Canon EOS R1: The Best High ISO Performance Yet from a Canon sensor

#21
Karm said:
Pleasantly surprised with that.

Especially since the R5 II came with some ISO noise DEGRADATIONS compared to the R5, which was mostly attributed to being a tradeoff for the much faster readout speed of the R5 II sensor.

With the R1 sensor again being much faster than the R3, I wouldn't have been surprised to see a (smaller) kind of tradeoff there. The R1 isn't top end in everything after all, for example the back display is lower resolution than that of the R3.

To now hear that the R1's noise performance is actually BETTER than that of the R3, along with having much faster readout, is a nice bonus.
Click to expand...
Note this article doesn't provide any concrete measurements and doesn't contain any comparison images shot in a controlled environment. It mostly explains the creation of noise reduction presets for Lightroom. I'd rather wait for measurements from Photonstophotos and/or DxOMark. The latter have a very significant lag though, they still haven't done the R5II.

In reality, I suspect, the R1 will be the same or slightly better than the R3 in terms of the dynamic range and high ISO noise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#22
Quarkcharmed said:
Note this article doesn't provide any concrete measurements and doesn't contain any comparison images shot in a controlled environment. It mostly explains the creation of noise reduction presets for Lightroom. I'd rather wait for measurements from Photonstophotos and/or DxOMark. The latter have a very significant lag though, they still haven't done the R5II.

In reality, I suspect, the R1 will be the same or slightly better than the R3 in terms of the dynamic range and high ISO noise.
Click to expand...
Exactly my thoughts... I must say I wasn't very brave on that one reading all the satisfied comments here ;)

Though there's at least TDP that have some image noise samples that you can compare with R3 : https://www.the-digital-picture.com...2800&CameraComp=1553&TestComp=0&ISOComp=12800

I don't see much differences in this comparison, but it's not enough to conclude, to be fair. First is R1 second is R3.

Anyway, having information about noise processing is interesting, even if I don't use anything Ad..be anymore at that point...

Capture d’écran 2024-11-21 à 11.11.19.pngCapture d’écran 2024-11-21 à 11.11.36.png
 
Upvote 0
#23
Pierre Lagarde said:
Exactly my thoughts... I must say I wasn't very brave on that one reading all the satisfied comments here ;)

Though there's at least TDP that have some image noise samples that you can compare with R3 : https://www.the-digital-picture.com...2800&CameraComp=1553&TestComp=0&ISOComp=12800

I don't see much differences in this comparison, but it's not enough to conclude, to be fair. First is R1 second is R3.

Anyway, having information about noise processing is interesting, even if I don't use anything Ad..be anymore at that point...

View attachment 221106View attachment 221107
Click to expand...

Well, the sensor readout on the R1 is twice as fast, so there's going to be a noise factor. However, I think the R1 is better with some colour channels. I also prefer the noise pattern on the R1 in ES.

It's much better than the a1... yeah resolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#26
Canon Rumors Guy said:
Well, the sensor readout on the R1 is twice as fast, so there's going to be a noise factor. However, I think the R1 is better with some colour channels. I also prefer the noise pattern on the R1 in ES.
Click to expand...
Sure, readout is clearly a more important thing for that kind of camera... anyway even if it "only" does the same as the R3, with nearly twice the readout, I think that's enough to be satisfied of the sensor capabilities. Given it can do many other things for its owner, I guess that's more than enough ;).

TBH, I don't worry much about ISO noise at least since the 6D. I'm often more concerned about colour shifts. Not much to worry about then, with those high-end FF cameras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#27
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#28
Quarkcharmed said:
Tbh the visible noise seems to be the roughly the same at high ISOs but I can see a bit more detail on the ruler in the R3's images.
Click to expand...
Agreed, though only one test image and set of conditions are hardly a base for conclusion. Even the more precise and complete DPR image quality tests are not enough to conclude for real world usage.
However, there's a need for more information sources to have a better idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#29
Pierre Lagarde said:
Exactly my thoughts... I must say I wasn't very brave on that one reading all the satisfied comments here ;)

Though there's at least TDP that have some image noise samples that you can compare with R3 : https://www.the-digital-picture.com...2800&CameraComp=1553&TestComp=0&ISOComp=12800

I don't see much differences in this comparison, but it's not enough to conclude, to be fair. First is R1 second is R3.

Anyway, having information about noise processing is interesting, even if I don't use anything Ad..be anymore at that point...

View attachment 221106View attachment 221107
Click to expand...
Do we know if they used the same lens between the two cameras?
 
Upvote 0
#33
AlanF said:
It took a lot of searching to find this! https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-Noise.aspx
Yes, the same lens.
He uses DPP to convert RAW. I wonder what the comparison would be with DxO.
Click to expand...
Normally they'd try to minimise software processing in those comparisons. You can't draw conclusions about the sensor performance/noise after applying an unknown amount of noise reduction with added AI-generated detail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#34
Quarkcharmed said:
Normally they'd try to minimise software processing in those comparisons. You can't draw conclusions about the sensor performance/noise after applying an unknown amount of noise reduction with added AI-generated detail.
Click to expand...
You want to know the noise from the sensor and associated electronics under a particular light flux without any software interference for an absolute comparison, or how it affects you personally for what the noise is under your conditions of use and processing and its practical effects on your images. The latter is what concerns me and I would guess most of us. I don’t use DPP with minimal sharpening for my processing that he uses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#35
AlanF said:
You want to know the noise from the sensor and associated electronics under a particular light flux without any software interference for an absolute comparison, or how it affects you personally for what the noise is under your conditions of use and processing and its practical effects on your images. The latter is what concerns me and I would guess most of us. I don’t use DPP with minimal sharpening for my processing that he uses.
Click to expand...
With mechanical shutter you had the excuse to update with every cycle, now with ES, its only GAS ;)
 
Upvote 0
#36
My testing of the R1 continues. In regards to AF I’m giving the edge to the Sony A9III pending further testing. Thus far I have had the R1 drift off a talking head a few times for seemingly no reason. The Sony relentlessly stays locked on the subject.
I’m liking the lighted buttons on the R1. The tally light is a useful feature. For remote shooting the App is garbage. It takes long to connect, then once connected, it easily and frequently loses connection. The Monitor+ app I use with the Sony is much more reliable and even offers wired connect support in addition to the quite reliable wireless connection.

Files: Of course the Canon can shoot raw video, but the XF HEVC S 4K (H.265) files are both robust and easy to work with in post. The files play back smooth on newer hardware. More surprisingly, is just how flexible they are in post. From my early testing, they afford much more flexible in post than the Sony XAVC S-I 4K (H.264) files which Sony recommends if you plan to edit in post. I can push shadows and bring up dark areas to far greater extremes and the image continues to hold together. The Sony requires a much more restrained approach… And I wasn’t even shooting in a log profile on the Canon. There are so many settings, it’s going take time to fully understand this camera.

Note: DaVinci Resolve seems to have trouble with the raw files. Changing most settings under the Raw tab causes the image to disappear.

There are places where the Sony has an edge…. The global shutter is effortless to use with virtual walls. Zero artifacts, with no fuss. The Canon can work also, but you need to plan for it, because setting matter. The R1 is a deep camera… and I haven’t even take a single still image yet!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#37
Not that surprisingly to me, I only saw this test of the Canon R1:

Canon EOS R1 - test trybu filmowego - Użytkowanie - Inne testy - Optyczne.pl

Najlepsze testy obiektywów, testy aparatów cyfrowych i testy lornetek w sieci! Jeśli szukasz kompetentnych informacji z tematyki foto-optycznej to trafiłeś we właściwe miejsce. Czeka tu na Ciebie ogromna ilość profesjonalnych i obiektywnych testów sprzętu optycznego, obszerne i ciekawe artykuły...
www.optyczne.pl www.optyczne.pl
Says dynamic range has been markedly improved over previous Canon sensors (even when just using the built-in profiles), in some ways looks to be the most powerful hybrid camera out there.

So as in many cases, people downplaying a camera based on its specs and expectations.

My only wish list for the R1 is for it to become outdated after an R1X, so a hypotetical Canon R6 Mark IV can make use of most of its technology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#38
Any recommendations for de-noising if you stay in Camera Raw and Photoshop? I just started playing with my first images from the R1 after coming from the R3. Love how it feels, the improved AF and the higher ISOs do seem materially better. I have not yet been able to test the dynamic range improvement.
 
Upvote 0
#39
AlanF said:
You want to know the noise from the sensor and associated electronics under a particular light flux without any software interference for an absolute comparison, or how it affects you personally for what the noise is under your conditions of use and processing and its practical effects on your images. The latter is what concerns me and I would guess most of us. I don’t use DPP with minimal sharpening for my processing that he uses.
Click to expand...

Those tests typically attempt to answer the following question: how does a sensor perform and how does it compare to other sensors, in terms of the raw output?

You're asking a different question: what can DxO do to the output of the given sensor and how does it compare to DxO applied to other sensor output?

Then you'll need to do such tests yourself because your processing workflow (and DxO version and settings) will be unique to you. Also the assessment criteria will be unique to you. Will you be happy with the generated detail added by DxO?

AI-generated detail is not a metric of a sensor's performance.
 
Upvote 0
#40
Quarkcharmed said:
Those tests typically attempt to answer the following question: how does a sensor perform and how does it compare to other sensors, in terms of the raw output?

You're asking a different question: what can DxO do to the output of the given sensor and how does it compare to DxO applied to other sensor output?

Then you'll need to do such tests yourself because your processing workflow (and DxO version and settings) will be unique to you. Also the assessment criteria will be unique to you. Will you be happy with the generated detail added by DxO?

AI-generated detail is not a metric of a sensor's performance.
Click to expand...
Those tests are not done on RAW output, they are done on jpegs so they are not answering your question. I've tried most of the RAW converters and I find DxO extracts the most detail and doesn't add detail as you imply - it's not Topaz AI. @neuroanatomist who is extremely careful seems to agree. What evidence do you have for your implying DxO generates detail?

neuroanatomist said:
I was an Aperture user, and it sucks that Apple abandoned it. I use Photos to organize my jpg library, but I use DxO PL for RAW conversions since it does a far better job than other converters I've tried.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard CR
Canon EOS R1 Rockets to the #1 Position in Japan
Replies
16
Views
1K
Ryrock77
R
Canon Rumors
Canon officially introduces the Canon EOS R1 flagship mirrorless king
Replies
98
Views
13K
GMCPhotographics
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors
Canon EOS R1 to have a version of a DGO sensor?
Replies
89
Views
4K
Del Paso
D
Canon Rumors
Let’s talk Canon EOS R1, the flagship of flagships?
Replies
200
Views
50K
Nature Calls
N
Canon Rumors
DXOMark concludes that the Canon EOS R3 is the ‘best low light performer’
Replies
70
Views
37K
justaCanonuser
justaCanonuser
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu