Interesting comparison. I'm still shooting with a 5d mkII and, being as I'm not a professional, just haven't seen the _need_ to upgrade. She might be a little old but, if you give her some good light, she'll give you some good images.
You're not wrong, but one thing I'll say.. One camera that is an awesome upgrade from the 5DMKII is the 6DMKII.. If for anything, the autofocus system is Sooo much better. Plus in my usage the colors and dynamic range seem a bit better. If you shop around you can find one for under $1000
@@cerealkiller4248 You're also comparing a crop sensor to a full frame sensor. I believe that makes the largest difference in terms of low light and noise. AF will always improve with the newer bodies too.
Not sure what lens you used on 5D M2 but give a good lens to a seasoned photographer and he can take better images with it. It's all about lenses, lighting and experience. 5D M2 sensor is MORE than enough to deliver a stunning image. Thank you for the video.
I really liked the premise you started with: "Is the 400/800/1600 of today's camera as good as yesteryear 100". But the comparison didn't stick to this premise. Would have liked to see 5D 100 next to R5 800 side-by-side.
Perhaps I missed it, but if your are shooting in JPG instead of RAW, compression effects of JPG will reduce ISO noise and will somewhat invalidate the test. RAW is the typical standard for scoring noise at different ISO settings. Also, the R5's 45 MP sensor will say much to the sharpness over the lesser MPs of the other cameras. ISO noise is a product all photographers must live with. Exposure settings to keep ISO settings low should be strongly considered. For media newspapers, I have shot acceptable images at ISO 16000 on Canon 1DX2. For portrait work, high ISO settings on high MP camerasis not recommended in order to retain image purity. The smaller the pixels on the sensor, the greater the noise-to-image ratio.
As a bird photographer, I'm often shooting at 1/2000th f/11, so you can guess what ISOs I'm using on my R5. I use lightroom denoise below 3200 or 6400 and Topaz up to ~30000. Seems to me that my images are coming out great. What are you photographing (and how are you displaying) that you can't tolerate ISO 400?
Same boat-I shoot f8-f11 and I thought these images looked pretty fair. I have no problem going up to 20000 (or higher) if needed. Only thing I will argue is that for wildlife specifically, many of my best shots are usually at lower ISO’s… but that’s usually because the light is great.. I could artificially jack up the iso and get similar results in good light, especially processed.
I guess it all depends on the context for the photos. Portraiture used to love the film grain and lots of software gives you the ability to add it back if the photos are too clean. There's definitely a point where the noise is interfering with the appreciation of the photo, but I don't mind some pixel peeping noise in my portraits. For me, that still adds a bit of art to the photo.
@@StephenRansom They are as related as aperture and shutter speed are related. But you don't say your shutter speed is F1.8 because that's wrong. Grain is due to the coarseness of the silver particles in the emulsion and noise is due to the lack of information on a censor and who wants to fill it in. If this mistake is made by someone who says they don't understand it, it's forgivable, but he's trying to teach people who have less or no understanding of it.
@@LampeProductions_nl The point wasn't to get all technical but to point out the perceived effect of a little noise. Yes, it's not the same as film grain but the eye can easily look past it/not be distracted by it if the photo is engaging. Cheers.
You stated that sharper lenses make for sharper/more noise. This is not true in the slightest. The noise is on the sensor and independent of lens (and will show even if a lens cap is on). In fact, the more detail in an image, the less noticeable noise is in an image. Soft/blurred areas will always show noise and that's why even at ISO 100 you can often see noise in the "bokeh" blurred areas of an image. Cool video otherwise.
This is very true. Detail hides noise. Most noise reduction works on blur/soft areas. Noise is also different between generations I have found. When I went to my 7D mk II from the original 7D there was more noise in the image, but it was far sharper and had more detail. Much more similar to film grain which I honestly prefer. I feel like there is a lot of detail that they did to make that result. Lighting in the scene makes a huge difference, brighter scenes will always show less noise than darker ones. Same with exposure, over or under expose 1/3rd a stop can make a big difference on it. Why noise is a hard thing to pin down. Learning how your camera works and you will get far better results. I am comfortable shooting at 12,800ISO on my R6 without a second though. I know to slightly overexpose the image and bring it back down, the noise will always be in the shadows and minimizing how much I have to bring them up helped the most. I think that is the biggest thing in the end. How does it work when actually using it and not trying to test. I did some testing like this with my R6 when I got it and noticed that the handling of the camera made more a difference than the noise performance. Sure the R6 was well over 1.5-2 stops better at high ISO than the 7D mk II, but things like the AF performance, huge dynamic range increase and overall sharper sensor made more a difference to image quality than the little bit less noise.
@@TheSlantedLens Absolutely incorrect. Noise is most apparent is sold, flat, dark spaces. Lenses have NO bearing whatsoever on sensor noise or its perception.
The 5D appears to have warmer, more natural skin tones than the R5, at least in this context. The R5 color rendition, at least in this comparison, is aesthetically less appealing to me. I shoot a 5DIII.
ISO 6400 - all look terrible? Maybe your expectations are too high. I see a big difference and can easily pick out the R5 images every time (even if they were not marked). The bigger difference between sensors is in colour noise - an amplified signal will always have noise, so colour retention is what sets them apart. Everyone (hopefully) would shoot at base ISO whenever possible, but I will happily shoot at ISO6400 (even 25,600 on the modern sensors) if I have to - while I would never ever go past 1600 on the older ones. Whether or not high ISO photos are acceptable for use is up to each and everyone of us, so there's no right or wrong there. However, the improvement is clear to see (even at screen size).
Yeah I really have to echo this and came down into the comments to see if anyone else felt the same. I don’t mind grain if I don’t loose detail and especially colour noise. The R5 vastly out performed not just because it had sharper glass, but retained it up into the higher ISOs. Let’s also not forget he barely even touched the range of the second base in the R5 at which point it would massively walk away from the rest.
I've got a 5DmkIV. yes, it does like to saturate the reds in my experience (roses, RED lipstick). I'm not really all that "afraid" of grain. I don't even begin to sweat it till I get past iso1600 and with the available post processing even 6400. I do notice the dynamic range starts to narrow above 800-1600 and I'm more likely to blow highlights and have empty grainy shadows. Unless you're cropping the heck out of the image, most people won't see the "grain" you talk about. What I did notice was chromatic fringing in the lens as opposed to the better "R" lens. I'll probably soften people shots unless you like pore hunting.
I shoot my Nikon D750 up to 12,800 for concerts and it looks fine. If you are bent out of shape about a bit of grain or noise , it’s missing the forest for the trees.
Not sure what image processor you used for this demo, however as a R5 user myself, the CR3 (R5) files (still) don't process well with Lightroom / Camera Raw. The R5's CR3 files are overly grainy when processed with Lightroom / Camera Raw, comparing the R5's base files when processed on Canon's DPP, Capture One or even DXO Pure RAW image processors. Even shooting at 12800 ISO, the R5 grain in a well exposed image is very good when processed with any of the other image processors, just not LR. So in my (user) assessment, the grain issue sits with Adobe with this particular camera & their handling of the base CR3 file.
I noticed HUGE performance improvement in low light conditions between Canon 5D MKII and Canon R. After all, that's when we crank up the ISO, not in studio settings. Plus, RAW is incomparably better for these new cameras.
I had exactly the same experience moving from the 5D2 to the 5D4 (which is basically the same in terms of performance as the EOS R). The mk4 is probably three stops ahead of the mk2 in terms of low-light performance, and at ISO 800 it's recording roughly the same dynamic range as the mk2 at ISO 100. I'm not sure how anyone comparing the two could consider them similar, they're nowhere near similar. The mk2 and mk3 were quite close in terms of dynamic range and low-light performance but there's a huge jump from the mk2 to the mk4.
@@paulnichols393 Thank you, I'm thinking to jum from mk2 to mk4, because I would like better dynamic for low light but I do not feel that I can justify the price of the R5.
Good review. But i would love to see you do the iso comparison of R5, R3, 1dxii and 1dxiii. Those are canon flasghip cameras. I own 1dxii , i personally dont believe those mirorless are better than 1dxii or 1dxiii.
I never been particular ISO addict. Kept 5D at 1600 almost all the time (it was highest ISO) and images were great with 50L. Colors and overall image feel. 5D MKII not in 5D league. Nothing special in rendering and ISO 12800 is worse than from 500D. RP is relatively clean with 32 000, but colors not even in 5D MKII league. And I'm not sure if replacing P with single digit makes any difference in this regard. On paper all of those Rs are better on high ISO, real dynamic range (not pushing), but on lower ISO... something feels less pleasing as from old 5Dies.
Were you at all concerned that f1.2 super shallow DOF might cause parts of the child's face to be soft? I would rather have gone to f4.5 for the comparisons.
When I first got into (digital) photography, the ISO 100 mantra was drilled into me pretty aggressively (along with full frame sensor supremacy ideology). When I tried shooting film, you really come to appreciate variable ISO on digital cameras and you also realise how much you can increase ISO without introducing the kinds of problems you might have with film. Variable ISO is probably one of the most significant advances in photography, rivaling even auto-focus. It is too bad so many people seem afraid to use it.
For sure. Digital is different in that low ISO tends to pump up contrast when shooting outdoors, but the ISO capabilities are almost "there." Shoot sports in a modestly lit high school gym and you are leaning hard into that boundary in ways you never could before. My sense is that the Mark IV is a meaningful upgrade in that regard. I'm often in 3200 and sometimes pushed into 4000 as the foundation for the best overall balance of sharpness given the speed of activity, AF needs, lens limitations, and ability of the sensor to rapidly cleanse out the previous image. Could really make use of a clean 6400, but I'm not sure this video maker found that in the R5. At least, not in the static, slowed down, well lit laboratory shown here, in order to get a uniform comparison. If the Mk IV is still that good I should probably be relieved but I'm going to keep looking for sources, cause clean 6400 or even 12800, would get me past some common barriers.
Perfect example to shoe the 5D mkii is a completely capable beast still, and that the low light performance on the 5D mkiii is not monumentally better like people like to pretend it is. The difference between each camera is minuscule. The only thing that holds back the 5D mkii is it’s AF system, the sensor is still amazing.
There is something wrong with those 5D’s that that camera shop sent you. I have a 5DmkII, and mine is just as sharp as my Sony A7R3. I didn’t even pay attention to the ISO test, because the pictures from the 5D’s where so blurry. I understand that the R5’s are sharper, but the 5D’s ain’t that blurry, at least not the one I have.
Thanks. I get the point and agree. Furthermore, me too I'd never shoot anything over 1200. What really is changed is the postprocessing software. Now a doubt: what if, starting from these pics, you'd try raising up highs? Sensors' DR should make a difference. Or not?
Why are the DSLRs so blurry? Even SOOC these cameras are capable of so much sharper images. I have the 6D mk1 and it's tack sharp. I would check your lens configurations.
@@TheSlantedLens Yes but they are not blurry AF as is shown here. Unless you are using some non-proprietary software to view the RAW files and it isn't applying sharpening. My EF lenses are tack sharp when I zoom in 100%. Even my cheap non-L lens is sharper than these examples.
Comparisons like this always feel to me like an audiophile calling a CD “unlistenable garbage” because there is a bit of noise that can only be heard by dogs.
Considering the R5 has double the resolution as the 5d2 and 3 I think the 1.5 stop better high iso noise performance is good. The better comparison may be between the R6 and the older 5d models. They're much closer in resolution. I'd like to see this with Sony sensors as well.
Wrong! It's _not_ double the resolution. Resolution doubles with 4-times the megapixel count, and people get this always wrong. Means: 6 MP are 3000x2000 pixel, 24 MP are 6000x4000 pixel resolution, all right? Hence therefore, 45 MP vs. 21 MP isn't "double" resolution.
@@marcp.1752 Semantics and granted...We'll call it double the MPs then. The premise of the argument remains. You would still want to compare sensors of similar resolution/size/mps/etc. Ex 5DSR vs R5.
@@p_craig It's not doubled! Because double _into this term_ would mean - twice the resolution, Patrick. And since resolution doubles physically only, when quadrupled, your sentence doesn't make much sense - no offense. Because, people always think the same way, like i wrote before - twice MP count, twice resolution. And that silly milkmaid bill doesn't fit into here. Good day.
@@marcp.1752 My mom, girlfriend, and therapist tell me I'm right, Marc. Btw you may need the latter. Let me know if you want her number. She's really good...
Great video! You should do a test comparing Canon’s new stacked sensor Eos R3. I’ve had this camera since launch and created a video on my channel where I step through the ISO range. I believe the Eos R3 might be the best ISO performance of any camera to date; Beating even the Sony A7S3.
You are right about the R5 for low light. What you need to compare is the R6 to the 5DMKII & 5MKIII. I heard the 5MIII is better than 5DMII. I shoot with the R6 and it’s superb! I will be getting some RF glass soon but, shooting with the Tamron seems pretty good, a lot better than my old 5MKII. Thank you for the video.
Great comparison! Thank you for doing this.. It is a little surprising to see how these cameras have (or haven't) progressed. But, the real reason I am commenting is your set background and lighting. It is fantastic! First time to your channel, so first time seeing it. Subscribed.
Would love to see a comparison of the dynamic range and colour at higher ISO. I'm not so concerned about grain but my mark 2 fell apart colour wise compared to the r6 and r3
You need some new spectacles if you can't see that the R5 is pretty clearly better at 3200 and 6400 compared to the others. I have the 5DIII and have no issue taking it up to 25,600 for shots when needed.
It’s amazing how much different the sensors render color. The II and III really punch those reds. I actually prefer the images from them. The IV and R5 (especially R5) have almost a green tint. I’ve noticed this when comparing my R with my 5d classic and 5dsr. I prefer the IQ of the 5dsr over both.
@@TheSlantedLens which software and color profiles were you using? I notice in LR at least, the Adobe profile tend to be more muted and toward the green, while the r5 specific camera faithful is more pleasing.
This unpleasing straight from camera color is why I switched from Sony A7III to Nikon Z6. The Sony would always render straight from camera unpleasing skin tones, while the Nikon just pops with lovely color and smoothness. Before the Sony mirrorless, I was a huge DSLR Canon fan of their color, was never happy with Sony, so after a three years I rented the R and the Z6 and was blown away by the richness of the Nikon. Not that Canon is bad, it just needs work later on the computer. Nikon pops and makes you look good in front of a client when you're viewing shots.
If we’re gonna talk about old Canon color profiles, the 1Ds mark III is amazing in it’s rendition of mid-tones. Yes it has a horrible rear LCD, and it’s really old, but in certain situations it remains a favorite of mine. I do however prefer the color tones of the 5D Mark two out-of-the-camera compared to the 5D Mark four. Unfortunately the 5D Mark two raw files fall apart quickly under any kind of significant manipulation.
@@chrissico7178 I think 1Ds3 is the best Canon camera, considering it's age and capability you really can't beat it. I have two of them and i'll keep at least one of them forever. Simple, sturdy, produces really nice pictures and simply delivers - there's no feature that doesn't work as it should. It cuts really nice with 5D4/R/5Ds and you can easily build a business with that camera.
5ds and 5dsr are missing from this comparison. I'm using the 5ds with plans on purchasing the 5dsr. Yes the files are large but at the price and quality for stills it's a no brainer for me. I have other cameras for video.
Great video! I learned more about you and how you approach photography than I did about the ISO in the cameras. I use the Canon R and it kills me to go below 400 ISO and I also don't mind shooting at 5,000. Thanks for this video. Cheers!
As a sports photographer, I basically start at ISO 5,000. ISO 100? Wow, I can't even imagine shooting that low. But I really appreciate the head to head comparison here. Very well done. My only suggestion for next time would be to start at ISO 160 for Canon cameras and going up by full stops from there.
Surely the 5D mark 2 was a revolution. Do you remember that it was the first camera sold before integrating a full firmware? The camera was put up for sale and it was not ready yet !!!! I work in photography, before I worked with medium format and I needed megapixels, history has made us understand that we must not reach 200 millions pixels. Today I am getting old and ergonomics help me a lot, technology has replaced the quality of my eyes and the fragility of my bones. I have a 5DSR and an R5. With the R5 I can make a film without a tripod with the new 800mm stabilized for 4 seconds. when I realized it I didn't believe in my eyes
Bad methodology seems to be a key aspect in every "test" on this channel... Was this shot in RAW and developed in the same software or shot in JPG? Why not a static subject? Why not use an adapter instead of a different lens on the R5? Why shoot wide open where lens differences are visible the most and dof is almost gone? Why are there differences in exposure in parts of the shots? Why are the bokeh balls on the R5 that much bigger when the output size should be identical for a noise test?
Now while I agree with a lot of what you said about high ISO’s, would you compare a 5D Mark two image at ISO 100 vs a 5D Mark four there is a huge difference when you begin the process of enhancement and manipulation in Photoshop in the final quality of the image. Also the amount of colored noise in the older versus newer cameras is a bit different. While I’ve never shot with an R5 I have a 5D Mark 2 and 5D Mark IV. The newer camera is far better for landscape pictures. Second a little trick I use when shooting high ISO is to set sharpening at zero in camera, then apply noise reduction using photoshop (topaz denoise plugin), then use unsharp mask in Photoshop. Once you have your settings dialed in you create a Photoshop action and you can run this in a batch on a lot of images without having to do each one individually for a group of similar images. Oddly enough the 6D is better than the rest of the 5d cameras in this regard of high ISO noise.
It was good you started off mentioning your fixation on ISO 100. I (and I'm not alone in this) don't see grain as the image-wrecker. Among all the possible attributes of a good image, a bit of grain is hardly noticeable compared to getting one of the three components way off - namely, composition, focus and lighting. Regardless, a lot of the famous images we all hold in such esteem don't necessarily follow all the rules. I'm guessing you never used TRI-X in the film days.
Love this. You make great systemic comparison in your videos that others don't. Are you ever curious to consider that image quality is mostly a function of image processing (like for like lens and lighting), and companies simply just apply different algorithm/programming just to entice people to upgrade for what is essentially "marginal" difference in image quality?
Interesting! We are clearly difference when it comes to tolerating noise! I will happily go on the higher iso:s with my 7d! When i shot events and had access to a 5d3 and 1dx mark one I would just set it to 12800 and enjoy my shutter speeds in what was a dark environment to document events! Thankfully we are different kind of photographers because the world would a boring place otherwise!
True! I shoot events and rarely shoot below ISO1600. I will say this, in my experience there is a huge leap in noise improvement since I started in 2005. I easily would shoot at ISO 10000 on my 5DIV but not above 3200 on my old 1D3.
I never worry about grain. On a monitor you notice it, but print it out, and you don't. If you need high ISO to get a shot, use it. To avoid grain always shoot with great light!
I had the 5DII, 5DIII then switch to Sony A7RII, A7RIII and now A7RIV. My experience: - The 5DIII sensor is actually worse than the 5DII sensor noise-wise. - Switching to Sony compared to the 5DII/5DIII I got MUCH better quality (less noise), much higher DR and editing in post gives you many more options. Also no banding in dark areas. Just try some night or astro shots and you'll really see a big difference!
JP, if you are seeing grain at ISO100 on some of these full frame cameras, I assume you stay the hell away from anything with a crop sensor or smaller?
Great review, however I disagree with you saying that once you get to 3200 ISO they are all about the same. I found the R5 heaps sharper in detail than the rest, and I would be happy with the results shown at 6400 ISO, but only from the R5. I am currently shooting with 5D mkiii bodies, and am looking to upgrade to possibly an R6 mkii or maybe wait for the R5 mkii.
That is what is fun about these types of comparisons. People see the information that relates to the kind of imagery they create. Glad this worked for you.
I think one of the reason that the dslr is not as sharp compared to the R5 and the RF glass is that the dslr needs a fine tune with the lens since you are shooting wide open. The R5 uses the sensor to focus. If you don't want to calibrate the lens shoot in live view. :) I can see the lens needs to be calibrated to the body. I have own in the past owned the 5D II. Currently own the 5DIII, EOS R and R6. I would have step down the lens a little to at least F2.8 to give the EF lens a better chance or use the EF lens on the R5 with the EF adapter.
Do the lenses on the 5 series need micradjustment maybe? I own a 5D mkiii and I get much better shots that what's presented in this video, even at 3200 ISO.
Glad you compared! So that I get this right, sensor QUALITY, not size, is reflected in ISO? The R has more megapixels than the R6, but the latter rocks a 1Dx sensor, which must be the greater factor given its price and, of course, another test you ran.
Great video- just as feedback, even on my modern phone with the close-ups I struggle to see the difference between them until you got above 6400 (set to 1080p)- could you punch in a tad more? I don't know if I'm in the minority here, if I am I don't mind if you don't. Thanks- and keep it up (:
This is a bad comparison. The worst mistake is that a sharper lens causes sharper grain, that isn’t true. Grain is caused bij de density of the emulsion of film. Or did you mean noise? That is caused by the censor.
Thanks... I am still using my 5D mkii and this video proves why I made the right decision... spending my money elsewhere rather than following the G.A.S. crowd which is feeding the camera HW industry.
One thing i learned many years ago was . Nikon have much better dynamic range than canon. There is a video on this on here . Canons show up a lot more noise than nikon. Ok people say canon skin colours. But it ends with that. I use both, but if iso has not changed much in 12 yrs then wow. Something is wrong with the sensors on canon cameras. You can change the body shape, the focus points ext ect as much as canon wants, but if there sensor does not improve that much in 12 yrs .. nasa we have a problem..
Here I am today I bought Canon R6 II, switching from Nikon D750 and lifting the shadows gave me this purple-ish mess, let's say I am not happy, and all that, because almost no one bats an eye and I got caught in the autofocus game. I'll keep shooting and see how it goes.
If you really want to see a difference of 12 years you should just have the oldest and newest side by side. With the images as they are, your eyes natually go from left to right/right to left, looking at each in turn so you're only seeing a gradual change. Remove the two middle ones as they are meaningless to the 12 year change. It's just today, compared with then. I could see a real difference and looking back at images from camera's I had back then, especially past 800, it's amazing just how much of an improvement there is.
I feel like the 5D mark II is the most overhyped camera Canon had ever put into production. I had few of them and unless you shoot them at ISO160 or 320, they produced a lot of ugly noise and banding, their files was flat and hard to process. Much, much worse than 1Ds mark III. Combine it with terrible AF, way worse than in much older 40D. Original 5D had better colors, 5DIII was a major update with speed and banding, 6D had better DR and ISO, 5DIV/R is way better in every way. It's quite funny for me as i don't really care that much about camera gear - i have few of them and i don't mind cutting between 5Ds and 1DsIII or EOS R and 1DIV but the 5D2 gave me so many headaches in post that i can't help myself not to hate it.
Great Idea to do this test. But really did not like the way of test shots been done. Focus is not always the same spot. Best to use that color target with some text on it to see details as well. R5 has advatage cause you can apply small noise reduction and sharpnes will be still similar or better to the rest. MK3 is not the same at 6400. But thank you anyway for such a video.
So you're basically saying that all the pics taken with the "record breaking" 5D II were junk? Unless you're blowing those pics up past 10x14, they all look great (with the exception of the out of focus ones).
The question is, what are Sony sensors like in comparison to Canon's. There's been plenty of chatter for years that Canon hasn't been in the same race as Sony's development. Something to consider for a future video?
Canon is ahead in many areas including noise. The R3 has the lowest ISO noise of any current mirrorless (with the R6 close behind). The R5 has the best dynamic range of any current mirrorless camera for photos (I think maybe the A1 just caught up).
I was already convinced. ISO improvements since years are only marginals, not big ones. And very high ISO are always ugly :) So after years of Canon gear, I now shoot m43. Grain is beautiful :)
Interesting comparison. I'm still shooting with a 5d mkII and, being as I'm not a professional, just haven't seen the _need_ to upgrade. She might be a little old but, if you give her some good light, she'll give you some good images.
You're not wrong, but one thing I'll say..
One camera that is an awesome upgrade from the 5DMKII is the 6DMKII..
If for anything, the autofocus system is Sooo much better. Plus in my usage the colors and dynamic range seem a bit better.
If you shop around you can find one for under $1000
No need to update if it fills your needs and gives you great images.
@@TheSlantedLens Yes, the main thing is to be happy with the camera.
I’ve just bought an R6, I updated from a 7D, the original one. ISO is a huge leap as is the AF.
@@cerealkiller4248 You're also comparing a crop sensor to a full frame sensor. I believe that makes the largest difference in terms of low light and noise. AF will always improve with the newer bodies too.
Not sure what lens you used on 5D M2 but give a good lens to a seasoned photographer and he can take better images with it. It's all about lenses, lighting and experience. 5D M2 sensor is MORE than enough to deliver a stunning image.
Thank you for the video.
Good point! Thanks for sharing!
I really liked the premise you started with: "Is the 400/800/1600 of today's camera as good as yesteryear 100". But the comparison didn't stick to this premise. Would have liked to see 5D 100 next to R5 800 side-by-side.
That is an interesting thought. Thanks for watching!
Perhaps I missed it, but if your are shooting in JPG instead of RAW, compression effects of JPG will reduce ISO noise and will somewhat invalidate the test. RAW is the typical standard for scoring noise at different ISO settings. Also, the R5's 45 MP sensor will say much to the sharpness over the lesser MPs of the other cameras. ISO noise is a product all photographers must live with. Exposure settings to keep ISO settings low should be strongly considered. For media newspapers, I have shot acceptable images at ISO 16000 on Canon 1DX2. For portrait work, high ISO settings on high MP camerasis not recommended in order to retain image purity. The smaller the pixels on the sensor, the greater the noise-to-image ratio.
We shot raw images for this comparison.
As a bird photographer, I'm often shooting at 1/2000th f/11, so you can guess what ISOs I'm using on my R5. I use lightroom denoise below 3200 or 6400 and Topaz up to ~30000. Seems to me that my images are coming out great. What are you photographing (and how are you displaying) that you can't tolerate ISO 400?
Same boat-I shoot f8-f11 and I thought these images looked pretty fair. I have no problem going up to 20000 (or higher) if needed. Only thing I will argue is that for wildlife specifically, many of my best shots are usually at lower ISO’s… but that’s usually because the light is great.. I could artificially jack up the iso and get similar results in good light, especially processed.
Yea, noise reduction is fantastic
Good to hear you workflow for noise reduction!
I guess it all depends on the context for the photos. Portraiture used to love the film grain and lots of software gives you the ability to add it back if the photos are too clean. There's definitely a point where the noise is interfering with the appreciation of the photo, but I don't mind some pixel peeping noise in my portraits. For me, that still adds a bit of art to the photo.
Good point. It definitely has its place and also is a personal preference. Thanks for your comment!
Noise ≠ Grain
@@LampeProductions_nl surely you can infer the point being made here. They are related, though certainly different.
@@StephenRansom They are as related as aperture and shutter speed are related. But you don't say your shutter speed is F1.8 because that's wrong. Grain is due to the coarseness of the silver particles in the emulsion and noise is due to the lack of information on a censor and who wants to fill it in.
If this mistake is made by someone who says they don't understand it, it's forgivable, but he's trying to teach people who have less or no understanding of it.
@@LampeProductions_nl The point wasn't to get all technical but to point out the perceived effect of a little noise. Yes, it's not the same as film grain but the eye can easily look past it/not be distracted by it if the photo is engaging. Cheers.
You stated that sharper lenses make for sharper/more noise. This is not true in the slightest. The noise is on the sensor and independent of lens (and will show even if a lens cap is on). In fact, the more detail in an image, the less noticeable noise is in an image. Soft/blurred areas will always show noise and that's why even at ISO 100 you can often see noise in the "bokeh" blurred areas of an image.
Cool video otherwise.
This is very true. Detail hides noise. Most noise reduction works on blur/soft areas. Noise is also different between generations I have found. When I went to my 7D mk II from the original 7D there was more noise in the image, but it was far sharper and had more detail. Much more similar to film grain which I honestly prefer.
I feel like there is a lot of detail that they did to make that result. Lighting in the scene makes a huge difference, brighter scenes will always show less noise than darker ones. Same with exposure, over or under expose 1/3rd a stop can make a big difference on it. Why noise is a hard thing to pin down. Learning how your camera works and you will get far better results. I am comfortable shooting at 12,800ISO on my R6 without a second though. I know to slightly overexpose the image and bring it back down, the noise will always be in the shadows and minimizing how much I have to bring them up helped the most.
I think that is the biggest thing in the end. How does it work when actually using it and not trying to test. I did some testing like this with my R6 when I got it and noticed that the handling of the camera made more a difference than the noise performance. Sure the R6 was well over 1.5-2 stops better at high ISO than the 7D mk II, but things like the AF performance, huge dynamic range increase and overall sharper sensor made more a difference to image quality than the little bit less noise.
Yes, the noise is on the sensor. But the overall sharpness of the scene gives you a sense that the noise is more prominent.
@@TheSlantedLens Absolutely incorrect. Noise is most apparent is sold, flat, dark spaces. Lenses have NO bearing whatsoever on sensor noise or its perception.
The 5D appears to have warmer, more natural skin tones than the R5, at least in this context. The R5 color rendition, at least in this comparison, is aesthetically less appealing to me. I shoot a 5DIII.
Yeah, we did notice that. Thanks for your comment!
I never understand the fear of the noise-grain. It is a natural habitat of the photography. Stop being obsessive with super clean images.
Good point! Thanks for your comment!
ISO 6400 - all look terrible? Maybe your expectations are too high. I see a big difference and can easily pick out the R5 images every time (even if they were not marked). The bigger difference between sensors is in colour noise - an amplified signal will always have noise, so colour retention is what sets them apart. Everyone (hopefully) would shoot at base ISO whenever possible, but I will happily shoot at ISO6400 (even 25,600 on the modern sensors) if I have to - while I would never ever go past 1600 on the older ones. Whether or not high ISO photos are acceptable for use is up to each and everyone of us, so there's no right or wrong there. However, the improvement is clear to see (even at screen size).
Yeah I really have to echo this and came down into the comments to see if anyone else felt the same. I don’t mind grain if I don’t loose detail and especially colour noise. The R5 vastly out performed not just because it had sharper glass, but retained it up into the higher ISOs. Let’s also not forget he barely even touched the range of the second base in the R5 at which point it would massively walk away from the rest.
Excellent points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Yeah, the R5 does perform quite well. Thanks for sharing your opinion!
I've got a 5DmkIV. yes, it does like to saturate the reds in my experience (roses, RED lipstick). I'm not really all that "afraid" of grain. I don't even begin to sweat it till I get past iso1600 and with the available post processing even 6400. I do notice the dynamic range starts to narrow above 800-1600 and I'm more likely to blow highlights and have empty grainy shadows. Unless you're cropping the heck out of the image, most people won't see the "grain" you talk about. What I did notice was chromatic fringing in the lens as opposed to the better "R" lens. I'll probably soften people shots unless you like pore hunting.
Lots of great thoughts. Thanks for sharing!
I shoot my Nikon D750 up to 12,800 for concerts and it looks fine. If you are bent out of shape about a bit of grain or noise , it’s missing the forest for the trees.
It really depends on what you are shooting. For advertising grain is generally avoided.
Not sure what image processor you used for this demo, however as a R5 user myself, the CR3 (R5) files (still) don't process well with Lightroom / Camera Raw. The R5's CR3 files are overly grainy when processed with Lightroom / Camera Raw, comparing the R5's base files when processed on Canon's DPP, Capture One or even DXO Pure RAW image processors. Even shooting at 12800 ISO, the R5 grain in a well exposed image is very good when processed with any of the other image processors, just not LR. So in my (user) assessment, the grain issue sits with Adobe with this particular camera & their handling of the base CR3 file.
We processed in Camera Raw. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
@@TheSlantedLens Could you provide to your audiences a link to the RAW images so that we can process these and examine the metadata...
I noticed HUGE performance improvement in low light conditions between Canon 5D MKII and Canon R. After all, that's when we crank up the ISO, not in studio settings. Plus, RAW is incomparably better for these new cameras.
Good point. Thanks for watching!
I had exactly the same experience moving from the 5D2 to the 5D4 (which is basically the same in terms of performance as the EOS R). The mk4 is probably three stops ahead of the mk2 in terms of low-light performance, and at ISO 800 it's recording roughly the same dynamic range as the mk2 at ISO 100. I'm not sure how anyone comparing the two could consider them similar, they're nowhere near similar. The mk2 and mk3 were quite close in terms of dynamic range and low-light performance but there's a huge jump from the mk2 to the mk4.
@@paulnichols393 Thank you, I'm thinking to jum from mk2 to mk4, because I would like better dynamic for low light but I do not feel that I can justify the price of the R5.
Good review. But i would love to see you do the iso comparison of R5, R3, 1dxii and 1dxiii. Those are canon flasghip cameras.
I own 1dxii , i personally dont believe those mirorless are better than 1dxii or 1dxiii.
That is an interesting idea. We will think on it!
I never been particular ISO addict. Kept 5D at 1600 almost all the time (it was highest ISO) and images were great with 50L. Colors and overall image feel. 5D MKII not in 5D league. Nothing special in rendering and ISO 12800 is worse than from 500D. RP is relatively clean with 32 000, but colors not even in 5D MKII league. And I'm not sure if replacing P with single digit makes any difference in this regard. On paper all of those Rs are better on high ISO, real dynamic range (not pushing), but on lower ISO... something feels less pleasing as from old 5Dies.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
As a concert photographer, I use a 5D2 and an EOS R and I need iso 1600 and more. No worries…adds atmosphere.
Great to hear that the higher ISOs work for you!
Were you at all concerned that f1.2 super shallow DOF might cause parts of the child's face to be soft? I would rather have gone to f4.5 for the comparisons.
We weren't shooting for portraits. We were shooting for ISO comparison and it gave us the latitude we needed.
When I first got into (digital) photography, the ISO 100 mantra was drilled into me pretty aggressively (along with full frame sensor supremacy ideology). When I tried shooting film, you really come to appreciate variable ISO on digital cameras and you also realise how much you can increase ISO without introducing the kinds of problems you might have with film.
Variable ISO is probably one of the most significant advances in photography, rivaling even auto-focus. It is too bad so many people seem afraid to use it.
Totally agree. Thanks for your comment!
For sure. Digital is different in that low ISO tends to pump up contrast when shooting outdoors, but the ISO capabilities are almost "there." Shoot sports in a modestly lit high school gym and you are leaning hard into that boundary in ways you never could before. My sense is that the Mark IV is a meaningful upgrade in that regard. I'm often in 3200 and sometimes pushed into 4000 as the foundation for the best overall balance of sharpness given the speed of activity, AF needs, lens limitations, and ability of the sensor to rapidly cleanse out the previous image. Could really make use of a clean 6400, but I'm not sure this video maker found that in the R5. At least, not in the static, slowed down, well lit laboratory shown here, in order to get a uniform comparison. If the Mk IV is still that good I should probably be relieved but I'm going to keep looking for sources, cause clean 6400 or even 12800, would get me past some common barriers.
Perfect example to shoe the 5D mkii is a completely capable beast still, and that the low light performance on the 5D mkiii is not monumentally better like people like to pretend it is. The difference between each camera is minuscule. The only thing that holds back the 5D mkii is it’s AF system, the sensor is still amazing.
It was interesting to see the difference in these cameras!
There is something wrong with those 5D’s that that camera shop sent you. I have a 5DmkII, and mine is just as sharp as my Sony A7R3. I didn’t even pay attention to the ISO test, because the pictures from the 5D’s where so blurry. I understand that the R5’s are sharper, but the 5D’s ain’t that blurry, at least not the one I have.
Good to hear your experience. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks. I get the point and agree. Furthermore, me too I'd never shoot anything over 1200. What really is changed is the postprocessing software. Now a doubt: what if, starting from these pics, you'd try raising up highs? Sensors' DR should make a difference. Or not?
That is a possibility and I agree with you we have better post processing than we used to.
Why are the DSLRs so blurry? Even SOOC these cameras are capable of so much sharper images. I have the 6D mk1 and it's tack sharp. I would check your lens configurations.
The EF lenses are not as sharp.
@@TheSlantedLens Yes but they are not blurry AF as is shown here. Unless you are using some non-proprietary software to view the RAW files and it isn't applying sharpening. My EF lenses are tack sharp when I zoom in 100%. Even my cheap non-L lens is sharper than these examples.
the use of denoiser in post prod can help.The sofwares have also made some improvement
I’ll crank my R5 to ISO 6400 or higher for indoor sports, usually no higher than 640 for portraits depends on the situation.
That makes sense. It really does depend on the situation. If you need a higher ISO to get the shot, then that is what you do!
Comparisons like this always feel to me like an audiophile calling a CD “unlistenable garbage” because there is a bit of noise that can only be heard by dogs.
Thanks for watching and keep on clickin!
Considering the R5 has double the resolution as the 5d2 and 3 I think the 1.5 stop better high iso noise performance is good. The better comparison may be between the R6 and the older 5d models. They're much closer in resolution. I'd like to see this with Sony sensors as well.
Wrong! It's _not_ double the resolution. Resolution doubles with 4-times the megapixel count, and people get this always wrong. Means: 6 MP are 3000x2000 pixel, 24 MP are 6000x4000 pixel resolution, all right? Hence therefore, 45 MP vs. 21 MP isn't "double" resolution.
@@marcp.1752 Semantics and granted...We'll call it double the MPs then. The premise of the argument remains. You would still want to compare sensors of similar resolution/size/mps/etc. Ex 5DSR vs R5.
@@p_craig It's not doubled! Because double _into this term_ would mean - twice the resolution, Patrick.
And since resolution doubles physically only, when quadrupled, your sentence doesn't make much sense - no offense.
Because, people always think the same way, like i wrote before - twice MP count, twice resolution. And that silly milkmaid bill doesn't fit into here.
Good day.
@@marcp.1752 My mom, girlfriend, and therapist tell me I'm right, Marc.
Btw you may need the latter. Let me know if you want her number. She's really good...
@@p_craig Pretty lame insult from you, and personal attack.
Great video! You should do a test comparing Canon’s new stacked sensor Eos R3. I’ve had this camera since launch and created a video on my channel where I step through the ISO range. I believe the Eos R3 might be the best ISO performance of any camera to date; Beating even the Sony A7S3.
Good to hear. Thanks for sharing your experience!
You are right about the R5 for low light. What you need to compare is the R6 to the 5DMKII & 5MKIII. I heard the 5MIII is better than 5DMII. I shoot with the R6 and it’s superb! I will be getting some RF glass soon but, shooting with the Tamron seems pretty good, a lot better than my old 5MKII. Thank you for the video.
You are welcome and thanks for sharing your experience!
I’m not sure how to do that 😅
@@TheSlantedLens what’s this telegram thing? Is it a spam or did someone hack your account?
That was very useful information. Thank you very much!
You're very welcome! Thanks for watching!
Great comparison! Thank you for doing this.. It is a little surprising to see how these cameras have (or haven't) progressed. But, the real reason I am commenting is your set background and lighting. It is fantastic! First time to your channel, so first time seeing it. Subscribed.
Thanks for subscribing! Glad you enjoyed the video!
Would love to see a comparison of the dynamic range and colour at higher ISO. I'm not so concerned about grain but my mark 2 fell apart colour wise compared to the r6 and r3
That is a good point and we saw that a little bit in the higher ISO images.
You need some new spectacles if you can't see that the R5 is pretty clearly better at 3200 and 6400 compared to the others. I have the 5DIII and have no issue taking it up to 25,600 for shots when needed.
Did you watch the whole video? That is what I concluded.
The 5D to R6 probably would have been a better comparison if you wanted to see how much the ISO noise performance has improved.
That's a good thought. Thanks for watching!
It’s amazing how much different the sensors render color. The II and III really punch those reds. I actually prefer the images from them. The IV and R5 (especially R5) have almost a green tint. I’ve noticed this when comparing my R with my 5d classic and 5dsr. I prefer the IQ of the 5dsr over both.
Excellent point. It was interesting to see the color differences. I didn't expect them to look so different.
@@TheSlantedLens which software and color profiles were you using? I notice in LR at least, the Adobe profile tend to be more muted and toward the green, while the r5 specific camera faithful is more pleasing.
This unpleasing straight from camera color is why I switched from Sony A7III to Nikon Z6. The Sony would always render straight from camera unpleasing skin tones, while the Nikon just pops with lovely color and smoothness. Before the Sony mirrorless, I was a huge DSLR Canon fan of their color, was never happy with Sony, so after a three years I rented the R and the Z6 and was blown away by the richness of the Nikon. Not that Canon is bad, it just needs work later on the computer. Nikon pops and makes you look good in front of a client when you're viewing shots.
If we’re gonna talk about old Canon color profiles, the 1Ds mark III is amazing in it’s rendition of mid-tones. Yes it has a horrible rear LCD, and it’s really old, but in certain situations it remains a favorite of mine. I do however prefer the color tones of the 5D Mark two out-of-the-camera compared to the 5D Mark four. Unfortunately the 5D Mark two raw files fall apart quickly under any kind of significant manipulation.
@@chrissico7178 I think 1Ds3 is the best Canon camera, considering it's age and capability you really can't beat it. I have two of them and i'll keep at least one of them forever. Simple, sturdy, produces really nice pictures and simply delivers - there's no feature that doesn't work as it should. It cuts really nice with 5D4/R/5Ds and you can easily build a business with that camera.
5ds and 5dsr are missing from this comparison. I'm using the 5ds with plans on purchasing the 5dsr. Yes the files are large but at the price and quality for stills it's a no brainer for me. I have other cameras for video.
Yeah, those are super high megapixel cameras.
Great video! I learned more about you and how you approach photography than I did about the ISO in the cameras. I use the Canon R and it kills me to go below 400 ISO and I also don't mind shooting at 5,000. Thanks for this video. Cheers!
That's interesting to hear. We all have our preferences and different approaches to photography. Thanks for your comment!
Image quality is basically the same, but the focus system and video capabilities are worlds apart.
As a sports photographer, I basically start at ISO 5,000.
ISO 100? Wow, I can't even imagine shooting that low.
But I really appreciate the head to head comparison here. Very well done.
My only suggestion for next time would be to start at ISO 160 for Canon cameras and going up by full stops from there.
Thanks for the input and thanks for watching!
Yup, I find ISO 100 very useful as an electronic solution in place of an ND filter. 😉
Great video! Hi from Puerto Rico!
Awesome! Thank you! Would love to travel there one day!
Maybe its more visible to low light shots. I recently go out with my friend to shoot stars. The differences are very visible to me.
Good point, yes, night time images really show the grain!
Surely the 5D mark 2 was a revolution. Do you remember that it was the first camera sold before integrating a full firmware? The camera was put up for sale and it was not ready yet !!!! I work in photography, before I worked with medium format and I needed megapixels, history has made us understand that we must not reach 200 millions pixels. Today I am getting old and ergonomics help me a lot, technology has replaced the quality of my eyes and the fragility of my bones. I have a 5DSR and an R5. With the R5 I can make a film without a tripod with the new 800mm stabilized for 4 seconds.
when I realized it I didn't believe in my eyes
where can we find your work?
Such a great story. Thanks for sharing!
Bad methodology seems to be a key aspect in every "test" on this channel... Was this shot in RAW and developed in the same software or shot in JPG? Why not a static subject? Why not use an adapter instead of a different lens on the R5? Why shoot wide open where lens differences are visible the most and dof is almost gone? Why are there differences in exposure in parts of the shots? Why are the bokeh balls on the R5 that much bigger when the output size should be identical for a noise test?
i wrote such a similar reply, who are you! mind reader!
We can always come up with more and more reasons why to do things differently.
@@TheSlantedLens Accuracy would be a good one.
Now while I agree with a lot of what you said about high ISO’s, would you compare a 5D Mark two image at ISO 100 vs a 5D Mark four there is a huge difference when you begin the process of enhancement and manipulation in Photoshop in the final quality of the image. Also the amount of colored noise in the older versus newer cameras is a bit different. While I’ve never shot with an R5 I have a 5D Mark 2 and 5D Mark IV. The newer camera is far better for landscape pictures. Second a little trick I use when shooting high ISO is to set sharpening at zero in camera, then apply noise reduction using photoshop (topaz denoise plugin), then use unsharp mask in Photoshop. Once you have your settings dialed in you create a Photoshop action and you can run this in a batch on a lot of images without having to do each one individually for a group of similar images. Oddly enough the 6D is better than the rest of the 5d cameras in this regard of high ISO noise.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
It was good you started off mentioning your fixation on ISO 100. I (and I'm not alone in this) don't see grain as the image-wrecker. Among all the possible attributes of a good image, a bit of grain is hardly noticeable compared to getting one of the three components way off - namely, composition, focus and lighting. Regardless, a lot of the famous images we all hold in such esteem don't necessarily follow all the rules. I'm guessing you never used TRI-X in the film days.
Thank you for your comment. And I have used plenty of film, including Tri-X in my career!
Love this. You make great systemic comparison in your videos that others don't. Are you ever curious to consider that image quality is mostly a function of image processing (like for like lens and lighting), and companies simply just apply different algorithm/programming just to entice people to upgrade for what is essentially "marginal" difference in image quality?
Great point! Sometimes the changes are minimal and sometimes there is a big shift. Thanks for your comment!
Interesting!
We are clearly difference when it comes to tolerating noise!
I will happily go on the higher iso:s with my 7d!
When i shot events and had access to a 5d3 and 1dx mark one I would just set it to 12800 and enjoy my shutter speeds in what was a dark environment to document events!
Thankfully we are different kind of photographers because the world would a boring place otherwise!
That totally makes sense for event photography. Thanks for sharing your experience!
True! I shoot events and rarely shoot below ISO1600. I will say this, in my experience there is a huge leap in noise improvement since I started in 2005. I easily would shoot at ISO 10000 on my 5DIV but not above 3200 on my old 1D3.
I never worry about grain. On a monitor you notice it, but print it out, and you don't. If you need high ISO to get a shot, use it. To avoid grain always shoot with great light!
Good points. Thanks for sharing!
Did you compare latest Sony full frame sensors?
Not yet. We have that in the works.
I had the 5DII, 5DIII then switch to Sony A7RII, A7RIII and now A7RIV.
My experience:
- The 5DIII sensor is actually worse than the 5DII sensor noise-wise.
- Switching to Sony compared to the 5DII/5DIII I got MUCH better quality (less noise), much higher DR and editing in post gives you many more options. Also no banding in dark areas.
Just try some night or astro shots and you'll really see a big difference!
Wow, that is great to hear your experience between Canon and Sony. Thanks!
I still use my 5ds and still would put it up against all the new Canon mirrorless! Great vid!
Good to hear. Thanks for your comment!
What about the in-between ISOs, 160, 320, 1250, etc?
We didn't feel the need to show the in-between ISOs
None of my clients will notice. I'm great with any of these
That is probably true with most people!
Sensor technology has stagnated. Graphene and quantum dot enhanced CMOS and SPAD are future.
Thanks for watching and keep on clickin!
Why would grain get sharper with a sharper lens? The grain is created on the sensor, the lens doesn't look at it or resolve it.
The grain doesn't get sharper but our perception of it makes it look more apparent.
@@TheSlantedLens nope. incorrect.
JP, if you are seeing grain at ISO100 on some of these full frame cameras, I assume you stay the hell away from anything with a crop sensor or smaller?
I don't use crop sensor cameras except for reviews. I personally think the extra cash is worth the larger size image.
To be real then per pixels the ISO are better now than before, because you have now 44 megapixel compared to 21 megapixels !
Look at the tests and tell us if that is still your conclusion!
Thanks for sharing Man.
You are welcome! Thanks for watching!
Great review, however I disagree with you saying that once you get to 3200 ISO they are all about the same. I found the R5 heaps sharper in detail than the rest, and I would be happy with the results shown at 6400 ISO, but only from the R5. I am currently shooting with 5D mkiii bodies, and am looking to upgrade to possibly an R6 mkii or maybe wait for the R5 mkii.
That is what is fun about these types of comparisons. People see the information that relates to the kind of imagery they create. Glad this worked for you.
I think one of the reason that the dslr is not as sharp compared to the R5 and the RF glass is that the dslr needs a fine tune with the lens since you are shooting wide open. The R5 uses the sensor to focus. If you don't want to calibrate the lens shoot in live view. :) I can see the lens needs to be calibrated to the body. I have own in the past owned the 5D II. Currently own the 5DIII, EOS R and R6. I would have step down the lens a little to at least F2.8 to give the EF lens a better chance or use the EF lens on the R5 with the EF adapter.
Either way things aren't totally equal. But interesting to see none-the-less. Thanks for your comment!
Do the lenses on the 5 series need micradjustment maybe? I own a 5D mkiii and I get much better shots that what's presented in this video, even at 3200 ISO.
What you are saying may possibly be the case. But we are looking at ISO and not focus issues here.
It's clear you have a low tolerance for high iso but I'll shoot 12,800 and higher and be happy.
Good to hear. What type of photography do you do?
@@TheSlantedLens sports and wildlife
5D Mark ii, is still awesome.
Glad you compared! So that I get this right, sensor QUALITY, not size, is reflected in ISO?
The R has more megapixels than the R6, but the latter rocks a 1Dx sensor, which must be the greater factor given its price and, of course, another test you ran.
This test was done with all full frame cameras so they are all roughly the same size.
Bless from Aruba! love the videos! 🌵🤙
Glad you like them. Thanks for watching!
Can you provide your audience a link to the RAW images so that we can process these and examine the metadata...
We will check into that. Thanks for the suggestion.
You're blind. At ISO 3200 and 6400 I clearly see R5 having less noise than 5D mk2. At higher ISOs R5 is still better than 5D III and IV.
If you watched the whole video you would see all of that.
We've had great cameras for many years. Excellent video.
Yes, we are definitely benefitting from great cameras these days!
Great video- just as feedback, even on my modern phone with the close-ups I struggle to see the difference between them until you got above 6400 (set to 1080p)- could you punch in a tad more? I don't know if I'm in the minority here, if I am I don't mind if you don't. Thanks- and keep it up (:
Thank you for your feedback!
have been using 5d mark 4 for 6 years and it's still working great. No reason for me to upgrade
Great to hear. Keep on clickin!
Where can i see your commercial work?
You can see it at jaypmorgan.com
@@TheSlantedLens thanks will look now :)
This is a bad comparison. The worst mistake is that a sharper lens causes sharper grain, that isn’t true. Grain is caused bij de density of the emulsion of film. Or did you mean noise? That is caused by the censor.
Technicality. Grain and noise are often interchanged.
Thanks... I am still using my 5D mkii and this video proves why I made the right decision... spending my money elsewhere rather than following the G.A.S. crowd which is feeding the camera HW industry.
Glad you are still happy with your 5D Mark II!
Can you compare iso for nikon too?
We have added that to our list. Thanks for the suggestion!
One thing i learned many years ago was . Nikon have much better dynamic range than canon. There is a video on this on here . Canons show up a lot more noise than nikon. Ok people say canon skin colours. But it ends with that. I use both, but if iso has not changed much in 12 yrs then wow. Something is wrong with the sensors on canon cameras. You can change the body shape, the focus points ext ect as much as canon wants, but if there sensor does not improve that much in 12 yrs .. nasa we have a problem..
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Did you look at this from a video standpoint at native iso?
No this was from a still photo standpoint.
Here I am today I bought Canon R6 II, switching from Nikon D750 and lifting the shadows gave me this purple-ish mess, let's say I am not happy, and all that, because almost no one bats an eye and I got caught in the autofocus game. I'll keep shooting and see how it goes.
Hope you can figure it out and get some great images.
If you really want to see a difference of 12 years you should just have the oldest and newest side by side. With the images as they are, your eyes natually go from left to right/right to left, looking at each in turn so you're only seeing a gradual change. Remove the two middle ones as they are meaningless to the 12 year change. It's just today, compared with then. I could see a real difference and looking back at images from camera's I had back then, especially past 800, it's amazing just how much of an improvement there is.
Good point. Thanks for your thoughts!
It might be interesting to add the 6D and the R6 into this mix. Don’t need to embarrass Canon with the 6D mark II /RP.
Actually the rp's sensor is not that bad with high iso, its issue is the dynamic range
Those would be great ones to compare as well. Thanks for your comment!
The noise level maybe not have improved so much but as soon you try to push these raw files older cameras quickly fall apart.
Good point. Thanks for your comment!
Mark iv looks best to me
Thanks for sharing your opinion!
God I needed this video
Glad you found it helpful. Thanks for watching!
The amount of blur in the the photos on the other cameras was much more nasty than grain imo
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and thanks for watching!
I feel like the 5D mark II is the most overhyped camera Canon had ever put into production. I had few of them and unless you shoot them at ISO160 or 320, they produced a lot of ugly noise and banding, their files was flat and hard to process. Much, much worse than 1Ds mark III. Combine it with terrible AF, way worse than in much older 40D. Original 5D had better colors, 5DIII was a major update with speed and banding, 6D had better DR and ISO, 5DIV/R is way better in every way. It's quite funny for me as i don't really care that much about camera gear - i have few of them and i don't mind cutting between 5Ds and 1DsIII or EOS R and 1DIV but the 5D2 gave me so many headaches in post that i can't help myself not to hate it.
Thanks for sharing your experience! Happy Holidays!
Love the background behind you
Thank you. And thanks for watching!
Great Idea to do this test. But really did not like the way of test shots been done. Focus is not always the same spot. Best to use that color target with some text on it to see details as well. R5 has advatage cause you can apply small noise reduction and sharpnes will be still similar or better to the rest. MK3 is not the same at 6400. But thank you anyway for such a video.
Fair enough! Thank you for watching!
So you're basically saying that all the pics taken with the "record breaking" 5D II were junk? Unless you're blowing those pics up past 10x14, they all look great (with the exception of the out of focus ones).
ISO is a thing that is a different preference for each different type of shooter.
i Love 5D Mark ii
Good to hear. Thanks for sharing you preference!
Probably with the r6 you'd see a difference in high iso range, the r5 it's not known for high iso performance
That would have been another one to throw in the mix!
whats why sometimes sony cameras will be better option.
Sony does have some great options!
Is an RF lens on on a 5D 'better' vs EF?
You can't put an RF lens on a 5D unfortunately.
Try comparing the dynamic range rather.
That is a good thought. Thanks for sharing!
The question is, what are Sony sensors like in comparison to Canon's. There's been plenty of chatter for years that Canon hasn't been in the same race as Sony's development. Something to consider for a future video?
Canon is ahead in many areas including noise. The R3 has the lowest ISO noise of any current mirrorless (with the R6 close behind). The R5 has the best dynamic range of any current mirrorless camera for photos (I think maybe the A1 just caught up).
Great suggestion. Thanks for watching!
The Mark III has the best colour rendition.
Thanks for sharing your opinion!
Hi JP, hope you do the same comparison with Sony.
Great suggestion Mike. Working on it! Hope you are well!
We need to think electrical and gain, not grain or ISO, but native vs native. The only good thing is SKB - WITHOUT FOAM, due to outgassing.
Thanks for watching. Keep on clickin!
At what point does it not even look like a photo. The R5 looks super digital it doesnt seem organic gimme the 5d
Thanks for sharing your choice!
lens ef and rf???
We used the native lenses for each camera.
I was already convinced. ISO improvements since years are only marginals, not big ones. And very high ISO are always ugly :) So after years of Canon gear, I now shoot m43. Grain is beautiful :)
NIce. Thanks for sharing your experience!
Im still happy with my Eos R
Good to hear. Thanks for your comment!