p.9 #1 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
bernardl wrote:
Extracting stills from video works if the video settings are set to still shutter speed but video codecs manage to reduce bandwidth by doing time compression, which means that the image quality is compromised. There is no magic.
Which is why raw internal video recording has enabled video as a viable alternate to using stills. It uses intraframe-only compression, the same as stills.
p.9 #3 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
docusync wrote:
Let's see...
20 fps vs 30 fps raw
JPEG pre-capture vs usable raw pre-capture
6 stops vs 8.5 stops IBIS
2Mpx viewfinder vs 5Mpx HDR eye-controlled viewfinder
no mechanical shutter vs mechanical shutter for tough lighting situations
the worst AF among the big 3 vs class leading AF
910g vs 670g
$3999 vs $4299 intro price
Yeah, right, all this Canon's cr@p is not worth extra $300 /s
? U can’t compare intro price since they are released in diffferent times….
Other than that the adv for r5ii looks solid.
The major adv for z8
1 lcd tilt both ways, I like that a lot of my Sony a7r5.
2 read out speed is faster for z8. This at the end if the day is a huge plus as most people will be using es for r5ii, esp if u say the es speed in z8 is insufficient sometimes. That problem will much so much more for r5ii making u have to switch between es and ms… I rather get a super high speed es and shoot es all the time
3 3499 vs 4299
p.9 #4 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
molson wrote:
The R5 has about a 1-stop advantage over the Z8 at base ISO; hopefully going to the stacked sensor won't decrease the DR like it did on the Nikon cameras.
No it’s not. The R5 DR numbers aren’t real. They result from in camera application of NR to the shadows. This prevents anyone from measuring the actual DR of Canon cameras.
p.9 #5 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
bernardl wrote:
No it’s not. The R5 DR numbers aren’t real. They result from in camera application of NR to the shadows. This prevents anyone from measuring the actual DR of Canon cameras.
Yes I noticed this on my Canon r6ii. The shadows looks to have lost some details but they are very clean.
p.9 #6 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
bernardl wrote:
Did you really find issues with the build quality of the Z8? It’s nothing short of outstanding.
If Canon is better, and I would agree that it is a bit bette, it’s by a tiny amount that is completely irrelevant to photography.
Enjoyment in using the equipment matters to me. How it feels to hold, ergonomics etc. It's subjective of course.
I think with decent photography skills, you probably can't tell apart which photo you took was taken with which camera (Z8 vs R5II etc). But the enjoyment in using it is something I care, not just getting the shot.
p.9 #7 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
JaimitoFrog wrote:
Enjoyment in using the equipment matters to me. How it feels to hold, ergonomics etc. It's subjective of course.
I think with decent photography skills, you probably can't tell apart which photo you took was taken with which camera (Z8 vs R5II etc). But the enjoyment in using it is something I care, not just getting the shot.
Agreed but the Z8 is extremely enjoyable to use. The UI is perfect, the feel is great, quality materials are used and above all the EVF is the best there is.
It would not have been selected by all media outlets as the best camera of the year and been one of the best selling cameras of 2023/2024 despite its high price of it’s UI were nothing short of oustanding.
Again, I am not disputing the fact that the feel of the R3 in the hand may be even a bit nicer. But we are discussing about the difference btwn outstanding and best there is. The one thing that Canon does better than anybody else, possibly the only one these days, is the selection of camera outside materials.
p.9 #8 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
HicHic wrote:
What a shame. Was hoping this would be the one to finally replace my 5DSR. Z8 intrigues me, but the dynamic range is quite bad for a modern FF sensor. Can't deal with Sony ergonomics. Guess I'll stick with my OM-1 until we get a good FF offering. The R5ii was so close.
The difference between them is half a stop according to Photons to Photos which I still don't fully trust. I've always loved the DR in Nikons. Between my Z6 II and A7IV, they were quite close. In video, the Z8 it picks up 14 stops of dynamic range. No complaints in dynamic range.
p.9 #9 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
bernardl wrote:
No it’s not. The R5 DR numbers aren’t real. They result from in camera application of NR to the shadows. This prevents anyone from measuring the actual DR of Canon cameras.
That's the story with Sony too, like with the A7S III that has a lot of NR baked in. This is what made me scratch my head when the headlines came out about the Z6 III dynamic range in video when they were shooting NRAW + NLOG, people complained about the noise, except Nikon doesn't bake in even half the NR that Canon/Sony do. When applying NR, the Z6 III dynamic range was 14.1 total DR stops according to Imatest which puts it close with the A7IV performance of 14.7 stops of dynamic range.
p.9 #10 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
RoamingScott wrote:
Not exactly true. Your shutter speed/angle in video will likely be quite different than what it would be for a still photo in the same conditions, meaning that if there's any panning or subject movement a grab wouldn't do the same trick as a dedicated still.
---------------------------------------------
snapsy wrote:
If someone is shooting video for the intent purpose of extracting stills then they would use the same shutter speed for video as they would for stills.
---------------------------------------------
RoamingScott wrote:
You don't seem to have a solid grasp of how non-bench, real world shooting works
In the past it was best to shoot with a 180 degree shutter so that frames blend together well and show a nice smooth motion image. Since exposure times are long and often the lens is wide open for DOF, it was often necessary to use ND filters. That meant extracting frames to make still photos yielded motion blurred images. Today it is possible to shoot with short shutter speed and then digitally smooth the frames in the video processing. I use DaVinci Resolve Studio that has multiple sophisticated methods to achieve that (I think they are in the free version too) and the results look excellent. Stabilization in post processing is also often commonly done and shooting with shorter shutter speeds is desirable to avoid artifacts in the stabilized video. The fact that shorter shutter speeds can and often are used in video capture makes extraction of still frames more practical. I shoot wildlife video with relatively short shutter speeds (I don't use ND filters and I often stabilize in post) and can extract stills from 4K or 8K video clips. They are quite usable for many purposes. I consider that to be "non-bench, real world shooting".
Of course if you are shooting video for the single purpose of extracting stills, obviously you would use the same settings you would use for shooting stills.
p.9 #11 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
docusync wrote:
Let's see...
20 fps vs 30 fps raw
JPEG pre-capture vs usable raw pre-capture
6 stops vs 8.5 stops IBIS
2Mpx viewfinder vs 5Mpx HDR eye-controlled viewfinder
no mechanical shutter vs mechanical shutter for tough lighting situations
the worst AF among the big 3 vs class leading AF
910g vs 670g
$3999 vs $4299 intro price
Yeah, right, all this Canon's cr@p is not worth extra $300 /s
A few things just to get facts right:
- the EVF of the Z8 is 3.6 mp but is nonetheless better in real usage than the EVF of the Sony a9III and GFX-100II, both using 9mp parts, both cameras I own and use. Resolution is far less important than optics, brightness and lack of streaming discontinuity,
- Dpreview already ranked the AF of the Z9 as the best in early 2022 vs a1 and R3. And it has become tremendously better in the meantime through firmware updates. There are some rare use cases (tiny bird over a busy background) of limited photographic significance where the R5 may be better, but overall the Nikon AF is probably the best together with the a9III. On people in motion I find the Z8/Z9 and a9III to be near identical with respective strengths and weaknesses. I would expect the newer R5II to be a bit better but they are all so incredibly good that anyone missing focus often these days really need to question their skills,
- IBIS well, 6 stops is plenty. My Zf does 8 stops but I couldn’t tell the difference in real world.
Yes, 30 fps in raw and pre-capture would be nice in some situations. Jpg is a reasonable compromise when really mandatory. But it does require more attention during shooting which is sometimes a problem. Nikon has been rumored for months to release this through firmware. Not sure whether the hardware would allow it, or at least allow it without too much battery life impact.
The one spec that you forgot to mention but that is far important is of course read out speed. 1/160s for R5II vs 1/270s for Z8.
p.9 #12 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
ArizonaImage wrote:
Understood. If you look at intro pricing vs value on both cameras or the prices if someone were to choose a camera right now, the Z8 still comes out ahead. I have heard of the focus on eyelash with the Z8 in some instances (not always), but lets be honest, this is nitpicking here. No client is pixel peeping. They never have. The shooter may be pixel peeping but when zoomed out, you can't tell if the eye or eyelash is in focus. No AF is perfect. The R6 and R5 had issues with front focusing and losing subjects. My A7IV had trouble focusing in some instances. No point in nit picking, no system is perfect. I think at this point they're pretty equal and more than most people will ever use....Show more →
Yes, all AF systems currently have their own issues where they miss focus, but missing iris focus even at f/1.2 is not something the R5 does very often. It knows to look for and focus on the iris. The Zf I had, even with an f/2 lens had trouble hitting iris focus about 20-30% of the time. That's a significant issue for me. In fairness, I suspect the Z8 and with a better lens has a higher hit rate.
But Nikon, Fujifilm, Panasonic – basically everyone but Sony and Canon have not figured out how to engineer AF algorithms to get a nearly infallible lock on the iris. Missing the iris is not a small detail, at least not for headshots. Looks freaking weird to have eyelashes (or near side or far side of the eye) in focus but not the iris at f/1.2.
p.9 #13 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
highdesertmesa wrote:
Yes, all AF systems currently have their own issues where they miss focus, but missing iris focus even at f/1.2 is not something the R5 does very often. It knows to look for and focus on the iris. The Zf I had, even with an f/2 lens had trouble hitting iris focus about 20-30% of the time. That's a significant issue for me. In fairness, I suspect the Z8 and with a better lens has a higher hit rate.
But Nikon, Fujifilm, Panasonic – basically everyone but Sony and Canon have not figured out how to engineer AF algorithms to get a nearly infallible lock on the iris. Missing the iris is not a small detail, at least not for headshots. Looks freaking weird to have eyelashes (or near side or far side of the eye) in focus but not the iris at f/1.2....Show more →
Not my experience with Z8/Z9. I shoot people and get very sharp iris with head shots with lenses such as the 135mm f1.8 S or 85mm f1.2 S. Hit rate is above 90%.
p.9 #14 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
highdesertmesa wrote:
Yes, all AF systems currently have their own issues where they miss focus, but missing iris focus even at f/1.2 is not something the R5 does very often. It knows to look for and focus on the iris. The Zf I had, even with an f/2 lens had trouble hitting iris focus about 20-30% of the time. That's a significant issue for me. In fairness, I suspect the Z8 and with a better lens has a higher hit rate.
But Nikon, Fujifilm, Panasonic – basically everyone but Sony and Canon have not figured out how to engineer AF algorithms to get a nearly infallible lock on the iris. Missing the iris is not a small detail, at least not for headshots. Looks freaking weird to have eyelashes (or near side or far side of the eye) in focus but not the iris at f/1.2....Show more →
I was thinking about portraits and video when I wrote that, headshots totally escaped me but agreed if its a headshot at 1.2, it would be more noticeable.
p.9 #16 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
molson wrote:
The R5 has about a 1-stop advantage over the Z8 at base ISO; hopefully going to the stacked sensor won't decrease the DR like it did on the Nikon cameras.
I suspect it will though perhaps Canon sought a compromise with a slower read speed and reduced noise. We’ll have to wait until some real world testing is available.
p.9 #17 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
armd wrote:
I suspect it will though perhaps Canon sought a compromise with a slower read speed and reduced noise. We’ll have to wait until some real world testing is available.
It's pure speculation at this point. I can't wait for the reviews to show up!
p.9 #18 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
ArizonaImage wrote:
The difference between them is half a stop according to Photons to Photos which I still don't fully trust. I've always loved the DR in Nikons. Between my Z6 II and A7IV, they were quite close. In video, the Z8 it picks up 14 stops of dynamic range. No complaints in dynamic range.
I think at ISO 200, the dynamic range is more or less the same as my OM-1. I expect more from a full frame sensor. I can get more DR with lower ISO, but I consider 200 pretty low already. In realistic shooting scenarios, I won't always be able to shoot base ISO of 64 or whatever it is on the Z8.
p.9 #19 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
wind30 wrote:
? U can’t compare intro price since they are released in diffferent times….
Other than that the adv for r5ii looks solid.
The major adv for z8
1 lcd tilt both ways, I like that a lot of my Sony a7r5.
2 read out speed is faster for z8. This at the end if the day is a huge plus as most people will be using es for r5ii, esp if u say the es speed in z8 is insufficient sometimes. That problem will much so much more for r5ii making u have to switch between es and ms… I rather get a super high speed es and shoot es all the time
3 3499 vs 4299 ...Show more →
A big advantage for Nikon are the telephoto lenses if you're choosing between R5ii and Z8/Z9 for wildlife. Canon's telephoto offerings are so lackluster.
The 600/4 is basically an EF 600/4iii, which is softer than the version 2.
The 100-500 is softer and slower than the 200-600. I do like that it's so light and has great macro.
The 200-800 is heavy and soft.
Meanwhile, Nikon has 600/4+1.4x internal TC, 600PF, 800PF. 3 great options.
p.9 #20 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
artsupreme wrote:
Wouldn't you guys just be happy with an R8 and an R5 sensor in it? Or at least, happier than the options you have now?
Say what?? $500 of batteries required for pre-capture on the R5II?
re r8 with r5 sensor - Yes but I would even be happier with r7 sensor expanded to ff (85mpx) and AA removed.
re 4500 in batteries - to get pre capture you need new batteries. I have a bunch of them. So you have to get at least 3 but like more so extra ~$500 to make use of the features you are buying in R5II.
but agreed if its a headshot at 1.2, it would be more noticeable.