EOS R1 Autofocus: What Sets It Apart from the EOS R5 Mark II?

#21
What sets it appart is the huge cost, size, and the obvious lower resolution sensor. It is primarily a "professional" tool for a specific genre, fast action sports and movement. Like comparing a large format printer to an everyday office inkjet.
 
Upvote 0
#22
Viggo said:
This has always been the story of 1 vs 5 series in my experience. The most glaring example were perhaps the 5d3 vs 1dx. All people said was that the AF was the same. But for anyone who used both that juuust wasn’t the case. Same thing goes for comparing and reading just specs. «Everybody» are always underwhelmed when a new Canon body comes out, yet, they perform absolutely stellar and without all the insane caveats of Sony and now Nikon. I don’t know why anyone is surprised the AF in the R1 will beat out both the R3 and R5. It was actually obvious with the specs when it was know in had cross type sensors, it was the big thing being discussed here for years and years, and then almost ignored with all the talking heads said «the R5 II is more of a flagship then the R1» and «I’m not getting an R1 , the R5 II will be better for me» . Using the double cross sensors of the 1dx2 was so much better then older cross type and non cross type.

And just to state again, I feel the R3 was also kind of dismissed and downplayed and ignored by many that went for the R5 and R5 II. A store rep even recommended me the R6 II over the R3 because of the specs saying it’s «basically the same camera». I left. The R3 is the perfect compromise for me and has performed way beyond any other Canon body I’ve owned or tried..
Click to expand...
However, the point missed is that for 98% of the mass consumer ie normal photographers, the 5D now R5 is absolutely the better option for the $$$$ price point. Especially considered it's hybrid dual functionality and without that built in monster grip that many prefer not to haul around. And the R5 absolutely wins hands down when it comes to resolution. Yeah, when you pay over $6000 you have to chirp about something. But the results say otherwise. Internet and journalist photos simply will not display any differences at all. We saw this in posted fotos during the Paris Olympics.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#23
Im still wondering where the R3 is supposed to stand with all these 24mp cameras ! For 99% of people that shoot sports , the R3 is more than enough for sports and journalism. Where does the R1 stands in all of this? Or where does the R3 stands now after the R1 release . So confusing
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#24
Having shot professionally for 12+ yrs and used many new cameras as they came out, from the 7D to 1DIV to 5D3 to 1Dx, to 7D2 to 1Dx2 to R5, then R3 and most recently R5m2 and this weekend shooting HS FB/VB with the R1, I can tell you there are usually just incremental improvements. But I must say the R1, is more of a generational advancement. Beyond just the 1 series level of customization, the combo of the Dual Pixel and action priority has made my job so much easier / stress free. With proper framing (tight but not too tight), and focus locking on the action as it happens, the R1 almost always knows where to focus AND maintains focus at a % not seen previously.
For example, shooting VB from the side with a 28-70/2, with action priority ON, single point/expand area and back button focus 1/2 press with whole area tracking on, it is almost not fair! I feel like it is a point - shoot in this scenario. The R1 just knows what to focus on, all I have to do is frame/zoom and click. It is not perfect, it would occasionally front focus on a player crossing in front of the ball coming over the net, but nearly always it would then switch the player receiving the serve, then as the setter makes the pass, it would focus on her, and finally it would jump to the hitter, nearly flawlessly. While I shoot at 20 fps, and with a customized button jump to 40 fps as needed, I feel like I am watching a movie in photomechanic in perfect focus, at f2, as I cull.
Add that to the improved communications features/stability on the R1 and I am able to select the perfect frame, single button send it via FTP to my laptop (via my home NAS synchronized folder), and when I edit in between sets, the JPGs are there and I must say, the OOC R1 jpgs look pretty good ( a little flat) but with just a few touch ups, look great. TY Canon from a working pro who now gets home earlier and my editor thanks you too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0
#26
Gogo7 said:
Im still wondering where the R3 is supposed to stand with all these 24mp cameras ! For 99% of people that shoot sports , the R3 is more than enough for sports and journalism. Where does the R1 stands in all of this? Or where does the R3 stands now after the R1 release . So confusing
Click to expand...
Most likely the cheaper alternative. It was Canon's bridge camera.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#27
Gogo7 said:
Im still wondering where the R3 is supposed to stand with all these 24mp cameras ! For 99% of people that shoot sports , the R3 is more than enough for sports and journalism. Where does the R1 stands in all of this? Or where does the R3 stands now after the R1 release . So confusing
Click to expand...
It'll either be discontinued or be moved towards a different niche altogether
 
Upvote 0
#28
Gogo7 said:
Im still wondering where the R3 is supposed to stand with all these 24mp cameras ! For 99% of people that shoot sports , the R3 is more than enough for sports and journalism. Where does the R1 stands in all of this? Or where does the R3 stands now after the R1 release . So confusing
Click to expand...
The R3 (mine is now being passed on down to my son) is still very capable, and offers great ergo / IQ and reliable AF with the option of SD card flexibility IF that is important to the PROSUMER, in fact I think it is still definitely a viable option if the price is right (just ask my son). For a working pro though, my new R1 is my time / stress saver. W/o that need, I'd say many (most) prosumers are still well-served by the R3 and will just need to work a little on their tradecraft to be able to capture THAT moment.
As an aside, the JPGs OOC are now much better than the R3 / R5 but still need just a little LR help for publication purposes, but can be used in pinch as is. Still, much better looking than NIKON OOC. My contemporaries who shoot NIKON, I can tell when they don't have time to properly process as they retain that NIKON flatness in the shadows. The R1 does too, but now with MUCH more reliable FTP delivery with just the touch of single button, I have more time to process / deliver a cleaner and vibrant shot!
 

Attachments

  • R1JJ9046.jpg
    R1JJ9046.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 35
Upvote 0
#29
jam05 said:
However, the point missed is that for 98% of the mass consumer ie normal photographers, the 5D now R5 is absolutely the better option for the $$$$ price point.
Click to expand...
It’s you who is missing the point. For ‘mass consumers’ their smartphone is all the camera they need. For those wanting an ILC, an APS-C model like the R50 is absolutely the better option for the money, which is why APS-C cameras far outsell FF cameras.

As for your 98% number, it’s actually close in terms of the R1 vs other Canon cameras. Canon expects that the R1 will be ~1.5% of the ILCs they sell. Personally, I’m fine being in that top 1.5%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#31
jam05 said:
Except not everyone prefers to haul around an R1 camera for the yes mostly negligible AF difference for the vast amount of photography genres. Let alone its lower mp resolution. For the value, no, the R1 autofocus difference has no tangible edge over the R5. EXIF data suggest that the consumer's eyes simply don't buy your argument. On paper one may be able to claim the technical AF differences however for the majority of practical applications the added cost, size, and lower resolution sensor factor simply doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...
okay?

and what is your point exactly?

the R1 will certainly give value for those that need it. You, apparently, are not one of those people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#32
As I see it the R1 AF has two major advantages over the R5 MK2. 1) Faster readout speed which may provide better AF for fast moving subjects and 2) cross-type AF across the entire frame. WRT a 24 MP I am fine with that resolution because I typically print 8x10 and 16x20 is the largest I make which can readily be done especially with today's AI upsampling software.
 
Upvote 0
#33
7D II...
Canon Rumors Guy said:
That was the first implementation of DPAF, DPAF II took a big leap and it only continues to get better.
Click to expand...

DPAF debuted in the 70D (2013). But I clearly remember my first very successful experience with DPAF in 7DII, standing with outstretched arms in second or third row of a big crowd using "live view" in over-the-head shots of horse-riders coming almost straight towards me. Even if not as good as later DPAF II, it was still a pretty impressive new feature at that time.

18552863058_9ff8f064f4_h.jpg


18714327766_ece2b67dd2_h.jpg


18552903170_bf44e12897_h.jpg



(Canon EOS 7D Mark II and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM)

Just getting a bit nostalgic :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0
#34
jam05 said:
However, the point missed is that for 98% of the mass consumer ie normal photographers, the 5D now R5 is absolutely the better option for the $$$$ price point. Especially considered it's hybrid dual functionality and without that built in monster grip that many prefer not to haul around. And the R5 absolutely wins hands down when it comes to resolution. Yeah, when you pay over $6000 you have to chirp about something. But the results say otherwise. Internet and journalist photos simply will not display any differences at all. We saw this in posted fotos during the Paris Olympics.
Click to expand...
My general experience is that when you spend >$6,000 on a camera, you tend to know what exactly you need and why you bought that particular item. As for value for the money...that was part of my issue with the R5 II, add a battery grip, new batteries to unlock all the features, and I was looking at ~$5k.

If you want to make the value argument, I will actually argue for an R8, R6 II, etc. Canon gives you plenty of options. Amazing value. Even the current R5 Mk I at discounted prices. But the R5 II really was creeping up there in price.

jam05 said:
And the R5 absolutely wins hands down when it comes to resolution.
Click to expand...
I mean, 45 MP is greater than 24 MP. Sure, that seems like almost "double." And it will certainly take up that space on your SSD. So, you might think this is a slam dunk. But in terms of linear improvements of resolution, it is 8192 / 6000 = 1.365. So, a 36.5% increase in linear resolution. Converting this to output, using 300 ppi, you can print up to 27.3 inches (8192/300) on the long end with an R5 file or 20 inches with the R1 file. Winning, yes, but a little editing and I suspect I'll be able to make up the difference most of the time.

How much more resolution I think remains to be seen after some careful testing as the sensors may not be 1:1 equivalent. But, if resolution is the end all characteristic for you, in the Canon realm, then the R5 likely needs to be at or near the top of your list (also the R7 if we want to consider pixels on target).

I believe the argument for the R1 is that there are many factors when it comes to image capture and creation. I suspect the R1 will outpace the R5 II by many of those other metrics. Otherwise, Canon would be counting on just the prestige of the "1" series to sell cameras, which would be a short-lived strategy from a company that has been around for decades.

If really interested, I recommend you watch some of Jan Wegener's video on the R1. Even though a birder, which I would argue needs MPs about as much as any group, he is concluding that the R1 as his primary camera and the R5 II when he needs a few more MPs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#35
jam05 said:
Except not everyone prefers to haul around an R1 camera for the yes mostly negligible AF difference for the vast amount of photography genres. Let alone its lower mp resolution. For the value, no, the R1 autofocus difference has no tangible edge over the R5. EXIF data suggest that the consumer's eyes simply don't buy your argument. On paper one may be able to claim the technical AF differences however for the majority of practical applications the added cost, size, and lower resolution sensor factor simply doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...
For professionals, it certainly does!
That you are not the customer doesn't mean this feature is negligible. For you, ok, but certainly not for those who make a living with their camera.
And, sorry, this improved AF can be a real game changer in some situations.
 
Upvote 0
#36
docsmith said:
My general experience is that when you spend >$6,000 on a camera, you tend to know what exactly you need and why you bought that particular item. […]
Click to expand...
When looking around during photo workshops and family vacations, there is almost always someone who liked their photo hobby and at some point wandered into a store with a blank check.
They indeed have the best tool for their use case, but needed the photo store to select it. And get great results, since the photo store did their job well to get repeat purchases :)

I wonder if this is the same group that Canon is talking about in their financial forecasts: hobby shooters with lots of disposable income.

I’m in the group that obsessively researches anything over €50 and I’m quite envious of the blank check group :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#37
jam05 said:
However, the point missed is that for 98% of the mass consumer ie normal photographers, the 5D now R5 is absolutely the better option for the $$$$ price point. Especially considered it's hybrid dual functionality and without that built in monster grip that many prefer not to haul around. And the R5 absolutely wins hands down when it comes to resolution. Yeah, when you pay over $6000 you have to chirp about something. But the results say otherwise. Internet and journalist photos simply will not display any differences at all. We saw this in posted fotos during the Paris Olympics.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of a homeworker criticizing a 12kg. Hilti hammerdrill for being too heavy and expensive for drilling 3/8 holes into drywall...
The small Bosch drill is so much lighter, far less expensive and much faster at drilling small holes. Who needs a heavy expensive hammerdrill ? :rolleyes:
Some do!
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#38
Del Paso said:
This reminds me of a homeworker criticizing a 12kg. Hilti hammerdrill for being too heavy and expensive for drilling 3/8 holes into drywall...
The small Bosch drill is so much lighter, far less expensive and much faster at drilling small holes. Who needs a heavy expensive hammerdrill ? :rolleyes:
Some do!
Click to expand...
Our previous house was a mostly prefab concrete construction, you needed an SDS-plus or heavier hammerdrill for the tiniest holes. Very glad I bought one, family, friends and neighbours have borrowed it after moving into a new house with concrete inner walls :)

I still haven’t found an excuse to get a gripped camera, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#39
koenkooi said:
Our previous house was a mostly prefab concrete construction, you needed an SDS-plus or heavier hammerdrill for the tiniest holes. Very glad I bought one, family, friends and neighbours have borrowed it after moving into a new house with concrete inner walls :)

I still haven’t found an excuse to get a gripped camera, though.
Click to expand...
Neither have I, but I'm no pro. But if I were, I'd certainly buy an R1 and not an R5 II, for its ruggedness and superior reliability.
Yet, why should one criticize a tool simply because one doesn't need it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#40
jam05 said:
Except not everyone prefers to haul around an R1 camera for the yes mostly negligible AF difference for the vast amount of photography genres. Let alone its lower mp resolution. For the value, no, the R1 autofocus difference has no tangible edge over the R5. EXIF data suggest that the consumer's eyes simply don't buy your argument. On paper one may be able to claim the technical AF differences however for the majority of practical applications the added cost, size, and lower resolution sensor factor simply doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...
The R5 II with battery grip and 2nd battery is actually heavier than the R1. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
There is no longer a shortage of the Canon EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II
Replies
19
Views
854
reisi007
reisi007
Canon Rumors
More thoughts on the Canon EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II from Paris
Replies
151
Views
12K
bbasiaga
B
Canon Rumors
Canon officially announces the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II
Replies
236
Views
13K
frankchn
F
Richard CR
Canon EOS R5 Mark II Assumes it’s Rightful Ranking at Map Camera
Replies
10
Views
698
Ryrock77
R
Richard CR
Canon Interview: EOS R1 is the true flagship
Replies
266
Views
15K
Omn
O
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu