Literally never NOT happened to me, with either of my Z8 bodies. The second frame of a stationary subject is always a little off, and then the focus recovers for subsequent frames. It's usually not a big deal, unless you're only shooting two or three frames and that second one was the best pose/composition.
groob wrote:
Molson comes up with the most peculiar camera complaints I’ve ever seen.
It's probably just because I actually review my images critically.
The average Nikon user seems to only looks at their images on the back of their camera, or on their phone at best, and can't tell (or just don't care) if their images are actually sharp or not. If that works for you, great... carry on and don't worry about it.
I’ve had the A1 & A9III and currently own a Z8/9 and just picked up an R5II to play around with. I also shot Canon exclusively for a long while with the OG R5 and R3.
Between the A1 and R5II, the R5 II is the better camera. The A1 as good as it still is, can’t compete with the new AI chips and subject detection. Now, for pure focus accuracy during tracking I don’t think there’s been a better camera than the A1 or A9III, yet. Those cameras produce basically 100% hit rate . It’s almost comical how good they are.
And I don’t see what the hate is with Nikon. At first they weren’t good but now both the Z8 and 9 have fantastic AF. I rarely ever have any issues and everything I shoot are sports and wildlife. Nikons files are also amazing. For me it’s more about ergonomics and lens selection and Canon and Nikon win there. I have the two TC Nikon super teles and they’re easily the best in their class. I’m just waiting on them to drop a 180-400 F4 Z mount
Having owned and shot the best cameras from all 3 systems I’d say the difference are minimal and each have their pros and cons. I don’t shoot any video so I can’t comment on that though.
My main gripe with the R5II is the AF on button. I wish it was bigger and the smart controller like the 1 series, and a little better placed.
Pick the one you like and go shoot! All of today’s cameras are more than capable in almost anyone’s hands.
Well back again. Last time was considering selling one of my Sony A1’s and my R5 to get a an R5 Mark II but decided to hold off on that as the A1 II announcement coming much sooner than I thought. Still considering it but will wait till Sony’s Nov 19th announcement has been done.
I guess the key question is is what will the new Sony A1 II cost and what features will it have.
These days for travel I use my smaller and lighter and compact A7CII and A7CR more than either my A1 or R5 for BIF anyway. Wonder if Canon will ever enter his space. If not that means I will continue to own Sony for travel no matter what is offered in the BIF and Wildlife space. At this point the smaller lenses offered by Sony and not Canon set the systems as totally different products as far as I can see.
Take care.
swldstn wrote:
Well back again. Last time was considering selling one of my Sony A1’s and my R5 to get a an R5 Mark II but decided to hold off on that as the A1 II announcement coming much sooner n I thought. Still considering it but will wait till the Nov 19th announcement has been done.
I guess the key question is is what will the new Sony A1 II cost and what features will it have.
These days for travel I use my smaller and lighter and compact A7CII and A7CR more than either my A1 or R5 for BIF anyway. Wonder if Canon will ever enter his space. If not that means I will continue to own Sony for travel no matter what is offered in the BIF and Wildlife space. At this point the smaller lenses offered my Sony and not Canon set the systems as totally different products as far as I can see.
Take care....Show more →
Yep, this thread should be about the R5II vs A1 II very soon. It will be interesting to see how much better the A1 II will be and if it will be worth the premium over the R5II.
R5II, A1, Z8.... These three cameras are proof that we live in no just the Age of Sufficiency, but live in the Age of Superlative. Photographers of every era have made amazingly beautiful images with the cameras they had at hand. The cameras available to us photographers today are truly amazing tools... but ultimately its the shooter not the camera.
MattStevens wrote:
R5II, A1, Z8.... These three cameras are proof that we live in no just the Age of Sufficiency, but live in the Age of Superlative. Photographers of every era have made amazingly beautiful images with the cameras they had at hand. The cameras available to us photographers today are truly amazing tools... but ultimately its the shooter not the camera.
artsupreme wrote:
Yep, this thread should be about the R5II vs A1 II very soon. It will be interesting to see how much better the A1 II will be and if it will be worth the premium over the R5II.
I woke up this morning to find an email from Albert Dros in my inbox, with his video reviews of the A1 II and the new FE 28-70mm f2 zoom. I watched the first half of the A1 II video before I got bored, but it left me with the distinct impression that the mildly updated version of the A1 still hasn't quite caught up to the four-year old Canon R5.
I just watched and read a few reviews on the A1 II, and... eh.
Don't get me wrong, it still looks and sounds like an impressive stills camera. But as a hybrid photo/video shooter, it seems to be lacking compared to my R5II. In general it doesn't seem to have leapfrogged over it in any substantial way. GAS averted.
molson wrote:
I woke up this morning to find an email from Albert Dros in my inbox, with his video reviews of the A1 II and the new FE 28-70mm f2 zoom. I watched the first half of the A1 II video before I got bored, but it left me with the distinct impression that the mildly updated version of the A1 still hasn't quite caught up to the four-year old Canon R5.
I haven’t caught up yet but it indeed sounds like a marginal update. But in what way do you think the R5 is better than the A1II?
artsupreme wrote:
I haven’t caught up yet but it indeed sounds like a marginal update. But in what way do you think the R5 is better than the A1II?
Same as all the ways the R5 was better than the original A1 - autofocus, dynamic range, image stabilization, ergonomics, colour science, price...
If you're already into the Sony system, there are a few worthwhile improvements, but I'm sure the Sony fans will make it out to be the best camera ever... so I am really glad I was able to sell my A1 (and A7R V) before this announcemnt dropped.
molson wrote:
Same as all the ways the R5 was better than the original A1 - autofocus, dynamic range, image stabilization, ergonomics, colour science, price...
If you're already into the Sony system, there are a few worthwhile improvements, but I'm sure the Sony fans will make it out to be the best camera ever... so I am really glad I was able to sell my A1 (and A7R V) before this announcemnt dropped.
You made it sound like the 4 year old R5 is better than the A1 II in your post above. Sounds like you meant R5II, and I'm not sure you are correct in that the R5II is better than the A1II, but it will be nice to see some real world comparisons. At first glance on paper the A1II is a better camera in every way except for maybe 8K 60 in video mode. They improved the body ergos so I don't think that is much of a thing anymore as people seem to love the A9III body. Color science is personal preference. As for the rest of the specs, I'll wait for comparisons before making any judgements.
artsupreme wrote:
You made it sound like the 4 year old R5 is better than the A1 II in your post above.
A lot of the improvements featured in the A1 II are only just catching up to where the R5 was four years ago... and probably could have been added to the original A1 (A1 Classic?) via firmware. There's nothing in those marginal upgrades that moves the needle for me, except maybe the pre-capture - although I've never really used that on any of my cameras that had it.
In any case, it's pointless to debate "on paper" performance, which at this point is purely marketing hype. Until you've owned the camera for a few months, you don't really know what it can - or can't - do.
molson wrote:
A lot of the improvements featured in the A1 II are only just catching up to where the R5 was four years ago... and probably could have been added to the original A1 (A1 Classic?) via firmware. There's nothing in those marginal upgrades that moves the needle for me, except maybe the pre-capture - although I've never really used that on any of my cameras that had it.
In any case, it's pointless to debate "on paper" performance, which at this point is purely marketing hype. Until you've owned the camera for a few months, you don't really know what it can - or can't - do....Show more →
What improvements are just catching up to the 4 year old R5? Based on feedback from friends who shoot both systems the A1 has always been better than the R5 in a lot of ways, and now the A1II will be ahead of the R5II but not by a mile. Give specifics on how Sony is just catching up to the 4 year old R5 so other users of both systems can chime in.
artsupreme wrote:
What improvements are just catching up to the 4 year old R5? Based on feedback from friends who shoot both systems the A1 has always been better than the R5 in a lot of ways, and now the A1II will be ahead of the R5II but not by a mile. Give specifics on how Sony is just catching up to the 4 year old R5 so other users of both systems can chime in.
n8rv wrote:
I just watched and read a few reviews on the A1 II, and... eh.
Don't get me wrong, it still looks and sounds like an impressive stills camera. But as a hybrid photo/video shooter, it seems to be lacking compared to my R5II. In general it doesn't seem to have leapfrogged over it in any substantial way. GAS averted.
In my experience, the video quality is where the R5 II is nowhere near the A1.
The Sonys have way better sharpness and detail and flexibility with the log files.
Yes, the specs seem similar till you start looking at the video files where the Canon LOG files are soft and mushy in comparison. The Canon also has way more noise for video.
This is all my personal experience… Spec sheets are similar but the actual video files - Sony is way better. Also the Sony files take up about 1/4 of the space that the Canon files need for similar quality.
I think in terms of stills it’s pretty much a wash between these two cameras.
I'll give that to Sony. In general they do better with noise and low light. One thing I definitely miss about my A7IV. That thing was impressive in near pitch black conditions.
But outside of that it seems like they crippled (or didn't improve on) the A1's video capabilities unless you're shooting mostly at 8K (which kind of negates the file size point). APS-C crop on the oversampled 4K. Another crop if you shoot anything above 60fps. And the IBIS seems to be kind of weak unless you switch to Active (more cropping). Feels like video is just an afterthought on it.
I'm sure it's perfectly capable of doing video well, but it doesn't seem to be better at it than the R5II to warrant the extra $2K.
IMO YMMV my 2c etc.
Also, I know all these reviews are for a prepro model, so there might be significant changes once it's released (?)
