"Other than the better bird recognition, and I imagine that this would be in some situations not all, what is it about the R5II that would be worth switching systems for? It is better for video but it's feature set is not "better" than the A1II on paper other than value."
I wouldn't say either the R5 II or the A1 II has enough advantages over the other to switch systems, at least for what I do (wildlife). But for someone starting, I'd say the R5 II looks to be better value.
"If you end up seriously considering the Canon, you should download some log footage and have a look. It is not impressive.
For stills it’s solid though."
I've not used the R5 II log footage, but am very happy with the XF-HEVC S footage.
"Given how much old tech they put in the Sony a1 II I think Sony could have come down in price a bit. Or updated the rear LCD, make the EVF a bit brighter, etc. It is a flagship camera, there should be some ground-breaking stuff in there..."
Completely agree.
A part of me wonders if their R&D team tried to create a global shutter at 45 or 50 Mp and hit some difficulties delivering enough image quality or DR, on schedule. And so, with the competetion advancing, they decided to reuse some existing tech (A9 III body, and AI chip), and get an update out there. Just completely baseless speculation.
"I currently own the Sigma 24-70 DG DN II, Tamron 70-180 II, and Sony 200-600mm. These 3 lenses offer an incredible quality/price ratio."
Agreed ! I have the Sony 2-6 and agree it's a great value. I've used the Canon 100-500 and it's a great lens, but not as bright at the long end. (Canon also has a 200-800 F6.3-F9 - also not very bright. I've not used this lens, so can't comment on it.)
"For your concern about 13bits (lossy compressed)raw, have you done any comparison between lossy compressed raw and uncompressed raw or lossless compressed raw large from A1? I'm sure they will be noticably different for high contact landscape shoots, but I would like to know if it's visible in your wildlife shoots."
Nope - haven't done any controlled experiments on this. I have done only casual comparisons of lossless vs lossy. Can't say that I noticed anything significant. But still, you wonder if you get that killer image, and that's the time when it becomes noticeable. I'd prefer the comfort of knowing I'm still getting full colour bit depth at 30 fps.
johnvanr wrote:
I’m sorry, but if these cameras are really that close in capabilities, then the A1 II is an easy no, considering its price.
In a raw value situation, that may be true.
But the fact of the matter is to get the bargain price R5 II you have to lock into the Canon ecosystem, which is the least developed of the big 3 for mirrorless.
No point in having an R5 II body if they don't make the lenses you need, or if their lenses are more expensive and heavier than the other brands.
For what I shoot (Wildlife/Astro) Canon is dead last in lens choices and it doesn't matter how good or cheap the R5 II is.
nmerc_photos wrote:
In a raw value situation, that may be true.
But the fact of the matter is to get the bargain price R5 II you have to lock into the Canon ecosystem, which is the least developed of the big 3 for mirrorless.
No point in having an R5 II body if they don't make the lenses you need, or if their lenses are more expensive and heavier than the other brands.
For what I shoot (Wildlife/Astro) Canon is dead last in lens choices and it doesn't matter how good or cheap the R5 II is.
"I think you left out a couple of things that make the Sony A1 II a bit more versatile camera. For example, the A1 II has a faster flash sync both in electronic shutter mode (1/200 vs. 1/160) and in mechanical shutter mode (1/400 vs. 1/250). If shooting flash is important to you that may matter. The faster flash sync in electronic shutter mode also hints that the A1 II probably has a faster sensor scan speed (i.e. sensor readout) than the Canon R5 II as well. It probably isn't a huge deal, but it is there. I would expect the Canon R5 II has a similar sensor scan speed to the Sony A9 and A9 II, whereas the A1 and A1 II is a bit faster. The A1 also has of course a tiny bit more resolution and a tiny bit more dynamic range. None of these advantages are big, but when you put together a better flash sync, faster sensor scan speed, a tiny bit more resolution, and a tiny bit more dynamic range, the small advantages start to pile up."
Fair enough ! I almost never use a flash for my photography (wildlife), so yes, I did ignore that. I agree the 5 extra Mp might make a slight difference in some of my wildlife photography.
arbitrage wrote:
Yes if you already have a full or partial investment into Canon glass. No, if you are already fully invested into Sony glass.
I could sell my A1 and get almost enough to just buy a brand new R5II. But to switch all my big glass would lose me more $$ than just selling A1 and buying A1II. The net cost is around $2500USD right now...maybe will be more like $3K as A1 prices get driven down by higher used supply.
nmerc_photos wrote:
In a raw value situation, that may be true.
But the fact of the matter is to get the bargain price R5 II you have to lock into the Canon ecosystem, which is the least developed of the big 3 for mirrorless.
No point in having an R5 II body if they don't make the lenses you need, or if their lenses are more expensive and heavier than the other brands.
For what I shoot (Wildlife/Astro) Canon is dead last in lens choices and it doesn't matter how good or cheap the R5 II is.
I’m talking cameras, not systems. At the same time, while Sony is indeed the most developed FF system, including the third-party offerings, I doubt there’s much you can’t do with Canon or Nikon that you can do with Sony. And Sony just played catchup with Canon with its new 28-70/2.
I feel we’re really just dealing with the margins here with the three top brands being uncomfortably similar and not very exciting (the Nikon Zf probably being the one exception). No wonder Leica, Fuji GFX and Hasselblad are doing well. And as a MFT shooter, it’s funny to see all the hype about tech that my Olympus cameras have had for years.
"For what I shoot (Wildlife/Astro) Canon is dead last in lens choices and it doesn't matter how good or cheap the R5 II is."
For me, Nikon is light years ahead of both Sony and Canon for wildlife lenses. The TC lenses are brilliant. Also love the PF lenses.
IMHO, Sony and Canon are closer (again for wildlife, not astro), but yes, I'd give a slight nod to Sony. The lenses are a bit smaller, and the 2-6 is great. Also that new 300 2.8 seems like a miracle it is so small and light. That said, the Canon 100-300 is also a brillant lens, and far more flexible than the sony 300.
I have the A1 and R5 II (been shooting them side by side) and for stills they are roughly comparable.
The R5 II now has cLOG 2 which is supposed to save its poor video DR.
Unlike with my Sonys - there is a massive hit in noise that you get when shooting the cLOG2 file.
AND the cLOG 2 files are simply not sharp or detailed. They look almost like my A1 looks in 1080P.
On top of that, they are much larger than the equivalent A1 video files. I'm talking 3 to 4 times more hard drive space for similar video files.
If anyone here is honestly thinking they'll get the Canon because they think it's similar in quality to the A1/A1 II, do yourself a favor and download some log files and check it out for yourself.
If you are not going to shoot log, the 4K 60 looks decent (not detailed), but of course you get blown highlights right and left.
There are some YouTube reviews where you can download sample log files, I suggest you try it.
matth4ever wrote:
"For what I shoot (Wildlife/Astro) Canon is dead last in lens choices and it doesn't matter how good or cheap the R5 II is."
For me, Nikon is light years ahead of both Sony and Canon for wildlife lenses. The TC lenses are brilliant. Also love the PF lenses.
IMHO, Sony and Canon are closer (again for wildlife, not astro), but yes, I'd give a slight nod to Sony. The lenses are a bit smaller, and the 2-6 is great. Also that new 300 2.8 seems like a miracle it is so small and light. That said, the Canon 100-300 is also a brillant lens, and far more flexible than the sony 300....Show more →
I don't know the Nikon lenses well, how is it light years ahead of Sony ? The 200-600mm is an excellent option for wildlife. The light and compact Sigma 500mm dg dn, Sony 300mm 2.8 (with teleconverters), 600m f/4 , a relatively cheap and great Tamron 150-500mm. A few 100-400mm/ 50-400m. The 100-400mm GM is the only Sony lens that hasn't impressed me, for the price.
arbitrage wrote:
The Canon precapture continues to confuse people and has been misreported by many reviewers.
The confusion comes in that most reviewers tested the precapture at 30FPS and therefore they were getting 15 precapture frames which is 0.5s worth. They therefore reported that the R5II does 0.5s precapture.
But this is incorrect. What the R5II does is up to 15 frames at your selected FPS. If you select 15FPS you can get up to 15 precapture frames which is 1s of precapture (of course you have to hold down the half shutter for that 1s to maximize it). If you select 5FPS you can get 3s worth of precapture (again 15 frames if you hold for 3s).
On top of not having any control over the time of precapture (other than selecting different FPS and holding down longer) the R5II also doesn't allow precapture to be activated by an AF-ON button. Only 1/2 press of the shutter button can activate it. Sony can activate via either way or both. Also R5II has no way to assign a custom button to just toggle pre-capture on and off. Sony can.
In actual use I found most of that didn't really matter...I would always use precapture at 30FPS so would get 0.5s which is reasonable. I found with A9III that I liked 0.3s or 0.4s but 0.5s isn't too far off my ideal and may be the ideal for some with slightly slower reaction times. I also found that if one was a back button AF shooter that there was no reason to have to turn precapture off. If you didn't want it you just shot normally with AF-ON to focus and when you hit the shutter it hadn't been held down and therefore hadn't saved any precapture frames. If you wanted precapture you half-pressed the shutter at the same time as using AF-ON and you got your frames. Of course this trick doesn't work if you are a shutter AF shooter. Then you are always getting precapture frames when it is on and have to menu dive to the top item in My Menu to toggle precapture on/off or use a C1/2/3 mode to have precapture on in one mode and off in another....Show more →
That's very informative, thanks for the details. Some give and take, precapture should be very useful on both cameras. (at least no jpg only option as with Nikon)
Fboss wrote:
I don't know the Nikon lenses well, how is it light years ahead of Sony ? The 200-600mm is an excellent option for wildlife. The light and compact Sigma 500mm dg dn, Sony 300mm 2.8 (with teleconverters), 600m f/4 , a relatively cheap and great Tamron 150-500mm. A few 100-400mm/ 50-400m. The 100-400mm GM is the only Sony lens that hasn't impressed me, for the price.
The strength of Nikon Z is the tele lineup:
400/4.5 small/light, performs great as 560/6.3 w/1.4x
600/6.3 small/light for a 600mm
800/6.3 small/light for a 800mm
400/2.8 w/built-in 1.4x
600/4 w/built-in 1.4x
180-600 recent design
100-400 recent design
500/5.6 PF small/light F-mount still used by many
arbitrage wrote:
Mostly value for me.
The bird recognition is much better.
If I did video, I'd do it all handheld, and the R5II has really stable hand held video.
Cheaper type B cards.
Still the A1II is a better camera for most things and there are a lot of things I'd probably not want to give up. But the value proposition is strong.
I have to ask;
How do you talk about value when you switch cameras/ lenses/systems every second week??
Axel H wrote:
What surprised me most when watching the YT reviews by Jan Wegener and Jared Polin was the fact that both noticed that the A1 II seems to struggle with initial focus acquisition at times. It was also unexpected that according to Jared Polin the A1 II overheated after 22 minutes of video recording. As he is in Pennsylvania, it's not very warm there right now.
I thought he said the camera overheated after 20 min of video in 8K...
The bottom line is that Sony has a gap in the product offering they are not willing to fix, which is where the Canon R5 II shines. A stacked high MP sensor in a near top of the line body around the $4K mark.
Sony has the A9 series for speed, the A1 as the top-of-the-line for top-dollar, A7R series for high MP but slow sensor readout and fewer FPS, the entry level a7-series, the a7S for video, etc - but many of us want jack-of-all-trades around 40 MP that can shoot sport, portrait, wildlife, travel, documentary, etc in a package around $4k.
Man, if you could shoot Sony E-mount glass on a Canon R5 II like you can on a Nikon Z-mount, I'd be all over it...
