And less accurate. It is a lot easier to get accuracy at f2.8 at a longer distance than f1.2 at a closer distance.
But I fear we have entered the 'Viggo Spiral'©, you love your new toys and proclaim them better than anything previous, you then find faults, you then find numerous faults and send stuff back for service and swap stuff out and generally hyper analyze. You then get down on a piece of equipment by which time Canon EF toR or Profoto to Broncolor give you another option and you chase that path. meanwhile most people who view even your rejects of shooting your kids are blown away at how good the actual images are. Your content vastly outstrips the perceived flaws or limitations of the highest end gear you use and I say all that with the very greatest of respect.
I appreciate that, and normally I would totally agree with you. It all changed after going to Broncolor and the R plus RF, I’m actually very, very happy with the gear and how it performs.
The issue in this thread isn’t a fault, it’s a limitation of the R, I think, comparing to the 1dx2 I had. I do realize it’s never meant to compete with the 1dx2, and for 90% I blown away by the fact it’s just better at everything.
My question was really if it would help with the fastest action with a lens with faster AF, or if it’s the R that is the limitation? Nothing more, nothing less.
In other words, will an R5 with the RF85 be faster and better at tracking than the R with the RF85, or would they both be much better with the RF70-200. The reason why I ask if the lens is the limiting factor I’m not going to consider the R5. Going by experience the 85 L II performed much faster on the 1d than the 5d. However it wasn’t enough to justify that as the only reason for upgrading.