Jman13 wrote: 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. But you have cherry-picked a small handful of things that you view as inferior (whether they have real-world impacts or not), have completely dismissed any areas where it is equal or superior, and declared it a failure based just on those cherry-picked items. And that is why I called you out.
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.
Yes all things said, the R6 and a7rIV are more alike than they are different. You'd have to nitpick things to a degree where it doesn't matter to tell the difference....and there are some areas that the R5 is better camera, and some areas that the a7rIV is better camera. Once we start looking at 100% crops to spot noise differences, and analyzing charts plotting these minuscule differences in DR, its probably best to just stop comparing lol.
R5 is a solid camera. Would I switch back to Canon for it? Nah, it doesn't really offer any reason to do so. But fanboyism is big thing in the world of cameras and people are always looking for a reason to tear a product down. Some of you guys need thicker skin because its obvious that the R5 has ruffled some feathers. Don't be a fanboy. Be a fan-man
Aug 07, 2020 at 08:07 AM
Previous versions of Mystik's message #15308396 « Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 »
