Dear friends,
what i found on "The Slanted Lens" video page on youtube, seems quite interesting to me. It's a modest "duel" that every possible buyer of one or the other camera has on mind. There are many guys, thinking of jumping ship, that should pay attention to this honest (in my opinion) comparison.
I came to my own conclusions after trying an A7R ii last year (just out of academic interest) but, 5D Mk4 was not available back then so, this is the right time to think of a straight comparison between the two of them.
To me, Sony alpha models, in general, look like quite flimsy toys with lots of specs but little respect to the consumer when it comes to after market value; otherwise, why do they go on changing models every single year? Apart from this, even though i'm just an enthousiast amateur, with a fair bit of G.A.S. and a deep pocket to support it, i just can't take seriously a piece of equipment that needs a new battery and overheats every half an hour (or less in many occasions), is a pain in the butt to go through the menus, feels tiny in someones hands (at least mine), and gets time and effort to adjust correctly (sony stills colors are awful compared to Canon) in post processing.
Apart from all mentioned above, i honestly think that A7R ii is not better than my pair of 5D Mk3s when it comes to high ISO noise (let alone the 5D Mk4). Taking pictures myself last year, it was obvious that noise above ISO 3200 with A7R ii was waaaay worse than that of 5D Mk3; it was the resolution that saved the day because you had quite some room to "play" with in post. It's also apparent in comparison tools like that of DPReview, even though many people seem biased, saying the exact opposite thing! I just can't see this "king of low light"; maybe i'm blind or my eyes are very modest to recognise its highness! Full frame 4K also, that many people praise over the Mk4 nowadays on the internet, looked like real crap on the A7R ii, with huge noise amounts and low resolution. Super 35mm with it's own crop factor, was the one that saved the game for Sony!
Now again, that's my very own opinion and everybody has one as well as an a....le (as Clint Eastwood said).
Spending some time to watch the video, you may come to interesting conclusions (at least i did), when it comes to reverse engineering of overexposing and rolling back, instead of underexposing, as well as color rendition performance between the two "contenders".
Here is the link, enjoy for yourselves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSpXJadCfcQ
Greetings from warm, summery, starry Greece. All my best wishes to you and all your beloved.
Yours
Yiannis A
what i found on "The Slanted Lens" video page on youtube, seems quite interesting to me. It's a modest "duel" that every possible buyer of one or the other camera has on mind. There are many guys, thinking of jumping ship, that should pay attention to this honest (in my opinion) comparison.
I came to my own conclusions after trying an A7R ii last year (just out of academic interest) but, 5D Mk4 was not available back then so, this is the right time to think of a straight comparison between the two of them.
To me, Sony alpha models, in general, look like quite flimsy toys with lots of specs but little respect to the consumer when it comes to after market value; otherwise, why do they go on changing models every single year? Apart from this, even though i'm just an enthousiast amateur, with a fair bit of G.A.S. and a deep pocket to support it, i just can't take seriously a piece of equipment that needs a new battery and overheats every half an hour (or less in many occasions), is a pain in the butt to go through the menus, feels tiny in someones hands (at least mine), and gets time and effort to adjust correctly (sony stills colors are awful compared to Canon) in post processing.
Apart from all mentioned above, i honestly think that A7R ii is not better than my pair of 5D Mk3s when it comes to high ISO noise (let alone the 5D Mk4). Taking pictures myself last year, it was obvious that noise above ISO 3200 with A7R ii was waaaay worse than that of 5D Mk3; it was the resolution that saved the day because you had quite some room to "play" with in post. It's also apparent in comparison tools like that of DPReview, even though many people seem biased, saying the exact opposite thing! I just can't see this "king of low light"; maybe i'm blind or my eyes are very modest to recognise its highness! Full frame 4K also, that many people praise over the Mk4 nowadays on the internet, looked like real crap on the A7R ii, with huge noise amounts and low resolution. Super 35mm with it's own crop factor, was the one that saved the game for Sony!
Now again, that's my very own opinion and everybody has one as well as an a....le (as Clint Eastwood said).
Spending some time to watch the video, you may come to interesting conclusions (at least i did), when it comes to reverse engineering of overexposing and rolling back, instead of underexposing, as well as color rendition performance between the two "contenders".
Here is the link, enjoy for yourselves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSpXJadCfcQ
Greetings from warm, summery, starry Greece. All my best wishes to you and all your beloved.
Yours
Yiannis A