PhotonsToPhotos does the Canon EOS R5 Mark II and it’s good

[Richard CR]

First things first here. A major shoutout goes to Bill Claff and his website PhotonsToPhotos. Bill has been tirelessly doing this work on sensor analysis for years. Without Bill's work we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, and be trying to subjectively look at shadow-boosted images from one camera to the next to determine

See full article...

 

[Richard CR]

This actually started off as a small article. Not sure what happened to that

 

[David - Sydney]

well thought out
still strange what happens at ISO400 though

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

well thought out
still strange what happens at ISO400 though

Yeah that bump has been around with the current cameras. Except the R5 II bumps the other way.

 

[Benjamin_L]

\"The EOS R5 using a mechanical shutter is a little more noisy and shows less DR than the EOS R5 does\"

some Mark II missing here

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

\"The EOS R5 using a mechanical shutter is a little more noisy and shows less DR than the EOS R5 does\"

some Mark II missing here

thanks.. fixed... no matter how many times you proof...............

 

[Benjamin_L]

Thanks for the article, exactly my thoughts while clicking through the cameras. Summary: Get out and take pictures

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Like you....I feel sad for all the other photographers who currently don't use Canon cameras...poor poor lost souls. They are in my moring prayers for redemption

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Like you....I feel sad for all the other photographers who currently don't use Canon cameras...poor poor lost souls. They are in my moring prayers for redemption

This does keep me up at night.

 

[freejay]

In reality (when people are taking pictures instead of talking about specs) these little differences (up or down) will not play any role whatsoever... It\'s only in your head...

 

[AlanF]

My day job is not photographing birds and dragonflies but staring at plots and evaluating them. Firstly, without error bars, the small differences in these plots are pretty meaningless as the values are so close and we don't what the reproducibility is between measurements and their confidence intervals. Secondly, the values of iso are not the measured ones but just the nominal ones from the camera settings, and as Bill Claff writes in the footnote: “Note that the x-axis is ISO Setting and not a "measured" value. Keep this in mind particularly when comparing to the Ideal lines.” For example, here are some of the nominal settings used and the real ones measured by DxOmark.
Iso 100 nominal. Measured: Nikon Z8 74; Sony A1 70; R5 54; R3 64.
Iso 400 nominal. Measured: Nikon Z8 298; Sony A1 281; R5 248; R3 285.
Iso 800 nominal. Measured: Nikon Z8 596, Sony A1 548; R5, 507; R3 562.
Differences of 0.4 might mean something, but what is the accuracy? At high iso, they are clearly too close to call for R5 vs R5ii.

 

[Chig]

Interesting but I'd like a comparison with the R6 mark ii please

 

[AlanF]

Interesting but I'd like a comparison with the R6 mark ii please

Here you are: The R6ii looks significantly lower at lowest iso in ES and no difference in mechanical, with the caveats in my last post.

 

[Maximilian]

First things first here. A major shoutout goes to Bill Claff and his website PhotonsToPhotos. Bill has been tirelessly doing this work on sensor analysis for years. Without Bill's work we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, and be trying to subjectively look at shadow-boosted images from one camera to the next to determine stuff.

Thanks to Bill, too.
Great offer of data.

@Richard CR , thanks to you, too.
ESP. for sorting all the stuff out.

The data were supplied by @Nrbelex who took the necessary images according to instructions and we have to thank him too. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/i-have-an-r5-mk-ii-ama.43815/

And thanks to @Nrbelex, too.

 

[Benjamin_L]

Interesting but I'd like a comparison with the R6 mark ii please

Just visit the page and compare almost every current camera

 

[Maximilian]

Overall a little bit disapointing that R5 and Mk II are so close to each other.
This seems to show how much hat sensor design was already squezed out to optimum.

Good news for all R5 owners. If the other new functions are not that important the money can stay in their pockets.

 

[AlanF]

Thanks to Bill, too.
Great offer of data.

@Richard CR , thanks to you, too.
ESP. for sorting all the stuff out.

The data were supplied by @Nrbelex who took the necessary images according to instructions and we have to thank him too. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/i-have-an-r5-mk-ii-ama.43815/

 

[Del Paso]

Overall a little bit disapointing that R5 and Mk II are so close to each other.
This seems to show how much hat sensor design was already squezed out to optimum.

Good news for all R5 owners. If the other new functions are not that important the money can stay in their pockets.

No chance!

 

[Richard CR]

The data were supplied by @Nrbelex who took the necessary images according to instructions and we have to thank him too. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/i-have-an-r5-mk-ii-ama.43815/

added, thanks!

 

[Richard CR]

Overall a little bit disapointing that R5 and Mk II are so close to each other.
This seems to show how much hat sensor design was already squezed out to optimum.

Good news for all R5 owners. If the other new functions are not that important the money can stay in their pockets.

it's actually an impressive feat to make a sensor readout 10x or so faster and not lose image quality.

16.5ms to 6.3ms (2.5x) , as 12 bit to 14 bit is 4x.