Hey Josh, I just wanted to thank you so much for this content. Absolutely great content! One of the rare channels that doesn't bore you to death with practically reading the spec sheet but rather "this is how the camera performs in real life" kinda thing.
Just adding a comment to say thanks. I have recently bought the R6 mk II and I am very happy with it - it has been on my Wishlist for months. I also have the R7 which I am also happy with but only used for video as I preferred photography with the original EOS R. I want the R6II to be my all rounder for photography and video. What I am most impressed with is the video being so clean at ISO 1600 and 3200 and this is without using CLOG3. I haven't really had real world usage yet but so far, the video files show great clarity. Your videos have been a great help in my buying decisions
Nice work Josh! I figured it would be pretty close, but also thought the newer lower resolution Canon R6 II sensor would be slightly cleaner.. Good to know what is what 👊 At the end of the day all these cameras are great options clearly!
I appreciate for making these videos of this interesting product. You make the best R6 Mark II videos at the moment. Probably the best videos of the upcoming products too in the future. Happy subscriber!!!
super-helpful, thanks for taking the time to put this together and share 👏👏 was honestly expecting the R7 to tank more quickly but it held up pretty good.
I have the r7 ... and planning to buy the r6ii. You saved me good money and I will keep my money to buy a new rf lens. Filming wildlife and the 4k fine looks like is not bad comparing to r6ii.
Josh, I know the answer already, but I'm dying to see this dynamic range video. I know you have a life, but you should set it aside for just a moment...lol totally joking, love your work, Josh I'm sure you already have the candle burning at both ends with all your amazing channels!!
@@Josh_Sattin Awesome! I’m curious if using high iso noise reduction set to high would help with dynamic range in clog 3, I always had it set to high on my R5 and thought it helped clean up shadows quite a bit!
@@kylehessling2679 I feel like I've tested the high noise reduction setting and it smeared the image too much for my liking. The best option would probably be to turn off noise reduction and add noise reduction in post for the most control.
@@Josh_Sattin You're probably right, I was usually shooting 8k h.265 on the R5 when I was using it, so there was probably more detail to spare! Thanks for the response, Josh! I'll be eagerly awaiting that next video!
Yeah, I’m at the point where I’m going to fit both Sony and Canon into my workflow. I’m keeping the R6 II for mostly if not all photography work. And if I have to do 50/50 video and photography I’ll use the A74 (and hopefully soon the fx30). Lastly down the road I’ll need to pick up an XT4 for personal use. All these systems are amazing now. It’s almost criminal to not try them out and see what you like or dislike.
I owned the A74 for 1 full year .. just sold it but I found the videos cleaner compared to my R6 at high ISO. Now I have an R5 and most likely getting the R6 Mk2 as my every day hybrid. I don't shoot feature films just family and vacation videos and all seem to suit me just fine. Family never once mentioned about noise in the videos. Would I love an Camera that can shoot clean astro at ISO 25600 sure but these days with a little tweaking most modern cameras will do just fine for 90% of youtube videos. Thanks Josh. PS even though I don't care as much about noise I do care more about dynamic range. Looking forward to those videos.
I agree the difference is very subtle at 100% and with the RU-vid compression. As I said, I've been staring at the noise patterns a lot lately so I picked up on it. Thanks for watching!
Hi Josh, thanks for running these experiments. My understanding is that you exposed R6II to 35%+/-5% clog3 and a7IV to 41% slog3. It means that the amount of light entering the camera is different. It means that the signal to noise ratio are different as the signal is different. e.g. If a7IV sensor is illuminated with more light(after shutter and aperture) , the noise will be less obvious after grading. On the other hand, if a7iv is illuminated with less light, as the noise is less obvious, we can conclude that R6II is noiser than a7iv. So, how different is the lighting betweeen this two setup? Further, as zebra of R6II has +/-5% uncertainty, it will cause a large error in the experiment. e.g. 30% vs 40% exposure. As you are doing manual grading, I suggest you to keep everything the same (including lighting), then grade to compare the noise behavior. Indeed, this is a more straight forward approach to compare cameras.
Yes, the cameras get a different amount of light which I explained in the video. I adjust the key light to hit the proper zebras on the gray card. I am exposing these cameras based on the manufacturer's recommendations for their cameras and their log curves. For example, Clog2 needs to be exposed at 39% IRE. Keeping the light constant between each camera would not be exposing each camera properly and I want to see the best that each camera can perform. This is a consistent way to judge how each camera handles noise, color and detail at the higher ISOs while being exposed per their manufacturer. It is definitely annoying that Canon has the +/- 5% while the Sony is +/-1%. I figure out the light settings for either end of the range for Canon and split the difference to get it as close to 35% as I can. I can also see this in my editing software on the waveform. I manually grade everything, which I also mention in this video.
Thanks so much for this video! I have and love the R7 for wildlife photography. I'm not as concerned about high ISO as I am with focal reach and megapixels for wildlife. The noise reduction software for photos that are available are just crazy good. I do like to get video clips as well as photos while I'm out though. I also have the a7iv and just love it as a hybrid.
Awesome video! Some tests I could see the difference from my kitchen table, others were close and had me standing a foot away from my 65 inch 4ktv haha, dang RU-vid compression! Just a suggestion but maybe it would be useful to post hi res screen shots of the really close results EG I was unable to see a difference between the base ISO Canon/Sony comparisons at the end. So quick question! You mentioned you set the noise reduction to standard on the canon, is it possible to get a video down the line where you try to see how clean the video can get with no in body noise reduction so the noise can be externally processed by a program? I heard that’s (a more time/resource intensive) process that can come in handy when you’re trying to push the camera to the limits of what it can do! Perhaps that would be interesting to see contrasted with RAW footage when that becomes enabled! Anyway just a suggestion! Love the thorough content!
Thanks! Yeah, I do plan on doing a video about testing out the in camera noise reduction options in the R6 II. The YT compression is definitely a bummer, but I always give my opinion while I'm showing the results since I can see it uncompressed. I even upload these videos in Prores sometimes for better quality, but the YT compression kills it. I did make a video about the in camera noise reduction in the R5C, but that has a different system: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bw5nhnxiQOc.html
I like your comparisons very much, but here's a suggestion: this kind of analysis in a controlled enviroment is good but it's also good to test it outdoors to see how both cameras perform.
Thanks. The reason that I do it this way is to be consistent and get results that I can compare between the cameras. By having a faster shutter speed, the camera has a lower exposure. As far as the sensor is concerned, this is a a "low light condition". I could just as easily turn down the lights in my studio or use an ND filter, but it will have exactly the same effect... less light getting to the sensor (a low light situation). The point of these tests is to show how the cameras technically do in terms of noise, detail and color at the higher ISOs.
The reason that I do it this way is to be consistent and get results that I can compare between the cameras. By having a faster shutter speed, the camera has a lower exposure. As far as the sensor is concerned, this is a a "bad light condition". I could just as easily turn down the lights in my studio or use an ND filter, but it will have exactly the same effect... less light getting to the sensor (a low light situation). The point of these tests is to show how the cameras technically do in terms of noise, detail and color at the higher ISOs.
The A7iv is super clean in the iso range that most people will use. I returned the A7SIII because it was noisy in the lower iso and had too much noise reduction in the higher iso. I was surprised the A7iv was cleaner than the Canon. Canon is way better for handheld video because Sony's ibis is the worst out there. Plus, Canon has better skin tones.
the r6ii is absolutely and definitively sh1te in low light focusing. Did an dancing event and could not hit the mark most of the time, which is embarrassing for a paid gig. Had to revert to the 5diii I had luckily brought along and THAT worked better. And yes, I tried different AF modes etc and was on case 2.
all the cameras on the market have second native iso higher than 1000iso when in log. if you're not shooting in log then a muche cleaner image at 3200iso means that noise reduction is cranked up
Hey! Great comparison! I have to ask … the skin tones of the r7 and r6ii looks pretty different! Is it just my feeling or they perform actually differently on the color side? I wanted to use them together, but different colors would be not nice … Thx for the info!! 👌
Thanks! Yeah I noticed that too, but I did zero color corrections, just the custom white balance. I will eventually be doing a R6II vs R7 video and I will look at the colors and how well you can match them. They do have different sensors so there is always a little bit of a difference right out of camera.
Thank you for the video really appreciate! I'm coming from Nikon Z6 and I would like to update my camera. What will be your recommendation or suggestion between the Canon R6II and Sony a7 IV taking in consideration that I have never used any of these brands?Also I'm going to use it mainly for videos and time to time for pictures.thanks
Hi Josh.You do great job. I learn a lot from your videos.i want to ask you something..I know is a stupid question but I'm a beginner and I want to learn.I have a canon r6 mark ii and next week I travel to Tokyo ..im wondering what is the best ISO for night footages in Canon r6 mark ii and what White balance should I use at night with city lights from Tokyo..thank a lot
The Sony A7IV has a 4.6K oversample in its 4K60 mode. High ISO noise reduction can be disabled in the R6II manually but is not disabled automatically while shooting log. It will probably be disabled when shooting raw, but I will test that once Atomos release the firmware.
@@Josh_Sattin aha thanks. i thought it wasnt oversampled because of the crop. that is even more in favour of the sony then, which outperforms the mk2 with much less oversampling, both in terms of noise, dr, and sharpness. but rolling shutter is better on the mk2 i guess. i tried a NR test in log and normal, and could barely see difference on disabled and medium. but big difference on non-log video
Hey Josh, Thanks for all your hard work on the videos. They're really insightful and easy to understand. I was hoping you could help with an issue I've found on the R6 Mark ii and whether you have experienced it too as Ive had 2 R6 mark ii's arrive today and its the same on both. When I record in 4k in C log 3 both in 25fps or 50fps (Im in the uk) the footage on the screen shows tons of noise but clears up as soon as I hit record. However, when in c log 3 in 1080p, no matter the frame rate the footage stays looking really bad, even in daylight. When I pull the footage off to review it's a mushy mess yet if I record in exactly the same light and settings in 4k it's completely different. It's almost as though there is an issue with the 1080 footage in c log 3 not working as it should be. However what's even more strange is as soon as I turn off c log 3 and go to a standard picture profile in 1080, the footage looks way better and as it should be. Are you noticing the same by any chance?
@@Josh_Sattin Ive been using the base iso of 800 and it's incredibly noisy/mushy even in daylight. I was initially testing out the 120fps quality but noticed it on all frame rates in HD in C log 3 yet in the standard profile the image is vastly cleaner even when pushed to 4000iso and above in comparison to the base iso in C log 3
My guess is how you are grading the log footage might be the problem. Have you seen this video that I made? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JCDaz1Ewirg.html
Did you get a chance to compare low-light still image quality between the R6II and A7IV ? Comparing raw images from imaging-resource shows the A7IV a lot noisier.
@@Josh_Sattin That is for video though. For still images, R6II noise performance above ISO 3200 is significantly superior to A7IV, based on raw samples from dpreview and imaging-resource.
Great video! I know this video is about iso/noise but in all the comparisons the r6 mk ii skin tones looks more unsaturated in a bad way. I notice this with my r6 as well. When I increase saturation of oranges/reds to recover the skin in Lightroom, it ends up pushing the shadow colors heavier, and those lighter skin tones never recover that nicely imo. In situations with very fair skinned people, it’s very annoying to edit.
I did zero color adjustments to any of the test footage. I was pretty happy with the skin tones and overall color when actually out shooting with the R6 II. You can see that in my first impressions video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--CiShLGnW_8.html
@@sonicvboom For me personally, I find editing skin tones far easier/pleasant on the 5D series over the R6. I'm not saying R6 is incapable of good skin tones, but with my editing style, it takes way more work to get the R6 files right and while I was always happy with the 5D series. (No opinion on the R5 or R6 ii as I haven't used them).
Hi Josh, thanks so much for this video! I was just wondering - how does the noise of the A7IV at 4k60 (cropped) compare to that of the R6 II (uncropped)?
Canon R8. For low light if possible shoot iso 100, f8 and long exposure on a tripod. You will get the best results. Or fast glass f1.4 or f1.8 iso 3200-6400 is safe. R8 is fast so you can get good results in burst mode for birds.
Hey there! I am currently on a 90D and shoot a lot of video and photo in clubs and music festivals where light is always limited. I would prefer to stay on the canon platform but what are your thoughts when comparing those two to that level of low light?
Hello Josh! I was checking again the noise on both cameras with your video ... and man ... I think the canon r7 has the same non official dual native ISO right?? It cleans up a lot on 3200. Am I right?
@@Josh_Sattin yeah but i want to know which camera body does ibis better. I'm looking all over and no one on utube has done a comparison....esp on non-oem lenses.
I watch many of your videos about low light test and it is always a useless for me , I want to see footage in the dark at night in the street or dark room and see how the camera perform , not search for noise in bright image , I wish in the future you conisder changing your testing method , maybe you are testing in a technical correct way for cinematography but no cinematogrpher will watch a youtube video about low light , the consumer will
The reason that I do it this way is to be consistent and get results that I can compare between the cameras. By having a faster shutter speed, the camera has a lower exposure. As far as the sensor is concerned, this is a a "dark room". I could just as easily turn down the lights in my studio or use an ND filter, but it will have exactly the same effect... less light getting to the sensor (a low light situation). The point of these tests is to show how the cameras technically do in terms of noise, detail and color at the higher ISOs.
