Sony fans, welcome to the party! You guys will love it. f2 is simply amazing for this lens. A full stop of light cannot be overstated. I've used the Canon one for years now, and it was a true unicorn. But now I guess there are 2 unicorns. It's hard to use a 24-70 f2.8 after using a 28-70 f2.
I used the Canon Version of this lens, and then bought the 24-105mm f/2.8 due to versatility and video function if I need low light performance I have a f/1.2 lens (used to have a couple of them and a 1.8, but It's really not needed anymore with the range of ISO performance in these mirrorless cameras).
The sheer benefit of a much much smaller and lighter version than the Canon is huge, especially the engineering it took to achieve such a feet. (Especially when canon and Nikon were saying Sony would not be able to make specific lenses due to the small e mount.)
@@robbie154 Impossible, that for a just-announced lens (only in the hands of a few select UA-camrs), there would be already a Lightroom / ACR profile available and deployed in last month's Adobe updates? Therefore I assume, that zero corrections (for vignetting, distortion) took place. The Canon lens is older and has higher chances of having a lens profile for automatic corrections (but even there, the strong vignetting suggests otherwise). Other quality traits like bokeh cleanness (no color fringes there) couldn't be 'corrected' anyway automatically, no lens profile does specify such.
@@tubularificationed thats interesting, when i asked Sony representatives if it was ok to compare this lens to the Canon version they gave me the green light, and nothing like that was mentioned
The Canon RF 28-70 f2 has really been one of my favorite lenses since its release. I’m so happy that Sony made this lens and the image quality between the two look nearly identical!
I prefer Canon look. Its more "natural" and pleasing to my eyes at least. Sony's background looks more busy and "disturbing". For example at 7:34 if you look fallen leaves on the ground or tree branches in the background.. Those look smoother in Canon in my opinion. Same thing with those flowers / plants at 8:48. Behind her back. Canon is definitely smoother while Sony has sort of onion ring like "bokeh". Looks disturbing. Sony looks also more flat when Canon has more of that 3D pop which I happen to like. Maybe it is in contrast but that is how I see it.
C1 pro raw view isn't true raw. An icc profile is applied. Pop or lack of pop is irrelevant. I've professionally used Canon, Nikon and Sony. The true raw files are more similar than different and indistinguishable after processing. The "Canon" look is an artifact of the icc profile.
Was waiting all week to see another photoshoot and video I have to say I love the canon better because of the toning settings sets the mood better can’t wait to see the next video the photos were beautiful
I think I like the Canon files better, for two reasons. First, I like the handling of highlights from the Canon lens better, though I can't quite put my finger on why that is -- maybe they have a little bit more bloom, resulting in a more diffuse look? Second, I think the bokeh on the Canon lens is a little bit smoother, noticeable, for example, on the specular highlights in the photos at 7:21. That may just be because the Canon lens is a bit softer overall, or because that highlight bloom helps smooth things out. Both are excellent though. Thanks for the comparison!
Extremely well put together comparison. I moved to Sony from Canon years ago and kept my Canon lenses EF-L lenses because Sony’s earlier lenses were not as good as my Canon in my opinion. That all changed when Sony’s new generation of lenses came out. I purchased my first GM lens, the 35mm 1.4 GM and it easily beat my Canon lens in sharpness. The Sony GM 24-70 2.8 II, was breathtaking in its sharpness, bokeh and color. This was far superior to my adapted Canon EF 24-70 2.8 II L lens. I sold all my Canon lenses and switched to Sony. And yes I can tell both the sharpness and color differences between the two systems. While I prefer the warmer colors of Canon lenses, the clarity and sharpness of Sony lenses feels like fine dust has been wiped off the pictures taken with Canon lenses. The Sigma FE lenses for Sony actually have similarly warm colors to Canon. I remember being able to distinguish the difference before I sold it, due to the new Sony GM 24-70 2.8 II Lens purchase. So, I can edit the RAW files to get warmer colors, as a neutral palette is a better starting point. At this moment, I am happy with neutral real world colors.
I've used both and prefer canon lenses. The GM lens quality didn't look as good as the l series imo. This lens looks good but my workhorse has been the 24-105 f4 and now i is the 2.8 version. It's the best lens I've ever used, besides the 85 1.2 which still may be the best mirrorless lens ever made.
@ I can understand having the 24-105 2.8. It’s an amazing travel lens too. It would not work for me because I tend to not only walk in cities (Europe, NYC) as well as hike with my equipment. Lower Weight to quality is essential. In those cases I used the Sony GM 35 1.4 exclusively with one camera body (Venice, Italy). I also did an extremely strenuous 30 mile (15 each way) up a mountain in Hawaii and in that case, I used 2 Sony cameras with Sony GM 24-70 2.8 II and GM 70-200 2.8 II. I did meet another hiker at the peak who actually carried a Sony 200-600 GM for landscape photography. I do miss my EF 85 1.2 II L lens a lot and regret selling it. Even though it was not optically perfect, the picture had a look that was beautiful. The Sony system has nothing like it unfortunately. However I do have an adapted Sony SAL CZ 135mm 1.8 that is quite astonishing in its color fidelity (Zeiss colors) and produces a similar look.
@@IreneRudnyk Give yourself more credit than that! you do a better job than most, and most actual photographers don't care about the charts, they want to know what they are getting is going to work in everyday world. good job!
The green fabric is a giveaway for me…. Canon always has more yellow in greens than usual..Sony’s colors look more real to me but Canon’s is more pleasing.. (r5 user) I am more amazed of how Sony achieved this kind of lens with that mount also making it lighter and smaller is beyond me!! Great vid great comparison very nice photos !!
Appreciate the effort put into this. I'm a Canon RF 28-70 f/2 owner, so unless this Sony was mind blowingly better than the Canon (it's not), I would never switch systems for it. The fact that Sony felt the need to copy Canon's lens is a testament to how good the RF 28-70 is - imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery.
Yup bout same weight as 24-70mm RF 2.8 , for videowork weight matters especially handheld / on gimbal. Some of my friends already talking to switch just because of their weight , as they already fall in love with how useful 28-70mm F2. Same price , lighter, faster , smaller, modern (linear AF) , also tad sharper. One of the things because of lots of 3rd party lenses option.
@@ridzbaha618 this is one of the most tried narratives out there (along with the R5 overheating). I see people in the field all the time with adapted lenses on all kinds of systems. Canon is still leading in mirrorless sales and overall sales, people saying they're switching but the math isn't adding up. most of the time it's Sony brand loyalist coming online to blogs saying people are switching. it was mainly Nikon shooters that went to Sony (which is why Nikon dropped to number 3 not canon). and Nikon is doing a lot of things to get that base back. Canon Shooters you'll see adapt lenses all the time, the old DSLR lenses work way better with mirrorless focusing (that's Canon EF lenses and 3rd party EF lenses). It's not that important to photographers and videographers. getting the shot is way more important. and when you get into the professional atmospheres you'll find people using ARRI's (an $80,000 camera) that's way heavier and requires a backpack gimbal for video work, so weight really isn't a thing unless you're talking amateur (Which is fine).
Dude what? Even if it is, you shouldn't either. Like...what are we even talking about here? You guys can just jump from system to system like it's nothing??? Talking like a normal person come on.
Really great review and some beautiful images on both systems. Great to have these lenses in both systems. I used canon for years but ended up switching to Sony for a lighter setup. As you say canon always a warmer image and to systems will always have a slightly different colour space. That being said after editing the raw image of either system you will always get the perfect image that you desire. Such a great time to be a photographer with the equipment we can use today, we are so spoilt even if expensive.
I would have loved it to be 28-85mm f2 or 35-85mm f2. Maybe we’ll see a 24-105mm f2 in the future :) Every beautiful reality is first a dream… Thank you for this beautiful video.
I can't really see any noticeable differences and I doubt any client would be able to tell (or care) either. The Sony wins for it's smaller and lighter size but people will go for the lens of the system they are invested in.
My takeaway from this is that the Sony is a more clinically perfect lens. It is sharper, better edge to edge performance, etc ...but... The Canon just dominates in overall look/feel. It renders nicer, it has more pleasing colors, more pleasing tones, superior bokeh, better contrast, etc. imo this is the perfect example as to why sharpness and clinical performance isn't important for most photographers.
Miałem lustrzankę Canona, sprzedałem ją i kupiłem A7III, ale z powodu tego o czym piszesz wróciłem do Canona (R8). Jedyne, co mnie boli, to fakt, że Canon nadal nie odblokowuje bagnetu dla obiektywów Sigma innych firm.
They render exactly the same if you don't pixel peep. The differences in color are due to the camera not the lens. Put this Sony lens on adapter on a Nikon body and you'll get beautiful colors. The only real difference in image quality is that Sony has enormous amount if veiling glare, which means shooting against the light will usually look washed out.
2870 Zoom is mostly used for event photography. So it’s important to compare the “in-focus ratio”between these 2 lenses. I guess Sony is better in focusing.
I think all sony images are more sharp and more contrasty after processing. I noticed that myself shooting with both canon and sony. For me processing sony images is usually easier and more of them in focus, no blur etc - basically less flaw in sony images then canon. That's why lately I'm shooting practically exclusively with sony.
all the optical labs have already proven that the Sony is optically superior in this comparison. Smaller dimensions and weight are another advantage. Colors are more a matter of the body than the lens, and RAW post-processing is inevitable, so comparing colors is completely irrelevant. On the contrary, professionals do not want color distortion from the lens, it complicates the work when balancing the colors of images taken with different lenses.
The differences are there also because of the difference in the two sensors, not just the lenses! Sony A7R5's 61mp sensor renders noticeably different than the Canon R5's sensor!
Good job. Thanks for this comparison video. You have earned a new subscriber. 08:14 I prefer the canon for its smooth background blur, which is less distracting. For video, sony bodies have that movie magic
Thank you to make this very good side by side comparison video. I have both Canon 5D III and Sony 7M4 cameras. Personally, I prefer the color, contract and details of Canon photos, but perfer the smaller size and lighter weight of Sony camera. It makes me to choose Sony more frequently than Canon for most of time while traveling. BTW, your editing skill is great! It's like a master chef to make 3 star Michelin meals from raw ingredients. I also wonder whether you'd like to share the steps and tips of how you edit photos.
yes, Irene, at 13:24 most people wouldn't know, I do, simply because I shoot MF and LF cameras where this "micro-contrast" exists, and is definable to anyone, esp. the sharpness and detail on hair strands, or other micro details, I look for it, as this is a symptom of high image quality, and the "mf and LF look" which I aspire to. NB: the term I used, Micro-contrast, is the technical name for what is said in this discussion you are having at 13:24; describing in laypersons terms the resolution of details, and colour science; this science of micro contrast, is, in my opinion, the sensors' ability to resolve detail, and for a small pixel to capture data, 45MP+ (150MP in the case of Phase One IQ4), this data is what matters, especially when hundreds of mega pixels are merged (digitally crocheted together) this nuance is preserved, and accentuated, as one pixel is small enough to scale correctly to this detail, aka is in the same magnification, so can record it, and its part of the image, not just a zone 0 or 10 (well outside the dynamic range), which we 'see' as noise, flare, or blank area with no distinguishable details.
Had the 28-70 on an R5 for a few years now, and I’ve always thought it was soft. Then I found a site that compares images with lenses, and found I was correct, it’s one of the softest lenses in the RF line, and that’s including consumer lenses. That’s only pixel peeping though, not like you’ll notice it u less you zoom in 1/1, and even then you’d have to have a professional eye to see it.
I liked some from Sony and some from Canon more. For example the first looked a bit better on Canon and the second definitely from Sony. Just nuances which you do not see when not compared side by side and all of them can be edited to look the same in the end or the way you like it. So no need to switch systems here. Just take which system you are in or take the cheapest/lightest.
These two lenses are amazing. The only key difference is the weight. I hope if ever Canon decides a mark II for the RF, they will shave some weight. I know it's not a big deal when you are used to an EF 70-200 f2.8 lenses, but it makes a difference when you are traveling. I had this Canon lense for a while an it's good but not a mile away from EF 24-70mm f2.8 mark II except in a very low light situation. I would love to try the Sony in a very low light situation. Overall, it's a good thing for the photography world. Tnx for your informative video! 13:4913:49
That's not what I saw at all. I thought the Canon looked a tad sharper until I really looked close (on a 5K monitor) and then the Sony looked maybe a tad sharper. It's so close.
Great review, thank you. In general I find the zoomlens too big and heavy on top of this an f2.0 is mighty expensive. Now as a senior with limited budget, I have purchased Chinese lenses with f0.9 to f1.4 Amazing lenses, back to creativity ❤
I have APC and thinking of upgrading to full frame but I have a hard time deciding whether to get Cannon R5 or Sony R V with those lenses 28-70 f2.0. Thank you of doing this comparison. I think I know which one to get😊
Both look great but the Canon setup just melts my heart every time, the colours are so gorgeous, who cares about the weight when the output is so good! The warms helps a lot, but there’s definitely more to it than that. I could tell the Canon every time, the foliage for example, even with UA-cam compression, looks like it has a better depth to it, it looks more 3 dimensional, less flat. Even with the adjusted images it looks better than the Sony, I don’t know if maybe it has more micro contrast but something makes it stand out more. Just wish I could afford the Canon setup, I’ll keep dreaming 😂
Interesting video. I have to say, that on the whole, I found myself preferring the Sony images. That said, I agree with the pro Canon evaluation of the two that you processed independently. Of course, as you stated, the differences were due to editing and the Canon image was a little brighter in its finished form, which is a definite positive trigger for the human eye. I believe there have been comparative studies which bear this out--take any two identical images and lift one ever so slightly without compromising range or quality, and that will almost always garner the most likes. One other thing I did notice in your comparison images was that the transitional areas between bright and dark seemed slightly better rendered on the Sony files. The Canon seemed almost to blow out highlights in hair for instance whereas those areas were better preserved on the Sony images. This is interesting to me as I do not shoot Sony. I shoot both Canon and Olympus. No matter, all the photos were beautiful examples of what can be achieved with the two high end lenses, good subject matter and talent. Thank you.
Thanks for the comparison. Very interesting. From the get go, I always think that Sony's color is a bit cooler and more green and Canon a bit more warm. To each his own, they both are great lens.
In my mind knowning Canon's released in 2018 and still stands up strong against a new Sony says a lot for the len. I perfer the Canon over the Sony 10/10 times. They both are chunky lenses so the weight doesn't matter for me.
A very practical and fair comparison. Canon in terms of colour saturation and contrast is better than Sony, while Sony is much lighter. Actually the choice of lens depends on which system you use. I think 24-70 f/2 is on Canon's lens road map.
It's obvious to identify the photos taken with each brand of camera, even if it's just iPhone vs. Samsung vs. OnePlus or Vivo. They all have their unique looks and tint preferences (or whatever processing they do to have those color preferences). Sony with its greenish cast, Nikon with its slightly cooler tones than Canon and slight magenta cast, and Sony with, as we said, greener and neutral tones (neutral for the latest models but highly contrasty with the older generation models like the a7iii and older). iPhones also have similar processing styles, and Samsung has its own style. Basically, no brand is right or wrong. I usually choose a camera brand based on the quality I get out of its maximum, like RAW capability. Well, that was the case when I first began taking photos, as I was afraid that if I messed up the exposure, I would be safe with the uncompressed RAW. But now I don't find it good to push even the RAW that much, and since I do exposure for other studios and they all require only JPEGs, I base my decision on features, pricing, and lens choices. That's where Sony gets my vote, as I can save some money on lenses and still get good quality, except for the fragile hot shoe. Like the videos you do awesome efforts and AWESOME PHOTOS as always🎉🎉 OH and one more thing which even i hate about canon is that they do bake noise reduction in RAW files so that they look cleaner than other brands so thats one reason you find Sony files sharper.
I think both lenses are super impressive. However for people photography I think the focal range from 35-150mm of the Tamron 2.0-2.8 is more useful. I rarely need the focal lengths between 24 and 35 for people photography, but I definitively use 70-150mm. So while I was thinking of purchasing a Sony 28-70mm f2.0 GM, I came to the conclusion that my Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-f2.8 is the more useful lens for me.
I did jump from Canon to the Sony, light weight, small size is so comfortable to work with, different color corection/grading, you need to know how to do it, especially after a few years of work with canon, i can easly match colors that no one can tell which is which
There isn’t a big difference, but there seems to be a bit more pop with the Sony files, and the Sony is also sharper. It’s really impressive when you consider that it is also 2/3rds the weight of the Canon.
As a Sony shooter, I agree that Canon has more pleasing and easy to edit colors. I can see that pictures look more alive/dreamy with canon take. But that are many tricks to achieve the same with Sony. There are Lightroom profiles then you had just contrast and little magenta to your desire. But if own Canon you cannot trick your away into Cheap RF lenses and latest tech Sony always has.
I wonder why so many photographers write f2 instead of f/2. The f/2 is actually the formula for the aperture, e.g., f=50 mm focal length, aperture = f/2 = 50mm/2 = 25mm. When they write just f2, it looks like if they actually don't understand the basic theory.
I can see the differences right away. The tonal range is wider, colors are warmer on shots made with Canon. Canon wins with art. Sony is the winner in sharpness. My heart belongs to Canon. I love your artworks ❤
I see the biggest difference between the two lenses in the backlight. The Sony lens produces results with significantly less contrast. This indicates that Canon has done a better job of coating the lenses. I agree with you that the raw material of a photo affects the overall result. I once compared the Leica 50mm F2 APO (using Leica M11) with a Canon RF F1.2 L lens (using Canon R5) at F2.0. The post-processing of the Leica photos was much easier in terms of sharpness and contrast. But the end results were so similar that the price of the Leica setup of almost 17000 Euros is really not worth it.
It would be interesting to see the result of a comparison with auto modes enabled, incl WBauto. I also, for example, abandoned the C1 because of its strange handling of color and the lack of profiles for many cameras. I don’t know how it works there now, but I’m sure that for those who process in Lightroom, the results may be completely different and for them this comparison will not be representative.
I wonder if the color temp differences you're seeing are a function not just of the glass, but of the camera sensors? Sonys have a bit of a rep for going a bit flat and greenish on the skin tones (I say this as a Sony Shooter). I've not shot Canon so I can't say for certain. Would be great if they could be tested on the same sensor, though I know that's currently impossible.
the cannon is warmer, but interestingly the Sony deals better with the sun highlight's, making them highlights, not just flare, as in the Cannon shot, it looks too flare like (my taste), and I shoot buildings and cars, etc. so deal frequently with flaring lights, and I use MF, 120 Kodak Gold 200 in hasselblad 6x6, and in LF 6x12 with the same film stock, Always with lens hoods if the sun is close, and even add ND [64 {1.8 stops}] to cut sky exposure, so I can get the shot.
When you said "differences in the raw file", have you considered that it is not possible to see an image from a raw file without processing it first (or looking at an embedded jpeg)? Looking at it in Lightroom we are actually looking at the raw file + the initial processing done by Lightroom + it is processing according to a (icc) profile. I have made profiles myself with icc profile software, set such profile as default in capture one, and then THAT profile determines how "the raw file is looking".
@@IreneRudnyk Yes, you did, but that is not what I referred to. I referred to the unprocessed images which you also showed, and they are actually not unprocessed. You are not the only one; it is very common for people to believe that they can look at a raw file. It is impossible. [Side note: "Semantics" is the study of meanings, and as such should not be dismissed, as the meaning is often the most important part.] Anyways, this video was very good. It is the first video from you that I have seen. (I wonder why since I watch a lot of photography videos, + you have a huge number of subscribers.) And I shall be back for more.
When enlarged by pixel unit, I think Sony looks a little clearer because of the camera pixels. I think it's hard to tell which lens has better resolution. Then Sony wins in terms of size and weight. I'm also looking forward to the next Canon lens.
I love this video Irene!! I think the conclusion I came to was that Canon is good at the things that their users generally like about Canon (eg. warmth of colours & dreaminess) and Sony is good at what Sony shooters generally like about them (eg. sharpness & compactness) In the end, I'm a big Canon girlie and I'll probably always be biased towards their warm colours🥰
For me, it's always the canon that gives the best rendering, it's indisputable Google translation I'm Belgian and read your comment on Instagram, thank you
thanks for the video !!! can u pleaaase do another test. i love my 35mm 1.4 gm but if i buy this thats two similar lenses. could you do a comparison? see if i can let go of my 35 ? its stressful. and cant afford both
I switched to Sony from Canon for the cheaper lens alternatives (Tamron, Sigma), but considering these two lenses are almost the same price, I always loved Canon's warmer, brighter colors, which this 28-70 comparison demonstrates. But for Sony fans, this is a nice addition, which I still can't afford lol
@@IreneRudnyk The lens does make a difference, but in my personal opinion, Canon's color science especially its emphasis on RGGB, demosaicing algorithm renders more portrait friendly tones, giving human skin a better and more natural appearance
So what’s really being compared are two camera systems, not lenses. There are a lot of things going on here. Lens, sensor, different RAW, in camera processing, the way the RAW software in the computer processes them, etc. So the results will depend on the interactions of everything involved and how the photographer prefers positives and negatives.
@ I’ve inly been doing this for 60 years and ran a commercial photo lab, so yes, I know. It wasn’t a criticism. It was just a reminder that there is no such thing as comparing one thing to another when they need to be used with different systems and all that entails. So this is a comparison of a Canon lens with a Canon body, to a Sony lens on a Sony body. There’s nothing wrong with pointing that out. The Ken’s can’t be tested in isolation, unless you want to put them on a collimator, and that only gives some information.
Canon colors are much better. You can tweak Sony colors but they wont be natural if colors are wrong from the beginning. You need to basically tweak all the colors to one way or another and that is a big job to do. For sharpness and video, Sony seems to be better but Canon has better colors and better IBIS and IS (in most of the lenses).
From the Sony the face looked slimmer & from the Canon it looked a lot rounder. I have had the Canon version for a while & I’m curious to see what the Sony has to offer.
Yay! I picked the Sony correctly - going by pixel peeping long enough at photos taken with the 50mm f/1.2 GM. I recognized the incredibly contrast and resolution of the finer details in the hair.
Great comparison. Sony is sharper but flatter with less 3D pop. Canon raw colors more pleasing to my eyes. Canon images likely faster to edit, while Sony's will take longer to tweak the colors. But after the editing both images side by side look stunning. weight can be a big deal for event photographers +1 for the Sony. great job 👏
Sony fans, welcome to the party! You guys will love it. f2 is simply amazing for this lens. A full stop of light cannot be overstated. I've used the Canon one for years now, and it was a true unicorn. But now I guess there are 2 unicorns. It's hard to use a 24-70 f2.8 after using a 28-70 f2.
I used the Canon Version of this lens, and then bought the 24-105mm f/2.8 due to versatility and video function if I need low light performance I have a f/1.2 lens (used to have a couple of them and a 1.8, but It's really not needed anymore with the range of ISO performance in these mirrorless cameras).
If that one stop of light and losing 4mm on the wide end means I could charge clients more, I’d get it.
Canon Al so not bad❤
It was the most successful comparison I've ever watched. I love how you go into detail and leave no question marks.
The sheer benefit of a much much smaller and lighter version than the Canon is huge, especially the engineering it took to achieve such a feet. (Especially when canon and Nikon were saying Sony would not be able to make specific lenses due to the small e mount.)
That's because the sony is digitally corrected. You need profile corrections for the sony to look normal.
@ I can’t say I’ve ever seen such a drastic difference to my image once I apply corrections in post.
@@robbie154 Impossible, that for a just-announced lens (only in the hands of a few select UA-camrs), there would be already a Lightroom / ACR profile available and deployed in last month's Adobe updates?
Therefore I assume, that zero corrections (for vignetting, distortion) took place. The Canon lens is older and has higher chances of having a lens profile for automatic corrections (but even there, the strong vignetting suggests otherwise).
Other quality traits like bokeh cleanness (no color fringes there) couldn't be 'corrected' anyway automatically, no lens profile does specify such.
I agree! The fact that Sony is so light and small is pretty crazy!
@@tubularificationed thats interesting, when i asked Sony representatives if it was ok to compare this lens to the Canon version they gave me the green light, and nothing like that was mentioned
The Canon RF 28-70 f2 has really been one of my favorite lenses since its release. I’m so happy that Sony made this lens and the image quality between the two look nearly identical!
I prefer Canon look. Its more "natural" and pleasing to my eyes at least. Sony's background looks more busy and "disturbing". For example at 7:34 if you look fallen leaves on the ground or tree branches in the background.. Those look smoother in Canon in my opinion. Same thing with those flowers / plants at 8:48. Behind her back. Canon is definitely smoother while Sony has sort of onion ring like "bokeh". Looks disturbing.
Sony looks also more flat when Canon has more of that 3D pop which I happen to like. Maybe it is in contrast but that is how I see it.
C1 pro raw view isn't true raw. An icc profile is applied. Pop or lack of pop is irrelevant. I've professionally used Canon, Nikon and Sony. The true raw files are more similar than different and indistinguishable after processing. The "Canon" look is an artifact of the icc profile.
@@Fish2Eat interesting. So what about that look when it was DSLR's for Canon? just curious.
Interesting, I thought Canon bokeh looks busier. Sony seems both sharper and seems to have btter bokeh in my opinion.
@@lewkon I prefer the Sony boke, it reminds me a bit of Zeiss, every photo i've seen from 28-70L was too smooth in my opinion and lacked character
Was waiting all week to see another photoshoot and video I have to say I love the canon better because of the toning settings sets the mood better can’t wait to see the next video the photos were beautiful
I think I like the Canon files better, for two reasons. First, I like the handling of highlights from the Canon lens better, though I can't quite put my finger on why that is -- maybe they have a little bit more bloom, resulting in a more diffuse look? Second, I think the bokeh on the Canon lens is a little bit smoother, noticeable, for example, on the specular highlights in the photos at 7:21. That may just be because the Canon lens is a bit softer overall, or because that highlight bloom helps smooth things out. Both are excellent though. Thanks for the comparison!
Extremely well put together comparison.
I moved to Sony from Canon years ago and kept my Canon lenses EF-L lenses because Sony’s earlier lenses were not as good as my Canon in my opinion.
That all changed when Sony’s new generation of lenses came out. I purchased my first GM lens, the 35mm 1.4 GM and it easily beat my Canon lens in sharpness.
The Sony GM 24-70 2.8 II, was breathtaking in its sharpness, bokeh and color. This was far superior to my adapted Canon EF 24-70 2.8 II L lens.
I sold all my Canon lenses and switched to Sony.
And yes I can tell both the sharpness and color differences between the two systems. While I prefer the warmer colors of Canon lenses, the clarity and sharpness of Sony lenses feels like fine dust has been wiped off the pictures taken with Canon lenses.
The Sigma FE lenses for Sony actually have similarly warm colors to Canon. I remember being able to distinguish the difference before I sold it, due to the new Sony GM 24-70 2.8 II Lens purchase.
So, I can edit the RAW files to get warmer colors, as a neutral palette is a better starting point.
At this moment, I am happy with neutral real world colors.
I've used both and prefer canon lenses. The GM lens quality didn't look as good as the l series imo. This lens looks good but my workhorse has been the 24-105 f4 and now i is the 2.8 version. It's the best lens I've ever used, besides the 85 1.2 which still may be the best mirrorless lens ever made.
@ I can understand having the 24-105 2.8. It’s an amazing travel lens too. It would not work for me because I tend to not only walk in cities (Europe, NYC) as well as hike with my equipment. Lower Weight to quality is essential. In those cases I used the Sony GM 35 1.4 exclusively with one camera body (Venice, Italy).
I also did an extremely strenuous 30 mile (15 each way) up a mountain in Hawaii and in that case, I used 2 Sony cameras with Sony GM 24-70 2.8 II and GM 70-200 2.8 II. I did meet another hiker at the peak who actually carried a Sony 200-600 GM for landscape photography.
I do miss my EF 85 1.2 II L lens a lot and regret selling it. Even though it was not optically perfect, the picture had a look that was beautiful. The Sony system has nothing like it unfortunately. However I do have an adapted Sony SAL CZ 135mm 1.8 that is quite astonishing in its color fidelity (Zeiss colors) and produces a similar look.
You think that the "warmness" sits in the lens?
Your model is so pretty. Red hair, blue eyes and fall background really pops the color.
No AA filter in the Sony plays a big role in the sharpness difference
The only review of Sony's new lens I care to watch.
I’m a the worst gear reviewer haha ! But I’m trying
@@IreneRudnyk Give yourself more credit than that! you do a better job than most, and most actual photographers don't care about the charts, they want to know what they are getting is going to work in everyday world. good job!
That's because... Cana-Duh!
You guys are so cute together 🎉
The green fabric is a giveaway for me….
Canon always has more yellow in greens than usual..Sony’s colors look more real to me but Canon’s is more pleasing.. (r5 user) I am more amazed of how Sony achieved this kind of lens with that mount also making it lighter and smaller is beyond me!! Great vid great comparison very nice photos !!
Appreciate the effort put into this. I'm a Canon RF 28-70 f/2 owner, so unless this Sony was mind blowingly better than the Canon (it's not), I would never switch systems for it. The fact that Sony felt the need to copy Canon's lens is a testament to how good the RF 28-70 is - imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery.
No normal person is going to switch brands because of 1 lense. Some youtubers might but they will keep both set ups lol
Yup bout same weight as 24-70mm RF 2.8 , for videowork weight matters especially handheld / on gimbal.
Some of my friends already talking to switch just because of their weight , as they already fall in love with how useful 28-70mm F2.
Same price , lighter, faster , smaller, modern (linear AF) , also tad sharper.
One of the things because of lots of 3rd party lenses option.
@@gregorybealeA lot of photographers that really wanted the Canon lens for the past 6 years made the switch
@@ridzbaha618 this is one of the most tried narratives out there (along with the R5 overheating). I see people in the field all the time with adapted lenses on all kinds of systems. Canon is still leading in mirrorless sales and overall sales, people saying they're switching but the math isn't adding up. most of the time it's Sony brand loyalist coming online to blogs saying people are switching. it was mainly Nikon shooters that went to Sony (which is why Nikon dropped to number 3 not canon). and Nikon is doing a lot of things to get that base back. Canon Shooters you'll see adapt lenses all the time, the old DSLR lenses work way better with mirrorless focusing (that's Canon EF lenses and 3rd party EF lenses). It's not that important to photographers and videographers. getting the shot is way more important. and when you get into the professional atmospheres you'll find people using ARRI's (an $80,000 camera) that's way heavier and requires a backpack gimbal for video work, so weight really isn't a thing unless you're talking amateur (Which is fine).
Dude what? Even if it is, you shouldn't either. Like...what are we even talking about here? You guys can just jump from system to system like it's nothing??? Talking like a normal person come on.
Really great review and some beautiful images on both systems. Great to have these lenses in both systems. I used canon for years but ended up switching to Sony for a lighter setup. As you say canon always a warmer image and to systems will always have a slightly different colour space. That being said after editing the raw image of either system you will always get the perfect image that you desire. Such a great time to be a photographer with the equipment we can use today, we are so spoilt even if expensive.
I would have loved it to be 28-85mm f2 or 35-85mm f2. Maybe we’ll see a 24-105mm f2 in the future :)
Every beautiful reality is first a dream…
Thank you for this beautiful video.
I can't really see any noticeable differences and I doubt any client would be able to tell (or care) either. The Sony wins for it's smaller and lighter size but people will go for the lens of the system they are invested in.
Totally agree!
I’m watching this on my phone so everything looks great 😂.
Haha kind of proves the point! The differences are so minimal. It doesn’t really matter both are great
Exactly 😂 90% of vewers will see content via smartphone. Its all about photographer preferences, my vote for small weight/size
For me, sharpness is more important and then come the color tones that can be fixed in Photoshop or Lightroom, so I prefer the new Sony lens...📸👍🙋🏻👋🏻🤗
On your hands everything gets good looking !
🙏🙏🙏
Absolutely love your videos! Nice to see you so busy on your channel ♥️
Thanks for watching!
My takeaway from this is that the Sony is a more clinically perfect lens. It is sharper, better edge to edge performance, etc
...but...
The Canon just dominates in overall look/feel. It renders nicer, it has more pleasing colors, more pleasing tones, superior bokeh, better contrast, etc.
imo this is the perfect example as to why sharpness and clinical performance isn't important for most photographers.
Miałem lustrzankę Canona, sprzedałem ją i kupiłem A7III, ale z powodu tego o czym piszesz wróciłem do Canona (R8). Jedyne, co mnie boli, to fakt, że Canon nadal nie odblokowuje bagnetu dla obiektywów Sigma innych firm.
They render exactly the same if you don't pixel peep. The differences in color are due to the camera not the lens. Put this Sony lens on adapter on a Nikon body and you'll get beautiful colors. The only real difference in image quality is that Sony has enormous amount if veiling glare, which means shooting against the light will usually look washed out.
Canon has a better atmosphere!☺
2870 Zoom is mostly used for event photography. So it’s important to compare the “in-focus ratio”between these 2 lenses. I guess Sony is better in focusing.
Thanks!
she doesn't need your pennies
@@bromoboy maybe you do?
I think all sony images are more sharp and more contrasty after processing. I noticed that myself shooting with both canon and sony. For me processing sony images is usually easier and more of them in focus, no blur etc - basically less flaw in sony images then canon. That's why lately I'm shooting practically exclusively with sony.
all the optical labs have already proven that the Sony is optically superior in this comparison. Smaller dimensions and weight are another advantage. Colors are more a matter of the body than the lens, and RAW post-processing is inevitable, so comparing colors is completely irrelevant. On the contrary, professionals do not want color distortion from the lens, it complicates the work when balancing the colors of images taken with different lenses.
Great comparison Irene... so helpful and interesting. Would love to see you compare the A1ii with the Canon R5ii
The differences are there also because of the difference in the two sensors, not just the lenses! Sony A7R5's 61mp sensor renders noticeably different than the Canon R5's sensor!
excellent point.
Good job. Thanks for this comparison video. You have earned a new subscriber. 08:14 I prefer the canon for its smooth background blur, which is less distracting. For video, sony bodies have that movie magic
I think the Canon lens is better, because I have a Canon R5 lol
😂
Thank you to make this very good side by side comparison video. I have both Canon 5D III and Sony 7M4 cameras. Personally, I prefer the color, contract and details of Canon photos, but perfer the smaller size and lighter weight of Sony camera. It makes me to choose Sony more frequently than Canon for most of time while traveling.
BTW, your editing skill is great! It's like a master chef to make 3 star Michelin meals from raw ingredients. I also wonder whether you'd like to share the steps and tips of how you edit photos.
I like the Canon colors and contrast. Sony maybe sharper but less contrast
Exactly. Sony is the way to go for Wildlife and wherever details are most important. If I were shooting portraits, I would go Nikon all day over both.
yes, Irene, at 13:24 most people wouldn't know, I do, simply because I shoot MF and LF cameras where this "micro-contrast" exists, and is definable to anyone, esp. the sharpness and detail on hair strands, or other micro details, I look for it, as this is a symptom of high image quality, and the "mf and LF look" which I aspire to.
NB: the term I used, Micro-contrast, is the technical name for what is said in this discussion you are having at 13:24; describing in laypersons terms the resolution of details, and colour science; this science of micro contrast, is, in my opinion, the sensors' ability to resolve detail, and for a small pixel to capture data, 45MP+ (150MP in the case of Phase One IQ4), this data is what matters, especially when hundreds of mega pixels are merged (digitally crocheted together) this nuance is preserved, and accentuated, as one pixel is small enough to scale correctly to this detail, aka is in the same magnification, so can record it, and its part of the image, not just a zone 0 or 10 (well outside the dynamic range), which we 'see' as noise, flare, or blank area with no distinguishable details.
Thank you for comparing to show these lens performance.
Had the 28-70 on an R5 for a few years now, and I’ve always thought it was soft. Then I found a site that compares images with lenses, and found I was correct, it’s one of the softest lenses in the RF line, and that’s including consumer lenses. That’s only pixel peeping though, not like you’ll notice it u less you zoom in 1/1, and even then you’d have to have a professional eye to see it.
I liked some from Sony and some from Canon more. For example the first looked a bit better on Canon and the second definitely from Sony. Just nuances which you do not see when not compared side by side and all of them can be edited to look the same in the end or the way you like it. So no need to switch systems here. Just take which system you are in or take the cheapest/lightest.
Totally agree!
These two lenses are amazing. The only key difference is the weight. I hope if ever Canon decides a mark II for the RF, they will shave some weight. I know it's not a big deal when you are used to an EF 70-200 f2.8 lenses, but it makes a difference when you are traveling. I had this Canon lense for a while an it's good but not a mile away from EF 24-70mm f2.8 mark II except in a very low light situation. I would love to try the Sony in a very low light situation. Overall, it's a good thing for the photography world. Tnx for your informative video! 13:49 13:49
Oh ! I Love u! I loved all the info! Thank you so much!
Very interesting comparison, good job 👍🏻
I subscribed 😊
I constantly notice I prefer Canon images over Sony. I notice this in food photography, especially. ...but it holds true here as well.
Quite the workout carrying both of those cameras + lenses 😆
that first sharpness comparison the sony looked a lot sharper, not a tad but unlikely to matter for portraits a much
It’s definitely sharper when you pixel peep! I just meant that overall it’s not that noticeable, unless you really zoom in and look for it
But portrait photography pays more attention to atmosphere and emotion, and sharpness is not very important. canon has better atmosphere
That's not what I saw at all. I thought the Canon looked a tad sharper until I really looked close (on a 5K monitor) and then the Sony looked maybe a tad sharper. It's so close.
@@shangyuhuang5441in your opinion. For me the files have more pop in the Sony images.
Changed my mind
I love canon quality now in photos
And videos in sony
I need to own both now
Very nice comparison... congratulations for the effort put into making such a good video :) hugs
Great review, thank you. In general I find the zoomlens too big and heavy on top of this an f2.0 is mighty expensive. Now as a senior with limited budget, I have purchased Chinese lenses with f0.9 to f1.4 Amazing lenses, back to creativity ❤
I have APC and thinking of upgrading to full frame but I have a hard time deciding whether to get Cannon R5 or Sony R V with those lenses 28-70 f2.0. Thank you of doing this comparison. I think I know which one to get😊
Both look great but the Canon setup just melts my heart every time, the colours are so gorgeous, who cares about the weight when the output is so good! The warms helps a lot, but there’s definitely more to it than that. I could tell the Canon every time, the foliage for example, even with UA-cam compression, looks like it has a better depth to it, it looks more 3 dimensional, less flat. Even with the adjusted images it looks better than the Sony, I don’t know if maybe it has more micro contrast but something makes it stand out more. Just wish I could afford the Canon setup, I’ll keep dreaming 😂
Interesting video. I have to say, that on the whole, I found myself preferring the Sony images. That said, I agree with the pro Canon evaluation of the two that you processed independently. Of course, as you stated, the differences were due to editing and the Canon image was a little brighter in its finished form, which is a definite positive trigger for the human eye. I believe there have been comparative studies which bear this out--take any two identical images and lift one ever so slightly without compromising range or quality, and that will almost always garner the most likes. One other thing I did notice in your comparison images was that the transitional areas between bright and dark seemed slightly better rendered on the Sony files. The Canon seemed almost to blow out highlights in hair for instance whereas those areas were better preserved on the Sony images. This is interesting to me as I do not shoot Sony. I shoot both Canon and Olympus. No matter, all the photos were beautiful examples of what can be achieved with the two high end lenses, good subject matter and talent. Thank you.
Mulțumesc cu iubire și recunoștință pentru acest video tutorial.te binecuvântez!
Thanks for the comparison. Very interesting. From the get go, I always think that Sony's color is a bit cooler and more green and Canon a bit more warm. To each his own, they both are great lens.
Totally agree!
Like the Sony video zoom silence better. For portraits, the Canon gives more pop or what seems like 3D look. Both lenses are awesome.
Loved these real world comparisons.
In my mind knowning Canon's released in 2018 and still stands up strong against a new Sony says a lot for the len. I perfer the Canon over the Sony 10/10 times. They both are chunky lenses so the weight doesn't matter for me.
A very practical and fair comparison. Canon in terms of colour saturation and contrast is better than Sony, while Sony is much lighter. Actually the choice of lens depends on which system you use. I think 24-70 f/2 is on Canon's lens road map.
It's obvious to identify the photos taken with each brand of camera, even if it's just iPhone vs. Samsung vs. OnePlus or Vivo. They all have their unique looks and tint preferences (or whatever processing they do to have those color preferences). Sony with its greenish cast, Nikon with its slightly cooler tones than Canon and slight magenta cast, and Sony with, as we said, greener and neutral tones (neutral for the latest models but highly contrasty with the older generation models like the a7iii and older). iPhones also have similar processing styles, and Samsung has its own style. Basically, no brand is right or wrong.
I usually choose a camera brand based on the quality I get out of its maximum, like RAW capability. Well, that was the case when I first began taking photos, as I was afraid that if I messed up the exposure, I would be safe with the uncompressed RAW. But now I don't find it good to push even the RAW that much, and since I do exposure for other studios and they all require only JPEGs, I base my decision on features, pricing, and lens choices. That's where Sony gets my vote, as I can save some money on lenses and still get good quality, except for the fragile hot shoe.
Like the videos you do awesome efforts and AWESOME PHOTOS as always🎉🎉 OH and one more thing which even i hate about canon is that they do bake noise reduction in RAW files so that they look cleaner than other brands so thats one reason you find Sony files sharper.
You do it very beautifully!
I think both lenses are super impressive. However for people photography I think the focal range from 35-150mm of the Tamron 2.0-2.8 is more useful. I rarely need the focal lengths between 24 and 35 for people photography, but I definitively use 70-150mm. So while I was thinking of purchasing a Sony 28-70mm f2.0 GM, I came to the conclusion that my Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-f2.8 is the more useful lens for me.
I did jump from Canon to the Sony, light weight, small size is so comfortable to work with, different color corection/grading, you need to know how to do it, especially after a few years of work with canon, i can easly match colors that no one can tell which is which
There isn’t a big difference, but there seems to be a bit more pop with the Sony files, and the Sony is also sharper. It’s really impressive when you consider that it is also 2/3rds the weight of the Canon.
As a Sony shooter, I agree that Canon has more pleasing and easy to edit colors. I can see that pictures look more alive/dreamy with canon take. But that are many tricks to achieve the same with Sony. There are Lightroom profiles then you had just contrast and little magenta to your desire. But if own Canon you cannot trick your away into Cheap RF lenses and latest tech Sony always has.
Please do review about your monitor - Benq are you calibrated it it will be very useful info about monitor, calibration and etc. Thanks.
Hi Irene. Beautiful video and cameras! If you do not mind me asking, at what time were those photos taken? Sunset?
Thanks!
Sunset :)
@@IreneRudnyk Thank you!
I wonder why so many photographers write f2 instead of f/2. The f/2 is actually the formula for the aperture, e.g., f=50 mm focal length, aperture = f/2 = 50mm/2 = 25mm. When they write just f2, it looks like if they actually don't understand the basic theory.
1 less character to type.
I can see the differences right away. The tonal range is wider, colors are warmer on shots made with Canon. Canon wins with art. Sony is the winner in sharpness. My heart belongs to Canon.
I love your artworks ❤
4:43 which pen you’re using for editing? You must do your own HW overview
P.s. 👏 to you husband (again :)
Great 1!!
Definitly Canon! I m glad owner of R10 and very happy with these results
I see the biggest difference between the two lenses in the backlight. The Sony lens produces results with significantly less contrast. This indicates that Canon has done a better job of coating the lenses.
I agree with you that the raw material of a photo affects the overall result. I once compared the Leica 50mm F2 APO (using Leica M11) with a Canon RF F1.2 L lens (using Canon R5) at F2.0.
The post-processing of the Leica photos was much easier in terms of sharpness and contrast. But the end results were so similar that the price of the Leica setup of almost 17000 Euros is really not worth it.
For picture style in the canon, do you use portrait?
They were both set to portraits but it doesn’t matter if you shoot RAW
The best lens is the one that fits the camera you have.
It would be interesting to see the result of a comparison with auto modes enabled, incl WBauto. I also, for example, abandoned the C1 because of its strange handling of color and the lack of profiles for many cameras. I don’t know how it works there now, but I’m sure that for those who process in Lightroom, the results may be completely different and for them this comparison will not be representative.
I wonder if the color temp differences you're seeing are a function not just of the glass, but of the camera sensors? Sonys have a bit of a rep for going a bit flat and greenish on the skin tones (I say this as a Sony Shooter). I've not shot Canon so I can't say for certain. Would be great if they could be tested on the same sensor, though I know that's currently impossible.
the cannon is warmer, but interestingly the Sony deals better with the sun highlight's, making them highlights, not just flare, as in the Cannon shot, it looks too flare like (my taste), and I shoot buildings and cars, etc. so deal frequently with flaring lights, and I use MF, 120 Kodak Gold 200 in hasselblad 6x6, and in LF 6x12 with the same film stock, Always with lens hoods if the sun is close, and even add ND [64 {1.8 stops}] to cut sky exposure, so I can get the shot.
Canon color and tones are just gorgeous. Both are great lenses but for color tones Canon cannot be beat.
I love the Canon lens is over 6 years old and still holds up. Good job Sony and Canon
Simple : better for Canon users and better for Sony users... IMO Canon is the clear leader for the bodies... (since 1989 and the first EOS 1)
Sony A1 II is a new leader
@@radohvisc7447leader for what ? Tupperware lovers ?
When you said "differences in the raw file", have you considered that it is not possible to see an image from a raw file without processing it first (or looking at an embedded jpeg)? Looking at it in Lightroom we are actually looking at the raw file + the initial processing done by Lightroom + it is processing according to a (icc) profile. I have made profiles myself with icc profile software, set such profile as default in capture one, and then THAT profile determines how "the raw file is looking".
Semantics, I clearly explained what color profiles and software I was using to view and convert the raw images.
@@IreneRudnyk Yes, you did, but that is not what I referred to. I referred to the unprocessed images which you also showed, and they are actually not unprocessed. You are not the only one; it is very common for people to believe that they can look at a raw file. It is impossible. [Side note: "Semantics" is the study of meanings, and as such should not be dismissed, as the meaning is often the most important part.]
Anyways, this video was very good. It is the first video from you that I have seen. (I wonder why since I watch a lot of photography videos, + you have a huge number of subscribers.) And I shall be back for more.
Thank for the video. Great effort ❤
Very cool I wonder what Canon mark two of this lens will look like for 2025
It'll look like 4 thousand dollars.
@ that’s ok. Makes me money.
Might catch up to the weight of the Sony. More than half a kilo lighter, which is crazy.
10:31 dynamic range, sony is built for dynamic, canon for colors (they use different bayern filters - patterns)
Thank you for your comparison!
When enlarged by pixel unit, I think Sony looks a little clearer because of the camera pixels.
I think it's hard to tell which lens has better resolution.
Then Sony wins in terms of size and weight.
I'm also looking forward to the next Canon lens.
I love this video Irene!! I think the conclusion I came to was that Canon is good at the things that their users generally like about Canon (eg. warmth of colours & dreaminess) and Sony is good at what Sony shooters generally like about them (eg. sharpness & compactness)
In the end, I'm a big Canon girlie and I'll probably always be biased towards their warm colours🥰
For me, it's always the canon that gives the best rendering, it's indisputable
Google translation
I'm Belgian and read your comment on Instagram, thank you
thanks for the video !!!
can u pleaaase do another test. i love my 35mm 1.4 gm but if i buy this thats two similar lenses. could you do a comparison? see if i can let go of my 35 ? its stressful. and cant afford both
I switched to Sony from Canon for the cheaper lens alternatives (Tamron, Sigma), but considering these two lenses are almost the same price, I always loved Canon's warmer, brighter colors, which this 28-70 comparison demonstrates. But for Sony fans, this is a nice addition, which I still can't afford lol
2:13 It was very obvious (but ! i have the 28-70 F2 and the R5 since 3 years now, and i know how it look 😄)
How you Canon and Sony colour grading match ?
I put them side by side try to to match the colors
Canon is better. By a small margin but better. I'm not a Canon user btw
I think Sony 28-70 F2 will be an amazing video lens.
It's hard to find a brand that can beat Canon when it comes to portrait photography.
It’s the lenses, I don’t know what Canon does but their lenses are so dreamy
@@IreneRudnyk The lens does make a difference, but in my personal opinion, Canon's color science especially its emphasis on RGGB, demosaicing algorithm renders more portrait friendly tones, giving human skin a better and more natural appearance
So what’s really being compared are two camera systems, not lenses. There are a lot of things going on here. Lens, sensor, different RAW, in camera processing, the way the RAW software in the computer processes them, etc. So the results will depend on the interactions of everything involved and how the photographer prefers positives and negatives.
You know the lens has to be attached to the camera to use it right?
@ I’ve inly been doing this for 60 years and ran a commercial photo lab, so yes, I know. It wasn’t a criticism. It was just a reminder that there is no such thing as comparing one thing to another when they need to be used with different systems and all that entails. So this is a comparison of a Canon lens with a Canon body, to a Sony lens on a Sony body. There’s nothing wrong with pointing that out. The Ken’s can’t be tested in isolation, unless you want to put them on a collimator, and that only gives some information.
Both are the beast❤
Hi dear, Irene, great comparison and good information, very nice
Conon is the best....
I love it.... ❤❤❤
Sony Wins👍👍👍👍👍👍
Canon colors are much better. You can tweak Sony colors but they wont be natural if colors are wrong from the beginning. You need to basically tweak all the colors to one way or another and that is a big job to do. For sharpness and video, Sony seems to be better but Canon has better colors and better IBIS and IS (in most of the lenses).
From the Sony the face looked slimmer & from the Canon it looked a lot rounder.
I have had the Canon version for a while & I’m curious to see what the Sony has to offer.
I shoot with neither brand, but I like Canon for the photos. Video is a non-factor for for me.
Yay! I picked the Sony correctly - going by pixel peeping long enough at photos taken with the 50mm f/1.2 GM. I recognized the incredibly contrast and resolution of the finer details in the hair.
Great comparison. Sony is sharper but flatter with less 3D pop. Canon raw colors more pleasing to my eyes. Canon images likely faster to edit, while Sony's will take longer to tweak the colors. But after the editing both images side by side look stunning. weight can be a big deal for event photographers +1 for the Sony. great job 👏
Agree. Sony photos always fall flat for me. I will always go with Canon for that reason.
@@chorthao1986Haha, what camera do you have?
Canon for the win, although it's very close.