PhotonsToPhotos does the Canon EOS R5 Mark II and it’s good

[Hugo Santarem]

The R5 Mark I is the big winner here?

 

[Richard CN]

I think the A9iii should have been compared to the R5ii ES as the point of the A9iii is to shoot fast, and the point of the R5ii in electronic is to shoot fast.

The A1 i guess? is the camera's competitor in sony's realm - but even then, it's in a another price bracket. I orignally didn't have the A9 III in there, , it was just put in there because if I didn't - I know some would go "where is the A9 III????!!"

I mentioned this with the Z 8 - maybe i should have added something to the A9 III - I may

You don't have the option to "turn off" the global shutter on the A9 III to use it as a general-purpose tool, that's not Canon's problem and it's still nearly $2000 more and still doesn't shoot lower than ISO 200. Again, some people shoot lower than ISO 200 - can the A9 III? well no. Canon has the ability if you need more DR to switch to mechanical shutter - can you do that with the Sony? well no. Who's problem is that? Canon's?

if you are shooting sports, etc you are mostly shooting > ISO 800 and there is no difference, with the exception of readout speed and price.

 

[docsmith]

The R5 Mark I is the big winner here?

haha....As a R5 Mk I owner...it did make me feel good.

As someone that has upgraded with every generation of a "5 series" since the 5DIII, it also does take away of some rationale for upgrading to this generation.

5DIII to 5DIV to R5...solid improvements with each generation:


Add in the R5 II...


While I was not expecting much of an improvement, if any....and I agree with others assessment that the R5/R5II doesn't mean much....increase in DR is certainly not a reason to upgrade from the R5 to R5 II. If anything....it might be a reason to stay with the R5.

Edit...I do want to say, increased DR is really not needed. I rarely had an issue with the 5DIII, almost never with the 5DIV, and do not with the R5. So an improvement is was not needed, IMO. The R5 and R5 II are industry leading for FF sensors at this level.

 

[highdesertmesa]

Shame about the baked in noise reduction. Honestly, I had hoped that the R5 Mk2 would show improvement over the R5. All those patents but nothing meaningful in any of the new cameras.

The problem with the baked in noise reduction is we have no idea how much of a boost that is giving the R5 or the R5II compared to having no noise reduction baked in. The chart comparisons are not apples to apples as a result.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I suspect for the next couple of generations we may see the trend being that the upgrades that come are more in the computational photography side of things

Computational photography is an oxymoron if you think about it.

What I expect from a camera upgrade, in terms of the image quality, is for the camera to capture more information about the scene - capture the actual information, not compute. Top end mobile phones do computational photography cheaper and faster; I don't need a dedicated camera to do a lot of computational photography for me.

The R5II seems to have a slightly lower DR than the R5, although it has less hot pixels popping up in long exposures. Also its baked in noise reduction is milder that that of the R5, so the actual physical DR difference before the noise reduction may be less that 0.4 stops.

But overall the R5II basically slightly worse than the R5 - so those who don't care about AI, AF improvements, pre-burst feature and video improvements, may skip the R5II and get an R5, or stay with their R5 if they have it already.

In other words, the R5 looks like a better value for money camera if your primary focus is on landscapes, architecture etc.

 

[macrunning]

Thanks for the article.
Even if the R5 mkII, seems to be a great camera with several good improvements, the fact that the DR and ISO performance are on par or slightly below the R5. is the main reason for me, not to upgrade from R5 to R5 mkII.
Personally, I will likely spend my photo budget to upgrade the last of my EF lenses to the RF, and perhaps buy another L lens. E.g. the RF 135mm L is very tempting and will probably cost me less than an R5 upgrade. this will give me better value for money in improved image quality and flexibility.

The 135mm is an amazing lens. I love it and if I can shoot with it I do. Beautiful, just beautiful bokeh.

 

[CJaurelius]

The A1 i guess? is the camera's competitor in sony's realm - but even then, it's in a another price bracket. I orignally didn't have the A9 III in there, , it was just put in there because if I didn't - I know some would go "where is the A9 III????!!"

I agree that the A1 and Z8 are the biggest competitors. The A1 came out 4 years ago and while it has more MP and a faster readout speed still, I think the difference in price makes the R5mii the better option as the extra $2,300 isn't worth it. The Z8 is the current best competitor having the same MP, slightly faster readout speed and being $500 cheaper.

It will be interesting to see which way this goes. These new cameras fit in between Sony's current line up. The A7IV has 33MP and a much slower readout speed while the the A1 has 50MP and a faster readout speed. And the old competitor at this price point the A7R has 61MP but is slower and focuses on portrait/landcapes and people willing to sacrifice readout speed for really high MP.

I guess over the next year or so we'll see what customers value most. Have we hit a point where 45MP is more than enough and Sony dials it back and competes on price or do they try to push the specs and pricing higher.

 

[ashmadux]

Interesting but I'd like a comparison with the R6 mark ii please

I have to say, in normal daylight the R6 Mark 2 images absolutely throw me for a loop. Something just looks off about them. They look sharp and not sharp at the same time. Ironically this can work amazingly in the opposite scenario in night time shots with signage and lights. Images can look ridiculously clean in the right circumstances.

I have one image from a set taken in the heart of tokyo, last September and I'm still always stupefied how amazingly clean and sharp participated but then the daytime images makes me want to yell at clouds with its lack of critical sharpness compared to a 5d3 files. When I got back to the States I did some more tests with some ducks in the pond and it's the results are a bizarre sharpness but softness at the same time and it drives me nuts.

I'm not trying to start a debate, I have tens of thousands of edited pictures here to compare to so I need not go to the Internet for advice or so. Just putting my own experience out there. I just wasn't happy with the R6 Mark 2 iq. I really need to get up and sell this thing it's just sitting here.

I do a lot of portraits and it made me appreciate how much work the 5d3 has been able to do all these years. That critical sharpness around eyes makes a huge difference.. to me.

Good luck everyone else. I already have a R5 so I'm good to go.

 

[CJaurelius]

Computational photography is an oxymoron if you think about it.

What I expect from a camera upgrade, in terms of the image quality, is for the camera to capture more information about the scene - capture the actual information, not compute. Top end mobile phones do computational photography cheaper and faster; I don't need a dedicated camera to do a lot of computational photography for me.

While that may be a valid opinion for some I don't think that is the view of most. I don't think it should be baked in but having the options of these features would greatly improve the usability of these cameras. Why would you not want to give people more options?

 

[Halfmoon]

A very good point, but unfortunately it's not fun when other popular sites take the same data and manipulate it with a narrative. Something that's not even worth it... it's just a sensor and a processor.

All modern cameras (launched within last 3-4yrs) are quite good and there are no really bad cameras in my opinion.... just a personal preference.... and since I'm not a peeping tom..... Sorry... Pixel peeper...... and as long as AF is good, that's the most important... and I do not think I'm upgrading from my R6, but I am getting a replacement for my R as I needed a second card slot..... plus R sensor did not age well and is noisy at high ISO.... relatively comparing to the newer camera....

 

[GMCPhotographics]

yep. there's quite a bit changed. adding the R3 / R1 AF functions into the R5 Mark II will make it the defacto wedding camera.

The R5 already was...and the 5D3/4 before that too. I think there was a metric that the 5DIII was the most popular professional wedding camera of all time, twice as many for that one model compared to all the other cameras (other models and brands) put together. That's partly Jeff Ascough's fault...he convinced Canon to move the 5D range into being the perfect (for it's time) wedding camera. They asked him for his dream spec sheet...and they built it. He wasn't expecting to get everything on his list! but he did and it was a land mark camera.

Wedding photographers usully have a pair of cameras with a few years between purchasing them to soften the upgrade cost. Most wedding photographers that I know who are still in the game, buy their new model a few years into the life cycle and then opt for either the new model or a cheaper older model at the end of it's life cycle. Most are not gear heads and they see their cameras as tools that have a 4 year life before replacement. They will sell them if they are beaten up or immacualte, regardless of shutter count. It's 4 seasons and time for a new one.

I can see a number of UK wedding photographers having a hard choice between a half priced new R5 (with 4 years of investment) vs a new R5ii, which is twice as expensive and doesn't really offer them many features over the current R5. I can see wealthy wedding photographers (and there are a few) who will just get a pair of R5ii's because they want the newest and most shiney. But Many wedding photographers are keen business people with an eye on a bargain in a very over crowded market.

Either way, most sensible wedding photographers would never introduce a new work flow element in the middle of their busy season, but will wait until october, when the season is mostly over and they can evaluate and integrate a new camera into their processes. No one wants to trial a new camera in the middle of crazy August where many are turing out 2-3 weddings per week with several thousand images shot at each with a frantic workflow to get these culled, trimmed, processed and delivered ASAP. Things like new batteries (no one does a wedding without multiple backups), cards and readers if they are a new type. Then there's the fact that Adobe Lightroom may not yet support the new RAW or CRAW files....that's a biggy...no Lightroom = No Porcessing = No customers getting their wedding images = not getting paid and emassing a huge back log.

I used to buy my new cameras for the new season in late Jan / early Feb. All of the xmas madness is over and often the supply of new kit is more stable and I'd still have a few quiet months to familiarise myself with the camera and integrate it into my workflow. So if I was still in that game, I wouldn't be looking at a new R5 / R5ii until well after the new year.

I also know a lot of wedding photographers who are using R6 and R6ii combos and seem to me enjoying the cameras and cracking out the work.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not that long ago (or was it?!), the world's most prestigious scientific journals were only printed on paper--real paper.

In my lab, we used to have fun with the following statement:

"They don't print articles on perforated paper."

In other words, be very careful. Make sure the data are rock-solid (i.e. reproducible) and do the very best you can in the discussion section and especially the conclusion...because those journal pages are forever--you can't just rip them out.

Meta analyses suggest that >85% of data published in scientific journals cannot be reproduced. That certainly tracks with my experience in trying to replicate data from academic labs. Some of the problem is innocent, e.g. publishing data on a cell line unaware that your stock got contaminated and outgrown by another cell line (which is why we regularly test all our lines for identity/purity), or behavioral data on animals (I have personal experience with neurobehavioral studies where animals were ordered from the same vendor at the same time, shipped to labs in different parts of the country then housed and tested under conditions as identical as they could be made, and behavioral measures were still subtly different). But some is intentional, because it's publish or perish.

 

[David Hull]

Interesting but I'd like a comparison with the R6 mark ii please

Go to his site and make one. I am pretty sure that the camera is in the list of available curves. Google Bill Claff.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The problem with the baked in noise reduction is we have no idea how much of a boost that is giving the R5 or the R5II compared to having no noise reduction baked in.

DxOMark puts the actual base ISO of the R5 at 54. That means at the setting of ISO 100, the camera is actually pushing the exposure by nearly a full stop. Most likely the 'baked in' NR is intended to counteract the additional noise from that 1-stop push.

 

[dougsv]

it's actually an impressive feat to make a sensor readout 10x or so faster and not lose image quality.

16.5ms to 6.3ms (2.5x) , as 12 bit to 14 bit is 4x.

Hold up there, from data we have (Sony cameras that are able to shoot both 12 and 14 bit in ES), going from 12 to 14 bit doubles the RS, they don't quadruple it.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

While that may be a valid opinion for some I don't think that is the view of most. I don't think it should be baked in but having the options of these features would greatly improve the usability of these cameras. Why would you not want to give people more options?

I said "What I expect from a camera upgrade, in terms of the image quality"
So that was about my expectations, not all people's expectations. I don't mind if my camera has features i don't use but others do.

But I don't like the idea that camera manufacturers may treat AI- generative features and/or computational photography as a substitute for raw image quality. Speaking of the R5II, the in-camera AI noise reduction doesn't really compensate the degraded dynamic range - at least I hope it wasn't Canon's intent.

 

[tomislavmoze]

Looking how close R5 and R5ii are regarding DR I wonder what was the reason for R5 and R5c not having clog-2 for video. It seams the sensor has the DR.

 

[Besisika]

Thanks for the article.
Even if the R5 mkII, seems to be a great camera with several good improvements, the fact that the DR and ISO performance are on par or slightly below the R5. is the main reason for me, not to upgrade from R5 to R5 mkII.
Personally, I will likely spend my photo budget to upgrade the last of my EF lenses to the RF, and perhaps buy another L lens. E.g. the RF 135mm L is very tempting and will probably cost me less than an R5 upgrade. this will give me better value for money in improved image quality and flexibility.

I own the EF 135mm f2.0 and bought the RF 135mm f1.8. My personal opinion, it is worth it. I do mainly flash-based portrait, and videos, and the RF version is worth it. I like the 85mm F1.2 thanks to its shorter working distance, but the look is better on the 135mm in my eyes. Obviously, it is a very personal preference. If you like a 135mm focal length, go for it.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Thanks for the article.
Even if the R5 mkII, seems to be a great camera with several good improvements, the fact that the DR and ISO performance are on par or slightly below the R5. is the main reason for me, not to upgrade from R5 to R5 mkII.
Personally, I will likely spend my photo budget to upgrade the last of my EF lenses to the RF, and perhaps buy another L lens. E.g. the RF 135mm L is very tempting and will probably cost me less than an R5 upgrade. this will give me better value for money in improved image quality and flexibility.

What??? not investing in the newest highly depreciating camera body but instead choosing to investing in long term non-depreciating glass instead???? Sounds like Crazy talk!!!

On a serious note....I would always choose classy glass over pricey cameras any day. The great lenses generally stay with you, the cameras come and go.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I own the EF 135mm f2.0 and bought the RF 135mm f1.8. My personal opinion, it is worth it. I do mainly flash-based portrait, and videos, and the RF version is worth it. I like the 85mm F1.2 thanks to its shorter working distance, but the look is better on the 135mm in my eyes. Obviously, it is a very personal preference. If you like a 135mm focal length, go for it.

Yes I like the extra 1/3rd stop of light, I like the Image Stabiliser and the shorter MFD. I don't like the extra size and bulk though! The EF 135L was tiny in comparison.