# Review: Canon EOS 5DS R by Amateur Photographer



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 15, 2015)

```
Andy Westlake at Amateur Photographer has completed his review of the Canon EOS 5DS R camera body. They came away quite impressed by the image quality and especially the detail available when using good lenses.</p>
<p>A lot of people are wondering about the dynamic range from the production camera, and Amateur Photographer measured it at 12.4 stops at ISO 100, with performance decreasing beyond ISO 400.</p>
<blockquote><p>There’s little doubt that the Canon EOS 5DS R is one of the most impressive cameras we’ve ever seen. With its 50.6MP sensor, robust build, and reliable metering and autofocus, it’s sure to become a favourite with working photographers for whom ultimate resolution really matters. Indeed, with 20% higher linear resolution than 36MP cameras, it lays down the gauntlet to Sony and Nikon to play catch-up again, although it would be naive to expect this to take long.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/canon-eos-5ds-r-review" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | Canon EOS 5DS R Body: <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/results/canonnewfeb" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1119027-REG/canon_0582c002_eos_5ds_r_dslr.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00T3ERPT8/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00T3ERPT8&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=X7P2IPISEXTZFLQ7" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 15, 2015)

interesting.


----------



## youngjediboy (Jun 15, 2015)

It may be great for stills, but Canon really fell behind everyone else in the video department (which was what the 5D Mark II revolutionized). It feels like Canon really should've simply called this a 4D or 3D so it can differentiate from the 5D line since everyone equates that with video for the past 2 iterations. 

As someone who shoots both still and video on the 5D Mark III I've been continually disappointed on the video end from Canon's DSLR offerings of late. I already got a GH4 with speed booster adapter so I can shoot 4K and 96fps with my Canon glass. I'm eyeing Sony's recently announced a7R II which is 42MP (not all that much less than this 5DS), shoots 4K internally, IN BODY stabilization and up to ISO 102,400 and can do HFR/slowmo!
For stills I'll most likely stay with the 5D Mark III, though it's definitely showing plenty of wear at this point. I liked having a body that could do it all and the 5D mark II and III were great when they came out. I just wish Canon would hurry up and catch up on the video end as Panasonic and Sony has raced far ahead already.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

"It is capable of shooting at 5 frames per second – not world-beating, but a match for the Nikon D810 and Sony Alpha 7R"

That isn't really true compared to the Nikon as the Nikon didn't cripple cropped mode and allows for a lot more fps in RAW APS-C mode and the buffer becomes amazingly large too in that case.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 15, 2015)

Then wait a few more months til they announce the 5D4 with internal 4k (since you want a single all-in-one). If that doesn't happen, then I'd be taking a walk too



youngjediboy said:


> It may be great for stills, but Canon really fell behind everyone else in the video department (which was what the 5D Mark II revolutionized). It feels like Canon really should've simply called this a 4D or 3D so it can differentiate from the 5D line since everyone equates that with video for the past 2 iterations.
> 
> As someone who shoots both still and video on the 5D Mark III I've been continually disappointed on the video end from Canon's DSLR offerings of late. I already got a GH4 with speed booster adapter so I can shoot 4K and 96fps with my Canon glass. I'm eyeing Sony's recently announced a7R II which is 42MP (not all that much less than this 5DS), shoots 4K internally, IN BODY stabilization and up to ISO 102,400 and can do HFR/slowmo!
> For stills I'll most likely stay with the 5D Mark III, though it's definitely showing plenty of wear at this point. I liked having a body that could do it all and the 5D mark II and III were great when they came out. I just wish Canon would hurry up and catch up on the video end as Panasonic and Sony has raced far ahead already.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

OTOH, as a possible plus for the 5Ds, I'm a bit doubtful about this statement too: "The standard sensitivity range covers ISO 100-6400, with extended ISO 50 and ISO 12,800 settings also available. This is a bit limited compared to either the EOS 5D Mark III or EOS 6D, both of which would therefore be a better choice for low-light work."

Sure they rated it lower, but does that means it actually has worse SNR per sensor area?? or is it just only per 1:1 which is not fair and Canon just went conservative with the rating? Also with tons of MP you can apply more advanced NR which does a better job than a simple normalization down to 23MP would imply.

I don't know for sure of course, but I'd actually be surprised if it's worse than the 5D3 at high ISO. I'd almost suspect it might even be a touch better. I guess we await DxO.


Also, this isn't correct
"With 50MP raw files weighing in at 65-70MB.... Thankfully, Canon has provided several means to do this. Raw shooters can choose 28MP MRAW and 12MP SRAW modes, which still allow full flexibility in post-processing, but with smaller file sizes."

MRAW and SRAW don't allow full PP flex, they are more pre-cooked than a real RAW file. They are not real RAW files simply smaller, but utterly different and considerably pre-cooked.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2015)

"Almost certainly the 5DS R; I’d rather take the extra sharpness, and deal with image artefacts when necessary."

Personally, I disagree. Look at how the R is getting more false color and it has a harsher, more digital look instead of a somewhat more natural organic look and much of the extra detail isn't real detail anyway (a little might be due to AA extra losses, but a bunch of it has to, by physics, be fake aliasing, which can appear to look like detail even though it's really a form of noise, technically).

One thing I think Nikon and Sony do very wrong is fall into the marketing "no-AA filter is AWESOME!!!!" nonsense.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 15, 2015)

Well the nice thing is you can always use Moire tools when needed or ad a bit of softening in post. Some of the sample 5DSR files (DpReview I think) I played with had very manageable moire when present. I realize it's an extra step, but not every image would require it, and from what I've seen, I get the feeling that most won't. Time will tell!



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "Almost certainly the 5DS R; I’d rather take the extra sharpness, and deal with image artefacts when necessary."
> 
> Personally, I disagree. Look at how the R is getting more false color and it has a harsher, more digital look instead of a somewhat more natural organic look and much of the extra detail isn't real detail anyway (a little might be due to AA extra losses, but a bunch of it has to, by physics, be fake aliasing, which can appear to look like detail even though it's really a form of noise, technically).
> 
> One thing I think Nikon and Sony do very wrong is fall into the marketing "no-AA filter is AWESOME!!!!" nonsense.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jun 15, 2015)

Do we know if the 12.4 stops of DR is at native resolution or downsampled to some smaller image size as per "that website".. anyhow 6D is 12.0 stops by this lot, so they're saying it's almost than half a stop better than the 6D which has a very good sensor.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 15, 2015)

In my view, this was positive. I am really looking forward to get my hands on it now.

If it is using the same (fixed) focusing screen as the 5DIII, which I expect, I´ll operate in my focsusingscreens.com custom S screen and see how it works. With a bit of luck (does not happen very often) I´ll be able to focus my Zeiss lenses through the OVF, as I do on the 1DX.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 15, 2015)

Let's not forget that Keith at Northlight had inner circle sources saying early on that while the claim of "similar DR to 5D3" was being touted, they DID distinctly notice they were getting an extra stop or so of clean pull from the shawdows than on previous 5 bodies.... soooo this seems to line up in one regard.


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 15, 2015)

Well, my 5Ds turned up today... but of course I had to go out, so only a very quick check on the tripod, with a TS-E 90 looking down the street this evening.

The real comparison for me is with the 1Ds3 I've used for the last few years. Video and high ISO are an irrelevance for my work, so it's really about those 50MP ;-) 

Note that these are in-camera JPEGs, so comments about detail/DR etc are missing the point ;-)

Given the work I've done with 'just' 21MP, this bodes well. A simple up/down stitch with a TS-E 17 gives me 80+MP files.

I'll be keeping some notes over the next few weeks on the Northlight site - conveniently, I'm off on holiday for a while on Thursday! I'll see what I can come up with as 'real world' tests, rather than ones for just forum debate ;-)


----------



## D. (Jun 15, 2015)

Lensrentals.com has published their initial resolution tests of the 5DS & 5DS R for those interested.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 15, 2015)

D. said:


> Lensrentals.com has published their initial resolution tests of the 5DS & 5DS R for those interested.


Interesting! Bigger difference between the 5DS and the 5DSR than I would have thought.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 15, 2015)

Ha! Throw out Keith's name and he magically appears! Thanks for the posts and your fantastic website, Keith!


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 15, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Ha! Throw out Keith's name and he magically appears! Thanks for the posts and your fantastic website, Keith!


Yes, I got the 'another post' message when posting ;-)

I'll try and get some more info comparing with my old 1Ds3, since I know a lot of people held on to them after finding the 1DX a less than enticing replacement.

The 5Ds RAW files won't open in my old photoshop (CS6), so the new camera could well nudge my exploration of workflows, since I've a copy of C1 and my old standby DxO (LR doesn't get a look-in I'm afraid, and DPP is still likely to be a curiosity).

Glad the site's of interest! I'm currently re-writing a huge chunk of it, but the rumours pages will stay as-is, since I don't want to go the route of turning every snippet into a fully fledged 'post'. I'd forgotten just how many pages there were...


----------



## Tinky (Jun 15, 2015)

canon can't win. folks complain that video is detracting from stills development, so they develop a totally kick ass market leading stills camera...

folks complain it doesn't have 4k.

go buy a gh4 or a7s already.

I shoot primarily video, some of it on canon dslrs, and m's.

I have not had one client ask me for 4k yet. When a client I want does ask, I'll buy 4k that day. 

I remember well spending over the odds on poorly implemented hd formats when forums were saying 'you must have hd' 

One of my dh cameras burned out before I ever had occassion to shoot in hd...

Canon should have more solutions, at a wider range of prices already... why not let the stills guys enjoy a camera thats obviously meant just for them...

4k from a 50mp sensor.... that will take some blurry aa filter and some complicated line skipping.... 

There comes a point when its a good idea to use the right tool for the job, if you ate shooting 4k out of necessity, that tool probably isn't wrapped up in a dslr shell.


----------



## skoobey (Jun 15, 2015)

It's a great camera for sure. And Canon will make a huge hype about it, so 99,99% of buyers will be people who don't need it, as always.  Ah, the sad sad story of people putting the money into the equipment rather than making an effort.


----------



## whitedjp (Jun 15, 2015)

I got my 5ds today and I am honestly very impressed. The resolution is fantastic and i have thrown a bunch of shots (higher iso shots too) on the mb and again i am impressed at how far you can push them. They look a lot better than I thought they would! I am using the lexar 2000x card and the buffer is still a bit of a pain, but it is manageable. Overall I think people are going to pleasantly surprised at the files that come off this thing.

Well just my 2 cents and i'm off to go shoot some long exposures at a local fair  Maybe I'll post later.

J


----------



## Act444 (Jun 16, 2015)

I got to play with one briefly at a local store with a 5DS (had the Sigma 50mm Art lens on it) and find myself blown away by the resolution and the detail in the images. Took them hand-held, too. I can only imagine what the R version is capable of...

That said, I'd like to put a Canon zoom lens on it (like a 24-70, 24-105, 70-200, etc.) and see how it does then. I was rather lukewarm toward this camera upon seeing the online samples, but now that I've actually used one and seen the results, I'm a little more intrigued...


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 16, 2015)

I can't even imagine. Thank you sincerely for all your hard work and your generosity and willingness to share it with us. If I ever get to the UK, I'll look you up. Do the same if you ever get adventurous and come to New Orleans ;-)



keithcooper said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Ha! Throw out Keith's name and he magically appears! Thanks for the posts and your fantastic website, Keith!
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> Do we know if the 12.4 stops of DR is at native resolution or downsampled to some smaller image size as per "that website".. anyhow 6D is 12.0 stops by this lot, so they're saying it's almost than half a stop better than the 6D which has a very good sensor.



I think it's got to be normalized. When I measured the 5Ds DR a few months back it seemed like it would probably end up about 1/2 stop more than the 6D at ISO100 and normalized both to 8MP.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> canon can't win. folks complain that video is detracting from stills development, so they develop a totally kick ass market leading stills camera...
> 
> folks complain it doesn't have 4k.
> 
> ...



Hmm you must've missed the A7R II announcement.

4k from a 42MP sensor with not only no line skipping (it does on chip bin for FF) but in optimal Super35mm mode it delivers 4k with 1.8x oversampling for superb detail with no moire/aliasing and very near to FF level SNR ratio.


----------



## Tinky (Jun 16, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > canon can't win. folks complain that video is detracting from stills development, so they develop a totally kick ass market leading stills camera...
> ...



i didn't miss it. I just wasn't talking about it. Woukd you care to chip in about the price of cheese as I wasn't talking about that either.

Even if canon did go do doen that route... (damn, I've bitten) ... and it's not a bad implementation, too many folk erroneously (in my view) want to shoot video on a 135 format. 

Canon have actually got their primary 4k sensor, that is the s35 8mp sensor, bang on. But then, I wasn't talking about that either.

My main points were- let the stills only guys have their day, and that any dslr form, be it a gh4 (okay not a dslr Mr. Pedant) or the a7r2d2 (not a dslr either Mr Pedant) isn't a form that professional video guys would want to shoot with, and the only folk who actually 'need' 4k are high end professionsl users.

I love it when folk hark on about the a7 in particular, because they are absolutely ghastly to use for video, riven with lens mount caveats, designed as they are with the compromises of a dslr format - when they aren't even DSLRs! hahaha!

And don't even start ne on the a7 codec...

Sometimes quality is better than quantity.

The stills guys should be veryhappy, the video guys shoukd be looking elsewhere.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 16, 2015)

Great review that shows that these cameras are not for everyone. Only photographers looking for the ultimate resolution would be interested because they fall short in video shooting, ISO performance and shooting burst rate.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...




Really, so if you have heard about the A7R II then why are you then telling lies:"4k from a 50mp sensor.... that will take some blurry aa filter and some complicated line skipping.... " since you'd know that's not how it has to be?


----------



## Tinky (Jun 16, 2015)

Telling lies? Thats rather a bit of a strong accusation is it not.

Not telling lies, and not talking about the a7r2.

You'll be talking from the perspective of somebody who has hands on with the a7r2 and has handled 4k footage from it in a 4k workflow then? Or are you kind of making it up? (dare I say, you are telling lies also?)

You think a 42 or 50mp sensor is the best starting point for 4k?

You think than an aa filter designed for a 50mp pixel pitch is also going to play immpeccably with 4k output?

Or do you agree, as is my basic point... that if you must have 4k, then you are probably working at a certain level (key word is MUST) and it follows that you are better spending your money on a more video orientated sensor / codec / package?

But all of this is moot, as the 5ds/r, which i was talking about, does not have 4k...

Do me a favour, start a thread about the a7 and fill your boots there.

For what its worth, I think Canon were right to concentrate on absolute stills quality, the video mode is probably sufficient for press agency work, although i'm almost tempted to suggest that in this kind if camera its almost superflous, and theres certainly no need for 4k, as those who need it are far better catered for elsewhere, and no I don't mean by the a7r2 or gh4.


----------



## youngjediboy (Jun 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> i didn't miss it. I just wasn't talking about it. Woukd you care to chip in about the price of cheese as I wasn't talking about that either.
> 
> Even if canon did go do doen that route... (damn, I've bitten) ... and it's not a bad implementation, too many folk erroneously (in my view) want to shoot video on a 135 format.
> 
> ...



You're wrong there. You're only seeing video cameras as either a camcorder or full blown unweildly cinema camera. The fact is that ever since Canon came out with the 5D Mark II it changed the game for DSLRs. It was no longer a camera purely for still photography. The video feature revolutionized that market and added a whole new market of customers who started buying and using DSLRs for video (some use these SOLELY for video in fact). The DSLR ergonomics wasn't designed for video, no. BUT the major advantage they have are having large/full frame sensors in tiny bodies that are perfect for wedding/event shooters. Yes if we were making big budget movies we'll get a cinema camera, but not all productions could afford that. Smaller budget films, and especially wedding/event shooters are the perfect use for DSLR form factor. 
Look at sites like EOSHD and Cinema5D that cropped up and are dedicated to DSLR video/filmmaking. Go to trade shows like NAB and see how much support equipment and accessories are made specifically for DSLR video. 

The fact is that Canon started this trend so the expectations are that they will at the very least keep up with the competition. Instead it looks like they're backing off. Instead of furthering their DSLR video line, they instead come up with EOS cinema cameras to go up against established players like RED and BlackMagic. But they don't have the feature or price advantage at that level. And because they have that new cinema camera line, they're afraid of cannibalizing those sales by putting out a DSLR with the same capabilities. The problem is that Sony and Panasonic are doing it already and in comparison it looks like Canon is holding back. They have the tech and can easily do it if they wanted to. It was poor business strategy and they've dug themselves into a hole with that EOS cinema line. 

I've already mentioned it before, I've already bought a GH4. I likely will buy the a7R II if there's no news from Canon. Just because you don't have any clients asking for 4K yet doesn't mean that Canon should fall behind and hold back features that we all know are possible. It just makes us hesitant to stay with Canon. Don't get me wrong. I love the 5D Mark III ever since I bought it the day it came out and have been enjoying and using the hell out of it (and so do clients). But it's definitely getting long in the tooth and Canon is due for the next big thing and they better hurry or else a lot of us will be jumping ship. 

Good thing all the competition has/will have full adapters for Canon EF lenses so we can still keep the excellent lens collections. 

As a still shooter, I'll still be happy with the 5D Mark III. I don't have a need for 50MP for any of the work that I'm currently doing, but if that day ever comes then I might look at the 5DS. 

As a video shooter, the 5D Mark III will still be great for shooting lowlight events/weddings in 1080p but I've already moved on to the GH4 (with speed boosted Canon glass) for 4K and slowmo capabilities and will be eyeing the a7R II when that releases. As of now, it doesn't look like there's any compelling Canon DSLR body options for us in the near future. 

It was nice to have a 'do it all' camera that could handle both stills and video for the past few years but it looks like we'll have to go back to having 2 separate bodies soon.

It's just so disappointing that Canon is not listening to a huge portion of their user base. Like you said, still shooters will be happy, but it'll piss off all the video shooters. To us it just looks like Canon is holding back on new features and they don't have any good explanation for it. 
Imagine if Canon came out with new DSLR bodies that have higher megapixels, but didn't bother to update other things like higher res LCD screens, still had USB 2.0, didn't support the newest/fastest CF and SD cards, didn't improve the AF system. Like it or not, video is now a feature and important spec of DSLRs and by not keeping up with what's current Canon is only hurting themselves. 

Even most current smartphones out NOW can shoot 4K and slowmo video. Sure they won't get the same kind of image quality of course, but it's downright SHAMEFUL that a frigging phone can outspec a top of the line dedicated camera. Don't you think?


----------



## Tinky (Jun 16, 2015)

I'm not suggesting canon should hold back anything, in fact i earlier stated that they shoukd already have had more of a choice and at different price points.

Personally I'm delighted that canon have concentrated on video for the likes of the c300mk2 and concentrated on stills for the 5dr/s. I don't think every product they make has to be targeted at every possible end user.

I think a 5d4 should probably have 4k, with all the previous caveats that would necessarily accompany it, I just think that the 5dr/s needn't be a catch all.

If the benchmark is the a7 or gh4 or even the xc10, then the bar is being set pretty low.

And I'm not knocking using dslrs for video work - I do it. I'm knocking the folk who are never happy.

Canon have the trump card for the first time in around 8 years. Be happy.

Well done for shooting stills and video side by side. I enjoy doing both, but not at the same time.


----------



## youngjediboy (Jun 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I'm not suggesting canon should hold back anything, in fact i earlier stated that they shoukd already have had more of a choice and at different price points.
> 
> Personally I'm delighted that canon have concentrated on video for the likes of the c300mk2 and concentrated on stills for the 5dr/s. I don't think every product they make has to be targeted at every possible end user.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying you are suggesting it, Canon IS holding back. We DSLR video shooters are saying it. 

The C300 Mark II is a completely different species. Just because it says Canon and EOS on it doesn't compare it at all to any DSLR. It's already priced WAY out of this market. It's a dedicated cinema camera aiming for the RED and BlackMagic level. 
No, not every product they make has to be for every possible end user, but as I've already repeated many times, Canon themselves are the ones who started this trend of the stills AND video DSLR with the 5D Mark II and III. By just concentrating on stills again is going backwards. 

The a7S and GH4 can produce some amazing footage. There were times when I expected my GH4 to be loud and noisy but it holds its own in low light really damned well when paired with good optics. 

The XC10 is just garbage. THAT is another thing that pisses us off. There was simply NO REASON for Canon to come out with that. They could've used those resources to make a 4K DSLR surely. 

I'm happy about a lot of things. But I can't be happy when Canon has been sitting on their hands for the past several years while everyone else leaped past them. I'm glad I don't have any stock in the company otherwise I would be VERY MUCH MORE unhappy.  

I don't shoot video and stills at the same time, but sometimes I work with a full team and we have both still and video shooters and it's great when we are all on Canon so we can swap lenses/batteries/cards. Since I've added the GH4 with adapter the lens isn't an issue but it's annoying having a different set of batteries/chargers to have to deal with.


----------



## Tinky (Jun 16, 2015)

I disagree on mild terms.

Canon aren't aiming the 5ds/r at you, so get over it.

xc10 was poorly conceived. I may dabble with an rx10mk2. May. Dabble.

If the day cones when not having 4k will lose me a booking I'll buy 4K. There aren't mature products at my budget yet, so I'll hold off as long as I can. Partly because I was stung with hdv and xdcamhd when there wasn't the demand, and partly because I'll also need to spend a lot of money on a 4k capable ready suite.

I'm not selling my work or services on resolution, and I am keeping very busy. 

Yes canon should have more of a feel of the contender about them. With the 5dr/s i would argue they do, but my basic point is they aren't going to please every user every time. 

And the first dslr with video was the nikon d90. Which arguably had the better mount (more adaptable, aperture rings on lenses) but I'm glad canon picked uo the ball and ran with it back then, as I was already invested in their system.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> canon can't win. folks complain that video is detracting from stills development, so they develop a totally kick ass market leading stills camera...
> 
> folks complain it doesn't have 4k.
> 
> ...



I'm with Tinky on this one! I think it's OK that the 5DIV will be "the do it all well" Canon DSLR, and the 5DS+r will be for the stills shooters.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 16, 2015)

I really did like this review. I would like to mention, since it has been such a hot topic (even though I find it highly overrated) that I checked the DR measurement of the D750, on amateurphotographer.co.uk, and it was 12.86 at best, compared to 5DSr at 12,4.

Any ideas how this will translate into the measurements done by DXO?


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 16, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> I really did like this review. I would like to mention, since it has been such a hot topic (even though I find it highly overrated) that I checked the DR measurement of the D750, on amateurphotographer.co.uk, and it was 12.86 at best, compared to 5DSr at 12,4.
> 
> Any ideas how this will translate into the measurements done by DXO?



I don't know but that's more like the practical difference I find between Canon and Exmor. In reality, for producing high quality shadow tones, the "14.5 stops" is a load of bull**** because to access that 'extra DR' you have to underexpose, proportionally, thus negating most of the benefit.


----------



## Ivar (Jun 16, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> "14.5 stops" is a load of bull**** because to access that 'extra DR' you have to underexpose



Now that's funny ..


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 16, 2015)

Ivar said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > "14.5 stops" is a load of bull**** because to access that 'extra DR' you have to underexpose
> ...



It is funny, because in the extra DR you are gaining nothing at the top end.


----------



## JoseB (Jun 16, 2015)

How much DR is in the '11 zones system', and in our LCD monitors, and in our favorite printer of our favorite print shop?.
Just for curiosity...


----------



## tomscott (Jun 16, 2015)

Nice review, but from what I've seen a lot of the sample photos from these reviews aren't critically sharp at 100% even when shot at higher SP to reduce camera shake.

The quality looks incredible, but in practice it looks like a more of a learning curve and you have to be careful when shooting hand held, which we all knew anyway. But these review shots prove this.


----------



## keithcooper (Jun 16, 2015)

tomscott said:


> Nice review, but from what I've seen a lot of the sample photos from these reviews aren't critically sharp at 100% even when shot at higher SP to reduce camera shake.
> 
> The quality looks incredible, but in practice it looks like a more of a learning curve and you have to be careful when shooting hand held, which we all knew anyway. But these review shots prove this.


It is indeed a camera, I'll need to take a bit more care with, but...

'Critically sharp' is IMHO a shibboleth that more people would do well to actively question.

The relevance of sharpness at 100% is at best a variable - and at worst a wooly concept that causes too many people to tilt at windmills.

I say this from the POV of someone who earns a living from architectural photography, makes massive prints, and has just got a 5Ds, which I'll still be using handheld for landscape work (OK, not at night). 

As I noted a while ago, only other photographers ever look at my prints from inches away, but they never buy anything...

As ever, YMMV... ;-)


----------



## meywd (Jun 16, 2015)

keithcooper said:


> As I noted a while ago, only other photographers ever look at my prints from inches away, but they never buy anything...
> 
> As ever, YMMV... ;-)



Looking at other photographers work is only the start of an internal talk on how to replicate the result or make it better, and if he can do it then surely I can, and I will print mine ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Telling lies? Thats rather a bit of a strong accusation is it not.
> 
> Not telling lies, and not talking about the a7r2.
> 
> You'll be talking from the perspective of somebody who has hands on with the a7r2 and has handled 4k footage from it in a 4k workflow then? Or are you kind of making it up? (dare I say, you are telling lies also?)



It's specs. No line skipping is no line skipping.



> You think a 42 or 50mp sensor is the best starting point for 4k?



Well if you get non-line skipped, non-on chip binned, 1.8x oversampled 4k from it what pray tell is bad about that starting point?



> You think than an aa filter designed for a 50mp pixel pitch is also going to play immpeccably with 4k output?



Why not? It's not line skipping! (side point: the A7R II doesn't even have an AA filter anyway)



> Or do you agree, as is my basic point... that if you must have 4k, then you are probably working at a certain level (key word is MUST) and it follows that you are better spending your money on a more video orientated sensor / codec / package?



Not necessarily, since the higher level Black Magic Ursa costs more and if you also shoot stills and wanted a high MP, high DR body you'd need the A7R II anyway so....

If you do nothing but video, care not about stills at all, and have the money, then yeah, maybe something else.



> But all of this is moot, as the 5ds/r, which i was talking about, does not have 4k...
> Do me a favour, start a thread about the a7 and fill your boots there.



I would've but you're the one who started going on about how crazy people were to expect 4k out of a 5Ds since the concept of hgh quality 4k from a near 50MP sensor was absurd.



> For what its worth, I think Canon were right to concentrate on absolute stills quality, the video mode is probably sufficient for press agency work,



And for all their concentrating on stills quality it will almost certainly end up with at least two stops less DR at the low end so where exactly did they gain by forgetting about video and focusing only on stills when the camera ends up having both much worse video and even the stills is quite arguably overall worse.

I'm sure the 5Ds handles better overall, far so under some conditions, but that's a different matter. And it's certainly not a bad camera by any means.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I don't know but that's more like the practical difference I find between Canon and Exmor. In reality, for producing high quality shadow tones, the "14.5 stops" is a load of bull**** because to access that 'extra DR' you have to underexpose, proportionally, thus negating most of the benefit.



Huh?? That doesn't make any sense.
It's interesting that for all the mocking about how 'DRoners' need to learn how to shoot and how cameras work it seems that you are the one who doesn't know how cameras and exposure work.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



There is not such thing as a top end, digital sensors are all but entirely used in a linear range.


----------



## Tinky (Jun 17, 2015)

> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...



And not having seen or handled any footage first hand is not having seen or handled any footage first hand.

I was talking about a hypothetical approach to a feature a specific camera doesn't have. You are talking about a different camera, with entirely different chip althogether. I'm sorry but our paths just don't cross.



> > You think a 42 or 50mp sensor is the best starting point for 4k?
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you get non-line skipped, non-on chip binned, 1.8x oversampled 4k from it what pray tell is bad about that starting point?




The 1.8x. An 8MP chip is nice and linear. Digital downconversions are very nice when they are linear.

Oh and the pixel pitch. Oh and the pixel size.


> > You think than an aa filter designed for a 50mp pixel pitch is also going to play immpeccably with 4k output?
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? It's not line skipping! (side point: the A7R II doesn't even have an AA filter anyway)




_Side point._ I'm not, and never have been talking about the A7R2.




> > Or do you agree, as is my basic point... that if you must have 4k, then you are probably working at a certain level (key word is MUST) and it follows that you are better spending your money on a more video orientated sensor / codec / package?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes you could go for the URSA 4.6K version and a really spiffing stills camera like the 5DS/R? Which is kind of where I began... yaaaaaaaawn, excuse me.



> > But all of this is moot, as the 5ds/r, which i was talking about, does not have 4k...
> > Do me a favour, start a thread about the a7 and fill your boots there.
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't say they were crazy. I do think they are short sighted. If video is all that important to them then they could spend the money elsewhere much more effectively and have access to apple pro res recording onto a relatively cheap SSD with nice audio interfaces etc. Maybe I should have said they were crazy. The more I think about it....




> > And for all their concentrating on stills quality it will almost certainly end up with at least two stops less DR at the low end so where exactly did they gain by forgetting about video and focusing only on stills when the camera ends up having both much worse video and even the stills is quite arguably overall worse.
> >
> > I'm sure the 5Ds handles better overall, far so under some conditions, but that's a different matter. And it's certainly not a bad camera by any means.



Go on then, with a straight face, argue that the *'stills is quite arguably overall worse'*

And I never said it was a bad camera by any means. I happen to think its a great camera. I'm really happy about it. I'm not going to buy one because I don't need the resolution, don't need the DR and don't need high isos for the type of stills I do (as a hobby, if thats important)

But when the time comes, I'll buy a 4K video orientated large sensor camera, as that is a tool that I will come to need for my job. In my circumstances and with my clients, I just don't need it yet.

I started off at the proposal that video guys should quit their moaning about the 5Ds/r not having 4K, as there are currently better 4K options for similar or less money. I've not really shifted from that. Lets not forget that before 2009 or 2008 at a push, DSLRs were for stills. I'm sure there are still a lot of folk who use them for that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> There is not such thing as a top end, digital sensors are all but entirely used in a linear range.



Where did you study mathematics? Remind me to never hire someone educated there, much less even consider it for my kids. A range, by definition, has bounds. A numerical range has an upper bound – a top end. 

For a camera, by convention we also define 'middle gray' and that's used as the set point for metering. The point being made is that with Exmor, 'middle gray' isn't in the middle. If a metered exposure on Canon blows highlights, so will a metered exposure on SoNikon. So, to use the additional couple of stops of low ISO DR on Exmor, you must chronically underexpose (relative to metered exposure).


----------



## meywd (Jun 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > There is not such thing as a top end, digital sensors are all but entirely used in a linear range.
> ...



That really need clarifying, because if it really has more DR, then a scene that is exposed in the same way on a Canon and a Sony cameras should have more room to play on both sides on the Sony, if the highlights are clipped on the Canon it should have more room on the Sony, unless the change is not on how much light is being captured but how much less noise there is, I am really confused by whether there is a limit on the levels of highlights that can be discerned and if Digital Cameras had already reached that limit, which means that if there is an improvement it will only be in the shadows side, and if its so its not less impressive, because it means high ISO should improve as well.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > There is not such thing as a top end, digital sensors are all but entirely used in a linear range.
> ...



Was your evening beer that bad? Really, you need to stop drinking those extra hoppy brews. 

Any chance this is just a language issue? This is hyperbolic and sarcastic even for you.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > There is not such thing as a top end, digital sensors are all but entirely used in a linear range.
> ...



Exactly. But it gets worse.

Having used an Exmor sensor alongside the Canon for a couple of weeks now I am really surprised by what is going on in reality compared with the hyperbole that is quoted on the Internet, not just from the EE crowd on CR ( that's the Exmor Evangelists), but also the likes of DxO and DPR etc. 

I will try and explain:

As Neuro has pointed out above, 'correct' exposure in placing the recorded image on the response curve of the film or chip according to the intensity of the light falling on the subject. If we are wanting to record and image that has different levels of light intensity falling on it we have to compromise on where we set the exposure. As both sensors have precisely the same highlight limit to record more highlight we have to under expose proportionally, thus pushing the darkest areas deeper down the sensor anyway. So because you are having to push those dark tones further down to get more highlight range you are losing some of the potential benefit. 

Think of the range of both sensors as being equal but the final bottom end of the Canon is unusable. In other words the extra DR you have is all bottom end, all two stops of it. Two stops sounds a lot. How often have we heard people on CR stating what a difference two whole stops can make. We hear them say that when you lift by two stops and look at the difference what a wonderful thing two extra stops would be to have in the first place.

Here's the rub: we all know that exposure isn't linear, a stop more is double the light and so forth. Do you see where this is going ? Your two stops extra is buried in the bottom end of the sensor, so a two stop advantage at the bottom is minuscule advantage in reality. 

To make the Exmor look better than the Canon you really have to try to set up a situation that can show that advantage and it only really comes from lower read noise. It's still greatly reduced in tone and saturation.

I'm finding that I'm really having to work harder on the Exmor images to get them to have the 'pop' I want, for use of a better word. They are very flat, in fact all the things digital was critiqued so much for in the beginning. Also the blues are not handles as well as the Canon, though I think the greens are handled better. 

In short I would say that for my kind of shooting the overall IQ of the Canon sensor is better than the Exmor at low ISO.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 17, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Thank you for explaining! I can't recall that I have read about this before. I guess SoNikon fanboys aren't eager to point this out..


----------



## mistaspeedy (Jun 17, 2015)

The perfect resolution for a DSLR / 4K video camera would be:
7680 x 5120 = 39.32 megapixels
A 16:9 crop from that sensor would be:
7680 x 4320 = 8K video (exactly twice the width and height of 4K)
From there, it is a simple matter of reducing 4 pixels into 1 to get 4K video (no complicated math or line skipping).


----------



## e17paul (Jun 17, 2015)

mistaspeedy said:


> The perfect resolution for a DSLR / 4K video camera would be:
> 7680 x 5120 = 39.32 megapixels
> A 16:9 crop from that sensor would be:
> 7680 x 4320 = 8K video (exactly twice the width and height of 4K)
> From there, it is a simple matter of reducing 4 pixels into 1 to get 4K video (no complicated math or line skipping).



It seems that Sony have reached that conclusion with the new sensor in the A7R mark II. The sensor is slightly larger than your figures, but that gives a margin which can potentially be used for electronic image stabilsation.


----------



## Tinky (Jun 17, 2015)

e17paul said:


> mistaspeedy said:
> 
> 
> > The perfect resolution for a DSLR / 4K video camera would be:
> ...



The perfect resolution would be native 4k resolution.

Allowing larger photosites, smaller gaps, catching more light, a less aggressive aa filter.

Of course this would not work for bayer, so you would need to i implement a foveon or 3x prism type solution.

Bayer, poor spatial and temporal compressions. 3 reasons why I'm holding off on 4k.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 18, 2015)

Yeeha!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Yeeha!!



RTFM for the auto-rotate image function. 

Congrats and enjoy!!


----------



## Tinky (Jun 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> e17paul said:
> 
> 
> > mistaspeedy said:
> ...



I guess the challenge in reality will be, do folks sit closer and see more detail, or is the natural viewing distance greater.

I'm still not ready to jump... the best DSLRs and single chip large sensor cameras just about get away with HD... 4K is potentially all those caveats magnified (debayering, poor chroma depth inherent to the codecs, poor motion rendering through slow sensor scanning, temporal over compression) If it doesn't record in at least ProRes and onto either an atomos or internally to an SSD... I think budget 4K might just be the new HDV. Promises much. Delivers mush.


----------



## mike b (Jun 19, 2015)

keithcooper said:



> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Nice review, but from what I've seen a lot of the sample photos from these reviews aren't critically sharp at 100% even when shot at higher SP to reduce camera shake.
> ...


love the "photographers "quote......too true.


----------



## Tinky (Jun 20, 2015)

mike b said:


> keithcooper said:
> 
> 
> > tomscott said:
> ...



An artist asks you 'what are you taking pictures of?' A philistine asks 'what are you taking pictures with?'

It is a gear forum to be fair.

But DR talk is very very divorce inducingly dull, to be unfair.

Folks should share more work and posture less. Who really gives a damn about Canons chosen alogorythms? Certainly not one person posting here has the power to change anything, so it is really just an exercise in the bumping of the gums.


----------



## markesc (Jun 20, 2015)

I agree with the comments from above:

Why not work on your "idea" and spend more time asking yourself "why" you're photographing something, and what you want the audience to get out of it, rather than chasing the faster car/diminishing returns.

I can only speak for *myself*, but things that helped me more than buying the newest camera/lens:

1) an art history class
2) oil paining/drawing class
3) thinking more about "why"
4) whom am I marketing towards, and how?
5) ego: admit we're all works in progress, so study, practice, experiment, etc (none of which needs a new camera body, just time/less distractions).
6) Do I want my work to be remembered? and to whom?

For those actually making a few pennies for a living in this game: 

Has a client passed on one of your images because of dynamic range or detail? or was it simply a less compelling image? Do clients even ask which camera body was used for an image???

Wouldn't it be more important to have 6+ months cash reserves for a rainy day rather than the latest camera to flood the internet with average images seeking validation from complete strangers? I've seen a lot of peoples bank statements over the past 5 years, and 90% of people don't have two months cash reserves for just their mortgage + taxes/insurance, let alone food, emergencies, etc... 

Am I alone in these thoughts?!

Lastly, for the record: I very much am not anywhere near making the most of a 5dmkiii, lenses, concepts/ideas. So my ego is where it should be: I know I can do better with what I have. I'm rarely thrilled about my work, and always feel as though I can do better, so why flood the internet with average images, and how is a newer camera going to make them more compelling ideas?


----------



## benperrin (Jun 21, 2015)

markesc said:


> I can only speak for *myself*, but things that helped me more than buying the newest camera/lens:
> 
> 1) an art history class
> 2) oil paining/drawing class
> ...


No you are not alone in those thoughts and I certainly agree that training or a clear vision or practising more will make more of a difference than gear. That being said, it is a gear forum and sometimes it's fun just to talk about gear for a bit even if it is the solution that won't benefit us much.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 22, 2015)

This reviews suggests that the 5DSR will more than meet my pro landscape photography needs. More than double the mega pixels of the 5D3, increased dynamic range, reduced shadow noise, reduced noise at higher ISO's, lovely jubbly. Can't wait.


----------

