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

adk38 wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

duncang wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

duncang wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

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.

I rest my case lol!

Yeah, bad type on my part. But you can see throughout the video he repeatedly says the R5 AF is better and gives several reasons why. He also says IBIS is better and AF during

The A1 af tracking is more accurate and more consistent and you get 30% more images during action.

That is not what he said, He showed how the A1 AF jumps off the subject and does not hold it as well. So now there are now a number of articles and videos that say the R5 AF is better overall. I have yet to see any any that say overall the A1 AF is better ( though I concede some fans of Sony will say it is).

video are better, For me, having to an AF setting deep in the menus every time the subject changes is, as he says, the A1 fatal flaw.

Just assign it to a custom button.

How?? The camera does not how which type of subject it is set for, So the only way to tell is to dig deep into the menus. And are you suggesting to set 3 buttons, one for animals, one for birds and one for people? I agree with the reviewer, it is a fatal flaw.

And let's not forget during video the A1 can't detect animal or birds at all. Another reason he said the R5 AF is overall better than the A1.

One thing I read that he did not mention is how the A1 will lose focus if the subject moves near the edge of the frame or briefly out of the frame, It only has about 92% AF coverage and most of the lack of coverage is on the sides,

The R5 will lose focus if the subject moves out of the frame as well.

That is not what reviewers have said. It is able to keep focus if the subject briefly moves out of the frame unlike the A1.

Did you read anywhere that you get rolling shutter artefacts from the R5 sometimes or EVF lag ? Some consider those to be a fatal flaws - they were not noticeable to me but then I wasn't shooting humming birds or very long action sequences.

It is OK to express your opinion, but you are misrepresenting the review. He clearly said the R5 is better, as have a number of reviews. He prefers the R5. Its AF is better and its $2600 less. I think it has a better body, and the review said IBIS is better too.

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.

I'm sorry but you know very little about Sony cameras so it's hard to explain. That's why the other poster "rested his case". My a6600 will more or less do what you say the A1 can't and the fatal flaw is based on lack of knowledge too. The "fatal flaw" is merely a click on a button. Also the A1 sensor readout is 4x fasterthan the R5 which should close the debate before it started. A1 is up to it's speed and R5 is up to it's speed. Two very different cameras ...

I think this is wildly overemphasized in importance for a big chunk of photography.  I use a R6 for photographing flying birds on a daily basis and readout speed really hasn’t been an issue at all and it’s way slower than the R5.  Definitely there are some times when readout speed makes a big difference but...

Not trying to put the R5 down because it's a great photo tool

Whether a random youtuber prefers one or the other is of minimal relevance