p.70 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
Are you the founding member of the Ken Rockwell club? I don't think anyone is jealous.
I think a good number of photographers who criticize Rockwell are jealous. That, or just don't like what he said. But corralling your reply into the context of what I was talking about, if someone would knock why someone paying money would watch Rockwell's recent R5 review, yes, I think the vapor of jealously may be lingering in the air.
Aside from his opinion, he covers a lot of the features and controls of the camera.
p.70 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
Still keeping a keen eye on the Canon board for sample images, and still not impressed by the output so far in general. I see nothing from an IQ perspective that tells me that their sensor is on par with Sony. In general, the noise reduction seems noticeable in the majority of images, but you never know how people are processing their images.
Holding out hope that someone with an R5 and 100-500 who knows how to use the damn thing will show it off up to what we're all expecting from that combo.
Most of us are working with adapted lenses and processing through dpp or preliminary camera RAW. The images are coming out “cooked” in dpp and I’m finding that the images need very little PP unlike my Sony photos.
p.70 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
armd wrote:
Most of us are working with adapted lenses and processing through dpp or preliminary camera RAW. The images are coming out “cooked” in dpp and I’m finding that the images need very little PP unlike my Sony photos.
Considering the value proposition of the Canon ecosystem is basically perfect backwards compatibility, the fact that many R5 users are using EF glass should in no way excuse the output of the camera. There is plenty of fine EF glass that can even outpace Sony native glass.
I've read that LR processing and the lack of a Canon profile in LR is leading to "overcooked" CR3 files right off the bat and that DPP is giving the best results. I'm just speaking as a casual observer here...after all, this is the "sony shooters' opinons thread"...but nothing in the R5 thread is showing me that the camera is worth the asking price for stills compared to the VERY crowded market of extremely capable stills competitors.
p.70 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I think the more likely reason is that for years he has interspersed click bait and reviews of items he's never touched with his actual legitimate reviews. He also tends to dismiss any actual differences between lenses and regularly speaks in absolutes when things are anything but. As such, I take all of his reviews with a heavy dose of salt. There's always a bit of good information in there, but you have to watch for his hyperbole and extrapolation from incomplete data. As such, I can't ever use him as a trusted source, but rather a small data point among many.
I think ascribing negative opinions of him to jealousy are misguided and show a lack of respect to the photographers on this site, who are generally very experienced and knowledgeable, and as such have encountered enough of Ken's less trustworthy articles to be rather skeptical.
mdvaden wrote:
I think a good number of photographers who criticize Rockwell are jealous. That, or just don't like what he said. But corralling your reply into the context of what I was talking about, if someone would knock why someone paying money would watch Rockwell's recent R5 review, yes, I think the vapor of jealously may be lingering in the air.
Aside from his opinion, he covers a lot of the features and controls of the camera.
p.70 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
mdvaden wrote:
I think a good number of photographers who criticize Rockwell are jealous. That, or just don't like what he said. But corralling your reply into the context of what I was talking about, if someone would knock why someone paying money would watch Rockwell's recent R5 review, yes, I think the vapor of jealously may be lingering in the air.
Aside from his opinion, he covers a lot of the features and controls of the camera.
I think you should look up the definition of jealousy first. Makes no sense in this context.
p.70 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
j4nu wrote:
Some CR3s comparing R5, R6, 5DIV and 1DXIII noise across various ISOs:
ttps://petapixel.com/2020/08/29/iso-testing-the-canon-r5-r6-5d-mark-iv-and-1d-x-mark-iii/
I don’t know what this test should tell me. I can’t take any inside from a test where the cameras are set to AV, the shutter speeds varied by a factor 2 to 3 and consequently equalizing illumination in ACR using the ominous Auto function with its rising / lowering highlights / shadows.
p.70 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
BokehBeauty wrote:
I don’t know what this test should tell me. I can’t take any inside from a test where the cameras are set to AV, the shutter speeds varied by a factor 2 to 3 and consequently equalizing illumination in ACR using the ominous Auto function with its rising / lowering highlights / shadows.
That the cameras measure differently ... but yes, I agree it throws the results off and the author mentions it.
p.70 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Holger wrote:
I think you should look up the definition of jealousy first. Makes no sense in this context.
Sure it does.
And in this case, seeing Rockwell's video covers a lot of ground with rather clear video.
So when someone says they don't know why anybody would watch it .. people with money .. that denotes or implies something is being concealed about their character separate from the video itself. And in my adult years from 1980 up to now, I've seen jealousy manifest itself in similar type of criticism. Even heard speakers teach about how it's manifested. And there's a couple forms. Jealousy of what others have, and jealousy of other's success. And jealous people manifest their hidden mindset by "knocking down" other's work or by steering others away from it. A video or piece of work does not define the jealousy. How others react to something tends to manifest it.
p.70 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
mdvaden wrote:
Sure it does.
And in this case, seeing Rockwell's video covers a lot of ground with rather clear video.
So when someone says they don't know why anybody would watch it .. people with money .. that denotes or implies something is being concealed about their character separate from the video itself. And in my adult years from 1980 up to now, I've seen jealousy manifest itself in similar type of criticism. Even heard speakers teach about how it's manifested. And there's a couple forms. Jealousy of what others have, and jealousy of other's success. And jealous people manifest their hidden mindset by "knocking down" other's work or by steering others away from it. A video or piece of work does not define the jealousy. How others react to something tends to manifest it.
p.70 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
Considering the value proposition of the Canon ecosystem is basically perfect backwards compatibility, the fact that many R5 users are using EF glass should in no way excuse the output of the camera. There is plenty of fine EF glass that can even outpace Sony native glass.
I've read that LR processing and the lack of a Canon profile in LR is leading to "overcooked" CR3 files right off the bat and that DPP is giving the best results. I'm just speaking as a casual observer here...after all, this is the "sony shooters' opinons thread"...but nothing in the R5 thread is showing me that the camera is worth the asking price for stills compared to the VERY crowded market of extremely capable stills competitors....Show more →
Backwards compatibility does not necessarily equate with optimal results. Yes, we can agree that is a selling point of the R5 though when one compares what is offered in the marketplace I don't see many Sony users (myself included) using adapted lenses. When I did, it usually resulted in sub-optimal output. So, far, my adapted Canon glass seems to be functioning very well with the R5 though if some people utilize older glass with poor IQ characteristics, they are likely to be disappointed.
In general, the Sony E lenses are of extremely high quality, though some are being eclipsed by Sigma. Even the lowly 200-600 is an incredibly sharp lens with many great characteristics. Once Canon produces some high quality RF glass, perhaps we'll have a better gauge of the their system and can have a better comparison.
Likewise, I am waiting until the SDK has been worked out for this camera. The current DPP profile seems to make the images appear as fully processed, OOC .jpg's and I haven't had the opportunity to go through the program and see if one can minimize the pre-processing. Moreover, until a legitimate profile is created for LR and other programs, I'll have to reserve my impressions.
Apart from the a9 (which I own), there isn't another MILC which performs as well with respect to AF, tracking, and performance.
p.70 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
The R5 may indeed have the 2nd best AF in the mirrorless market, but if output still looks mediocre, it’s a moot point. So far, I’m not seeing A9 level results in the Canon forum to prove the claims about the R5 performance.
p.70 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
The R5 may indeed have the 2nd best AF in the mirrorless market, but if output still looks mediocre, it’s a moot point. So far, I’m not seeing A9 level results in the Canon forum to prove the claims about the R5 performance.
I don't quite get what you mean with mediocre output from the R5, and with A9 levels. I see a lot of different output from both cameras, and after a quick update in the FE images thread, I was actually disappointed with the technical quality of some of the recent A9 images. They were simply not sharp, for various reasons.
To the degree that it is possible to say anything at all about the camera's role in image quality from web posted images, we at least need to wait until the market saturation, experience and post processing tools are more mature.
Interesting bit:
But when comparing the RAW files of the Canon R5 and Canon R6 to the new CRAW (Compact RAW) files, I could not see a difference in the image quality. even when zooming at 500%! All I saw was equivalent image quality but half the file size to download and store. And keep in mind that both the RAW files and CRAW files are the same resolution (8192×5464 on the R5 and 5472×3648 on the R6)
I wonder if it's like Sony compressed RAW, where you see the differences only in specific settings (like high contrast dark/bright transitions)...
p.70 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
armd wrote:
I do have problems with China which are not evident in Japan, Taiwan, etc. Apart from quality, intellectual property issues, my biggest beef is their record on human rights. The imprisonment of over a million Ugyars, forced labor camps, slave labor working conditions, lack of freedoms, etc. are just a few of my concerns.
There's also the forced abortions and killing of Uyghur newborns, sterilization, and organ farming / organ harvesting of religious dissidents.
p.70 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
The R5 may indeed have the 2nd best AF in the mirrorless market, but if output still looks mediocre, it’s a moot point. So far, I’m not seeing A9 level results in the Canon forum to prove the claims about the R5 performance.
.
... but yes, I agree it throws the results off and the author mentions it.