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

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. Some heroes do not wear capes. Also special thanks to our forum's own @Nrbelex who assembled all the RAWs and shipped them out to Bill.

There's been a lot of internet chatter on the EOS R5 Mark II's dynamic range especially when PhotonsToPhotos released their findings based on donated RAW files. I find it amazing but it's also a sign of the times that different websites can review the data, and come up with drastically different conclusions.

Let's get into the dirty details and discuss why some people are wrong on the internet. Again. We may even mock them. At the time of writing, I haven't decided. But some people's narratives are getting a little exhausting. I know that content writers in the camera space are seeing revenues decline as the market gets smaller, but I still think we should strive to do the best for our users.

Who Really is the Competition?

The competition is really split between four segments and in my opinion, the order of Canon's priority on this is existing DSLR prosumer and professional users, EOS R5 users, RF mount users, and finally other camera vendor users.

There's no denying that Canon had the largest mount installed base in the EF mount. They easily eclipsed Nikon and that was with only 25 years of shipping cameras with the EF mount versus the 60 years of the Nikon F mount. There is still going to be a desire to get those people to move, as they are the easiest and most profitable users to sell the EOS R5 Mark II to. Consider that they'll purchase the camera, and an EF mount adapter, and slowly start to purchase compelling RF mount lenses.

The last model of the camera will always be competition for the newer model. Every new camera needs to answer the question does it have enough features and image quality to make the R5 not the “last camera that people will buy” and upgrade from the EOS R5 to the EOS R5 Mark II? In the case of short turnaround releases under 4 years – this may not be the case, but Canon wants you to have a compelling reason to purchase the R5 Mark II if you are sitting there with an R5.

Then of course you have the people who have R6s and R8s or even RF mount APS-C cameras looking to migrate to a more professional camera. This of course is a pretty natural transition and also why things such as market segmentation exist in just about every industry.

And finally, yes I know there are other brands of cameras out there – of this, I think this is the smallest importance to Canon but the largest importance to fanboys. These customers are suffering because they are using something other than a Canon camera. We should all pause and give thoughts and prayers to those poor souls.

I know some will say, but Sony, Nikon, etc can use EF glass so they can switch to a new system. Yes, but there's a certain way Canon cameras work, menus, ergonomics, etc. Nikon has a different thought around cameras, and Sony never will. There will be more of a resistance to moving to an entirely different brand if you are already using a brand and finding it capable. Let's face it, if you are using a Canon DSLR still these days, you are finding it more than good enough for your photography.

Canon EOS R5 Mark II compared to Canon DSLR's

If this is you, why are you not preordering yet?

The difference alone between RF mount and EF mount even for EF lenses is significant. The AF is accurate with no need for calibration of the phase-detect AF in Canon's DSLRs. The cameras are faster, the sensors are better, and everything is improved. If there ever was a time to make the jump and investment into the RF mount, the EOS R5 Mark II is the most complete camera that Canon has ever developed.

In terms of dynamic range, only the EOS 5D Mark IV is close to the EOS R5 Mark II, with around a .5 EV gain in using the EOS R5 Mark II over the 5D Mark IV. But if you shoot any sort of video the advantages of the readout speed are decidedly in favor of the EOS R5 Mark II. If you are using any other version of the 5D, it's time.

Canon EOS R5 vs Canon EOS R5 Mark II

Both are amazing cameras. We will bypass talking about the AF changes, the better heat management, the improved video features, and eye control focus – all of these factors make it a camera that EOS R5 users can upgrade to.

But most importantly for those EOS R5 users, the image quality has to be excellent and competitive for them to upgrade. It's a mixed bag if you are coming from the EOS R5, but I believe the sensor's advantages outweigh the minor negatives.

There is a price to pay when you have the need for speed. Noise and thus, dynamic range suffers slightly with the EOS R5 Mark II as compared to the EOS R5.

The EOS R5 Mark II using a mechanical shutter is a little more noisy and shows less DR than the EOS R5 does. But in terms of absolute numbers, this amounts to .4EV less than the EOS R5. That dynamic range difference is only until the second gain at around ISO 500, and after that, the performance is pretty much equal between the two cameras. So if you find yourself shooting in higher ISO's then the difference is negligible. If you are a landscaper shooter who lives under ISO 200, then you will have to judge if the loss of DR is that important to you.

Now if we look at the electronic shutter operation, we see that the EOS R5 Mark II is better than the EOS R5 by nearly the same margin of .5 EV, most likely due to the fact that the EOS R5 Mark II supports 14-bit raws with the electronic shutter, while the EOS R5 only supports 12-bit. Again, after ISO 500, the two cameras are pretty much the same.

Now consider the speed difference of the sensors, which allows for a far better electronic shutter without artifacts and at the same time, an increased dynamic range. It's pretty significant what Canon has done in 1 generation there with nearly a 10-fold performance increase and a minor amount more noise than the prior generation of sensors.

Against the Competition: Sony

There is one thing that makes me sit up and mutter what?!

That's how closely the sensor in the EOS R5 Mark II matches the Sony A1. So much so, that going by the photonstophotos data, you could easily be confused by thinking that they mixed up the data accidentally. But the Sony A1's sensor has a triple stacked sensor with memory while the EOS R5 Mark II sensor does not have the third memory layer – so any matching seems to be purely coincidental at this time.

Look at it from this perspective, the $4300 EOS R5 Mark II has the same image quality as the $6500 Sony A1. That sounds like a win for the EOS R5 Mark II.

I know some Sony fans (Roger Cicala, aka Uncle Roger on Sony fanboyism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy with other equipment) will say the A1 will be replaced and thus be better than the EOS R5 Mark II if it's just matching it now. My response is .. will it? Sony still has to conform to the laws of physics and the faster they try to make the sensor, the more the dynamic range will lower and the noise will increase. So if the goal is to make the A1 II's sensor faster, there's a good chance that in terms of dynamic range, we won't see any improvement.

Oh and also, it's still going to be $2000 more than the R5 Mark II.

The next sensor most people will be comparing this to, is the Sony A9 Mark III – and it's just not close partly because of design compromises that it can't shoot natively under ISO 200. This, at both cameras' lowest ISO settings, gives Canon nearly 1.5 EV better dynamic range. It shows what Canon meant by stating we prefer not to compromise image quality. After ISO 200 the A9 Mark III does match up well to the EOS R5 Mark II, but if you want a jack of all trades, that also includes shooting at low ISO.

Granted for certain applications global shutter will make a huge difference but that isn't for everyone, and if you want a camera that has good image quality across the ISO range, the A9 III probably isn't it. I do think global shutters are the future for all cameras, but we aren't there yet.

Oh and also, it too is nearly $2000 more than the EOS R5 Mark II. Do you see a pattern? I do.

Against the Competition: Nikon

The biggest competition for the R5 Mark II comes from the Nikon Z 8. The Nikon Z 8 is a small-body version of Nikon's excellent Z9 flagship camera. We have to toss some admiration out to Nikon, while they have not made the pivot to mirrorless from the F mount financially successful that hasn't stopped Nikon from releasing some excellent cameras. The Z 9 and Z 8 are great cameras.

When set at the lowest ISO on the Z8 it matches the dynamic range of the R5 Mark II at ISO 100 and is nearly 1 full EV behind the EOS R5 Mark II at ISO 100. It's not until the dual gain of the sensors takes over at ISO 500 for both sensors, the difference is extremely minor.

Now to be fair, that's comparing the Z 8's fully electronic shutter against the R5 Mark II's mechanical shutter. But here's the rub: there are times you will want that ISO performance from 100 to 400, and having the option for a mechanical shutter isn't a bad thing. It's not Canon's fault that Nikon decided to go fully electronic and not give Nikon users the benefits of a mechanical shutter.

But if we do compare electronic shutters, just so that one particular website doesn't get up in arms over it. We see that at ISO 100 the EOS R5 Mark II still has the advantage, but the Nikon Z 8 pulls slightly ahead because it's able to shoot down to ISO 64. So if you are able to use ISO's lower than 100, then the Z 8 will be slightly better.

From the purist standpoint, the Z 8's sensor has a quicker readout speed and also has undetectable noise reduction in its processing pipeline, while Canon's EOS R5 Mark II still performs some noise reduction in the shadows.

But Canon keeping the mechanical shutter allows the camera to shoot at a higher dynamic range and arguably less noise than the Nikon camera, even though Nikon's choice of sensors is slightly better. What's more important? The sensor or the camera?

Summary

The older DSLRs stand to gain the most from a much faster sensor, and better dynamic range, not to mention all the inherent benefits of a mirrorless camera body that carries on the ergonomic and thought behind the camera legacy of the 5 series cameras. If you are on the fence, now is a good time to preorder.

The differences between the EOS R5 and the EOS R5 Mark II image quality are small enough that even if you are shooting an electronic shutter or mechanical shutter you probably will never notice the difference in noise response and dynamic range. it comes down do you need the more advanced feature sets and the faster shutter of the R5 Mark II? I think this is where we want cameras to be. It's well into the diminishing returns if the pure image quality is good enough for most users and this is a good thing.

The Sony A1, Nikon Z8/Z9, and the Canon EOS R5 Mark II, there's just very little difference between them. The Sony A1 stands out as being glaringly far more expensive than the other two competitors. I'm questioning why people are not stating: Is The Sony A1 A TruE FlaGshIp? but here we are. The Sony A9 III really can't compete in this bracket, leaving Sony with a total of 0 cameras against Nikon and Canon in this segment, and even the cameras that would be considered in this bracket are nearly $2000 more expensive. Nikon's Z 8 is an incredible camera backed by a company with over a century of imaging knowledge and experience. However, without having a mechanical shutter option available, its image quality chops are more limited.

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.

We are reaching (or have reached) the limits to where the differences in dynamic range are going to be insignificant as camera companies will now focus on other aspects such as autofocus performance, readout speed for video, and other features. All of these will have some tradeoffs in terms of noise.

There is so little difference between the vendors that it's splitting hairs and none of this really matters anymore. What matters is now does the camera features help you further your craft. The sensors are all good enough – and the differentiator is read-out speed, and even then that's primarily specific use cases and video.

Remember: TANSTAAFL.

Source: PhotonsToPhotos

Go to discussion...