Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Jman13 wrote:
I was curious how the R5 II stacked up against the Z8 for pushed files when set to its base ISO of 64, since DPR chose 100 for this, but it's max DR is at 64. As well as the Z7 II (roughly same sensor as the D850), and the original R5. Looking at the crops, you can see that the R5 II is the worst of the bunch in shadow noise, but it's not some massively huge difference. Real world, no one would notice 99.9% of the time.
I will say even though it's noisier, I too prefer the R5 II look to the original R5...less color shift, and it does look like Canon has cut out the baked in NR on the RAW file, or if they haven't, it's better and less obtrusive...despite the extra noise the R5 II holds detail better, and you can clearly see the NR damaging detail in the original R5 shot. Both Nikons look better to me, but the difference isn't game changing or anything. ...Show more →
Personally I don't much care Nikon vs Canon. I have too much sunk into canon big white and TSE lens, to warrant switching for modest improvements. But what I do see is that R5 has better resolution but poorer colour cast in the pictures. I wonder whether the adobe raw converter is the weakness. But in any event, at plus 6 stops (super dark) they are pretty close, with neither being better colour offsetting resolution.
[I wonder if the R5 or R5ii might be better at mechanical vs EFCS.]
I also see that R5ii shutter is a bit better than R5, using the studio comparisons. So the 14 bit makes electronic better.
I any event, this analysis ticks off the "well at least it (r5ii) did not get worse (r5) - but it did not get any better, just different..
So now I need to go back to - is 30fps, settable electronic fps, 14bit electronic, AEB in electronic, pre capture in separate files, bit better A/F - worth buying.
-
|
Surprised the Canon critics haven't swooped in yet to tell us.