I have to say thank you!!!! I have an R3 and I was really kind of leaning towards the R5 II because of the lower resolution on the R1. Your comparisons with the ISOs was very revealing for me. I'm going to go with the R1 now, I love that you compare and demonstarte real world versus just specs between the cameras.
Thanks, Ron, for answering my question on the ISO performance of R1 and R5MII. You did an excellent job! I will stick to my R5MII as I do not shoot much above 6200 ISO. Have a nice Christmas!
I understand the decision to view each image at 100%, or other equal zoom level. That gives you an idea of what to expect if you crop or print each image to 100%, or whichever like magnification. However in reality, if you set up at the same location and take the same photo of the same bird in the same tree with each camera, at 100% you end up with two different images, as you've noted in the comments. You end up with a closer crop of the bird with the R5 Mk II because of the higher resolution. I think what you're reading in many comments is that your test is very much appreciated, but to truly understand the end results that can be expected by most photographers when using these cameras, you really want to view the image at final viewing or print size and then to compare detail, noise, etc. That would make a great addition to this video, or a great follow-up. It would be the most useful possible comparison for most shooters. What your test DOES demonstrate is the fallacy of assuming that a higher resolution camera allows you to crop and achieve the SAME results as someone who uses a longer focal length lens or positions closer to the subject with a lower resolution camera. To set up equal output images (same subject magnification, same DOF, same exposure, same shutter speed to minimize motion blur) you have to do a lot of work to really control the variables. Example 1- If wanting to print an R1 image at full resolution, to achieve the same output (subject magnification, DOF, exposure, shutter speed) with the R5 Mk II with a shorter focal length lens from the same distance: R1 at 400 f/5.6 at 1/4000 and ISO 12,800, 10m from subject R5 Mk II at 300 f/3.2 (for similar DOF) at 1/4000 would need to be at ISO 4,000 (for same exposure) at 10m from subject. R5 MkII cropped to R1 pixel dimensions is about a 1.365x crop to achieve same final output size. From a noise perspective, the R5 can shoot in this example at a lower ISO due to needing a larger aperture to achieve the same DOF at the same shutter speed with a shorter focal length and equal distance from the subject. Example 2- instead you wanted to use the same focal length lens on each camera, and modify your shooting distance and aperture to use the crop ability of the R5 to achieve the same output (subject magnification, DOF, exposure, shutter speed): R1 at 400 f/5.6 at 1/4000 and ISO 12,800, 10m from subject R5 Mk II at 400 f/2.8 (for similar DOF) at 1/4000 and ISO 3,200, 14m from subject. Crop the image to R1 dimensions to achieve the same final output size. Again R5 Mk II has an ISO advantage, lowering noise before cropping, because to achieve the same DOF you have to use a larger aperture at the same shutter speed and longer shooting distance. Example 3- You shoot a 400 f/5.6 on both cameras. You modify your shooting distance to achieve the same size subject and you keep shutter speed the same to freeze action. R1 at 400 f/5.6 at 1/4000 and ISO 12,800, 10m from subject R5 Mk II at 400 f/5.6 at 1/4000 and ISO 12,800, 14m from subject. Crop the image to R1 dimensions to achieve the same final output size. Your DOF is different between the two images. Here the R5 image would have about 2x the DOF of the R1 image due to shooting the same focal length and aperture from a further distance. So in 3 examples above, matching the R1's output image (subject magnification, DOF, exposure, motion blur) results in needing to modify the shooting parameters. As you do this, you move the advantage back and forth regarding noise and DR between the cameras. You also potentially need larger aperture, heavier lenses with the R5 to match the DOF and exposure of the R1. This sounds counterintuitive because typically we think of cropping ability as allowing to use shorter, smaller lenses. That only works if you don't match DOF. Example 4- Shoot the R5 at 10m. Match the subject magnification, DOF, exposure, motion blur with the R1 from the same spot: R5 Mk II at 300 f/4 at 1/4000 and ISO 3,200, 10m from subject R1 at 400 f/7.1 at 1/4000 and ISO 10,000, 10m from subject In this example you could shoot something like the 100-300 on the R5 at $9,500, a 5.8 lb lens. You could shoot something like the 100-500 on the R1 at $2600, a 3 lb lens. Example 5- shoot the same scenario with the 100-500 at max available aperture on the R5: R5 Mk II at 300 f/5 at 1/4000 and ISO 3,200, 10m from subject R1 at 400 f/9 at 1/4000 and ISO 10,000, 10m from subject This is a lot to read and I rounded some calculations to match common aperture options and focal lengths, but you get the point. Quite a bit can go into matching the actual final image between cameras. Most comparisons don't account for this and simply look at the images at 1:1 on screen and compare noise. In reality we move our feet, choose focal lengths and ISO values and apertures and shutter speeds to achieve what we're after and go from there. If you are willing to accept different DOF in each of these examples, you can swing the noise advantage more heavily toward the R1. Example 3 demonstrated this, where both cameras are at ISO 12,800 and the R5 has to be cropped due to different subject distance. In that example, the DOF difference is fairly large.
Thank you for the video, Ron. Very fair and reasonable comparison as always. I'm super jealous that you have kingfishers and I won't see them back for many months, but I still found it somewhere within myself to give you a thumbs up ;) Happy holidays. Best to you and yours for 2025.
Fantastic video Ron! I love how you go into details with the R1 that no one else does, I learn a lot. Looking forward to the AF video, I agree the R1 is a beast!
Ron, The R1 has less noise than the R5m2, BUT those comparisons really have to be done at constant crop ratio. By reducing the portion of the image that is shown for the R5II, you also reduced the signal shown on the screen and therefore reduced signal to noise by the ratio of areas shown.
Exactly, the R1 has less noise then the R5II and at higher ISO settings the R5II has a lot more noise to the point of capturing less detail. As ISO drops the R5II gets better and eventually the noise is not a factor any longer. That is all this video was meant to illustrate. Be my guest and do a better job than I did and by all means put a UA-cam video together and post it on your channel. I am pretty sure it will show the same general pattern that this video shows. I am pretty sure that at 20000 ISO the R5II, when done your way, will still show a lot more noise compared to the R1 and no more detail. Cheers, Ron
Also, I did not reduce the portion of the image shown for the R5II images. I showed the full frame image taken at full resolution and did this for images from both cameras. I did no cropping for the first set of comparisons. When I zoomed in and out with the two images side-by-side both images where magnified the same amount, so any changes in signal /noise were changed for both images keeping the amount relative to each other the same. The second set of images were cropped to the comp. I wanted , noise reduction was applied, and they were sharpened a bit. These were meant to be examples of what I could do with the images based on the amount of noise in the RAW files. Let your eyes be the judge if the results would be to your satisfaction with regard to detail.
The question is: what situation requires shooting at ISO 20000, with what f-stop, and at what shutter speed? I use two Canon R5 Mark II cameras for sports photography, whether in gyms or on fields, typically shooting at ISO 6400, f/2.8, and 1/1000 sec. I decided to switch from my R3 cameras to the R5 Mark II to take advantage of the 45 MP sensor, which allows for better cropped images. However, tight cropping often reveals more visible noise from both cameras. It's important to start with full-frame images for initial comparisons, then zoom in proportionally to accurately assess image quality. I noticed that your image comparisons between the R5 Mark II and R1 were not cropped equally in terms of width and depth, which means the tighter crop on the R5 Mark II would show more noise compared to the less cropped R1. Additionally, in some instances, the bird images were not taken in identical conditions, leading to different noise levels. Were your test shots captured in JPG, RAW, or CRAW format? It might be beneficial to retest. I genuinely love my Canon R5 Mark IIs!
Taken in CRAW. The comparison is from shots taken during actual shoots, and full-frame images where shown that where zoomed in and out so viewers can see the relative noise at the various ISO settings at various zoom levels. This is what is done when post-processing. Nope, not identical conditions. How often do you have identical conditions, conditions can change every few minutes when in the field. I believe the comparisons made in this video provide real-world comparisons and if done a bit differently would show the same general pattern as shown in this video. Go ahead and do the comparisons the way you think they should be done and I bet the general pattern will be no different then what I show here. With regards to who will be shooting at ISO 20000. I will, and am, now that I have a camera that can do it and provide decent images. I shoot in the field where early morning and late evening bird activity can be awesome, but the light very low. I obviously have both cameras, and I like them both. I think the R5II has great noise handling for a 45mp camera. As I showed in the video there is a ISO threshold where the R1 and R5II begin to equal out with regards to the detail captured. About ISO 8000-10000. So, if you shoot at ISO 6400 then you are probably better off with the R5II unless you crop in a ton on a majority of your images. Cheers, Ron
Oh, and if you look at the description/chapters for the video it states that the initial comparisons where RAW and second set cropped to the composition I wanted for each image.
Thank you for this comparison. For shooting images of Sandhill cranes at dawn this was pretty interesting to me. Looking forward to your next performance comparison.
Morning Ron From Dull Lancashire England another great video on these two great cameras I must agree on the R1 I have shot nearly dark at 64000 and was ok WOW still like the R5 and will keep shooting with it you are blessed where you are with that lovely light your photos are amazing and helpfull to us all with your advise have a great xmas with your family and friends can't wait for you next video on the auto focus on both cameras
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment. We are blessed here with some awesome light. Makes getting great images so much easier as we all know. Thank you also for the Holiday wishes. The same to you and your family. Cheers, Ron
Thank Ron. This is a good comparison for noise. Not so much for a detail comparison it would needs to be a controlled set up where each shot is the same conditions, subject, lighting, distance, no way you can compare detail this way accurately. I'm loving both my R1 and R5mkll but if i had to pic one i would stick with the R1. Thanks for the Video i'll be waiting on the AF video!!
Thanks so much for watching and commenting. I agree with your comment on the detail to a point. The problem is, we wildlife/bird photographers do not shoot in controlled environments. What I care about is what detail can be captured by various camera setups under real-world conditions. We shoot in the exact opposite of controlled, often to the extreme, and often on very fast moving subjects. So, which camera can consistently provide great detail in those conditions? I believe one way to assess this is by shooting and processing thousands of images from various cameras under real-world conditions. When this is done, a pattern generally starts to become evident, that one camera may be providing the detail I need more often than another, and it may not be the one with the highest resolution. This video showed a bit of this. Anyway, I personally do not care what detail a camera and lens combo can render under controlled conditions. I need to be confident it will provide the detail I need when shooting in the field. Thanks again, and I appreciate the opportunity to have a civilized discussion about topics like this versus a lot of the comments that bluntly state a video is "useless." Cheers, Ron
Thank you so much, I have looking for the Original video you did of the R5. if you still have it i would be grateful, it has some step that are missed the subsequent video.
It is apparent from your test that the R1 has less noise than the R52 at a given ISO. But would you say the R1 captures more detail (when viewed at the same size) than the R52 at those higher ISOs (~20000)? I know you didn't show this in your test, but it is relevant. If the detail is similar at the same viewing size, then you really are not losing detail in the R52. I ended up pulling the trigger on a pair of R52's instead of R52/R1 which is what I originally planned on purchasing. I love the R52 pair with their identical controls and save/load settings to the card but wonder if I would have benefited from the high ISO capabilities of the R1. I sometimes shoot sports at night... Thank you for taking the time to do these videos.
From what I see the R1 captures more detail at high ISOs, 20000 for example, than the R52 because the noise is so high in the R5II image that it keeps feather detail from being captured. This seems to equal out at 10000-8000 ISO where the R52 noise is low enough for the extra pixels to capture more detail than the R1. Whether the higher resolution of the R5II even matters depends on what you are going to use the image for. If you are going to print very large then the extra resolution of the R5II might matter all other things being equal such as the amount of noise on the subject. Thanks for watching.
Hey @WhistlingWingsPhotography, I am thinking between the Nikon Z8+Z pf 800mm vs Canon Eos R1+100-500+1.4x/rf 200-800,What is the better kit for wildlife out of the 3? Let me know
I appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment! Getting more negative comments than usual on this video for some reason, so it is nice to hear from people who understand what I was trying to do with this video. Sincerely, Ron
Thanks for this comparison. But still a question. You already indicated in the beginning that the magnification of both cameras differed, but no explanation as to why that was? It therefore does not seem to be a completely fair comparison. This question was of course to be expected, but I am still very curious as to why that difference? Thanks in advance. I practiced a bit with my R1 and the autofocus almost seems to be at the level of "madness". Or "out of this world" to put it popularly.
When viewed at 100%, a higher resolution image appears larger than a lower resolution image because a higher resolution image contains more pixels, meaning each pixel in the image occupies a larger area on the screen when displayed at the same zoom level, effectively making the subject appear bigger; essentially, each pixel in a higher resolution image represents a smaller detail within the subject, resulting in a larger overall view at 100% zoom.
I did not state the magnification differed. I stated that I was not going to resample the images so they were the same size. See further explanation on how when viewed at 100% images taken with a higher resolution sensor will appear larger than those taken with a lower resolution sensor. All images were taken with the same focal length at approximately the same distance. The only difference being the camera bodies, one 45mp and one 24mp.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thank you for the answer. I never had a high resolution camera and didn't realize this would give a higher appearance. It is very helpful when people have a choice of cameras and share their experiences through this medium. I waited to buy until I had seen some "real world" reviews like yours. Again, very helpful.
@whistlingwingsphotography R1 vs R5II in video recording, 6k on R1 vs 8k in R5, difference of autofocus in video mode, 4k 120fps difference, 1080p 240fps difference, and so on...
Not the results I would have expected but very interesting and a plus, I think, for those of us who don't shoot mega-sensor cameras. I shoot the original G9 for bird photography as a hobby and try to stick to ISO 800 as my upper end ISO. However, I have some surprising experiences with cropping. Every once in a while the perfect exposure and focus comes together and I've been able to pull out really nice 8x10 images from about 5-7% of a 20-meg sensor. Nicely done comparison. I wonder how the R3 would have done in this comparison? Nice job in getting your subject to stick around.
@@cooloox Wouldn't that come out to one million pixels. Regardless, it was a surprising small portion of the entire image. Since the original G9 used contrast detect AF, it made me wonder if a "naked" sensor, one without all the phase detect AF assistance imprinted on it, might have, in theory, offered superior image quality. That might explain why Lumix stuck with DFD for so long. I can try to send you cropped and uncropped images if you like.
Canon for sure have a pair of gems here and the R6iii and R7ii look to be in good stead, especially if they are stacked (coat to expect this now) and have the AI chip for that AF edge. For me they don’t even need a resolution bump. But back to this video, the R1’s sensor looks so good, but the R5ii isn’t far behind. Good job on this comparison. I imagine it took a while to put together.
Thank you so much for watching and taking the time to comment. I agree, the R5II and R1 are both amazing. I was pleasantly surprised at how quickly the R5II caught up with the R1 in noise. ISO 10000 IQ is decent good for a 45mp sensor. I am really leaning toward keeping the R1 for those very low light shoots that happen more often than I like. I will have no problem going with ISO 20000 on the R1. Cheers, Ron
I have not done a direct comparison, but given I shot the R3 since it came out I do have many images to compare of the two cameras and based on what I see the R1 is better at the highest ISO settings I have used extensively enough. Those are 40,000 - 16,000 ISO. Overall, the R3 is very good and we are starting to get very picky when comparing the differences among camera bodies. Thanks so much for watching. Ron
Hey sir, Just asking, what would you prefer if it was a choice between the Canon EOS R1 + rf 200-800/100-500mmL+1.4x vs. Nikon Z8 + Z 800mm f6.3 pf lens?For mainly birds & wildlife shooter like you? Cheers,Methul.
Thanks for watching and for the comment/question. For me, the flexibility of having a zoom lens is hard to pass on. The Nikon system you mention is amazing, but for me I love my R1 paired with the 200-800mm. Cheers, Ron
I really like the 200-800mm given it is about the same speed as the 100-500 with the 1.4xTC and you don't need to mess with a TC to get out to 800mm. This is a big plus for me. Cheers, Ron
Noted,sir. I really would love that combo(R1+Rf 200-800mm) .What is keeping me back is the Razor sharp Nikon Z 800mm pf.I will let you know my final decision. Cheers, Met
Great review! In your professional opinion, with the current ai software (up scaling and denoise) do you think there’s much difference in the cameras (or in general with 24mp compared to 45mp)? Meaning with the R1 (or a lower mp camera) you could upscale and with the r52 (or larger mp camera) you could denoise. This could make a difference in peoples’ buying decisions if you can either upscale and/or denoise and get similar results. I’ve been editing some old 14mp images and upscaling and denoising them, and they are looking fantastic. I realize there’s limitations to the software, but one might not need 45 mp or worry about only 24 mp if software gives similar results. Cheers!
Thanks for the kind words and I agree there is a lot to consider these days given all the AI tech that can be used to enhance images. To start, it all depends on what you want to do with your images. If you are wanting to enter images in competitions then all the upscaling and other AI stuff may not be allowed, so the camera choice becomes more important. Moreover, competitions tend not to like large crops/low resolution images, so the 45mp may be important to competition shooters. Overall, I think there still are differences that should be considered. The images in the video seemed to show that the R1 and R5II equal out in what they can capture detail-wise at about ISO 10000 to 8000. At higher ISOs the noise in the R5II images kept critical detail in the feathers from being captured and noise removal can do nothing to recover detail that was never captured. So, if you shoot way up there at 20000 - 12800 a lot then the R1 is probably a better choice. At lower ISOs the R5II may be a better choice if the added res is important to what you do, say printing at very large sizes. It appeared that at ISO 10000 - 8000, and definitely below that level, the R5IIs higher resolution started to out do the R1's for capturing detail. With regards to upscaling, I have found it to work great on some images and not well at all on others. So, I would hate to rely on upscaling to get me an image I could print at a very large size if that is what I needed. So, how important is the R5II's 45mp? If a person is cropping a ton and/or needs to print very large then it may be important. For me it probably will only matter for the images I print very large as I tend to keep my crops to a minimum. For most of my images 24mp will do fine. Lastly, I have found both of these cameras to be amazing and the R5II ISO performance has surprised me in a good way. The R1 is just exceptional at high ISOs from the images I have worked with. I realize this is a very long answer to your question, but a simple answer is not possible given all the factors still involved. Cheers, Ron
When viewed at 100%, a higher resolution image appears larger than a lower resolution image because a higher resolution image contains more pixels, meaning each pixel in the image occupies a larger area on the screen when displayed at the same zoom level, effectively making the subject appear bigger; essentially, each pixel in a higher resolution image represents a smaller detail within the subject, resulting in a larger overall view at 100% zoom.
Damn I wish you scaled them at the same size, even quickly. At the end of the day we’ll all see them scaled down to fit our computer so u want to compare the detail of the cameras at the same viewing size. Damn this could’ve been a great comparison given your shots but that’s a miss.
Sorry, I disagree. So, what I showed does not give you good information on what noise levels you can expect from each camera at the various ISOs? The noise in the image is what it is. I showed them like they will look when they are brought up for post-processing. Why resample the R5II down to R1. I want the full 45mp of the R5II that is why I have the camera. Moreover, I want to see what the noise is at full 45mp resolution on the R5II, just like I want to see it for the R1 at full 24mp. Still good information presented here IMO. Thanks for watching.
R1 sees in the dark, useable images with no post at 102500 iso. 70-90mph moving subjects. Shoot 30fps Craw with no buffer. Would like to compare but there is no competitor.
I don't know about you, but I never shoot at ISO-40,000 or even ISO-20,000. For me, 24MP cameras are mostly unusable for wildlife simply because of the relatively low resolution. I shoot Sony A1, and I consider the a9iii a very niche camera that is not really suited for everyday wildlife use, so I would consider the R1 even less suited to wildlife in general. My point being, noise at seldom (if ever) used ISOs isn't really a useful comparison, especially when one of the cameras isn't really suited to the underlying use cases. Just sayin' 😉
@whistlingwingsphotography It would make more sense if you had lowered the resolution of the R5 M2, the higher the resolution, the higher the image noise.
I don't do Canon versus Nikon versus Sony type videos. I had a Z9 and I had a Sony a1. They are both great cameras. Of all the cameras I have shot, the R1 has the best IQ at ISO 40000-16000. Now, does that matter? Like you stated, it can in low light shooting scenarios. It all depends on how often a person shoots under low light. Thanks for watching and commenting. Cheers, Ron
Nice to have money so I can buy both. Not sure if you use LR to denoise your images. ISO 2500 or lower, I use Topaz because it is quicker. But above 2500, I use LR denoise which cleans up noise way better than Topaz IMO. Certain parts of the images processed by Topaz at high ISO like 4000 look artificial. The max ISO I use for R5 or R5 II is 12800, but I prefer to stay at or below 6400.
That is very interesting, because I have found Topaz to do a better job for me in most cases than LR noise reduction. I will have to play around with LR noise reduction some more to see if I can get better results. Thanks for your input, it is always valuable. My max on the R5II is 10000 ISO for the most part. Cheers, Ron
@ sorry about that Cliff hanger of a comment, what I ment to add was as far as portrait photography and sports and sports I mean school football or basketball games could you give some info on that I don’t know if you already have. I’m looking to buy the R5II this week from Best Buy but the R1 is a beast in performance and in price. What I’m upgrading from is the “R” day one and just over the last year looking for a good upgrade the R has done me well over these 4 1/2 year and have made good money from it but I believe now is a good time to upgrade and been watching you for a minute now and really liking your content that’s all.
Either camera will serve you very well. The advantage of the R1 goes to low light, high ISO shooting. If you do a lot of that kind of shooting and need fast shutter speeds so high ISOs then the R1 will deal with it better than the R5II from what I have been seeing in my images. There are other aspects of the R1 that could be important depending on what you do. The Buffer lasts longer so if you shoot prolonged action this could be a big plus. So far, believe it or not, I like the AF in the R5II better than the R1 for the bird work I do. Ron
So, if what you state is true, which it is not, if there is added noise from the monitor it will be the same for each bird/image being displayed side by side as they are being displayed at the same time on the same monitor. So, if one image/bird looks noisier than the other, then it is noisier than the other.
Okay, thanks for your opinion, now please tell me what information would make this video better. Without specifics your comment is "useless." Oh, and BTW, please send me a link to your video on this or a similar subject so I can see how it should be done. Cheers, Ron
I have to say thank you!!!! I have an R3 and I was really kind of leaning towards the R5 II because of the lower resolution on the R1. Your comparisons with the ISOs was very revealing for me. I'm going to go with the R1 now, I love that you compare and demonstarte real world versus just specs between the cameras.
Thanks so much for watching and commenting, and I'm glad the video helped you make your decision.
Thanks, Ron, for answering my question on the ISO performance of R1 and R5MII. You did an excellent job! I will stick to my R5MII as I do not shoot much above 6200 ISO. Have a nice Christmas!
You are welcome, and thank you very much for watching and commenting. Have a wonderful Holidays. Ron
This video is really illustrating comparing the two cameras! Thanks 😊
Glad it was helpful! thanks so much for watching and taking the time to comment.
I understand the decision to view each image at 100%, or other equal zoom level. That gives you an idea of what to expect if you crop or print each image to 100%, or whichever like magnification. However in reality, if you set up at the same location and take the same photo of the same bird in the same tree with each camera, at 100% you end up with two different images, as you've noted in the comments. You end up with a closer crop of the bird with the R5 Mk II because of the higher resolution. I think what you're reading in many comments is that your test is very much appreciated, but to truly understand the end results that can be expected by most photographers when using these cameras, you really want to view the image at final viewing or print size and then to compare detail, noise, etc. That would make a great addition to this video, or a great follow-up. It would be the most useful possible comparison for most shooters.
What your test DOES demonstrate is the fallacy of assuming that a higher resolution camera allows you to crop and achieve the SAME results as someone who uses a longer focal length lens or positions closer to the subject with a lower resolution camera.
To set up equal output images (same subject magnification, same DOF, same exposure, same shutter speed to minimize motion blur) you have to do a lot of work to really control the variables.
Example 1- If wanting to print an R1 image at full resolution, to achieve the same output (subject magnification, DOF, exposure, shutter speed) with the R5 Mk II with a shorter focal length lens from the same distance:
R1 at 400 f/5.6 at 1/4000 and ISO 12,800, 10m from subject
R5 Mk II at 300 f/3.2 (for similar DOF) at 1/4000 would need to be at ISO 4,000 (for same exposure) at 10m from subject. R5 MkII cropped to R1 pixel dimensions is about a 1.365x crop to achieve same final output size.
From a noise perspective, the R5 can shoot in this example at a lower ISO due to needing a larger aperture to achieve the same DOF at the same shutter speed with a shorter focal length and equal distance from the subject.
Example 2- instead you wanted to use the same focal length lens on each camera, and modify your shooting distance and aperture to use the crop ability of the R5 to achieve the same output (subject magnification, DOF, exposure, shutter speed):
R1 at 400 f/5.6 at 1/4000 and ISO 12,800, 10m from subject
R5 Mk II at 400 f/2.8 (for similar DOF) at 1/4000 and ISO 3,200, 14m from subject. Crop the image to R1 dimensions to achieve the same final output size.
Again R5 Mk II has an ISO advantage, lowering noise before cropping, because to achieve the same DOF you have to use a larger aperture at the same shutter speed and longer shooting distance.
Example 3- You shoot a 400 f/5.6 on both cameras. You modify your shooting distance to achieve the same size subject and you keep shutter speed the same to freeze action.
R1 at 400 f/5.6 at 1/4000 and ISO 12,800, 10m from subject
R5 Mk II at 400 f/5.6 at 1/4000 and ISO 12,800, 14m from subject. Crop the image to R1 dimensions to achieve the same final output size.
Your DOF is different between the two images. Here the R5 image would have about 2x the DOF of the R1 image due to shooting the same focal length and aperture from a further distance.
So in 3 examples above, matching the R1's output image (subject magnification, DOF, exposure, motion blur) results in needing to modify the shooting parameters. As you do this, you move the advantage back and forth regarding noise and DR between the cameras. You also potentially need larger aperture, heavier lenses with the R5 to match the DOF and exposure of the R1. This sounds counterintuitive because typically we think of cropping ability as allowing to use shorter, smaller lenses. That only works if you don't match DOF.
Example 4- Shoot the R5 at 10m. Match the subject magnification, DOF, exposure, motion blur with the R1 from the same spot:
R5 Mk II at 300 f/4 at 1/4000 and ISO 3,200, 10m from subject
R1 at 400 f/7.1 at 1/4000 and ISO 10,000, 10m from subject
In this example you could shoot something like the 100-300 on the R5 at $9,500, a 5.8 lb lens.
You could shoot something like the 100-500 on the R1 at $2600, a 3 lb lens.
Example 5- shoot the same scenario with the 100-500 at max available aperture on the R5:
R5 Mk II at 300 f/5 at 1/4000 and ISO 3,200, 10m from subject
R1 at 400 f/9 at 1/4000 and ISO 10,000, 10m from subject
This is a lot to read and I rounded some calculations to match common aperture options and focal lengths, but you get the point. Quite a bit can go into matching the actual final image between cameras. Most comparisons don't account for this and simply look at the images at 1:1 on screen and compare noise. In reality we move our feet, choose focal lengths and ISO values and apertures and shutter speeds to achieve what we're after and go from there.
If you are willing to accept different DOF in each of these examples, you can swing the noise advantage more heavily toward the R1. Example 3 demonstrated this, where both cameras are at ISO 12,800 and the R5 has to be cropped due to different subject distance. In that example, the DOF difference is fairly large.
Thank you for the video, Ron. Very fair and reasonable comparison as always. I'm super jealous that you have kingfishers and I won't see them back for many months, but I still found it somewhere within myself to give you a thumbs up ;) Happy holidays. Best to you and yours for 2025.
Hey, thanks and I appreciate the thumbs up. Happy Holidays to you and your family as well. Cheers, Ron
Fantastic video Ron! I love how you go into details with the R1 that no one else does, I learn a lot. Looking forward to the AF video, I agree the R1 is a beast!
Thanks so much and thanks for watching. It is greatly appreciated.
Ron, The R1 has less noise than the R5m2, BUT those comparisons really have to be done at constant crop ratio. By reducing the portion of the image that is shown for the R5II, you also reduced the signal shown on the screen and therefore reduced signal to noise by the ratio of areas shown.
Exactly, the R1 has less noise then the R5II and at higher ISO settings the R5II has a lot more noise to the point of capturing less detail. As ISO drops the R5II gets better and eventually the noise is not a factor any longer. That is all this video was meant to illustrate. Be my guest and do a better job than I did and by all means put a UA-cam video together and post it on your channel. I am pretty sure it will show the same general pattern that this video shows. I am pretty sure that at 20000 ISO the R5II, when done your way, will still show a lot more noise compared to the R1 and no more detail. Cheers, Ron
Also, I did not reduce the portion of the image shown for the R5II images. I showed the full frame image taken at full resolution and did this for images from both cameras. I did no cropping for the first set of comparisons. When I zoomed in and out with the two images side-by-side both images where magnified the same amount, so any changes in signal /noise were changed for both images keeping the amount relative to each other the same.
The second set of images were cropped to the comp. I wanted , noise reduction was applied, and they were sharpened a bit. These were meant to be examples of what I could do with the images based on the amount of noise in the RAW files. Let your eyes be the judge if the results would be to your satisfaction with regard to detail.
Hey sir,
Waiting for your IQomparison between the R1 vs r5ii
The question is: what situation requires shooting at ISO 20000, with what f-stop, and at what shutter speed? I use two Canon R5 Mark II cameras for sports photography, whether in gyms or on fields, typically shooting at ISO 6400, f/2.8, and 1/1000 sec. I decided to switch from my R3 cameras to the R5 Mark II to take advantage of the 45 MP sensor, which allows for better cropped images. However, tight cropping often reveals more visible noise from both cameras.
It's important to start with full-frame images for initial comparisons, then zoom in proportionally to accurately assess image quality. I noticed that your image comparisons between the R5 Mark II and R1 were not cropped equally in terms of width and depth, which means the tighter crop on the R5 Mark II would show more noise compared to the less cropped R1. Additionally, in some instances, the bird images were not taken in identical conditions, leading to different noise levels. Were your test shots captured in JPG, RAW, or CRAW format? It might be beneficial to retest. I genuinely love my Canon R5 Mark IIs!
Taken in CRAW. The comparison is from shots taken during actual shoots, and full-frame images where shown that where zoomed in and out so viewers can see the relative noise at the various ISO settings at various zoom levels. This is what is done when post-processing. Nope, not identical conditions. How often do you have identical conditions, conditions can change every few minutes when in the field.
I believe the comparisons made in this video provide real-world comparisons and if done a bit differently would show the same general pattern as shown in this video. Go ahead and do the comparisons the way you think they should be done and I bet the general pattern will be no different then what I show here.
With regards to who will be shooting at ISO 20000. I will, and am, now that I have a camera that can do it and provide decent images. I shoot in the field where early morning and late evening bird activity can be awesome, but the light very low. I obviously have both cameras, and I like them both. I think the R5II has great noise handling for a 45mp camera. As I showed in the video there is a ISO threshold where the R1 and R5II begin to equal out with regards to the detail captured. About ISO 8000-10000. So, if you shoot at ISO 6400 then you are probably better off with the R5II unless you crop in a ton on a majority of your images. Cheers, Ron
Oh, and if you look at the description/chapters for the video it states that the initial comparisons where RAW and second set cropped to the composition I wanted for each image.
Love the video, great job! If you only had to pick one, R1 or R5 II, what would it be?
Thank you for this comparison. For shooting images of Sandhill cranes at dawn this was pretty interesting to me. Looking forward to your next performance comparison.
You are very welcome. I am glad it was helpful.
Morning Ron From Dull Lancashire England another great video on these two great cameras I must agree on the R1 I have shot nearly dark at 64000 and was ok WOW still like the R5 and will keep shooting with it you are blessed where you are with that lovely light your photos are amazing and helpfull to us all with your advise have a great xmas with your family and friends can't wait for you next video on the auto focus on both cameras
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment. We are blessed here with some awesome light. Makes getting great images so much easier as we all know. Thank you also for the Holiday wishes. The same to you and your family. Cheers, Ron
I like your insight and reviews Ron. Thanks.
I appreciate the kind words. Thanks so much for watching and taking the time to comment.
Thank Ron. This is a good comparison for noise. Not so much for a detail comparison it would needs to be a controlled set up where each shot is the same conditions, subject, lighting, distance, no way you can compare detail this way accurately. I'm loving both my R1 and R5mkll but if i had to pic one i would stick with the R1. Thanks for the Video i'll be waiting on the AF video!!
Thanks so much for watching and commenting. I agree with your comment on the detail to a point. The problem is, we wildlife/bird photographers do not shoot in controlled environments. What I care about is what detail can be captured by various camera setups under real-world conditions. We shoot in the exact opposite of controlled, often to the extreme, and often on very fast moving subjects. So, which camera can consistently provide great detail in those conditions? I believe one way to assess this is by shooting and processing thousands of images from various cameras under real-world conditions. When this is done, a pattern generally starts to become evident, that one camera may be providing the detail I need more often than another, and it may not be the one with the highest resolution. This video showed a bit of this. Anyway, I personally do not care what detail a camera and lens combo can render under controlled conditions. I need to be confident it will provide the detail I need when shooting in the field. Thanks again, and I appreciate the opportunity to have a civilized discussion about topics like this versus a lot of the comments that bluntly state a video is "useless." Cheers, Ron
Thank you so much, I have looking for the Original video you did of the R5. if you still have it i would be grateful, it has some step that are missed the subsequent video.
I really appreciate your comparisons.
Thanks so much for watching!
Thanks so much for watching!
It is apparent from your test that the R1 has less noise than the R52 at a given ISO. But would you say the R1 captures more detail (when viewed at the same size) than the R52 at those higher ISOs (~20000)? I know you didn't show this in your test, but it is relevant. If the detail is similar at the same viewing size, then you really are not losing detail in the R52.
I ended up pulling the trigger on a pair of R52's instead of R52/R1 which is what I originally planned on purchasing. I love the R52 pair with their identical controls and save/load settings to the card but wonder if I would have benefited from the high ISO capabilities of the R1. I sometimes shoot sports at night...
Thank you for taking the time to do these videos.
From what I see the R1 captures more detail at high ISOs, 20000 for example, than the R52 because the noise is so high in the R5II image that it keeps feather detail from being captured. This seems to equal out at 10000-8000 ISO where the R52 noise is low enough for the extra pixels to capture more detail than the R1. Whether the higher resolution of the R5II even matters depends on what you are going to use the image for. If you are going to print very large then the extra resolution of the R5II might matter all other things being equal such as the amount of noise on the subject. Thanks for watching.
Hey @WhistlingWingsPhotography,
I am thinking between the Nikon Z8+Z pf 800mm vs Canon Eos R1+100-500+1.4x/rf 200-800,What is the better kit for wildlife out of the 3?
Let me know
Great review! Very informative and right on point. Thanks -- Kind regards
I appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment! Getting more negative comments than usual on this video for some reason, so it is nice to hear from people who understand what I was trying to do with this video. Sincerely, Ron
Thanks for this comparison. But still a question. You already indicated in the beginning that the magnification of both cameras differed, but no explanation as to why that was? It therefore does not seem to be a completely fair comparison. This question was of course to be expected, but I am still very curious as to why that difference? Thanks in advance.
I practiced a bit with my R1 and the autofocus almost seems to be at the level of "madness". Or "out of this world" to put it popularly.
When viewed at 100%, a higher resolution image appears larger than a lower resolution image because a higher resolution image contains more pixels, meaning each pixel in the image occupies a larger area on the screen when displayed at the same zoom level, effectively making the subject appear bigger; essentially, each pixel in a higher resolution image represents a smaller detail within the subject, resulting in a larger overall view at 100% zoom.
I did not state the magnification differed. I stated that I was not going to resample the images so they were the same size. See further explanation on how when viewed at 100% images taken with a higher resolution sensor will appear larger than those taken with a lower resolution sensor. All images were taken with the same focal length at approximately the same distance. The only difference being the camera bodies, one 45mp and one 24mp.
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thank you for the answer. I never had a high resolution camera and didn't realize this would give a higher appearance. It is very helpful when people have a choice of cameras and share their experiences through this medium. I waited to buy until I had seen some "real world" reviews like yours. Again, very helpful.
Can you make video comparation in different frame rates? btw great video!
Not sure what you are asking for. Please be more specific and I will try and get you what you are looking for. Thanks. Ron
@whistlingwingsphotography R1 vs R5II in video recording, 6k on R1 vs 8k in R5, difference of autofocus in video mode, 4k 120fps difference, 1080p 240fps difference, and so on...
Not the results I would have expected but very interesting and a plus, I think, for those of us who don't shoot mega-sensor cameras. I shoot the original G9 for bird photography as a hobby and try to stick to ISO 800 as my upper end ISO. However, I have some surprising experiences with cropping. Every once in a while the perfect exposure and focus comes together and I've been able to pull out really nice 8x10 images from about 5-7% of a 20-meg sensor. Nicely done comparison. I wonder how the R3 would have done in this comparison? Nice job in getting your subject to stick around.
The R3 is very good, but the R1 is a bit better from what I see in my images. Thanks for watching.
I fihd your claim hard to believe! 5% of 20MP is 1MP. You get a good quality 8x10 print from 1MP. I don't think so.
@@cooloox Wouldn't that come out to one million pixels. Regardless, it was a surprising small portion of the entire image. Since the original G9 used contrast detect AF, it made me wonder if a "naked" sensor, one without all the phase detect AF assistance imprinted on it, might have, in theory, offered superior image quality. That might explain why Lumix stuck with DFD for so long. I can try to send you cropped and uncropped images if you like.
Canon for sure have a pair of gems here and the R6iii and R7ii look to be in good stead, especially if they are stacked (coat to expect this now) and have the AI chip for that AF edge. For me they don’t even need a resolution bump. But back to this video, the R1’s sensor looks so good, but the R5ii isn’t far behind. Good job on this comparison. I imagine it took a while to put together.
Thank you so much for watching and taking the time to comment. I agree, the R5II and R1 are both amazing. I was pleasantly surprised at how quickly the R5II caught up with the R1 in noise. ISO 10000 IQ is decent good for a 45mp sensor. I am really leaning toward keeping the R1 for those very low light shoots that happen more often than I like. I will have no problem going with ISO 20000 on the R1. Cheers, Ron
Very helpful. Thanks.
I'm glad you found it helpful! Thanks for watching.
R1 really good. Do you have comparison to r3?
I have not done a direct comparison, but given I shot the R3 since it came out I do have many images to compare of the two cameras and based on what I see the R1 is better at the highest ISO settings I have used extensively enough. Those are 40,000 - 16,000 ISO. Overall, the R3 is very good and we are starting to get very picky when comparing the differences among camera bodies. Thanks so much for watching. Ron
Hey sir,
Just asking, what would you prefer if it was a choice between the Canon EOS R1 + rf 200-800/100-500mmL+1.4x vs. Nikon Z8 + Z 800mm f6.3 pf lens?For mainly birds & wildlife shooter like you?
Cheers,Methul.
Thanks for watching and for the comment/question. For me, the flexibility of having a zoom lens is hard to pass on. The Nikon system you mention is amazing, but for me I love my R1 paired with the 200-800mm. Cheers, Ron
@@whistlingwingsphotography Thanks for the advice, sir.Then ,100-500mm L+1.4x or rf 200-800mm?
I really like the 200-800mm given it is about the same speed as the 100-500 with the 1.4xTC and you don't need to mess with a TC to get out to 800mm. This is a big plus for me. Cheers, Ron
Noted,sir. I really would love that combo(R1+Rf 200-800mm) .What is keeping me back is the Razor sharp Nikon Z 800mm pf.I will let you know my final decision.
Cheers,
Met
@@whistlingwingsphotography Hi sir,Some people are telling me buying a 6k camera and sticking 2k lens isn't a good option.What do you think?
Great review! In your professional opinion, with the current ai software (up scaling and denoise) do you think there’s much difference in the cameras (or in general with 24mp compared to 45mp)? Meaning with the R1 (or a lower mp camera) you could upscale and with the r52 (or larger mp camera) you could denoise. This could make a difference in peoples’ buying decisions if you can either upscale and/or denoise and get similar results. I’ve been editing some old 14mp images and upscaling and denoising them, and they are looking fantastic. I realize there’s limitations to the software, but one might not need 45 mp or worry about only 24 mp if software gives similar results. Cheers!
Thanks for the kind words and I agree there is a lot to consider these days given all the AI tech that can be used to enhance images.
To start, it all depends on what you want to do with your images. If you are wanting to enter images in competitions then all the upscaling and other AI stuff may not be allowed, so the camera choice becomes more important. Moreover, competitions tend not to like large crops/low resolution images, so the 45mp may be important to competition shooters.
Overall, I think there still are differences that should be considered. The images in the video seemed to show that the R1 and R5II equal out in what they can capture detail-wise at about ISO 10000 to 8000. At higher ISOs the noise in the R5II images kept critical detail in the feathers from being captured and noise removal can do nothing to recover detail that was never captured. So, if you shoot way up there at 20000 - 12800 a lot then the R1 is probably a better choice. At lower ISOs the R5II may be a better choice if the added res is important to what you do, say printing at very large sizes. It appeared that at ISO 10000 - 8000, and definitely below that level, the R5IIs higher resolution started to out do the R1's for capturing detail.
With regards to upscaling, I have found it to work great on some images and not well at all on others. So, I would hate to rely on upscaling to get me an image I could print at a very large size if that is what I needed. So, how important is the R5II's 45mp? If a person is cropping a ton and/or needs to print very large then it may be important. For me it probably will only matter for the images I print very large as I tend to keep my crops to a minimum. For most of my images 24mp will do fine.
Lastly, I have found both of these cameras to be amazing and the R5II ISO performance has surprised me in a good way. The R1 is just exceptional at high ISOs from the images I have worked with.
I realize this is a very long answer to your question, but a simple answer is not possible given all the factors still involved. Cheers, Ron
@ thank you for the great explanation, you’ve done a great job explaining things!
Same distance from the bird? Shouldn't the images on full frame sensors all be the same size -- just different resolutions?
They will not be the same size when both viewed at 100% when one is 24mp and one is 45mp.
When viewed at 100%, a higher resolution image appears larger than a lower resolution image because a higher resolution image contains more pixels, meaning each pixel in the image occupies a larger area on the screen when displayed at the same zoom level, effectively making the subject appear bigger; essentially, each pixel in a higher resolution image represents a smaller detail within the subject, resulting in a larger overall view at 100% zoom.
Damn I wish you scaled them at the same size, even quickly. At the end of the day we’ll all see them scaled down to fit our computer so u want to compare the detail of the cameras at the same viewing size. Damn this could’ve been a great comparison given your shots but that’s a miss.
Sorry, I disagree. So, what I showed does not give you good information on what noise levels you can expect from each camera at the various ISOs? The noise in the image is what it is. I showed them like they will look when they are brought up for post-processing. Why resample the R5II down to R1. I want the full 45mp of the R5II that is why I have the camera. Moreover, I want to see what the noise is at full 45mp resolution on the R5II, just like I want to see it for the R1 at full 24mp. Still good information presented here IMO. Thanks for watching.
I totally agree. We view images in full size or in print in real life, so we bring the scale to 1:1 every time, except if we make cropping.
@@weigertj Thank you for watching and taking the time to comment. It is much appreciated.
R1 sees in the dark, useable images with no post at 102500 iso. 70-90mph moving subjects. Shoot 30fps Craw with no buffer. Would like to compare but there is no competitor.
The R1 is a fantastic camera for low light shooting! Thanks for watching. Cheers, Ron
I don't know about you, but I never shoot at ISO-40,000 or even ISO-20,000. For me, 24MP cameras are mostly unusable for wildlife simply because of the relatively low resolution. I shoot Sony A1, and I consider the a9iii a very niche camera that is not really suited for everyday wildlife use, so I would consider the R1 even less suited to wildlife in general. My point being, noise at seldom (if ever) used ISOs isn't really a useful comparison, especially when one of the cameras isn't really suited to the underlying use cases. Just sayin' 😉
Thanks for the comment, it is always nice to hear different perspectives.
I have a question, what resolution did you use on the R5 M2?, 45Mp tends to have more noise than 24MP.
I shot at full resolution. 45mp.
@whistlingwingsphotography
It would make more sense if you had lowered the resolution of the R5 M2, the higher the resolution, the higher the image noise.
@@icarus7039 How to lower the resolution when shooting in RAW?
@@imelpomene
In raw, the more megapixels the better.
Raw works with the resolution you previously set.
Should compare to the Nikon z9 as it has the same type of sensor and r5 . It does matter in low light situations .
I don't do Canon versus Nikon versus Sony type videos. I had a Z9 and I had a Sony a1. They are both great cameras. Of all the cameras I have shot, the R1 has the best IQ at ISO 40000-16000. Now, does that matter? Like you stated, it can in low light shooting scenarios. It all depends on how often a person shoots under low light. Thanks for watching and commenting. Cheers, Ron
@@whistlingwingsphotography I am not putting down other cameras I am curios about the others in comparison as I have a R5 .
Nice to have money so I can buy both. Not sure if you use LR to denoise your images. ISO 2500 or lower, I use Topaz because it is quicker. But above 2500, I use LR denoise which cleans up noise way better than Topaz IMO. Certain parts of the images processed by Topaz at high ISO like 4000 look artificial. The max ISO I use for R5 or R5 II is 12800, but I prefer to stay at or below 6400.
That is very interesting, because I have found Topaz to do a better job for me in most cases than LR noise reduction. I will have to play around with LR noise reduction some more to see if I can get better results. Thanks for your input, it is always valuable. My max on the R5II is 10000 ISO for the most part. Cheers, Ron
Alright comparing but other things need to be said
Me to must be exactly the same photo so needs 2 people ?
Not sure what you mean.
@ sorry about that Cliff hanger of a comment, what I ment to add was as far as portrait photography and sports and sports I mean school football or basketball games could you give some info on that I don’t know if you already have. I’m looking to buy the R5II this week from Best Buy but the R1 is a beast in performance and in price. What I’m upgrading from is the “R” day one and just over the last year looking for a good upgrade the R has done me well over these 4 1/2 year and have made good money from it but I believe now is a good time to upgrade and been watching you for a minute now and really liking your content that’s all.
Either camera will serve you very well. The advantage of the R1 goes to low light, high ISO shooting. If you do a lot of that kind of shooting and need fast shutter speeds so high ISOs then the R1 will deal with it better than the R5II from what I have been seeing in my images. There are other aspects of the R1 that could be important depending on what you do. The Buffer lasts longer so if you shoot prolonged action this could be a big plus. So far, believe it or not, I like the AF in the R5II better than the R1 for the bird work I do. Ron
Did you notice that the "noise" remains in one place when you move the image around? A lot of that isn't noise. It appears to be on your monitor.
So, if what you state is true, which it is not, if there is added noise from the monitor it will be the same for each bird/image being displayed side by side as they are being displayed at the same time on the same monitor. So, if one image/bird looks noisier than the other, then it is noisier than the other.
people worry too much about noise
It all depends on what you want/need to do with your images. Noise can def be something to consider.
Useless.
Your useless comment is so informative .....not
Okay, thanks for your opinion, now please tell me what information would make this video better. Without specifics your comment is "useless." Oh, and BTW, please send me a link to your video on this or a similar subject so I can see how it should be done. Cheers, Ron