Jump to content

A7R II vs Canon 5d mark IV as hybrid cameras


Arikhan
 Share

Recommended Posts

As I consider to buy a new hybrid camera (stills and video) in some weeks, I need some advice from experienced people. After looking at many reviews and charts, I'd like to buy a Sony A7R II or a Canon 5d mark IV. I need a camera for stills performing very well in low light and low contrast situations with minimum 20 megapixel (if not I would immediately buy the a7s ii, but the 12 MP are not enough for what I need...). The camera should be a very decent video device too.

Are here people experienced with both cameras, who could give advice? I shoot Canon for stills a few years now and have a decent amount of good lenses, but I can not estimate

  • The low-light still capabilities of the 5d m4 compared to the a7r ii
  • The hardware requirements for a Win PC to edit the huge 4K MJPEG files of the 5dm4 on Premiere CC (my PC: 16 GB RAM, GTX 970, CPU: AMD FX 8350, SSD harddrives - just OK for editing "common" 4K files at about 100 MB/s)

Changing to the Sony ecosystem means for me - as I love native lenses - a quite dramatic change of my lens collection. At least additional costs for buying new (Sony) lenses. On video side, the Sony (excepting color science) should be by far superior to the new 5d...It's really hard to not make the wrong decision. As I am a scholar, my budget is quite restricted and I can not afford to buy the "wrong" camera and equipment...My NX1 shoots excellent stills, but in low-light and low contrast (real world situations, where I can not use flash/lightning), the camera falls dramatically apart...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're a professional making money from stills photography then 5D4 because it has pro features like better build, deeper buffer, faster fps and dual card slots. If not then the A7RII is a more well rounded camera and will give you a better experience shooting both stills and video. Don't worry about color science too much because it's only hard to get right when working with slog, the image is already mighty fine in the other profiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sold a 5D MK III for a Sony A7R II.

Despite all that is said, I reckon the Sony has only about 1 stop noise improvement in low light compared with the Canon. To get the most out of it you really need to be good at noise reduction techniques. Sony's low light focusing is very poor and you can't even use a focus assist red light, either on the camera or an external flash. Manual focusing in low light is pretty unreliable too. The build quality is much inferior to Canon and battery life is extremely low. For fast low light stills work, using Canon lenses on the Sony via an adaptor is a waste of time. I intended to do this but ended up having to buy three Sony lenses instead. The Sony is only really good in video in APSC crop mode and has strong rolling shutter.

That said, the A7R II offers plenty of video options and the quality can be excellent. The XLR adaptor (if you want to spend the additional money) is useful. The EVF is a wonderful improvement over an optical viewfinder and the main reason I wouldn't return to Canon.

But all in all my advice would be not to believe all the hype about the A7RII and to remember that theoretical resolution is not the same as real world sharpness. My Panasonic GX80, far cheaper, focuses better than the Sony in low light and, despite being only 16 mpx, produces files that can be printed very large indeed (like 100 cm on the short side at 300 dpi via Perfect Resize). 

After nearly a year of A7R II pro work, I'm thinking very hard about abandoning full frame and moving to micro four thirds completely. I've been delivering MFT stills and videos with supposedly more "pro" Sony files and nobody can tell the difference or even cares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 1080 is good enough, and you lean more towards stills than video, then Nikon D750 is a great choice as an awesome stills camera (thrashes the 5Dmk3 in the stills department) which is also an excellent video DSLR.

If 4K is an essential requirement, then check out the Nikon D500. A better stills camera too in every way! (except FX vs DX)

You can pick them up for excellent prices, the D750 for as little as $1,399!!

 

http://nikonrumors.com/2016/10/27/new-nikon-rebates-now-live-in-the-us-additional-price-drops-on-the-d500-d750-and-d810.aspx/

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DPC Thans for your realistic and experienced advice!

VIDEO is not the prime intent here, it's all about the low-light stills quality beeing compared. I need the camera for some kind of documentary/journalistic work and have to take stills in low lightning environments without the possibility to lighten. After testing in real world circumstances with the NX1 (45mm 1.8, 1/200, ISO 3200) and with the old 7D, it must be said, that these two cameras (APSC) aren't by far not good enough for my purposes. The result was in both cases a ugly pixel stodge, lacking any quality or detail.

Quote

My Panasonic GX80, far cheaper, focuses better than the Sony in low light and, despite being only 16 mpx, produces files that can be printed very large indeed (like 100 cm on the short side at 300 dpi via Perfect Resize). 

OK, but what about low-light stills capabilities, in very decent light conditions and moving targets (people)? I guess these are typical situations for full frame devices or cams capable to process in low-light conditions with low contrast very good. Any idea? I am not a fanboy of a special brand, though i am very pleased with the Canon look. But for this special purpose I need a cam with 16+ Megapixel, excellent low-light capabilities and finally with good 1080p IQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your willing to go 1080p and Nikon, I agree with the D750. It's photo AF can practically see in the dark. It's low light video is close to the a7s. And for the cost of a 5D 4 you can buy a used D750 and a few excellent lenses.

I own the a7r II, it's low light AF is not impressive. It's image quality definitely is incredible. But it's cost with a decent lens is hitting $4500+

Also as always RENT before you buy if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Geoff CB Thanks Geoff!

Quote

I own the a7r II, it's low light AF is not impressive. It's image quality definitely is incredible.

The STILL-IQ, the VIDEO-IQ or both?

BTW: You guys are incredible! So much experience and good advice....After your advice i've took a look at some D750 samples (video + stills) and the DPReview full review and nearly ALL experienced shooters/reviewers love this Nikon: http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review and https://***URL removed***/reviews/nikon-d750
In addition this camera + 3 prime lenses (35mm, 50mm and 85mm) is much more cheaper than the a7r II + the same Sony native prime lenses...round about 2.500,- Euro here in Germany.

BTW: My "dream" solution would be a 1DX m2, but first I am still a scholar and second that would mean some additional costs in a new editing PC hardware...Out of reach for me... ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Arikhan said:

BTW: You guys are incredible! So much experience and good advice....After your advice i've took a look at some D750 samples (video + stills) and the DPReview full review and nearly ALL experienced shooters/reviewers love this Nikon: http://www.rossharvey.com/reviews/nikon-d750-review and https://***URL removed***/reviews/nikon-d750

Yes I've read about lots of Canon still shooters who made the switch to Nikon because of the D750! Especially popular with many working wedding photographers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jasonmillard81

Quote

How does the x-t2 stack up to the d750?

For the x-t2 I have to buy Fujinon lenses...It's a ecosystem for it's own and not quite cheap. And the x-t2 is NOT the same 20+ megapixel "low-light monster" as a D750, A7R II, 5Dm4, etc. For ergonomics, build and solidity (dual slot cards, building quality, etc.) I still believe, that the D750 is the best offer. Addtionally, good prime lenses for the Nikon are not so expensive as Fujinon or even Sony lenses...It's not all about the price of a camera only, lens prices, ergonomics, etc. are for me important too...I have to consider the total cost of ownership, as my budget is limited.
I need the camera for solid work and beautiful images, not for award winning photography. I still believe, it's not only the camera, but me too as photographer or filmer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jasonmillard81 Yes, I've seen it.
But I must act from a realistic and practical point of view. As said, buying in the Fuji ecosystem means investing in a for me new ecosystem (lenses, filter, etc., etc.) and that's expensive. As I am not a pro making money with photography and filming, I have to administrate my tight budget. And the Nikon ecosystem is - for my use - much more cheaper than the Fuji. Point 1.

Point 2: The X-t2 is till now NOT known as low-light monster. So the stunning video IQ of this camera under ideal lightning conditions is useless for my purposes...There are so many cameras with stunning IQ, but only a handful competing in extreme low light and afordability concerning total cost of ownership. I work hard for photography and filming during holidays (earning money), but that said, please consider that I can not buy cameras + needed equipment pros can buy. So I have to be very realistic when buying equipment.

I am more than happy with the NX1 (stills AND video), it's a fantastic and robust hybrid camera. The IQ is in my eyes mindblowing, AF and usability too. But it rapidly falls apart in low light conditions. I get in some conditions unusable STILLS with ISO 6.400. Very decent light, low contrast, tungsten and yellow-brownish light are not the strongest points of the NX1. In such conditions the Samsung is as bad as my old 7D, despite 50mm 1.8 lens...The NX1 looses almost any detail, contrast and IQ. There are the limits of this device....
So I have to compensate this point with another camera competing in these poor light conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

@jasonmillard81 Yes, I've seen it.
But I must act from a realistic and practical point of view. As said, buying in the Fuji ecosystem means investing in a for me new ecosystem (lenses, filter, etc., etc.) and that's expensive. As I am not a pro making money with photography and filming, I have to administrate my tight budget. And the Nikon ecosystem is - for my use - much more cheaper than the Fuji. Point 1.

Point 2: The X-t2 is till now NOT known as low-light monster. So the stunning video IQ of this camera under ideal lightning conditions is useless for my purposes...There are so many cameras with stunning IQ, but only a handful competing in extreme low light and afordability concerning total cost of ownership. I work hard for photography and filming during holidays (earning money), but that said, please consider that I can not buy cameras + needed equipment pros can buy. So I have to be very realistic when buying equipment.

I am more than happy with the NX1 (stills AND video), it's a fantastic and robust hybrid camera. The IQ is in my eyes mindblowing, AF and usability too. But it rapidly falls apart in low light conditions. I get in some conditions unusable STILLS with ISO 6.400. Very decent light, low contrast, tungsten and yellow-brownish light are not the strongest points of the NX1. In such conditions the Samsung is as bad as my old 7D, despite 50mm 1.8 lens...The NX1 looses almost any detail, contrast and IQ. There are the limits of this device....
So I have to compensate this point with another camera competing in these poor light conditions.

Seriously, if you want a camera just for low light alongside the NX1, get at D750.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jasonmillard81 I don't have any demo for this. That said, there are many many samples for high low-light capabilities of the D750, A7R II, 5Dm2...These 3 cameras (OK + Canon 1DXm2 + Nikon D3S + D4, etc.). Furthermore the fantastic focusing skills of the D750 in very low light are proven in real world conditions by many photographers. Even the A7R II is in low-light focusing questionable...So this is not only all about IQ but focusing capabilities too...And herein I don't have ANY proof for the Fuji.

Furthermore, don't forget TCO. As said, the X-T2 is all in all not very affordable for me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...