This really could also be titled phase detect AF vs dual pixel AF.

So one of the things that surprised the socks off of me was that normal AF was far superior to dual pixel in even moderate low light, normal indoor lighting at night. And in dark situations it wasn't even funny the difference.

In good lighting dual pixel AF was pretty good. But I found traditional AF still more accurate and consistent especially with razor thin DOF of the105mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.2.

So my question is the R5 AF better compared to the 1DX III's dual pixel AF? Because from what everyone was saying the 1DX III dual pixel AF reached mirrorless level and was able to be used in both capacities. And I have yet to hear a bad thing about mirrorless AF.

Now the eye detect was amazing to use, but not accurate enough for me to trust it for an important shoot. At least not without lots of chimping. Granted I am using very thin DOF/challenging lenses and I do realize that it's not the same as focusing for a landscape, but found that there was a big difference in accuracy between the two AF systems.

Has anyone else experienced this? Because if this is the AF experience of mirrorless I can't say it is mature enough to replace DSLR's just yet. At least not for me personally.