Reading mode: Light Dark

I Have an R5 MK II. AMA.

Go to last post
Nrbelex said:
VisuallyOriented said:
Nrbelex said:
Tiger26over said:
Can you assign a custom button to switch to the 30 fps mode? What about a custom button to switch back and forth between pre-capture on and off?
Click to expand...
I looked to add these and haven't found a way, unfortunately. Both can be added to the custom star menu.
Click to expand...
According to the online manual, you can assign "switch ES continuous shooting mode" to the AF ON, star, rectangle, or DOF buttons. I believe you have to be in electric shutter button for this to work.

You can see this as the last option in the AF matrix.

https://cam.start.canon/en/C017/manual/html/UG-08_Customize_0030.html
Click to expand...
Yes, that is an option, but for whatever reason, with ES on, I can't seem to get it to do anything no matter which button it is assigned to, which is weird. In any case, you can pretty quickly get to the fastest drive mode using the M-Fn button menu.
Click to expand...
I plan to try to use the "Register/recall shooting func" for the pre-shooting. What this function allows currently on the R5 is, to set a group of AF, drive mode, shooting modes, other functions all in one button. This allows a momentary button press to change to a set shooting mode. Once released, it goes back to how you were shooting prior. The downsides of it, whatever button you choose, is also this mode's AF button, so it can be a little uncomfortable.

For the drive mode, it appears to be one button assignable in a similar round about way. Its called "Switch
icon_Electric_Shutter.svg
cont. shooting modes" (found on this page in the Manual ). Looks to be able to set the desired available button to the drive speed (H+, H, Low). Just not sure if it is momentary (meaning you'll need to hold it) or if it is a toggle. It seems to be able to swap from mechanical to ES, but that's a guess based on the name.

--
Mike Jackson - Wildlife Photography Enthusiast
https://www.instagram.com/tpcimagery/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mj_flickr/
 
Last edited:
John Sheehy said:
Ephemeris said:
John Sheehy said:
Not with a fast lens wide open, I hope. Only F-numbers well above 2.8 are guaranteed to be "normal", as cameras compensate for known microlens/photosite losses at very low f-numbers by pushing the raw data in the raw file, so that when converted, f/1.4 at 1/100 is the same brightness as f/2.8 at 1/25, but the noise is scaled up and highlights are clipped away, losing raw DR.
Click to expand...
Really? Not something I need John. Fastest we have is f2.

Any effects or implications we should be aware of?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I made a type, should have said not something I new*

Sounds like some minor change at F2. I suppose if our ISO is low we may only be concerned about the highlights but is this occuring at higher ISO where f2 or less we may use to get access to more light?
John Sheehy said:
With an EF24/1.4L on my R5, in mechanical shutter mode and ISO 100, I see a push (compared to f/8) of 0.21 stops at f/2, and 0.28 stops at f/1.4. At f/2.8 I see a very slight possible push, but small enough to be rounding and/or statistical noise from single samples.

--
Beware of correct answers to wrong questions.
John
http://www.pbase.com/image/55384958.jpg
Click to expand...
 
VisuallyOriented said:
Imajica said:
Nrbelex said:
Tiger26over said:
Can you assign a custom button to switch to the 30 fps mode? What about a custom button to switch back and forth between pre-capture on and off?
Click to expand...
I looked to add these and haven't found a way, unfortunately. Both can be added to the custom star menu.
Click to expand...
I wonder if it handles the pre-capture like the R6II does. You can assign it to a button, but all that does is bring up a menu selection that you can switch on and off without having to hunt for the feature or switch to the custom menus. So a little quicker to enable and disable, but not an instant on and off like other functionality.
Click to expand...
This is what the R5ii manual says:

In electronic shutter mode, you can temporarily change the continuous shooting mode by pressing the button assigned to [Switch

icon_Electric_Shutter.svg


cont. shooting modes]
  • In [
    icon_shooting-high.svg

    ] or [
    icon_continuous-shooting.svg

    ] drive mode, you can switch to [
    icon_shooting-high3.svg

    ] continuous shooting for as long as you press the button.
Note it is temporarily. It is not a toggle. You have to hold the assigned button.

https://cam.start.canon/en/C017/manual/html/UG-04_AF-Drive_0120.html
Click to expand...


I was referring to pre-shooting, the raw burst mode....



As for drive mode, at least on the R6II, I use the default method via one of the top buttons and then scroll to the speed setting I want. In my case, I set one of the buttons to be silent. So if I am in MS or in ES with sound, it switches to ES silent at whatever speed I was at before.
 
John Sheehy said:
Quarkcharmed said:
Nrbelex said:
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?
Click to expand...
Thank you!

I can't do sophisticated analysis like JACS did but
  • 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 above means maybe there's no DR improvement against the R5 but the hot pixel problem is pretty much solved.

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).
Click to expand...
What are you using as a frame of reference? You can't compare blackframes to compare exposure-referred noise quantity (you can see the character of the noise, though, spatially), unless you scale the data once you know the scaling of raw numbers for the same exposure. To do that, you could choose a very stable light source, take real photos of a wall or similar with both cameras with the exact same exposure, and then, after black points are subtracted, you can compare the scale of the average pixel values of the two images, and then scale your raw data accordingly.
Click to expand...
I just used the standard deviation of the dark frame shown in RawDigger, by JACS's method above (also suggested somewhere in the RawDigger blogs) - so this DR is just the log2(Max/read noise). It's basically the "engineering" DR as far as I understand it, but because the sensors are the same size and have the same pixel size, it can be used for comparison. It assumes the same conversion coefficient etc. so it's very preliminary and can be inaccurate.

I'm still looking forward to see Bill Claff's measurements.
 
BTW, the masked pixels of the R5II, on the left, consists of two columns. They look almost the same but one of them has a slightly different Black Point or noise, don’t remember exactly (I am on my IPad now). When sampling, make sure that the small square stays in the first vertical strip, the closest to the image. if your square covers parts of both strips, the measured standard deviation jumps. Sampling the horizontal strip is safer.

About the conversion factor: formally speaking, it does not matter if you define the DR as the ratio of the saturation to the noise floor (ignoring the quantization noise/distortion).
 
Last edited:
Quarkcharmed said:
I just used the standard deviation of the dark frame shown in RawDigger, by JACS's method above (also suggested somewhere in the RawDigger blogs) - so this DR is just the log2(Max/read noise). It's basically the "engineering" DR as far as I understand it, but because the sensors are the same size and have the same pixel size, it can be used for comparison. It assumes the same conversion coefficient etc. so it's very preliminary and can be inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I thought there was some context of exposure-referred noise there, but perhaps you were only talking about (P)DR, in which case you don't need to know what the correlation is between DN and exposure.
 
J A C S said:
BTW, the masked pixels of the R5II, on the left, consists of two columns. They look almost the same but one of them has a slightly different Black Point or noise, don’t remember exactly (I am on my IPad now). When sampling, make sure that the small square stays in the first vertical strip, the closest to the image. if your square covers parts of both strips, the measured standard deviation jumps. Sampling the horizontal strip is safer.
Click to expand...
With this and some other cameras, but there are other cameras where the horizontal strip has anomalies, and some lines need to be ignored, and unfortunately, the horizontal strip is typically narrow to begin with.
J A C S said:
About the conversion factor: formally speaking, it does not matter if you define the DR as the ratio of the saturation to the noise floor (ignoring the quantization noise/distortion).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
J A C S said:
BTW, the masked pixels of the R5II, on the left, consists of two columns. They look almost the same but one of them has a slightly different Black Point or noise, don’t remember exactly (I am on my IPad now). When sampling, make sure that the small square stays in the first vertical strip, the closest to the image. if your square covers parts of both strips, the measured standard deviation jumps. Sampling the horizontal strip is safer.
Click to expand...
That's interesting, I have it higher on the top of the horizontal strip (G at ~1.15) and lower at the bottom half of the strip (G at 0.9 or so)

Left half of the vertical strip gives all zeros, and the right half of the vertical strip gives G at ~0.9 too.

In the frame itself, G is at about 0.9.

The file is _88A0496.CR3 from the OP's samples.

I'm not sure what those different zones in the masked pixels mean.

btw there's another comparison here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...&ISO=100&CameraComp=1508&TestComp=0&ISOComp=0

In those samples, the noise looks nearly identical between the R5 and the R5II.
J A C S said:
About the conversion factor: formally speaking, it does not matter if you define the DR as the ratio of the saturation to the noise floor (ignoring the quantization noise/distortion).
Click to expand...
--
https://www.instagram.com/quarkcharmed/
https://500px.com/quarkcharmed
 
Last edited:
It looks like you are testing with the black point subtracted (it is actually trucated).
 
@Nrbelex

How are you opening the .CR3 files? I am on Windows 10 and Canon DPP 4.18.10.0 and I get an error "This versions is not compatible with EOSR5m2. Please use [Check For Updates] in the About section".

I also have DxO PhotoLab which I know has not yet released support for the R5M2.

--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
 
Last edited:
Quarkcharmed said:
J A C S said:
BTW, the masked pixels of the R5II, on the left, consists of two columns. They look almost the same but one of them has a slightly different Black Point or noise, don’t remember exactly (I am on my IPad now). When sampling, make sure that the small square stays in the first vertical strip, the closest to the image. if your square covers parts of both strips, the measured standard deviation jumps. Sampling the horizontal strip is safer.
Click to expand...
That's interesting, I have it higher on the top of the horizontal strip (G at ~1.15) and lower at the bottom half of the strip (G at 0.9 or so)

Left half of the vertical strip gives all zeros, and the right half of the vertical strip gives G at ~0.9 too.

In the frame itself, G is at about 0.9.

The file is _88A0496.CR3 from the OP's samples.

I'm not sure what those different zones in the masked pixels mean.

btw there's another comparison here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...&ISO=100&CameraComp=1508&TestComp=0&ISOComp=0

In those samples, the noise looks nearly identical between the R5 and the R5II.
Quarkcharmed said:
About the conversion factor: formally speaking, it does not matter if you define the DR as the ratio of the saturation to the noise floor (ignoring the quantization noise/distortion).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Sashi said:
@Nrbelex

How are you opening the .CR3 files? I am on Windows 10 and Canon DPP 4.18.10.0 and I get an error "This versions is not compatible with EOSR5m2. Please use [Check For Updates] in the About section".

I also have DxO PhotoLab which I know has not yet released support for the R5M2.
Click to expand...
 
Adobe says that the R5II support is preliminary. They messed up the extremely deep shadows though - they are much warmer.
 
Sashi said:
@Nrbelex

How are you opening the .CR3 files? I am on Windows 10 and Canon DPP 4.18.10.0 and I get an error "This versions is not compatible with EOSR5m2. Please use [Check For Updates] in the About section".
Click to expand...
I check DPP daily and no updates yet.
Sashi262826 said:
I also have DxO PhotoLab which I know has not yet released support for the R5M2.
Click to expand...
Adobe had support for both LrC and ACR in June. Who knows when DXO will update. It could be months based on history.
 
Zeee said:
Sashi said:
@Nrbelex

How are you opening the .CR3 files? I am on Windows 10 and Canon DPP 4.18.10.0 and I get an error "This versions is not compatible with EOSR5m2. Please use [Check For Updates] in the About section".
Click to expand...
I check DPP daily and no updates yet.
Zeee said:
I also have DxO PhotoLab which I know has not yet released support for the R5M2.
Click to expand...
Adobe had support for both LrC and ACR in June. Who knows when DXO will update. It could be months based on history.
Click to expand...
 
J A C S said:
Ephemeris said:
J A C S said:
Adobe says that the R5II support is preliminary. They messed up the extremely deep shadows though - they are much warmer.
Click to expand...
Ah understood. Wouldn't the r52 look pinky rather than the r5?
Click to expand...
The R5II looks yellowish but only on the deeply underexposed shots (-5 and -6). Probably, a bad black point.
Click to expand...
Sorry I can't do this so well from my phone.

These are screen grabs.

R52, ES, @12800. Second image is R5, MS, @12800. The R5 looks a little pink.

What do you think?

b183201b46ff4421950501848c7e1d47.jpg

9ae52c79d89c40109a46026cec87eb49.jpg



 
I am talking about the underexposed ISO 100 shots. Each one of them is individually white balanced, which is not right. If you download the RAWs and equate the WB, you will see a huge difference.

BTW, the RAWs made available by the OP show the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
R5 Mk II AF Scenarios
Replies
17
Views
22
Zeee
Z
BWCorpus
Canon R5 Mk II and display issues with Windows 11
Replies
6
Views
19
R6iiowner
R
R
R5 Mk II Macro flash Single shot / flash focus bracketing Settings
Replies
3
Views
15
R2D2
R
R
R5 Mk II & RF 100 f/2.8 L macro + Godox Flash V860 III
Replies
2
Views
20
RAWInstincts
R
S
Canon R5 Mark II ETTR issue.
Replies
11
Views
12
Sebastian Beres
S

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top