Compare the coverage of the Z6III and R5II, both seem to have worse DR/noise than their predecessors. Only one of them gets called out for it in headlines, guess which one.
Upvote
0
I Have an R5 MK II. AMA.
- Thread starter Nrbelex
- Start date
-
- Tags
- r5 mark ii r5 mk ii
Lol, yeah. And I remember when Rishi came on here and claimed DPR was not biased.
Upvote
0
RawDigger measurements are basically about pure read noise with zero signal, which is useful but not the same as DxO or P2P measurements.
Visual comparison in the DPR studio scene is closer to the real scenarios when editing the raw files. There's, of course, some room for bias and error when they set the scene and the light up. We should wait for P2P measurements at least.
Upvote
0
Apologies for not providing any additional test shots. It's been continuously rainy since I got the camera, making it tough to make any worthwhile photos. On the bright side, I've been working on the images Bill Claff needs for the PhotosToPhotons measurements.
Upvote
0
Canon EOS R5 Mark II Noise Test Results
Review camera noise test results for the Canon EOS R5 Mark II and compare the performance of this camera with other Cameras.
www.the-digital-picture.com
Upvote
0
Yep, Bryan's noise and DR review is up. Found subtle differences between R5 II and R5 (loss in cyan in overexposed images pulled back). Much more the same than different. Overall, a push between the two cameras.Canon EOS R5 Mark II Noise Test Results
Review camera noise test results for the Canon EOS R5 Mark II and compare the performance of this camera with other Cameras.
Upvote
0
You will find very little difference in the link you posted - it's for the R5ii vs R5ii...Canon EOS R5 Mark II Noise Test Results
Review camera noise test results for the Canon EOS R5 Mark II and compare the performance of this camera with other Cameras.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Early analysis indicates Canon lowered the amount of cooking, the convolution kernel is much weaker, leading to slightly better detail.
That doesn’t mean the R5 couldn’t have been misfocused!
Upvote
0
Looks good to me.Canon EOS R5 Mark II Noise Test Results
Review camera noise test results for the Canon EOS R5 Mark II and compare the performance of this camera with other Cameras.
Slightly sharper and cleaner than R5 - at least to my eyes.
Colors seem to be more desaturated though (compared to original R5) if you go to +3EV)
Upvote
0
A few updates:
- Bill is finalizing his analysis of the images I shared and should have the results posted shortly.
- The rain finally broke, and I've posted a few sample shots here.
- These are generally lightly edited.
- I was using an EF 24-70 f/2.8L (v1), and I imagine a more modern lens would have focused faster and been optically superior. My hit rate was great compared to the 5D MK III, but not perfect, and some images were definitely soft. This could have also been a result of the fast-paced nature of street photography.
- I've also added a few more random/generic but real world RAWs here .
- It was 85°F in NYC today, and after a couple hours of shooting (exclusively stills), I noticed the heat warning bar was about 1/2 filled. This didn't cause any issues, and I didn't see it rise any higher than that, but it was somewhat surprising given I was only shooting stills. It came and went depending on whether I was in the shade, went indoors, etc.
- The new battery lasted about 5 hours with about 20 mins of recharging in the middle of that time period. Over those 5 hours I fired off around 1,600 frames (many as busts via low speed drive) and had highly aggressive power saving options selected.
- As I've mentioned, Eye Control AF doesn't work for me. But the autofocus system generally works well. While it won't track insects, it will detect and follow practically everything else.
- Of course, in a busy shot, and when trying to focus on something other than the most obvious target, it needs help. I found this to be necessary pretty frequently for street photography. My solution was to set the exposure lock (*) button to "Switch to registered AF func.," which is set only to Spot AF. (Since I only shoot stills, I set the movie recording button to exposure lock.) With this setup, without changing focus modes, I can momentarily put the spot AF on my subject, which the camera will then track for as long as the AF is engaged. (Any focusing when that button is not being pressed occurs as configured.) This was highly effective.
- Two minor and expected bummers coming from the 5D MK III:
- As mentioned above, I have aggressive power saving options selected. The viewfinder blacks out pretty quickly. I'm still getting used to raising the camera to my eye only to see a black screen. I'm getting better at pressing a button to wake up the camera before raising it to my eye.
- I miss having a hardware switch to move into the custom shooting modes (C1-3). It was nice to be able to switch quickly via muscle memory, which isn't really possible with the newer layout.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Assign the M-Fn button to switching through modes - much better and faster for me on the R5 than using a physical mode dial.
Upvote
0
If I didn't use all the M-Fn button options, I would absolutely do that. I do wish there were a couple more unassigned, customizable buttons.
Upvote
0
It’s absolutely your choice of how much customisation. I like to keep things simple and have my most used settings in C1, C2, and C3 and to be able to cycle through them and Fv in milliseconds with the M-Fn button. It’s in line with my general attitude of KISS (keep it simple, stupid), which has served me well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle
Upvote
0
DR measurements from P2P (thanks to Bill Claff and to @Nrbelex):
0.4 stops worse than the R5 at ISO 100 and almost identical from ISO 800+, however it bakes in noise reduction at all ISOs, so the actual high ISO performance is worse.
The only advantage (from other tests) is that the R5II has much less hot pixels. That's probably the only advantage if we talk about landscape photography.
Overall, not a great upgrade option from R5 to R5II, especially considering the price. Pay more and get worse performance, except the hot pixels.
0.4 stops worse than the R5 at ISO 100 and almost identical from ISO 800+, however it bakes in noise reduction at all ISOs, so the actual high ISO performance is worse.
The only advantage (from other tests) is that the R5II has much less hot pixels. That's probably the only advantage if we talk about landscape photography.
Overall, not a great upgrade option from R5 to R5II, especially considering the price. Pay more and get worse performance, except the hot pixels.
Upvote
0
The 6DII (and hence the RP) had 'worse' DR than the original 6D. It was one of those "Canon releases the worst camera, ever!!!!" followed by "After a few months of actually using it: best camera ever!!!" media situations we all know and love.
Also, Nikon Z6II vs Z6III for a more recent example, although technically not a mk1 vs mk2
Upvote
0
The pictures I have seen yet suggest the output of the mkII looks more usable at high Iso. R5 with less details and pale colors. The picures of a chaffinch I posted yesterday in the BIF thread eg are iso 25600 and have a strange color, I couldn't correct.
I'm interested in this real world performance and would accept lower DR if the picture looks better.
Upvote
0
At 25,600 the R5 has a dynamic range of only 4.27 and the R5ii of 4.17, which are on a par with the very best FF sensors. Using very high iso can knock the hell out of IQ.
ps I am reserving judgement until I or someone else tests both using DxO PL or Pureraw.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
