Has anyone found a good video comparing these two?
I currently have an A7RIV and now Canon R5. The R5 AF is far better than the A7RIV for tracking, low-light, etc. but I think the A7RIV is a better landscape camera and I may keep it just for that. I have an A7SIII on pre-order which will render the R5 virtually obsolete for video for my use.
I'm now wondering how the R5 would compare to the A9/A9II for tracking/sports/wildlife, particularly with the 100-500mm L vs. the Sony 200-600mm G. The Sony combo is 24mp 600mm f6.3 (840mm f9 w/ 1.4x). The Canon will be 45mp 500mm f7.1 (700mm f10 w/ 1.4x). High ISO performance is slightly better on the A9/A9II and dynamic range is better on the R5. I know we can only speculate on this exact combo until the 100-500mm is released but have there been any comparisons done with other lenses? The Sony in electronic shutter should be better with its faster readout speed for less rolling shutter but I wonder if the higher resolution of the R5 and better animal eye-AF will be enough to offset the A9's advantages.
I am way behind the plan because not clear yet about the R5
What I like about the Sony in general is the closness of the focus.
I could be wrong since I did not shoot any Sony or Canon, but I see the images of the Sony a7riv more sharp than any R5 I seen so far. Even when I try to stretch the images of the R5 it gets little weired while the a7riv no matter how I crop the image retain details, this is true for the A9 as well on top of the unmatched speed
Again since I dont have any of these cameras my observation is limited to the image infront of me which there are so many factors that can mislead me.
Waiting for the last verdict of the R5 but 99% I am going with the a9ii
Hopefuly the R5 will scare Sony enough to drop the price of the a9ii
I am way behind the plan because not clear yet about the R5
What I like about the Sony in general is the closness of the focus.
I could be wrong since I did not shoot any Sony or Canon, but I see the images of the Sony a7riv more sharp than any R5 I seen so far. Even when I try to stretch the images of the R5 it gets little weired while the a7riv no matter how I crop the image retain details, this is true for the A9 as well on top of the unmatched speed
Again since I dont have any of these cameras my observation is limited to the image infront of me which there are so many factors that can mislead me.
Waiting for the last verdict of the R5 but 99% I am going with the a9ii
Hopefuly the R5 will scare Sony enough to drop the price of the a9ii...Show more →
This video reassured me a bit about the R5 performance:
I do find my A7RIV images sharper overall so far but hard to tell since I'm comparing RF L and GM lenses at various ISO's. I think the R5 is looking good enough that I won't need the A7RIV but I may keep it anyways if not just for landscapes and better ultra wide selection like my Voigtlander 10mm or the Laowa 9mm.
I think the R5 AF and both electronic and mechanical shutter performance are looking good enough that I can likely get comparable results (to the A9/A9II) tracking fast moving subjects. But I'm very curious about the 200-600mm on A9 vs. 100-500mm on R5.
AlphaPhotography wrote:
This video reassured me a bit about the R5 performance:
I do find my A7RIV images sharper overall so far but hard to tell since I'm comparing RF L and GM lenses at various ISO's. I think the R5 is looking good enough that I won't need the A7RIV but I may keep it anyways if not just for landscapes and better ultra wide selection like my Voigtlander 10mm or the Laowa 9mm.
I think the R5 AF and both electronic and mechanical shutter performance are looking good enough that I can likely get comparable results (to the A9/A9II) tracking fast moving subjects. But I'm very curious about the 200-600mm on A9 vs. 100-500mm on R5. ...Show more →
I totaly credit your real world views over my opinions.
AlphaPhotography wrote:
I think the R5 AF and both electronic and mechanical shutter performance are looking good enough that I can likely get comparable results (to the A9/A9II) tracking fast moving subjects. But I'm very curious about the 200-600mm on A9 vs. 100-500mm on R5.
People keep saying this yet the evidence is nowhere to be found and real world technical differences are just conveniently forgotten and R5 AF performance for fast action is hyped when shooting easy and slow moving targets.
Real world quantifiable differences between R5 and A9 have real world consequences
1. Rolling shutter. 1/60 in Canon is nice, twice as fast as Sony A7 series yet the readout takes about 2.5x longer than in A9. 1/60 in Canon is very same as in Olympus E-M1MarkII and it can show significant rolling shutter where A9 shows practically zero
So be prepared to cull your fast action images for focus, exposure, timing and rolling shutter
Examples from E-M1MarkII. Fast action with target covering good part of the screen ==> serious risk of rolling shutter due to just nice, but nowhere near A9 level readout speed
All the shots that supposed demonstrate how little rolling shutter there is in R5 are from rather slow targets and/or from small magnifcation; not much rolling shutter to be expected
2. AF during burst
A9 murders averything else in terms of how much time there is left for AF/EVF updates during high fps shooting. Let's compare 20 fps shooting
* 1/160 readout time in A9/A9II. That is 12.5% of the time spent on full sensor readouts when shooting max fps
* 1/60 readout in R5. That is 1/3rd or 33.33...% of the time spent on full sensor readouts
A9 AF has significant advantage in updateddata availability to to both AF and EVF updates
With mechanical shutter the blackout times in R5 go up due to higher precision A/D conversion equalling slower readouts. IF the A/D precision slows readout same way as Sony (14 bit takes 2x time of 12 bit) the 14 bit readout in the 8 fps in R5 equals the one in Sony gen 3 A7-series shooting compressed RAW at 10 fps; that is 1/30 secs and results a real slideshow effect when shooting fast moving targets with long lens.
R5 Animal Eye AF pattern recognition is demonstrably better in finding the animal eye than Sony; everything else remains to be seen; no real world tests yet show performance with real fast moving targets. By the numbers R5 has potential to have a bit better blackout and AF performance than A7-series in mechanical Hi+ mode; I'd quess readout speed of 1/45ish sec in that mode.
Although not a direct comparison, Jared Polin compared the 1DXIII in Live View (Same AF as R5) vs the A9II a while a back and they pretty much match each other perfectly.
Supposedly if you shoot the R5 in crop mode the scan speed is faster than 1/60. But the thread measuring the speeds is still a bit of an amateur hour on DPR so I'm waiting for someone that knows what they are doing (calling Jim Kasson) to give us the real answer.
If I get an R5, I think my A7RIV will be sold. But I don't really do anything other than birds and wildlife so it doesn't matter if the A7RIV is slightly better for low ISO DR or landscapes etc.
As I continue to gather data from reviews, I'm getting the picture that the R5 AF is going to be right up there with the A9/A9II and it is sure looking like the head/eye bird AF is the real deal. That said, do we really doubt that Sony will release an Animal Eye-AF update sometime this year? They invented this stuff and the original promo video for Animal Eye AF showed off some limited birds (it already works on some birds) so I'd be disappointed if they don't update it with full on bird support. But I do agree with the guy in the video above that Sony's Animal Eye-AF is too likely to give a false positive on some other cross pattern and you are SOL when it does as it won't change it's mind. Like him, I've turned mine off unless actually shooting deer or another animal where it seems reliable.
The video posted above is the only one I've seen a true discussion between the two from a user of the A9/A9II (who like myself and many others switched from Canon DSLRs). But even that review is still early days with a limited subject selection so far. I don't think when he goes to try his winter KFs with ES that he is going to find no distortion. Of note, in that video linked above you can link to his LR CC gallery of kite and duck shots from the R5. They look pretty good to me although only available at limited size to view. I've never photographed kites so not sure what kinds of speeds they are doing and how fast the wing beats are but I think he implied in the review that he shot ES all the time which is promising for that smaller bird. Ironically the guy mentions in the video that he tends not to have to crop often...then you look at all the gallery images and half of them are cropped down to 6-10MPs from 45....okay then
Bottom line, I think the R5 will get you the shots that the A9 can get. I think it will make getting those shots as easy and in some cases even easier than the A9. But the A9 is still pretty uncanny on how it gets sharp eyes/heads anyways despite not having specific mode for this. And that is using modes like Zone and Wide where you are giving up control just like you will have to do with the Canon Eye-AF mode.
Bob_S wrote:
I haven't had much R5 use, but I have used it and do own an A9 and I think the 9 is significantly better at AF.
That is good to hear the contrary view from what I've been reading. Can you elaborate on what you noticed? Was it a lower hit rate back on the computer? Slower AF drive? Auto AF modes jumping to random things more often?
Photosbydlee wrote:
Although not a direct comparison, Jared Polin compared the 1DXIII in Live View (Same AF as R5) vs the A9II a while a back and they pretty much match each other perfectly.
Why is it the same AF?
Same basic algorithms, maybe (does A7r4 use similar AF to A9ii?). But is the processor power the same? AF calculations per second? Is blackout time equal? What happens during "blackout"? What is the effect of fewer pixels which have to be read out and used for calculating PD information? What is the influence of the battery power and aperture (the footnotes indicate those to affect fps, for example. Does that influence AF calculations, too)?
So unless we know all this, your proposition is guess work unless more scientific tests emerge.
Usually, it takes more than a short test to find out the strengths and weaknesses.
It seems like we always compare AF at the extreme, tracking sporadic birds, which is fine if one shoots birds. But for the vast majority of people that don't shoot birds, I'm sure the R5 focus and tracking is very adequate. How well does it track the brides eyes as the couple walks down a dim lit church? How well does it track the rock star's eyes as he gyrates and runs around the stage? Can it track a horse at an equestrian show? These are the more realistic scenarios for much of the people who will purchase the R5.
arbitrage wrote:
That is good to hear the contrary view from what I've been reading. Can you elaborate on what you noticed? Was it a lower hit rate back on the computer? Slower AF drive? Auto AF modes jumping to random things more often?
Thanks.
I found the R5 less sticky and accuracy a little lower.
That could be the mode I was in, the lens that was used or the subject, different body, different lens, different day.
But it never felt like the A9 which is always and very 'sticky' and always on the right subject or the closest eye of that subject.
Photosbydlee wrote:
Although not a direct comparison, Jared Polin compared the 1DXIII in Live View (Same AF as R5) vs the A9II a while a back and they pretty much match each other perfectly.
no, jared didn't use sony real-time tracking in that video, and there isn't any proof that the 1dxmk3 brought home just as many keepers as the a9.
if anything, that video shows the 1dxmk3 failing to keep the box on the head of the target as well as sony did, even without sony real-time tracking.
a9/a9ii much faster sensor readout allows the sensor to do up to 60 af/ae calcs a second, and gives those cameras a true blackout-free evf that doesn't use frame insertion.
the r5 does not have that capability, it's not playing in the same league, r5 sensor readout speed is way too slow.
AlphaPhotography wrote:
Has anyone found a good video comparing these two?
I currently have an A7RIV and now Canon R5. The R5 AF is far better than the A7RIV for tracking, low-light, etc. but I think the A7RIV is a better landscape camera and I may keep it just for that. I have an A7SIII on pre-order which will render the R5 virtually obsolete for video for my use.
I'm now wondering how the R5 would compare to the A9/A9II for tracking/sports/wildlife, particularly with the 100-500mm L vs. the Sony 200-600mm G. The Sony combo is 24mp 600mm f6.3 (840mm f9 w/ 1.4x). The Canon will be 45mp 500mm f7.1 (700mm f10 w/ 1.4x). High ISO performance is slightly better on the A9/A9II and dynamic range is better on the R5. I know we can only speculate on this exact combo until the 100-500mm is released but have there been any comparisons done with other lenses? The Sony in electronic shutter should be better with its faster readout speed for less rolling shutter but I wonder if the higher resolution of the R5 and better animal eye-AF will be enough to offset the A9's advantages....Show more →
Interesting that you and one other in this thread has both the R5 and an A7rIV and someone else the A9 to compare
From what I have seen in videos, the R5 Eye AF and animal Eye AF looks very good! ( It's what some wanted the mythical A9r to be minus the IMO ridiculous 8K) From first hand A9 experience the A9 AF is also very good and A9/A9II is a good match to the G 200-600. But the R5 AF is the latest AF tech so my guess if there really is a slight gap across the board, Sony can close any gap very easily with a firmware tweak.
Good point about the R5+ 100-500 compared to the A7rIV + G 200-600. I hope this comparison will put more pressure on Sony to figure out a way to enhance burst shooting AF consistency with the G 200-600 when using specifically with the A7rIV. But who knows, Sony is already very aware of the G 200-600 + A7rIV high burst mode inconsistency...so maybe just a matter of time for the next firmware update. But then again I personally never expected the 61MP A7r IV to be my fast moving sports or wildlife camera--I'm just using it that way for now and for the most part getting away with it with some frustrations with high burst mode inconsistencies.
This isn’t about model anyway, it’s about chip design + software. Sony have excellent silicon and software, and it looks like Canon do now as well.
They both have a good reason to keep training their AI, improving their algorithms and crucially listening to users.
Hard to say where Nikon is in all of this. They have good software historically but it’s fallen behind with The Z series. They design their own chips but I don’t think they have the same ownership as Sony & Canon?
shadow9d9 wrote:
Here is the thing though. The a9 is over 3 years old. Yes, 45 mp is more, but Sony is likely to have a real upgrade to the A9 around the corner.
chez wrote:
It seems like we always compare AF at the extreme, tracking sporadic birds, which is fine if one shoots birds. But for the vast majority of people that don't shoot birds, I'm sure the R5 focus and tracking is very adequate. How well does it track the brides eyes as the couple walks down a dim lit church? How well does it track the rock star's eyes as he gyrates and runs around the stage? Can it track a horse at an equestrian show? These are the more realistic scenarios for much of the people who will purchase the R5.
I would agree with your statement if it were posted in the Canon forum. However we're in the Sony forum where everybody already has a few Sony cameras and lenses. Why would anyone want to switch his system to a different one that is just "adequate"? It would need to be more than that in order to justify the expense and hassle, wouldn't it?
vdo1 wrote:
I would agree with your statement if it were posted in the Canon forum. However we're in the Sony forum where everybody already has a few Sony cameras and lenses. Why would anyone want to switch his system to a different one that is just "adequate"? It would need to be more than that in order to justify the expense and hassle, wouldn't it?
Wasn't the Eye-AF a game changer for portraits (even on cameras without the fast-readout like the A9) ? With other cameras, you could easily move the focus point to the eye, but having the camera do it automatically improved the efficiency and productivity of most portrait shooters.
Edit: Also IMHO bird photography isn't just about capturing small erratic birds doing something dynamic. There are plenty of photographers who do static bird shots/birdscapes or general wildlife photography where the parameters are different.
