NatureScapes.net Forums

A video review:

https://youtu.be/4ybZ-Ja6zfU

https://fstoppers.com/animal/canon-eos-r5-review-wildlife-photography-529068

Joe

I was moving away from Canon for my bird photography. While I cannot fault their lenses, their cameras can suck the enjoyment of photography. I've got used to it but after trying the D500 with the 500PF, I realized it wasn't all my fault. Instead of 30% sharp images I was getting 90% despite the lack of familiarity with the Nikon's ergonomics and menus. The difference in % is attributable to Nikon's ability to consistently produce in-focus images. It was a breath of fresh air and the combo was great for taking just about anywhere. But I keep most of my Canon gear and last week purchased an R5. Long story short, this camera leap-frogs the D500 and my success rate is approaching 100% in-focus images. The camera easily recognizes birds, their heads and locks onto the eye if facing the camera. I've tried it with small passerines, larger birds with dark heads and even ducks bobbing on choppy water ~100 feet away. The new ergonomics of the R5 will take some learning but I can forgive just about anything (including poor battery performance) knowing that I don't have to struggle with focusing. I have not tried birds in flight. Still, Canon needs to produce a few super teles along the lines of Nikon's 500PF. Bu for the record, the R5 worked effortlessly with the the EF100-400mm & EF600mm f/4 II with 1.4x converter.

Apologies for the ramble, but the R5 AF capabilities are simply incredible to me, I consider a major milestone in my my photography journey.

Cheers

Jim

I’ve always found it curious that some photographers say that equipment is not as important as skill in getting good or great images. I have always found that with equipment improving in capabilities, cameras and lenses nowadays outshine older, and even recent, equipment, just as you say. With each iteration, it seems that more and more good photographs appear, along with new and more productive photographers. It doesn’t take the skill and learning that it used to and a photographer with a good eye can really produce fine images prolifically. Locations and subjects are the most limiting factor. Even low light isn’t as limiting as before and with PP, many obstacles to producing great images disappear.

Joe

I just love the guys that say equipment is not important. Looking back the same was said of autofocus. I’m still looking for the people who can focus better than the camera. I guess it’s always a bit of schadenfreude.

SantaFeJoe wrote:I’ve always found it curious that some photographers say that equipment is not as important as skill in getting good or great images. 

Joe

There is no question that the skill and the creativity of the photographer creates great (this debatable as great means different things to different people) images.  You can have all your images sharp and in focus (the gear helps) but that doesn't make a "great" image.  It's a tool to help you accomplish your vision or goal. Equipment is not as important as the compostion, lighting and subject matter, etc.  

BTW, I hope they do a similar review for the R6. I am not upgrading from the 7D MK2 until maybe 1 to 3 years from now.  By then, there will have been more improvements to the R-series cameras (not that there is anything lacking in them now but gear always keeps improving - more features, better this and that). 

hullyjr wrote:I was moving away from Canon for my bird photography. While I cannot fault their lenses, their cameras can suck the enjoyment of photography. I've got used to it but after trying the D500 with the 500PF, I realized it wasn't all my fault. Instead of 30% sharp images I was getting 90% despite the lack of familiarity with the Nikon's ergonomics and menus. The difference in % is attributable to Nikon's ability to consistently produce in-focus images. It was a breath of fresh air and the combo was great for taking just about anywhere. But I keep most of my Canon gear and last week purchased an R5. Long story short, this camera leap-frogs the D500 and my success rate is approaching 100% in-focus images. The camera easily recognizes birds, their heads and locks onto the eye if facing the camera. I've tried it with small passerines, larger birds with dark heads and even ducks bobbing on choppy water ~100 feet away. The new ergonomics of the R5 will take some learning but I can forgive just about anything (including poor battery performance) knowing that I don't have to struggle with focusing. I have not tried birds in flight. Still, Canon needs to produce a few super teles along the lines of Nikon's 500PF. Bu for the record, the R5 worked effortlessly with the the EF100-400mm & EF600mm f/4 II with 1.4x converter.

Apologies for the ramble, but the R5 AF capabilities are simply incredible to me, I consider a major milestone in my my photography journey.

Cheers

Jim

The rf 100-500 with and without the 1.4 x extender is a great combo with the R5.   Eye detect works well on BID.   You need to use the two back button A/F with single point and star with eye detect to really get full use of it.    The addition of the RF 800 f11 is great for good light situations.  Incredibly sharp fo $1000.00. 

rtvernick@gmail.com wrote:

hullyjr wrote:I was moving away from Canon for my bird photography. While I cannot fault their lenses, their cameras can suck the enjoyment of photography. I've got used to it but after trying the D500 with the 500PF, I realized it wasn't all my fault. Instead of 30% sharp images I was getting 90% despite the lack of familiarity with the Nikon's ergonomics and menus. The difference in % is attributable to Nikon's ability to consistently produce in-focus images. It was a breath of fresh air and the combo was great for taking just about anywhere. But I keep most of my Canon gear and last week purchased an R5. Long story short, this camera leap-frogs the D500 and my success rate is approaching 100% in-focus images. The camera easily recognizes birds, their heads and locks onto the eye if facing the camera. I've tried it with small passerines, larger birds with dark heads and even ducks bobbing on choppy water ~100 feet away. The new ergonomics of the R5 will take some learning but I can forgive just about anything (including poor battery performance) knowing that I don't have to struggle with focusing. I have not tried birds in flight. Still, Canon needs to produce a few super teles along the lines of Nikon's 500PF. Bu for the record, the R5 worked effortlessly with the the EF100-400mm & EF600mm f/4 II with 1.4x converter.

Apologies for the ramble, but the R5 AF capabilities are simply incredible to me, I consider a major milestone in my my photography journey.

Cheers

Jim

The rf 100-500 with and without the 1.4 x extender is a great combo with the R5.   Eye detect works well on BID.   You need to use the two back button A/F with single point and star with eye detect to really get full use of it.    The addition of the RF 800 f11 is great for good light situations.  Incredibly sharp fo $1000.00. 

I'm interested in the 100-500 + 1.4x with R5 but waiting to see more reviews especially the IQ wide open and focusing speeds. Aside from system compatibility (just using Canon gear), I would not be gaining too much over my current D500/500mm/1.4 set-up for bird photography. I would lose ~3 million pixels so need to see something in return. Focusing speed of the Nikon set-up is challenging in poorer light so that would be a big one. 
What I would like (are you listening Santa?) is for Nikon to give the D500 one last grand update - 24MP, D6 focusing, custom user setting like the Z and a better live view experience. Maybe the update to the D850 would be an option?