Gordan Laing Review: The Canon EOS R5 for photography

bbasiaga · Aug 4, 2020

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

Mark3794 · Aug 4, 2020

Rolling shutter "noticeably superior" to the R6. Well that's quite an accomplishment for a 45 mp camera

Quarkcharmed · Aug 4, 2020

That's a decent review, although I was surprised with noise comparison made on jpegs. It's basically useless.

KirkD · Aug 4, 2020

Here's a chart showing the dynamic range compared to other cameras. The R5 is excellent. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Quarkcharmed · Aug 4, 2020

KirkD said:
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.

mrproxy · Aug 4, 2020

KirkD said:
Here's a chart showing the dynamic range compared to other cameras. The R5 is excellent. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Why there is a jump around 400ISO?

This_That · Aug 4, 2020

Quarkcharmed said:
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.

mrproxy said:
Why there is a jump around 400ISO?

I remember hearing that the algorithm changes at ISO 400

Quarkcharmed said:
...looks like the R5 does some noise reduction on raw files in camera.

Ehm, it's not RAW any longer then.

Quarkcharmed · Aug 4, 2020

This_That said:
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.

Quarkcharmed · Aug 4, 2020

mrproxy said:
Why there is a jump around 400ISO?

They think Canon used some kind of dual gain in this sensor and ISO 400 is where it kicks in.

I don't have the camera yet but I downloaded some raw samples and they really look fantastic in the shadows even at ISO 400-800, compared to 5DIV.

Quarkcharmed · Aug 4, 2020

This_That said:
Ehm, it's not RAW any longer then.

It may (and most likely is) very moderate amount of NR. Interestingly it's only applied up ISO 640.

Sony also tamper with the raw files (see star eater effect).

Yes, raw sometimes isn't completely raw but slightly cooked.

mpmark · Aug 4, 2020

Quarkcharmed said:
Yes, raw sometimes isn't completely raw but slightly cooked.

that makes zero sense, a raw file is not completely raw? sure, ok

mariosk1gr · Aug 4, 2020

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...

Sharlin · Aug 4, 2020

mpmark said:
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.

David Hull · Aug 4, 2020

mrproxy said:
Why there is a jump around 400ISO?

They switch the gain on the pixels to improve the DR. Sony does this as well.

dorin · Aug 4, 2020

Finally something about stills..

LDS · Aug 4, 2020

This_That said:
Ehm, it's not RAW any longer then.

Depends. If the camera can actually have a measure of actual sensor noise and subtract it from the data the image is still RAW, in many ways a better RAW.

Anything not based on real noise measurement but on algorithms trying to detect what is noise and what is not is a different thing.

This_That · Aug 4, 2020

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the bulb-timer? That's handy stuff...

Set to Bulb, dial in your calculated exposure time, set self-timer and Bob's your uncle. No crappy IR remotes or cable remotes or mobile phone apps.

leadin2 · Aug 4, 2020

dorin said:
Finally something about stills..

Agree. Yet to read, but I’m more interested in photography than videos. Can’t wait for reviews on R6, though I get a feeling it will be the same as 1dx3?

degos · Aug 4, 2020

Sharlin said:
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.