R5 vs R5 MK II - High ISO Comparison (RAW Samples)

If you get bored you can follow my work here.

In this video, I compare the Canon R5 Mark I and the R5 Mark II to see how they perform under different conditions, using electronic and first curtain shutters. I also test at various ISO levels to push these cameras to their limits. Check out the results and let me know your thoughts in the comments!

Timestamps:

00:00 - Intro: Canon R5 Mark I vs. R5 Mark II
01:11 - Test Setup: ISO, Lenses, and Settings
02:28 - Comparing Electronic vs. First Curtain Shutter
04:03 - Underexposure Test at 1,000 ISO
05:24 - High ISO Test at 10,000 ISO

Hashtags:
#CanonR5 #Photography #CameraComparison #TechReview #CanonCameras

[epsonc]

If I don't see the different at first glance, it's good to me.

[DaleSteadman]

Feels like we are splitting atoms, you are right no one will ever know the difference.

[nagual]

1. R5 skin tones looks yellowish. Rii looks more purple/pink
2. The technical dynamic range difference is only on ISO 100-800. ISO 800 and beyond the charts show the R5 and R5ii are identical

I appreciate the review and the upload

[kernzilla]

the noise might be bit more consolidated, but certainly not a wildly large difference. interesting. thanks a bunch for doing these tests, i know they're a PIA but super-helpful to the community sir, appreciate it!

[martinekwall]

Thanks for the video. Both are great cameras. Customers won’t see the difference. The workflow is different a bit, R52 being the faster and better in video and will match better the c80 and c400.
I wish Canon one day would make 16-bit cameras be it just for photo.

[jacob_s]

Good video. Always appreciate an empirical test.

Something is up with the audio. I think it might be due to the mic, but it sounds like the bass is almost boosted. I have slight hearing issues and was having a hard time making out some words. Great video still.

[zalodesign-hksp]

The only difference(s) I'd say would be the readout speed on the R5 ii - even though they look 95% same on the photo results.
The processor might be slightly better, autofocus and more frames per second. As per ISO, the R5 classic is still perfect.

[scotta]

The original R5 has a distinctive, organic, almost film-like quality to its RAW files that I really appreciate. The R5 Mark II's color science seems to align more with the R6 II, offering a slightly more clinical look. There's just something about the original R5 that still wins me over, so I won't be upgrading!

[EricDraht]

I got the r5 right away because I've never regretted a canon upgrade, but like what the heck. The noise is about the same, the dynamic range is a little worse, and I have to use a new special battery to get 60fps, wheras my old r5 could do it on any batter.
The focus is better I guess, but it's hard to see what canon's been working on for four years.

[armandsaav]

They look near identical to me. For me the pre shooting and more consistent electronic shutter is great on the mark 2

[FDunst-xjrn]

thx for your work. I did the same test until ISO 12800 and minus 5 stops with color test charts. I could not see a real diffrent. Expect If I compare the electronic shooter on the R5I (because the 12 bit disadvantage. but I still have a large test chart with banknotes where you can really see the difference (micro contrast and resolution). But I have to do that first.

[kernzilla]

be interesting to see noise redux comparison between the new in-camera denoise vs LR AI denoise, if you're looking for ideas of upcoming videos lol. thanks dude!

[francescoballestrazzi]

Tutto bello e c'è stato un bel progresso riguardo rolling shutter e autofocus ma deluso perchè non ho visto un significativo(non l'ho visto) miglioramento riguardo alla tenuta agli alti ISO. Terrò la eos R5 o la sostituisco per lo stesso corpo se la trovo da vendere bene visto che ha 4 anni.

[kstotlani]

Do you use Adobe profile in Lightroom or Camera profile provided in Lightroom?

[Shenxiaoyong]

no difference for noise level. the difference you can see for the ISO 10000 ones just because R5 focal plane more close to the ear while R5II more close to mouth.

[delaquadra]

Can you upload 2 raw photos to compare at home ?

[robertbohnaker]

Hi PG. the colors are nicer to my eye. Resolution a hair better on the 5 mk II. If you can afford the upgrade sure. Isn’t that what it comes down to with soo little difference between them…? thanks 😊

[christophercarlimages]

Not worth the $4300 price plus another $600-800 for grip and battery to uncripple the video and other features. Aren't upgrades supposed to be at least "noticeable"?