p.42 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
lightskyland wrote:
That's simply not true. I can create arbitrary levels of fake dynamic range in the A7R4 by applying NR to Sony's low ISO files, as Canon does in camera to the RAW files without recourse. They do that because their sensor is not great at low ISO performance. Resolution is also a lot worse for landscape images (AA filter).
You may be right regarding DR. From samples and tests I've seen, however, the differences here do not appear to be large. Previous Canon cameras were massively behind with regards to DR...the R5 and R6 seem to have made the gap largely minimal to negligible.
I noted resolution in the pros for the A7R IV, and with 15MP extra resolution, it's certainly capable of resolving more detail than the R5. But the AA filter note I think is misguided and is perhaps based on previous experience with other filters. I do not have in-depth technical knowledge of the AA filter used on the R5 and R6, but Canon claims that it has little to no affect on sharpness. I'd chalk that up to complete marketing baloney except that if you look at the DPReview comparison, and look at the R5 vs the A7R III, which is essentially the same resolution, the R5 looks to be sharper, with more fine detail to my eye. Especially noticeable in the green feathers and the money. Even the R6 looks to have essentially the same real-world resolution as the A7III, despite the 20% pixel deficit.
lightskyland wrote:
Yes, for people who prefer the R5 ergonomics they are superior to the A7R IV. I don't prefer them at all.
Sure. Ergonomics are certainly personal to a great degree. Some I'm sure feel the Sony grips are more comfortable.
On the objective side, the clearance from grip to lens is certainly greater on Canon bodies, which does allow for a less cramped grip when using larger lenses. If you don't often use large diameter lenses, this may not be noticeable, or you may find other parts of the ergonomics outweigh this part of it.
p.42 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jochenb wrote:
vdo1, are you actually serious or is this just some blatant trolling?
Your criticism against Jordan really is uncalled for. His reviews and comparisons have always been objective and spot on. It's very clear that he's not "promoting" anything.
Let it go, cameras are just tools you know.
See, you're doing it too. The first one is known as the "false dilemma" falacy and the second one the "appeal to authority".
How about there's a third alternative, where I'm neither clowning nor trolling, and, while Jordan is a well respected member of the forum, he might occasionally be perceived as being wrong within some of his arguments?
p.42 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I'm often wrong. However, I think I've been pretty even handed in actual discussion here. You, on the other hand, have not actually participated in discussion. You have latched on to key phrases only, cherry picked items and features that are to your point of view (ignoring those that refute it), and then after that participated in largely ad hominem arguments rather than actual discussion of the points I raised.
p.42 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
You forgot the Astro versions!
vdo1 wrote:
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.42 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
realVivek wrote:
You forgot the Astro versions!
Oh, well! Never mind that!
Heating and Astro do not get along that well.
On the bright side, we could benefit from complementing the "Star eater" with a "Star creator". If Canon is Leica smart, they could come with a special limited edition "Canon R5A Creators Edition" lol
p.42 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
There are many attractive and interesting things about the new Canons, and they have the momentum of being the exciting new kid on the block, but apart from the better IBIS/IS (if that pans out, as it seems to be doing), there is not really much that I would prefer to my A9 and A7R4 combination. There is certainly nothing that would make me seriously think about switching. It seems that BIF and wildlife photographers might be able to make a case for switching, but the case they make feels a little uncertain to me and that's not what I shoot anyway. The new 1.2 lenses do make me a little green, but again not so much that I would actually switch and give up my A9 and A7R4 and what they can do and the array of lenses that I can use on them.
The new Canons have just a whiff of a "Hail Mary" pass and are just a bit quirky. They gave it everything they've got, maneuvered around the heat problems, and used noise reduction at low ISO to plump their stats a bit. With their wonderful lenses, they can produce images that may be sharper than Sony's equivalents, although I do think we have to wait for the new Sony 12-24 GM f/2.8 to really do a comparison at the wide end. I think Canon are still one generation off from really competing with the Sonys in a way that would make me seriously think about switching or at least wishing to do it. And how many years will it be before their next generation gets here?
We'll see what happens. Sony, the ball is in your court (to mix metaphors a bit).
p.42 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
I am totally with you that Canon bungled the crap out of the marketing with this camera. This should NOT have been marketed as video heavy as it was, because it is very clear that the high end video modes are severely crippled.
On the other hand .. the R5 is proving good for 3 - 4 HRS video if someone utilizes something like an Atomos & dummy battery. Add 45 MP for stills, AF like a 1DX iii or A9 ii ... and good ergonomics. Does it become a better hybrid than meets some eyes?
p.42 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
mdvaden wrote:
On the other hand .. the R5 is proving good for 3 - 4 HRS video if someone utilizes something like an Atomos & dummy battery. Add 45 MP for stills, AF like a 1DX iii or A9 ii ... and good ergonomics. Does it become a better hybrid than meets some eyes?
Honestly it feels like some people just want the camera to fail so they can feel better. They were never seriously considering it for purchase anyway. Internet forums have become too toxic.
p.42 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
mdvaden wrote:
On the other hand .. the R5 is proving good for 3 - 4 HRS video if someone utilizes something like an Atomos & dummy battery. Add 45 MP for stills, AF like a 1DX iii or A9 ii ... and good ergonomics. Does it become a better hybrid than meets some eyes?
Besides, I still don't buy this 1dxiii/A9ii AF performance. This sounds like exaggeration given all the footnotes and reports so far - I can't see that to be true. Only because there are some situations the AI or pattern recognition is better than that of the aforementioned cameras doesn't make it a sports camera with AF on par with the dedicated bodies. This requires much more testing in different situations and I don't believe every anecdotal evidence which is brought up in favour, but other more reserved ones being neglected.
That doesn't mean that the R5 isn't a great jack of all trades camera, being able to satisfy the average and enthusiast user and even some pros not being videographers but event shooters. I just think that it is clearly overhyped.
p.42 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I am hobbyist so my opinion is probably irrelevant and I didn't read all 42 pages of this thread, but I ventured to Canon forum and it looks like R5 is excellent camera with a few growing pains problems. If I was Canon shooter I wouldn't think twice and would buy this camera just like I didn't think twice when I bought A7RIV. It is unfair to ask Sony shooter's opinion about Canon camera. Better question would be if Sony came up with A7R5 with a same exact specs as Canon R5 - would you buy it? My answer would be no. I couldn't care less about extra/better features like bird eye AF , 8K video, 8 stops IBIS or 12/20 FPS shutter, but I would consider 45MP sensor and short battery life a downgrade. Just my thoughts, YMMV.
p.42 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
I'm often wrong. However, I think I've been pretty even handed in actual discussion here. You, on the other hand, have not actually participated in discussion. You have latched on to key phrases only, cherry picked items and features that are to your point of view (ignoring those that refute it), and then after that participated in largely ad hominem arguments rather than actual discussion of the points I raised.
I just can't agree with your assessment.
And it doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong. What really matters is to conduct the conversation from the premises that your opponent might have a valid point. If you just try to insult him (directly) or his intelligence (through logical fallacies tactics), he might as well give up on trying to make his point and will just answer to your attempts at insulting him.
Had you been open to this (instead of indulging in what both of us and the moderator know that happened), I might have continued arguing my points. For example, I would have posted this, together with instructions on where to look (spots that do have actual details) and how to actually do a proper comparison (through downloading the RAW files, not viewing a summary through jpg compression and desktop / web browser scaling). I'm still posting it for the benefit of other members. Together with my recommendation that it's still a surrogate due to jpg artifacts and scaling, so please download the RAW files if you want to see the whole story.
p.42 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
You're only posting a pixel shift comparison. As I mentioned before, in actual shooting, pixel shift is essentially useless due to the level of stability and lack of any motion in the scene that is required.
p.42 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
You're only posting a pixel shift comparison. As I mentioned before, in actual shooting, pixel shift is essentially useless due to the level of stability and lack of any motion in the scene that is required.
Like it or not, it is more relevant than the joke of "8K" video mode that was used as the spearhead in promoting the R5 everywhere.
As for the word "fail" that drew your ire. To be a "success" the R5 should have been, at a minimum, capable of similar IQ as the current generation of other manufacturer's cameras. It barely competes with the previous generation. It would had been a "success" if it were to be launched as the original "Canon R" at that time. Now it's too little, too late and too expensive.
p.42 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
As for the word "fail" that drew your ire. To be a "success" the R5 should have been, at a minimum, capable of similar IQ as the current generation of other manufacturer's cameras. It barely competes with the previous generation.
Wow, barely competes?
You should download some R5 RAW files and compare them next to A7RIII and A7RIV files. There's not much difference at all.
Pixel shift is a useless function, because it only works for perfectly still scenes. So for something like landscapes it just can't even be used. Yet it's your main argument here.
p.42 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
Like it or not, it is more relevant than the joke of "8K" video mode that was used as the spearhead in promoting the R5 everywhere.
As for the word "fail" that drew your ire. To be a "success" the R5 should have been, at a minimum, capable of similar IQ as the current generation of other manufacturer's cameras. It barely competes with the previous generation. It would had been a "success" if it were to be launched as the original "Canon R" at that time. Now it's too little, too late and too expensive.
Yes, I do take umbrage with the word 'fail' here because it completely dismisses reality. In pure image quality, the A7R IV is still superior. However, in actual use, the difference between the A7R IV and the R5 is so small that the instances where a difference would be visible in any normal sized print are extremely rare.
But this take completely dismisses all of the other areas where the R5 is not only competitive, but better. By most reports, it has better autofocus than the A7R IV (though perhaps falling a bit short of the A9/A9 II). It has notably better image stabilization (which I think is a FAR more substantial real-world useful advancement than pixel-shift.) It has notably better wireless connectivity, both in ease of connection and in reliability.
There are certainly areas where it isn't as good either, such as battery life. But you have cherry-picked a small handful of things that you view as inferior (whether they have real-world impacts or not), have completely dismissed any areas where it is equal or superior, and declared it a failure based just on those cherry-picked items. And that is why I called you out.
Again, I love my A7R IV, and will certainly not be selling it for an R5, but the reason I took issue with your use of the word fail is that it defies the reality of the situation. And it reads like someone who has never used a different camera brand or honestly evaluated differences between cameras.
p.42 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jochenb wrote:
Wow, barely competes?
You should download some R5 RAW files and compare them next to A7RIII and A7RIV files. There's not much difference at all.
Pixel shift is a useless function, because it only works for perfectly still scenes. So for something like landscapes it just can't even be used. Yet it's your main argument here.
Are you going to reopen the "Megapickles don't matter, 30 is the same as 40, 50 and 60" conversation? I kept hearing that mantra in the Canon forum, reactivated every time their favorite brand came up with a new 5D model with the same old sensor res.... All while Nikon was taking the opportunity to sell boatloads of D850.....
As for the pixel shift function being "unusable", why don't you take it with Mark Galer for example:
p.42 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I find it ironic that someone who has been so quick to point out logical fallacies on others falls back into major logical fallacies.
You just made two straw man arguments in your response to Jochenb. First, he never said megapixels don't matter, and did not argue that 30 is the same as 60. He showed side by side crops showing the actual real world difference between the cameras in question is exceptionally small.
Then you bring up 8K in your response, and I don't recall a single person, and most certainly not Jochenb, making the case in the last few threads that 8K was anything more than a tick on the spec sheet for marketing. We are discussing the still capabilities of a camera.
As to the pixel shift example posted - yeah, it looks nice. Some artifacts on the bird on the right, and I can 100% guarantee that the water and sky have all been selected and blurred in post...as I've done long exposure pixel shift on a similar scene, and have done that process myself. Yes, it can be used in very specific circumstances. Notice that the entire subject is stock-still poles. These situtations, however, where pixel-shift is useful, are few and far between, and often require significant post-processing to weed out artifacts. It's a non-starter for me, and for the majority of situations where super high resolution would be desired.
My one successful pixel-shift image (done on an Olympus E-M5 II where the extra resolution was more necessary too). All the water and clouds had to be selected and hit with a small radius gaussian blur to eliminate the field of artifacts from the water and cloud movement.
p.42 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Guys, please - it's obvious there will be no winner here...
I'd be more interested in reports of some real-life cases of actual overheating with stills only / minimal video if it actually happens...
