# Who is missing a smaller SPOT-AF-Point on The R5?



## xps (May 2, 2021)

In the middle of our spring-birding-season the more I am missing a smaller Spot-AF-Point on my R5.
In a lot of cases the birds, I want to shoot are far away and the existing Spot-AF-point is to large to nail the eye.
Using my older EF-bodies, the smaller Spot-point is often more nailing sharpness on the eye.
It gets better, if I stop down the 600mm lens to f8 to get a larger depth of sharpness, but then noise gets a problem.

Do you have the same experience? Would you like to see an R3 with an smaller Spot AF?


----------



## Fischer (May 2, 2021)

5DSR has an extra small focus point which is great and I always preferred using. Think its especially useful as MPIX goes up.


----------



## tron (May 2, 2021)

I do miss it but only if it's better than the current small AF point which I do not like it not because it is not necessary but because it is much worse (in low daylight) than the Spot-AF of Canons DSLRs and Nikons Simple AF point.


----------



## AlanF (May 2, 2021)

I have been an advocate of the small centre point focus on the 5 and 7 series for many years for bird photography. However, I am not missing it at all on the R5, and it's giving me the best AF and consistency have come across. If the bird is so far away that the eyeAF can't pick out the eye, then it is far enough away that the depth of field takes care of it. The 100-500mm at 700mm with the 1.4TC picks up the eye of a cormorant at 50m.


----------



## tron (May 2, 2021)

My point is that I need the ... small AF-point (pun intended) to focus on birds inside trees. Even 90D is very good on this.
I trust it much more than eye AF for these cases.


----------



## AlanF (May 2, 2021)

tron said:


> My point is that I need the ... small AF-point (pun intended) to focus on birds inside trees. Even 90D is very good on this.
> I trust it much more than eye AF for these cases.


I am managing well without it, and I didn't bother to use it with the D850 even for small birds in trees.


----------



## tron (May 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I am managing well without it, and I didn't bother to use it with the D850 even for small birds in trees.


My initial response was going to be:

Yes! D850's one point AF is fine!

(Copying from my post above: it is much worse (in low daylight) than the Spot-AF of Canons DSLRs and Nikons Simple AF point)


But I am confused about the meaning of :

I didn't bother to use it with the D850 even for small birds in trees.

Did you use one-point AF with D850 for birds in trees or you don't need to and in that case what method do you use?

Sorry English is not my native language.

All in all I like Canon and Nikon's DSLRs one/small point (whether this is a spot or a non-spot one vs R5 smallest AF area)


----------



## AlanF (May 2, 2021)

tron said:


> My initial response was going to be:
> 
> Yes! D850's one point AF is fine!
> 
> ...


I meant I didn't use the fine point, just the normal central square on the Nikon. What I find with the single point it is that when I am on target for a bird on a lake with waves or there is background, it focuses really well but with hand holding at 500mm or more, it gets off target. But, with the R5, when it locks on to the birds head, it sticks like glue even when my hand is shaky and the bird moves around the frame.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 2, 2021)

I did find the small spot useful occasionally when focusing thru a bush or similar obstacle. More often than not, it drifter off the subject causing a complete loss of the image. I've yet to have a issue with my R5 needing it, but the time may come. I have not been using it enough.


----------



## Viggo (May 2, 2021)

Since the smallest spot in DSLRS is actually more the size of the outer point, and the normal point is quite larger than the red square I don’t really see a difference. Think I read somewhere when they updated the R that the smallest square in the mirrorless Canon actually is pretty much exactly the same as the smallest point in the DSLR’s.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 2, 2021)

Realistically the only limit I have on focusing, is me.


----------



## mkamelg (May 3, 2021)

I miss a smaller Spot AF autofocus frame size in every Canon mirrorless full-frame camera except for the model EOS R6, because this camera model currently has the smallest Spot AF autofocus frame size.

How do I know that?

Some time ago I sold my little used EOS 5DS R, and I no longer have the option to make a direct comparison with my EOS R. Fortunately, there are RAW files left on the disk, and the ability to download RAW files from the EOS R5/R6/RP from the Internet.

I did a comparison of the dimensions of the autofocus frames.

Software: Digital Photo Professional 4 (DPP)

Conditions: Enlargement of the photo in DPP to 100%

Measurement type: Dimensions of the autofocus frames measured at 100% magnification of the photo. I used a normal ruler touched to the monitor screen. Height x width in millimeters. Estimated measurement error at the level of 0,5 mm.

Spot AF EOS R6
61 x 50 mm

Spot AF EOS 5DS R (with this small square in the center providing better precision for the selected AF point, this small square is not shown under the DPP)
65 x 65 mm

One-Shot AF EOS 5DS R
65 x 65 mm

Spot AF EOS R5
67 x 67 mm

1-point AF EOS R (smaller AF point frame size; after pressing the cmd + i key combination it is detected as „1-point AF” in „AF area select mode", not us „Spot AF”)
65 x 72 mm

1-point AF EOS R6
100 x 93 mm

1-point AF EOS R
102 x 109 mm

1-point AF EOS RP
111 x 111 mm

1-point AF EOS R5
111 x 134 mm

FlexiZone - Single (Live View AF) EOS 5DS R
223 x 167 mm

Autofocus frame size in AF mode „Servo AF” with AF area select mode „Face detection + Tracking AF” is smooth, and probably depends on the distance to the target. I have some RAW files with one model taken at different distances on my drive (from some R5 test from Jared Polin), and each has a different frame size - sitting on the ground full body 65 x 65 mm, to the hips 74 x 74 mm, bust 86 x 86 mm and head & shoulders 113 x 113 mm.


----------



## AlanF (May 3, 2021)

I still have a 5DSR so I did the measurements directly. Here are shots from DPP4 of the size of the central focussing square, using the 100-400mm II on the R5 and 5DSR to photo a TV test card a few minutes ago. It's the same size on the R5 (or slightly larger) and the 5DSR with either point focus or central square. It's quite possible the square in DPP just shows where the focus is and not the size of the focus area.


----------



## Fischer (May 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I still have a 5DSR so I did the measurements directly. Here are shots from DPP4 of the size of the central focussing square, using the 100-400mm II on the R5 and 5DSR to photo a TV test card a few minutes ago. It's the same size on the R5 (or slightly larger) and the 5DSR with either point focus or central square. It's quite possible the square in DPP just shows where the focus is and not the size of the focus area.
> 
> View attachment 197402


Sadly DPP does not show the real size of the focal point. That's why you can sometimes see the focus not being aligned with the focal point marker. I pretty much gave up on using the function in DPP for this reason (Disclaimer: maybe later updates have since improved on this last issue).


----------

