You keep using the word precise or precision when you mean accurate or accuracy. Precision is repeatability, accuracy is closeness to true. An AF system that focuses on exactly the same spot 50 times in a row is highly precise. If that spot is 2 m behind where the camera is supposed to focus, the AF system is not accurate.
Groups of pixels are used for DPAF, you’re never going to get pixel-level accuracy. FYI, the Canon patent has double rows.
And what makes you think that I don't mean precision in this sense?
That's even worse. Consider a horisontal border that needs to be focused on between the first and the second row (i.e. is projected there when the sensor is in focus).
For me it would have to be a set of features and not a single feature. QPAF and 80 MP vs. 20 MP pixel binning both in RAW would be two features that would make me consider upgrading. For me the R3 checks a lot of boxes (low high ISO noise, 14 bit RAW @ 30 fps, excellent ergonomics) so the R1 will have to be spectacular.
Do you? So you’d prefer a camera that missed focus by the exact same amount with every shot to one that nailed focus most of the time?
A horizontal border that is so narrow it doesn’t span a two-pixel gap? Assuming the R1 has an AA filter, that’s likely unresolvable. Sounds like you’re caught up in the theory of the process, not the actual use.
I think Canon are absolutely capable of producing a high resolution (pro) camera. The fact that they have produced both the R5 and the R3 proves that to be true. The fact is that they have *chosen* not to launch it yet. Clearly the R3 is a test-bed for the new eye-control AF, and has been deliberately kept to 24MP for market segmentation purposes. They have held back on the R1 while they learn more about how to perfect the eye-control AF. The R1, when it is eventually released, will almost certainly have all of the best features of the R5 and R3, and probably a couple of nice surprises thrown in.
I bet Canon will sell far more RF 100-400 lenses than Sony sells 200-600 (or Canon sells 100-500).
EF vs RF 100-400?
Canon need to stay profitable to release all the new goodies that we are rumouring about
I’m talking about the RF 100-400 vs RF 100-500 or Sony FE 200-600.
Absolutely true, but that's due mostly to Canon's marketing expertise, and the simple fact that there are vastly greater numbers of Canon owners out here. If the number of Canon and Sony users was similar, it's likely that the Sony lens would sell in greater quantities, because it's considerably cheaper. Most of the folk who buy these super-telezooms will be sports or wildlife photographers, and I'd wager that most would find a 200-600mm focal length more useful than 100-500mm. IOt would be rather nice if Canon brought out a 200-600mm themselves, but they'd probably charge double what Sony sells theirs for.
Sony 200-600mm F5.6-6.3
If only that both lenses could be used interchangeably between Sony and Canon systems and then it would be a valid comparison
"I bet Canon will sell far more RF 100-400 lenses than Sony sells 200-600 (or Canon sells 100-500)."
Come on neuro, that's comparing apricots with carrots.
Yes, the RF 100-400 is inexpensive. @AlanF has shown it’s optically very good, making it a real bargain. There’s a lot of overlap in the ranges, the use cases are similar, so it’s a reasonable comparison. It’s not as if I said the 50/1.8 will sell better.
