What's incredible is that in 3 years there is nearly zero advances in photographic technology, or shows that the canon R5 was ahead of it time.That fact that u will never tell the difference if u print both pics goes to show why the Canon R5 is the greatest camera canon have ever made. GREAT REVIEW
The A7R5 sensor is the same sensor used in the A7RIV which came out 3.5 years ago, before the R5 introduction. The R5 is the best Canon, but it is not leading the way in sensor development. Canon got a five year late start on pro mirrorless. If I was a Canon user the R5 would be at the top of my list.
@@davidwallace8980 It's not leading the way in sensor development, but given its actual practical performance -- IQ, eye autofocus accuracy and reliability, low light performance, IBIS, etc -- it's an amazing camera that 99.999% of people will not be able to completely maximize. The tech race is interesting, but honestly mostly irrelevant for most photographers.
Interesting to see its not that much of a difference. I have owned the A7r IV, got the R5 because I had issues with moire on the sony, dust and not always happy with it. So the R5 came along, a camera with good grip, easy to use, it takes on whatever you want to do.. But the A7r V seems more exciting, so instead of jumping back and forth I will buy into Sony again, keeping both brands. Canon for assignments and portraits, Sony for landscape. Thanks for the video, interesting to watch. :)
Hi, I'm using Sony A7iv at moment, no problems but was thinking of changing to Canon R5 because I prefer portrait type photography to landscapes; would you think this a good idea as I can't keep both? The handling of the Canon R5 felt SO MUCH BETTER when I picked it up to feel it in the shop! Means changing lenses but hey, ho. Thanks for your help.
@@Kinadnufeither one will do great for portraits, if the r5 felt better for you, and ergonomics are that important to you then get the r5. I’m a Sony fanboy but canon has some damn good mirrorless cameras now.
They both are more than capable. The differences are minute. whether canon or the sony. Whatever shot you compose or create the results will be fine. People get caught up in this in the wrong things when making a camera purchase. "Which one has the high fps, which one has more stops etc". None of this will improve your photography. Most of the time they don't even matter when it comes to getting your shot.
I agree that both cameras are more than capable. I do think that high fps, other features and characteristics, etc. can potentially improve some aspects of photography (or make photography easier, more enjoyable, etc.) for some folks depending on what they shoot and how they shoot, so I don't think those are necessarily the wrong things to focus on when making a camera purchase. It really depends on personal preferences and individual needs.
@@ZJMichaels maybe so but photographers were producincing amazing action shots and sports shots years ago with less than 10 fps. I watched a yotuber recently shooting motorcross capturing amazing shots. I guess it could help to a certain extent but less than advertised.
I am considering a possible switch from the Canon ecosystem to Sony, and I would have liked to see what it would take to correct the white balance on Canon R5 images. It seems all of the R5 shots had a lot of magenta in them, and canon images do not have details in highlight or easily overblow it, reddish orangish tint are some reasons I want to switch. It would have also been interesting to see if it’s a lens or the body sensor issue using an adapter and Canon lens on Sony to see if the image quality results on Sony will be the same. But I do think the Canon images were sharper, especially looking at the calibration shots. The edges of Sony images look way fuzzies than Canon’s to me. Is that your observation as well?
I was expecting the Sony to be better given that they always have the better dynamic range, that being said, I find the R5 to be amazing, and even before the R5 came out, I personally just found Canon cameras more aesthetically pleasing even before I knew anything about ISO or dynamic range or anything at all. After a few years I tried other Cameras and they never felt right to me.
@KHP33333 I agree that the canon files tend to have more magenta tones. I personally don't think it's a good or bad thing, just depends on personal preference. Also, the color and white balance is easily adjustable in post-processing, but if your preference is that you don't like the color straight out of the camera and you don't want to have to always adjust it... I'd say yeah it might be worthwhile to switch to a system you like better. It might be a good idea to rent the other system first and make sure it's the right fit for you since switching can be pricey. As far as the sharpness, I'm thinking that is more about the lenses than anything else. I think the Canon 24-105 f/4 L is definitely a bit sharper than the Sony 24-105 f/4 G, especially in the corners. I hope Sony comes out with a version 2 of that lens, because it is so versatile and useful for a lot of situations.
I'm with you... I have both cameras... for different reasons... Both cameras have different color science. Canon stronger reds, and Sony blues. This could also have much to do with the materials used in the lenses. But the R5 has lower noise and for the life of me I cant understand how it's being stated here that the Sony has less noise. Ofcourse more megapixels will give a better definition, especially since there is no anti-aliasing filter on the Sony and there is on the R5. Why do I have both cameras? Because the R5 gives me 98%+ sharp images for fast moving objects, and the Sony just under 80% as autofocus isn't as capable (before everyone goes nuts.... lens and sensor combination is probably the reason). But if I want to take high resolution pictures of slower moving or static objects, the Sony is the one to use. On a side note, if I really want to get the best image, I use the EOS 5DsR (2016 release) at 50mp with no anti-aliasing filter but have to keep the ISO at 100. Anything above 200 and it no longer can compete with the modern cameras. In summary, all these cameras are fabulous and capable, but there is no single perfect camera. They are have their strengths and weaknesses, and one has to use the one that best fits the set of requirements one has for the subject they are photographing. I did enjoy this review and I believe the intent was to have a fair comparison, I simply see the noise very different than the author.
Did you try to use the Adobe Standard profile for the R5 instead of the Adobe Color profile? This greatly reduces the red tones and so would go more towards the Sony.
Canon clearly better also with high iso. Noise is much less prominent and that tiny color shift is negligible. 4 years later, still best camera in it's class.
I find the Canon slightly sharper. Perhaps Canon RF glass better? In general, I find Canon to provide better separation of elements within the photo. I am a Sony shooter BTW.
I had to stop the video for a moment to view the first set of photos. The Canon has more detail. I have seen this phenomenon on other reviews as well and combined with possible advances in the Canon R5 II around this coming Feb. I am actually waiting to buy in to the Canon ecosystem. Although I am not nay saying the incredible Sony camera's and have the ZV-E1 myself to do my BTS videos.
This is a really excellent comparison. Well done. I’ve wondered about moving from my R5 to a Sony mainly for the lack of AA filter, but I think you should hear that it isn’t worth it. However, I don’t love the canon raw files in my experience specifically because of the color cast and the muddy look to the images.
Thanks! Do you know if Canon makes any R mount FF cameras without AA filter? I’m thinking lens sharpness would matter more than AA filter, but I haven’t tested that myself.
@@ZJMichaels They do not and this has been a mistake in my opinion. They need to do away with AA filters on the next R5. I think you might be right about lens sharpness though
this could have been the best comparison ever made yet it sadly failed to show what i was looking for. the reason is white balance, it can sound like a small thing but it isn't its huge. if you could have match their white balance and then compare i think that the outcome would have been different. still though, thank you for the video.
that's a lens comparison. The 24-105mm Canon RF L is the worst of their current RF L lenses. Not only is it not sharp but you will also see shadow noise easier du to contrast issues.
I would say that Canon images look a bit overexposed ... I shoot Canon for almost 20 years and always set exposure correction to -0.7. Recently I sold Sony a7m4 cause of ergonomics and unpredictable viewfinder shooting, Sometimes images were great but on post they were underexposed or overexposed. I've purchased Canon R6 mark 2 and was pretty excited with the ergonomics and viewfinder accuracy ... My pictures now look as exposed and coloured as you see it during your shoot. As for the colour - Sony tints always to magenta and red, Canon sligtly to green and yellow ... thats why I dont think that colour comparisons are useful. It just the matter of taste) At the end of the day Canon R6 mark II seems to me more atteractive solution in 2023- the only downside is lack of 3rd party lens choice , but I dont loose enthusiasm - tons of EF lenses are still at the market and I'm satisfied using my 135L and "nifty-fifties" )
You comparison examples on the image chart are not correct points to even pick on. I shoot Sony, and I like the sensor, but your reasoning at least in these examples is not the right parameter to make the calls you're making. For example the color saturation and the noise in a specific area.
I’m a canon color fan… i think greens in sony are too shrill. Skin tones of the a7riv i had where not good too. But… I found that it’s mostly due about the lenses. If you use canon lenses on sony you will get 95% of what you get on canon in terms of colors. So I have r5 and I had a7iv and I thinking to get a7cr because i have many ef canon lenses and it’s easy to adapt to sony, also sony has GM lenses that are good enough too. The G series i really don’t like the colors and rebdering. I prefer the L canon lenses colors but for weight and price sony is going to good direction. Third party lenses also available in sony and canon refuses to include in their RF mount. So, canon goes for very heavy weight lens, very expensive and no third party lenses. Sony light cameras and lenses for better prices.
canon r5 colors just suck. it was the main reason I could never jive with the camera. Tons of magenta cast, weird highlight rolloffs, files felt very synthetic. massive disappointment coming from years of 5D ownership
