I found different models and generations of EOS have slightly different color rendering, but they're mostly in the same ball park and I learned to process the RAW so the color is basically the same. The main color differences are found in dynamic extremes: deep shadows and near burnt highlights. And, again, you adjust to your preference so no biggie.
R3 & R5 have the highest FF DR numbers on Bill Claff's testing. They have NR according to that site, but the A9III requires NR to barely beat the 5DsR, and is presumably not as good as 5DsR, without NR. Z6III doesn't do so hot , either, a full stop behind the >10 year old D750.
So I'm not too concerned about Canon sensors being inferior to the competition. They seem to be doing just fine. A9III has NR, but R1 doesn't
I don't agree. I think the colors were so much nicer back then.
I sold the R6 because I couldn't stomach to look at the colors it produced.
As compared to what? Sony is hardest to match the colors, and Nikon is perhaps better than Canon for some things, but worse for others. Whatever camera you have it always needs a good profile. 3rd party software sometimes does not have the best profiles by default.
I really want a small, rangefinder style RF mount camera from Canon. Initially the 50V was interesting to me even though it’s mainly focused on video.
Then I did some research, and honestly the R8 is like 95% of what I want. It’s basically like a small rangefinder camera (as far as size) but with a small grip built in and a standard EVF.
I think I’ll eventually get an R8 (or wait until an R8 II some day) as a back up/personal camera to compliment my R5.
Future Man wrote:
I really want a small, rangefinder style RF mount camera from Canon. Initially the 50V was interesting to me even though it’s mainly focused on video.
Then I did some research, and honestly the R8 is like 95% of what I want. It’s basically like a small rangefinder camera (as far as size) but with a small grip built in and a standard EVF.
I think I’ll eventually get an R8 (or wait until an R8 II some day) as a back up/personal camera to compliment my R5.
The R8 would be the perfect travel camera if it had IBIS. That way it would pair perfectly with non-IS Canon RF compact lenses like the RF 16mm f2.8 STM and the RF 28mm f2.8 STM.
As compared to what? Sony is hardest to match the colors, and Nikon is perhaps better than Canon for some things, but worse for others. Whatever camera you have it always needs a good profile. 3rd party software sometimes does not have the best profiles by default.
EBH
Compared to any other camera I've used (incl old Canons, modern Sonys and Nikons).
For example, it was impossible to get the sky to show the correct shade of blue. No matter what profile I used, the sky always looked unnatural. Such a basic thing the camera couldn't get right.
With a Nikon, you can just shoot in standard jpeg and the sky has the same color in the picture as it does in reality.
Compared to any other camera I've used (incl old Canons, modern Sonys and Nikons).
For example, it was impossible to get the sky to show the correct shade of blue. No matter what profile I used, the sky always looked unnatural. Such a basic thing the camera couldn't get right.
With a Nikon, you can just shoot in standard jpeg and the sky has the same color in the picture as it does in reality.
Same thing with JPEG/RAW, doesn't matter.
So you are saying-
New Canon cameras can't take a good picture of blue sky because you can't possibly get the colors to look right?
Compared to any other camera I've used (incl old Canons, modern Sonys and Nikons).
For example, it was impossible to get the sky to show the correct shade of blue. No matter what profile I used, the sky always looked unnatural. Such a basic thing the camera couldn't get right.
With a Nikon, you can just shoot in standard jpeg and the sky has the same color in the picture as it does in reality.
Same thing with JPEG/RAW, doesn't matter.
I've been editing old RAW files from 2003 I shot on an EOS 10D and the blue skies are decent but not nearly as good as what I get from my R6 MK II or R. The rendering of blue gradients on modern R cameras is much smoother and more accurate. Perhaps your computer monitor needs calibration?
I've been editing old RAW files from 2003 I shot on an EOS 10D and the blue skies are decent but not nearly as good as what I get from my R6 MK II or R. The rendering of blue gradients on modern R cameras is much smoother and more accurate. Perhaps your computer monitor needs calibration?
It's the same when looking at the pictures in the viewfinder or on the back LCD.
Maybe the R6II or R has better colors than the original R6. That was the last Canon I owned.
I've been editing old RAW files from 2003 I shot on an EOS 10D and the blue skies are decent but not nearly as good as what I get from my R6 MK II or R. The rendering of blue gradients on modern R cameras is much smoother and more accurate. Perhaps your computer monitor needs calibration?
Its like arguing with a brick wall, and telling the brick its concrete-
I like what Canon are doing with the body here, but the R50 sensor is a terrible choice for video. Way too slow in its readout -- you can see it both in the crippled 4k60 mode and in the subpar rolling shutter.
They should've made an R8V. Would have been a bit more expensive, but actually good.
What they have now is a Fuji X-M5, but significantly worse. Obviously, the Fuji is not a viable choice for those already invested in RF lenses, but Canon are clearly trying to bring new audiences (vloggers) into their system, and this is not competitive.
Evection wrote:
I like what Canon are doing with the body here, but the R50 sensor is a terrible choice for video. Way too slow in its readout -- you can see it both in the crippled 4k60 mode and in the subpar rolling shutter.
They should've made an R8V. Would have been a bit more expensive, but actually good.
What they have now is a Fuji X-M5, but significantly worse. Obviously, the Fuji is not a viable choice for those already invested in RF lenses, but Canon are clearly trying to bring new audiences (vloggers) into their system, and this is not competitive.
This camera is aimed squarely at talking heads, makeup influencers, cooking demos, makban mega eaters, etc., not action, sports or camera nerds. Slow readout ain't gonna compromise a chopstick moving towards a human mouth or an eyeshadow brush stroke.
As much as I hate to support the R8, I will agree with all those comments above saying it's a better compact video camera than this thing.
I actually moved from Fuji XE4 to an R8, and it takes wonderful photos, has amazing AF, and can shoot great 4K also.... but man does it cut corners. Lack of IBIS frustrated the hell out of me, really showing how much of a compromise all the otherwise great compact RF primes are... Battery life was my biggest concern going into the R8, but wound up not being much of an issue. Easy to top off with USB-C. The least expected issue, which I haven't had with any other camera that I can remember, is I could not find any settings/adjustment for the EVF where I did *not* get eye-strain/headaches after shooting for a few hours (walking around town and shooting while travelling for example). I have not had this issue with any other camera before.
Mike_5D wrote:
I just want an RF camera than can shoot 4k video without overheating inside of 25 minutes.
This one does. I tested it a couple times to confirm that it has a 2hr recording limit (sneakily hidden in a 35-point asterisk list on Canon's site). Using a 512GB Sabrent V60 UHS- II card. Temps were mid 70s with the screen against the body, using USB power (on a full battery), so no handicaps in favor of the R50V.
