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 07 Apr 2015 (Tuesday) 14:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What to purchase!? EOS 5DS or EOS 5DS R

 
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,962 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 7086
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 3 years ago by David Arbogast.
     
Apr 09, 2015 08:40 |  #16

Nalauk wrote in post #17510496 (external link)
I have researched it, and nothing I see tells me otherwise. That's why I'm saying wait till some reviews are done. Point me at your research and lets see what you mean? :)

What I mean is don't be making stuff up like that. You are making the claim that the only difference between the 5DS and 5DS R is that the 5DS R does a little in-camera post-processing sharpening. That is absolutely absurd. You've made up that little "fact" out of thin air.

I don't need to prove anything because I am not making a truth claim. You're claiming to know the difference between the models that is at variance with the claims of the manufacturer, so you bear the burden of proof. You show us the documentation that proves your assertion.

Per Dpreview:

"Canon has added to its EOS 5D range with the launch of two 50MP cameras, the 5DS and the 5DS R. Both cameras are high-resolution full frame models, primarily aimed at stills photographers. The only difference between the models is that the 'S' has an optical low-pass filter, while the 'S R' has a self-cancelling filter (the same relationship as Nikon's D800 and D800E models shared)."

The above is your baseline - we are being told by Canon that the 5DS R includes a second filter that cancels out the effect of the low-pass filter. It's on you to prove that false - that there is no actual cancelation filter; that all that is really happening is a little in-camera post-processing sharpening.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, FE 50mm ZA, Batis 85mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Nalauk
Member
95 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2012
     
Apr 09, 2015 09:01 |  #17

Ah yes, marketing.

From Canon USA rather than DPReview which has changed the sentence a bit from what is actually said

" The EOS 5DS R camera's LPF cancellation effect delivers greater sharpness and finer detail "

They also have a diagram that is a bit nothing really to show the difference, it just says "cancellation"

They ( Canon ) only say cancellation effect, without really going into specific details.

I accept that a generalistic sweeping statement was made by me and I should make it clear that this is my view based on some so far whooly press releases and not actual tests.

Like I said wait for proper tests to appear of production models. :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,962 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 7086
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 3 years ago by David Arbogast. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 09, 2015 09:13 |  #18

Nalauk wrote in post #17510542 (external link)
Ah yes, marketing.

Let's try this: The 5DS and 5DS R are doing precisely the same thing as Nikon did with the D800 and D800E. Those are three-year old cameras and all the "proper tests" have long been done with those cameras. Do also you make the same claim about the D800E as you do the 5DS R? Do you also claim that the only difference between the D800 and D800E is a little in-camera post-processing sharpening?


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, FE 50mm ZA, Batis 85mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
7,713 posts
Gallery: 318 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 11363
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Apr 09, 2015 09:34 |  #19

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17510388 (external link)
No, moire cannot be cured after the fact. I thought so too, until I found articles that describe why you cannot.

Well, I HAVE fixed moire in software years ago. You just introduce some blurring and the moire is gone.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 77D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
5,985 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3151
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Apr 09, 2015 09:40 |  #20

There must be a difference that is noticeable or Canon would not have gone through the effort of making two entirely different branded bodies. Think about it that simply.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,954 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1596
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Apr 09, 2015 09:53 |  #21

Nalauk I too was intrigued how you could have a filter, which effectively reduces the amount of information present in the signal could possibly be reversed. After all once you have removed information it is gone forever. I raised this in the original 5DS/ 5DS R announcement thread. David was kind enough to point point out to me that modern OLPF filters use Quantum Mechanics to produce their effects. The thing is that if you use Quantum Mechanics to split one photon into two, it is also possible to use Quantum Mechanics to recombine those two new photons back into the original photon. Actually sometimes I really think that we should call it Quantum Magic :). The particle/wave duality of matter is something that is really hard to get ones head around though.

<Off topic aside>

I especially like Quantum Tunneling effects. In QT a particle arrives at the "barrier" which is effectively made up of lots of much bigger particles closely bound together. The particle can always find the quickest route through the barrier. It's a bit like a person trying to pass through a closely growing forrest. There are many routes you can pick. In QT though you will always pick the quickest route. From studying the phenomenon it is almost as if the particle arrives at the barrier and can break itself into an infinite number of bits, all of which follow a different route. At the point where the quickest bit exits the barrier all of the infinite parts magically recombine instantly.

The thing is that there are lots of these interesting Quantum Effects, and we are discovering more all the time. What is interesting is that it seems that many of them are actually already being used in nature. It has been shown by experiment that QE's are being used for example by birds during their long migrations for navigation. Even humans seem to rely on QE for some things. Taste/scent is one area where QE's now explain why some of the traditional models for taste/scent occasionally fail to fully explain the recorded data on how scent and taste are detected.

</aside>

The problem is that once we start dealing with Quantum Mechanics lots of things that we traditionally thought were impossible suddenly become the every day.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,954 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1596
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Apr 09, 2015 10:25 |  #22

Archibald wrote in post #17510579 (external link)
Well, I HAVE fixed moire in software years ago. You just introduce some blurring and the moire is gone.

No you haven't actually FIXED the moire. All you have done is remove "ALL" of the information from that part of the image by blurring it. Blurring is just about the worst way to remove moire, as it actually affects high frequency signal much more than low frequency ones. By definition moire is a low frequency artifact. A high pass filter would be a better choice, as at least it would at least leave some of the high frequency signal behind.

The real issue is that you cannot distinguish wanted low frequency signals existing in the data from the unwanted low frequency artifacts caused by sampling a signal that is above the Nyquist cutoff frequency. Because of this there is no automated filter that could remove the unwanted low frequency artifacts from the whole of the image without the user first determining if the signal is indeed wanted or not.

So there is NO digital filter that can remove aliasing artifacts without also affecting the wanted signals. The only option is to remove the possibility of the input analogue signal from exceeding the Nyquist frequency of the sensor. There are only two ways to do this. The first is to have a sampling frequency that is more than twice the frequency of the highest frequency that the system can deliver to the sensor. If that is not the case then you must use a filter to reduce the maximum frequency that is passed.

One thing to remember about MF camera systems is that due to the traditionally much larger analogue sensor area the lenses do not actually need to present as much optical detail to the sensor as in the case of a 35mm film camera. This is because the film needs much less enlargement to reach it final viewing size. As the film did not need those same levels of optical sharpness MF lenses were not designed to produce those levels of sharpness. So as you have an optical system that is producing much lower frequency images you will reach the Nyquist limit much sooner and can therefore rely on the first option to remove the chances of aliasing artifacts without having to introduce a OLPF to make sure of it.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nalauk
Member
95 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2012
     
Apr 09, 2015 10:37 |  #23

So, no-one really knows for sure and Canon have not let on whats going on either. Well, that's sorted then.

And I was never impressed with the D800/D800E I thought that was a fudge as well, much rather have the ordinary D800 and the tests I saw bore that out.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
7,713 posts
Gallery: 318 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 11363
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Apr 09, 2015 10:55 |  #24

BigAl007 wrote in post #17510642 (external link)
No you haven't actually FIXED the moire. All you have done is remove "ALL" of the information from that part of the image by blurring it. Blurring is just about the worst way to remove moire, as it actually affects high frequency signal much more than low frequency ones. By definition moire is a low frequency artifact. A high pass filter would be a better choice, as at least it would at least leave some of the high frequency signal behind.

The moire removal I did years ago was of a scan. Using blurring worked OK. You mention the effect on higher frequencies. The highest frequency signal that was present in this example was the dot pattern of the original, so removal of higher frequencies was a non-issue. Applying the blur resulted in overall loss of acuity, but the result at the time was acceptable to me. There may be more sophisticated ways of removing moire in software, but I wasn't aware of them at the time, and I suspect the improvement might have been limited.

As for camera sensors, I am admittedly fuzzy on what the anti-aliasing filters actually do, and the word Nyquist is not in my vocabulary, but I am of the impression that the filter blurs the image, thereby reducing Moire. And that blurring is the reason we have to do sharpening in post.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 77D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,962 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 7086
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 3 years ago by David Arbogast. (3 edits in all)
     
Apr 09, 2015 11:25 |  #25

Nalauk wrote in post #17510653 (external link)
So, no-one really knows for sure and Canon have not let on whats going on either. Well, that's sorted then.

If you admit you are ignorant of the facts ("no-one really knows for sure"), then why did you make the claim that the only difference between 5DS and 5DS R is in-camera post-process sharpening? If you are ignorant of how the cancellation filter works, then why are you suggesting that Canon charging an extra $200 for a "fudge" (fraudulent) feature?


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, FE 50mm ZA, Batis 85mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 396
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 09, 2015 11:45 |  #26

I'm not sure about this one.

My main use for this camera would be for wildlife photography, in combination with the 200-400L and 600L; unless the DR turns out to be a lot better than predicted, I'll be waiting for the 50MP Sony for landscape work.

I can always use more sharpness, particularly since I'd be cropping a fair bit when shooting wildlife, but animals have fur, which have the potential to generate moire and other colour aliasing artifacts.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
Post edited over 3 years ago by AJSJones. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 09, 2015 11:49 |  #27

Nalauk wrote in post #17510653 (external link)
So, no-one really knows for sure and Canon have not let on whats going on either. Well, that's sorted then.

And I was never impressed with the D800/D800E I thought that was a fudge as well, much rather have the ordinary D800 and the tests I saw bore that out.

You might find this POTN post (and the one following it) of interest - some of the links explain in detail how AA filters work and how they can be cancelled optically. It turns out to be easier to assemble the AA filter slightly differently (one giving the AA filtration and the other not) rather than simply removing it and having to adjust other design parameters - the presence of the filter assembly has an effect on its design and it's part of the "optical path". So the workers assembling the cameras just pick the filter assembly from box SR or box S with no other change in the manufacturing process (except the logo on the outside:D) - much cheaper... The loss of resolution from the presence of the AA filter is not a lot and you need excellent technique and excellent glass to see a big difference. Many modern lenses are good enough to show the difference (that's partly why Canon has been improving the quality with all the new and V II lenses recently).


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,962 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 7086
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 3 years ago by David Arbogast. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 09, 2015 12:05 |  #28

Shadowblade wrote in post #17510730 (external link)
I'm not sure about this one.

My main use for this camera would be for wildlife photography, in combination with the 200-400L and 600L; unless the DR turns out to be a lot better than predicted, I'll be waiting for the 50MP Sony for landscape work.

I can always use more sharpness, particularly since I'd be cropping a fair bit when shooting wildlife, but animals have fur, which have the potential to generate moire and other colour aliasing artifacts.

Very good points. Feathers also are a potential moiré factory.

While moiré in landscapes may not be a strong concern, if someone also wanted to use the camera for wildlife, the 5DS may be a safer choice. Like you, though, I am not sure I'll be buying this camera at all. A 50 MP Sony will have better DR and will likely come at a lower price.

The most recent Sony rumors are disappointing; that the 50MP "a9" is an A-mount camera. Surely we will see a 50 MP FE-mount camera eventually, but it seems now that we'll be waiting for a while for it.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, FE 50mm ZA, Batis 85mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Apr 09, 2015 12:07 |  #29

Shadowblade wrote in post #17510730 (external link)
I'm not sure about this one.

My main use for this camera would be for wildlife photography, in combination with the 200-400L and 600L; unless the DR turns out to be a lot better than predicted, I'll be waiting for the 50MP Sony for landscape work.

I can always use more sharpness, particularly since I'd be cropping a fair bit when shooting wildlife, but animals have fur, which have the potential to generate moire and other colour aliasing artifacts.

The presence of the AA filter does not guarantee the absence of moiré - the filters create a 2x2 image (one point source ray is converted into 4, at the centres of a 2x2 pixel square) but the RGBG nature of the sensor means that a 3x3 would be needed to eliminate the aliasing in the green channel(s). However, the absence of the filter will increase the frequency of images in which moiré and/or false color can be detected. One approach for such situations is to stop down a little more and let diffraction do the blurring for you! Such blurring can be "undone" by deconvolution sharpeners because the PSF is known for diffraction softening. You'd have to chimp like crazy on that distant bird shot to see the problem and re-shoot to correct it on the spot. Or, you already stop down enough for DoF reasons that the problem is very rare in the first place. SOme real-world reviews and tests might help calibrate this "scale".

I'm also still waiting for the Sony humongopixel release - I shoot both landscapes and birds so I'd like to know if there is a camera that can do both well or if I have to keep a separate body for each.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nalauk
Member
95 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2012
     
Apr 09, 2015 12:35 |  #30

David Arbogast wrote in post #17510712 (external link)
If you admit you are ignorant of the facts ("no-one really knows for sure"), then why did you make the claim that the only difference between 5DS and 5DS R is in-camera post-process sharpening? If you are ignorant of how the cancellation filter works, then why are you suggesting that Canon charging an extra $200 for a "fudge" (fraudulent) feature?


David, I refer you to my post 17 that i said:

"I accept that a generalistic sweeping statement was made by me and I should make it clear that this is my view based on some so far whooly press releases and not actual tests."

Apologies for winding you up, but I'll still stand by waiting for some tests to be done ;)

Whilst not totally ignorant of AA and LPF having had to have multiple replacements for a high end camera that had the lamination of the AA filter deteriorate over time. I'm well aware what and how they do it, just why you'd split and then reassemble on the other side.

Thanks to AJSJones for the links there a good bit of reading and an insight into keeping the filter pack the same within the optical path, I admit I had not thought of that.




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

7,860 views & 5 likes for this thread
What to purchase!? EOS 5DS or EOS 5DS R
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 kotsyphotography
418 guests, 298 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.