The Canon EOS R5 and R6 cameras have created a lot of excitement in the photography world, and for the tons of photographers who already have deep investments in the EF lens library, the question of whether adapted performance can keep up with professional demands looms large. This great video shows you the kind of performance you can expect in real-world usage.
Coming to you from Jared Polin, this excellent video takes a look at adapted lens autofocus performance using an EF-to-RF adapter on the Canon EOS R5 and EOS R6 cameras. The autofocus system on the new cameras is definitely impressive, but with the expensive prices of RF lenses and existing libraries of EF lenses many photographers own, the prevailing preference may be to instead adapt. Thankfully, it looks like adapted autofocus performance is fantastic, even in demanding situations. Personally, this is definitely great news, as I personally have a large EF lens library, and beyond that, the RF lens lineup simply does not have a lot of more esoteric options available yet, such as wide-aperture super-telephoto lenses, and you also get the additional features of the mirrorless system, such as eye and face tracking. Check out the video above to see what you can expect.
Winner, Winner, chicken dinner!
R5 has the best dynamic range of any full frame mirrorless or DSLR (photonstophotos proved this), and now has the best AF (and best full frame IBIS). Who cares about video, this is the photo beast!
Canon has been my goto for the 7 years I've been in photography. Thankfully I've found the used market was good for those unattainable lenses, pricewise... Canon seems to be the most conservative company, waiting to see what others introduce, then trumping them. I'll be getting an R5 for my photos soon. But just think, the company who brought us the first of all these-- 50mm 0.95, 1200mm f5.6, 200mm f1.8, 85mm f1.2, etc.
I was shooting a Nikon D850 a year ago when I sold all my gear and bought a canon Eos R, a 100-400 ii, and a 16-35 iii. Canon lenses blow Nikon away and I saw what was coming with mirrorless. Also, by all accounts, I heard that the eos r adopters work flawlessly with rf lenses.
I have had my R5 for about a week. It blows the D850 away. The stunningly beautiful images I get require almost no processing. Sure the d850 has great dynamic range but the muddy mess required so much editing and noise removal that I started hating the process of taking photos. I can’t say enough good things about this thing.
The truth is both Canon and Nikon have their strengths and weaknesses. Only some Canon glass is better than Nikon, some Nikon glass is better than Canon. Like the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8E VR, 70-200mm f2.8E VR FL, 28mm f1.4E, etc. So sure Canon has some lenses Nikon can’t even make for DSLRs due to mount diameter, but Nikon also has lenses Canon does not have. Like the 105mm f1.4E or even if you look at two lenses they both make, Nikon clearly and by a large margins beats Canon, (the 800mm f5.6 lenses!) Same with Canon and Nikon cameras, until recently Nikon cameras had better dynamic range with only the 1Dx Mark III and R5 finally beating Nikon after what 12 years? As someone whose professionally shot both Canon and Nikon over the decades, I would have to say they are both awesome and just as capable as the other. Also both have weaknesses and strengths, equals, standouts, etc. Your blanket statement that Canon glass beats Nikon is just not accurate. You need to use specific examples and also admit some Nikon glass beats Canon as well.
Yeah, the R5 images straight out of the gate are amazing. I'm watching Irene Rudnyk's videos and her "After" photos look almost exactly like her "Before" photos. Prior to the R5, this was not the case. She said the colours have actually improved over the previous Canon cameras.
And Photons to Photos shows the R5 now has more dynamic range than the D850, and A7RIV. Nice job by Canon on what is one of the most perfect photo cameras ever made.
I have a question on the autofocus coverage area, from the video I noticed that there are two different autofocus coverage area (white frame), for example 3:36 vs 3:41. One is narrower and one is wider near the edge. Why is that?