Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

Today, in anticipation of my bears at high ISO, I tested R5 vs R5II at very high ISO, in my normal process flow for posting.

I had some difficulty getting them exactly the same, but after some adjustments, I am not sure that one is better than the other.

But I give a slight edge to R5. Blacker blacks and whiter whites.?

Perhaps Adobe denoise did slightly better on R5, but maybe adobe has not tuned denoise for R5II. R5 just seemed to have more contrast,

I am not sure this is helpful, but I am interested in others observations at higher ISO.

Scott

Canon EOS R5m2 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 800mm f/9.0 1/1000s 25600 ISO 0.0 EV

Canon EOS R5 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 800mm f/9.0 1/1000s 25600 ISO 0.0 EV

Aug 25, 2024 at 03:44 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

I tried it again this morning. Similar scene at 1/400s, 25k iSO

First 2 are without Adobe Denoise. The colours and noise are better with R5.

Second 2 are with Denoise. They are much closer.

It seems like the R5II is a step back from R5 for high ISO shooting. Maybe the adobe Raw converter for R5ii is not as good as R5 yet. Or maybe the denoise for R5II has not been tuned. I will check DPP.

1 R5 II Not denoised [Colour is a bit off in the shadows, and more grainy, and less contrast]

Canon EOS R5m2 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 500mm f/8.0 1/400s 25600 ISO 0.0 EV

2 R5 Not denoised

Canon EOS R5 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 500mm f/8.0 1/400s 25600 ISO 0.0 EV

3 R5II denoised - after denoise it fixed colours and is much closer but R5 a smidge better

Canon EOS R5m2 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 500mm f/8.0 1/400s 25600 ISO 0.0 EV

4 R5 denoised

Canon EOS R5 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 500mm f/8.0 1/400s 25600 ISO 0.0 EV

Aug 26, 2024 at 09:25 AM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

Actually, for me, good to hear. As I posted elsewhere, after my Costa Rica birding trip I've decided I don't need to upgrade to the Mk II. AF, 20 FPS electronic shutter, and ISO 6400 worked just fine for me for BIF which I don't do often anyway. Always impressed with the R5's tracking ability. Also, Lightroom's AI Denoise worked really well to clean up the higher ISO shots while retaining feather detail.

Aug 26, 2024 at 09:55 AM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

Here is R5II (no denoise) Adobe vs DPP

The seem pretty close. DPP might be slightly better (darker in blacks on pen).

Adobe

Canon EOS R5m2 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 500mm f/8.0 1/400s 25600 ISO 0.0 EV

DPP

Canon EOS R5m2 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 500mm f/8.0 1/400s 25600 ISO 0.0 EV

Aug 26, 2024 at 10:14 AM

jedibrain
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

Feel like you're really splitting hairs on the denoised versions to find a difference. Which is a good thing in general. To be that close, with the stacked sensors faster readout speed and new AF system seems like a reasonable tradeoff.

Brian

Aug 26, 2024 at 10:27 AM

Greg Schneider
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

I also noticed the slightly flatter/lower contrast images with the R5II. I would sooner suspect this is due to the Adobe profile rather than any DR or sensor differences.

Aug 26, 2024 at 11:11 AM

kirbic
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

It is really, really close. Which is a compliment to the Mk II, given the direction that Canon took this one (putting emphasis on speed).
For those who need this kind of speed, the Mk II is a worthy successor. For me, not so much. I'm in the market for a second R5 body, probably something lightly used.

Aug 26, 2024 at 11:31 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

The DR chart over at PTP suggests the two cameras are nearly identical at higher ISOs, so I also think it's probably a profile difference.

Aug 26, 2024 at 11:51 AM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

Here is a similar comparison at low ISO from my den.

HDR'd. This is following my normal landscape processing. 3 shots/ 2stopover/under/normal. Blended and curve pulled down.

With Zeiss 15/2.8 with flip in EF/RF adapter with ND close to smallest ND.

R5II

Canon EOS R5m2 15.0 mm lens 15mm f/11.0 30s 200 ISO -0.3 EV

Canon EOS R5 15.0 mm lens 15mm f/11.0 25s 250 ISO -0.3 EV

Aug 26, 2024 at 01:45 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

Greg Schneider wrote:
I also noticed the slightly flatter/lower contrast images with the R5II. I would sooner suspect this is due to the Adobe profile rather than any DR or sensor differences.

That's why I posted last 200-400 with DPP vs Adobe. Not much difference. Hopefully adobe profile improves but its not likely to get better than DPP.

Aug 26, 2024 at 01:50 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

jedibrain wrote:
Feel like you're really splitting hairs on the denoised versions to find a difference. Which is a good thing in general. To be that close, with the stacked sensors faster readout speed and new AF system seems like a reasonable tradeoff.

Brian

Image quality at 25k has more value to me than fps, rolling shutter or precapture, given that R5 was so good (20fps, iso 100). But I am not sure that R5 is better or just different. There is slightly more grain, but it could be the scene or the profile or adobe LR default processing differences.

After denoise they are quite close. I am just trying to decide whether I sell my R5. I guess I need to try some real bears.

Thanks for your comments.

Aug 26, 2024 at 01:53 PM

WJaekel
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

Thank you for your efforts, Scott ! To me, the R5 looks clearly better - primarily for contrast (deeper blacks and whiter whites, so less dull) and also for colors - especially valid for your first images without the phone. But it's also visible in the other comparisons to a varying extent -and in the lower Iso shots of the den, too,though those are closer. I loaded your images into PS and it's also evident on the histograms (I know it's not exact science to refer to those Jpegs in PS, though). And I haven't compared the first mages for noise.

Anyway, I didn't expect the differences and kind of trade off for the different sensor design being visible in practice. Hopefully, it's actually for the most part due to preliminary profiles for the R5 II. I'm shooting all kinds of nature - landscapes, wildlife, including birds - but not exclusively. In contrary to my original decision, I just sold my R5 after having watched Ian Wegeners review on YT. I have not yet ordered the R5 II, though and hope that there are no regrets giving up on the original R5 which had performed well. as Jeff has reported, too. We'll see.

Wolfgang

Aug 26, 2024 at 07:27 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

WJaekel wrote:
Thank you for your efforts, Scott ! To me, the R5 looks clearly better - primarily for contrast (deeper blacks and whiter whites, so less dull) and also for colors - especially valid for your first images without the phone. But it's also visible in the other comparisons to a varying extent -and in the lower Iso shots of the den, too,though those are closer. I loaded your images into PS and it's also evident on the histograms (I know it's not exact science to refer to those Jpegs in PS, though). And I haven't compared the first mages for...Show more →

R5 files seem just a bit more malleable at iso 25k. The colours are a bit different between them with R5ii having a slight more green and R5 having a bit more Magenta. But as you can see, after denoise they are quite close with maybe an edge to black/white to R5. But most people don't shoot this high iso (25k).

I won't know until I find a grizzly in late night and get pushed to 25k iso, with my 200-800, to avoid motion blur. So far I have been very happy with my new 200-800 because of the R5 25k performance. I like to keep the ss up. I am hopeful that this does not change or I might sell my r8 instead of my r5. Clearly the r5II will be better for BIF and action, but it's the very high ISO that makes my 200-800 very useful, for bears in low light. I could use my 200-500 (560f.6) but then I will be cropping at iso 10,000 with a much larger lens.

Aug 26, 2024 at 11:53 PM

MMcGrath
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

Might be relevant to your discussion Scott, but the presenter in this video mentions that the Adobe profiles for the R5II are likely to be tweaked in the coming weeks.

https://youtu.be/j-Me_I0ygOM?si=DgtKHYoPybC_DMYp

Aug 27, 2024 at 01:02 AM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

MMcGrath wrote:
Might be relevant to your discussion Scott, but the presenter in this video mentions that the Adobe profiles for the R5II are likely to be tweaked in the coming weeks.

https://youtu.be/j-Me_I0ygOM?si=DgtKHYoPybC_DMYp

Thank you. I will look at it. That would be great. The R5 iso/dynamic range is so good - and the R5ii is close and better everywhere elsewhere, so I am likely to sell the R5 anyway. It's hard to have a 2nd camera that just does one thing slightly better. I sold my 5DSR even thought I thought it had better IQ (50vs45, and no AA) because the R5 was just marginally less good on IQ at iso 100 and better everywhere else, and then it just sat picking up the dust for a year. I want a 2nd camera that complements (r7 pixel density and R8 weight) and is a backup, not to sit just on the shelf (5DSR, R5) because its theorectly slightly better in one dimension.

I found the reference about 6:11 where he talks about DXO and Adobe profiles being interim.

He also said - focus on R5ii video and stills was great.

I don't know how he knows this - LR processes the R5ii right now - so I think it has a profile. Maybe interim. I will do some googling.

-----------------------

googling:

https://helpx.adobe.com/ca/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html
R1 is listed as added Aug support without *** indicating preliminary
R5II is listed in supported without the *** preliminary indication. It indicates Note 6 but so is R8 which has been out forever.

So adobe is listing it as final - implicitly. [not ***] Only adobe knows if they are tuning more. But I checked DPP vs Adobe and they were close, so I am not holding my breath. Adobe default auto certainly looks different between R5 and R5ii with my preference to the R colours, noise treatment but it could just be canon/adobe preference/compromise with other iso's.

[I also checked LR and the lens profiles work and the denoise button works and the exif indicates R5ii . But the tint looks biased to green vs R5. And the denoise button makes the colour better. Highlites seem like it needs a little more.] Bottom line is with denoise and highlights and shadows and tint adjustments - the R5II vs R5 comes down to preferences after processing.

----------------------

So I am stopping my testing in my den and moving to real bears. R5II is good enough in my den.

R5II delivers a pretty nice image for ISO 25k with Denoise,tint up, high lites up, shadows up and sharpening adjustments to taste [maybe I shifted too much magenta]

Canon EOS R5m2 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 500mm f/8.0 1/400s 25600 ISO 0.0 EV

Aug 27, 2024 at 10:07 AM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1870931/

around 14:30 says

For video:
R5 has less noise at iso 25k but R5II has better colours and contrast.
he R5 gain kicks in at a lower iso than R5ii, so R5 is better at ISO 3400 vs than R5II 4000

Noting his observations are related to video and mine still:
-I did not see better colours/contrast at iso 25k but different colours in LR/DPP - which does suggest this is mostly a profile (choice).
- It is a consistent observation, that R5 is slightly better in noise than R5ii at 12k, 25k

As I said previously, after denoise and processing, the R5ii can look as good (in my den) as the R5. And I am waiting for my bear shooting for in the field conclusions. [I broke my right foot while backpacking a month ago and just tried driving yesterday in my wife's automatic. Today I am going to try stick shift - if that works I will not be at the mercy of friends generosity. So soon. ]

BTW - this is an excellent video for hybrid shooters deciding on R5 vs R5ii
- wobble better but not completely fixed
- clog 2 better
- focus better
- if video or action orientated R5ii is better but for landscape R5 is better
- other
I think this video (hybrid) and jan Wegener's wildlife focused video really cover the gamut for most shooters.

Aug 28, 2024 at 08:53 AM

RustyRus
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

Took a shot last night that just so happened to be at ISO 25K- Made me think of this thread-

Happy with the results but the black profile needs to be adjusted IMO.

First shot with just blacks adjusted-
Second with Noise Reduction applied with auto profile in LightRoom-
In all honesty, I am fine with the original

Canon EOS R5m2 RF85mm F1.2 L USM lens 85mm f/1.2 1/100s 25600 ISO 0.0 EV

Canon EOS R5m2 RF85mm F1.2 L USM lens 85mm f/1.2 1/100s 25600 ISO 0.0 EV

Aug 28, 2024 at 09:55 AM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

RustyRus wrote:
Took a shot last night that just so happened to be at ISO 25K- Made me think of this thread-

Happy with the results but the black profile needs to be adjusted IMO.

First shot with just blacks adjusted-
Second with Noise Reduction applied with auto profile in LightRoom-
In all honesty, I am fine with the original

Great picture.

Isn't it amazing what R5II (R5) can do at iso 25k. Only 5 years ago - I used to think 6k was the limit.

I agree - blacks need adjusting on R5ii. I hope that DPP/LR tune their raw converters.

Aug 28, 2024 at 10:39 AM

squawk3000
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

Took some first shots yesterday evening

AF on the 200-800 is a lot better than on the R5. I would say 7/8 in focus on the R5ii vs much lower hit rate on the R5.

I forgot the switchover was iso 500. But my impressions at iso 400 are that it’s noticeably noisier than the R5. I’ll play around with iso 500 today.

Cranking up the NR in DPP seemed to preserve the detail nicely while bringing down the noise with iso 400

Aug 28, 2024 at 12:52 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · R5 vs R5II 1/1000, ISO 25k, Electronic

I went out last night to try my new R5ii on actual animals. I could not find any bears. So it's pica and birthed this year big horn.

Here are my best 4 of the night.

I think in the end, with challenging side light (my broken foot does not allow me to move much), the pictures came out okay. But boy the effort in processing is high compared to R5. I think it is LR. But in R5, I would hit 1) Crop, 2) auto in colour, make some final adjustments (black, white, high lites, and shadows, and sharpen, then denoise if necessary). With R5ii, the image comes in very grainy with colours off, hitting auto colour makes it ugly, so its (denoise, auto, then black, white, high lites, and shadows, and sharpen). I hope its a LR thing because it really adds time, in culling.

Canon EOS R5m2 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 570mm f/8.0 1/2500s 3200 ISO -0.7 EV

Canon EOS R5m2 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 268mm f/7.1 1/1250s 1250 ISO -0.7 EV

Canon EOS R5m2 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 800mm f/9.0 1/3200s 12800 ISO -0.7 EV

Canon EOS R5m2 RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens 800mm f/9.0 1/3200s 16000 ISO -0.7 EV

Aug 30, 2024 at 12:53 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.