First downloadable RAW R5 and R6 files

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,183
1,817
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
You guys just keep up your photon pseudoscience and completely ignore the examples you’re seeing. Makes no difference to me. I just showed how ISO 4K on the R5 blows away the R at ISO 1600, and the Private person just showed us how the R is just as good at ISO as the 1DX3, which you say is the same as the R6. But in the sample shots the R6 noise looks even better than the R5, so... Jeezus, you guys.
Well. I am comparing the R5 at 4000ISO to my 7d2 in the same situation as he has shot the cheetah in(poor light, underexposed). my 7d2 will give roughly the same results at ISO 800. So that puts the R5 at roughly 2.3? stops improvement over the 7d2. So if the R5 is way better than the R that would mean the R is only a stop or so better than a 7d2? I find that hard to believe so it is quite clear that someone is wrong. Whether it is me or you I could not say because I have not really spent time plating with files from the R or 5d4. I think we need input from those who have experience with the 7d2, the R(or 5d4) and the 1dx3. That is all that will clear this up
 
Upvote 0

navastronia

R6 x2 (work) + 5D Classic (fun)
Aug 31, 2018
853
1,073
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,183
1,817
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
You guys just keep up your photon pseudoscience and completely ignore the examples you’re seeing. Makes no difference to me. I just showed how ISO 4K on the R5 blows away the R at ISO 1600, and the Private person just showed us how the R is just as good at ISO as the 1DX3, which you say is the same as the R6. But in the sample shots the R6 noise looks even better than the R5, so... Jeezus, you guys.
So here are my examples. Shot in similar conditions. Poor light. Low contrast. Both with minor PP to get correct exposure(pushed by a bit over a stop each) exported through LR with default NR(20 colour, zero luminance). R5 at 4000. 7d2 at 1250. Compare the pair(1).jpg(1)-2.jpg
Sorry. I did forget to mention that the 7d2 image was cropped. Fro's shot was not. Here is the uncropped version(1)-3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Well. I am comparing the R5 at 4000ISO to my 7d2 in the same situation as he has shot the cheetah in(poor light, underexposed). my 7d2 will give roughly the same results at ISO 800. So that puts the R5 at roughly 2.3? stops improvement over the 7d2. So if the R5 is way better than the R that would mean the R is only a stop or so better than a 7d2? I find that hard to believe so it is quite clear that someone is wrong. Whether it is me or you I could not say because I have not really spent time plating with files from the R or 5d4. I think we need input from those who have experience with the 7d2, the R(or 5d4) and the 1dx3. That is all that will clear this up

Yeah, we’re basically all spitballing here, some of us with charts, some with anecdotal samples. Real tests will roll in. It was just about the last straw being “shown“ (not by you) that the new 20mp sensor with new X processor in the flagship 1DX3 wasn’t better at ISO than the R, which is 2016 tech — after I’d also been told the R6 would be the same as the 1DX3 — meaning 5D4=R=1DX3=R6, which is difficult to swallow.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,183
1,817
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
Yeah, we’re basically all spitballing here, some of us with charts, some with anecdotal samples. Real tests will roll in. It was just about the last straw being “shown“ (not by you) that the new 20mp sensor with new X processor in the flagship 1DX3 wasn’t better at ISO than the R, which is 2016 tech — after I’d also been told the R6 would be the same as the 1DX3 — meaning 5D4=R=1DX3=R6, which is difficult to swallow.
I just don't think there is a great deal of improvement to be made. It is a quarter or a half stop here or there. Certainly not enough to make or break an image in my opinion. I don't think there has been enough DR difference to make or break an image for a long time though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
So here are my examples. Shot in similar conditions. Poor light. Low contrast. Both with minor PP to get correct exposure(pushed by a bit over a stop each) exported through LR with default NR(20 colour, zero luminance). R5 at 4000. 7d2 at 1250. Compare the pair

I’m not sure, but looks like maybe the same if I discount the larger noise blobs on the crop sensor shot. Looks better than how my R does against the R5.
 
Upvote 0
I just don't think there is a great deal of improvement to be made. It is a quarter or a half stop here or there. Certainly not enough to make or break an image in my opinion. I don't think there has been enough DR difference to make or break an image for a long time though.

My own baseline hope for the R5 has been to get better ISO 640-1600 versus my R. I mostly shoot at ISO 100 to 400. But I heavily process many of my shots, so the R’s ISO performance at 640 is the point at which I start to not like all the chroma noise.
 
Upvote 0
I want whatever you are taking, the R5 4,000iso shot (cheetah) looks no better than my 1DX II. Your whole premise for weeks has been there will be a "high iso improvement of 2 stops minimum" and if there is I don't see it. That means an R5 shot at 51,200iso should be the same as a 1DX III at 12,800!
You must have a fantastic 1DX II. Mine couldn't do this well at ISO 4000. It doesn't do bad, but not this well.. especially pushed by nearly 2 stops. I really don't like to shoot anything over 3200 with mine. Not to mention this is with a 45mp sensor as opposed to 20.2mp. I was worried this was going to be another 5DSR but am pleasantly surprised. I personally was hoping for at least as good as my 1DX II.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
Lets put this to bed.

You said
One thing is certain: Canon wouldn't be making f/7.1 L zooms and f/11 primes if they didn't have insane (as in industry-shaking) improvements in store for high ISO noise. Canon must have achieved current f/5.6-level IQ at f/11. So that's the amount of light/improvement we're talking about here – at minimum, IMO.

Here is the R6 compared to the R
1595308611363.png

You were 100% wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
Where are the fast moving BIFs? I seem to have missed them - there’s just a big slow gliding bird in the distance and a short hop by another.
I agree, the clip at 50 to 57 seconds didn’t seem that good to me, it seemed to get initial acquisition well but lost it quickly to the body and then the feet Before bouncing off to the wing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
Examples of R to R5 at higher ISOs using one my shots against Fro's. My R shot is at ISO 1600 and the R5 from Fro is at ISO 4000. Fro's image looks like a HUGE improvement to me, especially given the ISO difference here. R and 5D4 chroma noise is significant at higher ISOs.

ISO 1600 on the R – underexposed by about a stop and raised in C1
View attachment 191444

Screenshot of 1:1 zoom in C1 (default noise reduction)
View attachment 191445

Screenshot of 1:1 zoom of Fro's underexposed ISO 4000 DNG from the R5 in C1 (default noise reduction)
View attachment 191446

If you download Fro's shot for yourself and open it into Photoshop RAW developer, note that the default noise reduction will be set to ZERO, which is not how we're all used to comparing things in LR/C1. I don't use PS for RAW much, so not sure if zero noise reduction is the default for PS or if it's just because the R5 is new and PS doesn't know what to do with it.
For somebody who throws around such a strong term as pseudo science you sure have a lot of flaws in your own testing method.

The first one obviously being that you compare shots from different resolutions (30 MP in the R, 45 MP on the R5) at 1:1 pixel ratio.

But your scene is also so different. It appears to me much darker, which is supported by your statements about exposure and even pushing the shot. Noise isn't caused by high ISO values, it is caused by low light, among other things. We don't know the settings or ambient temperature from your examples. I am not saying they definitely matter here. But a long exposure in warm conditions would also affect noise.

All fine for me if that's how you want to evaluate the things you may or may not buy. But it is hard to tell much from the example. So when you refuse to accept demonstration based on documented measurements (that you yourself can repeat if you doubt the results) and studio image comparisons that actually change only one variable between samples, and call that pseudoscience, don't be surprised to get pushback.
 
Upvote 0
I had and still have serious doubts about an f/11 lens. I consider this an imperfect solution to a niche problem.
these telephotos are aimed at safari photographers and Those where weight carrying is the key focus.
However the way the camera handles noise was impressive for 4000iso and run that image through topaz and its looking cropped in like a base iso image.
fairplay to Fro for getting these out. I would upload my end result but forum isnt liking it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Aug 26, 2015
1,380
1,042
From what I've seen, the EOS R6 (or 1DX III, they look pretty similar of course) is not a whole lot better than the EOS R in terms of noise, maybe less than half a stop in it.
The difference starts to be a bit more noticeable at 12800 or 25600.
For 4k video ISO, I expect it to gain another stop since it is almost a full sensor 1.07x as opposed to a 1.75x crop, and maybe the newer processing helps as well, so it might be almost two stops better.

On the other hand, I also checked the resolution, which is really not that different either, the R6 is very nearly as sharp as the R except in some cases there is probably more moiré, due to the pixel count and weak AA filter.
So the EOS R sensor is still good, but the worries about 20MP vs 30MP are also unfounded.

I guess the dynamic range is also going to be a bit better on the R6, but I couldn't check that one out yet.
Main line is that the sensor is (also) great in the R6 (but it's not groundbreaking).
 
Upvote 0
Just downloaded and had a play. R6 is awesome at 1000ISO(especially considering I am comparing to my 7d2). R5 at 4000 looks about the same as 800 on my camera although tbh the cheetah shot was underexposed by over 1.5 stops so it needed a lot of pushing. Which kind of highlights the limitations of those f11 lenses more than the camera. I would have preferred to see an R5 shot at 4000ISO but correctly exposed
Edit. By the time I finished processing the Cheetah shot had been pushed just over 2 stops!
Tbh I ran it through Topaz, raised it up by about 1 sttop maybe and after editing the results look like an 100ISO shot. The Flamingo shot for whatever reason had a weird look no matter what but I think thats the lens optic design, certainly isnt going to give buttery bokeh.
 
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
All the "can't have that much high ISO improvement because of the limits of current sensor tech" is about to fall deafeningly silent.

View attachment 191442
R6 sensor lab test is up at DPR. It is as good as 1Dx3 at ISO6400 and it is not much better than 5D4 or R at ISO6400. People get emotional. Sure. Let’s look at a reliable data instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,183
1,817
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
Tbh I ran it through Topaz, raised it up by about 1 sttop maybe and after editing the results look like an 100ISO shot. The Flamingo shot for whatever reason had a weird look no matter what but I think thats the lens optic design, certainly isnt going to give buttery bokeh.
Really? If you have a look at the image of the cheetah I put up a few posts back, that is raised by about 1.5 stops. And it is still just a tad dim IMO. Maybe Topaz works differently but there is no way it would look like an ISO 100 shot with any sort of NR I could do. As for the flamingo. It was clean and sharp But yeah. looked a bit Wierd. Maybe it is more that the colour of Flamingoes can make an image a bit odd?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,346
22,520
I had and still have serious doubts about an f/11 lens. I consider this an imperfect solution to a niche problem.
these telephotos are aimed at safari photographers and Those where weight carrying is the key focus.
However the way the camera handles noise was impressive for 4000iso and run that image through topaz and its looking cropped in like a base iso image.
fairplay to Fro for getting these out. I would upload my end result but forum isnt liking it.
On safari you need a telephoto zoom, it's a must. And if you take a RF 100-500 (or even an EF + adaper), a 2xTC will give you a much more useful 200-1000mm f/9-11 zoom than either of the f/11 primes. I'd sacrifice the possible hit on IQ for the advantages of a zoom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,346
22,520
I agree, the clip at 50 to 57 seconds didn’t seem that good to me, it seemed to get initial acquisition well but lost it quickly to the body and then the feet Before bouncing off to the wing.
We need proper reviews not these half-baked clickbait and teasers released so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
The R5 rocks my best Canon sensor the 5DII at ISO 4000 but it isn't up to the Z6(which I think pre applies NR to the RAW). The R6 on the other hand looks really clean, but those where lower ISO samples. I am just not sure about that R5 image, it is a little soft and uninteresting, I'll wait for some more examples but especially in the eyes I was thinking to myself that I would need to do a wee bit of work to get this right.

Just now I think it is the test image itself that is making me think it is a bit meh of a performer. And it could also be that f/11 lens doesn't match up to lenses I am used to using.
 
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
I am just not sure about that R5 image, it is a little soft and uninteresting
It would be more alarming if somehow the very much diffraction influenced combination of f/11 and 45 MP would be pin sharp.

These lenses really don't seem to me as being intended for use with an R5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0