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.
Like it or not, it is more relevant than the joke of "8K" video mode that was used as the spearhead in promoting the R5 everywhere.
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. It would had been a "success" if it were to be launched as the original "Canon R" at that time. Now it's too little, too late and too expensive.
Yes, I do take umbrage with the word 'fail' here because it completely dismisses reality. In pure image quality, the A7R IV is still superior. However, in actual use, the difference between the A7R IV and the R5 is so small that the instances where a difference would be visible in any normal sized print are extremely rare.
But this take completely dismisses all of the other areas where the R5 is not only competitive, but better. By most reports, it has better autofocus than the A7R IV (though perhaps falling a bit short of the A9/A9 II). It has notably better image stabilization (which I think is a FAR more substantial real-world useful advancement than pixel-shift.) It has notably better wireless connectivity, both in ease of connection and in reliability.
There are certainly areas where it isn't as good either, such as battery life.
Again, I love my A7R IV, and will certainly not be selling it for an R5, but the reason I took issue with your use of the word fail is that it defies the reality of the situation. And it reads like someone who has never used a different camera brand or honestly evaluated differences between cameras.
Aug 07, 2020 at 07:44 AM
Previous versions of Jman13's message #15308380 « Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 »
