Roaming Scott wrote: 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.
Perhaps you might have missed Pius' "Featured thread wins, 10 times" and 2656 Likes here in FM.
Pius Sullivan wrote:
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.
Thanks, no problem - I will be getting the R5 images I took so no worries there but just wanted to confirm my initial impressions of the af - I had seen it on YouTube but it seemed even better in real life. I don't expect there will be any material difference in iq and I have a 5K display so I am sure that if there is any I will notice it ;-). Colours - I expect to be similar with really nothing that can't be adjusted in post.
As far as lenses go the 200-600 is what got me to Sony in the first place - I just got lucky they then came out with the a1. And unless Canon do something with similar reach and speed not sure I would switch even for the better animal/bird tracking and a 50mp 30fps R3.
Now if Canon came up with a similar 200-600 f6.3 that would be interesting but that seems very unlikely. Nikon - well they do have a 200-600 on their roadmap and sounds like there is a camera coming.
Fantastic what these cameras can do these days and always great to see and experience what is possible. Anyway good job canon on the af tracking - sets the benchmark for everyone else.
I checked my exif data on flickr its turned on, might try giving that 4k monitor a refresh.
As for my cheerio's I keep them in a sealed plastic container...
I think your call on the R5 and the 100-500 image quality is way off base, you might want to expand your image viewing beyond the Sony forum's posted images before taking a stroll down that road.
I have not shot a ton of images with my 100-500 but enough to know its sharp, definitely comparable to the 200-600.
There is no noticeable difference between R5 + 600 III vs A1 + 600 GM image quality from what I can tell.
I'm the quiet one!
RoamingScott wrote:
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.
If you are already vested in Sony, stick with it. I have a lot respect for Sony they freed us from the cold war days with Canon and Nikon. You may find a few +'s with canon but Sony has many positives also.
Chat with Reverend Abitrage.. he will guide you.
I wish I could stick that 200-600 on my R5...
duncang wrote:
Thanks, no problem - I will be getting the R5 images I took so no worries there but just wanted to confirm my initial impressions of the af - I had seen it on YouTube but it seemed even better in real life. I don't expect there will be any material difference in iq and I have a 5K display so I am sure that if there is any I will notice it ;-). Colours - I expect to be similar with really nothing that can't be adjusted in post.
As far as lenses go the 200-600 is what got me to Sony in the first place - I just got lucky they then came out with the a1. And unless Canon do something with similar reach and speed not sure I would switch even for the better animal/bird tracking and a 50mp 30fps R3.
Now if Canon came up with a similar 200-600 f6.3 that would be interesting but that seems very unlikely. Nikon - well they do have a 200-600 on their roadmap and sounds like there is a camera coming.
Fantastic what these cameras can do these days and always great to see and experience what is possible. Anyway good job canon on the af tracking - sets the benchmark for everyone else. ...Show more →
RoamingScott wrote:
…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.
Maybe you are too busy pissing to see any other R5 shots:
Pius Sullivan wrote:
If you are already vested in Sony, stick with it. I have a lot respect for Sony they freed us from the cold war days with Canon and Nikon. You may find a few +'s with canon but Sony has many positives also.
Chat with Reverend Abitrage.. he will guide you.
I wish I could stick that 200-600 on my R5...
Yep my R5 friend had the same sentiment - although as he pointed out 100-200 does make the lens a lot more flexible on the short side for things like close by video, portraits, some landscape, etc.
I certainly wish I could stick the animal/bird af tracking on the a1 - and probably more importantly animal/bird tracking in video - hell I would even pay another $1,000 for that firmware update.
It would be interesting to know what data they are using for the pattern recognition/subject tracking - is it only the af points or do they use image data from the entire sensor.
If you’d read my posts (not just POST), you’d see my quarrel is with the 100-500 and birds in FLIGHT. I already said the great whites hold their own, which Pius mainly uses. Perched is easy mode, you can do that with manual focus on any body half the time, but the R5 excels there with bird AF.
Thanks for turning on your Exif, Pius, and as you said, most of your shots are with the 600 which look great. They better, at that price!
Imagemaster wrote:
Maybe you are too busy pissing to see any other R5 shots:
RoamingScott wrote:
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.
EXIF is showing under all of Pius' shots on Flickr for me. I see the most recent 100-500 ones are the Western Tanager and then further down there is a set with some blackbirds and ring-necked ducks IF shot with the 100-500. Maybe you need to be logged into Flickr to see the EXIF?...not sure?....
I had a look through my flickr and it seems I have many birds in flight with the R5 +100-500... just a few for you. Scott
RoamingScott wrote:
If you’d read my posts (not just POST), you’d see my quarrel is with the 100-500 and birds in FLIGHT. I already said the great whites hold their own, which Pius mainly uses. Perched is easy mode, you can do that with manual focus on any body half the time, but the R5 excels there with bird AF.
Thanks for turning on your Exif, Pius, and as you said, most of your shots are with the 600 which look great. They better, at that price!
Pius Sullivan wrote:
Sniped — plus this being a Sony forum its not appropriate to post R5 images.
Hm, okay then… Those images taken with the R5 make us, Sony A1 users, feel inferior… not
Yes, I realize that Canon, Sony and Nikon are competing against each other and by so doing, we the end users get the benefits of being able to use better and improved cameras as the time progresses. Cheers to our future cameras!
The bird eye AF on the A1 works great on some birds, not so good on others. The animal eye AF has worked great on most animals I tried it on except my mother's black labrador. But until it becomes as reliable as human eye AF I don't care who is slightly better than others at it. The bottom line is, until then you need to be ready to go back to a setting which gets your shots in focus without it regardless of what you shoot.
I was a bit envious of the R5 when it was launched because of its resolution combined with 20FPS and good AF but now that the A1 is here with 50mp I simply don't care about the R5. Can't think of anything the R5 would enable me to do that the A1 can't do at least as good except for making images with strange rolling shutter distortion in the wings .
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.
I was just responding to that statement mostly, Scott couldn't seem to find any birds IF on the flickr page with the 100-500. So I decide to drop them in here to help him out...
AGeoJO, Is it me or did the a1 miss focus on the eye of the 4 leg bird....
Nice photo's as always.
AGeoJO wrote:
Hm, okay then… Those images taken with the R5 make us, Sony A1 users, feel inferior… not
Yes, I realize that Canon, Sony and Nikon are competing against each other and by so doing, we the end users get the benefits of being able to use better and improved cameras as the time progresses. Cheers to our future cameras!
I was reading elsewhere recently that even though the Sony has faster readout, the Canon exhibits less rolling shutter. (A side by side test was done.) Is that not the case?
For video, maybe. The A1 does not read at 1/240 for video. For stills, heck no. The A1 reads 4x faster and will never show you leaning lines
If you can link to that test I’d like to read it. I’d bet it is a video test.
ronno wrote:
I was reading elsewhere recently that even though the Sony has faster readout, the Canon exhibits less rolling shutter. (A side by side test was done.) Is that not the case?
arbitrage wrote:
For video, maybe. The A1 does not read at 1/240 for video. For stills, heck no. The A1 reads 4x faster and will never show you leaning lines
If you can link to that test I’d like to read it. I’d bet it is a video test.
Lost track of it - but it probably was video.
Cheers.
Canon with less rolling shutter? Sorry that is not even possible with that cameras sensor technology. Wishful thinking for sure
arbitrage wrote:
For video, maybe. The A1 does not read at 1/240 for video. For stills, heck no. The A1 reads 4x faster and will never show you leaning lines
If you can link to that test I’d like to read it. I’d bet it is a video test.
AGeoJO wrote:
Hm, okay then… Those images taken with the R5 make us, Sony A1 users, feel inferior… not
Yes, I realize that Canon, Sony and Nikon are competing against each other and by so doing, we the end users get the benefits of being able to use better and improved cameras as the time progresses. Cheers to our future cameras!
So Pius posts some BIF images of the R5/100-500 combo in response to someone who claimed he has no such photos on Flickr and you think he did that to make you feel inferior
Seriously - you should think about going to see someone about that because that is a strange response to have.
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... 
