Pius Sullivan wrote:
The results I see from the a1 are no better than the R5, what else do I need to look at.
Enough great photographers are already using it and posting photos and video's.
Nope I have not used the a1, but again lots of folks here comment on the R5 without using it..
But I have shot long enough to know what to look for, I'm just not seeing it Geoff...
arbitrage wrote: Pius Sullivan wrote:s 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.
To be honest I think once all those cards are on the table Nikon will be the best but that is just a guess.
I haven't said anything about the end results. I also haven't seen anything from the A1 in my hands that I couldn't get with my A9 or my R5 (RIP). I have photos of lots of small/erratic BIF with my D500 and D850. I also have images of small passerines IF (like Purple finch and Spotted Towhee IF) with my 1DXII. But I can say that getting those similar shots with my 1DXII was a lot more difficult. Better AF doesn't always get us better end results (if I compare my A1 to a 7DII then sure it does) but it makes it easier and more consistent to get those shots. What "better AF" will sometimes translate into is a once in a lifetime moment that happens before you in a split second...that is when you might get the shot with a lot of different cameras if all the stars align (heck maybe even the 7DII) but the question becomes which camera would you trust most in your hand for that chance in a lifetime shot. In my hands I'd trust the A1 then the A9/A9II and then the R5 in that order. Below that would be the D500/D850 and I'm sure the D5/D6 although I never tested those two. But that doesn't mean I can't sit at the lagoon every weekend and not get all the shots I need of my regulars with an R5...because I know I can get those shots and I know that the A1 isn't getting me better shots than the R5 sitting at the lagoon shooting my regulars.
