So I take this with a grain of salt as I didn't feel like it was very realistic how they were using the cameras. I do feel the R3 would perform considerably better if they were to shoot real sports with lenses you'd actually find yourself using like a 70-200mm f/2.8 or a 300 or 400mm f/2.8.

I just don't feel an 85mm f/1.2, at very close distances, provides very meaningful testing data. A more realistic portraiture situation would have been more valuable in my opinion.

The birding one definitely is more realistic, and it did seem to highlight the behavior of the Sony vs the Canon. But I feel like that would easily be fixed in a firmware update rather than the camera being incapable of focusing. The R3 struggled a bit in some situations. But it does highlight some of my struggles with the R5, just like Tony and Chelsea's review it's not always consistent and when you shoot a wedding that can mean missing critically important shots.

Ultimately it does seem to outperform the R5 by a significant margin. But the A1 is performing REALLY REALLY well also and I feel like a more in depth comparison is needed in order to draw a definitive conclusion. But the A1 still seems to stand out as the ultimate camera right now, as much as I hate to say it. It is an extremely solid performer not just in the AF department but solid noise performance, solid dynamic range, class leading resolution, good video functionality and in a professional package at a competitive price. For a pro body anyway. Canon's R3 is just not really competing with it at the moment unless it can show us an improvement in AF and keeper rate to the A1.

R3 looks like a great body, but I seems like it has it's work cut out to compare to the A1.