Canon 5Ds & 5Dr

I've had a 5DS for a few weeks now, and it's a great camera, so much pixel real estate, which means you can aggressively edit (if needed ) without the degradation I found in previous bodies, I hate HDR images, and dislike 'blended' images, much preferring grads and/or tweaking in photoshop, I found on some long exposures the other evening, I was able to drag back shadow detail without the subsequent increase in noise you could get with smaller file sizes. The other big plus for me is being able to use live view with an almost crystal clear image on the rear screen with a 10 stopper in place, much better than having to remove the filter every time you want to re-compose. And the ability to set the timer in B mode in camera is bliss. Downside is the huge file sizes, typically 150mb tiffs.

002A7496s.jpg
 
Les McLean said:
I've had a 5DS for a few weeks now, and it's a great camera, so much pixel real estate, which means you can aggressively edit (if needed ) without the degradation I found in previous bodies, I hate HDR images, and dislike 'blended' images, much preferring grads and/or tweaking in photoshop, I found on some long exposures the other evening, I was able to drag back shadow detail without the subsequent increase in noise you could get with smaller file sizes. The other big plus for me is being able to use live view with an almost crystal clear image on the rear screen with a 10 stopper in place, much better than having to remove the filter every time you want to re-compose. And the ability to set the timer in B mode in camera is bliss. Downside is the huge file sizes, typically 150mb tiffs.

002A7496s.jpg
Click to expand...

That's a wonderful capture, glad you're enjoying Canons new beast!
 
Les McLean said:
I've had a 5DS for a few weeks now, and it's a great camera, so much pixel real estate, which means you can aggressively edit (if needed ) without the degradation I found in previous bodies, I hate HDR images, and dislike 'blended' images, much preferring grads and/or tweaking in photoshop, I found on some long exposures the other evening, I was able to drag back shadow detail without the subsequent increase in noise you could get with smaller file sizes. The other big plus for me is being able to use live view with an almost crystal clear image on the rear screen with a 10 stopper in place, much better than having to remove the filter every time you want to re-compose. And the ability to set the timer in B mode in camera is bliss. Downside is the huge file sizes, typically 150mb tiffs.

002A7496s.jpg
Click to expand...
This is good.

But the noise generated by pulling back the shadows doesn't have much to do with file sizes, that simply down to how good the cameras dynamic range is.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
But the noise generated by pulling back the shadows doesn't have much to do with file sizes
Click to expand...
It can do. It depends what the final output resolution is. If your final output is smaller than the original, then the process of shrinking the image reduces the noise, because you're effectively averaging the pixels. With a camera like the 5DS you're more likely to be downsizing the images, unless you're making a large print, so there's more scope to get a bit of help on the noise reduction front.
 
Last edited:
Here's a real life illustration. A couple of years ago my sister was going to Iceland and hoping to see the Northern lights, and wanted to know how high she could safely push the ISO. So she took some test shots of a scene with a wide range of tonal values, at different ISO settings, and then we looked at the images at different resolutions. My analysis, written at the time, was as follows:

* 6400 is clearly awful
* 3200 isn't brilliant and should really be avoided
* 1600 is OK when viewed at 20%, but not at 50% or 100% - which means you can get away without the noise being apparent, so long as you view the image on screen or don't want to make too big a print
* 800 downwards are fine

It was very obvious that reducing the image size reduced the noise.
 
Saw this two days ago, only slightly relevant to this thread regards where development is going with sensors whoever makes them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34173423

Electronics company Canon has developed a 250 megapixel sensor for use in digital cameras.

Canon said the sensor is sensitive enough to read lettering on the side of an aircraft 18km (11.1 miles) away.

Whatever next?
 
retrosi said:
Saw this two days ago, only slightly relevant to this thread regards where development is going with sensors whoever makes them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34173423

Electronics company Canon has developed a 250 megapixel sensor for use in digital cameras.

Canon said the sensor is sensitive enough to read lettering on the side of an aircraft 18km (11.1 miles) away.

Whatever next?
Click to expand...


However, it added, the gadget was unlikely to find its way into domestic cameras or smartphones.
 
My point of posting about the 250 m sensor was as I said regards development. Meaning if they can do this what will they or someone else make, not the usual negative comment, 'however, it added the sensor was unlikely to be used...' why always negative comments trying to better outwit each other?
 
Last edited:
retrosi said:
My point of posting about the 250 m sensor was as I said regards development. Meaning if they can do this what will they or someone else make, not the usual negative comment, 'however, it added the sensor was unlikely to be used...' why always negative comments trying to better outwit each other?
Click to expand...

And my point was for anyone reading the headline/your quote, don't assume its going to be in a domestic camera any time soon.Outwit? Hadnt even crossed my mind, its just a little bit misleading till you read the entire article. Nothing to do with you.
 
You know if does make me smile to myself all these comments for and against.

I remember when I first got into digital SLR,s neatly 10 years ago with the then revolutionary Nikon D100 with its fantastic 6mp. I remember looking at the first images and thinking "wow". Then Canon came along with the brilliant original 5D with a whopping 12.8 mp. From then on it seemed all the magazines and websites had images shot with this beast of a machine and the results were simply stunning. People were making huge gallery quality prints and selling them.

Now we have Nikon with 36mp, Sony with 42mp and Canon with over 50mp, and they all blow these older camera into yesterday (literally). Not just in pure resolution terms but also high ISO and low ISO handling, DR, frame rates etc. and still we are not happy.

One things for certain, any of the above systems would probably exceed the talents of quite a few on here, me included (with my D810) for many years to come.
 
Last edited:
Sootchucker said:
You know if does make me smile to myself all these comments for and against.

I remember when I first got into digital SLR,s neatly 10 years ago with the then revolutionary Nikon D100 with its fantastic 6mp. I remember looking at the first images and thinking "wow". Then Canon came along with the brilliant original 5D with a whopping 12.8 mp. From then on it seemed all the magazines and websites had images shot with this beast of a machine and the results were simply stunning. People were making huge gallery quality prints and selling them.

Now we have Nikon with 36mp, Sony with 42mp and Canon with over 50mp, and they all blow these older camera into yesterday (literally). Not just in pure resolution terms but also high ISO and low ISO handling, DR, frame rates etc. and still we are not happy.

One things for certain, any of the above systems would probably exceed the talents of quite a few on here, me included (with my D810) for many years to come.
Click to expand...


But the question has to be asked, why do you need 50 (plus) megapixels, let alone 120 or 250? You can print billboard sized prints from an 8mp sensor with good success (see Apples, software cleaned, billboard campaign).

The only use for such high resolutions are medical, scientific and for certain types of forensic imagery. I can't see the advantages for 'normal' photography.

Unless we want to put prints on the moon so they are visible from Earth?
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The only use for such high resolutions are medical, scientific and for certain types of forensic imagery. I can't see the advantages for 'normal' photography.
Click to expand...

True that if one takes and uses a full frame at, say 36MP, then the sort of resolution you can get would suit the above but that's not what all photographers want extra MP for ...the extra resolution for the wildlife photographer can be the difference between getting an image or not getting it.
A distant bird etc with 8MP can be useless, cropping it brings out terrible noise and loss of detail, whereas with 36MP the camera can actually retain that detail to such an extent that a bird in the focus point can be brought into frame and displayed with reasonable clarity :)
 
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.

Will they be making 100 + MP specific lenses?

I don't know what equivalent MP current, say, L lens tele's can be pushed to before the sensor out resolves the lens?

If they can't, imagine the cost of, say, a ultra MP 100-400L, or 600mm prime?
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
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.

Will they be making 100 + MP specific lenses?

I don't know what equivalent MP current, say, L lens tele's can be pushed to before the sensor out resolves the lens?

If they can't, imagine the cost of, say, a ultra MP 100-400L, or 600mm prime?
Click to expand...

I think that's more the issue, we already experience the need for better technique where high MP is concerned and manufacturers 'recommend' only certain lenses being used with high MP cameras. With the launch of the Nikon D8xx series, Nikon 'warned' against using 'inferior' quality lenses, though the experience with many other lenses has now shown that the warning, though valid, was probably over-stated.
 
Guys, I'm planning to buy this from HK in November. Has anyone bought any camera equipment from HK before? What is your experience.

It is listed on panamoz now finally and if paid by BT it will cost around £2100

I am expecting HK prices to be less than that. Also expecting the price to have fallen further by November.

Any advice much appreciated
 
Well the 5DS seems to be getting favourable reviews in the photographic press. Would be nice to get a couple of raw files to have a look at. Don't know of any dealer that has a demo one, certainly not near me, that I could pop a card in and take a couple.

Then I could decide for myself whether to push the boat out on one
 
I'm seriously considering a 5dsr to replace my 5d3 something keeps teling me not to do it though
 
Gaz J said:
Well the 5DS seems to be getting favourable reviews in the photographic press. Would be nice to get a couple of raw files to have a look at. Don't know of any dealer that has a demo one, certainly not near me, that I could pop a card in and take a couple.

Then I could decide for myself whether to push the boat out on one
Click to expand...
Here's a couple of RAW files, just taken straight from the card, no processing at all, nowt special, but should give you some idea of the detail at least, file sizes are around 60mb each, 5DS +135mm F2 lens

http://www.lesmclean.co.uk/5DS/002A7647.CR2
http://www.lesmclean.co.uk/5DS/002A7812.CR2
 
5abi said:
What are the voices telling you and why?
Click to expand...
For me it was lack of Dr and high iso. As well as no WiFi to transfer or control my camera remotely or any other new features.

Instead the camera for me felt like they just doubled the mp and halfed the iso on a 5d3 and called it a day.

It's more like an expansion pack then a sequel or even a new complete system
 
@Gaz J

Have you got around to looking into renting one yet mate? I remember you said you were going to in the 7D thread, if you do soon or in the future I would be interested to hear how you get on with it for wildlife pal.

@Les McLean Thanks for providing the RAW files, the quality reminds me of my old D800 but with more detail!!!
 
Joeturner11 said:
@Gaz J

Have you got around to looking into renting one yet mate? I remember you said you were going to in the 7D thread, if you do soon or in the future I would be interested to hear how you get on with it for wildlife pal.

@Les McLean Thanks for providing the RAW files, the quality reminds me of my old D800 but with more detail!!!
Click to expand...

Not yet Joe. I had sort of discounted it and was going to go back to a 5D3 but after reading a couple of reviews it's back on the list again. I see that lenses for hire have one for rent so I might rent it for a few days if it's available when I'm home. Might even try next week before the weather turns. Will let you know when I do.
 
gramps said:
A distant bird etc with 8MP can be useless, cropping it brings out terrible noise and loss of detail, whereas with 36MP the camera can actually retain that detail to such an extent that a bird in the focus point can be brought into frame and displayed with reasonable clarity :)
Click to expand...
I was going to make the argument earlier that one potential advantage of these cameras is their extreme cropability.

For example, suppose you're going on safari and you'd like to take a 500mm f/4, but the baggage allowance on the little plane you'll be using for the last leg of the journey is too restrictive. Simple. Just take a 300mm f/2.8 on a 5DS, and crop the images.

Or suppose you're in the grandstand at a sporting event where using a long lens isn't practical because there are so many people all around you. No problem. Take the 5DS with a smaller more spectator-friendly lens, and crop the images.

But then I realised that you'd be better off taking a crop sensor DSLR. Pretty much all APS-C sensors these days have 20-24MP, and that's almost exactly the same pixel pitch as the 5DS. So I don't think the argument about the cropability of the 5DS holds water.
 
gramps said:
With the launch of the Nikon D8xx series, Nikon 'warned' against using 'inferior' quality lenses, though the experience with many other lenses has now shown that the warning, though valid, was probably over-stated.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough they issued no such warnings when they launched their first 24MP DX body, the D3200, around the same time as the D800. But the D3200 is far more demanding than the D800 (and, indeed, slightly more demanding than the 5DS!) in terms of lens resolution; it's the equivalent of a 54MP FX sensor.
 
StewartR said:
But then I realised that you'd be better off taking a crop sensor DSLR. Pretty much all APS-C sensors these days have 20-24MP, and that's almost exactly the same pixel pitch as the 5DS. So I don't think the argument about the cropability of the 5DS holds water.
Click to expand...

Many though would prefer FX for everyday use, the cropability of higher MP gives it a greater flexibility ... unless of course you have both FX & DX.
I have both and find each has their own advantage, I'm often on DX with my 500 f4 + TC :)
 
Whilst I'm not a fan of DXO mark as to get a true understanding of their results you need to delve further into the tests that they have done they show that the 5DS sensor is better all round than the 7DMKII. Also I think if your buying a MkII then part of its appeal is its speed/value for money.

The MkII hasn't turned out to be the camera I expected so the 5DS is now a real possibility as a replacement for It. I can forego the FPS as that is more than catered for in my other camera.
 
Well it may not be the 250 mb sensor I mentioned a few threads back but this one at 120mb at ISO 100 only and with 210mb files in an actual camera a 5d body using the APSH sensor format basically a 1:3 crop factor as in the 1D series cameras not the ff in the 1Ds.
http://www.photographybay.com/2015/...b-raw-files/?awt_l=L5GV2&awt_m=K02i5CY21f62xu
Although at an expo recently probably not in to production for a few years but hey whatever next?
 
retrosi said:
And here's another short bit this time regards lenses and only some of the current range being compatible with the new 120mb sensor.
http://www.photographybay.com/2015/...development/?awt_l=L5GV2&awt_m=K02i5CY21f62xu
Click to expand...
I think the author of that article hasn't thought it through properly.

The Canon press release says "Out of the 96 lenses that make up the EF lens lineup, 60 models will be compatible with the SLR camera under development." And the author of the article you linked to makes a big point about that: "... does this mark the beginnings of a shift in Canon’s EF lens system where certain legacy lens technology is no longer compatible with all Canon SLRs?,"

But you have to ask where that figure of 96 lenses came from. It's certainly not the total number of different EF lenses that Canon have ever made: the Wikipedia page lists over 130 of them. So logically it's meant to refer to the current range, but they onkly way that adds up to 96 is if you include EF-S, EF-M, and CN-E (cinema primes). The number of "ordinary" EF lenses in the range is ... about 60.

So in other words the new camera will be compatible with all EF lenses, but not EF-S or EF-M. No news there, move along folks, nothing to see.
 
So there maybe no news and move along regards the lenses but does that apply also to the 12th sensor?
 
I meant 120mb, my auto suggestion text on my tablet often catches me out.
 
Yes cheers for that, I work in the print industry as a photo - printer large format and often forget to check as I put mb regards file size in a report to clients.
 
retrosi said:
So there maybe no news and move along regards the lenses but does that apply also to the [120 MP] sensor?
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand the question. Yes, there will be a 120 MP camera. No, there won't be any compatibility issues.
 
A lot of this thread has been regards dr and that the debate with the 5ds/r haven't seemed to addressed this so I wondered if even higher sensors was the way to go given Nikon via Sony have managed to pull better Dr from a sensor with less mp.
 
retrosi said:
A lot of this thread has been regards dr and that the debate with the 5ds/r haven't seemed to addressed this so I wondered if even higher sensors was the way to go given Nikon via Sony have managed to pull better Dr from a sensor with less mp.
Click to expand...

I don't think they've managed to do it with much less MPs, look at the A7rii, that has killer DR and its 42mp. The only reason Sony stopped at 42 was because they wanted higher ISO. I think the 5DS is native 6400, the 7rii native is 25,600.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top