Mike Jacks0n Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
dugballs wrote:
Yeah, hopefully I can get my hands on an R3 and run some tests. I wish it were easier! haha Oh well.
A couple of years ago when I was considering an R3, I run an AF test side by side using a video camera with a fairly high frame rate (to count frames in the video editing software) to see how much faster the R3 ran the 500L II over the R5. In that case, the difference wasn't terribly noticeable in practice, but the video told a different story. I found the R5 racked the entire focus range in .33 seconds and the R3 .24 seconds. This squares with Canon's marketing of the R3's AF being 30% faster.
Again, in practice the difference didn't seem notable, but the seat of the pants feel did seem a hair faster. That makes sense to me, as we almost never ask the system to focus the entire range, nor recognize easily that it took an extra .1 of a second. So, under normal circumstances, it's very likely that it will only be traveling half or 25% of the full range meaning that difference could be as little .05 or .025 of a second, which is almost negligible.
I chose to stay with my R5 but if I was using a 1Dx Mark III, I wouldn't hesitate for a .025 of a second to pull that trigger. The R3, IMO, is so much better, you couldn't pay me money to stay with the 1Dx Mark III.
|