First downloadable RAW R5 and R6 files

[sfericean]

I downloaded the RAW's and played with them a bit in Lightroom. I am blown away at the quality of the R6 files. Really. That 20mp sensor is just great!. The detail in the eagle and flamingo pictures far surpasses what my expectation was for that many mp's. The cheetah wasn't that bad either but I certainly expected a bit more. Maybe I'm pixel peeping too much but it seems that if Fro was able to get that close (and he never crops), I would think there would be a bit better noise performance. Am I just being too critical?

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes, the zoo shots. Just saying the ISO 1000 looks more like it does on my GFX than it does on my R. Seems like a meaningful improvement of several stops over the R. Will have to wait for true testing of course.

I want whatever you are taking, the R5 4,000iso shot (cheetah) looks no better than my 1DX II. Your whole premise for weeks has been there will be a "high iso improvement of 2 stops minimum" and if there is I don't see it. That means an R5 shot at 51,200iso should be the same as a 1DX III at 12,800!

 

[privatebydesign]

I downloaded the RAW's and played with them a bit in Lightroom. I am blown away at the quality of the R6 files. Really. That 20mp sensor is just great!. The detail in the eagle and flamingo pictures far surpasses what my expectation was for that many mp's. The cheetah wasn't that bad either but I certainly expected a bit more. Maybe I'm pixel peeping too much but it seems that if Fro was able to get that close (and he never crops), I would think there would be a bit better noise performance. Am I just being too critical?

Yes of the two I am more impressed with the R6 than the R5, but I'd want to see a lot more files first, the R5 image really isn't good light (4,000iso) whereas the R6 image has a lot more contrast and light to start with (500iso).

 

[sfericean]

Yes of the two I am more impressed with the R6 than the R5, but I'd want to see a lot more f...

Excellent point. The exposure was a bit off on that picture. Yeah, no matter what I'm super excited for both cameras. If Canon's goal was to make me want both the R5 & R6, they have certainly done a good job of that.

 

[privatebydesign]

Real story here is not that f/11 sucks, it's that the R5 high ISO performance beat expectations.

No it hasn't! You have one file at 500iso and one file at 1000iso, neither of which are high iso nor show any improvement over the older 1DX II. Do you think if you say it enough people will believe you or that it will become the truth?

 

[privatebydesign]

I downloaded the RAW's and played with them a bit in Lightroom. I am blown away at the quality of the R6 files. Really. That 20mp sensor is just great!. The detail in the eagle and flamingo pictures far surpasses what my expectation was for that many mp's. The cheetah wasn't that bad either but I certainly expected a bit more. Maybe I'm pixel peeping too much but it seems that if Fro was able to get that close (and he never crops), I would think there would be a bit better noise performance. Am I just being too critical?

No the R5 shot is at a severe disadvantage, it is 4,000iso posed to 500 and 1000iso and as Alan points out at f11 it is past the diffraction limit of the sensor, all these will diminish the detail. Wait until you see 100iso shots from the R5...

 

[highdesertmesa]

No it hasn't! You have one file at 500iso and one file at 1000iso, neither of which are high iso nor show any improvement over the older 1DX II. Do you think if you say it enough people will believe you or that it will become the truth?

I've only ever been talking about improvement over the R. If you can't see a big improvement there, then I don't know what you're smoking either, lol.

 

[Czardoom]

Just curious as people compare shots with the new cameras to their old cameras. Are the shots using comparable apertures? The apertures is a major contributor to how much noise your images have. ISO all by itself really doesn't give you enough info. At least that is my understanding. Which might explain why someone may see big improvements while someone else notices none.

 

[privatebydesign]

I've only ever been talking about improvement over the R. If you can't see a big improvement there, then I don't know what you're smoking either, lol.

First off, that isn't what you said. Here it is what you actually said

One thing is certain: Canon wouldn't be making f/7.1 L zooms and f/11 primes if they didn't have insane (as in industry-shaking) improvements in store for high ISO noise. Canon must have achieved current f/5.6-level IQ at f/11. So that's the amount of light/improvement we're talking about here – at minimum, IMO.

No mention of the R.

Anyway, if you compare the R to the 1DX II (I have no real experience with the R and you have no real experience with the 1DX II but we can compare our own experiences with our own cameras), you might well notice at 500iso there is maybe 1/4 of a stop difference in DR and at 1,000iso there is approximately 1/3 stop difference.

DxOMark Derived Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

Please point me to the big differences you are seeing in the three images from the R5/6 to images from the R, because no I am not seeing them. And the only 'high' iso image we have is from the R5 @ 4,000iso and it not impressive at all but is in mediocre lighting.

 

[highdesertmesa]

First off, that isn't what you said. Here it is what you actually said

No mention of the R.

Anyway, if you compare the R to the 1DX II (I have no real experience with the R and you have no real experience with the 1DX II but we can compare our own experiences with our own cameras), you might well notice at 500iso there is maybe 1/4 of a stop difference in DR and at 1,000iso there is approximately 1/3 stop difference.

DxOMark Derived Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

View attachment 191443

Please point me to the big differences you are seeing in the three images from the R5/6 to images from the R, because no I am not seeing them. And the only 'high' iso image we have is from the R5 @ 4,000iso and it not impressive at all but is in mediocre lighting.

I didn't say I mentioned the R, I said I was talking about the R.

Looks like the difference is 1/2 stop from 1600-6400. I'm not sure why you would cherry pick ISO 1000 since it sounds like you don't consider that high ISO.

In looking at that underexposed ISO 4000 image, I don't think my R could come close to that low level of noise given the recovery required. Like I said, we'll know for sure once proper tests are done.

 

[highdesertmesa]

Examples of R to R5 at higher ISOs using one my shots against Fro's. My R shot is at ISO 1600 and the R5 from Fro is at ISO 4000. Fro's image looks like a HUGE improvement to me, especially given the ISO difference here. R and 5D4 chroma noise is significant at higher ISOs.

ISO 1600 on the R – underexposed by about a stop and raised in C1


Screenshot of 1:1 zoom in C1 (default noise reduction)


Screenshot of 1:1 zoom of Fro's underexposed ISO 4000 DNG from the R5 in C1 (default noise reduction)


If you download Fro's shot for yourself and open it into Photoshop RAW developer, note that the default noise reduction will be set to ZERO, which is not how we're all used to comparing things in LR/C1. I don't use PS for RAW much, so not sure if zero noise reduction is the default for PS or if it's just because the R5 is new and PS doesn't know what to do with it.

 

[privatebydesign]

I didn't say I mentioned the R, I said I was talking about the R.

Looks like the difference is 1/2 stop from 1600-6400. I'm not sure why you would cherry pick ISO 1000 since it sounds like you don't consider that high ISO.

In looking at that underexposed ISO 4000 image, I don't think my R could come close to that low level of noise given the recovery required. Like I said, we'll know for sure once proper tests are done.

How could you be talking about it if you didn’t mention it?

I concentrated on the R6 shots (iso 500-1,000) because the R5 shot (Iso 4,000) doesn’t have any dynamic range, it is under exposed with little variation in the light, but the 1DX II would easily compete with that for noise when normalized at 4,000iso.

 

[privatebydesign]

We’ve been talking about this video and the downloadable RAW files on the earlier thread.

First downloadable RAW R5 and R6 files

Jared just posted a new video on Eye AF and is providing a few (well 3) raw files from the shoot. These are all shot with the 800 f11 but are very sharp. Files are here: https://froknowsphoto.com/r5r6animalaf/

www.canonrumors.com

 

[highdesertmesa]

How could you be talking about it if you didn’t mention it?

I concentrated on the R6 shots (iso 500-1,000) because the R5 shot (Iso 4,000) doesn’t have any dynamic range, it is under exposed with little variation in the light, but the 1DX II would easily compete with that for noise when normalized at 4,000iso.

I totally wouldn't have expected you to know I was talking about the R – I should have said that. I guess we all assume everyone's taking about things from our own frame of reference – what we own personally.

I haven't realized how far the 1DX3 has come since the R as far as high ISO – I'd probably be thrilled just have have 1DX3 high ISO performance in the R5. The R/5D4 is just so far behind with its 2016 tech, and charts don't always show how badly they lag behind current tech – I'm guessing that has to do with the fact that the charts don't discriminate between chroma and luminance noise. I find chroma noise particularly destructive to being able to use a camera in low light.

 

[SteveC]

I guess we all assume everyone's taking about things from our own frame of reference – what we own personally.

I have very little trouble with this; compared to the people here my equipment is stone knives and bear skins--*new* stone knives and bearskins, but still: stone knives and bearskins. My primary camera is an M6-II. It's a good camera, but most people here, if they own one at all, it's a casual thing, or a backup to their backup.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I really don't expect ISO performance to be better in the R5 than my 5D MK IV or my R. I'm hoping it won't get worse. The R6 does look like a reasonable low light camera, I think a lot of people will love it.

 

[privatebydesign]

I totally wouldn't have expected you to know I was talking about the R – I should have said that. I guess we all assume everyone's taking about things from our own frame of reference – what we own personally.

I haven't realized how far the 1DX3 has come since the R as far as high ISO – I'd probably be thrilled just have have 1DX3 high ISO performance in the R5. The R/5D4 is just so far behind with its 2016 tech, and charts don't always show how badly they lag behind current tech – I'm guessing that has to do with the fact that the charts don't discriminate between chroma and luminance noise. I find chroma noise particularly destructive to being able to use a camera in low light.

What are you taking about? There is zero improvement in high iso performance between the R and the 1DX III, in fact once you come off 125 iso they are basically the same.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

And here are comparison images of the R and the 1DX III at 6,400iso. No difference in noise, chroma or luminance.

Studio shot comparison: 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

And the RAW files

Studio shot comparison: 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

 

[highdesertmesa]

What are you taking about? There is zero improvement in high iso performance between the R and the 1DX III, in fact once you come off 125 iso they are basically the same.

View attachment 191447

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

Dude, I don’t have a damn 1DX3, I told you that, I’m going by what YOU keep saying. So now you’re saying the 1DX3 is NOT as good as the R5/6? Does your 1DX3 look like my R photo I posted at ISO 1600? All that chroma noise from hell?

I’m showing you with EXAMPLES how the R5 is kicking the ass of the R even at 4000 ISO versus 1600 ISO. So if you’re saying the 1DX3 is the same ISO performance as the R, then there’s no way in hell the 1DX3 comes close to the R5/6 examples. So if that’s the case, then F what you keep trying to sell here.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Dude, I don’t have a damn 1DX3, I told you that, I’m going by what YOU keep saying. So now you’re saying the 1DX3 is NOT as good as the R5/6? Does your 1DX3 look like my R photo I posted at ISO 1600? All that chroma noise from hell?

I’m showing you with EXAMPLES how the R5 is kicking the ass of the R even at 4000 ISO versus 1600 ISO. So if you’re saying the 1DX3 is the same ISO performance as the R, then there’s no way in hell the 1DX3 comes close to the R5/6 examples. So if that’s the case, then F what you keep trying to sell here.

The 1dx3 has the same sensor as the R6(for all intents and purposes). There will be no difference between the two unless you measure it on an atomic scale

 

[highdesertmesa]

The 1dx3 has the same sensor as the R6(for all intents and purposes). There will be no difference between the two unless you measure it on an atomic scale

You guys just keep up your photon pseudoscience and completely ignore the examples you’re seeing. Makes no difference to me. I just showed how ISO 4K on the R5 blows away the R at ISO 1600, and the Private person just showed us how the R is just as good at ISO as the 1DX3, which you say is the same as the R6. But in the sample shots the R6 noise looks even better than the R5, so... Jeezus, you guys.