For those who want a closer look at the files, I have 2 that you can download here: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t969ikG6FFP1hteOgg-7RY56omOQP3Tc?usp=sharing
Mladen Šćekić Awwwww I Wouldn’t say 10x Better!!!!Before Manny Said it,I was telling myself,The Skin Was looking a little Better on The Canon But is it Worth the Money?NOT!!!!!SPECIALLY When You too deep in to Sony...
Thanks for making this comparison - great job on keeping similar composition as well as model pose :D Files are really useful - could you please share a couple more? As far as lens comparison goes - Sony has much more color fringing while Canon has a bit more vignette. The field of view difference you mention @6:45 might have something to do with focus breathing, which some RF lenses have quite a lot. This means that at some focus distance FOV might actually match the other lens. Canon clipping highlights are noticeable even on the white shirt ... hopefully they release a better RF-mount camera soon!
Nah, its more like a Sony fanboy who can't get an f/1.2 playing it off like 1.2 is no big deal. I can argue you can't tell a difference between 1.8 and 1.4 too...
@@michaelbell75 he stepped down from being a sony ambassador so he could use other brands. I don't think this came out of being a fanboy, especially if he owns the canon as well.
@@michaelbell75 I don't want to get caught up in a stupid keyboard warrior session. But Manny stepped down from being a Sony ambassador. And he also owns a Canon and use to shoot with a canon. Im sure if you shot with a different background and lighting situations, the 1.2 would be more significant. At the end of the day.. all that matters is what works best for you. Manny simply just threw out his opinion. As we're all entitled to.
Ariel Badeo but if your only argument is 1.4 is better because it’s $1k cheaper and you can get close to the look of the 1.4, I can make that same argument for 1.8 vs 1.4
@@michaelbell75 The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is very noticeable, but 1.2 and 1.4 has no difference at all. Check the comparison here: www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/
Great video, agree and disagree on some points. Agree that in this age of photos being viewed almost exclusively online and often in the postcard sized windows of a smartphone, the difference between the f/1.4 Sony and the f/1.2 Canon is negligible. But disagree that the Canon lens wasn't actually markedly better. Most lens are not as sharp wide open and with the Canon it was sharper than the Sony at a wider aperture AND the background had more bokeh. That's a double whammy. Now whether that's worth an extra $1,000 in today's word of quickly consumed media, I'm not sure. A friend of mine has a theory that the subtle differences don't register consciously with viewers, but subconsciously, so they'll just like one photographer's photos better but can't articulate why.
But wouldn't "liking one photographers photos better subconsciously" mark it as the "better" lens+camera combo? if its noticeable even for a person who doesn't even know the difference between the two, wouldn't that make it markedly better?
Out-of-focus highlights in the background show a green outlining on the Sony lens (longitudinal chromatic aberrations) whereas the Canon lens is perfectly corrected for these aberrrations.
@@anthonyc1883 No. That's a transiton to an overexposed green outdoor background. Look at 7:08 ruclips.net/video/JHP5rLL1MVg/видео.html where you can see the difference.
@SwitchRich yeah but the sum of all these little things that non photographers don't notice can make up for a great image. Also we love showing our photos to other photographers.
I'm at the cross roads of jumping into mirrorless and this video certainly had an impact on my decision. Thanks Manny, looking forward to the next one.
Diana trying to flirt with you and you're just like all in camera mode, lol. '100' is just not speaking your language. She's awesome. Love the whole dynamic between you two. Obviously made for each other.
I'm not a photographer, but I like her face skin tone on the Canon picture, especially the closeups. As a brown female myself, I would prefer a photographer using that camera on me if I were doing makeup closeup shots especially.
Both look great but the sharpness of the RF 85 1.2 is definitely superior. And colors and skin tones from the EOS R look more pleasing to my eyes (For example 7:07)- But again it's a preference thing but I can't say the RF is a $1000 dollars worth more than G Master. Can't go wrong with either system. Wish I had both. Great comparison Manny!
@@anthonyc1883 If you take a closer look you can tell the shot from canon was a bit overexposed (Look at the orange on her skull cap) - which won't show the accurate representation of colors. Sony has more pink/magenta tint which again is not right or wrong and is purely a preference and can easily be tweaked to anyone's liking with 1 or 2 simple steps in Lightroom. :)
Anthony C Exactly. If a picture from either camera is in front of you by itself , you would be more than happy with it. Which is why I say you can’t go wrong with either or and it’s all preference :)
Got the EOS R and the RF 85 F1.2. I don't even care what camera is better. They're so close like you said. If I got the A7iii with the 85GM, I'd ALWAYS be lusting after that red ring F 1.2... Went with my heart instead of my wallet and I'm a happy dude.
@@Chazyfizzlez damn, there’s so much info for these two, I’m having the worst time deciding, I was stuck on the a7 until I saw how many people love the canon comfort and color. I’m a beginner and want to shoot short films. Real tough.
@@HeresTheTale if you’re a beginner then you can’t really go wrong with either system. Canon’s new bodies have autofocus just as good as Sony. The video codecs are both good. Most people prefer canon because it’s easier to get a certain color profile that people tend to like. Take a little more work on Sony. It’s a tough choice since it’s a big investment but go with your gut and don’t look back. You’ll be happy either way.
will you stop blubbering about colors. Color is as good as the preset in Manny's Lightroom (or as bad - if you are just using what Adobe's engineers included)
Are the files at 7:08 both unedited? The fringing on the Sony is pretty severe compared to the Canon. I'm a Sony shooter, still using some great Minolta glass so CA is something I see a LOT of, but if the Canon has no fringing at 1.2 at all, that's impressive!
I know it's been a long time since you posted this video but I'm looking forward to get the EOS R and this is the most helpful video I've ever watched , and lemme tell you something, I've been watching a lot of videos related to the EOS R. Thanks a lot Manny
When you say "maximum depth of field," I think you mean to say "shallowest depth of field." Maximum depth of field is what you get at f22 or something really high when you want to shoot landscapes and keep everything in focus. f1.2 bokeh is from shallow depth of field, blurring the background. Just want people to have the correct terminology :)
ok finally ! The results are really similar, and the F1,2 i think its good but u can get cheaper lense and also has good quality! BUT, when u zoomed pictures the sharpness on the face and colors are really better with canon !
To be fair, the Canon also has 6MP more. So pictures naturally should look sharper on the same magnification of both pictures. Interestingly some of the Canons are greener some times, sometimes the Sony. The variations of skin stones in different spots is more natural and true to life on Sony, but I do agree that the Canons even tonality and way of handling the skin tones in the different situations in more flattering - which tbf is more important in the end. But since the Sony has more room to play with, you should be able to match or even exceed it with knowhow.
As a former Chicagoan I can relate bro. Been at the pro shooting game now near 25 years. Been through all the top Canon, Nikon and even Sony bodies along the way with great glass. You summed it up perfectly. There IS indeed a "honeymoon" phase, then the reality hits after close examination. It's more about the tool and how it fits with your style. I'm also currently working with a Canon R finding it was maligned erroneously as well. But not sure it's THE camera I'll end up with. The next year should reveal a lot of advancements in new models and technology so just hang on and watch it happen.
Several points have to do with the sensor and the lens, itself. Hopefully, Canon will release another camera with better dynamic range than the EOS R, for environmental portraits where photographers want to play more with tonality. However, this is a necessary test to make, and it's great how Manny did it.
Honestly, the Canon looks better to me side by side. This is why I'm switching back to Canon from Sony. Probably picking up the 85mm RF as well. The highlight roll-off is more pleasant and the micro contrast is looks amazing.
Not many people know about micro-contrast. It is one of the most important things for me. The other comment for me is the color. I shoot Canon because Canon has better color for dark skin. It looks more realistic with less editing. Both cameras and lenses are good but for pro work I’d go canon for the unique look.
@@ThreeCeeProductions There is no better lens for portrait than the 85mm 1.2, it’s simply the way it is, the best. Everything else is below, Sony has color problems.
MrCameraJunkie I think that's a big takeaway here because photographers are switching systems as often as some people change their socks. Advanced new gear is great but you can almost set your calendar and your watch to the next wave of "Time to Switch???" videos every 6-8 months as one manufacturer leapfrogs another. For heaven sake, people, if you've got a 85 1.4 GM lens go out and shoot the hell out of it. You are already 99.9% golden!
Great video Manny! Like how you just laid it on the ground with which camera one should buy. It shouldn’t be which camera is the greatest, but which camera best suit your needs. All camera brands has their ups and downs.
To my surprise, Sony color looks warmer and nice and pleasant! Years ago, it was opposite, no? The Canon 85/1.2 is a Master Class lens though. Thanks Manny & Diana:)
@@stkuj A7RIV has updated color science? Wasn't aware I figure it was the same as A7III if they didn't mention it. (I didn't hear them pimping it anyways) Curious to see if Venice makes it's way into their DSLR line up too, i've heard good things about it with their cinema line, would be cool if the A7IV got it as well.
In this experiment, the Canon looks better. The Sony pics looks orange, especially at 6:48. They are both nice cameras, the Canon just seems a little better.
@@Dante-qf9yd Seems like the beanie is more orange on Sony but the skin is more orangeish on Canon, but at least a consistent color across the face. Idk I cant really tell whats better tho, I don't really have a preference or usually see that stuff I guess. Not sure if im odd man out in this but when normal people watch videos I don't think i've ever heard anyone comment on skin tones, just how good the story/editing or video is in general. Most probably don;t care about skin tones or resolution or slightly better bokeh, it all just slightly adds to the overall delivery. But these videos are still fun I love em:)
Eddie Sanchez Agreed. It's great when any manufacturer pushes the limits. Great new gear is awesome, of course. But this lust for 1.2 "creamy bokeh" porn on lenses now costing $3K (!!), that are actually causing people to switch entire systems, is just nuts.
wood nymph I thought the same thing. Even though I like one of the Canon photos better, before I looked at which photos was which, I picked the Sony one most of the time
@@houstoninternationalmedia3408 I honestly couldn't tell a difference on my phone screen, if it wasn't labeled. I like both. I think Sony has a cooler and more modern colors. Really good for city scenes in the dark. Canon sensors and glass are a bit warmer, which I think so slightly better in some settings. Again it's a super slight difference. Putting sigma art lenses on a Canon will give something closer to Sony colors.
Looks like the Sony has missed focus several times, which is surprising, considering the claims about its eye-AF 4:32 or 6:45 is where both seem correct 2:326:08 back focusing 5:41 is not focused on the nearest eye (maybe that is off on the Canon as well just seems less noticeable with the lack of CA) etc. The Canon seems to be focusing much better, no point in getting a lens like this if it just fails to hit it 100% properly.
"More depth of field" should more accurately be called "shallower depth of field" - "more" suggests a deeper plain of focus, which is the opposite of what you mean. But I love you and your videos.
Wow! I expected the RF 85 f1.2 to be better, but not THAT much better. Nicer blur, sharper, and more true to life (the Sony lens makes the face look flat compared to the RF 85 f1.2).
6:39 you talk about having maximum depth of field with the Canon f/1.2L lens but actually to have *maximum depth of field* you would be shooting at f/64 or something like that. I think what you meant to say is f/1.2 might provide a slightly more *shallow depth of field* compared to f/1.4.
Thanx Manny!as you said i dont see much of difference as far as depth of field goes between 1.2 and 1.4.i for sure saw that canon was sharper and had cooler tone not only on skin but in general so i think it will be easy to adjust on lr or ps to make these pictures look alike. The only thing i didnt like about sony was ca especially around bokeh balls...but again it is something you could fix in post.thank you i enjoyed this comparison
Hi Manny, that was a great comparison. I downloaded the 2 sample images and viewed them side-by-side in Capture One Pro. I noticed a few things instantly: the Canon image is slightly sharper, the colours are much nicer (even the blacks are much richer black), the lens is very noticeably greater in focal length, the DOF is definitely noticeably shallower..... but here's the big one: you said there is much more information in the Sony files, yet the darkest shadow at the side of Dianna's face (where there is less detail in her hair) is noticeably more recoverable on the Canon image! Max out the shadow slider on each image and the Canon image shows more hair detail in the darkest shadows. There wasn't anything I could really recover in the highlights, but highlight recovery seemed similar on both cameras when setting highlight recovery to max. I am not seeing all this extra information in the Sony file you speak of? You just sold me on Canon in this photoshoot.
I love how you conveniently omitted the green tint in Canon image in your fanboy rant. How come you can see the hair strands but that horrible cast goes unnoticed?
@@michaelbell75 yes and no.... also 2.0 looks like 1.8. 2.2 looks like 2 2.2 is not like 1.2 so... it always depend from resources and priorities. take what you can, and make the best out of it
@@bobceffo My point is, if the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 isn't worth $1k as the video claims, then the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is also not worth an extra $1k either right?
Thanks for your work Manny, both shoot GREAT photos - and I agree - we are all getting way too picky! But, if I had to asses it closely, I actually see more detail in the Canon shots... and the colour fringing on the Sony combo is off-putting (especially at 7:08 with the green fringe in background and purple/magenta fringe around logo on hat) and would take some extra time in post to correct? I think that is why Canon images are preferred 'straight out of the box'. I have to do very little in post to make the Canon image pop. In terms of the dynamic range issue, I think if anyone needs to recover more than what the Canon offers, they really need to re-shoot the image with correct exposure. I personally rarely recover more than half a stop.
Funny thing is, Sony colors look better in my eyes. Canon has an olive hue to the skin. The colors look very very similar these days, only until you put them side by side do you see differences. Otherwise both cameras are extremely capable.
that's really interesting! personally Sony's skin tones felt a little too magenta for me but I can definitely see how canon comes off a little more soft greenish especially in direct comparison
2:34 Sony just got chroma abberation (look on the green border at light behind her) :), Canon is just clear image and i think sharpness is better for Canon too :). But dynamic range is for Sony of course :).
Thanks Manny for the great video, I was kind of shocked when I downloaded the 2 images and Canon is clearly sharper, I was surprised you didn't say anything about that. Even if you look at the logo on Diana's head it's much sharper on Canon. I shoot with A6400 and Canon 5DM4 and love them both.
12mp more than the Sony A7III of course. Now let him try that with the Sony A7RIII and you will see if that Canon lens still holds up against the 85 1.4 GM.
@@Kprawl291986 it's a 6k dollar camera stupid,. Canon has the same flagship camera, and soon to be released in 2020,. Eosr and Sony a7iii almost has a same price,. That's why it's a good comparison,. So stupid,.
Thank you very much for this test, Manny. I really enjoyed it. The Canon RF lens is clearly superior in sharpness and it is also better corrected regarding chromatic aberrations than the 85 GM lens (not my cup of tea). So winner for the RF, in my opinion. About color and contrast I rather prefer Sony's rendering. And I also think that Sony's files have a greater dynamic latitude, as you pointed out. Do you have a Sigma 85 f1,4 Art E-mount at hand? From my own experience this lens is outstandingly sharp wide open, with far better CAs correction than the GM, and it has been blackfridayed to $799, a true bargain, in bold and capital letters. By the way, your X-Pro trigger has the connections cap very loose and it starts dancing at the slightest chance, exactly like mine, lol. I fixed it attaching a little piece of thin adhesive tape inside the 2,5mm sync jack hole. Waiting for your next vid... Best.
But unlike the 1.2 vs 1.4, the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is very noticeable. Check this link, www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/ scroll down and look at the images of different apertures of the same lens. They are all shot with RF 50 1.2 at f1.2 f1.4 f1.8 and f2. You can clearly see difference between 1.8 and 1.4, but no difference between 1.4 and 1.2.
@@Crutch456 I don't think so. The reason to invest in ultra fast aperture is to have sharper image at smaller aperture : 85mm 1.4 would be sharper at f2 than 85mm 1.8 at f2
Coming from a Sony shooter, the Canon seemed noticably sharper to me. Anyone else agree or is it just in my head? With that being said, I didn't open the files and look for myself.
Sony has green fringing, look at 10:30, the canon has smoother defocused areas. The canon is a far superior lens. Edit, the sony has green fringing in the bokeh in almost every shot. I am impressed about what he says about the dynamic range of the sony.
I completely agree, the canon reds are too orange for me (noticeable in the lips). The WB in the final outdoor bokeh test made her look like a zombie with the overly cool tones. I don't care much about auto WB but still weird that it's so off under simple overcast lighting
As a Canon shooter I agree with you, the skin tones in the A7III remind me of the EOS 5D classic/1Ds mkII skin tones which were REALLY natural, later Canon went a bit nuts with the saturation of the red and orange. However I don't know why people keep using LR, ACR's color engine isn't nearly as good as Capture One's.
@@vonpotatostein Yes, its like worlds between, even sharpness is way better in Capture One, aswell as it has less noise and less artifacts when you push the files to the limit.
Manny I have the EOS R and I love it! I also found myself checking out the A7III to see if its what I wanted as a backup to my Canon. I had it for about a month and loved it. but for me you cant beat the Canon color science. yes the lens are more expensive, but I think it comes down to the person behind the camera and what your willing to spend. Im waiting to see what Sigma brings to the RF mount. at the end of the day I would own both cameras they are just that good for what I do.
Awesome video Manny thanks for all the comparison videos you do with lenses and Camera bodies, they’ve been a big help for choosing what lens and camera to purchase..👊🏼😉
Sony has worse highlight roll off, punchier colors (red oranges), and way worse green aberrations. But, if they weren't side by side I don't think anyone would care or complain about either. RF glass is amazing. Thanks for the vid!
So glad to see a REAL squarespace user, instead of a few I have found that promote it but don't even use it, well done Manny, Respect!! Great video mate.
Your take is pretty much spot on with my opinion on the two when I tried EOS R and 5Div as a Sony A7iii/Riii shooter. (Been a Sony shooter since the Sony NEX-5n) As far as color, Sony has improved with Auto WB of skewing yellow and green casts of skin. It was so “off” it’s given Sony a bad rep that still hangs around today even though Sony’s current generation bodies are much improved and for the most part corrected this. You will still hear masses complain about Sony’s skin tone when in fact they are pretty close and even then close enough where it doesn’t take much editing to match if you are trying to match. That being said, Sony on a few of those shots look more “accurate” and not just “pleasing”. Pleasing doesn’t mean accurate. Dynamic range, this is something Sony has always had the advantage. Recovering shadows and highlights, there was just much more room in the Sony files. That doesn’t mean everyone needs the room especially in portraits. But it’s really nice in landscapes, high dynamic scenes, or extremely low light scenes. Bottom line you can’t go wrong with either system. Both produce fantastic image quality and if you can’t get great images out of these two or really any modern digital camera, it isn’t the cameras fault. I will add, that although I love the size, screen, and touch function of the EOS R, it still lacks on certain features that have me sticking to Sony. But that can change if Canon releases an updated version and of Sony sleeps on it. PS: @mannyortiz would have loved to see natural light compared as well in this vid.
I agree. I've shot Canon my entire life (15 years) and would have switched to Sony but I didn't like their bodies, and already had so much Canon glass; I got the EOS-R over the A7III mainly because of these reasons. The A7III has great specs, but I didn't like the body (and like Manny pointed out, the Sony LCD's aren't great). I'm more of a photoshopper/environmental shooter (not landscapes) so the slight dynamic range boost of the A7III would be nice, but then I would lose some resolution. And at the end of the day, the day to day experience of using the A7III for me wouldn't be as fun (it feels clunky). I wish the EOS-R had 120p HD video (don't shoot much 4K), and slightly better noise performance (the 5DIV seemed a bit better to me), but as of right now, the EOS-R is the best camera out there for me. I have the Sigma 85/1.4 and would never pay the crazy amount that Canon is asking for the RF lenses (except that RF 35/1.8 IS Macro is a beast and SUPER affordable).
Show me the Sony extra dynamic range in the 2 sample files Manny made available. There is actually more hair detail in the Canon image in the darkest shadow next to Dianna's face and when setting the shadow slider to maximum in Capture One Pro that difference increases.
77dris I can shoot both bodies with no complaints although I prefer to use a vertical battery grip on the Sony 99% and/or a Small Rig cage. I would probably do the same on the EOS R but I would say that I prefer the size and grip of the EOS R over the Sony. I’d say your existing glass and familiarity to Canon is what keeps you there the most. Which is perfectly acceptable and the route I’d go as well if I were you.
cooloox I can’t show you because I didn’t go through Manny’s files and don’t plan to. I’ve done the test myself numerous times and have come to the same conclusion (as did Manny). None of which is a big deal unless you make it as I’ve already said both cameras and brands produce great images.
@@ancogbernardin lightroom if you do it too much it effects similar colors in other areas. I learned the hard way getting rid of purple fringing. whole parts of the image lose saturation.
"the biggest difference b/w the two is sony's file has much more information." Though it's true that Sony has better DR, that's not comparing lenses, that's comparing bodies.
I've been a Canon user for the past few years but am switching to Sony later this year finally--and EXACTLY because of what he said here. It's just super useful to be able to lift the shadows without introducing tons of noise. It's so worth it, in fact, that I'm going to go through all the trouble of switching systems. That said, the Canon skin tones look nice here. As for the lenses, the only advantage to the Canon I noticed was less color fringing.
So much for Canon colors lol. yes yes I know it's all subjective but Sony makes Diana's skin tone look natural while the Canon makes her look like she's under the weather.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
For those who want a closer look at the files, I have 2 that you can download here: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t969ikG6FFP1hteOgg-7RY56omOQP3Tc?usp=sharing
Perfect, was just looking for this. Thanks!
Sony is a little more contrast in the settings to reduce contrast by 1 unit and there will be exactly the same picture as the canon
thank you Manny
Mladen Šćekić Awwwww I Wouldn’t say 10x Better!!!!Before Manny Said it,I was telling myself,The Skin Was looking a little Better on The Canon But is it Worth the Money?NOT!!!!!SPECIALLY When You too deep in to Sony...
Thanks for making this comparison - great job on keeping similar composition as well as model pose :D Files are really useful - could you please share a couple more? As far as lens comparison goes - Sony has much more color fringing while Canon has a bit more vignette. The field of view difference you mention @6:45 might have something to do with focus breathing, which some RF lenses have quite a lot. This means that at some focus distance FOV might actually match the other lens. Canon clipping highlights are noticeable even on the white shirt ... hopefully they release a better RF-mount camera soon!
I’m glad someone squashed the difference between the two and did it without any bias or favoring one brand.
Nah, its more like a Sony fanboy who can't get an f/1.2 playing it off like 1.2 is no big deal. I can argue you can't tell a difference between 1.8 and 1.4 too...
@@michaelbell75 he stepped down from being a sony ambassador so he could use other brands. I don't think this came out of being a fanboy, especially if he owns the canon as well.
@@michaelbell75 I don't want to get caught up in a stupid keyboard warrior session. But Manny stepped down from being a Sony ambassador. And he also owns a Canon and use to shoot with a canon.
Im sure if you shot with a different background and lighting situations, the 1.2 would be more significant. At the end of the day.. all that matters is what works best for you. Manny simply just threw out his opinion. As we're all entitled to.
Ariel Badeo but if your only argument is 1.4 is better because it’s $1k cheaper and you can get close to the look of the 1.4, I can make that same argument for 1.8 vs 1.4
@@michaelbell75 The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is very noticeable, but 1.2 and 1.4 has no difference at all. Check the comparison here: www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/
Great video, agree and disagree on some points. Agree that in this age of photos being viewed almost exclusively online and often in the postcard sized windows of a smartphone, the difference between the f/1.4 Sony and the f/1.2 Canon is negligible. But disagree that the Canon lens wasn't actually markedly better. Most lens are not as sharp wide open and with the Canon it was sharper than the Sony at a wider aperture AND the background had more bokeh. That's a double whammy. Now whether that's worth an extra $1,000 in today's word of quickly consumed media, I'm not sure. A friend of mine has a theory that the subtle differences don't register consciously with viewers, but subconsciously, so they'll just like one photographer's photos better but can't articulate why.
which one do you think is better to buy?
But wouldn't "liking one photographers photos better subconsciously" mark it as the "better" lens+camera combo? if its noticeable even for a person who doesn't even know the difference between the two, wouldn't that make it markedly better?
Yes you are right, and I see chromatic aberrations on the Sony side...
Out-of-focus highlights in the background show a green outlining on the Sony lens (longitudinal chromatic aberrations) whereas the Canon lens is perfectly corrected for these aberrrations.
Now go look at 3:49. It's in both.
@@anthonyc1883 No. That's a transiton to an overexposed green outdoor background.
Look at 7:08 ruclips.net/video/JHP5rLL1MVg/видео.html where you can see the difference.
The hat seems more detailed in the Canon even at wider aperture
@@rodrigogarcia2607 Yes, I see that too.
@SwitchRich yeah but the sum of all these little things that non photographers don't notice can make up for a great image. Also we love showing our photos to other photographers.
I'm at the cross roads of jumping into mirrorless and this video certainly had an impact on my decision. Thanks Manny, looking forward to the next one.
I'm a simple man...I see Diana, I hit like.
'nuff said!
Agreed :) She's really something special.
Diana trying to flirt with you and you're just like all in camera mode, lol. '100' is just not speaking your language. She's awesome. Love the whole dynamic between you two. Obviously made for each other.
is it just me or does really EOS-R's photos seems more sharper than A7iii's?
Canon lens is slightly sharper.
@@mariachi211 Na, I saw the other way round
It's clearly sharper even at f1.2
Just downloaded the files and Canon is clearly sharper, look at the logo on her forehead
@@johnnyburbano9690 Ha, just pulling your chain mate!
I'm not a photographer, but I like her face skin tone on the Canon picture, especially the closeups. As a brown female myself, I would prefer a photographer using that camera on me if I were doing makeup closeup shots especially.
Appreciated you my man! Never miss a video! Bought my A7III based on your experience with it. Been loving it! Happy Holidays to you and your wife!
Andrew Wendt same here but I also was influenced by ycimage. Can’t go wrong with a a7iii
I think i go for the A7RIII
Your wife is such a good sport! She makes me smile😊
Both look great but the sharpness of the RF 85 1.2 is definitely superior. And colors and skin tones from the EOS R look more pleasing to my eyes (For example 7:07)- But again it's a preference thing but I can't say the RF is a $1000 dollars worth more than G Master. Can't go wrong with either system. Wish I had both. Great comparison Manny!
But how about at 6:07? She has a definite green/yellow tint in the Canon example.
@@anthonyc1883 If you take a closer look you can tell the shot from canon was a bit overexposed (Look at the orange on her skull cap) - which won't show the accurate representation of colors. Sony has more pink/magenta tint which again is not right or wrong and is purely a preference and can easily be tweaked to anyone's liking with 1 or 2 simple steps in Lightroom. :)
@@Musatainment Agreed. Easily tweaked, if someone even thinks it needs tweaking.
Anthony C Exactly. If a picture from either camera is in front of you by itself , you would be more than happy with it. Which is why I say you can’t go wrong with either or and it’s all preference :)
9:42 "The Truthest a Photographer ever said" Thank you Manny !
Got the EOS R and the RF 85 F1.2. I don't even care what camera is better. They're so close like you said. If I got the A7iii with the 85GM, I'd ALWAYS be lusting after that red ring F 1.2... Went with my heart instead of my wallet and I'm a happy dude.
How’s it working now
@@HeresTheTale still shooting with the RF 1.2 primes and the Canon R and R6ii. Still love the system.
@@Chazyfizzlez damn, there’s so much info for these two, I’m having the worst time deciding, I was stuck on the a7 until I saw how many people love the canon comfort and color. I’m a beginner and want to shoot short films. Real tough.
@@HeresTheTale if you’re a beginner then you can’t really go wrong with either system. Canon’s new bodies have autofocus just as good as Sony. The video codecs are both good. Most people prefer canon because it’s easier to get a certain color profile that people tend to like. Take a little more work on Sony. It’s a tough choice since it’s a big investment but go with your gut and don’t look back. You’ll be happy either way.
I dunno Manny... this is the first time that I actually preferred the colors in the Sony than the Canon everytime you did the side-by-side shots 🤷🏻♂️
John Caberte same here
me to... def. sony better colors (to me)
yup! Canon looks more "natural" but not better. Sony colors look better here because its warmer. Canon looks more green. not worth $1,000 over
will you stop blubbering about colors. Color is as good as the preset in Manny's Lightroom (or as bad - if you are just using what Adobe's engineers included)
@@toosas These are SOOC, which means no edits at all. At least that's what it should mean.
Are the files at 7:08 both unedited? The fringing on the Sony is pretty severe compared to the Canon. I'm a Sony shooter, still using some great Minolta glass so CA is something I see a LOT of, but if the Canon has no fringing at 1.2 at all, that's impressive!
Exactly. It's not the skin tones, it's fringing and overall sharpness.
I know it's been a long time since you posted this video but I'm looking forward to get the EOS R and this is the most helpful video I've ever watched , and lemme tell you something, I've been watching a lot of videos related to the EOS R. Thanks a lot Manny
How’s it going now
I wish you could do a comparison on the sharpness difference because I have both combos and I find the EOS R with the 85 1.2 to be sharper
Much waited video 😍
When you say "maximum depth of field," I think you mean to say "shallowest depth of field." Maximum depth of field is what you get at f22 or something really high when you want to shoot landscapes and keep everything in focus. f1.2 bokeh is from shallow depth of field, blurring the background. Just want people to have the correct terminology :)
Yep he keeps saying more DOF when he means the complete opposite lol
So glad to see my girl back in the game. Missed her. Hope you all had a very Happy Thanksgiving.
ok finally ! The results are really similar, and the F1,2 i think its good but u can get cheaper lense and also has good quality!
BUT, when u zoomed pictures the sharpness on the face and colors are really better with canon !
@UCKrFnvTamRHkoH_zRAguzaQ 2:34 ( Look on the face and eyes carefully ), 4:25, 5:39, 6:06, 7:10 !
To be fair, the Canon also has 6MP more. So pictures naturally should look sharper on the same magnification of both pictures.
Interestingly some of the Canons are greener some times, sometimes the Sony. The variations of skin stones in different spots is more natural and true to life on Sony, but I do agree that the Canons even tonality and way of handling the skin tones in the different situations in more flattering - which tbf is more important in the end. But since the Sony has more room to play with, you should be able to match or even exceed it with knowhow.
Your composition is flawless, definitely binge watching your videos today
I love your videos bro. I'm not even a photographer like that and enjoy watching your process. 👏🤙
As a former Chicagoan I can relate bro. Been at the pro shooting game now near 25 years. Been through all the top Canon, Nikon and even Sony bodies along the way with great glass. You summed it up perfectly. There IS indeed a "honeymoon" phase, then the reality hits after close examination. It's more about the tool and how it fits with your style. I'm also currently working with a Canon R finding it was maligned erroneously as well. But not sure it's THE camera I'll end up with. The next year should reveal a lot of advancements in new models and technology so just hang on and watch it happen.
Several points have to do with the sensor and the lens, itself.
Hopefully, Canon will release another camera with better dynamic range than the EOS R, for environmental portraits where photographers want to play more with tonality.
However, this is a necessary test to make, and it's great how Manny did it.
Man i love how ur videos are getting better
Honestly, the Canon looks better to me side by side. This is why I'm switching back to Canon from Sony. Probably picking up the 85mm RF as well. The highlight roll-off is more pleasant and the micro contrast is looks amazing.
Not many people know about micro-contrast. It is one of the most important things for me. The other comment for me is the color. I shoot Canon because Canon has better color for dark skin. It looks more realistic with less editing. Both cameras and lenses are good but for pro work I’d go canon for the unique look.
@@ThreeCeeProductions There is no better lens for portrait than the 85mm 1.2, it’s simply the way it is, the best. Everything else is below, Sony has color problems.
Awesome video man! 1 question, picture profile in the A7III?
Yes
If you shot the pics in RAW, picture profile wont really matter tbh. Video? different story.
I've been a big fan of yours for a couple years now, Manny! When your new videos come up, I click!
Thanks for the comparison. I agree in not changing everthing for a f/1.2 aperture.
MrCameraJunkie I think that's a big takeaway here because photographers are switching systems as often as some people change their socks. Advanced new gear is great but you can almost set your calendar and your watch to the next wave of "Time to Switch???" videos every 6-8 months as one manufacturer leapfrogs another. For heaven sake, people, if you've got a 85 1.4 GM lens go out and shoot the hell out of it. You are already 99.9% golden!
Christ....the EOS R is insane. Wish i could afford it 😫
The RP is still fire
it’s not the EOS R... it’s rather the 85mm RF lens what brings the great results
just saying
Well the Sony is better with 1.4f lens.
Bárður Joensen
The 2.699,00 USD lens with the new R5 (which will be probably like 4.000,00 USD) will be even more insane
@@KAZUNARl yup!
Great video Manny! Like how you just laid it on the ground with which camera one should buy. It shouldn’t be which camera is the greatest, but which camera best suit your needs. All camera brands has their ups and downs.
The Canon feels so much better in the hand. I was blown away of the quality feel of the R and RF lenses.
Cant wait to get the rf trinity
Great vid! Just a reminder for us all, more depth of field would mean less blur. Shallower/less depth of field means more blur.
To my surprise, Sony color looks warmer and nice and pleasant! Years ago, it was opposite, no? The Canon 85/1.2 is a Master Class lens though. Thanks Manny & Diana:)
Sony colors are up to par with gen 3 (ie. a7iii) and even better with gen 4 (ie. a7riv)
Yapp, Sony colors looks very nice and better than Canon in this comparison.
@@stkuj A7RIV has updated color science? Wasn't aware I figure it was the same as A7III if they didn't mention it. (I didn't hear them pimping it anyways) Curious to see if Venice makes it's way into their DSLR line up too, i've heard good things about it with their cinema line, would be cool if the A7IV got it as well.
In this experiment, the Canon looks better. The Sony pics looks orange, especially at 6:48. They are both nice cameras, the Canon just seems a little better.
@@Dante-qf9yd Seems like the beanie is more orange on Sony but the skin is more orangeish on Canon, but at least a consistent color across the face. Idk I cant really tell whats better tho, I don't really have a preference or usually see that stuff I guess. Not sure if im odd man out in this but when normal people watch videos I don't think i've ever heard anyone comment on skin tones, just how good the story/editing or video is in general. Most probably don;t care about skin tones or resolution or slightly better bokeh, it all just slightly adds to the overall delivery.
But these videos are still fun I love em:)
Great comparison video! Thanks!!
I agree Manny. The client won't be able to tell the difference between 1.4 and 1.2. Save $1,000 and just shoot at 1.4
Eddie Sanchez Agreed. It's great when any manufacturer pushes the limits. Great new gear is awesome, of course. But this lust for 1.2 "creamy bokeh" porn on lenses now costing $3K (!!), that are actually causing people to switch entire systems, is just nuts.
The photos are edited, that's why you don't see any difference,. GM 1.4 has worst purple frenging,. He just shoots at safe ambient,.
Manny:
1st shot - don't move..
2nd shot - Don't move..
3rd shot - Don't move..
4th shot - don't move..
5th shot - dont move
Diana: OKAY Manny! I get it! Jesus!! I'm not cooking tonight cuz I can't move 😒
I actually prefer the Sony images especially the one at 5:40.. Diana's right shoulder looked greenish on the Canon image...
wood nymph I thought the same thing. Even though I like one of the Canon photos better, before I looked at which photos was which, I picked the Sony one most of the time
Maybe it's the flash bouncing off the graffiti on the wall? Maybe It's acting like a gel light, lol.
pahwraith possibly lol but I liked most the Sony ones even when the Canon didn’t look a lil green. But they all look great
@@houstoninternationalmedia3408 I honestly couldn't tell a difference on my phone screen, if it wasn't labeled.
I like both. I think Sony has a cooler and more modern colors. Really good for city scenes in the dark.
Canon sensors and glass are a bit warmer, which I think so slightly better in some settings.
Again it's a super slight difference. Putting sigma art lenses on a Canon will give something closer to Sony colors.
I thought the same thing .....
Looks like the Sony has missed focus several times, which is surprising, considering the claims about its eye-AF
4:32 or 6:45 is where both seem correct 2:32 6:08 back focusing 5:41 is not focused on the nearest eye (maybe that is off on the Canon as well just seems less noticeable with the lack of CA) etc.
The Canon seems to be focusing much better, no point in getting a lens like this if it just fails to hit it 100% properly.
padam19 I agree. Why does nobody else point this out??
3:49, too. Looks like in the Sony version, the focus is slightly above her knit cap logo onto her hoodie.
Diana needs a mic :D
Great video man
Which combo do you like more.?
"More depth of field" should more accurately be called "shallower depth of field" - "more" suggests a deeper plain of focus, which is the opposite of what you mean. But I love you and your videos.
You are 100 percent correct
Great comparison, Manny. Have you used the Zeiss lenses much yet?
Wow! I expected the RF 85 f1.2 to be better, but not THAT much better. Nicer blur, sharper, and more true to life (the Sony lens makes the face look flat compared to the RF 85 f1.2).
It is not sharper the canon R has more megapixels so that is why it looks sharper.
6:39 you talk about having maximum depth of field with the Canon f/1.2L lens but actually to have *maximum depth of field* you would be shooting at f/64 or something like that.
I think what you meant to say is f/1.2 might provide a slightly more *shallow depth of field* compared to f/1.4.
Thanx Manny!as you said i dont see much of difference as far as depth of field goes between 1.2 and 1.4.i for sure saw that canon was sharper and had cooler tone not only on skin but in general so i think it will be easy to adjust on lr or ps to make these pictures look alike. The only thing i didnt like about sony was ca especially around bokeh balls...but again it is something you could fix in post.thank you i enjoyed this comparison
Love your videos Manny!
Hi Manny, that was a great comparison. I downloaded the 2 sample images and viewed them side-by-side in Capture One Pro. I noticed a few things instantly: the Canon image is slightly sharper, the colours are much nicer (even the blacks are much richer black), the lens is very noticeably greater in focal length, the DOF is definitely noticeably shallower..... but here's the big one: you said there is much more information in the Sony files, yet the darkest shadow at the side of Dianna's face (where there is less detail in her hair) is noticeably more recoverable on the Canon image! Max out the shadow slider on each image and the Canon image shows more hair detail in the darkest shadows. There wasn't anything I could really recover in the highlights, but highlight recovery seemed similar on both cameras when setting highlight recovery to max. I am not seeing all this extra information in the Sony file you speak of? You just sold me on Canon in this photoshoot.
that's because Capture One handles highlight and shadow recovery way better than Lightroom
I love how you conveniently omitted the green tint in Canon image in your fanboy rant. How come you can see the hair strands but that horrible cast goes unnoticed?
Good comparison…great job MO.
For me, difference doesnt worth to pay more for 1.2, im happy with my budget but crazy Samyang AF 85mm 1.4 :D
I was hoping someone would say that :D
and for most, the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 isn't worth $1k either. So why are you overpaying for f/1.4?
@@michaelbell75 yes and no.... also 2.0 looks like 1.8.
2.2 looks like 2
2.2 is not like 1.2
so... it always depend from resources and priorities.
take what you can, and make the best out of it
@@bobceffo My point is, if the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 isn't worth $1k as the video claims, then the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is also not worth an extra $1k either right?
I might have underestimated your point ;)
somehow that would be logic (fakes Spock's attitude)
Thanks for your work Manny, both shoot GREAT photos - and I agree - we are all getting way too picky! But, if I had to asses it closely, I actually see more detail in the Canon shots... and the colour fringing on the Sony combo is off-putting (especially at 7:08 with the green fringe in background and purple/magenta fringe around logo on hat) and would take some extra time in post to correct? I think that is why Canon images are preferred 'straight out of the box'. I have to do very little in post to make the Canon image pop. In terms of the dynamic range issue, I think if anyone needs to recover more than what the Canon offers, they really need to re-shoot the image with correct exposure. I personally rarely recover more than half a stop.
Funny thing is, Sony colors look better in my eyes. Canon has an olive hue to the skin. The colors look very very similar these days, only until you put them side by side do you see differences. Otherwise both cameras are extremely capable.
that's really interesting! personally Sony's skin tones felt a little too magenta for me but I can definitely see how canon comes off a little more soft greenish especially in direct comparison
2:34 Sony just got chroma abberation (look on the green border at light behind her) :), Canon is just clear image and i think sharpness is better for Canon too :). But dynamic range is for Sony of course :).
Love both but really enjoy the Sony combo. Hard to beat the 85mm
I’m here trying to decide which to buy 🤙 thanks a ton for the great video
"I'm 💯" lmao. Great vid as always!
Awesome comparison bro!
Thanks Manny for the great video, I was kind of shocked when I downloaded the 2 images and Canon is clearly sharper, I was surprised you didn't say anything about that. Even if you look at the logo on Diana's head it's much sharper on Canon. I shoot with A6400 and Canon 5DM4 and love them both.
12mp more than the Sony A7III of course. Now let him try that with the Sony A7RIII and you will see if that Canon lens still holds up against the 85 1.4 GM.
@@Kprawl291986 it's a 6k dollar camera stupid,. Canon has the same flagship camera, and soon to be released in 2020,. Eosr and Sony a7iii almost has a same price,. That's why it's a good comparison,. So stupid,.
kenji yamamoto Lol someone is really butt hurt.
Love the lighting choice!
Thank you very much for this test, Manny. I really enjoyed it. The Canon RF lens is clearly superior in sharpness and it is also better corrected regarding chromatic aberrations than the 85 GM lens (not my cup of tea). So winner for the RF, in my opinion. About color and contrast I rather prefer Sony's rendering. And I also think that Sony's files have a greater dynamic latitude, as you pointed out. Do you have a Sigma 85 f1,4 Art E-mount at hand? From my own experience this lens is outstandingly sharp wide open, with far better CAs correction than the GM, and it has been blackfridayed to $799, a true bargain, in bold and capital letters.
By the way, your X-Pro trigger has the connections cap very loose and it starts dancing at the slightest chance, exactly like mine, lol. I fixed it attaching a little piece of thin adhesive tape inside the 2,5mm sync jack hole. Waiting for your next vid... Best.
That Sony GM did seem to have more CA's for sure.
MANNY!!! Want/need the addicted Hoodie!!!! Where can i cop one?
Now imagine using a 1.8f lens and saving even mo monies :)
But unlike the 1.2 vs 1.4, the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is very noticeable.
Check this link,
www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/ scroll down and look at the images of different apertures of the same lens. They are all shot with RF 50 1.2 at f1.2 f1.4 f1.8 and f2. You can clearly see difference between 1.8 and 1.4, but no difference between 1.4 and 1.2.
It would be sharper with the cheaper 1.8
The RF 35 1.8 is a brilliant lens for the price!
@@Crutch456 I don't think so. The reason to invest in ultra fast aperture is to have sharper image at smaller aperture : 85mm 1.4 would be sharper at f2 than 85mm 1.8 at f2
@@dimlubin1188 True that
There seems to be some highlight fringing with the Sony combo @2:32.
Finally, someone sees that green and purple fringing. :)
3:50
That was really valuable. Thanks!
Now please compare the a7III and the a7rIV with the 85 1.4 G 😉
You guys are really awesome ❤️
Coming from a Sony shooter, the Canon seemed noticably sharper to me. Anyone else agree or is it just in my head? With that being said, I didn't open the files and look for myself.
Agree. The Canon is sharper but I do prefer (colder) Sony colors
@@instantesnet yep! Agreed. With that being said, the Canon 85 1.2 is an impressive lens that is definitely sharp!
Yes. The texture in her hat is sharper on Canon. Also no chromatic aberration. I prefer Canon colors but anyway that can be adjusted in post.
24mp vs 31mp. Thats why
@@YariJaluff ah yes good catch!
Qué buen video, hermano! Me encantó este vid!
I absolutely love my canon EOSR after coming from Sony A7r2!
Sony has green fringing, look at 10:30, the canon has smoother defocused areas. The canon is a far superior lens. Edit, the sony has green fringing in the bokeh in almost every shot. I am impressed about what he says about the dynamic range of the sony.
Nice comparison Manny. I actually preferred the skin tones of the Sony more than the Canon.
Usually I meet people with opposite stetment. However I think it depends on person.
I completely agree, the canon reds are too orange for me (noticeable in the lips). The WB in the final outdoor bokeh test made her look like a zombie with the overly cool tones. I don't care much about auto WB but still weird that it's so off under simple overcast lighting
canon made her look so green in the skin
As a Canon shooter I agree with you, the skin tones in the A7III remind me of the EOS 5D classic/1Ds mkII skin tones which were REALLY natural, later Canon went a bit nuts with the saturation of the red and orange.
However I don't know why people keep using LR, ACR's color engine isn't nearly as good as Capture One's.
@@vonpotatostein Yes, its like worlds between, even sharpness is way better in Capture One, aswell as it has less noise and less artifacts when you push the files to the limit.
Great work, dude.
Manny I have the EOS R and I love it! I also found myself checking out the A7III to see if its what I wanted as a backup to my Canon. I had it for about a month and loved it. but for me you cant beat the Canon color science. yes the lens are more expensive, but I think it comes down to the person behind the camera and what your willing to spend. Im waiting to see what Sigma brings to the RF mount. at the end of the day I would own both cameras they are just that good for what I do.
Hello. For photography, I want to buy the Eos R I 90D instead. Does the Eos R produce beautiful photos? Thank you
Thank you Manny. I’m a subscriber for life. You’re so awesome. Thank you brother. God bless you and your family.
I actually prefer the deeper more magenta color of the Sony images. The Canon's yellow hue looks weird to me.
Awesome video Manny thanks for all the comparison videos you do with lenses and Camera bodies, they’ve been a big help for choosing what lens and camera to purchase..👊🏼😉
Sony has worse highlight roll off, punchier colors (red oranges), and way worse green aberrations. But, if they weren't side by side I don't think anyone would care or complain about either. RF glass is amazing. Thanks for the vid!
Your camera skills are amazing and your color grade is on point
Would you do a review with the canon rp
So glad to see a REAL squarespace user, instead of a few I have found that promote it but don't even use it, well done Manny, Respect!! Great video mate.
Your take is pretty much spot on with my opinion on the two when I tried EOS R and 5Div as a Sony A7iii/Riii shooter. (Been a Sony shooter since the Sony NEX-5n)
As far as color, Sony has improved with Auto WB of skewing yellow and green casts of skin. It was so “off” it’s given Sony a bad rep that still hangs around today even though Sony’s current generation bodies are much improved and for the most part corrected this. You will still hear masses complain about Sony’s skin tone when in fact they are pretty close and even then close enough where it doesn’t take much editing to match if you are trying to match. That being said, Sony on a few of those shots look more “accurate” and not just “pleasing”. Pleasing doesn’t mean accurate.
Dynamic range, this is something Sony has always had the advantage. Recovering shadows and highlights, there was just much more room in the Sony files. That doesn’t mean everyone needs the room especially in portraits. But it’s really nice in landscapes, high dynamic scenes, or extremely low light scenes.
Bottom line you can’t go wrong with either system. Both produce fantastic image quality and if you can’t get great images out of these two or really any modern digital camera, it isn’t the cameras fault. I will add, that although I love the size, screen, and touch function of the EOS R, it still lacks on certain features that have me sticking to Sony. But that can change if Canon releases an updated version and of Sony sleeps on it.
PS: @mannyortiz would have loved to see natural light compared as well in this vid.
I agree. I've shot Canon my entire life (15 years) and would have switched to Sony but I didn't like their bodies, and already had so much Canon glass; I got the EOS-R over the A7III mainly because of these reasons. The A7III has great specs, but I didn't like the body (and like Manny pointed out, the Sony LCD's aren't great). I'm more of a photoshopper/environmental shooter (not landscapes) so the slight dynamic range boost of the A7III would be nice, but then I would lose some resolution. And at the end of the day, the day to day experience of using the A7III for me wouldn't be as fun (it feels clunky). I wish the EOS-R had 120p HD video (don't shoot much 4K), and slightly better noise performance (the 5DIV seemed a bit better to me), but as of right now, the EOS-R is the best camera out there for me. I have the Sigma 85/1.4 and would never pay the crazy amount that Canon is asking for the RF lenses (except that RF 35/1.8 IS Macro is a beast and SUPER affordable).
Show me the Sony extra dynamic range in the 2 sample files Manny made available. There is actually more hair detail in the Canon image in the darkest shadow next to Dianna's face and when setting the shadow slider to maximum in Capture One Pro that difference increases.
77dris I can shoot both bodies with no complaints although I prefer to use a vertical battery grip on the Sony 99% and/or a Small Rig cage. I would probably do the same on the EOS R but I would say that I prefer the size and grip of the EOS R over the Sony.
I’d say your existing glass and familiarity to Canon is what keeps you there the most. Which is perfectly acceptable and the route I’d go as well if I were you.
cooloox I can’t show you because I didn’t go through Manny’s files and don’t plan to. I’ve done the test myself numerous times and have come to the same conclusion (as did Manny). None of which is a big deal unless you make it as I’ve already said both cameras and brands produce great images.
Great comparison Manny! But it was noticing a little chromatic aberation (2:33) particularly in the lights.
I'm a simple man, I see a new Manny Ortiz video, I click it
I guess im in the same boat!!!
Jinx lol.
What camera did you use to film in studio?
I liked the sony colors ob skin way more the canon ones were more green and everything the same color and on the sony it was much more natural i think
sony A73 have better on skintone
I thought I was the only one...and I shoot with the R 🤣
KILLER! This is exactly the comparison I've been wanting to see. Thank you sir!
Drinking game: “Don’t move”...take a shot! Lol jk man GREAT video love it! Love me some RF glass!!!
Your flash set up ?
I see a lot of coma coming from the Sony!
A bit more green/chromatic aberration fringing in the highlights on the Sony too (unless that was just a one-off in one of the images)
@@77dris it's in almost all of the sony images
@@mikew9788 unless you always bring raw editor on the go..
The RF 85 is the second canon lens that has the BR optic which control the CA excellently almost to none. EF 35 ii is the first lens
@@ancogbernardin lightroom if you do it too much it effects similar colors in other areas. I learned the hard way getting rid of purple fringing. whole parts of the image lose saturation.
Appreciate the straight talk, Manny.
"the biggest difference b/w the two is sony's file has much more information." Though it's true that Sony has better DR, that's not comparing lenses, that's comparing bodies.
John Cho he said he wasn’t going to compare lenses lol
@@Eye4eye007 um read the title. And the whole content he talks about 85 1.2 vs 85 1.4 so...
Good stuff 👍🏽
Good honest reliable review. Thanks for that
The Canon images appear to have more green in them...
The colour science has definitely changed to be more green
People sleepin on the sony skin tones👀 lol...great video bro!
Nobody:
Manny: Don't move lol
I've been a Canon user for the past few years but am switching to Sony later this year finally--and EXACTLY because of what he said here. It's just super useful to be able to lift the shadows without introducing tons of noise. It's so worth it, in fact, that I'm going to go through all the trouble of switching systems.
That said, the Canon skin tones look nice here. As for the lenses, the only advantage to the Canon I noticed was less color fringing.
Oh man. I was playing with this exact combos except the Sony Camera was a A7R4. Perfect vid bro.
Nice comparison bro!
So much for Canon colors lol. yes yes I know it's all subjective but Sony makes Diana's skin tone look natural while the Canon makes her look like she's under the weather.
Exactly!
Exactly. I liked the Sony's images more as well .