R5II high ISO performance compared with R5

[aftab]

Does R5II produce more noise than R5 at high ISO?

Most people agree that up to ISO 6400, there is virtually no difference between the two cameras. I downloaded ISO 12800 files for both cameras from DPR and opened them in Camera RAW with default parameters. At 100%, I couldn’t tell one from the other. At 200%, slightly more noise was visible in the R5II image in a few parts. For ISO 25600, slightly more noise was visible at 100% in some parts.

When is this excess noise visible?

For ISO 12800, excess noise can be seen at 200%. For ISO 25600, excess noise can be seen at 100%. At smaller sizes (6000x4000, for example), I couldn’t see any difference. In other words, above ISO 12800 pixel-peeping would show slightly increased noise. This excess noise is about the same as the difference between electronic and mechanical shutter noise produced by R5II at ISO 12800.

Now, what are we going to do with these images? Unless you are DPR and have an image comparison page, you will apply NR. So, your assertion about considering editing software in the equation is not without merit. With modern FF cameras noise comparison without considering editing software is mostly academic.

How about shadow lifting?

I have done a few tests with the mechanical shutter. As long as there is some light in an area of the image before it was darkened (to preserve highlight for example), shadow lifting can be done up to 5 stops without significant image penalty (at base ISO). Up to 3 stops is easy. I don’t know how this compares with R5 MKI, DPR didn’t provide any mechanical shutter image for comparison.

My feeling so far is that for all practical purposes, R5 II IQ is similar to R5I.

We have an open topic where the two test scene setups may not be equal.

Still to resolve it the same amount of light is present to both camera sensors.

Test scene was moved building and recommissioned between these two cameras test data production and release.

So, utilising these scenes to compare such camera characteristics may (may) not be ideal.

I didn't know that the test scene was moved or that different lenses were used. This surely makes the comparison less reliable, especially when we are talking about a very small difference in ISO performance.

 

[Ephemeris]

Does R5II produce more noise than R5 at high ISO?

Most people agree that up to ISO 6400, there is virtually no difference between the two cameras. I downloaded ISO 12800 files for both cameras from DPR and opened them in Camera RAW with default parameters. At 100%, I couldn’t tell one from the other. At 200%, slightly more noise was visible in the R5II image in a few parts. For ISO 25600, slightly more noise was visible at 100% in some parts.

When is this excess noise visible?

For ISO 12800, excess noise can be seen at 200%. For ISO 25600, excess noise can be seen at 100%. At smaller sizes (6000x4000, for example), I couldn’t see any difference. In other words, above ISO 12800 pixel-peeping would show slightly increased noise. This excess noise is about the same as the difference between electronic and mechanical shutter noise produced by R5II at ISO 12800.

Now, what are we going to do with these images? Unless you are DPR and have an image comparison page, you will apply NR. So, your assertion about considering editing software in the equation is not without merit. With modern FF cameras noise comparison without considering editing software is mostly academic.

How about shadow lifting?

I have done a few tests with the mechanical shutter. As long as there is some light in an area of the image before it was darkened (to preserve highlight for example), shadow lifting can be done up to 5 stops without significant image penalty (at base ISO). Up to 3 stops is easy. I don’t know how this compares with R5 MKI, DPR didn’t provide any mechanical shutter image for comparison.

My feeling so far is that for all practical purposes, R5 II IQ is similar to R5I.

We have an open topic where the two test scene setups may not be equal.

Still to resolve it the same amount of light is present to both camera sensors.

Test scene was moved building and recommissioned between these two cameras test data production and release.

So, utilising these scenes to compare such camera characteristics may (may) not be ideal.

I didn't know that the test scene was moved or that different lenses were used. This surely makes the comparison less reliable, especially when we are talking about a very small difference in ISO performance.

It does indeed. That's what a number of us have been trying to say. This doesn't mean the test scenes are not good, useful or appreciated but perhaps they are not the data source to try and answer the question in the OP.

As of today we no longer have any Canon R5 bodies (stack load of batteries however) so can't do any ABA type testing.

We should also be looking to compare video modes rather than just stills.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/catch45/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aftab/

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

I didn't know that the test scene was moved or that different lenses were used. This surely makes the comparison less reliable, especially when we are talking about a very small difference in ISO performance.

It does indeed. That's what a number of us have been trying to say. This doesn't mean the test scenes are not good, useful or appreciated but perhaps they are not the data source to try and answer the question in the OP.

Hover on the "i" button and you can see the exposure conditions.

 

[aftab]

Does R5II produce more noise than R5 at high ISO?

Most people agree that up to ISO 6400, there is virtually no difference between the two cameras. I downloaded ISO 12800 files for both cameras from DPR and opened them in Camera RAW with default parameters. At 100%, I couldn’t tell one from the other. At 200%, slightly more noise was visible in the R5II image in a few parts. For ISO 25600, slightly more noise was visible at 100% in some parts.

Do you mind posting the images you got and used for comparison?

I didn't want to clutter OP's thread with images that are readily available in the DPR comparison page.

How about shadow lifting?

I have done a few tests with the mechanical shutter. As long as there is some light in an area of the image before it was darkened (to preserve highlight for example), shadow lifting can be done up to 5 stops without significant image penalty (at base ISO). Up to 3 stops is easy. I don’t know how this compares with R5 MKI,

And in this case as well - do you have the images?

I thought I would do a separate thread after I had done more tests. Anyway, here is one.

RAW image, mechanical shutter. Opened image in Camera RAW, turned off sharpening, chroma noise NR ACR default (25), no other NR, no other editing. Image saved as JPEG, size reduced.





Opened the RAW image again. Settings as before. This time Exposure slider was pushed to +5. File size original.

DPR didn’t provide any mechanical shutter image for comparison.

Mechanical and EFC shutters will be exactly the same for the purposes of this test, only you get a shutter stock in mechanical in the certain shutter speed range.

I have compared mechanical shutter and electronic shutter. Electronic shutter do produce slightly more noise. I have only tested ISO 12800.

My feeling so far is that for all practical purposes, R5 II IQ is similar to R5I.

Feelings are deceitful

I know. :-D

--

Catch45

Explore Catch45’s 200 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Aftab Uzzaman

Explore Aftab Uzzaman’s 2,736 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[aftab]

Looking at the evolution in sensors.

I wonder why R5II is slightly worse than R5 when R3 is slightly better in all cases than R6II.

I think it is generally understood that a stacked sensor produces more noise if the MP count is high. It has to do with moving large data off the sensor at a very fast rate (read noise). Look at Z8/9 and A1. Manufacturers will probably find a way to deal with it in the next generation of stacked sensors.

--

Catch45

Explore Catch45’s 200 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Aftab Uzzaman

Explore Aftab Uzzaman’s 2,736 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Looking at the evolution in sensors.

I wonder why R5II is slightly worse than R5 when R3 is slightly better in all cases than R6II.

I think it is generally understood that a stacked sensor produces more noise if the MP count is high.

With the DPR comparison tool, 'full' compares per-pixel visible noise. Of course it'll be higher in a camera with a higher MP count and same sensor size

Switch to "comp" and you'll see the noise in normalised images rendered to the same target size.



--

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

500px.com

 

[Ephemeris]

I didn't know that the test scene was moved or that different lenses were used. This surely makes the comparison less reliable, especially when we are talking about a very small difference in ISO performance.

It does indeed. That's what a number of us have been trying to say. This doesn't mean the test scenes are not good, useful or appreciated but perhaps they are not the data source to try and answer the question in the OP.

Hover on the "i" button and you can see the exposure conditions.

I took my investigation from looking at the RAWs

We can see the lens is different, we also know the test scene moved. I also think the exposure is not the same for both camera bodies. If we are all seeing the same +/- 1/6 to 1/3 then it's a small delta, but then makes the OP question difficult to analyse from the test chart data.

There is also how they were processed and what exactly the software was doing at the time of writing Vs what it does today.

I am sure there are people far more capable than I who may be able to provide a more in-depth look at the characteristics of the two bodies. We have concentrated on noise within this thread (and haven't nailed down shot noise) but we also have noise characteristics (banding, spatial patterns etc), white balance, colour accuracy, per channel noise etc. All sound like complex jobs that I'm sure my lab squirrels would love to do but sadly we are busy doing other stuff.

It is all very fascinating, or at least as an observer on the side it is.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Does R5II produce more noise than R5 at high ISO?

Most people agree that up to ISO 6400, there is virtually no difference between the two cameras. I downloaded ISO 12800 files for both cameras from DPR and opened them in Camera RAW with default parameters. At 100%, I couldn’t tell one from the other. At 200%, slightly more noise was visible in the R5II image in a few parts. For ISO 25600, slightly more noise was visible at 100% in some parts.

Do you mind posting the images you got and used for comparison?

I didn't want to clutter OP's thread with images that are readily available in the DPR comparison page.

Ok, let's see what happens at very high ISOs:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosr5&attr13_1=canon_eosr5ii&attr13_2=canon_eosr5ii&attr13_3=canon_eosr5ii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&attr126_1=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_1=3&attr171_2=3&attr171_3=2&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.15058823529411763&y=0.5520215633423181

The difference is pretty visible but it's not as prominent at lower ISOs (e.g. 800).

And in this case as well - do you have the images?

I thought I would do a separate thread after I had done more tests. Anyway, here is one.

RAW image, mechanical shutter. Opened image in Camera RAW, turned off sharpening, chroma noise NR ACR default (25), no other NR, no other editing. Image saved as JPEG, size reduced.

Ah sorry I misread your message - you only have R5II samples, so not possible to compare it to the R5.

Even though it has a slightly higher noise and lower dynamic range, the R5II produces less hot pixels which is a good thing if you're into astro or long exposure photography.

Opened the RAW image again. Settings as before. This time Exposure slider was pushed to +5. File size original.

DPR didn’t provide any mechanical shutter image for comparison.

Mechanical and EFC shutters will be exactly the same for the purposes of this test, only you get a shutter stock in mechanical in the certain shutter speed range.

I have compared mechanical shutter and electronic shutter. Electronic shutter do produce slightly more noise. I have only tested ISO 12800.

There's fully electronic (ES) mode, and fully mechanical and electronic first curtain.

MS and EFCS are the same in terms of noise performance, but mechanical can produce shutter shock.

--

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

500px.com

 

[aftab]

Looking at the evolution in sensors.

I wonder why R5II is slightly worse than R5 when R3 is slightly better in all cases than R6II.

I think it is generally understood that a stacked sensor produces more noise if the MP count is high.

With the DPR comparison tool, 'full' compares per-pixel visible noise. Of course it'll be higher in a camera with a higher MP count and same sensor size

Switch to "comp" and you'll see the noise in normalised images rendered to the same target size.

I am aware of the feature. I think most people still would look at the full-size image to make a buying decision.



--

Catch45

Explore Catch45’s 200 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Aftab Uzzaman

Explore Aftab Uzzaman’s 2,736 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[KevinRA]

Alistair, I think you make a good point - in that it seems difference if it is there, is not large - and both cameras with good software give very nice images ;-)

 

[SrMi]

Looking at the evolution in sensors.

I wonder why R5II is slightly worse than R5 when R3 is slightly better in all cases than R6II.

I think it is generally understood that a stacked sensor produces more noise if the MP count is high.

With the DPR comparison tool, 'full' compares per-pixel visible noise. Of course it'll be higher in a camera with a higher MP count and same sensor size

Switch to "comp" and you'll see the noise in normalised images rendered to the same target size.

I am aware of the feature. I think most people still would look at the full-size image to make a buying decision.

They should not. The proper way to compare output of cameras with different resolutions is to look at the output scaled to the same resolution.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/catch45/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aftab/

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

Looking at the evolution in sensors.

I wonder why R5II is slightly worse than R5 when R3 is slightly better in all cases than R6II.

I think it is generally understood that a stacked sensor produces more noise if the MP count is high.

With the DPR comparison tool, 'full' compares per-pixel visible noise. Of course it'll be higher in a camera with a higher MP count and same sensor size

Switch to "comp" and you'll see the noise in normalised images rendered to the same target size.

Quarkcharmed, I already gave the same answer, and you and I both misread aftab's statement.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

With the DPR comparison tool, 'full' compares per-pixel visible noise. Of course it'll be higher in a camera with a higher MP count and same sensor size

Switch to "comp" and you'll see the noise in normalised images rendered to the same target size.

I am aware of the feature. I think most people still would look at the full-size image to make a buying decision.

Well, you can tell "most people" that that would be a big mistake.

 

[aftab]

Looking at the evolution in sensors.

I wonder why R5II is slightly worse than R5 when R3 is slightly better in all cases than R6II.

I think it is generally understood that a stacked sensor produces more noise if the MP count is high.

With the DPR comparison tool, 'full' compares per-pixel visible noise. Of course it'll be higher in a camera with a higher MP count and same sensor size

Switch to "comp" and you'll see the noise in normalised images rendered to the same target size.

I am aware of the feature. I think most people still would look at the full-size image to make a buying decision.

They should not. The proper way to compare output of cameras with different resolutions is to look at the output scaled to the same resolution.

I am sure you know how most people think. Camera A ISO 12800 looks ugly, camera B ISO 12800 looks relatively clean. Now, the average Joe looking at these images probably knows that if two camera resolutions are normalized they would look similar. But he can't get rid of the high-ISO images from his mind - one looked clean the other didn't. Now, he will come up with all kinds of reasons as to why he doesn't need 40 or 50MP and why 24MP is good enough for him. It is like falling in love at first sight, or even second, third or fourth. :-D



--

Catch45

Explore Catch45’s 200 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Aftab Uzzaman

Explore Aftab Uzzaman’s 2,736 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[drsnoopy]

Does R5II produce more noise than R5 at high ISO?

Most people agree that up to ISO 6400, there is virtually no difference between the two cameras. I downloaded ISO 12800 files for both cameras from DPR and opened them in Camera RAW with default parameters. At 100%, I couldn’t tell one from the other. At 200%, slightly more noise was visible in the R5II image in a few parts. For ISO 25600, slightly more noise was visible at 100% in some parts.

When is this excess noise visible?

For ISO 12800, excess noise can be seen at 200%. For ISO 25600, excess noise can be seen at 100%. At smaller sizes (6000x4000, for example), I couldn’t see any difference. In other words, above ISO 12800 pixel-peeping would show slightly increased noise. This excess noise is about the same as the difference between electronic and mechanical shutter noise produced by R5II at ISO 12800.

Now, what are we going to do with these images? Unless you are DPR and have an image comparison page, you will apply NR. So, your assertion about considering editing software in the equation is not without merit. With modern FF cameras noise comparison without considering editing software is mostly academic.

How about shadow lifting?

I have done a few tests with the mechanical shutter. As long as there is some light in an area of the image before it was darkened (to preserve highlight for example), shadow lifting can be done up to 5 stops without significant image penalty (at base ISO). Up to 3 stops is easy. I don’t know how this compares with R5 MKI, DPR didn’t provide any mechanical shutter image for comparison.

My feeling so far is that for all practical purposes, R5 II IQ is similar to R5I.

We have an open topic where the two test scene setups may not be equal.

Still to resolve it the same amount of light is present to both camera sensors.

Test scene was moved building and recommissioned between these two cameras test data production and release.

So, utilising these scenes to compare such camera characteristics may (may) not be ideal.

I don’t think DPR have ever claimed their studio scene test images represent an absolutely rigorous scientific standard. There are simply too many possible variables. They are a very useful guide but we shouldn’t treat them as absolutely definitive.

 

[SrMi]

Does R5II produce more noise than R5 at high ISO?

Most people agree that up to ISO 6400, there is virtually no difference between the two cameras. I downloaded ISO 12800 files for both cameras from DPR and opened them in Camera RAW with default parameters. At 100%, I couldn’t tell one from the other. At 200%, slightly more noise was visible in the R5II image in a few parts. For ISO 25600, slightly more noise was visible at 100% in some parts.

When is this excess noise visible?

For ISO 12800, excess noise can be seen at 200%. For ISO 25600, excess noise can be seen at 100%. At smaller sizes (6000x4000, for example), I couldn’t see any difference. In other words, above ISO 12800 pixel-peeping would show slightly increased noise. This excess noise is about the same as the difference between electronic and mechanical shutter noise produced by R5II at ISO 12800.

Now, what are we going to do with these images? Unless you are DPR and have an image comparison page, you will apply NR. So, your assertion about considering editing software in the equation is not without merit. With modern FF cameras noise comparison without considering editing software is mostly academic.

How about shadow lifting?

I have done a few tests with the mechanical shutter. As long as there is some light in an area of the image before it was darkened (to preserve highlight for example), shadow lifting can be done up to 5 stops without significant image penalty (at base ISO). Up to 3 stops is easy. I don’t know how this compares with R5 MKI, DPR didn’t provide any mechanical shutter image for comparison.

My feeling so far is that for all practical purposes, R5 II IQ is similar to R5I.

We have an open topic where the two test scene setups may not be equal.

Still to resolve it the same amount of light is present to both camera sensors.

Test scene was moved building and recommissioned between these two cameras test data production and release.

So, utilising these scenes to compare such camera characteristics may (may) not be ideal.

I don’t think DPR have ever claimed their studio scene test images represent an absolutely rigorous scientific standard. There are simply too many possible variables. They are a very useful guide but we shouldn’t treat them as absolutely definitive.

+1

 

[Ephemeris]

Does R5II produce more noise than R5 at high ISO?

Most people agree that up to ISO 6400, there is virtually no difference between the two cameras. I downloaded ISO 12800 files for both cameras from DPR and opened them in Camera RAW with default parameters. At 100%, I couldn’t tell one from the other. At 200%, slightly more noise was visible in the R5II image in a few parts. For ISO 25600, slightly more noise was visible at 100% in some parts.

When is this excess noise visible?

For ISO 12800, excess noise can be seen at 200%. For ISO 25600, excess noise can be seen at 100%. At smaller sizes (6000x4000, for example), I couldn’t see any difference. In other words, above ISO 12800 pixel-peeping would show slightly increased noise. This excess noise is about the same as the difference between electronic and mechanical shutter noise produced by R5II at ISO 12800.

Now, what are we going to do with these images? Unless you are DPR and have an image comparison page, you will apply NR. So, your assertion about considering editing software in the equation is not without merit. With modern FF cameras noise comparison without considering editing software is mostly academic.

How about shadow lifting?

I have done a few tests with the mechanical shutter. As long as there is some light in an area of the image before it was darkened (to preserve highlight for example), shadow lifting can be done up to 5 stops without significant image penalty (at base ISO). Up to 3 stops is easy. I don’t know how this compares with R5 MKI, DPR didn’t provide any mechanical shutter image for comparison.

My feeling so far is that for all practical purposes, R5 II IQ is similar to R5I.

We have an open topic where the two test scene setups may not be equal.

Still to resolve it the same amount of light is present to both camera sensors.

Test scene was moved building and recommissioned between these two cameras test data production and release.

So, utilising these scenes to compare such camera characteristics may (may) not be ideal.

I don’t think DPR have ever claimed their studio scene test images represent an absolutely rigorous scientific standard. There are simply too many possible variables. They are a very useful guide but we shouldn’t treat them as absolutely definitive.

I'm not sure if that reply was to me, but on the chance it was I'm suggesting don't use the scene.

Here is some information about the scene, it's purposes, the low light mode and a host of useful information

+1

 

[R2D2]

Using NR would not be a way to compare the camera system.

Of course it would, given that the system itself included processing. And even if you want to exclude that, since you have to use some processing or other, the only relevant way to compare cameras for your own usage is to use the processing that you use. That's why I used this processing for this, because it's the processing I use. As I've said in other threads, there's simply no such thing as a camera's (in this case meaning a sensor's) performance in isolation from processing. Cameras produce images in concert with processing. We use cameras to produce images, so we have to use some processing or other to compare them. Given that, why would we choose to compare using processing that we'll never actually use to produce our own images? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Similar to turning on lens corrections doesn't help us understand a lens performance.

Of course it does. Many modern lenses are designed to work with lens corrections. You can't understand such a lens's performance without using lens corrections. It's the whole system that produces the image. It looks like your thinking is stuck in the film era, which is understandable. But even then, processing played a major part in many photographers' workflows.

Agree with you 100% Alastair.

IME the only relevant comparison includes the all-important processing step as well. They simply can't be divorced from each other. That'll only ever give you a partial picture.

R2