arbitrage wrote: AGeoJO wrote: arbitrage wrote: RoamingScott wrote: arbitrage wrote: JohnDizzo15 wrote: arbitrage wrote:
Here are my R5 vs Sony thoughts I jotted down after using the camera for 7 hrs yesterday. We did not have a lot of good subjects to really test everything but it is what it is. I'll get to play with it again in the future and hopefully try it on some other subjects. If you have questions I can try to answer them but this is very limited experience with the R5 so far.
AED is remarkable. I couldn’t believe how far away it would narrow down to a head square. I used it both in Auto and User Selected point. I wish I could have both of those options on a different back button but you can use C modes to switch quickly via the M-Fn C-mode toggle option.
The Sony RTT surely competes but the R5’s AED makes things even easier. I could literally look away from my flipped out LCD and check my email and trust the Auto AED to be tracking the birds head while I was shooting a Yellowlegs foraging, spinning in the water, head in and out. I think out of 200 shots maybe 4 had a slight focus shift. I’ve looked away from my Sony’s LCD also and you can sort of trust it but the RTT can drift and it then won’t recover. The AED is always making adjustments (some not good…see next) but it will get back on the head without any input or AF-ON pumping. The AED did show times off odd behaviour, jumping around too much when backgrounds got really close (like a rocky shore with specular highlights) and sometimes couldn’t “see” the tiny sandpipers at first. But that was in Auto…switch over to USSP and “bam” there it goes onto the head.
Where the R5 falls behind the A9 is when tracking BIF against complicated backgrounds. I saw this in a few different scenarios. First time I was tracking a mallard that flew against a row of houses. The AED kept pumping back onto the houses (dancing squares) and then back to the birds. When the birds got against sky it then nailed them. Another time I had an Oystercatcher take off from the ground over specular highlight rocky low-tide shore. The AED couldn’t see it with all the distractions, it came up high enough to be against sky and the AED grabbed it, a second later it came down lower and as soon as the background got complicated the AED lost it again. This is the biggest difference I found vs A9 RTT. With A9 RTT it does sometimes have difficulty picking it up against a background as the R5 AED did at first but if the A9 RTT gets the lock against the sky it will never let it go against a background. I’ve always said the A9’s stickiness is its greatest strength and one of its biggest weaknesses as if it gets what you want you have nailed the shot…but if it grabs something else you might as well put the camera down till the next flight pass. The R5 makes more decisions and jumps back and forth which means it will lose a subject as background changes. The R5 AED tracking doesn’t get distracted by the bird passing behind sticks and things (nor does the A9) so in that case both are excellent.
Ergonomics:
I had thought the R5 would be a much better camera to hold than the Sony. It isn’t any better. The grip size in the hand is essentially equal. The buttons on the A9II/A7RIV are better. The R5’s are like an A9/A7RIII/A7III…small and hard to tell if you are hitting the correct one and which one you are hitting (especially between * and focus option buttons). The feel of the wheels I found sort of similar or close enough I didn’t care one way or the other. The two ways the R5 grip is better than Sony A9II is there is more space between fingers and lenses and my pinky can just fit on the grip without the BG on. With the A9II my pinky is about 1/2 on and on the A9 it is only a sliver on. I would always use a BG on either camera and my fingers are skinny so I’ve never found an issue with tight space between Sony lenses. So for me the A9II wins for ergonomics but it won’t for everyone.
R5 Pros:
* AED which makes shooting everything other than the most challenging BIF easier, almost brain dead easy….
* Top LCD
* More space between grip/lens
* Longer grip to support pinky
* Three wheels where I can have ISO on top rear wheel without pushing a button every time I turn on the camera for My Dial
* MS sound
* MS frame insertion at 12FPS
* Faster card writing speeds with no issues as it writes even with the USH-II SD card (CFe is of course faster still but I was surprised that it didn’t seem a lot faster…you still could watch the red light for a few seconds after just a 30 shot burst with CFe)
R5 Cons:
* Can’t have AED USSP and Auto recognized and therefore assigned to two different buttons (need to utilize C modes or my Menu)
* Can’t have ES/MS toggle assigned to a button (need to use C modes or My Menu)
* Gets confused with complicated backgrounds while tracking and shooting
* Can’t get AED out of Zone or any other AF mode (I had thought you could out of Zone but I guess only Human Head Face detect works as it never activated on the birds?). Eye-Detect is greyed out once in Zone AF but Human/Animal is still selected so I thought it would still see the bird as a subject or the head but it doesn’t.
* Batteries drain in parallel meaning you always have to charge two no matter how short your session.
* Leaning vertical lines in the background in ES and an always present risk of wing distortion in ES.
* Very hard to see the white outline that flashes while shooting in ES, no fake ES sound option. Unless I cram my eye socket onto the EVF I can’t visualize the outer white frame and I need to look towards it instead of at my subject.
A9II Pros:
* More sticky erratic/fast bird tracking
* Can initiate RTT out of any AF mode from Single point (Small Flex Spot) all the way up to Wide (Full sensor Auto)
* Can assign a button to instantly change any regular AF mode into RTT (I use my lens button for this)
* Better buttons, especially the AF-ON
* Batteries in grip drain in sequence not in parallel
* ES, blackout free….the R5 ES is pretty darn good for not being a true live feed but the A9(II) experience is still better. More noticeable as subjects get faster and closer to the camera
* Four different choices of how shooting in ES is displayed and option for fake ES sound. For those with an A9 I’d recommend the blue option #2 which flashes a blue box over whatever shape your AF point is. Even when in Wide it is easier to see the flash around the outside of the frame compared to the R5’s white frame flash.
A9II Cons:
* Doesn’t have AED
* Shorter grip, grip tighter to lens (not for me personally but it is a thing)
* MS uses Live feed with real shutter blackout which I think is more difficult to track than the frame insertion of the R5 (but who would use MS on an A9?)
* Card writing speeds (really this is more an A7RIV con as the A9 it never affects me but for sure the R5 writes faster)
* No top LCD (personal preference)
If you own all Sony: Stick with Sony
If you own all Canon: Buy an R5 or R6
If you shoot Sony but kept a lot of Canon lenses OR if you are starting from scratch: A9II if you want to have the world’s best AF Tracking for fast/erratic subjects in ES. R5 for pretty much everything else. R5 for the best AF tracking if not having to erratically pan/track a fast BIF. If you are wanting higher MP I’d choose R5 over A7RIV (I think the R5 does basically everything better than the RIV). If you want lower MPs I’d choose A9II over R6 (of course those are vastly different price points) but only if you are really after challenging flight stuff otherwise R6 should be a great value if 20MP is enough.
Thanks for your impressions. This seems to reflect what I was hoping users would find which is why I wanted the R5 as a replacement to my A7R3 to go alongside my A9 instead of the A7R4.
A9(II) and R5 combo would be the best combo out there.
That's a very puzzling statement that I can't make much sense of.
The A9ii and A7R4 would be a far superior combo for their respective use cases...A9 for BIF/action/RTT, and A7R4 for slower moving, detail rich shots (not to say the R4 is a slouch at action, just clearly not in the A9 type league).
The A7R4 sensor 1) has no AA filter and 2) doesn't need baked in noise reduction at all ISOs to render a beautiful image. Further, you'd share 100% of your lenses and batteries between the two cameras. The A7R4 has considerably longer battery life as well and a not-unsubstantial resolution boost over the R5. And with the $1100 you save getting an R4 instead of the R5, you can buy some sweet glass.
I don't think a more complete system than the A9ii and A7R4 exists between 2 cameras in the world right now.
For my type of photography I think for a high MP camera the R5 is better in every single way that matters to me over the RIV. So if I wanted two cameras...one for high MP with best possible AF and one for best ultimate AF I would choose the R5/A9II. If you value other things than me then that won't be the best combo and the RIV/A9II makes sense. The RIV does nothing better than the R5 for my use. I do not care about low ISO NR as I don't shoot at those ISOs, I do not care about 45 vs 61MPs.
The battery life is not considerably longer on the Sony's. Forget the CIPA numbers...real life was very close between the two cameras.
I could see your point if we are talking strictly about the cameras. But then there are lenses involved; it simply doesn’t make sense to have two different sets of lenses. It is not a matter of being able to afford them but simply from the logistic point of view, it would be very cumbersome to use 2 sets of lenses. But more power to you, if you can and is willing to pull it off. Adding Canon R5 doesn’t even cross my mind , let alone considering it. But to each his/her own...
I understand John’s @JohnDizzo15@@ situation since he has a set of Canon lenses that he adapts to be used on Sony’s body or bodies. He is not a bird photographer and he doesn’t need long lenses that will have to be adapted and as such, he doesn’t need native Sony AF performance with those lenses.
No arguments there. I already shoot 2-3 systems and I own 5 Canon lenses still. Although I don't own any Canon birding lenses anymore so that is why I haven't splurged on my own R5 yet. I wouldn't really expect anyone (other than myself and a few other crazy people on here) to actually run an R5/A9II combo. There is no doubt that sticking with one system and sharing the lenses across A9/A7RIV makes a lot more sense. Especially now that my 200-600 seems to work on the RIV.
Haha, I know someone really well that has and actually uses Sony A9 and Canon R5. Personally, I would rather know the ins and outs of a system well where I can make any adjustment necessary out in the field to make some rare shooting opportunities count rather than fumble around trying to figure how to do what.
The question to you know now, Geoff, what will you do if Sony introduces the A9r or whatever they will call it with a 36-42MP stacked sensor? You know that Sony is not standing idle right now...
Aug 23, 2020 at 11:05 PM
Previous versions of AGeoJO's message #15326080 « Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 »
, let alone considering it. But to each his/her own...