Jared, all of these cameras go down to 64 iso. They all look great at 64 iso, there’s no noticeable difference with all of them (A1, R5 mark 1, R5 mark II, Z8 or Z9) at 64 iso.
I remember that i really didn't mind using ISO 800 on my old Olympus E-M10(m4/3). Absolutely loved that camera, actually quite miss it. Folks are way too sensitive about the noise these days.
@@alessandro3000 if you shooting hummingbirds at 600mm, 1/2000, f/8 you lucky to be under 64000 iso. Hell, if you trying to get wings in motion at 1/640 f8 you gonna be at 5600 easy. The noise reduction software does wonders.
I worked in broadcast news all my life, and I often told people that "the people at home don't know the difference." We had our "pixel peepers" in television too. They might agonize over the smallest quality issue, but honestly, it didn't make the slightest difference to the viewer at home. That, to me, is the meaning of "real world." I wasn't directing for the approval of other TV people. I just wanted the news on ASAP. No one ever called a TV station to complain about our dynamic range. They don't even know what it is. JMHO, don't flame me.
I agree with this. People are more worried about substance and content. They’d rather have a riveting story that is visible than an ultra sharp slo mo parallax shot of a potato.
I don't know what people at home find different and neither do you. In the Real World, the paying Customer gets to decide what is or isn't important, not you.
You're right. I've had the same debate with people about video, when I point out 8k video is completely pointless for most people, because no one will ever see it. Virtually no one has an 8k screen to watch it on. There's no benefit to 8k at normal viewing ranges. (Only matters for the viewer if the screen gets bigger or you're really close to it.) The storage capacity required, much longer upload times, etc. I realized a long time ago most people couldn't even tell the difference between 4k and 2k. When I showed them images they couldn't tell me which was which. The only people that could were other photographers, gamers, etc., because they know about things like resolution, refresh rate, et al. I've known people still using composite cables on their TV because they don't know what HDMI is. I know people still watching 480p DVDs. You tell then about HDR and they don't care, nor do they have an HDR TV, so they can't see it even if they got an HDR movie. As a dilettante photographer I noticed the same thing. Most people simply don't care about the quality of an image, and are perfectly content with a crappy phone image. I've spent hours on photos and videos just for people to shrug their shoulders. It really is just an issue for others enthusiasts. The normies couldn't care less.
my main monitor for games and movies is an hdr 2k monitor, I find that I'd much rather have extremely good colors and dynamic range than extra pixels, even when I do notice it, it's not anywhere near as distracting as terrible contrast ratios are
These are my favorite Fro videos, the "real world" images tests. He does a very good job teaching and explaining and gives you usable information and not just click bait-y "Oh no, dynamic range fail!"
After all of the hype and suspense, this is the R5 MII image quality review that I was waiting for. Thank you for getting this out so quickly and giving us a real first look at R5 MII images! I use the electronic shutter on my R5 quite a bit so I really appreciated the electronic shutter comparison between the R5 and R5 MII. All of your comparisons were the covered the main comparisons that I was interested in. I was a little concerned that switching to a BSI sensor could trade low light performance for image capture speed. I agree that when you pixel peep, you can see some differences but, they are really minuscule. It doesn't look to me like anything that would have any real world impact. I think that the R5 MII images look great.
I like that you compare the R5 and R5ii with the a1 and Z8 and are honest enough to conclude that in terms of image quality (with one maybe being slightly better in one respect another in another), overall they all produce good and very similar results. With that said, for me, it’s a case of choosing a camera that feels right (totally subjective) and has the feature set and lens line up you need for your use case and then just getting out there and taking photos.
@@user-ep3ug9ry3pyeah the Z8 and R5 mark ii are both better options than the A1 right now. You can’t tell the difference between the images of the 3 cameras (photography wise) and both the Z8 and R5 are a fraction of the cost. It’ll be interesting to see what Sony does with the A1 mark ii because there’s not a lot of room to go (other than upping the megapixels to a ridiculous amount).
@@TigerWould2Right, the difference is in the lens lineup. Nikon's Tele lens lineup is just amazing, while Canon's mainly consists of permanently adapted EF lenses for some reason.
@@fotografalexandernikolisnot the case at all. I think you really need to look at Canons lens lineup and rethink that. There are so many first types of lenses that canons designed while other manufacturers are following the old designs that canon came out with in the original EF lineup. All the prime lenses for canon are new designs (as they are with Nikon as well) if you’re talking about the super telephoto lenses (the big whites) yes for the 600, 800mm, 1200mm those are basically just adapted lenses with a couple more elements, but honestly what could have been improved from the original design and show me the competitions designs and what they e changes. Yes Nikon did put in a built in tele converter for a couple of their long zoom lenses, but Canon did a 100-300mm f/2.8 and there’s not really comparable Nikon, Sony or 3rd party lenses for that. I could come up with a list of lenses that are specific to canon on the RF and RF-Z mount and those are new designs. With Sony and Nikon we are seeing much of the same of canons EF designs because that was the original blueprint and the EF mount is the most used and adapted mount in the history of photography so I’d imagine Nikon, Sony and others would want to copy that lens lineup and I don’t fault them for that.
Arent all aspects relevant when getting a new body? Why does your and so many other comments sounds like coping? If the dynamic range was great that wouldve been what we talked about, when its not "its not that important anyway", r5 owner btw
@@FordSierraIS dynamic range is always going to be an issue with stacked sensors. And in this case we aren’t just talking about stated sensors we are talking about stacked sensors and dual pixel autofocus (which has always had issues with dynamic range as well). So the fact that the R5 mark II is this good when both of those things have been issues in the past when it comes to dynamic range is actually shocking! There’s a reason why only canon uses Dual pixel AF! It’s not that other brands couldn’t figure it out, it’s that dynamic range was always the issue they couldn’t figure out and yet canon somehow managed to make it look this good. I imagine it has something to do with the A. I. Processor and how it renders noise.
@@kennethlui2268 the mk1 is good for my usecase so i cant justify chipping out the money, but you dont want a discussion around camera specs and performance? for me thats a big part of the fun with photo/video. lenses too
@@TigerWould2 yes but its also backlit sensor that helps with low light. yes it performs good but canon dont really have a body that is great for low light and i hoped that would come in the mk2, rather they take a approach to make it more suitable for situtations requiring faster readout speeds but we already have r6mk2,r3 and now r1. i was hoping mk2 r5 was 45 or 60 megapixel backlit with great dynamic range but since its not i will keep shooting with the mk1. interesting to see what comes next
The problem with "real world" is that it varies so much. Your real world is not the same as mine. I shoot architecture and interiors and I don't care a lot about focus speed, but I care a LOT about dynamic range and how clean I can get files shot hand held, at f8 or f11 in very low light (for example in a dark church), while still being able to see the view out of the windows, and I also want to correct my perspective and crop in quite a bit. Therefore your studio scenes actually are a lot closer MY real world.
Can someone tell me which company recently said at the premiere of their new camera that they improved the image quality or noise. This hasn't happened recently and I have a feeling it won't happen anytime soon. In this case, you pay for efficiency, better auto-focus, pre-capture, faster sensor reading and so on, not to mention video
Thank you Jared! I have NO IDEA why people try to put cameras in the WORST situations possible and complain when they find a flaw. Putting the camera in a scenario that would likely NEVER be the case… Ridiculous… Expose properly and DR wouldn’t be an issue.
@@mbismbismb technically they arent shooters just reviewers. A shooter doesn't under exposure so they can see noise on purpose. Jared is just showing us the things other people or sites do to find something wrong with Canon cameras as if they are held to a different standard for some reason. Same with the over heating. You would think no other brand ever overheats but canon.
@@RayValdezPhotography Exactly! Who is going to shoot 8k 60 for 30 mins straight!? 🤣 Then bash a small mirrorless camera when it craps out trying to do so… lol I’m waiting on my R5ii to be delivered RIGHT NOW! I can’t wait until it arrives! To hear him say the images are a little sharper I’m STOKED!!😎
It's 2024 and people are still worried about noise/grain. Most of the people worried about it probably have cameras with better low light performance than mine anyway! Regularly publish images shot with my Canon 1D X Mark II (eight year old model) and 6D (twelve year old model) at ISO 10, 000+
As much as I love your “real world” attitude, I’m really glad you also included actual controlled side by side testing so we can truly see if there is a difference or not. I’ve been debating on upgrading my R5 and this video just sold me on the Mark II
@@froknowsphotoyeah I didn’t think there would be that big of a difference between the 2 either. Now I think I’ll buy the mark ii and keep my current as a back up.
@@froknowsphotoDang it Jared, I wasn’t going to buy the R5 mark ii. Image quality for fashion photography this makes sense I’m wondering how it will render complex patterns. That’s the only issue with all mirrorless cameras and why I still look at the DSLR’s with cross types as the better option. I would have loved the R1, because it has cross types, but I need at least 45 megapixels for detail!
Good video. For me half a stop does make a differerence. I photograph owls and birds often at dusk and I may be in the 10,000 ISO range. Better autofocus and prerecord is nice though. Many small improvements it seems.
@@andreasoberg2021 there is really no loss in DR when you’re pushing ISO that high, the R5 II only seems to take a hit below 640 ISO, mainly at base ISO. Birders really shouldn’t be affected by this “issue,” it’s more for landscape shooters that tend to shoot at ISO 100
Great review. It’s hard to believe how long I’ve been watching your channel. This is a great review. At this point in my life auto focus is the only thing I can’t correct in Post. Canon nails it, lol… coming from a Nikon Fuji fanboy.
As someone who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum as you, I greatly appreciate your call to leave politics out of the conversation here. It shows a respect for photography, your channel, and your audience. I’m just here for photo talk, that’s all. 😎🤘🏼
This is where I'm at. I want the r5ii for its mechanical shutter to avoid banding and the insane AF.. but nikon has some seriously great glass like internal zoom 70-200 and a reasonably priced 400 4.5. Can't imagine canon doing a lens like that for less than $4000
Looking forward to the R5 MK2 menu walkthrough and any suggested button mapping and if back button autofocus is still the way to go. Been relying on your guides for years now and really appreciate those videos.
You absolutely give the best camera gear reviews out there. I agree you can get great results with any modern camera. It comes down to personal preferences and what works best for you. I have been shooting with Canon cameras for almost 15 years. I also print my own photos. Not once has somebody ever said, “the dynamic range cold be better” or “this photo has too much grain”. What brand do you use? Doesn’t happen in the real world. These are people paying for prints and are very happy with the photos. A lot of people out there are over analyzing with their reviews. Keep up the good work. Sorry “Great Work”.
What i want to know is in regard to the sensor readout speed of the R5 mk2, is it fast enough that i can shoot prop planes and helicopters at airshows with the electronic shutter ? Will i see “bent” blades all over the place because of rolling shutter ? Would really like to see some test shots of that.
Nice video!! Very detailed. This should also apply to the Z63. People are making HUGE deals out of minor things. People need to learn to expose their images better and take photos. My z8 has less DR compared to my z6, but I won't cry about it, because I know how to get my images exposed properly!
By FAR the best and most useful feature of the R5Mk2 is that it brings down the price of the R5Mk1. I'm not saying the rest of the features is useless. It's absolutely not. And if I would win the lottery I'd be totally buying all of the new cameras. But as a professional who pays his bills with photography I'd rather get another Mk1. Because frankly no customer cares for or can even spot any of the "differences". I mean, I myself am looking at the comparison photos here or on dpreview and the differences are virtually non-existent. You could just swap the images and tell me this was the Mk1 and this was the Mk2 and switch it all up, I would believe you. Of course for extremely fast situations like some sports or for video it's probably a totally different story. But since we are talking IMAGE QUALITY here and not autofocus or video... I basically see no real world difference at all.
Is it just me, this sounds like damage control? After watching the entire video I am convinced that canon is trying to catch up. Thanks for this video, it shed a lot of light, no pun intended.
It's just you. There's no damage control to be had here, Canon caught up long ago. If anything, it's just a choose your own adventure at this point and Canon is coming in with the automatic deadlocked homing missiles. If you're detecting an annoyed tone in Jared's voice, it's probably because of so many oddly dishonest reviews of the camera itself Having worked in the print/ photo studio industry for years dealing with customers, there's no shortage of people who have no idea about cameras try to sell you on the idea that their camera is better and other's are worse because they saw a review say so. So I look into the review and it's always an armchair reviewer pointing at other people's images and charts and saying "seeeee!!!!!!!" Unfortunately, that's where Tony and Chelsea have ended up as reviewers
I love when new camera gear comes out because that means everyone is gonna go out sell their r5’s and r5c’s cause they want the “new thing”. Which means I get a steal on the “old thing”.
The higher the mp count, the more noise. So you will see less noise on a canon R6 than an R5. I DO rely heavily on ISO’s above 6400, so clean high iso is a must. 24 mp seems to be the sweet spot for that. Which is why I have no camera with more mp than that.
11:45 What’s your opinion on pushing noise reduction in the background, but not on the subject? Do you find that the inconsistency is more distracting / unnatural than grainy bokeh?
@@froknowsphoto the R5 has a base level of noise reduction built into the files even on Raw which you cannot remove. Does the R5 MKII have that or not.
@@stuartallenphotosthat was explained already in few articles most people think it’s a NR but actually it is just a AA filter that reduces the sharpness a bit but helps reducing other things like moire…
Yes, but the sync speed takes a slight hit. Electronic shutter: 1/160 sec (some sources say 1/180 sec) Mechanical shutter: 1/200 sec. Elec. 1st curtain: 1/250 sec.
@@markwillridebut that’s NOT surprising because the R5 II is the same. Your confusion may be because you think “electronic first curtain shutter” is the same as “electronic shutter”. That’s not the case.
hi Jared excellent points ! let's go shoot pictures ! thank you for showing the differences r5vs r5mkii ES. that's exactly what I wanted to see. If one day I sell my not yet delivered r5 mkii ( delivery pushed to 29 th of august 😪) the mechanical shutter will be as good as new.
Soooo refreshing to hear a photographer who knows their trade emphasise that showing some grain in images isnt the end of life Its such a shame that so many youtube photo channels hammer on about every image needs to be sharp enough to cut. Thank You Mr Polin....composition logic over technology purists.
Great review!!!! I'll repeat from my earlier posts... bought my stellar system (for me) after retiring taking many of the evals you did on the hardware I was looking at... my final decisions incorporated many other evaluations... your evaluations came out on top with the best of the best of the others. I could almost say... save time and just look at your reviews and you will be safe... Highly recommend folks review your new hardware evals, with other reviews, before committing to anything new or older (your evals will be there for older hardware).
I"m about to pull the trigger on the R52....I've been waiting since the 5D2....and all my glass is EF. Have you seen good results with the new camera using the older glass with an adapter?
I shoot with the original EOS R. In the last month I have been paid enough to pay for another one three times over. No one has ever said the image quality wasn’t good enough. I have shot side by side with another shooter using the R3 and they haven’t said my image quality wasn’t good enough. I don’t plan on upgrading until the refurbished prices on the R5 come way down. I don’t care about the image quality difference. I just want the IBIS, higher frame rate, and the autofocus improvement is a nice bonus. Remember to step back and make sure you put your money where it is needed. My glass collection is more important to me than camera body.
Just getting into photography a bit more seriously lately (automotive) and I fight so hard with my issue of pixel peeping, very hard habit to break. Recently picked up the R6 Mark ii, an upgrade from the RP, and paired it with the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and it's been amazing! Appreciate all the knowledge you share Jared, especially for someone as green as me!
It does affect. Most people here are amateur and comment as professionals... Colors paste different against noise. Is like using your camera with RGB profile and post them on IG vs Adobe profile at camera and exporting to Srgb...
Sorry Jared. It sounds to me like your suggesting I DON'T underexpose my images by 6 stops then brighten them in post. Thats just crazy, why would you suggest such a thing?
Are you saying that the amount of noise and grain will look more prominent on a 4K monitor than a iPhone? Also I chose Canon because I think the magenta looks more natural for Black skin.
I find the magenta is the worst in the shadows - I really dislike it. I also find the auto white balance drifts way more on the R5 than it did on my dslr Canon's. These are the little things that take time to fix but that most YTers never talk about.
I have that on the R6. For some reason it also depends on the lens. Colour is more off on my 28-70 f2 than my other lenses. My RF 100-500mm and viltrox 85mm are more accurate.
@@TimFitzwater i didnt know if my tint shift was off. Lately I been moving it more towards green. Sometimes I would just desaturate purple and magenta in lightroom if it didnt affect other colors
I found the same color differences in the Canon technology. I liked Canon color until I bought the R3 -- a stacked sensor like the R5 mkii. From that point forward I had trouble going back to the prior Canon color mix. The stacked sensor still has some of that Canon warmth but it does it better. The engineers have to use a combination of minerals -- and electronic interpretation -- that works for a given optic, but I think the stacked sensor design was paired up with a winning combination when it comes to color and sharpness. In the pictures of the toys/statuettes, the Sony sensor shows an ability or bias to lift the darks a tiny bit to show slightly more detail. This makes sense since their product lines doesn't have as much competition between video and stills products.
That you for talking sense about pixel peeping. Your controlled examples were very useful. I just got notice that I am about to get my R5 Mark II so looking forward to trying it out
Jared thanks for sharing your first quick thoughts! Never apologize for doing your assignments, it is your profession. Cheers to being our eyes when we aren't there looking forward to more of your thoughts on these new cameras
This videos info about Raw vs edited and shot setting was just what I needed. Almost didn’t watch because I am focused on better glass than the newest camera bodies. Your educational value is the best of the best with honors, sir.
This real world PRO testing. For many people, it would be interesting to test the AF for sports with the 200-800, a smaller aperture and less defined lens.
Thank you for your great review. I agree: 'when you look for issues, you will find issues'. And real photographers don't pixel peep. They make photo's and they love doing that.
It's not worth the $4300 to replace an R5 I, it's all for the "video" features; admit it and don't "schill" for Canon. I agree "real world" images on phone and laptop screens are indistinguishable (another reason not to spend more money). Oh, btw, cropping and printing images are real world too. I would prefer to invest in good lenses than switch cameras for a $4300 body with incremental updates.
lol, if your big takeaway is that the R5 Mark II is all for the "video" features, you're even more clueless then you thought. I couldn't care less about the video features. But the still features....30 FPS, Pre Shooting, Almost R3 sensor read out speed, better AF than any Sony or Nikon on the market. Yup, you're right. I was wrong.
@@froknowsphoto Yup you're right, all that for $4300 that you maybe didn't pay for or wrote off as a business expense.. Some of us aren't that fortunate. Mr. Clueless. Seeya.....
Great video! As a Nikon shooter, I find it interesting to see what other brands are doing. None better or worse "overall" in the big 3 (maybe 4) if you just accept that they trade blows with unique strengths. I find it "interesting" that YOU, as a "Youtber" now need to almost APOLOGIZE,for choosing to review what's important TO YOU. People criticize WHERE you test, WHAT you test, and now can't leave politics OUT OF A PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM, so you have to waste time preemptively defusing tirades.... Wow. It feels like people believe that they are paying you directly to do custom test sweeps, and not getting their money's worth... Somehow ASKING for reviews has been traded-down to entitled tantrums in spite of you trying to cater to as w8de a group as possible. But if it's not tailor made to certain individuals, they get nasty. Don't like the camera? DON'T BUY IT. Doesn't have a feature you want? Same answer. Don't blame Fro because you can't afford it, or would rather spend your money another way. Can't believe people are gett8ng snotty because they don't see value in upgrading. THEN DON'T. No snark needed.
I think it is odd that You are limited to 0.5 second of pre-shooting, I mean, with (the max of) 30 fps, You can get 15 images pre-shot during half a second, so 15 is apparantly the limit of what the camera's buffer can manage, what I don't understand then is, why - if You shoot in for instance 15 or 7.5 fps continous - You can no longer hold the same 15 images as what You could with 30, and so get Yourself 1 or 2 seconds of pre-shooting....? The only explanation I can find is that the camera doesn't know WHEN You are going to press the button, so it has to record/save all "potential images", so it can't just record the preshooting in 15 or 7.5 fps, as there may then be an incontinouity in timing between the last preshot image and the first not-preshot image, however, that there may be a tiny mis-timing between these two images, propably will matter little to most photographers. - Well, another explanation could be that the preshooting is always in 30 fps, even if the camera is set for for instance 7.5 fps, so it DOES actually still record 15 images, is thát the case....???
Pixel peeping is my absolute Achilles heel. I've done sports photography for a local collegiate level wood bat baseball league and my biggest fear is a picture that people don't like, so I'm extremely aggressive with my culling. I almost wish I had someone else go through the pics and pick their favorites because I feel like my likes and biases don't line up with the people actually looking at them and I'm discarding so many pics that I wouldn't need to. I also feel like if someone else was going through them and culling, I'd have a better idea of what kind of pics people would like. It's the same way with the wildlife and landscape pics I take out when I'm working.
People need to stop having meltdowns over higher ISOs. It is so much more important to use a higher ISO to get the correct exposure in camera than it is to underexpose for the sake of using a lower ISO. You introduce more noise with the latter
I think these things are important in the real world: First of all image quality is more important than any other feature. Image quality must not decrease with an upgrade. Higher price must mean better image quality and other features. Image quality is the staple of a camera. Not every photographer is a sports photographer where frames per second is important and even then the frames per second does not override image quality. Useless features such as eye controlled focusing are not only useless, but they hurt the eyes of some people because it projects infrared rays into the eyes, that could hurt some people in the short run and perhaps many on prolonged use. It requires calibration and may not work well if the calibration is off due to any reason. This useless feature does not override image quality. In the real world image quality is the staple of a camera and overrides everything else.
I also want to add that instead of spending time and money on eye controlled focusing, Canon should spent that to develop global shutter, which is also very important for image quality and for sports photography as well.
It depends what you photograph. I shoot mainly birds and in the Australian rain forest it's very dark and I'd be shooting at 10,000 + sometimes even 64000+ just to get a shutter speed of around 500/sec so ISO performance is important
Thank you. Considering updating my EOS R5 to the R5II but I also own 2x the Sony A1 and A7RV so trying to decide if it is worth it. I don’t shoot video so the most interesting feature maybe pre-capture. I think I will sell one of my A1’s to add it. Also admit while I really like my RF L glass it’s all heavier than the Sony GM and GMII equivalents. Really like your video and appreciate the work your team puts into creating them. The podcasts and presets are great as well. Take care.
Thorough comparison and nice mix of real-world and static setups, agreed on your points here. Just got through all the nit-picking about the Z6III semi-stacked sensor, I guess Canon's in the barrel now. I don't know, maybe I've been around a while but all these modern bodies are magic to me.
My birds in flight attempts require cropping losses of 90-95% of pixels. Even with nearly double the starting pixels I get better cropped results with R3 than R5, the pixels are just “better”. Is especially noticeable at 3200iso for sunset owls. FedEx is bringing my R52 today and I’m hoping the pixels got “better”. Wanted a 36mpixel R1, but Canon didn’t deliver.
So are we to believe all the photos you took are in the real world 😲I don't know Fro, sometimes I think your out of this world 👽 🤣. Okay a decision has been made, all the cameras you tested are perfect for me 👍👍 Honestly, I don't think you could go wrong with any of these cameras 😍
I have been waiting for the R5ii as l am upgrading from my Lumix S5. After seeing all the info from a number of reviews and websites, l went with the Z8.
I disagree that 12k or 25k don't give good results. But I agree that R5ii is just as good as R5 or any other camera for this range. I often shoot 800mm (600f4/1.4x) in low light (cropped) with grizzlies and get great pictures that I print at 48x32". It requires having the sun behind you (even if it's shaded) and high enough shutter speed. But with bears (and people), the interest (look and activity and composition) are more important than noise - and new denoise AI really work well. Often you have to process for colour and shadows (particularly around eyes) but I get pictures that are worthy of hanging on the walls at iso25k R5. I avoid craw to avoid noise in shadows. Composition, avoiding motion blur, and the sun behind you - are the critical ingredients.
I think the big question to R5 owners is whether $2000 (buy/sell), $500 batteries, new cage, 1/3 less stops is worth it for Clog2, 4k/120 with audio, 30fps, adjustable fps, 14bit electronic, slightly better a/f, precapture, analog vid/still, better menu... The answer is likely - if your budget is low = NO, but if you have $3000 play money or a business, its Yes for Action/Wildlife and Video and NO for strictly landscape.
At a discounted price on ebay… like around $2100-2200… that is what i did… no sense in buying brand new when i can use the extra cash to fly somewhere to play with the r5
I think grain, especially from a photojournalistic standpoint, gives photos character. Something that is needed especially since sensors are so amazing these days sometimes shots can look a bir like A.i without grain ... Just my take 🤷🏻♂️
![[[OFFICIAL MV]] เอิ้นขวัญให้อ้าย- อ๊ะอาย สกุณาพร | ค่ายเพลงเป็นหนึ่ง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/83x6L3X3qh0/mqdefault.jpg)
Look for issues...find issues.
Jared, all of these cameras go down to 64 iso. They all look great at 64 iso, there’s no noticeable difference with all of them (A1, R5 mark 1, R5 mark II, Z8 or Z9) at 64 iso.
@@TigerWould2not natively
As a wildlife shooter, folks stressing about iso 640 is wild.
We let too many tech freaks takeover the photography world
As a real estate and architecture photographer I obviously see things differently. Iso 100 and f11 is like 98% of my money shots.
I remember that i really didn't mind using ISO 800 on my old Olympus E-M10(m4/3).
Absolutely loved that camera, actually quite miss it.
Folks are way too sensitive about the noise these days.
@@alessandro3000 if you shooting hummingbirds at 600mm, 1/2000, f/8 you lucky to be under 64000 iso. Hell, if you trying to get wings in motion at 1/640 f8 you gonna be at 5600 easy. The noise reduction software does wonders.
@@SymbiotAlpha yeah I certainly believe that. i on the other hand expose for 30 seconds if it is too dark 😅
I worked in broadcast news all my life, and I often told people that "the people at home don't know the difference." We had our "pixel peepers" in television too. They might agonize over the smallest quality issue, but honestly, it didn't make the slightest difference to the viewer at home. That, to me, is the meaning of "real world." I wasn't directing for the approval of other TV people. I just wanted the news on ASAP. No one ever called a TV station to complain about our dynamic range. They don't even know what it is. JMHO, don't flame me.
Now you know why this dude tries to talk like a newscaster
I agree with this. People are more worried about substance and content. They’d rather have a riveting story that is visible than an ultra sharp slo mo parallax shot of a potato.
I don't know what people at home find different and neither do you. In the Real World, the paying Customer gets to decide what is or isn't important, not you.
You're right. I've had the same debate with people about video, when I point out 8k video is completely pointless for most people, because no one will ever see it. Virtually no one has an 8k screen to watch it on. There's no benefit to 8k at normal viewing ranges. (Only matters for the viewer if the screen gets bigger or you're really close to it.) The storage capacity required, much longer upload times, etc.
I realized a long time ago most people couldn't even tell the difference between 4k and 2k. When I showed them images they couldn't tell me which was which. The only people that could were other photographers, gamers, etc., because they know about things like resolution, refresh rate, et al. I've known people still using composite cables on their TV because they don't know what HDMI is. I know people still watching 480p DVDs. You tell then about HDR and they don't care, nor do they have an HDR TV, so they can't see it even if they got an HDR movie.
As a dilettante photographer I noticed the same thing. Most people simply don't care about the quality of an image, and are perfectly content with a crappy phone image. I've spent hours on photos and videos just for people to shrug their shoulders. It really is just an issue for others enthusiasts. The normies couldn't care less.
my main monitor for games and movies is an hdr 2k monitor, I find that I'd much rather have extremely good colors and dynamic range than extra pixels, even when I do notice it, it's not anywhere near as distracting as terrible contrast ratios are
These are my favorite Fro videos, the "real world" images tests. He does a very good job teaching and explaining and gives you usable information and not just click bait-y "Oh no, dynamic range fail!"
There hasn't been great improvement in image quality for a while now. The focus now is better capturing quickly moving subjects.
After all of the hype and suspense, this is the R5 MII image quality review that I was waiting for. Thank you for getting this out so quickly and giving us a real first look at R5 MII images! I use the electronic shutter on my R5 quite a bit so I really appreciated the electronic shutter comparison between the R5 and R5 MII. All of your comparisons were the covered the main comparisons that I was interested in. I was a little concerned that switching to a BSI sensor could trade low light performance for image capture speed. I agree that when you pixel peep, you can see some differences but, they are really minuscule. It doesn't look to me like anything that would have any real world impact. I think that the R5 MII images look great.
I like that you compare the R5 and R5ii with the a1 and Z8 and are honest enough to conclude that in terms of image quality (with one maybe being slightly better in one respect another in another), overall they all produce good and very similar results. With that said, for me, it’s a case of choosing a camera that feels right (totally subjective) and has the feature set and lens line up you need for your use case and then just getting out there and taking photos.
Exactly. There hasn't been great improvement in image quality for a while now. The focus now is better capturing quickly moving subjects.
@@user-ep3ug9ry3pyeah the Z8 and R5 mark ii are both better options than the A1 right now. You can’t tell the difference between the images of the 3 cameras (photography wise) and both the Z8 and R5 are a fraction of the cost. It’ll be interesting to see what Sony does with the A1 mark ii because there’s not a lot of room to go (other than upping the megapixels to a ridiculous amount).
@@alanwood5590 i disagree, I just stay at home and compare camera specs. 😊
@@TigerWould2Right, the difference is in the lens lineup. Nikon's Tele lens lineup is just amazing, while Canon's mainly consists of permanently adapted EF lenses for some reason.
@@fotografalexandernikolisnot the case at all. I think you really need to look at Canons lens lineup and rethink that. There are so many first types of lenses that canons designed while other manufacturers are following the old designs that canon came out with in the original EF lineup. All the prime lenses for canon are new designs (as they are with Nikon as well) if you’re talking about the super telephoto lenses (the big whites) yes for the 600, 800mm, 1200mm those are basically just adapted lenses with a couple more elements, but honestly what could have been improved from the original design and show me the competitions designs and what they e changes. Yes Nikon did put in a built in tele converter for a couple of their long zoom lenses, but Canon did a 100-300mm f/2.8 and there’s not really comparable Nikon, Sony or 3rd party lenses for that. I could come up with a list of lenses that are specific to canon on the RF and RF-Z mount and those are new designs. With Sony and Nikon we are seeing much of the same of canons EF designs because that was the original blueprint and the EF mount is the most used and adapted mount in the history of photography so I’d imagine Nikon, Sony and others would want to copy that lens lineup and I don’t fault them for that.
Still using my amazing 5D Mark IV 😎
me too, i just got mine i love it
Color science on 5D4 is amazing.
Same. 🤟🏾
Using 5D4 since 2018 still rock on, want to upgrade to R series too but I still think it's too early for me
yes still love my 5D M IV, it is the real King of Canon
I’d rather have photos with “worse” DR than photos that miss focus.
Anyone who identifies you in a Canon Fanboy is a big mistake! Today you gave a lesson to the world of photography. Bravo!
You find issues when you look for issues. That is golden. People worry about half a stop dynamic range while I care about getting the shot.
Arent all aspects relevant when getting a new body? Why does your and so many other comments sounds like coping? If the dynamic range was great that wouldve been what we talked about, when its not "its not that important anyway", r5 owner btw
@@FordSierraIS I don’t care about dynamic range. If it is an issue, don’t buy it. Period.
@@FordSierraIS dynamic range is always going to be an issue with stacked sensors. And in this case we aren’t just talking about stated sensors we are talking about stacked sensors and dual pixel autofocus (which has always had issues with dynamic range as well). So the fact that the R5 mark II is this good when both of those things have been issues in the past when it comes to dynamic range is actually shocking! There’s a reason why only canon uses Dual pixel AF! It’s not that other brands couldn’t figure it out, it’s that dynamic range was always the issue they couldn’t figure out and yet canon somehow managed to make it look this good. I imagine it has something to do with the A. I. Processor and how it renders noise.
@@kennethlui2268 the mk1 is good for my usecase so i cant justify chipping out the money, but you dont want a discussion around camera specs and performance? for me thats a big part of the fun with photo/video. lenses too
@@TigerWould2 yes but its also backlit sensor that helps with low light. yes it performs good but canon dont really have a body that is great for low light and i hoped that would come in the mk2, rather they take a approach to make it more suitable for situtations requiring faster readout speeds but we already have r6mk2,r3 and now r1. i was hoping mk2 r5 was 45 or 60 megapixel backlit with great dynamic range but since its not i will keep shooting with the mk1. interesting to see what comes next
The problem with "real world" is that it varies so much. Your real world is not the same as mine. I shoot architecture and interiors and I don't care a lot about focus speed, but I care a LOT about dynamic range and how clean I can get files shot hand held, at f8 or f11 in very low light (for example in a dark church), while still being able to see the view out of the windows, and I also want to correct my perspective and crop in quite a bit. Therefore your studio scenes actually are a lot closer MY real world.
Get a tripod.
Can someone tell me which company recently said at the premiere of their new camera that they improved the image quality or noise. This hasn't happened recently and I have a feeling it won't happen anytime soon. In this case, you pay for efficiency, better auto-focus, pre-capture, faster sensor reading and so on, not to mention video
Canon didn’t outright say they improved the image quality but I do recall them claiming “16 stops of dynamic range” for the R5 ii.
Thank you Jared! I have NO IDEA why people try to put cameras in the WORST situations possible and complain when they find a flaw. Putting the camera in a scenario that would likely NEVER be the case… Ridiculous… Expose properly and DR wouldn’t be an issue.
Yeah they are noobs in shooting... real photographers wont do that
@@mbismbismb technically they arent shooters just reviewers. A shooter doesn't under exposure so they can see noise on purpose. Jared is just showing us the things other people or sites do to find something wrong with Canon cameras as if they are held to a different standard for some reason. Same with the over heating. You would think no other brand ever overheats but canon.
@@RayValdezPhotography Exactly! Who is going to shoot 8k 60 for 30 mins straight!? 🤣 Then bash a small mirrorless camera when it craps out trying to do so… lol I’m waiting on my R5ii to be delivered RIGHT NOW! I can’t wait until it arrives! To hear him say the images are a little sharper I’m STOKED!!😎
@@RayValdezPhotography right!
I love that you always clarify in your videos to not bring politics into photography! Great video sir.
Some one needs to take the photo
It's 2024 and people are still worried about noise/grain. Most of the people worried about it probably have cameras with better low light performance than mine anyway!
Regularly publish images shot with my Canon 1D X Mark II (eight year old model) and 6D (twelve year old model) at ISO 10, 000+
I got my R5 mark ii this morning and have only scratched the surface, but I can say, WOW this camera is amazing!!
As much as I love your “real world” attitude, I’m really glad you also included actual controlled side by side testing so we can truly see if there is a difference or not. I’ve been debating on upgrading my R5 and this video just sold me on the Mark II
It really is a big difference in quality and of course auto focus and shooting speed.
@@froknowsphotoyeah I didn’t think there would be that big of a difference between the 2 either. Now I think I’ll buy the mark ii and keep my current as a back up.
@@froknowsphotoDang it Jared, I wasn’t going to buy the R5 mark ii. Image quality for fashion photography this makes sense I’m wondering how it will render complex patterns. That’s the only issue with all mirrorless cameras and why I still look at the DSLR’s with cross types as the better option. I would have loved the R1, because it has cross types, but I need at least 45 megapixels for detail!
Good video. For me half a stop does make a differerence. I photograph owls and birds often at dusk and I may be in the 10,000 ISO range. Better autofocus and prerecord is nice though. Many small improvements it seems.
@@andreasoberg2021 there is really no loss in DR when you’re pushing ISO that high, the R5 II only seems to take a hit below 640 ISO, mainly at base ISO. Birders really shouldn’t be affected by this “issue,” it’s more for landscape shooters that tend to shoot at ISO 100
Great review. It’s hard to believe how long I’ve been watching your channel. This is a great review. At this point in my life auto focus is the only thing I can’t correct in Post. Canon nails it, lol… coming from a Nikon Fuji fanboy.
As someone who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum as you, I greatly appreciate your call to leave politics out of the conversation here. It shows a respect for photography, your channel, and your audience. I’m just here for photo talk, that’s all. 😎🤘🏼
I’ll admit it. As a Nikon shooter, I want their ergonomics and glass, but I’d love Canon’s autofocus.
This is where I'm at. I want the r5ii for its mechanical shutter to avoid banding and the insane AF.. but nikon has some seriously great glass like internal zoom 70-200 and a reasonably priced 400 4.5. Can't imagine canon doing a lens like that for less than $4000
Looking forward to the R5 MK2 menu walkthrough and any suggested button mapping and if back button autofocus is still the way to go.
Been relying on your guides for years now and really appreciate those videos.
You absolutely give the best camera gear reviews out there. I agree you can get great results with any modern camera. It comes down to personal preferences and what works best for you.
I have been shooting with Canon cameras for almost 15 years. I also print my own photos. Not once has somebody ever said, “the dynamic range cold be better” or “this photo has too much grain”. What brand do you use? Doesn’t happen in the real world. These are people paying for prints and are very happy with the photos. A lot of people out there are over analyzing with their reviews. Keep up the good work. Sorry “Great Work”.
Then you realize again how much nonsense other TH-cam channels say.
Exactly. This is why I appreciate him so much
How do you find the 4k60 and 4k120 quality compared to other cameras like the Z8?
I shoot birds and wildlife with the 600 f4. I'm getting my R5II this week and curious how it performs compared to my R5... Looking forward to it!
Are you on gram? I use the r5 too and also wildlife photographer
Congrats! Looking forward to hearing back about your findings as a wildlife photographer myself.
@@peakadventures_ yes thelensman_nature_photography
are you on IG under peakadventures?
What i want to know is in regard to the sensor readout speed of the R5 mk2, is it fast enough that i can shoot prop planes and helicopters at airshows with the electronic shutter ? Will i see “bent” blades all over the place because of rolling shutter ? Would really like to see some test shots of that.
Thank you for this! It aided in my decision making towards the R5-2 and gave me some insight as an amateur photographer.
Left kamala lookin green
nice video. I own the r5 and was thinking about whether it's necessary to change or not. good information Jared.
Nice video!! Very detailed. This should also apply to the Z63. People are making HUGE deals out of minor things. People need to learn to expose their images better and take photos. My z8 has less DR compared to my z6, but I won't cry about it, because I know how to get my images exposed properly!
Good one.Waiting for your reviews on Fujjfilm xh2s ,gfx100sii, gf 500mm f5.6 and 150-600 xf. Please as I am deciding between a R6 mark ii and Xh2s.
By FAR the best and most useful feature of the R5Mk2 is that it brings down the price of the R5Mk1.
I'm not saying the rest of the features is useless. It's absolutely not. And if I would win the lottery I'd be totally buying all of the new cameras.
But as a professional who pays his bills with photography I'd rather get another Mk1. Because frankly no customer cares for or can even spot any of the "differences". I mean, I myself am looking at the comparison photos here or on dpreview and the differences are virtually non-existent. You could just swap the images and tell me this was the Mk1 and this was the Mk2 and switch it all up, I would believe you.
Of course for extremely fast situations like some sports or for video it's probably a totally different story. But since we are talking IMAGE QUALITY here and not autofocus or video... I basically see no real world difference at all.
Thanks for doing all the detailed tests on the new canon R5 and R5 mark II.
Is it just me, this sounds like damage control? After watching the entire video I am convinced that canon is trying to catch up. Thanks for this video, it shed a lot of light, no pun intended.
who's he? Damage control? For what? Showing results? Try again
It's just you. There's no damage control to be had here, Canon caught up long ago.
If anything, it's just a choose your own adventure at this point and Canon is coming in with the automatic deadlocked homing missiles.
If you're detecting an annoyed tone in Jared's voice, it's probably because of so many oddly dishonest reviews of the camera itself
Having worked in the print/ photo studio industry for years dealing with customers, there's no shortage of people who have no idea about cameras try to sell you on the idea that their camera is better and other's are worse because they saw a review say so. So I look into the review and it's always an armchair reviewer pointing at other people's images and charts and saying "seeeee!!!!!!!"
Unfortunately, that's where Tony and Chelsea have ended up as reviewers
Jared, your fro is getting out of control. 😂😂. Besides that, thanks for the real world review!
I love when new camera gear comes out because that means everyone is gonna go out sell their r5’s and r5c’s cause they want the “new thing”. Which means I get a steal on the “old thing”.
The higher the mp count, the more noise. So you will see less noise on a canon R6 than an R5. I DO rely heavily on ISO’s above 6400, so clean high iso is a must. 24 mp seems to be the sweet spot for that. Which is why I have no camera with more mp than that.
11:45 What’s your opinion on pushing noise reduction in the background, but not on the subject? Do you find that the inconsistency is more distracting / unnatural than grainy bokeh?
I don't use noise reduction personally.
@@froknowsphoto the R5 has a base level of noise reduction built into the files even on Raw which you cannot remove. Does the R5 MKII have that or not.
@@stuartallenphotosthat was explained already in few articles most people think it’s a NR but actually it is just a AA filter that reduces the sharpness a bit but helps reducing other things like moire…
Can the mark II fire the flash when shooting the electronic shutter?
Yes, but the sync speed takes a slight hit.
Electronic shutter: 1/160 sec (some sources say 1/180 sec)
Mechanical shutter: 1/200 sec.
Elec. 1st curtain: 1/250 sec.
@@80-80. thanks
@@80-80. That is surprising. The R5/R6 gets a boost in sync speed from 1/200 to 1/250 when you use 1st curtain shutter.
@@markwillridebut that’s NOT surprising because the R5 II is the same. Your confusion may be because you think “electronic first curtain shutter” is the same as “electronic shutter”. That’s not the case.
@@80-80. understood.
hi Jared
excellent points ! let's go shoot pictures !
thank you for showing the differences r5vs r5mkii ES. that's exactly what I wanted to see.
If one day I sell my not yet delivered r5 mkii ( delivery pushed to 29 th of august 😪) the mechanical shutter will be as good as new.
This is the most fanboy review of a camera I have seen him do, no back handed remarks, no making fun no condescending jokes
Goodlord these copy and paste crybaby comments are hilarious
@@Lowns_300 copy and paste, what you talking about, I wrote that comment. Stop being high and mighty, jog on
@@airjaff copy and paste crying, we get it you use buzz words and "fanboy" in every argument when you cry and don't agree
Soooo refreshing to hear a photographer who knows their trade emphasise that showing some grain in images isnt the end of life
Its such a shame that so many youtube photo channels hammer on about every image needs to be sharp enough to cut.
Thank You Mr Polin....composition logic over technology purists.
15:08 There is a clear and visible difference between electronic and mechanical shutter. I would always use mechanical when possible.
Great video, mate. Thanks for putting this together.
Great review!!!! I'll repeat from my earlier posts... bought my stellar system (for me) after retiring taking many of the evals you did on the hardware I was looking at... my final decisions incorporated many other evaluations... your evaluations came out on top with the best of the best of the others. I could almost say... save time and just look at your reviews and you will be safe... Highly recommend folks review your new hardware evals, with other reviews, before committing to anything new or older (your evals will be there for older hardware).
Thank you for the video! Can't wait for the updated AF comparison test!
I"m about to pull the trigger on the R52....I've been waiting since the 5D2....and all my glass is EF.
Have you seen good results with the new camera using the older glass with an adapter?
yes, I adapt my 400 2.8 to all the mirrorless Canon's.
Same boat here! Waiting since 5D2.
It's a big step up, go for it!
I shoot with the original EOS R. In the last month I have been paid enough to pay for another one three times over. No one has ever said the image quality wasn’t good enough. I have shot side by side with another shooter using the R3 and they haven’t said my image quality wasn’t good enough.
I don’t plan on upgrading until the refurbished prices on the R5 come way down. I don’t care about the image quality difference. I just want the IBIS, higher frame rate, and the autofocus improvement is a nice bonus.
Remember to step back and make sure you put your money where it is needed. My glass collection is more important to me than camera body.
Dumb question, How do you turn on log. I don’t see any where in the menu?
Just getting into photography a bit more seriously lately (automotive) and I fight so hard with my issue of pixel peeping, very hard habit to break. Recently picked up the R6 Mark ii, an upgrade from the RP, and paired it with the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and it's been amazing! Appreciate all the knowledge you share Jared, especially for someone as green as me!
I certainly did not see $1300 worth of difference the 2. Enjoyed the video.
There’s plenty more difference then just image quality
@@froknowsphoto we need exactly image quality but it is not
there are a lot of answers in this video, but I have a new question. How lens quality affects high ISO.
Tnx👍
It doesn't.
It does affect. Most people here are amateur and comment as professionals... Colors paste different against noise. Is like using your camera with RGB profile and post them on IG vs Adobe profile at camera and exporting to Srgb...
well it does if it's an f5.6 and you're forced to raise the ISO.
Jared! What a great opportunity to shoot some of these events! 👍 Great information in the video
Sorry Jared. It sounds to me like your suggesting I DON'T underexpose my images by 6 stops then brighten them in post. Thats just crazy, why would you suggest such a thing?
I think this is more a flagship than the r1
Just picked up my R5ii so love all your reviews
Are you saying that the amount of noise and grain will look more prominent on a 4K monitor than a iPhone? Also I chose Canon because I think the magenta looks more natural for Black skin.
Thanks Jared always appreciate your insight and transparency
Can’t wait to get my hands on this model
Still saving up for an R5 ........ used!
wonderfull camara, hope you get it soon
Real advice from a real photographer. Thank you.
Exactly why I ordered the R5 ii... it comes tomorrow!! SOOOOO Stoked!!
This is why you're my favourite Camera TH-camr.
You give us info that will be relevant in the real world
Fro bro, you need not apologize for anything.
The R5 always does have some magenta on anything white or grey, always annoyed me. I thought it was just me though. My R5 II is coming today
I find the magenta is the worst in the shadows - I really dislike it. I also find the auto white balance drifts way more on the R5 than it did on my dslr Canon's. These are the little things that take time to fix but that most YTers never talk about.
I have that on the R6. For some reason it also depends on the lens. Colour is more off on my 28-70 f2 than my other lenses. My RF 100-500mm and viltrox 85mm are more accurate.
@@TimFitzwater i didnt know if my tint shift was off. Lately I been moving it more towards green. Sometimes I would just desaturate purple and magenta in lightroom if it didnt affect other colors
@@Xirpzy I only have a sigma third party. I don't like the colors much on it very sharp though
@@Xirpzy the 24-105mm f/4 is the worst for me.
Still saving up for a used r5
Getting back into photography, I just bought an r100 and I'm looking at some of the nicer Canons. I really like your channel. Obviously.
I found the same color differences in the Canon technology. I liked Canon color until I bought the R3 -- a stacked sensor like the R5 mkii. From that point forward I had trouble going back to the prior Canon color mix. The stacked sensor still has some of that Canon warmth but it does it better. The engineers have to use a combination of minerals -- and electronic interpretation -- that works for a given optic, but I think the stacked sensor design was paired up with a winning combination when it comes to color and sharpness.
In the pictures of the toys/statuettes, the Sony sensor shows an ability or bias to lift the darks a tiny bit to show slightly more detail. This makes sense since their product lines doesn't have as much competition between video and stills products.
That you for talking sense about pixel peeping. Your controlled examples were very useful. I just got notice that I am about to get my R5 Mark II so looking forward to trying it out
Jared, where is the comparison to Z8 an A1, as advertised?
17:18, as advertised.
Jared thanks for sharing your first quick thoughts!
Never apologize for doing your assignments, it is your profession.
Cheers to being our eyes when we aren't there
looking forward to more of your thoughts on these new cameras
Hey, you seemed a bit frustrated today. Hope everything's okay! We appreciate your effort-your content is usually spot on.
Out here doing the lords work
This videos info about Raw vs edited and shot setting was just what I needed. Almost didn’t watch because I am focused on better glass than the newest camera bodies. Your educational value is the best of the best with honors, sir.
This real world PRO testing. For many people, it would be interesting to test the AF for sports with the 200-800, a smaller aperture and less defined lens.
Thank you for your great review. I agree: 'when you look for issues, you will find issues'. And real photographers don't pixel peep. They make photo's and they love doing that.
It's not worth the $4300 to replace an R5 I, it's all for the "video" features; admit it and don't "schill" for Canon. I agree "real world" images on phone and laptop screens are indistinguishable (another reason not to spend more money). Oh, btw, cropping and printing images are real world too. I would prefer to invest in good lenses than switch cameras for a $4300 body with incremental updates.
lol, if your big takeaway is that the R5 Mark II is all for the "video" features, you're even more clueless then you thought. I couldn't care less about the video features. But the still features....30 FPS, Pre Shooting, Almost R3 sensor read out speed, better AF than any Sony or Nikon on the market. Yup, you're right. I was wrong.
That hurts! @@froknowsphoto
@@froknowsphoto Yup you're right, all that for $4300 that you maybe didn't pay for or wrote off as a business expense.. Some of us aren't that fortunate. Mr. Clueless. Seeya.....
Great video! As a Nikon shooter, I find it interesting to see what other brands are doing. None better or worse "overall" in the big 3 (maybe 4) if you just accept that they trade blows with unique strengths. I find it "interesting" that YOU, as a "Youtber" now need to almost APOLOGIZE,for choosing to review what's important TO YOU. People criticize WHERE you test, WHAT you test, and now can't leave politics OUT OF A PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM, so you have to waste time preemptively defusing tirades.... Wow. It feels like people believe that they are paying you directly to do custom test sweeps, and not getting their money's worth... Somehow ASKING for reviews has been traded-down to entitled tantrums in spite of you trying to cater to as w8de a group as possible. But if it's not tailor made to certain individuals, they get nasty. Don't like the camera? DON'T BUY IT. Doesn't have a feature you want? Same answer. Don't blame Fro because you can't afford it, or would rather spend your money another way. Can't believe people are gett8ng snotty because they don't see value in upgrading. THEN DON'T. No snark needed.
I think it is odd that You are limited to 0.5 second of pre-shooting, I mean, with (the max of) 30 fps, You can get 15 images pre-shot during half a second, so 15 is apparantly the limit of what the camera's buffer can manage, what I don't understand then is, why - if You shoot in for instance 15 or 7.5 fps continous - You can no longer hold the same 15 images as what You could with 30, and so get Yourself 1 or 2 seconds of pre-shooting....?
The only explanation I can find is that the camera doesn't know WHEN You are going to press the button, so it has to record/save all "potential images", so it can't just record the preshooting in 15 or 7.5 fps, as there may then be an incontinouity in timing between the last preshot image and the first not-preshot image, however, that there may be a tiny mis-timing between these two images, propably will matter little to most photographers.
- Well, another explanation could be that the preshooting is always in 30 fps, even if the camera is set for for instance 7.5 fps, so it DOES actually still record 15 images, is thát the case....???
Pixel peeping is my absolute Achilles heel. I've done sports photography for a local collegiate level wood bat baseball league and my biggest fear is a picture that people don't like, so I'm extremely aggressive with my culling. I almost wish I had someone else go through the pics and pick their favorites because I feel like my likes and biases don't line up with the people actually looking at them and I'm discarding so many pics that I wouldn't need to. I also feel like if someone else was going through them and culling, I'd have a better idea of what kind of pics people would like.
It's the same way with the wildlife and landscape pics I take out when I'm working.
Are you saying that the amount of noise and grain will look more prominent on a 4K monitor than a iPhone?
Boy, these reviews are way better than Tony N.
no need to compare, everybody is good in there own way
Awesome review! Are you shooting in RAW or cRAW? I've been shooting the later and wondered if you noticed any differences.
Full raw for these examples, highest quality raw file each of these camera produces
People need to stop having meltdowns over higher ISOs. It is so much more important to use a higher ISO to get the correct exposure in camera than it is to underexpose for the sake of using a lower ISO. You introduce more noise with the latter
A studio is very definitely part of the real world .😂
Yup and cropping. 18:58 I kept shaking my head at some of the comments here. People will eat it up.
I think these things are important in the real world: First of all image quality is more important than any other feature. Image quality must not decrease with an upgrade. Higher price must mean better image quality and other features. Image quality is the staple of a camera. Not every photographer is a sports photographer where frames per second is important and even then the frames per second does not override image quality. Useless features such as eye controlled focusing are not only useless, but they hurt the eyes of some people because it projects infrared rays into the eyes, that could hurt some people in the short run and perhaps many on prolonged use. It requires calibration and may not work well if the calibration is off due to any reason. This useless feature does not override image quality. In the real world image quality is the staple of a camera and overrides everything else.
I also want to add that instead of spending time and money on eye controlled focusing, Canon should spent that to develop global shutter, which is also very important for image quality and for sports photography as well.
It depends what you photograph. I shoot mainly birds and in the Australian rain forest it's very dark and I'd be shooting at 10,000 + sometimes even 64000+ just to get a shutter speed of around 500/sec so ISO performance is important
I like their decision. Z8 is unmatch for professional in that price range
Thank you. Considering updating my EOS R5 to the R5II but I also own 2x the Sony A1 and A7RV so trying to decide if it is worth it. I don’t shoot video so the most interesting feature maybe pre-capture. I think I will sell one of my A1’s to add it. Also admit while I really like my RF L glass it’s all heavier than the Sony GM and GMII equivalents. Really like your video and appreciate the work your team puts into creating them. The podcasts and presets are great as well. Take care.
Thorough comparison and nice mix of real-world and static setups, agreed on your points here. Just got through all the nit-picking about the Z6III semi-stacked sensor, I guess Canon's in the barrel now. I don't know, maybe I've been around a while but all these modern bodies are magic to me.
yes they are
My birds in flight attempts require cropping losses of 90-95% of pixels. Even with nearly double the starting pixels I get better cropped results with R3 than R5, the pixels are just “better”. Is especially noticeable at 3200iso for sunset owls. FedEx is bringing my R52 today and I’m hoping the pixels got “better”. Wanted a 36mpixel R1, but Canon didn’t deliver.
So are we to believe all the photos you took are in the real world 😲I don't know Fro, sometimes I think your out of this world 👽 🤣. Okay a decision has been made, all the cameras you tested are perfect for me 👍👍 Honestly, I don't think you could go wrong with any of these cameras 😍
I have been waiting for the R5ii as l am upgrading from my Lumix S5. After seeing all the info from a number of reviews and websites, l went with the Z8.
I disagree that 12k or 25k don't give good results. But I agree that R5ii is just as good as R5 or any other camera for this range. I often shoot 800mm (600f4/1.4x) in low light (cropped) with grizzlies and get great pictures that I print at 48x32". It requires having the sun behind you (even if it's shaded) and high enough shutter speed. But with bears (and people), the interest (look and activity and composition) are more important than noise - and new denoise AI really work well. Often you have to process for colour and shadows (particularly around eyes) but I get pictures that are worthy of hanging on the walls at iso25k R5. I avoid craw to avoid noise in shadows. Composition, avoiding motion blur, and the sun behind you - are the critical ingredients.
I think the big question to R5 owners is whether $2000 (buy/sell), $500 batteries, new cage, 1/3 less stops is worth it for Clog2, 4k/120 with audio, 30fps, adjustable fps, 14bit electronic, slightly better a/f, precapture, analog vid/still, better menu... The answer is likely - if your budget is low = NO, but if you have $3000 play money or a business, its Yes for Action/Wildlife and Video and NO for strictly landscape.
Going too get my 2nd r5 body today as a backup
At a discounted price on ebay… like around $2100-2200… that is what i did… no sense in buying brand new when i can use the extra cash to fly somewhere to play with the r5
Anxiously waiting for your R5 mark ii users guide Jared. thanks.😀
I said, "Amen" maybe one too many times there at the end, lol. Good stuff as always Jared!
I think grain, especially from a photojournalistic standpoint, gives photos character. Something that is needed especially since sensors are so amazing these days sometimes shots can look a bir like A.i without grain ... Just my take 🤷🏻♂️
Jared's out here speaking truth - hope we're all listening
Just picked up the R5II this morning, got lucky with a pre-order and I’m so excited to get shooting with it!!
Great look at what the new camera can do against the older one.