The first noise test results from the Canon EOS R3 are in

[Canon Rumors Guy]

The-Digital-Picture has posted the first bit of image quality testing for the brand new Canon EOS R3. The first test deals with noise from the EOS R3, and you can compare it to pretty much every other camera out there.
You can check out the methodology of the image quality testing here.
I’m not a pixel peeper type, but I’m quite impressed by the first results. It definitely has a more pleasing noise pattern than the Canon EOS R5 or Canon EOS R6...

Continue reading...

 

[sanj]

Yes, I agree. It looks nice. I compared it at ISO 3200. I do not like to go beyond ISO 3200, but do find myself using 3200 often.

 

[kaihp]

Interesting, Bryan has a (pre-production?) R3 camera in his hands:

The Canon EOS R3 is in my hands, and this review is under continuous update.

Edit: when I compare the R3 to the 5D3, I find that the 5D3 looks better at up to ISO 800-1600, and the R3 looks better from around 1600 and clearly at 3200.
However, the difference in image sizes makes it a little hard to judge.

 

[amorse]

I love their comparisons. I've always been more partial to using their images to compare overexposure highlight retention. Impressive how far it's come on Canon's newer sensors, frankly.

 

[bbasiaga]

Looks very similar to the R6 until about 25k...then it looks a little nicer. Canon has done a great job with noise in the last couple of generations. Layer on some great noise reduction software (DXO or Topaz) and you can really see in the dark with these things.

Brian

 

[Josh-H]

its basically identical to the 1DX MK3

 

[rbielefeld]

I like the noise pattern of the R5, much better than past Canon bodies IMO.

 

[highdesertmesa]

R3 noise looks more smeared to me as if NR was being applied in the RAW.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Interesting, Bryan has a (pre-production?) R3 camera in his hands:



Edit: when I compare the R3 to the 5D3, I find that the 5D3 looks better at up to ISO 800-1600, and the R3 looks better from around 1600 and clearly at 3200.
However, the difference in image sizes makes it a little hard to judge.

The R3 is 24MP, the 5D3 is 22MP. The difference in image size is 5760 X 3840 compared with 6000 X 4000. That's a 4% difference in linear resolution.

 

[bergstrom]

so 12,800 is not that great still on R3.

 

[Josh-H]

so 12,800 is not that great still on R3.

Id say, just like the 1DX MK3, 12,800 is the practical limit before things start breaking down in an unrecoverable way.

 

[SV]

I’m not a pixel peeper type, but I’m quite impressed by the first results. It definitely has a more pleasing noise pattern than the Canon EOS R5 or Canon EOS R6.

You do know that the R3 is a much reduced image vs the R5. You may want to compare the R5 scaled down to the R3 resolution to better compare the noise differences, i.e., when DPReview comes out with their testing. Just saying...

 

[Flyingskiguy]

Very nice for a stacked sensor. Compare to the 24mp A9 (yes I know it’s older), kinda smokes it.

 

[Deleted]

What will be more interesting to me is seeing how dynamic range reduces as ISO increases.

 

[David - Sydney]

I wonder if Canon is "cooking the raw" file for noise reduction. This was certainly a criticism of the R5 if I recall but I don't see any issues with it.
Is the R3 dual gain ISO?

 

[AlanF]

What will be more interesting to me is seeing how dynamic range reduces as ISO increases.

Above about iso400, the 1DXIII, 5DIV, R5, R6 etc have identical DR. Basically, the modern sensors are so efficient it is the amount of light hitting the sensor that determines the DR, and that is independent of sensor. I doubt if the R3 sensor is any more efficient. Here's a link showing the DRs: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Cha...Mark IV,Canon EOS R,Canon EOS R5,Canon EOS R6

 

[Deleted]

Above about iso400, the 1DXIII, 5DIV, R5, R6 etc have identical DR. Basically, the modern sensors are so efficient it is the amount of light hitting the sensor that determines the DR, and that is independent of sensor. I doubt if the R3 sensor is any more efficient. Here's a link showing the DRs: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark III,Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Canon EOS R,Canon EOS R5,Canon EOS R6

Fab stuff. It was always noticeable before and often one of the reasons whyI dumped some high iso images. I could cope with the noise but the drop in DR often left some images looking far from ideal. Not always the case though, there are shots Ihave taken where low or very low DR is what made them work. Tends not to work for most wildlife shots though.

 

[Tidy Media]

Colours seem to shift a lot more magenta in the R5 and R6 compared to the R3 - maybe that's just an incorrect WB on the R3 though.

 

[Tremotino]

Above about iso400, the 1DXIII, 5DIV, R5, R6 etc have identical DR. Basically, the modern sensors are so efficient it is the amount of light hitting the sensor that determines the DR, and that is independent of sensor. I doubt if the R3 sensor is any more efficient. Here's a link showing the DRs: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark III,Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Canon EOS R,Canon EOS R5,Canon EOS R6

I always feel like my TSE 24 II has more DR than any other lense ever used on my 5div.
Do also other experienced this phenomenon?

I mean when I changed lense in a landscape situation the light range that this lense can cover is little higher than with other lenses.
Basically the histogram graph is with the same body and same scene a little bit more compressed on the TSE 24 II.
I believe, this is the main reason why photos taken with the TSE 24 II make me smile each time I see them after the shot

 

[perplex1]

You do know that the R3 is a much reduced image vs the R5. You may want to compare the R5 scaled down to the R3 resolution to better compare the noise differences, i.e., when DPReview comes out with their testing. Just saying...

so you are saying that the r5 doesn't really have more megapixels, its just a r3 sensor that was scaled up?