p.7 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I get your point, but I don't think the comparison is valid, as before AF there really weren't cameras that were truly marketed as sports cameras. The 1D IV was the absolutely pinnacle sports camera as recently as summer 2011...this is not that long ago....and the R5 is better for action shooting in literally every single way. Better AF, deeper buffer, better sensor, faster burst rate.
Heck, it matches or exceeds essentially everything on the 1D-X, which was the top sports camera until 2016! To say that the R5 is not a viable sports camera is just absurd to me.
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.
p.7 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Ayoul wrote:
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.
The electronic shutter seems to have same quirks as the one in 1XIII; for example the specs in Canon site confirm max shutter time with electronic shutter is 0.5 secs, just like the 1DXIII. The DR drop of using electronic shutter in 1DXIII is rather huge too; I'd expect to see something similar in R5. And yes, getting same readout speed with 2x mpix as in 1DXIII is unlikely
p.7 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
I get your point, but I don't think the comparison is valid, as before AF there really weren't cameras that were truly marketed as sports cameras. The 1D IV was the absolutely pinnacle sports camera as recently as summer 2011...this is not that long ago....and the R5 is better for action shooting in literally every single way. Better AF, deeper buffer, better sensor, faster burst rate.
Heck, it matches or exceeds essentially everything on the 1D-X, which was the top sports camera until 2016! To say that the R5 is not a viable sports camera is just absurd to me.
p.7 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
tn1krr wrote:
The electronic shutter seems to have same quirks as the one in 1XIII; for example the specs in Canon site confirm max shutter time with electronic shutter is 0.5 secs, just like the 1DXIII. The DR drop of using electronic shutter in 1DXIII is rather huge too; I'd expect to see something similar in R5. And yes, getting same readout speed with 2x mpix as in 1DXIII is unlikely
p.7 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Fred Miranda wrote: chiron wrote:
The new Canon bodies offers almost 3 extra stops of compensation. How did they do that?
By specifically designing lenses with larger image circles; a larger lens mount; and from a patent I recall seeing, they are using a slightly different technology than others...
p.7 #7 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
realVivek wrote:
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.
The 1DXIII already matches and somewhat bests the A9II sensor. The R6 has this same sensor. The R5 sensor is yet to be seen with DR but Canon claims it is 1-stop better than EOS R. Here are two graphs...one comparing 1DXIII (R6 proxy) vs A9II and the other showing EOS R vs A7RIII and A7RIV...if the EOS R5 is 1 EV higher then I don't think we need to be waiting years for Canon...they are already there.
p.7 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
frezeiss wrote:
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
Could you detail how you'd take a 20K hit selling your e mount lenses and buying similar Canon mounts?
p.7 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
If the R5 had their DGO in it, I would just straight up swap for video usage. I'm hoping the A7S3 will have dual native ISO like the BMPCC4/6K with maybe 6k uncapped recording. RAW would be great, but I'd be alright with 10bit HVEC. This would re-establish the S series as the king of low light, something the R5 cannot touch if they do even with 8k downsampled.
On the stills side if it had 24MP I'd be satisfied as well. Low light performance was always more important to me above anything else.
p.7 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Bob_S wrote:
Could you detail how you'd take a 20K hit selling your e mount lenses and buying similar Canon mounts?
Are you assuming you'd sell your E mounts for $0?
In Germany:
Buy 2x R5 + 15-35 + 50/1.2 + 85/1.2 + 2x 35 1/.4 + 2x Adapter + 4x battery + 4x cfexpress + 2x flash (if Godox, then some of yours can serve as backlight)
21700 Euros:
Sell A7r3, A9, 18mm Batis, 24gm or Batis, 50/1.4, 85 GM and 2x 35/1.4
8600 Euros
Quite a difference!
What do I get? Nothing of importance to me. I don't do video. I don't care about 8k (which seems to overheat), I don't care about the articulating screen.
The e-shutter seems to take a big hit in DR if it behaves similar to the 1dxiii performance, I don't have a stacked sensor to shoot silently whenever I want in a church etc.
So no, for non-hybrids like me not interesting.
p.7 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
arbitrage wrote:
The 1DXIII already matches and somewhat bests the A9II sensor. The R6 has this same sensor. The R5 sensor is yet to be seen with DR but Canon claims it is 1-stop better than EOS R. Here are two graphs...one comparing 1DXIII (R6 proxy) vs A9II and the other showing EOS R vs A7RIII and A7RIV...if the EOS R5 is 1 EV higher then I don't think we need to be waiting years for Canon...they are already there.
We need to be careful here:
1) There is a sometimes big difference when using mechanical and E-shutter. Just look at A9 vs. A9(es) and 1dxiii vs. 1dxiii(es)
2) The A9ii wasn't measured in mechanical shutter mode as far as I know (need to look that up again, but I think I read it), so curves should even be minimally higher, similarly to A9 vs. A9ev
3) The stacked sensor causes a low-iso penalty in read noise This was improved clearly form A9 to A9ii, but is design specific.
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
arbitrage wrote:
The 1DXIII already matches and somewhat bests the A9II sensor. The R6 has this same sensor. The R5 sensor is yet to be seen with DR but Canon claims it is 1-stop better than EOS R. Here are two graphs...one comparing 1DXIII (R6 proxy) vs A9II and the other showing EOS R vs A7RIII and A7RIV...if the EOS R5 is 1 EV higher then I don't think we need to be waiting years for Canon...they are already there.
Keep in mind that graph for the 1DX III DR is for the mechanical shutter. In electronic shutter mode the 1DX III (and presumably the R6) takes a big hit in low ISO DR. In fact, in electronic mode across the whole ISO range the 1DX III never exceeds the A9 II. Further from ISO 640 and higher the A9 II has higher DR at every ISO than the 1DX III in mechanical shutter or electronic shutter, and these aren't sensor with top low ISO performance and really make a lot more sense when you need higher ISOs. So, IMO, for what these cameras are built for (i.e., speed and high ISO shooting) the A9 II sensor clearly is stronger especially when using a silent shutter, not to mention that the fast sensor scan (i.e., read out) of the A9 II is going to facilitate better AF and a better view finder experience. Here is the graph you posted with the 1 DX III in electronic shutter mode included:
With regard to the Canon claim that R5 having 1 stop better DR than the Canon R, we will have to wait to see if that claim holds up -- such claims when cameras come out often don't. Further if the claims does hold up will the improvement only be at base ISO where the Canon R is relatively challenged. Even if the Canon R5 get a full stop DR improvement at base ISO, it still won't be ahead of the Sony's and especially the A7r III will have better performance at higher ISOs. So, such an improvement would be more about Canon coming very close to catching up with the Sony sensors, but not surpassing them in any way.
Edit: the link from photons to photos is broken so a screen shot of the graph is posted below and it looks like Holger and I were responding along similar lines at the same time.
p.7 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Holger wrote:
We need to be careful here:
1) There is a sometimes big difference when using mechanical and E-shutter. Just look at A9 vs. A9(es) and 1dxiii vs. 1dxiii(es)
2) The A9ii wasn't measured in mechanical shutter mode as far as I know (need to look that up again, but I think I read it), so curves should even be minimally higher, similarly to A9 vs. A9ev
3) The stacked sensor causes a low-iso penalty in read noise This was improved clearly form A9 to A9ii, but is design specific.
With A9II too there is practically no difference between mechanical, EFCS & electric shutter, see Jim Kasson's EDR tests linked below. For some reason the 1DXIII the difference in the 1DXIII is pretty big; manual confirms that electronic shutter is always 12 bit only whereas with Sony you have access to 14 bit (and "13 bit" in case of compressed RAW) mode
p.7 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
tn1krr wrote:
With A9II too there is practically no difference between mechanical, EFCS & electric shutter, see Jim Kasson's EDR tests linked below. For some reason the 1DXIII the difference in the 1DXIII is pretty big; manual confirms that electronic shutter is always 12 bit only whereas with Sony you have access to 14 bit (and "13 bit" in case of compressed RAW) mode
https://blog.kasson.com/a9ii/a9ii-edr/
Good link. Confirms the B. Claff measurements of the A9 in that there is a small difference, but not significant enough for real life.
p.7 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
rscheffler wrote:
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.
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....Show more →
All the more reason to keep your Canon non RF lenses to use on Sony at this time.
p.7 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Holger wrote:
"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. ...Show more →
After viewing your Instagram page, I can understand and appreciate your statement from the world and type of shooting you do . BTW.... nice shooting and processed images !!
However I believe many sports and wildlife shooters would appreciate more MP than the A9 & II provide for more headroom to crop in post.like the A7rIV provides. Both Landscape & Sport & WL shooters would appreciate less high iso noise when using the A7rIV. They are not always using flash like wedding and portrait shooters use.
