# Why 5D IV over 5DsR? Not for image quality



## saveyourmoment (Oct 1, 2016)

So i just played around with some comparison with the help of the dpreview files to make a decision on buying the 5DIV... Just for image Quality, the 5D IV looses against the 5DsR. So it all comes down to the "gimmicks", video functions and type of your photography to decide, which camera to use...

The image above is the 5DsR, ISO 12800, applyed noise reduction 50%!!, resized to the image size of the 5D IV, 
The image below is the 5DIV, ISO 12800, orig size, no retouching...

i would love to see a 5dsR II with touchscreen, CFast, USB-C, Wifi (just for "tethered liveview, not for sending images to the remote!)...


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 1, 2016)

Well, surely it's not a suprise to anyone that a camera with almos twice the pixels, a camera whose very existence is predicated on raw image quality, beats a generalist camera in the one area it is meant to excel in?


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 1, 2016)

*at 12800 ISO ??*

For someone using the 5Ds regularly and appreciating those extra pixels, an example at 12800 ISO somewhat misses the point 

I do sometimes push it to 800, whereas my 1Ds3 sometimes got used at 400 and my 1Ds at 200 ;-)


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 1, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Well, surely it's not a suprise to anyone that a camera with almos twice the pixels, a camera whose very existence is predicated on raw image quality, beats a generalist camera in the one area it is meant to excel in?



I think you miss the point. The 5Ds/r are not meant to excel in high ISO. Many people have the impression that the 5Ds/r are meant for studio work. I think the demonstration above indicates that the 5Ds/r are more generalist cameras than many people think.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 1, 2016)

saveyourmoment said:


> So i just played around with some comparison with the help of the dpreview files to make a decision on buying the 5DIV... Just for image Quality, the 5D IV looses against the 5DsR. So it all comes down to the "gimmicks", video functions and type of your photography to decide, which camera to use...
> 
> The image above is the 5DsR, ISO 12800, applyed noise reduction 50%!!, resized to the image size of the 5D IV,
> The image below is the 5DIV, ISO 12800, orig size, no retouching...
> ...



Thank you for this demonstration. Still, I do think you should edit the 5DIV picture the best you could, and then compare the results.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 1, 2016)

*Re: at 12800 ISO ??*



keithcooper said:


> For someone using the 5Ds regularly and appreciating those extra pixels, an example at 12800 ISO somewhat misses the point
> 
> I do sometimes push it to 800, whereas my 1Ds3 sometimes got used at 400 and my 1Ds at 200 ;-)



I try to use my 6D for situations where I need higher ISO, but at times do use my 5DsR in poor light. I've been reasonably happy with 5DsR images at up to 3200 ISO with heavy noise reduction and downsizing. If I owned a 1Dx (Mk1 or 2) or 5D MkIV, those would be my preference for low light/high ISO.


----------



## turtle (Oct 1, 2016)

Hi, I am not sure this is too surprising based on what you are looking at. 50MP gives you a lot of leeway with noise reduction. 

However.... there is a lot more to 'image quality' than resolution and the ability to hold back luminance noise in the range you looked at. Colour noise, blotching, banding, high ISO colour fidelity and dynamic range all have a huge impact on final image quality for an image that is being worked very hard. In these areas, all tests show that the 5D IV is comfortably ahead of the 5DS/R (which itself is ahead of the 5D III). 

If you are shooting a wedding and having to pull up shadows significantly, say with a shot on the dance floor against point light sources at ISO 1600/3200, the 5D IV will be a country mile ahead of the 5DS/R. The same goes for when you hit the noise floor with high contrast landscapes at base ISO. The old 'off sensor' ADC design of the 5DS/R isn't anywhere close to the new camera in terms of shadow recovery/exposure boosting. This should not surprise anyone either, because it is precisely what we have seen when comparing the 5DSR to the likes of the D750 or D810. It also looks like the 5D IV is at least competitive, if not slightly better at high ISO DR compared to those Nikon cameras.



saveyourmoment said:


> So i just played around with some comparison with the help of the dpreview files to make a decision on buying the 5DIV... Just for image Quality, the 5D IV looses against the 5DsR. So it all comes down to the "gimmicks", video functions and type of your photography to decide, which camera to use...
> 
> The image above is the 5DsR, ISO 12800, applyed noise reduction 50%!!, resized to the image size of the 5D IV,
> The image below is the 5DIV, ISO 12800, orig size, no retouching...
> ...


----------



## dak723 (Oct 1, 2016)

Comparing images at ISO 12800? That is your idea of how to judge Image Quality? Good luck to you!


----------



## Zeidora (Oct 1, 2016)

I agree on the rather odd choice for comparing the cameras (ISO 12800). However, I do agree with OP on the basic premise, that the 5D3/4 have lots of gimmicks that are not terribly useful compared to much larger files of the 5Ds/R. At roughly same price, the trade-off of feature strongly tilts to the 5Ds/R even as a generalist camera.

I have no interest in either 5D3 or 4, but a 5DsR II may be worth considering (GPS, easier interchangeable focusing screens).


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 1, 2016)

Can we agree to disagree here? The op's priority in regards to IQ appears to be resolution at high ISO. Other people have different priorities. In that specific application, I think OP is correct. The 5Ds does appear to resolve a little more, and the 5dIV will be even less once be is applied. 
I might mention that it should be no surprise that 50 mp should resolve a little more than 30mp under almost any circumstances.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 1, 2016)

dak723 said:


> Comparing images at ISO 12800? That is your idea of how to judge Image Quality? Good luck to you!



Shrug, if that's where he/she shoots often, why not? It's more relevant a comparison to me than images shot at base and pushed six stops in post.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 1, 2016)

To my eyes, it looks like the 5DIV has either a different exposure or has been processed slightly differently. The blacks are not as deep and the contrast is less, thus there appears to be more noise in the 5DIV shadow areas. It's a small difference, but I suspect that if you processed both to the same final appearance, the noise in the 5DIV file would at least match that of the 5Ds.

Still, what this shows me is that it takes some real effort to make the images coming out of any modern camera look bad. I think most people would agree that if you already own a 5Ds or a 5DIII, the sensor is not the main reason to upgrade. 

On the other hand, I have found with the 1D XII that the files coming off this latest generation of sensors do seem to have a lot more processing flexibility, most notably in shadow and highlight recovery. It's not major, but as DPReview and others have noted, it is noticeable and makes post-processing a little easier.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 1, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Comparing images at ISO 12800? That is your idea of how to judge Image Quality? Good luck to you!
> ...



True story.


----------



## turtle (Oct 2, 2016)

I think it shows that if you work within the parameters of the example in your real photography, the 5DSR is sharper and has less noise, yes. However, what it does not show is the other features that may be helpful to a 5D IV shooter (depending on application of course), such as frame rate etc. Moreover, in terms of image quality terms, the example shown does not highlight the improved Dynamic Range on the new sensor. The extra dynamic range is irrelevant to some users, but highly relevant to others. For the second group, their appreciation of a good deal more DR and less pattern noise when files are pushed hard is not indicative of poor technique.

Clearly these two cameras have their strengths and weaknesses, but it is erroneous to suggest that this comparison proves that the 5DSR has 'better image quality'. In some respects, yes, but in others, it is a clear 'no'.



RickSpringfield said:


> Sounds like the OP is objectively confirming that provided your photography isn't suffering soley from a lack of creature comfort features or poor technique in practice; the 5DSR is the clear winner. Even though the 5D Mark IV is better in every other spec, the 5DSR still has the capability to produce a better end result image.
> 
> I've got to believe that matters to many.


----------



## saveyourmoment (Oct 2, 2016)

You are all right in your own ways. My example is an extreme one. I also tested all other possibilities, but that 12800 was something i didnt expect right away. Looking at the 5dsR at iso 12800 was a pain, but that i could use noisereduction and downsize the image and get the same or even better Image than the newest 5div was not expected. Shooting the 5dsR with ISO 12800 is nothing i would recommend. But this example showed me that i could use such a file and get an equal/better image to/than the 5div. So if image quality is my only concern and my work is done in approx. 90% in good light, i would choose the 5dsR the rest of the 10% i could recover without problems.

Nevertheless the 5dIV ist a great allaround camera. With a lot of new great features. I would love to see in high MP body. 

If money is no problem:
sport/journalists: 1dx ii with 5div as backup
Wedding/Event. 1dx ii /5div and prob. 5dsR as backup
Wedding portraits: 5dsr
Goodlight/portraits/landscape/stills/macro: 5Dsr


It i would have to choose just one for shooting all together
5div. It is the best allrounder.

But if i have good or controlled light: 5dsR for everykind of photography. The 5dsr gives me the best and stunning image quality.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 2, 2016)

I'm with turtle on this one. 

It does seem strange that anyone would focus on high ISO for a 5DSr application although if you own it you will have to work with it and it's nice to know how well it fares.

Jack


----------



## dak723 (Oct 2, 2016)

RickSpringfield said:


> Even though the 5D Mark IV is better in every other spec, the 5DSR still has the capability to produce a better end result image.
> 
> I've got to believe that matters to many.



No, all the OP's test shows is that the 5DSR produces a better end result image at ISO 12,800. It may also produce a better image at ISO 200, but the test does absolutely nothing to show that. The 5D IV may produce the much better image at ISOs from 100- 3200. Again, the test gives us no idea. The idea that the result at ISO 12800 is indicative of results at low ISO is false. The headline - to be accurate - would read "Not for image quality at ISO 12800." That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 2, 2016)

Very easy to jump to conclusions isn't it. 

Jack


----------



## Memdroid (Oct 3, 2016)

turtle said:


> I think it shows that if you work within the parameters of the example in your real photography, the 5DSR is sharper and has less noise, yes. However, what it does not show is the other features that may be helpful to a 5D IV shooter (depending on application of course), such as frame rate etc. Moreover, in terms of image quality terms, the example shown does not highlight the improved Dynamic Range on the new sensor. The extra dynamic range is irrelevant to some users, but highly relevant to others. For the second group, their appreciation of a good deal more DR and less pattern noise when files are pushed hard is not indicative of poor technique.
> 
> Clearly these two cameras have their strengths and weaknesses, but it is erroneous to suggest that this comparison proves that the 5DSR has 'better image quality'. In some respects, yes, but in others, it is a clear 'no'.
> 
> ...



DR is a wash after ISO 400 on nearly all cameras. 5DIV has no real practical DR advantages on the 5DSr on medium to high ISO ranges.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 3, 2016)

Although, in no way do I think this is a complete IQ comparison, I understand and appreciate what it shows. I am still deciding what upgrade path to follow for my 6D and a used 5DSR is top of my list. The price to performance ratio of a new 5DIV is not particularly attractive when compared to a used 5DSR. A new 6DII may be even more attractive than both if the m-pix is closer to 30 and has a flippy touch screen.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 3, 2016)

I'd pick the tool that matches the job. Claiming one or the other is better, is only pertinent for a particular job / application. 

A 5DS series would not be my choice for theater photography where it often takes ISO 25600 to get the shot. For landscapes at ISO 1600 or lower, the 5Ds series would be my choice.


----------



## saveyourmoment (Oct 4, 2016)

Just another example

low light test shoot iso 800 pushed 3 Stops and 50% NR (5dsR scaled down to size of 5DIV... still i would prefer the 5dsr...

100% crop

When i look at this image from the 5div i would like to see a 5div without AAFilter... But that would make the 5dsr nearly obsolet...


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 4, 2016)

To answer the original poster, the reason I got the 5d4 was largely due to low light performance and action. 

Admittedly, the 5d4 isn't as fast as it could be on the frames per second front, but it is still 40 percent faster than the 4dsr. 

On the low light front, I cannot directly compare cameras, not owning both, but I do know that taking high iso shots in good light that doesn't need high iso doesn't tell you a whole lot. The situation I find myself in frequently is fading light with a critter that moves fast. Putting your shutter speed up to 1/1000 does a number on your ISO (frequently at 6400-10000 this past weekend), and in actual low light, bigger pixels help a lot.

I figured that with the bigger pixels and the on-chip ADC, I'd have more luck pulling shadows from low light with the 5d4.

I'd very much like someone to show I'm wrong on that with some images.


----------



## turtle (Oct 4, 2016)

The 5D IV has about 3/4 of a stop of extra DR at 400 and beyond. Its not game changing, but for wedding shooters and photojournalists its something that is certainly nice to have. It seems only the A7R II is better in this regard.




Memdroid said:


> turtle said:
> 
> 
> > I think it shows that if you work within the parameters of the example in your real photography, the 5DSR is sharper and has less noise, yes. However, what it does not show is the other features that may be helpful to a 5D IV shooter (depending on application of course), such as frame rate etc. Moreover, in terms of image quality terms, the example shown does not highlight the improved Dynamic Range on the new sensor. The extra dynamic range is irrelevant to some users, but highly relevant to others. For the second group, their appreciation of a good deal more DR and less pattern noise when files are pushed hard is not indicative of poor technique.
> ...


----------



## applecider (Oct 4, 2016)

Hey save your money,

I get that you used available files on dpreview to do your comparison but I'm not sure that is the way to do a comparison. Since the 5DIV is said to sharpen better a more valid methodology would seem to be to compare the best post processed image from both a 5D4 and a 5Dsr but you'd need access to both cameras to do so. Or download the raw files and work them yourself.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 4, 2016)

saveyourmoment said:


> So i just played around with some comparison with the help of the dpreview files to make a decision on buying the 5DIV... Just for image Quality, the 5D IV looses against the 5DsR. So it all comes down to the "gimmicks", video functions and type of your photography to decide, which camera to use...
> 
> The image above is the 5DsR, ISO 12800, applyed noise reduction 50%!!, resized to the image size of the 5D IV,
> The image below is the 5DIV, ISO 12800, orig size, no retouching...
> ...



In the above image I would say the 5DIV is the clear winner for image quality. The 5DsR image has some of the noise smeared away but it also loses a ton of detail compared to the 5DIV. More interesting would be the 5DsR image without such over the top noise reduction.


----------



## tron (Oct 4, 2016)

Zeidora said:


> I agree on the rather odd choice for comparing the cameras (ISO 12800). However, I do agree with OP on the basic premise, that the 5D3/4 have lots of gimmicks that are not terribly useful compared to much larger files of the 5Ds/R. At roughly same price, the trade-off of feature strongly tilts to the 5Ds/R even as a generalist camera.
> 
> I have no interest in either 5D3 or 4, but a 5DsR II may be worth considering (GPS, easier interchangeable focusing screens).


 and although a 5D series fan I would be tempted if they didn't increase the mpixels but instead improved noise, DR and started using CFAST cards to support higher fps  Oh and f/8 autofocus (birds cannot wait) ;D


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 4, 2016)

tron said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > I agree on the rather odd choice for comparing the cameras (ISO 12800). However, I do agree with OP on the basic premise, that the 5D3/4 have lots of gimmicks that are not terribly useful compared to much larger files of the 5Ds/R. At roughly same price, the trade-off of feature strongly tilts to the 5Ds/R even as a generalist camera.
> ...



Haven't they done all of those (bar the CFast card thing)?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 4, 2016)

unfocused said:


> To my eyes, it looks like the 5DIV has either a different exposure or has been processed slightly differently. The blacks are not as deep and the contrast is less, thus there appears to be more noise in the 5DIV shadow areas. It's a small difference, but I suspect that if you processed both to the same final appearance, the noise in the 5DIV file would at least match that of the 5Ds.
> 
> Still, what this shows me is that it takes some real effort to make the images coming out of any modern camera look bad. I think most people would agree that if you already own a 5Ds or a 5DIII, the sensor is not the main reason to upgrade.
> 
> On the other hand, I have found with the 1D XII that the files coming off this latest generation of sensors do seem to have a lot more processing flexibility, most notably in shadow and highlight recovery. It's not major, but as DPReview and others have noted, it is noticeable and makes post-processing a little easier.


+1 

If one camera has a black patch that is darker than another, the question should be which camera is more accurate. Fortunately the colorchecker patches are well known references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ColorChecker

When using Lightroom you can check (%R %G %B) value of any patch by hovering the eyedropper tool over said patch.

The the brightness levels of the neutral patches should be as follows:
95%; 80%; 65%; 50%, 35%; 20%

Adobe standard color profiles are definitely not a good basis for comparison.


----------



## tron (Oct 5, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Zeidora said:
> ...


I was talking about a ~50Mpixel 5DsR II but I guess you refer to 5DIV ...


----------



## Jopa (Oct 6, 2016)

As far as I know a lot of 5ds/r owners including myself decided to pass on the mk4. Nevertheless the mk4 a great camera, but it's not meant to replace the 5ds bodies. I never had a 5dmk3, and before I got the 1dx2 I was using my 5ds/r for everything. I never had a need to shoot over ISO 6400, and the only problem I had - the camera is not fast enough to capture a "peak moment". +2 fps of the 5dmk4 won't give you much benefits neither.

I completely understand the OP - people hesitate about the 5dsr top ISO 6400 (extended to 12800) and there is actually no point to compare the 5ds/r and mk4 @ ISO 100 - unless you need to push your image to 3 stops maybe... A 50Mpx sensor with no AA is hard to beat. The DR difference also pretty much disappears after ISO 400. Put any decent glass on the 5dsr and the results are mind blowing.

I personally would love to see an mk2 with improved low ISO DR and the expanded/improved AF system (similar to the 1dx2 / 5dmk4). If Canon puts it in a 1d-style body with other 1d-reserved features like the AF spot linked metering, AI Servo 3+, maybe +1 fps - it would be da bomb


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 6, 2016)

Jopa, your last paragraph says it all! Trouble is Canon isn't listening. Now that I've bought the 1DX II I'd never be able to afford it anyway. :'(

Jack


----------



## saveyourmoment (Oct 6, 2016)

Jopa said:


> As far as I know a lot of 5ds/r owners including myself decided to pass on the mk4. Nevertheless the mk4 a great camera, but it's not meant to replace the 5ds bodies. I never had a 5dmk3, and before I got the 1dx2 I was using my 5ds/r for everything. I never had a need to shoot over ISO 6400, and the only problem I had - the camera is not fast enough to capture a "peak moment". +2 fps of the 5dmk4 won't give you much benefits neither.
> 
> I completely understand the OP - people hesitate about the 5dsr top ISO 6400 (extended to 12800) and there is actually no point to compare the 5ds/r and mk4 @ ISO 100 - unless you need to push your image to 3 stops maybe... A 50Mpx sensor with no AA is hard to beat. The DR difference also pretty much disappears after ISO 400. Put any decent glass on the 5dsr and the results are mind blowing.
> 
> I personally would love to see an mk2 with improved low ISO DR and the expanded/improved AF system (similar to the 1dx2 / 5dmk4). If Canon puts it in a 1d-style body with other 1d-reserved features like the AF spot linked metering, AI Servo 3+, maybe +1 fps - it would be da bomb



I would love to see Canon give us a better choice. Right ow, we always have to make compromises or buy all 5DSR, 5DIV and a 1DX II. Canon, please give us a 1DX II styled DSLR with full touchscreen, USB-C, HDMI 2.0 (4k output), 50/75MP with 3-5 FPS and the option to use a Cropmode with 20-24MP and 11 FPS, dual C-Fast... I don't care if it would be 8000-9000 EUR. This camera would nail it....


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 6, 2016)

I agree, but I suspect that the quantity that would sell wouldn't justify it. The key would seem to lie in the mode differential so that it could serve both the high and Low MP needs with distinction since fps and MP are always a trade off, and similar with respect to noise and ISO.

Surely, Canon knows this but can't presently deliver it.

Jack


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 6, 2016)

saveyourmoment said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know a lot of 5ds/r owners including myself decided to pass on the mk4. Nevertheless the mk4 a great camera, but it's not meant to replace the 5ds bodies. I never had a 5dmk3, and before I got the 1dx2 I was using my 5ds/r for everything. I never had a need to shoot over ISO 6400, and the only problem I had - the camera is not fast enough to capture a "peak moment". +2 fps of the 5dmk4 won't give you much benefits neither.
> ...


It's not Canon that is failing "*us*", it is the whole camera industry. Name one camera that can do everything that the *5DSR, 5DIV and a 1DX II* can do?


----------



## tron (Oct 7, 2016)

saveyourmoment said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know a lot of 5ds/r owners including myself decided to pass on the mk4. Nevertheless the mk4 a great camera, but it's not meant to replace the 5ds bodies. I never had a 5dmk3, and before I got the 1dx2 I was using my 5ds/r for everything. I never had a need to shoot over ISO 6400, and the only problem I had - the camera is not fast enough to capture a "peak moment". +2 fps of the 5dmk4 won't give you much benefits neither.
> ...


Or they could give us a 5D4 styled 1DxII. Not all want a 1.5Kg big camera...


----------



## Jopa (Oct 8, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Jopa, your last paragraph says it all! Trouble is Canon isn't listening. Now that I've bought the 1DX II I'd never be able to afford it anyway. :'(
> 
> Jack



eBay is always at your service Jack  The 1dx2 is a great camera nevertheless and I guess it will retain its value for a while.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 8, 2016)

Currently, the 5D IV discussion is spread over three threads and is becoming repetitious in parallel. 

For my purposes, my own type of bird photography, my 5DS R gives me higher resolution and longer effective reach. It's strength is its high mpix sensor without an AA-filter. But, for some of my close up shots, you get Moire from the regular barbs on the feathers, rare but annoying. Its AF is pretty good, better than the 7D II or 5D III.

My 5D IV, with its AA-filter, gets around the Moire problems, but even more importantly has fantastic AF, which is really helping me with birds in flight. I actually prefer the noise patterns of the 5DS R.

The two bodies are almost identical in terms of controls and it is so easy to switch between the two. (It helps having my wife using one while I use the other as we usually go out bird watching together, so having 2 bodies not a luxury.)


----------



## j-nord (Oct 13, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Currently, the 5D IV discussion is spread over three threads and is becoming repetitious in parallel.
> 
> For my purposes, my own type of bird photography, my 5DS R gives me higher resolution and longer effective reach. It's strength is its high mpix sensor without an AA-filter. But, for some of my close up shots, you get Moire from the regular barbs on the feathers, rare but annoying. Its AF is pretty good, better than the 7D II or 5D III.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the pro/con as they relate to birding. If you had to pick one, specifically for birding, which would you choose?


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 13, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Currently, the 5D IV discussion is spread over three threads and is becoming repetitious in parallel.
> 
> For my purposes, my own type of bird photography, my 5DS R gives me higher resolution and longer effective reach. It's strength is its high mpix sensor without an AA-filter. But, for some of my close up shots, you get Moire from the regular barbs on the feathers, rare but annoying. Its AF is pretty good, better than the 7D II or 5D III.
> 
> ...



I would appreciate it if you could further describe your experience with the differences in AF performance, between the 5Dsr and 5DIV. Thank you!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 13, 2016)

I'll make the bet it's 5D4 since its AF gets you shots you otherwise might miss and a missed shot at 50 MPs isn't much good. That would be assuming you're not dealing with very static birds, otherwise it's 5DSr - Alan am I close? 

Jack


----------



## Act444 (Oct 19, 2016)

5D4 vs. 5DSR...

5D4 wins on speed and high ISO...

5DS R wins on resolving power, reach and sharpness...


I'll say this, there's just nothing quite like a 5DSR shot razor-sharp at 100% view!

That said, personally I've been using the 5D3 and 5D4 a lot more lately mainly due to shooting environments.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 19, 2016)

Act444 said:


> 5D4 vs. 5DSR...
> 
> 5D4 wins on speed and high ISO...
> 
> ...



This sounds surprisingly similar to comments one hears about say the 600 lens vs 300 X 2. If something inhibits your use of it then it does not serve you very well in spite of it being superb. Of course its not a problem at all if you can afford/justify having it sitting. However, this is just a reality in life in general similar to owning expensive mechanic tools or whatever, sigh. A special tool does its job better than the alternative but typically gets used less.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Oct 19, 2016)

I went out this evening in the fading light and tested the speed of AF of the 400mm DO II with 1.4x and 2xTC and the Sigma 150-600mm C (at 600mm) on the 7DII, 5DS R and 5D IV.

The Sigma slowly ambled and hunted into eventual focus on the 7DII. The 400mm DO II at 800mm was much faster but still relatively slow and hunted less. The 5DS R was somewhat faster with both and hunted less. On the 5DIV, the 150-600mm C was leisurely in focussing, but faster still. The 400 at 800mm snapped quickly into focus, and at 560mm with the 1.4xTC seemed to have instantaneous focus.

As an afterthought, I tested the 100-400mm II on the 5DS R, as I am taking it with me tomorrow to NYC as my lightweight travel birding kit. It focussed snappily at 400mm. 

If you want great AF, go for the 5D IV. It even gives me more keepers for static birds as the focus is more consistent as well as being faster.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 19, 2016)

That's very interesting, Alan. 

Are you able to offer some thoughts between the 7D2 and the 5D4, particularly regards cropping in low light. I realise the 7D2 has better resolution in good light but I was thinking how the pixel quality offers any advantages at (for example) 1600 and above.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 19, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> That's very interesting, Alan.
> 
> Are you able to offer some thoughts between the 7D2 and the 5D4, particularly regards cropping in low light. I realise the 7D2 has better resolution in good light but I was thinking how the pixel quality offers any advantages at (for example) 1600 and above.



I tend to crop a lot and it really shows up the noise. Accordingly, I hardly ever go above 800 iso with the 7DII. It does outresolve the 5DIV but the larger pixels do give a crisper image and you can indeed go to higher iso. Some of my best bird shots have been with the 7DII (and before that the 7D), but you get spoiled by the 5DS R as its sharpness and AF are definitely superior. I'm not using the 7DII any more, which is a waste as it is very good.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 19, 2016)

Thank you, Alan. I'm looking at different options for 'the next step' and that helps.


----------



## cpsico (Oct 19, 2016)

*Re: at 12800 ISO ??*



bholliman said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > For someone using the 5Ds regularly and appreciating those extra pixels, an example at 12800 ISO somewhat misses the point
> ...


I still consider my 6d my high ISO go to camera over my 5d IV. Don't get me wrong the 5D rocks, but 3200 and up the 6d shows it's worth and has smaller file size to boot. Both focus very well in low light, both smoke my 1ds mkiII in this regard.


----------

