Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
nandbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 6,221
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video

paul cool wrote:

nandbytes wrote:

LarryRC wrote:

nandbytes wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

You see a lot of bias on the topic. Tony Northrup got flamed by some when he said the R5 AF was better than the A1. But good number of reviewers now have said the same. Personally I shoot a lot of video, an there the AF gap really widens. Sony left animal and bird focus off for video for some unknown reason.

Jan goes does an excellent job here. I find it interesting the due to the focus breathing often there is much less of a difference between 500mm and 600mm, but the difference between 100mm and 200mm is large. IS on the combos also had a big gap between them.

Enjoy the video!

I like him but he is a bit biased (not necessarily on purpose). He misses the main point of A1 i.e. its stacked sensor.

But agreed Sony could have been better at a number of things like animal AF in video, IBIS, focus stacking etc. I really hope they address some of these via. firmware.

RF100-500 just wouldn't work for me half the time with its f7.1 at long end. even the 200-600mm is really push it with f6.3.

Having said that I could pick up R5+canon EF 500mm f4 for the same price as A1+200-600mm which would be better for me in many cases. But I already owned the 200-600mm and other lenses for Sony (35GM and 85DN). Sticking with Sony for the lenses made sense.

Canon a5. $3900 Sony A1 $6500

Canon EF 500mm f4. $9000. Sony 200 - 600mm. $2000

total. Canon. $12,900. Sony $8500

I can get a used 500mm f4 IS for £3.5k. can get the canon R5 the £3.2k which is £6.7k.

Paid nearly £7K for A1+200-600mm.

Of course I already had 200-600mm would loose around £300-400 selling it. Would loose £100 on 35GM (canon doesn't even have an equivalent).

So Sony overall is slightly cheaper to not swap. But I am not too bothered by a £100-200 difference here or there, RF just doesn't have any glass I'd want.

you forgot to include the adaptor purchase and all the possible problems this incurs at some point you will want native mount and a 10k rf 500mm if and when.

While I have not tested it myself from what I understand EF lenses adapted work as well as native lenses with no real performance penalty in terms of AF/tracking.

In case of a telephoto primes buying a native mirrorless version won't make a huge lot of difference if any. Canon even recently just ported their EF 400/2.8 and 600/4 primes to RF instead of designing lenses specifically for RF.

As for cost of the adapter, its £100... so when we are speaking £7K+ kind of money that comes within the "£100-200 difference here or there".

But what does cost a lot of money is CF Express cards and you don't even get the benefit of them since you are bottled necked by the UHS-II SD card in R5. So I would have to spend all that money on CF express card for no real benefit!

At least on A1 it has matched card slots with actually faster write speeds thanks to the new processor. So all my USH-II cards now work even better plus I do not need to buy expensive CF express cards.

I really do not understand unmatched card slots design (sony had it too when they had USH-II and UHS-I slots in same body), seems really ineffective. If someone wants dual slots it is for redundancy, if that comes at a cost of speed and money then you might as well have made it cheaper for the customer.

-- hide signature --

Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.

 nandbytes's gear list:nandbytes's gear list
Sony a7C Sony a1 Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Sony FE 20mm F1.8G Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow