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

[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.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

i just took @Levina de Ruijter advice and downloaded the trial version of DxO Pure Raw 5, free for 14 days. I am impressed and feel that the results are better than Topaz with less work.

Here is the new file from Pure raw and then the Topaz one

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

i just took @Levina de Ruijter advice and downloaded the trial version of DxO Pure Raw 5, free for 14 days. I am impressed and feel that the results are better than Topaz with less work.

Here is the new file from Pure raw and then the Topaz one

View attachment 20110View attachment 20111

I find that Pure Raw is cleaner, less artefacts. But I do use it on the raw file straight out of the camera, before I do anything else.

For output sharpening I went back to doing things the old fashioned way: I take the processed and downsized file to Lab mode in Photoshop and apply a mild High Pass. I like it so much because in Lab mode you can apply it on the lightness channel alone so colours aren't affected in any way.

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

Preprocessed the Cardinal that was at 12,800 in DxO Pure Raw 5

 

[Levina de Ruijter]

Preprocessed the Cardinal that was at 12,800 in DxO Pure Raw 5

View attachment 20118

Well that looks really good to me, Jeff. Amazing, 12,800 ISO...

 

[Jeff WX1USN]

Well that looks really good to me, Jeff. Amazing, 12,800 ISO...

I am going to be trying for more high ISO images vs the R6ii which is know for good high ISO performance. I am testing to see if it can replace either or both of the current cameras I have