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

adk38 wrote:

... (R6 is about same as R5 for blackout and rolling shutter)...

The R5 sensor readout speed is twice as fast the R6 and 4-6x faster than the A7Riv (depending on shooting mode)

One can use 8K RAW and get 30 FPS with no black out too, but at a reduce 35MP. Because of the 17:9 AR (DCI and not 16:9) rolling shutter is even less in this mode.

adk38 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

adk38 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

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...

Obviously if you do landscape or other "slow motion" readout is of no concern. Blackout and rolling shutter could be a concern for some who need more precision in action sequences (R6 is about same as R5 for blackout and rolling shutter)

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

Lol yea if you mean slow like as in fast moving birds in flight then yes, I have done a lot of that type of “slow” moving photography and rolling shutter hasn’t been an issue at all. Now if you’re doing it with lots of buildings in the background then maybe you have a point.

Yeah, buildings,

Maybe, I pretty much never have buildings in my backgrounds so...

trees,

not so much from what I’ve seen

slopes

Not at all

etc and missed shots due to blackout/delay.

Have you even used a R6?

I trink most will be very hard pressed to feel a difference between any modern high end action camera. Pushing limits is why there's talk about R3, R1, Z9. Later the limits will be different and new cameras will appear

Well, the manufacturers need to convince us to upgrade frequently.  Sometimes the upgrades really are worth it and sometimes not so much.

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Steve W wrote:

I'm sure the is back and forth on the R5 and A1 and I will let this debate go on.
The cost difference is substantial for sure. I guess my question is "Is the A9 II so inferior that it should be left out of the discussion?"

I am talking about BIF only without considering video. Both can do 20 fps and yes I know the R5 is still cheaper if you by the A9 II new but if your already in the Sony camp why wouldn't you consider it? Sure it still lower resolution I know. For me to add an A9 II to use with lenses like the 200-600 I already have it would cost me $3200 (used) vs $6500 for an R5 and RF 100-500.

If I already had Sony stuff and not Canon I wouldn’t even consider Canon at this point. My decision would be does the A9 Ii cut it for me or do I want an A1.

I am more open minded. If I shot only landscapes I would likely get the A7Riv. The A1 is overpriced in my opinion, and the A9ii on sale is a good value. Overall, for what I do the R5 is best of the bunch. But that is for me who shoots a lot of video as well as wildlife.

I think its a shame Sony didn't first make a $4000 camera with similar specs to the R5 because I believe that's what more people wanted. The A1 is very expensive and while in some ways is better than the R5, it also lags in many ways, IMHO, especially considering the body and ergonomics it is not the best camera these days.

I do look forward to the A7Rv, but with the chip shortage it might be another year or so before we see it. and from Sony's history it will have many lesser specs than the A1 if its price is $4000 or less.

And who know maybe Nikon will surprise all of us. Keep an open mind,

My point isn’t if R5 is better than some Sony model... It’s if you’re already interested in a system the difference between the two is so small it’s probably not worth all the expense of changing.  We’re talking about two fantastic systems here.

Steve W wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Steve W wrote:

I'm sure the is back and forth on the R5 and A1 and I will let this debate go on.
The cost difference is substantial for sure. I guess my question is "Is the A9 II so inferior that it should be left out of the discussion?"

I am talking about BIF only without considering video. Both can do 20 fps and yes I know the R5 is still cheaper if you by the A9 II new but if your already in the Sony camp why wouldn't you consider it? Sure it still lower resolution I know. For me to add an A9 II to use with lenses like the 200-600 I already have it would cost me $3200 (used) vs $6500 for an R5 and RF 100-500.

If I already had Sony stuff and not Canon I wouldn’t even consider Canon at this point. My decision would be does the A9 Ii cut it for me or do I want an A1.

I am more open minded. If I shot only landscapes I would likely get the A7Riv. The A1 is overpriced in my opinion, and the A9ii on sale is a good value. Overall, for what I do the R5 is best of the bunch. But that is for me who shoots a lot of video as well as wildlife.

I think its a shame Sony didn't first make a $4000 camera with similar specs to the R5 because I believe that's what more people wanted. The A1 is very expensive and while in some ways is better than the R5, it also lags in many ways, IMHO, especially considering the body and ergonomics it is not the best camera these days.

I do look forward to the A7Rv, but with the chip shortage it might be another year or so before we see it. and from Sony's history it will have many lesser specs than the A1 if its price is $4000 or less.

And who know maybe Nikon will surprise all of us. Keep an open mind,

My mind is open for sure. Own the R5 but also Sony. I agree that it would have been nice for Sony to target a lower price. For landscape I do love my A7R IV and landscape is what got me into Sony in the first place with the A7R I bought and shot beside my 5D III when there was no 5DSr and Nikon had the D800.

Now, with the most recent rumor that the EOS R3 might be 45 Mpixels I don’t regret waiting . I bought the R5 before knowing the A1 was coming last November and have no regrets and when I started to consider the A1 I heard about the EOS R3 so hopefully it will be announced formally in September. Then at that point I will have to consider it if its not only 30 Mpixels like originally thought. But if it is 45 Mpixels then I’m in good shape.

if it is 45mp then it's goodbye Sony <tears>. hello Canon <smile>. Now Canon please make a 200-600 f6.2 with short zoom throw please /\

tjamp wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

Steve W wrote:

I'm sure the is back and forth on the R5 and A1 and I will let this debate go on.
The cost difference is substantial for sure. I guess my question is "Is the A9 II so inferior that it should be left out of the discussion?"

I am talking about BIF only without considering video. Both can do 20 fps and yes I know the R5 is still cheaper if you by the A9 II new but if your already in the Sony camp why wouldn't you consider it? Sure it still lower resolution I know. For me to add an A9 II to use with lenses like the 200-600 I already have it would cost me $3200 (used) vs $6500 for an R5 and RF 100-500.

The R6 and A9ii resolution are similar.too. I can see why the R6 is so popular, It has the R5 AF which many find slightly better than the A1, but its only $2500. All the AF modes even work during video unlike the A1 and A9ii, and there is no having to switch the camera setting depending on the subject.

20-24MP is more than enough for most applications and so these are good choices,

The A9 is the original stacked sensor camera. The R6 is sport/action/video camera made for the masses. The R5 is probably the best overall camera with arguably the best AF at price many can afford. And the A1 is Sony taking the A7SIII body, removing the articulating screen and putting everything they can into it, at a premium price.

I personally like Canon’s strategy. They’ve left room at the top. And they also have this camera that is better in some ways than all others at a relatively affordable price. Sony on the other hand isn’t going to make a camera with a professional body, and the next few models will likely have stripped down features from the A1.

Well there do seem to be quite a lot of professionals making money using Sony cameras - how is that possible if the Sony camera bodies are not 'professional' - whatever that means.

duncang wrote:

tjamp wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

Steve W wrote:

I'm sure the is back and forth on the R5 and A1 and I will let this debate go on.
The cost difference is substantial for sure. I guess my question is "Is the A9 II so inferior that it should be left out of the discussion?"

I am talking about BIF only without considering video. Both can do 20 fps and yes I know the R5 is still cheaper if you by the A9 II new but if your already in the Sony camp why wouldn't you consider it? Sure it still lower resolution I know. For me to add an A9 II to use with lenses like the 200-600 I already have it would cost me $3200 (used) vs $6500 for an R5 and RF 100-500.

The R6 and A9ii resolution are similar.too. I can see why the R6 is so popular, It has the R5 AF which many find slightly better than the A1, but its only $2500. All the AF modes even work during video unlike the A1 and A9ii, and there is no having to switch the camera setting depending on the subject.

20-24MP is more than enough for most applications and so these are good choices,

The A9 is the original stacked sensor camera. The R6 is sport/action/video camera made for the masses. The R5 is probably the best overall camera with arguably the best AF at price many can afford. And the A1 is Sony taking the A7SIII body, removing the articulating screen and putting everything they can into it, at a premium price.

I personally like Canon’s strategy. They’ve left room at the top. And they also have this camera that is better in some ways than all others at a relatively affordable price. Sony on the other hand isn’t going to make a camera with a professional body, and the next few models will likely have stripped down features from the A1.

Well there do seem to be quite a lot of professionals making money using Sony cameras - how is that possible if the Sony camera bodies are not 'professional' - whatever that means.

Where did anyone say Sony cameras are not used by professionals?  That was a little paranoid.  Some Professionals use smartphones, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax and even Sony cameras.

My point was Sony reused the A7Riv and A7Siii body with the A1 with a few tweaks (removed flip out screen), instead of using a body similar to those found on most cameras we see on the sidelines of professional sporting events.  No top LCD, no large rear LCD, no integrated vertical grip, smaller controls, fewer controls, etc.  but that doesn’t mean pros can’t use them.  A few use smartphones and they too lack all those things.