BIF with R5 and RF 100-500mm compared to A9II and FE 200-600 G

duncang wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

MjMac wrote:

Good to know. Thanks for the first hand experience. Interesting comparison here:

Don't tell my R5s that I have been using the A1! CRAZY RESULTS! Sony Alpha 1 vs Canon EOS R5 - YouTube

Thanks for posting this, Very good comparison.

I honestly think people are splitting hairs in comparing the two systems (A1 vs R5) for BIF. Pluses and minuses for both systems. And realistically the minuses are so few. I switched from Sony to Canon when the R5 came out, and in hindsight I should have stuck with Sony and waited for the A1. Not because I think the A1 is a vastly superior camera, I just already had a small investment in a few Sony lenses. I still own the A9 and 200-600. I've considered selling the R5, 100-500RF and 24-105RF and buying an A1, but I think it's just GAS. If I owned a 600 F4 GM then I would not have jumped to Canon at all.

I know Tony N was criticized when he said the R5 AF was slightly better than the A1, but here we have another where the reviewer says the R5 AF is slightly better during stills,

and much better during video (A1 has no eye AF I guess). So now I've seen half a dozen where they reviewers say, "both great, but very slight edge to R5 for stills and big edge for video".

Nope that's not what he said. R5 is better at the initial acquisition with animal ey af but after acquisition A1 tracks better and has slightly higher focus accuracy.

No, he said especially when the birds were not close up the R5 holds on to the birds better. He talks about the A1 struggling. See 12:18 mark and 12:48 mark.

He also complains about having to change between animal AF and bird AF and people AF on the A1 at the 15:00 mark, which is another reason he prefers the A1.

At teh 16:00 mark he reiterates the Canon has a slight edge in AF and acquires the birds faster.

He says the R5 IBIS is better. The R5 AF during video is much better. The R5 has a slight edge overall for stills AF, and at the very end he says for his use the R5 is a better overall camera,

Not sure that can be interpreted as a slight edge to the R5 for stills.

He says it several times and mentions it again in the comments.

For action those extra FPS means a lot more subject positions to chose from - he mentions that as well.

It that around the several times he says the R5 which costs almost $3000 less has slightly better AF during video, and much better AF during video? 

I saw in the comments he mentioned he will later do a full video on how much better IBIS is on the R5 too.

Obviously being almost $3000 less is a nice perk for the R5 too.