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

I quit worrying about ISO and small apertures after I tried DxO Deep Prime. The Sony would still have an advantage, but not a big enough one to affect my decision.

What would have a major impact is the huge Sony lens size.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#851.910,870.830,ha,t

This past weekend I hiked several trails with 1000 foot elevation increases. Two had steep stone steps and even iron ladders. I would have been curing that Sony lens.

And for me, you may not shoot video, the lack of animal and bird eye AF during video eliminates Sony from my choices.

Steve W wrote:

I'm currently using a Sony A9 and FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 OSS G for BIF work. I am thinking of switching over to a R5 and RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS. Originally I didn't consider it because of the slower available aperture of the 100-500 and also the shorter reach of only 500mm vs. 600mm.

Today I woke up and realized that with the A9's 24Mpixel (6000 x 4000) pixel sensor when compared to the R5's 45 Mpixel (8192 x 5464) sensor I can crop my images by ~1.36x and still get a 24 Mpixel image in post. This makes the 500mm give me the equivalent of 683mm equivalent if I only took out 6000 x 400 images.. So that removed one major barrier and now I know I can get a decent resolution out to 683mm.

The next barrier now though is the slower aperture at the log end of the lens. My calculations say that the Canon's f/7.1 is only 2/3 of a stop slower than the f/5.6 of the Sony. If that's the case can the R5 deal with the higher ISO needed to make up the difference?

The R5 + RF 100-500 together cost about the same as the the Sony A1 which I am also considering so its not a done deal other than neither the A1 or RF 100-500 are easy to find. There are other plus and minus between the two systems I am also taking in account and trading off. Currently shooting both but realize I am wasting a lot of money but I admit to being a gear head and enjoying the advantages of owning each system.

Please share your thought. Thank you for your time.

I've have used both systems you're considering (have not tried the A1) and IMO the advantages of the R5 with the 100-500 outweigh any disadvantage compared to the A9.  Both systems are excellent and you would get results with either one.  However, the conclusion I came to is that after having used both, the R5 with the 100-500 is a far more versatile setup.

It is lighter, packs smaller, has a significantly better MFD, and honestly, I did not see much difference in the IQ between the two at their maximum apertures.  The A9 is an amazing camera but in comparison to the R5, it's a significantly more purpose focus setup especially with the 200-600.  If all you're using it for is BIF then I'd say its a harder decision, but if you want a camera that can do extremely well for BIF and then so much more, I'd point you at the R5 and the 100-500 without hesitation.

It can do BIF, is easier to carry for hiking/trekking, can do semi-macro, portraiture, etc.

All other accounts I've seen of people who have used both seem to agree for the most part.  Now, if you do BIF, the A9+200-600 is considered better for things that like to fly low to the waterline as the R5 can get confused and bounce back and forth between the waterline, but outside of that, the R5 can handle almost every situation you would likely throw at it and pass with flying colors.

I have the R5 + RF 100-500. It's a great set up. The only draw backs are the 7.1 at 500mm and the 300mm requirement to use the extenders (you have to zoom the lens out to 300mm to attach the extender). I assume Canon did this to keep the overall size of the lens down. You get used to it, but there are definitely times with BIF when I have the 1.4 extender on and the bird comes in so close that it's impossible to keep it in the frame. Being able to zoom back passed 300mm would be nice in those situations.

I also have the A9 and 200-600. This is a good combo. I would say personally that the Canon R5 and RF 100-500 combo produces better images. The AF is great in the A9 and 200-600, but's it's even better with the R5 and 100-500. You do gain extra reach and the 2/3 stop difference you already mentioned when using the A9 and 200-600. But since I've purchased the R5 and 100-500 I don't use the Sony setup any more.

If you are considering the Alpha 1 and 200-600 that's an entirely different story. I do not have the Alpha 1, but I've seen it in action and the AF is every bit as good as the R5. The one issue I have heard is that the 200-600 doesn't have the resolving power to really take full advantage of the Alpha 1 sensor. I'm not sure if this is mostly anecdotal, or if there is data to back this claim up or not.

One other thing to consider is the 200-600 is a G lens, and not a GM lens, while the Canon is an L lens.

Steve W wrote:

I'm currently using a Sony A9 and FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 OSS G for BIF work. I am thinking of switching over to a R5 and RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS. Originally I didn't consider it because of the slower available aperture of the 100-500 and also the shorter reach of only 500mm vs. 600mm.

Today I woke up and realized that with the A9's 24Mpixel (6000 x 4000) pixel sensor when compared to the R5's 45 Mpixel (8192 x 5464) sensor I can crop my images by ~1.36x and still get a 24 Mpixel image in post. This makes the 500mm give me the equivalent of 683mm equivalent if I only took out 6000 x 400 images.. So that removed one major barrier and now I know I can get a decent resolution out to 683mm.

The next barrier now though is the slower aperture at the log end of the lens. My calculations say that the Canon's f/7.1 is only 2/3 of a stop slower than the f/5.6 of the Sony. If that's the case can the R5 deal with the higher ISO needed to make up the difference?

The R5 + RF 100-500 together cost about the same as the the Sony A1 which I am also considering so its not a done deal other than neither the A1 or RF 100-500 are easy to find. There are other plus and minus between the two systems I am also taking in account and trading off. Currently shooting both but realize I am wasting a lot of money but I admit to being a gear head and enjoying the advantages of owning each system.

Please share your thought. Thank you for your time.

I have a9, a1 and 200-600 and recently used the R5 100-500.  Some observations when compared to A1.

R5 combo seems to have more saturated colours and slightly better contrast and maybe a bit sharper.  Colours seem quite a bit easier to work with in post.  Contrasts/sharpness is pretty marginal at best.

R5 animal/bird af is excellent but the a1 tracking seems to be better with slightly fewer misses when shooting bif.  Both over 90% so pretty marginal and obviously 30% more frames to choose from for A1.

200-600 is not really 600 so actual reach difference is not so much.  However Both a9 and a1 work extremely well with the TC1.4 at 840mm.  R5/100-500 at 700 maybe not so much.

200-600 does not extend, quite a bit heavier and has nice short zoom throw.  100-500 on the other hand is super light and more flexible with 100-200 range for landscape, self video etc.

So when considering R5 I would think about it vs A1. But no contest when compared to A9 or A9ii.  They can't compete with the AF system or lack of megapixels.  In video mode none of the Sony's can compare with the Canon for animal/bird af tracking - they don't have it at all.

Georgeee wrote:

Sony 200-600 is a great lens on my A7rIII . I love its internal zooming is so smooth. IQ is great. I wish Canon had a lens like that. The lens is a main reason that I keep a Sonly body.

I also have R5 with adapted 100-400II + 1.4xIII, AF is faster than my a7rIII for sure

Your last sentence concerns me, as I'm considering the 100-500 and 200-600 for fast moving subjects (aircraft).

Do you have an opinion as why the Sony combo autofocuses slower than the Canon? Is it the a7rIII  or the lens itself. Would another camera body make a difference? Maybe I'm asking questions you can't answer. 

In my experience with the Sony A9 and A7RIV, the A9 focused considerably faster than the A7RIV. If you are photographing fast-moving subjects, you may want to consider a body that is better for fast moving subjects, like the A9II, A1, and R5.

French Fry wrote:

In my experience with the Sony A9 and A7RIV, the A9 focused considerably faster than the A7RIV. If you are photographing fast-moving subjects, you may want to consider a body that is better for fast moving subjects, like the A9II, A1, and R5.

I plan on renting the 200-600 and 100-500 for testing (I have started a thread on the subject). Have to find a Sony camera to go with the lens. So your comments help, thanks.

I honestly did not notice much of  a difference in autofocus speed between the A9 / 200-600 vs. the R5 / 100-500.  The R5 was better in the sense that it has a much better animal eye focus than the A9 but the A9 is better in that it is truly blackout free.  The R5 has a slideshow effect when you release the shutter and press again, but is blackout free AFTER the initial shutter press.

The main thing I did notice between the two is that the 200-600 is an absolute monster in size/weight when compared directly to the 100-500.  I was shocked at how big the 200-600 is compared to the 100-500.

The 100-500 is definitely something I could hike with and take long scenic walks with without any concern whatsoever.  I'm specifically not buying the 200-600 because it is too large for my uses which is long walks and hikes.

Now compared to bigger super telephoto lenses, the 200-600 is much smaller and portable but compared to the 100-500, the 1-500 is much more portable.

Steve W wrote:

Thank you for sharing your experience. I’ve also considered selling my full RF kit and buying the A1 like you have. For primes from 14 to 135 I am all Sony GM with the 20/1.8 and 90/2.8 Gs.

I wonder about this.  I've read through many reviews, watched many videos, and read any posts.  The R5 and A1 appear to be very close, but while a few have said the R5 AF is better, no one has said the A1 is overall better.  In fact, I've read A1 owners wish its AF worked more like the R5 without having to switch better eye detect modes depending on subject.  And others wished eye detect worked during video.  And still others say the A1 does not hold focus as well when the subject moves to the edge of the frame (A1 only has ~90% coverage and no AF points on the edges of the frame).  To be fair some have said the A1 AF is stickier and holds focus better (but others say with the right tweaks the R5 is as good or better).

I release the A1 has the stacked sensor, but overall the R5 seems to be as good and in some ways better than the A1 but a price $3000 lower.  I don't count IBIS on the R5 as being better though, they both look very good.

If it were me, I'd get the R5 a couple RF lenses and some tried and true EF lenses, the ones said to work as well as mirrorless lenses.   I think I'd have several thousand left over compared to the Sony. Maybe enough for a used 600/4.

I agree.

I don't see them as being so drastically far apart in AF that the A1 justifies the extra $3000 unless there's a specific scenario (such as Arbitrage's) that warrants it and even then, it'd have to be a pretty significant improvement.

If you like the Sony ecosystem, then yeah, the A1 is the only option for high mega pixel and best in class AF... but it comes at a hefty price, but I guess that's relative to each person's pocket book.

As I've heard it said in another forum, "Sony did something that they likely did not want to with the A1 and that's make the R5 look like a bargain."