p.46 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Right behind you
Guys please observe social distancing and be careful with that tripod with spiked legs.
Aug 08, 2020 at 09:02 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.46 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
lightskyland wrote:
Sorry, Canon EF glass doesn't fit the Canon R5 and R6 without an adapter. With an adapter you can mount such glass on the Sony bodies as well (but most EF glass isn't worth adapting anyway since Sony E has better options).
In terms of actual native lenses Sony E-mount runs circles around Canon R mount. Close to 10x as many since Canon so foolishly decided to eschew third-party lenses.
Sorry, but Canon EF lenses adapted to a Canon R camera are not the same as Canon EF lenses adapted to a Sony camera. Canon obviously engineered the Canon EF lenses and knows everything about the lens protocols. So when they make an adapter there is no reverse engineering involved. In contrast when you adapt a Canon EF lens to a Sony camera whoever made the adapter has to reverse engineer the Canon protocols. This reverse engineering is never perfect and can interfere with the performance of the lens on Sony in a way that will never happen with the lens on a Canon camera where such reverse engineering does not occur. You simply can't equate the two types of adaptation. They are not the same.
If you simply count lenses without reverse engineering then there are actually way way more lenses available to Canon R cameras than there are to Sony cameras. The real issue is many Canon EF lenses are old and somewhat obsolete. If we discuss just modern lenses the two systems are competitive with some strengths and weaknesses for each system. I think it totally lacks nuance to describe one system as clearly having more lenses or clearly being better than the other rather than noting the strengths and weaknesses of each system. Sony has a lot of lenses available in shorter focal lengths that are modern and have high IQ. They have fast focus and some are quite small. Sony has a fantastic range of lenses for shorter focal lengths (Although they don't have some speciality lenses like tilt/shift). Sony's weakness is especially with fast longer lenses. They only have two, but these two are exceptionally good (but also exceptionally expensive).
In contrast Canon has good coverage of the shorter focal lengths including all the specialty lenses pretty much available, but some of these lenses are older and not designed for mirrorless AF. Consequently they will work as well or almost as well as they did on DSLRs, but won't work as well as some of the best new lenses for Sony. Canon also has a strength with long lenses, they have variety in focal lengths offered, aperture offered and in price point when you consider used lenses. With Sony if you want a long lens you have a choice between the very good, but slow, 100-400 and 200-600 or the uber expensive 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4. Nothing in between. With Canon there are dozens of choices in between. They may not always be optimal, but if on Sony you can't afford a 400 f/2.8 (and face it not a lot of us can) it is quite a step down to the $2,500 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. Sure it is a great lens, but it still has a slow max aperture. On Canon you can spend $3,500 or so and get an older 400 f/2.8 and although it will be bigger and heavier and $1000 more, it is also 2 stops faster than what you can afford to get for Sony. So if you have $4,000 to spend on a fast long tele, you can see how Canon offers options that Sony does not. For some shooters that extra aperture will be very much welcome, and this same lens will almost certainly function better without reverse engineering on the Canon than it will with reverse engineering on the Sony.
p.46 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Well for me the difference is the Canon to Canon adapter works pretty seamlessly. The Sony adapters (metabones etc) only partially work and in my experience were worthless for fast action.
lightskyland wrote:
Sorry, Canon EF glass doesn't fit the Canon R5 and R6 without an adapter. With an adapter you can mount such glass on the Sony bodies as well (but most EF glass isn't worth adapting anyway since Sony E has better options).
In terms of actual native lenses Sony E-mount runs circles around Canon R mount. Close to 10x as many since Canon so foolishly decided to eschew third-party lenses.
p.46 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
About the only thing I can think of that Canon has that Sony doesn't are tilt shift lenses, and those can be adapted, as they are on the r5. Maybe f1.2 primes, but I don't use those, and how often do you actually need the 1.2 over 1.4? Sony also has the sigma 35 1.2, and the rest of their great mirrorless lenses as well as the tamrons, voigtlander, etc that aren't available on Canon. If anything, it's Sony that has the glass advantage, and it's by a lot
timgangloff wrote:
I see a lot of nit picking the r5 and r6 here. But the body is only a part of the overall equation. For me, glass and pro support are critically important. I think if we are being honest, Sony has some very very good glass. I think Canon as equally good glass and a heck of a lot more of it and and exponentially larger supply of used glass in the second hand market. And Canon has some very important glass that Sony just doesn't have and I think that is largely a one way road; Sony has very few if any pieces that Canon doesn't have. Pro Support goes to Canon by a long shot based on my experience with both (and not all of my CPS experience was perfect). Does Sony even have in house repair yet or do they still farm that out?
So yes, the r5 has me very curious and interested. If it is close to the a92 or a7r4 in AF performance, the other factors can change the equation on which is the better system.
And my thoughts are largely form a sports shooter perspective and some portrait work....Show more →
p.46 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
timgangloff wrote:
Well for me the difference is the Canon to Canon adapter works pretty seamlessly. The Sony adapters (metabones etc) only partially work and in my experience were worthless for fast action.
Looks like we're trying to decide the winner based on which camera works better with Canon lenses? Oh my. Let's move the goalposts again. How about which camera works best with the Nikkor 500 PF? That's quite a remarkable lens that we can't just ignore in a discussion about the long end.
p.46 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
Looks like we're trying to decide the winner based on which camera works better with Canon lenses? Oh my. Let's move the goalposts again. How about which camera works best with the Nikkor 500 PF? That's quite a remarkable lens that we can't just ignore in a discussion about the long end.
Sony FE adapters also don't work so great with A-Mount glass
p.46 #7 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
jschn372 wrote:
About the only thing I can think of that Canon has that Sony doesn't are tilt shift lenses, and those can be adapted, as they are on the r5. Maybe f1.2 primes, but I don't use those, and how often do you actually need the 1.2 over 1.4? Sony also has the sigma 35 1.2, and the rest of their great mirrorless lenses as well as the tamrons, voigtlander, etc that aren't available on Canon. If anything, it's Sony that has the glass advantage, and it's by a lot
The f/2 zooms are the most interesting to me, not the 1.2 primes. Though the cost and maybe the size/weight make me not as interested. I prefer all the variety size/weight/cost options of Sony and the third parties. Some day RF mount will get there
p.46 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I smile because here we are debating a good camera, not quite up to the huge hype built around it in months, but still capable, knowing that we are talking about a mid range, 4700€ body, and when a R1 will be released we will be shedding ~7000€ for it, whereas a top performing rival can be had maybe for 2400€ new (I account another 12 months before a R1 release), the A9 first version, which has little missing from the current flagship A9II, but still can be had for around 5400€.
So, no, I am not happy in general with Canon's releases, all considered (though if one is bounded to stay with Canon they can begin to work properly in the RF mount).
p.46 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
lightskyland wrote:
Sorry, Canon EF glass doesn't fit the Canon R5 and R6 without an adapter. With an adapter you can mount such glass on the Sony bodies as well (but most EF glass isn't worth adapting anyway since Sony E has better options).
In terms of actual native lenses Sony E-mount runs circles around Canon R mount. Close to 10x as many since Canon so foolishly decided to eschew third-party lenses.
In the end, the interjection boils down to an apology "Sorry" .. For a lot of photographers, they don't care whether the lens is native, vintage or third party as long as it's an option. Some find the all-native mantra funny sometimes, because many in the so-called native lens clan, use a myriad of 3rd party lights, etc., are seem content. In the end, what may matter most, is what's available entirely, and it's almost "a wash". Maybe with the exception that Sony isn't anywhere near the build of a 1DX mk iii, but the R5 isn't either.
Getting back to the R5 itself, the 100% focus coverage is appreciated.
p.46 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Maxxus46 wrote:
They advertised 8 stops on ibis. it’s not close... had they advertised truthfully (5 stops) I’d have appreciated that more. So their inline with every other mirrorless camera regarding IBIS. Add in 8k video that hasn’t even taken off in mainstream yet and we barely have 4K in most homes today) and the fact that 8k data usage is insane (better invest in big expensive cf cards), all seems like an attempt from marketing to build up the hype we are seeing. Then the 4K video still causes overheating with significant time required for heat dissipation before the camera becomes usable again. Next on the list - poor battery life. Combine poor battery life with a frame rate that slows Once battery goes below 60 percent and documented EVF lag and it’s a no go for me (wildlife, birding requires fast acquisition and response without EVF lag). I’m sure it’s a good camera for stills - but it’s No wildlife camera or game changer by any means. Sorry but no thanks ...maybe next time but by then Sony will likely have an Ace again...Show more →
The IBIS numbers are based on a specific protocol that, while inflated, are directly comparable to other manufacturers numbers, which are inflated the same amount
p.46 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
There's only one f/2 zoom, and it's wider than a grapefruit, and heavy. I might be interested when they come out with a 14-24 f/2.0. Their native lens library will eventually catch up, and at that point I'll probably switch. But by then they'll also be on mark ii of the body
Eruditass wrote:
The f/2 zooms are the most interesting to me, not the 1.2 primes. Though the cost and maybe the size/weight make me not as interested. I prefer all the variety size/weight/cost options of Sony and the third parties. Some day RF mount will get there
Aug 08, 2020 at 09:59 AM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.46 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Eruditass wrote:
Sony FE adapters also don't work so great with A-Mount glass
the laea3/a9 rocks with a-mount glass.
laea4 is old af tech, but i've gotten some decent sports captures with it on an a7r & 1st-gen tamron 150-600... you should be glad that sony supported screw-drive af, while nikon abandoned it's screw-drive lens owners.
p.46 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Eruditass wrote:
The f/2 zooms are the most interesting to me, not the 1.2 primes. Though the cost and maybe the size/weight make me not as interested. I prefer all the variety size/weight/cost options of Sony and the third parties. Some day RF mount will get there
For a reduced zoom range ( 28-70 ) the RF 2.0 is way too heavy and expensive.
p.46 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Nikon didn't abandon screwdrive AF lens users, they continue to produce new DSLRs with focus motors in the body (including D780 and D6, two cameras that came out just this year). Screwdriver AF is not very practical on mirrorless because of lack of precision.
Newer DSLR lenses have improved motors and tend to focus with less jitter and hunting in both viewfinder and live view AF. The focusing problems when using DSLR lenses on mirrorless or in DSLR live view tend to be worse with old designs. There can be a point where it may not be practical to chase perfect compatibility if the results are not competent.
p.46 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
chez wrote:
For a reduced zoom range ( 28-70 ) the RF 2.0 is way too heavy and expensive.
Or, to the contrary. Most may agree it's heavy, but fewer that it's too heavy. I've seen countless men, and petite women, shoot weddings and portraits with 70-200mm 2.8 lenses, for years. Some even adding the weight of a grip.
If not mistaken, the 28-70mm is 120 grams more than the popular 70-200mm 2.8 ... But the R5 body is about 150 grams lighter than a 5D mk iv. So there's not much of a case that the new f/2 zoom is "too" heavy. Especially when the R5's weight was kept in check. The combo is near equal with another common place combo used for many years.
p.46 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
mdvaden wrote:
In the end, the interjection boils down to an apology "Sorry" .. For a lot of photographers, they don't care whether the lens is native, vintage or third party as long as it's an option. Some find the all-native mantra funny sometimes, because many in the so-called native lens clan, use a myriad of 3rd party lights, etc., are seem content. In the end, what may matter most, is what's available entirely, and it's almost "a wash". Maybe with the exception that Sony isn't anywhere near the build of a 1DX mk iii, but the R5 isn't either.
Getting back to the R5 itself, the 100% focus coverage is appreciated....Show more →
I doubt that there are many interested in buying the totality of "what's available entirely". We tend to have a finite nr of favorites and judging by those.
Let me share mine.
Wide end - covered by zoom, 12-24, f/4 is fine; I can live with something slighlty different like 14-24 or 16-35 plus a 12mm prime.
Mid range - 35, 50, 85 primes. 35 and 50 small and sharp for street use, f1.8 ideal; 85 I want it 1.4, no mammoths please, no 1.8 either.
Macro lens: something around 90mm; 2.8 is fine
Long end: 200/4 or 2.8 very sharp but lightweight
Treat lens: something cool and special in rendering
And please native mount, I don't want to mess with adapters. Also AF only (this excludes a lot of great Loxia and CV MF lenses on Sony side and nothing on Canon side so I don't want to hear about me being Sony biased).
This is a pretty standard kit, so let me know what my quality options are in E-mount and RF-mount respectively.
p.46 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
mdvaden wrote:
Or, to the contrary. Most may agree it's heavy, but fewer that it's too heavy. I've seen countless men, and petite women, shoot weddings and portraits with 70-200mm 2.8 lenses, for years. Some even adding the weight of a grip.
If not mistaken, the 28-70mm is 120 grams more than the popular 70-200mm 2.8 ... But the R5 body is about 150 grams lighter than a 5D mk iv. So there's not much of a case that the new f/2 zoom is "too" heavy. Especially when the R5's weight was kept in check. The combo is near equal with another common place combo used for many years.
Or look at it this way. The Canon 24-70...yes that's 24 not 28, is just over 800gm, a savings of over 600gm while gaining on the wide end. Or take the Tamron 28-75 coming in at 550gm...a whopping almost 900gm lighter. Don't tell me the 28-70 is not heavy...it's a pig compared to other lenses in that focal range.
p.46 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
As I noted, from a sports shooter perspective....how about Sony and their 300 2.8. Oh wait, they don't have one... jschn372 wrote:
About the only thing I can think of that Canon has that Sony doesn't are tilt shift lenses, and those can be adapted, as they are on the r5. Maybe f1.2 primes, but I don't use those, and how often do you actually need the 1.2 over 1.4? Sony also has the sigma 35 1.2, and the rest of their great mirrorless lenses as well as the tamrons, voigtlander, etc that aren't available on Canon. If anything, it's Sony that has the glass advantage, and it's by a lot
p.46 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
No. Read my post more carefully. From a sports perspective, Canon has a better lens lineup. Canon on Canon. Sony on Sony.
vdo1 wrote:
Looks like we're trying to decide the winner based on which camera works better with Canon lenses? Oh my. Let's move the goalposts again. How about which camera works best with the Nikkor 500 PF? That's quite a remarkable lens that we can't just ignore in a discussion about the long end.
