I just had the opportunity to spend a few hours using the R5 100-500 combo today shooting birds and was very impressed with the accuracy of the bird af system - easily beats my a1 in terms of identifying the birds body, head and then eyes. The a1 was getting hung up on the grass or background, struggled to track the eye consistently and is quite embarrassing by comparison.
In one case I was shooting a raven or crow and it flew against a dark background where I could no longer see it and was about to stop pressing the shutter when I noticed the camera was still tracking its eye (blue focus box). No way the a1 or a9 can do that - in fact the a1 would not even be able to track the ravens eye in flight like the Canon does - it was a good 60 meters away.
I have not yet got the images from the R5 to compare actual focus accuracy or iq but for those folks who have both cameras where does the R5 fall down for birds/animals - ignoring the obvious 30fps and rolling shutter.
The evf seems fine and I didn't notice any lag or blackout and rolling shutter distortion also seems to be a none issue. Just a shame Canon don't make a 200-600, the 100-500 is just a bit on the short side.
A super nice small and light rig the R5 + 100-500 though. Sounds like the R3 is going to be 24mp - that's a real shame.
All those praises and you haven’t even seen the files yet?
I have a fundamental issue that I can’t seem to resolve. When I look at our resident birder’s photos on the Sony side, the sharpness, detail, and overall IQ blows away the Canon side bird photos. I don’t know if that’s a disparity between the skill of our birders or down to the cameras…but I’ve yet to see any R5 BIF photos that are close to Sony caliber except from Arbitrage and even then I think his Sony output is leagues better, and that especially goes for his A1 shots.
The one exception to this is Rob, but he shoots with great whites and likely doesn’t crop much. His Flickr also tends to be more perched birds, where the R5 seems to shine.
I couldn’t care less about the fuzzy happy feelings a green AF box gives me if the files are subpar.
The R5 is better at recognizing bird shapes, especially when the bird is not in a normal shape/pose. It will draw the body box when the bird's head is tucked away behind. It will draw a head box when the head is somewhat visible but still turned away. The A1 will just dance the dots in these situations...occasionally drawing some sort of body/head box.
However, once the bird gets into a proper pose with good head angle (ie any time you'd actually want to push the shutter) then I find the two systems are near identical in their effectiveness. I've had both systems struggle in complex surroundings. Getting confused by grass in foreground and background.
The A1 system is more versatile because you can define the "watch" zone for eye-AF from as small as S. Flex Spot all the way up to Wide. The R5 is more limiting because you only have the Single pt or Full frame to "look" from. The A1 gives a pre-display of bird eye-af working before AF is engaged in all modes. The R5 requires a very specific setup to show the white pre-frame and if you set it up that way you can't even get access to the Single point "watch" area. I found having the pre-frame indication very valuable as you know when the system is lost and can go to a non-eye AF mode to get the shot properly. The A1 also has the versatility to only look for the eye in the size of the AF area you are using but then you have the choice to switch to tracking and have the eye tracked over the entire frame or continue to only find it within the selected AF area (like say a Med Spot or Zone etc). This versatility makes the A1 my preferred system if I had to choose one or the other.
As far as showing eye-af indication for flight the R5 does do it more often. The Sony requires very good user technique with a very stable pan speed to have it show up. I've had it show on swallows in flight a number of times now with the A1 when I pan very smooth. The R5 will show eye-af indication with much poorer technique and as you found with the bird smaller in the frame. The thing is that in the end both cameras get the shots in focus and the A9/A1 underlying (non-eyeAF) system has always been uncanny at delivering sharp heads so that doesn't change.
As you discovered the R5 doesn't have any blackout when shooting in 20FPS ES nor 12FPS MS/EFCS. At 20FPS is also is fairly smooth while actively firing and panning. It falls apart if you let go of the shutter mid-burst and then want to keep panning with a BIF. When you let go it jumps back to live-EVF feed and for a fast bird that can be distracting enough to loose your way. Solution is not to let off the shutter during an active panning/burst. At 12FPS it is less smooth when panning as the EVF display is updated at 12FPS and not 20FPS (both use some form of frame insertion but obviously having that at 20 vs 12 is going to be smoother).
As to distortion....wing distortion isn't too common. Hummingbirds will certainly show it and some other very fast wingbeats where the bird also moves vertically in the frame. Of course the larger the bird is in the frame the more likely it will show it. Still I rarely had shots ruined from wing distortion. Where the R5 does show more issues is with leaning vertical lines like trees, grass and reeds in the background. This did ruin shots for me and if I knew I was in a situation where it could happen I'd switch to 12FPS ECFS instead.
The R5 doesn't really fall down for bird photography. IMO it is the best Canon camera ever made for bird photography to date. It would have to be either my #2 or #3 choice out of all cameras available to date for bird photography. And if the R3 is lower MP then for anyone not living in Florida it will likely remain the best Canon bird photography camera. Although the R3 will likely fix all the other small issues I have with the R5 compared to the A1 and then it will end up being a camera that people have to decide between higher MP for cropping of the R5 vs better features with the R3 (derived from the stacked sensor).
Some of my smaller issues with the R5 were too flush buttons making it hard to know which I was pushing, less button customization than I'd prefer, no toggle option for APS-C/FF, no way to vary the FPS in ES and poor IBIS/IS interaction for panning (requiring one to just turn off IBIS/IS all together).
arbitrage wrote:
The R5 is better at recognizing bird shapes, especially when the bird is not in a normal shape/pose. It will draw the body box when the bird's head is tucked away behind. It will draw a head box when the head is somewhat visible but still turned away. The A1 will just dance the dots in these situations...occasionally drawing some sort of body/head box.
However, once the bird gets into a proper pose with good head angle (ie any time you'd actually want to push the shutter) then I find the two systems are near identical in their effectiveness. I've had both systems struggle in complex surroundings. Getting confused by grass in foreground and background.
The A1 system is more versatile because you can define the "watch" zone for eye-AF from as small as S. Flex Spot all the way up to Wide. The R5 is more limiting because you only have the Single pt or Full frame to "look" from. The A1 gives a pre-display of bird eye-af working before AF is engaged in all modes. The R5 requires a very specific setup to show the white pre-frame and if you set it up that way you can't even get access to the Single point "watch" area. I found having the pre-frame indication very valuable as you know when the system is lost and can go to a non-eye AF mode to get the shot properly. The A1 also has the versatility to only look for the eye in the size of the AF area you are using but then you have the choice to switch to tracking and have the eye tracked over the entire frame or continue to only find it within the selected AF area (like say a Med Spot or Zone etc). This versatility makes the A1 my preferred system if I had to choose one or the other.
As far as showing eye-af indication for flight the R5 does do it more often. The Sony requires very good user technique with a very stable pan speed to have it show up. I've had it show on swallows in flight a number of times now with the A1 when I pan very smooth. The R5 will show eye-af indication with much poorer technique and as you found with the bird smaller in the frame. The thing is that in the end both cameras get the shots in focus and the A9/A1 underlying (non-eyeAF) system has always been uncanny at delivering sharp heads so that doesn't change.
As you discovered the R5 doesn't have any blackout when shooting in 20FPS ES nor 12FPS MS/EFCS. At 20FPS is also is fairly smooth while actively firing and panning. It falls apart if you let go of the shutter mid-burst and then want to keep panning with a BIF. When you let go it jumps back to live-EVF feed and for a fast bird that can be distracting enough to loose your way. Solution is not to let off the shutter during an active panning/burst. At 12FPS it is less smooth when panning as the EVF display is updated at 12FPS and not 20FPS (both use some form of frame insertion but obviously having that at 20 vs 12 is going to be smoother).
As to distortion....wing distortion isn't too common. Hummingbirds will certainly show it and some other very fast wingbeats where the bird also moves vertically in the frame. Of course the larger the bird is in the frame the more likely it will show it. Still I rarely had shots ruined from wing distortion. Where the R5 does show more issues is with leaning vertical lines like trees, grass and reeds in the background. This did ruin shots for me and if I knew I was in a situation where it could happen I'd switch to 12FPS ECFS instead.
The R5 doesn't really fall down for bird photography. IMO it is the best Canon camera ever made for bird photography to date. It would have to be either my #2 or #3 choice out of all cameras available to date for bird photography. And if the R3 is lower MP then for anyone not living in Florida it will likely remain the best Canon bird photography camera. Although the R3 will likely fix all the other small issues I have with the R5 compared to the A1 and then it will end up being a camera that people have to decide between higher MP for cropping of the R5 vs better features with the R3 (derived from the stacked sensor).
Some of my smaller issues with the R5 were too flush buttons making it hard to know which I was pushing, less button customization than I'd prefer, no toggle option for APS-C/FF, no way to vary the FPS in ES and poor IBIS/IS interaction for panning (requiring one to just turn off IBIS/IS all together)....Show more →
Interesting - thanks, certainly the visual feedback is more confidence inspiring even if the end result may not be much different - the tracking in video mode seems like quite a big omission on the a1.
RoamingScott wrote:
All those praises and you haven’t even seen the files yet?
I have a fundamental issue that I can’t seem to resolve. When I look at our resident birder’s photos on the Sony side, the sharpness, detail, and overall IQ blows away the Canon side bird photos. I don’t know if that’s a disparity between the skill of our birders or down to the cameras…but I’ve yet to see any R5 BIF photos that are close to Sony caliber except from Arbitrage and even then I think his Sony output is leagues better, and that especially goes for his A1 shots.
The one exception to this is Rob, but he shoots with great whites and likely doesn’t crop much. His Flickr also tends to be more perched birds, where the R5 seems to shine.
I couldn’t care less about the fuzzy happy feelings a green AF box gives me if the files are subpar....Show more →
Well, Arbitrage is not shooting with a Canon great white pretty much ever on the R5, he was using the 100-500, and he IS shooting with a Sony great white (600GM) most of the time. I would not say the Sony board images with the 200-600 stand out above what people like bobbytan are doing with the 100-500.
Anyway, I still think that an A1 with 200-600 is a much better combo than an R5 with 100-500, but if you were going with a 600mm f/4 on each I don’t know that one would outshine the other in any meaningful way.
I think IQ wise with lenses and sensors everything is pretty much a wash between the two systems. You use a 600GM or a 600III/II/RF you won't notice any IQ differences. You compare a 100-400GM or 200-600G vs the RF 100-500 you won't notice much difference. I would never choose between them based on IQ. The 200-600 is a better lens IMO not for IQ but for smooth, internal zoom and 100mm combined with 1/3 extra stop. But the 100-500 is nice for semi-macro and lighterweigh/smaller packing size.
duncang wrote:
I just had the opportunity to spend a few hours using the R5 100-500 combo today shooting birds and was very impressed with the accuracy of the bird af system - easily beats my a1 in terms of identifying the birds body, head and then eyes. The a1 was getting hung up on the grass or background, struggled to track the eye consistently and is quite embarrassing ............
OMG, not another R5 vs A1 thread!!!
No time for this, I'm going out to take a few photos.
Jesse Evans wrote:
I would not say the Sony board images with the 200-600 stand out above what people like bobbytan are doing with the 100-500
I’ve been very impressed by many of our 200-600 shooters for BIF, perched, air shows, and the like. I just don’t see the same level of IQ in any 100-500 shots. Maybe Canon posters tend to post lower res that look crappy on my 4K monitor.
The ultimate sanity check would be to rent the R5/100-500 combo but I’d buy an A1 for that combo’s price long before switching.
RoamingScott wrote:
I’ve been very impressed by many of our 200-600 shooters for BIF, perched, air shows, and the like. I just don’t see the same level of IQ in any 100-500 shots. Maybe Canon posters tend to post lower res that look crappy on my 4K monitor.
The ultimate sanity check would be to rent the R5/100-500 combo but I’d buy an A1 for that combo’s price long before switching.
I don’t fundamentally disagree with your premise about the quality of photos on each sub forum. I think there are more amazing photos in the Sony threads, by virtue of being much more active. There are fewer very good birders on the Canon forum. Most left after being tired of waiting and now many shoot Sony. I don’t know how you’re judging the photos, or how in depth you look at R5 images with the 100-500, but I think several photographers use them with excellent results including the aforementioned Arbitrage. I’m not sure they can match the IQ of an A7r IV with a 200-600 tho (when it nails focus), but the delta is not something I notice on FM. But that is probably because I don’t open them 1:1.
If I were to hazard a guess I’d say your perception is partially based in real, and very minor, IQ difference, and partially down to other factors. I’d guess you probably pay more attention to Sony threads, then there are the actual photographers and post processing. The Sony forum is where all of the interesting PP talk happens on FM. Topaz suite is pretty commonly used. And people became much better at getting exactly the colors they want from Sony cameras either through profiles or tweaking themselves from years of color science debate and refinement of what a definition for good color is. There is generally a lot more sharing of processes in the Sony forum, and I think that has improved the quality of the images posted on average.
arbitrage wrote:
I think IQ wise with lenses and sensors everything is pretty much a wash between the two systems. You use a 600GM or a 600III/II/RF you won't notice any IQ differences. You compare a 100-400GM or 200-600G vs the RF 100-500 you won't notice much difference. I would never choose between them based on IQ. The 200-600 is a better lens IMO not for IQ but for smooth, internal zoom and 100mm combined with 1/3 extra stop. But the 100-500 is nice for semi-macro and lighterweigh/smaller packing size.
Good to know and thanks for taking the time - the 200-600 is why I ended up with Sony (from Nikon) in the first place.
AGeoJO wrote:
Isn't the visual feedback just an overlay and the proof is in the pudding?
Of course but in this case we had about 20 geese in low scrub with lots of interactions between the geese - I guess mating season or minor territorial disputes (keep off my grass!!).
The R5 was easily 10 times faster at acquiring the geese' eyes than the a1 - nearly instant 90+ percent of the time - while the a1 would take 2 - 3 seconds every time. Never once did I see the R5 focus on the grass - once of twice it hesitated on the birds body before finding the head - and these are big geese - see below. More often than not it would not even show the body box, just go straight to the head or eyes. It was like night and day when compared to the speed of acquisition of the a1.
Now given the interactions between the geese I was missing many more of these with the a1 than with the R5 - and by missing I mean focus was still hunting on the grass and not even on the bird when they took to the air.
Also given the birds were moving a lot the a1 took a lot longer to find the eyes and in general appeared to only do so if the bird was stationary or moving very slowly. The Canon on the other hand didn't seem to care - it would find the birds eye almost regardless of the birds movement.
So for someone like myself who doesn't spend hours with camera in hand the R5 seemed way more helpful in acquiring focus and allowing capture of the interactions in this particular scenario.
Anyway comments from arbitrage seem to, for the most part, confirm these differences.
duncang wrote:
Of course but in this case we had about 20 geese in low scrub with lots of interactions between the geese - I guess mating season or minor territorial disputes (keep off my grass!!).
The R5 was easily 10 times faster at acquiring the geese' eyes than the a1 - nearly instant 90+ percent of the time - while the a1 would take 2 - 3 seconds every time. Never once did I see the R5 focus on the grass - once of twice it hesitated on the birds body before finding the head - and these are big geese - see below. More often than not it would not even show the body box, just go straight to the head or eyes. It was like night and day when compared to the speed of acquisition of the a1.
Now given the interactions between the geese I was missing many more of these with the a1 than with the R5 - and by missing I mean focus was still hunting on the grass and not even on the bird when they took to the air.
Also given the birds were moving a lot the a1 took a lot longer to find the eyes and in general appeared to only do so if the bird was stationary or moving very slowly. The Canon on the other hand didn't seem to care - it would find the birds eye almost regardless of the birds movement.
So for someone like myself who doesn't spend hours with camera in hand the R5 seemed way more helpful in acquiring focus and allowing capture of the interactions in this particular scenario.
Anyway comments from arbitrage seem to, for the most part, confirm these differences.
Hm, okay, I don’t know how to respond to your post. I have not tried the R5 nor do I intend to. And therefore, I don’t have the luxury to be able to render any opinion on how the two systems compare. So far, my A1 has delivered and I am pleased with the results. No, it is not perfect, of course. From the images that you posted it looks like yours performs just fine, too. And frankly, judging by the background, it seems that the conditions are not challenging AF-wise at all. How are the results coming off the R5 then?
I don’t want to go into finding out what your setting is as it seems that you are experienced enough. It may sound mean or even condescending and I apologize if you think that way but if you think that the R5 would suit you better and/or it instills more confidence, then by all means… you get the “cliche” drift.
No time for this, I'm going out to take a few photos.
If you don't like the headline/topic, feel free to not read and refrain from participating on the thread instead of raining on other people's interest.
duncang wrote:
I just had the opportunity to spend a few hours using the R5 100-500 combo today shooting birds and was very impressed with the accuracy of the bird af system - easily beats my a1 in terms of identifying the birds body, head and then eyes. The a1 was getting hung up on the grass or background, struggled to track the eye consistently and is quite embarrassing by comparison.
In one case I was shooting a raven or crow and it flew against a dark background where I could no longer see it and was about to stop pressing the shutter when I noticed the camera was still tracking its eye (blue focus box). No way the a1 or a9 can do that - in fact the a1 would not even be able to track the ravens eye in flight like the Canon does - it was a good 60 meters away.
I have not yet got the images from the R5 to compare actual focus accuracy or iq but for those folks who have both cameras where does the R5 fall down for birds/animals - ignoring the obvious 30fps and rolling shutter.
The evf seems fine and I didn't notice any lag or blackout and rolling shutter distortion also seems to be a none issue. Just a shame Canon don't make a 200-600, the 100-500 is just a bit on the short side.
A super nice small and light rig the R5 + 100-500 though. Sounds like the R3 is going to be 24mp - that's a real shame....Show more →
I think your analysis of the R5 is spot on with respect to tracking and BEAF, don't know how it compares to the A1 . The R5 has no issue keeping up with fast birds in flight. I have photographed lots of fast birds IF with the R5.. harlequins, merganser, kingfishers, killdeer, swallows, kestrels, purple martins, red-winged blackbirds and buffle heads to name a few. I didn't find any issue tracking fast birds with 1.4 or 2x converters on the 600 III or the 400 DO II. The 100-500 is a great lens and so is the 200-600 if use within its design specs (good light for birds IF).
What I really like about the 200-600 is the internal zoom, extra weight but worth it to me. These lenses are no match for the f/4's or f/2.8 primes in early mornings or late evenings at the local estuary.. Rolling shutter with the R5 has never jeopardized my bird IF photography. I would post some images for you to check the image quality but I don't want to ruin "RoamingScott's" eyesight... plus this being a Sony forum its not appropriate to post R5 images. Think the image quality is very close between the A1 and R5 but I do notice the blacks from the A1 seem to have a grayish look to me but that just might be me.
RoamingScott wrote:
I’ve been very impressed by many of our 200-600 shooters for BIF, perched, air shows, and the like. I just don’t see the same level of IQ in any 100-500 shots. Maybe Canon posters tend to post lower res that look crappy on my 4K monitor.
The ultimate sanity check would be to rent the R5/100-500 combo but I’d buy an A1 for that combo’s price long before switching.
I think you're full of crap and we sure couldn't tell anything about image quality from what you have posted on flickr.. I think its time you traded in that crappy 4k monitor you have... Scotty...
I actually went to your flickr to look for some of your 100-500 shots, but without exif, it was a futile exercise. Sorry you think I peed in your Cheerios, even though I’ve never seen or heard of you before today.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
I think you're full of crap and we sure couldn't tell anything about image quality from what you have posted on flickr.. I think its time you traded in that crappy 4k monitor you have... Scotty...
AGeoJO wrote:
Hm, okay, I don’t know how to respond to your post. I have not tried the R5 nor do I intend to. And therefore, I don’t have the luxury to be able to render any opinion on how the two systems compare.
Rolling shutter with the R5 has never jeopardized my bird IF photography. I would post some images for you to check the image quality but I don't want to ruin "RoamingScott's" eyesight... 
I think its time you traded in that crappy 4k monitor you have... Scotty...