p.35 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
mdvaden wrote:
Someone told me Youtube offered a feature to correct videos. Maybe Northrup should use that, if it's possible. A guy from Vancouver BC mentioned it when I got a hold on a Youtube video fro someone's employee using my image in a wrong context. They paid me $400 for the photo use, but also said their company could edit within Youtube. So they noted. But if the tool is available, Tony may try looking into it.
you can append music to videos, even trim the beginning and end, but cant edit the whole thing. It's extremely limited. If you get a copyright infringement, you can remove portions that infringe on the copyright**** sometimes. Other than that, you need to upload a new video which is kind of a lot of work and time.
Jul 31, 2020 at 10:00 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.35 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Bill Claff's photons for photos has the DR by ISO graphs for the Canon R5 up. It looks quite good in a number of ways. The R5's base ISO DR is about the same as the A7r IV's, but (and it is a big but) the Canon achieves that DR by baking in noise reduction. We first saw that with the Panasonic S1 and S1R and IMO that means the Sony is actually superior. If you wanted to do so (but there is no reason to do this in practice) you could apply noise reduction in post to the low ISO Sony files and they appear to have higher DR. So the baked in noise reduction is actually hiding that the Sony (the A7r IV) actually has higher dynamic range. Said another way to really compare apples to apples you need to have the same amount of noise reduction in the files, and when Canon bakes in the noise reduction at low ISO you can't really compare the DR at these values. It isn't an apples to apples comparison and it inflates the numbers for the Canon.
Anyway despite the baked in noise reduction the Canon R5 looks to have much better DR than previous Canon cameras. It really looks like an all-arounder sensor with quite decent base ISO DR and excellent high ISO DR and for a 45MP sensor that is quite an accomplishment. Here is the graph comparing the Canon R5 with the Sony A9 II and A7r IV:
p.35 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Steve Spencer wrote:
Bill Claff's photons for photos has the DR by ISO graphs for the Canon R5 up. It looks quite good in a number of ways. The R5's base ISO DR is about the same as the A7r IV's, but (and it is a big but) the Canon achieves that DR by baking in noise reduction. We first saw that with the Panasonic S1 and S1R and IMO that means the Sony is actually superior. If you wanted to do so (but there is no reason to do this in practice) you could apply noise reduction in post to the low ISO Sony files and they appear to have higher DR. So the baked in noise reduction is actually hiding that the Sony (the A7r IV) actually has higher dynamic range. Said another way to really compare apples to apples you need to have the same amount of noise reduction in the files, and when Canon bakes in the noise reduction at low ISO you can't really compare the DR at these values. It isn't an apples to apples comparison and it inflates the numbers for the Canon.
Anyway despite the baked in noise reduction the Canon R5 looks to have much better DR than previous Canon cameras. It really looks like an all-arounder sensor with quite decent base ISO DR and excellent high ISO DR and for a 45MP sensor that is quite an accomplishment. Here is the graph comparing the Canon R5 with the Sony A9 II and A7r IV:
Yes and no. To my eye, the R5 is a bit sharper/better detailed at 6400. It's nearly a push at 12,800 with the Sony only an edge better in terms of smaller color noise, and 25,600 is just bad on both and shouldn't be used (Canon very heavy on yellow pixel noise, Sony very heavy on red pixel noise). Also very bad banding on the Canon at 25,600.
At base ISO, the Sony is punchier, but the Canon handles light falloff/tone gradation better as usual.
Overall, I think the R5 is VERY VERY close to Sony here for once, and this is against, arguably, Sony's best sensor ever.
edit: it actually appears the Canon is just plain sharper at all ISOs, probably an effect of the first gen RF lenses being better than Sony's early gens they probably tested with.
p.35 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
At any rate, I think it is great for Canon fans... uh, users, that they finally did get a camera with a comparable DR to that of Sony cameras. I am happy for them, they had to make do with their cameras considered to be in the shadow of Sony cameras for a number of years. A lot of them abandoned the ship, I did early on and some of them later. I am sure that the exodus will not only diminish significantly and I understood that there is some movement the other way around.
The AF of the R5 is on par with that of the A9 but with a higher MP sensor but not quite black-out free shooting experience. The AF seems to be even better than that of the A7r IV. I think Canon plays their card right this time around. The few reported overheating cases, will be addressed by Canon, I believe.
Now, we just would like for Sony to improve the existing camera lineup .
p.35 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
AGeoJO wrote:
At any rate, I think it is great for Canon fans... uh, users, that they finally did get a camera with a comparable DR to that of Sony cameras. I am happy for them, they had to make do with their cameras considered to be in the shadow of Sony cameras for a number of years. A lot of them abandoned the ship, I did early on and some of them later. I am sure that the exodus will not only diminish significantly and I understood that there is some movement the other way around.
The AF of the R5 is on par with that of the A9 but with a higher MP sensor but not quite black-out free shooting experience. The AF seems to be even better than that of the A7r IV. I think Canon plays their card right this time around. The few reported overheating cases, will be addressed by Canon, I believe.
Now, we just would like for Sony to improve the existing camera lineup ....Show more →
but it's not about few reported experiences, it's right there in their manual.
p.35 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
It's a shame if that ends up crippling their best camera ever.
I was out happily shooting birds in 103 degree temps for hours the other day in Hi+ mode with the R4 without a beat skipped. The camera got so hot that my nose on the screen started to burn
AGeoJO wrote:
I am referring more to the still photography...
There are a bunch of heat-related caveats to AF-C/burst shooting even in stills with the R5, all details in the manual.
Jul 31, 2020 at 04:15 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.35 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
When I look particularly at the faces in those comparisons I see the Canon, and both Sonys as being very similar in noise and it is the Panasonic that is clearly the outlier and performing worse. I don't see any loss in detail in the Canon nor much difference is noise performance. I also actually like the color (in this test anyway) better for the Canon and A7r III (which I would rate as equal) over the A7r IV.
p.35 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
It's a shame if that ends up crippling their best camera ever.
I was out happily shooting birds in 103 degree temps for hours the other day in Hi+ mode with the R4 without a beat skipped. The camera got so hot that my nose on the screen started to burn
There are a bunch of heat-related caveats to AF-C/burst shooting even in stills with the R5, all details in the manual.
From what I could gather it is more related to the 8K video, no? What do I know that the overheating issues are also for still photography. It just shows that I have zero interest in that camera. So, I care less . I am posting here because this thread is in the Sony forum.
p.35 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
AGeoJO wrote:
From what I could gather it is more related to the 8K video, no? What do I know that the overheating issues are also for still photography. It just shows that I have zero interest in that camera. So, I care less . I am posting here because this thread is in the Sony forum.
The below was posted on the Canon side, details from the manual about 12fps stills
I happened to want 12 fps for Birds in Flight, but in the R5 manual, page 452, read that to get 12 fps, many factors need to fall in line. Some of these include
..camera needs to be at room temp ***
..battery level at least 60% ****
..shutter speed 1/1000 or faster
..lens needs to be set to maximum aperture *****
..flicker reduction can't be on
..all RF and only certain EF lenses can be used
p.35 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Canon is in a tough spot here. Most users who wanted an MILC have likely migrated to an alternate brand by now. It's going to take a demonstrably better camera/platform to win back those switchers.
p.35 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
The below was posted on the Canon side, details from the manual about 12fps stills
I happened to want 12 fps for Birds in Flight, but in the R5 manual, page 452, read that to get 12 fps, many factors need to fall in line. Some of these include
..camera needs to be at room temp ***
..battery level at least 60% ****
..shutter speed 1/1000 or faster
..lens needs to be set to maximum aperture *****
..flicker reduction can't be on
..all RF and only certain EF lenses can be used
Wow, and that to just get 12FPS? The shutter speed being at least at 1/1000sec and the lens at maximum aperture are 2 factors we need to get a decent sequence of BIFs but the other factors sound too restricting, especially the first 2.
Scott, being a Sony shooter, you certainly know a lot about the Canon R5, probably more than potential R5 users or wannabe users .
p.35 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
AGeoJO wrote:
Wow, and that to just get 12FPS? The shutter speed being at least at 1/1000sec and the lens at maximum aperture are 2 factors we need to get a decent sequence of BIFs but the other factors sound too restricting, especially the first 2.
Scott, being a Sony shooter, you certainly know a lot about the Canon R5, probably more than potential R5 users or wannabe users .
Well, I've been keenly watching it because I suspected that an R5 + 100-500 combo would be quite a bit better than the R3 + 100-400 for a variety of applications while hiking/in the field.
However, the R4 has proven to be such a stunning winner in all applications that I'd have a mighty hard time switching at this point. If I still had the R3, and stills mode didn't make the R5 overheat, I'd probably switch.
p.35 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Steve Spencer wrote:
When I look particularly at the faces in those comparisons I see the Canon, and both Sonys as being very similar in noise and it is the Panasonic that is clearly the outlier and performing worse. I don't see any loss in detail in the Canon nor much difference is noise performance. I also actually like the color (in this test anyway) better for the Canon and A7r III (which I would rate as equal) over the A7r IV.
p.35 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Got to use the R5 today for a little bit, no 8K video, only 4K, some stills.
I'm getting one because it's a great camera. Yes the 8K video has issues, but not for me as I'll be using it only for it's 4K slow motion as Sony still don't offer even 4K60p, even on the A92 or 7R4 (which is bonkers) and as a stills camera for Canon glass.
I'm a Sony shooter as you know and I've been absolutely laying into canon shooters since I left canon in the mid noughties for Nikon, then Sony, but credit where it's due, the R5 is a camera Sony (and Nikon) have no answer for.
If you don't like shooting two systems and video isn't your thing, don't bother looking at the Canon as the 7R4 is close enough, not equal, but close enough.
If you're a hybrid shooter and want something better than the 7R4, A9, A92, 7R3, 73, A7S2, the R5 should be trialled.
p.35 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Bob_S wrote:
Got to use the R5 today for a little bit, no 8K video, only 4K, some stills.
I'm getting one because it's a great camera. Yes the 8K video has issues, but not for me as I'll be using it only for it's 4K slow motion as Sony still don't offer even 4K60p, even on the A92 or 7R4 (which is bonkers) and as a stills camera for Canon glass.
I'm a Sony shooter as you know and I've been absolutely laying into canon shooters since I left canon in the mid noughties for Nikon, then Sony, but credit where it's due, the R5 is a camera Sony (and Nikon) have no answer for.
If you don't like shooting two systems and video isn't your thing, don't bother looking at the Canon as the 7R4 is close enough, not equal, but close enough.
If you're a hybrid shooter and want something better than the 7R4, A9, A92, 7R3, 73, A7S2, the R5 should be trialled.
Both 4K120 and 4K60(HQ) have as much issue with overheating and short record times as does 8K RAW. So are you planning to use the relatively poor IQ 4K60 line skipped mode for your 4K slow motion? I'd spend your money on a A7SIII if that is what you are after as you will get 4K120 with overheating only much longer into shooting (over an hour).
For a stills camera the R5 may be one of the best out there. But as a video camera it is getting very bad reviews. I'm not a video guy so I don't know all the ins and outs of this stuff. But recent reviews from DPR and Gerald Undone are basically writing it off as a video camera and only recommending it for stills. Therefore for me it may be unmatched for what it can do vs Sony but for you I'd really watch/read a bit more on it.
p.35 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Having owned the A7RIV, I do not agree that’s it was a high iso noise king, matter of fact he A7RM3 was superior ( maybe tony intended to say amongst higher res bodies ?). My A9ii files are much cleaner with less blocky patterns that I’d see on R4 files. I think Tony is if way off here
p.35 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
arbitrage wrote:
Both 4K120 and 4K60(HQ) have as much issue with overheating and short record times as does 8K RAW. So are you planning to use the relatively poor IQ 4K60 line skipped mode for your 4K slow motion? I'd spend your money on a A7SIII if that is what you are after as you will get 4K120 with overheating only much longer into shooting (over an hour).
For a stills camera the R5 may be one of the best out there. But as a video camera it is getting very bad reviews. I'm not a video guy so I don't know all the ins and outs of this stuff. But recent reviews from DPR and Gerald Undone are basically writing it off as a video camera and only recommending it for stills. Therefore for me it may be unmatched for what it can do vs Sony but for you I'd really watch/read a bit more on it.
The owner of the camera said he's had it recording 8K for about 2 hours of footage split into 20min segments as an interview (with about a minute between clips).
The 4K240 won't be used for long either, imagine 240p slowed to 24p, a few seconds is all it takes.
The A7S3 isn't out yet and doesn't do 8K or 4K240p. The 7S3 will be good, but it just doesn't give you the options the R5 does and is a 12mp stills camera.
p.35 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
R5 looks like a great camera for photography.
Compared to A7Riv dynamic range in Bill Claff's chart is about same (with nice hump at ISO 400; though triangle pointing down shows noise reduction in raw in these ISOs is strange).
High ISO is slightly better on R5.
Focusing looks faster which is probably related to that silent shooting scan time also looks faster (while A7Riv regressed over previous generations down to 1/10 for uncompressed raws).
.