R5 vs R6 noise (both Mk i)

[Jeffrey_L]

I've had an R6 for a couple years and really enjoy it. I thought I wanted the R5 for the extra megapixels, and slightly better AF, so I just grabbed a refurb model on sale. Now doing a side-by-side test, I'm questioning my decision.

The R5 seems to have considerably more noise than the R6. I've tried to compare apples as best I can - similar ISO and other settings.

I realize there are lots of options for noise reduction software, but with the larger file sizes on the R5 it seems like my post processing is going to take considerably more time.

I have a few days left that I could return the R5, so now I need to decide. I can't afford to keep both, so if I keep the R5 then the R6 goes up for sale.

Any other experience with people upgrading from R6 to R5 and dealing with noise?

 

[souvikdgp]

I guess that's obvious given the denser pixels in R5. You can read a lot of materials why biggers pixels in R6 help reducing overall noise compared to the likes R5.

Having said that R5 worth every bit and is more suitable than R6 in most situations, if not all.

--
See my work @ https://www.flickr.com/photos/souvikchatterjee/

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Are you comparing at 100% view, or at same output size? If at 100% view, you have to remember that you are enlarging the image from the R5 far more than the image from the R6, so it isn’t surprising if you see more noise. At the image level, any noise differences between the two should be negligible.

 

[Marco Nero]

I've had an R6 for a couple years and really enjoy it. I thought I wanted the R5 for the extra megapixels, and slightly better AF, so I just grabbed a refurb model on sale. Now doing a side-by-side test, I'm questioning my decision....

Any other experience with people upgrading from R6 to R5 and dealing with noise?

I chose to cancel my R5 orders (twice) because my first-batch R6 arrived first and because i prefer lowlight performance - and the R6 has noticeably LARGER pixelsites. Both cameras have the same Full Frame sized sensor but in order to accommodate all those extra pixels on the R5, they have to make them smaller. Whilst people have generally been happy with the noise from the R5, Canon claims this was an unexpected result of the larger pixel count "averaging out the noise", something that the EOS R does as well.
.
There's plenty of noise-reduction software out there if noise irritates you (eg. DXO, Topaz Labs). Just as there's some great upscaling software out there if you want more resolution than your camera offers you. We have members here who have shot literal roadside billboard portrait photographs with the R6 without issue.
.
The R6 has a -6.5EV performance over the R5 at -6.0EV but that's a fairly minor difference. The Pixel size of the R6 is 6.56µm whereas the R5 is 4.39µm. Where this makes an impression is with eye-tracking at a distance or subject tracking in low-light. In those instances I've seen an improvement that favors the R6 over the R5. Whilst the R6 uses the same sensor as the hallowed EOS 1Dx Mk III (which is very good), the Anti-Alias (AA) filter on the R6 is different and some are not as fond of it (which may be not so good). Of course, this will only produce moire with specific types of patterns at certain distances from the lens. I've seen it do this with with a man wearing a fine-pattern on his shirt and also a member here had issues with a brick wall when a certain lens was used.
.
I've seen complaints from people not expecting such large file-sizes from their R5. I've rarely seen them return a camera though. There's always going to be a faster/better camera just around the corner so either you buy the model that meets your requirements now or you can wait each year for something else to come along - at a presumably higher price than the last incarnation.
.
The folks here seem to prefer Pixel Count over Lower Noise so there's quite a few R5 owners who might seem puzzled by this post. But you asked for opinions so perhaps they'll chime in and offer you theirs. I think that Canon would like people to think that the R5 is an "upgrade" from the R6 but in my opinion there's even mechanical (build) reasons why the R6 is still my choice over the two. If you need the extra pixels, go with the R5 and use NR software when needed.
.
* I just shot a set of indoor images at night with the R6 and noticed a hot-pixel appear in one of the images. Upon review, they were all taken at ISO 6400, which is where I set my ISO limit on the camera. The reason the camera used this high-ISO setting is because I had mistakenly left the Circular Polarizer on the lens and was essentially shooting "with sunglasses on". This is the second or third time this has happened. The lack of obvious noise with higher ISO settings is indeed impressive and it was one of the selling features of the EOS R6 at the time of release.
.

 

[TeeJay626]

I also just picked up a refurb'd R5 while it was on sale with Canon. I had the R6 and currently have the R6 Mark II as well. IMO the noise in the original R6 and the Mark II are nearly identical, so still relevant. While yes, the R5 is a bit noisier, any competent noise reduction handles it well. I use Lightroom and well as Photoshop, and also have Topaz Photo AI. The Denoise built into Lightroom is excellent.

What I will say is that after denoising the R5 images, they still have significantly more detail than the images out of the R6. I'll take images with the RF 100-500L, and the detail coming out of the R5 is fantastic. While the AF system in the R6 Mark II is definitely better, I'm extremely happy with the R5, and so glad I bought it.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I've had an R6 for a couple years and really enjoy it. I thought I wanted the R5 for the extra megapixels, and slightly better AF, so I just grabbed a refurb model on sale. Now doing a side-by-side test, I'm questioning my decision.

The R5 seems to have considerably more noise than the R6.

It doesn't. It's roughly the same with the R5 being a bit better at base ISO 100.

I've tried to compare apples as best I can - similar ISO and other settings.

How did you do your comparison?

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I guess that's obvious given the denser pixels in R5. You can read a lot of materials why biggers pixels in R6 help reducing overall noise compared to the likes R5.

Those materials are simply wrong, if they actually talk about 'overall noise'.

 

[R2D2]

I've had an R6 for a couple years and really enjoy it. I thought I wanted the R5 for the extra megapixels, and slightly better AF, so I just grabbed a refurb model on sale. Now doing a side-by-side test, I'm questioning my decision.

The R5 seems to have considerably more noise than the R6. I've tried to compare apples as best I can - similar ISO and other settings.

I realize there are lots of options for noise reduction software, but with the larger file sizes on the R5 it seems like my post processing is going to take considerably more time.

I have a few days left that I could return the R5, so now I need to decide. I can't afford to keep both, so if I keep the R5 then the R6 goes up for sale.

Any other experience with people upgrading from R6 to R5 and dealing with noise?

Are you comparing at pixel level, as Alastair notes?

I've been shooting with both cameras going on 4 years now, and have found that there's very little difference in noise levels between the two (at the image level), especially if you're using an excellent RAW noise reduction program (such as DxO PhotoLab). I highly recommend PhotoLab, which works especially well even when cropping (hint hint ;-) ).

If you're seeing a noticeable difference, it's indeed possible that there's something wrong with your R5. Check your results against DPReview's noise comparator here...

Noise Comparator

Really, the choice between these two bodies would be between the other features IMHO. And a lot depends on what you're shooting.

Best of luck with your decision!

R2

 

[strolling shooter]

If at 100% view, you have to remember that you are enlarging the image from the R5 far more than the image from the R6, so it isn’t surprising if you see more noise.

Yes indeed. What we see as noise in photos today is a property of the light and not of the sensor (i.e. readout noise is completely negligible today). That's why a higher magnification shows more details, but also more noise.

At the image level, any noise differences between the two should be negligible.

This is because the light that falls on the sensor is no different. Nevertheless, more details can be seen in the R5 image when it is printed in a larger format. There are tests that show this very well, e.g. a video by Chris Niccolls that demonstrates this very well. Unfortunately I couldn't find the video, otherwise I would have posted the link.

(Edit) Here is the video:

 

[drsnoopy]

Assuming you are shooting RAW:

If using Adobe LR or ACR to process your RAWs, note that they apply excessive sharpening as default (40%) and this also sharpens noise, making it more prominent. Reduce the sharpening (you may not need any, or very little) and use the masking slider (+ alt key) to about 90% to only sharpen edges. You will find the visible noise drastically reduced, often without having to apply any further denoising. If this works for you, save the new settings as a preset.

Also as noted above, if you view R6 and R5 images side by side at 100%, you will see more noise in the R5 image simply because the R5 has 2.25x as many pixels, and the image will be approximately 1.5x the size (ie 50% wider and taller).

You may also consider trying DXO Photolab as your RAW processor. Even before applying the Deep Prime noise reduction, you will find the demosaiced image to have less visible noise than with Adobe defaults. This is not to say the Adobe software is less good, just different and you need to find a workflow that works for you.

Finally, when an image is printed, noise which was visible on screen is often not noticeable, or not objectionable.

I don’t generally find noise a problem with my R5 whether for landscape or wildlife, low or high ISO. My R8 is a little better, and my R7 clearly more noisy. But I can deal with them all, even at high ISOs, so don’t let noise per se put you off. Your real question is whether you need or want 45MP for the kind of work you do, at what ISO, what output, and whether you need to crop.

PS: If shooting jpeg, turn the sharpening down in the picture style. You have more limited options for controlling noise in post with jpeg images.

 

[Jeffrey_L]

Are you comparing at 100% view, or at same output size? If at 100% view, you have to remember that you are enlarging the image from the R5 far more than the image from the R6, so it isn’t surprising if you see more noise. At the image level, any noise differences between the two should be negligible.

I think this was making the issue more pronounced than I realized. Thanks to Alastair and a few others for pointing out the difference in 100% crops between the two cameras.

I also appreciate R2D2's suggestion of the Noise Comparator. I have not seen that before so I will try to do some closer comparison with that tonight.

Thanks to all for the quick feedback. This was helpful. I've got a couple more things to test, but you have calmed my initial reaction quite a bit.

 

[Patchy]

I was in the same situation 2 years ago. Very happy with the R6 in low light doing concert shots and street. Nevertheless later I added a R5 because I needed more room to crop and the body is better weather sealed.

My plan was to sell the R6 to upgrade to the R5 but the resell price of the R6 dropped significantly with the introduction of the R6II.

Finally I decided to keep the R6 as my back-up body for low light and situations were I don’t need 45mp. The big advantage is that both cameras have the same bottom’s layout and I can switch between them without even notice.

May be you should wait until more R5II are in the market as the used prices for a R5 will drop even more. That may give you the chance to keep both. Don’t know how much you will receive for your used R6. I decided not to give my R6 away for such a low price it is a very good camera and match very well with the R5.