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 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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
PSA. Getting “Maximum depth of field” is f22. Minimum depth of field is wide open. I know this seems like a weird / petty thing to point out but at this point it feels like so many creators don’t get that I have to say this. Also this video is great. Love the Sony 1.4 over the canon.
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.
Just for clarification, F1.2 is not a maximum depth of field. Depth of field references how deep the focus area may be. To get the rich soft bokeh background the depth of field term would be a shallow or shallower depth of field. Maximum depth of field would reference a F22 setting. Just a side note, aperture setting is not the only way to adjust depth of field.
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!
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
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.
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?
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.
@@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?
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).
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!
Very interesting. While the color signature is different I also noticed more "3D" with the canon glass.The face of your elegant model seems flatter with the GM lens. Not the mention the great Canon skin tones. And that's why, on my A7Riv, I switched away from the GM to the... Canon 85 1.4L. The best deal for me! (since the 85 1.2R will not mount on my sony, and EF 85MM 1.2L just doesn't resolve 60MP).
@@stakstonkvinge Thanks. Upon chosing I made the EXACT same image with 3 85/1.4 lenses. Canon, Sigma and Sony. And while the Sigma and Sony were virtually undistinguishable, the Canon image really stood out in a side by side comparison... www.flickr.com/photos/chrisweiner/49164365296/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/
Also another thing you may notice is the Canon Lenses are warmer. Where Sony is a cooler more to real life. So it really comes down to what lenses you like better Check me on it Manny Rent a Canon L and MC11 use on both cameras see what happens
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.
If you want to save more money get the EF 85mm IS f1.4 and you won't loose any of the quality compared to the 2 lenses you used in your shoot. The R is a great camera since it was released , nothing "Now" about it (and certainly isn't weaker then the A7III), those FW upgrades are mostly cosmetic. You are right about the stupidly of changing brands, especially for this feature or that, or this lens or that. Although switching because of work flow convenience and a set of lenses is a valid possibility.
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.
It's weird...I own both of them and I would usually SOOC I'd prefer the Canon (not hating on the Sony at all, they're both great systems in my book and I love my RIII). But in this case, I actually prefered the Sony's a bit more than the Canon. At any rate...that Canon 85 F/1.2, that thing melts the background while keeping the subject in great detail. It's a killer piece of glass. Great shoot, Manny!
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.
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,.
"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.
The reason the bokeh looks near identical is that the Sony 85mm GM was very Bokeh "optimized". The Bokeh is more circular at the outer parts of the image, and the slight residual spherical aberrations let the bokeh appear more smooth. The Canon, on the other hand, was optimized for achieving F1.2 with great sharpness. The problem is that things like "cat eye" bokeh etc... is less corrected. That's why the background blur is nearly identical especially in the outer parts of the frame. With the Sony being 400g lighter and 1000$ cheaper I would take that as a win for 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.
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.
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.
Not sure if it's my screen but I like the colors of the Sony SOOC shots. And side by side I don't see the f/1.2 as being so different from the f/1.4. I say the f/1.4 is good enough. Save the cash. Dope video Manny! 💯📸
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
Thank you. Now have both these lenses and use the Sony A7RV and Canon EOS R5. I don’t know if the camera differences affect the results. Maybe I should compare the Sony FE 50/1.2 GM and Canon RF 50/1.2L or the Sony FE 135/1.8 GM and Canon RF 135/1.8L to help sort out the system I should commit to even though I currently own all these lenses and camera bodies. Not sure the best way to do these comparisons to really help me choose but I’m thinking I need to reduce the equipment I own although I do like them all😊. Take care.
honestly，I think sony's colour science is better than canon for darker skin tone. Great comparison Manny! Your video really stop me switch my a7r3 and few Sony lens to canon. Thanks!
I gotta say I like the Sony skin tones better. Canon seems to look better but they too warm. I need to adjust both Canon and Sony files to what I like but I find I can do more with Sony files. The dynamic range is much better than Canon’s. Great video, keep them coming.
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.
I think it is more about the ½ speed more light than the bokeh. In my experience when shooting dark rooms and flash is not an option, 1/160 is able to freeze most people's movements like a person walking toward camera at a normal pace. 1/125 is almost there but not quite. 1/250 is better of course but when shooting above 6400 ISO the image deterioration picks up its pace. Plus having a sharp 1.2 is pretty amazing! Honestly, I stop down the 85mm to 2.8 most of the time when there is plenty of light and use 1.4 only when dim.
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.
I can't explain why, but I've always liked Canon. I don't have any camera yet. I'm currently looking to get an EOS R due to the price drop with the announcement of the new models. Due in part that I can just start with the RF glass. The one thing that I've noticed, is in comparisons with Canon and Sony, the pictures are very close. And several of the videos from photographers say the same thing.
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.
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!
The example Raws show 2 differences, with Sony you find some green aura around the bokeh balls, and the Canon even it is wide open has much more micro contrast and visible higher sharpness, clearly for me the winner , if this is worth the 1200$ difference - you must decide on your own. Also the AF-Performance was not a part of the test, the Gmaster 1.4 is slower the the Sony FE 85mm, but the Sony GM is a greate value still. Thank you for the review and for the nice pictures! Karl
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..👊🏼😉
I was actually watching this fully expecting to finally see the Sony combo getting it's ass whupped, but from the very first still you present in this video I actually had to choose the Sony. I've seen both yours and others' shots with the Canon combo before and thought that "wow, that's a Canon power demonstration right there", but even the skintones from the Sony appeals more to me. In your finished images, Diana's skin is more yellow in the Canon images + I get the urge to lower highlights, which look more controlled (to my linking) in the Sony images. Yes, the Sony skin tones appear a bit magenta instead, but that's not worse, just different. Both would need tweaking in my opinion, and if i had to leave them untouched, I really would choose the Sony image in every case here. I'm really surprised, because I fully expected not to think so. I also saw right away that I like the details better from the Sony. Even with it's shorter actual focal length, which in turn almost evens out any difference in the bokeh as you said. Great and surprising video.👍
@@lukegardiner6926 I think you're confusing sharpness with resolution, Lucas. If you put the GM lens on a A7RIII you'd see even more "sharpness" in that image, only that's still not sharpness but resolution impressing us.
Good conclusion. I imagine the results would differ greater in a situation with a busier background or a lot of specular highlights. The difference between 1.2 and 1.4 hasn't been enough for me to trade up from adapting the excellent EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM. The RF lens has done some amazing things with it's near perfect optics, but we're splitting hairs. The Sony sensor is excellent, but something to be said about shooting with a Canon and having near perfect colors all the time and just adjust contrast to taste. Haha
I don't want to sound like a bad person but I think you should've mentioned that the 85 1.2 was sharper because some people would like a sharper lens and some wouldn't, I like a sharper lens sometimes and sometimes I go with something less sharp depending how I want to edit.
Good advice manny. Use what you have. If you have Canon glass, get the EOS R. But if you have Sony glass, stick with Sony. Personally I can’t see myself going back to Canon. I love my A7iii and I just don’t trust Canon anymore lol
I personally think SONY is a better camera (from what revs I've heard 1 stop of light makes a difference), but from this, video is clear that Canon lenses are much sharper. However, its only noticeable when zooming into the picture and I noticed this on the eyes of the model and the letters on her hoodie which are much more noticeable. Canon EOS R user and I crave those RF lenses. -Thanks for the video! 👍
There is a new RUclipsr called Xing Lui who does side by sides with the Sony/Canon/Fuji bodies and I like his channel a lot (second only to Manny's). He picks the EOS-R for client work because clients prefer the colours apparently. Like Manny, he takes gorgeous photos with all the cameras he uses.
@@77dris I wish there was a channel that posted those comparisons but with video instead, or especially posted a link to the clips so I could mess with them myself. For people trying to decide between the two, it'd be cool to have some download links to test shots so someone could mess with the files themselves and see which ones they like more...rather than ordering both cameras and returning them or renting for a few hundred bucks...cheaper if you already know what you like outside of that.
Nice video and great conclusion. I shot Canon for 30 years and Sony for 4. Never had anyone ask about skin tones or bokeh when I delivered their images. I’m using a Batis 1.8 BTW. The think I think you did not mention is that your technique re lighting, location and composition is way more important than f1.2 versus f1.4.
"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.
Is it me or does the Canon EOS R look a tad bit sharper? Also I have a Sony A73 but love Canon L series lenses. I noticed Sony looks a little more contrasty which can be a personal thing if you like it.
![Six Hundred Strike [EPIC: The Musical] Full Animatic](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zov6NXIAuow/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 a simple man...I see Diana, I hit like.
'nuff said!
Agreed :) She's really something special.
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.
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!
Your wife is such a good sport! She makes me smile😊
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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
So glad to see my girl back in the game. Missed her. Hope you all had a very Happy Thanksgiving.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Canon 1.2 for the win. Just sharper and much cleaner. The background blur is amazing. Another great video boss.
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 vid! Just a reminder for us all, more depth of field would mean less blur. Shallower/less depth of field means more blur.
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,.
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.
9:42 "The Truthest a Photographer ever said" Thank you Manny !
PSA. Getting “Maximum depth of field” is f22. Minimum depth of field is wide open. I know this seems like a weird / petty thing to point out but at this point it feels like so many creators don’t get that I have to say this. Also this video is great. Love the Sony 1.4 over the canon.
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.
Your composition is flawless, definitely binge watching your videos today
Just for clarification, F1.2 is not a maximum depth of field. Depth of field references how deep the focus area may be. To get the rich soft bokeh background the depth of field term would be a shallow or shallower depth of field. Maximum depth of field would reference a F22 setting. Just a side note, aperture setting is not the only way to adjust depth of field.
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!
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!
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
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.
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?
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.
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)
Which camera felt better in your hand, and which did you enjoy using more. Excellent image quality with both, IMHO. Thanks for posting.
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.
Man i love how ur videos are getting better
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.
Very interesting. While the color signature is different I also noticed more "3D" with the canon glass.The face of your elegant model seems flatter with the GM lens. Not the mention the great Canon skin tones. And that's why, on my A7Riv, I switched away from the GM to the... Canon 85 1.4L. The best deal for me! (since the 85 1.2R will not mount on my sony, and EF 85MM 1.2L just doesn't resolve 60MP).
Chris Weiner I agree. Not many of us pay attention to the 3D effect, but it is definitely there!
@@stakstonkvinge Thanks. Upon chosing I made the EXACT same image with 3 85/1.4 lenses. Canon, Sigma and Sony. And while the Sigma and Sony were virtually undistinguishable, the Canon image really stood out in a side by side comparison... www.flickr.com/photos/chrisweiner/49164365296/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/
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
Also another thing you may notice is the Canon Lenses are warmer. Where Sony is a cooler more to real life.
So it really comes down to what lenses you like better
Check me on it Manny
Rent a Canon L and MC11 use on both cameras see what happens
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.
If you want to save more money get the EF 85mm IS f1.4 and you won't loose any of the quality compared to the 2 lenses you used in your shoot.
The R is a great camera since it was released , nothing "Now" about it (and certainly isn't weaker then the A7III), those FW upgrades are mostly cosmetic.
You are right about the stupidly of changing brands, especially for this feature or that, or this lens or that.
Although switching because of work flow convenience and a set of lenses is a valid possibility.
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!
It's weird...I own both of them and I would usually SOOC I'd prefer the Canon (not hating on the Sony at all, they're both great systems in my book and I love my RIII). But in this case, I actually prefered the Sony's a bit more than the Canon.
At any rate...that Canon 85 F/1.2, that thing melts the background while keeping the subject in great detail. It's a killer piece of glass. Great shoot, Manny!
I've been a big fan of yours for a couple years now, Manny! When your new videos come up, I click!
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.
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.
Manny thanks. It's maximum blur and minimum depth of field at f1.2.
"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
The reason the bokeh looks near identical is that the Sony 85mm GM was very Bokeh "optimized". The Bokeh is more circular at the outer parts of the image, and the slight residual spherical aberrations let the bokeh appear more smooth.
The Canon, on the other hand, was optimized for achieving F1.2 with great sharpness. The problem is that things like "cat eye" bokeh etc... is less corrected. That's why the background blur is nearly identical especially in the outer parts of the frame.
With the Sony being 400g lighter and 1000$ cheaper I would take that as a win for the Sony
would be cool to see the new 85mm f/1.2 DS
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.
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.
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.
Not sure if it's my screen but I like the colors of the Sony SOOC shots. And side by side I don't see the f/1.2 as being so different from the f/1.4. I say the f/1.4 is good enough. Save the cash. Dope video Manny! 💯📸
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
Thank you. Now have both these lenses and use the Sony A7RV and Canon EOS R5. I don’t know if the camera differences affect the results. Maybe I should compare the Sony FE 50/1.2 GM and Canon RF 50/1.2L or the Sony FE 135/1.8 GM and Canon RF 135/1.8L to help sort out the system I should commit to even though I currently own all these lenses and camera bodies. Not sure the best way to do these comparisons to really help me choose but I’m thinking I need to reduce the equipment I own although I do like them all😊. Take care.
I love your videos bro. I'm not even a photographer like that and enjoy watching your process. 👏🤙
honestly，I think sony's colour science is better than canon for darker skin tone. Great comparison Manny! Your video really stop me switch my a7r3 and few Sony lens to canon. Thanks!
Diana needs a mic :D
I gotta say I like the Sony skin tones better. Canon seems to look better but they too warm. I need to adjust both Canon and Sony files to what I like but I find I can do more with Sony files. The dynamic range is much better than Canon’s. Great video, keep them coming.
I absolutely love my canon EOSR after coming from Sony A7r2!
Nice video Manny! I did think the Canon was too warm/ yellow at times, not as accurate
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 .....
Great video man
Which combo do you like more.?
I actually prefer the deeper more magenta color of the Sony images. The Canon's yellow hue looks weird to me.
I think it is more about the ½ speed more light than the bokeh. In my experience when shooting dark rooms and flash is not an option, 1/160 is able to freeze most people's movements like a person walking toward camera at a normal pace. 1/125 is almost there but not quite. 1/250 is better of course but when shooting above 6400 ISO the image deterioration picks up its pace. Plus having a sharp 1.2 is pretty amazing! Honestly, I stop down the 85mm to 2.8 most of the time when there is plenty of light and use 1.4 only when dim.
Love both but really enjoy the Sony combo. Hard to beat the 85mm
Your RF 85mm 1.2L photos are really pop! Wow! I’m using the EF f1.2L II now but will upgrade to RF soon
That was really valuable. Thanks!
Now please compare the a7III and the a7rIV with the 85 1.4 G 😉
Nice work, I liked the way the canon looked better. In my eyes, it was just sharper and better colors.
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
I can't explain why, but I've always liked Canon. I don't have any camera yet. I'm currently looking to get an EOS R due to the price drop with the announcement of the new models. Due in part that I can just start with the RF glass.
The one thing that I've noticed, is in comparisons with Canon and Sony, the pictures are very close. And several of the videos from photographers say the same thing.
Oh man. I was playing with this exact combos except the Sony Camera was a A7R4. Perfect vid bro.
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.
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!
The example Raws show 2 differences, with Sony you find some green aura around the bokeh balls, and the Canon even it is wide open has much more micro contrast and visible higher sharpness, clearly for me the winner , if this is worth the 1200$ difference - you must decide on your own. Also the AF-Performance was not a part of the test, the Gmaster 1.4 is slower the the Sony FE 85mm, but the Sony GM is a greate value still. Thank you for the review and for the nice pictures! Karl
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.
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..👊🏼😉
I was actually watching this fully expecting to finally see the Sony combo getting it's ass whupped, but from the very first still you present in this video I actually had to choose the Sony. I've seen both yours and others' shots with the Canon combo before and thought that "wow, that's a Canon power demonstration right there", but even the skintones from the Sony appeals more to me. In your finished images, Diana's skin is more yellow in the Canon images + I get the urge to lower highlights, which look more controlled (to my linking) in the Sony images. Yes, the Sony skin tones appear a bit magenta instead, but that's not worse, just different. Both would need tweaking in my opinion, and if i had to leave them untouched, I really would choose the Sony image in every case here. I'm really surprised, because I fully expected not to think so. I also saw right away that I like the details better from the Sony. Even with it's shorter actual focal length, which in turn almost evens out any difference in the bokeh as you said.
Great and surprising video.👍
Torben Lysholm apart from the fact the canon is noticeably much sharper?
@@lukegardiner6926 I think you're confusing sharpness with resolution, Lucas. If you put the GM lens on a A7RIII you'd see even more "sharpness" in that image, only that's still not sharpness but resolution impressing us.
Good conclusion. I imagine the results would differ greater in a situation with a busier background or a lot of specular highlights. The difference between 1.2 and 1.4 hasn't been enough for me to trade up from adapting the excellent EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM. The RF lens has done some amazing things with it's near perfect optics, but we're splitting hairs. The Sony sensor is excellent, but something to be said about shooting with a Canon and having near perfect colors all the time and just adjust contrast to taste. Haha
I'm a simple man, I see a new Manny Ortiz video, I click it
I guess im in the same boat!!!
Jinx lol.
I don't want to sound like a bad person but I think you should've mentioned that the 85 1.2 was sharper because some people would like a sharper lens and some wouldn't, I like a sharper lens sometimes and sometimes I go with something less sharp depending how I want to edit.
The Canon EOS R has 30 mp making it 12mp than the Sony A7III 24 mp. Therefore if he had the A7RIII it would also be a unfair comparison.
Good advice manny. Use what you have. If you have Canon glass, get the EOS R. But if you have Sony glass, stick with Sony.
Personally I can’t see myself going back to Canon. I love my A7iii and I just don’t trust Canon anymore lol
Much waited video 😍
"I'm 💯" lmao. Great vid as always!
I personally think SONY is a better camera (from what revs I've heard 1 stop of light makes a difference), but from this, video is clear that Canon lenses are much sharper. However, its only noticeable when zooming into the picture and I noticed this on the eyes of the model and the letters on her hoodie which are much more noticeable. Canon EOS R user and I crave those RF lenses. -Thanks for the video! 👍
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 🤣
Are you using the same trigger at the same time using both ???
And what brand do you recommend
Sounds like the Canon is better in quality. But I understand that price is also a factor.
Very well explained Manny. Bravo! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Greetings from the Philippines. I’m a beginner myself and thanks for all your amazing videos. Learned alot.
I like the Sony pics on this one. Strange because when I watch Potatojet's video comparison, I liked the Canon video better.
I'm a Sony user btw.
There is a new RUclipsr called Xing Lui who does side by sides with the Sony/Canon/Fuji bodies and I like his channel a lot (second only to Manny's). He picks the EOS-R for client work because clients prefer the colours apparently. Like Manny, he takes gorgeous photos with all the cameras he uses.
@@77dris I wish there was a channel that posted those comparisons but with video instead, or especially posted a link to the clips so I could mess with them myself. For people trying to decide between the two, it'd be cool to have some download links to test shots so someone could mess with the files themselves and see which ones they like more...rather than ordering both cameras and returning them or renting for a few hundred bucks...cheaper if you already know what you like outside of that.
Nice video and great conclusion. I shot Canon for 30 years and Sony for 4. Never had anyone ask about skin tones or bokeh when I delivered their images. I’m using a Batis 1.8 BTW. The think I think you did not mention is that your technique re lighting, location and composition is way more important than f1.2 versus f1.4.
Dont't know about you folks out there, but I personally prefer the SONY colours....
I’m here trying to decide which to buy 🤙 thanks a ton for the great video
"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...
Is it me or does the Canon EOS R look a tad bit sharper? Also I have a Sony A73 but love Canon L series lenses. I noticed Sony looks a little more contrasty which can be a personal thing if you like it.