Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 05 Feb 2015 (Thursday) 07:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced

 
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 14, 2015 17:48 |  #526

tvphotog wrote in post #17431924 (external link)
Yes, we are talking about CPL's if you'll note the bold red phrase in my previous post, a very general and untrue statement. And I don't agree with you at all that GND's are surpassed digitally. Just the opposite; I've had terrible problems trying to correct overexposure in post, problems which are mitigated when I filter in the field. I admit I'm talking empirically as a long-time photographer, and you're trying to explain light physics, which has no application to my personal experience.

We do agree than any improvement in DR would be a blessing, but I don't know that Canon will ever be able to match other sensor manufacturers.

No-one ever mentioned CPLs until you brought it up in the middle of a conversation about GNDs and uneven horizons.

You can't digitally filter something unless that information has been captured by the sensor in the first place. That's why you can apply digital GNDs and colour filters (since the RAW file contains luminance and colour data) but you can't apply a true digital polariser, IR or UV-blocking filter (since the RAW file doesn't contain polarity, IR or UV data).

The reason you've had trouble correcting overexposure in postprocessing is likely because you didn't capture that part of the scene's dynamic range in the first place. If it's not blown in RAW, you can pull it back.

There are many ways to capture this DR. Having a high-DR sensor helps greatly. You can also use multiple exposures, if the scene's lack of movement allows for it. I find both of these methods far preferable to physical GND filters, which I only use if I absolutely have to capture the scene in a single exposure (e.g. shooting from a Zodiac, a helicopter or handheld) and the DR of the camera is insufficient to capture the scene in a single shot. The ability to mask in any way I want, not just a straight line, is far too useful, since the transition zone is rarely an uninterrupted straight line. Also, putting an extra piece of plastic between the lens and the scene does no favours for contrast and flare, and, on UWAs, the light falloff in the corners becomes unacceptable.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 14, 2015 17:56 |  #527

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17431957 (external link)
It's only a general and untrue statement when the context is ignored.

The point of greater dynamic range on the sensor isn't to pull down highlights, it's to recover shadows. ;)

Another way to put it is that high-DR sensors and multiple-exposure techniques deal with high dynamic range scenes by capturing the whole extent of the dynamic range, while physical filters deal with it by trying to reduce the effective dynamic range of the light hitting the sensor. The latter is easier to understand and use ('putting graduated sunglasses on makes the sky darker') but the former is much more flexible and gives better results if you have the time, circumstances and ability to exploit it.

In a way, it's like out-of-camera JPEG vs RAW. The out-of-camera JPEG is instant and easy to use, but gives you a fixed, inflexible result due to its default conversion parameters and isn't as good as being able to fine-tune everything in RAW conversion and Photoshop.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
THREAD ­ STARTER
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,845 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2336
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Feb 14, 2015 18:01 |  #528

You landscape shooters have a lot of time on your hands, I'm in the wrong field.

:D


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 56
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
Post edited over 4 years ago by jdizzle.
     
Feb 14, 2015 20:54 as a reply to  @ post 17430168 |  #529

I think peopke blow Nikon services out of proportion. My experiences have been good. I think the internet has something to do with it. ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Feb 14, 2015 22:39 |  #530

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17431973 (external link)
You landscape shooters have a lot of time on your hands, I'm in the wrong field.

:D

Landscape is about 30 minutes of shooting and 10 hours at the computer. ;)


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 15, 2015 01:18 |  #531

Mornnb wrote in post #17432225 (external link)
Landscape is about 30 minutes of shooting and 10 hours at the computer. ;)

And two weeks of getting to the location and getting out again.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
welshwizard1971
Goldmember
Avatar
1,448 posts
Likes: 1074
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Southampton Hampshire UK
Post edited over 4 years ago by welshwizard1971. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 15, 2015 02:33 |  #532

Shadowblade wrote in post #17431893 (external link)
We're not talking about CPLs, which can't be replicated digitally because they attenuate on the basis of something not recorded by the sensor (polarity of incoming light). We're talking about GNDs and colour filters, which can be replicated and surpassed digitally, because they attenuate light on the basis of something the sensor does record and is, therefore, preserved in the digital file (luminosity and colour information).

If sensors did record polarity information, polarising filters would, indeed, be better applied in post-processing because of the masking options available - for instance, you'd be able to choose to apply it to the sky but not to light reflecting off foliage, or you could apply different angles to different parts of the scene to maximise the effect on two different surfaces, etc. But sensors don't record polarity, so we can't do this and are stuck with the physical version.

Digital filters are preferable where the DR allows it not just because of superior masking options but also because of better compatibility with UWAs. If you're shooting a UWA with a 120-degree angle of view, for instance, you're capturing light that ranges from parallel with the axis of the lens to light that's incoming at 60 degrees away from parallel. The light that's coming in parallel to the axis passes through the normal thickness of the lens, and is attenuated by the stated amount (say, 2 stops for a 2-stop GND, or 10 stops for a Lee Big Stopper). However, the light that's coming in at 60 degrees from parallel - the corners of the UWA - passes through double the thickness of filter and is further attenuated accordingly (4 stops for the 2-stop GND, or 20 stops for the Big Stopper). This leads to major vignetting in the corner on UWAs when using dense filters, and colour unevenness when using coloured filters. This is avoided when applying the filter digitally in post-processing, since digital filters are independent of the angle of incidence of light.

Don't believe me? Put a Big Stopper in front of the widest UWA you have and take a shot. You'll be unpleasantly surprised.

Avoiding the elephant in the room on this thread that a field filter is a far more economic way of resolving DR in landscapes than buying an entirely new Nikon outfit, why can't you resolve the vignetting digitally? Digital can't be the best in the world for one thing, and not be an an option for another? I'm still back at the fact it's better to use a field filter and get a better resolved original RAW file with better DR, than try and force it to be better digitally with an inferior file. Obviously field filters don't work for everything, non linear transitions, occasional flare, rain, haven't got the time, but when they can be used, they're a great tool and are far from 'half arsed'.


EOS R 5D III, 40D, 16-35L 35 ART 50 ART 100L macro, 24-70 L Mk2, 135L 200L 70-200L f4 IS
Hype chimping - The act of looking at your screen after every shot, then wildly behaving like it's the best picture in the world, to try and impress other photographers around you.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
Goldmember
1,933 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Feb 15, 2015 03:08 |  #533

Aswald wrote in post #17430032 (external link)
Nope. I don't think it would. I believe it'll be about the same as the 5D3's DR. That's what I perceive when I look at the sample files.

I'd anticipate heavy studio use for 5Ds and stargazing for the 5DsR predominantly.

I heavily suspect that 5D4 will have DR that'll compete with the rest. 15+ stops at least. Resolution will probably be at 24 or 36mp.

Why do you think the 5D4 will be when Canon finally figures out how to increase DR with their sensors? I've seen no evidence that Canon have the capability to produce such sensors.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
Goldmember
1,933 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Feb 15, 2015 03:12 |  #534

apersson850 wrote in post #17430128 (external link)
Why? Not too many years ago, Canon was able to manufacture sensors with better characteristics than anyone else. It looked like all the others would be hopelessly behind for ever. Now Sony has been able to catch up and pass Canon, as it seems today. Unless Canon dies in the struggle, nothing really says they couldn't develop something which again puts them ahead of the competition.

Well it's been like 5 years or so since Canon made any meaningful improvements to the DR of their sensors. Something is wrong when Canon's APS-C sensors still fail to match or break 12 stops. The gap between Canon's FF and Sony's FF sensors are at about 2 stops now. It wouldn't surprise me if the gap continues to grow. It may very well be that Sony having achieve a massive economy of scale that they're able to innovate faster than Canon. Let's face it, which camera manufacturer would be interested in Canon's sensors? I don't see Canon breaking Sony's grip on the market. DSLR sales are also trending downward. I'm not sure if Canon is even investing money into next generation sensors. The easiest solution here would be to buy Sony's sensors.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
Goldmember
1,933 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Feb 15, 2015 03:15 |  #535

Gaarryy wrote in post #17430144 (external link)
I agree. the leapfrogging happens, as long as the company can survive, do the R&D to rejump the competition, things work out in the end. With Canon just spending 2.8 Billion, to buy another company, now showing their 120+MP CMOS sensor from 2010 I'm thinking they will figure out a way to equal or jump ahead again, and they are still in a cash heavy position. Now how long until they figure things out is the big guess.

And if I was reading it correctly that 120MP sensor was able to do 9fps?? That's a lot of data moving..

It wouldn't matter if the DR on that sensor isn't any better than what's available today. It's been a long time since Canon have made any meaningful improvements to their sensors. It's pretty sad 5 years later, Canon's flagship APS-C sensor still isn't capable of breaking 12 stops of DR. It's ridiculous. It makes me wonder if Canon is even investing in next generation sensors. Competition is heating up as Panasonic/Fujifilm wants to bring their organic sensor to market. Not sure when it'll come out, but it's suppose to be revolutionary.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
Goldmember
1,933 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Feb 15, 2015 03:18 |  #536

Sparky98 wrote in post #17430254 (external link)
It seems that everyone loves to hate these cameras even before anyone has been able to do any real world testing. It is discouraging when spokespersons from Canon say the DR is equivalent to the 5DIII but once some real testing is done the optimist in me says that it may be better than it sounds. Is it possible that Canon has shifted the DR "downward" to clean up the shadows at the expense of the highlights and that's the reason for the 6400 ISO limit? I just have a feeling that once the cameras are available and get a little use most people will be pleased. HOWEVER, if this new sensor turns out to be a disappointment the best thing photographers can do is not buy it. Canon is sensitive to revenue and a disaster that doesn't sell will get their attention quickly. The EOS M didn't last long in the USA and if the 5DS and 5DS R don't measure up then they may not last either.

No one is hating the camera. It's just disappointing that Canon haven't been able to improve the DR of their sensors. I'm sure most people would be happy with a 50MP sensor that's capable of at least 12 stops of DR. 13 would be a good indication that Canon is catching up with Sony, but I doubt that's going to happen in light of what Canon have said.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
Goldmember
1,933 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Feb 15, 2015 03:24 |  #537

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17431774 (external link)
It's a really good question and any answer right now would put us back in the rumor / prediction territory.

My feeling is that yes there will be as historically the "S" designation has been a separate line.

It would have been better if Canon called the 5DS, the 3D.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
3,305 posts
Gallery: 341 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 3630
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
     
Feb 15, 2015 04:35 |  #538

Yea, using 3D to describe a new camera, not confusing on any level at all.


Fujifilm cameras and lenses.
Get 5% off Fuji from Kim ;) (external link)
Gear & Discounts (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)YouTube (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tvphotog
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,093 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 37
Joined Aug 2007
Location: New York City
Post edited over 4 years ago by tvphotog. (8 edits in all)
     
Feb 15, 2015 14:51 |  #539

I took the original of the 21 MP JPEG below at http://web.canon.jp/im​aging/eosd/samples/eos​5dsr/ (external link), and pushed the exposure up in Camera Raw almost as high as it would go, and looked at the shadows in the second image below, a 100% crop. Don't forget, focus is on the model, not the background.

Nonetheless, to my eyes, they're very acceptable, much better than the old posts of the 5D3 compared to the D800 above; maybe not as good as the A7r on page 17. Detail is there without banding or color separation. Look especially at the tiny leaves just to the left of the tree trunk in the far background, under the right side of the table top. Look at the apples at her feet and the clay pots there.

I don't know if this is a fair test of the new camera, but all the other shots in this thread were done with various jpegs, as were the ones on FM. If this is not a good test of the new sensor's DR, tell me why you think not.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Jay
Ireland in Word and Image (external link) Jay Ben Images (external link)5D IV | 5DS/R | Powershot S100 | 24-105L | 100-400 IIL | 16-35 f/2.8 IIL | 24 T/S f /3.5L II | 17 T/S f/4L | 50mm f/1.2L | 35mm f/1.4L | 70-200 f/2.8L II | 580 EX II | 600 EX-RT | Feisol 3441T/Markins Q3T lever QR | Gitzo 3542L Markins Qi20 BV-22 | Gitzo 5561T RRS MH-02

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 15, 2015 16:56 |  #540

tvphotog wrote in post #17433024 (external link)
I took the original of the 21 MP JPEG below at http://web.canon.jp/im​aging/eosd/samples/eos​5dsr/ (external link), and pushed the exposure up in Camera Raw almost as high as it would go, and looked at the shadows in the second image below, a 100% crop. Don't forget, focus is on the model, not the background.

Nonetheless, to my eyes, they're very acceptable, much better than the old posts of the 5D3 compared to the D800 above; maybe not as good as the A7r on page 17. Detail is there without banding or color separation. Look especially at the tiny leaves just to the left of the tree trunk in the far background, under the right side of the table top. Look at the apples at her feet and the clay pots there.

I don't know if this is a fair test of the new camera, but all the other shots in this thread were done with various jpegs, as were the ones on FM. If this is not a good test of the new sensor's DR, tell me why you think not.

It's not a good test of DR because we don't actually know how much DR was in the original scene, and have no real way to find out.

Also, since it came from a JPEG and not from the RAW file, it's already been subject to a tone mapping curve, which distorts the absolute relationship between light and dark areas.

If the original scene had 14 stops of DR between the highlights and shadows, this would be a great result. Conversely, if there were only 8 stops between the highlights and shadows, the same, pushed, image would be a terrible result. But, without a RAW file, there's no way to know.

Besides, it looks like there are lots of random green blotches that don't correspond to any single green surface.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

309,361 views & 241 likes for this thread
OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is wooricoin
865 guests, 234 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.