Not sure where the below 1/3 stop difference came from… Maybe the unreliable Imatest charts.
If we should video, check out the *Underexposure* tests here: much more real world information when you start to edit things in post.
Imatest charts are known for showing cameras maybe a third or half a stop difference, but then when editing them in post there are drastic differences between the cameras.
Thus the better testing websites have several different methods for testing noise and dynamic range… not just the basic Imatest chart.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The R5 really only has a small (just over a third of a stop dynamic range) advantage over the R5 II when you are either shooting with EFCS or in slow speed and shooting below ISO 200. That can make the R5 slightly better for some types of shooting (e.g., landscapes) where the resolution of these cameras is appreciated but not the speed.
If you are using these cameras for the speed, however, the R5II will not have lower dynamic range in high speed mechanical shutter mode and the R5 II is a lot better in electronic shutter mode with higher bit depth, less motion distortion, and higher frames per second. There is a small fifth of a stop dynamic range advantage of the R5 at ISO 800 and above, but I can't imagine anyone trading off the R5 II advantages of the electronic shutter for this very small DR advantage when shooting in electronic shutter....Show more →
ronno wrote:
Not sure where the below 1/3 stop difference came from… Maybe the unreliable Imatest charts.
If we should video, check out the *Underexposure* tests here: much more real world information when you start to edit things in post.
Imatest charts are known for showing cameras may as a third or half a stop difference, but then when editing them in post there are drastic differences between the cameras.
Thus the better testing websites have several different methods for testing noise and dynamic range… not just the basic Imatest chart.
The number doesn't come from Imatest charts. it comes from photons to photos, where Bill Claff explains his methodology that does not involve Imatest charts. Here is the graph from that site:
I have no doubts that the R5 II vs. R5 may show a large difference for videos.
For stills the R5 II is a little noisier, but the performance advantages over the R5 are worth it for many purposes. In the studio at low ISO and MS, I'd use my R5 over my R5 II though I'd rather use Sony 61MP instead of either.
I doubt the R5 will be very cheap until the R5 III arrives. The R5 is just fine for many purposes.
EBH
Apr 20, 2026 at 06:38 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
ronno wrote:
This is a hybrid camera, so suggesting there’s only a third of a stop difference fails to acknowledge the bigger picture IMO.
Cheers.
If you go back to my post notice that I was only talking about stills. I said nothing about video. I didn't say it was a third of a stop difference either. I talked about three shooting situations--all stills: using the EFCS or low speed continuous focus shooting, using high speed shooting with the manual shutter, and using the electronic shutter. The bottom line for stills is that the R5 only really has that third of a stop highef DR for shooting at base ISO with EFCS or the low speed continuous focus shooting, at high speed shooting with the manula shutter or for shooting with the electronic shutter the R5II does at least as well for DR as the R5.
Pointing out that the situation is different for video is certainly useful, but it wasn't something I was addressing in my original post at all. I thought that was clear, if not is should be now.
I concede, I failed to mention that I am only discussing stills. Nor have any of the other sources I've been reading talked about video, because it's not my focus of interest.
