-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
DPR R5 Review is up
- Thread starter Zinch
- Start date
traderjay
Forum Enthusiast
How did they come to the conclusion that the R5 Dynamic Range is inferior to the Z7?
I'm sure the Z7 only has a slight edge, but an edge nonetheless. In the end, at this point all these high-res sensors are essentially on par, so dynamic range is no longer an argument against Canon.
Adam-T
Forum Pro
I tend to find Canons tend to be better at highlight recovery and Nikons at shadows .. I`m still amazed at the amount of highlights which can be recovered even from a humble M50
but thesedays DPR are more into shadow torture tests - I had a look on their comparator myself and you can see its not the camera's strongest point but I bet it recovers highlights like no tomorrow , even the 1DS Mk2 was good at that ! .. (I chose D850 as I use one for work and know its attributes) .,. I`m sure the R5 will have more than enough shadow recovery for real images and anyway, shoot more for the shadows and recover the highlights .
Still the R5 looks the best mirrorless FF stills camera to me ! .
--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
Attachments
Last edited:
pkoenig2001
Leading Member
TN Args
Forum Pro
Last edited:
Eddie Rizk
Senior Member
My question is whether they, or anyone else has compared Canon R5 or other Rs DR against any others using Dual Pixel RAW?
--
That's my opinion, and it's worth what you paid for it.
Eddie Rizk
The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
Formerly "Ed Rizk"
My email was hacked and unrecoverable along with all associated accounts, so I got permission to create a new one.
Quarkcharmed
Senior Member
It's not a relevant comparison and it looks like the settings were chosen to deliberately mislead. You don't compare the R5's dynamic range by electronic shutter shots.
--
Login • Instagram
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.
www.instagram.com
500px
Praefos
Well-known member
- Messages
- 234
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 91
I second this!It's not a relevant comparison and it looks like the settings were chosen to deliberately mislead. You don't compare the R5's dynamic range by electronic shutter shots.
Also, have a look at the RAW file size. It is below 30 MB. It should be around 50 - 60 MB. The data, this comparison tool is based on, might not have the actual best data from the Canon R5 to begin with.
I suspect, they still had CRAW on. Even a Canon M6 Mark II doesn't fall of so much. So I highly dought this data.
Adam-T
Forum Pro
While this is true, some sensors (particularily Canons from experience) have more highlight recovery ability - therefore lowering the noise by being able to expose hotter and still not get blowouts
Quarkcharmed
Senior Member
'E-Shutter' setting is electronic shutter which produces 12-bit raw files instead of normal 14-bit ones. It has some 2-stop lower dynamic range and shouldn't be used in such comparisons.I second this!It's not a relevant comparison and it looks like the settings were chosen to deliberately mislead. You don't compare the R5's dynamic range by electronic shutter shots.
Also, have a look at the RAW file size. It is below 30 MB. It should be around 50 - 60 MB. The data, this comparison tool is based on, might not have the actual best data from the Canon R5 to begin with.
I suspect, they still had CRAW on. Even a Canon M6 Mark II doesn't fall of so much. So I highly dought this data.
--
Login • Instagram
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.
www.instagram.com
500px
Quarkcharmed
Senior Member
Sensors don't have such an ability and strictly speaking, there's no such thing as highlight recovery. In a raw file, the highlights are either safe, or blown out. What people call 'highlight recovery' is simply a remapping of raw data to 8-bit RGB. It has nothing to do with the 'native' sensor's dynamic range, only with the dynamic range of processed/converted images.
Adam-T
Forum Pro
Right OK thanks . I thought it must be some kind of mapping which DPR don`t take into account ? (especially as they use LR/ACR which does a lot of stuff behind the scenes which the likes of capture one tend not to ) , of course pixel wells only hold so much but are DPR getting the most from the R5 ? ..
--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **
Last edited:
TN Args
Forum Pro
Guys, EFC is not hugely better, link'E-Shutter' setting is electronic shutter which produces 12-bit raw files instead of normal 14-bit ones. It has some 2-stop lower dynamic range and shouldn't be used in such comparisons.I second this!It's not a relevant comparison and it looks like the settings were chosen to deliberately mislead. You don't compare the R5's dynamic range by electronic shutter shots.
Also, have a look at the RAW file size. It is below 30 MB. It should be around 50 - 60 MB. The data, this comparison tool is based on, might not have the actual best data from the Canon R5 to begin with.
I suspect, they still had CRAW on. Even a Canon M6 Mark II doesn't fall of so much. So I highly dought this data.
Quarkcharmed
Senior Member
I wonder what software they used, LR only allows +5 stops. Anyway, this one actually looks much better, but obviously not on par with Sony/Nikon. However the ISO400 shot looks much cleaner than Sony/Nikon at the same exposure. It suggests that you'll benefit from using ISO 400 rather than ISO 100 in cases where you intend to do a very heavy exposure lifting in postprocessing (mostly applies to genres like astrophotography).Guys, EFC is not hugely better, link'E-Shutter' setting is electronic shutter which produces 12-bit raw files instead of normal 14-bit ones. It has some 2-stop lower dynamic range and shouldn't be used in such comparisons.I second this!It's not a relevant comparison and it looks like the settings were chosen to deliberately mislead. You don't compare the R5's dynamic range by electronic shutter shots.
Also, have a look at the RAW file size. It is below 30 MB. It should be around 50 - 60 MB. The data, this comparison tool is based on, might not have the actual best data from the Canon R5 to begin with.
I suspect, they still had CRAW on. Even a Canon M6 Mark II doesn't fall of so much. So I highly dought this data.
--
Login • Instagram
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.
www.instagram.com
500px
Quarkcharmed
Senior Member
What DPR guys do, I guess, is taking Canon raw files into Lightroom or Canon's DPP and checking how much they can 'recover' highlights against a default image shown in the photo editor. That recovery fully depends on the initial default conversion raw->8bit RGB done in Lightroom. When you tweak the highlights slider, it just changes how raw data is mapped to RGB colour space (plus white balance, gamma correction etc.)
If they throw more highlights away in the initial conversion, you may get more of 'highlight recovery', but it's all in the software.
Shadows are the same in terms of the initial conversion, but the noise in the shadows doesn't depend on the white balance, gamma etc. - so the noise is a measure of sensor's performance and dynamic range.
TN Args
Forum Pro
ISO 100 is the way to get the most DR out of the camera.I wonder what software they used, LR only allows +5 stops. Anyway, this one actually looks much better, but obviously not on par with Sony/Nikon. However the ISO400 shot looks much cleaner than Sony/Nikon at the same exposure. It suggests that you'll benefit from using ISO 400 rather than ISO 100 in cases where you intend to do a very heavy exposure lifting in postprocessing (mostly applies to genres like astrophotography).Guys, EFC is not hugely better, link'E-Shutter' setting is electronic shutter which produces 12-bit raw files instead of normal 14-bit ones. It has some 2-stop lower dynamic range and shouldn't be used in such comparisons.I second this!It's not a relevant comparison and it looks like the settings were chosen to deliberately mislead. You don't compare the R5's dynamic range by electronic shutter shots.
Also, have a look at the RAW file size. It is below 30 MB. It should be around 50 - 60 MB. The data, this comparison tool is based on, might not have the actual best data from the Canon R5 to begin with.
I suspect, they still had CRAW on. Even a Canon M6 Mark II doesn't fall of so much. So I highly dought this data.
Quarkcharmed
Senior Member
Yes, but in certain cases you can't shoot at ISO 100. Canon R5 seems to be ISO-invariant from ISO 400.
As to the 6-stop exposure lifting, it's not practical at all, so this comparison shows very little, except that you'd better shoot at ISO 400 and lift by 2 stops, rather than shoot at ISO 100 and lift by 6 stops. ISO 400 may be practical for certain cases such as astrophotography, but then apparently the R5 will produce cleaner images than the A7rIV.
--
https://www.instagram.com/quarkcharmed/
https://500px.com/quarkcharmed
Last edited:
nighthiker
Senior Member
Coming from the astro side-of -live I dislike reading of 'noise reduction in Raw files'. That, together with a heat problem due to IBIS makes this camera probably not so well suitable for astro photography. And yes, I'm aware that other manufacturers also have to handle the reduced heat conduction due to IBIS. And other manufacturers also do noise reduction in Raw files (star eater ...), but Canon was creating non-filtered Raw files until now ...
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum