First downloadable RAW R5 and R6 files

Jan 10, 2020
23
17
Without raising my head above the parapet too much, I can safely say the R5 by far beats my R in performance.

this I feel is due to 1) noise handling, 2) focus 3)IBIS.
These are all key things really, taking these examples and other videos I have now seen the ability to handhold 800mm f/11 at 1/400-1/500 take a shot at 4000ISO and still produce a clean shot I can print after editing is something I cant recreate.

any one part of that equation I could work around but put them together and you get the result the of edited photo I did from the one Fro put out.

personally Icouldnt care less about the 1:1 and 70% this and if I dropped the MP of the camera. The results are what count and as much as I dont get these new lenses and I feel the R5 has a few deliberate compromises to allow for the R1 I can’t argue with the results.

(dive back behind the sandbags)
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
812
989
Without raising my head above the parapet too much, I can safely say the R5 by far beats my R in performance.

this I feel is due to 1) noise handling, 2) focus 3)IBIS.
These are all key things really, taking these examples and other videos I have now seen the ability to handhold 800mm f/11 at 1/400-1/500 take a shot at 4000ISO and still produce a clean shot I can print after editing is something I cant recreate.

any one part of that equation I could work around but put them together and you get the result the of edited photo I did from the one Fro put out.

personally Icouldnt care less about the 1:1 and 70% this and if I dropped the MP of the camera. The results are what count and as much as I dont get these new lenses and I feel the R5 has a few deliberate compromises to allow for the R1 I can’t argue with the results.

(dive back behind the sandbags)
Armor! A full suit of good armor will allow you to pop in more often
 

privatebydesign

I don't preorder, I'm not a paid beta tester!
Jan 29, 2011
8,860
2,791
120
Without raising my head above the parapet too much, I can safely say the R5 by far beats my R in performance.

this I feel is due to 1) noise handling, 2) focus 3)IBIS.
These are all key things really, taking these examples and other videos I have now seen the ability to handhold 800mm f/11 at 1/400-1/500 take a shot at 4000ISO and still produce a clean shot I can print after editing is something I cant recreate.

any one part of that equation I could work around but put them together and you get the result the of edited photo I did from the one Fro put out.

personally Icouldnt care less about the 1:1 and 70% this and if I dropped the MP of the camera. The results are what count and as much as I dont get these new lenses and I feel the R5 has a few deliberate compromises to allow for the R1 I can’t argue with the results.

(dive back behind the sandbags)
The question was never if the R5 bested the R, surely even to the most obtuse that is obvious on so many levels.

The specific question was if the R5 bested the R by a minimum of 2 stops at high iso, I believe most people would rank high iso at least in the 3,200 and higher range. Although it has been explained at length that there isn’t that amount of additional performance to be found in current technology and bit depth RAW files (and we are only interested in RAW files not doctored jpegs) whenever that was pointed out they were ridiculed and mocked without any kind of supporting theory or facts. Now the images are starting to come out the definition of high iso is being changed to 640iso, and comparatively small differences are being held up as some kind of support to the initial question.

And that initial question is the only one I am interested in answering and rebutting, I do not believe the R5 will have over 2 stops minimum improvement in high iso (over 3,200) performance over the R.

Do I think the R5 is an awesome camera that I am likely to buy? Yes, but I won’t be getting it for fallacious reasons.
 
Apr 17, 2017
269
309
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
The question was never if the R5 bested the R, surely even to the most obtuse that is obvious on so many levels.

The specific question was if the R5 bested the R by a minimum of 2 stops at high iso, I believe most people would rank high iso at least in the 3,200 and higher range. Although it has been explained at length that there isn’t that amount of additional performance to be found in current technology and bit depth RAW files (and we are only interested in RAW files not doctored jpegs) whenever that was pointed out they were ridiculed and mocked without any kind of supporting theory or facts. Now the images are starting to come out the definition of high iso is being changed to 640iso, and comparatively small differences are being held up as some kind of support to the initial question.

And that initial question is the only one I am interested in answering and rebutting, I do not believe the R5 will have over 2 stops minimum improvement in high iso (over 3,200) performance over the R.

Do I think the R5 is an awesome camera that I am likely to buy? Yes, but I won’t be getting it for fallacious reasons.
I think we're finally on the same page, putting aside the snarky comment about what's high ISO, since we both would probably like to see improved performance at 6400-12K. I just have higher hopes for the R5 vs R in the ISO 1600-12K range than you do. I hope I'm right by saying 2 stops improvement (when sized down to R resolution for equivalency as you suggested), but even one stop would be nice.

I'm not sure if DPR will have their R5 review and subsequent test chart up before the R5 deliveries start hitting. In any case, I won't be selling my R right away, so I'll be able to shoot the same scene with both bodies using the same lens at the same settings and compare.
 
Apr 17, 2017
269
309
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
R5 cannot be a better high iso camera than R6 by definition. R6 is your best bet when shooting at ISO6400 and higher. So as per my post: people do get emotional....
Do you have intel or link saying that the R5 sensor is the same architecture as the R6 only more dense? I haven’t heard any details about the R5 sensor tech in relation to the R6.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,282
1,122
Do you have intel or link saying that the R5 sensor is the same architecture as the R6 only more dense? I haven’t heard any details about the R5 sensor tech in relation to the R6.
yes.. Canon's word: sensor in R6 is a better sensor from a high ISO perspective than in R5.. mentioned multiple time in Canon product presentation videos, by Canon EOLs, product reviews. nothing unexpected. IDX3 sensor is excellent in low light. So this is one of the R6 features: low light performance.

R5 high ISO performance (3200 - 6400 and up) will NOT be better than R6 or 1Dx3...

let's focus on your original statement though: you expected R5 to perform at high ISO by at least.. at least 2 stops better...

myself and Privatebydesign addressed you on that number of time. An you keep coming back with more "information" to support your point.

let's agree / accept that your initial statement is false and move on from here.

P.S. so here is you post.. let see what you said back then:

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.


and then here again. much of the muchness:

I hope I'm right by saying 2 stops improvement (when sized down to R resolution for equivalency as you suggested), but even one stop would be nice.

 
Last edited:

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,611
513
Davidson, NC
I am only caring about the noise at ISO 4000. I have started to get comfortable shooting in dark environments at ISO 3200 and even ISO 10,000 which has been rather clean on newer bodies.
Even with my 6D2, I have found that in most situations ISO 3200 has little or no downside, certainly as a practical matter.
 

Joules

EOS R
Jul 16, 2017
919
1,011
Hamburg, Germany
What I was calling pseudoscience were the recent comments about how we’ve reaching a physical limit for ISO improvement, which completely discounts new sensor design (R5) and processor and firmware improvements. Those were statements made with even less proof since no one has a future camera in front of them to test it.
There is a physical limit for how much improvement in low light performance we can expect in the future though. Noise isn't just caused by the camera. It is also a characteristic of the light itself. Even with a perfect camera that introduces 0 noise due to heat and imperfections in the read out circuits, you'll still get noisy images in low light.

From what you've written I'm not sure if you are aware of that. If you are, and these aren't the claims you were referring to, than I can't judge if pseudoscience is an appropriate word to use. But otherwise, I disagree with its usage.

Especially since you yourself seem to prefer testing / comparing noise at 1:1 resolution, which goes against the scientific approach of only changing one variable at a time.
 

sfericean

EOS R & 5DIV
Sep 2, 2018
27
34
Bellflower, CA
www.youtube.com
Didn't see this posted yet, but DPR has a large gallery of samples (w/ downloadable raws) now available. I'd guess a review is coming soon.

I saw that, but wasn't able to open them in Lightroom or DPP. Would love to know how Fro was able to get DNG's. In not the best with the tech so any help would be greatly appreciated.
 

Keith_Reeder

I really don't mind offending trolls.
Feb 8, 2014
957
469
59
Blyth, NE England
There is a physical limit for how much improvement in low light performance we can expect in the future though. Noise isn't just caused by the camera. It is also a characteristic of the light itself. Even with a perfect camera that introduces 0 noise due to heat and imperfections in the read out circuits, you'll still get noisy images in low light.
All true, but - as I find myself pointing out time and time again - the choice of converter and its demosaicing algorithm(s) have a huge part to play in how much noise a conversion from Raw generates in the image.

It is a fact (many of us have tested this to exhaustion) that some demosaicing algorithms simply generate more noise at a given ISO, than do others. Note that this is aside from any noise reduction that the converter might apply: it is axiomatic for example, that LightRoom's demosaicing is far more "noisy" at a given ISO than the algorithm in Photo Ninja, which is precisely why I'm a Photo Ninja user, not a LightRoom user.

(I choose these two for this comparison simply because the NR can be turned off completely in both, making for a meaningful comparison. This is not true of Capture One, for example).

As to NR, a particularly smart NR implementation (Photo Ninja again) will automatically adapt to the content of the image and selectively apply more or less NR to the highlights, mid and shadow areas, and to different colour channels, further improving the overall result: and - uniquely to Photo Ninja as far as I'm aware - its NR is edge aware and will leave detail alone while applying more NR to smooth OOF areas. It's a bit like the LightRoom "masking" function, but applied automatically.

But because Photo Ninja conversions have more fine detail - and less noise - in the first place because of its superior demosaicing algorithm, the files need less in the way of overall sharpening and NR anyway.

My point being that you're entirely likely to gain significantly more by being fussy about your choice of converter, than by springing for the latest and greatest camera/sensor technology and then converting your Raw files in a below-par converter.

And for the avoidance of any doubt, I include DPP in this: I know there's a notion that "nobody knows Canon files better than Canon", and when it comes to maximising low ISO DR in Canon files (a story for another time..! :) ) I'd agree. But it's nowhere near the top of the league when it comes to converting high ISO Canon files...
 

adigoks

EOS 750D
Jul 12, 2020
35
46
Didn't see this posted yet, but DPR has a large gallery of samples (w/ downloadable raws) now available. I'd guess a review is coming soon.

after seeing those gallery. In my opinion, i think canon gave different JPEG processing algorithm between R6 & R5. R5 looks like my 750d in term of JPEG fine detail . it lose slight of detail, make it little bit softer when zoom 100% . while R6 preserve more detail in its JPEG. i didnt look at the RAW yet tho .
 
Last edited:

Joules

EOS R
Jul 16, 2017
919
1,011
Hamburg, Germany
All true, but - as I find myself pointing out time and time again - the choice of converter and its demosaicing algorithm(s) have a huge part to play in how much noise a conversion from Raw generates in the image.
I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me. I am not arguing that the level of noise we currently encounter in a typical workflow is as good as it can be or anything like that.

I am just no fan at all of using the term pseudoscience lightly. Especially in these times, with science and nuance being so important. The poster I was replying to seemed to imply that people who point out that there is a hard limit in low light performance were about to be proven wrong by the R5. There are definitely techniques that allow you to get better results in low light than some time ago and I don't think we have reached the limit of what can be done yet. But one must also have realistic expectations and know how to properly compare samples when trying to judge the progress that has been made.

Thanks for the write up on Noise Ninja though. I've been playing with the thought of trying it a few times already. As you mentioned subject specific noise reduction, do you know how it performs for deep sky objects?