Canon EOS R1 – 8 Months in the Wild: A Field Photographer’s Perspective

[antonn]

I've yet to see that actually demonstrated though which is why I'm skeptical. People have been claiming the big bodies drive AF motors faster for decades, but I don't think that was ever really true until dual power AF became a thing. And Canon themselves don't really delve much into what cameras have dual power AF -- all we know is the R3 is the first.

I use both cameras (R1 + R5M2), and I've used the R3 and R7 with this lens. These cameras and this lens weren't available a decade ago.Speed isn't necessarily a matter of high power; different autofocus algorithms are enough. For example, the R5M2 is reluctant to shift focus from a blurry foreground to a distant background, while the R3 and R1 try to focus immediately. The settings are the same, but the algorithms are different. With the RF100-500 lens, both cameras (R1 + R5M2) work equally fast, perhaps because the DOF is larger and the camera can more easily determine where to focus.You can always try it yourself to be sure

 

[AlanF]

I use both cameras (R1 + R5M2), and I've used the R3 and R7 with this lens. These cameras and this lens weren't available a decade ago.Speed isn't necessarily a matter of high power; different autofocus algorithms are enough. For example, the R5M2 is reluctant to shift focus from a blurry foreground to a distant background, while the R3 and R1 try to focus immediately. The settings are the same, but the algorithms are different. With the RF100-500 lens, both cameras (R1 + R5M2) work equally fast, perhaps because the DOF is larger and the camera can more easily determine where to focus.You can always try it yourself to be sure

The RF 600/4 is basically an EF adapted lens whereas the RF 100-500mm is native RF. I wonder if they are the reasons for the difference. Perhaps someone with the RF 100-300mm could comment. The AF of the RF 100-500mm on the R5ii (and on the R5) continues to amaze me for speed of locking on to BIF.