Who pre-ordered the 5DS/5DSR?

David Arbogast wrote in post #17576803
Have you even bothered to view the videos and written statements from Canon about who they are marketing the camera to? They reference landscape, architectural, nature, and studio shooters. The camera was designed specifically for those that want or need to capture ultra-high detail images. They never ever mention wedding photographry as being a suitable use for the 5DS. Yet here you are talking about "wedding photographers" as if that is somehow relevant. It is 100% irrelevant.

AMEN! I watched a video where they specifically said that this camera will cater to landscape and arch photographers due to the detail that is necessary to those fields and printing large photos. It even specifically said in the video that event photographers would do better with the 5D2 since high MP is completely unnecessary in event shootings.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=Gq3ISUHsfsQ

David Arbogast wrote in post #17581422
Is that really going to happen, or is that just a wish/rumor? I agree that it is going to be a strange bizarre scenario if indeed the 5D IV is equipped with that sort of sensor and the camera that needs it most isn't thus equipped.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the rumor was not founded.

I'm not looking at this time to get 50MP FF at that pricepoint. I'll wait until it is in a less expensive model, and hopefully with greater DR.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17583831
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the rumor was not founded.

Haha...I certainly don't know if it is founded or not; I was hoping you did and could tell me.

Good to know. I know you are eager - perhaps more so than most - for an ultra-high resolution camera, but it makes sense to me that the 5DS R would not do it for you. I am hoping that Sony can deliver a 50MP (or greater) camera at lower cost. It will certainly provide a greater DR.

There are a number of things about the 5DS R that appeal to me - things I wish I had in my a7R, but when it gets right to it, the a7R satisfies most of my wants already, so I too have decided to take a wait and see approach.

I'm curious to see what tech Canon brings to the table with the 5D4 / 1DX II.

I too won't be jumping on the 5DS/r bandwagon anytime soon.

can0nfan2379 wrote in post #17586106
I'm curious to see what tech Canon brings to the table with the 5D4 / 1DX II.

I too won't be jumping on the 5DS/r bandwagon anytime soon.

Curious as to why the word "bandwagon" is being used to describe a new camera...

can0nfan2379 wrote in post #17586106
I'm curious to see what tech Canon brings to the table with the 5D4 / 1DX II.

Rather off topic, but, wasn't the 1Dx named as such due to it being the 10 year anniversary of the original 1D?

I recently got a post from Canon celebrating 10 years of the 5D line (http://cpn.canon-europe.com …l&utm_campaign=​Newsletter) so I guess it's not beyond the realms of reality that the next "general purpose" 5D body may be a 5Dx (if it's announced this year). Doesn't make any difference to anything really; but just a thought.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17579998
That will change when everyone starts getting 8K displays. The reason most people don't see the beauty of much higher pixel densities is because they have never seen them displayed. I can tell you right now that my 2MP and 5MP images need some serious texture make-up to look healthy on my 4K monitor. The pixelation is very obvious. 18 to 22MP images will have the same problem on 8K monitors, even if to a smaller degree. The choices will be to display the images sub-screen, or de-pixelate with methods like diffuse nearest neighbor, or use a fractal resizing program to make the lack of resolution less obvious.

Sure, a well-composed image taken at the right place, at the right time, can be engaging even if its micro-texture is bad, but there are many types of images exist to show the textures in the scene, and those images fail to impress as much once you have seen better.

I'm being lazy here, because I could go looking for data on resolution vs viewing distance (plenty of info around regarding home cinema and TVs).

Even given that the average viewer-to-screen distance for sitting in front of a PC is much closer than a TV, is an 8K display really going to be visibly better than 4K? I'm assuming "normal" eyesight, and normal viewing distances.

sploo wrote in post #17587207
Rather off topic, but, wasn't the 1Dx named as such due to it being the 10 year anniversary of the original 1D?

I recently got a post from Canon celebrating 10 years of the 5D line (http://cpn.canon-europe.com …l&utm_campaign=​Newsletter) so I guess it's not beyond the realms of reality that the next "general purpose" 5D body may be a 5Dx (if it's announced this year). Doesn't make any difference to anything really; but just a thought.

I'm being lazy here, because I could go looking for data on resolution vs viewing distance (plenty of info around regarding home cinema and TVs).

Even given that the average viewer-to-screen distance for sitting in front of a PC is much closer than a TV, is an 8K display really going to be visibly better than 4K? I'm assuming "normal" eyesight, and normal viewing distances.

1) I had thought the X was for crossing the 1D and 1DS lines. Marketing departments decide multiple reasons for the same thing, of course. Like what the S in EF-S stands for.

2) A huge number of people still don't even have 2k displays. Very few have 4k displays. It'll be a long time before 8k displays are even close to mainstream, if ever.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17587213
1) I had thought the X was for crossing the 1D and 1DS lines. Marketing departments decide multiple reasons for the same thing, of course. Like what the S in EF-S stands for.

2) A huge number of people still don't even have 2k displays. Very few have 4k displays. It'll be a long time before 8k displays are even close to mainstream, if ever.

Marketing = lying for money

I'm still running a 1920x1200 monitor and I can see how a 4k display would be visibly better (though good ones are still expensive). I'm not sure I'd see the step from 4 to 8k though.

sploo wrote in post #17587312
Marketing = lying for money

I'm still running a 1920x1200 monitor and I can see how a 4k display would be visibly better (though good ones are still expensive). I'm not sure I'd see the step from 4 to 8k though.

Absolutely! And sometimes I wish I'd gone to school for it.

Totally agree - 4k I'll be on for my next TV and the next desktop monitor I buy (currently the desktop is just under the TV). But 8k... that'll take some convincing.

sploo wrote in post #17587312
Marketing = lying for money

I'm still running a 1920x1200 monitor and I can see how a 4k display would be visibly better (though good ones are still expensive). I'm not sure I'd see the step from 4 to 8k though.

We just upgraded from a 1920x1200 tv to a 4k and both my wife and I are amazed at the difference in image quality. It is very noticeable.

gjl711 wrote in post #17587410
We just upgraded from a 1920x1200 tv to a 4k and both my wife and I are amazed at the difference in image quality. It is very noticeable.

A young family means I rarely get time for TV, and our only recording facility is still standard def. Don't think I'd justify a 4k TV

I would give serious thought to a 4k monitor for the photos though, but it seemed the decent ones are still pretty steep in price.

Justified or not, I really noticed a huge difference in image quality standard hi-def and 4k, enough to seriously consider a 4k comp monitor as well.

Get 5K display. Apple and Dell sells one.

gjl711 wrote in post #17587566
Justified or not, I really noticed a huge difference in image quality standard hi-def and 4k, enough to seriously consider a 4k comp monitor as well.

In terms of TVs; if you're close enough and the source material justifies it, the difference is very impressive (based on side-by-side comparisons at retailers). I wasn't so sure I'd spot the difference at a normal viewing distance though (unless the screen was very large). Definitely worth it for a computer monitor given the much closer viewing distance.