My question is which camera gives you the best video quality between the A1, Z8, Z9 and R5II? RAW video on the Z8 or Z9 doesn't matter with what they do with dynamic range in the shadows and lack of dynamic range in general.
For what I do (wildlife, birds, with action), the R5 ii is the clear choice over the original A1. (I've used both extensively). Some pros/cons I see.
R5 ii advantages
- the bird and animal subject detection is significantly improved over the original R5, and is noticeably superior to the A1 (and perhaps also slightly over the A1 ii)
- RAW pre-capture is a game changer for what I do
- 30 fps without lossy compression
- much better video AF
A1 (original) advantages
- I like the flip out screen better than the R5 ii's articulating screen for what I do
- wildlife lenses are generally smaller (eg. 600 F4 is slightly smaller, and 300 F2.8 is significantly smaller than the canon 100-300)
- extenders are smaller (1.4x and 2x)
trippalhealick wrote:
I'm strongly considering trying Canon, as well. Either the R5 II or the R1. I've been hearing about the superior AF from too many sources.
Edit: Strike that. I must stop succumbing to the greener grass syndrome. lol
You might want to check out the problems with pre-capture focus on both the R1 and R5ii - in both of them there are disclaimers in the manuals about losing focus if the subject moves during pre-capture and there seem to be quite a few complaints from folks finding its not working as they expected it would.
duncangr wrote:
You might want to check out the problems with pre-capture focus on both the R1 and R5ii - in both of them there are disclaimers in the manuals about losing focus if the subject moves during pre-capture and there seem to be quite a few complaints from folks finding its not working as they expected it would.
I disagree with this blanket statement. The complaints are on perched birds that take flight. I have plenty of shots using pre-capture that are in focus, the difference being the subject is already in motion. The issue seems to be a non-moving subject that starts moving.
bcaslis wrote:
I disagree with this blanket statement. The complaints are on perched birds that take flight. I have plenty of shots using pre-capture that are in focus, the difference being the subject is already in motion. The issue seems to be a non-moving subject that starts moving.
He is only here to troll, and crap on Canon. He doesn't own it, and has no experience with it. Instead, he is finding resources online pointing to possible problems, and then telling everyone about them. There is no functional purpose / benefit to this. If this is an issue for some, there is no doubt it will be fixed with a firmware update. For me, it works flawlessly for my use cases and same goes for many others.
y2nicco wrote:
He is only here to troll, and crap on Canon. He doesn't own it, and has no experience with it. Instead, he is finding resources online pointing to possible problems, and then telling everyone about them. There is no functional purpose / benefit to this. If this is an issue for some, there is no doubt it will be fixed with a firmware update. For me, it works flawlessly for my use cases and same goes for many others.
I think having a discussion is fine. People should know how a camera works before they purchase. You also need to have used the camera you are talking about.
I'm getting negative comments over on the Sony boards because I asked about Sony color and how Sony treats color compared to Canon. Very few on the Sony boards see the difference between Canon and Sony color but it's real. You can see what Sony does with color from the files uploaded in the image threads. It's crazy.
I'm about ready to return my A1 and Len(s) and go back to the R5II or try the R1 or even the R3.
Getheshot wrote:
I think having a discussion is fine. People should know how a camera works before they purchase. You also need to have used the camera you are talking about.
I'm getting negative comments over on the Sony boards because I asked about Sony color and how Sony treats color compared to Canon. Very few on the Sony boards see the difference between Canon and Sony color but it's real. You can see what Sony does with color from the files uploaded in the image threads. It's crazy.
I'm about ready to return my A1 and Len(s) and go back to the R5II or try the R1 or even the R3.
I 100% agree with you! You need multiple viewpoints and experiences to fully explore all options and better comprehend certain things. It just isn't productive when your sole purpose seems to be to just crap on one brand and talk up the other, when you only have experience with the latter.
On the color front, different strokes for different folks I suppose... or sometimes its just flat out denial. I briefly ventured into Sony, and I did not care for the color science, comparatively speaking. I then tried Olympus, and liked it more than Sony... but it still wasn't Canon - so I came back. But I was able to experience it all, and that's how you make informed decisions! And of course, personal preferences are real, so that's fine - but its one thing to say "I like XYZ", and another to say "ABC sucks, because *insert random google result*".
Now, I have a new problem - I have the R5 II, R5 and R3. I need to sell two and keep one. Leaning toward R5 II, but lets see!
y2nicco wrote:
I 100% agree with you! You need multiple viewpoints and experiences to fully explore all options and better comprehend certain things. It just isn't productive when your sole purpose seems to be to just crap on one brand and talk up the other, when you only have experience with the latter.
On the color front, different strokes for different folks I suppose... or sometimes its just flat out denial. I briefly ventured into Sony, and I did not care for the color science, comparatively speaking. I then tried Olympus, and liked it more than Sony... but it still wasn't Canon - so I came back. But I was able to experience it all, and that's how you make informed decisions! And of course, personal preferences are real, so that's fine - but its one thing to say "I like XYZ", and another to say "ABC sucks, because *insert random google result*".
Now, I have a new problem - I have the R5 II, R5 and R3. I need to sell two and keep one. Leaning toward R5 II, but lets see!
Good luck in your decision making process. ...Show more →
What are your thoughts on the R3 compared to the R5II?
I don't think it's to each his own for accurate color. Canon has done something special with how they reproduce color. It should be a given with every camera brand.
Well I did her an R5 Mark II after selling one of my two A1’s but haven’t got it out into the field to trally use it and looking forward to it. I admit I’m not to concerned by colors now with any camera after getting in bed with Colbalt Imaging profiles that allow many different cameras to produce very similar results.
My big concern is the longer telephoto zooms. On Sony I use the 79-200/2.8 GM II, 100-400 GM, and 200-600 G. For Canon RF I currently only own the RF 70-200/2.8 L and RF 100-500. Looking at the RF 200-800 but haven’t decided yet. In reality I’m wondering if owning lenses for bot is cost effective or it’s better to go back to one system with the best body and just pay for that rather than buying multiple lenses.
swldstn wrote:
Well I did her an R5 Mark II after selling one of my two A1’s but haven’t got it out into the field to trally use it and looking forward to it. I admit I’m not to concerned by colors now with any camera after getting in bed with Colbalt Imaging profiles that allow many different cameras to produce very similar results.
My big concern is the longer telephoto zooms. On Sony I use the 79-200/2.8 GM II, 100-400 GM, and 200-600 G. For Canon RF I currently only own the RF 70-200/2.8 L and RF 100-500. Looking at the RF 200-800 but haven’t decided yet. In reality I’m wondering if owning lenses for bot is cost effective or it’s better to go back to one system with the best body and just pay for that rather than buying multiple lenses....Show more →
When I've run two to three systems in the past I was never duplicating lenses between them. I bought into each system for different lenses and different camera functions.
For example, when I bought an R5 and 100-500 I sold off my Sony 100-400. Once I divested from Canon, I purchased a new 100-400GM.
I bought Nikon to use the D500 and used the 200-500, then the 300PF and 500PF. At the same time I had Sony A9/100-400 and then my Canon 1DXII/5DIV with 400DOII, 600II. Once I bought a Nikon 500E FL, I sold my Canon 600II.
I just can't justify owning identical (or very similar) lenses on two systems. If that is what you are after just pick your favourite camera and buy the lenses for that system. OR if the differing lenses are what you are after than buy them for the different systems with the different cameras.
Getheshot wrote:
What are your thoughts on the R3 compared to the R5II?
I don't think it's to each his own for accurate color. Canon has done something special with how they reproduce color. It should be a given with every camera brand.
To each their own on being observant / having their own opinions
The two cameras are very similar to me. The R3 has better “hand feel” and feels more robust to me, and the ergonomics are better. The max shutter speeds are also faster, and the sensor readout is slightly faster leading too, theoretically resulting in less rolling shutter. For my uses though, the R5 II’s sensor and shutter speeds worked for me. I’m not a pro, but rather an “extreme enthusiast” (per me!) that captures family photos (portraits, OCF stuff, school events, sports, etc) and some wildlife for fun. I like the smaller size of the R5 better, which is why I’m leaning that way.
At the end of the day, they are both very good cameras. For me, I find the smaller size and slightly better AF of the R5 to better suit my needs, which is why I’m likely going that route. Can’t really go wrong with either, though!
arbitrage wrote:
When I've run two to three systems in the past I was never duplicating lenses between them. I bought into each system for different lenses and different camera functions.
For example, when I bought an R5 and 100-500 I sold off my Sony 100-400. Once I divested from Canon, I purchased a new 100-400GM.
I bought Nikon to use the D500 and used the 200-500, then the 300PF and 500PF. At the same time I had Sony A9/100-400 and then my Canon 1DXII/5DIV with 400DOII, 600II. Once I bought a Nikon 500E FL, I sold my Canon 600II.
I just can't justify owning identical (or very similar) lenses on two systems. If that is what you are after just pick your favourite camera and buy the lenses for that system. OR if the differing lenses are what you are after than buy them for the different systems with the different cameras....Show more →
I have to admit I totally agree. I own too much duplicate gear and need to fix that. I also have to admit I’m not crystal clear on what system to choose to move on with. I just sold one of my two Sony A1’s and swapped it out for the Canon EOS R5 Mark II at basically an even swap. The old expression is you date the camera bodies but marry the glass but I often doubt that.
For Sony, today, its main attraction for me are its smaller lenses and compact bodies like the A7CR and A7CII for travel which in my opinion Canon has no march for. So for travel it’s Sony. Now moving up to body and lenses for a full size kit for birding and wildlife I could go either Sony or Canon. Travel vs BIF/Wildlife are really different market segments but of course the travel helps me favor the Sony except Sony’s latest pre-capture is very expensive with the A1 II compared to Canon’s R5 Mark II. So do I stay full Sony or split it up and go Canon for BIF/ Wildlife. Help please!!! Opinion’s are ok to share. Take care.
I’m a fully invested Canon guy and have been forever, love to shoot wildlife. I thought about trying Nikon for a while strictly for the lenses, the two primes with built in TC’s are really appealing and some of the PF’ks with weight reductions.Recently I found that new Sony 300 to look like a very appealing option due to size and weight, but I got the 100-300 for the zoom capability for bigger game. I love this forum for guys like Geoff that give you honest reviews of all the makes because he uses them and his work is very impressive.I wish he was still shooting Canon and would advise setups which are really helpfully. I love looking at Pius’s work with Sony and he will always respond with what lens he used to get such amazing results. Guys like Rob who is a hard core Canon guy is always available to give you his super knowledgeable opinion on all the Canon latest and greatest gear. I have purchased a lot of lenses based on his work and opinions. I have been doing this enjoyable hobby for along time and a getting way better results for all the great help here . I know that 90 percent of shots I miss are operator error and not the gear, and that would be the case with any of the brands available today. I love looking at the different manufacturers forums because I love gear, and all the insightful dialogue and recommendations. I appreciate the time that people here put into helping others with technical help like R5 MK II battery issues in cold weather, and SD card compatibility with a certain brand, or AF issues and technique.Buy the brand that suits what you shoot, or what appeals to your personal preferences in this day and age they are all amazing. It amazes me the amount of hostile discourse that goes on over one brand or another from people that don’t own or have not used the other brand simply from reading specification sheets, what a waste of time. I just say thanks to all the wonderful help I have received here. There I feel much better.
y2nicco wrote:
I 100% agree with you! You need multiple viewpoints and experiences to fully explore all options and better comprehend certain things. It just isn't productive when your sole purpose seems to be to just crap on one brand and talk up the other, when you only have experience with the latter.
With so many who value multiple view points here you would think someone else would have thought to mention Jan Wegener's findings or provide a link to his video.
In any event I don't think subject detection/tracking and AF performance is up to the A1 level for my favourite subjects and the subject detection seems to get stuck for a few frames occasionally and then suddenly catch up in a single frame while shooting swallows - which is a little odd. However subject detection and focus acquisition speed appears not to be the problem since it catches up in just a single frame. I know this because I checked the focus box positions on each frame in the sequence.
Occasionally it would also completely lose the subject for no apparent reason - perhaps when unable to recover from one of the above mentioned tracking failure episodes - which is a little disconcerting particularly when the background (water) is completely featureless as shown in the sample image below.
You can also expect to see artefacts (jagis) of the slower sensor scan speed on anything moving fast enough down the frame such as wing tips on small birds - see upper wing tip in the image below. The camera's owner pointed them out to me in the EVF - and they are clearly visible on a 5K display - and presumably will be worse on birds with even faster wing beats. I don't recall ever seeing these on any A1 image, not doubt they are present but far less visible.
Ergonomics is similar to the A1 with back buttons quite flush with the chassis and a little hard to feel and some a little too close together for my thumb. Gloves would be difficult I think. I prefer the more raised version on the A9iii/A1ii bodies.
Grip size seems nearly identical to the A9iii grip, perhaps a tad better comfort.
The EVF doesn't support 240p which I use exclusively on the A1 and A9iii so that feels jerky and a bit of a downgrade but you would not notice this except for while shooting fast action or when panning quickly.
Other than that very nice and light feels very similar to shooting a Sony so an easy transition but you are getting what you pay for and you need to be willing to accept some of the compromises.
duncangr wrote:
Other than that very nice and light feels very similar to shooting a Sony so an easy transition but you are getting what you pay for and you need to be willing to accept some of the compromises.
The trick is deciding which compromises to accept. For swallows in flight I'm sure the Sony cameras are better, but for accurately locking onto slow moving subjects in low light, the A1 lags well behind the R5 and newer Canons. So far, no single camera is the best at everything.
