5D3 vs 5DSR at ISO 12,800 with NR (picture inside)

I shot these pictures back to back but I think the slightest side lighting came in for the 5DSR so I increase the 5D3s exposure another .4 in LR

I metered the image to be 1 stop underexposed, then:
- added 1 stop in LR
- increased Shadows +30
- standard NR / Sharpening / Lens Profile correction (100-400 II @ 234mm, F8, 1/60 on a tripod)

Going to be quite the statement but I think the 5DSR, because of the added pixels and NR, not only produces the better image at 12,800 ISO but it is cleaner as well - because of the ability to use NR with all those pixels and likely the better random noise produced that was seen in the 7D2 as well.

Please download the original images from Flickr and judge for yourself

5D3

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/uWFx​9J

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/uGq2​cY

Be interesting to see the following comparison crops between the 2 using your image

1. the 5dsr image reduced from full size to 5d3 full size and then sample crop(100% of reduced size)taken and compared to
2. 5dmk3 image at 100% sample crop

Size reduction on 5dsr done using Photoshop Image size reduction tool using either auto or bicubic sharpen

And even more interesting would be using the 5dsr reduced size function on camera at same size as 5dmk3 100% . The reason why this 3rd one would be interesting is because Canon say you can reduce a 5dsr RAW size to say same size as 5mk3 by reduction in pixels and not just cropping the sensor. Im confused with how they would do it if the dont crop but regardless would be good to compare that with the 5dsr reduction at same size crops


BTW...the 5dsr image above looks sharper to my eye by quite a margin at first glances especially on the paper bag on LHS

Download The owner has disabled downloading of their photos

hidroela wrote in post #17607732
Download The owner has disabled downloading of their photos

please let me know if that has been changed - images were meant to be downloadable

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17607758
please let me know if that has been changed - images were meant to be downloadable

Near as I can tell, the originals are not available, only JPGs. Comparing jpg files is throwing the jpg engine into the variable mix; you are no longer comparing just the sensor's potential. I'd like to compare the raw files, which is the only comparison that really means anything. OP, if you are interested in e-mailing raw data, PM for my e-mail address, please.

If pixel size means anything, no way the crop-camera density of the 5Dsr, can match the IQ of a full-frame sensor like the 5D3. It would surprise me if there were a noticeable difference between the 5Dsr and the 7D2.

There are some interesting comparisons on FM about the DPR studio shots comparing the 5Ds and R. Snapsy did some deconvolution sharpening and the results for the two cameras are quite similar - with the R version not showing much more after both were sharpened. The original DPR images can be compared with their widget to 7D2 Pentax 645 etc at various ISOs for your own evaluation. I'm much less interested in the R version than I was.

they can be download now thanks but they are no raw files.

hidroela wrote in post #17609721
they can be download now thanks but they are no raw files.

There are raw files available in the DPReview comparison widget at ISOs up to 12800 from production models...
http://www.dpreview.co​m/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5

hidroela wrote in post #17609721
they can be download now thanks but they are no raw files.

I saw that. That fact invalidates the comparison. I could show you a properly exposed JPG from my G15 that look better than a poorly exposed shot from my 6D.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I downloaded the raw files. Just to make sure we are comparing apples to apples, I verified the EXIF. Both shots are made using the same lens, aperture, lighting, shutter speed and such. My copy of LR can't open the 5DSr file, which is a good thing. That forced me to work in DPP 4, which doesn't apply any default edits.

The first thing I noticed is that the 100% view of the 5DSr file is a lot narrower view. The second thing is that it is a lot noisier. Looking at the 5D3 at 100% and the 5DSr at 50% yields a better size comparison. Even when looking at the the 5DSr shot at only 50%, the 100% 5D3 view is clearly cleaner. I am not intimately familiar with either of these bodies. From experience with my 6D, I'd guess that the noise difference between the 5D3 and 5DSr is more than one stop, and less than two.

My conclusion is as I expected. The much larger pixels of the 5D3 yield cleaner results. The 5DSr yields high-ISO results in line with its pixel density, and fares no better than any other high pixel density camera, such as the 7D2. I am not sure what the point of 50MP is. It certainly is not high-ISO noise performance.

The 5D3 is on the left. 5DSr is on the right. This screen shot does not do the difference justice. It is glaringly obvious on a 22" monitor. I realize the size difference matters. Making the 5DSr shot larger is only going to accentuate the noise.

AJSJones wrote in post #17609846
There are raw files available in the DPReview comparison widget at ISOs up to 12800 from production models...
http://www.dpreview.co​m/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/5

Jeez I just went and had a look over at DP review and couldnt help but notice the pentax645z....Its sooo soft!.....and not just compared top 5dsr ...810 as well as others! ANd at 9,000$ a pop just for the Body the FF High Mega Pixel Canon and Nikons look like a bargain!!....Especiall​y with all the great pro lens available for both....Surely these higher resolution 35mmFF cameras are going to really wreak havoc with the lower end MF cameras like the 645z?...Or am I missing something here on the DPR Pentax comparison??

Just for giggles, I downloaded the 7D2 raw file also. The 5DSr looks cleaner than the 7D2, but the differences are more subtle. And in order to make them viewable at about the same size, I have to look at the 7D2 at 100% and the 5DSr at 50%. That is not much to brag about when comparing a full-frame camera to a crop. A full frame camera SHOULD look better than a crop, but this was at 1:1 vs 1:2, an unfair advantage. Viewing both at 100%, it would be near impossible to distinguish a 7D2 from 5DSr raw file, IMHO.

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17609926
Jeez I just went and had a look over at DP review and couldnt help but notice the pentax645z....Its sooo soft!.....and not just compared top 5dsr ...810 as well as others! ANd at 9,000$ a pop just for the Body the FF High Mega Pixel Canon and Nikons look like a bargain!!....Especiall​y with all the great pro lens available for both....Surely these higher resolution 35mmFF cameras are going to really wreak havoc with the lower end MF cameras like the 645z?...Or am I missing something here on the DPR Pentax comparison??

My BIL shoots a Pentax 645D, professionally. It makes my 6D look pathetic.

I don't get the notion that everyone moves (or wants to) to full frame because the results are so much better. That improvement is a product of lower pixel density and larger pixel size. Then along comes a camera with roughly the same pixel size and density of a crop camera, and folks think it should perform better than a 'regular' full frame. The 5DSr has the pixel size and density of a 7D2. Expect similar results.

The 645D is 40MP on a sensor about 6 times the size of my 6D. Larger pixels + lower pixel density = higher resolution results.
The 5DSr is 50MP on a sensor the same size as a 5D3. Smaller pixels + higher pixel density = lower resolution results.
Makes sense to me.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17609934
The 645D is 40MP on a sensor about 6 times the size of my 6D. Larger pixels + lower pixel density = higher resolution results.
The 5DSr is 50MP on a sensor the same size as a 5D3. Smaller pixels + higher pixel density = lower resolution results.

Really?

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17609934
My BIL shoots a Pentax 645D, professionally. It makes my 6D look pathetic.

I don't get the notion that everyone moves (or wants to) to full frame because the results are so much better. That improvement is a product of lower pixel density and larger pixel size. Then along comes a camera with roughly the same pixel size and density of a crop camera, and folks think it should perform better than a 'regular' full frame. The 5DSr has the pixel size and density of a 7D2. Expect similar results.

The 645D is 40MP on a sensor about 6 times the size of my 6D. Larger pixels + lower pixel density = higher resolution results.
The 5DSr is 50MP on a sensor the same size as a 5D3. Smaller pixels + higher pixel density = lower resolution results.
Makes sense to me.

.....I was talking about the 645z that is showing in the comparison not the D....The Z is 50 mega pixel and IMO doesnt look anywhere near as sharp as both the Nikon and Canon comparisons look...And contrast and colors look better also on the Canon and Nikon ....

Also going by what you say above re smaller pixel &greater pixel density making for lower resolution/IQ then in medium format applying this same theory Phase one and Hasselblad should be getting progressively worse resolution results than the 645z as they increase pixel density ( from the old 40mp to their current new sensors that pack 100 mp's plus) ?...Yes?? Then how do you explain their new 100MP plus sensors looking way better IQ/ resolution wise when compared to their older 40 MP sensors of 3 years ago?......And also what constitutes a "regular"full frame?.....I dont think there is such a thing....In my mind as sensor technology improves noise gets lower , pixel counts get denser and IQ gereally improve. Im sure in another 2 years clean iso at very high speeds will mean we can handhold in the dark and get sharp images !.........Thats why its impossible determine a set of criteria to depict a "regular"FF sensor...Because IMO there is no such thing.....Except for the fact of it being a certain overall size in physical length and width as measured in distance ......and not pixels count or size .....