# R5, R6, 5D4, 1DX3 Low Light Tests



## ethanz (Aug 27, 2020)

Jeff Cable has released a blog with high iso images from all four cameras. 









ISO testing of the Canon R5 and R6 (and comparing them to the Canon 1D X MKIII and 5D MKIV)


Jeff Cable Photography, Canon, R5, R6, Real world, Test, Review, ISO, High ISO, Comparison, 1DX, 5D, Metering, Test




blog.jeffcable.com


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 27, 2020)

I did not see any mention of normalization for pixel density.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 27, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> I did not see any mention of normalization for pixel density.


This and also notice how R5 files were corrected in post for exposure by 0.6 stop more than 1Dx3 files.


----------



## Joules (Aug 27, 2020)

Did the guy actually use auto shutter speeds for a low light comparison? I just skimmed through the thing, but that's the impression I got.

If it is true, it renders any comparison entirely useless. Noise is almost exclusively dependent on the amount of light gathered. If you vary the most important variable, you can't make a comparison. Especially since the relationship between noise and light is not linear.

Edit: He actually did. GG

"I decided to set each camera to aperture priority mode [...]"


----------



## Joules (Aug 27, 2020)

For those actually interested in how these bodies compare:





__





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





As is to be expected, the R6, 1DX III and R5 slightly beat the 5D IV in terms of low light noise. But those three among themselves are virtually the same. Or in other words, the R5 is the best one, as it has the same amount of noise as the 20 MP cameras when viewing at the same magnification and allows you to gather more detail when you enlarge further.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Aug 27, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> This and also notice how R5 files were corrected in post for exposure by 0.6 stop more than 1Dx3 files.


He was probably using lightroom or ACR... the Adobe Raw conversion has a known bug where images appear underexposed by half a stop or so on the R5


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 28, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> He was probably using lightroom or ACR... the Adobe Raw conversion has a known bug where images appear underexposed by half a stop or so on the R5


Oh, and while we are still at it: Have you noticed a weird magenta like tint in the zigzag like pattern on the helmet, top left corner of R5 closeup images in the review? 5D4, 1Dx3, R6 images do not exhibit this issue. Bizarre...


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 28, 2020)




----------



## Joules (Aug 28, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> View attachment 192471


Looks to me as if all colors are slightly warmer and darker in the upper image. So probably more dissimilar settings, like exposure and / or WB.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 29, 2020)

I'm surprised that a photographer with Jeff Cable's experience didn't have better control over his comparisons.

More interesting are his observations of how the exposure metering varied between models, but now I'm wondering if he had proper control of his lighting!


----------



## ethanz (Aug 30, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm surprised that a photographer with Jeff Cable's experience didn't have better control over his comparisons.
> 
> More interesting are his observations of how the exposure metering varied between models, but now I'm wondering if he had proper control of his lighting!



Yes it is, but maybe he knows more how to use cameras than how to pixel peep and DRone about cameras


----------

