Check out the Raws: Canon EOS R5 sample gallery update

DaftPunk - It depends on your available funds and on your priorities. I know several hobbyist bird photographers who own camera outfits that cost double the figure you mentioned.

Given the choice between upgrading my 15 year old wreck of a car, or getting an R5 and a couple of lenses, the Canon gear would win every time for me.

But (assuming I had the money) given the choice between the car, the Canon gear or a couple of once-in-a-lifetime holidays, I'd take the holidays.

@entoman: yes you are correct: it all depends on one's priorities and budget. Nothing wrong with spending money on photo gear.

I know some who spend far more money on things like their Harley Davidson bikes, or their boats, or golfing equipment and club fees. Nothing wrong with those things either.

Overall, photography, even with high level gear, can be less expensive than many other gear type of hobbies.

That could be the baked in noise reduction at low ISOs :/

Scrollop, the very slight NR at low ISO is totally irrelevant to this question, which concerned high ISO images.

According to the vast majority. it's just you.

@Snapper2013 thank you for summarizing the responses for me - I think I have an answer so that is fair enough. Though would be a little careful claiming 'vast majority' on the basis of 5 responses out of which two aren't relevant :)

I do really think that high res cameras are very special tools with limited usage. And they are total overkill for average photo/video grapher. This is why I really think Canon made mistake with R5/R6 resolution choice. Seems like R5 is too high and R6 is too low. Now they have APS-C with 24.1Mpix and 32.5Mpix sensors siting in between their 135 format cameras. Of course RP 26.2Mpix and R 30.3Mpix are still available.
But time will tell.

be careful with the studio comparision tool. The result highly depends on the used lens. You can see the lens when you download the RAW file.
Some Fuji cameras, for example, have soft corners and look like sh*t in the comparison tool. And that's because of the lens.

Video-vs-photo - I think people tend to buy what they can afford. Rightly or wrongly people who can afford it are likely to buy a hi-res model, because they perceive it as "better", and because it will usually have a higher specification than a cheaper lo-res model.

I think Canon made a very sensible choice with the res of the R5. Anything over 50MP would be regarded as overkill and too heavy on computer processors and storage. Anything lower than 40MP would be seen as uncompetitive.

As far as the R6 is concerned, I would have preferred 30MP, with the R6 advertised as the replacement for the R. If they had done so, I would have bought it immediately.

I agree that 20MP will be seen by many as insufficient, because all the cameras's competitors are 24MP. But the comparison tool makes it clear that the R6 sensor produces images at least as sharp as its slightly higher res competitors.

My simple answer: most comments are negative, so the lack of comments here means the IQ is very good. No complaints.

;-)

The camera is being sold for 8K video. If it can't capture it without overheating, it isn't worth $4,000 to a lot of people.

Uh....no. It's being sold as a hybrid and performs exactly as Canon described prior to its release. It's not a dedicated video device. But it does do limited 8K recording. So...compare it to all the other 8K capable hybrids out there and let me know how it stacks up.

@Greg OH - Wrong. It’s a stills camera marketed as such, that also happens to shoot 8K. That you think it’s a video camera is your opinion, not fact. Stop spreading misinformation.

@Gmon750: You Canon brand warriors are seriously funny in finding alternative facts. Grow up!

https://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/eos-r5/
"Whatever you shoot, however you shoot it, the EOS R5 will let you be creative in ways you simply couldn’t before. Capture sensational 45 megapixel photos at up to 20 frames per second*, or cinematic 12 bit 8K RAW video using the entire width of the camera’s sensor."

@orim_70: what part of that statement by Canon isn't true?

I travel to Seattle for work quite often, and it is a pretty wretched disgusting city. There is urine and feces everywhere, high pressure panhandlers everywhere, rampant crime, and so on and so forth. This documentary sums it up nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw

Ravrad, I could use your comments and apply it to almost any large city anywhere in the world. A fair few of these cities would even be outside the USA. I’ve been to Seattle a few times and thought it was a great place, too cold though.

Visiting a city is very different to living in it.

Slatts-from-Oz, I will have to disagree with you. I travel full time and can fire off quite a few cities that look nothing like the filth and squalor of Seattle. Take Austin for instance, just left there and spent quite a bit of time exploring every part of it, and saw none of what you will see in Seattle. I could cite a lot more examples both in and of the U.S., but it would be for nothing because I'm sure we're both not changing our opinions.

Thanks RavRad. I did some research and it’s clear that on paper Austin looks appealing.

I”ve never been to Austin and i’m not sure if I ever will, I can’t think of a reason to visit. I could easily compare my hometown (pop1M) with Austin and come to the conclusion that Austin is a hotbed of crime and gun violence. There are places in and around my city I am not comfortable visiting.

The real pity that you are posting opinions on public forums and have no intention of changing your mind. Attitudes like this are the biggest problem with America today.

I've spent a fair bit of time in both Seattle and Austin. Both have their charms, and their drawbacks. Weatherwise, Austin is a good place to go in the winter, but wretched in the summer (but not as bad as Houston). With Seattle, it's pretty much the reverse. Both have a lot to offer in terms of arts, culture, food, etc. The biggest drawback of Austin is that it is in Texas, though, as Texas cities go, it's the least bad one. I lived in Texas for fifteen years (Dallas and Houston), so I'm talking from long experience, not caricature. In terms of filth, crime, etc. I think RavRad must have had the bad fortune to have visited an unpleasant part of Seattle. None of that description sounds like any part of Seattle I've visited. If raw sewage is your thing, Houston can't be beat (that's mostly because it's so close to sea-level and floods frequently).

@ RavRad. Watched the video. Usual scaremongering tripe to get eyeballs. Almost any major city in the US has a homeless problem a trash problem and other assorted issues.
I visit Seattle regularly and while there are problems they are not unique to the city or the PNW.
I would note that despite this wailing tale of woe, people are moving here in droves as evidenced by the housing prices. Construction activity is also a sign of growth just as it is in Austin.
The Puget Sound region just has way more attractions for young people than just the great job market. While Austin, outside of its local culture is still in Texas.

it's all about the toneh.

Agree. The range and IQ of that 24-105 is excellent. I don't need the extra two stops.

Get real. A great photographer might produce 12 pieces a year that you would deem artistic and worthy. You really expect a journalist, who is a very good photographer, to be able to just go out and shoot a couple dozen world class pieces of art on a deadline? For every article or review? Come on. These are reviews. You don't need to be moved to tears by a photograph in order to judge the quality of the camera or lens. Did you try shooting the neowise comet? I did, it was hard. This is a very nice capture of it! Go start your own photography gear review website if you're so great.

Its a review site. The photos should show what the camera can do. The samples are meaningless anyways unless you can directly compare them to another camera.

Or the sample explains why that particular photo was easier or harder to get compared to another camera.

I would have a mark on the floor that the same model stands in the same light with the same expression so that I can compare it to the other cameras.

Makes no difference the artistic content of the samples. Take the camera for a joyride and show us some photos is fine.

cdembrey, I actually know a couple of those "English Majors from the University of Southern California (USC)" who wrote for Petersen, in those days. Do you think Peterson would have paid salaries to those writers and editors if the copy he was receiving from the fabricators was even remotely readable? Have you actually seen any of the copy that was turned in as "stories"? Yes, I'm sure mistakes and omissions were made, short deadlines, and little time --but come on...

Maybe if you would articulate your point in the first place you wouldn't look like such an ungrateful jerk.

JackM- I completely agree with the points you make in your original reply to kayphoto, but is it really necessary to refer to someone as "an ungrateful jerk" just because they made a comment criticising the photographic skills of the reviewers?

While you are by no means the worst offender, the rudeness on this site is despicable. Rise above it.

Sorry entoman. kayphoto accused me (twice now) of getting a big thrill out of eliciting a lot of likes on my comment, which I don't, so I hit back. Am I supposed to just take that crap lying down?

You are right, I don't frequent many discussion sites, (half dozen?) but this one is one of the nastiest, even compared to Facebook.

As an owner of another discussion site, I am particularly irritated by the whining of people who feel entitled to something that is given to them for free.

kayphoto, oh, so sincere.

The NR, or whatever it is, is done at very very low signal levels; you would not notice it unless you do something extreme. It takes some non-trivial skills to even measure it.

Yeah, I realize that it's mostly a matter of principle and makes no practical difference for 99% of photography. (Astro is probably the most common exception.) As a matter of principle though, I object to having any processing applied to my RAWs in a non-optional way.

Pro photographers don't read these reviews as a buying guide and are not the target audience. Pros know the shooting envelope of their equipment and adjust accordingly.

@otto k, Pros don't. But many Advanced Amateurs could use some of these pro features that are overlooked by online reviewers. Chasing toddlers around the living room is a good use of 10 or 20 fps eye-focus. Team sports is another—do you have a granddaughter who is a high school/college pole vaulter? Twenty fps eye-focus will allow you to capture the decisive moment as she flies through the air and over the bar. For still-life enthusiasts focus stack is a useful feature—does anyone at DPR even know that the RP and the R5 both do focus stacking? Should also be good for from-here-to-infinity-everything-in-focus landscape shots.

@cdembrey Not even the user manual mentions any focus stacking feature. Are you sure you mean focus stacking, and not focus *bracketting*?

@cdembrey, the competing cameras also offers 10 or 20 fps with eye-AF tracking for human subjects. I agree with the poster, all cameras are good enough these days unless you need a specialised tool.

@cdembrey I know, but the difference in wording is crucial and you confuse people with such assertions:

R5 does not do in-camera stacking (e.g. OM-D E-M1 does it)
Much lower cost cameras do focus bracketting too (e.g. X-T3)

BTW, not everyone uses Canon software for processing their (Canon camera) images, and it is not available for everyone either.

@cdembrey – During bracketing, does it sync flash and allow user setting of recycling delay? For me, that would be critical for studio product photography.

@obsolescence, I've have not used a R5 yet. I'm retired and have no pressing need for an R5. Maybe for some surfing shots in 2021, I'll rent a R5 with a RF 800mm f/11.

In the past I used a Profoto 2400 Watt Second D4. The D4 has a fast recycling time at low power. Now-a-days, for hobby shots with an R5, I'd use multiple 600EX Speedlites. When used with a battery pack Speedlites have a quick recycling time.

20fps and eye tracking is actually useless with R5/R6 cameras because of the HUGE rolling shutter....... So this is why this is not hyped.
Which is very different from what we read from just a few self repeating blind- Canon believers..............
Or otherwise said if your subject is not fast moving why do you need 20fps? And if your subject is fast moving you will get distortion with electronic shutter so it is useless. It is about to see how good it is with artificial light sync.......

Isn’t the 20 fps with the electronic shutter? If so, doesn’t this introduce jello effects compared the mechanical shutter for fast motion?

I know most major camera companies tout the highest FPS possible, but they usually have caveats that limit uses cases such as not using the mechanical shutter or not allowing the highest bit depth (some cams restrict to 12-bits instead of 14-bit RAWs).

Yes the R5 do 20 fps with the electronic shutter that has jello because of its slow readout. The only reliable cameras that have fast silent shutter for action are A9 and A9ii.

Video-vs-phot - "if your subject is not fast moving why do you need 20fps?"

I agree that a9/a9ii are far more suitable for sports, expecially when panning, which causes vertical lines of posts etc in the background to be warped, also golf clubs, aircraft propellers etc.

I'm not a sports shooter, but there are several situations in which I'd find 20fps useful:

1) Wildlife photography, in which there are rarely any obvious straight lines, so any distortion from rolling shutter would be minimal and probably completely unnoticeable.

For wildlife photography it's also extremely useful to have the 45MP sensor, which allows far more options for cropping than the 20MP of the R6 or 24MP of the a9ii.

continued....

Do you see it here?
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eosr5&attr13_1=sony_a7riv&attr13_2=nikon_z7&attr13_3=pentax_k1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=102400&attr16_1=102400&attr16_2=102400&attr16_3=102400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.6421209952731093&y=1.1360196260107818

Picture 76 shows quite some banding.

Toni, you mean the ISO 51,200 shot?

"a new updated camera is not going to help you here."

Why wouldnt it when Sony has changed their color science in new models in the past?

Because the in-camera "color science" is irrelevant when you shoot RAW. And that has been a possibility for a long time with any camera.

Someone please tell Phase One that they don't have a clue what they are talking about. The experts at DPReview to the rescue. It's just tweaks in post.

https://www.phaseone.com/en/Photography/Camera-Technology/Trichromatic-Technology

An R5 with a trichromatic sensor? Now that would be something worth buying!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60658069

@fPrime I would pay good money for that :-)

@danart said: "You only need to improve your post processing skills ..."

Get it right in camera, then NO post processing is required. Sorta like shooting 'Chromes in the film days. To make money pros need get it right in camera. Only hobbyists have the time to futz with Raw.

Color science, lol!

@henrick - this is a review site and many commenting here are far more knowledgeable than dpr staff in post production

Real knowledge is understanding the true colour values that you are dealing with to be able to get what you want out of an image regardless of the brand.

From my personal experience Sony actually represents the most neutral and malleable formulas

If you think trichromatic sensors are the answer and won’t require post processing to meet personal preference - I hate to tell you, this is far from the truth. Trichromatic sensors will give you the most accurate colour. However accurate colour is not the most pleasing and the colours from say canon or fuji SOOC that many applaud are far from accurate. The reason people claim Sony colour science “suck“ is that it is in fact more accurate. However if you are willing to put in the work you will get the results you desire.

That any real professional is relying on SOOC from brand a) or brand b) is nonsense.

If a camera has something like a "color science" than this should be the first reason NOT to buy it.

A camera has to reproduce as accurate as possible the colors in nature and NOT to add a brand tint ... was Canon basically does. Look at the reds in Canon cameras, they are terrible and has always been.

If you saw a sample gallery of a R5 with a trichromatic sensor as edited by DPR staff SOOC this place would be littered with negative comments.

Beside the fact that most people here wouldn’t even have their monitors correctly calibrated to actually represent truer accurate color values, they would also struggle to understand that accurate colour means you must post process to meet your artistic vision. Yes this is what is desired by those that are willing to put in the work. However as it stands you already have the tools at your disposal to meet your vision, it’s a matter of knowing what you are doing.

Whilst no doubt these Sony/Phase one sensors will deliver, they are not cutting out work for you.

Phase one is marketing their sensors and post production software just as much as canon market their “colour science “ However this tech is not the answer for amateurs with no post production abilities. It’s a benefit to those that have extensive knowledge in post production.

@danart said: "That any real professional is relying on SOOC from brand a) or brand b) is nonsense."

I use a professional retoucher for all my paid work. She doesn't waste time and money converting my CR files. My jpegs look exactly the same as Adobe converted CR files. Some of us DO know how to get-it-right in-camera.

Back-in-the-day a color-stripper couldn't save you *ss. You absolutely had to get your exposure/color right for your 'Chromes to be used for advertising.

@cdembrey -

What kind of pros are we talking about here?

Run and gun press photographers? This hardly represents the paradigm of photographic output let alone the majority.

I expose correctly as to what meets my needs in post. What I am proposing is not spending more time in the post. Its actually having the knowledge to build a pleasing preset as a base to spend less time in post and not settle on generic jpeg presets.

What this knowledge also allows is the ability to process beyond what is not always simply getting it right SOOC as this is not always achievable when relying on in camera processing that cannot compensate for challenging lighting.

You think that pros in the days of film didn't master darkroom techniques to their output ? Master photographers like W.Eugene Smith considered the darkroom to be 90% of creation.

The idea that in the days of film images were not heavily post processed is laughable.

@ cdembrey,

You are obviously not reading the point. This has nothing to do with getting it right in camera, which is not only a given but also dependant on the intention of the output. Post processing is not a crutch for bad in camera work it is a means to get a signature result. If this was not the case your wouldn’t be paying a retoucher good money to get what you need after you get it right in camera.

All my photography is made for fine art display and I work it end to end, however what I’m looking for is a signature look, not generic output. The idea that one is simply stuck with manufacturers settings as it pertains to “colour science” is simply not true and my point being that one can get far more pleasing results than what is simply offered SOOC- to get these kinds of results just requires a bit of know how.

Wait for the A7V instead. And when it comes out, start waiting for the A7VI, which will be even better.

Old Cameras - But will any Sony ever feel so good in your hands as a Canon?

Sony make technological marvels and I have nothing but praise for the way they've pushed the envelope. Without competition from Sony, brands such as Canon and Nikon would have no incentive to have reached the stage they've now achieved. So a heartfelt thank you to Sony from me.

But a Sony to me always feels like a vast toolshed, full of technologically advanced tools, that are just uncomfortable (to me) to hold and operate.

Shoot raw and edit to your own taste with your own colour science. Thats all I can say.

@naththo: Except that the "color science" is baked into the RAW already.

Color science is more about the converter you use. ACR seems pretty poor for most brands

Too bad is mostly about processing skills. I’ll give you a walking to school in the snow story. Using a Hasselblad 503CX many years ago I had to get the shot right or you would be processing corrections forever especially after shooting an event with 300-400 shots vs the 3,000+ you can pick your best shots from now. I can say I’m not the best post processor but sure enjoy the benefits of the new R5. It helps.

@Old cameras "Wait for the A7V instead. And when it comes out, start waiting for the A7VI, which will be even better."

I wonder why Sony keeps on changing their color science with each model they release.

Paired with any decent photographer, all current FF bodies available are set for any task possible.

danart:

Just commenting on stills:

The D610 is no good for sports, nor is a Leica M10. The D750 has had its buffer hobbled via firmware. The Canon 6DII has horrid DR, so does the RP.

The 5DIV is not an especially strong higher ISO body.

Because of the AF system, the Panasonic and Pentax bodies are not great for sports, nor is the Leica SL2.

@HowaboutRAW - The D610 is a 8 yo camera, (Note I said current) - but yes a good photographer with a D610 will still get better results vs some hack with a 1DX mark iii or what ever when shooting sports. A hack is a hack and all "issues" you have listed here would not stop a good photographer dealing with anything thrown at them.

Understanding of composition, timing and artistic vision are not feature sets found on any camera.

https://petapixel.com/2013/02/08/david-burnetts-speed-graphic-photos-of-the-london-2012-olympics/

Nope. There are specialized cameras that are better for specific tasks.
For sports, there are cameras with better AF.
For low light, there are cameras with higher dynamic range at high ISO.
For landscape, there are cameras with higher resolution and DR.
But the R5 is a good allrounder.

@Danart. Some of what you say is arguable, but there is a good reason professionals don't all possess the same camera to do very different tasks, because at the critical point they offer very different things. To say a professional will always outperform an amateur with a higher spec camera is not exactly a revelation, nor does it necessarily support your broader claim.

@Hoxton, the point being that all current cameras from entry, to enthusiasts will be able to undertake any task thrown at them - simply for the fact that they offer just as much if not more than what high end professionals cameras offered only a few years

Simply put, we are at the point of sufficiency, that if you the photographer is not getting the shot, it’s a user issue.

Part of being a good photographer is understanding your tools and knowing it’s limitations and being able to get the most from them. Sure you can benefit from a better camera, but if you cannot achieve everything thrown at you with a camera from the last few years it is no fault of the camera.

howaboutraw, rarely seen so many wrong and unsubstantiated claims in one post... do you own the camera so you can judge or is this an armchair review (never mind, i know the answer)?

All the native Canon glass is unbelievably expensive and also huge and heavy. Those are important considerations for a system. But the R5 does look great. But body plus lenses is heavy and mind bogglingly expensive

Most Z glass is much better balanced than RF on size/weight vs IQ and price.

Canon's Digital Photo Professional has always been the best CR converter. It makes a lot of sense that the people who coded the CR files would make the best CR converter. I've been using DPP for over fifteen years. An added plus is that DPP comes FREE with Canon's ILCs.

Even if it wasn't as good as it is, DPP is priced right.

@A Owens - True... technically we don’t know where he’s headed yet in MILC land.

I will note, however, that it was only until he had an R5 in his hands that he decided to sell off his Nikon gear. The A7RIV, in other words, wasn’t able to provoke the same reaction despite being out for half a year ahead of the R5.

Taste is subjective, tints are not.

With these samples, it will be hard to show how special they. Which they are.

I pre ordered the R5 early July, owned most DSLRs Canon made. So I have nothing against the idea of Canon being special with its "colour science". I see nothing special here. Good colours, but my A9 is just as good. If something, I think my Fuji X-100 has more stand out colours out of the camera.

The first thing I noticed about the gallery images was how nice the colours were. I'm not saying they are better (or worse) than anything else, but they look pretty good to me.

@entoman
really? Generally speaking the images do not pop in any regard for my taste. What looks special is the rendering of the unique zoom lens. Not that special if it was a prime, but definitely worth appreciating once you realize it is a zoom. However I use 99% of the time primes in this range, so the 3D pop and subject isolation of these images do not impress me particularly.

In this particular gallery, I find no special colors, indeed. No the "other brand" colors, at least, which is good. Of course, this is just one gallery. Seattle light (but quite a few shot in Leavenworth) and all that.

Agree with JACS, I see no color magic in SOOC JPEGs and “Everybody-else’s color” in the RAW conversions through Adobe. Basically the R5 looks like modern Canikony color to me.

Personally I think any Canon color magic that there historically was dissipated after 5D Classic and what image magic remains is now purely in the L glass.

After two years of Sony and their always to be corrected WB and tints (green/yellow with all LR colour profiles) well Canon does the colour trick to me, minimal raw adjustments right out of the box and jpegs always great ready for immediate social sharing, all my friends noted the (huge) difference. Obviously it's a matter of personal taste.

armandido - "really?"

Yes, really, I'm brand-neutral, so why would I give a dishonest opinion?

Not that it matters a toss, because it's only relevant to people who shoot OOC JPEGs, and anyone with an ounce of skill can easily tweak the colours, saturation and contrast to their personal taste in post.

Colour reproduction shouldn't be a deal-breaker in camera purchasing decisions (although it can be a pain having to balance colour to match that of another brand, if consistency of colour is particularly important to you).

aris - As far as I'm concerned, the more DR the better. It's extremely useful to have high levels of DR is you're shooting a contrasty scene in which there are both deep shadows and highly reflective highlights.

And it makes post-processing much easier and faster if you have flexible high DR files to begin with.

After all, you don't have to take advantage of the DR if you don't want to - it's easy enough to tweak curves to get a higher contrast range if that looks best for a particular image (which it often does, providing more "punch").

A lot of people are getting the R5 because it works so well with the best lens system, EF mount, You can use you DSLR and mirrorless together and not lose functionality with either.

Seriously?? Had your comment been posted in the Nikon forum it would have been considered a trolling post and removed.

thats probably as F mount is broken and 1/2 the lenses don't work with 1/2 the body's

@Snapper2013 - Let’s just celebrate that the fact that the comment sections are still lightly moderated. Maybe TOF Guy will see that this is the way all forums should be operated. Minority opinions are valid and shouldn’t automatically be censored as trolling.

.