This is the most trustworthy and credible review of camera tech I've watched in years. Thank you Jared. I'm a canon user since the late 80s, used Nikon in the 90s. Back at Canon now but looking at Fuji and possibly Sony. Despite being a Canon user making a great based and unbiased review of relevant flagships is a great decision. Jared you give me peace of mind that bleeding tech from the giant and maverick Sony and the conservative but wise tech from (smaller but reliably ol') Canon who are the industry guardians are great for our beloved industry. We avid enthusiasts of photography and videographers are the true winners.
Many reviewers have been saying that new gear today is very, very good. It is difficult to make the metaphoric wrong turn with any of the top-tier manufacturers these days. Try out the different systems if feasible, pick whichever gear fits your needs the best, then get outside and enjoy taking pictures. I like seeing things parsed to the "sub-atomic", but I have my preferences and find joy in the moment of capturing an image.
New gears and cameras are great today because technology has to move forward, not backward. Mirrorless cameras have come a long way thanks to Sony's heavy investment in it. Had Sony given up on Mirrorless after their 2nd gen Alpha cameras, DSLR would still be popular today and Canon and Nikon would still reign supreme. Nothing wrong with DSLR too so if you are a hobby photographer, then its great for you. But for my skill level, I need a Mirrorless because a Mirrorless camera can keep up with my shooting. DSLR can still get the job done for me, but it will be at half the speed and a bit annoying.
I'm a biased R3 shooter. Watching this on my phone is impossible to see the noise differences, but overall the Sony images pop abit more and make the Canon look slightly underexposed
I was actually able to see more noise from the Sony at 4K, especially when zooming in on UA-cam to 180%. I think the difference in exposure is mostly due to the lens vignetting taking place which looks heavier on the Canon version of the 135mm. To note that the R3 while very good is slightly worse at high ISOs when compared to a similar 24mp sensor like the R6 mark 2. In any case, both are good enough for low light performance.
Thank you, Jared! An ace comparison review. I’ve never seen such a divisive camera technology or launch in recent years and all the more I appreciate your calm approach to comparing images out of these top camera bodies. 👍👍👍
@@77dris It might not be the right sensor for you, but it's still a huge step forward in sensor tech. And let's be real, Sony is the only company pushing sensor tech forward these days. At least for large (FF, APS-C) sensors. First BSI, then stacked BSI, now a GS CMOS sensor with AF.
@@77dris it is fine, after two more year, Canon will be the same look. To be honest, I have no idea why people didn't realize if we are talking about pure image quality, within the modern technic, if we don't upgrade ADC or some kind of fancy tech, the image quality is almost in its edge. This Canon R3 is almost the same image quality if we are talking about dynamic range and resolution as Sony A7III 10 years ago, so is the Nikon D600, D610, D750, Z6, Z6II, Panasonic S1, S1H, S5, S5II, S5IIX, Canon R6II. This is just the nature of physics.
@@IanHobdaythere is a reason why Canon dont release their global shutter, do u really believe Canon dont have RnD for global shutter? Haha they know the file cant be as good as the R3 so why bother to release one
Great Job Jared! R3 is still one of the best cameras, but I see advantages for Sony when it comes to special or specific situations (LED bending, fast moving parts/elements, better 4K Video etc.), therefore I would go for the Sony a9 III.
@@contentm3893 you should go for a camera, which fulfills your needs. If 6k video is important for you, than go for it, if you need 120 fps in RAW at 24MP all pictures on focus, than go for the a9 III. It shouldn’t be a battle between Sony and Canon, it should be a customer’s or your personal decision.
@@bernardlanguillier65 As an R3 owner i got to ask......WAT? Nah it does not...i wish it did...As some one who been enjoying noise profile of sub 3200 ISO for a74, i have not been liking noise profile of low iso of R3 (i get that i am being picky here). Would have made my life easier as wedding photographer (i know R3 is overkill for that)
@@bernardlanguillier65one thing, ALL cameras apply some sort of noise reduction, sharpening, etc, in RAW files, because the other way it would be unusable. Sony apply more noise reduction in raw than Canon, ask some astrophotographer, Sony eats stars thinking that were noise. Canon apply more sharpening and more contrast. Nikon have the most "raw" raw files.
@@amermeleitoralso non edited raw files arent always a good thing. Nikon has more aliasing as an example because of the less corrections in camera. Something that is pretty much impossible to correct manually later. There is good reason why they all have in camera corrections.
I think if you're a sports shooter, this is a massive W. As for wildlife, I'd still generally prefer higher MP bodies, like the R5, A1 or Z9/Z8, in case you need to crop a lot. While I think the sensor readout speed of the A1 and Z9/Z8 is more than quick enough for wildlife, the super high burst speed is something I'm very interested in.
Sony's original stacked sensor was also 24mp, then much later 50mp in the A1. I would expect this sensor tech to follow a similar trajectory. Probably not ready for the A1ii in 2024, but high chance it goes into the A1iii.
I agree, having a A7Rv for a month now and the A9 a lot longer 20 fps is enough for birds/wildlife so my future A1 if the A1 II comes out and 50mgp stacked with 30fps is more than a need, the A9III is a action/sports camera...and the A7Rv feels great, I use it for wildlife and landscape...61mgp is nice for cropping
yeah@Broskisnowski the A9 with the stacked sensor and the electronic shutter is working great, I presume in the A1 it is the same...a good new year from the Netherlands 🥂
I kinda disagree with the denoise. A small amount of lightroom denoise isn't terrible. You can still get some of those pixel details while making the picture feel a bit more polished at super high ISOs. I shoot concerts so it's almost a must for me.
Solid overview Jared - acknowledging the differences but not sweating the minutia. Hi-Tech wins overall as both cameras are awesome in different situations. Merry Christmas to you and the Team! 🎄
Excellent video. It shows that global shutters have no severe limitations with ISO and DR. It also shows that for the application you showed, any of the top cameras Z8, Z9, R3, A1, A9II and probably A9 are sufficient. What it doesn't show, are the real limits of each camera, using all the capabilities. Also, it would be nice to make one or two .ARW (not .dng) available.
thankk you for waiting to be able to show us the raw photos to compare and analyze the photos. I cant stand when people show jpegs of brand new cameras just trying to be first, its worth waiting for lightroom and actually showing the full capabilities of the camera
I am going to stand by (for now) a prediction I made a couple months ago on what kind of shutters the upcoming cameras will have which was this (with slight modification): Each brand, is likely going to have 2 different flagship models for slightly different purposes. Canon will have the R1 and R3 and Sony the A1 and A9. One is going to be a high MP camera with rolling shutter designed for things like wildlife photography where high MP and high dynamic range are important considerations. Then they are also going to have a second line with lower MP sensors, global shutters, and extreme frame rates for action photography. I know the difference between dynamic range wasn't much, but it might be enough that it warrants keeping one line as a rolling shutter to maximize DR, especially as rolling shutter becomes less and less of a problem. If Nikon is going to get on this it would likely be the Z9 and Z6, but they seem to be looking at things a little differently than Canon and Sony. I'm open to other thoughts on this though, it's just speculation based on what I see as a potential future.
Nice to see a balanced comparison between two superb cameras. I'm buying the Sony because I have a GM lenses, but either camera would meet my needs. I also like that the comments in this video - from your viewers - are also balanced & largely free of brand tribalism. We should view cameras like we do our spouses; complement our friends on their choices without having to justify why our is better 😂
I shoot motorsport and I pan mostly and my ISO is kept as low as possible for the best image quality. Therefore I’m down at ISO 64 or ISO 100 using my Z9 & Z8 along with my 400mm f/2.8E FL and Z 70-200 f/2.8S. The Sony doesn’t go below ISO 250 so I’d never look at switching. The R3 can’t compete with the 45mp of the Nikons either. I did almost buy an R3 before the Z9 was introduced but luckily for me, the Z9 was introduced and I’ve had 2 good years of use from it.
Hello. What speed do you shoot ? Because like Jared is showing, the benefit of a base iso of 100 is that you can shoot at 1/60th of sec instead of 160th for Sony. But if you need to slow down sports, the worst case you can still still add a filter…
@@alexmartins4013 I shoot from 1/15 sec up to 1/125 panning and in daylight. Also trying keep the aperture wide open too. The thing is shooting at ISO 64 and 45mp I get the very best quality images. I can’t see many Sony A1 users switching from 50mp for the A9 Mk3.
@@porkster5924 i am keeping my a1 but adding the a9iii. I can see many cases where my a1 would miss the shot but the a9iii would get it. I was able to test the camera and pre capture plus 120fps burst is great. No banding and flickering too. Only issue is no big crop is possible. To get good quality on the a9iii just stay at the native 250 iso. Lower native iso for best quality 👍🏻
@@alexmartins4013the issue mentionned here is that base ISO of the A9III is too high. Personnaly, when i switched to the Z6 (100base ISO) from the D810 (64base ISO) i was pissed because i needed ND filters to shoot some lenses wide open in bright lightning, and the color depth and dynamic range of the D810 at base ISO is much better than the Z6's. The disadvantages of a rolling shutter are nothing compared to the pain of having a 250 base ISO for some people (including me).
I think the R3 remains very competitive, especially with recent sale pricing. On black Friday a Refurbished R3 could be had for $4k I picked up the R3 a couple months ago and have been enjoying it
Canon has to do it because if they keep its price tag at $6,000 usd, it cannot compete with teh A9iii. Canon is one of the few companies that barely discount their lenses or cameras until a newer model comes out. I'm surprised to see that they actually discounted the R3
Wow. Fro really DOES know photo. Good review. B-Ball can be hard to shoot so I love your dedication to mastering the craft. I am biased by a recent purchase of the R3. Still learning the permutations of the focus system for sure. That was a useful comparison. The R3 has leaned into ISO real hard and it looks like they're still hanging on to that. I like the newer take on Canon color in the R3 as well, but Sony is also showing some interesting color rendition here. It might just be me, but I'm wondering if some of the Canon anti-noise settings might focus on the eyes, as does their R3 AF system. I say that because in a couple of these comparisons the eyes on the Sony look a little flatter, for lack of a better word. The detail is there but the eye feels clearer on the R3. Not sure. Like all of these we are comparing tendancies and shades of a possible difference. Bottom line, as you have noted, these are all really good cameras. Isn't photography a great field/science as it keeps edging toward "better" one grain of background noise at a time? Thanks for the review.
How interesting! The biggest drawback from pushing the highest end of native ISO (like 25,600+) is that there is color noise banding across the image. It doesn't look like that's present at all on a global shutter. I can't wait until this tech is ubiquitous, especially as a concert photographer who doesn't mind a lot of noise, but hates the banding.
Yea I think it's good to show the original raw photo and the edited final photo. This way not only its better show case of what the camera capture and also good way to sell your preset. because many would just show the final edited image and some people would think that's what they gonna get.. which is just not true. because everyone would edit their images differently.
Thank you for performing these tests. I am a very happy R3 shooter, but was curious how the new global shutter sensor would perform here. (I'm honestly a little shocked by how favorably the R3 performs by comparison.) The key observation that I took away from this was that the A9III demonstrates a very usable standard ISO range for most shooters, but struggles with color reproduction in the shadows. It's not until 6400 and 12800 that you begin to see the Canon R3 jump ahead with a noticeable and exponential advantage at each stop - this is especially problematic with colors. Even by 6400 ISO, the A9III colors start to take on a more subdued and dumbed down ability to differentiate shades as it appears to struggle to reproduce accurate reds and oranges. In fact, the more I compare the ISO 12800 studio scene shots the more this color reproduction problem bothers me. This is especially noticeable on the orange boxes and red trim where the A9III looks downright terrible compared to the R3. The shadows also come alive with noise by 12800 and it's borderline unusable at 25600. That said, if I didn't have a comparison point to A/B test like this, I would still find the A9III adequate for ISO 12800 real world shooting. But I personally don't consider 25600 usable for color images at all. The A9III appears to struggle the most with color detail retention in the shadows even at 12800, but it REALLY struggles at 25600. (The test scene at ISO 12800 and 25600 look at the red Aperture bag zipper and the "One Hour Service" sign and pink blanket in the top right. Yikes!!) I'm actually a little shocked by how poorly the Sony performed at 12800 as it looks worse than the R3 does at 25600. Granted, some photographers may never shoot higher than 6400 ISO because they're always in more controlled conditions. However, I find myself shooting in mega high-ISO speeds at several race events each season with 12800 ISO being relied on quite a bit. Most tracks don't invest much in their lighting for the pits or they have poor lighting in general. So in those instances where I need to freeze the action and am not panning a car or something where I have the luxury of shutter speed/aperture to play with, the only choice is to bump up the ISO. I honestly don't believe the A9III would be a viable camera for me. In conclusion, I find the camera to be even more niche than I thought it would. The A9 and R3 are sports cameras. The Canon R3 is remarkably usable from ISO 100-25600 without any second guessing. It has been a proven performer with absolutely everything I've thrown at it. The A9III is a step back in image quality with a more concise "useable" ISO range of 250-12800. After this demonstration, I even see 12800 as pushing the limits of what I would accept because I honestly don't think it looks great in all the photos I've seen. I hope that the Canon R1 doesn't have such poor ISO performance if it miraculously ends up with a global shutter. (Not holding my breathe on that one.) I would love to sync flash at any shutter speed and eliminate banding in LED lights, but I don't believe either of those are worth the trade off of losing ISO performance to this degree.
it's not just about image quality but what global shuttter can do. Global shutter eliminated banding and gave us great image quality is already a huge win. This is the next phase of camera advancement for Mirrorless. Elinimating banding and warping are both huge. Rolling shutter had its time in the sun and will soon pass the torch onto Global Shutter.
Yes, I agree. I, like you, am worried about ISO performance. Global shutter is the future, I'm sure, but right now I dont think the trade-off is worthy yet.
@@TalDoBu it's absolutely the future! This guy @harryvuemedia5106 sounds like an early adopter and is overlooking image quality deficiencies in favor of TWO real advantages - no rolling shutter effects and flash sync at almost any shutter speed (lighting dependent). While it would be awesome to never see rolling shutter problems again, they seldomly impact anything I shoot on the excellent R3. And if I do have an issue, I can shoot at 12fps in mechanical shutter! The R3 also has an incredible automatic anti-flicker that measures light frequencies in real time to fractions of a shutter speed. The flash sync though? Wow...I would love that since I use strobes OFTEN in my line of work. So total and complete control of ambient would be incredible. But getting somewhat trash image quality at ISO 12,800 for my main work camera is a no go for me at this time. I can't wait for this technology to mature and more competitors to come out with something to rival it. Hats off to Sony for leading the way...but good luck to all those who often shoot in low light or want to use slower shutter speeds creatively at wider apertures. (base ISO of 250 will require a darker ND or CPL)
@@Yupthereitism clearly you’re not looking at the images I directly referenced in my post. There is a dramatic loss of image quality (especially color fidelity) which I detailed greatly in my comment. As a matter of fact, the poor ISO performance is being discussed all over the internet and even conceded on Sony fanboy forums. It’s also greatly demonstrated again on DPReview right now with an interactive studio test scene. It’s possibly worse than APS-C. Soooooo…yeah, not better image quality. 😂
They are pretty close, the color temp of the R3 seems a bit cooler. and I agree that the "noise profile" of the R3 is more appealing. All in all, they're pretty equal.
Thank you for the video. I shoot both Sony A1 + A7RV and Canon R5. Been interested in getting an EOS R3 and this video makes me still consider it since I put battery grips a lot on the ones I own. (also used to own a few 1Dx cameras). Pre- capture though is a feature I want for Bird In Flight. If that comes to the Alpha 1 version II I might have to wait for it since I like the higher resolution and I really don’t shoot sports any more so 24 Mpixel is a little light for me. So we will see. A lightly used R3 is almost $2000 cheaper than the new Sony’s will be. Take care. By the way really like my FroPack presets. Have all four. Thank you Jared and Steven.
Buy the camera that fits the bill!!! If Sony is for you super is canon is good for you super!!! To me both are great! Wait until we get deeper into what people shoot! There’s a camera for everyone
Great comparison video. Although I am not looking to replace my R6, it was nice to see the side by side comparison. But You do need a rig to mount multiple cameras, and have a multiple camera remote shutter releases.
I wish someone would test this thing with strobes. It's almost like people don't realize that the flash synch (and high shutter speed) is the biggest deal here. Does it work with Godox triggers, and to what speed?...Profoto?...do lenses matter in that equation at all?...how about while wirelessly tethering?....anyone?
Important to know that the Canon R3 uses Noise Reduction baked into all the RAWs, so for a fair comparison, you would actually apply a bit of DNR on the A9iii files to compensate for this. Also, finally no more banding in the LED panels, that thing was driving me crazy, it's so distracting and ugly.
I am not sure , that noise reduction in raw is even possible. Raw from the sensor has no noise information, colour etc. It's interpretation is done by the raw converter.
the issue with high ISO is not the noise(or noise reduction) but how colors gets basically destroyed the higher the ISO is. the R3 is CLEARLY better in that regards, ergo high ISO performence is better. you can do something against high noise but you cant safe bad mushed high ISO colors.
Its the end result that matters, if canon can bake in noise reduction, still shoot at the speed it does and produce an image as sharp as the Sony - well good on their software engineers
I hope Canon refines the pre-shooting feature in some of their lower end models and delivers it in a firmware update for the R3. I’m not sure if I like the large .CR3 file that I have to extract in body or with Canon’s photo editor from a workflow perspective but also it’s nice to be able to separate those pre-release/rawburst files from regular shot files. Perhaps a user assignable write to the card preference toggle? The adjustability of how many frames prior to release on the Sony would be a nice addition to canon’s pre-capture feature. From a technical standpoint on the background screens in sports photos I can understand not wanting the banding. From a petty perspective, those advertisers didn’t pay for the ad space in your photos. Just use the blur tool on them.
@@stepheneckert4006 Nikon pre shooting is cr@p it's jpeg only and 11mpix, I just hope the rumored firmware is true with Nikon and if not I'm sticking with canon (I have Z8 and R3 right now) We don't pay all that money for jpeg features, BTW the best camera with pre shooting is Olympus OM-1 one touch of a button and you have it;)
Lightroom's Denoise is absolutely fantastic at 65%. I literally running all files through it as standard practice. My end results look better than ever. But great review fro.
my PC takes about an hour on 100 uncompressed raw files from the Sony A7R5. I usually do something else while it runs, but one can actually edit while it runs too. @@nickwilliams7867
I do zero noise reduction ever. I think everybody’s been sold a bill of goods to think that they need to run noise reduction because grain is somehow now bad. I wouldn’t put noise reduction on anything even when I shoot at 8000 I think it’s natural looking.
@@froknowsphoto Yet you do not shoot for paying clients. I do and some are fussy, telling clients they are wrong when they say "why are my images so grainy" is not a great way to run a business . I very rarely need to use noise reduction but used sparingly and at lower settings it can help to clean up certain images. It's got very clever but turned up too high can make people look plastic. LOVE the podcast by the way.
Did you use the automated Flicker detection in the R3? Love the photos you took from both cameras and the A93 does relly look good with the LED signs but im not switching my R3 any time soon :)
High ISO speeds, still show that global shutter sensors aren’t quite there yet. But it’s closer than I was expecting. I reckon Sony might crack it on their 2nd Gen global shutter sensors for MILC though.
You are the best. I hope that next test of Sony Alpha 9 III features camera included Canon R3 to comparison, AF precision and tracking capacity. Today, they are the only cameras that can compete with the flagship SLRs. The photographer in this first test had a Nikon D5 around his neck.
Sony nailed it with the a9iii. The fact they have R3 performance and then the insane pre-capture on top makes it a no brainer which to go for at this point. Pre-capture is almost a requirement now for sports and wildlife photography these days. I use it on my R7 and it blows me away with getting "the perfect shot" with birds, butterflies, and dragonflies. I just wish Canon had an easier way to extract the images from the pre-capture.
Thanks for the comment. My goal For this video wasn’t to help people decide which to buy, but more show of the 2 years old r3 is better in high iso and does the Sony global shutter sensor have issues at higher iso. Canon will have a new body soon I’m sure. If the a9 was not the price of the a1 and maybe 4800, it would be even more wow.
Either camera will be a good pick. Does the global shutter present enough of an advantage for sports to shake Canon R3 owners over? Probably not as much as some think. That's a big expenditure to get straight golf clubs and baseball bats. But, after this test, does the R3 offer enough of the other stuff to move Sony shooters to Canon? Doubtful for the same reasons. Anyway, nicely done as usual!
@@froknowsphoto yes, and it makes a big difference for the image processor, if it can process the data immediately coming from the sensor or have to wait 4-6ms.
Global Shutter is a HUGE leap forward for photography and videography. To eliminate banding and distortion completely is what we need right now. I have gone fully E-shutter and only resort to using M-shutter when capturing flash photography or when I can't get rid of banding. Image quality from any brands are all terrific now. They have been perfected to the stars and there is nothing else more we can do to image quality anymore. It's now the functions of the camera that separates it from one another. Just like how Mirrorless has advance photography, Global Shutter is doing it next. Being able to remove the M-shutter, hit a shutter speed of 1/80,000 and use flash at all shutter speed is insane!
I understand that you dont use noise reduction software, i guess if you're not shooting for client work etc (maybe you do) this might be fine these days. Or maybe used older generations or just too heavy handed when you tried it, its not a magic button press and it works - you need to put the time and effort into masking and selecting sliders to get the desired output. Personally for a lot of images delivered to clients at high ISO, yes NR has been requested by clients to match their needs and im fine with this if it improves the end product
I started with d2h and even then had no issues. Ive never seen a need for that software even delivering to clients. Even when I printed 4 feet by 6 feet from d2x s files
@@froknowsphoto is what it is, people notice the difference and like i said not sure what products you have used, when or how much you have done - but like any processing you need to do it correctly or you'll end with poor results
Great review, the r3 is still an amazing camera and nothing I saw here changes that opinion. Glad to see the over 2yr old R3 can match and best the Sony in picture and color quality straight out of camera.
From the years you have been on I never really like the format, and never watched. But, this was very imformative. Watched to the end and enjoyed it very much. Lots of good info and as usual you are a good host.
Great comparison!! For sure the A9iii has shown that its the next sensor to take over now. Rolling Shutter is still great but when you can get rid of banding and warping, its the sensor to go with. For sure we all know iso beyond 6,400 will produce a lot of noises and softer images and its the risk we take. Which is also why im not too worry about global shutter going beyond 6,400 because i rarely use it at that iso. Now im waiting for the flash photography test with the A9iii. Thanks for the comparison Jared
When you compare sensors in such detail you should shoot all cameras with the same lens with the same light transmission and vignetting, especially when you compare things in outer regions. Stopping down is not enough and doesn't provide same conditions.
@@froknowsphoto I've seen the video, but those lenses are not the same - they are 1.2 (5.6) on paper, but if you do such detailed comparison of the sensor alone, it might be worth it to really use exactly the same glass on both.
I find such edge case comparisons interesting, as its often difficult to get an own fact based opinion on stuff like "does stacked sensors have issues, what does iso 250 vs iso 100 mean on those cameras" ... and while i like to do my own testing, as i just find it giving me much more knowledge, i cant afford cameras like this, let alone multiple. I did once a test and printed out a 20mp high contrast sharp edge landscape on a 2mx1m photo poster just to see how far i can push my R6, and as long as you dont crop, you only see it up close when you know what you look for, and at that point i have to ask myself - what am i doing 10cm away from a 2x1m picture xD
If one picture is darker than the other, you should match exposures in post, if you want a fair comparison. To compare noise levels otherwise is a waste of everyone's time.
I chose to keep same exact settings period, either way you slice it, someone would try and tell me I did it wrong. This was the best way I could see doing it.
@@froknowsphotodifferent lenses, different lens formulas coatings, different light falloff different corner to corner sharpness etc. Should have could have used the same off-brand lens to make a comparison of sensor performance. Scientific method.
How are we comparing jpegs since different cameras process RAW to JPEG differently and apply different amounts of noise reduction even if you turn off all noise reduction in camera. Those differences could easily overwhelm any inherent minor differences from the sensors themselves. And BTW, I think Jared is completely wrong about the latest denoising software "smoothing out the image." DxO DeepPRIME is amazing at removing noise, along with a few others, and does not smooth images in any way if used correctly. In fact, I often see apparent improved detail with most if not all of the noise removed and blurred backgrounds often look much better. Many deep-dives into different noise reduction software have been done already but maybe Jared should give the top 3 or 4 a truly thorough test before he claims they just make the image look like crap. Not true!
No, I did understand that you couldn’t share the RAW files but I wasn’t sure whether the JPEGs were out of camera or processed as JPEGs via your RAW editor. But…even then software, whether it be Lightroom, Capture One, DxO, whatever, render RAW files differently from different camera manufacturers - even different camera models from the same manufacturer - so that one RAW image may look noisier than another to start with before exporting. Granted, you don’t have control over that but it can swamp any minute differences between actual sensor performance making the comparison very difficult.@@froknowsphoto
I absolutely agree. That's why some of us use only raw. The rest is done by the raw convertor. It's only mathematical processing of the bits coming from the sensor. The same is true for ISO. It's just a matrix multiplication. Either performed by the built in IP or by the external raw processor.
I will never buy any of these but it's still interesting to see where the technology advances and hopefully at some point it'll be available with lower end cameras.
Interestingly, Adobe's AI Denoise at 1% doesn't remove noise. However, it neutralizes the color of the grain. Personally, I like it at about 40% depending on the file. But I could see someone who didn't like denoise using Adobe's at 1% to reduce color distractions.
Thanks for the great review. Did you do any testing of the A9iii where you shot in the extended ISO below 250, say 100, and what the images look like? I'm invested with Sony glass, and don't really care about the comparison to the Canon cameras. I'm interested what the a9iii is capable of in all situations and lighting environments. Thanks.
@@renestaempfli1071 I would like to know the limits of the camera and using the available settings to see what the images look like. Jared took pics using the extended ISO above the limits, so I would have liked to see anything taken in the extended ISO range below 250. The first comparisons he made was with the Canon at ISO 100 and the a9iii at 250. He could have easily taken a test shot with the a9iii to show what a pic looks like at ISO 100 for the comparison - and the do the base ISO of both cameras. The ISO 100 pic may help those complaining about why the base ISO is 250 instead of the normal ISO 100. Again, just to see how it looks and compares to others.
@@bobs...861 going below or above the bas ISO is just a matrix multiplication of the base ISO. Going below, you get less noise, going above, you get more. It's simple mathematics.
to me there was not to much of a difference, they both have their advantages it is the preference of the photographer and the type of work they do be it sports, wildlife, landscape, etc.
It's obvious that the Sony A9 III has better dynamic range across the board. It's also confirmed with Gerald's Undone test vs CineD test of the R3 using IMATEST. Nikon and other brands are irrelevant because they all use Sony sensors.
Halfway through, I couldn't tell the difference between the R3 and the A93. At times I liked the colors of the Sony A93 better than Canon. I'm impressed how well the R3 does against the A93 considering the Canon is a few years old!
I've put the FULL RES exported Un-edited and edited images up on Flickr for you to download and look at. bit.ly/41zAiqp
Why no DNG files for download?
Thanks a lot. I have just downloaded them. It would be nice, if you could just export a couple of RAW .arw (not .dng) files on flickr.
Lol! Your shirt says you shoot RAW. Where are they?😅😂🤣
@@denizahmet2299 because they are slightly different.
Can you try hockey?
A puck moves much faster than a basketball.
This is the most trustworthy and credible review of camera tech I've watched in years. Thank you Jared.
I'm a canon user since the late 80s, used Nikon in the 90s. Back at Canon now but looking at Fuji and possibly Sony. Despite being a Canon user making a great based and unbiased review of relevant flagships is a great decision. Jared you give me peace of mind that bleeding tech from the giant and maverick Sony and the conservative but wise tech from (smaller but reliably ol') Canon who are the industry guardians are great for our beloved industry. We avid enthusiasts of photography and videographers are the true winners.
Many reviewers have been saying that new gear today is very, very good. It is difficult to make the metaphoric wrong turn with any of the top-tier manufacturers these days. Try out the different systems if feasible, pick whichever gear fits your needs the best, then get outside and enjoy taking pictures. I like seeing things parsed to the "sub-atomic", but I have my preferences and find joy in the moment of capturing an image.
So true. You would have to work very hard to hard to purchase a bad camera . And it is the ART of THE IMAGE! Happy holidays to all.
And don’t forget to print them
New gears and cameras are great today because technology has to move forward, not backward. Mirrorless cameras have come a long way thanks to Sony's heavy investment in it. Had Sony given up on Mirrorless after their 2nd gen Alpha cameras, DSLR would still be popular today and Canon and Nikon would still reign supreme. Nothing wrong with DSLR too so if you are a hobby photographer, then its great for you. But for my skill level, I need a Mirrorless because a Mirrorless camera can keep up with my shooting. DSLR can still get the job done for me, but it will be at half the speed and a bit annoying.
I'm a biased R3 shooter. Watching this on my phone is impossible to see the noise differences, but overall the Sony images pop abit more and make the Canon look slightly underexposed
I was actually able to see more noise from the Sony at 4K, especially when zooming in on UA-cam to 180%. I think the difference in exposure is mostly due to the lens vignetting taking place which looks heavier on the Canon version of the 135mm. To note that the R3 while very good is slightly worse at high ISOs when compared to a similar 24mp sensor like the R6 mark 2. In any case, both are good enough for low light performance.
I agree 100% with this comment
@@ralphsaad8637 Looks like he under exposed both the Canon and Sony cameras.
Wait untill u edit and print it out on photo papers hahaha
Thank you, Jared! An ace comparison review. I’ve never seen such a divisive camera technology or launch in recent years and all the more I appreciate your calm approach to comparing images out of these top camera bodies. 👍👍👍
Sony nailed it with this sensor. Will be interesting to see how the tech evolves over time.
It's almost as good as a two year old Canon!
@@77dris It might not be the right sensor for you, but it's still a huge step forward in sensor tech. And let's be real, Sony is the only company pushing sensor tech forward these days. At least for large (FF, APS-C) sensors. First BSI, then stacked BSI, now a GS CMOS sensor with AF.
@@77dris You could already see the banding on the Canon at 6400. The Sony looks way better
@@77dris it is fine, after two more year, Canon will be the same look.
To be honest, I have no idea why people didn't realize if we are talking about pure image quality, within the modern technic, if we don't upgrade ADC or some kind of fancy tech, the image quality is almost in its edge.
This Canon R3 is almost the same image quality if we are talking about dynamic range and resolution as Sony A7III 10 years ago, so is the Nikon D600, D610, D750, Z6, Z6II, Panasonic S1, S1H, S5, S5II, S5IIX, Canon R6II. This is just the nature of physics.
@@IanHobdaythere is a reason why Canon dont release their global shutter, do u really believe Canon dont have RnD for global shutter? Haha they know the file cant be as good as the R3 so why bother to release one
Great Job Jared! R3 is still one of the best cameras, but I see advantages for Sony when it comes to special or specific situations (LED bending, fast moving parts/elements, better 4K Video etc.), therefore I would go for the Sony a9 III.
and we know somethings coming next always from Canon...
What about the ergonomic the a9iii is sucks
@@Ph-uw2il listen to Jared: „…the a9 III is one of the best cameras in the hand.“
Can the A9III do RAW 6K video? No comparison for video between the R3 and A9III
@@contentm3893 you should go for a camera, which fulfills your needs. If 6k video is important for you, than go for it, if you need 120 fps in RAW at 24MP all pictures on focus, than go for the a9 III. It shouldn’t be a battle between Sony and Canon, it should be a customer’s or your personal decision.
Pretty amazing that the R3 sensor is still so competitive. Cant wait to see the R1. Sony A1 vII as well.
Mostly due to Canon applying loads of noise reduction in camera on their raw files. A poor approach.
@@bernardlanguillier65 As an R3 owner i got to ask......WAT?
Nah it does not...i wish it did...As some one who been enjoying noise profile of sub 3200 ISO for a74, i have not been liking noise profile of low iso of R3 (i get that i am being picky here).
Would have made my life easier as wedding photographer (i know R3 is overkill for that)
@@VarvorSG I am sorry but it does, this well documented
@@bernardlanguillier65one thing, ALL cameras apply some sort of noise reduction, sharpening, etc, in RAW files, because the other way it would be unusable. Sony apply more noise reduction in raw than Canon, ask some astrophotographer, Sony eats stars thinking that were noise. Canon apply more sharpening and more contrast. Nikon have the most "raw" raw files.
@@amermeleitoralso non edited raw files arent always a good thing. Nikon has more aliasing as an example because of the less corrections in camera. Something that is pretty much impossible to correct manually later. There is good reason why they all have in camera corrections.
I think if you're a sports shooter, this is a massive W.
As for wildlife, I'd still generally prefer higher MP bodies, like the R5, A1 or Z9/Z8, in case you need to crop a lot. While I think the sensor readout speed of the A1 and Z9/Z8 is more than quick enough for wildlife, the super high burst speed is something I'm very interested in.
Sony's original stacked sensor was also 24mp, then much later 50mp in the A1. I would expect this sensor tech to follow a similar trajectory. Probably not ready for the A1ii in 2024, but high chance it goes into the A1iii.
I agree, having a A7Rv for a month now and the A9 a lot longer 20 fps is enough for birds/wildlife so my future A1 if the A1 II comes out
and 50mgp stacked with 30fps is more than a need, the A9III is a action/sports camera...and the A7Rv feels great, I use it for wildlife and
landscape...61mgp is nice for cropping
@Broskisnowski 640k ought to be enough for anyone...
yeah@Broskisnowski the A9 with the stacked sensor and the electronic shutter is working great, I presume in the A1 it is the same...a good new year from the Netherlands 🥂
Well, keep in ming, that global shutter is not only for photography. I think is way, way more important for video than for making photos.
I kinda disagree with the denoise. A small amount of lightroom denoise isn't terrible. You can still get some of those pixel details while making the picture feel a bit more polished at super high ISOs. I shoot concerts so it's almost a must for me.
Solid overview Jared - acknowledging the differences but not sweating the minutia. Hi-Tech wins overall as both cameras are awesome in different situations.
Merry Christmas to you and the Team! 🎄
Finally! A true real world comparison for sports photographers.
Excellent video. It shows that global shutters have no severe limitations with ISO and DR. It also shows that for the application you showed, any of the top cameras Z8, Z9, R3, A1, A9II and probably A9 are sufficient. What it doesn't show, are the real limits of each camera, using all the capabilities. Also, it would be nice to make one or two .ARW (not .dng) available.
thankk you for waiting to be able to show us the raw photos to compare and analyze the photos. I cant stand when people show jpegs of brand new cameras just trying to be first, its worth waiting for lightroom and actually showing the full capabilities of the camera
I am going to stand by (for now) a prediction I made a couple months ago on what kind of shutters the upcoming cameras will have which was this (with slight modification): Each brand, is likely going to have 2 different flagship models for slightly different purposes. Canon will have the R1 and R3 and Sony the A1 and A9. One is going to be a high MP camera with rolling shutter designed for things like wildlife photography where high MP and high dynamic range are important considerations. Then they are also going to have a second line with lower MP sensors, global shutters, and extreme frame rates for action photography. I know the difference between dynamic range wasn't much, but it might be enough that it warrants keeping one line as a rolling shutter to maximize DR, especially as rolling shutter becomes less and less of a problem. If Nikon is going to get on this it would likely be the Z9 and Z6, but they seem to be looking at things a little differently than Canon and Sony. I'm open to other thoughts on this though, it's just speculation based on what I see as a potential future.
Nice to see a balanced comparison between two superb cameras. I'm buying the Sony because I have a GM lenses, but either camera would meet my needs. I also like that the comments in this video - from your viewers - are also balanced & largely free of brand tribalism. We should view cameras like we do our spouses; complement our friends on their choices without having to justify why our is better 😂
Thanks, Jared! Great comparisons. A9III is looking plenty good.
I shoot motorsport and I pan mostly and my ISO is kept as low as possible for the best image quality. Therefore I’m down at ISO 64 or ISO 100 using my Z9 & Z8 along with my 400mm f/2.8E FL and Z 70-200 f/2.8S. The Sony doesn’t go below ISO 250 so I’d never look at switching. The R3 can’t compete with the 45mp of the Nikons either. I did almost buy an R3 before the Z9 was introduced but luckily for me, the Z9 was introduced and I’ve had 2 good years of use from it.
Hello. What speed do you shoot ?
Because like Jared is showing, the benefit of a base iso of 100 is that you can shoot at 1/60th of sec instead of 160th for Sony. But if you need to slow down sports, the worst case you can still still add a filter…
@@alexmartins4013 I shoot from 1/15 sec up to 1/125 panning and in daylight. Also trying keep the aperture wide open too. The thing is shooting at ISO 64 and 45mp I get the very best quality images. I can’t see many Sony A1 users switching from 50mp for the A9 Mk3.
@@porkster5924 i am keeping my a1 but adding the a9iii. I can see many cases where my a1 would miss the shot but the a9iii would get it. I was able to test the camera and pre capture plus 120fps burst is great. No banding and flickering too. Only issue is no big crop is possible. To get good quality on the a9iii just stay at the native 250 iso. Lower native iso for best quality 👍🏻
@@alexmartins4013the issue mentionned here is that base ISO of the A9III is too high. Personnaly, when i switched to the Z6 (100base ISO) from the D810 (64base ISO) i was pissed because i needed ND filters to shoot some lenses wide open in bright lightning, and the color depth and dynamic range of the D810 at base ISO is much better than the Z6's. The disadvantages of a rolling shutter are nothing compared to the pain of having a 250 base ISO for some people (including me).
@@pierrevilley6675 if you need to shoot slow you are absolutely right
Nice comparison! At least the noise is quite pleasant on both.
Much finer on the R3
I think the R3 remains very competitive, especially with recent sale pricing. On black Friday a Refurbished R3 could be had for $4k
I picked up the R3 a couple months ago and have been enjoying it
Canon has to do it because if they keep its price tag at $6,000 usd, it cannot compete with teh A9iii. Canon is one of the few companies that barely discount their lenses or cameras until a newer model comes out. I'm surprised to see that they actually discounted the R3
Would love an A9iii for underwater photography. We use strobes 90% of the time and not having to worry about Sync rates would be great
I’m happy with A7R3. For underwater macro I prefer 42 mp to the A9iii’s 24 and don’t see the 1/250 synch speed as an issue.
Holly cow! That recovery of shadows is amazing from both brands
Wow. Fro really DOES know photo. Good review. B-Ball can be hard to shoot so I love your dedication to mastering the craft. I am biased by a recent purchase of the R3. Still learning the permutations of the focus system for sure. That was a useful comparison. The R3 has leaned into ISO real hard and it looks like they're still hanging on to that. I like the newer take on Canon color in the R3 as well, but Sony is also showing some interesting color rendition here.
It might just be me, but I'm wondering if some of the Canon anti-noise settings might focus on the eyes, as does their R3 AF system. I say that because in a couple of these comparisons the eyes on the Sony look a little flatter, for lack of a better word. The detail is there but the eye feels clearer on the R3. Not sure. Like all of these we are comparing tendancies and shades of a possible difference. Bottom line, as you have noted, these are all really good cameras.
Isn't photography a great field/science as it keeps edging toward "better" one grain of background noise at a time?
Thanks for the review.
The video we were all waiting for!
How interesting! The biggest drawback from pushing the highest end of native ISO (like 25,600+) is that there is color noise banding across the image. It doesn't look like that's present at all on a global shutter. I can't wait until this tech is ubiquitous, especially as a concert photographer who doesn't mind a lot of noise, but hates the banding.
Great job Jared, you’re the best real world reviewer out there.
Finally, a valid comparison for the a9III. Thanks much, Jared for doing this comparison video. :)
Compliments from Vancouver Island, Canada!
Yea I think it's good to show the original raw photo and the edited final photo. This way not only its better show case of what the camera capture and also good way to sell your preset.
because many would just show the final edited image and some people would think that's what they gonna get.. which is just not true. because everyone would edit their images differently.
Thank you for performing these tests. I am a very happy R3 shooter, but was curious how the new global shutter sensor would perform here. (I'm honestly a little shocked by how favorably the R3 performs by comparison.) The key observation that I took away from this was that the A9III demonstrates a very usable standard ISO range for most shooters, but struggles with color reproduction in the shadows.
It's not until 6400 and 12800 that you begin to see the Canon R3 jump ahead with a noticeable and exponential advantage at each stop - this is especially problematic with colors. Even by 6400 ISO, the A9III colors start to take on a more subdued and dumbed down ability to differentiate shades as it appears to struggle to reproduce accurate reds and oranges. In fact, the more I compare the ISO 12800 studio scene shots the more this color reproduction problem bothers me. This is especially noticeable on the orange boxes and red trim where the A9III looks downright terrible compared to the R3. The shadows also come alive with noise by 12800 and it's borderline unusable at 25600.
That said, if I didn't have a comparison point to A/B test like this, I would still find the A9III adequate for ISO 12800 real world shooting. But I personally don't consider 25600 usable for color images at all. The A9III appears to struggle the most with color detail retention in the shadows even at 12800, but it REALLY struggles at 25600. (The test scene at ISO 12800 and 25600 look at the red Aperture bag zipper and the "One Hour Service" sign and pink blanket in the top right. Yikes!!) I'm actually a little shocked by how poorly the Sony performed at 12800 as it looks worse than the R3 does at 25600.
Granted, some photographers may never shoot higher than 6400 ISO because they're always in more controlled conditions. However, I find myself shooting in mega high-ISO speeds at several race events each season with 12800 ISO being relied on quite a bit. Most tracks don't invest much in their lighting for the pits or they have poor lighting in general. So in those instances where I need to freeze the action and am not panning a car or something where I have the luxury of shutter speed/aperture to play with, the only choice is to bump up the ISO. I honestly don't believe the A9III would be a viable camera for me.
In conclusion, I find the camera to be even more niche than I thought it would. The A9 and R3 are sports cameras. The Canon R3 is remarkably usable from ISO 100-25600 without any second guessing. It has been a proven performer with absolutely everything I've thrown at it. The A9III is a step back in image quality with a more concise "useable" ISO range of 250-12800. After this demonstration, I even see 12800 as pushing the limits of what I would accept because I honestly don't think it looks great in all the photos I've seen. I hope that the Canon R1 doesn't have such poor ISO performance if it miraculously ends up with a global shutter. (Not holding my breathe on that one.) I would love to sync flash at any shutter speed and eliminate banding in LED lights, but I don't believe either of those are worth the trade off of losing ISO performance to this degree.
it's not just about image quality but what global shuttter can do. Global shutter eliminated banding and gave us great image quality is already a huge win. This is the next phase of camera advancement for Mirrorless. Elinimating banding and warping are both huge. Rolling shutter had its time in the sun and will soon pass the torch onto Global Shutter.
Yes, I agree. I, like you, am worried about ISO performance. Global shutter is the future, I'm sure, but right now I dont think the trade-off is worthy yet.
@@TalDoBu it's absolutely the future! This guy @harryvuemedia5106 sounds like an early adopter and is overlooking image quality deficiencies in favor of TWO real advantages - no rolling shutter effects and flash sync at almost any shutter speed (lighting dependent). While it would be awesome to never see rolling shutter problems again, they seldomly impact anything I shoot on the excellent R3. And if I do have an issue, I can shoot at 12fps in mechanical shutter! The R3 also has an incredible automatic anti-flicker that measures light frequencies in real time to fractions of a shutter speed.
The flash sync though? Wow...I would love that since I use strobes OFTEN in my line of work. So total and complete control of ambient would be incredible.
But getting somewhat trash image quality at ISO 12,800 for my main work camera is a no go for me at this time. I can't wait for this technology to mature and more competitors to come out with something to rival it. Hats off to Sony for leading the way...but good luck to all those who often shoot in low light or want to use slower shutter speeds creatively at wider apertures. (base ISO of 250 will require a darker ND or CPL)
The Sony is the same if not better quality images to the r3 except no banding, so better
@@Yupthereitism clearly you’re not looking at the images I directly referenced in my post. There is a dramatic loss of image quality (especially color fidelity) which I detailed greatly in my comment. As a matter of fact, the poor ISO performance is being discussed all over the internet and even conceded on Sony fanboy forums. It’s also greatly demonstrated again on DPReview right now with an interactive studio test scene. It’s possibly worse than APS-C. Soooooo…yeah, not better image quality. 😂
I think there are pros and cons with the A1 vs A9iii. Crop sensor on A1= more usability for lenses is a big plus for me.
They are pretty close, the color temp of the R3 seems a bit cooler. and I agree that the "noise profile" of the R3 is more appealing. All in all, they're pretty equal.
not the r3 is cooler...it was the sony is too yellowish hahaha
Everyone talks about the high base ISO of the a9III but can we see a comparison of the expanded ISO of 100 of the a9III as well?
Thank you for the video. I shoot both Sony A1 + A7RV and Canon R5. Been interested in getting an EOS R3 and this video makes me still consider it since I put battery grips a lot on the ones I own. (also used to own a few 1Dx cameras). Pre- capture though is a feature I want for Bird In Flight. If that comes to the Alpha 1 version II I might have to wait for it since I like the higher resolution and I really don’t shoot sports any more so 24 Mpixel is a little light for me. So we will see. A lightly used R3 is almost $2000 cheaper than the new Sony’s will be. Take care.
By the way really like my FroPack presets. Have all four. Thank you Jared and Steven.
This just makes me more excited for what the R1 will be
In all tests, I prefer Sony to Canon, in my opinion. Good work .I
Buy the camera that fits the bill!!! If Sony is for you super is canon is good for you super!!! To me both are great! Wait until we get deeper into what people shoot! There’s a camera for everyone
Great comparison video. Although I am not looking to replace my R6, it was nice to see the side by side comparison.
But
You do need a rig to mount multiple cameras, and have a multiple camera remote shutter releases.
I wish someone would test this thing with strobes. It's almost like people don't realize that the flash synch (and high shutter speed) is the biggest deal here. Does it work with Godox triggers, and to what speed?...Profoto?...do lenses matter in that equation at all?...how about while wirelessly tethering?....anyone?
4:25 oh wow, the skin tone with the Sony A9iii actually looks better! How can that beeeeee
Froo under exposed the cameras and the Canon was 1/2 stop under the Sony.
@@contentm3893 I typically underexpose just a little bit when shooting in LOG.
@@BikeStuffPDX There was no need to under expose and shoot at 4000. The action is not that fast. It hurt his photos.
Sony makes cine cameras like Venice 2 which are comparable to Arri cameras.
There's no reason why Sony should have inferior skin tones than Canon.
@@Chopper153 Those shoot RAW, so it's a whole different ball game and of course the lenses used on big productions are superior.
The colour of Awb of canon is superior... accurate and neutral ... the sony is either yellowish and greenish
I like seeing the edits to see what you can get back in highlights and shadows
Important to know that the Canon R3 uses Noise Reduction baked into all the RAWs, so for a fair comparison, you would actually apply a bit of DNR on the A9iii files to compensate for this.
Also, finally no more banding in the LED panels, that thing was driving me crazy, it's so distracting and ugly.
The issue with the canon doing that in raw, is there’s no way to turn it off. They also don’t admit that it’s doing it.
I am not sure , that noise reduction in raw is even possible. Raw from the sensor has no noise information, colour etc. It's interpretation is done by the raw converter.
the issue with high ISO is not the noise(or noise reduction) but how colors gets basically destroyed the higher the ISO is. the R3 is CLEARLY better in that regards, ergo high ISO performence is better. you can do something against high noise but you cant safe bad mushed high ISO colors.
Its the end result that matters, if canon can bake in noise reduction, still shoot at the speed it does and produce an image as sharp as the Sony - well good on their software engineers
Sony still is Not the best
I hope Canon refines the pre-shooting feature in some of their lower end models and delivers it in a firmware update for the R3. I’m not sure if I like the large .CR3 file that I have to extract in body or with Canon’s photo editor from a workflow perspective but also it’s nice to be able to separate those pre-release/rawburst files from regular shot files. Perhaps a user assignable write to the card preference toggle? The adjustability of how many frames prior to release on the Sony would be a nice addition to canon’s pre-capture feature.
From a technical standpoint on the background screens in sports photos I can understand not wanting the banding. From a petty perspective, those advertisers didn’t pay for the ad space in your photos. Just use the blur tool on them.
Agreed, I’m not a fan of how they do their pre-capture shooting. Needs to be an easier way like Sony and Nikon offer
@@stepheneckert4006 Nikon pre shooting is cr@p it's jpeg only and 11mpix, I just hope the rumored firmware is true with Nikon and if not I'm sticking with canon (I have Z8 and R3 right now) We don't pay all that money for jpeg features, BTW the best camera with pre shooting is Olympus OM-1 one touch of a button and you have it;)
Lightroom's Denoise is absolutely fantastic at 65%. I literally running all files through it as standard practice. My end results look better than ever. But great review fro.
I use it at 50% but agree it's amazing. I rarely use it but when it's needed it get the job done, just very slowly .
my PC takes about an hour on 100 uncompressed raw files from the Sony A7R5. I usually do something else while it runs, but one can actually edit while it runs too. @@nickwilliams7867
I do zero noise reduction ever. I think everybody’s been sold a bill of goods to think that they need to run noise reduction because grain is somehow now bad. I wouldn’t put noise reduction on anything even when I shoot at 8000 I think it’s natural looking.
@@froknowsphoto Yet you do not shoot for paying clients. I do and some are fussy, telling clients they are wrong when they say "why are my images so grainy" is not a great way to run a business . I very rarely need to use noise reduction but used sparingly and at lower settings it can help to clean up certain images. It's got very clever but turned up too high can make people look plastic. LOVE the podcast by the way.
@@nickwilliams7867if it’s slow that is down to your to your computer. On a Apple studio M1 I am processing R5 files in 20 seconds.
Great Job! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays
Great video as always!!
I really hope that you will a video about your best 2023 pictures,
(You asked everyone to send).
Happy Holidays man!
That video was done in November
About images, colors, wb, sharpness, R3 look better for sure.
far better
Did you use the automated Flicker detection in the R3? Love the photos you took from both cameras and the A93 does relly look good with the LED signs but im not switching my R3 any time soon :)
Auto flicker adjusts shutter speed to eliminate banding. He was shooting both at the same settings
It’s better to view these on a 4K monitor than a cell phone. Thank you, Jared.
High ISO speeds, still show that global shutter sensors aren’t quite there yet. But it’s closer than I was expecting. I reckon Sony might crack it on their 2nd Gen global shutter sensors for MILC though.
Good comparison video Jared. Merry Christmas to you and the crew.
You are the best. I hope that next test of Sony Alpha 9 III features camera included Canon R3 to comparison, AF precision and tracking capacity. Today, they are the only cameras that can compete with the flagship SLRs. The photographer in this first test had a Nikon D5 around his neck.
Nice review!! A9iii is better than I expected. I am waiting for A9iv or R3mk2.
Sony nailed it with the a9iii. The fact they have R3 performance and then the insane pre-capture on top makes it a no brainer which to go for at this point. Pre-capture is almost a requirement now for sports and wildlife photography these days. I use it on my R7 and it blows me away with getting "the perfect shot" with birds, butterflies, and dragonflies. I just wish Canon had an easier way to extract the images from the pre-capture.
Thanks for the comment. My goal
For this video wasn’t to help people decide which to buy, but more show of the 2 years old r3 is better in high iso and does the Sony global shutter sensor have issues at higher iso. Canon will have a new body soon I’m sure. If the a9 was not the price of the a1 and maybe 4800, it would be even more wow.
@@froknowsphoto So a biased video.. What a surprise.
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 I’ve been waiting on you to put this out 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Liked the new style of Review. Hoping see more in upcoming Videos
What do you thank about the Hasselblad x2D 100C? considering the Sony A1, a 7rV, Canon R5II What place does you reserve for the Hasselblad?
Why this question in a video about sportscameras?
Now that the R3 is for sale at $4,400 does that make it a better value?
I think you would get the same result with Canon 1D MARK III and a good old 70-200 2.8...Do we really need that all gear nowadays
Canon R3 all day
Great Video! Thanks Jared. I’m a R3 shooter and was waiting for a video like this.
It's still the better camera
Either camera will be a good pick. Does the global shutter present enough of an advantage for sports to shake Canon R3 owners over? Probably not as much as some think. That's a big expenditure to get straight golf clubs and baseball bats. But, after this test, does the R3 offer enough of the other stuff to move Sony shooters to Canon? Doubtful for the same reasons. Anyway, nicely done as usual!
it's more Pre Capture and 120 RAW with auto focus that's the keys.
@@froknowsphoto Good point. I shoot very little sports so I was looking at the difference in image quality.
@@froknowsphoto yes, and it makes a big difference for the image processor, if it can process the data immediately coming from the sensor or have to wait 4-6ms.
Global Shutter is a HUGE leap forward for photography and videography. To eliminate banding and distortion completely is what we need right now. I have gone fully E-shutter and only resort to using M-shutter when capturing flash photography or when I can't get rid of banding. Image quality from any brands are all terrific now. They have been perfected to the stars and there is nothing else more we can do to image quality anymore. It's now the functions of the camera that separates it from one another. Just like how Mirrorless has advance photography, Global Shutter is doing it next. Being able to remove the M-shutter, hit a shutter speed of 1/80,000 and use flash at all shutter speed is insane!
Canon colors are still the best
Very nice and FAIR review! Well done!
Very surprised how similar the images appear. I must comment that the build quality, weather sealing and durability of the R3 is just superb.
And ergonomics and DR.. the R3 is the better camera for me
Can you test the Raw Stack Option when it becomes available?
Great job Jared!
I understand that you dont use noise reduction software, i guess if you're not shooting for client work etc (maybe you do) this might be fine these days.
Or maybe used older generations or just too heavy handed when you tried it, its not a magic button press and it works - you need to put the time and effort into masking and selecting sliders to get the desired output.
Personally for a lot of images delivered to clients at high ISO, yes NR has been requested by clients to match their needs and im fine with this if it improves the end product
I started with d2h and even then had no issues. Ive never seen a need for that software even delivering to clients. Even when I printed 4 feet by 6 feet from d2x s files
@@froknowsphoto is what it is, people notice the difference
and like i said not sure what products you have used, when or how much you have done - but like any processing you need to do it correctly or you'll end with poor results
Great for Canon. Great Job Canon.
I shoot presenters against large screens a lot, my main problem is Moiré . if the A93 did not suffer Moiré then I would consider getting it.
Great review, the r3 is still an amazing camera and nothing I saw here changes that opinion.
Glad to see the over 2yr old R3 can match and best the Sony in picture and color quality straight out of camera.
Exactly. Do much hype for that sony man...
From the years you have been on I never really like the format, and never watched. But, this was very imformative. Watched to the end and enjoyed it very much. Lots of good info and as usual you are a good host.
Very interesting, but would have liked to see what the Canon R5 would have done when u included the Sony A1
The Sony images look brighter to me and if there was not much difference in price between the 2 I would buy the Sony.
I know all it's workable in post. I know they have numerous advantages. But still i can't stand Sony colors and rendering, I simply don't like it.
good Jobe bro and sure I click like
Great comparison!! For sure the A9iii has shown that its the next sensor to take over now. Rolling Shutter is still great but when you can get rid of banding and warping, its the sensor to go with. For sure we all know iso beyond 6,400 will produce a lot of noises and softer images and its the risk we take. Which is also why im not too worry about global shutter going beyond 6,400 because i rarely use it at that iso. Now im waiting for the flash photography test with the A9iii. Thanks for the comparison Jared
does the a9iii have dual iso range where it gets clean again ...mybe like the sony a7iv at 800 and 3200 iso ?
When you compare sensors in such detail you should shoot all cameras with the same lens with the same light transmission and vignetting, especially when you compare things in outer regions. Stopping down is not enough and doesn't provide same conditions.
I used same focal lengths same settings. Doesn’t get any better than that.
@@froknowsphoto I've seen the video, but those lenses are not the same - they are 1.2 (5.6) on paper, but if you do such detailed comparison of the sensor alone, it might be worth it to really use exactly the same glass on both.
I find such edge case comparisons interesting, as its often difficult to get an own fact based opinion on stuff like "does stacked sensors have issues, what does iso 250 vs iso 100 mean on those cameras" ... and while i like to do my own testing, as i just find it giving me much more knowledge, i cant afford cameras like this, let alone multiple.
I did once a test and printed out a 20mp high contrast sharp edge landscape on a 2mx1m photo poster just to see how far i can push my R6, and as long as you dont crop, you only see it up close when you know what you look for, and at that point i have to ask myself - what am i doing 10cm away from a 2x1m picture xD
Hi Jared, thanks a lot for youre Work!
Greetings from Germany!
i think nikon d80 with ccd sensor is the best. it as all global shutter from sony
Great video, both these cameras are amazing. thanks for the comparison.
why such a high shutter speed? is 1/1000 not enough?
If one picture is darker than the other, you should match exposures in post, if you want a fair comparison. To compare noise levels otherwise is a waste of everyone's time.
I chose to keep same exact settings period, either way you slice it, someone would try and tell me I did it wrong. This was the best way I could see doing it.
@@froknowsphotodifferent lenses, different lens formulas coatings, different light falloff different corner to corner sharpness etc. Should have could have used the same off-brand lens to make a comparison of sensor performance. Scientific method.
How are we comparing jpegs since different cameras process RAW to JPEG differently and apply different amounts of noise reduction even if you turn off all noise reduction in camera. Those differences could easily overwhelm any inherent minor differences from the sensors themselves. And BTW, I think Jared is completely wrong about the latest denoising software "smoothing out the image." DxO DeepPRIME is amazing at removing noise, along with a few others, and does not smooth images in any way if used correctly. In fact, I often see apparent improved detail with most if not all of the noise removed and blurred backgrounds often look much better. Many deep-dives into different noise reduction software have been done already but maybe Jared should give the top 3 or 4 a truly thorough test before he claims they just make the image look like crap. Not true!
I compared the RAW files. I said in the video I can't share those and the exported JPEGS are from RAW files, not from the cameras.
No, I did understand that you couldn’t share the RAW files but I wasn’t sure whether the JPEGs were out of camera or processed as JPEGs via your RAW editor. But…even then software, whether it be Lightroom, Capture One, DxO, whatever, render RAW files differently from different camera manufacturers - even different camera models from the same manufacturer - so that one RAW image may look noisier than another to start with before exporting. Granted, you don’t have control over that but it can swamp any minute differences between actual sensor performance making the comparison very difficult.@@froknowsphoto
I absolutely agree. That's why some of us use only raw. The rest is done by the raw convertor. It's only mathematical processing of the bits coming from the sensor. The same is true for ISO. It's just a matrix multiplication. Either performed by the built in IP or by the external raw processor.
I will never buy any of these but it's still interesting to see where the technology advances and hopefully at some point it'll be available with lower end cameras.
Thanks Jared! good stuff
I am an A1 shooter. I wish it has a pre-shot buffer more than faster FPS.
Interestingly, Adobe's AI Denoise at 1% doesn't remove noise. However, it neutralizes the color of the grain. Personally, I like it at about 40% depending on the file. But I could see someone who didn't like denoise using Adobe's at 1% to reduce color distractions.
Thanks for the great review. Did you do any testing of the A9iii where you shot in the extended ISO below 250, say 100, and what the images look like? I'm invested with Sony glass, and don't really care about the comparison to the Canon cameras. I'm interested what the a9iii is capable of in all situations and lighting environments. Thanks.
I did not go below 250 in Africa.
Why would you want to go below ISO 250?
@@renestaempfli1071 I would like to know the limits of the camera and using the available settings to see what the images look like. Jared took pics using the extended ISO above the limits, so I would have liked to see anything taken in the extended ISO range below 250. The first comparisons he made was with the Canon at ISO 100 and the a9iii at 250. He could have easily taken a test shot with the a9iii to show what a pic looks like at ISO 100 for the comparison - and the do the base ISO of both cameras. The ISO 100 pic may help those complaining about why the base ISO is 250 instead of the normal ISO 100. Again, just to see how it looks and compares to others.
@@bobs...861 going below or above the bas ISO is just a matrix multiplication of the base ISO. Going below, you get less noise, going above, you get more. It's simple mathematics.
@@renestaempfli1071 except for all the dual gain sensors on the market
to me there was not to much of a difference, they both have their advantages it is the preference of the photographer and the type of work they do be it sports, wildlife, landscape, etc.
Now is the time to buy a used A9II. It‘s good enough vor me and I will save a lot of money 😉
I personally would skip that Cameta
@@froknowsphoto a used A1 is a better choice, if the A1II comes out....
Nice review!
It's obvious that the Sony A9 III has better dynamic range across the board. It's also confirmed with Gerald's Undone test vs CineD test of the R3 using IMATEST. Nikon and other brands are irrelevant because they all use Sony sensors.
Color are waaay better on the Canon :-)
Halfway through, I couldn't tell the difference between the R3 and the A93. At times I liked the colors of the Sony A93 better than Canon. I'm impressed how well the R3 does against the A93 considering the Canon is a few years old!
Are the many megapixels the A9III pack makes it struggle with noise?
… but it doesn’t struggle. 😄
Sony colors are just breaking part at higher ISOs.. Canon keeps them good.
Bravo Jared