# DPReview Interview with Chuck Westfall of Canon USA



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 6, 2015)

```
<p><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RSQTKM3nQ5U" width="100%" height="380" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p>DPReview sat down with Canon USA’s Chuck Westfall to talk about the Canon EOS 5Ds and EOS 5Ds R. The interview touches on dynamic range, and how it’s about the same as the EOS 5D Mark III. Chuck also says the noise performance of these cameras will be on par with the EOS 7D Mark II. The mirror mechanism in the 5Ds & 5Ds R is upgraded from the spring mechanism inside the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, this will help in reducing camera vibration while on a tripod.</p>
<p>Chuck also answers the question about who manufactures the sensor <a href="http://www.shutterbug.com/content/canon-launches-506mp-eos-5ds-and-5ds-r-world%E2%80%99s-highest-resolution-full-frame-dslrs" target="_blank">over at Shutterbug</a>, and it is indeed made by Canon. Contrary to some nagging rumors over the past few months.</p>
<blockquote><p><em>“Despite some rumors to the contrary, Westfall said the 50.6MP CMOS sensors in the 5DS and 5DS R are developed and produced by Canon. When asked whether they were created in collaboration with Sony as some rumors indicated, Westfall responded by saying: “Absolutely not. The sensors were developed completely in-house, by Canon.”</em></p></blockquote>
<p>Sources [<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSQTKM3nQ5U" target="_blank">DPR</a>] [<a href="http://www.shutterbug.com/content/canon-launches-506mp-eos-5ds-and-5ds-r-world%E2%80%99s-highest-resolution-full-frame-dslrs" target="_blank">ShutterBug</a>] via [<a href="http://www.canonwatch.com/chuck-westfall-canon-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r-no-dr-improvement-5d3-sensor-made-canon/" target="_blank">CanonWatch</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Feb 6, 2015)

lol so there's no Dynamic range Improvement smh
so basically there modified with new Digic 6 processors and filtered 5D3's
canon u guy a slowing becoming like APPLE INC. dicing up ya best sellers into sub-niche categories for certain shooters
next thing u know they will make 2 more versions of the 7D mark 2


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 6, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Why?? This camera was not a speed or video demon so why the heck not go to Sony for the sensor on it? You didn't even give it DPAF, so what possible reason for the Canon sensor?



The possibility exists that Sony and Nikon have some sort of exclusivity agreement in the SLR category (not that there aren't other sensor fabs out there).


----------



## canonistic (Feb 6, 2015)

*The "R" version *

i wish the 5ds "R" had the low pass filter COMPLETELY REMOVED, instead of by-passed. It sounds like a complicated work around. I guess the proof is in the results, but I would like the design better if it was not there at all, rather than a complicated system to negate the effects. I don't understand the system, i admit, so maybe future information will make it clearer.


----------



## fragilesi (Feb 6, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Why?? This camera was not a speed or video demon so why the heck not go to Sony for the sensor on it? You didn't even give it DPAF, so what possible reason for the Canon sensor?
> ...



Or Sony's 50MP sensor (assuming they have one) is too expensive or doesn't work so well with other aspects of the camera or probably a hundred other reasons that someone with knowledge of the tech / business could probably cite . . .


----------



## bertzie (Feb 6, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "[The DR is about the same as the 5D3]"
> 
> and then he actually makes this next part sound like a postitive!
> 
> ...



Because if both Canon and Nikon and Sony all used the same sensor, what would be the point in buying one over the other?

Equally important question? Why should they chose a Sony sensor over one of their own?


----------



## emko (Feb 6, 2015)

wow they went to 50mp because they know they can't keep up with the ISO and DR of the 36mp sensor so they act like they won with that dumb 50mp number WOW CANON 


Can Canon make a better sensor or is this the best they can do?


----------



## blanddragon (Feb 6, 2015)

Not to start a flame war but, queue all the fanbois on the Cannon Rumors site to complain and sight how <insert maker here> is superior blah blah blah.

In my opinion if you want a <insert maker here> go buy one. 

Canon is gong to do what Canon is going to do. I'm going out to make some images now with my fine camera and lenses.


----------



## emko (Feb 6, 2015)

blanddragon said:


> Not to start a flame war but, queue all the fanbois on the Cannon Rumors site to complain and sight how <insert maker here> is superior blah blah blah.
> 
> In my opinion if you want a <insert maker here> go buy one.
> 
> Canon is gong to do what Canon is going to do. I'm going out to make some images now with my fine camera and lenses.



Really? we are a fanbois for wanting CANON to have a better SENSOR? only fanboy is you for defending CANON for no reason.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Feb 6, 2015)

emko said:


> wow they went to 50mp because they know they can't keep up with the ISO and DR of the 36mp sensor so they act like they won with that dumb 50mp number WOW CANON
> 
> 
> Can Canon make a better sensor or is this the best they can do?


I guarantee with 100% confidence that this is exactly what Canon marketing and design department talked about. It's compensating for other shortcomings. I don't think it's going to fool enough people.


----------



## zim (Feb 6, 2015)

_The mirror mechanism in the 5Ds & 5Ds R is upgraded from the spring mechanism inside the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, this will help in reducing camera vibration while on a tripod_.

I actually did laugh out loud at that one, so funny, you couldn't make that kind of stuff up.... Oh wait you can ;D


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Feb 6, 2015)

blanddragon said:


> Not to start a flame war but, queue all the fanbois on the Cannon Rumors site to complain and sight how <insert maker here> is superior blah blah blah.
> 
> In my opinion if you want a <insert maker here> go buy one.
> 
> Canon is gong to do what Canon is going to do. I'm going out to make some images now with my fine camera and lenses.



Canon is a big money hungry corporation. It's not like people are dissing Yo mamma. 

You think Canon is going to get their feelings hurts and take it off the market out of spite? 

Consumers have been trained to bend over and take a fatty in the rear, and on top of that fight their right to take it in the rear, and even more on top of that try to shut up anyone who points out they are paying to take it in the rear.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 6, 2015)

Extra DR is great, but not a life and death matter worthy of the inferiority complex many people seem to have over it. It's just one of *many* things that go into making a great photo. Yes, it would have been great if Canon could have improved it, but they didn't. 

For some people, having more exposure latitude does make a big difference, but ETTR, HDR, luminosity and other techniques aren't hard to use when needed. It's not like the Sony/Nikon/Pentax crowd doesn't use these.

In the end, it's your money - buy what you need. If that's DR, small cameras, in-body stabilization, etc. there are plenty of choices. Personally, I'm excited by 50MP and an 11-24 f/4.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 6, 2015)

zim said:


> _The mirror mechanism in the 5Ds & 5Ds R is upgraded from the spring mechanism inside the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, this will help in reducing camera vibration while on a tripod_.
> 
> I actually did laugh out loud at that one, so funny, you couldn't make that kind of stuff up.... Oh wait you can ;D



Sounds like a good improvement, why do you think its funny?


----------



## edknuff (Feb 6, 2015)

*NO* improvement in DR, over the 5d3?

That is extremely disappointing... :'(


----------



## bholliman (Feb 6, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Extra DR is great, but not a life and death matter worthy of the inferiority complex many people seem to have over it. It's just one of *many* things that go into making a great photo. Yes, it would have been great if Canon could have improved it, but they didn't.
> 
> For some people, having more exposure latitude does make a big difference, but ETTR, HDR, luminosity and other techniques aren't hard to use when needed. It's not like the Sony/Nikon/Pentax crowd doesn't use these.
> 
> In the end, it's your money - buy what you need. If that's DR, small cameras, in-body stabilization, etc. there are plenty of choices. Personally, I'm excited by 50MP and an 11-24 f/4.



+1

I'm a little disappointed that Canon did not improve DR here, but I'm not going to judge a camera before its actually available or been tested. I probably would not buy one of these bodies anyway, with or without DR improvement. 

We can all vote with our credit cards. If these cameras don't meet your personal needs pass on them and buy Nikon/Sony if you are so inclined.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 6, 2015)

bholliman said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Extra DR is great, but not a life and death matter worthy of the inferiority complex many people seem to have over it. It's just one of *many* things that go into making a great photo. Yes, it would have been great if Canon could have improved it, but they didn't.
> ...



All true. But I'd like to see some examples of some landscape shots with the EF 11-24 paired with the D810. Should be quite the visual orgasm


----------



## SoullessPolack (Feb 6, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Well I guess Chuck has answered the question of whether the sensor will be limited when compared to Exmor (the answer being "Yes".)



Hah, blanket statement if I ever saw one.

It's limited from a dynamic range standpoint (and don't pull the trigger on that opinion yet, you have no evidence, you have no reviews; there have been several instances where a company has understated, most likely by mistake, the performance of their product). But it's not limited from a resolution standpoint. In fact, it far excels in that category. So really, the limitation depends on what characteristic you're looking at. And in that case, the Exmor will be limited in some areas. It all depends on what characteristics are a priority for *you*. 

In your case, it appears to be dynamic range. In mine, and a lot of other people, the extra resolution is surely welcomed. I usually bracket my exposures anyway, so there have been very few instances where I have needed extra dynamic range. I would love more resolution though, as I love seeing as much detail in my prints as possible.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Feb 6, 2015)

brad-man said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



In normal conditions, the visual orgasm will be better with this new 5D model. But you are right in certain cases; if the shooting conditions are challenging with a large variety in amount of light across the scene, and you can only take one shot due to your subject matter, then the D810 should produce the superior result.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Why?? This camera was not a speed or video demon so why the heck not go to Sony for the sensor on it? You didn't even give it DPAF, so what possible reason for the Canon sensor?



The best reason of all – profit. Of course, I mean best from their perspective...but you don't really think Canon cares about _your_ perspective, do you? :


----------



## RobertG. (Feb 6, 2015)

I'm disappointed. It all sounds like this new sensor is a full frame version of the 70D / 7D II sensor. Same DR as my 5D II but even slightly worse low ISO noise. All for the sake of 50 MP 
Let's hope for the 5D IV. But first I will wait for an updated Sony A7R for my landscape shots. The Pentax 645Z is too bulky, unfortunately too expensive and lacks the great TS-E lenses...


----------



## brad-man (Feb 6, 2015)

SoullessPolack said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > bholliman said:
> ...



Have to disagree. I think the only time the new 5Ds will outperform the D810 is in situations where lighting can be controlled (studio, runway, pretty much any time indoors). Outside in natural light where DR really comes into play the 810 will shine. I look forward to seeing the performance of Sony's new 50MP sensor. I'm also getting a little nervous about the sensor in the "upcoming" 5DlV...


----------



## unfocused (Feb 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Why?? This camera was not a speed or video demon so why the heck not go to Sony for the sensor on it? You didn't even give it DPAF, so what possible reason for the Canon sensor?
> ...



Actually, Canon cares very much about their customers' perspective in the aggregate. But, like any well-run business, they aren't that concerned about individual perspectives which are notoriously unreliable and idiosyncratic. 

I appreciate that they are willing to develop a high end camera for what is clearly a niche market. Said it before, and will say it again: if you own a 5DIII (me), 6D or a 1DX, and it meets your needs, this is not the camera you are looking for. 

Listen to what Canon is saying about this camera: this is for people who want or need high resolution.

And please, lets get real. Everything comes at a price. Some of the people on this site are only embarrassing themselves with all this slavish devotion to Sony sensor technology.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2015)

brad-man said:


> Have to disagree. I think the only time the new 5Ds will outperform the D810 is in situations where lighting can be controlled (studio, runway, pretty much any time indoors). Outside in natural light where DR really comes into play the 810 will shine.



Exactly. Because we all know the D810 outperforms the 5DIII in any sort of natural light. : : :


----------



## Eldar (Feb 6, 2015)

Tremendous resolution! No improvements in DR, no improvements on noise, no support for high precision manual focus, due to fixed focusing screen (they put it on the 6D and 7DII, but not on their flagships ), exposure metering is not following AF, no illuminated AF confirmation ... There are some more, but these were on top of my wish list. I got one out of six. :

My problem is that I do not want to buy a Nikon and I can´t stand the ergonomics of the A7r. I can go for the Pentax 645z, but that means two sets of lenses and two different bodies, with different user interfaces etc. etc. I carry enough as it is. 

As I said this morning, this is a BIG disappointment ...


----------



## Alejandro (Feb 6, 2015)

You keep asking for more dinamic range when it clearly shows that the 5D3 can match the D800 at high iso (*).

*http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras2.shtml


You also ask 4k video when most of us doesn't even use more than 1080p screens and can't afford them.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 6, 2015)

Alejandro said:


> You keep asking for more dinamic range when it clearly shows that the 5D3 can match the D800 at high iso (*).
> 
> *http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras2.shtml
> 
> ...


I don´t believe that is correct. Almost everyone knew we would get a low-ISO camera this time, so High ISO is not an issue. A lot of us has also said that they could take away the video functionality all together, since we´re only interested in a stills camera.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 6, 2015)

I'll gladly give up a stop or two of base ISO DR to get half to one stop of high ISO DR, where I really need it.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 6, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I'll gladly give up a stop or two of base ISO DR to get half to one stop of high ISO DR, where I really need it.


Sure, but that is a different camera and you may hope it´s called 5DIV or 1DX2


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 6, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I'll gladly give up a stop or two of base ISO DR to get half to one stop of high ISO DR, where I really need it.
> ...



That goes for any camera.


----------



## Alejandro (Feb 7, 2015)

This is what nikon users/fanboys see:

(Green screen? Oil issues? Green skin tones? Noise at high iso? Flare cut in half? They don't know anything about it)

(And yes, i did heard about the lcd light leak in the 5d3 at extremely low light conditions).


----------



## zlatko (Feb 7, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I'll gladly give up a stop or two of base ISO DR to get half to one stop of high ISO DR, where I really need it.



Interesting that the D800 offers *worse* DR at high ISO than the 5D3. So which is better just depends on what one shoots.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 7, 2015)

edknuff said:


> *NO* improvement in DR, over the 5d3?
> 
> That is extremely disappointing... :'(



Not disappointing for me. The 5D3 is great.


----------



## Gino (Feb 7, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Tremendous resolution! No improvements in DR, no improvements on noise, no support for high precision manual focus, due to fixed focusing screen (they put it on the 6D and 7DII, but not on their flagships ), exposure metering is not following AF, no illuminated AF confirmation ... There are some more, but these were on top of my wish list. I got one out of six. :
> 
> My problem is that I do not want to buy a Nikon and I can´t stand the ergonomics of the A7r. I can go for the Pentax 645z, but that means two sets of lenses and two different bodies, with different user interfaces etc. etc. I carry enough as it is.
> 
> As I said this morning, *this is a BIG disappointment* ...



I agree with your comments....I had big hopes that we would see bigger improvements with this camera.


----------



## AtSea (Feb 7, 2015)

I guess that settles it then, as to whether or not to upgrade from the 5D III. The answer for me being a clearcut no. Simply don't print large enough (yet) to benefit from it.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 7, 2015)

The data I plotted was Sensorgen data derived from DxO. By the way, I've found that there are many areas on DxO data that is self-contradictory, so I generally tend not to believe any of it anymore, especially their "photographic DR" because their normalization approach is questionable at best.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2015)

Karlpedal said:


> If you mean D55 with "natural light" - so yes the D810 outperform 5dmk3 both in color depth and resolution + color resolution, and DR at base iso, the new 5ds are tuned more against D55 with steeper color filter as in Nikon



Yet another person who doesn't grasp that a sensor isn't the same as a *camera system*. Actually, I don't think you're _another_ person at all, just the same person who's never been able to grasp that simple concept, and instead repeatedly demonstrated that lack of comprehension with repetitive examples involving awnings, barbecues and sheds.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 7, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> The data I plotted was Sensorgen data derived from DxO. By the way, I've found that there are many areas on DxO data that is self-contradictory, so I generally tend not to believe any of it anymore, especially their "photographic DR" because their normalization approach is questionable at best.



Their ratings have some mysteries. At some point, DxO rated the $499 EF 100/2 USM as their *highest scoring* lens made by Canon. It's currently the 2nd highest, according to DxO. It's a fine lens, but that rating doesn't accord with my experience. Anyone want to confirm that the $499 EF 100/2 USM was the BEST lens that Canon made, deserving of the HIGHEST score? Currently that crown is worn by the EF 35/2 IS, with the 100/2 coming in second place, ahead of every other lens that Canon makes.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 7, 2015)

zlatko said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The data I plotted was Sensorgen data derived from DxO. By the way, I've found that there are many areas on DxO data that is self-contradictory, so I generally tend not to believe any of it anymore, especially their "photographic DR" because their normalization approach is questionable at best.
> ...



Their lens tests are total crap. They declared the 70-200/2.8L IS II no better than the I, and worse in resolving power.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8L-IS-II-USM-measurements-and-review

By the way, my 100/2 was outstanding. Every non-L prime should be like the 100/2.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 7, 2015)

I would say Chuck Westfall probably should've prepared better if he really wanted to present the 5Ds in a good light. As far as I can see it, it was not a good idea to compare the dynamic range of the 5Ds with the 5D Mark III, right after the DP Review guy says there has been concerns about that (DR of 5D III). He is just feeding the frenzy here. Similarly, comparing the noise capability of the 5Ds with the 7D II isn't really complementary,the latter being a crop sensor camera. I think on these notes Chuck Westfall could have just said that the 5Ds has competitive dynamic range and noise capability, and let people figure it out for themselves rather than surmising based on his comparisons. 
The problem is, the camera raises too many questions to be slam dunk, the same way 6D did. It was a great camera that received negative PR due to missing some key features.
Chuck Westfall was clearly unprepared; when he was asked who would buy 5D Mark III versus a 5Ds,instead of pointing out the target audience for the newer camera and highlighting its strengths, he went on to say that people looking for lowlight performance, high ISO capability and advanced video tools would be looking for 5D Mark III, pointing out the 5Ds' shortcomings. Very odd.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 7, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> I would say Chuck Westfall probably should've prepared better if he really wanted to present the 5Ds in a good light. As far as I can see it, it was not a good idea to compare the dynamic range of the 5Ds with the 5D Mark III, right after the DP Review guy says there has been concerns about that (DR of 5D III). He is just feeding the frenzy here. Similarly, comparing the noise capability of the 5Ds with the 7D II isn't really complementary,the latter being a crop sensor camera. I think on these notes Chuck Westfall could have just said that the 5Ds has competitive dynamic range and noise capability, and let people figure it out for themselves rather than surmising based on his comparisons.
> The problem is, the camera raises too many questions to be slam dunk, the same way 6D did. It was a great camera that received negative PR due to missing some key features.
> Chuck Westfall was clearly unprepared; when he was asked who would buy 5D Mark III versus a 5Ds,instead of pointing out the target audience for the newer camera and highlighting its strengths, he went on to say that people looking for lowlight performance, high ISO capability and advanced video tools would be looking for 5D Mark III, pointing out the 5Ds' shortcomings. Very odd.



Chuck did a great job and presented the camera in a good, honest and informative fashion. He's a straight shooter and doesn't play the games that you seem to want him to play.


----------



## pierlux (Feb 7, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> ...Chuck Westfall was clearly unprepared; ...


Hardly. He's simply straight and honest, as always. And, frankly, I believe that a 50 MP sensor having the same DR as the 22 MP one from the 5D3 and the same noise performance as the 7D2 despite including a much stronger CFA for greater color accuracy (a feature which matters a lot to those photographers whom these cameras are intended for) represents an advancement in overall IQ over the predecessors. My only worry is that, unfortunately, for now I can't afford one, damnit! :'(


----------



## zlatko (Feb 7, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Every photographer who has tried both versions of the 70-200/2.8 says version II is better than version I. Somehow DxO doesn't agree with every photographer who has tried them. Strange. 

Yep, the 100/2 is outstanding. But there are a lot of outstanding lenses in the system. I never heard any photographers say that the 100/2 is the top-most outstanding lens in the system. Only DxO said that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> The problem is, the camera raises too many questions to be slam dunk, the same way 6D did. It was a great camera that received negative PR due to missing some key features.



And yet...the 6D remains the Top Rated dSLR on Amazon, and is the second-best selling FF dSLR on Amazon (behind the 5DIII).


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 7, 2015)

Greetings from Friday night in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. I'll have to take some crappy DR Canon 6D pics to load for everyone....


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 7, 2015)

zlatko said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I would say Chuck Westfall probably should've prepared better if he really wanted to present the 5Ds in a good light. As far as I can see it, it was not a good idea to compare the dynamic range of the 5Ds with the 5D Mark III, right after the DP Review guy says there has been concerns about that (DR of 5D III). He is just feeding the frenzy here. Similarly, comparing the noise capability of the 5Ds with the 7D II isn't really complementary,the latter being a crop sensor camera. I think on these notes Chuck Westfall could have just said that the 5Ds has competitive dynamic range and noise capability, and let people figure it out for themselves rather than surmising based on his comparisons.
> ...



Please don't be presumptive. I think that his responses in this interview seemed unprepared, and potentially liable to bias people against a new product instead of being objective. Clearly, your standards for good and informative might be different than mine. He does seem like an honest person, I will give you that, and I think he is quite popular for that reason.

For example, he compared the noise levels to the 7DII on the basis of pixel pitch and processor, but when the interviewer asked him why that wouldn't result in better noise performance as the sensor is much larger- he switched to saying cameras are evaluated independently. Fine, then why compare it with the 7DII and mention similar pixel pitch to begin with? 

Secondly, if you are asked how the target audience of a new product is different, do you go to great lengths describing the strengths of the old product and its target audience. The interviewer had to specifically ask him again, to get him to talk about the strengths of the 5Ds, which is all he should have been espousing in this interview. 

Regarding dynamic range- he says it is comparable to the 5D III. That remains to be seen- but saying that the DR hasn't changed when the interviewer specifically mentions there being concerns about it, was odd. Having said that, this was really a minor point compared to the above two, which seemed like "gaffes".

Say what you will, but I have seen a disconnect between Canon USA and Canon Inc. In a past interview, Chuck Westfall had specifically mentioned that Canon was interested in bringing back AF point illumination in 5DIII through a firmware update (unbidden, he brought it up). However, we haven't seen it yet, have we?

Anyway...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is, the camera raises too many questions to be slam dunk, the same way 6D did. It was a great camera that received negative PR due to missing some key features.
> ...



So you're saying there wasn't any room for improvement? If the 6D was priced $ 100 more and had a few more key video features, or slightly better AF (not all of these, just one) then Canon could have used it to address a niche market in addition to the general entry-level FF market (videographers, action shooters, etc. on a budget). Canon could have done that without cannibalizing 5DIII sales.
If you can keep the bottomline solid AND make inroads for future market development, isn't that better?


----------



## zlatko (Feb 7, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



It seems that you're seeing what you want to see. He was quite factual and I appreciate that.


----------



## LovePhotography (Feb 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Karlpedal said:
> 
> 
> > If you mean D55 with "natural light" - so yes the D810 outperform 5dmk3 both in color depth and resolution + color resolution, and DR at base iso, the new 5ds are tuned more against D55 with steeper color filter as in Nikon
> ...



You were doing so well! A few civilized posts and everything! Alas, it seems this morning's Abilify dose is wearing thin. *sigh*


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



No that isn't it at all, there is room for improvement, and that is where the 6D MkII comes in, it will be enough of an upgrade to entice those 6D owners that don't want a 5D MkIV, and at the same time collect the base FF customers.

Canon have very rarely thrown everything into a body, the 1Ds MkIII is the last one they did, and it was prematurely side stepped by the largely similar and IQ same 5D MkII.

You guys might find it frustrating, I'd say stop looking at it like you are, Canon spend millions of dollars on market research to find out just how much they can get away with not giving you. If you don't like that, and they have made an allowance for you not liking it, go buy that Sony/Nikon/Fuji that you do think is the answer.


----------



## skoobey (Feb 7, 2015)

These "marketing" people are idiots.
How many landscapre phootgraphers are there that can afford 4000$ camera that demands 2000% lens?

This is a STUDIO CAMERA. So, product photography, commercial photography! 

Learn you market.


----------



## kphoto99 (Feb 7, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Tremendous resolution! No improvements in DR, no improvements on noise, no support for high precision manual focus, due to fixed focusing screen (they put it on the 6D and 7DII, but not on their flagships ), exposure metering is not following AF, no illuminated AF confirmation ... There are some more, but these were on top of my wish list. I got one out of six. :



Not including support of changeable focus screens is easily explained as a business decision.
If manual focus was easy on 5Ds then the likely hood of people buying MF Zeiss lenses is much larger instead of them buying AF lenses from Canon.
Most people who buy 6D and 7DII will not spend the money on MF Zeiss lenses so it is safe to allow them to change focusing screens. 

Remember Canon's first priority is to maximize profits, if you look at Canon's decisions through this lens then most decisions make sense.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 7, 2015)

skoobey said:


> How many landscapre phootgraphers are there that can afford 4000$ camera that demands 2000% lens?
> 
> This is a STUDIO CAMERA. So, product photography, commercial photography!
> 
> Learn you market.



I don't know. How many are there? Read the Luminous Landscape forum and they are using cameras & lenses that cost that much and much more, for landscape, product, commercial, and whatever. Some landscape photographers are willing to pay a lot for resolution. Camera makers know their market better than internet commenters do.


----------



## inFocus (Feb 7, 2015)

Funny thing is, when the 36MP D800 was announced, Canon fanboys were all over it bashing and trashing spewing envy and hatred by saying "who needs 36MP?, 20MP is more than enough" and so many other fanboys jump in and echo the same in defense of their love for Canon.

Now that Canon answered with a much higher resolution trouncing Nikons D800/E/810 in the never ending megapixel wars, i bet the same fanboys will be the first in line to sing praises and hallelujah to the new king of megapixel cameras. (Fake Chuck Westfall are you listening?..)

Don't get me wrong, both systems are equally capable and have their own strengths and weaknesses. It's the fanboyism in both camps that's laughable. Most people come to forums like this to get information on gears and get some insights and help in making decisions. Some people lurk in forums to incite war of words defending their gear against the other reducing the forum into a kid fight. Oh well, maybe they're really kids..


----------



## brad-man (Feb 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Have to disagree. I think the only time the new 5Ds will outperform the D810 is in situations where lighting can be controlled (studio, runway, pretty much any time indoors). Outside in natural light where DR really comes into play the 810 will shine.
> ...



You know, if you keep rolling your eyes that way, they may get permanently stuck in that position


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



1. When I say room for improvement, I am not talking about room for improving the 6D. I am talking about improving Canon's market share or 6D sales, or both. Please re read my post- and if it is still not clear, I apologize for my written communication skills (or lack thereof).
2. I specifically mentioned adding one of the features- not all of them. The idea would be to capture a niche market share, not to cannibalize their sales.
3. The only thing that frustrates me here is my post taken completely out of context. I have mentioned how I was disappointed that a camera like 6D ("a great camera") didn't get the PR it deserves. My 6D is a backup to my 5DIII and I never shoot video, so I am perfectly satisfied- it is a great stills camera. However, there are videographers who would have purchased the 6D in a heartbeat if it had, for example, an AA filter or microphone input or clean HDMI out. Or, maybe budget photojournalists instead who need a better AF system but no video features. 

I have never, not once, bashed Canon cameras or Canon as a company on these forums for not having features that I want. In fact, quite the opposite. For example:



sagittariansrock said:


> When Canon was pushing the megapixels, people complain about the loss in IQ and how it was important to do what Nikon did- focus on the quality.
> After they stopped doing that, and created a fantastic camera in the 5D III, people pointed out how Nikon "innovated" by creating a 36 MP camera (brave business decision, yes- but purchasing a sensor from Sony and building a camera around it is not the epitome of innovation IMO).
> Now that Canon has created a 50 MP camera, I hear all these naysayers.
> There are, of course, Nikon haters as well- who complained about large file sizes and how the LCD looks too green blah blah blah!
> ...



So, I am quite surprised that I'd be lumped into "you guys" and be advised that I "go buy Sony/Nikon/Fuji...".


----------



## Machaon (Feb 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Well I guess Chuck has answered the question of whether the sensor will be limited when compared to Exmor (the answer being "Yes".)



Do you mean 'limited' in the sense that it is the only 50.3 MP resolution sensor in FF format?


----------



## zlatko (Feb 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Well I guess Chuck has answered the question of whether the sensor will be limited when compared to Exmor (the answer being "Yes".)



Every sensor is limited, including Exmor. It's not as if one sensor is limited and another is not. All the photography ever done was done with limited sensors.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 7, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Tremendous resolution! No improvements in DR, no improvements on noise, no support for high precision manual focus, due to fixed focusing screen (they put it on the 6D and 7DII, but not on their flagships ), exposure metering is not following AF, no illuminated AF confirmation ... There are some more, but these were on top of my wish list. I got one out of six. :
> ...


Of course you´re right and that is what pisses me off. And, unfortunately we as customers, in most cases, let them bully us into their corner, where they lock us up and suck us dry. This time my disappointment was just too much and I´m preparing to exit.

Focusing Screens in Taiwan will make an S-screen that will give us that functionality. But it is a nerv wrecking operation to change the focusing screens and it must be done on a bench with tools and good light, ref. how it´s done on the 5DIII. And you have to be able to change them, preferably when you´re in the field, if you want to use lenses slower than f2.8. So I can still get it, but it will be a lot of hassle involved. I would not be surprised though, if the 5Ds will require that you go in from the viewer side to get it out, meaning it will be impossible to change outside of a CPS shop.

How many of you shoot macro with the 100 f2.8L IS Macro? How many use manual focus in doing so? I suppose quite a few. In a sunny and high contrast situation, it is a lot easier to focus that lens manually with an Ec-S focusing screen, than using live view. I would have loved to use a capable 5Ds for that. 

Another good use of a high precision focusing screen is when shooting portraits with very shallow depth of field, like with an 85 f1.2L II or 135 f2.0. Why do Canon provide manual focus override with most of their lenses, if you are unable to see that you actually got That eye in focus? I would have loved to use a capable 5Ds for that.

So Canon´s protective attitude, fuelled by their fright of letting any other company make money by allowing customers to use other lenses their own and their view on how to maximise profit, ended in my case in not buying the 5Ds and also not buying the 11-24. And I doubt I will buy any more Canon lenses. I will also stop recommending Canon to people asking for advice. A drop in their ocean, but it might be that I´m not the only one.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 7, 2015)

Eldar said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



The reason that the new 5Ds and r don't have interchangeable focusing screens is because they are fundamentally a 5DIII with different sensor and mirror mechanics. I don't believe Canon intends to produce these in quantities anything like approaching 5DIII numbers, so there isn't really much new tooling.

(Conversely the reason the 6D _does_ have interchangeable screens is because it uses many 5DII components).

The 5DIII offers much improved AF accuracy over the II, thus negating the need for a manual focus screen. Or does it ? This is the real question. Did Canon drop a feature that many people do really want ? Certainly judging from those of us on CR you would say yes, they did. 

Time will tell to see if the feature returns in the 5DIV.

I don't agree with kphoto99. Purchases of Zeiss manual focus lenses are a drop in the ocean compared with AF, even the most expensive L ones.


----------



## canonic (Feb 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Why?? This camera was not a speed or video demon so why the heck not go to Sony for the sensor on it? You didn't even give it DPAF, so what possible reason for the Canon sensor?
> ...



Neither cares Canon about your perspective, too. It should care about OUR perspective!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2015)

canonic said:


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



Exactly - and they do. They spend ample money on market research to determine what customers are likely to buy. For example, Canon has had less low ISO DR than their competitors for years, yet they continue to lead the market. Canon just announced a 50 MP camera with the same DR as previous bodies. What does that suggest their market research shows regarding OUR perspective on DR?


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> canonic said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Without wanting to start a debate on the dreaded subject; my decision whether or not to buy a 5Ds (or r) is not remotely influenced by whether or not this camera has an Exmoresque sensor in it. I'm generally shooting at low ISO and I _never_ want to move more than a stop either way of capture, and the latest Canon sensors eat that up. 

I'm not suggesting that I don't want to see improvement in this area, it's just that at the moment the 'improvement' available doesn't mean anything to me.


----------



## canonic (Feb 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> canonic said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Market RESEARCH?!? They have had only ask the landscapers (one target group for this camera) what they need and they had the first answer: DR!
They have had only listen ... not even ask. This should be a landscape camera? Without improved DR? No way! Even the wedding photographers (another target group for this camera) are asking for more DR as for resolution. 


> They spend ample money on market research to determine what customers are likely to buy.


Better spend the money for sensor research ...


> What does that suggest their market research shows regarding OUR perspective on DR?


This may suggest that they are wrong. But this is only speculation ... along whit your speculation about Market RESEARCH.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 7, 2015)

canonic said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > canonic said:
> ...



Yawn.

You have clearly never used a camera with the increased DR, or if you have you're another one who can't help chronically under exposing.

FYI there are very few genuine, dedicated landscape photographers, and of those that do use FF format occasionally as opposed to much larger, quite a few use Canon - still.


----------



## msm (Feb 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> canonic said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



All it shows is that Canon chose to announce the camera as it is. As to why only Canon managers can tell, it could be what you say, or it could just as well be that they are not able to produce higher DR, it could be that Sony refuse to produce sensors to them to protect own sales, or maybe it could be that some manager in Canon has in house sensors as his personal pride.

Nor does it show that this is the best strategy for Canon, sometimes it is just best to produce the best product possible instead of trying to milk as much money as possible from as little as possible because that can backfire.

The optics are where Canon shines, and that is probably main reason why Canon still may have the largest market share. For us users, it would be better if Canon got out of the sensor business altogether. We just want the best product for our needs, and do not care who makes most money.


----------



## heptagon (Feb 7, 2015)

msm said:


> All it shows is that Canon chose to announce the camera as it is. As to why only Canon managers can tell, it could be what you say, or it could just as well be that they are not able to produce higher DR, it could be that Sony refuse to produce sensors to them to protect own sales, or maybe it could be that some manager in Canon has in house sensors as his personal pride.
> 
> Nor does it show that this is the best strategy for Canon, sometimes it is just best to produce the best product possible instead of trying to milk as much money as possible from as little as possible because that can backfire.
> 
> The optics are where Canon shines, and that is probably main reason why Canon still may have the largest market share. For us users, it would be better if Canon got out of the sensor business altogether. We just want the best product for our needs, and do not care who makes most money.



My bet is on money, corporate politics and pride.

Using Sony sensors may prove a hassle on the engineering side. Maybe it is not very easy to "just" integrate a Sony sensor into a Canon body and make that work reliably. After all it would be a top line product. So making it work may present an heavy investment and several years of engineering in order to make it work as expected. 

Then Sony will charge for the sensors. But how much? That's up to negotioation. If Canon has to buy Sony sensors at all costs it will have to pay a high price. If Canon on the other hand has their own "good enough" sensor line they can negotiate the price and wait until an agreement is reached. Sony can wait, too.

Having a sensor factory costs about the same if it runs at 0% capacity or 75% capacity. Maybe Canon is currently producing more sensors than they can sell. Thus reducing the number of Canon sensors sold directly cuts into their profit. It'd be better to sell a few cameras less.

Other than dynamic range the sensors that Canon makes are not bad. They are mostly on par or sometimes better than Sony sensors. Do you want to tell your engineers that all their hard work gets thrown out of the window? Maybe Canon is "just" negotiating about some patents with Sony or somebody else so they can use technology which enables a higher DR with technology Canon already has developed but cannot use.

The situation may be that Canon had the best sensor and took pride in that. Then they didn't want to hear that they got overtaken by a competitor. Still, there's technology like DPAF which is unique to Canon sensors and who cares about DR, anyhow! Then they heard the signals but it takes time to change course and Canon sensors get better (very little) every generation. Now they may actually be in negotioations with Sony but one or both of the companies play the waiting game. The problem doesn't hurt sales (yet), so the problem doesn't exist (yet). 

After all, a 50MP sensor is a great step in the right direction, and I'll be curious how it compares to the 6D or the 6DII if that gets released. When the time comes to upgrade from the 6D I currently have, I'll look for the package that Nikon can deliver and decide wether it's worth changing systems - or - to invest in a landscaping camera with a landscaping lens from Nikon with a Sony sensor. But that time has not come yet.


----------



## Neutral (Feb 7, 2015)

msm said:


> <...>
> The optics are where Canon shines, and that is probably main reason why Canon still may have the largest market share. *For us users, it would be better if Canon got out of the sensor business altogether.* We just want the best product for our needs, and do not care who makes most money.



I am afraid that this could happen eventually.

Taking into account sensors innovations acceleration curve driven by other companies and processing and fabrications requirements to put those innovations in life I became very skeptical about Canon ability to keep up with this sensors technologies innovations race. Sensors are semiconductors companies businesses and that requires huge investments to implement new technologies/processes if company wants to manufacture that themselves. I think that in some future situation in sensor business will be the same as with processors business for PCs - only few companies with huge resources dedicated to that would be able to keep up with that race. In PCs market, there are only couple of major players - Intel and AMD. Where are all others now? 

The only way to survive for Canon and similar companies in long run is to outsource things that they cannot do better than others. They can design their sensors and ask Samsung/Sony/Toshiba or Intel to manufacture them or use whatever best is available now. I would be excited if Canon would come to agreement with Aptina to use Aptina sensors and their technologies. Alternatively, the same for Sony or Samsung.
Canon is one of the best with the lenses and camera systems, which is traditional business in photography, but their current weakness now is in sensors technology/manufacturing area, which is totally different domain. 

5Ds would be the perfect device if it would have the best sensor available now, which in turn would make 5Ds to be the best product on the market serving much wider range of potential buyers than it can do now with Canon sensor.

Sure that 5Ds will be selling very well even with Canon sensor but if that would be Sony or Aptina sensors with their latest sensors technologies then a lot of people (including me) would be attracted back to Canons from using other products like Sony a7R with Canon Lenses for hi-res still photos. 

I am sure I am not the only one who started using a7R with Canon lenses having tired of waiting Canon hi-res body with up to date sensor tech. And as I mentioned in another post I was not disappointed with that combination and what’s more some canon lenses are MUCH more easier and MUCH more convenient to use on a7R body than on Canon body as Canon does not provide anything to assist with manual focusing and Sony does that very well (EVF and focus peaking).
Conceptually and practically for me Sony a7R is just digital back for my Canon lenses and this combination allows me to use the best from both sides (Canon lenses tech and Sony sensor tech). But I would be much happier if I could be able to use better integrated one single system like 5Ds

I have sad feeling about Canon decision to use their old tech sensor in 5Ds instead of using better sensors from other companies which can do that better than Canon (this is called outsourcing). 
I had very high expectations for that camera but was disappointed at the end. If it possible to do product much better and make it superior then why to degrade the whole system quality/performance by putting mediocre component inside the system which is not up to the level of other system components.
By telling mediocre, I do not mean that this sensor is bad technically – it seems that is just using 7 years back sensors technology providing average performance, which could become the bottleneck for the whole system. Being systems designer/integrator for many years I do not consider this as the best approach for the system design, when product is intended to have life span for at least about 3-5 years from now or even more for many people and I never do such things myself. From general systems design/development prospective Canon approach seems to be not very optimal to say it mildly. In long run term in modern world, companies, which do not keep up with innovations race, put themselves at high risk in the future. We have seen many examples of that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2015)

canonic said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > canonic said:
> ...



Yawn, indeed. Canon's goal is to return value to shareholders. One way to do that is by selling more dSLRs. They've consistently shown the ability to do that better than their competition, despite lower DxOMark BScores. Yet individuals on the Internet insist they know what Canon should do, better than Canon themselves. Those individuals do know better – for their own individual needs. As we've established, Canon doesn't care about individual needs. 

I guarantee you that many landscape photographers will buy a 5Ds/5DsR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> And what, the world revolves around what sells or doesn't sell in the USA?



The 6D is also the second-best selling FF dSLR at Amazon Germany. 

The point is, for all that some people complain that the 6D is 'crippled', it's very popular for a FF camera, in large part because of its (relatively) low cost. I've done my share of complaining about the 6D's AF system, but as we know, Canon doesn't care what I think...


----------



## kphoto99 (Feb 7, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I don't agree with kphoto99. Purchases of Zeiss manual focus lenses are a drop in the ocean compared with AF, even the most expensive L ones.



I respectively disagree with you. I think that the people who once get the taste of Zeiss lenses continue to buy those lenses.
At the high end of lenses quantity sold matter, here Canon makes very large margins per lens to pay for the R&D costs, unlike in the high volume lines where few lost sales don't matter.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 7, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't agree with kphoto99. Purchases of Zeiss manual focus lenses are a drop in the ocean compared with AF, even the most expensive L ones.
> ...


I think you´re right, that those who get the Zeiss-Pox tend to buy more Zeiss lenses. I certainly have. But Sporgon is also right. The volume of Zeiss lenses are still very low, compared to Canon lenses. And most of the Zeiss lens users also have a healthy collection of L-series lenses. I certainly have. 

But one of the reasons I have as many Zeiss lenses as I have is the lack of Canon alternatives in the focal lengths I have bought. If Canon had updated their 35/1.4L, 50/1.2L, 85 1.2L II and 135 2.0L, I probably would have been 100% Canon. Then I would have been a little less disappointed with the 5Ds also.


----------



## zim (Feb 7, 2015)

bholliman said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > _The mirror mechanism in the 5Ds & 5Ds R is upgraded from the spring mechanism inside the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, this will help in reducing camera vibration while on a tripod_.
> ...



on a tripod, improvement over what?


----------



## Boykinally (Feb 7, 2015)

Architectural and interior photographers also want more dynamic range. I was definitely a buyer for a 5Ds or the R. When I saw it has the same dynamic range as my 5D2 and three frame auto bracketing they lost my purchase. The 17tse and 24tse are they only reason I wouldn't switch to Nikon. I guess I will wait to see if they bring the DR up on the 5D4. Very disappointed in what this camera could've been in sensor technology.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2015)

Boykinally said:


> Architectural and interior photographers also want more dynamic range. I was definitely a buyer for a 5Ds or the R. When I saw it has the same dynamic range as my 5D2 and three frame auto bracketing they lost my purchase. The 17tse and 24tse are they only reason I wouldn't switch to Nikon. I guess I will wait to see if they bring the DR up on the 5D4. Very disappointed in what this camera could've been in sensor technology.



Where did you *see* that, as in where are the DR comparison images that demonstrate that?

It seems to me Canon are being very conservative with the claims for these cameras, they often are, but they are saying whilst the DR is similar to the 5D MkIII there is less noise and more latitude in the shadows and highlights, who knows what that means, we don't.

Until we start actually seeing independent tests, hyperbole and emotional garbage is best left in the bin where it belongs.


----------



## canonic (Feb 7, 2015)

Neutral said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > <...>
> ...



+1
What adapter do you use for your Sony a7R?


----------



## bholliman (Feb 7, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > kphoto99 said:
> ...



+1 This makes perfect sense. Undoubtedly, the market for a high megapixel camera is pretty limited. Most photographers not shooting product, studio or landscape will want a more versatile body with better high ISO performance, smaller files and faster FPS. If they can use many 5DIII parts it will limit their incremental tooling and manufacturing expenses on what is essentially a niche product.

Hopefully, the 5DIV does have interchangeable screens! We will see later this year.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 7, 2015)

zim said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



Sorry, missed the "...on a tripod" part. Off a tripod, reduced mirror vibration is a good thing of course!

With some, less-stable, tripods it would be helpful. I always use mirror lock-up on my lightweight travel tripod since mirror slap vibration is noticeable for longer exposures.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 7, 2015)

zim said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



You think mirror slap doesn't affect images in a tripod? Most tripods aren't close to stiff enough to make any difference with high frequency vibrations.


----------



## Boykinally (Feb 7, 2015)

Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 7, 2015)

Boykinally said:


> Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.



Canon has always been very conservative with their claims for new products. I'm willing to withhold judgement until we have seen some hands-on testing. It certainly sounds like there will not be a significant DR improvement, but there might be a small one.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Feb 7, 2015)

Total BS why Canon kept the ISO level lower..."testing". It's all marketing, at a whopping 50Mp you can bet the next 5Ds and 5Ds R wont have more MP's just a much better DR and better ISO..But not by much...perhaps a few added features...the 5D4 should have some serious features added coming down the pipe...


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 7, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> I think that the people who once get the taste of Zeiss lenses continue to buy those lenses.



I agree with you there ! 

But still small numbers compared with even the top end EF lenses.

My partner in Building Panoramics has some business with the UK agent, Robert White, so I have a fair idea.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2015)

Boykinally said:


> Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.



That isn't what he said. He actually said _"Canon is telling us......*equivalent* to the 5D MkIII"_, neither you nor I know what that means to shadow editability.

However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with _" equivalent to the 5D MkIII *in traditional measuring terms*, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore *more ability to pull out detail in the shadows* and highlights"_

That is why I say wait and see, at this point we do not know. I for one won't pass judgement until I can see and play with RAW files.

Sorry for the burst of rationality, lynch mob continue...........


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Boykinally said:
> 
> 
> > Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.
> ...



Yes! That was an important line I picked up on as well. I don't know was "traditional methods" mean to him vs. what we have now. But Pulling Shadow Detail is what we all seem to talk about when debating DR. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww6QGpryrLM&feature=youtu.be

Northrup discusses the effect in the 7D2 and what it means when upscaled to a 5DS size sensor. I'm starting to think we may be a bit more surprised than we expect. Time will tell.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Boykinally said:
> 
> 
> > Architectural and interior photographers also want more dynamic range. I was definitely a buyer for a 5Ds or the R. When I saw it has the same dynamic range as my 5D2 and three frame auto bracketing they lost my purchase. The 17tse and 24tse are they only reason I wouldn't switch to Nikon. I guess I will wait to see if they bring the DR up on the 5D4. Very disappointed in what this camera could've been in sensor technology.
> ...



And this is what I had suggested Chuck Westfall's comparisons might lead to: people becoming biased even before they try out the camera. That is happening, if you look at the forum responses. If he didn't say what he did, people would have waited till the reviews come out, or better, tried it out themselves.

Drawing anecdotal comparisons with the 5DIII in terms of DR and 7DII in terms of noise (the latter, with a flawed reasoning) is only going to instigate the haters. As you said, it doesn't tell us much- so why make statements that are not informative, and potentially confusing? It is very nice to be conservative and all, and then give everyone a pleasant surprise, but I am not sure that is a sound marketing strategy.

Unlike msm and others {"We just want the best product for our needs, and do not care who makes most money.") I do want Canon to make money- not because I am a shareholder, but because I intend to use Canon equipment for a long time, and want them to stay market leaders. If I have to pay $ 500 more today in the short term to ensure I don't have to switch altogether to a less optimal system, I am happy to make that investment.


----------



## skoobey (Feb 7, 2015)

zlatko said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > How many landscapre phootgraphers are there that can afford 4000$ camera that demands 2000% lens?
> ...



Exactly my point. *Some* landscape photographers are able to pay that much, but *every* commercial photographer is willing to do so.
But, because all these high-end marketing executives are wanna be photographers who got absolutely no idea what market wants or needs, it's left up to the engineering department to their job as well.
This camera is a great proposal, and if you look at it's features it's clearly meant to battle MF offerings. It doesn't need gps and wifi to do so, because those cameras don't have those features, either. It is a great landscape camera, but *mentioning wedding photography* and stupid things like that???? Come on, it's the worst possible camera for the job. Low shutter count, large files, small frames per second count... 1DX is a camera for that.

This is a studio camera, just like MF cameras, it absolutely works as a landscape camera, but it's buyers are likely commercial photographers, and landscapes are just one part of their job. No decent wedding photographer is going to buy this, unless it's a shoot for the cover of a magazine.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Boykinally said:
> 
> 
> > Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.
> ...


He he, so maybe I´ll have to reconsider after all. If shadow detail and noise turned out to be improved after all, then ... :


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Boykinally said:
> 
> 
> > Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.
> ...



Thanks for that link, I missed that.

Interesting.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Boykinally said:
> ...



Both Westfall and Burnhill, Canon point men in different countries for this launch, used exactly the same wording, _"*equivalent* to the 5D MkIII"_ they did that because they were told to. Westfall said it because Canon told him to say it, so you can hardly point a finger at him for saying it!

The haters need no instigation, they truthfully don't, sit them in a rose garden and they will tell you it smells like manure, then go on to point out that they are sitting in the manure. Their lemons suck, mine make great lemonade. Their glass is half empty, I have a glass and it has something it.

I make a living selling photographs I take with a seven year old body, they can't take pictures of anything because they don't have the DR, MP, AF, EVF, flip screen, WiFi, GPS, blah blah that another model does.

Sure everything can be improved, but crying about 'no improvement over my 5D MkII' when we ignore all the other massive improvements over the 5D MkII, we don't have a release date for months and no downloadable and editable RAW file for a long time, is kinda weak.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> ...
> 
> Both Westfall and Burnhill, Canon point men in different countries for this launch, used exactly the same wording, _"*equivalent* to the 5D MkIII"_ they did that because they were told to. Westfall said it because Canon told him to say it, so you can hardly point a finger at him for saying it!
> 
> ...



I guess that's true. 
Anyway, a good way to get rid of the frustration from reading these posts is to go out and shoot some pictures, and today is a beautiful day for that.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2015)

Eldar said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Boykinally said:
> ...



Just trying to add a little light into your day after yesterdays disappointment Eldar!

Another thing you might chew on, in that same video Burnhill points out that the noise is the same as the 7D MkII, but he means on a per pixel level, that means the 5DS/R have a minimum 1.3 stop noise advantage over the 7D MkII, *at all iso's* at a same image level.

Now there are arguments to be had about how that might actually translate, but the DR crowd always points to the downsample normalisation method, I believe if we do that then for a same framed image the new cameras should realise that 1.3 stop noise advantage, even at base iso.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Boykinally said:
> ...



The devil is always in the details! 

I am sure DxO will rape it as it doesn't start with N or S, I am also sure many working photographers, pro and amateur, will absolutely love it. 

At this point I kind of wish I had a need for one of them, I can't justify toys, but I believe these are the kinds of cameras that will separate the photographers from the gear junkies and weekend warriors, not dissing any group, but I believe this will push photographers techniques, I can't wait to print some of the 50MP files!


----------



## fragilesi (Feb 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > And what, the world revolves around what sells or doesn't sell in the USA?
> ...



I'm sure they do 

But isn't it odd with some people that whatever Canon do well in somehow doesn't count whereas the one thing people seem to think they do badly in (Low ISO DR) is somehow so important . . .


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



That is true. 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it will be interesting to see real files of practical shoots. I never up graded the 5DII to a III; added a 6 D instead. Prefer the ergonomics of the 5. The 5Ds might be the next move as long as it has mRAW and sRAW options, which I am sure it will have. 

Maybe I will get to shoot rope bound and suspended maidens in from of a medieval castle - a sort of medieval bondage theme perhaps ?


----------



## jdavis37 (Feb 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Have to disagree. I think the only time the new 5Ds will outperform the D810 is in situations where lighting can be controlled (studio, runway, pretty much any time indoors). Outside in natural light where DR really comes into play the 810 will shine.
> ...



I often wonder what % of forum posters are of the total camera purchasers. Until Nikon/Sony does something that makes a substantial ripple in Canon's bottom line (profit) the noise created on forums will be just chatter.

I actually have empathy for those who are not getting from Canon what they want. I understand disappointment.

But to see blanket statements like D810 is a better <pick your noun> than a 3 year old 5D3 isn't exactly factual. When 5D3 came out I rented a D800 and 5D3 and it took me very little time to discover the 5D3 was the better camera for the things I do. I will not say it is the better camera, just better for me. I prefer the look of larger pixels, one of the reasons I went to FF. Our eyes all see things differently so again each of us has to make the call of what is better for them and not suggest it is better for others.

I rarely if ever shoot below ISO 1000 and the 5D3 has never let me down there. Coming from a 7D where I was fearful above ISO400 for bird feathers, the 5D3 has easily extended me to ISO 2000 and above. Not everyone cares about ISO100-400 DR. Some of us care about faster AF, more accurate AF, how controls on camera do the things we desire to do. I care more about higher ISO so for me the 5D3 had a cleaner image than did D800 above ISO1600 or so.

But, if you really desire an EXMOR sensor the option is there to buy one versus getting angry that Canon won't deliver. Nothing even remotely suggests Canon is going to deliver a newer technology anytime soon. On 5D4.... well if they will give me 8+ fps and some AF improvements I may be in.. and not even worried about the sensor as 5D3 is already good enough for me. Just a different perspective.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 7, 2015)

skoobey said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > skoobey said:
> ...



A lot of wedding photographers carry multiple bodies. I can imagine them using one of these for anything except the action.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Boykinally said:
> ...



Measured by whom? Please post your source.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Boykinally said:
> ...



I don't understand your point, also usable is a subjective term. 

I don't like using iso 200 or any NR, others are very happy with 10,000iso with masses of NR and masked sharpening, neither is 'right' both are just subjective. I don't crop to any significant degree from my 21MP FF sensor, others are happy to post 100% crops from their crop cameras, again, purely subjective.

P.S. Just saw your reply, Tatersall was only interested in video, and the 'usable' range is his personal and subjective opinion for the output he needed, and he only measured a 5D MkII, not a 5D MkIII.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Boykinally said:
> 
> 
> > Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.
> ...



Good catch! I missed this point in the Burnhill video. We all need to see what the results are from actual tests before we pass judgement.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


I think each pro would evaluate all the options, and formulate her/his own opinion. I can't imagine any pro buying purely based on the opinion of one (semi) famous person.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I don't have an opinion on the DR of the 5D MkII and 5D MkIII, I don't use either. My point was the opinion, anybodies, is subjective, not that my opinion is worth anything more or less to anybody.

But you still are not making a point, 11-12 subjective usable 10, so what?


----------



## sdsr (Feb 8, 2015)

Neutral said:


> I am sure I am not the only one who started using a7R with Canon lenses having tired of waiting Canon hi-res body with up to date sensor tech. And as I mentioned in another post I was not disappointed with that combination and what’s more some canon lenses are MUCH more easier and MUCH more convenient to use on a7R body than on Canon body as Canon does not provide anything to assist with manual focusing and Sony does that very well (EVF and focus peaking).
> Conceptually and practically for me Sony a7R is just digital back for my Canon lenses and this combination allows me to use the best from both sides (Canon lenses tech and Sony sensor tech). But I would be much happier if I could be able to use better integrated one single system like 5Ds



I bought an a7r and a7s not so much because of resolution (obviously not in the case of the a7s) and dynamic range - nice though those occasionally prove to be - but because much of the time I prefer using old manual focus lenses and sometimes need to manually focus AF lenses; and, as you say, MF is incomparably easier with mirrorless cameras; and the Sony a7 line is, for now, the only way to get mirrorless FF - plus, there's a vast array of adapters for NEX mount. As almost all my AF lenses are Canon, it would make life simpler for me if Canon were to make a mirrorless FF camera and a suitable supply of adapters, whoever makes them, followed suit. I hope that eventually happens - though I doubt there's sufficient similar demand to push Canon towards doing so; until then I'll stick with my current rather eclectic mix of equipment. I would be surprised if the two new 50mp cameras aren't marvelous, but they don't really suit me - for reasons that have nothing to do with dynamic range....


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Dilbert, you are being silly or obtuse, and you are throwing up strawman argument after strawman argument.

Here is a rundown of points:-[list type=decimal]
[*]Chuck Westfall did not say the DR of the 5DS and 5DS R was the same as the 5D MkIII, he said it was _"equivalent"_
[*]Neither you nor I know what that means in actual imaging terms
[*]Another Canon tech, Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK, said _"equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"_
[*] Neither you nor I know what that means in actual imaging terms
[*] The expanded comment says quite clearly more ability to pull out detail, that is not_ 'the same as'_
[*]You say the 5D MkII and 5D MkIII are identical in DR because a guy who measured a 5D MkII says so.
[*] That guy never tested the 5D MkIII because they weren't out then.
[*] He only shot video with his.
[*] He says the usable DR of a 5D MkII in video is 10 stops
[*] That is subjective for him and the single video project he did with that 5D MkII in late 2010
[*] Chuck Westfall's comment about the equivalence of the 5DS/R DR to the 5D MkII DR has nothing to do with Gale Tatersall's subjective opinion of the DR of the video from a 5D MkII
[*] They do not 'agree with each other' because they are talking about different things in different cameras.
[*] I still don't understand what your point is
[/list]

DR range of 11-12 stops, with a subjective usable 10 for video in a 5D MkII means what in relation to the 5DS/R having DR _"equivalent to the 5D MkIII in traditional measuring terms, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights"_?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Boykinally said:
> 
> 
> > Well if it had better dynamic range why would Chuck Westfall say it was the same as the 5D3 then? Duh.
> ...



By traditional I assume he means shooting a stop wedge, as opposed to the range where signal dominates noise. 

If the noise floor is indeed improved, that's a good thing. We'll have to wait and see. I pre-ordered the S.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Boykinally said:
> ...



I agree. Though I didn't pre-order ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I presume it will be as good as or better than my mk3, so I'll likely sell my A7R and be done with adapters and obnoxious ergo. No reason to wait


----------



## K (Feb 8, 2015)

This is in reference to the article on DPreview about the D750 vs 5D3 dynamic range and all the dynamic range talk in this thread and others -

Having more dynamic range is a good thing, but people get a little too passionate about it. It isn't the most important factor in a DSLR. 

Seriously, of what use is it to be able to crank up the exposure 3 or 4 stops or more? These are radical increases by my standards. The color is messed up even on the best Sony/Nikon. If you're that off, you shouldn't be concerned with dynamic range. HDR techniques are superior to moving sliders around in Camera Raw. Better IQ. Technique is what is needed for extreme situations that call for so much range. Not sliders in post production. Sensors love to have light. Light is what gets the best color, depth, resolution and detail. Nikon has great dynamic range at the lower ISO's. Wonderful. "Pushing" images with Nikon has less noise and issues than Canon. Wonderful. But guess what? - the image still looks like crap. Not usable. Thus, when real, practical and realistic photographic standards are applied - this isn't that critical. What? Crank up some party photos in bad lighting? Sure. No one cares about the quality there. To get real professional quality - demanding quality, one has to nail the exposure within 1/3 stop. This will maximize the quality of the image in many ways. RAW isn't a crutch for bad technique or failure to plan or prepare. RAW is for taking something good, and making it even better.

When I left the Nikon platform, I knew I was giving up slightly better dynamic range. I don't miss it in the sense that my photography is now crippled, hindered or in any way, shape or form negatively impacted. Either a photo is good or it is not. You're not saving anything even with the best Sony sensor. I've tried! It does better, but it still doesn't save the shot. Nor does it truly "enhance" images. Lifting up the shadows, still leads to bad looking shadow areas. Sorry, but that's the reality. But I do recognize that more dynamic range is a good thing. It's just no where near as important as is hyped. The proof is the tens of thousands of pro Canon shooters out there creating unbelievably amazing images with a sensor, that if one were to buy into all the internet nonsense about, would consider an inferior piece of junk not worthy of high end professional quality imaging.

Jeesh!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Let me make this simple by working though it...
> 
> The 5D2/5D3 are almost identical in terms of measurable DR.



Measured by what method? 

This is all conjecture anyway, combining unrelated statements by unrelated people.

At the end of the day, the detail will likely be phenomenal, and the shadows probably don't be as liftable as Sony, but if the noise floor statement is to be believed, they'll be more liftable than the previous 5Ds. Personally, shadow lifting isn't something I do wish any regularity, regardless of whether I'm using Canon gear or Sony gear. I purchased the A7R primarily for resolution in the studio, where I control light entirely. I also shoot landscape, but never find the need the push shadows significantly unless I screw up the exposure.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> However if you listen to this at 1:40 http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/video-interview-canon-eos-5ds-and.htm that point is actually expanded on by Mike Burnhill from Canon CPS in the UK with _" equivalent to the 5D MkIII *in traditional measuring terms*, but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore *more ability to pull out detail in the shadows* and highlights"_



Nice catch. That certainly alludes to a potential improvement in DR.

I also like that Burnhill goes on to say that while the 5Ds may offer medium format resolution, it isn't an alternative for medium format in overall IQ. You can always count on the Brits to keep it real ;D 

IMHO, comparing the two platforms is a dubious proposition at best. There's a time and place for both, and one complements (not replaces) the other.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Let me make this simple by working though it...
> ...



Absolutely!


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 8, 2015)

The iPhone 6 with an astonishing DR of 2. Happy Mardi Gras


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



He, Chuck Westfall, didn't measure anything. Canon *told* him to *say exactly* what he said, and that was _"*Canon is telling us*......equivalent to the 5D MkIII"_ They also told Mike Burnhill to say exactly the same thing, and he did. I am sure every senior Canon tech around the world was told to use the same expression.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Those are really the only two possibilities you can come up with?

As to why I don't contact chuck:

I don't know his email address, I wouldn't expect a reply, and it carries little consequence. The ranges of my 5D2 and 3 have been sufficient, and unless it contracts severely, therefore the range of the 5Ds will be sufficient Looking through my libraries of images sold versus not, it's hard to say "if only I had 2 more stops, this would have sold" with a straight face.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Because I am not the one worried by the DR of the new cameras, or the old ones come to think of it.

You can draw whatever conclusions you want from the comments, and unfortunately this is where you become tiresome because you don't make logical ones. 

The only conclusion I have come to is that until I have a challenging RAW file to play with I can't make up my mind on how the new sensors perform in post processing.

As for your two possibilities, unfortunately you have gone so far off into Elbonia I fear we have lost you again.


----------



## canonic (Feb 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Exactly:
"The sensor’s design also enables the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R to offer the same wide dynamic range as the EOS 5D Mark III."
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/inside_the_eos_5ds_and_eos_5ds_r.do?utm_content=buffer4aed0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


----------



## wyldeguy (Feb 8, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


I like the way you think Sporgon!


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 8, 2015)

His name always come up here but I never heard him speak before.
Maybe it's just his style but he didn't come across very enthusiastic or give any compelling reasons to buy the new cameras. He seemed to more recommend the 5D Mark III .
It has a feel of a last hurrah for Canon sensors. It's a maxed out full frame version of the 7D II sensor.
I'm not over enthusiastic so far with the picture quality of the 7D II .
Canon have gambled here that 50mp outweighs a total lack of any other improvements (in fact almost a downgrade from 5D III in some specs).
I'll be really curious to see detailed reviews on it.
I hope the detail is amazing or I won't be buying.
I am a typical Canon customer, heavily invested and looking for a compelling reason to upgrade . I had expected a little more than 50mp in the three years since the 5D III launched.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 8, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> His name always come up here but I never heard him speak before.
> Maybe it's just his style but he didn't come across very enthusiastic or give any compelling reasons to buy the new cameras. He seemed to more recommend the 5D Mark III .
> It has a feel of a last hurrah for Canon sensors. It's a maxed out full frame version of the 7D II sensor.
> I'm not over enthusiastic so far with the picture quality of the 7D II .
> ...


You expected a little more than 50mp? Why not check out the sample photos on Canon's web site to see if the detail is amazing enough for you.


----------



## pharding (Feb 8, 2015)

This is a major disappointment! We wait all of this time for an upgrade and the Dynamic Range remains less than Nikon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2015)

pharding said:


> This is a major disappointment! We wait all of this time for an upgrade and the Dynamic Range remains less than Nikon.



Then buy a Nikon. Nobody cares.

But it seems that all you naysayers might well have some backpeddling to do soon as the suggestions that shadow performance are improved seem to be gaining traction.

But none of us will know for sure until we have challenging RAW files to play with.

Now, as before, Chicken Little..........


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2015)

canonic said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Which strikes at the very heart of the question, 'what is dynamic range, how is it measured, and who decides the subjective nature of the results?' Because it seems, when you listen to the CPS reps and read the earliest reports from users, that there is turning out to be a difference in shadow noise. Do you consider shadow noise to be a DR limiting factor?


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 8, 2015)

pharding said:


> This is a major disappointment! We wait all of this time for an upgrade and the Dynamic Range remains less than Nikon.



How do you know that ? In use you're splitting hairs in dynamic range; the difference is in the shadow end latitude. How useful that is to you depends largely on whether or not your mother sat you in front of The Simpsons all day so you now view the world as a shadowless cartoon. 

Of course under exposing to retain strong highlights - the sun basically - and then pushing your tone less shadows will give the uneducated the impression they have greater dynamic range.

Said it before and I'll say it again: the inclusion or not of an Exmor type sensor will have no influence whatsoever in my decision to purchase a 5Ds or r or not.


----------



## pharding (Feb 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Then buy a Nikon. Nobody cares.
> 
> But it seems that all you naysayers might well have some backpeddling to do soon as the suggestions that shadow performance are improved seem to be gaining traction.
> 
> ...


I can assure you that Canon cares. DP Review said the dynamic range is the same as the previous camera. This means that Nikon and Sony 35 mm cameras still have a higher dynamic range than Canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 8, 2015)

pharding said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Then buy a Nikon. Nobody cares.
> ...



Canon do not care if you, personally, buy one, or none, of their cameras, that isn't how the free market works, so get over yourself.

As for the DR or not, as Sporgon says, at this point it is conjecture and semantics, DPReview DO NOT KNOW, they have not had a camera or even a RAW file yet to test.

I predict a slew of antagonistic threads about the definition of DR and the assumption that that means shadow lifting ability, which I have argued about before. I strongly suspect that Canon are being truthful, by traditional measures the DR is the same, but it does have lower noise in the shadows that results in improved shadow and highlight editability. Does that equate to improved DR? Not on a technical level as Canon understand it. Is it potentially a good step forwards in Canon sensor performance? Quite possibly.

But until we have challenging RAW files we are all just speculating.

Now carry on Chicken Little, the sky is falling.............


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2015)

pharding said:


> I can assure you that Canon cares. DP Review said the dynamic range is the same as the previous camera. This means that Nikon and Sony 35 mm cameras still have a higher dynamic range than Canon.



So what? Canon sensors have had less low ISO DR than their competitors since circa 2009; Canon was the market leader then, and remains the leader today. Your assurances aside, why _should_ they care?


----------



## dufflover (Feb 8, 2015)

Well I imagine this is the last straw for the last of the "Canon waiters" who wanted to see what they had in their high MP model or even those waiting for signs of the start of a "fresh" sensor. Another new body, another tweaked sensor not really a sign of anything. But like I said I think this group is rather small now with so much timing passing in both FF and the Crop sensor update space most of the people who want more DR over other features woulda-shoulda gotten a Nikon or Sony ages ago.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 8, 2015)

dufflover said:


> Another new body, another tweaked sensor not really a sign of anything.



So a 230% increase in resolution is a 'tweak'. ???


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > Another new body, another tweaked sensor not really a sign of anything.
> ...



I for one am glad that they didn't "tweak" the body. I can use all my stuff as is.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 9, 2015)

Amazing how many people are bashing these new cameras before we have even seen any test results.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 9, 2015)

As a long time Canon customer, I'm not thrilled with the apparent complacency.

Not sure why they would release a 50MP sensor that can't at least match the competition in dynamic range, or release a UWA for full frame that matches the base aperture of their chief competitors FF UWA.

Someone is sleepwalking over there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2015)

MichaelHodges said:


> ...release a UWA for full frame that matches the base aperture of their chief competitors FF UWA.
> 
> Someone is sleepwalking over there.



Did you miss the part about *11*-24mm? 

Oh, you wanted 11-24mm f/2.8. Here, carry this instead. 







You'd likely need this to pay for it...


----------



## zlatko (Feb 9, 2015)

MichaelHodges said:


> As a long time Canon customer, I'm not thrilled with the apparent complacency.
> 
> Not sure why they would release a 50MP sensor that can't at least match the competition in dynamic range, or release a UWA for full frame that matches the base aperture of their chief competitors FF UWA.
> 
> Someone is sleepwalking over there.



Why stick with a brand that is so complacent and sleepwalking? Just go buy the competition's fabulous equivalent products, such as their high res 50mp cameras with anti-flicker technology, 7D2 with anti-flicker technology, 11-14 zoom, 8-15 zoom, 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS, 17 T-SE, 400/4 DO, 85/1.2, 24 pancake, 600RT-EX, ST-E3-RT, etc.  Good thing the competition is not complacent about anything.


----------



## tron (Feb 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > ...release a UWA for full frame that matches the base aperture of their chief competitors FF UWA.
> ...


Hey you exaggerate a little but basically yes it would be heavier and pricier. But it would be a dream landscape astrophotography lens... :-\


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dufflover said:
> 
> 
> > Another new body, another tweaked sensor not really a sign of anything.
> ...



Apparently to some people, yes.


----------



## jaayres20 (Feb 9, 2015)

skoobey said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > skoobey said:
> ...


I am a pretty decent wedding photographer and I will definitely be buying one of these in June. It will go along great with my 1DX!


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 9, 2015)

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html

Read the post on Sunday Feb 8th (today) regarding DR performance of the 5DS. Mentions pretesting puts it about 1.5 - 2 stops better than the 1DX at low ISO which according to DxO is 11.8 stops.... If this is correct, we are looking at low ISO DR on this 5DS between 13 and 14 stops.... Did things get more interesting for some of you again?


----------



## Eldar (Feb 9, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html
> 
> Read the post on Sunday Feb 8th (today) regarding DR performance of the 5DS. Mentions pretesting puts it about 1.5 - 2 stops better than the 1DX at low ISO which according to DxO is 11.8 stops.... If this is correct, we are looking at low ISO DR on this 5DS between 13 and 14 stops.... Did things get more interesting for some of you again?


Something tells me that we should wait for some RAW-files to play with, before we are too conclusive. From what it seems, some have decoded the available information and concluded that we will indeed get better noise performance and if this DR information is correct, then it's suddenly a much more interesting camera.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 9, 2015)

skoobey said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > skoobey said:
> ...



The 1DX is a fantastic camera, but I much prefer the 5D3 and 6D for weddings to anything as large & heavy as the 1DX. The 5DS would be a *great* wedding camera too. "Worst possible for the job"? I don't know how anyone can say that. The estimated shutter count is fine for a number of years, and shutters are not that expensive to replace. Large files of the 5DS are absolutely no problem because the raw file size is variable, so you have large when you want large and medium and small when you don't want large. Frames per second is perfectly adequate for weddings. A wedding is not the Olympics or professional sports. It's no surprise that previous 5D series cameras have been extremely popular for weddings (with the same or similar shutter count and frame rate). And the 5DS now brings the possibility of shooting very high res square photos, similar to some wedding cameras of the film era.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 9, 2015)

dilbert said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html
> ...



Not necessarily.... Remember, it was said it had similar DR to a 5D3 "by tradititonal measurements". This is a camera that has clearly been plugged as one specifically tuned for Low ISO. I asked the question a few days on here "what does that mean?" Could traditional measure be an overall averaging of performance across the ISO range? If so are the upper ISOs so "bad" by comparison to base that the average is skewed? I really dont know. Im just asking to provoke thought and debate. But taken at face value its suggesting base ISO coukd see 13-14 stops when it comes to pulling shadows at least


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 9, 2015)

And It was Mike Burnhill that made the "traditional measure" remark not Westfall


----------



## Rahul (Feb 9, 2015)

dilbert said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



All manufacturers come out with different MTF charts for lenses. What's stopping them from doing something similar for dynamic range. 

PureClassA did say that the traditional measurement remark was not made by Chuck Westfall.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 9, 2015)

They said it was similar. Not better. If they wanted to rig it, yes, they would rig it to say "better" but they didnt say that. By traditional measures it is similar to the 5D3 (possible subtext given this new information) but at Low IsO alone we are pushing 2 stops better than the 1DX. Im just putting the puzzle together based on what data we have. But it seems very suggestive


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 9, 2015)

I think they still need pull the Dual ISO rabbit out the hat regardless.


----------



## zlatko (Feb 9, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And using DPP to test DR is kinda silly. DPP does all sorts of hidden NR so it's not really a safe way to test and it's tricky and time consuming. All they had to do was take a black frame, load it into Iris, drag the measuring bar, get the number, math math and in 30 secnds total they'd have the exact engineering DR score that could be compared to the DxO numbers or exactly to what they find for the 1DX. So it might be risky to trust this DPP test.



The black frame test and getting an exact score is what an engineer would do, not what a photographer would do. I presume the person was a photographer and used DPP to make actual photos.


----------



## jaayres20 (Feb 9, 2015)

I would be 100% satisfied if the 5Ds had the same DR in terms of pushing shadows as the 6D. I have heard the 7D mark II is better, but I have never used that camera. I have the 5D3, 6D & 1DX and there is a huge difference between the 6D and the 5D3. 

Take an underexposed image and push it 5+ stops and the 6D still looks pretty good while the 5D3 looks terrible. When I go look at the actual measurements from DXO it says that the 5D3 is rated at 11.7 for DR and the 6D is only marginally better at 12. Something is not right there, or there is a huge difference in whatever scale they are using between 11.7 and 12. 

If there is similar low shadow noise in the 5Ds sensor as there is in the 6D, with the added resolution of 50mp, it seems like there could be a lot done with a 5Ds raw file. Just speculation thought.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 9, 2015)

Eldar said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html
> ...



Regarding the screen in the camera: on your 5DIII fitting with the standard screen, have you tried manual focusing with the camera AF activated and focus to the point where both the chosen AF point briefly flashes red and the green focus confirmation light comes on ? I've been trying this with a 5DII and standard screen with an f/1.4 lens and it seems to be perfectly accurate.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 9, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5ds.html
> 
> Read the post on Sunday Feb 8th (today) regarding DR performance of the 5DS. Mentions pretesting puts it about 1.5 - 2 stops better than the 1DX at low ISO which according to DxO is 11.8 stops.... If this is correct, we are looking at low ISO DR on this 5DS between 13 and 14 stops.... *Did things get more interesting for some of you again?*



Not really. Even taking it as fact, that would give it roughly the usable range of an A7R, which I expect an 5Ds will be replacing in my kit anyway. 

My interest is the same. 



PureClassA said:


> They said it was similar. Not better. If they wanted to rig it, yes, they would rig it to say "better" but they didnt say that. By traditional measures it is similar to the 5D3 (possible subtext given this new information) but at Low IsO alone we are pushing 2 stops better than the 1DX. Im just putting the puzzle together based on what data we have. But it seems very suggestive



Have we ever known canon to specify dynamic range? I know they've used the phrase, but have they ever written it as a specification? I don't think they have. I'm sure they know what the noise floor is, but I wonder if they would tend to consider it in expressing DR, or whether they'd simply point to bit-width of the registers as the fundamental constraint.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 9, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...


There are two problems with that. First, a high precision screen brings you to nearly perfect focus a lot faster and the second is that the 5DIII, nor the 5DS have illuminated focus confirm indication, which are makes it difficult to see in poor light. 

Often when I use manual focus lenses, I want to focus on something off-center. With a high precision screen, that is fairly easy, whereas with a standard screen you need to focus, with the focus confirm placed in the center and recompose. At f1.4 that is often enough movement to miss focus where you wanted it. 

Focus is no problem with dead subjects. But with people or animals, you need to be more dynamic and adapt focus a lot faster. When I use the focus indicators in the camera, my speed goes down and I'm distracted from composing properly, so my keeper rate goes down.

But if the 5Ds is using the same focusing screen as a 5DIII, I can use my custom built screen from Focusing Screens. Only problem is that I can't change it in the field and, since it is not supported, I have a challenge with exposure control.


----------



## SwnSng (Feb 9, 2015)

I will admit I was disappointed to hear that the 5DS/R would have the same DR performance as the Mark iii but if they did a better job with noise when lifting shadows that would be enough reason to consider this model again. Until reviews come out I will turn my focus to the 11-24mm and the 100-400 mkii.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> Until reviews come out I will *turn my focus* to the 11-24mm and the 100-400 mkii.



I see what you did there...


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 9, 2015)

jaayres20 said:


> Take an underexposed image and push it 5+ stops and the 6D still looks pretty good while the 5D3 looks terrible. When I go look at the actual measurements from DXO it says that the 5D3 is rated at 11.7 for DR and the 6D is only marginally better at 12. Something is not right there, or there is a huge difference in whatever scale they are using between 11.7 and 12.



And surely this is the point Canon CPS are making. Measure DR and the 5Ds will stay roughly in the same ball-park as other current sensors. But you'll be able to lift shadows better through lower read noise.

There is little more to it than that, which is why Canon have not made a big fanfare for it.

But perhaps more back to the point. Canon wants to keep Canon people using Canon. They're not rolling out anything other than iterations to sensors - no step change. For many Canon shooters, that's enough to upgrade based on all other elements. For some, it may be enough for them to change.

It it were solely about quality / DR, then we'd all be using MF bodies. It's about what you have, what it might cost you to swap and what Canon needs to expend it order to release something that will hopefully make you buy a new body, but at worst not defect.

I think Tom Hogan is correct in that matter.

Everyone has to decide whether current DR with lower read noise is enough for them given the other things the 5Ds brings and the Canon ecosystem. If not, sit this one out. But please, don't expect any step changes in the 5d IV or 1Dx II. Not happening...

My only disappointment in the announcement is that nothing ships till June, rather than April. YMMD.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 12, 2015)

zlatko said:


> skoobey said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



I'm glad to see wedding talk. I recall almost universal agreement as to why 36MP was worse of weddings in every respect because it was huge, not necessary, and didn't go to ISO 500K. I predicted the tunes would change as soon as canon went higher. I'm not saying you changed your view and I'm not applying this to you, but I'm amazed as to how suddenly 50MP is just right for weddings because they are canon MP . Many Photographers are so brand dishonest with their statements that it is sad to see how they flip 180 just on a logo. I was all along on board that 36 was never too much, and I'm still on board that 50 isn't too much either. It's basically 8K vs 7K. I'm interested to know if Sony will go for a sweet spot of 40s or if they'll go for marketing and push into the 60s and beyond. That may make me question if we have reached the limits of oversampling and bayer demosaic benefits. I've often heard 80-100 is where we need to be in order to start thinking about oversampling being part of what you buy into, not just the sheer pixel count for 1:1 manipulation.

However as for the DR concerns, I finally watched the video and I don't know if much can be made from it. However IF it is indeed the case that the 5Ds offers no DR improvements, and that its video image quality is a step back from the 5DIII, I think clearly this camera wasn't ready but was rushed out to try to beat whatever it was Sony is working on. It feels that management came and saw the D800 announcement 2 years ago, and tasked the team to ship more MP ASAP, everything else be damned. So they did (it seems).

I really expected 4K and high DR with dual pixel AF and all the canon goodies into one bad ass mo-fo body. I guess the 5Dmk4 will have to raise to the occasion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 12, 2015)

psolberg said:


> I really expected 4K and high DR with dual pixel AF and all the canon goodies into one bad ass mo-fo body. I guess the 5Dmk4 will have to raise to the occasion.



Then you completely misunderstood the reason Canon made the camera and the market they made it for.


----------



## ewg963 (Feb 13, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> I will admit I was disappointed to hear that the 5DS/R would have the same DR performance as the Mark iii but if they did a better job with noise when lifting shadows that would be enough reason to consider this model again. Until reviews come out I will turn my focus to the 11-24mm and the 100-400 mkii.


Yep there will be some decent reviews posted in the months to come....


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 13, 2015)

psolberg said:


> I'm glad to see wedding talk. I recall almost universal agreement as to why 36MP was worse of weddings in every respect because it was huge, not necessary, and didn't go to ISO 500K. I predicted the tunes would change as soon as canon went higher. I'm not saying you changed your view and I'm not applying this to you, but I'm amazed as to how suddenly 50MP is just right for weddings because they are canon MP . Many Photographers are so brand dishonest with their statements that it is sad to see how they flip 180 just on a logo. I was all along on board that 36 was never too much, and I'm still on board that 50 isn't too much either.



Your memory is a bit selective. Before it became en vogue to bash Canon's DR performance, tons of people were complaining that 22 megapixels wasn't enough right after the 5D3 was announced. Sure, the only reason why some fanboys made such statements is because they were envious of the D800's 36 megapixels, but there were also plenty of Canon shooters claiming they needed at least 40 megapixels to update their flickr pages. As a proud Nikon shooter, I'm sure you noticed some people in the Nikon camp converting from the "low-light, high ISO" religion to the "slow FPS, high megapixel" religion during the D700 - D800 model update 



> However IF it is indeed the case that the 5Ds offers no DR improvements, and that its video image quality is a step back from the 5DIII, I think clearly this camera wasn't ready but was rushed out to try to beat whatever it was Sony is working on. It feels that management came and saw the D800 announcement 2 years ago, and tasked the team to ship more MP ASAP, everything else be damned. So they did (it seems).



No disagreement here. Unless the 5Ds offers some improvement in IQ other than resolution, it's definitely seems like it was rushed to market. It won't be long until Sony releases its 50 megapixel sensors, at which point it won't be surprising at all if Nikon puts it an all-around superior body.


----------

