Gordan Laing Review: The Canon EOS R5 for photography

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
8,422
1,189
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Gordon Laing from Camera Labs has completed his review of the Canon EOS R5. Instead of reviewing the video performance of the camera, his review focuses on stills photography. The Canon EOS R5 looks to be a great one.
From the autofocus to the competitive dynamic range, the Canon EOS R5 will likely find its way into a lot of photographers’ bags.
Continue reading...


 

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
336
291
USA
These reviews always make me want to spend money....

I was convinced the R6 would be the right entry point for me in to the mirrorless realm. But these R5 reviews are tempting. I need to see some more R6 reviews to change my mind back! :) Its more financially my speed too.

-Brian
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
1,198
1,061
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Here's a chart showing the dynamic range compared to other cameras. The R5 is excellent. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
Yeah it beats even A7rIV, there was a discussion in another thread. There's a caveat though: the low-ISO metrics are coming from images with noise reduction applied. It looks like the R5 does some noise reduction on raw files in camera.
 
Aug 17, 2016
7
21
That's a decent review, although I was surprised with noise comparison made on jpegs. It's basically useless.
Not really IMHO. I'm not interested in the amount of noise, I'm interested what I can get out of low light situations. And while actually seeing less noise in a comparison might be satisfying in some way, knowing that I can have an ISO 12.800 picture processed with no noise visible benefits me more.

Why there is a jump around 400ISO?
I remember hearing that the algorithm changes at ISO 400

...looks like the R5 does some noise reduction on raw files in camera.
Ehm, it's not RAW any longer then.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
1,198
1,061
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Not really IMHO. I'm not interested in the amount of noise, I'm interested what I can get out of low light situations. And while actually seeing less noise in a comparison might be satisfying in some way, knowing that I can have an ISO 12.800 picture processed with no noise visible benefits me more.


I remember hearing that the algorithm changes at ISO 400
You can apply arbitrary amount of NR on raw files depending on your taste and target image dimensions, so the noise comparison is most valuable if done on raw files before any noise reduction is applied.
Out of camera jpegs have some unknown amount of NR applied in camera, so noise comparison on jpegs actually shows how nice NR algorithms are in different cameras.
 

mariosk1gr

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 4, 2019
73
49
For those who were talking about R5's Dynamic Range...
Now add the specs (top AF, IBIS, 12/20fps, 8k Raw, 4k HQ), RF Glass and the colors Canon provides and then come and tell me that Canon has not the the best hybrid system out there!! Expect a few firmware updates that will extend record times and reduce cooldowns. Im telling this mostly to myself who cancelled the preorder and now I have to wait for sometime...
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,337
1,139
Turku, Finland
that makes zero sense, a raw file is not completely raw? sure, ok
It's as raw as you can get. Whatever processing the camera may or may not do is a black box to the user. Complaining that CR3 is not "raw" is just semantic masturbation as long as it's not possible to make the camera output anything more raw than what we already get.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
330
251
Complaining that CR3 is not "raw" is just semantic masturbation as long as it's not possible to make the camera output anything more raw than what we already get.
No, the measurebation is on Canon's part for messing with RAW in order to come out better than Sony in NR comparisons.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mariosk1gr