5DS and 5DSR PHOTO THREAD

John Sheehy wrote in post #17764536
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.

So how big would the monitor have to be to be able to size it 1;1....A meter?....Or can desktop monitors cram more pixels in like the laptop retinas do and have 1:1 but less than the 50MP native output size at full resolution that prints at around meter at 240dpi? How big would the monitor have to be in physical to be 50MP? The printed 50MP output size? And what physical size is a 8MP monitor ?

a couple of shots I took yesterday at the local wetlands

and another that I posted under birds.

BTW...the bird in last 2 is a Yellow -Billed Spoonbill. Not sure about the first one ...Not good with identifying birds ,,,,,...I just take their pictures

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17764544
So how big would the monitor have to be to be able to size it 1;1....A meter?....Or can desktop monitors cram more pixels in like the laptop retinas do and have 1:1 but less than the 50MP native output size at full resolution that prints at around meter at 240dpi? How big would the monitor have to be in physical to be 50MP? The printed 50MP output size? And what physical size is a 8MP monitor ?

That would be about 36" x 24" at 240PPI.

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

Well at keast mine is not broken, so agree.
Funny when I read this, I thought thats like hitching my horse trailer to the SL 500 - just cos it has a 5 litre engine doesn't mean its the right tool for the job. Far better off using the old ML320 CDI. Lol

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.

No I admit, I have not tried that, but why go to all that effort. Better to just pick up the 5D3 and slap on the required lens?
Is it really that much cleaner??

Submariner wrote in post #17766616
No I admit, I have not tried that, but why go to all that effort. Better to just pick up the 5D3 and slap on the required lens?
Is it really that much cleaner??

It's a little cleaner.

"All that effort"? You have got to be impossibly lazy if you think resizing a 5DS R image is "all that effort"!

Also, you're missing the point. He plainly stated he is talking about 5% of his shooting for above ISO 3200. Why go to all that expense of having a separate dedicated 5D III for 5% of his shots when he can get slightly better results from the 5DS R he already has. Same can be said for wildlife. The 7D II has a similar pixel density as the 5DS, so 5DS owners that shoot birds could either buy a dedicated 7D II for birds or just use the 5DS they already have and crop in post.

"All that effort"? Come on, you've got to be kidding!

David Arbogast wrote in post #17766769
It's a little cleaner.

"All that effort"? You have got to be impossibly lazy if you think resizing a 5DS R image is "all that effort"!

Also, you're missing the point. He plainly stated he is talking about 5% of his shooting for above ISO 3200. Why go to all that expense of having a separate dedicated 5D III for 5% of his shots when he can get slightly better results from the 5DS R he already has. Same can be said for wildlife. The 7D II has a similar pixel density as the 5DS, so 5DS owners that shoot birds could either buy a dedicated 7D II for birds or just use the 5DS they already have and crop in post.

"All that effort"? Come on, you've got to be kidding!

Well if its cleaner, then I guess its worth it for him.

When he first posted on his planned 5dsr use it read like the high ISO and low light shots were the main thing the 5dsr would be doing but now he has replied that this represents only 5% of his planned 5dsr usage then thats a different story....Obviously 5dsr can be used rather than buying a camera just for that. Just needs to be carefull with handheld shots on the 5dsr at low shutter speeds thats all.......

Clipper

Also a pics of some Corella's feeding that I took today .....They love seed pods from wattle tree's etc

The 100-400Mk2L stays on this camera almost permanantly. they are such a great combo for color/optical and sensor resolution etc.

Clipper

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17767729
When he first posted on his planned 5dsr use it read like the high ISO and low light shots were the main thing the 5dsr would be doing but now he has replied that this represents only 5% of his planned 5dsr usage then thats a different story....Obviously 5dsr can be used rather than buying a camera just for that. Just needs to be carefull with handheld shots on the 5dsr at low shutter speeds thats all.......

Clipper

Right on all counts - that first post regarding planned high ISO/low light usage was misleading and confusing. Once the 5% clarification was made, though, Sub's subsequent reply should have had that updated/revised information factored in.

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17767741
Also a pic of a Corella feeding that I took today .....They love seed pods .......There were a number of them feeding on what looked to me like a wattle tree .

Hosted photo: posted by clipper_from_oz in
./showthread.php?p=177​67741&i=i87590331
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Very nice! Your work continues to make me wish for a 100-400L II - it obviously is so obviously superb on the 5DS R. I need to do some investigative work on my end to justify my own purchase by finding some wildlife-rich areas near my new home that would give strong reason to get one.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17767761
Right on all counts - that first post regarding planned high ISO/low light usage was misleading and confusing. Once the 5% clarification was made, though, Sub's subsequent reply should have had that updated/revised information factored in.

Very nice! Your work continues to make me wish for a 100-400L II - it obviously is so obviously superb on the 5DS R. I need to do some investigative work on my end to justify my own purchase by finding some wildlife-rich areas near my new home that would give strong reason to get one.

Thanks.......Yes the lens is just made for this body...Its just remarkable how well they go together. The other lens that I recon Canon built this body for is the 16-35f4. Again the IQ is that good I just sit staring at the lightroom preview image when a good keeper fills the screen...Not that that happens all that often given Im still trying to get used to the camera and handheld tequniques to minimise camera shake etc but its enough to really appreciate just how good this 5dsr is......

Clipper

Submariner wrote in post #17767712
Well if its cleaner, then I guess its worth it for him.

Assuming one want the most natural-looking detail, a higher-res original, especially when it is pixel-soft because of high pixel density (and not because the optics or stability are soft) is the best source for a wide range of downsampling ratios without significant artifacts. Close ratios are horrible. A 22MP image on a 16MP monitor is problematic; 50MP on a 16MP monitor, less so.

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17767729
When he first posted on his planned 5dsr use it read like the high ISO and low light shots were the main thing the 5dsr would be doing but now he has replied that this represents only 5% of his planned 5dsr usage then thats a different story....Obviously 5dsr can be used rather than buying a camera just for that. Just needs to be carefull with handheld shots on the 5dsr at low shutter speeds thats all.......

Clipper

I don't think he needs to be any more careful; he can be more careful, but that is most useful at low ISOs. At very high ISOs, perfect stability is less appreciated because noise obscures fine optical detail.

I don't think of higher pixel density as a demand or challenge; only as an opportunity to reap the benefits of exceptional optics and technique.

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17767741
The 100-400Mk2L stays on this camera almost permanantly. they are such a great combo for color/optical and sensor resolution etc.

If that lens had come out a year earlier, I certainly would own one now, but I bought a Tamron 150-600 in January 2014, not having any confidence that a new 100-400 was imminent. After the new 100-400 came out, the idea of going from a 90mm aperture to a <71mm aperture kind of discouraged me from buying the new 100-400, as I would get more noise with it in low light when I would use the Tamron wide-open at 600mm, and the Tamron was actually quite sharp itself at 400mm. I bought the new 400 DO several months ago, and had a better 400mm than the new zoom would give me.

However, I often miss having a zoom and/or close focus, so a 100-400 v2 may still be in my future. Once in a while, a warbler or other bird will land in a branch right next to my head, on the ground in front of me, or even on my shoe or pants, but unfortunately, I am not prepared, optically, to take advantage with my $7K lens that won't zoom out and/or focus close.