-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
So is the Canon R5 a bird photography body? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mikenott
- Start date
Dave Williams
Well-known member
From what reports have described is the only loss from using EF lenses the in camera/lens IS combination working together?
In terms of faster lenses it certainly is a breakthrough that Canon are offering AF performance at incredibly small apertures. The two new RF f11 telephotos will supposedly take both 1.4 and 2.0 TCs.
Maybe with all those AF points you don't need large apertures for fast AF acquisition but what I would wonder about is bokeh.
The 100-400 Mk2 EF lens is no slouch, in fact it's very fast but when the background is cluttered the bokeh does leave a lot to be desired at times.
Going back to your Kingfisher shots SeeToh you mention not all your shots were in focus, can you give a better idea of how many you took and the success rate?
I was shooting Curlews in flight with a 500mmf4 and the 5D4 a couple of days ago and my keeper rate was pretty low, 20% maximum. The Curlew isn't the fastest most difficult bird to track and they were reasonably close but using expanded centre point is hit and miss, as is attempting to use all your focus points. I guess with the eye detection technology the way to go with the R5 and R6 is always use all your available AF points?
In terms of faster lenses it certainly is a breakthrough that Canon are offering AF performance at incredibly small apertures. The two new RF f11 telephotos will supposedly take both 1.4 and 2.0 TCs.
Maybe with all those AF points you don't need large apertures for fast AF acquisition but what I would wonder about is bokeh.
The 100-400 Mk2 EF lens is no slouch, in fact it's very fast but when the background is cluttered the bokeh does leave a lot to be desired at times.
Going back to your Kingfisher shots SeeToh you mention not all your shots were in focus, can you give a better idea of how many you took and the success rate?
I was shooting Curlews in flight with a 500mmf4 and the 5D4 a couple of days ago and my keeper rate was pretty low, 20% maximum. The Curlew isn't the fastest most difficult bird to track and they were reasonably close but using expanded centre point is hit and miss, as is attempting to use all your focus points. I guess with the eye detection technology the way to go with the R5 and R6 is always use all your available AF points?
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Anyone know how the R5 compares to the 7d2 when Cropped to the same FOV (either via the R5 crop mode or cropping in pp). The R5 would leave 17.5 mp after cropping which is a bit less than the 7d2 but I would guess the IQ would be pretty much the same ?.
I suspect the big plus for the R5 would be the AF, especially for flyers. Any other pro and cons with regards to bird snapping ?.
I suspect the big plus for the R5 would be the AF, especially for flyers. Any other pro and cons with regards to bird snapping ?.
Last edited:
Duck_Pond
Professional Wildlife Photographer And Guide
I've not compared the cropping element of it yet. I have found that it yields fantastic detail from huge crops though.
For me, the silent shooting side is key, as my 1DX is simply too noisy to use with sensitive subjects, and having heard the mark 2 and 3 on "silent" mode, there's not a great deal of improvement. To be able to shoot at 20fps for otters and owls will be fabulous.
The AF is remarkable, but I'm sure Sony users have been enjoying the same tech for some time.
When I photograph the little owls, getting images of them in focus as they scuttle across the barn roof is difficult. With my 1DX and 7d2 I might get 2 or 3 shots out of a burst of 20. The R5 is sometimes getting 20 sharp shots from such a sequence.
Also, to get flight shots of the owls, because they're so quick, I would pre-focus the camera on a marker mid-way through the flight line, and burst shots off when the owl flew, hoping it would fly through the right area.
The R5 can track the owl from where it takes off, through to landing, tracking the eye or failing that, the head area instead. I can't wait to try it on jumping squirrels when I'm next up in the Highlands.
It's not perfect, and does focus on other parts of the bird at times, but my hit rate has gone through the roof using the R5.
Not sure if people on here know these guys, but Oliver Wright (macro stacking specialist), Chas Moonie and Dave Soons are all using the R5, and getting stunning results. Worth looking at what they're achieving.
For me, the silent shooting side is key, as my 1DX is simply too noisy to use with sensitive subjects, and having heard the mark 2 and 3 on "silent" mode, there's not a great deal of improvement. To be able to shoot at 20fps for otters and owls will be fabulous.
The AF is remarkable, but I'm sure Sony users have been enjoying the same tech for some time.
When I photograph the little owls, getting images of them in focus as they scuttle across the barn roof is difficult. With my 1DX and 7d2 I might get 2 or 3 shots out of a burst of 20. The R5 is sometimes getting 20 sharp shots from such a sequence.
Also, to get flight shots of the owls, because they're so quick, I would pre-focus the camera on a marker mid-way through the flight line, and burst shots off when the owl flew, hoping it would fly through the right area.
The R5 can track the owl from where it takes off, through to landing, tracking the eye or failing that, the head area instead. I can't wait to try it on jumping squirrels when I'm next up in the Highlands.
It's not perfect, and does focus on other parts of the bird at times, but my hit rate has gone through the roof using the R5.
Not sure if people on here know these guys, but Oliver Wright (macro stacking specialist), Chas Moonie and Dave Soons are all using the R5, and getting stunning results. Worth looking at what they're achieving.
GYRob
Well-known member
yes the bokeh can be a bit harsh with the small aperture's but you have to spend quite a lot to get round that unless you soften it in PP .
regarding the R5 AF it looks like it works similar to the a9mkII ( I use that camera ) and it really is a game changer if you do your bit nearly every shot is pin sharp .
I tend to use All points even if the bird has say a tree background the camera nearly always finds the bird I have a custom button that starts with centre just in case it doesn't I would think the R5 can be setup the same way .
If my Sony lenses fitted I would hire a R5 to just give it a go .
Rob.
regarding the R5 AF it looks like it works similar to the a9mkII ( I use that camera ) and it really is a game changer if you do your bit nearly every shot is pin sharp .
I tend to use All points even if the bird has say a tree background the camera nearly always finds the bird I have a custom button that starts with centre just in case it doesn't I would think the R5 can be setup the same way .
If my Sony lenses fitted I would hire a R5 to just give it a go .
Rob.
Dave Williams
Well-known member
Interesting that the majority interest initially seems to have been for the R5 and little has been mentioned of the R6 which apparently is possibly even better than the R5 for AF. It costs a good deal less too and has several other benefits in it's favour. I think many are looking at the R5 as the 5D and the R6 as the 6D which is a mistake in my opinion.
If you want cropping ability then it's the R5 but a long lens might be an equally good solution. When things are too distant no matter how many pixels you have you won't be able to fix heat haze.
As for video, well it's not something that I need 8K for anyway.
If you want cropping ability then it's the R5 but a long lens might be an equally good solution. When things are too distant no matter how many pixels you have you won't be able to fix heat haze.
As for video, well it's not something that I need 8K for anyway.
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
yes if I did not have to crop to at least the same FOV as the 7D2 then I would certainly go for the R6 in preference. I know from shooting with my 5D3 (22.3 mp) that it would be no good for me as I am most always focal range limited when shooting in the estuary. I do nothing at all from hides or pay to shoot sites etc.
colincurry
Well-known member
I am like Roy in that I am walk around opportunistic snapper. Often the only available subjects are some way off. I use the 7D2 and 100-4002 with occasionally the 1.4iii tc. I often find that I have to crop quite a lot to fill the frame. If the R6 had more mgp allowing more of crop, then I might be tempted. I know I could use my tc on the R6 but would still have less reach than now. Hopefully time will provide more examples of the R6 used for wildlife which might help decision making. Hopefully, time might also lead to a price reduction. In every sense, I think I can afford to wait.
I was recently asked to photograph some who was to fly in a Spitfire. Both cameras I own have video capability. From my then efforts, I have no need to be concerned about video
I was recently asked to photograph some who was to fly in a Spitfire. Both cameras I own have video capability. From my then efforts, I have no need to be concerned about video
Last edited:
Dave Williams
Well-known member
How far away was that Sparrow out of interest ?
I'd love to hear some detail on noise vs ISO too if you have any info.
Can you not just plug the camera in to your computer instead of using a card reader?
cheers Dave
mikenott
Flawed but improving!
Important: Canon R5 and the RF 100-500 PLUS RF 1.4x
I found this info whilst looking at the RF100-500 and RF1.4x Extender combo. It significantly affected my (personal!) decision, so I thought I would share.
The RF1.4x can only be used with the RF100-500 when the zoom is greater than 300mm. The RF1.4x can only be attached once the zoom is out beyond 300m and the zoom tube must always be beyond 300mm if the RF 1.4x is fitted. This makes it longer and a bit more cumbersome to carry around
It also means that the 100-500 does not become a 140-700 lens with the RF1.4x , but becomes a 420 (300x1.4) to 700 lens. If you want that zoom range, great, but most of us would expect to get 140-700 with the 1.4x extender and you do not in this case. You have to take off the 1.4x to go below 420mm – which is not good in an outdoor environment.
It seems a strange way to do it to me even though I understand the desire to keep things as small as possible. Admittedly, you do have 100-500 without an extender on the RF compared to a 140-700 with the EF 100-400 with 1.4 extender
On the other hand, the R5 + RF to EF adapter + EF 1.4 extender are reported to work extremely well with all the EF lens over their full zoom range - especially the EF 100-400 isii (which I have).
In view of the above, I am holding hold back on the RF 100-500 and RF1.4x for now and will play with the Ef to R converter, EF 1.4x and 100-400 isii I already have.
The image above and other info were found on these links:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4521249#forum-post-64397391
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MH34YAWGek&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2XuTCHGnmejJxuX13Mu48RbNQywCtSFamq6f2sedtOGx47cwMCrnfavvk
I found this info whilst looking at the RF100-500 and RF1.4x Extender combo. It significantly affected my (personal!) decision, so I thought I would share.
The RF1.4x can only be used with the RF100-500 when the zoom is greater than 300mm. The RF1.4x can only be attached once the zoom is out beyond 300m and the zoom tube must always be beyond 300mm if the RF 1.4x is fitted. This makes it longer and a bit more cumbersome to carry around
It also means that the 100-500 does not become a 140-700 lens with the RF1.4x , but becomes a 420 (300x1.4) to 700 lens. If you want that zoom range, great, but most of us would expect to get 140-700 with the 1.4x extender and you do not in this case. You have to take off the 1.4x to go below 420mm – which is not good in an outdoor environment.
It seems a strange way to do it to me even though I understand the desire to keep things as small as possible. Admittedly, you do have 100-500 without an extender on the RF compared to a 140-700 with the EF 100-400 with 1.4 extender
On the other hand, the R5 + RF to EF adapter + EF 1.4 extender are reported to work extremely well with all the EF lens over their full zoom range - especially the EF 100-400 isii (which I have).
In view of the above, I am holding hold back on the RF 100-500 and RF1.4x for now and will play with the Ef to R converter, EF 1.4x and 100-400 isii I already have.
The image above and other info were found on these links:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4521249#forum-post-64397391
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MH34YAWGek&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2XuTCHGnmejJxuX13Mu48RbNQywCtSFamq6f2sedtOGx47cwMCrnfavvk
Dave Williams
Well-known member
Thanks for sharing that Mike, very interesting indeed as well as surprising. I had been thinking R6 and 100-500 plus a 1.4TC as a lightweight alternative to my 500f4 but now I can see a reason for getting the extra pixels on the R5 might be beneficial.
Canon might just announce a change of heart though and issue firmware to allow you to use it when the lens isn't extended. I think I'm correct in saying at one time Canon deliberately blocked AF on lens/TC combinations above f5.6. on all camera bodies when Nikon happily let you do so to f8.The 5D3 was a classic case of Canon allowing this to happen when they issued the firmware when competition dictated they should do.
It make you wonder what else is suppressed on each bodies microchip!
Canon might just announce a change of heart though and issue firmware to allow you to use it when the lens isn't extended. I think I'm correct in saying at one time Canon deliberately blocked AF on lens/TC combinations above f5.6. on all camera bodies when Nikon happily let you do so to f8.The 5D3 was a classic case of Canon allowing this to happen when they issued the firmware when competition dictated they should do.
It make you wonder what else is suppressed on each bodies microchip!
the problem isn't software - the extender goes so far into the lens that it has to be opened to 300 to get it to fit . It also means that you have to remove it after every session or run the risk of damaging either the lens or extender . I would love the extender but don't think I could be bothered with the faffing around.
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
Good to see you got your order.Small crop by my standards
Only received camera last night so no chance to play with ISO .
Canon dont supply the right connector for me and in any case I much prefer using reader than connecting camera up .
Can I ask what supplier you used and how long it took to arrive?
5 weeks plus and still no sign from WEX.
Barred Wobbler
Well-known member
Thanks
Dave Williams
Well-known member
Thanks for the explanation re the 1.4TC. That's certainly made me think about the benefit of the R5 plus 100-500 vs the cheaper options of the R6 plus adaptor and use my EF lenses.
Although there are some obvious apparent benefits in Canon's two new mirrorless bodies I'm not too convinced about their lens offerings for my kind of photography. The two f11 telephotos are so "inexpensive" there has to be a catch surely!! I'm thinking can the the bodies produce sufficiently noise free images considering the shutter speeds and apertures needed to freeze motion on typical dull winter days. It's all very well having inbuilt image stabilisation way beyond what we have had previously but that isn't going to do anything to stop motion blur.
Although there are some obvious apparent benefits in Canon's two new mirrorless bodies I'm not too convinced about their lens offerings for my kind of photography. The two f11 telephotos are so "inexpensive" there has to be a catch surely!! I'm thinking can the the bodies produce sufficiently noise free images considering the shutter speeds and apertures needed to freeze motion on typical dull winter days. It's all very well having inbuilt image stabilisation way beyond what we have had previously but that isn't going to do anything to stop motion blur.
