p.2 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Fred Miranda wrote:
It should be about native lenses though as previous SLR lenses fit all brands. Since Sony started the transition earlier, it's still ahead.
I think Canon came a long way and I hope the new cameras and lenses make a lot of sales.
I don't entirely agree, and view the ability to use now "legacy" DSLR glass to its EF-native performance levels as a unique and positive feature that Canon offers (and Nikon to a lesser degree).
Adapting EF glass to an R5 will work much better than adapting to Sony, EF prices are going to continue to plummet, and even the older great whites will now be affordable to a wider range of shooters. I think there's a HUGE value proposition here that people tend to write off.
Native is always best, but I think Canon has gotten the backwards compatibility the closest to native of any brand.
Regarding native glass, I think comparing the optical quality, manufacturing QC, and AF speed, the first gen Canon RFs smoke the original Sony FF glass. Sony has only recently stepped their game up with lenses like the excellent 24GM and 135GM, while Canon is essentially STARTING there.
It's a good time to be into photography, basically
p.2 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I agree on that point. When I rented the EOS R when it came out, I used it with a few of my EF mount lenses that I had been adapting to Sony, and while they worked fine on my Sony, they were never native level speed and consistency. On the EOS R it felt the same as if they were on a DSLR. Extremely fast, accurate and with no hunting or hiccups.
p.2 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
NJPhotographer wrote:
Martin Bissig's video shows that the R5's electronic shutter works very well for action -
I'm not sure why some people here are saying the A9/A9II works better.
It depends what you define as action etc. Read out speed is said to be similar to the 1dxiii, i.e. 1/60s. If true, well, that will have consequences:
&feature=youtu.be
p.2 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I think it’s kind of sad so many new cameras and lenses get made,and so often. Too much about obsession and affiliate links, and not enough about photos. People scoop them up and take pictures of cats and their kids at the park. Especially these days. I feel for the people struggling with money but wanting every new release.
But,I concede this forum is an escape for many so,I don’t judge people for that. Whatever keeps you goin’
p.2 #7 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
patotts wrote:
Given all the leaks on specs, the biggest surprise was perhaps the $3,900 price point, which is about $450 more than I had hoped for.
As always, they are trying to skim the market with the early adopters and pros, I hope/expect the price to drop towards Christmas.
It's called differential pricing, or price discrimination. Early adopters pay more. It's a good business strategy. The prices are sure to drop within a few months (although exchange rates can have an impact on that too, either positively or negatively).
p.2 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Holger wrote:
It depends what you define as action etc. Read out speed is said to be similar to the 1dxiii, i.e. 1/60s. If true, well, that will have consequences:
...
Martin Bissig shows a motocross rider flying through the air, details perfectly frozen. I would define that as action.
p.2 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
The R5 sounds like an absolutely fantastic camera. Really there's nothing to complain about, and it seems that Canon has caught up to (and perhaps even surpassed) Sony with regards to AF (at least on the non-A9 bodies), which if that bears out is rather remarkable.
The R6 is well specced, but the sensor is a bit disappointing, and I would have liked to see them stick closer to a $1999 price point for it.
Overall, I've been very impressed with the Canon RF system so far. The original R had some really nice things and some very poorly thought out things (that awful touch bar), while these two seem to fix most of the complaints and then go a step further. The RF glass all looks to be quite excellent, though I raise my eyebrows a bit at some of the design decisions along with price points. The lenses are exceedingly expensive, though in many cases worth it. I was surprised that their 100-500mm is a whopping $2700 at f/7.1. I like the thought of the new 85/2.
The biggest downside to the RF mount at the moment is the lack of quality third party glass. I did a comparison, though, and to go to an R5 with 5 lenses - the 15-35/2.8, 24-105/4, 70-200/2.8, Samyang 85/1.4 and RF 35/1.8, it would run over $11,000. My A7R IV with my Sigma 14-24/2.8, Tamron 28-75/2.8, Tamron 70-180/2.8, Sigma 35/1.4 and Samyang 85/1.4 cost me $6,925. Granted, I was able to get the A7R IV at a deep discount.
As one who reviews stuff, though, I may pick up a cheap used RP so I at least have a platform to review RF lenses, as Canon is really impressive right now. If I were just now getting into FF mirrorless, it would be hard to not give them a hard look. ...Show more →
I shot Canon in the past. I never took a serious look at their RF lenses because I wasn't interested in their RF bodies, before today. I just read some reviews on their 15-35 f2.8 (takes filter and has IS!!) and 24-70 f2.8 (IS!!), they are sharp and have decent sunstars too. With both IS in the lens and body, you can pretty much shoot the 15-35 at 1 second hand hold. Their 70-200 F2.8 is pretty compact too! Will be very interesting to watch what Canon and Sony do in the next two years.
p.2 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
NJPhotographer wrote:
Martin Bissig shows a motocross rider flying through the air, details perfectly frozen. I would define that as action.
We will see. As the example shows, you have strong rolling shutter effects _and_ you are prone to get flicker issues. Of course they won't show issues in promotional material.
I did action shots with the A7riii in e-shutter, too. Does it make it an action camera with e-shutter?
p.2 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
patotts wrote:
I think many of us eagerly awaited the release of the Canon R5 (some perhaps even the R6) and I am curious what are your initial reactions to the specs/details?
The jury is still out on performance and IQ but, as a Sony user, what do you like or dislike with the new Canon release? Anyone thinking of giving it a try?
The R6 20 MP is disappointing and the DR is still lower than A7III if it's comparable with the 1DX MkIII.
The R5 is better with it's 45 MP and we don't know the DR of this camera.
AF now seems comparable with Sony, and also FPS which must make EOS users happy.
Does it makes me interested in Canon. No. I just love my Sony Alpha and I am sure Sony will keep on innovating like they have done in now three or four generations of cameras.
Regarding video I can see the R5 have some awesome specs but 8K is just a gimmick especially because many still doesn't have a 4K TV.
The sensor readout speed on the R5 will be interesting to see, but I suspect it's comparable with the A7RIII, but let's see.
Regarding the design I prefer Sony and their smaller bodies, which I just love to use. I find they are inspiring to use and ergonomics are quite good. I would inly wish for a fully articulate screen like on the big panasonic cameras since I dislike the Canon approach.
Jul 09, 2020 at 02:12 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Fred Miranda wrote:
It should be about native lenses though as previous SLR lenses fit all brands. Since Sony started the transition earlier, it's still ahead.
I think Canon came a long way and I hope the new cameras and lenses make a lot of sales.
I don't really agree. It is about performance of a given lens on the camera. We may well find that Canon SLR lenses work a lot better on Canon's mirrorless cameras than on other brands of mirrorless cameras and if that is true then just because a lens can be adapted (i.e., fits) it would not be the same lens in operation to owners of different cameras as it is to owners of Canon cameras. My guess is there will be a whole range of differences from hardly works on non-Canon cameras and works great on Canon mirrorless to you can't tell the difference in performance between how the lens works on non-Canon cameras and Canon mirrorless. I think we are going to have to see how each lens performs and probably can't make any sweeping generalizations.
With regard to the new lenses, I think the 85 f/2 IS Macro is needed and is interesting. The 3 longer lenses with the slow max aperture, which kind of ironically would be pretty useless with the TC they brought out at the same time, however, I am not so impressed with. I suppose there is always a market for reach and especially when it comes in a relatively small size and relatively cheap price, but even wide open f/11 is going to be pretty affected by diffraction and adding 100mm to the typical 100-400 at the cost of a two thirds stop slower max aperture I don't see as much of a step forward either. I am sure there will be a market for these lenses, but I am not part of that market. I say that when I would be in the market for a 500 or 600 f/5.6 lens or an 800 f/8 lens.
p.2 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
patotts wrote:
In sales and marketing theory, "skimming" is just a natural part of the pricing strategy, which is one components of the Kotler's 4 P's (place, price, product and promotion). It is not one that all seller apply, it has both advantages and disadvantages.
OK; market skimming.
In that case yes; it's what Canon should do.
Why not? I have been willing to pay the early adoption fee myself (when I have thought it worth it).
p.2 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I thought I was going to be super excited about it, preorder right away but... now that it is here, I'm not feeling like its that much different from what I have with sony.
Granted, I am not a video person, but for stills, the reviews I'm seeing- when I compare to my work and what I get from my sony bodies, I'm kind of like-- well they are nice pictures, but I feel that way with all my sony stuff, even images I get from my a6400.
Maybe I change my mind, but for now, I trust sony will respond with something even better. For now, my a7r4 & 3 have plenty of resolution & focusing speed, my a9 is also great for silent shooting in complicated lighting conditions.
Also, with COVID still strong, my priorities aren't in trying to own the newest thing. Given I don't do any video work, I have all I need already.
p.2 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I think that it's good Canon is at least trying to be innovative, as it pushes other manufacturers to do so as well. But there's nothing here that makes me want to switch. I'm sure there's Canon shooters who are happy about the new gear, and I'm glad they get to be happy
p.2 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
LBJ2 wrote:
Damnnn this is good video. Critical info-packed.
I've heard from one of the ambassadors that 4 second handholding with sharp results is possible due to 8-stop IS. That's better than what Sony can do for sure. Also Eye AF covers the entire frame (100% coverage).
It looks like 20 frames per second with great tracking is somehow a breakthrough but we have enjoyed this with Sony for many years now. The difference is that Canon did it with a 45MP sensor. Will the electronic shutter work well for fast action though?
In the video above, I've heard the phrase "capturing the decisive moment" many times. I thought this was a Leica say!
p.2 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
I don't entirely agree, and view the ability to use now "legacy" DSLR glass to its EF-native performance levels as a unique and positive feature that Canon offers (and Nikon to a lesser degree).
Adapting EF glass to an R5 will work much better than adapting to Sony, EF prices are going to continue to plummet, and even the older great whites will now be affordable to a wider range of shooters. I think there's a HUGE value proposition here that people tend to write off.
Native is always best, but I think Canon has gotten the backwards compatibility the closest to native of any brand.
Regarding native glass, I think comparing the optical quality, manufacturing QC, and AF speed, the first gen Canon RFs smoke the original Sony FF glass. Sony has only recently stepped their game up with lenses like the excellent 24GM and 135GM, while Canon is essentially STARTING there.
It's a good time to be into photography, basically ...Show more →
---------------------------------------------
Jman13 wrote:
I agree on that point. When I rented the EOS R when it came out, I used it with a few of my EF mount lenses that I had been adapting to Sony, and while they worked fine on my Sony, they were never native level speed and consistency. On the EOS R it felt the same as if they were on a DSLR. Extremely fast, accurate and with no hunting or hiccups.
---------------------------------------------
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't really agree. It is about performance of a given lens on the camera. We may well find that Canon SLR lenses work a lot better on Canon's mirrorless cameras than on other brands of mirrorless cameras and if that is true then just because a lens can be adapted (i.e., fits) it would not be the same lens in operation to owners of different cameras as it is to owners of Canon cameras. My guess is there will be a whole range of differences from hardly works on non-Canon cameras and works great on Canon mirrorless to you can't tell the difference in performance between how the lens works on non-Canon cameras and Canon mirrorless. I think we are going to have to see how each lens performs and probably can't make any sweeping generalizations.
With regard to the new lenses, I think the 85 f/2 IS Macro is needed and is interesting. The 3 longer lenses with the slow max aperture, which kind of ironically would be pretty useless with the TC they brought out at the same time, however, I am not so impressed with. I suppose there is always a market for reach and especially when it comes in a relatively small size and relatively cheap price, but even wide open f/11 is going to be pretty affected by diffraction and adding 100mm to the typical 100-400 at the cost of a two thirds stop slower max aperture I don't see as much of a step forward either. I am sure there will be a market for these lenses, but I am not part of that market. I say that when I would be in the market for a 500 or 600 f/5.6 lens or an 800 f/8 lens....Show more →
My point is that Canon will solely focus on RF lenses and they already have many great zooms and primes.
As opposed to SLR lenses, RF lenses have new technology AF (motor design, algorithms) and higher performance due to breakthroughs in optical design. Previous SLR lenses won't be able to keep up with more resolution and future technological advances.
Yes, they can still be adapted and may work slightly better on a Canon R body but it's still not an ideal solution. It's a transition phase and Sony is ahead of the game because it started the transition earlier than other full frame camera brands. Soon enough, they will all catch up and a more leveled competition will be great for consumers.
Jul 09, 2020 at 03:03 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
I don't entirely agree, and view the ability to use now "legacy" DSLR glass to its EF-native performance levels as a unique and positive feature that Canon offers (and Nikon to a lesser degree).
Adapting EF glass to an R5 will work much better than adapting to Sony, EF prices are going to continue to plummet, and even the older great whites will now be affordable to a wider range of shooters. I think there's a HUGE value proposition here that people tend to write off.
it is a definite advantage when budgets are tight, and you already own ef-mount glass.
i write it off because ef-mount glass was never designed for a 20fps body, and the future of milc is 20fps af-c or better.
beyond ef-mount, canon has failed to rate any of their rf-mount lenses by af-c speed, like sony does, and since i shoot sports, there is no way that i'd buy into a platform that hides the af-c frame rates of the lenses it sells.
p.2 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
osv2 wrote:
it is a definite advantage when budgets are tight, and you already own ef-mount glass.
i write it off because ef-mount glass was never designed for a 20fps body, and the future of milc is 20fps af-c or better.
beyond ef-mount, canon has failed to rate any of their rf-mount lenses by af-c speed, like sony does, and since i shoot sports, there is no way that i'd buy into a platform that hides the af-c frame rates of the lenses it sells.
So the 1DX3 that shoots 16-20fps in AF-C (and is the defacto sports cam model worldwide) can't use EF glass? Wow, I never knew that
p.2 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
indusphoto wrote:
The key to R5 specs is sensor read speed. In this aspect, canon has leapfrogged competition similar to how Apple did with iPhone back in 2006. This is why Canon was comfortable announcing the specs months before release without fearing competitive catchup.
Given that Sony makes sensors for pretty much all other major players, we can not expect a camera with competing specs, from any vendor, until Sony semiconductor can produce a sensor with similar read speed.
Sony A9/A9II still have faster read speeds than the R5. We don't know what the R5's read speed is but they still have a footnote that says you can expect banding in certain light sources in e-shutter. That alone tells me it isn't as fast as the A9 because the A9 has eliminated that issue.
Also Sony already has a number of available sensors that have faster read speeds in a number of MP ranges but they haven't yet been put into a camera. However they are in Sony's catalogue.
The R5 may be 1/60 like the 1DXIII which is okay even for some BIF but it still ain't going to manage the fastest wing beats. The 1DXIII has been demonstrated (at 1/60) to produce a bunch of artifacts with smaller BIF wing beats. Also as posted above, it has significant distortion and rolling shutter in video.
Critical info-packed. 
