Canon EOS R5 Sensor Measurements at PhotonsToPhotos

[Jordan23]

Here's the link:

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

R5 it's actually a hair better than A7r4 AT ISO 100, R5 11,69 and A7R4 11,62.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

Good to know. Quite an improvement over the EOS R. What is that weird dip between ISO 200 and 400?

 

[Jordan23]

Good to know. Quite an improvement over the EOS R. What is that weird dip between ISO 200 and 400?

That's the dual conversion gain, first for Canon.
The original post at DPR:

Canon EOS R5 Sensor Measurements at PhotonsToPhotos: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

That's the dual conversion gain, first for Canon.
The original post at DPR:

Canon EOS R5 Sensor Measurements at PhotonsToPhotos: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.

www.dpreview.com

So it's a "dual gain sensor?" Hmm, how exotic.

 

[Joules]

Also beats the 1DX III by quite a bit. Surprising. This sensor is really impressive. Thanks for the heads up!

 

[davidhfe]

Neck and neck with the A7R4 with faster readout. Next up: Fingers crossed for a global or stacked sensor w/ the same specs

 

[davidhfe]

Though, doesn't it seem odd to have dual gain kick in at 400? Why wouldn't you push that to 800 or 1600? I'm pretty unfamiliar with the limits of dual gain, but the A7SIII seemed to have dual native at 800 and 16,000.

 

[john1970]

I am very glad to see that Canon has solid dynamic range in their sensors. For me it will be very interesting to see what they put into their mirrorless flagship camera (1Dx Mk3 replacement) over the next couple of years. A global sensor would be a phenomenal advancement. I am very content with the R5 and at this stage am more curious on what RF glass Canon is announcing in the 2021-2022 timeframe. A couple of fast wide-angle lens, two super telephotos, and a 1:1 macro and I would be all set with glass for the next decade.

 

[analoggrotto]

Though, doesn't it seem odd to have dual gain kick in at 400? Why wouldn't you push that to 800 or 1600? I'm pretty unfamiliar with the limits of dual gain, but the A7SIII seemed to have dual native at 800 and 16,000.

exactly what I was about to post

Canon has been busy

preordered!

 

[privatebydesign]

Well I think this is terrible news, Canon are cooking the RAW files at low iso values!

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

Well I think this is terrible news, Canon are cooking the RAW files at low iso values!

That was my initial reaction too. But I have to say, the sample images I've seen show more crisp detail in the lifted shadows compared to the EOS R even with the noise reduction on the R5 baked in. So perhaps the NR isn't that strong? Still uncooked raw files is always preferable!

 

[privatebydesign]

That was my initial reaction too. But I have to say, the sample images I've seen show more crisp detail in the lifted shadows compared to the EOS R even with the noise reduction on the R5 baked in. So perhaps the NR isn't that strong? Still uncooked raw files is always preferable!

Well when you factor in that the ‘cooking’, built in RAW NR at low iso, is accounting for around 2/3 stop ‘improvement’ In DR then the shadows should look better.

But that 100% goes against what I want from a RAW file and whilst I haven’t gotten bent out of shape over the thermal issues this is news that very strongly disinclines me to get an R5.

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

Well when you factor in that the ‘cooking’, built in RAW NR at low iso, is accounting for around 2/3 stop ‘improvement’ In DR then the shadows should look better.

But that 100% goes against what I want from a RAW file and whilst I haven’t gotten bent out of shape over the thermal issues this is news that very strongly disinclines me to get an R5.

That's fair enough. I guess the point I was trying to make is that despite the NR, the R5 still shows more crisp detail in the shadows than the R. So if NR was the only reason for the improvement you would expect detail levels to be more heavily compromised. I'm just glad that it is better than the R in absolute terms..

 

[Fischer]

Nice with the gain up to around iso 800. However, sad that Canon now is applying noise reduction to RAW files. Hope it goes away as it did with Sony. We shoot RAW to have control over the end result. Otherwise there's JPG.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

Well I think this is terrible news, Canon are cooking the RAW files at low iso values!

I agree with your disappointment - for me, a RAW is my negative, and I don't want anyone deciding how it should be pre-tweaked.

However, unfortunately, as we know it is spec-sheets that drive so many ****** internet reviews, and sadly, Canon have probably decided that financially, if you can't beat them, you have to join them.

I too hope there may be a backlash, and a reversal. Alternately, let Canon have a 'basic' RAW view that is seen as standard, and then a menu driven view that allows us untainted RAWs (we know most reviewers won't bother delving into the menu, so they can 'see' the cooked raw, while those that are bothered can find a way through to the untainted original).

Cheers

Stoical

 

[SecureGSM]

Nice with the gain up to around iso 800. However, sad that Canon now is applying noise reduction to RAW files. Hope it goes away as it did with Sony. We shoot RAW to have control over the end result. Otherwise there's JPG.

yup, Sony removed the dual gain output in A7 IV:

Read Noise in DNs versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

 

[SecureGSM]

yup, Sony removed the dual gain output in A7 IV:

Read Noise in DNs versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

p.s. I guess, Canon had to.. judging by the curve, the read noise levels would be quite higher otherwise..

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

Ok now can we talk about how this measurement shows that the camera has slightly better dynamic range at ISO 50 vs 100? How is that?

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

Ok now can we talk about how this measurement shows that the camera has slightly better dynamic range at ISO 50 vs 100? How is that?

Maybe stronger noise reduction at iso 50? Seems strange to me too.