R5ii vs R6ii High ISO

[Jeff WX1USN]

Since it is another grey day and I am sitting at home I decided to do some testing between my R5ii and my R6ii at 12,800 ISO. Doing birds in flight and trying to keep the shutter speed up above 1/2000 I am often shooting at high ISO because I don't have any fast price lenses, mostly due to cost but also weight.

I shot this bird out the window (with it open) and it has a mix of bright background and dark backgrounds. I processed both images the same, pulled into lightroom classic and ran through Dx0 Pure Raw 5 and then hit the "AUTO" button for exposure and then saved the images. I then cropped down and saved and then cropped in even tighter and saved.

To my eye looking at the black oil sunflower seeds is the most noticeable difference although the head of the bird also has a noticeable difference. To me the R6ii at 12,800 has less noise and is slightly sharper as a result from the R5ii at 12,800. I will post each size on a separate post in this thread starting with the full frame. R6ii then R5ii

 

[Jan1977]

Hi Jeff, the exif shown on the forum says ISO6400 for the R5 mkii photo.

If I look for noise in the photos I can't say I really see a difference between these examples. I really need to get my eye close to the screen (not a proper way to judge it) to try to see differences. And I really need to look at the cropped photos you posted.

When I look at the purple-ish right above corner in the last set (most cropped in), I think I see a bit more grain in the R5ii photo, but it also is a bit brighter. With overall brightness being similar and using "auto" exposure in Lightroom, given the 1-stop difference in ISO the R6ii photo may be a bit darkened and the R5ii photo a bit lightened. If the R6ii photo was not darkened, the R5ii would be lightened even more perhaps.

The R6ii photo looks a bit sharper when I look at the main subject being the bird. But it also seems that in the R5ii photo the plane of focus is slightly further away from the camera. While the birds head seems closer to the camera. To my eye the cylinder holding the seeds is a bit sharper in the R5ii photo in comparison to the R6ii photo, which might lead to scratches and speckles on the cylinder becoming a bit more visible. I do not see any significant difference in the seeds themself when looking for noise/ grain.

In the first set of crops (second post) the cylinder on the R5ii photo seems quite a bit broader, which would indicate that it is cropped in a bit more than the R6ii relatively from the full frame field of view.

Like I said, I really had to put my eye close to the screen and did it a few times, but do not feel confident about my own observations, asking myself "Do I see it or do I not see it". I'm not looking at them at the best monitor, so that may come into play as well (the monitor I'm looking at tends to be a bit too bright in comparison with my monitor at home).

I do not question your observation and judgement, just mentioning these things as I notice for my self that trying to see differences sometimes pre occupies my mind, which is probably one of the reasons I feel my own observation may not even be consistent when repeatedly looking at the photos trying to compare noise.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

@Jan1977
I had shot some R5ii's at 12,800 will redo shots finding one at 12,800 and then be more careful with cropping. But all that being said I wonder if the difference is really that great? I have a shot at 12,800 with the R5ii where the bird is not looking at the camera and about the same as the R6ii, will work it after lunch

 

[Jack Dawe]

I don't see a lot of difference in noise, but to my eye the R6ii shots look sharper than the R5ii. 1/1000 should have been fast enough to freeze movement, but I'm wondering whether the R5ii just missed focus on the head. The nearest leg and the end of the perch in both seem equally sharp. The bird's head in the R5ii shot may be softer because it is nearer the lens than the bird in the R6 shot. The feathers at the top of the bird's breast, immediately below the neck, look sharper. That said, I still think the R6ii shot looks sharper overall.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

I am posting the correct shot for the R5ii that is closer to the image from the R6ii,

again R6 then R5

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

While the slightly lighter I am seeing slightly more noise in the R5ii image, not by very much and as a standalone image I would be happy with it.

Here the R5ii is slightly darker again the difference is very slight

Not sure if it is worth keeping the R6ii for the very slight difference. If the R5ii had to go to the shop I could always use my R7 or 7Dii until it came back.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

The difference in the reds is quite remarkable. The head leans towards red on the R5m2 and towards orange on the R6m2.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

The difference in the reds is quite remarkable. The head leans towards red on the R5m2 and towards orange on the R6m2.

It is interesting the greens are very close but the red/orange is quite different. I think the red is more realistic but could be toned down a bit

 

[Jan1977]

View attachment 26345View attachment 26346

In these examples I really have to try to see any real differences. The only area where I think I can see a very small difference is in the purple-ish background in the R5ii, but it still is an amount that I think is fully acceptable, so "less" does not mean much there.
To my eye the R5ii image appears to be a very tiny bit sharper, judged by the seed with a white speckle at the top of the frame at 11h from the opening and the area at 9h directly next to the black ring around the opening.

 

[Jan1977]

The difference in the reds is quite remarkable. The head leans towards red on the R5m2 and towards orange on the R6m2.

I think it is not unusual if there are differences between the cameras. But the tilt of the head is a bit different, so the angle of light on the head (relative to the head) may have been different. That can make a huge difference. For example with tufted ducks if I take a series only slide changes in angles may show or not show the color of the head. So any real differences in color between cameras probably requires a colorchecker like set-up (which probably can be found all over the internet for lots of cameras).

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

I toned down the red a bit but tried to get rid of some of the noise using Topaz but I think it smoothed over the details too much.

This doesn't help me with deciding whether to sell the R6ii yet.

 

[Jan1977]

I toned down the red a bit but tried to get rid of some of the noise using Topaz but I think it smoothed over the details too much.

This doesn't help me with deciding whether to sell the R6ii yet.

View attachment 26370
View attachment 26371

Well, there are basically 3 reasons that could make you decide you keep the R6ii:

1. The R6ii does something significantly better that the R5ii. I think that would come down to low light ISO performance, because I think the R5ii definitely equals or even out performs the R6ii in other aspects.
2. You have use cases where you really value the smaller file sizes of the R6ii.
3. You feel the R6ii is valuable as a backup camera in comparison to other back-up options.

My impression is that 2 and 3 do not apply to your case, so it comes down to #1.

When I look at the examples you posted here, I do not see a significant benefit of the R6ii regarding ISO-performance and the R5ii images are fine and usable in my personal opinion. But you have to make your own judgement, wheter or not you see a difference that matters to you. The difference in ISO performance probably is more significant if the scenes are really dark, like night scenes. But if your 'worst lighting case' is more or less the situation you took these sample shots in, than that is the situation to compare the cameras.

For me when I had the R5 and R6, I used both if I was shooting 2 cameras (not uncommon for sports) and if I only picked one camera (for example on a stroll shooting some birds) I always picked the R5, to have the higher MP's just in case. My shooting in the dark mostly is night time sports, but then I still used 2 cameras, so just didn't made a choice between them.

One other reason to keep the R6ii, which is not really a valid one, is the risk of loss. When you go somewhere and feel there is a higher than usual risk to loose a camera, you might opt for the cheaper of the two if you still want a first class camera for that situation (lets say losing an old 7D would be 'less worse' than losing a R6ii, while the R6ii definitely can get you shots the 7D would not).

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

It is interesting the greens are very close but the red/orange is quite different. I think the red is more realistic but could be toned down a bit

I have no way of knowing which of the two represents the true colours the best as I've never seen this bird with my own eyes but there definitely is a difference between the two cameras.

I think it is not unusual if there are differences between the cameras. But the tilt of the head is a bit different, so the angle of light on the head (relative to the head) may have been different. That can make a huge difference. For example with tufted ducks if I take a series only slide changes in angles may show or not show the color of the head. So any real differences in color between cameras probably requires a colorchecker like set-up (which probably can be found all over the internet for lots of cameras).

I'm not sure the different red tones can be solely attributed to a different tilt of the head or different angle of light. It seems consistent, at least in these samples.