# 5Ds or possible alternatives?



## RGF (Feb 24, 2015)

Hi

I am considering the 5Ds but before I pull the trigger I would like make sure that I am not missing anything. Of course, we all know that the 5Ds is only announced so we can not compare IQ and DR to other cameras. But assuming it lives up to reasonable expections here are my thoughts. 

Do this make sense?

Alternatives: Canon 5Ds (5DsR), Sony A7R (or mark II if it comes out), and Nikon 810.

Image quality of the Sony and Nikon is excellent as is the DR. Canon will top these in sensor size, not sure if IQ or DR will match Sony / Nikon. I suspect that the IQ will be close, if not surpass Nikon / Sony, DR is unclear.

Lens. This is were it gets touchy. For the most part I think Canon glass is as good as Nikon glass. Canon 16-35 F4 is nearly as good as the Nikon 14-24. Canon 11-24 is unknown but, based upon price, is expected to be great.

24-70 edges goes to Canon.
TS - Canon wins.
70-200 F2.8 edge goes to Canon.
Macro - call it a tie (perhap edge to Nikon).

Unlike a year ago, Canon has caught up, especially in the WA/UWA glass.


With Nikon need to buy separate glass (extra cost), with Canon and Sony can used Canon lens (with adapter in the case of Sony - slow AF. For WA AF is not as important.

1st choice is Canon 5Ds if IQ and DR match Nikon/Sony.
Otherwise Sony A7R. Poor AF but uses Canon lens.
Nikon system is too expensive (will need to duplicate current lens), if I only carry 1 body, no backup. Body is different than body I use on long glass.

Too early to call 5Ds and IQ/DR. Hopefully Canon will make a great camera.
11-24 - too early to call. Based upon price should be a world class lens.


----------



## dak723 (Mar 1, 2015)

I don't have any answers for you, only questions.

What is your current camera? What does it not do well enough - or what do you want in your new camera that you are not satisfied with in your current camera?

These high megapixel cameras, in my opinion, are rather specialized cameras. To take advantage of the extra MPs and get the higher resolution means (according to many) needing to use a tripod and having high quality lenses. It also implies that you crop often and heavily and/or want to print large (over 20 inches approx.) Otherwise there may be little advantage to going over 20 MPs. That is my opinion, of course.

If you have been unhappy with the DR of Canon, then the Sony or Nikon choices would certainly make sense as it is unlikely that the new Canon will have any gains in that area based on their own comments regarding the new cameras. As you have mentioned, there are drawbacks to switching to Sony in regard to using Canon lenses - and you have ruled out Nikon since you already have Canon glass. If DR has not been an issue for you, then I see little or no reason to consider the other brands. 

Personally, before making a large purchase choice, I would rent (if possible) or try out in store (if possible) any cameras you are considering. Discussing them on the internet, or analyzing test results will not tell you if you like the IQ and how the camera handles.


----------



## RGF (Mar 1, 2015)

Thanks for the dak723

Cameras are 5D M3, 1Dx, and just got a 7D M2.

I shoot many wildlife, hence the 1Dx and 7D M2 for extra reach.

Glass is good - 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8II, 70-200 F2.8II, ...

Frustration (or perhaps opportunities for Canon to do better) is

1. Better DR. I have seen great images from Nikon D800 where details were pulled out of the shadows that I can not do on my 5D M3.

2. High ISO. 5D M3 is good, so is the 1Dx. Going to the 5Ds will be a problem. 

3. Like higher MP.

I am renting Sony A7R which I can already see will be challenge in many ways. I'll see how good the images are.

Curious about the 5D M4. If Canon ups the MP (but not too much) and high ISO performance this may be a good choice.


----------



## keriboi (Mar 1, 2015)

1. Expose the photo correctly in the first take.


----------



## RGF (Mar 2, 2015)

keriboi said:


> 1. Expose the photo correctly in the first take.



some times the DR of the image does not allow this


----------



## Zeidora (Mar 2, 2015)

What is currently missing in your gear/imaging, that the 5Ds may solve?

If you want better, more detailed images, throw out your zooms and get primes. Consider Zeiss primes. Otherwise, you will get glorified blur circles.

High ISO: the 5ds is not the right tool. There you want to get large physical pixels, so a FF camera with lower MP count.

For higher MP count that actually contains information and not just blur noise, you need to understand the need for extremely good optics, and that it is a trade-off with high ISO quality. Read up on optics, and understand 1.22 x lambda/NA.

DR: Expose correctly, capture in RAW/CR2. It is extremely rare that this does not do the job. If not, it's HDR time, if you like that look. Whether tonal mapping is done in one capture or in 5, it does not matter, because DR of output media (screens, particularly any print) is much lower.

I just put in my preorder for a 5dSR, and the guys at the camera store told me that most pre-orders are for the R-version. So it seems, that this camera is for people who want to get every bit of last detail, no matter the cost in convenience or other camera aspects.


----------



## sunnyVan (Mar 2, 2015)

I was watching a YouTube tutorial the other day on the topic of extending dynamic range. He did some demo of how to combine multiple shots into one image. You'd think he must be using a low DR camera like us. Well no. He uses nikon d810! So it doesn't matter even if mk4 could match d810. It's not going to produce what your eyes saw. 

Having said that i had some experience with A7mk1, which doesn't have as high resolution as a7r but same dynamic range. It's true that a bit more detail can be pulled out of shadow but i wouldn't call the difference dramatic. I happen to like the color i get out of Canon's camera although i can't describe the difference in words. 

I don't expect the mk4 to have drastic improvements in terms of dynamic range. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 2, 2015)

RGF said:


> Alternatives: Canon 5Ds (5DsR), Sony A7R (or mark II if it comes out), and Nikon 810.



Well, I can say that a friend of mine who broke his 5d2 due to the non-existent weather sealing just purchased a used d800 on my advice. I begin to regret this because....

... now I'm getting daily enthusiastic mails from him, wishing his Canon would have been broken earlier to force him to switch. Admittedly he's a landscape and high-dynamic range guy, but for that application the 36mp 14+ ev Nikon sensor blows Canon out of the water. I don't think the studio "crop upscaled" 5ds is a competition here.



Zeidora said:


> DR: Expose correctly, capture in RAW/CR2. It is extremely rare that this does not do the job. If not, it's HDR time



*Snigger* oh my it's Canon enthusiast time, but really, try that on moving cloud with light beams shining through them and people walking about the scenery. Or anything that moves in high contrast like leaves or grass, actually.

Don't misunderstand me please, I'm happy you're happy with Canon and totally love my Canon gear, but as far as landscape as dr is concerned you cannot just compensate with bracketing even if you accept the usability hassle.


----------



## RGF (Mar 7, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Alternatives: Canon 5Ds (5DsR), Sony A7R (or mark II if it comes out), and Nikon 810.
> ...



Hi Marsu42

You get it. The problems I have with the A7R (same sensor as Nikon D800/810) is that the Metabone adapter does not AF a lot of the newer Canon lenses. Plus the user is terrible. As far as I can tell, I do not have flexible control of HDR, I can not zoom in live view mode.

I hope that Canon as a sensor equivalent to the Sony D810 sensor in the 5D M4.


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 9, 2015)

Can someone with good technical skills explain the difference between 5Ds and 5Ds R in less technical terms. What I'm seeing is the 'filter' is absent in the 5Ds R .. am curious exactly what that means in terms of still images --

Also, any other differences a still shooter should know ... I'm not very tech-savvy, so often get lost in the technical explanations. SO, if someone can explain in practical field terms what those differences mean. 

No great detail required -- just a general few statements how it effects outdoor shooting (nature / sports)

My gear is now: 5DM3 and 7D2 -- with all "L" grade telephoto lenses. Thanks ... 

ON EDIT: I never, ever shoot video .. if that matters.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 9, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> Can someone with good technical skills explain the difference between 5Ds and 5Ds R in less technical terms. What I'm seeing is the 'filter' is absent in the 5Ds R .. am curious exactly what that means in terms of still images



I'm not quite what you asked for, but I'll give it a try.

An "optical lowpass filter" is also known as an "anti-aliasing" filter. It introduces microscopic blurring at the level of just a few photosites ("pixels"). This goal of this is to reduce or eliminate moire , which can ruin an image. The negative side-effect is that the image is slightly less sharp. If you are not a pixel-peeper and/or do not print large, then you want an optical lowpass filter. If you have specific needs (landscape, certain types of studio work) PLUS you are willing and able to avoid moire using other methods, then you can get somewhat sharper images from a sensor without an optical lowpass filter.


----------



## whitedjp (Mar 9, 2015)

Just out of curiosity, 

I was watching the Tony Northrup preview for these new cameras (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww6QGpryrLM) and he seems to think there will be a large difference in perceptual megapixels between the two models, while he may be guessing, losing 7mp due to a filter seems like a lot :S Is there anyone who could comment on the validity of this claim?

Thanks,

Jon


----------



## skoobey (Mar 9, 2015)

Pentax 645D is a great alternative.

You get a lot more pixels than you might think, because in 5Ds(and D810 for that matter) you have to crop to fit Magazine format.

Great low cost used lenses.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 10, 2015)

whitedjp said:


> Just out of curiosity,
> 
> I was watching the Tony Northrup preview for these new cameras (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww6QGpryrLM) and he seems to think there will be a large difference in perceptual megapixels between the two models, while he may be guessing, losing 7mp due to a filter seems like a lot :S Is there anyone who could comment on the validity of this claim?
> 
> ...


He has no data on Canon lenses being tested without an AA filter so those guestimates are really not worth much. I also believe his estimates of resolving power of the Canon lenses on the 5Ds are way off. If I were you I would just ignore anything he says regarding perceptual megapixels. Wait for some real tests.


----------



## quod (Mar 10, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> Can someone with good technical skills explain the difference between 5Ds and 5Ds R in less technical terms. What I'm seeing is the 'filter' is absent in the 5Ds R .. am curious exactly what that means in terms of still images --


Moire is color noise patterns or where a smooth line is displayed as a pixelated, jaggy line. The anti-aliasing (lowpass) filter blurs the jaggy lines so that they appear somewhat smooth. The problem is that the AA filter softens the entire image, not just the moire-affected areas, and it does this in every shot, not just in shots where moire is present. The bottom line is that shots looks soft with an AA filter. 

I have the 5D3 and Fuji X100S. The X100S does not have an AA filter and my shots with that camera are much more crisp than the 5D3 shots. It's very noticeable. The practical effect is that I always sharpen my 5D3 shots and I rarely sharpen my X100S shots.


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 10, 2015)

OK -- so does this moire appear because we get "color splash" between pixels -- how does it 'become jagged lines' if it's not that way in the world we shoot. So the sensor misrepresents the capture in a sense. The technology creates moire thru a 'mistake' in the capture or recording between one color and another, as if one color is stronger and overlaps (splashes) when they "meet" -- is that close??


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2015)

skoobey said:


> Pentax 645D is a great alternative.
> 
> You get a lot more pixels than you might think, because in 5Ds(and D810 for that matter) you have to crop to fit Magazine format.
> 
> Great low cost used lenses.



Not if you do a two page bleed (17" x 11"), then the 3:2 works very well. You can do a single page bleed (11" x 8.5") with pretty much anything with pixels and image quality to spare.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> OK -- so does this moire appear because we get "color splash" between pixels -- how does it 'become jagged lines' if it's not that way in the world we shoot. So the sensor misrepresents the capture in a sense. The technology creates moire thru a 'mistake' in the capture or recording between one color and another, as if one color is stronger and overlaps (splashes) when they "meet" -- is that close??



Think of it like this. Moire is just an interference pattern that is an accurate representation of two different frequencies, one of them natural, the object, and one of them induced, the sensor pixel pitch.

So, did you ever have one of those coil toys, a slinky? Lay it on the floor and you hold one end and somebody else hold the other, now if you push and pull your end the wave of that motion goes down the slinky and it looks rhythmic. Now get your friend to do the same from the other end, when the waves meet they interfere with each other and they look bigger or smaller than they actually are and the timing looks off.

That is what is happening in the image, when a repeating pattern is being resolved by pixels at just the right frequency they combine to make something that isn't actually there in real life.

In the photo examples there are generally two aspects of moire, the false bands of light and dark, and the false rainbow colours. These are caused by the interference between the pattern and the actual pixels, and also the demosaicing of the Bayer array.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 10, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> OK -- so does this moire appear because we get "color splash" between pixels -- how does it 'become jagged lines' if it's not that way in the world we shoot. So the sensor misrepresents the capture in a sense. The technology creates moire thru a 'mistake' in the capture or recording between one color and another, as if one color is stronger and overlaps (splashes) when they "meet" -- is that close??



No, in fact you can see moire in real life, without use of a digital camera. If you look through mesh or screen at an object with regular patterns you can see it. You'll need to adjust the distance between the object, the screen and your eye, but you'll see it. If you google for moire examples you'll get a more thorough explanation.


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 10, 2015)

OK, I get it ... So the AA filter removes this, at the price of 'sharpness', and if one wants absolute sharp with no interference -- one will shoot with the 5Ds R and make the adjustments in post instead of a filter.

OK ... now it makes sense -- thanks -- sorry if this got off-topic a bit.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 10, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> OK, I get it ... So the AA filter removes this, at the price of 'sharpness', and if one wants absolute sharp with no interference -- one will shoot with the 5Ds R *and make the adjustments in post instead of a filter*.



Not quite: mild moire can be diminished in post (so I hear), but serious moire can't -- it simply ruins that part of the image. That's why it's important to "try before you buy" for sensors without AA filter. I haven't ever shot with one, so I'm speaking entirely second-hand, but avoiding moire involves choosing the composition of your frame such that moire either doesn't exist at all, or exhibits only mildly in "non-critical" areas. This mostly applies to people who have time and freedom to adjust their shots precisely: landscape, some commercial, studio, etc. Some subjects (e.g. human figure) are less susceptible to moire. Others (e.g. architecture, textiles) are more susceptible due to regular patterns. If you're an event shooter you probably want an AA filter.


----------



## FEBS (Mar 10, 2015)

RGF said:


> Macro - call it a tie (perhap edge to Nikon).



But don't forget the magical MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 10, 2015)

monkey44 said:


> OK, I get it ... So the AA filter removes this, at the price of 'sharpness', and if one wants absolute sharp with no interference -- one will shoot with the 5Ds R and make the adjustments in post instead of a filter.
> 
> OK ... now it makes sense -- thanks -- sorry if this got off-topic a bit.



It looks sharper but it suffers from aliasing and you get lots of fake details, crisp transitions that look like detail but are just aliasing noise. Some seem to prefer that digital, hyper-crunchy look and fake detail but....

The one mistake Nikon made with the D810 is removing the AA filter IMO. (Otherwise it's a pretty fantastic, all around body, decent fps in crop mode for action and decent MP and fanastic DR for landscapes, decent reach with RAW crop mode to not waste space and give a good buffer (and more fps). It doesn't use an old sensor or have silly cripplings like crop mode only working for JPGs etc. I do think they messed up by leaving off the AA filter, a shame. The UI is a little weird. The lenses are not quite as nice overall and they have no 70-300L or MPE65. It's a shame Nikon couldn't make an EF mount body! Then we'd get Canon lenses and not have to deal with all the milking and crippling nonsense of Canon bodies. Perhaps if the 5Ds fails to sell well Canon will be forced to wake up and act.)


----------



## quod (Mar 11, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It looks sharper but it suffers from aliasing and you get lots of fake details, crisp transitions that look like detail but are just aliasing noise. Some seem to prefer that digital, hyper-crunchy look and fake detail but....


It depends on the sensor. My Fuji does not have aliasing noise despite not having an AA filter. The sharpness is organic and natural.


----------



## RGF (Mar 14, 2015)

FEBS said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Macro - call it a tie (perhap edge to Nikon).
> ...



point taken. Canon wins, hand down, on selection lenses.


----------

