OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced

David Arbogast wrote in post #17419999
Ok, this is exactly why some of the DR talk bothers me a little (just a little )BUT, as you point out, one has noise in the shadows. That is NOT a DR issue. It IS an image quality issue stemming from the sensor's performance at the lower end of its dynamic range. I also have a strong preference for the Sony sensor due to its excellent performance in shadow detail. Such details can be recovered cleanly with very good color integrity. Not so with the 5D III's sensor.

This may be of interest...the new cameras have "a much lower noise floor" than the 5DIII. Approximately two minutes into...

http://www.fotosidan.s​e …iew-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm

Pekka wrote in post #17418953
I edited the first post post with release info on each instead of leaked press release, to clarify things:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1417928

I see that, thanks.

I still don't know what the "S" and the "R" denote.

What do they reference, and in does the "S" mean "SUPER!"? Does the "R" mean "RICH"?

That kinda' thing.

All in all, I'm glad I bought my 6D...

Keyan wrote in post #17419972
Stop talking sense to gear heads! The numbers mean everything!!
I am pretty sure the "s" in this case stands for studio...this camera is pretty clearly geared towards studio (portrait) and landscape use.

The "S" is for "Super" and the "R" is for "Resolution".

Shadowblade wrote in post #17419855
There are lots of situations where bracketing just isn't possible - subject movement, camera movement (e.g. shooting from a boat or helicopter, etc). And, when shooting panoramas, it's much easier, and you have a much better success rate, stitching from single exposures rather than having to stitch three different exposures and hoping they line up perfectly. I've gotten far better results with the A7r than the 5D2 - the extra two stops makes a huge difference. It's like having a free 2-stop ND filter you can apply to any part of the photo.

Perhaps I missed something. To get the same exposure, I shoot on a tripod in manual and just align the meter to the same spot with successive shots, or shoot in A mode with a set ISO and let speed change if need be. I've gotten publishable stitched results every time that way. If you're talking cloud or traffic movement, I agree with you. Imagine the image you can stitch with three exposures in the 5DS or SR...billboard!

Regarding noise and DR, I've always been a pragmatist. I want to see some test shots in the field. The above comparison with the Sony, while very convincing, was with a 5D III.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17420065
If we want to discuss "effective" or usable DR, then that speaks to relative personal opinion, and we would do well to make the distinction clear. It does raise a good discussion point: If the 5D III sensor has a measured 12-Evs DR, then what what is its "effective" DR? 10-Evs? We have been having this discussion based on the actual measured DR differences (12-Evs vs 14-Evs) and some are asking does that somewhat small performance gap really make a difference? Well, let's get clearer. If the Canon sensor has a diminished "effective" or usable DR, then we are no longer discussing a mere 2-Evs performance gap - it's actually much greater than that.

Effective DR would arguably be the point at which the signal to noise ratio goes below a given limit, such that stops at that level and lower contain no useable detail (I.e. noise); which for a photographer is surely the only metric that matters.

Pattern noise will further render lower stops unusable by being visually objectionable. Canon seem to have sorted the latter issue, but still lag behind Sony.

If these new bodies don't have improved DR then they'll certainly be good for studio (where lighting can be controlled) but they'd be a bit of a fail for landscape. I look forward to seeing independent test results though.

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17416582
The just released 16-35 f4 is $1200 and this, 11-24 f4, is going to be $3400??? What???

Name another high end ultra wide angle zoom that is shorter than 12mm for 35mm slrs and isn't fish eye. I'm waiting.

Road Dog wrote in post #17420099
I see that, thanks.

I still don't know what the "S" and the "R" denote.

What do they reference, and in does the "S" mean "SUPER!"? Does the "R" mean "RICH"?

That kinda' thing.

All in all, I'm glad I bought my 6D...

The "s" in the 1Ds series stood for Studio. R is for resolution / removed filter.

You really need to understand the needs of landscape photographers.

They disabled the comments, lol...

https://www.youtube.co​m …TKM3nQ5U&featur​e=youtu.be

Kickflipkid687 wrote in post #17420250
They disabled the comments, lol...

https://www.youtube.co​m …TKM3nQ5U&featur​e=youtu.be

Post #263 is the first one of this thread to interest me.

You're basically paying for the sensor.

SixDeeFan wrote in post #17420088
This may be of interest...the new cameras have "a much lower noise floor" than the 5DIII. Approximately two minutes into...

http://www.fotosidan.s​e …iew-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm

This was repeated here at 14:29. https://www.youtube.co​m …w&feature=playe​r_embedded

Good lord some of you lot are a fickle bunch, you'd have been awestruck at these cameras a few years ago, now the 'camera war' seems to have turned into a numbers game with no regard to the bigger picture apparently. They're all amazing bits of kit that can take great photographs, we've all bought into a fantastic brand, can't we be happy with that??

Other brands are getting good too, hooray! Competition to drive up the ability of our own brand.

Sony are doing great, next year Fuji could be 'THE' sensor, shall we all sell our Canon stuff this year, buy Sony, then sell our Sony stuff next year to buy Fuji??

From a 6D user who has never ever had anyone criticize my lack of DR range or pick me up on my noise in the extreme shadows at 400%....

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #17420375
Good lord some of you lot are a fickle bunch, you'd have been awestruck at these cameras a few years ago, now the 'camera war' seems to have turned into a numbers game with no regard to the bigger picture apparently. They're all amazing bits of kit that can take great photographs, we've all bought into a fantastic brand, can't we be happy with that??

Other brands are getting good too, hooray! Competition to drive up the ability of our own brand.

Sony are doing great, next year Fuji could be 'THE' sensor, shall we all sell our Canon stuff this year, buy Sony, then sell our Sony stuff next year to buy Fuji??

From a 6D user who has never ever had anyone criticize my lack of DR range or pick me up on my noise in the extreme shadows at 400%....

People probably wouldn't have criticized you if you shot with a rebel either, but for whatever reason, you saw that the 6D had a value proposition worth spending the extra money for.

Just because DR isn't of concern to your type of photography, doesn't mean it isn't of value to others. Clearly the 5Ds is targeting a subset of consumers that do value DR. The fact that early indications of the 5Ds is that close to $4K yields no improvement of DR is understandably off-putting .

David Arbogast wrote in post #17420065
That is not what I am referring to regarding DR (and I am a people). Dynamic range should be a black-and-white clinical term used to describe the actual measurable upper and lower limits of the sensor's light gathering abilities: the range cut-offs being where the sensor is no longer capable of capturing detail. It is the range that DXO measures and documents.

If we want to discuss "effective" or usable DR, then that speaks to relative personal opinion, and we would do well to make the distinction clear. It does raise a good discussion point: If the 5D III sensor has a measured 12-Evs DR, then what what is its "effective" DR? 10-Evs? We have been having this discussion based on the actual measured DR differences (12-Evs vs 14-Evs) and some are asking does that somewhat small performance gap really make a difference? Well, let's get clearer. If the Canon sensor has a diminished "effective" or usable DR, then we are no longer discussing a mere 2-Evs performance gap - it's actually much greater than that.

DR is intimately tied to signal to noise. Below is pasted from the DxO mark site.

The part I have bolded is your "black and white" cut-off clinical term for measuring it. They have used the word "typically" because where you put that cut-off is a subjective decision - is it where the signal equals the noise? - or where the signal is one standard deviation above the noise, or two standard deviations etc? Once you have made that subjective decision, you make repeatable, clinical measurements of the sensor properties.

Deciding on that cut-off is a fun game! That is a bit like taking the image below (an area of shadow - shooting for the "Worst Image Ever Posted on POTN") and raising the levels: slowly slide the middle "Levels" slider to the left in Photoshop until you see the noise. At what point can you see the signal? Where did you have to move the slider to before you could see the signal? At what point did you feel the signal rose above the noise 1) on an absolute basis? 2) to an acceptable level? etc. (On my monitor, I need to move it to 3.5 or so before I "see" the signal, but much further before I'd say it was acceptable. That's the subjective "usable" cut-off. Once you've made that choice, you can evaluate any future image with the same setting. This obviously does not address any noise that looks like signal (such as pattern noise, banding etc - i.e. noise that's not truly "random")

glad canon is coming out with some new gear! now if they can make DR a priority, that would be nice.