Canon EOS R5 sample gallery: from the mountains to the sound

Much better now (than sooc jpegs) as expected. Who would buy a $2,500 camera plus several $2,000+ lenses to shoot sooc jpegs. I know the photojournos on tight deadlines. But who else?

10 months ago*permalink

lawny13

wow... you can zoom in on the top left white truck and read what is printed on the side of it.

10 months agopermalink

I totally agree that for some poeple, the R6 is probably the right option.
It is a bit harder to me when coming from 30Mp of the R.
Anyway I have noticed something when reading tons of comments here : many poeple tend to really destroy the things they can’t afford. Even with illogical statements. It is crazy. Was the case for the 50RF, the 85RF and now with the R5.

10 months agopermalink

MarkNewman87

Now waiting for Adobe to add the R5 cr3 support. Would be nice to explore these RAWs on a P3 display and with RNI film profiles.

10 months ago*permalink

naththo

I agreed totally preferred Raw all the way.

10 months agopermalink

It is a shame that Adobe still not offers a real profile for the RP... the R5 is another beast, but still I am very disappointed by Adobe :(.

10 months agopermalink

The R5 is capable of better, obviously.
You can pick here some examples : https://www.shutterbug.com/content/shooting-new-canon-r5-r6-what-7-photographers-think-new-canon-camera-gear-sample-images

Not Sooc but can give an idea of what can be done with files

10 months agopermalink

forget it... first of all, as you say, they are all heavily retouched. Second: they are not high-res. Third: The pictures have been taken with perfect (studio) light.

The R5 is probably a stunning camera, but each modern DSLR/M can produce those stunning results under those perfect circumstances, easy peasy.

10 months agopermalink

So you want the R5 to have perfect results under average conditions?

10 months agopermalink

I don't understand you last post, what do you mean?

10 months agopermalink

You said to forget these samples because conditions were perfect. So the gallery here is not showing the capabilites of the R5, but perfect conditions dont show it either. Conclusion : we should stop looking at any R5 shots, all are useless.

10 months agopermalink

ahem... no? I was saying that you cannot give a conclusion about image quality by watching your link. What's wrong with that? Am I wrong? These images could have been taken with any modern FF, no matter if it is labeled Canon, Sony, Nikon or whatsoever.
I was in no way talking about the gallery here on DPR.

10 months agopermalink

I was posting this link in reaction to some comments saying that the dpr gallery was useless, or saying that any camera can do that, etc. So I showed better quality images. But you say they are useless. Whatever source it is, at the end it is useless...

10 months agopermalink

Yes BossMan

SHAKE, RATTLE and ROLL (recorded 1954) taking the edge off sharp.

The stage is set: Junk in, junk out.

It's the camera's AUTO FOCUS that's BLIND. No way! It's has to be the BUILT IN LENS stabilization's fault. What about the BUILT IN CAMERA stabilization, it seems not able to deal with the TREMORS. No NEED FOR TRIPODS: I have the "built ins" Etc.....they give me all the freedom I need. Just shoot with a high ISO, the software will be your parachute. Results based on the above, the new way things are done. Hard to please 45mg sensors, just giving back, showing what you gave it to work with. So much advanced image technology never seeing the light of the day. It's there to be had if you perform, it will perform. Good Night Chet.

10 months agopermalink

whatever you had for breakfast, don't eat it again... :)

10 months agopermalink

Kharan

I'll have to unfortunately add my voice to the chorus of people complaining about the quality of the gallery. There's nothing wrong in trimming the fat from a gallery as large as this one (i.e. remove many of the poorer samples). I understand that we all have less inspired days, and that it's hard to keep on pumping out samples, which is why a little additional editorial control is necessary. Some of the photos are pretty good, but there's a large amount of images so pointless, that it leads me to wonder if the staff simply phoned their work in (due to boredom or tiredness, maybe).

Regarding the IQ, I see nothing here that Sony-made high MP chips haven't done years ago. I guess that's good, as it means that Canon are catching up, but there's nothing new, and the colors look almost indistinguishable from an A7M3. The JPEG engine is as mediocre as always, the AA-filter robs files of critical resolution, and the banding in the nightscapes is a huge black mark. Meh.

10 months ago*permalink

MarkNewman87

Absolutely. They could have asked a real photographer or someone from the Canon explorers program to do the samples. It's not that expensive.

Testing a camera for professional photographers and leaving the shooting part to the journalists and gear enthusiasts is a bit odd.

10 months ago*permalink

Tony Speed

I don't read these sample galleries as an ultimate attempt to produce the very best what the camera is capable of. Simply because the camera is still so new and unknown (knowhow from exprrience) to the photographers.

I understand them as very similar to what a camera enthusiast tourist or amateur/hobby level user would get while walk-around. Nothing special sure and I agree that the gallery could be filtered a bit more.

Personally I would've liked to see proper night time shots with slow and fast glass. And a sports event would've been nice just to see the AF a bit more. These types could be included in all sample galleries, to give variety besides the lot of the snapshot-like photos.

10 months agopermalink

Kharan

My point is simply that I've seen much better galleries from the same people. Carey, in particular, strikes me as a man with a great eye for composition, but his work in this one is very mediocre. I understand that every site is rushing like mad to post samples of the R5 and ride the hype train, but still, if I were in charge I'd publish fewer but more inspired samples. There's quite a few good ones in the gallery already.

10 months agopermalink

Sproesser

Is there any way to edit the R5 .CR3 RAW files?? I can't get Lightroom classic or Canon DPP to work with these samples.

10 months agopermalink

Aaron Yang

Can't wait to get this camera for its amazing IBIS, focus stacking ability. Coupled with reasonably acceptable autofocus performance and a very good 28-70mm f/2, it would be the perfect camera for most applications I need (portrait, event photography, street photography, landscape).

10 months agopermalink

Relaxed

You can probably apply for marketing work at Canon as well :)

10 months agopermalink

gameshoes3003

You’ll like that 28-70 F2. I only got to use it for a little bit on an RP, and it was a nice experience. I was tempted to buy that combo myself.

10 months agopermalink

Neuropsychology

Noticed no mention of video lol. We can make smores by the heat of the R5 and R6 during 8k video recording :)

10 months agopermalink

Stigg

Looking at the samples and in particular the shot with red foliage, it reminds me very much of the Canon Powershot S5IS that I used for some time and still have somewhere. The color rendition is a bit more saturated and lively with the S5 though. Maybe the ccd sensor was partially responsible for that. For shooters of mostly stationary subjects an old Canon camera will do at least as well as a new $4000 camera.

10 months agopermalink

AccipiterQ

The night sky shots look amazing...The others don't look any different than a 1DXii, or even 7Dii in terms of quality. I remember thinking before this was released that it'd end up being more of a landscape type camera, as opposed to a jack-of-all-trades like the 5DIV. The gallery here seems to confirm that; I wasn't expecting master-pieces, but the 'every day' type shots wouldn't justify (at least to me) switching to this. Now if I was a landscape photographer...yeah, those shots were phenomenal.

10 months agopermalink

Is that better for you? https://www.shutterbug.com/images/Lindsay-6.jpg

Simple jpgs will remain simple jpgs

10 months agopermalink

SETI

Canon R5 + 28-70mm is cheating! =)

10 months agopermalink

Jack Jian

With R6, Cheating+

10 months agopermalink

dtibi

Why? Should be tested with lensbaby? :P

10 months ago*permalink

Urs Roethlisberger

I'd like to see some photos taken with the RF 85mm 1.2 and the RF 50mm 1.2.

10 months agopermalink

oivecrp2

What do people think of the dynamic range of these images? I am a little concerned about the fact that it is not a BSI sensor. I think it’s a little constricted but there were a lot of very contrasts scenes. What do you think?

10 months agopermalink

Jack Jian

Now that the raw are posted, you can wait ill Canon release DPP or Adobe updates. Playing Jared's file, it's very good!

10 months agopermalink

Oivecrp2
It is what it is......

10 months agopermalink

Magnar W

Where do you see dynamic range limitations?

10 months agopermalink

@oivecrp, it is hard to tell anything about dynamic range when seeing jpgs and not working with the RAWs. Because one does not know anything about the original scene the camera had to cope with.

10 months agopermalink

and just my 5cent... dynamic range will be good enough for 99% of all situations. I mean, when do you relly have to push shadows two stops or more? Very rarely, no?

10 months agopermalink

It looks contrasty, but it's the jpegs, I just opened some of the raws, I am very pleased. The shadows are very clean and from what I see, color sensitivity also got a boost. Overall resulting in really nice files to manipulate freely to your liking. I can yoink the sliders around all I want, nothing get nasty or breaks up, a stark contrast to the Eos R.

10 months ago*permalink

dtibi

Oh, again another user who wants in a single exposure the milky way and the sun

10 months agopermalink

What exactly does backside illumination have to do with dynamic range?

10 months agopermalink

bsi sensors have larger light collection surface or less obstruction of the lights paths per pixel which can result in better light gathering abilities and thus less noise and better distinction of values in the shadow areas, which in turn means (marginally) more usable dynamic range.

10 months agopermalink

But why would it? The better light collection also affects the highlights, so they presumably clip correspondingly sooner. So you expose slightly less to protect them, and you end up back where you started, with the same amount of light in the shadows as if the sensor had not been backside-illuminated.

Or is there something I am missing?

10 months agopermalink

Magnar W

@ spider-mario: You are missing the effect of the total light-gathering area. More area is larger span between highlight and shadow.

10 months ago*permalink

Do you mean that the FWC also grows with it?

10 months agopermalink

More (photon)data is more precision because the ratio of noise generated by the sensors electronics has less impact on the signal value. Therefore it's easier to distinguish real from false pixeldata, which means at the bottom end you end up with more usable information aka more shadow detail. The sensor is more light sensitive which means the manufacturer can map the whole iso range to the sensor output differently which means better dynamic range for every iso level.

10 months agopermalink

But you only have more photon data if you can actually store it, i.e. if you have a higher full well capacity, independently of how fast that well fills. More light sensitivity is good for SNR in low light, but in itself, that’s not what gives you a higher SNR in abundant light or more dynamic range. Whether you capture 20k photons in 1/1500s or 1/2000s, that’s still 20k photons.

In other words, FWC and read noise affect dynamic range, but quantum efficiency does not. Now, backside illumination improves QE, but does it also improve FWC or read noise?

10 months ago*permalink

You would have to expose the sensor for a shorter amount of time or need less amplification to the signal to gain the same information because you don't loose the photons. Both situations create less opportunity for noise to be introduced. Time introduces more noise and gain amplifies noise. If the noisefloor drops you can do with less photons to register a meaningful value above black. I must admit my English is a bit too limited at this point to explain it better. We are so close to the theoretical optimum in sensors that these improvements aren't worlds apart. Canon and Arri are both using split pixels in a dual gain output setup to enlarge dynamic range in their cinema camera's. I'm somewhat surprised they haven't mentioned something like that for the R5 actually ... I would be interested if it's just part of their standard sensor architecture now...

10 months agopermalink

But by definition, if you are making full use of your camera’s dynamic range for a given shot, you are clipping the signal or just about to. So merely being more sensitive to light *forces* you to expose for a shorter amount of time to capture the same amount before clipping, and you haven’t actually improved dynamic range or SNR (unless dark current thermal noise, which indeed depends on integration time, was significant).

If you can work around that simply by using less amplification to expose for as long and capture more photons without clipping, then you weren’t utilizing the FWC to begin with, and so you could have done that with the less sensitive sensor as well (e.g. offering it as a lower ISO setting).

Is there anything factually incorrect in what I have said? I would be happy to be corrected and learn if so.

10 months ago*permalink

Gredgory

Nice images. No way of course to parse differences between the same images as captured by any number of cameras. So relax and enjoy the trip....

10 months agopermalink

Livsimage

Relax everyone. It's just a sample gallery. Are you all expecting a collection of Renoir masterpieces in here? The camera looks fine. The lens even better. .. Take an aspirin and lie down for a while.

10 months agopermalink

Yes BossMan

Taking the edge off sharp:
I assume the Gallery Collection are presented to give visitors to your site a glimpse of what the hardware can delivery. After being impressed with Canon EOS R6 sample gallery, I was looking forward to the R5 samples. Over the last 7 days DPR displayed 4 Sample Galleries of the Leica M10-R, Canon R6, Nikon Z 24-200mm zoom, and today the Canon EOS 5.

In a close look at the four Galleries, the samples created IMPRESSIONS of great, very good, alright and less and less less. My focus was only looking for the SHARPNESS I expected to find in this crop of the Newest, Best and Bright of gear. After being forced examining the raw files, to be as fair as possible on many of the photos, the SHARPNESS was fleeting. SOME GALLERIES are better than others. Starting to think, the Gallery results can distort, give the wrong, negative impression of gear capabilities by way of poor technique.

10 months agopermalink

immortalstrong

Very lovely colors!

10 months agopermalink

Lees Channel

Is there no way to see EXIF information in the mobile gallery?

10 months agopermalink

I haven’t found a way either. (Without switching to desktop.)

10 months ago*permalink

PhotoCadieux

How do you get the EXIF info? Haven't found a way to do it.

10 months agopermalink

henrikbengtsson

Excellent samples. Thank you DPR. And thank you Canon for bringing those classic colors back again.

10 months agopermalink

As first I want to point out that I am not a fan boy of any brand and I think Canon did a great job with the R system till now, R5 and R6 look to be awesome cameras nonetheless.
But it seems to me those images from R5 (including those taken with the 28-70 and 70-200), lack the bite I get from A7R4 and Sigma 24-70 2.8 when seen at 100%. Could it be the AA filter?

10 months agopermalink

I think it's more the JPG engine. Canon never had an extremely refined sharpening for their JPGs, regardless of the camera, because they seem to adjust it more to the overall image.

10 months agopermalink

quatpat, I had a 6d with the Sigma 85 1.4 art and I found the pictures where the AF was spot on, very sharp for example

10 months agopermalink

Sigma82, I find that the AF in these photos is pretty much spot on in most of the images (not all). The Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art is a razor sharp lens, and the 6D has a lot less pixels... If you downsize the images of the R5 to 20MP, they will look sharper, too. But it's probably more the AA-filter and JPG engine that blurs some of the finest detail in these images.

10 months agopermalink

quatpat, I see. Thx

10 months agopermalink

I always have better sharpness starting from the raw. We can see some pictures with very good details here, like the number 50, small text on the right. Anyway, I think we expct too much from a simple galery like this one. I have seen R5 shots pretty amazing (well, I cant even find them again, it was some models , one with red feathers)

10 months ago*permalink

here : https://www.shutterbug.com/images/Lindsay-6.jpg

10 months agopermalink

zxaar

I think the images could be adjusted so it is not a big issue.

10 months agopermalink

@Patlezinc. That is exactly the kind of amazing sharpness I was talking about. Thank you! So it seems it was not the AA filter fault, but more the jpeg engine as suggested by quatpat

10 months agopermalink

matthileo

Did the jpegs have canon's Digital Lens Optimizer turned on (not sure if that's something that has to be on while shooting, or can be enabled after the fact, or what. Just know it's supposed to boost sharpness)?

10 months agopermalink

Funny Valentine

Also wanted to add most of the pictures in this sample gallery lack a subject, and the lock of composition drags the quality down, overall it looks like a bunch of pictures a kid would get with his first smartphone.
If you want to showcase the capabilities of a new camera, try to compose, with a clear subject and tell us where the focus point is. Because this gallery is ruining the R5's reputation as mentioned by many in the comments below.

10 months ago*permalink

Jonathan0007

Sometimes I wonder if it may be due to a bias against Canon. I still find it bizarre that the EOS R test scene was done using incorrect WB. The sample gallery looks like the one using the camera didn’t really care.

10 months agopermalink

Conspiracy theories again from paranoid brand fanatics... The guys from DPR just went out and took multiple photos in order to show what the camera can do, as they do with every model. It doesn't make the camera look good or bad, but it gives an overall idea. If you want to compare directly between models there is the studio comparison, and no, I don't think they didn't care, but they have hundreds of photos to take, and it can happen that something is a bit off in one or the other. Big deal.

10 months agopermalink

Funny Valentine

when viewing at 100% it's not as sharp as the A7III. How come a 45 megapixel sensor suffers more than a 24 megapixel sensor at 100% ?

10 months agopermalink

J A C S

100% of 45 > 100% of 24.

10 months agopermalink

Eusenjo

AA filter

10 months agopermalink

More megapixels = less fine detail when seen at 100% on your monitor (unless the lens is really, really, sharp and the camera doesn't have an AA filter). Downsample the 45 MP to 24 MP, and you'll see more detail at pixel level.

10 months agopermalink

Funny Valentine

If it's the AA filter then it's really bad. It has 45 megapixel but gives the detail of a 20 megapixel sensor.

10 months agopermalink

@Funny
Can’t see what you mention at all - other way around in fact...

10 months agopermalink

desaint

It's the jpg engine..download the raws and look again...

10 months agopermalink

Sproesser

The glass sharpness is the biggest factor in image sharpness. The higher the resolution, the more the sensor will bring out the lens flaws, and potentially breach it's sharpness potential. All high res cameras need the sharpest glass to resolve as well as a 20 mp camera on the pixel level. Lenses are there most sharp around F5.6-F8. Most lenses are softer outside of these settings. Low apertures are extra soft in the corners, high apertures are soft everywhere.

10 months agopermalink

I love these. I just wish they would put this sensor in a 5DV, but they probably never will. Shame... Oh Canon...

10 months agopermalink

what for, exactly?

10 months agopermalink

So that it could be in a DSLR, with an OVF, and a dedicated focusing sensor. I thought that was pretty obvious...

10 months agopermalink

Vignes

Yeah dedicated AF sensor and spend a lot it time doing lens adjustments especially for 3rd party lens.
I’m done with spending time with checking lens AF accuracy prior my important events just because I want OVF. And how good is OVF in dark places? MILC has more advantage.

10 months agopermalink

Maybe for you... Not everybody is you, though, and your needs are probably not my needs.

10 months agopermalink

Chelsea why ANYONE would want to have to deal with MicroAF adjust is beyond me. And what images could you capture with a 5DV that you couldn’t capture with an R5?

There’s a reason Canon only ever released one DSLR with a resolution exceeding 30MP.

10 months agopermalink

Sproesser

Just curious why you prefer the optical viewfinder? I have an OVF on my camera. I had the chance to see a friend's A7rIII, and I really preferred the Digital viewfinder. It was very clear and detailed, could zoom in for finding focus, and showed exposure level like the screen.

10 months agopermalink

I must be the only person who has never had to do AF micro adjustments. And there are many scenarios where the AF of my D850 smokes that of my A7RIV. There are ALSO some scenarios where the A7RIV will capture shots that I am not sure I could capture with my D850. The way the AF works in a mirrorless is very different from an DSLR. Then there is the resolving power and no-delay display of an OVF. They are simply different tools. And I wish Canon would make a 5DV. With the kind of photos you take, you will probably never need a DSLR, but your personal experience doesn't mean it is true for everyone. PS you should also clean your sensor!

10 months agopermalink

Not it is not obvious at all, still cannot read people minds.
And please, there is not any situation at all where the d850 (I often use my colleagues's) af smokes the a7r4'. The d850 af is great and in many situations can keep up, but please don't make up fairy tales

10 months ago*permalink

@sigma if you say so...

10 months agopermalink

Sure, I said so

10 months agopermalink

I'm sure not one flower has ever escaped your focusing prowess, and never has a building been too fast for you. Technology can barely keep up with how hard you push the boundaries of photography!

10 months agopermalink

Straight to the point

10 months agopermalink

whakapu

So now we know what the catch is.
Good confirmation that there is no rational justification for spending more than a 90D costs.

10 months agopermalink

What's the catch, according to you?

10 months agopermalink

whakapu

quatpat. Image quality. Nothing particularly wrong with it but no step forward. Nothing that justifies the investment in RF lenses. It's not a 45MP sensor. It's a 45MP under ISO 500 sensor in the same way that a 90D has a 32.5 MP at ISO 100 sensor and the R6 has a 20MP at maybe ISO 1600 sensor. Here in NZ an R5 costs $NZ7500. To enjoy benefits of the R mount add trinity of R lenses. That takes it to $23K. To edit 8K, new PC, call it $30K (NZ). With no long telephoto. (DO NOT MENTION F11 LENSES).
For that I could get 2 5DS's, a 5D4, a 90D, a lens trinity, 100-400l\L II, portrait lens, a bunch of lighting and studio stuff, a tidy used car, a few hours from a model or assistant, and some travel.

There is nothing in this sample gallery that makes the second option obsolete.

10 months agopermalink

samemilio

I got really excited and downloaded all the CR3 files to test them out.. then was promptly reminded about where ACR is at with R5 file support right now.. 😅

10 months ago*permalink

DBHC

Not impressed at all.

10 months agopermalink

Tons o Glass 0 Class

Okay, McKayla Maroney.

10 months agopermalink

Welsh

I had a terrible dream last night - I had only Sony lenses and thus could not benefit from Canon’s R5 and R6... then I woke up and realised, thank goodness, that all my lenses are canon mount!

10 months agopermalink

@DBHC
you are a bit of a fanatic aren’t you.....❓

10 months agopermalink

jpeg samples are always unimpressive. give me those RAW files and it’ll be impressive.

10 months agopermalink

Happy Dad

DBHC is still hoping to wake up from his nightmare.
Since he is a crazed Sony fan this will cheer him up...
https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2020/07/21/ibis-showdown-2020-gh5-vs-x-t4-vs-e-m1-iii-vs-a6600-image-stabilization

(Actually it will make him cry, but don't tell him)

10 months ago*permalink

Texas Walker

I do not expect a lot from these galleries, but this one looks good. The R5 is certainly the talk of the photo world. I've never seen such excitement over a camera.

10 months agopermalink

It would be useful in all these sample galleries if each image has a text section where the photographer explains what she/he is trying to do or show with the particular sample image. Also, try shooting the same landscape and indoor scenes with different cameras to give some sense of comparison in real world use different from the studio tool. Sure, the lighting won't always be the same but it will still be more useful info than the random images in each gallery.

10 months ago*permalink

fPrime

Here, here! I’ve been asking for DPR to shoot every gallery with a comparator camera for awhile now. It doesn’t need to be an up-to-date monster, just a camera that shoots great SOOC JPEG’s both indoors and outdoors like the Fuji S5 Pro. Dare I suggest that such a comparator camera might show up quite a few modern cameras in terms of both color and WB accuracy?

10 months agopermalink

Richmondthefish

100% agree. Just take out a few extra camera bodies and make a few comparison shots back to back. It doesn't have to be every shot but that would be far more useful for most over 1 giant sample gallery. In this case it would have been great to get a few side by sides with the R6, Z7 and a7RIV. Hell throw in the XT4 or 50R for kicks. It shouldn't be that difficult...just a few unscientific real world back to back shots with some other bodies.

10 months agopermalink

peter zuehlke

just my first reaction: looks like a high resolution version of a 5d IV, especially in the light flesh tones, rather than the color of the 5DS. actually like the R6 shots better, except for rez peeping. (must have shot the comet within a day of two of my shots, haha)

10 months agopermalink

Snapper2013

OH God! Banding returns!! :-( Image 55.

10 months agopermalink

PhotoPhoolish

That’s at ISO 51,200. Use that often, do you?

10 months agopermalink

Dale Baskin

To be fair, I don't expect any camera to create great JPG images at ISO 51,200. It's the last in a series of shots designed to show high ISO progression.

10 months agopermalink

@snapper
Feel a bit silly now perhaps.....❓

10 months agopermalink

Snapper2013

@ Dale Baskin Still banding isn't it?

@Kandid No Not at all but I'm disappointed with all that banding.Do you like banding Kandid?

@PhotoPhoolish I sure won't be using iso 51,200 with the R5. Is there another camera that can shoot iso 51,200 with no BANDING?

10 months agopermalink

Anulu

Visible banding even at ISO 12800. I bet this would be visible on lower ISO with shadow lifting, just like at older Canon models. Looks like Canon still can’t get over this well-known shadow banding problem.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/7757595702/canon-eos-r5-sample-gallery/2875137281

10 months agopermalink

@Anulu
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

10 months agopermalink

PhotoRotterdam

It looks good. But to be honest, I haven’t seen a camera gallery in the last couple of years where the camera struggles, except for jpeg output on some small sensor cameras. Like 1” small, not m4/3, those are all great as well.

I see comments floating around about sharpness etc, but that’s looking at 100% magnification and searching for it. On normal viewing sizes, the differences are minute.

You see the occasional baffling good lens, but even most lenses today are great.

It is kind of boring ;) or on the upside: buy a camera you like because you can afford it, it fits your hands nicely or you like the size and weight of it and be happy shooting.

Leave the 100% magnification trench wars between brand believers to this site and just enjoy photography.

10 months ago*permalink

If resolution were just trench wars and we shouldn’t zoom in to 100% then there is no market for this camera. buy the R6

10 months agopermalink

Peak freak

Does nobody print anymore?

10 months agopermalink

Video-vs-photo

Yes, I do!

10 months agopermalink

dotyman

I like what the camera is showing so far. A couple of the sunlight backlit shots show no aberration/color fringing that I can see. Nice detail, smooth bokeh and great Canon color. Too bad I've already given up on Canon and bought an A7RIV! Guess I'll have to wait for the R5II...

BTW, do all the boaters in the PNW leave out their dirty laundry? !;))

dotyman

10 months agopermalink

misspiggy01

no camera would have rendered these subjects better, not in standard jpeg anyway.

will be interesting to see the conversions.

there is one thing that sony still has the upper hand i think and thats noise reduction and sharpening in ooc jpegs. this here looks quite heavy handed. but who´s shooting standard jpegs anyway?

10 months agopermalink

Probably the majority of consumers will shoot standard JPGs. Only the gear hounds and pros that want the absolute best will shoot RAW.

10 months agopermalink

Alastair Norcross

The majority of consumers won't be buying a nearly $4000 R5. I would imagine that a majority of R5 buyers, or at least a sizable minority, will shoot RAW. As good as JPEG's are from most cameras, especially Canon, it seems like a bit of a waste to buy a camera like the R5 and then shoot JPEG. Unless you're shooting sporting events, where JPEG's are the norm (both because of sheer volume of images and for speed of getting them up).

10 months agopermalink

DBHC

Sony has the best Jpeg's period!

10 months agopermalink

I have $20,000 of camera gear and shoot RAW+JPG and rarely need to get into the RAWs to get what I want out of my camera.

I’m sure the social media companies have very good statistics about how many people shoot raw and JPG based on EXIF data from uploads. I wonder if anyone did a study on it.

10 months agopermalink

Video-vs-photo

This camera has HEIF which could be much more flexible. Not really sure what all others wait but not implement it .........

10 months ago*permalink

Richmondthefish

"no camera would have rendered these subjects better, not in standard jpeg anyway."

Only way to actually prove this is blind test and i've seen people get fooled a lot. For all you know you would end up picking a APS-C Fujifilm over this.

10 months agopermalink

Jx9

If you could take the same shots with the same lens on both the R5 and R6, it would be really appreciated!! :) Also the R and RP.

10 months ago*permalink

That's what the Studio Comparison Scene is for

10 months agopermalink

Jx9

I'm talking about real people and real world conditions with the exact same lighting, lenses, and settings. I've read somewhere that the studio scene has changed due to fading over time.

10 months agopermalink

If you can’t figure out how a camera negotiates color, texture, and detail from the studio scene, I don’t know what to tell you.

It’s exactly what you describe, minus the people part

10 months agopermalink

Jx9

More pics of people please. Ideally, with the same people and lens as the R6. Otherwise, how will we be able to compare? Thanks.

10 months agopermalink

The Studio Comparison Test Scene?

10 months agopermalink

bruh they’re not going to have time keep all the exact lens and conditions the same

10 months agopermalink

Right? And the studio test scene has the light and texture variables to see exactly how you can expect a camera to perform.

Building up a studio test scene with people wouldn’t really yield any new information not already provided.

10 months agopermalink

Did you use animal AF in #117 and #118 Carey? Also, when Olympus came out with the 12-100, there were reviewers trying to break their personal bests for slowest handheld shutter speeds and some were claiming 2 seconds hand held or thereabouts. Can someone in DPR do that to show off or test the 8 stop IBIS of the R5 and 24-105 combo?

10 months ago*permalink

RH McCaslan

Hmm, shot with the 800mm. I haven't seen one shot from this lens yet that impresses.

The first one is soft--1/250sec is just not fast enough. The second one is better--borderline acceptable. I'm thinking that I'd want this lens at 1/1000sec or faster even with the claimed 5 stops IBIS.

10 months agopermalink

Carey Rose

I did indeed use animal AF. Actually, the system was set to 'people' priority, but it still found the eyes of birds I pointed it at. Same with #110.

And yes, for 117 and 118 it didn't help that I was crouching, hand-holding the camera near the ground at near minimum focus distance for those. Not ideal conditions.

10 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

The ISO12800 images looks very good. Good colors and good reduced noise. I am only looking at the jpeg though since I cannot open the RAW file.
I had to remind myself I am zoomed in 100% on a 45MP image not just 24MP. It is very good.

10 months agopermalink

Manzur Fahim

Faststone Image viewer can open them, from there you can export to Tiff and open them in LR.

10 months agopermalink

steelhead3

I am surprised by the shallow depth of field on the 800f11 shots of the pine siskins...you must have been awfully close.

10 months agopermalink

RH McCaslan

Even at f/11, the DOF on 800mm is extremely thin.

10 months agopermalink

He was close to MFD

10 months agopermalink

J A C S

The DOF at 800mm at f/11 is as thin as at 24/11 with the same framing...

10 months agopermalink

After a closer look, I find the R5 having less noise than the R at iso 100. Good point.
It is hard to tell if the new AA filter resolves really 20% more details, but you can find shots with very fine details and textures. Interesting.

10 months agopermalink

Does the R5 actually have an AA filter? The R6 does. But the R5?

10 months agopermalink

the R5 does have AA filter

10 months agopermalink

Yep. But a new one with a better resolution. Like the one on the 1DX III.

10 months agopermalink

AA filter - that explains why I was slightly disappointed. Still good though.
Af is the big question

10 months ago*permalink

Hopefully the AA filter on the R5 is nothing like the AA filter on the 1DXIII given their very different sensor resolution.

10 months agopermalink

The aa filter is probably there for video. Moire mitigation more important ultimate sharpness in video

10 months agopermalink

SafariBob

Disappointed by?? A 600% zoom?

10 months agopermalink

“Disappointed” the a7r2 /r3 are slightly sharper

10 months agopermalink

these are standard jpeg we don’t know the sharpening applied. you can shoot in raw and adjust sharpness

10 months agopermalink

SafariBob

Sony removed the AA filter, as you know. But jpg is not raw, first, and second, you have to zoom a lot to conlude that. In a normal point of view, it is hard to notice. And I remember that Canon would like to keep the filter because of wedding photographers (and specific textures of some dresses). I dont think it is a big deal honestly. You can see nice textures and details as it is.

10 months ago*permalink

patlezinc, it's better for video. I doubt its jpeg artefacts. it very much looks like the aa effect (gaussian blur essentially). 100% yes. i'd probably remove it if it was me, for stills. also pixelshift modes will presumably not be as effective, dunno? maybe there will an R5R and a 5D5

10 months agopermalink

Lets wait some video samples then. R6 is already really better than R in tests I have seen.

10 months agopermalink

AbrasiveReducer

I like the comet. Looking at the shadows I think this camera might have benefited from more typical Seattle weather.

10 months agopermalink

I didn't notice any shadows in the comet

10 months agopermalink

Tony Speed

I didn't notice any comets in the shadow.

10 months agopermalink

...What..?

10 months agopermalink

Tom Nguyen Studio

I didn't shadow any comets on the notice.

10 months agopermalink

You are the question and the answer am I
Only you can see me through
I leave it up to you
Do it light, taking me through the night
Shadow dancing, baby you do it right
Give me more, drag me across the floor
Shadow dancing, all this and nothing more

10 months agopermalink

Yeah, I think I'll stick with my iPhone 11 Pro for now...

10 months agopermalink

And enjoy your fake bokeh. 1500$ is nice to have fake things 😋

10 months ago*permalink

@Patlezinc
How do you spot an apple user? He tells you.

10 months ago*permalink

lol

10 months agopermalink

an extra $2000 to have and not carrying around a brick is nice to have. but go ahead and waste your money

10 months agopermalink

gaul

Baron Karza .. i also have an iPhone 11 Pro Max

But my 6D Mk I with 2012 tech is crushing my iPhone for IQ

10 months agopermalink

CanonKen

Wow, you have an iPhone 11 Pro? You must be a CEO or the Sultan of Brunei!

Oh wait I have one too just like millions of other normal people.

10 months agopermalink

i wish I was a rich CEO. Then I could waste $2K more on a camera that is almost as good as my iPhone 11 Pro :)

10 months agopermalink

@ Pat, "And enjoy your fake bokeh." I don't use the Bokeh mode. Bokeh in itself is fake.

10 months agopermalink

...now they even talk about it.

10 months agopermalink

Baron_Karza

Lol. So you ignore physics laws. Ok, that is why you have an iphone afterall. Just for your information, even your eyes produce bokeh. Your eyes are probably fake too (and it explains once again why you love your iphone ^^)

10 months agopermalink

Lavli singh

if you really happy with your iphone then what you are doing on this dpreview website??

10 months agopermalink

It was expensive, it *HAS* to be good.

10 months agopermalink

The Canon camera cost $2K more than the phone so the Canon camera HAS to be better. LOL!

"It was expensive, it *HAS* to be good." - your point is??

10 months agopermalink

"...now they even talk about it." - you just keep posting stuff that has no point at all.
What are you going to post next:
"People breath air" ??

10 months agopermalink

no one gives a crap about bokeh

10 months agopermalink

Baron_Karza is not amused, no one cares about his iPhone. Damn. Bad week. Try again.

10 months agopermalink

vdcd seems to care. keeps replying multiple times to my thread and starts it off by bashing all Apple users. Just because i want to keep my phone for now. Nice guy.

10 months agopermalink

@Boran_Korzi
I just wanted to help you. One day you will be grown up, read your old posts and you will be upset. Anyway, didn't work out. CU.

10 months agopermalink

yeah, sure.

10 months agopermalink

Jonathan0007

I typically don’t comment on sample galleries but I think a much better job could have been done regarding this photo gallery. Many suffer from poor composition and a lack of a clear subject. It gives a somewhat negative impression of what the camera is capable of. I’m not saying that all the photos need to be ultra-artistic, but some of these look like what a non-photographer would take with their iPhone, not someone he does this on a regular basis.

10 months agopermalink

there’s no post processing either. I can make these images look better with editing in LR.

10 months agopermalink

avidly lucid

Beautiful photos throughout. Artistic and well composed, especially when you consider that they are more or less right out of the camera with no or very little post production. Also practical--demonstrating the capabilities of the camera. Great to have the RAW photos so that we can experiment ourselves once the converters are available. Thank you Carey.

10 months agopermalink

Sample galleries like this aren't about creativity or artistry, their sole purpose is to show the capabilities of equipment.

10 months agopermalink

misspiggy01

@tifa3 so why don´t you and let us know what you find?

10 months agopermalink

Kharan

Sure, but this sample gallery has some really low points - totally uninspired and pointless shots. I don't come here for art, hell, I'm more interested in technicalities than art, but there are at least 20 or so "samples" here that should've never been published.

10 months agopermalink

Light Pilgrim

Honestly I do not know what makes people so excited. I do not know how to see where this camera excels based on this galery. If you see a portrait, then it is lit poorly. You would have to direct the light completely differently to be able to create any interest. Picture of a cat is the same thing - it is dark and dull. No contrast or good light. But if this is what makes people excited for how amazing images this camera can produce....then I am really sorry for people. Sorry for the rant:-)

10 months agopermalink

Back with Canon

I think it is funny you actually think people want to buy the camera solely due to this gallery. If you do I really feel sorry for you.

10 months ago*permalink

ZV-1

The gallery was not their best effort!

10 months agopermalink

Light Pilgrim

people say how awesome images are. But what awesome is there in these images? Just avarage images you can take with any camera

10 months agopermalink

Back with Canon

And yet its better than some other galleries.

10 months agopermalink

Still better than Sony colors

10 months agopermalink

Awesome comments!

10 months agopermalink

The sample galleries are not about "good light" or "amazing images", they're about the capabilities of equipment straight out of the can.

It's not rocket science, it's basically just test shots

10 months agopermalink

Alastair Norcross

It's a little-known fact, but not being a jerk about sample galleries is actually allowed by the forum rules.

10 months agopermalink

Welsh

@Light Pilgrim: I am sorry for you...

10 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

The picture quality is excellent.
Sorry that it is too little and too late.

10 months agopermalink

Light Pilgrim

How do you see that the picture quality is excellent? I am serious:-)

10 months agopermalink

AbrasiveReducer

Who or what are you sorry for? What is too little? What is too late? How do you know it is too little of something or too late for something?

10 months agopermalink

I'm sorry too

10 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

I know it is. Not necessarily in this gallery but give that camera to someone with an eye for beauty (and a manual) and the pictures will be absolutely amazing. Canon would not launch anything mediocre in this price class.
I am not silly enough to judge the camera on the basis of snapshots on DPR.

10 months ago*permalink

(unknown member)

A lot of people seem to be having bad hair day today.

10 months agopermalink

Welsh

@Too little and too late for what? This camera is the new state of the art. Last time Sony was that was years ago...

10 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

Most certainly Canon's R series are excellent products but can they make it in the saturated market?
Two years ago I would have seriously considered the R6 but as it wasn't there I got the 7AIII instead.

10 months ago*permalink

Huh??

10 months agopermalink

PhotoKhan

Errr...I liked what I saw in the R6 galllery.

I am NOT liking what I see here...

10 months agopermalink