p.1 #1 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
The Sony A1 (with FE 70-200 2.8 GM II) from 2021 easily keeps eyes in critical focus for hurdles and long jump. The R5 II (with RF 70-200 2.8 Z) does not - it seems to not keep up with abrupt sudden reversal, for example as the head lags backward for the upstroke and then whips forward for the downstroke.
A contributing factor may be that NanoUSM uses vibrations to waddle the element on a rail using friction, while Sony XD floats on a rail with magnets. Another contributing factor is that while Sony works perfectly out of the box, Canon gives the illusion of choice with the AF modes menu. I used Auto last time, and I've set it to -2 tracking sensitivity and +2 accel/deccel tracking for next time (if I don't sell it first).
My question is, are the R1 and R3 somehow much better than the R5 II in this regard? Do they match or surpass the A1 that seemed to have every single frame perfectly in focus at 30FPS?
While the obvious solution may be to switch systems again, Sony has its own dealbreakers like shutter lag/stutter (which I imagine may be fixed already with the A9 III), but none quite as big of a dealbreaker as out of focus images.
p.1 #2 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
The R3 is not any better than the R5II so you would have to try the R1. But, I'm not sure any camera is capable of having every single frame perfectly in focus at 30fps, yet. You would still have some soft or slightly soft frames not matter what camera you use for this purpose. What aperture are you shooting with?
p.1 #3 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
From my experience with the R5II (more) and R1 (less) shooting football with the 100-300 & 1.4x TC, the R1 is faster and more certain, particularly with first frame acquisition and appears to be more consistent throughout sequences. It's less likely to 'blip' focus for a frame or two midway through a long burst. But it's also not perfect (I don't think any camera can be).
So far I've only used R1 CPS loaners and haven't spent as much time with it as I have the R5II. Other comments I've read here suggest there's not much difference between it and the R5II, but so far that doesn't really match my experiences. The R5II is definitely noticeably better/faster than the previous generation Canon mirrorless cameras and is close enough to the R1 most of the time. But in situations that require very fast reaction the R1 is more confident.
I haven't used the R3 in a long time and can't compare it to the other two. Given the R1's faster sensor readout speed and greater processing power, I would expect it to have an advantage over the R3 with respect to AF performance. In any case, if the R5II isn't working for you, IMO the only Canon option would be the R1. Are you a CPS member to request one for evaluation? Even if you're not, might be worth a call to see if they can help keep you as a customer.
p.1 #4 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
The R1 with the new 70-200Z is the only setup Ive had capable of keeping up with the Sonys. I had A1s a couple years ago and sold it all to stick with Canon as I like the bodies better. But I recently picked up an A1II with its much better chassis, and was instantly reminded how incredible Sonys AF is. I have the R5 II, and it’s good, but the R1 is better, particularly as the subject gets closer to you coming at you. All are fine at distance but Sony can track so well up to the point of minimum focus, coming directly at you, its absurd. Canon is better at subject detection on anything other than humans but Sony tracks the best In my experience.
p.1 #5 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
That is interesting.
I remember some YouTubers getting too many eyelashes in focus with the A1 V1 compared to Canon cameras.
That is one of the reasons I switched to Canon myself after the original R6 outclassed the A9 with a subject running towards the camera.
Looks like the Aii has improved things a lot.
David83 wrote:
The R1 with the new 70-200Z is the only setup Ive had capable of keeping up with the Sonys. I had A1s a couple years ago and sold it all to stick with Canon as I like the bodies better. But I recently picked up an A1II with its much better chassis, and was instantly reminded how incredible Sonys AF is. I have the R5 II, and it’s good, but the R1 is better, particularly as the subject gets closer to you coming at you. All are fine at distance but Sony can track so well up to the point of minimum focus, coming directly at you, its absurd. Canon is better at subject detection on anything other than humans but Sony tracks the best In my experience. ...Show more →
p.1 #7 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
I see you posted here as well. This very short video featuring the R1 at the Olympics from Jeff Cable: related to Simone Biles in the vault competition.
p.1 #9 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
Caleb Williams wrote:
I see you posted here as well. This very short video featuring the R1 at the Olympics from Jeff Cable: related to Simone Biles in the vault competition.
I'm very dubious about the value of that opinion. First of all, he talks about the R1's 40fps and 20 frames precapture as if it's something new, which it would've been if the A9 III with 120fps and 120 frames precapture didn't already exist from the previous year, which says something about his level of awareness/knowledgeability and attention to detail. He also said "I found that the focus was comparable to that of the R1. With this level of trust, I leaned on the Canon R5 Mark II more and more." multiple commenters in his article questioned that, all basically looking to clarify/quantify what "comparable" entails, and he didn't answer any of them; that was the single thing of value he could've leaned in/expanded on and he's basically radio silent on it.
Everything about him smells performative, like he started with prewritten conclusions and is grasping for straws to substantiate those conclusions.
p.1 #10 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
Like most forums statements are made that support their desired result. They are by NO means a definitive way things are. From all the rather qualified tests I've seen done including my own personal experience. The R1 is without a doubt in ALL areas of autofocus superior. The real test would be between a A1MkII and R5MkII where in some cases the A1MkII will be more consistent when a subject, like a bird decides to take off from a branch and fly, the Sony would stick to it a "bit" better as well as focus at said bird coming towards you. However on the Canon side it is MORE sensitive towards locking focus on a distant/small subject then the Sony. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. It's not a clear cut one being all around superior. But indeed an R1 will beat them both on ALL manner of autofocus situations. Personally I don't deal with extreme situations per se. My birding has been near 100% perfect with a R5MkII. It tracks fast moving birds very well with minimal loss. As for eyes it's stunningly accurate and fast for people AND animals. I found when I owned a Sony with the AI chip they use, it often locked on an eye but in FACT it was as a result NOT actually in focus....so it lies in my opinion more then the Canon does.
p.1 #11 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
dcisive wrote:
Like most forums statements are made that support their desired result. They are by NO means a definitive way things are. From all the rather qualified tests I've seen done including my own personal experience. The R1 is without a doubt in ALL areas of autofocus superior. The real test would be between a A1MkII and R5MkII where in some cases the A1MkII will be more consistent when a subject, like a bird decides to take off from a branch and fly, the Sony would stick to it a "bit" better as well as focus at said bird coming towards you. However on the Canon side it is MORE sensitive towards locking focus on a distant/small subject then the Sony. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. It's not a clear cut one being all around superior. But indeed an R1 will beat them both on ALL manner of autofocus situations. Personally I don't deal with extreme situations per se. My birding has been near 100% perfect with a R5MkII. It tracks fast moving birds very well with minimal loss. As for eyes it's stunningly accurate and fast for people AND animals. I found when I owned a Sony with the AI chip they use, it often locked on an eye but in FACT it was as a result NOT actually in focus....so it lies in my opinion more then the Canon does. ...Show more →
I will definitely agree with you here that the R1 is the best all around focusing camera out there right now. It works pretty much flawlessly on really anything. Canon definitely has a big edge in subject detection, outside of humans. Hell, even my Z9 seems to find small birds perched in trees better that the Sony can. Sony struggles there, and still, even on the new 4.0 firmware. On humans, its outstanding.
I should've of qualified my post earlier with a bit more detail, as I own all 3 systems (Again with my new Sony stuff) and shoot them all, regularly. Often I'm carrying the z9/600 slung on one shoulder and the R1/R5 ii on the other with a 100-300 or 600, etc. So I'm not a fanboy of any one system.
Where I find Sony superior is as you've stated above. From naught to 60, no camera can keep up like the A93 and now A1II. I've also not had one be able to acquire focus as fast or reliably as the Sony shooting swallows. Now this is niche, and they are faster than anything else I shoot , but only the Sony will lock on to them and track with incredible results time after time. Nikon, forget about it! The R1 gave me my best "outside of Sony" results this summer and I'm not sure it's limitations aren't more lens based, than it is the camera right now. I can pull up and find them but it will drop them if they swoop, dart, etc. It cannot hold on like the Sony can. But I'm talking the fastest of the fast in panning and tracking. Whipping around extreme stuff. Not normal shooting . Eagles, Ospreys or anything else I shoot, I basically see damn near 100% hit rate with all the systems unless I screw it up.
p.1 #12 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
David83 wrote:
The R1 gave me my best "outside of Sony" results this summer and I'm not sure it's limitations aren't more lens based, than it is the camera right now.
I also wonder how much is the camera and how much is the lenses. For example this summer I shot motorcycle racing with the RF 600/4 on the R5II and if a bike was coming blind into a fast corner (meaning I couldn't track it before it arrived), often the first two frames would be soft before the camera consistently locked focus. At the same event last year I had one day with a preproduction R1 and in similar situations, but with my EF 200-400 instead of the RF 600, that did not happen. Granted, it was a different lens but the 200-400 is not known for speedy initial AF acquisition. More recently I've seen similar with the 100-300 on the R5II and R1 shooting football, where the R1 just locks focus faster and holds it better. Though the R5II holds focus extremely well, initial acquisition is not as confident, IMO. And once the light drops somewhat, or subject contrast is low, I see more focus fluctuation with the R5II. That might also be more evident because of the higher sensor resolution.
But back to the lenses, like the RF 600. I think it's still a ring USM design? I mean, to me it felt like I was using an EF lens in respect to its handling/behavior. I even noticed instances of IS bounce and floating happening during sequences, which I have not experienced with 'new from the ground up' RF lenses. I just have the feeling that AF motor technology is potentially low hanging fruit for Canon to improve AF performance whenever they release a truly new line of RF super-teles.
That said, the latest cameras like the R5II and R1 certainly have rejuvenated my old 200-400 in respect to its AF capabilities. While it's still not super fast at initial acquisition, it's better with these cameras and it can easily maintain consistent focus at 20-40fps on very fast subjects, like tracking motorcycles coming at me on a high speed straight to the point where it's a head & shoulder shot of the rider that I can barely keep in the frame by that point.
p.1 #13 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
rscheffler wrote:
I also wonder how much is the camera and how much is the lenses. For example this summer I shot motorcycle racing with the RF 600/4 on the R5II and if a bike was coming blind into a fast corner (meaning I couldn't track it before it arrived), often the first two frames would be soft before the camera consistently locked focus. At the same event last year I had one day with a preproduction R1 and in similar situations, but with my EF 200-400 instead of the RF 600, that did not happen. Granted, it was a different lens but the 200-400 is not known for speedy initial AF acquisition. More recently I've seen similar with the 100-300 on the R5II and R1 shooting football, where the R1 just locks focus faster and holds it better. Though the R5II holds focus extremely well, initial acquisition is not as confident, IMO. And once the light drops somewhat, or subject contrast is low, I see more focus fluctuation with the R5II. That might also be more evident because of the higher sensor resolution.
But back to the lenses, like the RF 600. I think it's still a ring USM design? I mean, to me it felt like I was using an EF lens in respect to its handling/behavior. I even noticed instances of IS bounce and floating happening during sequences, which I have not experienced with 'new from the ground up' RF lenses. I just have the feeling that AF motor technology is potentially low hanging fruit for Canon to improve AF performance whenever they release a truly new line of RF super-teles.
That said, the latest cameras like the R5II and R1 certainly have rejuvenated my old 200-400 in respect to its AF capabilities. While it's still not super fast at initial acquisition, it's better with these cameras and it can easily maintain consistent focus at 20-40fps on very fast subjects, like tracking motorcycles coming at me on a high speed straight to the point where it's a head & shoulder shot of the rider that I can barely keep in the frame by that point. ...Show more →
Indeed. I’m sure they will go the VCM route on the next line of big glass like Nikon and Sony have with linear motors. As good as the RF 400/600 are, they are slower than the competition when used side by side, and even the RF 100-300 makes them feel dated. The R3/R1 do drive the lenses faster though. I finally sold my 200-400 a couple months ago…sad day that was but I used the 100-300 more
p.1 #14 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
I was going to say the lenses, but you guys beat me to it. With birding I am running into this all the time. My opinion is the lenses cannot keep up. Give Canon 10 years and they will be up with Sony and Nikon. Personally I don't care how fast it catches focus in the camera. If the lens cannot keep up it is useless IMO.
p.1 #15 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
David83 wrote:
I will definitely agree with you here that the R1 is the best all around focusing camera out there right now. It works pretty much flawlessly on really anything. Canon definitely has a big edge in subject detection, outside of humans. Hell, even my Z9 seems to find small birds perched in trees better that the Sony can. Sony struggles there, and still, even on the new 4.0 firmware. On humans, its outstanding.
I should've of qualified my post earlier with a bit more detail, as I own all 3 systems (Again with my new Sony stuff) and shoot them all, regularly. Often I'm carrying the z9/600 slung on one shoulder and the R1/R5 ii on the other with a 100-300 or 600, etc. So I'm not a fanboy of any one system.
Where I find Sony superior is as you've stated above. From naught to 60, no camera can keep up like the A93 and now A1II. I've also not had one be able to acquire focus as fast or reliably as the Sony shooting swallows. Now this is niche, and they are faster than anything else I shoot , but only the Sony will lock on to them and track with incredible results time after time. Nikon, forget about it! The R1 gave me my best "outside of Sony" results this summer and I'm not sure it's limitations aren't more lens based, than it is the camera right now. I can pull up and find them but it will drop them if they swoop, dart, etc. It cannot hold on like the Sony can. But I'm talking the fastest of the fast in panning and tracking. Whipping around extreme stuff. Not normal shooting . Eagles, Ospreys or anything else I shoot, I basically see damn near 100% hit rate with all the systems unless I screw it up.
Yep....you can aim any Sony camera in the A9/A1 lineup on a swallow IF and it will get you more shots than an R1. Otherwise, the R1 AF is amazing. Shooting birds on a stick is way, way better on a Canon than a Sony.
But it was still far behind in the swallow IF challenge I put it through during my time with the R1. I'd bet even the new sub $4K A7V can best it for swallow IF.
p.1 #16 · R5 II autofocus speed worse than Sony A1. Is R1/R3 any better?
I haven't shot Sony yet. My hands are just too large for them But I have owned the R1, R5 II and the R3 and the R1 and R3 focus much better than the R5 II. The R1 is best - no doubt about it. I shoot Nikon also and the R1 takes the cake in my personal experience.
. Eagles, Ospreys or anything else I shoot, I basically see damn near 100% hit rate with all the systems unless I screw it up. 
