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

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 ?
Some do!

Click to expand...

Exactly: R5II and R1 are different tools for different jobs but that have some overlap. More choice is good.

koenkooi said:

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

Click to expand...

I have seen a surprising number of Leicas out and about. Mostly slung over a shoulder.

I can’t say I have seen any random 1 series Canons. Closest would have been an older gentleman in Alaska on his way to photograph bears. He had all the best gear and was very happy about it all. As advanced in years and happy as he was, all the power to him.

The rest of the time I see a Canon 1 series out and about the person is clearly a pro or serious amateur.

Stig Nygaard said:

7D II...


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.


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

Just getting a bit nostalgic

Click to expand...

Ah, Hubertusjagt in Jægersborg dyrehave. Magasindammen, right?
Gorgeous shots.

kaihp said:

Ah, Hubertusjagt in Jægersborg dyrehave. Magasindammen, right?
Gorgeous shots.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Thanks

neuroanatomist said:

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%.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of the 1% rule...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%_rule
where 1% of a website's users actively create content (whether commenting.... or taking shots).

I have both the R5 Mkii and the R1. I’ve used the R5ii for many weeks and shot Water Polo with both over the weekend. Water Polo is a hard sport regarding focus due to the movement and contrast with the water. My findings were that the R1 kept focus much better in this environment than the R5ii. Obviously this is a very specific use case but for Water Polo the R! will be my primary camera.

Del Paso said:

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?

Click to expand...

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...

Richard CR said:

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.

Click to expand...

The R5 II + battery grip and 2nd battery is actually heavier than the R1.

R1 autofocus difference has a huge edge over the R5 and is allegedly more accurate than the R5 II (I just received my R1 so haven't verified this yet).
However, the R1 has dual CFX B cards and 40 FPS compared to a single CFX B and 30 FPS. It may not matter to you but it certainly matters to me.
The weakest part of the R3 is having mixed card types. To get full performance I have to shoot my R3s with either only the CFX B card or mixed with CRAW to the CFX B and JPG to the SD. The R1 allows me to shoot CRAW to both for redundancy.

45 MP shot at 30 FPS is going to carve out a chunk of storage space throughout an 8 hour shoot with 2x bodies.
If you have to get shots stored, then culled, edited and sent to a client you will appreciate the "inferior" 24 MP sensor.

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...

When I worked construction as a lad we used a hammer for screws and just tightened them at the end with a screwdriver. Just saying

For those old and camera oriented enough to have experienced a first look through the viewfinder of the Olympus OM1 at its introduction will understand what I mean here. That experience, when I was a roving editorial shooter for many of the biggest and most respected American, and some international, news and general interest magazines in existence. After looking through the OM1 (and, to be fair, feeling its small size and weight) I soon sold all my pro Nikon gear and bought a huge Olympus kit which lasted me for half a decade until I changed my client types to more commercial ones. That gorgeous view through the finder is what sold me. The ability to make images well partly depends looking through a viewfinder in order to to see the subject that you want to record with as much clarity, brightness and in as great a detail as is possible. A large, detailed and very bright viewfinder make composing, judging relative focus and reduction in photographer fatigue easier, faster and better. Perhaps the most overlooked feature of the R! is going to be that big, bright high resolution viewfinder. The R5II's viewfinder magnification percentage is still quite small and "stingy" compared to some of its direct competitors and certainly to its "big brother", the R1. Even though I have already bought the R5II and am very happy with it for my types of work, I definitely have a bad case of viewfinder envy.

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...

I have an SDS-plus rotary hammer and it rocks. My old drill went up in flames (literally) trying to mount some shelves in concrete.

I hurt myself before because some cheap pliers exploded suddenly and unexpectedly. Since then I buy only nicer tools. Not the most expensive, but sturdier stuff.

Some people actually have a problem with that. A work colleague actually objected to a recommendation for Wera tools because you "don't need it" for DIY or "cheap works just as well". Okay then, round off your bolts if you like.

I don't get the gatekeeping. If you want an R1, get it. Provided you can easily afford it! To anyone outside this forum an R1 and an R100 will look the "same" anyways, once you put a lens on it.

SvO2 said:

So the R1 vs R5II situation is sorta the opposite of the 5diii and 1dx situation. The latter had the same AF hardware, but the 1dx had a whole processor dedicated to handling AF as well two additional processors to handle everything else. The 5diii had a single digic handling everything.

With the r1 vs r5ii, the processing appears to be identical. The big difference is the actual AF sensors (cross type vs non). I’m definitely curious to see real world experiences of people who use both.

Also worth noting the price difference between the 1 and 5 series is smaller than it has ever been before

Click to expand...

In the 5D3 vs 1DX AF accuracy and tracking debate, yes the 5D3 has slightly inferior hardware in the data processing area. However, the 5D3 had a much lower fps capability than the 1Dx. 6fps vs 12fps. So the 1Dx needed the extra data processing capability over the 5D3 so that it could achieve the same level of AF at 12fps vs the 5D3's 6fps. I never found the 5D3's af lacking compared to the 1dx, although in the view finder, the 1Dx seemed to have a more fluid aquistion through the AF points over the 5D3. But it didn't translate to better focussed images between the cameras with the confines of their frames per second.
In the current mirrorless world, everything has changed. There is less obvious differences between the top pro model and the pro/semi pro models further down the linage. If we ignor the sensor read out speed for a moment, a comparision of the R1 to the R6ii it's easy to think that the r6ii is a cut priced R1 series. The current R6ii has the same 1st curtain / mechanical shutter fps as the 1Dx, which is astounding. The difference between the R5 and the R3 / R6ii's AF is the AI content, not the hardware.
The R1 has a vastly superior buffer, weather sealing, build and EVF compared to the R6ii. These types specs are sometimes lost of hobbiests, because they dont often value these specs over MP and frame rate.
Where the R1 is superior over all of the other current Canon R series cameras is that it now has a clearly superior Af system and a shutter read out speed that is capable of driving the 30fps electronic shutter in a professional manner. When I use my R6ii in a fast moving wildlife / birding situation, I really consider the R6ii to be a 12fps camera with a 30fps capability that's only reserved for slow moving objects due to the rolling shutter. Which is a bit pointless in my opinion to have 30fps mode that can't be used for fast moving objects. But we are back to the same situation of the pro 1 series camera is now capable of delivering a usable fps that is double that of the pro-sumer cameras such as the R5ii and R6ii.

For me the 12fps on my current R6ii is actually a massive increase over my previous DSLR camera and i really have little need to wade through the amount of images that 30fps would give me. Maybe if the my income depended on them...my perspective would shift rapidly. But for me, there is usually another opportunity for another fly past.

john1970 said:

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.

Click to expand...

And the buffer, superior EVF, rear lcd, better weather sealing, better ergonomics and superior build quality.

Canon Rumors Guy said:

They could. They started with contrast detection and then they moved to phase detection on the DPAF equipped EOS cameras.

Click to expand...

Seems to me you're referring to live-view AF which did indeed use contrast detection and then phase detection.

For normal shooting, the way SLR's were designed to be used, the AF sensor did indeed have a blackout as the mirror moved away to expose the shutter. The solution was to calculate where the intended target was likely to be based on the previous few readings from the AF sensor. Using any solution based off the imaging sensor would have been impossible; it would only reveice a signal as the shutter slit passed that particular part of the sensor at which point it would be far too late to do anything about focus.

This thread seems to be somewhat dominated by people dealing with buyers remorse.

And it's completely understandable. Doesn't really make that much of a difference anymore if I spend 5k or 7k on a camera. Both hurt like hell in the wallet.
As a result I want to feel like having the biggest C**K on the block.
Articles pointing out potential benefits of going the 7k route, also point out flaws of the 5k one.
It hurts. I feel ya guys...
Now stop whining and go take some photos with your awesome piece of gear.

Toamelicious said:

This thread seems to be somewhat dominated by people dealing with buyers remorse.

And it's completely understandable. Doesn't really make that much of a difference anymore if I spend 5k or 7k on a camera. Both hurt like hell in the wallet.
As a result I want to feel like having the biggest C**K on the block.
Articles pointing out potential benefits of going the 7k route, also point out flaws of the 5k one.
It hurts. I feel ya guys...
Now stop whining and go take some photos with your awesome piece of gear.

Click to expand...

I imagine most of us who bought the R5II did so because of what it brings over the R1. As you noted, at these dollar amounts the extra cash doesn’t make a real difference to most of our budgets. I could still buy an R1 right this second. But I have no interest in a 24MP camera no matter what else it’s capable of.

If canon eventually comes out with a high end high res camera, I’ll probably buy.

Richard CR said:

No one who has purchased an R1 would be complaining about it here. The R1 is awesome, and works as advertised - hell, it works better than advertised.

Click to expand...

That's just my thought.
Complaining about a camera you've neither owned nor used doesn't make much sense.
Also, I'm quite sure that the R1 owners know exactly why they bought it, and not the R5 II. And are more than happy with their decision!

SvO2 said:

I imagine most of us who bought the R5II did so because of what it brings over the R1. As you noted, at these dollar amounts the extra cash doesn’t make a real difference to most of our budgets. I could still buy an R1 right this second. But I have no interest in a 24MP camera no matter what else it’s capable of.

If canon eventually comes out with a high end high res camera, I’ll probably buy.

Click to expand...

I too could easily have bought the R1, but didn't because of its size.
But why should I criticize it? It is certainly a fantastic camera, only not built for my needs or preferences. Nice to have the choice between so many excellent cameras. One shoe never fits all...

Del Paso said:

I too could easily have bought the R1, but didn't because of its size.
But why should I criticize it? It is certainly a fantastic camera, only not built for my needs or preferences. Nice to have the choice between so many excellent cameras. One shoe never fits all...

Click to expand...

That's why I got two shoes.

GMCPhotographics said:

I never found the 5D3's af lacking compared to the 1dx, although in the view finder, the 1Dx seemed to have a more fluid aquistion through the AF points over the 5D3

Click to expand...

That's quite the opposite of my experience. I used a 5D3 for several years and for moving subjects (even models walking down a runway) I wasn't too impressed with speed of the autofocus.

In 2016 I purchased a second hand 1Dx literally on the road to TT Assen, to shoot motorcycle racing (as a spectator). My keeper rate immediately doubled. After using the 1Dx for roughly 30 minutes, I packed the 5D3 away for good. It's now on permanent loan to a family member.