dieterson wrote:
An important difference for me (photography) is the reduction to 12-bit in the R6III when using the faster modes (electronic shutter).
Every RGB-channel in the RAW has than roughly only 4000 values (12-bit) compared to 16000 values with 14-bit (Sony A7V).
This would be my personal deciding argument for the A7V when used for wildlife-photography.
12 bit vs 14 is highly overrated, most of the extra 2 bits is just dithering of noise.
I do think technically there are numerous arguments which can be brought forward for either system. I do believe that there is no clear winner in either system, only better suit for personnel needs.
You won't find fun in shooting in the spec sheets. I have burned through a decent amount of money in learning that lesson. Test the system, and get what brings you fun. The Sony A75 and Canon R6III are different interpretations of what a good camera is. They have different haptics, different strengths for different shooting scenarios, but you will be able to do a portrait or a bird shooting with either of them.
In absolute technical terms the EF 100-400II, the RF 100-500L and the RF 100-400 will have advantages and disadvantages. But they are designed by professional product designers, and they start the design with having the technical differentiators in mind and setting a market price, so that they can co-exist in the market - they know their product markets fairly well, and they do that for a living. We can only map what our individual preferences look like, and decide what floats our boat best.
That said, when you need a professional grade 100-400 with weather sealing, you have exactly two lenses - EF 100-400II or the Sony 100-400 GM. Everything else is either without weather sealing, has 100mm more focal length and some quirks or has more focal length than needed (200-600). And, mores, they can all shoot pictures on their respective cameras.
Sony somehow wasn't bringing me the fun I wanted, so I decided now to go with Canon. And what works for you?
There is not something that the objective better camera. Because it is a subjective decision.
IMO as a Canon user, I accepted 12 bits because it meant I could do 40 fps RAW back in 2022 with the R6II, or 20 fps with the R6 before it, combined with usable e-shutter that didn't have a stacked sensor price premium. And at least for me, most of my applications for 40 fps have been at higher ISOs where the 12-bit penalty is insignificant. If I wished to avoid the 12-bit DR hit at lower ISOs, I could switch to EFCS and still get reasonable 12 fps. The a7V though also takes a DR hit in E-shutter according to Photons to Photos, and is very similar to the R6III's e-shutter DR, while both have at least a stop advantage over the R6 and R6II at low ISOs.
The a7V is the first a7 camera, since the line launched in 2013, that actually has usable e-shutter performance combined with decent fps rate without having to spend the premium for an a1 or a9. Prior to this the various a7 models were easily eclipsed by the R6 series as a budget action camera option. No wonder Canon didn't bother with a 'proper' stacked sensor in the R6III since the competition wouldn't be bettering what Canon could produce with old school FSI sensor tech. Maybe that will finally come with the R6IV in 2-3 years, though I would have loved to have seen it in the III.
tuomkok wrote:
Years ago Sony was harshly bashed because it hit the 12 bit limit in all faster drive modes - say 3fps. How come 12 bit is not a problem anymore
Sony was also - rightly! - bashed for not having a true raw file, and then for having 'lossless uncompressed' raws that slowed the camera down considerably, and Sony still doesn't have a lossless compressed raw option that runs in every camera setting - like Canon and Nikon have had, well, since they started doing DLSRs.
Meanwhile, processing for 12-bit files has gotten better to the point that it's only a problem if you actually need more than 12-bits to encode the dynamic range of the camera - meaning at the lowest ISO settings only. Above that point, you really are just encoding noise.
Stefan Official wrote:
The Sony FE 100–400 mm GM is the newer, lighter, and optically more capable lens. In addition, there are strong indications that a GM II successor may not be too far away – the rumor mill has been quite active for some time now.
I personally used the Canon EF 100–400 mm L IS II for several years. It is not a bad lens, but from today’s perspective it is optically rather soft and overall not outstanding, especially when compared directly to more modern designs.
If the Canon were adapted to a Sony A7R V with 61 megapixels, it would no longer fully exploit the sensor’s potential. Its resolution and micro-contrast simply are not sufficient for such a high-resolution sensor.
This is not a subjective opinion – there are numerous tests, MTF measurements, and direct comparisons available online that clearly demonstrate this difference.
From my point of view, this raises a simple question: Why choose the Canon today when the Sony lens is more modern, lighter, and measurably more capable?
And to be fair: this thread is not about brand loyalty or personal feelings, but about technical data and optical performance....Show more →
I think this is the first I've ever heard the 100-400 v2 called soft in any context.
I've had the chance to use the 100-400 GM extensively on a 61mpx Sony. I ended up keeping the Canon setup with the 100-400 v2.
