I'd say Canon did great considering inflation and adding a stacked sensor with all the AF goodies.
Well we don't actually know how inflation impacted Canon here. But the R5 has a a couple of worthy competitors and they are both about $1K less. I'm locked into Canon at this point and have a R5II on order, but whether it's $1K better than it's competition, we'll see. (Not being negative -- excited to get my hands on the R5 II, just being honest -- it's no bargain).
How is this not competitive?
A1 $6500
Z9 $5500
R5II $4300
The R5II is not competing with the Z9. It's competing with the Z8 (which also just happens to be 99% of a Z9 in a smaller body). And the Z8 retails for $3,500 right now (though may go back up to $3,999 eventually, though Nikon's 'sales' tend to be for most of the year.)
The R5 II does have some advantages over the Z8 (the AF is probably a little better, but the Z8's is outstanding), 30fps RAW vs 20fps RAW, for those who need that extra burst rate. Z8, however, has a much faster reading sensor, so at those fast burst rates, the Z8 will have a rolling shutter advantage that may be minimal (birds in flight) or fairly significant (fast ball sports).
How much faster is the Z8's sensor? Isn't the R5 II superior for video, at least on paper?
Superior in which way? Both shoot 8K/60 RAW, oversampled 4K, etc but the Z8 has ProRES which may appeal to some. I do like Canon's LOG better. Nikon needs an NLOG 2.
The Z8 can't shoot 8K in ProRes. Does it support Zebras?
Supposedly, C-LOG2 is very good and can capture a good deal of DR. The Z8 can only shoot at best 12-bit videos.
It's not that the Z8 "cant" it's that I don't think ProRES supports 8K RAW. I don't know of a camera in this class that shoots 14-bit RAW internally, perhaps you can fill me in. Not even a FX6 does that internally. The best any competitive mirrorless Canon or Sony thus far shot was 12-bit, and not internal in most instances....
I'd say Canon did great considering inflation and adding a stacked sensor with all the AF goodies.
Well we don't actually know how inflation impacted Canon here. But the R5 has a a couple of worthy competitors and they are both about $1K less. I'm locked into Canon at this point and have a R5II on order, but whether it's $1K better than it's competition, we'll see. (Not being negative -- excited to get my hands on the R5 II, just being honest -- it's no bargain).
How is this not competitive?
A1 $6500
Z9 $5500
R5II $4300
The R5II is not competing with the Z9. It's competing with the Z8 (which also just happens to be 99% of a Z9 in a smaller body). And the Z8 retails for $3,500 right now (though may go back up to $3,999 eventually, though Nikon's 'sales' tend to be for most of the year.)
The R5 II does have some advantages over the Z8 (the AF is probably a little better, but the Z8's is outstanding), 30fps RAW vs 20fps RAW, for those who need that extra burst rate. Z8, however, has a much faster reading sensor, so at those fast burst rates, the Z8 will have a rolling shutter advantage that may be minimal (birds in flight) or fairly significant (fast ball sports).
How much faster is the Z8's sensor? Isn't the R5 II superior for video, at least on paper?
Superior in which way? Both shoot 8K/60 RAW, oversampled 4K, etc but the Z8 has ProRES which may appeal to some. I do like Canon's LOG better. Nikon needs an NLOG 2.
The Z8 can't shoot 8K in ProRes. Does it support Zebras?
Supposedly, C-LOG2 is very good and can capture a good deal of DR. The Z8 can only shoot at best 12-bit videos.
It's not that the Z8 "cant" it's that I don't think ProRES supports 8K RAW. I don't know of a camera that shoots 14-bit RAW internally. Not even a FX6 does that internally. The best any competitive mirrorless Canon or Sony thus far shot was 12-bit, and not internal in most instances....
Jul 17, 2024 at 04:19 PM
Previous versions of PixiPhotography's message #16596167 « Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications »
