takowasa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #5 · R5 Mk II has BETTER dynamic range than R5 | |
wolf33d wrote:
The R5 II has actually a better dynamic range than the R5.
Proof of this claim is requested, as the link you gave below does not work:
I can't believe that all reviews only focus on shadow recovery. Yes, the R5 has slightly better shadow recovery than the R5 II (like maybe half stop when using DPreview tool to compare), but what nobody seems to point out is that the Mark II has dramatically better highlight recovery, letting you expose much higher than the R5, and giving you overall more dynamic range because if you expose higher you don't need to recover as much shadows.
Lesnumeriques.com is a well regarded French website that tested precisely that in the lab. Below is a comparison of highlights recovery for R5 and Mark II. The mark II is like 3 stops better.
Funny thing is as an R5 owner and landscape photographer myself, I always found highlight recovery to be very poor, forcing me to underexpose a lot, more than on my previous Nikon and Sony bodies. Turns out, after checking most competitors (A7R V, A1,...) reviews on Lesnumeriques, they all have much much better highlight recovery than the R5. The Mark II is now back in the same ballpark as the others.
Link with results (source lesnumeriques.com): https://imgur.com/a/sNmjq40...Show more →
So, if we're going to talk about DR, then we need to photograph the same scene with the same lens and the same settings with both cameras. We then need to measure the results from the RAW files directly or process the RAW photos in exactly the same way (which, even using the same RAW converter, will not necessarily be the case, as the RAW converter may well process files from different cameras differently). And, yes, we do need to do this with the RAW files because who knows what kind of processing the jpg engine is doing. Did the site you visited do this?
This really makes me question sites likes photonstophotos...
As you should, but not for the reasons you're suggensting.
...but honestly just looking at their results showing the R5 has more DR than the D810 even at 64 iso, (which as a previous D810 owner and current R5 owner) could not be further from the truth, now I won't even pay attention to those sites.
Again, claims like what you're making require considerable support.
Don't get me wrong I love my R5, I have always been happy about this body for pretty much everything except for that highlight recovery performance and now I understand why. At least it's reassuring to see that Canon wasn't crazy and made the new version better, not worst.
I'm going to go out on a limb and make an unsubstantiated claim -- any differences in DR between the R5 and R5.2 are likely going to be the absolute least of reasons to choose one over the other, except, of course, for people for whom even a 1/3 stop in DR makes or breaks the photo (and, to make another unsubstantiated claim, I'm betting that such people represent less than 1% of the people who choose the R5 series cameras).
But if you're of the opinion that the R5 gives 1/2 stop more in the shadows at the expense of 3 stops in the highlights over the R5.2, well, I can comfortably say that simply is not true.
In any case, if you can fix the link, I'm sure we'd all like to see what they did and how those results indicate what you are claiming.
Oh -- just saw this after I posted:
snapsy wrote:
The comparison is flawed. The baseline exposure on the R5 is much brighter than the R5 II, so the R5 is already starting closer to highlight clipping vs the R5 II of the same subject. That gives the false impression that the R5 II has better highlight recovery.
Highlight recovery differences are a function of metering anyway so it's not really a thing on modern sensors.
Yeah -- that would pretty much be the reason.
|
