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

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
nandbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 6,221
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video
1

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

nandbytes wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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!

f7.1... f6.3.

1/3rd of a stop difference. My bet is you can't see the difference in the photos.

I'd be curious to see the T-stops, because it could be even closer.

As said f6.3 is already pushing it for me. It was only 1/3rd stop from f5.6 so I took the hit. so really f7.1 is 2/3rd stop difference for me.

Or conversely speaking I used to use 100-400mm+1.4x which was f8. With 200-600mm I get 2/3rd stop more light, with f7.1 I gain only 1/3rd stop.

I can definitely notice 2/3rd stop difference.

But you know the difference is only 1/3rd of a stop right? You seem very confused.

I am not confused at all.

f7.1 simply is too far for me.

Personally I'll take the better AF and better IBIS over 1/3rd of a stop. Oh well. Stay away from slick telemarketers who say you can make money giving them yours.

IBIS with a telephoto lens is inconsequential 90% of the time for me. And the other 10% I don't need more than 2-3 stops which Sony provides.

It doesn't have better AF tracking. It simply has animal eye AF in video and Sony does not. if that's important to you that's fine. I wouldn't class that as "better AF".

As I said its not just a 1/3rd stop, when you are comparing it f5.6 which I am since that's really my limit. f6.3 is "just a 1/3rd stop" and that's already pushing it for me. f7.1 is 2/3rd stops from f5.6 and that's a no go where I live.

Edit:

Just on the IBIS front I am not saying its not useful whatsoever, I'd love to have that 8 stops IBIS so I can 1-2s exposures handheld with wide angle lenses. that's really useful for me.

On telephotos where I am shooting at his shutter speeds more of the time it doesn't help me.

-- hide signature --

Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 nandbytes's gear list:nandbytes's gear list
Sony a7C Sony a1 Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG GN +2 more
(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 217
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video

nandbytes wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

nandbytes wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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!

f7.1... f6.3.

1/3rd of a stop difference. My bet is you can't see the difference in the photos.

I'd be curious to see the T-stops, because it could be even closer.

As said f6.3 is already pushing it for me. It was only 1/3rd stop from f5.6 so I took the hit. so really f7.1 is 2/3rd stop difference for me.

Or conversely speaking I used to use 100-400mm+1.4x which was f8. With 200-600mm I get 2/3rd stop more light, with f7.1 I gain only 1/3rd stop.

I can definitely notice 2/3rd stop difference.

But you know the difference is only 1/3rd of a stop right? You seem very confused.

I don't need more than 2-3 stops which Sony provides.

OK, I'll put this with the 1/3rd stop is really 2/3rds stops comment.   Anyway I am glad you found ways to justify liking your camera.  That is what matters most and there is no reason you should not be happy.

MILC man Senior Member • Posts: 4,745
Re: Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500

daran wrote:

MILC man wrote:

"I don't have any good measurements on the 200-600 at its MFD. At a "normal" working distance of 8670mm (according to EXIF) I measured an actual focal length of 628mm.

EXIF is probably not sufficiently precise. I measure this myself and came to ca 560mm for such a distance using a ruler to establish distances. I've read multiple accounts of knowledgeable camera nerds having similar results (when focused close).

but does focused close apply to how most people use a 600mm lens? the fe200-600 doesn't have macro capability.

my experience has been that 600mm gets used for subjects that are far away, not close.

on the other hand, fov specs are calculated at infinity focus, and most people don't shoot bif, sports, etc. at infinity focus.

daran
daran Contributing Member • Posts: 595
Re: Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500

MILC man wrote:

daran wrote:

MILC man wrote:

"I don't have any good measurements on the 200-600 at its MFD. At a "normal" working distance of 8670mm (according to EXIF) I measured an actual focal length of 628mm.

EXIF is probably not sufficiently precise. I measure this myself and came to ca 560mm for such a distance using a ruler to establish distances. I've read multiple accounts of knowledgeable camera nerds having similar results (when focused close).

but does focused close apply to how most people use a 600mm lens? the fe200-600 doesn't have macro capability.

my experience has been that 600mm gets used for subjects that are far away, not close.

on the other hand, fov specs are calculated at infinity focus, and most people don't shoot bif, sports, etc. at infinity focus.

Really depends on what you are doing. Big raptors IF? Sure. But for small birds 6m is frequently possible, even easy. E.g. in parks where they are used to humans or near feeders, where you can stand that close as long as you don't move. Like this one, taken around 5m:

 daran's gear list:daran's gear list
Sony a1 Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM Sony FE 55mm F1.8 +5 more
LarryRC Senior Member • Posts: 1,067
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video
1

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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

 LarryRC's gear list:LarryRC's gear list
Sony a7R IV Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 III Sony FE 12-24mm F4 Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 Sony FE 600mm F4
nandbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 6,221
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video
1

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

nandbytes wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

nandbytes wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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!

f7.1... f6.3.

1/3rd of a stop difference. My bet is you can't see the difference in the photos.

I'd be curious to see the T-stops, because it could be even closer.

As said f6.3 is already pushing it for me. It was only 1/3rd stop from f5.6 so I took the hit. so really f7.1 is 2/3rd stop difference for me.

Or conversely speaking I used to use 100-400mm+1.4x which was f8. With 200-600mm I get 2/3rd stop more light, with f7.1 I gain only 1/3rd stop.

I can definitely notice 2/3rd stop difference.

But you know the difference is only 1/3rd of a stop right? You seem very confused.

I don't need more than 2-3 stops which Sony provides.

OK, I'll put this with the 1/3rd stop is really 2/3rds stops comment. Anyway I am glad you found ways to justify liking your camera. That is what matters most and there is no reason you should not be happy.

You really shouldn't take sentences out of context that's as bad putting words in people's mouth.

I did also explain why I'd like canon's 8 stop IBIS which you have ignored (and which areas I don't really need IBIS due to high shutter speeds).

Looks like your seem have a canon bias which you are trying to push for some reason. That is fine if that's what you like doing to justify your camera, you too should be happy. No reason you should not be happy

-- hide signature --

Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 nandbytes's gear list:nandbytes's gear list
Sony a7C Sony a1 Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG GN +2 more
nandbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 6,221
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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.

-- hide signature --

Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 nandbytes's gear list:nandbytes's gear list
Sony a7C Sony a1 Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG GN +2 more
LarryRC Senior Member • Posts: 1,067
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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.

How about the Canon 800mm f5.6 which i became aware of while researching the above prices.

 LarryRC's gear list:LarryRC's gear list
Sony a7R IV Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 III Sony FE 12-24mm F4 Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 Sony FE 600mm F4
Tristimulus Veteran Member • Posts: 8,529
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video
1

nandbytes wrote:h

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

nandbytes wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

nandbytes wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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!

f7.1... f6.3.

1/3rd of a stop difference. My bet is you can't see the difference in the photos.

I'd be curious to see the T-stops, because it could be even closer.

As said f6.3 is already pushing it for me. It was only 1/3rd stop from f5.6 so I took the hit. so really f7.1 is 2/3rd stop difference for me.

Or conversely speaking I used to use 100-400mm+1.4x which was f8. With 200-600mm I get 2/3rd stop more light, with f7.1 I gain only 1/3rd stop.

I can definitely notice 2/3rd stop difference.

But you know the difference is only 1/3rd of a stop right? You seem very confused.

I don't need more than 2-3 stops which Sony provides.

OK, I'll put this with the 1/3rd stop is really 2/3rds stops comment. Anyway I am glad you found ways to justify liking your camera. That is what matters most and there is no reason you should not be happy.

You really shouldn't take sentences out of context that's as bad putting words in people's mouth.

I did also explain why I'd like canon's 8 stop IBIS which you have ignored (and which areas I don't really need IBIS due to high shutter speeds).

Note: the Canon 8 stop IBIS is very limited. One need the correct lens and the conditions have to be right and the 8 stop claim is very optimistisk. Just check out all requirements to get that (inflated) 8 stop IBIS advantage.

Like saying that Sony has an 6 stop IBIS advantage if using 14 mm os shorter focal lenghts.

Sony is conservative, IBIS is pretty good but not best inclass.

What Sony has focused on lately is speed (stacked image sensors) and auto focus (just aim at the focus point, half press the shutter, and recompose and track). Guess better IBIS lie in the future when a new IBIS unit is ready.

Looks like your seem have a canon bias which you are trying to push for some reason.

That is ok. But he should be honest about it.

Cameras are different but not that different.

Actually lousy photographers get just as lousy images regardless what camera they get. Even if the IBIS says 8 stops - on paper. 

That is fine if that's what you like doing to justify your camera, you too should be happy. No reason you should not be happy

nandbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 6,221
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video

LarryRC 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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.

How about the Canon 800mm f5.6 which i became aware of while researching the above prices.

too heavy for me.

I need to be able to handhold and 500mm f4 is really pushing it already.

I would probably go with the 400mm f4 + 1.4x and 2x TCs to start with. And then look at adding 500mm f4 if the 400mm f4 is not cutting it for me.

I have to travel a lot for my wildlife and travelling with huge lenses does not workout for me.

-- hide signature --

Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 nandbytes's gear list:nandbytes's gear list
Sony a7C Sony a1 Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG GN +2 more
nandbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 6,221
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video

Tristimulus wrote:

nandbytes wrote:h

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

nandbytes wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

nandbytes wrote:

MyDog Is Incharge 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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!

f7.1... f6.3.

1/3rd of a stop difference. My bet is you can't see the difference in the photos.

I'd be curious to see the T-stops, because it could be even closer.

As said f6.3 is already pushing it for me. It was only 1/3rd stop from f5.6 so I took the hit. so really f7.1 is 2/3rd stop difference for me.

Or conversely speaking I used to use 100-400mm+1.4x which was f8. With 200-600mm I get 2/3rd stop more light, with f7.1 I gain only 1/3rd stop.

I can definitely notice 2/3rd stop difference.

But you know the difference is only 1/3rd of a stop right? You seem very confused.

I don't need more than 2-3 stops which Sony provides.

OK, I'll put this with the 1/3rd stop is really 2/3rds stops comment. Anyway I am glad you found ways to justify liking your camera. That is what matters most and there is no reason you should not be happy.

You really shouldn't take sentences out of context that's as bad putting words in people's mouth.

I did also explain why I'd like canon's 8 stop IBIS which you have ignored (and which areas I don't really need IBIS due to high shutter speeds).

Note: the Canon 8 stop IBIS is very limited. One need the correct lens and the conditions have to be right and the 8 stop claim is very optimistisk. Just check out all requirements to get that (inflated) 8 stop IBIS advantage.

Like saying that Sony has an 6 stop IBIS advantage if using 14 mm os shorter focal lenghts.

Sony is conservative, IBIS is pretty good but not best inclass.

What Sony has focused on lately is speed (stacked image sensors) and auto focus (just aim at the focus point, half press the shutter, and recompose and track). Guess better IBIS lie in the future when a new IBIS unit is ready.

having tested the R5 myself, I could handhold 1-2s exposure with RF 15-35mm lens. I cannot do that with any Sony lens with some confidence. I could eventually get a 1s exposure on Sony with 24-105mm but that's with a fair bit of trial and error.

Even with their 85mm f1.2 I could get exposures 1/2s-1s exposures which is amazing. Could never get that with any 85mm lens on Sony.

R5 IBIS is really amazing (for a FF camera, m43/Oly is better but that's a smaller sensor). Its better than Sony A1 anyway.

As I said in the other thread only reason I stayed with Sony was for the lenses. RF hasn't got alternatives for my main lenses on Sony.

Looks like your seem have a canon bias which you are trying to push for some reason.

That is ok. But he should be honest about it.

Cameras are different but not that different.

Actually lousy photographers get just as lousy images regardless what camera they get. Even if the IBIS says 8 stops - on paper.

That is fine if that's what you like doing to justify your camera, you too should be happy. No reason you should not be happy

-- hide signature --

Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 nandbytes's gear list:nandbytes's gear list
Sony a7C Sony a1 Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG GN +2 more
win10-64 Contributing Member • Posts: 502
Re: Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500
1

Even with the long minimum focus distance I end up using the 200-600mm for insects also, lol.

MILC man wrote:

daran wrote:

MILC man wrote:

"I don't have any good measurements on the 200-600 at its MFD. At a "normal" working distance of 8670mm (according to EXIF) I measured an actual focal length of 628mm.

EXIF is probably not sufficiently precise. I measure this myself and came to ca 560mm for such a distance using a ruler to establish distances. I've read multiple accounts of knowledgeable camera nerds having similar results (when focused close).

but does focused close apply to how most people use a 600mm lens? the fe200-600 doesn't have macro capability.

my experience has been that 600mm gets used for subjects that are far away, not close.

on the other hand, fov specs are calculated at infinity focus, and most people don't shoot bif, sports, etc. at infinity focus.

-- hide signature --

For every house is builded by some man; but He that built all things is God. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

paul cool
paul cool Senior Member • Posts: 2,936
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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.

 paul cool's gear list:paul cool's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony a1 Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 III Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 +2 more
nandbytes Veteran Member • Posts: 6,221
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video
1

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 nandbytes's gear list:nandbytes's gear list
Sony a7C Sony a1 Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG GN +2 more
duncang Contributing Member • Posts: 515
Re: Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500

MILC man wrote:

Djehuty wrote:

He said its for video, guess he wants BIF with DOF 8k short videos. Whatever that means.

i don't understand it either... 500mm is too short for bif, f/7.1 is too slow, it's not parfocal so there will be autofocus hunting with video, and oh btw why put it on an r5 that has serious overheating issues with video?

500mm might be too short for BIF for you but FE100-400GM works a treat for me.

And similarly f7.1 might be too slow for you but f8 works fine for me (see images below).  Notice narrow the focal plane is.  A1 focussing system struggles to keep up with incoming as they get close so you have a bit more chance of sharp eyes with a f8.  But your shooting at 1/6400s most of the time too

R5 has about 0.5 to 1 stop advantage over the A1 so f7.1 is no issue and compares with the f6.3 on the 200-600.  
No way could I get these swinging a 2.2kg 200-600.  Never mind that most of these you couldn't even focus on with the 200-600, they are simply too close.

I wouldn't even consider shooting swallows or any other small fast bird with the 200-600.  Before you can even begin to worry about aperture, reach or focus speed you have to be able to keep the bird in the frame.

And both the FE100-400GM and the 100-500L have a clarity about them that the 200-600 just seem to lack - I guess that's what comes with being a 'budget' lens.

Oh and I can re-post that lorikeet bif sequence too if you think swallows don't count as bif.  Probably some of the hardest bif but still bif

win10-64 Contributing Member • Posts: 502
Re: Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500
1

The A1 with 200-600mm looks sharper for Swallows than the 100-400mm, probably due to the 100-400 not having enough reach.

Have not seen the RF 100-500mm with Swallows yet to see how it compares.

duncang wrote:

MILC man wrote:

Djehuty wrote:

He said its for video, guess he wants BIF with DOF 8k short videos. Whatever that means.

i don't understand it either... 500mm is too short for bif, f/7.1 is too slow, it's not parfocal so there will be autofocus hunting with video, and oh btw why put it on an r5 that has serious overheating issues with video?

500mm might be too short for BIF for you but FE100-400GM works a treat for me.

And similarly f7.1 might be too slow for you but f8 works fine for me (see images below). Notice narrow the focal plane is. A1 focussing system struggles to keep up with incoming as they get close so you have a bit more chance of sharp eyes with a f8. But your shooting at 1/6400s most of the time too

R5 has about 0.5 to 1 stop advantage over the A1 so f7.1 is no issue and compares with the f6.3 on the 200-600.
No way could I get these swinging a 2.2kg 200-600. Never mind that most of these you couldn't even focus on with the 200-600, they are simply too close.

I wouldn't even consider shooting swallows or any other small fast bird with the 200-600. Before you can even begin to worry about aperture, reach or focus speed you have to be able to keep the bird in the frame.

And both the FE100-400GM and the 100-500L have a clarity about them that the 200-600 just seem to lack - I guess that's what comes with being a 'budget' lens.

Oh and I can re-post that lorikeet bif sequence too if you think swallows don't count as bif. Probably some of the hardest bif but still bif

-- hide signature --

For every house is builded by some man; but He that built all things is God. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

adk38 Senior Member • Posts: 1,514
Re: Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500
1

As long as there are enough swallows so you can keep shooting it's not too hard with the 200-600. I don't go out to take pics of swallows but they can be fun distraction when I wait for something else. Not saying I have more hits than misses

 adk38's gear list:adk38's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon D7200 Nikon D500 Sony a6600 +11 more
win10-64 Contributing Member • Posts: 502
Re: Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500

What Oss mode do you find works better, or did you turn Oss off for fast moving Swallows?

adk38 wrote:

As long as there are enough swallows so you can keep shooting it's not too hard with the 200-600. I don't go out to take pics of swallows but they can be fun distraction when I wait for something else. Not saying I have more hits than misses

-- hide signature --

For every house is builded by some man; but He that built all things is God. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Geomaticsman Veteran Member • Posts: 3,035
Re: Excellent unbiased comparison video

LarryRC 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5c8_7n0yI8

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.

How about the Canon 800mm f5.6 which i became aware of while researching the above prices.

Aging technology -- not up to current standards.

-- hide signature --

Garfield

 Geomaticsman's gear list:Geomaticsman's gear list
Sony a1 Sony FE 200-600 F5.6-6.3 Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS Sony 1.4x Teleconverter (2016) Sony 2x Teleconverter (2016) +1 more
adk38 Senior Member • Posts: 1,514
Re: Sony Alpha 1, SEL 200-600 or Canon R5, RF 100-500
1

win10-64 wrote:

What Oss mode do you find works better, or did you turn Oss off for fast moving Swallows?

adk38 wrote:

As long as there are enough swallows so you can keep shooting it's not too hard with the 200-600. I don't go out to take pics of swallows but they can be fun distraction when I wait for something else. Not saying I have more hits than misses

I mostly have it at III. May be just me but I find it works well. Tried without Oss and with I & II but have no complaints about III so far. Very few soft photos

 adk38's gear list:adk38's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon D7200 Nikon D500 Sony a6600 +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads