Here's the link:
R5 it's actually a hair better than A7r4 AT ISO 100, R5 11,69 and A7R4 11,62.
R5 it's actually a hair better than A7r4 AT ISO 100, R5 11,69 and A7R4 11,62.
That's the dual conversion gain, first for Canon.Good to know. Quite an improvement over the EOS R. What is that weird dip between ISO 200 and 400?
So it's a "dual gain sensor?" Hmm, how exotic.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
exactly what I was about to postThough, 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.
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 I think this is terrible news, Canon are cooking the RAW files at low iso values!
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.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!
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..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.
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.Well I think this is terrible news, Canon are cooking the RAW files at low iso values!
yup, Sony removed the dual gain output in A7 IV: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.
Maybe stronger noise reduction at iso 50? Seems strange to me too.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?