Full Frame Upgrade for Hybrid Shooters - Sony A1 vs. Canon R5 C vs Nikon Z9 (AMA)

I'm upgrading from a GH5 camera to full frame. I shoot both video and stills, so I'm looking for a true hybrid camera option. 8k (and preferably at 60fps) is important to me for future-proofing stock footage. 

Through a series of incidents, I ended up in the possession of a Sony A1 (with EF 16-35F4 image-stabilized lens), Canon R5 C (with RF14-35F4 and RF15-35F2.8 image stabilized lenses) and Nikon Z9 (with Nikkor Z 14-30F4 lens), not image stabilized. I No underwater housings yet, but I figure I can put them through a series of top-side tests to figure out which is the most capable solution for an underwater shooter looking for a true hybrid camera. And since I'm doing the tests, why not share my results in a series of posts and invite you guys to suggest other tests as well. So let's begin!

Image Stabilization

I was worried that I'd be giving up something with the R5 C because it lacks IBIS. But for handheld shots and panning with the two lenses I have (both which come with lens stabilization), I didn't really see much difference as between the three cameras. Canon's lens stabilization seemed to make up for the lack of IBIS in the R5 C. The Z9's IBIS did just fine despite the 14-30 not having lens image stabilization. Overall, for non-moving handheld shots on land either trying to hold a particular framing or panning around, there was no meaningful difference in the results. All three were good. 

Video Codecs - File Size

With 8k resolution comes massive file sizes. So which camera offers the best compression options when it comes to RAW and h.265 codecs? For reference, the GH5 shoots 4k 4:2:0 60p at 150mbps. 

1. Raw Codecs - 8K60p

The Nikon Z9

• N-RAW at 8.3k60P (High Quality) - 5780mbps or 12 minutes on 512gb card
• N-RAW at 8.3k60P (Normal Quality) - 3740mbps or 20 minutes on 512gb card
• N-RAW at 8.3k30P (High Quality) - 2890mbps or 24 minutes on 512gb card
• N-RAW at 8.3k30P (Normal Quality) - 1740mbps or 40 minutes on 512gb card

The Canon R5 C

• Canon RAW LT at 8k60P - 2570mbps or 27 minutes on 512gb card
• Canon RAW ST at 8k30P - 1980mbps or 34 minutes on 512gb card
• Canon RAW LT at 8k60P - 1290mbps or 53 minutes on 512gb card

Sony A1 doesn't offer any 8K raw options. So the winner is clearly the Canon R5 C, with RAW LT files that are 75% the size of the Nikon normal quality files. I'll update this with info on how easy the raw codecs are to edit tomorrow.

2. h.265 LongGOP Codecs - 8K30p

None of the cameras offer an 8k60p non-raw codec. The R5 C and Z9 should in theory be able to film at those frame rates, so the limitation appears to be the MP4 compression pipeline. The A1 can't film at 8k60, only 8k30. 

The Nikon Z9

• H.265 422 10 bit at 8k30 - 400mbps or 171 minutes on 512gb card

The Canon R5 C

• HEVC 422 10 bit - 8k30 (DCI) - 540mbps or 126 minutes on 512gb card - works with a V60 SD card. 
• HEVC 420 10 bit - 8k30 (DCI) - 400mbps or 171 minutes on 512gb car

The Sony A1

• XAVC HS 8K 422 10 bit - 8k30  - 520mbps (131 minutes on 512gb card)  OR 260mbps. For some reason, the 520mbps requires a CFEXPRESS TYPE B or V90 SD card. Won't work on a V60 card.
• XAVC HS 8K 420 10 bit - 8k30  - 400mbps or (171 minutes on 512gb card) OR 200mbps  The 400mbps works with V60 card. 

The A1 has the most compression options, including a codec that's half the size of the R5C and Z9 codecs. But the A1's weakness is that the highest quality 540mbps codec  requires a V90 SD card, whereas the other two can record this format on cheaper (per GB) CFEXPRESS Type B cards.  Thus.. no clear winner, in my view. If your goal is to have the smallest 8k30 files though, the A1 wins with file sizes 50% the size of those coming off the Z9 and R5 C. 

3. h.265 LongGOP Codecs - 4K60p

The Nikon Z9

• H.265 422 10 bit at 4k60 - 340mbps or 201 minutes on 512gb card

The Canon R5 C

• HEVC 422 10 bit -4k60 (DCI) - 225mbps or 303 minutes on 512gb card
• HEVC 420 10 bit - 4k60 (DCI) - 170mbps or 402 minutes on 512gb card
• XF-AVC YCC 422 10 bit 4k60 (DCI)  - 260mbps or 232 minutes on 512gb card

The Sony A1

• XAVC HS 4K 422 10 bit - 4k60  - 200mbps OR 100mbps (341 or 683 minutes on 512gb card)
• XAVC HS 4K 420 10 bit - 4k60  - 150mbps OR 75mbps OR 45mbps 

Here, the Sony A1 has the most compression options, but comes last in terms of image quality because the 4k60 uses line-skipping, whereas both the Z9 and the R5 C downsample the full 8k sensor to 4k when filming at 60 fps. The Canon R5 C is the winner for most usable 4K60 LongGOP format, allowing for file sizes 66% the size of those from the Z9. 

In the next post, I plan to cover Subject Tracking in Video, Animal Eye Detect and whether it works with Fish, Manual White Balance and battery life. But please ask me anything -- happy to run other tests if I can. 

Sounds like an interesting test.  The obvious question to me how about testing with macro lenses?  This is probably where IS and auto focus will be put to the test more so than wide angle lenses.

1 hour ago, ChrisRoss said:

Sounds like an interesting test.  The obvious question to me how about testing with macro lenses?  This is probably where IS and auto focus will be put to the test more so than wide angle lenses.

=> Testing C-AF of a small, central, field with subsequent trekking for re-framing (in plenty of light and low light) would be a great test (I think the fancy algoritms for subject, face, animal etc. detection may not be so useful for UW)...

With establishes macro lenses (Nikon 105, Canon EF and RF 100, Sony 90, Sigma 105 (for Sony)). Comparison with GH5 and Zuiko 60mm or Pana 45mm will give a good reference for many of us...

I know, I am asking too much, but you asked for suggestions...

Wolfgang

6 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Sounds like an interesting test.  The obvious question to me how about testing with macro lenses?  This is probably where IS and auto focus will be put to the test more so than wide angle lenses.

Unfortunately I only have the Sony 90mm macro. No Canon RF or Nikkor Z macro lenses, or I'd be happy to test. If anyone in South Florida is willing to lend me a Canon or Nikon macro, I'd be happy to team up to test them

But I do plan to test animal eye detect at 30-35mm with the wide angle lenses, and object tracking in video for tracking fish (using underwater videos on YouTube as 'targets', hah). The object tracking implementation appears quite different across the three systems, with Canon's cinema operating system in particular widely perceived as more limited than their photo interface (and the interface offered by Nikon and Sony). So this might be a meaningful point of differentiation between the different systems. 

What happens if you find that one of the three is best for video, e.g., the Canon, another of the three is best for stills, e.g., the Nikon, while the third one is best for swimming  with (because it is the smallest and should have the smallest housing), e.g., the Sony? Be aware that Nikon just updated the FW for the Z9 yesterday to improve the eye AF. Not using FW 2.1 would invalidate your conclusions regarding AF.

I also suspect that using a video image to test AF, tracking, etc.will have issues due to nature of the electronic image. It might be better to go to a public aquarium that has a huge tank and shoot there especially if the room is darkened. Keep in mind you will be shooting through a flat port so best try to be perpendicular. It might need three trips doing one camera at a time unless you like carrying that much around with you.

3 hours ago, Tom_Kline said:

What happens if you find that one of the three is best for video, e.g., the Canon, another of the three is best for stills, e.g., the Nikon, while the third one is best for swimming  with (because it is the smallest and should have the smallest housing), e.g., the Sony?

It would be quite the conundrum (for me). But at least we'll document that so others know the various strength and weaknesses of each system. Truthfully, the only reason the Sony A1/A7S III are in the discussion for me is because they have unique access to the WWL-1 and smaller housings (vis a vis the Z9 and R5 C.) They would make a more compelling package for travelling, but perhaps they give up too much in other areas. 

3 hours ago, Tom_Kline said:

 Be aware that Nikon just updated the FW for the Z9 yesterday to improve the eye AF. Not using FW 2.1 would invalidate your conclusions regarding AF.

Yep, Z9 has v 2.1 firmware installed as of yesterday and A1 has v. 1.3 firmware with the new 8k 4:2:2 codec. 

3 hours ago, Tom_Kline said:

I also suspect that using a video image to test AF, tracking, etc.will have issues due to nature of the electronic image. It might be better to go to a public aquarium that has a huge tank and shoot there especially if the room is darkened. Keep in mind you will be shooting through a flat port so best try to be perpendicular. It might need three trips doing one camera at a time unless you like carrying that much around with you.

This is why I'm not testing for focusing speed (no depth to video images anyway) but merely the algorithm's ability to recognize underwater subjects (when it comes to Animal Eye autofocus) or fish/fish eyes as a discrete subject (when it comes to general object tracking like Nikon's 3d tracking, Canon's 'tracking' and Sony's Real Time Tracking.) All these algorithms are doing is recognizing objects. An aquarium would be a better test indeed because it introduces the element of depth as an additional data point for the algorithm to use (if it does). Maybe I'll visit one on the weekend.

Good points. I would be concerned if there was aliasing between the AF and the raster image of the video. For example if there is a moire pattern, how would the eye detect algorithm deal with that?

There is a moire pattern when shooting images of my high rez (6K) computer monitor which I do when following instructions on a pdf manual and playing with the settings - great to do on rainy days.

Subject Tracking Autofocus

For this test, I used the excellent "Mucky Secrets" YouTube documentary from Bubble Vision and tried to get the tracking algorithms to recognize and follow the various fish, critters and nudibranchs of the Lembeh straight. 

1. Sony A1

The A1 has real time tracking (in photo mode) which advertises the ability to identify animal and bird eyes. I tested this with various fish and critter targets. It doesn't work. In photo mode, it also has a general object tracking  (similar to Nikon's 3d tracking) which you can select from the Focus Mode by by picking "Tracking: Center Fix" or "Tracking: Spot M". You engage tracking by pressing the AF-ON button, so it doesn't require the touchscreen, which means it can be used in a housing. This worked quite well with entire fish or their eyes (if large enough in the frame). 

As far as I can see there is no animal eye AF in video mode. Apparently only the newer A7IV has it. But there is object tracking system, which works fine for selecting eyes or entire fish. However, the only way I could engage it was with the touch screen, which obviously doesn't work underwater. I wonder if there's a way to map activation to one of the custom buttons.

2. Nikon Z9

In photo mode, the Z9 has 3d tracking and animal + bird eye detect. Like the A1, the animal eye detect doesn't seem to distinguish fish. However, the 3d tracking can be activated and the subject selected by placing the rectangle over a fish or its eye and pressing the AF-ON button. Like with the A1, this works very well for tracking the fish or its eye.

No 3d tracking in video mode. Subjects could be selected and tracked just like on the A1 by touch focus. This worked well on fish eyes and entire fish. You can also set the AF-area mode to Subject Tracking AF. I this mode, you get a single central spot that you can place over a target and initiate tracking using the AF-ON button. You can then release the subject by pressing the OK button. Overall, seems to work the same as 3d tracking in stills mode and can reliably track fish eyes or fish. 

3. Canon R5 C

In Photo mode, the R5 C can set AF method to Face + Tracking and Subject to detect to Animals. With these settings, the R5 C sometimes would recognize the eye of fish even if the target was set elsewhere. It's the only one of the three that can recognize eyes of sub-aquatic animals. Moreover, you can place the target square over an entire fish or its eye and initiate subject tracking with AF-ON. This works as well as with the A1 or Z9. 

In Video mode, the interface is different. There is no automatic detection of animal eyes, but if you set the AF Frame to "Whole Area", you can initiate subject tracking by touching the object on the screen. Alternatively, you can configure a custom key to "Tracking". Pressing the custom key will then bring up a "+" target on screen which you can place over the fish or its eye. Subsequently pressing "Set" will start tracking whatever object the "+" is on top of. You can stop tracking by pressing cancel. This seems to work a pretty well, but is a bit more clunky to activate than the Nikon Z9's Subject Tracking AF in video mode.

Winner - Canon R5 C for photos since its Animal Eye Detect actually finds fish eyes. For video, Z9 wins by a hair over the R5 C because subject tracking is easier to initiate. But both are capable. The Sony A1 is the least capable with no way to activate subject tracking underwater AFAIK. 

Z9 3D tracking mode works differently than having the camera find the subject within a designated area (this area is quite variable and is selected separately from detection mode). Doing vids, 3D might be preferred if you are able to see your subject at the start. I tend to have the camera find the subject for me using one of the rectangles (from FW 2.0 on)  but pick where in the frame to pick from. For example I picked a narrow horizon box so the AF picked a bird from the row of birds that I selected - keeping the frame over the row if I recomposed. Birds were entering and departing by flight from each row (resting shorebirds). Worked well for that.

Thanks for doing these tests Dreifish!

Following...  

Can you Edit The Video Codecs?

First, I tested this on my 2018 15" Macbook pro ( 2.2 GHz 6-Core Intel Core i7, 16gb ram, Radeon Pro 555X 4 GB). I have a 2022 M1 Max Macbook Pro on order, so I'll repeat the tests with the more powerful system later.

Nikon Z9

• 8k N-RAW would play back at no more than 16-17 fps in Davinci Resolve, whether decoded in full, half, or quarter resolution
• 8k h.265 8k30p 422 10-bit plays back at almost but not quite real time (30fps)
• 4k h.265 4k60 422 10-bit plays back in real time most of the time (60fps) but stutters once in a while
• Raw files allow for white balance to be pushed up to 50000k and +150 tint
• Raw files with Custom White Balance set in camera start out at no more than 10000k, suggesting in-camera custom white balance maxes out at 10000k.

Same white wall lit up with a 5000k video light through a Lee 353 Lighter Blue gel, First, with CWB done in camera. Second with WB deliberately set wrong at 3000k in camera and adjusted to 10000k to match the in-camera CWB during raw decode.  No matter how I adjusted the color temperature and tint, despite the wider range than what's available on the Canon RAW files, I could not neutralize the Lee 353 gel in post. Whereas both the Canon and Nikon were able to neutralize the gel almost perfectly when setting CWB in camera.

Canon R5 C

• 8k Canon RAW LT & ST plays back at 17-18 fps in Davinci Resolve if decoded at Full Res (Resolve) or 2-3 fps if decoded at Full Res (Canon). Decoding at Half Res is still 17-18fps but going to Quarter Res gets you ~26fps. Still not editable (unless filming at 24p I guess)
• 8k30p h.265 in 422 10-bit plays back at 13-14fps
• 8k30p h.265 in 420 10-bit plays back at 24fps
• 4k60 h.265 in 422 10bit plays back at ~20fps
• 4k60 h.265 in 420 10bit plays back at ~29fps
• 4k60 XF-AVC in 422 10 bit plays back at 29fps.
• Raw files only allow for white balance in raw decoding to be pushed up to 15000k! and +150 tint. 
• Raw files with Custom White Balance set in camera also seem to max out at 15000k and +150 tint. However, the results are not the same! If I set the Custom White Balance in camera and shoot in raw, vs shooting in raw and putting in the same settings again in post, the CWB in camera achieves better results with more neutral white balance. This suggests that with the Canon raw files, some of the white balance setting are nonetheless baked in! 

Same white wall lit up with a 5000k video light through a Lee 353 Lighter Blue gel, First, with CWB done in camera. Then with WB deliberately set wrong at 2700k in camera and adjusted to 15000k during raw decode. Judge the histograms for yourself..  

Sony A1

• 8k30p h.265 in 422 10-bit plays back at 22 fps
• 8k30p h.265 in 420 10-bit plays back at 32 fps
• 4k60 h.265 in 422 10bit plays back at ~35 fps
• 4k60 h.265 in 420 10bit plays back at 60fps -- only editable format!
• 4k120 h.265 in 422 10 bit plays back at 29fps.
• 4k120 h.265 in 422 10 bit plays back at ~27fps.
• 4k120 h.265 in 42010 bit plays back at ~52fps.
• CWB in camera was able to neutralize the Lee 353 Lighter Blue gel just fine:

Conclusion -- wow, terrible. I would say none of the Z9 or R5 C codecs is really editable without proxies on an older machine. Of the A1 codecs, only the 4k60p in 4:2:0 10-bit was editable. Guess if you're getting any of these cameras, budget for a newer computer, too!

Next up -- a deeper exploration CWB's ability to neutralize various shades of green/blue introduced using Lee and Rosco gels to simulate underwater ambient light at depth. Will test both with CWB set in camera and set in post for the Canon R5 C and Z9 when shooting raw to see how much of the white balancing you can leave to post with these 'raw' video formats.  

The current generation of hardware and graphic cards digest 4k60 very well in either prores raw (mac) or even all intra codec

In water as none of the RAW has auto white balance you will have to white balance anyway so personally I do not see a significant benefit of RAW as cameras operate differently in video than still

Also from the bitrates I see here only the Nikon seems to be nearing the bitrate of ProRes RAW I doubt the canon files can really be pushed

I am sticking to 4k for the foreseeable future. I can shoot 5.7K raw with the GH6 but actually I use all intra 800 mbps for 60fps and works very well

7 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

The current generation of hardware and graphic cards digest 4k60 very well in either prores raw (mac) or even all intra codec

Yes, and the newest Intel and Apple processors / NVIDEA/AMD graphics cards also have dedicated video decoders/encoders for most common formats, including h.265 & h.264 LongGOP. I expect editing both the 4k120 and 8k30 LongGOP files to be non-issues on newer hardware. But it's a challenge for this 4-year old Macbook. Nikon made a big deal about their N-RAW video format being easy to edit. Doesn't seem to be the case (or any different than the Canon RAW) in my testing so far. I expect Prores Raw may indeed be a bit more edit friendly, but only the Z9 allows for filming that internally, and only in 4k. It also according to other reports has quality issues in the downscaling. I will test that codec as well in my next batch of tests to see how it handles white balance adjustments in post.

8 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

In water as none of the RAW has auto white balance you will have to white balance anyway so personally I do not see a significant benefit of RAW as cameras operate differently in video than still

All the cameras allow for auto white balance when shooting video. But I think your point is correct -- from everything I've seen so far, leave the white balance on auto and shooting in N-RAW or Canon RAW for video with the idea that you'll be able to correct it in post is not a good strategy. The "raw" video files don't have the same flexibility for WB correction in post as RAW stills do. You'll still achieve the best results by doing a CWB in camera whether shooting in a "raw" video format or an h.265 codec. I will test this more extensively. Quite disappointing if true, and it does eliminate the biggest advantage of a RAW video workflow in my view. 

8 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Also from the bitrates I see here only the Nikon seems to be nearing the bitrate of ProRes RAW I doubt the canon files can really be pushed

Why would you conclude there isn't sufficient data to push the files around? As you'll see below, the Canon RAW LT files still have 2.5x the information of the h.265 files, even not accounting for the inherent efficiencies of compressing RAW RGGB sensor data rather than debayered data. I haven't come across any reports suggesting the Canon RAW LT files are too compressed.

I actually think the smaller bit rates from the Canon RAW are an advantage.  ProRes RAW, like ProRes, may be optimized for requiring limited processing resources to edit, but that also likely means it doesn't have the most efficient compression algorithm. Just like the h.265 4.2.2 10-bit codecs end up being able to retain the same image quality as ProRes at much lower bit rates.

For what it's worth, Canon 8k60p RAW LT appears to use around 10:1 compression.

8K60p Uncompressed raw = 8192 x 4320 pixels x 12 bits per pixel x 60fps = 25,480mbps. So based on that rough math, the compression ratios are:

• Nikon N-RAW High Quality = 4.4:1
• Nikon N-RAW Standard Quality = 6.8:1
• Canon Raw ST = 6.4:1
• Canon Raw LT = 9.9:1
• Prores Raw = ~3.8:1 
• ProRes 4:2:2 IntraFrame = ~5.4:1
• 8K30p h.265 LongGop (available on the Z9, A1 and RC5 ) = 24.5:1 or 50:1 when using the A1's 260mbps 8k30 codec. 
• 4k60p h.265 LongGop (downsampled from the 8k full sensor readout on the Z9 and RC5) = 75:1 compression on Nikon Z9; 113:1 compression on the Canon R5 C

What does this tell us? The raw codecs are anywhere from 2.5x (Canon RAW LT) - 6x the size of the h.265 LongGOP formats. You have to budget for a hefty premium in storage needs if adopting a raw workflow. I think the 10:1 compression on the Canon RAW LT is the most usable of the lot (requires the least storage). The Prores Raw 4:1 and Nikon N-RAW High Quality 4.4:1 compression are too light to be useful because of the massive file sizes.

If you look at what other companies are doing, Blackmagic with the Ursa Mini 12k offers 5:1, 8:1, 12:1 and 18:1 compression in BRAW.  According to them:

• 5:1 is perfect for effects heavy feature film and commercial work, where you need the highest possible quality.
• Blackmagic RAW Q5 and 8:1 are extremely high quality making them great for episodic television and independent films.
• Blackmagic RAW quality is so high, you can even use 12:1 and 18:1 settings for incredibly small files that are suitable for all kinds of uses such as broadcast news, live sport events, digital signage, A/V, corporate video, weddings and more!

 The RED Raptor offers slightly lower compression ratios with RedCode Raw in three flavors:

• - HQ (~3.5:1 compression ratio) - Very detailed scenes, VFX, still workflows
• - MQ (~4.3:1 compression ratio) - For Cinema and Higher End Series featuring not VFX heavy content
• - LQ  (~7.5:1 compression ratio) Ideal for television, online, documentary, interviews, live events

9 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

I am sticking to 4k for the foreseeable future. I can shoot 5.7K raw with the GH6 but actually I use all intra 800 mbps for 60fps and works very well

This is a sensible position given the data rates required to shoot in the RAW formats. If they indeed don't offer any advantages when it comes to adjusting white balance in post, then 4k60p downsampled from a 6k or 8k sensor starts to look much more practical in terms of storage needs and workflow. Filming in 4k60p on the R5 C gets you all that data from the 8k sensor compressed down ~113:1. So you get file sizes 1/10th the size of Canon RAW LT. 

White Balance Flexibility for RAW Photos

I don't have any housings, so I tested this by illuminating some illustrative scenes with video lights shot through various filters to simulate gradually cooler ambient light at different depths. This is the setup:

In the rows below, the order from top to bottom of the images is A1 -> R5C -> Z9. DM me if you want raw files to play around with.

With no filter (~5000k)

Lee 353 Filter (~20000k, +100 Magenta)

Lee 353 Filter Stacked w/ Rosco 4330 Filter (~25000k, +120 Magenta)

Lee 724 Filter (~30000k, +80 Magenta)

Lee 724 Filter Stacked w/ Rosco 4330 Filter (43000k, +110 Magenta)

Lee 724 Filter Stacked w/ Rosco 4360 Filter (50000k, +125 Magenta)

The results are remarkably similar through the first 6 tests, though the specific kelvin temperature and tint used to achieve them did vary a fair bit in Lightroom. In general, the Nikon needed the lowest kelvin temperature, and the Sony the highest. Canon sat somewhere in the middle.  The other thing I noticed is that the Canon seems to produce slightly more saturated blues. 

The last test was with a Lee 172 Filter (~50000k, +150 magenta).

None of the cameras did great in this very challenging light. But I'd say the Canon R5C was the best of the lot, retaining a blue water column, and the Nikon Z9 clearly the worst, turning the water column purple. (The Nikon Z9 could not set an in-camera CWB in this light, whereas both the Sony and Canon could. But more on that later when we get to WB in video).

Manual White Balance in Camera For Video

All three cameras allow setting CWB off a neutral target like an 18% grey card fairly easily. The Canon has a true one-touch white balance, but the downside of this is that it uses the entire frame for the white balance. The A1 and the Z9 allow you to set the white balance off a smaller portion of the screen but take a few more button presses to get there.

I tested the results using the same setup as for the raw stills, but doing a white balance in camera. On the Nikon Z9, I filmed in 8k N-Raw, and 4k Prores Raw and Prores 4:2:2 in the Flat picture profile. On the Sony A1, I filmed in 8k 4:2:2 10-bit in Picture Profile 11 (S-Cinetone). On the Canon R5C, XF-AVC 4k 4:2:2 in 709 Wide DR.

Results are presented Sony A1 -> Canon R5C -> Nikon Z9

Lee 724 Filter Stacked w/ Rosco 4360 Filter (50000k, +125 Magenta)

 Both the Sony and the Canon are still holding up quite well, but the Sony is more contrasty and saturated. I rather prefer the lighter blue rendition on the Sony, it seems more saturated. Thoughts? To me, the Nikon produces the worst result.

Lee 172 Filter ( ~50000k, +150 magenta).

None of these great, but the Sony A1 file clearly (and surprisingly) looks better, no? The Nikon z9 refused to set a custom white balance, it's outside its range in this challenging light.. 

Surprisingly, I'd say Sony A1 wins the video manual white balance battle. Canon comes 2nd. Nikon also is fairly capable, but breaks down at the edge cases and to me at least doesn't look as good as Sony or Canon. 

Battery Life and Recording Times

For this test, I set all cameras to 4k60p and recorded until the battery run out. 

• The Sony A1 lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes of recording.
• The Canon R5C lasted 45 minutes of recording (with the Nauticam housing USB-C battery pack, it should be 4.5 hours total)
• The Nikon Z9 with it's larger battery got to 2 hours and 35 minutes.

Battery Life and Recording Times
For this test, I set all cameras to 4k60p and recorded until the battery run out. 

• The Sony A1 lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes of recording.
• The Canon R5C lasted 45 minutes of recording (with the Nauticam housing USB-C battery pack, it should be 4.5 hours total)
• The Nikon Z9 with it's larger battery got to 2 hours and 35 minutes.

21 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

 

There are many misconceptions on how a battery pack works
If a pack has 19200 mah it means it holds that amount however when you look at what it can deliver the efficiency drops depending on the output current
You can expect around 65-70% on average so your 4.5 hours will be more like 3 to 3h15m
This is still a very good time and you will know where the external pack is dead so you can decide to replace it if you have another one but of course you need to open the housing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Might be shorter in real life. I will receive the 19200 mah battery pack tomorrow and test it to see. 

Still, I think the Nikon and Canon batteries at least should last for a full day of liveaboard diving. The A1 battery might also, since you're not really going to be filming all the time. But maybe more dicey. 

Might be shorter in real life. I will receive the 19200 mah battery pack tomorrow and test it to see. 
Still, I think the Nikon and Canon batteries at least should last for a full day of liveaboard diving. The A1 battery might also, since you're not really going to be filming all the time. But maybe more dicey. 

Nt