Camera & Drone Gear Blog
Info, Reviews, Comparisons, & News
Canon EOS R5 vs 5D Mark IV: Canon has Upped their Game (And these Underexposed Photos)
When I switched from the 6D to the 5D Mark IV, I did notice a slight improvement in dynamic range and shadow handling. But this is a major advancement for Canon who had been previously been dabbling with small, incremental improvements here and there. Going from the EOS 5D Mark IV to the EOS R5 is not a small, incremental improvement… it’s like a whole new generation of technology.
I had been using a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV since 2017 and a Canon EOS 6D for a few years before that. I am very familiar with Canon’s limitations in terms of how far you can lift the shadows in scenes with a wide dynamic range and how much you can crank up the exposure if an image is underexposed. From night scenes to architectural interiors, it became second nature to understand how many exposures I would need to take at various shutter speeds in order to capture both highlights and shadows. The 5D Mark IV was a slight improvement over the 6D, but I had also become aware of how Sony’s sensors were better at handling shadows and high dynamic range scenes. Some Canon shooters were even starting to make the switch or contemplating the move. I had numerous Canon lenses, but I was seriously considering switching to Sony. It seemed like a pain to sell all my lenses and switch brands, but wouldn’t the sensor improvements be worth it?
Then Canon announced the R5.
Me: “OK, fine…I’ll at least try the R5 before I mess around with switching camera brands.”
So, has Canon improved their camera bodies’ ability to lift shadows and increase exposure with underexposed images? Is there going to be a noticeable difference compared to the 5D Mark IV?
Let’s take a look!
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!
I decided to subject the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV and the Canon EOS R5 to a painful test… taking a photo at night and then cranking the exposure to +5 in Adobe Lightroom.
For the below comparison, I placed each camera on a tripod and used the exact same Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L III lens (using the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R with the R5) and took a picture of a lakeside deck at night. Both of these photos were taken after astronomical twilight and before moonrise, so the night was as dark as it was going to get.
Each photo was 8 seconds at 24mm, with an aperture of 7.1 and ISO set to 400.
And now it's time for the painful part. Let’s see what happens when we push these RAW images to Exposure +5 in Adobe Lightroom and reduce the Highlights to -100.
Wow! I was amazed when I saw the results. You can see the sky on the 5D Mark IV image has a greenish tint with purple bands going through it and lots of color noise, whereas the R5 somehow managed to pull what appears to be the correct colors in the sky with less color noise and no noticeable banding. Cranking the exposure to +5 on a night scene was clearly too great of a feat to pull off for the 5D Mark IV, but the R5 was able to handle it. We will take a look at some crops from this image a bit later, but first…
Random but Semi-Relevant Sidetrack
It’s pretty rare to have a legitimate reason to crank the exposure to +5, but the banding issue on the 5D Mark IV happened to me once when I was only at Exposure +2 while editing a real estate image in an unusual situation in 2018.
This is what it felt like to be in a dark basement with no electricity trying to produce a real estate image with my 5D Mark IV.
Is this a scene from Lord of the Rings in the mines of Moria? No…I was by myself shooting a foreclosed house with no electricity in the middle of nowhere, and I was in the pitch black basement with only a tiny window reminding me that daylight would once again shine on my face. Because I was in a hurry to get out of there before I woke the balrog, I did a run-’n-gun 12-image exposure bracket at ISO 400 that included a 30 second image. I also fired a separate speedlight shot at the window to control the hot spot. At a quick glance I thought the 30 second image would be enough to give me all the information I would need from the dark areas, but as you can see in the images below, I ended up with a horizontal green band that went across the center of the image and affected the shadows (shown just above the white line).
Canon 5D Mark IV, 30 seconds, ISO 400, f/7.1:
Here is a closer look at the green band from the 30 second exposure in two crops of the brightened RAW file (in the first crop image, the band only appears in the darkest areas on the left):
This situation was obviously extreme and unusual, and I basically made a mistake because I was in a hurry to get out of there. If I was being my normal meticulous self, I could have opened the aperture to f/4 or flipped the camera to bulb mode and done a 2-minute shot to make sure I had quality shadows. But this is one mistake I made that the R5 could probably handle, whereas the 5D Mark IV caused me to spend extra time in Photoshop fixing the green band. After blending multiple ambient exposures with my speedlight shot and muting the green band using Photoshop, here is the final image:
After blending multiple ambient exposures with a speedlight shot towards the window and fixing the green band, this was the final image.
Sidetrack Over - Back to the Night Scene
Back to the original night scene… here is a crop of the sky from each camera so we can see the difference close up.
You can see small banding/stripes with the 5D Mark IV in addition to the larger purple bands, but the R5 image is fairly smooth with better color and no noticeable banding, even in these crops. The sky in the 5D Mark IV image is essentially unusable. The R5 shows some noise as a result of raising the exposure to +5, but if you look at the whole image earlier in the article, it becomes apparent that you could make a mistake that significantly underexposes a photo but still end up with a usable photo with the R5. The R5 photo has some noise, but it is not catastrophic. This is a giant leap in performance over any of Canon’s previous photo camera bodies.
Here is another crop from the +5 exposure crank:
Again we see the 5D Mark IV pickup green in the deep shadows below the white board, but the R5 manages to have more detail, less noise, and better color.
Below is a crop of one of the hot spots, so we can see how the highlights are handled:
These hotspot areas are not very exciting to look at (in fact, it hurts my brain), but we can actually see that there is more detail around the edge of the hot spot in the R5 image. The R5 allows you to see the shape of the light spread more than the 5D Mark IV, and we can see more of the wood texture near the left edge of the highlight by the screw. Not very exciting, but it’s nice to see that highlight handling also appears to be slightly improved.
Another interesting observation is how much better the noise looks around the hotspot above the railing. The R5’s higher resolution sensor makes the noisy pixels smaller, which contributes to an overall smoother appearance.
Another Exposure Crank, Just for Fun
I did an architectural photoshoot recently that included twilight photos, and one of the cameras I had setup was the Canon EOS R5. Just for fun, I took an underexposed photo and cranked it to +4.35 in Adobe Lightroom. Here are the original and modified photos, along with what the final image looked like after blending multiple ambient exposures:
This is so much better than any of Canon’s previous camera bodies! Although I like the look of the final image better after spending time blending multiple exposures, look at how close to the final image I was able to come by simply cranking the exposure to +4.35 and dropping highlights to -100! The original photo makes you think no information was captured in the grass, trees, bushes, or other seemingly lost areas. But somehow the information is there, with a minor but acceptable noise penalty, and you can bring it out the completely dark areas with some simple sliders in Lightroom. Crazy!
Conclusion
I have produced tens of thousands of final images using the Canon EOS 6D and Canon EOS 5D Mark IV. When I switched from the 6D to the 5D Mark IV, I did notice a slight improvement in dynamic range and shadow handling. But this is a major advancement for Canon who had previously been dabbling with small, incremental improvements here and there. Going from the EOS 5D Mark IV to the EOS R5 is not a small, incremental improvement… it’s like a whole new generation of technology.
Other advantages the R5 has over the 5D Mark IV that I’ve found useful already:
50% increase in resolution (45-megapixels instead of 30)
“Focus Guide” for manual focusing, even if your lens doesn’t have AF (it allows you to place a focus point on your screen that indicates if a subject is in focus, focused too far to infinity, or too far towards close)
Exceptional Eye AF for people and animals
Access to all of Canon’s lenses, whether they are EF or RF mount (EF mount lenses require Canon’s EF to EOS R mount adapter)
Trying out my new Canon EOS R5 on the Lighthouses & Pier in Grand Haven, Michigan. Love the new manual focus guide!
If you’re debating the upgrade from a previous Canon camera body, I hope this article provided useful information. If you found this article helpful, feel free to use a product link from this page, and I’ll get a small commission. Thanks!
Products Mentioned in this Article
Canon EOS 6D (this link is to the 6D Mark II)
Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS vs. Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III - Which Lens is Sharper?
My philosophy for landscape photography (though I do love tilt shift lenses for architecture) is to get a small number of fast, sharp zoom lenses so I can cover any focal length I need without carrying a bunch of different prime lenses. That will save space in my camera bag and allow me to spend more time taking photos and less time changing lenses. The question I had was: Is the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L III able to capture sharp photos without comatic aberration, and provide fast wide-angle coverage?
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!
I have been using the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS for a few years now, and it has been a reliable workhorse. Most reviewers consider it to be sharper than the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II, and it’s smaller and cheaper, so I never gave consideration to the bigger, faster, more expensive lens. The f/4 lens with image stabilization produces nice images, and I found it to be a worthwhile upgrade from the less expensive Canon 17-40mm f/4L I was using previously.
Lately, however, I have started to daydream (night dream?) about astrophotography and nighttime photography. Taking pictures of stars at night? Milky Way? Auroras? Yes please!
The problem with taking pictures at night is that it’s… at night. It’s really dark out. This means you might want a lens with a faster aperture than f/4 to minimize noise. The other potential issue with photographing the starry sky is something called “comatic aberration.” Camera lenses can suffer from varying degrees of comatic aberration, or “coma,” which causes stars to appear misshapen in your photos instead of round, especially at the edges of the frame. Lens aperture, sharpness, and the possibility of comatic aberration are all considerations when looking at lenses for night photography.
The philosophy of some photographers is to get multiple prime lenses at various focal lengths. A good prime lens can be small, fast, and sharp, but only at a single focal length (24mm, for example). With prime lenses, the manufacturer doesn’t have to make compromises to accommodate multiple focal lengths like they do with a zoom lens. The downside to prime lenses is that in order to cover multiple focal lengths, you have to carry multiple lenses.
My philosophy for landscape photography (though I do love tilt shift lenses for architecture) is to get a small number of fast, sharp zoom lenses so I can cover any focal length I need without carrying a bunch of different prime lenses. That will save space in my camera bag and allow me to spend more time taking photos and less time changing lenses. The question I had was: Is the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L III able to capture sharp photos without comatic aberration, and provide fast wide-angle coverage?
When researching Canon’s 16-35mm f/2.8L III there were multiple websites where I encountered statements like “Canon’s 16-35 f/2.8 III is the same as the f/4 version, except bigger and more expensive, so most people should just get the f/4.” I also saw other research that claimed the new f/2.8 III was sharper, but I couldn’t find image any comparisons of the two lenses for the purpose of astrophotography, so naturally, I had to check it out for myself.
First, I wanted to compare the lenses for standard daytime photography at the wide end (16mm), where most lenses reveal the most distortion. I setup a tripod and took a picture of the same trees from the same spot, with the same settings for the two lenses: Canon 5D Mark IV, 16mm, ISO 200, f/8, 1/320th shutter.
Before I continue, please realize that I am going to be zooming in over 1000% in order to notice slight differences. Both lenses can certainly produce images that are print quality, without question. I just wanted to dig out the pixels to an extreme degree to see if one lens is slightly better than the other.
First, let’s look at the daytime shots.
Here we see two 16mm shots from the two lenses. Settings: 16mm, ISO 200, f/8, 1/320th sec.
Overall, it looks like two standard, sharp daytime shots. In these images I have labeled the areas that I’ll be zooming in to (Auto Focus Point, Comparison Crop 1, and Comparison Crop 2).
Most people wouldn’t notice a difference in sharpness in the above two images.
Next, let’s zoom in to the center of the image, where I pointed both lenses at the top of a tree to autofocus.
Nothing substantial yet, still just looks like two sharp daytime photos at the center of the image. Still pretty difficult to see any difference between the two.
Next, let’s take a look at where lots of lenses tend to reveal their weaknesses… the edges. We can start with Crop area 1 on the left side of the frame.
I was surprised at how sharp the f/2.8L III lens was at the edges in crop area 1 compared to the f/4L! I wasn’t sure if there would be much difference, but the clear winner here was the f/2.8 III, hands down. Again let me reiterate that most people would not notice this if you were looking at the whole image, it’s only when we zoom in to 1300% that these differences become apparent near the edge of the frame.
Next, let’s take a look at crop area 2 on the right side of the frame.
In crop area 2 the f/2.8L III still wins but perhaps less dramatically. It’s most noticeable if you look at the needles on the right side.
Next, let’s take our lenses to a slightly more challenging environment: photographing stars at night.
First, we have the whole scene comparison shots. I added in constellations for reference, and for fun (because why not?). It’s worth noting that the f/2.8 III has an obvious advantage in that it can open up to f/2.8 and capture light twice as fast as the f/4L lens, so to keep it fair, I set both lenses to f/4 and auto focused on some of the house lights across the water.
Settings: Canon 5D Mark IV, 16mm, ISO 3200, f/4, 10 second exposures (stacked in Starry Landscape Stacker to reduce noise)
In those whole scene comparisons you wouldn’t notice any difference between lenses. So let’s zoom in to about 1000% at the center, above the constellation Serpens Caput.
I didn’t see much of a difference at the center, especially considering this is a tiny section of a 30-megapixel image. Next, let’s zoom in to the edges and see what happens. We can start near the feet of the constellation Hercules.
In the above images we can see a slight example of “coma” (comatic aberration) in the f/4 image now that we’ve zoomed in to an extreme degree near the left side of the overall image, near Hercules’ feet. Even though you wouldn’t see it when looking at the whole picture, when we look closely we can see the the stars in the f/4 lens image seem to be shaped like little paper airplanes that are leaking pixels, instead of round stars as they should be. The stars in the image produced with the f/2.8L III lens (set to f/4 to make the comparison even) are rounder and sharper. Since it is a 10 second exposure and we are zoomed in over 1000%, the star movement is slightly apparent, but I was pleased with how sharp the stars were on the f/2.8 III, and happy that it exhibited virtually no coma.
Let’s check the right side of the image near the constellation Virgo.
On the right side of the frame, near the constellation Virgo, the f/2.8L III lens is again the winner. The stars are sharp, round points that have moved slightly over the course of 10 seconds, but the f/4’s stars are slightly blurry from edge softness and shaped like little bats due to the minor comatic aberration going on.
While these slight differences are probably not noticeable to someone looking at the whole image, it is good to know that Canon clearly put a lot of effort into making the 16-35mm f/2.8L III lens optically superior to all of it’s previous 16-35mm offerings, with edge to edge sharpness and virtually no comatic aberration. This is reassuring if you are looking to make large prints of your photos, and a high quality lens with exceptional sharpness will be more able to support a higher megapixel camera in the future. In 2004, Canon’s EOS-1D Mark II was 8 megapixels, and the EOS-1D was only 4 megapixels in 2001! Camera companies in the not-so-distant past were making full-frame lenses for cameras that were either 35mm film or low-megapixel digital. But now that 20, 30, and 50 megapixel camera bodies are standard and meticulous people (like me!) are analyzing lens sharpness at 1300% zoom levels, lenses have to be able to support all those megapixels with high quality optics. What’s the point of all those megapixels if the lens isn’t sharp?
Hopefully you found this helpful in comparing a couple of Canon’s wide angle zoom offerings. I learned a little bit while making this comparison page, and that’s always a good thing. =)
Lenses Compared in this Article
