I love my 5D IV and I'm a Canon shooter for years... Maybe there is a better camera... But I'm happy with mine and I never got used to Nikon and Sony cameras; I don't like their controls (maybe cause I'm used to Canon) and the feeling using those...
That's how I feel too. I don't want to be thinking about my controls and I like the consistency of Canon's menu's through the 3 bodies that I have. The thing that slows me down the most is my brain, not the camera.
I sold my D800E and D700 and bought the D850. I know the body, I know the system. I miss the pop up flash. Not for the pop up, but for commander mode. I'm so used to it, and it's gone now (moment of silence). I have to use an SU-800 now. On the Nikon, I know if I dial in -.03 EV, I'm never going to over expose. As long as I'm not in the clip, I can fix almost everything short of a thumb in front of the lens in post. I do have Sony envy. I think they're making the most interesting and versatile cameras on the market today. But I'm not dumping the thousands in glass I have amassed in my collection. The D850 is the best Nikon I've ever used. I also own the RX100 MkV. I use that camera A LOT because it's small, takes terrific images, and.... it's small. The video out of that camera is spot on. But video on the D850 with a 70-200 is damn hard to beat (auto focus be damned). If I were starting completely over, I'd get a Canon. Why? All of my friends shoot Canon. I can't borrow their lenses.
I think Nikon and Sony are equals, wouldn't switch if I had Nikon but glad to have Sony bc of future innovation. But I would never never never ever ever want a Canon after shooting with one...I don't care if they gave me the glass for free, they're soft, green, and noisy with no dynamic range.
@@lrm52283 I have a d3500 and used my teachers 5dmklll with a 24-70 2.8 l glass and it had noticeably less dynamic range than my d3500 espefially in deep shadows despite it being full frame vs aps-c
I picked up the Sony A7riii, I like what Sony has done with their mirrorless camera and the body size. I also think they've add some additional features that have future proved their body.
One correction, the Canon 5D Mark IV does allow focus point selection using the touch screen, you just need to hit the focus point button first, farthest button to the right from the AF-ON button. The display shows the focus points, but if you are looking through the view finder, they are there as well and you can move your finger around the screen, changing which point is selected. So you can do it without pulling away from the view finder. Don't get me wrong, its awkward and in definite need of improvement, i.e. making it like the Sony lower right section of the screen or how the Canon mirrorless work, but it does work. I tend to use the joystick myself, but maybe Canon will gift us an update improving the use of the touchscreen for focus point selection in the future.
thank you for this video. Im going back to work soon and up grading from Nikon 7000. I was trying to decide from these exact models. Im sticking with Nikon.
Something you say is "glass glass glass glass" and rightfully so. You can still get amazing results with older cameras as long as you have good glass, composition, and nail your exposure. At the end of the day all 3 are top of the line and you'll just go with the one in which you're already invested (like you said), but if I was starting out I'd probably go for Sony since they have the most potential.
I like Jared and respect his information and opinion, but I already knew how this video would sway before I even watched it. All three cameras are great and you can't really go "wrong" with any of them
I think after Jared finally stopped group thinking Sony was a joke and got some in his hands he is coming to the realization that Sony cameras are just as good as Nikon and Canon is becoming stranded on a island watching the Nikon and Sony party cruise ship go by. I say by next year Sony will release the next A7III entry FF and Nikon will release a new mirrorless version of the D610 entry FF. Canon will still have the same old stuff.
Joshua Mack well, I spent the $3700 (after it was all said and done), and I didn't make my decision solely off the opinions of youtubers, but through watching videos, using all three brands hands on, and also looking at the finished image product of each. Getting your hands on these cameras and trying them out in person is invaluable, and one reason it's sad to see camera stores start to disappear.
greg brashear it certainly is! I just would love If someone ever tried to include all the pros cons IFS and buts of each in one Video. Like thinking laowa15mm f2 is great n cheaper, but Theres the stareater issue, followed by explaining it. Just everything. Not necessarily self-tested but researched
@@OutlawFarmersRC Sony is so rough around the edges the build quality is not great and they don't have any glass. That is why im saving up for a d850 instead of getting a sony a9ll
Great review, overall really fair. I sold all my Canon gear and got the a7R III, it was the EVF, BSI Sensor, advanced movie features, IBIS, silent shooting, and size. Yes the size matters, because if you want to you can put a small pancake prime on like the Ziess 35 F2.8 and have a small camera for casual functions, then put on the pro glass for a professional shoot. Plus carrying a backup body, it saves space also.
I started on a Olympus OM-10 in high school, then when I finished college I moved to my first DLSR 300D, I shot Canon since then, I did buy a open box GH5 and had that for a few months, and now sold everything and moved to the a7R III. A total of about 20 years.
If I'm a rookie or beginner into photography, and there's only 3 cameras above available. I would gave chosen Sony because of the size and many of the different techs available. A newbie won't want to get a big heavy camera hanging on his/her neck. Also the video and silent shoots sound amazing for the vloggers nowadays.
Also - because it is digital - you will be able to see the actual exposure. That's great for beginners that are learning how fstop,Iso and shutter speed work.
Thomas, also take a look at each series younger siblings. I would say the A6500 handily beats out the equivalents from nikon and sony in terms of weight and cost to performance ratio. So while a beginner wouldn't pick any of these three, they would pick their cheaper and smaller siblings.
If u mount proper lens with Sony, it is big enough with any mirror camera on the market .. ... ! It doesn't even feel good having the all weight on the front side.
I purchased the A7Riii. Focusing in low light was poor compared to Pro Nikons. the silent shutter had banding indoors many times with artificial light. The eye AF is a nice feature and while it is always close not always sharp focus. Sold it bought the D850. 3D focus is nice for moving subjects. Happy with it.
That's a great camera and used one for a year and have now upgraded to a second hand A7r2. Glass is expensive but keep an eye out on Fleabay for the occasional bargain, that's where I got my 16-35 and 70-300
@@FairlyMary oh yeah. Some can be up to 125,000usd. A kit lens im guessing is around 600 bucks new for a nice one when i looked but with nikon its significantly cheaper
Just switched from Nikon to Sony A7riii. Only had two lenses so wasn't hugely invested in Nikon. There are a lot of things I miss about my Nikon however - the menu, more comfortable in the hand [I have average to small sized hands and Nikon full a tonne better], much larger and cheaper selection of glass especially 2nd hand. However I like to go out for full days with a small/lighter prime lens i.e. tramping etc and not carrying a heavy brick in my bag is a nice change. If I could have both camera systems I would.
The question is how fast will a type C charge that Sony? If it's got a quick charge connect you could (Theoretically) bang a Battery pack on it and continue for much longer. Just a thought.
First thank you for this comparison which has helped shed light on upcoming upgrade to full frame. I like your upbeat and high energy style which just makes you want to watch right up to the end. However I think you would help your own credibility and the value of such comparisons if you were to actually be objective. On a few occasions, it was pretty clear that the Sony was the superior product but you clearly have a problem in giving it full credit (i.e. a check mark) without also giving your beloved Nikon also a (consolation?) undeserved checkmark. Apart from the technical comparison which could actually be done in a one-page tabler, I was also expecting a comparison of actual photos and a demonstration of the ergonomics and screen interfaces, which can be much more make or break than other features. Thanks.
One picky downside of the D850's XQD card is that all the laptops, Gnarboxes, WD My Passports, etc only have SD capability. Yes, you can get portable XQD readers, but you need a laptop to handle the transfer. Using SD means the Gnarbox and WD Passport can automatically back up your files.
True. But, if you're shooting action, like the surfer I was last week, you need the continuous burst provided by the XQD card. In this instance, I had to make the SD overflow, rather than backup, to not miss a sequence. Then the SD card is missing images and you are back where you startec.
When I was doing some wild life stuff with my D500 and Tamron 150-600 lens the body on the Nikon gave me an excellent hold on the whole package. Love the body on my Nikon as well as some other features. The Sony’s really have my attention these days. Main downer for me on Sony is the ergo. Doesn’t feel good in my hands. The compact size does have advantages though.
Plus Sony Mirrorless camera body designs are ATROCIOUS at best with their linear and hard edge design elements; compare against the smooth and curvy designs of Nikon and Cannon semi-pro to high-end pro DSLRs, especially against the 5D Mark IV; for this reason I would absolutely love Sony to go bust.
Looking for durability, photograph orientated (i don't shoot videos), dynamic range and lens quality... well, they are all great. as an amateur, it really does not matter which I use, i ain't pro... But...I feel like it is a time for me to buy a new camera and lenses. I saved enough money and trying to upgrade from 5dMk ii that i had for 10 years, and thinking to buy lenses again since I only had 3 lenses (no accessories). My priority is durability that you use it as a weapon and still 100% functional. Then it comes down to Canon and Nikon. Next most important thing is then a future oriented system that I can use it for another 10 to 15 years. Then it only comes down to one; Nikon. Or should I wait another 5 years for better one? lol
I jumped ship from Nikon (many years) to the A7Riii. Im getting older & the smaller camera (yes with full glass its same) but if I slap a 50 prime on the sony its downright dainty, which is great (for me).
Lex Cross Exactly! Why did he miss that in the D850? Thats one if it's main features… Touch screen. It also has touch screen focusing. I use it all the time when shooting video. Jared?
Thank u for this review, It helped me lots; Specially because I am a newbie photographer. I'm using a Sony nex-f3 and its time to upgrade. I was thinking of switching to canon but for the type of photography I'll be doing I see that its more than ok to stick with Sony specially since I've already invested in couple of lenses.
Went With d850. First ever camera (real camera). And like it. Just can't say I can compare, so as a 51 Year old boy, but wise. I do enjoy nikon through out. Maybe not that wireless hook up service, otherwise great. Lens selections for stars/wildlife is spectacular.
You should've included the Pentax K1. I know it's auto focus isn't great at fast moving objects and their current FF lens lineup isn't great, but the image quality is top notch. I'm sure I will get negative comments about it, but if you haven't shot with one you should give it a try. I don't shoot Pentax anymore, moved to Canon because of long lens availability but the K1 matches up with the 5dsr in every way except auto focus.
I own the a73 and a6500. I love the eye auto focus. But man. I miss canon glass and the canon colors (yes I shoot raw. No getting the same color profiles isn’t as simple as moving a slider in Lightroom).
Taking into consideration that I shoot a lot of video the Nikon is not a choice for me. And, despite I'm a Canon user right now, the fact that Sony has focus peaking that can be used with manual lenses makes them superior from my perspective and the way I use the camera. Also that super35 looks really really good.
Loved this episode, Jared. Canon for best sooc skin tones, colors & auto WB - saves a ton of time in post Nikon for that cinematic look and ease of use Sony for Hybrid photo/video, EYE AF, and EVF in other words - buy all three!
I am trying too decide between the Nikon D850 and the canon 5D mark IV but gee its tough. I am getting back into doing wedding and studio work after a 20 year break. I use too use high end Nikon film cameras then I bought a EOS 10D but its gone now of course. I dont have unlimited funds unfortunately. I don't have glass of any kind either. Id also like to do my own stuff, landscapes, portraits etc and I would like too do some video work if allowed by the camera.. I LOVE what Nikon are offers but the video focus problem is a turn off. Nikon's lens selection seems confusing compared to the Canon, simply go L series. The Canon has a great feel but the tilt screen on the Nikon is better as well. HELP ME DECIDE....
@@obijuan3328 my lg v20 will hand your iPhone its ass on a silver platter. Bitch your iPhone aint shit. My d3500 has better image quality than any other dx camera, some a6xxx, and most crop body canons including the 80d. Come again dumbfuck
For astrophotography, which one would you recommend ? Sony has long been criticized with the "star eater" issue, but your Orion picture (3:10) is quite good. What lens / exposure / iso where you using ?
I totally agree with you they are all great cameras. Sony's pro support still isn't there as well, which I think should have been a area to consider. Canon and Nikon are MUCH more comfortable ergos to hold all day. Sony needs to change it's grip to fit a person's hand with decent glass on the camera. BTW, some of the missed shots with the Sony are due to the IBIS and lens VR not cooperating. Do some research and let me know what you think. I'm very jealous of eye AF but it doesn't do any good if the shot's all blurry.
Nice comparison if you're buying for the first time. I already have a broad array of Nikkors (mostly Ai/Ais and a fair number of D and G Nikkors), so I don't need to be doubling up my lenses with a different camera. The only reason Sony appeals to me is I can fit it out with my Lieca M Summicrons which I already have. Why don't you have videos dealing with shooting legacy lenses on these camera bodies and what adapters work best on them. That would be useful. My Ai/Ais lenses are hitting 40 years and will theoretically outlast any of the electronically enhanced lenses currently on the market same for the Summicrons. Maintenance is trivial compared to the cost of buying and maintaining one of the auto lenses.
I'm a sharpness stickler too, and I've been playing with the Eye AF feature for a few months. It seems to me from my casual experimenting that it focuses on the eye's catchlights, which is at the closest point of the curvature of the cornea. This leaves the iris - the part we actually look at - slightly out of focus at 1.8 and beyond. The catchlight will be crisp, but everything beneath the cornea lens is unfocused slightly. It's very apparent in tight headshots [my niche], looking at files 1:1 where the white of the eye meets the iris. It's consistently muddy there. Switching to 2.8 and up alleviates it and it shouldn't be hard to patch this up in firmware [back up the focal plane 0.50mm] but I haven't heard anyone else discussing it until you brought it up. Great side-by-side 3 way. Cheers from Niagara.
if you're doing portraits at the minimum focus distance (or thereabouts) at f1.8 or lower your DOF is going to be so small no AF would be that accurate, you should really manual focus that stuff.
John Campbell Thank you for saying what needed to be said. People look at a feature like this and automatically it performs 100% perfect. On the contrary...it doesn't as you found out and so have several of my friends who will pick up the nikon D850 with the 85mm 1.4 or 1.8 when doing portraits and tight head shots.
Mooncat747 I'm confused the fact that the eye af focuses on the catch light (assuming that's the case) and it's not sharp across the entire depth of the eye is a factor drawn out by using 1.4, unless you're model has an extremely flat face and is exactly parallel with the plane of the lens you physically will not get that much in focus at f1.4. The fact that it clears up with you open it up a bit only proves the tech works. You're complaining about the physicality limitation of the lens (which impacts all cameras) not the camera tech.
With all due respect my fellow youtuber, your video is giving me the impression that you are being partial with the Nikon and like leaving behind the Sony... Just my honest opinion. Great vids!
Stop hating peeps! The best camera for you depends on what you need it for. If you’re a hardcore photojournalist and need a rugged camera then probably Nikon is your best choice. If you’re NOT rough and tough on your cameras and need great video capabilities then Sony may be your best option. I personally would love to have the Sony for its continuous AF for video, but also like the idea of having illuminated buttons. Neither of these cameras is going to make you a better photographer. With that said Sony is making leaps and bounds.
"Nikon gets a check because you can add the grip for 9fps". Does not make sense. Nikon artificially slowens the camera down unless you buy an extensive extra to unlock the feature. Thats a negative point, not a positive point.
I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no need to test it out, just tell me why it is a good thing why a software feature is locked down without paying some extra costs.
Lofote well you're able to shoot faster with the batter grip. If you was to photograph a bird in flight at 7fps then you're going to get a lot of shots. If you shoot at 9fps then you're going to get more shots before the birds lands. The shooting is just faster. Anyway the d850 and the 5d mark 4 isn't even a contest.
I got a Canon EOS 600D (also known as the Rebel T3i, if I remember correctly) and I will switch soon (basically as soon, as I got the money to do so; need to work at least part time). I exceed my EOS 600D almost in everything pushing it usually to the limits with my landscape and night photography (I usually do not do portraits; I mainly put people in the scene in either landscape or night photography) and I also love lightart and stuff. So, I need a camera which is okay with capturing speeds (i.e. fireworks) and also has a really good system for long exposures, dynamic range etc. Weight is not really a consideration since I do not really travel much - but it's nicer to have less weight. Since the aRIII officially supports adapters (remember: IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY), it's a good choice for my existing set up (got two fullframe lenses: nifty fifty and sigma 70-300). Investments need to be done in any way. I might switcht to the Sony since I had the oppurtunity to shoot with the RII and the original R which made me really happy. Sure it has some flaws but in my opinion and for what I need they do not really matter as much as other's think. Recently I took the D850 in consideration. I think before I buy either of those two, I'll try and get my hands on them and shoot with them for a while. Still, I think for me it's the Sony and my opinion goes excatly with what you said: Think of what you're doing and of what you need. Purchase with an eye open to the different companies and test before buying. Buy what makes YOU the happiest. Love such comparisons! Good job!
Not a fan of the way the terms ‘compressed’ and ‘uncompressed’ seem to be being used. There seems to be a suggestion that a compressed format means lower quality. Neither, strictly, says anything about quality. A compressed format can be LOSSLESS. The only downside to a compressed, lossless, format is that it requires more processing. The industry needs to be more disciplined when using these terms, are they afraid of saying ‘lossy’?
Chances are as well that if you can afford to buy these cameras you also have a nice ass computer with a fancy CPU and GPU as well as the right software to Process those compressed files. So I give it to SONY
There are reviews of the sony out there showing artifacting in the compressed raw files from sony, and Jared has said a Sony rep told him there is IQ loss in the compression.
biggoofybastard so the term should be ‘lossy compression’ not just ‘compressed’. ‘Compressed’ formats can be lossless, eg FLAC for audio. Doesn’t change my point. The industry needs to be more careful with its terminology.
I have invested in both Nikon and Olympus. I doubt I would change my Olympus EM1 mark II system: and changing from my Nikon D500 to anything other than the D850 would be financial suicide. If, however, I only owned my Olympus system I would create a second system around a Sony A9 or A7III. Other than that, the D850 is the only FF DSLR I would consider purchasing.
I was happy with my Canon EOS 200d. Recently a photographer that I do respect a lot has gifted me a brand new Nikon d850, saying that I deserved it and it deserved me. Will let you know how I'll find the d850.
SONY needs more glass for pro’s, and better weather sealing. As an enthusiast I’ll be jumping into the full frame world shortly and I’m so excited it hurts. I’m trying to decide between the a7r iii, a7 iii, or a slightly used a9. ✌🏻
Already invested on Nikon and Canon but i might buy Sony for its small size but wait ! When added lenses its all similar weight and size. If traveling i just bring along my 70D with 24mm f2.8 stm and 40mm f2.8 stm and xtra batteries.
If the Sony is a half pound lighter without a lens and you put the same lens on all cameras that Sony is STILL a half pound lighter. Sure it becomes closer percentage wise but with weight it's still the actual weight that matters and it's still a half pound lighter. That half pound can matter after a period of time holding it up or if you have a disability that makes holding weight up difficult. I tried a DSLR Nikon and it never left the house due to size and weight and it got sold off. Love my Sony a6500 gets out and gets a lot of use, though occasionally I'm lazy and still grab my smaller and much older Nikon P7700, bridge.
Jared is quite biased on this one. I have been poking him several time on the fact that he has rules out too lightly the relevance of Sony advantage of design modularity and the joy of shooting with a small camera with light and compact primes, but he is completely deaf from that side
I love your honest reviews of camera gear. I currently have a camera body from all three. Sony a6000. Nikon 7200 and a canon 70d. The biggest question i have is which camera has the best quality lenses as a whole? Im in a position to have the best telephoto on one and best landscape for another for example. What are your thoughts in this case?
Albert Mars I find that it depends on the glass. That is what prompted my post. My nikon has a better body build and more tech but I love the touch screen and lens variety for canon. The sony i have is just for having a solid camera with me all the time thats small and easy to carry. I was able to capture the galaxy with nikon 50mm 2.8. And a canon 24-105 i think f4. It depended on the settings on both. Polin is right. The nikon body does more. It just appears the canon lenses are more numerous. Just from watching reviews. I wish there was head to head lens reviews like this one for bodies.
I am leaning more towards the Sony camera, because of the weight and technology. All my glass is for nikon DS. I want the best camera for landscape. Between the Sony camera and the Nikon, which is best?
Nikon D850 is infinitely superior than any Sony, especially for the design; Sony Mirrorless camera designs are ATROCIOUS for their linear and hard edges
I was looking to upgrade to full frame from my eos rebel sl2 and the a7riii seems to check all the boxes for me. Was curious to see how it stacked up against the competition within the same price range and i'm glad I lcame across this video. I dont mind making the switch from canon because I could always get an ef to sony e mount adaptor if i want to use my canon lenses but i will probably trade the lenses in for better ones anyway
I am currently waiting for my D850 to get here! If I did not already have so much Nikon glass the Sony is an interesting system. I have friends that switched from Canon to Sony because of some of the new features like the focus system which apparently was greatly upgraded.
This is so hard because I am about to buy my first camera but I can't decide between these 3. Out of all of them, I know the Canon pictures (when it comes to the skin colors) comes out really beautiful compared to the other 2. Then Nikon is probably my favorite brand and has a really great lens "family". Then there is the Sony that has all of the coolest features for someone wanting to do photos and film, especially in low-light but I think it would be the most expensive considering all the different lens you would need to buy.
In none of the comparisons between these three cameras have I heard/seen the reviewer talk about the options for using on camera flash. I think this needs to be addressed. I have both the 5D3 (which I use with the 600 Speedlite) as well as the A7R3 which I have paired with a Nissin flash. The Canon is by far the best to use with regard to weight balance and performance. I have no experience with the Nikon system but would be interested in reading what those users think.
I'd say that it would be easier for a Canon shooter to try out the Sony brand without selling everything and buying lenses because of something like a metabones adapter. Personally, I have shot with a Canon, but I do not want to invest in the 5D MARK IV. I am going to try out the new Sony a7r III.
I'm new to video and Photography but already invested in canon. T6i with kit lens & EF 17-40mm & 50mm Prime & 75-300mm & 8mm fish eye glass. Cant wait until I am a good enough photographer to need the better camera and 70-200mm glass..
I need a recommendation for a camera that shoots video and photos main focus is on video that has good color and good in low light and out doors condition and full frame and slow motions is a must.
Fro please do the review of A7R iii for concert photography or performance photography or stage photography. Test its autofocus +ISO performance+Shutter Speed with electronic viewfinder and Silent mode which is super helpful in constantly changing light and motion scenario. Also suggest glass for the above mentioned photography.
Of these three cameras is their one that out does the others in ease of set-up and maintain the ease of quick changes in adapting to different shooting situations
Hello sir suryansh here I am a Nikon user bt the problem is Nikon is super duper awesome in stills bt when it comes in video it's not good at all I am a wildlife photographer nd a cinematography to so I am really confused about Nikon nd Sony so which one do u suggest to me to buy. Plz reply my sir..
As I said in another video, Nikon has me by the glAss. What might help is take account of customer journeys, for example you are new to photography how do you get started and what cameras/lenses are good choices or you are a Nikon guy, when and why do you upgrade cameras and how do you split your budget between glass and cameras. Extra credit, what and when should you buy new vs used or recently passed over (I’m looking at you Nikon D810)
Watching this did not really help my decision. Reading the comments, it seems I would like the feel and functionality of canon, but also that it seems outdated with not being mirrorless. Is the fact that it isn't that much a of a dealbreaker though? The a7r iii seems like a truly fantastic choice, but his mention of some images not being "tact sharp" seems absurd, how can such a well renown camera not take nearly perfect images all the time? Would the better choice then be the a9? Just an incredibly difficult decision.
I have the Nikon D850, I got a knock off grip for 70 bucks, knock off batteries and charger for $120 and the different door for $12. It shoots 9FPS no problem at all and the grip is indistinguishable from the Nikon unless you have them right next to each other. It actually fits better than the Nikon grip which has some wobble to it. Forget the $1000 gouging from Nikon and get the knockoff stuff, it will get you the same thing for around $200..and the knock of grips are actually in stock!
Jarod, you are on point as usual. Thank you for the info, in my case, I will continue with Canon, for the following reasons 1- Invested in glass, 2- Since I use more for Video than Photo, and the Video features I feel are best in the Canon. Finally 3- the color tones right out of the box are amazing.
I have a Nikon D850 and a Sony A7R3, I gotta say... the touch screen on A7R3 sucks so bad... D850 can touch to zoom in zoom out, A7R3 can't. D850 can swipe left and right to review the images that I just took, A7R3 can't. D850 has full menu touch screen function , A7R3 simply just can't. Please fix the above 3 issues by firmware update Sony!!
By "touch to zoom in zoom out" I mean like the D850, you can use two fingers to zoom in and two fingers to zoom out...like a smartphone. I want to use my camera like my smartphone... and Sony is denying to give us that.
Andy Tsai ah, thanks for clarifying, yea i cant count how many times ive tried that on my cam out of habit. Love the touch to focus, but would it have been THAT much extra work to just make everything touchscreen?
thanks for confusing me further hahah. i have two canons but loving the sony and just not so crazy about the lenses prices and worried about the metabones out there and the reviews. im not a fan of nikon. i have 6d and 7d mark 2. i shoot lot of video and shoot alot of events and corporate stuff. advice please.
Marco Zhang Don't worry. They are going to releasing a FF Mirrorless w/ EF mount. Unlike Nikon who is going to need an Adaptor. Ha. Who is lacking in innovation now...
Canon needed to step up their game in 2010. The CEO openly says "we don't want to spend money on r&d" Who wants products from a company that doesn't acknowledge it's customers wants and needs.
Nice comparison of mostly tech specs in this video. I agree that color science should be compared as well. On the other hand I don't quite get the fuss about 4K video... how many watchers do you have for that in the upcoming years unless you make pro-grade movies watched on TV and probably having at least something like the Canon C300 mk2 with 4K and 15-stop DR anyway? I'm happily sticking with my 5DsR before Canon comes up with newer and better bodies (note that they patented a ton of very cool stuff lately... BSI stacked sensor, curved DPAF sensor etc.), but admit that the Nikon and Sony competition is ahead with their DR and other noise-related sensor performance at this point in time. At the same time, older tech in 5DsR has gotten me to learn and practice compensation techniques like mean-stacking & super-resolution combined with HDR. That way I can make technically cleaner pictures with greater DR and color depth than both 7R3 and D850 give from a single exposure if only I have enough time and sufficiently static subjects (mostly shooting landscapes & architecture at dark conditions from a tripod, at which I normally go HDR if lamps are in the frame - something needed with all of these cameras anyway). Let's see what the upcoming 2 years bring... hoping for a model with a nice 15-stop DR with pixel shift, DPAF, no OLPF and perhaps 16-bit AD converters in sensors... let's see how much time it takes until such dreams come true and what the price tag will be.
It's 2018, technology has been advanced to a point 4K video recording is a standard. Go to Costco and you will hardly find any TV they sell only does 1080P.
robber98 maybe in tv world. But not in the photography world where most photos and videos are shared on small phone screens or laptops. Good, clean 1080p is almost just as good as average 4k. Also, you are not including the extra money you will have to spend on a proper PC to Edit all of this Footage. As well as tons of Storage space. And if you watch actual Creators, like Peter McKinnon and others, they will all tell you that 4k is not there yet. And upload most videos in 1080p still. Maybe if you are doing Commercial work, it could be different.
Isn't many new laptop and desktop since 2016 comes with 4k or even 5k display? Don't forget the camera industry as a whole is competing against smartphone and they are losing the battle. Whenever the smartphone capable to do while camera unable to, that's one less reason for the consumer to buy a camera. What Canon doing isn't doing the camera industry any flavor IMO.
That is surely true. However, the average human only sees a limited resolution (ppi) from a given distance. If you have a 75-inch TV screen (that is HUGE), the average human can fully perceive the detail at around 56 inches (142 cm)... and I'd like to see one person who could comfortably watch that TV at that distance unless pixel-peeping a small part of the video footage (i.e., not watching and enjoying the whole frame). A Full-HD 75-inch TV has to be at most 117 inches (3 meters) from an average human for him or her to fully enjoy its resolution. The average household quite likely has much smaller TVs than that in the upcoming years, and next to nobody is going to pixel-peep videos for enjoyment except a geek that is doing so for a different type of enjoyment than that from the actual video content. Yes, there are people using 4K screens on their computers, watching them from a close distance like 11 inches (30 cm), in which case it might make a difference. However, those typically need to be young and also blessed with a pretty good eyesight to enjoy the advantage of it, unlike the average person. That said, I'm not afraid that me (and I appear to have above-average eyesight resolution) or most other people would enjoy 4K videos for more than just knowing that they're watching 4K. After a few minutes, you probably perceive 4K and Full-HD footage with the exact same amount of enjoyment. On the other hand, you need four times that much storage and data transfer rate for 4K compared to Full-HD at all times. It seems to be just a huge money mine for a couple of companies, not something that would really be useful for over 99% of consumers in the end... that's the language that human biology and the numbers appear to speak. (All that said with reservation for eventual super-cool new innovations like ultra-resolution VR or something that could help most people enjoy greater resolution than TV-style of watching does.)
Sure 4K may look similar to 1080P to you but how about 8k? 16k? Japan is already moving toward 8K and before you know it, 1080P video once looking good on the screen will looks like 640x480 video captured by Blackberry on the screen in the future. What I am trying to say is technology will keep moving forward, 1080P is good enough for now but it won't last. Canon and other company can simply ignore 4K video recording capability and professional will still suck it up and pay for the camera (what choice do they have?). But as I said in previous post, consumer are mostly clueless on what they need. Missing 4K could make the camera looks less appealing to the consumer.
Not sure why a lot of people are hating on Jared for choosing Nikon. I personally think that the D850 and A7Riii are evenly matched. Although, I hate EVF. I am a wildlife photographer, I'd rather look at my subject naturally first before I take a pic, that's just my preference. Another killer (for me at least) is that there aren't that many lens choices for mirrorless. I like having telephoto lenses, so that's very important to me to have lens choice. Also, why would Sony not put a XQD card slot? Are they retarded? Their OWN XQD has been proven to be fast, I use one in my D500 and it's amazing. So why not put it in their A7Riii? I shoot using 10 fps with my D500, so having a fast card is also important to me. For me, for my purposes, the D850 would be my choice. As a matter of fact, I will get one soon. My D500 and future D850 will be my go to cameras for shooting wildlife. One thing I find interesting is that Sony makes the sensor for Nikon. Makes sense to see why the D850 and A7Riii are evenly matched. Sensor wise, they're basically the same sensor if you think about it.
I think most people are here not to make a choice which camera to buy but to hear that their camera is better than the others in some way
Not true. Im here cause its my first camera and i dont know which one yo choose
😂😂😂😂
I love my 5D IV and I'm a Canon shooter for years... Maybe there is a better camera... But I'm happy with mine and I never got used to Nikon and Sony cameras; I don't like their controls (maybe cause I'm used to Canon) and the feeling using those...
That's how I feel too. I don't want to be thinking about my controls and I like the consistency of Canon's menu's through the 3 bodies that I have. The thing that slows me down the most is my brain, not the camera.
I sold my D800E and D700 and bought the D850. I know the body, I know the system. I miss the pop up flash. Not for the pop up, but for commander mode. I'm so used to it, and it's gone now (moment of silence). I have to use an SU-800 now. On the Nikon, I know if I dial in -.03 EV, I'm never going to over expose. As long as I'm not in the clip, I can fix almost everything short of a thumb in front of the lens in post. I do have Sony envy. I think they're making the most interesting and versatile cameras on the market today. But I'm not dumping the thousands in glass I have amassed in my collection. The D850 is the best Nikon I've ever used. I also own the RX100 MkV. I use that camera A LOT because it's small, takes terrific images, and.... it's small. The video out of that camera is spot on. But video on the D850 with a 70-200 is damn hard to beat (auto focus be damned). If I were starting completely over, I'd get a Canon. Why? All of my friends shoot Canon. I can't borrow their lenses.
My friends shoot either canon or nikon. And I'm a Sony user. lol
I think Nikon and Sony are equals, wouldn't switch if I had Nikon but glad to have Sony bc of future innovation. But I would never never never ever ever want a Canon after shooting with one...I don't care if they gave me the glass for free, they're soft, green, and noisy with no dynamic range.
@@lrm52283 I have a d3500 and used my teachers 5dmklll with a 24-70 2.8 l glass and it had noticeably less dynamic range than my d3500 espefially in deep shadows despite it being full frame vs aps-c
I picked up the Sony A7riii, I like what Sony has done with their mirrorless camera and the body size. I also think they've add some additional features that have future proved their body.
Domingo Santiago 👌
Domingo Santiago. D850 EXPEEED 5 處理晶片，ISO 32-102400.
su-ching Hsieh 64-25600 natively. Dont be an idiot 🙄
@@scry1888 No your an idiot, it can go to 32, actually to 31 iso!
For me, it is Nikon all the way.
One correction, the Canon 5D Mark IV does allow focus point selection using the touch screen, you just need to hit the focus point button first, farthest button to the right from the AF-ON button. The display shows the focus points, but if you are looking through the view finder, they are there as well and you can move your finger around the screen, changing which point is selected. So you can do it without pulling away from the view finder. Don't get me wrong, its awkward and in definite need of improvement, i.e. making it like the Sony lower right section of the screen or how the Canon mirrorless work, but it does work. I tend to use the joystick myself, but maybe Canon will gift us an update improving the use of the touchscreen for focus point selection in the future.
thank you for this video. Im going back to work soon and up grading from Nikon 7000. I was trying to decide from these exact models. Im sticking with Nikon.
You forgot the sniff test...
Something you say is "glass glass glass glass" and rightfully so. You can still get amazing results with older cameras as long as you have good glass, composition, and nail your exposure. At the end of the day all 3 are top of the line and you'll just go with the one in which you're already invested (like you said), but if I was starting out I'd probably go for Sony since they have the most potential.
Only problem is sony has no glass
Back when he still loved Nikon
My biggest battle for the past 3 weeks. Deciding between these 3... THANK YOU!
Petar Smilajkov what did you pick? I’m still deciding
get the a7iii for like 2/3 the price
Petar Smilajkov same I’ve been researching non stop for a good camera to begin my work
What did you choose?
Do you already have glass?
I like Jared and respect his information and opinion, but I already knew how this video would sway before I even watched it. All three cameras are great and you can't really go "wrong" with any of them
greg brashear ? So ? You shouldnt care how to spend 3200bucks?
I think after Jared finally stopped group thinking Sony was a joke and got some in his hands he is coming to the realization that Sony cameras are just as good as Nikon and Canon is becoming stranded on a island watching the Nikon and Sony party cruise ship go by. I say by next year Sony will release the next A7III entry FF and Nikon will release a new mirrorless version of the D610 entry FF. Canon will still have the same old stuff.
Joshua Mack well, I spent the $3700 (after it was all said and done), and I didn't make my decision solely off the opinions of youtubers, but through watching videos, using all three brands hands on, and also looking at the finished image product of each. Getting your hands on these cameras and trying them out in person is invaluable, and one reason it's sad to see camera stores start to disappear.
greg brashear it certainly is! I just would love If someone ever tried to include all the pros cons IFS and buts of each in one Video. Like thinking laowa15mm f2 is great n cheaper, but Theres the stareater issue, followed by explaining it. Just everything. Not necessarily self-tested but researched
@@OutlawFarmersRC Sony is so rough around the edges the build quality is not great and they don't have any glass. That is why im saving up for a d850 instead of getting a sony a9ll
Great review, overall really fair. I sold all my Canon gear and got the a7R III, it was the EVF, BSI Sensor, advanced movie features, IBIS, silent shooting, and size. Yes the size matters, because if you want to you can put a small pancake prime on like the Ziess 35 F2.8 and have a small camera for casual functions, then put on the pro glass for a professional shoot. Plus carrying a backup body, it saves space also.
I started on a Olympus OM-10 in high school, then when I finished college I moved to my first DLSR 300D, I shot Canon since then, I did buy a open box GH5 and had that for a few months, and now sold everything and moved to the a7R III. A total of about 20 years.
James Ryan how do you like the Sony? Debating on buying the Sony or the D850. (Currently have a D7000 with 6 pieces of glass)
If I'm a rookie or beginner into photography, and there's only 3 cameras above available. I would gave chosen Sony because of the size and many of the different techs available. A newbie won't want to get a big heavy camera hanging on his/her neck. Also the video and silent shoots sound amazing for the vloggers nowadays.
Also - because it is digital - you will be able to see the actual exposure. That's great for beginners that are learning how fstop,Iso and shutter speed work.
Thomas, also take a look at each series younger siblings. I would say the A6500 handily beats out the equivalents from nikon and sony in terms of weight and cost to performance ratio. So while a beginner wouldn't pick any of these three, they would pick their cheaper and smaller siblings.
If u mount proper lens with Sony, it is big enough with any mirror camera on the market .. ... ! It doesn't even feel good having the all weight on the front side.
I purchased the A7Riii. Focusing in low light was poor compared to Pro Nikons. the silent shutter had banding indoors many times with artificial light. The eye AF is a nice feature and while it is always close not always sharp focus. Sold it bought the D850. 3D focus is nice for moving subjects. Happy with it.
I went Sony and grabbed an a7ii. The EVF won me over and the size is easy to take anywhere. As for lens prices well that sucks
it's new glass, it's not going to be cheap.
That's a great camera and used one for a year and have now upgraded to a second hand A7r2. Glass is expensive but keep an eye out on Fleabay for the occasional bargain, that's where I got my 16-35 and 70-300
are the lenses expensive?
@@OutlawFarmersRC no its the fact that it is carl zeiss
@@FairlyMary oh yeah. Some can be up to 125,000usd. A kit lens im guessing is around 600 bucks new for a nice one when i looked but with nikon its significantly cheaper
Just switched from Nikon to Sony A7riii. Only had two lenses so wasn't hugely invested in Nikon. There are a lot of things I miss about my Nikon however - the menu, more comfortable in the hand [I have average to small sized hands and Nikon full a tonne better], much larger and cheaper selection of glass especially 2nd hand. However I like to go out for full days with a small/lighter prime lens i.e. tramping etc and not carrying a heavy brick in my bag is a nice change. If I could have both camera systems I would.
I have, unfortunately, dropped my Sony several times and it has survived just fine. Just sayin'.
The question is how fast will a type C charge that Sony? If it's got a quick charge connect you could (Theoretically) bang a Battery pack on it and continue for much longer. Just a thought.
First thank you for this comparison which has helped shed light on upcoming upgrade to full frame. I like your upbeat and high energy style which just makes you want to watch right up to the end. However I think you would help your own credibility and the value of such comparisons if you were to actually be objective. On a few occasions, it was pretty clear that the Sony was the superior product but you clearly have a problem in giving it full credit (i.e. a check mark) without also giving your beloved Nikon also a (consolation?) undeserved checkmark.
Apart from the technical comparison which could actually be done in a one-page tabler, I was also expecting a comparison of actual photos and a demonstration of the ergonomics and screen interfaces, which can be much more make or break than other features.
Thanks.
One picky downside of the D850's XQD card is that all the laptops, Gnarboxes, WD My Passports, etc only have SD capability. Yes, you can get portable XQD readers, but you need a laptop to handle the transfer. Using SD means the Gnarbox and WD Passport can automatically back up your files.
In pro cameras the issue would still be the same between CF or CFAST.
So when traveling without laptop, I have to make the SD card primary, XQD backup. Rare that it happens, but it will in Europe later this year.
True. But, if you're shooting action, like the surfer I was last week, you need the continuous burst provided by the XQD card. In this instance, I had to make the SD overflow, rather than backup, to not miss a sequence. Then the SD card is missing images and you are back where you startec.
Robert Grenader Playback menu 5th item down. Copy images from xqd to sd.
When I was doing some wild life stuff with my D500 and Tamron 150-600 lens the body on the Nikon gave me an excellent hold on the whole package. Love the body on my Nikon as well as some other features. The Sony’s really have my attention these days. Main downer for me on Sony is the ergo. Doesn’t feel good in my hands. The compact size does have advantages though.
Plus Sony Mirrorless camera body designs are ATROCIOUS at best with their linear and hard edge design elements; compare against the smooth and curvy designs of Nikon and Cannon semi-pro to high-end pro DSLRs, especially against the 5D Mark IV; for this reason I would absolutely love Sony to go bust.
Looking for durability, photograph orientated (i don't shoot videos), dynamic range and lens quality...
well, they are all great. as an amateur, it really does not matter which I use, i ain't pro...
But...I feel like it is a time for me to buy a new camera and lenses.
I saved enough money and trying to upgrade from 5dMk ii that i had for 10 years,
and thinking to buy lenses again since I only had 3 lenses (no accessories).
My priority is durability that you use it as a weapon and still 100% functional. Then it comes down to Canon and Nikon.
Next most important thing is then a future oriented system that I can use it for another 10 to 15 years. Then it only comes down to one; Nikon.
Or should I wait another 5 years for better one? lol
I jumped ship from Nikon (many years) to the A7Riii. Im getting older & the smaller camera (yes with full glass its same) but if I slap a 50 prime on the sony its downright dainty, which is great (for me).
just another amazing video, thanks Fro. I got my 7 days RAW t-shirt and I'm gonna show them around in Japan in a few days
The 850 DOES have touch menus. I promise. I use them.
Lex Cross Exactly! Why did he miss that in the D850? Thats one if it's main features… Touch screen. It also has touch screen focusing. I use it all the time when shooting video. Jared?
Thank u for this review, It helped me lots; Specially because I am a newbie photographer. I'm using a Sony nex-f3 and its time to upgrade. I was thinking of switching to canon but for the type of photography I'll be doing I see that its more than ok to stick with Sony specially since I've already invested in couple of lenses.
Went With d850. First ever camera (real camera). And like it. Just can't say I can compare, so as a 51 Year old boy, but wise. I do enjoy nikon through out. Maybe not that wireless hook up service, otherwise great. Lens selections for stars/wildlife is spectacular.
Sold off my Canon gear and jumped to Nikon and am LOVING the D850 and the wicked Nikon 70-200mm and 24-20mm
I never read this anywhere that you don't have uncompressed 14 bits with 10 fps. Someone confirm this ?
David Lefrançois yess
You should've included the Pentax K1. I know it's auto focus isn't great at fast moving objects and their current FF lens lineup isn't great, but the image quality is top notch. I'm sure I will get negative comments about it, but if you haven't shot with one you should give it a try. I don't shoot Pentax anymore, moved to Canon because of long lens availability but the K1 matches up with the 5dsr in every way except auto focus.
Thanks so much, Jared. It's good to check in and see what the leaders are doing. I prefer the Nikons but wanted to see how Sony is doing.
I own the a73 and a6500. I love the eye auto focus. But man. I miss canon glass and the canon colors (yes I shoot raw. No getting the same color profiles isn’t as simple as moving a slider in Lightroom).
Taking into consideration that I shoot a lot of video the Nikon is not a choice for me. And, despite I'm a Canon user right now, the fact that Sony has focus peaking that can be used with manual lenses makes them superior from my perspective and the way I use the camera. Also that super35 looks really really good.
Loved this episode, Jared.
Canon for best sooc skin tones, colors & auto WB - saves a ton of time in post
Nikon for that cinematic look and ease of use
Sony for Hybrid photo/video, EYE AF, and EVF
in other words - buy all three!
Best reply ever! Can´t explain better.
What is better for food fotography please ?
what does 'cinematic look' mean when referring to Nikon
I am trying too decide between the Nikon D850 and the canon 5D mark IV but gee its tough. I am getting back into doing wedding and studio work after a 20 year break. I use too use high end Nikon film cameras then I bought a EOS 10D but its gone now of course. I dont have unlimited funds unfortunately. I don't have glass of any kind either. Id also like to do my own stuff, landscapes, portraits etc and I would like too do some video work if allowed by the camera.. I LOVE what Nikon are offers but the video focus problem is a turn off. Nikon's lens selection seems confusing compared to the Canon, simply go L series. The Canon has a great feel but the tilt screen on the Nikon is better as well. HELP ME DECIDE....
Nikon Fan boy. Giving Nikon check marks for just having random things lol.
Jeep Joseph totally 2 years late buddy.
@@jeepjoseph9036 my iphone takes better pictures than your d3500
@@obijuan3328 my lg v20 will hand your iPhone its ass on a silver platter. Bitch your iPhone aint shit. My d3500 has better image quality than any other dx camera, some a6xxx, and most crop body canons including the 80d. Come again dumbfuck
For astrophotography, which one would you recommend ? Sony has long been criticized with the "star eater" issue, but your Orion picture (3:10) is quite good. What lens / exposure / iso where you using ?
I totally agree with you they are all great cameras. Sony's pro support still isn't there as well, which I think should have been a area to consider. Canon and Nikon are MUCH more comfortable ergos to hold all day. Sony needs to change it's grip to fit a person's hand with decent glass on the camera.
BTW, some of the missed shots with the Sony are due to the IBIS and lens VR not cooperating. Do some research and let me know what you think. I'm very jealous of eye AF but it doesn't do any good if the shot's all blurry.
sony anytime
Sony DSLR or Canon DSLR?
I need to update my camera to 4k for cinematic videos... What I should choose???
Nice comparison if you're buying for the first time. I already have a broad array of Nikkors (mostly Ai/Ais and a fair number of D and G Nikkors), so I don't need to be doubling up my lenses with a different camera. The only reason Sony appeals to me is I can fit it out with my Lieca M Summicrons which I already have. Why don't you have videos dealing with shooting legacy lenses on these camera bodies and what adapters work best on them. That would be useful. My Ai/Ais lenses are hitting 40 years and will theoretically outlast any of the electronically enhanced lenses currently on the market same for the Summicrons. Maintenance is trivial compared to the cost of buying and maintaining one of the auto lenses.
I'm a sharpness stickler too, and I've been playing with the Eye AF feature for a few months. It seems to me from my casual experimenting that it focuses on the eye's catchlights, which is at the closest point of the curvature of the cornea. This leaves the iris - the part we actually look at - slightly out of focus at 1.8 and beyond. The catchlight will be crisp, but everything beneath the cornea lens is unfocused slightly. It's very apparent in tight headshots [my niche], looking at files 1:1 where the white of the eye meets the iris. It's consistently muddy there. Switching to 2.8 and up alleviates it and it shouldn't be hard to patch this up in firmware [back up the focal plane 0.50mm] but I haven't heard anyone else discussing it until you brought it up. Great side-by-side 3 way. Cheers from Niagara.
if you're doing portraits at the minimum focus distance (or thereabouts) at f1.8 or lower your DOF is going to be so small no AF would be that accurate, you should really manual focus that stuff.
John Campbell d af algorithm s perfect smooth as u can c but it's a fake af system!
John Campbell Thank you for saying what needed to be said. People look at a feature like this and automatically it performs 100% perfect. On the contrary...it doesn't as you found out and so have several of my friends who will pick up the nikon D850 with the 85mm 1.4 or 1.8 when doing portraits and tight head shots.
Mooncat747 I'm confused the fact that the eye af focuses on the catch light (assuming that's the case) and it's not sharp across the entire depth of the eye is a factor drawn out by using 1.4, unless you're model has an extremely flat face and is exactly parallel with the plane of the lens you physically will not get that much in focus at f1.4. The fact that it clears up with you open it up a bit only proves the tech works. You're complaining about the physicality limitation of the lens (which impacts all cameras) not the camera tech.
With all due respect my fellow youtuber, your video is giving me the impression that you are being partial with the Nikon and like leaving behind the Sony... Just my honest opinion. Great vids!
Stop hating peeps! The best camera for you depends on what you need it for. If you’re a hardcore photojournalist and need a rugged camera then probably Nikon is your best choice. If you’re NOT rough and tough on your cameras and need great video capabilities then Sony may be your best option. I personally would love to have the Sony for its continuous AF for video, but also like the idea of having illuminated buttons. Neither of these cameras is going to make you a better photographer. With that said Sony is making leaps and bounds.
I'm a Nikon shooter! I LOVE my D850
"Nikon gets a check because you can add the grip for 9fps". Does not make sense. Nikon artificially slowens the camera down unless you buy an extensive extra to unlock the feature. Thats a negative point, not a positive point.
Lofote No he's right
....and why exactly?
Lofote There are people that made videos and tests it out on UA-cam. Search it up
I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no need to test it out, just tell me why it is a good thing why a software feature is locked down without paying some extra costs.
Lofote well you're able to shoot faster with the batter grip. If you was to photograph a bird in flight at 7fps then you're going to get a lot of shots. If you shoot at 9fps then you're going to get more shots before the birds lands. The shooting is just faster. Anyway the d850 and the 5d mark 4 isn't even a contest.
Did Nikon gift you that glow sign in the back?
I got a Canon EOS 600D (also known as the Rebel T3i, if I remember correctly) and I will switch soon (basically as soon, as I got the money to do so; need to work at least part time). I exceed my EOS 600D almost in everything pushing it usually to the limits with my landscape and night photography (I usually do not do portraits; I mainly put people in the scene in either landscape or night photography) and I also love lightart and stuff. So, I need a camera which is okay with capturing speeds (i.e. fireworks) and also has a really good system for long exposures, dynamic range etc.
Weight is not really a consideration since I do not really travel much - but it's nicer to have less weight.
Since the aRIII officially supports adapters (remember: IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY), it's a good choice for my existing set up (got two fullframe lenses: nifty fifty and sigma 70-300). Investments need to be done in any way.
I might switcht to the Sony since I had the oppurtunity to shoot with the RII and the original R which made me really happy.
Sure it has some flaws but in my opinion and for what I need they do not really matter as much as other's think.
Recently I took the D850 in consideration. I think before I buy either of those two, I'll try and get my hands on them and shoot with them for a while.
Still, I think for me it's the Sony and my opinion goes excatly with what you said:
Think of what you're doing and of what you need.
Purchase with an eye open to the different companies and test before buying.
Buy what makes YOU the happiest.
Love such comparisons!
Good job!
Not a fan of the way the terms ‘compressed’ and ‘uncompressed’ seem to be being used. There seems to be a suggestion that a compressed format means lower quality. Neither, strictly, says anything about quality. A compressed format can be LOSSLESS. The only downside to a compressed, lossless, format is that it requires more processing. The industry needs to be more disciplined when using these terms, are they afraid of saying ‘lossy’?
Chances are as well that if you can afford to buy these cameras you also have a nice ass computer with a fancy CPU and GPU as well as the right software to Process those compressed files. So I give it to SONY
There are reviews of the sony out there showing artifacting in the compressed raw files from sony, and Jared has said a Sony rep told him there is IQ loss in the compression.
biggoofybastard so the term should be ‘lossy compression’ not just ‘compressed’. ‘Compressed’ formats can be lossless, eg FLAC for audio. Doesn’t change my point. The industry needs to be more careful with its terminology.
I have invested in both Nikon and Olympus. I doubt I would change my Olympus EM1 mark II system: and changing from my Nikon D500 to anything other than the D850 would be financial suicide. If, however, I only owned my Olympus system I would create a second system around a Sony A9 or A7III. Other than that, the D850 is the only FF DSLR I would consider purchasing.
I was happy with my Canon EOS 200d. Recently a photographer that I do respect a lot has gifted me a brand new Nikon d850, saying that I deserved it and it deserved me. Will let you know how I'll find the d850.
SONY needs more glass for pro’s, and better weather sealing.
As an enthusiast I’ll be jumping into the full frame world shortly and I’m so excited it hurts. I’m trying to decide between the a7r iii, a7 iii, or a slightly used a9. ✌🏻
Already invested on Nikon and Canon but i might buy Sony for its small size but wait ! When added lenses its all similar weight and size. If traveling i just bring along my 70D with 24mm f2.8 stm and 40mm f2.8 stm and xtra batteries.
Jared please do a Sony a7r3 vs Sony a9 dynamic range and iso comparison (with tests of photos/videos at night time and cloudy day).
used 5d Mk4 or new Sony a73?
same price locally.
I'm also concerned with value, as previous gen Sony don't seem to hold much of their value.
If the Sony is a half pound lighter without a lens and you put the same lens on all cameras that Sony is STILL a half pound lighter. Sure it becomes closer percentage wise but with weight it's still the actual weight that matters and it's still a half pound lighter. That half pound can matter after a period of time holding it up or if you have a disability that makes holding weight up difficult.
I tried a DSLR Nikon and it never left the house due to size and weight and it got sold off. Love my Sony a6500 gets out and gets a lot of use, though occasionally I'm lazy and still grab my smaller and much older Nikon P7700, bridge.
Jared is quite biased on this one. I have been poking him several time on the fact that he has rules out too lightly the relevance of Sony advantage of design modularity and the joy of shooting with a small camera with light and compact primes, but he is completely deaf from that side
I love your honest reviews of camera gear. I currently have a camera body from all three. Sony a6000. Nikon 7200 and a canon 70d. The biggest question i have is which camera has the best quality lenses as a whole? Im in a position to have the best telephoto on one and best landscape for another for example. What are your thoughts in this case?
I can't decide amongst those three camera you mentioned, which one is better for portraits and to shoot night scenes?
Albert Mars I find that it depends on the glass. That is what prompted my post. My nikon has a better body build and more tech but I love the touch screen and lens variety for canon. The sony i have is just for having a solid camera with me all the time thats small and easy to carry. I was able to capture the galaxy with nikon 50mm 2.8. And a canon 24-105 i think f4. It depended on the settings on both. Polin is right. The nikon body does more. It just appears the canon lenses are more numerous. Just from watching reviews. I wish there was head to head lens reviews like this one for bodies.
I am leaning more towards the Sony camera, because of the weight and technology. All my glass is for nikon DS. I want the best camera for landscape. Between the Sony camera and the Nikon, which is best?
Nikon D850 is infinitely superior than any Sony, especially for the design; Sony Mirrorless camera designs are ATROCIOUS for their linear and hard edges
I was looking to upgrade to full frame from my eos rebel sl2 and the a7riii seems to check all the boxes for me. Was curious to see how it stacked up against the competition within the same price range and i'm glad I lcame across this video. I dont mind making the switch from canon because I could always get an ef to sony e mount adaptor if i want to use my canon lenses but i will probably trade the lenses in for better ones anyway
I am currently waiting for my D850 to get here! If I did not already have so much Nikon glass the Sony is an interesting system. I have friends that switched from Canon to Sony because of some of the new features like the focus system which apparently was greatly upgraded.
What about things like weather sealing and processing power after taking the image?
This is so hard because I am about to buy my first camera but I can't decide between these 3. Out of all of them, I know the Canon pictures (when it comes to the skin colors) comes out really beautiful compared to the other 2. Then Nikon is probably my favorite brand and has a really great lens "family". Then there is the Sony that has all of the coolest features for someone wanting to do photos and film, especially in low-light but I think it would be the most expensive considering all the different lens you would need to buy.
Its been 5yrars that i'm in dilema. What camera to buy...if l am interesting in nature pictures and portret. And what lens?
Is a mirrorless camera the thing of the future or are there some downsides?
In none of the comparisons between these three cameras have I heard/seen the reviewer talk about the options for using on camera flash. I think this needs to be addressed. I have both the 5D3 (which I use with the 600 Speedlite) as well as the A7R3 which I have paired with a Nissin flash. The Canon is by far the best to use with regard to weight balance and performance. I have no experience with the Nikon system but would be interested in reading what those users think.
Thx for this video! Just downloaded MGV btw, great app!
I'd say that it would be easier for a Canon shooter to try out the Sony brand without selling everything and buying lenses because of something like a metabones adapter. Personally, I have shot with a Canon, but I do not want to invest in the 5D MARK IV. I am going to try out the new Sony a7r III.
I'm new to video and Photography but already invested in canon. T6i with kit lens & EF 17-40mm & 50mm Prime & 75-300mm & 8mm fish eye glass. Cant wait until I am a good enough photographer to need the better camera and 70-200mm glass..
3:10, is that a picture of a nebula. If so how tf did you get that picture
The Canon 5DmkIV SD card slot is USH-I, not USH-II...
I need a recommendation for a camera that shoots video and photos main focus is on video that has good color and good in low light and out doors condition and full frame and slow motions is a must.
Fro please do the review of A7R iii for concert photography or performance photography or stage photography. Test its autofocus +ISO performance+Shutter Speed with electronic viewfinder and Silent mode which is super helpful in constantly changing light and motion scenario. Also suggest glass for the above mentioned photography.
Of these three cameras is their one that out does the others in ease of set-up and maintain the ease of quick changes in adapting to different shooting situations
Hello sir suryansh here I am a Nikon user bt the problem is Nikon is super duper awesome in stills bt when it comes in video it's not good at all I am a wildlife photographer nd a cinematography to so I am really confused about Nikon nd Sony so which one do u suggest to me to buy. Plz reply my sir..
question which camera would recommend for filming music video?
As I said in another video, Nikon has me by the glAss. What might help is take account of customer journeys, for example you are new to photography how do you get started and what cameras/lenses are good choices or you are a Nikon guy, when and why do you upgrade cameras and how do you split your budget between glass and cameras. Extra credit, what and when should you buy new vs used or recently passed over (I’m looking at you Nikon D810)
Best comparison video yet...thank you!
One thing I never see mentioned or talked about much is dynamic range. Why is that?
Great comparison vid Fro!
Which camera have to buy
Watching this did not really help my decision. Reading the comments, it seems I would like the feel and functionality of canon, but also that it seems outdated with not being mirrorless. Is the fact that it isn't that much a of a dealbreaker though? The a7r iii seems like a truly fantastic choice, but his mention of some images not being "tact sharp" seems absurd, how can such a well renown camera not take nearly perfect images all the time? Would the better choice then be the a9? Just an incredibly difficult decision.
I thought CF cards were suppose to be very reliable and fast? Am I misinformed?
Nikon D850 has built in timelapse movie mode which the other ones dont have.
Curt Meinecke Yes of course. The A7R3 dont even has a built in intervelometer🤤
you can still use sony's s&q settings to record
a time-lapse. i believe now you can also use the play memories app with the a7r3
Christo Stoichkov s&q mode time lapse
KC_636 Sony has abandoned the play memories app from A9 and A7R3.
Arthur Sese s&q timelapse is limited to minimum shutter of one second. For the most part useless.
Fantastic & very objective work! Thank's Jared :)
I wish you would have included print quality from each camera. Especially enlargement size. Thanks
I have the Nikon D850, I got a knock off grip for 70 bucks, knock off batteries and charger for $120 and the different door for $12. It shoots 9FPS no problem at all and the grip is indistinguishable from the Nikon unless you have them right next to each other. It actually fits better than the Nikon grip which has some wobble to it. Forget the $1000 gouging from Nikon and get the knockoff stuff, it will get you the same thing for around $200..and the knock of grips are actually in stock!
Thanks, Bro...i will Deffenlty jump from my Nikon D810 to D850...
Jarod, you are on point as usual. Thank you for the info, in my case, I will continue with Canon, for the following reasons 1- Invested in glass, 2- Since I use more for Video than Photo, and the Video features I feel are best in the Canon. Finally 3- the color tones right out of the box are amazing.
I have a Nikon D850 and a Sony A7R3, I gotta say... the touch screen on A7R3 sucks so bad...
D850 can touch to zoom in zoom out, A7R3 can't.
D850 can swipe left and right to review the images that I just took, A7R3 can't.
D850 has full menu touch screen function , A7R3 simply just can't.
Please fix the above 3 issues by firmware update Sony!!
all these are correct except for the first one. If i double tap my screen then it zooms in.
By "touch to zoom in zoom out" I mean like the D850, you can use two fingers to zoom in and two fingers to zoom out...like a smartphone. I want to use my camera like my smartphone... and Sony is denying to give us that.
Andy Tsai ah, thanks for clarifying, yea i cant count how many times ive tried that on my cam out of habit. Love the touch to focus, but would it have been THAT much extra work to just make everything touchscreen?
Finally a review I been waiting for!
I don't mind these reviews, but damn, every part of his intro is so annoying and cringe-inducing.
I do life consert photography in low light. What Camara will you recomend????
A7iii is great in low light (not a9 or a7riii or s.. They have different strengths), and bc stabilized in body, low camera shake as well.
thanks for confusing me further hahah. i have two canons but loving the sony and just not so crazy about the lenses prices and worried about the metabones out there and the reviews. im not a fan of nikon. i have 6d and 7d mark 2. i shoot lot of video and shoot alot of events and corporate stuff. advice please.
Canon needs to up their game in 2018
Marco Zhang Don't worry. They are going to releasing a FF Mirrorless w/ EF mount. Unlike Nikon who is going to need an Adaptor. Ha. Who is lacking in innovation now...
Oof, you spoke too soon.
Canon needed to step up their game in 2010. The CEO openly says "we don't want to spend money on r&d"
Who wants products from a company that doesn't acknowledge it's customers wants and needs.
@@readcastor2977 still canon
Sorry guys but Canon finally stepped up their game in 2020 which was 3 years overdue.
Next must for Nikon D850 replacement ( and can't believe it wasn't in this one ) - in body stabilization !
Nice comparison of mostly tech specs in this video. I agree that color science should be compared as well. On the other hand I don't quite get the fuss about 4K video... how many watchers do you have for that in the upcoming years unless you make pro-grade movies watched on TV and probably having at least something like the Canon C300 mk2 with 4K and 15-stop DR anyway? I'm happily sticking with my 5DsR before Canon comes up with newer and better bodies (note that they patented a ton of very cool stuff lately... BSI stacked sensor, curved DPAF sensor etc.), but admit that the Nikon and Sony competition is ahead with their DR and other noise-related sensor performance at this point in time. At the same time, older tech in 5DsR has gotten me to learn and practice compensation techniques like mean-stacking & super-resolution combined with HDR. That way I can make technically cleaner pictures with greater DR and color depth than both 7R3 and D850 give from a single exposure if only I have enough time and sufficiently static subjects (mostly shooting landscapes & architecture at dark conditions from a tripod, at which I normally go HDR if lamps are in the frame - something needed with all of these cameras anyway). Let's see what the upcoming 2 years bring... hoping for a model with a nice 15-stop DR with pixel shift, DPAF, no OLPF and perhaps 16-bit AD converters in sensors... let's see how much time it takes until such dreams come true and what the price tag will be.
It's 2018, technology has been advanced to a point 4K video recording is a standard. Go to Costco and you will hardly find any TV they sell only does 1080P.
robber98 maybe in tv world. But not in the photography world where most photos and videos are shared on small phone screens or laptops. Good, clean 1080p is almost just as good as average 4k. Also, you are not including the extra money you will have to spend on a proper PC to Edit all of this Footage. As well as tons of Storage space. And if you watch actual Creators, like Peter McKinnon and others, they will all tell you that 4k is not there yet. And upload most videos in 1080p still. Maybe if you are doing Commercial work, it could be different.
Isn't many new laptop and desktop since 2016 comes with 4k or even 5k display? Don't forget the camera industry as a whole is competing against smartphone and they are losing the battle. Whenever the smartphone capable to do while camera unable to, that's one less reason for the consumer to buy a camera. What Canon doing isn't doing the camera industry any flavor IMO.
That is surely true. However, the average human only sees a limited resolution (ppi) from a given distance. If you have a 75-inch TV screen (that is HUGE), the average human can fully perceive the detail at around 56 inches (142 cm)... and I'd like to see one person who could comfortably watch that TV at that distance unless pixel-peeping a small part of the video footage (i.e., not watching and enjoying the whole frame). A Full-HD 75-inch TV has to be at most 117 inches (3 meters) from an average human for him or her to fully enjoy its resolution. The average household quite likely has much smaller TVs than that in the upcoming years, and next to nobody is going to pixel-peep videos for enjoyment except a geek that is doing so for a different type of enjoyment than that from the actual video content.
Yes, there are people using 4K screens on their computers, watching them from a close distance like 11 inches (30 cm), in which case it might make a difference. However, those typically need to be young and also blessed with a pretty good eyesight to enjoy the advantage of it, unlike the average person.
That said, I'm not afraid that me (and I appear to have above-average eyesight resolution) or most other people would enjoy 4K videos for more than just knowing that they're watching 4K. After a few minutes, you probably perceive 4K and Full-HD footage with the exact same amount of enjoyment. On the other hand, you need four times that much storage and data transfer rate for 4K compared to Full-HD at all times. It seems to be just a huge money mine for a couple of companies, not something that would really be useful for over 99% of consumers in the end... that's the language that human biology and the numbers appear to speak.
(All that said with reservation for eventual super-cool new innovations like ultra-resolution VR or something that could help most people enjoy greater resolution than TV-style of watching does.)
Sure 4K may look similar to 1080P to you but how about 8k? 16k? Japan is already moving toward 8K and before you know it, 1080P video once looking good on the screen will looks like 640x480 video captured by Blackberry on the screen in the future. What I am trying to say is technology will keep moving forward, 1080P is good enough for now but it won't last. Canon and other company can simply ignore 4K video recording capability and professional will still suck it up and pay for the camera (what choice do they have?). But as I said in previous post, consumer are mostly clueless on what they need. Missing 4K could make the camera looks less appealing to the consumer.
mirrorless is the future. Why choosing the past ?
good review ...waiting on my d850!!!
Not sure why a lot of people are hating on Jared for choosing Nikon. I personally think that the D850 and A7Riii are evenly matched. Although, I hate EVF. I am a wildlife photographer, I'd rather look at my subject naturally first before I take a pic, that's just my preference. Another killer (for me at least) is that there aren't that many lens choices for mirrorless. I like having telephoto lenses, so that's very important to me to have lens choice. Also, why would Sony not put a XQD card slot? Are they retarded? Their OWN XQD has been proven to be fast, I use one in my D500 and it's amazing. So why not put it in their A7Riii? I shoot using 10 fps with my D500, so having a fast card is also important to me.
For me, for my purposes, the D850 would be my choice. As a matter of fact, I will get one soon. My D500 and future D850 will be my go to cameras for shooting wildlife.
One thing I find interesting is that Sony makes the sensor for Nikon. Makes sense to see why the D850 and A7Riii are evenly matched. Sensor wise, they're basically the same sensor if you think about it.
He said why. Cause camera overall would have to be bigger