If raw image source from dpreview's publish，you will findout [High ISO Noise Reduction - Standard] in EXIF data.
Actually, Bill, your website has:
For the R5 ISO 400 tests slightly higher in PDR than ISO 200 in part due to something called Dual Conversion Gain. But the difference is quite small.
You would expect ISO 50 to test identically to ISO 100 since extended ISO 50 is identical to ISO 100 with 1 stop of exposure compensation.And...
Is ISO 50 actually that good? I thought I read that IQ suffered when using the expanded ISOs?
Sure, or maybe as 8"x10" trimmed from an 8"x12"; the important point is 8" on the shorter side.
The larger area sensor requires less enlarging to get to the standard viewing conditions (8" side short for example) so noise is less apparent and PDR is higher.
And it is interesting to see the R3 having three steps, indicating potentially "triple gain conversion"....
Thanks for this feedback. Until today, I had missed the fact that Canon was applying NR to RAW files entirely. Do we know what this looks like in practice?
It's not, Bill's data comes from volunteers who go through a protocol he defines that define a series of images from the camera in question.If raw image source from dpreview's publish，you will findout [High ISO Noise Reduction - Standard] in EXIF data.
IS same setting in dpreview's EOS R raw publish.
BUUUUUT~I remember this setting can set as DISABLE in my EOS R!
Dual Conversion Gain is an extra transistor and capacitor in the pixel. The transistor controls whether the capacitor is in the circuit or not.
I don't have an R3, but I've seen plenty of images and they're beautiful. I think most are simply fascinated to see this data and are happy that the DR really doesn't drop in ES mode.
Well, to me and many others I know not into the left brain side of art and photography it comes across as mental masturbation and incredibly dull but hey, I'd never ask for everyone to be just like me so carryon.
For me, it's force of habit. I had a 40D but picked up a Nikon D90 after seeing its much higher DXOMark score. Both shot beautiful images at base ISO, but I soon realized that the Nikon files were indeed more malleable. Plus, back then the Canon crop-sensor cameras really started falling apart as ISO went up. It wasn't so much increased noise as it was a loss of color fidelity. Higher ISO images--as low as 1600 on my D7--looked almost faded. The Nikon, by contrast, retained color integrity at much higher ISO values (e.g., D90 ISO 6400 was quite useable with a good dose of NR). There were things about Canon that I loved too much to switch--like the lenses for example--so I shot both for years.
I believe super fast readout, stacked sensors like the R3 has are not quite as good as a slower readout sensor when it comes to DR and noise performance.
