Canon EOS R5 Image Quality vs R6, R, 5D Mk IV, 5DS-R & Sony a7R IV
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- Get the best prices with a warranty at SDP.io/BUY + 5% coupon TNC
Tony Northrup tests the Canon EOS R5’s (sdp.io/R5) image quality, including high ISO/low-light noise, dynamic range, banding (especially with the electronic shutter) and sharpness. He compares it against the Canon EOS R6 (sdp.io/R6), the Canon 5DS-R (sdp.io/5dsr), the Canon 5D Mk IV (sdp.io/5d4), the Canon EOS R (sdp.io/eosr) and the Sony a7R IV (sdp.io/a7r4).
PLEASE READ: I misspoke and said the R5 has 10 FPS with the mechanical shutter. The specs show it has 12; that's a theoretical maximum when it's not tracking autofocus. In our testing with the RF 70-200 tracking continuous AF for sports, it captured 8 FPS max. With our 500mm f/4 EF lens tracking AF, it captured 5 FPS. Note at 11:52 I accidentally showed the wrong image for the R5 (it's at f/8 instead of f/2.8) but comparing the f/2.8 images side-by-side it's still all the same conclusions.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm interested in seeing the IQ tests for the A7S III
Check my comment for maybe two other mismatched comparisons:
Error at 9:57 and 10:17: 5DS-R apparently had 2/3rd of a stop less light than the R5, so the comparison of low light and dynamic range might be invalid. Please check:
5DS-R is at 1/1600 at f2.8 and the R5 at 1/125 f8.0, both iso 6400. f2.8 to f8.0 are 3 stops of difference, but 3 stops difference from 1/125th would be 1/1000th. The 5DS-R had 1/1600 and therefore 2/3rd of a stop less light than the R5.
Although, I don't understand why they appear to have the same captured brightness, if the exposure has not been raised in lightroom, but my math seems to be correct?
Thank you Tony, appreciate the additional info on FPS when Tracking, keep up the fantastic work.
Please SAY THE BURSTS NUMBERS ARE BULLSHIT IN AF-C in your future videos :) are the 20 FPS real in AF-C ? Thank you Tony :)
No worries Tony, I’m not holding it against you. It was a great comparison as I shoot with the EOS R and have pondered upgrading. I’ve really liked my EOS R and have had no issues with it.
Finally a comparison for photographer. Most reviewer only focus on video.
exactly!.
@SwitchRich the cameras have started to be delivered to those who pre-ordered, there's unboxing videos out there now
Very true! I can't hear anything about overheating anymore, knowing I would rarely (if at all) use the video feature...
But it's flawed with some errors
Yes!
The sharpness comparing between R6 and R5. The R6 image was shot with f/2.8 and the R5 at F/8.0 for the comparing.
Thanks for your great work. I think there is an error at 9:57 and 10:17: 5DS-R apparently had 2/3rd of a stop less light than the R5, so the comparison of low light and dynamic range might be invalid. Please check:
5DS-R is at 1/1600 at f2.8 and the R5 at 1/125 f8.0, both iso 6400. f2.8 to f8.0 are 3 stops of difference, but 3 stops difference from 1/125th would be 1/1000th. The 5DS-R had 1/1600 and therefore 2/3rd of a stop less light than the R5.
Although, I don't understand why they appear to have the same captured brightness, if the exposure has not been raised in lightroom, but my math seems to be correct?
Fabian Feldmann Yeah, there’s a lot of invalid comparisons with different apertures. At 9:21 he talks about red smear caused by moire, but it might just be purple fringing effect at the open aperture
@@YouEligat yeah, this should probably be revisited too. 2.8 is pretty closed (2 stops) for the 24mm, so it could really be from the missing filter on the 5DSR, but better be sure.
Listen to all the super haters....
@@davidnelson702 How on earth is this super hating? They're just pointing out actual and objective flaws with a video, just simple feedback.
R5 has the same dynamic range as a7r4...thats NOT TRUE what Tony says...i have measured booth cameras and i have different results than yours..R5 is also 0.4 stops better than R6 !R5 has about 14.6 stops dynamic range,a7r4 has about 14.64...even Canon sayed that R5 has about 1 stops better than 5d mark iv...5d mark iv has 13.8 stops...so R5 has exactly the same dynamic range as a7r4 :) And thats not professional to use JPEG as dynamic range comparison.
Hi Tony, it would be interesting to compare the image quality of the Canon R5 to the image quality of the Nikon D850 or the Nikon Z7.
Tony, I have not looked at the comments to your videos before today, when I looked at them to see your pinned comment to your video about noise not being caused by high ISO. As an aspiring photographer who enjoys learning about the technical (what you refer to as the nerdy) aspects, I very much value your teaching videos. I see that you receive many comments of a less appreciative nature, but since you march on with the teaching I trust that you are giving such comments the treatment they deserve, which would be to ignore them. Thank you for providing me with a trusted source of information and inspiration, and I hope you are rightfully rewarded for what you do.
Wish you would’ve downsampled the higher MP to match the lower MP before going 4 to 1 zoom. Increasing the size and makes the lower MP seem even less crisp at 4 to 1.
Wow. Amazing. A camera review that actually considers the camera part. Thank you. Finally!
I believe the banding can be eliminated by turning on anti-flicker detection. This should allow the camera to adjust to frequency of the light source and thus eliminating this issue or atleast reduce it to a large extent.
On the R at least, anti-flicker only works with mechanical shutter. So it won't fix it with the electronic shutter at any speed. Anti flicker works spectacularly though. I shot a political rally this week and had my old 6D on me as my roaming camera while my R was filming 4k 422 to my atomos recorder. The 6D doesn't have the anti-flicker feature so I always had it on the highest frame rate setting to pop off 4-5 shots to get one that was inside the syncing of the house lights. Once the speeches were over and I was able to take the R off the tripod, the difference is night and day and worth the price of the upgrade for that feature alone if you shoot under cheap lights often. Ever shot was perfectly white balanced from edge to edge instead of purple on one side and green on another.
@@danielscott7627 That's too bad re: it only working with the mechanical shutter. Thanks for the information.
This is the video I have been waiting for. Thank you so much for your comparisons and addressing the things us stills photographers are thinking about. Most of us looking to go Mirrorless for the first time are torn between SONY's R series and the new R5/R6. I am torn between the R5 and the Sony A7R IV. But this is helping me figure out which way I want to go with my first mirrorless camera. I am very impressed with the Canon
Really?? How can anyone be "torn" between the Canons and the Sony? Aren't most photographers so heavily invested in one ecosystem or the other that they would either have to be filthy rich or just starting out to just switch because one or the other temporarily outspecs the other? You'll just be switching back in a year or two when it's the other way around. Won't you?
@@alansach8437 Nope. Not if it's your first Mirrorless camera and you're not heavily invested in either.
It's a very flawed comparison. Go to dpreview and see the real difference between 61 MP and the 45 MP R5. They resized the images here!
@Gap I'm not a beginner , no, but going for my first mirrorless body.
There is something overlooked here and it is that RF glass is just superior in some situations than GMaster. I shoot with both systems and the RF glass is better, period. You are going to see similar advantages shooting with and EOS R and an 47R3 even though they are different MP resolution.
I do mention that in the video and plan to review the EF vs RF glass side-by-side soon. But yeah, I'm totally in love with the RF glass.
Tony & Chelsea Northrup Awesome Tony! I’m working on a GMaster ve RF 24-70 f2.8 comparison. Looking forward to your comparison. And keep up the great work
I'm just sad that RF glass is SOO expensive. I'm waiting for Sigma and Tamron to release lenses. Right now I've been using my Sigma Arts adapted on the R and they are phenomenal.
77dris agreed. But by far best glass system I own.
My R5 just arrived this morning! ☺️
I'm sorry.
Charlie Liu pretty sure that just makes you an arse.
Hope you enjoy it. are you more into photography or video. could you post back and let me know what you think of the image quality taking a picture?
Don't shoot video with it...
mark tizard really impressed with the IBIS, AF, and quality coming out of the camera, it’s very easy to use, and at night in city lights it is easy to get very clean images with great colours, the dynamic range looks to be significantly better than the R... I can’t covert my Raws yet, but can already tell that it’s a huge step up from what I was getting back from the 5D4 (photographer mainly), haven’t tested the video yet but will get some clips today and see how it goes in the 4K HQ and 120 modes :) I set up custom menus to group all the things I will want to change quickly, but it’s highly intuitive! One strange thing is the joystick toggle came out of the box with no function, I set it to AF, I also set the bottom right of my screen to touch and drag AF too :)
So basically as I am a landscape photographer I don’t see anything in this review that sways me over to the R5 . It’s lots more expensive than my current 5DSR in fact nearly twice the price , so for using the R5 for stills in landscape photography I don’t see the major benefits of going towards the R5 .. thanks Tony for putting up this review and finally we get to hear the pro’s and con’s in both cameras .. your review is as always honest and realistic .
Yeah, agreed. Except maybe the dynamic range that is better at base ISO. The R5 is more of a camera that can do it all. Sports, action, wildlife, landscape, portrait, video.
I suggest controlling for white balance using a WB card in the photo unless you're specifically comparing the auto WB capability of the camera. I think the test would be more objective.
I think he wanted to make the point that different colour can be simply down to WB difference. I agree that he could've matched the WB for the rest of the video.
Excellent review, would love to hear similar comments on the R6 versus the R.
Got my R5 today, the image quality is better than my 50Mpx 5DS R, at least I thought so! 50 Mpx to 45 Mpx you are only losing -328px Height x -496px Wide in image dimensions. The auto-focus shooting my dog today was insanely accurate!
This is the comparison video I've been waiting for. Thanks for making it.
You're welcome!
Thank you so much for this!!!!! I wish I had the budget for the R5. I am eyeing the R6 and upgrading from a T7i. I would love a comparison of the R6 and R! I have learned so much from your books!!!!
I think unless you really need 30mp, the R6 is a better camera overall. IBIS, dual slots, joystick, new sensor and faster FPS, better video
@@GiacomoZonco That is what I have been leaning towards. Thank you for your input, much appreciated!
@@GiacomoZonco I would disagree on the "better camera overall" assumption. Better value... maybe. But the R5 was designed to be the better camera and its price reflects that. It does nearly everything better than the R6, with only the max ISO being 1 stop less than the R6. Having said that, an upgrade is usually based on need or want and is personal in nature so the user should always make their decision based on that and not what other people think is better.
philaw123 absolutely, I was comparing the R6 and the original R only, so that’s why I made that comment. Surely the R5 is amazing and I would also love to have one. One weird advantage the R6 has over the R5 is that its 4K video is much sharper (unless you are using the 4K HQ mode on the R5, that is downsampled from 8K but has heat limitations). But as a mostly still shooter the 45mp of the R5 is a joy
As the R5 is out of budget for me, I’m trying to see if losing 10mp and the top screen can be compensated by all the advantages the R6 has. For the most part I would say yes, but as a nerd I love punching into pictures and seeing all the details. But to be honest I mostly post on the web/socials and I’ve been able to print 12mp Mavic Pro Photos with no issues
Thanks for bringing up flickering issue. I’ve been pulling my hair out trying to find info on that.
Thanks, this reaffirmed my preorder for the R5... I’m so glad to be back with Canon, I cheated on Canon for about 6 months with an A7R4 and it wasn’t that great, the pictures were nice but the Sony customer service was less than desirable and the usability was not so friendly.
For those unaware: traditionally, these cheaper lights flicker in sync with the electrical AC frequency of your supply. In the US that's 60Hz, so any multiple of 60 may make the banding far better. Hope that helps someone. In the UK, our AC is 50Hz. If you wanna deep dive into this, it's pretty interesting. It's why our TVs broadcast at 30fps in the US and 25fps in the UK, as teles used to project in time with the AC powering the CRT screens and were interlaced images flickering at twice the frame rate, then we added colour and needed to use a bit of that to do colour etc. and ended up with 59.94Hz teles, yada yada. It's a geek dive but it's fascinating.
Is there any measuring device that calculates the frequency of the lighting in the room so a photographer can compensate more readily?
Thank you in advance
@@stephencarolin2020Just google the power supply frequency in your country and that should be it. Every country on earth is either 50Hz or 60Hz, so if you're not sure try using a shutter speed that's a multiple of 50 or 60 and see which gives you the best results. It may not eliminate banding as there will be timing differences in the camera and all that, but it should help.
I am really happy to see this, although I did have to check the calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1st. I am looking forward to your R5 testing video, while I understand your point of the shadow recovery, it would be more realistic to see it in a real world type scenario instead of a gross over exposure of the image. Hopefully you will do a landscape photo and correctly recover the shadows as you would in a real photo.
I have no interest in the video capabilities of this camera (in fact I wish they offered a version without video). From this review and the other video you did, this looks like a winner to me. Now if they would just be available for purchase somewhere.
I would like to see more on the R5 vs a7riv image quality. It seems very odd that there is a noticeable improvement in detail going to the 5dsr but not the a7riv. Lenses are optimised for sensors so maybe a more telephoto lens or native lens use would get different results.
Barnabas Mackay that’s a good question, because the rf lenses are sharper and resolve more mp
@@marioslrzn that's fair, as long as cost and weight etc is included in the comparison.
There is some "exposure pulsating" in the introduction and conclusion outside shots, shot with the a7sIII. Probably some automatic exposure parameter that needs to be less sensitive. Great video for photographers.
Tony, there's a rear mechanical shutter when shooting with the electronic shutter? I'm confused.
im also confused
Me at 10 pm watching a video on cameras i cant afford or plan to buy 🤦♂️
The R6 is the cheapest among the bunch here and quite the deal, since it has the same sensor as the 1DX MkIII, even though I can't afford it right now, I do plan on getting it within the next year or so.
@@Aturixios Well it's not exactly cheap that either.
Funny! Guess there was nothing on TV?
3AM and I added to cart.
Excellent comparisons, very helpful. Surprised the R5 low light performance was better than the R6, as the R6 has been promoted as being a great low light camera. It is still a great camera, but didn’t expect the R5 to perform so well in comparison.
I know. The rumors of the R6 high iso is better than R5 is annoying.
Your reviews are SO in depth and you think of everything. I think that also leads to a bit of dramatic comparison/conclusions but 95% of everything you say covers SO much of what analysis is needed. Hellava job with your videos.
Might have been interesting to include the A7r3 along with the A7r4 in these comparisons... we know it has better high ISO performance than its 61MPix brother so the differences you see may just be a natural consequence of comparing a camera with more but smaller pixels to a camera with fewer but bigger pixels...sensor generation being comparable... also, once you get to 61MPix, I'm thinking you have to be careful which lens you pick for the test... many lenses that worked fantastically and super sharp on my A7r3 have become blah on my A7r4.... I think you yourself, Tony, where amongst those warning that using FF lenses on APC-S size sensors with smaller pixels more densely packed together was sometimes a problem.... could be much the same effect here for the A7r4 if you are not careful of lens used on it.
Silvestro Crino I think put they’re respective 85f lens
Can the DT 24mm f/1.4 SAM resolve 61mp of the A7rIV? The 24mm f/1.4 GM might have given better results.
Just my thoughts.
No such lens. The "DT ... SAM" naming convention is how the Sigma MC-11 labels unsupported lenses. Probably a Canon EF 24mm F1.4 USM in this case. Tony mentioned using the same lens on all bodies for more direct comparison.
Ok. Thanks.
I also thought that the same lens was used but got confused by the name of the lens.
But still the issue of using a non sony lens remains the same.
As I have read on the internet that even very few sony lenses can resolve full resolution of the A7rIV.
@@QuietOC It's not a fair comparison if the Sony suffers a handicap of having to work with a non-native lens. Though my EF50/1.2 seems to give sharper images with my A7r4 than my 5DSR.
Hey Tony, could you do a sensor comparison of the EOS RP to the EOS R6 in regards to stills?
That'd be swell.
Also please include the "budget" lens options in your comparison from EF to RF. Im interessted in the EF85mm 1.8 to the RF 85mm 2.0. Anyways I am really looking forward to this series.
Keep it up!
I'd like to see that, too. I have the EF 85mm 1.8 and I stare at pics I take with it all day long. Such a nice little lens...
3 sec. This Moment When you Watch a Video over the Canon R5 is Filmed With the Sony 7S 3😂
DSI Pictures on RUclips put up a new video today shot in 8K on the R5 and it's stunning!
He also added he didn't even get an overheating warning after a day of shooting in Australia. He ALSO added that he found that fast SD cards were able to work with 8K and 4K HQ modes. I'm starting to wonder if the overheating is being caused by the CF cards, now, especially since a few people say the R5 doesn't even get hot (body) but the CF cards really do.
Great test, thanks! Exactly what I needed!
High ISO and banding looks better than Sony, and that's mainly what I use it for. Add a great IBIS, and the R5 looks perfect for stage performances, concerts etc.
I think after using electronic shutter it may overheat. But still it's a huge leap forward
Flickering issue: Just enable the "Anti-flicker Shoot." settings and the banding will disappear. This feature was available in the 5D Mark IV and the EOS R as well.
RP has anti Flickr as well
anti flicker shot only helps to keep the light exposure the same. it doesnt help to fix the electronic shutter flicker banding.
Anti-flicker is mechanical shutter only
Finally, something for the photographers, thank you so much for this
I just read that the second production batch of R5 cameras won't be released until November. Sounds like a production/design change and firmware updates to address overheating problems. It would be really interesting to see the R5 high iso against the Sony A7S3. The lower megapixel 45mp in the R5 was better than the 61mp of the A7R4 which is understandable, but it was still unusable. The 12mp A7R3 would be interesting to see in the same low light scenario. If usable at ISO 51k could really be a help for wedding photographers.
Nobody in their right mind is going to seriously consider a 12 mpix body for stills.
You're holding the "Gold" version of that Prograde CF Express card. Do you mean the Gold doesn't work, or the Cobalt???
He definitely held up the lower spec'd Gold version. The Cobalt should be fine.
Well, good question. I bought the Cobalt and I guess I never looked at it as closely as you - maybe they shipped the wrong version. But Jared has been using the Gold version with no problems, so I guess I just got unlucky. I dunno.
@@TonyAndChelsea The Gold version has the gold label; the Cobalt is, well, Cobalt-colored. I know with SanDisk that their larger capacity ExtremePro CFexpress cards have higher write speeds. For example, the 64GB cards that Canon USA bundled with the 1DX3 launch couldn't handle 5K RAW, but the 512GB cards that Canon Canada bundled with theirs could. Perhaps Jared had a larger capacity ProGrade card than you.
@@paulmorris4759 Right.. Obviously I can see that. But he said he had a problem with the Cobalt version.
Yeah clarification would be nice because I bought a Cobalt version for the higher speeds and if that doesn’t work I’ll be sorely disappointed
Great and most welcome video - viewed from the other side of the pond. So timely since delivery of R5 starts today! I have an order for the R5 and 3 RF lenses! So very glad that my faith in Canon turned out to be right! One very happy camper today! Well done Tony - a great well balanced review!
I have to tip my hat to Tony and Chelsea. Your reviews are very well done and honest. When I watch your videos I know I can trust your input. Thank you for all your testing you do so I do not have to, and can spend my time creating.
Wow! I love the video focus transition on this at the beginning, it is so much smoother and more responsive than the R.
Yeah this is our real-world testing of the a7S III and I was really impressed! MUCH nicer than I get from the Canons.
Tony & Chelsea Northrup the Sony is smoother? That’s what you found? I’m about to order is why I ask. Video Autofocus.
I’m a canon user but the ISO comparison is not accurate since you have converted the raw files with photoshop.
That noise artefact is a PS problem.
I would be really curious converting the raw files with manufacturers programs and then see the results of the Sony
Thanks for this comment, I am finally ditching LR and went to Capture One, I noticed a great difference specially in noise awareness as well as within focus . I still use a lot my canon 5Dsr.
When I see the lens used on A7R4 I immediately know this is not a useful video at all/valid information to determine everything. Tony seems to live in an old different world where camera body matters more.(You can see it that he was using some laowa 15mm to compare to GM zooms and claim the center shows not much difference. Like duh, of course it will, that lens isn't any sharp lens to begin with.) If you compare camera A and camera B where A is a higher spec camera with a worse lens you know it is not a fair comparison anymore and may even end up make it much worse looking. What you really should do, is have A7R4 on 16-35GM, and R5 on RF15-35L, or maybe 50 1.4Ziess vs RF50 1.2L. or 70-200GM vs RF70-200L. That would validate much more to people who are on the fence about different systems.
Tony, great content, but what's up with the pulsating brightness in the intro shot by the A7Siii? I watched this on an Imac & an OLED TV and both clearly showed this odd pulsating brightness in your intro.
yes, Ken I noticed this too. Almost as if the exposure was constantly adjusting and the video was brightening and darkening during the intro section shot with the A7S3
I photographed a charity livestream event with the original EOS R and figured since I was close to the microphone I should use the silent shutter.
The camera's screen didn't show the banding as well as I could see it once I had the files on my computer. Might just go ahead and make some noise next time.
I didn't check the 361 prior comments but just in case no one else points this out, comparing the A7R4 to the R5 at ISO 51200, is not an apples-to-apples comparison since the A7R4's top native ISO is 32000. At the moment, in terms of low light performance, Sony is not competitive in the 45 MP space now that the R5 is being marketed. Look for Sony to soon offer an A7R5 with just 45 or so MP and a native ISO of at least 51,200.
No real photographer would ever miss the exposure by 5 stops. I nail the exposure and focus and everything every time because I'm me, I'm so awesome I don't need to worry about dynamic range.
You're welcome.
Your name must be Pixel and your father must be Google
DarkPa1adin lol
I shot a wedding in a pavilion at 1pm in 2018. I had to expose for the couple but the background was blown out. One of those moments when a few more stops of dynamic range would have been nice. I was using the 5d iv.
A better low light test would be under low light conditions like turning down the light. There are very few applications that require 1/8000 second shutter speed under artificial lighting (indoor sports are not one of them).
It doesn't matter. If there are shadows in the scene you can still crank up the exposure to compare dynamic range.
neil454 it matters
Yup. That part I did not like. Also, increasing the shutter speed too much softens the image a bit (based on personal observation).
@@Jessehermansonphotography How does it matter? Other than the banding from the e-shutter, a shorter shutter time yields the same result as lowering the light.
Thank you for pointing out the banding. I shoot dance and sports on low light or stage lights and always have a problem with LEDs used inside the venues. As much as I love to totally go mirrorless, banding is the drawback.
Just use the mechanical shutter. Banding is not a mirrorless issue, is an electronic shutter problem.
Thank you for your video. I found the same problem with banding on raw images using the electronic shutter. I was going to return the R6...I converted a raw image to black-and-white and brought down the blue channel in the HSL, The entire sky had banding across the frame. This video put some light on the issue and help me figure out what was causing the banding...Much gratitude.
Is it such a hassle to perform a manual white balance and match it between cameras when pixel peeping and making world-class camera inspections?
When you compared the high ISO shots of the R5 and R6 you crowned the R5 the champion because it was sharper. Yes, I'd expect the higher resolution camera to be sharper, but it also did look noisier.
It looks noiser at 100% but you must compare at same size, so if you downscale 42MP to 20MP there won't be more noise, maybe less. You need to print photos to understand that.
Alexandre Houguet if you’re actually look at the video he did show them scaled to the same size, it’s not a matter of it being a higher magnification due to being higher resolution.
@@rpgroome slightly more noise, very slightly, but so much sharper. Anyway R5 or R6 are brilliant at 25600iso...i often shot at 8000 to 12800iso (indoor sports) so R5 will be mine :)
??? I heard the rumble by the YT masses and decided to watch this video. And then you came to the first comparison frame, of the Canon R5 and the Sony. I had to "rewind" a bit so I could read the camera's info. And I almost fell out of my chair! What kind of a comparison test is this, when you are using an ancient EF lens, WITH an ADAPTER, on the NEW "state of the art" R5 body? That is like comparing a pee shooter and an AK-47 ie RF "L" lens. Yes, there is no 24mm RF"L" prime lens to compare with the Sony 24mm prime lens... but I am pretty sure Sony has a 50 f/1.2 lens that could have been compared to Canon's RF"L" 50 f/1.2 prime. My first camera was a Hasselblad system, 1968. Then SinarF 4x5 later that year. And every Nikon system until 1989, until Canon came out with motors in the lenses, and all us photojournalists dumped Nikon for Canon. In my humble opinion, the RF"L" lenses are the best there is! Ever. Been using 6 of them over the last 2 years. Just establishing my experience. And there is always someone who knows more. So Tony, would you elaborate a little why the EF lens was used instead of the new RF'L" glass. Ty...
Great, thorough review Tony! It’s a shame the side effects of shooting electronic shutter, the high iso and lower dynamic range was quite a shock to me - I’ll consider that carefully with my R for the time being! Still verging on going for the R6, I’d be happiest with that if it had say the 30MP from the R, otherwise it’s perfect for me.
That's what I ended up doing, the eos r had some deals on it recently - i figure if I find myself really lusting after IBIS and better video I can upgrade later on to one of the new cameras when they're cheaper/more secondhand available.
I owned the A7r IV for a week. Sadly, something as small and organic as dust on the sensor made the camera impossible to justify keeping. Very sad that Sony isn’t taking more notice of this issue. All 5 of my shoots had dust and I wasn’t changing lenses. Somehow, dust is already in there and Sony’s sensor attracts it.
huh? use an air blower
Mr H Yes. Then I would reattach the 24 to105 only to have dust reappear. This was a new camera with a new lens. I’ve been doing photography professionally for the past 20 years and it is the only camera that has had that much problems with dust.
Finally someone explaining the banding issue! I could not understand what was going on with my camera for a while at first. I shoot dance performance photography which is low light, fast motion and also requires silent shutter but then my photos end up with annoying banding...but I also cant switch to mechanical shutter during the performances. Thankfully its a very small black box theater so I’m close to the action or shooting from the wings but it’s still such a pain and I haven’t figured out a good solution. (I shoot on Olympus mirrorless)
The R5 looks great, and I do shoot with the good old 5Dsr.
An upgrade is tempting, but my camera gets to stay in the gear bag a few years more. It has places to be and it's not yet ready to retire
DITTO - my 5Dsr shoots fine all day long
5DM4 still going strong on my end as well.
Thank you Tony - this answers most of my questions about the R6 in one small clip. Still i wonder how much damage the AA filter does to the 20mp but ... everybody was trying to tell me that the dynamic range of the R6 is SO MUCH better due to it being 20mp and my gut told me "lets see" ... and my gut was right. I own a 6Dmkii and 26mp are fine - i do mostly landscape and wildlife but i crop a lot. I cant always carry every lens around with me, nor do i have the time to switch all the time so i utizile crop, and with 26 you can easily crop in at least 20-30% (unless your doing a large 60x90cm print and even then... i printed 10mp images and they looked fine) ... if the R6 had really "bombastic" dynamic range it might have been an option but knowing that... 20mp is just a wee bit too little for me. So i probably have to save up for a year or two until i can afford the R5 eventhough i dont need cf express im fine with sd cards so i mostly will only use one slot.
The R6 may not be up to the R5, but it kicks my 7D Mark II's @$$. I just processed a photo of an indigo bunting against a bright sky, and another of an ovenbird in shaded woods. It took all my skill in LR and PS (and Topaz Denoise for the ovenbird) to get usable photos. I look forward to less work in post.
Hi Tony, could you do a tutorial video for the R5/R6 pretty please? Thanks 🙏
11:53 R6 at f/2.8 versus R5 at f/8.0 might be why R6 was noticibly less sharp.
RF lenses are sharp enough wide open.
No, that's not the issue. He upscaled the R6 to 45MP to match the size of the R5 images. He also upscaled the 45MP R5 images to 61MP to match the A7R4. I find this to be nonsensical as noone would ever do that in the real world.
No kidding. Come on, Tony!
That might account for some of it, though that lens is razor sharp at F2.8. The loss of 25 MP probably has more to do with it.
I added a pinned comment about this. I just accidentally clicked the wrong image but the conclusions are all the same, and we're looking at the focal plane. The R6 is less sharp b/c it has less than half the megapixels. The 24mm f/1.4 is actually less sharp at f/8 than f/2.8 (it's sweet spot).
That low light performance is impressive... I wouldn't say the A7RIV is a lot better than the R5 at shadow recovery.. maybe a half stop? What does everyone else think?
Tony, you stated the low light photos were better with the R5 as opposed to the R6. Like a full frame compared to a crop sensor, with the same number of photosites, it was explained to me that the sensor with the less densely packed photosites (the full frame), would produce better low light images. Why does the comparison seem to be the opposite on these 2 cameras? The technicalities are not my forte. Thanks.
Great information. I’m a still photographer and really learned a lot from this video to compare cameras, especially the R5 vs R6
Oof, my A7R4 survived, I was worried with the GAS comment at the beginning of the video :)
Don't worri,a7r4 i best
Hey Tony, I think zooming-in a same size is not fair for low resolution sensor, we should zoom in max 100% of the image size
I would like a similar video comparing the R6 to its peers. The R5 to R6 comparison in this video is helpful for those deciding between the two but for those of us that only have the R6 within reach a peer comparison would be helpful. I understand the R5 has started to ship, so if you need to finish any videos with that are more R5 centric to maximize views for the channel, then do so. Please remember to come back and make some time for a similar video for the R6 as well.
Waited 4 years for this. 😂 more of the R6 and R5 videos please. Thanks Tony great work 👍
Great review, thank you! I sold my 5D4 about a year ago and have been shooting Fujifilm. But I still have about a dozen EF lenses. I think an R5 may get those off the shelf.
Very good detailed video. You showed a lot of things about the R5 no one else has.
7:44 The 5Div is NOT the last DSLR Canon made. The 90D and 1DXiii both came after the 5Div. Just saying.
maybe the last 5d line
High megapixel cameras usually have more noise at high iso (unless there is something different in sensor tech such as BSI for example). So it would be predictable that the Canon at lower MP would be less noise which proves the case here.
Awesome work as per usual. Also heartbroken they don’t appear to be updating the 5d series.
Have to wonder why you didn’t pull in the highlights in the ‘dynamic range test’. Any thoughts on the highlight recovery compared to the same cameras?
Keep up the great work
Nice review - Thanks so much for getting these out so quickly - Very helpful!!
Hi Tony, great comparison. Just one special request... Can you please show some sample images at their native sizes (e.g. R5 images at their real size, 45MP) so we see what the cameras really give us? You are crippling the R5 by deteriorating it's image quality. It doesn't matter if one camera is higher MP, we just want to see what the cameras produce. Most people don't need 61MP and would never been damaging image quality by upscaling.
Hang on, some of these shots I’m realizing we’re shot at 1.4, and you say the Sony barely edges it out in sharpness, if you put both at 1.4 you’re likely not going to see the increased resolution. Also, how much resolution is the 24mm able to even resolve?
I don't think anything was shot at F1.4. the lens max is 1.4 but I shot at f2.8, which is the sweet spot.
Tony & Chelsea Northrup gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. Wish the metadata actually told you what you were shooting instead of the max aperture
RiceCube Tech the metadata does show the settings!!
Can't wait for the rest of the review and comparison!
One big point, highlights recovery isn't covered. Also upscaling of low res camera files isn't a common thing in real world, so in real world usage,lower res R6 will still look better at high iso until you try to upscale it to R5 res.
I am in the process now of collecting some gear to sell to KEH. Been using KEH for a few years now...
Ligh5 Source speed matching is Key. In our Church with the back LEDs we found 320/sec works. A good photographer and a great assistant will look at this and make adjustments. As far as press shooting, don’t see the banding or noise will be significant. Their shoots usually are great anyway because the do a lot of digital zoom instead of having a good lens or using the manual settings. Way to often I have seen them on Aperture Priority on autoISO....which is funny to me.
I loved to see the 5DIV - R5 comparison as this is the realistic upgrade path for me. I’m a photographer first and I love my 5D but am ready for the AF and some of the video features of mirrorless. But yeah - it would be hard to justify if the image quality wasn’t a step forward
I think a comparison useing the a9mk2 instead
Thanks :) finaly someone talked about photo examples of r5 🤗👍🏻
Dynamic range test, R5 looks better to me, Sony seems to be less detail and more blur
it would be better to show the noise straight from the RAW without denoise. This jpeg comparision shows denoise difference and to me I do not see sony winner here as canon shows slight more details so if canon would apply more denoise it will look same or better.
What you're referring to as "banding" is actually "flickering". Yes i know that if you go by the literature definition of the word, it does mean stripes of alternating colors. But I think the terms "banding" and "flickering" need to be distinct whilst talking about photo/video as both phenomena are caused due to very different factors. Why complicate things when there's a perfect solution already in place?
I can’t seem to figure out what lens were used for R5 vs A7R4? Cheers
Same lens, so i suppose he used EF lenses with the EF to RF adapter for the R5 and possibly a Sigma MC11 or a Metabones for the Sony. Either that or a lens that exists for both with manual focus.
So R6 is not even worth getting for still photographers since it's only 20 MP?
Good comparison, but I belive when comes to 5dmk4 vs r5, you shoot them with different settings.
5dmk4 with f2.8
R5 with f8.0
I think that is significant difference.
8.04s are raw details
It will be nice if you put in the description the order of the comparaison you are doing so we dont have to watch the ful video and can click on what we want to see.
@TONY, will you please clarify... The card you show is not THE Cobalt. It's the Gold card. The cobalt should work but the Gold does not. Can you clarify if in fact colbalts don't work? Or if it's Gold? Thanks!
That moon shot is nice.
You said that cobalt cfexpress gave you an issue recording in 8k but that card shown in the first 3 seconds of the video is not a cobalt prograde card that is just a standard prograde cf express not cobalt.
Hi, Nice comparison, can you please compare R5 and Nikon Z7. Thanks
13:38 You could enable the Anti-flicker Shooting feature to eliminate this.
Only works with the mechanical shutter
The only issue I had with this video was the thumbnail with the title "BANDING"... making it sound like the R5 has a flaw in it that causes banding.
Great video! Does anybody know what the “small or medium” size RAWs will be on the R5?
Been trying to find that out too
I don't think they do that with the new Canon's now. They do C-RAW (compressed). Smaller RAW file size and extremely negligible differences.
The R% manual is out. Might be there.
No small raw. C-Raw will cut the file size.
Thank you Tony, most appreciated! I like your reviews!
What you're seeing is syncing at multiples of 60/120 hz in north america
Yeah, in Europe, with their 50hz grid, filming a night scene illuminated by street lamps at a shutter speed of 1/60s and 60fps NTSC, one can really notice some pronounced banding and flickering. Changing the framerate to PAL 50p (or using a shutter speed of 1/100 or similar multiple) eliminates any hint of flickering from the video. Syncing the framerate and/or shutter speed to the light source really does make a difference!
How about the anti flicker setting? Does that help?