vdo1 wrote: Jman13 wrote:
You're only posting a pixel shift comparison. As I mentioned before, in actual shooting, pixel shift is essentially useless due to the level of stability and lack of any motion in the scene that is required.
As for the word "fail" that drew your ire. To be a "success" the R5 should have been, at a minimum, capable of similar IQ as the current generation of other manufacturer's cameras. It barely competes with the previous generation.
Wow, barely competes?
You should download some R5 RAW files and compare them next to A7RIII and A7RIV files. There's not much difference at all.
Pixel shift is a useless function, because it only works for perfectly still scenes. So for something like landscapes it just can't even be used. Yet it's your main argument here.
Aug 07, 2020 at 07:13 AM
Previous versions of Jochenb's message #15308359 « Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 »
