p.40 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
arbitrage wrote:
I'm pretty sure the R5's AF does surpass the 1DXIII except in one area. The 1DXIII still has much faster drive from spot to spot. Especially coming in from far to near. The R5 suffers just like all the MILCs including the A9 compared to even cheap DSLRs like my D500. However the R5 will have a much more consistent hit rate and can track a lot better than 1DXIII (in OVF mode). 1DXIII LV is the same as RF but without the Animal -Eye AF feature.
This is just one example but this guy shot KF with 1DXIII and R5 and you can see from the results that the R5 outperformed the 1DXIII away for capturing the KF launching up and down and even straight at the camera. Even the A9 fails at that last feat most of the time. The 1DXIII got a few of course. But this is just one example and of course the gallery is cherry picked for both cameras so who knows what the full success was really like.
I would be buying an R5 without hesitation over a 1DXIII in 2020 for bird photography....Show more →
I am not convinced by looking at the very few examples, here, to be honest, just because the parameters are not know in detail. Time will tell after more and more people got it in their hands.
p.40 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
scalanc2 wrote:
The final target is file quality.
All other things are complementary to it.
First point is how R5 file compares with ARIII file.
Without this precise answer any other point is of small interest to me.
Equal or better DR at all ISO values. R5 looks better to me for noise pattern. You can play around with DPR Studio scene to see how it looks through the scene and at different ISO. This is just a snapshot of noise at 3200.
p.40 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
arbitrage wrote:
Equal or better DR at all ISO values. R5 looks better to me for noise pattern. You can play around with DPR Studio scene to see how it looks through the scene and at different ISO. This is just a snapshot of noise at 3200.
So, according to the legend, the R5 forcefully applies noise reduction straight from ISO 50 up to 600? good job.
And, by the way, the R5 doesn't have a pixel shift function? Really? Thanks god it has "8K" instead lol
p.40 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
milkod2001 wrote:
IMO R5 with 50 RF 50 and 85 1.2 would be ultimate currently the best combo for portraits but A7R3/R4 with Zeiss 50 1.4 FE and 85 1.4GM would not be that far off. In practice literary zero difference when it comes to stills.
85GM and 135GM for portraits. 135GM is stellar on terms of sharpness and the 85GM's rendering and bokeh are special.
As a portrait guy, nothing is appealing to me about Canon's lenses as they are massive and overpriced IMO and I don't see where the advantage is. The most exciting lens to me is the new Sigma 85 1.4. If it renders like the 35 f1.2, it will be a special lens at a great price that is very compact for an f1.4 lens. It looks like this could be the 24GM of 85mm lenses. That is what mirrorless is should be about.
Fully aware that this lens will probably come to the RF mount eventually.
p.40 #7 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Mystik wrote:
85GM and 135GM for portraits. 135GM is stellar on terms of sharpness and the 85GM's rendering and bokeh are special.
As a portrait guy, nothing is appealing to me about Canon's lenses as they are massive and overpriced IMO and I don't see where the advantage is. The most exciting lens to me is the new Sigma 85 1.4. If it renders like the 35 f1.2, it will be a special lens at a great price that is very compact for an f1.4 lens. It looks like this could be the 24GM of 85mm lenses. That is what mirrorless is should be about.
Fully aware that this lens will probably come to the RF mount eventually. ...Show more →
If you check on reviews for RF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 they are state of art lenses, simply best in class. Sony GM, sigma Art, etc also make great lenses and in real world use you would probably never see significant difference but if reviewers are to select the best 50 and 85 AF lenses it would be the ones made by Canon.
p.40 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Holger wrote:
“The R5’s autofocus system surpasses the A9II’s"
That remains to be seen and is highly unlikely, as it would surpass the 1dxiii, Canon's flagship sports camera, too.
Animal eye-AF is more pattern recognition and something on can add via firmware (see the big A9 firmware update, I think version 5 or 6 from Sony, which added a first implementation).
It's being seen by some in the immediate reality of use. Even the R6 has some of the IDX iii's internals..R5 is no less.
A9 ii prices may dip as a result, possibly good news for purchasers aiming to stick with the Sony system. So may be a win-win for Canon and Sony shooters.
p.40 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
milkod2001 wrote:
If you check on reviews for RF 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 they are state of art lenses, simply best in class. Sony GM, sigma Art, etc also make great lenses and in real world use you would probably never see significant difference but if reviewers are to select the best 50 and 85 AF lenses it would be the ones made by Canon.
From a technical standpoint perhaps...sharpness across the frame, CA control etc etc.
I think there is a base level of sharpness for portraits that just about every modern lens achieves these days. It's all about rendering. And nothing about the RF lenses really stand out. Even within Sony's lenses, the 135GM is highly touted for its sharpness, but the 85GM has it beat in terms of portrait rendering IMO
Aug 06, 2020 at 10:35 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.40 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
arbitrage wrote:
Equal or better DR at all ISO values. R5 looks better to me for noise pattern. You can play around with DPR Studio scene to see how it looks through the scene and at different ISO. This is just a snapshot of noise at 3200.
Geoff, you of course know there are two big caveats to the Canon R5 DR at ISO 640 and below. First, the Canon gets an increase in DR from adding noise reduction Bill Claff estimates that increase is about 2/3rds of a stop. The Sony would likely have that 2/3rds of a stop better DR if you added noise reduction in post.
Second, if you use the electronic shutter or H+ then the DR drops for the Canon R5. See the screen shot below from Bill Claff's site.
The Canon R5 looks great when using a mechanical shutter. 12 fps, great AF, and great high ISO performance. Quite nice DR at low ISO too, but inflated somewhat by the addition of noise reduction.
Using it with the electronic shutter has significant caveats, however. You still have the great AF. You still have the great high ISO performance. You even can get 20 fps. But you also have to deal with possible rolling shutter distortion. You have to deal with possible heating issues, and it takes a pretty big hit for low ISO DR. Still this mode will no doubt be useful. Its limitations will just need to be understood.
p.40 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
arbitrage wrote:
Thankfully I've never used or wanted to use a pixel shift function nor do I shoot below ISO 800 90% of the time.
Thankfully you are not a representative sample. Most photographers are well acquainted with the lower ISO range. And speaking from a still photography perspective, I'd rather have pixel shift than some half-baked "8k" video mode.
Looks to me like R5 is a fail from a still camera perspective, and a fail from a video camera perspective too. And unfortunately the sum of two failures doesn't a succes make.
p.40 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
arbitrage wrote:
Equal or better DR at all ISO values. R5 looks better to me for noise pattern. You can play around with DPR Studio scene to see how it looks through the scene and at different ISO. This is just a snapshot of noise at 3200.
Oh! I want to check the R5 vs A7rIV. Didn't know R5 was up in the DPR studio already.
p.40 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Just found out that, faithful to themeselves, Canon stuck an AA filter on the sensor. Maybe to make place for a special R5SR model that comes at an extra price for omitting it.
p.40 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Steve Spencer wrote:
Geoff, you of course know there are two big caveats to the Canon R5 DR at ISO 640 and below. First, the Canon gets an increase in DR from adding noise reduction Bill Claff estimates that increase is about 2/3rds of a stop. The Sony would likely have that 2/3rds of a stop better DR if you added noise reduction in post.
Second, if you use the electronic shutter or H+ then the DR drops for the Canon R5. See the screen shot below from Bill Claff's site.
The Canon R5 looks great when using a mechanical shutter. 12 fps, great AF, and great high ISO performance. Quite nice DR at low ISO too, but inflated somewhat by the addition of noise reduction.
Using it with the electronic shutter has significant caveats, however. You still have the great AF. You still have the great high ISO performance. You even can get 20 fps. But you also have to deal with possible rolling shutter distortion. You have to deal with possible heating issues, and it takes a pretty big hit for low ISO DR. Still this mode will no doubt be useful. Its limitations will just need to be understood....Show more →
I know all the details. This is a thread about if "you" ie "I" am interested in an R5. And I certainly am. I'd choose an R5 over an A7RIV every day of the week if I was buying from scratch right now. Whether I'd choose it over an A9II is still undecided right now. I rarely shoot below ISO 800 so the drop in DR in ES is also not a big deal for me. If it dropped over the entire ISO range then it would be a big deal. The RS in ES is a consideration I have and I'm working with a few other members that have the R5 now to come to a final decision on that one. Also likely will get to shoot the R5 in a few weeks on swallows in flight if the stars align.
I most likley will end up with my A9II/R5 combo and sell the A7RIV. I don't need a camera that can't AF properly my most used Sony lens. (eventhough I've made some strides in getting that combo to work). My bigger issue with the R5 right now is not the camera itself but the lens selection for it. That is the main driving point for me having cancelled my R5 order for the time being.
p.40 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Honestly I've been thinking your all out of your mind to even think about this stuff. Your a Sony shooter there is not much coming from anyone thats going to truly excel over what we have today. Sure maybe in some speciality area outside the Sony box there maybe a good case but I've never been a Sony fan boy but a realist and a working Pro that I know im really not going to find anything truly better overall . I only need Page 1 thread 1 to know that.
Okay I know your all bored and need to get out of the house.
p.40 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
The A7R4 crushes it. And try the "pixel shift" mode too. It's really something out of this world and even the Panasonic has it. But not the Canon.
The DPR Pixel Shift samples look pretty bad on my iMac 5K. Does anybody else see blurry A7rIV Pixel Shift samples on DPR Studio?
p.40 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
The fanboying in this thread is disconcerting for FM. So many hyperbolic statements about drawbacks being "failures," and Sony just "crushing" Canon.
It's really not conducive to actual discussion in many ways.
VDO - the R5 has an AA filter, but it is done is such a way that detail doesn't really seem to be affected. Looking at the DPReview comparison shots, the R5 looks to be easily on par with the A7R III (similar MP count) as far as detail is concerned. Calling the lack of pixel shift mode something that causes the camera to be a failure from a stills perspective is just incredibly short sighted.
I've used the pixel shift mode on my A7R IV exactly twice. Once in the field when I first got it, to see how it would work...and it failed miserably because even the slightest vibrations from wind or ground tremors caused the combined images to be essentially unusable. The scene needs to be 100% static. The second time was for my review of it, which I did of a still life shot with flash. It was impressive then, but still a pain, and so incredibly impractical that it might as well not even be there. Not to mention that 60MP is enough for pretty much anything I will ever do with a photo.
Looking at the R5 with objective eyes in comparison to the A7R IV, it seems that the R IV likely has slightly better overall image quality. Would you see that difference in a print? Probably not for most prints. And even then, I doubt most people would reliably be able to tell them apart in side by side 30" prints. The R IV appears to be more refined overall, with fewer changing parameters based on shutter mode, battery percentage, etc.
However, as one who has an RF mount system alongside my Sony system, there are areas where Canon has a significant leg up with regards to operation in comparison to my R IV, and I'm just comparing it to the dirt cheap EOS RP. My RP is faster in general operation than my A7R IV....there are no stupid control lockouts while it's writing to a card. Want to change focus mode or drive mode after taking several shots? You can do so instantly. No "Writing to memory card. Unable to operate." error. Startup is about 2x faster from camera off to shot. Single shot AF is significantly faster (continuous AF is better on the Sony...but again, this seems to also be massively improved on the R5).
Nitpicking tiny things, like a 3% difference in dynamic range, or extremely small differences in noise, misses the point.
There are real implications to consider here. If comparing to the A9, the R5's worse e-shutter performance and limitations on burst based on battery are extremely valid comparisons and may definitely impact use of the camera. Likewise, the fact that the R5 seems to have better tracking and overall AF when compared to the A7R IV are also likewise real reasons to choose one over the other.
The R5's better stabilization is a big selling point, and for me, so are ergonomics and comfort. It is amazing how much more I enjoy holding my RP than my A7R IV. And I find the A7R IV's comfort fairly good. But the RP (and the R before) has such a comfortable grip.
This is a very competitive stills camera, and while many will prefer one or another, let's not pretend that the R5 is some trash camera because you prefer one feature present in your Sony camera.
p.40 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
The fanboying in this thread is disconcerting for FM. So many hyperbolic statements about drawbacks being "failures," and Sony just "crushing" Canon.
The real fail here is within the logic of stating that the R5 is "only so slightly worse" on a long list of parameters / features, then draw the conclusion that "since the differences are only so small and I personally don't care about them anyway, then the Canon is the better camera and thus a success".
Not to mention the fanboyism of trying to promote it as such on 40 pages in a different brand's forum.
