Does it though? Not having an r5 myself but hearing things from a couple action reviewers say the r5 draws a more accurate box around the subject but doesn't necessarily nail the actual shot (Mark Smith for example). So far using the a1 I'm having a real hard time imagining anything better at actually hitting what it says it's hitting.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
Hate that I have to agree with him but he's right the R5 does focus better...
I have the R5 and I can make it hit... As for Mark Smith, he's not a canon shooter and admits that in the video... From the videos I watch not seeing anything spectacular from the a1 for that price range.
buffalowolff wrote:
Does it though? Not having an r5 myself but hearing things from a couple action reviewers say the r5 draws a more accurate box around the subject but doesn't necessarily nail the actual shot (Mark Smith for example). So far using the a1 I'm having a real hard time imagining anything better at actually hitting what it says it's hitting.
Tony's funny. But hey, I have a list going of things I don't like about the A1 also. I actually have a full document I'm working on with the pros and cons between the A1 and the R5.
Most of Tony's points aren't things I use on the camera or care about (connectivity, GPS, pixel-shift).
Others are things I don't really agree with even though they are things I use: Flip screen (I hate the R5's flip screen and with Sunny Weather setting I have no issues with seeing it in sun), SD card speed (I've yet to be hampered by it and I shoot decent length bursts), card size (I'm running 128GB and never filled it in a day so 160 would be fine). The Human/Animal/Bird icon does change in the Fn menu but I guess not on the EVF/LCD...I wouldn't know as I turn off all overlays other than histogram on my screens (and of course I only shoot birds so it is moot point to me).
Overall AF better than the R5? No...flat out no....the only point I'll concede is that Bird-Eye AF in some tricky situations with messy background is better on the R5.
Better controls on the R5?...heck no....the R5 buttons are horrible compared to the A1, the A1 has better customization of the buttons.
Things I agree with in that video: the file quality limitation for 30FPS...I'm not really bothered by this as the Lossy files have never bothered me and it is all I've ever used on Sony but it would be nice to be able to shoot Lossless Compressed and not have to lose 30FPS.
One of the points just seem incorrect:
My shutter closes on power off and I'm in ES all the time so don't know what is up with his camera
How can you say the AF on the a1 is better than the R5 when you shot 95 % of the time with 7.1 glass and you use your top glass on the A1...
arbitrage wrote:
Tony's funny. But hey, I have a list going of things I don't like about the A1 also. I actually have a full document I'm working on with the pros and cons between the A1 and the R5.
Most of Tony's points aren't things I use on the camera or care about (connectivity, GPS, pixel-shift).
Others are things I don't really agree with even though they are things I use: Flip screen (I hate the R5's flip screen and with Sunny Weather setting I have no issues with seeing it in sun), SD card speed (I've yet to be hampered by it and I shoot decent length bursts), card size (I'm running 128GB and never filled it in a day so 160 would be fine). The Human/Animal/Bird icon does change in the Fn menu but I guess not on the EVF/LCD...I wouldn't know as I turn off all overlays other than histogram on my screens (and of course I only shoot birds so it is moot point to me).
Overall AF better than the R5? No...flat out no....the only point I'll concede is that Bird-Eye AF in some tricky situations with messy background is better on the R5.
Better controls on the R5?...heck no....the R5 buttons are horrible compared to the A1, the A1 has better customization of the buttons.
Things I agree with in that video: the file quality limitation for 30FPS...I'm not really bothered by this as the Lossy files have never bothered me and it is all I've ever used on Sony but it would be nice to be able to shoot Lossless Compressed and not have to lose 30FPS.
One of the points just seem incorrect:
My shutter closes on power off and I'm in ES all the time so don't know what is up with his camera...Show more →
Pius Sullivan wrote:
Hate that I have to agree with him but he's right the R5 does focus better...
I don't think you should make that claim if you haven't shot the A1. Did Rory lend it to you for a day?? I have shot both and just like I said that the A9II focused better than the R5, the A1 does also and better than the A9II.
The only AF I can find better on the R5 is with certain birds against really busy backgrounds, the R5 seemed to find the eye more often. But in any situation that the shot would be worthwhile taking I'd put the two cameras essentially equal. I'm talking about when you have a clean background so that both cameras can recognize the shape of the bird and figure out where the eye should be.
I'm honestly not trying to defend or prop up my latest toy. I'm just giving a fair assessment of the two AF systems. Just like I said the A9II was better than the R5 for fast acquisition of small/fast/erratic BIF than the R5. And that was when the R5 was my new toy.
That is just my opinion, people can make up their own minds whether the A1 is worth the premium over an R5. I think that anyone invested in Sony glass (especially the big two primes) would be making a very bad decision to switch to an R5 because of the $2K price difference. I also think anyone with a big investment in Canon glass would be making a very bad decision to switch over to a $2K more expensive A1.
If someone is starting from scratch then if I was them I wouldn't buy anything too expensive until Canon shows us the R1 and some RF superteles and Nikon shows the Z9 and the Z superteles.
To be honest I think once all those cards are on the table Nikon will be the best but that is just a guess.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
How can you say the AF on the a1 is better than the R5 when you shot 95 % of the time with 7.1 glass and you use your top glass on the A1...
I'm comparing it to my 200-600 and 100-400 on the A1.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
I have the R5 and I can make it hit... As for Mark Smith, he's not a canon shooter and admits that in the video... From the videos I watch not seeing anything spectacular from the a1 for that price range.
The camera is not about BIF only, right? Because there are many other things which are excellent and make it spectacular, things the R5 will never be able to touch. It is fine, that you think the price isn't worth it, for others not as limited in their shooting envelope like you, the situation is different, e.g. event shooters using flash or the E-shutter all the time without banding, flicker, completely silent.
If you read the OP's posting, the comment was about focus and that's what I was replying to.
You're right, I'm not worried about about flash sync and such. I will repeat it again the R5 can focus with the a1 any day of the week.. I'm just informing people who think the R5 is a step down from what Sony makes. You can choose to pay what you want for gear... your choice.
Holger wrote:
The camera is not about BIF only, right? Because there are many other things which are excellent and make it spectacular, things the R5 will never be able to touch. It is fine, that you think the price isn't worth it, for others not as limited in their shooting envelope like you, the situation is different, e.g. event shooters using flash or the E-shutter all the time without banding, flicker, completely silent.
arbitrage wrote:
Tony's funny. But hey, I have a list going of things I don't like about the A1 also. I actually have a full document I'm working on with the pros and cons between the A1 and the R5.
Most of Tony's points aren't things I use on the camera or care about (connectivity, GPS, pixel-shift).
Others are things I don't really agree with even though they are things I use: Flip screen (I hate the R5's flip screen and with Sunny Weather setting I have no issues with seeing it in sun), SD card speed (I've yet to be hampered by it and I shoot decent length bursts), card size (I'm running 128GB and never filled it in a day so 160 would be fine). The Human/Animal/Bird icon does change in the Fn menu but I guess not on the EVF/LCD...I wouldn't know as I turn off all overlays other than histogram on my screens (and of course I only shoot birds so it is moot point to me).
Overall AF better than the R5? No...flat out no....the only point I'll concede is that Bird-Eye AF in some tricky situations with messy background is better on the R5.
Better controls on the R5?...heck no....the R5 buttons are horrible compared to the A1, the A1 has better customization of the buttons.
Things I agree with in that video: the file quality limitation for 30FPS...I'm not really bothered by this as the Lossy files have never bothered me and it is all I've ever used on Sony but it would be nice to be able to shoot Lossless Compressed and not have to lose 30FPS.
One of the points just seem incorrect:
My A1 shutter closes on power off and I'm in ES all the time so don't know what is up with his camera...Show more →
I stopped subscribing to Northrop’s channel but couldn’t help watching his latest one bashing the A1 and gave Tony a thumbs down. It seems like he is acting more clownish and gets facts wrong, such as the shutter not closing when the camera is shutdown in electronic shutter mode, or that the menus are too complicated. A lot of his cons were trivial and inconsequential for my use.
arbitrage wrote:
...
One of the points just seem incorrect:
My shutter closes on power off and I'm in ES all the time so don't know what is up with his camera
Not gonna give him a click and watch the video but that sounds like he has the silent option enabled. With that enabled it does not close shutter at power off (it is supposed to be silent). If you instead use electronic shutter and turn off audio signals, it shoots silently and closes shutter at power off.
The results I see from the a1 are no better than the R5, what else do I need to look at.
Enough great photographers are already using it and posting photos and video's.
Nope I have not used the a1, but again lots of folks here comment on the R5 without using it..
But I have shot long enough to know what to look for, I'm just not seeing it Geoff...
arbitrage wrote:
I don't think you should make that claim if you haven't shot the A1. Did Rory lend it to you for a day?? I have shot both and just like I said that the A9II focused better than the R5, the A1 does also and better than the A9II.
The only AF I can find better on the R5 is with certain birds against really busy backgrounds, the R5 seemed to find the eye more often. But in any situation that the shot would be worthwhile taking I'd put the two cameras essentially equal. I'm talking about when you have a clean background so that both cameras can recognize the shape of the bird and figure out where the eye should be.
I'm honestly not trying to defend or prop up my latest toy. I'm just giving a fair assessment of the two AF systems. Just like I said the A9II was better than the R5 for fast acquisition of small/fast/erratic BIF than the R5. And that was when the R5 was my new toy.
That is just my opinion, people can make up their own minds whether the A1 is worth the premium over an R5. I think that anyone invested in Sony glass (especially the big two primes) would be making a very bad decision to switch to an R5 because of the $2K price difference. I also think anyone with a big investment in Canon glass would be making a very bad decision to switch over to a $2K more expensive A1.
If someone is starting from scratch then if I was them I wouldn't buy anything too expensive until Canon shows us the R1 and some RF superteles and Nikon shows the Z9 and the Z superteles.
To be honest I think once all those cards are on the table Nikon will be the best but that is just a guess. ...Show more →
randomguy wrote:
Not gonna give him a click and watch the video but that sounds like he has the silent option enabled. With that enabled it does not close shutter at power off (it is supposed to be silent). If you instead use electronic shutter and turn off audio signals, it shoots silently and closes shutter at power off.
Ah yes, I shoot ES and have Audio signals OFF...I forgot that if you use that Silent mode setting it doesn't close the shutter. Just another misunderstanding from Tony...what else is new
Pius Sullivan wrote:
If you read the OP's posting, the comment was about focus and that's what I was replying to.
You're right, I'm not worried about about flash sync and such. I will repeat it again the R5 can focus with the a1 any day of the week.. I'm just informing people who think the R5 is a step down from what Sony makes. You can choose to pay what you want for gear... your choice.
"I will repeat it again the R5 can focus with the a1 any day of the week."
That is just a claim from your side until substantially proven. I trust the guys having shot both in parallel, like arbitrage.
Finding an eye due to bigger DL training data is something different than AF acquisition, tracking and af readjustments per second.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
We all know you need the fast glass to get the best from the AF on these cameras...
That's why I use my 600 III 99% of the time...
But on the A1 you don't need the 600GM (or 400GM) to get the full AF experience. I also haven't read anything on the R5 threads saying you need an adapted EF super tele to get the best AF out of the R5. But I guess you feel that you do??
I felt that the adapted EF superteles didn't lose anything to the native lens. But I didn't find that they gave a boost to AF either. Granted I only shot your 600III for one day and I didn't have many fast BIF to aim it at. It performed amazing on what I did aim it at. I shot two copies of the 400DOII for 4 days total (around 10,000 frames at my regular spots which included all my regular faster BIF like blackbirds) and I shot your 100-400II for a very short while. And then the rest of the time I shot my 100-500. My general impression between the f/4 400DOII and the 100-500 was that AF seemed to act the same.
I guess if you are correct and the R5 needs the big lens to get A1 like AF then that means we have to consider a $13K DSLR lens in the value equation vs a $2K 200-600 on the A1.
Obviously I love the big 600 primes for light gathering, rendering, TC use just as much as you do. But I really didn't think you needed one on the A1 nor the R5 to maximize the AF performance.
