X-T3 vs A7III vs EOS R vs Z7 vs Pocket 4K - Video Quality Compared!

[Mark Romero 2]

Waiting for release of the Z6 and / or new Sony APS-C.

Of course, I might buy an X-T3 or an a7 III in the meantime...

And for me personally, I can take a (slight) hit in detail / resolution if low light and DR are really good.

[webrunner5]

7 hours ago, PabloB said:

Mattias, I get you just like the Canon image, but I feel it’s because of people like you that Canon get away with the absurdity they do. In this day and age with the technological advancements made in the field, Canon should be doing more but deliberately choose not to. We could/should have a much richer and detailed image full frame 4K (downsampled 6k) WITH the choice to to turn down sharpening for a less detailed image at the very least! 

Canon with all their money and R&D should be able to acquire the best chips and sensors to fit the purpose. With their large market share and projected sales should be able to negotiate all this at better cost than some of their rivals. They choose to do none of this but screw us and sell us outdated tech for even more money increasing their margins all the while. 

Yes I too like the canon image because it was easy to get good colour but today that advantage is minimal to non existent. Canon really needs to be forced to step up and deliver. I feel they are now feeling the pressure but as we can clearly see with the Eos R, they are still trying to resist. There’s so much wrong with that camera that colour science just can’t cover up but when people like you keep spewing that mantra, or ‘soft is actually better’ nonsense, there is no progression. 

I love magic lantern and what they did for the community and us canon faithful, but I can’t help feel that if it had never happened Canon would have been forced to deliver much earlier. 

Out of likes. I could not have said it better. People just buying a damn Canon camera because it is a Canon. Crazy. Even the Z7 has better AF than the EOS-R now.

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, Pedro said:

Can you please explain why?  I usually go for handheld using vintage glass so I am clearly missing out.
Thanks!

All of the IBIS systems I have seen to date seem to occasionally introduce a weird warping effect into the footage. It is unpredictable and can often times ruin otherwise great shots. I just prefer to have more control. If something it going to go wrong when I'm filming, I want it to be my fault... that way I have the power to fix it.

[webrunner5]

Well at my age I would make one hell of a lot more mistakes than IBIS is going to make! ?

[Andrew Reid]

Pixel peeping is alive and well I see!

Nikon Z7 is fine. It is a miracle in full frame from 8.2K down to 4K. Very nice detail level. Very good dynamic range and colour, which Max's test doesn't even touch on.

Z7 in APS-C is similar but less aliasing / stair stepping - but we are talking 4K here, so at normal viewing distances you don't even see the aliasing in full frame mode, let alone in the oversampled Super 35 mode.

The EOS R is soft. So what. It's 4K. You have more detail than you'll ever need unless cropping 4x into the image.

You wanna know why I don't do tests like this very much anymore?

1. Nobody views your film or music video at 400% crop. The absolute sharpness level in 4K means JACK SHIT. What you want is a soft stable cinematic image - not hard digital sharpness. In fact it's an *advantage* to have a softer image for YouTube, when the player is scaling it down to fit any number of screen resolutions - especially a 1080p screen. It looks more natural when people view it downscaled or even on a 4K TV from normal viewing distances. In the first case the downscaling works badly with a digitally sharper, harder image vs a softer, more cinematic one. In the second case the natural downscaling from the human eye at a longer viewing distance makes a less hard 4K image at 1:1 look more natural and less fatiguing than a "harder" image which shows more emphasised detail. We have plenty enough detail in 4K as it is, even on the EOS R and to overemphasise it, like in Max's video, is a BAD THING.

2. The test by Max claims to be about image quality when he's only testing one small aspect of it and not even very well. He's actually looking 90% at the sharpening levels in the menus, rather than outright performance of the image. All the cameras apply a different level of sharpening to bring out extra detail. You can dial it down or up. So what? How natural and cinematic does that fine detail look to the real viewer? That is the real question.

3. Max's video tests just one aspect of the camera and seems to imply it's 90% of what makes a good image. A wide shot of a building with constantly shifting light at dusk so that not even the lighting conditions are matched on each comparison shot. It says nothing of colour, dynamic range, skin-tones, lenses, sensor size, rolling shutter, motion cadence, codec performance, macro blocking, mud, compression, grading, bit-depth, LOG profile performance and  how easy or not it is to grade. These are the things that determine the final result. These are the important things and not ONE in isolation but ALL together.

Go back and do a proper test Max that takes you longer than half an hour... But no, he's got subscriber numbers and viewers to chase so it must be done quick!

1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

OK. Fair point about the price. I do agree that the Z7 was mispriced. Hard to see how they could justify pricing it above the D850 or A7riii. I still think it is a promising first effort though.

Why the Z7 is singled out for criticism because of Max's test is beyond my understanding.

It justifies the pricing over the A7R III because it is a flat out better camera in every aspect of image quality and handling.

It justifies the pricing over the D850 because it adds video AF which actually works, gets rid of the mirror, fixes the ergonomics in live-view, shaves the pounds off and at the same time maintains the incredible video quality.

[webrunner5]

I don't agree. None of those cameras tested other than the PK4 are Cine cameras. 98.5% of everyone that will buy them will use them for their kids, some friends wedding, at a picnic, etc. and upload 10% of it to You Tube. They are not looking for a Cine look. They are looking for detail. They don't want some fuzzy looking footage of their Kids when they look at footage 5 years later. They want sharpness. And the EOS-R is the last damn camera they need to do it with.

Is it Cine footage, well hell no. It is only the crazies like us on here, and other people that make a living doing it, even know what the hell Cine even looks like, or cares. Anyone that is big into a Cine look is not buying a EOS-R to start with. It is pretty useless it appears for Cine work, even 1080p.

For photos hell they are probably soft also knowing Canon. Better to buy a used Nikon D850 or a A7r mk II, mk III if doing photos. Lot more MP. This thing is just a Canon T3i they tried to make do 4K FF. It looks that far behind. Now I do realize this a lower model compared to the top model Z7. So yeah I will give it a little slack for that.

But this thing just looks like some half assed effort, forced out by the top brass to Just say they have a Mirrorless FF camera. Not some I sure as hell hope, the best they can do.

[Andrew Reid]

Yeah but when you look at the so-called "super soft" EOS R 4K footage full screen in normal way it looks tac sharp. The last thing it looks is "super fuzzy".

When you enlarge a 100% crop to 400% like Max, yes it looks fuzzy.

I say... So fucking what?

That is not how people watch your stuff!

[Robin]

Just had a look at Max's test. The only thing that caught my eye was the sharpening on the z7 (I assume that can be turned down further? Unless he already had it down) not a fan of that sort of thing.

I don't think I've ever cropped more than 20% at most and 99% of my shots stay as they are. I have seen no footage from the canon that I thought did not look perfectly detailed and sharp. 

Still not buying one though ?

XT3 is too good for the price out of this bunch.

[Emanuel]

14 hours ago, wolf33d said:

This is the video I wanted @Andrew Reid to make. I have to say the Z7 is quite disappointing. I am also disappointed by XT3 120p cause it does not look really better than the Sony. 

The Canon I fully expected that. But man, what a disaster! This is so embarrassing for Canon. This company should go bankrupt. No one should pay that much for getting such disgusting results. And thanks god he did not do rolling shutter tests! 2.5K for worst rolling shutter, worst 4K, worst 1080p, worst slowmo, and insane crop? Thanks, but no thanks. This company is a joke. 

Canon is a great brand, not only addressed to camera releases, c'mon... I never regretted to buy Canon so far but I make my choices based on their best offer, as happens with everything, other manufacturers included, obviously.

[Andrew Reid]

1 hour ago, Robin said:

Just had a look at Max's test. The only thing that caught my eye was the sharpening on the z7 (I assume that can be turned down further? Unless he already had it down) not a fan of that sort of thing.

Yeah of course it can be turned down far more, and in the Flat profile the micro contrast isn't as hard either.

Max doesn't show that. For whatever reason. Speed of upload and all that.

1 hour ago, Robin said:

I don't think I've ever cropped more than 20% at most and 99% of my shots stay as they are. I have seen no footage from the canon that I thought did not look perfectly detailed and sharp. 

Still not buying one though ?

XT3 is too good for the price out of this bunch.

Yeah but beware the special sauce of that EOS R 4K.... It has... Something. I am not kidding.

[noone]

8 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

Am I the only one who notice the redish color added in Fuji and Nikon cameras?.....for me that´s terrible, footage imposible to use, I stay with Canon, pocket 4K also looked good....

I thought the colour differences MIGHT have been down to the time of day as I think they were likely used at different times and if (say) in the afternoon, light can make a big difference to the sky or on buildings sides.

[Nikkor]

24 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yeah of course it can be turned down far more, and in the Flat profile the micro contrast isn't as hard either.

You can change every parameter you want in any picture style, make your own ones,etc..

To me it looks like he just went for "standard" which is by default super sharpened and with clarity, so people in the store say "whoa this is supa sharp" like they do with TV sets.

1: Flat 2: Standard without sharpening and clarity 3: Default Standard picture style.

[androidlad]

18 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

You can change every parameter you want in any picture style, make your own ones,etc..

To me it looks like he just went for "standard" which is by default super sharpened and with clarity, so people in the store say "whoa this is supa sharp" like they do with TV sets.

1: Flat 2: Standard without sharpening and clarity 3: Default Standard picture style.

As far as I know, on Nikon cameras "clarity" only affects JPEG stills, it has no effect on video.

[DBounce]

40 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yeah of course it can be turned down far more, and in the Flat profile the micro contrast isn't as hard either.

Max doesn't show that. For whatever reason. Speed of upload and all that.

Yeah but beware the special sauce of that EOS R 4K.... It has... Something. I am not kidding.

I'll revisit canon when they have a 1DXMK2 replacement... and if it is amazing. Panasonic, and Fuji are the ones to watch closely right now. ?never thought I'd be including Fuji in that statement.

[Deadcode]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Pixel peeping is alive and well I see!

Nikon Z7 is fine. It is a miracle in full frame from 8.2K down to 4K. Very nice detail level. Very good dynamic range and colour, which Max's test doesn't even touch on.

Z7 in APS-C is similar but less aliasing / stair stepping - but we are talking 4K here, so at normal viewing distances you don't even see the aliasing in full frame mode, let alone in the oversampled Super 35 mode.

The EOS R is soft. So what. It's 4K. You have more detail than you'll ever need unless cropping 4x into the image.

You wanna know why I don't do tests like this very much anymore?

1. Nobody views your film or music video at 400% crop. The absolute sharpness level in 4K means JACK SHIT. What you want is a soft stable cinematic image - not hard digital sharpness. In fact it's an *advantage* to have a softer image for YouTube, when the player is scaling it down to fit any number of screen resolutions - especially a 1080p screen. It looks more natural when people view it downscaled or even on a 4K TV from normal viewing distances. In the first case the downscaling works badly with a digitally sharper, harder image vs a softer, more cinematic one. In the second case the natural downscaling from the human eye at a longer viewing distance makes a less hard 4K image at 1:1 look more natural and less fatiguing than a "harder" image which shows more emphasised detail. We have plenty enough detail in 4K as it is, even on the EOS R and to overemphasise it, like in Max's video, is a BAD THING.

2. The test by Max claims to be about image quality when he's only testing one small aspect of it and not even very well. He's actually looking 90% at the sharpening levels in the menus, rather than outright performance of the image. All the cameras apply a different level of sharpening to bring out extra detail. You can dial it down or up. So what? How natural and cinematic does that fine detail look to the real viewer? That is the real question.

3. Max's video tests just one aspect of the camera and seems to imply it's 90% of what makes a good image. A wide shot of a building with constantly shifting light at dusk so that not even the lighting conditions are matched on each comparison shot. It says nothing of colour, dynamic range, skin-tones, lenses, sensor size, rolling shutter, motion cadence, codec performance, macro blocking, mud, compression, grading, bit-depth, LOG profile performance and  how easy or not it is to grade. These are the things that determine the final result. These are the important things and not ONE in isolation but ALL together.

Go back and do a proper test Max that takes you longer than half an hour... But no, he's got subscriber numbers and viewers to chase so it must be done quick!

Why the Z7 is singled out for criticism because of Max's test is beyond my understanding.

It justifies the pricing over the A7R III because it is a flat out better camera in every aspect of image quality and handling.

It justifies the pricing over the D850 because it adds video AF which actually works, gets rid of the mirror, fixes the ergonomics in live-view, shaves the pounds off and at the same time maintains the incredible video quality.

He did this test with factory default settings. Low light and dynamic range comparison is coming soon.

If we compare cameras in their "best" settings and match them in post, it would give a lot of room to cheating... and favor one over another.

I dont understand why  you are defending the EosR or the Z7. In one post you hammering the EosR because it's shit, in another post you bless it's glorious image.

 

[Nikkor]

35 minutes ago, androidlad said:

As far as I know, on Nikon cameras "clarity" only affects JPEG stills, it has no effect on video.

D-lighting was also stills only until the d500, but I remeber hearing clarity was also a video thing now. @Andrew Reid could check?

[Jordan Drake]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Go back and do a proper test Max that takes you longer than half an hour... But no, he's got subscriber numbers and viewers to chase so it must be done quick!

 

Max repeatedly stated that this was the first of several tests. I'd rather see his findings as he shoots them, then wait a month for a 40 minute video with all the results in every category. 
 

[Nikkor]

7 minutes ago, Jordan Drake said:

Max repeatedly stated that this was the first of several tests. I'd rather see his findings as he shoots them, then wait a month for a 40 minute video with all the results in every category. 
 

Well if the other tests are like the frist one... Will he compare the dynamic range from 10bit log on the fuji with 8bit internal Vivid picturestyle on the nikon? Who knows...

[mercer]

He’s notoriously “fair” but only to the brands he wants to win. I stopped watching his videos when he performed his  “...vs the C200 tests” last year.

[docmoore]

3 hours ago, Jordan Drake said:

Max repeatedly stated that this was the first of several tests. I'd rather see his findings as he shoots them, then wait a month for a 40 minute video with all the results in every category. 
 

Agree with the sentiment.

But 5 cameras ... whenever I have a new camera it takes months to discern all of the intricacies of the menus dynamics and gotcha's.

Truth be told ... any of these five will be profoundly better than most cameras a generation ago. Camera generation wise.

Hopefully someone in the Youtub... sphere will have the humility and gravitas to suggest that reviewing anything today is not a quick process

but one that evolves over the life of the product. 

And honestly any of these cameras will exceed the modest needs of most of us.

You buy a horse after you have checked its flanks and its dentation. Ride it like you stole it. 

If we ... corporately spent more time shooting video than parsing the most recent expert review ... there would be some amazing

mind numbing videos ...