DPReview TV: Canon cameras - The good and the bad

TRU apparently is going to spam every thread here.

The article he refers to is on a Canon fan site; not exactly an unbiased source and represents a list of "mirrorless ILC market shares" for one Japanese Internet camera seller only. If you read the actual source page, they state that Sony is not higher on their list due to supply problems - not lack of demand. This is illustrated by their top used cameras sales list, which is dominated by Sony models - the Canon cameras are at the bottom of the list.

They also said that Canon is offering cash-back on some of their cameras to help boost sales.

So in conclusion, the only reason why Canon models like the mediocre RP is at the top of the new camera sales list for this one particular online seller is because it's the a model they can get in plentiful supply, and buyers get cash back on it.

Here in the US the Canon RP is not a top seller even at it's current $999 blow-out price. The R6 is also not exactly winning it's category here.

Poor TRU. Can't argue facts, so now he is reduced to just bleating "Canon is doing well". Like he is trying to convince himself...

@DavitorR5 I think you're confusing me with some one else. I haven't commented on the A1 at all. Why would I be 'boastful' about it? I'm a Canon user, have been for decades.

DavitorR5: You are very confused. Like Cian, I have not been "boasting" about the A1. I have said some nice things about it in the past, along with some nice comments about the Nikon Z9 and other cameras, but I would not call that "boasting".

> is a camera they'll NEVER going to buy

If was a rule here that only folks intending to buy a particular camera are allowed to talk about that camera, then these forums would be mostly empty. Thank goodness you are not the one making the rules here!

> Canon cameras have a proven record of stellar reliability.

Only in your mind. The R5 for example overheats like a toaster oven, is that what you call "stellar" reliability ? Do I really need to post again the list of Canon cameras that have been recalled for manufacturing and design defects ?

if reliability was the priority i'd get a sony or a nikon, or at least not an r5... ibis wobble, serious overheating issues, multiple threads on freezing/lockups, etc.

spoke too soon, it looks like the r3 is now having problems :-0 something to do with the gps setting?

"Canon R3 Lockup and Lens Errors"
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1745952

LOL...anyone can cherry pick any brand and find problems...we could all do a list of the litany of Sony reliability issues...the cheap battery doors allowing water to get in, the fragile lens mounts, etc.

BTW even now in their $6500 A1 body, Sony still uses a relatively cheap battery door. It's an embarrassment.

The key is the overall context and in general, Canon has had excellent reliability, and a far better record than Sony...it's not even close.

I've been using Canon since around 1992 when I switched from OM system to avail of AF. My Canon gear (and Olympus before it) has been subjected to a lot of rough treatment over the years. Camping, hiking, boating etc. The only Canon fail I've had was the breaking of the AF in my 50mm f1.4, a well known weakness of that model if the front of the lens receives a knock. Would other brands survive what I put my gear through as well? Who knows? But I'm sticking with the brand that I know will.

@mikegt - the R5 tends to overheat when recording high-resolution video. You're right about that. To me this falls under limitation of a specific feature, not under reliability. You may think differently, of course.

I don't do video just stills - so it is a limitation that is not relevant.

Sony cameras were notorious for overheating with video. This had many Canon users question their reliability as cameras when compared to Canon. Once Canon decided to copy Sony and introduce overheating with video use in the R5, it becomes a limitation of a feature. 😂😂 😂

@Thoughts R Us - "the A1 only has the pixel binned and cropped 4K"

no, that's wrong, the a1 records crop 4k from an oversampled 5.8k source.

just another one of the many blatant falsehoods that you have posted about sony.

“ Sony cameras were notorious for overheating with video. This had many Canon users question their reliability as cameras when compared to Canon. Once Canon decided to copy Sony and introduce overheating with video use in the R5, it becomes a limitation of a feature. 😂😂 😂”

Don’t forget one vocal Canon user also said repeatedly that the high temperature auto shut off setting is destroying the Sony cameras. Now that Canon adds the same setting, guess if they are saying the same stuff about Canon or not

MILC man, Here's what DPReview had to say about the A1
Rear screen with a bit small, low-res against similarly priced competitors
30fps bursts only available in JPEG/HEIF/lossy compressed Raw
30fps bursts are lens-dependent
High-res shot modes require desktop software to combine images; no motion correction yet available
EVF drops in resolution during C-AF, or if you choose high FPS modes
Users must manually select between human, animal or birds for Eye AF
Battery life is just okay compared to other flagships
Is this blatant falsehood ?

@Thoughts R Us - "you prove my point"

no, i proved that you posted false information about sony, again.

@Thoughts R Us - "Canon cameras have a proven record of stellar reliability"

"R5 STILLS NOT RELIABLE 20+ battery pulls one shoot"
https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/R5-STILLS-NOT-RELIABLE-20-battery-pulls-one-shoot/m-p/321674

"After installing firmware 1.5, I was having my R5 freeze regularly with animal eye autofocus mapped to back button focus. I installed firmware update 1.5.1 this weekend hoping it will fix the issue.
My R5 locked up 3 times in a period of 1.5 hours of shooting, one of the three was was with error E70. In all three cases, turning the camera off/on fixed the issue; this is different from firmware 1.5 freezes, where I had to take out the battery to fix the freeze.
14 people had this problem."
https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/Canon-R5-freeze-after-1-5-1-update/m-p/365282

@Thoughts R Us - "Canon's have an unrivaled record of reliability, one that Sony wishes it had"

i just posted an official canon link to 15 people reporting lockup/freezing issues with the r5, and you call it "cherry picking", lol

here is a series of posts from lloyd chambers detailing some of the failures that he found with the r5:

"2021-12-01 Canon EOS R5: Backfocus on 3D Subjects
2021-11-28 Canon EOS R5: Inconsistent Focus with Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, and Maybe Other Lenses Too
2021-11-11 Erratic Exposure with Canon EOS R5 + Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L — Lens Fails to Stop Down
2021-11-11 Canon EOS R5: Wildly Varying Evaluative Auto Exposure"
https://diglloyd.com/autoTopic.html?dglyKW=Canon+EOS+R5

"Canon EOS R5 Disappointment
Summary
Rent the equipment before purchasing! See that it fits your needs. For my photography, the Canon EOS R5 and the lenses I have are not suitable, with the exception of the 35mm perhaps."
https://www.heiko-sieger.info/canon-eos-r5-disappointment/

@Thoughts R Us - "Canon's have an unrivaled record of reliability, one that Sony wishes it had."

i own an a7r, a9, and a1, i've literally never had any lockups or freezes, ever.

"R5 and two R6 cameras Freezing following firmware 1.5.1 updates. Grip won’t work either. ALL CANON
2 people had this problem."
https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/R5-and-two-R6-cameras-Freezing-following-firmware-1-5-1-updates/td-p/364401

"R3 Locking up
I returned my R3 and won't be buying another until an official acknowledgement of the problem and an announcement of a fix."
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1736725/3

"5/07/22
I have also reached out to Canon to let them know of the solution, but the CPS rep I spoke to was about as helpful as a toothache and insisted they know nothing of R3's locking up... or R5's for that matter."
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1750367

@Thoughts R Us - "Canon's have an unrivaled record of reliability, one that Sony wishes it had"

canon r5c recall :-0

"Customers who recently purchased the EOS R5 C digital cinema camera:
It has been discovered that the following minor defect may occur in some EOS R5 C digital cinema cameras...

Issue
Due to a manufacturing defect in the autofocus, the camera may repeatedly go in and out of focus in movie mode.

Products
Selected units of the EOS R5 C digital cinema camera.

Our action
...For those who received their unit on or before 21 March 2022, please contact the retailer you purchased the product from to organize the return and replacement of your camera. We appreciate your understanding.

For those customers eagerly awaiting their EOS R5 C we expect this may delay the shipping of your product."

Contact information
13 13 83 or email cameraservice@canon.com.au

With all the examples posted by folks I think we can consider the myth about Canon having "stellar reliability" to be debunked at this point.

@Thoughts R Us - "Canon's have an unrivaled record of reliability, one that Sony wishes it had"

latest on the canon r3 lockup/freezing debacle, that canon refuses to acknowledge despite overwhelming evidence; this thread has been on the official canon forum for over six weeks, and no canon rep has responded :-0

"5/07/22
I also made a call to CPS to share your findings and that it did appear to be successful in solving the problem. The person I spoke to was particularly unhelpful and implied there was no way that turning off GPS would be a solution for a problem that was locking up the camera. I encouraged him to take a look at the forums here before making a blanket statement like that but he then doubled down to say it must be a hardware issue with my specific cameras because they have no data to show there is a lockup issue with the R3's... sigh..."
https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/Canon-EOS-R3-Freeze-up-Issue-The-likely-cause/m-p/364292/page/2

And the funniest part about Mike & MILC is that the camera they're boasting about being so great "Sony A1" they don't even own. How are you ever going to convince anyone if your not even going to buy it. Kind of a ridiculous.

@mikegt: LOL.

Let's face reality: Sony has been caught and in many ways surpassed by Canon and Nikon in mirrorless. The A1 is great but overpriced. There are a lot of footnotes and exceptions to the A1's performance.

Mikegt, if Jared would have found an image problem with the R3 he would not have picked it. Jared has over 1.3 million subscribers how many do you have, 0? Well basically that’s how many more times I would rather believe Jared than Mikegt.

Sensor level noise reduction is something that people mighht prefer to be without, but it isn't really going to have enough effect to be a deciding factor - much like debates over lossy RAWs, it is unlikely to have much of an adverse effect, even if you might prefer if it wasn't there...

Of the two Sony systems I've tried, I agree, Canon's AF and AIservo was better for minute details if you are aware of the adjustments you can make in the " Cases". Can't wait to see what the R1 brings

DavitorR5: So you prefer to believe a hyperactive drama queen like Jared over the serious reviewers at DPReview ? No doubt people subscribe to Jared for the entertainment value; not for how good he is at actually reviewing cameras.

The R3's image quality is inferior to the A1 and Z9 in almost every known scientific measurement of image quality. Inferior when it comes to resolution, dynamic range and sensor noise. In a world that has the Nikon Z9 and Sony A1, the R3 just comes up short in comparison. If you own a lot of Canon glass and only care about shooting speed - not image quality - then perhaps the R3 is for you. Everyone else however would be better served by the competition.

Mike these differences are miniscule and unfortunately at 65 hundred dollars the A1 is not selling well. Even the dated Nikon D850 is outselling the A1. That's the reality Sony cheerleaders will be wondering why oh why.

> these differences are "miniscule"

Obviously you don't know what the word means. The R3's sensor resolution is half that of the A1 or Z9, this is not a "miniscule" difference.

> Even the dated Nikon D850 is outselling the A1

A misleading statement at best. The Nikon D850 is on sale for only $2,496, which is a totally different price point from the flagship cameras. It's just basic economics that cheaper stuff sells in higher volumes than premium-priced products. It's very likely though that the D850 is NOT out-selling similarly priced top-sellers such as the Sony a7 IV. In fact, other cameras at the same price point such as the Nikon Z7 II and Canon R6 are not listed as top sellers by B&H; when it comes to mirrorless at the around $2,500 price point, Sony is clearly beating the competition.

> a bit overpriced for what it is

Our professional Sony Basher has spoken! In a shocking development (not!), he is proclaiming some Sony thing is bad...

BTW, if the A1 is overpriced with 50 megapixels and 8K video, how about the Canon R3 which costs almost as much but has only 24 megapixels and no 8K video ? Or the Z9, priced considerably lower than the R3 (and A1) but with better specs in practically every category compared to the R3 ??

> Touched a raw nerve

No raw nerve here...but we know what will trigger you...facts! Like the fact that the Sony a7 IV is a B&H top seller, but the Canon R6 is not. 😞

Mikegt your the one commenting on a Canon thread, not the other way around. Just google top 10 mirrorless cameras and see a link to B&H. Let's see where the A1 falls at. I'll be waiting for your response. This is going to be funny...

> Sony should be ashamed.

The only one that should be ashamed around here is you, with your perpetual *shameless* fact-free Sony bashing.

DavitorR5: You've already lost the argument; why are you still posting here? If you can't see at this point that the R3 is factually inferior to the Z9 and A1, then you never will.

@mikegt: I see that you have no rebuttal to the argument and so you attack the messenger.

Let's face it: it's an embarrassment for Sony to have their $6500 physical camera body be basically the same as their $2500 camera body. There's little attempt to give the $6500 camera body any dramatically better feel or build quality. If you put all of the Sony cameras on a table for someone to see who didn't know the brand, no one could tell the most expensive from the least. It's like giving every camera body the same dinky cheap style. BTW that's one way that Sony saves money at the expensive of customers and maximizes their profits: they re-use the same basic cheap body even in the most expensive models.

I'm not at all bothered if a manufacturer wants to give me the best body they can produce at all levels"

I'm not either...but my point is that at $6500 Sony is not giving you the best body they could produce at that price and those margins; they are giving you the same basic body they can produce for far less expensive models. No one is mistaking any Sony camera body for some premium feel and build quality.

It would be like me going to a Toyota lot, and every car, regardless of price, has the body of a Corolla. Granted the more expensive one would have some nice features, like more horsepower, but it would still be the body of a Corolla.

I've never had much in the way of issues with the A7-style body. Reasonably compact, hardwaring, doesn't draw attention. Does what I need.

Not sure what a Corolla looks like in the states, or why you have such a downer on it as a car model. European tastes for cars tend to differ from North American (perhaps because our roads tend to weave more?)

Never fully understood the liking for big car bodies and flashy trim, but to each their own.

@Borat21...:)))

What do mean? The Canon M50 mark ii is still in production and selling well.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1598385-REG

But you can’t use your “old” EF-M lenses on the new RF. No compatibility there.

For someone that is not happy with Nikon not supporting F mount fully, not sure that canon is the best bet…

Haha! Someone is determined to be grouchy towards Canon for the EF-M mount, even though they don't own it! Hmmm....

If someone doesn't own the M mount but does have EF lenses, then the OP's point is spot on. No reason for him or any other who doesn't own M mount to even worry about that. And you know what? There are far more users in that category...those who own EF lenses, the best selling lenses in the world over the last few decades, but not M mount.

Let's also face reality that those who bought into EF-M mount knew at the time that their M mount lenses wouldn't work with EF mount DSLRs. I know people who bought M mount when they also owned Canon DSLRs, and they were not worried about using M mount lenses on anything other than EOS M cameras.

If the OP is happy with Canon, let him/her be happy with Canon.

Thoughts R Us The OP is commenting on Nikon not fully supporting older mounts. It’s not a problem of specific lenses but the principle. How they’re not loyal to costumers by not fully supporting a mount that is over 60 years old on the latest mirrorless cameras.

Can you say that canon is any better when they don’t support EF-M?

Why would anyone want to put an ef-m lens on an RF body? I have the M6II with 11-22, 22, 32 and 55-200. None of which I'd slap on a FF. There's no compatibility there because it is not needed. It wouldn't make sense. The guy above me is right, I think you're just moaning and groaning just for the sake of it.

Making sense is not what PAntunes wants. He just want to keep repeating stuff like a cheerleader with pom poms.

@TiltShiftR - "Why would anyone want to put an ef-m lens on an RF body?"

mostly because it's an aps-c rf-mount body, obviously.

you have heard of the eos-r7, right?

why did canon make two different aps-c milc mounts that are incompatible with each other?

MILC man why don't you answer my question? You can run but you can't hide

@MILC man - "mostly because it's an aps-c RF-mount body, obviously."

You mean the APSC RF-mount body that doesn't exist? And even if Canon does get around with releasing an APSC RF-mount body, who would choose to use a tiny EF-M lens to go with it, when EF-S lenses are readily available?

TiltShiftR, A R6 gives you a 20mp image. A R5 in crop mode is 17mp. So you can put aps lenses on your R5 and have almost the same resolution as the R6.

And some APS lenses can cover more than just the APS sensor. So you can use something like the EF-S 10-18 from 14mm onwards on a full frame sensor with full resolution. Would the EF-M 11-22 work as well? Can you even put a R5 in FF mode with a EF-S lens?

But back to the point.. The OP clearly stated:
"From this point forward I will only buy Canon gear for mainly one reason; loyalty.
(...) Nikon, on the other hand, turned its back on its loyal followers "

If someone doesn't like nikon because it turned its back on the users, how do they feel about what canon is doing to the M line?

@TiltShiftR - "even if Canon does get around with releasing an APSC RF-mount body, who would choose to use a tiny EF-M lens to go with it"

didn't you just tell us that you have 3 ef-m lenses?

@TiltShiftR - "I have the M6II with 11-22, 22, 32 and 55-200"

so now you are claiming that nobody who owns aps-c ef-m glass would want to use it on aps-c rf-mount bodies? that doesn't make any sense at all, i must be missing something.

better to just admit that you own an orphaned canon ef-m system that canon has abandoned.

@PAntunes: first, what is it to you what a Canon user believes about Canon and Nikon? Why not let him be happy?

Second, if you can't see the difference between supporting your primary DSLR lenses that people used for decades vs an off shoot system like the EOS M system, then you are clearly missing perspective. But you know the answer, you just want to complain about Canon.

It's funny because only Sony users are complaining about this. Canon EF users aren't complaining. Canon RF users aren't complaining. Canon M users aren't complaining.

It's almost like the great Roger C was onto something when he wrote:
"Puritanism:  The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.  H. L. Mencken, 1917"
"Sonyfanism:  The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy with other equipment.  Roger Cicala, 2018"

Thoughts R Us

"The last nail in the coffin.

If you ask me, the writing was on the wall long ago. Don't get me wrong, I would have loved if Canon developed the M line to its full potential, but it is clear they didn't wanted to. It's a shame and they lose me as a customer for this reason."

Yeah, if you think no-one is complaining, don't stop by the EOS-M forum...

Thoughts R Us, where did the user mention sony?

@MILC man- I own 4 ef-m lenses. You even quoted me on these lenses. I also own EF lenses that are more appropriate for the RF (ff or possible apsc) body. One only has to look at these ef-m lenses to deduce it's built for a specific purpose in mind and that is for lightweight travel. Any rational person would surmise that they weren't meant to be mounted on anything but an M body instead of those who just insist that it doesn't matter because backward compatibility is paramount. I have no problem believing that Canon has all but abandoned the M system. It doesn't matter because I'll be still using them for their intended purpose. In the same manner, I think it's better to admit that Canon made two different mounts that are not compatible and just focus on the EF/EF-s lenses that are.

Thoughts R Us, it doesn't bother me.. It's just a totally irrelevant comment...

It just shows that you have no interest in the conversation and just want to point something about sony.

PAntunes what camera do you own?

Thoughts R Us, the original post is how nikon isn't fully supporting on of their mounts and how that is a negative aspect of a brand for the specific user. I just pointed that canon is doing the same to one of their mounts... How is that irrelevant?

@TiltShiftR - "One only has to look at these ef-m lenses to deduce it's built for a specific purpose in mind and that is for lightweight travel. TiltShiftR surmises that they weren't meant to be mounted on anything but an M body"

corrected.

your belief that aps-c rf-mount bodies will never be small and light for travel is not logical, because now that we both agree that canon has abandoned ef-m, canon will need small and lightweight bodies to replace it.

of course canon didn't see that they'd be making two incompatible aps-c milc lines, that's the entire problem; other manufacturers kept all or most compatibility, k-mount and e-mount for instance.

relevant to what the o.p. posted, canon has abandoned far more lens mounts than nikon ever did.

@PAntunes: The OP was about how someone is happy with Canon because of the support of EF lenses on RF system via Canon adaptor. He does contrast that with Nikon. But no mention of EOS M system, which he does not own.

So you bring it up, as you have done repeatedly on this discussion. I guess you believe that it's somehow this major issue that needs to be brought up all of the time even though no one else here cares about that. I wonder why that is so important to you?

Maybe you can't accept the idea that someone else is actually happy with the Canon system, but that's your problem, not the OP's.

Hayden...You haven't been around long then. The first camera to use a CMOS sensor was the D30 back around 2000. This was a huge breakthrough that quickly earned Canon the reputation of having far less noise and much greater dynamic range. They had a solid decade head start on Sony, and Sony purchased their DSLR/ILC business and started out with bizarre gimmicks (SLT) and failed to make usable cameras. Part of that was ergonomics and controls, and the other part was their notoriously lousy menus. And even after they implemented touchscreens they were hamstrung because they weren't usable for menu navigation.
So Sony had a few years where they were 1 or 1.5 stops of DR ahead of Canon....after DR had spent a decade going from 7 stops up to 11 or 12. The different between 7 and 8 is far more significant than the difference between 12 and 13. Some spec chasers fell all over themselves for that 1 or 1.5 stop advantage, but Canon had already blown everyone else away for ages.

@Gkuzu I left Canon because of horrible DR (mainly), the competition is much better than Canon so i think you are just joking right?

The Canon R5 C got up to 16 stops DR in Gerald Undone latest testing. https://youtu.be/_SgFC-cW3G0

Thomas A Anderson 10 years ago the 5DIII had max of 9.25 stops of DR. The Nikon d600 had 11.45

So it’s been a decade. And now they’re baking in noise reduction to the raws to get better DR performance on tests, sacrificing fine detail…

Haha. PAntunes on a mission to try to talk bad about Canon. Now he's going back 10 years :). You can't make this stuff up.

Someone just can't tolerate that some may be happy with Canon.

It's like the Roger Cicala classic:

"Puritanism:  The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.  H. L. Mencken, 1917"
"Sonyfanism:  The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy with other equipment.  Roger Cicala, 2018"

Anulu,

Funny that so many people talked about the huge difference and then shot with JPEG anyway, completely nullifying any DR advantage. But that's neither here nor there because the real issue is that 1.5 stops wasn't a huge difference. Nothing to sneeze at, but certainly not worth dealing with Sony for a lot of people.

PAntunes so why would Gerald U. not point that out? He's about the most technical in depth reviewer out there and he goes deep into explaining all the flaws of a camera. Why would he point out that even in high ISO's the R5c retain fine detail. Sadly you come across as cheerleaders with Pom Pom's repeating stuff.

TRU, Thomas A Anderson commented on the advance that canon had over Sony and how relevant the difference in DR was over 20 years ago.

I’m just pointing out that for the last 10 years that has changed. And how big the difference in DR was to Nikon cameras. Canon wasn’t even hitting 10 stops when others were almost 2 stops over…

Strange how you didn’t point out that Thomas A Anderson went back 20 years…

DavitorR5 Are you for real????

There is a video right here, on this page. It’s the article of this post…. Where they talk about the baked in noise reduction on the R5….

Gerald Undone said the R5 c is one of the best cameras he's ever used. How can that be true if there's baked in noise reduction???
Even in this video (The Good, the Bad). Jordan never mentions baked in noise reduction. Again just because you keep regurgitating the same line it does NOT mean its true.

Oh they don’t mention baked in noise reduction? So what are they talking about at 3:50?

Okay Jordan does indicate baked in noise reduction. So now since Canon sucks, why do you waste so much of your time talking about Canon? Do you not value your time?

DavitorR5, I waste my time because some of you waste your time spreading incorrect information...

DavitorR5, you don't even know the specs of your camera and how it compares to others...
Even after being told a number of times that the raw files have noise reduction, even when commenting on a video that mentions that, you still claim it doesn't...

If you want to tell others how good a camera is, at least get your facts straight...

Was the R5 the camera with the best score in its category?

Thoughts R Us, was I the one mentioning the rating? I just asked if the R5 was the highest one...

And sony doesn't have noise reduction applied like the R5...
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5,Sony%20ILCE-7M4

That's the reason I waste my time here... Because people keep spreading incorrect information...

Thoughts R Us is the star eater problem present at all shutter speeds?

DavitorR5 I own a bronica S2a. It's not the only one I own, but I own one... Does that change something?

@MILC man - "Any rational person would surmise that they weren't meant to be mounted on anything but an M body"

Re-corrected your correction.

The problem with your pov is that your argument is based on the hypothetical. The *possibility* of what the RF apsc body would look like. How do you know these bodies will be "small and light for travel?" Do you have privilege information direct from Canon R&D that we are not aware of? So it would seem it's just your projections of what the apsc RF bodies *should* look like. Whereas for me, I'm coming from what is present, what exist as of now. Not from what may or may not come.

Yes, PAntunes that changes everything. This will be the last time i address you in any serious manner.

We see this quite a few times in this discussion. Someone posts how they are perfectly happy with Canon. Then a Sony fan tries to basically argue "well, no you shouldn't be and this is the theoretical reason why." They don't own Canon and can't really speak from experience, but they have all sorts of manufactured reasons why the happy Canon user should not be happy.

Meanwhile other Canon users join in and say, well, we're happy as well. Then the Sony fans get even more perturbed and go through more mental gymnastics to try to convince these people that what they have experienced isn't somehow real or valid.

You can't make this stuff up. It's funny and it's also why some Sony promoters have gotten a bad reputation online.

I think you missed the canon users that also said the weren't happy but some canon fans decide to ignore that, just like they ignore facts...

Thoughts R Us, the OP expresses dissatisfaction with a behaviour from nikon and he claims canon doesn't do the same.

It's not about a specific mount. It's about how canon doesn't turn their backs to loyal costumers.

For you, pointing out that canon is doing the same to a EF-M users seems like a big problem.

Then, claiming that canon had great sensors 20 years ago is totally ok from your perspective. Showing data that demonstrates that for the past 10 years that hasn't been the case is "being on a mission" to criticise canon.

Stating facts that don't show canon in a perfect light seems to bother you.

The only one with an agenda here is you...
You're the one that in a topic about how canon and nikon approached the transition to different mounts decides to bring sony to the mix for absolutely no reason other than criticising sony... You claim that is wrong to mention EF-M because the OP didn't mentioned it, but you just decide to talk about a different brand...

@CasperMarly
The difference is long gone. Since the 5d Mark IV the sensor dynamic range is nearly equal to nikon or Sony. So leave it alone. Everything since the d810 or 5dm4 is more than 99.99% of the people will ever need.

I still enjoy my 5dm3. There is *really* nothing I miss. And if I need more I would use a d850 of a friend. Still a beast in every aspect.

"if I need more I would use a d850 "

you said it

Nowadays the differences are gone...

Please take a small timeout from the comments section and go to https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
You will find out that the d850 is nothing against a recent R5. Not even with iso 64 against iso 100 on the Canon. As I told you before, the difference is gone. You were right back then but now Canon had resolved that problem.

I talked about dynamic range, not SNR. Canon has quite good results now. Indeed, they are quite decent since the 5d Mark iv... Which was one of the few improvements over the 5d Mark III. And it's called Diesel.

@SteveV4D - "Sony users I've hired may have footage with better detail and focus, but I hate grading the colours."

i don't see how that's a hardware brand issue, it sounds like more of a workflow/codec problem with what you are doing... sony has been making solid inroads in the cine market, they wouldn't be using sony if there was some weird problem with grading the footage.

"While ARRI dominates narrative productions once again, Sony makes a big splash at Sundance 2022.
...As we can see from the graph, Sony has made great strides in getting its camera into filmmakers' hands. While some Sony cameras were used on a single project, a whopping 14 out of 60 cameras were from Sony. That’s almost double the percentage from Sundance 2020."
https://nofilmschool.com/cameras-and-lenses-sundance-2022

@ Milc Man There's a World of difference between high end Sony cameras used on larger Productions and those who use Sony Mirrorless hybrids. I'm not saying I can't get good results, I just don't enjoy working with it. It's not helped by the Codec that's for sure.
Again, like Canon, recent cameras have improved the colour, but the older ones, still in many peoples hands are not as good IMO.

@ DavitorR5 Are you really hoping Sony catches up with Canons R5 4K detail?? What would you argue about if they did? Though let me make a guess - with everything else of course... 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@SteveV4D - "codec" is a big bucket that says nothing about what you are working with.

all modern brands have options for 4:2:2, h.265, etc., so i'm not clear on why industry standard features like that are better on one brand than another, but i'd like to hear more.

modern sony milc has log and s-cinetone just like the sony cine cameras have... if you are trying to color-match between different cameras and much worse, between different brands of cameras it could be a nightmare :-0 that i can understand.

MILC man, More interestingly Canon lenses came in second with 20% with Panavision at 22.22%, Cooke - 13.33%, Zeiss 11.11%, ARRI, Angenieux under 5%, FUJI, Lomo, Samyang, Leica, Kowa at under 2.5%. Why is NOBODY using Sony lenses?

Actually no Steve, i want Sony to be competitive. Canon is too protective against cannibalizing there Cinema line.

@ DavitorR5 Ha ha, you're telling me this constant bickering between Sony and Canon users here on oh so many many many threads, is about each side wanting the other brand they're criticising to be better competition for the sake of their own chosen golden brand... 🤣🤣🤣 You'll forgive a short pause as I marvel at the flock of flying pigs passing by my window. 🐖🐖🐖
I may not use Sony, but I won't deny they are effective competition. Both Sony and Canon each have their pros and cons. Most of the arguments made are just nit picking and hardly strong arguments for or against either brand being lesser in the eyes of the consumers. You'll find enthusiasts and Pros in both corners doing great work with either brand.

@ MILC Man Most of my frustration is from matching Sony to my camera brand, which I find harder with Sony than say Canon. Not impossible, just harder to get right. I hate the H265 codec The only camera I use with it is my drone and in that I convert all footage to ProRes. Sony colour profiles have improved with recent models, but I felt earlier versions were lacking in great colour and I've known many Sony users who have felt the same, but have learnt to work with it. The same way for example that Panasonic users have had to work with DFD focus. No one camera brand has really ticked all the boxes. I've owned 3 or 4 Sony cameras in my time and never really warmed to the colour. They were great cameras in all other respects, but I just never liked the image.

a long time ago i used to shoot video for living, with canon gear, and after that experience canon is at the bottom of my list when it comes to media acquisition tools.

we had the same bad experiences trying to color match with other brands, and even color match different models of canon cameras... gel the windows, bring in our own lighting, nothing really fixed it perfectly and it didn't help that the editing tools were a disaster back then.

what i've seen these last few years is a re-hash of the same old issues, despite much better tools... of course now everyone has xlnt gear regardless of brand, so it comes down to being able to tell a story, which has always been the most important factor of all :-)

@MILCman: that link you shared has to do with Sony Venice cinema cameras, not their alpha mirrorless hybrids.

Someone called you out earlier on this but you still post this irrelevant info.

@Thoughts R Us - i can see that you don't understand what i said about venice and sony milc color-matching, because of course you've never worked on a paid video shoot and you've never owned sony.

you aren't in any position to be telling people what is relevant there.

MILC man you did not answer my question. Why were there no Sony lenses used for this Sundance 2022?

Even Gerald Undone said the R5 C is one of the best cameras he's ever used.
https://youtu.be/_SgFC-cW3G0

I'm on the fence over the dual mode function. Yes, its nice to have a dedicated video mode and menu consistent with the cinmea cameras, but the fact you can't shoot video at all in photo mode plus the 6 to 7 seconds to switch between both modes makes it less favourable in real World hybrid shooting scenarios. Further tweaks are needed before I'd like to see it replicated in other cameras.

Steve gives us examples as to why you would only have ONE camera on a paid gig where photos and video are requested?

I would have 2 like most Professionals, with 1 having a wide angle lens and another with a telephoto lens. I wouldn't welcome extra cameras to compensate for a cameras deficiency. Otherwise I'd need 4. 🤣🤣🤣

I wonder how many hybrid shooters are using the R5c as a hybrid. With no IBIS, mini HDMI and poor battery, many video users will be rigging the camera and mounting on a monopod or gimbal. That doesn't make switching to photo taking even for short periods practical. Professionals, if they are taking photos as well as video, will rely on a 2nd body, which would be better served by being the R5, R6 or any other camera targeted more towards photo work. This makes the dual switch almost redundant, as most buyers I imagine will be keeping it firmly on video mode. I know I would if I owned one.
The only application I can see the dual mode working is for those who take on video only jobs and also photo only jobs, and don't want to use different cameras or even 2 cameras for their paid work.

Gerald Undone by his own admission is reviewing things from his perspective as a YouTuber. His videos focus on specs and how they perform for him, but he's not reviewing the camera from someone who does paid work shooting video and photo out in the field.
I'd argue that the best hybrid belongs to another camera, Z9, with the R5c so much leaned towards video, it can't be considered a genuine hybrid despite the mode switch. Not a problem.. neither is the C70 and that has a lot going for it.
Ultimately the dual mode switch is more praised for giving cinema camera controls and menu to a R5 like camera, rather than its ability to switch between photo and video work effortlessly. How many users are buying the R5c and regularly using the photo mode?

I'm not sure the argument that pros use 2 cameras can be used as an excuse to explain any failings of the R5c. The camera should be judged on its own and not as part of a line up that may include other cameras. Otherwise you end up going in silly circles. I say the R5c doesn't have IBIS, you say, buy the R5, I say, but the R5 doesn't have the video menus, waveforms etc, you say, well buy the R5c then... and so on and so on.
My main problem with Canon is often a lack of consistency of features and specs amongst its products. So you have to buy multiple cameras to get the full range of functions that you need. Good news for Canons profits, bad news for my bank manager.

lots of complaints about the r5c, including the weak c70 af system that it inherited... why didn't canon use dpaf on the r5c:

"Jeff Benjamin January 20th, 2022
This is a horrible decision on Canon’s part. The AF on the C70 is abysmal compared to the R5."

"URI SHWARTZ January 20th, 2022
If a camera in this [r5c]form factor does not have IBIS I don’t really care what it does have. It could have 10K and do 180FPS in 8K would not make any difference to me. I bought two Panasonic S1Hs for 4k each but if they would have costed 8k each I would have still gotten them. Why because a self stabilizing camera in this Form factor is a unique tool. without the stabilization I would rather build a shoulder mounted camera based on a c500 or Kinfinity with Evf balanced etc." https://www.cined.com/canon-eos-r5-c-review-an-excellent-camera-with-total-operating-flexibility/#comment-box

more cined comments:

"Philip Bloom - The lack of IBIS is insane... What’s also insane is keeping the micro HDMI but even more so look that big underside that it has. You telling me they couldn’t have put a second tripod mount hole there? When will camera manufacturers realise that a single hole means a tripod plate doesn’t stay locking in place.
I was going to replace my R5 with this but the lack of IBIS is a deal breaker.

BOUNCE - Hey Philip, couldn’t agree more... And if losing the IBIS why no NDs? I also think a real hybrid OS would have been a better move. When switching between modes even common buttons switch function… ie: menu button is physically different between modes.
It feels like a hurried product. The R3 represents a much better hybrid.

Nick Lam - I agree with all of your points Philip, however the IBIS from Canon wasn’t usable anyways, so in this rare instance, I would applaud them for leaving it out and conceding they can’t do IBIS correctly."

MILC man why can't you answer my question? You can run but you can't hide. LOL

@Thoughts R Us - "I always maintained that for photos the R5 practically is about 90 to 95% of what the A1 is at 60% of the cost. Well, for video the R5C is more than what the A1 is at about 70% of the cost."

yeah well, you also told us that nobody needs ibis, and that clearly didn't age well, lol... no ibis on the r5c turned out to be a major fiasco that's keeping many people from buying the camera, as the cined comments i posted above prove.

@Thoughts R Us - "You have no empirical evidence that the "vast majority of potential R purchasers seem to consider IBIS important." Zero. Nada. It's a guess on your part.
I echo kodachromeguy: I know plenty of pro and serious hobbyist photographers, and not a single one talks about IBIS. Most serious photographers are used to using dslr's without IBIS, so it's not something they miss." https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7427320569/what-does-the-eos-r-tell-us-about-canon-and-the-rf-mount-s-future?comment=8495312177

@Thoughts R Us - "The bottom line is that what I posted is true: I always maintained that for photos the R5 practically is about 90 to 95% of what the A1 is at 60% of the cost. Well, for video the R5C is more than what the A1 is at about 70% of the cost."

i think that the bottom line looks more like this ;-)

@Thoughts R Us - "Yes it's sad that Sony may be driven from the camera market due to intense competition from Canon, Nikon, and even Panasonic." https://www.dpreview.com/news/8428210001/rumors-point-to-imminent-canon-full-frame-mirrorless-system-launch?comment=4261853988

@Thoughts R Us - "I can get a ...50 f1.2 for my R, that by all reports are optical masterpieces, that I cannot use on a Sony. And Sony does not make those lenses, and in spite of their protestations, will not be making them because their lens mount will not work." https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8606487746/sony-a7-iii-vs-canon-eos-r-vs-nikon-z6-which-is-best?comment=6301931889

@Thoughts R Us - "But you still cannot rebut my argument and that's very revealing."

that's not an argument, it's totally unsubstantiated claims about percentages that you couldn't back up with any factual information.

so there isn't anything to respond to there, it's just an opinion, like your other opinions that i listed, none of which turned out to be true:

-nobody needs ibis,
-sony can't make a 50/1.2 because e-mount can't support it,
-sony will be out of the camera business,
etc.

MILC man, why won't you answer my simple question. Why are there NO Sony lenses at the Sundance 2022?

@Thoughts R Us - "one can argue opinions...it's what is done all of the time, including here. But you cannot rebut mine because you know you are wrong."

i like to argue facts, and you don't post facts.

i don't need to argue about your opinions, that takes care of itself...

@Thoughts R Us - "The real loser is Sony... To new users, they will no longer see Sony as the only game in town if you want smaller high quality FF mirrorless.
Nikon will outsell Sony... Sony will be consigned to small share of the FF mirrorless market; they've had 100% with no competition. Now they will are going to get besieged by all sides. Even Panasonic will swoop in and take away the video shooters from Sony." https://www.dpreview.com/news/8428210001/rumors-point-to-imminent-canon-full-frame-mirrorless-system-launch?comment=2677548079

MILC man, why were there NO Sony lenses used at the Sundance 2022? You can run but you can't hide...

Seems like this would be a mirrorless continuation of the much loved 7D lineup, much like the R5 was analogous to a continuation of the 5D lineup.

But Thoughts R Us, you don’t think there’s a market for APS, right?!

didn't he say that just yesterday? :-0

@Thoughts R Us - "There's a reason why neither of the big 3 are updating their APS-C offerings: that market is drying up fast."

First, I was talking about entry level APS, which was what that discussion was all about. But hey nice again to ignore context.

Second, regardless of what I think I can certainly comment on a rumored new release from Canon.

And the 7D series from Canon was always a favorite of many bird/wildlife photographers, but did occupy a higher end niche in the market.

Basic specs: 32.5mp APS-C Dual Pixel CMOS AF, 15-30fps (mechanical/electronic), 2x UHS-II, 4K @ 60/50fps (NTSC/PAL), 1080p @ 120/100fps (NTSC/PAL), C-Log 3/HDR PQ, In-Body IS.
My guess is that it's going to be priced at $1,899.00.

Thoughts R Us 1h ago you were explaining me how people would go for a full frame used camera instead of a new APS one….

PAantunes winning a debate with TRU is not going to make that dusty old camera you own any better. Right?

@Thoughts R Us - "First, I was talking about entry level APS"

not hardly... now that canon is doing aps-c you suddenly change your tune, overnight ;-)

@Thoughts R Us - "I don't necessarily blame any company for at least de-prioritizing APS-C. Clearly that is not where the market overall is headed and there is less money to be had. And the APS-C camera market is the next to be gobbled up by smartphones." https://www.dpreview.com/videos/7588913970/dpreview-tv-sony-alpha-cameras-the-good-and-the-bad?comment=9225619667

@Thoughts R Us - "Most APS-C users of the past are relying on their smartphones. And most current APS-C users don't buy as many lenses. Nikon released perhaps the best APS-C DSLR ever in the D500 and didn't sell well... The problem with the APS-C market is that it isn't large enough to merit sufficient investment." https://www.dpreview.com/news/6886604680/canon-plans-to-release-32-rf-mount-lenses-over-the-next-four-years?comment=3421690662

"D500 didn't sell well"??

@Pantunes
TRU was of the opinion that APSC cameras, particulary low end ones are not the future because of the encroachment of smartphones. A valid comment given the current state of the market, however anyone can make a mistake.
You on the other hand expoused the virtues of having these as an entry into photography, so I assume you are pleased that it looks like Canon are planning not 1 but 2 releases of APSC cameras, although by the rumoured specs I expect the R7 to be 2k plus and if the R10 is the spiritual succesor of the 90D then its not a low end rebel replacement either.
We will see if and when an official announcement happens.

KZ7, APSC has to be under 2K otherwise too many Full Frames to compete with.

@Daviator
The 7Dii release price was $1800 the D500 $2000. Thats the market segment that an R7 will be aiming at.
The 90D release price was $1200. I assume the R10 will be aimed at the same market.
Will there be a Rebel level camera from Canon, hard to see it happening, but who knows.

KZ7 I still think that any brand should have a consistent line up of cameras and not only target high end users. And having an upgrade path is also key. The M line for canon was a big mistake. Let's see if they're gonna try to patch it with a new APS line for RF and what lenses they'll bring...

Was the M line for Canon a mistake? They've sold a lot of M gear, I'm sure they've made a nice profit, a lot of people have enjoyed using those products and still do.

Product development is like evolution: there can be different branches and some will continue but maybe others will not. But that doesn't make that line a mistake.

Was the A mount a mistake for Sony? It never took off, but it did serve as a launching point for Sony in ILC's and arguably the E mount would never have happened without the A mount.

Thoughts R Us… the A mount wasn’t a mount started by Sony…..

@Thoughts R Us - "Regardless of who started the A mount, that doesn't change the context or significance of the question"

bringing up a camera mount that sony didn't create is just deflection on your part, and it doesn't hide the fact that canon is currently trying to support four different incompatible lens mounts.

this thread is about the eos r7, it has nothing to do with sony, and you are the only person who is trying to deflect to make it about sony.

@MILCman: LOL. Please read the context of the discussion.

Thoughts R Us, You're saying the A mount never took off. The A mount was created in 1985...

And the A mount had both APS and FF lenses, unlike the Canon M mount...

I'm still happy with my 7DMkII DSLR but if/when I switch to mirrorless, APSC would suit me so I'm happy to see Canon not abandoning it. With 95% of my photography being either telephoto or macro I don't really have a need for full frame (APSC gives me greater working distance with macro when snapping flighty insects).

Sony didn't build a new A mount. They used what minolta had and continue do develop what minolta had started. They used a mount with over 20 years of lenses, both FF and APS. And then went on to create the E mount. A fully compatible APS and FF mount.

On the other hand, canon first introduced the EF-S, that wasn't fully compatible with EF cameras and then created the EF-M mount. A brand new mount that got to a point that had more cameras than lenses.

A lens mount that is incompatible with any other mount from canon. A mount that you couldn't use your new lenses in your old EF cameras (that was to be expected), but now you can't use the new RF lenses on your M body, and can't use your M lenses on your RF body...

Developing a mirrorless line wasn't the mistake. Making that mirrorless line without considering FF was a massive mistake from someone in the industry for decades...

DavitorR5 You forgot the “can’t have f1.2 lenses” 😂

But I love how you’re trying to compare 1stop difference in IBIS with not being able to use lenses on different bodies… totally the same thing…

In 1985 Minolta came out with the A mount, killing off their SR mount lenses which were not compatable with the new mount. While Sony didn't make the A mount, they did buy the company that did and +/- 5 years later came out with the E mount. E mount lenses are not compatible with A mount cameras and A mount lenses need an adaptor to be used on E mount cameras, but Sony ran both of them side by side until last year. If any of this seems familiar its because its basically the same path Canon has taken. EF replacing FD in 1987, RF replacing EF with the same issues surrounding compatability and multiple mounts at the same time, woth the addition of the M mount which proved popular despite the naysayers.

KZ7 that's why no one is talking about the transition from EF to RF. That's something that needed to be done..

We're talking about the EF-M line..

KZ7 If you want more reach and are not worried about resolution, you can easily use aps lenses. And some aps lenses would almost fill a full FF sensor… that’s why…

And with the M mount, the problem is that you can’t use FF lenses on aps either… like that new 85 macro? The 50 1.8? Nop… those are for canon and for mirrorless but you have the wrong mirrorless…

@KZ7 - "Try comparing apples to apples."

i was responding to your false claim that "its basically the same path Canon has taken", which was clearly wrong.

once again: the list of lens mounts that canon abandoned is much longer than anything that sony has, or any other industry brand for that matter.
fd-mount
vl-mount
ef
ef-m
ef-s

that's the problem with buying into the canon brand; sooner or later your gear will be orphaned, either because canon as a company is not capable of planning for the future, or they are doing it deliberately in order to force you to buy new gear.

KZ7 When your camera has 30mp and an aps lens can cover over 90% of FF the sensor, you still have a lot of resolution.

@MILC
Minolta / Sony since 1985
SR to A
A to E
No backward compatability. A can adapt to E.

Canon since 1987
FD to EF
EF to RF
No backward compatability. EF can adapt to RF.

Pretty similar trajectory.

As I said, M is the outlier and a stand-alone system. Some love it, others such as yourself don't, although I don't know why, its not like anyone is forcing you to buy one.

EFS was introduced when DSLR crop sensors came in. All EF lenses can work on EFS bodies & EFS lenses can adapt to RF bodies.
Considering Canon APSC DSLR's outsold all other systems it doesn't appear that not being able to use EFS lenses on EF FF bodies mattered to most people.

I'm interested to see what you will find to critisise about Canon if the rumoured APSC R bodies and APSC RF lenses come out. I'm sure you will find something :)

@KZ7 - you clearly don't understand that:
1) sony didn't own minolta in 1985, when a-mount was released,
2) sony didn't own minolta in 1958, when sr-mount was released.

so unlike canon, sony never made any decision to abandon sr-mount, your posts are as usual not relevant to the topic at hand.

canon made specific decisions to:
1) concurrently put four different incompatible lens mounts on the market,
2) abandon a long list of lens mounts that they created:
fd-mount
vl-mount
ef
ef-m
ef-s

and stop trying to argue against what the official canon compatibility list says, lol, canon created a mount mess that is unequalled in the history of cameras:
https://www.canon-europe.com/lenses/tech-guide/compatibility/

7 "not compatible" red
4 "fully compatible" green
and that's with no fd-mount in the chart :-0

@KZ7 - "its basically the same path Canon has taken"

obviously not, there is no parallel between sony and canon.

@MILCman
Where did I say that Sony owned Minolta in 1958 or 1985? I was talking about the history of the cameras and the similar trajectories that they took regarding mounts since 1985. Who owned them at the time is irrelavant.
Canon bought Toshiba medical a few years back, that doesnt erase the historical development of the CT scanners and MRI's just because there is a new owner and brand name.

The major shifts in mounts for Minolta / Sony were SR to A, then A to E and for Canon FD to EF then EF to RF. (Manual focus to autofocus, SLR/DSLR to Mirrorless). None of those are backward compatible.

Irrespective of how many mounts Canon has had or continues to have they have spent the best part of the last 2 decades as the best selling camera manufacturer in the world. Maybe they know the market better than you?

Please point out where I have given incorrect information regarding the compatability of Canons various lenses.

@KZ7 - "I was talking about the history of the cameras"

no, you specifically asked: "How is that so much different to Canon", and i just explained how sony did NOT make the same deliberate choices that canon did, it's not the same thing at all.

you just can't admit that:
1) canon made a mess with their own lens mounts choices
2) canon did it much worse than any other company

@MILCman
1. Try reading everything I wrote in context.
2. How is Sony moving from A mount to E mount with no backward compatability but the ability to adapt A mount lenses to E mount, while keeping both A mount and E mount running at the same time so much different than Canon moving from EF mount to RF mount with no backward compatability but the ability to adapt EF / EFS lenses to RF while keeping EF and RF running at thr same time?
3. "you just can't admit that:
1) canon made a mess with their own lens mounts choices
2) canon did it much worse than any other company"
Canon's sales record since the inception of the EOS system says different. Even the M system has sold well, particulary in Japan / Asia.

KZ7 canon made a mess with the EF-M mount. And that's a mess that sony didn't do.

Canon will now have two mirrorless APS lines that are totally incompatible. Have you ever seen anyone else do something like this?

@NILCman
You say its a mess.
I say its choice.
Plenty of peoplr chose Canon.

@Pantunes / MILCman
I'm not sure why you have such a problem with Canon and the M mount.
Don't like it, don't buy it.
There are things I don't like about other brands but I don't begrudge others their choice in buying them.
MILC, you talk like sales is irrelavant in judging the acceptance of a product. I'd argue that its the only metric that matters. The fact that the M sold / sells well as have Canons FF and APSC DSLR's and now their R system suggests that the issue of multiple mounts is not one that concerns a great many people.

KZ7 if sales is the metric that matters, then just look at sony. The one line strategy has seen the brand going from an irrelevant third or fourth to the second best selling camera brand. And that's in a declining market. They must be doing something right...

Agreed. Lots of people here think their camera is the best for characteristics they don't or can't use.

I know a guy who is a real techie...works in the computer field...just bought a Sony A7IV to get back to doing videos like he used to years ago...and he hardly has used his camera. I keep asking him about it, because I know he is talented and technically savvy. His excuse has been that he has little time but after probing him a bit, he added that the Sony was not very user friendly. to learn. So his camera sits largely unused. I'm going to suggest to him the next time I see him that he exchange the camera for one that will be more inspiring to him to use.

When Photoshop World was an in person event, a photographer who teaches a lot of workshops on the art of photography noted that he gets all types of camera brand users for his workshops, but that it is always the Sony users who want him to teach them how to use their cameras, because most find them harder to learn.

Usability is such an important factor.

Agreed, could not agree more, specs that you can't use are worth nothing.

I not old here but each time I criticized the interest of some specs I was flamed and considered Sony hater by some owners who felt targetted. So, be it, I have no problem. Worse are a1 owners.
I figured out that they bought their camera for two characteristics that I find worthless:
- The 50 MP that is only useful if you cut your photo to get an extra zoom. For that I agree, but is it worth the hassle ?
- The 14,5 EV of dynamic range. What conditions do you need to recover the high lights ? and is it necessary ?

There are a lot of other things, I don't mind if they feel happy, but it obliges companies to invest where it is not necessary.

JPM29, as a commercial photographer, 50mp are on the low side if you need to print...

For amateurs, sure, the A1 is an overkill. For pros, definitely not.

And that's the problem here. Too many amateurs sharing their opinions on pro cameras without having any pro needs.

Like when pros tell amateurs that they don't want integrated grips but amateurs keep going on and on about how pros want integrated grips...

@PAntunes: Sorry, I seem to have missed that.

Many pro's do want the integrated grip cameras and are used to using them.

Now sure you'll find some who don't but that's not who we generally see complaining here about these pro cams being too large.

On these discussions we get many amateurs doing exactly what I described: saying those bodies are too large without having an idea what they are talking about.

BTW, in most cases when one sees pro's with Sony gear they have the battery grip on them. I wonder why? The only one I have seen without the battery grip is that A1 that slid down the snowy hill at the Olympics...and maybe that's why it was dropped and fell out of someone's hand? Or maybe the grip separated during the fall?

BTW I was at the Miami GP and I did see a single Sony camera in use by a pro and it had a battery grip on it and a long GM lens. Most of the pro's I saw were using Canon and there was some Nikon. I saw several video guys using Arri.

Why do people keep thinking that the only pros in the world are sports photographers?

I was in Abu Dhabi last year for the final race… there were quite a few sonys around. I think the Ferrari media team were using only Sony.

Having a grip and using it is very different from having a camera where you can’t remove the grip, specially for packing and travel with several bodies.

I do prints with 20 MP and it is more than enough.
Do you know that billboards are made with 10 MP and it was done with 2 MP before ?
Some pros don't know what they need.

JPM29 Do you print for POS? When the clients are right next to the images? Good luck with 20mp.

@PAntunes: Why do you think your use case is the only one for pro's WRT printing?

You stated "as a commercial photographer, 50mp are on the low side if you need to print..."

That is undeniably wrong. In fact I would venture to say that most pro's who print their work are still using cameras with less than 50MP. Also remember often when people use higher MP cameras, they are cropping the output anyway and printing that, so that also amounts to less than 50MP.

And now you shift the goalposts and state that there is a packing advantage to a removable grip. LOL. So I guess now you concede that most pro's using Sony's also have the add on grip. BTW, in camera bags that I have used, the same space I used for the camera could accommodate either a standard body or one with integrated grip just as easily. In fact an add on grip takes up space elsewhere if not attached.

"Yes, pros don't need high res"
I would define a proffesional photographer as one who makes a living from photography.
That covers a wide gamut, sports, fashion, wedding, product, architectural, fine art, photo journalist, etc.
Not all need high res. in fact many don't and many do very well with 'lower res' bodies and produce excellent work.
For some high res will be something they want or need to differentiate themselves from the competition and or compete in the market segment they are in.
Its not a one size fits all world.

@PAntunes: you are using a straw man argument. No one here has said that no pro every needed high res (which you define as 50MP or greater).

You stated that "as a commercial photographer, 50mp are on the low side if you need to print..."

My response and the response of others was that many pro's get by with less than 50MP for prints, which is objectively true.

Sure some pro's use more than 50MP for their commercial prints and that's great. But certainly not all of them do. For many pro's 50MP is not "on the low side if you need to print" and they manage fine with less MP.

As KZ7 pointed out it's not a one size fits all world.

You can't really argue against that and so you create this straw man argument.

@Pantunes
Where did I write '"- The 50 MP that is only useful if you cut your photo to get an extra zoom. For that I agree, but is it worth the hassle ?"
You've quoted someone else not me.

I disagreed with your contention that ", as a commercial photographer, 50mp are on the low side if you need to print..."
That may be correct for you but its as a blanket statement I don't agree.

It depends entirely on the type of photography and what the client expects / wants.

I agree that for some 50MP wont be enough, you appear to be among those who want / need more MP for your work, I have no problem with that, but its overkill for others where the extra MP's don't make an appreciable difference.

Sadly that market has been taken over by smartphones.

There's a reason why neither of the big 3 are updating their APS-C offerings: that market is drying up fast.

I know a guy...a retired investment executive...plenty of money...could easily afford any camera...and he and his wife were taking a trip to Ireland. They remarked to me that they would have bought a camera before but now will use their iPhone. If you gave him a camera he wouldn't take it or use it.

Smartphones are taking over basically for anyone who just wants to take photos but is not into camera gear. That leaves mostly the high end market. And those who may want a cheaper APS-C offering are not so much gear nerds that they read up or care about whether the sensor being used is newly designed or one from a few years ago, nor do they dig into test charts, etc.

There's a big difference there. One of the big 3 has an established APS line that is compatible with the FF line and has third party offers as well for lenses.

For someone wanting to start taking photos as an hobby and not just to have memories of a trip, APS cameras are still a great way to go without massive investments. The APS segment is the future of the FF segment. The hobbyist buying the APS now will be the hobbyist buying the FF later. Not grabbing users when they start makes it much harder to get them in a few years when they want to upgrade to FF.

And no, users won't go directly to FF. The cheapest FF kit is almost 3x more expensive than an APS kit. If you're 18, paying $400 is way different than paying $1200

Thoughts R Us Nikon has a new APS line. Canon started mirrorless with APS. And Sony has a super strong APS line…

And with the improvements in af and video, a decent and recent aps mirrorless is much more powerful than a similarly priced used FF DSLR.

@Thoughts R Us

There is no evidence the stepping stone theory was ever a major factor in APSC development. Most Canon APSC buyers were consumers who just want to snap nice photos. Only a tiny fraction of such buyers ever upgraded to FF. These days they have mostly "downgraded" to smartphones.

Canon may have hoped to use their APSC line as a marketing scheme for more profitable FF cameras, but in fact the APSC line targets a separate, consumer-oriented market that is now gone. There is no need for a "stepping stone" anyway. Canon can just release a cheap FF camera with older tech. That would be far more effective in transitioning users into more expensive FF cameras than a whole separate APSC eco system. As a Canon APSC user, it's not really cheaper for me to go Canon FF vs another brand.

@Reactive

Most normal people just want to snap decent photos that meet their needs, and they can do that easily with their phones now. Maybe that's a shame to you, but most human beings consider it a positive development. Pros and serious amateur make up a tiny minority of APSC buyers, it makes no sense for Canon to maintain a separate eco system just for them. A young person interested in photography has plenty of budget friendly options beyond phones. APSC is hardly necessary.

There is little truth in what you said about smartphone photography anyway. If you can't take excellent photos with a modern phone no amount of APSC gears will save you. People truly interested in photography won't be vehemently against smartphones, it's just a tool after all. Gearheads on the other hand live for their gears and sensor size. And please don't call point-and-shoot users dimwits.

@stomrunner, Imagine I like to take photos of sports. All my friends play basket and I like to be around... Are you suggesting I get a phone to do that if I'm just starting?

Yes, for most people a smartphone is more than enough. But most people are not photographers and don't want to be photographers. They just want an image.

But for most people who want to be photographers, or do it as a hobby, then a phone doesn't cut it.

You're always talking about how important the feeling and usability of a camera is. Now you're saying it doesn't matter and that a phone does the same job?

@Johans81 - "Its their newest camera and first one with that function and its a camera from their cinemaline and the only camera that has it."

i'm not sure exactly what you are saying there, but sony has had separate photo/video menus for awhile, on several milc bodies, and unlike canon you don't need to turn the camera off in order to switch between the different photo/video menus:

https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/2040/v1/en/contents/TP1000426567.html

What Sony camera has dedicated Pro-Video controls like waveform monitors, video codec options, and extensive audio control available?

the thread is about the claim that only canon has separate photo/video menus on milc, and i proved that is not the case, and in fact sony is better because you don't have 8-10 seconds of downtime when switching between menus.

whether you like or dislike individual items on either menu is another discussion, but sony is gaining market share in the cine world:

"In 2020, we saw an interesting mix of lenses and cameras used on Sundance projects. To no one’s surprise, ARRI dominated the landscape in both the camera and lens categories. Canon was just a fraction of that.
But this year[2022] is different, if only a little. As we can see from the graph, Sony has made great strides in getting its camera into filmmakers' hands. While some Sony cameras were used on a single project, a whopping 14 out of 60 cameras were from Sony. That’s almost double the percentage from Sundance 2020.
arri: 31.67%
sony: 23.3%
canon: 13.33%
red: 13.33%"
https://nofilmschool.com/cameras-and-lenses-sundance-2022

Again what Sony mirrorless camera has waveform monitors? The simple answer is NONE. Thank you.

@MILCman
Maybe this article from DPR wi help you to understand the topic of dual menus
https://m.dpreview.com/opinion/8358054483/canon-eos-r5c-is-this-the-future-for-hybrid-camera-interfaces

Also although its off topic, since you brought it up, the article you linked to on cameras used at the Sundance festival stated that the most commonly used Sony camera was the Venice. Thats a cine camera, not a hybrid and not a choice for a stills camera, they also had this to say about lenses "As far as glass, we learned filmmakers turned most commonly to Panavision. What's more interesting is that Canon followed closely behind with several zoom lenses."

Thanks for providing context KZ7. Some Sony fans conveniently leave out fact and contextual data, and cherry pick other data and quotes, to support their argument and demean other brands. It's easy to catch them doing so because it's so frequent.

Any time a Sony fan gives you a litany of data, quotes, etc...it's usually misleading and out of context. They want to sound factual and well reasoned, but it's not supported by the entire body of facts.

Context is so important and it is a propagandist tool to omit that.

@KZ7 - "Maybe this article from DPR wi help you to understand the topic of dual menus"

i see that people are upset and confused, apparently because:
-sony had dual menus well before canon did,
-sony has dual menus on hybrid milc bodies,
-sony does not make you turn the camera off to switch between stills menu and video menu.

"The displayed MENU items vary depending on the position of the mode dial. In the table below, the modes in which each MENU item is displayed are indicated by the still image/movie icons.

-The menu item is displayed when the mode dial position is set to the still image shooting modes (A).
-The menu item is displayed when the mode dial position is set to the movie recording modes (B).
-The menu item is displayed when the mode dial position is set to either the still image shooting modes (A) or the movie recording modes (B)."

https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/2040/v1/en/contents/TP1000426567.html

@KZ7 - "the most commonly used Sony camera was the Venice. Thats a cine camera"

and canon positioned the r5c as part of their cinema line of cameras:

Home - Products - Cameras - Cinema EOS - EOS R5 C
"EOS R5 C Full-frame, 8K Cinema EOS System Camera
The EOS R5 C is a complete package that offers filmmakers, multimedia journalists, and advanced amateurs a cost-effective 8K, 4K, and FHD video camera to help unlock their creative potential."
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/list/cameras/cinema-eos/cinema-eos

@MILCman
My Canon RP has a dedicated video mode with different menu options when shooting, in the same way that the Sony that you linked to does, that is not the same as what is available in the R5C, not even close. You seriously can't tell the difference?
I'm well aware that the R5C is part of Canons cine line-up. It also has the full stills menu and operating system and still camera controls, unlike the Venice, which is an out & out cinema camera and a very good one at that, but not at all designed for stills photography.
Maybe try reading DPR's very good article that I linked to in my previous comment if you still don't understand the difference.

Well milcman if you valt see the difference btw those two then i camt help you, its not rocket science come on.

"Context is so important and it is a propagandist tool to omit that."
-and defamation, is not nice.

Your statement
“Any time a Sony fan gives you a litany of data, quotes, etc...it's usually misleading and out of context. They want to sound factual and well reasoned, but it's not supported by the entire body of facts.”
Suggests that any one who likes/uses Sony kit usually (ie. More often than not) is openly seeking to deceive on these forums.
It is an obvious untruth. It should not go unchallenged.
More than that, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Trolls gonna troll, and the TRU/Davinator couple do it like no one else.

Look, the R5C’s implementation is very lacking. Instead of a rationalized, integrated approach, you get two disparate interfaces that don’t have the same options, organization, or logic behind them. That’s bad design, plain and simple. You want vectorscopes in stills mode? Tough luck, they’re relegated to video. Want spot AF or fine case control in video? Again, too bad, they’re not there. Animal detection in video? Nuh-uh. Instant custom WB setting in stills? ☹️

Pardon my French, but that segmentation is STUPID, and indicative of a rushed kludge, not a sophisticated approach to UX.

What have Sony fans to do with it? Besides, this is a poor quote from an otherwise respectable person. He'd be better off never having said it.
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses. - Boethius

@mick, TRU is obsessed with Sony, he brings up Sony more that the Sony fanboys.

TRU is just stating the facts. But maybe facts is not what you want. Kind reminds me of misinformation and how easily it attracts biases.

What facts? These are quotes, not facts. Learn the difference. Such ignorance is the root of the very problem you are referring to.

And yet, it was you who first introduced Sony into the discussion.

The worst canon trolls are some of canon users. They are more interested in defending canon's choices than their own interests.

They will defend a decision that gives them a worst product at a higher price just because it came from canon. And they'll tell everyone how good that decision was.

Instead of being interested in helping to create a better brand, with better products, they just want to say that canon is the best... And anyone pointing any flaws is trash talking...

Thoughts R Us so when you criticise Sony, it’s in good faith but when someone else criticises canon it’s in bad faith?

Is the criticism in this video valid? Do you agree that canon is behind on AF, lenses, battery duration, etc?

Do you agree with the comments that the eye-tracking Af selector is far from a global success ?

Or is the entire video in bad faith?

Thoughts R Us, I think you should see the video again.. Specially the part where they talk about how the ECAF doesn't work for other people, and not just one of them...

I agree. Until 3rd party lenses like Sigma and Tamron start releasing RF glass, it's hard to afford the Canon system albeit it's a great system if you can afford it.

Perfect is a moving target in technology, agreed. We’re all okay with that and celebrate it. Leaving out basic features, removing features, limiting features, accepting design flaws knowing you can just fix it with the next iteration and have the customer on a constant upgrade cycle. Canon is known for it, more so than the other brands. It’s a feature with Canon, not a bug. They would never put their absolute best product out on the market unless their backs were against the wall and forced. Having you wanting or needing more is their leverage and business model, which is a shame because they’re capable of so much.

Well where does Canon lead the price increase movement? Have a look at the price of the sony and nikon 70-200 after release, they were much more expensive than the mk2 and mk3 and close to the RF. Same with extenders, have a look at what sony asked for them when the current lineup was the EF MK3 (a hint: The sony was about 40-50% more expensive).

What basic features were removed? My R5 offers me more than my 1DX tbh, I'm not missing something. Do you mean the modes like sport, landscape, portrait1, portrait2, baby1, baby2, baby3 etc? Fun fact: They weren't on the higher end models for decades.

However I agree with you the extender thing, just limited useable on the 100-500 and not useable on the 70-200. I stay adapted ef 70-200 II in this case.

Have you actually in real life tried any other system at all? U will be surprised how Canon actually IS thought out

@nameless0ne: Panasonic have a much more thought out UI than Canon. Or anyone, really. It’s just their darned commitment to DFD that really holds their gear back.

Also: Nikon menus > Canon menus > Sony menus
But!: Sony customizability > Canon customizability > Nikon customizability

Yeah, I’ve extensively used advanced cameras from all three. You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about.

Nope. On G9, for example, you can not even magnify to focus point with one button on images review or set copyright data in camera. Panasonic is not bad, but not even close to canon

@PredatorsPrey: Pricing increases—they’re moving the goalposts with their superteles, which are the top of their line so you can expect it to trickle down into their overall pricing strategy. They’ve set their bars with the superteles at $20k for the 1200mm (a recycled Frankenstein of a lens), $17k for the 800mm (another Frankenstein), and on down it goes. Those are some pretty high bars now for superteles, and they’re certainly not Canon’s best when it comes to design and details. Expect the R1 to be priced much higher than the other flagships, as well, considering their R3 is priced higher than Nikon’s Z9. Pricing creep on their top end will indeed shift the whole strategy.

@nameless0ne: Yes, I actively use four systems now since I just purchased into the Z lineup with the Z9 and 800PF. I’m not brand loyal and enjoy multiple systems. Canon is by far the worst when it comes to cheating their customers and not really caring. Their ergonomics are the best, IMO, however, sure. I agree.

PredatorsPrey
sony 50 1.2 vs canon 50 1.2 +£500
Sony 90 2.8macro vs canon 100 2.8 macro +£600
sony 24-70 II vs canon 24-70 +£250
Sony 16-35 vs canon 15-35 +£400
Sony 70-200 f4 vs canon 70-200 f4 +£600
Sony 70-200II f2.8 vs canon 70-200 f2.8 +£150
Sony 24-240 vs canon 24-240 +£220
A7RIV vs R5 +£1100
A9II vs R3 +£1700

It's a little hard to ignore how canon prices are ahead, even with recently released sony lenses.

@northlarch
Your initial post reads different from "it might" you're stating now because of the 1200mm. Show me a cheaper 1200mm f/8 or faster with full af then we're talking.

And again what basic features were removed? I smell anti canon fanb0y troll.

@PredatorsPrey, I’ve detailed my thoughts and responded. One could write a book with all the examples from Canon but who has time for that. Discarding valid commentary as someone being an “anti canon fanb0y troll” just because you don’t agree or like it says more about you than me. I’m done responding to someone who needs to childishly name call in an otherwise friendly discussion.

@PAntunes

Do not understand that weeping about canon prices. Canon is a business. If they put those prices, that because there customers are willing to pay them. In fact, for R5 demand long time was higher than supply. Same for lot of Canon lenses. Canon gained marketshare on later periods. And all that with those prices that do not make YOU happy. I suppose Canon knows something about marketing and there position vs competitors. Maybe Canon is not for poor, though all modern digital photography is not now. Pretty sure there prices reflect demand.

nameless0ne what weeping? I just stated the prices of the lenses and cameras.

@PredatorsPrey funny how you focus on one lens that has a 1mm difference but ignore all others that are exactly the same...

And if you can compare the A9 with the R6, how do you justify the price of the R3 when, according to you, it's basically an R6?

All recent Sony GM lens releases are among the class leaders in price. Each successive Sony Body in a line is coming out at least $500 more than its predecessor. Expect the rumor A7 V to come in at least at $4000.

Sony came out with what should have been the A9 III but called it the A1 to justify a massive price hike from $4500 to $6500.

The reality is that each company segments its products a bit different. But Sony is trying as hard as anyone to price its products higher and higher. In fact I would say that Sony at least equals Canon in trying to exercise pricing power. Nikon is the one offering some pricing values at the higher end.

@Thoughts R Us, How are the sony 50 1.2 and the new 24-70 cheaper than the canon versions?

And the A1 is not an A9III. That's saying that the R5 was supposed to be a R6II but they called it R5 just to justify charging more...

@PAntunes "funny how you focus on one lens" I know my reply was a bit longer thus it might be hard for you to follow that I actually mentioned 3 (three) lenses. Please read it completely, thanks. The UWA example was a hint due to the fact that UWA lenses explode in complexity the wider they get otherwise we would have lightweight 10-35.

Furthermore I never said the R6 is an R3, can you please provide where I said that? You're putting words into my mouth. But regarding the price, the R3 does 50% more fps, has eye control af and a more durable body. Just a few key features justifying the price, the fps would do it alone. I still would like it to be at a lower price however thats not the point here.

PredatorsPrey, so for you, the fact that the readout speed on the R3 is way faster than the R6 has no impact on the price... So if a R6 with the same old slow sensor had a 30fps mode, it would be worth 3x more?

Sure... you tell canon that. I'm sure they'll be happy to sell a camera like that for that price.

Sony adopted Minolta's naming conventions, with low odd numbers being entry level, intermediate 5, enthusiast 7 and pro 9 - or in some cases 11 - sometimes an even number between was used.
Minolta sometimes used 11 for a top model and sometimes used 1 (X-1/XK1/XM1) for something above the current 9 (pro), so A1 (which might be preffered to a11) is not outside the naming convention as far as it goes.

PredatorsPrey, the difference between the A9 and R6 is that the A9 can actually shoot fast sports at 20fps, something the R6 can’t because of the rolling shutter.

Comparing those two cameras is missing the reason they exist. And also missing the reason the R3 costs way more than the R6 and R5, even when it has much lower resolution than the R5… it’s not because it does 30fps or has eye tracking af that doesn’t work for most people…

@PAntunes
Furthermore the eye control af was as you described back in 1998 with the EOS 3, because something was bad 24 years ago doesn't mean a single thing. You know, technology evolved a lot, in fact it actually exploded. You can see it with pcs, maybe you should buy a new one and give your 24 year old pc to a museum. You would be blown away how much has changed in the meantime.

While it was bad back then nowadays it seems to work for most people. So again, you're telling something I'd like to ask again for some proof, can you provide? Or do you make up arguments again and wont back up your claims with a source? I'm still waiting for the other one.

Have you guys seen the video? The problem with the eye-tracking AF is mentioned. And has been mentioned before, both here and in many other reviews. For some it works. For most it need constant recalibration. For some others simply doesn’t work at all.

PAntunes are you considering to purchase the R3? Because if your not, all you doing is just wasting your time. And if you don’t value your time, I can’t think of anything worst to your own creative progress. Think of the fact that the camera you already own is just gathering dust. Does that ad value to it? Hopefully some day you’ll figure out that critiquing another camera won’t make your camera any better. An even worst your personal camera becomes meaningless.

DavitorR5 To be able to consider a camera, I need to know what the camera does, right?

@PAntunes: your statement is unproven and misleading about eye control AF:
"For some it works. For most it need constant recalibration. For some others simply doesn’t work at all."

You don't know that for most it needs constant recalibration. I can cherry pick reviews and articles/videos where the ECAF is praised. I've used it and it works like a charm.

For all we know the reality is that it works for most.

But here's the great thing about ECAF: it takes away nothing from the other AF control methods. In fact the R3 has the most ways of any camera for choosing and controlling your AF point, even without using ECAF. It's absolutely brilliant for that. ECAF is just one more option and a fantastic one for many. And it will only get better with time.

But when one uses ECAF, you don't want to go back to anything else because all other methods seem primitive.

PAntunes Critiquing other cameras is not going to make your own camera any better. Right?

Thoughts R Us, no, for all we know, it doesn't work like it should for most. For some doesn't work at all, for others need constant recalibration. If it worked like it should, those complaints wouldn't be so frequent.

badi - What Canons marketing and press releases have said is irrelevant. It's embarrassing for an individual to fall for marketing but completely unacceptable for a professional reviewer. It would make the whole concept of review meaningless.

I'm not saying that's what dpreview is doing but I am wondering if they have any basis for the claim that a short flange distance can make tele lenses smaller and better. I've not seen any such evidence but would be interested to know about it.

Well Canon themselves have claimed for 30 years that the larger EF mount vs F mount was the reason for their « superior » lenses.

Although Nikon started to release superior lenses from 2015 there was some truth to that i believe.

And it’s still true in mirrorless. A larger mount gives more design freedom.

Now Sony is able to release excellent lenses but they are giving up on one very impacting aspect which is focus breathing. I believe that Nikon will follow them moving forward.

Canon doesn’t appear to have been able to compete with the other 2 with their mirrorless lenses despite having a largish mount. Not sure why.

"...but they are giving up on one very impacting aspect which is focus breathing."

Not quite sure what this conclusion is based on...

But is focus breathing more of a problem than on other mounts? And what grounds are there for saying that they have 'given up'? I thought focus breathing tended too be associated with internally focusing lenses, which tend to change their focal length slightly as they focus. (which would seem to be another of those trade-off thingies). Wasnt the latest lens on DPReview TV supposed to be quite good for focus breathing?

I don't think they have been compelled. They have simply offered a USP of a solution to a common problem. If the other companies follow suit with their own versions would that be a bad thing?

Yup, you did miss the first one 😅

@rocketman Usually it’s better to check before yelling Bias, otherwise one ends up with egg upon ones face.

As far as perceived bias in concerned, I think it is always going to be one of those ‘grass is greener’ things – if you use some kit you are more aware of work-arounds and are more likely to be ‘spiked’ by a criticism that you know is not a show-stopper (and lets face it all cameras from all manufacturers are highly capable – any reviewer will largely be ‘splitting hairs’).

Back in the old (London-based) days there was a definite Canon bias in DPR – Phil used Canon stuff and the Canon stuff always got a speedy review, while interesting cameras from smaller manufacturers were sometimes overlooked – however Phil’s expectations from Canon were also high, so he wasn’t above being critical of them – but he was definitely more knowledgeable about that particular brand.

Well I love shooting straight into the sun so Canon is definitely one of the poorer choices for me. You need to buy the right tool for the job you do.

@PAtunes
I've asked a question on different websites without getting an example: Show me a photo that wouldn't be possible with a canon due to DR. Meaning where 1/3 EV at base ISO makes the difference between shot gotten and shot impossible.

PredatorsPrey it's always possible to get the shot. The question is how much noise and lack of detail will you be happy to accept in your images.

@PAntunes
Where the noise floor kills details is the dr limit thus the question remains valid. Show me an example where the so small piece of a stop kills the details too much and it wasn't the fault of the photographer by not using the full range of the sensor.

1/3 EV is a rounding error in autoexpoure. Honestly, probably transmission of lenses too. Claiming that minute loss will make a difference in "noise and detail" is ridiculous.

PredatorsPrey - A large part of this site is about sucking the life out of photography and turning it in to a numbers game with a bit of fanboyism thrown in for good measure.
I belong to a couple of camera clubs, look at lots of images online and in magazines. Not once have I ever looked at a photo in a magazine, online or projected and been able to tell which camera took it which I think proves your point. These very minor technical differences beteween cameras and systems make no difference at all in actual photography.

I think someone would have to be doing very specialised and specific photography before the dynamic range of current sensors becomes a deciding factor. In reality, DR or RAWs with noise reduction are very marginal factors – each brand gets bashed for something and in general they don’t amount to a hill of beans.
I think people tend to make buying decisions based on having the most popular or the most ‘professional’, while others will want something different. Access to accessories is often a driver (as in ‘my sister has a bunch of brand X lenses that I can borrow’) as is personal recommendation and cost (everyone loves a bargain). Sometimes the decision will come down to a USP (although those are rarer these days).
There are no bad choices, I don’t think there have been for many years.

"the loss of r5 fine detail due to n.r. is quite obvious in the dpr studio comparisons."

Don't see it myself - any particular ISO settings/subject?

MILC man your link only has R3s, and in any case the NR is unrelated to the point I was making about DR.

The very fact that this DR issue keeps being beaten to death and creates endless debates going round and round only shows that it is not a real problem.

BTW, we also see brand bias more play out than any real substantive empirical truth, as Sony promoters cherry pick data to try to trash other brands.

If one brand had a problem with DR, then one should be able to point to real world differences in actual output in real world situations. No one does that. So we get debates on test charts, numbers, etc...which don't mean anything in real world usage.

For instance, show me where a Sony photographer is getting shots that a Canon one is not. You don't see that. No one says when looking at sports photos for instance, hey this must have been taken with a Sony...or hey, only Sony could have gotten this. If you argue about test specs it usually means you don't have anything of substance.

Where are all those real world photos that the sony's couldn't get because they don't have 8.5 stops of IS like canon does?

There have been and continue to be many award winning photos taken with older Canon DSLR"s like the 5Dii, 5Diii, etc. (just check out the last dozen or so competitions showcased on DPR).
The "lack" of DR hasn't exactly hampered photographers to capture great images.
More DR is of course welcome, as is more MP, more fps, less noise, better IS, better af, better high iso performance, etc. but seriously, if you can't capture fantastic images with any camera, irrespective of brand, that was released in the last 5-10 years, then maybe the fault does not lie with the camera. And, if you are waiting for the perfect camera you will keep waiting as 'perfect' is a continously moving goalpost and what is perfect for you may not be perfect for someone else.

KZ7 At the same time the needs and expectations of clients change. 10 years ago you’d deliver 15 looks a day on a fashion campaign. You’d check focus on the images after a couple of minutes, you’d bring massive flashes to balance the light.

Today you shoot 30 to 40 looks with much more natural light. You trust the AF and need to stop a lot less to check. You use the DR to pull up the shadows on darker garments and balance the scene instead of spending 20min lighting a scene.

You can take a good photo with any camera, but the better the camera performs, the easier it is.

nameless0ne, what do you mean by "do not happens at base iso where DR is widest"?

The graphic clearly shows the down arrow symbol that indicates noise reduction from base ISO all the way up to iso600 on the canon.

@PAntunes

Can you read once more -- "noice reduction has no connection to DR".

You right thouhg about NR -- had no idea that canon apply it on low iso also. You know why? Cause that really does not matter to anything.

Well, you clearly don't understand how dynamic range works if you think that baked in noise reduction has no effect...

@PAntunes

I understand it very well. You don't understand that effectively there is no difference for the end result -- as measured. If you think that there is no noice reduction happening in all other cameras on there RAW data you effectively has no idea about electronics and A/D conversion. One manufacturer decided to leave it to camera processor, other decided to include into RAW data to allow much more effecient and powerfull processor of your computer to do the job. But just some people are unhappy in internet and it ruins there masterpieces I suppose.

Canon's DR is definitely weak. I haven't played with R5's raw files but I did with the R6 and 6D2.

Just try to abuse the shadow recovery and EV sliders a bit and you get a ton of noise generated, more than the raws from my nikons. The 6D2 and RP were particularly terrible. R6 was a significant improvement but not up there among the best yet.

When you are surrounded by friends who mostly use Canon you get access to their raw files easily.

nameless0ne, if you're measuring one file with no noise reduction applied and it has the same DR as one with noise reduction already applied, as soon as you apply noise reduction to the one with no baked in NR, you'll get better DR...

@EXkurogane

Or maybe you have no knowledge how to process those files or maybe it was different scene, or maybe it was poorly measured, or... there can be 100 reasons. You need to place cameras to same conditions, on same scene, same glass, same exposure settings, process results in same way. So basically do a proper test like already done by photonstophotos

@PAntunes

You can check this on other chart to understand that you are effectively wrong -- https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5_14,Nikon%20Z%207II_14,Sony%20ILCE-7M4_14

@NamelessOne

Don't tell me how to process my files, not when I've been doing this for 9 years now. If you use the same exact method on photos from two different cameras and one turn out to be inferior, that is already conclusive. No matter whether I use Adobe's solutions or Capture one or any other method, canon's files constantly turn out to be inferior.

It doesn't matter what test charts or lab tests say. That is for geeks not photographers. What you see with your own eyes and how the images look after a large print is all that matters.

And when your surrounded by folks who mostly pixel peek your photography skills never improve. Nothing more embarrassing than to see better shots done on a IPhone.

nameless0ne again, canon with the baked in noise reduction...

@EXkurogane

ah, those poor professionals of uncounted number, who use there inferior canons for portraits of _real_ people or _real_ landscapes... how dare they are with those inferior files!

PAntune when I admire a photographer and his creative style it’s never about which camera brand he used.

DavitorR5 that's true. But the creative style and ability to produce images can be connected to the camera they use...

And let me guess when finally that perfect camera is ever made then you’ll finally be that perfect photographer. Wow.

DavitorR5, the camera you use won't make you a better photographer. But using the wrong camera can make you a worst photographer.

Go try shooting BIF with an Iphone and tell me that having a tele lens and a fast AF camera won't make all the difference...

PAntunes please show us what prize winning photograph you have and why the camera you used was so important?

DavitorR5, are you saying that shooting with the R5 or a toy camera will give you the same images? Is the camera totally irrelevant in getting an image?

What I’m saying is that most cameras now days are perfectly capable of producing amazing photos. What’s more important is the hard work and composition skills of the person holding the camera. End of story.