EOS R TECH THREAD- Its time for others who will jump into canon Mirrorless bodies

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19013533
If the AF is equal to the 5D4, and ergonomics are as good or better, then that is still an upgrade for me. Substantially more resolution and faster bursts would solve any remaining issues I have with the 5D4. At that point as well, I will not have a need for an APS-C body at that time.

Im still concerned about ISO performance

45 Mb v/s 30 on the 5D4

concerned how it will do in the dark

umphotography wrote in post #19013540
Thank you. I never knew this. Great Idea

But i dont have 50 cameras to reset like jared

Here you go - GMT

AnnieMacD wrote in post #19013565
Here you go - GMT

Thanks Annie- its a good idea. All you really need for weddings is a reference point for time. good idea

umphotography wrote in post #19013541
Im still concerned about ISO performance

45 Mb v/s 30 on the 5D4

concerned how it will do in the dark

More resolution means more detail and also easier time for NR. Each time resolutions have gone up, my NR regiment has improved while retaining detail.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19013599
More resolution means more detail and also easier time for NR. Each time resolutions have gone up, my NR regiment has improved while retaining detail.

I know there was a lot of issues with D850's and 5Dsr's from 6400 and up

Maybe im worrying about nothing...45Mb's is a lot more than I have used in the past and most camera MFG's .... More MB means more Noise

umphotography wrote in post #19013626
Maybe im worrying about nothing...45Mb's is a lot more than I have used in the past and most camera MFG's .... More MB means more Noise

Except that it doesn't. People have been saying that for more than a decade, yet each manufacturer's increase of resolution has resulted in a less noisy picture. Every time. None of them has wound up with a sensor producing more noise in the actual picture.

I'm not talking about useless quibble about "pixel-level noise." I'm talking about noise that can be seen in an actual picture at reading distance (or less--I always examine pictures at my highly myopic six-inch focusing distance).

Whatever manufacturers are doing with their sensor and their processing to defeat the "common logic" that more pixels means more noise, it's been working for them.

RDKirk wrote in post #19013633
.
I'm not talking about useless quibble about "pixel-level noise."
.

.
But that isn't useless quibble. . The pixel level is where some of us live.

I am usually printing at (or somewhat beyond) the very limits of my image file's resolution. . And when I submit images to agencies, the review department scrutinizes every one for noise and artifacts at 400%. . Any trace of noise and I get the feared "IMAGE REJECTED" notice.

Pixel level matters a lot because it determines how much can be done with the image, and because image buyers examine images at that level.

.

RDKirk wrote in post #19013633
Except that it doesn't. People have been saying that for more than a decade, yet each manufacturer's increase of resolution has resulted in a less noisy picture. Every time. None of them has wound up with a sensor producing more noise in the actual picture.

I'm not talking about useless quibble about "pixel-level noise." I'm talking about noise that can be seen in an actual picture at reading distance (or less--I always examine pictures at my highly myopic six-inch focusing distance).

Whatever manufacturers are doing with their sensor and their processing to defeat the "common logic" that more pixels means more noise, it's been working for them.

But if the 'lower noise' is the result of better noise processing IN CAMERA to produce cleaner JPGs, that means that the RAW file inherently does NOT benefit from better noise processing and you will not see anything better in a photo converted from RAW data -- unless the circuitry to capture the sensor data and store RAW file results in an inherent improvement of the RAW data captured. And that WOULD indeed be 'at the pixel level'.

That is why comments about noise reduction are in the JPEG image summary of test reports,like the DP Review analysis of the 5DIV when it came out:

"Noise reduction is generally fairly well handled but it doesn't retain fine contrast as well as Sony's context sensitive noise reduction. Like the Nikon's JPEG engine, some fine detail is smoothed away but the Canon manages to suppress more chroma noise while maintaining this level of detail retention. At very high ISOs, the detail level drops further, compared with the best of its peers. Overall, then, these are very usable JPEGs, especially if you take the time to tweak the sharpening."

Or their introductory comments about the Canon 90D:

"The Canon EOS 90D has a new 32.5MP APS-C sensor - the highest-resolution chip in its class. Image quality is noticeably improved across the board compared its 24MP predecessor and Raw IQ is on par with the best of its APS-C competition, mirrorless or DSLR. JPEG color from the 90D continues to be a favorite, but high ISO noise reduction is sloppy, blurring away detail."

I care not about better generation of lower noise JPGs via better noise processing in camera, since I shoot no JPG.

RE: GMT,
when I worked my old job which was a 2000 seat music hall we had touring shows from all over the world that as Technical Director I had to coordinate with the tours, tech stuff, lighting sound, stagehands, load in,. etc..

We were dealing with clients from all over the world,. tons of European tours, the far east, Bulgaria, Isreal, India,. China, you name it.

Needing to coordinate and communicate pre-smart phone, very early cell phone, I needed to know what time it was! Plus I had just started here on POTN, so I needed to know Helsinki time! (among others)

I had this app with all different clocks up at the top of my screen, like the newsroom in Mary Tyler Moore show.. so I would not get the timezone wrong...

All these years later, (it's been 11 years since I left that job) I now pretty much know them all in my head!

Wilt wrote in post #19013649
But if the 'lower noise' is the result of better noise processing IN CAMERA to produce cleaner JPGs, that means that the RAW file inherently does NOT benefit from better noise processing and you will not see anything better in a photo converted from RAW data -- unless the circuitry to capture the sensor data and store RAW file results in an inherent improvement of the RAW data captured.

And it does.

First, I recognize that nobody looks at actual RAW images. Everyone looks at a processed image (not technically a JPEG, but processed nevertheless).

My EOS R photographs are cleaner than my 5D photographs...and that holds true regardless what processor is used. And it holds true for all manufacturers and then again in all processors. Everybody's resolution has gone up and the noise in their photographs has gone down.

So maybe all processors have advanced equally. Or maybe all manufacturers have developed sensors that produce more easily processable RAW data.

That quibble is irrelevant to results: My EOS R photographs are cleaner than my 5D photographs.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19013635
.
But that isn't useless quibble. . The pixel level is where some of us live.

I am usually printing at (or somewhat beyond) the very limits of my image file's resolution. . And when I submit images to agencies, the review department scrutinizes every one for noise and artifacts at 400%. . Any trace of noise and I get the feared "IMAGE REJECTED" notice.

Pixel level matters a lot because it determines how much can be done with the image, and because image buyers examine images at that level.

.

Are you submitting RAW files?

RDKirk wrote in post #19013663
.
Are you submitting RAW files?
.

.
Not usually. . Most publishers require unedited jpegs or TIFFs. . Very few require the RAW file.


.

RDKirk wrote in post #19013659
That quibble is irrelevant to results: My EOS R photographs are cleaner than my 5D photographs.

So as to eliminate the opportunity for ambigouity leading to misinterpretation...
"My EOS R photographs, shot RAW and converted, are cleaner than my 5D(which model?) photographs, shot RAW and converted", ??...meaning sensor circuit improvement, rather than only improvements in 'JPG engine, with lower noise'

RDKirk wrote in post #19013659
...

My EOS R photographs are cleaner than my 5D photographs...and that holds true regardless what processor is used. ...

That quibble is irrelevant to results: My EOS R photographs are cleaner than my 5D photographs.

Wilt wrote in post #19013697
So as to eliminate the opportunity for ambigouity leading to misinterpretation...
"My EOS R photographs, shot RAW and converted, are cleaner than my 5D(which model?) photographs, shot RAW and converted", ??...meaning sensor circuit improvement, rather than only improvements in 'JPG engine, with lower noise'

Yes please, which 5D? as every article on the EOS R had it's own sensor being slightly behind that of the 5D4 due to more noise,. hypothesis being that 'always on" meant more heat in the electronics.

two points,

I'll admit that I have never compared directly.
The same articles seemed to imply one would be hard pressed to see this difference.

I'm not sure if the noise represented in the graph is the same as that under discussion, but I would expect the R5 to be as good or better than than the Nikon Z6.