PhotonsToPhotos does the Canon EOS R5 Mark II and it’s good
- Thread starter Richard CN
- Start date
I suggest you read the site more carefully. As @Quarkcharmed points out applying NR at more ISO settings does not mean more NR is applied at any given setting. The R3 also shows as NR throughout the range, and I bet the R1 will, as well.
Upvote
0
Sure if you ignore that only the 5D Mark IV came close to matching the camera. and AF without microadjust "a fancy feature" okay then. carry on.
no it indicates some kind of spatial filtering. and I did go into this. read the article?
no, not really - filtering can be happening for other reasons - such as because canon has two pixels under each microlens.
The Z7-III that doesn't exist? people just don't up and move cameras every generation. that's a foolish assumption .. oh, and was mentioned already in the article
A7R IV is only a 4K60p 10 fps camera and really primarily a landscape camera and can only shoot 6fps uncompressed raw. but do go on how how somehow these are similar cameras.
It was mentioned. perhaps reading is in order.
"I know some of you are going to jump all over me in the forums over the lack of conversation around noise reduction in the camera pipeline. This is my thoughts: It's the camera that delivers the image, not necessarily just the image sensor. If you are not losing resolution or fidelity to the noise reduction, in my mind, it's no harm no foul. If your resolution is noticeably poorer because you have used a poor-quality algorithm, then that is important. However, those days are over as well."
Some may, I don't. As long as we are not losing resolution or fidelity it doesn't matter where that happens in the pipeline. Again, reading is in order.
You are welcome to write your own articles.
Upvote
0
My point is that there IS noise reduction being applied across the whole ISO spectrum with the R5 II.
It may be less total NR compared to what was being done for low ISOs on the R5, but there is certainly more of it.
Personally, I would hope Canon weren't having to bake in NR to get the DR curves to match?
Upvote
0
definately not. the low ISO DR of the R5 Mark II is less than the R5, AND has far less spatial filtering - which means Canon certainly didn't try to match DR curves where it's important.
this also isn't the same as running your images through image noise reduction either.
Upvote
0
Right.
Actually, not all of it (mea culpa) ... once I started to get a taste of what it was going to say, it didn't seem like it would be very interesting so I kind of skipped ahead because it seemed like it was going to be a boring read about Canon being better because Canon (that was bsed on the cameras you chose to compare the R5-II against.) Sorry.
Let me just expand on what your choice of cameras to compare against it means (to me.) The only reason I'd buy the R5 series from Canon is becuase it is the only MILC that Canon sells with more than 24MP. In comparing it with the A9, the difference in DR is highlighted whilst ignoring the fact that the A9 has a global shutter and the R5-II does not. If you're shooting sports or video, global shutter can be worth far more to you than DR (no jello effect.) But I'm not interested in the A9, nor the A1. The comparison to the Z8 was almost more interesting except that it isn't in an attractive price bracket whereas the Z7-II is. To me it looks like you picked cameras to compare the R5-II favourably against, which doesn't really tell me much.
Interesting hypothesis. Don't know how that gets tested.
I need glasses. I meant to write Z7-II (the Z7-III isn't on the other website and isn't what I looked at there.)
I mentioned A7RV, not A7RIV (your typo?). Either way, I don't care that it only does 4K60p. Your story is about the photonstophotos website & it judges results for photographs, not videos. But I suppose you're trying to do a "well the R5-II also does...", to which I'll say what I've said before: 8K is a dead format for consumers. DOA. Worse than 3D for 1080p. I want to take photos, hence I take note of photonstophotos and 10fps is more than enough. If I cared about video, I'd look elsewhere. Is 10fps enough? Well that's the same as the 1D Mark III, which was aimed at sports photographers who were able to get the shot. I think if I was a sports photographer with the R5-II, I'd just stop taking photos and use 8k video and grab stills from that.
Next thing you know there will be ads for the R5-II on cable shopping channels because the R5-II does everything you want and even more., order now and to get your free set of steak knives!
I take your point and it is a valid argument to make. I think it is important to keep it mind because when using the chart, you're not necessarily comparing apples with apples with respect to DR that's in the files. Apples to unside down pears maybe.
Thanks for the offer, I seem to be having enough trouble reading, might need to fix that before I start writing.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Even the Sony A1, A7, etc sensors show the same pattern that Bill is citing as proof of NR on the R5II. Bill just decided that eyeballing the magnitude of the pattern is enough to decide whether or not to mark a sensor as having NR. And there hasn't been one person to definitively prove that the spectral pattern is noise reduction vs some other form of signal processing. Only the current Nikon bodies seem to definitively have no signs of any sort of signal processing.
Upvote
0
Yes but in terms of noise with video it's better? That's what the video is saying right? and the highlights are better with c log 2.. so I wonder what the DR is then if it's better in video or not.
Upvote
0
@Richard CR can you add the numbers for the readout speeds as well in the article? For all the cameras involved 
Upvote
0
I pre-ordered the R5 Mark II within seconds of pre-orders going up (current R5 user). I\'m surprised at how much this goes flying under the radar, but for me, the stand out feature was using your eyes to focus. To me, this is incredible.
I\'ve had so many [sometimes fleeting] moments where I needed to focus on a specific subject and couldn\'t possibly rely on the autofocus to get the right subject, no matter how good it is, and always muttered to myself - wondering if there will be a more intuitive, ultra fast way to select a subject to focus on. Well, here it is... I hope...
I\'m one of the few(?) people who actually went from Sony [mirrorless] to Canon (still have some GM lenses in my Pelican cases somewhere). I\'ve relooked Sony\'s offerings (before pre-ordering the Mark II), and there\'s just no compelling reason to go back. It\'s just too close sensor wise. Which leaves the user experience and camera feature set and usability. Canon really got it right I think.
I\'ve had so many [sometimes fleeting] moments where I needed to focus on a specific subject and couldn\'t possibly rely on the autofocus to get the right subject, no matter how good it is, and always muttered to myself - wondering if there will be a more intuitive, ultra fast way to select a subject to focus on. Well, here it is... I hope...
I\'m one of the few(?) people who actually went from Sony [mirrorless] to Canon (still have some GM lenses in my Pelican cases somewhere). I\'ve relooked Sony\'s offerings (before pre-ordering the Mark II), and there\'s just no compelling reason to go back. It\'s just too close sensor wise. Which leaves the user experience and camera feature set and usability. Canon really got it right I think.
Upvote
0
We really only have a slight understanding about what’s being done at ISO 100. Has Bill indicated if it’s consistent throughout the range?
Upvote
0
@Richard CR can you add the numbers for the readout speeds as well in the article? For all the cameras involved
I'll look it up - it can be complicated as some will be 12 bit, others 13 and even others 14 bit. and if you are using it for video, then each video resolution and speed may or may not have a different readout speed.
It may be another one of those things that balloons out of control into a separate article.
Upvote
0
Richard, this is a very useful link, horshack is doing a great job collating measurements made by users
One more thing against the Sony A7RV, its readout time is 0.1s - yes 100ms for those who think it is better than the R5 with its 16.5ms.
Upvote
0
I would agree, but it seems to be something of a one way street. If I apply NR to just the 0-10 values in the raw file from my 5DIV before processing can I legitimately claim that I now have the same DR as an R5 ?
Upvote
0
Personally, I would hope that people would try to understand what they’re talking about before they post. We don’t all get what we hope for. See the comments from @Richard CR above.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
