I felt like being a strictly video first camera guy he, in other videos more than this one, has been biased towards video features. While I would admit the R5 and the R6 are not workhorse cinema cameras, I feel like both are better than the Sony a7s III. The sony asks users to sacrifice too much photography features for video features that are not that much better in terms of quality and quality alone than both the R5 and the R6's video features. There are a lot of other things that make the sony a great video camera but the quality alone isn't that much better than the R5 and R6. In fact, both of the Canon’s oversampled 4k modes exceed the Sonys 4k mode in quality, but the canons have a huge problem with overheating, which of course has been said over and over again. And its more than fair, the over heating itself isn’t just an issue, it's the ridiculous cool downtime. But comparing standard 4k modes of both cameras, the Sony does better because it doesn’t have to throw away as much information as the canons because it’s the sensor is lower resolution. Which of course makes it an amazing low light camera and gives it excellent video quality, but makes it tough to recommend. While the low light beats the canon by a country mile, I feel like the standard 4k doesn’t beat it by that much. But the canon is head and shoulders above it on the photography side. It shoots faster, has more resolution, and autofocus is better. Even the eye autofocus is as good if not better than Sony’s. At the price point of $3500, it's hard to recommend Sony to anyone that has an interest in shooting both stills and video, especially if you want to post pictures anywhere else than IG. But again, it's a great video camera with great video quality, and other amazing bells and whistles that reinforce it as a video-first camera, but if it were priced at 2800 to 3000 it would be tougher to put this over the R5, but I still think in some ways both canons are better.