p.43 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
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....Show more →
Yes all things said, the R6 and a7rIV are more alike than they are different. You'd have to nitpick things to a degree where it doesn't matter to tell the difference....and there are some areas that the R5 is better camera, and some areas that the a7rIV is better camera. Once we start looking at 100% crops to spot noise differences, and analyzing charts plotting these minuscule differences in DR, its probably best to just stop comparing lol.
R5 is a solid camera. Would I switch back to Canon for it? Nah, it doesn't really offer any reason to do so. But fanboyism is big thing in the world of cameras and people are always looking for a reason to tear a product down. Bloggers and influencers are always there to feed the fire...that's how they get their clicks. Some of you guys need thicker skin because its obvious that the R5 has ruffled some feathers. Don't be a fanboy. Be a fan-man
p.43 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
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:
And also let me know how "8K" would had helped better with that pic.
I'm not reopening anything.
You are saying the R5 can't compete in detail, which is utter nonsense (as the example also shows).
I really don't care what all those fanboys (you're actual acting like one of those) are claiming on their forums. I also don't care from which brand a camera is. I care for objective analysis.
I'm a Sony shooter myself, for many years now. I don't find it difficult at all to at least acknowledge when other brands do something right.
Your comments about the Pixel shift only show how little experience you have with that function yourself.
It's well documented by many photographers how usuless the pixel shift is for landscape photography. Showing one shot where it didn't mess up doesn't "prove" anything.
About your "8K" argument: the discussion was about the IQ of the R5. Not the video specs. Still shooters (like me) never even use video.
p.43 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Except Jochenb edited his original post, adding the screenshot some time later. All while I was replying to his original version. So how is it a fallacy that I didn't address something that I was not aware of?
The reference to 8K was duly followed by a to indicate it's a joke. Next time I will be more explicit.
As for pixel shift - why cherry pick "landscape with moving tree foliage". How about architecture, including abstracts (where texture detail is so welcomed). Or (studio) product shots. Some people actually make a living out of such, why give up on a competitive feature that enhances IQ? What do you get in exchange?
p.43 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jochenb wrote:
Your comments about the Pixel shift only show how little experience you have with that function yourself.
Really? Personal attacks now, regarding my "experience"?
Let me play your game. What is your hands on experience with the Canon R5? Zero, right? Then may I also suggest that all your comments about the R5 only show that you have zero experience with it?
p.43 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
Except Jochenb edited his original post, adding the screenshot some time later. All while I was replying to his original version. So how is it a fallacy that I didn't address something that I was not aware of?
The reference to 8K was duly followed by a to indicate it's a joke. Next time I will be more explicit.
As for pixel shift - why cherry pick "landscape with moving tree foliage". How about architecture, including abstracts (where texture detail is so welcomed). Or (studio) product shots. Some people actually make a living out of such, why give up on a competitive feature that enhances IQ? What do you get in exchange?
Have you actually used Pixel shift regularly in the field? I have. It's essentially unusable unless you want to spend huge amounts of time. Even for architecture...because the vibration of moving traffic is enough at 240MP to cause artifacting by the minute changes in camera position. It's 16 shots for the increase in real resolution, usually with a second between, and if one of them is off slightly, the merge is ruined. And you won't know until you get back at the computer because it doesn't do it in-camera...you have to use Imaging Edge, merge the RAW files, output a new RAW file and then begin work.
It is an edge case scenario (especially since the people who need 240 megapixel images are so rare that it's a vanishingly small group that would bother with the workflow hindrance for that anyway because there's no need when you have 60 megapixel single shot images.
I'm not sure why you are harping on pixel-shift so much. It is a fringe feature that is not used by many. It can yield very detailed images if you can get everything perfect, but those situations aren't all that common, and even where you can do it, it's a huge increase in time to process them for the rare situation that you need that level of detail. I'm struggling to find real world use case scenarios for 240 megapixel still life images.
p.43 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I'd rather prefer to decide myself (not Canon) whether I can have it / use it or not. It's something that is available even on Pentax.
Go ahead guys, if you're sincerely convinced it's the largely better camera, then go buy an R5. Post here pictures of it in your hands, as proof. Until then I'll just think that this is one of the most terrible Canon flavored trolling threads in this forum.
p.43 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
Except Jochenb edited his original post, adding the screenshot some time later. All while I was replying to his original version. So how is it a fallacy that I didn't address something that I was not aware of?
Oh please. You were perfectly aware of it.
The original message already said that you should compare the RAW files to see for yourself how similar the detail of all these cameras is.
I added the screenshot to make it easier for you.
I'm going to stop discussing this now, it makes no sense at all.
p.43 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
This is a nitpick, but if I recall correctly, pixel shift does not actually increase resolution. What is gained is color fidelity, absence of color artifacts, moire, and less noise. No question the image produced (when all the stars line up) has advantages, but technically (per Jim Kasson's blog) resolution is not one of them. The best implementation of pixel shift appears to be by Panasonic in the S1R which has a mode that deals with the moving images quite well from what I have read and does this in camera which is really handy (kind of like Sony used to do with combining many exposures in the the SR app versus having to image average in PS to accomplish the same thing). Why this kind of functionality has not been duplicated via software by now, I don't know other than lack of demand not justifying the resource application. Anyway, agreed that for those who do not shoot Panasonic, the pixel shift limitations and clunky implementation make it a fringe application for all but a few shooters despite real benefits to the color and cleanliness of the files when it works. I know of at least one prominent photog who says the Panasonic S1R is the best image making tool for landscapers right now (even over Fuji GFX 100) due to their implementation.
p.43 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Luvwine wrote:
This is a nitpick, but if I recall correctly, pixel shift does not actually increase resolution. What is gained is color fidelity, absence of color artifacts, moire, and less noise. No question the image produced (when all the stars line up) has advantages, but technically (per Jim Kasson's blog) resolution is not one of them. The best implementation of pixel shift appears to be by Panasonic in the S1R which has a mode that deals with the moving images quite well from what I have read and does this in camera which is really handy (kind of like Sony used to do with combining many exposures in the the SR app versus having to image average in PS to accomplish the same thing). Why this kind of functionality has not been duplicated via software by now, I don't know other than lack of demand not justifying the resource application. Anyway, agreed that for those who do not shoot Panasonic, the pixel shift limitations and clunky implementation make it a fringe application for all but a few shooters despite real benefits to the color and cleanliness of the files when it works. I know of at least one prominent photog who says the Panasonic S1R is the best image making tool for landscapers right now (even over Fuji GFX 100) due to their implementation....Show more →
I've heard good reports about the S1R's implementation of it as well, but it's hard to trust software fully when there are hard decisions about which pixels get canned
Aug 07, 2020 at 09:29 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.43 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
Except Jochenb edited his original post, adding the screenshot some time later. All while I was replying to his original version. So how is it a fallacy that I didn't address something that I was not aware of?
The reference to 8K was duly followed by a to indicate it's a joke. Next time I will be more explicit.
As for pixel shift - why cherry pick "landscape with moving tree foliage". How about architecture, including abstracts (where texture detail is so welcomed). Or (studio) product shots. Some people actually make a living out of such, why give up on a competitive feature that enhances IQ? What do you get in exchange?
Well will you at least admit now that the image has been posted that in that example there is no clear evidence of differences in image quality and that you statement that the R5 barely competes in image quality is an exaggeration?
p.43 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Holger wrote:
To be honest, there are now quite a few videos there showing the limitations of the R5 as a video camera ... SNIP ...
See also Undone's review:
Undone's review shows his limit of his success, or failure to go further. The reason I noted the other more recent video, it shows someone trying to utilize the body to an even greater extent. The latter reminds me of Travis Harris "lone" EOS R video, late 2018. About the only one showing how to succeed with the body.
j4nu wrote:
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...
If the method is not a constraint, this concept I posted yesterday may be worth following as a few guys are trying to figure out a means to extended or possibly unlimited video. time.
p.43 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
The enigma continues.....
I have seen more that one report now that the overheating issue can be mitigated by recording to an external device, and removing the memory cards. How and why that works is unknown, but it appears to be effective.
p.43 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
1bwana1 wrote:
The enigma continues.....
I have seen more that one report now that the overheating issue can be mitigated by recording to an external device, and removing the memory cards. How and why that works is unknown, but it appears to be effective.
.......sooooo I have to spend 3900 for the camera then buy an Atomos then take out the battery and memory cards and everyone is OK with that Could you imagine if that was a Sony camera that required all that.
p.43 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I think Canon shot themselves in the foot building a camera to sell on the basis of specs. The community will call them out on the limitations eventually and it will tarnish the perception of the camera.
Sony learned this lesson the hard way. Remember how hard the lofty promises they made with a6000 AF, or the issues they had with the a7rii overheating.
Sony's latest releases seem more grounded and specialized to excel in specific use cases instead of promising to be the be all and end all camera. I.e. a7riv has a pretty good AF system, but they never really pitched this as a sports and wildlife cam if you look at the marketing material
p.43 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I think Canon shot themselves in the foot building a camera to sell on the basis of specs. The community will call them out on the limitations eventually and it will tarnish the perception of the camera....which is a shame because the R5 and R6 actually seem to be very good cameras...they just oversold their capabilities.
Sony learned this lesson the hard way. Remember the lofty promises they made with a6000 AF, or the issues they had with the a7rii overheating after they touted the ability to shoot 4k.
Sony's latest releases seem more grounded and specialized to excel in specific use cases instead of promising to be the be all and end all camera. I.e. a7riv has a pretty good AF system, but they never really pitched this as a sports and wildlife cam if you look at the marketing material. They pitched the a7iii as being a very good base model camera, but never promised it would shoot like the a9
p.43 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
Did I just read that Pixel Shift, the incredibly useless edge-case mode that is ruined by so much as daring to breathe, is more practical than 8K?
I think we're officially through the looking glass in this thread.
I have to agree - pixelshift is a pretty useless feature. I'm glad they added it in, but my experience is that it is only usable for still life shots on a very stable tripod.
p.43 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
nhsonyshooter wrote:
.......sooooo I have to spend 3900 for the camera then buy an Atomos then take out the battery and memory cards and everyone is OK with that Could you imagine if that was a Sony camera that required all that.
The original a7s required an external recorder for 4K. Having to remove the battery and cards is a unique issue, something Canon can likely address with a firmware update, but the use of an external recorder for extended shooting is nothing new, and it's not limited to these tiny cameras.
Could you imagine if that was a Sony camera that required all that.