn't be happier with the R5II, AF is far superior and the preshot is awesome. I also still have an R5 and havent noticed my shots being worse in high ISO in the R5II.
Great to hear of your experience and that you are enjoying the R5II. Cheers, Duade
I'm happy to trade megapixels for dynamic range and speed, so for me the R6mk2 is still the winner
Awesome review. Thanks. I have the R5 version 1. I as super happy with it. I love the high ISO/image quality. Not sure I need to upgrade just yet. Maybe I will wait for version III.
Your UA-cam video is spot on. Your critiques are a spot on, positive and negative.
You stated well the positives. The negatives were patently obvious to me when I began shooting the mark two versus the original.
I shoot raw auto, with the 100-500, 1.4 extension. I shoot manual with auto iso. I post process in Canon DPP4. Then I’ll use other programs if needed.
The photos and general are noisier than theoriginal R5. The bokeh is noisier. I shoot electronic shutter, but I cap iso at 3200. I did the same with the original. I tried capping it at 6400, hoping for a better image quality performance, but I soon realize that I had to move back to 3200.
You take more shots and better shots with the pre-capture and the auto focus, but the shots you take sometimes are noisier.
Again, your video and title are spot on. Keep up the good work.
One other thing. In the original, I set the camera default auto focus to spot focus, the little square with the dot in it. I liked having access to the old DSLR spot focus with precision, like in the original.
If you do that in the Mark two, Then the subject detection will gray out and default to no subject detection at all. It took me a few times in the menu to figure this out. So I set the camera default auto focus to the little box and I program one of the back buttons in the button programming function to the little box with the dot in it. This way I can choose animal Subject detection.
The camera is more complicated, so the menu is more complicated and it takes some getting used to.
I just returned from a trip to the Carolina coast shooting a lot of birds and I am processing them now. The auto focus is great, but there are a few shots that I’ve noticed that are noisier. Overall, the camera performed very well, but like you stated, there are limitations with this camera. Generally noisier bokeh than the original. Good luck on the batteries.
He is wrong in some areas. Try to understand things better before any conclusion. Duade is a very nice guy, but sometimes even him can be wrong.
Thanks for sharing your experience, good to hear from actual owners of the camera. I agree that the overall improvments like precapture are fantastic but the extra noise is a bummer. Cheers, Duade
Generally, I would consistently achieve “creamy” bokeh with mki, and “sand-papery” bokeh (about 320 grit) with the mkii.
In fairness, did employ standard noise reduction in camera with mki. Tried same setting in mkii to no avail.
Going through about 20k images took down at coast. Most good but rarely creamy bokeh.
Duade, I didn't find your comments to be negative, but rather honest, and I appreciate that. Photography gear has always been compromised in one area or another. It is hard to find gear that dose all things well. I have the R6II and was pleased to see how high it scored on the high dynamic range chart. I do wish the sensor was bigger than 24 megapixels (compromise), but it is the most well rounded camera I have ever owned, and was putting high hopes on one day owning an R5 ii. It is through really honest reporting like yours that help shape those decisions. Just last week I upgraded the firmware of my OM system Om-1, and it would blow the focus system of the R5 ii out of the water based on what I was seeing on that video you showed, but I couldn't help wonder if the lens wasn't keeping up with focus rather than the camera itself (again compromise).
Thanks for the feedback Lance, I apprecaite it, Cheers, Duade
Thanks for your reply Duade. I tried to buy the R5 Mkii and enquired about extra batteries after a recent trip to Sydney because of the price. However, I may just check things out with our local camera store who I usually try and support. Thanks for your great info and advice. Actually, I do crop with my R6, but do try and get as close as possible. I am definitely not in your league with my bird photography but enjoy the stalking and experimentation and am quite happy with my keep images (I know you and Jan wouldn't be). I am trying to improve and enjoy that also. So, thanks once again for what you do, and my extra enjoyment is viewing other Birders images. Thumbs up to all.
Thanks Ian, have you considered a second hand R5? It is still a very good camera and the price has dropped considerbly since the R52 release. Or wait for sales on the R52, Canon are always doing sales from time to time. Cheers, Duade
Having bought the R5 not long ago because I was tired of waiting of the R5 mkII (and it was cheap price too) , hearing that it is under performing under poor lights makes me numb knowing I may have avoided disapointment. I find myself using my R5 quite a lot under poor lighting and hearing that makes me not regretting to have skipped the R5II . Thanks for your sharing.
The manual does mention in the precapture section:
“Subjects may be out of focus if there are sudden changes in the distance between subjects and the camera while you are pressing the shutter button halfway.”
ya, cover their ass lol
Thanks for that, I had not seen that, Cheers, DUade
@Duade You mean you hadn't read the complete manual Duade... 😂😅 Remind me, how many pages in the manual.. 😮 Great that it has been acknowledged by Canon , well pointed out.
So does that mean continuous autofocus doesn't work with pre capture?
It does work, it just seems to struggle a bit with fast transitions like the swallow. Cheers, Duade
As always. a very honest and competent review. I really appreciate it - thank very much you, Duade. My R5 II arrived a few days ago and I had no time yet to test it extensively. I've been struggling for a long time to upgrade from my trusty R5 that never had let me down on all my trips to Africa or to the High Arctic etc.. Preburst options and the reported even snappier and stickier AF made me bite the bullet and sell my R5 to go for the successor. I had also watched Ian's overall pretty enthusiastic review of the R5 II though he mentioned a bit loss of shadow detail compared to the R5, too. That said, the equivalent value of the R5 on the used market becomes more and more absurd and out of proportion if you need to sell the camera to reduce the price for the upgrade. There's kind of a bargain hunt mentality rather than the willingness to pay a fair price for a camera that had been regarded a high end product a couple of weeks ago. That's why I decided to sell the R5 before its value will drop even further and order the R5II instead.
Now, in perspective of the concrete DR issue that I've seen at Bill Claff's sensor analysis and a few other reports - shortly after the sale of my R5,- I somehow regret not having sticked with my R5. I'm shooting wildlife, birds but also landscapes. The R5 II is optimized for video and speed, - more targeted to sports and at some point maybe to wedding shooters (the action programs and registration of people are pretty worthless for nature photogs, IMO). My feeling and disappointment are exactly the same as yours. Though I rarely need ISO 12800 and normally don't shoot in the Rainforest, you don't want a step back in IQ for a € 5000 cam - even if it's not huge. I didn't know either that the pre-burst functionality obviously doesn't include the servo tracking mode. That's an additional disappontment. I don't think that this can be changed with a firmware upgrade. Anyway, I don't want to talk the R5 II down before I have tested it personally and still hope that some of the new features and updates wil offer a benefit in the field. But from today's standpoint so far, I probably would stick with my R5 instead.
Wolfgang
Thanks for the feedback Wolfgang, I apprecaiet it. The R5II is better in pretty much every way, I was just a little disappointed with the extra noise but it is not a dealbreaker. I will continue to use the camera and take more photos before my final review, Cheers ,Duade
Thanks for sharing the full picture! Always value that much more than just the highlights
Thank you for your review that addresses what works and what doesn’t. Your comments and perspective are appreciated. Plus I loved your photos. Good shooting to you! If you were fishing I would say “tight lines”.
Hi Duade, the issues you are experiencing are the main reason that I never buy the first production run of any electronic device, especially cameras. Sorry it has to be you, but I'm glad someone is putting these new cameras through there paces to find these issues for the rest of us. You always do a great job in your reviews, very professional and fair. I'm not sure if you had this experience with your R5, but on occasion I have forgotten to turn off the camera when changing lenses, and then the camera would lock up. I also had this happen with my R3. Other then then that I have had no issues. Right now I'm fine with my R5. I may revisit the R5ii in about a year as an addition, not a replacement for my current R5. Keep up the great work!
Thanks Mark, I am happy to be the guinea pig and you are dead right. Getting the R5 now for half what I paid for it makes it a great value camera at present. Cheers, Duade
As for the whispering birds: "How about we go somewhere a human isn't stalking us?" Terrific images sir!
Lol made me laugh, that is exactly whay they were saying. Cheers, Duade
Thanks Duade. I haven't gotten the r5ii yet, but I will. I really like the pre-capture feature on my OM1m2, and I'm looking forward to using that on the R5m2. And, compared to 4/3 sensor OM1m2, the R5m2 has great dynamic range. And compared to the to the R5, it looks like that the focus acquisition is a fair bit better. Based on this video, however, I'm going to keep my R5, at least for a while, after getting the R5m2 to see if I really 'need' the increased dynamic range in some situations. I'll keep the OM1m2 too because it and the 300F4 is such a light hiking/biking kit. As to the pre-capture maintaining focus as bird comes toward the camera, I've got that problem with the OM1 as well. Hopefully Canon can address the issue in a firmware update, but even if they don't, pre-capture is still awesome in capturing the initial act of leaving a perch. And, if the bird remains in the focal plane, you get additional keepers. Fortunately, the 45mp sensor on the R5m2 allows you to pull back a bit so you can keep the bird in frame and then crop later if you need to.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and all very good points, I do like the camera and I am sure it will improve with firmware upgrades. Have fun when it arrives, Cheers, Duade
Thank you for your updates on the R5 Mark II. I have an R5 still and a Sony A1 and now will start looking for an R5 Mark II but since I live in the northern hemisphere I may wait till spring since Pre-capture will be my main reason for the upgrade. Take care.
Hi Duade. Your settings for birds worked a treat for floodlit rugby last night. Three buttons really helped and the spot and track is great. I'm resigned to a bit of de-noising and even at ISO 10,000 Lightroom gave me some good results. Many thanks for the tips.
Great to hear mate, glad it helped, Cheers, Duade
Well, that was my first complaint to Canon sales rep when I went out first day to shoot. The noise recovery was shockingly bad, coming from 5D4, I was expecting more than this. I was pretty much laughed at by few people, saying user error. I will test it tomorrow with 4000 ISO and see if that might perform better.
Thank you Duade for all your highly informative videos. I picked up my R5II the day of release to replace my 5D MkIII. I have the same high ISO problem with noise as you have experienced and now I've viewed this video I'm pleased it wasn't just me but I'm annoyed that this wasn't addressed before release. Sure, denoise software can eliminate much of it but it's one more chore in post. Coincidentally, I was thinking about the battery shortage this morning and was pleased to find that, when I saw the video this afternoon, we had the same view. Canon shouldn't have released the camera without adequate stocks of batteries, knowing that the R5II chews up power with all its extra features.
Thanks Gareth, totally agree and thanks for sharing your real world experience, the battery situation is very poor from Canon, don't release a camera that needs a new battery then tell us there are none available. Cheers, Duade
I currently have the R5 mk1 and was looking to upgrade. Having seen your review along with several others I've now decided that stepping sideways and up a bit to the R3 is the better option.
G'day Garry, the R5II is still a very good camera and with the proper precapture it works very well. The R3 is a nice camera but the R6III is due early next year with the same sensor and proper precapture so perhaps that will be worth waiting for. Sorry to muddy the waters, Cheers, Duade
You perfectly expressed my same disappointments, Duade. In fact, I had thought of contacting the retailer I bought the camera from to return it as a sample defect. Now I know it's not just me or my particular camera, especially that pre-capture lack of autofocus. And, like you, I'm disappointed as well in the lack of high dynamic range. I had the original R6 and thought this would be a VERY good upgrade but it's just barely in reality, especially in light of the cost of the camera and I wonder if I might have been better off just upgrading to the R6ii.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, always good to hear from other owners of the camera. I am still happy with the camera and it has a number of improvements but just a little disappointing in those areas. Cheers, Duade
Good to hear an honest opinion. I do wonder how compared results would look in DPP. Adobe LR is well know for the fact that it needs updates in order to get camera rendering and profiles right. I'm sure there's a difference between the camera's (one reason I'm holding out to see what the R1 brings to the table), but software might make it look a bit worse than it actually is
Very useful information especially since some things we do are in low light. Thank you
Fair warning and apologies to all: this is a pretty lengthy post, but I think it's needed.
Thanks for the interesting analysis, Duade. I'd urge you and others to take pause and dig deeper when reading and interpreting technical performance charts, such as the excellent "Photons-to-Photos" Dynamic Range data and charts you reference at the 16:55 point in your video. Firstly, let's not lose sight of the forest through the trees: the ISO values of 5,435 and 4,846 that your graph displays for the Canon R5 and R5Mk2, respectively, equal a ONE-THIRD OF A STOP difference in sensitivity. As the data indicate, DYNAMIC RANGE performance at these ISO's is virtually IDENTICAL for all three cameras in question (see chart in the Photons-to-Photos link at the bottom of the next paragraph, which is the SOURCE DATA for the graph you display in this video). Additionally, although this was not a discussion about NOISE per se (it was about how increasing ISO values adversely impact DR), nonetheless, I hope we can all agree that the noise performance of both the R5 and the R5Mk2 at ISO 5,435 and at ISO 4,846, respectively, are comparable, and quite capable of producing professional results with current high-end cameras (like the R5 series) and pro-editing software (PS/LR; DxO; Tpz; etc.).
Secondly, the P-to-P data you quote, while accurate, describe the sensor dynamic range behavior at the median dynamic range value for each sensor (in other words, how each sensor is performing, in terms of dynamic range, WHEN SAMPLED AT ITS MEDIAN DR VALUE, which is 6.5 stops of DR, the median (not mean) value between zero DR and maximum DR for each sensor being measured here; note that median rather than mean values are used here in order to account for the NON-LINEARITY of the plotted performance curves at various sensitivity settings -- particularly those BELOW ISO 640, where the greatest degree of variation and non-linearity occur). People can study your original source chart of the dynamic range data you reference, here: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm. DXO also has a similar and helpful analysis here: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm. When we examine the "Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting" chart in the attached link (which is from the same source you reference in this video), we find the following data:
Canon 5Ds: Max. DR: 9.76 -- ISO 5091 yields 6.49 stops of DR (ISO 5,043 yields 6.5 stops of DR)
Canon R5: Max. DR: 11.85. -- ISO 5091 yields 6.60 stops of DR (ISO 5,435 yields 6.5 stops of DR)
Canon R5Mk2: Max. DR: 11.45 -- ISO 5091 yields 6.43 stops of DR (ISO 4,846 yields 6.5 stops of DR)
The data in the third column standardize ISO values, rather than dynamic range values, and in so doing, it clarifies how NEGLIGIBLE the performance of ALL THREE of these cameras are, in terms of dynamic range performance WHEN SAMPLED NEAR THEIR MEDIAN DYNAMIC RANGE VALUE of 6.5 (a dynamic range variation between the three cameras of only 0.17 stops AT ISO 5091). Likewise, the fourth column, which lists the ISO values at which dynamic range declines to a value of 6.5 stops, reveals that the difference in ISO between the R5 and the R5Mk2 is 192, which represents about one-third of a stop difference at these ISO values - perhaps not inconsequential (and definitely not desirable), however, still very manageable and completely viable. All of this is relevant and applicable here because this data is the SOURCE DATA from the Photons-to-photos website referenced in the video at 17:10, and the somewhat misleading or inaccurate interpretations which followed.
From the above data (and from the chart from which these data were culled - refer to URL, above), we can make a few meaningful observations:
1. While the new R5 and R5Mk2 sensors have about a 2.09 and 1.69 stop greater MAXIMUM photographic dynamic range, respectively, than the much older 5Ds does (that's not surprising; I include the older 5Ds here only because the 5Ds was included in your analysis and comments here, too), the actual difference in MAXIMUM dynamic range between the R5 and R5Mk2 are exactly 0.40 stops of dynamic range, which I think we can all agree is pretty negligible - especially considering how quickly and easily a 0.40-stop advantage in dynamic range is forfeited with even small errors in exposure; post-processing editing technique and proficiency; and of course, the rarity with which most of us today are PRINTING our images on photographic paper (a tricky process to consistently "get right," and a severe test of dynamic range preservation and fidelity). In other words, the data here DO NOT indicate what most would consider a meaningful difference between the two R5 models, as far as MAXIMUM DR potential is concerned (0.40 stops difference, as tested here, in favor of the R5), and hence, the comment "Surprisingly, that old DSLR 5Ds actually has better dynamic range than the R5Mk2," is misleading. The data in the SOURCE chart (referenced in the link I provided, above) DO NOT support the conclusion that the 5Ds has either a greater dynamic ranger, or better dynamic range preservation at high-ISO's, than either of the R5 cameras. Instead, the data show TINY (albeit unexpected) differences between the 5Ds and the R5Mk2 AT ISO 400; ISO 4,000; and ISO 6400: the 5Ds produced dynamic range values of 9.39 stops (ISO 400); 6.96 stops (ISO 4,000); and 6.34 stops (ISO 6,400), while the R5Mk2 produced 9.27 stops; 6.78 stops; and 6.14 stops, respectively, a difference in favor of the 5Ds of only 0.12 stops; 0.18 stops; and 0.20 stops, respectively, between the two cameras, at ISO 400; ISO 4,000, and ISO 6,400. Obviously, these differences are not very meaningful, because they're not indistinguishable to the human eye, and in addition to being effectively invisible, these values are so small as to be made moot with even the tiniest errors in exposure; editing; and/or printing;
2. The R5 dynamic range drops more precipitously (more non-linearly) from base ISO 100 through ISO 320, than does that of the 5Ds or the R5Mk2, HOWEVER, at ISO 320, a very odd "spike" occurs in the DR curve, where the R5 somehow INCREASES its dynamic range capture between ISO 320 (9.52 stops of DR) and ISO 400 (10.6 stops of DR), at which point (ISO 400) it resumes its mostly-linear decline in dynamic range performance, effectively joining and overlapping almost perfectly the dynamic range curves of both the R5Mk2 and the older 5Ds, from about ISO 1,280, all the way to the maximum ISO's of 102,400 (ISO 12,800 max. for the 5Ds). In other words, the more complete and accurate story told by the data in the video (referencing the linked charts) reveals that the ONLY ISO value at which the R5 produces a meaningfully or even visibly greater dynamic range than the R5Mk2 is SOLELY at ISO 400, immediately after the aforementioned "spike," where the R5 delivered 10.6 stops of DR, whereas the R5Mk2 delivered 9.27, which is 1.33 stops more dynamic range achieved by the R5, versus the R5Mk2, AT ISO 400 ONLY -- see chart). Curiously, the R5Mk2 also has an inexplicable INCREASE in DR performance between ISO 400 (9.27 stops of DR) and ISO 500 (9.75 stops of DR), although this "spike" is of a lesser magnitude than the aforementioned "spike" seen in the original R5; and finally...
3. The most notable and unambiguous finding when we study these charts is that THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL (VISIBLE) DIFFERENCE IN DYNAMIC RANGE PERFORMANCE BETWEEN ANY OF THESE THREE CAMERAS (and especially not between the R5 and R5Mk2) AT ANY ISO (except at ISO 400, where the R5 delivered 10.6 stops of DR, versus 9.27 stops of DR delivered by the R5Mk2). The DR curves of ALL THREE CAMERAS literally overlap each other from ISO 1,280 right up to their maximum ISO limits; and, in fact, THE DR CURVES OF BOTH THE R5 AND THE R5Mk2 OVERLAP EACH OTHER COMPLETELY, FROM ISO 800 ALL THE WAY TO THEIR MAXIMUM LIMITS OF ISO 102,400, so...ISO impact on DR is virtually IDENTICAL at basically ALL of the ISO's birding photographers commonly use today (i.e. ISO 800 and beyond).
Please understand that I'm not refuting your FIELD OBSERVATIONS here, Duade; I'm merely pointing out that the specific DYNAMIC RANGE AND ISO DATA that you refer to do not support your conclusions, for the reasons I've detailed above. I believe if you incorporate the chart I've linked above (which is the source data for the chart you present in your video: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm; and DXO data here: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm), you may see a broader, more accurate (and less disconcerting) perspective on the issue of ISO and dynamic range performance.
Final thought: even though I've gone pretty "deep into the weeds" in my comments here, myself, it's important that we all remind ourselves from time to time, that WHAT REALLY MATTERS MOST is not the technical and theoretical minutia, but rather, THE EVOCATIVE POWER (THE EMOTIONAL IMPACT) OF OUR IMAGES. Those hardest on, or most demanding of, photographers, are...photographers themselves! The general public (and most clients) aren't pixel peeping; they're not measuring dynamic range, or scrutinizing noise levels. They're simply REACTING TO OUR IMAGES EMOTIONALLY...or not.
Thanks for such a detailed comment and I apprecaite the time and effort that has gone into your post. It makes for very interesting reading. I don't have the knowledge or expertise in regards to the technical aspects of DR and the charts etc. All I am basing my views on is my in field experience. To me and most other people that used the R5 and R52 extensively in the field suggest its a noticeable difference between the two.
The reason I think it stands out is in low light on the R5 people were shooting at 6400 or 12800 ISO. The two cameras at ISO12800 look very different as even a .4 of a stop actually looks a lot different if that makes sense as I assume 12800 on the R5 might look like 18000ISO on the R52?
So the higher the ISO the more pronounced any small differences are is my guess as to why people instantly notice a difference when shooting the two cameras.
And I agree whilst NR can assist, you do lose some details in the blacks and just overall detail. It is just frustrating to me that the IQ went backwards, and whilst I can concur that having a stacked sensor is the reason, it is hard to swallow when the A1II and R1 have such good DR with both being stacked. Admittedly both cost considerably more.
In summary, for me there is a noticable difference in the field between the two cameras and anyone upgrading to the R52 should be aware of that. Now is it a deal breaker? No, because I will still use the R52 for all the other benefits and as you mention we have NR. Overall it was just disapointing and I had some buyers remorse when noticing this in the field. Cheers, Duade
Protect this man.
@@Duade Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful reply, Duade. It's an interesting topic, and I can certainly understand the frustration with what may feel like (in certain circumstances such as high-ISO noise performance), a slight step-backwards between the R5 and R5-2. While the high-ISO noise performance of the R5-2 may be a disappointment to some (perhaps many), the Dynamic Range response of each of these cameras is effectively identical, particularly at ISO's above about 640 (as the charts indicate). The real takeaway here seems to be that, for many people, increasing NOISE is more harmful to image quality (and more immediately perceptible), than decreasing DYNAMIC RANGE is, which isn't surprising, as high noise levels obliterate image DETAIL more dramatically than low dynamic range does.
I appreciate the content you're creating and sharing on your channel - well done! Nice conversation with Jan that you two just posted a few hours ago, too! Thanks again, Duade. Kind regards...
@@infiniteeye9155 My pleasure, I appreciate the time you took to post your knowledge. I think the R5II is a great camera and I will happily continue using it. I thikn once you get used to a certain noise level any change to that can seem exaggerated and you just notice it becuase its different. I had just not expected it to be worse so it taints your view a little and you lose a little bit of perspective. Cheers, Duade
Hi Duade, Thanks very much for the video. In the R5 MkII manual under Pre-continuous shooting in the 'caution' drop down, one note says "Subjects may be out of focus if there are sudden changes in the distance between subjects and the camera while you are pressing the shutter button halfway.". So not a fault, it's the way it works, I'm afraid. I just got my MkII yesterday and out today for the first time and got some great shots with it. Managed to get two spare batteries as well. But haven't used any extreme ISO settings yet. My heart sank when you said about the high iso issues as it's the one thing I loved about my R5's. Oh, dear!
Thanks for sharing, congrats on the extra batteries, mine are still on backorder. That is interesting what the manual says there. Have fun with the camera. Cheers, Duade
I have the R5M2 and no crashes so far. I haven’t had a chance to really push it much though. I’m also disappointed in the lower dynamic range but the new speed and features are amazingly good and, overall, I really enjoy using it.
I didn't expect you using the whole area autofocus for slow subjects. Instead, expand af area is quite nice because it allows to narrow down the focus area and yet some automatic detection going on (e.g. detected faces will override the area to expand). That mode is also what Canon recommended at Photopia. With center focus and "set to eye tracking" bound to buttons on my thumb, I never feel the necessity of using the whole area autofocus that goes full auto.
Very astute observation and quite right...in the AF tracking demonstration birds were very far away, often turning their backs to the camera, so it probably should be testing other possible subjects for faces and eyes. These things are somewhat obvious. Our need for the instant gratification and very little thought is what is weakening our experience and love for the photographic experience.
Duade, congratulations on some excellent photos! And thanks for pointing out your frustrations with Dynamic Range / High ISO problems. I, too, upgraded from R5 (which I passed on to my wife) and for all the reasons you mentioned. I am having very similar issues, as well. It's frustrating. The AF jumps around once I lock on to a subject and I get exasperated when it starts jumping. I start thinking that I must have made an incorrect setting, and so I redo everything over and over again. In my well-invested position, Canon's reputation is slowly going downhill. I hope they can develop some helpful firmware updates to address these issues. It makes me wonder if marketing is more important to them than true quality control. In my opinion, the battery issue that you spoke of is a major embarrassment for them. All these great features on their newest camera but not enough batteries to go around. Oh, well! At the cost of $80USD per unit, one would think this battery would have been in large supply long before the release of the R5Mk2. And now it's being back-ordered? Come on Canon, get a clue. You have a lot of loyal users. I used to be one of those loyal users, but now....? Regardless, I still love what I'm doing with my photography. I just don't particularly like being an uncompensated BETA tester for a muliti-billion dollar company. Keep the faith, sir!
Thanks for sharing your experience, it is always great to hear from actual users of the camera and your expereince mirrors mine. I agree the battery situation is very frustrating, I asked Canon for an eta and they are unable to tell me when the batteries will be available. Trying to shoot with one battery is getting very old. Cheers, Duade
If you are in the US the batteries are available at BC Camera, B&H and Adorama. Fortunately, I did not have any problems finding batteries here in the US. When there are shortages, I search out the smaller companies with luck.
@@Methodical2in Australia we are still waiting on batteries. So bad. Poor effort from Canon
Always honest and authentic, absolutely love your videos!❤❤
Thanks for the feedback, Cheers, Duade
I will never understand why the reduced serial speed and the audio feedback were never added to the R5. As a software developer, I'm convinced that it would be a very small thing to add. The lack of improvements by FW by Canon is the reason that I recommend Nikon rather than Canon to people who start with photography. Unfortunately I'm locked in due to the expensive lenses I own.
PS: If the pre-capture is unable to track the subject, then it is pretty useless.
Thanks, yes that was annoying, the precapture AF is something I need to test a lot more and may have been that specific scenario. Cheers, Duade
It would certainly be more useful if it could track better when a subject is coming towards you, but even in this example he got a couple nice shots that he wouldn't have been able to get otherwise. I've used the feature on the R7 and it's a must-have feature for my next camera not exactly "useless" to me. I agree with the lack of firmware updates for sure. They could easily fix the R7's firmware so that pre-capture would output individual RAW files instead of one big file that is cumbersome to extract images from. Even so it's so hard to give up your lenses and make the switch once you have invested enough in their lenses.
Thanks for the honest review! I was surprised how well the A7R5 sensor ranked. I love this Sony, but I enjoy the Canon menus and overall aesthetics. Low fps on the A7R5 has been limiting as well. When Canon opens to 3rd party FF glass I might look more seriously. Beautiful pictures, would love to visit Oz, thanks for sharing.
Thanks for your honest analysis Duade. Disappointing conduct by Canon again re: releasing products with problems they were aware of or should have been aware of, shades of the R7 release. I suspect it may be a strategy of exploiting brand loyalty and using customers to identify problems, much cheaper. Now gives me concerns over the rumoured R7 2 with a stacked sensor. If that too has reduced dynamic range and greater noise I doubt it will be worth an "upgrade"! and the OM system may be a better option for me.
Hey Jerry, the guy with the camera is back. Act natural, man.
Precapture is a very useful feature. I started using it on my R7, which I totally forgot was there until it was brought up in an R5ii discussion. Yes, I do find sometimes the AF has trouble maintaining lock on very fast moving subject. I got terns doing breakfast dives, and I managed maybe 70% hits with RAW Burst mode. But having to select which shots I want from some proprietary file off the camera is a pain. So I'm jealous of R5ii users with the new iteration of this feature.
Great caption, yes the implementation on the R5II is an improvement which is great, I would still like the option to choose the length of precapture though. Cheers, Duade
it's simply best to use a mechanical shutter at high iso, and then just wait until PureRAW 4 releases an update to R5 Mark II. Canon mentioned in the update that the quality of photos at high ISO may improve, they announced many updates, so we have to wait patiently and see
Another interesting and thoughtful video, thanks, Duade. I answered some questions I've had about the performance of the new R5ii. After shooting with the R7 / RF 100-500 for a year, I purchased a used R5 just after R5ii was released - $2,300 with less that 300 shutter activations! Talk about a value proposition! I can be quite content with the fantastic results that camera and lens combo is giving me for some time to come, no pre-capture notwithstanding.
Congrats on the camera, the sensor is fantastic and you should see a big improvement over the R7 in low light. Have fun, Cheers, Duade
For people like me who shoot non-moving subjects, image quality really is the ONLY thing I want to see improved in every new camera. It bothers me a lot if dynamic range is sacrificed for a faster readout speed. The problem with mirrorless cameras in general is that the sensor is read out constantly even during composition. That inevitably warms up the sensor an introduces more noise the longer you use the camera in a shooting. I wish Canon had still kept a line of high end DSLRs in its portfolio. For my area of photography mirrorless cameras have a lot more downsides than advantages.
Didn't camera manufacturers tell us all the time that stacked sensors would reduce noise, as they shorten the circuitry? It seems the fast frame rates have eaten up that advantage, because they limit the processing time for each pixel.
I would be happy to buy a camera that can only to five frames per second or even less, but in exchange has very little noise. The goal is to shoot at low light handheld and still get minimal noise that can easily be removed. Many places around the world to not allow tripods without a special permission. So low light performance is essential.
Is the market for a high end camera for still subjects really too small for Canon?
The Fuji GFX100S is what you're looking for. You can even put EF lens on it without any vignette.
@@Kliffot How does that work if the sensor is larger than full frame? Do you need a kind of "speed booster" adapter?
@@skyscraperfan No speedbooster, the longer flange of EF lens ( 44mm vs 26mm GFX) allows bigger image projection. Also the electronic adapter like the Fringer EF-GFX Pro has all the lens correction profile included. Now some EF lens works better than other of course. What's great is that the lens become wider and faster, for example the Canon 85mm f/1.2 becomes a 67mm f/0.9, a true MF 645 look ! :)
Does the Canon R1 (or R3) not fill your need for a high dynamic range, low noise camera?
@@normangrafaviationphotogra4548 They may have a great dynamic range, but they could have even more dynamic range, if dynamic range was prioritized. You "need" as much as you get, because at low light you could always use more dynamic range.
So glad I went with R5 when I recently upgraded. For half the price of a Mark II as well 😊
I’m staying with my current R5. If anything I’ll pick up R6II for backup
@@Ultrarmx R6II is a wonderful upgrade to the OG R6, in regards to autofocus, but the new R5II absolutely blows even that out of the water. The DR hit is negligible compared to the massive AF and user comfort upgrades of the R5II
Thanks, I think its great we have both options tbh, both cameras are very good and we are free to chose which one bests suits our needs and budget. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Absolutely. I am not professional so R5 makes more sense to me. If I was pro, R5 Mk II would probably be better.
Absolutely have the same experience with out of depth of field focusing with pre-capture. That being said the R5 had the same problem if you were fast enough to get subject. My conclusion is that, although the AF is much faster than R5, it is still not fast enough to follow a bird that leaves a perch quickly. I also wish pre-capture time was slightly longer. Typical reaction time is around 0.2 seconds, so you really capture starting 0.2 seconds after the bird has flown.
Such a useful video for me, thank you. I was almost being tempted back, but I think you have saved me some money. I have the R5 and was also running an Olympus system. I ended up selling my long lenses for the Canon and getting the big white OM lens and OM1body. The OM system lets you choose on their pre-capture system whether you want it to continue to focus on your subject or not. I never use the scenario where it stays on the original focus.
There are a couple of things I miss about the R5 - the double back button focusing and the ability to crop. I discovered you have to be much more skilled in framing the subject if you can't crop... still working on that ha ha!
Beautiful photos. It brought back happy memories of time spent in Australia - loved the birds... sadly in film days when all I had was a little Olympus XA2 with me 😊
I'm really happy to hear you report this (well I am and I'm not!) I only just made the transition from a 5D MKlll to this camera and really didn't know what to expect. At first I was disappointed that I would have to go back to using LR in order to view my images as nothing else seems to read the RAW files and then I saw the noise and thought, am I doing something wrong!? I really hope they fix it because it really is quite bad. Otherwise it's an incredible camera and I love shooting with it.... just the dynamic range and the noise!!!
Duade, thanks for your down to earth and honest assessment of the R5ii. Canon should be calling to sign you up and pay you as their product field tester. Sorry to hear about the R5ii's poorer dynamic range IQ results... 2 steps forward... 1 step back. Glad to hear that the R5 is still holding on its own - a true generational camera.
Thanks mate, yes, that would be great, I was probably a little critical in this video and it is a wonderful camera, I was just a little annoyed at the time. I agree the R5 might be Canons greatest ever camera for its time. Cheers, Duade
I have watched this video a second time as I recently tried to buy the R5Mii in favor of the R6Mii (I am presently using R6 1). I could order the R5Mkii, and it would apparently be available i about 5 weeks. However, there was no due date to buy extra batteries, and they weren't expected soon. I must admit I find this extremely disappointing with this no extra battery issue. I am not sure at this stage what to do and am again thinking of the R6 ii. Time will tell. Thanks for your honest review Duade. I really appreciate it.
G'day Ian, I just recently got my extra batteries, it was annoying but finally got them. The R5II is a great camera and I am enjoying using it. The less DR is a bummer but its not terrible, the other upgrades make up for it. If you shoot a lot of low light sports or indoors and dont crop a lot the R6II sensor will have better low light performance. But you do get a little bit of rolling shutter. Depending on your location you could possibly rent the R5II and have a play and compare to your R6. Cheers, Duade
Hey Duade many thanks for your review. You covered the overheating issue and suggested there was no issue. I have a completely different experience. I am bitterly disappointed having come from the R5 and thinking this would be fixed in the R5 Mk2. I have had my camera overheat on me x2 at x2 airshows I've attended. This morning I went birding and it overheated to the point the camera shut down and I got a black screen. I was in photo mode and I didnt once use the video mode. I was shooting for a 45 minute period, with frequent breaks in using the shutter and pre-capture and back button focus. I only shot a total of 3682 images in Craw on a fully manual mode. I am so disappointed in my purchase. I do not think this camera is fit for purpose if it has such a glaring problem. This failure for me is the elephant in the room. Everything else about the camera is brilliant but if you cant use it because it overheats what good is that. I spent approximately 15 minutes with the battery out and the battery door open. When it was cooled down sufficiently, that I could begin looking through the viewfinder I noticed a white circle of light in the image and this circle of light expanded to the edges of the frame until the overheating bars were reduced. Please if someone could explain what is going on?
I also note going through my images that there appears to be a vignette on them - this may have been during the overheating phase just prior to shutdown as it did the reverse of this when it was cooling down?
I have the Nikon Z9 and it doesn’t bother me the little more noise because I know it has compared to the Original R5 but that is not a deal breaker.. the Z9 is an incredible camera that said the Canon R5II has better DR than the Nikon Z9 so it’s amazing.
That’s why I kept my Canon R3 so I could use it in low light ⭐️
Actually, based on side by side testing the Z8/Z9 is better in buffer, rolling shutter and most importantly dynamic range.
m.ua-cam.com/video/8r1uDeYeLhM/v-deo.html&pp=ygUKWjggdnMgcjVJSQ%3D%3D
Crazy detailed review for wildlife. For video this thing is an absolute dream come true.
Thanks for this video Duade!!
It'd be great if you could do some more low light tests with R5 Mark II.
Thanks, yes, I need to do that, Cheers, Duade
@Duade Thanks Duade. Actually I am a bit confused between R5 Mark II and R5 - which one to buy for bird and wildlife photography. The low light performance of R5 is compelling but the R5 Mark II's Pre-capture is a game changer. I also heard that R5 Mark II's AF is better than R5. Because of these 2 main reasons maybe I am a bit inclined towards R5 Mark II.
It'd be great if you could compare how bad the ISO performance is in the real world and if it's going to be a deal breaker.
@@sayansdesire G'day, I think the R52 is the better camera, precapture and 30fps are very nice to have. The faster sensor and no rolling shutter wobbles is also nice. It is shame re the dynamic range but we just have to work through those. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Thanks a lot for sharing your insights. 👍
Do you mind sharing which software you prefer for noise reduction - DXO Pure Raw or Topaz Photo AI ? I mean, I am just trying to understand which one cleans up better without compromising image quality/sharpness.
@@sayansdesire I mostly use Lightrooms Denoise AI now to be honest. A also sometimes use Topaz on just background but Adobe does a much better job now. Cheers, Duade
Hey Duade, interesting about the R5II DR issues that you are experiencing. Other channels (Whistling wing photography, Wild Alaska etc) aren't mentioning this.
Also, the AF stickiness. Only Jan has mentioned this alongside yourself. Everyone else is singing the praises of the R5II's AF performance on "auto" mode.
From what I have seen, the R3 is the current king of high ISO performance, and is typically the 2nd best for DR (behind the A1). In theory, DR should be a function of pixel size and the electron well depth of the sensor design and a BSI stacked sensor shouldn't necessarily have a hindered DR.
As I have said several times, I honestly believe that Canon is behind Sony in sensor development tech. Canon hasn't even managed to match the near 4 year old A1 (which has 5 more mp!) with the R5II.
Canon has no shame - they should have made absolutely sure that basic things like batteries were well and truly stocked to the hilt upon camera release. This is very bad on Canon's part.
I mentioned the buffer to Jan on his video a month ago and he felt it wasn't an issue. At 20fps (matching the original R5), the buffer is slightly better, but only slightly. if shooting at 30fps on the R5II, then it matches the R5 at 20fps. Not exactly a big improvement imho and a disappointment. There's no real sane reason why Canon couldn't have improved the buffer significantly other than an artificial cripplehammer to not pull sales from the R1. The same with the R1 having cross type AF (a combination of Canon not being able to produce a 45mp stacked sensor with cross type AF tech and cripplehammer imho).
I know I'm sounding like a whinging prick, but if I'm giving Canon my hard earned cash, I expect them to perform. I am a consumer and have every right to demand specs or performance. Yes, Sony isn't perfect - they have held back firmware upgrades for the A1, to the detriment of consumers.
The precapture looks like a really good tool, although having to hold down the shutter button to activate this feature is a crappy design imho. It should just give you that 0.5 second upon firing the shutter button.
I'm not in the market for the R1 or R5II (don't have the money) and my R3 does it for me, other than being only 24mp, which does hurt me with birding photography.
I got a new lifer on Monday - White winged Fairywren! Stoked. Have been to this location 4 times now and had no luck up until Monday. I also got my best image (still not great) of a red rumped parrot, and a zebra finch. Spotted wedgie, pair of BSKs hunting, nankeen kestrel hunting, pair of nankeen kestrels in a different location (with possible nest and as soon as I spotted the nest I backed away quick smart) and spotted a brown goshawk from a distance (and heard its call). So, a pretty nice day overall. No killer images, but it's just nice being out in nature and seeing the birds.
Thanks mate, great comment and I appreciate the feedback, congrats on the White-winged Fairy a wonderful bird that I still need much better photos of. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade I do think the R5II is a better camera, but I also think it could have been EVEN better. Spotted a white bellied sea eagle yesterday, but was too late in doing so and didn't get any good shots.
Try to set the AF menu the Tracking sensitivity on -2 and Acceleration/ deceleration on -1. For me it worked, now it no longer jumps from one bird to another
Thank you Duade for this analysis. It's a great Cam. But: In one week of intense shooting I had that freezing (crashing) at least five times a day. And I'm not able to calibrate the eye detection at all. It doesn't work. I started with the setup file of Jan. He uses RAW video, these files confused me. What is really great: You can register a focus point an call it back with a button you like it to do so. This was limited to the super lenses before.
That’s one of the most annoying thing is if your camera freezes up and you have to take the battery out I remember when I first got an android phone back 10+ years ago. It was the same issue and that deterred me from ever buying another android phone again. Just using that as an example that it really sucks and it puts a bad taste in your mouth when you have that happening and I totally agree. They should’ve had that sorted out same thing with the batteries. It is very disappointing that it has lower dynamic range. I was really considering buying this camera maybe next year but I think I’m gonna hold off and wait till the next version. My canon 5D mark four is still working really well.
Use the eye control in conjunction with the eye tracking AF then the camera will continue to track eyes that are close to where you are looking in the viewfinder!
Good review in detail. Almost nobody talks about these nuances. But i think it's important)
There are some extremely helpful comments here! After finally selling all my DSLR and EF lenses (except for my beloved old 300D, which is too much of an old friend to dump), I picked up an R6 Mk II and R5. I'd like to add one more full-frame mirrorless to the bag, and I was giving serious thought to the R5 Mk II, but I'm wondering if perhaps the R3 would be a better bet all around.
G'day, if money is not an issue the R1 is a very nice camera and much better than the R3. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Don't think I'm not considering that, but the price difference is several thousand USD between the R1 and a good used R3. I can take the savings and put it towards more RF glass! It does seem that the R3 would be a better purchase than the R5 Mk II, regardless.
@@adude394 That is a tough one, the R3 to be honest is a beautiful body, and the sensor is fantastic and they are availabe at a very good price at the moment. For pure birding I would go with the R52 as working precapture is such a nice improvement and 45mp is great for birding. The R3 at 24mp and not a proper working precapture mean I would always be reaching for the R52 for me. Its strengths would be very fast sports or very low light. The R62 though is also great for low light, just not super fast sport action. Ultimately it is up to you and what you plan on shooting. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade More food for thought! Thanks, I appreciate that. I do no video, just stills, and I like to photograph birds and other wildlife, flowers, landscapes, that sort of thing.
That's why I kept my R5 in addition to my mk ii. 😊
I’m so glad i bought the R6 m2 because low light was my biggest concern with my full frame setup. I started looking at reviews of newer sensor cameras and even the R5 and quickly realized what I wanted was already out there a heavily discounted in the R6 m2. I have a R7 for wildlife so other features didn’t matter that much to me.
We have r7 an r6 mII and for sure r7 is nice for wildlife but in low light he is very very bad.
We were thinking about buying a r5 mII but for big cats low light is important... so still wondering maybe taking a r5 only...
Glad to hear you are enjoying the camera, Cheers, Duade
for low light higher resolution is better, r5 m2 İS better than R6 M2
@suatsekil really ? Did you compare both? On all reviews I saw r6mii is the best just after r3 on low light
22:25 "Have you heard about the bird? Everybody knows that the bird is the word"
I am very surprised to see the R6 mark ii has better dynamic range than the R5 ii and the R5. I have just made the switch to mirrorless and thankfully chose the R6 mark ii.
This makes me even more happy with my R6 II a couple years ago.
It's great to see a frank review from a Canon enthusiast.
Hello Duade! First of all, congratulations on your videos, you do a great job and it is a great help to us. I have had the Canon R5 mark II for a few days and it seems to me that, both in the electronic viewfinder and on the rear screen, some vertical elements that are repeated as a pattern (for example the bars on the balconies of the buildings) . ) have a strange effect. It is as if these vertical elements are illuminated or moving, or a light passes through them, a kind of moiré effect. I don't know if you have had the opportunity to check it in urban photography and if it also happens on your camera. Obviously, this effect is not visible in the photos or videos, only during image capture. Thanks.
Thanks for sharing and an interesting observation, can't recall seeing this myself yet. Cheers, Duade
Thanks for the excellent reviews and focus setup videos Duade. Having spent 3 full days shooting indoor sport at 6,400 ISO (ice skating) with the R5 II, the plus points are great autofocus (probably well I excess of 95% sharp - would have been even better but for operator incompetence), 30 frames a second - amazing how often a blinking competitor spoils a shot (I used to think the 1DX was good), spot autofocus with tracking, and stickier autofocus. I can put up with the noise at higher ISO (one stop and a bit worse than the R5?). Pre capture was very useful for sport, but I did find it disconcerting as the viewfinder seemed to judder when I was panning - is this a feature? Overall, I am very pleased with the camera. It has capabilities well beyond the skill of this operator. So far Lightroom de-noise or DxO are getting me perfectly acceptable results with the higher ISOs. For my needs, the R5 is a keeper as a second body, but the R3 is going (an excellent camera but I like more megapixels).
When photographing birds taking off on my OM-1 I use the loosest C-AF mode (+2) for precapture rather than the tightest (-2). I also use a shutter speed of 1/4000 and a five-point cross for a target. It works great. Maybe the same sort of thing will work with the R5 II
A friend of mine owns one of those Amazon warehouse resale stores and he called me up a few months back with the Canon R6 Mark II for sale. I did some video work for him and he gave me the camera for $1200!! I really wasn't in the market for it but waiting for the R5 Mark 2 I decided what the hell. I got the camera and by default when you have it on auto ISO. Which is how I shoot manual with auto ISO. The iso goes to 25,600. I limit my cameras to 12,800.. but I literally bought this camera and went straight to a small venue concert which I was hired to film video and pictures for. Shooting the majority of the night on my R5 I decided to pull my R6 Mark II out just to take some fun test shots. When I got home I noticed that 25,600 ISO the R6 Mark II was equivalent to the R5 at 12800!! I couldn't believe it!! The low light capabilities of the R6 Mark II are beyond anything I've ever seen!! The R5 is still my favorite, but I really LOVE the R6II.. I'm using it more ans more with birds now due to the auto focus. But on Special Days when we are chasing Eagles, the R5 is my main camera.. Because of the video, mostly and the 45MP for cropping
Such a great detailed review, thanks for putting in the time. With auto focus, on the R5/R3 there is a sub-menu within each autofocus case that is something along the lines of 'subject switching', this should prevent the AF box switching to a different subject.
Also i'm listening to your comment about the AF not staying locked on to a subject moving front/back. I have the R5 and R3 and I have found this was one of the biggest differences between these two cameras. When shooting F1 and a car is going at top speed entering the frame and going away from me, the R3 is noticeably far superior with quickly catching the car and staying locked on, whereas the R5 doesn't catch onto the car until a good 20 or so meters ahead of where the R3 would catch it. This was the first time I really understood the differences in AF performance between these two cameras, because like you said, when the subject moves horizontally there is virtually no difference.
One point of interest about those dynamic range numbers is that Canon bakes noise reduction into its RAW files whereas some other brands do not. I'm wondering if the R5 II having a lower number is because they have stopped baking as much mandatory noise reduction into their raw files. So while that would lead to a lower quality looking image it might mean that you have more processing headroom. But of course I don't have the camera in my hands so I'll defer to what you're seeing!
Not always and not in the R5
Coming from the r7 for me, perched birds shooting,the r5 is great value
Thanks Wayne, I agree the original R5 is a wonderful camera. Cheers, Duade
Hi mate,
I have the R6ii and I've had a couple of opportunities to play with the R5ii and I found the improvements quite modest considering the much higher price so I'm hoping that Canon will be releasing an R6 mark iii soon with a stacked sensor which will be more affordable.
It'll be interesting to see how the R1 compares in terms of dynamic range: I've tried out a pre-production R1 at a launch event and I was deeply impressed by it's low light performance.
In regards to battery supply Canon has had to send the new batteries out by sea freight as the airlines only allow 1 battery with each camera and no separate battery shipments. Canon NZ told be the extra batteries will reach NZ and presumably Australia very soon.
Cheers
Noel
Thanks for sharing Noel, that makes sense, hopefully we don't have to wait too long. I look forward to trying the R1 at some stage and yes, an R6III with the R3 sensor will be a very nice camera. Cheers, Duade
Still waiting on the r5 ii batteries. Canon fell down on this one.
@@lisabowker1 G'day Lisa, I just got mine today. I hope you have got yours, Cheers, Duade
@@Duade yes! Arrived last week. Had panic ordered from 3 different stores…now I have all the batteries I’ll ever need 😂 Just in time to shoot a wedding this weekend 😅
Hi, I'm like you a camera tester, I've just started! I ask you to try a dynamic range comparison in high light! overexpose by 3 stops and 4 stops and you will see that the R5II recovers the highlights better than the R5, so just overexpose and you will have the same dynamic range!! Don't forget this comment. Thanks Elia
This morning I took jpeg for the first time and I was pleasantly surprised for the absence of noise and image quality, a real big surprise
G'day, thanks for sharing, I think the camera perhaps does some noise reduction in the camera with jpeg whereas it does not with RAW, this will make the images look cleaner. Just be aware you do lose the ability to adjust white balance and recover the whites as well. Cheers, Duade
It’s crazy how these manufacturers trade quality of image for features🤷🏼 I do want the R5II because of the video mostly and the pre capture feature but, I get better dynamic range with my R6 then the R5 hands down. I do bird photography and landscapes as a hobby but, really need the camera to perform in low light for weddings and events. A little disappointed to hear the dynamic issue and the subject tracking problem. Thanks for the video✊🏼 great job as always 😉
It's not negative, as consumers we should know about it, thanks forn sharing your experience with Canon R5 mark ii. I had similar experience with R5 mark I, it freezes often I missed some nice shots.
The problem with dynamic range is that the stacked sensor technology trades off some ofvthe dynamic range for speed... You can't have your cake and eat it. Global shutter is even more detrimental!
Thanks Karl, how do you explain the R3 and A1? Both very fast but both having good dynamic range? I agree that it does appear to be a trade off for many sensors though, the A9III as you mentioned which actually has better dynamic range then the R5II ES and the Z6III is worse etc. It just seems odd that Canon can make the R3 so good. Cheers, Duade
@@Duade Both have considerably less resolution and if compared with their similar specced peers they are not that good anymore...
Thank you for this interesting video and your honest comments on this new camera🌞🌞🌞🌞