Get your Squarespace site free trial with NO CREDIT CARD needed! squarespace.com/maxyuryev Lens used on R5 (Amazon)➡ geni.us/dAPtCC Lens used on A7S III (Amazon)➡ geni.us/qYIi Order an A7s3 ➡ bhpho.to/2CWAHMH Order an R5 ➡ bhpho.to/3fe0sWM
Which specific correction LUT did you use on the SLOG3 footage to convert it to rec.709? And which color space are using with your SLOG3? S-Gamut3.Cine or S-Gamut3?
2010SLP I’m using the build in one way that comes with FCX. They have multiple options and for slog 3 they have one for cine and one without. I’m shooting and using the cine lut.
@@MaksimYuryev One tip I learning for the R5...using 8K RAW + Clog gives you more dynamic range than RAW alone. More info is preserved in the highlights in my tests.
@@MaksimYuryev But did you have RAW and CLOG active in-camera while recording? Or just convert to Clog in post? Dan Watson pointed this out in his video...and confused me a bit...but seems he's correct when I looked at my Final Cut scope, RAW alone in-camera doesn't give you as much range as the two combined while filming. Highlights are clipped without Clog in-camera. I always assumed RAW was everything the sensor could record.
There is pretty clearly an advantage to the Sony, but the shot of the path that seems to have very different lighting between the two cameras. I don't doubt that the Sony has the edge but it's lighting has so many more shadows on the pathway I'm not sure this shot is telling us much.
Sony has never had better highlight roll off just better shadow dynamic range. Highlight roll off has always been better on the canon. The path is way off.
Lots of people shit talking both cameras when the fact of the matter is, most of the people buying either of these will have no idea how to properly use them to their full potential. There are people on youtube shooting with cinema cameras and their work looks like it was shot on a T3i. The bottom line is, buy the camera that suits your needs and call it a day. Learn to use your camera, and no one will tell the difference as to whether it was shot on an R5 or a7siii. They are both great.
I'm guessing most people who actually end up buying these cameras do mostly know what they're doing. But the problem with youtubers is they are making youtube videos, not high end commercial videos. So their work usually is reflected in a lack of personal and client scrutiny that is required to push your work forward. Some people just like getting the 'best thing' or playing around with tech. which is fine, just not very informative. But yeah, totally agree. I've watched so many Blackmagic 6k vs A7iii videos to see if it's worth me upgrading, and they always look terrible, because they're inevitably moving up from mirrorless to cinema and aren't good yet. And then you'll see a professional use a Sony and it looks amazing (usually at golden hour though). Skill is a huge factor, but the problem is, mirrorless cameras have a very distinct ceiling on what you can get out of them. If you light perfectly and set everything perfectly, you can make them look amazing. But if one little thing goes wrong, they can sometimes look absolutely dreadful. Whereas often a cinema camera (when you know what you're doing) can be more forgiving or seem more deliberate. I've seen Arri Alexa footage of like a garden or something, and it just looks like a basic mirrorless camera, because it's a boring shot that doesn't show the advantages of using a cinema camera. The problem with the R5 is that it is good, but Max is using the HQ mode in these test shots, or even comparing RAW. None of which are useable settings. So the R5 is better apart from the fact it's not, because you wouldn't use that mode unless you're literally take 30 sec shots at a time. And it is worth mentioning the dynamic range sucks unless you use c log. Whereas the Sony actually looks really good at standard already, and would be acceptable to a lot of small to medium budget shots. The R5 is not, and sucks apart from good lighting situations. So in context, the R5 is very problematic and is something to remember. A part of being skilled and experienced is knowing what stresses are worth it, and which aren't. There's no need to stress over dynamic range or colour, just get the better camera if you can. Don't fuss about these things, get the better camera. Stress about story, direction, lighting, audio. Choose your battles. And to me, the R5 is only on par with the a7siii and is more stressful to make it happen, and is therefore is a big no.
@Gap not on 'commercial shoots' but I have experimented on jobs where you have to film things that are happening and you're not controlling the situation, using the a7iii. It was OK but there were a few shots where the wrong thing was blown out or whatever when it wouldn't have been on slog. But the a7siii looks solid. The dynamic range (in these shots at least) looks genuinely good enough to use, again, for rushed jobs or extremely fast paced environments. I wouldn't do it when I needed creative control over the colours.
@@jambononi Thanks for your full take on dynamic range. What are your thoughts in comparison to the Panasonic S1H? www.cined.com/panasonic-s1h-lab-test-dynamic-range-and-rolling-shutter-results/
I can't help but feel that Canon's approach is (and has been) getting pleasing results and an easy experience no matter who's hands the camera is in. People always mention "Canon colours!", and I think Canon do always have a Canon-look, whether desired or not. Sony, otoh, has been on a more technically innovative crusade, pushing more functional boundaries for those who want to develop their own look, which may mean not as pleasing defaults shot oob, but gives a broader canvas to work with.
Did anyone notice in the 4:08 the tree shadows on the street are NOT the same !! that means it taken on different times of the day, and they gave the best time for Sony (More tree shadows on the street). I'm a Sony guy but this is kina not fair compression..
R5 in RAW uses CLOG 2 gamma & smokes the a7siii, I've used both. The R5 is also getting a lighter RAW codec in Nov and CLOG 2 & 3 for all modes. A7siii uses aggressive NR for its lowlight and still has gross green and yellows in skintone highlights. You also can't use it as a decent hybrid, because the MP are too low.
@@lvrvisuals7800 low light is also a matter of lenses. I personally shoot video using a 5D MkIV without Clog installed 🤣 and I charge 400$/h of shooting when dealing with commercials and ads for companies/brands. I’m booked all year round and I don’t suffer of “oh no, i have no DR, please help” excuse when I could upgrade to a Red camera and cinema lenses at any time, but why would I need that when my income is still flowing well with the current equipment and I still get new customers who wants to work with me exclusively because they liked my past work/portfolio.
From what I notice by first glance, some of the tests are flawed because the shots are at two different times (clouds, whatever) such as the shots at 2:18 .
77dris that’s funny because everyone i see is complaining about a magenta tint. I think Sony upped the magenta’s because their old ones had a green tint. But Parker Walbeck is such a canon wanker. The siii heavily outclasses the 1dx iii he uses and it only had a few advantages while losing out on a lot others. We knew from the beginning he was going to keep his canon. He has too much canon glass and built his platform with canons.
@@RiceCubeTech i get amazing colors on sony and don't understand what people are crying about. If you don't know what you are doing and throwing the camera on auto white balance or don't compensate for the green with magenta on your forest scene with lots of green trees around what do you expect?
Good point and I think Max tries to show unedited and edited footage. Personally I felt the color contrast on the Sony was more pleasing. How about yourself?
8:10 This image reveals the differences nicely because its tonal range is high. The Canon image slightly clips both highlights and shadows equally in a good exposure; the Sony is slightly underexposed, but still avoids clipping in shadows. This reveals good tonal (grayscale) latitude for the Sony that retains more editing options than the Canon that's slightly 'blown-out' in the extremes of image exposure. But then there's *color!* The Canon records the colors with subtlety and fidelity that are much better than the Sony. The Sony has decent blue response, but red & green are too saturated. Post-processing to get colors right can be a nightmare because it involves *two* variables; tone and chroma. Between these two cameras, the Canon has an edge for the photographer who can control lighting and exposure for simpler post-processing success.
Hi Simkinetics, I make a living here in Europe shooting video/ads,comm for various businesses/brands using a 5D MkIV *without* the CLog profile installed (which comes only at a cost), on a gimbal with some nice L lenses. I never had a customer complain about dynamic range and on the contrary I get a lot of new other customers based on my actually results/resume which keeps catching the eye of many other businesses once they come across my work. I do shoot different built in profiles based on the kind of elements that will sit in my framing (portrait mode for people/interviews, faithful mode when shooting food/steak/etc.) and I rarely do any color grading, maybe a touch of contrast and other subtleties here and there since flexibility isn’t an option. I do my homework and chase good ideas before the shooting, I do use multiple lighting and soft boxes and frame/expose my shots really well. Did DR ever cause me issues from a business perspective? Never! I know people who own an a7s3 or R5 who still haven’t reached one paycheque yet or other pros not doing so well earnings-wise and pestering me with the same “how do you get more customers?” questions, or even worse: one R5 shooter told me his customer complained about the final video result, without elaborating their dissatisfaction, under a simple “it’s not good enough, we can’t pinpoint at the reason why but maybe it needs more work”. Guess what he thought the culprit was: Lack of DR 🤦🏻♂️ 🤣. Then I had a look at his rejected work and I saw what was wrong. It had absolutely nothing to do with dynamic range. Light positioning was off, really bad framing, either too upclose at times, lacklustre gimbal movements, etc. DR isn’t as important when you tick ✔️ every other aspect that the final result needs. Good DR can’t replace an actor’s face, nor the budget, nor the soft lighting, nor the knowledge and skill. Is it handy? Of course! I wouldn’t shoot an actual Hollywood movie without great DR, but for certain other types of work it’s definitely not as essential.
These match my findings in the tests that I've done, as well. Since I'm always in Log with either camera, and never the standard profiles,, they are very close for all practical purposes. In the most extreme cases, Sony has a little more dynamic range. But I expose each to protect the highlights and just bring up the shadows in post. I've found the Canon to have finer grain and actually be cleaner through 6400 ISO, so we can basically get equally good results from either. Thanks for sharing. Cheers!
The Sony dynamic range is amazing, however the noise on the piano at 7:03 was awful looking. The blown out segments of the canon was much more tolerable than the sony noise on the piano.
The thing is it's not the R5 performing poorly. It's the lack of C-Log3. We already know that C-Log1 cannot utilize the R5's full range so I don't really know why people blow this out of proportion so much. Wait till C-Log3 comes and I would bet it will be a lot closer. I'm sure the Sony will still edge ahead but not by much.
the RAW files show an identical story. The data simply isn't there - compared to a7-III the dynamic range is 2-3 stops less (Blacks crush very rapidly, even worse at higher ISOs and the highlights are unrecoverable most of the time once hitting pure white). Im editing the a7-III and R5 images side by side and the differences are night and day.
Check the skintones at 04:52. Evidently the A7SIII shines here. Her face has much less contrast and looks more natural. This also is a result of the Sony's extended dynamic range. The Dynamic Range on the R5 is worse than the Sony A7s Mark I
I only use dci with my r5 and is awesome because only with Dci 4096x2160 you get true 24fps. 3840x2160 is 23,976 drop frame. Also dci is movie industry requirements
You need to shoot 8kRAW and switch to CLOG 2 in premiere. (its only possible in RAW right now). Should give you another two stops. Tested the other day. Saved a little more of the highlights. Thanks for doing this video! Good to see the differences in profiles!
But what if high FPS is more required for a certain application (slo mo type of speed ramps)? Then 8K would be useless for such scenario but I’d rather like my camera to have it than not.
Have no idea what you are doing with the R5 RAW, but I saw a huge difference between 8k RAW and 4k HQ when I shoot on my R5. At least in Davinci resolve you can set in the RAW settings clog, clog 2 and clog 3, you can also change the ISO settings afterwards, you can play with the highlights and the shadows like with a RAW Photo and you (at least I) destroy the 4h HQ dynamic range of my r5. I have no sony to direct compare it, but when you write the 8k RAW is just a little better than the 4k HQ, then I guess you are doing something wrong. The difference in the dynamic range is the reason why I try mainly to shoot in 8k RAW and why I have no space on my computer and also why I have to buy more storage... I agree that without RAW the dynamic range on the r5 is not so good, but in RAW I absolutely disagree with your conclusion.
@@MichaelRichards983 have you tryed 8k RAW and you worked with that in davinci resolve? But ok after your answer I'll have to make a video to compare the R5 4k HQ clog with the R5 8k RAW and the workflow in davinci resolve. I hope my first findings are not skewd, but instead of words a video will prove your or (I hope) my first findings. I have to say that before I found out how to get to the RAW settings in davinci resolve, my thoughts had been similar to yours, but after the RAW access my opinion changed from ist ok to its WAU (for a dslm).
I know exactly what are you talking about, I have the R5 and in 8k raw clog 2 the dynamic range is actually much higher than the rest of the resolutions, and it smokes the Sony dynamic range. This guy doesn’t know or not want to show the r5 true potential.
So why do these images look nothing at all like my R5? ...not even close. Make sure you are shooting in 4K HQ mode not standard as Standard 4k is about half the Quality of HQ mode, there are a few YT vids on the difference between the 2.
How could he shoot the whole review in 4KHQ when the R5 overheats within 25mins in that mode... Realistically it's impossible to do a day's shoot with a single R5 in HQ or 8K mode.
I never understand this kind of testing. Like, in the 'real estate scenario' the driveway is blown out. Why? The camera has a histogram. Don't blow out the highlights and compare the final image or the workflow. I get the option to use both at my work (r5 and fx3) and while the workflow is different, I find I get wait better shadow recovery in CLog3. So I just expose for highlights and never worry about it. I'm sure there's a reason people test this way but if one of the guys at my work presented a product with blown highlights and blamed dynamic range, I don't think they'd be working with me for very long
I am a professional photo editor that usually edits his own A7-III images. A client with an R5 asked me to do a large number of edits and I notice how the blacks are crushed very rapidly (and not very recoverable in RAW). Worse, the highlights are practically DOA : If they're blown out to white, then even highlight recovery often gives very very minimal results beyond that. It's very disappointing compared to the A7-III in terms of recoverable shadows and highlights.
Great video, thanks! I've been playing with the R5 profiles. Canon offers a free editor that lets you tweak them and push shadows/highlights. I had similar results as you using Standard. But after lifting the shadows with a simple S-curve, the results were dramatically improved. I was really surprised at how much detail came back. I also shoot 8K+MP4 (proxy)...and the proxies with the edited profile rival the 8K original.
No surprise about the dynamic range from the SONY. On a different note though, if both of your shots were shot handheld, the IS on the R5 is incredible.
Maybe. Although it's exponential because every stop is double the amount of light in real terms so potentially a 2 stop advantage allows for four times the amount of light.
Future firmware upgrade due likely in November for Canon R5 - Canon Cinema RAW light addition - 1080p @ 120fps - C-Log 2 and 3 (this will greatly enhance Dynamic Range) One big issue here that has been commented on is how much Canon wishes to enhance their video quality and specs. Canon is BIG in the Cinema space with the Canon C300 Mark III and the great full-frame Canon C500 Mark II at $16,000 USD. If you want KILLER Dynamic Range then get the C500 Mark II plus a boatload of other cinema features that are amazing. One thing that I don't think anybody denies is Canon color science is at a top tier level. - Bug fixes - Enhancement to temperature control - There are comments on more codecs being worked on One thing that needs to be mentioned, the Canon R5 is FIRST a Photographic (stills) camera and by the way, it also does very good video. Canon marketing got a little ahead of themselves. The R5 is the BEST mirrorless stills camera on the market today. And it can hold up pretty well in the video space. You want dominant high-quality level video then get a Canon C300 Mark III or C500 Mark II.
Something that I didn't see many people address is the fact that the A7S3 is the first Sony Camera that not only placed the Base ISO lower for Slog3 (at 640), but it also allows you to go even lower, to an extended rage. Now they say that going into that range costs a little bit of Dynamic Range. But I want to know how much DR is lost. Is it noticeable? Is it useful if you just want that extra Stop lower, because your ND only starts from 2 stops and you just need 1? Or is it better to put on the 2 stop ND and go ISO 800 to achieve the same result?
On paper is one thing but in reality, they seem to be very close. BTW Did you interpret the R5 footage as CLOG 2 in RAW ? I believe that would’ve given you better results in RAW.
Looks like the white balance is a bit off. A lot of Canon footage are tinted towards magenta whereas the Sony towards green. And in the rest of the footage, vice versa.
Can you please do an iso comparison with with the a7iii and a7siii like in the past with the a7sii and a7iii? Nobody out here has made one, or I haven't found it, where they find the highest usable iso. Usable as in usable footage that is
I don’t think you can give a true test of dynamic range by just dropping REC709 luts onto the footage, I’m not sure if that’s what you did but you need to treat each shot as it’s own entity and grade it from the ground up to get the most out of it.
@@MaksimYuryev Expose both cameras and protect the highlights and then grade the LOG footage from scratch, depending on what NLE you are using a REC709 transform can clip the highlight detail before the secondary correction and there is no bringing it back.
Sorry, the Canon has clearly worser dynamic range when you see the shadow details on the video with the windows and interior, the wood on the tables looks much much more finer and better, when it comes down to shadow details. Also the Canon post grading looks way too much unnatural, it is the typical Canon 12-13 bits pushed via post processing looks like their photographs. There is clearly 1-2 stops dynamic range advantage on the Sony like all the DxO Mark tests for years. When people are saying different things they lie. The truth is Canon will be behind for years, their image sensor tech is clearly behind. There is a reason why on every technological aspect Sony is quite common used for professional filming especially with their CineAlta film cameras for Hollywood film and Netflix series and film use alongside other companies like Arri and others and not Canon for serious film productions.
One thing that really hurt Canon initially was only including C-log and not C-log 3. Newer firmware has added C-log 3 but a lot of time damage was already done in terms of building a bad reputation for dynamic range. It’s still not the best but I find a lot all comes down to camera processing. We measure DR a lot of times in terms of noise. Sony uses a lot of in camera noise reduction to help extend S-log 3 to see more into the shadows and have less noise. A lot of these cameras when comparing raw are much closer than we think. Raw has more noise but the point is no crappy in camera noise reduction. We can use better noise reduction in post. There are different log formats for a reason. C-log 1 is more like S-log 1. Both of which were designed for 8bit lower range sensors. Comparing C-log to S-log 3 isn’t exactly a apples to apples comparison. Slog 3 and C-log 2 are log curves designed for a more than 13 stops of range extending as high as 16 stops potentially. The 10bit point of the curve is much lower for both log formats meaning they dig into the shadows more. They also dip more into the noise floor meaning more noise because of this. Cameras like the A7S 3 use in camera noise reduction to help that look better. It is a cleaner sensor however due to only having 4K resolution. The difference once you compare 8k raw C-log 2 using NeatVideo in post however is a lot closer than people think. This is why the R5C internal video feels a lot cleaner and has a lot more dynamic range than the R5. Both use the exact same sensor and DSP. The main difference is the R5C has an active cooler meaning it can use more sophisticated noise reduction in camera. That’s how it’s able to get almost 1.5 more stops of DR over the R5. R5 raw can do the same thing with good post noise reduction. Just takes more time and effort. Raw video form both cameras are pretty identical. Raw video from a A7S 3 doesn’t look as clean either. So yes some cameras out of the box with internal formats can look better. When comparing similar log formats and raw where we get to use the same amount of noise reduction in post all cameras end up being a lot closer than we realize. Besides this is all splitting hairs anyway. A shot should be exposed properly. Protecting highlights is even an odd notion because they likely are not all that important. For example an open window for an indoor interview where someone insists putting the open window in the shot. 12 stops or 14 stops that window still looks like crap. It’s an unbalanced level of exposure and that window becomes a focal point for the eye instead of the subject speaking. It’s just bad composition. It’s ok to let the background clip because the subject is what ultimately matters. If you want to balance the shot better then light the subject to better match the background. Even photographers use flash or reflectors to help fill in situations like that and create a better balance between the subject, foreground and background. Lighting is the key to cinematography. It’s not how much a sensor can do on its own. A good sensor is important of course but we need to stop over emphasizing details that are not really all that important or not a true apples to apples comparison. Higher dynamic range means better rolloff on either end and more flexibility to fix something. It’s not an indicator of one camera being worse than another. Even for HDR delivery the R5 has more range than we can fit into a HDR 1000 or even HDR 2000 delivery. For rec709 it has way more stops than what are possible to see without looking like a lite log format and super flat. We need to emphasize better exposing and lighting and not if camera A gets 0.2 more stops of range which is likely a pointless stop to have anyway. The way log curves work is at the very bottom of the curve there are very few 10bit values used for those stops. Sometimes only 3-5 10bit samples. This is in comparison to the upper stops that may have over 75 10bit samples. Even if a log format has an extra stop of detail down there it’s likely so insignificant it’s really bad to try to lift it up and not get banding or other artifacts. Lifting up that last stop isn’t going 5o make or break a shot that was badly exposed. In some cases maybe it can save the day. It we are talking really poor details down there and they really should not be lifted very high. A bit cleaner garbage is still garbage. Just like a slightly less blown out window is still a blown out window. We are obsessing over a measurement that actually has very little meaning. C-log and c-log 3 see less shadow detail because the shadow curve tapers off much earlier than S-log 3 does. That’s it. The darks are clipped sooner. Has nothing to do with the sensors themselves. That’s why even with the noise it’s better to use C-log 2 raw on the R5. That’s the more accurate comparison to S-log 3.
Actually, R5 with 45mp sensor, this much dynamic range is not bad I think.. R5 fought well with A7SIII's 12mp sensor, specially made for video work.. Sony's dynamic range is really good, as always.. Also, I'm impressed by Canon R5, the great all rounder camera.. R5 is one of the best camera for photography ❤️...
This is super interesting for someone trying to explain to his wife about dynamic range and how 2 of the best current cameras compare. Much appreciated also are your honesty and impartial statements. We (my wife and I) noted that in the interior footage (e.g. 8:06), while the highlights are blown-up with the canon and slightly better with the sony, the wood on the left part of the piano is slightly better with the canon. The tree on the right hand side looks slightly more natural (more contrasty and greener) with the canon. All in all, without such side by side comparison, it would be hard to tell that the Sony is better than the Canon or vice versa. What counts, and you show it superbly, is who is shooting and how well is the camera mastered.
when you edit the RAW files the difference is night and day. The R5 files have basically no recoverable highlight data beyond overexposure and the shadows are crushed. A7-III is 2-3 stops ahead when pushed to the limits in good RAW software, unfortunately.
You need to change RAW to C-log2 to get the full dynamic range of the sensor. C-Log1 caps at about 11 stops. In Resolve, you have the ability to pick which C-log version you want in the RAW tab (note: clog2 has more DR than clog3). Still, I expect the Sony to have more DR. Regarding colors, the Canon wins, unless you shoot HLG3 with the Sony (with the rec709 color profile). HLG is highly standardize, so Sony can't destroy the colors and get brown/green tints as it does with s-log.
Also I didn’t see any DR different between using C log 2 or 3. I know 2 can contain 1 extra stop of DR but I think because the camera sensor is the limitation not the log format.
Sony, protect the highlights and live ever happy 😃. Usually shadow look too dark on the tiny screen, but all the details are there when you go to your computer!
I was wondering what your exposing strategies are? Are you exposing for the same anchor point like a grey card or skin tone for each camera? If not, the results mean pretty much nothing in most cases as you can always adjust them to look roughly the same unless absolutely clipped. I’d be curious to see both cameras exposing to the same back lit face according to official guideline(skin peaks at around 60ire, or middle grey at 41ire for slog3 which I’m familiar with) , then corrected with official luts and nothing more. That would be the best simulation to a real world use. Without being a fan boy I really think we should be seeing a massive real world difference considering clog is artificially clipped at 12(?) stops.
I wonder how the comparison would be if you shot in _Prolost Flat_ instead of Canon's standard profile. Canon always has way too much contrast and saturation.
Explain why the details in the shadows are so important? If in real life darkened details in the shadows give a more realistic picture! That is, for filming a video, we have to shoot so that we can capture all the details, and then make a color scheme ourselves similar to reality? But if we write in HLG, how can we restore real colors?
shadow detail is important because well most times cameras can't see in the shadows as well as your eyes. If you knew about cameras you would know that.
@@johngwheeler You also get 10-bit using HDR PQ, but without Log or HDR the recordings on the R5 are 8-bit 4:2:0. Page 11 on the Canon Specs sheet PDF for the R5. To get 10-bit 4:2:2 you need to have Log or HDR PQ.
@@evgeniyyavtushenko7653 You probably should have Googled this before responding. Bit depth absolutely has an impact. Because if you do not have the bit depth to work with, activities like recovering shadows and highlights won't have the information available to represent all that the sensor has physically available. It is about having the information preserved and the higher the bit depth the more gradients for each color will be available. So, being 10 bit won't give the camera more dynamic range but it will give the files the ability to capture more of the dynamic range available in the sensor. This is why people want 10-bit files (or better) for their professional work vs 8-bit. There is more data to work with for color grading and adjusting the video. Often times you'll hear people complain that the 8-bit files fall apart when pushed (aggressive color grading adjustments). Here is an article from B&H on the topic, but there are tons of articles on the topic. www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/tips-and-solutions/8-bit-10-bit-what-does-it-all-mean-for-your-videos
10 bit do not give more dynamic range. it is just when you push shadows you see less color blotch and nasty color noise. but the dynamic range isn't changed.
@@Davitor1 it's defenetly not due to data... I edit larger files with higher bitrates (red 8k) all the time. But the r5 all-i footage does not play back at all. They chose a very bad codec for editing. That's the Problem!
the codec is handled well in new gpus and cpus that just released but anything before that is going to be slow. Its sad they released the camera right before computers had the right hardware. but in the years forward the codec will be nothing for a current system to handle. Also i read the ipad can actually handle the files better than most computers because of the chip.
Hey Max, what I noticed mostly was the colors. Sony had way better colors and blending of said colors sir. This was interesting 🤔 to see. I have always felt Canon had better colors but maybe the times have turned. Thank you for your work and sharing. (:
You're either biased, placebo drunk or watched this video on a bad screen, but many in the comments thought Canon had the better colors. You're probably a Sony user so i understand the bias.
How to handle c-log in Davinci Resolve if I want to run Color Managed (or via ACES)? I can't find a profile/IDT for the R6/R5 for c-log. Would prefer not to use destructive LUTs.
Even if they do it won't get much better since there is a sensor limitation too not only the log. Even for photos it's not great do you think it will magically become better in video with clog3?
CineD has the Sony at 12.4 and the Canon at 10.8. A delta of 1.6 stops. Their is testing is quite a bit more scientific. The Sony has some other issues too. If you want to use the low light you really need to shoot to external RAW. And how does the Sony work with respect to your workflow to delivering to commercial customers? It is certainly good at super low light. But lots of professionals are using other full frame cameras and are getting very deliverable content. If you need 150,000 iso then it's a one trick pony. If you need something that's more realistic say to 12,500 there are lots of other options out there. And if you do heavy grading, you have to be careful with which codec's you're picking on Sony. If you're in the Sony ecosystem and this checks off boxes you need it makes sense. If you're not, it's not so cut and dried.
What I'm more happy to see in this review is how close the cameras look in terms of color. People have always talked down on somy color science and this is a good reminder that its been much improved in many ways. The a7siii is an amazing camera , bar none.
i have a question, if you guys have opportunity to meet a guy like steven spielberg, or christopher nolan, would you ask some question like, "are you concern about dynamic range when shooting E.T ?" or "what log do you used when shooting memento?" i mean, when i'm shooting horror movie, i dont want everything in the scene is lit ...
In fairness, nobody with hybrid needs looks for the A7S3 to be their only body. We all know it’s a video camera, and we all know the A7Riv is a beast stills camera. They compliment each other well, and together are greater than any one body doing both from any manufacturer. The A7iv will be Sony’s hybrid camera.
@@loudandclearmedia how close hybrid camera is to a proper video camera when it comes to video quality and features. 8k raw, even though it over heats but it is available which is not in sonys case and canon's HQ mode much sharper compared to sonys. Anyway its a personal choice and I prefer to carry along one body instead of carrying one for video and one of photos. A7iv will be no where capable of R5. Camera that will compete with r5 will be sony A9iii, which according to sony rumours will have 50 mp sensor, 8k recording and price tag of over 5k
@@EhtashamAnwar If you are doing a paid gig, carry along one body is a huge mistake especially when the R5 is known as having bad reliability (overheats). The R5 is also unable to record video in both card slots. The A7S III is still the better and reliable workhorse for video production.
dont ever say "better colors" that statement is quite ignorant. Better color balance, white balance, more accurate skin tones, yes that you ca say. Better colors is not a thing, like PB always says, you can make anything look like anything if you put some effort into it. We are soon past "canon having better colors than sony" stage at this point.
Definitely the Sony A7III has better dynamic range than the R5 for the simple fact that we are dealing with larger pixels at 24MP vs the 45MP of the R5. I own both and the R5 have been limited to stills which it outperform the A7III but when it comes to usable video even at 8bit the A7III has better DR than the Canon R5 with it's 10 bit. Great comparison Max.
Canon may be lagging in some video aspects but it's pretty all rounder it can do both photo and video but I can't even think of photo side to sony a7siii... Keep in mind sony is dedicated video camera so it should have that edge
Hopefully new Clog3 from canon will close the gap a bit. The real headache is working with the files. Insane. Maybe ARM based MacBooks will change thst.
Canon standard profiles were always bad. Regarding your test they don't seem to have matched diaphragm in the woods, the DOF seems different, but that shouldn't impact anyway. And definitely A7S3 has an edge there, probably due to the BSI.
T-Bone I agree I mean these cameras are for totally different uses so it's a little confusing as to why there are so many comparisons. Entertaining, yes. Super useful, no.
I still think that the R5 is a better hybrid camera. That dynamic range difference is not really going to matter that much to me. I’m not sure that the filmmakers that I know and work with are using these for that anyway. I see them using cinema cameras. Overall if I didn’t have all of that canon glass,k and if I didn’t need to take pictures as well, I would probably get the A7S3.
Could this just be the fact that you’re more comfortable with sony and that you don’t know how to get the best out of canon? I appreciate all the work you put in to these comparisons but at the end of the day, both of these cameras are more than adequate if you know your stuff. Anyone actually getting paid work will either have proper diffusion/lighting or will have cinema gear so dynamic range is kind of a moot point. It’s well known that preserving highlights on Canon you really need to ETTR even more so than what you think with the native ISO. It’s nice to have coverage but I want to see filmmakers focussing on the craft and not on gear that literally makes zero difference.
What a genius. It's like saying why buy a Ferrari if you know what you are doing you'll win in a race on your Honda civic. Stop kissing canon's ass and wake up. The cripple hammer is real and you need to show that you are not satisfied with their piece of shit so they improve. Stop protecting them
In the beginning, you were comparing dynamic range using standard profiles? Why? That's why I had to stop watching the rest.... Not sure what the point of that was?
Ouvert Seems so, but the footage on Camera Conspiracy’s channels seem to suggest R5 is still visibly worse than the a7siii, during daytime. Cleary looks blown out on quite a lot of day time vlogs.
I must say it looks like Sony finally has matched or even surpassed canon in the color department besides the advantage in dynamic range. Plus no overheating issues. Don't see any reason to go with Canon.
So shoot log, expose properly protecting the highlights, grade it properly and you get good results. What a shocker 🤦♂️ I'm not sure it's possible to get TERRIBLE dynamic range from any modern digital camera if you learn how to use it properly.
Get your Squarespace site free trial with NO CREDIT CARD needed! squarespace.com/maxyuryev
Lens used on R5 (Amazon)➡ geni.us/dAPtCC
Lens used on A7S III (Amazon)➡ geni.us/qYIi
Order an A7s3 ➡ bhpho.to/2CWAHMH
Order an R5 ➡ bhpho.to/3fe0sWM
Which specific correction LUT did you use on the SLOG3 footage to convert it to rec.709? And which color space are using with your SLOG3? S-Gamut3.Cine or S-Gamut3?
2010SLP I’m using the build in one way that comes with FCX. They have multiple options and for slog 3 they have one for cine and one without. I’m shooting and using the cine lut.
@@MaksimYuryev One tip I learning for the R5...using 8K RAW + Clog gives you more dynamic range than RAW alone. More info is preserved in the highlights in my tests.
Scott W yup that’s how I did it, raw and then using raw to clog 2 conversion.
@@MaksimYuryev But did you have RAW and CLOG active in-camera while recording? Or just convert to Clog in post? Dan Watson pointed this out in his video...and confused me a bit...but seems he's correct when I looked at my Final Cut scope, RAW alone in-camera doesn't give you as much range as the two combined while filming. Highlights are clipped without Clog in-camera. I always assumed RAW was everything the sensor could record.
There is pretty clearly an advantage to the Sony, but the shot of the path that seems to have very different lighting between the two cameras. I don't doubt that the Sony has the edge but it's lighting has so many more shadows on the pathway I'm not sure this shot is telling us much.
HOLY SHIT IT’S Tyler Stalman !!!!
Clear as day sony has wayy more dynamic range it's not even a comparison.
I didn’t notice it but thank you. I will go and watch again. (:
Sony has never had better highlight roll off just better shadow dynamic range. Highlight roll off has always been better on the canon. The path is way off.
@@MM-gx8fd yes it does has more, and I'm glad Max did these great tests. Just saying that path shot makes it hard to tell what the cameras are doing.
Lots of people shit talking both cameras when the fact of the matter is, most of the people buying either of these will have no idea how to properly use them to their full potential. There are people on youtube shooting with cinema cameras and their work looks like it was shot on a T3i.
The bottom line is, buy the camera that suits your needs and call it a day. Learn to use your camera, and no one will tell the difference as to whether it was shot on an R5 or a7siii. They are both great.
kelb89 well said
I'm guessing most people who actually end up buying these cameras do mostly know what they're doing. But the problem with youtubers is they are making youtube videos, not high end commercial videos. So their work usually is reflected in a lack of personal and client scrutiny that is required to push your work forward. Some people just like getting the 'best thing' or playing around with tech. which is fine, just not very informative.
But yeah, totally agree. I've watched so many Blackmagic 6k vs A7iii videos to see if it's worth me upgrading, and they always look terrible, because they're inevitably moving up from mirrorless to cinema and aren't good yet. And then you'll see a professional use a Sony and it looks amazing (usually at golden hour though).
Skill is a huge factor, but the problem is, mirrorless cameras have a very distinct ceiling on what you can get out of them. If you light perfectly and set everything perfectly, you can make them look amazing. But if one little thing goes wrong, they can sometimes look absolutely dreadful. Whereas often a cinema camera (when you know what you're doing) can be more forgiving or seem more deliberate. I've seen Arri Alexa footage of like a garden or something, and it just looks like a basic mirrorless camera, because it's a boring shot that doesn't show the advantages of using a cinema camera.
The problem with the R5 is that it is good, but Max is using the HQ mode in these test shots, or even comparing RAW. None of which are useable settings. So the R5 is better apart from the fact it's not, because you wouldn't use that mode unless you're literally take 30 sec shots at a time. And it is worth mentioning the dynamic range sucks unless you use c log. Whereas the Sony actually looks really good at standard already, and would be acceptable to a lot of small to medium budget shots. The R5 is not, and sucks apart from good lighting situations. So in context, the R5 is very problematic and is something to remember.
A part of being skilled and experienced is knowing what stresses are worth it, and which aren't. There's no need to stress over dynamic range or colour, just get the better camera if you can. Don't fuss about these things, get the better camera. Stress about story, direction, lighting, audio. Choose your battles. And to me, the R5 is only on par with the a7siii and is more stressful to make it happen, and is therefore is a big no.
James Travis 🙏
@Gap not on 'commercial shoots' but I have experimented on jobs where you have to film things that are happening and you're not controlling the situation, using the a7iii. It was OK but there were a few shots where the wrong thing was blown out or whatever when it wouldn't have been on slog. But the a7siii looks solid. The dynamic range (in these shots at least) looks genuinely good enough to use, again, for rushed jobs or extremely fast paced environments. I wouldn't do it when I needed creative control over the colours.
@@jambononi Thanks for your full take on dynamic range. What are your thoughts in comparison to the Panasonic S1H?
www.cined.com/panasonic-s1h-lab-test-dynamic-range-and-rolling-shutter-results/
I can't help but feel that Canon's approach is (and has been) getting pleasing results and an easy experience no matter who's hands the camera is in. People always mention "Canon colours!", and I think Canon do always have a Canon-look, whether desired or not. Sony, otoh, has been on a more technically innovative crusade, pushing more functional boundaries for those who want to develop their own look, which may mean not as pleasing defaults shot oob, but gives a broader canvas to work with.
Did anyone notice in the 4:08 the tree shadows on the street are NOT the same !!
that means it taken on different times of the day, and they gave the best time for Sony (More tree shadows on the street).
I'm a Sony guy but this is kina not fair compression..
R5 in RAW uses CLOG 2 gamma & smokes the a7siii, I've used both. The R5 is also getting a lighter RAW codec in Nov and CLOG 2 & 3 for all modes. A7siii uses aggressive NR for its lowlight and still has gross green and yellows in skintone highlights. You also can't use it as a decent hybrid, because the MP are too low.
condivido pienamente, l'incarnato della R5 e molto meglio!!
Nobody gives a shit about the R5 or any canon cameras for videos for that matter..Just give up!!!!
“Smokes” 😂 Try using the R5 in lowlight.
@@Bobberhead007 the Sony crazy dog got mad over a comment on YT. Let him have his opinion.
@@lvrvisuals7800 low light is also a matter of lenses. I personally shoot video using a 5D MkIV without Clog installed 🤣 and I charge 400$/h of shooting when dealing with commercials and ads for companies/brands. I’m booked all year round and I don’t suffer of “oh no, i have no DR, please help” excuse when I could upgrade to a Red camera and cinema lenses at any time, but why would I need that when my income is still flowing well with the current equipment and I still get new customers who wants to work with me exclusively because they liked my past work/portfolio.
From what I notice by first glance, some of the tests are flawed because the shots are at two different times (clouds, whatever) such as the shots at 2:18 .
this should be the #1 comment.
watch last scene. that is a good demostration.
Is the Standard profile on the Sony plain untouched? Getting a great image more or less straight out of the camera is worth a lot!
Yeah, but those colours though... they still have an issue with green skin in many types of shots (go look at Filmmaker Parker Walbeck's review).
77dris easy to remove
77dris that’s funny because everyone i see is complaining about a magenta tint. I think Sony upped the magenta’s because their old ones had a green tint. But Parker Walbeck is such a canon wanker. The siii heavily outclasses the 1dx iii he uses and it only had a few advantages while losing out on a lot others. We knew from the beginning he was going to keep his canon. He has too much canon glass and built his platform with canons.
@@RiceCubeTech i get amazing colors on sony and don't understand what people are crying about. If you don't know what you are doing and throwing the camera on auto white balance or don't compensate for the green with magenta on your forest scene with lots of green trees around what do you expect?
Good point and I think Max tries to show unedited and edited footage. Personally I felt the color contrast on the Sony was more pleasing. How about yourself?
8:10 This image reveals the differences nicely because its tonal range is high. The Canon image slightly clips both highlights and shadows equally in a good exposure; the Sony is slightly underexposed, but still avoids clipping in shadows. This reveals good tonal (grayscale) latitude for the Sony that retains more editing options than the Canon that's slightly 'blown-out' in the extremes of image exposure.
But then there's *color!* The Canon records the colors with subtlety and fidelity that are much better than the Sony. The Sony has decent blue response, but red & green are too saturated. Post-processing to get colors right can be a nightmare because it involves *two* variables; tone and chroma. Between these two cameras, the Canon has an edge for the photographer who can control lighting and exposure for simpler post-processing success.
Hi Simkinetics,
I make a living here in Europe shooting video/ads,comm for various businesses/brands using a 5D MkIV *without* the CLog profile installed (which comes only at a cost), on a gimbal with some nice L lenses. I never had a customer complain about dynamic range and on the contrary I get a lot of new other customers based on my actually results/resume which keeps catching the eye of many other businesses once they come across my work. I do shoot different built in profiles based on the kind of elements that will sit in my framing (portrait mode for people/interviews, faithful mode when shooting food/steak/etc.) and I rarely do any color grading, maybe a touch of contrast and other subtleties here and there since flexibility isn’t an option. I do my homework and chase good ideas before the shooting, I do use multiple lighting and soft boxes and frame/expose my shots really well. Did DR ever cause me issues from a business perspective? Never! I know people who own an a7s3 or R5 who still haven’t reached one paycheque yet or other pros not doing so well earnings-wise and pestering me with the same “how do you get more customers?” questions, or even worse: one R5 shooter told me his customer complained about the final video result, without elaborating their dissatisfaction, under a simple “it’s not good enough, we can’t pinpoint at the reason why but maybe it needs more work”. Guess what he thought the culprit was: Lack of DR 🤦🏻♂️ 🤣. Then I had a look at his rejected work and I saw what was wrong. It had absolutely nothing to do with dynamic range. Light positioning was off, really bad framing, either too upclose at times, lacklustre gimbal movements, etc. DR isn’t as important when you tick ✔️ every other aspect that the final result needs. Good DR can’t replace an actor’s face, nor the budget, nor the soft lighting, nor the knowledge and skill. Is it handy? Of course! I wouldn’t shoot an actual Hollywood movie without great DR, but for certain other types of work it’s definitely not as essential.
Nice comparisons Max!
These match my findings in the tests that I've done, as well. Since I'm always in Log with either camera, and never the standard profiles,, they are very close for all practical purposes. In the most extreme cases, Sony has a little more dynamic range. But I expose each to protect the highlights and just bring up the shadows in post. I've found the Canon to have finer grain and actually be cleaner through 6400 ISO, so we can basically get equally good results from either. Thanks for sharing. Cheers!
Darwin Macon Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It’s good to see how these cameras will work in the editing world.
The hard to edit and playback files from the canon are a bigger issue than dynamic range.
Yeah.... I have the maxed out MacBook Pro and I can’t play back shit straight out of camera anything 4K or above. Very frustrating..
@@ericjamesphotography Get a PC, fixed the performance issue!
The Sony dynamic range is amazing, however the noise on the piano at 7:03 was awful looking. The blown out segments of the canon was much more tolerable than the sony noise on the piano.
The thing is it's not the R5 performing poorly. It's the lack of C-Log3. We already know that C-Log1 cannot utilize the R5's full range so I don't really know why people blow this out of proportion so much. Wait till C-Log3 comes and I would bet it will be a lot closer. I'm sure the Sony will still edge ahead but not by much.
the RAW files show an identical story. The data simply isn't there - compared to a7-III the dynamic range is 2-3 stops less (Blacks crush very rapidly, even worse at higher ISOs and the highlights are unrecoverable most of the time once hitting pure white). Im editing the a7-III and R5 images side by side and the differences are night and day.
Check the skintones at 04:52. Evidently the A7SIII shines here. Her face has much less contrast and looks more natural. This also is a result of the Sony's extended dynamic range. The Dynamic Range on the R5 is worse than the Sony A7s Mark I
How about the fact that there is DCI 4K in R5, but not in A7S III?
I only use dci with my r5 and is awesome because only with Dci 4096x2160 you get true 24fps. 3840x2160 is 23,976 drop frame. Also dci is movie industry requirements
You need to shoot 8kRAW and switch to CLOG 2 in premiere. (its only possible in RAW right now). Should give you another two stops. Tested the other day. Saved a little more of the highlights. Thanks for doing this video! Good to see the differences in profiles!
But what if high FPS is more required for a certain application (slo mo type of speed ramps)? Then 8K would be useless for such scenario but I’d rather like my camera to have it than not.
I’m really surprised about the color difference. I’m a Sony fan boy and this is the first time I’ve preferred the Sony color over Canon.
Have no idea what you are doing with the R5 RAW, but I saw a huge difference between 8k RAW and 4k HQ when I shoot on my R5. At least in Davinci resolve you can set in the RAW settings clog, clog 2 and clog 3, you can also change the ISO settings afterwards, you can play with the highlights and the shadows like with a RAW Photo and you (at least I) destroy the 4h HQ dynamic range of my r5. I have no sony to direct compare it, but when you write the 8k RAW is just a little better than the 4k HQ, then I guess you are doing something wrong. The difference in the dynamic range is the reason why I try mainly to shoot in 8k RAW and why I have no space on my computer and also why I have to buy more storage... I agree that without RAW the dynamic range on the r5 is not so good, but in RAW I absolutely disagree with your conclusion.
@@MichaelRichards983 have you tryed 8k RAW and you worked with that in davinci resolve? But ok after your answer I'll have to make a video to compare the R5 4k HQ clog with the R5 8k RAW and the workflow in davinci resolve. I hope my first findings are not skewd, but instead of words a video will prove your or (I hope) my first findings. I have to say that before I found out how to get to the RAW settings in davinci resolve, my thoughts had been similar to yours, but after the RAW access my opinion changed from ist ok to its WAU (for a dslm).
I know exactly what are you talking about, I have the R5 and in 8k raw clog 2 the dynamic range is actually much higher than the rest of the resolutions, and it smokes the Sony dynamic range.
This guy doesn’t know or not want to show the r5 true potential.
So why do these images look nothing at all like my R5? ...not even close. Make sure you are shooting in 4K HQ mode not standard as Standard 4k is about half the Quality of HQ mode, there are a few YT vids on the difference between the 2.
How could he shoot the whole review in 4KHQ when the R5 overheats within 25mins in that mode... Realistically it's impossible to do a day's shoot with a single R5 in HQ or 8K mode.
Are you using CLOG 1 or CLOG 2 for the R5?
I never understand this kind of testing. Like, in the 'real estate scenario' the driveway is blown out. Why? The camera has a histogram. Don't blow out the highlights and compare the final image or the workflow.
I get the option to use both at my work (r5 and fx3) and while the workflow is different, I find I get wait better shadow recovery in CLog3. So I just expose for highlights and never worry about it.
I'm sure there's a reason people test this way but if one of the guys at my work presented a product with blown highlights and blamed dynamic range, I don't think they'd be working with me for very long
I am a professional photo editor that usually edits his own A7-III images. A client with an R5 asked me to do a large number of edits and I notice how the blacks are crushed very rapidly (and not very recoverable in RAW). Worse, the highlights are practically DOA : If they're blown out to white, then even highlight recovery often gives very very minimal results beyond that. It's very disappointing compared to the A7-III in terms of recoverable shadows and highlights.
Great video, thanks! I've been playing with the R5 profiles. Canon offers a free editor that lets you tweak them and push shadows/highlights. I had similar results as you using Standard. But after lifting the shadows with a simple S-curve, the results were dramatically improved. I was really surprised at how much detail came back. I also shoot 8K+MP4 (proxy)...and the proxies with the edited profile rival the 8K original.
Is that tweak a custom save-to-camera or something you have to do in post?
Drumming Tee I have the same question. What is that tool, and does it save the custom adjustment to the camera?
Hi. What is the name of the free editor? Is it must be done on a PC?
@@DrummingTmate It's a tweak in-camera
@@RockyColaFizz It's called Picture Style Editor available for free on Canon's R5 support/software page
The R5 is surprisingly doing well!
I still think that SLOG is overrated, I rather shoot with HLG profiles as it's much easier to work with
Me too.
Surprisingly ??? For all that money for the Camera it needs to be better lol. #GOSONY
Most of the Canon Footage is from a different time of the day when sunlight is too harsh so anyone can understand what happened in the video
They were all taken right after each other.
Your comment is false and you should feel bad.
No surprise about the dynamic range from the SONY. On a different note though, if both of your shots were shot handheld, the IS on the R5 is incredible.
Easy math: 13 / 11 = 1,18. Means: The SIII has 18% more dynamic range than the R5. That's what we see here.
Maybe. Although it's exponential because every stop is double the amount of light in real terms so potentially a 2 stop advantage allows for four times the amount of light.
Future firmware upgrade due likely in November for Canon R5
- Canon Cinema RAW light addition
- 1080p @ 120fps
- C-Log 2 and 3 (this will greatly enhance Dynamic Range) One big issue here that has been commented on is how much Canon wishes to enhance their video quality and specs. Canon is BIG in the Cinema space with the Canon C300 Mark III and the great full-frame Canon C500 Mark II at $16,000 USD. If you want KILLER Dynamic Range then get the C500 Mark II plus a boatload of other cinema features that are amazing. One thing that I don't think anybody denies is Canon color science is at a top tier level.
- Bug fixes
- Enhancement to temperature control
- There are comments on more codecs being worked on
One thing that needs to be mentioned, the Canon R5 is FIRST a Photographic (stills) camera and by the way, it also does very good video. Canon marketing got a little ahead of themselves. The R5 is the BEST mirrorless stills camera on the market today. And it can hold up pretty well in the video space. You want dominant high-quality level video then get a Canon C300 Mark III or C500 Mark II.
Yeah but the c300 is like 7,500$...
I mean 11,000$!
Something that I didn't see many people address is the fact that the A7S3 is the first Sony Camera that not only placed the Base ISO lower for Slog3 (at 640), but it also allows you to go even lower, to an extended rage. Now they say that going into that range costs a little bit of Dynamic Range. But I want to know how much DR is lost. Is it noticeable? Is it useful if you just want that extra Stop lower, because your ND only starts from 2 stops and you just need 1? Or is it better to put on the 2 stop ND and go ISO 800 to achieve the same result?
That would be great to test!
Hey mate , can u please make a comparison video of sony a7siii with bmpcc6k
On paper is one thing but in reality, they seem to be very close. BTW Did you interpret the R5 footage as CLOG 2 in RAW ? I believe that would’ve given you better results in RAW.
Looks like the white balance is a bit off. A lot of Canon footage are tinted towards magenta whereas the Sony towards green. And in the rest of the footage, vice versa.
Can you please do an iso comparison with with the a7iii and a7siii like in the past with the a7sii and a7iii? Nobody out here has made one, or I haven't found it, where they find the highest usable iso. Usable as in usable footage that is
By the way the last image you can see canon was struggling with colors when under exposed - the Sony was fine
I don’t think you can give a true test of dynamic range by just dropping REC709 luts onto the footage, I’m not sure if that’s what you did but you need to treat each shot as it’s own entity and grade it from the ground up to get the most out of it.
I used transform luts to conform the log footage into the rec709 color space then manually graded from there.
Could you please compare 2 "real" raw shots from the photo mode?
Thank you in advance
@@MaksimYuryev Expose both cameras and protect the highlights and then grade the LOG footage from scratch, depending on what NLE you are using a REC709 transform can clip the highlight detail before the secondary correction and there is no bringing it back.
@@jamesalexanderbarnettdp9479 This. While comparing dynamic range, please don't use any kind of LUT.
Sorry, the Canon has clearly worser dynamic range when you see the shadow details on the video with the windows and interior, the wood on the tables looks much much more finer and better, when it comes down to shadow details. Also the Canon post grading looks way too much unnatural, it is the typical Canon 12-13 bits pushed via post processing looks like their photographs. There is clearly 1-2 stops dynamic range advantage on the Sony like all the DxO Mark tests for years. When people are saying different things they lie. The truth is Canon will be behind for years, their image sensor tech is clearly behind. There is a reason why on every technological aspect Sony is quite common used for professional filming especially with their CineAlta film cameras for Hollywood film and Netflix series and film use alongside other companies like Arri and others and not Canon for serious film productions.
Worser.....
One thing that really hurt Canon initially was only including C-log and not C-log 3. Newer firmware has added C-log 3 but a lot of time damage was already done in terms of building a bad reputation for dynamic range. It’s still not the best but I find a lot all comes down to camera processing. We measure DR a lot of times in terms of noise. Sony uses a lot of in camera noise reduction to help extend S-log 3 to see more into the shadows and have less noise. A lot of these cameras when comparing raw are much closer than we think. Raw has more noise but the point is no crappy in camera noise reduction. We can use better noise reduction in post.
There are different log formats for a reason. C-log 1 is more like S-log 1. Both of which were designed for 8bit lower range sensors. Comparing C-log to S-log 3 isn’t exactly a apples to apples comparison. Slog 3 and C-log 2 are log curves designed for a more than 13 stops of range extending as high as 16 stops potentially. The 10bit point of the curve is much lower for both log formats meaning they dig into the shadows more. They also dip more into the noise floor meaning more noise because of this. Cameras like the A7S 3 use in camera noise reduction to help that look better. It is a cleaner sensor however due to only having 4K resolution. The difference once you compare 8k raw C-log 2 using NeatVideo in post however is a lot closer than people think.
This is why the R5C internal video feels a lot cleaner and has a lot more dynamic range than the R5. Both use the exact same sensor and DSP. The main difference is the R5C has an active cooler meaning it can use more sophisticated noise reduction in camera. That’s how it’s able to get almost 1.5 more stops of DR over the R5. R5 raw can do the same thing with good post noise reduction. Just takes more time and effort. Raw video form both cameras are pretty identical. Raw video from a A7S 3 doesn’t look as clean either.
So yes some cameras out of the box with internal formats can look better. When comparing similar log formats and raw where we get to use the same amount of noise reduction in post all cameras end up being a lot closer than we realize.
Besides this is all splitting hairs anyway. A shot should be exposed properly. Protecting highlights is even an odd notion because they likely are not all that important. For example an open window for an indoor interview where someone insists putting the open window in the shot. 12 stops or 14 stops that window still looks like crap. It’s an unbalanced level of exposure and that window becomes a focal point for the eye instead of the subject speaking. It’s just bad composition. It’s ok to let the background clip because the subject is what ultimately matters. If you want to balance the shot better then light the subject to better match the background. Even photographers use flash or reflectors to help fill in situations like that and create a better balance between the subject, foreground and background.
Lighting is the key to cinematography. It’s not how much a sensor can do on its own. A good sensor is important of course but we need to stop over emphasizing details that are not really all that important or not a true apples to apples comparison. Higher dynamic range means better rolloff on either end and more flexibility to fix something. It’s not an indicator of one camera being worse than another. Even for HDR delivery the R5 has more range than we can fit into a HDR 1000 or even HDR 2000 delivery. For rec709 it has way more stops than what are possible to see without looking like a lite log format and super flat. We need to emphasize better exposing and lighting and not if camera A gets 0.2 more stops of range which is likely a pointless stop to have anyway.
The way log curves work is at the very bottom of the curve there are very few 10bit values used for those stops. Sometimes only 3-5 10bit samples. This is in comparison to the upper stops that may have over 75 10bit samples. Even if a log format has an extra stop of detail down there it’s likely so insignificant it’s really bad to try to lift it up and not get banding or other artifacts. Lifting up that last stop isn’t going 5o make or break a shot that was badly exposed. In some cases maybe it can save the day. It we are talking really poor details down there and they really should not be lifted very high. A bit cleaner garbage is still garbage. Just like a slightly less blown out window is still a blown out window. We are obsessing over a measurement that actually has very little meaning. C-log and c-log 3 see less shadow detail because the shadow curve tapers off much earlier than S-log 3 does. That’s it. The darks are clipped sooner. Has nothing to do with the sensors themselves. That’s why even with the noise it’s better to use C-log 2 raw on the R5. That’s the more accurate comparison to S-log 3.
Actually, R5 with 45mp sensor, this much dynamic range is not bad I think.. R5 fought well with A7SIII's 12mp sensor, specially made for video work.. Sony's dynamic range is really good, as always.. Also, I'm impressed by Canon R5, the great all rounder camera.. R5 is one of the best camera for photography ❤️...
Will you get your hands on a Nikon Z 6II?
This is super interesting for someone trying to explain to his wife about dynamic range and how 2 of the best current cameras compare. Much appreciated also are your honesty and impartial statements. We (my wife and I) noted that in the interior footage (e.g. 8:06), while the highlights are blown-up with the canon and slightly better with the sony, the wood on the left part of the piano is slightly better with the canon. The tree on the right hand side looks slightly more natural (more contrasty and greener) with the canon. All in all, without such side by side comparison, it would be hard to tell that the Sony is better than the Canon or vice versa. What counts, and you show it superbly, is who is shooting and how well is the camera mastered.
when you edit the RAW files the difference is night and day. The R5 files have basically no recoverable highlight data beyond overexposure and the shadows are crushed. A7-III is 2-3 stops ahead when pushed to the limits in good RAW software, unfortunately.
Thanks for doing this video, really helpful in choosing which system to choose. cheers!
You need to change RAW to C-log2 to get the full dynamic range of the sensor. C-Log1 caps at about 11 stops. In Resolve, you have the ability to pick which C-log version you want in the RAW tab (note: clog2 has more DR than clog3). Still, I expect the Sony to have more DR.
Regarding colors, the Canon wins, unless you shoot HLG3 with the Sony (with the rec709 color profile). HLG is highly standardize, so Sony can't destroy the colors and get brown/green tints as it does with s-log.
Thanks I did change it to Clog 2. In Clog 1 the dynamic range would be worst.
Also I didn’t see any DR different between using C log 2 or 3. I know 2 can contain 1 extra stop of DR but I think because the camera sensor is the limitation not the log format.
Sony, protect the highlights and live ever happy 😃. Usually shadow look too dark on the tiny screen, but all the details are there when you go to your computer!
Thanks. This is THE video comparison I needed!
The classic Canon story plays black, with the eos R5, great review Max, I like how objective you have been here 👍
I was wondering what your exposing strategies are? Are you exposing for the same anchor point like a grey card or skin tone for each camera? If not, the results mean pretty much nothing in most cases as you can always adjust them to look roughly the same unless absolutely clipped. I’d be curious to see both cameras exposing to the same back lit face according to official guideline(skin peaks at around 60ire, or middle grey at 41ire for slog3 which I’m familiar with) , then corrected with official luts and nothing more. That would be the best simulation to a real world use. Without being a fan boy I really think we should be seeing a massive real world difference considering clog is artificially clipped at 12(?) stops.
Are you going to do a low light comparison between the A7SIII and the A7III?
I don't think comparing a7s3 with R5 is fair.. We should instead wait for the lower MP camera by canon to compare it with a7s3
I wonder how the comparison would be if you shot in _Prolost Flat_ instead of Canon's standard profile. Canon always has way too much contrast and saturation.
Explain why the details in the shadows are so important? If in real life darkened details in the shadows give a more realistic picture! That is, for filming a video, we have to shoot so that we can capture all the details, and then make a color scheme ourselves similar to reality? But if we write in HLG, how can we restore real colors?
shadow detail is important because well most times cameras can't see in the shadows as well as your eyes. If you knew about cameras you would know that.
Remember to get 10-bit you have to go log. So, standard profiles on the Canon are going to be the 8-bit files.
is that really true?
@@johngwheeler You also get 10-bit using HDR PQ, but without Log or HDR the recordings on the R5 are 8-bit 4:2:0. Page 11 on the Canon Specs sheet PDF for the R5. To get 10-bit 4:2:2 you need to have Log or HDR PQ.
bit depth has nothing to do with dynamic range
@@evgeniyyavtushenko7653 You probably should have Googled this before responding. Bit depth absolutely has an impact. Because if you do not have the bit depth to work with, activities like recovering shadows and highlights won't have the information available to represent all that the sensor has physically available. It is about having the information preserved and the higher the bit depth the more gradients for each color will be available. So, being 10 bit won't give the camera more dynamic range but it will give the files the ability to capture more of the dynamic range available in the sensor.
This is why people want 10-bit files (or better) for their professional work vs 8-bit. There is more data to work with for color grading and adjusting the video. Often times you'll hear people complain that the 8-bit files fall apart when pushed (aggressive color grading adjustments).
Here is an article from B&H on the topic, but there are tons of articles on the topic. www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/tips-and-solutions/8-bit-10-bit-what-does-it-all-mean-for-your-videos
10 bit do not give more dynamic range. it is just when you push shadows you see less color blotch and nasty color noise. but the dynamic range isn't changed.
Will c log 3 make a better difference?
Great comparison. Thanks for sharing. Cheers from LA.
The canon codecs are more of an issue, even setting aside DR, overheating etc. Workflow is painful.
Is due to the amount of data. When computers catch up, then you take advantage of amazing detail.
@@Davitor1 it's defenetly not due to data... I edit larger files with higher bitrates (red 8k) all the time. But the r5 all-i footage does not play back at all. They chose a very bad codec for editing. That's the Problem!
the codec is handled well in new gpus and cpus that just released but anything before that is going to be slow. Its sad they released the camera right before computers had the right hardware. but in the years forward the codec will be nothing for a current system to handle. Also i read the ipad can actually handle the files better than most computers because of the chip.
I like how you try really hard to be unbiased. I can see it's difficult 😉
Why not also try RAW with the a7siii?
Hey Max, what I noticed mostly was the colors. Sony had way better colors and blending of said colors sir. This was interesting 🤔 to see. I have always felt Canon had better colors but maybe the times have turned.
Thank you for your work and sharing. (:
You're either biased, placebo drunk or watched this video on a bad screen, but many in the comments thought Canon had the better colors. You're probably a Sony user so i understand the bias.
How to handle c-log in Davinci Resolve if I want to run Color Managed (or via ACES)? I can't find a profile/IDT for the R6/R5 for c-log. Would prefer not to use destructive LUTs.
well we have to wait for canon to add clog 3 so it is still an one sided test
Do you think that's happening? Canon's past actions say NO. Buy a cinema camera or maybe the $8,000- R1.
@@DrummingTmate clog 3 has already been confirmed by Canon officially
Even if they do it won't get much better since there is a sensor limitation too not only the log. Even for photos it's not great do you think it will magically become better in video with clog3?
M M yes, it’s exactly why the A7siii will never be use for photography.
It’d be great if they added Clog 2 also
Is the Sony A7S III Dynamic Range as same as thr new 7iv?
CineD has the Sony at 12.4 and the Canon at 10.8. A delta of 1.6 stops. Their is testing is quite a bit more scientific. The Sony has some other issues too. If you want to use the low light you really need to shoot to external RAW.
And how does the Sony work with respect to your workflow to delivering to commercial customers?
It is certainly good at super low light.
But lots of professionals are using other full frame cameras and are getting very deliverable content.
If you need 150,000 iso then it's a one trick pony.
If you need something that's more realistic say to 12,500 there are lots of other options out there.
And if you do heavy grading, you have to be careful with which codec's you're picking on Sony.
If you're in the Sony ecosystem and this checks off boxes you need it makes sense.
If you're not, it's not so cut and dried.
What I'm more happy to see in this review is how close the cameras look in terms of color. People have always talked down on somy color science and this is a good reminder that its been much improved in many ways. The a7siii is an amazing camera , bar none.
i have a question, if you guys have opportunity to meet a guy like steven spielberg, or christopher nolan, would you ask some question like, "are you concern about dynamic range when shooting E.T ?" or "what log do you used when shooting memento?"
i mean, when i'm shooting horror movie, i dont want everything in the scene is lit ...
2:42 The paths are not even shot under the same lighting conditions.
Will always go with canon because even though sony has better dynamic range, canon r5 is a proper hybrid camera which unfortunately sony is not
In fairness, nobody with hybrid needs looks for the A7S3 to be their only body. We all know it’s a video camera, and we all know the A7Riv is a beast stills camera. They compliment each other well, and together are greater than any one body doing both from any manufacturer. The A7iv will be Sony’s hybrid camera.
@@loudandclearmedia how close hybrid camera is to a proper video camera when it comes to video quality and features. 8k raw, even though it over heats but it is available which is not in sonys case and canon's HQ mode much sharper compared to sonys. Anyway its a personal choice and I prefer to carry along one body instead of carrying one for video and one of photos. A7iv will be no where capable of R5. Camera that will compete with r5 will be sony A9iii, which according to sony rumours will have 50 mp sensor, 8k recording and price tag of over 5k
Am going to sony am disappointed of dynamic range on r5 even the color is not true to life but sony do
@@EhtashamAnwar If you are doing a paid gig, carry along one body is a huge mistake especially when the R5 is known as having bad reliability (overheats). The R5 is also unable to record video in both card slots. The A7S III is still the better and reliable workhorse for video production.
@Foto4Max no mate, just as a hobby
Can you make an ibis handheld comparision for travelling shots without a gimbal in both cameras? Thanks!
dont ever say "better colors" that statement is quite ignorant. Better color balance, white balance, more accurate skin tones, yes that you ca say. Better colors is not a thing, like PB always says, you can make anything look like anything if you put some effort into it. We are soon past "canon having better colors than sony" stage at this point.
Definitely the Sony A7III has better dynamic range than the R5 for the simple fact that we are dealing with larger pixels at 24MP vs the 45MP of the R5.
I own both and the R5 have been limited to stills which it outperform the A7III but when it comes to usable video even at 8bit the A7III has better DR than the Canon R5 with it's 10 bit.
Great comparison Max.
There's no fix for Canon's standard profiles, no tweaks to bring it up to Sony, just clog or crap?
Just shoot in Prolost Flat picture profile 🤙
(If you're not sure what that is Google it, because you can set any camera to that profile)
Where we can find this lut v2 for canon please. Like always you nailed it 👌🏽 thank you
DOES A7S III CAN SHOOT DCI 4K EXTERNALLY WITH NINJA V ????
There is Half or a third stop difference if that between the 2 cameras, there is no way a 2 stop difference
Canon may be lagging in some video aspects but it's pretty all rounder it can do both photo and video but I can't even think of photo side to sony a7siii... Keep in mind sony is dedicated video camera so it should have that edge
Hopefully new Clog3 from canon will close the gap a bit. The real headache is working with the files. Insane. Maybe ARM based MacBooks will change thst.
That Cripple hammer is running rampant all over the R5. What a shame Canon LOL
Canon standard profiles were always bad. Regarding your test they don't seem to have matched diaphragm in the woods, the DOF seems different, but that shouldn't impact anyway. And definitely A7S3 has an edge there, probably due to the BSI.
You are the MAX bro !!! .
Nobody Does what you do !!
Cannon has a cleaner image. Colours better on Sony. Look at the grass on the rear RHS of the track. That being said it could be the f value.
Are you going to do any stills dynamic range? Wedding venue ambient available darkness without a flash shots.
Probably not because the A7siii isn't a stills camera
And the R5 isn’t a video camera, but that didn’t stop him from testing it as though it were!
T-Bone I agree I mean these cameras are for totally different uses so it's a little confusing as to why there are so many comparisons. Entertaining, yes. Super useful, no.
Amazing comparaison. Thanks!
Great review!
Sony A7S III or Blackmagic pocket 6K??
I believe if people are complaining about how cameras perform in 2020 then they should switch jobs/hobbies
Love the sign... whatever things are pure...
Good Eye!
I wonder if Clog3 would improve this if Canon releases this as they’ve said they will.
R5 for sure, but I need clog for R6 :( they didnt talk about R6..
8:35
Save some for the rest of us.
I still think that the R5 is a better hybrid camera. That dynamic range difference is not really going to matter that much to me. I’m not sure that the filmmakers that I know and work with are using these for that anyway. I see them using cinema cameras. Overall if I didn’t have all of that canon glass,k and if I didn’t need to take pictures as well, I would probably get the A7S3.
from last scene that is only like half stop worse in highlight to me.
Could this just be the fact that you’re more comfortable with sony and that you don’t know how to get the best out of canon? I appreciate all the work you put in to these comparisons but at the end of the day, both of these cameras are more than adequate if you know your stuff. Anyone actually getting paid work will either have proper diffusion/lighting or will have cinema gear so dynamic range is kind of a moot point. It’s well known that preserving highlights on Canon you really need to ETTR even more so than what you think with the native ISO.
It’s nice to have coverage but I want to see filmmakers focussing on the craft and not on gear that literally makes zero difference.
What a genius. It's like saying why buy a Ferrari if you know what you are doing you'll win in a race on your Honda civic. Stop kissing canon's ass and wake up. The cripple hammer is real and you need to show that you are not satisfied with their piece of shit so they improve. Stop protecting them
You cannot compare them using luts, that driveway woudln't clip if you did it manually.
Hello, I found YOU man. AWESOME videos. EXPLAIN a lot! If you are wondering who I am, then I am related to Aunt Liliya Bogdanov. TIM here!
Sold my A7s3 for R5. Never look back...
Looking good with the beard Max ;)
In the beginning, you were comparing dynamic range using standard profiles? Why? That's why I had to stop watching the rest.... Not sure what the point of that was?
Max. please remember that we are seeing these images through TH-cam's compression. whereas you see the images in front of you on your monitor.
I am sure it's a lot better than EOS R, that one had bad dynamic range.
well every canon before R5 (even for stills) was lacking in dynamic range .. compared to Sony and Nikon. R5 seems to be much better ..
Ouvert Seems so, but the footage on Camera Conspiracy’s channels seem to suggest R5 is still visibly worse than the a7siii, during daytime. Cleary looks blown out on quite a lot of day time vlogs.
I must say it looks like Sony finally has matched or even surpassed canon in the color department besides the advantage in dynamic range. Plus no overheating issues. Don't see any reason to go with Canon.
Now why do so many of those shots look so familiar to me? 🤔 good video man
So shoot log, expose properly protecting the highlights, grade it properly and you get good results. What a shocker 🤦♂️ I'm not sure it's possible to get TERRIBLE dynamic range from any modern digital camera if you learn how to use it properly.