topic EOS R5 Noisy Photos in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

EOS R5 Noisy Photos

JessSterkPhoto — Wed, 19 Apr 2023 14:35:55 GMT

Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

I'm a professional photographer, and I'm finding the adjustment from the mk IV to the R5 really disappointing!

The camera cost me a lot to upgrade to, and the quality just isn't adding up!

I am really struggling with noise levels whilst shooting at super low ISO's (100-250). I pull my images into lightroom, as this is the quickest software for me to run through my workflow, and the noise reminds me of shooting on some of the much older semi-pro DSLRs.

Are we lacking support for this? I have read Adobe threads and watched videos, and I am definitely not the only one concerned. Is this something they will fix? Or should I be selling this body and heading back to the good-old DSLR's for better high-end quality?

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

Peter — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:21:41 GMT

What about uploading some raw files from R5 and 5D IV with the same exposure and the same scene?

From 6D to R6 here and I didn't see any degradation.

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

JessSterkPhoto — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:30:02 GMT

Good idea, although I have to trust myself. I have a lot of experience with shooting on the 5D mk IV. The 5D mk IV, between ISO 100-1600 had almost zero noise when shooting in a range of lighting scenarios from studio to natural.

The R5 brings up noise (It actually looks more like Grain) at a low of ISO 100. This shows up in the raw files prior to being imported into any editing software.

Perhaps it's because the RF adapter doesn't actually work as well as advertised, because the lenses I'm using are mostly the older RF Canon lenses. But if this is the case, I don't have the budget to upgrade all of my lenses to adjust to this newer body, purely due to an affordability factor.

It just makes me feel frustrated. The R5 is not a cheap body, and came highly recommended as the best adjustment from DSLR to Mirrorless whilst maintaining brand.

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

Peter — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:38:51 GMT

Have you checked this one and played around with the raw files?

https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/Really-unhappy-with-R6-Curious-to-know-if-others-have-similar/m-p/399981/highlight/true#M95110

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

JessSterkPhoto — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:42:17 GMT

Thanks Peter, but it just feels like a ton of work to do to get a new body to read as beautifully as the old body did quite naturally. Hopefully Canon will have some responses for us that will make us feel a little more supported with the adjustment in bodies.

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

iceman2486 — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:49:04 GMT

That's really weird. I've been shooting a lot of indoor sports and some dance performances on my R5, using the Canon EF to R adapter with the EF Canon 70-200 f2.8L ii, and even at ISO 6400 the noise is only noticeable if I seriously zoom in.

I'm really surprised you'd see any noise at ISO 100, and in studio. Really hot you get it figured out.

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

Peter — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:57:33 GMT

Same exposure and pushed 3 stops in darktable. 6D vs R6 vs R6 c-raw. You can notice the compression in c-raw in the shadows. My raw files with CC0 license https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oFdr6Ft-IcQ6PX9nzHJHSqj1C1hzjsC/view?usp=share_link

R6 raw

R6 c-raw

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

johnrmoyer — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:54:38 GMT

I hope some of this might be helpful and this is just my impressions so it might not work for you.

As others have mentioned, using CRAW instead of RAW causes the noise in shadows to have a different appearance and look unnatural to me. It has been many years since I have used any Adobe products and I speculate that it could be a problem with the Adobe software that you are seeing which could be tested by trying the same image in Canon DPP. For raw development I use Canon DPP or libraw dcraw_emu or rawtherapee and have tried the macOS photos app. I do not have any problem with older lenses on my EOS R5 even though others report problems. I even use a 45 year old adapted lens from a Minolta film camera and a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM. The 17-40mm does not have modern autofocus, but works fine with manual focus and shows no increased noise but has a little less fine detail contrast than some newer lenses.

For ISO 1600 or ISO 3200, I have no problem with noise when the shadows are not important. When I have higher ISOs, I usually set the "fineness" for unsharp mask larger to avoid sharpening the noise. The "clarity" setting in DPP can also emphasize noise. The "digital lens optimizer" can bring back noise that had been removed using median filter or Gaussian blur, so if lightroom does some smart sharpening or anything that does a deconvolution then that might emphasize noise.

I find almost no noise in images from my EOS R5 at ISO less than 500 unless the camera is warm. I speculate that a CF card that generates a lot of heat might increase the camera temperature. Also, using the larger screen on the camera instead of the viewfinder seems to me to cause the temperature to increase more rapidly. The EOS R5 does seem to me to be more sensitive to increased temperature than the DSLR cameras I have used.

The temperature is recorded by the camera in the exif data (actually makernotes) and may be displayed using exiftool. I have made images with the lens cap on at two different camera temperatures to look at the noise and that is how I arrived at the conclusion that higher temperature results in more noise.

exiftool -G0:2 -"cameratemperature" *.CR3
======== IMG_3650.CR3
[MakerNotes:Camera] Camera Temperature : 32 C
======== IMG_3652.CR3
[MakerNotes:Camera] Camera Temperature : 32 C
2 image files read

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

johnrmoyer — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:50:37 GMT

Camera settings that seem to me to increase noise in images include "peripheral illumination correction" and "auto lighting optimizer". I think that both of these are better corrected in post processing, but I might be remembering that from an earlier firmware version.

This image is a crop attempting to display at 100% so that any noise will be visible.

Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina) in Norman, Oklahoma, United States on March 31, 2023

In the Canon DPP software, I set:

[CanonVRD:Image] Raw Brightness Adj : -0.33
[CanonVRD:Image] White Balance Adj : Daylight
[CanonVRD:Image] WB Adj Color Temp : 5200
[CanonVRD:Image] Luminance Noise Reduction : 1
[CanonVRD:Image] Chrominance Noise Reduction : 1
[CanonVRD:Image] DLO Setting : 50
[CanonVRD:Image] Saturation Adj : 103
[CanonVRD:Image] Gamma Unsharp Mask Strength : 2
[CanonVRD:Image] Gamma Unsharp Mask Fineness : 1.6
[CanonVRD:Image] Gamma Unsharp Mask Threshold : 1

Camera settings:

[EXIF:Image] Exposure Time : 1/320
[EXIF:Image] F Number : 7.1
[EXIF:Image] ISO : 500
[EXIF:Camera] Focal Length : 400.0 mm
[MakerNotes:Camera] Camera Temperature : 41 C
[MakerNotes:Camera] Lens Model : EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
[MakerNotes:Camera] Measured RGGB : 598 1024 1024 463
[MakerNotes:Camera] Peripheral Lighting Setting : Off
[MakerNotes:Camera] Chromatic Aberration Setting: On
[MakerNotes:Camera] Distortion Correction Setting: Off
[MakerNotes:Camera] Digital Lens Optimizer Setting: On
[MakerNotes:Camera] Peripheral Illumination Corr: On
[MakerNotes:Camera] Auto Lighting Optimizer : Off
[MakerNotes:Camera] Highlight Tone Priority : Off
[MakerNotes:Camera] Long Exposure Noise Reduction: Off
[MakerNotes:Camera] High ISO Noise Reduction : Off
[MakerNotes:Camera] WB RGGB Levels As Shot : 1777 1024 1024 2236
[MakerNotes:Camera] Color Temp As Shot : 4286
[MakerNotes:Image] Exposure Compensation : -2/3
[MakerNotes:Image] White Balance : Auto
[MakerNotes:Image] Measured EV : 11.00
[MakerNotes:Image] Measured EV 2 : 16
[MakerNotes:Image] Focus Distance Upper : 12.46 m
[MakerNotes:Image] Focus Distance Lower : 10.51 m
[MakerNotes:Image] Shutter Mode : Electronic First Curtain
[QuickTime:Image] Compressor ID : CRAW
[Composite:Time] Date/Time Original : 2023:03:31 10:49:23.29-05:00

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

shadowsports — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 14:18:46 GMT

@JessSterkPhoto,

Very sorry to hear you are having issues with the new body. This has not been my experience. Please don't be unwilling to move outside of your 5D4's comfort zone. The R5 is a fabulous camera. The 5D4 while capable only holds a small flame to the R5. In this case, the internet does not lie. There are millions of professionals out there who praise the R5..

I'm a little biased. This is because I have experienced the performance of mirrorless and the Digic X processor. I came from a 6D2. A reliable, solid performer. who's AF and DR was very good, a notch below the 5D4.

Mirrorless is a vastly different technology. Although basic principals still apply, it inevitably changed the way I used my camera. The R5 isn't the best performing, highest selling camera since its release because its performs below the 5D4. You mentioned EF glass. What adapter and lenses are you using with the R5?

You came here for answers. Let us help you, but you'll need to take our suggestions, invest a little time and provide us with some examples so we can assist you. The camera's OS and capability is sophisticated. There is a learning curve. Use what you know, but also accept that you've stepped into the ring with a different contender. Be willing to explore a different style and way you use the new camera. I think it will win you over in a short period of time.

***And there's no one better to guide you than @Peter.

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

ebiggs1 — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:12:00 GMT

I am in agreement with Rick. All my friends, who do photography as a business and have switched love the R5 and claim it is very much better. The EF adapter also seems to make the old lenses better too. I have not switched personally but that is their opinion.

You are shooting Raw? If not you should be and you have the latest Lightroom version? Older LR versions don't support R5 raw files. Another option is to d/l from Canon DPP4 editor.

Keep in mind most camera settings do not effect raw files. They do impact the jpg and conversion to a viewable image. The final processing and editing should be done in LR or DPP4. But being a pro you already do that.

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

johnrmoyer — Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:15:28 GMT

You are usually correct and most settings do not change the raw file. But, if there is any sort of auto exposure being used then it seems to me that peripheral illumination correction and auto lighting optimizer do result in a different raw file depending upon whether enabled or disabled.

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

ebiggs1 — Sat, 15 Apr 2023 15:11:27 GMT

Auto Lighting Optimizer applies to jpeg only. It works with raw only when you use Canon's DPP. Photoshop/Lightroom does not, at this point, know what to do with it in raw. The EXIF data records what the camera settings are for an image. However, that is what it would have done if you told it to save a JPEG. Instead the raw data does not get the effect applied. I don't know of any camera that applies distortion correction, white balance, peripheral illumination, etc. to its raw files.

Here is where you get messed up. The viewer or editor you use to look at and edit your photos do use the EXIF tag file to generate an image that you can look at. It seems the camera settings do effect the raw file but that isn't true. The raw file is as it always has been untouched. Ok, why shoot raw? Because that info, still there untouched, offers a greater amount of editing. Had you saved just a JPEG a lot of the raw data is deleted and can not be recovered for editing. In some cases this may be OK, most times not. If you are using DPP4 you can set all those settings anywhere you like. The same is true with Lightroom but you will not have Canon's proprietary settings.

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

johnrmoyer — Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:08:53 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
Auto Lighting Optimizer applies to jpeg only. It works with raw only when you use Canon's DPP. Photoshop/Lightroom does not, at this point, know what to do with it in raw. The EXIF data records what the camera settings are for an image. However, that is what it would have done if you told it to save a JPEG. Instead the raw data does not get the effect applied. I don't know of any camera that applies distortion correction, white balance, peripheral illumination, etc. to its raw files.
Here is where you get messed up. The viewer or editor you use to look at and edit your photos do use the EXIF tag file to generate an image that you can look at. It seems the camera settings do effect the raw file but that isn't true. The raw file is as it always has been untouched. Ok, why shoot raw? Because that info, still there untouched, offers a greater amount of editing. Had you saved just a JPEG a lot of the raw data is deleted and can not be recovered for editing. In some cases this may be OK, most times not. If you are using DPP4 you can set all those settings anywhere you like. The same is true with Lightroom but you will not have Canon's proprietary settings.

If peripheral illumination correction and auto lighting optimizer are enabled in the camera menu and at least one of aperture, shutter speed, or ISO is auto, then the camera will choose a different exposure than if they are disabled. If all is manual, you are correct that it will make no difference to the exposure or in the raw file. This is why I suggest turning off both auto lighting optimizer and peripheral illumination correction in the camera menus and only do those corrections later if desired when post processing.

Today, I went outside and made two photos of trees and sky with high contrast between sky and shaded tree trunks. The camera was on a tripod, it was windy, and I may have moved the camera slightly while changing the settings. The two images were a few seconds apart, so the scene lighting did not change much. Those were the only settings I changed. Let me know if you would like for me to put the two raw files on my web server for you to examine.

diff img_3718.exif img_3719.exif
2c2
< [File:Other] File Name : IMG_3718.CR3
---
> [File:Other] File Name : IMG_3719.CR3
4c4
< [File:Other] File Size : 71 MB
---
> [File:Other] File Size : 72 MB
...
52c52
< [EXIF:Image] Exposure Time : 1/5000
---
> [EXIF:Image] Exposure Time : 1/3200
59c59
< [EXIF:Image] Shutter Speed Value : 1/5312
---
> [EXIF:Image] Shutter Speed Value : 1/3158
81c81
< [EXIF:Time] Date/Time Original : 2023:04:15 11:10:23
---
> [EXIF:Time] Date/Time Original : 2023:04:15 11:11:47
...
< [MakerNotes:Camera] Measured RGGB : 545 1024 1024 449
---
> [MakerNotes:Camera] Measured RGGB : 564 1024 1024 448
177c177
< [MakerNotes:Camera] Peripheral Lighting Setting : On
---
> [MakerNotes:Camera] Peripheral Lighting Setting : Off
181,182c181,182
< [MakerNotes:Camera] Peripheral Illumination Corr: Off
< [MakerNotes:Camera] Auto Lighting Optimizer : Strong
---
> [MakerNotes:Camera] Peripheral Illumination Corr: On
> [MakerNotes:Camera] Auto Lighting Optimizer : Off
208,213c208,213
< [MakerNotes:Camera] WB RGGB Levels As Shot : 1945 1024 1024 1956
< [MakerNotes:Camera] Color Temp As Shot : 5030
< [MakerNotes:Camera] WB RGGB Levels Auto : 1949 1024 1024 1945
< [MakerNotes:Camera] Color Temp Auto : 5058
< [MakerNotes:Camera] WB RGGB Levels Measured : 1949 1024 1024 1945
< [MakerNotes:Camera] Color Temp Measured : 5058
---
> [MakerNotes:Camera] WB RGGB Levels As Shot : 1889 1024 1024 2040
> [MakerNotes:Camera] Color Temp As Shot : 4794
> [MakerNotes:Camera] WB RGGB Levels Auto : 1896 1024 1024 2032
> [MakerNotes:Camera] Color Temp Auto : 4822
> [MakerNotes:Camera] WB RGGB Levels Measured : 1896 1024 1024 2032
> [MakerNotes:Camera] Color Temp Measured : 4822
236c236
< [MakerNotes:Image] Measured EV : 13.25
---
> [MakerNotes:Image] Measured EV : 12.75
238c238
< [MakerNotes:Image] Target Exposure Time : 1/5161
---
> [MakerNotes:Image] Target Exposure Time : 1/3251
248c248
< [MakerNotes:Image] Measured EV 2 : 30
---
> [MakerNotes:Image] Measured EV 2 : 29

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

Waddizzle — Sat, 15 Apr 2023 18:34:38 GMT

Do you plan to post any sample RAW files, or not?

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

ebiggs1 — Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:16:04 GMT

Here is what you don’t seem to grasp. Peripheral illumination correction function corrects peripheral light fall-off and applies it to the image in post-processing. It is not applied to the raw file. It remains in the exif data.

As does Auto Lighting Optimizer which is also done in-camera processing. It analyses the image then modifies shadows and highlights in an attempt to lessen the loss of detail in high contrast lighting conditions. But again, done in the processing stage. Raw files are not processed.

What you are looking at in the exif is what would be applied to the jpg image and what confuses most people.

The editor or viewer you use can affect how the image looks but it cannot alter the raw file. Comparing two images shot in raw you can set everything to the same same for exact comparisons. This can’t be done so successfully if you were to compare two jpgs.

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

johnrmoyer — Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:36:21 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
Here is what you don’t seem to grasp. Peripheral illumination correction function corrects peripheral light fall-off and applies it to the image in post-processing. It is not applied to the raw file. It remains in the exif data.
As does Auto Lighting Optimizer which is also done in-camera processing. It analyses the image then modifies shadows and highlights in an attempt to lessen the loss of detail in high contrast lighting conditions. But again, done in the processing stage. Raw files are not processed.
What you are looking at in the exif is what would be applied to the jpg image and what confuses most people.
The editor or viewer you use can affect how the image looks but it cannot alter the raw file. Comparing two images shot in raw you can set everything to the same same for exact comparisons. This can’t be done so successfully if you were to compare two jpgs.

Here is what you do not seem to grasp. The difference in shutter speed will result in differences in the raw file and not just in the jpeg. The difference in shutter speed is because the camera chose a different setting to accommodate a change in dynamic range because the F Number was fixed at 5.6. Sometimes the camera will choose a different ISO if ISO is auto.

Would you be convinced if I made two images in a more controlled setting to demonstrate the changes that the camera makes to the raw file?

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

johnrmoyer — Sat, 15 Apr 2023 21:33:41 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
Here is what you don’t seem to grasp. Peripheral illumination correction function corrects peripheral light fall-off and applies it to the image in post-processing. It is not applied to the raw file. It remains in the exif data.
As does Auto Lighting Optimizer which is also done in-camera processing. It analyses the image then modifies shadows and highlights in an attempt to lessen the loss of detail in high contrast lighting conditions. But again, done in the processing stage. Raw files are not processed.
What you are looking at in the exif is what would be applied to the jpg image and what confuses most people.
The editor or viewer you use can affect how the image looks but it cannot alter the raw file. Comparing two images shot in raw you can set everything to the same same for exact comparisons. This can’t be done so successfully if you were to compare two jpgs.

https://cam.start.canon/en/C003/manual/html/UG-03_Shooting-1_0080.html
"

Caution

Noise may increase and apparent resolution may change, under some shooting conditions.
If the effect of Auto Lighting Optimizer is too strong and results are not at your preferred brightness, set to [Low] or [Disable].
If a setting other than [Disable] is set and you use exposure compensation or flash exposure compensation to darken the exposure, the image may still come out bright. If you want a darker exposure, set this function to [Disable].

Note

For

[RAW]
and

images, face lighting can be adjusted in [

: RAW processing (RAW/DPRAW)] ().
To enable [

: Auto Lighting Optimizer] to be set even in [

M] and [BULB

] modes, press the

button in step 2 to clear the checkmark [

BULB] for [Disabled in M or B modes].

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

shadowsports — Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:01:39 GMT

Hey Guys,

Lets take this discussion offline and try to help JessSterkPhoto to love her R5 ♥️

Re: Disappointed! Canon 5D mk IV to R5

johnrmoyer — Sat, 15 Apr 2023 22:19:21 GMT

@shadowsports wrote:
Hey Guys,
Lets take this discussion offline and try to help JessSterkPhoto to love her R5 ♥️

I hope this might be helpful. If Auto Lighting optimizer is enabled, there will sometimes be much more noise than if it is disabled in the camera menus. I have observed this and it is documented in the manual.

https://cam.start.canon/en/C003/manual/html/UG-03_Shooting-1_0080.html