EOS 5D MK IV
- Mar 2, 2012
I’ve seen mixed reviews of A9, particularly for low light. Some (Tony Northrup for example) say it’s better than the D5. Others (Stuart Dubbs for example) say it’s okay but not in low light when you need to react quickly.Possible yes. But I don't expect this to be the case. Mirrorfree high-fps cameras will (hopefully!) also get adequately hi-performance AF systems.In combination with new native lenses "designed to fully utilize and support this AF system" they should well exceed anything possible in terms of AF in a DSLR with detached Phase-AF. But ... we shall see. Sony A9 with native FE lenses does not seem to be much behind - if at all - in AF performance compared to Canon 1DX II with EF lenses in "detached Phase-AF" mode [viewfinder operation] ...
Whereas first reports on Nikon Z6/Z7 seem to indicate that AF performance with native z-lenses is not fully on par with Nikon F-lenses on Nikon DSLRs in viewfinder mode [detached phase-AF]. Dyed in the wool Nik-apologists are quick to point out however, that AF performance may be hampered by "half-baked, early firmware/software" and hope for improved AF performance with future firmware updates.
My extended and short experience with the a7rii and iii, respectively, show a little of both. In good light with relatively little in-and-out of plane motion, those systems are pretty good. In fast motion, approaching motion, or low light, my 5Diii and 1Dx are better. A9 is similar in AF architecture to Riii, but since the sensor reads significantly more frequently, the former has more data to work with and is a better performer.
I wonder if an a7siii would be better than an riii, given its bigger (yet still color-filtered) pixels.