Canon EOS R5 Mark II deliveries have already started
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Upvote
0
Looking over their test scene, unless they purposefully cooked the capture (i.e using efcs/e-shutter and not even trying the full shutter mode) then they may have a point.
Upvote
0
By "intelligent" manipulation you can prove whatever you want to prove.
I remember a car comparison (it was for fun!) by some magazine between a Mercedes 600 (the first model) and a Renault 4.
The winner was the Renault, an inexpensive but good little car.
More fuel efficient, better in city trafic, variability of boot, better on dirt roads, lower insurance premium, repair and maintenance costs etc...
This is exactly what many reviewers do, by putting the "enemy" in an abnormal situation and stressing to the maximum unimportant little disadvantages.
And also keeping silent about their loved ones' drawbacks (250 ISO, 12 DR, bad ergonomics...).
Upvote
0
Absolutely, and DPR may be trying to do something like that here, but I’m a big believer that scrutinizing features or performance that affect your shooting is all people really need to worry about. For me, image quality is a far higher priority than speed so it is a pertinent comparison. I’d like to see some more samples on the topic to tease out out the truth because at least at their +6ev sample there does indeed appear to be a difference between the R5 and R5ii. With that said, the R5 image has way less contrast which makes it look cleaner than it is, and when you correct for that contrast difference they look a lot closer. With that said, it is only visible at a +6ev push, which is pretty aggressive and likely wouldn’t make a difference to 95% of people. Obviously whether there is a difference is an entirely different question than if a difference matters.
Upvote
0
And there’s a small chance that Adobe needs to tweak how it handles R5II RAW files to get the most out of it.
But as it stands right now, the R5II seems to have more noise than the R5. And there’s a difference between EFCS and ES as well, which surprised me.
Most of my macro shooting this summer has been with the R7 in ES mode, so the R5II will be a massive improvement in all ways, except pixels-per-dragonfly!
Upvote
0
I'm seeing the same usernames that complained about Canon "cooking RAWs" now complaining about the extra noise now that Canon has stopped cooking the RAWs....
The extra detail that people report seeing is a nice bonus for my usecase, I'll take the hit on noise for that. I'd also happily trade noise for a global shutter, but that's not a popular opinion here
Global shutters are terrible for photography and judging by the read out speeds of the new sensors, there's not much need for it. Sure there will be rare instances, but then you still have the mechanical shutter to take care of that.
I'll take photo IQ over a global shutter any day. Canon made the right call, Sony did not... That sensor is terrible.
Upvote
0
Having been many years in the auto industry, having dealt with many car journalists, I simply distrust such comparisons. A free meal, or a nice car (camera...) for the weekend could direct a test or review into the right direction.
There is no such thing as an objective testing, companies are often cheating too.
What about a gasoline test car's engine which got "inadvertently" fitted with a diesel camshaft, enhancing its performance? (brand with 4 rings on the grille).
This cannot happen on an assembly line. People should rely on their own judgement or on the opinion of non-paid experienced users, but not on youtube or review so-called experts.
You can alter an enemy's camera settings , so that results are deeply influenced.
Sorry, I just don't believe DPR.
Upvote
0
Stacking does nothing for image quality, only read out speed. The benefits of BSI are essentially gone at full frame sensor sizes (they really only provide an image quality boost for sensors with pixels smaller than 2 µm).
Upvote
0
Understandable. I’m sure we’ll get a better picture of any difference from photons to photos soon enough. With that said, using the same tool to compare to other brands is very interesting as well - the R5ii is almost identical to the a7RV, with the Z 8 (at iso 64) and R5 performing better in the same push, which is counter to what photons to photos shows. Something doesn’t really add up in my mind yet.
Upvote
0
I would expect that, given that the R3 also shows a difference, depending on how the exposure is ended.
Upvote
0
I was expecting an improvement. If that is only half true then it's another reason not to upgrade. I'm using an R5 and 2 x R6 mk 1's and if it saves me spending out again then that's fine by meeeeee!
Upvote
0
I had seen people claiming this on the interwebs, but I hadn't bothered to check it at p2p, thanks for posting that graph!
Upvote
0
Sony cooks their raws in a top of the line air fryer. Nikon does too. The whole cooking raw nonsense is driven by biases. I'm also not sure why anyone would care?
They all do something, Canon included. Only Leica uses DNG, no frying pan.
They all do something, Canon included. Only Leica uses DNG, no frying pan.
Upvote
0
They are allowed to ship early, only enough to make sure the camera gets to the customers door on the actual embargo date. You can't get one before the 20th, only on the 20th.
Upvote
0
I should clarify what I actually want, and not use GS as a proxy for that: I want a really fast readout as well as really fast fps in certain modes. The R3 had a special 195fps mode, limited to 50 shots. I would love to see something like that for focus stacking and exposure bracketing, those modes only need AF+AE for the first shot.
And I want Canon to fix the behaviour when the buffer is full, I want a nice even cadence, limited by the card write speed. Not the "pause a few seconds, burst, pause a few seconds, burst". I run into this when I have 'too many' shots in a focus stack, I can get around that with CRAW and lower ISO, but it isn't ideal.
I suspect that the R1 can do 60 fps (45MPx30fps divided by 24MP = 56fps), but is capped at 40fps so it can't out run its buffer. Or maybe they did learn from the R7 and won't let the fps run circles around the lagging AF.
I think, for me, that the readout in the R5 is fast enough, but I would like a few extra fps when stacking/bracketing
Upvote
0
I am unsure what is exactly is being presented here. They appear to be the post-processed jpg's, when I download the RAW's on the site I see very different results in Lightroom with a clear advantage to the R5 mk ii with +6ev (more natural tones vs a red / purple hue, significantly less noise in the dark areas, etc):
In their web preview I would agree that the R5 appears slightly better in areas, however when I look at the raw files the mk ii looks overall way better to me. Was the R5 configured with noise reduction maybe? I am not honestly not sure.
I am curious what others who have downloaded the raw files think.
Upvote
0
I haven't actually downloaded them, but I'll have a peek later on. I agree though, it did seem that the R5ii had better colour performance with less casting, but in the viewer the noise appears worse. Again, the black point appears to be different between the images on the viewer and when you adjust contrast the difference is less noticeable. Even comparing in the viewer, the R5ii looks very comparable to the a7RV which should perform pretty well as well according to P2P. With that said, the Z8 at ISO 64 seems better than either the R5/R5ii or the a7RV, which is the opposite of what P2P says. Definitely curious to have a peek and see for myself, as I shoot in pretty contrasty conditions and do occasionally have to do a bigger push than I want to. I can't see myself relying on a +6ev change to make or break an image, but IQ is definitely my highest priority in the purchase.
With all that said, and to be honest, it's probably all splitting hairs at this point.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
