Renting R5 mark II - my thoughts and results vs. R7 and R6ii

[Jeff WX1USN]

Today I picked up my one week rental of the R5ii from Hunts Photo in Providence RI USA. Being familiar with the R6ii it took me about a hour to set it up pretty much the way I wanted it, not totally set up but certainly enough to start testing it.
I am testing it against the R6ii for High ISO performance, switching the same lens mostly my 24-105 between the two bodies at the same time in low light situations.
For the test with the R7 I will be using my RF100-500 always at 500mm and will use the RF 1.4x on the R5ii for most shots, so 800mm vs 700mm with fov factors but will also try some shots without the extender and do more severe crops.
I am comparing the R7/R5ii the way I normally shoot at several of my ponds where the birds are so far away I do large crops with the R7, so will be cropping even more on the R5ii.

I went out to my garden for about 90 minutes today and shot 1,500 shots, all electronic shutter and many with the Pre-shooting mode. I didn't change bodies as it was freezing, 45F with a 10-15 mph wind, and my hands were getting numb. The comparison shots today for the R7 were taken yesterday in better and sunny weather so not a good comparison, will be doing more testing over the next week.

This will be a picture heavy thread.

The shots I am most happy with from today are right below

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

first comparison shot between the R5ii and R7, but on two different days.

R7

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

R7 showing crop factor

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

R5ii with RF 1.4x extender crop factor shot at 700mm and heavily cropped

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

both originals R7 800mm R5ii 700mm with 1.4x

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

I have found the AF on the R5ii to lock onto the birds eye even in clutter backgrounds AND foregrounds better than either the R6ii or R7. I was pleased with how the AF locks on.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

Cardinal at ISO 12,800 1st shot no denoise, 2nd shot Topaz Denoise AI (Severe denoise level 8 for noise) head feathers seem a bit mushy

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

One thing the R7 is known for is rolling shutter, it is really bad, the R6ii is much better but still will exhibit it.

The R5ii at least so far in my experiment shows virtually no rolling shutter!

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

Buffer comparison R5ii and R6ii

I have both cameras set for electronic shutter at 15 fps and Craw. I aimed out the window and held the shutter button down. The buffering on the R5ii with the CFexpress B card is great!

R5ii 10 seconds
R6ii 3+ seconds

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

Another tidbit is that the batteries from the R7 and R6ii EP-6NH work in the R5ii however you will get a warning that some features will not be available and you cannot use movie mode.

I see that pre-shooting doesn't work with the older batteries but the camera for the most part works fine.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

Middle ISO from R6ii, 8000 ISO which with the R6ii I consider middle range.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I am comparing the R7/R5ii

The R5m2 is a camera in a different league than the R7. You'll see...

Buffer comparison R5ii and R6ii

I have both cameras set for electronic shutter at 15 fps and Craw. I aimed out the window and held the shutter button down. The buffering on the R5ii with the CFexpress B card is great!

R5ii 10 seconds
R6ii 3+ seconds

It is! That's one of the things that surprised me, coming from the R6m2 with its smaller files (I had that camera set to cRAW too).

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Middle ISO from R6ii, 8000 ISO which with the R6ii I consider middle range.

View attachment 20088

Looks good.

Cardinal at ISO 12,800 1st shot no denoise, 2nd shot Topaz Denoise AI (Severe denoise level 8 for noise) head feathers seem a bit mushy

Well it is ISO 12,800! However, have you tried DXO Pure Raw? Since getting it I don't use Topaz Denoise any longer. I find Pur Raw truly excellent. I run all my files through it now before processing them.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

I will check out DXO Pure Raw.

Here are 3 iterations of a 12,800 R5ii shot, each with more denoise, first is "Clear High noise high sharpening" second is Low light with 3/4 noise and high sharpening, third is Severe Noise with low denoise and middle sharpening the differences are subtle but 2nd and 3rd are softer.

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

I will check out DXO Pure Raw.

Here are 3 iterations of a 12,800 R5ii shot, each with more denoise, first is "Clear High noise high sharpening" second is Low light with 3/4 noise and high sharpening, third is Severe Noise with low denoise and middle sharpening the differences are subtle but 2nd and 3rd are softer.

View attachment 20096View attachment 20097View attachment 20098

The first looks best to me. The second is a bit sharper but also has some artefacts from too much sharpening, so I prefer the slightly softer look of the first image. The last is the lesser of the three.

I most always liked Clear the best in Topaz Denoise. Standard is something to avoid at all cost. Low light depends. It often introduces a kind of halo around the outer edges of a bird not unlike chromatic aberration, especially a bird against the sky.

But yes, first looks pretty decent.