p.6 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
I love how somehow in the past 10 years 10fps just became far too slow.
The 1D series from Canon was THE sports camera for years and years, and topped out at 10fps and was 8fps for many iterations. Many Olympics and major sporting events were shot with those cameras, with award winning photos created. Is 20fps a nice advantage? Sure. But 10fps is plenty to shoot sports with.
p.6 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
I love how somehow in the past 10 years 10fps just became far too slow.
The 1D series from Canon was THE sports camera for years and years, and topped out at 10fps and was 8fps for many iterations. Many Olympics and major sporting events were shot with those cameras, with award winning photos created. Is 20fps a nice advantage? Sure. But 10fps is plenty to shoot sports with.
Since every single current Sony body does at least 10 FPS, and has better AF than the Canon, what makes the R5 a sports camera?
p.6 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
shadow9d9 wrote:
No one is holding for 3 or 4 seconds. Even with a 6.5 stop IBIS with a G9 and Panasonic lens, at 60 mm, it didn't work reliably under 1/8 second. They are reporting unicorn successes as common. If it fails seven out of eight times, is not reliable. I'm in my thirties with excellent coordination.
More IS is more IS, whatever the discount you make for marketing talk. I have steady hands and good technique and do well hand-holding now, but if Canon is able to provide significantly more stops, that would expand what I can do in exactly the direction I want to go and the type of images that I want to do.
I am not abandoning Sony--I like the cameras and the lenses and I am well-invested in the system. But what Canon seems to have is very appealing to me and I would like Sony to answer the IS and the AF.
p.6 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
lightskyland wrote:
How is 10FPS a sports camera? The 20FPS electronic shutter will be pretty useless for sports due to slow readout.
this is true, except that's 12 FPS mechanical. The 20 FPS electronic shutter will work for some types of action but not all.
The A9 series is still the best option for fast action. It's better have a 24MP perfect image than a distorted 45MP!
Jul 09, 2020 at 11:23 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I think the thing to keep in mind is that for years Canon divided their 1D line into high resolution cameras (1DS) and high speed cameras (1D) and most recently the 1DX for speed and the 5DR for high resolution. Canon took a very different strategy here and has a high resolution and high speed body and they didn't stop there they added ground breaking video. This camera does a lot and it does it quite well, but as you would expect in a camera that does so much there are cameras that are better at individual things.
As a high resolution camera the Sony A7r IV has more resolution and we will see when the sensor is tested but I am going to guess it will have better dynamic range (DR) as well at base ISO and probably a bit better color sensitivity. If you really want high resolution the Fuji GFX 100 is going to clearly be superior, and even the Nikon Z7 which has the same resolution with its base ISO of 64 will probably have a bit better IQ, and even the Panasonic S1R will compete well as a high resolution camera. Still the R5 for high resolution work is going to be a great camera. It might be limited by weak DR, or less than optimal color sensitivity, but I don't think it will be. So if you just need a high resolution camera and don't need a high speed camera there will be better options, but none of those options will do the other things that the R5 can do.
As a high speed camera the Sony A9 (II) has a better electronic shutter (but not quite as good of a mechanical shutter) and probably has better AF as well (we will see as the R5 is tested more). There isn't any other mirrorless camera than can compete with the R5 for a high speed camera. Sure Canon's own 1DX III and Nikon's D6 will still be at least very competitive DSLRs for high speed work and in some ways better as a sports camera, but none of these other high speed cameras have anywhere near the resolution of the R5. So if you want high speed and high resolution (as many wildlife photogs will want) there really is nothing like this R5.
Then there is video. Right now this R5 has the best specs of pretty much any camera designed for stills, but if Sony brings out a successor to the A7S II, that camera might well beat it in some important features. I don't expect such a camera to be 8K like the R5, but I would think such a camera would have a very fast sensor scan time (i.e., readout) and may be able to match the R5 in everything except being 8K and have less rolling shutter effect. The successor to the A7S II, would then for many people's purposes be slightly ahead for video, but if you want a camera that is great for stills and video it will be hard to beat the R5.
What is really impressive about the R5, however, is that it can do all of these things so well. It is a great high resolution camera, a great high speed camera, and a great stills camera for video. If you only need one of these things you still might be better off with a different camera, but if you want 2 or all 3 of these things it is going to be a very compelling option.
Personally, I don't need 2 or more of these things in the same camera, so this camera really isn't for me, but I can see why a lot of people are excited about it and Canon finally has the high level camera to go with it high level lenses and that too is a really good thing for the new R system.
p.6 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I've found e-shutter is pretty useless on the A7R3 and 6500 except on a tripod, as it leads to distortion in the image. It will be somewhat better on the R5 but not good. I'd say it will be nearly useless for action unless you are willing to have shots spoiled by distortion.
p.6 #7 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Currently own A7iii and 14 E mount lenses, so it would dumb for me to switch. Selling all those and getting Canon equivalent would cost me about 15k and add to that Cf express, storage, computer upgrade etc and we’re looking roughly 20k, thats insane! Especially on these difficult times..
Why I want for the next upgrade would be:
1. The 5.7 MP EVF
2. Better IS perhaps
3. Improved DR and color science. Mind you i prefer the colors I get from the A7i, 5N or my Nikon FF. I hated Canon colors.
4. 24-30 MP, 4k 120 fps
Thats it, really! 8K, 20 fps, 45 MP is just bragging rights for me 😊
p.6 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
It will be interesting to see how the files compare to Sony aside from all the other bell & whistles Canon is bringing to the R5 & 6
What's interesting is you can convert Canon lenses for use on Sony with an adapter, but I know of no adapter available to convert Sony lenses to Canon.
So if you have two systems canon and sony, your limited to use your sony lenses only on Sony, where as if you have canon lenses, they are more universal for both systems.
Hope that changes in the future, but not really sure that's possible, as I do like my loxia and voigtlander lenses I have for sony .. Certainly would not buy a set if they became available just for canon, thus having two identical lenses for each system. That's crazy.
The only work around at this time would be dump your sony lenses, buy all for canon and use an adapter, but then one has to ask them self will they be fully optimized for the sony.
Having a fully articulating screen is nice, which sony doesn't on the A7rIII & IV
If the A9II had more MP Sony shooters could be completely content with there line up, except for high Iso noise in the A7rIV
p.6 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
IndyFab wrote:
What's interesting is you can convert Canon lenses for use on Sony with an adapter, but I know of no adapter available to convert Sony lenses to Canon.
It's probably not going to happen because the lens register distance of the RF mount is longer than the FE mount by a couple mm, IIRC. My guess is Canon did this intentionally to keep main-brand mirrorless competitor lenses off their cameras. They probably don't fancy seeing their cameras used similarly to how it was so common to see Sony cameras with Canon EF lenses for a while (and even now).
As well, I doubt you'll see RF lenses adapted to Sony due to the nearly identical register distance, which physically makes it difficult to manufacture an adapter. But there's also the matter of reverse engineering the RF protocols; there was speculation they're encrypted. A 3rd party manufacturer might be able to make an RF mount lens but use the EF protocols. Perhaps this is what Samyang has done?
And adapting lenses is always a performance compromise. But if you really wanted to shoot both Sony and Canon mirrorless cameras, the most seamless solution would be to adapt Canon EF lenses to both. On the Canon system they would pretty much work natively (compared to their DSLR capabilities). On Sony it would be more hit or miss.
chez wrote:
But it might be a jack of all trades...master of none.
Which is fine because it's the photographer's job to master the camera and get the most out of it for a given situation.
That said, Steve's summary above is really good. For a 45MP camera, it seems to be the king of the hill in a number of technical considerations for that sensor class. It's funny it's being compared against the a9/a9II when it's clearly not in the same category niche. That will be whatever the mirrorless version of the 1DXIII ends up being.
p.6 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
IndyFab wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the files compare to Sony aside from all the other bell & whistles Canon is bringing to the R5 & 6
What's interesting is you can convert Canon lenses for use on Sony with an adapter, but I know of no adapter available to convert Sony lenses to Canon.
So if you have two systems canon and sony, your limited to use your sony lenses only on Sony, where as if you have canon lenses, they are more universal for both systems.
Hope that changes in the future, but not really sure that's possible, as I do like my loxia and voigtlander lenses I have for sony .. Certainly would not buy a set if they became available just for canon, thus having two identical lenses for each system. That's crazy.
The only work around at this time would be dump your sony lenses, buy all for canon and use an adapter, but then one has to ask them self will they be fully optimized for the sony.
Having a fully articulating screen is nice, which sony doesn't on the A7rIII & IV
If the A9II had more MP Sony shooters could be completely content with there line up, except for high Iso noise in the A7rIV
"If the A9II had more MP Sony shooters could be completely content with there line up, except for high Iso noise in the A7rIV"
I find 24MP to be a sweet spot. You can still print large enough and file handling is great (most people don't have a lot of space to hang up huge prints anyway - in all our weddings we captured, it happened twice, that A7riii MP numbers were required for big prints).
Regarding noise: I don't see a difference to be honest. ISo 6400 is the highest we usually go. All those A7riv images are processed with a bit NR and downsampled to 24MP. Nobody ever saw a difference to the A9/ii files. And I don't see a need for low DR iso 12k-20k. use flash then.
p.6 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
I love how somehow in the past 10 years 10fps just became far too slow.
The 1D series from Canon was THE sports camera for years and years, and topped out at 10fps and was 8fps for many iterations. Many Olympics and major sporting events were shot with those cameras, with award winning photos created. Is 20fps a nice advantage? Sure. But 10fps is plenty to shoot sports with.
I think the important point here is "was"
People made award winning sports images with cameras without AF, too. That, for me at least, isn't an argument in itself.
With this definition almost every MILC with 8fps + is a sports camera.
p.6 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Just thinking aloud here. It's an incredible camera which combines a whole bunch of features. An extremely compelling pro camera. My old wedding and event shooter self is salivating. That said, I left that world 8 years ago.
The pro industry is in real trouble and the current best market at that price is the enthusiast one. Most enthusiasts have a specific genre interest rather than a need to be able to do everything, that's a pro requirement especially in the current pro world where every pro is taking anything they can get to keep afloat.
As such in the current photographic climate, is a camera like this the correct choice for anything but a dwindling pro market? If you are an enthusiast, might it make a whole lot more sense to pick the camera best suited for your needs rather than one which can do all but includes all the compromises inherent to such a design, compromises which genre specific cameras do not have to make and still cost less or have a superior overall system behind them?
However much as a pro I love the canon approach, I think the Sony approach, for all its limitations in comparison (the A7sIII will reduce these significantly), it the correct and cost effective solution for anyone who does not need a 'do it all' camera and these days, that's most of us.
p.6 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Holger wrote:
I think the important point here is "was"
People made award winning sports images with cameras without AF, too. That, for me at least, isn't an argument in itself.
With this definition almost every MILC with 8fps + is a sports camera.
Really really not. A sports camera is one which combines top level AF with a top level buffer [I]and[/I] a top level FPS, not to mention weather sealing, ergonomics, reliability, toughness, battery life, viewfinder blackout, etc. The FPS alone does not make a sports camera and the idea that a sports camera can be defined by it would never be advanced by anyone with any experience of the genre.
p.6 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Beni wrote:
However much as a pro I love the canon approach, I think the Sony approach, for all its limitations in comparison (the A7sIII will reduce these significantly), it the correct and cost effective solution for anyone who does not need a 'do it all' camera and these days, that's most of us.
I'm inclined to agree with you. I'd much rather have a camera that's affordable if that means no 8K (something nobody really needs or asked for, in my opinion) and something like a 36MP resolution. If something like an A7IV offers that 'basic' package for a 2-2.5k price point I think they'll sell more units than an R5 does. While technically an all-rounder like the R5 is desirable, I don't think the consumer enthusiast market really wants to pay 4k for that. I would personally rather get an A7RIV than an all-rounder like the R5.
p.6 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Beni wrote:
Really really not. A sports camera is one which combines top level AF with a top level buffer and a top level FPS, not to mention weather sealing, ergonomics, reliability, toughness, battery life, viewfinder blackout, etc. The FPS alone does not make a pro camera and the idea that a sports camera can be defined by it would never be advanced by anyone with any experience of the genre.
I see it similarly.
p.6 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I have a preorder in for an R5 and yesterday was about 50/50 between keeping or cancelling. After a full day and a sleep on it, I'm probably 90/10 towards cancelling at least till September when the 100-500 is released.
Things that I want from the R5:
1) Better ergonomics IMO than the A9II/A7RIV...more substantial to hold onto, nicer curves, top plate LCD, nicer wheels
2) Better card slots and buffer clearing. Sure the Sony buffers are deeper but I don't need 230 shot buffers no matter what I shoot. What I need is a camera that instantly clears the buffer like my Nikon's do with their XQD cards. I'm fairly certain the R5 will clear its buffer to CFe instantly and the buffer is still deeper than I need (180 mechanical, 83 e-shutter, and even 87 mechanical just to SD)
3) 45 @ 12....I've owned 45 at 10 (D850) and I'm always chasing pixels so 45 @ 12 is really impressive.
4) Bird eye-AF...maybe this is something that will help but the A9 seems to be uncanny in nailing the head area anyways that targeting an eye isn't really that critical...I think that the most useful situation I have for this will be with the larger BIF where near wing focus often ruins shots...those types of birds should be where the eye-AF actually works for BIF (its not going to work on a swallows) and I think it will greatly improve keepers by ignoring the near wing as the bird gets large in frame...I'm thinking herons, eagles and even sometimes ducks but remains to be seen if it works for ducks. The seagull video is impressive but it is a wide-angle lens, it is a black eye on white head and they are hovering more than flying. Although holding the eye on those seagulls with the rapid wing flapping and the jerky movement looked pretty impressive.
Things that have me 90% ready to cancel preorder:
1) Lenses....the only RF lens that makes sense for my type of photography is the 100-500...well that is late September and I have nothing to use till then unless I buy a used 400DOII to adapt. That was my ideal lens on R5 until I read between the lines in some of the press release and it seems to imply that the really fast AF will need the 12-pin connection of the RF glass. So to really get top performance I need to wait at least for the 100-500.
2) Price in Canada is just pushing my limits a little bit once I consider lenses, TCs, grips, batteries, CFe cards etc. If I still had my 400DOII around (that was the last big lens I sold) I'd be much more likely to just get the R5 and try it out with that but I don't really feel like dropping $5500 CAD on a used lens just to see how good it is adapted.
To buy an R5, 100-500, 1.4TC, grip, extra battery and a 128GB CFe card I'm looking at $10,670 CAD And that is just an f/7.1 zoom lens in the end.
3) 45 at 20 even more so but I only need/use 20FPS for fast swallows, kestrels and the occasional other thing I think is going to be a fleeting moment...all of those things are very fast and even if the sensor scan speed is as fast as 1DXIII or even a bit faster, I don't think it will work for the things I actually need 20FPS for.
And of course the last and most important point is I don't see how it will improve my photography over the amazing A9II, 200-600 and 600GM I already own....when it comes down to it, I just want the R5 to test it out...not that it will really do anything for me that I can't already achieve.
p.6 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
arbitrage wrote:
3) 45 at 20 even more so but I only need/use 20FPS for fast swallows, kestrels and the occasional other thing I think is going to be a fleeting moment...all of those things are very fast and even if the sensor scan speed is as fast as 1DXIII or even a bit faster, I don't think it will work for the things I actually need 20FPS for.
The readout speed of the 1DXIII (and probably R6 then) is apparently at 1/60s. I'm not a specialist, but from what I understood, more mpx translates in slower readout speed. It would already be a great achievement to maintain that 1/60s on a 45mpx sensor... I don't really believe it.
p.6 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
For the most part, I'm indifferent. It's nice to see they aimed high, but I won't switch to Canon for it. I don't think it affect me as a Sony user one bit. Whatever Sony HQ has cooked up for the A7SIII (the last thing I want for my kit other than a 300 f4) is already sorted out and unlikely they'll be able to change anything of note. So at the moment I'm just playing a waiting game and trying not to get my hopes or expectations too high.
Looking at the R5 objectively it seems nice enough, but overpriced. IBIS numbers caught my eye, haven't seen any vids yet to see how well it works in practice. Overheating is a shame, but honestly kinda funny considering how much the other side would always point out Sony's trouble in that department. Guess no one can really solve that issue, other than Panasonic (?)
p.6 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
It is the lenses that Canon make for their R mount that is quite attractive (compared to the Sony offerings). The cameras themselves have a lot of catching up to do.
Perhaps, in a few years, canon would develop better sensors and can compete with Sony.
) and I think it will greatly improve keepers by ignoring the near wing as the bird gets large in frame...I'm thinking herons, eagles and even sometimes ducks but remains to be seen if it works for ducks. The seagull video is impressive but it is a wide-angle lens, it is a black eye on white head and they are hovering more than flying. Although holding the eye on those seagulls with the rapid wing flapping and the jerky movement looked pretty impressive.
And that is just an f/7.1 zoom lens in the end.