OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17437134
its not LOL the a7r/s trumps all over canons high iso DR

Sorry, you are correct. According to DXOMark the A7s does in fact beat the 5D3 for DR at all sensitivities and soundly too. Their data however tells a different story when it comes to the A7R.

http://www.dxomark.com …949_917_795#mea​suretabs-3

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17437147
What does "good high DR in ISO" mean?

Good DR at high ISO

I disagree with the 5D3 having better AF. The D750 was compared to the 5D3 and it had a higher percentage of keepers. I do agree the A7 series bodies are perfect for travel.

The thing is, good DR at high ISO should mean even better DR at low ISO.

After all, if you take read noise out of the equation, you lose 1 stop of DR for every stop of ISO you go up, and you gain 1 stop of DR for every stop of ISO you go down.

Sony/Nikon/Toshiba/Sam​sung/everyone else's sensor is essentially like this - you can shoot at ISO 100 and push to ISO 25600, and essentially suffer no penalty compared with shooting at ISO 25600 in the first place. The sensors are essentially ISO-less. You also have the option of pushing the highlights less than the shadows, so that you get shadow detail without blowing out the highlights.

Canon sensors are different. They hold true to the 'ideal sensor' (like the others) down to around ISO 800, but, below that, the curve deviates significantly from the linear ideal - going from ISO 800 to 400, you gain significantly less than a stop of DR, and even less when you go from 400 to 200, or 200 to 100. This is due to read noise, which becomes much more significant at low ISO, where photon shot noise is minimal.

This is why Canon sensors are great if all you do is shoot at ISO 1600 and up, but suboptimal below that. Even for a wedding photographer, that's a lot of shots you're taking with a less-than-ideal sensor.

Sony, Nikon and the rest can push their high-ISO capabilities as much as they can - every extra stop of performance at high ISO translates into an extra stop of DR at every single ISO level. If they can manage 10 stops at ISO 6400, it would translate to 16 stops at ISO 100. Canon needs to fix their low-ISO problem first, otherwise, no matter how much they improve their high-ISO capability, otherwise they'll just keep on running into the 11-12 stop barrier - just that that barrier will be pushed to a higher and higher level, until you have a sensor that can manage 11-12 stops from ISO 100 all the way to ISO 3200, but no more than that at any level.

jdizzle wrote in post #17437227
I disagree with the 5D3 having better AF. The D750 was compared to the 5D3 and it had a higher percentage of keepers. I do agree the A7 series bodies are perfect for travel.

Topic here is Canon 5DS. There is a forum https://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdis​play.php?f=144 available, please start a new thread there if you need to. Nikon has its own forum, too.

I've said previously that I won't be getting the 5DS, but I'm having second thoughts.

The 5DS could be a pretty excellent architectural camera getting the most optical performance out of the TS-Es. Unlike landscapes, architecture is usually not swaying in the wind, so I already bracket all my architectural captures with dependably good results. HDR/exposure fusion/manual-exposure-blending, after all, are simply ways of manufacturing your own DR to compensate for the sensor's shortcomings. Of course architectural subjects frequently have trees/shrubs/flags/etc​. that do flap in the wind, but since they're not the focal point of the image, post-processing ghost-reduction seems adequately effective in my experience.

It appears that the 5DS will make a great studio camera, a good architectural camera (maximizing TS-E performance), and an OK landscape camera. If I had to rely on only one single camera, I don't think I could go with a 5DS. But as I think it through, I'm less troubled by it's DR shortcomings: 1. Not all scenarios (that I want to capture) require more than 12 stops DR, 2. When they do, that's what my a7R is for. I use the same thought process with my lenses. When capturing an architectural subject I prefer better optics and FOV of the TS-E 24mm II (over the TS-E 17mm), but on the occasion when a greater FOV is needed, then the TS-E 17mm is there for that. So, I'm beginning to like the notion of adding a 5DS R as my go-to camera for landscapes and architecture where a 12 EV range DR will suffice, but having the a7R when more DR is required. If the shadow noise performance in the 5DS R is improved over the 5D III, then all the better.

As it is, I already use the 5D III in concert with my a7R. The a7R, with it's 14+ EV DR is terrific, yet I do not, by default, prefer it over the 5D III. I still use both about equally.

Just thinking out loud...in public.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17437592
I've said previously that I won't be getting the 5DS, but I'm having second thoughts.

The 5DS could be a pretty excellent architectural camera getting the most optical performance out of the TS-Es. Unlike landscapes, architecture is usually not swaying in the wind, so I already bracket all my architectural captures with dependably good results. HDR/exposure fusion/manual-exposure-blending, after all, are simply ways of manufacturing your own DR to compensate for the sensor's shortcomings. Of course architectural subjects frequently have trees/shrubs/flags/etc​. that do flap in the wind, but since they're not the focal point of the image, post-processing ghost-reduction seems adequately effective in my experience.

It appears that the 5DS will make a great studio camera, a good architectural camera (maximizing TS-E performance), and an OK landscape camera. If I had to rely on only one single camera, I don't think I could go with a 5DS. But as I think it through, I'm less troubled by it's DR shortcomings: 1. Not all scenarios (that I want to capture) require more than 12 stops DR, 2. When they do, that's what my a7R is for. I use the same thought process with my lenses. When capturing an architectural subject I prefer better optics and FOV of the TS-E 24mm II (over the TS-E 17mm), but on the occasion when a greater FOV is needed, then the TS-E 17mm is there for that. So, I'm beginning to like the notion of adding a 5DS R as my go-to camera for landscapes and architecture where a 12 EV range DR will suffice, but having the a7R when more DR is required. If the shadow noise performance in the 5DS R is improved over the 5D III, then all the better.

As it is, I already use the 5D III in concert with my a7R. The a7R, with it's 14+ EV DR is terrific, yet I do not, by default, prefer it over the 5D III. I still use both about equally.

Just thinking out loud...in public.

I'm guessing that in a few weeks or months you'll be switching to another plan i.e. going for the 50MP Sony full-frame E-Mount camera.

jocau wrote in post #17437622
I'm guessing that in a few weeks or months you'll be switching to another plan i.e. going for the 50MP Sony full-frame E-Mount camera.

Could be!

I wish Sony would show us their cards already. Would be helpful for planning purposes.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17437623
Could be!

I wish Sony would show us their cards already. Would be helpful for planning purposes.

Just be patient. If they repeat their move from last year (they released the A7II 2 months after Photokina), then that 50MP Sony full-frame E-Mount camera will be available in about 2 months from now. And I believe the 5Ds (R) won't be available until June 2015?

Instead of boosting the size of the file of more pixels, why not fine tune the pixels you have to get rid of any noise as much as possible within the technology that exists. You notice there is no mention of noise with these cameras? Get rid of the noise and then boost the size of the file.

jocau wrote in post #17437637
Just be patient. If they repeat their move from last year (they released the A7II 2 months after Photokina), then that 50MP Sony full-frame E-Mount camera will be available in about 2 months from now. And I believe the 5Ds (R) won't be available until June 2015?

There are several things in the 5DS specifications that I really like, that probably won't be in the a7R II:

1. Canon's AEB implementation in the 5D III is superb; surely the 5DS will be similar.
2. While we can justly criticize the 5DS' sensor's lack of DR, Canon at least seems to be taking the needs of a high-resolution sensor seriously by engineering the shutter/mirror mechanism to minimize vibrations. Sony seems to have been oblivious to that with the a7R shutter.
3. Love the built-in bulb timer. Wonder if you can do AEB in bulb mode? That would be fantastic.
4. Better integration with my 600EX RTs (I do use a Yongnuo YN E3 RT to control them on my a7R, but of course, but that is somewhat less capable than a Canon ST E3 RT with a Canon camera).
5. No IBIS. I don't know if the a7R II will have IBIS, like the a7 II, but I'm not enthused about that in a camera I will use for tripod work anyway. For the a7R II I would rather Sony do something cool like a fixed curved sensor rather than IBIS.
6. A non-lossy 14-bit raw file. What is Sony thinking?!

Other than price (which will no doubt be considerably lower) and DR, the 5DS R seems more attractive to me at the moment. Patience, as you say, is mandatory as we're still months away from shipping 50MP cameras. I won't be the least bit surprised if Sony doesn't get their 50MP camera on the streets quicker than June. As I thought it would be, this is a very interesting and exciting and painful (for decision-making) year.

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17437067
Even at low ISO, the DR is pooor compared to others.

I am not really talking about every type of dslr user. i am talking about people who spend over 1k for a body. Those people dont pend over 1k for a body only just to take cat pictures.

Most spend that sort of money because they are serious about photography.

DR range doesnt need to be amazing on the cheap DSLR canon rebel series, but for a 3k body?

FFS we expect it to at least be as good as or very close to being as good as the nikon/sony equivalent.

companies like Fuji etc already leap frogging canon in sensor tech...

Okay, we were talking about abc and you are talking about xyz. I'm not even going to bother with that anymore...

Aside from that, you just stated what we already believed and stated in our discussion as well. That this camera that is targeted specifically for a group of people who require DR, it would be stupid for Canon to think of DR as unimportant.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17437592
I've said previously that I won't be getting the 5DS, but I'm having second thoughts.

The 5DS could be a pretty excellent architectural camera getting the most optical performance out of the TS-Es. Unlike landscapes, architecture is usually not swaying in the wind, so I already bracket all my architectural captures with dependably good results. HDR/exposure fusion/manual-exposure-blending, after all, are simply ways of manufacturing your own DR to compensate for the sensor's shortcomings. Of course architectural subjects frequently have trees/shrubs/flags/etc​. that do flap in the wind, but since they're not the focal point of the image, post-processing ghost-reduction seems adequately effective in my experience.

It appears that the 5DS will make a great studio camera, a good architectural camera (maximizing TS-E performance), and an OK landscape camera. If I had to rely on only one single camera, I don't think I could go with a 5DS. But as I think it through, I'm less troubled by it's DR shortcomings: 1. Not all scenarios (that I want to capture) require more than 12 stops DR, 2. When they do, that's what my a7R is for. I use the same thought process with my lenses. When capturing an architectural subject I prefer better optics and FOV of the TS-E 24mm II (over the TS-E 17mm), but on the occasion when a greater FOV is needed, then the TS-E 17mm is there for that. So, I'm beginning to like the notion of adding a 5DS R as my go-to camera for landscapes and architecture where a 12 EV range DR will suffice, but having the a7R when more DR is required. If the shadow noise performance in the 5DS R is improved over the 5D III, then all the better.

As it is, I already use the 5D III in concert with my a7R. The a7R, with it's 14+ EV DR is terrific, yet I do not, by default, prefer it over the 5D III. I still use both about equally.

Just thinking out loud...in public.

If you already have a 5d3, a a7r is just best suited to go hand in hand with the 5d3!!!!

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17437839
If you already have a 5d3, a a7r is just best suited to go hand in hand with the 5d3!!!!

Exactly what I plan to do now, after careful consideration up until this point. It's very convincing from reading all these posts that the a7R is a very good alternative for me as a tripod-landscape shooter, if the 5DR doesn't pass muster.

I can wait for a new Sony model, as well as until a 5D IV is announced, which I think will be in the summer or fall. I will bet money that a new 5D IV will have a 50MP sensor; I wonder if they will put the mirror dampening mechanism in that upgrade. It would be funny if a new Sony came out before the release of the 5DS and SR.Talk about an exciting year.

tvphotog wrote in post #17437864
Exactly what I plan to do now, after careful consideration up until this point. It's very convincing from reading all these posts that the a7R is a very good alternative for me as a tripod-landscape shooter, if the 5DR doesn't pass muster.

I can wait for a new Sony model, as well as until a 5D IV is announced, which I think will be in the summer or fall. I will bet money that a new 5D IV will have a 50MP sensor; I wonder if they will put the mirror dampening mechanism in that upgrade. It would be funny if a new Sony came out before the release of the 5DS and SR.Talk about an exciting year.

No way the 5D IV will have a 50 MP sensor. I'm guessing it will be +/- 24 MP. If the 5D IV has a 50 MP sensor then the 5DS R is utterly meaningless.

I do think it is very possible Sony may be the first to get a 50 MP camera on the streets.