Camera stabilization directly affects the quality of handheld video footage and images, especially when using telephoto lenses. For videographers and photographers who rely heavily on shooting without a tripod, the effectiveness of built-in camera stabilization is essential.
Coming to you from Jake Sloan, this detailed video compares stabilization capabilities of Canon's EOS R5 Mark II and Sony's a9 III, using a variety of lens types including telephoto and wide angle options. Historically, Canon has been recognized for superior stabilization, with consistent performance in their camera bodies and lens combinations. Recently, Sony has significantly improved its stabilization systems, narrowing the gap. Sloan tests both mechanical and digital stabilization modes using Canon’s 100-500mm and Sony’s 100-400mm lenses, highlighting Sony’s marked improvements but also noting the trade-offs, like cropping when digital stabilization is engaged.
The video further explores stabilization performance in mid-range lenses such as the popular 24-105mm zoom. While Canon's lens stabilization remains consistently reliable, Sony's effectiveness varies significantly by lens type, as optical stabilization is limited mainly to their G Master telephoto range. When testing wide-angle lenses, Sloan identifies issues like corner wobbling in Canon’s footage, whereas Sony relies more heavily on digital stabilization and in-body systems to address these problems, at the cost of slight cropping. Sloan clearly outlines the scenarios in which each system excels or falls short.
A unique aspect of Sloan’s testing is his demonstration of Sony’s gyro-based stabilization metadata. Unlike Canon, Sony cameras record internal gyro data, which can be processed in post-production with tools like Catalyst Browse for remarkably smooth footage. Though this method adds additional workflow steps, the final stabilization often surpasses traditional methods significantly. Canon lacks internal gyro data recording, making post-production stabilization more cumbersome, requiring external gyro devices.
Sloan’s comparative analysis is thorough and neutral, effectively demonstrating the strengths and limitations of each brand’s stabilization approach. Check out the video above for the full rundown.
