Post your R5 Images Here

I had my light set up and these jokers were the only ones around.

Osprey...

Arachnophobia

from summer Pride event

Pied avocet

Photo from Weja's gallery.

Taken with the RF 100 macro L (not in list)

Gemsbok, Mokala National Park

Great photos everyone! I took some photos at ISO 10,000 and beyond on the R6 and the R5 and I couldn't help but notice the R6 files looked sharper and less noisy than the R5. I even upscaled the 20mp files and found the quality to be unchanged. Has anyone abandoned an R5 purchase in lieu of an R6 due to possibly better sensor performance?

I may be wrong as well as it was just a rapid test inside the camera shop.

Yeah it's been accepted that if you're doing lower light work heavily, you want the larger pixels. Obviously there's always a debate upon which methodology is used to compare, and what steps, etc.. Those are always fun "debates" to read as each camera owner defends their purchase.

I can say that I moved from the R5 "down" to the "R"

Why: I do landscapes. Landscapes do not move very fast like birds/wildlife.

I have noticed I do not need as much noise reduction on the R files vs R5 files - it's not a life altering difference, but it's there. I use lightroom because I'm "stuck in my ways" so that could be a contributing factor behind my thoughts on noise/low light.

The R was $1599 vs the R5 $3899 - I just didn't need the 8k video/and high FPS use... The only birds we have in Moab are ravens/crows... I think I've only heard 4-5 great horned owls in the 18 months I've lived here... and we only get ducks for a short time period in the spring..

Jan Jasinski wrote in post #19429387
Great photos everyone! I took some photos at ISO 10,000 and beyond on the R6 and the R5 and I couldn't help but notice the R6 files looked sharper and less noisy than the R5. I even upscaled the 20mp files and found the quality to be unchanged. Has anyone abandoned an R5 purchase in lieu of an R6 due to possibly better sensor performance?

I may be wrong as well as it was just a rapid test inside the camera shop.

Jan Jasinski wrote in post #19429387
Great photos everyone! I took some photos at ISO 10,000 and beyond on the R6 and the R5 and I couldn't help but notice the R6 files looked sharper and less noisy than the R5. I even upscaled the 20mp files and found the quality to be unchanged. Has anyone abandoned an R5 purchase in lieu of an R6 due to possibly better sensor performance?

I may be wrong as well as it was just a rapid test inside the camera shop.

I would never shoot even close to that. there's no point.

First one was actually taken with the RF 100mm L macro (not in list).

Photo from Terrycanon's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1178809)

Photo from Terrycanon's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1178808)

Me neither, but I must say the R6 file looked useable to me and that is a relief for any situation where it may be required.

markesc wrote in post #19429393
Yeah it's been accepted that if you're doing lower light work heavily, you want the larger pixels.

Circumstantially, in this case, perhaps, but there is no general principal that larger pixels are more efficient with light and noise per unit of sensor area. The Sony 20MP 1" sensors have less high-ISO noise than the R6, or even the Nikon D5, in a 1" sensor crop from those FF sensors. There is no generic weakness due to "physics" that makes smaller pixels more noisy, per unit of sensor area. With FF cameras we have not seen the least noise in high-MP sensors, but this seems to be something that only occurs with FF sensors, which seem to struggle more with noise per unit of sensor area than smaller sensors. It is only by the brute force of filling an entire, larger frame with the same exposure at the same ISO that we can get "less noise at the same ISO", but then our "same ISO" is not "the same photo", because the exposure time and/or the size of the pupil is different.

BirdsofBC wrote in post #19429394
I would never shoot even close to that. there's no point.

You must shoot birds only in open areas. I try to find birds in well-lit areas, but especially at this time of the year, where foliage is still maxed out in my area, and almost every interesting bird is found in the shade, even a slummed 1/400s shutter speed and a wide-open lens can get me up to max auto ISO with under-exposure (the real ISO is above the max). Part of that is because I lean towards high magnification and little cropping, and going high on ISO because of a longer focal length, vs cropping, is not a real problem. In fact, the vast majority of cameras will actually have slightly-less and finer subject-level noise with 800mm at ISO 10,000 than 400mm at ISO 2,500. It might look noisier, because of processing and perceptual issues, but it isn't, if you convert and post-process for the subject instead of the pixel.

Hypnotic mood at Lake Ballard in Western Australia. The sculpture is a part of a massive outdoor art installation by Antony Gormley titled "Inside Australia".

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nMQ​Gpe