5Ds or 5DsR....

Have been thinking about this one for a while now.
Shooting architectural exteriors and other "stuff" with a 24 TS-E II and other L's below.
Like to hear about your experiences with both and why you picked one over the other....
Low pass filter or not?

https://www.digitalrev​.com …canon-5d-markiii-5ds-5dsr

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18501754
https://www.digitalrev​.com …canon-5d-markiii-5ds-5dsr

Well that was probably one of the most useless reviews of the differences between the S and the SR that I have ever read. The author seemed to have absolutely zero comprehension of the operation of an Optical Low Pass Filter. To my mind the inclusion of the circuit for an analogue electronic low pass filter, and references to turning it on and off in software to seem to suggest that the OPLF is part of the cameras electronics or subsequent digital processing, and not a physical component in the camera systems optical path, before reaching the light sensitive part of the sensor.

Architecture would I think mostly be OK without the OPLF operation, but you might have some issues with large distant areas of brickwork, thanks to the repeating nature of them. It is anywhere that you have high frequency repeating patterns, with the repeating bit being important, that you are likely to run into aliasing issues with a digital sensor. The classic places to find moir caused by aliasing is in brickwork, and very fine fabrics such as silk.

The real issue with getting rid of it afterwards is that it is impossible to apply an automatic filter to remove it digitally. Even when you use manually applied digital filters to the image you will also remove any wanted signal that is of the same low spatial frequency as the aliasing. So it is impossible to remove aliasing without detriment to the image, therefore ideally you will want to ensure that you don't let too high a spatial frequency reach the sensor in the first place.

Things wouldn't be so bad if we had continued to asses images based on fixed size output, as we did with film. If we had an output device that was capable of very high resolution, but was set up so that you could only output at a fixed size, then a very high resolution sensor that didn't OPLF would look great in comparison to a low resolution sensor. Since the size was fixed, edges would still look sharp, but the lens would come nowhere near close to matching the limit of the sensor, so no aliasing.

Instead we now use a fixed resolution output device, and so we look at images from different resolution sensors at different physical sizes. This is what we are doing when we look at an image on screen at 100%, and mostly we seem to have fixed the display to around 100 PPI, so pretty low output resolution at that. In this situation a sensor with very high resolution, that is much greater than the resolution of the lens, which is what you really need, will be judged as very poor. This is because it will appear to blur sharp high contrast edges in comparison to a lower resolution sensor.

Is it really fair to compare images at different levels of optical magnification? We would never have compared an image printed at 10×7 with one printed at 80×53 would we? But that happens nearly every day now with digital. It's not unusual to see a 5DS compared with an old camera like the 300D/original Rebel at 100%, which is exactly the comparison I made originally with the 10×7 compared to the 80×53.

So down to the cameras, with the best L series lenses now seemingly capable of delivering 120 LP/mm to the sensor I would want to see a sensor that had a cut off resolution of 180 LP/mm before removing the OLPF completely. The thing is that the 50MP sensors limit is pretty close to being 120 LP/mm, so there is almost no room for error, and so aliasing problems are more than possible. I really don't think at any realistic output size for the whole image you will notice any additional softness from the use of the OLPF.

Alan

Alan

5Ds and 5Dsr owners only please

Whats the skinny

3 people that I know that own them tell me the following

They have to put them on tripods most of the time if shutters are below 1/250...Motion blur

Version 1 glass does not work well at all. All 3 said they had to upgrade glass


Is this True ??

I have a 5 DS. I had to shoot at higher shutter speeds (or use a tripod) to reduce/eliminate motion blur. I only use it outdoors in good light. For indoor or low light shots I use a 5D Mark iii. I did not upgrade any of my lenses. I've used 100-400 L IS ii,70-200 f2.8 L IS ii, 135 L, 100 L, 24-105 L, 24-70 f4L IS, 16-35 F4L IS.I took a 5 DS and a 5D Mark iii on an Alaskan cruise and got gorgeous pictures on both cameras. Most were outdoors in good light and both were handheld.

Thanks nsaldanh

I have my eye on this camera and was a little shocked when people started telling me this. I hate to use a tripod unless im doing long exposure stuff. So it raised some concerns

My big issue was the 135L

I can hand hold at 1/160-200 pretty easy but some of the guys tell me they are at 1/500 minimum on the 5Dsr

I was thinking about this camera for formals at weddings and for in studio work. Tripod thoughts are totally turning me off right now

There is no additional blur over any other FF. If people need to raise their shutter speeds, it is because they are enlarging the images more than other bodies due to cropping heavily, printing larger, or pixel peeping. A 1mm blur will occupy the same area on any of the FF sensors. However, the 5ds/5DSR invite more pixel peeping due the resolution, and that causes the " must use faster shutter speeds " phenomenon.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18503538
There is no additional blur over any other FF. If people need to raise their shutter speeds, it is because they are enlarging the images more than other bodies due to cropping heavily, printing larger, or pixel peeping. A 1mm blur will occupy the same area on any of the FF sensors. However, the 5ds/5DSR invite more pixel peeping due the resolution, and that causes the " must use faster shutter speeds " phenomenon.

Yup. When using the pixels to the max (printing big or cropping extensively) every kind of blur gets magnified more, so camera shake, subject motion and CoC*, so what you could just about get away with with 20 MP becomes somewhat more problematic with 50MP - if you are near the edge of your technique. If you want the advantage of all those pixels, there is a small price to pay: The differences are only a stop or two I have a 5DsR and do landscapes (often on tripod also) with handheld IS lenses and they work just fine - in good light. Also, if the lens was good enough on a 7D2, for example, it'll do just fine on the 5DsR with its similar pixel pitch. The FF however, will show up the edge deficiencies that the crop couldn't even see! Images captured with lens X will always be (somewhat or a lot) "better" with a 50 MP sensor than with a 20 MP sensor (how much depends on the lens), so glass can be a limiting factor to achieving max detail capture - but that's nothing new either So yeah, it needs a bit more care than a 20 MP FF but it's not huge - if you are going for large highly detailed prints, it's a whole lot easier than 4x5 was!

* so DoF will be different if you print bigger but view from the same distance, or crop down a lot to standard size and distance

The 7d2 and 5ds series share basically the same pixel pitch.

I haven't had it long. But I have not found that I have to change my SS at all on the 5DsR. I have mostly used it for macro shots using the 100L and with our without IS, I get solid sharp shots at 1/100

nsaldanh wrote in post #18503295
I have a 5 DS. I had to shoot at higher shutter speeds (or use a tripod) to reduce/eliminate motion blur. I only use it outdoors in good light. For indoor or low light shots I use a 5D Mark iii.

For AF, or for maximal IQ? Yes, the 5Ds has more measured noise at high ISOs, but it has a lot less banding noise in it, and the much higher resolution of the 5Ds allows you a lot of room to apply noise reduction with a goal of a 22MP-usable image. Both cameras have pretty much the same quantum efficiency, and therefore, photon noise for the same exposure.

I doubt that the 5D3 is actually less noisy at high ISOs in the most visible forms of low-frequency noise.

One area in which the 5D3 may get some edge back is when the f-number is very low, below f/2.5 or so, in which case, the 5Ds will probably lose a little bit more light to microlenses, because the pixels are much smaller.

The image quality coming out of the 5DSR is amazing. I have had this body for nearly 2 years, and I constantly hear people saying you can't shoot with slow shutter speeds. Honestly, this all comes down to your ability to properly steady a camera because I handhold a 600mm lens with this and get sharp results.

For image quality this camera can't be beat:

I remember the early reviews said it was a tripod mount camera for studio work as well as some types of landscape work which again required mounting on a tripod.....These same reviewers were also quick to point out that it was definately not suited to wildlife and/or sport full stop....Even if mounted on a tripod.

2 shots below taken handheld with no IS on at time of shot

Thank you for posting these files

I am actually considering this camera over a 5D4 purchase

Much appreciated

I like my 5DsR and like any other camera good technique improves your outcome. I use my 5DsR more often on a tripod than my 5DIV, but it is usually with a 500mm & 2X, and expecting to crop quite a bit.
A 5DsR is great to have in your bag of tricks, but not the best all around camera for many of us.