OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced

OMG, 17 MB jpegs.

When the image is open on my widescreen, it's at 17%!

Clicking 1/1 size is mind blowing.

Mornnb wrote in post #17486072
Low ISO noise is mainly picked up in the ADC and analog circuitary between the sensor and the Digic chip. Canon's pixels are excellent and pick up very little noise, it's the ADC which is letting the system down.
What Sony is doing different is on sensor analog to digital conversion. Canon hasn't figured out how to do this without violating Sony's patents.

Yet, somehow, every other chip manufacturer has managed to.

It's not Sony which is exceptional, nor is it patents - every other manufacturer has also managed to use on-chip conversion and achieve similar DR to the Exmor. It's just that Canon is exceptionally bad. Possibly because their antiquated 500nm manufacturing process won't let them cram anything else onto the chip.

Perhaps the problem is Canon never talks to their landscape or architecture photographer customers... Photojournalists and sports photographers don't care about dynamic range.

Mornnb wrote in post #17486072
Low ISO noise is mainly picked up in the ADC and analog circuitary between the sensor and the Digic chip. Canon's pixels are excellent and pick up very little noise we can see this in the high ISO performance, it's the ADC which is letting the system down.
What Sony is doing different is on sensor analog to digital conversion. Canon hasn't figured out how to do this without violating Sony's patents.

Leica is doing similar to Sony, their CMOSIS sensor is doing on-sensor ADC and provides extremely low noise
shadows and 13EV of dynamic range, not quite as much as Sony's 14EV but the shadows are very clean and low noise.

It isn't a Sony invention. It wasn't even invented by a camera company afaik. I think it was an IBM patent (could be wrong). The column adc / digital cds that is. Canon has their own on-sensor ADC related stuff they could use.

Leica CMOSIS sensor may score well on DXO but real life files from it are nothing special. Very meh looking high ISO and it has banding. It'd be like a 5d mark II with 13 stops of DXO DR lol. I don't think the low ISO files are as pleasing as Canon files. It may have more DR, but I would not want that thing in a Canon cam. To me that is proof that having a high tech sensor on a good manufacturing process isn't enough. It's not just the Sony tech that makes their sensors good. It's the combination of the tech and a ton of experience perfecting it.

Fortunately Canon has a ton of experience getting the pixels themselves to be great. Just missing the readout part! The new rebel 24mp sensor looks like a new arch for Canon, I'm curious to see how it does.

I do not agree with the persistent naysaying by some about Canon image sensors, and it's gone on so long in these discussions that I'm finding it tiresome, boring, and unimaginative.

Because if we discuss a specification Canon lacks ad nauseum, but are also not reciprocally at the same time discussing the advances in technology they have made that are thoroughly lacking in Sony, Nikon, and others ... then the discussion is unbalanced about absolutely all of the things that comprise the imaging pipeline for a camera as a complete system.

A very narrow viewpoint on dynamic range in re: Canon CMOS sensors seems not in balance with the whole of the art of photography.

All of our photographic art involves the creative management of the dynamic range of the media used. Obsolete DLSRs have more dynamic range than film. If one uses some other camera system with 13+ stops of dynamic range, that range still has to be mapped to another form of output media for viewing. If you are editing very carefully for electronic display to others, guess what: your image will still be seen on numerous divergent output media you cannot even come close to controlling the dynamic range of. And if you are developing beautiful art prints, you only get about 6-stops dynamic range of output to fit your 13+ stops of input into:
http://www.imatest.com …ge-quality/dynamic-range/

The photographer is the creative aegis behind the artful mapping from input to output obtained with technical means including the camera.

I would enjoy far more dialog about how to creatively use the dynamic range obtainable with Canon EOS DSLRs to make masterful artworks for ePublication and for print.

An affirmation for photographic art: What the photographer can do; not what the camera cannot do.

woos wrote in post #17486223
Leica CMOSIS sensor may score well on DXO but real life files from it are nothing special. Very meh looking high ISO and it has banding. It'd be like a 5d mark II with 13 stops of DXO DR lol. I don't think the low ISO files are as pleasing as Canon files. It may have more DR, but I would not want that thing in a Canon cam. To me that is proof that having a high tech sensor on a good manufacturing process isn't enough. It's not just the Sony tech that makes their sensors good. It's the combination of the tech and a ton of experience perfecting it.

High ISO performance has no bearing on low ISO performance. The Leica CMOSIS sensor was designed with low ISO noise as the priority as the camera tends to be used with fast primes. It's raw files at ISO 200 show very little noise in shadows and no banding, at low ISO it looks cleaner than Sony's 36MP sensor. At high ISO however it is not so great. I know this first hand I have a 5D3, a A7r and a Leica. The 5D3 at ISO 100 looks terrible next to both of them, but at high ISO its the best by a wide margin.


Here's an example from Steve Huff of how clean the shadows on the CMOSIS sensor are:
http://i2.wp.com …ads/2013/03/L10​013911.jpg
http://i2.wp.com …ads/2013/03/L10​013912.jpg

raksphoto wrote in post #17486259
All of our photographic art involves the creative management of the dynamic range of the media used. Obsolete DLSRs have more dynamic range than film. If one uses some other camera system with 13+ stops of dynamic range, that range still has to be mapped to another form of output media for viewing. If you are editing very carefully for electronic display to others, guess what: your image will still be seen on numerous divergent output media you cannot even come close to controlling the dynamic range of. And if you are developing beautiful art prints, you only get about 6-stops dynamic range of output to fit your 13+ stops of input into:
http://www.imatest.com …ge-quality/dynamic-range/

The photographer is the creative aegis behind the artful mapping from input to output obtained with technical means including the camera.

I would enjoy far more dialog about how to creatively use the dynamic range obtainable with Canon EOS DSLRs to make masterful artworks for ePublication and for print.

Absolutely (your point about the low DR in most output media). But, the issue is that with a sensor capable of capturing high DR the photographer will have that data available with which to make those artistic mapping decisions. With a Canon sensor, some of that information won't be present.

Numerous people do keep banging on about Canon's DR problems, but that's because their style of shooting demands it - and in this instance, the 5DS models are exactly the sort of camera that would be of interest to those types of photographers. I'm sure a sports oriented thread would have people complaining about a system's AF failings.

I very much agree with your last point above though; I'm aware that skilled manipulation of tones and colours in post can make a good shot into something really special. All too often it's easy to end up with something that looks tacky, overblown, or just not that pleasing. I guess that's why I'm not a landscape pro.

raksphoto wrote in post #17486259
I do not agree with the persistent naysaying by some about Canon image sensors, and it's gone on so long in these discussions that I'm finding it tiresome, boring, and unimaginative.

Because if we discuss a specification Canon lacks ad nauseum, but are also not reciprocally at the same time discussing the advances in technology they have made that are thoroughly lacking in Sony, Nikon, and others ... then the discussion is unbalanced about absolutely all of the things that comprise the imaging pipeline for a camera as a complete system.

A very narrow viewpoint on dynamic range in re: Canon CMOS sensors seems not in balance with the whole of the art of photography.

All of our photographic art involves the creative management of the dynamic range of the media used. Obsolete DLSRs have more dynamic range than film. If one uses some other camera system with 13+ stops of dynamic range, that range still has to be mapped to another form of output media for viewing. If you are editing very carefully for electronic display to others, guess what: your image will still be seen on numerous divergent output media you cannot even come close to controlling the dynamic range of. And if you are developing beautiful art prints, you only get about 6-stops dynamic range of output to fit your 13+ stops of input into:
http://www.imatest.com …ge-quality/dynamic-range/

The photographer is the creative aegis behind the artful mapping from input to output obtained with technical means including the camera.

I would enjoy far more dialog about how to creatively use the dynamic range obtainable with Canon EOS DSLRs to make masterful artworks for ePublication and for print.

An affirmation for photographic art: What the photographer can do; not what the camera cannot do.

Skill is irrelevant when the argument is about gear. A better photographer will produce better work with the same camera, while a better camera will allow the same photographer to produce better work.

And the output DR has absolutely no bearing on the requirement for input DR. In photography, you collect a set of data (the limits of which are determine by the input DR) and compress it to fit the output DR. You don't lose detail in this compression - you change the absolute values for each pixel, but the relative positions and relationships between pixels remain proportionate. But neither do you gain any detail which wasn't captured in the first place - if parts of the scene weren't captured because they were outside the input DR of your sensor, you'll never get it back. A 14-stop landscape shot on a D810 and mapped to a 6-stop output medium will have detail in the brightest highlights and deepest shadows, since the highlights and shadows were captured by the sensor and all compressed together, thus retaining the detail. The same 14-stop landscape shot on a 5D3 and displayed on a 14-stop output medium would still have blown highlights, shadows or both, since they were never captured in the first place.

Sure, you may never encounter DR limitations in your photography, because what you shoot never pushes the limits. In the same way, I never encounter ISO limitations, since I almost never leave baseline for landscapes, or go higher than 3200 for wildlife. But that doesn't mean the limitations aren't there or that they don't impact certain styles of photography which are just as valid as yours, or that they aren't worth expanding just because you won't personally need the DR (or me the ISO).

And why would I want to discuss ways to maximise the use of Canon's limited DR when I can just go out and buy something else that isn't Canon, and gain 2-3 stops of DR in the process? It's not like Canon represents the cutting edge in that regard. I can increase my DR potential just by buying a new camera. If it were about increasing DR further when already using a Nikon or Sony sensor, it would be a completely different question - these sensors represent the highest DR you can buy, and any further improvement, or maximising the potential of these 14-15 stops of DR, is a matter worthy of discussion, since you can't just go and buy a better sensor and need creative solutions (e.g. image blending).

Personally, I find discussion of skill and technique utterly boring - I can develop these in my own way, gain nothing from talking about them and cannot even objectively measure and compare them to say x is better than y. You can do that with equipment, and better equipment gives anyone's photos the potential to be better, or to capture them in more challenging lighting and environmental conditions.

Mornnb wrote in post #17486072
Low ISO noise is mainly picked up in the ADC and analog circuitary between the sensor and the Digic chip. Canon's pixels are excellent and pick up very little noise we can see this in the high ISO performance, it's the ADC which is letting the system down.

Well, that's a very popular interpretation, but I think very little of Canon's post-gain noise comes from the ADC, and it all pretty much comes from the long analog signal path in the sensor, and leading up to the ADC. The reason I believe that is because the Canon cameras that use analog gain for their 1/3-stop ISOs have the same sawtooth shape in a graph of ISO vs read noise in ADU if you include the 1/3-stop ISOs. That could not be possible if the ADC was the main contributor to post-gain noise.

can't wait for the 5D mk4...

it'll be either a 5Dmk4 @ 3500 or a imported 1DX for 4000.... this will be my next upgrade.

Anti-flicker is a nice feature... only thing I wish the 1Dx had. Maybe a firmware upgrade would introduce that?

Gaarryy wrote in post #17485763
http://www.imaging-resource.com …/canon-5ds-rA.HTM#HIGHRES

I took a closer look at these samples this morning, and I'm not sure what to think. Either the lens used on the 5DS R is soft, or perhaps diffraction is softening the image. But when I downsample the soft-looking 5DS R image to match the D810's 36MP image, I am hard-pressed to see much more detail in the 5DS R image (typically a higher resolution source image that is down-sampled will hold better image details than lower resolution source image).

Then I enlarged the D810 image to match the 5DS R's image and still struggle to see (@200%) much more detail in the 5DS R image. That extra detail is certainly there, but it is subtle.

Interestingly there are some areas where the D810 shows some moire in places, while the 5DS R's higher resolution reduces or eliminates the moire in those places.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I am seeing enough extra detail in the 5DS R (over 36 MP sensors, like in my a7R) to make me enthused about buying a 5DS R. I will wait to see Sony's 50 MP answer and skip the 5DS R preorder for the time being.

Wish I could afford that Pentax 645Z - it really does stand out against the 5DS R in this test. Unlike the 5DS R image, it does not appear soft and has great detail.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17486545
Anyway, I'm not sure if I am seeing enough extra detail in the 5DS R (over 36 MP sensors, like in my a7R) to make me enthused about buying a 5DS R. I will wait to see Sony's 50 MP answer and skip the 5DS R preorder for the time being.

this was the first thing i happened to read in that article.

i stopped reading after that. I appreciate that everyone wants to be the first to review a new camera, and many folks want to gobble up as much info as possible, but even the best online test can be flawed. Comparing out of camera JPG though? and of a peppercorn through the distortion of an acrylic pepper grinder? seems like a waste of time, and certainly a poorly designed subject for comparing details of a sensor.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17486598
this was the first thing i happened to read in that article.

i stopped reading after that. I appreciate that everyone wants to be the first to review a new camera, and many folks want to gobble up as much info as possible, but even the best online test can be flawed. Comparing out of camera JPG though? and of a peppercorn through the distortion of an acrylic pepper grinder? seems like a waste of time, and certainly a poorly designed subject for comparing details of a sensor.

Good point...basically it's just a comparison of in-camera jpeg processing. Thanks for the reality check.

For the heck of it, I thought I'd compare the 5Dsr jpg with one from the Sony a7r. These were both 100 iso images of "still life". What surprised me is that the "unaltered original camera image" for the 5Dsr jpg is 17,947k and the Sony file is 22,151k. After downloading and viewing in PS, both are the correct dimensions.

Here's the link for the comparisons if anyone else is interested: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CO​MPS01.HTM

David Arbogast wrote in post #17486621
Good point...basically it's just a comparison of in-camera jpeg processing. Thanks for the reality check.

I had the same thought as I read that review.

Can someone tell me if my 17 mm T/S will work on the aR7?