Canon EOS R vs 5D Mark IV - Pros & Cons

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,854
193
And.... only 299MB/sec write instead of .... 300MB/sec read? Sony must be doomed :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
4,859
1,497
Trust me it focuses fast
What does that mean? Can it capture a bird in flight moving at speed? My M5 focusses fast but not well for BIF.
How small is the smallest focussing square? Is it the size of a spot focus in a 5DIV/III/SR or 7DI/II?
 
Reactions: tron

koenkooi

EOS RP
Feb 25, 2015
239
105
This is a dying subject. The new Sony one piece SD cards are the future (not breakdown prone CFast). 32, 64 & 128GD, 300mb/s read, 299 mb/s write V90 SDXC II. Can be dropped up 5 metres without failure!

Never had a single SD card failure, cannot say the same for CF & CFast.
I never had a single SD card failure in my cameras, but for my day job involving embedded (linux) systems, SD cards fail often. Power cycling seems to be the nemesis of SD cards, which happens every reboot on the systems I work with. During development most cards don't last a year.
Another failure mode is the microcontroller in the SD card getting confused. You can trigger that by sending nonsense to one of the pins at a high data rate.

Buying large volumes of SD cards is also tricky, Kingston refuses to tell you what you are getting, since they relabel cards from other manufacturers and worse, even through official channels you will get a fair percentage of counterfeit cards, no matter the brand.

Personally, I've settled on Sandisk cards for SDXC systems and pre-rename Lexar for UHS-II systems. So far, so good, but generally speaking, I trust SD cards not even as far as I can throw them :)

As for CF cards, I'm very proficient in bending back pins :) For all the problems SD cards have, I am glad CF is a thing of the past in both cameras and embedded systems.
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
338
174
"Sony delivers *the very best they possibly can* to their customers, on their own volition and because they know, theyhave to in order to win us over.
Sony choose to use lower resolution EVF in their A7III to fit $2000 price point. Despite developing LCD TV and smart phone, they couldn't implement touch screen in their camera and use lower quality LCD than Nikon and Canon.

They could provide firmware upgrade so their A7ii color science match their newer camera but they don't. They want you to buy the latest and greatest.
 
Reactions: Refurb7

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
4,859
1,497
Trust me it focuses fast
I got by mistake into a youtube by one of CR's least favourites, Tony Northrup, comparing mirrorless for action photography. He claims that the R basically doesn't work with a 600mm f/4 II. Have you checked the AF with a telephoto?
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
952
68
Has any one done a DR test between the 5D4 and the Eos R yet? I'm kind of wondering how close the Eos R's sensor is to the 5D4.
I don’t know about DR (I’d think similar if not the same?) but in another thread I posted findings on comparisons I made processing R files vs. 5D4 files. To briefly summarize, it *appears* from the few files I tested that the R files take sharpening better with less impact on overall image quality, potentially resulting in a cleaner final product particularly if you edit images to be sharp and detailed. However due to the limited test conditions I’m not fully confident in these findings. The flip side is that this would be partially negated by the R files needing more sharpening by default than the 5D4 ones do since the R output is (even) softer, go figure. But if one doesn’t mind shooting RAW and putting in the extra time in post, something to potentially keep in mind...
 

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
4,859
1,497
I don’t know about DR (I’d think similar if not the same?) but in another thread I posted findings on comparisons I made processing R files vs. 5D4 files. To briefly summarize, it *appears* from the few files I tested that the R files take sharpening better with less impact on overall image quality, potentially resulting in a cleaner final product particularly if you edit images to be sharp and detailed. However due to the limited test conditions I’m not fully confident in these findings. The flip side is that this would be partially negated by the R files needing more sharpening by default than the 5D4 ones do since the R output is (even) softer, go figure. But if one doesn’t mind shooting RAW and putting in the extra time in post, something to potentially keep in mind...
Read my post two above yours - the DRs have been measured and are within experimental error the same.
I would be surprised if sharpening has noticeably different effects on the RAW files,.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,231
527
I thought I'd compare files with my 5D MK $ and R. The two cameras were setup identically and remotely controlled with Canon utilities using these settings:

color 5200K, Neutral, 0,2,2,0,0,0 WB Shift 0.0, 1/30 sec f/8 ISO 100.

Then I imported them into Adobelightroom and noted that the histograms were different. So, I manually set everything to zero, and the color temp to 5200 for both.

Lo and behold, the colors were different. Adobe obviously was not reading coor temp from the files, and the histogram was different between the two photos in a obvious way.

So, then I went to DPP and processed the raw files. They appeared identical with the color temps set to 5200 as I had set in the camera.

I cropped just the area near the focus point, it was the top line of text.

Here are the four crops, EOS-R in LR, 5D MK IV in LR, EOS-R in DPP, 5D MK IV in DPP. all were focused using canon utilities, the camera was on a head that is securely bolted to a heavy light table.

1. EOS-R in Lightroom

EOS R_-LR.jpg



2. 5D MK IV in Lightroom


5D MK IV_-LR.jpg



3. EOS-R in DPP

EOS R_-DPP.JPG



4. 5D MK IV in DPP
5D MK IV_-DPP.JPG
 
Reactions: mikekeck

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,231
527
Notice the different colors when the camera is set to a fixed 5200K even though lens, settings, lighting, and position of the cameras are the same. It is likely due to different internal camera calibrations of the sensor, its pretty slight in DPP.

I wonder if setting color temp to auto would result in less difference. I've wasted too much time today though!

I think that color temps make the files look different.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,231
527
As long as I still had one camera setup, I went ahead with capturing them with WB set to white priority and cropped in DPP so they are 1:1 or close. There is a exposure difference in the processed files, if I wanted to use my color checker to calibrate the cameras, the results should be closer.


1. EOS R auto WB as imported in DPP
EOS R Auto WB DPP.JPG


2. 5D MK IV Auto WB as imported in DPP

5D MK IV Auto WB DPP.JPG
 
Last edited:

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
952
68
Interesting...

I wonder what makes the LR image sharper (on both cameras)...

Other than that, this would support my experience with the 5D4 images being a bit crisper OOC.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,231
527
Finally, the files as imported into lightroom with everything set to zero and WB as shot. These look closer than DPP. LR sees drastically different color temps, 5850 versus 8100.


1. EOS-R set to auto WB as imported in LR
EOS_R Auto WB LR.jpg



2. 5D MK IV set to auto WB as imported in LR

5D MK IV Auto WB LR.jpg
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Jack Douglas

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,854
193
I cannot help it. By reading the comments about EOS 5DMkIV being sharper I must ask:

Have you AF Microadjusted EOS R? :D:D:D:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
952
68
I would be surprised if sharpening has noticeably different effects on the RAW files,.
After looking at it closer, I think it's probably more or less a wash...the R pictures can tolerate more sharpening, definitely, but that's likely only because they are softer to begin with. However, I'm still convinced that there are subtle differences in the way DPP processes files from the two cameras...it's apparent particularly with the NR sliders.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,231
527
The 5DIV image looks sharper.
Yes, it appears sharper.

I have read that its due to different in camera sharpening (even raws are sharpened), the R is softer. I did not try to see if they could be sharpened to optimal for both and be more similar, they are presented just as I processed them with adjustments the same as best I could do.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,231
527
Interesting...

I wonder what makes the LR image sharper (on both cameras)...

Other than that, this would support my experience with the 5D4 images being a bit crisper OOC.
DPP reads the neutral setting from the camera and probably applies less sharpening that lightroom, they are definitely different. I'd bet that DXO and Capture One would be different as well by a tiny amount.

Yes, the 5D MK IV files are crisper. I've read that from different competent testers, they have tried to explain that the camera sharpens them or sets contrast differently, I have no information about that, but I see the difference. I'd be happy to make the raw files available to someone who wanted to see what DXO Prime does, or what Capture One does with them.

The only other thing I could try is manual focusing and 10X magnification on my 24 inch monitor. I doubt that it would turn out differently. These were with a 50mm f/2.5 macro at fairly close distance. The camera was mounted in the exact same place, so difference in distance to the sensor should be pretty minimal. There may be a better way to compare them, but its as good as I could do.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
4,859
1,497
Mt S, I’d like to compare the RAWs using the latest DxO if you make them available.