OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17506301
Per Roger over at LensRentals, adapters are unsuitable for lens testing.

Post the link. I'm sure you're right - I recall reading it as well.

Mornnb wrote in post #17506305
Which appears to be on par with the 15mm Zeiss Distagon, which has been regarded as the worlds best ultra wide angle.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=3

Any plans to get the 11-24mm? It does look impressive and the zoom range is very intriguing. Initially I was concerned that 11mm might be too wide, but I like what I've been seeing from it in landscapes: http://www.ianplant.co​m …eld/#sthash.WdO​1EMWr.dpbs I am thinking the 5DS R and 11-24mm are going to be an excellent combo.

I think if I had your lens lineup I might be tempted to sell the 14L II and 16-35mm f/4L to get the 11-24mm. 11-15mm is more exotic and interesting than 25-35mm to me.

Mornnb wrote in post #17506305
The 16-35mm F4 is noticeably sharper in the Digital Picture comparison, even at f8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

And compared to the 11-24mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

Which appears to be on par with the 15mm Zeiss Distagon, which has been regarded as the worlds best ultra wide angle.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=3

Thanks for the links. I'm loving the 11-24 even more now....

David Arbogast wrote in post #17506312
Post the link. I'm sure you're right - I recall reading it as well.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …episode-763-lens-adapters

http://www.lensrentals​.com …stacks-and-adapted-lenses

Both of those discuss it. It does, of course, raise the philosophical point of whether we care "which lens is the best at bending light?" or "which lens produces the best images on a given, actual body?", which is an interesting and valid point of debate.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17506236
Interesting...the Photozone numbers actually look pretty good. At f/8 the numbers are a little worse than the EF 16-35mm f/4L, but not extremely different. I had thought the 16-35mm f/4L was supposed to be a major improvement over the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. The impression I get is that Photozone does not test a large sample size of lenses, so maybe they got a good f/2.8L II and a bad f/4L to test.

That's why I like Roger Cicala's tests - sample size. I've seen Photozone tests that have been the opposite of my experience with a couple of lenses (and others that match). So who's wrong? Probably nobody - it was just sample variation (and possibly technique problems); both of which might be absorbed somewhat with a larger sample size.

This is an interesting sidebar and interview about the absense of moire using the 5D/R. Exciting to contemplate for us travel photographers.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17507644

What bothers me is that Hurley is paid by Canon.

tvphotog wrote in post #17508191
This is an interesting sidebar and interview about the absense of moire using the 5D/R. Exciting to contemplate for us travel photographers.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17507644

What bothers me is that Hurley is paid by Canon.

travel photographers?

Apparently the new C300 Mk II has 15 stops of DR.

What's up, Canon? Putting 15 stops into a video camera that doesn't need it instead of into the top-of-the-line studio/landscape/archi​tecture body?

[LOL]video cameras don't need DR[/LOL]

i'm convinced resolution (pixel density, whatever you want to call it) is the determining factor, and that the next round of FF cameras will give all the DR junkies what they want, even if it means keeping them under 30MP.

i even started a thread in the rumors section about it: https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17509117

Shadowblade wrote in post #17509240
Apparently the new C300 Mk II has 15 stops of DR.

What's up, Canon? Putting 15 stops into a video camera that doesn't need it instead of into the top-of-the-line studio/landscape/archi​tecture body?

Are you serious? How do you film a scene which has 14 Stops with a camera which supports 12 stops? Do you bracket the movie?

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17509248
[LOL]video cameras don't need DR[/LOL]

i'm convinced resolution (pixel density, whatever you want to call it) is the determining factor, and that the next round of FF cameras will give all the DR junkies what they want, even if it means keeping them under 30MP.

That's a hopeful thought, but pixel density does not interfere at all with base-ISO DR; in fact, with Canons current technology, higher pixel counts are the only way to get more DR. Canon's pixel-level base-ISO DR has been pretty much carved in stone through the entire history of their CMOS DSLR sensors, except that a couple of models had a little less than the rest (such as the original 5D), and some had more banding noise than the rest (such as the 5D2).

yes i know.

i'm going on gut feel alone. :lol

actually, i used to read a lot about processor design and performance, and eventually began to understand some of it. Just seems like some of the hurdles there apply to this too. Occasionally there would be a technological breakthrough that enabled much better performance, but it was generally baby steps year after year. Hoping that in the last three years there have been enough baby steps in MFG that they will eke out another stop or two with the next round of FF sensors.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17509509
That's a hopeful thought, but pixel density does not interfere at all with base-ISO DR; in fact, with Canons current technology, higher pixel counts are the only way to get more DR. Canon's pixel-level base-ISO DR has been pretty much carved in stone through the entire history of their CMOS DSLR sensors, except that a couple of models had a little less than the rest (such as the original 5D), and some had more banding noise than the rest (such as the 5D2).

I think the 5Ds/r are the last sensors using the existing manufacturing process, thrown into the old 5D3 body. The 5D4 will (hopefully) get a new sensor sharing the process of this one, once the yields are up.

davidfarina wrote in post #17509253
Are you serious? How do you film a scene which has 14 Stops with a camera which supports 12 stops? Do you bracket the movie?

Movies are largely shot in controlled or semi-controlled lighting, either in a studio or with outdoor artificial lights. You can always use fill lighting on the actors. Outdoor scenes during the daytime rarely have 12 stops of DR. And outdoor scenes at nighttime, sunset, or other dark scenes, have DR limited by ISO anyway - if you have 15 stops at ISO 100 and the curve is linear (like an ideal sensor), you're limited to 12 stops at ISO 800 anyway.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17509881
Movies are largely shot in controlled or semi-controlled lighting, either in a studio or with outdoor artificial lights. You can always use fill lighting on the actors. Outdoor scenes during the daytime rarely have 12 stops of DR. And outdoor scenes at nighttime, sunset, or other dark scenes, have DR limited by ISO anyway - if you have 15 stops at ISO 100 and the curve is linear (like an ideal sensor), you're limited to 12 stops at ISO 800 anyway.

Makes totally sense. But not every movie is shot in artificial lights (tv ads, documentary films etc)