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.
I think one of the issues is cost. The A9 has a stacked architecture, which essentially means you have to manufacture multiple full-frame chips and then bond them together. It is tough to keep the price competitive. Given its price, I am not sure how much profit the A9 makes for Sony.
NonDecaf wrote:
I think one of the issues is cost. The A9 has a stacked architecture, which essentially means you have to manufacture multiple full-frame chips and then bond them together. It is tough to keep the price competitive. Given its price, I am not sure how much profit the A9 makes for Sony.
Considering they just paid AP to use the Sony brand, with one of the major selling points to be the best silent shutter out there currently, it'd be odd not to keep improving the technology.
shadow9d9 wrote:
Considering they just paid AP to use the Sony brand, with one of the major selling points to be the best silent shutter out there currently, it'd be odd not to keep improving the technology.
I don't know what the APs needs are TBH, do they really need more res? Anyway, yeah, selling more A9s is certainly the way forward for Sony to make stacked sensors more profitable (specifically in ILCs, they are already highly profitable at smaller smartphone sizes due to volume), and thus more likely to appear in other models, invest in more R&D etc.
Here is a topic from the Canon forum about 1DXiii electronic shater problem.
I would think if Canon could not make el shutter work in 1Dx then for sure it would not work in R5.
tn1krr wrote:
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....Show more →
Has 1/60 readout for the R5 been confirmed or is that just a speculation? That means it's about 17ms. The R6 is 19ms and that has been verified.
Zenon Char wrote:
Has 1/60 readout for the R5 been confirmed or is that just a speculation? That means it's about 17ms. The R6 is 19ms and that has been verified.
It has been confirmed "close enough" by some helpful R5 owners in dpreview that posted led stripe shots. Not sure if we can get more than +/- 1 milliseconds accuracy from those
I saw even more clear stripe pictures, but cannot find them at the moment.
What also was "confirmed" by a local very honest R5 owner about R5 BiF shots
- with electronic shutter it is easy to follow burst during burst, blackout/freeze resulting from 1/60 sec readout is short enough for following fast targets
- in "Hi+" blackout is noticeably worse than with ES (one more bit in ADC equals longer readout, mechanical shutter operation) but depending on target following birds is still doable
- in "Hi" mode you see slideslow (like in Northrup video) during burst, 14 bit ADC on readout slows things down considerably
tn1krr wrote:
It has been confirmed "close enough" by some helpful R5 owners in dpreview that posted led stripe shots. Not sure if we can get more than +/- 1 milliseconds accuracy from those
I saw even more clear stripe pictures, but cannot find them at the moment.
What also was "confirmed" by a local very honest R5 owner about R5 BiF shots
- with electronic shutter it is easy to follow burst during burst, blackout/freeze resulting from 1/60 sec readout is short enough for following fast targets
- in "Hi+" blackout is noticeably worse than with ES (one more bit in ADC equals longer readout, mechanical shutter operation) but depending on target following birds is still doable
- in "Hi" mode you see slideslow (like in Northrup video) during burst, 14 bit ADC on readout slows things down considerably ...Show more →
I did see that thread at DPreview. I wasn't sure if people doing this at home could do this with that type of accuracy. Moving 45mp of data at about the same speed as 20 is pretty impressive.
It is impressive. I believe they sample differently with the electronic shutter so that the camera loses a little over a stop of dynamic range in electronic shutter and about 2/3 or so of a stop in high speed shooting, but that they can do it that fast with that high of a resolution is still impressive.
Forget the a9"ii" unless you need the mechanical shutter indoors. The a9 is 3 years old now. It took Canon 3 years to catch up. Sony will come up with something even better sooner rather than later. Pick up the original a9 used if you want. Also, the a7riv is already a year old. So, it makes sense that a camera that comes out a year later will have some improvements. Will you always chase the absolute now?
Why would Canon put a faster and better AF system (or even the exact same), with more than twice the resolution in a camera that costs almost $2000 less than their flagship sports / wildlife / action camera (1DX III)?
Canon would never do that... hence why R5 is competitive with the A7RIV and not the A9 series
Poefolk wrote:
Why would Canon put a faster and better AF system (or even the exact same), with more than twice the resolution in a camera that costs almost $2000 less than their flagship sports / wildlife / action camera (1DX III)?
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.
It actually is not good to hear. Every one should ideally want the canon R5 AF to be at least same or better than a9. Why? b/c ia9 is what it is. the r5 being worse. does not improve the AF of A9, it just means the technology may not be there for better AF, or that there is not much pressure on other manufacturer to up their game. I am not directing this comment at your arbitrage, I think you like many want what best serves your purpose, but I just dont it why a lot of posters get so defensive about their brand and want other brands to be inferior/fail.
If it were not for sony sensor technology, the IBIS in theri bodies, the evf, silent shooting, good video etc, there would be nor r5. Canon would be recycling the same crappy sensor technology that their put in their bodies for 5 years plus, would ignore the cries of in body image stablization to sell more IS lenses at premium price etc. I hope r5 blows every other camera in existence out of the water, and the next iteration of nikon does the same. regardless of which brand I shoot.
kevindar wrote:
It actually is not good to hear. Every one should ideally want the canon R5 AF to be at least same or better than a9. Why? b/c ia9 is what it is. the r5 being worse. does not improve the AF of A9, it just means the technology may not be there for better AF, or that there is not much pressure on other manufacturer to up their game. I am not directing this comment at your arbitrage, I think you like many want what best serves your purpose, but I just dont it why a lot of posters get so defensive about their brand and want other brands to be inferior/fail.
If it were not for sony sensor technology, the IBIS in theri bodies, the evf, silent shooting, good video etc, there would be nor r5. Canon would be recycling the same crappy sensor technology that their put in their bodies for 5 years plus, would ignore the cries of in body image stablization to sell more IS lenses at premium price etc. I hope r5 blows every other camera in existence out of the water, and the next iteration of nikon does the same. regardless of which brand I shoot. ...Show more →
I agree with what you are saying. I also want the R5 to be a camera that rivals or beats the A9 mostly because I have a desire to shoot Canon again due to ergonomics and huge range of EF glass at good used prices.
What I was intending to mean with that comment is that I was happy to hear some criticism (assuming it is valid) because too often we get bombarded by praise for the camera with people either one justifying their purchase or two having never even used the top end competition. I was not happy to hear that the R5 may have some problems...(although my bank account may have been)
I inquired about R5 AF performance with Alex Phan on the A9 Facebook forum and he stated that the R5 still lags behind Sony. He has been testing the R5 and owns both A9 and an A7RIV. His work is phenomenal...join the forum there and check it out.
Am still waiting for some objective testing and perhaps that's the reason, I'm still holding on to my a9. Frokno's most recent video compared the R5 against the a7riv with moving people and both cameras did extremely well. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily translatable for wildlife and in particular BIF. Though MS and other have found the a7riv to be extremely good with the 600 f/4, the lens was unfortunately out of my price range and the body paired to the 200-600 was sub-optimal. Loved the ability to crop but the AF just wasn't there. A 5dmkiv paired to Canon primes (which used are 1/2 the price of Sony) performed better. We'll have to see how the R5 performs and if it is equivalent to the a7riv with a prime and even 90% the af of an a9, it's a winner in my book because of the plethora of relatively inexpensive EF glass and CPS is the bomb compared to Sony.
armd wrote:
Am still waiting for some objective testing and perhaps that's the reason, I'm still holding on to my a9. Frokno's most recent video compared the R5 against the a7riv with moving people and both cameras did extremely well. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily translatable for wildlife and in particular BIF. Though MS and other have found the a7riv to be extremely good with the 600 f/4, the lens was unfortunately out of my price range and the body paired to the 200-600 was sub-optimal. Loved the ability to crop but the AF just wasn't there. A 5dmkiv paired to Canon primes (which used are 1/2 the price of Sony) performed better. We'll have to see how the R5 performs and if it is equivalent to the a7riv with a prime and even 90% the af of an a9, it's a winner in my book because of the plethora of relatively inexpensive EF glass and CPS is the bomb compared to Sony....Show more →
"A 5dmkiv paired to Canon primes (which used are 1/2 the price of Sony) performed better."
I used the 5dmkiv for quite some time (two to be honest) professionally and AF wasn't good, far far inferior to the A7riv. I was very disappointed. Tracking produced many OOF shots, big problems with front/back focus and DPAF was nice butt way too slow.. And I know many wedding photographer not being happy with the 5d4 either. I am sure the R5 will be a lot better.
Holger wrote:
"A 5dmkiv paired to Canon primes (which used are 1/2 the price of Sony) performed better."
I used the 5dmkiv for quite some time (two to be honest) professionally and AF wasn't good, far far inferior to the A7riv. I was very disappointed. Tracking produced many OOF shots, big problems with front/back focus and DPAF was nice butt way too slow.. And I know many wedding photographer not being happy with the 5d4 either. I am sure the R5 will be a lot better.
No question that the a7riv with a prime is far superior to a 5dmkiv though the a7riv with a 200-600 was less consistent than the 5dmkiv with a prime. The R5 appears to be the real deal and with my plethora of Canon EF glass and the incredible selection of inexpensive lenses on the market, it is a very viable alternative. If Sony offered reasonably priced long length primes, I would have stayed with the system.
Agreed. If you are limited to a zoom like the 200600G, the A9ii is a far better choice (the 1.4tc hardly affects this combo). The A7RIV only sings with expensive fast primes. Ive owned the A7RIV, sold, bought another while owning the A9ii now, and the R4 has been put aside for stills only. It simply is nowhere near as fast as an A9... and really could you expect it to be? R4 is a BSI sensor, not a stacked sensor with DRAM direct live feed off the se sor like the A9. You cannot expect it to perform the same. And to be honest, I use my A9 now for everything including landscapes, car shows, kids photos and simply love this camera . So my R4 might get sold again
armd wrote:
Am still waiting for some objective testing and perhaps that's the reason, I'm still holding on to my a9. Frokno's most recent video compared the R5 against the a7riv with moving people and both cameras did extremely well. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily translatable for wildlife and in particular BIF. Though MS and other have found the a7riv to be extremely good with the 600 f/4, the lens was unfortunately out of my price range and the body paired to the 200-600 was sub-optimal. Loved the ability to crop but the AF just wasn't there. A 5dmkiv paired to Canon primes (which used are 1/2 the price of Sony) performed better. We'll have to see how the R5 performs and if it is equivalent to the a7riv with a prime and even 90% the af of an a9, it's a winner in my book because of the plethora of relatively inexpensive EF glass and CPS is the bomb compared to Sony....Show more →
My experience with the R5 for stills has been nothing short of phenomenal with a few exceptions: 1) Still like the programability, button feel, and placement of the Sony cameras (a9ii and a7riv). 2) IQ is tremendous although it takes a slight hit by having an AA filter. Nonethless, I am able to crop more than I can with the a9, though less than the a7riv. 3) Rolling shutter might be an issue for certain applications at certain distances, though it is not usually an issue. Besides, the MS is not only quiet but 12FPS. 4) Lack of ability to throttle the FPS in ES mode is a drawback but easily rectifiable in FW. 5) Manual and settings are not as intuitive or detailed as one would hope.
On the favorable side, the blackout/stutter concerns are over rated for both MS/ES. The AED is phenomenal and has worked on everything from insects to people. Tracking is equally good, though again, the "stickiness" has been variable. For distant birds panning in general tracking mode (AED not active) it works great. With AED for slow moving, more distant critters such as a small bird in a tree or a larger ground bird, it has a tendency to jump off the eye to the rounder body (this was notorious in the a7riv where tracking mode was terrible). AED and Tracking are two inter-related yet separate things. With AED, I find myself having to require the target frequently by re-orienting the AED in spot mode for those situations I mentioned earlier.
For pure landscapes, I might choose a a7riv or 5dsr over the R5. But since I have a lot of long Canon glass and wildlife and sports are my preferred subjects, the R5 is becoming my preferred body and the only thing keeping my a9 with me is the 200-600. Canon has nothing like it. The 100-500 bayonets, f/7.1 at the long end...
