vdo1 wrote: chez wrote:
It seems like we always compare AF at the extreme, tracking sporadic birds, which is fine if one shoots birds. But for the vast majority of people that don't shoot birds, I'm sure the R5 focus and tracking is very adequate. How well does it track the brides eyes as the couple walks down a dim lit church? How well does it track the rock star's eyes as he gyrates and runs around the stage? Can it track a horse at an equestrian show? These are the more realistic scenarios for much of the people who will purchase the R5.
I would agree with your statement if it were posted in the Canon forum. However we're in the Sony forum where everybody already has a few Sony cameras and lenses. Why would anyone want to switch his system to a different one that is just "adequate"? It would need to be more than that in order to justify the expense and hassle, wouldn't it?
Wasn't the Eye-AF a game changer for portraits (even on cameras without the fast-readout like the A9) ? With other cameras, you could easily move the focus point to the eye, but having the camera do it automatically improved the efficiency and productivity of most portrait shooters.
Aug 05, 2020 at 03:16 PM
Previous versions of NonDecaf's message #15306738 « Canon R5 vs. Sony A9/A9II AF? »
