Camera Gear Review News (Page 13) RSS Feed for Camera Gear Review News

 Monday, August 16, 2021

Just posted: Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens Review.

Learn how this little lens measures up!

The Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 8/16/2021 8:09:53 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Tuesday, August 10, 2021

In addition to the Image quality test results previosuly shared, vignetting, flare, and distortion test results along with specs, measurements, standard product images, and other product images have been added to the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens page.

Remember that Canon mandates distortion correction for this lens in-camera (in the viewfinder) and in Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP).

See the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens visually compared to the Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens and Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens here.

The Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 8/10/2021 10:01:31 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Monday, August 9, 2021

Ironically, the day after sharing the first Canon vs. Sony IBIS Comparison Test, Sony released Alpha 1 firmware update version 1.10. While IBIS was not called out in the list of updated features, discussions hinted that an IBIS performance update was possibly included in the "Other improvements in operational stability" line item. Sony would not divulge the answer to that question. That possibility left a little doubt in my mind, and ... I don't like doubt more than I don't like testing image stabilization.

Round 2. The procedures for the second comparison test were the same as for the first, and the text for this test will remain mostly identical to that of the initial test.

When shooting handheld, image stabilization performance can be a significant image quality factor. Sony has incorporated In-Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) in their cameras for many years — the a7 II and a7R II had this feature. Canon's first IBIS implementations arrived last summer in the Canon EOS R5 and EOS R6.

Especially given Sony's long head start with this technology, I wanted to know: Is Sony's IBIS better than Canon's? Or is Canon's IBIS better? It was also possible that the two systems would perform equally, and that piece of information would also be helpful to know. It was time to create a comparison featuring the latest high-end models from each company, the Canon EOS R5 vs. Sony Alpha 1.

CIPA's image stabilization ratings attempt to provide an objective measure of a camera's stabilization assistance capabilities. However, CIPA is considerably steadier than I am. There are no objective image stabilization tests that measure a camera's stabilization assistance specifically for me — or for you, and it is only a camera's stabilization assistance performance for the person holding the camera that matters. Even our personal stabilization needs are situational, with wind, physical exertion, footing stability, and other factors influencing our ability to hold a camera steady.

While I had opinions on the overall image stabilization performance of various Canon and Sony camera and lens combinations, explicitly testing the difference between the Canon and Sony camera IBIS had been interesting me. With identical Canon and Sony non-stabilized lenses in the lab at the same time, this comparison hit the top of my to-do list, becoming the priority.

While completely objective testing was not possible, it seemed that subjective testing could be dialed in to have meaning.

This IBIS testing was performed in the studio, with ideal handheld testing conditions, including solid (concrete) footing and no wind. During testing, elbows were not resting on the body, and the viewfinder was in use (vs. the rear LCD).

The Canon EOS R5 with an RF 50mm F1.2 L USM Lens was tested against a Sony Alpha 1 with an FE 50mm f/1.2 GM Lens. The cameras were set to single-shot mode, with the electronic first curtain shutter selected in Tv mode. A detailed test target (exceeding camera resolution) was positioned at eye level about 10' (3.3m) away, with the distance marked for consistency.

Starting at 1/25 second exposures (roughly 2 stops of stabilization assistance expected for me), 10 images were captured with each camera. The shutter duration on both cameras was then increased by 1/3 stop, and the testing was repeated, alternating cameras until 1-second exposures were on the cards. That procedure amounted to 150 pictures taken with each camera (10 shots x 15 shutter speeds), 300 pictures total.

The measure of sharpness is not boolean, true or false, meaning an arbitrary determination of pass or fail was required, and adding an intermediary grade seemed a good idea. In addition, everyone loves a score, a firm number that can quickly be compared and quoted.

If the image was unsalvageable, it went into the "Delete" category. If an image is blurry, it was a waste of time to capture, load, and process. Worse is that I may have counted on the image being sharp, meaning that the desired image was lost. The blurry image also consumed space on the memory card and later on the computer's SSD. Thus, in the "Score" column, five points are deducted for each image falling in this category.

If the image was salvageable via increasing the sharpness or down-sizing the image, it went into the "Useable" category. No points were given for these images. While they will often get the job done, these results were mediocre.

Crisply sharp images are what we want. Test images making the "Sharp" grade were awarded 5 points.

Most images were not hard to place in one of these three categories. The "benefit of the doubt" rule was implemented for those hard to grade, and the higher grade was given.

Here is the resulting Canon vs. Sony IBIS comparison table:

 CanonSonyDiff (Canon - Sony)Score
ExposureDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpCanonSonyDiff
1/2500100190-1150455
1/200010001000050500
1/1500100190-1150455
1/130010118-1-12503515
1/10118226-1-12352015
1/8019217-202452520
1/6046226-220302010
1/5136217-12-125250
1/4307712-4-1520-2545
1/3235613-42215-1530
0.442441501-105-5
0.5523910-413-10-4535
0.68201000-220-40-5010
0.89107302-20-45-35-10
1820910-110-40-455
Total412188611772-2041623555180

The testing was so much fun that I decided to do it again. OK, the fun part was missing, but meaningful test results should be repeatable, right? While I made a significant effort to capture every test shot to the best of my current abilities, I had enough doubt in my mind to leave me unsatisfied. Testing for consistency seemed necessary.

Thus, after thoroughly evaluating the first set of results, the same test was repeated — another 300 images were captured. The results are as follows:

 CanonSonyDiff (Canon - Sony)Score
ExposureDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpCanonSonyDiff
1/2500100370-33503515
1/200010001000050500
1/150010127-1-23503020
1/1312712700030300
1/10019325-3-14451035
1/8037316-321351520
1/6037226-211352015
1/5217334-1-2325520
1/4037613-62435-1550
1/3145514-43120-525
0.43251000-72510-5060
0.55321000-532-15-5035
0.68111000-211-35-5015
0.89101000-110-45-505
19011000-101-40-5010
Total382191741759-36432265-75340

While these numbers are as meaningful as the first table, it was the consistency with the first test results that most interested me. The following table shows the deviation between the two tests. The second result was subtracted from the first result, with 0 or close to 0 indicating similar performance.

 CanonSony
ExposureDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharp
1/250000-22
1/20000000
1/15000-1-12
1/130000-11
1/100-11-101
1/8000-101
1/601-1000
1/5-12-1-1-23
1/43-3010-1
1/31-1010-1
0.410-1-615
0.50-11-110
0.601-1000
0.8000-330
1-12-1-110
Total30-3-13013

To account for any testing anomalies, after compiling the second test results, the four exposure durations with the most deviation (none were significantly differing) for each camera were tested a third time (80 additional test shots). The worst of the three results for each camera was thrown out, leaving the results shown in the above tables.

I am very impressed at how consistent the results for the two tests are. The similarity adds credence to the test results.

Here is a summary table showing the combined first and second test results, along with the final scoring.

 CanonSonyDiff (Canon - Sony)Score
ExposureDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpCanonSonyDiff
1/25002004160-441008020
1/20002000200001001000
1/1500201316-1-341007525
1/1312172315-1-12806515
1/1012175411-4-26803050
1/804165213-523804040
1/607134412-431654025
1/534135411-202503020
1/433141325-101955-4095
1/337101127-85335-2055
0.47491415-73410-4555
0.510551910-945-25-9570
0.616312000-431-75-10025
0.8182017301-10-90-85-5
117211910-211-80-9515
Total794217913534131-56848500-20520

So, we just got highly analytical with 680 subjective test results. Still, there seems to be some meaning here.

The sharp column from this table is illustrated in the graph included at the top of this post. From these results, it is arguable that the IBIS technology in the Canon EOS R5 is superior to that in the Sony Alpha 1 (for me, on this day, in this location, with the referenced lenses mounted). For example, follow the "10" line in the chart to see the shutter speed I required for a 50% sharp image rate.

Mostly, I experience a 1/3 - 2/3 stop advantage with the Canon camera. That difference is not dramatic, and the bottom line is that IBIS is valuable in both camera brands. This feature adds substantially to the versatility of non-stabilized lenses, such as the 50mm f/1.2 models tested here. IBIS is one more reason to love the latest mirrorless camera models.

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News, Sony News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 8/9/2021 2:22:58 PM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Sunday, August 8, 2021

Correction: I Just fixed a duplication mistake in the revised review (sorry about that). There are two new sets of 100% crop samples shared in the revised review, and now they are different. The missing second set was relevant to the "Will I notice?" discussion.

Original post: I couldn't let the uncertainty of the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens focus shift issue rest and have just tested a second copy of the lens.

The Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens Review has been updated. Search the review page (CTRL-F / CMD-F) for "bad copy" (sorry, the bookmark link is not working) to jump to the update.

Order the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 8/8/2021 1:04:55 PM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Friday, August 6, 2021

I couldn't let the uncertainty of the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens focus shift issue rest and have just tested a second copy of the lens.

The Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens Review has been updated. Search the review page (CTRL-F / CMD-F) for "bad copy" (sorry, the bookmark link is not working) to jump to the update.

Order the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 8/6/2021 11:29:36 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Thursday, August 5, 2021

Image quality test results have been added to the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens page.

Note that Canon mandates distortion correction for this lens in-camera (in the viewfinder) and in Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP).

Here are some comparisons to get started:

Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens compared to Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens

Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens compared to Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens

The Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 8/5/2021 8:15:03 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Tuesday, August 3, 2021

Image quality test results have been added to the Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens Review.

Like its RF 600mm counterpart and as expected, this lens turns in outstanding results.

Despite the Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens and Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens being nearly identical, including a shared optical design, one opportunity for the RF 400 to differentiate itself was optical performance with extenders. More specifically, RF extenders vs. EF extenders.

Here is that comparison.

There is some improvement with the RF extenders in place, and the 1.4x comparison at f/4.5 shows slightly more improvement.

Can the RF 400mm F2.8 lens and 1.4x extender substitute for an RF 600mm F4? Perhaps. Keeping in mind that 560mm is not 600mm, check out the Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens vs. Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens comparison. Then remember that the 600mm lens does not have f/2.8 available.

Additional comparisons:

Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens compared to Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens. Don't miss the with extenders comparison.

Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens compared to Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens

The Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon RF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 8/3/2021 9:22:28 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Monday, August 2, 2021

Just posted: Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens Review.

This lens is worth adding to the kit.

The Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens is available for order at B&H (expected in stock Aug 04)| Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Sony News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 8/2/2021 9:14:39 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Monday, July 26, 2021

Image quality test results have been added to the Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens Review.

As expected, this lens is a stellar performer.

Despite the Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens and EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM Lens being nearly identical, including a shared optical design, one opportunity for the RF 600 to differentiate itself was optical performance with extenders. More specifically, RF extenders vs. EF extenders.

Here is that comparison.

Additional comparisons:

Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens compared to the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM Lens

Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens compared to the Sony FE 600mm f/4 GM OSS Lens

Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens compared to the Nikon 600mm f/4E AF-S FL ED VR Lens

If you want this lens, get in the preorder line ASAP. I expect it to be hard to get for a long time.

The Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens is available for order at B&H | Adorama | Canon USA | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Canon RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 7/26/2021 8:29:15 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Monday, July 19, 2021
Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 7/19/2021 8:56:54 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Tuesday, July 13, 2021

With four lenses in the lab right now, some testing is happening in parallel for efficiency reasons. While not as exciting to most as the image quality test results already shared, valuable additional results, including vignetting, flare, and distortion test results, along with measurements and standard product images are now available on the pages of these four lenses:

Canon RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM Lens (flare testing awaits a clear sky)
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art Lens
Tamron 150-500mm f/5-6.7 Di III VXD Lens

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News, Sony News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 7/13/2021 9:08:43 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Monday, July 12, 2021
 Tuesday, July 6, 2021
 Friday, July 2, 2021

Image quality test results have been added to the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens Review.

The first comparison I wanted to see was with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD Lens.

The Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens is in stock at B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Sony News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 7/2/2021 8:12:01 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Wednesday, June 30, 2021
Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Sony News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 6/30/2021 7:40:56 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Image quality test results from a second lens have been added to the Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM Lens Review.

The second lens results, shown as sample 1, are nearly identical to the first lens results, now denoted as sample 2. Here is that comparison.

It is a rare lens that our test chart results do not accurately represent, but the FE 14mm GM lens is one of them. The test chart results for the two lenses were only mediocre (to be kind) and well below expectations for a prime G Master lens. Obvious is that a flat test chart highlights field curvature, a feature that few (none?) of us want. That the depth of sharp focus at the periphery become shallower and moves slightly rearward at close focus distances is the cause of the chart anomaly.

If carefully focused in the corner of the frame, as illustrated here, this lens produces sharp corner image quality. However, this improvement comes at the expense of the center of the frame performance. Fortunately, this lens performs significantly better at long distances.

The Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM Lens is an outstanding choice for photographing the milky way. Check out sample crop showing pin-point star rendering in the full-frame corners. Add this lens to the already long list of impressive Sony milky way lens options, including the FE 20mm f/1.8 G, FE 24mm f/1.4 GM, FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM, and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM lenses.

The Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM Lens is in stock at B&H and available for order at Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Sony FE 14mm f/1.8 GM Lens from Lensrentals.

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Sony News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 6/29/2021 10:15:20 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Monday, June 28, 2021

Ironically, the day after sharing the comparison below, Sony released Alpha 1 firmware update version 1.10. While IBIS was not called out in the list of updated features, discussions hinted that an IBIS performance update was possibly included in the "Other improvements in operational stability" line item. Sony would not divulge the answer to that question. That possibility left a little doubt in my mind, and ... I don't like doubt more than I don't like testing image stabilization.

Round 2. Jump over to the latest Canon vs. Sony IBIS Comparison Test for the round 2 results.

When shooting handheld, image stabilization performance can be a significant image quality factor. Sony has incorporated In-Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) in their cameras for many years — the a7 II and a7R II had this feature. Canon's first IBIS implementations arrived last summer in the Canon EOS R5 and EOS R6.

Especially given Sony's long head start with this technology, I wanted to know: Is Sony's IBIS better than Canon's? Or is Canon's IBIS better? The two systems could also perform equally, and that piece of information would also be helpful to know. It was time to create a comparison featuring the latest high-end models from each company, the Canon EOS R5 vs. Sony Alpha 1.

CIPA's image stabilization ratings attempt to provide an objective measure of a camera's stabilization assistance capabilities. However, CIPA is considerably steadier than I am. There are no objective image stabilization tests that measure a camera's stabilization assistance specifically for me — or for you, and it is only a camera's stabilization assistance performance for the person holding the camera that matters. Even our personal stabilization needs are situational, with wind, physical exertion, footing stability, and other factors influencing our ability to hold a camera steady.

While I had opinions on the overall image stabilization performance of various Canon and Sony camera and lens combinations, explicitly testing the difference between the Canon and Sony camera IBIS has been interesting me. With nearly identical Canon and Sony non-stabilized lenses in the lab at the same time, this comparison hit the top of my to-do list, becoming the priority.

While completely objective testing was not possible, it seemed that subjective testing could be dialed in to have meaning.

This IBIS testing was performed in the studio, with ideal handheld testing conditions, including solid (concrete) footing and no wind. During testing, elbows were not resting on the body, and the viewfinder was in use (vs. the rear LCD).

The Canon EOS R5 with an RF 50mm F1.2 L USM Lens was tested against a Sony Alpha 1 with an FE 50mm f/1.2 GM Lens. The cameras were set to single-shot mode, with the electronic first curtain shutter selected in Tv mode. A detailed test target (exceeding camera resolution) was positioned at eye level about 10' (3.3m) away, with the distance marked for consistency.

Starting at 1/25 second exposures (roughly 2 stops of stabilization assistance expected for me), 10 images were captured with each camera. The shutter duration on both cameras was then increased by 1/3 stop, and the testing was repeated, alternating cameras until 1 second exposures were on the cards. That procedure amounted to 150 pictures taken with each camera (10 shots x 15 shutter speeds), 300 pictures total.

The measure of sharpness is not boolean, true or false, meaning an arbitrary determination of pass or fail was required, and adding an intermediary grade seemed a good idea. In addition, everyone loves a score, a firm number that can quickly be compared and quoted.

If the image was unsalvageable, it went into the "Delete" category. If an image is blurry, it was a waste of time to capture, load, and process. Worse is that I may have counted on the image being sharp, meaning that the desired image was lost. The blurry image also consumed space on the memory card and later on the computer's SSD. Thus, in the "Score" column, five points are deducted for each image falling in this category.

If the image was salvageable via increasing the sharpness or down-sizing the image, it went into the "Useable" category. No points were given for these images. While they will often get the job done, these results were mediocre.

Crisply sharp images are what we want. Test images making the "Sharp" grade were awarded 5 points.

Most images were not hard to place in one of these three categories. The "benefit of the doubt" rule was implemented for those hard to grade, and the higher grade was given.

Here is the resulting Canon vs. Sony IBIS comparison table:

 CanonSonyDiff (Canon - Sony)Score
ExposureDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpCanonSonyDiff
1/250010127-1-23503020
1/20019118-101453510
1/150010145-1-45502030
1/13019235-2-24451530
1/10136613-52325-1540
1/8037343-3-1435035
1/6037334-30335530
1/5244613-43110-1525
1/44332442-1-1-510-15
1/3244613-43110-1525
0.48024424-40-30-10-20
0.5604901-303-10-4030
0.610001000000-50-500
0.8802910-1-12-30-4515
18201000-220-40-5010
Total492477732948-24-529140-125265

The testing was so much fun that I decided to do it again. OK, the fun part was missing, but meaningful test results should be repeatable, right? While I made a significant effort to capture every test shot to the best of my current abilities (I was not especially steady on this day), I had enough doubt in my mind to leave me unsatisfied. Testing for consistency seemed necessary.

Thus, after fully evaluating the first set of results, the same test was repeated — another 300 images were captured. The results are as follows:

 CanonSonyDiff (Canon - Sony)Score
ExposureDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpCanonSonyDiff
1/2500100190-1150455
1/200010001000050500
1/15028235-2-13401525
1/1313602811-22540-15
1/10046703-74330-2050
1/8136433-30325-530
1/6037163-1-34351025
1/5253532-3215-1520
1/4235532-30315-1530
1/3352721-431-5-3025
0.4622622000-20-200
0.5811901-110-35-405
0.610007213-2-1-50-30-20
0.89101000-110-45-505
19101000-110-45-505
Total513366732750-2261675-115190

While these numbers are as meaningful as the first table, it was the consistency with the first test results that most interested me. The following table shows the deviation between the two tests. The second result was subtracted from the first result, with 0 or close to 0 indicating similar performance.

 CanonSony
ExposureDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharp
1/2500011-2
1/2001-111-2
1/150-22-110
1/13-1-2321-3
1/101-10-110
1/8-101-110
1/60002-31
1/50-111-21
1/420-2-312
1/3-1-12-1-12
0.42-20-220
0.5-2-13000
0.60003-2-1
0.8-1-12-110
1-110000
Total-2-91102-2

To account for any testing anomalies, after compiling the second test results, the three exposure durations with the most deviation (though none were significantly differing) for each camera were tested a third time (60 additional test shots). The worst of the three results for each camera was thrown out, leaving the results shown in the above tables.

I am very impressed at how consistent the results for the two tests are. The similarity adds credence to the test results.

Here is a summary table showing the combined first and second test results, along with the final scoring.

 CanonSonyDiff (Canon - Sony)Score
ExposureDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpDeleteUseableSharpCanonSonyDiff
1/2500201316-1-341007525
1/2001191118-101958510
1/1502183710-3-58903555
1/1314152513-1-12705515
1/1017121316-126655-3590
1/81613776-6-1760-565
1/60614497-4-37701555
1/54971145-75215-3045
1/4668776-1-1210-515
1/35961334-8625-4550
0.4142410644-40-50-30-20
0.514151802-413-45-8035
0.6200017213-2-1-100-80-20
0.817121910-202-75-9520
117302000-330-85-10015
Total100571431465698-46145215-240455

So, we just got highly analytical with 660 subjective test results. Still, there seems to be some meaning here.

The sharp column from this table is illustrated in the graph included at the top of this post. From these results, it is arguable that the IBIS technology in the Canon EOS R5 is superior to that in the Sony Alpha 1, at least in many of the shutter speed comparisons (for me, on this day, in this location, with the referenced lenses mounted). For example, follow the "10" line in the chart to see the shutter speed I required for a 50% sharp image rate.

The bottom line is that IBIS is valuable in both camera brands. This feature adds substantially to the versatility of non-stabilized lenses, such as the 50mm f/1.2 models tested here. IBIS is one more reason to love the latest mirrorless camera models.

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News, Sony News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 6/28/2021 8:00:00 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Thursday, June 24, 2021

Just posted: MindShift Gear BackLight Elite 45L Review

A first-choice full-size backpack for nearly any adventure.

The MindShift Gear BackLight Elite 45L is in stock at B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Canon News, Sony News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 6/24/2021 11:34:01 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Wednesday, June 23, 2021

Just posted: Sony FE 50mm f/2.5 G Lens Review.

This is a very nice little lens.

The Sony FE 50mm f/2.5 G Lens is in stock at B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Sony FE 50mm f/2.5 G Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Sony News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 6/23/2021 7:36:30 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
 Tuesday, June 22, 2021

Just posted: Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM Lens Review.

Excellent lens.

Get in line if you want this one. Order the Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM Lens at B&H | Adorama | Amazon USA | WEX

Rent the Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM Lens from Lensrentals.

Please share!

Share on Facebook! Share on X! Share on Pinterest! Email this page to a friend!
Posted to: Sony News   Category: Camera Gear Review News
Post Date: 6/22/2021 9:43:50 AM ET   Posted By: Bryan
< Previous     1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |    Next >
Archives
2024   Jan   Feb   Mar
2023   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2022   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2021   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2020   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2019   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2018   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2017   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2016   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2015   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2014   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2013   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2012   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2011   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2010   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2009   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2008   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2007   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2006   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
2005   Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
Terms of Use, Privacy  |  © 2024 Rectangular Media, LLC  |  Bryan CarnathanPowered by Christ!