R5 misery

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

A possible solution to the 'confusion' problem is to save settings that you're trialling to a Custom Shooting Mode (C1—C3). The option can be found as follows:
  • Press Menu button (left of eyepiece) —>
  • Scroll to yellow Set Up 5 sub-menu —>
  • Choose Custom Shooting Mode —>
  • Choose Register Settings.
My suggestion is to choose C2. Here's how I do it:
  • C1 : landscape & macro
  • C2 : trial (and error!)
  • C3 : wildlife
Hi David, thanks for your help. I did have C2 set to macro but might have lost it with reset, wil check.
The macro stuff comes out fine,not using the adapter for that.
Hi Dave, I believe I understand you and have changed my bbutton s to suit but not allocated star with shutter button to only metering.
Those worms are everywhere
So sorry ment Bill .

Hi Winston, thanks for your support.

With revised settings in nice light this morning wagtail and Reed Bunting have come out nice on back of camera.

My feeling is that the problem seems to be with low light,high iso etc but I would have hoped the R5 would out perform my D500 in these circumstances and not produce such smudgy shots.
Cheerz Rob
 
I did have C2 set to macro but might have lost it with reset.
Whoops!

Rob, to prevent this from happening again, save camera settings to a card and copy the file to a dedicated folder on your computer:
  • Press Menu button (to left of eyepiece) —>
  • Navigate to yellow Set Up 5 sub-menu —>
  • Choose Save/load cam settings on card —>
  • Choose Save to card —>
  • Choose Change file name —>
  • Important! Replace 8-character filename CAMSET01 (or whatever) with today's date in format YYYYmmDD (for example, 20230205) —>
  • Copy the file with extension CSD (e.g. 20230205.CSD) from camera's card to your computer.
… David
 
Last edited:
Back to Robin's question, trying to think of other factors that might explain the issue? How far away was the subject for those shots you posted. Were those images cropped and by how much? Did you use a TC?
 
Back to Robin's question, trying to think of other factors that might explain the issue? How far away was the subject for those shots you posted. Were those images cropped and by how much? Did you use a TC?
Hi Bill, yes those images were cropped reasonable but with 45 mp to play with I would have hoped that would be OK. the Warbler was probably no more than 10 metres away, no TC was used .

I have been sorting through 100s of similar images taken some time ago of Moorhen ,Ducks and Grebes with my 500f4 with 1.4 tc. All exhibiting the same problem.

The common factor seems to be low light, shutter speed and iso were variable in many cases. These pics had been taken in camera crop mode + tc (f5.6) hence I decided to use full frame and crop from there.

I ‘m hoping to try again at the same location and see how I get on .
Last time small Goldcrests and Titmice came out fine in the slightly better light, only pointing the camera down in darker light by a stream did thing deteriorate.
Only the iso would’ve changed (auto) as I thought speed sufficient.

I can only suspect something is interfering with noise to make things mushy.

Thank you for helping Rob.
 
Whoops!

Rob, to prevent this from happening again, save camera settings to a card and copy the file to a dedicated folder on your computer:
  • Press Menu button (to left of eyepiece) —>
  • Navigate to yellow Set Up 5 sub-menu —>
  • Choose Save/load cam settings on card —>
  • Choose Save to card —>
  • Choose Change file name —>
  • Important! Replace 8-character filename CAMSET01 (or whatever) with today's date in format YYYYmmDD (for example, 20230205) —>
  • Copy the file with extension CSD (e.g. 20230205.CSD) from camera's card to your computer.
… David
Hi Dave,
That’s magic our Morris!
 
Hi Bill, yes those images were cropped reasonable but with 45 mp to play with I would have hoped that would be OK. the Warbler was probably no more than 10 metres away, no TC was used .

I have been sorting through 100s of similar images taken some time ago of Moorhen ,Ducks and Grebes with my 500f4 with 1.4 tc. All exhibiting the same problem.

The common factor seems to be low light, shutter speed and iso were variable in many cases. These pics had been taken in camera crop mode + tc (f5.6) hence I decided to use full frame and crop from there.

I ‘m hoping to try again at the same location and see how I get on .
Last time small Goldcrests and Titmice came out fine in the slightly better light, only pointing the camera down in darker light by a stream did thing deteriorate.
Only the iso would’ve changed (auto) as I thought speed sufficient.

I can only suspect something is interfering with noise to make things mushy.

Thank you for helping Rob.

Cropping does automatically magnify any noise, not that it fully explains the problem but it could be part of the answer. They put it into a little formula. The amount of crop can be expressed as a crop factor whether cropping in camera or in post. For example a crop factor of 1.6 then it's the crop factor squared times the original ISO. So shooting at 1600 It would be 1.6 squared times 1600, or equivalent to shooting at ISO 4096.
 
Not sure if you've tried it yet but as others have suggested, using a tripod is going to be the only way to reliably determine whether or not the backfocusing is user error or something with the equipment. I would start there before spending hours resetting and testing the camera. Set it up on a tripod and use the built in timer to shoot a static subject without tracking. Also, in comparison to your d500, while the pixel density is roughly the same it's still twice the number of pixels, which will magnify any imperfections from things like camera shake.
 
Hi Bill, yes those images were cropped reasonable but with 45 mp to play with I would have hoped that would be OK. the Warbler was probably no more than 10 metres away, no TC was used .

I have been sorting through 100s of similar images taken some time ago of Moorhen ,Ducks and Grebes with my 500f4 with 1.4 tc. All exhibiting the same problem.

The common factor seems to be low light, shutter speed and iso were variable in many cases. These pics had been taken in camera crop mode + tc (f5.6) hence I decided to use full frame and crop from there.

I ‘m hoping to try again at the same location and see how I get on .
Last time small Goldcrests and Titmice came out fine in the slightly better light, only pointing the camera down in darker light by a stream did thing deteriorate.
Only the iso would’ve changed (auto) as I thought speed sufficient.

I can only suspect something is interfering with noise to make things mushy.

Thank you for helping Rob.
Rob,
When you shoot in crop mode it uses maybe 17 MP of the sensor. Then if you shoot in jpg, it reduces it much further. Then if you crop into the jpg, you are reducing it again. And using a teleconvertor enters into the equation. If you could try David's suggestion of shooting in A+ , not in crop mode, no teleconvertor in back yard of something bird size, max size jpg and see what you get, it would tell a lot.
Good Luck,
Dave
 
Rob,
When you shoot in crop mode it uses maybe 17 MP of the sensor. Then if you shoot in jpg, it reduces it much further. Then if you crop into the jpg, you are reducing it again. And using a teleconvertor enters into the equation. If you could try David's suggestion of shooting in A+ , not in crop mode, no teleconvertor in back yard of something bird size, max size jpg and see what you get, it would tell a lot.
Good Luck,
Dave

Though in fairness shooting jpeg L full frame is the same pixel dimensions as shooting raw, 8192 x 5464. I agree that jpeg M or S would eat some IQ. Though there is a lot more latitude in post processing the raw file I don't look to the jpeg L as the issue in this case. I agree though that test shots of a static target under ideal circumstances can give assurance that the camera and lens are working as expected.
 
If you could try David's suggestion of shooting in A+, not in crop mode, no teleconvertor in backyard.
Like this:

Canon R5 set to A+ mode
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

  • camera : Canon EOS R5
  • lens : RF 50mm f/1.8 (basic lens; 'nifty fifty')
  • mode : A+ (auto-everything)
  • exposure : fully automatic
  • focus : fully automatic
  • file type : RAW
  • photographer's input : point-and-shoot; nothing more

I walked onto the deck, pointed my R5 (set to A+) at the garden and pressed the shutter. Zero composition, artistry or anything else.

The camera chose to focus on the large plant, bottom left: zooming in shows the leaves to be in focus.

No changes have been made in the lower photo; however, later when I clicked the 'Basic' button in Lightroom Classic's Develop module, the leaf detail in the dark shadows became visible and the shine on the sunlit leaves was reduced (hint: shoot raw!).

2023-02-06-075757.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Like this:

View attachment 54364
  • camera : Canon EOS R5
  • lens : RF 50mm f/1.8 (basic lens; 'nifty fifty')
  • mode : A+ (auto-everything)
  • exposure : fully automatic
  • focus : fully automatic
  • file type : RAW
  • photographer's input : point-and-shoot; nothing more

I walked onto the deck, pointed my R5 (set to A+) at the garden and pressed the shutter. Zero composition, artistry or anything else.

The camera chose to focus on the large plant, bottom left: zooming in shows the leaves to be in focus.

No changes have been made in the lower photo; however, later when I clicked the 'Basic' button in Lightroom Classic's Develop module, the leaf detail in the dark shadows became visible and the shine on the sunlit leaves was reduced (hint: shoot raw!).

View attachment 54365
Like this:

View attachment 54364
  • camera : Canon EOS R5
  • lens : RF 50mm f/1.8 (basic lens; 'nifty fifty')
  • mode : A+ (auto-everything)
  • exposure : fully automatic
  • focus : fully automatic
  • file type : RAW
  • photographer's input : point-and-shoot; nothing more

I walked onto the deck, pointed my R5 (set to A+) at the garden and pressed the shutter. Zero composition, artistry or anything else.

The camera chose to focus on the large plant, bottom left: zooming in shows the leaves to be in focus.

No changes have been made in the lower photo; however, later when I clicked the 'Basic' button in Lightroom Classic's Develop module, the leaf detail in the dark shadows became visible and the shine on the sunlit leaves was reduced (hint: shoot raw!).

View attachment 54365
Though in fairness shooting jpeg L full frame is the same pixel dimensions as shooting raw, 8192 x 5464. I agree that jpeg M or S would eat some IQ. Though there is a lot more latitude in post processing the raw file I don't look to the jpeg L as the issue in this case. I agree though that test shots of a static target under ideal circumstances can give assurance that the camera and lens are working as expected.
Hi Bill, Dave,

With normal / average lighting conditions static and eye detection shots everything seems fine and sharp and Dandy. I’m happy.
At this moment in time my Lightroom 5 does not recognise R5 Raw files hence HQ JPEG.
Hopefully today I have changed a setting or two and will try again for the Warbler, but if you find a R5 floating down a stream you’ll know the outcome!
I know a guy who has an R5 locally and try to compare settings if I can .

Cheerz Rob
 
Hi Bill, Dave,

With normal / average lighting conditions static and eye detection shots everything seems fine and sharp and Dandy. I’m happy.
At this moment in time my Lightroom 5 does not recognise R5 Raw files hence HQ JPEG.
Hopefully today I have changed a setting or two and will try again for the Warbler, but if you find a R5 floating down a stream you’ll know the outcome!
I know a guy who has an R5 locally and try to compare settings if I can .

Cheerz Rob

With older Lightroom you could shoot raw and use the Adobe DNG Converter, which is free, or use the Free Canon DPP4 and save the file as a tiff. The Adobe makes a dng file from any camera that older Lightroom can use.

On the other hand you've got $10K+ in camera gear maybe it's time to consider modern Lightroom for $10 per month. It is a lot better now, too.
 
Last edited:
Hi Bill,
I didn’t realise adobe did a converter for R5 files, I use one for my Nikon files as my Lightroom doesn’t recognise those either.
I’ Not an advocate for monthly rental and not very techy . However I will be purchasing a new computer soon and will download Lightroom when I get set up.
I have tried DPP4 but struggle with it for many reasons.

I have been out to try the R5 again with revised settings and trying hard to be more careful overall.
Good chatting with you, Rob.
 
How should use Topaz Denoise AI. These three images where taken at 12,800 ISO and processed thru photoshop CS6 and Denoise. Denoise was set at 30 and Sharpening was set at 100.
987.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
988.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
990.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
You've got $10K+ in camera gear, maybe it's time to consider modern Lightroom for $10 per month. It is a lot better now, too.
100% in agreement.

Adobe's Photography Plan for AU$171/year (about US$118) gets me:
  • Bridge — Br
  • Camera Raw
  • Lightroom ClassicLrC
  • PhotoshopPs
  • Lightroom — Lr
  • & several other apps
Extraordinarily good value! (Especially when the cost of a computer system is added to that of one's photo equipment.)

Note:
  • Lightroom (Lr) and Lightroom Classic (LrC) are separate applications: avoid confusion by choosing one or the other.
  • The app preferred by most 'serious photographers' is Lightroom Classic (LrC).

  • In Lightroom (Lr) my photos are stored on Adobe's servers and can be edited by me on any phone, tablet or computer anywhere.
  • In Lightroom Classic (LrC) my photos are stored and edited on my computer.
 
Last edited:
Hi David,
Yeh as I say when I get my replacement for my 2012 iMac I will bite the bullet.
My friends have convinced me also that it’s the way to go
To be fair there are probably many facets that I would not use or know how to.

The changes that I made to the R5 seem to be a positive move but will see when they are downloaded.

Thanks,Cheerz Rob.
 
When I get my replacement for my 2012 iMac I will bite the bullet.
Robin, I can assure you that there is an enormous difference between organising and editing photos on the computer that I am using now (2023 MacBook Pro with embarrassingly high spec.) and doing so on my older computer (2013 MacBook Pro).

Topaz apps were frustratingly slow, indeed almost unusable, on the older computer. No longer so!
… David
 
Last edited:
Hi David,

I have decided to buy the best I can afford, with the view of it Being my last . Yes I’ve lost year’s to Topaz .
I know this is off topic but when initially opening and setting up my studio are there any pitfalls you know of that I should avoid? I’m very untechy.
Thinking about things that might conflict with my old iMac (which I will still use for other tasks) such as Apple ID Magic Mouse/keyboard etc.

Cheerz and thanks Rob.
 
Back
Top