Pius Sullivan wrote: baltmin wrote:
The show continues. He still insists that canon R5 focuses better? Does he need a seminar about the settings?
And after this theatrical performance he says he will buy it at the end!
nobody23 wrote:
Tony alarm:
Hate that I have to agree with him but he's right the R5 does focus better...
I don't think you should make that claim if you haven't shot the A1. Did Rory lend it to you for a day?? I have shot both and just like I said that the A9II focused better than the R5, the A1 does also and better than the A9II.
The only AF I can find better on the R5 is with certain birds against really busy backgrounds, the R5 seemed to find the eye more often. But in any situation that the shot would be worthwhile taking I'd put the two cameras essentially equal. I'm talking about when you have a clean background so that both cameras can recognize the shape of the bird and figure out where the eye should be.
I'm honestly not trying to defend or prop up my latest toy. I'm just giving a fair assessment of the two AF systems. Just like I said the A9II was better than the R5 for fast acquisition of small/fast/erratic BIF than the R5. And that was when the R5 was my new toy.
That is just my opinion, people can make up their own minds whether the A1 is worth the premium over an R5. I think that anyone invested in Sony glass (especially the big two primes) would be making a very bad decision to switch to an R5 because of the $2K price difference. I also think anyone with a big investment in Canon glass would be making a very bad decision to switch over to a $2K more expensive A1.
If someone is starting from scratch then if I was them I wouldn't buy anything too expensive until Canon shows us the R1 and some RF superteles and Nikon shows the Z9 and the Z superteles.
