Informal High ISO RAW File Image Comparison: Canon 5D Mk II vs Sony A99 vs Sony RX-1

Back in September, Sony flew myself and other journalists out to test their latest products out in real world settings. A while back, I gave everyone a very informal image comparison between the Sony A99, 5D Mk II, and RX-1. The problem was though that back then the RX-1′s raw files weren’t supported in Adobe Lightroom 4. And now, they are.

Here is that test redone for your viewing pleasure.

Gear Used

For this test we used the Canon 5D Mk II paired with the 35mm f1.4 USM L, Sony A99 with the 24-70mm f2.8, and the RX1.

Be also sure to check out our Sony A99 review and our Extended first impressions of the Sony RX1.

Technique for the Test

All three images were shot in RAW and approximately shot the same scene. Careful measures were taken to ensure that the same exposure was set for each photo.

In our original test, we also saw that the Canon 5D Mk II’s white balance was quite off. In this test, we are showing the original white balance and a closely color corrected version.

All images were sized down to 2MB files at 72 PPI to simulate the effects of where most of our images go: the web. All color correction and resizing was done in Adobe Lightroom 4.

Files

Canon 5D Mk II at ISO 6400 1/1000th f2.8 uncolor corrected

Canon 5D Mk II ISO 6400 1/1000 f2.8 color corrected

Sony A99 ISO 6400 1/1000th f2.8

Sony RX-1 ISO 6400 1/1000 f2.8

Inferences

- The Canon 5D Mk II still can hold its own quite well.

- Color correcting obviously introduced more noise into the Canon file. But Sony’s white balancing is better if you’re looking at upgrading.

- The RX-1 looks to be the cleanest file of the three.

- The A99′s file seems to be the most detailed.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments below.

Please Support The Phoblographer

We love to bring you guys the latest and greatest news and gear related stuff. However, we can’t keep doing that unless we have your continued support. If you would like to purchase any of the items mentioned, please do so by clicking our links first and then purchasing the items as we then get a small portion of the sale to help run the website.

Also, please follow us on Facebook, Flickr and Twitter.

Tagged as: Canon 5D Mk II, comparison, high iso, sony a99, sony rx1

Pingback: High ISO RAW comparison between Canon 5D Mark II vs Sony A99 vs Sony RX1 - Blog for micro four third and competing cameras
Curious

This isn’t really a fair comparison, based on my own opinion. Canon’s 5D mark ll was released on September 2008, and at that time, the camera’s technology was considered the best. Comparing it with Sony’s A99 and RX-1 which was released in 2012 isn’t very fair, due to the technological advances which obviously can make any company’s flagship camera overthrow the other’s within those years. If it was only one year then there would not have any major differences. However, comparing against a camera which had 2008′s strongest technology is basically shouting out bias, why compare against the 5D MK ll when there is the 5D MK lll? Moreover, 5D MK lll was released on 2012, which then would have made the comparison fair in terms of showing off the camera’s strength and weaknesses, as all three would have a fair ground in terms of its technology. 5D MK lll definitely is better than the MK ll. Unless, it’s about going against the strongest camera that most professionals use currently, which then 5D MK lll would not have been used to compare as the MK lll is expensive and just released, making everyone ponder about whether they should get the camera since they have their own preferences. Or it’s just to make the cameras look good against a older camera model, when illustrated, it is like pitting a young strong horse against a aging star but that star still has its strengths. In simple context, why pit the Sony cameras which so obviously have much more strength in terms of its development against the “old” Canon 5D MK ll when there is the MK lll which definitely makes the comparison fairer? The MK ll is a great flagship camera of Canon’s but to make it look “bad” against the newly developed Sonys just doesn’t make justice.
- http://twitter.com/MikeNorthshore Northshore Mike
  
  I do believe Chris uses a 5D2,maybe that was why at the time. My guess. It is also a testament to how great a camera the 5D2 was and is. My 2 cents.
- ChrisGampat
  
  This test goes to show just how far the technology has come since that legendary camera was announced. The Mk III at 6400 isn’t much better.
  - jake
    
    right all agreed , depite all these raving review and hypes for the D800, D600, A99v ,5D3 ,etc , they are not still much better than the 5D2 at high ISO and none of these cameras are truly usable at this kind of super high ISO.
    I still think there is no camera with really usable IQ at ISO3200 and onwards (even the D4 , the D3s and 1DX are not good enough at that high ISO, period).
jones

this “test” is not even a test
http://twitter.com/lexplex_ Alex

Blogger prefers Canon then is taken on all-expenses-paid trip on Sony’s money, then decides through pseudo-science that Sony is better. Shocker.
- ChrisGampat
  
  Your ignorant comment means you probably didn’t look at the test or realize how good that old camera still is.
  
  - Chris Gampat
  Editor in Chief
  The Phoblographer
Pingback: Informal High ISO RAW File Image Comparison: Canon 5D Mk II vs Sony A99 vs ... - 3G eStick
Pingback: Man Orders Canon 5D Mark III Camera, Receives Box Of Laminate Flooring … | Incredibledb