dannyjeffers wrote:
I'm beyond thrilled to see that the R5 II appears to be a return to form for Canon color and tonal rendering. My journey with the original R5 was a long and difficult one, (...)
Which RAW converter and profiles were/are you using?
Color is a combination of the type of sensor, how the data is collected, interpreted and processed, and then it also depends on your RAW converter. And then lenses used, colorcast from surrounding area, etc, et Lots of variables at play, and perhaps don't start celebrating just yet based on a couple online comments and YouTube videos.
I have heard several people mention that about the R5. Since getting one I have not noticed any difference between it and the R6, and I also have a 5DIII which I love which is also similar. I use DXO for raw conversion. I think most of the complaints came from the Adobe profile.
Haven’t used the R5 but DPP tends to have better colors, after trying different processors I stuck with it. Definitely give it a try if you're having issues and haven't already.
jedibrain wrote:
... I use DXO for raw conversion. I think most of the complaints came from the Adobe profile.
Brian
Agreed.
One oddity that has persisted for years now is how poorly Adobe's default "Adobe Color" profile works for modern Canon bodies. This profile can look lovely with older Canon bodies, but is generally very flat and desaturated with newer cameras. I think sometimes users can incorrectly blame this uninspired look on the camera. (I don't know if this is also true for other brands.)
For this reason, I use Adobe's "Camera Standard" profile as a starting point for corrections. It's a decent match to Canon's "Standard" Picture Style, and can be further calibrated. When I get a new body, I generally shoot outdoor and indoor samples and compare the results with DPP, and fine tune the Adobe profile if needed.
While that's all certainly true, I've processed raw files from my 5D3 through LRC, C1 etc as well as used plenty of SOOC jpegs and have always had exceptional color. Plenty of cameras seem to deliver consistent and excellent results no matter the file type or processing medium. My R5 just doesn't seem to be one of those cameras.
I personally disliked the 5DIII, the 5Ds being my DSLR choice on nearly all fronts. I honestly have not had issues with the color 'problems' you mention in regard to the R5, but sounds like your mileage probably varies.
I don’t know about stills but shooting video with the log2, the colors look softer because there’s a lot more gradients due to dynamic range improvements.
Nice.
dannyjeffers wrote:
I'm beyond thrilled to see that the R5 II appears to be a return to form for Canon color and tonal rendering.
From what I have seen so far from the R5 II it is better than the original R5, yes. The color balance and WB algorithms seem better calibrated with less color casts. I never owned the R5 but did indeed use the R6 for a few years and overall I liked the colors but there was always a heavy magenta tint - which I believe was there due to the many reports of a green cast from the original R sensor.
With the new R5 II it seems Canon found a good balance. Having that said it is a common mistake to pre-celebrate. What we are seeing is something different from the previous model for sure but that doesn't necenssarily mean that the old school Canon look is back. Each new 5D body had a different color signature (even in DPP) and from what I have seen so far from the R5 II is not really like the 5D3. But it is probably the best in the R-lineup so far in terms of color balance. Overall there has been this weird color signature lately. Magenta skin, purple blues, weak greens and light blue cast in highlights. And a lot of that has probably been exaggerated by Canons lens coating which is generally less warm than the likes from Tamron and Sigma for example.
Now, this can be profiled of course and a lot of the look from any camera is up to the RAW converter/demosaicing process and the profiles and toncurves used BUT make no mistake. The DNA of the RAW file comes from lens coatings->sensor design (CFA dye layers, spectral response, IR/UV filtering) -> and Digic generation. So two identical RAW files from the same scene with two totally different cameras can look different even though they are used in the same software with the same profile.
So to summarize :-) YES the R5 II seem to have the right basis for great Canon colors we once upon a time were spoiled with. Let's hope Adobe agrees and make good profiles accordingly. Rumour has it that they are working with Canon on some kind of DPP plugin for Lightroom so that the true camera profiles will be used.
That would be something...
Edit: One more thing. I have noticed that Canon is still keeping the door shut to the deep shadows in some models which gives dark and desaturated shadows and a very "crushed" look compared to earlier models. Opening those shadows (either in post or with a custom profile) makes a difference. Sure, right off the bat the JPEGS might look ready to go if you nail the exposure and don't mind bright midtones and aggressive black points but it also means more work in post if you have other plans.
This week I found a way to install camera matching profiles for R5 into Lightroom 6.14 and I got a R5 specific linear profile from Tony Kuyper as well. For the last three years, I was using only Adobe Standard for my R6 photos and while I agree that in some cases, the colors weren't that great, I usually found a way around. Yesterday I was editing photos from an event I shot with R5 and tried Camera Standard. I quickly switched back to Adobe Standard and tweaked the contrast and colors accordingly, as Camera Standard produced too contrasty and cartoonish looking photos.
I believe it's mostly about finding the editing style and tweaking the settings accordingly. I never had a 5DIII, only 5DIV, but I don't remember 5DIII to have particularly great colors... YMMV.
