Birds R5 vs R7

[PKM-UK]

Comparison showing images from a recent-ish visit to Twycross Zoo, Leicestershire, England (the heron was also a visitor - taking advantage of the 'free fish' ).

R7 with EF 100-400 L II (left) vs R5 with RF 100-500 L (right) - both shot raw and processed with: Lightroom Classic, DxO PhotoLab and Topaz DeNoise AI (final twin image produced using Photoshop).

Phil and Karen

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 500.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 1250

 

[koenkooi]

Is the white balance set the same in both pictures? I know Adobe doesn't have a proper colour profile for the M6II/R7 sensor, but besides looking less vibrant, the R7 pictures also looks a lot colder.

I've been using the profiles from colorfidelity.com to get all my Canon cameras close to DPP4 colours in Lightroom, skin tones on the M6II/R7 improve dramatically.

 

[MrSparks999]

For me the one on the right is a way better shot. Maybe down to the processing.

 

[PKM-UK]

Is the white balance set the same in both pictures? I know Adobe doesn't have a proper colour profile for the M6II/R7 sensor, but besides looking less vibrant, the R7 pictures also looks a lot colder.

I've been using the profiles from colorfidelity.com to get all my Canon cameras close to DPP4 colours in Lightroom, skin tones on the M6II/R7 improve dramatically.

Hi koenkool,

Karen had just got her R7 and this was her first outing with it (random camera settings may have applied) - and it was my first attempt at post-processing the R7 raw files (random button pressing may have applied), so we were both still getting to grips with our respective side of things. As far as I can recall, the colour renderings for both were applied in DxO PhotoLab Elite (though I may have been playing around with the many options, seeing which produced the best outcome).

Looking at the untouched raw files again (in Lr C), they look pretty similar, though I'd agree the R7 maybe has a touch less warmth/ pop colour saturation-wise - not sure why, they were taken within moments of each other, though with subtly different settings. Now I've grown a little more accustomed to processing the R7 files (my DxO custom Preset is kind-of getting there), I may have another go at these when time permits and compare the outcomes to my original edits.

The major thing we took from this was either set-up would do a good job (having said that, the R7 paired with the RF 100-500 produces a magical closeness to things).

In terms of colour/ colour profiles, I've never tried the colorfidelity ones, though I know they have a very good reputation and were the 'go to' solution for many pre-Adobe Camera Matching Profiles. When this condition existed I used custom profiles which I created for each of our cameras (and sometimes specific shoots) with the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport Photo 2 system. I now use a mixture of DxO and Adobe, depending on the subject(s) and intended creative direction.

You'll notice I do have a general tendency/ preference to warm things ever so slightly and produce slightly colour popped/ contrasty images.

Phil

 

[PKM-UK]

For me the one on the right is a way better shot. Maybe down to the processing.

Hi Mark,

That's very kind of you (and I'd have to agree, as that one's mine... ), but I think you're right in that this could well be down to my lack of prowess post-processing the R7 files when these were produced (see my reply to koenkool).

(In reality, Karen is a much better photographer than I will ever be - she has a far steadier hand and 'the eye' for angles and textures. Having said that, she doesn't do the tech stuff).

Phil

 

[RedCobra]

Bokeh is better on the right, and to better compare zoom to 100% and then compare.

 

[MarshallG]

When we consider cost.... wow, the R7 with the 100-400 absolutely kills the R5, doesn't it?
But for me, the big test is what happens when you need to crop? For instance, if you buy that delicious 100-500 lens and you can't fill the frame... the R7 I think would be decisively better. That's not the case for all photographers, but in birding, it is quite common, as I understand.

 

[PKM-UK]

Hi Marshall,

The R7 is a fantastic bit of kit - the 100-400 works very nicely with it and if you pair it with the 100-500 it gets even better. The final touch is to wrestle it out of my hands and place it in Karen's. Then, I am lost and firmly in second place...

(Which is why I tend to hold onto the 100-500 for use with my R5! ).

Both the R5 and R7 raw files stand up very well to intense cropping (but the R7 has a head start), the R5 tends to ease slightly ahead once the light becomes challenging in terms of the raw files holding together and retaining the detail.

Having said all that, we don't do birds in flight, which is when extreme crossing is often needed.

Phil

Note: Below images shot raw and processed using DxO PhotoLab Elite and Lightroom Classic.

• Canon EOS R7
• EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 6400

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 500.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 4000

 

[pcassel]

IMO, an enjoyable manner to play the 'this or that' game would be to make both raw images (scrubbed of identifying data) accessible to a group and let the processing begin. I too prefer the image on the right but like others including the OP think the difference may come down to post processing technique.

 

[PKM-UK]

Hi Paul,

I can make the raw files available via a shared Dropbox link if people would find this an interesting exercise, but could you advise me how I could scrub the exif data? (Not something I’ve done). I may even try a re-edit myself.

Phil