EOS R5 ISO Noise

[BobK1]

Greetings...I have the R5 and I'm an seeing at 100% crop a significant amount of noise at fairly low ISO settings. In the latest, II shot some images in my kitchen yesterday on the R5 with the RF 15-35 /2.8 at ISO 640 to 1600 1/50sec. Zoomed to 100% I am really surprised at the amountof grain at those settings. Going to give canon a call but wanted to see if anyone else is having any issues. Images are fine at ISO 100 but anything over 400 and I start seeing grain/noise.

Thanks

Bob

[BobK1]

Well I got the camera back after 3 weeks and guess what. They say nothings wrong with it. They blame the fact that i'm using Lightroom for my edits is the issue and that I should be using DDP4. So I tried it and the raw images imported into DDP4 do look cleaner in raw at 100%-200%. But my question, Is Camon doing any niose reduction on import? Not familure at all with DDP4. So do not know how to answer that, Maybe someone more familiar will chime in. 

During the wait for my camera coming back I rented a R5 from Lensrentals to see if there was any difference. My findings were they were a bit better images coming out of the rental, but not earth shattering like I had hoped. Now what to do?

[Waddizzle]

---

@BobK1 wrote:

Well I got the camera back after 3 weeks and guess what. They say nothings wrong with it. They blame the fact that i'm using Lightroom for my edits is the issue and that I should be using DDP4. So I tried it and the raw images imported into DDP4 do look cleaner in raw at 100%-200%. But my question, Is Camon doing any niose reduction on import? Not familure at all with DDP4. So do not know how to answer that, Maybe someone more familiar will chime in. 

During the wait for my camera coming back I rented a R5 from Lensrentals to see if there was any difference. My findings were they were a bit better images coming out of the rental, but not earth shattering like I had hoped. Now what to do?

---

That's the problem.  You'e pixel peeping.

[BobK1]

Great answer....do you really think i based my problem on looking at at 1-200%. It was because at normal fit the page view on my computer, unedited it was very visible. That was at iso'; 400-6400

[Waddizzle]

---

@BobK1 wrote:

Great answer....do you really think i based my problem on looking at at 1-200%. It was because at normal fit the page view on my computer, unedited it was very visible. That was at iso'; 400-6400

---

Yes. I do.  You clearly admitted it.

[BobK1]

I'm here looking for advise ...So really ...you think seeing a significant amount of noise at 400-6400 ISO on a brand new camera at normal viewing size in LR before zooming in is because I've zoomed in to get a better look at the image?

[Waddizzle]

---

@BobK1 wrote:

I'm here looking for advise ...So really ...you think seeing a significant amount of noise at 400-6400 ISO on a brand new camera at normal viewing size in LR before zooming in is because I've zoomed in to get a better look at the image?

---

That has not been your main complaint.  You should review what you have written.  You're moving the goal posts.  

As to your avove question, you have yet to post a sample showing "significant amounts of noise".  All that I have seen are extreme crops.  You posted a sample that was less than 3% of the total area of the image!  Of course, you will see noise and a s soft image. I think your expectations are unreasonable and unrealistic.  .

[Waddizzle]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@BobK1 wrote:

I'm here looking for advise ...So really ...you think seeing a significant amount of noise at 400-6400 ISO on a brand new camera at normal viewing size in LR before zooming in is because I've zoomed in to get a better look at the image?

---

That has not been your main complaint.  You should review what you have written.  You're moving the goal posts.  

As to your avove question, you have yet to post a sample showing "significant amounts of noise".  All that I have seen are extreme crops.  You posted a sample that was less than 3% of the total area of the image!  Of course, you will see noise and a s soft image. I think your expectations are unreasonable and unrealistic.  .

---

My apologies.  Those were not your croped images.  They were form the person who had hijacked the thread.  But, I still maintian that you have yet to post an example of this noise you claim to be seeing.

I think your expectations are unreasonable and unrealistic.

[jrhoffman75]

---

@BobK1 wrote:

Well I got the camera back after 3 weeks and guess what. They say nothings wrong with it. They blame the fact that i'm using Lightroom for my edits is the issue and that I should be using DDP4. So I tried it and the raw images imported into DDP4 do look cleaner in raw at 100%-200%. But my question, Is Camon doing any niose reduction on import? Not familure at all with DDP4. So do not know how to answer that, Maybe someone more familiar will chime in. 

During the wait for my camera coming back I rented a R5 from Lensrentals to see if there was any difference. My findings were they were a bit better images coming out of the rental, but not earth shattering like I had hoped. Now what to do?

---

When you use DPP the settings for the Picture Style you set in camera are applied to the RAW images.

In addition, if High Iso Noise Reduction is enabled any noise reduction in-camera will be refelcted in DPP; not in Lightroom.

Same is true for any other settings like ALO, Highlight Tone Priority and lens corrections.

[PatriciaThomas]

HI,

I am no expert but had many issues in the beginning (and sent the camera back to where I bought it and now have a replacement). I learned a lot during my wait and now my images are doing better. Sometimes I can shoot at 6,400 and they look fine and other times they don't. The question I would want to ask is if you are using a RF lens or are you using an adapter? Since I don't know the answer I will share what I learned. The adapter really really needs to be from Canon (not another brand). Canon has a very specific way it wants you to put on the adapters. At first I thought, "so what," then learned why. They want you to place it on the camera body, then mount the lense. It matters. I had been keeping my adaptor on my lens and just popping it on and off or leaving it on. My images were getting terrible and later learned that I need to take it of the camera and reinstall it. Maybe it sitting and getting knocked around (the off brand adapter seemed loose and not stable). So maybe if this is your situation you can try it. Even with dedicated RF lenses I have good days with the ISO noise level and bad days. I haven't anaylized yet why but Washington's grey and wet days never produce the quality of light and limited noise that I hope for. The one day I had good light I was super happy. Keep working with it; I hope it becomes all they you hope for it to be.

[BobK1]

Thank you for all your insight. I do use the Canon RF-EF mount, but only on my 100-400 EF lens. The others lenses are Canon RF mount. I did not know about mounting the adaptor first!!I will make sure I do that in the future.

Hope you get some sunny days