p.71 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Holger wrote:
No offense, but I consider that nonsense.
In the 1980s, we had a golf course superintendent who told us he could "smell diseases" in the air. We considered it nonsense. 10 years later with 10 more years experience, we understood.
I've also told people about sunburn to tree trunks. Some considered that nonsense since they can't see or it doesn't make sense to them.
So no offense.
Meanwhile .. another video specific to Sony user and the Canon EOS R5
p.71 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
So confusing.
But I will say, Rockwell is a blowhard. When I would read his drivel, he even states his reviews are for entertainment purposes. As such, I do not find him entertaining, nor do I find him worth listening to as he does not feel the need to be factual. And he has the gall to ask for money and paywall his entertainment.
mdvaden wrote:
In the 1980s, we had a golf course superintendent who told us he could "smell diseases" in the air. We considered it nonsense. 10 years later with 10 more years experience, we understood.
I've also told people about sunburn to tree trunks. Some considered that nonsense since they can't see or it doesn't make sense to them.
So no offense.
Meanwhile .. another video specific to Sony user and the Canon EOS R5
p.71 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
The top image has more of what I’d call the Canon color in the skin, and the reds in the 2nd seem to have that Sony heavy handedness...but obviously both are very close and anyone would be happy with either image for output.
p.71 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
shadow9d9 wrote:
Lens selection for sony is awesome. Lens selection for canon is a stingy and greedy closed mount affair, with a correspondingly limited selection.
Closed? As in Canon didn't release the mount formula......but Samyang, Rokinon, Venus, TT Artisans all have RF mount lenses out there.Sigma has stated RF lenses are on the way.
p.71 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Not many household names in off-brand lenses they can use, but most will be happy. Lens ring fencing is a time-honoured tradition at Canon, and the brand is synonymous with autofocus cameras/zooms for pros, plus super telephotos.
The two sites I checked had five RF prime lenses in regular focal lengths - B&H lists a cheap 35mm, a f1.2 50mm and three 85mm lenses - a macro, an f1.2 job and something referred to as 'DS'. I didn't find anything else other than bird lenses and a bunch of zooms. Maybe I missed the rest of the range.
After a desultory unsuccessful search for 'RF manual focus lenses' and in light of the FFD of 20mm, what modern Loxia-Voigtlander tier prime optics can they use? Sony users have around 15-20 of these to choose from, three are APO, almost all are excellent and Fred has found that many Cosina M lenses work very well on our Sonys.
It would rule the Canons out for more than a few here in the Sony forum. They (Canon) have a hard row to hoe, methinks, to get anywhere near what Sony enthusiasts now take for granted.
p.71 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
There is a big difference between dumb lenses with no camera to lens communication. Manual focus lenses that exchange some information, and fully functional AF lenses. Canon's closed mount policy makes the last category a difficult job for third party manufacturers. Consequently there is a paucity of these lenses in comparison to Sony's open mount third party lenses.
p.71 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Just for entertainment I tried a quick edit of a similar image from the Canon R5 and A7R IV here...
Nice photos!
Thank you for doing this, I also downloaded the raws from your previous video comparison and was playing with them.
Are those edited in capture one from scratch?
They look indeed very similar, I can’t say which one I like better or which one I think belongs to which camera.
The one on top has a bit of green in the shadows, and the one in the bottom a bit of magenta, so I would say that top is Sony and bottom is Canon. However, the one on top has a bit cooler reds (more Canon) where in the bottom one the reds are a touch warmer (more Sony) so I am confused. Then the highlight rolloff seems just a tad better in the bottom, so the bottom is Canon?
Anyways, in these controlled light conditions is where every camera shines and it’s easy to make them look indistinguishable.
Do you have any samples indoors in warm light, or outdoors at night? Or also people with other skin colors?
I’ve been analyzing some raws from imaging-resource trying to calibrate both cameras to see differences in CFA compared to previous models.
For the a7r4, I can see how the global accuracy in the profile is better than with my a73, specially the light skin patch which is spot on for D50 Illuminat, whereas the a73 is much cooler than it should (with the best compromise matrix and lut set by default in the program).
For the R5 and R6, their CFA is much more neutral than previous Canon cameras. In previous Canon, the light patch was much warmer than it should (not accurate, but most people use to like it). The R5 is the best camera I have run in Lumariver for color reproduction, but however, if only looking at skin tones, the eos R for example can handle a more accurate profile in lumariver (when losing a bit of accuracy in other colors), which leads me to think that the CFA in the R is more robust for keeping nice skin tones with WB adjustments.
But yes, the light skin patch in D50 in both cameras is pretty good, but the dark skin patch is still quite bad for the Sony (too bright and desaturated, and towards warm), whereas it remains better in the canons.
It’s interesting how Sony is changing its CFA more towards Canon, and Canon is changing it more towards Sony...
I’m liking the jpgs out of the camera I am seeing from the R5 and R6, but so far with the available Lightroom profiles I see this magenta cast in the shadows that I don’t like, and also Lightroom lacking the camera matching profiles, it’s not a good thing. With the Sony, the camera matching profiles are still quite bad and green (I had a look at your samples as well there). I am not a fan of adobe profiles either... and for capture one, there is something in the rendering that I don’t fully like...
p.71 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
TheEmrys wrote:
So confusing.
But I will say, Rockwell is a blowhard. When I would read his drivel, he even states his reviews are for entertainment purposes. As such, I do not find him entertaining, nor do I find him worth listening to as he does not feel the need to be factual. And he has the gall to ask for money and paywall his entertainment.
Confusing?
Actually, this thread is almost like "Perry Mason" .. just put review videows or posters on the witness stand to find the truth. Look at and review evidence, ask questions, and ascertain.
1. Near 00:05 is it the truth f/1.0 or lenses back to 1987 can adapt? Is the 1.0 lens shown for evidence confusing? Based on the video, is Rockwell lying? if not ,,, it begs asking and scrutinizing others.
2. Near 1:55 is what Rockwell said about megapixels per second a fact, or something others want to go on the record disputing? Was that facet unique to his video or covered by most other reviewers?
3. Near 5:10 is the "Q" button as described on the body he held? That's the first reviewer I saw get into that detail. Is that confusing, or as simple as holding and looking?
4. Near 6:10 is Rockwell showing a voice recording option not explained in most other Youtube reviews. Is Rockwell fabricating a lie there, or specifying fact?
.......
We could put Rockwell's video ... or people posting about him .. on the "witness stand" and go minute by minute and ask who's showing information and who's just making up stuff. But no need to write it all down. People can watch and research themselves. At least Rockwell is on the record. Others just need to point out which feature doesn't match up to the camera manual, etc..
...
...
... GabrielPhoto wrote:
Just for entertainment I tried a quick edit of a similar image from the Canon R5 and A7R IV here...
Maybe you could add a few notes about what was done to each one.
The hair is different color compared to skin in both. But the images don't tell whether a global adjust was done to image color and white balance or selective areas. Although, that fact wouldn't change the meaning of the comparison much. There's pleny of similarity, especially with that small of a sample.
Were the steps done to one image, done to the other image to the same degree?
p.71 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
This is one of the weirdest threads I've seen. After migrating to Sony out of frustration with Canon's ways of doing things, the same people are now hellbent to give Canon one more try. Reminds me of the "hold my camel" joke.
p.71 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
The top image has more of what I’d call the Canon color in the skin, and the reds in the 2nd seem to have that Sony heavy handedness...but obviously both are very close and anyone would be happy with either image for output.
...