p.24 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
2xbass wrote:
Well sure maybe some of them and in some cases perhaps if they have no choice. Not me and I shoot with Sony and shoot low light and night all the time but obviously it depends on what you are trying to do and what lenses you are using. To me it’s one of those things that just because you can do it, it doesn’t mean you should but everyone’s situation is different.
Indeed, it's not ideal but in some scenarios it's necessary to get the shot. I'm a bit surprised at your initial comment's wording but am glad you've responded with more nuance. Some of my favorite photos are up there in ISO, and with the latest denoising software they clean up nice. Banding is typically harder to deal with.
Nonetheless it's worth noting that other samples (cameralabs) aren't showing banding at the same ISO
p.24 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
At first I’am tempted, seems like a great body but my real interest lies with their 1.2 lenses. But later I realized, its a pita already to carry the ZA 50 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.2. Switching to Canon means heavier weight and extra cost.
p.24 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
frezeiss wrote:
At first I’am tempted, seems like a great body but my real interest lies with their 1.2 lenses. But later I realized, its a pita already to carry the ZA 50 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.2. Switching to Canon means heavier weight and extra cost.
I think this is an important thing to realise and it's sort of related to how extreme one wants to go in any aspect of our gear whether it's cost, size, weight, speed of lenses, etc. At least for most of what I do, which is wildlife photography, I think I am very much into shooting with big aperture primes and shooting wide open. Not just f2.8 but f1.8 and f1.4 when I can. I am absolutely fascinated by the f1.2 lenses and have looked at them multiple times but the reality is they are just not practical for me. Even f1.4 is a pain. I have the Sigma 105 f1.4 and I absolutely love it but it rarely comes on trips because of the size and weight and so typically the only f1.4 I am bringing along is the 24 GM. f1.8 is really the ideal sweet spot for me in a lot of cases. Even the cost in terms of size and weight of just going to f1.4 is basically not worth it, at least for me.
p.24 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
2xbass wrote:
I think this is an important thing to realise and it's sort of related to how extreme one wants to go in any aspect of our gear whether it's cost, size, weight, speed of lenses, etc. At least for most of what I do, which is wildlife photography, I think I am very much into shooting with big aperture primes and shooting wide open. Not just f2.8 but f1.8 and f1.4 when I can. I am absolutely fascinated by the f1.2 lenses and have looked at them multiple times but the reality is they are just not practical for me. Even f1.4 is a pain. I have the Sigma 105 f1.4 and I absolutely love it but it rarely comes on trips because of the size and weight and so typically the only f1.4 I am bringing along is the 24 GM. f1.8 is really the ideal sweet spot for me in a lot of cases. Even the cost in terms of size and weight of just going to f1.4 is basically not worth it, at least for me. ...Show more →
And how often do they really use the big apertures? I find them much more useful for small focal lengths. 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, for example, to really get unique looks. For longer focal lengths images often look artificial, like a person zoomed into a room with a backdrop, and tend to get much more similar with differences often too minor to really make a difference. Esp. amateurs think images to look pro if shot wide open at f1.2. Funnily people often travel to great locations to make a photography session, but then use a Sigma 105/1.4 or 85/1.2 to obliterate the background and nothing can be seen of the nice location.
They can have their uses, of course. Oftentimes I feel them overhyped, however.
Sony made some really great stuff. The 20/1.8G the 24GM are fantastic, the 135/1.8GM world class. The latter gives you a tremendous amount of blur. And the 85GM provides a fantastic rendering (or use the ART lenses instead). Why would I need an even larger more expensive 85/1.2 for 3000 Euros (in Germany)?
p.24 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Holger wrote:
And how often do they really use the big apertures? I find them much more useful for small focal lengths. 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, for example, to really get unique looks. For longer focal lengths images often look artificial, like a person zoomed into a room with a backdrop, and tend to get much more similar with differences often too minor to really make a difference. Esp. amateurs think images to look pro if shot wide open at f1.2. Funnily people often travel to great locations to make a photography session, but then use a Sigma 105/1.4 or 85/1.2 to obliterate the background and nothing can be seen of the nice location.
They can have their uses, of course. Oftentimes I feel them overhyped, however....Show more →
I agree with you. It is fun to see how much the technology can be pushed in many ways but there’s a) the real-world application of some things and b) the cost of it. I know a lot has been made about how with the Z and RF mounts that the E mount is now inferior because of the various dimensions including the throat size and how the design of the newer mounts will let Nikon and Canon do a lot more. I think that’s absolutely true but how much of it will really translate into real-world benefits for most people? The “limitations” of E mount has not stopped Sony or other lens manufacturers from making some stellar optics that are also practical to carry.
p.24 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
2xbass wrote:
I agree with you. It is fun to see how much the technology can be pushed in many ways but there’s a) the real-world application of some things and b) the cost of it. I know a lot has been made about how with the Z and RF mounts that the E mount is now inferior because of the various dimensions including the throat size and how the design of the newer mounts will let Nikon and Canon do a lot more with. I think that’s absolutely true but how much of it will really translate into real-world benefits for most people? The “limitations” of E mount has not stopped Sony or other lens manufacturers from making some stellar optics that are also practical to carry. ...Show more →
And the F mount was even smaller than the E mount and we still had great lenses for that. And yet, Nikon still went for a super large Z mount.
The real-world benefits are simply that a larger mount & shorter back-focus increases the flexibility (in terms of design) and viability of certain lenses. Will we ever see F/2 WA zooms on the E mount? Remains to be seen; Not that I particularly care about f/2 zooms, just pointing out that some people see those as a real-world benefits.
p.24 #7 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I have seen a few videos now with the R5 in use by not paid people. The overheating is real and much more restricting than the Canon people want you to believe.
Cameras are actually being put in refrigerators to try and deal with it. Functionally it is looking like it is really a 4K 30 video camera in normal usage.
Waiting to see more about the electronic shutter performance.
p.24 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
1bwana1 wrote:
I have seen a few videos now with the R5 in use by not paid people. The overheating is real and much more restricting than the Canon people want you to believe.
Cameras are actually being put in refrigerators to try and deal with it. Functionally it is looking like it is really a 4K 30 video camera in normal usage.
Waiting to see more about the electronic shutter performance.
In the video you linked, putting camera in the fridge appears to be for humor. The overheating times weren't so far from Canon's specs, and are likely to be within most people's requirements. That is, if they use 8K at all. Saying "the overheating is real" isn't a big revelation after Canon tells you the overheating is real. Matti's actual conclusion is: "I think for most people the overheating is actually really insignificant and you'll probably never have to deal with it."
Keep in mind that major motion pictures like "1917" and "Joker" were shot around 4.5K. I don't know who suddenly *needs* to shoot long clips in 8K but doesn't already have a camera that does that. Movies shot in 8K appear to be using cameras that start at $60,000.
p.24 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Of course it was for humor. But he also used it to hurry the cooling so he could run his tests faster. The humor is why I posted it.
But from the multiple video tests I watched, real World times seem close to about 1/2 of Canons chart for 8K, and about 2/3rds for 4K above 30p.
I agree, 4k is the most usable video for today's content creators. No real need for 8K stuff.
My grandfather was from the Croatia area back when it was Italian. He spoke Italian, and considered himself Italian. I was there just this past Fall again. My Grandfathers surname was Sponza which is now my middle name. Sponza palace is still the name of the palace (now a museum) in the center of Dubrovnik.
p.24 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Well. Hmmm. What's the point of this thread? It was certain than sooner or LATER the CANON team will catch the SONY team (bad issue if that doen't happens). I really appreciate their "late" effort lol. But aside all the balls and whistles, they have been faaaaar too late to the party. We, SONY shooters have been enjoying from more than 3 years ago the level of the bombastic claims we are being lately assaulted on a day to day basis. If this doesn't stop soon they are also going to reclaim the invention of the telegraph, I suppose.
From my point of view, Canon lost a client, me, myself, far long ago. And I will never go back to that yard. Never, ever. No matter what they do, no matter what they say, no matter the number of asteriscs they publish. Never, ever again I will touch a Canon camera in my life. I have found a camera system that fullfills my desires in every way I dream of and, more important even, in the moment I needed it. In the meanwhile they were placidly sleeping. I have been waiting for THIS from Canon for more than 4 years ago. And which were the options they offered? 5D mark4 plaged with shadows banding and EosR with even more shadow banding. And that's all. My wishes always were high dynamic range because my edits are very demanding. Although they didn't deliver. Never. But fortunately the RIII, first in 2017 and A7 III in 2018 landed on the earth providing lots of dynamic range and resolution and a lot of another virtues I am ejoying from that time. Eye AF, Animal Eye AF, fast and reliable C-AF with almost 100% coverage, great sharpness, neverending dynamic range, high resolution sensors, fantastic colours, looots of lenses to choose, the best 135 mm lens in the world...
So what? Have Canon got up from their lazy bed? From my perspective they may well keep on sleeping until the eternity since I don't care a damn. My last 10.000€ investment is not in their greedy accounts. F... u Canon. Forever. And yes, I am developing some kind of hate right now because part of those 10k should have been expended in the R5... 4 years ago, if existed, and not in a complete new Sony system. But this is how the things comes out for a convinced ex Canon shooter.
p.24 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
frezeiss wrote:
At first I’am tempted, seems like a great body but my real interest lies with their 1.2 lenses. But later I realized, its a pita already to carry the ZA 50 1.4 and Sigma 35 1.2. Switching to Canon means heavier weight and extra cost.
A7iv should be interesting to compare!
Completely agree. Then again, there are some days and shoots where I wouldn't mind the extra weight: it would be nice to have the option. Right now the RF mount is lacking all the nice small and light primes of the FE mount, maybe one day that will change.
The other nice thing about the RF mount is the diameter for IBIS, but hopefully Sony can prove me wrong on that.
p.24 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
2xbass wrote:
I agree with you. It is fun to see how much the technology can be pushed in many ways but there’s a) the real-world application of some things and b) the cost of it. I know a lot has been made about how with the Z and RF mounts that the E mount is now inferior because of the various dimensions including the throat size and how the design of the newer mounts will let Nikon and Canon do a lot more. I think that’s absolutely true but how much of it will really translate into real-world benefits for most people? The “limitations” of E mount has not stopped Sony or other lens manufacturers from making some stellar optics that are also practical to carry. ...Show more →
I think the jury is still out on the throat diameter thingy,
- Nikon/Sony 35 1.8. Nikkor has better aberration control while Sony has better sharpness.
- Canon/Sony 24-105. Sony has better sharpness on the wider FL
p.24 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I don't think anything about it I am a Sony shooter.
If they can do things that will force Sony to up their game I am all for it.
None of the top tier are going to be outdone by a large enough margin to switch, one might leap ahead in some department for a year but the other will catch up.
p.24 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Speculation has it that the R5/R6 IBIS is better (stronger) than Sony’s due to the wider diameter mount (more room to shift without revealing edges). We also haven’t seen any lenses from Sony like the 28-70 f2 which is one of the reasons I’m planning on switching to Canon (along with the R5 specs). I’m curious if a lens like that is a mount diameter limitation or if they just haven’t decided it’s worth adding into the lineup. The 12-24mm f2.8 GM does look impressive so I’m glad they’re still pushing the envelope with other lenses like that. My A7RIV + 12-24 GM along with a Canon R5 + 28-70 f2 actually sounds pretty good right now 😅. Only ~$13,500 😭
I haven't yet checked out that RF 85 f1.2 review above but from what I've seen everywhere else it seems to be the best 85mm lens available for any system with almost zero CA. The GM at f1.4 now falls far behind in comparison with worse sharpness, terrible green fringing, and slow AF. I'm hoping Sony come out with some f1.2 primes and f2 zooms in the future. I also wonder if Canon could do a 135mm f1.4...
frezeiss wrote:
I think the jury is still out on the throat diameter thingy,
- Nikon/Sony 35 1.8. Nikkor has better aberration control while Sony has better sharpness.
- Canon/Sony 24-105. Sony has better sharpness on the wider FL
