DPReview just put up their sample gallery for the R5

[Quirkz]

I see banding in all the high iso shots particularly in out of focus backgrounds, to the extent that the images are unusable. Considering these are camera processed jpegs it isn’t what I would want to be seeing.

Really? I didn't notice that at all, I was too busy impressed by 51,000 ISO. Can you point out the images you noticed that in, and where? Your eyes may be more sensitive than mine.

And also - it's iso 51,000. Since when was 'usable' an expectation? I'm just impressed at how decent a 51k image is with surprisingly good DR, because it points to the fact that lower, more reasonable iso's should be great.

And, downsample these for web, you've got an image that's vastly superior to any smartphone shot, even if you wouldn't put it on the wall.

 

[zim]

Happy to be corrected but having processed a couple of their R6 files and looked at their R5 images are those guys capable of taking a correctly exposed properly lit and sharp photo? honestly they pretty much all look like crap to me, just don't believe that's all those cameras are capable of, very surprised

Ok so a bit weird I'm quoting myself here but since writing the above I've realised that there are two separate galleries in dpreview for both the 5 and 6 I've only looked at the TV ones so unable to do so right now but looking forward to checking out the other two galleries that others are referencing

 

[privatebydesign]

Really? I didn't notice that at all, I was too busy impressed by 51,000 ISO. Can you point out the images you noticed that in, and where? Your eyes may be more sensitive than mine.

And also - it's iso 51,000. Since when was 'usable' an expectation? I'm just impressed at how decent a 51k image is with surprisingly good DR, because it points to the fact that lower, more reasonable iso's should be great.

And, downsample these for web, you've got an image that's vastly superior to any smartphone shot, even if you wouldn't put it on the wall.

My iPad shows them worse than my laptop which shows them worse than my main screen, but I can see banding on most of them. Yes they are 51,200 and yes they are better than phones with tiny sensors, but for me if it isn't usable it doesn't have value. The jpeg artifacts are pretty horrific too! Are we really at the point where $4,000 cameras are being compared to phones and considered suitable for snapshots? I'd be looking at an R5 for the resolution, dynamic range and all around image quality at base iso, not congratulating it on producing questionable low resolution jpegs at unworkable iso's. But I appreciate that's me.

 

[Quirkz]

My iPad shows them worse than my laptop which shows them worse than my main screen, but I can see banding on most of them. Yes they are 51,200 and yes they are better than phones with tiny sensors, but for me if it isn't usable it doesn't have value. The jpeg artifacts are pretty horrific too! Are we really at the point where $4,000 cameras are being compared to phones and considered suitable for snapshots? I'd be looking at an R5 for the resolution, dynamic range and all around image quality at base iso, not congratulating it on producing questionable low resolution jpegs at unworkable iso's. But I appreciate that's me.

Thanks for taking the time to do this! To me, these are almost invisible, so I'm not too concerned. but now that you've said it's stronger on your iPad, I'll go and view it from there as well to see if it's more obviously bad.

And in answer to your other point; sounds like you're going to get great quality at base ISO, so you'll get what you want. I love city scapes at night - so high ISO is more used (though I never push to 25k or 51k). It's nice to know that if I had to, these images (for me) are actually acceptable - Better than not getting the shot at all.

Though the IBIS will make a bigger difference to those night scapes on my unstabilised lenses than the ISO will.

 

[Quirkz]

My iPad shows them worse than my laptop which shows them worse than my main screen, but I can see banding on most of them. Yes they are 51,200 and yes they are better than phones with tiny sensors, but for me if it isn't usable it doesn't have value. The jpeg artifacts are pretty horrific too! Are we really at the point where $4,000 cameras are being compared to phones and considered suitable for snapshots? I'd be looking at an R5 for the resolution, dynamic range and all around image quality at base iso, not congratulating it on producing questionable low resolution jpegs at unworkable iso's. But I appreciate that's me.

It's slightly more obvious on my iPad; I think simply because the screen is much smaller, making the 'lines' closer together and more obvious. Still, it's nothing that would upset me terribly given that it's 51k.

 

[privatebydesign]

It's slightly more obvious on my iPad; I think simply because the screen is much smaller, making the 'lines' closer together and more obvious. Still, it's nothing that would upset me terribly given that it's 51k.

Yes it’s easier to notice these things when they are smaller sizes and the unnatural artifacts become more obvious, like cloning zoomed in, you think you have done a great job then zoom out and it looks horrible! I suppose my point is better made by saying you are losing so much resolution to artifacts there is zero point to the resolution, ergo for that type of shooting the R6 is a better buy and better value.

 

[SecureGSM]

The digital pictures tests show no high iso advantage for the r6 when both are compared at the r6 resolution:

Should I Get the R6 Instead of the R5 for the Lowest Image Noise Levels?

Should I Get the R6 Instead of the R5 for the Lowest Image Noise Levels? — The-Digital-Picture.com

www.the-digital-picture.com

Ummm. Ok. Here are two images first one is R5 and second one R6. Let’s see... the word “green”, bottom left corner. Look at the outlines. There is obviously more details in R6. Fair enough not day and night difference. 1/3 of a stop approx. however I trust that Bryan Likely overlooked details and focused on noise levels instead

 

[Quirkz]

Ummm. Ok. Here are two images first one is R5 and second one R6. Let’s see... the word “green”, bottom left corner. Look at the outlines. There is obviously more details in R6. Fair enough not day and night difference. 1/3 of a stop approx. however I trust that Bryan Likely overlooked details and focused on noise levels instead

Yeah, I can see the difference now that you've pointed it out.

To be fair to Bryan, his actual careful wording was something like 'No NOISE advantage', and suggested that high ISO would not be a reason to choose one over the other. (and I'd agree). He also demonstrates that when using PS to do the downsizing (instead of DDP), results in the reverse - the R5 has finer detail, at the expense of slightly more obvious noise.

You can see that on the chart as well.

I just mostly wanted to make sure here that people don't think Bryan said something he didn't due to something I may have said or implied.

 

[Quirkz]

What actually concerns me, is that to my eye, there seems to be a very very slight hint of magenta or pink in the greyscale, especially on the lighter tones, on the r5 vs the r6 (and other cameras.), even at base ISO.

Anyone else see that? Am I imagining things?

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

What actually concerns me, is that to my eye, there seems to be a very very slight hint of magenta or pink in the greyscale, especially on the lighter tones, on the r5 vs the r6 (and other cameras.), even at base ISO.

Anyone else see that? Am I imagining things?

It might be a matter of which picture profile was used in the camera or the raw converter used. Canon cameras in the past have had a bit of a magenta colour shift in most picture styles..

 

[Act444]

Studio scene of the R5 has been added.

Canon EOS R5 added to studio test scene

Canon's EOS R5 mirrorless camera is the second-highest megapixel camera body the company has released, and now that we have a final model in our offices, we've set it up in front of our test scene to see what it can do.

www.dpreview.com

My conclusion - at base ISO, the 5DSR is still resolution king. However, the R5 is a close second, and looks (to my eyes) to be ever so slightly crisper than the R. That tells me the AA filter in the R5 may be a little bit weaker than the one in the R...but it is still a step down from the unfiltered 5DSR. Thankfully it is not a big one, though.

However - compare the R5 to the standard 5DS (again, at base ISO), which is also filtered, and details in the R5 image appear to be better defined, even with the slightly lower resolution. Now, hard to tell how much of this is due to lens differences - I think at least some of it is explained that way - but the fact that the 5DSR remains the sharpest tells me that the R5 is somewhere in between those two cameras in resolving details.

Colors - YMMV on this one, since we all have different tastes. But to MY eyes, the R5 (or any of the R cameras for that matter) simply cannot measure up to the 5DS/R's OOC color palette. Like most of Canon's newer (post-2016) cameras, the R5 has the same dull, muted color output - particularly in the green-yellow spectrum.

High ISO - at 1600 ISO and higher, the R5 exhibits significantly less color noise than the 5DS/R. Could make a big difference with available light portrait shots, for example - as skin tones will remain even throughout. Although, once you get to 6400, both have reached the "point of no return" in my opinion...

Conclusion: I think as long as you stay at or below 800 ISO, I'd still pick the 5DSR if detail is the priority. So - studio, bright daylight, static scenes. Above that, the R5 images will clean up much nicer.

 

[analoggrotto]

@Act444 ya beat me too it! It looks hella good!

 

[Quirkz]

Colors - YMMV on this one, since we all have different tastes. But to MY eyes, the R5 (or any of the R cameras for that matter) simply cannot measure up to the 5DS/R's OOC color palette. Like most of Canon's newer (post-2016) cameras, the R5 has the same dull, muted color output - particularly in the green-yellow spectrum.

Interesting - must be a preference thing. I always found the color on my 5d4/R/RP better than my older 5D3. Felt the 5D3 was weirdly, subtly oversaturated on some colours, and less natural.