# First downloadable RAW R5 and R6 files



## bernie_king (Jul 20, 2020)

Jared just posted a new video on Eye AF and is providing a few (well 3) raw files from the shoot. These are all shot with the 800 f11 but are very sharp. 






Files are here: https://froknowsphoto.com/r5r6animalaf/


----------



## korbar (Jul 20, 2020)

He really did a solid here making this video quickly. A lot of folks wanted to see how these would perform. 

I'm REALLY interested in seeing how adapting the Sigma 150-600mm will perform.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 20, 2020)

Having downloaded them and put them in LR the first thing I'd say is f11 lenses force you into such high iso for most images it is a big compromise! The cheetah at 4,000iso just isn't good and for that the R6 would be every bit as good a camera, the iso noise is negating any detail advantage the higher mp sensor might have, if I was looking to do budget wildlife I'd take an R6 and the 600 or 800 because most of the time that extra resolution from the R5 won't get me any more detail, and I could get the 800mm for the money I'd saved getting the R6 instead of the R5.

Zero banding in shadow lifts on the R5 at 4,000iso though, which is impressive.






YouTube







www.youtube.com


----------



## Nelu (Jul 20, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> ...the iso noise is negating any detail advantage the higher mp sensor might have...


That's true, I never thought about that. 
45MP of noise is the price to pay for those f11 lenses.
On the other hand, the Big Whites are expensive and heavy so I guess these are the options we have: less money, less weight, more mobility and more noise *vs* more money, more weight and possibly awesome (noise-free) files.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Jul 20, 2020)

korbar said:


> He really did a solid here making this video quickly. A lot of folks wanted to see how these would perform.
> 
> I'm REALLY interested in seeing how adapting the* Sigma 150-600mm* will perform.


Only lens I ever had issues with on my EOS R was an older Sigma. I bought the Firmware dock and that solved my issues after applying an updated firmware.


----------



## korbar (Jul 20, 2020)

Ramage said:


> Only lens I ever had issues with on my EOS R was an older Sigma. I bought the Firmware dock and that solved my issues after applying an updated firmware.



I didn't have any real issues with the lenses I did use, but it's still something I want to see. This certainly makes me feel better about it. I have the R5 preordered and there is a guy selling a 150-600mm sport very fairly nearby that I might have to scoop up. I was always happy with how the 150-600mm ran on the GH5 but I also never relied on AF. This animal AF is just nutty.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Jul 20, 2020)

I use this https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/eos-r-compatibility/ as sanity check. The R5 and R6 are not listed but I think the communication will be close if not the same.

Also would not surprise me if Sigma gets some functionality with the joint IBIS-Lens IS in a future update.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 20, 2020)

Nelu said:


> That's true, I never thought about that.
> 45MP of noise is the price to pay for those f11 lenses.
> On the other hand, the Big Whites are expensive and heavy so I guess these are the options we have: less money, less weight, more mobility and more noise *vs* more money, more weight and possibly awesome (noise-free) files.


I was thinking, if I was interested in a budget wildlife option then the R6 and 600 and 800 lenses together cost less than the R5 with 600 or 800. Given the AF advantages for most people with the new MILC's and the compromises in iso due to lens speed I'd think not being focal length limited is more advantageous than being short on focal length and cropping.

Forget the big whites as those buyers have even more options, I am thinking current 5D IV and 5DS users with the 100-400 II who crop, they now have the option of animal eye AF with budget 800mm lenses and a reasonably priced 20mp (1DX III) sensor in the R6.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 20, 2020)

Real story here is not that f/11 sucks, it's that the R5 high ISO performance beat expectations.


----------



## Nelu (Jul 20, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I am thinking current 5D IV and 5DS users with the 100-400 II who crop, they now have the option of animal eye AF with budget 800mm lenses and a reasonably priced 20mp (1DX III) sensor in the R6.


Well, if you do have the 5D Mark IV and the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens + 2.x TC you're at f/11, 800mm and 30MP, without spending any extra money.
Is the animal eye AF worth it in the end?
I guess it depends and we'll only find out when real tests are out. So far we had the turtle, the sloth, the sleepy cheetah and the mellow eagle. The slug had a day off, I guess


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 20, 2020)

Nelu said:


> Well, if you do have the 5D Mark IV and the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens + 2.x TC you're at f/11, 800mm and 30MP, without spending any extra money.
> Is the animal eye AF worth it in the end?
> I guess it depends and we'll only find out when real tests are out. So far we had the turtle, the sloth, the sleepy cheetah and the mellow eagle. The slug had a day off, I guess



You've obviously not been voraciously consuming all the animal eye-AF YouTube examples out there – it locks onto fast moving BIF like superglue.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 20, 2020)

All the "can't have that much high ISO improvement because of the limits of current sensor tech" is about to fall deafeningly silent.


----------



## Joules (Jul 20, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> All the "can't have that much high ISO improvement because of the limits of current sensor tech" is about to fall deafeningly silent.
> 
> View attachment 191442


Camera NR? Judging quality on JPEG or HEIF files, or what?

Not saying that there are no improvements. Especially over the R / 5D IV. We already know that the 90D / M6 II / 1DX III generation of sensors has even less read noise than previous Canon's and no banding, so why would the R5 be worse?

But there's no room for earth shattering improvements in low light performance without turning to computational photography and post processing techniques. I'd image that if Canon managed to break the boundaries of physics they would have made a big lger deal out of it.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 20, 2020)

Damn that animal eye Af looks sticky. That R6 is looking better every day. I still really need to put one to my eye though and see what the viewfinder does on a fast pan. The lag or lack thereof is probably the only thing that will stand in my way now


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 20, 2020)

Joules said:


> Camera NR? Judging quality on JPEG or HEIF files, or what?
> 
> Not saying that there are no improvements. Especially over the R / 5D IV. We already know that the 90D / M6 II / 1DX III generation of sensors has even less read noise than previous Canon's and no banding, so why would the R5 be worse?
> 
> But there's no room for earth shattering improvements in low light performance without turning to computational photography and post processing techniques. I'd image that if Canon managed to break the boundaries of physics they would have made a big lger deal out of it.



Did you download and look at Fro's DNGs? Looks way better than my R does at those ISOs.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 20, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Having downloaded them and put them in LR the first thing I'd say is f11 lenses force you into such high iso for most images it is a big compromise! The cheetah at 4,000iso just isn't good and for that the R6 would be every bit as good a camera, the iso noise is negating any detail advantage the higher mp sensor might have, if I was looking to do budget wildlife I'd take an R6 and the 600 or 800 because most of the time that extra resolution from the R5 won't get me any more detail, and I could get the 800mm for the money I'd saved getting the R6 instead of the R5.
> 
> Zero banding in shadow lifts on the R5 at 4,000iso though, which is impressive.
> 
> ...


The other problem is that f/11 is way above the diffraction limit of the R5 sensor. You are right that the f/11 lenses are really for the R6. The R5 can take advantage of wider aperture shorter focal length lenses to achieve reach. The 600 and 800 lenses are so specialised you would need the 100-700 as well.


----------



## Joules (Jul 20, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Did you download and look at Fro's DNGs? Looks way better than my R does at those ISOs.


No I did not, yet. I think you mean the zoo pictures? 

As I said, I'm not disputing that there are improvements. But there is a limit set by the shot noise in the light itself. You seemed to imply that comments pointing this out were about to be proven wrong. Unless I misunderstood you, I want to point out that this is still true. There's obviously differences in what people see as big improvements though, so that's to be kept in mind as well. 

But the images are taken in broad daylight anyway, right? A high ISO value in itself is not enough to make a good comparison. I would wait for opportunities to compare side by side before getting too hyped. As I shoot my Sigma 150-600mm at f/7.1 frequently (960 mm f/11 equivalent) I'm not directly shocked that the f/11 primes are usable.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 20, 2020)

Joules said:


> No I did not, yet. I think you mean the zoo pictures?
> 
> As I said, I'm not disputing that there are improvements. But there is a limit set by the shot noise in the light itself. You seemed to imply that comments pointing this out were about to be proven wrong. Unless I misunderstood you, I want to point out that this is still true. There's obviously differences in what people see as big improvements though, so that's to be kept in mind as well.
> 
> But the images are taken in broad daylight anyway, right? A high ISO value in itself is not enough to make a good comparison. I would wait for opportunities to compare side by side before getting too hyped. As I shoot my Sigma 150-600mm at f/7.1 frequently (960 mm f/11 equivalent) I'm not directly shocked that the f/11 primes are usable.



Yes, the zoo shots. Just saying the ISO 1000 looks more like it does on my GFX than it does on my R. Seems like a meaningful improvement of several stops over the R. Will have to wait for true testing of course.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 20, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Yes, the zoo shots. Just saying the ISO 1000 looks more like it does on my GFX than it does on my R. Seems like a meaningful improvement of several stops over the R. Will have to wait for true testing of course.


Just downloaded and had a play. R6 is awesome at 1000ISO(especially considering I am comparing to my 7d2). R5 at 4000 looks about the same as 800 on my camera although tbh the cheetah shot was underexposed by over 1.5 stops so it needed a lot of pushing. Which kind of highlights the limitations of those f11 lenses more than the camera. I would have preferred to see an R5 shot at 4000ISO but correctly exposed
Edit. By the time I finished processing the Cheetah shot had been pushed just over 2 stops!


----------



## AlanF (Jul 20, 2020)

What would be good is a 500 f/5.6 like the Nikon. Then you could go out with it and 1.4 and 2xTCs and have 700 f/8 and 1000 f/11 as well to cover much of what you would normally shoot on a days birding.


----------



## sfericean (Jul 20, 2020)

I downloaded the RAW's and played with them a bit in Lightroom. I am blown away at the quality of the R6 files. Really. That 20mp sensor is just great!. The detail in the eagle and flamingo pictures far surpasses what my expectation was for that many mp's. The cheetah wasn't that bad either but I certainly expected a bit more. Maybe I'm pixel peeping too much but it seems that if Fro was able to get that close (and he never crops), I would think there would be a bit better noise performance. Am I just being too critical?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 20, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Yes, the zoo shots. Just saying the ISO 1000 looks more like it does on my GFX than it does on my R. Seems like a meaningful improvement of several stops over the R. Will have to wait for true testing of course.


I want whatever you are taking, the R5 4,000iso shot (cheetah) looks no better than my 1DX II. Your whole premise for weeks has been there will be a* "high iso improvement of 2 stops minimum"* and if there is I don't see it. That means an R5 shot at 51,200iso should be the same as a 1DX III at 12,800!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 20, 2020)

sfericean said:


> I downloaded the RAW's and played with them a bit in Lightroom. I am blown away at the quality of the R6 files. Really. That 20mp sensor is just great!. The detail in the eagle and flamingo pictures far surpasses what my expectation was for that many mp's. The cheetah wasn't that bad either but I certainly expected a bit more. Maybe I'm pixel peeping too much but it seems that if Fro was able to get that close (and he never crops), I would think there would be a bit better noise performance. Am I just being too critical?


Yes of the two I am more impressed with the R6 than the R5, but I'd want to see a lot more files first, the R5 image really isn't good light (4,000iso) whereas the R6 image has a lot more contrast and light to start with (500iso).


----------



## sfericean (Jul 20, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes of the two I am more impressed with the R6 than the R5, but I'd want to see a lot more f...



Excellent point. The exposure was a bit off on that picture. Yeah, no matter what I'm super excited for both cameras. If Canon's goal was to make me want both the R5 & R6, they have certainly done a good job of that.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 20, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Real story here is not that f/11 sucks, it's that the R5 high ISO performance beat expectations.


No it hasn't! You have one file at 500iso and one file at 1000iso, neither of which are high iso nor show any improvement over the older 1DX II. Do you think if you say it enough people will believe you or that it will become the truth?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 20, 2020)

sfericean said:


> I downloaded the RAW's and played with them a bit in Lightroom. I am blown away at the quality of the R6 files. Really. That 20mp sensor is just great!. The detail in the eagle and flamingo pictures far surpasses what my expectation was for that many mp's. The cheetah wasn't that bad either but I certainly expected a bit more. Maybe I'm pixel peeping too much but it seems that if Fro was able to get that close (and he never crops), I would think there would be a bit better noise performance. Am I just being too critical?


No the R5 shot is at a severe disadvantage, it is 4,000iso posed to 500 and 1000iso and as Alan points out at f11 it is past the diffraction limit of the sensor, all these will diminish the detail. Wait until you see 100iso shots from the R5...


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 20, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No it hasn't! You have one file at 500iso and one file at 1000iso, neither of which are high iso nor show any improvement over the older 1DX II. Do you think if you say it enough people will believe you or that it will become the truth?



I've only ever been talking about improvement over the R. If you can't see a big improvement there, then I don't know what you're smoking either, lol.


----------



## Czardoom (Jul 21, 2020)

Just curious as people compare shots with the new cameras to their old cameras. Are the shots using comparable apertures? The apertures is a major contributor to how much noise your images have. ISO all by itself really doesn't give you enough info. At least that is my understanding. Which might explain why someone may see big improvements while someone else notices none.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I've only ever been talking about improvement over the R. If you can't see a big improvement there, then I don't know what you're smoking either, lol.


First off, that isn't what you said. Here it is what you actually said


highdesertmesa said:


> One thing is certain: Canon wouldn't be making f/7.1 L zooms and f/11 primes if they didn't have insane (as in industry-shaking) improvements in store for high ISO noise. Canon must have achieved current f/5.6-level IQ at f/11. So that's the amount of light/improvement we're talking about here – _at minimum, IMO. _


No mention of the R.

Anyway, if you compare the R to the 1DX II (I have no real experience with the R and you have no real experience with the 1DX II but we can compare our own experiences with our own cameras), you might well notice at 500iso there is maybe 1/4 of a stop difference in DR and at 1,000iso there is approximately 1/3 stop difference. 





__





DxOMark Derived Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting






www.photonstophotos.net








Please point me to the big differences you are seeing in the three images from the R5/6 to images from the R, because no I am not seeing them. And the only 'high' iso image we have is from the R5 @ 4,000iso and it not impressive at all but is in mediocre lighting.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> First off, that isn't what you said. Here it is what you actually said
> 
> No mention of the R.
> 
> ...



I didn't say I mentioned the R, I said I was talking about the R.

Looks like the difference is 1/2 stop from 1600-6400. I'm not sure why you would cherry pick ISO 1000 since it sounds like you don't consider that high ISO.

In looking at that underexposed ISO 4000 image, I don't think my R could come close to that low level of noise given the recovery required. Like I said, we'll know for sure once proper tests are done.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

Examples of R to R5 at higher ISOs using one my shots against Fro's. My R shot is at ISO 1600 and the R5 from Fro is at ISO 4000. Fro's image looks like a HUGE improvement to me, especially given the ISO difference here. R and 5D4 chroma noise is significant at higher ISOs.

ISO 1600 on the R – underexposed by about a stop and raised in C1



Screenshot of 1:1 zoom in C1 (default noise reduction)



Screenshot of 1:1 zoom of Fro's underexposed ISO 4000 DNG from the R5 in C1 (default noise reduction)



If you download Fro's shot for yourself and open it into Photoshop RAW developer, note that the default noise reduction will be set to ZERO, which is not how we're all used to comparing things in LR/C1. I don't use PS for RAW much, so not sure if zero noise reduction is the default for PS or if it's just because the R5 is new and PS doesn't know what to do with it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I didn't say I mentioned the R, I said I was talking about the R.
> 
> Looks like the difference is 1/2 stop from 1600-6400. I'm not sure why you would cherry pick ISO 1000 since it sounds like you don't consider that high ISO.
> 
> In looking at that underexposed ISO 4000 image, I don't think my R could come close to that low level of noise given the recovery required. Like I said, we'll know for sure once proper tests are done.


How could you be talking about it if you didn’t mention it?

I concentrated on the R6 shots (iso 500-1,000) because the R5 shot (Iso 4,000) doesn’t have any dynamic range, it is under exposed with little variation in the light, but the 1DX II would easily compete with that for noise when normalized at 4,000iso.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2020)

We’ve been talking about this video and the downloadable RAW files on the earlier thread.





__





First downloadable RAW R5 and R6 files


Jared just posted a new video on Eye AF and is providing a few (well 3) raw files from the shoot. These are all shot with the 800 f11 but are very sharp. Files are here: https://froknowsphoto.com/r5r6animalaf/




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> How could you be talking about it if you didn’t mention it?
> 
> I concentrated on the R6 shots (iso 500-1,000) because the R5 shot (Iso 4,000) doesn’t have any dynamic range, it is under exposed with little variation in the light, but the 1DX II would easily compete with that for noise when normalized at 4,000iso.



I totally wouldn't have expected you to know I was talking about the R – I should have said that. I guess we all assume everyone's taking about things from our own frame of reference – what we own personally. 

I haven't realized how far the 1DX3 has come since the R as far as high ISO – I'd probably be thrilled just have have 1DX3 high ISO performance in the R5. The R/5D4 is just so far behind with its 2016 tech, and charts don't always show how badly they lag behind current tech – I'm guessing that has to do with the fact that the charts don't discriminate between chroma and luminance noise. I find chroma noise particularly destructive to being able to use a camera in low light.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I guess we all assume everyone's taking about things from our own frame of reference – what we own personally.



I have very little trouble with this; compared to the people here my equipment is stone knives and bear skins--*new* stone knives and bearskins, but still: stone knives and bearskins. My _primary_ camera is an M6-II. It's a good camera, but most people here, if they own one at all, it's a casual thing, or a backup to their backup.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 21, 2020)

I really don't expect ISO performance to be better in the R5 than my 5D MK IV or my R. I'm hoping it won't get worse. The R6 does look like a reasonable low light camera, I think a lot of people will love it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I totally wouldn't have expected you to know I was talking about the R – I should have said that. I guess we all assume everyone's taking about things from our own frame of reference – what we own personally.
> 
> *I haven't realized how far the 1DX3 has come since the R as far as high ISO* – I'd probably be thrilled just have have 1DX3 high ISO performance in the R5. The R/5D4 is just so far behind with its 2016 tech, and charts don't always show how badly they lag behind current tech – I'm guessing that has to do with the fact that the charts don't discriminate between chroma and luminance noise. I find chroma noise particularly destructive to being able to use a camera in low light.



What are you taking about? There is zero improvement in high iso performance between the R and the 1DX III, in fact once you come off 125 iso they are basically the same.








__





Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting






www.photonstophotos.net





And here are comparison images of the R and the 1DX III at 6,400iso. No difference in noise, chroma or luminance.







__





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





And the RAW files








__





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


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> What are you taking about? There is zero improvement in high iso performance between the R and the 1DX III, in fact once you come off 125 iso they are basically the same.
> 
> View attachment 191447
> 
> ...



Dude, I don’t have a damn 1DX3, I told you that, I’m going by what YOU keep saying. So now you’re saying the 1DX3 is NOT as good as the R5/6? Does your 1DX3 look like my R photo I posted at ISO 1600? All that chroma noise from hell?

I’m showing you with EXAMPLES how the R5 is kicking the ass of the R even at 4000 ISO versus 1600 ISO. So if you’re saying the 1DX3 is the same ISO performance as the R, then there’s no way in hell the 1DX3 comes close to the R5/6 examples. So if that’s the case, then F what you keep trying to sell here.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Dude, I don’t have a damn 1DX3, I told you that, I’m going by what YOU keep saying. So now you’re saying the 1DX3 is NOT as good as the R5/6? Does your 1DX3 look like my R photo I posted at ISO 1600? All that chroma noise from hell?
> 
> I’m showing you with EXAMPLES how the R5 is kicking the ass of the R even at 4000 ISO versus 1600 ISO. So if you’re saying the 1DX3 is the same ISO performance as the R, then there’s no way in hell the 1DX3 comes close to the R5/6 examples. So if that’s the case, then F what you keep trying to sell here.


The 1dx3 has the same sensor as the R6(for all intents and purposes). There will be no difference between the two unless you measure it on an atomic scale


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> The 1dx3 has the same sensor as the R6(for all intents and purposes). There will be no difference between the two unless you measure it on an atomic scale



You guys just keep up your photon pseudoscience and completely ignore the examples you’re seeing. Makes no difference to me. I just showed how ISO 4K on the R5 blows away the R at ISO 1600, and the Private person just showed us how the R is just as good at ISO as the 1DX3, which you say is the same as the R6. But in the sample shots the R6 noise looks even better than the R5, so... Jeezus, you guys.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> You guys just keep up your photon pseudoscience and completely ignore the examples you’re seeing. Makes no difference to me. I just showed how ISO 4K on the R5 blows away the R at ISO 1600, and the Private person just showed us how the R is just as good at ISO as the 1DX3, which you say is the same as the R6. But in the sample shots the R6 noise looks even better than the R5, so... Jeezus, you guys.


Well. I am comparing the R5 at 4000ISO to my 7d2 in the same situation as he has shot the cheetah in(poor light, underexposed). my 7d2 will give roughly the same results at ISO 800. So that puts the R5 at roughly 2.3? stops improvement over the 7d2. So if the R5 is way better than the R that would mean the R is only a stop or so better than a 7d2? I find that hard to believe so it is quite clear that someone is wrong. Whether it is me or you I could not say because I have not really spent time plating with files from the R or 5d4. I think we need input from those who have experience with the 7d2, the R(or 5d4) and the 1dx3. That is all that will clear this up


----------



## navastronia (Jul 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> And the RAW files
> View attachment 191449
> 
> 
> ...



The 1DX Mark III RAW looks a good deal less noisy to me.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> You guys just keep up your photon pseudoscience and completely ignore the examples you’re seeing. Makes no difference to me. I just showed how ISO 4K on the R5 blows away the R at ISO 1600, and the Private person just showed us how the R is just as good at ISO as the 1DX3, which you say is the same as the R6. But in the sample shots the R6 noise looks even better than the R5, so... Jeezus, you guys.


So here are my examples. Shot in similar conditions. Poor light. Low contrast. Both with minor PP to get correct exposure(pushed by a bit over a stop each) exported through LR with default NR(20 colour, zero luminance). R5 at 4000. 7d2 at 1250. Compare the pair



Sorry. I did forget to mention that the 7d2 image was cropped. Fro's shot was not. Here is the uncropped version


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Well. I am comparing the R5 at 4000ISO to my 7d2 in the same situation as he has shot the cheetah in(poor light, underexposed). my 7d2 will give roughly the same results at ISO 800. So that puts the R5 at roughly 2.3? stops improvement over the 7d2. So if the R5 is way better than the R that would mean the R is only a stop or so better than a 7d2? I find that hard to believe so it is quite clear that someone is wrong. Whether it is me or you I could not say because I have not really spent time plating with files from the R or 5d4. I think we need input from those who have experience with the 7d2, the R(or 5d4) and the 1dx3. That is all that will clear this up



Yeah, we’re basically all spitballing here, some of us with charts, some with anecdotal samples. Real tests will roll in. It was just about the last straw being “shown“ (not by you) that the new 20mp sensor with new X processor in the flagship 1DX3 wasn’t better at ISO than the R, which is 2016 tech — after I’d also been told the R6 would be the same as the 1DX3 — meaning 5D4=R=1DX3=R6, which is difficult to swallow.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Yeah, we’re basically all spitballing here, some of us with charts, some with anecdotal samples. Real tests will roll in. It was just about the last straw being “shown“ (not by you) that the new 20mp sensor with new X processor in the flagship 1DX3 wasn’t better at ISO than the R, which is 2016 tech — after I’d also been told the R6 would be the same as the 1DX3 — meaning 5D4=R=1DX3=R6, which is difficult to swallow.


I just don't think there is a great deal of improvement to be made. It is a quarter or a half stop here or there. Certainly not enough to make or break an image in my opinion. I don't think there has been enough DR difference to make or break an image for a long time though.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> So here are my examples. Shot in similar conditions. Poor light. Low contrast. Both with minor PP to get correct exposure(pushed by a bit over a stop each) exported through LR with default NR(20 colour, zero luminance). R5 at 4000. 7d2 at 1250. Compare the pair



I’m not sure, but looks like maybe the same if I discount the larger noise blobs on the crop sensor shot. Looks better than how my R does against the R5.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> I just don't think there is a great deal of improvement to be made. It is a quarter or a half stop here or there. Certainly not enough to make or break an image in my opinion. I don't think there has been enough DR difference to make or break an image for a long time though.



My own baseline hope for the R5 has been to get better ISO 640-1600 versus my R. I mostly shoot at ISO 100 to 400. But I heavily process many of my shots, so the R’s ISO performance at 640 is the point at which I start to not like all the chroma noise.


----------



## bernie_king (Jul 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I want whatever you are taking, the R5 4,000iso shot (cheetah) looks no better than my 1DX II. Your whole premise for weeks has been there will be a* "high iso improvement of 2 stops minimum"* and if there is I don't see it. That means an R5 shot at 51,200iso should be the same as a 1DX III at 12,800!


You must have a fantastic 1DX II. Mine couldn't do this well at ISO 4000. It doesn't do bad, but not this well.. especially pushed by nearly 2 stops. I really don't like to shoot anything over 3200 with mine. Not to mention this is with a 45mp sensor as opposed to 20.2mp. I was worried this was going to be another 5DSR but am pleasantly surprised. I personally was hoping for at least as good as my 1DX II.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2020)

Lets put this to bed.

You said 


highdesertmesa said:


> One thing is certain: Canon wouldn't be making f/7.1 L zooms and f/11 primes if they didn't have insane (as in industry-shaking) improvements in store for high ISO noise. Canon must have achieved current f/5.6-level IQ at f/11. So that's the amount of light/improvement we're talking about here – _at minimum, IMO. _



Here is the R6 compared to the R






__





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





You were 100% wrong.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Where are the fast moving BIFs? I seem to have missed them - there’s just a big slow gliding bird in the distance and a short hop by another.


I agree, the clip at 50 to 57 seconds didn’t seem that good to me, it seemed to get initial acquisition well but lost it quickly to the body and then the feet Before bouncing off to the wing.


----------



## Joules (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Examples of R to R5 at higher ISOs using one my shots against Fro's. My R shot is at ISO 1600 and the R5 from Fro is at ISO 4000. Fro's image looks like a HUGE improvement to me, especially given the ISO difference here. R and 5D4 chroma noise is significant at higher ISOs.
> 
> ISO 1600 on the R – underexposed by about a stop and raised in C1
> View attachment 191444
> ...


For somebody who throws around such a strong term as pseudo science you sure have a lot of flaws in your own testing method.

The first one obviously being that you compare shots from different resolutions (30 MP in the R, 45 MP on the R5) at 1:1 pixel ratio.

But your scene is also so different. It appears to me much darker, which is supported by your statements about exposure and even pushing the shot. Noise isn't caused by high ISO values, it is caused by low light, among other things. We don't know the settings or ambient temperature from your examples. I am not saying they definitely matter here. But a long exposure in warm conditions would also affect noise.

All fine for me if that's how you want to evaluate the things you may or may not buy. But it is hard to tell much from the example. So when you refuse to accept demonstration based on documented measurements (that you yourself can repeat if you doubt the results) and studio image comparisons that actually change only one variable between samples, and call that pseudoscience, don't be surprised to get pushback.


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Jul 21, 2020)

I had and still have serious doubts about an f/11 lens. I consider this an imperfect solution to a niche problem. 
these telephotos are aimed at safari photographers and Those where weight carrying is the key focus.
However the way the camera handles noise was impressive for 4000iso and run that image through topaz and its looking cropped in like a base iso image. 
fairplay to Fro for getting these out. I would upload my end result but forum isnt liking it.


----------



## padam (Jul 21, 2020)

From what I've seen, the EOS R6 (or 1DX III, they look pretty similar of course) is not a whole lot better than the EOS R in terms of noise, maybe less than half a stop in it.
The difference starts to be a bit more noticeable at 12800 or 25600.
For 4k video ISO, I expect it to gain another stop since it is almost a full sensor 1.07x as opposed to a 1.75x crop, and maybe the newer processing helps as well, so it might be almost two stops better.

On the other hand, I also checked the resolution, which is really not that different either, the R6 is very nearly as sharp as the R except in some cases there is probably more moiré, due to the pixel count and weak AA filter.
So the EOS R sensor is still good, but the worries about 20MP vs 30MP are also unfounded.

I guess the dynamic range is also going to be a bit better on the R6, but I couldn't check that one out yet.
Main line is that the sensor is (also) great in the R6 (but it's not groundbreaking).


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Jul 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Just downloaded and had a play. R6 is awesome at 1000ISO(especially considering I am comparing to my 7d2). R5 at 4000 looks about the same as 800 on my camera although tbh the cheetah shot was underexposed by over 1.5 stops so it needed a lot of pushing. Which kind of highlights the limitations of those f11 lenses more than the camera. I would have preferred to see an R5 shot at 4000ISO but correctly exposed
> Edit. By the time I finished processing the Cheetah shot had been pushed just over 2 stops!


Tbh I ran it through Topaz, raised it up by about 1 sttop maybe and after editing the results look like an 100ISO shot. The Flamingo shot for whatever reason had a weird look no matter what but I think thats the lens optic design, certainly isnt going to give buttery bokeh.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> All the "can't have that much high ISO improvement because of the limits of current sensor tech" is about to fall deafeningly silent.
> 
> View attachment 191442


R6 sensor lab test is up at DPR. It is as good as 1Dx3 at ISO6400 and it is not much better than 5D4 or R at ISO6400. People get emotional. Sure. Let’s look at a reliable data instead.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 21, 2020)

Adam Shutter Bug said:


> Tbh I ran it through Topaz, raised it up by about 1 sttop maybe and after editing the results look like an 100ISO shot. The Flamingo shot for whatever reason had a weird look no matter what but I think thats the lens optic design, certainly isnt going to give buttery bokeh.


Really? If you have a look at the image of the cheetah I put up a few posts back, that is raised by about 1.5 stops. And it is still just a tad dim IMO. Maybe Topaz works differently but there is no way it would look like an ISO 100 shot with any sort of NR I could do. As for the flamingo. It was clean and sharp But yeah. looked a bit Wierd. Maybe it is more that the colour of Flamingoes can make an image a bit odd?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2020)

Adam Shutter Bug said:


> I had and still have serious doubts about an f/11 lens. I consider this an imperfect solution to a niche problem.
> these telephotos are aimed at safari photographers and Those where weight carrying is the key focus.
> However the way the camera handles noise was impressive for 4000iso and run that image through topaz and its looking cropped in like a base iso image.
> fairplay to Fro for getting these out. I would upload my end result but forum isnt liking it.


On safari you need a telephoto zoom, it's a must. And if you take a RF 100-500 (or even an EF + adaper), a 2xTC will give you a much more useful 200-1000mm f/9-11 zoom than either of the f/11 primes. I'd sacrifice the possible hit on IQ for the advantages of a zoom.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I agree, the clip at 50 to 57 seconds didn’t seem that good to me, it seemed to get initial acquisition well but lost it quickly to the body and then the feet Before bouncing off to the wing.


We need proper reviews not these half-baked clickbait and teasers released so far.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 21, 2020)

The R5 rocks my best Canon sensor the 5DII at ISO 4000 but it isn't up to the Z6(which I think pre applies NR to the RAW). The R6 on the other hand looks really clean, but those where lower ISO samples. I am just not sure about that R5 image, it is a little soft and uninteresting, I'll wait for some more examples but especially in the eyes I was thinking to myself that I would need to do a wee bit of work to get this right.

Just now I think it is the test image itself that is making me think it is a bit meh of a performer. And it could also be that f/11 lens doesn't match up to lenses I am used to using.


----------



## Joules (Jul 21, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I am just not sure about that R5 image, it is a little soft and uninteresting


It would be more alarming if somehow the very much diffraction influenced combination of f/11 and 45 MP would be pin sharp.

These lenses really don't seem to me as being intended for use with an R5.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 21, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The R5 rocks my best Canon sensor the 5DII at ISO 4000 but it isn't up to the Z6(which I think pre applies NR to the RAW). The R6 on the other hand looks really clean, but those where lower ISO samples. I am just not sure about that R5 image, it is a little soft and uninteresting, I'll wait for some more examples but especially in the eyes I was thinking to myself that I would need to do a wee bit of work to get this right.
> 
> Just now I think it is the test image itself that is making me think it is a bit meh of a performer. And it could also be that f/11 lens doesn't match up to lenses I am used to using.


Everything about that R5 image is against it. F11, high ISO, Diffraction and very low crappy light. I doubt ANY sensor would give you a good image in that situation


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Everything about that R5 image is against it. F11, high ISO, Diffraction and very low crappy light. I doubt ANY sensor would give you a good image in that situation



Yup which is why I will wait for more examples from this camera.


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Jul 21, 2020)

AlanF said:


> On safari you need a telephoto zoom, it's a must. And if you take a RF 100-500 (or even an EF + adaper), a 2xTC will give you a much more useful 200-1000mm f/9-11 zoom than either of the f/11 primes. I'd sacrifice the possible hit on IQ for the advantages of a zoom.



I would too, I really wish They had gone with something along the lines of a 200-600 f/5.6. But its the only use case I can see for these is something like a Safari and a Canon rep has even given it as the example.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 21, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Yup which is why I will wait for more examples from this camera.


And I forgot to mention low shutter speed to obviously try and get as much exposure as possible. I don't care how good the stabalization is. Handholding an 800 at that shutter speed is gonna be problematic unless you are incredibly well balanced


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Jul 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Really? If you have a look at the image of the cheetah I put up a few posts back, that is raised by about 1.5 stops. And it is still just a tad dim IMO. Maybe Topaz works differently but there is no way it would look like an ISO 100 shot with any sort of NR I could do. As for the flamingo. It was clean and sharp But yeah. looked a bit Wierd. Maybe it is more that the colour of Flamingoes can make an image a bit odd?


Ive uploaded the image finally but only a downgraded version sadly. It is very clean for what it is. I still wish they had gone another way with the lens but for what it is its not as bad as it reads on paper.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 21, 2020)

Adam Shutter Bug said:


> Ive uploaded the image finally but only a downgraded version sadly. It is very clean for what it is. I still wish they had gone another way with the lens but for what it is its not as bad as it reads on paper.


Defintely better than LR. And certainly waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than anything I can achieve on my 7d2 at anything over 800. Still a bit darker than what I would have done but that is a matter of style, not a matter of process. I am definitely looking forward to seeing an R5 image in good circumstances though. Those R6 images were crisp AF and I can only imaging the R5 has to be far sharper. Still out of my price range though. Will def get the R6 when it comes down to a reasonable price in Australia though


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Jul 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Defintely better than LR. And certainly waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than anything I can achieve on my 7d2 at anything over 800. Still a bit darker than what I would have done but that is a matter of style, not a matter of process. I am definitely looking forward to seeing an R5 image in good circumstances though. Those R6 images were crisp AF and I can only imaging the R5 has to be far sharper. Still out of my price range though. Will def get the R6 when it comes down to a reasonable price in Australia though



A friend put me on to Topaz a while ago, it is much better I’ve found than what I can do in lightroom myself especially with masking. If its a very noisy image from say my EOSR 4000-6400 it struggles As theres just no detail to really preserve but I have gotten prints from a ISO6400 image before saying that.
It was an editing choice to go slightly darker as I found lighter showed the background a bit too much. Nothing spending more time wouldn't sort but this was only a test really. if doing a proper job I would probably go up another half stop just on the subject which is easily done and I did raise the overall exposure at one point by another two stops just to try it and it handled fine. There was no chromatic aberration or fringing or anything really in the colour that made me go B&W either, that was purely a stylistic choice based on the lines of the subject and I didn't care for the colour of the background.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 21, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> And I forgot to mention low shutter speed to obviously try and get as much exposure as possible. I don't care how good the stabalization is. Handholding an 800 at that shutter speed is gonna be problematic unless you are incredibly well balanced



I am only caring about the noise at ISO 4000. I have started to get comfortable shooting in dark environments at ISO 3200 and even ISO 10,000 which has been rather clean on newer bodies.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Lets put this to bed.
> 
> You said
> 
> ...



Not at 1:1 on each the higher you go. I predict your next move will be to say that reduced to 20mp the R will look about the same, which is a false argument since no one upgrades to higher resolution just to view images at 75% or to not print larger.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> R6 sensor lab test is up at DPR. It is as good as 1Dx3 at ISO6400 and it is not much better than 5D4 or R at ISO6400. People get emotional. Sure. Let’s look at a reliable data instead.



The person I quoted via screenshot was referencing R5 samples.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Not at 1:1 on each the higher you go. I predict your next move will be to say that reduced to 20mp the R will look about the same, which is a false argument since no one upgrades to higher resolution just to view images at 75% or to not print larger.
> 
> View attachment 191461


If you are comparing, that is making a valid comparison, the *sensor noise* you have to view at same size, the size is irrelevant but the size has to be the same. Comparing per pixel noise is basically irrelevant in this instance as the objective is to know how much noise there is in an image.

All you are doing is enlarging the noise in the R 50% more and then saying ’look there is more noise’, that is fallacious. What people want to know is how much noise will there be in an 8x10 or 12x18 print or on a full screen image. Of course they also want to know how much detail there will be and how much DR etc etc, but when you are discussing noise you have to compare noise per image or noise per sensor area, noise per pixel is a nonsense.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

Joules said:


> For somebody who throws around such a strong term as pseudo science you sure have a lot of flaws in your own testing method.
> 
> The first one obviously being that you compare shots from different resolutions (30 MP in the R, 45 MP on the R5) at 1:1 pixel ratio.
> 
> ...



What I was calling pseudoscience were the recent comments about how we’ve reaching a physical limit for ISO improvement, which completely discounts new sensor design (R5) and processor and firmware improvements. Those were statements made with even less proof since no one has a future camera in front of them to test it.

I’ll post a shot later that I took yesterday with the R in brighter light, ISO 4000, f11 on the RF 70-200. I haven’t looked at it in C1 yet, but zooming in on it in camera, it didn’t look anywhere near the R5 ISO 4000 Fro shot as far as noise control.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> If you are comparing, that is making a valid comparison, the *sensor noise* you have to view at same size, the size is irrelevant but the size has to be the same. Comparing per pixel noise is basically irrelevant in this instance as the objective is to know how much noise there is in an image.
> 
> All you are doing is enlarging the noise in the R 50% more and then saying ’look there is more noise’, that is fallacious. What people want to know is how much noise will there be in an 8x10 or 12x18 print or on a full screen image. Of course they also want to know how much detail there will be and how much DR etc etc, but when you are discussing noise you have to compare noise per image or noise per sensor area, noise per pixel is a nonsense.



Thanks for proving me right about jumping to the equivalency argument when the direct 1:1 comparison fails. So then when we get to compare an ISO 6400 shot from the R5 sized down to 20mp against the 1DX3, will you accept that as several stops of improvement if that’s what the results show? Just want to make sure we have this straight before the R5 DPR test comes out.

But back to equivalency, I understand the concept of what you’re saying, but I’m making the argument that it’s an impractical comparison for those of us changing bodies. If I changed from the R to the 1DX3, would I view all my images at 125% and would I expect to print larger and keep the same IQ? No. Same goes for moving from the R to the R5. I’m still going to be reviewing my images at 1:1, and I’m going to be putting the higher resolution to good use by cropping more often. So for practical upgrade purposes, comparing sensors at 1:1 makes more sense.

But if you insist on equivalency, then try comparing a 1DX3 shot and R5 shot at ISO 6400 printed to 40x30”. But that’s not the favored type of equivalency, is it? You’d rather size down the larger file and print within the range of the lower resolution camera. That’s only 1/2 of of the story unless you also compare them enlarged to the same size.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2020)

I have been entirely consistent in my assertions, you have wibbled and wobbled all over the place.

Do you agree that in your ‘comparison’ you are enlarging the R noise 50% more than the R6, and if so what are you trying to illustrate by doing that? It is meaningless and it is not a comparison. If you don’t agree that we have nothing else to talk about because your comprehension of reality is too far off base.

You are the one that started all this by saying you believed Canon had come up with technology that would improve high iso sensor performance by two stops at least, I said that is unlikely, you took issue with that. Now you have changed what most people would think of as high iso to much lower figures, you have come up with this curious per pixel noise idea etc etc.

Let me be clear, from your comments I believe you are wrong if I can’t see at least two stops of noise/DR improvement in high iso *images* (not pixels, but considering the R5 has a lot more pixels than the R you’d lose on a per pixel basis too but that is a side issue). I believe most people would consider 6,400 and above high iso. To make a fair and relevant comparison both R and R5 images have to be viewed at the same size because then the noise is enlarged the same.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I have been entirely consistent in my assertions, you have wibbled and wobbled all over the place.
> 
> Do you agree that in your ‘comparison’ you are enlarging the R noise 50% more than the R6,



You were the one that posted the DPR test side-by-side of the R and R6, only for some strange reason you choose ISO 1600 instead of 6400 or higher like I did. Not sure where you're going with this.



privatebydesign said:


> and if so what are you trying to illustrate by doing that? It is meaningless and it is not a comparison. If you don’t agree that we have nothing else to talk about because your comprehension of reality is too far off base.
> 
> You are the one that started all this by saying you believed Canon had come up with technology that would improve high iso sensor performance by two stops at least, I said that is unlikely, you took issue with that. Now you have changed what most people would think of as high iso to much lower figures, you have come up with this curious per pixel noise idea etc etc.



For the upgrade path of R to R5, yes. Tests are not out on that. I don't give a flying rat's behind about the R6 improvements over the 1DX3 – that was you bringing that in. I didn't specify which camera model, so why do you insist on using that as an example of me being wrong? And yet you seem to think I can't compare R to R5 to prove my point when the time comes. You're the one flopping around here.



privatebydesign said:


> Let me be clear,



That would be a welcome change.



privatebydesign said:


> from your comments I believe you are wrong if I can’t see at least two stops of noise/DR improvement in high iso *images* (not pixels, but considering the R5 has a lot more pixels than the R you’d lose on a per pixel basis too but that is a side issue). I believe most people would consider 6,400 and above high iso. To make a fair and relevant comparison both R and R5 images have to be viewed at the same size because then the noise is enlarged the same.



Let's see how the *images* from the R5 stack up agains the R. And if we use your measure of equivalency, we're going to be looking at the R5 sized down to 30mp, then putting that up against the R. If I'm wrong on that, then so be it. Big damn deal, lol.



privatebydesign said:


> I believe most people would consider 6,400 and above high iso.



High ISO to me is 640 and up since I mainly shoot 100-400. But *you* were the one that posted the DPR comparison of R versus R6 using ISO 1600 as an example – because of course they look more similar at that ISO. You cherry picking again. I posted the R versus R6 at ISO 6400 just to show there was a meaningful difference – maybe 1/2 a stop, but I was just pointing out that the R6 does look a little better than the R at that ISO. But that's not me trying to prove my original point about 2 stops – that's just me swatting at your random posts like the buzzing swarm of mosquitoes that they are.


----------



## AaronT (Jul 21, 2020)

Here is Fro's R5 photo converted in Capture One. The second is a major crop from it. For an underexposed 4000 ISO shot it looks pretty good to me. Also, at F11 diffraction is kicking in. My 5DSR definitely wouldn't look as good under those conditions.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> And if we use your measure of equivalency,



It's not _my_ measure of equivalency, it is equivalent by definition!

Equal in value, amount [size]...




I keep changing metrics and iso values to try to keep up with your changes, nothing more. But 640 iso is not a high iso value by any definition.

I don't have a problem with you being right or wrong, nor myself, heck I have been wrong here before and I have admitted it and apologized. My problem is you have picked on people, including me, across various threads without being provoked and kept repeating utter nonsense despite the fact that you have been shown relevant information to the contrary.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> You were the one that posted the DPR test side-by-side of the R and R6, only for some strange reason you choose ISO 1600 instead of 6400 or higher like I did. Not sure where you're going with this.


When I did it I showed it with the 'print' option selected which normalizes the output, I was consistent.



highdesertmesa said:


> For the upgrade path of R to R5, yes. Tests are not out on that. I don't give a flying rat's behind about the R6 improvements over the 1DX3 – that was you bringing that in. I didn't specify which camera model, so why do you insist on using that as an example of me being wrong? And yet you seem to think I can't compare R to R5 to prove my point when the time comes. You're the one flopping around here.


The point was I have a 1DX II and you have an R, I was trying to find a spot where we could compare our personal experiences, so that was what I used initially. The point of showing the 1DX III DR was that is shares the sensor with the R6 so raw DR is going to be VERY similar, it wasn't about the 1DX III, it was about the fact the sensor output of the R6 is already known to a very large degree.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Jul 21, 2020)

Did anyone notice the performance of the burst shooting with the electronic shutter on the R5? There wasn't much movement during the burst shooting, but the feed through the camera looked a little smoother than it would be on the EOS R. It's hard to say really, but it looks pretty good.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> It's not _my_ measure of equivalency, it is equivalent by definition!
> 
> Equal in value, amount [size]...
> 
> ...



I guess my point was I always read people who make the equivalency argument say to size down the large file to match the smaller one, which seems strange to me. Why not blow up the smaller file to match the larger one, especially if the end goal is to print large? If the end goal is always going to be a 14"x11" print, then we're talking about being limited by the noise the human eye can resolve at a given distance as being the limit for high ISO performance. But if the end goal is say a 40"x30" print that we can walk up to, then we can see more differences, if there are any.



privatebydesign said:


> When I did it I showed it with the 'print' option selected which normalizes the output, I was consistent.



My bad. I was looking on my mobile phone and just saw one compared against the other. So when I switch to the print option, I still see a difference at 6400 and 12K, both with daylight and lowlight simulations – R6 looks better. About 1 stop improvement from R to R6.









privatebydesign said:


> The point was I have a 1DX II and you have an R, I was trying to find a spot where we could compare our personal experiences, so that was what I used initially. The point of showing the 1DX III DR was that is shares the sensor with the R6 so raw DR is going to be VERY similar, it wasn't about the 1DX III, it was about the fact the sensor output of the R6 is already known to a very large degree.



Fair enough. And I'm coming from the perspective of hoping (praying maybe, lol) to see 2 stops improvement from the R to the R5. We'll have to see. And I think you were trying to say there's no way we'll see 2 stops from 1DX3 to R6.

And speaking of being wrong and admitting it, I was thinking we'd get dual gain tech on the R5, which clearly we didn't.


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Jul 21, 2020)

Without raising my head above the parapet too much, I can safely say the R5 by far beats my R in performance.

this I feel is due to 1) noise handling, 2) focus 3)IBIS.
These are all key things really, taking these examples and other videos I have now seen the ability to handhold 800mm f/11 at 1/400-1/500 take a shot at 4000ISO and still produce a clean shot I can print after editing is something I cant recreate.

any one part of that equation I could work around but put them together and you get the result the of edited photo I did from the one Fro put out.

personally Icouldnt care less about the 1:1 and 70% this and if I dropped the MP of the camera. The results are what count and as much as I dont get these new lenses and I feel the R5 has a few deliberate compromises to allow for the R1 I can’t argue with the results.

(dive back behind the sandbags)


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 21, 2020)

Adam Shutter Bug said:


> Without raising my head above the parapet too much, I can safely say the R5 by far beats my R in performance.
> 
> this I feel is due to 1) noise handling, 2) focus 3)IBIS.
> These are all key things really, taking these examples and other videos I have now seen the ability to handhold 800mm f/11 at 1/400-1/500 take a shot at 4000ISO and still produce a clean shot I can print after editing is something I cant recreate.
> ...


Armor! A full suit of good armor will allow you to pop in more often


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2020)

Adam Shutter Bug said:


> Without raising my head above the parapet too much, I can safely say the R5 by far beats my R in performance.
> 
> this I feel is due to 1) noise handling, 2) focus 3)IBIS.
> These are all key things really, taking these examples and other videos I have now seen the ability to handhold 800mm f/11 at 1/400-1/500 take a shot at 4000ISO and still produce a clean shot I can print after editing is something I cant recreate.
> ...


The question was never if the R5 bested the R, surely even to the most obtuse that is obvious on so many levels.

The specific question was if the R5 bested the R by a minimum of 2 stops at high iso, I believe most people would rank high iso at least in the 3,200 and higher range. Although it has been explained at length that there isn’t that amount of additional performance to be found in current technology and bit depth RAW files (and we are only interested in RAW files not doctored jpegs) whenever that was pointed out they were ridiculed and mocked without any kind of supporting theory or facts. Now the images are starting to come out the definition of high iso is being changed to 640iso, and comparatively small differences are being held up as some kind of support to the initial question.

And that initial question is the only one I am interested in answering and rebutting, I do not believe the R5 will have over 2 stops minimum improvement in high iso (over 3,200) performance over the R.

Do I think the R5 is an awesome camera that I am likely to buy? Yes, but I won’t be getting it for fallacious reasons.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 21, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The question was never if the R5 bested the R, surely even to the most obtuse that is obvious on so many levels.
> 
> The specific question was if the R5 bested the R by a minimum of 2 stops at high iso, I believe most people would rank high iso at least in the 3,200 and higher range. Although it has been explained at length that there isn’t that amount of additional performance to be found in current technology and bit depth RAW files (and we are only interested in RAW files not doctored jpegs) whenever that was pointed out they were ridiculed and mocked without any kind of supporting theory or facts. Now the images are starting to come out the definition of high iso is being changed to 640iso, and comparatively small differences are being held up as some kind of support to the initial question.
> 
> ...



I think we're finally on the same page, putting aside the snarky comment about what's high ISO, since we both would probably like to see improved performance at 6400-12K. I just have higher hopes for the R5 vs R in the ISO 1600-12K range than you do. I hope I'm right by saying 2 stops improvement (when sized down to R resolution for equivalency as you suggested), but even one stop would be nice.

I'm not sure if DPR will have their R5 review and subsequent test chart up before the R5 deliveries start hitting. In any case, I won't be selling my R right away, so I'll be able to shoot the same scene with both bodies using the same lens at the same settings and compare.


----------



## subtraho (Jul 22, 2020)

LR + Topaz. I feel like it cleans up pretty good for ISO 4000. Will be interesting to see what the R5 can do with better light and faster glass. 

Edit: Looks like CR highly compresses uploaded files, it's actually much sharper than it looks from this version.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 22, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> The person I quoted via screenshot was referencing R5 samples.


R5 cannot be a better high iso camera than R6 by definition. R6 is your best bet when shooting at ISO6400 and higher. So as per my post: people do get emotional....


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> R5 cannot be a better high iso camera than R6 by definition. R6 is your best bet when shooting at ISO6400 and higher. So as per my post: people do get emotional....



Do you have intel or link saying that the R5 sensor is the same architecture as the R6 only more dense? I haven’t heard any details about the R5 sensor tech in relation to the R6.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 22, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Do you have intel or link saying that the R5 sensor is the same architecture as the R6 only more dense? I haven’t heard any details about the R5 sensor tech in relation to the R6.


yes.. Canon's word: sensor in R6 is a better sensor from a high ISO perspective than in R5.. mentioned multiple time in Canon product presentation videos, by Canon EOLs, product reviews. nothing unexpected. IDX3 sensor is excellent in low light. So this is one of the R6 features: low light performance.

R5 high ISO performance (3200 - 6400 and up) will NOT be better than R6 or 1Dx3...

let's focus on your original statement though: *you expected R5 to perform at high ISO by at least.. at least 2 stops better...*

myself and Privatebydesign addressed you on that number of time. An you keep coming back with more "information" to support your point.

let's agree / accept that your initial statement is false and move on from here.

P.S. so here is you post.. let see what you said back then:

*Canon must have achieved current f/5.6-level IQ at f/11*. So that's the amount of light/improvement we're talking about here – _*at minimum*, *IMO.*_






There are still surprises in store for the Canon EOS R5 announcement [CR2]


Imagine a 20 minute exposure. That's 5 degrees of image shift at worst (at the celestial equator, less nearer the poles). With a wide or normal lens that is very little cropping to essentially "stack" a long sequence of exposures. For telephoto, it means that a tracking mount is not alignment...




www.canonrumors.com





and then here again. much of the muchness:

*I hope I'm right by saying 2 stops improvement (when sized down to R resolution for equivalency as you suggested), but even one stop would be nice.*






First downloadable RAW R5 and R6 files


Without raising my head above the parapet too much, I can safely say the R5 by far beats my R in performance. this I feel is due to 1) noise handling, 2) focus 3)IBIS. These are all key things really, taking these examples and other videos I have now seen the ability to handhold 800mm f/11 at...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Jul 22, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Armor! A full suit of good armor will allow you to pop in more often


Not entirely sure I want to, it get all a bit toxic =/


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 22, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Just downloaded and had a play. R6 is awesome at 1000ISO(especially considering I am comparing to my 7d2).


At which point I'll just chime in with my usual "I get _noiseless _6400 ISO at 100% from my 7D Mk II, by converting in Photo Ninja..."


----------



## stevelee (Jul 22, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I am only caring about the noise at ISO 4000. I have started to get comfortable shooting in dark environments at ISO 3200 and even ISO 10,000 which has been rather clean on newer bodies.


Even with my 6D2, I have found that in most situations ISO 3200 has little or no downside, certainly as a practical matter.


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 22, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Even with my 6D2, I have found that in most situations ISO 3200 has little or no downside, certainly as a practical matter.


If for no other reason, I would think the DR reduction at ISO 3200 would have some effect on your images?


----------



## Joules (Jul 22, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> What I was calling pseudoscience were the recent comments about how we’ve reaching a physical limit for ISO improvement, which completely discounts new sensor design (R5) and processor and firmware improvements. Those were statements made with even less proof since no one has a future camera in front of them to test it.


There is a physical limit for how much improvement in low light performance we can expect in the future though. Noise isn't just caused by the camera. It is also a characteristic of the light itself. Even with a perfect camera that introduces 0 noise due to heat and imperfections in the read out circuits, you'll still get noisy images in low light.

From what you've written I'm not sure if you are aware of that. If you are, and these aren't the claims you were referring to, than I can't judge if pseudoscience is an appropriate word to use. But otherwise, I disagree with its usage.

Especially since you yourself seem to prefer testing / comparing noise at 1:1 resolution, which goes against the scientific approach of only changing one variable at a time.


----------



## davidhfe (Jul 22, 2020)

Didn't see this posted yet, but DPR has a large gallery of samples (w/ downloadable raws) now available. I'd guess a review is coming soon.









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


----------



## sfericean (Jul 22, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> Didn't see this posted yet, but DPR has a large gallery of samples (w/ downloadable raws) now available. I'd guess a review is coming soon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I saw that, but wasn't able to open them in Lightroom or DPP. Would love to know how Fro was able to get DNG's. In not the best with the tech so any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 22, 2020)

Joules said:


> There is a physical limit for how much improvement in low light performance we can expect in the future though. Noise isn't just caused by the camera. It is also a characteristic of the light itself. Even with a perfect camera that introduces 0 noise due to heat and imperfections in the read out circuits, you'll still get noisy images in low light.


All true, but - as I find myself pointing out time and time again - the choice of converter and its demosaicing algorithm(s) have a _huge _part to play in how much noise a conversion from Raw generates in the image.

It is a fact (many of us have tested this to exhaustion) that some demosaicing algorithms simply generate more noise at a given ISO, than do others. Note that this is aside from any noise reduction that the converter might apply: it is axiomatic for example, that LightRoom's demosaicing is far more "noisy" at a given ISO than the algorithm in Photo Ninja, which is precisely why I'm a Photo Ninja user, not a LightRoom user.

(I choose these two for this comparison simply because the NR can be turned off completely in both, making for a meaningful comparison. This is not true of Capture One, for example).

As to NR, a particularly smart NR implementation (Photo Ninja again) will automatically adapt to the content of the image and selectively apply more or less NR to the highlights, mid and shadow areas, and to different colour channels, further improving the overall result: and - uniquely to Photo Ninja as far as I'm aware - its NR is _edge aware _and will leave detail alone while applying more NR to smooth OOF areas. It's a bit like the LightRoom "masking" function, but applied automatically.

But because Photo Ninja conversions have more fine detail - and less noise - in the first place because of its superior demosaicing algorithm, the files need less in the way of overall sharpening and NR anyway.

My point being that you're entirely likely to gain significantly more by being fussy about your choice of converter, than by springing for the latest and greatest camera/sensor technology and then converting your Raw files in a below-par converter.

And for the avoidance of any doubt, I include DPP in this: I know there's a notion that "_nobody knows Canon files better than Canon_", and when it comes to maximising low ISO DR in Canon files (a story for another time..!  ) I'd agree. But it's nowhere near the top of the league when it comes to converting high ISO Canon files...


----------



## adigoks (Jul 22, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> Didn't see this posted yet, but DPR has a large gallery of samples (w/ downloadable raws) now available. I'd guess a review is coming soon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



after seeing those gallery. In my opinion, i think canon gave different JPEG processing algorithm between R6 & R5. R5 looks like my 750d in term of JPEG fine detail . it lose slight of detail, make it little bit softer when zoom 100% . while R6 preserve more detail in its JPEG. i didnt look at the RAW yet tho .


----------



## stevelee (Jul 22, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> If for no other reason, I would think the DR reduction at ISO 3200 would have some effect on your images?


When light is that low, there tends not to be a wide dynamic range.


----------



## Joules (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> All true, but - as I find myself pointing out time and time again - the choice of converter and its demosaicing algorithm(s) have a _huge _part to play in how much noise a conversion from Raw generates in the image.


I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me. I am not arguing that the level of noise we currently encounter in a typical workflow is as good as it can be or anything like that. 

I am just no fan at all of using the term pseudoscience lightly. Especially in these times, with science and nuance being so important. The poster I was replying to seemed to imply that people who point out that there is a hard limit in low light performance were about to be proven wrong by the R5. There are definitely techniques that allow you to get better results in low light than some time ago and I don't think we have reached the limit of what can be done yet. But one must also have realistic expectations and know how to properly compare samples when trying to judge the progress that has been made.

Thanks for the write up on Noise Ninja though. I've been playing with the thought of trying it a few times already. As you mentioned subject specific noise reduction, do you know how it performs for deep sky objects?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me. I am not arguing that the level of noise we currently encounter in a typical workflow is as good as it can be or anything like that.


No, no - just using your post as a gateway to introducing a related topic.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> yes.. Canon's word: sensor in R6 is a better sensor from a high ISO perspective than in R5.. mentioned multiple time in Canon product presentation videos, by Canon EOLs, product reviews. nothing unexpected. IDX3 sensor is excellent in low light. So this is one of the R6 features: low light performance.
> 
> R5 high ISO performance (3200 - 6400 and up) will NOT be better than R6 or 1Dx3...
> 
> ...



Let’s see the samples compared to R on the DPR tool. I was already wrong about dual gain tech coming to the R5, so what’s one more time to be wrong. Oh, I also voted that the “one more feature for photographers” rumor might be pixel shift high res mode. Being wrong on a rumors site about rumors isn’t something I get too worked up about.

Still find it strange how several of you discount the future possibility of ISO gains. Seems like a rather narrow-minded vision of the future and possible advances in sensor design and AI-based imaging. Reminds me of people saying humans would never fly. The science behind the high ISO performance being limited as explained here sounded more like someone repeating what they read once rather than an deep understanding of the physics behind it. If that’s not the case, and one of you have a PhD in this field and wrote some papers on it, I‘m all ears. You guys talk about improving high ISO of the current sensors like it’s as unlikely as time travel.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> There is a physical limit for how much improvement in low light performance we can expect in the future though. Noise isn't just caused by the camera. It is also a characteristic of the light itself. Even with a perfect camera that introduces 0 noise due to heat and imperfections in the read out circuits, you'll still get noisy images in low light.
> 
> From what you've written I'm not sure if you are aware of that. If you are, and these aren't the claims you were referring to, than I can't judge if pseudoscience is an appropriate word to use. But otherwise, I disagree with its usage.
> 
> Especially since you yourself seem to prefer testing / comparing noise at 1:1 resolution, which goes against the scientific approach of only changing one variable at a time.



Is this topic something with which you have studied professionally, or if you’re going off an article you read once? We’re not asking to bend the fabric of the universe, just find a way to improve high ISO performance. Maybe the breakthrough at some point will be AI-based processing of some kind. Maybe the solution will be some sort of organic sensor that sees more like some animal species see in low light. I was hoping Canon made some sort of breakthrough like that having seen those f/11 lenses. So being wrong about that is a big fat “so what”.

It would be cool to see would be a chart that plotted the increase in ISO performance/sensitivity year over year from the invention of the first digital camera to today. It would be interesting to see if we’ve hit a plateau as you’re suggesting or if we’ve been on a rise closer to what we see with computing power and Moore’s Law.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 23, 2020)

His video certainly taught me that the 800 f/11 may be a massively compromised ownership experience. These are sharp sample photos, but when you see how much he had to crank the ISO for the image of the cheetah laying in the shadows, that’s unacceptable for wildlife photos. Why? Because a look at the shutter speed of 1/320...that isn’t really going to work with a moving animal and you’re already pushing things at 800mm even with IS and IBIS. I am impressed by the performance of that aspect for sure.

So far, the noise performance of the camera is looking really nice.


----------



## Joules (Jul 23, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Is this topic something with which you have studied professionally, or if you’re going off an article you read once? We’re not asking to bend the fabric of the universe, just find a way to improve high ISO performance. Maybe the breakthrough at some point will be AI-based processing of some kind. Maybe the solution will be some sort of organic sensor that sees more like some animal species see in low light.


That light behaves in a discrete way, like a particle, when coming in contact with surfaces is something that was briefly covered in school physics. If you want to call that professional study. I don't think that matters though, if you want to read up on the physics of light there is a ton of material out there. What we're talking about here is the noise inherent to the light itself, a property that is completly unaffacted by how good your sensor. Wikipedia has a small explanation for it: Shot noise.

As understanding and dealing with noise is a key aspect of astro photography, that's a good place to get information about it in the context of photography. Jon Rista has very detailed articles with example images and lots of math on his page (along some amazing deep sky images): Astrophotography Basics: Signal, Noise and Histograms & Astrophotography Basics: SNR. I believe he was also active on this forum under the account jrista, but haven't seen him post anything under the deep sky thread for a long while.

As for your second point, I though we were particularly concerned with the physical aspects of low light performance. That's why the focus was on RAW, not JPEG, or was it? Of course post processing techniques are continuing to improve. Slapping AI on something is no magical cure to any problem, but it can deliver impressive results for sure. Though, I personally think there's a pretty fine line between actually restoring details you would have gotten in an image by gathering more light, or just making the noise less apparent by smoothing it or replacing it with artificial detail.

As for animal eyes, not sure where you are going with this. As I said, the noise is in the light itself.



highdesertmesa said:


> It would be cool to see would be a chart that plotted the increase in ISO performance/sensitivity year over year from the invention of the first digital camera to today. It would be interesting to see if we’ve hit a plateau as you’re suggesting or if we’ve been on a rise closer to what we see with computing power and Moore’s Law.


You are right, that would be cool. I'll see if I can put something together.

Just to clarify though, I am not saying that we have hit a plateau. I am saying that there is a physical limit for how noisy a low light image can look without further processing or techniques to improve it. That's what I consider to be meant when we talk about RAW file low light performance. And as progress is made, we approach that limit. As is generally the case when approaching these limits, it get's harder to make improvements as you get closer. I do think we are seeing that in recent releases, so hoping for really big steps forward appears to be futile to me. But for this last point, I don't have a proper source to point out at the moment. I'll get back to you if I can present the chart you mentioned, which I would also find very interesting myself.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Let’s see the samples compared to R on the DPR tool. I was already wrong about dual gain tech coming to the R5, so what’s one more time to be wrong. Oh, I also voted that the “one more feature for photographers” rumor might be pixel shift high res mode. Being wrong on a rumors site about rumors isn’t something I get too worked up about.
> 
> Still find it strange how several of you discount the future possibility of ISO gains. Seems like a rather narrow-minded vision of the future and possible advances in sensor design and AI-based imaging. Reminds me of people saying humans would never fly. The science behind the high ISO performance being limited as explained here sounded more like someone repeating what they read once rather than an deep understanding of the physics behind it. If that’s not the case, and one of you have a PhD in this field and wrote some papers on it, I‘m all ears. You guys talk about improving high ISO of the current sensors like it’s as unlikely as time travel.


We merely pointed out the fact that what you said in relation to possibility of R5 being at least two stops better in a high iso situation is not even remotely possible at this stage. What you now talking about is yet another hypothesis of “what if”
And in the outset. R6 RAW files in DPR sample images database look considerably better than R5. I would like to see what Photons to Photos will come up with. to my eye, R5 RAW files at iso 6400 look a bit mashie than I would like them to be. On an another hand, R6 RAW files do look impressive at ISO 6400 I am very much tempted at this stage with R6 high iso performance.... and the top dial. Just with my trusty 5D4s


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 23, 2020)

Joules said:


> That light behaves in a discrete way, like a particle, when coming in contact with surfaces is something that was briefly covered in school physics. If you want to call that professional study. I don't think that matters though, if you want to read up on the physics of light there is a ton of material out there. What we're talking about here is the noise inherent to the light itself, a property that is completly unaffacted by how good your sensor. Wikipedia has a small explanation for it: Shot noise.
> 
> As understanding and dealing with noise is a key aspect of astro photography, that's a good place to get information about it in the context of photography. Jon Rista has very detailed articles with example images and lots of math on his page (along some amazing deep sky images): Astrophotography Basics: Signal, Noise and Histograms & Astrophotography Basics: SNR. I believe he was also active on this forum under the account jrista, but haven't seen him post anything under the deep sky thread for a long while.
> 
> ...





Joules said:


> That light behaves in a discrete way, like a particle, when coming in contact with surfaces is something that was briefly covered in school physics. If you want to call that professional study. I don't think that matters though, if you want to read up on the physics of light there is a ton of material out there. What we're talking about here is the noise inherent to the light itself, a property that is completly unaffacted by how good your sensor. Wikipedia has a small explanation for it: Shot noise.
> 
> As understanding and dealing with noise is a key aspect of astro photography, that's a good place to get information about it in the context of photography. Jon Rista has very detailed articles with example images and lots of math on his page (along some amazing deep sky images): Astrophotography Basics: Signal, Noise and Histograms & Astrophotography Basics: SNR. I believe he was also active on this forum under the account jrista, but haven't seen him post anything under the deep sky thread for a long while.
> 
> ...



Appreciate the thoughtful replies. Always nice when the harsh conversation turns more friendly.

If the R5 is one stop better than the R, can we not say I was half right and half wrong? 

One example of the kind of tech I was thinking Canon would bring to the R5 stills is illustrated by the 4K oversampled video that downsamples from 8K. From what I've read, it supposedly allows for full (I forget what the right word is) saturation(?) of each color channel, much like a still image from a Foveon sensor, plus producing higher dynamic range and sharpness. Not sure how I expected something like that to work for stills – perhaps processed the same way as the 4K oversampled video and delivered as S/MRAW.


----------

