EOS R5 Noisy Photos

[JessSterkPhoto]

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? 

[Peter]

Seems normal to me. Cropped 200%.

Your second raw file seems to have front focus. The hat and the chest are in focus.

Your third raw file also. The hair to the left of the eye are in focus.

All three raw files seem normal, noise wise. Your print screens on the other hand I see a lot of noise created from color NR and sharpening in post.

[rs-eos]

Agreed, Peter.   Here's a screenshot of a portion of the same RAW image opened upon on my Mac with Adobe Camera Raw v 16.1.1 when opening the RAW in Photoshop (v 25.3.1)

I did increase the exposure by 1 full stop.

I then did the same in Lightroom Classic v 13.1 with ACR 16.1 (not sure why it didn't yet pick up 16.1.1) and no surprise, got the same result.

Noise Reduction was set to defaults:

• Luminance: 0
• Color: 25
• Detail: 50
• Smoothness: 50

Lens corrections (CA and profile corrections) also applied.  No change to noise, as expected, when the lens corrections were ON vs OFF.

[ebiggs1]

Keep in mind underexposure will make noise look worse. Make sure you are hitting exposure in the camera. If a different look is wanted for the final print do that in Photoshop.

[zandraerikshed]

Thank you so much for taking the time!

I agree - it looks much better in your pictures. So, I must be doing something wrong in post? The eye looks a lot worse in my zoomed in example (see the dropbox folder). Any idea what I might be doing wrong for it to be so grainy? Most of my pictures look grainy in Lightroom, even before I edit them. So I'm not sure it's a setting or a filter-thing.

My biggest problems are:
- I feel like the R5 performs worst in backlight, when it comes to noise and grain (Unfortunately I almost always shoot with backlight)
- The pictures don't have enough contrast, even if I exposed them right in camera
- The pictures easily get overexposed.

Should it really be so hard to get good exposures? If it's not the R5 itself - what am I doing wrong, when shooting or in post? Does any of this have to do with the Ring Mount Adapter I use - to keep my EF lenses, which has a built in ND-filter? (Even if it looks good in the camera?)

I used to have a mark 3 and it was super reliable and always took great shots with beautiful exposure and colors. What is the big difference with the R5, that I have to keep in mind and how do I need to shoot differently?

Thanks for helping me out!

[Peter]

---

@zandraerikshed wrote:

Thank you so much for taking the time!

I agree - it looks much better in your pictures. So, I must be doing something wrong in post? The eye looks a lot worse in my zoomed in example (see the dropbox folder). Any idea what I might be doing wrong for it to be so grainy? Most of my pictures look grainy in Lightroom, even before I edit them. So I'm not sure it's a setting or a filter-thing.

Sharpening non-details.

Pick the details only

The user rs-eos who also uses Adobe software got a better result with your image. Have you checked his settings?

You are not the only one. I see this from time to time when people ask about noise at low ISO. Last time here with the same issue in the sky https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/Noise-on-EOS-R8-Image/m-p/454199

---

@zandraerikshed wrote:

My biggest problems are:
- I feel like the R5 performs worst in backlight, when it comes to noise and grain (Unfortunately I almost always shoot with backlight)
- The pictures don't have enough contrast, even if I exposed them right in camera
- The pictures easily get overexposed.

---

What about using Speedlites or a larger light source?

Dual Pixel Raw will let you take two raw files in one. The second raw file will always be 1 EV darker. Try it today. Activate the feature and use DPRSplit to extract the darker raw file. It will double your file size and may slow down your workflow.

If you want to check how your raw files look like with minimal editing you can load your raw files in darktable. It doens't mean that you should edit your raw files in darktable but it may help you to see:

• how good you nailed the exposure without hidden tone curves
• what your raw files look like without any NR and sharpening
• you get a way to inspect raw clipping in the highlights

Turn off everything that will brighten the image.

I would turn off this one also so that you don't get a lot of XMP files in your folders.

Raw clipping indicator. If one or two color channels are clipped you can reconstruct the highlights from the third. Canon Digital Photo Professional can't reconstruct, but both darktable and Lightroom can.

[johnrmoyer]

Good advice @Peter. I would expand on your answers a little and I hope some of this might be helpful to the original poster.

Canon Digital Photo Professional can reconstruct highlights and can export a 16 bit tiff for further editing in Adobe software. Instructions for saving a 16 bit tiff for further editing are at adobe: https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/editing-canon-dual-pixel-raw-cr2.html . To get back highlights in Canon DPP: https://cam.start.canon/en/S002/manual/html/UG-04_EditImage_0040.html#EditImage_0050_11 and move the white point to the right until none of the color channels are clipped.

Rawtherapee also reconstructs highlights unless one turns it off.

Since I do not use any Adobe software, I cannot suggest other settings changes for Adobe software. But, in general, sometimes sharpening can produce artifacts that look like noise. If Adobe capture sharpening were to use a deconvolution like Rawtherapee does, then a radius too large or too many iterations will produce such artifacts. If an unsharp mask is used for sharpening, it should only be done after a deconvolution. A radius that is too small for unsharp mask can produce artifacts ( the unsharp mask radius should be as large as the blur that is to be sharpened and always larger than any noise that should not be sharpened ).

If Adobe software pays attention to the camera settings, then I suggest not using the "Fine Detail" style in the camera. "Standard", "Neutral", and "Faithful" seem to me best if one plans to edit the raw later. Portrait or Landscape styles will change the suggested color curve and suggested sharpening put into the raw file by the camera and it might be useful to have them if Adobe software pays attention to them.  When any of the exposure settings are auto, the camera might use the style information to decide what is important to keep and what might be okay to clip.

If the highlights are less important that the darker portions of the image, then underexposing to protect highlights might be a bad idea. Since random photon noise increases more slowly than brightness, the noise will always be more visible in darker portions of the image and if the darker portions are brightened later then the noise will be increased at the same rate as the brightness instead of more slowly and will become more noticeable.

Good Luck.

[Peter]

---

@johnrmoyer wrote:

Canon Digital Photo Professional can reconstruct highlights and can export a 16 bit tiff for further editing in Adobe software. Instructions for saving a 16 bit tiff for further editing are at adobe: https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/editing-canon-dual-pixel-raw-cr2.html . To get back highlights in Canon DPP: https://cam.start.canon/en/S002/manual/html/UG-04_EditImage_0040.html#EditImage_0050_11 and move the white point to the right until none of the color channels are clipped.

---

I tried your method.

Didn't work with DPP in this case. Raw file here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p_p_5Ykzdo65BpASj8YmSMgQ3bCBbtvu/view?usp=sharing

Raw clipping.

Possible to reconstruct.

[johnrmoyer]

Sorry, I forgot to mention unchecking the box for "move midpoint to match".

It appears to me that none of the RGGB values were clipped in the raw data for this image.

If planning to edit in DPP it is easier if one uses style "Standard" in the camera instead of "Neutral", but I expect that "Faithful"might be better for editing in darktable or rawtherapee.

Edits in DPP: 

• [CanonVRD:Image] Raw Brightness Adj : -2
• [CanonVRD:Image] White Balance Adj : Kelvin
• [CanonVRD:Image] WB Adj Color Temp : 8000
• [CanonVRD:Image] WB Adj Magenta Green : 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] WB Adj Blue Amber : 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] WB Adj RGGB Levels : 594 1057 1057 631
• [CanonVRD:Image] Picture Style : Landscape
• [CanonVRD:Image] Contrast Adj : 1
• [CanonVRD:Image] Color Tone Adj : 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] Color Saturation Adj : 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] RGB Curve Points : (0,0) (67,58) (163,163) (255,255)
• [CanonVRD:Image] Tone Curve X : 67
• [CanonVRD:Image] Tone Curve Y : 58
• [CanonVRD:Image] Luminance Noise Reduction : 1
• [CanonVRD:Image] Chrominance Noise Reduction : 1
• [CanonVRD:Image] Color Moire Reduction : 2
• [CanonVRD:Image] Saturation Adj : 110
• [CanonVRD:Image] Red HSL : 0 0 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] Orange HSL : 0 0 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] Yellow HSL : 0 0 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] Green HSL : 0 0 -3
• [CanonVRD:Image] Aqua HSL : 0 -2 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] Blue HSL : 0 0 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] Purple HSL : 0 0 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] Magenta HSL : 0 0 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] Gamma Shadow : 0 
• CanonVRD:Image] Gamma Highlight : 0
• [CanonVRD:Image] Gamma Black Point : +0.000
• [CanonVRD:Image] Gamma White Point : +0.000
• [CanonVRD:Image] Gamma Mid Point : +0.000
• [CanonVRD:Image] Gamma Curve Output Range : 0 16383
  
  

[Peter]

Your exported picture still seems clipped (not possible to get any details from the coulds) and with color shift as a result.

The saturation point for R6 and R5 when not using LENR is according to RawTherapee 16382 (don't forget to add the black level if you are using RawTherapee to measure the RGGB values). Source: http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Editor#Navigator and https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/5901#issuecomment-687651029

My R6 file at ISO 400 with blown out sky, all RGGB values 16382 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CZhGnmzvcbo2Y9InlWwQYdJpvLoN9c8K/view?usp=sharing

Let's continue in PM, and when we have something more of interest we can create a new thread about highlight clipping and reconstruction, with raw samples. I love raw samples ^^

[johnrmoyer]

---

@Peter wrote:

Your exported picture still seems clipped (not possible to get any details from the coulds) and with color shift as a result.

I likely did not get the color temperature right. I do not usually use "Neutral" style as a starting point in DPP. I am not familiar with the color curve used with "Neutral". It is my habit to use "Standard" as a starting point. I expect that the color shifts came from my clumbsy editing. The detail is there in the clouds, but the colors need to be corrected and the contrast at edges needs to be increased.

The saturation point for R6 and R5 when not using LENR is according to RawTherapee 16382 (don't forget to add the black level if you are using RawTherapee to measure the RGGB values). Source: http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Editor#Navigator and https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/5901#issuecomment-687651029

My R6 file at ISO 400 with blown out sky, all RGGB values 16382 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CZhGnmzvcbo2Y9InlWwQYdJpvLoN9c8K/view?usp=sharing

Let's continue in PM, and when we have something more of interest we can create a new thread about highlight clipping and reconstruction, with raw samples. I love raw samples ^^

---

I do not wish to do PM. My email address is on my web server, but a public discussion invites others to comment and makes it more likely that I will learn something new. Maybe start a new thread in Camera Software to compare DPP and rawtherapee and how to get the same results from either program?

I built the "dev" branch of rawtherapee from source which uses the exiv2 library to get the black levels from meta data written by the camera. https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/issues/6783 .

It seems to me that rawtherapee handles color much differently than does Canon DPP. For Canon DPP it seems to me easier to start with a style of "Standard" or "Faithful" instead of "Neutral", because DPP sliders are offsets from the style used to record the image.

https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/picture-style/ describes the colors that will be used as a starting point in DPP.