DXOMark tests the Canon EOS R image sensor, scores it at 89

COBRASoft

EOS M50
Mar 21, 2014
38
1
41
Oudenburg, Belgium
My brother owns a Nikon D800 with AA filter removed. I have a 5DIII with AA filter removed... If we take the same shot, with Nikkor and Canon glass (e.g. both latest 24-70 2.8). The 'quality' difference is very minimal. Once large printed, the extra MP of the Nikon show, but only minimal due to the extreme good glass quality of Canon.
We both agree that sensors, glass, bodies, menu system, ... make a system work for you or not.

When he saw the sharpness and quality of my 11-24, his jaw dropped to the floor.
When I saw the performance of D500 with 200-500 compared to my 7DII with 100-400 II, I almost started to cry, hehe.

Every system has pro's and con's. but all systems can take magnificent shots nowadays. Postprocessing is important and can really boost your image if done right.
Just my 2 cents.

And for DxO... their PhotoLab software is superb. Their scores... Don't care.
 

LSXPhotog

EOS RP
Apr 2, 2015
329
136
www.diossiphotography.com
Same thing for me when I looked closer how they measure resolution. They invented some 'perceptual megapixels' but didn't disclose the exact measurement methods. That rings a queen of all bells. DxO measurements cannot be verified and reproduced so you can call them unscientific.

Oh, and even better, if a sharper lens can stop down to f/32 and a softer lens only stops down to f/16, the softer lens can get a higher sharpness score because the lens that can go to f/32 suffers from more diffraction.....how bonkers is that mentality?! LOL
 
Reactions: stevelee

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
5,161
2,090
My brother owns a Nikon D800 with AA filter removed. I have a 5DIII with AA filter removed... If we take the same shot, with Nikkor and Canon glass (e.g. both latest 24-70 2.8). The 'quality' difference is very minimal. Once large printed, the extra MP of the Nikon show, but only minimal due to the extreme good glass quality of Canon.
We both agree that sensors, glass, bodies, menu system, ... make a system work for you or not.

When he saw the sharpness and quality of my 11-24, his jaw dropped to the floor.
When I saw the performance of D500 with 200-500 compared to my 7DII with 100-400 II, I almost started to cry, hehe.

Every system has pro's and con's. but all systems can take magnificent shots nowadays. Postprocessing is important and can really boost your image if done right.
Just my 2 cents.

And for DxO... their PhotoLab software is superb. Their scores... Don't care.
That's due to the sensor of the D500 not having an AA-filter and the 7DII a strong one. The 100-400mm II is a league above the Nikkor 200-500mm - see https://www.lenstip.com/544.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200–500_mm_f_5.6E_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html for a typical series of measurements on the Nikkor. You would cry if you saw the difference of the 100-400mm II on a 5DSR compared with your 7DII.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,224
511
“Very close to 1dx 2 noise levels” yeah, no, not really and that’s perhaps the only thing I miss a bit with the R, a bit cleaner high iso. I don’t get why people want more mp’s all the time, for a slight increase in perceived resolution it’s a very visible degradation in IQ at slightly high iso...
Pixel peeping is the bane of the modern world of photography...

At the same view size the R does have very similar noise levels to the 1DX II. If you sharpen the 1DX II to match the R then it will be the same or even worse on noise. And if you NR the R to match the 1DX II on noise it will probably be about as sharp (i.e. a bit softer than it was ooc).

At this point in time higher MPs do not observably degrade high ISO IQ. Quite the opposite. In Canon, Nikon, or Sony I would rather shoot high ISO with their high resolution bodies (5Ds, D850, A7r3) than their lower resolution bodies. Sharper, more detail, with more room to maneuver in post.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,224
511
That's due to the sensor of the D500 not having an AA-filter and the 7DII a strong one. The 100-400mm II is a league above the Nikkor 200-500mm - see https://www.lenstip.com/544.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200–500_mm_f_5.6E_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html for a typical series of measurements on the Nikkor. You would cry if you saw the difference of the 100-400mm II on a 5DSR compared with your 7DII.
I'm a fan of the relatively weak AA filter on the 5Ds. I don't know why some of Canon's other AA filters are so strong. I can concur that the 100-400 II on Canon's 50mp sensors is simply awesome. It is sharp wide open across its focal length range.
 

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
758
176
“Very close to 1dx 2 noise levels” yeah, no, not really and that’s perhaps the only thing I miss a bit with the R, a bit cleaner high iso. I don’t get why people want more mp’s all the time, for a slight increase in perceived resolution it’s a very visible degradation in IQ at slightly high iso...
I have to agree. I have no real world issues with the IQ from the R-sensor, but I can say that it isn’t at 1DXII standards (which I used to own) when it comes to ISO. I haven’t done any side by side comparisons with my 5DIV, but my impression is that the 5DIV has an advantage over the R when it comes to higher ISOs.

Edit: Admittedly, I haven’t downsized R photos to 1DXII size, and I haven’t done side by side comparisons. I speak from my overall impression and experience with the two cameras.
 
Reactions: padam and Viggo

COBRASoft

EOS M50
Mar 21, 2014
38
1
41
Oudenburg, Belgium

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
5,161
2,090
I'm a fan of the relatively weak AA filter on the 5Ds. I don't know why some of Canon's other AA filters are so strong. I can concur that the 100-400 II on Canon's 50mp sensors is simply awesome. It is sharp wide open across its focal length range.
I met a guy in a bird hide yesterday, with a new 5DSR on a 400/2.8, and a 1DXII in his bag. He had just tried out a 5DSR and a 7DII and rejected the 7DII because it was much softer. I sold my 7DII for the same reason. You can get great images from a 7DII, of course (and I think I did), but the 5DSR gets the same quality about 20% further away or 20% better resolution at the same distance.

The Polish mother site of lenstip measures the resolution of many bodies, https://www.optyczne.pl/293.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_Rozdzielczość.html and https://www.optyczne.pl/312.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5Ds__R_Rozdzielczość.html have the data for the 7DII and 5DSR and you can see how much better the 5DSR is. (Open in the Chrome browser and it will translate to English).
 

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
182
77
Thanks! I checked a couple of months ago, and their website said April.
Yep, they told me that late last year too - but it quietly came in. I suspect there was a lot of interest in it. I was a bit lost without access to DxO - the high ISO noise reduction capability is remarkable.
 
Reactions: pj1974

melgross

EOS RP
Nov 2, 2016
314
117
Incidentally, there's a perfectly good way to test a lens' performance that doesn't require a camera body. It's called an optical bench, and it's what is used to test lenses by LensRentals, Zeiss, and anyone else who wants to empirically determine a lens' MTF and a variety of other performance metrics.

Exactly. I was going to post on this too.

Testing lenses on a body is a very inferior way to test them, because you aren’t really testing the lens. You’re testing the system. The system consists of many factors. The sensor alone consisted of several factors. The amplifier is another major factor. The processor is another. Are there any automatic compensations going on that the manufacturer isn’t talking about (yes, there are)?

All of this changes slightly over the life of the camera, and now with lens firmware upgrades, the lens as well.

How are they checking focus? What about flare? We know that moving a light just a fraction of a degree can change flare, and glare dramatically.

There’s just so much to this without the added burden of mounting it into the system, that taking that step makes a real test almost impossible.

I think that when they do tests, a difference of 10 points likely means something. I don’t know exactly what though. Anything less than 5 points is nothing more than normal variation in the testing process, and in the QC of the maker. In other words, meaningless.
 

cellomaster27

Capture the moment!
Jun 3, 2013
335
24
San Jose - CA
I met a gentleman photographing Kirkjufell in Iceland with the EOS R and the 24-105 RF lens. I couldn't help but to ask him what he thought of it. He called it.. I believe princess, because everything was so beautiful. haha! I really really dislike the touch bar but hey, things besides that seem to be hitting the nail, at least for that gentleman.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,184
1,460
Exactly. I was going to post on this too.

Testing lenses on a body is a very inferior way to test them, because you aren’t really testing the lens. You’re testing the system. The system consists of many factors. The sensor alone consisted of several factors. The amplifier is another major factor. The processor is another. Are there any automatic compensations going on that the manufacturer isn’t talking about (yes, there are)?

All of this changes slightly over the life of the camera, and now with lens firmware upgrades, the lens as well.

How are they checking focus? What about flare? We know that moving a light just a fraction of a degree can change flare, and glare dramatically.

There’s just so much to this without the added burden of mounting it into the system, that taking that step makes a real test almost impossible.

I think that when they do tests, a difference of 10 points likely means something. I don’t know exactly what though. Anything less than 5 points is nothing more than normal variation in the testing process, and in the QC of the maker. In other words, meaningless.
All true, but it is important to keep in mind that at the end of the day, it is the system that takes pictures, not a bare lens. From that perspective, there is value in reporting results from camera + lens combinations.

Having said that, part of DxO’s implied logic was that it didn’t really matter if the Canon 24-70/2.8 was better as a bare lens than the Nikon counterpart since each lens could only be used on the same brand of camera body. Thus, the higher-scoring sensor of the D850 makes the Nikon combo ‘better’. But mirror less cameras kick that argument to the curb, since in that case you can use a Canon lens on a Nikon MILC or vice versa, or either brand of lens on a Sony MILC. That means the highest possible scores (without getting into whether or not that really means “better“) should be obtained by combining the highest scoring mirrorless sensors with the lenses having the best optical measurements (not scores). Except that DxO only tests within-brand combinations.
 
Reactions: pj1974

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
5,161
2,090
You are right that testing lens-body combinations is important as well. Opticallimits now tests on both a 50mpx 5DSR and a 21mpx sensor through an aperture range, and the results are illuminating.
 
Jan 4, 2019
7
0
These people are really hilarious! Since long time ago i saw 50mm comparison of 3 canon lenses. I was laughing all day. Guess what the canon 50 1.8 was sharper than 1.4 and 1.2 L version! I have used hundreds of times these lenses and I own both 1.8 and 1.4 version. First 1.4 is way sharper than 1.8 in both open and middle aperture settings. Second everytime I rent the 50 1.2 I was extremely blown up how much sharper was in comparison from the other two. Third in their tests they don't talk about color about bokeh quality, how the lens renders a scene and how much an image that comes out of these lenses is popped or you can call it in "3d space" or flat! Ofc their methology is in favor of some specific brands..!
I wonder what scores the RF line will take from this funny company...

183575
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
384
208
Frankfurt, Germany
I always take DXO results with a grain of salt but i imagine the R sensor to have a bit more noise because of the always-on sensor which runs hotter, compared to the 5D4. But this is only my guess.
Good point, this may really make measurable effect that DXO guys did not notice. Let's call it the Mirrorless Heat-Gate :devilish:
 

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
5,161
2,090
These people are really hilarious! Since long time ago i saw 50mm comparison of 3 canon lenses. I was laughing all day. Guess what the canon 50 1.8 was sharper than 1.4 and 1.2 L version! I have used hundreds of times these lenses and I own both 1.8 and 1.4 version. First 1.4 is way sharper than 1.8 in both open and middle aperture settings. Second everytime I rent the 50 1.2 I was extremely blown up how much sharper was in comparison from the other two. Third in their tests they don't talk about color about bokeh quality, how the lens renders a scene and how much an image that comes out of these lenses is popped or you can call it in "3d space" or flat! Ofc their methology is in favor of some specific brands..!
I wonder what scores the RF line will take from this funny company...
Opticallimits.com (aka photozone.de), a reliable and unbiased site, have the 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 neck and neck in their measurements. Copy variation?

183596
183597
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
3,953
469
Shooting wide open the f1.2 L is horrible, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the new f1.8 stm is sharper wide open, although a full stop slower.
 

koenkooi

EOS RP
Feb 25, 2015
295
143
Shooting wide open the f1.2 L is horrible, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the new f1.8 stm is sharper wide open, although a full stop slower.
Apologies for turning on pedantic mode, but 1.2 to 1.8 is more than a full stop. Not a lot, but it's like 1.2 stops.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
541
191
I met a guy in a bird hide yesterday, with a new 5DSR on a 400/2.8, and a 1DXII in his bag. He had just tried out a 5DSR and a 7DII and rejected the 7DII because it was much softer. I sold my 7DII for the same reason. You can get great images from a 7DII, of course (and I think I did), but the 5DSR gets the same quality about 20% further away or 20% better resolution at the same distance.

The Polish mother site of lenstip measures the resolution of many bodies, https://www.optyczne.pl/293.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_7D_Mark_II_Rozdzielczość.html and https://www.optyczne.pl/312.4-Test_aparatu-Canon_EOS_5Ds__R_Rozdzielczość.html have the data for the 7DII and 5DSR and you can see how much better the 5DSR is. (Open in the Chrome browser and it will translate to English).
It's kind of interesting that while the quality is probably better, in real-world where the speed (buffer) and AF (even cost) matters, it might not be worth it for everybody (I guess it also matters if we are talking about small birds or bigger ones).


He also said the same about the 7DII vs 5DIV and 1DXII cropped at high ISO(yes the latter is the best one, but it is not that noticeable in his view)