Canon 5d Mark Ii Dynamic Range

By | 15/10/2022

Canon C500 Mark II Lab Test: Dynamic Range, Latitude and Rolling Shutter

Having tested at present various mirrorless full-frame cameras for the last ii years in our cinema5D lab, I was really curious to put a “real” movie theater photographic camera with a full-frame sensor through the paces one day. This day had finally arrived when the Canon C500 Mark Ii was available in the cinema5D headquarters earlier this year. Will it take the crown in our lab tests? Read on …

A lot has been said and washed on the Canon C500 Mark II already, for example by my colleagues Nino or Ollie here or hither.

And then without further delay lets jump right into the lab test …

Dynamic Range Result of the Catechism C500 Mark II at ISO 800

Please have a look at how nosotros test dynamic range of cameras here.

The dynamic range of the C500 Marker 2 using the internal 10bit XF-AVC codec at UHD 25fps using Catechism Log2 / C.Gamut (Color Matrix “Neutral”) shows a very potent
xiii.1 stops
at a point to noise ratio of ii, see figure one below (noise reduction “off”). This issue comes directly backside the ARRI Alexa (14 stops), and is the second-highest value we measured so far – pushing the Panasonic S1H (12.vii stops) from the second to tertiary place!

Fig. 1: IMATEST dynamic range result for the Canon C500 Marker 2 at 25fps, UHD, 10bit XF-AVC codec (CLOG2 / C.Gamut) at ISO 800

The waveform of the Xyla21 stepchart confirms this:

Fig. ii: Waveform plot of the Xyla21 stepchart from the Canon C500 Marker Ii at 25fps, UHD, 10bit XF-AVC codec (CLOG2 / C.Gamut) at ISO 800 – nearly 13 stops can be identified above the dissonance flooring!

Now yous may ask why I have not used the internal 6K RAW (5952×3140) to test the dynamic range? Well, I did. And got the same result as with other recent raw cameras before: using plainly raw without whatsoever postprocessing, the images are very noisy. Hence, the dynamic range results from IMATEST are lower – indicating a rather “untouched” image by whatsoever in-camera processing.

Rolling Shutter of the Catechism C500 MarkII

Using our strobe light at 300Hz, nosotros get a sequence of black and white confined due to the nature of read out of CMOS sensors. Each pair represents three.33ms.

Seems like we are jumping from one fantastic consequence to the next – the rolling shutter at 6K RAW (5952×3140, 17:nine) comes in at a strong
– encounter effigy 3 below.

This is the best event we take measured on a full frame sensor so far! For full frame sensors nosotros haven’t seen a value below 20ms yet, 22ms was quite good already (eastward.thou. Sigma fp), while for example the Panasonic S1H falls around 25ms.

Fig. three: Canon C500 Mark Two rolling shutter for 17:9 5952×3140: very good 15.8ms are measured.

Latitude (underexposure) Test of the Catechism C500 Mark Ii

Latitude is the capability of a camera to retain particular and colors while over- or underexposing the image. As ususal, we exposed Nino’southward face at max. threescore% luma value on the waveform monitor, the white sail of newspaper below the colour checker comes in at around 65%.

This gives a base exposure of 360° shutter at f4.0 at ISO800 (UHD 25fps) – our 0 stops under baseline (internal noise reduction “off” for all tests). From at that place we successively underexpose the studio scene past increasing the shutter speed to 180°, 90°, 45°, 22.5° and finally 11.25° (5 stops underexposure).

And so, in mail production (using DaVinci Resolve 16.1 studio) we push the underexposed images back to the 0 exposure value.

This test reveals a lot of insight about how well a camera (and the used codec) retains colors and detail. Most cameras break apart at 3 to 4 stops underexposure. Exceptions so far: BMPCC6K using BRAW 3:1 and Panasonic S1 (using ProRes HQ via an external recorder) which retain a usable epitome at 4 stops under.

Fig. 4: base of operations exposure of our studio scene for the Canon C500 Marking 2, using CLOG2 with the internal XF-AVC 10bit codec at ISO800.

Too here, using the internal 6K RAW results in much noisier images than the internal 10bit XF-AVC provides, so in order to take a improve “out of the box” baseline when comparison these images to previous cameras, I decided to testify you the internal XF-AVC 10bit images. And you won’t be disappointed ;-).

What goes without maxim is that in the hands of an expert the 6K RAW files provide fifty-fifty better flexibility in post, especially the heavily underexposed images.

Let’south spring ahead and take a await at the image which is 3 stops underexposed, and pushed back in post – remember, this is the point where nearly of the previously tested cameras first to fall apart:

Fig. 5: The Canon C500 Mark Ii at 3 stops underexposure, pushed back to 0 using CLOG2 with the XF-AVC 10bit codec at ISO800. However almost perfect.

And the Catechism C500 Mark 2 does not disappoint – the results is almost perfect: very little noise is nowadays, more equally a fine grain which looks very expert.

Fig. vi: The Canon C500 Marker II at 4 stops underexposure, pushed dorsum to 0 using CLOG2 with the XF-AVC 10bit codec at ISO800. Racket kicks in simply it stays finely dispersed. Very usable still.

More than or less the same holds true for the image in figure half dozen: at 4 stops under, pushed back to cypher the prototype is still quite usable. In addition, the internal XF-AVC encoder manages to encode the noise as finely dispersed grain, hence y’all can add dissonance reduction in post production and you go a very usable image – for examplethe racket in the lower right paw side of figure 6 cleans upwards well – come across figure 7:

Fig. seven: The Canon C500 Mark 2 at 4 stops underexposure, pushed back to 0 using CLOG2 with the XF-AVC 10bit codec at ISO800. Dissonance kicks in merely it stays finely dispersed – using noise reduction in DaVinci Resolve (3 frames temporal, v threshold value and 4 spatial threshold) information technology cleans up very well.

Finally, we are reaching now the 5 stops of underexposure. No camera so far has survived this torture test.

Fig. 8: The Canon C500 Marker II at 5 stops underexposure, pushed back to 0 using CLOG2 with the XF-AVC 10bit codec at ISO800. Very noisy, and horizontal every bit well as vertical stripes commencement to appear. Surprisingly good however.

Surprisingly, using noise reduction in post production leads to an image you may still get abroad with – noise is rather finely dispersed and non too distracting (even so, faint horizontal and vertical stripes are appearing) – encounter effigy 9 below:

Fig. 9: The Canon C500 Mark II at 5 stops underexposure, pushed back to 0 using CLOG2 with the XF-AVC 10bit codec at ISO800. Using racket reduction in DaVinci Resolve (3 frames temporal, 15 threshold value and five spatial threshold) it cleans up OK – yet noticeable are vertical and horizontal stripes, but you could get away with this image.


The C500 Marking Ii clearly sets the criterion for 2020 then far in our testing using a 6K Total frame sensor. Even when the second all-time option is selected, the internal XF-AVC 10bit codec, the results are still fantastic (internal 6K 12 bit raw requires more mail processing).

A strong thirteen.1 stops of dynamic range, the lowest always measured rolling shutter of xv.8ms for a full frame sensor, and clearly showing what is possible at the underexposure test: using the internal 10bit UHD XF-AVC codec basically down to v stops underexposure the prototype is still usable when applying noise reduction in post.

What are your experiences with the Canon C500 Mark II so far? Let us know in the comments beneath.