First mistake - using info from dpreview. Photons to photos has published their dynamic range info for the Canon R5 II. Along with other sites that have tested the new R5 II. Verdict? At ISO 100, the R5 II has about a third of a stop less DR, but is essentially the same from there on up. Using electronic shutter, the result is opposite, the R5 II improves the DR about a third of a stop at ISO 100 and is essentially the same after that. The slight loss of DR at base ISO is to be expected as the readout speed has increased significantly. In other words, there is no "issue" with the R5 mark II sensor. It's DR results are virtually identical to the Sony A1, better than the Sony A9 III at base ISO (which is ISO 200), a very minor degree better than the Nikon Z9 and Z8. Of course, I understand the nature of the headlines needed to generate clicks on RUclips, but unfortunately, many folks will see your video headline on RUclips, won't watch the video, but then will report on other social media sites how there is a problem or an issue with the new Canon R5 II. So, let the Canon bashing begin.
Agree 100%. Click bait is always negative. People who don’t take pictures talk about issues in an AC controlled nice room. People who don’t nitpick are out there taking pictures in harsh environments.
The focus on negativity against Canon is unbelievable in the community. This is obviously designed to harm the sales of the new models. To be clear there is zero “issue” with the Canon sensor as in engineering or design or technological issue. To put it simply, the performance of the R5m2 is way superior or in line with comparable and more expensive models by Sony and Nikon. This is the only message that should be in the title of the video. All of this is proven by Photons to Photos’ article on the topic, which obviously is not mentioned here although it was published way before the video date. This hostility against Canon only reinforces my 30 years old trust in the Canon brand.
Yup. These RUclipsrs are just sheep and get negative towards Canon. Sony and Nikon and Lumix all get a pass. Real world footage shows the R5II is impressive.
If you compare the $4300 MSRP of the R5 II vs the $3000 price (B&H) for the R5 I, the R5 I value is much greater. The incremental improvements in the R5 II are almost exclusively for video, not stills, so if you're into video fine, go for it, spend the extra $1300. For primarily still shooters, the original R5 I is just as good, maybe better in terms of dynamic range and noise, according to DpReview
For still photographers you should consider the following improvements: 1) significantly faster readout speed for less rolling shutter artifacts 2) next generation AF system 95% the same as the R1 3) RAW precapture 4) faster fps from 20 to 30 fps 5) the ability to set the maximum fps 6) blackout free evf 7) metering divided into 6144 blocks vs 384 for more precise exposure metering 8) 1/32000 sec fastest shutter speed 9) eye control AF 10) full 14 bit RAW at 30 fps. No more 12 bit RAW files. While any single feature is incremental, taken as a whole this is a significant upgrade.
@@JohnSwen-p6ball of this primarily matters to one subset of stills photography: action. If you aren't into action photography or video, this arguably is an outright worse camera than the Mk1.
yup you said it is more to do with lighting at play..... to control your light and lighting conditions for those whom photography matters important details and conversation starts from 10:30 onwards ....nice to see👍
The r3 was canons first back side illuminated stacked sensor not the r5ii. The r3 doesn’t have any issues. DP review take with a grain of salt what they say.
over-analysis of a camera that doesn't exist yet, based on a 3rd party article, doesn't really make a lot of sense - though i suppose its good for clicks? feel like you being landscape photog, you're going to be bracketing most anything you shoot? 1/2 stop at iso100 not impactful and not sure i see the relevance 🤷♂ also did you negate the point of this entire video @ 12:15? sidenote: folks wouldn't throw the clickbait phrase out there if the content relevant/informative vs speculation & oddly-derived conclusions. not to be taken as a bash but observation: when a creator uploads something that's not overly relevant, it comes off as a clear indication that the creator is willing to waste the viewers time. I don't think this is widely understood on YT 🤷♂ value your viewers, and can tell you they'll have a higher respect for the channel m8
Thank you for the video. The information you provide may be of use to someone. I’m looking forward to getting the R52 on Tuesday and I couldn’t care less about what you are talking about. Far too much info and you guys just seem to love talking about this kind of stuff.
Your overall points are spot on. But, take a look at Photons to Photos for the DR tests. DPReview has historically been biased. On Photons to Photos, R5II beats the Nikon Z8 up to ISO 800, and the same thereafter.
@@bailey.nt86Actually no. The R5II beats the Z8 from ISO 50 on up when in mechanical shutter and still beats it from ISO 100 on up in electronic shutter. Look at the comparison chart.
It is not really blazing fast but it is fast enough for general needs but not for fast moving cars, bikes or flying birds you'll still get the jello effect though much less than the original R5, it is 1/125 of a second in 14" bit UC RAW.
It does not matter because at studio or landscape (iso100 1/3 stop down from R5) you can control the light (lighting or AEB/Blend) and for wildlife /action you will always be at greater than iso600 where R5ii and R5 are the same performance. The only time you might notice is in very bright light with sun, when you really need to push the darks at ISO 100. And it's only 1/3 stop. Updated Adobe enhance (denoise) and tuned raw converters will offset the effect. Eg its in the rounding, and your usage nuances will overwhelm the gap.
DP review our attention seekers. Put on the photo already put out the actual sensor test not some bullshit cooked up nonsense or you take a sensor and go under exposed and see what you can recover. Actually the dynamic range of the new camera is better than the Nikon Z8 and Z9 along with the six mark three that just came out. Also, you’re getting close to dynamic range out of this camera being a stacked sensor. Anyways, I’m sure you’ll get to views that you’re seeking out of this video but as far a problem, the problem is people that jumped the gun without the camera, officially being out and truly being tested by people that know how to test them. Photons to photos it’s actually run by one of the guys from Harvard University highly educated and they really know what they’re doing. Good luck thanks for the Video
@@livejames9374 that was the theory with the R3. It beats out all full frame I think or at the time of release it did. People want to shit on Canon so badly though and ride Sony's bandwagon. All the high end FF cameras really do prefer damn near the same in image quality for the last 4 years. The arguments and hate are stupid if when people talk about photography DR. Video and low light is where the battle is right now.
Good for you. A hater landed hard on Rob Adams, half of the Rob Adams/Venessa Joy (Canon Explorer of Light) team for saying it doesn’t matter, no one is going to notice. He then landed on me for pointing out Adams is a commercial videographer who has numerous corporate clients in addition to producing video for his wife’s wedding business. By the way, on another issue, I noticed something strange with my R5 when shooting electronically at 20 FPS. I can scroll quickly through the shots on the back of my R5 and see distortion reshaping objects in the image. It isn’t that I moved the camera because how far can you move it in one second when using image stabilization and IBIS? I suspect I am seeing sensor shift from IBIS to stabilize the scene, or maybe both camera and lens stabilization, as the culprit.
@@jamesburne3893 Actually they are all reliable in a professional setting, sounds like projection here, a professional would know his tool’s limitations.
people are freaking out over a few specs of grain. You can still get an old R5 and be fine. If you want something on another level get Medium format, even that wont really make a huge difference in the end result
@@RayValdezPhotographytbh YT is weird with links but go compare for yourself the ISO 6400 or 12800 results on the DPReview studio scene (option checked) and put the R5ii up against the Z8, original R6, and a7R V. Make sure to compare RAW to RAW. Find a nice shadow area of the black mat. The R5ii has clearly the worst noise result of the bunch, even compared to the 61MP a7R! It's a bit damning to be totally honest.
@@JMurph2015 12800 isn't an ideal iso. you can just use noise reduction or AI noise reduction. I don't think any camera tries to sell you on isos after 6400 except sports cameras. I saw some zoomed in images on DPreview it's not a big deal. I am more concerned about details and color over noise when the iso goes up.
@@RayValdezPhotography it's present at lower ISOs obviously, but not as apparent. I'd also argue that ISO 6400 does matter. If you're shooting an event like a wedding and can't use flash in that moment, then your ISO is going to likely be around 6400 with a high end f/2.8 zoom. Also, the whole selling point of being "only 45MP" is that it should have better high ISO noise performance. But it doesn't.
You forgot to mention that dpreview was talking only about electronic shutter. But even in it Z9/8 has less dynamic range than r5/r5m2, z7, d850. It’s because of only electronic shutter with huge sensor speed. Why dpreview did not mention this? Why they did not compère dynamic range of r5m2 with z8? But canon r5m2 HAS mechanical shutter with no dynamic range decreasing but z8/z9 don’t. It’s fail for Nikon.
To understand "dual native iso" best, a technology Sony licensed from Aptina, read the paper on optimising inter-scene dynamic range Aptina provided. There's lots of misconceptions and misinformation on the technology
There are no issues with the R5ii (as far as we know). The R1 and the R5ii target different use cases. The R1 is a much more specialized camera (high speed, super rugged etc).
The entire series of measurements only have academic value. In practice, this hardly plays a role. In bird photography, smaller objects - high ISO values due to the very fast shutter speeds - are offset by improved autofocus. I dare to doubt whether the R5II is really worse overall. The only point of criticism for me would be the readout speed of the sensor, I would at least have expected it to be on a par with the Z8, but as I said, I'm complaining at a high level.
They say the same thing about the A9iii, which is true to an extent but for the A9iii’s use case, which is likely to be iso 800 and above, they are all the same.
Enfin quelqu'un qui met de l'ordre dans tous ces commentaires de plage dynamique. J'ai déjà le Canon R5 et j'aurai le R5 mk2 mardi le 20 août, je serai en mesure de comparer sur le terrain. Car oui, c'est pas des cibles de test que je photographie mais bien des sujets en mouvement qui génère une émotion ! Combien de gens parle encore de la surchauffe du R5 quand celui-ci n'est plus un problème depuis l'ajout du firmware 1,6 le R5 originale avec tous les corrections de firmware est bien meilleur que lors de sa sortie en juillet 2020 mais ça pratiquement personne ne le mentionne et reste accrocher aux premiers commentaires de la surchauffe.
You want see how a camera works take into the real world and make images with it. Then process the image as you normally would. Then make a 16x20 or larger print. Put it on a table under 5000 kelvin light. View it from the appropriate distance for it’s size. Let the image speak for the camera. Don’t waste your time looking at a file at 400%. No one looks at images under a magnifying glass. If you don’t see any noise at 100% you’re good.
When you watch someone who doesn’t understand what they are saying, it is all in their eyes in the first 3 mins. Looks a bit like when you have asked your kid if they tidied their room. No wonder so many cuts and edits…. Like a bad salesperson… reporting on a report that he had no part of. RUclips is full of these guys, 10 a penny.
Listen this was a 13:00 video to say 1 minute worth of content from other sources, which is the R5ii sensor has slightly worse IQ than the Mk 1 in exchange for readout speed. That said, these comments complaining about the "Canon hate" are so delusional. The numbers are the numbers, get over it. Canon doesnt have to have the biggest numbers to make a great camera, but it wouldn't hurt.
I canceled the 2 R5 mk2s I ordered 1 hour after launch about a week ago. The DPreview comparisons to the original R5 showed the mk2 has gone backwards in detail and iso. It didnt help that 4k60 and 4k120 use line skipping. Im now waiting on the A1 mk2 and a possible R1X if its real.
Other channels love to bring negativity on Canon. Certain reviewers and sites I stopped watching their reviews because of this. When they can find any bad to say, they will make the smallest thing into a big issue, but you wont see them blow things up about other brands smh. I like what you said in your video, it doesnt matter. Just go out and shoot. Thank you!!!
@@markrigg6623 the world may be going down in flames around you as it has done in the past year after year president after president that doesn’t mean stop enjoying yourself
It really matters if you're a landscape photographer and I certainly wouldn't be buying this camera for landscape photography and I've made that really clear on several pages. This is a sports wildlife and general camera. It is not for landscape photographers. If you are a landscape photographer I would not be buying this camera especially when there are many better options available like the Z8 or GFX cameras which have far better dynamic range. It's really disappointing and I know there is a trade-off with frames per second and stat senses. You are going to lose dynamic range but maybe they should've made two models one for the landscape guys how many people are into landscape photography? there are lots who are in deeply in the cannon ecosystem yet they've been let down. Also the flip out screen is another turn off for landscape photography again I would argue they should make two models one with the flip and one with the tilt down screen and the one with the tilt down screen could have a normal sensor not the stacked sensor. And you don't need those frames per second to shoot sports. Honestly you could shoot sport with 10 frames a second we've been led into this hysteria that we need 25 frames a second to shoot sports. It's ridiculous. We do not a skilful photographer like myself used to shoot sports on film cameras and I was quite happy shooting sports and eight frames a second this is ridiculous. With all due respect people don't want to get into bracketing they don't they hate it. It's why I'm over at GFX shooting landscape photography because the dynamic range is amazing plus the image quality is far beyond anything that canon or Nikon can deliver but I just really feel they let the landscape Community down with this camera. THE FLIP out sideways screen SUCKS for landscapes photographers. I do think it's a great camera and sorry for my big long message but I do think it's a valid point for landscape photography and I'm purely talking about landscape. Nothing else you do lose detail even though you save it with. de noise
13 minute video and 8minutesbefore you even start to talk about useability. But....why are you spending so much effort talking about a third stop difference? If you are that bothered about noise, then all that time you have spent creating the image is wasted.
Hey speaking of "Lasers." I shot this video for the local historical society and this dude's laser pointer made a dead pixel through the whole video, but it's not showing up on photos or videos since then. Any clue why? ruclips.net/video/I-Fbo0ma5-o/видео.html
You still don't have the camera, but talking a lot of things about it. Nice, very nice. Not. Get the camera, test it, see how it is and after that you can talk this or that. I am not mean, but I am really sick about people talking things for the sake to make a new video and gather views.
First mistake - using info from dpreview. Photons to photos has published their dynamic range info for the Canon R5 II. Along with other sites that have tested the new R5 II. Verdict? At ISO 100, the R5 II has about a third of a stop less DR, but is essentially the same from there on up. Using electronic shutter, the result is opposite, the R5 II improves the DR about a third of a stop at ISO 100 and is essentially the same after that. The slight loss of DR at base ISO is to be expected as the readout speed has increased significantly. In other words, there is no "issue" with the R5 mark II sensor. It's DR results are virtually identical to the Sony A1, better than the Sony A9 III at base ISO (which is ISO 200), a very minor degree better than the Nikon Z9 and Z8. Of course, I understand the nature of the headlines needed to generate clicks on RUclips, but unfortunately, many folks will see your video headline on RUclips, won't watch the video, but then will report on other social media sites how there is a problem or an issue with the new Canon R5 II. So, let the Canon bashing begin.
Thank you!
Well said. If you need more than 12 stops of DR you probably shouldn't be taking photos.
Agree 100%. Click bait is always negative. People who don’t take pictures talk about issues in an AC controlled nice room. People who don’t nitpick are out there taking pictures in harsh environments.
Well said. Thank you.
He’s still a newborn, in interpreting data.
The focus on negativity against Canon is unbelievable in the community. This is obviously designed to harm the sales of the new models. To be clear there is zero “issue” with the Canon sensor as in engineering or design or technological issue. To put it simply, the performance of the R5m2 is way superior or in line with comparable and more expensive models by Sony and Nikon. This is the only message that should be in the title of the video. All of this is proven by Photons to Photos’ article on the topic, which obviously is not mentioned here although it was published way before the video date. This hostility against Canon only reinforces my 30 years old trust in the Canon brand.
esp on a camera that doesn't exist in the real world yet. this channel seems to be thirsty for clicks tbh
Canon fan boy?
Yup. These RUclipsrs are just sheep and get negative towards Canon. Sony and Nikon and Lumix all get a pass. Real world footage shows the R5II is impressive.
It has the same sensor, but it’s radically different. That’s a contradiction.
If you compare the $4300 MSRP of the R5 II vs the $3000 price (B&H) for the R5 I, the R5 I value is much greater. The incremental improvements in the R5 II are almost exclusively for video, not stills, so if you're into video fine, go for it, spend the extra $1300. For primarily still shooters, the original R5 I is just as good, maybe better in terms of dynamic range and noise, according to DpReview
Agreed, which is why I just bought one for $2200.
For still photographers you should consider the following improvements:
1) significantly faster readout speed for less rolling shutter artifacts
2) next generation AF system 95% the same as the R1
3) RAW precapture
4) faster fps from 20 to 30 fps
5) the ability to set the maximum fps
6) blackout free evf
7) metering divided into 6144 blocks vs 384 for more precise exposure metering
8) 1/32000 sec fastest shutter speed
9) eye control AF
10) full 14 bit RAW at 30 fps. No more 12 bit RAW files.
While any single feature is incremental, taken as a whole this is a significant upgrade.
@@JohnSwen-p6b like I said, if you're into video pay the extra $1300 or more. For stills, no it's not worth the premium price.
@@JohnSwen-p6ball of this primarily matters to one subset of stills photography: action. If you aren't into action photography or video, this arguably is an outright worse camera than the Mk1.
@@JohnSwen-p6b And let's not forget the ability to focus stack with flash for us macro guys. This is huge.
yup you said it is more to do with lighting at play..... to control your light and lighting conditions for those whom photography matters important details and conversation starts from 10:30 onwards ....nice to see👍
Spot on - Totally explained the issue that isn't one. Thanks for this.
this is a weird channel in that regard for sure...
great video. really useful and direct to the point!
I have been waiting for the R5ii as an upgrade from my Lumix S5, but after seeing the.video specs and a few other things, l went with the Z8.
wise decision👍
I often do not give a duck about shadow detail. Reject HDR, embrace chiaroscuro.
The r3 was canons first back side illuminated stacked sensor not the r5ii.
The r3 doesn’t have any issues.
DP review take with a grain of salt what they say.
over-analysis of a camera that doesn't exist yet, based on a 3rd party article, doesn't really make a lot of sense - though i suppose its good for clicks? feel like you being landscape photog, you're going to be bracketing most anything you shoot? 1/2 stop at iso100 not impactful and not sure i see the relevance 🤷♂ also did you negate the point of this entire video @ 12:15?
sidenote: folks wouldn't throw the clickbait phrase out there if the content relevant/informative vs speculation & oddly-derived conclusions. not to be taken as a bash but observation: when a creator uploads something that's not overly relevant, it comes off as a clear indication that the creator is willing to waste the viewers time. I don't think this is widely understood on YT 🤷♂ value your viewers, and can tell you they'll have a higher respect for the channel m8
Thank you for the video. The information you provide may be of use to someone. I’m looking forward to getting the R52 on Tuesday and I couldn’t care less about what you are talking about. Far too much info and you guys just seem to love talking about this kind of stuff.
Your overall points are spot on. But, take a look at Photons to Photos for the DR tests. DPReview has historically been biased. On Photons to Photos, R5II beats the Nikon Z8 up to ISO 800, and the same thereafter.
I literally just looked. You have the cameras mixed up. Go look again. The Z8 is better at every stop.
@@bailey.nt86Actually no. The R5II beats the Z8 from ISO 50 on up when in mechanical shutter and still beats it from ISO 100 on up in electronic shutter. Look at the comparison chart.
Well explained. Ha, you know no matter what, whenever there is a Canon release people start complaining about something. R5 2 is awesome.
It is not really blazing fast but it is fast enough for general needs but not for fast moving cars, bikes or flying birds you'll still get the jello effect though much less than the original R5, it is 1/125 of a second in 14" bit UC RAW.
thanks to the bsi stacked sensor on the r5ii to reduce rolling shutter effect.......
It does not matter because at studio or landscape (iso100 1/3 stop down from R5) you can control the light (lighting or AEB/Blend) and for wildlife /action you will always be at greater than iso600 where R5ii and R5 are the same performance. The only time you might notice is in very bright light with sun, when you really need to push the darks at ISO 100. And it's only 1/3 stop. Updated Adobe enhance (denoise) and tuned raw converters will offset the effect. Eg its in the rounding, and your usage nuances will overwhelm the gap.
Compare dynamic range r5 mark 2 to Nikon z8/z9. In every iso position z8/9 has lower dynamic range.
DP review our attention seekers. Put on the photo already put out the actual sensor test not some bullshit cooked up nonsense or you take a sensor and go under exposed and see what you can recover. Actually the dynamic range of the new camera is better than the Nikon Z8 and Z9 along with the six mark three that just came out. Also, you’re getting close to dynamic range out of this camera being a stacked sensor. Anyways, I’m sure you’ll get to views that you’re seeking out of this video but as far a problem, the problem is people that jumped the gun without the camera, officially being out and truly being tested by people that know how to test them. Photons to photos it’s actually run by one of the guys from Harvard University highly educated and they really know what they’re doing. Good luck thanks for the Video
Only thing that’s cooked are canon raw files with noise reduction to artificially boost dynamic range.
@@livejames9374 that was the theory with the R3. It beats out all full frame I think or at the time of release it did. People want to shit on Canon so badly though and ride Sony's bandwagon. All the high end FF cameras really do prefer damn near the same in image quality for the last 4 years. The arguments and hate are stupid if when people talk about photography DR. Video and low light is where the battle is right now.
Good for you. A hater landed hard on Rob Adams, half of the Rob Adams/Venessa Joy (Canon Explorer of Light) team for saying it doesn’t matter, no one is going to notice. He then landed on me for pointing out Adams is a commercial videographer who has numerous corporate clients in addition to producing video for his wife’s wedding business.
By the way, on another issue, I noticed something strange with my R5 when shooting electronically at 20 FPS. I can scroll quickly through the shots on the back of my R5 and see distortion reshaping objects in the image. It isn’t that I moved the camera because how far can you move it in one second when using image stabilization and IBIS? I suspect I am seeing sensor shift from IBIS to stabilize the scene, or maybe both camera and lens stabilization, as the culprit.
I don't understand why there are so many Canon haters in the vlogging world.
Because they spent $$$ on Sony and Nikon and now they have a bitter taste in mouth.
They never used a camera in a professional environment therefore they do not appreciate how solid a Canon is when your wages rely on it.
They can't afford the gear for one and Sony pays them to use their cameras.
@@jamesburne3893 Actually they are all reliable in a professional setting, sounds like projection here, a professional would know his tool’s limitations.
@@JojoJoget I’m talking about the people who use the cameras not the camera itself…
Excellent detail. Still have the camera on order and good to know for when to use my Mark 1 and when to use my Mark II (When it arrives)
There will be absolutely no reason not to use the R5 mark II when it arrives. results with the 2 cameras will be identical to the human eye.
Very good explanation 👍👍
Photons to photos has R5 Mark II dynamic range tests posted
And its on par with the sony A1
people are freaking out over a few specs of grain. You can still get an old R5 and be fine. If you want something on another level get Medium format, even that wont really make a huge difference in the end result
@@RayValdezPhotographytbh YT is weird with links but go compare for yourself the ISO 6400 or 12800 results on the DPReview studio scene (option checked) and put the R5ii up against the Z8, original R6, and a7R V. Make sure to compare RAW to RAW. Find a nice shadow area of the black mat. The R5ii has clearly the worst noise result of the bunch, even compared to the 61MP a7R! It's a bit damning to be totally honest.
@@JMurph2015 12800 isn't an ideal iso. you can just use noise reduction or AI noise reduction. I don't think any camera tries to sell you on isos after 6400 except sports cameras. I saw some zoomed in images on DPreview it's not a big deal. I am more concerned about details and color over noise when the iso goes up.
@@RayValdezPhotography it's present at lower ISOs obviously, but not as apparent. I'd also argue that ISO 6400 does matter. If you're shooting an event like a wedding and can't use flash in that moment, then your ISO is going to likely be around 6400 with a high end f/2.8 zoom. Also, the whole selling point of being "only 45MP" is that it should have better high ISO noise performance. But it doesn't.
I continue to say the Sony trolls made it popular to hate on canon.
Doesn’t matter what they do they will trash it.
No my heart cant take this
You forgot to mention that dpreview was talking only about electronic shutter. But even in it Z9/8 has less dynamic range than r5/r5m2, z7, d850. It’s because of only electronic shutter with huge sensor speed. Why dpreview did not mention this? Why they did not compère dynamic range of r5m2 with z8? But canon r5m2 HAS mechanical shutter with no dynamic range decreasing but z8/z9 don’t. It’s fail for Nikon.
To understand "dual native iso" best, a technology Sony licensed from Aptina, read the paper on optimising inter-scene dynamic range Aptina provided. There's lots of misconceptions and misinformation on the technology
Failed when u say 30 MP with confidence for R1
Good video thanks for the info mate! Hope RUclips makes you richer for your kids haha
Can a software update correct these issues?
Does the R1 have any issues?
I can buy either camera.
There are no issues with the R5ii (as far as we know). The R1 and the R5ii target different use cases. The R1 is a much more specialized camera (high speed, super rugged etc).
The entire series of measurements only have academic value. In practice, this hardly plays a role. In bird photography, smaller objects - high ISO values due to the very fast shutter speeds - are offset by improved autofocus. I dare to doubt whether the R5II is really worse overall. The only point of criticism for me would be the readout speed of the sensor, I would at least have expected it to be on a par with the Z8, but as I said, I'm complaining at a high level.
Great insight!1
They say the same thing about the A9iii, which is true to an extent but for the A9iii’s use case, which is likely to be iso 800 and above, they are all the same.
Enfin quelqu'un qui met de l'ordre dans tous ces commentaires de plage dynamique. J'ai déjà le Canon R5 et j'aurai le R5 mk2 mardi le 20 août, je serai en mesure de comparer sur le terrain. Car oui, c'est pas des cibles de test que je photographie mais bien des sujets en mouvement qui génère une émotion ! Combien de gens parle encore de la surchauffe du R5 quand celui-ci n'est plus un problème depuis l'ajout du firmware 1,6 le R5 originale avec tous les corrections de firmware est bien meilleur que lors de sa sortie en juillet 2020 mais ça pratiquement personne ne le mentionne et reste accrocher aux premiers commentaires de la surchauffe.
You want see how a camera works take into the real world and make images with it. Then process the image as you normally would. Then make a 16x20 or larger print. Put it on a table under 5000 kelvin light. View it from the appropriate distance for it’s size. Let the image speak for the camera. Don’t waste your time looking at a file at 400%. No one looks at images under a magnifying glass. If you don’t see any noise at 100% you’re good.
Noise is a lack of information, right? 🧐
When you watch someone who doesn’t understand what they are saying, it is all in their eyes in the first 3 mins. Looks a bit like when you have asked your kid if they tidied their room. No wonder so many cuts and edits…. Like a bad salesperson… reporting on a report that he had no part of. RUclips is full of these guys, 10 a penny.
no click-bait comment.. xD
All bsi sensors needs to be shot above 800iso isn’t that common ?? 😂
So what you are saying is that you will have to know how to take pictures with the camera that you have.
Listen this was a 13:00 video to say 1 minute worth of content from other sources, which is the R5ii sensor has slightly worse IQ than the Mk 1 in exchange for readout speed. That said, these comments complaining about the "Canon hate" are so delusional. The numbers are the numbers, get over it. Canon doesnt have to have the biggest numbers to make a great camera, but it wouldn't hurt.
And don't leave humming behind
I canceled the 2 R5 mk2s I ordered 1 hour after launch about a week ago. The DPreview comparisons to the original R5 showed the mk2 has gone backwards in detail and iso. It didnt help that 4k60 and 4k120 use line skipping. Im now waiting on the A1 mk2 and a possible R1X if its real.
Other channels love to bring negativity on Canon. Certain reviewers and sites I stopped watching their reviews because of this. When they can find any bad to say, they will make the smallest thing into a big issue, but you wont see them blow things up about other brands smh. I like what you said in your video, it doesnt matter. Just go out and shoot. Thank you!!!
I gave them thumbs down and never ever subscribe to their channels
Switch to Mechanical Shutter to keep your dynamic range high.
want to say I read somewhere the R5II keeping same bitrate for elec vs mech?
Look at what's happened to the human race. The world's going down the gurgler and here we are obsessed with stuff like this.
@@markrigg6623 the world may be going down in flames around you as it has done in the past year after year president after president that doesn’t mean stop enjoying yourself
@@GabrielScindian Absolutely.
It really matters if you're a landscape photographer and I certainly wouldn't be buying this camera for landscape photography and I've made that really clear on several pages. This is a sports wildlife and general camera. It is not for landscape photographers. If you are a landscape photographer I would not be buying this camera especially when there are many better options available like the Z8 or GFX cameras which have far better dynamic range. It's really disappointing and I know there is a trade-off with frames per second and stat senses. You are going to lose dynamic range but maybe they should've made two models one for the landscape guys how many people are into landscape photography? there are lots who are in deeply in the cannon ecosystem yet they've been let down. Also the flip out screen is another turn off for landscape photography again I would argue they should make two models one with the flip and one with the tilt down screen and the one with the tilt down screen could have a normal sensor not the stacked sensor. And you don't need those frames per second to shoot sports. Honestly you could shoot sport with 10 frames a second we've been led into this hysteria that we need 25 frames a second to shoot sports. It's ridiculous. We do not a skilful photographer like myself used to shoot sports on film cameras and I was quite happy shooting sports and eight frames a second this is ridiculous. With all due respect people don't want to get into bracketing they don't they hate it. It's why I'm over at GFX shooting landscape photography because the dynamic range is amazing plus the image quality is far beyond anything that canon or Nikon can deliver but I just really feel they let the landscape Community down with this camera. THE FLIP out sideways screen SUCKS for landscapes photographers. I do think it's a great camera and sorry for my big long message but I do think it's a valid point for landscape photography and I'm purely talking about landscape. Nothing else you do lose detail even though you save it with. de noise
13 minute video and 8minutesbefore you even start to talk about useability. But....why are you spending so much effort talking about a third stop difference? If you are that bothered about noise, then all that time you have spent creating the image is wasted.
Doesn’t back side illuminated sensor haves issue with dynamic range issues in stills, regardless of weather it’s canon or other manufacturers ?? 😂😂
Tech nerd speculating😂😂😂
Hey speaking of "Lasers." I shot this video for the local historical society and this dude's laser pointer made a dead pixel through the whole video, but it's not showing up on photos or videos since then. Any clue why? ruclips.net/video/I-Fbo0ma5-o/видео.html
You still don't have the camera, but talking a lot of things about it. Nice, very nice. Not. Get the camera, test it, see how it is and after that you can talk this or that. I am not mean, but I am really sick about people talking things for the sake to make a new video and gather views.
He is explaining the testing results to the masses. You don't need the camera to do that
@@paulanthony1689 Why do you need somebody to explain to you some testing results? What is that hard to understand?