5DS and 5DSR PHOTO THREAD

With the 5DS (New Owner)

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17744842
..Thanks for the info ..It just goes to show how good this camera is given you cropped a fair amount and the image was still sharp and showed very little noise etc......especially when shot at ISO 2000. Also helps me look at my shots knowing most of the image IQ especially subjects like birds is dependant on my technique rather than any camera shortfall

Also Interesting that the great wildlife images posted up here and in other threads is contrary to everything the so called expert reviewers were saying this camera wasnt suited to( Wildlife, sports etc)...Infact for me the penny dropped ( about 5DSR suitability for wildlife photography ) when I realised the 5DSR had exactly same pixel density and size as 7dMk2..Apart from the 10FPS on the 7DMk2 there wasnt any other real difference between the 2 except the 5DSR had a bigger FF sensor. So I figured if the 7DMk2 with its high "on target" pixel density could shoot great wildlife shots so could the 5dsr! Yet reviewers of the 5DS/R were saying 7dMk2 was the best camera on the market for this sort of photography( Bird/wildlife/sports) and 5DSR totally unsuitable!..and that the 5dsr should really only be used on a tripod and was only good for either studio environment or outdoor landscapes again on a tripod and not handheld!. . Well all I can say to the reviewers that said that is take a look in the various threads here and they will see they were totally wrong!

Clipper .

I plan on shooting my 5DsR handheld 98% of the time... and in low light... in ISO 6400 or higher....

Talley wrote in post #17763938
I plan on shooting my 5DsR handheld 98% of the time... and in low light... in ISO 6400 or higher....

I have a 5DsR as well Mine has noticeable noise at ISO 400 and very noisy after ISO 1000. I also have to use higher shutter speeds and I recommend IS lens for handheld shots

Talley wrote in post #17763938
I plan on shooting my 5DsR handheld 98% of the time... and in low light... in ISO 6400 or higher....

I think you are buying the WRONG Camera!
Handheld if you have IS is fine, .... ISO 6400 and above -

IMO this is a high resolution, fine detailed image camera. At ISO 6400 plus you would be far better with a Nikon D810, or your current 5DIII.

Bluntly you are dreaming or smoking something lol
To benefit truly from the camera's unique points - IMO ISO 400 is tops. But useable shots up to ISO 1000 are achievable.

I would strongly suggest you hire one first. And keep hold of your 5D3 until you are happy withthe results.

Submariner wrote in post #17764235
I think you are buying the WRONG Camera!
Handheld if you have IS is fine, .... ISO 6400 and above -

IMO this is a high resolution, fine detailed image camera. At ISO 6400 plus you would be far better with a Nikon D810, or your current 5DIII.

Bluntly you are dreaming or smoking something lol
To benefit truly from the camera's unique points - IMO ISO 400 is tops. But useable shots up to ISO 1000 are achievable.

I would strongly suggest you hire one first. And keep hold of your 5D3 until you are happy withthe results.

yep...agree 100%.......low light , handheld and 6400 iso is a recipe for disaster with a 5dsr....infact I have issues with noise at 1200 iso let alone shooting at 6400!.......And I recon using a 5dsr for handheld low light photography would be like using a formula 500 racing car to do the Paris to Dakar it would be so mismatched

gqllc007 wrote in post #17764187
I have a 5DsR as well Mine has noticeable noise at ISO 400 and very noisy after ISO 1000. I also have to use higher shutter speeds and I recommend IS lens for handheld shots

Submariner wrote in post #17764235
I think you are buying the WRONG Camera!
Handheld if you have IS is fine, .... ISO 6400 and above -

IMO this is a high resolution, fine detailed image camera. At ISO 6400 plus you would be far better with a Nikon D810, or your current 5DIII.

Bluntly you are dreaming or smoking something lol
To benefit truly from the camera's unique points - IMO ISO 400 is tops. But useable shots up to ISO 1000 are achievable.

I would strongly suggest you hire one first. And keep hold of your 5D3 until you are happy withthe results.

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17764250
yep...agree 100%.......low light , handheld and 6400 iso is a recipe for disaster with a 5dsr....infact I have issues with noise at 1200 iso let alone shooting at 6400!.......And I recon using a 5dsr for handheld low light photography would be like using a formula 500 racing car to do the Paris to Dakar it would be so mismatched

Have any of your resized the images to 5780x3840 then compared to the 5D3? You end up with a sharper, cleaner image. Might want to check that.

Talley wrote in post #17764288
Have any of your resized the images to 5780x3840 then compared to the 5D3? You end up with a sharper, cleaner image. Might want to check that.

why on Earth would someone buy a 5dsr with fairly high noise ratings at all iso's compared to the smaller resolution sensor 5Dmk3 just to downsample to same size as 5D3 to end up with a similar image ....Better off the with 5D3 to start with .... ....I have checked images and there is very little benefit using a 5dsr to get to a 5d3 size. to my eyes the downsamples image is basically same IQ as 5dMk3.....no better no worse....

See link below for some samples of downsampled compared to a ff 6d. You can see there is a little difference with %dsr coming out slightly ahead .......but its that small a difference as to make it questionable why someone would get a 5dsr with higher noise to just downsample to get rid of it especially when they could buy the 6d/5dMk3 and have a good image to start with without any PP!!??

http://www.alexnail.co​m …or-landscape-photography/

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17764396
why on Earth would someone would buy a 5dsr with fairly high noise ratings at all iso's compared to the smaller resolution sensor 5Dmk3 just to downsample to same size as 5D3 to end up with a similar image ....Better off the with 5D3 to start with .... ....I have checked images and there is very little benefit using a 5dsr to get to a 5d3 size. to my eyes the downsamples image is basically same IQ as 5dMk3.....no better no worse....

See link below for some samples of downsampled compared to a ff 6d. You can see there is a little difference with %dsr coming out slightly ahead .......but its that small a difference as to make it questionable why someone would get a 5dsr with higher noise to just downsample to get rid of it especially when they could buy the 6d/5dMk3 and have a good image to start with without any PP!!??

http://www.alexnail.co​m …or-landscape-photography/

um... above ISO 3200 is only 5% of my photography. I would buy it for the benefit of having the 50MP for my regular stuff and studio shots but I get the benefit of downsizing the low ISO shots when there is a NEED to.

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17764396
why on Earth would someone would buy a 5dsr with fairly high noise ratings at all iso's compared to the smaller resolution sensor 5Dmk3 just to downsample to same size as 5D3 to end up with a similar image ....Better off the with 5D3 to start with .... ....I have checked images and there is very little benefit using a 5dsr to get to a 5d3 size. to my eyes the downsamples image is basically same IQ as 5dMk3.....no better no worse....

There is more color discrimination in the downsampled image, as for each output pixel there are multiple input pixels with more than one color filter; downsample enough, and you have foveon-like results without the problems of the foveon sensor.

While I think that a 50MP monitor is a great way to present a 50MP image, I also think that a 2MP or 8MP monitor is much better served by a 50MP image than a 2MP or 8MP image, and slightly better still than a 22MP image (especially for the 8MP monitor - 2MP monitors won't benefit as much from 50MP vs 22MP).

Areas of fine multi-colored details will show this the best.

Talley wrote in post #17764288
Have any of your resized the images to 5780x3840 then compared to the 5D3? You end up with a sharper, cleaner image. Might want to check that.

The 5DS / R is actually pretty decent at high ISO - more so than the native 6400 ceiling would suggest. I don't shoot mine above 6400 though - I keep things in the native range on the high side. Like you said, you'll have 5D III (or slightly better) results when you do shoot 3200-6400, but you'll get even better results for the 97% of your shots at 1600 and below.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17764464
There is more color discrimination in the downsampled image, as for each output pixel there are multiple input pixels with more than one color filter; downsample enough, and you have foveon-like results without the problems of the foveon sensor.

While I think that a 50MP monitor is a great way to present a 50MP image, I also think that a 2MP or 8MP monitor is much better served by a 50MP image than a 2MP or 8MP image, and slightly better still than a 22MP image (especially for the 8MP monitor - 2MP monitors won't benefit as much from 50MP vs 22MP).

Areas of fine multi-colored details will show this the best.

Im interested what makes up a 50MP monitor....Do you mean a monitor that when multiplied by pixel width and depth equals 50MP? Like say my 2015 macbook pro retina would be 2880 x1800 = 5184000pixels =5MP? So that would mean a 50MP monitor would be 28,880x18,000 approx to be a 50MP screen?

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17764521
Im interested what makes up a 50MP monitor....Do you mean a monitor that when multiplied by pixel width and depth equals 50MP? Like say my 2015 macbook pro retina would be 2880 x1800 = 5184000pixels =5MP? So that would mean a 50MP monitor would be 28,880x18,000 approx to be a 50MP screen?

A 50MP monitor would have the same pixel dimensions as a full-res file from the 5Ds(r). One pixel to one pixel. A 49MP monitor would either force bizarre resizing ratios close to 1:1, or omitting pixels from the original.

Your numbers above give a 520MP monitor, not that I would mind having one.