sid_19911991
Well-known member
As per his review, R3's image at ISO 12800 looks way better than A1's & R5's image at ISO 6400. A1 image seems to be better than R5 though.
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).
I haven't watched it and don't really care as the R3 isn't a camera I would buy but you have to consider the MP difference of those two cameras.As per his review, R3's image at ISO 12800 looks way better than A1's & R5's image at ISO 6400. A1 image seems to be better than R5 though.
It's interesting, but at the point he did the comparison at 100% it becomes problematic as an objective comparison. Better would be to view at the same output resolution. Let's see how the r5 downsized to 24 megapixels compares to the r3 at 24 megapixels.
So
I personally like the comparison this way. With the R5 & A1, one gets better details but more noise. While the R3 is supposedly way cleaner.
That represents the typical real world use.
From my view the real world involves some output to a print or to the web rather than the 100% views side by side each one a different size. Either way there is resizing involved to get the same size output. I'd like to view equal size images to compare them. I'll bet the r5 wins then, but we'll see.
I'll test this once I get the R3.
I would have liked to see the histograms for the respective images. I hypothesize the best way to compare high iso performance is by making the histograms look as similar as possible.
Yeah, but one would have to assume that the reviewer has exposed them the same way as it is a basic thing to do.
Does it matter if the R5 & A1 win over R3 if they are downsized?
Let's say person X shoots with R3 & 100-500 & person Y with R5 & 100-500 side by side.
Requirements - Subject is a kingfisher in flight. 50 feet away. 30% crop needed.
Assumptions - Semi dull light. So ISO needs to be 4000 for a shutter speed of 1/2500.
In such a scenario R3 easily wins over A1 & R5 don't you think in terms of colour noise performance, which is extremely difficult to correct.
Any one would prefer the R3 right in such a scenario which is quite common, IMO?
Or am I missing something?
I guess we'll see how they compare. I think you can't compare or judge until you have two images of similar pixel dimensions side by side. When he looked at both at 100% you could see how much bigger the r5 image was on the screen. When you downsize the 45 mp r5 image to be equal to the 24 mp one it will improve because the downsizing software has more pixels to work with. For every pixel the r3 has on the subject the r5 almost has 2 pixels for the same area. So for example print both at 20x30 inches or make jpegs both 4000x6000 pixels and compare them apples to apples.
For noise comparison, both images should be viewed at the same size. The more you zoom into an image, the more noise becomes evident.
I am not familiar with this.
Are you saying when you take the pic at 45/50 mp on R5 & A1 & then downsize it, the chroma noise becomes significantly less? Will the ISO performance improve? Dynamic range improve?
Ok. Are you suggesting that one should always downsize high res/megapixel files to get better noise/iso/dynamic range results?
I think a lot in photography has to do with the size of the image, the pixel dimensions, and the viewing distance. To make a fair visual comparison have both be the same size, the same pixel dimensions, and the same viewing distance. By looking at different pixel dijensions at 100% on the screen the one image was bigger and so you could see more of its defects.
But how does that help as we are purposely comparing 2 different cameras.
At the end of the day I want to know which is nosier or better in the field, a 50 mp R5 or a 24 MP R3.
It doesn't matter what the specifications are.
It helps to compare the same size output from the two different cameras to get a fair comparison. In the real world you want to show someone a photo of a certain size to be viewed at a certain distance. Either here or on Instagram or in a print or a jpeg output of a certain size. Turn both camera images into the same size output and then compare them. The r3 could still be better but you'd have to compare apples to apples which the video didn't.
Diffraction is a good example that illustrates the point. If you look at a diffraction calculator, when viewed at 100% the 45mp camera hits it's diffraction limit after f8 but the 24mp camera doesn't hit it until after f11, so you would conclude the 24mp is better. But when you consider equal 8x10 prints both the 45mp camera and the 24mp camera shows diffraction after f 22. So by comparing only the 100% views side by side you might come to the wrong conclusion that you should buy the 24mp camera because it was better for diffraction.
Same for noise and dynamic range and depth of field and everything else, the best bet is to compare equal size output.
But it doesn't matter right. I am deliberately comparing two different sets of equipment to see which is better.