PhotonsToPhotos Results for the EOS R1
- Thread starter Richard CN
- Start date
I have only recently started filming with mine and I only do it because I have multiple bodies to work with. The majority of what I shoot is highschool running and track events. I've started setting up the r5m2 and letting it run video of the races while I shoot stills. I will also use it very limited when motorsports starts back up.
Upvote
0
Potentially; however, depending on the type of memory and where it is positioned in the workflow, it can be pretty efficient.
Upvote
0
My wife got the cooling grip for me for our anniversary. I had already bought the cheaper battery grip but the overheating issue really puts a damper on using it, especially for video.
Upvote
0
That’s like being disappointed that you didn’t win the massive millions-to-one odds lottery. Being disappointed when something doesn’t happen, when there was never a reasonable expectation of it happening, seems silly.
Upvote
0
Buffer in particular is really ridiculous at this price point IMO. Especially with canon’s implementation of the buffer being so much worse than the other companies.
And to everyone claiming it’s about power usage, no it’s not really. Canon uses two 16gbit ram chips in the r5ii. 32gbit and 64gbit LPDDR ICs exist and could have doubled or quadrupled the capacity without increasing power usage. In fact canon could have used a single larger IC to save power if that was the primary concern. Either way the power consumption of the ram IC would be minuscule compared to the sensor and viewfinder.
Upvote
0
Yes, the buffer size would be less of an issue if all Canon cameras didn't decide to stop shooting for multiple seconds when the buffer is full!
Upvote
0
I really do appreciate P2P and the information they provide. Yet, the R1 data just looks odd. Base ISO 200?
Anyway, others test DR and here are the results from Optyczne
Looks a bit different than P2P. Peak performance at ISO 100 vs ISO 200, smooth curve vs indications of a second base ISO (dual gain sensor) at ISO 1600.
Where it is consistent, the R3 has slightly better DR than the R1.
For those wanting to convert the # of tones to stops, Stops = Log2 (# tones/y axis value)
Anyway, others test DR and here are the results from Optyczne
Looks a bit different than P2P. Peak performance at ISO 100 vs ISO 200, smooth curve vs indications of a second base ISO (dual gain sensor) at ISO 1600.
Where it is consistent, the R3 has slightly better DR than the R1.
For those wanting to convert the # of tones to stops, Stops = Log2 (# tones/y axis value)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
My google translate translates this section as 'tonal range', not 'dynamic range'.
By all means, 'the number of tonal transitions' is not the dynamic range simply by definition of the dynamic range.
Upvote
0
Have you used the R5 II and A1....? The A1 does not hit its buffer as soon as the R5 II. For video the A1 has better IBIS and better dynamic range. I believe the R3 has more dynamic range than the R5 II also. The R5II is just not as powerful as the A1. So you just can't make claims that the R5II is better than the A1 without testing. Watching You Tube videos does not count.
I also got 2 hours of record time on the A1 compared to 18 min on the R5II at 4K 120p. Big difference between the R5II and A1 overheating.
Upvote
0
For video specifically R5II actually has industry leading dynamic range - https://www.cined.com/camera-database/?camera=EOS-R5-Mark-II#camera-dynamic-ranage-stop2
The only cameras better are dedicated video cameras that are drastically more expensive.
I will say A1II is superior in pretty much every other aspect as you note.
Upvote
0
Ha
Google vs Microsoft.
One translates it as Tonal Range (Google) and the other translates it as Dynamic Range (MS).
However, looking at their tests and what they did, even if there is a distinction, do you have a moment to elaborate on if you think there is a relevant difference to what we are discussing?
The Kodak Q-14 plate is used to measure dynamic range, it appears even by Imatest. This may not be 1:1 convertable with P2P, but few test results are. But I was more looking at the pattern/trend and commenting how it was different from P2P. Do you want to elaborate on why the test or perhaps the others on the same page shouldn't be compared to P2P's pDR?
Upvote
0
The dynamic range is simply not defined as a number of tones.
You can have (in theory) just two tones - black and bright white - but a huge dynamic range. At the same time, you can have a lot of distinguishable tonal gradations but a low dynamic range.
Because the tonal range in this case is related to the lowest recordable signal, it's somewhat related to the dynamic range but it's a different beast even by their own description.
On P2P, you can find "engineering dynamic range" - EDR - which is closer to what you're probably thinking about. The "photographic dynamic range" -PDR - is a special normalised metric that's supposed to be used in comparisons of cameras with different sensor sizes and pixel counts. You can't use PDR outside of photonstophotos context.
Upvote
0
Thanks for point it out. I think I have somewhat conflated Tonal Range and Dynamic Range so when Microsoft translated the text and called it Dynamic Range along with the Table that mostly fits the normal output, I went with it.
I think Optyczne did look at their version of Dynamic range, just the section below what I pulled from and posted above. Trying to connect the dots:
P2P's definition of PDR:
Going to Imatest:
Optyczne's "Tonal Dynamics" section included the following:
Using Google Translate and based on their description in the text, Wysoka is "High" 10 S/N ratio, Dobra is "Good" and 4 S/N ratio, Srednia (mean) and Niska (Low) are S/N 2 and 1, respectively.
From the above, Optyczne generated the following (Google translated) summary:
So, they call this "Tonal Dynamics" but it seems to follow Imatests test method for dynamic range. The "Wysoka" and P2Ps definition (minus CoC) are both 20 dB. I am not saying exact results should mirror each other as anything in how this is set up/analyzed could vary a bit. I am still wondering about how P2P concluded ISO 100 is outside the normal range while Canon does call ISO 100 base ISO. But I am not sure anything here sheds light on that.
Optyczne also concluded that the dual gain was at ISO 800, not ISO 1600 shown by P2P.
This is the first time I have really looked at an Optyzne camera review. They came highly recommended by a photographer I respect and it is a sister site to Lenstip which I have used before. So, sorry for a few bumps, but generally, some interesting data.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Optyczne.pl is a really great site. It's a pity they don't post in English, but I view it with Chrome and automatic translation so it's not a real problem.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
