# 4 stop push: 5DS vs 5D Mk III



## Travelintrevor (Jul 30, 2015)

I had about 5 minutes at a camera store last night to do some quick shots with the 5Ds. I had my 5D Mk III and 7D MK II with me and I wanted to see how far I can underexpose and then push to recover the files.
I only included the two full frame camera here. The 7D MK II is several stops better than the 5D MK III at low ISO but still behind the 5Ds.

From a pure IQ and RAW leeway aspect, the 5Ds series is a no-brainer. The RAW files are amazing. 

full size download: http://www.photographybyrudyconrad.com/5Ds-and-5D-MK-III-4-stop-post-/n-LsGzQg/

Click on photos, then bottom right has download icon.

NOTE: focus point was different for each photo


----------



## sanj (Aug 3, 2015)

Thank you for sharing. Cool


----------



## Travelintrevor (Aug 5, 2015)

sanj said:


> Thank you for sharing. Cool



well...it's hardly much of anything but it does show that the sensor is stellar compared to an already great camera. Once I get to VA, I plan on renting the 5Ds and will do a better comparison and post the results. I just need to find a local place that rents the 5Ds...


----------



## veng (Aug 5, 2015)

I have to believe I'll see the same tech in the 5D IV (or whatever it's named) to gain the same in ISO between the two. Given my lack of need for a low frame rate, high MP camera it has me waiting for sure till the 5DIV. Now, that's not a knock against this camera, it'll be great for people who need high MP, low frame rate, it's just the opposite of what I need.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 7, 2015)

I already have 7d2 so I will probably pick up 5ds when price drops. Should be cool combo.


----------



## dash2k8 (Aug 10, 2015)

I have no problem with the push comparisons. I would, however, like to ask a question someone else posed before: Does the ability to push shadows a lot necessarily make a picture better?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 10, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> I have no problem with the push comparisons. I would, however, like to ask a question someone else posed before: Does the ability to push shadows a lot necessarily make a picture better?



I suppose it would help someone who royally screwed up their expose somehow by 4 stops. I don't really see the usefulness of the comparison. The 5Ds is really a niche camera for a special purpose. Most of us are better off with another model.

I also find the comparisons between mirrorless and dslrs pretty useless as well. I could never use a mirrorless to shoot what I do with a dslr.

Moving along here...


----------



## Eldar (Aug 10, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> The 5Ds is really a niche camera for a special purpose. Most of us are better off with another model.


I hear this all the time and it is just rubbish. The only issue you have with the 5DS/5DSR, compared to a 5DIII, or any other DSLR, is file size. Everything else is same same or better. Currently I only use my 1DX for high fps and low light. Everything else is now shot with the 5DSR, because it is That good and That versatile.

And for those who say they have never pushed more than 2 stops, I simply don't believe you, unless you live in a flat light environment all the time. When you lift shadow +100 in LR, you have lifted about 2-2.5 stops. How many have done that, plus some additional adjustments? I did not beleive I had ever gone as far as 3 stops, until I realized how much push shadow lifiting represent, I realize I have passed 4 stops numerous times. Not for the entire frame, but for areas. And for the record, I do read histograms and I do pay attention to exposure, so save the condesending "they don't know what thery're doing.." statements, because it might be that you get them in return.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 10, 2015)

I must honestly say I have never pushed shadows at +100 other than to see what happens. I expose so far to the right it's no way other than to go left, lol. I'm not at all saying there will never be a situation you'll need it, I would'nt complain if my camera had 15 stops of DR either. And it might not be needed for what I shoot. But when I lift shadows it looks very weird, like some bad HDR or something. My camera is set to +7/8 as a default always. And even then I frequently overexpose on the go. Hardly ever have trouble pulling down to where it looks good. If you overexpose with the Exposure scale in Lr, you can go farther right when shooting.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 10, 2015)

The proof of the pudding ...

The exposure for this one was set to get the buildings to the left and the sky properly exposed. The histogram for the raw image is packed from left to right. For those of you who never lift more than 2 stops and never lift shadows to +100. Tell me what I have done here.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> The proof of the pudding ...
> 
> The exposure for this one was set to get the buildings to the left and the sky properly exposed. The histogram for the raw image is packed from left to right. For those of you who never lift more than 2 stops and never lift shadows to +100. Tell me what I have done here.



Well I'm one of those that can say I never lift shadows more that two stops, unless I was actually including the light source in the exposure and then I would bracket.

With your picture it is difficult to say what you've done without seeing the original exposure, but I presume the foreground was in heavy shadow and you have the sun shining on the background. However, you are not including the light source in your picture and so I don't see a problem under normal conditions. To have to push exposure _and_ lift shadows you must have exposed to under exposure the pure white reflecting the sun, probably to hold data here, but is that correct ? Should you hold data in speculative, sun reflecting pure white ? So I would _imagine_ that you have severely underexposed, resulting in (unneccessarily) holding the brightest white, pushing the whole exposure and then pushing shadows as well. This isn't how I would have exposed for this scene. 

Also there is a big difference between what looks acceptable in flatness on an illuminated screen and an incident light lit print. I would imagine that your picture might look a little flat in print compared with one that has more contrast between light and dark.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 10, 2015)

This was shot handheld in a very harsh mid-day Mediterranean sun. I was a walkaround tourist, without a tripod. I have attached the straight from raw to jpeg, with default LR settings. As you can see, the shadows are quite dark, both in the foreground an on the buildings to the right. From what I could judge at the time, based on the histogram and the on-camera display, this was properly exposed.

I am currently on travel, so I just made this as an example on my laptop here in the lounge, so judge the quality with that in mind.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 10, 2015)

What is Lr-default? Is that the default from Adobe? Or is it all things reset to absoulte zero? I remember they added a tone curve, sharpening, NR and used the Adobe colorprofile as well baking my raw-files to pieces. 

I pulled everything to zero and sat that as a new default, and everything improved big time! 

What I would have done with that shot Eldar is expose much more to the right, perhaps using the "highlight warning" and make sure it blew out quite a bit of the sky, since that is easy to pull back in post. I try to not expose for the skies when I once in a blue moon shoot any landscape.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> This was shot handheld in a very harsh mid-day Mediterranean sun. I was a walkaround tourist, without a tripod. I have attached the straight from raw to jpeg, with default LR settings. As you can see, the shadows are quite dark, both in the foreground an on the buildings to the right. From what I could judge at the time, based on the histogram and the on-camera display, this was properly exposed.
> 
> I am currently on travel, so I just made this as an example on my laptop here in the lounge, so judge the quality with that in mind.



On the face of it I inclined to agree on the exposure, but I just don't see that scene as anything other than a 1 stop pull, one stop push candidate.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The 5Ds is really a niche camera for a special purpose. Most of us are better off with another model.
> ...



Wow. I would not call the 5dsr versatile by any means. Low frame rate and limited in ISO. This has no real use in my bag. The removal of antialiasing has some merits and this is a good pilot model. Though not good for sports, not good for wildlife unless you are shooting birds on a stick. Perhaps it's most useful purpose is for landscapes on a tripod. Versatility is more than just what you can do with it in Lightroom.

I am more interested in where they take this on the 2nd and 3rd generation.


----------



## zim (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> When you lift shadow +100 in LR, you have lifted about 2-2.5 stops.



Would anyone know if that shadow lift (+100) = stops (2-2.5) is the same in DxO Optics Pro Selective tones?

and would you have to include the Blacks Selective tone with shadow to equate to an actual stop of exposure?

Thanks


----------



## tomscott (Aug 10, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



TBH i agree with what Eldar says. I mean it is almost identical to the 5DMKIII in every way in terms of spec, 1 less FPS and from what I've seen the noise comparison is almost indistinguishable up to 3200 in real world examples. The 5DMKIII has superior ISO past 3200 but has half the resolution so thats obvious. I shoot pretty much everything from commercial, editorial, landscape, motorsport, wildlife and weddings. When shooting I try to limit to 4000 and last resort 6400 and still get great results. So 3200 isn't far off my limit for quality on the 5DMKIII.

The only negatives I can see from the 5DS is that you have to be very careful to ensure you don't introduce blur by shooting at a higher shutter speed, the file size and the buffer is smaller (understandably). Other than that its like a supercharged 5DMKIII.

I like my 5DMKIII and is more than enough for me in terms of print, I get very nice A1 prints which is exactly what i need. But if i were in the market now for a 5DMKIII I think I would head in the 5DS direction. I really wanted to dislike the 5DS because of the file size and unnecessary resolution but in this case more is more and the 5DS has it.

Im going to wait for the 5DIV because I want a higher frame rate without going back to crop and not buying a 1DX. Pretty exciting in the canon camp for me, I know everyone is fed up but Canon have plateaued and anything they can do more is great. I don't want a mirrorless camera, although playing with some A7RII images its incredible how far you can push them, but makes me feel its cheating more for the photographer who doesn't pay enough attention and can make a good exposure from poor shooting. Makes the technical photographers skills less important.

You hear all these complaints from these web dwellers that the DR is poor the files are rubbish etc. But I am a real photographer I shoot for publication and make my living from my equipment. Ive traveled half way round the world in really pressing environments like the Amazon, sahara, atakama, arctic etc with my 5DMKIII and love it and its form factor, theres not a huge amount more than incremental upgrades that can make it much more perfect. Yes it would be nice to have a little more latitude but there aren't many times that I have hit the limit of the technology that post can't deliver the right results.

I can only think of one time recently where I have hit the barrier.

Ive been working on a set of images for a british company called United Utilities, I was shooting some long exposures of Thirlmere reservoir. It can be quite difficult to shoot the lakes as quite a lot of them run north to south and are deep V and U shaped valleys. So to get a sunrise or sunset you have to get up really high to get an overview to be able to see the sun. If you don't and you sit at the waterside waiting for the light the sun won't ever rise over the mountains and light the valley, you will never get to see it going down either, very hard in that golden hour. Problem with reservoirs is that they are designed to filter water so the water doesn't need as much treatment so they create dense forrest and encourage moss growth. So a lot of the time footpaths don't venture too far and if you do make the effort to hike through the forrest and undergrowth you disturb the hard work that has been achieved so it is an ethical decision, in the is case as I was working for the company who do all this work it was unethical to do so.

The answer is to wait until the sun has set and the valley is in even light and then catch the end of the sunset with the colours produced by the sunset. Add a long exposure and you get the silky movement of the sky and water.

This was shot as ISO 100 for 3 1/2 minutes using a 10 stop ND. If the exposure was any more than 3 1/2 minutes the highlights would blow and be unrecoverable. So at this length of time you get a lot of hot spots and pushing the sensor quite far. Out of the camera the image looked good but the shadows were underexposed. In lightroom I brought the exposure up to +1.65 +88 on the shadows and -100 highlight. This amazingly didn't give me a banding but I usually find I struggle with colour noise so in this case my noise reduction was set on 35 as the noise wasn't too bad for this type of increased exposure but my colour reduction is set to 45, detail at 50 and smoothness at 100. I find smoothness quite a misguiding slider as it doesn't smooth detail but red green and blue colour noise, brought it into photoshop and added 100 in the smart sharpen tab made a mask and selectively sharpened. 

It then looked brilliant. I made an A1 print looks incredible and the image is below.



Thirlmere Reservoir , Allerdale, Lake District, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

This is IMO pushing quite far and its very very rare I shoot and push the camera this far and the image still looks great, clients were thrilled and its being made into a wall print for their headquarters. Even tho the current Canon sensors aren't quite as good as the Nikon equivalent for that sort of shot similar post would have been needed and a HDR not useful because of moving elements like the sky and water so this is the only option.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2015)

zim said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > When you lift shadow +100 in LR, you have lifted about 2-2.5 stops.
> ...



You could try an experiment: process the same image with shadows in two different ways: once by +100 in shadows and secondly by +2 in overall exposure and then compare.

Just did it: +100 is closer to +4 stops.+50 is close to +2 stops


----------



## msm (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> When you lift shadow +100 in LR, you have lifted about 2-2.5 stops.



Doesn't work quite like that, how much it pushes depends on how deep the shadows are to begin with. If they are relatively bright in the first place it does almost nothing. So you can't really compare it to a global push of the image.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 10, 2015)

msm said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > When you lift shadow +100 in LR, you have lifted about 2-2.5 stops.
> ...



Yes, you got it. The way I understand the numbers on the shadow and highlight sliders are that they are subjective and vary photo to photo, dependent on complicated matters such as msm described.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 10, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


I am fully aware of this. I have compared a number of images and checked how much I need to increase EC to get the same deep shadow lift. There is not one correct answer, since the areas you lift shadow will have more or less shadow. So when we compare, we need to take this into account. When I say 2-2.5 stops, it is based on those comparisons I did. You can get more and you can get less.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> The proof of the pudding ...
> 
> The exposure for this one was set to get the buildings to the left and the sky properly exposed. The histogram for the raw image is packed from left to right. For those of you who never lift more than 2 stops and never lift shadows to +100. Tell me what I have done here.



You have done something that makes the picture look quite unnatural... Not every "light situation" should be used for a photo, only because sensor tech allows to flatten the picture. It's still called "photography"...


----------



## jprusa (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The 5Ds is really a niche camera for a special purpose. Most of us are better off with another model.
> ...


+1


----------



## Eldar (Aug 10, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...


One big difference; I have it, you don´t! Consequence: You don´t have a clue what this camera can do, I do!
This first is an ISO2500 BIF, which is impossible ...


----------



## Eldar (Aug 10, 2015)

This second one is an ISO6400, straight from the camera, zero noise reduction. Even an amateur like me can fix this in post ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Now you are the big kid in the house trying to show off your toys shooting seagulls and bookshelves. Moving on here. Nothing else to see.


----------



## zim (Aug 10, 2015)

AlanF said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Cheers Alan, not sure I trust my eyes that much but I'll give it a bash!

I've never used +100 I think I used +75 once but never actually did anything with the image in the end. From your numbers I do lift shadows about 1 stop quite regularly, I think (hope!) that's probably more preference than error correction.

Regards


----------



## zim (Aug 10, 2015)

tomscott said:


> Thirlmere Reservoir , Allerdale, Lake District, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr



Superb, love everything about this photograph


----------



## tomscott (Aug 10, 2015)

Thank you Zim


----------



## Eldar (Aug 10, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> Now you are the big kid in the house trying to show off your toys shooting seagulls and bookshelves. Moving on here. Nothing else to see.


He he, you´re a funny guy. I just gave you a couple of examples of things you can do with this camera, that you claim it can´t do. No, unlike you, I want people on CR to understand what they can do with this camera, whereas you are trying to convince them of its lack of capability without the faintest clue of what it can do. You should consider staying off your keyboard until you have something to offer.

I was very sceptical to this camera when it was announced and I made the decision not to get it. After a few thousand shots, I am very impressed. 

In general, people with strong opinions about equipment they have never used, very often reside somewhere between ignorant, arrogant and stupid ...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 10, 2015)

Maybe he missed the FACT that it had the same AF system as the 1Dx.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 10, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> Wow. I would not call the 5dsr versatile by any means. Low frame rate and limited in ISO. This has no real use in my bag. The removal of antialiasing has some merits and this is a good pilot model. Though not good for sports, not good for wildlife unless you are shooting birds on a stick. Perhaps it's most useful purpose is for landscapes on a tripod. Versatility is more than just what you can do with it in Lightroom.
> 
> I am more interested in where they take this on the 2nd and 3rd generation.


One big difference; I have it, you don´t! Consequence: You don´t have a clue what this camera can do, I do!
This first is an ISO2500 BIF, which is impossible ...
[/quote]

Now you are the big kid in the house trying to show off your toys shooting seagulls and bookshelves. Moving on here. Nothing else to see.
[/quote]

?

I think that's one nil to Eldar. I'm finding his posts on the 5Dsr informative.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 10, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. I would not call the 5dsr versatile by any means. Low frame rate and limited in ISO. This has no real use in my bag. The removal of antialiasing has some merits and this is a good pilot model. Though not good for sports, not good for wildlife unless you are shooting birds on a stick. Perhaps it's most useful purpose is for landscapes on a tripod. Versatility is more than just what you can do with it in Lightroom.
> ...



Now you are the big kid in the house trying to show off your toys shooting seagulls and bookshelves. Moving on here. Nothing else to see.
[/quote]

?

I think that's one nil to Eldar. I'm finding his posts on the 5Dsr informative.
[/quote]
+1


----------



## scyrene (Aug 10, 2015)

Ruined said:


> I already have 7d2 so I will probably pick up 5ds when price drops. Should be cool combo.



I dunno where you are, but in the UK the price has already dropped a lot! I've seen it for £1999. Exciting 



Eldar said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The 5Ds is really a niche camera for a special purpose. Most of us are better off with another model.
> ...



Yeah, I'm still thinking of getting it as my next camera, and I do a lot of (mostly perched) bird work. Almost the same in every way as the 5D3 except much more resolution. And I crop a lot, so that's the most important thing to me right now!



East Wind Photography said:


> Wow. I would not call the 5dsr versatile by any means. Low frame rate and limited in ISO. This has no real use in my bag. The removal of antialiasing has some merits and this is a good pilot model. Though not good for sports, *not good for wildlife unless you are shooting birds on a stick*. Perhaps it's most useful purpose is for landscapes on a tripod. Versatility is more than just what you can do with it in Lightroom.



(My bold). I shoot wildlife all the time. I use the 5D3 on silent shutter mode 98% of the time, and it's fast enough. I think that's a lower frame rate than the 5Ds/r's maximum, right?



tomscott said:


> The only negatives I can see from the 5DS is that you have to be very careful to ensure you don't introduce blur by shooting at a higher shutter speed, the file size and the buffer is smaller (understandably). Other than that its like a supercharged 5DMKIII.



It's worth remembering that this is only noticeable at 100% magnification - normalised it should be the same.



tomscott said:


> Ive been working on a set of images for a british company called United Utilities, I was shooting some long exposures of Thirlmere reservoir. It can be quite difficult to shoot the lakes as quite a lot of them run north to south and are deep V and U shaped valleys. So to get a sunrise or sunset you have to get up really high to get an overview to be able to see the sun. If you don't and you sit at the waterside waiting for the light the sun won't ever rise over the mountains and light the valley, you will never get to see it going down either, very hard in that golden hour. Problem with reservoirs is that they are designed to filter water so the water doesn't need as much treatment so they create dense forrest and encourage moss growth. So a lot of the time footpaths don't venture too far and if you do make the effort to hike through the forrest and undergrowth you disturb the hard work that has been achieved so it is an ethical decision, in the is case as I was working for the company who do all this work it was unethical to do so.
> 
> The answer is to wait until the sun has set and the valley is in even light and then catch the end of the sunset with the colours produced by the sunset. Add a long exposure and you get the silky movement of the sky and water.
> 
> ...



Sweet gig! And great shots. How does one get to be photographer for UU?


----------



## Eldar (Aug 10, 2015)

For those who wonder, you can also shoot at ISO12800. On this one I have applied 39 i Luminance NR. Everything else is default LR. I actually find it difficult to understand why Canon did´t also allow ISO25600.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> For those who wonder, you can also shoot at ISO12800. On this one I have applied 39 i Luminance NR. Everything else is default LR. I actually find it difficult to understand why Canon did´t also allow ISO25600.



Excuse my ignorance/laziness, but is 12800 native to the sensor? Or is it one of those digitally pushed, post processed in camera expanded modes.

Assuming it is native, that is good to know. I don't like to go past 6400 on my 6D if I can help it, but will use 12800 if needed and know that I can usually get a workable photo out of it with a little love in LR.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2015)

Eldar and TomScott: I'm curious about your assessment of the 5DS vs. 5D III at higher ISOs. I assumed that the 5DIII still performs better at higher ISOs in terms of noise. Do you disagree? It sounds to me like the 5DIII is still slightly better, but not as significantly better as one might expect, given the higher resolution (smaller pixels).

Because of the subjects I have to shoot, dynamic range is much less important to me than high ISO performance. I'm just curious how you guys would characterize the differences.

It also sounds as though, from your experience, the improved performance of the 5DS may mean the 5DIV could be a real beast if they keep the megapixel count at 24 or so.


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 10, 2015)

AlanF said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


Hi Alan,
Any idea why Canon doesn't allow +100 to -100 level adjustments in DPP. Is it very difficult to implement. Even with DDP 4 upgrade they still kept the levels to +5 to -5.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 10, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I think that's one nil to Eldar. I'm finding his posts on the 5Dsr informative.
> ...



+1


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2015)

Famateur said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



+ Another. I'm afraid he is going to have to be banned from Canon Rumors Forum unless he shapes up and starts opining on things he doesn't know anything about.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 10, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Sweet gig! And great shots. How does one get to be photographer for UU?



Thank you. It has been really great, luck and hard work I suppose. Making lots of work and getting it out there.



unfocused said:


> Eldar and TomScott: I'm curious about your assessment of the 5DS vs. 5D III at higher ISOs. I assumed that the 5DIII still performs better at higher ISOs in terms of noise. Do you disagree? It sounds to me like the 5DIII is still slightly better, but not as significantly better as one might expect, given the higher resolution (smaller pixels).
> 
> Because of the subjects I have to shoot, dynamic range is much less important to me than high ISO performance. I'm just curious how you guys would characterize the differences.
> 
> It also sounds as though, from your experience, the improved performance of the 5DS may mean the 5DIV could be a real beast if they keep the megapixel count at 24 or so.



The thing is yes the 5DS has more noise than the 5DIII, you can't expect it not to it has twice the resolution, but in real practise the difference is negligible until you go past 3200 and to say its bad is plain wrong and with a little PP cleans up as well as the 5DMKIII, can the 5DMKIII shoot clean 12800? Yes but not for large prints for web ye great! But these full frame cameras weren't designed for web use. 

Like I said above I see 4000 as my limit but 6400 in a pinch is useable. So if a camera with double the resolution can come close to IMO one of the best cameras on the market for high ISO then thats pretty damn impressive and makes the camera useable in a myriad of situations. The difference is that you can crop 50% into a 5DS image and have a similar size A1 print to that of the 5DMKIII which has some serious application especially for birders or similar style of photography, save some money on glass and still have as many pixels on target as a 5DMKIII... Amazing. In practical terms tho the size of the files and the buffer will be the issue in that situation, but if you have good skill and patients I'm sure the results will be incredible. 

Yes in modern terms the camera doesn't perform as well as other cameras but a lot of these cameras have again half the resolution if you compare the actual noise in a well exposed image not an image that has been pushed 4 stops it holds its own, but that doesn't mean you can't push the files.

I don't own a 5DS yet and I'm in a similar position to Eldar before he pulled the trigger. I have downloaded every sample raw file I could find pushed them as far as I would with my 5DMKIII with the practise I use in the field and I've been very impressed. I have then tried to find something that bares resemblance in my library and have been again impressed.

The fact is a lot of people review these cameras and then compare them with no noise reduction. It doesn't matter whether you use a D810, A7RII if you push them you need to add noise reduction. I was curious about the A7RII so I downloaded Dan Watsons RAW files from learningcameras.com today and pushed them about as far as they could go and although impressive they still needed a similar amount of noise reduction that I would add to my Canon files although the colour noise was better.

The comment that nailed it on the head for me is that the 5DMKIV has the potential to be a killer camera and although the resolution is great in the 5DSr I'm not one for cropping and I'm suitably happy with the size of the files from the 5DMKIII if it got a small bump and includes some of the new improvements it will be a market killer, especially for people like me that needs a camera that suits many situations.

Im going to wait for that, if the MKIV isn't what I'm expecting I will probably get a 5DSr to replace my 5DMKIII and buy a 1DX at a discount and use the 5DMKIII as a backup, you couldn't get a much better lineup than that I don't think and it will suit more than my needs, as it would for pretty much anyone.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 10, 2015)

tomscott said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar and TomScott: I'm curious about your assessment of the 5DS vs. 5D III at higher ISOs...
> ...



Thanks for taking the time to respond. I truncated your response to save space, but it seems very reasonable and balanced. I suspected that I am one of those who is better off sticking with the 5DIII and waiting to see what happens with the 5DIV.

The work that I actually get paid for tends to be general purpose, with a heavy dose of low light interiors where flash is not allowed. I love landscape and wildlife, but that's not my bread and butter. The thing is, I bought the 5DIII when I thought I needed full frame for portraiture, but found the realities of a new business model places me in low light situations where the 5DIII has saved my rear any number of times. 

I'll stick with the 5DIII, maybe add a 7DII for personal enjoyment and then wait and see what Canon does with the 5DIV.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 11, 2015)

One thing is for sure - old computers are likely to wheeze a bit when confronted with files twice as large. Plenty of time to make a pot of tea while waiting for ingestion to finish.... I don't have the 5Ds/r yet, I would like to upgrade from 2010 computer first. :


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 11, 2015)

Hi Folks. 
First nice shot Tom. I love Cumbria and the lakes, and your shots keep me supplied with a fix of Cumbria regularly. 
Second, I'm not happy with the way that 31 Year Old single malt is balanced on the Websters English Dictionary, it looks rather risky! ;D
I'm not experienced enough to voice an opinion on image pushing and pulling except that I have seen examples posted that look great, and others that look false to me but then even those are better than many of my shots so who am I to critique the work of others. :
Needles to say it is all educational. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Eldar said:


> For those who wonder, you can also shoot at ISO12800. On this one I have applied 39 i Luminance NR. Everything else is default LR. I actually find it difficult to understand why Canon did´t also allow ISO25600.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 11, 2015)

Travelintrevor said:


> I had about 5 minutes at a camera store last night to do some quick shots with the 5Ds. I had my 5D Mk III and 7D MK II with me and I wanted to see how far I can underexpose and then push to recover the files.
> I only included the two full frame camera here. The 7D MK II is several stops better than the 5D MK III at low ISO but still behind the 5Ds.
> 
> From a pure IQ and RAW leeway aspect, the 5Ds series is a no-brainer. The RAW files are amazing.
> ...



Good to see those 2 compared like that.
5Ds is significantly better than the old 5d3/2 performance.
Tho with this much push, there's plenty of visible FPN on the background wall even with the 5Ds.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 11, 2015)

Eldar said:


> For those who wonder, you can also shoot at ISO12800. On this one I have applied 39 i Luminance NR. Everything else is default LR. I actually find it difficult to understand why Canon did´t also allow ISO25600.



I do not own the 5Ds R, but after reviewing comparisons of noise at higher ISO, the only rationale I am left with is file size. As ISO increases, so does file size and I am wondering if Canon cut off at ISO 12,800 due to issues with going larger than the 88 MB file size, which would already be 440 MB/sec at 5 fps.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5Ds.aspx

For comparison, the 5DIII maxes out at 49 MB (ISO 102,400) and the 1DX maxes out at 41.3 MB (ISO 204,800) which would be 294 MB/sec and 495 MB/sec respectively. So, it gets does to how much more can dual Digic 6 (5Ds R) handled in comparison to dual Digic 5+ (1DX) and also write speeds to cards as well.


----------



## sanj (Aug 11, 2015)

Eldar said:


> The proof of the pudding ...
> 
> The exposure for this one was set to get the buildings to the left and the sky properly exposed. The histogram for the raw image is packed from left to right. For those of you who never lift more than 2 stops and never lift shadows to +100. Tell me what I have done here.



Great example Eldar to show all who wonder why it is nice to be able to open up blacks. Looking at the picture I feel it would have been better to have even more control over blacks as I would have liked to expose the image 1/3 stop darker to get more details in the buildings and clouds...
Thanks for posting.


----------



## drjlo (Aug 11, 2015)

zim said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Thirlmere Reservoir , Allerdale, Lake District, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr
> ...



+1, and the fact it was shot with the "lowly" Canon 24-105 at 24 end. I guess one does not need a Zeiss wide angle to make beautiful landscape photos ;D


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 12, 2015)

docsmith said:


> reviewing comparisons of noise at higher ISO, the only rationale I am left with is file size. As ISO increases, so does file size and I am wondering if Canon cut off at ISO 12,800 due to issues with going larger than the 88 MB file size, which would already be 440 MB/sec at 5 fps.



You nailed it 100%! No way Canon was going to point to the double digic6 as a bottleneck. But 50mb is the reason 5DS/R chokes on the intervalometer and lets you review a former shot in stead of the current.

The good news is that its actually great high iso for the mb count for a Canon FF.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 12, 2015)

drjlo said:


> +1, and the fact it was shot with the "lowly" Canon 24-105 at 24 end. I guess one does not need a Zeiss wide angle to make beautiful landscape photos ;D



I have a problem with the 10 stop ND filter that I have. It is an 82mm thread for my 16-35mm F2.8 unfortunately when you use it at its wider and medium tele end 16-24mm the element is bulbous and close to the filter, I'm not entirely sure why but it tends to leave a bright pink mark right in the centre of the image and its impossible to remove unless I go black and white so I put the filter on my 24-105 with a 77-82mm adapter. I have a feeling because it was a more budget ND (but still £100) that the glass is too thick and close to the lens so I think an adapter to move it further away from the glass element itself will fix the problem or just buy a new one. But works fine on my 24-105.

I love my 24-105mm always take it with me when I'm out shooting landscapes. I have the 24-70mm F2.8 MKI and find at the wide end its very very similar in sharpness and the fact its bigger and weighs more means it stays at home for anything but weddings and events.

Ive done my best to remove it in the below image but you can still see it if you look closely.



Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr


----------



## scyrene (Aug 12, 2015)

tomscott said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > +1, and the fact it was shot with the "lowly" Canon 24-105 at 24 end. I guess one does not need a Zeiss wide angle to make beautiful landscape photos ;D
> ...



I think I'm gonna have to take my ND filter out sometime - you've inspired me!


----------



## sanj (Aug 12, 2015)

I suspect I am in the minority but I find these blurred clouds distracting and forced.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 12, 2015)

sanj said:


> I suspect I am in the minority but I find these blurred clouds distracting and forced.


I tend to agree. The landscape itself looks great, but the blurry sky disconnects the image. I´m sure it is a personal thing though.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 12, 2015)

I dont tend to shoot many, clients seem to like it tho.

I think it adds a different dynamic to the image, get more sense of the landscape. But were all different, most important thing is to keep yourself on your toes and try something different.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 12, 2015)

I personally like the movement. Cant have it both ways as my ND gives too much of a cast and being a 10 stop you wouldn't be able to blend the exposures. But I always shoot it both ways just incase.



Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

But like I said if we all had the same opinion the world would be a pretty boring place.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 12, 2015)

Eldar said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect I am in the minority but I find these blurred clouds distracting and forced.
> ...



I dunno, I guess it's both introducing some movement, and focusing attention on the stillness of the land below? Never done it myself but I'd like to try.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 12, 2015)

I like to hear and reflect on the various opinions and think it's great when the person who is the focus of the opinions can handle that. It is personal and it is good to try different shots and not to be bound by convention. Friendly, constructive back and forth criticism is healthy and helpful. 

Jack


----------



## scyrene (Aug 12, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Tough crowd!


----------



## Famateur (Aug 13, 2015)

scyrene said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mind the blurry sky so much as the wind blown bushes in the bottom left. Ugh.
> ...



I was thinking the same thing...

Admirably handled, Tom. I'm glad to be a part of a forum with people like yourself. Thanks for sharing such beautiful photographs!


----------



## gary samples (Aug 13, 2015)

Famateur said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


 +1


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 13, 2015)

Tom,being very inexperienced, I'm trying to understand. Is the tonality difference between the long and short exposure shots a result of the shot or how it has be PP'd. One looks somewhat lush the other almost desert like. Is that simply the cast of the ND filter you refer to? 

Jack


----------



## TheJock (Aug 13, 2015)

I was thinking the same as Jack and would also like to know about the colour variation Tom, I have an even cheaper unused Phottix variable ND so I'm interested in the answer!
I actually like the movement in the bushes, it's the UK and it was a sunny day for goodness sake, we usually rejoice at any sign of sunshine ;D


----------



## tomscott (Aug 13, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> I like to hear and reflect on the various opinions and think it's great when the person who is the focus of the opinions can handle that. It is personal and it is good to try different shots and not to be bound by convention. Friendly, constructive back and forth criticism is healthy and helpful.
> 
> Jack





Famateur said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...





Jack Douglas said:


> Tom,being very inexperienced, I'm trying to understand. Is the tonality difference between the long and short exposure shots a result of the shot or how it has be PP'd. One looks somewhat lush the other almost desert like. Is that simply the cast of the ND filter you refer to?
> 
> Jack





Stewart K said:


> I was thinking the same as Jack and would also like to know about the colour variation Tom, I have an even cheaper unused Phottix variable ND so I'm interested in the answer!
> I actually like the movement in the bushes, it's the UK and it was a sunny day for goodness sake, we usually rejoice at any sign of sunshine ;D



Thank you for all your comments. I don't generally get offended by comments they are all fair and photography is not a perfect field and all is down to personal preference. I will try to answer all your questions.

Internet forums generally focus on the technical side of photography which is fine. My background is fine art photography and I'm classically trained in that respect. Unfortunately its very difficult to make a living from that side of photography so I ventured into commercial because I enjoy that as much. Theres not ever a right or wrong answer to any image just different techniques and tastes, but one piece of advice I can give is that never let your creative ability be hindered by opinion or technology. You have to give your images artistic licence and build your own style and being experimental is the key. It also makes your images stand out from the crowd, often it gives differing opinion because its different.

The title of the thread is a good point of this, arguing about 4 stop pushes in theory that is the difference between black and white pretty much seeing in the dark. Expectation of photographic technology is getting very high and the technique and skill in the field is less important, relying on cameras and software to be able to sort these situations. That sort of latitude in images can give unreal results or very very surreal but again is down to personal preference. I have used both and have got images I'm proud of from both techniques.

You can't shoot an image for 30 second to 4 minutes and not have any movement, if there is no movement then the image looks very surreal. When I see images like that which have been shot as multiple exposures and blended theres nothing wrong with that and I've done it myself, but its not true to the way the image was shot and you can decide to do either, I always shoot to allow myself to cover all boundaries incase the client doesn't like the image saves time going back again.

When I say surreal, I'm not meaning that its bad. I like surreal and I think a 10 stop ND gives quite surreal results as you would never see this effect with the naked eye. But there are different types that I like and dislike.

At the same time leaving the movement gives the image more dynamism, I do think the ferns moved a lot and they do draw the eye a little but you can't control the wind. When your shooting at 1000ft and the wind is howling down the valley theres not much control. But to me it adds more, it looks different and thats what I like. Also when your shooting with a 10 stop ND you can't help but shoot the same exposures just to get enough light and the same cast to blend the scene so the likelihood of it happening again is quite high its a problem when you limit that much light in a scene. If I shot the scene at 1/200 instead of 30 seconds then yes I could but with an ND the ISO would have probably been in the 6400-12800 range not 640.

10 stop ND filters are different to variable NDs. Its like welders glass and enables you to shoot in bright daylight to allow movement. Generally great for landscapes or seascapes to add more drama, which can look quite surreal. But they can also be used to create more interesting effects say a bridge in daylight with a lot of traffic you can make the scene seem empty and like a ghost town. Useful in touristy places too, I recently traveled to Peru and shot Machu Picchu. I used the ND to ensure there were no people in my images but I also shot them with people to add a human aspect.

The problem with 10 stop ND filters is that unless you spend serious money like £100-200 on a high end filter they generally give a cast. Some are worse than others and I bought mine a long time ago without any research and this one gives a very strong red cast and its almost impossible to remove. But the difference between the two images is that the second was shot with a circular polariser which hasn't really affected the white balance just added more contract and saturation in the sky and landscape. The first images is so red simply because of the cast of the filter. Moving the white balance slider to normalise creates unpredictable results the tonality goes to pot and you get very storage green to purple gradients, the green foliage turns a golden brown colour its almost like an infrared effect.

If the images aren't compared side by side the red tint doesn't look so bad especially when you shooting a sunset it adds rather than takes away but in any other situation its very difficult and it doesn't get much use. I do intend on buying a much more neutral ND but again the good ones are very expensive and in high demand. 

Heres a good resource from Bryan at The Digital Picture

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/10-Stop-Neutral-Density-Filter.aspx

Mine is the Tiffen if you scroll over the image you will see how bad the cast is.


----------



## TheJock (Aug 13, 2015)

Thanks for explaining Tom, your answers are always very insightful and helpful for a noob like me, thanks again.
Now I need to find time to experiment with my Photix Variable ND and my Circ/Pol.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 13, 2015)

WOW Tom, you deserve an award for providing all that information. I have soaked it up and will be trying some of this soon. To the present, if I wasn't shooting wildlife I'd do the odd landscape but it's new to me so they've been more "snapshots" than anything, and I regret that.

Agree 100% that all of this is personal preference and we must simply grow a thicker skin so that the well meaning but sometimes slightly negative comments don't distract us from experimenting and doing what some like but others don't like.

In another thread I had asked about how I should frame my bird poses. I got lots of great advice from many kind folk and that thread helped me get straight with "these are not rules, they are guidelines". I bought the suggested Freeman book, The Photographer's Eye, which I'm loving!! I was so ignorant and now I'm a little less ignorant! 

Jack


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 14, 2015)

Hi Jack. 
Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools. 
Some rules I'm wise enough to bend, some rules I'm wise enough not to. :

Cheers, Graham. 



Jack Douglas said:


> I got lots of great advice from many kind folk and that thread helped me get straight with "these are not rules, they are guidelines".
> 
> Jack


----------



## tomscott (Aug 14, 2015)

Stewart - No problem great to know it will help 

Jack - Again no problem, the thing is the advice you get will help in all aspects of your photography. Negative comments only give you another opinion to think about. Its not ignorance its just learning and what nice about photography is that you never stop.

Agree with everything Valvebounce has said


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 14, 2015)

I quite like the movement. Landscapes frequently have movement; it's not often you have a totally still day, as the 'you must have 16 stops of DR' brigade keep pointing out. 

In this case I feel the clouds moving away have added some energy to the picture which appealing.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 15, 2015)

Famateur said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


+1 (p.s. I'm not just trying to cheaply boost my post count. I really do agree)


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 17, 2015)

I got my new Canon 5DS yesterday. Curious about its performance (after selling my 6D) I took six shots just after sunset from our balcony, with normal (camera chosen) exposure, and the others with exposure comp minus 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I didn't intend to make a post of it when I took the pictures. I didn't use a tripod, and focus and framing was a little different in each shot. Further, the post processing could be done better and more carefully, especially with regards to the white balance. Note also that all pictures are edited to taste. I have not applied the same settings. I could reduce the highlights more especially in the -4 and -5 pictures, but I applied highlight reduction to my taste.

One thing that I found in this test, is that I really can get a lot out of a normal exposure. Further, I am very happy about the results with the picture taken with exposure comp -3. At -4, and pushed it still holds up pretty good. The -5 picture when pushed to taste, the noise is pretty bad at 100 % view, but with noise reduction and downsizing, I think it looks quite good.

The other thing I found, is that I really don´t see (in this scene) the point in preserving more highlights than what I can do with a -3 exposure comp. It could be different if the sun was higher. Anyway, this adds to my experience from my 6D, it is very uncommon for me to want to push a picture more than 3 stops, which both the 5DS and the 6D does very good.

To keep the file size down, the jpgs are downsized to 4000 pixels wide, and saved with a rather poor quality. (60 out of 100 in Lightroom.) 

I didn´t post the -1 picture, due to file size restrictions.

So far I am very happy with the performance of the 5DS. It certainly is more demanding on the lenses, when viewing at 100%, but the 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the 16-35f/4L (which I have used so far) holds up very good, with a little weaker corners than I am used to from the 6D.

I would like to note that I like the metering system, which I also am used to from the 7DII. It may be a little more unpredictable than the one on the 6D, but I find it very good to preserve both highlights and shadows, leaving a lot of room for editing.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 30, 2015)

Really only taken a few shots with the Canon 5DS as it was only purchased this past weekend. Now Ive corrected my import mistakes in Lightroom the test shots I took on Sunday are an early mixed bag. When viewed at 100% its easy to notice vibration issues (all the shots were taken on a Mafrotto aluminium tripod and Arca-Swiss head this combo Ive used for two years with the 6D in Devon). I used the mirror delay set to two seconds in minimise mirror vibrations. It was very windy not uncommon at the coast or Dartmoor and I found about half the shots at 100% viewing had vibration induced slight softness the others were all razor sharp. At normal magnification on the screen and printing A3 prints with high gloss finish the majority look sharp a couple were to me unaceptable but my wife & daughter thought they looked fine. I accept its very early days we all need to learn how to use new tools and I think the metering is a big improvement over the 6D (which I will retain). 
The verdict on 50MP is still out as far as Im concerned difraction lowering the best effective DOF to f7 as opposed to f11 / 16 because of the smaller pixels is something Ive got to adjust to and its certainly noticeable the increase in noise pushing the camera 4 stops over the 6D which by comparison is clean. However these early shots really show the improved sharpness when you get it right and they make everything else come alive regarding the way the colours look & detail and that makes me want to go out and use it again quickly.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 30, 2015)

tomscott said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar and TomScott: I'm curious about your assessment of the 5DS vs. 5D III at higher ISOs. I assumed that the 5DIII still performs better at higher ISOs in terms of noise. Do you disagree? It sounds to me like the 5DIII is still slightly better, but not as significantly better as one might expect, given the higher resolution (smaller pixels).
> ...



Ugh, digging through this thread looking for nuggets of first hand information I was reading Tom's long winded post only to see he doesn't own the camera his giving opinion on.

Unfocused, I have the 5Ds R and its extremely noisy. JPEGs out of camera are cleaned up nicely . In LR it cleans up nicely as well. I downloaded LR6 and I haven't run the comparison to see if it is LR6 or the 5Ds R but I have been able to push files just short of 3 stops and recover shadows on top of it. Unfortunate I have no 5D III to compare but I can tell you it is substantially better at recovering shadows, blown highlights and cleaning up noise than the 5D II.


----------

