Come play with the Canon EOS R RAW files
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Yes, it was introduced with the EOS M50 and the Digic 8 processor, and now you can choose between lossy and lossless compression.
You can think of it as a much more effective way of saving space as opposed to a smaller RAW file with less megapixels, which looses a bit of dynamic range.
From what I've seen so far, unless you zoom in to like 300% and push the shadows to absurd levels, you can't tell any difference. At all.
But the Sony cameras were heavily criticised when they didn't have only had lossy compression instead of lossless, and they still only have uncompressed as the other option (very big files).
Upvote
0
I wonder if they’ve found a way to capitalize on the extra dynamic range of the dual pixels that was discussed a while back in regards to the 5D IV
Upvote
0
DPR is using a beta of ACR 11 for their raw images, I don't know if it can be publicly downloaded or just for a select few.
Upvote
0
Probably a closed Beta with select media outlets getting it before hand to complete launchday reviews.
Upvote
0
What? Where? All the shots look clean to me and there are 4 lenses used with two of them being EF glass.
Upvote
0
I have measured the dynamic range from the RAWs. It seems that the EOS R exactly matches the 5D4 performance, except at ISO 100, where it has around 0.2 EV less dynamic range compared to 5D4. Maybe not that bad taking into account that the sensor is now permanently switched on. EDIT: that could merely be related to sample variation (I just have seen that the 5D4 analyzed also showed 0.2 EV less DR in some files).
Here it follows the results, in the same units used by DXO (normalized). Between parenthesis, for comparison, the values from the 5D4 (got using exactly the same measurement procedure from this forum post, with this data).
ISO 100
FRO_0007 - 13.46 EV (13.60)
FRO_0150 - 13.25 EV (13.61)
FRO_0181 - 13.42 EV (13.61)
ISO 250
FRO_0078 - 12.91 EV
ISO 400
FRO_0230 - 12.99 EV (12.99)
ISO 3200
FRO_0201 - 10.97 EV (10.98)
ISO 6400
FRO_0362 - 10.13 EV (10.24)
ISO 10000
FRO_0380 - 9.48 EV
Since likely both cameras also share the same physical base ISO (the real ISO related to the labeled ISO 100) the comparison is fair.
The ISO 100 and 6400 pictures were underexposed, but that has been accounted for (assumed always a max saturation of 16383). These results are from the green channel (the EOS R has different read noise in each channel, just as the 5D4 did, likely due to some white balance correction done in the RAWs, which Canon never did in the past and neither has done in the 1DX2 -at least to this degree-).
The EOS R has a "masked" left area (the photodetectors at the left not exposed to the light) of 144 pixels width, compared to 136 in the 5D4. Same for the top (46 compared to 42). So maybe this sensor could be a new design (with similar technology, though). For those that have not heard about them, these extra pixels are not used by all manufacturers, but are a good habit from Canon, because allow good raw converters to improve the noise characteristics.
The 6D2 achieves 11.90 EV of dynamic range at ISO 100 with this same test. So Canon continues 1.55 EV above the old tech, but still 1.45 EV under my A7R3 results (14.85 EV). Come on Canon... you have done only just half of the job!. Meanwhile Sony did upped their performance (the A7R2 topped at 13.90 EV, same sensor as A7R3 but with poorer electronics).
For those interested, these results can be obtanined by downloading this tool and running e.g.:
C:\> dcraw -E -4 -j -t 0 -s all FRO_0007.dng
C:\> hraw mskstats -i FRO_0007_0.pgm -m 144 46 -c G
ReadNoise=2.73998 [email protected]=12.4628 [email protected]=13.4246 file { FRO_0007_0.pgm }
image { mean=654.274 min=489 max=15979 } left mask { mean=511.006 min=491 max=531 crop=68x4492+2+50 }
(to know the width/height of the masked areas, a trick is to edit the pgm with gimp and boost the brightness to 125 and contrast to 124).
Here it follows the results, in the same units used by DXO (normalized). Between parenthesis, for comparison, the values from the 5D4 (got using exactly the same measurement procedure from this forum post, with this data).
ISO 100
FRO_0007 - 13.46 EV (13.60)
FRO_0150 - 13.25 EV (13.61)
FRO_0181 - 13.42 EV (13.61)
ISO 250
FRO_0078 - 12.91 EV
ISO 400
FRO_0230 - 12.99 EV (12.99)
ISO 3200
FRO_0201 - 10.97 EV (10.98)
ISO 6400
FRO_0362 - 10.13 EV (10.24)
ISO 10000
FRO_0380 - 9.48 EV
Since likely both cameras also share the same physical base ISO (the real ISO related to the labeled ISO 100) the comparison is fair.
The ISO 100 and 6400 pictures were underexposed, but that has been accounted for (assumed always a max saturation of 16383). These results are from the green channel (the EOS R has different read noise in each channel, just as the 5D4 did, likely due to some white balance correction done in the RAWs, which Canon never did in the past and neither has done in the 1DX2 -at least to this degree-).
The EOS R has a "masked" left area (the photodetectors at the left not exposed to the light) of 144 pixels width, compared to 136 in the 5D4. Same for the top (46 compared to 42). So maybe this sensor could be a new design (with similar technology, though). For those that have not heard about them, these extra pixels are not used by all manufacturers, but are a good habit from Canon, because allow good raw converters to improve the noise characteristics.
The 6D2 achieves 11.90 EV of dynamic range at ISO 100 with this same test. So Canon continues 1.55 EV above the old tech, but still 1.45 EV under my A7R3 results (14.85 EV). Come on Canon... you have done only just half of the job!. Meanwhile Sony did upped their performance (the A7R2 topped at 13.90 EV, same sensor as A7R3 but with poorer electronics).
For those interested, these results can be obtanined by downloading this tool and running e.g.:
C:\> dcraw -E -4 -j -t 0 -s all FRO_0007.dng
C:\> hraw mskstats -i FRO_0007_0.pgm -m 144 46 -c G
ReadNoise=2.73998 [email protected]=12.4628 [email protected]=13.4246 file { FRO_0007_0.pgm }
image { mean=654.274 min=489 max=15979 } left mask { mean=511.006 min=491 max=531 crop=68x4492+2+50 }
(to know the width/height of the masked areas, a trick is to edit the pgm with gimp and boost the brightness to 125 and contrast to 124).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
He's talking about the computer screen, probably. Uncorrected, there is visible chromatic aberration. However, a backlit LCD against a black bezel is as high contrast as you'll ever get, so this is a worst-case scenario (just try it with your cameras and lenses). But also, there is correctible and uncorrectable CA, and there is no lens profile for 28-70 yet (obviously). Still using default CA correction in ACR, with no other fussing, makes this pretty decent.
I don't think it's "serious purple fringing". An EF 50/1.4 would show much, much worse CA.
Attachments
Upvote
0
The skin tones on the portrait are really nice. The girl in the bathing suit running on the beach is also a great shot and shows a great exposure using a 70-200/2.8 at 1/5000.
Thanks for sharing. These are more interesting (and better) sample photos than we usually get pre-release!
Thanks for sharing. These are more interesting (and better) sample photos than we usually get pre-release!
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I assume it's similar to M50's CR3. Lossless or nearly lossless raw compression is a big thing, for me. I am not fond of Sony's compressed raw, where much information is discarded and you lose a some of the reason you'd use a Sony (a great sensor). On the other hand, I'm not fond of every original file from the camera being fifty to a hundred megabytes either.
Upvote
0
This is just Canon RF 28-70mm F2, a zoom lens. Look at the Bokeh. It is insanely amazing. I can’t believe it. Is this really the zoom?
Upvote
0
I have these loaded in Capture One with no correction and the chromatic aberration is not there. You really have to boost the saturation of the image (I used several layers) to get a faint line along the screen. The shot is wide open at 6400 ISO of an LCD screen. This is about as harsh as a situation gets for fringing and the raw image looks great without correction.
Upvote
0
The 50 1.2 is the most impressive of the lot to me. Almost makes me want to get an R camera just so I can actually take advantage of a decent 50mm lens for once...
The 28-70 appeared a bit softer to my eye at 70mm f2 than the 50 did at 1.2 (!). 28mm f2 on the other hand was fairly crisp. I'd be curious to see how the performance at 70mm f2.8 stacks up with the 24-70 II at that setting...
The 28-70 appeared a bit softer to my eye at 70mm f2 than the 50 did at 1.2 (!). 28mm f2 on the other hand was fairly crisp. I'd be curious to see how the performance at 70mm f2.8 stacks up with the 24-70 II at that setting...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
