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

 
hoodlum
Member
142 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Markham, ON Canada
     
Apr 24, 2015 11:01 |  #1186

dolina wrote in post #17530791 (external link)
If it isnt seen by the photog or it does not bother the photog then is it really an issue?

Or maybe they mistook it for a slight focusing issue. It depends how much you want to crop your images. If you need to do heavy crops then this becomes much more noticeable. Most wildlife Pros use hides and are able to get much closer to wildlife than I.


My Flickr Birds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1205
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
     
Apr 24, 2015 11:22 |  #1187

hoodlum wrote in post #17530783 (external link)
In the range of 1/2s to 1/125s in the case of the 70-200 f2.8. Dpreview is planning a article on this issue in the next couple of weeks so we may get more details.

That's interesting as I have tested my 7D2 with a 100-400 II @ 400mm, handheld at 12feet shooting at material with lots of small vertical threads at 1/500th with IS=ON and in about 2 in 10 pictures, when I crop 1000%, I can see probably what is vertical vibration in the very, very small threads - we are talking about 'extreme' pixel peeking here. And the 7D2's shutter is way better dampened than the 5D3 and probably similar to what we will see in the 5Ds. You would need a wall sized print to see it, and still you would have to be looking for it - but in 1/5 it is there at 400mm at 1/500th at huge magnification.


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
THREAD ­ STARTER
That's my line!
Avatar
9,251 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 2047
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Apr 24, 2015 15:25 |  #1188

hoodlum wrote in post #17530726 (external link)
It looks like the 5DS has significant shutter shock issues.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …the-d600-episode#comments (external link)

"all high resolution offerings from all brands exhibit deleterious interactions between mirror/shutter vibrations and optical stabilization systems (our initial tests of the Canon EOS 5DS show that it is no exception)."

"Because that's what we see with the venerable 70-200 F2.8L II IS on a 5DS at 200mm with IS on shooting through the OVF (at all shutter speeds between 1/125s and 1/2s)."

THANK YOU!

so glad we can get this discussion back on track. An article that is dedicated to Nikon and only mentions the Canon 5Ds briefly without specifics is just what this thread needed.

Onward and upward!


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
dolina
Goldmember
Avatar
4,819 posts
Likes: 230
Joined Mar 2009
Location: 34109
     
Apr 24, 2015 16:27 |  #1189

I think the Canon 5DSR at $3,900 is the most economical way to comply with client/technical requirement for 50+MP images.

At that price point and MP spec comparisons will be made with the Pentax 645Z medium format camera selling for below $6,000*.

If you have Canon lenses and accessories the 5DSR body is all you will spend for.

If you decide to go with a Pentax and do not have lenses or accessories then you will need to replicate your focal lengths/angles of view in your current system for the Pentax 645 system. Yes, the used market has lots of glass but what about those who want lenses designed for digital?

In a Forbes article published in 2013 Leica claims that the worldwide market is about 6,000 units a year - worldwide, for all medium format brands. Where Phase One is 40-45% and Leica having a 20% market share.

For those wondering why Leica entered such a small yet lucrative market they did so because well paid photojournalists are slowly becoming extinct thus eliminating a substantial customer base for their rangefinder cameras.

I am guessing this is a reason why Pentax did so as well as the smartphone's eating into the consumer space of point and shoots and interchangeable lens cameras.

In a Yahoo Japan article published in 2014 it was reported that 1,500 units of Pentax 645Z bodies were reserved on the first month of sale and production was set at 400/month. If that holds true until today then there would be about 4,000~ Pentax bodies produced thus far.

This compares to about 100,000+ 1-Series bodies Canon produces yearly.

I am amazed by how good the images produced by a larger than full frame image sensor are and more amazed again by how affordable the Pentax is relative to a Phase One, Hassleblad or Leica.

*BIC Camera in Japan offers this price when bought with a Visa card and non-Japan passport until the end of April.


Visit my Flickr (external link), Facebook (external link) & 500px (external link) and see my photos. :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GoHokiesGo
Senior Member
Avatar
782 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 65
Joined Feb 2007
Location: N. Virginia
     
Apr 27, 2015 21:51 |  #1190

Joel Santos had a review of the 5DS posted onto the Canon Europe site

http://cpn.canon-europe.com …ation_with_the_​eos_5ds.do (external link)

Obviously its a bit biased since it's directly on Canon's own site, but I was particularly interested by his comments that the camera had an extremely clean noise profile for night shots at higher iso's. That's not its intended use, but that's been considered one of its expected weaker aspects

Joel Santos, cpn.canon-europe.com wrote:
With tack-sharp images being of paramount importance to travel photographers – who, after all, very rarely get the chance to re-take an image – we asked for Joel’s thoughts on the internal Mirror Vibration Control System that aims to achieve critical sharpness at 50.6 Megapixels.

Joel admits: “That’s the kind of technology where I don't have a microscope to really evaluate the difference between the [5D] Mark III and the [EOS] 5DS. What I can say is that by looking at the final results I wasn’t concerned by the vibration of the mirror. When you have so many Megapixels just a slight movement of the camera will be quite noticeable because you can enhance and amplify the image up to 100% and see the detail so precisely that any problem with sharpness would be evident and would become a real problem.”

Joel adds: “The images are really, really sharp and I didn't have any problems with ‘mirror shock’ or ‘shutter shock’. I tested the camera with all kinds of different shutter speeds, especially the ones that are prone to have those kinds of [mirror vibration] problems, so below 1/30th of a second – for example, at five seconds or 10 seconds [exposures] that kind of vibration can really become apparent. I didn’t find any problem with that. I was glad to find this out as there are some cameras that really have that kind of problem when they have such a high Megapixel count, but it didn't happen with Canon.”

As for the ISO performance of the 5DS Joel admits: “The standard ISO range of this camera is not the same as the 5D Mark III – it has two stops less (6400 v 25,600) – but I actually never go beyond [ISO] 6400 and when I was testing the camera at night I had a half moon [to help to light the scene], so I didn't need to go up to 6400. I stopped at around ISO 3200 and I did a long exposure so I could have a coastal landscape with the stars just bright in the sky, not star trails. I was expecting an image like that, when seen on a computer, to have problems because it’s a lot of pixels; it’s high-resolution and a long exposure but actually the result is really amazing – it’s really good, perfectly on par with what I get with the Mark III. I was impressed.”


~Jason
Canon 6D -¤- Canon 60D
Canon16-35/4LIS -¤- Canon 24-105/4LIS -¤- Canon 135/2L -¤- Canon 70-200/4L
Canon 50/1.8 STM -¤- Sigma 30/1.4 EX -¤- Samyang 14/2.8
Travel Website - Jason Peacott Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,574 posts
Likes: 319
Joined Jan 2010
     
Apr 28, 2015 07:50 |  #1191

GoHokiesGo wrote in post #17535149 (external link)
Joel Santos had a review of the 5DS posted onto the Canon Europe site

http://cpn.canon-europe.com …ation_with_the_​eos_5ds.do (external link)

Obviously its a bit biased since it's directly on Canon's own site, but I was particularly interested by his comments that the camera had an extremely clean noise profile for night shots at higher iso's. That's not its intended use, but that's been considered one of its expected weaker aspects

I don't expect that. The noise quality seems to be well behaved (not much clumping or banding), and the quantity of read noise is only about 1/4 stop higher than the 7D2 at the pixel level (both base-ISO and high-ISO). That would put the image-level high-ISO read noise maybe a tad higher than the 5D3, but with better character.

When you factor in the fact that higher pixel counts can survive stronger NR, and there is less banding, then it may be clearly superior to 5D3 IQ in practice for high-ISO use, even if it is slightly inferior to the 5D3 in DxOMark's "Print" measurements.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1205
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
     
Apr 28, 2015 09:34 |  #1192

John Sheehy wrote in post #17535594 (external link)
When you factor in the fact that higher pixel counts can survive stronger NR, and there is less banding, then it may be clearly superior to 5D3 IQ in practice for high-ISO use, even if it is slightly inferior to the 5D3 in DxOMark's "Print" measurements.


I think this is the key for this camera and it gels with my experience with my 7D2 and 5D3 - and that is, you can clearly tell that the 5D3 has about 2/3rds of a stop advantage SOOC versus the 7D2 - but, and this is the key, NR on the 7D2 works very well - you kind of have to trust that you don't have to stop at iso 2000 - 2500 in a 7D2 - and it is ok to go a little higher and then use NR and bring it back.

All the above said, these high mega pixel cameras will hopefully to sold and purchased correctly - and that is as specialty cameras as 99% of the population would produce better images with a 1Dx type sensor (18meg / big pixel / high iso) than with a 5DS type sensor.


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

  
  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 28, 2015 09:42 |  #1193

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17535707 (external link)
I think this is the key for this camera and it gels with my experience with my 7D2 and 5D3 - and that is, you can clearly tell that the 5D3 has about 2/3rds of a stop advantage SOOC versus the 7D2 - but, and this is the key, NR on the 7D2 works very well - you kind of have to trust that you don't have to stop at iso 2000 - 2500 in a 7D2 - and it is ok to go a little higher and then use NR and bring it back.

All the above said, these high mega pixel cameras will hopefully to sold and purchased correctly - and that is as specialty cameras as 99% of the population would produce better images with a 1Dx type sensor (18meg / big pixel / high iso) than with a 5DS type sensor.

Unless you're shooting above ISO 3200, I can't see a 1Dx sensor giving you a better image than a 5Ds.

At low to mid ISOs, noise differences are negligible, or in favour of the 5Ds, while the 50MP sensor will always have the advantage of capturing more detail.

It's only at ultra-high ISOs that the 1Dx sensor has an advantage. And the vast majority of shots are not taken at extreme ISOs - 400-800 would be about the average.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Neilyb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,189 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 438
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Munich
     
Apr 29, 2015 07:00 |  #1194

I am willing to bet that at high ISO's, above 3200 for example, that resizing a 5Ds file down to 18MP with some careful NR and sharpening in between will also yield good results, how good I cannot yet say. But for all the other times when shooting you will have so much more flexibility to crop/print/resize as you wish.

My only worry is, should you want 5Ds or R for landscapes, diffraction. Many people tell me not to worry but if we take a TDP example using the 16-35 at f11 on both 1DsIII and 7DII (with comparable pixel size to 5Ds) we see a huge difference in sharpness. Even at f8 the difference is noticeable.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4 (external link)

Should I be worried about that? Should anyone wanting to shoot landscapes also buy a tilt shift lens to reduce dependency on aperture? :|


http://natureimmortal.​blogspot.com (external link)

http://www.natureimmor​tal.com (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 29, 2015 08:41 as a reply to  @ Neilyb's post |  #1195

I would not think that diffraction should be an issue when printing images at the same size. In comparable sized reproductions the higher resolution sensor should never give a worse result than the lower resolution sensor with the same lens and settings. Often the higher resolution sensor will still produce superior results.If I were printing images to around 8 to 10 feet wide, I would still pick the camera with the highest resolution, as it would require the least amount of upsizing. I would never expect interpolation to to come anywhere near real, but slightly fuzzy image detail.

Alan


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,400 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Apr 29, 2015 08:54 |  #1196

Neilyb wrote in post #17536965 (external link)
My only worry is, should you want 5Ds or R for landscapes, diffraction. Many people tell me not to worry but if we take a TDP example using the 16-35 at f11 on both 1DsIII and 7DII (with comparable pixel size to 5Ds) we see a huge difference in sharpness. Even at f8 the difference is noticeable.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4 (external link)

Should I be worried about that? Should anyone wanting to shoot landscapes also buy a tilt shift lens to reduce dependency on aperture? :|

Diffraction, as far as I understand, is more a function of sensor size than resolution. If you're diffraction limited it's more about the point at which the diameter of the Airy Disk becomes large enough that it affects the perceived sharpness of your print (which will be related to print size and viewing distance).

Different sensor sizes will result in different levels of magnification, which would also make a difference. In the TDP example, you've got a FF sensor vs and APS-C sensor; plus the unknowns of sample variation.

When pixel peeping, you are more likely to see softening from the Airy Disk with a higher resolution sensor, but then you're potentially losing detail you didn't have in the first place from an identically sized lower resolution sensor (i.e. you're no worse off, if printing at the same size).

Some more info here: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …ffraction-photography.htm (external link)


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Neilyb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,189 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 438
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Munich
     
Apr 29, 2015 09:12 |  #1197

Thanks, makes sense.


http://natureimmortal.​blogspot.com (external link)

http://www.natureimmor​tal.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1205
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
Post edited over 3 years ago by wallstreetoneil. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 29, 2015 09:50 |  #1198

sploo wrote in post #17537081 (external link)
Diffraction, as far as I understand, is more a function of sensor size than resolution. If you're diffraction limited it's more about the point at which the diameter of the Airy Disk becomes large enough that it affects the perceived sharpness of your print (which will be related to print size and viewing distance).

Different sensor sizes will result in different levels of magnification, which would also make a difference. In the TDP example, you've got a FF sensor vs and APS-C sensor; plus the unknowns of sample variation.

When pixel peeping, you are more likely to see softening from the Airy Disk with a higher resolution sensor, but then you're potentially losing detail you didn't have in the first place from an identically sized lower resolution sensor (i.e. you're no worse off, if printing at the same size).

Some more info here: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …ffraction-photography.htm (external link)


It is one of those multi-variate problems, as you have noted, where you have to consider:
- pixel size, viewing distance, person's vision (20/20), sensor size, and what you define to be the metric for circle of confusion


As an example (1Dx vs 5Ds)

1) 1Dx
- picture size 24x30 inches (common enlargement size)
- viewing distance 1m
- 1Dx (18 megapixel)
- circle of confusion (based on pixel size)
- Aperture F11

- Answer is NO diffraction limited for 1Dx
- (Maximum Circle of Confusion = 17.32um vs Diameter of Airy Disk = 14.7um)


2) 5Ds
- picture size 24x30
- viewing distance 1m
- 5Ds (50 megapixel)
- circle of confusion (based on pixel size)
- Aperture F11

- Answer is YES diffraction limited for 5Ds (and not by a little either)
- (Maximum Circle of Confusion = 10.39um vs Diameter of Airy Disk = 14.7um)


Question is however, in real life, what would the human eye pick as the sharper picture - that really comes down to viewing distance, how good your eyes are and mathematically, what you using to define the Circle of Confusion - are you confused?


Using the above example, if you don't define the circle of confusion using pixel size, then both cameras, based upon the above scenario (basically you standing 1 meter away from a 24x30 print), are exactly the same and both are at the diffraction YES / NO boundary at F11 - which if you simplify things a lot reduces down to how many megapixels do you need for the size of image that is being viewed and whether or not you are viewing a picture, like a human being, or pixel peaking on a monitor or standing 10cm away for a 24x30 print - and even then, some parts of the 1Dx image will look sharper and some will look less sharp than the 5Ds - based on diffraction because diffraction is wavelength dependant (greens defract before blues due to their longer wavelength).


Pixel size matters - but it isn't uncomplicated.


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Apr 29, 2015 13:43 as a reply to  @ wallstreetoneil's post |  #1199

This is not quite right.

By specifying print size, original size (FF sensor) and viewing distance you have *fixed* the CoC and as you indicate it is usually based on typical human vision. This is the size of an object in the original image that is perceived as a "point" in the print at the specified viewing distance. Anything object bigger than this size in the roiginal image is perceived as something bigger than a "point", or smallest resolvable detail, in the viewed print.

In your examples, the CoC is around 35µm, and something like this was used by lens makers to make DoF scales, based on a ~8x10-12" print viewed from about a foot. (Similar to your 2'x3' print viewed from 3'). This also goes along with "300ppi as a guideline for maximum useful detail". So the CoC is larger than the Airy disk and the pixels for both cameras, so they do not play a role in your scenario. If you use pixel size to define CoC, then you are no longer viewing the 24x36 print from 1 m. The key parameter in your discussion should be the size of the original pixel and how much it has been enlarged to the print (simply put, how many original pixels are in an inch of print). If those are printed big enough that they represent the CoC, you have a much bigger print from the 50MP camera than from the 18 MP camera. In your examples, the 18MP image is printed at ~150ppi and the 50MP one is ~240ppi. So the 50MP will appear more detailed, simply due to the increased resolution If you print both at 150 ppi, you get a ~24x36 for the 18 MP image and ~36x54 print from the 50MP. (You are right that it is multivariate:D When you compare these two prints, do you use the same viewing distance?) The large print, however, has been enlarged more from the original FF sensor dimensions so that all types of blur (OOF, motion and diffraction) have become more visible. The effects of diffraction only become more visible if you blow up the image more. As you noted the amount of diffraction (Airy disk size) is the same, regardless of the pixel size and is completed before the image hits the sensor. The higher MP sensor just does a better job at capturing the details and captures a higher resolution version of the same Airy disk.

Simply put, for prints of the same size, smaller pixels will never yield a worse image than big pixels and the effect of diffraction is the same for both prints. If you use all those nice pixels to allow a bigger print at 300 ppi, then diffraction will be more noticeable because of the extra enlargement and the likelihood of closer viewing distances:D


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,400 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Apr 29, 2015 15:10 |  #1200

AJSJones wrote in post #17537404 (external link)
By specifying print size...

I was just about to reply to wallstreetoneil's post with something on the lines of "but I thought the CoC size was usually defined by the print size & viewing distance (and in some cases, a factor of the viewer's eyesight)" - but your post gives much more detail.

I guess then this just reinforces the idea that a higher MP sensor (all other things being equal) really only has file size and potentially lower fps penalties. In pretty much every other way it'll be as good or better than a lower MP sensor.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

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

294,513 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 kotsyphotography
297 guests, 328 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.