Was talking with a few other Canon shooters and the topic came up about how in principle the R6, with supposedly the 1DX III sensor, should be significantly better in low light than the 45mp R5.
However, what you see on the internet basically shows very little difference between the R6 and the R5.
I'm mostly interested in whether the R6 would allow me to shoot longer as the light fades than the R5 does, especially when shooting birds. I'm not really interested in studio comparisons, but in real life use.
Anybody here using the two side by side in low light? Any difference worth mentioning?
With the disclaimer that my opinion is not based on a hands-on with both cameras, I think the informed view from what I have read and the files I have looked at is that the R5 is close to the R6 when the output resolution is equalized.
The last bit is the important part. Those trying to evaluate noise from a 20 megapixel vs a 45 megapixel sensor by looking at files at 100% are doing it wrong, basically. You'd have to downsample the R5 files to R6 output to get a true comparison.
Since the advent of digital photography there have been arguments about pixel pitch vs. noise. I think with modern sensor technology having near gapless pixels, pixel pitch is less of a factor than in the early days. What matters more is the overall size of the sensor and the consequent light gathering area it has. (Assuming the underlying sensor technology is equivalent.)
Comparing the R5 and the R6 as DIGITAL images the R6 looks as good at ISO 20,000 as the R5 does at about 3200 ..... the trick is when you PRINT .... if you're printing the resolution equalizes and the fine, even grain produced by the R5 will actually make the R5 files look equivalent or better ..... so if you PRINT images, the reality is that they are about the same or maybe the R5 is a tiny bit better but yes, if you primarily use your images digitally, or you use video, the R6 will be significantly better and cleaner looking at higher ISOs
These people arguing to the contrary are just creating confusion when bringing this all up in the context of print when 90% of "photographers" today will never print an image.
Imagemaster wrote:
And 90% of people viewing on monitors would probably not notice any difference, and not $1400 worth of difference.
I chose to save the money and get an R6. Most of the time my images are viewed on a phone held the wrong way so it's 2" wide. It doesn't really matter at that point.
Dustin Abbot has an R6 review on YouTube where he shows the high iso performance. His hot take is that you are good to go up through ISO 50k (whatever the exact stop is). I don't know if he has a similar comparison for an R5 or not.
I got some R5 sample images from various shooters (raw files for download). They do look more noisy zoomed in, but at the same image scale its hard to see any difference.
At this stage or technology it seems we are able to measure differences in performance, but those differences are so small as to not matter much in the finished product. That's part of the reason all the gear (regardless of brand) gets pretty stellar reviews in real use, but people argue over spec sheets ad-nauseum.
jedibrain wrote:
Dustin Abbot has an R6 review on YouTube where he shows the high iso performance. His hot take is that you are good to go up through ISO 50k (whatever the exact stop is). I don't know if he has a similar comparison for an R5 or not.
I got some R5 sample images from various shooters (raw files for download). They do look more noisy zoomed in, but at the same image scale its hard to see any difference.
At this stage or technology it seems we are able to measure differences in performance, but those differences are so small as to not matter much in the finished product. That's part of the reason all the gear (regardless of brand) gets pretty stellar reviews in real use, but people argue over spec sheets ad-nauseum.
I have a few shots north of ISO 25k with my R6. I'd rather have the noise than motion blur from using too low of a shutter speed. If you expose properly, they're very usable. The look a heck of a lot cleaner at those ISOs than my 5D3 did and that's all I really care about.
To your point about the R5's noise, this is part of why I'm happy to have the R6. An advantage of a higher MP sensor is being able to crop deeper. But cropping deeper reveals more noise. So if you're going to scale everything to the same, lower, resolution anyway, you may as well use the lower MP sensor to begin with. It'll basically look the same either way, except for the extra $1400 in your pocket.
45mp is pretty much going to be noisier SOOC, all things being equal. The question is, how do they look after pp? You're likely to use NR, in addition to any masking and resizing.
I use an R5 and R6 side by side. My choice of one over the other is based on resolution not noise performance. I use the R6 when I don't expect to crop much of the image. I use the R5 if I want the flexibility to crop images. Yes, there is a difference in noise between the two sensors. The difference is not significant enough for me to choose one over the other based only on that.
Mike_5D wrote:
I have a few shots north of ISO 25k with my R6. I'd rather have the noise than motion blur from using too low of a shutter speed. If you expose properly, they're very usable. The look a heck of a lot cleaner at those ISOs than my 5D3 did and that's all I really care about.
To your point about the R5's noise, this is part of why I'm happy to have the R6. An advantage of a higher MP sensor is being able to crop deeper. But cropping deeper reveals more noise. So if you're going to scale everything to the same, lower, resolution anyway, you may as well use the lower MP sensor to begin with. It'll basically look the same either way, except for the extra $1400 in your pocket. ...Show more →
I came from a 5D3 as well, and your experiences were a big factor in my ultimately deciding on an R6 as well. 25k ISO is easily usable. 12.8k is pretty good - remarkably good IMO having come from the 5DIII. I have some shots of twilight soccer in that range that are easily usable, though with less latitude in processing as one would expect.
Resolution wise, I had major FOMO buying a new camera and not upgrading the MP count (actually went from 22 down to 20). But the files are cleaner and sharper than the 5DIII and the function of the camera is SO MUCH BETTER for sports. Output wise, I have printed very large from older cameras (6mp digital rebel), so I was not worried about that for trips and landscapes. For sharing photos on a computer screen or phone, even hefty crops look really good. I haven't thought a second time about the pixel count.
I don't think you will even see the difference viewing the images on screen IF you view both images so that they are scaled to fill the monitors. It's that 100% where you will see it.
