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.
Steve Spencer wrote: ronno wrote:
Due to the worse dynamic range (and yes, it’s noticeable), more jerky IBIS, Clog 2 - which isn’t much improved due to the noise and dynamic range issues…
Sold my R52 after a couple months.
I think the original R5 is the better camera. It’s just an excellent all rounder.
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.
Apr 20, 2026 at 03:09 PM
Previous versions of ronno's message #17024273 « Canon R5 Pricing Still High »
