p.2 #1 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Jman13 wrote:
I just got the R6 in for review, and one thing I will definitely say about these cameras: the IBIS is quite remarkable. We're talking 0.5" shots at 50mm and 85mm that are sharp. On my A7R IV, I'm lucky if I get 1/20s sharp at 85mm. With the RF 35/1.8 and IS in conjunction with the IBIS, I was able to get 2-3 second exposures sharp handheld, and with my RF 24-105mm f/4L, I was able to hand hold at 24mm at FOUR SECONDS.
This is game-changing levels of IS.
So this means, that Canon is accounting for earth's rotation, since this was the limiting factor before (one can estimate it to give 6.3 stops at most, Olympus hinted to that, too). This includes assumptions, but as long as people play to them it is fine.
p.2 #2 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Holger wrote:
So this means, that Canon is accounting for earth's rotation, since this was the limiting factor before (one can estimate it to give 6.3 stops at most, Olympus hinted to that, too). This includes assumptions, but as long as people play to them it is fine.
Sorry if this is a silly question, but why would you have to account for earth rotation if both the target and the camera are subject to it?
p.2 #3 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Not silly at all. It's not due to physical movement between camera and subject, but due to the effect of rotation on the gyroscopic sensors that detect movement relative to the earth.
j4nu wrote:
Sorry if this is a silly question, but why would you have to account for earth rotation if both the object and the camera are subject to it?
p.2 #4 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Jman13 wrote:
Not silly at all. It's not due to physical movement between camera and subject, but due to the effect of rotation on the gyroscopic sensors that detect movement relative to the earth.
Ach, thanks! That makes sense .
I have to say Canon's IBIS is impressive, of course the practical application is limited to mostly static scenes, but still impressive!
p.2 #5 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Full-time professional photographer. I did the switch. With all of these online forums, selling my lenses really isn’t as much of an issue. I primarily switched because while the Sony system has a really nice spec sheet and performance, I found the overall shooting experience not particularly enjoyable. I was basically waiting for Canon (specifically) or Nikon to release a mirrorless camera with dual card slots and the R5 came out and basically fit the bill for the perfect stills camera plus I don’t have to deal with the quite frankly unnecessarily high megapixel count of the Sony for my work.
Reasons the R5 sold me in order of most important to least:
-Better ergonomics for my lanky hands.
-Little more practical megapixel count.
-Full touch screen. Menus. Focus. Everything.
-Menus that don’t make me want to rip my hair out.
-Significantly nicer color rendition.
-Better EVF and significantly better rear LCD.
-The IBIS is wildly good,
-Phenomenal weather sealing.
-Dual Pixel AF is excellent.
I’m overall really happy with the switch. I hope this doesn’t sound silly, but the only way I can think of describing it is that from a UX standpoint, the Sony feels like it was designed by engineers and the Canon feels like it was designed by photographers. The only thing I miss about Sony are the cheaper lenses but as this is my work, it gets written off at tax season anyways. I created some of my nicest images with the Sony and these days, the final image quality is a wash anyways. Pretty much every modern camera is good enough.
p.2 #6 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
I tested out the AF performance on the R6 yesterday, and was extremely impressed. Its tracking and accuracy was a notable step up from my A7R IV, and very close to that of the A9. Sensor is quite nice...beautiful tonal rolloff and good noise control. And the IS continues to impress. I still can't believe at 35mm and wider that 1 second exposures are quite easy to achieve, with 2 seconds and longer doable with a steady hand. Heck, even at longer focal lengths on lens-IS based RF glass (so taking advantage of both IBIS and OIS), I was able to get 105mm shots sharp at 1 second handheld. It also starts up nearly instantly, which is a nice change from the rather sluggish startup of the A7R IV.
I'm extremely impressed with the camera...especially as these are really Canon's second go at FF mirrorless. They went from nonexistent in this space to trading blows with Sony in two years.
p.2 #8 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
lightskyland wrote:
The R6 bakes in noise reduction at low ISOs because the sensor is actually not competitive with Sony.
If I could actually see any degradation due to this, I might care, but I look at the images and evaluate what I see and how the files respond to post processing. In this case what I'm seeing is easily competitive with the A7 III as far as the sensor is concerned, and highlight rolloff is a little more gentle.
p.2 #9 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Jman13 wrote:
If I could actually see any degradation due to this, I might care, but I look at the images and evaluate what I see and how the files respond to post processing. In this case what I'm seeing is easily competitive with the A7 III as far as the sensor is concerned, and highlight rolloff is a little more gentle.
It becomes obvious if pushing shadows. Details get slightly smeared when doing so. Choose the A7riii or iv and see the difference. If in E-shutter things are horrible: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r6-review/6
But NR is subtle overall (it gives Canon a 2/3 ev push according to Bill Claff) and people won't be greatly disturbed. One can of course use the Sony and apply additional NR to level the playing field.
This doesn't say anything about the shooting experience, but is part of the equation, too.
p.2 #10 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Jman13 wrote:
If I could actually see any degradation due to this, I might care, but I look at the images and evaluate what I see and how the files respond to post processing. In this case what I'm seeing is easily competitive with the A7 III as far as the sensor is concerned, and highlight rolloff is a little more gentle.
You have the choice to apply the same amount of NR to Sony files and get less noise, or leave the files alone.
It is always an imaging design flaw to bake in NR in RAW files in the camera, and the only reason Canon is doing this is to cover up the noise their sensor electronics are generating and get better metrics on DR tests.
p.2 #11 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Baked-in noise reduction in a raw file IS image degradation in the strictest of senses, whether or not it is pleasing to the eye. You are left with less raw data than when the image was captured. It’s up to the photographer to decide if they are ok with that.
Oct 06, 2020 at 01:24 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #12 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Screenbyte wrote:
Thanks to everyone for the replies and information.
I shoot and enjoy everything including some sports at a semi-pro level.
I do like new tech and gear and I was wondering if the grass really is greener on the Canon side.
I guess I'm looking for a camera that does it all.
AF is a big deal for me as well as image quality but I appreciate all the comments and posts.
the best af choice is a no-brainer for sports, you want an a9/a9ii, not a7riv or r5/r6, for multiple reasons:
1) canon does not have any stacked sensors, so all canon milc bodies have to use frame duplication in the evf, which means that the picture you see in the evf is behind where the target actually is, making visual tracking more difficult and less accurate.
2) ef-mount lenses do not perform perfectly on canon milc, there are a bunch of canon lenses that can't even keep up with 12fps af-c, if your lens isn't listed on page 896 of the r5 manual it's going to be weak on the r5: https://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/5/0300039495/02/eosr5-ug2-en.pdf
5) r5/r6 do not have bsi sensors, the low iso range d.r. is fake because it's artificially pumped up by noise reduction.
6) canon is currently trying to support four different incompatible lens mounts, plus both dslrs and milc, even a ridiculous $600 speedbooster for the c70, and given all of the above, they clearly do not have the same laser-like focus on milc that sony has demonstrated for years now... sensors are the heart of milc, and sony has over half of the worlds cmos sensor market, so e-mount will continue to see innovations that no other platform has.
7) canon plunging profits and plunging stock prices will limit the available r&d dollars.
if you care about the long-range big picture, sony continues to be the best choice.
p.2 #13 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
osv2 wrote:
2) ef-mount lenses do not perform perfectly on canon milc, there are a bunch of canon lenses that can't even keep up with 12fps af-c, if your lens isn't listed on page 896 of the r5 manual it's going to be weak on the r5: https://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/5/0300039495/02/eosr5-ug2-en.pdf
The brand circle jerk is insane here. I can't believe you actually posted the above. You lament all the EF lenses that can't do the super high speed focusing, and link to a list of over 30 EF lenses from the legacy system that focus perfectly...and then talk up how awesome the list for the A9 is....and that list has fewer lenses, and all are the native mount lenses. Around 25. And the Canon list doesn't include the native RF glass that also meets the criteria.
And their AF motor tech is plenty good enough.
There are legitimate things to criticize on the Canon cameras, and you mention a few. (just like Sony also has plenty to criticize.) But this list has many things that are reaching and are a distortion of reality. It's like people are arguing with spec sheets here rather than tools for an artform.
p.2 #14 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Gunzorro wrote:
Thanks for the videos, Luis!
You have been confirming that Canon R5 may be a good choice for me in situations where I want more "pop" in contrast and color, and don't need 61MP. 40-45MP seems a sweet spot for me, but who can ever have too many MP?
I currently have two a7R2's which are hardly getting any use as I concentrate on the wonderful a7R4 for the bulk of my shooting. But I picked up a Canon R and have been very happy with the results (considering that it is an intro mirrorless FF camera, with only 30MP), and have been hoping for the sort of results I'm seeing here with your use of the R5 compared to the Sony. Eventually, I'm sure to get an R5, and probably rely on that along with the a7R4 for almost all my shooting needs.
So far, I only have the native RF 24-105L IS lens, but all my Canon EF "L" lenses work great on the R body via the EF-RF adapter -- slightly better than on the Sony via MC-11, but that isn't a big issue for the types of shots I usually take. I expect these lenses to work even better on R5 body, and your results seem to indicate a high probability of doing so. It is important to me to continue using my cache of "obsolete" Canon EF lenses, many of which have no equivalents in other brands that I can easily and reliably adapt (Canon TSE vs. Nikon PC-E, for example). ...Show more →
You are welcome.
I am getting an R6 for a second test on October 22nd btw.
As far as more pop, do remember that you can just tune your jpg or raw conversion for the Sony to have more pop if you like. Kind of the opposite I had to do with Canon especially to tame the oversharpening.
In the end, if you found a Camera that works for your needs, then is all smooth sailing from there.
Oct 06, 2020 at 04:24 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #15 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Jman13 wrote:
The brand circle jerk is insane here.
as you've repeatedly demonstrated, lol
Jman13 wrote:
I can't believe you actually posted the above. You lament all the EF lenses that can't do the super high speed focusing, and link to a list of over 30 EF lenses from the legacy system that focus perfectly...
how is being able to do only 12fps qualify as "perfectly"? when compared to the 15-20fps sony link i posted.
Jman13 wrote:
and then talk up how awesome the list for the A9 is....and that list has fewer lenses, and all are the native mount lenses. Around 25. And the Canon list doesn't include the native RF glass that also meets the criteria.
great, you just figured out that canon fails to guarantee rf-mount framerates, while sony does do it with e-mount.
unfortunately you did it at the expense of not understanding the difference between 12fps and 15-20fps, the fact that sigma lenses will do 15fps, etc.
yes, rf-mount has lousy 3rd-party lens support, because rf-mount is closed and proprietary, canon doesn't share it like sony does... it's another huge disadvantage with rf-mount.
Jman13 wrote:
And their AF motor tech is plenty good enough.
it's downright primitive in places, like with the cheap slow stepper motors in the f/11 lenses.
when was the last time that sony used stepper motors? the fe50/1.8 in 2016?
Jman13 wrote:
There are legitimate things to criticize on the Canon cameras. (just like Sony also has plenty to criticize.) But this list is reaching and a distortion of reality. It's like people are arguing with spec sheets here rather than tools for an artform.
no, the o.p. specifically stated: "I shoot and enjoy everything including some sports at a semi-pro level... AF is a big deal for me"
and that's exactly what i addressed... you've clearly never shot sports in your life, and you don't have a clue why those things matter.
p.2 #16 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Wow...just wow. First off, the A7R IV is my primary camera. In no way am I a Canon fanboy. Second...all those that can do 12fps on the Canon can do 20...and the EF glass, which is adapted, that can't do that is almost exclusively older glass. And bringkng up the 600/11? That is in no way intended to be a sports photography lens. It's like complaining that the FE 28/2 isn't on the Canon list (which it's not)....it's not a sports photography lens. It's a cheap lens for consumers to get occasional reach in a light package.
Third, Canon has like 80% of the sports photographer market. Do you really think that the vast majority of sports photographers are just using awful tech for fun?
Ultimately, what matters is whether the system works...and both systems work very well. The R6 gives near A9 level focus performance at nearly half the price. That's a big deal. There are a lot of really nice things that they have done in a short period of time. I have extensive experience with gear from a wide variety of brands, and none of them do everything perfectly, but there is some amazing stuff that each excel at. Sony and Canon have begun to separate themselves from the pack, and to think Canon isn't in that conversation is folly. It also doesn't mean that Sony isn't also leading the pack at the moment to acknowledge where Canon has done wonders.
And you point out the OP requiring AF...as someone who has used the A9, used extensively the A7RIV (the Sony body in question), and now used the R6 (which uses the same AF as the R5), I can say that in actual use, the AF is better on the R5/R6 than on the A7R IV.
Whether the other things like less RF glass and having to adapt lenses matters is worth further discussion, but for sports, the R5 will be a better camera than the A7R IV. Now vs the A9 II, that's a much different discussion. And I'd probably give the edge to the A9 for its faster sensor readout and better EVF responsiveness, and maybe a slight edge in tracking focus, but they're rather close.
p.2 #17 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
If there's one thing I've learned on FM these last couple of months is that it's REALLY difficult (read: impossible) for some of the Sony users here to accept that Canon has made 2 super nice stills shooting cameras.
The criticism is hilarious at times.
Now that I've also had the chance to try an R6 I agree with Jman. The AF really is better than that of the A7R IV and I also feel it's not that far from my A9.
BTW: I ask myself when Sony is finally going to put some decent LCD screens on their cameras? They always look horribly cheap compared to the one on the Canons.
Oct 06, 2020 at 06:27 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #18 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
no, canon doesn't have 80% of the sports photographer market, what a funny claim from someone who doesn't even understand the difference between 12fps and 15-20fps for action shooting.
where do you see canon listing specific rf-mount lenses that can shoot at 20fps af-c? where is the link?
it's a moot point anyway, we all know that r5 20fps is a poor choice for freezing action because of the horrendous rolling shutter, it doesn't belong in the same conversation as a9/a9ii, and by the same token neither does the r6... of course the o.p. didn't ask about the r6...
then there are the r5 overheating problems, with stills and really badly with video... it was never engineered to match the overhyped specs, per lensrentals: "Not one person has tested the heat conductivity of the chassis. (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t conduct heat well.)"
canon needs to learn a lesson in heat design management from the a7siii, to say the least.
i see that you are attempting to make some weird nebulous claims about a9 vs. a9ii, which are way off base, fyi they both have the same sensor and therefore similar af, the readout speeds are identical.
p.2 #19 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
osv2 wrote:
no, canon doesn't have 80% of the sports photographer market, what a funny claim from someone who doesn't even understand the difference between 12fps and 15-20fps for action shooting.
where do you see canon listing specific rf-mount lenses that can shoot at 20fps af-c? where is the link?
it's a moot point anyway, we all know that r5 20fps is a poor choice for freezing action because of the horrendous rolling shutter, it doesn't belong in the same conversation as a9/a9ii, and by the same token neither does the r6... of course the o.p. didn't ask about the r6...
then there are the r5 overheating problems, with stills and really badly with video... it was never engineered to match the overhyped specs, per lensrentals: "Not one person has tested the heat conductivity of the chassis. (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t conduct heat well.)"
canon needs to learn a lesson in heat design management from the a7siii, to say the least.
i see that you are attempting to make some weird nebulous claims about a9 vs. a9ii, which are way off base, fyi they both have the same sensor and therefore similar af, the readout speeds are identical.
If they both have the same sensor, where did the A9II come up with its extra 1/2 stop of DR at ISO 100?...If they are the same sensor as you are claiming then I guess Sony must have taken a page from Canon's book before Canon even published the book and threw in some of that sneaky low-ISO NR to boost DR scores.
Oct 06, 2020 at 07:08 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #20 · Any A7RIV users tried or brought the Canon R5
Jochenb wrote:
If there's one thing I've learned on FM these last couple of months is that it's REALLY difficult (read: impossible) for some of the Sony users here to accept that Canon has made 2 super nice stills shooting cameras.
The criticism is hilarious at times.
i posted a list of facts that are backed up with links, directly relevant to the sports shooting/af scenario that the o.p. asked about.
not sure why some people who bought canon are having problems dealing with actual facts? perhaps it's because they are looking for positive reinforcement to justify the huge financial expenditures that they just made ;-)
-Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs or hypotheses.
-Confirmation bias happens when a person gives more weight to evidence that confirms their beliefs and undervalues evidence that could disprove it.
-People display this bias when they gather or recall information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
.