I Have an R5 MK II. AMA.
- Thread starter Nrbelex
- Start date
-
- Tags
- r5 mark ii r5 mk ii
Why is that a big thing? ..unless it’s like global shutter that does wonders for fast shutters and flash power?
Upvote
0
Electronic shutter allows faster frame rates (very helpful for things like handheld focus stacking) and silent operation. A stacked sensor is needed to have the readout be fast enough for full 14-bit depth images (cameras other than the R3, R5II and R1 drop to 12-bit with electronic shutter).
Upvote
0
Mainly for focus stacking, which only works in ES mode in Canon bodies. It’s also nice for camera traps at night, I once burned through 5k actuations in one night because a slug decided to block the IR gate…
Upvote
0
Further to that comment:
People are using the DPR tool to draw major conclusions. Here are the +6 EV RAW files for the R5 and R5II from DPR compared in a loop. Look at the overall exposure difference. Anyone drawing conclusions about image noise is being fooled, inadvertently or intentionally.
Upvote
0
Jeez, that makes this comparison completely void.Further to that comment:
People are using the DPR tool to draw major conclusions. Here are the +6 EV RAW files for the R5 and R5II from DPR compared in a loop. Look at the overall exposure difference. Anyone drawing conclusions about image noise is being fooled, inadvertently or intentionally.
Upvote
0
And yet...PetaPixel has already concluded that the R5II image quality suffers a 'penalty' (as did DPR, obviously and entirely unsurprisingly).
Upvote
0
When I read DPR's review, my first thought was to share it on CR, but I didn't want to start a range war. Or a turf war!
But I would like to understand this:
"Note that the second gain kicks in at ISO 400 in the R5 and at ISO 800 in the R5II. Also the R5 doesn't apply the infamous noise reduction in raw from ISO 800. So we can compare ISO 100 and ISO 800 between those cameras."
Also, could the apparently larger grain in the R5II sample photos have anything to do with a new AA filter?
But I would like to understand this:
"Note that the second gain kicks in at ISO 400 in the R5 and at ISO 800 in the R5II. Also the R5 doesn't apply the infamous noise reduction in raw from ISO 800. So we can compare ISO 100 and ISO 800 between those cameras."
Also, could the apparently larger grain in the R5II sample photos have anything to do with a new AA filter?
Upvote
0
First off, congrats!
The 5DIII to an R5 II should be a big step up, but scrolling through your images on Flickr, there is no doubt you got good usage from your 5DIII.
And thanks, I am one of those interested in people's real world first impressions. But, if somehow you could compare if the AF consistently stays locked on a diving Osprey all the way to the water, that would be cool too
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Further to that comment:
People are using the DPR tool to draw major conclusions. Here are the +6 EV RAW files for the R5 and R5II from DPR compared in a loop. Look at the overall exposure difference. Anyone drawing conclusions about image noise is being fooled, inadvertently or intentionally.
DPR has a disclaimer about the colours. This difference can be corrected by tweaking the white balance.
Evidently they used a bit different stands (see 4ex the feathers, hair and colour checker). But the exposure was the same. The R5II file came out a bit darker, that could be because of differences in processing - the R5II's raw files aren't officially supported yet, and ACR could pick a different black level etc. It can also be due to different scene illuminance (different power of studio lights) but we trust DPR don't we
Check the colour-normalised charts.
R5, ISO 100 pushed +6EV:
R5II, ISO 100 pushed +6EV:
Upvote
0
I was referring to the difference in the brightness/exposure of the images. It's evident in your color-corrected ones, as well. As you say, it could be because ACR is handling the files differently, but either way it invalidates the comparison.DPR has a disclaimer about the colours. This difference can be corrected by tweaking the white balance.
Evidently they used a bit different stands (see 4ex the feathers, hair and colour checker). But the exposure was the same. The R5II file came out a bit darker, that could be because of differences in processing - the R5II's raw files aren't officially supported yet, and ACR could pick a different black level etc. It can also be due to different scene illuminance (different power of studio lights) but we trust DPR don't we
Check the colour-normalised charts.
R5, ISO 100 pushed +6EV:
View attachment 218818
R5II, ISO 100 pushed +6EV:
View attachment 218819
Upvote
0
It's very hard to estimate the exact difference in the DR, but I don't think it invalidates the comparison - the darker R5II's image actually hides some of the noise, so the actual noise in raw may be higher in the R5II.
The R5II looks about 0.5 stops darker. More likely it's related to (in)correct evaluation of the black level because R5II isn't supported in ACR yet. If you brighten the image up, the difference in noise will be even more evident.
Both R5 and R5II use mild noise reduction in raw as you can see from this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4769704
The R5II is said to have a milder noise reduction, so given the different apparent brightness of the images and different amount of noise reduction, it's hard to estimate the exact difference in the DR at ISO 100, but my guess is, it'll be between 0.5 - 1 stops.
Note the R5's images are also cleaner at ISO 800 - this is where we have no noise reduction and the sensor is in the second gain mode. Overall it indicates a lower read noise in the R5, also see the preliminary measurements from JACS from the DPR thread above.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've uploaded a few more out of camera RAWs and JPEGs here, and I'll look through the thread and try to respond to requests this evening. The goal was generic but realistic shots without shying away from high ISOs.
Upvote
0
Yes, I've uploaded a series of requested dark frames here (both RAWs and JPEGs).
In order, this includes:
- 30s, ISO 100, ES
- 30s, ISO 10,000, ES
- 30s, ISO 10,000 MS
- 30s, ISO 100 MS
- 1/125, ISO 100, EFC
- 1/125, ISO 10,000, EFC
- 1 min, ISO 100, EFC
- 1 min, ISO 10,000, EFC
- 1 min, ISO 100, ES
- 1 min, ISO 10,000, ES
- 1 min, ISO 100, MS
- 1 min, ISO 10,000, MS
Per my prior note, I'm planning to work with Bill Claff in the coming day to provide what he needs for more serious measurements.
I've attached a Speedlite 580 EX II but haven't played around with it much. In ES (and without messing around with the settings too much), it looks like the minimum shutter speed is 30s, and the maximum is 1/160.
And thanks, I am one of those interested in people's real world first impressions. But, if somehow you could compare if the AF consistently stays locked on a diving Osprey all the way to the water, that would be cool too
No ospreys nearby, but I did manage to snag a pigeon using the pre-burst, which worked pretty well. Note that this is a CRAW.
Per Adobe, there is preliminary support. See https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html
It may not yet be fully optimized, but it has been working as expected so far.
Upvote
0
A few more general impressions:
- Whereas yesterday I was able to set up Eye Control AF, though it didn't really work, today, under a cloudy sky, I couldn't complete calibration. Bummer.
- Surprising nobody, the high ISO performance is a game changer as compared to the 5D MK III. I can take and work with shots in much less light. The ability to achieve focus in low light is also pretty incredible.
- Battery life, not surprisingly, is not as good as the 5D MK III, even with incredibly aggressive battery saving options turned on.
- The very well-traveled EF 24-70 f/2.8 I've been testing with probably isn't doing the sensor any favors. Keep that in mind as you review the images I've shared.
- The hot shoe cover really does require significant force to remove, which I suppose is actually reassuring?
Upvote
0
For Canon flashes you should be ablr
to increase it to 1/200s with ‘sync speed priority’, see https://cam.start.canon/en/C017/manual/html/UG-03_Shooting-1_0100.html
Upvote
0
Thank you!
(copied from my DPR response)
- There's much less hot pixels in the long exposures, and overall noise in long exposures is lower than in my reference dark frames taken on the R5. Visually there's just a few hot pixels, compared to very many in the R5 - it's good for landscape and long exposures in general.
- In the 1/125s dark frames EFCS, the noise in DNs is basically the same as in the R5. Given the standard deviation at about 1 (measured by RawDigger) and max value at about 15800, the DR in both cameras would be at about 13.9 stops in non-electronic shutter modes - but that's not what a photographic DR value from photonstophotos would be. The dark frame doesn't tell the whole story and we don't know the conversion gain (electrons to numbers) which can be different in those cameras.
- I still can see very fine horizontal banding in high ISO shots, but it's less prominent than in the R5.
The DR measurements like that can be biased, so let's see what photonstophotos tell us, and maybe DxOMark later on.
The DPR comparison tool shows visually disappointing results for the R5II so it's a clear discrepancy between the DPR comparison and visually similar dark frames from the R5 and the R5II.
The R5II's dark frame looks even slightly cleaner visually (when the noise is pushed way up to midtones).
Upvote
0
I'm still going to reserve judgement, but I put more stock in Rawdigger measurements of dark frames than in anything DPR puts out. Their objective is driving page views, and 'the R5II is worse than the R5' is probably doing that pretty well (and is on-brand for their historical bias).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
