R7 and R5 raw files - Fancy a go?...

[PKM-UK]

Yesterday, on another area of the site, I posted a comparison of images produced from raw files shot with our R7 and R5. These were of the same subject (a heron) and were taken at more or less the same time. This led to some discussion about the evident variations in colour. I explained this could have been down to my inexperience (or ineptitude) with R7 files as this was out first shoot/ processing experience with this camera. There was some interest in forum members having a crack at processing the files. (Link to original post - Here).

Anyway, enough rambling, here are Dropbox links to the raw files. I'll keep them in the folder for the next 2 weeks. I hope the links work (if not, let me know!). R7 raw. R5 raw.

Please feel free to download and process them. If you can post the resulting images here, including a brief explanation of the software used (and any notes) that would be great.

This is not a competition. Everyone has their own workflow and if they are happy with the results, then it's the right one for them. I am an enthusiastic hobbyist, nothing more, and I look forward to seeing any results. Have fun!

Phil

 

[PKM-UK]

Here's my re-edits/ comparison (not sure, but I may have got even worse... ).

Workflow: Lr C -> raw via plug-in -> DxO PL (initial processing, inc. colour rendering and NR) -> export as DNG -> Lr C (minor tweaks/ crop) -> PS (remove annoying twig and compile side-by-side image) -> TIFF -> Lr C (export as jpg).

Notes: In DxO PL R7/ R5 generic colour renderings used and DeepPRIME XD NR applied, a control point was used to address head feather highlights. In Lr C a brush was used to add a little pop to the eye, I also added a minor vignette.

Phil


R7 with EF 100-400L (left) vs R5 with RF100-500L (right)

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

 

[RDM5546]

What is your conclusion? They look very similar to me. One was R5/500mm (RF100-500) and the other R7 EF100-400 Mk II. Both are nice shots!

 

[PKM-UK]

Hi Roger,

Cheers! Our main conclusion here was that both set-ups will do a very nice job for us - and they do! We mainly use these combinations for wildlife in our local woods/ on hikes and around zoos - though they are also surprisingly versatile.

Karen has the R7/ EF 100-400L (+ 1.4x Extender III) as she prefers crop sensors - and is a complete zoom freak (she loves getting close up to the details). She has a much steadier hand than me and 'the eye' for angles, textures and stuff.

I have the R5/ 100-500L and prefer full-frame - low-light goodness (I like creeping around in the shadows). I do all the tech stuff - setting up the gear and post-processing. My technique mainly replies on watching and copying Karen...

(Put us together and we usually come out of a shoot with something decent ).

I've use both set-ups (including the R7 with RF 100-500L - purely for test purposes of course) and they're very similar AF-wise - the R5 being maybe a tad quicker to find focus and track in low light, the R7 being a tad more sprightly in searching and it gets magically closer to the action of course. It would be fair to say that, while we're pretty happy with the set-up (Karen's only had her R7 for a few months), we're always trying to finesse things for any given shooting scenario.

In terms of the raw files (we always shoot raw) both are wonderful work with, offering staggering cropping and a satisfying degree of tweak-ability which, combined with a good software selection gives us plenty of creative opportunities.

In conclusion, so far so good - and two happy campers!

Phil

 

[katyC]

Hi Roger,

Cheers! Our main conclusion here was that both set-ups will do a very nice job for us - and they do! We mainly use these combinations for wildlife in our local woods/ on hikes and around zoos - though they are also surprisingly versatile.

Karen has the R7/ EF 100-400L (+ 1.4x Extender III) as she prefers crop sensors - and is a complete zoom freak (she loves getting close up to the details). She has a much steadier hand than me and 'the eye' for angles, textures and stuff.

I have the R5/ 100-500L and prefer full-frame - low-light goodness (I like creeping around in the shadows). I do all the tech stuff - setting up the gear and post-processing. My technique mainly replies on watching and copying Karen...

(Put us together and we usually come out of a shoot with something decent ).

I've use both set-ups (including the R7 with RF 100-500L - purely for test purposes of course) and they're very similar AF-wise - the R5 being maybe a tad quicker to find focus and track in low light, the R7 being a tad more sprightly in searching and it gets magically closer to the action of course. It would be fair to say that, while we're pretty happy with the set-up (Karen's only had her R7 for a few months), we're always trying to finesse things for any given shooting scenario.

In terms of the raw files (we always shoot raw) both are wonderful work with, offering staggering cropping and a satisfying degree of tweak-ability which, combined with a good software selection gives us plenty of creative opportunities.

In conclusion, so far so good - and two happy campers!

Phil

I prefer the R5 image, but that maybe down to the lens used not the camera. The 100-500mm is a far superior lens IMO. katy

 

[PKM-UK]

Hi Rachel,

I prefer the R5 image too (it's mine... ) and I really do like the 100-500L - it's an absolute joy to use, whichever camera body we match it to.

Phil

 

[John Photo]

Both very good. Side by side on my laptop, the R7 )left) appears quite a bit brighter. While the white top head feathers on the R& appear to me to be a little more blown out than on the R% image, it also looks like in other areas that the R7 shows a bit more detail. Just my take.

 

[PKM-UK]

Hi John,

Cheers!

Appreciate you taking the time to provide some feedback, I’ve had another (very quick) look at my latest R5 edit and was able to eke out a little more detail in the bright head area.

Phil

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

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Phil -

I shoot with both cameras and in good light I am happy to take the extended reach of the R7 while going with the R5 as a first grab in other conditions. The R7 has the better focusing system for me, but the R5 holds focus better in bursts. With noisy backgrounds the R5 is easier to tame in post.

With these shots I could get almost identical results. My basic workflow is DxO Pure Raw 3 -> Lightroom (crop, basic light adjustments, apply camera color profiles) -> Photoshop: 1. Levels adjustment, 2. Topaz DeNoise AI, 3. Camera Raw Filter, 4. Masked layer adjustments if necessary, 5. Resize and export.

After matching initial exposure and WB I got very similar results after applying matching post-processing steps to each. Would be happy with either.

• Canon EOS R5
• 500.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 1250

• Canon EOS R7
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 800

 

[PKM-UK]

Hi Jake,

These are excellent edits - very well matched too!

Thank you for taking the time to process them and explain your workflow - much appreciated (and duly noted!). Trust you had some fun...

We're also very happy with both our respective cameras - similar conclusions to you really - but I wouldn't have minded a few of the R7's AF features finding their way into the latest R5 f/w update (but they didn't).

Phil