Canon 5Ds & 5Dr

retrosi said:
Hmm I see where you're going there, I am a Canon user just to be clear, but have read several times that the newer Nikon sensors have better DR. I don't know this, it is just what I have read.
So do you think the Nikons aren't as good at DR as some claim given your point about the Sony 42mp sensor? Which I didn't know even existed! I am waiting for the 1dx2 or whatever it will be called, had I more money or far less glass I might have given Nikons a try.
I just hope Canon do some justice to us that have waited this long and continue to do so.
Click to expand...

They are definitely that good, I shoot a d750 and at Base iso I can push pull 4-5 stops and it's still very clean without banding or noise. Hopefully canon will do something about it as I had high hopes for the 5ds/r but like a lot was disappointed.
 
So I am a little confused re your comment about 'I don't think they've managed to do it with much less MP's, ...' I took that to mean you felt the lesser MP sensors haven't got the DR as suggested, which is why you mentioned the Sony. But clearly I read / understood wrongly. Never mind.
 
retrosi said:
So I am a little confused re your comment about 'I don't think they've managed to do it with much less MP's, ...' I took that to mean you felt the lesser MP sensors haven't got the DR as suggested, which is why you mentioned the Sony. But clearly I read / understood wrongly. Never mind.
Click to expand...

You said lower mp as if that's why their Dr is so much better, I was disagreeing. 42 vs 50 is nothing. Doesn't matter anyway. :)
 
Last edited:
An image I took the other evening, while not a keeper, I was very impressed at how much shadow detail the 5DS could pull back without generating noise/banding, could never do this on any of my previous bodies.

Screen-Shot-2015-09-12-at-9.36.58-am.jpg
 
Les McLean said:
I was very impressed at how much shadow detail the 5DS could pull back without generating noise/banding, could never do this on any of my previous bodies.
Click to expand...
I can't help wonder how many of the people who complain about the lack of dynamic range afforded by Canon's sensors really *need* more dynamic range than they currently get. Presumably if Canon sensors are rubbish now, then all sensors were rubbish before about 2010. How on earth did people manage to take decent photos back then?
 
It's Canon base ISO DR that lets them down. As ISO gets higher they are more in line with other sensors. If you want the very best sensor then you're going to have to buy a Sony as the A7R II seems to take everything to the cleaners. But not everyone wants a Sony.

Given that most of my images are taken at ISO 800+ DR at base ISO is not one of my main concerns. I'm more concerned with getting the damn thing in focus.
 
Gaz J said:
It's Canon base ISO DR that lets them down. As ISO gets higher they are more in line with other sensors. If you want the very best sensor then you're going to have to buy a Sony as the A7R II seems to take everything to the cleaners. But not everyone wants a Sony.

Given that most of my images are taken at ISO 800+ DR at base ISO is not one of my main concerns. I'm more concerned with getting the damn thing in focus.
Click to expand...

Or a Nikon.
 
twist said:
Or a Nikon.
Click to expand...

Yes even the Devils spawn .

I'm actually in the process of deciding whether to go dual brand. I want a landscape/night body and can see the advantages possibly of the D750/810 but it means that I loose a back up body to my 1DX and that's the stumbling block. And before anyone says it. There's no chance of changing my 1DX for a D4S. Never, no way, aint gonna happen.
 
Gaz J said:
Yes even the Devils spawn .

I'm actually in the process of deciding whether to go dual brand. I want a landscape/night body and can see the advantages possibly of the D750/810 but it means that I loose a back up body to my 1DX and that's the stumbling block. And before anyone says it. There's no chance of changing my 1DX for a D4S. Never, no way, aint gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Lol.

I agreed, tough one. But do you need a backup body.
 
Only had one body for several years but as I started traveling further afield I realised that a back up was a nice to have and now I'm reluctant to not have one. Will probably cop out and get a 5D3 or 5DS and play safe.
 
Gaz J said:
Only had one body for several years but as I started traveling further afield I realised that a back up was a nice to have and now I'm reluctant to not have one. Will probably cop out and get a 5D3 or 5DS and play safe.
Click to expand...

Probably a better idea.
 
StewartR said:
I can't help wonder how many of the people who complain about the lack of dynamic range afforded by Canon's sensors really *need* more dynamic range than they currently get.
Click to expand...

This complaint has nothing to do with image making. Its all about my tribe being better than your tribe*. Like most of these types of arguments, they lose context and become narrower in scope as time goes on. In the end people will just shout (DXO?) numbers at each other as if they mean something. You see similar arguments about PS4 and Xbox etc.


*mirrorless advocates seem to be more touchy about this than most others. As in they are right and everyone else is wrong.
 
odd jim said:
That is true. But I think with our current resolutions this can be utilised very effectively already. But of course in an ideal world more MP is better when it comes to cropping. That said, more MP means more noise per relative sensor area, would we be enlarging noisier images?

There comes a point where the image sensor becomes so high resolution (and we are seeing a huge leap here) that the bodies are pulling away from the effective resolution of the lenses.
Click to expand...

I have a concern that sensors already out perform lenses. I am not sure how people see dxo Mark, but if there is some validity to their tests, at least on a
comparative basis, then they already show this. Take a look at the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 for example. The total perceptual megapixels on a Nikon D810 is Only 21MP, so you are not getting the full benefit of the sensor resolution from the lens and this is a top class lens. The same will be true for the 5DS/R.

The Canon 24-70mm f2.8 has 12 perceptual megapixels on the old 12 MP 5D, dropping to 15 on the 18MP 1DX. It will be interesting to see dxo results from their lens tests.
 
Last edited:
Finste said:
*mirrorless advocates seem to be more touchy about this than most others. As in they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Click to expand...

As a former Canon and now CSC user I feel I must add that CSC's are about more than DR or indeed wider image quality. They're about being smaller and lighter and having (arguably) the advantages of the EVF, in view histogram, peaking, magnified view, WYSIWYG and accurate just about every single time without the faff on of MA focus.

Bragging rights may well be a part of it for many people but when you open up a lovely raw file and think "Wow!" it's difficult to say to yourself that you don't need that quality.
 
StewartR said:
I can't help wonder how many of the people who complain about the lack of dynamic range afforded by Canon's sensors really *need* more dynamic range than they currently get. Presumably if Canon sensors are rubbish now, then all sensors were rubbish before about 2010. How on earth did people manage to take decent photos back then?
Click to expand...
I certainly agree with this. I can pull amazing amount of shadow detail from my 6d, I can't see how I'd want / need / be able to get more detail out of the files without bending the laws of physics. Yet in a thread s month or two ago I was being told the DR if the 6d was rubbish as it wasn't as good as the d800.

Heck, my little RX100 can pull decent clean shadow details out of a seemingly black void.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I certainly agree with this. I can pull amazing amount of shadow detail from my 6d, I can't see how I'd want / need / be able to get more detail out of the files without bending the laws of physics. Yet in a thread s month or two ago I was being told the DR if the 6d was rubbish as it wasn't as good as the d800.

Heck, my little RX100 can pull decent clean shadow details out of a seemingly black void.
Click to expand...
That's because your little rx100 has more DR than your 6D
 
Looking at the figures on paper, you're right!

But I can pull cleaner shadows from the 6d?

I think DR and ISO performance are intrinsically linked and it's not quite as linear as is sometimes made out.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I certainly agree with this. I can pull amazing amount of shadow detail from my 6d, I can't see how I'd want / need / be able to get more detail out of the files without bending the laws of physics. Yet in a thread s month or two ago I was being told the DR if the 6d was rubbish as it wasn't as good as the d800.

Heck, my little RX100 can pull decent clean shadow details out of a seemingly black void.
Click to expand...

We don't know what we're missing until we get something better. I thought my D700 files were amazing (they still are under the right conditions), but the dynamic range of the D750 is spectacular. There is virtually no limit to how far you can push those files.
 
Brazo said:
That's because your little rx100 has more DR than your 6D
Click to expand...

This is a good example of paying too much attention to "headline" measurements without looking into it further

The RX100 has, according to DXO Mark, which seems to be the bible on whether a camera is worth owning, approx 1/3 stop more DR at ISO 100 and then it goes south rapidly. Jim can pull more shadow detail out of his 6D because the signal to noise, tonal range and colour sensitivity are streets ahead plus once it gets over ISO 200 so is the DR.

If we could all go around shooting at ISO 100 then it would be great but in the real world, with quite often 1 camera to fulfil all our needs, other ISO,s get used and the advantages/disadvantages are not always quite so clear cut.
 
Gaz J said:
This is a good example of paying too much attention to "headline" measurements without looking into it further

The RX100 has, according to DXO Mark, which seems to be the bible on whether a camera is worth owning, approx 1/3 stop more DR at ISO 100 and then it goes south rapidly. Jim can pull more shadow detail out of his 6D because the signal to noise, tonal range and colour sensitivity are streets ahead plus once it gets over ISO 200 so is the DR.

If we could all go around shooting at ISO 100 then it would be great but in the real world, with quite often 1 camera to fulfil all our needs, other ISO,s get used and the advantages/disadvantages are not always quite so clear cut.
Click to expand...
I agree but it still has more.. at least at base iso.
 
Gaz J said:
It's Canon base ISO DR that lets them down. As ISO gets higher they are more in line with other sensors. If you want the very best sensor then you're going to have to buy a Sony as the A7R II seems to take everything to the cleaners. But not everyone wants a Sony.

Given that most of my images are taken at ISO 800+ DR at base ISO is not one of my main concerns. I'm more concerned with getting the damn thing in focus.
Click to expand...

Except A7R / II compresses RAW to 11 bit, has no viewfinder and uncomfortable tiny body. No thanks. I'd rather buy a Nikon and run 2nd system.

StewartR said:
I can't help wonder how many of the people who complain about the lack of dynamic range afforded by Canon's sensors really *need* more dynamic range than they currently get. Presumably if Canon sensors are rubbish now, then all sensors were rubbish before about 2010. How on earth did people manage to take decent photos back then?
Click to expand...

Canon 1Ds II (2004-) had already very comparable DR to current ones. It was not and is not bad (it isn't) but we can clearly see it can be done better now. I'd agree for many applications such as studio portraiture or weddings the DR is plenty good. As a primarily landscape and architectural photographer I could certainly make the use of significantly cleaner shadows at ISO100 and get job done with a single frame instead of blending 2-3 in extreme cases.

Les McLean said:
An image I took the other evening, while not a keeper, I was very impressed at how much shadow detail the 5DS could pull back without generating noise/banding, could never do this on any of my previous bodies.

Screen-Shot-2015-09-12-at-9.36.58-am.jpg
Click to expand...

What ISO is this and can we see a crop of the right side of horizon area please (no NR)?
 
daugirdas said:
Except A7R / II compresses RAW to 11 bit, has no viewfinder and uncomfortable tiny body. No thanks. I'd rather buy a Nikon and run 2nd system.



Canon 1Ds II (2004-) had already very comparable DR to current ones. It was not and is not bad (it isn't) but we can clearly see it can be done better now. I'd agree for many applications such as studio portraiture or weddings the DR is plenty good. As a primarily landscape and architectural photographer I could certainly make the use of significantly cleaner shadows at ISO100 and get job done with a single frame instead of blending 2-3 in extreme cases.



What ISO is this and can we see a crop of the right side of horizon area please (no NR)?
Click to expand...
Here we go again.... Ie canon vs Sony. Zzzzzz
 
daugirdas said:
Except A7R / II compresses RAW to 11 bit, has no viewfinder and uncomfortable tiny body
Click to expand...
daugirdas said:
. No thanks. I'd rather buy a Nikon and run 2nd system.



Canon 1Ds II (2004-) had already very comparable DR to current ones. It was not and is not bad (it isn't) but we can clearly see it can be done better now. I'd agree for many applications such as studio portraiture or weddings the DR is plenty good. As a primarily landscape and architectural photographer I could certainly make the use of significantly cleaner shadows at ISO100 and get job done with a single frame instead of blending 2-3 in extreme cases.



What ISO is this and can we see a crop of the right side of horizon area please (no NR)?
Click to expand...

That's my point. So many people seem to decide that DR is the b all and end all and with every new camera people wait with bated breath to see what DXO Mark sensor scores are and on the basis of that declare that this camera or that camera is the best coz it's got x million Evs of DR and all others cameras that don't aren't worth having.

Thankfully I've never chased DR nirvana. I want a camera witha proper viewfinder that's sits in a full size body that does 10-14 FPS and that I like the results from. Got that one and it's the best camera ever........................ For me!!
 
Gaz J said:
That's my point. So many people seem to decide that DR is the b all and end all and with every new camera people wait with bated breath to see what DXO Mark sensor scores are and on the basis of that declare that this camera or that camera is the best coz it's got x million Evs of DR and all others cameras that don't aren't worth having.

Thankfully I've never chased DR nirvana. I want a camera witha proper viewfinder that's sits in a full size body that does 10-14 FPS and that I like the results from. Got that one and it's the best camera ever........................ For me!!
Click to expand...

1Dx or D4? :)

I've seen the RAWs from D800. I can't lie they do have lots of extra detail in the shadow even pushing 3 stops whereas 5D3 can only survive ~1 stop. I couldn't care less about DxO but seeing it for yourself is an eye opener. My work could certainly benefit from it much more than ISO 12800 or whatever they are at now.
 
daugirdas said:
1Dx or D4? :)

I've seen the RAWs from D800. I can't lie they do have lots of extra detail in the shadow even pushing 3 stops whereas 5D3 can only survive ~1 stop. I couldn't care less about DxO but seeing it for yourself is an eye opener. My work could certainly benefit from it much more than ISO 12800 or whatever they are at now.
Click to expand...


I've seen RAW files from the same camera and they produce great images. But its not real world shooting for me. Its a lovely day here in Pembrokeshire. Just been out with the camera, came across a Golden Ringed Dragonfly. Never seen one before much less had the opportunity to photograph one. Only had 100-400. ISO? 800 to get 1/320 -1/500.
 
Gaz J said:


That's my point. So many people seem to decide that DR is the b all and end all and with every new camera people wait with bated breath to see what DXO Mark sensor scores are and on the basis of that declare that this camera or that camera is the best coz it's got x million Evs of DR and all others cameras that don't aren't worth having.

Thankfully I've never chased DR nirvana. I want a camera witha proper viewfinder that's sits in a full size body that does 10-14 FPS and that I like the results from. Got that one and it's the best camera ever........................ For me!!
Click to expand...
So come out of this thread and go on the 1d thread lol
 
jonneymendoza said:
Not really. U helping turn this thread into a Sony and canon fanboy war. Leave it and let's discuss this awesome camera
Click to expand...

It's a Canon thread or did you miss that bit. Also I think you'll find that I wasn't the one who brought Sony into it. I simply pointed out that headline figures can be misleading.

So when you're ready to return to the point of this thread instead of trying to tell others what they should be doing we can proceed.
 
Gaz J said:
It's a Canon thread or did you miss that bit. Also I think you'll find that I wasn't the one who brought Sony into it. I simply pointed out that headline figures can be misleading.

So when you're ready to return to the point of this thread instead of trying to tell others what they should be doing we can proceed.
Click to expand...
No its a Canon 5ds /5dr thread.
 
Show us your crops!! I have seen one example of a full frame file and a crop from it with astonishing detail... Anybody got any more they can show us, please?
 
Chipper said:
Show us your crops!! I have seen one example of a full frame file and a crop from it with astonishing detail... Anybody got any more they can show us, please?
Click to expand...
Well I was out shooting with another high mp camera that's slightly less pixels then this on a rugby game and I could crop and still see a crap load of detail! The 5ds would be similar for sure
 
Wow! What lens was that with, it resolved it very well?!
 
!00% crop, 135mm F2 lens (5DS)

002A7647m.jpg
Screen Shot 2015-09-26 at 4.16.32 pm.jpg
 
Well, that's impressive. Is this the 5DS? Which lens were you using? Thanks. I am trying to work out which body to add as I need two... Interesting dilemma to have. :geek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top