# DPReview just put up their sample gallery for the R5



## TomR (Jul 22, 2020)

Canon EOS R5 sample gallery: from the mountains to the sound


As soon as we got our hands on a production Canon EOS R5, we set off to visit some of our favorite photo spots around Washington State to see what it can do.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 22, 2020)

Wish I could read the CR3 files they have there, rather than just the jpegs. Be useful to see what the high iso images are like without the jpeg noise reduction. They seem to look better than I'd feared, but it's hard to tell without the raw.


----------



## zim (Jul 22, 2020)

Happy to be corrected but having processed a couple of their R6 files and looked at their R5 images are those guys capable of taking a correctly exposed properly lit and sharp photo? honestly they pretty much all look like crap to me, just don't believe that's all those cameras are capable of, very surprised


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2020)

zim said:


> Happy to be corrected but having processed a couple of their R6 files and looked at their R5 images are those guys capable of taking a correctly exposed properly lit and sharp photo? honestly they pretty much all look like crap to me, just don't believe that's all those cameras are capable of, very surprised


I am with you there... they are good and bagging Canon cameras though. I suppose, with their skills, the camera (tech) is the only excuse....
However R6 files look noticeably better to me at iso 6400 in comparison to R5. Makes me reconsider my options the only reservation I have is that a 20MP camera would be a poor resale value due to everyone is chasing megapickles these day...
Hard to explain to a general public that this 20Mp sensor beats hands down the mighty R5 at Iso 6400 and above..


----------



## Joules (Jul 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Hard to explain to a general public that this 20Mp sensor beats hands down the mighty R5 at Iso 6400 and above..


Probably because it isn't true, unless Canon really messed something up about the R5 sensor. Using the D850 as a 45 MP placeholder here just to demonstrate that higher resolution does not equal losing 'hands down' to a lower Megapixel camera at ISOs above 6400:





__





Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> Probably because it isn't true, unless Canon really messed something up about the R5 sensor. Using the D850 as a 45 MP placeholder here just to demonstrate that higher resolution does not equal losing 'hands down' to a lower Megapixel camera at ISOs above 6400:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not implying 45 vs 20 performance here. This is specifically R5 at 6400 vs R6 at 6400. For an average Joe public the higher megapickles the better camera is. That’s how they have been profiled by various internet sources. .


----------



## Joules (Jul 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> I am not implying 45 vs 20 performance here. This is specifically R5 at 6400 vs R6 at 6400. For an average Joe public the higher megapickles the better camera is. That’s how they have been profiled by various internet sources. .


Well, without the R5 available in the same apples to apples comparison, I am just withholding judgement about it.

I don't expect the R6 to meaningfully beat the R5 in any aspect of image quality when compared properly. In any case I'm skeptical of any claims about one beating the other at this time, due to lack of coverage.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> Well, without the R5 available in the same apples to apples comparison, I am just withholding judgement about it.
> 
> I don't expect the R6 to meaningfully beat the R5 in any aspect of image quality when compared properly. In any case I'm skeptical of any claims about one beating the other at this time, due to lack of coverage.


Sure just going by the DPR library of R5 images.. see some of these taken at ISO6400. There is not much details left. It’s all looks mashed up... R6 images at ISO6400 however, are quite detailed. Totally expected as we know what 1Dx3 performance t iso 6400 is like.


----------



## HenryL (Jul 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Sure just going by the DPR library of R5 images.. see some of these taken at ISO6400. There is not much details left. It’s all looks mashed up... R6 images at ISO6400 however, are quite detailed. Totally expected as we know what 1Dx3 performance t iso 6400 is like.


FWIW, I don't put much stock in the DPR gallery images as indicative of actual output quality - at least not the OOC jpgs that we can view. I can't make heads nor tails out of the comet photos at 6400 for the R5, but the image of the bike hanging on a wall is not horrible even when viewed at 100%. Clearly their is evidence of bad noise reduction causing smearing/blotches, but even ACR would likely handle that just fine and we could end up with a better result.

The R6 gallery doesn't have any images at 6400, most seem to be ISO 100, but the yellow cat at 5000 also shows those same signs of bad noise reduction. There is, however, a good comparison in the R6 gallery with the small bird nest shot at 20000. There is a sample OOC image that again shows poor noise reduction, followed by the same image converted in an ACR beta that is much better. That sample is impressive.

All that said, I wouldn't be surprised that the R6 provides slightly better high iso performance. I don't expect it to be an earth shattering difference at all, certainly not enough to sway me towards the R6. For me personally - the relevant comparison for the R5 is against the 5D4 and 7D2, the camera's that I'm replacing. At first glance, it seems to have them beat. We'll see when I get it in my hands.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2020)

Yeah I am not talking noise. Look at the details level as in how much details still left at the ISO level in question... I’m looking at the RAW files. unprocessed. Sure noise can be dealt with. Details were already lost however.

p.s. to my eye,The R5 iso 6400 performance is slightly worse than the same of 5D4.. and likely around 1.5 stop better that the same of 7D2, about 1/3 of a stop or so worse than 1Dx3.
I am sure that Photons to photos will provide a reliable data very soon. At this stage it is all perceived and personal.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Yeah I am not talking noise. Look at the details level as in how much details still left at the ISO level in question... I’m looking at the RAW files. unprocessed. Sure noise can be dealt with. Details were already lost however.



How are you looking at the RAW files?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Sure just going by the DPR library of R5 images.. see some of these taken at ISO6400. There is not much details left. It’s all looks mashed up... R6 images at ISO6400 however, are quite detailed. Totally expected as we know what 1Dx3 performance t iso 6400 is like.


Are you looking at both at 100% or are you normalizing? Are the images you are comparing similar with similar detail and illumination?

At this point I believe the only thing the R5 is suffering from is mediocre sample image availability, no direct comparison images, limited RAW conversion options, and people not comparing like for like.


----------



## Joules (Jul 23, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Are you looking at both at 100% or are you normalizing? Are the images you are comparing similar with similar detail and illumination?
> 
> At this point I believe the only thing the R5 is suffering from is mediocre sample image availability, no direct comparison images, limited RAW conversion options, and people not comparing like for like.


Big thumbs up in that.

Considering how essential the magnification is to any discussion about noise and detail, I find it frustrating how little it is mentioned. Unless comparing side by side, screen size and resolution differences would also be worth noting.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 23, 2020)

Doing _exiftool -Model="Canon EOS-1D X Mark III" -CanonImageType="Canon EOS-1D X Mark III" -CanonModelID="EOS-1D X Mark III" *.CR3_ makes DPP accept the RAW files, but I'll wait for a proper DPP4 release from Canon before drawing any conclusions.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Yeah I am not talking noise. Look at the details level as in how much details still left at the ISO level in question... I’m looking at the RAW files. unprocessed. Sure noise can be dealt with. Details were already lost however.





Joules said:


> Big thumbs up in that.
> 
> Considering how essential the magnification is to any discussion about noise and detail, I find it frustrating how little it is mentioned. Unless comparing side by side, screen size and resolution differences would also be worth noting.


looking at 75% screen resolution, going by the level of details I would expect from my trusty 5D4s.. all subjective. looking at the details level only. in general..



p.s. screen resolution: 2560 x 1440, 32"


----------



## HenryL (Jul 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Yeah I am not talking noise. Look at the details level as in how much details still left at the ISO level in question... I’m looking at the RAW files. unprocessed. Sure noise can be dealt with. Details were already lost however.
> 
> p.s. to my eye,The R5 iso 6400 performance is slightly worse than the same of 5D4.. and likely around 1.5 stop better that the same of 7D2, about 1/3 of a stop or so worse than 1Dx3.
> I am sure that Photons to photos will provide a reliable data very soon. At this stage it is all perceived and personal.


I can't open the raw file to compare, but I don't have any reason to doubt your observations. My point though was not necessarily comparing noise levels, but that the detail is likely/possibly being destroyed by the in-camera noise reduction. I should have been more clear.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 23, 2020)

the phobolgrapher posted some ISO 25k and 51k images of night shots through the city. I'm actually very impressed. Colours are excellent with very good detail on the well exposed parts of the image. (though, obviously, plenty noise in the darker parts as you'd expect, though the noise seems to be nicely random without any colour cast.)









The Canon EOS R5 at ISO 25,600 and ISO 51,200 is Mind Blowing


The Canon EOS R5 has some fantastic high ISO image quality output. We took it for a test in the rain here in NYC. Here's what we've got.




www.thephoblographer.com





As others have said, it's not the pixel by pixel comparison vs the r6 that's important, it's the normalised view.
I personally thought the images on DPreview looked quite fine, but I still really want to be able to view those raws.

I'm actually cautiously optimistic now that this might actually be an *upgrade* over my old 5d4, when normalised to same size.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 23, 2020)

The digital pictures tests show no high iso advantage for the r6 when both are compared at the r6 resolution:









Should I Get the R6 Instead of the R5 for the Lowest Image Noise Levels?


Should I Get the R6 Instead of the R5 for the Lowest Image Noise Levels? — The-Digital-Picture.com




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## Joules (Jul 23, 2020)

Quirkz said:


> The digital pictures tests show no high iso advantage for the r6 when both are compared at the r6 resolution:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No surprise there. I checked at Iso 25600 as well, the only difference I can see is the better contrast on the text in the R5 shots. And maybe the R6 noise is a little bit bit less colorful. Might also just be my tired eyes  

Thanks a lot for sharing!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2020)

Quirkz said:


> the phobolgrapher posted some ISO 25k and 51k images of night shots through the city. I'm actually very impressed. Colours are excellent with very good detail on the well exposed parts of the image. (though, obviously, plenty noise in the darker parts as you'd expect, though the noise seems to be nicely random without any colour cast.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see banding in all the high iso shots particularly in out of focus backgrounds, to the extent that the images are unusable. Considering these are camera processed jpegs it isn’t what I would want to be seeing.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 23, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I see banding in all the high iso shots particularly in out of focus backgrounds, to the extent that the images are unusable. Considering these are camera processed jpegs it isn’t what I would want to be seeing.



Really? I didn't notice that at all, I was too busy impressed by 51,000 ISO.  Can you point out the images you noticed that in, and where? Your eyes may be more sensitive than mine.

And also - it's iso 51,000. Since when was 'usable' an expectation? I'm just impressed at how decent a 51k image is with surprisingly good DR, because it points to the fact that lower, more reasonable iso's should be great.

And, downsample these for web, you've got an image that's vastly superior to any smartphone shot, even if you wouldn't put it on the wall.


----------



## zim (Jul 23, 2020)

zim said:


> Happy to be corrected but having processed a couple of their R6 files and looked at their R5 images are those guys capable of taking a correctly exposed properly lit and sharp photo? honestly they pretty much all look like crap to me, just don't believe that's all those cameras are capable of, very surprised


Ok so a bit weird I'm quoting myself here but since writing the above I've realised that there are two separate galleries in dpreview for both the 5 and 6 I've only looked at the TV ones so unable to do so right now but looking forward to checking out the other two galleries that others are referencing


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2020)

Quirkz said:


> Really? I didn't notice that at all, I was too busy impressed by 51,000 ISO.  Can you point out the images you noticed that in, and where? Your eyes may be more sensitive than mine.
> 
> And also - it's iso 51,000. Since when was 'usable' an expectation? I'm just impressed at how decent a 51k image is with surprisingly good DR, because it points to the fact that lower, more reasonable iso's should be great.
> 
> And, downsample these for web, you've got an image that's vastly superior to any smartphone shot, even if you wouldn't put it on the wall.



My iPad shows them worse than my laptop which shows them worse than my main screen, but I can see banding on most of them. Yes they are 51,200 and yes they are better than phones with tiny sensors, but for me if it isn't usable it doesn't have value. The jpeg artifacts are pretty horrific too! Are we really at the point where $4,000 cameras are being compared to phones and considered suitable for snapshots? I'd be looking at an R5 for the resolution, dynamic range and all around image quality at base iso, not congratulating it on producing questionable low resolution jpegs at unworkable iso's. But I appreciate that's me.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 24, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> My iPad shows them worse than my laptop which shows them worse than my main screen, but I can see banding on most of them. Yes they are 51,200 and yes they are better than phones with tiny sensors, but for me if it isn't usable it doesn't have value. The jpeg artifacts are pretty horrific too! Are we really at the point where $4,000 cameras are being compared to phones and considered suitable for snapshots? I'd be looking at an R5 for the resolution, dynamic range and all around image quality at base iso, not congratulating it on producing questionable low resolution jpegs at unworkable iso's. But I appreciate that's me.



Thanks for taking the time to do this! To me, these are almost invisible, so I'm not too concerned. but now that you've said it's stronger on your iPad, I'll go and view it from there as well to see if it's more obviously bad.

And in answer to your other point; sounds like you're going to get great quality at base ISO, so you'll get what you want. I love city scapes at night - so high ISO is more used (though I never push to 25k or 51k). It's nice to know that if I had to, these images (for me) are actually acceptable - Better than not getting the shot at all.

Though the IBIS will make a bigger difference to those night scapes on my unstabilised lenses than the ISO will.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 24, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> My iPad shows them worse than my laptop which shows them worse than my main screen, but I can see banding on most of them. Yes they are 51,200 and yes they are better than phones with tiny sensors, but for me if it isn't usable it doesn't have value. The jpeg artifacts are pretty horrific too! Are we really at the point where $4,000 cameras are being compared to phones and considered suitable for snapshots? I'd be looking at an R5 for the resolution, dynamic range and all around image quality at base iso, not congratulating it on producing questionable low resolution jpegs at unworkable iso's. But I appreciate that's me.



It's slightly more obvious on my iPad; I think simply because the screen is much smaller, making the 'lines' closer together and more obvious. Still, it's nothing that would upset me terribly given that it's 51k.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2020)

Quirkz said:


> It's slightly more obvious on my iPad; I think simply because the screen is much smaller, making the 'lines' closer together and more obvious. Still, it's nothing that would upset me terribly given that it's 51k.


Yes it’s easier to notice these things when they are smaller sizes and the unnatural artifacts become more obvious, like cloning zoomed in, you think you have done a great job then zoom out and it looks horrible! I suppose my point is better made by saying you are losing so much resolution to artifacts there is zero point to the resolution, ergo for that type of shooting the R6 is a better buy and better value.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 24, 2020)

Quirkz said:


> The digital pictures tests show no high iso advantage for the r6 when both are compared at the r6 resolution:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ummm. Ok. Here are two images first one is R5 and second one R6. Let’s see... the word “green”, bottom left corner. Look at the outlines. There is obviously more details in R6. Fair enough not day and night difference. 1/3 of a stop approx. however I trust that Bryan Likely overlooked details and focused on noise levels instead


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 24, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Ummm. Ok. Here are two images first one is R5 and second one R6. Let’s see... the word “green”, bottom left corner. Look at the outlines. There is obviously more details in R6. Fair enough not day and night difference. 1/3 of a stop approx. however I trust that Bryan Likely overlooked details and focused on noise levels instead


Yeah, I can see the difference now that you've pointed it out.

To be fair to Bryan, his actual careful wording was something like 'No NOISE advantage', and suggested that high ISO would not be a reason to choose one over the other. (and I'd agree). He also demonstrates that when using PS to do the downsizing (instead of DDP), results in the reverse - the R5 has finer detail, at the expense of slightly more obvious noise.

You can see that on the chart as well.

I just mostly wanted to make sure here that people don't think Bryan said something he didn't due to something I may have said or implied.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 24, 2020)

What actually concerns me, is that to my eye, there seems to be a very very slight hint of magenta or pink in the greyscale, especially on the lighter tones, on the r5 vs the r6 (and other cameras.), even at base ISO.

Anyone else see that? Am I imagining things?


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Jul 25, 2020)

Quirkz said:


> What actually concerns me, is that to my eye, there seems to be a very very slight hint of magenta or pink in the greyscale, especially on the lighter tones, on the r5 vs the r6 (and other cameras.), even at base ISO.
> 
> Anyone else see that? Am I imagining things?


It might be a matter of which picture profile was used in the camera or the raw converter used. Canon cameras in the past have had a bit of a magenta colour shift in most picture styles..


----------



## Act444 (Jul 26, 2020)

Studio scene of the R5 has been added.









Canon EOS R5 added to studio test scene


Canon's EOS R5 mirrorless camera is the second-highest megapixel camera body the company has released, and now that we have a final model in our offices, we've set it up in front of our test scene to see what it can do.




www.dpreview.com





My conclusion - at base ISO, the 5DSR is still resolution king. However, the R5 is a close second, and looks (to my eyes) to be ever so slightly crisper than the R. That tells me the AA filter in the R5 may be a little bit weaker than the one in the R...but it is still a step down from the unfiltered 5DSR. Thankfully it is not a big one, though.

However - compare the R5 to the_ standard _5DS (again, at base ISO), which is also filtered, and details in the R5 image appear to be better defined, even with the slightly lower resolution. Now, hard to tell how much of this is due to lens differences - I think at least some of it is explained that way - but the fact that the 5DSR remains the sharpest tells me that the R5 is somewhere in between those two cameras in resolving details.

Colors - YMMV on this one, since we all have different tastes. But to MY eyes, the R5 (or any of the R cameras for that matter) simply cannot measure up to the 5DS/R's OOC color palette. Like most of Canon's newer (post-2016) cameras, the R5 has the same dull, muted color output - particularly in the green-yellow spectrum.

High ISO - at 1600 ISO and higher, the R5 exhibits significantly less color noise than the 5DS/R. Could make a big difference with available light portrait shots, for example - as skin tones will remain even throughout. Although, once you get to 6400, both have reached the "point of no return" in my opinion...

Conclusion: I think as long as you stay at or below 800 ISO, I'd still pick the 5DSR if detail is the priority. So - studio, bright daylight, static scenes. Above that, the R5 images will clean up much nicer.


----------



## analoggrotto (Jul 27, 2020)

@Act444 ya beat me too it! It looks hella good!


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 27, 2020)

Act444 said:


> Colors - YMMV on this one, since we all have different tastes. But to MY eyes, the R5 (or any of the R cameras for that matter) simply cannot measure up to the 5DS/R's OOC color palette. Like most of Canon's newer (post-2016) cameras, the R5 has the same dull, muted color output - particularly in the green-yellow spectrum.



Interesting - must be a preference thing. I always found the color on my 5d4/R/RP better than my older 5D3. Felt the 5D3 was weirdly, subtly oversaturated on some colours, and less natural.


----------

