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

[AlanF]

I really appreciated this article. All the DR talk had me really worried about choosing to upgrade from the 5Dmk4. I'm still worried about the autofocus and wish it had cross type on it. I know the reviews from people using it have been remarkable on focus accuracy and speed, I think at this point they are all people paid by Canon to say that, so hoping it really proves true.

I'm not paid by Canon and neither are the current R5-shooting guys and gals who currently post images here. The AF on the R5 is marvellous and can capture and track birds and dragonflies in flight that I couldn't have got on the 5Div I had before. If the R5ii is only just as good as the R5, it too will be a revelation to you.

 

[AlanF]

The technical details here go far more indepth than I can explain: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Gen...ion_to_Energy_Spectra_for_Sensor_Analysis.htm

But the simple version is that that the deviation from .5 indicates that a pixel is being influenced by its neighbors to generate the final output. NR is a common culprit of this and is a reasonable assumption in the case of photography, but theoretically all sorts of signal processing schemes can generate such a pattern.

Interestingly here Bill does note the exact pattern we're discussing and attributes it to low pass filtering and speculates it might have something to do with how the autofocus pixels are handled https://www.photonstophotos.net/Gen...lysis_Primer/Energy_Spectra_and_Filtering.htm

Thanks for your reply. I am one of the more numerate members here, and I find it very difficult to understand Bill's telegraphic explanations, which is why I asked.

 

[EvilTed]

I will note that the R5 II is applying way more noise reduction to get the curves to look identical to the R5.
The R5 did a little of this at low ISO but it appears the the R5 II is doing it for the complete ISO range.
Not sure if this is an issue or not, just an observation.

Shadow Improvement of Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

Read Noise in DNs versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

Input-referred Read Noise versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

 

[bbasiaga]

There are real breakthroughs in things like AF assist that happen pre-capture.
But computational photography can't create scene-referred information, you only get it from sensor improvements. That aspect is related to 'photography'.

Fake detail in AI upscaling or AI noise reduction do not improve sensor performance.

Fear?
I'm perfectly fine with processing, upscaling, noise reduction etc., and I do edit my photos myself.

But again, I don't like the idea of substituting technology advancements in sensors with AI-generated fake detail. Note that despite very heavy computational photography in phones, the phone sensors have actually been getting better. There's a lot of room for improvement in the full frame sensors too. Maybe they don't have enough money on R&D.

Well, those AF improvements are SOFTWARE, a computation of data coming in to the camera.

I get the idea that by 'advancements' you really mean 'resolution' - plenty of megapixel hunters such as yourself. Rest assured, time is on your side. Those advancements will come. The R&D money right now is going for something that has more of a revolutionary impact (AF systems, etc) than an incremental one like resolution. Another generation or two and the processors that fit in cameras will be able to handle the bandwidth of larger sensors at the now expected high speeds of continuous shooting and high bit rate video.

Brian

 

[vikingar]

I really appreciated this article. All the DR talk had me really worried about choosing to upgrade from the 5Dmk4. I'm still worried about the autofocus and wish it had cross type on it. I know the reviews from people using it have been remarkable on focus accuracy and speed, I think at this point they are all people paid by Canon to say that, so hoping it really proves true.

I'm not paid by Canon and neither are the current R5-shooting guys and gals who currently post images here. The AF on the R5 is marvellous and can capture and track birds and dragonflies in flight that I couldn't have got on the 5Div I had before. If the R5ii is only just as good as the R5, it too will be a revelation to you.

Absolutely. I was a pixel peeper and always fiddling with the micro AF adjustments on my previous DSLRs.
Not anymore with the R5. Focusing is superfast and always spot on, I don't even think about it anymore. It's actually hard to get an out of focus picture, I'm sure the R5 II is even better.
And missing cross-type AF is really only an issue if you try to shoot something like an even white wall with only horizontal lines on it. If the wall is even slightly textured or of there is anything non-horizontal in the frame it will focus no problem. It's never been an issue yet.

 

[P-visie]

Well, those AF improvements are SOFTWARE, a computation of data coming in to the camera.

That is correct, but you also need improvements in hardware. The faster sensor readout enables better AF and improvements in (energy efficiency of) processors enable the addition of an accelerator processor (without crippling the battery duration).

 

[neuroanatomist]

I will note that the R5 II is applying way more noise reduction to get the curves to look identical to the R5.
The R5 did a little of this at low ISO but it appears the the R5 II is doing it for the complete ISO range.
Not sure if this is an issue or not, just an observation.

Shadow Improvement of Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

Read Noise in DNs versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

Input-referred Read Noise versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

Interesting that you claim, “The R5 II is applying way more noise reduction,” then cite Bill Claff’s website, when Bill himself stated the R5II is applying less NR than the R5.

 

[AlanF]

Absolutely. I was a pixel peeper and always fiddling with the micro AF adjustments on my previous DSLRs.
Not anymore with the R5. Focusing is superfast and always spot on, I don't even think about it anymore. It's actually hard to get an out of focus picture, I'm sure the R5 II is even better.
And missing cross-type AF is really only an issue if you try to shoot something like an even white wall with only horizontal lines on it. If the wall is even slightly textured or of there is anything non-horizontal in the frame it will focus no problem. It's never been an issue yet.

I was a real whizz at AFMA and could do a lens in 10 minutes using Reikan Focal. It was quite satisfying in some ways but I really appreciate not having to do it and not having to choose what distance to optimise at or calibrate at different focal lengths. The AF for BIF using full screen tracking and eye AF is close to perfect. Flying horizontal DIF have no problems either. (Emperor Dragonfly two days ago R5/100-500mm)

 

[neurorx]

Interesting that you claim, “The R5 II is applying way more noise reduction,” then cite Bill Claff’s website, when Bill himself stated the R5II is applying less NR than the R5.

I have to know, did you pre-order the R5 II?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have to know, did you pre-order the R5 II?

Nope. But I did pre-order the R1.

 

[Akul]

Had to say it here...I just got my R5 II. Made few shots only since menu dive is serious. So far I noticed AF works at least on 6mk2 lvl, it's so much more decisive than my R5. Eyes AF also works with my eyes after calibration. Gets hot at the exhaust pipes.down there but that's purpose of it right? Very happy so far.

 

[David_B]

First things first here. A major shoutout goes to Bill Claff and his website PhotonsToPhotos. Bill has been tirelessly doing this work on sensor analysis for years. Without Bill's work we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, and be trying to subjectively look at shadow-boosted images from one camera to the next to determine

To the question asked about why haven't DSLR owners switched over to the EOS-R?

1) Money.
2) The only difference is at ISO 100. Anything over 200 and it's a coin toss.

But what about all of those other fancy features? Well, depends if you need them or not. I don't need the camera to take 50 photos before I press the shutter button.

As the author of the article, you've also failed to take into account that for ES, the R5-II is all triangles on the graph vs the R5 only being triangles for ISO under 800. The triangles and circles have different meanings. Read the web page. Triangles indicate in-camera noise reduction, so those raw files are more like medium-rare rather than rare (filled in circles). I was going to say blue but I don't know if any camera gives it to you that raw.

The circles vs triangles is important because when you go to the Nikon graphs, they're all circles. That is, the camera isn't doing any NR before spitting out the raw image file.

Why aren't Nikon shooters converting to Canon? Because the Z7-III delivers comparable sensor performance to the R5-II at a lower cost.

The comparisons against Sony are again lacking. The relevant Sony camera to compare against is the A7R Mark V. The Sont A7R5 has more megapixels and more DR. The choice of comparing to the A1 is curious, the same with the A9 and the avoidance of the A7R5.

There's not enough journalism and a bit too much fanboyism in this article. Definitely not enough objectivity. Not enough time has been spent understanding the graphs beyond the lines. Solid or not, triangle, circle, diamond, up/down, all have different meaning on the page you've written a story about but there's been no attention paid to the detail.

Some might say that Canon is cheating and you're cheering them on for doing so.

This story is so poor that it may as well have been written for Fox News or CNN.

 

[basketballfreak6]

Overall a little bit disapointing that R5 and Mk II are so close to each other.
This seems to show how much hat sensor design was already squezed out to optimum.

Good news for all R5 owners. If the other new functions are not that important the money can stay in their pockets.

This is where I feel a little conflicted haha. Thinking of possibly picking up an R5 once the dust settles (with the new R5II release) as a specialist camera (ie higher megapixel pretty much purely for landscapes/stuff I would want to print big and hang on the wall); the improvements on the R5II for my intended use means little to nothing vs the R5 where it actually has the DR advantage at the ISO the camera would spend most of the time at not to mention money saved, but then there's the GAS for new and shiny stuff lol. Doesn't help by the fact that my R6II would still most likely be my daily driver for majority of the shooting I do and rumours of R6III incoming already.

Edit: saw a few comments regarding 5DIV vs the R5/II sensor: as someone that moved from the 5DIV to the R6 (before the II) I loved the 5DIV IQ but despite being lower MP I actually thought the R6 images looked sharper (could possibly be less aggressive AA filter?) but that's subjective of course; the bigger issue for me was that there's a fixed pattern band that appears in the lower third of the sensor that can show up when the file is stretched a bit harder (as you would do to the file in astrophotography) which I've confirmed with a couple other astro guys who shot with the 5DIV as well. Obviously a niche scenario but it's gone in the R6/II sensors that I used. So yea not everything shows up simply looking at plots on a graph, even if it's a very useful starting point.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Well, those AF improvements are SOFTWARE, a computation of data coming in to the camera.

The crucial difference is that AF assist comes before a capture - it doesn't compute anything on the output data.

I get the idea that by 'advancements' you really mean 'resolution' - plenty of megapixel hunters such as yourself.

I mean dynamic range, lower banding and other artefacts, higher resolution, higher readout - the factors that allow us to capture more information.

Rest assured, time is on your side. Those advancements will come. The R&D money right now is going for something that has more of a revolutionary impact (AF systems, etc) than an incremental one like resolution.

Think about the amount of captured information. An advanced AF helps indirectly, because a sharper image means more detail and more information.

But things like AI upscaling and AI noise reduction in-camera don't help at all in that regard.

 

[David_B]

Overall a little bit disapointing that R5 and Mk II are so close to each other.
This seems to show how much hat sensor design was already squezed out to optimum.

It seems they are getting close to it, yes.

Good news for all R5 owners. If the other new functions are not that important the money can stay in their pockets.

Absolutely.

 

[Austintatious]

The R5 mark 2 is not a replacement for the r5c.. I need to see video comparison tests but eye tracking and some other features are redundant for filmmaking. I’d be paying for features I’d never use..

 

[neuroanatomist]

…eye tracking and some other features are redundant for filmmaking. I’d be paying for features I’d never use..

At least you can pick a dedicated video camera. What about those of us who don’t even shoot video? Ok, I do, but I have a high end 4K camcorder for that.

Also granted, hybrid should be cheaper than an equivalent single use version, bigger market. But your statement struck me as ironic.

 

[EvilTed]

Interesting that you claim, “The R5 II is applying way more noise reduction,” then cite Bill Claff’s website, when Bill himself stated the R5II is applying less NR than the R5.

It's on the site. Maybe the legends are wrong but they claim that the downward pointing triangles = NR.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I will note that the R5 II is applying way more noise reduction to get the curves to look identical to the R5.
The R5 did a little of this at low ISO but it appears the the R5 II is doing it for the complete ISO range.
Not sure if this is an issue or not, just an observation.

Shadow Improvement of Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

Read Noise in DNs versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

Input-referred Read Noise versus ISO Setting

www.photonstophotos.net

No, from the Bill's measurements, it applies way less noise reduction than the R5, but through the whole ISO range.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

It's on the site. Maybe the legends are wrong but they claim that the downward pointing triangles = NR.

Yes through the whole range but much less than the R5.
The appropriate chart is here:

Energy Spectrum