ronno wrote:
I have both. Before the R5II came out, the main difference for me was the difference in video quality… the Sony has a lot more dynamic range than the R5 for video. Now, though, the R5 II have gorgeous video using Log2 (much better DR!) so I am going to sell the A1. Why? The Canon has better AF, vastly better battery life (the other day I was shooting some random video clips on the A1 for about 45 minutes and the battery got down to 55%!), Canon as a better viewfinder experience (The Sony has larger and higher rez viewfinder, but it often looks pixelated and goes down in resolution at random times, which is very jarring and unpleasant.)
The Canon also has the most consistent focus for video.
As to shooting stills they are just about the same - very comparable as to IQ, focus, etc.
One more thing - the Sony has ineffective IBIS. Videos are jittery as hell unless you use the active digital stabilization - switch crops into the image a fair amount.
As I wrote elsewhere with the R5II I can now shoot stable footage using an unstaiblized 50mm lens - without any digital IS.
I 100% agree and was going to say something similar. I replaced my A1 with the R5II. subject identification and tracking on the A1 is not as good as the Sony cameras with AI chip or the R5II. Also, video is much better now than the A1 with the new R5. In my opinion, the R5II is the best hybrid photo/video camera out there. I am still keeping my Sony A7RV because of the lens eco system.
gkinard1952 wrote:
I get out and enjoy my hobby. Love travel, just using below par cameras. Really enjoy my two Canon lenses. Just me I guess, but nothing Canon has put on the market has impressed me in the least. Nothing I would spend money on. Verdict is out on the R5II. I am holding out just a bit more. I think Nikon will be the first to put out a professional crop body. If so, for shooting birds I will probibly switch. 600pf and a pro crop body will suit me perfectly for what I like to do. Even if the Nikon is not up to the other two in AF. Im in a pretty good position. Have owned my two Canon lenses for many years and will still be able to sell them. So IF I decide to switch, it will not be a big deal.
Even if I don't upgrade and decide to switch. With the R5II, I think it will help me with selling off my Canon gear. ...Show more →
Canon will continue to service/support the 400 DO II and 500/4II until February 2029. By then you may have decided on a course of action. Waiting until there's not much more support period, or after it lapses, will likely cause resale value to drop somewhat. https://canon.jp/support/repair/period
I'd say anything Canon mirrorless, the more recent Nikons and most Sonys will significantly outperform the 7D/7DII in respect to AF capability. But I can appreciate why you might wish to wait for a higher-end APS-C camera. The R7 could really benefit from a sensor upgrade (faster readout). Does Fuji not offer anything decent for BIF (body and lenses)? The Olympus/OM System seems to have fans...
I think your decision should come down to glass and the specific features that you need. The A1 is almost a 4 year old camera which is an eternity when it comes to tech. The fact that it is still in the conversation is a miracle. That said the R5ii has features that the A1 does not have like pre-capture, subject detection eye tracking in video. If those features matter to you then get an r5ii.
The flip side is since you already have a9's have you considered an a9iii. I own and love that camera. Fully customizable pre-capture from in .1 second increments. Ability to custom set pre-capture on a button, the boost button, ability to shoot 60 or 120 fps are features that set it apart from the tech in the r5ii. The subject recognition is outstanding, the auto focus is better than the A1.
I prefer the 600mm from Sony over the built in converter from Canon. I also love and I mean love the new Sony 300 2.8. The ability to fully customize the Sony bodies is also fantastic. For my needs the Sony system is better but this is really splitting hairs at this point. All 3 major systems will produce identical photos the vast majority of the time. I don't need to list the pros and cons of each system as Canon like the others have features that they are better at and features they are not. So for me the decision should come down to what specifically you think you are lacking or what features will get you more photos and happier clients. Will 120 fps matter? Will eye tracking in video matter? If you don't think any of that will make a difference the vast majority of the time then keep shooting what you have and see where the tech leads in the future.
aboutthelight wrote:
I think your decision should come down to glass and the specific features that you need. The A1 is almost a 4 year old camera which is an eternity when it comes to tech. The fact that it is still in the conversation is a miracle. That said the R5ii has features that the A1 does not have like pre-capture, subject detection eye tracking in video. If those features matter to you then get an r5ii.
The flip side is since you already have a9's have you considered an a9iii. I own and love that camera. Fully customizable pre-capture from in .1 second increments. Ability to custom set pre-capture on a button, the boost button, ability to shoot 60 or 120 fps are features that set it apart from the tech in the r5ii. The subject recognition is outstanding, the auto focus is better than the A1.
I prefer the 600mm from Sony over the built in converter from Canon. I also love and I mean love the new Sony 300 2.8. The ability to fully customize the Sony bodies is also fantastic. For my needs the Sony system is better but this is really splitting hairs at this point. All 3 major systems will produce identical photos the vast majority of the time. I don't need to list the pros and cons of each system as Canon like the others have features that they are better at and features they are not. So for me the decision should come down to what specifically you think you are lacking or what features will get you more photos and happier clients. Will 120 fps matter? Will eye tracking in video matter? If you don't think any of that will make a difference the vast majority of the time then keep shooting what you have and see where the tech leads in the future. ...Show more →
The A93 is a real gleam in my eye. But it's currently very expensive and our cameras take quite a beating-mostly dust (and a lot of it). Our A9s are special use cameras but when we need them, we need them. I'm leaning toward a couple of R5 II bodies and await the A1 II until whenever. We usually buy refurbished/good used but can't do that (yet) with the R5 II. Appreciate everyone's input on this.
gkinard1952 wrote:
I get out and enjoy my hobby. Love travel, just using below par cameras. Really enjoy my two Canon lenses. Just me I guess, but nothing Canon has put on the market has impressed me in the least. Nothing I would spend money on. Verdict is out on the R5II. I am holding out just a bit more. I think Nikon will be the first to put out a professional crop body. If so, for shooting birds I will probibly switch. 600pf and a pro crop body will suit me perfectly for what I like to do. Even if the Nikon is not up to the other two in AF. Im in a pretty good position. Have owned my two Canon lenses for many years and will still be able to sell them. So IF I decide to switch, it will not be a big deal.
Even if I don't upgrade and decide to switch. With the R5II, I think it will help me with selling off my Canon gear....Show more →
Interesting perspective and how has the R5II influenced you to sell of your Canon gear? Admittedly, the reason I switched to Nikon was all of my EF glass was aging including my 500 f/4 II and my 600 f/4 II broke and was not financially salvageable. I really didn't want to invest boat loads of money in tremendously expensive, and heavy lenses which could be characterized as "updates". The Nikon PF series as well as the 400 f/4.5 are game changing with respect to cost, performance, weight, etc. Unfortunately, their bodies, while fairly good in terms of performance, are not up to task compared to Canon/Sony for WL. One can adapt Sony/Canon lenses to the Z body, but unfortunately, it is a one way street. If I could have stayed with Canon and used the Nikon lenses, it would have been the best of both worlds for me.
Whether Nikon releases a high end cropped sensor or Canon updates the R7, remains to be seen, though neither would compel me to choose one system over the other.
Good to hear that the R5II is so good at so many things. As the newest kid on the block, it should be....especially since it is about $1k more than a Z8. I'm sure Nikon and Sony are busy readying their follow ups to the Z8/Z9/A1 and they will move the bar a little bit forward...just as Canon may have done here. That being said, if you shoot long lenses, Nikon still has no competition with the TC and PF lenses..So there's that.
This thread is an interesting read.
But even without having used either camera, I would blindly go for the Canon (based on camera alone).
Fact is that mirrorless is still maturing, and a second fact is that Sony of late has been doing literally nothing to improve their cameras after release, only bug fixes and perhaps app support.
The A1 is 3,5 yrs old and frozen in time performance wise, so the Canon R5II has 3,5 yrs of mirrorless maturing over the Sony A1, which is at this time still a lót.
I have the A1 and love the camera, and have no plans whatsoever to get the Canon R5II, but starting new, there is no way I would get a Sony A1 new at the price it currently is at, and I would not recommend it. Ibis wise, video AF wise, AF subject detection wise, it has become seriously dated.
It is still a great camera, but i.m.o. should be sold at 4000,- by now.
armd wrote:
Interesting perspective and how has the R5II influenced you to sell of your Canon gear? Admittedly, the reason I switched to Nikon was all of my EF glass was aging including my 500 f/4 II and my 600 f/4 II broke and was not financially salvageable. I really didn't want to invest boat loads of money in tremendously expensive, and heavy lenses which could be characterized as "updates". The Nikon PF series as well as the 400 f/4.5 are game changing with respect to cost, performance, weight, etc. Unfortunately, their bodies, while fairly good in terms of performance, are not up to task compared to Canon/Sony for WL. One can adapt Sony/Canon lenses to the Z body, but unfortunately, it is a one way street. If I could have stayed with Canon and used the Nikon lenses, it would have been the best of both worlds for me.
Whether Nikon releases a high end cropped sensor or Canon updates the R7, remains to be seen, though neither would compel me to choose one system over the other....Show more →
Just thinking since the R5II is looking to be a hit, then it would be a good time to sell if I were so inclined.
Love my Canon lenses and since I have been shooting birds they are the best I have ever used.
But, birding is not my main hobby. Travel is. Birding is something I like when traveling "some time".
So a pro crop camera and a light and small 600 PF. I think would be perfect for me. I need to rent one and try it out.
If not, I have the best IMO Canon has to offer for what I like.
This discussion is very helpful. Currently, I have R5 and Z8. For BIF 4K120 video, Z8 video is significantly sharper especially with HLG tone. Z8's 2.3x crop mode in 4K120 is a great advantage for wildlife video. R5 4K120 file size is huge (although this is corrected in R5 II). Unfortunately, R5 II still does not offer 4K120 in crop mode. From the tech spec sheet, looks like 4K60 fps is also missing (it may be a mistake, can someone confirm that).
Some important pro and con for me (especially for BIF video), could be different if I could rent an R5 II later
Z8 Pro:
1) 4K120 fps in full frame and 2.3x crop
2) Video and photo crop can be programmed to a button to switch instantly back and forth
3) HLG (HDR) is very good
4) BIF Tracking is much better than R5, although it sometime could still out of focus briefly for no reason. If R5 II is better, I may want to upgrade the R5
5) photo and video files are in the same folder. Really dislike Sony's implementation. Unfortunately, R5 II is doing the same thing
6) Photo and video switch is on the right hand side. It can be switched without my left hand (holding a heavy lens)
7) Video stabilization is smooth. R5 with 200-800mm or 100-500mm sometime could take a couple of seconds to settle down. Like to know if R5 II improves on this
R5 II Pro:
1) Photo Pre-capture is in RAW instead of JPEG
2) can record a video to both cards for some video formats
3) Canon color is preferable (with little adjustment)
4) Video pre capture for 3 or 5 seconds ahead
5) Clog 2
6) Sport AF is better (although not important for me)
arbitrage wrote:
We need to know what your main interests are. Even down to the basics of stills vs video. But more importantly the subjects. Birds and wildlife, sports, portraits, landscapes??
As you can already see from a number of the replies it can vary a lot depending on these things. Not one camera dominates the other for every subject.
And try to ignore the regular fools who have never touched any of the cameras they are talking about. One of them has already chimed in claiming vast superiority of two cameras he has never touched in comparison to other brand cameras he has never touched. We have a name for those fools around here and it can be abbreviated FB (or as I like to say FG).
If you want some opinions in regards to bird photography and general operation of the R5II vs A1 I have shot them both but I won't talk towards BIF photography just yet. I should have another chance to shoot BIF in better light next weekend with the R5II and form some better opinions.
Here are some bullet points of R5II pros for me over the A1:
* Great price point for what you get
* 30FPS with precapture with a stacked sensor that seems fast enough for freezing hummer wings (but as pointed out in Ron's video still is too slow to avoid leaning lines in the backgrounds during fast pans)
* Best in the business bird subject detection for non-BIF
* Better IBIS/IS
* Better grip material, nice top LCD
That said, even if the R5II turns out to have as good or better BIF AF than the A1 (typically not related to BEAF on any of these cameras) I would still choose the A1 for a few key reasons:
* I can take control of the camera and make it do what I want it to....this comes down to ergonomics of the back buttons, number of programable right side back buttons, top dials, 4 exposure wheels, feel in the hand and most importantly the array of things I can program onto those buttons. The amount of customization and control is just way above what Canon (and even more so Nikon) has to offer.
* Zebra in stills...I seriously won't give this up no matter what another camera can do in other areas
* Programmability of the AF and the interaction of how AF modes and tracking and Eye-AF can work together
* Sony lens selection as it stands today for birds
I'll also add a couple quick notes about the Z8 people brought up....having owned the Z9 twice and shot the Z8, all I will say is for bird photography you buy a Z8 or Z9 because you are after PF or TC glass from Nikon. PERIOD. There is nothing in those cameras that stands above Sony and Canon for my type of bird photography. They area at best equal and usually worse in every metric I can think of especially the controls and customization....Show more →
Surprise. Surprise, you prefer your A1.
You really don't have any business coming on here pushing your Sony as a Sony fanboy (again) and going off on others
AmbientMike wrote:
Surprise. Surprise, you prefer your A1.
You really don't have any business coming on here pushing your Sony as a Sony fanboy (again) and going off on others
I have no business? Give me a break. You have NO business as YOU have NO experience with either camera the OP asked about. Butt out. I can do what I want. Report me to Fred and he can ban me if I've broken his rules.
At least I've used the R5II. I was fair in my points, I recommended it. I was honest in what I haven't tested yet and made no claims towards those attributes (BIF).
Meanwhile you have never touched a camera more advanced than your Rebel and still want to insert yourself into threads with no useful information to add.
I've shot Canon for over a decade, still own 6 Canon lenses and one camera. Have owned and shot their top MILCs and top DSLRs and an array of lenses from 2008 onwards.
What is the thread title The OP wants to know the differences between R5II and A1. So if I prefer the A1 for my shooting I'm not going to lie like the Canon boys will who have never shot either camera just to make them feel better about themselves for their purchase decisions. I recommended he go R5II after he qualified what he is shooting exactly.
P.S. I'll be back butting in here again after this weekend when I will have much more time and much better weather to test the R5II for some serious BIF work. Better get used to it or just hit the HIDE ME button below this post.
arbitrage wrote:
I have no business? Give me a break. You have NO business as YOU have NO experience with either camera the OP asked about. Butt out. I can do what I want. Report me to Fred and he can ban me if I've broken his rules.
At least I've used the R5II. I was fair in my points, I recommended it. I was honest in what I haven't tested yet and made no claims towards those attributes (BIF).
Meanwhile you have never touched a camera more advanced than your Rebel and still want to insert yourself into threads with no useful information to add.
I've shot Canon for over a decade, still own 6 Canon lenses and one camera. Have owned and shot their top MILCs and top DSLRs and an array of lenses from 2008 onwards.
What is the thread title The OP wants to know the differences between R5II and A1. So if I prefer the A1 for my shooting I'm not going to lie like the Canon boys will who have never shot either camera just to make them feel better about themselves for their purchase decisions. I recommended he go R5II after he qualified what he is shooting exactly.
P.S. I'll be back butting in here again after this weekend when I will have much more time and much better weather to test the R5II for some serious BIF work. Better get used to it or just hit the HIDE ME button below this post.
AmbientMike wrote:
I get so sick of Sony fanboys like you on the Canon board, I probably wouldn't use the A1 if I got one for free.
But when you posted your name calling crap you hadn't even used the R5 II , either.
Yes I'm sure anyone is lying if they don't prefer the A1 and prefer Canon
Speak for yourself. I don't live and don't want to live in an information vacuum and eco-chamber. I value and appreciate everyone's hands-on opinions, and want them on all boards. Many of use shoot multiple brands and have opinions and experience to share.
patotts wrote:
Speak for yourself. I don't live and don't want to live in an information vacuum and eco-chamber. I value and appreciate everyone's hands-on opinions, and want them on all boards. Many of use shoot multiple brands and have opinions and experience to share.
Arbitrage is the same genius that called me a liar, for pointing out the A9III has no DR (basically same as 5DsR.) And he is pretty close to being completely full of it for doing so. Not interested in hearing how objective he is
If he wants to go back to being like the YouTube guy who says he bought so much Nikon he can say bad stuff about it, like he does on Canon, go ahead. Great plan
AmbientMike wrote:
Arbitrage is the same genius that called me a liar, for pointing out the A9III has no DR (basically same as 5DsR.) And he is pretty close to being completely full of it for doing so. Not interested in hearing how objective he is
If he wants to go back to being like the YouTube guy who says he bought so much Nikon he can say bad stuff about it, like he does on Canon, go ahead. Great plan
And I provided hard data in the form of graphs from Photons to Photos that proved I was correct. I didn't just make baseless claims to call you a liar with nothing to back it up.
What did I say bad about Canon in the post you quoted from page 1 of this thread?? That I didn't like the ergonomics as much? That is a very personal thing. That I preferred stills zebras? That isn't saying Canon is "bad".
I gave a whole list of things the R5II is better at than the A1. I recommended the R5II to the OP over the A1. What else can I do to convince you I'm not in here blindly defending Sony and dissing Canon??
Come on dude...you obviously have an axe to grind with me because I've used hard facts in the past to prove you spew false information on these boards in blind support for "your brand" even though you are spewing this in threads that relate to cameras you have never used.
I'm the one who started a huge thread, 3 weeks after the A1 was released, listing off all of the problems with it. I have no bias...YOU have the BIAS...YOU aren't able to objectively look at things....YOU should either HIDE ME or stop clicking on threads that are obviously going to compare two brands....I mean the thread is titled "R5II vs A1"...why on earth would you click on it if you can't handle honest comparisons??
AmbientMike wrote:
I get so sick of Sony fanboys like you on the Canon board, I probably wouldn't use the A1 if I got one for free.
But when you posted your name calling crap you hadn't even used the R5 II , either.
Yes I'm sure anyone is lying if they don't prefer the A1 and prefer Canon
What "name calling crap"? Me calling out the FBs talking about Canon cameras they haven't used and comparing them against Nikon and Sony cameras they haven't used? Well I certainly had shot the R5II already...that is where all my opinions came from in the positive list I provided for the OP and the recommendation to buy the R5II over the A1 in the end.
Get your facts straight. Once again, I don't think the internet is a good place for you to be hanging out.
arbitrage wrote:
What "name calling crap"? Me calling out the FBs talking about Canon cameras they haven't used and comparing them against Nikon and Sony cameras they haven't used? Well I certainly had shot the R5II already...that is where all my opinions came from in the positive list I provided for the OP and the recommendation to buy the R5II over the A1 in the end.
Get your facts straight. Once again, I don't think the internet is a good place for you to be hanging out.
Been tied down with a project but as the OP I just wanted to let you know I appreciated your very useful input.
Sigh. My A1 arrived today, and the new owner is picking up my old R5 tomorrow.
I had the R5 II on order, but in the end I decided I just couldn't sink any more money into the RF system with no new lenses I wanted (14mm f1.8, 20mm f1.8, 300mm f2.8, 70-200mm macro, 200-600mm f5.6-6.3) on the horizon.
There's no question that Canon's AF is great, but so is Sony's, and which camera is superior on any given day depends on a more factors than just the camera's hardware and software.
And I just couldn't live with the selfie-vlogging LCD screen, no matter how good the rest of the camera is.
Waiting until there's not much more support period, or after it lapses, will likely cause resale value to drop somewhat. 
The OP wants to know the differences between R5II and A1. So if I prefer the A1 for my shooting I'm not going to lie like the Canon boys will who have never shot either camera just to make them feel better about themselves for their purchase decisions. I recommended he go R5II after he qualified what he is shooting exactly.