I tried both and went with the A7IV and couldn’t be happier. I might be in the minority, but I like the form factor better and it’s more compact. More buttons and customization too, and I feel like everything is in the right place (photo/video switch doesn’t require my other hand). And Sony’s cheaper lenses are better and weather sealed (for example, the Sony FE 35mm 1.8 vs the Canon RF 35mm 1.8). I also like having more megapixels so I can crop a bit more. And S-Log3 is better than C-Log3. I also like how I can update the firmware with an SD card on my iPad, rather than needing EOS Utility on a PC. Two great cameras, but for me it was an easy choice to go with Sony (and I was a long time Canon user).
Very useful comparison and very well done. I bought an A7IV at the weekend, the main reason being that it felt so comfortable in my hand, I have had the little finger amputated, so I have to hold everything with three fingers and a thumb, which just goes to show how individual ergonomics can be. The second reason, I wear glasses with varifocal lenses, is the view finder, it worked for me. I sadly said goodbye to my Olympus EM1 iii, which I still think has the best ergonomics out there and really excellent pro series lenses, although the sensor and autofocus tracking are outdated.
Excellent comparative article on your site that brought me here! I'm very tempted by the Canon R6 II but no cheaper third-party lenses from Tamron or Sigma make it a big draw-back when having a limited budget. So the Sony A7 VI is still seriously competitive in late 2024 because of its selection of native AND third-party lenses (which can amount to a large budget, as we all know). One more subscriber here! Greetings from Copenhagen!
i also would prefer the r6ii, it takes breathtaking pics and easy to hold...its important to own a camera that you would love to hold and use in a long run
Good point, but while owning R6 and adapted EF 85 1.4 USM I much more liked to hold A7IV with Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN. Smaller and lighter. Great to carry around all day.
@@s-trapYT nah i cant enjoy to look at sony screen which has lower quality than canon's, how could u enjoy shooting and show it to your clients on set if the screen is not as accurate as it looks on a normal HD display, not to mention the menu is so confusing
The reviews rarely ever mention the support system with these brands. Canon is, hands down, the best in the industry. Everything is forwards and backwards compatible. You call canon and get a live person on the phone straight away -and- they have solutions. Fast. Post-sale support should be an absolute priority for any working professional. Regarding third party lenses…. They are generally backwards compatible but no guarantee to be forwards compatible. Secondly, they just do not meet the standards of Canon EF and RF L glass, which all work On the RF bodies. For me, that means it is a non-issue.
Just got an R6mkii upgraded from a 5D mk 1, yeah it was worth the upgrade. The image quality is like getting a DSLR after using a cell phone your whole life. The learning curve is a different story - all the new controls and menu's
The R6 II seems like a terrific camera with a lot of great features, but, as a long time Sony shooter (A7RV), I just can't get past the lens situation. With my Sony, I feel free to shoot either my FF lenses or APS-C depending on circumstances and requirements, pretty much without penalty. Right now, my lens selection consists of a combination of Sony and Sigma lenses with a couple Tamrons (with the 50-400 on my shopping list) and one Samyang. These 3rd party lenses were chosen to fill a particular need that Sony didn't fill. I haven't even started on the small, high quality prime lenses that are available from Sony and Sigma in the E or FE mount that are not available on R mount, nor will they be in the foreseeable future. The lack of 3rd party support isn't, as perhaps you suggested, a matter of time. It's a corporate decision made by Canon and will not change with additional time unless Canon changes it's policy. It's unfortunate, because I know that if Canon's lens selection were the same as Sony, I'd likely be shooting an R5 right now. Sorry for the rant.
No need to apologise, you made a fair comment. Perhaps you are right, Canon won't change its policy anytime soon, but you're not the only one who is aware of the lens situation, and I think today lenses are the number 1 argument in favour of the Sony system (plus the great tech and reputation built over the years). It would be a shame if Canon doesn't listen to all our feedback at some point. Unless they are just happy to convert photographers that are already using Canon gear (EF lenses), or maybe they think in time they'll have enough lenses on offer to not consider this a problem anymore. I guess we can only wait and see.
I find it odd how hung up people are on this 3rd party lens thing. Literally every video and has someone hating on it. Canon offers incredible L glass and fantastic cheaper alternatives. Save for a few gaps in the line up, which will be filled eventually. I don't see the problem, or need for 3rd party lenses. Canons lenses are made in house, in Japan, specifically for their bodies. In my opinion using 3rd party lenses is like owning a rolls Royce but putting steel rims on it. Still works well, does the job, cheaper. But it's not those beautiful alloys with the self leveling Rolls Royce logos in the middle. Furthermore, again a personal reason. The more choice I have the more excuses I have for needing to spend money or wanting a different lens. I honestly think I'd spend more money overall with third party than investing early on with the high end own brand lenses (Sony included). They even keep their value better. Not going to lie I've been tempted by Sony many times. But can't get over the grip size and ergonomics. The canon just fits so well in the hand too. Anyway, just my thoughts. Seemingly opposite to most people
@@adamwhittingham86 the lenses they have are great for the most part. High end are amazing but lower end are rather lacking still compared to others. Thats why third party would be really good because they would fill the gaps nicely. Also canon is by far the most expensive compared to sony and nikon for what you get. Some sony lenses are better and a third cheaper. watch Duade Paton's video here on youtube where he compares several brand prices and features. It is a noticable bump in price to go with canon for no real reason except brand loyalty. I use canon now but looking at lenses like the sony 200-600 and some sigma lenses I cant deny the envy. That being said, canon has really delivered on the bodies front. We have plenty options now with R6 mk1 and 2, R5, R7, R8, R10. And the coming R1 and R5 mk2 will be beasts for sure as well.
@@Xirpzy So true, just because I spent a lot of money on a brand doesn't mean we should lick their boots, I own A7iv and also R6ii, I'm a hobbyist and I just save up and buy lens and camera bodies now and then, now that I have R6ii I cannot spend a lot on higher grade lens, both Sony's and canon's high end lenses are great but I can own sigma 50 1.4, I have a choice to affordable super telephoto with sigma and Tamron, so now I have a lot of e-mount glass but I am not sure about buying rf glass, for a single rf I can buy 2 e-mount prime. It's not always about the guys who easily can afford lenses or will get lenses by sponsors, people like me and people who are doing small events, we must be given a choice.
the biggest problems with the A74 is it's a slow shooter where you only get 6 fps in uncompressed raw. the canon is 12 mechanical to 40 fps with same uncompressed raw. the A74 also has a major crop in 4k60. and the rolling shutter is bad.
Small rig makes a great little L bracket with a removable side piece that creates a good grip extension for the Sony A7iv. It makes it fit and feel much better in the hand
Thanks! Great as always! I find interesting the fact that for the autofocus test you use the RF 85mm F2 which known for not being a great lens in autofocus, but even so the R6II still beats the Sony on your tests!
Thank you. Yes, the RF 85mm F2 doesn't have the best reputation, but I've owned one since its release, and I've used it extensively in many situations: AF tests (photo, video), concerts, and various events. I was never disappointed with it. The main thing you have to be careful with is close focus distances, that's where you can easily get more out of focus images than you'd like. But then it also has semi-macro capabilities which can be quite handy. It's not perfect, but I used it more than I thought I would.
I don’t think Sony colors are an issue, they are different, but remember that only applies to the JPGs. If you work with RAW, I wouldn’t worry about this. And, even with JPGs, you can tweak various settings in the camera to change the colours. For video, there can be a bit more to talk about but then you also have the Picture Profiles, and the Log curves. So really it depends if you want something straight out of camera without too many adjustments, or not.
I'm a long time Canon 5D Mk II shooter. I do not do video (so far, but I'm considering starting in the future). My 5D is about shot at this time and I need a new camera. I am very tempted by the Sony a7 iv, particularly because of the 33MP sensor, but I have a large investment in canon EF lenses which means I would have to use an adaptor on the Sony camera and so far all the reviews I have seen say that the EF-E adaptors are not fully reliable, particularly for auto-focus and in video mode. I would also need a EF-R adaptor for a R6 II, but for what I have read there is no issue with the adaptor since it is Canon to Canon. Any observation/ idea, particularly from someone who had to make similar decision, would be appreciated. Great video btw. Thank you for that
I haven't tried the adapters on this two specific cameras, but my past experience tells the Canon to Canon adapter gives you faster and more consistence performance.
I have used the Canon 5D Mk II and Mk III since its release and have a huge assortment of Canon EF L lenses and I migrated to Sony A7 series II, IV and RV, and still use all of my EF L lenses with a Metabones IV, V and Speedbooster Ultra adapters and the Canon lenses perform excellent including the AF and IS. I love the Sony Alpha 7 cameras especially the customization of the buttons which is amazing. I can honestly say that migrating to Sony has been the best move and their native and 3rd party lens selection is awesome as well.
I'm a Sony a7iv user and I must say that your test covers perfectly with my observations after 16 months of daily use. Af struggles frequently when photographing little and dark subjects, but face detection is fantastic. Also, noise is visible at 3200 iso and it is not very nice. On my old Nikon D750, noise at 6400 didn't disturb me. Here, it does. The only clear advantage of the Sony is dynamic range, and it makes really a difference.
I have a Canon 90D and when I switch the full frame mirrorless, I don’t know if I want to stay with Canon and go with the Canon R6 Mark II or switch over to the Sony A7IV. I mainly shoot, landscape, buildings, people, astrophotography, etc
Hi, I’m currently using Canon R6 mark 1 and planning to upgrade to mark 2 or Sony A7IV. I’m more on portrait photography and maybe making some video in the future. Do you think Mark 2 has a huge update compare to mark 1? Or A7IV is much better over all? Or maybe I’ll stick with my mark 1 for a while. By the way I like how you review and do comparison. Thanks
The R6 II has a few improvements in key areas, like better autofocus in low light for example. I have a separate video where I compare the R6 and R6 II, if you're interested: th-cam.com/video/HwMuS22Ly0Q/w-d-xo.html
I don’t think either would be massive upgrade for you. I think you should ask yourself a question: what am I missing? I was faced with starting from beginning few weeks ago and I choose Sony a7 IV, but that’s only because of the lenses. Got it with 24-105, sigma 85 1.4, sigma 100 400 and now I am looking at sigma 35 and Samyang 135 or sigma 135, and later Sony 20 1.8.
If you do only portrait, the A7iv might be OK. But it is terrible when it comes to action. If the subject is running towards the camera, the best results are with spot tracking at 6 FPS : about 70 % sharp pictures. Goes down to 30 % in wide area.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons never used it, but, looks like price wise is a good deal, the best BIF camera for Sony would be the A1, $6.500 , need to mortgage the home to own one
Thank you for this review Mathieu. I found it most helpful. If you had to choose one camera for low light which would you take? Does the canon do a crop option when taking stills? Merci
Regarding AUTOFOCUS there's a big problem not considered: that 85mm from Sony is a really slow focusing lens. You should have compared with another Lens.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons No problem at all even by my side but that lens is not a fast focusing one. Compare It to the Sony 35mm 1.8 and you'll notice it. I suppose that both cameras with fast focusing lens are pretty comparable even in low light. Maybe this r6 II has an edge due to the fact it's a newer product. It would be interesting see how r6 behaves in comparison. Yours is probably the most accurate review so far.
Thanks. The RF 85mm F2 is not a super fast lens either, so I think they are comparable. I have these two lenses at home, so it's easier for me to use these rather than renting two other lenses just for one test. Also, I like showing how is the AF with an affordable lens. But sure, the results could be a bit different with other lenses.
Hello i am moving from nikon d500 to mirrorless , i want to use the camera for bird fotography and children , i thought about the a7iv because of lens price and more . Do you this this camera is good for bird photography with the 200-600 ? Thank you for the super good video
Yes, I used the A7 IV with the 200-600mm several times, the Bird Eye AF is very useful for static birds, and the autofocus speed is excellent for birds in flight. The R6 II is equally good but with the added benefit of shooting up to 40fps, however if you're not desperate about having more frames per second, the A7 IV + 200-600mm combo won't disappoint.
I haven't tested the FX3, so can't comment on that one. It has specs I really like (4K 120p) and seems really designed for video-makers. I also believe it has a cooling fan to sustain longer recording time. If you work in very warm locations, that could be an important thing to consider. It comes with the XLR grip which is great for audio, but there is no viewfinder. And obviously, it is more expensive, but you know that already. I think it has the same photo capabilities of the A7S III, so I'm sure it can take very decent pictures. I guess it depends how "occasionally" your photography is. If we're talking just a few photos at the end of a video shooting, the FX3 will be ok. If there are days when you go out just to take photos, not video, then the R6 II is a better camera, and a more interesting hybrid solution.
Outstanding comparison. I've been shooting BIF with my X-T5 and 100-400. I've been frustrated with the autofocus and am considering going to Canon or Sony. I think you have push me toward the canon even though I like the looks of the Sony. Thanks for the info. Where's the mustache?
The grip is actually a big thing for me. Doing long days, consecutive shoots. The canon is simply more comfortable to hold. Also I've noticed the RAW files are smaller on the Canon so I'm able to fit more on the same SD slot. Finally the actual shutter sound is quieter on the Canon and the sensor readout is faster in silent mode. So the more I talk about it, the better the Canon becomes. Real world usage is far more important long term. The single biggest downside is lens selection. Micro HDMI does suck but I don't stream often enough for it to stop preferring the Canon. That's where Sony has done a better job.
These body comparisons seem to be splitting hairs these days. Each company will outdo their competition with each new model by just a few millimeters it seems. I don’t think anyone could really go wrong with either of these cameras.There are so many tools in post processing that negate some of these minor performance issues nowadays for both of these bodies anyways. Canon litigating against 3rd party lens manufacturers gave me a real sour taste in my mouth with them, and that’s the main reason I’d rather not bother with any of their products anymore. It was just a dirty, greedy thing to do. My A7IV has been awesome, but I’ve been kind of wanting to try the S5II or S5IIX out. I probably won’t though.
Thank you very much for your excellent video and fair comparison. I shoot mostly in wedding ceremonies and I need the quality stability and low temperature of the camera. Which one do you choose for long-term filming? I like the color tone of the Canon, but the lenses are very expensive, and I'm stuck between the Sony with a lot of lenses and the Canon with the beautiful color.
They both did well in my "overheating" test but it's just a simple test done inside at room temperature (20˚C), so the results could be different in warmer locations etc. The takeaway si that they both handle internal temperature well for this type of camera body. The Canon certainly overheats faster if you record in 4K 50 or 60p, so that is something to consider. As for the lenses, Sony has a big advantage, no doubt. If you record in Log and create some custom LUTs that reflect the colours you like, I'm sure you can make the A7 IV work for you.
One very important thing was not said, that to have silent autofocus on R6, you just need to buy the expensive RF series. In all other cases (with the use of the adapter), the EF lenses will all be noisy.
this is seriously under rated. Even the non L glass, hell even some L lenses are loud as shit and if in a quiet room can be heard on recording its ridiculous and a massive positive in the sony camp.
I'm under the impression that you shoot the you on camera parts of these videos with the A7iv, is that correct? Whether yes or no, I'm interested in knowing your setup because it looks fantastic. Thanks!
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessonsThank you for the information!! :) Based partly on thinking your main shot is from the A7iv, I picked up the A7Cii that has a very similar image. It shoots excellent footage and stills. Thank you for your guidance!
I think Canon would be even better in AF comparison in low light if bright lens like f/1.4 was used, even stopped to f/2. This is because Canon focuses wide open. It's a pity that f/1.4 lenses for Canon need to be adapted.
Hmm, good question. They both have pros and cons. The R6 II is a good choice because of the better ergonomics and the much faster drive speed (which can be very important for wildlife). There are less lenses to choose from, unless you look at the EF-mount + adapter. If you have the budget, the RF 100-500mm is superb and, in good light conditions, the RF 600mm F11 and 800mm F11 deliver excellent quality and performance for the price. Sony's E-mount gives you more choice of lenses, especially zooms, and the extra megapixels of the A7 IV sensor are welcome. What kind of lenses have you used previously for wildlife? Perhaps starting with the lens could be a way to understand what best works for you.
I do like a lot more on Canon's Mark ii camera. The specs and performances are alittle better than Sony a7iv. However, I will buy Sony - more len selections (i.e., 3rd party) and a lot cheaper.
I'm a Canon shooter looking to switch to Sony mainly because of performance in low light. In your comparison doesn't too big of a difference as i mainly never go above 3200 iso. In your video noise test, are those images in log? Thank you
Have a question for the Sony. I struggle a lot to get pleasing colors in HEIF mode. Also I find many pictures over processed and somewhat artificial looking, especially if plants are involved. I have also trouble in touristicky situations, where the camera doesn't focus on the people but often into the background. How to fix that. Can you comment on the Sony vs the Canon, if you want to stay in JPEG/HEIF and Auto most of the time? I don't manage the time to do a raw workflow
HEIF files are not as flexible as JPGs and are also dependent on a HEIF compatible device to be viewed properly. Which colour space do you use (sRGB, BR.2020)? Which software do you use to open/view/edit them? As for the image colours, try different Creative Looks, you can also customise them and reduce the saturation a bit, or use the WB shift to reduce the greens for example. The camera offers a lot of customisation, so it's worth trying to spend some time and experiment with the settings. Which AF settings do you use in crowed situations? For example, if there are a lot of people, subject detection can be confused a little, so you could try using a smaller AF area to limit where the camera is trying to focus.
Ah, I’m really sorry, I deleted these and a few other files by mistake the other day while doing some cleanup on my hard drives. Thankfully the review was finished already.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons Thank you. So would I be right to conclude that A7IV does a better job than R6II in removing high ISO noise from 4k video? Whereas R6II has cleaner high ISO still pictures with in-camera noise reduction turned off ?
Yes that is a fair conclusion. With 4K video, the R6 II produces a bit more noise, but it's a small difference until you go beyond 25,600 ISO. There is a Noise Reduction setting on the Canon that also works for video, so you can improve the result a little, although I find Standard to be the best compromise (with High, you start to loose more details). With JPG photos, the R6 II has less noise, even with NR off.
About RAW and CRAW in R6 II - you are completely wrong. Just tested it with my R8 - there is no difference in quality/dynamic range at all. I tried +5/-5 exposure, shadows etc - there is no notisable differense. The example you showed in this video when CRAW is pixelated sometimes happens when file was not fully loaded.
Well I just checked again the same exact file, and I get the same pixelated low quality I show in my video. And yes, the file is fully loaded, I even re-built the preview, tried to open the C.RAW in Photoshop, and made sure I had the latest update of Lightroom installed. Any more suggestions?
There was no exposition settings in video. So I repeated the test with extremely underexposed frames (almost completely black) and there is indeed such pixelation in several places. On slightly underexposed frames, +5 and +50 work much better. My bad. Thanks for the tests.
Sadly the A7IV still has the eye AF issue (confirmed by James Reader in his comparison, and Mitch Lally and a few others in the Sony forums) and that horrible 4k crop. The R6 II is a better camera all around with the exception of the A7IV having more video dynamic range due to Clog3 limitations (though the R6 II has better photo dynamic range and ISO noise).
It does. I did all the latest updates and I had the 35mm 1.4 GM and 24-70mm 2.8 GM II and eye auto focus was terrible. A lot of front focused or back focused images. I wanted to keep my a7iv because I love the quality and size of the gm lenses but I couldn't after the terrible auto focus. My R6 II is way better in terms of auto focus but I miss the smaller lenses of Sony.
@@kifley19 “Way better” is hyperbolic. I’ve found the Sony A7IV autofocus to be nearly perfect, especially the eye auto focus. Perhaps you had a defective unit because I honestly can’t imagine the autofocus being any better.
Hi, I thank you for your comparison. Definitely explains the differences between the two cameras. I am upgrading from a Nikon D750, I have no previous equipment, so I am really trying to make the best choice for me because I will have to purchase equipment and lenses in addition to the camera body. I take portraits and I will incorporate video in the future. I understand the difference when it comes to buying lenses, but I think that a good result is a combination of good optics with a good body. At the moment, the sharpness of the images, a good focus system, good performance in low light situations, ISO and stabilizer in the camera body are important to me. I want to buy a camera that I will be happy with in the long run. I feel very confused even after your great video because apparently both can be good for me. I would love to hear from you, in light of what I wrote, which camera and system would you choose? Thank you in advance 🙂
As you said already, both can be good for you. One thing you can analyze is which lenses are you interested in buying, and see which brand has more to offer. Sony has an advantage with native lenses.
I went with the R6 M2 as all the old EF lens work fine with an adapter.. the entire limited lens thing is a joke. there are tons of used lenses super cheap form Tampon ^ Sigma and new ones too that all work with the focus working perfect... I brought in my old lense and they all worked with the auto focus fine
Canon has the more attractive cameras for wildlife but Sony has the attractive lens, it's a shame. The R6 II with the Sony 200-600 would be a great combo, I'm not paying 3000€ for an f/7.1 100-500mm zoom. 🤯
As a photographer for 5 years now, i have learnt one thing that is lenses are much much more important than camera bodies so a7iv seems like a better option for me so that i can afford cheap lenses
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
I tried both and went with the A7IV and couldn’t be happier. I might be in the minority, but I like the form factor better and it’s more compact. More buttons and customization too, and I feel like everything is in the right place (photo/video switch doesn’t require my other hand). And Sony’s cheaper lenses are better and weather sealed (for example, the Sony FE 35mm 1.8 vs the Canon RF 35mm 1.8). I also like having more megapixels so I can crop a bit more. And S-Log3 is better than C-Log3. I also like how I can update the firmware with an SD card on my iPad, rather than needing EOS Utility on a PC. Two great cameras, but for me it was an easy choice to go with Sony (and I was a long time Canon user).
Very useful comparison and very well done. I bought an A7IV at the weekend, the main reason being that it felt so comfortable in my hand, I have had the little finger amputated, so I have to hold everything with three fingers and a thumb, which just goes to show how individual ergonomics can be. The second reason, I wear glasses with varifocal lenses, is the view finder, it worked for me. I sadly said goodbye to my Olympus EM1 iii, which I still think has the best ergonomics out there and really excellent pro series lenses, although the sensor and autofocus tracking are outdated.
Excellent comparative article on your site that brought me here! I'm very tempted by the Canon R6 II but no cheaper third-party lenses from Tamron or Sigma make it a big draw-back when having a limited budget. So the Sony A7 VI is still seriously competitive in late 2024 because of its selection of native AND third-party lenses (which can amount to a large budget, as we all know). One more subscriber here! Greetings from Copenhagen!
This was the best comparison review I have found online so far!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very professional and useful comparison! Confirms my decision to go with the R6! Thank you Mathieu.
I love your autofocus comparisons, especially because you check actual pictures not only boxes on LCD.
Thank you. I know what you mean!
i also would prefer the r6ii, it takes breathtaking pics and easy to hold...its important to own a camera that you would love to hold and use in a long run
Good point, but while owning R6 and adapted EF 85 1.4 USM I much more liked to hold A7IV with Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN. Smaller and lighter. Great to carry around all day.
@@s-trapYT nah i cant enjoy to look at sony screen which has lower quality than canon's, how could u enjoy shooting and show it to your clients on set if the screen is not as accurate as it looks on a normal HD display, not to mention the menu is so confusing
@@mbismbismb lol
R6 ii looks more impressive to me but no third party lenses are too big to ignore.
I was considering going with Canon due to the larger camera body size but there stance on 3rd party lenses is a deal breaker for me.
Guess what? I hate using Sony cameras, but I love affordable lenses and lenses that aren't available for othe mounts like Tamron 35-150 2-2.8
And now canon open there rf mount...
And allow to use third party lansen on rf mount
@@MrLuckyKatara is it official?
@@MrLuckyKataralimited only to the sizes that canon does not already have
Very clear explanation, one of the best comparisons. Helped me with making my choice. I'm going for the Canon R6II.
Glad it was helpful!
The reviews rarely ever mention the support system with these brands. Canon is, hands down, the best in the industry. Everything is forwards and backwards compatible. You call canon and get a live person on the phone straight away -and- they have solutions. Fast. Post-sale support should be an absolute priority for any working professional.
Regarding third party lenses…. They are generally backwards compatible but no guarantee to be forwards compatible. Secondly, they just do not meet the standards of Canon EF and RF L glass, which all work
On the RF bodies. For me, that means it is a non-issue.
Just got an R6mkii upgraded from a 5D mk 1, yeah it was worth the upgrade. The image quality is like getting a DSLR after using a cell phone your whole life. The learning curve is a different story - all the new controls and menu's
Glad to read you’re liking your new camera. I’m sure you’ll get used to the new controls quickly.
best comparisons video on youtube. Exactly what i need to see to make a decision. thumbs and following you
Thank you!
The R6 II seems like a terrific camera with a lot of great features, but, as a long time Sony shooter (A7RV), I just can't get past the lens situation. With my Sony, I feel free to shoot either my FF lenses or APS-C depending on circumstances and requirements, pretty much without penalty. Right now, my lens selection consists of a combination of Sony and Sigma lenses with a couple Tamrons (with the 50-400 on my shopping list) and one Samyang. These 3rd party lenses were chosen to fill a particular need that Sony didn't fill. I haven't even started on the small, high quality prime lenses that are available from Sony and Sigma in the E or FE mount that are not available on R mount, nor will they be in the foreseeable future. The lack of 3rd party support isn't, as perhaps you suggested, a matter of time. It's a corporate decision made by Canon and will not change with additional time unless Canon changes it's policy. It's unfortunate, because I know that if Canon's lens selection were the same as Sony, I'd likely be shooting an R5 right now. Sorry for the rant.
No need to apologise, you made a fair comment. Perhaps you are right, Canon won't change its policy anytime soon, but you're not the only one who is aware of the lens situation, and I think today lenses are the number 1 argument in favour of the Sony system (plus the great tech and reputation built over the years).
It would be a shame if Canon doesn't listen to all our feedback at some point. Unless they are just happy to convert photographers that are already using Canon gear (EF lenses), or maybe they think in time they'll have enough lenses on offer to not consider this a problem anymore. I guess we can only wait and see.
I find it odd how hung up people are on this 3rd party lens thing. Literally every video and has someone hating on it. Canon offers incredible L glass and fantastic cheaper alternatives. Save for a few gaps in the line up, which will be filled eventually. I don't see the problem, or need for 3rd party lenses.
Canons lenses are made in house, in Japan, specifically for their bodies. In my opinion using 3rd party lenses is like owning a rolls Royce but putting steel rims on it. Still works well, does the job, cheaper. But it's not those beautiful alloys with the self leveling Rolls Royce logos in the middle.
Furthermore, again a personal reason. The more choice I have the more excuses I have for needing to spend money or wanting a different lens. I honestly think I'd spend more money overall with third party than investing early on with the high end own brand lenses (Sony included). They even keep their value better.
Not going to lie I've been tempted by Sony many times. But can't get over the grip size and ergonomics. The canon just fits so well in the hand too.
Anyway, just my thoughts. Seemingly opposite to most people
same here. I like the r6ii but I get a better deal if I go with Sony. I have to invest in a lot of new gear and any type of savings is worth it.
@@adamwhittingham86 the lenses they have are great for the most part. High end are amazing but lower end are rather lacking still compared to others. Thats why third party would be really good because they would fill the gaps nicely. Also canon is by far the most expensive compared to sony and nikon for what you get. Some sony lenses are better and a third cheaper. watch Duade Paton's video here on youtube where he compares several brand prices and features. It is a noticable bump in price to go with canon for no real reason except brand loyalty. I use canon now but looking at lenses like the sony 200-600 and some sigma lenses I cant deny the envy.
That being said, canon has really delivered on the bodies front. We have plenty options now with R6 mk1 and 2, R5, R7, R8, R10. And the coming R1 and R5 mk2 will be beasts for sure as well.
@@Xirpzy So true, just because I spent a lot of money on a brand doesn't mean we should lick their boots, I own A7iv and also R6ii, I'm a hobbyist and I just save up and buy lens and camera bodies now and then, now that I have R6ii I cannot spend a lot on higher grade lens, both Sony's and canon's high end lenses are great but I can own sigma 50 1.4, I have a choice to affordable super telephoto with sigma and Tamron, so now I have a lot of e-mount glass but I am not sure about buying rf glass, for a single rf I can buy 2 e-mount prime. It's not always about the guys who easily can afford lenses or will get lenses by sponsors, people like me and people who are doing small events, we must be given a choice.
the biggest problems with the A74 is it's a slow shooter where you only get 6 fps in uncompressed raw. the canon is 12 mechanical to 40 fps with same uncompressed raw. the A74 also has a major crop in 4k60. and the rolling shutter is bad.
Small rig makes a great little L bracket with a removable side piece that creates a good grip extension for the Sony A7iv. It makes it fit and feel much better in the hand
Thanks! Great as always! I find interesting the fact that for the autofocus test you use the RF 85mm F2 which known for not being a great lens in autofocus, but even so the R6II still beats the Sony on your tests!
Thank you. Yes, the RF 85mm F2 doesn't have the best reputation, but I've owned one since its release, and I've used it extensively in many situations: AF tests (photo, video), concerts, and various events. I was never disappointed with it. The main thing you have to be careful with is close focus distances, that's where you can easily get more out of focus images than you'd like. But then it also has semi-macro capabilities which can be quite handy. It's not perfect, but I used it more than I thought I would.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons thanks answering!
The focus limiter switch helps a lot with hunting.
Even that Sony 85mm Is not a super fast focusing lens anyway.
Do you think the colors on sony is an issue? Colors still looks kind of better on Canon.
Which of the two is easist to use?
I don’t think Sony colors are an issue, they are different, but remember that only applies to the JPGs. If you work with RAW, I wouldn’t worry about this. And, even with JPGs, you can tweak various settings in the camera to change the colours.
For video, there can be a bit more to talk about but then you also have the Picture Profiles, and the Log curves. So really it depends if you want something straight out of camera without too many adjustments, or not.
I'm a long time Canon 5D Mk II shooter. I do not do video (so far, but I'm considering starting in the future). My 5D is about shot at this time and I need a new camera. I am very tempted by the Sony a7 iv, particularly because of the 33MP sensor, but I have a large investment in canon EF lenses which means I would have to use an adaptor on the Sony camera and so far all the reviews I have seen say that the EF-E adaptors are not fully reliable, particularly for auto-focus and in video mode. I would also need a EF-R adaptor for a R6 II, but for what I have read there is no issue with the adaptor since it is Canon to Canon. Any observation/ idea, particularly from someone who had to make similar decision, would be appreciated. Great video btw. Thank you for that
I haven't tried the adapters on this two specific cameras, but my past experience tells the Canon to Canon adapter gives you faster and more consistence performance.
I have used the Canon 5D Mk II and Mk III since its release and have a huge assortment of Canon EF L lenses and I migrated to Sony A7 series II, IV and RV, and still use all of my EF L lenses with a Metabones IV, V and Speedbooster Ultra adapters and the Canon lenses perform excellent including the AF and IS. I love the Sony Alpha 7 cameras especially the customization of the buttons which is amazing. I can honestly say that migrating to Sony has been the best move and their native and 3rd party lens selection is awesome as well.
EF-R adaptor works perfect. I tried it on R6, R5 and R62
I'm a Sony a7iv user and I must say that your test covers perfectly with my observations after 16 months of daily use.
Af struggles frequently when photographing little and dark subjects, but face detection is fantastic. Also, noise is visible at 3200 iso and it is not very nice. On my old Nikon D750, noise at 6400 didn't disturb me. Here, it does. The only clear advantage of the Sony is dynamic range, and it makes really a difference.
Thank you for sharing your feedback!
I have a Canon 90D and when I switch the full frame mirrorless, I don’t know if I want to stay with Canon and go with the Canon R6 Mark II or switch over to the Sony A7IV. I mainly shoot, landscape, buildings, people, astrophotography, etc
The focus guide in Canon will it work with fully manual lenses?
No because it uses the Dual Pixel AF system, it needs electronic communication with the lens.
Hi, I’m currently using Canon R6 mark 1 and planning to upgrade to mark 2 or Sony A7IV. I’m more on portrait photography and maybe making some video in the future. Do you think Mark 2 has a huge update compare to mark 1? Or A7IV is much better over all? Or maybe I’ll stick with my mark 1 for a while. By the way I like how you review and do comparison. Thanks
The R6 II has a few improvements in key areas, like better autofocus in low light for example. I have a separate video where I compare the R6 and R6 II, if you're interested:
th-cam.com/video/HwMuS22Ly0Q/w-d-xo.html
I don’t think either would be massive upgrade for you. I think you should ask yourself a question: what am I missing? I was faced with starting from beginning few weeks ago and I choose Sony a7 IV, but that’s only because of the lenses. Got it with 24-105, sigma 85 1.4, sigma 100 400 and now I am looking at sigma 35 and Samyang 135 or sigma 135, and later Sony 20 1.8.
If you do only portrait, the A7iv might be OK. But it is terrible when it comes to action. If the subject is running towards the camera, the best results are with spot tracking at 6 FPS : about 70 % sharp pictures. Goes down to 30 % in wide area.
Thank you for the in-depth video! Much appreciated!!
Mathieu, thank you for the video, based on your experience, what would you say is the best camera lens combo for BIF photography ?
The R6 II with the RF 100-500mm.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons never used it, but, looks like price wise is a good deal, the best BIF camera for Sony would be the A1, $6.500 , need to mortgage the home to own one
I hope Canon adds 4.2.2 in standard mode.
Thank you for this review Mathieu. I found it most helpful. If you had to choose one camera for low light which would you take? Does the canon do a crop option when taking stills? Merci
I found the R6 II to have better AF in low light, so I’d probably chose the Canon.
Yes, there is an APS-C crop mode.
Regarding AUTOFOCUS there's a big problem not considered: that 85mm from Sony is a really slow focusing lens. You should have compared with another Lens.
I never had a problem with the Sony 85mm.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons No problem at all even by my side but that lens is not a fast focusing one. Compare It to the Sony 35mm 1.8 and you'll notice it. I suppose that both cameras with fast focusing lens are pretty comparable even in low light. Maybe this r6 II has an edge due to the fact it's a newer product.
It would be interesting see how r6 behaves in comparison.
Yours is probably the most accurate review so far.
Thanks. The RF 85mm F2 is not a super fast lens either, so I think they are comparable. I have these two lenses at home, so it's easier for me to use these rather than renting two other lenses just for one test. Also, I like showing how is the AF with an affordable lens.
But sure, the results could be a bit different with other lenses.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons It would be Ideal testing them with Usm for Canon and Linear motor for Sony.
The Sony 85 1.8 is by no means a slow focusing lens
Hello i am moving from nikon d500 to mirrorless , i want to use the camera for bird fotography and children , i thought about the a7iv because of lens price and more . Do you this this camera is good for bird photography with the 200-600 ?
Thank you for the super good video
Yes, I used the A7 IV with the 200-600mm several times, the Bird Eye AF is very useful for static birds, and the autofocus speed is excellent for birds in flight.
The R6 II is equally good but with the added benefit of shooting up to 40fps, however if you're not desperate about having more frames per second, the A7 IV + 200-600mm combo won't disappoint.
What camera would you choose, the Sony fx3 or the canon r6 mark 2? For documentary/vlog content, I also take pictures occasionally. Great Content.
I haven't tested the FX3, so can't comment on that one. It has specs I really like (4K 120p) and seems really designed for video-makers. I also believe it has a cooling fan to sustain longer recording time. If you work in very warm locations, that could be an important thing to consider. It comes with the XLR grip which is great for audio, but there is no viewfinder. And obviously, it is more expensive, but you know that already. I think it has the same photo capabilities of the A7S III, so I'm sure it can take very decent pictures.
I guess it depends how "occasionally" your photography is. If we're talking just a few photos at the end of a video shooting, the FX3 will be ok. If there are days when you go out just to take photos, not video, then the R6 II is a better camera, and a more interesting hybrid solution.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons Thanks, I have more fun when using Canon cameras
@@MODESTYXO205so why u ask?
Outstanding comparison. I've been shooting BIF with my X-T5 and 100-400. I've been frustrated with the autofocus and am considering going to Canon or Sony. I think you have push me toward the canon even though I like the looks of the Sony. Thanks for the info. Where's the mustache?
Haha, the mustache is gone. I want to look younger 😉
The grip is actually a big thing for me.
Doing long days, consecutive shoots. The canon is simply more comfortable to hold.
Also I've noticed the RAW files are smaller on the Canon so I'm able to fit more on the same SD slot.
Finally the actual shutter sound is quieter on the Canon and the sensor readout is faster in silent mode.
So the more I talk about it, the better the Canon becomes.
Real world usage is far more important long term.
The single biggest downside is lens selection.
Micro HDMI does suck but I don't stream often enough for it to stop preferring the Canon.
That's where Sony has done a better job.
These body comparisons seem to be splitting hairs these days. Each company will outdo their competition with each new model by just a few millimeters it seems. I don’t think anyone could really go wrong with either of these cameras.There are so many tools in post processing that negate some of these minor performance issues nowadays for both of these bodies anyways. Canon litigating against 3rd party lens manufacturers gave me a real sour taste in my mouth with them, and that’s the main reason I’d rather not bother with any of their products anymore. It was just a dirty, greedy thing to do. My A7IV has been awesome, but I’ve been kind of wanting to try the S5II or S5IIX out. I probably won’t though.
Thank you very much for your excellent video and fair comparison. I shoot mostly in wedding ceremonies and I need the quality stability and low temperature of the camera. Which one do you choose for long-term filming?
I like the color tone of the Canon, but the lenses are very expensive, and I'm stuck between the Sony with a lot of lenses and the Canon with the beautiful color.
They both did well in my "overheating" test but it's just a simple test done inside at room temperature (20˚C), so the results could be different in warmer locations etc. The takeaway si that they both handle internal temperature well for this type of camera body. The Canon certainly overheats faster if you record in 4K 50 or 60p, so that is something to consider.
As for the lenses, Sony has a big advantage, no doubt. If you record in Log and create some custom LUTs that reflect the colours you like, I'm sure you can make the A7 IV work for you.
Thank you very much for your reply. So I made sure to buy Sony🌹@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons
Great 👍❤
❤from Gilgit-Baltistan
I should go for canon
Thanks for review can you tell what music did you use inside this video at beginning 0:01 to 0:22?
One very important thing was not said, that to have silent autofocus on R6, you just need to buy the expensive RF series. In all other cases (with the use of the adapter), the EF lenses will all be noisy.
this is seriously under rated. Even the non L glass, hell even some L lenses are loud as shit and if in a quiet room can be heard on recording its ridiculous and a massive positive in the sony camp.
I'm under the impression that you shoot the you on camera parts of these videos with the A7iv, is that correct? Whether yes or no, I'm interested in knowing your setup because it looks fantastic. Thanks!
Thank you! Yes I've been using the A7 IV recenty for the main shot (me talking), and I have an older a6400 for the overhead shots of the products.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessonsThank you for the information!! :) Based partly on thinking your main shot is from the A7iv, I picked up the A7Cii that has a very similar image. It shoots excellent footage and stills. Thank you for your guidance!
Do you recall which firmware the Sony A7 IV had for this test?
Great video. super detailed. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Outstanding Mathieu! THank you!
Great video. Great photos!
I think Canon would be even better in AF comparison in low light if bright lens like f/1.4 was used, even stopped to f/2. This is because Canon focuses wide open. It's a pity that f/1.4 lenses for Canon need to be adapted.
Yeah, right now it's either the affordable f2 or the very expensive f1.2. I hope they release a f1.4 at some point.
As a wildlife photographer which one should I chose
Hmm, good question. They both have pros and cons. The R6 II is a good choice because of the better ergonomics and the much faster drive speed (which can be very important for wildlife). There are less lenses to choose from, unless you look at the EF-mount + adapter. If you have the budget, the RF 100-500mm is superb and, in good light conditions, the RF 600mm F11 and 800mm F11 deliver excellent quality and performance for the price.
Sony's E-mount gives you more choice of lenses, especially zooms, and the extra megapixels of the A7 IV sensor are welcome.
What kind of lenses have you used previously for wildlife? Perhaps starting with the lens could be a way to understand what best works for you.
thanks a lot! A very good comparison like usual... but did I skip it, or was there no comparison about rolling shutter behavior?
No, there are rolling shutter comparisons, for photo and video (see the Drive Speed and Video chapters).
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons ahh... i should never just skip through, thanks
I do like a lot more on Canon's Mark ii camera. The specs and performances are alittle better than Sony a7iv. However, I will buy Sony - more len selections (i.e., 3rd party) and a lot cheaper.
You can buy cheaper camera too. Why A7 iv?
@@markicarebic 3rd party lenses
From my point of view, the only upsides of A7IV is the 33mp and smaller compact body. In all other aspects R6 is better.
I'm a Canon shooter looking to switch to Sony mainly because of performance in low light. In your comparison doesn't too big of a difference as i mainly never go above 3200 iso. In your video noise test, are those images in log? Thank you
No, they were recorded with the Standard profile.
Just one question, when you are testing both cameras for noise in video, are you shooting in their log profiles? Thanks
No, just the standard profile for each.
Canon R6 ii 💥
Have a question for the Sony. I struggle a lot to get pleasing colors in HEIF mode. Also I find many pictures over processed and somewhat artificial looking, especially if plants are involved. I have also trouble in touristicky situations, where the camera doesn't focus on the people but often into the background. How to fix that.
Can you comment on the Sony vs the Canon, if you want to stay in JPEG/HEIF and Auto most of the time? I don't manage the time to do a raw workflow
HEIF files are not as flexible as JPGs and are also dependent on a HEIF compatible device to be viewed properly. Which colour space do you use (sRGB, BR.2020)? Which software do you use to open/view/edit them?
As for the image colours, try different Creative Looks, you can also customise them and reduce the saturation a bit, or use the WB shift to reduce the greens for example. The camera offers a lot of customisation, so it's worth trying to spend some time and experiment with the settings.
Which AF settings do you use in crowed situations? For example, if there are a lot of people, subject detection can be confused a little, so you could try using a smaller AF area to limit where the camera is trying to focus.
Great review.
Thanks!
wow ! great video. thank you
Well done comparison.
thanks!
Would you be able to make the raw high ISO samples of the doll pictures available for download? Thank you.
Ah, I’m really sorry, I deleted these and a few other files by mistake the other day while doing some cleanup on my hard drives. Thankfully the review was finished already.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons Thank you. So would I be right to conclude that A7IV does a better job than R6II in removing high ISO noise from 4k video? Whereas R6II has cleaner high ISO still pictures with in-camera noise reduction turned off ?
Yes that is a fair conclusion. With 4K video, the R6 II produces a bit more noise, but it's a small difference until you go beyond 25,600 ISO. There is a Noise Reduction setting on the Canon that also works for video, so you can improve the result a little, although I find Standard to be the best compromise (with High, you start to loose more details).
With JPG photos, the R6 II has less noise, even with NR off.
For Canon use the DR+ to get more highlight recovery this affects rows also
can you test a9iii vs r6ii
thanks 😊
Thanks for sharing!
How win???
About RAW and CRAW in R6 II - you are completely wrong. Just tested it with my R8 - there is no difference in quality/dynamic range at all. I tried +5/-5 exposure, shadows etc - there is no notisable differense. The example you showed in this video when CRAW is pixelated sometimes happens when file was not fully loaded.
Well I just checked again the same exact file, and I get the same pixelated low quality I show in my video. And yes, the file is fully loaded, I even re-built the preview, tried to open the C.RAW in Photoshop, and made sure I had the latest update of Lightroom installed. Any more suggestions?
There was no exposition settings in video. So I repeated the test with extremely underexposed frames (almost completely black) and there is indeed such pixelation in several places. On slightly underexposed frames, +5 and +50 work much better. My bad.
Thanks for the tests.
Yes I think you need an extreme recovery in post to notice the pixelation. Hopefully something we won't need to do very often!
Sadly the A7IV still has the eye AF issue (confirmed by James Reader in his comparison, and Mitch Lally and a few others in the Sony forums) and that horrible 4k crop. The R6 II is a better camera all around with the exception of the A7IV having more video dynamic range due to Clog3 limitations (though the R6 II has better photo dynamic range and ISO noise).
It does. I did all the latest updates and I had the 35mm 1.4 GM and 24-70mm 2.8 GM II and eye auto focus was terrible. A lot of front focused or back focused images. I wanted to keep my a7iv because I love the quality and size of the gm lenses but I couldn't after the terrible auto focus. My R6 II is way better in terms of auto focus but I miss the smaller lenses of Sony.
@@kifley19 “Way better” is hyperbolic. I’ve found the Sony A7IV autofocus to be nearly perfect, especially the eye auto focus. Perhaps you had a defective unit because I honestly can’t imagine the autofocus being any better.
The Sony actually has better iso noise performance and dynamic range…and it’s not even close
where is the panasonic s5 ii and sony a7c and canon r8 reviews and can you make a comparison between them all
I haven’t had the chance to test these cameras yet.
Hi, I thank you for your comparison. Definitely explains the differences between the two cameras.
I am upgrading from a Nikon D750, I have no previous equipment, so I am really trying to make the best choice for me because I will have to purchase equipment and lenses in addition to the camera body.
I take portraits and I will incorporate video in the future.
I understand the difference when it comes to buying lenses, but I think that a good result is a combination of good optics with a good body.
At the moment, the sharpness of the images, a good focus system, good performance in low light situations, ISO and stabilizer in the camera body are important to me. I want to buy a camera that I will be happy with in the long run.
I feel very confused even after your great video because apparently both can be good for me.
I would love to hear from you, in light of what I wrote, which camera and system would you choose?
Thank you in advance 🙂
As you said already, both can be good for you.
One thing you can analyze is which lenses are you interested in buying, and see which brand has more to offer. Sony has an advantage with native lenses.
Haha... I'm in the exact situation. I own a D750 too. Did you make the purchase? And if you did, how's your experience?
I went with the R6 M2 as all the old EF lens work fine with an adapter.. the entire limited lens thing is a joke. there are tons of used lenses super cheap form Tampon ^ Sigma and new ones too that all work with the focus working perfect... I brought in my old lense and they all worked with the auto focus fine
Thank you so much
7:07 which image is more accurate? the grass color looks so different.
I would say the R6 II with the standard profile is the most accurate.
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons cheers
Wow canon! you made it.
Will you be doing a Sony A7R V birds in flight review soon?
It's in the works at this very moment!
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons looking forward to your thoughts
Canon has the more attractive cameras for wildlife but Sony has the attractive lens, it's a shame. The R6 II with the Sony 200-600 would be a great combo, I'm not paying 3000€ for an f/7.1 100-500mm zoom. 🤯
Sony is better.
The best result is when you try the two camera by yourselves and confirmed which one to choose. Sony 85mm its a slow lens.
How much you get paid from canon? I'm also thinking paid promotion for canon to my channel
What makes you think I get paid by Canon? I bought the A7 IV with my own money and I rented the R6 from a rental company for three weeks.
As a photographer for 5 years now, i have learnt one thing that is lenses are much much more important than camera bodies so a7iv seems like a better option for me so that i can afford cheap lenses
Which is easier to edit? C-log or S-log?
Brilliant! Hi from Russia
Sony is saved by third party lenses for now, otherwise canon is the clear winner.
Canon has announced that it’s going to open up to third party for RF mounts. So….
Hey Mathieu,
So the r6ii has a wobble/warp effect for video with 24mm range?
is this just how it is for canon eos r cameras
only cameras with ibis. So not the R, R8, R5C etc
Your sound is way to quiet. Thanks for the interesting comparison though. Very helpful.
Do you mean the volume of my voice is too low?
where is that "country" Europe?
Not sure I understand the question? The country where I make my videos?
@@MathieuGasquetMirrorLessons "Europe" is not a country. It is a continent. Nor is the EU - it is a "bunch" of countries :))
I know what Europe is, but I still don't understand what you are trying to say about the video.
Like!👍
woooo
🙌🙌
Sony is by far better BUT i have all canon equipment. Ugh.
Great review
Thank you!