For those who are "bi-system," how does the R5 II compare to the Sony A1? A used "Like New" A1 now sells for roughly the same price as a new R5 II. Which is currently the better camera and value and why? I'm sure the near-mythical A1 Mark II will likely be better than either but that is X months in the future. Many thanks.
IMO it's going to boil down to what you want to do with the system and the lenses and other accessories that best match your requirements. The current systems overlap in so many ways that for generalist use, it's going to come down to various personal preferences.
It will be interesting to see what Sony does in the short term. They don't currently have a camera that competes directly as a new product purchase in the price range of the Z8 and R5II with similar specifications. The a7RV is higher resolution but not stacked sensor and likely doesn't appeal to the action/wildlife/birding groups the way the Z8 and R5II do.
Does Sony keep the a1 in the rotation after the a1II launches and drop its price to compete more directly with the Z8 and R5II? Perhaps a few feature updates via firmware to make it more competitive in certain areas where it's now apparently lagging a little could easily plug that gap without need for an entirely new model (but at what cost to a1II sales?).
I have both. Before the R5II came out, the main difference for me was the difference in video quality… the Sony has a lot more dynamic range than the R5 for video. Now, though, the R5 II have gorgeous video using Log2 (much better DR!) so I am going to sell the A1. Why? The Canon has better AF, vastly better battery life (the other day I was shooting some random video clips on the A1 for about 45 minutes and the battery got down to 55%!), Canon has a better viewfinder experience (The Sony has larger and higher rez viewfinder, but it often looks pixelated and goes down in resolution at random times, which is very jarring and unpleasant.)
The Canon also has the most consistent focus for video.
As to shooting stills they are just about the same - very comparable as to IQ, focus, etc.
One more thing - the Sony has ineffective IBIS. Videos are jittery as hell unless you use the active digital stabilization - which crops into the image a fair amount.
As I wrote elsewhere with the R5II I can now shoot stable footage using an unstaiblized 50mm lens - without any digital IS.
I have a good friend who shoots the Sony A1(and 2 other Sonys). We talk daily. A couple of his gripes on the A1 is the cost of the CF Express Ty A cards, and Sony's somewhat lack of meaningful firmware updates. He told me he was jealous of the R5 MK II price point. I have the R5 and just got the R5 II. I'm happy with my Canon's. I think I could be happy with the Sony or Nikon. I think today with the R5 II, Canon is ahead on autofocus. I do think Sony and Nikon will catch up soon. I would go new body(Canon) vs: used Sony.
But the AF is NOT "super close" The Z8 couldn't even match the original R5.
The R5II and especially the R1 are in a class all by themselves by all reports.
bernardl wrote:
The real question is more R5II vs Z8 IMHO.
AF and image quality being super close it boils down to lenses (native ones, 3rd party and adapted ones).
If you need a 28-70mm f2.0 or 24-105mm f2.8 go Canon, otherwise go Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
The bias in this post is very clear. Nikon is supposed to be the default go-to, unless you need some special and selected lens, only then Canon makes sense. I could make a case for the opposite bias regarding niche lenses, but I won't.
The lens selection matters a lot, but it also a lot more complicated than just these two lenses.
lighthound wrote:
But the AF is NOT "super close" The Z8 couldn't even match the original R5.
The R5II and especially the R1 are in a class all by themselves by all reports.
While the Z8's AF is "very good" for stills, there are a few areas where it falls short. It tends to wander or lose focus when shooting subjects near water (think osprey/eagle strikes) though it does well with diving birds. Also, the AF is a bit complex and has to be customized more while shooting. So, for example if the Z8 is having difficulty identifying a flying bird against a background due to contrast, lighting, etc., one frequently has to cycle through other AF modes such as Wide S or Wide L or even do a handoff from one mode to another. Neither AF excels with ungulates and I would say it's a tie in this category. The R5 is superior to the Z8 in people eye detect and it seems to find most subjects at a greater distance. The Z8 is superior with respect to airplanes and its cockpit recognition is the best in the business. Also, the video AF was better than the R5, though I haven't tested it against the R5II, yet.
Also, one has to consider the lack of an AA filter on the Z8 might be a bit more desirable for the landscape shooter, and its starlight view mode for astro is something unique. Not to mention the buffer differential where the Z8 merely slows down with FPS and the R5 and II are inoperable until it clears.
To answer the question regarding AF being super close, I would say that it depends on how one defines super close and what the user's applications are.
I had the Z8 for a while. Focus is not up to snuff, especially for video - sold it.
At this point, the R5II is best in class in my opinion - beating the Z8 and the A1.
Someone mentioned the high price of the CFa cards for the Sony, the good thing about that camera is you can shoot almost anything onto SD cards - unlike the Canons which need CFb fast cards for most things.
In terms of human AF the R5II is far ahead. I'm surprised how Canon could achieve it in spite of having a slower sensor. Plus it got pre-capture. Yesterday I shot my first soccer game with the R5II + 100-300 set up and I'm blown away. It easily matches the A9III (and surpasses it thanks to the Action mode), but with much higher IQ and crop-ability. In the video area - the R5II can shoot 8k raw.
I quit using my A1 after getting the A9III, and now I'm torn between the A9III+400/2.8 vs R5II+100-300 .
Both Canon and Sony offer plenty of really cool and unique lenses, so it's always a hard choice to pick just one system. I'm glad that Canon caught up in the sensor department. People who complain that the R5II sensor is "unusable" because it's "just" 1/180s have never shot this camera.
BTW I'm looking forward to seeing what Sony is cooking for the A1II... Hopefully it'll have everything from the A9III minus global shutter.
docusync wrote:
Both Canon and Sony offer plenty of really cool and unique lenses, so it's always a hard choice to pick just one system. I'm glad that Canon caught up in the sensor department. People who complain that the R5II sensor is "unusable" because it's "just" 1/180s have never shot this camera.
Well, that's the typical spec-sheet reaction, isn't it? On paper it doesn't look better than Z8, a1, a9III. You need to really use it to appreciate the seemingly small, seemingly minor improvements that combine to make the overall experience considerably better. I suspect this will be even more the case with the R1 (if people can get past 24MP).
BTW I'm looking forward to seeing what Sony is cooking for the A1II... Hopefully it'll have everything from the A9III minus global shutter.
Might be worth keeping the Sony glass so you can compare against the R5II and/or R1. I'm sure the a1II will kick it up a few notches, given how much time Sony has had waiting for the other two...
Been holding on to my two Canon lenses for years, to cheap to switch systems, hoping Canon would one day put out a decent camera. Hopefully my patience has paid off. Now if it plays with my two EF lenses I will be more than happy. Fingers crossed... But I keep waiting for the hammer to drop!
gkinard1952 wrote:
Been holding on to my two Canon lenses for years, to cheap to switch systems, hoping Canon would one day put out a decent camera. Hopefully my patience has paid off. Now if it plays with my two EF lenses I will be more than happy. Fingers crossed... But I keep waiting for the hammer to drop!
I have not owned either, but have used both. I would take the R5II all day long.
I think I am in the minority in that I just plain do not like Sony body sizes and ergonomics. The options menus feel far less intuitive than Nikon/Canon.
I loved my original R5, and the R5II is better in most ways than the original was. The A1 was also released over 3 years ago at this point. So from an economic value, I'd much rather have the newer piece of gear if I'm paying the same price.
The only things I value from Sony are the 300GM and their third party E Mount options (tamron, sigma, etc.)
I also would never choose a system based on a camera body, as I feel it's the least important part.. buy based on lens choices, the ecosystem, customer service, ease of repair, etc.
For AF, I find R5II > A1 > R5 > Z8/Z9.
I do not bother with the R3, A9III, etc. because for my work - spending all that money on sub 40MP cameras is silly.
bernardl wrote:
The real question is more R5II vs Z8 IMHO.
AF and image quality being super close it boils down to lenses (native ones, 3rd party and adapted ones).
If you need a 28-70mm f2.0 or 24-105mm f2.8 go Canon, otherwise go Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
in my experience, I don't find the AF of the R5II and Z8 to be close at all lol.
adding onto what Arbitrage said, if you want PF lenses, TC lenses, or the ability to use Sony E and third party options - go Nikon, but for all other reasons - go Canon or Sony.
technologically and body wise - I find Nikon is in dead last right now.
that being said - I shoot Nikon, and I have no problem getting what I consider great shots while using "dead last" technological bodies. all the gear nowadays is so dang good that if you can't get the picture you want, something is wrong with how you're shooting.
for me - I miss far less shots with Nikon's AF than I ever missed when shooting the R5 and Canon RF 600 F4 without a built in TC. for that reason, the choice of a built in TC is the most important to me.
I should have clarified my primary usage: Wildlife commissions of local game, exotic game and birds for ranchers who want "professional" photos of their property wildlife. Also occasional safaris with clients who want a photo record of their trip. I have a small backup team. Currently we are using Canon R5 cameras (now well used) and Sony A9 (also well used). Trying out the Sony A7rC for general supplemental photography. Sufficient glass with both systems for our specific purposes. Back and forth discussions with team about consolidating into one system but at the moment we think each system fills gaps in the other.
I get out and enjoy my hobby. Love travel, just using below par cameras. Really enjoy my two Canon lenses. Just me I guess, but nothing Canon has put on the market has impressed me in the least. Nothing I would spend money on. Verdict is out on the R5II. I am holding out just a bit more. I think Nikon will be the first to put out a professional crop body. If so, for shooting birds I will probibly switch. 600pf and a pro crop body will suit me perfectly for what I like to do. Even if the Nikon is not up to the other two in AF. Im in a pretty good position. Have owned my two Canon lenses for many years and will still be able to sell them. So IF I decide to switch, it will not be a big deal.
Even if I don't upgrade and decide to switch. With the R5II, I think it will help me with selling off my Canon gear.
rancherpix wrote:
I should have clarified my primary usage: Wildlife commissions of local game, exotic game and birds for ranchers who want "professional" photos of their property wildlife. Also occasional safaris with clients who want a photo record of their trip. I have a small backup team. Currently we are using Canon R5 cameras (now well used) and Sony A9 (also well used). Trying out the Sony A7rC for general supplemental photography. Sufficient glass with both systems for our specific purposes. Back and forth discussions with team about consolidating into one system but at the moment we think each system fills gaps in the other....Show more →
If you have glass you like for both systems and doesn't sound like you are doing a lot of real challenging action/BIF photography then I think I'd go for the R5II. Just for the better subject detection. But if you are more comfortable with one system over the other than just pick that one. Or if you do have some preference to the lenses on one over the other than go for that one. I think both cameras will get the job done.
Is there any features or attribute you feel you are missing from the R5 and A9?
.
😝