First Time Using Canon R5 .... Noise problem

Dael_Pix said:
Meant to say too big



Not through window
Handheld
IS is on

I'm beginning to think there's something wrong with the camera body. Just my luck.

View attachment 411464
Photo before denoise. I have altered the colour of the image above, after I denoised it

View attachment 411465
Click to expand...
looks typical to be honest, massive crop at high ISO plus 1/1000s @f5.6
 
GreenNinja67 said:
That's a hell of a crop.

Are you sure you're not expecting too much at ISO5000?
Click to expand...
It does appear that I should be filling the frame as what @LongLensPhotography said previously. But this thrush was behind a fence, and it wasn't standing still for a long period of time.

I thought this camera could handle such large crops, but obviously it doesn't.

I'm just processing some photos I took this afternoon. I'll upload them when I'm done.
 
Dael_Pix said:
It does appear that I should be filling the frame as what @LongLensPhotography said previously. But this thrush was behind a fence, and it wasn't standing still for a long period of time.

I thought this camera could handle such large crops, but obviously it doesn't.

I'm just processing some photos I took this afternoon. I'll upload them when I'm done.
Click to expand...

Full frame only gives you better ISO performance if you use the full sensor i.e. the "full frame"
So for example if you crop 1.5x you get about the same ISO performance as a APS-C sensor, 2x crop will be about same as m43, so on and so forth.

your massive crop is closer to a mobile phone!

this will be the same no matter what camera.
A higher res camera can handle more cropping because it has more pixels. this is basically "digitally zooming".
At higher ISOs there is also more noisey pixels and hence cropping comes at cost of noise i.e. more you crop more noise you see.
So if you are shooting at low ISOs you can crop more and get cleaner results.
 
Last edited:
I'll have to change the way I do things when editing phtoos now.

For wildlife, it sounds like I either have to buy a longer lens, 100-500 or 200-800, or the cheapest option, a teleconverter.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I'll have to change the way I do things when editing phtoos now.
Click to expand...
as suggested above by @Gav. working on getting physically closer to your subject is always going to get your the best results.
Dael_Pix said:
For wildlife, it sounds like I either have to buy a longer lens, 100-500 or 200-800, or the cheapest option, a teleconverter.
Click to expand...

Disclaimer - canon bashing coming up (no intention of offending but it is what it is), please don't read if you like canon too much

Canon RF doesn't have any affordable lenses I would consider usable in UK weather. I barely get by with a 200-600mm at f6.3 at long end and even then its a massive stretch.
The f7.1, f8, f9 and f11 aperture tele-lens might be super in Australia or Africa or shooting polar bears in August in the arctic but it just doesn't cut it even with latest greatest FF sensors in the UK.
IMO, these lenses are clearly made for a different country or population than those that shoot wildlife in the UK (half which are small/tiny birds sat in tree/bushes with overcast sky!).

R5 is an amazing body with not a single affordable tele-lens I could work with natively (with field craft or no field craft)
 
Last edited:
Dael_Pix said:
But this thrush was behind a fence, and it wasn't standing still for a long period of time.
Click to expand...
I think it is important to let go of the idea that you need to shoot every single avian within the range in any circumstances. I would rather make 1 really really good image per week or even a month than 100 OK ones. That includes a combination of criteria like subject, interest, filling the frame, getting good light, etc.

I certainly know it is possible to do some wildlife work with 100-400 allowing for a minor crop, and yes field craft and luck will play a significant part. I personally wouldn't go out of the way to buy a fancier lens at this stage, because essentially the only significant upgrades available are the big fat primes.

nandbytes said:
Canon RF doesn't have any affordable lenses I would consider usable in UK weather. I barely get by with a 200-600mm at f6.3 at long end and even then its a massive stretch.
The f7.1, f8, f9 and f11 aperture tele-lens might be super in Australia or Africa or shooting polar bears in August in the arctic but it just doesn't cut it even with latest greatest FF sensors in the UK.
IMO, these lenses are clearly made for a different country or population than those that shoot wildlife in the UK (half which are small/tiny birds sat in tree/bushes with overcast sky!).
Click to expand...

I truly like to bash RF lenses and locked in ecosystem. And yes I can't see any good brand new options without spending more than my whole car upgrade budget!

The best options for Canon come pre-loved in EF mount. At the higher end there is 500mm f/4L IS II. That's still really expensive. A step down is the mk1, which is unserviceable. other than that we need to ask someone with experience if IQ is comparable on 8K cameras.
A good budget option is 100-400 II which OP has, or 400mm f/5.6L which I have. I don't expect much difference at 400mm, and IBIS essentially makes them equal. One has a zoom, the other is much cheaper and possibly tiny bit sharper.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I focus three thirds into the scene. They were on auto focus.
Click to expand...
Let the camera do the job with animal AF. That's pretty much the whole point of buying the Rs.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
The best options for Canon come pre-loved in EF mount.
A good budget option is 100-400 II which OP has
Click to expand...
+1. I'd focus on fieldcraft and composition for now. If you find you love birding and have the funds then think about a big prime.
 
robinsslee said:
A dark background produces more noise than a brighter background.

The noise in your samples looks pretty much the same as my R5.
Click to expand...
Nice photos on your instagram. Are they with the R5?
 
Brentor said:
Did you get this issue sorted?
Click to expand...
Sort of. I need better light. Haven't used camera much since I got it. I'll be using it more next month.
I use a new way of sharpening photos now since seeing a video.
 
I was told this about iso and noise: All iso does is give you 'more light'. Say for example I want to shoot at 1/125s at f/5.6 but the photo comes out too dark, mmmm soooo to keep my chosen 1/125s at f/5.6 I need a bit more light - How do I do this? . . . simple, just keep on increasing the iso until the image is as bright/exposed as I want. Note that the effect on the photo quality by increasing the iso regarding noise is of course dependent on the camera's sensor. There are lots of video reviews and articles on the internet about each camera and how it handles noise. A bit tedious to watch loads to find the answer but but that is what I mostly do,
 
Fixer said:
I was told this about iso and noise
Click to expand...

Previous to this reply, you haven't replied to my thread, You must be mistaking me with somebody else.

I'll know about the camera next month when I use it more
 
Dael_Pix said:
Previous to this reply, you haven't replied to my thread, You must be mistaking me with somebody else.

I'll know about the camera next month when I use it more
Click to expand...
Nope, I am not mistaking you for someone else, I am simply trying to help out a bit. I hope your testing proves fruitful :)
 
Fixer said:
I was told this about iso and noise: All iso does is give you 'more light'.
Click to expand...
This is technically incorrect. The ISO setting can't create "more light". It's just increasing the sensor's sensitivity to light.

Much like any form of amplification, there are levels of quality and efficiency that vary sensor to sensor but the key is that the quality of the signal you're amplifying is hugely important.

If you bump ISO in a well lit scene, your results are going to be cleaner than if you bump ISO to the same level in near darkness and raise shadows.

The only way to give your sensor more light is to use a wider aperture, a slower shutter speed or manually add additional light to your scene.
 
nandbytes said:
Both not shot with the same exposure. Can't do a like for like comparison unless you have same exposure i.e. aperture and shutter speed.
Click to expand...
It's a tough ask to get the same aperture and shutter speed for a different ISO if the light source is constant.
 
Last edited:
Adam-G said:
This is technically incorrect. The ISO setting can't create "more light". It's just increasing the sensor's sensitivity to light.

Much like any form of amplification, there are levels of quality and efficiency that vary sensor to sensor but the key is that the quality of the signal you're amplifying is hugely important.

If you bump ISO in a well lit scene, your results are going to be cleaner than if you bump ISO to the same level in near darkness and raise shadows.

The only way to give your sensor more light is to use a wider aperture, a slower shutter speed or manually add additional light to your scene.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately adjusting the ISO does not increase the sensors sensitivity to light.
 
soupdragon said:
Unfortunately adjusting the ISO does not increase the sensors sensitivity to light.
Click to expand...
Would you be able to form a better explanation of what it's doing for us then?

I mean technically it's just amplifying what's hitting the sensor but I was looking for an easily understandable catch all to explain the concept. Perhaps I chose poorly.
 
Adam-G said:
Would you be able to form a better explanation of what it's doing for us then?

I mean technically it's just amplifying what's hitting the sensor but I was looking for an easily understandable catch all to explain the concept. Perhaps I chose poorly.
Click to expand...
Yes, sorry, I can see where you were going though.
 
As far as I know ISO changes the gain of the amplifiers behind the photodetectors. Higher ISO = higher gain thus increasing the noise.
 
soupdragon said:
As far as I know ISO changes the gain of the amplifiers behind the photodetectors. Higher ISO = higher gain thus increasing the noise.
Click to expand...
I think the 'gain knob' analogy is the best analogy for sure but it only works with people who've attempted to play guitar badly at some point. Like me.
 
soupdragon said:
It's a tough ask to get the same aperture and shutter speed for a different ISO if the light source is constant.
Click to expand...

OP was trying to test to see if higher ISO gave abnormally higher noise than expected
to do that they'd need to keep exposure constant and increase on the ISO to make sure any noise introduced is due to the ISO and not shot noise (which increases with lower exposure).
That does indeed mean having use an artificial light source that you can control.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you threw me with "constant exposure" given the exposures in his examples are the same.
 
Dael_Pix said:
Only had this camera since yesterday evening and this is the first time trying it out. I've come from the 5D MKIV which is 30MP.


Processed and cropped.



Tripod and 2 sec timer.

These are RAW and not processed.

View attachment 411195


LR and no noise reduction, except for the right photo of the blue tit.
Click to expand...
What you are seeing looks perfectly normal to me.
Have you tried the Canon DPP software? It has a very good noise reduction feature.
 
Fixer said:
Nope, I am not mistaking you for someone else, I am simply trying to help out a bit. I hope your testing proves fruitful :)
Click to expand...
Oops. I read the beginning incorrectly:headbang:, I apologise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top