Canon EOS R5 Mark II firmware update coming this month

[neuroanatomist]

Are there any rumours of another update for the R5 mk2? I was really hoping for better poor light performance, and to be able to make use of the really high shutter speeds, without worrying so much about ISO.

The type of update you're talking about requires new hardware, i.e., an R5 Mark III. Since the R5II is just several months old, you're going to have a long wait.

If you're not already shooting RAW and using DxO PL or PR to process those RAWs, you may gain 1-2 stops of improvement at high ISO by doing so.

 

[AlanF]

The type of update you're talking about requires new hardware, i.e., an R5 Mark III. Since the R5II is just several months old, you're going to have a long wait.

If you're not already shooting RAW and using DxO PL or PR to process those RAWs, you may gain 1-2 stops of improvement at high ISO by doing so.

Do you think the high iso performance could improve in a Mark III or has it maxed out?

 

[OldrockyGN]

Pete ... I'm not sure I understand. You are -always- going to have to pay attention to the
'holy triumverate' of photography ... Shutter Speed, Aperture, and ISO. BUT - we already have
superior performance with respect to high ISO values with the R5M2. I'm primarily a bird
photographer (these days) and here is how I set up my camera ... Shutter Preferred and Auto
ISO with my go to shutter speed at 1/5000th. This allows me to quickly turn the camera on
while I'm bringing it to my eye and catch a bird-in-flight. When the bird is perched or
sitting on the water I use the roller wheel next to the shutter button to reduce the shutter
speed to 1/2000th or even slower. I shoot exclusively hand held. I have a monopod but
don't use it. I'm well over 70 and with a slight tremor - and I'm getting great results.
My ISO values are often at 5000 and above. The only times I wish I had "better low
light performance" are the times that the bird is deep in the understory and tucked
back into a hollow in the trees AND it is an overcast day - and for those I can roll the
shutter speed down to even 1/400 or lower ... and let the IS in the long lens with a
tele-converter + camera make sharp images without noticeable camera shake. In this
scenario there isn't even enough light for the AF to work before I slow the shutter down.

So what is it you want/expect to get from a camera software update? - Jim in the PNW

 

[Pete Duran]

The type of update you're talking about requires new hardware, i.e., an R5 Mark III. Since the R5II is just several months old, you're going to have a long wait.

If you're not already shooting RAW and using DxO PL or PR to process those RAWs, you may gain 1-2 stops of improvement at high ISO by doing so.

Yes I do shoot raw and use DXO PL8 when I bought it I was hoping the two sensors would improve low light performance, but my R5, is better in low light, I feel. I'm not very good on the specs and tech stuff, but was really hoping there may be some way of improving this, I shoot a lot of owls, and it would really help.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Do you think the high iso performance could improve in a Mark III or has it maxed out?

I think there's probably some room (0.5-1 stop) for improvement. I'm finding the R1 to be a bit better than the R3 at very high ISO, so that gives some hope for improving noise performance at the same MP count.

 

[AlanF]

I think there's probably some room (0.5-1 stop) for improvement. I'm finding the R1 to be a bit better than the R3 at very high ISO, so that gives some hope for improving noise performance at the same MP count.

Yeah, photonstophotos has a better higher iso performance for the R1. I wonder how Canon did it? I was under the impression that the iso was limited by photon shot noise and not he camera circuitry at very low light levels. Bill Claff does have the R1 data denoted by triangles, which he thinks may show active noise reduction.

 

[AlanF]

Pete ... I'm not sure I understand. You are -always- going to have to pay attention to the
'holy triumverate' of photography ... Shutter Speed, Aperture, and ISO. BUT - we already have
superior performance with respect to high ISO values with the R5M2. I'm primarily a bird
photographer (these days) and here is how I set up my camera ... Shutter Preferred and Auto
ISO with my go to shutter speed at 1/5000th. This allows me to quickly turn the camera on
while I'm bringing it to my eye and catch a bird-in-flight. When the bird is perched or
sitting on the water I use the roller wheel next to the shutter button to reduce the shutter
speed to 1/2000th or even slower. I shoot exclusively hand held. I have a monopod but
don't use it. I'm well over 70 and with a slight tremor - and I'm getting great results.
My ISO values are often at 5000 and above. The only times I wish I had "better low
light performance" are the times that the bird is deep in the understory and tucked
back into a hollow in the trees AND it is an overcast day - and for those I can roll the
shutter speed down to even 1/400 or lower ... and let the IS in the long lens with a
tele-converter + camera make sharp images without noticeable camera shake. In this
scenario there isn't even enough light for the AF to work before I slow the shutter down.

So what is it you want/expect to get from a camera software update? - Jim in the PNW

I am not as extreme as you are in shutter speed (though I am older and without a tremor). I don't know what gear you have in terms of sensor Mpx lens aperture and focal length. My standard shutter speed for BIF is 1/3200s, though I would go up to 1/5000s for small fast birds close by. I tend to use about 1/1000s for perched birds in reasonable light. I do shoot as high as iso 10000 on occasion, and I an a long term user of DxO PL, but prefer to stick at about 800 for the R5 and R5ii. The problem is that even with the best of noise reduction software you do start losing detail as the iso increases, and the higher and more dense the Mpx of the sensor, the more noticeable. Also, DR decreases - at iso 5000, you are down to about 6.5 units of DR.

 

[OldrockyGN]

Yes I do shoot raw and use DXO PL8 when I bought it I was hoping the two sensors would improve low light performance, but my R5, is better in low light, I feel. I'm not very good on the specs and tech stuff, but was really hoping there may be some way of improving this, I shoot a lot of owls, and it would really help.

Pete,
"I shoot a lot of owls" ... yes, owls are particularly challenging because we are often shooting under the trees and even into
perches which are dark. Add that it is a heavily overcast day and any camera you have in your hands is going to be more
than a little bit challenged to get any image at all. Take a monopod/tripod and slow the shutter way down? Come to Skagit
County and shoot the Short-eared Owls in full sun in the daytime? Resign your self to the -fact- that you are going to
have to wait/hope for better light? Spend mega-bucks on a super fast long lens? Gimbal?
The number of megapixels is a will-o-the-wisp - we're never going to have enough. Even when there are enough
mega-pixels there is the 'physics thing' (signal to noise ratio) that takes over in very low light. Higher density sensors is
also not the answer (same physics about signal to noise). Stacked sensor helps - in terms of readout speed. Most pro
photographers are not dealing with the kind of light you are talking about for owls ... and a lot of what Canon (whoever)
produces/does research for is driven by the needs of the pros shooting stuff like sporting events (when are we going to
see a "birds" profile? never?).
I'm no pro - and don't have enough lifetime left to ever approach that level. So what I do is to accept what the
limitations of myself and my gear and attempt to not chase the 'better gear' thing (I'm not very good at that - the
R5M2 is my 3rd birding cam in under 5 years). Good luck and happy birding. - Jim in the PNW

 

[OldrockyGN]

I am not as extreme as you are in shutter speed (though I am older and without a tremor). I don't know what gear you have in terms of sensor Mpx lens aperture and focal length. My standard shutter speed for BIF is 1/3200s, though I would go up to 1/5000s for small fast birds close by. I tend to use about 1/1000s for perched birds in reasonable light. I do shoot as high as iso 10000 on occasion, and I an a long term user of DxO PL, but prefer to stick at about 800 for the R5 and R5ii. The problem is that even with the best of noise reduction software you do start losing detail as the iso increases, and the higher and more dense the Mpx of the sensor, the more noticeable. Also, DR decreases - at iso 5000, you are down to about 6.5 units of DR.

Alan, I shoot with the R5m2 with an RF 100-500 L plus the 1.4 tele-converter. These choices are driven primarily by weight (handheld)
and results ... and a little bit by funds. Plus I have to ask "will the R1/any other camera (including brand) or lens make a -noticeable-
difference?" ... I'm not convinced of that. I think the primary limiting factor - at this point - is the guy holding the camera coupled with
his ability to get the subjects in front of him and close enough. We just returned from a 3 week guided birding tour in NZ. I am -very-
happy with my overall results. Could it have been better - yes (we can always dream) ... but I'm not sure that is a realistic metric. I
consider the money spent for this trip to be "money well spent" and equally/more important when compared to the money for the gear.
- Jim in the PNW

 

[AlanF]

Alan, I shoot with the R5m2 with an RF 100-500 L plus the 1.4 tele-converter. These choices are driven primarily by weight (handheld)
and results ... and a little bit by funds. Plus I have to ask "will the R1/any other camera (including brand) or lens make a -noticeable-
difference?" ... I'm not convinced of that. I think the primary limiting factor - at this point - is the guy holding the camera coupled with
his ability to get the subjects in front of him and close enough. We just returned from a 3 week guided birding tour in NZ. I am -very-
happy with my overall results. Could it have been better - yes (we can always dream) ... but I'm not sure that is a realistic metric. I
consider the money spent for this trip to be "money well spent" and equally/more important when compared to the money for the gear.
- Jim in the PNW

Jim, at the moment I am shooting with the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii, but when travelling or when chasing dragonflies and birds I prefer the 100-500mm. The 200-800mm is at the upper weight limit for my old arms, and also my old legs for hiking. NZ is great, we went birding there some years back and discovered the hard way that they have are doing their best to rescue their endemics from the rodents.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Yeah, photonstophotos has a better higher iso performance for the R1. I wonder how Canon did it? I was under the impression that the iso was limited by photon shot noise and not he camera circuitry at very low light levels. Bill Claff does have the R1 data denoted by triangles, which he thinks may show active noise reduction.

Canon cameras have noise reduction on by default.
It can be turned off.
It is not clear to me whether Bill is arguing that it is impossible to turn completely off.
I am not going to assume one way or the other.
I just wish Bill could be more clear on the matter.

 

[AlanF]

Canon cameras have noise reduction on by default.
It can be turned off.
It is not clear to me whether Bill is arguing that it is impossible to turn completely off.
I am not going to assume one way or the other.
I just wish Bill could be more clear on the matter.

Bill Claff looks at RAW files. "High ISO Speed NR" in the menu is applied to jpeg, not RAW, and as far as I know not possible for us to turn off for RAW. "Long Exposure Noise Reduction" (LENR) is applied directly to RAW files (destructively).
I've just found this that explains it better: "High ISO noise reduction is applied to images with higher ISO settings. For JPG, the processing is done by the DIGIC processor in the camera based on the settings standard, high or off. For RAW images the setting in the camera is saved as part of the metadata in the RAW image. DPP reads that setting from the RAW and applies appropriate levels of luminance and chrominance noise reduction depending on the ISO and the particular camera model." So, what Bill Claff analyses is the RAW, with any baked-in noise reduction, before any further noise reduction is applied in the RAW to jpg conversion.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah, photonstophotos has a better higher iso performance for the R1. I wonder how Canon did it? I was under the impression that the iso was limited by photon shot noise and not he camera circuitry at very low light levels. Bill Claff does have the R1 data denoted by triangles, which he thinks may show active noise reduction.

IMO, there's something odd going on with Bill's R1 data. He calls ISO 200 the base/native ISO, I'm not sure I buy that. The R1 data are shown as circles (triangles only at ISO 204800 and up). However, they were triangles when he first posted them and after some pushback (the energy spectra looked like other sensors that were circles), he changed them to circles (confirming that his calls of 'baked in NR' are subjective).

 

[OldrockyGN]

Hi,
My own -personal- experience/evaluation ... which is admittedly subjective ... is that the in
camera noise-reduction for jpg is -very- good across the Canon line. I have been shooting
CRAW for about 6 months now - and like it. But when I compare current shots with
prior work (jpg) I find it hard to distinguish between them. Yes, I'll admit that the shots
done in CRAW and then using LrC's denoise are better ... a little. Sometimes I ask myself "is
the extra time to denoise in post actually worth it?". So far I've stayed with my current
work flow methods - but I'm pretty certain that my great results now have less to do with
using CRAW and denoise than they do to other changes I've made.
One of the most important is the use of Masks in LrC - this has been a true game changer
with respect to the improved presence (dare I say "impact"?) of my work.
My results improvements are also directly related to using the R5m2 with the RF 100-500 L
lens. *G*
- Jim in the PNW

 

[Pete Duran]

Pete,
"I shoot a lot of owls" ... yes, owls are particularly challenging because we are often shooting under the trees and even into
perches which are dark. Add that it is a heavily overcast day and any camera you have in your hands is going to be more
than a little bit challenged to get any image at all. Take a monopod/tripod and slow the shutter way down? Come to Skagit
County and shoot the Short-eared Owls in full sun in the daytime? Resign your self to the -fact- that you are going to
have to wait/hope for better light? Spend mega-bucks on a super fast long lens? Gimbal?
The number of megapixels is a will-o-the-wisp - we're never going to have enough. Even when there are enough
mega-pixels there is the 'physics thing' (signal to noise ratio) that takes over in very low light. Higher density sensors is
also not the answer (same physics about signal to noise). Stacked sensor helps - in terms of readout speed. Most pro
photographers are not dealing with the kind of light you are talking about for owls ... and a lot of what Canon (whoever)
produces/does research for is driven by the needs of the pros shooting stuff like sporting events (when are we going to
see a "birds" profile? never?).
I'm no pro - and don't have enough lifetime left to ever approach that level. So what I do is to accept what the
limitations of myself and my gear and attempt to not chase the 'better gear' thing (I'm not very good at that - the
R5M2 is my 3rd birding cam in under 5 years). Good luck and happy birding. - Jim in the PNW

Thank you, I am in Britain, we are lucky to have Short eared owls here in Wiltshire in Winter, and Long eared owls in Summer, plus Barn owls and Little owls, I shoot Hen harriers too, as well as general wildlife including bees etc. I have an old EF f4 lens 500mm that I bought specifically for getting flight shots in lower light, but although heavy, I do like the lens.

I bought a tripod, but rarely use it, yet do carry it around with me, so I should get used to using it more.

 

[AlanF]

Hi,
My own -personal- experience/evaluation ... which is admittedly subjective ... is that the in
camera noise-reduction for jpg is -very- good across the Canon line. I have been shooting
CRAW for about 6 months now - and like it. But when I compare current shots with
prior work (jpg) I find it hard to distinguish between them. Yes, I'll admit that the shots
done in CRAW and then using LrC's denoise are better ... a little. Sometimes I ask myself "is
the extra time to denoise in post actually worth it?". So far I've stayed with my current
work flow methods - but I'm pretty certain that my great results now have less to do with
using CRAW and denoise than they do to other changes I've made.
One of the most important is the use of Masks in LrC - this has been a true game changer
with respect to the improved presence (dare I say "impact"?) of my work.
My results improvements are also directly related to using the R5m2 with the RF 100-500 L
lens. *G*
- Jim in the PNW

Use a decent RAW converter with state of the art noise reduction like DxO PL or PureRAW and you will see a much better noise reduction than with Lightroom and better detail than Canon's jpegs at high iso using a simple workflow and not faffing aroiund with masks.

 

[OldrockyGN]

Use a decent RAW converter with state of the art noise reduction like DxO PL or PureRAW and you will see a much better noise reduction than with Lightroom and better detail than Canon's jpegs at high iso using a simple workflow and not faffing aroiund with masks.

I find the denoise - included in LrC to be very good and I see no rto chadch

Use a decent RAW converter with state of the art noise reduction like DxO PL or PureRAW and you will see a much better noise reduction than with Lightroom and better detail than Canon's jpegs at high iso using a simple workflow and not faffing aroiund with masks.

I find the denoise, which is part of LrC, to be very good. I have compared it to PureRaw and I could not
detect a difference. I'm not saying PureRaw or DxO are bad - just that I have no need of them. I like the
library functions of LrC (I have thousands of images) in addition to the image editing. Different strokes. - Jim in the PNW

 

[AlanF]

I find the denoise - included in LrC to be very good and I see no rto chadch

I find the denoise, which is part of LrC, to be very good. I have compared it to PureRaw and I could not
detect a difference. I'm not saying PureRaw or DxO are bad - just that I have no need of them. I like the
library functions of LrC (I have thousands of images) in addition to the image editing. Different strokes. - Jim in the PNW

I'll give the latest LrC a try to see how it compares.

 

[AlanF]

I find the denoise - included in LrC to be very good and I see no rto chadch

I find the denoise, which is part of LrC, to be very good. I have compared it to PureRaw and I could not
detect a difference. I'm not saying PureRaw or DxO are bad - just that I have no need of them. I like the
library functions of LrC (I have thousands of images) in addition to the image editing. Different strokes. - Jim in the PNW

I've given it a try but it takes 2 minutes on my relatively new Macbook.

 

[P-visie]

I've given it a try but it takes 2 minutes on my relatively new Macbook.

With my 6.5 year old Windows PC it took PureRaw anywhere between 30 seconds and 5 minutes to process an R5 or Mk II CR3 uncompressed raw file. Images which LR C processed in 30-60 seconds. My new PC has a recent graphic processor and it now takes both LR C and PureRaw 5 -15 seconds .

IMO PureRaw is better in sharpening high ISO images (i.e. 3200 ISO) than LR Classic, with the risk of oversharpening and getting subjects which are ‘cut out’ and ‘pasted’ on to the background (which look unnatural to me, but that is a matter of taste). For lower ISO images, the results of LR C and PureRaw are (IMO) comparable.