Thank you Jan. I too have the R5 Mark II. For Photo AI there are 2 workarounds: 1) In LrC, export your photos to DNG files which you add to your catalog. From there Photo AI works. 2) In LrC, use right-click, then Edit with > Photo AI. In this case however, RAW Denoise won't appear (TIFF file). I just photographed a guitar band in a very dark café with only candlelight, resulting in ISO 12.800-40.000 1/80-1/200 f2.3 pictures. LrC Enhance and Photo AI helped a bit, but I still had to keep the darks dark to avoid the resulting noise to appear. Luckilly the exports didn't have to be more than 1200px at the longest side.
Hey Jan, great video. Just a FYI, there is a hot pixel in your video whenever you are doing talking head shots. Take a look at the 3 min 46 sec mark (3:46) as an example. White dot near your hat. Canon cameras have that pixel mapping feature I hope.
Unfortunately no, Canon does not have pixel mapping feature. It can be done only if you send it in to a Canon service. Don't ask me how frustrating is that. I tried everything but no, is not working.
Jan, great video. Your examples are always so educational and helpful. I definitely plan to sign up for your LRC class when I get some free time. I do all my editing in LRC (and noise reduction), except for occasional use of Photoshop (via right click 'Edit in' command from LRC) when needed for challenging object removal/cloning/clutter/canvass expand/etc... I've been using the R5II for several months now and I really like it. I love the faster fps and pre capture (although I wish that latter feature could be activated by a simple button push). I also like the AF much better than the R5I for the reasons you have already commented on. BTW on the R5II AF, with multiple subjects, I find that if I first focus/track the desired subject with zone AF (programmed back button -- triple back button focusing) and then switch to eye tracking AF programmed back button, the R5II does a better job at locking on to the desired subject's eye/body and sticking on it. I also find the wireless communications of the R5II to be easier to use and more reliable, compared to the R5I. Lastly, I do like that the R5II has less rolling shutter, although I have noticed recently when taking panning BIF photos of ducks when they fly past me, that the background trees are still slightly bent. So rolling shutter is still there in the R5II, but much better than the R5I. Kind regards
Your breakdowns and real-world experiences are so worthwhile Jan. We definitely need to understand that cameras are made with a little bit of balance, whether it's focus and shutter performance or high ISO, extreme image quality. Soon enough the tech (and brands giving in!) will creep up enough to have stacked sensor cameras with the best of everything in one body. For now, I still use a Canon 1D X Mark II and there are very few times when I Really feel I need something more. Now that a few fantastic new cameras have come out, I might finally be able to afford a used R3 or R5!
Jan. First, some of your examples are absolutely stunning. Congratulations. I have found the same thing as you in low light/high IOS/dark shadow detail on the R5II vs the R5. My feeling is that these situations are relatively few and the files are still very workable, nevertheless. The biggest difference is that, as you say, the AF is so much more robust on the R5II - and - coupled with other features like pre-capture I am getting shots on the R5II I couldn't have on the R5. It is a very acceptable trade-off. As for preferred noise reduction software I find myself relying more and more on Adobe LR than the other software I won (Topaz and DxO). You can tell a slight difference when pixel peeping, but at normal size I find the difference negligible. Staying in LR also saves me the round trip.
Jan, excellent video! I’m self taught, so maybe I’m not doing this right. I normally crop and edit my image, then apply topaz denoise to the final edit. Perhaps that isn’t right? I use Lightroom exclusively for editing and will be getting your master class soon.
Jan, Thanks for the tutorial showing how you optimize the high ISO performance of the R5 MKII . I think that you know how to jump through the hoops like many of us do to get beautiful images from today's modern camera bodies. Your explanation helps those of us who will move to the R5 MKII. However, I think that the noise removal from the original R5 is easier at high ISO values. In controlled situations I think that you can get very good final edits from both the R5 MKII and the original R5. I think that the original R5 is about a stop better in many cases. The R5 MKII is better when you have more motion due to the faster readout and the R5 gives you better results in shadow areas. Overall, the R5 gave us a huge step forward in image quality and great autofocus. The R5 MKII improves autofocus again and gives us faster readout speed with some increased noise at high ISO. Overall, a good improvement but maybe not worth twice the price for everyone. Thanks again and I would love to see a direct comparison using the best editing practices compared for the R5 MKII and R5 at high ISO side by side. All the best.
15:59 yes I had all those, darksubject, dark background very high iso ... However, I just purchased DXO PR (I had been using on 1 and topaz) and the results are pretty good given the starting point. So thank you for that!
Hi Jan, Nice to see validation of my frustration. I always shot AUTO ISO with the R5 but now I am having to limit Auto and really think about shutter speed. Not so many "keepers" and was starting to lose confidence with the camera. 1. Just wondered if you tried in camera "High ISO Speed NR" Low/Standard/High .. and your thoughts ? 2. What +exposure would you recommend exactly. + ? on exposure compensation ? Cheers, Steve
That will only apply to Jpeg and can slow the camera down I always shoot full manual and just watch the histogram and push it to the right without clipping
Thank you Jan for the valuable video. I think we all know how valuable such videos are! I actually could have used something like this 10 years ago :D but what the heck. Thank you
Great video as always, with some helpful suggestions for my bird photography in dark environments. While I have been happy with some of the improvements of the R5 II over the R5, this is the first camera I ever purchased where the next generation didn't deliver equal or better results in all areas. I've been happy with results after editing, but the high ISO performance is frustrating when I know I could be using my R5 and getting easier to edit results.
Interesting to see your workflow! May I ask, why you are denoising first and then using the (slighly more limited) DNG to process further and not the other way round? I'm always editing first and then use denoising since I want to edit the original raw and habe then the end result purified. Is there a benefit I'm not aware of when you're denoising first?
Great and informative video, Jan. And wonderful images. I am many times in really challenging light conditions here in the Atlantic rainforest, so it was a lot of good tips in this video. Can i ask you, which mirrorless camera of all you have tried have the best low light perfomance? Wishing you and yours a great week/weekend Cheers, Bjoern
The best compromise of quality and speed seems to be the A1. In saying that I really like the overall performance of the R5 II in low light, especially the AF. In theory the R1 should be the best low light camera I’ll get one soon
@@jan_wegener Thanks for the answer Jan. I currently use the r7 after my old 7d mkii said goodbye. Going to norway for Christmas, so maybe I get a chance to look at the r5 mkii there. A bit cheaper than here 😅😜. Cheers, Bjoern📸🙌🏼
Great video! What's your opinion on R5 12bit ES vs R5ii 14bit ES at high ISO, in terms of IQ. Meaning: Does the 2bit difference help at all (at high ISO)? Or is it helpful in any other way?
@@jan_wegenerConvert your high iso images to 8 bit in photoshop and see if you notice any difference. I can’t with my mark I photos. You will however see a difference with iso 100 images.
Awesome tutorial Jan, would you mind doing an editing video where you talk about doing the edits with multiple camera raw files like you did with the Magnificent Rifle Bird.
Hi Jan, another fascinating video! I'm particularly interested in your comments on the high ISO noise performance of the R5 Mk II compared with the R5. For many years, I have been investigating different ways for making quantitative measurements of image noise using a standardised test chart. My currently favoured method looks at the raw sensor data, before it has been through any raw converters (ACR, DPP etc) as this should give the most accurate measurements of the actual sensor data. The method I am now using agrees well (after a systematic adjustment) with the respected DXOMARK organisation's measurements of what they call 18% SNR (screen). These are measurements of the signal to noise ratios of the mid grey areas of the raw sensor data. Note DXOMARK has yet to publish measurements on the R5II (they are often very slow to publish results for new cameras). My initial measurements at ISO 1600 showed very similar SNR values for the R5II compared with the R5. Having watched this video, I have made further measurements up to ISO 25,600. Even here I cannot find much difference between the noise levels from the two cameras. There is a small effect whereby the electronic shutter on the R5II gives slightly noiser images than the R5 (and the mechanical shutter on the R5II) but even in the dark grey/black areas of the images the difference is only about a quarter of a stop (0.8dB in the SNR values). For more on my method and results, please see the bottom of this page and the other referenced therein: www.stephenburch.com/gear/R5II.htm. So something of mystery here! Maybe it is the raw converters that are introducing more noise into the R5II images? A final comment: Measurements of image noise level are different from measurements of dynamic range. So it is quite possible for a camera like the R5II to have a lower dynamic range than the R5 (mainly at low ISOs?) but to have similar noise levels at all ISOs.
Give it another year or two and stacked sensor cameras will start to show improvements in high dynamic range and iso performance, as manufacturers figure out work arounds in the camera.
@@davepasternI read up on the difference between back illuminated sensors and stacked sensors, how they both achieve different results. I wonder if layering the back iluminated plates between the stacked sensors or adding another back illuminated set of plates would be possible and be the solution?
@@3DEditor as car as I understand you cannot get a stacked sensor without it being backlit. The Z9/A1 and R3 are all the same sensor design as that featured on the R5II.
@davepastern I looked at 3 different diagrams of how cmos, bsi cmos, and stacked cmos sensors are laid out. The only difference between a bsi and stacked shows, there are two layers of metal wiring below the photodiode substrate layer on the stacked sensor, where as there is only one layer of metal wiring below the photodiode substrate on the bsi sensor. Both have the micro lenses, color filter and light recieving surface above the photodiode substrate. So I was wondering if it would be practical for the photodiode substrate, color filter and light recieveing surface to be double layered between the double stacked metal wiring for extra light readout? If that was the only solution and possible, that of course would bring the price up in the camera.
Thank you for your interesting video. I normally use Lightroom only. Your Masterclass of Lightroom is fantastic. I prefer a faster shutter speed in wildlife photography. Best wishes Roland
I find your ISO performance comments very intriguing Jan - the R3 is better than either the original R5 or R5II in high ISO performance and there's no way that I'd say it's really usable at that ISO. Even ETTR. Mind you, I am using an old mark 1 EF 500f4 which is limited in shutter speed due to the much poorer IS performance vs your RF600f4 lens, but that shouldn't really impact on ISO performance imho. From what I can see so far, the R5II images at ISO12800 seem on par with my R3 at the same ISO. So how you're getting 1 stop better with the R5 is beyond me. What am I missing?
In using Deep Prime XD2, have you ever increased the "Force Details" slider to try to avoid losing that detail? I have tried and it seems to sometimes do the job...Otherwise, i find the DP XD2 to be too waxy.
Really interesting. Really interesting, thanks. I have a brand new R5 II and this is very helpful. Unfortunately I am currently an ON1 user, so will have to wait until they add R5 II support to fully appreciate some of the editing techniques you are showing. But I do have a question - At about 1:54 you show a bird (Sulphur-crested Cockatoo?) with light and dark background - how did you get the background to switch? It looks like the color/darkness of the bird changed the tiniest bit and the branch as well along with major change in the background. Was this done with a camera adjustment or in post but before applying noise reduction. Thanks,
@@jan_wegener I see, that's a very good way of putting it. I agree that the IQ for R62 is just a tad better than the R3, particularly past ISO16k, but I do also see that in photonstophotos testing, their PDR chart shows the R3 having _more_ dynamic range at ISO 100 than even the R5, which made me confused when the R5M2 had so "little" DR in comparison! Thanks for the reply mate, I always love myself a good convo with a prominent photographer!
Thanks Jan, exellent video. Iven if the R5, has Manny excellent improved features, I have decided to not upgrade my R5. Instead I will spend my budget on more R lenes as that will give me more for the money. Its simply feels wrong to use that much money on a camera that has less dynamic range and iso performance, even if it is just a slight differanse. For de noise i mostly use Lightroom an sometimes topaz
I think there is a bit of a difference in high ISO performance between the original R5 and the Mark II, which is not surprising considering the stacked sensor of the Mark II but nothing DxO can't easily take care of. To me it seems to be 1/3 of a stop difference in most scenarios.
In extreme low light wildlife situations, how about adding flash, or some warm directional continuous light like the brighter modeling lamp on the new Godox AD200 Pro mk2?
@@jan_wegener completely understand re: the sudden intrusive nature of flash. But the Modelling light may be less startling if ramped up manually. Based on the YT influencer videos Ive seen, it appears that you can ramp up / down the Modelling light intensity via their smartphone app. Similar to the way RGB panels are controllable. So, I wonder if it’s somehow possible for a half-press of the shutter button trigger to trigger a smooth ramp up of the Modelling light? My Godox X2T has half-shutter press functionality built in to simulate the pre-flash AF light on pre-R series Canon DSLRs (grrr…) and most other brands as well.. I wonder if a request could be put into them to allow half-shutter to trigger a smooth ramp up of the Modelling light, rather than the pre-flash AF light. And I wish Godox and Canon would put away their hatchets and get full interoperability going on all of the R series bodies…
Thanks Jan, again a great video. In the future, could you imagine using a lower megapixels body in really challenging conditions (starting at 12800 ISO), or maybe keep an R5 Mark I for such situations? You mention that in term of noise, we lose almost one stop between an R5 and R5 Mark II, that's a lot...
Neither is a great solution. For the rifle bird with 24MP the files would’ve become quite small and the old R5 would’ve had a lot more trouble to focus on
Hey jan! I love you channel and have been watching from around 25k subs. I am heading off to Borneo next year and was wondering what your preferred camera would be for a deep dark rainforest environment like Danum Valley that where the animals are high up in the trees and its difficult to photograph them. Thanks Jan! your the best bird photographer on yt i reckon
@@AJ_Brimson It's funny, because I am almost tempted to say R5 II, because of the good low light AF. Otherwise R3 or R1 would probably do a decent job, too, but 24MP might be too light
Hi Jan, I’ve had the R5ii for two months now with the ef 600 f4. My biggest frustration is I can’t get a file to match the incredible quality I see through the viewfinder. I’m about to buy a much newer computer so I can run DXO or adobe camera raw. Photo AI isn’t getting me there. Does this sound like the right thing to do? Once I’ve got the new computer I’ll be doing your masterclass, can’t wait.
I have been culling with fast camera raw per mark smith and love it. The image quality looks similar to what’s in the viewfinder. When I move it to Lightroom CC, that’s when the file looks worse. The image is flatter, loses some dimensionality and color.
@@colindrummond7634that’s because the raw viewer uses the embedded jpeg file and LR used the Raw file with an Adobe profile. That’s why I usually use my prosets to make the images look better with a nicer profile as a starting point
Totally off topic: there seems to be a spec of dust on your sensor (or the front of your lens) of the camera you filmed this with! I can only see this dust spec against your black cap / hat, around the rim area above your left eye (right hand side of video image). I thought I was going crazy when I could not get the dust off my monitor. Then suspected a dead pixel. Then connected an external monitor...and still the 'bright pixel' / dust was there! You can see it where the shot is of you, for example at 21:32
Hi Yan, is it possible to share with us the file that you just transform because before I rent Lightroom and Photoshop, I want to see if it's too complicated for me...
There are worse cameras for high ISO performance and with the current gen of sensor, it's a trade off for speed as you noted. I found DXO Pure Raw 4 sorts them pretty well as long as you're prepared to tweak it's sharpening (which seems to cause the most trouble). I was impressed with how fast DXO got its R5 ii profiles out, but the LrC R5 ii colour profiles are a bit ordinary. I really think the bleating about the R5 ii high iso performance around the net is a bit exaggerated especially when compared with the other high end fast cameras on the market at the moment which really aren't any better.
Hi Jan, you're once again using awesome birds to make your point 👍 As a user of DxO PhotoLab, I'm more afraid of the extra culling work the R5ii will give me compared to the extra noise editing 😛 Besides making comparisons for this channels, are there still cases where you prefer grabbing the R5 when you'd expect the high ISO DR to outweigh the better AF, precapture and rolling shutter reduction from the R5ii ??
@@jan_wegener yeah, I sure get that ! Because of that and warping wings in ES, I moved to EFCS earlier this year .. which meant like getting 4 times fewer shots from a battery, or even less since beyond halfway the battery you're not even reaching 12 fps any more. The fact ES is so much more usable with the faster sensor, which has a huge impact (at least for stills) on how much batteries one needs for a day looks to me as huge bonus which is hardly mentioned. Earlier this week, my local camera store had its first delivery of R5ii's, at last! So I called my German friend, and he expects I can get mine in a month or so, in time for Costa Rica in February 😀 In your last show with Glenn, you mentioned still discovering new exciting hidden options, and then I think about the speed boost button and store/recall focus position recently mentioned by Duade. Is your Setup Guide getting updates, do you provide them to people who bought the earlier version ? Could be interesting after every major firmware update ..
Jan, what do you think about that? The LightRoom is not updated yet to open the RAW file from R5II and of course is not the case with RAW files from R5 and because of that the raw file from R5II looks noisier than that one from R5, with one stop, as you said. I think it is worth to try to open both files with Canon software, NR disabled, of course, and why not to do the same with another software like DxO, for example. What if you are simply wrong about this statement as the R5II files are noisier than R5 files, but this is just because the software is not updated for the newer camera?
@@jan_wegener I have last version of LR. It is not about the possibility to open the files, is about the software not being enough optimized for this type of file. And I am assuming that because I saw diferencies.
@@philipz794 I am using official LR from Adobe, and PS. Yes it can open the file, but is not been optimized yet to open it properly. I met some strange artifacts.
Could you do a video and compare the video capabilities to the R5? And see if you notice worse quality in the 4k 60fps in the R5 Mark ii camera. Cause I've heard it's worse than the canon R8.
I thought that the "noise problem" is not that kind of a big deal because of the higher color depth in electronic shutter mode compared to the original R5? Am I wrong? By the way thanks for comparing the different noise reduction programs.
The higher bit depth is only available at low ISOs. You lose so much bit depth at higher ISOs that 10 or even 8 bits is sufficient to carry the remaining information.
You suggested a couple of times to get more of the subject in focus. But you didn't say how. I would stop down from wide open unless you're using the RF 200-800 F/9 or something similar. Wide open narrows the depth of field too much.
@wilduntamedphotography1260 You're wrong. I just researched the difference between the two, here's the information I found when using key word search "Global shutter vs stacked sensor, are they the same or different?" Global shutter and a stacked sensor are different concepts, although they can sometimes be found together in a camera sensor: a global shutter refers to the way an image sensor captures light, where all pixels are exposed at the same time, while a stacked sensor refers to the physical design of the sensor, where multiple layers of circuitry are stacked on top of each other to achieve faster processing speeds; essentially, a stacked sensor can have a global shutter functionality, but not all stacked sensors do, and not all global shutters are on stacked sensors. Key differences: Function: global shutter captures the entire image at once, preventing distortion in fast-moving scenes, while a stacked sensor primarily focuses on faster data processing by stacking different layers of the sensor circuitry. Impact on image quality: While a global shutter can sometimes lead to slightly lower image quality due to its design, a stacked sensor can improve image quality by enabling faster readout speeds and potentially better low-light performance. Example: A high-end camera like the Sony a9 III utilizes a stacked sensor design and also incorporates a global shutter feature, allowing for fast continuous shooting with minimal rolling shutter distortion.
I was half enjoying this video then you suggested: exposing to the right, whilst keeping the lowest iso possible, whilst keeping the shutter speed high? Surely only an f1.2 lens would allow these three conditions?
It's SOOOO BAD . I had to shoot in the near dark and the images were pretty much useless. I will get your classes, very informative! I had to be in the big number ISO to get anything at all.
The difference in noise between the Mk1 and Mk2 is surprising, but I guess you and Glenn have quite a good sample size regarding Mk1s and Mk2s. The values shown by photonstophotons are probably most, if not all based on single cameras so there will be a reasonable margin for error. At higher ISO they show only about 0.2 stops difference and the Z8 is only about 0.1 stop worse than the Mk2. Up to now, when accounting for sample deviations, I was considering all modern high pixel count cameras to be essentially equivalent at high ISO, but that doesn't appear to be quite correct. I checked out the images from your link and some of them show really, REALLY black birds photographed in dark conditions and the RGB values are very close to zero. You're really pushing what's left of the dynamic range to the limit. In fact the dynamic range is dropping close to that of Fuji Velvia! Nevertheless, I feel the Mk2 has received some bad press regarding noise, which in the one hand is perhaps justified (compared to Mk1), but on the other hand a little unfair because the latest high pixel cameras from other manufacturers are not really better, if not slightly worse. I don't frequent the Nikon forums but I've never heard anyone criticising the noise levels of the Z8/9. Several Canon users have however commented they'll be switching to Nikon due to the noise issues - I hope they're not disappointed!
I think the difference is that there’s nothing to compare the Z8/9 to. Canon already had an R5 which was better then the R5 II in that one area, which is not as easy to swallow as if you’re presented with something totally new like the z9 back then
Great video, thanks. I think you contradict yourself at one point. You say "shoot as far to the right as possible", and then "shoot as low iso as possible, even if that means underexposing". I think the latter is a bad idea in general.
That’s not how I tried to bring it across. The underexposing only referred to certain situations where you can’t do anything else since you’re already shooting wide open and using very high iso and still have a too slow shutter speed. I’d never purposely underexpose. It’s more that it happens sometimes
You're right, and that's a result from the public/youtoubers' overly critical complaints about rolling shutter. Most have never even noticed rolling shutter in their own photos, but clamor for the sensors that solve that at the expense of high-iso noise. In truth, noise isn't nearly the problem it used to be. So, as usual, much ado about nothing.
In my opinion, 3200 is not high ISO. I don't even role out of bed for much less than 1600 and wont hesitate to go up to 128000. Denoise these days is so good its not worth shooting low ISO. Perhaps landscape photographers consider 3200 high. I wonder if the IQ difference between the two cameras might be less if the 5D2 is placed into mechanical shutter?
I’m the same, but it’s still high compared to what most use, it I work on some higher iso later on too. Mech is slightly better, but doesn’t always work, especially since it’s so noisy
I don’t know why you didn’t use flash with birds in a dark situation as you encountered here in this video or you just making a point on the ISO possibility. I know you have flash in the past , what is your position on using flash these days?
I don’t like using it anymore and the rifle it’s basically absorb the whole flash and you end up with weird reflections on them without much gain. The magnificent on Eis also too skittish for it. I still use it sometimes, but prefer not to anymore
R3 stack sensor has no issue with ISO, R5M2 does... Canon tech failure? Sony / Nikon do not have that problem on their high mp stacked sensors. Sorry Canon but im not getting R5M2. Not only for this, but forcing new battery, linked to features is clearly illegal practice, from Apple salesbook.
Did you even watch the video? Jan did an extremely good job showing us the noise of r5 ii compare to other cameras, and how to fix them. Stop trolling .
Jan, I want to show my appreciation for your videos I love the details you provide.
Glad you like them!
Thank you Jan. I too have the R5 Mark II. For Photo AI there are 2 workarounds:
1) In LrC, export your photos to DNG files which you add to your catalog. From there Photo AI works.
2) In LrC, use right-click, then Edit with > Photo AI. In this case however, RAW Denoise won't appear (TIFF file).
I just photographed a guitar band in a very dark café with only candlelight, resulting in ISO 12.800-40.000 1/80-1/200 f2.3 pictures. LrC Enhance and Photo AI helped a bit, but I still had to keep the darks dark to avoid the resulting noise to appear. Luckilly the exports didn't have to be more than 1200px at the longest side.
Thanks for your tips and tricks Jan!
Hey Jan, great video. Just a FYI, there is a hot pixel in your video whenever you are doing talking head shots. Take a look at the 3 min 46 sec mark (3:46) as an example. White dot near your hat. Canon cameras have that pixel mapping feature I hope.
Unfortunately no, Canon does not have pixel mapping feature. It can be done only if you send it in to a Canon service. Don't ask me how frustrating is that. I tried everything but no, is not working.
I’ll check it out
Jan, great video. Your examples are always so educational and helpful. I definitely plan to sign up for your LRC class when I get some free time. I do all my editing in LRC (and noise reduction), except for occasional use of Photoshop (via right click 'Edit in' command from LRC) when needed for challenging object removal/cloning/clutter/canvass expand/etc... I've been using the R5II for several months now and I really like it. I love the faster fps and pre capture (although I wish that latter feature could be activated by a simple button push). I also like the AF much better than the R5I for the reasons you have already commented on. BTW on the R5II AF, with multiple subjects, I find that if I first focus/track the desired subject with zone AF (programmed back button -- triple back button focusing) and then switch to eye tracking AF programmed back button, the R5II does a better job at locking on to the desired subject's eye/body and sticking on it. I also find the wireless communications of the R5II to be easier to use and more reliable, compared to the R5I. Lastly, I do like that the R5II has less rolling shutter, although I have noticed recently when taking panning BIF photos of ducks when they fly past me, that the background trees are still slightly bent. So rolling shutter is still there in the R5II, but much better than the R5I. Kind regards
thanks for sharing!
Your breakdowns and real-world experiences are so worthwhile Jan.
We definitely need to understand that cameras are made with a little bit of balance, whether it's focus and shutter performance or high ISO, extreme image quality.
Soon enough the tech (and brands giving in!) will creep up enough to have stacked sensor cameras with the best of everything in one body.
For now, I still use a Canon 1D X Mark II and there are very few times when I Really feel I need something more.
Now that a few fantastic new cameras have come out, I might finally be able to afford a used R3 or R5!
Jan. First, some of your examples are absolutely stunning. Congratulations. I have found the same thing as you in low light/high IOS/dark shadow detail on the R5II vs the R5. My feeling is that these situations are relatively few and the files are still very workable, nevertheless. The biggest difference is that, as you say, the AF is so much more robust on the R5II - and - coupled with other features like pre-capture I am getting shots on the R5II I couldn't have on the R5. It is a very acceptable trade-off. As for preferred noise reduction software I find myself relying more and more on Adobe LR than the other software I won (Topaz and DxO). You can tell a slight difference when pixel peeping, but at normal size I find the difference negligible. Staying in LR also saves me the round trip.
Thanks for sharing Steve
Danke ❤
Great videos as always. And love your Masterclass training videos as well. Question: Typically at what ISO do you start using PureRaw vs Enhance?
I hardly shoot below iso 1600, so I use it on almost all images
Jan, excellent video! I’m self taught, so maybe I’m not doing this right. I normally crop and edit my image, then apply topaz denoise to the final edit. Perhaps that isn’t right? I use Lightroom exclusively for editing and will be getting your master class soon.
Jan,
Thanks for the tutorial showing how you optimize the high ISO performance of the R5 MKII . I think that you know how to jump through the hoops like many of us do to get beautiful images from today's modern camera bodies. Your explanation helps those of us who will move to the R5 MKII. However, I think that the noise removal from the original R5 is easier at high ISO values. In controlled situations I think that you can get very good final edits from both the R5 MKII and the original R5. I think that the original R5 is about a stop better in many cases. The R5 MKII is better when you have more motion due to the faster readout and the R5 gives you better results in shadow areas. Overall, the R5 gave us a huge step forward in image quality and great autofocus. The R5 MKII improves autofocus again and gives us faster readout speed with some increased noise at high ISO. Overall, a good improvement but maybe not worth twice the price for everyone. Thanks again and I would love to see a direct comparison using the best editing practices compared for the R5 MKII and R5 at high ISO side by side. All the best.
If you ignore everything else, I think the original R5 would have an edge here
15:59 yes I had all those, darksubject, dark background very high iso ... However, I just purchased DXO PR (I had been using on 1 and topaz) and the results are pretty good given the starting point. So thank you for that!
Excellent advice Jan, and great pictures!!
Thanks mate!
Hi Jan,
Nice to see validation of my frustration. I always shot AUTO ISO with the R5 but now I am having to limit Auto and really think about shutter speed. Not so many "keepers" and was starting to lose confidence with the camera.
1. Just wondered if you tried in camera "High ISO Speed NR" Low/Standard/High .. and your thoughts ?
2. What +exposure would you recommend exactly. + ? on exposure compensation ?
Cheers,
Steve
That will only apply to Jpeg and can slow the camera down
I always shoot full manual and just watch the histogram and push it to the right without clipping
Thank you Jan for the valuable video.
I think we all know how valuable such videos are! I actually could have used something like this 10 years ago :D but what the heck. Thank you
A bit of a different video than normal, I found it excellent thank you
Glad you liked it!
Great video as always, with some helpful suggestions for my bird photography in dark environments. While I have been happy with some of the improvements of the R5 II over the R5, this is the first camera I ever purchased where the next generation didn't deliver equal or better results in all areas. I've been happy with results after editing, but the high ISO performance is frustrating when I know I could be using my R5 and getting easier to edit results.
Interesting to see your workflow! May I ask, why you are denoising first and then using the (slighly more limited) DNG to process further and not the other way round? I'm always editing first and then use denoising since I want to edit the original raw and habe then the end result purified. Is there a benefit I'm not aware of when you're denoising first?
Great and informative video, Jan. And wonderful images. I am many times in really challenging light conditions here in the Atlantic rainforest, so it was a lot of good tips in this video. Can i ask you, which mirrorless camera of all you have tried have the best low light perfomance?
Wishing you and yours a great week/weekend
Cheers, Bjoern
The best compromise of quality and speed seems to be the A1. In saying that I really like the overall performance of the R5 II in low light, especially the AF.
In theory the R1 should be the best low light camera
I’ll get one soon
@@jan_wegener Thanks for the answer Jan. I currently use the r7 after my old 7d mkii said goodbye. Going to norway for Christmas, so maybe I get a chance to look at the r5 mkii there. A bit cheaper than here 😅😜. Cheers, Bjoern📸🙌🏼
Great video! What's your opinion on R5 12bit ES vs R5ii 14bit ES at high ISO, in terms of IQ. Meaning: Does the 2bit difference help at all (at high ISO)? Or is it helpful in any other way?
It doesn’t seem to be that helpful, although without it would probably be worse
@@jan_wegenerConvert your high iso images to 8 bit in photoshop and see if you notice any difference. I can’t with my mark I photos. You will however see a difference with iso 100 images.
Hello Your videos great!
Do you use a batter grip on your R5 and R5 ii?
Thank you!
on one of them yes and one the other no. If I only had one I'd prefer the grip
Thank you!
Hi Jan Thank you for making and sharing this informative video to help us understand the Canon R5 MK II better.
My pleasure!
Jan when comparing to the R5 is that 14bit Mechanical Shutter files or 12bit ES files? Thanks.
12 bit ES
Awesome tutorial Jan, would you mind doing an editing video where you talk about doing the edits with multiple camera raw files like you did with the Magnificent Rifle Bird.
Thanks, Jan!
Thanks for the tips--esp the light background.
Glad it was helpful!
Hi Jan, another fascinating video! I'm particularly interested in your comments on the high ISO noise performance of the R5 Mk II compared with the R5.
For many years, I have been investigating different ways for making quantitative measurements of image noise using a standardised test chart. My currently favoured method looks at the raw sensor data, before it has been through any raw converters (ACR, DPP etc) as this should give the most accurate measurements of the actual sensor data. The method I am now using agrees well (after a systematic adjustment) with the respected DXOMARK organisation's measurements of what they call 18% SNR (screen). These are measurements of the signal to noise ratios of the mid grey areas of the raw sensor data. Note DXOMARK has yet to publish measurements on the R5II (they are often very slow to publish results for new cameras).
My initial measurements at ISO 1600 showed very similar SNR values for the R5II compared with the R5.
Having watched this video, I have made further measurements up to ISO 25,600. Even here I cannot find much difference between the noise levels from the two cameras. There is a small effect whereby the electronic shutter on the R5II gives slightly noiser images than the R5 (and the mechanical shutter on the R5II) but even in the dark grey/black areas of the images the difference is only about a quarter of a stop (0.8dB in the SNR values).
For more on my method and results, please see the bottom of this page and the other referenced therein: www.stephenburch.com/gear/R5II.htm.
So something of mystery here! Maybe it is the raw converters that are introducing more noise into the R5II images?
A final comment: Measurements of image noise level are different from measurements of dynamic range. So it is quite possible for a camera like the R5II to have a lower dynamic range than the R5 (mainly at low ISOs?) but to have similar noise levels at all ISOs.
Give it another year or two and stacked sensor cameras will start to show improvements in high dynamic range and iso performance, as manufacturers figure out work arounds in the camera.
I'd say probably 5 or so years myself personally. But, yes, they will figure it out.
@@davepasternI read up on the difference between back illuminated sensors and stacked sensors, how they both achieve different results. I wonder if layering the back iluminated plates between the stacked sensors or adding another back illuminated set of plates would be possible and be the solution?
@@3DEditor as car as I understand you cannot get a stacked sensor without it being backlit. The Z9/A1 and R3 are all the same sensor design as that featured on the R5II.
@davepastern I looked at 3 different diagrams of how cmos, bsi cmos, and stacked cmos sensors are laid out.
The only difference between a bsi and stacked shows, there are two layers of metal wiring below the photodiode substrate layer on the stacked sensor, where as there is only one layer of metal wiring below the photodiode substrate on the bsi sensor.
Both have the micro lenses, color filter and light recieving surface above the photodiode substrate.
So I was wondering if it would be practical for the photodiode substrate, color filter and light recieveing surface to be double layered between the double stacked metal wiring for extra light readout?
If that was the only solution and possible, that of course would bring the price up in the camera.
Thank you for your interesting video. I normally use Lightroom only. Your Masterclass of Lightroom is fantastic. I prefer a faster shutter speed in wildlife photography. Best wishes Roland
Great video as always!
Glad you enjoyed!
I find your ISO performance comments very intriguing Jan - the R3 is better than either the original R5 or R5II in high ISO performance and there's no way that I'd say it's really usable at that ISO. Even ETTR. Mind you, I am using an old mark 1 EF 500f4 which is limited in shutter speed due to the much poorer IS performance vs your RF600f4 lens, but that shouldn't really impact on ISO performance imho. From what I can see so far, the R5II images at ISO12800 seem on par with my R3 at the same ISO. So how you're getting 1 stop better with the R5 is beyond me. What am I missing?
Thanks....
16:37 - except the A1, that has a super fast, high res sensor and still gets great DR/noise performance
Yes, the one exception
In using Deep Prime XD2, have you ever increased the "Force Details" slider to try to avoid losing that detail? I have tried and it seems to sometimes do the job...Otherwise, i find the DP XD2 to be too waxy.
Yes, that sometimes helps or goes a bit far, but worth playing around with
Really interesting.
Really interesting, thanks. I have a brand new R5 II and this is very helpful. Unfortunately I am currently an ON1 user, so will have to wait until they add R5 II support to fully appreciate some of the editing techniques you are showing. But I do have a question - At about 1:54 you show a bird (Sulphur-crested Cockatoo?) with light and dark background - how did you get the background to switch? It looks like the color/darkness of the bird changed the tiniest bit and the branch as well along with major change in the background. Was this done with a camera adjustment or in post but before applying noise reduction.
Thanks,
I just slightly moved the (fake) bird or camera to get a different BG
Thank you Jan, great video! Just curious, why doesn't the R3 have this trade-off compared to the R6 Mark II?
I guess it's easier to make the sensor better when they have less MP, although I found the R6 II IQ a tad better than R3, but it's much closer
@@jan_wegener I see, that's a very good way of putting it. I agree that the IQ for R62 is just a tad better than the R3, particularly past ISO16k, but I do also see that in photonstophotos testing, their PDR chart shows the R3 having _more_ dynamic range at ISO 100 than even the R5, which made me confused when the R5M2 had so "little" DR in comparison! Thanks for the reply mate, I always love myself a good convo with a prominent photographer!
Thanks Jan, exellent video.
Iven if the R5, has Manny excellent improved features, I have decided to not upgrade my R5. Instead I will spend my budget on more R lenes as that will give me more for the money.
Its simply feels wrong to use that much money on a camera that has less dynamic range and iso performance, even if it is just a slight differanse.
For de noise i mostly use Lightroom an sometimes topaz
Wise words- thanks for sharing. /Per
2:20 I agree with you but ISO levels are way different in your compared light - dark samples
it's the same ISO in the files
I think there is a bit of a difference in high ISO performance between the original R5 and the Mark II, which is not surprising considering the stacked sensor of the Mark II but nothing DxO can't easily take care of. To me it seems to be 1/3 of a stop difference in most scenarios.
Yes, it's only when the going gets really tough that you can tell
In extreme low light wildlife situations, how about adding flash, or some warm directional continuous light like the brighter modeling lamp on the new Godox AD200 Pro mk2?
It would help but not always feasible to pull off
Especially with skittish birds in dark areas
@@jan_wegener completely understand re:
the sudden intrusive nature of flash. But the Modelling light may be less startling if ramped up manually. Based on the YT influencer videos Ive seen, it appears that you can ramp up / down the Modelling light intensity via their smartphone app. Similar to the way RGB panels are controllable. So, I wonder if it’s somehow possible for a half-press of the shutter button trigger to trigger a smooth ramp up of the Modelling light? My Godox X2T has half-shutter press functionality built in to simulate the pre-flash AF light on pre-R series Canon DSLRs (grrr…) and most other brands as well.. I wonder if a request could be put into them to allow half-shutter to trigger a smooth ramp up of the Modelling light, rather than the pre-flash AF light. And I wish Godox and Canon would put away their hatchets and get full interoperability going on all of the R series bodies…
Thanks Jan, again a great video. In the future, could you imagine using a lower megapixels body in really challenging conditions (starting at 12800 ISO), or maybe keep an R5 Mark I for such situations? You mention that in term of noise, we lose almost one stop between an R5 and R5 Mark II, that's a lot...
Neither is a great solution. For the rifle bird with 24MP the files would’ve become quite small and the old R5 would’ve had a lot more trouble to focus on
Hey jan! I love you channel and have been watching from around 25k subs. I am heading off to Borneo next year and was wondering what your preferred camera would be for a deep dark rainforest environment like Danum Valley that where the animals are high up in the trees and its difficult to photograph them. Thanks Jan! your the best bird photographer on yt i reckon
From all systems?
@@jan_wegener uhhhhh, lets just say Canon but if theres one camera thats better than the rest mention that too and ill have a look :)
@@AJ_Brimson It's funny, because I am almost tempted to say R5 II, because of the good low light AF. Otherwise R3 or R1 would probably do a decent job, too, but 24MP might be too light
@@jan_wegener ok thank you very much! What about the R5 Mark I? I was thinking of taking the first version
@@AJ_Brimsonit will have very good IQ, but a bit more slow AF in low light
Hi Jan, I’ve had the R5ii for two months now with the ef 600 f4. My biggest frustration is I can’t get a file to match the incredible quality I see through the viewfinder. I’m about to buy a much newer computer so I can run DXO or adobe camera raw. Photo AI isn’t getting me there. Does this sound like the right thing to do? Once I’ve got the new computer I’ll be doing your masterclass, can’t wait.
Is your current computer too slow to do proper editing?
@@jan_wegener the computer runs Lightroom fine and photo AI more slowly. I tried DXO and it was taking 40 minutes to process one file !
I have been culling with fast camera raw per mark smith and love it. The image quality looks similar to what’s in the viewfinder. When I move it to Lightroom CC, that’s when the file looks worse. The image is flatter, loses some dimensionality and color.
@@colindrummond7634that’s because the raw viewer uses the embedded jpeg file and LR used the Raw file with an Adobe profile. That’s why I usually use my prosets to make the images look better with a nicer profile as a starting point
@@colindrummond7634that is slow! It’s about 20sec on mine
Totally off topic: there seems to be a spec of dust on your sensor (or the front of your lens) of the camera you filmed this with! I can only see this dust spec against your black cap / hat, around the rim area above your left eye (right hand side of video image). I thought I was going crazy when I could not get the dust off my monitor. Then suspected a dead pixel. Then connected an external monitor...and still the 'bright pixel' / dust was there! You can see it where the shot is of you, for example at 21:32
I’ll check
Hi Yan, is it possible to share with us the file that you just transform because before I rent Lightroom and Photoshop, I want to see if it's too complicated for me...
There are a few files to download in the description. Not exactly the same, but similar
There are worse cameras for high ISO performance and with the current gen of sensor, it's a trade off for speed as you noted. I found DXO Pure Raw 4 sorts them pretty well as long as you're prepared to tweak it's sharpening (which seems to cause the most trouble). I was impressed with how fast DXO got its R5 ii profiles out, but the LrC R5 ii colour profiles are a bit ordinary. I really think the bleating about the R5 ii high iso performance around the net is a bit exaggerated especially when compared with the other high end fast cameras on the market at the moment which really aren't any better.
Hi Jan, you're once again using awesome birds to make your point 👍
As a user of DxO PhotoLab, I'm more afraid of the extra culling work the R5ii will give me compared to the extra noise editing 😛
Besides making comparisons for this channels, are there still cases where you prefer grabbing the R5 when you'd expect the high ISO DR to outweigh the better AF, precapture and rolling shutter reduction from the R5ii ??
No, there hasn’t really be a moment where it has tempted me. The main reason are these annoying image wobbles I can’t stand
@@jan_wegener yeah, I sure get that ! Because of that and warping wings in ES, I moved to EFCS earlier this year .. which meant like getting 4 times fewer shots from a battery, or even less since beyond halfway the battery you're not even reaching 12 fps any more.
The fact ES is so much more usable with the faster sensor, which has a huge impact (at least for stills) on how much batteries one needs for a day looks to me as huge bonus which is hardly mentioned.
Earlier this week, my local camera store had its first delivery of R5ii's, at last! So I called my German friend, and he expects I can get mine in a month or so, in time for Costa Rica in February 😀
In your last show with Glenn, you mentioned still discovering new exciting hidden options, and then I think about the speed boost button and store/recall focus position recently mentioned by Duade. Is your Setup Guide getting updates, do you provide them to people who bought the earlier version ? Could be interesting after every major firmware update ..
Jan, what do you think about that? The LightRoom is not updated yet to open the RAW file from R5II and of course is not the case with RAW files from R5 and because of that the raw file from R5II looks noisier than that one from R5, with one stop, as you said. I think it is worth to try to open both files with Canon software, NR disabled, of course, and why not to do the same with another software like DxO, for example. What if you are simply wrong about this statement as the R5II files are noisier than R5 files, but this is just because the software is not updated for the newer camera?
Lightroom is updated and supports the R5 II (actually over a month already)
I can open the R5 II files easily in Lr, like I did in this video. You need to update yours
@@jan_wegener I have last version of LR. It is not about the possibility to open the files, is about the software not being enough optimized for this type of file. And I am assuming that because I saw diferencies.
@@philipz794 I am using official LR from Adobe, and PS. Yes it can open the file, but is not been optimized yet to open it properly. I met some strange artifacts.
@@cristirenaultit’s what Adobe currently offers for the camera. They may update but may not
thanks for the edit info, like this type of video, getting the pic's is one think but good editing is another!
Yes, it works hand in hand
Could you do a video and compare the video capabilities to the R5? And see if you notice worse quality in the 4k 60fps in the R5 Mark ii camera.
Cause I've heard it's worse than the canon R8.
For video overall the R5 II is significantly improved less overheating, clog2, etc. I don’t use 4K 60 a lot so I’ll have a look
I thought that the "noise problem" is not that kind of a big deal because of the higher color depth in electronic shutter mode compared to the original R5? Am I wrong? By the way thanks for comparing the different noise reduction programs.
You’d think so, but the R5 12 bit feel at very high ISO and in dark areas, beats the 14 bit file
The higher bit depth is only available at low ISOs. You lose so much bit depth at higher ISOs that 10 or even 8 bits is sufficient to carry the remaining information.
You suggested a couple of times to get more of the subject in focus. But you didn't say how. I would stop down from wide open unless you're using the RF 200-800 F/9 or something similar. Wide open narrows the depth of field too much.
Yes, stopping down and your position. You could for instance be a bit further away from the subject or make sure it’s more aligned with your sensor
16:47 - Sony A9III does not have a stacked censor. It has a Global sensor.
The global shutter is a stacked sensor 😅
@wilduntamedphotography1260
You're wrong. I just researched the difference between the two, here's the information I found when using key word search "Global shutter vs stacked sensor, are they the same or different?"
Global shutter and a stacked sensor are different concepts, although they can sometimes be found together in a camera sensor: a global shutter refers to the way an image sensor captures light, where all pixels are exposed at the same time, while a stacked sensor refers to the physical design of the sensor, where multiple layers of circuitry are stacked on top of each other to achieve faster processing speeds; essentially, a stacked sensor can have a global shutter functionality, but not all stacked sensors do, and not all global shutters are on stacked sensors.
Key differences:
Function: global shutter captures the entire image at once, preventing distortion in fast-moving scenes, while a stacked sensor primarily focuses on faster data processing by stacking different layers of the sensor circuitry.
Impact on image quality:
While a global shutter can sometimes lead to slightly lower image quality due to its design, a stacked sensor can improve image quality by enabling faster readout speeds and potentially better low-light performance.
Example: A high-end camera like the Sony a9 III utilizes a stacked sensor design and also incorporates a global shutter feature, allowing for fast continuous shooting with minimal rolling shutter distortion.
@@3DEditorin the case of the A9mkiii, it does indeed have a global stacked sensor, as stated on Sony’s website.
The A9mkiii has a global stacked sensor, as mentioned on Sony’s website.
I was half enjoying this video then you suggested: exposing to the right, whilst keeping the lowest iso possible, whilst keeping the shutter speed high? Surely only an f1.2 lens would allow these three conditions?
It’s an impossible scenario and one where you have to compromise
It's SOOOO BAD . I had to shoot in the near dark and the images were pretty much useless. I will get your classes, very informative! I had to be in the big number ISO to get anything at all.
I think that must be a Error 40!
You can always switch to the Sony a1. Or better yet to wait for the a1 II
It’s a camera I will definitely try. A1 is too limited for video to be a contender for me
The difference in noise between the Mk1 and Mk2 is surprising, but I guess you and Glenn have quite a good sample size regarding Mk1s and Mk2s. The values shown by photonstophotons are probably most, if not all based on single cameras so there will be a reasonable margin for error. At higher ISO they show only about 0.2 stops difference and the Z8 is only about 0.1 stop worse than the Mk2. Up to now, when accounting for sample deviations, I was considering all modern high pixel count cameras to be essentially equivalent at high ISO, but that doesn't appear to be quite correct. I checked out the images from your link and some of them show really, REALLY black birds photographed in dark conditions and the RGB values are very close to zero. You're really pushing what's left of the dynamic range to the limit. In fact the dynamic range is dropping close to that of Fuji Velvia!
Nevertheless, I feel the Mk2 has received some bad press regarding noise, which in the one hand is perhaps justified (compared to Mk1), but on the other hand a little unfair because the latest high pixel cameras from other manufacturers are not really better, if not slightly worse. I don't frequent the Nikon forums but I've never heard anyone criticising the noise levels of the Z8/9. Several Canon users have however commented they'll be switching to Nikon due to the noise issues - I hope they're not disappointed!
I think the difference is that there’s nothing to compare the Z8/9 to. Canon already had an R5 which was better then the R5 II in that one area, which is not as easy to swallow as if you’re presented with something totally new like the z9 back then
Great video, thanks. I think you contradict yourself at one point. You say "shoot as far to the right as possible", and then "shoot as low iso as possible, even if that means underexposing". I think the latter is a bad idea in general.
That’s not how I tried to bring it across. The underexposing only referred to certain situations where you can’t do anything else since you’re already shooting wide open and using very high iso and still have a too slow shutter speed. I’d never purposely underexpose. It’s more that it happens sometimes
This is the result of all camera companies compromising on the signal to noise ratio in an attempt to increase the readout speed of the sensor.
What made you an expert?
You're right, and that's a result from the public/youtoubers' overly critical complaints about rolling shutter. Most have never even noticed rolling shutter in their own photos, but clamor for the sensors that solve that at the expense of high-iso noise. In truth, noise isn't nearly the problem it used to be. So, as usual, much ado about nothing.
@@NeungViewis he wrong though?
In my opinion, 3200 is not high ISO. I don't even role out of bed for much less than 1600 and wont hesitate to go up to 128000. Denoise these days is so good its not worth shooting low ISO. Perhaps landscape photographers consider 3200 high. I wonder if the IQ difference between the two cameras might be less if the 5D2 is placed into mechanical shutter?
I’m the same, but it’s still high compared to what most use, it I work on some higher iso later on too.
Mech is slightly better, but doesn’t always work, especially since it’s so noisy
3200 is not high lmao
That's why there are other examples, too...
I don’t know why you didn’t use flash with birds in a dark situation as you encountered here in this video or you just making a point on the ISO possibility. I know you have flash in the past , what is your position on using flash these days?
I don’t like using it anymore and the rifle it’s basically absorb the whole flash and you end up with weird reflections on them without much gain.
The magnificent on Eis also too skittish for it.
I still use it sometimes, but prefer not to anymore
The only feature missing on the original R5 is the pre burst.. but i would still take image quality over that. So I won't be buying the R5 mark 2
R3 stack sensor has no issue with ISO, R5M2 does... Canon tech failure? Sony / Nikon do not have that problem on their high mp stacked sensors. Sorry Canon but im not getting R5M2. Not only for this, but forcing new battery, linked to features is clearly illegal practice, from Apple salesbook.
It also only has 24 MP, maybe that’s the reason the R1 does too. To get good DR and high ISO performance
At 17:37 Jan compares the MkII to the Z8 and says he might even give the edge to the R5 MkII. Perhaps you missed this section.
No.
(...and since the doctor ordered me not to consume clickbait, I stopped seeing at 00:02...)
Still, you took the time to add that comment...
Where’s the Clickbait?
Did you even watch the video? Jan did an extremely good job showing us the noise of r5 ii compare to other cameras, and how to fix them. Stop trolling .
@limbei996 life is taking care of him... he can't last any longer (than that stated 2 seconds) with any girls neither.... Oups. 😉