Hi, this is Jay P. Morgan and Kenneth Merrill. Today on The Slanted Lens we’ve got a camera comparison for still photographers. The Canon 5D Mark IV, the Nikon D810, and the Sony A7R II.
We’re shooting out in Pasadena. Our goal is to get a direct comparison, so we’ve got native lenses and our settings are the same on each camera to see how each system inherently stacks up. We’re using Vanguard tripods to make it easy to shoot and go, since we could be kicked out at any minute.
Picture Quality
First, picture quality. We’re shooting at 100 ISO 2.8, letting the shutter drag. Our white balance is at 6,000 Kelvin. Although it’s sunny we’re standing in a shaded alley so our primary source of light is the blue sky. So 6,000 Kelvin will warm up our images.
The Canon has some stepping when punched way in compared to the Nikon and Sony. The RAW gamma processor makes the Nikon and Sony brighter than the Canon. The Canon has the least contrast, Nikon the most, and Sony the nicest. The Nikon and Sony both have a nice, sharp image.
Auto Focus
For auto focus we pulled the image out of focus and then let the camera find it. The Sony (a maze of menus) did does not want to be out of focus. The camera controls the focus of the lens at all time. You have to press the shutter button to create a focus lock. The Canon was pretty consistent. Nikon hits it right on. Sony’s control of the focus made it so we didn’t really need the test. In terms of sharpness, Nikon hit it out of the park vs the Canon with one exception, out of the five shots the auto focus missed completely on one.
We also tried an auto focus test where our model walked towards us. It’s an al servo mode on the Nikon and Canon. Sony has a face detection method which was nice. They all worked great, but the Sony seemed to be better in this area.
Image for image they all focus pretty well.
Dynamic Range
At this level most cameras are very similar. We shot in one third increments. The Canon had great range. Nikon was much more contrasty. It was about 2/3 stops brighter than the Canon. The Sony had great open shadows. More detail in the highlights and shadows.
Low Light ISO
We wanted to see how far we could push our ISO in low light. We went inside and shot against a dark background. We shot at 1.8, which was our slowest lens. Our white balance was 4400, and our shutter speed was adjusted along with our ISO. The Canon stayed clean until about ISO 800, but it wasn’t bad at all. At 3200 we started to see it in the midtones. At 12800 it was grainy. ISO 25600 looked really like film grain. Nikon was clean until 3200 in the low midtones. At 6400 it became very pronounced and seems a bit noisier than the Canon. The Sony noise was more blocky. It really started to show at 6400 but was cleaner than in the Canon or Nikon. The contrast also increased vs in the Nikon or Canon. At 25600 we saw fixed pattern noise.
So what do you think? Let us know in the comments or over on our Facebook community page. Thanks for watching and remember, keep those cameras rollin’ and keep on clickin’.
-Jay P.
great job…. Im a nikon shooter… and would love to get a D810, but just out of my price range at the moment
Hi,
First, I really enjoyed your presentation and analysis of the 3 different cameras. One thing that I did not hear you comment on was color saturation. I think in photography having a well saturated image right out of the gate is of utmost importance. I thoroughly enjoyed and learned about and from the comparisons of each of the 3 cameras. Again in my personal and somewhat professional opinion, color is key, especially when shooting portraiture photos of people.
In my personal opinion, despite its limitations, the Sony won the day for me. For most general photos, the coloration of the Sony was more true and the colors far more accurate than either the Nikon and the Canon…
On a personal note, I am very angry at Canon for their inability and their open unwillingness to adhere to their product warranties and their lack of ability to honor their warranty as written. I own 2 canon products, both older and I would love to rid myself of them. I have a Canon Rebel xTI-400D still camera and a Canon GL2 Camcorder. I experienced issues and problems with both units and could not get Canon to honor their warranty to affect the necessary repairs. I ended up forking out several hundred dollars needlessly to have the unit serviced and repaired professionally.
For a camera, I would love to upgrade and move away from the canon unit that I have altogether, but reality bites and I cannot for the moment. I would prefer not buying a Nikon, but will if i can find one that will fall in my budget.
For a camcorder, I would prefer a Sony camcorder in the “prosumer” level and would like a Sony HVR‑Z5U. I’ve used them before and really like them. They are real workhorses. i would probably stay away from the sony SLR units because of the problems associated with the learning curve and actual use. Nikon has a bit of a learning curve to get around, but once familiar with them, the SLR are great for public events and public functions. They are also much quicker and respond much faster than any Canon unit I’ve ever used. I like the ease of use with a Nikon for the most part.
I am no professional photog, but have done photography on a semi-professional basis. I am for most intents and purposes, a novice photog… one who really enjoys taking pictures. I will never be a professional level photographer and I could never afford the photography equipment.
Thank you for this very professional, honest and open review. Although your comments are slightly biased and border on personal, they are nevertheless informative and insightful. Thank you again and Happy New Year!
James M. Williams Jr.
Great job as usual. Nice model! Not the cameras. Did I mis something? I didn’t hear Kenneth talk about comparisons on camera ergonomics?
Sounds like Sony is the clear winner!
Great review as always, I switched to the Sony A7R2 recently from the Canon 5dM3, so far so good. Quality is very good, lenses that I have are exceptional for sure, Sony 85 G lens is really as good as the Canon 85 1.2 that I used to have, and the 50mm Zeiss is crazy good. Still waiting for the 70/200 2.8, sony Don’t Let Me Down!!!
Great review and comparison. Thanks, The Slanted Lens.
Great article. I wonder how the Pentax K1 would compare with this group.
Always informative, always entertaining. Thanks for all you do. I’m still in crop sensor land (Nikon). If and when I move into full frame territory, I’ll look at Canon a bit more closely for its video capabilities. For photography, the low light functions of the Canon was appealing to me. I do some events but I’m able to use speedlights. There are times when the available light would have created a more pleasing mood. So, yes, a camera with great low light capability will be high on the list for me when I upgrade. Currently use an older D90 and D7000. They work fine. Knowledge still rules. Thanks again.
Hi guys, some questions and comments..
Regarding the autofocus test, it wasn’t clear to me whether you were on full auto, or single point auto. I shoot Nikon (the 800, the 810’s slightly older sibling) and find the autofocus only has the problem you found in the full multipoint auto, depending upon the setting.
Regarding the dynamic range tests, were you shooting RAW or JPEG? (Maybe you said and I missed it.) Nikon has dynamic contrast control, but it only applies to JPEG, with the thinking (I would assume) that you’ll use the images straight out of camera, whereas you’ll adjust RAWs. For most pros, it may be useful to see how much dyanmic range you can pull out during RAW conversion for circumstances where you have no choice but to shoot without controlling the light (presumably no serious photographer would opt for this, but it gets forced on us sometimes).
One comment made early on was that lens perform best stopped down from wide open a couple of sttops. Unless I’m mistaken, while this was once accurate, it no longer is for many pro-quality lenses. The idea is that depth of field counteracts abberation, but you get more and more defraction as you stop down; some tests (see Tony Northrup’s among others) suggest that lens technology has come so far in controlling abberation that they are sharpest wide open, albeit with the least depth of field. All that said, however, how this applies to the specific lens you used remains in question, and in any case, you set all the same, so I suspect your comparison is no less valid.
Another comment I heard was that the higher megapixel sensors would be expected to have lower noise. My understanding is the opposite; higher megapixel sensors have more difficulty with reduciing noise because they have more sites in a given area, so you have more heat transfer (a big noise source) from one to the next. In Nikon, the flagship is the D5, which has 20.8 mpx with a highest 102,400 ISO, extended to 3,280,000. The 810, which has the same size (FX) sensor is 36.3 mpx, ISO 12,800 (51,200 extended). All this said, however, cameras are getting better and better at handling noise, so previous generation cameras with lower mpx didn’t perform as well as today’s with higher. For example, I shot a D300 for years (12 mpx); it didn’t perform at high ISOs as well as my D800 does today, and at the pace of technology, I would expect the 810 to be even better..
Overall, thanks for the useful comparison. it shows a lot about the cameras.