For those who want a closer look at the files, I have 2 that you can download here: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t969ikG6FFP1hteOgg-7RY56omOQP3Tc?usp=sharing
Mladen Šćekić Awwwww I Wouldn’t say 10x Better!!!!Before Manny Said it,I was telling myself,The Skin Was looking a little Better on The Canon But is it Worth the Money?NOT!!!!!SPECIALLY When You too deep in to Sony...
Thanks for making this comparison - great job on keeping similar composition as well as model pose :D Files are really useful - could you please share a couple more? As far as lens comparison goes - Sony has much more color fringing while Canon has a bit more vignette. The field of view difference you mention @6:45 might have something to do with focus breathing, which some RF lenses have quite a lot. This means that at some focus distance FOV might actually match the other lens. Canon clipping highlights are noticeable even on the white shirt ... hopefully they release a better RF-mount camera soon!
Nah, its more like a Sony fanboy who can't get an f/1.2 playing it off like 1.2 is no big deal. I can argue you can't tell a difference between 1.8 and 1.4 too...
@@michaelbell75 he stepped down from being a sony ambassador so he could use other brands. I don't think this came out of being a fanboy, especially if he owns the canon as well.
@@michaelbell75 I don't want to get caught up in a stupid keyboard warrior session. But Manny stepped down from being a Sony ambassador. And he also owns a Canon and use to shoot with a canon. Im sure if you shot with a different background and lighting situations, the 1.2 would be more significant. At the end of the day.. all that matters is what works best for you. Manny simply just threw out his opinion. As we're all entitled to.
Ariel Badeo but if your only argument is 1.4 is better because it’s $1k cheaper and you can get close to the look of the 1.4, I can make that same argument for 1.8 vs 1.4
@@michaelbell75 The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is very noticeable, but 1.2 and 1.4 has no difference at all. Check the comparison here: www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/
Out-of-focus highlights in the background show a green outlining on the Sony lens (longitudinal chromatic aberrations) whereas the Canon lens is perfectly corrected for these aberrrations.
@@anthonyc1883 No. That's a transiton to an overexposed green outdoor background. Look at 7:08 th-cam.com/video/JHP5rLL1MVg/w-d-xo.html where you can see the difference.
@SwitchRich yeah but the sum of all these little things that non photographers don't notice can make up for a great image. Also we love showing our photos to other photographers.
Are the files at 7:08 both unedited? The fringing on the Sony is pretty severe compared to the Canon. I'm a Sony shooter, still using some great Minolta glass so CA is something I see a LOT of, but if the Canon has no fringing at 1.2 at all, that's impressive!
Great video, agree and disagree on some points. Agree that in this age of photos being viewed almost exclusively online and often in the postcard sized windows of a smartphone, the difference between the f/1.4 Sony and the f/1.2 Canon is negligible. But disagree that the Canon lens wasn't actually markedly better. Most lens are not as sharp wide open and with the Canon it was sharper than the Sony at a wider aperture AND the background had more bokeh. That's a double whammy. Now whether that's worth an extra $1,000 in today's word of quickly consumed media, I'm not sure. A friend of mine has a theory that the subtle differences don't register consciously with viewers, but subconsciously, so they'll just like one photographer's photos better but can't articulate why.
But wouldn't "liking one photographers photos better subconsciously" mark it as the "better" lens+camera combo? if its noticeable even for a person who doesn't even know the difference between the two, wouldn't that make it markedly better?
I'm not a photographer, but I like her face skin tone on the Canon picture, especially the closeups. As a brown female myself, I would prefer a photographer using that camera on me if I were doing makeup closeup shots especially.
I'm at the cross roads of jumping into mirrorless and this video certainly had an impact on my decision. Thanks Manny, looking forward to the next one.
Both look great but the sharpness of the RF 85 1.2 is definitely superior. And colors and skin tones from the EOS R look more pleasing to my eyes (For example 7:07)- But again it's a preference thing but I can't say the RF is a $1000 dollars worth more than G Master. Can't go wrong with either system. Wish I had both. Great comparison Manny!
@@anthonyc1883 If you take a closer look you can tell the shot from canon was a bit overexposed (Look at the orange on her skull cap) - which won't show the accurate representation of colors. Sony has more pink/magenta tint which again is not right or wrong and is purely a preference and can easily be tweaked to anyone's liking with 1 or 2 simple steps in Lightroom. :)
Anthony C Exactly. If a picture from either camera is in front of you by itself , you would be more than happy with it. Which is why I say you can’t go wrong with either or and it’s all preference :)
Diana trying to flirt with you and you're just like all in camera mode, lol. '100' is just not speaking your language. She's awesome. Love the whole dynamic between you two. Obviously made for each other.
When you say "maximum depth of field," I think you mean to say "shallowest depth of field." Maximum depth of field is what you get at f22 or something really high when you want to shoot landscapes and keep everything in focus. f1.2 bokeh is from shallow depth of field, blurring the background. Just want people to have the correct terminology :)
will you stop blubbering about colors. Color is as good as the preset in Manny's Lightroom (or as bad - if you are just using what Adobe's engineers included)
Got the EOS R and the RF 85 F1.2. I don't even care what camera is better. They're so close like you said. If I got the A7iii with the 85GM, I'd ALWAYS be lusting after that red ring F 1.2... Went with my heart instead of my wallet and I'm a happy dude.
@@Chazyfizzlez damn, there’s so much info for these two, I’m having the worst time deciding, I was stuck on the a7 until I saw how many people love the canon comfort and color. I’m a beginner and want to shoot short films. Real tough.
@@HeresTheTale if you’re a beginner then you can’t really go wrong with either system. Canon’s new bodies have autofocus just as good as Sony. The video codecs are both good. Most people prefer canon because it’s easier to get a certain color profile that people tend to like. Take a little more work on Sony. It’s a tough choice since it’s a big investment but go with your gut and don’t look back. You’ll be happy either way.
Hey i'm gonna feel real dumb for asking this, but at 4:06 the screen on your camera(S) look like the photo would come out very white(ish)/colder looking, and more bright... but soon as you take the actual photo it becomes darker and warmer and looks great, is that something to do with your settings? I've never seen a camera do that, even on mine, on my Canon 90D and my Canon M50 they both show what i'm going to get before i take the photo, it doesn't change. Is that just something that those cameras do, i wouldn't imagine so but i don't know
Looks like the Sony has missed focus several times, which is surprising, considering the claims about its eye-AF 4:32 or 6:45 is where both seem correct 2:326:08 back focusing 5:41 is not focused on the nearest eye (maybe that is off on the Canon as well just seems less noticeable with the lack of CA) etc. The Canon seems to be focusing much better, no point in getting a lens like this if it just fails to hit it 100% properly.
I know it's been a long time since you posted this video but I'm looking forward to get the EOS R and this is the most helpful video I've ever watched , and lemme tell you something, I've been watching a lot of videos related to the EOS R. Thanks a lot Manny
Hi Manny.... I'm torn between getting the Canon EOS R or the A7iii. The Canon is (was) slightly winning me over, due to the flip screen, and the ease of the menu...but looking at many IG photos of pics taken with a A7iii vs the EOS R, it looks like the Sony a7iii pics just have that extra sharpness and detail, while Canon photos look a tad softer. Just wanted to know if you observed this also or its just my imagination. At the end of the day, its the photo images that matter, not just menu usability or a flip screen, right?
Honestly, the Canon looks better to me side by side. This is why I'm switching back to Canon from Sony. Probably picking up the 85mm RF as well. The highlight roll-off is more pleasant and the micro contrast is looks amazing.
Not many people know about micro-contrast. It is one of the most important things for me. The other comment for me is the color. I shoot Canon because Canon has better color for dark skin. It looks more realistic with less editing. Both cameras and lenses are good but for pro work I’d go canon for the unique look.
@@ThreeCeeProductions There is no better lens for portrait than the 85mm 1.2, it’s simply the way it is, the best. Everything else is below, Sony has color problems.
6:39 you talk about having maximum depth of field with the Canon f/1.2L lens but actually to have *maximum depth of field* you would be shooting at f/64 or something like that. I think what you meant to say is f/1.2 might provide a slightly more *shallow depth of field* compared to f/1.4.
Hi Manny, that was a great comparison. I downloaded the 2 sample images and viewed them side-by-side in Capture One Pro. I noticed a few things instantly: the Canon image is slightly sharper, the colours are much nicer (even the blacks are much richer black), the lens is very noticeably greater in focal length, the DOF is definitely noticeably shallower..... but here's the big one: you said there is much more information in the Sony files, yet the darkest shadow at the side of Dianna's face (where there is less detail in her hair) is noticeably more recoverable on the Canon image! Max out the shadow slider on each image and the Canon image shows more hair detail in the darkest shadows. There wasn't anything I could really recover in the highlights, but highlight recovery seemed similar on both cameras when setting highlight recovery to max. I am not seeing all this extra information in the Sony file you speak of? You just sold me on Canon in this photoshoot.
I love how you conveniently omitted the green tint in Canon image in your fanboy rant. How come you can see the hair strands but that horrible cast goes unnoticed?
Is it me or does the Canon EOS R look a tad bit sharper? Also I have a Sony A73 but love Canon L series lenses. I noticed Sony looks a little more contrasty which can be a personal thing if you like it.
Is this displayed in Lightroom or Capture One? Again I have to say it is the software interpretation that gives you a version of the RAW file including the colours! It actually has nothing to do with the Camera brand.
Mark Faust and if it were compared in a printed version you would complain about the paper, the ink, the printer, the humidity of the room, the state of the moon ...
@@labradorsin we are talking about pure facts. Just move a slider and the colour changes. There have been enough TH-cams doing colour matching.... so why is it possible? It is possible because there is no such thing as colour science in a RAW image.
ok finally ! The results are really similar, and the F1,2 i think its good but u can get cheaper lense and also has good quality! BUT, when u zoomed pictures the sharpness on the face and colors are really better with canon !
To be fair, the Canon also has 6MP more. So pictures naturally should look sharper on the same magnification of both pictures. Interestingly some of the Canons are greener some times, sometimes the Sony. The variations of skin stones in different spots is more natural and true to life on Sony, but I do agree that the Canons even tonality and way of handling the skin tones in the different situations in more flattering - which tbf is more important in the end. But since the Sony has more room to play with, you should be able to match or even exceed it with knowhow.
I don't want to sound like a bad person but I think you should've mentioned that the 85 1.2 was sharper because some people would like a sharper lens and some wouldn't, I like a sharper lens sometimes and sometimes I go with something less sharp depending how I want to edit.
Several points have to do with the sensor and the lens, itself. Hopefully, Canon will release another camera with better dynamic range than the EOS R, for environmental portraits where photographers want to play more with tonality. However, this is a necessary test to make, and it's great how Manny did it.
Both combos are great and in postproduction you can get almost the same results, but ... In some photos it seems to me that Sony is not exactly focused (Canon always sharp) and then in the background lamps Sony creates a green corona (chromatic aberrations? like 7:08) and that's fail for me because it will have to be retouched.
Just for clarification, F1.2 is not a maximum depth of field. Depth of field references how deep the focus area may be. To get the rich soft bokeh background the depth of field term would be a shallow or shallower depth of field. Maximum depth of field would reference a F22 setting. Just a side note, aperture setting is not the only way to adjust depth of field.
Eddie Sanchez Agreed. It's great when any manufacturer pushes the limits. Great new gear is awesome, of course. But this lust for 1.2 "creamy bokeh" porn on lenses now costing $3K (!!), that are actually causing people to switch entire systems, is just nuts.
I still shoot a DSLR so forgive me if I'm not understanding mirrorless bodies. When I see your images on live view on those mirrorless bodies, the pre-shot while you are composing, look a lot brighter than the previewed images after you take the shot. I know you have flash in the preview images and daylight only in the pre-shot, but why is the pre shot showing a much brighter exposure? I would have expected the pre-shot view to show much darker.
@@michaelbell75 yes and no.... also 2.0 looks like 1.8. 2.2 looks like 2 2.2 is not like 1.2 so... it always depend from resources and priorities. take what you can, and make the best out of it
@@bobceffo My point is, if the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 isn't worth $1k as the video claims, then the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is also not worth an extra $1k either right?
To my surprise, Sony color looks warmer and nice and pleasant! Years ago, it was opposite, no? The Canon 85/1.2 is a Master Class lens though. Thanks Manny & Diana:)
@@stkuj A7RIV has updated color science? Wasn't aware I figure it was the same as A7III if they didn't mention it. (I didn't hear them pimping it anyways) Curious to see if Venice makes it's way into their DSLR line up too, i've heard good things about it with their cinema line, would be cool if the A7IV got it as well.
In this experiment, the Canon looks better. The Sony pics looks orange, especially at 6:48. They are both nice cameras, the Canon just seems a little better.
@@Dante-qf9yd Seems like the beanie is more orange on Sony but the skin is more orangeish on Canon, but at least a consistent color across the face. Idk I cant really tell whats better tho, I don't really have a preference or usually see that stuff I guess. Not sure if im odd man out in this but when normal people watch videos I don't think i've ever heard anyone comment on skin tones, just how good the story/editing or video is in general. Most probably don;t care about skin tones or resolution or slightly better bokeh, it all just slightly adds to the overall delivery. But these videos are still fun I love em:)
Thanx Manny!as you said i dont see much of difference as far as depth of field goes between 1.2 and 1.4.i for sure saw that canon was sharper and had cooler tone not only on skin but in general so i think it will be easy to adjust on lr or ps to make these pictures look alike. The only thing i didnt like about sony was ca especially around bokeh balls...but again it is something you could fix in post.thank you i enjoyed this comparison
Manny! I have an a6400 with the sigma trio but have an opportunity to buy the a7iii with an 85mm 1.8 for $1700. Would you recommend selling the a6400 + sigma trio?
wood nymph I thought the same thing. Even though I like one of the Canon photos better, before I looked at which photos was which, I picked the Sony one most of the time
@@houstoninternationalmedia3408 I honestly couldn't tell a difference on my phone screen, if it wasn't labeled. I like both. I think Sony has a cooler and more modern colors. Really good for city scenes in the dark. Canon sensors and glass are a bit warmer, which I think so slightly better in some settings. Again it's a super slight difference. Putting sigma art lenses on a Canon will give something closer to Sony colors.
Thanks for your work Manny, both shoot GREAT photos - and I agree - we are all getting way too picky! But, if I had to asses it closely, I actually see more detail in the Canon shots... and the colour fringing on the Sony combo is off-putting (especially at 7:08 with the green fringe in background and purple/magenta fringe around logo on hat) and would take some extra time in post to correct? I think that is why Canon images are preferred 'straight out of the box'. I have to do very little in post to make the Canon image pop. In terms of the dynamic range issue, I think if anyone needs to recover more than what the Canon offers, they really need to re-shoot the image with correct exposure. I personally rarely recover more than half a stop.
Wow! I expected the RF 85 f1.2 to be better, but not THAT much better. Nicer blur, sharper, and more true to life (the Sony lens makes the face look flat compared to the RF 85 f1.2).
Also another thing you may notice is the Canon Lenses are warmer. Where Sony is a cooler more to real life. So it really comes down to what lenses you like better Check me on it Manny Rent a Canon L and MC11 use on both cameras see what happens
Thank you very much for this test, Manny. I really enjoyed it. The Canon RF lens is clearly superior in sharpness and it is also better corrected regarding chromatic aberrations than the 85 GM lens (not my cup of tea). So winner for the RF, in my opinion. About color and contrast I rather prefer Sony's rendering. And I also think that Sony's files have a greater dynamic latitude, as you pointed out. Do you have a Sigma 85 f1,4 Art E-mount at hand? From my own experience this lens is outstandingly sharp wide open, with far better CAs correction than the GM, and it has been blackfridayed to $799, a true bargain, in bold and capital letters. By the way, your X-Pro trigger has the connections cap very loose and it starts dancing at the slightest chance, exactly like mine, lol. I fixed it attaching a little piece of thin adhesive tape inside the 2,5mm sync jack hole. Waiting for your next vid... Best.
What settings were you using on the Canon? Looks like when you're looking at the back screen, the models skin turns golden brown after you snap the photos (the preview).
Coming from a Sony shooter, the Canon seemed noticably sharper to me. Anyone else agree or is it just in my head? With that being said, I didn't open the files and look for myself.
Thanks Manny for the great video, I was kind of shocked when I downloaded the 2 images and Canon is clearly sharper, I was surprised you didn't say anything about that. Even if you look at the logo on Diana's head it's much sharper on Canon. I shoot with A6400 and Canon 5DM4 and love them both.
12mp more than the Sony A7III of course. Now let him try that with the Sony A7RIII and you will see if that Canon lens still holds up against the 85 1.4 GM.
@@Kprawl291986 it's a 6k dollar camera stupid,. Canon has the same flagship camera, and soon to be released in 2020,. Eosr and Sony a7iii almost has a same price,. That's why it's a good comparison,. So stupid,.
when you say SOOC from lightroom was it imported with adobe color or camera standard? So many people say SOOC but just the standard import changes stuff like sharpness levels and colors. So unless both photos from each camera was imported with camera standards and not the stock adobe colors then its not truly SOOC . Correct me if im wrong but that was my understanding.
My question is if you stop down the 85 f1.2 to f1.4 how does it compare. And is the Sony less than 85mm or is the Canon more than 85mm. Right now im using the Sony 85 f1.8. Because i wanted small and light. And its optically good. But i also have an older Sigma 85 f1.4. From before the art lenses came out. If you can ever get your hands on one. I would love to see it compared to a GM. To see how a lens from around six years ago compares to a modern 85 f1.4 lens. Because I've always loved my old Sigma 85 f1.4. Its a Canon mount. At the time i bought it, i was testing it against the 85L. And it seemed like the image quality was 99% as good. But at a third of the price. And my sigma was smaller and lighter and focused faster.
"More depth of field" should more accurately be called "shallower depth of field" - "more" suggests a deeper plain of focus, which is the opposite of what you mean. But I love you and your videos.
As a former Chicagoan I can relate bro. Been at the pro shooting game now near 25 years. Been through all the top Canon, Nikon and even Sony bodies along the way with great glass. You summed it up perfectly. There IS indeed a "honeymoon" phase, then the reality hits after close examination. It's more about the tool and how it fits with your style. I'm also currently working with a Canon R finding it was maligned erroneously as well. But not sure it's THE camera I'll end up with. The next year should reveal a lot of advancements in new models and technology so just hang on and watch it happen.
Funny thing is, Sony colors look better in my eyes. Canon has an olive hue to the skin. The colors look very very similar these days, only until you put them side by side do you see differences. Otherwise both cameras are extremely capable.
that's really interesting! personally Sony's skin tones felt a little too magenta for me but I can definitely see how canon comes off a little more soft greenish especially in direct comparison
Manny I have the EOS R and I love it! I also found myself checking out the A7III to see if its what I wanted as a backup to my Canon. I had it for about a month and loved it. but for me you cant beat the Canon color science. yes the lens are more expensive, but I think it comes down to the person behind the camera and what your willing to spend. Im waiting to see what Sigma brings to the RF mount. at the end of the day I would own both cameras they are just that good for what I do.
The reason the bokeh looks near identical is that the Sony 85mm GM was very Bokeh "optimized". The Bokeh is more circular at the outer parts of the image, and the slight residual spherical aberrations let the bokeh appear more smooth. The Canon, on the other hand, was optimized for achieving F1.2 with great sharpness. The problem is that things like "cat eye" bokeh etc... is less corrected. That's why the background blur is nearly identical especially in the outer parts of the frame. With the Sony being 400g lighter and 1000$ cheaper I would take that as a win for the Sony
Cant believe im saying this, but the skintones on the sony actually looked nicer to me... the canon seems to have a bit of a yellow tint or was the wb changed? I really dislike glass with yellow tint (like the ef tamron 85 1.8 had too)
Great video Manny! Like how you just laid it on the ground with which camera one should buy. It shouldn’t be which camera is the greatest, but which camera best suit your needs. All camera brands has their ups and downs.
Question: Right before you click the photo, the display on both camera screens shows a brighter frame (almost blown out). But after you take the photo the pictures on display are much darker, more rich in color and more appealing. What is this attributed to? (the artificial lighting?)
I completely agree, the canon reds are too orange for me (noticeable in the lips). The WB in the final outdoor bokeh test made her look like a zombie with the overly cool tones. I don't care much about auto WB but still weird that it's so off under simple overcast lighting
As a Canon shooter I agree with you, the skin tones in the A7III remind me of the EOS 5D classic/1Ds mkII skin tones which were REALLY natural, later Canon went a bit nuts with the saturation of the red and orange. However I don't know why people keep using LR, ACR's color engine isn't nearly as good as Capture One's.
@@vonpotatostein Yes, its like worlds between, even sharpness is way better in Capture One, aswell as it has less noise and less artifacts when you push the files to the limit.
Your take is pretty much spot on with my opinion on the two when I tried EOS R and 5Div as a Sony A7iii/Riii shooter. (Been a Sony shooter since the Sony NEX-5n) As far as color, Sony has improved with Auto WB of skewing yellow and green casts of skin. It was so “off” it’s given Sony a bad rep that still hangs around today even though Sony’s current generation bodies are much improved and for the most part corrected this. You will still hear masses complain about Sony’s skin tone when in fact they are pretty close and even then close enough where it doesn’t take much editing to match if you are trying to match. That being said, Sony on a few of those shots look more “accurate” and not just “pleasing”. Pleasing doesn’t mean accurate. Dynamic range, this is something Sony has always had the advantage. Recovering shadows and highlights, there was just much more room in the Sony files. That doesn’t mean everyone needs the room especially in portraits. But it’s really nice in landscapes, high dynamic scenes, or extremely low light scenes. Bottom line you can’t go wrong with either system. Both produce fantastic image quality and if you can’t get great images out of these two or really any modern digital camera, it isn’t the cameras fault. I will add, that although I love the size, screen, and touch function of the EOS R, it still lacks on certain features that have me sticking to Sony. But that can change if Canon releases an updated version and of Sony sleeps on it. PS: @mannyortiz would have loved to see natural light compared as well in this vid.
I agree. I've shot Canon my entire life (15 years) and would have switched to Sony but I didn't like their bodies, and already had so much Canon glass; I got the EOS-R over the A7III mainly because of these reasons. The A7III has great specs, but I didn't like the body (and like Manny pointed out, the Sony LCD's aren't great). I'm more of a photoshopper/environmental shooter (not landscapes) so the slight dynamic range boost of the A7III would be nice, but then I would lose some resolution. And at the end of the day, the day to day experience of using the A7III for me wouldn't be as fun (it feels clunky). I wish the EOS-R had 120p HD video (don't shoot much 4K), and slightly better noise performance (the 5DIV seemed a bit better to me), but as of right now, the EOS-R is the best camera out there for me. I have the Sigma 85/1.4 and would never pay the crazy amount that Canon is asking for the RF lenses (except that RF 35/1.8 IS Macro is a beast and SUPER affordable).
Show me the Sony extra dynamic range in the 2 sample files Manny made available. There is actually more hair detail in the Canon image in the darkest shadow next to Dianna's face and when setting the shadow slider to maximum in Capture One Pro that difference increases.
77dris I can shoot both bodies with no complaints although I prefer to use a vertical battery grip on the Sony 99% and/or a Small Rig cage. I would probably do the same on the EOS R but I would say that I prefer the size and grip of the EOS R over the Sony. I’d say your existing glass and familiarity to Canon is what keeps you there the most. Which is perfectly acceptable and the route I’d go as well if I were you.
cooloox I can’t show you because I didn’t go through Manny’s files and don’t plan to. I’ve done the test myself numerous times and have come to the same conclusion (as did Manny). None of which is a big deal unless you make it as I’ve already said both cameras and brands produce great images.
MrCameraJunkie I think that's a big takeaway here because photographers are switching systems as often as some people change their socks. Advanced new gear is great but you can almost set your calendar and your watch to the next wave of "Time to Switch???" videos every 6-8 months as one manufacturer leapfrogs another. For heaven sake, people, if you've got a 85 1.4 GM lens go out and shoot the hell out of it. You are already 99.9% golden!
2:34 Sony just got chroma abberation (look on the green border at light behind her) :), Canon is just clear image and i think sharpness is better for Canon too :). But dynamic range is for Sony of course :).
I'm not sure if you notice or care about CAs/fringing on lenses, which is almost non-existent on that sexy 1.2 compare to the GM. Sometimes, if not most of the time a deciding factor. Anyway, which trigger is better to use between those 2 that you've used?
PSA. Getting “Maximum depth of field” is f22. Minimum depth of field is wide open. I know this seems like a weird / petty thing to point out but at this point it feels like so many creators don’t get that I have to say this. Also this video is great. Love the Sony 1.4 over the canon.
"the biggest difference b/w the two is sony's file has much more information." Though it's true that Sony has better DR, that's not comparing lenses, that's comparing bodies.
Sony has worse highlight roll off, punchier colors (red oranges), and way worse green aberrations. But, if they weren't side by side I don't think anyone would care or complain about either. RF glass is amazing. Thanks for the vid!
I used Camera Canon RP. I want to buy Len for my camera. I has to choose for buy : 1. EF Len 85mm F1.8 usm. 2. RF Len 35mm F1.8 macro. Any recommend for this choose ?
I love canon and personally use the R with the RF trinity but I honestly liked Sony skin tones looked better and canons skin tones in this were green? Especially in the shadows. However the Sony’s chromatic aberration in the highlights was noticeably worse than canons. Also you gain around 25% more light when shooting at f1.2 vs f1.4. This could be very helpful In low light
But unlike the 1.2 vs 1.4, the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is very noticeable. Check this link, www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/ scroll down and look at the images of different apertures of the same lens. They are all shot with RF 50 1.2 at f1.2 f1.4 f1.8 and f2. You can clearly see difference between 1.8 and 1.4, but no difference between 1.4 and 1.2.
@@Crutch456 I don't think so. The reason to invest in ultra fast aperture is to have sharper image at smaller aperture : 85mm 1.4 would be sharper at f2 than 85mm 1.8 at f2
That green color cast at 3:32 in the light from the sony is pretty ugly, aswell as the canon delivering noticebly more shallow backgrounds. Easy win for Canon this time I would say
For those who want a closer look at the files, I have 2 that you can download here: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t969ikG6FFP1hteOgg-7RY56omOQP3Tc?usp=sharing
Perfect, was just looking for this. Thanks!
Sony is a little more contrast in the settings to reduce contrast by 1 unit and there will be exactly the same picture as the canon
thank you Manny
Mladen Šćekić Awwwww I Wouldn’t say 10x Better!!!!Before Manny Said it,I was telling myself,The Skin Was looking a little Better on The Canon But is it Worth the Money?NOT!!!!!SPECIALLY When You too deep in to Sony...
Thanks for making this comparison - great job on keeping similar composition as well as model pose :D Files are really useful - could you please share a couple more? As far as lens comparison goes - Sony has much more color fringing while Canon has a bit more vignette. The field of view difference you mention @6:45 might have something to do with focus breathing, which some RF lenses have quite a lot. This means that at some focus distance FOV might actually match the other lens. Canon clipping highlights are noticeable even on the white shirt ... hopefully they release a better RF-mount camera soon!
I’m glad someone squashed the difference between the two and did it without any bias or favoring one brand.
Nah, its more like a Sony fanboy who can't get an f/1.2 playing it off like 1.2 is no big deal. I can argue you can't tell a difference between 1.8 and 1.4 too...
@@michaelbell75 he stepped down from being a sony ambassador so he could use other brands. I don't think this came out of being a fanboy, especially if he owns the canon as well.
@@michaelbell75 I don't want to get caught up in a stupid keyboard warrior session. But Manny stepped down from being a Sony ambassador. And he also owns a Canon and use to shoot with a canon.
Im sure if you shot with a different background and lighting situations, the 1.2 would be more significant. At the end of the day.. all that matters is what works best for you. Manny simply just threw out his opinion. As we're all entitled to.
Ariel Badeo but if your only argument is 1.4 is better because it’s $1k cheaper and you can get close to the look of the 1.4, I can make that same argument for 1.8 vs 1.4
@@michaelbell75 The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is very noticeable, but 1.2 and 1.4 has no difference at all. Check the comparison here: www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/
Out-of-focus highlights in the background show a green outlining on the Sony lens (longitudinal chromatic aberrations) whereas the Canon lens is perfectly corrected for these aberrrations.
Now go look at 3:49. It's in both.
@@anthonyc1883 No. That's a transiton to an overexposed green outdoor background.
Look at 7:08 th-cam.com/video/JHP5rLL1MVg/w-d-xo.html where you can see the difference.
The hat seems more detailed in the Canon even at wider aperture
@@rodrigogarcia2607 Yes, I see that too.
@SwitchRich yeah but the sum of all these little things that non photographers don't notice can make up for a great image. Also we love showing our photos to other photographers.
Are the files at 7:08 both unedited? The fringing on the Sony is pretty severe compared to the Canon. I'm a Sony shooter, still using some great Minolta glass so CA is something I see a LOT of, but if the Canon has no fringing at 1.2 at all, that's impressive!
Exactly. It's not the skin tones, it's fringing and overall sharpness.
Great video, agree and disagree on some points. Agree that in this age of photos being viewed almost exclusively online and often in the postcard sized windows of a smartphone, the difference between the f/1.4 Sony and the f/1.2 Canon is negligible. But disagree that the Canon lens wasn't actually markedly better. Most lens are not as sharp wide open and with the Canon it was sharper than the Sony at a wider aperture AND the background had more bokeh. That's a double whammy. Now whether that's worth an extra $1,000 in today's word of quickly consumed media, I'm not sure. A friend of mine has a theory that the subtle differences don't register consciously with viewers, but subconsciously, so they'll just like one photographer's photos better but can't articulate why.
which one do you think is better to buy?
But wouldn't "liking one photographers photos better subconsciously" mark it as the "better" lens+camera combo? if its noticeable even for a person who doesn't even know the difference between the two, wouldn't that make it markedly better?
Yes you are right, and I see chromatic aberrations on the Sony side...
is it just me or does really EOS-R's photos seems more sharper than A7iii's?
Canon lens is slightly sharper.
@@mariachi211 Na, I saw the other way round
It's clearly sharper even at f1.2
Just downloaded the files and Canon is clearly sharper, look at the logo on her forehead
@@johnnyburbano9690 Ha, just pulling your chain mate!
I'm not a photographer, but I like her face skin tone on the Canon picture, especially the closeups. As a brown female myself, I would prefer a photographer using that camera on me if I were doing makeup closeup shots especially.
I'm at the cross roads of jumping into mirrorless and this video certainly had an impact on my decision. Thanks Manny, looking forward to the next one.
I wish you could do a comparison on the sharpness difference because I have both combos and I find the EOS R with the 85 1.2 to be sharper
Both look great but the sharpness of the RF 85 1.2 is definitely superior. And colors and skin tones from the EOS R look more pleasing to my eyes (For example 7:07)- But again it's a preference thing but I can't say the RF is a $1000 dollars worth more than G Master. Can't go wrong with either system. Wish I had both. Great comparison Manny!
But how about at 6:07? She has a definite green/yellow tint in the Canon example.
@@anthonyc1883 If you take a closer look you can tell the shot from canon was a bit overexposed (Look at the orange on her skull cap) - which won't show the accurate representation of colors. Sony has more pink/magenta tint which again is not right or wrong and is purely a preference and can easily be tweaked to anyone's liking with 1 or 2 simple steps in Lightroom. :)
@@Musatainment Agreed. Easily tweaked, if someone even thinks it needs tweaking.
Anthony C Exactly. If a picture from either camera is in front of you by itself , you would be more than happy with it. Which is why I say you can’t go wrong with either or and it’s all preference :)
Appreciated you my man! Never miss a video! Bought my A7III based on your experience with it. Been loving it! Happy Holidays to you and your wife!
Andrew Wendt same here but I also was influenced by ycimage. Can’t go wrong with a a7iii
I think i go for the A7RIII
Diana trying to flirt with you and you're just like all in camera mode, lol. '100' is just not speaking your language. She's awesome. Love the whole dynamic between you two. Obviously made for each other.
When you say "maximum depth of field," I think you mean to say "shallowest depth of field." Maximum depth of field is what you get at f22 or something really high when you want to shoot landscapes and keep everything in focus. f1.2 bokeh is from shallow depth of field, blurring the background. Just want people to have the correct terminology :)
Yep he keeps saying more DOF when he means the complete opposite lol
I dunno Manny... this is the first time that I actually preferred the colors in the Sony than the Canon everytime you did the side-by-side shots 🤷🏻♂️
John Caberte same here
me to... def. sony better colors (to me)
yup! Canon looks more "natural" but not better. Sony colors look better here because its warmer. Canon looks more green. not worth $1,000 over
will you stop blubbering about colors. Color is as good as the preset in Manny's Lightroom (or as bad - if you are just using what Adobe's engineers included)
@@toosas These are SOOC, which means no edits at all. At least that's what it should mean.
I'm a simple man...I see Diana, I hit like.
'nuff said!
Agreed :) She's really something special.
Got the EOS R and the RF 85 F1.2. I don't even care what camera is better. They're so close like you said. If I got the A7iii with the 85GM, I'd ALWAYS be lusting after that red ring F 1.2... Went with my heart instead of my wallet and I'm a happy dude.
How’s it working now
@@HeresTheTale still shooting with the RF 1.2 primes and the Canon R and R6ii. Still love the system.
@@Chazyfizzlez damn, there’s so much info for these two, I’m having the worst time deciding, I was stuck on the a7 until I saw how many people love the canon comfort and color. I’m a beginner and want to shoot short films. Real tough.
@@HeresTheTale if you’re a beginner then you can’t really go wrong with either system. Canon’s new bodies have autofocus just as good as Sony. The video codecs are both good. Most people prefer canon because it’s easier to get a certain color profile that people tend to like. Take a little more work on Sony. It’s a tough choice since it’s a big investment but go with your gut and don’t look back. You’ll be happy either way.
Hey i'm gonna feel real dumb for asking this, but at 4:06 the screen on your camera(S) look like the photo would come out very white(ish)/colder looking, and more bright...
but soon as you take the actual photo it becomes darker and warmer and looks great, is that something to do with your settings?
I've never seen a camera do that, even on mine, on my Canon 90D and my Canon M50 they both show what i'm going to get before i take the photo, it doesn't change. Is that just something that those cameras do, i wouldn't imagine so but i don't know
It's because of the flash/strobe light!
Your wife is such a good sport! She makes me smile😊
Looks like the Sony has missed focus several times, which is surprising, considering the claims about its eye-AF
4:32 or 6:45 is where both seem correct 2:32 6:08 back focusing 5:41 is not focused on the nearest eye (maybe that is off on the Canon as well just seems less noticeable with the lack of CA) etc.
The Canon seems to be focusing much better, no point in getting a lens like this if it just fails to hit it 100% properly.
padam19 I agree. Why does nobody else point this out??
3:49, too. Looks like in the Sony version, the focus is slightly above her knit cap logo onto her hoodie.
I know it's been a long time since you posted this video but I'm looking forward to get the EOS R and this is the most helpful video I've ever watched , and lemme tell you something, I've been watching a lot of videos related to the EOS R. Thanks a lot Manny
How’s it going now
Hi Manny.... I'm torn between getting the Canon EOS R or the A7iii. The Canon is (was) slightly winning me over, due to the flip screen, and the ease of the menu...but looking at many IG photos of pics taken with a A7iii vs the EOS R, it looks like the Sony a7iii pics just have that extra sharpness and detail, while Canon photos look a tad softer. Just wanted to know if you observed this also or its just my imagination. At the end of the day, its the photo images that matter, not just menu usability or a flip screen, right?
Honestly, the Canon looks better to me side by side. This is why I'm switching back to Canon from Sony. Probably picking up the 85mm RF as well. The highlight roll-off is more pleasant and the micro contrast is looks amazing.
Not many people know about micro-contrast. It is one of the most important things for me. The other comment for me is the color. I shoot Canon because Canon has better color for dark skin. It looks more realistic with less editing. Both cameras and lenses are good but for pro work I’d go canon for the unique look.
@@ThreeCeeProductions There is no better lens for portrait than the 85mm 1.2, it’s simply the way it is, the best. Everything else is below, Sony has color problems.
6:39 you talk about having maximum depth of field with the Canon f/1.2L lens but actually to have *maximum depth of field* you would be shooting at f/64 or something like that.
I think what you meant to say is f/1.2 might provide a slightly more *shallow depth of field* compared to f/1.4.
Hi Manny, that was a great comparison. I downloaded the 2 sample images and viewed them side-by-side in Capture One Pro. I noticed a few things instantly: the Canon image is slightly sharper, the colours are much nicer (even the blacks are much richer black), the lens is very noticeably greater in focal length, the DOF is definitely noticeably shallower..... but here's the big one: you said there is much more information in the Sony files, yet the darkest shadow at the side of Dianna's face (where there is less detail in her hair) is noticeably more recoverable on the Canon image! Max out the shadow slider on each image and the Canon image shows more hair detail in the darkest shadows. There wasn't anything I could really recover in the highlights, but highlight recovery seemed similar on both cameras when setting highlight recovery to max. I am not seeing all this extra information in the Sony file you speak of? You just sold me on Canon in this photoshoot.
that's because Capture One handles highlight and shadow recovery way better than Lightroom
I love how you conveniently omitted the green tint in Canon image in your fanboy rant. How come you can see the hair strands but that horrible cast goes unnoticed?
Is it me or does the Canon EOS R look a tad bit sharper? Also I have a Sony A73 but love Canon L series lenses. I noticed Sony looks a little more contrasty which can be a personal thing if you like it.
Is this displayed in Lightroom or Capture One?
Again I have to say it is the software interpretation that gives you a version of the RAW file including the colours!
It actually has nothing to do with the Camera brand.
Mark Faust and if it were compared in a printed version you would complain about the paper, the ink, the printer, the humidity of the room, the state of the moon ...
@@labradorsin we are talking about pure facts. Just move a slider and the colour changes. There have been enough TH-cams doing colour matching.... so why is it possible? It is possible because there is no such thing as colour science in a RAW image.
ok finally ! The results are really similar, and the F1,2 i think its good but u can get cheaper lense and also has good quality!
BUT, when u zoomed pictures the sharpness on the face and colors are really better with canon !
@UCKrFnvTamRHkoH_zRAguzaQ 2:34 ( Look on the face and eyes carefully ), 4:25, 5:39, 6:06, 7:10 !
To be fair, the Canon also has 6MP more. So pictures naturally should look sharper on the same magnification of both pictures.
Interestingly some of the Canons are greener some times, sometimes the Sony. The variations of skin stones in different spots is more natural and true to life on Sony, but I do agree that the Canons even tonality and way of handling the skin tones in the different situations in more flattering - which tbf is more important in the end. But since the Sony has more room to play with, you should be able to match or even exceed it with knowhow.
I don't want to sound like a bad person but I think you should've mentioned that the 85 1.2 was sharper because some people would like a sharper lens and some wouldn't, I like a sharper lens sometimes and sometimes I go with something less sharp depending how I want to edit.
The Canon EOS R has 30 mp making it 12mp than the Sony A7III 24 mp. Therefore if he had the A7RIII it would also be a unfair comparison.
Several points have to do with the sensor and the lens, itself.
Hopefully, Canon will release another camera with better dynamic range than the EOS R, for environmental portraits where photographers want to play more with tonality.
However, this is a necessary test to make, and it's great how Manny did it.
Both combos are great and in postproduction you can get almost the same results, but ... In some photos it seems to me that Sony is not exactly focused (Canon always sharp) and then in the background lamps Sony creates a green corona (chromatic aberrations? like 7:08) and that's fail for me because it will have to be retouched.
Awesome video man! 1 question, picture profile in the A7III?
Yes
If you shot the pics in RAW, picture profile wont really matter tbh. Video? different story.
Just for clarification, F1.2 is not a maximum depth of field. Depth of field references how deep the focus area may be. To get the rich soft bokeh background the depth of field term would be a shallow or shallower depth of field. Maximum depth of field would reference a F22 setting. Just a side note, aperture setting is not the only way to adjust depth of field.
I agree Manny. The client won't be able to tell the difference between 1.4 and 1.2. Save $1,000 and just shoot at 1.4
Eddie Sanchez Agreed. It's great when any manufacturer pushes the limits. Great new gear is awesome, of course. But this lust for 1.2 "creamy bokeh" porn on lenses now costing $3K (!!), that are actually causing people to switch entire systems, is just nuts.
The photos are edited, that's why you don't see any difference,. GM 1.4 has worst purple frenging,. He just shoots at safe ambient,.
I still shoot a DSLR so forgive me if I'm not understanding mirrorless bodies. When I see your images on live view on those mirrorless bodies, the pre-shot while you are composing, look a lot brighter than the previewed images after you take the shot. I know you have flash in the preview images and daylight only in the pre-shot, but why is the pre shot showing a much brighter exposure? I would have expected the pre-shot view to show much darker.
For me, difference doesnt worth to pay more for 1.2, im happy with my budget but crazy Samyang AF 85mm 1.4 :D
I was hoping someone would say that :D
and for most, the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 isn't worth $1k either. So why are you overpaying for f/1.4?
@@michaelbell75 yes and no.... also 2.0 looks like 1.8.
2.2 looks like 2
2.2 is not like 1.2
so... it always depend from resources and priorities.
take what you can, and make the best out of it
@@bobceffo My point is, if the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 isn't worth $1k as the video claims, then the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is also not worth an extra $1k either right?
I might have underestimated your point ;)
somehow that would be logic (fakes Spock's attitude)
MANNY!!! Want/need the addicted Hoodie!!!! Where can i cop one?
To my surprise, Sony color looks warmer and nice and pleasant! Years ago, it was opposite, no? The Canon 85/1.2 is a Master Class lens though. Thanks Manny & Diana:)
Sony colors are up to par with gen 3 (ie. a7iii) and even better with gen 4 (ie. a7riv)
Yapp, Sony colors looks very nice and better than Canon in this comparison.
@@stkuj A7RIV has updated color science? Wasn't aware I figure it was the same as A7III if they didn't mention it. (I didn't hear them pimping it anyways) Curious to see if Venice makes it's way into their DSLR line up too, i've heard good things about it with their cinema line, would be cool if the A7IV got it as well.
In this experiment, the Canon looks better. The Sony pics looks orange, especially at 6:48. They are both nice cameras, the Canon just seems a little better.
@@Dante-qf9yd Seems like the beanie is more orange on Sony but the skin is more orangeish on Canon, but at least a consistent color across the face. Idk I cant really tell whats better tho, I don't really have a preference or usually see that stuff I guess. Not sure if im odd man out in this but when normal people watch videos I don't think i've ever heard anyone comment on skin tones, just how good the story/editing or video is in general. Most probably don;t care about skin tones or resolution or slightly better bokeh, it all just slightly adds to the overall delivery.
But these videos are still fun I love em:)
I get frustrated with Sony screen brightness and lack of touch screen. you commented on this in video. is the canon a lot better overall?
Thanx Manny!as you said i dont see much of difference as far as depth of field goes between 1.2 and 1.4.i for sure saw that canon was sharper and had cooler tone not only on skin but in general so i think it will be easy to adjust on lr or ps to make these pictures look alike. The only thing i didnt like about sony was ca especially around bokeh balls...but again it is something you could fix in post.thank you i enjoyed this comparison
Manny! I have an a6400 with the sigma trio but have an opportunity to buy the a7iii with an 85mm 1.8 for $1700. Would you recommend selling the a6400 + sigma trio?
I actually prefer the Sony images especially the one at 5:40.. Diana's right shoulder looked greenish on the Canon image...
wood nymph I thought the same thing. Even though I like one of the Canon photos better, before I looked at which photos was which, I picked the Sony one most of the time
Maybe it's the flash bouncing off the graffiti on the wall? Maybe It's acting like a gel light, lol.
pahwraith possibly lol but I liked most the Sony ones even when the Canon didn’t look a lil green. But they all look great
@@houstoninternationalmedia3408 I honestly couldn't tell a difference on my phone screen, if it wasn't labeled.
I like both. I think Sony has a cooler and more modern colors. Really good for city scenes in the dark.
Canon sensors and glass are a bit warmer, which I think so slightly better in some settings.
Again it's a super slight difference. Putting sigma art lenses on a Canon will give something closer to Sony colors.
I thought the same thing .....
Thanks for your work Manny, both shoot GREAT photos - and I agree - we are all getting way too picky! But, if I had to asses it closely, I actually see more detail in the Canon shots... and the colour fringing on the Sony combo is off-putting (especially at 7:08 with the green fringe in background and purple/magenta fringe around logo on hat) and would take some extra time in post to correct? I think that is why Canon images are preferred 'straight out of the box'. I have to do very little in post to make the Canon image pop. In terms of the dynamic range issue, I think if anyone needs to recover more than what the Canon offers, they really need to re-shoot the image with correct exposure. I personally rarely recover more than half a stop.
Wow! I expected the RF 85 f1.2 to be better, but not THAT much better. Nicer blur, sharper, and more true to life (the Sony lens makes the face look flat compared to the RF 85 f1.2).
It is not sharper the canon R has more megapixels so that is why it looks sharper.
Also another thing you may notice is the Canon Lenses are warmer. Where Sony is a cooler more to real life.
So it really comes down to what lenses you like better
Check me on it Manny
Rent a Canon L and MC11 use on both cameras see what happens
Thank you very much for this test, Manny. I really enjoyed it. The Canon RF lens is clearly superior in sharpness and it is also better corrected regarding chromatic aberrations than the 85 GM lens (not my cup of tea). So winner for the RF, in my opinion. About color and contrast I rather prefer Sony's rendering. And I also think that Sony's files have a greater dynamic latitude, as you pointed out. Do you have a Sigma 85 f1,4 Art E-mount at hand? From my own experience this lens is outstandingly sharp wide open, with far better CAs correction than the GM, and it has been blackfridayed to $799, a true bargain, in bold and capital letters.
By the way, your X-Pro trigger has the connections cap very loose and it starts dancing at the slightest chance, exactly like mine, lol. I fixed it attaching a little piece of thin adhesive tape inside the 2,5mm sync jack hole. Waiting for your next vid... Best.
That Sony GM did seem to have more CA's for sure.
What settings were you using on the Canon? Looks like when you're looking at the back screen, the models skin turns golden brown after you snap the photos (the preview).
The Canon feels so much better in the hand. I was blown away of the quality feel of the R and RF lenses.
Cant wait to get the rf trinity
Are you using the same trigger at the same time using both ???
And what brand do you recommend
Coming from a Sony shooter, the Canon seemed noticably sharper to me. Anyone else agree or is it just in my head? With that being said, I didn't open the files and look for myself.
Agree. The Canon is sharper but I do prefer (colder) Sony colors
@@instantesnet yep! Agreed. With that being said, the Canon 85 1.2 is an impressive lens that is definitely sharp!
Yes. The texture in her hat is sharper on Canon. Also no chromatic aberration. I prefer Canon colors but anyway that can be adjusted in post.
24mp vs 31mp. Thats why
@@YariJaluff ah yes good catch!
I would love to hear your thoughts on the Nikon 85 1.8s. ... I know it’s not 1.4 or less but please let us know your thoughts.
Thanks Manny for the great video, I was kind of shocked when I downloaded the 2 images and Canon is clearly sharper, I was surprised you didn't say anything about that. Even if you look at the logo on Diana's head it's much sharper on Canon. I shoot with A6400 and Canon 5DM4 and love them both.
12mp more than the Sony A7III of course. Now let him try that with the Sony A7RIII and you will see if that Canon lens still holds up against the 85 1.4 GM.
@@Kprawl291986 it's a 6k dollar camera stupid,. Canon has the same flagship camera, and soon to be released in 2020,. Eosr and Sony a7iii almost has a same price,. That's why it's a good comparison,. So stupid,.
kenji yamamoto Lol someone is really butt hurt.
when you say SOOC from lightroom was it imported with adobe color or camera standard? So many people say SOOC but just the standard import changes stuff like sharpness levels and colors. So unless both photos from each camera was imported with camera standards and not the stock adobe colors then its not truly SOOC . Correct me if im wrong but that was my understanding.
I've been a big fan of yours for a couple years now, Manny! When your new videos come up, I click!
My question is if you stop down the 85 f1.2 to f1.4 how does it compare. And is the Sony less than 85mm or is the Canon more than 85mm. Right now im using the Sony 85 f1.8. Because i wanted small and light. And its optically good. But i also have an older Sigma 85 f1.4. From before the art lenses came out. If you can ever get your hands on one. I would love to see it compared to a GM. To see how a lens from around six years ago compares to a modern 85 f1.4 lens. Because I've always loved my old Sigma 85 f1.4. Its a Canon mount. At the time i bought it, i was testing it against the 85L. And it seemed like the image quality was 99% as good. But at a third of the price. And my sigma was smaller and lighter and focused faster.
I love your videos bro. I'm not even a photographer like that and enjoy watching your process. 👏🤙
Which camera felt better in your hand, and which did you enjoy using more. Excellent image quality with both, IMHO. Thanks for posting.
Christ....the EOS R is insane. Wish i could afford it 😫
The RP is still fire
it’s not the EOS R... it’s rather the 85mm RF lens what brings the great results
just saying
Well the Sony is better with 1.4f lens.
Bárður Joensen
The 2.699,00 USD lens with the new R5 (which will be probably like 4.000,00 USD) will be even more insane
@@KAZUNARl yup!
May I ask what device are u using on the Canon R? And what does it do? What are the benefits? Thank u
"More depth of field" should more accurately be called "shallower depth of field" - "more" suggests a deeper plain of focus, which is the opposite of what you mean. But I love you and your videos.
You are 100 percent correct
As a former Chicagoan I can relate bro. Been at the pro shooting game now near 25 years. Been through all the top Canon, Nikon and even Sony bodies along the way with great glass. You summed it up perfectly. There IS indeed a "honeymoon" phase, then the reality hits after close examination. It's more about the tool and how it fits with your style. I'm also currently working with a Canon R finding it was maligned erroneously as well. But not sure it's THE camera I'll end up with. The next year should reveal a lot of advancements in new models and technology so just hang on and watch it happen.
Funny thing is, Sony colors look better in my eyes. Canon has an olive hue to the skin. The colors look very very similar these days, only until you put them side by side do you see differences. Otherwise both cameras are extremely capable.
that's really interesting! personally Sony's skin tones felt a little too magenta for me but I can definitely see how canon comes off a little more soft greenish especially in direct comparison
Manny do think the G-Master is worth the extra investment?
Would you do a review with the canon rp
What camera did you use to film in studio?
Manny I have the EOS R and I love it! I also found myself checking out the A7III to see if its what I wanted as a backup to my Canon. I had it for about a month and loved it. but for me you cant beat the Canon color science. yes the lens are more expensive, but I think it comes down to the person behind the camera and what your willing to spend. Im waiting to see what Sigma brings to the RF mount. at the end of the day I would own both cameras they are just that good for what I do.
Hello. For photography, I want to buy the Eos R I 90D instead. Does the Eos R produce beautiful photos? Thank you
The reason the bokeh looks near identical is that the Sony 85mm GM was very Bokeh "optimized". The Bokeh is more circular at the outer parts of the image, and the slight residual spherical aberrations let the bokeh appear more smooth.
The Canon, on the other hand, was optimized for achieving F1.2 with great sharpness. The problem is that things like "cat eye" bokeh etc... is less corrected. That's why the background blur is nearly identical especially in the outer parts of the frame.
With the Sony being 400g lighter and 1000$ cheaper I would take that as a win for the Sony
would be cool to see the new 85mm f/1.2 DS
9:42 "The Truthest a Photographer ever said" Thank you Manny !
Cant believe im saying this, but the skintones on the sony actually looked nicer to me... the canon seems to have a bit of a yellow tint or was the wb changed? I really dislike glass with yellow tint (like the ef tamron 85 1.8 had too)
I actually prefer the deeper more magenta color of the Sony images. The Canon's yellow hue looks weird to me.
Great video Manny! Like how you just laid it on the ground with which camera one should buy. It shouldn’t be which camera is the greatest, but which camera best suit your needs. All camera brands has their ups and downs.
Diana needs a mic :D
Question: Right before you click the photo, the display on both camera screens shows a brighter frame (almost blown out). But after you take the photo the pictures on display are much darker, more rich in color and more appealing. What is this attributed to? (the artificial lighting?)
That was really valuable. Thanks!
Now please compare the a7III and the a7rIV with the 85 1.4 G 😉
Hey Manny what type of lighting is that?
Nice comparison Manny. I actually preferred the skin tones of the Sony more than the Canon.
Usually I meet people with opposite stetment. However I think it depends on person.
I completely agree, the canon reds are too orange for me (noticeable in the lips). The WB in the final outdoor bokeh test made her look like a zombie with the overly cool tones. I don't care much about auto WB but still weird that it's so off under simple overcast lighting
canon made her look so green in the skin
As a Canon shooter I agree with you, the skin tones in the A7III remind me of the EOS 5D classic/1Ds mkII skin tones which were REALLY natural, later Canon went a bit nuts with the saturation of the red and orange.
However I don't know why people keep using LR, ACR's color engine isn't nearly as good as Capture One's.
@@vonpotatostein Yes, its like worlds between, even sharpness is way better in Capture One, aswell as it has less noise and less artifacts when you push the files to the limit.
There seems to be some highlight fringing with the Sony combo @2:32.
Finally, someone sees that green and purple fringing. :)
3:50
Your take is pretty much spot on with my opinion on the two when I tried EOS R and 5Div as a Sony A7iii/Riii shooter. (Been a Sony shooter since the Sony NEX-5n)
As far as color, Sony has improved with Auto WB of skewing yellow and green casts of skin. It was so “off” it’s given Sony a bad rep that still hangs around today even though Sony’s current generation bodies are much improved and for the most part corrected this. You will still hear masses complain about Sony’s skin tone when in fact they are pretty close and even then close enough where it doesn’t take much editing to match if you are trying to match. That being said, Sony on a few of those shots look more “accurate” and not just “pleasing”. Pleasing doesn’t mean accurate.
Dynamic range, this is something Sony has always had the advantage. Recovering shadows and highlights, there was just much more room in the Sony files. That doesn’t mean everyone needs the room especially in portraits. But it’s really nice in landscapes, high dynamic scenes, or extremely low light scenes.
Bottom line you can’t go wrong with either system. Both produce fantastic image quality and if you can’t get great images out of these two or really any modern digital camera, it isn’t the cameras fault. I will add, that although I love the size, screen, and touch function of the EOS R, it still lacks on certain features that have me sticking to Sony. But that can change if Canon releases an updated version and of Sony sleeps on it.
PS: @mannyortiz would have loved to see natural light compared as well in this vid.
I agree. I've shot Canon my entire life (15 years) and would have switched to Sony but I didn't like their bodies, and already had so much Canon glass; I got the EOS-R over the A7III mainly because of these reasons. The A7III has great specs, but I didn't like the body (and like Manny pointed out, the Sony LCD's aren't great). I'm more of a photoshopper/environmental shooter (not landscapes) so the slight dynamic range boost of the A7III would be nice, but then I would lose some resolution. And at the end of the day, the day to day experience of using the A7III for me wouldn't be as fun (it feels clunky). I wish the EOS-R had 120p HD video (don't shoot much 4K), and slightly better noise performance (the 5DIV seemed a bit better to me), but as of right now, the EOS-R is the best camera out there for me. I have the Sigma 85/1.4 and would never pay the crazy amount that Canon is asking for the RF lenses (except that RF 35/1.8 IS Macro is a beast and SUPER affordable).
Show me the Sony extra dynamic range in the 2 sample files Manny made available. There is actually more hair detail in the Canon image in the darkest shadow next to Dianna's face and when setting the shadow slider to maximum in Capture One Pro that difference increases.
77dris I can shoot both bodies with no complaints although I prefer to use a vertical battery grip on the Sony 99% and/or a Small Rig cage. I would probably do the same on the EOS R but I would say that I prefer the size and grip of the EOS R over the Sony.
I’d say your existing glass and familiarity to Canon is what keeps you there the most. Which is perfectly acceptable and the route I’d go as well if I were you.
cooloox I can’t show you because I didn’t go through Manny’s files and don’t plan to. I’ve done the test myself numerous times and have come to the same conclusion (as did Manny). None of which is a big deal unless you make it as I’ve already said both cameras and brands produce great images.
Thanks for the comparison. I agree in not changing everthing for a f/1.2 aperture.
MrCameraJunkie I think that's a big takeaway here because photographers are switching systems as often as some people change their socks. Advanced new gear is great but you can almost set your calendar and your watch to the next wave of "Time to Switch???" videos every 6-8 months as one manufacturer leapfrogs another. For heaven sake, people, if you've got a 85 1.4 GM lens go out and shoot the hell out of it. You are already 99.9% golden!
I liked the sony colors ob skin way more the canon ones were more green and everything the same color and on the sony it was much more natural i think
sony A73 have better on skintone
I thought I was the only one...and I shoot with the R 🤣
2:34 Sony just got chroma abberation (look on the green border at light behind her) :), Canon is just clear image and i think sharpness is better for Canon too :). But dynamic range is for Sony of course :).
I'm a simple man, I see a new Manny Ortiz video, I click it
I guess im in the same boat!!!
Jinx lol.
I'm not sure if you notice or care about CAs/fringing on lenses, which is almost non-existent on that sexy 1.2 compare to the GM. Sometimes, if not most of the time a deciding factor.
Anyway, which trigger is better to use between those 2 that you've used?
Love both but really enjoy the Sony combo. Hard to beat the 85mm
PSA. Getting “Maximum depth of field” is f22. Minimum depth of field is wide open. I know this seems like a weird / petty thing to point out but at this point it feels like so many creators don’t get that I have to say this. Also this video is great. Love the Sony 1.4 over the canon.
Sounds like the Canon is better in quality. But I understand that price is also a factor.
So glad to see my girl back in the game. Missed her. Hope you all had a very Happy Thanksgiving.
"the biggest difference b/w the two is sony's file has much more information." Though it's true that Sony has better DR, that's not comparing lenses, that's comparing bodies.
John Cho he said he wasn’t going to compare lenses lol
@@Eye4eye007 um read the title. And the whole content he talks about 85 1.2 vs 85 1.4 so...
Great video man
Which combo do you like more.?
Sony has worse highlight roll off, punchier colors (red oranges), and way worse green aberrations. But, if they weren't side by side I don't think anyone would care or complain about either. RF glass is amazing. Thanks for the vid!
I used Camera Canon RP. I want to buy Len for my camera. I has to choose for buy : 1. EF Len 85mm F1.8 usm. 2. RF Len 35mm F1.8 macro. Any recommend for this choose ?
"I'm 💯" lmao. Great vid as always!
I love canon and personally use the R with the RF trinity but I honestly liked Sony skin tones looked better and canons skin tones in this were green? Especially in the shadows. However the Sony’s chromatic aberration in the highlights was noticeably worse than canons. Also you gain around 25% more light when shooting at f1.2 vs f1.4. This could be very helpful In low light
Now imagine using a 1.8f lens and saving even mo monies :)
But unlike the 1.2 vs 1.4, the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is very noticeable.
Check this link,
www.cameralabs.com/canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/ scroll down and look at the images of different apertures of the same lens. They are all shot with RF 50 1.2 at f1.2 f1.4 f1.8 and f2. You can clearly see difference between 1.8 and 1.4, but no difference between 1.4 and 1.2.
It would be sharper with the cheaper 1.8
The RF 35 1.8 is a brilliant lens for the price!
@@Crutch456 I don't think so. The reason to invest in ultra fast aperture is to have sharper image at smaller aperture : 85mm 1.4 would be sharper at f2 than 85mm 1.8 at f2
@@dimlubin1188 True that
Hei my 50mm f1.8 + viltrox m2 on canon m50 goes to f1.2 and thats a 800€ config body and lens something is not right?
I absolutely love my canon EOSR after coming from Sony A7r2!
Great comparison Manny! But it was noticing a little chromatic aberation (2:33) particularly in the lights.
That green color cast at 3:32 in the light from the sony is pretty ugly, aswell as the canon delivering noticebly more shallow backgrounds.
Easy win for Canon this time I would say
Yeah, I thought so, too. It could be a chromatic aberration at Sony. But we don't know if the colour of the light just changed.
i am confused plz suggest z6 or a7iii who is best in photography? plz plz..
The Canon images appear to have more green in them...
The colour science has definitely changed to be more green
Manny, why is the video such a low quality at 1080?