JohnDizzo15
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 | |
nhsonyshooter wrote:
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
nhsonyshooter wrote:
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
nhsonyshooter wrote:
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
RoamingScott wrote:
That's a lot of words when "I'm looking at it from a stills bias" is buried in the middle. You're missing the point. 4k/120 is a necessity for 4k shooting, and other cameras offer it without issue.
To be fair, the R5 doesn't seem to overheat as badly with 4k/120, so it might be salvageable as a 4k/60 and 4k/120 cam only.
As a stills only cam, you're paying a heavy 8k tax at launch.
Yes. There are options that do it without issue. But conversely, they also don’t do some of what the R5 does in the package that it’s in. Give and take.
As far as the 8K tax, the A7R4 was 3500 at launch not too long ago. Not much of a tax on the R5 IMO.
Why are you even comparing the R5 to an A7riv. They were designed for 2 completely different people?
Most recently released body with a similar feature set from Sony. Not sure what you mean by the statement that they were designed for 2 completely different people. Please explain.
Personally, I was looking at one or the other. Just sayin’.
One was clearly a stills camera and the other was clearly a hybrid focused more on video specs. And please don't say the A7riv shoots video as well. Every phone or camera made the last 10 years shoots both. But people are not buying the Riv to shoot video. Canon touted the video aspects as "impossible" but true. They are not competing cameras despite what the Canon fanboys think.
Sony A7riv
"Sony’s full-frame mirrorless α7R IV reveals ever more overwhelming photographic vision, with expressive prowess once expected only in medium-format cameras, and remarkably high speed in a compact body. See how its enhanced rigidity and connectivity raise your productivity."
Canon R5
"Achieving the ‘impossible’, Canon Inc. confirms the EOS R5’s video capabilities will far exceed that of competing cameras on the market. With its ability to internally record 8K using the full width of the sensor at up to 30p, the latest Canon EOS R camera is set to redefine mirrorless with its market-leading features. In addition, in all 8K modes it will support Canon’s renowned Dual Pixel CMOS AF."
Do those sound like they are marketing to the same person? I know fanboys want desperately to be able to say their camera is better. But these 2 specifically are designed at different people.
The A7R4 does shoot video as well, and quite competently might I add.
They may not have been marketed to the same person, but anyone who understands the craft and what these two bodies brings to the table respectively, understands that they are pretty darn similar in the type of tool they are. I welcome others to chime in if I am way off base here.
Canon's claim of the impossible is rather erroneous, but not for the reasons you state. By definition, what they have done here is exactly the opposite since they have done it. 
Regardless, what Canon has done here is in fact something that no one else has done when you consider the totality of the package that is the R5 even if you are solely looking at it from a video perspective. Just because it doesn't do it without some caveats or restrictions or in a way people don't like doesn't make it not groundbreaking.
Specifically, who else is offering internal 8K recording with a full frame sensor, IBIS, 100% AF frame coverage, thousands of DPAF points that work while in 8K mode, etc etc, in a body with these dimensions? I'm certain you already know the answer to that question. The claim from Canon was never "film in 8K with no limitations or restrictions."
Lastly, not sure who you're referring to with the fanboy references. But if you're referring to me, then it should be noted that anyone who has been around these Sony forums for a long time can tell you I'm not a fanboy of anything and have been shooting everything but Canon bodies for years. As such, I've had my paws on many a rig from various companies and assess things objectively from all of them since my only desire is to get the stuff that works best for the things that I do.
Point is no one is buying an A7riv for the video specs.They are buying for the 61mp. Where as people that are interested in the R5 are willing to compromise alittle on MP for the added benefit of better video spec. Those simple decisions in themselves are made by two different groups of people. One that doesn't care about higher end video specs and the other that does. It doesn't make one camera better than the other. They are different tools to meet different user needs. That's why I think the comparison is silly.
I think that that is a broad assumption you are making regarding the market for the respective bodies.
Like I said previously, I for one was looking at both to figure out which one I was getting to replace the R3 as my high res body. I've also previously stated a plethora of the reasons why the R5 edges out the competitors for my use case. Furthermore, I have more than a few buddies that have looked at making the exact same decision. I'm inclined to believe we are not alone as evidenced by some of the frequenters of this forum.
By the way, not sure if you are referencing something you believe I stated. But I never stated I believed the R5 was better than the R4 on any level, in any context. I was only comparing the price of two items that I was looking at and determined that one fit my needs better than the other. Anything you infer after that if a reflection of your feelings and not anything I actually said.
---------------------------------------------
Steve Spencer wrote:
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
nhsonyshooter wrote:
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
nhsonyshooter wrote:
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
RoamingScott wrote:
That's a lot of words when "I'm looking at it from a stills bias" is buried in the middle. You're missing the point. 4k/120 is a necessity for 4k shooting, and other cameras offer it without issue.
To be fair, the R5 doesn't seem to overheat as badly with 4k/120, so it might be salvageable as a 4k/60 and 4k/120 cam only.
As a stills only cam, you're paying a heavy 8k tax at launch.
Yes. There are options that do it without issue. But conversely, they also don’t do some of what the R5 does in the package that it’s in. Give and take.
As far as the 8K tax, the A7R4 was 3500 at launch not too long ago. Not much of a tax on the R5 IMO.
Why are you even comparing the R5 to an A7riv. They were designed for 2 completely different people?
Most recently released body with a similar feature set from Sony. Not sure what you mean by the statement that they were designed for 2 completely different people. Please explain.
Personally, I was looking at one or the other. Just sayin’.
One was clearly a stills camera and the other was clearly a hybrid focused more on video specs. And please don't say the A7riv shoots video as well. Every phone or camera made the last 10 years shoots both. But people are not buying the Riv to shoot video. Canon touted the video aspects as "impossible" but true. They are not competing cameras despite what the Canon fanboys think.
Sony A7riv
"Sony’s full-frame mirrorless α7R IV reveals ever more overwhelming photographic vision, with expressive prowess once expected only in medium-format cameras, and remarkably high speed in a compact body. See how its enhanced rigidity and connectivity raise your productivity."
Canon R5
"Achieving the ‘impossible’, Canon Inc. confirms the EOS R5’s video capabilities will far exceed that of competing cameras on the market. With its ability to internally record 8K using the full width of the sensor at up to 30p, the latest Canon EOS R camera is set to redefine mirrorless with its market-leading features. In addition, in all 8K modes it will support Canon’s renowned Dual Pixel CMOS AF."
Do those sound like they are marketing to the same person? I know fanboys want desperately to be able to say their camera is better. But these 2 specifically are designed for different people.
This is the first paragraph from the overview description of the camera on the Canon US website:
"The EOS R5 builds off of the powerful legacy of Canon’s full frame cameras offering next generation refinements in image quality, performance and reliability. It’s an ideal choice for a large range of photographic and cinematographic environments from weddings, portraits, sports, journalism, landscape, cinematography and more. "
I think that paragraph provides a good sense of how they are marketing the camera. Yeah, video is mentioned but it is not the only thing by any stretch that is mentioned and it is not mentioned first or emphasized more than anything else they mention.
Really?
https://www.canon-europe.com/press-centre/press-releases/2020/03/canon-reveals-further-eos-r5-details/
Yeah, Really. You quoted from a press release about the video and I quoted from the first paragraph from the overview description of the camera on the US website. Which quote to you think reflects more the general marketing strategy of the camera? Are they perhaps marketing the camera to different types of people in different places?
Here is where I quoted from:
https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-r5-body
And here I was thinking that the quote provided earlier would have been odd as an overview/opener.
Thanks, Steve. I almost got fake news'd.
|
