p.1 #2 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
This is a loaded question for the simple fact there is not a consistent answer to what is acceptable performance in low light.
Me.... all camera's pretty much even out the when getting in the ISO 4000 range and up.(really starting at 3200).
The debate come in as to what is high iso..... some people can not even image going above ISO 800 or 1000.
I top out at around 6000 for wedding work. actually ISO 5000.
At this point all the latest generation are pretty much the same. which means pretty darn good to compare just 5 years ago.
Much has to do with how the images was shot.... exposure, etc.
Depending on your processing style.... possible to get a little bit more out of a Sony/nikon image vs canon R5/R6/1DXIII ... maybe.
Best answer is to rent/barrow and test for yourself. see what is acceptable.
I am very good with canon. for me it is the entire system.
And so far I have not had any clients complain about noise.
Just to be clear... I am talking only post processing. not AF performance.
-Mark
Mar 10, 2021 at 08:52 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #3 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
No idea but I'm running 24mp aps to 6400 as needed pretty easily. Sometimes I have trouble not usually. R5 should be better than that by a lot. Most people don't run it that high so I think you'd be fine. Even 5DsR seemed pretty nice at 6400 imo, on one file I processed.
A lot seems to depend on pp though. Resizing to 24mp should at least get closer to the D750, not sure which would win
p.1 #4 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
AmbientMike wrote:
No idea but I'm running 24mp aps to 6400 as needed pretty easily. Sometimes I have trouble not usually. R5 should be better than that by a lot. Most people don't run it that high so I think you'd be fine. Even 5DsR seemed pretty nice at 6400 imo, on one file I processed.
A lot seems to depend on pp though. Resizing to 24mp should at least get closer to the D750, not sure which would win
This is the best answer!
I have gotten usable shots at 12,800 from my aging 6D, and uh... workable shots from my EOS M original at 6400, with my EOS M5 and my wife's 77D both doing pretty good at 6400.
I also think that it's important to remember that 'capturing the moment' is what matters; if the detail and color in a frame that matters is there, then whatever it took to get that frame was good enough.
Especially if the output is meant for a hallway frame or for social media, versus trying to produce a floor-to-ceiling gallery print.
One of my first hard-earned lessons on my self-taught path of photographic education was to shoot for the output
p.1 #5 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
Is the original question about high ISO or low light AF capabilities? I would think the latter, because high ISO needs can occur in many kinds of light.
p.1 #6 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
Look at dpreview https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r5-review/5
set the two bottom ones to R5/6stops and D750/6stops
Its shows to me that the D750 is a stop or so ahead of R5 pushed 6 stops
But if I compare D850/6stops push vs R5 they look the same pushed 6 stops
[the d750 has more latitude in pushing shadows if you have the exposure way off, at low iso's. D850 about the same]
Do the same with https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r5-review/4
with D750 and R5 at higher and higher iso's
you will find that R5 does significantly better at > 6,400. [But I still would not be shooting much (landscape, animals) at iso 12,800]. [People/sports I woud because the scene/interest is more important than the noise]
[exposed right the R5 is better than the d750 at high iso]
Keep in mind that:
1) Camera's are more than dynamic range - fps, af, ergonomics, buffer.... matter more than 1 stop dynamic range
2) I find that colours don't do well [landscape] when you push more than a stop or so,
3) Dynamic range measures vary by iso settting. Nikon tends to be more iso - in variant. eg shooting at iso3200 vs shooting at iso800 and pushing two stops yields similar results. But the difference is modest in usable range. Canon is iso invariant at higher iso's.
4) The settings on the camera matter. Canon drops to 12bit at 20fps. Sony drops to 12 bit in bulb and for some bodies when set to continous and all on compressed raw. Most DSLR's don't do this but don't have high fps options. R5 does 14 bit at 12fps. 12bit vs 14 bit does not make much difference beyond iso800 though.
5) Dynamic range typically is better on lower mpx camera at similar framing.
6) Nikon typically has the best low iso performance because its base iso is 60 or so vs canon's 100
7) Newer bodies are better than older bodies
But all that aside - I don't push shadows 6 stops. I shoot lots at ETTR minus 1/3 stop (to avoid blowing out stuff but close to ETTR) and canon works just fine. If you get the exposure about right, there is not much difference between cameras.
So your expectations should be - R5 would be more useful in low light than the D750 if exposed right. And the fps, burst, af, ability in the package would make it way better for general use. Don't buy or not buy canon R5 or nikon D850/Z7ii or Sony a7riv based on dynamic range - focus on things that matter like lens and features.
Nikon makes great bodies and lens. So does Sony and so does Canon. Sony has nicer small lens for weight. Canon did a great job of making and adapter so that ef operate like native. If you are switching to mirrorless (buying all new lens) the strongest reason to switch from Nikon is that I think there is a risk that the market is not big enough for 3 large competitors and Nikon as the smallest market share is at greatest risk. But Nikon mount has wider diameter and is closer, which should give advantage to Nikon lens design, but so far Canon RF lens have fantastic iq.
p.1 #7 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
Since it seems we are still on the high ISO topic, this was the highest ISO I shot with during a wedding on my R6. I can push it just a bit further than my 5D4, simply because of the lower resolution/larger pixels, I guess, but they are pretty close to each other in high ISO performance.
Any idea (without cheating) as to the ISO on this?
p.1 #8 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
I was messing around in my house the other day and a quick snapshot looked a tad grainy from my EOS R. When I checked, the ISO on the shot was 10,000. Yeah, I'll take "a tad grainy" at ISO 10,000! That ain't bad, at all.
Edit: I'm actually looking at the shot on my phone right now. It actually looks like quite a nice shot, just a touch grainy. This is SOOC from my camera shared to my phone for instant consumption. No PP or special noise removal or even downsizing to minimize noise. I remember on my old XTi that ISO 1600 shots looked pretty terrible and ISO 3200 was pretty much unusable.
p.1 #9 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
It will be quite hard to say. I think you should check out DPreview's ISO comparison tool. Because otherwise you are going to get hundreds of replies saying the R5 got a great shot at ISO 12800. The problem is how the shot looks at a given light level, not what ISO was used. I mean, with good light, I can get a decent shot on an APS-C camera at ISO 12800 for example, and ISO 12800 shots can be printable whereas a different ISO 1600 shot can be junk if the light is junk.
That being said, you will be fine. The minute differences in low-light performance will not matter to most people. The R5 is good and will essentially be as good as your Nikon DSLRs.
Mar 11, 2021 at 01:25 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.1 #10 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
amacal1 wrote:
I was messing around in my house the other day and a quick snapshot looked a tad grainy from my EOS R. When I checked, the ISO on the shot was 10,000. Yeah, I'll take "a tad grainy" at ISO 10,000! That ain't bad, at all.
Edit: I'm actually looking at the shot on my phone right now. It actually looks like quite a nice shot, just a touch grainy. This is SOOC from my camera shared to my phone for instant consumption. No PP or special noise removal or even downsizing to minimize noise. I remember on my old XTi that ISO 1600 shots looked pretty terrible and ISO 3200 was pretty much unusable. ...Show more →
Maybe occasionally, but mostly I wouldn't expect too much trouble going to ISO 10,000 on the R, or any other fairly recent ff camera. If you haven't turned down the different in-camera NR stuff, you'd probably get a pretty clean SOOC jpeg image. Might be heavy-handed though. I generally turn it down & clean up using NR software in the computer. If you are going straight to social media you might rather leave it higher though.
Might look not so hot SOOC but 1600 wasn't much trouble on the 30D, even, imo if you used NR software.
p.1 #11 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
whoops, I found a higher ISO shot from that wedding, one the casual reception guest shots... More than fine for a wedding scrapbook, whether digital or printed.
p.1 #12 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
That second example looks much better; the first one, while quite probably usable, had way too much fine detail 'rubbed out' by noise reduction in my opinion. Not judging your processing of course as that result was likely as good as it was going to get!
p.1 #13 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
the digital picture has noise comparison tests for numerous cameras at all ISOs those cameras support. Here, for example, is a comparison of the R5 vs Z7:
Personally, I find the R5 has great high ISO noise performance and I find the noise that is there to be pleasing (if it has to be there, might as well look good).
p.1 #14 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
I found the D750 which I used to own nearly identical at high ISO to the 5DIV which to me looks pretty much identical at high ISOs to the R5. I have never trusted ISOs above 6400...sure sometimes you get a great result, but I never found it reliable. I felt comfortable using my 5D IV and D750 at 3200 and 6400 in a pinch. I found no difference at all.
One thing I'd add is that I own an EOS RP and the D750 to me is about a stop cleaner. I just don't think that particular sensor is comparable to other full frame canon sensors. The eos R6, R5, and EOS R even are all I'd say on par with the 5DIV (maybe with differences is dynamic range, but not noise)...but the EOS RP is a step down from the D750. By the way, you'll give in that nice built in flash.
p.1 #15 · R5 Low Light: Where does it stack up to Nikon DSLR?
The resolution difference between the R6 and the others means that the others can be processed better and the final result will be better than the R6 when equalized for resolution. Resolution wins for post pocessing, when comparing the same sensor type.
The RP has the same performance signature as the 5d3, which is why it appears a bit worse.
