That's correct. No pattern noise, but nevertheless lots of noise at ISO 12800.People see what they want to see. My R did not have pattern noise, and after using a 7D for several years, I certainly know what that looks like.
Upvote
0
That's correct. No pattern noise, but nevertheless lots of noise at ISO 12800.People see what they want to see. My R did not have pattern noise, and after using a 7D for several years, I certainly know what that looks like.
Love the idea of it as a dedicated birding camera. Little bulky, but she'll be rightIts pixel pitch is only 3.78 µ, and so about 15% more reach than the R5. Good for birding.
You can throw all the charts you want at me bro but I've owned both and shot thousands of images on both. They do NOT produce the same IQ. I sold my R for this very reason.Actually, if you check DXO, the 5DIV and R have identical dynamic ranges and SNR (as do the measurements on photonstophotos.net). They have the same sensor, and you can use the 5DIV in liveview mode that focusses in exactly the same way as the R as a mirrorless, and I have never seen any difference in quality when doing so, apart from the more precise AF.
.
View attachment 206074View attachment 206075
I've shot thousands of images with both cameras and there is a big difference if you shoot routinely at high ISOs and/or push/pull files a lot (which I do). The 5DIV even at ISO12800 needed no noise reduction (I can provide raw files) even if I wanted to pull up shadows. It was insane. The R had about 1/2 stop more noise and would produce bad magenta/green splotches and banding if the files were massaged; they were very fragile by comparison. They may have had the same sensors but the DPAF on the sensor apparently caused this issue (also did so on the Nikon mirrorless cams too vs the D850 and D750). Charts will not show this.The R and the 5DIV have exactly the same sensors and perform the same in tests for pushing/pulling as measured on photonstophotos.net so how does the 5DIV produce cleaner images?
Naw, the focus reliability on the 5D series was never great and I used the best Canon L lenses too including the 70-200 2.8 II.Don't blame the EOS 5 D IV, but the Sigma. Never had any AF issues with mine, only with a Sigma 1,4/35mm which I sent back. Didn't want to "play" with Sigma's dock.
Yet, I doubt its sensor is nearly as good as the R5's...and as good at ISO 12800 as other sensors at ISO 800 ????. Sorry, but I doubt it too.
No point in throwing charts at you? You told me to check the DxO charts on the 5DIV and the R as they showed the 5DIV was superior, and when I did I found that was not true but they were identical. Instead of apologising, you double down.You can throw all the charts you want at me bro but I've owned both and shot thousands of images on both. They do NOT produce the same IQ. I sold my R for this very reason.
Go watch Tony Northrups review of the EOS R. The on sensor DPAF of the R produced more image noise and even banding not present in the 5DIV. Periodt.
DXO doesn't show identical at all. The R is worse in every rating. In real world, it's even worse.No point in throwing charts at you? You told me to check the DxO charts on the 5DIV and the R as they showed the 5DIV was superior, and when I did I found that was not true but they were identical. Instead of apologising, you double down.
You specifically wrote the DXO charts for dynamic range and SNR, which I then posted, and you now show a different set of charts. Why can't you simply say that you made a mistake quoting those? And it is factually incorrect that the R is worse in every rating - it is identical in some.DXO doesn't show identical at all. The R is worse in every rating. In real world, it's even worse.
And actually, if you check DXO, the 5DIV has better dynamic range and better SNR than the R. (though none of the charts will point out the ugly pattern noise that is more of a problem than even total noise).
DxO stated: "Comparing the EOS R”s ISO 2742 against the EOS 5 D Mk IV’s ISO 2995, there’s less than 0.13 EV difference in low-light ISO (Sports), just a 0.3-bit difference in color depth (Portrait) at base, and a difference of less than 0.1 EV at the base ISO of 100 in dynamic range (in other words, both cameras have effectively the same dynamic range)."DXO doesn't show identical at all. The R is worse in every rating. In real world, it's even worse.
DXO shows the sensors are not identical in performance (regardless of the amount) which points to something different going on with the signal processing or something else. There should be no variation like this if they had identical sensors, identical signal processing and identical output. But again, a chart will not show things like banding and pattern noise. Real world is worse as I said I've shot thousands of images with both cameras and the R is fine in normal light, when you are not pushing/pulling files. But in lower light or when you need to recover shadows the R is significantly worse than the 5DIV. I returned the R and tried 2 more copies before I decided to keep one. They were all the same.DxO stated: "Comparing the EOS R”s ISO 2742 against the EOS 5 D Mk IV’s ISO 2995, there’s less than 0.13 EV difference in low-light ISO (Sports), just a 0.3-bit difference in color depth (Portrait) at base, and a difference of less than 0.1 EV at the base ISO of 100 in dynamic range (in other words, both cameras have effectively the same dynamic range)."
Linking TN videos is not helping your case, he has the technical comprehension of a bowling ball.
All of those differences are essentially meaningless, the sensors have effectively identical performance. If you're seeing a real-world difference, there's something else going on, e.g. your R was defective.
We both know that stating measurements without their associated errors makes comparisons pretty meaningless unless the differences are really obvious. I am willing to bet that the standard errors of DxO's measurements are greater than those tiny differences. I wonder what the copy variation is between cameras in terms of DR and S/N?DxO stated: "Comparing the EOS R”s ISO 2742 against the EOS 5 D Mk IV’s ISO 2995, there’s less than 0.13 EV difference in low-light ISO (Sports), just a 0.3-bit difference in color depth (Portrait) at base, and a difference of less than 0.1 EV at the base ISO of 100 in dynamic range (in other words, both cameras have effectively the same dynamic range)."
Linking TN videos is not helping your case, he has the technical comprehension of a bowling ball.
All of those differences are essentially meaningless, the sensors have effectively identical performance. If you're seeing a real-world difference, there's something else going on, e.g. your R was defective.
IIRC, DxO at some point in the past indicated a ±1/3 EV error in their measurements (I can't find that statement on their site anymore). So yes, all the differences between the measurements for the 5DIV and R3 are within the error and not differences at all.We both know that stating measurements without their associated errors makes comparisons pretty meaningless unless the differences are really obvious. I am willing to bet that the standard errors of DxO's measurements are greater than those tiny differences. I wonder what the copy variation is between cameras in terms of DR and S/N?
If you don't push/pull files too much or shoot at super high ISOs, it is still very good. The 5DIV still had much cleaner images than the R (and probably the best IQ of all Canon cameras imho), but it's AF was very unreliable.
Same sensors perhaps, but most likely differences caused by the AF being on the sensor of the mirrorless system. This is common with mirrorless systems and why the mirrorless equivalents in the Nikon lineup have more noise and banding that do not exist in the DSLR counterparts.
I've owned both cams and shot thousands of images with them and there is a difference. I know Tony Northrup did comparisons of the R and 5DIV when the R was released and found exactly what I found... more noise and pattern noise in the R that wasn't there on the 5DIV.
I've had people who have never owned these cameras try to tell me otherwise based on charts. LOL
And actually, if you check DXO, the 5DIV has better dynamic range and better SNR than the R. (though none of the charts will point out the ugly pattern noise that is more of a problem than even total noise).
The 5D IV produced the best IQ I've ever seen on a camera. SO good! But that AF is pretty unreliable, especially with 3rd party lenses and so it won't work well for me anymore. I remember going out with the 5D IV and Sigma Art 85 and doing a photoshoot for a retirement of a cop I know. In daylight... and when I got home 50% of my pics were out of focus. That same lens on mirrorless is nearly perfect. If I could get the image quality of the 5D IV with the autofocus of the new mirrorless systems I'd love it! I'd say that the 5D IV IQ in many ways is better than even the R5. Either that or I had a copy with an amazing copy of the sensor. The amount of noise at ISO 12,800 was about the same as ISO 800 on most cameras I've used (and no pattern noise, just almost film like grain).
Linking TN videos is not helping your case, he has the technical comprehension of a bowling ball.
i can hit a button for eye af or another for spot af and go back and forth just fine on my R5.You can assign a button to do eye AF when in spot AF temporarely, but switching is not possible. It stays in spot AF mode.