5DS R vibration and motion blur?

I am thinking of getting one. But am confused, they say vibration is a biggy with huge sensors, and to combat this they have done 2 major things
i) strengthened the base plate for a more stable connecition to a tripod.
ii ) redesigned the mirror mechanisim to reduce mirror shake.

I am puzzled as its the same basic body, that they reduced the weight from 950g to 845g! A Very. BAD move IMO.
If stability is an issue why the hell would you do this.
Note if the reduction is 105 grams - thats an 11% reduction in strength/mass = stability no?
Actually its worse than that; if there is an additional reinforced baseplate ( with added weight ) then the general strength of the rest of the unit has had a weight = strength reduction of more than 11%!

OK my little **** over on to the real question.
This issue of needing to reduce vibration, which I guess could be classed as movement? Seems important. So What about motion blur, thats movement too eh?

Are Canon in effect saying to get the best out of it, one should use a tripod?

And more importantly will my 70-200L F2.8 II 's four stops of IS handle this "sensitivity" in a studio situation ?
I would destest it, if it meant in order to get the best IQ I need to use a tripod?

I am hoping there is a distiction between localised vibration inside the camera, and the general motion blurr caused by camera shake, induced by unsteady hands

Any views very much appreciated.

( if it does need a tripod Then IMO this camera is totally useless, and its time to get a decent camera like a D810 )

When you have a very large pixel count and are looking at your photos on a computer. Zooming in to one to one (pixels) will give you an image that is zoomed in much further than a camera with fewer pixels. Therefore motion blur and focus will be more critical. The advantage is you will still have detail at these levels, if you can overcome blur and focus. On the other hand if you are not printing or viewing at these levels then it won't be so much of an issue.

Mike

MikeWa wrote in post #17470710
When you have a very large pixel count and are looking at your photos on a computer. Zooming in to one to one (pixels) will give you an image that is zoomed in much further than a camera with fewer pixels. Therefore motion blur and focus will be more critical. The advantage is you will still have detail at these levels, if you can overcome blur and focus. On the other hand if you are not printing or viewing at these levels then it won't be so much of an issue.

Mike

Thanks but your answer doesnt really address my question / concern

resonance of vibrations? standing waves and so on, rather then just making it heavy, they used design , stronger plastics/metals might not be as heavy, just smarter

as for the D810, all things being equal. both live in the same universe.......... both combat the same issues ( vibration) motion blur is "outside" of the camera

as for tripods. depends what shutter speed vs "motion speed" vs object movement ............... same if its the nikon , canon what ever, no magic here

Submariner wrote in post #17470606
I am thinking of getting one. But am confused, they say vibration is a biggy with huge sensors, and to combat this they have done 2 major things
i) strengthened the base plate for a more stable connecition to a tripod.
ii ) redesigned the mirror mechanisim to reduce mirror shake.

I am puzzled as its the same basic body, that they reduced the weight from 950g to 845g! A Very. BAD move IMO.
If stability is an issue why the hell would you do this.
Note if the reduction is 105 grams - thats an 11% reduction in strength/mass = stability no?
Actually its worse than that; if there is an additional reinforced baseplate ( with added weight ) then the general strength of the rest of the unit has had a weight = strength reduction of more than 11%!

OK my little **** over on to the real question.
This issue of needing to reduce vibration, which I guess could be classed as movement? Seems important. So What about motion blur, thats movement too eh?

Are Canon in effect saying to get the best out of it, one should use a tripod?

And more importantly will my 70-200L F2.8 II 's four stops of IS handle this "sensitivity" in a studio situation ?
I would destest it, if it meant in order to get the best IQ I need to use a tripod?

I am hoping there is a distiction between localised vibration inside the camera, and the general motion blurr caused by camera shake, induced by unsteady hands

Any views very much appreciated.

( if it does need a tripod Then IMO this camera is totally useless, and its time to get a decent camera like a D810 )

To get the absolute best out of your camera you should always use a tripod. That doesn't mean you have to use one. BTW, when the D800 came out I saw plenty of Nikon shooters on other boards freaking out about it, only to get one an realize it wasn't the big deal they thought it was going to be. The same discussions were had when the 5DII came out. People handhold 80mp medium format cameras, and they handhold 40mp cellphone cameras.

Just remember that the pixel density here is about the same as the 7DII. I don't see anyone freaking out about that.

As far as your concern about a lighter camera being weaker; it's been pointed out to you before that weight is not necessarily an indication of strength. Unless you know for sure that all Canon did to reduce the weight was make the chassis thinner then you really have no grounds for that assumption. They've kept the same basic body shape and layout, but we don't know what has been changed internally.

The pixel density of the 5Ds is almost exactly the same as many APSC DSLR cameras and less than some. So, I could be completely wrong here, but wouldn't they exhibit similar vibration problems? I have yet to hear of significant issues with APSC cameras in this department, though many recommend a slightly higher shutter speed with the crop cameras. Also images from smaller sensor cameras have to be expanded much more to produce an A3 print, for example, so wouldn't they be even worse for vibration/motion blur than an FF camera with similar pixel density?
Just my thoughts, note I have zero experience of the 5DS, but I would have thought that vibration/motion blur would not have been a big issue.
I may well be wrong but, to my logic, I would not have thought it would be too much of an issue.

dont overthink it, the sensor has the density of an APS-C sensor, and for all intents and purposes, following a 1/2FL rule will get you a high success rate (assuming the lens is not stabilized). The tripod talk is like talking in absolutes..... not absolutely necessary.

Lighter camera = better.

Thanks for all the ideas.
When you put it terms of pixel density - same as the 7DII - cant be much to worry about.

Imwonder does the 7DII use that new geared mirror adtion or is it still using a spring?

The vibration blur on the 5DsR, 810 or any high pixel medium format camera is about the same. Looking at the excellent results from the 810, I doubt Canon is going to unleash something far below that.

The 5DsR should handle like any high megapixel camera. I have a suspicion that the new mirror box is a step closer to in camera "IS" or internal vibration control. Most people do not realize that at that nano level, it isn't the handheld shake that will be a problem but the resonant ringing of a steel mirror box that will be transmitted to the sensor pixel at frequencies only a bat can hear. And resonant being what it is, can peak at certain frequencies. Unlike metal, plastics absorb energy better than metals in general.

So, I believe if you are thinking of getting it, you will like the results. I don't need the extra pixels. If I did, I would definitely look at the 5DsR.