@@SPECTRA890 Same, I have the R6 II and shot Canon for 15 years and have never been tempted by other brands. Sony came the closest until I picked up one of their cameras and it just didn't feel right at all.
I'll agree that the Z7ii may not be the best choice of the 3, but no check mark for being $1000 cheaper (you're commentary says there's no point in saving "a couple hundred bucks" but it's a lot more than that)? BTW, I've had no problem using the Z7ii for shooting horse shows.
Price should factor in. A difference of $1,000 to 1,200 is significant and considering the overall system cost should be part of the discussion too. Since Nikon doesn't currently offer a camera in the $3,500 to $3,700 price range of the R5 or A7RV, I'm wondering why it's even in here. Putting it in a comparison against a Canon R6ii and a Sony A7Riii would make more sense from a price and feature perspective. This is also why so many people are hoping for a Z8 to come out with hopefully improved AF that would square better in that range.
@@gaxiola1701 if you think of overall system costs, I feel like Nikon looks worse. Sony has tons of affordable lenses. Canon has made several affordable entry level lenses. Nikon is really expensive for lenses. I feel like even if you’re trying to build around cheap primes, you end up eating up a lot of that $1k deficit pretty quickly.
@@Jindujun Bull crap, like he said in the video, he was a Nikon shooter for over 20 years, he's just being honest and telling it like it is. You'd rather he be a fanboy so he doesn't hurt your feelings about Nikon...lol!
Good review overall with the major exception being the fact that the Nikon is actually $1k cheaper (not "a few hundred dollars") and it should definitely get a "check mark" for that reason alone.
Depends on where you live. From where I live it is equivalent to US$800 cheaper. I can imagine if the differences is even less (or more) somewhere else.
The original Nikon Z7 is $1900 less currently at BH. With the latest firmware it performs just as well as the Nikon Z7II. Drawback, only one card slot.
I see the video more for canon buyest, even though I watch a lot of reviews all complaining about the R5 video rolling shutter on the edges, plus most canon user are not happy with the decision cutting third-party lens.
I think it's more about the system you're already in - I use the A1 for work and have invested a lot in Sony glass, so there's not enough between the Canon and the Sony to clear out a whole system and move over to Canon. Like you, I started on Nikon and moved over to Sony when the A1 dropped.
The Z7 II is in a way more of a direct competitor for the A7IV, with a similar price and only 6MP difference between them at a range where it matters less. Unfortunately for Nikon the A7IV like the A7rV also does 10-bit 4:2:2 in video and has much better AF in both stills and video even though it has a slightly lower price.
I remember when Jared was Mainly using Sony, he would subconsciously favour them in every test just slightly, now he is mainly using Canon and.... At least his consistent lol. But seriously to give a checkmark to Canon regarding their Lens collection when they have like 4 or 5 primes only and have completely closed their mount to 3rd party manufacturers is just beyond ridiculous. But his video i guess
Say, it’s comments like this to get frustrating. They will open up their mount in due time. There’s a ton of EF lenses that will adapt, seamlessly and perfectly to the RF mount. I guarantee you they will open up to Signal and Tamron soon. They simply don’t want crappy. China made junk from non-reputable companies, ruining peoples experiences with their cameras.
If you've got the money for one of these bodies, obtaining first party glass shouldn't be far behind. So, I would argue that the third party lens argument would be more suitable for a comparison between the R6 II, A7 IV, and Z6 II. Otherwise, you should be trying to put first party glass on their higher-tier cameras.
@@froknowsphoto Canon “opening up” lens choices? they’ve recently closed the very big door of TP What is the likelihood they can compete equally with the ** several ** excellent third-party manufacturers? Not very much - unless you know something you’re not sharing
@@froknowsphoto even more so nowadays as all these cameras are so good, the lens is more important than the camera A growing number of people like a superzoom. Unfortunately, Canon’s only superzoom is not as good as Tamron’s 28 200 for the E-mount. (Which is also better than any Sony superzoom)
@@dicekolev5360 Nikon is moving on the same timeline they always have, but yes production / supply delays are a factor (for everyone). I honestly feel / hope they're stock-piling supplies so when the Z8, 85 1.2, 200-600 are announced, there won't be a 6-12 month wait like the Z9 had.
Almost 2 years ago I switched from a Nikon D800 that I had for almost a decade to the Canon R5, and videos like this really helped to separate the options for me. Thanks for doing this. Also cool to see how well the R5 still stacks up against the latest from Sony. I almost bought an A1 instead of the R5, but couldn't justify the price when the savings could buy me another lens. Plus I just liked the R5 better than the A1 overall, in terms of feel, menus, etc.
The A1 is super niche. It has a lot of features like the 50Mp sensor but still maintains higher FPS stills than the other Sonys, the crazy fast flash sync speed, the crazy WiFi connectivity, and the crazy lowlight despite it being 50Mp. Outside of those niche cases I’d go with r5, but I’m already invested in the siii, the a7iii and have tons of Sony glass. The r5 is a super good deal if you don’t need those niche features. Under 4000 and still maintains 90 percent of the a1 features.
@@RiceCubeTech I don't really buy cameras all that often (and never anything other than Nikon prior to this), so I was basically looking for a camera that could do everything I'd want it to for the next few years at minimum (I had my previous camera almost a decade at this point). One of my friends is a Sony ambassador, so the hype around the A1 was definitely being heard by me at the time it dropped. I took a mini gamble on the R5 as it still had overheating issues when I bought it, but nowadays it does everything I ask of it. I shot some 4k and 8k footage in the last year as I started getting small video requests from clients and the video has turned out great so I'm more than happy with my choice! My only complaint is that the Canon files require a bit more finessing than Nikon when using Adobe software (it feels like the colors are never quite just "right" with their color profiles), but that's not the camera's fault.
@@waynedennyphoto yeah Adobe is shit, but we all still use it. As far as my Sony files, I think it handles them nicely. Color out of camera isn’t great but I shoot raw photos and log 10 bit 4:2:2. So I can always change them in my a7siii. The only issue with the r5 outside of already being in the Sony eco system for me is their video codecs do not play nicely in premiere. Always super laggy in my experience. But I hear it’s much easier in Resolve and Final Cut. But I don’t own a mac, and I already pay 60 a month for Adobe creative suite, so dropping 300 on resolve is out of the question.
@@RiceCubeTech Yeah, the R5 video files were almost unusable on my old custom built PC with Premiere. I only pay $10/month for the LR/PS combo, so when I bought one of the new MacBooks I was looking forward to making a one time purchase for either FCP or Resolve as my video editor. I went with FCP as I don't go super in depth on my video editing, and the Apple silicon has absolutely zero issues with the R5 files. Even the 8k stuff, I've never had to use proxies - it's pretty impressive.
It really depends on what you shoot. For Landscapes, Portraits and Street and low light Nikon Z7ii is perfect and more than enough , plus it's 1k USD cheaper , so + 2 great lenses to fill the gap. For action, video, Wildlife , Sports both Sony and Canon are superior than Z7ii, first of all cause of autofocus. There are many people who will not need extra features of Sony and canon and will save money for extra glass. But man that screen on A7RV is dope.
@@user-eu2me4bp7j In order probably A7RV, R5, Z7II. I’ve shot sports with the Z7II and it does a fantastic job. Won’t say it’s the best of the 3. But for portraits it can be argued as the best.
The vast majority of people will stick with one particular make, as they have all of the gear and lenses to go with it. They also know how the menus work, without having to read the manual. Even before I watch this, I know the Nikon will come third. I use my Z7II for sports and wildlife photography, and I am more than happy with it. I don't do video.
Most people don't do video and yet we have to suffer hybrid cameras and the price ticket they get labelled with. Would love someone to give me the option of a wildlife camera with no video........................ 🥺
@@doghouseriley4732 that doesn’t make sense. The same tech that allows a camera to be good at wildlife shooting, is the same that allows it to be good at video. Faster auto focus, AI to track animal eyes, faster read out speeds of sensors for faster fps, higher resolution sensors, better iso performance for when your shoot on long closed down lenses, etc. A good wildlife camera would inherently have everything to shoot solid video too. You’ll never get a wildlife only one lol. A camera Company would lose money making their lines that segmented. Why produce two cameras with identical feature sets, limited by software when you can just make one thing that does both?
There are other aspects to the canon af that are fantastic. If you have a group of people you can choose any eye quickly. That was a major problem with my Sony a7r3. Also the dragging the finger across the touchscreen is easy accurate and faster than any joystick. The tap to focus is amazing. It focuses exactly where you tap. And you can hand the camera to anyone and they can take the pic just like a smartphone
I mean in all fairness the a7rV is much closer to what you described than your A7riii was. It’s pretty neck and neck now. If you’re comparing to an almost 4 year old third gen a7r camera that’s not exactly a fair comparison lol.
I have seen multiple of these videos pop up at the same time. Many Ortis has one that reads as a competitive material from Sony, hitting, without naming, each of the other manufacturers with precision. I don't believe irandom. He also forgets that the Sony and the Canon are at least 1000$ more than the Nikon.
Finally, Nikon has a good sensor. I have never liked the colors of the D1, D2, D3, etc... not accurate at all--way off. And now I am SOOOOOO happy they are using a Sony sensor, it's wonderful, what a perfect combination, I love it. the Z9 is awesome because of the Sony sensor. the best of both worlds.
- Definitely depends on the type of shooting you do. - I'd take the Nikon for my type of shooting, landscapes/architecture/travel: ISO 64, waaaay cheaper than those other two cameras, not paying for features I don't need, lighter weight, shutter speeds over 30 seconds (Sony just added it though), and they have the 14-30 and 24-200 lenses which are well reviewed/light weight/and you can get away with carrying only two lenses. The only thing that stops me from jumping over to Nikon is that I'm waiting for a fully articulating screen. - I like that Nikon is remembering which segment each offering is targeting, as opposed to the others trying to do everything for everyone with every model.
Canon has the 24-240 which works nicely for travel.. ideally supplemented with a wide angle lens (I picked up the 16mm f/2.8 for this purpose, because it's small and light..)
I agree about Nikon 100% havent grown up with my father always shooting Nikon and then myself starting out with Nikon for 3 years before switching to my current camera when switching from dslr to mirrorless the Sony A7R III.
I find my AF-S f mount glass on the Z9 using the FTZ II adapter has the same IQ and AF is actually faster and more accurate on the Z9 compared to my D850. Sigma has announced it will support the Z mount with several lenses in 2023.
That's the Z9, not the Z7II. You may hope the Z8 being a smaller, lighter, cheaper Z9 and does not have too much restrictions relevant compared to the Z9.
In Dublin (Ireland) the R5 body is priced at €4849 and the Nikon Z7ii is on sale at €3029, making the Nikon less than 2/3 the price. The US prices you quoted also had the Nikon considerably cheaper than the Canon. Surely this has to be factored in to any comparison.
Dude… when it comes to lens selection, Nikon Z-mount can adapt both EF and E-mount lenses. It has the broadest selection of lenses it can use compared to the others. Maybe not officially, but the 3rd party adapters work well.
@@zegzbrutal One wouldn't expect EF to Z to be as fast as EF to RF as any adapter manufacturer would have to reverse engineer the protocols. But that doesn't mean the adapters don't work and don't work well. And it still means the Z mount has the broadest lens support via 3rd party adapters.
@@imjooboy Jared couldn't care less about the tinkerer market when giving his recommendations. The EF to Z adapter is more-or-less a gimmick. Yes, it technically works. However, it does not give a good experience for somebody who has money on the line to get a job done. Why risk missing a shot when on the job (or at a very important personal event) just because of a novelty? Just buy Z glass for a Z camera.
@@imjooboy so this means m43 is the best when comes to lens selection. 😏🤔😅 what makes RF users praises is EF adapt on RF is not just usable, but becomes as good as RF. EF-RF speedboosters solves R7/R10 lens issues.
@@gameshoes Are these videos - and the comments - more for Jarred to have a fun rant with information … or so us buying public know the FULL ins and outs of each option?
I'd say the R5 for sure. It's incredibly how well this camera has held up over 2 1/2 years and beats the A7RV in most ways except for resolution - not that there is any real world diff - (including dynamic range, ISO noise and sensor readout speed despite not being a BSI sensor). The A7RV is basically just a rehashed A7RIV with firmware updates and a new LCD. The Z9 is pretty incredible, but also quirky and also very expensive.
Nikon have the best colours. And I’m not talking about only portraits. I have the r5. The colours are off. Very flat. Build quality is cheap plastic. Af and rf top notch.
It's worth mentioning that Nikon has official support from Viltrox and Voigtländer, so not just Tamron who recently announced their first official lens. While Viltrox might not be as sexy as Sigma, but still it's officially supported. Plus, since the Z mount can adapt E-mount lenses, I would put it at the top for adaptability, it's a shocker that this was not taken into consideration. As for glass, I also personally agree that I like the RF glass better, not because Nikon glass is worse, far from it. Z glass is known for its very good quality; however, with a few exceptions, Nikon has a very weird obsession and fixation on super telephoto (400mm up) and standard zoom (20 something mm to something) with a lot of overlaps. Moreover, the lenses are replicating what was in the F mount with very limited experimentation, while Canon is going ballsy with the 28-70mm f2.0, the 5mm Fisheye f2.8, and a much more useful zoom range of 15mm-35mm f2.8 than Nikon's extremely limited 14mm-24mm f2.8 wide zoom. And while I don't use AF or AF tracking being mostly a landscape/cityscape shooter, a few days ago I was on a small vacation in the mountains and I saw some goats that I was trying to shoot while they were running about and... The AF mostly failed to track and focus, and in some instances even gave me a false green focus confirmation box when the results were, in fact, back-focused... It was bad, and now I know why using the current Z lineup (excluding the Z9) can be a hair-pulling and frustrating experience. I haven't tried the other two cameras in this head-to-head comparison, but I know for a fact that the results I got from the Z7II couldn't be worse in the situation I was in. While this last trip helped me bond much more with my Z7II, the disappointment with the AF (my hit rate was about 40%-50%) made me realize how non-competitive the system is and how desperately it needs an update. I couldn't feel but that my products was lacking something and performed below my expectations even when I already set the bar very low... I mean, goats for heaven's sake!!!! Finally, and while you can see the Nikon falling behind in the features area compared to the other two, but being $1000 less is definitely worth considering! You're basically saving the price of an additional camera and you can use this money to get an awesome lens like the 50mm f1.8, a CF Express Type-B, and still get some spare for a compact lens like the 28mm f2.8 or a 105mm Micro f2.8 lens (which is also great for portraits). So, unless you're a sports/wildlife shooter, the Z7II is still worth considering as the best bang for your buck.
True, however I’ve had very little issue with the AF for birds in flight, all sorts of wildlife. Z6 and Z9. Really not that hard IF you set it up properly. If you’re having trouble shooting goats, I’m going to go out on a limb and say thats on you.
@@attacker7221 that's a fair assumption, however, when I have tried Wide Area-L AF-C, Wide Area-L AF-S, Wide Area-S AF-S, Wide Area-S AF-C, and 3D tracking, all of that with Animal tracking enabled and I didn't get good results tracking moving goats, then that's on Nikon for making it terribly difficult to acquire focus, and making the AF system so user unfriendly. What modes have I missed that you would suggest might work? I'm against spreading misinformation, so believe me me when I say that I'll be more than happy to eat my own words if whatever you recommend works! Another person told me to check if I had the AF set to release or focus, and when I checked the AF-S was set to focus and the AF-C was set to release, but I still got back-focused images even with AF-S although it was set to focus and even when I had the focus confirmation tune and the green box on my subject. In contrast, I used my R10 right out of the box just to see if I shot without learning the camera first or setting anything up what my success rate would be. And, honestly, I didn't miss a single shot even though I didn't set anything up. So, go figure...
I just bought the Nikon Z7 II new for $2300 and am willing to take some of the drawbacks as I am not a professional photographer. I can also adapt my Tamron 10-20 and 18-400mm lenses from my D7500. I am already familiar with the menus so there will be a short learning curve. KUTGW hairy man!
Had both the Canon R5 and now have the Sony a7RV and I have to say the Sony wins in the AF. Agree with everything else in the video but the Canon definitely isnt as good for AF. The Sony also recognises faces and can pick out my partners face in a crowd from over 20 meters using a 35mm lens. You know how crazy that is? I think you need to do more testing.
@stuartmartin093 He fanboys Canon AF the whole time, yet still all the tests on RUclips show that Sony wins overall 🙄 I don't get it but it might be that he "has" to say it the way he does
@@SuomiFinland78 its a beast in the AF department, I feel like others are on to something when they say Fro is biased these days. Hate to see it. He just doesn’t seem to have tested the a7RV all that much.
How friendly use is the Sony am thinking of shifting from my canon DSLR to canon r5 or Sony Rv need help I watched a million videos and searched I have used canon for 20 years but now I feel Sony is more flixble system but I don’t know how friendly is the camera and menu help lol
I would go with the a7RV because I am a Sony user but more importantly, because i can depend on the camera not overheating. At this point, all 3 cameras are great now. Autofocus is subjective and as long as it has 400+ focus points with fast focus, then its great enough already. Even then i still find myself using touch tracking, spot focus and center focus because I cannot rely on wide AF-C alone. Buy the camera that you like the most or are in their systems, simple as that.
Interesting that the overheating is the issue for you - I have an A7IV and R5 and the A7IV has overheated far more often (30m of 4K30) than my R5 (which hasn’t overheated once during long video shoots). No one talks about the Sony overheating issues..
@@heisjolly I have 2x A7IV and I have experienced overheating issues as well. I only experienced overheating issues when I use cards that are less than V90 speed. Any V90 SD card or Express Type A cards does not create overheating for me. I record in S-cinetone, 10-bit, 4K, 30fps, XAVC-S and what other high settings i have. With V60 & V30 SD cards, overheating is bound to happen with the a7iv. With V90, I can record pass 30 minutes easily without my a7iv shutting off. Canon's R5 is known to have overheating issues that is not recommending for primary video shoots. Unless you have multiple R5 on hands, I wouldnt risk using the R5 as a main camera for a pay gig. Today, i have my fx3 as my dedicated video camera because i prefer to just have 1 dedicated video camera rather than a hybrid camera becoming 2.
The Z7II isn’t just good at landscapes though. It’s good at portraits, fashion, engagements, weddings and so on. It’s not just about sports and wildlife. I think that should be mentioned.
@@KeAiFu I also shot an event at night with my Z7II and did fine. ALL cameras struggle in low light but if you know what you are doing you can have success.
I appreciate Jarod’s thoughtful opinion. He seems to be a straight shooter when it comes to critiquing brands. He’s big on Canon because it outperforms the others. However, some people get too cranked up when “their” brand isn’t number one in his book. Remember, the greatest photos of all time were taken with cameras with a fraction of a percent of the tech in these machines. The best camera is the one in your hand. Make it work. Cheers!
On 31-10-2022 shotkit did a poll of 1000 pro shooters and the most popular cameras was.................................... Sony a7III. Just goes to show that the Pros don't seem fooled by the hype and high prices.
Since you're asking, I'd stay with Nikon out of these 3. Total respect for Canon, and many of Sony's decisions leave me scratching my head. Z9's AF system is waaaaay better than "good-ish". I feel like the "Z8" would be a more fair comparison here, but, it doesn't exist yet 🙂
Great overview! On the Canon 3rd party - agree that I'd like to see them open up the market, but they are coming out with reasonably priced lenses (100-400, 600mm, 800mm). I'm still using my Tamron 150-600 with the adaptor on my R6.
“Hybrid camera” hype these days is enormous. The comparison these days are based mostly on the video capabilities and how fast is the autofocus(which is enough fast on any camera if you do portraits/landscapes/street and etc.) That’s why there is so much hate on Nikon. A lot customers pay extra price for a body which can shoot 8k but never use it, instead they do stills only. So there is no point to pay extra price for features when you’ll never use them.
The thing is, a good stills camera with FAST still frames per second inherently make good cameras for 6k-8k video. It’s cheaper for the company to make a hybrid camera and use one body and one set of software rather than two cameras with only slightly varied specs and two different sets of software. A good stills camera with modern creature comforts are good video cameras. If you don’t want video DSLRs still exist and they’re still very capable. Still image quality hasn’t changed much provided you have good light and/or fast lenses. If you don’t care for hybrid cameras nowadays, you probably aren’t in the need to buy one and could save literally like 50 percent the cost and buy an older nikon d850, canon 5D etc.
The thing is, a good stills camera with FAST still frames per second inherently make good cameras for 6k-8k video. It’s cheaper for the company to make a hybrid camera and use one body and one set of software rather than two cameras with only slightly varied specs and two different sets of software. A good stills camera with modern creature comforts are good video cameras. If you don’t want video DSLRs still exist and they’re still very capable. Still image quality hasn’t changed much provided you have good light and/or fast lenses. If you don’t care for hybrid cameras nowadays, you probably aren’t in the need to buy one and could save literally like 50 percent the cost and buy an older nikon d850, canon 5D etc.
Its so different to the 5d mark IV days and 6d mark II days where Cannon lagged behind. Its probably Nikons turn next to move up from the back. If they can trickle down the Z9 tech to the next Z7 and Z6 level camera I think Nikon shooters will be very happy.
Yes! Although, I think the major hurdle Nikon has right now it's video. No internal 10 bit in any camera but the Z9 it's really disappointing. Not only Nikon has fallen behind in this aspect against Canon and Sony, but against other brands also. Panasonic and even Fuji are already ahead in that regard.
The R5 holds up really well after all these years but that’s to be expected it’s around that time when all cameras made a pretty decent jump in functionality. It’ll be a while before anything out does it in any extreme way. I’m giving the A7R V the nod for the simple fact that it came out ready, doesn’t have that annoying recording limit, and that screen is fantastic. Outside of that they kinda both do the same shit and depending on who you ask that day it’s a toss up who does it better. Oh and the fact that Canon closed off their lens mount is a solid hell nall for me.
What I do not like in Canon is some strange limitations. I know that Sony is doing that as well, but Canon is on the other level. Two examples with r5: - you can have 12fps mechanical shutter but only if battery is above 60% - can have 20fps electronic shutter but only if lens is fully open (max aperture) C’mon Canon! It looks like they maxed out the specs just to have it look good on the paper…
Maybe I'm way off base here, but comparing ISO ranges seems kind of pointless? Like, it's my understanding that it's more or less arbitrary, and if you really want to know about the type of performance you're going to get from a body in terms of ISO-related stuff, you need to do actual dynamic range and low-light/under-and-over exposure tests with different ISOs.
Moved to Sony . At least E-mount got 3rd party affordable yet very good quality lenses & tons available in used market. The best things actually for a mirrorless body, are the e-mount lenses choices much compact & lighter. Much better choice for gimbal user, 24-70 RF 900g vs 28-75mm 540g or 24-70mm gm ii 700g or Sigma 28-70mm 470g. For battery also Sony, easy get original battery in used market. Rather than buying new batteries lpe6nh. Adapters are not relevance, your hands easily tired using heavier lenses that ergonomically gonna be front heavy. Native lenses tends to works better, fit better, more ergonomic, lighter setup & easier to balance on gimbal. Adapter itself weight 100g. Good job on Canon for dramatically design better sensor with higher dynamic range comparable to others. Also love R6 mk i & ii for mid level resolution easier / faster post processing rather than 33mp a7iv.
One important point you left out is a comparison of the three companies support, and repair facility's. If they have a Pro membership, how do the benifi6ts compare?
@@buticks That was my experience with their line of laptops. They actually outsourced their after sales tech services to a third party company who couldn't care less and was trying its best to not help. Never forgot that and haven't bought a Sony product ever since...But I gotta admit the 7 R V is tempting me now....
@@stepheneckert4006 I’m curious, since some of these sub-100 ISO’s are “not native” what makes them bad to use? I understand the opposite end of the spectrum, where the really high ISO’s are technically usuaable but are stupid noisy, but what could be so bad about dropping the ISO below the native rating? What’a the caviat?
@@mchase40 I’m not saying they’re “bad to use,” but more that they’re just fake software-based “extended” numbers that don’t take advantage of the sensor. We were always told by the manufacturer engineers that these L ISO’s were only meant for when you needed a slower shutter speed (ie. camera doesn’t go faster than 1/4000) or maxed out at your len’s aperture, and that it was still best to shoot at the native low ISO to retain the maximum dynamic range, especially in the highlights.
Haven't watched through the video yet, but I've been biased in favor of Canon since I was a little kid, and have worked my way up to the R5 and a modest collection of L glass over the last few years. Always learning and it's clear I'm holding the camera back moreso than the other way round 🤙 Love your stuff, Jared; keep being you ✌️
I find it odd that it wasn’t mentioned that the Nikon is the oldest of the bunch. It’s also explicitly slated as landscape camera. Additionally, using the Nikon Z7 release price to knock on the Z7ii price was the weirdest out-of-left-field comment I’ve ever heard when comparing across brands. Why are you talking about a camera not in the lineup as a mark against the Nikon? The Z7ii is literally over a thousand dollars cheaper than the others in the lineup. I cannot understand why that is a knock against Nikon?? Additionally the weird button position comments on Nikon disqualifying it from a check but the shit-feel of a Sony isn’t?? A lot of this video was good but those were the most egregiously biased comments against Nikon for no legitimate reason.
I feel like the Sony system is a good middle ground between performance and budget. You have great older bodies as a second camera (a7riii) plus the third party lenses from sigma and Tamron. Then there's room to grow: ie a9 ii or a1 or A7Rv. And this is coming from an owner of two canons.
I have a used Sony A7R3 with adapter mount for Canon EF-L lenses. The viewfinder is much brighter in low light compared to my used Canon DSLRs (5DRS, 5DM4).
Sony has BY FAR the best full frame lens selection. Starting with half a dozen wide angle zooms (most of them F2.8), a 12mm and 14mm prime, THREE 20mm primes, and two 24mm primes. Primes include the ones mentioned above plus multiple others in 35, 40, 50, 85, 90, 100, 105, 135, 400, and 600mm. Then half a dozen zooms in the ~24-70mm range (most of them F2.8). Almost a DOZEN telephoto zooms ranging from 70 to 600mm. Then you got some incredible superzoom/travel lenses, like the unicorn that is the Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 (a zoom/aperture combo that is still unmatched), and the bargain but high quality Tamron 28-200 F2.8-5.6. Sony's own 24-240mm isn't great but still far better than Canon's RF version. And sure, only 1/3 of these are actually made by Sony, with Tamron and Sigma making the rest, but that's the beauty of having a mount fully open to 3rd parties. You can't possibly tell me Canon RF or Nikon Z can surpass all this.
I would think most people deciding on any of these cameras are already fully invested in one of the systems... and in that case it would be obvious which camera that person would choose. Unless someone is looking to make a drastic change from one system to another. I bought the A7RV because I had the A7III and already have 3 sony lenses and 2 tamron lenses so even if the R5 had certain advantages over the Sony, I wouldn't get it because it is a pain in the ass to change over to all canon lenses.
Bought R5 and a second one. No regrets. Love the AF, dynamic range and ability to crop. Serious hobbyist. RF glass is amazing. Third party option would be an improvement for sure.
Thank you for this superb video. It has helped me realize which will be my next purchase. I already have numerous ""L" lenses so the decision is now concrete. Will have to purchase an adapter for my EF lenses. Again thank you.
From nikon shooter yes 💯 that really I'm not professional but the numbering very clear in Jared vedio hope time back again but I'm try enjoying with my nikon
@@richardgrant418 Sadly, the only thing that's hindering the A7RV from being as fast in capturing speeds as the R5 is the fact that the A1 already exists, and if it gets anywhere close to that, then the A1's sales would be significantly hurt, as the A7RV would be able to do 95% of what the A1 could do for $2500 less.
True. But those cameras are like studio only cameras. They’re a lot heavier, have slower FPS so for events and sports it’s a no go. The video is pretty bad in terms of codec and frame rate options. And the lowlight despite it being a much bigger sensor, is not that great due to the far worse iso sensitivity but admittedly for controlled lighting stills, and broad daylight stills they’re the most beautiful cameras I’ve seen. The problem with the gfx line is the lack of versatility. You talk about price but the lenses are significantly more expensive. Negating the fact that the bodies are the same price
@@memcrew1 RF is great but overpriced. You have all of Canons glass that is perfectly adapted with full AF performance. Sony has third party support with some of the fastest AF lenses out. Pricing it just against RF is stupid. But even still, GFX is still pricier for a lot of things. A 50mm is 700 bucks. A 45-100 is 1800 (which is about like a 24-70 on FF) and a lot of 24-70s on the Sony lines can be 800-1200 bucks from tamron and sigma. The 110 F2 which is like an 85mm is 2300, the sigma art 85mm on Sony is a fraction of that.
@@memcrew1 but it’s… not. I literally was just in B&H and it’s not cheaper lol. Not using third party glass is stupid as hell. It’s literally just as sharp at a fraction of the price. Sigma art lenses are exactly as sharp as Gmaster for usually 40 percent less. You’d be stupid to not to.
Another important note, for most photographers their skills are not high enough to run into a hardware/software battle yet. Just being said, Nigel Danson can beat your ass without a doubt using Nikon z7 versus you using Sony A1. Just sayin~
The Z7II is basically the same as the 2018 Z7. R5 2020 and A7RV 2022. Hopefully Nikon has a Z7III just around the corner to even or better it's score on these three models.
I bought the Sony A7RV for the pixel shift multi shooting, the focus bracketing, the dynamic range, the 61 megapixels, the AI auto focusing, the rear screen multi-axis capability, and the wireless tethering. The focus tracking is great too.
I went through almost all of the comments and found the third party lens debacle to way too prevalent here. I would agree that Canon's handling of third party lenses has not been great. However, when you're looking at cameras of this caliber, you should not be looking at third party glass unless if the first party was a flopper (looking at you, Canon 14-35 F4, with that crazy distortion and vignette). Is it expensive to go first party all the way through? Heck yeah. But is going all the way with first party worth it? Most of the time, yes. I worked camera retail for nearly four years. I've watched many customers take great leaps through their photography journey. They started out with a DSLR and got some Sigma or Tamron lenses. What did they end up with while I was on my way out of retail? Modern mirrorless cameras with only first party lenses. If you've got the money for these cameras, first party lenses shouldn't be far behind that purchase. You don't buy these higher-tier cameras to save money. This debate should really only be taking place in the lower-tier camera sections. If you're wanting the Tamron 35-150 F2.8, okay fine, you got me. That's a lens with no first party answer to.
Things do change. Nowadays the * better third-party lenses are often as good than the Canon/Sony/ Nikon and sometimes better. One example: if you look into the more thorough reviews carefully, the best superzoom is a Tamron
Yes but Canon also doubled its prices for RF lenses compared to before. EF lenses here in Europe were 1500-2000 EUR a piece for the last decade, now the RF options are 3000-3500 which is insane. The comparable Sony E mounts Grand Master are still at 1500-2000. So you could buy 3 top Sony lenses for 4500 EUR whereas 3 Canon top lenses would be 9000 EUR. It's insane and probably will lead me to switch to Sony this year. Especially since Canon cracking down on third party manufacturers seem to indicate this won't change anytime soon.
An inconvenant fact Jared left out, as has been noted. Current prices: Sony a7RV - $3,899.00, Canon R5 - $3,399.00, Nikon Z7 II - $2,596.00. Yes, Nikon lags in several areas, don't know if its software, hardware or both, but it is also a lot cheaper. Price point comparison may be a better measure
Nikon will have new Mid Tier cameras out in 2023. I bet your DSLR's will hold up long enough for you to make a decision. The Z9 seems to drive the F mount glass better than the Z7II with the adapters.
The best deal right now for photographers is the original 45 mp Nikon Z7 for $1796 new at BH. Update to the latest firmware and you have a machine just as capable as the Nikon Z7II for a thousand dollars less. Get an FTZ adapter and you have a huge selection of Nikon and third party glass available.
and ALL three cameras would be just fine for real estate photography and videography. Overkill actually! Would be interesting to know the breakdown in employment/industry sector for photographers. I can't imagine anywhere the majority of photographers sitting in sports stadiums taking photos. Just a tip Jared. I appreciate your effort in putting the video together mate. Cheers
Most "professional" photographers make very little money. People like Jared are not the norm. A lot of people buy very expensive gear because they like the idea of being a photographer and think that it is all about gear and the manufacturers don't tell them otherwise. If you think about it, it would make a lot more sense buying a photography course than a new camera. But people don't get it.
Sports photographers are a tiny minority of camera buyers. The money is with the high end enthusiasts, content creators and event photographers/videographers.
@@doghouseriley4732 Most professionals treat a camera like a tool. Something breaks you fix it. If a new feature does not make money you keep what you have. It is only these influencers who have the latest greatest mostly and these videos are to sell to people fixation on gear rather than results and have expendable income,buying and having makes them happy.
All major cameras are pretty great, especially ones from Canon and Sony. I just wish Sony or Sigma would copy the RF 28-70mm f2. It’s such a nice lens and it’s as good as a prime lens
I’m a Sony shooter and I would love that, but it won’t happen. Sony said it’s possible for them to make a similar lens but it would be significantly larger and heavier due to their smaller mount size. They said they in theory could make an even brighter 24-70 but the size and weight would be so horrible it wouldn’t be worth it. Sony really shot themselves in the foot by making their mount for apsc and full frame. They made the mount smaller than canon and nikon.
Buy the R5 and let Canon bleed you dry with the price of the RF glass because they won't let Tamron and Sigma in and if you keep buying it, they will never let them in and you'll be getting ripped off to the end of time. Everyone says this is not a good way forward for Canon but they turn round and say "But look at all the Canon Sheep buying it" - they have a point.
Canon sell fewer but make up for it in profit margin. Sony sell more but make up for in volume. Seems that is the route each are taking. Think eventually Canon will open up but by that time would they lose too many users? We will see. Pros will still stay Canon since they can easily afford it.
@@Battlem0nk Why do you think Sony make less profit? Most of the sensors in mirrorless cameras were made by Sony. Sony got there first and stole a march on the others and they have been playing catch-up. We could say now that they have caught up. Fuji have come out with 2 great cameras, the X-H2S has a lightening quick stacked sensor and is what the R7 should have been (shame on Canon). And the X-H2 is the high resolution monster, the highest pixel density on any ASP-C camera. Everyone seems to focus on the speed of the autofocus but the R7 has very fast autofocus and such a small buffer that you can only shoot for one second in RAW before it fills up. It is also not well weather sealed so water and dust are your enemy and not great for a wildlife camera. Just look on Flickr, there are many photographers taking amazing pictures without breaking the bank, and using many different cameras. Don't believe the hype
@@stuartallenphotos Not sure why someone deleted the link and reply. Basically, Canon threatened lens manufacturers so that they would not produce lenses to fit the Canon RF mount.
I love the cheaper options for RF glass, they work great! The RF 35mm f/1.8 has become one of my favorite lenses, it has stabilization and it was cheap! IQ is great, love the macro function too! I’m getting the 85mm f/2 next!
Kinda feel a little biased against the Sony: Sony EVF was higher res, but was not given a tick Sony IBIS spec was superior, but was not given a tick When talking about the mount, I don’t think it was mentioned that you can adapt EF lenses pretty well to the Sony. I own 4 Canon body’s & 2 Sony bodies. 4 native Sony G/GM lenses, at least 7 native canon EF lenses, so I’m not a particularly strong ‘fanboy’ one way or the other. The reason why I ended up with a Sony at all, is because I tried my EF 70-200 IS 2.8 mk2 on an A7R3 via a meta ones adapter and was really surprised on how well it AF’ed, at least as good as the Canon I was using at the time. Having said that, if I had not added a Sony body at the end of 2017 and had just continued to shoot with the Canon, I’d have probably ended up with the R5 now, but as I have both Canon EF and Sony E systems (and Fujifilm GFX & Leica M), I’m probably less likely to buy into the Canon RF system now.
Not even kinda biased. For me the crucial point was for AF perf. Sony was well known to have the best AF capabilities in mirrorless world. Canon has catch up very nice with R5 and R3, which means that Canon is almost on par with Sony. And know when Sony is doing another leapfrog with a7rV introducing dedicated ai processor for even more precise AF, the author of that video is claiming that R5 is ‘still’ better, or it wasn’t better before but now is better? I’m calling that BS… PS. To author of the video: Sony is not using Lock-on AF from years. It is called Real Time Tracking. If do not know it, how can you review the cameras…
It's amazing that the R5 comes out on top even though it's 3 years old. What is the R1 going to look like? A master of all or none? Happy Holidays Mr. Fro...
I have to say, despite shooting Nikon myself, I would not recommend anyone buying a Z7 II (or Z6 II) at this point, unless you are just looking for amazing IQ at a kinda lower price point for doing studio or landscape stuff (cause those $1000 will buy you a very nice tripod or lights). Those cameras are pretty much outdated at this point compared to what Canon and Sony have to offer right now. I really hope Nikon stops dragging their feet and finally come out with an update for those models
There's definitely a bias for the R5 in this. Sony is actually better in most ways and the Z7ii isn't really for this market, but one step lower. The Z8 will be a good one for comparison in this category.
Jared: Canon is better with Sony because xyz, and that is why we choose it, it is amazing camera. Sony is better with Canon with abc, but does it really matter? can you see the differences? So, it is like switching from camera to camera comparison to results to results comparison to glorify canon r5. Why is that even needed? Canon r5 is amazing camera. Just let’s keep the facts straight on…
I have been a Canon user for 50 years, only when I bought an R5 I could no longer use Sigma lenses. Luckily I still have a 5D4, but for eye tracking, the main reason I went to mirrorless I am losing out, especially with my 120-300mm f2.8. It has got to the point I am considering getting a Sony A7Rv with a Sigma MC11. The mk4 is cheaper, but the new tilt screen is a tipping point,only as I shouldn't be spending thousands when I am on a small pension, it pisses me off that Canon have not addressed the 3rd party issue, in firmware if not aloowing Sigma etc to build RF glass.
Canon, Sony or Nikon in this battle???
I'm stuck with the R6. Locked in basically so defi tely Team Canon
Video: Sony
Photography: Sony
Sports photography: Canon or Nikon
Hybrid: Canon
Considering I am deeply invested in Sony now with the 400mm F2.8 purchase, Sony.
If starting out with no glass at all - still Sony.
@@SPECTRA890 Same, I have the R6 II and shot Canon for 15 years and have never been tempted by other brands. Sony came the closest until I picked up one of their cameras and it just didn't feel right at all.
R5 my love 💕
I'll agree that the Z7ii may not be the best choice of the 3, but no check mark for being $1000 cheaper (you're commentary says there's no point in saving "a couple hundred bucks" but it's a lot more than that)? BTW, I've had no problem using the Z7ii for shooting horse shows.
He's always been anti Nikon for no damn reason.
Price should factor in. A difference of $1,000 to 1,200 is significant and considering the overall system cost should be part of the discussion too. Since Nikon doesn't currently offer a camera in the $3,500 to $3,700 price range of the R5 or A7RV, I'm wondering why it's even in here. Putting it in a comparison against a Canon R6ii and a Sony A7Riii would make more sense from a price and feature perspective. This is also why so many people are hoping for a Z8 to come out with hopefully improved AF that would square better in that range.
@@Jindujun He was a Nikon Fan
He is frustrated with slow progress of Nikon
So am I
But I am sticking with Nikon n Canon
@@gaxiola1701 if you think of overall system costs, I feel like Nikon looks worse. Sony has tons of affordable lenses. Canon has made several affordable entry level lenses. Nikon is really expensive for lenses. I feel like even if you’re trying to build around cheap primes, you end up eating up a lot of that $1k deficit pretty quickly.
@@Jindujun Bull crap, like he said in the video, he was a Nikon shooter for over 20 years, he's just being honest and telling it like it is. You'd rather he be a fanboy so he doesn't hurt your feelings about Nikon...lol!
Good review overall with the major exception being the fact that the Nikon is actually $1k cheaper (not "a few hundred dollars") and it should definitely get a "check mark" for that reason alone.
Depends on where you live. From where I live it is equivalent to US$800 cheaper. I can imagine if the differences is even less (or more) somewhere else.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 He lives in the USA , and he knows that it's not true. It's not an error, but deception. And yes. 800$ is a lot.
The original Nikon Z7 is $1900 less currently at BH. With the latest firmware it performs just as well as the Nikon Z7II. Drawback, only one card slot.
Are you claiming that there this review might be a little bit biased?😅
I see the video more for canon buyest, even though I watch a lot of reviews all complaining about the R5 video rolling shutter on the edges, plus most canon user are not happy with the decision cutting third-party lens.
I think it's more about the system you're already in - I use the A1 for work and have invested a lot in Sony glass, so there's not enough between the Canon and the Sony to clear out a whole system and move over to Canon. Like you, I started on Nikon and moved over to Sony when the A1 dropped.
The Z7 II is in a way more of a direct competitor for the A7IV, with a similar price and only 6MP difference between them at a range where it matters less. Unfortunately for Nikon the A7IV like the A7rV also does 10-bit 4:2:2 in video and has much better AF in both stills and video even though it has a slightly lower price.
I remember when Jared was Mainly using Sony, he would subconsciously favour them in every test just slightly, now he is mainly using Canon and....
At least his consistent lol.
But seriously to give a checkmark to Canon regarding their Lens collection when they have like 4 or 5 primes only and have completely closed their mount to 3rd party manufacturers is just beyond ridiculous. But his video i guess
Say, it’s comments like this to get frustrating. They will open up their mount in due time. There’s a ton of EF lenses that will adapt, seamlessly and perfectly to the RF mount. I guarantee you they will open up to Signal and Tamron soon. They simply don’t want crappy. China made junk from non-reputable companies, ruining peoples experiences with their cameras.
If you've got the money for one of these bodies, obtaining first party glass shouldn't be far behind. So, I would argue that the third party lens argument would be more suitable for a comparison between the R6 II, A7 IV, and Z6 II. Otherwise, you should be trying to put first party glass on their higher-tier cameras.
It’s his video - but is it meant to be for him, or for the viewers
@@froknowsphoto Canon “opening up” lens choices? they’ve recently closed the very big door of TP
What is the likelihood they can compete equally with the ** several ** excellent third-party manufacturers?
Not very much - unless you know something you’re not sharing
@@froknowsphoto even more so nowadays as all these cameras are so good, the lens is more important than the camera
A growing number of people like a superzoom. Unfortunately, Canon’s only superzoom is not as good as Tamron’s 28 200 for the E-mount. (Which is also better than any Sony superzoom)
You do know Nikon is better all the way, shalom bro
There is over a thousand dollar difference ($1100) between the Z7ii and the other 2 cameras. Just FYI not everyone knows this.
Indeed but Nikon are moving as snails so z7ii is the only comparable option for this list...
@@dicekolev5360 Nikon is moving on the same timeline they always have, but yes production / supply delays are a factor (for everyone). I honestly feel / hope they're stock-piling supplies so when the Z8, 85 1.2, 200-600 are announced, there won't be a 6-12 month wait like the Z9 had.
Almost 2 years ago I switched from a Nikon D800 that I had for almost a decade to the Canon R5, and videos like this really helped to separate the options for me. Thanks for doing this. Also cool to see how well the R5 still stacks up against the latest from Sony. I almost bought an A1 instead of the R5, but couldn't justify the price when the savings could buy me another lens. Plus I just liked the R5 better than the A1 overall, in terms of feel, menus, etc.
Same here tried them both but the Canon just felt better and more intuitive to use
The A1 is super niche. It has a lot of features like the 50Mp sensor but still maintains higher FPS stills than the other Sonys, the crazy fast flash sync speed, the crazy WiFi connectivity, and the crazy lowlight despite it being 50Mp.
Outside of those niche cases I’d go with r5, but I’m already invested in the siii, the a7iii and have tons of Sony glass.
The r5 is a super good deal if you don’t need those niche features. Under 4000 and still maintains 90 percent of the a1 features.
@@RiceCubeTech I don't really buy cameras all that often (and never anything other than Nikon prior to this), so I was basically looking for a camera that could do everything I'd want it to for the next few years at minimum (I had my previous camera almost a decade at this point). One of my friends is a Sony ambassador, so the hype around the A1 was definitely being heard by me at the time it dropped. I took a mini gamble on the R5 as it still had overheating issues when I bought it, but nowadays it does everything I ask of it. I shot some 4k and 8k footage in the last year as I started getting small video requests from clients and the video has turned out great so I'm more than happy with my choice! My only complaint is that the Canon files require a bit more finessing than Nikon when using Adobe software (it feels like the colors are never quite just "right" with their color profiles), but that's not the camera's fault.
@@waynedennyphoto yeah Adobe is shit, but we all still use it. As far as my Sony files, I think it handles them nicely. Color out of camera isn’t great but I shoot raw photos and log 10 bit 4:2:2. So I can always change them in my a7siii.
The only issue with the r5 outside of already being in the Sony eco system for me is their video codecs do not play nicely in premiere. Always super laggy in my experience. But I hear it’s much easier in Resolve and Final Cut. But I don’t own a mac, and I already pay 60 a month for Adobe creative suite, so dropping 300 on resolve is out of the question.
@@RiceCubeTech Yeah, the R5 video files were almost unusable on my old custom built PC with Premiere. I only pay $10/month for the LR/PS combo, so when I bought one of the new MacBooks I was looking forward to making a one time purchase for either FCP or Resolve as my video editor. I went with FCP as I don't go super in depth on my video editing, and the Apple silicon has absolutely zero issues with the R5 files. Even the 8k stuff, I've never had to use proxies - it's pretty impressive.
It really depends on what you shoot.
For Landscapes, Portraits and Street and low light Nikon Z7ii is perfect and more than enough , plus it's 1k USD cheaper , so + 2 great lenses to fill the gap.
For action, video, Wildlife , Sports both Sony and Canon are superior than Z7ii, first of all cause of autofocus. There are many people who will not need extra features of Sony and canon and will save money for extra glass. But man that screen on A7RV is dope.
What do you think is best for both sports and studio portraiture?
@@user-eu2me4bp7j In order probably A7RV, R5, Z7II. I’ve shot sports with the Z7II and it does a fantastic job. Won’t say it’s the best of the 3. But for portraits it can be argued as the best.
The vast majority of people will stick with one particular make, as they have all of the gear and lenses to go with it.
They also know how the menus work, without having to read the manual. Even before I watch this, I know the
Nikon will come third. I use my Z7II for sports and wildlife photography, and I am more than happy with it.
I don't do video.
Most people don't do video and yet we have to suffer hybrid cameras and the price ticket they get labelled with. Would love someone to give me the option of a wildlife camera with no video........................ 🥺
@@doghouseriley4732 that doesn’t make sense. The same tech that allows a camera to be good at wildlife shooting, is the same that allows it to be good at video.
Faster auto focus, AI to track animal eyes, faster read out speeds of sensors for faster fps, higher resolution sensors, better iso performance for when your shoot on long closed down lenses, etc.
A good wildlife camera would inherently have everything to shoot solid video too. You’ll never get a wildlife only one lol. A camera Company would lose money making their lines that segmented. Why produce two cameras with identical feature sets, limited by software when you can just make one thing that does both?
There are other aspects to the canon af that are fantastic. If you have a group of people you can choose any eye quickly. That was a major problem with my Sony a7r3. Also the dragging the finger across the touchscreen is easy accurate and faster than any joystick. The tap to focus is amazing. It focuses exactly where you tap. And you can hand the camera to anyone and they can take the pic just like a smartphone
I mean in all fairness the a7rV is much closer to what you described than your A7riii was.
It’s pretty neck and neck now. If you’re comparing to an almost 4 year old third gen a7r camera that’s not exactly a fair comparison lol.
I have seen multiple of these videos pop up at the same time. Many Ortis has one that reads as a competitive material from Sony, hitting, without naming, each of the other manufacturers with precision. I don't believe irandom. He also forgets that the Sony and the Canon are at least 1000$ more than the Nikon.
@@jaimeduncan6167 so what you're really saying is the Nikon shouldn't be compared because it's not in the same price bracket
Finally, Nikon has a good sensor. I have never liked the colors of the D1, D2, D3, etc... not accurate at all--way off. And now I am SOOOOOO happy they are using a Sony sensor, it's wonderful, what a perfect combination, I love it. the Z9 is awesome because of the Sony sensor. the best of both worlds.
- Definitely depends on the type of shooting you do.
- I'd take the Nikon for my type of shooting, landscapes/architecture/travel: ISO 64, waaaay cheaper than those other two cameras, not paying for features I don't need, lighter weight, shutter speeds over 30 seconds (Sony just added it though), and they have the 14-30 and 24-200 lenses which are well reviewed/light weight/and you can get away with carrying only two lenses. The only thing that stops me from jumping over to Nikon is that I'm waiting for a fully articulating screen.
- I like that Nikon is remembering which segment each offering is targeting, as opposed to the others trying to do everything for everyone with every model.
Canon has the 24-240 which works nicely for travel.. ideally supplemented with a wide angle lens (I picked up the 16mm f/2.8 for this purpose, because it's small and light..)
Better colour with the Nikon too!
on ISO the Nikon Z 7ii goes down to ISO 32 -great for landscapes
I agree about Nikon 100% havent grown up with my father always shooting Nikon and then myself starting out with Nikon for 3 years before switching to my current camera when switching from dslr to mirrorless the Sony A7R III.
Not even 3 minutes in and Jared shits on Nikon. We get it man, we get it…
I find my AF-S f mount glass on the Z9 using the FTZ II adapter has the same IQ and AF is actually faster and more accurate on the Z9 compared to my D850. Sigma has announced it will support the Z mount with several lenses in 2023.
That's the Z9, not the Z7II. You may hope the Z8 being a smaller, lighter, cheaper Z9 and does not have too much restrictions relevant compared to the Z9.
In Dublin (Ireland) the R5 body is priced at €4849 and the Nikon Z7ii is on sale at €3029, making the Nikon less than 2/3 the price. The US prices you quoted also had the Nikon considerably cheaper than the Canon. Surely this has to be factored in to any comparison.
3400 vs 2800 euros in Italy.
Dude… when it comes to lens selection, Nikon Z-mount can adapt both EF and E-mount lenses. It has the broadest selection of lenses it can use compared to the others. Maybe not officially, but the 3rd party adapters work well.
EF on Z isn't as fast as EF-RF. Just admit it. People tried EF to E/Z/L/FX but still not good as EF on RF bodies.
@@zegzbrutal One wouldn't expect EF to Z to be as fast as EF to RF as any adapter manufacturer would have to reverse engineer the protocols. But that doesn't mean the adapters don't work and don't work well. And it still means the Z mount has the broadest lens support via 3rd party adapters.
@@imjooboy Jared couldn't care less about the tinkerer market when giving his recommendations. The EF to Z adapter is more-or-less a gimmick. Yes, it technically works. However, it does not give a good experience for somebody who has money on the line to get a job done. Why risk missing a shot when on the job (or at a very important personal event) just because of a novelty? Just buy Z glass for a Z camera.
@@imjooboy so this means m43 is the best when comes to lens selection. 😏🤔😅
what makes RF users praises is EF adapt on RF is not just usable, but becomes as good as RF. EF-RF speedboosters solves R7/R10 lens issues.
@@gameshoes Are these videos - and the comments - more for Jarred to have a fun rant with information … or so us buying public know the FULL ins and outs of each option?
I'd say the R5 for sure. It's incredibly how well this camera has held up over 2 1/2 years and beats the A7RV in most ways except for resolution - not that there is any real world diff - (including dynamic range, ISO noise and sensor readout speed despite not being a BSI sensor). The A7RV is basically just a rehashed A7RIV with firmware updates and a new LCD. The Z9 is pretty incredible, but also quirky and also very expensive.
Nikon have the best colours. And I’m not talking about only portraits. I have the r5. The colours are off. Very flat. Build quality is cheap plastic. Af and rf top notch.
It's worth mentioning that Nikon has official support from Viltrox and Voigtländer, so not just Tamron who recently announced their first official lens. While Viltrox might not be as sexy as Sigma, but still it's officially supported. Plus, since the Z mount can adapt E-mount lenses, I would put it at the top for adaptability, it's a shocker that this was not taken into consideration. As for glass, I also personally agree that I like the RF glass better, not because Nikon glass is worse, far from it. Z glass is known for its very good quality; however, with a few exceptions, Nikon has a very weird obsession and fixation on super telephoto (400mm up) and standard zoom (20 something mm to something) with a lot of overlaps. Moreover, the lenses are replicating what was in the F mount with very limited experimentation, while Canon is going ballsy with the 28-70mm f2.0, the 5mm Fisheye f2.8, and a much more useful zoom range of 15mm-35mm f2.8 than Nikon's extremely limited 14mm-24mm f2.8 wide zoom. And while I don't use AF or AF tracking being mostly a landscape/cityscape shooter, a few days ago I was on a small vacation in the mountains and I saw some goats that I was trying to shoot while they were running about and... The AF mostly failed to track and focus, and in some instances even gave me a false green focus confirmation box when the results were, in fact, back-focused... It was bad, and now I know why using the current Z lineup (excluding the Z9) can be a hair-pulling and frustrating experience. I haven't tried the other two cameras in this head-to-head comparison, but I know for a fact that the results I got from the Z7II couldn't be worse in the situation I was in. While this last trip helped me bond much more with my Z7II, the disappointment with the AF (my hit rate was about 40%-50%) made me realize how non-competitive the system is and how desperately it needs an update. I couldn't feel but that my products was lacking something and performed below my expectations even when I already set the bar very low... I mean, goats for heaven's sake!!!! Finally, and while you can see the Nikon falling behind in the features area compared to the other two, but being $1000 less is definitely worth considering! You're basically saving the price of an additional camera and you can use this money to get an awesome lens like the 50mm f1.8, a CF Express Type-B, and still get some spare for a compact lens like the 28mm f2.8 or a 105mm Micro f2.8 lens (which is also great for portraits). So, unless you're a sports/wildlife shooter, the Z7II is still worth considering as the best bang for your buck.
No one’s going to read this…
@@mrwashur1991 well, it seems a few people already did ;)
True, however I’ve had very little issue with the AF for birds in flight, all sorts of wildlife. Z6 and Z9. Really not that hard IF you set it up properly. If you’re having trouble shooting goats, I’m going to go out on a limb and say thats on you.
@@attacker7221 that's a fair assumption, however, when I have tried Wide Area-L AF-C, Wide Area-L AF-S, Wide Area-S AF-S, Wide Area-S AF-C, and 3D tracking, all of that with Animal tracking enabled and I didn't get good results tracking moving goats, then that's on Nikon for making it terribly difficult to acquire focus, and making the AF system so user unfriendly. What modes have I missed that you would suggest might work? I'm against spreading misinformation, so believe me me when I say that I'll be more than happy to eat my own words if whatever you recommend works! Another person told me to check if I had the AF set to release or focus, and when I checked the AF-S was set to focus and the AF-C was set to release, but I still got back-focused images even with AF-S although it was set to focus and even when I had the focus confirmation tune and the green box on my subject. In contrast, I used my R10 right out of the box just to see if I shot without learning the camera first or setting anything up what my success rate would be. And, honestly, I didn't miss a single shot even though I didn't set anything up. So, go figure...
That was long ass essay tf
I just bought the Nikon Z7 II new for $2300 and am willing to take some of the drawbacks as I am not a professional photographer. I can also adapt my Tamron 10-20 and 18-400mm lenses from my D7500. I am already familiar with the menus so there will be a short learning curve. KUTGW hairy man!
Had both the Canon R5 and now have the Sony a7RV and I have to say the Sony wins in the AF. Agree with everything else in the video but the Canon definitely isnt as good for AF. The Sony also recognises faces and can pick out my partners face in a crowd from over 20 meters using a 35mm lens. You know how crazy that is? I think you need to do more testing.
@stuartmartin093 He fanboys Canon AF the whole time, yet still all the tests on RUclips show that Sony wins overall 🙄
I don't get it but it might be that he "has" to say it the way he does
No way!!!
@@SuomiFinland78 its a beast in the AF department, I feel like others are on to something when they say Fro is biased these days. Hate to see it. He just doesn’t seem to have tested the a7RV all that much.
How friendly use is the Sony am thinking of shifting from my canon DSLR to canon r5 or Sony Rv need help I watched a million videos and searched I have used canon for 20 years but now I feel Sony is more flixble system but I don’t know how friendly is the camera and menu help lol
I would go with the a7RV because I am a Sony user but more importantly, because i can depend on the camera not overheating. At this point, all 3 cameras are great now. Autofocus is subjective and as long as it has 400+ focus points with fast focus, then its great enough already. Even then i still find myself using touch tracking, spot focus and center focus because I cannot rely on wide AF-C alone. Buy the camera that you like the most or are in their systems, simple as that.
Interesting that the overheating is the issue for you - I have an A7IV and R5 and the A7IV has overheated far more often (30m of 4K30) than my R5 (which hasn’t overheated once during long video shoots). No one talks about the Sony overheating issues..
@@heisjolly I have 2x A7IV and I have experienced overheating issues as well. I only experienced overheating issues when I use cards that are less than V90 speed. Any V90 SD card or Express Type A cards does not create overheating for me. I record in S-cinetone, 10-bit, 4K, 30fps, XAVC-S and what other high settings i have. With V60 & V30 SD cards, overheating is bound to happen with the a7iv. With V90, I can record pass 30 minutes easily without my a7iv shutting off. Canon's R5 is known to have overheating issues that is not recommending for primary video shoots. Unless you have multiple R5 on hands, I wouldnt risk using the R5 as a main camera for a pay gig. Today, i have my fx3 as my dedicated video camera because i prefer to just have 1 dedicated video camera rather than a hybrid camera becoming 2.
The Z7II isn’t just good at landscapes though. It’s good at portraits, fashion, engagements, weddings and so on. It’s not just about sports and wildlife. I think that should be mentioned.
Sorry, but wedding - people moving at partylight in the night, no chance with Nikon... except Z9.
@@KeAiFu negative. I did a whole wedding both no issues.
@@KeAiFu I also shot an event at night with my Z7II and did fine. ALL cameras struggle in low light but if you know what you are doing you can have success.
I appreciate Jarod’s thoughtful opinion. He seems to be a straight shooter when it comes to critiquing brands. He’s big on Canon because it outperforms the others. However, some people get too cranked up when “their” brand isn’t number one in his book. Remember, the greatest photos of all time were taken with cameras with a fraction of a percent of the tech in these machines. The best camera is the one in your hand. Make it work. Cheers!
And it didn't cost £4k
Still hanging onto my D810, going to wait and see what the z7iii / z8 bring. Then decide whether to switch to Sony
On 31-10-2022 shotkit did a poll of 1000 pro shooters and the most popular cameras was.................................... Sony a7III. Just goes to show that the Pros don't seem fooled by the hype and high prices.
For the money, I’d take the Nikon any day of the week. I don’t need video and don’t need to track any sports.
Since you're asking, I'd stay with Nikon out of these 3. Total respect for Canon, and many of Sony's decisions leave me scratching my head.
Z9's AF system is waaaaay better than "good-ish". I feel like the "Z8" would be a more fair comparison here, but, it doesn't exist yet 🙂
Great overview! On the Canon 3rd party - agree that I'd like to see them open up the market, but they are coming out with reasonably priced lenses (100-400, 600mm, 800mm). I'm still using my Tamron 150-600 with the adaptor on my R6.
“Hybrid camera” hype these days is enormous.
The comparison these days are based mostly on the video capabilities and how fast is the autofocus(which is enough fast on any camera if you do portraits/landscapes/street and etc.)
That’s why there is so much hate on Nikon.
A lot customers pay extra price for a body which can shoot 8k but never use it, instead they do stills only. So there is no point to pay extra price for features when you’ll never use them.
Spot on
The thing is, a good stills camera with FAST still frames per second inherently make good cameras for 6k-8k video.
It’s cheaper for the company to make a hybrid camera and use one body and one set of software rather than two cameras with only slightly varied specs and two different sets of software.
A good stills camera with modern creature comforts are good video cameras.
If you don’t want video DSLRs still exist and they’re still very capable. Still image quality hasn’t changed much provided you have good light and/or fast lenses.
If you don’t care for hybrid cameras nowadays, you probably aren’t in the need to buy one and could save literally like 50 percent the cost and buy an older nikon d850, canon 5D etc.
The thing is, a good stills camera with FAST still frames per second inherently make good cameras for 6k-8k video.
It’s cheaper for the company to make a hybrid camera and use one body and one set of software rather than two cameras with only slightly varied specs and two different sets of software.
A good stills camera with modern creature comforts are good video cameras.
If you don’t want video DSLRs still exist and they’re still very capable. Still image quality hasn’t changed much provided you have good light and/or fast lenses.
If you don’t care for hybrid cameras nowadays, you probably aren’t in the need to buy one and could save literally like 50 percent the cost and buy an older nikon d850, canon 5D etc.
Its so different to the 5d mark IV days and 6d mark II days where Cannon lagged behind. Its probably Nikons turn next to move up from the back. If they can trickle down the Z9 tech to the next Z7 and Z6 level camera I think Nikon shooters will be very happy.
Yes! Although, I think the major hurdle Nikon has right now it's video. No internal 10 bit in any camera but the Z9 it's really disappointing. Not only Nikon has fallen behind in this aspect against Canon and Sony, but against other brands also. Panasonic and even Fuji are already ahead in that regard.
I just want to be in the room when you’re coming up with names for your presets
The R5 holds up really well after all these years but that’s to be expected it’s around that time when all cameras made a pretty decent jump in functionality. It’ll be a while before anything out does it in any extreme way. I’m giving the A7R V the nod for the simple fact that it came out ready, doesn’t have that annoying recording limit, and that screen is fantastic. Outside of that they kinda both do the same shit and depending on who you ask that day it’s a toss up who does it better. Oh and the fact that Canon closed off their lens mount is a solid hell nall for me.
What I do not like in Canon is some strange limitations. I know that Sony is doing that as well, but Canon is on the other level. Two examples with r5:
- you can have 12fps mechanical shutter but only if battery is above 60%
- can have 20fps electronic shutter but only if lens is fully open (max aperture)
C’mon Canon!
It looks like they maxed out the specs just to have it look good on the paper…
Maybe I'm way off base here, but comparing ISO ranges seems kind of pointless? Like, it's my understanding that it's more or less arbitrary, and if you really want to know about the type of performance you're going to get from a body in terms of ISO-related stuff, you need to do actual dynamic range and low-light/under-and-over exposure tests with different ISOs.
Yep, 100 ISO can mean diffeent things to different cameras. They are not all alike.
Moved to Sony . At least E-mount got 3rd party affordable yet very good quality lenses & tons available in used market. The best things actually for a mirrorless body, are the e-mount lenses choices much compact & lighter. Much better choice for gimbal user, 24-70 RF 900g vs 28-75mm 540g or 24-70mm gm ii 700g or Sigma 28-70mm 470g.
For battery also Sony, easy get original battery in used market. Rather than buying new batteries lpe6nh.
Adapters are not relevance, your hands easily tired using heavier lenses that ergonomically gonna be front heavy. Native lenses tends to works better, fit better, more ergonomic, lighter setup & easier to balance on gimbal. Adapter itself weight 100g.
Good job on Canon for dramatically design better sensor with higher dynamic range comparable to others.
Also love R6 mk i & ii for mid level resolution easier / faster post processing rather than 33mp a7iv.
One important point you left out is a comparison of the three companies support, and repair facility's. If they have a Pro membership, how do the benifi6ts compare?
Several RUclipsrs that are professional that I watch have change systems because Sony's service not only sucked it was non existent
@@buticks That was my experience with their line of laptops. They actually outsourced their after sales tech services to a third party company who couldn't care less and was trying its best to not help. Never forgot that and haven't bought a Sony product ever since...But I gotta admit the 7 R V is tempting me now....
R5 for me, mostly adapted EF and third-party [fast Sigma Art Primes] RF 135mm f1.8 in the gun sights, and no regrets!
The Nikon Z7ii also can drop its ISO to 32. The files for landscapes at an ISO of 32 is jaw dropping.
Not native. That’s like saying the other cameras can also do ISO 50
@@stepheneckert4006 I’m curious, since some of these sub-100 ISO’s are “not native” what makes them bad to use? I understand the opposite end of the spectrum, where the really high ISO’s are technically usuaable but are stupid noisy, but what could be so bad about dropping the ISO below the native rating? What’a the caviat?
@@mchase40 I’m not saying they’re “bad to use,” but more that they’re just fake software-based “extended” numbers that don’t take advantage of the sensor. We were always told by the manufacturer engineers that these L ISO’s were only meant for when you needed a slower shutter speed (ie. camera doesn’t go faster than 1/4000) or maxed out at your len’s aperture, and that it was still best to shoot at the native low ISO to retain the maximum dynamic range, especially in the highlights.
@@stepheneckert4006 gotcha, thanks for that
@@mchase40 it’s a great question though. I also have always questioned it before hearing it directly from the engineers
Haven't watched through the video yet, but I've been biased in favor of Canon since I was a little kid, and have worked my way up to the R5 and a modest collection of L glass over the last few years.
Always learning and it's clear I'm holding the camera back moreso than the other way round 🤙
Love your stuff, Jared; keep being you ✌️
I find it odd that it wasn’t mentioned that the Nikon is the oldest of the bunch. It’s also explicitly slated as landscape camera.
Additionally, using the Nikon Z7 release price to knock on the Z7ii price was the weirdest out-of-left-field comment I’ve ever heard when comparing across brands. Why are you talking about a camera not in the lineup as a mark against the Nikon? The Z7ii is literally over a thousand dollars cheaper than the others in the lineup. I cannot understand why that is a knock against Nikon??
Additionally the weird button position comments on Nikon disqualifying it from a check but the shit-feel of a Sony isn’t??
A lot of this video was good but those were the most egregiously biased comments against Nikon for no legitimate reason.
There’s not a cat in hells chance Jared will pick the Nikon.
I feel like the Sony system is a good middle ground between performance and budget. You have great older bodies as a second camera (a7riii) plus the third party lenses from sigma and Tamron. Then there's room to grow: ie a9 ii or a1 or A7Rv.
And this is coming from an owner of two canons.
I have a used Sony A7R3 with adapter mount for Canon EF-L lenses. The viewfinder is much brighter in low light compared to my used Canon DSLRs (5DRS, 5DM4).
Sony has BY FAR the best full frame lens selection.
Starting with half a dozen wide angle zooms (most of them F2.8), a 12mm and 14mm prime, THREE 20mm primes, and two 24mm primes.
Primes include the ones mentioned above plus multiple others in 35, 40, 50, 85, 90, 100, 105, 135, 400, and 600mm.
Then half a dozen zooms in the ~24-70mm range (most of them F2.8).
Almost a DOZEN telephoto zooms ranging from 70 to 600mm.
Then you got some incredible superzoom/travel lenses, like the unicorn that is the Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 (a zoom/aperture combo that is still unmatched), and the bargain but high quality Tamron 28-200 F2.8-5.6. Sony's own 24-240mm isn't great but still far better than Canon's RF version.
And sure, only 1/3 of these are actually made by Sony, with Tamron and Sigma making the rest, but that's the beauty of having a mount fully open to 3rd parties. You can't possibly tell me Canon RF or Nikon Z can surpass all this.
Hi Jared
Don't forget that you Can adapt many alpha point on sony
Canon getting the “adaptability” lens win over Sony is like a Toyota getting the gasoline engine award against an EV. Ridiculous. 😂
Unbelieveable
Nobody can match the EF lens selection, it’s legendary and works seamlessly on RF mount! Flawless Victory!
Sony can't do that with a mount. Nikon can't do the same on F mount.
It's more like Tesla Supercharge wins award on best native charger.
Are you dense?
@@zegzbrutalWho needs A mount when E mount has tone of Lens
I would think most people deciding on any of these cameras are already fully invested in one of the systems... and in that case it would be obvious which camera that person would choose. Unless someone is looking to make a drastic change from one system to another. I bought the A7RV because I had the A7III and already have 3 sony lenses and 2 tamron lenses so even if the R5 had certain advantages over the Sony, I wouldn't get it because it is a pain in the ass to change over to all canon lenses.
Bought R5 and a second one. No regrets. Love the AF, dynamic range and ability to crop. Serious hobbyist. RF glass is amazing. Third party option would be an improvement for sure.
Thank you for this superb video. It has helped me realize which will be my next purchase. I already have numerous ""L" lenses so the decision is now concrete. Will have to purchase an adapter for my EF lenses. Again thank you.
From nikon shooter yes 💯 that really I'm not professional but the numbering very clear in Jared vedio hope time back again but I'm try enjoying with my nikon
I have the R5. It is a jack of all trades and masters most. It does everything very well. No regrets. Period.
I’m sure even more people would say the same thing about the Sony
@@richardgrant418 a7r5 is too slow to be all rounder.
If it can do 20~30fps at oversampled 26M in full frame mode . Then it's the better option.
@@richardgrant418 Sadly, the only thing that's hindering the A7RV from being as fast in capturing speeds as the R5 is the fact that the A1 already exists, and if it gets anywhere close to that, then the A1's sales would be significantly hurt, as the A7RV would be able to do 95% of what the A1 could do for $2500 less.
You can adapt excellent A Mount glass to the A7RV. Old Sony and Minolta glass work well.
For the same price you can get a Fuji GFX 50R or 50S II. There are more than just full frame options
True. But those cameras are like studio only cameras.
They’re a lot heavier, have slower FPS so for events and sports it’s a no go.
The video is pretty bad in terms of codec and frame rate options.
And the lowlight despite it being a much bigger sensor, is not that great due to the far worse iso sensitivity but admittedly for controlled lighting stills, and broad daylight stills they’re the most beautiful cameras I’ve seen.
The problem with the gfx line is the lack of versatility.
You talk about price but the lenses are significantly more expensive. Negating the fact that the bodies are the same price
@@RiceCubeTech have you priced the lenses for the GFX vs RF?
@@memcrew1 RF is great but overpriced. You have all of Canons glass that is perfectly adapted with full AF performance. Sony has third party support with some of the fastest AF lenses out.
Pricing it just against RF is stupid.
But even still, GFX is still pricier for a lot of things. A 50mm is 700 bucks. A 45-100 is 1800 (which is about like a 24-70 on FF) and a lot of 24-70s on the Sony lines can be 800-1200 bucks from tamron and sigma.
The 110 F2 which is like an 85mm is 2300, the sigma art 85mm on Sony is a fraction of that.
@@RiceCubeTech I own GFX glass and it’s cheaper than Sony and Canon native glass. I don’t care about 3rd party glass(I would never use them)
@@memcrew1 but it’s… not. I literally was just in B&H and it’s not cheaper lol. Not using third party glass is stupid as hell. It’s literally just as sharp at a fraction of the price. Sigma art lenses are exactly as sharp as Gmaster for usually 40 percent less. You’d be stupid to not to.
Another important note, for most photographers their skills are not high enough to run into a hardware/software battle yet. Just being said, Nigel Danson can beat your ass without a doubt using Nikon z7 versus you using Sony A1. Just sayin~
The Z7II is basically the same as the 2018 Z7. R5 2020 and A7RV 2022. Hopefully Nikon has a Z7III just around the corner to even or better it's score on these three models.
Z7II - grip option, dual slots (mandatory for paid work), more AF options and better performance. To name a few. The mark II's are a good upgrade.
Great review Jared. One comment. I have the Canon R5 and it does go down to 50 iso. I shoot at 50 a lot--it's labeled as 'low' in the menu.
Felt like a 2021 video flashback
Can we expect a similar comparison of the canon r6 mark 2, sony a7iv, nikon z6/z7 2?
More appropriately, the Z6/7 III
I bought the Sony A7RV for the pixel shift multi shooting, the focus bracketing, the dynamic range, the 61 megapixels, the AI auto focusing, the rear screen multi-axis capability, and the wireless tethering. The focus tracking is great too.
Very good and detailed video, so I went out and sold all my Canon gear and purchased a Fuji camera! Thanks for your help!
slow down speaking. I’m a stroke survivor trying to recover & remember photography. Thanks Jared.
I love fropack 1,2,3 Thank you Fro!
I went through almost all of the comments and found the third party lens debacle to way too prevalent here. I would agree that Canon's handling of third party lenses has not been great. However, when you're looking at cameras of this caliber, you should not be looking at third party glass unless if the first party was a flopper (looking at you, Canon 14-35 F4, with that crazy distortion and vignette). Is it expensive to go first party all the way through? Heck yeah. But is going all the way with first party worth it? Most of the time, yes.
I worked camera retail for nearly four years. I've watched many customers take great leaps through their photography journey. They started out with a DSLR and got some Sigma or Tamron lenses. What did they end up with while I was on my way out of retail? Modern mirrorless cameras with only first party lenses.
If you've got the money for these cameras, first party lenses shouldn't be far behind that purchase. You don't buy these higher-tier cameras to save money. This debate should really only be taking place in the lower-tier camera sections. If you're wanting the Tamron 35-150 F2.8, okay fine, you got me. That's a lens with no first party answer to.
Things do change. Nowadays the * better third-party lenses are often as good than the Canon/Sony/ Nikon
and sometimes better. One example: if you look into the more thorough reviews carefully, the best superzoom is a Tamron
Yes but Canon also doubled its prices for RF lenses compared to before. EF lenses here in Europe were 1500-2000 EUR a piece for the last decade, now the RF options are 3000-3500 which is insane. The comparable Sony E mounts Grand Master are still at 1500-2000. So you could buy 3 top Sony lenses for 4500 EUR whereas 3 Canon top lenses would be 9000 EUR. It's insane and probably will lead me to switch to Sony this year. Especially since Canon cracking down on third party manufacturers seem to indicate this won't change anytime soon.
I can't be happier with my R5. Truly an amazing camera
These videos should be named "if you're looking for the best specs on paper..etc"
Not really.
@@froknowsphoto really
An inconvenant fact Jared left out, as has been noted. Current prices: Sony a7RV - $3,899.00, Canon R5 - $3,399.00, Nikon Z7 II - $2,596.00. Yes, Nikon lags in several areas, don't know if its software, hardware or both, but it is also a lot cheaper. Price point comparison may be a better measure
I’m stuck in the Nikon DSLRs and I’m not looking forward to when I have to jump ship and spend a crap ton of money😂
Do upgrade to D850 if you could, best DSLR ever. It's not that expensive anymore and it's such a beautiful camera besides being big and heavy
Nikon will have new Mid Tier cameras out in 2023. I bet your DSLR's will hold up long enough for you to make a decision. The Z9 seems to drive the F mount glass better than the Z7II with the adapters.
I can’t express how much I enjoy this dude!
The Canon R5 can go down to ISO "L" which is, according to some software, equivalent to to ISO 50.
The best deal right now for photographers is the original 45 mp Nikon Z7 for $1796 new at BH. Update to the latest firmware and you have a machine just as capable as the Nikon Z7II for a thousand dollars less. Get an FTZ adapter and you have a huge selection of Nikon and third party glass available.
Please consider comparing the menus of cameras in your next video.
Thanks for all the info, I will go for the Sony A7RV
and ALL three cameras would be just fine for real estate photography and videography. Overkill actually! Would be interesting to know the breakdown in employment/industry sector for photographers. I can't imagine anywhere the majority of photographers sitting in sports stadiums taking photos. Just a tip Jared. I appreciate your effort in putting the video together mate. Cheers
Most "professional" photographers make very little money. People like Jared are not the norm. A lot of people buy very expensive gear because they like the idea of being a photographer and think that it is all about gear and the manufacturers don't tell them otherwise.
If you think about it, it would make a lot more sense buying a photography course than a new camera. But people don't get it.
Sports photographers are a tiny minority of camera buyers. The money is with the high end enthusiasts, content creators and event photographers/videographers.
@@doghouseriley4732 Most professionals treat a camera like a tool. Something breaks you fix it. If a new feature does not make money you keep what you have. It is only these influencers who have the latest greatest mostly and these videos are to sell to people fixation on gear rather than results and have expendable income,buying and having makes them happy.
@@jgaffney567 this thread is insightful
What camera do you recommend for pet photography? sony aRV?
Like you mentioned, the z7ii will become my second camera for landscape :)
Very detailed and to the point. This video validates everything I have been saying. Thank you bud for the great work.
All major cameras are pretty great, especially ones from Canon and Sony. I just wish Sony or Sigma would copy the RF 28-70mm f2. It’s such a nice lens and it’s as good as a prime lens
Canon has announced no third party lenses
@@buticks we all know that.
But that’s not what Stephen suggested(!)
That’s incredibly high praise
I’m a Sony shooter and I would love that, but it won’t happen. Sony said it’s possible for them to make a similar lens but it would be significantly larger and heavier due to their smaller mount size.
They said they in theory could make an even brighter 24-70 but the size and weight would be so horrible it wouldn’t be worth it.
Sony really shot themselves in the foot by making their mount for apsc and full frame. They made the mount smaller than canon and nikon.
Get the Tamron 35-150 F2-2.8 for a LOT less than the Canon 28-70. It's only available currently for the Sony. Amazing lens!
Jared , we love you and your awesome content.
Buy the R5 and let Canon bleed you dry with the price of the RF glass because they won't let Tamron and Sigma in and if you keep buying it, they will never let them in and you'll be getting ripped off to the end of time. Everyone says this is not a good way forward for Canon but they turn round and say "But look at all the Canon Sheep buying it" - they have a point.
Neither Tamron or Sigma have confirmed they want to make RF lenses yet.
Canon sell fewer but make up for it in profit margin. Sony sell more but make up for in volume. Seems that is the route each are taking.
Think eventually Canon will open up but by that time would they lose too many users? We will see. Pros will still stay Canon since they can easily afford it.
@@Battlem0nk Why do you think Sony make less profit? Most of the sensors in mirrorless cameras were made by Sony. Sony got there first and stole a march on the others and they have been playing catch-up. We could say now that they have caught up.
Fuji have come out with 2 great cameras, the X-H2S has a lightening quick stacked sensor and is what the R7 should have been (shame on Canon). And the X-H2 is the high resolution monster, the highest pixel density on any ASP-C camera.
Everyone seems to focus on the speed of the autofocus but the R7 has very fast autofocus and such a small buffer that you can only shoot for one second in RAW before it fills up. It is also not well weather sealed so water and dust are your enemy and not great for a wildlife camera.
Just look on Flickr, there are many photographers taking amazing pictures without breaking the bank, and using many different cameras. Don't believe the hype
@@stuartallenphotos Not sure why someone deleted the link and reply. Basically, Canon threatened lens manufacturers so that they would not produce lenses to fit the Canon RF mount.
I love the cheaper options for RF glass, they work great! The RF 35mm f/1.8 has become one of my favorite lenses, it has stabilization and it was cheap! IQ is great, love the macro function too! I’m getting the 85mm f/2 next!
Kinda feel a little biased against the Sony:
Sony EVF was higher res, but was not given a tick
Sony IBIS spec was superior, but was not given a tick
When talking about the mount, I don’t think it was mentioned that you can adapt EF lenses pretty well to the Sony.
I own 4 Canon body’s & 2 Sony bodies. 4 native Sony G/GM lenses, at least 7 native canon EF lenses, so I’m not a particularly strong ‘fanboy’ one way or the other.
The reason why I ended up with a Sony at all, is because I tried my EF 70-200 IS 2.8 mk2 on an A7R3 via a meta ones adapter and was really surprised on how well it AF’ed, at least as good as the Canon I was using at the time. Having said that, if I had not added a Sony body at the end of 2017 and had just continued to shoot with the Canon, I’d have probably ended up with the R5 now, but as I have both Canon EF and Sony E systems (and Fujifilm GFX & Leica M), I’m probably less likely to buy into the Canon RF system now.
Not even kinda biased.
For me the crucial point was for AF perf.
Sony was well known to have the best AF capabilities in mirrorless world. Canon has catch up very nice with R5 and R3, which means that Canon is almost on par with Sony. And know when Sony is doing another leapfrog with a7rV introducing dedicated ai processor for even more precise AF, the author of that video is claiming that R5 is ‘still’ better, or it wasn’t better before but now is better? I’m calling that BS…
PS. To author of the video: Sony is not using Lock-on AF from years. It is called Real Time Tracking. If do not know it, how can you review the cameras…
Bro skittles made my Christmas mini edits so much faster! Thank you sir 🤝
It's amazing that the R5 comes out on top even though it's 3 years old. What is the R1 going to look like? A master of all or none?
Happy Holidays Mr. Fro...
Doesn't the R5 have pretty bad rolling shutter at 20FPS?
No, it doesn’t. Shop baseball with it without a problem. Every so often you will see some of the rolling shutter but not too often. It’s very usable.
Hobby landscape photographer here, love the z6. I focus manually for landscapes anyway 😂
Jared the GOAT
Messi is the GOAT. Haven't you been watching?
7:48 the colors and contrast of this first image are just fantastic.
Ok jared u got me ... i will buy ...
All the camera
So much good info in such a short time!
I have to say, despite shooting Nikon myself, I would not recommend anyone buying a Z7 II (or Z6 II) at this point, unless you are just looking for amazing IQ at a kinda lower price point for doing studio or landscape stuff (cause those $1000 will buy you a very nice tripod or lights). Those cameras are pretty much outdated at this point compared to what Canon and Sony have to offer right now. I really hope Nikon stops dragging their feet and finally come out with an update for those models
There's definitely a bias for the R5 in this. Sony is actually better in most ways and the Z7ii isn't really for this market, but one step lower. The Z8 will be a good one for comparison in this category.
Jared:
Canon is better with Sony because xyz, and that is why we choose it, it is amazing camera.
Sony is better with Canon with abc, but does it really matter? can you see the differences?
So, it is like switching from camera to camera comparison to results to results comparison to glorify canon r5.
Why is that even needed? Canon r5 is amazing camera. Just let’s keep the facts straight on…
Jared - mid September '23 - R6mkii at $2500 or R5 on sale for $3100? Worth the upgrade to the R5 or nah?
Isn't the iso mode L equal to iso 50 in the R5?
Nikon is available for $2000. It’s a great deal. The camera is not bad at that price. I would go for Nikon. I have a tight budget.
Just picked up a Z7ii w 3000 shutter for $1700 on ebay. No brainer. Saved $ and bought great glass
Thank you very much for the wonderful reviews, I choose R5 thanks to your reviews
Rawtalk - really missed it from the 2013-2014 days.
I have been a Canon user for 50 years, only when I bought an R5 I could no longer use Sigma lenses. Luckily I still have a 5D4, but for eye tracking, the main reason I went to mirrorless I am losing out, especially with my 120-300mm f2.8. It has got to the point I am considering getting a Sony A7Rv with a Sigma MC11. The mk4 is cheaper, but the new tilt screen is a tipping point,only as I shouldn't be spending thousands when I am on a small pension, it pisses me off that Canon have not addressed the 3rd party issue, in firmware if not aloowing Sigma etc to build RF glass.
Great review. I'm definitely leaning towards the R5.