This 500-rule is seriously outdated with the high resolution cameras we use today. I think even 400 is pushing it. I never use above 13 seconds for 24 mm without tracking. And that is on a 20 Mp camera. 45 Mp makes it even worse 🙂
Nice video, but same question as last time. Would you mind sharing the RAW files so that we can have a look for ourselves? Also, would you consider doing a stacked image of the MW with dark frames on the R5 so we can see how it works out with a higher detailed MW image?
Thanks for the great video. This is one of the most helpful videos in comparing these two cameras. Did you see any indication of heat issues with the long exposures? I am curious if the problems that some have reported with video and overheating might come into play with a long series of long exposures. Additionally, I am curious how the larger 45MP images impacted your editing workflow speed.
You bet Mike, I'm glad it helped! I haven't experienced any heat issues with either the R5 or the R6 with long exposures, or with anything at all actually. I made two other videos about that that with the R5 though, if you want to check them out. I also haven't had any issues with editing the R5 images, and my computer is certainly not top of the line, but pretty decent.
@@davelynch6143 you won't really tell the difference from the R6 imo, more noise but spread across more pixels, it should be roughly the same in the end, lens will matter much more than the body
I'd fully expect a camera with a high count of microscopic pixels to be less light sensitive than one with larger pixels - the whole foundation on which dedicated CCD (and CMOS) astro cameras is built on. I've previously used full frame CCD astro cameras with as low a pixel count as 12MP, but each pixel is a (comparatively!) huge light bucket, which gives it amazing sensitivity. Even looking at a basic sensor spec sheet, I'd choose the R6 over the R5 every time for astro shots for this same reason.
Great comparison. Thank you. The crop method used is confusing. I get the 100% crop on each, but I think to be fair, the crops should show the same size object which would require more crop on the R6.
Interesting. I thought the R6 should be slightly better. But was impressed how well the R5 held up considering the extra megapixels. Probably getting an R6 & couple of lenses soon. ( Still currently using my trusty original 6D.) I may get an R5 further down the line depending on funds.
Were you using the same lens on both cameras? The R5 looks to be a little more zoomed in than the R6 when viewed at 100%. Is that due to the sensor mp difference?
seems like the R6 retains more detail in the nebulosity. I would get the R6 over the R5 for astr imo. as all things being equal, like noise and processing of the cameras, the R6's pixels are just getting more light. But, on a start tracker, the R5 might be the choice because you are not limited to like 25 sec exposures
? Just get an intervalometer. Also R6 is a 20 megapixel sensor which gets really limiting for digital zoom on nebula. Currently dealing with that with a rokinon 135 f2
Thanks for the test, it's interesting to follow. I'm looking for a new camera for nightscapes / astrophoto, and was considering the Z6, then Canon just released the R6. So, I'm very interested in this review. However, a few comments on things to improve, imho: - It's expected that with similar sensor technology and processor, the one with a lesser photosite (pixel) density should have an edge when it comes to noise (SNR) and "star trailing". I'd have love to spend more time on that and comparing the two in their limits. Hopefully, looking for noise you spent enough time to have an idea of the result. - there's no such thing as a "500 rule". This "rule" is just an easy way to have a basic starting point for casual photographer trying that for the first time... and it was done in a different era that cannot match with current camera technology. Just forget about it. If you want the best result, you must use the NPF rule, which is a true rule, a mathematical one taking into account every parameters: lens, sensor, location, where you are aiming with your camera... - For example, you have started with a 20" exposure time using that "500 rule", as you have a 24mm lens. If you consider a 5D Mark II (with a 21MPixel sensor, so close to the R6), you realize that you should be at 6" at the top of your image to have no star trails, and up to 9" at the bottom of that same image (in portrait orientation). This is why a better test would use wider lens to increase that exposure time, and faster lens to increase the amount of light in that exposure time. The R5 is assumed to require 4" to not have star trails in the same condition. I'd have love to check that, zooming into each at the top and bottom to see if we do have the expected results. - So, no, I do not think your tripod moved. You have star trails because you were using a too long exposure. - As for the noise, in the end, I don't care much. The lesser the better, of course, but image stacking saves the day anyway. I'm way more interested in the field experience: battery life, ability to dimme the screen light, external power source to increase the battery life, ease to find the settings when doing a manual focus in the dark, and what are the lens offering with the camera. I see the Z6 is becoming very attractive in price and the Nikon Z 20mm f1.8 S seems great for a good price tag too. Is there something matching that with Canon RF today? (the rumoured 14-24 f1.4 is such a thing... but at what price?). - I see a color difference between the two. That would require to look into that more in depth. Thanks anyway for doing that test, it still helps ;)
Hey thanks for the comment! Like many others have pointed out in the comments, I do agree the 500 rule is pretty much dead, I just didn't really think about it when I was out there, especially since the R5 is still pretty new to me, but you (and everyone else who's already pointed it out) are certainly right about that! It was my bad for messing it up in the video. I also agree with you about the noise. I personally don't care that much, as both cameras are great for my purposes, and stacking is always an option. I don't know anything about the Z6 though, I've never tried one. I don't think there's anything in the RF lineup that competes directly with that 20mm lens either, at least not yet. I heard about that 14-24 also, but I know it's gonna be stupid expensive.
Oh idk, I mean I had a 1DX2 for a long time, but I never tested it against my R5. I think both are great. The 1DX2 has less mp which is usually preferred for astro, but even though the R5 has higher mp, I like the images it yields in low light too. I'd say if you have them both, then try them out side by side and see what the noise patterns look like when you boost the exposure or the shadows, because that's kind of the most important thing.
I have an R5 and I love it. Considering the R6 for panos with my 28-70 f2 then use the R5 for timelapses. Can shoot much over 6-8 seconds on the R5 with the 28-70
Can you do more astrophotography with a cell phone? I noticed you be getting most of the Galaxy phones, have you gotten the Note 20? I currently bought it and want to learn more on these photo & videos pro settings and how to capture good time lapses, star trails, milky way photos, etc. It's been 2 months you uploaded a cellphone video.
I'm sorry, I've definitely been busy with the new cameras lately. I won't be getting the note 20 though, since I'm still paying off my S20 Ultra and will be for a while longer. As far as I know though, there really isn't too much difference in the note 20 and S20 Ultra's camera capabilities, and the pro mode features are definitely the same, as are the principles of photography, no matter what device you have, so theoretically, most of the stuff I'm doing with mirrorless and dslrs, and my S20, one could do with a note 20 or similar phone. I do want to do some more mobile photography videos, and hopefully I'll be able to get some going soon.
Thank you for the amazing video! This is what I’ve been looking for. I’m so torn between the R5 and R6 and care about astrophotography a lot so was wondering if the R5 does such worse job than R6 in astroshoots than would be visible to the average audience without needing to zoom? I’m tilted toward R5 for any other photo shoot mode but astrophotography is big for me and now not sure if R5 has the edge over R6 for me to buy it.
Arman, did you make a decision? I’m in the same quandary as you had so really interested in your thoughts. I really like the look of the R5, but worry I am missing something for astro by not going for the R6. Grateful for any thoughts.
@@davelynch6143 Hi Dave, I decided to go with the R5. The body material feels more premium and the pixel count helps in every other situation except for astrophotography however I decided to make up for it by getting a suitable lens
Really nice! I've been noticing in a few R5 reviews that it seems to be a hair darker on exposures (about 2/3 stop) than previous camera cameras. I know you noticed this too on your 5DIV comparison. I've been hearing a lot about issues with the R5 having a lot of noise and hot pixels at longer (2 mins +) exposures compared to other modern cameras. What is your opinion on this (since you seem to be under that exposure time). Also are you using the Long Exposure Noise Reduction setting in the camera? Thanks! PS. I used to have the 5DIV and LOVED it's files for pulling and pushing exposures at all ISOs. I eventually sold it for the R and kind of regretted it image quality wise because the files were very fragile and higher ISOs and/or pulling shadows resulted in a lot of banding/noise and colour shifts that weren't present in the 5DIV. It seems the R5 has solved that issue.
That's interesting. I definitely did notice the R5 being a bit darker on the exposures. I haven't had any noise issues or excessive hot pixels from long exposures with it either. I always turn the long exposure noise reduction in the camera off because I do long exposure timelapses and that really slows down the writing process to the card and can mess up my timelapses.
Very informative, thanks Brent, I've been waiting for an R5/R6 comparison video on Astrophotography for a while and this was exactly what I was looking for. You've a new subscriber! The noise when you looked in the dark areas isn't very visible on RUclips, so your commentary was very helpful. Pushing up exposure a few stops for that part of the comparison might have made it easier for us to see and also given a better view of colour noise - just a thought :) I saw the comment below around "like for like" and comparing at 100% given the difference in resolution. Taking that a step further, it'd be interesting to compare a downsampled R5 image (which should reduce noise) with the R6. I'll have a go myself if I can find comparable RAWs online, they're starting to come out, and post back the results. I won't have the luxury of having both cameras and being able to do it myself.... trying to decide between them at the moment and to be honest downsampling improvements in noise probably won't be the deciding factor ;) Great video, thanks again.
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate the kind words! Yeah, I just didn't think about boosting the shadows in post till after I published the video, and people are definitely letting me know about all of my shortcomings for this one! I did resize the R5 image afterwards, and while it may have helped reduce the noise a bit, the R6 still looked a bit better to me, and of course the R6 being less mp, also had less star trailing for all the same shutter speeds.
“Shortcomings” aren’t significant, it’s a really helpful review and minor points would be interesting but don’t detract from the overall picture and conclusion
Nice comparison, thanks. I’ve got a couple of questions. Have you done a comparison between the EOS R and the R6 and and chance of comparison between the R5 and R6 while lighting the scene with your lume cube, I feel this would help us see the noise differences better as the sky is usually pretty good with most cameras but the foreground and its shadows are generally the weak point. Deciding what way to go atm myself but unable to directly compare due to travel restrictions locally.
I haven't. I don't have the R anymore, but I did do the a comparison with the R5 and The 5D4 before I sold it (the 5d4), and the R5 was a bit better with the noise at high isos. As for lighting up the foreground, I only did at that at iso 3200 for both cameras, since for that I wasn't thinking about comparisons, just trying to get a clean image, and they both looked pretty good at iso 3200 on the lit up yucca. It seems to me that if you want something for mostly astro, then you might be slightly better off with the R6.
Very helpful comparison. You mentioned focus stacking for the foreground. Are you using the R6 focus stacking feature, and if so how and what are the settings? I have tried it and tried to develop in Lightroom using the HDR feature to combine but no go.
Hey, nice video. I've got a question concerning your setup (I hope you didn't mention it and I just missed it): Have all stabilizers been turned off (in body + lens). I learnt somewhere that you're supposed to turn it off, when on tripod for long exposures, because it might introduce some blur.
Yes, I always do astro and timelapses in manual focus, and on the R5 and R6 if you're using a lens with IS and you turn it off, it disables the IBIS as well.
Great test. Did the R5 provide ANY benefit to the R6 (double the megapixels?) My concern.....................based on THIS test and this test alone, why would anyone buy an R5? I'd love to see the exact same test in daylight on animals. There has to be a benefit somewhere for the increased megapix of the R5??????????
Oh there's definitely advantages. This test only compared it to another very good low light camera. The R5 is still better at low light than almost any other camera out there, so it's totally worth it, even for astro stuff like this. Also, it's beyond incredible for wildlife, landscapes, and portraits, and I'll be grabbing my R5 over my R6 for that stuff pretty much every time.
I've never done any exposures longer than 30 sec with it. If I want to get a super long exposure, I do a timelapse and then blend it in post. I have done long astrolapses with 15-25 sec exposures for hours on end though, and experienced what to me was a normal amount of hot pixels.
Great analysis of something I've been wondering about. I am waiting for my R5 to come in. I currently shoot 5div and was hoping the R5 might have improved high ISO performance. I don't think the 5dvi is great at it. I wish I would get it before next week so I could head up to Cherry Springs SP in northern PA. Just about the darkest skies we have in the east. Thanks again. I really enjoy your channel.
Hi Brent, was not getting email notifications of new video uploads from any of my subscribed RUclips channel. I finally discovered that RUclips, in their infinite wisdom, turn that feature off. I have missed a number of new videos in the last few weeks, including yours. Got to figure out what to do. Take care. I hope New Mexico is free from the fires the is plaguing the west. Nyall
Brent, thanks so much for doing this test for us. I know you prefer the photographs of the night sky, but I was wondering if you could do a side-by-side video with the R5 & R6, filming the SW sky area of Saturn, Jupiter and the stars of Sagittarius with a bit of trees and such in the foreground - testing at various ISO's on the night sky. That would be so helpful for me. Anyway, thanks again for doing what you do. :)
Hey thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it! I have a lot on my plate right now for videos and work, so I doubt I'll be able to do something that specific, but I am going to try to get out a few more times for some astrophotography this next month.
@@BrentHall Thanks anyway, Brent. It's hard to find anyone who will shoot video of the night sky with these cameras but I totally understand the time constraints and other projects folks have on - so thanks again. :)
Thank you Sasha! I have owned all the Canon EF 24-70s, and used the Sigma as well. The Tamron is better than all of them in my experience, plus it has IS and is a great price. I highly recommend it. I haven't tried the RF 24-70 yet though, but I hear it's even better, so I will probably save up for that one and sell my Tamron to help get the RF version eventually. If you need that focal range and don't have anything, and can afford it, then I highly suggest grabbing the Tamron now so you can start using it, and then continue to save up the difference for the RF down the road.
@@BrentHall hi Brent and Sasha. I have the R6 and I also have the RF 24-70. I haven’t used my camera for astrophotography yet but I’m ready to. I can say the 24-70 has been an excellent Lens with my other photos. You can follow my photos on Instagram MarcVisuales. Please feel free to critique my photos. Thank you Brent.
I didn't think to downsize the image while filming the video (and now everyone's letting me know) but I did it afterward, and while it may have helped a bit, I still feel the R6 looks a bit better. Just my subjective opinion though.
Thank you for this, exactly some of the questions i was wondering..I haven't done the math but possible the apparent star trailing on the r5 at the longer exposure is due to the greater pixel count? Regarding that, although the noise comparison favors the r6 in your demo, does the higher vs lower resolution sway you one way or the other for this type of work?
Yeah, the star trails are definitely because of the higher mp. I just didn't think about that at the time and should have done a shorter shutter speed. Honestly, for this type of stuff, I think they both do great, and if I only had one or the other, I wouldn't really care. I'll probably continue to use both for astro, especially since I'm usually shooting multiple things at a time. I just need to pay more attention to my exposure times with the R5 at night.
Yeah, it's really crazy about how it all went down! I can't believe people who pre-ordered still haven't gotten theirs yet. I'm definitely lucky I managed to get mine, though I did set an alarm and got up stupid early on the first announcement day to pre-order both my R5 and R6.
thanks man! I feel you, it's been a gnarly fire season all over the sw, here too. Though not currently as bad as in Cali right now. Hopefully they'll subside soon.
I don't have the r anymore, just the rp now. I did recently do a video where I compared the r5 to the 5d4, and the r5 did a bit better at high iso levels.
Hi Brent thx fro this video I love doing astro photography also love the r5 and r6, I am reviewing these 2 cameras myself today on my channel. interesting stuff Brent Subbed to your channel and hit the bell. cheers keep up the good work buddy.
@@nightscapephotographer6029 no not on these 2 cameras, how ever I am doing the M31 tonight on the canon eos r & Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-f5.6 mkii lens on a star tracker.
Well, in my case, it was a number of reasons. I couldn't afford 2 R5s, I need multiple cameras for my work, and the R6 has the same AF and most features as the R5, plus the R6 is slightly better for low light and astro, of which I do quite a lot. But that's just me.
Hey. I’m looking to buy a better camera around Christmas time, so do you know any good higher res cameras for under $1500 that’s not too old? I’m coming from a Nikon d3300 and I would like to keep my lenses so I could use a mount to use them on the new camera.
Thank you for the video. I have been taking astrophotography photos for about one year. Right now I have a Canon 70D which is a crop sensor camera. The biggest problem I have is with the crop factor. I have a 24mm lens which is the equivalent to 38 mm. Given the rule of 500, I can only leave the shutter open for 13 seconds. I want to upgrade to a full frame camera. Because I am not a professional cost is an important factor. I am considering the Canon R and R6. There is a big cost difference between the two. Is the Canon R6 much better than the R considering the price difference? Thanks. Nyall
The 500 rule kind of goes out the window when you get over around 24mp, so it's actually more like the 300 or even 200 rule for high mp cameras. That's where I messed up in the video, I forgot to compensate for the R5s high mp. Which is why when I took the 8 sec shot with the R5, there was little to no star trails. The R has pretty much the same sensor as the 5D4, which I used for years, and is very good at astro too, but yes the R6 is better for low light than the 5D4 and EOS R. It has 10 less mp than both though, which is very good for all other genres of photography, so it's up to you to determine what you need out of a camera and what you're willing to sacrifice. To me personally, the improved AF system in the R6/R5 alone is worth the upgrade from any other canon camera. But that's just me, I can't tell you what's worth it to you since I don't know anything about you or your needs or your budget, etc. Either way, both the R and the R6 will be a massive upgrade in every way from the 70D. You could get the R and a nice lens for the price of the R6.
@@BrentHall Thank you, Brent. I appreciate your comments. I do like your idea of getting a Canon R and lens. I would be interested in the RP w a nice lens but the battery is too small. I appreciate your videos.
11:24 you could have turned your subjectivity into something more obvious to the eye by pushing the brightness the same amount on both sides. The R6 is a bit more yellowish in all pictures.
how do they compare when you zoom in so that everything is the same size on both cameras? It looked like when you were taking a closer look at the pictures that the R5 was zoomed in more than the r6. Maybe the noise would be less recognisable on r5 and it would look more similar to the r6.
@@BrentHall Alright good to know! And for landscape in general? I am thinking about saving money to get the r5 as my next camera (currently using the 80D). Because many time i hear people say that more mp is usefull for landscape.
The "500-rule" isn't really applicable anymore once you get past a certain number of megapixels. For my 40+ mpix cameras i always stick to the 300 rule. Even at 30-35mpix the 500 rule doesn't really work. The 500 rule only works well until around 25 mpix imo. Thanks for sharing your comparison of the two cameras :D I'm contemplating picking up an R5 soon.
There's no such thing as a "300/500 rule". That's just easy to remember way to calculate exposure time... for a specific and outdated sensor. I'm considering the R6 for astro/nightscapes only for the pixel density on its sensor. The lesser the density, the higher the exposure time before star trail happens. And as for the the noise, I'm not very worried about it. Image stacking is the way to go anyway.
The reason you see more startrails on the R5 is simply because of the higher sensor resolution which collects more data for a given area on the sensor. Not sure wether photo pills already has the R5 in their data base but you can actually let the app calculate the amount of time you can expose an image before startrails will become noticable. All you need to do is choose your camera model and the focal length of your lens. Anyway, thanks for the Video. I'm seriously considering the R6 to replace my EOS R as the main camera.
Hey thanks Mario! Not sure why I didn't think about that while I filmed the video, lol. I didn't know that about photo pills. I always forget that it's available for android now. I'll definitely check it out!
@@nightscapephotographer6029 that doesn't really makes much sense tho, for a given exposure time the lenght of the trail will be the same regardless of the amount of megapixels in your camera.
V0LDY I’ve pulled this straight from an article on lightstalking.com about the npf rule as it explains it very simply Resolution of camera sensor - “as the resolution of the sensor increases, star trails become more evident at the pixel level because of the increased pixel density. So, as the resolution increases, the exposure time needs to be decreased to eliminate star trails” But personally I’m a big fan of just teaching people to use the 600/500 rule as nothing but a guide for their shutter speed and then adjusting based on what they see reviewing in their camera screens, as pixel density, location and direction they are pointing in the sky all play a part.
@@nightscapephotographer6029 @Nightscape Photographer ye, "at the pixel level" it becomes more noticeable, but it doesn't compared to the overall image. Side by side the trails on the R5 are just as long as those on the R6 if you compare the image properly. Of course if you zoom 100% on both they will look bigger, but that's a meaningless comparison, it's like saying your head becomes longer in a portrait done with the R5 compared to the R6 :D That said, NPF is just wrong, it gives you really messed up results using the calculator, I'd like to write an article pointing up the mistakes but I'd need the images to show how wrong it is and I don't have the equipment to do that :(
Nice video... those cameras are performing as it should be... better colors and resolution on R5 and less noise on R6....... until 12800 ISO GETS in.. on that value seems the R5 dynamic range shrinks by noise and R6 takes advantage... ( seems the R6 has more headroom on signal to noise rationat that value ), thanks for share. CS
Thanks! Yeah, I think the R6 really shines with low light and astro stuff when you start hitting those higher isos, but the R5 is certainly no slouch either. :)
I've never used a Sony A7SII, but I have seen some really impressive night stuff with it from Chris Burkard. You should check out his film Under The Arctic Sky, it's amazing, and a great example of lowlight filming.
I don't think it's entirely fair to just zoom both images in to 100%, because of the megapixel difference, you're looking at a wider field of view on the lower megapixel image when you do that. Noise just looks more prominent when you're zoomed in to a smaller field of view. It would be more apples to apples if you compare both images at the same field of view.
Yeah, you're right, just like almost every other comment on here.... Of course I didn't think to do that while I was filming (I'm a space cadet sometimes and I take the heat for it in the comments), but I did downsize and do a more proper comparison afterward....the R6 still did better, at least for my comparison, but not by much.
at 6:42, I think the motion blur (in these case very short star trail) is because of the higher megapixel counts of the R5. Instead of 500 rule you can use NPF rule to overcome the issue.
NPF rule is not really accurate at all, the trails seem longer just because he's looking them at 100% magnification on both images, but that's not a fair comparison since one camera is 45mpx and the other is 20...
@@v0ldy54 NPF rule is accurate as it takes into account the aperture, pixel size/megapixel and focal length. Because it made for printing big or viewing the image at 1:1 100%. In another word there is nothing better when it comes to "spot stars", but of course you have to sacrifice some light because the rule force you to up the shutter speed.
The R6 can have a longer exposure without seeing star-trailing. So you can catch more light at otherwise same settings. That said, the output of the R5 is very clean all things considered and you don't really see the star trailing when viewing the full image on a computer monitor.
If the NPF rule's recommended exposure time for each camera was used and since it takes pixel pitch into account, why would star trails be an issue in the R5?
It wouldn't. I just didn't think to do that when I was out there filming. Though, I technically did use that rule when I did the iso 12800 shots because those were 8 sec, so pretty much eliminated the star trails.
@@BrentHall Fair enough, yeah the higher R5 resolution will make trailing appear more. The thing is output resolution of the files is usually the same, especially when used for social media. Therefore it would make more sense to compare noise levels of the R5 downsampled to the same scale as the R6.
Why are you comparing the noise at 100%? (facepalm). You need to set the R5 to 67% and the R6 to 100%, that way you're comparing the same size: 45 * 0.67 * 0.67 = 20.2.
Don't be sorry. This is the internet...if I got offended by people's comments about me, I wouldn't still be doing this. I couldn't care less what people think of me.
This 500-rule is seriously outdated with the high resolution cameras we use today. I think even 400 is pushing it. I never use above 13 seconds for 24 mm without tracking. And that is on a 20 Mp camera. 45 Mp makes it even worse 🙂
i use a 14mm and dont go past 25 sec on my t8i and i get crystal clear points and still have straight lines
I think the R6 iso files were cleaner at 6400 and up.
Nice video, but same question as last time. Would you mind sharing the RAW files so that we can have a look for ourselves? Also, would you consider doing a stacked image of the MW with dark frames on the R5 so we can see how it works out with a higher detailed MW image?
Please try to compare R6 and R5 files with the same Resolution - without denoising them - maybe the difference is not that big.
Thanks for the great video. This is one of the most helpful videos in comparing these two cameras. Did you see any indication of heat issues with the long exposures? I am curious if the problems that some have reported with video and overheating might come into play with a long series of long exposures.
Additionally, I am curious how the larger 45MP images impacted your editing workflow speed.
You bet Mike, I'm glad it helped! I haven't experienced any heat issues with either the R5 or the R6 with long exposures, or with anything at all actually. I made two other videos about that that with the R5 though, if you want to check them out. I also haven't had any issues with editing the R5 images, and my computer is certainly not top of the line, but pretty decent.
Already got the R5, glad it's not a disaster for astrophotography
I’m now in the market for R5 or R6. How are you finding your R5 for Astro?
@@davelynch6143 you won't really tell the difference from the R6 imo, more noise but spread across more pixels, it should be roughly the same in the end, lens will matter much more than the body
@@dsub1994 what I was wondering about was the shorter exposure time before trailing with higher resolution cameras.
I'd fully expect a camera with a high count of microscopic pixels to be less light sensitive than one with larger pixels - the whole foundation on which dedicated CCD (and CMOS) astro cameras is built on. I've previously used full frame CCD astro cameras with as low a pixel count as 12MP, but each pixel is a (comparatively!) huge light bucket, which gives it amazing sensitivity. Even looking at a basic sensor spec sheet, I'd choose the R6 over the R5 every time for astro shots for this same reason.
Thats´'s exactly what I wanted to know!
Thank you for your work, Brent!
So I'm now in need to save my money for the R6 and a good lense :D
Great comparison. Thank you. The crop method used is confusing. I get the 100% crop on each, but I think to be fair, the crops should show the same size object which would require more crop on the R6.
Interesting.
I thought the R6 should be slightly better.
But was impressed how well the R5 held up considering the extra megapixels.
Probably getting an R6 & couple of lenses soon. ( Still currently using my trusty original 6D.)
I may get an R5 further down the line depending on funds.
Yeah, the R5 holds up really well for high iso. The R6 is slightly better, but not by much, for sure.
@@BrentHall I mostly do night photography. So looking forward to using R6.👍
Were you using the same lens on both cameras? The R5 looks to be a little more zoomed in than the R6 when viewed at 100%. Is that due to the sensor mp difference?
Yeah, same lens, same focal length for both. It's because I didn't downsize the R5 to match the R6 resolution.
seems like the R6 retains more detail in the nebulosity. I would get the R6 over the R5 for astr imo. as all things being equal, like noise and processing of the cameras, the R6's pixels are just getting more light. But, on a start tracker, the R5 might be the choice because you are not limited to like 25 sec exposures
? Just get an intervalometer. Also R6 is a 20 megapixel sensor which gets really limiting for digital zoom on nebula. Currently dealing with that with a rokinon 135 f2
Thanks for the test, it's interesting to follow. I'm looking for a new camera for nightscapes / astrophoto, and was considering the Z6, then Canon just released the R6. So, I'm very interested in this review. However, a few comments on things to improve, imho:
- It's expected that with similar sensor technology and processor, the one with a lesser photosite (pixel) density should have an edge when it comes to noise (SNR) and "star trailing". I'd have love to spend more time on that and comparing the two in their limits. Hopefully, looking for noise you spent enough time to have an idea of the result.
- there's no such thing as a "500 rule". This "rule" is just an easy way to have a basic starting point for casual photographer trying that for the first time... and it was done in a different era that cannot match with current camera technology. Just forget about it. If you want the best result, you must use the NPF rule, which is a true rule, a mathematical one taking into account every parameters: lens, sensor, location, where you are aiming with your camera...
- For example, you have started with a 20" exposure time using that "500 rule", as you have a 24mm lens. If you consider a 5D Mark II (with a 21MPixel sensor, so close to the R6), you realize that you should be at 6" at the top of your image to have no star trails, and up to 9" at the bottom of that same image (in portrait orientation). This is why a better test would use wider lens to increase that exposure time, and faster lens to increase the amount of light in that exposure time. The R5 is assumed to require 4" to not have star trails in the same condition. I'd have love to check that, zooming into each at the top and bottom to see if we do have the expected results.
- So, no, I do not think your tripod moved. You have star trails because you were using a too long exposure.
- As for the noise, in the end, I don't care much. The lesser the better, of course, but image stacking saves the day anyway. I'm way more interested in the field experience: battery life, ability to dimme the screen light, external power source to increase the battery life, ease to find the settings when doing a manual focus in the dark, and what are the lens offering with the camera. I see the Z6 is becoming very attractive in price and the Nikon Z 20mm f1.8 S seems great for a good price tag too. Is there something matching that with Canon RF today? (the rumoured 14-24 f1.4 is such a thing... but at what price?).
- I see a color difference between the two. That would require to look into that more in depth.
Thanks anyway for doing that test, it still helps ;)
Hey thanks for the comment! Like many others have pointed out in the comments, I do agree the 500 rule is pretty much dead, I just didn't really think about it when I was out there, especially since the R5 is still pretty new to me, but you (and everyone else who's already pointed it out) are certainly right about that! It was my bad for messing it up in the video.
I also agree with you about the noise. I personally don't care that much, as both cameras are great for my purposes, and stacking is always an option. I don't know anything about the Z6 though, I've never tried one. I don't think there's anything in the RF lineup that competes directly with that 20mm lens either, at least not yet. I heard about that 14-24 also, but I know it's gonna be stupid expensive.
the point is why you just didnt increased exposure until we see details of the shadows patterns for both. It is so black that we couldnt see nothig
Thank you for taking the time to get this out.
You're welcome, thanks for watching!
Brent, I've got an R5 and a 1DX Mark II. Which would be better for Milky Way photography? Phil Zivnuska
Oh idk, I mean I had a 1DX2 for a long time, but I never tested it against my R5. I think both are great. The 1DX2 has less mp which is usually preferred for astro, but even though the R5 has higher mp, I like the images it yields in low light too. I'd say if you have them both, then try them out side by side and see what the noise patterns look like when you boost the exposure or the shadows, because that's kind of the most important thing.
I have an R5 and I love it. Considering the R6 for panos with my 28-70 f2 then use the R5 for timelapses. Can shoot much over 6-8 seconds on the R5 with the 28-70
That sounds awesome! That lens is incredible for sure.
Gostei dos resultado da R6, comprei agora e vou testar na próxima semana, o sensor da para perceber que é bem melhor que a 6D II, abraço.
Can you do more astrophotography with a cell phone? I noticed you be getting most of the Galaxy phones, have you gotten the Note 20? I currently bought it and want to learn more on these photo & videos pro settings and how to capture good time lapses, star trails, milky way photos, etc.
It's been 2 months you uploaded a cellphone video.
I'm sorry, I've definitely been busy with the new cameras lately. I won't be getting the note 20 though, since I'm still paying off my S20 Ultra and will be for a while longer. As far as I know though, there really isn't too much difference in the note 20 and S20 Ultra's camera capabilities, and the pro mode features are definitely the same, as are the principles of photography, no matter what device you have, so theoretically, most of the stuff I'm doing with mirrorless and dslrs, and my S20, one could do with a note 20 or similar phone. I do want to do some more mobile photography videos, and hopefully I'll be able to get some going soon.
Is it me or does Brent have a strong resemblance to Elon Musk.
Thank you for the amazing video! This is what I’ve been looking for. I’m so torn between the R5 and R6 and care about astrophotography a lot so was wondering if the R5 does such worse job than R6 in astroshoots than would be visible to the average audience without needing to zoom? I’m tilted toward R5 for any other photo shoot mode but astrophotography is big for me and now not sure if R5 has the edge over R6 for me to buy it.
You're welcome. I'm glad it helped. That is definitely a tough choice though.
My current limitation is the 20 megapixel sensor and limited digital zoom on the R6
Arman, did you make a decision? I’m in the same quandary as you had so really interested in your thoughts. I really like the look of the R5, but worry I am missing something for astro by not going for the R6. Grateful for any thoughts.
@@davelynch6143 Hi Dave, I decided to go with the R5. The body material feels more premium and the pixel count helps in every other situation except for astrophotography however I decided to make up for it by getting a suitable lens
@@ArmDav7 thanks. What lens did you go for?
Really nice! I've been noticing in a few R5 reviews that it seems to be a hair darker on exposures (about 2/3 stop) than previous camera cameras. I know you noticed this too on your 5DIV comparison.
I've been hearing a lot about issues with the R5 having a lot of noise and hot pixels at longer (2 mins +) exposures compared to other modern cameras. What is your opinion on this (since you seem to be under that exposure time). Also are you using the Long Exposure Noise Reduction setting in the camera?
Thanks!
PS. I used to have the 5DIV and LOVED it's files for pulling and pushing exposures at all ISOs. I eventually sold it for the R and kind of regretted it image quality wise because the files were very fragile and higher ISOs and/or pulling shadows resulted in a lot of banding/noise and colour shifts that weren't present in the 5DIV. It seems the R5 has solved that issue.
That's interesting. I definitely did notice the R5 being a bit darker on the exposures. I haven't had any noise issues or excessive hot pixels from long exposures with it either. I always turn the long exposure noise reduction in the camera off because I do long exposure timelapses and that really slows down the writing process to the card and can mess up my timelapses.
Agreed, I bet if you hover over the light pollution on the horizon bottom left, you would see the RGB values decrease on the R5.
Very informative, thanks Brent, I've been waiting for an R5/R6 comparison video on Astrophotography for a while and this was exactly what I was looking for. You've a new subscriber!
The noise when you looked in the dark areas isn't very visible on RUclips, so your commentary was very helpful. Pushing up exposure a few stops for that part of the comparison might have made it easier for us to see and also given a better view of colour noise - just a thought :)
I saw the comment below around "like for like" and comparing at 100% given the difference in resolution. Taking that a step further, it'd be interesting to compare a downsampled R5 image (which should reduce noise) with the R6. I'll have a go myself if I can find comparable RAWs online, they're starting to come out, and post back the results. I won't have the luxury of having both cameras and being able to do it myself.... trying to decide between them at the moment and to be honest downsampling improvements in noise probably won't be the deciding factor ;)
Great video, thanks again.
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate the kind words! Yeah, I just didn't think about boosting the shadows in post till after I published the video, and people are definitely letting me know about all of my shortcomings for this one! I did resize the R5 image afterwards, and while it may have helped reduce the noise a bit, the R6 still looked a bit better to me, and of course the R6 being less mp, also had less star trailing for all the same shutter speeds.
“Shortcomings” aren’t significant, it’s a really helpful review and minor points would be interesting but don’t detract from the overall picture and conclusion
Nice demo brent am having eos r5 what is the best white balance for milky way?
It depends on the look you're after and the scene, but I usually like to start mine out in the 4000s and dial it in from there.
@@BrentHall Thanks so much for the response
Nice comparison, thanks.
I’ve got a couple of questions. Have you done a comparison between the EOS R and the R6 and and chance of comparison between the R5 and R6 while lighting the scene with your lume cube, I feel this would help us see the noise differences better as the sky is usually pretty good with most cameras but the foreground and its shadows are generally the weak point.
Deciding what way to go atm myself but unable to directly compare due to travel restrictions locally.
I haven't. I don't have the R anymore, but I did do the a comparison with the R5 and The 5D4 before I sold it (the 5d4), and the R5 was a bit better with the noise at high isos. As for lighting up the foreground, I only did at that at iso 3200 for both cameras, since for that I wasn't thinking about comparisons, just trying to get a clean image, and they both looked pretty good at iso 3200 on the lit up yucca. It seems to me that if you want something for mostly astro, then you might be slightly better off with the R6.
Brent Hall thanks
Very helpful comparison. You mentioned focus stacking for the foreground. Are you using the R6 focus stacking feature, and if so how and what are the settings? I have tried it and tried to develop in Lightroom using the HDR feature to combine but no go.
Thanks Judith! No I didn't use that feature, I just did it manually and did the stacking in photoshop.
Hey, nice video. I've got a question concerning your setup (I hope you didn't mention it and I just missed it):
Have all stabilizers been turned off (in body + lens).
I learnt somewhere that you're supposed to turn it off, when on tripod for long exposures, because it might introduce some blur.
Yes, I always do astro and timelapses in manual focus, and on the R5 and R6 if you're using a lens with IS and you turn it off, it disables the IBIS as well.
@@BrentHall OK, thanks for the info!
Would you consider downsampling the R5 files to 20mp to see if the noise differences disappear?
I just tried it. The R5 still looks noisier to me. That's just my subjective opinion though.
Great test. Did the R5 provide ANY benefit to the R6 (double the megapixels?) My concern.....................based on THIS test and this test alone, why would anyone buy an R5? I'd love to see the exact same test in daylight on animals. There has to be a benefit somewhere for the increased megapix of the R5??????????
Oh there's definitely advantages. This test only compared it to another very good low light camera. The R5 is still better at low light than almost any other camera out there, so it's totally worth it, even for astro stuff like this. Also, it's beyond incredible for wildlife, landscapes, and portraits, and I'll be grabbing my R5 over my R6 for that stuff pretty much every time.
@@BrentHall Thank you.
Great videos, Brent Hall; sure paying attention to details and good method; thank you
Thanks Ray, I appreciate it!
Do you notice any amp glow on the R6 with extended exposure lengths. Looking at 1min exposures for instance.
I've never done any exposures longer than 30 sec with it. If I want to get a super long exposure, I do a timelapse and then blend it in post. I have done long astrolapses with 15-25 sec exposures for hours on end though, and experienced what to me was a normal amount of hot pixels.
@@BrentHall thanks for the quick response! I appreciate that feedback👍🤗
Great analysis of something I've been wondering about. I am waiting for my R5 to come in. I currently shoot 5div and was hoping the R5 might have improved high ISO performance. I don't think the 5dvi is great at it. I wish I would get it before next week so I could head up to Cherry Springs SP in northern PA. Just about the darkest skies we have in the east. Thanks again. I really enjoy your channel.
Thanks Dave! My 5D4 always did alright with astro stuff. I made a lot of good images with it, but I do feel the R5 is better for low light for sure.
what is the maximum exposure time R5 and R6 support?
Deep objects astrophotography requires an EQ mount and dozens of minutes exposures.
You can set them both to bulb mode and have the shutter open for as long as you need.
Hi Brent, was not getting email notifications of new video uploads from any of my subscribed RUclips channel. I finally discovered that RUclips, in their infinite wisdom, turn that feature off. I have missed a number of new videos in the last few weeks, including yours. Got to figure out what to do. Take care. I hope New Mexico is free from the fires the is plaguing the west. Nyall
That's weird. Yeah, NM has finally cooled off a bit and most of the big fires are out.
Very interesting comparison, thanks for the video
You bet man, thanks for watching!
Brent, thanks so much for doing this test for us. I know you prefer the photographs of the night sky, but I was wondering if you could do a side-by-side video with the R5 & R6, filming the SW sky area of Saturn, Jupiter and the stars of Sagittarius with a bit of trees and such in the foreground - testing at various ISO's on the night sky. That would be so helpful for me. Anyway, thanks again for doing what you do. :)
Hey thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it! I have a lot on my plate right now for videos and work, so I doubt I'll be able to do something that specific, but I am going to try to get out a few more times for some astrophotography this next month.
@@BrentHall Thanks anyway, Brent. It's hard to find anyone who will shoot video of the night sky with these cameras but I totally understand the time constraints and other projects folks have on - so thanks again. :)
Great video! I just got my R6. Do you recommend the Tamron 24-70? Or should I keep saving up for canon glass?
Thank you Sasha! I have owned all the Canon EF 24-70s, and used the Sigma as well. The Tamron is better than all of them in my experience, plus it has IS and is a great price. I highly recommend it. I haven't tried the RF 24-70 yet though, but I hear it's even better, so I will probably save up for that one and sell my Tamron to help get the RF version eventually. If you need that focal range and don't have anything, and can afford it, then I highly suggest grabbing the Tamron now so you can start using it, and then continue to save up the difference for the RF down the road.
@@BrentHall hi Brent and Sasha. I have the R6 and I also have the RF 24-70. I haven’t used my camera for astrophotography yet but I’m ready to. I can say the 24-70 has been an excellent Lens with my other photos. You can follow my photos on Instagram MarcVisuales. Please feel free to critique my photos. Thank you Brent.
Maybe the noise is a bit more on the 5, but if you downsize the file to like 30MP, it will most likely look cleaner.
I didn't think to downsize the image while filming the video (and now everyone's letting me know) but I did it afterward, and while it may have helped a bit, I still feel the R6 looks a bit better. Just my subjective opinion though.
Nice Trover shirt! I still got mine. I already miss it and wish Expedia kept it up.
Yeah, it's definitely a bummer that they went under.
Thank you for this, exactly some of the questions i was wondering..I haven't done the math but possible the apparent star trailing on the r5 at the longer exposure is due to the greater pixel count? Regarding that, although the noise comparison favors the r6 in your demo, does the higher vs lower resolution sway you one way or the other for this type of work?
Yeah, the star trails are definitely because of the higher mp. I just didn't think about that at the time and should have done a shorter shutter speed. Honestly, for this type of stuff, I think they both do great, and if I only had one or the other, I wouldn't really care. I'll probably continue to use both for astro, especially since I'm usually shooting multiple things at a time. I just need to pay more attention to my exposure times with the R5 at night.
For most of us the R5 is just a rumor. Thanks for the update.
Yeah, it's really crazy about how it all went down! I can't believe people who pre-ordered still haven't gotten theirs yet. I'm definitely lucky I managed to get mine, though I did set an alarm and got up stupid early on the first announcement day to pre-order both my R5 and R6.
Great stuff I wish I could take pictures of the Milky Way but I’m in California and we’re on fire. But great stuff. ✌🏽
thanks man! I feel you, it's been a gnarly fire season all over the sw, here too. Though not currently as bad as in Cali right now. Hopefully they'll subside soon.
Brent Have you noticed color noice on the R5 when you do 3-4 minutes exposures? How does it compare in color noice with EOS R or the 5D IV?
I never do exposures that long. Longest I've done is 25-30 sec.
Its wrong comparing at 100% since R5 have double the pixels.
I agree, it would be much more interesting to compare it at the same size.
Sorry, I guess I didn't think to try that. I just tried it though, and the R5 still looks a little noisier to me. Just my subjective opinion though.
@@BrentHall A wery interesting test tho 😊 is the R much worse than these two?
I don't have the r anymore, just the rp now. I did recently do a video where I compared the r5 to the 5d4, and the r5 did a bit better at high iso levels.
Hi Brent thx fro this video I love doing astro photography also love the r5 and r6, I am reviewing these 2 cameras myself today on my channel. interesting stuff Brent Subbed to your channel and hit the bell. cheers keep up the good work buddy.
Are you reviewing these for Astro or just general, very interested in the Astro capabilities
@@nightscapephotographer6029 no not on these 2 cameras, how ever I am doing the M31 tonight on the canon eos r & Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-f5.6 mkii lens on a star tracker.
IR Photo-Tours awesome, subscribed 👍
@@nightscapephotographer6029 thx Brent much appreciated buddy.
Why buy R6 after owning the R5? Have you done R6 wildlife vid?
Well, in my case, it was a number of reasons. I couldn't afford 2 R5s, I need multiple cameras for my work, and the R6 has the same AF and most features as the R5, plus the R6 is slightly better for low light and astro, of which I do quite a lot. But that's just me.
Hey. I’m looking to buy a better camera around Christmas time, so do you know any good higher res cameras for under $1500 that’s not too old? I’m coming from a Nikon d3300 and I would like to keep my lenses so I could use a mount to use them on the new camera.
I haven't shot Nikon in a really long time, so I'm not really too familiar with their offerings and specs right now.
Thanks for sharing this video... thanks for your efforts
You bet man, thanks for watching!
Thank you for the video. I have been taking astrophotography photos for about one year. Right now I have a Canon 70D which is a crop sensor camera. The biggest problem I have is with the crop factor. I have a 24mm lens which is the equivalent to 38 mm. Given the rule of 500, I can only leave the shutter open for 13 seconds. I want to upgrade to a full frame camera. Because I am not a professional cost is an important factor. I am considering the Canon R and R6. There is a big cost difference between the two. Is the Canon R6 much better than the R considering the price difference? Thanks. Nyall
The 500 rule kind of goes out the window when you get over around 24mp, so it's actually more like the 300 or even 200 rule for high mp cameras. That's where I messed up in the video, I forgot to compensate for the R5s high mp. Which is why when I took the 8 sec shot with the R5, there was little to no star trails. The R has pretty much the same sensor as the 5D4, which I used for years, and is very good at astro too, but yes the R6 is better for low light than the 5D4 and EOS R. It has 10 less mp than both though, which is very good for all other genres of photography, so it's up to you to determine what you need out of a camera and what you're willing to sacrifice. To me personally, the improved AF system in the R6/R5 alone is worth the upgrade from any other canon camera. But that's just me, I can't tell you what's worth it to you since I don't know anything about you or your needs or your budget, etc. Either way, both the R and the R6 will be a massive upgrade in every way from the 70D. You could get the R and a nice lens for the price of the R6.
@@BrentHall Thank you, Brent. I appreciate your comments. I do like your idea of getting a Canon R and lens. I would be interested in the RP w a nice lens but the battery is too small. I appreciate your videos.
11:24 you could have turned your subjectivity into something more obvious to the eye by pushing the brightness the same amount on both sides. The R6 is a bit more yellowish in all pictures.
Yeah, didn't think of that at the time though. Clearly, from the comments, there are quite a few things I could/should have done better, lol.
how do they compare when you zoom in so that everything is the same size on both cameras? It looked like when you were taking a closer look at the pictures that the R5 was zoomed in more than the r6. Maybe the noise would be less recognisable on r5 and it would look more similar to the r6.
The R6 was still better at higher isos.
@@BrentHall Alright good to know! And for landscape in general? I am thinking about saving money to get the r5 as my next camera (currently using the 80D). Because many time i hear people say that more mp is usefull for landscape.
The "500-rule" isn't really applicable anymore once you get past a certain number of megapixels. For my 40+ mpix cameras i always stick to the 300 rule. Even at 30-35mpix the 500 rule doesn't really work. The 500 rule only works well until around 25 mpix imo.
Thanks for sharing your comparison of the two cameras :D I'm contemplating picking up an R5 soon.
Yeah, that's definitely true. I just totally didn't think about it when I was filming, lol.
There's no such thing as a "300/500 rule". That's just easy to remember way to calculate exposure time... for a specific and outdated sensor. I'm considering the R6 for astro/nightscapes only for the pixel density on its sensor. The lesser the density, the higher the exposure time before star trail happens. And as for the the noise, I'm not very worried about it. Image stacking is the way to go anyway.
Thank You for sharing!
Hello Brent I would expect more noise from the R5 in this situation as it has more pixels packed into the sensor?
Yep, that's what I expected too, and that's pretty much the results I got, especially at the much higher iso levels.
How about if you extrapolate the R6 image to match the R5 image size, or reduce the R5 image to match the R6 image and compare the noise ?
The R6 still performs better for high iso noise.
That sux...
The reason you see more startrails on the R5 is simply because of the higher sensor resolution which collects more data for a given area on the sensor. Not sure wether photo pills already has the R5 in their data base but you can actually let the app calculate the amount of time you can expose an image before startrails will become noticable. All you need to do is choose your camera model and the focal length of your lens. Anyway, thanks for the Video. I'm seriously considering the R6 to replace my EOS R as the main camera.
Hey thanks Mario! Not sure why I didn't think about that while I filmed the video, lol. I didn't know that about photo pills. I always forget that it's available for android now. I'll definitely check it out!
My thoughts too, that resolution difference. It’s why those with higher mp are using other rules for choosing their shutter speed
@@nightscapephotographer6029 that doesn't really makes much sense tho, for a given exposure time the lenght of the trail will be the same regardless of the amount of megapixels in your camera.
V0LDY I’ve pulled this straight from an article on lightstalking.com about the npf rule as it explains it very simply
Resolution of camera sensor - “as the resolution of the sensor increases, star trails become more evident at the pixel level because of the increased pixel density. So, as the resolution increases, the exposure time needs to be decreased to eliminate star trails”
But personally I’m a big fan of just teaching people to use the 600/500 rule as nothing but a guide for their shutter speed and then adjusting based on what they see reviewing in their camera screens, as pixel density, location and direction they are pointing in the sky all play a part.
@@nightscapephotographer6029 @Nightscape Photographer ye, "at the pixel level" it becomes more noticeable, but it doesn't compared to the overall image.
Side by side the trails on the R5 are just as long as those on the R6 if you compare the image properly.
Of course if you zoom 100% on both they will look bigger, but that's a meaningless comparison, it's like saying your head becomes longer in a portrait done with the R5 compared to the R6 :D
That said, NPF is just wrong, it gives you really messed up results using the calculator, I'd like to write an article pointing up the mistakes but I'd need the images to show how wrong it is and I don't have the equipment to do that :(
Nice video... those cameras are performing as it should be... better colors and resolution on R5 and less noise on R6....... until 12800 ISO GETS in.. on that value seems the R5 dynamic range shrinks by noise and R6 takes advantage... ( seems the R6 has more headroom on signal to noise rationat that value ), thanks for share. CS
Thanks! Yeah, I think the R6 really shines with low light and astro stuff when you start hitting those higher isos, but the R5 is certainly no slouch either. :)
I also think the R6 looks better at high ISO.
Is it possible to take a real time video of the Milky Way with these cameras like the Sony A7SII ?
I've never used a Sony A7SII, but I have seen some really impressive night stuff with it from Chris Burkard. You should check out his film Under The Arctic Sky, it's amazing, and a great example of lowlight filming.
@@BrentHall Thanks a lot! The R6 is able to go up to ISO 204800 so I am wondering if taking a real time video of the Milky Way would be possible.
I haven't tried that with my r6. I doubt it would be usable.
@@BrentHall Thank again! I am hesitating between the A7SIII and the R6.
If you want low light video specifically, then the A7SIII will be better.
Thank you! How the Sony a7iii would compare to them?
I don't know, I've never used one of those.
How well do you think will R6 work with Tamron150-600G2?? I already have the lens..and am thinking of upgrading the camera i have
Really well. It works great with all my other tamrons, and I'm about to rent that lens again to test it out with the R5 and r6.
@@BrentHall please do that asap i am thinking of getting an R6 as soon as lockdown ends here in Nepal
i am also waiting for my R-Sick :-)
I don't think it's entirely fair to just zoom both images in to 100%, because of the megapixel difference, you're looking at a wider field of view on the lower megapixel image when you do that. Noise just looks more prominent when you're zoomed in to a smaller field of view.
It would be more apples to apples if you compare both images at the same field of view.
Yeah, you're right, just like almost every other comment on here.... Of course I didn't think to do that while I was filming (I'm a space cadet sometimes and I take the heat for it in the comments), but I did downsize and do a more proper comparison afterward....the R6 still did better, at least for my comparison, but not by much.
at 6:42, I think the motion blur (in these case very short star trail) is because of the higher megapixel counts of the R5. Instead of 500 rule you can use NPF rule to overcome the issue.
Yep, that was it. I just totally spaced it when filming, lol.
@@BrentHall Yes. It's totally possible to forget things in those exciting moments. That's why photopill is so great, it lead the way. :)
NPF rule is not really accurate at all, the trails seem longer just because he's looking them at 100% magnification on both images, but that's not a fair comparison since one camera is 45mpx and the other is 20...
@@v0ldy54 NPF rule is accurate as it takes into account the aperture, pixel size/megapixel and focal length. Because it made for printing big or viewing the image at 1:1 100%. In another word there is nothing better when it comes to "spot stars", but of course you have to sacrifice some light because the rule force you to up the shutter speed.
Hi. How do you stack the cr3 files?
I use deep sky stacker.
Was in body noise reduction on?
Negative.
Great photos, I think you should downsize R5 before comparing.
Thank you Sir for the honest review. i think i will settle for teh R6
Sure thing man, have fun with it!
The R6 can have a longer exposure without seeing star-trailing. So you can catch more light at otherwise same settings.
That said, the output of the R5 is very clean all things considered and you don't really see the star trailing when viewing the full image on a computer monitor.
Yeah, I just totally spaced the r5's higher mp, for which the 500 rule does not work. I agree though, I am very happy with the r5 for high isos too.
“Motion Burr”
If the NPF rule's recommended exposure time for each camera was used and since it takes pixel pitch into account, why would star trails be an issue in the R5?
It wouldn't. I just didn't think to do that when I was out there filming. Though, I technically did use that rule when I did the iso 12800 shots because those were 8 sec, so pretty much eliminated the star trails.
Why would you even use the 500 rule? It's garbage.
Yeah, it kind of is these days. I don't know, I just spaced it and didn't think about the high mp of the R5. It happens (me messing things up).
@@BrentHall Fair enough, yeah the higher R5 resolution will make trailing appear more. The thing is output resolution of the files is usually the same, especially when used for social media. Therefore it would make more sense to compare noise levels of the R5 downsampled to the same scale as the R6.
Why are you comparing the noise at 100%? (facepalm). You need to set the R5 to 67% and the R6 to 100%, that way you're comparing the same size: 45 * 0.67 * 0.67 = 20.2.
Thumbs down for the usage of Kentuckian vernacular. "Huger". The proper comparative form is "more huge".
😅😂😂😂
I think you judge astrophotography without knowing it. Sorry for being so brutal
Don't be sorry. This is the internet...if I got offended by people's comments about me, I wouldn't still be doing this. I couldn't care less what people think of me.