Canon EOS R6 mark ii | Low Light Test vs. Sony A7siii |
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ธ.ค. 2022
- In this video, I host a rumble between the new Canon EOS R6 Mark ii and the Sony A7siii in a low-light video shootout. The A7siii has worn the crown as far as low-light shooting capability for quite some time now, do we have a new contender for the title of “Best low-light hybrid camera”? Could be…
My Gear Recommendations - www.mikelazare...
Check out my website - www.mikelazarecki.com
Check out my Lightroom Presets - mikelazarecki....
#Filmmaking #MikeLazarecki - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
The Canon looked better in all tests to me.
I agree, I felt that the Canon performed better than or equal to the Sony with very little exception.
yeah it captured more detail it felt like
Strongly disagree. Check the 12800 iso
The color science of canon is better looking, but there was more noise
@@JaySea Canon's 12800 was both sharper, higher DR, and had better noise performance when accounting for its extra signal.
I think the candle flickering and the focus differences makes it difficult to really gauge exposure between the cameras. A low light test with static lighting or even still shots would be more objective. Thanks for sharing.
That’s fair. I’ll keep that in mind the next time I do something like this.
For photos the R6 II is a beast! I've been comparing it to all my other cameras I've owned over the past 18 years and it's way, WAY better! I also compared it to the A7IV and found the R6 II to be about 1/3 stop better at high ISOs and about 1/3 stop better at shadow dynamic range. Also, when upscaled to 33 MP I found the R6 II to be shaper than the A7IV.
For video, I think the big issues are the profiles. Clog 3 can have issues with shadow noise and also doesn't have the dynamic range of Clog 2 despite the sensor being very great.
Yeah, these are all great points.
The Sony a7iv can be up scaled as well and be much better than the r6 ii….I get you’re excited about the camera but the a7iv is a MUCH better stills camera than this
No. I did upscaling tests and the R6 II outresolves the A7IV. AF accuracy and lens quality makes a bigger diff than advertised MP. In fact the R6 II files upscaled to 45 MP give the R5 a run for the money.
The A7IV is also quite slow for photos. Only 6 fps bursts for full quality photos where the R6 II gets 12 fps (and even 40 fps for electronic)@@Yupthereitism
Set your exposure correctly. Not the same framing not the same WB not the same exposure, in fact it's way underexposed. Following your testing method ISO102400 would be clean on the A7sIII while 12800 is muddy due to incorrect exposure. Use grey card, measure light, set your zebras properly 41% for SLOG3 and 36% for CLOG3 if you are exposing for middle grey. Then you can ramp up the ISO
Thanks
Thanks!
You can use profiles like Faithful, for example, customized according to light conditions and shoot in HDR PQ. This essentially gets you 10-bit 422 footage right from the camera.
There is something weird going on here with the grading maybe? I do know the R6 II is better than the A7SIII up to about 12800 normally. But the shadows are very lifted on the R6 II files here for some reason. The A7SIII at 12800 and above has the dual ISOs so it is cleaner higher than that but most people don't ever shoot above ISO 6400 for video if you've properly light a scene so I'd give the advantage to the R6 II. Also the R6 II is much sharper at the higher ISOs I see when zoomed in.
Log isn't great for these super low light situations and generally you are better off using a normal/neutral profile. As for 8 bit vs 10 bit, most videos end up on TH-cam which is 8 bit , extremely low bitrate, so it really doesn't matter for 99% of people.
To be honest, I've been a graphic designer for 15 years and I have edited almost everything in PS in 8 bit, not 16 bit. The only time there is a difference is when using gradients in a graphic file. I think people think that 10 bit is magic and makes colours pop (as most TH-camrs and camera companies try to push this) but that isn't the case at all. It only allows for more gradations between subtle colours. And again if your video is destined for TH-cam, then it doesn't matter.
I literally watched Matti Happoja review the A7SIII when he got his initially, and bragged about the 10 bit files. Meanwhile the video he was playing was on a boat, and the sky behind him was FULL of banding because TH-cam is 8 bit.
I've worked on 16 bit files that have gradients, and then when I finally output them for web in JPG (which are 8 bit) guess what? The banding appears magically. LOL.
It might make a small difference as you have a slightly better file to output before it gets destroyed when you output the file for consumption, but most would never notice.
Honestly I wish Canon would allow for 8 bit LOG again to make editing easier or perhaps use better, easier to edit codecs like in their cinema line. For most, smaller files and easier to edit files is more important than the highest quality you can get.
I agree, I don’t think 10 bit is needed for anything on TH-cam. The situation with the tests in the video is very straight forward though. All I did to grade each shot was use that camera’s OEM “log to REC709” LUT to bring it to a more natural contrast. I did zero noise reduction or movement of the different brightness values.
I found it weird to see HOW MUCH warmer the Canon footage was but I was not as surprised by the difference in sharpness since the A7siii is only half the resolution sensor. I also come from a graphic design background and totally agree with your thoughts on color depth and what it is actually useful for. Thanks for the great comment!
Exactly why i prefer the r6 over r5, who needs 54mp...
The one Major thing I noticed between these two cameras, even though the Sony camera has like more contrast range, the Canon performs a lot better and isn't so blocky kind of looks like a low definition bitrate stream on the Sony camera
Unbelievable that you aren't more popular. Your videos are great.
Dude! Thank you so much, I appreciate the complement more than you know.
@@MikeLazarecki Of course, you deserve it
Awesome video man!! This is definitely a head-to-head test I was curious about and you really put these two through the paces. I generally don't even attempt to shoot in such low-light environments anymore, but it's great to know it's there for these cool candle-lit shots. Just turned on all notifs btw haha.
Thanks Dave!
General shooter here. I never go above ISO 6400 in the dark Sony or Canon but it would be amazing to do some astro video work at super high ISO like 25600 to see some nebulas.
Well the Sony has dual native iso on 12800 so it’s better to go 12800 then 6400.
I did not understand your test. The R6 look so much lighter at every ISO and you didnt explain why. And the side by side doesn't say which camera is which. Plus at 800 iso why do both cameras quality look so bad. That does make sense since thats the base ISO.
For photos the R6 II is about 1/3 stop brighter than the R6 and R5. I wonder if that's what is happening here? This is a good thing.
R6 ii looks better….😮
Too bad it has a micro hdmi and is built for amateurs
@@Yupthereitism Show us your amazing work. Any link is welcome
@@Yupthereitism too bad you are a clueless wannabe "photographer"
Sony seems more true-to-life while Canon seem like it's colors were off. Was the white balance set for the Canon?
Yeah, they were both set to the same white balance settings.
I actually disagree, the R6 was performing better. 🤔 Also which aperture were you shooting at?
There were moments where the a7siii shined but overall, I agree. I only give the edge to Sony because you have more control over the color profiles in 10bit.
I was shooting at F4 for all of the tests.
The R6 mk II looked considerably better and brighter to me in all tests than the A7SIII. I don't understand why you gave the edge to the Sony. Can you please explain?
Mostly because of the ability to custom build a “low light” color profile in 10bit and push the camera to ISO ranges beyond what’s possible on the Canon. I think from the perspective of what my preference is from an image standpoint, I agree the the Canon was better.
idk if I'm crazy but the r6 feel super noisy, I have r6mii and feel like Im always struggling with noise
Thanks for this video! It is excellent, showing the the two cameras in a real shooting. Interesting that the Sony 10 bit files of A7Siii can be optimised wheras Clog3 vom Canon cannot...
Your videos keep getting better and better man. Great work!! Super interesting to see how there's almost a criss cross thing going on. Seems like the Canon starts off worse, then gets better while Sony gets worse, then flip flops again. I wonder if that's because of the "dual native ISO" (BIG quotes lol). Excellent stuff dude, keep it up.
Thanks homie! Not sure but it is crazy how similar they are from a performance standpoint
Good comparison. However, you could have mentioned the native ISOs on each.
Good call. I probably should have. Thank you for the feedback, I really appreciate it
Actually the R6 Mark II can go higher in ISO - 204800 according to the official specs. Would’ve been awesome to see the highest available ISO settings on the R6 Mark II vs the A7Siii - very noisy no doubt but I’d like to see what it’s capable of. The other ISO options up high would have been interesting too.
He probably never adjusted the ISO limits in the menu. I believe the limit he stated was the factory default.
$1k cheaper and arguably better in all comparison clips. Also, R6ii with L RF lens nets incredible stills. I’m very happy with my r6ii
can confirm. r6mkii insanely good in low light.
Yeah man, I thought it was pretty great.
Got an R8 which has the same sensor as the R6 mark ii and this helped my purchasing decision. My friend was salty because of how much she spent on her A7Siii. She's been in the denial stage of grief trying to reassure herself of her purchasing decisions xD
The R6 Mark II does not have Clog2? Which is similar to Slog3 for Sony.
No it does not. CLog 2 is pretty much limited to canons cinema line. With the hybrid cameras they only allow the choice between Clog or CLog3.
@@MikeLazarecki What a bummer. Sony is still king then.
Great Mike, could you doo the same comparison for dynamic range?
I would love to. I’ll see if I can borrow the R6ii again and if so, I’ll definitely give that a try
the r6ii is absolutely and definitively sh1te in low light focusing. Did an dancing event and could not hit the mark most of the time, which is embarrassing for a paid gig. Had to revert to the 5diii I had luckily brought along and THAT worked better.
Wow! I’m surprised to hear this. My experience has been very different. The R6, R6ii and the R3 y’all seem to be able to mail autofocus even when underexposed by quite a bit.
@@MikeLazarecki I've changed some AF settings to aim for single point and just not depend on eye AF in low light. I was in case 2 and have changed that to 4 as well and see if it makes a difference next time.
@@MikeLazarecki I've changed some AF settings to aim for single point and just not depend on eye AF in low light. I was in case 2 and have changed that to 4 as well and see if it makes a difference next time.
very impressed with the R6 ii.... and Canon colors are just better... a little too warm though I suppose in the low light but overall better color.., im digging the R6
Hi Mike, for the test chart, it seems that the left side is A7S III and the right side is R6 II? Is that correct?
Yes
Canon to me, still came out on top
Hey there! I am currently on a 90D and shoot a lot of video and photo in clubs and music festivals where light is always limited. I would prefer to stay on the canon platform but what are your thoughts when comparing those two to that level of low light?
I’m my opinion, I liked the look of the Canon over the Sony. They are both totally capable as low light video cameras but if you plan to shoot stills as well I would go with the canon all day long. The R6 mark ii absolutely BURIES the Sony in the stills category… again, I’m my opinion. 😁
I hope that helps!
hey there, I have all the Canon lens and thinking of updating my camera, do you recommend I stay with cannon? Because I don’t need to change all my lenses.
Absolutely! There is nothing wrong with exploring options but if you are invested in the system already you’re already way ahead. I would probably choose the Canon system if I was starting from scratch today anyway but Sony would be a close contender.
@@MikeLazarecki thank you you are very helpful. I have subscribed your channel
Thank you!
The noise/grain of the A7S III looks so much better, it's almost pleasing, especially in comparison to the Canon which looks washed out and the noise is unpleasant. Man, they really crushed the A7S III sensor and processing, it's incredible.
Those two cameras aren't even in the same class. You should compare the Canon R6 mark II with Sony A7IV.
Thanks for the input. I will if I get the chance
I do somewhat disagree however. Both are stellar hybrid cameras, both shoot super high end, 10 bit 4k video. Both are capable of outputting Raw video through HDMI (the a7siii is 16bit 4k, the R6ii is 12 bit 6k)
The only thing that puts these two cameras in different classes is the price point. And frankly, the R6ii is probably a stronger hybrid option since it has much more impressive stills capabilities compared to the a7siii.
The A7SIII is not really a hybrid, it's a video camera. It costs way more and from a video standpoint, it is expected to outperform the R6. The A7IV on the other hand is a hybrid like the R6mII.
That’s a fair point but I still think the a7siii is more of a hybrid than a video camera.
The stills based form factor, the lack of internal ND, no professional audio inputs.
Feels like a mirrorless hybrid to me.
Just my opinion, that’s all. I mean, you aren’t wrong. When you look at the a7siii and how video focused many of the features are, it’s definitely MORE of a video camera than most hybrids. No question.
@@MikeLazarecki I don't consider a camera a hybrid that doesn't have at least 24 mp stills but that's just me.
You might need to test the new Sony A7r V now.....
I would love to! Haha. I’ll see what kind of strings I can pull. 😁
Got it today 😂❤
How does it compare in low light photography?
Based on everything I tested the low light stills were excellent! Even at higher ISOs the noise pattern is tight & minimal. I’d shoot on it for any low light event any day of the week.
How come R6 II video is a bit brighter? Processing choice or that is the way it is?
That’s just the way it came out. The only processing I did was to add the respective manufacturer’s Log to REC709 LUTs
The R6ii was naturally way warmer in color tone as well even though they were both set to the same white balance.
sjould adjust them so they look the same in terms of brightness and shadows. the quality and noise then is whats interesting
Hey buddy a'm your 329th subscriber 😂
Ha, thank you!
@@MikeLazarecki 😂🙏
@@MikeLazarecki give your heart buddy ❤️
You will forever go down in history as number 329. Haha
@@MikeLazarecki buy my comment will always remembered you😂
This Canon footage looks bad to me - it just looks fake, if that makes sense, like it's adding colors that aren't there.
I could see it being good if you want a cute low-light scene, and terrible if you want realism or a dark mood (although I suppose there are ways to make it look darker).
Edit: And the Sony looks greenish.
Wow!!!!!!! Sony Colors in low light Waaaasaayyyyy better more realistic flesh tones make sad the cannon look like a very very cheap camera, I’m a realist Portrait Painter was awarded a Scholarship at the very famous Arts Students Leauge in New York I’ve been a portrait painter for 30+ yrs so I know a thing or two about having your subject represent natural light as much as possible
buen video pero mi apreciación canon pone como un velo grisáceo que sony no lo hace para mi me gusta mas sony pero son gustos. gracias
Me 2 mins in a think bruh the Camera I just bought less than 2 weeks ago looked like trash, but let me wait until the end LoL
why does it look so horrible lol something is wrong with settings here
Ha! TH-cam compression. Lol
The Sony A7siii have dual iso starting at 16000 the test is not fair. Why you jump the 16000? You jump exactly the part that make shine the Sony A7siii 🤷🏼♂️ and jump to noisier ISO at 25000 there’s a purpose for that? or you manipulate the video to make the Canon shine? 😏