# The Canon EOS R5 scores Canon’s best sensor score at DxO



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 16, 2020)

> DxO has completed their review of the Canon EOS R5, and has scored the new 45mp sensor 95, which is the highest score ever for a Canon image sensor. I don’t think this should surprise anyone that has used the Canon EOS R5, as the image quality is stellar from the camera.
> The sensors that are scoring higher than what Canon has put into its new mirrorless cameras are BSI image sensors, which can be found in the Nikon Z 7, and Z 7 II along with the Sony A7R III and A7R IV. However, DxO has found that Canon has closed the gap considerably.
> From DxO:
> As for sensor performance, the EOS R5 sensor represents a high watermark for Canon. The maximum dynamic range is competitive with the best in class, and the R5 sensor offers a useful advantage at some crucial ISO settings over its rivals. It also has excellent color and...



Continue reading...


----------



## snoke (Dec 16, 2020)

Cooked raw. mmm, fish fingers.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Dec 16, 2020)

What about the R6 with its bigger pixels though?


----------



## padam (Dec 16, 2020)

Same as the 1DX III - which they had to revise 









DXOMark Admits They Screwed Up Their Canon 1D X Mark III Review


Earlier today, DXOMark issued an apology. The popular sensor testing company revised its controversially low score for the Canon 1D X Mark III, admitting




petapixel.com


----------



## nikkito (Dec 16, 2020)

Yeah, now we need Lightroom to get those camera matching profiles ready so that we can unleash the beast. The adobe profiles are useless. At least those from colorfidelity are pretty good.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 16, 2020)

nikkito said:


> Yeah, now we need Lightroom to get those camera matching profiles ready so that we can unleash the beast. The adobe profiles are useless. At least those from colorfidelity are pretty good.


Agreed! having now used the R5 in a variety of lighting situations the Adobe profiles really are useless in most situations. I also have the color fidelity profiles but find they are still not as good as the profiles available in Canon’s DPP


----------



## slclick (Dec 16, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> What about the R6 with its bigger pixels though?


90


----------



## fiendstudios (Dec 16, 2020)

I find them pretty useless actually. Purchased them and tried to use them. They are rubbish!


----------



## Cochese (Dec 16, 2020)

They must have gotten a new writer.


----------



## nikkito (Dec 16, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Agreed! having now used the R5 in a variety of lighting situations the Adobe profiles really are useless in most situations. I also have the color fidelity profiles but find they are still not as good as the profiles available in Canon’s DPP


In certain lighting situations, the colors were not that great. And it makes you feel this might have to be because of the profiles, specially when you compare it to the colors you get with dpp.
Talking about useless.... dpp it's really bad.


----------



## nikkito (Dec 16, 2020)

fiendstudios said:


> I find them pretty useless actually. Purchased them and tried to use them. They are rubbish!


why don't you like them? I use the v3 standard.
which profiles are you using instead?


----------



## Viggo (Dec 16, 2020)

I’ve even struggled using my own ColorChecker profiles. They seem to always lift shadows and the colors doesn’t look quite right. I edited a few thousand files from the R and went straight on the R5 files and it struggled, wasn’t all too happy... I don’t have a computer now, so will be exciting to see if anything has changed in Lr. At least one update I haven’t done.


----------



## nikkito (Dec 16, 2020)

Viggo said:


> I’ve even struggled using my own ColorChecker profiles. They seem to always lift shadows and the colors doesn’t look quite right. I edited a few thousand files from the R and went straight on the R5 files and it struggled, wasn’t all too happy... I don’t have a computer now, so will be exciting to see if anything has changed in Lr. At least one update I haven’t done.




It happened to me too many times to not be happy with the colors of the r5. Specially with the red/yellow/orange tones. 
That's why i'm so impatient waiting for the camera matching profiles.

But apparently it's not guaranteed. The 1D X iii still doesn't have them. And the rp also not.


----------



## pardus (Dec 16, 2020)

Can someone help shed some light for me on focus problems that I have been experiencing on my R5. Unlike my 5dmkiii and 5dsr, the R5 sensor doesn't have those crosspoint focus points and somehow uses the entire sensor giving 6000 or thereabouts points. When shooting products, I will select a high contrast focus point that I want to target and I get the red square. It won't focus on it, I have to use the stick or touchscreen and fiddle with 5-10 different spots until focus finally registers. on my DSLR's boom, nail focus every time. autofocus works fine but doesn't always choose the most desirable part of product to focus on as depth of field is critical and usually picks the closest surface to the camera which isnt always best. other autofocus uses like people and eyes etc all work great. So is this just a limiting factor or the R5 sensor, it isnt as effective as the DSLR specific crosspoints?


----------



## Fischer (Dec 16, 2020)

No surprise here. But a welcome confirmation.


----------



## Fischer (Dec 16, 2020)

nikkito said:


> It happened to me too many times to not be happy with the colors of the r5. Specially with the red/yellow/orange tones.
> That's why i'm so impatient waiting for the camera matching profiles.
> 
> But apparently it's not guaranteed. The 1D X iii still doesn't have them. And the rp also not.


Do color correction. Once you try it you will never go back. Beats any "factory" setting from Adobe etc. with a mile.


----------



## Bert63 (Dec 16, 2020)

pardus said:


> Can someone help shed some light for me on focus problems that I have been experiencing on my R5. Unlike my 5dmkiii and 5dsr, the R5 sensor doesn't have those crosspoint focus points and somehow uses the entire sensor giving 6000 or thereabouts points. When shooting products, I will select a high contrast focus point that I want to target and I get the red square. It won't focus on it, I have to use the stick or touchscreen and fiddle with 5-10 different spots until focus finally registers. on my DSLR's boom, nail focus every time. autofocus works fine but doesn't always choose the most desirable part of product to focus on as depth of field is critical and usually picks the closest surface to the camera which isnt always best. other autofocus uses like people and eyes etc all work great. So is this just a limiting factor or the R5 sensor, it isnt as effective as the DSLR specific crosspoints?




I do not have the problem you’re describing. I use my thumb and drag the focus point where I want it and there you go. I haven‘t had a problem getting the selection I choose in focus at all.

That is, when I’m not using AEAF...


----------



## BirdDudeJosh (Dec 16, 2020)

snoke said:


> Cooked raw. mmm, fish fingers.



Doesn't matter one bit. Sony has been doing that for years and everyone celebrates their DxO scores, it's only fair you know. That's why they have the whole star eater issue.


----------



## nikkito (Dec 16, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Do color correction. Once you try it you will never go back. Beats any "factory" setting from Adobe etc. with a mile.


what do you mean by color correction?


----------



## SereneSpeed (Dec 16, 2020)

pardus said:


> Can someone help shed some light for me on focus problems that I have been experiencing on my R5. Unlike my 5dmkiii and 5dsr, the R5 sensor doesn't have those crosspoint focus points and somehow uses the entire sensor giving 6000 or thereabouts points. When shooting products, I will select a high contrast focus point that I want to target and I get the red square. It won't focus on it, I have to use the stick or touchscreen and fiddle with 5-10 different spots until focus finally registers. on my DSLR's boom, nail focus every time. autofocus works fine but doesn't always choose the most desirable part of product to focus on as depth of field is critical and usually picks the closest surface to the camera which isnt always best. other autofocus uses like people and eyes etc all work great. So is this just a limiting factor or the R5 sensor, it isnt as effective as the DSLR specific crosspoints?



If it’s with the 100mm macro, it’s the lens. I stopped shooting products with it. I don’t need macro and went with the 100-400ii.

Two work arounds I used were; just grab the manual focus ring and twist it a bit if AF gives up - this resets it and lets it try again. Or, enable focus peaking and manually focus.

That’s the only scenario I ever experienced AF issues with. Drove me bonkers.

Good luck.


----------



## miketcool (Dec 16, 2020)

Use a physical color calibration tool and Capture One. My colors look exactly the same from when I capture the image, in proofing, and in print. Save yourself a lot of headache and properly calibrate your tools.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 16, 2020)

pardus said:


> Can someone help shed some light for me on focus problems that I have been experiencing on my R5. Unlike my 5dmkiii and 5dsr, the R5 sensor doesn't have those crosspoint focus points and somehow uses the entire sensor giving 6000 or thereabouts points. When shooting products, I will select a high contrast focus point that I want to target and I get the red square. It won't focus on it, I have to use the stick or touchscreen and fiddle with 5-10 different spots until focus finally registers. on my DSLR's boom, nail focus every time. autofocus works fine but doesn't always choose the most desirable part of product to focus on as depth of field is critical and usually picks the closest surface to the camera which isnt always best. other autofocus uses like people and eyes etc all work great. So is this just a limiting factor or the R5 sensor, it isnt as effective as the DSLR specific crosspoints?


My R did behave something like you describe, but not the R5. I could not AF horizontal lines...Venetian blinds, for instance. But now I can with the R5--just tried. And I don't notice any trouble with my ef 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro.

Have you tried Servo vs One-Shot? Using Single Point AF rather than any type of tracking.

Do you have your AF set to keep trying, not stop, if it can't AF quickly? That made a difference in a few situations for me. I just keep "Lens drive when AF impossible" ON.

Magnify? If you have AF One Shot, you can AF while magnified. That can really narrow down the spot of focus.


----------



## pardus (Dec 16, 2020)

SereneSpeed said:


> If it’s with the 100mm macro, it’s the lens. I stopped shooting products with it. I don’t need macro and went with the 100-400ii.
> 
> Two work arounds I used were; just grab the manual focus ring and twist it a bit if AF gives up - this resets it and lets it try again. Or, enable focus peaking and manually focus.
> 
> ...



I do have the EF 100mm macro 2.8L but havent actually used it with it yet, just the RF 24-70 2.8L

I have found a little blurb about it struggling with horizontal lines


----------



## pardus (Dec 16, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> My R did behave something like you describe, but not the R5. I could not AF horizontal lines...Venetian blinds, for instance. But now I can with the R5--just tried. And I don't notice any trouble with my ef 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro.
> 
> Have you tried Servo vs One-Shot? Using Single Point AF rather than any type of tracking.
> 
> ...


good points there, will try that. I have been busy with deadlines and havent been able to trouble shoot much yet.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 16, 2020)

Actually, both reviews are reasonable if you read the words and look at the charts. The biggest problem with DXO's scoring system is the amount of weight that is given to color depth. A half bit difference (e.g. 24.5 vs 25 bits) makes a huge difference in both the portrait and the sports scores which add up to affect the total score. We are talking two tenths of of a bit per color here which is basically in realm of measurement error. Firstly, no one is ever going to see that small a difference and secondly, Canon is known for some of the best color in the industry but always gets knocked by DXO on that front. In the end, it may be related to what DXO presumes are proper primaries which may differ a bit from what Canon presumes are proper primaries. In any case, the words are much better than we are accustomed to seeing from DXO.


----------



## grantmasterflash (Dec 16, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> What about the R6 with its bigger pixels though?



It scored a 90.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 16, 2020)

still truly the best workhorse camera in existence


----------



## Fischer (Dec 16, 2020)

nikkito said:


> what do you mean by color correction?


Use a color calibration device such as the Spyder or Disply1. They cost a little. Last for years, help your monitor show colors correctly and makes it very easy to color correct your camera processing profile so it shows "true" colors in whatever program you prefer to use for RAW editing such as Adobe LR etc. You can also tweak the colors to your delight. And you will certainly get much better dynamic range results with less blown highlights and less noisy shadows.


----------



## Famateur (Dec 16, 2020)

pardus said:


> Can someone help shed some light for me on focus problems that I have been experiencing on my R5. Unlike my 5dmkiii and 5dsr, the R5 sensor doesn't have those crosspoint focus points and somehow uses the entire sensor giving 6000 or thereabouts points. When shooting products, I will select a high contrast focus point that I want to target and I get the red square. It won't focus on it, I have to use the stick or touchscreen and fiddle with 5-10 different spots until focus finally registers. on my DSLR's boom, nail focus every time. autofocus works fine but doesn't always choose the most desirable part of product to focus on as depth of field is critical and usually picks the closest surface to the camera which isnt always best. other autofocus uses like people and eyes etc all work great. So is this just a limiting factor or the R5 sensor, it isnt as effective as the DSLR specific crosspoints?



It's possible that it's the orientation of the subpixels in the Dual Pixel Auto Focus sensor. With your DSLR, you had regular AF points and cross-type AF points. The latter would be able to focus where a regular AF point might fail if the point of contrast aligns in the same direction. The DPAF pixels are, effectively, non-cross-type points since the pixels are split in half and all in the same orientation.*

One way to test if this is happening for you is to simply rotate the camera 90 degrees and try to AF again on the same part of the product. If the camera is suddenly able to focus, then it's likely the split-pixel orientation issue described above.

I hope this helps!

_* I wonder if Canon might one day alternate splitting some pixels horizontally and others vertically. Two pixels next to each other, with alternating orientation, could act as a single cross-type AF point. This might be easier to implement than trying to do quad-pixel AF, as some have imagined._


----------



## nikkito (Dec 16, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Use a color calibration device such as the Spyder or Disply1. They cost a little. Last for years, help your monitor show colors correctly and makes it very easy to color correct your camera processing profile so it shows "true" colors in whatever program you prefer to use for RAW editing such as Adobe LR etc. You can also tweak the colors to your delight. And you will certainly get much better dynamic range results with less blown highlights and less noisy shadows.


Thanks for your answer. Yes. I have it calibrated with Spyder Pro or something. A new one. Nevertheless, the camera matching profiles do make a difference. When I have many photos to retouch in want the starting point to be good already. The Spyder helps me to be sure that the colours I see are the right colours. But those right colours are not that pretty without the Camera matching profiles. You know what I mean?

I'm interested in this thing you say "it makes it very easy to color correct your camera processing profile". What colour profile do you use in lightroom? And what space colour do you use in Photoshop?

Cheers mate


----------



## RayValdez360 (Dec 17, 2020)

Quick question. is ISO 50 better than ISO 100 with this camera. The charts say the DR and color depth is better under ISO 100. So from what i used to understand is that iso 50 was really iso 100 with less Highlight Range. can someone answer this for me clearly please.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 17, 2020)

nikkito said:


> In certain lighting situations, the colors were not that great. And it makes you feel this might have to be because of the profiles, specially when you compare it to the colors you get with dpp.
> Talking about useless.... dpp it's really bad.


Can agree with that. DPP always crashes on me halfway through selections and editing. Very annoying program. Unfortunately it really is the only way I can get colours I’m happy with at the moment.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Dec 17, 2020)

I love how it scores lower than the Sony A7RIV at high ISO, which shows why DxO is a joke. The A7RIV is not that good, worse than the A7RIII and the R5 is clearly better too by any measure.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2020)

RayValdez360 said:


> Quick question. is ISO 50 better than ISO 100 with this camera. The charts say the DR and color depth is better under ISO 100. So from what i used to understand is that iso 50 was really iso 100 with less Highlight Range. can someone answer this for me clearly please.


No it is not.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Dec 17, 2020)

RayValdez360 said:


> Quick question. is ISO 50 better than ISO with this camera. The charts say the DR and color depth is better under ISO 100. So from what i used to understand is that iso 50 was really iso 100 with less Highlight Range. can someone answer this for me clearly please.





privatebydesign said:


> No it is not.


 So how come on the charts the best values are at iso 50(55) i never seen a big difference on other cameras on this site. but with this camera ISO 50 seems a bit better


----------



## RayValdez360 (Dec 17, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Can agree with that. DPP always crashes on me halfway through selections and editing. Very annoying program. Unfortunately it really is the only way I can get colours I’m happy with at the moment.


DPP is trash. its good if you dont have any time sensitive work or you only need to edit like 1 photo.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2020)

RayValdez360 said:


> So how come on the charts the best values are at iso 50(55) i never seen a big difference on other cameras on this site. but with this camera ISO 50 seems a bit better


Because the way DxO derive their numbers is a bit of a mystery. If you look at Photons to Photos you will clearly see 50 iso is outside native sensor range, the RAW file is cooked, and the DR is slightly lower.



Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


----------



## nikkito (Dec 17, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Can agree with that. DPP always crashes on me halfway through selections and editing. Very annoying program. Unfortunately it really is the only way I can get colours I’m happy with at the moment.


You changed your workflow? I admire you! :-D

I haven't. I made adjustments to lightroom as default, so that the photos look similar to how they would look in DPP. Not the same though. But sometimes I need to retouch too many photos. Also my computer needs an update but I'm waiting for the new iMac.
Nevertheless everyday I'm hoping Adobe will support cr3. 


Are you on Instagram, Chris?


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 17, 2020)

nikkito said:


> You changed your workflow? I admire you! :-D
> 
> I haven't. I made adjustments to lightroom as default, so that the photos look similar to how they would look in DPP. Not the same though. But sometimes I need to retouch too many photos. Also my computer needs an update but I'm waiting for the new iMac.
> Nevertheless everyday I'm hoping Adobe will support cr3.
> ...



haha yes I did. With my EOS R I was happy to use Adobe Camera Raw but with the R5 I felt DPP was the only choice. I only like to make minimal changes to RAW files and Adobe was proving too finicky to get results I liked. Luckily I only process 20-30 photos per shoot which makes DPP workable.

I do. My Instagram is @Chris.Chapterten how about yourself?


----------



## Nelu (Dec 17, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Can agree with that. DPP always crashes on me halfway through selections and editing. Very annoying program. Unfortunately it really is the only way I can get colours I’m happy with at the moment.


That is weird; is it on Windows or Mac?
I mostly use it on the Mac side and I've never had any problems, except for the fact that rendering the 100% preview can be really slow.
It never crashed though...


----------



## nikkito (Dec 17, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> haha yes I did. With my EOS R I was happy to use Adobe Camera Raw but with the R5 I felt DPP was the only choice. I only like to make minimal changes to RAW files and Adobe was proving too finicky to get results I liked. Luckily I only process 20-30 photos per shoot which makes DPP workable.
> 
> I do. My Instagram is @Chris.Chapterten how about yourself?



Hey Chris, i followed you already. Pretty cool photos! Lucky dude :-D

mine is @nicolaszonvi

cheers


----------



## puffo25 (Dec 17, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> What about the R6 with its bigger pixels though?



It scored 90-


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 18, 2020)

Nelu said:


> That is weird; is it on Windows or Mac?
> I mostly use it on the Mac side and I've never had any problems, except for the fact that rendering the 100% preview can be really slow.
> It never crashed though...


This is on Windows. Though my computer is 7 years old, so that may have something to do with it. When it crashes the window stays open but I can’t open or edit any files. Then once I force the program to close all of my previous edits are wiped clean.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 18, 2020)

nikkito said:


> Hey Chris, i followed you already. Pretty cool photos! Lucky dude :-D
> 
> mine is @nicolaszonvi
> 
> cheers


Awesome! Have followed you too


----------



## Dragon (Dec 18, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> What about the R6 with its bigger pixels though?


In DXO, all cameras are normalized to 8 MP for comparison.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2020)

Dragon said:


> In DXO, all cameras are normalized to 8 MP for comparison.


Only for the 'Print' option in the Dynamic Range measurement. If you look at the 'Screen' measurement it is not normalized.


----------



## glness (Dec 18, 2020)

Photons to photos shows the R5 leading the pack. This is my go-to site for comparing sensors because they have the results as soon as the cameras are out, whereas DXO takes forever. Their shadow improvement charts are also helpful and revealing.


----------



## Fischer (Dec 19, 2020)

nikkito said:


> Thanks for your answer. Yes. I have it calibrated with Spyder Pro or something. A new one. Nevertheless, the camera matching profiles do make a difference. When I have many photos to retouch in want the starting point to be good already. The Spyder helps me to be sure that the colours I see are the right colours. But those right colours are not that pretty without the Camera matching profiles. You know what I mean?
> 
> I'm interested in this thing you say "it makes it very easy to color correct your camera processing profile". What colour profile do you use in lightroom? And what space colour do you use in Photoshop?
> 
> Cheers mate


Not sure if you entirely understood what I meant.

In LR and other RAW prcessing software there is a specific color processing file for each camera. With your SpyderPro and a pro color chart you can develop your own color processing file - to your taste - that exactly fits your specific camera sensor. This will give you superior results i.e. when it comes to shadow lifting and avoiding blown highlights. I personally do not understand why not everyone interested in their colors does this.

In LR - after you create your camera specific color profile - you can go to /Develop/Calibration and choose your cutom made color profile from the drop down menu there.

From Adobe:
"*Install a color profile *

Color profiles are often installed when a device is added to your system. The accuracy of these profiles (often called _generic profiles_ or _canned profiles_) varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. You can also obtain profiles from a custom profile service, download profiles from the web, or create _custom profiles_ using professional profiling equipment.
1. To install a color profile, copy it to one of the following locations:

*Windows 7, 8:* \Windows\system32\spool\drivers\color
*Mac OS:* /Library/ColorSync/Profiles or /Users/_[user name]_/Library/ColorSync/Profiles
_*Tip*: By default on Mac OS 10.7 (Lion), the user Library folder is hidden. If you don’t see it in the Finder, press Option and click the Go menu. Then, choose Library. See Access hidden user library files | Mac OS 10.7 and later._

2. Restart Lightroom Classic."

Using RGB all the way (and so should you).


----------



## Fischer (Dec 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Only for the 'Print' option in the Dynamic Range measurement. If you look at the 'Screen' measurement it is not normalized.
> 
> View attachment 194620
> View attachment 194622


Not sure how you could normalise screen viewing. My understanding is that high resolution TV screens and monitors do not actually show the total amount of pixels their specs are rated to, even if they have them, but interpolate their final results. As I remember it it's something like 1,080 being the current highest "real" output with the rest done via interpolation of the input signal.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 19, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Use a color calibration device such as the Spyder or Disply1. They cost a little. Last for years, help your monitor show colors correctly and makes it very easy to color correct your camera processing profile so it shows "true" colors in whatever program you prefer to use for RAW editing such as Adobe LR etc. You can also tweak the colors to your delight. And you will certainly get much better dynamic range results with less blown highlights and less noisy shadows.


Thanks for the post, Fischer. I've never had one of these devices. Do you have a suggestion for which one you think is best to buy at the moment?


----------



## Fischer (Dec 19, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for the post, Fischer. I've never had one of these devices. Do you have a suggestion for which one you think is best to buy at the moment?


I use display one but have not reason to think there is any real difference between the leading brands. Get the one that fits your purse. And the basic ones are often good enough for photography. What you want check is that the model you buy has software you find easy to work with. You can find videos on Youtube that show how they work.

There's a pretty dramatic example of how important this can be here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57062274 that shows how big a difference it can make having your own profile instead of just relying on Adobe's (or Canon's DPP profile for that matter). What is critical here is that there is no way to post-process the Adobe profile to save the blown highlights or recover the shadow details - it entirely depends on using a custom RAW color profile for your camera as your first step.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Only for the 'Print' option in the Dynamic Range measurement. If you look at the 'Screen' measurement it is not normalized.
> 
> View attachment 194620
> View attachment 194622


True, but the print number is the one they put forward and the one they use in their overall scoring. The Screen numbers are useful to see the difference in pixel level noise, but otherwise not all that meaningful, since the quality of the final total image (or equal angle of view area for a crop) is the objective. I have also found that if you do some smart noise reduction on the higher density image before normalizing the improvement in DR is even greater than simply averaging the raw pixels. In any case, there is no doubt that the R6 is impressive at higher ISOs. It is interesting that the R6's gain over the R5 at higher ISO's is not confirmed by the Photons to Photos data (which would favor the R6 even less if corrected for actual ISO based on DXO's measurements). P to P numbers are also normalized similar to the DXO print numbers, but the spread between the two methods shows almost a full stop of difference at higher ISOs. I have an R5 and am regularly impressed by how usable ISO 12800 images are.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 19, 2020)

Dragon said:


> True, but the print number is the one they put forward and the one they use in their overall scoring. The Screen numbers are useful to see the difference in pixel level noise, but otherwise not all that meaningful, since the quality of the final total image (or equal angle of view area for a crop) is the objective. I have also found that if you do some smart noise reduction on the higher density image before normalizing the improvement in DR is even greater than simply averaging the raw pixels. In any case, there is no doubt that the R6 is impressive at higher ISOs. It is interesting that the R6's gain over the R5 at higher ISO's is not confirmed by the Photons to Photos data (which would favor the R6 even less if corrected for actual ISO based on DXO's measurements). P to P numbers are also normalized similar to the DXO print numbers, but the spread between the two methods shows almost a full stop of difference at higher ISOs. I have an R5 and am regularly impressed by how usable ISO 12800 images are.



Who cares about the DxO overall score? Nobody knows how they derive it or what figures they use to do it, given that surely nobody pays any attention to that bullshit number derived from a secret source of other made up numbers. A couple of people have gotten close to reverse engineering their Overall score algorithm but they never seem to fit all the examples.

I was merely pointing out that DxO do supply normalized and non-normalized figures. What people actually derive from them is up to them, if I am ever interested I go to DPReview and download the relevant studio RAW files and play with them. The *I* know what *I* can realistically do with the files and if they are useful for *my* needs.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 21, 2020)

DxO is truly a joke with it's monopoly on camera sensor scoring. If they purely collected data and allowed users to sort through it, I would like them a lot more. But then they go ahead and project with a truly arbitrary overall rating score on lenses and camera sensors.

DxO...the same company that claimed the exact same lens will transmit more light when mounted on a different camera. DxO...the same company that reduces the sharpness rating on a lens if it happens to stop down to a larger aperture that is more heavily impacted by diffraction. They will seriously lower a lens' sharpness score if a sharp lens can shoot at f/32 while a softer lens that can only stop down to f/22 will benefit - they claim it has a lower sharpness score, contrary to their own data. DxO...the same company that will score a lens based on the performance of the camera sensor behind it rather than the performance of the lens itself.

Their declaration of ISO performance being called "Sports" is a demonstration of complete ignorance to camera use.

DxO is also unrealistically obsessive over the weight it places on "color depth".

Yeah, just not a fan of them at all and I wish more people in positions of vocal power would start speaking out against them to dilute their credibility. They have a lot of influence in the camera market I don't feel they deserve at all.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Dec 21, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> DxO is truly a joke with it's monopoly on camera sensor scoring. If they purely collected data and allowed users to sort through it, I would like them a lot more. But then they go ahead and project with a truly arbitrary overall rating score on lenses and camera sensors.
> 
> DxO...the same company that claimed the exact same lens will transmit more light when mounted on a different camera. DxO...the same company that reduces the sharpness rating on a lens if it happens to stop down to a larger aperture that is more heavily impacted by diffraction. They will seriously lower a lens' sharpness score if a sharp lens can shoot at f/32 while a softer lens that can only stop down to f/22 will benefit - they claim it has a lower sharpness score, contrary to their own data. DxO...the same company that will score a lens based on the performance of the camera sensor behind it rather than the performance of the lens itself.
> 
> ...


100% agree!


----------



## Dragon (Dec 21, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> DxO is truly a joke with it's monopoly on camera sensor scoring. If they purely collected data and allowed users to sort through it, I would like them a lot more. But then they go ahead and project with a truly arbitrary overall rating score on lenses and camera sensors.
> 
> DxO...the same company that claimed the exact same lens will transmit more light when mounted on a different camera. DxO...the same company that reduces the sharpness rating on a lens if it happens to stop down to a larger aperture that is more heavily impacted by diffraction. They will seriously lower a lens' sharpness score if a sharp lens can shoot at f/32 while a softer lens that can only stop down to f/22 will benefit - they claim it has a lower sharpness score, contrary to their own data. DxO...the same company that will score a lens based on the performance of the camera sensor behind it rather than the performance of the lens itself.
> 
> ...


Agreed. The raw data is quite useful, but the whole scoring system is a mess and to add insult to injury, the methodology for picking the numbers is thoroughly obfuscated. Sadly, whether the case or not, it looks like a way to take bribes for high scores.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 27, 2020)

I can't compare to Nikon, Panasonic, or Sony, but I can say that the R5 produces images that not only look great RAW, but are very easy to work with--even at higher ISO's. (Shadow and highlight recovery, noise clean-up, sharpening, colors.)

*What surprises me above all, and should have weighed huge in any fair assessment, is the ability to use 100% crops from the R5. * I've had the 5DIII and 5DIV--they do not come close. Can the brands with higher scores do this too? If so, great for them.

Here is an example of approx. 100% cropped, ISO 640, and, imo, it is perfectly usable online. They print fine for 4x6 and 5x7. I've done so. What an amazing "cheat" this can be when we don't frame optimally! 




The R5 has surpassed my wildest expectations, and I've only just begun to explore its potential.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 27, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I can't compare to Nikon, Panasonic, or Sony, but I can say that the R5 produces images that not only look great RAW, but are very easy to work with--even at higher ISO's. (Shadow and highlight recovery, noise clean-up, sharpening, colors.)
> 
> *What surprises me above all, and should have weighed huge in any fair assessment, is the ability to use 100% crops from the R5. * I've had the 5DIII and 5DIV--they do not come close. Can the brands with higher scores do this too? If so, great for them.
> 
> ...


I'll second your praise of the R5 regarding shadow recovery, etc., even with cRaw which is now my only way to use it as I need the smaller size files. It's really great!

My previous camera was an EM1_II, and while it had a lot of benefits it had a poor shadow recovery (IMHO) which was only saved (for me) by the use of PL3 and their "prime" noise reduction. Now I get to have an already stellar R5 file and PL4 "deep prime" noise reduction for vastly better performance. It's a great day to be a photographer!


----------

