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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 4, 2021)

> 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 (Nov 4, 2021)

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 (Nov 4, 2021)

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 (Nov 4, 2021)

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 (Nov 4, 2021)

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 (Nov 4, 2021)

its basically identical to the 1DX MK3


----------



## rbielefeld (Nov 4, 2021)

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


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 4, 2021)

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


----------



## Alastair Norcross (Nov 4, 2021)

kaihp said:


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


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 (Nov 4, 2021)

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


----------



## Josh-H (Nov 4, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2021)

> 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 (Nov 4, 2021)

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


----------



## Deleted (Nov 4, 2021)

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


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 4, 2021)

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 (Nov 4, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2021)

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 (Nov 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2021)

SV said:


> 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?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 5, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> 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.
> ...


Dynamic range is actually calculated for images enlarged to the same size and distance of viewing, roughly equivalent, from memory, to about an 8"x10" print at arms length. That's why an APS-C has lower DR because it has to be enlarged more and medium format higher DR than FF because it has to be enlarged less.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 5, 2021)

Tidy Media said:


> 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.



R3 has improved WB over R5/6. This may be the first time AI/deep-learning has been used to improve WB.

Quote:


> Canon says the R3's Auto White Balance has been enhanced by machine learning, to help it better interpret scenes, and not get thrown off by, for example, landscape images dominated by greenery.











Canon EOS R3 Initial Review


The Canon EOS R3 is the company's first high-end mirrorless camera designed for sports, wildlife and photojournalism. Built around a 24MP Stacked CMOS sensor and the company's RF mount, the R3 is designed to handle virtually any situation it encounters. Learn more in our initial review.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## john1970 (Nov 6, 2021)

Tidy Media said:


> 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.


That is what I noticed as well. To my eye the noise levels are very similar otherwise with the maximum ISO of 12800.


----------



## masterpix (Nov 8, 2021)

I must say that it looks to me that the differences are mainly caused by the size of the sensor. Both cameras R3,R5,R6 have significant low noise than previous models.


----------



## toodamnice (Nov 8, 2021)

My R5 doesn't look that noisy at iso 1600. The R5 noise looks higher on all the images than I would expect.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2021)

toodamnice said:


> My R5 doesn't look that noisy at iso 1600. The R5 noise looks higher on all the images than I would expect.


Do you ever apply noise reduction (it's on by default in camera profiles)?


----------



## toodamnice (Nov 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do you ever apply noise reduction (it's on by default in camera profiles)?


I only shoot raw. Pardon my ignorance, is there a camera setting that reduces noise in raw files?


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 8, 2021)

highdesertmesa said:


> R3 has improved WB over R5/6. This may be the first time AI/deep-learning has been used to improve WB.



There is no 'AI' or 'Deep learning'. It is a sales buzzword for ever more sophisticated programming (like 'nano' was a few years ago).
To 'learn' or 'apply AI' the camera program needs feedback to know what it is doing right and what it is doing wrong. No such feedback is given to any camera that I know of.


----------



## Deleted (Nov 8, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> There is no 'AI' or 'Deep learning'. It is a sales buzzword for ever more sophisticated programming (like 'nano' was a few years ago).
> To 'learn' or 'apply AI' the camera program needs feedback to know what it is doing right and what it is doing wrong. No such feedback is given to any camera that I know of.


I can only guess that it refers to how the algorithm was built in the first place. By utilising many image on a dedicated platform the algorithm that wil ultimately be used in camera can be built and tuned. So while it may or may not be happening in camera, it was almost certainly artificial learning that created the parameters in the first place.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2021)

toodamnice said:


> I only shoot raw. Pardon my ignorance, is there a camera setting that reduces noise in raw files?


Only with long exposures (dark frame subtraction).

My point is that if you open a RAW file in most converters (even Preview on a Mac), there is NR applied by default. For the TDP noise tests, NR is set to off prior to conversion, so they look noisier than what people typically see when opening their RAW files.


----------



## Deleted (Nov 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Only with long exposures (dark frame subtraction).
> 
> My point is that if you open a RAW file in most converters (even Preview on a Mac), there is NR applied by default. For the TDP noise tests, NR is set to off prior to conversion, so they look noisier than what people typically see when opening their RAW files.


It was my understanding that in some raw converters the NR applied in the preview was based on the profile set in camera. Is that still the case with the R3?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> It was my understanding that in some raw converters the NR applied in the preview was based on the profile set in camera. Is that still the case with the R3?


I have no idea.


----------



## Deleted (Nov 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have no idea.


Blimey, honesty on a camera technical forum. Well done sir. Although I will now waste the next few hours researching the subject and wishing I hadn’t lol.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2021)

Distinctly Average said:


> Blimey, honesty on a camera technical forum. Well done sir. Although I will now waste the next few hours researching the subject and wishing I hadn’t lol.


…and share your findings, I hope!


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 10, 2021)

Mikehit said:


> There is no 'AI' or 'Deep learning'. It is a sales buzzword for ever more sophisticated programming (like 'nano' was a few years ago).
> To 'learn' or 'apply AI' the camera program needs feedback to know what it is doing right and what it is doing wrong. No such feedback is given to any camera that I know of.


I think we all know there is not an AI literally living in the camera  The AI programming is done in the lab, and it's used to create the algorithm used in the firmware.


----------



## toodamnice (Nov 11, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Only with long exposures (dark frame subtraction).
> 
> My point is that if you open a RAW file in most converters (even Preview on a Mac), there is NR applied by default. For the TDP noise tests, NR is set to off prior to conversion, so they look noisier than what people typically see when opening their RAW files.


Thanks. That makes sense.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 11, 2021)

highdesertmesa said:


> I think we all know there is not an AI literally living in the camera  The AI programming is done in the lab, and it's used to create the algorithm used in the firmware.


I'm looking forward to a Canon camera that is able to learn from the manual adjustments made by me, so it will know that for a bee shaped object I'd like to focus on the jaws or eyes.

Once you have enough processing power on the device, you can do a lot of interesting things. Apple has published a bunch of papers on how to augment facial recognition with clues from the upper body, like clothing. It would be nice to have something like that so you can track a specific person moving through a crowd. Or cheat at where's Waldo 

I'm also surprised that Canon doesn't seem to use the depth information they get from DPAF, I bet that would help a lot with not focussing on the foliage behind the bird.


----------



## FramerMCB (Nov 11, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> 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.
> ...


Sounds like the TSE 24mm Mk II has better light transmission?


----------



## Joules (Nov 12, 2021)

Tremotino said:


> I always feel like my TSE 24 II has more DR than any other lense ever used on my 5div.
> 
> Basically the histogram graph is with the same body and same scene a little bit more compressed


Dynamic range of a scene may be affected by the lens. For example, anything that lowers contrast, such as flare or ghosting, will compress the histogram. Similarly, video is shot with very flat profiles that are super low contrast to compress the DR of a scene into a tighter histogram. But that is done digitally after the image is created on the sensor. 

Maybe your lens isn't as punchy as your others. 

But that's not what we're concerned with when talking about a cameras DR for stills. The sensor is a bottleneck independent of the lens. Any kind of contrast reduction in a lens that I'm aware of comes from light bleeding into areas where it should not be. So it is degrading the image, even if the actual contrast can easily be compensated for in post.

So even though your shadow areas may get a bit brighter with enough flare/ghosting in your image, it doesn't actually mean you're getting any additional detail in those shadows. And therefore not any real gain in dynamic range.


----------

