p.60 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
Looking at the RAWs there, the R5 looks to have lower noise than the A7R IV at similar ISOs, but I also don't like judging with DNGs, as there can be some minor things introduced in the DNG conversion. Still, the R5 files look great. (The A7R IV files also look great).
One could wait for RAW like one replied following, but others can make a fair assessment using DNG without running circles like dogs after tails. Reason .. whatever DNG looks like, RAW should be equal or better. Between examples the past few days and past few weeks. ample has been shown.
p.60 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
mdvaden wrote:
One could wait for RAW like one replied following, but others can make a fair assessment using DNG without running circles like dogs after tails. Reason .. whatever DNG looks like, RAW should be equal or better. Between examples the past few days and past few weeks. ample has been shown.
Unlike some posters, I prefer to compare apples to apples instead of shilling for companies because I happen to have a lot of money tied up in a system. Just a personal preference.
And yes, we have LOTS of anecdotal preliminary evidence about exactly what the R5 is
p.60 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Downloaded 5 of DPR's sample CR3 images from pre-release. It's always interesting to compare how LR's highlight sliders works with Sony and Canon files. You can make a dark CR3 almost black with a -100 highlights. Sometimes on Sony the file barely budges.
As expected the shadow recovery is rough on CR3s, much more so than on Sony. Tons of very digital noise pops up very quickly in the higher ISO range. This is "only" ISO 3200, the noise looks like snowfall where this would be quite workable on Sony.
p.60 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
Unlike some posters, I prefer to compare apples to apples instead of shilling for companies because I happen to have a lot of money tied up in a system. Just a personal preference.
And yes, we have LOTS of anecdotal preliminary evidence about exactly what the R5 is
You may have more tied up in posts and running around in circles than even in gear. We have anecdotal evidence !! As for RAW ... a good photographer wouldn't need to see a single RAW file from an R5 to realize they could buy one and produce some stellar images. They could get one the day of release, and proceed with success.
For photographers with more doubts about their gear, or certain camera's files, maybe this LINK will add some confidence.
p.60 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
This one is even stranger...ISO 6400, wide open at 1.8, and a 13 second exposure, and it barely managed to capture any detail of the trees even with shadows at +100. You can tell that there's just not much data underneath those shadows.
This is why you bracket, obviously, but I've been spoiled by not having to do that much on Sony.
p.60 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
ISO 3200, horizontal banding in the shadows starts at less than +3 exposure...previously we thought the banding was relegated to higher ISOs. Unclear if elec. shutter was used in this image or not, but still highly disappointing.
p.60 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
To be fair, these appear to be taken in a place with essentially zero ambient light.
I'm comparing against similar images I've taken, and am not coming close to replicating the issue with Sony files. To be fair, I don't take 13 second exposures at high ISO often.
p.60 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Lesson learned: don't share DNG files as apparently they are worse than JPEGs .
As for apples to apples comparison, I'll have to wait until somebody compares photos taken in the same spot, as I'm unfortunately not experienced enough to guess how whould A7RIV noise look like under these conditions (but indeed the noise on the trees looks rather bad on R5) ...
p.60 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Lesson learned.
Don't take a Canon R5 out to the Pacific Northwest Mountains on a dark night, and attempt to take underexposed images of forests.
You will get really bad images.
Take your Sony a7RIV instead
You might get slightly better, really bad images.
I will wait for a more direct comparison before drawing my conclusions.
Even if the Sony does prove to have higher function dynamic range, and lower noise, I don't expect it will cause much concern in the Canon camp. They are used to it after years of trailing in this department. They will continue to say that good exposure techniques, and in extreme situations exposure blending, more than compensates for these disparities. Yes, they are correct in that, but better to not have to do it.
p.60 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
If you aren't concerned about horizontal banding at ISO 3200...I dunno what to say. Anyone that shoots in the dark or needs to underexpose on purpose probably cares.
p.60 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I am concerned, it's just that I don't know how the same photo would look on my "old" A7III for example...
I've been trying out some night sky photography two weeks ago, but I was not even close to a place so dark as the one on these photos.
I also think that after seeing the photons to photos site sensor comparison, people expected R5 sensor to be slightly worse than Sony (especially considering the baked in noise reduction at low ISOs), the question was how noticeable the gap is in actual photos...
R5 will continue to tempt me, as I'd like to try out Canon's eyeAF implementation (and check their AF in general) together with RF 50 f1.2, but for now I've fallen in love again with my ZA 50 f1.4 (turns out the woods soften summer sunlight very nicely ), though I'd appreciate if I could do without its quirky AF . Peace out .
p.60 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
If you aren't concerned about horizontal banding at ISO 3200...I dunno what to say. Anyone that shoots in the dark or needs to underexpose on purpose probably cares.
Of course I am concerned about banding. Frankly, I have never experienced it in my Sony files. I try to expose so I don't have to push the shadows that hard. As my post says, I don't know at what point this happens in either system. I want to see a more structured comparison before making such a call.
If the Canon does show banding when bringing up shadows in the range I operate in, I would reject the camera on that basis alone.
Are you aserting that the banding takes place at ISO 3200 no matter the exposure? Or at ISO 3200 and the exposure needs to be lifted by 3+ stops?
I really do appreciate the high DR of the Sony sensors, and like you am not inclined to give that up. Certainly not for short bursts of 8K video recording, and a hand warmer, if that is your point.
p.60 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
As I said, you have to raise the exposure to see the banding at ISO 3200, however in other higher ISO samples the banding was visible without adjusting the exposure (6400 and up).
There was speculation that it was a variety of factors that may have caused this in the DPR samples, and as of yet, we don't have many other CR3s to look at.
p.60 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
1bwana1 wrote:
Lesson learned.
Don't take a Canon R5 out to the Pacific Northwest Mountains on a dark night, and attempt to take underexposed images of forests.
You will get really bad images.
Take your Sony a7RIV instead
You might get slightly better, really bad images.
I will wait for a more direct comparison before drawing my conclusions.
Even if the Sony does prove to have higher function dynamic range, and lower noise, I don't expect it will cause much concern in the Canon camp. They are used to it after years of trailing in this department. They will continue to say that good exposure techniques, and in extreme situations exposure blending, more than compensates for these disparities. Yes, they are correct in that, but better to not have to do it....Show more →
Actually shooting in the rainforest can be very challenging, especially when some bright sunlight makes its way into your scenes. I quite often under expose my images in such cases to ensure the light parts don't become blown out and then lift the shadows a few stops. This is fairly common practice in rain forests.
p.60 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I believe we need to be happy for our Canon counterparts. The R5 is definitely the best camera that Canon has produced for quite sometime. It is very well received and for sure, it has stopped the exodus of users to go to Sony or Fuji or even Nikon. As matter of fact, some ex-Canon users have either switched back or are seriously considering of switching back to Canon. And that’s fine.
Why are we concerned about how well the R5 performs or on the other hand how “happy” we are when reviewers find faults of the camera? Are we that unsecured about our own gear? Peace!
p.60 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
AGeoJO wrote:
I believe we need to be happy for our Canon counterparts. The R5 is definitely the best camera that Canon has produced for quite sometime. It is very well received and for sure, it has stopped the exodus of users to go to Sony or Fuji or even Nikon. As matter of fact, some ex-Canon users have either switched back or are seriously considering of switching back to Canon. And that’s fine.
Why are we concerned about how well the R5 performs or on the other hand how “happy” we are when reviewers find faults of the camera? Are we that unsecured about our own gear? Peace!...Show more →
p.60 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
chez wrote:
Actually shooting in the rainforest can be very challenging, especially when some bright sunlight makes its way into your scenes. I quite often under expose my images in such cases to ensure the light parts don't become blown out and then lift the shadows a few stops. This is fairly common practice in rain forests.
I underexpose 80% of the time. The 5D mk ii worked so-so. 5DS good. EOS better.. R5 will be better, but anything past the 5DS and 5DsR got the job done fine. Having tried the Sony A7R iii I didn't find it of much extra help, even if it's better on paper. So Sony or Canon have something ample for my needs, going back several years. Makes buying all that much easier now.
But there's a lot of rainforest a 20 oz. coffee's drive to our west.
.
), though I'd appreciate if I could do without its quirky AF 
.
